Members

Ron Roberts, Chair Supervisor, County of San Diego

Terry Sinnott, Vice Chair Mayor, City of Del Mar (Representing North County Coastal)

Myrtle Cole EXECUTIVE Council President, City of San Diego

Jerry Jones COMMITTEE Councilmember, City of Lemon Grove (Representing East County) AGENDA

Steve Vaus Mayor, City of Poway (Representing North County Inland) Friday, April 14, 2017 Ron Morrison Mayor, City of National City 9 to 10:30 a.m. (Representing South County) SANDAG, 7th Floor Conference Room Alternates 401 B Street Dianne Jacob San Diego Chair, County of San Diego

Jim Wood Mayor, City of Oceanside (Representing North County Coastal)

Barbara Bry Councilmember, City of San Diego AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

Lorie Zapf Councilmember, City of San Diego • INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF MEASURE A

Bill Wells REVENUE ESTIMATE COMMUNICATIONS Mayor, City of El Cajon (Representing East County) • UPDATE OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Sam Abed Mayor, City of Escondido BETWEEN SANDAG AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF (Representing North County Inland) DEFENSE

Ed Spriggs Mayor Pro Tem, City of Imperial Beach • LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT (Representing South County)

Advisory Members

Serge Dedina Mayor, City of Imperial Beach PLEASE SILENCE ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES DURING THE MEETING (Chair, Borders Committee)

John Minto Mayor, City of Santee MISSION STATEMENT (Chair, Public Safety Committee) The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional

Mary Salas decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, Mayor, City of Chula Vista plans, engineers, and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics (Chair, Regional Planning pertinent to the region's quality of life. Committee)

Jim Desmond Mayor, City of San Marcos (Chair, Transportation Committee) San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ sandag.org

Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Executive Committee on any item at the time the Committee 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 Committee seated at the front table. Members of the public may address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. The Executive Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.

Public comments regarding the agenda can be sent to SANDAG via [email protected]. Please include the agenda item, your name, and your organization. Email comments should be received no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the Executive Committee meeting. Any handouts, presentations, or other materials from the public intended for distribution at the Executive Committee meeting should be received by the Committee Clerk no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the meeting.

In order to keep the public informed in an efficient manner and facilitate public participation, SANDAG also provides access to all agenda and meeting materials online at www.sandag.org/meetings. Additionally, interested persons can sign up for e-notifications via our e-distribution list at either the SANDAG website or by sending an email request to [email protected].

SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) 699-1997 or [email protected]. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration.

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 agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request call (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) 699-1900 al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión. 如有需要, 我们可以把SANDAG议程材料翻译成其他語言.

请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 699-1900 提出请求.

SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices.

2 Rev. 4/10/2017 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Friday, April 14, 2017

ITEM NO. RECOMMENDATION +1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE

The Executive Committee is asked to review and approve the minutes from its March 10, 2017, meeting.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

Public comments under this agenda item will be limited to five public speakers. Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Executive Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee that is not on this agenda. Other public comments will be heard during the items under the heading “Reports.” Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk if they have a handout for distribution to Committee members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

REPORTS

+3. REVIEW OF DRAFT BOARD AGENDAS (Kim Kawada) APPROVE

The Executive Committee is asked to approve the draft agenda for the April 28, 2017, Board Business meeting. Staff also will provide a verbal update on the May 12, 2017, Board Policy meeting.

+4. INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF MEASURE A REVENUE ESTIMATE APPROVE COMMUNICATIONS (Vice Chair Terry Sinnott; City of San Diego Council President Myrtle Cole; Poway Mayor Steve Vaus)

The Executive Committee is asked to: (1) recommend that the Board of Directors approve the proposed law firm to conduct an independent examination of the Measure A revenue estimate communications; and (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2017 Program Budget, transferring up to $125,000 from the Contingency Reserve Fund to the Board of Directors Budget (Overall Work Program Element No. 90001.00) to fund the independent examination.

+5. UPDATE OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN SANDAG RECOMMEND AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Rob Rundle)

The Executive Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the proposed update to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between SANDAG and the U.S. Department of Defense, which reflects changing conditions in the San Diego region and outlines the responsibilities of the MOA parties.

3 +6. LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT (Robyn Wapner) RECOMMEND

Periodic status reports on legislative activities are reported to the Executive Committee throughout the year. The Executive Committee is asked to discuss Assembly Bill 805 and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS

If the five-speaker limit for public comments was exceeded at the beginning of this agenda, other public comments will be taken at this time. Subjects of previous agenda items may not again be addressed under public comment.

8. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION

The next meeting of the Executive Committee is scheduled for Friday, May 12, 2017, at 9 a.m.

9. ADJOURNMENT

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

4

AGENDA ITEM NO. 17-04-1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APRIL 14, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS

MARCH 10, 2017

Chair Ron Roberts (Chair, County of San Diego) called the meeting of the SANDAG Executive Committee to order at 8:18 a.m.

1. MEETING MINUTES (APPROVE)

Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Steve Vaus (North County Inland), and a second by Councilmember Jerry Jones (East County), the minutes of the February 10, 2017, Executive Committee meeting were approved. Yes – Chair Roberts, Vice Chair Terry Sinnott (North County Coastal), Mayor Vaus, Councilmember Jones, and Council President Myrtle Cole (City of San Diego). No – None. Abstain – None. Absent – South County.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS (INFORMATION)

Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTPA), stated that the SDCTPA has organized an Oversight Committee and offered its services to SANDAG.

REPORTS

3. REVIEW OF DRAFT BOARD AGENDAS (APPROVE)

Kim Kawada, Chief Deputy Executive Director, presented the item.

Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Vaus, and a second by Council President Cole, the Executive Committee approved the draft agendas for the March 24, 2017, Board Business meeting, as amended, and the April 14, 2017, Board Policy meeting. Yes – Chair Roberts, Vice Chair Sinnott, Mayor Vaus, Councilmember Jones, and Council President Cole. No – None. Abstain – None. Absent – South County.

4. DRAFT FY 2018 PROGRAM BUDGET (APPROVE)

SANDAG Bylaws require the Board of Directors to approve a preliminary budget by April 1 of each year.

André Douzdjian, Finance Director, and Tim Watson, Budget Program Manager, presented the item.

Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Sinnott, and a second by Councilmember Jones, the Executive Committee authorized distribution of the Draft FY 2018 Program Budget to the funding agencies, and recommended that the Board of Directors approve the Draft FY 2018 Program Budget and

authorize distribution of the document to member agencies and other interested parties for review. Yes – Chair Roberts, Vice Chair Sinnott, Mayor Vaus, Councilmember Jones, Mayor Ron Morrison (South County), and Council President Cole. No – None. Abstain – None. Absent – None.

5. INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF MEASURE A REVENUE ESTIMATE (DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION)

At its meeting on February 24, the Board of Directors directed the Executive Committee to provide the Board with a recommendation on a party or parties to conduct an independent examination of the Measure A revenue estimate. The Executive Committee was asked to discuss potential entities or individuals to lead the review.

Chair Roberts introduced the item.

Vice Chair Sinnott presented the item.

Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Vaus, and a second by Councilmember Jones, the Executive Committee created an ad hoc subcommittee, comprising Vice Chair Sinnott, Mayor Vaus, and Council President Cole, to solicit proposals from law firms with investigative experience to conduct an independent examination of the Measure A revenue estimate, and make a recommendation to the Executive Committee for final approval by the Board of Directors. Yes – Chair Roberts, Vice Chair Sinnott, Mayor Vaus, Councilmember Jones, Mayor Morrison, and Council President Cole. No – None. Abstain – None. Absent – None.

6. LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT (DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION)

Robyn Wapner, Senior Legislative Analyst, provided a summary of various state legislative activities and requested the Executive Committee provide feedback regarding a legislative strategy for bills with direct impacts to SANDAG.

The Executive Committee authorized staff to augment SANDAG’s state advocacy services for FY 2017, consistent with the authorities delegated pursuant to Board Policy No. 017: Delegation of Authority, in order to appropriately respond to bills that impact SANDAG and report back with status updates.

7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no continued public comments.

8. UPCOMING MEETINGS

The next meeting of the Executive Committee is scheduled for Friday, April 14, 2017, at 9 a.m.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:56 a.m.

2 Meeting Start Time: 8:18 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 9:56 a.m.

CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 10, 2017

MEMBER/ JURISDICTION NAME ATTENDING ALTERNATE

Steve Vaus Primary Yes North County Inland Sam Abed Alternate Yes

Terry Sinnott, Primary Yes Vice Chair North County Coastal Jim Wood Alternate No

Ron Morrison Primary Yes South County Ed Spriggs Alternate No

Jerry Jones Primary Yes East County Bill Wells Alternate No

Myrtle Cole Primary Yes

City of San Diego Barbara Bry Alternate No

Lorie Zapf Alternate Yes

Ron Roberts, Chair Primary Yes County of San Diego Dianne Jacob Alternate No

Serge Dedina Advisory No

John Minto Advisory Yes Policy Advisory Committee Chairs Mary Salas Advisory No

Jim Desmond Advisory Yes

3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 17-04-3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APRIL 14, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

REVIEW OF THE APRIL 28, 2017, DRAFT BOARD BUSINESS AGENDA

ITEM NO. RECOMMENDATION +1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE

+1A. March 10, 2017, Board Policy Meeting Minutes +1B. March 24, 2017, Board Business Meeting Minutes

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

Public comments under this agenda item will be limited to five public speakers. Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Board on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Other public comments will be heard during the items under the heading “Reports.” 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. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. Board members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

+3. ACTIONS FROM POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES, INCLUDING APPROVE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT EXEMPTION APPROVAL FOR THE BAYSHORE BIKEWAY BARRIO LOGAN SEGMENT (Victoria Stackwick)

This item summarizes the actions taken by the Policy Advisory Committees since the last Board Business meeting, including California Environmental Quality Act exemption approval for the Bayshore Bikeway Barrio Logan Segment. The Board of Directors is asked to ratify these actions.

CONSENT

+4. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SOLICITATIONS AND CONTRACT AWARDS APPROVE (Laura Coté)

The Board of Directors is asked to review and approve the proposed solicitations and contract awards summarized in the attached reports. +4A. Solicitations +4B. Contract Awards

3 +5. UPDATE OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN SANDAG AND APPROVE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Coleen Clementson)

The Executive Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the proposed update to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between SANDAG and the U.S. Department of Defense, which reflects changing conditions in the San Diego region and outlines the responsibilities of the MOA parties.

+6. FY 2018 REGIONAL TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM APPROVE (Kim Monasi)*

The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the submittal of Federal Transit Administration grant applications for the San Diego region; and (2) adopt Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Resolution No. RTC-2017-XX, approving Amendment No. 3 to the 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

+7. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 PROGRAM OF APPROVE PROJECTS (Michelle Smith)

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding for capital and operating assistance to agencies providing transportation services in rural areas through the Section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program. The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the apportionment of FTA Section 5311 funds for Federal Fiscal Year 2016.

+8 2017 BIKE MONTH AND BIKE TO WORK DAY (Jay Faught) ADOPT

The Board of Directors is asked to adopt Resolution No. 2017-XX, supporting May 2017 as National Bike Month and May 18, 2017, as Bike to Work Day, and encouraging member agencies to promote and participate in Bike Month activities.

+9. REPORT ON MEETINGS AND EVENTS ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF SANDAG INFORMATION (Victoria Stackwick)

Board members will provide brief reports orally or in writing on external meetings and events attended on behalf of SANDAG since the last Board of Directors Business meeting.

+10. REPORT SUMMARIZING DELEGATED ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE EXECUTIVE INFORMATION DIRECTOR (André Douzdjian)*

In accordance with various SANDAG Board Policies, this report summarizes certain delegated actions taken by the Executive Director since the last Board of Directors Business meeting.

REPORTS

+11. AUTOMATED REGIONAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM APPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT (Poway Mayor Steve Vaus; Diane Eidam, Pam Scanlon)

Staff will provide a report on the methodology and results of the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) Organizational Assessment. The Steering Group recommends that the Board of Directors approve the proposed ARJIS organizational structure and provide direction on next steps.

4 +12. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2019 REGIONAL PLAN INFORMATION (Phil Trom)

Federal law requires that SANDAG prepare a long-range transportation plan and make an air quality conformity determination every four years. Staff will provide an overview of the update of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan that is scheduled for adoption in 2019.

13. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS

If the five-speaker limit for public comments was exceeded at the beginning of this agenda, other public comments will be taken at this time. Subjects of previous agenda items may not again be addressed under public comment.

14. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION

The next Board Policy meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 12, 2017, at 10 a.m. The next Board Business meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 26, 2017, at 9 a.m.

15. ADJOURNMENT

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment * next to an agenda item indicates that the Board of Directors also is acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission for that item

5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 17-04-4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APRIL 14, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF MEASURE A File Number 8000100 REVENUE ESTIMATE COMMUNICATIONS

Introduction Recommendation On March 10, 2017, the Executive Committee of the SANDAG Board of Directors voted to form an The Executive Committee is asked to: ad hoc subcommittee to solicit and evaluate (1) recommend that the Board of Directors proposals from law firms with investigative approve the proposed law firm to conduct expertise to conduct an independent examination an independent examination of the Measure of the agency’s Measure A revenue estimate A revenue estimate communications; and communications. The subcommittee also was (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2017 charged with making a recommendation to the Program Budget, transferring up to Executive Committee on which law firm to hire for $125,000 from the Contingency Reserve the independent examination. The Executive Fund to the Board of Directors budget Committee would then make a recommendation (Overall Work Program Element to the Board of Directors for approval. No. 90001.00) to fund the independent examination. Discussion

On March 14, 2017, the subcommittee, consisting of Vice Chair Terry Sinnott, City of San Diego Council President Myrtle Cole, and Poway Mayor Steve Vaus, released a Request for Proposals to solicit services from qualified law firms with documented experience and expertise to perform an independent examination to ascertain the facts of who knew what and when leading up to the vote on Measure A. A press release was also sent out announcing the request for proposals.

