AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS · joint meeting of the borders committee and the committee on binational regional opportunities friday, june 17, 2005 3 item # action +1. approval of meeting minutes

JOINT MEETING OF THE

BORDERS COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE ON

BINATIONAL REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Friday, June 17, 2005 12:30 to 2:30 p.m.

SANDAG Board Room 401 B Street, 7th Floor

San Diego

Members

Patricia McCoy, Chair Councilmember, Imperial Beach (Representing South County) Victor Carrillo, Vice Chair Supervisor, Imperial County (Representing Imperial County) David Allan Councilmember, La Mesa (Representing East County)

Greg Cox Supervisor, County of San Diego

Crystal Crawford Deputy Mayor, Del Mar (Representing North County Coastal)

Pia Harris-Ebert Vice Mayor, San Marcos (Representing North County Inland)

Ralph Inzunza Councilmember, City of San Diego

Alternates

Phil Monroe Councilmember, Coronado (Representing South County)

David Ouzan Councilmember, City of Calexico (Representing Imperial County)

Jill Greer Councilmember, Lemon Grove (Representing East County)

Pam Slater-Price Chairwoman, County of San Diego

Lesa Heebner Councilmember, Solana Beach (Representing North County Coastal)

Ed Gallo Mayor Pro Tem, Escondido (Representing North County Inland)

Brian Maienschein Councilmember, City of San Diego

Advisory Members

Thomas Buckley Councilmember, City of Lake Elsinore (Representing Riverside County) Debbie Cook Councilmember, City of Huntington Beach (Representing Orange County) Luis Cabrera C. Consul General, Consulate General of Mexico Howard Williams San Diego County Water Authority Pedro Orso-Delgado District 11 Director, Caltrans Robert Smith Chairman of the Board, Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association

Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG

AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

• ESTIMATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BORDER WAIT TIMES AT THE SAN DIEGO-BAJA CALIFORNIA BORDER REGION

PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING

YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE BORDERS COMMITTEE MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG

MISSION STATEMENT The Borders Committee provides oversight for planning activities that impact the borders of the

San Diego region (Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties and the Republic of Mexico). The

preparation and implementation of SANDAG’s Binational Planning and Interregional Planning

Programs are included under its purview. It advises the SANDAG Board of Directors on major

interregional planning policy-level matters.

San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231

(619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org

2

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Borders Committee and/or the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities 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 Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Borders Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda. This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under meetings on SANDAG’s Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon, two working days prior to the Borders Committee meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 1-800-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information.

JOINT MEETING OF THE BORDERS COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE ON

BINATIONAL REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Friday, June 17, 2005

3

ITEM # ACTION

+1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

a. COBRO. April 5, 2005

b. Borders Committee. April 15, 2005

c. Joint Tour of the Borders Committee and COBRO. May 20, 2005

*Each Committee will approve their own minutes separately.

APPROVE*

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Borders Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Speakers are limited to three minutes each and shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Committee members may also provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

REPORTS (3)

+3. ESTIMATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BORDER WAIT TIMES AT THE SAN DIEGO-BAJA CALIFORNIA BORDER REGION

+a) Background of the study. (Elisa Arias, SANDAG)

This report will provide an overview of the study that SANDAG, in partnership with Caltrans District 11, is conducting to estimate the impacts of border delays on the economy of the San Diego and Baja California binational region.

INFORMATION

+b) Results of the Economic Impact Model (Dr. Khalid Bekka, HLB Decision Economics)

Dr. Bekka will present the methodology followed to develop the economic impact model, summary results from surveys conducted at the three San Diego-Baja California ports of entry, as well as findings on the economic impacts.

c) Next Steps (Dr. Khalid Bekka, HLB Decision Economics/Elisa Arias, SANDAG)

This report will describe current activities to assess impacts of border delays on freight movement and trade on the economies of the United States and Mexico.

4

+4. NEXT MEETING DATE AND LOCATION

The next meeting of the Borders Committee will be held on Friday, July 22, 2005 at 12:30 p.m. in the SANDAG Board Room. Please note this is the new Committee meeting schedule. This and future meetings will be held on the fourth Friday of each month.

+ Next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

San Diego Association of Governments

COMMITTEE ON BINATIONAL REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1a

Action Requested: APPROVE

COMMITTEE ON BINATIONAL REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES File Number 3003200 (COBRO) SUMMARY OF APRIL 5, 2005

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Member Elsa Saxod, City of San Diego, called Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) meeting to order. The meeting was held at the City of Chula Vista Public Services Building. Members present were: Paul Ganster, San Diego State University; Elsa Saxod, City of San Diego; Javier Diaz and Lydia Antonio, Consulate General of Mexico in San Diego; Mark Baza, Caltrans; Carlos de Orduña, Maquiladora Industry Association; Miguel Tapia, City of Chula Vista; Silvia Flores, El Colegio de La Frontera Norte; Yolanda Walther-Meade, Fundación Internacional de la Communidad/International Community Foundation; Joaquin Luken, Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce; Kenn Morris, San Diego Dialogue; Angelika Villagrana and Viviana Ibañez, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce; Cindy Gomper-Graves and Doug Perkins, South County Economic Development Council; David Perez-Tejada, City of Mexicali; Dave Fege, U.S. EPA Border Liaison Office; Virgilio Muñoz, Tijuana Trabaja, Diego Ceballos, City of Tijuana; Bob Leiter, Hector Vanegas, Elisa Arias, and Jessica Cessieux from SANDAG.

2. MEETING SUMMARY OF MARCH 1, 2005 The meeting summary of March 1, 2005 was approved.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS Hector Vanegas, SANDAG, announced that Ron Saenz’ father, Phil Saenz had passed away this past week. Phil Saenz was at one time the director of the California Department of Mexico Affairs office, as well as a legal consultant to the Mexican Consulate and was well known in the Hispanic community as well as a good friend to many.

4. STAFF REPORT The update on the Border Energy Group was reviewed and approved by the Committee.

2

5. CROSS-BORDER PASSENGER TERMINAL OF TIJUANA’S INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN OTAY MESA (COUNCILMEMBER STEVE CASTAÑADA, CITY OF CHULA VISTA; DOUG PERKINS, PACIFIC GATEWAY)

A San Diego-Tijuana cross-border passenger terminal has been proposed for a location along the U.S.-Mexico border that would connect directly to the Tijuana International Airport terminal. This would allow U.S. passengers to use the Mexican terminal without having to drive across the Otay Mesa or San Ysidro border crossings to connect with Mexican or international destinations. The San Diego component would be a modern facility with all the amenities of any major international terminal. Located less than 30 yards from the U.S-Mexico border with ample space for expansion, the Tijuana International Airport could thereby serve to expand the region’s current passenger capacity. Passengers departing from the San Diego Cross-Border Terminal would check in on the U.S. side and then using an elevated moving sidewalk or a tunnel, move across the border to the departure lounge where their baggage would move though a conveyor system to the aircraft. Upon arrival, both passengers and baggage would move in a similar fashion directly to Immigration and Customs inspections. As a special purpose crossing, only ticketed passengers will be able to move freely between the departure and arrival lounges within each terminal, and for security reasons, all passengers wishing to leave the departure/arrival lounge area would be required to pass through the appropriate Immigration and Customs inspections. The terminal would be subject to new U.S. aviation security measures.

6. A PERSPECTIVE ON NATURAL GAS IN BAJA CALIFORNIA (VIRGILIO MUÑOZ, TIJUANA TRABAJA)

Mr. Virgilio Muñoz presented the results of a survey that was done in 2004 in Baja California to gauge public sentiment toward energy issues and specifically natural gas. Mr. Muñoz also presented findings from a workshop based on this survey directed towards media representatives from Baja California. The basic topics addressed in Mr. Muñoz presentation were:

Energy for development;

Sovereignty and the Constitution; the legal framework of natural gas;

The energy goals of Mexico; and

Energy and development, from the media perspective. The survey, which included 2,780 respondents, was performed in the five municipalities of Baja California. Some of the main conclusions were the following:

67.8 percent of those surveyed do not know the connection between natural gas and the generation of electricity and the use of water.

