I'd help if I turned on Rebecca until she gets here. I just messaged her traffic. She didn't reply back. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Can you please take your seat?
The July 24th Board of Directors meeting is called to order. First, I'd like to ask our interpreters to explain how to access interpretation. Please go ahead.
Good morning. To use interpretation feature, please go to the bottom of the Zoom screen where the meeting controls are. Click on interpretation icon and select English as your language. If your journey through the Zoom mobile app, cell phone, tablet, etc.
Please press ellipsis, then interpretation, and then choose your language. Finally, click on mute original audio to not hear the original Spanish low in the background. Headsets are available for interpretation. If you're in the meeting room, please check out a headset from the receptionist in the lobby
Buenos dias, parceer uso el servicio interpretacion, favor des plasarse a la parte inferior de la pantalla de Sum donde parcelos contoles. Aga clique en el micro interpretacion, globoteracchio y selecciones Spanish. Si esta utilizando laplicacion mobil de Sum.
Contamos con articulas dispanibles para servicio de interpretacion.
Si se encuenta las a de reunion, fabo de podoriculares colar zacionista en el estibulo. Gracias, thank you.
Thank you. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the land that we call home. The tribal nations of the San Diego region have historically faced injustices. We acknowledge the harmony that existed between the land, nature, and its original peoples who have since endured displacement, persecution, and systemic oppression. We pay our respect to the unceded territory and homelands of the 18 tribal nations in our region, the most in any county in the United States
From four cultural groups, the Kumeya Degeno, the Luceno, the Cupeno, and the Cahuya. This land has nourished, healed, protected, and embraced them for many generations in a relationship of balance and harmony. As members of the Sandy community, we acknowledge this legacy. We aspire to learn from Indigenous traditional knowledge
and experiences in undoing the injustices of the past. Now, please stand and join me in the flag salute.
Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Michael, can you please confirm quorum? We have a quorum, Chair. All right, so let's now move on to non-agenda public comments for items 2.1 and 2.2. Michael, how many do we have?
Currently, Chair, we have two in person, and if you're online, please raise your hand now. For the purposes of civility and orderly meeting, we kindly ask that you refrain from using loud, threatening, profane, or abusive language. Poor board policy, the amount of time allowed for each verbal public comment is determined based on the number of agenda items, the complexity of those items
and the number of persons anticipated to offer comment. This allows us to hear from as many people as possible and to complete our business while we still have a quorum based on those factors, the chair has determined that today's for today's meeting, each member of the public will be allowed 2 min for their comments. So 1st up is truth, followed by allegedly Audra, and we have one comment online.
All right, who needs that annoying Comic-Con when I'm actually a mayor certified real crime fighter.
There were a lot of lowlights for the bad guys this week, me exposing Tara drunk on power loss and Reamer was just the beginning
We also have progressives that lie and are fake environmental advocates, including clown David Alvarez, and of course Poudre woman Manny Puploma. I'm sure you guys are well, I've heard she's full of bleep pretending to suddenly care about the USMCA that has massively benefited
Their corrupt ally Mexico. While back in December, Alvarez even held a state meeting in Chula Vista bragging about free trade fascism. Carolina was there to celebrate. Well, many of you has admitted in this room that she doesn't care if Mexico ever cleans up their own sewage. Nope
All they want is more taxes to funnel to the NGO fraudster allies like Sierra Club and Wild Coast.
We've been living with this crisis for 20, 40 years. It's really changed this thus far. We can continue waiting for Mexico for solutions. We'll be here in 2 or 3 generations continuing to wait.
So funny. You know, if we can't rely on Mexico, that's exactly why we must use border shutdowns as bargaining leverage to force compliance.
And Carolina, she whined about the 2020 temporary border shutdown revenue impacts to poor Chula Vista. Well, IB has been losing over $500,000 a year in revenue and has brand new empty buildings
Because of Mexico sewage, just, this just proves how out of touch you are with American citizens.
At the Transportation Committee, Vivian, as the MPS rep, acted like she had no idea how or when the fare hike got on the agenda. I guess she's already checked out.
At the Public Safety Committee, Kevin even skipped over the Pledge of Allegiance, real American. And the biggest lowlight from the worst lowlife
Tax the rich and fund transit. We can tax the wealthiest corporations and fund transit. That's a choice that we can make. We can also not be communist. That's another choice. And I hope the doubled security is to tackle one of you guys.
Next is allegedly Audra, followed by Paul Hanken online.
How is it that sound system gets worse every time we come in here? It's pretty ridiculous with how much money we spend to just be in this building. You guys should work on that. The Zoom comes in really clear, and everybody else sounds like crap
And yes, the security is very interesting. I'm not sure, did you get double the amount of guards for your money? Is that what's going on your less qualified, more of them to intimidate? Because it's like
There's not very many people here from the public. I'm not really sure what you guys are trying to do. Anyway, I think we need to be very concerned about the flock cameras and all of the surveillance that is coming down the pike. The people that are at the top of that should be concerning to you guys
I think people are kind of, you know, putting this on like it's an illegal immigrant type of, we need to protect them, when it should be all of us, because the people at the top of that company through the Founders Fund is Peter Thiel and Epstein. And Epstein isn't dead. His operation still continues, if you're wondering why the files have been redacted and there's nobody being held accountable, is because it's used for blackmail
And that's continuing, but they also do satanic ritual abuse on children, which should be concerning to all of you, especially when they are the owners of flock and Palantir and things that are going to be used very nefariously because the children that go into the Epstein files, much of them come from foster care, the children that the county loves to take from families
And adopt them out and so you guys have children, and the surveillance that goes on within entities that you take your children to, say like a jump around, you sign off for that
Those children in there or your child to be videoed and have that video be live streamed to other countries, and if you wonder why they do that, there's a lot of pedophilia going around, so you guys should be very concerned. Our last public comment is Paul Hanken online
Go ahead.
Hey, Audra, I heard you fine. San Diego is falling behind in its progress toward achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions. I don't think it was realistic without tackling the big corporate sources
Our group business running passion and so on
Net zero emissions means all the carbon emitted would have to be recaptured, either through trees and photosynthesis or through carbon capture technologies that don't exist yet. You lawmakers and lobbyists
Should have had all the tech down pat before setting an unreachable goal
Sandec's report measures emissions from on-road transportation, electricity generation, natural gas use, water supply, wastewater treatment, construction equipment, and organic waste in landfills
Transportation makes up 57% of emissions, natural gas and buildings, 21%. And the electricity makes up only 18%.