Specifically, the scope of work requests the outside law firm perform an independent examination of the files, documents, emails, and all other communications related to the error in the forecasting model and determine which individuals knew that the revenue estimate was overstated, when those individuals gained that knowledge, who that information was shared with, and if it was not shared with decision makers, why.

As required by SANDAG Board Policy No. 016: Procurement of Services, an independent cost estimate was prepared resulting in an estimated expenditure of $100,000 over a three-month period, with an option to extend the contract for an additional six months. Factors that were considered in developing the estimate included historical use of private law firm services, the expected level of effort, and terms of the agreement.

Seven proposals were received and are included as Attachment 2. Summaries of overall evaluation results are included as Attachment 1. The subcommittee recommends a contract award to the highest ranked proposal, Hueston Hennigan LLP in an amount not to exceed $125,000. The difference of $25,000 between the independent cost estimate and the contract award can be attributed to efforts related to interviews and developing the final report that the law firm proposed as necessary in order to conduct a thorough review.

Due to the unanticipated need to retain the recommended law firm, the necessary funds were not included in the FY 2017 Program Budget. Board Policy No. 030: Contingency Reserve Policy permits the Executive Committee to approve use of contingency reserve funds to advance urgent, high-priority needs of the agency. The Executive Committee is asked to approve the use of contingency reserve funds in the amount of up to $125,000 for this purpose. Pending approval of the proposed budget amendment, the projected remaining balance for the Contingency Reserve Fund at year end would be $8 million. This projected balance represents 18 percent of the FY 2017 Overall Work Program budget, exceeding the 10 percent minimum requirement as set forth in Board Policy No. 30.

TERRY SINNOTT Vice Chair, SANDAG Board of Directors

Attachments: 1. Summary of Overall Evaluation Results 2. Proposals in Order of Ranking

Key Staff Contact: Laura Coté, (619) 699-6947, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

SUMMARY OF OVERALL EVALUATION RESULTS

Proposals were evaluated by the subcommittee based on the criteria and the assigned weights listed below.

Criteria Point Value

1. Qualifications and Experience Relevant experience, qualifications, and credentials of the firm and firm’s 25 personnel related to the types of services described in the Scope of Work

2. References Feedback on performance from current or previous clients, relevance of 20 experience, and responsiveness of references provided

3. Technical Approach Approach to providing the services and deliverables described in the Scope of 20 Work, and the ability to meet the schedule provided in the RFP

4. Price 10 Proposal price submitted

5. Sample Contract 15 Reasonableness of proposed terms and conditions

6. Proposal 10 Overall clarity, thoroughness, and quality of proposal materials

Total Points 100

Following are the subcommittees’ rankings of the firms based on the evaluation of the proposals received:

1. Hueston Hennigan LLP 2. Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 3. Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak LLP 4. Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP 5. McNamara Benjamin LLP 6. The Rose Group 7. Kilpatrick Townsend LLP

3 Attachment 2

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 AGENDA ITEM NO. 17-04-5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APRIL 14, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND

UPDATE OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT File Number 3100400 BETWEEN SANDAG AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Introduction Recommendation

The San Diego region is home to the largest The Executive Committee is asked to concentration of military forces in the country, recommend that the Board of Directors employing more than 100,000 active-duty military approve the proposed update to the personnel and approximately 25,000 civilians, Memorandum of Agreement between generating significant economic benefit to the SANDAG and the U.S. Department of region. In 1980, SANDAG and the U.S. Department of Defense in substantially the same form as Defense (U.S. DOD) entered into a Memorandum of shown in Attachment 5. Agreement (MOA) for the purpose of assuring a cooperative and mutually beneficial working relationship. The MOA included the addition of an advisory position for the U.S. DOD on the SANDAG Board of Directors as a way to provide input on issues of mutual interest. The MOA, which was updated in 1986, is included as Attachment 1.

As growth and development increase near and around military installations, concerns about land use, transportation, and conflicts between base operations and civilian development have increased. In fall 2013, the Regional Planning Committee formed the San Diego Regional Military Working Group (MWG) to provide a collaborative forum for SANDAG and the various branches of the military to address areas of mutual interest, including regional growth, habitat preservation, transportation, housing, water, energy, and other related topics. The MWG includes representatives from all military branches with installations in the region, adjacent local jurisdictions, and the Port of San Diego.

Discussion

SANDAG received letters from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps (Attachments 2-3) with requests to change U.S. DOD representation on the SANDAG Board of Directors and to update the MOA to reflect changing conditions.

SANDAG staff responded to the U.S. Navy (Attachment 4) acknowledging that the San Diego region has experienced significant growth since the MOA was executed, and continued change is expected in the coming years. The letter further stated that this is an opportune time to update the 1986 MOA given the recent adoption of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan), which envisions how the region will develop over the next 35 years.

On July 8, 2016, the SANDAG Executive Committee directed staff and the MWG to facilitate an update to the MOA between SANDAG and the U.S. DOD.

The proposed updated MOA (Attachment 5) replaces the 1986 MOA to reflect MWG work. It also calls for SANDAG to review plans being implemented by the various armed forces within the region and determine the best ways in which SANDAG can support effective operations of the military. Similarly, the proposed updated MOA calls for the various branches of the armed forces to support the MWG and relevant SANDAG Policy Advisory Committees to address areas of mutual interest, including regional growth, habitat preservation, transportation, housing, water, energy, and other related topics.

The MWG discussed the draft updated MOA and suggested that a specific reference be made to the Regional Plan, which has been added and included in the attached draft MOA (Attachment 5), and that the MWG periodically review and recommend updates to the MOA as needed.

Next Steps

Pending action by the Executive Committee, the Board of Directors is scheduled to review the updated MOA at its April 28, 2017, meeting. In addition, the MWG Charter will be updated to include a provision that the MWG review the MOA periodically and recommend updates as needed.

CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. 1986 Memorandum of Agreement between SANDAG and the U.S. DOD 2. December 21, 2015, U.S. Navy letter to SANDAG 3. June 1, 2016, U.S. Marine Corps letter to SANDAG 4. June 24, 2016, SANDAG letter to U.S. Navy 5. Draft Updated MOA between SANDAG and the U.S. DOD

Key Staff Contact: Coleen Clementson, (619) 699-1944, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

3 4 5 6 7 Attachment 2

8 9 Attachment 3

10 Attachment 4

11 12 Attachment 5

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) 401 B. STREET, SUITE 800 SAN DIEGO, CA, 92101

COMMANDER, NAVY REGION SOUTHWEST 937 N. HARBOR DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92132

COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS WEST MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON MCIWEST-MCB CAMPEN G-7 GEA/REC PO BOX 555010 CAMP PENDLETON, CA 92055

COMMANDING GENERAL, MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT/WESTERN RECRUITING REGION 1600 HENDERSON AVENUE, SUITE 238 SAN DIEGO, CA 92140

COMMANDER UNITED STATES COAST GUARD SECTOR SAN DIEGO 2170 N HARBOR DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) BETWEEN SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) AND THE ARMED FORCES:

COMMANDER, NAVY REGION SOUTHWEST (CNRSW) AND MARINE CORPS INSTALLATION WEST-MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON (MCIWEST-MCB CAMPEN) AND MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT/WESTERN RECRUITING REGION (MCRD/WRR) AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD SECTOR SAN DIEGO (USCG SD)

CNRSW SSIC 5760 N00242-20161209-X02-MOA

13 Subj: MOA to Define Roles and Responsibilities Between SANDAG and the Armed Forces to Facilitate Collaboration in Areas of Mutual Interest

Subj: MOA to Define Roles and Responsibilities Between SANDAG and the Armed Forces to Facilitate Collaboration in Areas of Mutual Interest

Ref: (a) SANDAG and DoD MOA of June 1986 (b) 2013 SD Regional Military Working Group Charter (c) 10 USC§101(a)(4)

1. Purpose. This MOA defines roles and responsibilities between SANDAG and the “Armed Forces,” as identified above, and facilitates collaboration in areas of mutual interest, including growth management, habitat, transportation, regional growth, housing, water, energy, and other topics that can help facilitate the parties’ missions.

2. Background. SANDAG and the Armed Forces have maintained a collaborative relationship for decades relying on an MOA first executed in 1980 and updated in 1986. See Ref (a). In 2013, in light of continued growth in the County of San Diego, SANDAG formed the San Diego Regional Military Working Group (MWG), which meets regularly to address issues of mutual interest. See Ref (b).

3. Scope. This MOA replaces the 1986 MOA to reflect MWG work and updates the military ex- officio liaison membership on the SANDAG Board of Directors. SANDAG and the Armed Services will coordinate via this MOA. “Armed Forces,” for the purposes of this MOA include the US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard within the County of San Diego. See Ref (c).

4. Responsibilities

4.1. SANDAG will support the MWG consistent with the MWG charter, Ref (b) as follows:

4.1.1 Review current activities and plans being implemented by the various Armed Forces within the County of San Diego.

4.1.2. Coordinate programs, address issues of concern, and determine the best ways in which SANDAG can support effective operations of the military.

4.1.3. Assist with the associated outreach to the military community on issues of regional significance, including development of the regional growth forecast and the Regional Plan.

4.2. CNRSW will:

4.2.1. Represent the Armed Forces as a Department of Defense liaison to SANDAG.

4.2.2. Designate primary and alternate liaisons to SANDAG, in writing, and advise the SANDAG Clerk of the Board, in writing, of any changes.

4.2.3. Support the MWG consistent with its charter, Ref (b).

14 Subj: MOA to Define Roles and Responsibilities Between SANDAG and the Armed Forces to Facilitate Collaboration in Areas of Mutual Interest

4.2.4. Support relevant SANDAG policy advisory committees.

4.3. The Commanding General, MCIWEST-MCB CAMPEN will:

4.3.1. Support the MWG consistent with its charter.

4.3.2. Support relevant SANDAG policy advisory committees.

4.4. The Commanding General, MCRD/MRR will:

4.4.1. Support the MWG consistent with its charter.

4.4.2. Support relevant SANDAG policy advisory committees.

4.5. The Sector Commander, USCG SD will:

4.5.1. Support the MWG consistent with its charter.

4.5.2. Support relevant SANDAG policy advisory committees.

5. Points of Contact (POC). The Commander CNRSW POC is Executive Director, 619-532- 2925, 937 N. Harbor Drive, SD, CA 92132. The SANDAG POC is is Executive Director, 619- 699-1990, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101.

6. Other Provisions. Any obligation of funds by the Armed Forces is subject to the availability of funds. Nothing in this MOA shall be construed to obligate the United States or the Armed Forces to any expenditure of funds in advance of any congressional appropriation.

7. Changes. Changes/amendments to this MOA shall be made by mutual written consent of the signatories , and will be recorded and published as addenda to this MOA.

8. Termination/Expiration. This MOA supersedes reference (a). Any signatory may withdraw from this MOA after giving at least 60 days written notice to the other signatories. This MOA may also be terminated at any time upon the mutual written consent of all signatories. Unless otherwise terminated, this MOA will remain in effect for six years after its effective date and will be reviewed triennially by the MWG.

9. Effective Date. This MOA will become effective on the date of the last signature.

______The Honorable Ron Roberts Rear Admiral Yancy Lindsey Chair of the Board Commander SANDAG NRSW

15 Subj: MOA to Define Roles and Responsibilities Between SANDAG and the Armed Forces to Facilitate Collaboration in Areas of Mutual Interest

Date: Date:

______K. J. KILLEA W. M. JURNEY Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps Commanding General Commanding General MCIWEST-MCB CAMPEN MCRD/WRR Date: Date:

______JOSEPH BUZZELLA Y.B. LINDSEY CAPT, U.S. Coast Guard RDML, U.S. Navy Commander Commander, Navy Region Southwest USCG SD Date: Date:

16 AGENDA ITEM NO. 17-04-6 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APRIL 14, 2017 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND

LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT File Number 7300400

Introduction Recommendation

Monthly status reports on legislative activities are The Executive Committee is asked to provided to the Executive Committee. Attachments 1 discuss Assembly Bill 805 and make a and 2 respectively include summaries from Ellison recommendation to the Board of Wilson Advocacy, LLC on state legislative activity, and Directors. from Peyser Associates LLC on federal legislative activity related to SANDAG for the month of March. In addition, this report provides an update on Assembly Bill 805 (AB 805) by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (Attachment 3). The Executive Committee is asked to discuss AB 805 and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.

Discussion

SANDAG, which was established as a joint powers agency in the 1970s, was further designated as the San Diego Consolidated Transportation Agency under Senate Bill 1703 in 2002 (Peace). As a result, the organizational, governance and voting structures of SANDAG are prescribed by California statute.

On February 15, 2017, Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher introduced AB 805, which would make various changes to these provisions as well as modify the governance and authorities of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD). This report provides a summary of the major provisions included in AB 805.

SANDAG Board of Directors

SANDAG is governed by a 21-member Board of Directors composed of mayors, councilmembers, and county supervisors from each of the region's 19 local governments. Each jurisdiction appoints one primary member to the SANDAG Board of Directors, except for the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, which have two members each.

If passed, AB 805 would require the mayor of each city and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to serve as the primary representative on the SANDAG Board of Directors. The measure also prescribes that the president of the San Diego City Council would serve as its secondary representative.

Current law provides for appointments of alternate members to the Board of Directors, selected by a jurisdiction’s governing body. AB 805 also would provide for a first and second alternate; however, the “city or county” would make these selections rather than the governing body. “City or county” is not defined in the bill; therefore, it is unknown how this may impact how selections are

made by the jurisdiction. In addition, it is not clear if AB 805 would impact the total number of alternates the City of San Diego and County of San Diego would be allowed to have.

Finally, current SANDAG statute subjects all Board members to recall by their respective governing bodies; if passed, AB 805 would remove this provision thereby providing no recall mechanism.

Officers of the Board of Directors

The SANDAG Chair and Vice Chair serve as the leadership officers of the Board of Directors. The Board may create additional officers and elect members to those positions; however, no member may hold more than one office. Pursuant to current SANDAG statutory authority, the Board has established annual terms of office for the Chair and Vice Chair positions.