74.9 percent of those surveyed support and only 17.9 percent reject the possibility that the government promote natural gas plants.

5.9 percent of those surveyed consider that in actuality natural gas is the most important source of energy for industry.

3

The survey showed that the majority of Baja Californians see that having liquefied natural gas in the state as an advantage. The reasons are broken down as follows:

36.7 percent of those surveyed stated that the principal advantage was having access to cheaper natural gas.

19.9 percent of those surveyed saw this as an opportunity not have to import natural gas from the U.S.

18.8 percent of those surveyed considered the principal advantage was to have sufficient reserves without depending on the U.S., and

14.2 percent of those surveyed stated that the advantage was generating sufficient electricity at competitive prices.

Responding to open questions, the Baja Californians considered the following disadvantages:

The Possibility of accidents 29.0%

Environmental effect 17.4%

Don’t know 15.2%

There are no advantages 13.4%

Price increase 3.4%

Proximity to cities 3.3%

Do not want the project .3%

It would be a terrorist target .3%

Other disadvantages 8.1%

No respons 9.5% Carlos de Orduña, Maquiladora Industry Association, mentioned that 25 percent of natural gas in Mexico is imported, but 100 percent of natural gas in Baja California is imported from the U.S. because Baja California is not connected to the Mexican pipelines. Some companies, such as Toyota, are in Baja California because they rely on this energy resource. Mr. Muñoz mentioned that currently, Baja California is paying the highest price for natural gas in the Republic of Mexico since its supply comes from California. Viviana Ibañez, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, asked for a clarification of the legal framework in Mexico that allows exportation of surpluses to the U.S. Mr. Muñoz stated that Mexican laws are not more lax than in the U.S., but are more efficient in facilitating investment made in this sector to start producing faster and cheaper natural gas than in California. Public Comment: Lupita Jimenez, Green Party of Chula Vista, mentioned that investment in this sector in Baja California should comply with all Mexican environmental laws and applicable environmental laws in California. Chair Ganster concluded this item by inviting support for planning in our region that considers the positive and negative aspects of natural gas energy plants on both sides of the border.

4

7. ESTIMATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BORDER WAIT TIMES AT SAN DIEGO-BAJA CALIFORNIA BORDER REGION (ELISA ARIAS, SANDAG)

Elisa Arias, SANDAG, provided an update on the study “Estimating Economic Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border Region.” From November 10 to December 12, 2004 and January 18 to February 25, 2005, surveys were conducted at the San Ysidro-Puerta Mexico, Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay, and Tecate-Tecate Ports of Entry. Pedestrians and people crossing in private vehicles or buses were interviewed about their trip characteristics and spending. The findings from the study are as follows:

70 percent of those questioned reside in Mexico, and the rest live in the U.S.

The great majority of the cross-border trips, 91 percent, originate in Tijuana. 33.6 percent declared their destination as Chula Vista; 27.2 percent were going to San Ysidro; 20.8 percent were going to other areas in the City of San Diego; 5.6 percent said that they were going beyond San Diego County and the rest to different parts of the San Diego region.

63.2 percent of those residing in Mexico responded that their main reason for the trip is to make purchases; 17.1 percent cross to work; 12.4 percent cross to visit relatives; 2.6 percent attend school in the U.S.; 1.9 percent to vacation; and .9 percent cross to receive medical services.

55.7 percent of U.S. residents cross the border to visit family or friends; 12.7 percent cross into Baja California to go shopping; 9.1 percent cross for work; 8.9 percent cross for vacation or recreation; 8.5 percent cross for medical services; and 0.6 percent attend school in Mexico.

64.4 percent of those surveyed who live in Mexico stated that they cross the border up to ten times a month, while 75.6 percent of those living in the U.S. said that they also cross up to ten times a month.

16.9 percent of those surveyed who live in Mexico stated that they cross the border more than 20 times a month, while 10.9 percent of those surveyed in the U.S. said that they cross the border more than 20 times a month.

In regard to expected border wait times, 56.9 percent of those surveyed living in Mexico stated that they expected to cross in 45 minutes or less; 43 percent said that they expected to cross in more than 45 minutes.

In regard to expected border wait times, 50.4 percent of those surveyed living in the U.S. said that they expected to cross in 45 minutes or less; 49.6 percent said that they expected to cross in more than 45 minutes.

The average expected amount of cost per trip by those surveyed living in Mexico is $142.01 (American dollars). 41.6 percent of those surveyed said that they would spend $50.00 or less; 25.6 percent said that they would spend $50.00 to $100.00 dollars; and 10 percent said that they would spend more than $300.00 dollars.

If the wait times were very long for those crossing the border from Mexico, they would spend an average of $30.02 dollars in Mexico; an average of $85.51 would be spent later in the U.S., and approximately $19.88 would be saved.

5

Those living in the U.S. would spend an average of $144.32 (American dollars). 28.7 percent would spend up to $50.00 dollars; another 21.4 percent would spend between $50.00 and $100.00 dollars, and 12.7 percent would spend more than $300.00 dollars.

If the wait times were very long for those crossing the border from the U.S., they would spend an average of $60.06 dollars in the U.S.; an average of $44.70 would be spent later in Mexico, and approximately $28.55 would be saved.

In the case where the wait time is more than an hour of the estimated time, 49.4 percent of those crossing from Mexico stated that they would work the same number of regular daily hours, while 50.6 percent stated that they would have to work an hour less than their regular number of daily hours. On the other hand, 56.7 percent of those crossing from the U.S. stated that they would work the same number of regular daily hours, while 43.3 percent stated that they would have to work one hour less than the regular number of daily hours.

If the wait time was more than two hours of the estimated wait time, 14 percent of those surveyed living in Mexico stated that they would not continue working in the U.S., while 86 percent would continue crossing the border to work. 46.6 percent of those living in the U.S. stated that under the same wait time circumstance, they would not continue working in Mexico, and 53.4 percent stated that they would.

The survey also included a question regarding a possible toll facility to serve border-crossers. Respondents indicated that if a new border crossing were opened in Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay that was faster, 59.4 percent would be willing to pay a quota or toll, 14.2 percent would use it on occasion although they had to pay, and 26.5 percent would not be willing to pay to cross the border more quickly. SANDAG acquired additional funding from Caltrans to expand the study to estimate impacts of delays on freight movements and trade between the U.S. and Mexico. The expert panel will review preliminary results from the economic impact model in mid-May. The expert panel includes the Mexican Consulate, the Department of Homeland Security, five universities, three business groups, and Caltrans/SANDAG. Also in May, the panel will evaluate the literature review, data collection, secondary sources, and assumptions for the freight model. In June, the model results will be presented at a joint meeting with the Borders Committee and the COBRO. SANDAG has set up a project page on its Web site under Borders where technical reports can be found as they are developed for the study.

8. ADJOURNMENT, AND NEXT MEETING DATE AND LOCATION The Committee’s next meeting will be held on May 20, 2005 as a joint tour with the Borders Committee of the Otay Mesa area.


BORDERS COMMITTEE

May 18, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1bAction Requested: APPROVE

File Number: 3003200

BORDERS COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS Meeting of April 15, 2005

The regularly scheduled meeting of the San Diego Association of Governments Borders Committee was called to order at 12:32 p.m. by Vice Chair Victor Carrillo (Imperial County). The attendance sheet for the meeting is attached. Vice Chair Carrillo indicated that Chair McCoy was unable to attend the meeting today. He welcomed all visitors and thanked them for attending. Self introductions were made.

1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Vice Chair Carrillo summed up the Joint meeting between the SCAG Southwest Compact

Task Force and the SANDAG Borders Committee, which was held on Wednesday, February 24, 2005.

a. February 24, 2005

b. March 18, 2005 Action: Deputy Mayor Crawford (North County Coastal) made the motion and Vice Chair

Harris-Ebert (North County Inland) seconded the motion to approve the minutes from the February 24, 2005 and March 15, 2005 meetings. The motion passed unanimously.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/ COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS Cindy Gomppers-Graves, Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO), shared

preliminary findings of the Estimating Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San Diego – Baja California Border Region Study with the Committee. The report will be available for distribution at the June Borders Committee meeting.