Clearly, people in gas-powered cars are not the only problem. Emissions worth 6% higher than they should have been if the city were on track to reach its climate goals
When poor goes there has been
effectively negated by an increase in driving, VMTs have increased by 10% since the pandemic year alone in 202
More people means more jobs, more commutes to work, schools, shopping, and so on
An alternative is bike lanes, but they didn't climate report shows a dramatic drop in the city's work on bike lanes
The number of new improved bike lane miles peaked in 2021.
Thank you, your time has expired.
That concludes our non-agenda public comment, Chair. Thank you. Any member non-agenda comments? I see none. So before I turn it over to Mario for his update and then our special guest today, I'd like to remind everyone that we do not have any board meetings in August. So I hope everyone has an opportunity to relax
and recharge and enjoy a really restful break. So, Mario, your update, please. Thank you.
The Attorney General's guidance on SB 580 was released earlier this month. SB 580 addresses how the state and local agencies who share information with federal immigration and enforcement agencies. Sandac, ARGES, and our legal teams are reviewing the guidance to determine how our operations
Our future data sharing MOU and customer involvement will be affected.
We will be having a presentation this coming fall. If my memory serves me right, in the month of September to bring an update on this to you and potential decisions there.
Earlier this week, the Lausan Jpa had a meeting, and I attended that meeting, and there were several important items that were discussed. But I think one that's very important to highlight
Councilmember Epson may also want to chime on that was the extension of the operating agreement to Octa. Octa acts as the operating agency of the authority, similar to Argis. Argis is built through its JPA
That's under Sandac, but they're somewhat independent. Also same with the Lausan authority. They're working under the Octa management agreement. It was voted to extend it for 3 years, not 5 years, and the board of the Los An author
We'll be developing some guidelines and discussions of how other authorities can express the interest and compete to being the managing authorities in the future. So that was an important discussion that occurred
Also earlier this month, Sandac Newark County Transit co-hosted about 20 staff members from Congressman Levin's team, both from DC and their local office. They visited. The visit included a train ride
In a briefing on multiple laws and projects between Oceanside and downtown.
Also, as an update, Monday, a track living camp Pendleton hit the bridge supporting the trail, the train tracks on the Las Pugas Road
We have a project, San Onofre Las Pugos Phase 2 on that site. Our contractor was able to stabilize the bridge and we partner in North County Transit proceeded with an emergency job. At the beginning
Only passenger trains were being allowed. Freight was being halted. I think now freight is moving through. Yeah, after the repairs. So I just wanted to provide that update and the chairwoman already mentioned our August recess
That concludes my report. Very good. So that explains why that large, long freight train was just sitting on the tracks for, was it days or just a day?
Fewer than 24 hours. Okay, yeah. All right. Now I'm glad to have an explanation of that. Thank you. Well, now I'd like to welcome California Transportation Commission Chair Clarissa Falcone. We're so lucky to have a local chair of this statewide agency
The California Transportation Commission is responsible for programming and allocating billions of dollars in state and federal transportation funding, helping to advance critical investments in highways, transit, active transportation, freight and passenger rail throughout California
The Commission plays a key role in implementing the state's transportation priorities and partnering with regional agencies like Sandag to deliver projects that improve mobility, safety, and quality of life. Please join me in welcoming Chair Falcone as she shares a few updates from the Commission.
Clarissa.
Well, thank you and good morning. Thank you, Chair Huebner, and thank you to the Sandag Board for giving me a little bit of time today to provide an update and to say hello to our leadership and staff at Sandag and our regional leaders for the opportunity to share what we do at the Ctc on your behalf and for the
On behalf of all of California.
You know, there is something really meaningful delivering a California transportation Commission update in your home region. I just want to express what an honor it is to be on the commission representing the San Diego and Imperial counties
At the commission. The San Diego region has shaped my public service life and my understanding of how important mobility is for our economy. And the people that use our system every day.
And that is a lens that I always put on when making decisions about funding our transportation system. So I don't take this time lightly, and I'm so delighted to report back to this community the work that we do for the commission.
I want to cover three things. I want to touch on the recent commission investments in this region. The current funding environment and our upcoming meeting here in August in San Diego.
This past June meeting marked the end of our fiscal year, which resulted in $2.5 billion in investments just for that month alone. And in total, $13.7 billion allocated through the 2526 fiscal year
Before I highlight some of the recent investments, I'd like to just make one broad observation, as we have been allocating funding throughout
these past cycles, these past years that I've been on the Commission, and this is going to be marking my sixth year in September serving all of you.
The competition
for state and federal transportation funding has never been greater. Demand continues to outpace available resources. And many worthy projects simply just cannot be funded. And trust me, we would love to fund them all.
In that environment, success isn't determined by a single application. It's built over years through thoughtful planning, strong regional partnerships, sound project development, meaningful community engagement, and a demonstrated commitment in investing locally
And that's where I think our region stands out.
Sandag has built a culture of regional collaboration that brings together cities, transit operators, tribal governments, Caltrans, and community partners around shared priorities. And that level of coordination isn't just good planning
It really strengthens the region's ability to compete successfully for transportation investments.
I want this board to know that the Commission recognizes that work and values those partnerships, and appreciates the leadership it takes to sustain them. And I know it's not easy. This work is not easy.
One of the California Transportation Commission's core responsibility is to allocate state and federal transportation funding to projects that improve safety, mobility, economic vitality and quality of life for Californians.
The best way to understand the Commission's priorities is to look at the investments themselves. Across the state, we're investing in projects that strengthen mobility, improve safety, support our economy, and prepare our transportation system for the future.
And in the San Diego region alone, for example, and this is just a small little sampling in the North County, we've invested $214 million to replace the San Diego Rail Bridge in Del Mar
In the East County, we're funding safety improvements on the Sr. 67 I 8 and major operational improvements along Sr. 94 and the Sr. 125 corridors in the South County. We're investing more than 255 million dollars in the Otay Mesa East port of entry, and that's a project that I have been working on myself for over 20 something years
And then across the region, we're continuing to invest in projects like the Bayshore Bikeway. The I-805 managed lanes, neighborhood revitalization through local partnership programs and other programs that we support at the commission and the 30th Street Pedestrian overcrossing
Investments that improve mobility, whether Californians travel by rail, transit, bicycle.
foot and yes, car.
And these are just samplings of the projects that we are working to realize from Del Mar to Otay Mesa, San Diego, from East County to the urban core. They reflect a transportation system that is serving the region's needs by harnessing state investment
And I'd like to spend a moment because this is very active right now, a couple of our funding programs, and we have many funding programs in the state that we at the CTC program and allocate.
But I want to spend just a little bit of time on active transportation because we are right now on cycle eight
Applications for Cycle 8 closed on June 22nd, and the response was extraordinary. The Commission received 317 applications requesting just over $3 billion
in funding for a program with only $600 million available to invest.