The proposal included in AB 805 would require that the mayors of the largest city and the second- largest city alternate between serving as Chair and Vice Chair of the Board for four-year terms. (In terms of current population, the two largest cities in the region are the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista.) Additionally, the Board would be authorized to establish the term of office only for officers of the Board other than the Chair and Vice Chair.

SANDAG Voting Structure

With the exception of the Consent Agenda1 and when otherwise required by statute, all items before the Board of Directors currently require a majority tally vote (one vote per member agency jurisdiction) as well as a majority of the weighted vote of the member agencies present. The weighted vote is proportional to each jurisdiction’s population as a percentage of the San Diego County region and is limited to a total of 100 votes. Each agency must have at least 1 vote, no agency may have more than 40 votes, and there are no fractional votes.

The governing bodies of the City of San Diego and County of San Diego are authorized to determine how to allocate their weighted votes between their primary and secondary representatives. Historically, the City and County have split these votes equally between their two members.

The weighted vote distribution is calculated based on the State Department of Finance estimates as of May 1 of each year. The current weighted vote distribution is as follows:

Carlsbad 3 Encinitas 2 Poway 1 Chula Vista 8 Escondido 5 San Diego A 20 Coronado 1 Imperial Beach 1 San Diego B 20 County of San Diego A 8 La Mesa 2 San Marcos 3 County of San Diego B 8 Lemon Grove 1 Santee 2 Del Mar 1 National City 2 Solana Beach 1 El Cajon 3 Oceanside 5 Vista 3

1 Under current statute, consent items require a majority vote of the members present based on one vote per agency, otherwise known as a tally vote.

2 AB 805 would remove the tally vote and instead would require only a majority of the weighted vote of members present in order to act on any item. The bill also would mandate that the City of San Diego and County of San Diego allocate their weighted votes equally between their primary and secondary representatives, and it would remove the 40 vote per agency cap.

It appears that the weighted vote distribution under AB 805 would be modified as follows:

Carlsbad 3 Encinitas 2 Poway 1 Chula Vista 8 Escondido 45 San Diego A 2120 Coronado 1 Imperial Beach 1 San Diego B 2120 County of San Diego A 7.58 La Mesa 2 San Marcos 3 County of San Diego B 7.58 Lemon Grove 1 Santee 2 Del Mar 1 National City 2 Solana Beach 1 El Cajon 3 Oceanside 5 Vista 3

SANDAG Policy Advisory Committees

SANDAG currently has five Policy Advisory Committees, which are described in Attachment 4. There are elected officials and designated representatives, as well as voting and advisory (non-voting) members on each of the Policy Advisory Committees. Except for the Executive Committee, voting members on the Policy Advisory Committees may be primary, secondary, or alternate members of the Board of Directors.

AB 805 would require that primary voting members on the Executive Committee and proposed new Audit Committee (described below) be the respective agency’s primary representative to the Board of Directors.

Among its other responsibilities, the Transportation Committee currently is statutorily-required to provide a strong focus and commitment to meeting the public transit needs of the San Diego region, set transit funding criteria and recommend transit funding levels, and undertake transit responsibilities resulting from consolidation, as delegated by the board. AB 805 would add to those responsibilities by requiring the Transportation Committee to develop an annual report that specifies the funds spent explicitly on public transportation and outlines the public transit needs, transit funding criteria, recommended transit funding levels, and additional work on public transit, as delegated to the Transportation Committee by the Board of Directors. The Board would be required to submit this report to the Legislature by July 1 of each year.

Auditing Procedures

As the consolidated agency, Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 132354.1 requires that the SANDAG Board of Directors arrange for a post audit of the financial transactions and records of SANDAG to be made at least annually by a certified public accountant. Similarly, PUC Section 132104 states that SANDAG, as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, shall cause a post-audit of the financial transactions and records of the Commission and of all revenues expended to be made at least annually by a certified public accountant.

3

The Executive Committee currently oversees the annual financial audit process for SANDAG and its three component units, which include the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, SourcePoint, and the Automated Regional Justice Information System. In accordance with this practice, the Director of Finance, utilizing an independent auditor, presents a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to the Executive Committee and Board of Directors after the close of each fiscal year.

In addition, the TransNet Extension Ordinance created the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), which is composed of seven members of the public who have been selected to serve in specified areas of professional expertise. The ITOC is responsible for:

• Conducting an annual fiscal and compliance audit of all TransNet-funded activities using the services of an independent fiscal auditor to assure compliance with the voter-approved Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. This annual audit covers all recipients of TransNet funds during the fiscal year and evaluates compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement and any other applicable requirements.

• Preparing an annual report to the SANDAG Board of Directors presenting the results of the annual audit process. The report includes an assessment of the consistency of the expenditures of TransNet funds with the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and any recommendations for improving the financial operation and integrity of the program for consideration by the Board of Directors.

• Conducting triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs to review project delivery, cost control, schedule adherence and related activities.

• Participating in the ongoing refinement of the SANDAG transportation system performance measurement process and the project evaluation criteria used in development of the Regional Transportation Plan and in prioritizing projects for funding in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

• Reviewing ongoing SANDAG system performance evaluations.

Further, SANDAG employs a Principal Management Internal Auditor that performs various auditing activities in accordance with government auditing standards. The Internal Auditor plans, supervises, and oversees administrative, financial, operational, and management audits of SANDAG activities and programs; and provides recommendations for consideration in formulating policies and procedures establishing internal management controls, and improving operational and organizational performance. The Internal Auditor has unrestricted access to all SANDAG operations, activities, records, and personnel relevant to the performance of audit activities. In addition, the Internal Auditor has the authority to investigate any suspected fraud, waste, or abuse within SANDAG.

Language included in AB 805 would create a new Audit Committee, consisting of five voting members with two SANDAG Board members and three members of the public to be appointed by the Board of Directors. The committee would make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the contract of the firm conducting the annual financial statement audits; appoint an independent performance auditor, subject to Board approval; and approve an annual audit plan required under AB 805.

4

The proposed independent performance auditor under AB 805 would conduct performance audits of all departments, offices, boards, activities, agencies, and programs of SANDAG; prepare annual audit plans; and investigate material claims of financial fraud, waste, or impropriety within SANDAG. The independent performance auditor would serve a term of five years and could only be removed for cause.

In addition, AB 805 would provide the independent performance auditor with “the power to appoint, employ, and remove assistants, employees, and personnel as deemed necessary for the efficient and effective administration of the affairs of the office and to prescribe their duties, scope of authority, and qualifications.” It is not clear whether this authority would be limited to the functions of the auditor or apply to SANDAG in its entirety.

Finally, AB 805 would authorize the independent performance auditor to summon any officer, agent, or employee of SANDAG and examine him or her upon oath or affirmation for certain investigatory purposes. If implemented as written, it appears that this provision could obligate SANDAG, under certain circumstances, to provide employees with representation.

Metropolitan Transit System

AB 805 would incorporate statutory changes to the MTS governance structure and authorize the MTS Board to levy up to a half-cent sales tax for “public transit purposes”2 serving the MTS jurisdiction, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the public. While the current 15-member MTS Board of Directors is to be retained, AB 805 proposes several significant changes including, but not limited to, the following:

• Elimination of the Board-appointed chair: the mayors of the largest city and second largest city would alternate between serving as the MTS chairperson and vice chairperson every four years.

• Board Membership: The City of San Diego would continue to have four Board Members, one of which must be the mayor and the other three must be councilmembers. The City of Chula Vista would have two members, one of which must be the mayor and the other must be a councilmember. The cities of Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, and Santee would each continue to have one member however that member must be the mayor. The County of San Diego Board Member would be required to represent the supervisorial district with the greatest percentage of its area within the incorporated area of the County of San Diego within MTS jurisdiction.

• Eliminates the Tally Vote: All actions by the Board would require an affirmative vote of the majority of the weighted vote of the members present. The proposal would eliminate the tally vote and remove the requirements associated with calling for the weighted vote. (Two members currently must call for the weighted vote for it to take place.)

• Modifies Weighted Votes: The proposal also would remove the cap on the City of San Diego’s weighted vote and assign half of the City’s weighted vote to the mayor; the other half would be evenly split between the three councilmembers. Currently, the City’s weighted votes are assigned evenly between its four members. The City of Chula Vista’s weighted vote would be divided evenly between the mayor and the councilmember.

2 Under AB 805, “public transit purposes” includes the public transit responsibilities under the jurisdiction of the board as well as any bikeway, bicycle path, sidewalk, trail, pedestrian access, or pedestrian accessway.

5

North County Transit District AB 805 would incorporate statutory changes to the NCTD governance structure and authorize the NCTD Board to levy up to a half-cent sales tax for “public transit purposes”3 serving the NCTD jurisdiction, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the public. AB 805 proposes the following changes to NCTD:

• Specifies the mayors of the respective cities, instead of council-appointed representatives, serve on the Board of Directors.

• Establishes that all official acts of the Board require the affirmative vote of the majority of the weighted vote of the members present based on the population of the respective cities and the population of the unincorporated parts of the County in NCTD’s jurisdiction.

Next Steps

AB 805 has been scheduled for its first hearing by the Assembly Committee on Local Government on April 19, 2017. The proposal also has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Transportation; however, a hearing date has not yet been set. Staff will continue to keep the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors apprised on developments as the bill move through the legislative process. A report on AB 805 is scheduled to be presented to the Board of Directors at its April 14, 2017, meeting.

VICTORIA STACKWICK Principal Legislative Analyst

Attachments: 1. Report from Ellison Wilson Advocacy 2. Report from Peyser and Associates 3. Assembly Bill 805 4. Board Policy No. 001: Operations Policy - Board and Policy Advisory Committees Responsibilities

Key Staff Contacts: Victoria Stackwick, (619) 699-6926, [email protected] Robyn Wapner, (619) 699-1994, [email protected]

3 Under AB 805, “public transit purposes” includes the public transit responsibilities under the jurisdiction of the board as well as any bikeway, bicycle path, sidewalk, trail, pedestrian access, or pedestrian accessway.

6 Attachment 1

TO: SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY, LLC SUBJECT: SANDAG LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY REPORT – MARCH 2017

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

2017 Legislative Overview

Over 2,600 bills were introduced this year prior to the February 17 deadline to introduce legislation for 2017, the majority of which was introduced in the final week prior to the deadline. These bills could not be heard or acted upon by a committee or either house until the bill had been in print for 30 days (Joint Rule 55). The next impending legislative deadline is April 28, which is the deadline for all fiscal bills to be passed by policy committees in its house of origin.

The following are key bills of interest to SANDAG:

Assembly Bill 28 (AB 28) by Assemblymember Jim Frazier will extend the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) delegation responsibilities to Caltrans. SANDAG was supportive as the bill would ensure that the current delegations provided through the NEPA Delegation Pilot Program are extended beyond the sunset date of January 1, 2017. After successfully passing through the Legislature without a single “no” vote, Governor Brown signed AB 28 into law on March 29.

Assembly Bill 805 (AB 805) by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzales Fletcher would modify the governance structure of SANDAG, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, and North County Transit District in a number of ways, including the establishment of a standing SANDAG audit committee. The bill has been double- referred to both the Assembly Local Government Committee, where it is scheduled to be heard on April 19, and the Assembly Transportation Committee, where it likely will be heard on April 24.

Assembly Bill 1324 (AB 1324) by Assemblymember Todd Gloria would authorize a Metropolitan Planning Organization or Regional Transportation Planning Agency authorized by law to levy, expand, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax to levy, expand, increase, or extend that tax in only a portion of the jurisdiction, as an alternative to the entire jurisdiction, if approved by the required percentage of the voters in that portion of the jurisdiction. The bill would require the revenues derived from the levy, expansion, increase, or extension to be used only within the area for which the levy, expansion, increase, or extension

7 was approved by the voters. AB 1324 has been referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee, but no hearing date has been scheduled yet.

Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) by Senator Tony Mendoza would, subject to voter approval at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary election, enact the Goods Movement and Clean Trucks Bond Act. If approved, the bond would designate $200 million toward the expansion of zero- and near zero-emission trucks in the state’s most polluted regions, including much of Southern California. It also would give transportation and air programs identified as part of Governor Brown’s sustainable freight program a first shot at $400 million in funding. The legislation separately would dedicate $150 million of federal freight formula funding to “fund improvements to California’s existing or planned land ports of entry on the border with Mexico.” The bill was passed by the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on March 7 and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on March 29. It will be heard next by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 19.

Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) by Senator Ricardo Lara would require any federally funded infrastructure project along California’s southern border that exceeds a cost of $1 billion to first be approved by a majority of the voters voting on the issue at a statewide general election. SB 30 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on April 25.

Senate Bill 54 by Senator Kevin de Leon, the “Sanctuary State” bill, would, among other provisions, repeal the current law that provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. The bill passed out of the Senate on April 3.

Senate Bill 150 (SB 150) by Senator Ben Allen would require the California Air Resources Board to update the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, as specified, for the purposes of adoption of a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy as part of a regional transportation plan. The bill was passed out of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 5, and has also been referred to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

Transportation Funding Deal On March 29, after two years of negotiations, Governor Brown, Senate President pro tem Kevin de Leon, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon announced a $5.2 billion transportation funding deal. In general, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, amended into Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) (Beall), invests $52.4 billion over the next decade, split equally between state and local investments. SB 1 was passed by the California State Legislature on April 6, 2017. As an urgency measure, it will take effect immediately.

According to the Governor’s office, the deal contains the following:

Fix Local Streets and Transportation Infrastructure:

• $15 billion in “Fix-It-First” local road repairs, including fixing potholes • $7.5 billion to improve local public transportation • $2 billion to support local “self-help” communities that are making their own investments in transportation improvements • $1 billion to improve infrastructure that promotes walking and bicycling • $825 million for the State Transportation Improvement Program local contribution • $250 million in local transportation planning grants.