Vice Chair Carrillo mentioned that the study revealed that the public is willing to pay a fee

to expedite their border crossing. Ms. Gompper-Graves stated that a $3.00 fee to cross the border was suggested on the survey and a number of people responded positively.

Deputy Mayor Crawford (North County Coastal) mentioned that this study is a long time

coming, and she is looking forward to hearing the details.

2

REPORTS

3. ORAL REPORT ON TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT IN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN CALIFORNIA (INFORMATION)

Vice Chair Carrillo introduced Mr. Joe Myers, Chair of the Caltrans Native American Advisory Committee and the Executive Director of the National Indian Justice Center (NIJC), who will be making a presentation to the Committee regarding tribal involvement in regional transportation planning in California. Mr. Myers is a member of the Pomo Indians of northern California. Mr. Myers thanked the Borders Committee for allowing him to attend today’s meeting. He provided the Committee with an overview of the history of California Indian nations as it relates to the current situation of their potential inclusion in regional transportation planning processes throughout the State. California Tribes have paid a tremendous price to be at the table today. Indeed, the process of California becoming a state meant the destruction of the tribal nations throughout the state, either by literal extermination, exploitation, or disenfranchisement. Current political debates regarding the gaming tribes must be placed in an historical context. In 2002 Senator John L. Burton requested that the California Research Bureau research whether the State of California enacted laws that significantly impacted the California Indians’ way of life. The findings confirmed that various state policies did so including among others, the state’s response to the federal treaties negotiated with California Indians between 1851 and 1852 and the militia policies and ‘expeditions against the Indians.’ Before the Gold Rush and the establishment of California as a State, there were approximately 300,000 Native Americans in what is today California. Not fifty years later there were only 15,000 Indians left. The first order of business for the initial California State Legislature in 1850 was to enact laws harmful to the Indians of this state. Appropriations were made to fund private militia to exterminate Indians. The militia groups eagerly carried out the acts of state-sanctioned genocide upon the Indians of California. Additionally, the same legislature enacted indenture laws that allowed white men to gain custody of Indian children for physical and sexual labor, a shameful utilization of the law. In 1851 and 1852 federal commissioners negotiated 18 treaties with various leaders of California Indian tribes that set aside for Indian purposes 7.5+ million acres of land in California. The state legislature at that time instructed the U.S. Senators from California to see that the treaties were not ratified by the Senate. Without Senate ratification the treaties were of no value to California Indians. The treaties were placed in the National Archives until the early 1900s – when they were released by court order. Based on an 1831 Supreme Court ruling for a case between the Cherokee Nation and the State of Georgia, “an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense of the constitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States." It was rendered under the constitution that Indian tribal governments could not be conceived as foreign nations, but have the right to govern themselves. The opinion characterized the tribes as "domestic dependent nations." creating a hybrid nation-state

3

status within the United States in which tribal nations have the right to govern themselves, are not considered a subdivision of any state or local government structure, but cannot make foreign policy as a sovereign nation. Because of this unique relationship, the federal-tribal trust relationship has been critical and contentious. In 1934, Congress enacted The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), a federal statute that encouraged federally-recognized tribes to adopt written constitutions, thereby formalizing their governments. Many California tribes adopted IRA constitutions. Unfortunately, these constitutions with boilerplate provisions and strict regulatory oversight by The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) have rendered enormous hardship upon the governing capacity of many California tribal governments. Oversimplified, there has been excessive intervention by the BIA into the operation of tribal governments. In the 1950s and 1960s the federal government launched an Indian policy aimed at destroying the sovereignty of Indian Tribes and the legal status of their members as federally-recognized Indians. It began with House Resolution 108, which called for "freeing" the Indians from federal superintendency and introducing them to the mainstream society of the United States. This congressional resolution set the federal Indian policy for the next 18 years (from 1953 – 1971), a policy of confusion and disillusionment for Indian people. In Indian affairs this time period was labeled the “Termination Era.” The destruction of tribal sovereignty and the abrogation of tribal treaty rights was the federal Indian policy of the 50s and 60s, and PL.280 was the first step in implementing the policy and its process. A key component of the Termination Policy was the escalation of the Indian Relocation Program. The Bureau of Indian affairs (BIA) initiated this program in the late 1940s; its purpose was to encourage reservation Indians to relocate to selected urban centers where the BIA would provide employment assistance or vocational training. In the early 60s there were BIA Relocation offices in eight major urban centers, three of which were in California: San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles. The Indian Relocation Program entailed tribal heads of household relinquishing their membership in federally-recognized tribes, including title to land, in exchange for participating in assimilation programs. Termination undermined on and off reservation health, education, and economic conditions; it also increased the decline of cultural practices both on and off the reservations. The Termination Policy was a failure in terms of its explicit goals of mainstreaming the Native American population, but a success in its implicit goal of destroying the Native Nations. During the Civil Rights Movement, the tables turned due to an act of revolution by a group of Native American college students who occupied Alcatraz in a symbolic gesture of Indian self-determination. Because of the extensive media coverage, the citizens of the world saw Indian country and its issues in a new light that shined some truth upon chronic conditions and problems faced by tribal communities in America. In 1975, Congress enacted the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, declaring legislatively that it would provide resources to improve the governing capacities of tribal governments and discontinue the dreaded policy of termination. The federal policy of "self-determination" for Indian tribes continues today and, it encourages state governments to engage in government-to-government relationships with tribes through federal consultation require-ments and in other ways.

4

The only agency in California with an explicit policy on tribal government-to-government relations is the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans has a Tribal Liaison division and is formally collaborating with tribes across the state on transportation planning issues. There needs to be more of an awareness of environmental justice issues in California. If tribes are going to be excluded from planning agencies, there is a violation of law by the planning agencies that receive federal government funds. The local jurisdictions need to comply with federal law. Mr. Myers commented that there is a constructive movement going on among the Councils of Governments and regional planning agencies in Southern California. Organizations such as SANDAG, SCAG, and WRCOG are beginning to reach out to the tribal governments. Tribes are willing and interested in working with the Councils of Governments, even though details need to be worked out. The tribal governments in Riverside, Imperial, and San Bernardino are currently working with SCAG to incorporate them into the long-range planning in SCAG. He also noted that the Indians need to have a seat at the table, even though there will be jurisdictional conflicts that will arise. Tribes have the ability to have their own law and order, police departments, and utilities. There are many details to be worked out, but current efforts seem to be moving in the right direction.

Discussion Vice Chair Carrillo thanked Mr. Myers for the historical background and state policy regarding California Indians. He mentioned that many complex social, political, and cultural issues have brought California Indians to where they are today. Public agencies have many nebulous goals and to resolve differences, people need to be brought to the table. The relationship between the Tribal Governments, regional agencies, and local governments need to be nurtured, developed and sustained. The Vice Chair welcomed Mr. Myers’ attendance and hoped for a more systematic representation of tribal representatives at future Borders Committee meetings. Mr. Myers commented that the strengthening of relationships will be contingent on many areas of consultation, which can be approached by doing what is right and meeting face to face. To many Indians consultation is synonymous with negotiation. Building relationships is critical. The recently-enacted State Bill SB18 requires local governments to now consult with California tribes. How this is implemented will be critical. Deputy Mayor Crawford thanked Mr. Myers for the information and summary of the history of Indian Policy in California and the struggle for self-determination. She noted that she has been pleased with the progress made on tribal issues on the Borders Committee, although it is not perfect. She commented on the 34 federally-recognized tribes out of the 109 tribes in California and asked how those that are not federally recognized are affected. Mr. Myers clarified that there are 109 federally-recognized tribes, and an additional 34 tribes are trying to receive federal recognition. Many tribes lost their land during termination and are finding it difficult to become recognized now that they have no land. Communities are being developed when there are enough people that need services provided.