That's roughly $5 for demand for every $1 that we have available to invest. And the reality is that the program simply will not be able to fund every deserving project. Not because applications lack merit, but because available resources fall well short of the statewide demand.
Interestingly, I view this as an encouraging sign that tells us communities across California are embracing active transportation and prioritizing safer streets, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
And stronger first and last mile connections, particularly to transit.
And that really excites the Commission, because it shows that there is real priority to investing for this type of infrastructure.
Teams of evaluators are currently reviewing applications, and that the process will include in mid-August. Just a quick timeline, statewide and small urban and rural funding recommendations will come before the Commission in November for adoption this November
And then at our December meeting for final vote of approval.
The Metropolitan Planning Organization component, which includes Sandag, Sandag's regional program will follow at our June 2027 commission meeting.
And because we'll be meeting here in San Diego next month on August 20th and 21st, one item of particular interest is that the Commission will consider adoption of Sandag's regional active transportation program guidelines.
Also, another important funding program that you always see on the freeway, right? Funded by SB1. So also coming before our commission in August are the final guidelines for our SB1 Cycle 5 competitive programs. The solutions for congested corridors program, which has helped with funding the I-805 Managed Lanes project
As well as the bad to ketos
Badakito's rail project. The local partnership program and the trade corridor enhancement program, which has helped fund the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry.
Collectively, these programs represent some of California's most significant investments in improving mobility, strengthening our economy, and advancing regional transportation priorities. They help fund projects that reduce congestion through multimodal corridor strategies
Improve local transportation systems where communities have demonstrated a commitment to investing locally and strengthen the movement of goods and services through our trade corridors.
For this cycle, the Commission has also updated the guidelines to reflect the evolving nature of transportation planning, including enhancements related to alternative project delivery methods, and that's an important thing that the Commission has been particularly
intentional about is how we deliver projects. Land use efficiency and pro-housing strategies. A community engagement and equity and workforce development.
So while these sound like technical updates, they are intended to help ensure California continues investing in projects that deliver long-term value and respond to the needs of our communities.
So following the adoption of the guidelines in August, this August, call for projects will immediately follow and applications will be due this coming November. These represent significant funding opportunities for the San Diego region.
And we welcome Sandag and its member agencies to begin those conversations early with CTC staff. And our staff at CTC, I have to say, are always accessible and receptive to providing guidance when developing project application.
Now, it doesn't guarantee approval of the application, but certainly the technical expertise and guidance is always welcomed by the CTC staff.
As for our next hearing, as I mentioned, it will be here in San Diego in your house here at Sandag on August 20th and 21st. And I personally invite all of you to join us at the hearings if your schedules allow. We would love to have you, especially since you'll be lending us your home here at Sandac.
In closing, while the Commission allocates funding, it's the regional agencies in partnership with Caltrans and its transportation agency partners that deliver the outcomes. As chair, my commitment is to ensure our decisions are fair, transparent, and grounded in good stewardship.
Of the public trust. So it's really important to us. And I truly am honored to serve in this capacity for the state by representing our region, and I'm getting a little bit sensitive and emotional by saying that. Thank you for your partnership, and I hope you will join me in welcoming
My fellow commissioners, as well as many people across the state that will be here. I always love showing off our region to folks all over California, and they love coming to San Diego, as they should. And with that, thank you for allowing me a little bit of time to share with you what we're doing and commission. It truly is
an honor to work with Sandag and all of your jurisdictions. Thank you for the work that you all do. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Falcone. Board, any comments or questions?
Council Member Gasterland.
Clarissa, thank you, Commissioner, thank you so much for coming and talking to us about your activities. And thank you especially for the funding that the California Transportation Commission has allocated toward the Del Mar Bridge replacement.
I wanted to make sure that it's clear that this is the Highway 101 bridge, which is going to be taken out completely and replaced with an entirely new bridge that is much more resilient to sea level rise and storms and will improve the flow of the San Diego River and lagoon
Through that area, state, federal, county, and city funds, this is a $100 million project that's about to start in early 2027. And this is in addition to the Trestle Bridge.
Absolutely, and thank you so much for all your work. I know that this has been an exercise in perseverance with this project and lots of conversations, and certainly the work has helped leverage that state funding and we really understand
Because of the need for climate resiliency and ensuring that rail corridor continues to operate, which is so important for the community, not just for our community, but for the State. So appreciate. I know that that Miss Gasterly that it has been a particular labor of love for you and appreciate you
Thank you very much. Yeah, it's going to be a tough few years with all these replacement projects happening, but it's really important. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilmember Edson for NCTD. Yes, thank you. Thank you.
Chair's fine. I know I I think of you as Clarissa. So, you know, getting official is is interesting. Really appreciate the funds that you have
or the Commission has directed towards Nctd's projects in San Diego County.
And thank you. And I have to say, a couple years ago when we did the tour along the NCTT corridors, it made quite an impression with the CTC commissioners and staff we loved
taking advantage of the rail and seeing the system through those lenses, and then we got to walk through the San Leho pathways, and it was quite impressionable, and so
Appreciate your comments and the partnership within Ctd. Thank you. Thank you again.
Thank you so much. I see nobody else on the board. Oh, excuse me, Vice Mayor Molina. Thank you very much, Chair Huebner. I did press my button, but maybe I pressed it twice and fell off the list. Thank you very much, Chair Falcone. I really appreciate your remarks, especially the fact that you highlighted the entire region. I appreciate your notes on the
Work that is on the South Bay, on the south side of the county. And your very clear point about the funding situation or the the financial sense, you know, in the state of California, the fact that there is a demand of $5 per $1 available for this one specific grant program
Is that different or more highlighted this year? The need is greater than in years past. And I'm curious because of effects from the federal administration. Has that highlighted the need more in California recently
And then also, I just want to offer my gratitude for your representation, your leadership is certainly an inspiration to me and many others, and I just want to make sure to make that a point. Thank you. Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, and I have to say, National City has done quite well with active transportation. You know, every time I see our and you know that our items on our agenda is at least 100
items for for each of those hearings. And so I do kind of comb through those and make sure that our region is is represented, and that we're getting, you know funding opportunities coming here. And the question is, you know, is very timely and certainly, you know what's happening in the Federal Government
You know, sort of the disinvestment in some of these other modes of transportation, we're feeling it. I have to say, because the active transportation has become more and more adopted throughout the state
We're seeing more applications. And certainly the need and the availability of the need does not, you know, is not met with the availability of funds, and it's one of those things that we are lamenting all the time on the commission is like, we just need more funding for this because
You know, people are continually wanting to try to get to A to B in a different way. And when we hear about traffic collisions with pedestrians, especially school children, and I know there's been some
Incidents of that as of late, especially in San Diego, it, you know, it breaks our heart and we want to invest in help invest in those that kind of infrastructure that keeps people safe
And also allows folks to walk and to bike. So yeah, I think, you know, in terms of where we would like to, you know, more investment, we have to
Inevitably, we have to keep our current system in good repair. That is the crux of what we do. We have to ensure that our highways are safe, that they continue to serve the traveling public through our highways
But we can also be investing in other modes of transportation, which we have been, and there's been more demand for that, because that's what what communities are demanding. And so the the healthy amount of applications that we're getting from
for active transportation tells us that that there is a desire for more of that kind of infrastructure investing.