8 Fix State Highways and Transportation Infrastructure:

• $15 billion in "Fix-it-First" highway repairs, including smoother pavement • $4 billion in bridge and culvert repairs • $3 billion to improve trade corridors • $2.5 billion to reduce congestion on major commute corridors • $1.4 billion in other transportation investments, including $275 million for highway and intercity-transit improvements

Ensure Taxpayer Dollars Are Spent Properly with Strong Accountability Measures:

• Constitutional amendment to prohibit spending the funds on anything but transportation • Inspector General to ensure Caltrans and any entities receiving state transportation funds spend taxpayer dollars efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with state and federal requirements • Provision that empowers the California Transportation Commission to hold state and local government accountable for making the transportation improvements they commit to delivering • Authorization for the California Transportation Commission to review and allocate Caltrans funding and staffing for highway maintenance to ensure those levels are reasonable and responsible • Authorization for Caltrans to complete earlier mitigation of environmental impacts from construction, a policy that will reduce costs and delays while protecting natural resources

The package is funded as follows:

• $7.3 billion by increasing diesel excise tax 20 cents • $3.5 billion by increasing diesel sales tax to 5.75 percent • $24.4 billion by increasing gasoline excise tax 12 cents • $16.3 billion from an annual transportation improvement fee based on a vehicle's value • $200 million from an annual $100 Zero Emission Vehicle fee commencing in 2020 • $706 million in General Fund loan repayments

ACTIVITY REPORT

3/1: Updated SANDAG staff on impending policy committee hearing for SB 4. 3/3: Compiled and provided SANDAG staff with a preliminary list of bills for their review and prioritization. 3/6: Met with Senator Atkins’ office and the California Association of Councils of Governments regarding SB 4; provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff, including SB 30 committee hearing information. 3/9: Reviewed/analyzed amendments to SB 150; provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff. 3/10: Reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation; provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff, including updated fiscal committee hearing schedule for AB 28. 3/13: Testified in support of AB 28 before the Senate Appropriations Committee; reviewed press release from Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher regarding her proposed amendments to AB 805; met with Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher regarding her proposed amendments to AB 805; reviewed/analyzed proposed amendments to AB 805; provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff. 3/14: Provided updates to SANDAG staff regarding the election of Senator Pat Bates as Senate Minority Leader and floor vote schedule for AB 28. 3/16: Met with SANDAG staff; reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation and provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff. 3/17: Attended/monitored Senate Floor vote on AB 28; provided subsequent update to SANDAG staff.

9 3/20: Attended/monitored Assembly Floor concurrence vote on AB 28; provided subsequent update to SANDAG staff. 3/21: Reviewed/analyzed amendments to AB 1324; met with Assembly Transportation Committee staff regarding AB 805 procedural question; provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff. 3/23: Attended/monitored Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 hearing regarding the Governor’s transportation funding budget proposal; reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation and provided subsequent update to SANDAG staff. 3/24: Reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation; reviewed SANDAG staff’s feedback on preliminary list of bills; teleconference with SANDAG staff and Metropolitan Transit System lobbyist; met with Assembly Local Government Committee staff regarding AB 805 procedural question; provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff, including AB 805 policy committee referrals. 3/27: Compiled and provided SANDAG staff with a preliminary list of public safety bills for their review and prioritization. 3/28: Reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation; met with Assembly Rules Committee staff regarding AB 805 procedural question; provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff. 3/29: Attended press conference regarding transportation funding deal; reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation and provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff. 3/30: Reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation and provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff, including the Governor’s action on AB 28 and policy committee action on SB 4. 3/31: Reviewed/analyzed amendments to legislation and provided subsequent updates to SANDAG staff, including hearing dates for SB 30.

10 Attachment 2

PEYSERASSOCIATES LLC Peter A. Peyser

March 3, 2017

Transportation Update from Peyser Associates

Trump Administration Begins Work on Infrastructure Plan

In his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Trump re-iterated his campaign pledge to move ahead on a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Here is the excerpt from his speech pertaining to infrastructure:

“Another Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program --- the building of the interstate highway system. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.

“America has spent approximately six trillion dollars in the Middle East, all this while our infrastructure at home is crumbling. With this six trillion dollars we could have rebuilt our country --- twice. And maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate.

“To launch our national rebuilding, I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in the infrastructure of the United States -- financed through both public and private capital --- creating millions of new jobs.

“This effort will be guided by two core principles: Buy American, and Hire American.”

This speech sheds little light on how much of the program will be federal funding versus tax credits, how much will be state and local funding, or how the available resources would be divided between different types of infrastructure.

The Administration took its first formal steps to deal with all those issues on Thursday when the Director of the National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, convened a meeting of 15 or more federal agencies to discuss specific projects that might be part of an infrastructure plan and ways to advance them. This meeting is part of a process that will lead to an infrastructure plan being presented to the President for his review. It is unclear when that will happen.

In discussions with officials inside and outside the administration this week, it appears that the White House is interested in developing a list of about 50 projects that would receive assistance over the next five years under the President’s plan. Some believe the Administration might send to Capitol Hill a piece of legislation that would actually name projects. Such a move would invite congressional earmarking for projects.

President’s “Skinny Budget” Expected Mid-March

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) this week gave agencies the annual budget “pass-back” – when they react to the initial budget requests that came from each agency.

11 The next step in the budget process will be the release of the so-called “skinny budget,” which administration officials say will come in about two weeks’ time. This initial budget is not expected to include programmatic details. Instead, it will set very broad targets for mandatory spending, defense spending, and non-defense discretionary spending.

While the detailed budget will not come out until May, there are some indications of where things are headed based on the broad outlines expected in the skinny budget and on preliminary reports from the pass-backs to federal agencies.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney said on Monday that the President will propose a $54 billion increase in defense spending. This will be balanced by a $54 billion cut in non-defense discretionary spending. Mulvaney also said the President will not cut veterans’ benefits, which are part of the non-defense discretionary budget. So, with those basic assumptions in place, budget experts are projecting that non-veterans domestic discretionary spending would have to be cut by 14 percent. That cut will not be distributed across the board. Leaks of information from the agency pass-backs appear to indicate the Administration is going to propose cuts well below 14 percent in foreign aid, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement and Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement, for example. How these proposed cuts would apply to transportation remains to be seen.

Secretary Chao Makes First Public Appearances and Discusses Infrastructure Plan

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Secretary Elaine Chao made two public appearances in the past week where she talked about the Trump administration’s interest in infrastructure, but shed little light on how they plan to approach funding it. She appeared on Sunday at the National Governors Association (NGA) and on Wednesday at the winter meeting of the American Associations of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

In both venues, the Secretary indicated the Administration’s strong interest in supporting the improvement of transportation infrastructure, but also commented on how difficult it will be to find ways to pay for it. She also emphasized that she will be looking for ways to cut “red tape” that slows down the development of projects and that there will be a strong focus on promoting public- private partnerships.

On Sunday, at the NGA meeting, she was asked by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf (D) about her views on high speed rail. In her answer, she indicated a general interest in high speed rail as part of the transportation future, but also discussed some problems with its implementation. She indicated she had met recently with representatives of the Dallas-Houston high speed rail project and said high-speed rail is part of the future of transportation in America. She also pointed out two problems in implementing high speed rail. She said eminent domain is a problem for greenfield projects and that it is difficult to put high speed service on existing right-of-way, citing the Northeast Corridor.

Chairman Shuster Suggests 500 Projects Should be Included in Infrastructure Plan

In remarks to AASHTO’s winter meeting this week, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) took note of reports that the Administration is looking at including 50 or so projects in its infrastructure plan and took issue with that number. Noting that there are 535 Members of the House and Senate, Rep. Shuster indicated it would be easier to pass the measure if it gave more of them something to bring home to their constituents. This gives

12 credence to the idea that once the Administration starts the ball rolling on naming projects, it may be difficult to stop.

March 10, 2017

President Trump Continues to Push Development of Infrastructure Plan

Last week’s update reported on the meeting President Trump’s National Economic Council convened with 15 top officials from around the government to discuss development of the President’s much-anticipated infrastructure plan. This week, the President continued the process by convening on Wednesday a meeting of his infrastructure advisory group. Attending the meeting were the co-chairs of the advisory group, Richard LeFrak and Steve Roth, both major players in the New York real estate market; Elon Musk, of SpaceX , Tesla motors and other tech companies; Josh Harris the co-founder of Apollo Global Management, an investment fund manager; Bill Ford of General Atlantic, a private equity firm; Lynn Scarlett, Managing Director of the Nature Conservancy; and Tyler Duvall, a partner at McKinsey & Co. and a former member of the George W. Bush Administration’s U.S. DOT policy team. Joining the meeting from the Trump Administration were U.S. DOT Secretary Elaine Chao, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

The list of attendees tells us a few things about the focus of the Trump infrastructure plan, now in formation. The presence of the representatives of investment firms confirms the important role private equity investment is likely to play in the plan. The presence of Elon Musk indicates the Administration’s interest in supporting new technologies. Tyler DuVall’s attendance most likely results from his relationship with DJ Gribben, the President’s special advisor for infrastructure, and tells us public-private partnerships are very much front and center. Inviting Secretaries Chao and Perry and Administrator Pruitt would seem to indicate that transportation, energy, and water infrastructure are top of mind for the President in terms of the categories of infrastructure on which he would focus.

In the past three weeks, President Trump has had a major event each week dealing with infrastructure – first he met with the nation’s Governors, then last week he met with his broad administration team, and this week he met with the advisory group. While there still is not a plan to look at, this activity does show the Administration remains focused on this issue even while hotter button issues are receiving more high-profile media attention.

CalTrain Full Funding Grant Agreement Holdup Bears Watching Beyond California

The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) decision to defer action to execute the $647 million full funding grant agreement for the CalTrain electrification project is being viewed by many in the transit community as a problem unique to this particular project because of the seemingly unique circumstances surrounding it: it was left on the Trump Administration’s desk by the previous Administration, it is in California – not a Trump-friendly state – and, because of its link to California’s high speed rail program, it has drawn the opposition of all Republican Members of the House from California.

Taking these factors together it may seem as if other transit project sponsors may not need to worry about a similar “perfect storm” striking their projects, but that analysis may be missing a bigger picture. A more generic way to look at the problems surrounding CalTrain is this: first, it is a public transit project. Second, it is in a state that did not vote for President Trump. Third, its politics in its

13 region and state are by and large Democratic. When one reviews pending projects, there are more than a few that match up with all three of these criteria.

Reports coming from those on Capitol Hill who have spoken to Secretary Chao and her team in the past few weeks are that U.S. DOT believes the CalTrain issue is completely in the hands of the OMB now. The key issue is whether they will approve including it in the President’s detailed budget proposal due out in May. Looking at it from that perspective, there are several reasons to be concerned about how a decision on this one project might portend problems for others. First, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney is not a transit supporter. He has made it clear in recent weeks that he will be making cuts to a number of popular programs on Capitol Hill. Preliminary reports about the emerging budget plan this week shows he is proposing cuts deeper than 10 percent in the Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration – key parts of the homeland security system.

If Director Mulvaney wants to send a message that he is going to have to cut some programs, public transit might be a convenient target. Within the public transit program, the portion funded by the General Fund is the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. That could be his biggest target, therefore the whole CIG program may well be targeted to take a hit in the Trump budget. If the Administration is proposing that, it might well propose slimming the pipeline of pending projects.

Regarding the budget proposal for the overall program, Congress certainly has the ability to – and very likely would – reverse that proposal. However, given current earmarking rules they would not have the ability to revive funding for a project the Administration did not recommend for funding.

U.S. DOT Deputy Secretary Nominated

The White House announced the nomination of Jeff Rosen, a partner at Kirkland and Ellis, as Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. Rosen did a stint as General Counsel at U.S. DOT from 2003-2006 in the George W. Bush Administration. After that, he spent three years at the OMB. The following profile was obtained from the Kirkland and Ellis website:

Professional Profile

“During his nearly thirty years at Kirkland, Jeff Rosen has handled a wide variety of complex legal problems for major companies and organizations. In 2009, Jeff rejoined the Firm as a senior partner in the Washington, D.C. office, following more than five years of public service. In recent years, Jeff's practice has focused on both regulatory and litigation matters. During his previous 21 years at Kirkland from 1982 to 2003, Jeff's practice principally involved complex business litigation matters involving antitrust, securities, contracts, RICO, business torts, government enforcement actions and product liability, including class actions. He has handled litigation before federal and state courts in more than 20 states, including jury trials, bench evidentiary hearings, arbitrations and appellate arguments. He also served on Kirkland's Firmwide Management Committee and as Co-Head of the Washington, D.C. office.

From 2003 to 2006, Jeff served as the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation, after having been unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. As that Department's Chief Legal Officer, he had final authority within the DOT to resolve all legal questions arising within or referred to the Department. As General Counsel, he oversaw the activities of more than 400 lawyers

14 in the Transportation Department and its operating administrations. Jeff also had responsibility for DOT's regulatory program, enforcement and litigation activities, legal issues relating to international activities involving transportation, legislative proposals, and he acted as counsel to Secretary Norman Mineta. At DOT, Jeff testified on behalf of the Administration before various committees of Congress on ten occasions. He served on DOT's Credit Council, which was responsible for four federal loan programs. In addition, he served as the Government's representative on the Amtrak Board of Directors, which was responsible for overseeing the company's management, personnel, operations, and finances.

From 2006 to 2009, Jeff served as General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor for the White House Office of Management and Budget, which made him the Administration's lead lawyer for regulatory and fiscal issues, as well as for executive orders. Jeff's legal responsibilities included giving analysis and advice to the OMB Director and the President with regard to federal laws related to a wide array of government agencies and programs, as well as administrative law, Constitutional law, ethics laws, federal credit and insurance laws, litigation against the United States, and federal budget and appropriations laws. He also handled responses to Congressional oversight and investigations.”

March 17, 2017

Budget Blueprint Proposes Eliminating “New” New Starts, Cutting Amtrak and TIGER

The Trump Administration on Thursday released a broad budget blueprint for FY 2018. The so- called “skinny budget” did not contain program-by-program detail. But it did include the assumptions used to reach agency-wide totals.