5

Councilmember Monroe (South County) stated that he grew up in a part of the United States where tribes had lived and respects their way of life. He is looking forward to tribal participation on the Borders Committee. Howard Williams (San Diego County Water Authority) asked if Mr. Myers was an attorney. Mr. Myers replied that even though he has a law degree, he has only tried two cases professionally. He added that he runs a non-profit agency that assists Indians nationwide on the implementation of tribal courts. Mr. Williams asked for clarification regarding the issue of sovereignty in relation to Tribal participation in regional planning processes. Mr. Myers responded that Tribal leaders are suspicious of losing their sovereignty and of agencies that they haven’t dealt with in the past. This is an initial defense mechanism which needs to be worked out. Vice Chair Carrillo stated that there is a need to define mutual goals to work toward in order to interact and dialogue. Mr. Myers stated that Caltrans sponsors a statewide Native American Advisory Committee of which he is the current Chair. The purpose of this committee is to advise Caltrans on broad statewide common goals and concerns that the tribal governments have. He reiterated that the mutual suspicion between tribal governments and other agencies and organizations needs to stop in order to move forward. Chairman Currier (Rincon Nation of Luiseno Indians) noted that Mexico is an ex-officio member of SANDAG, and they don’t have to abide by the SANDAG rules. He stated that in many cases, managing a formal government with resources and the possibility of planning for their community is new to tribal leaders. As in the case of his nation, often tribal leaders having many responsibilities and do not have full complex government infrastructure with departments and many professionals; the tribal leaders are often both legislators and administrators with many competing priorities. Often it is the tribal chair and his or her council that run the government with a few staff members. He stated that lobbying efforts would be more effective if the tribes united to lobby Congress, and he would like to see how the tribes could be involved in regional lobbying also. Chairwoman Slater-Price requested that the County’s Tribal Government liaison explain the County’s experience in developing government-to-government relations with the tribal nations in the region. She noted that the County has come a long way in developing its relationship. She added that the County Board of Supervisors is interested in solving mutual problems. Kevin Siva (Chair, Reservation Transportation Authority) thanked Mr. Myers for the history. He felt that the Tribal Governments’ participating with the Borders Committee can serve as a focal point for developing a more systematic relationship. He mentioned that every tribe is sovereign and has a right to its own representation. However, working through consortiums may prove to be more effective in terms of policymaking and moving the dialogue forward.

6

Vice Chair Carrillo thanked Mr. Myers for his detailed presentation and welcomed him back anytime. Mr. Myers thanked the Committee for having him and is looking forward to collaboration in the future.

Deputy Mayor Crawford expressed hope that the Borders Committee will have the

opportunity to bring the Tribal Government issues into the planning process. She indicated that this is a starting place to achieve common goals and move forward.

Action: The Committee received this item for information.

4. ORAL REPORT ON COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO’S EXPERIENCE WITH TRIBAL RELATIONS (INFORMATION)

Chantal Saipe, Tribal Government liaison for the County of San Diego, noted that there are currently 18 reservations and 17 Tribal Governments in San Diego. She noted that San Diego County is unique in that it has the largest number of tribes, as well as the largest number of gaming compacts in the State. She provided the Committee with an overview of the County’s efforts over the past four years with its experience and relations with the Tribal Governments.

Prior to the gaming environment, there were three small casinos with minimal impacts on surrounding communities. There was no government-to-government relationship between the County and the tribal nations in the region. There was tremendous need on the Reservations in terms of economic development, social services, and infrastructure. The regional planning process had not envisioned growth on the Reservations. Between 1999 and 2004 fourteen Tribes in San Diego County signed gaming compacts. Eight are Class III casinos, including four destination resorts and one 30-slot arcade. Four Tribes are actively planning new casinos, including one Tribe planning its casino on another Tribe’s Reservation. The Tribe with the arcade is planning a casino and hotel complex. Two Tribes are planning to build casinos outside of the County. The condition of existing roads in the rural back country is insufficient to meet the demand for access to gaming facilities. Most of the roads leading to the gaming facilities are narrow, two-lane arterials with limited road capacity and grade and curvature constraints. The access roads were not built to current standards. The casinos do have extensive shuttle programs for customers. There is a greater volume and an increased number of nighttime drivers. The County and the Tribes have conducted various studies to establish the baseline information and determine impact issues. The County negotiates with Tribes for their contribution to impact fees on a project-by-project basis, just as the County deals with private projects. More studies are needed to document trip rates. Existing transportation models are for every day uses – not recreational trips. The County conducts road reviews to identify operational and interim improvements. It is developing a needs list and prioritizing improvements. The road improvement process is complex because the timing is out of sync as Tribal Nations can develop at their own pace and do not have to wait for road improvements; the road usage increases before the County can make the improvements.

7

She commented that the progress has been slow, but is moving in the right direction. The County has four Fair Share Agreements in place, one comprehensive agreement pending arbitration. Other agreements are expected with the 2004 compacts. The County is looking to find ways to develop solutions that will benefit everyone in the future.

Chairwoman Slater-Price noted that regarding the fire fighting issues, there needs to be a way to share resources. A lot of tribes are adjacent to brush and trees, and those issues need to be addressed.

Ms. Saipe stated that the Tribal Governments recognize the importance of the fire fighting

needs. Last year, approximately $4.1 million of the County’s budget was allocated to improve fire fighting capabilities. Each tribe that has gaming facilities and is building homes is interested in making sure that nothing burns down. She noted that the Rincon tribe will soon build its own fire station, but currently has a contract with San Pasqual to utilize their facilities.

Public Comment

Margaret Hangan, Heritage Resources Program Manager and Governmental Tribal Relations Liaison with the Cleveland National Forest, mentioned the recent passage of the Tribal Forest Protection Act which will enable tribal governments to engage in fire management in lands surround their reservations. She announced that the Cleveland National Forest is developing a program to work with tribes in its area of influence within this framework. The Tribal Forest Protection Act was passed through a strong partnership between federal agencies and tribal governments concerned with this issue. She mentioned that a meeting will be held at the Cleveland National Forest offices in Rancho Bernardo on May 10, 2005, to address the fire issues.

Chairwoman Slater-Price asked if all of the local Tribal Governments will be notified. Ms. Hangan noted that all of the Tribal Governments in Southern California will be invited, and invitations will be mailed out soon. Information regarding the meeting will be distributed to as many people as possible.

Mario Orso, Tribal Government Liaison for Caltrans, commented that Caltrans recently hosted a statewide conference regarding the Indian Rural Roads Program. He pointed out that there was a lot of Tribal Government participation.

John Currier (Chair, Rincon) commented that his tribe has been trying to build a fire station. Rincon feels that it would be more beneficial to the community in general to collaborate with non-tribal initiatives to build a fire station and join resources. They are considering building an elaborate fire station and are looking to partner with neighboring cities in order not to waste resources. They received a grant from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; however, when they selected a site, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service did not approve it, which put the project on hold. He added that the Rincon tribe would eventually like to have a helicopter pad installed to serve medical emergencies. He added that there should be a comprehensive conservation plan among all of the tribes in the region.

8

Reva Wassana, Tribal Liaison for the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA), commented that the gaming is not the only type of development with impacts on the County. Housing development and strip malls are also increasing. She noted that the Indian tribes have contributed significant funding to the region, but Ms. Saipe did not emphasize that in her presentation. The tribes in the region feel that the County was not concerned about their welfare until gaming began. She mentioned that she comes from a gaming tribe and that many of her people continue to live in poverty. Even though Indians in a gaming tribe who live on the reservation may receive an annual stipend, their tradition is to care for the elderly and children first, and everyone else comes second.

Vice Carrillo thanked Ms. Saipe for sharing the County’s experience with government and

government relations with the Tribal Governments in the San Diego region with the Borders Committee.

Action: The Committee received this item for information.

5. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION ON THE BORDERS COMMITTEE (RECOMMEND) Vice Chair Carrillo mentioned that this issue was raised at both the February and March

meetings of the Borders Committee. He noted that Councilmember Allan (East County), who has been serving as the liaison between the Borders Committee and the Tribal Governments, will present this issue.

Councilmember Allan (East County) commented that he felt that Tribal Governments in the

region deserve to be ex-officio members on the Borders Committee. The Borders Committee directed staff to analyze the issue and bring back a recommendation. The staff recommendation is to invite the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) as an intertribal council to become an ex-officio member of the Borders Committee to strengthen the Committee’s ability to increase communication and coordination with the tribal nations in the region.