And thank you for the question.
Thank you, Chair Falcone. Yours is a very challenging job, but from what I hear in your words, a very rewarding one for yourself as well and for our region and the state. So thank you for what you do. Thank you for being here, and we'll see you next month. Thank you so much, and thank you again, everyone. Thank you.
All right, let's move on to our consent agenda. Michael, do we have public comments on consent?
We do chair if you're online, please raise your hand now if you want to speak on any of the consent agenda items. We have 2 in person, but we will now go on to public comment for consent agenda. So please limit your comments to items on the consent agenda only. Please state the consent agenda item you are speaking to
If comments are not related to the consent agenda, you will be asked to stay on topic. If you do not stay on topic, you will be muted. So first is truth, followed by allegedly Audra. Please state the consent agenda item you're speaking to.
I was a bunch of BS word salad. Item 3.1, the minute should specify how many disgraceful board members relate to the July 10th meeting. You each get paid $100 and a taxpayer funded meal to show up.
But Carolina was on time today, so the Accountability Club at the last council meeting seems to have worked. That was me
I have their point too, MTS and NCD's fare hike is in consent because it's already a done deal. It doesn't matter if there's no guarantee or evidence that there will actually be the revenue increase as claimed, since nobody actually requires paid fares. It doesn't matter if MTS is trying to bypass an actual fare hike in favor of benefiting the welfare fraudsters who already don't pay
To the financial detriment of the working people who will not have to pay 40% more.
Item 3.3, if the sole source contract with circuit is being extended by 5 months at an alleged cost of $0, does that mean they're getting paid with money still left in the grant, or that they're working for free? Or that Senate somehow messed up the grant timeline and is now fraudulently trying to extend it without anyone noticing.
When are we going to get an update on the forever delayed border to Bayshore $90 million money pit?
506 million tax dollars have been wasted on VMT mitigation. I would have rather seen some of the states crumbling bridges fixed. You know that talk we just heard? I only heard about one bridge.
Ida 3.4, not a dime, should be going to the San Ysidro Transit Center. Let corrupt MTS figure it out, just like the bus stopover project. Quit letting them shirk responsibility for their own workers and riders.
Either 0.5, no two is 696 million being wasted on slime green paint. At the last meeting, Joe even admitted that Senate is blowing millions of our tax dollars, not on fixing roads, but on creating complete communist streets to de-incentivize car travel.
Item 3.6, 1 million of our tax dollars went to building a park, which is not a transportation project, and that is over one year late. And that benefited corrupt union puppet, Mortaza Baksamusa, and the Building Construction Trades Council.
Article 3.3, if decreased spending is in red, then put the increased spending in green. And item 3.9, no program details, no funding.
Next is allegedly Audra, followed by Paul Hanken online.
Please state the consent agenda items you're speaking to
Paul the Bold, I don't know what you're doing there. Yeah, 3.1. It's interesting. I'm wondering if I can bring my gun in so we can level the playing field here.
Brianna, what are you guys protecting? Who knows? And who's the threat? Us? Interesting. Yes. And you guys can't see the forest through the trees because ice is your least of concerns when CIA Mossad agents are getting our data and it's going to be used very nefariously because it already has been with other people
So you guys need to really pay attention, especially when you're like, we care about children, do you? I don't think so. Yes, and so for the port item port of entry that was passed the last time, it was illegally passed, and Mario blatantly
violated the law by going ahead and letting that happen. And it was interesting to watch it, because he was like, we have to pass this, but you guys added the Tijuana River Valley illegally without having noticed it properly. And
Then in the next meeting, which was the audit committee, he blatantly was like, listen, we cannot add this to the item without having it been noticed. So it won't be able to be passed if we do that. Well, that's weird because you did it with the port at the meeting before
And so that shows that there is some kind of conflict of interest here going on, and I'm wondering why he wanted to push it so much because if that is such an important thing, then you should make sure that you're not acting illegally, especially when you blatantly do it, and then in the next meeting act
It's illegal to do at that time, but not prior. So you guys need to course correct, because I continue to catch you in violating the law with your meetings
And you're going to, that port item, now you guys are fucked, because it's going to be extended because of this, because it's not… I'm not going to let this pass. You guys need to course correct, this is ridiculous
That says Paul Hanken online, followed by phone number ending in 1672.
Okay, well, another TJ River Rich well
Approval of the minutes. Gladio approved another action plan for the TJ River crisis. Hope it doesn't cost mega bucks and result in more studies, but nothing actually done.
not care why we don't get handheld pollution detectors to zero in on the source
Which may be as small as a forgotten crack in the wall. Or it may be the US soil polluted by World War II or other chemicals or legal dumping from the US. I hear too much that that's a Mexican problem
It takes too long to search the video for an individual item. Maybe you can put the time a particular item as discussed on the video into the minutes. Save a bit of time if we need to scan the video.
Or what the speakers are wearing, so we can ID them faster. But most of us can read a brief or pithy description a lot faster
RTEP
The RTEP needs to focus on improving transportation for the county, not for the state, not for the winter dogs warped claws. And you heard Clarissa 5 bucks requested for every one buck available
Political posing maybe
Looking at the RTEP funding by type, it's disturbing that state funding has increased from 24% in prior years to 33%.
When the state has a huge structural deficit basically broke, but it's good that the Fed funding decreases from 31% to 23%.
And it's medically insane that, as the staff summary says
Sandag analyzed the project and RTEP to evaluate their equitable distribution and disadvantage
Thank you, your time has expired. Next is phone number ending in 1672, followed by Aria Grossman.