As expected, the proposed budget does not deal with taxes or mandatory spending (i.e., entitlements and trust funds). It deals only with the discretionary budget, which is $1.068 trillion in the current year.

For the U.S. DOT, the budget proposes a cut of $2.4 billion, or 12.7 percent. This reduction would be achieved by eliminating funding for transit CIG without existing Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA), subsidies for long-distance Amtrak trains, the TIGER program and Essential Air Services. The budget also proposes privatizing the air traffic control system.

Other government agencies are slated for even deeper cuts than U.S. DOT. Among the hardest hit agencies (with their percentage cuts in parentheses) are the following:

• EPA (31.4%) • Agency for International Development (28.7%) • Department of Agriculture (20.7%) • Department of Labor (20.7%) • Army Corps of Engineers (16.3%) • Department of Commerce (15.7%)

The budget proposes to increase defense spending by $54 billion or about 10 percent. The only other agencies for which increases are proposed are Department of Homeland Security (6.8%) and Veterans Affairs (5.9%).

15 In addition to proposed spending cuts, the budget also proposes the elimination of a number of government agencies. Those proposed for elimination include, among others, the Appalachian Regional Commission, Corporation for National and Community Service, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, U.S. Trade Development Agency, Legal Services Corporation, and Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Earlier, there had been concern among transit advocates that the Administration would propose collapsing the FTA into a new Surface Transportation Administration with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration. While that was not proposed in this budget, there could still be consideration of this idea as the Administration begins a larger project to consider government reorganization.

With regard to the cuts in the CIG program at FTA, this is not the first time a cut of this nature has been proposed. Most famously, President Reagan proposed eliminating all “new” New Starts funding in his first budget – and subsequent ones – and Congress, which was then split with a Republican-controlled Senate and a Democratic House, rejected that proposal. Transit advocates will certainly work to achieve a similar outcome this time around.

One important outgrowth of the Administration’s proposal on CIG is that it might serve as a spur to the return of earmarking. Under current rules on Capitol Hill, the Appropriations Committees would not be able to designate funding for projects not requested by the Administration. Assuming the Administration will only send up a list of existing FFGA with its more detailed budget in May, Congress would have to change the no-earmark rule if it intends to add funding for non-FFGA projects.

The proposed elimination of funding for long distance trains could create an interesting dynamic at Amtrak. Even though legislative language in the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act sets up hurdles for Amtrak’s practice of siphoning funds from Northeast Corridor (NEC) revenues to subsidize long-distance trains, it does not prohibit that. It is unclear whether the Administration’s upcoming detailed budget proposal would prohibit that cross-subsidization. If that transfer is not expressly prohibited, the cutting of direct funding for long distance trains could increase the pressure on the Amtrak Board to use NEC revenues for the benefit of those trains. So, although the stated purpose of the Administration’s budget proposal is to focus funding on the NEC, it could have the opposite effect.

Reaction to the President’s budget on Capitol Hill was very bipartisan. Leading Republicans and Democrats all expressed opposition to various parts of the proposal. Leadership and appropriators made the point that while they would consider the budget proposal, Congress will ultimately decide. The words “dead on arrival” were heard frequently in the Capitol as part of the reaction. While this might give some comfort to transit advocates, it should be said that few were calling out the Amtrak and transit cuts as being the reason for their opposition.

American Society of Civil Engineers Gives US Infrastructure a D+

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) on Monday released its quadrennial grades for 16 categories of U.S. infrastructure and for the nation’s overall infrastructure portfolio. The grade in this report for all U.S. infrastructure is a D+ – the same as in 2013. While the grade was unchanged from four years ago, the cost to improve the infrastructure to a grade of B increased from $3.6 trillion over ten years in 2013 to $4.59 trillion over the same period today. That means the investment needed for state of good repair has grown by $100 billion per year on an annualized basis over the past four years.

16

Of the 16 categories of infrastructure reviewed in the report, only 3 saw their grades go down – Parks (from C- to D+), Solid Waste (from B- to C+) and Transit (from D to D-). Transit’s D- grade was the worst of any category.

As is always the case when this report comes out, the media covered it heavily and politicians at all levels of government and from both parties talked about how important it is to invest in infrastructure. This has also been the case when previous scorecards have been released. History has shown that while the ASCE report provides excellent talking points, it has not been a spur to action. Perhaps the current push for a national infrastructure package will change the course of that history.

White House Reiterates Policy on Sanctuary Cities

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer reiterated on Tuesday the Trump Administration’s policy on sanctuary cities. In response to a reporter’s question on the proliferation of sanctuary city designations since the first of the year, Spicer said: “I think the President’s been clear that we’re not going to use federal taxpayer dollars to support cities that support services to people who are in this country illegally.”

It remains to be seen how broadly the Administration plans to interpret this policy in terms of the types of governmental entities to which it will apply, the programs that would be subject to the policy, and the mechanisms they would seek to use to deny funding.

Federal Railroad Administration Releases New Data on Positive Train Control Implementation

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on Wednesday released its quarterly report on the status of Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation on U.S. freight and passenger railroads. The press release says their data show that “freight railroads continue to make consistent progress while passenger industry progress […] only slightly increased.” The FRA says the freight railroads have 16 percent of the required tracks equipped with PTC while the passenger railroads are at 24 percent.

President Trump Kicks-off Government Reorganization Process

President Trump on Tuesday signed an Executive Order directing the heads of all federal agencies to submit “to the Director (of OMB) a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.” The agencies have 180 days to submit their plans.

The process will continue after that with the publishing notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on reorganization. At the end of the comment period, usually 60 to 90 days, the Director of OMB will have 180 days to submit a plan to the President.

This process should be of interest to transportation advocates because we have heard consistently in recent months that the Administration is mulling resurrecting an idea last proposed in the Clinton Administration to merge the modal agencies at U.S. DOT into one Surface Transportation Agency.

17 There has been concern that such a proposal might be part of the President’s detailed budget plan expected in May.

Now that the Executive Order on reorganization has been signed, it would appear that it will be at least a year before a reorganization plan would be forthcoming. This would give the modal administrations some time to operate independently during the Trump Administration and may take some steam out of any effort to merge them.

March 24, 2017

Snag for Health Bill Could Advance the Schedule for Infrastructure Package

As this report was written, the House prepared to debate and vote on the American Health Care Act, legislation to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. News accounts indicate the bill is short of the votes needed for passage, although there are still enough uncommitted Members to put it over the top.

If the bill passes in the House, it is headed for very tough sledding in the Senate. Some of the changes being made to the House bill may not qualify as being fit for a budget reconciliation bill and would therefore need 60 votes to pass in the Senate. If those provisions are stripped from the bill, the House may not be able to muster the votes for passage when it comes back from a conference committee. Even if the entire House bill is ruled to be appropriate for reconciliation, it is still unlikely to be able to get 50 votes in the Senate without significant changes.

If the bill fails in the House today, President Trump has made it clear he plans to move on to his other priorities – tax cuts, the border wall, and the infrastructure package. In the past few weeks, we have been hearing the infrastructure package would emerge from the White House in the fall sometime and might easily roll over into 2018 for congressional action. That schedule was based on the assumption that the health care measure would be occupying Congress’ attention until late spring and the tax bill would occupy the summer. If the health bill comes off the agenda, that will accelerate consideration of those other priorities. This could mean the infrastructure package has a better chance of emerging from the White House in the early summer and being considered on the Hill in the fall.

Shuster Says Infrastructure Plan Could Piggyback on Aviation Bill

House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) on Tuesday laid out his own approach to accelerating consideration of an infrastructure package: he suggested it might be attached to legislation to reauthorize aviation programs. The current authority for those programs expires on September 30.

Shuster indicated he believes the aviation bill would be an appropriate vehicle because it already has a tax title to go along with the program authorizations. A tax title is expected to be an important part of the Trump infrastructure package given the Administration’s interest in using the tax code to stimulate private investment in infrastructure.

18 DeFazio Introduces Transportation Infrastructure Plan

It was just the majority leadership of the House T&I Committee pushing for an infrastructure plan this week. Ranking Committee Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on Wednesday introduced the “Investing in America: A Penny for Progress Act.”

The DeFazio bill would raise the gas tax each year by indexing it to inflation beginning this year. The bill caps the amount of any annual increase at 1.5 percent. The proceeds of that increase would be pledged to repay Treasury notes that would be sold to generate $500 billion in additional investment between FY 2018 and FY 2030. Rep. DeFazio estimated this infusion of funds would increase funding for highway and transit programs by about 30 percent per year over current levels. The bill also would eliminate the need to transfer general funds into the Highway Trust Fund and would take the CIG program out of the General Fund – giving it the same funding protection now enjoyed by the other major elements of the transit program.

The DeFazio measure was introduced as H.R. 1664 and has the support of 41 groups representing state and local officials, the transportation industry, and labor. Its prospects are uncertain given the lack of support for a gas tax increase in Congress to date, but it represents an effort to stake out at least half of a potential $1 trillion infrastructure package for direct spending, as opposed to tax- advantaged private equity investment. From that perspective, it is more within the range of being negotiable with the Administration than the Senate Democrats’ proposal, which calls for $950 billion in direct spending over ten years.

Deputy U.S. DOT Secretary Nominee Headed for Hearings Next Week

President Trump’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of U.S. DOT, Jeff Rosen, is slated for a confirmation hearing on March 29 at the Senate Commerce Committee. Given the fact that Mr. Rosen has been confirmed by the Senate as U.S. DOT General Counsel in the past, there is every reason to believe his confirmation process will be smooth one. He could be in place at the Department as early as mid- April.

19

Activity Report for SANDAG March 2017 Peyser Associates LLC

Date Activity

Prepared weekly Washington update and sent to SANDAG and Metropolitan 3/3 Transit System (MTS) Biweekly State Route 11/Otay Mesa East update call with SANDAG staff; email 3/7 exchange with V. Stackwick on Trump budget proposal for Customs and Border Protection Teleconference with D. Callender, U.S. DOT, regarding Mid-Coast Transportation 3/9 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA); conference call with J. Nuncio, V. Stackwick on same topic

3/10 Prepared weekly Washington update and sent to SANDAG and MTS

Attended American Public Transportation Association Legislative conference with 3/12 P. Jablonski, S. Cooney, V. Stackwick and K. Kawada

3/16 Prepared special update on Trump FY 2018 budget and sent to SANDAG and MTS

3/17 Prepared weekly Washington update and sent to SANDAG and MTS

3/20 Dinner meeting with K. Kawada, J. Nuncio et.al. on TIFIA Presentation

Breakfast meeting with K. Kawada, J. Nuncio, et.al. followed by meeting with same 3/21 and M. Klepper, D. Callender, et.al. at U.S. DOT on Mid-Coast TIFIA

3/24 Prepared weekly Washington update and sent to SANDAG and MTS

Reviewed proposed Trump FY 2017 spending plan and sent email to SANDAG and 3/27 MTS on implications for Mid-Coast

3/31 Prepared weekly Washington update and sent to SANDAG and MTS

20 Attachment 3

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 6, 2017 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 23, 2017 california legislature—2017–18 regular session

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 805

Introduced by Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher

February 15, 2017

An act to amend Sections 120050.2, 120051, 120051.6, 120102.5, 125050, 125102, 132351.1, 132351.2, 132351.4, 132352.3, 132354.1, and 132360.1 of, to add Article 11 (commencing with Section 120480) to Chapter 4 of Division 11 of, to add Article 9 (commencing with Section 125480) to Chapter 4 of Division 11.5 of, and to repeal Sections 120050.5 and 120051.1 of, the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation.

legislative counsel’s digest AB 805, as amended, Gonzalez Fletcher. County of San Diego: transportation agencies. (1) Existing law provides for the consolidation of certain regional transportation planning, programming, and related functions in San Diego County from various existing agencies including the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, also known as the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and the North County Transit District (NCTD). Existing law provides for the consolidated agency, commonly known as SANDAG, to be governed by a board of directors of 21 city and county members selected by the governing body of each member agency.