MOTION

Councilmember Allan made the motion to approve the staff recommendation to invite the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) to the Borders Committee as an ex-officio member. Supervisor Cox (County of San Diego) seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION Councilmember Allan stated that we need to begin somewhere; this is a good start. The past should be left behind; this region needs to take care of its own. He added that staff has worked hard to facilitate this effort.

Supervisor Cox noted that this action is long overdue. Local government has dealt with the

State for many years regarding home rule and local control. He respected the fact that the

9

Tribal Governments will guard their sovereignty. He felt that this is an appropriate action for the Committee to take.

Deputy Mayor Crawford stated that the comments are heartfelt and appreciated by the

Committee. When the Borders Committee was originally formed in 2002, a relationship with the Tribal Governments was discussed, but the best way to deal with this issue was not determined. The Committee held the issue in abeyance because the current situation was not an issue at that time. The Tribal Governments needed to determine on their own how they would like to become a part of the SANDAG structure. It appears that the best that can be done at this point is to allow a representative of the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association to participate. She is pleased at the progress that is been made over the past few months and the level of interest shown by the Tribal Governments. She thanked Rose Davis, editor of the newsletter, Indian Voices, for writing about activities at SANDAG with regard to the Tribal Governments. She commented that she supports the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Gallo (North County Inland) indicated that it’s about time because we’re all

in this together. This Committee has many borders and needs to maintain great relationships with representatives from all of those bordering jurisdictions.

Chairwoman Slater-Price acknowledged the contributions of the Tribal Governments in the

San Diego region. They have contributed to schools, children’s issues, sporting events, and various other causes. She noted that the tribes are very generous, and that generosity is very much appreciated.

Action: Upon a motion made by Councilmember Allan and a second made by Supervisor

Cox, the Borders Committee voted to recommend to the SANDAG Board of Director that the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) be invited to participate in the Borders Committee as an ex-officio member. The vote passed unanimously.

Chairman Currier asked for clarification on the motion. He mentioned that the SCTCA and

the RTA are two separate consortiums. Chairman Kevin Siva (Chair, Reservation Transportation Authority) clarified that what had

been discussed was to have Robert Smith, Chairman of the SCTCA, sit as an ex-officio member on the Borders Committee. This recommendation would still need to go back to the SCTCA for approval.

Councilmember Allan added that the vote today will also need to be ratified by the

SANDAG Board of Directors. Vice Chair Carrillo read the staff recommendation, for clarification. Councilmember Allan mentioned that this just a start which he hoped could be expanded

upon. Chairman Currier noted that each tribal nation is sovereign. Rincon has nothing against the

SCTCA, but would prefer to come to SANDAG meetings representing its own voice.

10

Councilmember Buckley (Riverside County) mentioned that he sits on the Borders

Committee as an ex-officio member, and the only thing that cannot be done as an ex-officio member is vote. He added that being able to voice concerns for Riverside County and provide input to the Committee is worth the ex-officio status.

6. I-15 INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP – PHASE TWO UPDATE (INFORMATION)

The I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) is a voluntary partnership between SANDAG and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to work together to address the jobs-housing imbalance between the San Diego region and southwestern Riverside County. In July 2004, Caltrans awarded SANDAG a $240,000 grant for Phase Two of the I-15 IRP. At their joint meeting in October 2004, the I-15 IRP Policy Committee and Technical Working Group discussed the scope of work for Phase Two. A fund transfer agreement between SANDAG and Caltrans was signed in late February 2005 allowing work to begin on the project. Phase Two of the I-15 IRP will focus on implementation of economic development, transportation, and housing strategies that were identified in the first phase of the project. SANDAG is currently working with WRCOG to develop a memorandum of understanding that lays out the work program, timeline, and roles and responsibilities for completing the Phase Two work.

During Phase One, the I-15 IRP Policy Committee was responsible for reviewing policy

recommendations. Based on discussion with WRCOG and low attendance at the most recent I-15 IRP Policy Committee meetings, it was recommended that the I-15 IRP Policy Committee be discontinued. Since Phase Two focuses on implementing the strategies identified in Phase One, the need for continuing joint policy direction is not expected. In lieu of the joint policy committee structure, recommendations from Phase Two would be reported separately to the Borders Committee and WRCOG Executive Committee. Additionally, two technical working groups are recommended for Phase Two. One working group would focus on transportation and housing issue, and the other would focus on employment cluster and economic development strategies. Staff from SANDAG and WRCOG would work together to coordinate both technical working groups.

It is recommended that the I-15 IRP Policy Committee to be discontinued and that

recommendations from Phase Two of the I-15 IRP be reported separately to the Borders Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee, with joint discussion between officials of the two agencies being scheduled on at least an annual basis similar to SCAG and other MPOs.

MOTION Vice Mayor Harris-Ebert made the motion to approve the staff recommendation. Supervisor

Cox seconded the motion.

11

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION Deputy Mayor Crawford expressed concern regarding the way that this item has been

presented. During the I-15 IRP process, she learned that the relationships that were created between the group participants were the key to the success of what has been done so far. She understands that the quarterly meetings are no longer needed, however, she doesn’t want to send the wrong message. The Borders Committee shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that relationship building is important. She requested additional information from staff and wanted assurance that the Committee won’t lose the benefits of the relationships that have taken so long to create and build.

Mayor Pro Tem Gallo agreed that the group did accomplish a lot. He felt that for the group

to continue to meet is still a good idea. Staff commented that meetings will still occur on a regular basis but will be at the staff level since Phase Two focuses on implementing the policies identified in Phase One.

Vice Mayor Harris-Ebert stated that Phase One was successful; that’s why there’s a Phase

Two. She indicated that there will still be a need for the elected officials to meet with the group periodically.

Action: Upon a motion made by Vice Mayor Harris-Ebert and a second made by Supervisor

Cox, the Borders Committee voted to discontinue the I-15 IRP Policy Committee, receive recommendations from staff from Phase Two of the I-15 IRP, and have joint discussions with officials from the WRCOG at least on an annual basis. The vote passed unanimously.

7. NEXT MEETING DATE AND LOCATION

The next meeting of the Borders Committee will be a tour to the Otay Mesa area on Friday, May 20, 2005. Details on the logistics will be sent to the Committee in early May.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Vice Chair Carrillo asked when a report on the Estimating Economic Impacts of Border Wait

Times at the San Diego – Baja California Border Region Study would be given. Ms. Gomppers-Graves replied that a report will be given at the joint Borders Committee and COBRO meeting on June 17, 2005.

Vice Chair Carrillo thanked the Tribal Government representatives, staff and all others for

attending today’s meeting.

8. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Carrillo adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m.

Attachment 1

2Revised: 11/18/2004 10:07 AM 12

CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE BORDERS COMMITTEE MEETING

April 15, 2005 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

ATTENDING

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

JURISDICTION

NAME

MEMBER/

ALTERNATE

Yes No

City of Imperial Beach Patricia McCoy (Chair) Member South County

City of Coronado Phil Monroe Alternate

County of Imperial Victor Carrillo (Vice Chair) Member Imperial County

City of Calexico David Ouzan Alternate

City of Del Mar Crystal Crawford Member North County Coastal

City of Solana Beach Lesa Heebner Alternate

City of San Marcos Pia Harris-Ebert Member North County Inland

City of Escondido Ed Gallo Alternate

City of La Mesa David Allan Member East County

City of Lemon Grove Jill Greer Alternate

---- Ralph Inzunza Member City of San Diego

---- Brian Maienschein Alternate

---- Greg Cox Member County of San Diego

---- Pam Slater-Price Alternate

ADVISORY/LIAISON

MEMBERS

----- Dr. Paul Ganster Member COBRO

----- Cindy Gomppers-Graves Alternate

County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Thomas Buckley Member

Consul General of Mexico Luis Cabrera Cuaron Member

Deputy Consul Javier Diaz

Republic of Mexico

Deputy Consul Lydia Antonio

----- Pedro Orso-Delgado Member Caltrans

----- Bill Figge Alternate

San Diego County Water

Authority

----- Howard Williams Member

County of Orange ----- Vacant Member


JOINT MEETING OF THE BORDERS COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE ON BINATIONAL REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

June 17, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1cAction Requested: APPROVE

File Number: 3003200

BORDERS COMMITTEE/ COMMITTEE ON BINATIONAL REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

JOINT TOUR TO OTAY MESA Meeting of May 20, 2005

A tour to Otay Mesa was held in lieu of the regularly scheduled meeting of the San Diego Associa-tion of Governments Borders Committee and the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO).