Okay, Gonzalo here. So yeah, regarding this consent calendar, I just like to take the time to remind you all that every single item on it
In no way, shape, or form beneficial to the residents of San Diego County
And that continues to mislead and deceive the people of Southern California and our county while packaging these policies as progress. These so-called net zero goals are not just unrealistic, they're the driving force behind many of the policies being imposed
honor communities
And in our state, do you not see it? Here's what a simple Google search says about net zero. Net zero means drastically reducing human-caused greenhouse gases emissions as close to zero as possible
With any remaining emissions removed from the atmosphere, the scientific consequence, consensus, backed by the United Nations, calls for global emissions to reach net zero by 2050, to limit warming by 1.5
Celsius degrees. I mean
So this isn't some conspiracy theory. It's their stated goal. It aligns with the United Nations agenda and the longstanding sustainability agenda that has increasingly influenced transportation, housing, and land use
All these energy policies at every level of government. So wakey Wakey, we are the carbon they're trying to reduce folks. Every restriction on how we travel, where we live, what we drive, and how our communities are developed is justified in the name of reducing
carbon emissions. So you have a duty to be transparent with the public about the policies you're implementing and where they originate. The people deserve honesty. And you keep carefully trying to craft these points
to disguise them
Thank you. Your time has expired.
Our last public comment is Aria Grossman. Please state the consent agenda item you're speaking to.
Good morning. My name is Aria Grossman. I'm the policy manager at Circuit Planning and Policy. I'm speaking on item 3.2, approval of the Transportation Committee's actions. I urge you to ratify the Transportation Committee's vote to raise transit fares, making it more expensive to ride the bus or trolley is nobody's first choice
Unfortunately, our transit systems are facing a deficit that we must remedy if we want to keep the service network and frequency that we currently rely on. In the near term, raising fares is the only way to avoid reducing transit service, a trade-off that transit riders time and time again
support over the alternative. That's why this vote is so important. As we look towards longer-term solutions to address the structural deficit, we have to look beyond raising fares. Sales tax measures, seeking state operations funding, and refreshing employer plus programs and advertising programs are all solutions
To drive significant revenue in a sustainable and equitable way. These solutions, together with fair increases that we're considering today, will help us maintain service today and expand it in the future. Thank you.
That concludes our public comment on consent, Chair. Thanks, Michael. There are three board members who'd like to speak on consent. The first up is Mayor Jones.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Chair. Just a couple of comments. The first one, well, and then a question also. The first one is obviously we don't want to increase the fares, but I think it's necessary with all of the things that are happening and the deficits as even one of the speakers mentioned
You know, I think we need to also continue to look at
Other options and how we're going to move forward. I mean, technology is changing so much, and I know with the Sprinter, we have some large investments that need to be done. I think we need to also figure out how to best do those. And then also on 3.7 on the RTIP, I wanted to make sure on number
On the rapid transit projects on the 78, 67 and the 52, making sure that there are no conversion of lanes that are currently there today. Those aren't including something like that, are they? Could you repeat the number of the routes on the 78th, the 67, and the 52. We're not talking about any general purpose lanes being converted, are we?
I don't think so, I think it's more the HOVs, but Antoinette, do you want? No, we're not talking about any general purpose lines being converted. Right now, the 52 kind of managed lane study environmental analysis is going on the 78 we're adding
the managed planes correct and on the 67 there's no plans to do a conversion right? Okay, perfect. I just wanted to verify that. And then I'm glad to see that we're spending some money in the rural areas, and with our tribal lands, because I know they really need those
Investments. So anyway, that's it. Thanks. Thank you, Supervisor Geary.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a quick question on item 3.4 regarding the contracts. Are we going to receive updates on when there's a task order change or amendment or expenditure
And also how the distribution of requests for proposals is being made. I know that
In the 2022-20… and also in the 2023 audit, there were some increases that, were found, and I just would like to know a little bit more information on that.
Yeah.
The uncles are coming to expirations, the ones that we have right now, and, you know, Kelly, chime in and more details, but big picture is we're changing a little bit the way that we're gonna treat uncles
Before, there was a big bench of many companies that was set up
And first they were just selected randomly. Then many years ago or some years ago, the auditor at that time, the prior OIPA said, hey, you need to do a competition also within the bench
So they call it the mini compete. That actually doubled the work for procurements as we do the procurement for the contract and create the bench
And then we we have do a procurement within the contract to select within the bench. So we're moving into a more best practices like the rest of the agencies that we do a procurement and we say, hey, we need a company to do work on light rail, architectural engineering, and we select it
And that's kind of where we're going. And that's why you see several contracts there. So not creating a big bench. We will be coming and reporting one of my report items later today is trying to
a better dashboard and controls about this. I don't know if I totally answered your question and Kelly, I don't know if you want to chime in. It's helpful to know that there'll be some reports and that we'll have updates. Yeah
Did you want to add anything? I just wanted to say that if you're concerned is task orders that get amended, which is some of the results of the audit. If it rose to the level that would be a sole source award, you would see it on the sole source award report. If we amend something above like a threshold that would come to the board, you would see that
On consent as well. Great. So we have multiple ways that we're going to be reporting out to you. If we award a task order that's 5 million or above, that would also be reported on the delegated actions report. That's great. That's very helpful. Thank you. You're welcome. And Madam Chair, I don't know if I need to pull the item. Yeah, you'll need to pull 3.2 for you to vote on it. Yeah, I'd like to pull 3.2. Yeah
We'll do that. We'll vote on that separately. Okay, in fact, would you like to make a motion to or well, I'll go to Mayor Minto. I'm happy to move the evidence of the consent. Okay, I mean, would you like to second the balance of the consent agenda? Why, certainly. Very good. Okay, we got that gone. All right.
So I wanted to just address a couple of things here. 3.6
This is a Third Amendment, and did I read we're expecting a Fourth Amendment on that also? And that is the 12-month aggregate to be approved by the Policy Committee in Regional Planning
Good morning. My name is Goldie Gervon. I'm the grants program manager for this project. We do not anticipate a Fourth Amendment. This project is anticipated to be completed on August 31st, 2026. However, the project manager has indicated that they're getting a notice of substantial completion
And staff didn't feel comfortable issuing closing out their grant project until it was open to the public. So we've gotten verbal confirmation from the city of San Diego that they'll open within six months. That's why staff recommends this extension to the city has
An ability to close out construction punchless items and perform a grand opening for the for the project. Well, that actually is good news. So thanks
And then also
On 3.7
The regional transportation Improvement Program
Mayor Jones actually spoke to a little bit about this, but my question was just in a selfish manner. We have any new standalone projects located that are… that actually affect Santee or anything? Do we have any
Update on that.
Michelle
Good morning, Michelle Smith. We don't have any new projects that were part of the region. Could you speak closer to the mic, please? Absolutely. We don't have any new projects that were included in the regional plan or the budget. So as of right now, the projects for CNT would be submitted by the city
And so that would be reflected right now. I'm just checking to see if they're, you know, on the ball or not. So sometimes things get filtered down
through our… you think the mayor up here, and you get a lot more information, but sometimes you're down here when you get the information. Any other mayors feel the same way about that sometimes?