97

21 AB 805 Ð 2 Ð

This bill would require the mayor of each city to serve on the board of directors, except in the case of the City of San Diego, where the mayor and the president of the city council would serve. The bill would require the chairperson of the County of San Diego board of supervisors to serve on the board. board as one of the 2 members on the board from the county board of supervisors The bill would also revise the selection of alternate members of the board. Existing law, in order for the SANDAG board to act on any item, generally requires a majority vote of the members present on the basis of one vote per agency as well as a weighted vote pursuant to a speci®ed process, except in the case of consent items. This bill would instead require a majority of the weighted vote of the board members present in order for the board to act on any item. The bill would also modify the weighted vote process. Existing law provides for SANDAG to have 4 standing policy advisory committees named the executive, transportation, regional planning, and borders committees. This bill would additionally provide for an audit committee with speci®ed responsibilities, including the selection appointment of an independent performance auditor. The bill would require SANDAG to submit an annual report to the Legislature, developed by its transportation committee, that outlines various matters related to public transit. Existing law provides for the consolidated agency to prepare a regional comprehensive plan containing various elements, as speci®ed. This bill would require the regional comprehensive plan to address greenhouse gas emissions reduction rules and regulations adopted by the State Air Resources Board and associated emissions limits. The bill would also require the plan to identify disadvantaged communities. The bill would require the plan to include strategies relative to those matters. (2) Existing law creates MTS and NCTD, with various public transit responsibilities in the southern and northern parts of the County of San Diego, respectively. Existing law provides for MTS to be governed by a board of 15 members, while NCTD is governed by a board of 9 members, with each board generally consisting of city and county representatives selected by member agencies. Existing law provides that the chairperson of the MTS board is a resident of the County of San Diego selected by the board, as speci®ed. This bill would generally require the city representatives on each board to be the mayor of the city, except in the case of the City of San

97

22 Ð 3 Ð AB 805

Diego, where 3 of the 4 members other than the mayor would be selected by the city council. The bill would provide for the city council of the City of Chula Vista to appoint a 2nd member. The bill would provide for the chairperson of the MTS board to be the mayor of the City of San Diego. alternate between the mayors of the 2 largest cities. The bill would require the member of the board of supervisors to be the member representing the district with the greatest percentage of its area within the incorporated area of the county within the MTS jurisdiction. The bill would also revise the process for selecting alternate members of the MTS board. Existing law generally provides that of®cial acts of the MTS or NCTD board require the af®rmative vote of the majority of the members of the board, except that a weighted vote of the MTS board may be requested pursuant to a speci®ed process. This bill would create a similar weighted voting process for NCTD. The bill would require all of®cial acts of the MTS or NCTD boards to require the af®rmative vote of the majority of the weighted vote of the board members present. Existing law authorizes various transportation agencies, including SANDAG, to impose a transactions and use tax for transportation 2 purposes within its jurisdiction, subject to approval of ¤3 of the voters and various other requirements. Existing law provides for issuance of bonds backed by these tax revenues, as speci®ed. This bill would additionally authorize MTS and NCTD to individually impose a transactions and use tax within their respective portions of the County of San Diego, with revenues to be used for public transit purposes purposes, as speci®ed, serving their jurisdictions, and to issue bonds backed by these tax revenues, subject to similar requirements. (3) By imposing additional requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

97

23 AB 805 Ð 4 Ð

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. Section 120050.2 of the Public Utilities Code is line 2 amended to read: line 3 120050.2. The board consists of 15 members selected as line 4 follows: line 5 (a) One member of the County of San Diego Board of line 6 Supervisors, appointed by the board of supervisors. line 7 (b) The mayors of the Cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, line 8 Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, line 9 San Diego, and Santee. line 10 (c) Three members of the City Council of the City of San Diego line 11 and one member of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, line 12 each appointed by their respective city council. line 13 (d) The chairperson of the board shall be the mayor of the city line 14 with the largest population. line 15 (d) The mayors of the largest city and the second largest city line 16 shall alternate between serving as the chairperson and vice line 17 chairperson of the board every four years. line 18 SEC. 2. Section 120050.5 of the Public Utilities Code is line 19 repealed. line 20 SEC. 3. Section 120051 of the Public Utilities Code is amended line 21 to read: line 22 120051. The member of the board of supervisors appointed line 23 pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 120050.2 shall represent line 24 one of the two supervisorial districts district with the greatest line 25 percentage of its area within the incorporated area of the County line 26 of San Diego within the area under the jurisdiction of the transit line 27 development board as de®ned in Section 120054. line 28 SEC. 3. line 29 SEC. 4. Section 120051.1 of the Public Utilities Code is line 30 repealed. line 31 SEC. 4. line 32 SEC. 5. Section 120051.6 of the Public Utilities Code is line 33 amended to read: line 34 120051.6. The alternate members of the board shall be line 35 appointed as follows: line 36 (a) The County of San Diego Board of Supervisors shall appoint line 37 any other a county supervisor who quali®es for appointment line 38 pursuant to Section 120051 represents one of the two supervisorial

97

24 Ð 5 Ð AB 805

line 1 districts with the greatest percentage of its area within the line 2 incorporated area of the County of San Diego within the area, not line 3 already appointed under Section 120051, under the jurisdiction line 4 of the transit development board as de®ned in Section 120054 to line 5 serve as an alternate member of the transit development board. line 6 (b) The city councils of the cities speci®ed in subdivision (b) line 7 of Section 120050.2 shall each individually appoint a member of line 8 their respective city councils not already appointed pursuant to line 9 subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 120050.2 to serve as an alternate line 10 member of the transit development board for each member of the line 11 city on the board. line 12 (c) At its discretion, a city council or the county board of line 13 supervisors may appoint a second alternate member, in the same line 14 manner as ®rst alternates are appointed, to serve on the board in line 15 the event that neither a member nor the alternate member is able line 16 to attend a meeting of the board. line 17 (d) An alternate member and second alternate member shall be line 18 subject to the same restrictions and shall have the same powers, line 19 when serving on the board, as a member. line 20 SEC. 5. line 21 SEC. 6. Section 120102.5 of the Public Utilities Code is line 22 amended to read: line 23 120102.5. (a) A majority of the members of the board line 24 constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. All of®cial line 25 acts of the board require the af®rmative vote of the majority of the line 26 weighted vote of the members present. However, any reference in line 27 this division to a two-thirds vote of the members of the board shall line 28 be deemed to mean the af®rmative vote of two-thirds of the line 29 weighted vote of the members present. line 30 (b) In the case of a weighted vote, there shall be a total of 100 line 31 votes. Each member agency shall have that number of votes line 32 annually determined by the following apportionment formula, line 33 provided that each agency shall have at least one vote, and that line 34 there shall be no fractional votes: line 35 (1) Compute, consistent with subdivision (d), the total population line 36 of the cities and the county, and compute the percentage of this line 37 total for each agency. line 38 (2) Boost percentage fractions in the case of each agency where line 39 the total is less than one, to one, and then add to that number only line 40 the whole numbers, excluding fractions, for all other agencies.

97

25 AB 805 Ð 6 Ð

line 1 (3) If the total cumulative number under paragraph (2) is less line 2 than 100, add one vote each to the agencies that, prior to exclusion line 3 under paragraph (2), had the highest fractional amounts, but line 4 exclude from this allocation any agency whose fraction was line 5 boosted under paragraph (2), until a total of 100 votes is reached. line 6 (4) If the total cumulative number under paragraph (2) is more line 7 than 100, subtract one vote each from the agencies that, prior to line 8 exclusion under paragraph (2), had the lowest fractional amounts, line 9 until a total of 100 votes is reached, but in no case shall an agency line 10 have less than one vote. line 11 (c) The City of San Diego shall allocate half of its weighted line 12 vote to the mayor of the City of San Diego, and the other half shall line 13 be divided equally between the three city council members. The line 14 City of Chula Vista shall allocate its weighted vote evenly between line 15 its two members. line 16 (d) For purposes of subdivision (b), the population of the County line 17 of San Diego is the population in the unincorporated area of the line 18 county within the area of jurisdiction of the transit development line 19 board pursuant to Section 120054. line 20 (e) The board shall adopt a policy and procedure to implement line 21 this section. line 22 SEC. 6. line 23 SEC. 7. Article 11 (commencing with Section 120480) is added line 24 to Chapter 4 of Division 11 of the Public Utilities Code, to read: line 25 line 26 Article 11. Transactions and Use Tax line 27 line 28 120480. (a) A retail transactions and use tax ordinance line 29 applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory within line 30 the area of the board pursuant to Section 120054 shall be imposed line 31 by the board in accordance with Section 120485 and Part 1.6 line 32 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue line 33 and Taxation Code, if two-thirds of the voters voting on the line 34 measure vote to approve its imposition at a special election called line 35 for that purpose by the board. and Section 2 of Article XIII C of line 36 the California Constitution. The tax ordinance shall take effect at line 37 the close of the polls on the day of election at which the proposition line 38 is adopted. The initial collection of the transactions and use tax line 39 shall take place in accordance with Section 120483.

97

26 Ð 7 Ð AB 805

line 1 (b) If, at any time, the voters do not approve the imposition of line 2 the transactions and use tax, this chapter remains in full force and line 3 effect. The board may, at any time thereafter, submit the same, or line 4 a different, measure to the voters in accordance with this chapter. line 5 120481. (a) The board, in the ordinance, shall state the nature line 6 of the tax to be imposed, the tax rate or the maximum tax rate, the line 7 purposes for which the revenue derived from the tax will be used, line 8 and may set a term during which the tax will be imposed. The line 9 purposes for which the tax revenues may be used shall be limited line 10 to public transit purposes serving the area of jurisdiction of the line 11 board, as determined by the board, including the administration line 12 of this division and legal actions related thereto. These purposes line 13 include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, line 14 engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. line 15 The ordinance shall contain an expenditure plan that shall include line 16 the allocation of revenues for the purposes authorized by this line 17 section. line 18 (b) As used in this section, ªpublic transit purposesº includes line 19 the public transit responsibilities under the jurisdiction of the line 20 board as well as any bikeway, bicycle path, sidewalk, trail, line 21 pedestrian access, or pedestrian accessway. line 22 120482. (a) The county shall conduct an election called by line 23 the board pursuant to Section 120480. line 24 (b) The election shall be called and conducted in the same line 25 manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county. line 26 120483. (a) Any transactions and use tax ordinance adopted line 27 pursuant to this article shall be operative on the ®rst day of the line 28 ®rst calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after line 29 adoption of the ordinance. line 30 (b) Prior to the operative date of the ordinance, the board shall line 31 contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all line 32 functions incident to the administration and operation of the line 33 ordinance. The costs to be covered by the contract may also include line 34 services of the types described in Section 7272 of the Revenue line 35 and Taxation Code for preparatory work up to the operative date line 36 of the ordinance. Any disputes as to the amount of the costs shall line 37 be resolved in the same manner as provided in that section. line 38 120484. The revenues from the taxes imposed pursuant to this line 39 article may be allocated by the board for public transit purposes

97

27 AB 805 Ð 8 Ð

line 1 consistent with the applicable regional transportation improvement line 2 program and the applicable regional transportation plan. line 3 120485. The board, subject to the approval of the voters, may line 4 impose a maximum tax rate of one-half of 1 percent under this line 5 article and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division line 6 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The board shall not levy the line 7 tax at a rate other than one-half or one-fourth of 1 percent unless line 8 speci®cally authorized by the Legislature. line 9 120486. The board, as part of the ballot proposition to approve line 10 the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax, may seek line 11 authorization to issue bonds payable from the proceeds of the tax. line 12 120487. Any action or proceeding wherein the validity of the line 13 adoption of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance provided line 14 for in this article or the issuance of any bonds thereunder or any line 15 of the proceedings in relation thereto is contested, questioned, or line 16 denied, shall be commenced within six months from the date of line 17 the election at which the ordinance is approved; otherwise, the line 18 bonds and all proceedings in relation thereto, including the adoption line 19 and approval of the ordinance, shall be held to be valid and in line 20 every respect legal and incontestable. line 21 120488. The board has no power to impose any tax other than line 22 the transactions and use tax imposed upon approval of the voters line 23 in accordance with this article. line 24 SEC. 7. line 25 SEC. 8. Section 125050 of the Public Utilities Code is amended line 26 to read: line 27 125050. There is hereby created, in that portion of the County line 28 of San Diego as described in Section 125052, the North County line 29 Transit District. The district shall be governed by a board of line 30 directors. As used in this division, ªboardº means the board of line 31 directors of the district. The board shall consist of members line 32 selected as follows: line 33 (a) One member of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors line 34 appointed by the board of supervisors, which member shall line 35 represent, on the board of supervisors, the largest portion of the line 36 area under the jurisdiction of the district. line 37 (b) The mayors of the Cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, line 38 Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista, and line 39 each new city that incorporates within the district boundaries.

97

28 Ð 9 Ð AB 805

line 1 SEC. 8. line 2 SEC. 9. Section 125102 of the Public Utilities Code is amended line 3 to read: line 4 125102. (a) A majority of the members of the board constitutes line 5 a quorum for the transaction of business. All of®cial acts of the line 6 board require the af®rmative vote of the majority of the weighted line 7 vote of the members of the board present. However, any reference line 8 in this division to a two-thirds vote of the members of the board line 9 shall be deemed to mean the af®rmative vote of two-thirds of the line 10 weighted vote of the members present. line 11 (b) In the case of a weighted vote, there shall be a total of 100 line 12 votes. Each member agency shall have that number of votes line 13 annually determined by the following apportionment formula, line 14 provided that each agency shall have at least one vote, and that line 15 there shall be no fractional votes: line 16 (1) Compute, consistent with subdivision (c), the total population line 17 of the cities and the county, and compute the percentage of this line 18 total for each agency. line 19 (2) Boost percentage fractions in the case of each agency where line 20 the total is less than one, to one, and then add to that number only line 21 the whole numbers, excluding fractions, for all other agencies. line 22 (3) If the total cumulative number under paragraph (2) is less line 23 than 100, add one vote each to the agencies that, prior to exclusion line 24 under paragraph (2), had the highest fractional amounts, but line 25 exclude from this allocation any agency whose fraction was line 26 boosted under paragraph (2), until a total of 100 votes is reached. line 27 (4) If the total cumulative number under paragraph (2) is more line 28 than 100, subtract one vote each from the agencies that, prior to line 29 exclusion under paragraph (2), had the lowest fractional amounts, line 30 until a total of 100 votes is reached, but in no case shall an agency line 31 have less than one vote. line 32 (c) For purposes of subdivision (b), the population of the County line 33 of San Diego is the population in the unincorporated area of the line 34 county within the area of jurisdiction of the board pursuant to line 35 Section 125052. line 36 (d) The board shall adopt a policy and procedure to implement line 37 this section. line 38 SEC. 9. line 39 SEC. 10. Article 9 (commencing with Section 125480) is added line 40 to Chapter 4 of Division 11.5 of the Public Utilities Code, to read:

97

29 AB 805 Ð 10 Ð

line 1 Article 9. Transactions and Use Tax line 2 line 3 125480. (a) A retail transactions and use tax ordinance line 4 applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory within line 5 the area of the board pursuant to Section 125052 shall be imposed line 6 by the board in accordance with Section 125485 and Part 1.6 line 7 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue line 8 and Taxation Code, if two-thirds of the voters voting on the line 9 measure vote to approve its imposition at a special election called line 10 for that purpose by the board. and Section 2 of Article XIII C of line 11 the California Constitution. The tax ordinance shall take effect at line 12 the close of the polls on the day of election at which the proposition line 13 is adopted. The initial collection of the transactions and use tax line 14 shall take place in accordance with Section 125483. line 15 (b) If, at any time, the voters do not approve the imposition of line 16 the transactions and use tax, this chapter remains in full force and line 17 effect. The board may, at any time thereafter, submit the same, or line 18 a different, measure to the voters in accordance with this chapter. line 19 125481. (a) The board, in the ordinance, shall state the nature line 20 of the tax to be imposed, the tax rate or the maximum tax rate, the line 21 purposes for which the revenue derived from the tax will be used, line 22 and may set a term during which the tax will be imposed. The line 23 purposes for which the tax revenues may be used shall be limited line 24 to public transit purposes serving the area of jurisdiction of the line 25 board, as determined by the board, including the administration line 26 of this division and legal actions related thereto. These purposes line 27 include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, line 28 engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. line 29 The ordinance shall contain an expenditure plan that shall include line 30 the allocation of revenues for the purposes authorized by this line 31 section. line 32 (b) As used in this section, ªpublic transit purposesº includes line 33 the public transit responsibilities under the jurisdiction of the line 34 district as well as any bikeway, bicycle path, sidewalk, trail, line 35 pedestrian access, or pedestrian accessway. line 36 125482. (a) The county shall conduct an election called by line 37 the board pursuant to Section 125480. line 38 (b) The election shall be called and conducted in the same line 39 manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county.