Introductions The tour began at 12:00 p.m. when the bus departed from the SANDAG offices. The attendance sheet for those that attended the tour is attached. Chair McCoy thanked and welcomed all for attending today’s tour, which is incidentally the first joint meeting between the Borders Committee and COBRO. She mentioned that the group will be visiting the area of Otay Mesa to view vital infrastructure and future planned development. Chair McCoy noted that tour highlights will include: a tour of the Otay Mesa Port of Entry’s Commercial Inspection Facility; an update on the state of Otay Mesa’s transportation infrastructure; a visit to the California Highway Patrol Inspection Facility; and a briefing on future plans and environmental issues for the portion of Otay Mesa located in the County of San Diego. She noted that additional tour participants would be picked up prior to touring the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

Onboard Briefing of Otay Mesa – Mesa de Otay Planning Activities and the 2005 Binational Workshops Dr. Paul Ganster, Chair of the COBRO, welcomed all to the Borders Committee and COBRO’s joint tour to Otay Mesa. He stated that the purpose of today’s visit to the Otay Mesa area is to get a first hand look at the various planning activities occurring. He provided the group with a brief overview of Otay Mesa. He noted that the 2005 SANDAG binational conference will be held in the form of two binational workshops in the fall. The workshops will focus on the planning issues in the Otay Mesa/Mesa de Otay area. In addition, a subregional corridor study of the Otay Mesa area will be developed and will focus on the priority planning issues for this area. The four topics of the study will be transportation, housing, economic development, and environmental conservation. The study area will encompass the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa community planning area, the County of San Diego’s East Otay Mesa community planning area, the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista that abuts Otay Mesa, and the area of Mesa de Otay in the City of Tijuana. Dr. Ganster concluded by thanking the group for joining the tour.

2

Onboard Briefing of Otay Mesa Transportation Projects Pedro Orso-Delgado provided the group with an update of transportation projects in the Otay Mesa area. Following are highlights of the projects that were discussed.

SR 905 – At the beginning of FY 2006, the environmental documents will be complete, and the project will be ready to go to bid. Caltrans is currently purchasing the right-of-way.

SR 125 Toll Road – This public/private venture is a $600 million project, which is scheduled to be completed in December 2006. Once finished, the toll road will connect Otay Mesa to SR 52.

SR 11 – Caltrans is working on preparing the environmental documents for this project. There needs to be a determination whether project is feasible. This road will connect to the proposed future border crossing Otay Mesa East.

Southbound Truck Route-La Media Road – This road is being used as a truck export route and during rush hour, is backed up to Otay Mesa Road, which is a safety hazard. Caltrans is working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to help expand their export facility to nine lanes. Currently, the U.S. and Mexico are working to better coordinate their border cross check facilities.

Visit to the Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE) – Commercial Border Crossing Facility and the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) Lanes Rosa Hernandez, Assistant Deputy Director of the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, provided the group with guided tours of the Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE), the Commercial Border Crossing Facility, and the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) lanes. Ms. Hernandez stated that the POE handles $49 million in duties per year and approximately $9 billion worth of merchandise that comes into the U.S. annually. Additional information regarding the tour is listed below. Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE)

Open 7 days per week

3,000 trucks per day cross into the U.S. Commercial Border Crossing Facility

Opened for business in 1994 with 1,600 trucks crossing the border per day

10% increase in growth per year

Currently, 3,000 trucks cross the border northbound per day Free and Secure Trade (FAST) Lanes

There are approximately 26 companies and 1,400 drivers that are enrolled in the FAST program. Once enrolled in the program, the company receives FAST stickers to place in the windows of all their trucks, and the drivers receive a FAST card.

3

The FAST program is free to the participating companies, but the company has to meet certain criteria, including filling out security documents, abiding by the program rules, and passing facility inspections.

There is a $50 fee for drivers to participate in the FAST program and receive the FAST card. In order to receive the card, the driver must pass a background check and complete all necessary entry documents. The FAST card is good for five years.

Visit to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Truck Inspection Facility

The CHP Inspection Facility was built in December 1995 and is open 7 days per week. There are 2,800 to 3,000 trucks that come through the facility each day.

The facility sits on 22 acres, houses 20 officers, 22 inspectors, 4 sergeants, and 1 commander. There are other agencies that are housed at the agency, including the USF&WS, U.S Food & Drug, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Customs, and California Department of Motor Vehicles.

The Customs portion of the CHP Truck Inspection Facility has been operating since 1994 and is open 7 days per week.

All trucks that come through the inspection facility are required to have a full inspection every 90 days. However, a truck can be flagged to be inspected, even if the truck is within its 90-day time frame. A flagged truck inspection can take 20-25 minutes.

All trucks that come through the inspection facility each day are weighed and visually inspected. Trucks that are not recognized are inspected on a random basis; usually 1 out of every 50 trucks is inspected. All agricultural trucks are inspected, and the contents are off-loaded. An off-load inspection takes approximately one hour.

Trucks are x-rayed on a random basis. Some trucks are sent through the x-ray machine, while other trucks are sent through a gamma scanner. The gamma scanner is a track system, which runs along both side of the truck.

40 to 50 trucks per day are flagged for an inspection. Of that amount, 10 to15 discrepancies are identified. The officers are typically looking for 16 commercial vehicle problems, including problems with the steering system, brakes, and vehicle safety. Other things that officers are looking for are weapons, narcotics (drugs), and smuggling of undocumented immigrants

Visit to East Otay Mesa and the Future Site of SR 11 Supervisor Greg Cox discussed San Diego County’s East Otay Mesa Specific Plan, which is comprised of two sub areas. The Sub Area One land use plan consists of conservation/limited use, heavy industrial, light industrial, and technology business park. The Sub Area Two of the plan has not been completed. He emphasized the importance of maintaining industrially-zoned property. The north-south boundaries of land uses adjacent to SR-11 are intended to conform to the final alignment of the future of SR-11.

4

Onboard Presentation on Land Use Changes Proposed in the Otay Mesa Community Plan Maxx Stalheim, City of San Diego, made a presentation on the Otay Mesa Community Plan. Most of the development is occurring north of SR 905. An important goal for the area is to diversify employment opportunities and to improve Otay Mesa’s overall image. The area will always need a location for heavy industrial development. It is important to balance this with housing develop-ment, as Otay Mesa is one of the last areas with undeveloped land in San Diego.

Visit to Proposed Site for a Cross-Border Air Passenger Terminal and Southbound Truck Route This part of the tour was cancelled in order to return on time to SANDAG.

Tour Conclusion Chair McCoy thanked all the participants of the tour and mentioned that the Borders Committee will follow up on these issues at future meetings. After the conclusion of the tour, participants were bused back to the SANDAG offices.

Attachment 1

5



June 17, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3aAction Requested: INFORMATION

ESTIMATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BORDER WAIT TIMES AT THE File Number 3003400 SAN DIEGO-BAJA CALIFORNIA BORDER REGION: BACKGROUND

Introduction SANDAG, in partnership with Caltrans District 11, has been conducting a study to estimate the impact of border delays on the economy of the San Diego and northern Baja California border region. The study will assess economic impacts due to border waits on crossborder tourist, shopping, and work trips, as well as on freight movements and trade between the United States and Mexico. Discussion With the assistance of a consultant team, SANDAG has developed an economic model to assess the magnitude of regional economic impacts resulting from delays at the San Ysidro-Puerta México, Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay, and Tecate-Tecate ports of entry (POEs). This model will serve as an analysis tool that can be used recurrently to understand economic impacts for different levels of wait times as the volume of travel increases and/or as a result of security screenings. The border economic impact model currently provides estimates related to personal crossborder travel and is being expanded to assess impacts to goods movements.

An ad hoc working group of experts has been involved throughout this study. The expert panel has representation from local universities, the business community, and government agencies.