Of course, because you micromanage, I'll bet. So the other only other thing that I wanted to talk about real quickly, and I'm going to kind of read it because I don't want to take a long time on it. But today in our board packet is the Tribal Transportation program
That has been mentioned. And we don't talk a lot about that, and a lot of folks don't even know what that is, basically. But it has actually been around for a very, very long time. And so I'm just going to read this so that everybody's aware of it
So the Tribal Transportation Program, also known as the TTP, is formerly the Indian Reservation Roads Program, and the Federal Tribal Transportation Program traces to the Indian Reservation Roads Program established way back in 1928
And formally funded through the Federal Highway program under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. And most of us are very familiar with service grants.
So in 2012, it was renamed and restructured as today's Tribal Transportation Program. Jointly administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Highways Administration and funded from the Highway Trust Fund. San Diego County has 18 reservations under the
with 17 tribal governments, and the most, obviously, which we hear every meeting is the most in the in the United States, and Sandag coordinates with them primarily through the Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association
via the inter-regional Transportation Strategy, completed in 2018. So having said all that and talking about it, I didn't see any
Connection to how we are authorized to do tribal work or work with tribes, just like we have the federal highways created a way for us to interact and work with the state government
For state highways and things like that. So was there something specific that actually we could point to for tribal lands and the work that we would work with them on?
Did I miss it somewhere, or because if it's not here, I think it's always best to memorialize these kinds of agreements, whether it's joint powers or otherwise, in some kind of document.
The art tip is a 5-year snapshot of our fiscal process, right, of what's being spent, what's in the plan.
We have
Many tools in the toolbox to partner with tribal governments. We have, we did in housing grants recently. I think the newest grant is going to be the automated aerial delivery for certain products to the tribes. I think planning is going to begin that
We have two projects working with Cal Grants that we have funded Willows Road and the curb on 76 that we're working on. And we have our transportation, tribal transportation Working Group
where there's discussion and exchange of information and areas to start talking about partnership. Legally, I don't think we need a tool as tribal governments are considered the equivalent to states
And we have that ability to partner with them
But we continue to work with our different partners, including Cal Grants, on figuring out those access points, because sometimes some improvements may not be within tribal lands, but are directly related to help them as well as other
committee members either going through there or with a destination origin of the tribal reservation. I find it interesting because we do a lot of work, and we do a lot of things. It's kind of like, you know, Teddy has been talking about
Some things we haven't, you know, put into our board policies or into a lot of things. And even though we all sit around the table and do a lot of this work, what happens when some of us aren't here and don't remember the questions that have been asked
Where's it memorialized on how we do things? Even if there was a, you know, a gentleman or gentlewoman's agreement, how does that, you know, help us in a courts, maybe at a later date? We do have a formal memorandum of understanding with the tribes and how we collaborate on developing
the regional plan. And we provide resources funding to the Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association to staff that and coordinate with us. Well, thanks, because I remember all the work we did when we first started all the tribal stuff. Yeah
But I couldn't remember how we memorialize that. So could you just do me a favor and maybe when you're thinking about it, email me that agreement so I can look at it again.
Unless anybody else is interested in it, you don't have to go overboard on it. Thank you. Yeah, and also the 2000 and was it 2006 resolution when the tries were invited to be ex-official members
And we created the Tribal Transportation Working Group Charter and memorandums about that. So I remember you helped us on that. I just, I couldn't remember, so I thought I'd ask. Yeah. And I just wanted to… A long time ago. So this is the RTIP is a federally mandated document, so because the funds that fund these tribal projects is federal
It requested that these projects are included in our RTIP. It's not that we're including we're not approving the projects. They've already been approved. We are just programming them as part of the federally mandated requirement.
Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mayor Snow.
Your mic.
I had take my name off so I could have my comment was on 3.2. Okay, so I'll wait till then speak then. Okay, very good. All right. Councilmember Gasterland.
I have a clarifying question about item 3.7. First, Attachment 2, Table 1 with the 12-page overview chart of RTIP is a really neat document to look at, because it's simple and clear
And as Mario told us, it's a five-year look forward of this fiscal process. And the first item is the I-5 managed lanes that are budgeted at, if I'm reading the table
$917 million, so almost a billion dollars
And I'm realizing with that at the very top, people, especially in the North County area who use I-5 so much, are going to wonder what are we doing at Sandag with managed lanes? So first, am I correct about it's just under a billion dollars
And where can people look to understand the scope, the description of what's going to be done with that billion dollars, and the timeline?
First, if my memory serves me right or my tracking, that is the total cost of the project within the footprint. So you have already seen part of that billion dollars invested construction, and it's being used
which are the Hob lanes. So it is part of the broad environmental document that was done for I-5
Years ago. So that is the total cost of that project up to date based on our most recent estimate.
By no means has the managed lanes gonna cost us $900 million to implement. The express lanes are coming in the corridor. I'm pretty sure we have presented some updates on the North Coast corridor, but I also know that we're bringing in
I don't know if it's in September or October. A whole series of items to the board to discuss express lanes from policies, status of projects, and next steps
Because there's going to be a lot of decisions that the sports need to make, and as well as an mandated application to the CTC that needs to go move forward in the near future. We're doing this all in collaboration with Caltrans
And following what was in the RTP there. I don't know, Ann, if you have any added items there. No, I think you… I think you covered it. And then most of the change that you were seeing on this action item or that project item was
some truing of some dollars and moving the funds across, but certainly that larger dollar are those that were previously programmed through the life of our North Coast Corridor projects. That's really helpful. It's good to know, and especially knowing that the items about the managed lanes will come up in September and October
That'll be a worthy discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Picas, did you have comments or questions? No, I pressed it by accident. Okay, all right, all right. So let's vote on consent 3.1 and 3.3 through 3.9
Please use your devices to vote.
Chula Vista. And Kent, you're now A.
Alrighty.
Okay, that passes. Now we're on to item 3.2. Supervisor, did you have a specific question or simply that you wanted to vote separately on it?
I have a comment, and I want to vote separately on it. Okay. Do you want me to go now? Yeah, you're up. Thank you. I… look, I just want to start by saying that I recognize the financial challenges facing both MTS and NCTD, and I appreciate all the work that
Both agencies have done to try to close the gap as well as the Transportation committee's work. I think that's very important. But I can't in good faith support increasing the rates in such a significant way when families, especially working families, are struggling
to just put food on the table, keep a roof over their head. I know that we're already doing this, but I want to encourage us all to continue pursuing stable regional, state, and federal operating funding. Especially given that this particular increase in rates
won't necessarily close the fiscal gap that both agencies may be facing, so I just want to register my vote as no. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Snow
Along a similar vein.