97

30 Ð 11 Ð AB 805

line 1 125483. (a) Any transactions and use tax ordinance adopted line 2 pursuant to this article shall be operative on the ®rst day of the line 3 ®rst calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after line 4 adoption of the ordinance. line 5 (b) Prior to the operative date of the ordinance, the board shall line 6 contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all line 7 functions incident to the administration and operation of the line 8 ordinance. The costs to be covered by the contract may also include line 9 services of the types described in Section 7272 of the Revenue line 10 and Taxation Code for preparatory work up to the operative date line 11 of the ordinance. Any disputes as to the amount of the costs shall line 12 be resolved in the same manner as provided in that section. line 13 125484. The revenues from the taxes imposed pursuant to this line 14 article may be allocated by the board for public transit purposes line 15 consistent with the applicable regional transportation improvement line 16 program and the applicable regional transportation plan. line 17 125485. The board, subject to the approval of the voters, may line 18 impose a maximum tax rate of one-half of 1 percent under this line 19 article and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division line 20 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The board shall not levy the line 21 tax at a rate other than one-half or one-fourth of 1 percent unless line 22 speci®cally authorized by the Legislature. line 23 125486. The board, as part of the ballot proposition to approve line 24 the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax, may seek line 25 authorization to issue bonds payable from the proceeds of the tax. line 26 125487. Any action or proceeding wherein the validity of the line 27 adoption of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance provided line 28 for in this article or the issuance of any bonds thereunder or any line 29 of the proceedings in relation thereto is contested, questioned, or line 30 denied, shall be commenced within six months from the date of line 31 the election at which the ordinance is approved; otherwise, the line 32 bonds and all proceedings in relation thereto, including the adoption line 33 and approval of the ordinance, shall be held to be valid and in line 34 every respect legal and incontestable. line 35 125488. The board has no power to impose any tax other than line 36 the transactions and use tax imposed upon approval of the voters line 37 in accordance with this article. line 38 SEC. 10. line 39 SEC. 11. Section 132351.1 of the Public Utilities Code is line 40 amended to read:

97

31 AB 805 Ð 12 Ð

line 1 132351.1. (a) A board of directors consisting of 21 members line 2 shall govern the consolidated agency. line 3 (b) For purposes of this chapter, ªgoverning bodyº means the line 4 board of supervisors, council, council and mayor where the mayor line 5 is not a member of the council, authority, trustees, director, line 6 commission, committee, or other policymaking body, as line 7 appropriate, that exercises authority over an entity represented on line 8 the board of the consolidated agency. line 9 (c) All powers, privileges, and duties vested in or imposed upon line 10 the consolidated agency shall be exercised and performed by and line 11 through a board of directors provided, however, that the exercise line 12 of all executive, administrative, and ministerial power may be line 13 delegated and redelegated by the board, to any of the of®ces, line 14 of®cers, or committees created pursuant to this chapter or created line 15 by the board acting pursuant to this chapter. line 16 (d) The board shall be composed of one primary representative line 17 of each city in the county and the chair of the San Diego County line 18 Board of Supervisors. However, the City of San Diego and the line 19 County of San Diego shall each have a primary and secondary line 20 representative, which for the City of San Diego shall be the mayor line 21 of the City of San Diego and the president of the city council. line 22 Except in the case of the City of San Diego and the County of San line 23 Diego, each director shall be the mayor of the governing body of line 24 his or her city. Each city or county shall also select one alternate line 25 to serve on the board when the primary or secondary representative, line 26 if applicable, is not available. The alternate shall be subject to the line 27 same restrictions and have the same powers, when serving on the line 28 board, as the representative for whom he or she is substituting. line 29 The alternate shall be a councilperson or supervisor, as applicable, line 30 of his or her governing body. line 31 (e) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), in those years when the line 32 chair of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors is from a line 33 district that is substantially an incorporated area, a supervisor line 34 who represents a district that is substantially an unincorporated line 35 area shall be appointed to the board as the secondary line 36 representative. Alternatively, in those years when the chair of the line 37 San Diego County Board of Supervisors is from a district that is line 38 substantially an unincorporated area, a supervisor who represents line 39 a district that is substantially an incorporated area shall be line 40 appointed to the board as the secondary representative.

97

32 Ð 13 Ð AB 805

line 1 (e) line 2 (f) At its discretion, each city or county may select a second line 3 alternate, in the same manner as the ®rst alternate, to serve on the line 4 board in the event that neither the primary representative nor the line 5 ®rst alternate is able to attend a meeting of the board. This alternate line 6 shall be subject to the same restrictions and have the same powers, line 7 when serving on the board, as the primary representative. line 8 (f) line 9 (g) The board may allow for the appointment of advisory line 10 representatives to sit with the board but in no event shall those line 11 representatives be allowed a vote. The current advisory line 12 representatives to the San Diego Association of Governments may line 13 continue their advisory representation on the consolidated agency line 14 at the discretion of their governing body. The governing bodies of line 15 the County of Imperial and the cities in that county may line 16 collectively designate an advisory representative to sit with the line 17 board. line 18 SEC. 11. line 19 SEC. 12. Section 132351.2 of the Public Utilities Code is line 20 amended to read: line 21 132351.2. (a) A majority of the member agencies constitute line 22 a quorum for the transaction of business. In order to act on any line 23 item, the af®rmative vote of the majority of the weighted vote of line 24 the members present is required. line 25 (b) The governing body of the City of San Diego and the County line 26 of San Diego shall allocate its their weighted votes equally between line 27 its their primary and secondary members. line 28 (c) For the weighted vote, there shall be a total of 100 votes, line 29 except additional votes shall be allowed pursuant to subdivision line 30 (f). Each member agency shall have that number of votes line 31 determined by the following apportionment formula, provided that line 32 each agency shall have at least one vote and there shall be no line 33 fractional votes: line 34 (1) Compute the total population of the San Diego region and line 35 compute the percentage of this total for each agency. line 36 (2) Boost percentage fractions in the case of each agency where line 37 the total is less than one, to one, and then add to that number only line 38 the whole numbers, excluding fractions, for all other agencies. line 39 (3) If the total cumulative number under paragraph (2) is less line 40 than 100, add one vote each to the agencies that, prior to exclusion

97

33 AB 805 Ð 14 Ð

line 1 under paragraph (2), had the highest fractional amounts, but line 2 exclude from this allocation any agency whose fraction was line 3 boosted under paragraph (2), until a total of 100 votes is reached. line 4 (4) If the total cumulative number under paragraph (2) is more line 5 than 100, subtract one vote each from the agencies that, prior to line 6 exclusion under paragraph (2), had the lowest fractional amounts, line 7 until a total of 100 votes is reached, but in no case shall an agency line 8 have less than one vote. line 9 (d) The weighted vote formula under subdivision (c) shall be line 10 recomputed every July 1. line 11 (e) Any newly incorporated city shall receive one vote under line 12 the weighted vote procedure until the next recomputation of the line 13 weighted vote formula under subdivision (c), at which time the line 14 new agency shall receive votes in accordance with the recomputed line 15 formula. Until this recomputation, the total weighted vote may line 16 exceed 100. line 17 SEC. 12. line 18 SEC. 13. Section 132351.4 of the Public Utilities Code is line 19 amended to read: line 20 132351.4. (a) The consolidated agency shall have ®ve standing line 21 policy advisory committees named the executive, transportation, line 22 regional planning, borders, and audit committees. The line 23 responsibilities of the committees shall be established by the board. line 24 Committee membership may be expanded by the consolidated line 25 agency, and shall be selected in accordance with a process line 26 established by the consolidated agency. The membership shall be line 27 as follows: line 28 (1) The executive committee shall consist of six voting members line 29 with board members representing east county, north county coastal, line 30 north county inland, south county, and the representative, or the line 31 representative's alternate in their absence, from the City of San line 32 Diego and the county. The chairperson and the vice chairperson line 33 of the consolidated agency shall each be one of the six voting line 34 members. line 35 (2) (A) The transportation committee shall consist of nine voting line 36 members with board members or alternates representing east line 37 county, north county coastal, north county inland, south county line 38 and the mayor or a council member from the City of San Diego, line 39 a supervisor from the County of San Diego, a member of the board line 40 of the MTDB appointed by the board of the MTDB, a member of

97

34 Ð 15 Ð AB 805

line 1 the board of the NCTD appointed by the board of the NCTD, and line 2 a member of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority line 3 appointed by the airport authority. line 4 (B) Among its transportation responsibilities, the transportation line 5 committee shall provide a strong focus and commitment to meeting line 6 the public transit needs of the San Diego region, set transit funding line 7 criteria and recommend transit funding levels, and undertake transit line 8 responsibilities resulting from consolidation, as delegated by the line 9 board. line 10 (C) The board shall provide a report, developed by the line 11 transportation committee, to the Legislature on or before July 1 of line 12 each year that outlines the public transit needs, transit funding line 13 criteria, recommended transit funding levels, and additional work line 14 on public transit, as delegated to the transportation committee by line 15 the board. The report shall specify the funds spent explicitly on line 16 public transportation. The report shall be submitted consistent with line 17 Section 9795 of the Government Code. line 18 (3) The regional planning committee shall consist of six voting line 19 members with board members or alternates representing east line 20 county, north county coastal, north county inland, south county, line 21 and the mayor or a council member from the City of San Diego, line 22 and a supervisor from the County of San Diego. line 23 (4) The borders committee shall consist of seven voting line 24 members with board members or alternates representing east line 25 county, north county coastal, north county inland, south county, line 26 the mayor or a council member from the City of San Diego, a line 27 supervisor from the County of San Diego, and a mayor, council line 28 member, or supervisor from the County of Imperial. line 29 (5) The audit committee shall consist of ®ve voting members line 30 with two board members and three members of the public to be line 31 appointed by the board. The audit committee shall oversee and line 32 direct the work of the independent auditor pursuant to subdivision line 33 (b) of Section 132354.1. The audit committee shall recommend to line 34 the board the contract of the ®rm conducting the annual ®nancial line 35 statement audits and the hiring of the independent performance line 36 auditor and approve the annual audit plan after discussion with line 37 the independent performance auditor pursuant to subdivision (b) line 38 of Section 132354.1. line 39 (b) The board may appoint other standing and ad hoc working line 40 groups to advise it in carrying out its responsibilities.

97

35 AB 805 Ð 16 Ð

line 1 (c) No board member may serve as a member of more than two line 2 standing policy advisory committees at any one time, except those line 3 board members serving on the audit committee. line 4 SEC. 13. line 5 SEC. 14. Section 132352.3 of the Public Utilities Code is line 6 amended to read: line 7 132352.3. The of®cers of the board are the chairperson and line 8 the vice chairperson. The mayors of the largest city and the line 9 second-largest city shall alternate between serving as chairperson line 10 and vice chairperson for four-year terms. The board may create line 11 additional of®cers and elect members to those positions. However, line 12 no member may hold more than one of®ce. The term of of®ce for line 13 any of®cers of the board other than the chairperson and the vice line 14 chairperson shall be established by the board. line 15 SEC. 14. line 16 SEC. 15. Section 132354.1 of the Public Utilities Code is line 17 amended to read: line 18 132354.1. (a) The board shall arrange for a post audit of the line 19 ®nancial transactions and records of the consolidated agency to line 20 be made at least annually by a certi®ed public accountant. line 21 (b) The audit committee shall appoint an independent auditor, line 22 subject to approval by the board, to perform audits of the line 23 consolidated agency, which shall include, but not be limited to, line 24 all of the following: line 25 (1) Financial transactions report. line 26 (2) Expenditure plan. line 27 (3) Annual budget. line 28 (4) Revenue forecasts. line 29 (c) The independent auditor shall serve a term of ®ve years, and line 30 may only be removed for cause. line 31 (b) (1) The audit committee shall appoint an independent line 32 performance auditor, subject to approval by the board, who may line 33 only be removed for cause by a vote of at least two-thirds of the line 34 audit committee and the board. line 35 (2) The independent performance auditor shall have authority line 36 to conduct or to cause to be conducted performance audits of all line 37 departments, of®ces, boards, activities, agencies, and programs line 38 of the consolidated agency. The auditor shall prepare annually an line 39 audit plan and conduct audits in accordance therewith and perform line 40 those other duties as may be required by ordinance or as provided