Surveys conducted at the three POEs provided key inputs to the economic model. Between November 2004 and February 2005, pedestrians and people traveling in personal vehicles and buses were interviewed as they crossed from Mexico to the United States. More than 3,600 surveys were conducted on weekdays and weekends during holiday and non-holiday periods. Crossborder travelers were asked about the characteristics of their trip, including origins and destinations, expected wait time at the border, sensitivity to longer delays, as well as expenditures at their destination. Those crossing the border to work also were asked about lost work hours due to delays.

Findings of the economic impacts of border delays on crossborder tourist, shopping, and work trips are presented in Agenda Item #3b.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

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



1

June 17, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3bAction Requested: INFORMATION

ESTIMATING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BORDER WAIT TIMES File Number 3003400 AT THE SAN DIEGO-BAJA CALIFORNIA BORDER REGION: RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL

Introduction SANDAG, with the assistance of HLB Decision Economics, has developed an economic impact model to assess the impacts of delays at the San Diego region-Baja California ports of entry (POEs) on crossborder personal trips for tourist, shopping, and work purposes. This model takes a crossborder approach to evaluating economic impacts on the binational regional economies. This report presents a synopsis of the study’s Executive Summary (Attachment 1).

Discussion Growth in crossborder travel and trade, coupled with enhanced security screening, has resulted in increased congestion and delays at the San Ysidro-Puerta México, Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay, and Tecate-Tecate POEs. More than 60 million trips are made across these three POEs annually.

Survey results show that more than half of those trips are for shopping or recreation. Nearly ten million trips or about 15 percent are for work purposes. Over 90 percent of the crossborder trips are local as they begin or end in the San Diego region or the Tijuana/Tecate region.

Crossborder travel generates significant revenues to the retail, hotel and lodging, and recreation sectors on both sides of the border. However, increasing congestion and delays may constrain the growth of crossborder personal trips and result in output and employment losses, relative to a situation where steps would be taken to alleviate these delays.

Economic Impact of Delay on the San Diego Region At today’s level of delay at the border (about 45 minutes daily average as reported by survey respondents), the San Diego region loses more than eight million trips per year that may result in $1.28 billion in additional revenues (direct impact), after adjusting for revenue gains due to U.S. trips not made to Mexico. The retail sector is by far the most affected. In addition, more than three million potential working hours are spent in waits at the border, which may result in $42 million in lost income. Table 1 (on page 2) provides findings related to the estimated economic impacts by sector for the San Diego region.

After accounting for the indirect and induced impacts of the estimated revenue losses, the total impact is more significant. On an annual basis, it exceeds $2.2 billion in production losses (about 1.2 percent of San Diego County’s total product) and more than 31,000 lost jobs (about 1.7 percent

2

of the county’s labor force). Most of these jobs are in the retail sector (about 13 percent of the labor force in the county’s retail sector jobs).

Table 1. Overall Annual Economic Impact Due to Delay at the Border for San Diego County

Impact Category From Reduced Spending in . . . Direct

Impact Indirect Impact

Induced Impact

Total Impact

Retail -1,186 -379 -534 -2,099 Recreation & Entertainment -7 -2 -4 -14 Food & Lodging -86 -25 -35 -147

Output (millions of U.S. dollars)

Total -1,280 -406 -573 -2,259

Retail -579 -154 -192 -925 Recreation & Entertainment -4 -1 -1 -6 Food & Lodging -40 -8 -13 -61

Labor Income (millions of U.S. dollars)

Total -623 -163 -206 -992

Retail -21,229 -3,084 -4,744 -29,056 Recreation & Entertainment -164 -27 -31 -221 Food & Lodging -1,754 -130 -294 -2,177

Employment (FTE1 jobs)

Total -23,146 -3,240 -5,068 -31,454

Note: Annual estimates based on 2003 volumes and survey findings. Taking into account uncertainty surrounding the estimating assumptions, the risk analysis shows with an 80 percent confidence interval, that the loss in output for San Diego County is between $2 billion and $2.5 billion, and the job loss is between 28,000 and 35,000 jobs.

Economic Impact of Delay on Baja California While the economic impact on the Mexican side of the border is smaller in magnitude, it is still significant. At today’s level of delay, Baja California loses about two million trips annually that may result in about $120 million in additional revenues (direct impact) after adjusting for revenue gains due to local forgone trips to the United States. The Retail and Food & Lodging sectors account for more than 95 percent of the impacts. In addition, more than half a million potential working hours are spent in delays at the border, which may result in over $10 million in income loss.

Again, when taking into account indirect and induced impacts, the estimated revenue losses are more significant. On an annual basis, they represent approximately $170 million in production losses (about two percent of the total regional output) and more than 1,300 jobs lost, primarily in the food and lodging sectors. Table 2 (on page 3) shows the estimated impacts by sector for Baja California.

With an 80 percent confidence interval, after accounting for uncertainty surrounding the estimating assumptions, the loss in output for Baja California is between $100 million and $230 million, while the job loss is between 800 and 1,900 jobs.

1 Full-time equivalent

3

Table 2. Overall Annual Economic Impact Due to Delay at the Border for Baja California

Impact Category From Reduced Spending in . . . Total

Impact

Retail -15 Recreation & Entertainment -35 Food & Lodging -119


Total -169



Total -27

Retail -117 Recreation & Entertainment -161 Food & Lodging -1,089

Employment (FTE jobs)

Total -1,367

Note: Annual estimates based on 2003 volumes and survey findings.

Combined Economic Impact at the Binational Regional Level Table 3 summarizes the estimated economic impact at the regional level for both sides of the border. The analysis reveals that delays at the border contribute to a loss in output that exceeds $2.4 billion and a loss in employment of more than 32,000 jobs.

Table 3. Overall Annual Economic Impact Due to Delays for the San Diego/Baja California Border Region

Impact Category

From Reduced Spending in . . . Total Impact

Retail -2,114 Recreation & Entertainment -48 Food & Lodging -266


Total -2,428



Total -1,019

Retail -29,173 Recreation & Entertainment -383 Food & Lodging -3,266

Employment (FTE jobs)

Total -32,822

Note: Annual estimates based on 2003 volumes and survey findings.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

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

HLB DECISION ECONOMICS, INC. Executive Summary ••••

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mounting congestion at the San Diego County and Baja California border crossings stems from growing traffic and trade and enhanced security screening. Increased congestion is causing more border delay for pedestrians, autos, and trucks than at any time in California and Mexican history. This study was commissioned in order to understand the economic significance of the problem. The study measures the economic impact of two broad categories of travel and traffic:

1) Cross-border personal trips for work, vacation, shopping or recreation purposes; and

2) Cross-border freight movements.

This summary provides results of the first category of impact while the results of the second category of impact will be provided in a subsequent document.

To provide a comprehensive assessment of the regional economic impact of increasing delay on cross-border personal trips for work, vacation, shopping or recreation purposes, this study relies on the following:

1. A four-month survey of border crossers at the three border crossings of San Diego (San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate) resulting in a sample of 3,603 interviews;

2. A methodology that ensures impact incrementality by accounting for both the forgone spending by potential visitors who forgo their trips (losses) and the additional spending by locals as they spend locally rather than on the other side of the border (gains);

3. A probabilistic expression of all assumptions to account for uncertainty;

4. Estimation of the direct, indirect, and induced impacts using multipliers for both sides of the borders1, and

5. Continuous involvement of a panel of experts and stakeholders to provide transparency and credibility to the process.

1 For San Diego County and the State of California, IMPLAN Input Output Model was used. For Baja California and Mexico, multipliers developed by COLEF were used.

Attachment 1

4


2

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DELAY ON SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA ECONOMY

Over sixty million trips cross the San Diego County/Baja California borders annually in both directions. Over half of these trips are shopping or recreational trips. Another ten million are trips made for work purposes. Over ninety percent of these trips are local trips as they originate or finish in San Diego County or Tijuana/Tecate region. These cross-border movements generate significant revenues to the retail, hotel and lodging, and recreation sectors on both sides of the border. Increasing congestion and delays, however, may constrain the growth of cross-border personal trip-making and result in output and employment losses, relative to a situation where steps would be taken to alleviate these delays.