This morning, I gave a ride to a family who couldn't afford the fare to get downtown for services that they needed. The fares are
really, really high for people who are on the margins. And so I wanted to go more into depth. I didn't have a lot of information about the Title IX study and regarding its impact on low income families. It appears that the discounts that are provided are provided to people who are eligible for
items like CalFresh
Medi-Cal and Cal works
Those have extremely low incomes and are generally based on federal guidelines. But the area, and in contrast, we live in one of the most expensive cities, and it doesn't appear that we're using an area median income analysis to determine whether someone is low income and qualifies for these discounts
That's right. But rather, we're using federal standards. So in comparison, extremely low income under the current AMI, which is about 30% of the median income, is around $36,750 for San Diego County
Very low income is $61,250.
Low income is $97,950. That's what the AMI is.
CalFresh is $31,000 to be eligible. So we are like, we have extremely low income for San Diego, and then there's like even I don't even know what we call it, but super extremely very low income. Poverty level is the
anything below moderate income. I mean, this is low income families are families that and this is just for one person is a person trying to struggle to live here in San Diego, even at very low income on 61,250 a year.
And in Lemon Grove, the average combined family income is $74,000. These are my people. And so these fares are unattainable for my people, and so I'm going to have to vote no on this because this fair increase
It doesn't help my people. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilmember Contreras.
Yeah, I appreciate Mayor Snow, you laying out the
Some of the structural issues that we have when we're identifying who needs help
Here in San Diego. So looking at the area median income is something completely different than
You know what we're looking at as far as a fair freeze. And one of the things for me, it's difficult, right? I sit on North County Transit District
And I
I understand that both MTS and NCTD are facing
Very difficult fiscal projections. And
you know, this is a critical time for our federal government to be here and to be providing the funding that we need. It's a national security issue if we cannot be connected. We saw, you know with the pandemic that the only way our economy
can be vibrant is when we're able to move goods, services, and people. And so I do have
I do have contention with the fare increase
In the sense that
It isn't going to be enough
to rectify
The big fiscal issues that both MTS and NCTD are projected to face
On the other hand, you know, when we
And when we're looking at precious operating dollars
What both agencies are able to collect at the fare box allows
that money to be unrestricted, meaning that you can use it for operations
And we've talked about it here at Sandag where
Most of the money that can be given is for capital expenses, and there's not enough operations funding. And when we talk about operations, we're talking about frequency, we're talking about that really key reliability piece. So, I see both sides of it
And I think one of the questions that was asked to
About 7,000 folks that were surveyed is that they would rather have a fair increase than a reduction of service
But I'm also curious about the methodology in asking that question because
I don't have any certainty that we are not going to cut services.
Right, I don't have any certainty on either NCTD or MTS that even with the fare increase, we're going to be able to maintain the same amount of service
So, I do have to question whether or not
You know, the answers that we got back are reflective of the reality that both agencies are projected to face.
So it's a very difficult decision. But I would really urge this board because here at Sandag is where we can create different low fare programs. And I think it
It is so necessary for us to dig deeper. I know that, you know, the fair freeze that we looked at, the MTS brought forward, and NCTD voted to move in line with that, was something that was done very quickly
It makes it a lot easier for the administrative process
So that folks can get that discount. But I don't think it's surgical enough. I think we really have to look at what our communities are facing and create some other type of low fare program. So I would urge this board
to take a look at that and see what we can do for a long-term stability. And we know that increasing the fares is just not going to plug the hole.
So, that's all I have to say about it. It's a very difficult decision.
I really appreciate your comments, all of you. You know, we are not the owner-operator here at Sandac, but
It is important to reflect that, and we've been bringing this up for a while now
I think that we're in a crossroad where we're gonna have to have a deeper conversation regarding of the items you all just brought up
a thumbs up or a thumbs down on this ordinance.
won't change that. I think we have now gotten to the point that we do need to have a very mature conversation, as this and many other subjects, but specifically of this subject, even yesterday I was talking with
Antoinette, and I was going, let's see how we can go and get some funding and exploring what could be some of the strategies above and beyond just what the transit agencies are discussing today. I think we're talking about
An issue in the 21st century, and we're still trying to think with solutions of the 20th century. But we also have to be very conscious and sensitive of all the items you all brought up
It's a very tough conversation. It's a very tough subject to deal with
What I do see is that among the many things that this board is going to have to tackle in the future is that conversation, but with some more robust objective information. And that information that we can pass on to the different
Transfer operator boards for them to also evaluate those items. But this organization taking somewhat of a lead on promoting that conversation. So that's what I can tell you, what we've been thinking
It's
It's one of those ones that you do this them if you do, you don't do it, then if you don't. It is such a complex issue, and it's coming in like a tidal wave.
Thank you. All right, we have Mayor Sanchez.
Thank you. And as being on the Transportation Committee and actually
Having experiences living in cities that have a very active and efficient transit program, be it in when I was in college, it was mostly buses in Providence. And boy, I could get anywhere
on a bus when I was going to college, and then living in DC and also same thing that was pre the the metro, but also San Francisco
Where it works
Where it's where it's frequent, and where it is, you know, on time, it's fantastic. You never need to have a car
It is the larger issue for us in North County. Let's just take that, for example, is that this is just a piece
of the problem right in a very, very active transit place like the metro San Diego area
People are concerned that it's not often enough when in North County, it's not even within 30 minutes.
We have been promised
Connectors.
Since I got on the council in 2000, to Maricosta, to the hospital, to the shopping center, to where I worked for many years, the North County court courthouse, where
Hundreds of people go every day. And yet
If you live in Escondido, it takes you almost 2 hours to get to the courthouse. If you decide to take a bus still
So I even had a judge who said he didn't want to believe the client saying, I missed it and therefore that's why I'm two hours late. He took it himself one day and he found that to be correct.
So this is a larger issue. It is not, it was very difficult to have to address this. These are partnerships. It is really coming grassroots from NCTD and NTS. It was heartening to see that NCTD did decide to join with MTS
On a program for freezing, that is within, that does not… it is, regardless of what we do, that'll still be retained by both agencies. And that way, it'll be consistent
Between the two in terms of traveling throughout the county, but definitely it is a bigger, deeper dive. I appreciate that, the conversation is not, well, why don't we… why didn't we get to look at this as a board
I think that's a later, you know, another time. But for now, there were difficult questions and people were
Having a difficult time basically saying, yeah, let's let's raise the fees
But if you don't even have the line, which we in North County are very accustomed to seeing lines disappear for a while until something happens.