97

36 Ð 17 Ð AB 805

line 1 by the California Constitution and general laws of the state. The line 2 auditor shall follow government auditing standards. All of®cers line 3 and employees of the consolidated agency shall furnish to the line 4 auditor unrestricted access to employees, information, and records, line 5 including electronic data, within their custody regarding powers, line 6 duties, activities, organization, property, ®nancial transactions, line 7 contracts, and methods of business required to conduct an audit line 8 or otherwise perform audit duties. It is also the duty of any line 9 consolidated agency of®cer, employee, or agent to fully cooperate line 10 with the auditor, and to make full disclosure of all pertinent line 11 information. line 12 (3) The auditor shall have the power to appoint, employ, and line 13 remove assistants, employees, and personnel as deemed necessary line 14 for the ef®cient and effective administration of the affairs of the line 15 of®ce and to prescribe their duties, scope of authority, and line 16 quali®cations. line 17 (4) The auditor may investigate any material claim of ®nancial line 18 fraud, waste, or impropriety within the consolidated agency and line 19 for that purpose may summon any of®cer, agent, or employee of line 20 the consolidated agency, any claimant, or other person, and line 21 examine him or her upon oath or af®rmation relative thereto. All line 22 consolidated agency contracts with consultants, vendors, or line 23 agencies will be prepared with an adequate audit provision to line 24 allow the auditor access to the entity's records needed to verify line 25 compliance with the terms speci®ed in the contract. Results of all line 26 audits and reports shall be made available to the public in line 27 accordance with the requirements of the California Public Records line 28 Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 line 29 of the Title 1 of the Government Code). line 30 (d) line 31 (c) The board shall develop and adopt internal control guidelines line 32 to prevent and detect ®nancial errors and fraud based on the internal line 33 control guidelines developed by the Controller pursuant to Section line 34 12422.5 of the Government Code and the standards adopted by line 35 the American Institute of Certi®ed Public Accountants. line 36 (e) line 37 (d) The board shall develop and adopt an administration policy line 38 that includes a process to conduct staff performance evaluations line 39 on a regular basis to determine if the knowledge, skills, and abilities line 40 of staff members are suf®cient to perform their respective

97

37 AB 805 Ð 18 Ð

line 1 functions, and shall monitor the evaluation process on a regular line 2 basis. line 3 SEC. 15. line 4 SEC. 16. Section 132360.1 of the Public Utilities Code is line 5 amended to read: line6 132360.1. In preparing and updating the regional line 7 comprehensive plan, it is the intent of the Legislature that: line 8 (a) The regional comprehensive plan preserve and improve the line 9 quality of life in the San Diego region, maximize mobility and line 10 transportation choices, and conserve and protect natural resources. line 11 (b) The regional comprehensive plan shall address the line 12 greenhouse gas emissions reduction rules and regulations adopted line 13 by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 38560 of line 14 the Health and Safety Code and the statewide greenhouse gas line 15 emissions limit set forth in Section 38566 of the Health and Safety line 16 Code and include strategies in that regard, including the line 17 establishment of aggressive nonautomobile modal share targets line 18 for the region. line19 (c) The regional comprehensive plan shall identify line 20 disadvantaged communities as designated pursuant to Section line 21 39711 of the Health and Safety Code and include transportation line 22 strategies to reduce pollution exposure in these communities. line 23 (d) In formulating and maintaining the regional comprehensive line 24 plan, the consolidated agency shall take account of and shall seek line 25 to harmonize the needs of the region as a whole, the plans of the line 26 county and cities within the region, and the plans and planning line 27 activities of organizations that affect or are concerned with planning line 28 and development within the region. line 29 (e) The consolidated agency shall engage in a public line 30 collaborative planning process. The recommendations resulting line 31 from the public collaborative planning process shall be made line 32 available to and considered by the consolidated agency for line 33 integration into the draft regional comprehensive plan. The line 34 consolidated agency shall adopt a procedure to carry out this line 35 process including a method of addressing and responding to line 36 recommendations from the public. line 37 (f) In formulating and maintaining the regional comprehensive line 38 plan, the consolidated agency shall seek the cooperation and line 39 consider the recommendations of all of the following:

97

38 Ð 19 Ð AB 805

line 1 (1) Its member agencies and other agencies of local government line 2 within the jurisdiction of the consolidated agency. line 3 (2) State and federal agencies. line 4 (3) Educational institutions. line 5 (4) Research organizations, whether public or private. line 6 (5) Civic groups. line 7 (6) Private individuals. line 8 (7) Governmental jurisdictions located outside the region but line 9 contiguous to its boundaries. line 10 (g) The consolidated agency shall make the regional line 11 comprehensive plan, policies, and objectives available to all local line 12 agencies and facilitate consideration of the regional comprehensive line 13 plan in the development, implementation, and update of local line 14 general plans. The consolidated agency shall provide assistance line 15 and enhance the opportunities for local agencies to develop, line 16 implement, and update general plans in a manner that recognizes, line 17 at a minimum, land use, transportation compatibility, and a line 18 jobs-to-housing balance within the regional comprehensive plan. line 19 (h) The consolidated agency shall maintain the data, maps, and line 20 other information developed in the course of formulating the line 21 regional comprehensive plan in a form suitable to assure a line 22 consistent view of developmental trends and other relevant line 23 information for the availability of and use by other government line 24 agencies and private organizations. line 25 (i) The components of the regional comprehensive plan may line 26 include, but are not limited to, transportation, housing, water line 27 quality and supply, infrastructure, air quality, energy, solid waste, line 28 economy, and open space, including habitat. Performance standards line 29 and measurable criteria shall be established through a public line 30 process to ensure that the regional comprehensive plan is prepared line 31 consistent with these measures as well as in determining line 32 achievement of the regional comprehensive plan goals throughout line 33 its implementation. line 34 (j) Any water supply component or provision of the regional line 35 infrastructure strategy regarding water supply contained in the line 36 regional comprehensive plan shall be consistent with the urban line 37 water management plan and other adopted regional water facilities line 38 and supply plans of the San Diego County Water Authority.

97

39 AB 805 Ð 20 Ð line 1 SEC. 16. line 2 SEC. 17. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 3 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to line 4 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made line 5 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 6 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

O

97

40 Attachment 4

BOARD POLICY NO. 001

OPERATIONS POLICY

Board and Policy Advisory Committees Responsibilities

Shown below are responsibilities for the Board of Directors and each of the five Policy Advisory Committees (Executive, Transportation, Regional Planning, Borders, and Public Safety). Selected responsibilities are delegated by the Board to the Policy Advisory Committees to allow SANDAG to effectively address key public policy and funding responsibilities. All items delegated to the Policy Advisory Committees are subject to Board ratification.

All functions not specifically delegated by the Board to a Policy Advisory Committee may be delegated to a Policy Advisory Committee on a one-time basis upon request by the Executive Director and approval by the Chair. Such actions shall be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting.

A. Board Responsibilities

1. Approve the Regional Plan, which merges the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the Regional Transportation Plan, and the Sustainable Communities Strategy as well as plan components and other regional plans (e.g., Regional Energy Plan, MHCP, etc.).

2. Approve Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and corridor studies

3. Fulfill responsibilities of SB 1703 as consolidated agency

4. Fulfill the responsibilities of the San Diego Regional Transportation Commission (RTC)

5. Approve programming of funds (TDA, CMAQ, STIP, etc.)

6. Approve project environmental reports

7. Approve Overall Work Program and Program Budget

8. Approve amendments to the Program Budget and Overall Work Program and authorize contracts with consultants for amounts equal to or greater than the amounts to be determined for administrative and policy committee authorization.

9. Approve the annual legislative agenda

10. Provide policy direction through Policy Development Board meetings

11. Appoint Committees and Board officers

41 12. Delegate responsibilities to Policy Advisory Committees and ratify Committee actions. All items delegated to the five Policy Advisory Committees are subject to direct Board action upon request of any members.

13. Delegate responsibilities to Board Chair consistent with Board criteria. Conference sponsorships and proclamations are hereby delegated subject to current or subsequently approved criteria.

B. Executive Committee Membership and Responsibilities

The Executive Committee shall consist of six voting members with board members representing East County, North County Coastal, North County Inland, South County, and the representative, or the representative’s alternate in their absence, from the City of San Diego and the County. The Board Chair shall be one of the six voting members. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Board shall serve as voting members of the Executive Committee, unless both of these Board Officers are from the same subregion, in which case only the Chair shall serve as a voting member, the Vice Chair shall serve as an alternate, and the Chair shall select a non- overlapping primary member of the Executive Committee as its Vice Chair. Additionally, any Chair of any other Policy Advisory Committee who is not otherwise a member of the Executive Committee shall serve as an advisory, non-voting member of the Executive Committee.

1. Set agenda for Board. Any Board member requesting that an item be considered for inclusion on the agenda must present such request in writing to the Chairperson prior to the Executive Committee’s consideration of such agenda.

2. Review and recommend Overall Work Program and Program Budget

3. Approve amendments to the Program Budget and Overall Work Program and authorize contracts up to amount approved by the Board

4. Review and act on state and federal legislation

5. Comment on behalf of SANDAG or provide recommendations to the Board regarding comments on third party environmental documents

6. Act upon and evaluate dispute resolution

7. Advise on personnel actions

8. Act on behalf of Board when timing requires

9. Make policy recommendations to the Board

10. Perform other duties as assigned by the Board

11. Approve financial/contracting transactions, including selection of vendors, acceptance of funding, stipulations of any nature, and any resulting budget amendment up to $500,000, subject to increase by Board action.

42 12. Annually review a list of all the SANDAG lower-level committees and working groups to determine the need to maintain the committee or working group and approve any revisions in functions or membership.

13. Review all proposed amendments to the Bylaws or Board Policies and make recommendations to the Board regarding those amendments.

14. Conduct expedited reviews and approvals of Energy Working Group actions on an as- needed basis.

C. Transportation Committee Membership and Responsibilities

The Transportation Committee shall consist of nine voting members with board members or alternates representing East County, North County Coastal, North County Inland, South County and the mayor or a council member from the City of San Diego, a supervisor from the County of San Diego, a member of the Board of the MTS appointed by the Board of the MTS, a member of the Board of the NCTD appointed by the Board of the NCTD, and a member of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority appointed by the Airport Authority.

1. Provide oversight for consolidated transit responsibilities

2. Provide policy oversight for transportation plans and corridor and systems studies

3. Establish/approve transportation prioritization criteria, including for the Active Transportation Grant Program

4. Approve TDA and STA claim amendments and RTIP and STIP amendments

5. Recommend funding allocations to the Board

6. Approve transit operator budgets for funding

7. Approve Regional Short Range Transit Plan and Coordinated Human Service and Public Transportation Plan

8. Make recommendations regarding changes to Board Policy No. 018 (Transit Service Policy) and Board Policy No. 029 (Regional Fare Policy and Comprehensive Fare Ordinance)

9. Conduct public hearings as delegated by Board

10. Approve contracts for transit up to amount approved by the Board

11. Advise Board on other transportation policy-level issues

12. Recommend legislative program for transportation and transit

43 13. Approve financial/contracting transactions, including selection of vendors, acceptance of funding, stipulations of any nature, and any resulting budget amendment up to $500,000 for transportation items, subject to increase by Board action

14. Convene closed sessions and make final decisions with regard to real property transactions related to transportation projects; however, this delegation does not include the authority to make a Resolution of Necessity or to commence litigation

15. Conduct hearings and authorize additional public meetings when appropriate pursuant to Board Policy No. 025 to hear official testimony from the public regarding Comprehensive Fare Ordinance amendments

16. Approve amendments to the Comprehensive Fare Ordinance

17. Accept for distribution, hold public hearings regarding, and adopt/certify environmental documents where items can be approved through actions of the policy committee

18. Approve loans of TransNet funds when such loans are incorporated into an RTIP amendment requiring an exchange of TransNet funds for funds from another source

19. Provide oversight and approvals for Coordinated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) matters and appoint Transportation Committee representative to the CTSA board

20. Approve revisions to funding allocations for Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 funding

21. Approve the TransNet compliance audits consistent with Board Policy No. 031 (TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules)

22. Provide input on project selection criteria for, and recommend projects for funding under, the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Environmental Mitigation Program

23. Provide oversight for Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) responsibilities and related motorist aid programs

24. Provide coordinated oversight with the Regional Planning Committee for recommendations on the preparation and implementation of components of the Regional Plan

D. Regional Planning Committee Membership and Responsibilities

The Regional Planning Committee shall consist of six voting members with board members or alternates representing East County, North County Coastal, North County Inland, South County, and the mayor or a council member from the City of San Diego, and a supervisor from the County of San Diego.

1. Provide coordinated oversight with the Transportation Committee for recommendations on the preparation and implementation of components of the Regional Plan

44 2. Recommend regional infrastructure financing strategies to the Board

3. Represent the Board for outreach and public information on the Regional Plan and its components

4. Advise Board on regional planning policy issues

5. Approve distribution of funds from the California Coastal Commission Beach Sand Mitigation Fund

6. Recommend project selection criteria for, and recommend projects for funding under, the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Environmental Mitigation Program

E. Borders Committee Membership and Responsibilities

The Borders Committee shall consist of seven voting members with board members or alternates representing East County, North County Coastal, North County Inland, South County and the mayor or a council member from the City of San Diego, a supervisor from the County of San Diego, and a mayor, council member, or supervisor from the County of Imperial.

1. Provide oversight for planning activities that impact the borders

2. Provide oversight for the preparation of binational and interregional planning programs

3. Recommend border infrastructure financing strategies to the Board

4. Establish closer SANDAG working relations with surrounding counties and Mexico

5. Advise Board on binational and interregional policy-level issues

6. Review and comment on regionally significant projects in adjoining counties

F. Public Safety Committee Membership and Responsibilities

The membership, authority and responsibilities for this committee are set forth in Board Policy No. 026.

G. Distribution of Meeting Materials

1. All agendas for meetings of the Board of Directors, Policy Advisory Committees, and all other SANDAG legislative bodies covered by the Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) shall be posted on the SANDAG Web site and copies of such agendas will be available for viewing by the public in the SANDAG business office reception area.

2. All closed session items shall be provided to appropriate Board and/or Policy Advisory Committee members prior to the closed session. Closed session meeting materials will be sent by a secure method and clearly labeled as confidential. If a representative will not be able to attend a meeting he/she should ensure the closed session materials are

45 forwarded to the appropriate alternate to review prior to the meeting. All closed session meeting materials must be deleted or returned to the Office of General Counsel at the end of the closed session.

H. Work Assigned to Staff

Requests for staff to perform work on a project that is not specified in the Overall Work Program or Program Budget shall only be conducted following approval by the Board if the work is estimated to exceed four hours of staff time.

Adopted January 2003 Amended November 2004 Amended January 2006 Amended December 2006 Amended January 2010 Amended December 2012 Amended October 2013 Amended March 2014 Amended November 2014 Amended December 2015 Amended January 2017

46