At today’s level of delay at the border (about 45 minutes daily average based on the survey respondents), San Diego County loses over 8 million trips a year that may result into $1.28 billion in additional revenues, after adjusting for the revenue gains due the local forgone trips to Mexico. The retail sector is affected the most as it represents over 90% of the impacted sectors. In addition, over 3 million potential working hours in San Diego County are spent in delays at the border, averaging about 45 minutes per work trip, which may result into $42 million in wages lost. The overall impact at the State level, given that 5% of the trips are headed outside the San Diego region, is over $1.32 billion in addition to the $44.3 million in income loss for work trips. Summary Table 1 provides the findings related to forgone trips and revenue losses due the delay at the border2.

SUMMARY TABLE 1: ANNUAL FOREGONE REVENUES FROM REDUCED PERSONAL

TRIP-MAKING, SUMMARY OF DIRECT IMPACT

Mean Expected Outcomes. Annual estimates based on 2003 volumes and survey findings.

Revenue losses estimates are in millions of US dollars.

2 The estimates can be considered as conservative for two main reasons: (1) Travel time cost is included for work trips only and therefore any travel time cost for shopping and recreation trips is excluded; and (2) The sensitivity used to estimate forgone trips is based on the survey respondents who tend to be less sensitive to delay than people who already have forgone their trips in the past years.

5


3

When accounting for the Indirect and Induced Impact3 of the estimated revenue losses, the impact is more significant as it exceeds $2.2 billion in production losses (which is about 1.2% of the County total product) together with over 31,000 jobs lost (which is about 1.7% of the San Diego County Labor Force), mainly in the retail sector (which represents about 13% of the labor force in the County retail sector jobs). Similarly, at the state-level the loss exceeds $2.4 billion in output (which is about 0.1% of the state overall product) and over 31,000 jobs lost (which is 0.2% of the State labor force). Summary Table 2 provides a breakdown of the estimated impact by sector and impact category. When accounting for uncertainty surrounding the estimating assumptions, the risk analysis reveals that with an 80% confidence interval, the loss in output for San Diego County is between $2 billion and $2.5 billion, and the jobs loss is between 28,000 and 35,000 jobs. Summary Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2 provide an overview of the analysis findings.

SUMMARY TABLE 2: OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT DUE TO THE DELAY AT THE

BORDER FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Note: Full Time Equivalent (FTE)

3 Direct Effects: Direct effects are the result of direct spending. The distinguishing feature of a direct effect is that it is an immediate consequence of the activities and expenditures. Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are the result of purchases by local firms who are the direct suppliers to the region. Output, employment, income, and tax revenue resulting from spending by supplier firms (but not households) are considered to be indirect effects. Induced Effects: Induced effects are changes in regional business output, employment, income, and tax revenue that are the result of personal (household) spending for goods and services – including employees directly tied to the supplier firms (direct effect), and employees of all other firms comprising the indirect effect. As with business purchasing, personal consumption creates additional economic output, leading to still more employment, income and tax flows.

6


4

FIGURE 1: RISK ANALYSIS OF THE OUTPUT IMPACT IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY

FIGURE 2: RISK ANALYSIS OF THE EMPLOYMENT IMPACT IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DELAY IMPACT ON BAJA CALIFORNIA AND

MEXICO

While the impact felt on the Mexican side of the border is smaller in magnitude, it is still significant. Baja California loses about 2 million trips a year that may result in about $120 million in additional revenues, after adjusting for the revenue gains due the local forgone trips. Retail along with Food and Lodging Sectors represent over 95% of the impacted sectors. In addition, over half a million of potential working hours in Mexico were spent in delays at the border, which may result in over $10 million in productivity loss. The overall impact at the national level is similar to the regional level as most of the trips are regional. Summary Table 3 provides the findings related to forgone trips and revenue losses due the delay at the border for Baja California and Mexico.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-39,000 -37,000 -35,000 -33,000 -31,000 -29,000 -27,000 -25,000

Total Employment Losses in San Diego County

Probability of Exceeding

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-$2,900 -$2,700 -$2,500 -$2,300 -$2,100 -$1,900 -$1,700 -$1,500

Total Output Losses in San Diego County,

millions of U.S. dollars


7


5

SUMMARY TABLE 3: ANNUAL FOREGONE REVENUES FROM REDUCED PERSONAL

TRIP-MAKING, SUMMARY OF DIRECT IMPACT

Similarly to the impact in the U.S. side, when accounting for the indirect and induced impact the estimated revenue losses are more significant as they lead to $170 million in production losses (about 2% of the total regional output) and over 1,300 jobs lost, mainly in the food and lodging sector. Summary Table 4 provides a breakdown of the estimated impact by sector and impact category. The impact at the national level is very similar as most of the impact is concentrated in Baja California region.

When accounting for uncertainty surrounding the estimating assumptions, the analysis reveals that with an 80% confidence interval, the loss in output for Baja California is between $100 million and $230 million, and the jobs loss is between 800 and 1,900 jobs. Figures 3 and 4 provide an overview of the analysis findings.

SUMMARY TABLE 4: OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT DUE TO THE DELAY AT THE

BORDER FOR BAJA CALIFORNIA AND MEXICO

BAJA CALIFORNIA

8


6

MEXICO

FIGURE 3: RISK ANALYSIS OF THE OUTPUT IMPACT IN BAJA CALIFORNIA

FIGURE 4: RISK ANALYSIS OF THE EMPLOYMENT IMPACT IN BAJA CALIFORNIA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-$300 -$250 -$200 -$150 -$100 -$50 $0

Total Output Losses in Baja California,

millions of U.S. dollars


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

-2,500 -2,000 -1,500 -1,000 -500 0

Total Employment Losses in Baja California


9


7

COMBINED ECONOMIC IMPACT AT THE REGIONAL AND THE

NATIONAL/STATE LEVELS

When assessing the impact at the regional level for both sides of the border, the analysis reveals that delay contributes to a loss in output and employment that exceeds $2.4 billion and 32,000 jobs, respectively. The impact at the national/State level mainly reflects the regional impact as most of the cross borders trips tend to be regional4.

SUMMARY TABLE 5: REGIONAL IMPACT DUE TO DELAYS AT THE SAN DIEGO

COUNTY / BAJ A CALIFORNIA BORDERS

SUMMARY TABLE 6: NATIONAL IMPACT DUE TO DELAYS AT THE SAN DIEGO

COUNTY / BAJ A CALIFORNIA BORDERS

4 The employment impact at the national/ state level tends to be slightly lower than the regional level as some regional lost jobs are offset by some gains at the national/state level.

10


8

BORDER IMPORTANCE TO THE REGIONAL ECONOMIES

To assess the potential impact if the delay continues to persist in the years to come, Summary Table 7 summarizes a simulation finding that assume a 3% annual growth in border crossings and a conservative 5% growth in delay. The table shows that if the delay continues to grow, even at a conservative rate, the economic impact will more than double by 2015, leading to $3 billion in revenue loss and more than 74,000 job loss.

SUMMARY TABLE 7: EXPECTED REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT IF DELAY PERSIST

AT THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY / BAJ A CALIFORNIA BORDERS

Assumptions:

• 3 percent annual growth in border crossings

• 5 percent annual growth in border wait-times

• Use of 2001 economic multipliers throughout

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In summary, the analysis stresses the following:

� Border delays and reduced trip making (for shopping and recreation purposes) create significant economic losses in San Diego County and Baja California:

– Over 30,000 jobs (1.7% of total employment) and $2.3 billion of output (1.2% of total output) are lost in San Diego County. Most losses occur in the retail sector.

– In Baja California, nearly 1,500 jobs (0.1%) and $0.2 billion of output are lost (1.1%). Most losses occur in the food and lodging sector.

� Economic impacts outside the San Diego County – Baja California region are negligible.

� The impaired movement of workers reduces spending and productivity on both sides of the border.

� Longer delays than currently experienced (between 45 and 60 minutes on average) might generate significantly larger losses.

11

Documents

AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS · joint meeting of the borders committee and the committee on binational regional opportunities friday, june 17, 2005 3 item # action +1. approval of meeting minutes