What is that something happening? It does need to be more, you know, planned, but how we do this in an area that is kind of starved for transit, which is why we have over 60% of
Say in Oceanside, our workforce getting to work by car, 60 to 65%. These are difficult, difficult issues.
And then on top of that, assuming that folks using, say, the Sprinter are going to work when we have no work centers in Oceanside or Vista, or I guess they're in Carlsbad, which didn't even have to be included
On the SB 79. So I just want to say thank you for to everyone for participating
the issues are not going away. This is just a one way of trying to maintain some of these lines of service
But it's not the answer.
Thank you, Misha. I'm going to go to Sharon Cooney, who would like to jump in. Did I make a motion? Yes, it'd be great if you have not made a motion. Would you please make a motion? Yes, I move approval. Thank you. Okay, very good. Do I have a seconder on item 3.2? I'll second it. Okay, Mayor Duncan, thank you. Sharon.
Thank you. Sharon Cooney, I'm the CEO of the Metropolitan Transit System.
I agree with every comment that has been made here about this decision. These are not light decisions. But there's bigger decisions that are going to have to be made in the near future, as Mario mentioned.
Mts has a looming fiscal cliff of $140 million dollars in their operating budget. What we're trying to do with this is not put it on the backs of the riders. What we're trying to do is stretch that fiscal cliff
So we can come up with the bigger answer
This is not going to solve our problem. But it will allow us to get to 2030. In a way that will allow us to talk through these bigger issues. Certainly. We need to talk with the state. This
a really enormous problem for every transit agency in the state. And we need to come to grips with it. As a state.
If we are going to achieve the goals, climate change is real. We accept that. We want to resolve it as the state of California. They need to come to the table. We heard from Clarissa earlier. They do want to come to the table to help us
So in the end, this is not an easy decision. We care about our riders. You know, if any of you are downtown today, you see how important transit is for the economy here in this
in San Diego, you couldn't have a convention like Comic-Con without us.
So certainly these are very important decisions that have to be made. But hopefully we will come as a region to the bigger solution.
Thanks.
Thanks, Sharon. Mayor Duncan.
Thank you. I appreciate the comments made by the other members today and
generally agree with all of them. The information that I was given was that there hasn't been a fair increase in 17 years for monthly passes on local buses. The San Diego trolley or the sprinter. And that is a very difficult way to sustain an organization
When we have things such as high inflation or wage inflation and fuel costs and obviously the cost of obtaining the transportation
You know, whether whatever they need to maintain it or to add buses, etc. So I think it's one of the worst things we do as government officials is having to increase fees. So I see why it doesn't happen for a very, very long period of time. In our city, we recently went through many things that had not been changed for 20 years
And I could see why councils and governing bodies don't want to do it. It's not popular, and it's not fun. I look at the monthly passes, and I see that it'll be increasing $13 a month, and I readily, well, well admit that a couple hundred dollars a year, or
$70 a year means something to somebody. They may not have good new shoes for their kid that time. I mean, it's real. But for the organization to move forward, you know, it's necessary, and I agree, it doesn't cover even… is it even half of the gap? I mean, it's barely
But
Part of the solution.
I guess the other thing I would just mention, because often as a board, when we receive items to approve
that we feel are great and are popular, I feel at times, sometimes we don't fully look at what the effect of that is, right? Because I've never seen anybody say, we don't support the Youth Opportunity Pass. It's awesome, super popular. We also have no financial,
You know, ability to pay scrutiny on that. So, you may have people from a very well-off family, they get the youth opportunity pass, just like somebody who can't afford it. Things like that. Also, I believe, you know, cost deficits, but I'll stop sharing my opinion about everything. I just wanted to add that to the conversation, and then I'll be voting for the motion.
Thank you. Councilmember Chavez.
So as one of the representatives of the cities of South Bay and you know I've been very vocal about this with 4.2 million users a month in the blue line. I can in good faith
not highlight that, you know, the people that are using the trolley is because they have to. They need to, are working families are just across the board, people that even are willingly
cutting down on the carbon footprint. Especially in the South Bay, where we know that we have daytime travelers. That we have 100,000 cars crossing the border daily to work to study for tourism
I can, in good faith, support something. In my mind, why aren't we not doing more to make public transportation safer, increase ridership? I see at certain times, certain
trolley carts being empty. Why are we not promoting certain days more avidly? What are we not
searching for funding on a local level. I just I can in good faith support it, even though I know it's necessary, and I was on the board of Mts
Because I do think about all these people that have to
It's not because they want to, it's not because sometimes they have an option that's… that's the only way they can travel to and from A to Z and
I am also going to be emoting though
Thank you so much. Councilmember Edson.
Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your comments.
As board member Contreras pointed out, both Nctv and Mts are facing fiscal cliffs, and as was reported by CEO Sharon Cooney, and also as Ctc Commission chair Falcone
Reported transit dollars are really few and far between right now. So that makes
this even tougher, you know it's
It's tough times. And CTD supports the proposed Regional Comprehensive Fair Ordinance. And as I reported earlier, the proposed fair changes were anticipated to raise NCTD' fair revenue annually by approximately $650,000
In phase one and $1.2 million in Phase 2. Fair revenue represents approximately 7% of NCD's operating budget or about $12.5 million annually.
Also, as I previously shared, our board did not take the decision to raise fares lightly. We thoughtfully considered our writers' preference for incremental fare increases versus service reductions against NCTD's very real need to secure additional
Precious, flexible operating dollars to help offset forecasted operating budget challenges.
There's never a good time to increase fares.
But decades of inflation in operating costs coupled with the unpredictability of future state and federal funding and the many years of
Avoidance of fare increases in the past
have left us with very little choice. With this in mind, the boards and staff of MTS and CTD and Sandag spent quality time, excuse me, boards and staff
spent quality time in the creation of an updated regional comprehensive fare ordinance, one that all parties felt they could live with
the boards of both Mts and Nctd voted to adopt a low income fare freeze program.
Consideration of adding this low income fare freeze program led to hours, many hours of discussion at NCTD's last board meeting. Our board
Was almost a board retreat. And while our board remained united in our previous decision to support the proposed regional fair ordinance, we also gave great consideration to the word regional.
Long story short, we came to a few conclusions. First, that if we choose to participate in the fair freeze and CTDs anticipated revenue from the regional fair change would be reduced by approximately two-thirds in phase one and by one half in phase two
Second, that our board members would feel more comfortable if there were increased analysis and review of the low-income eligibility standards adopted by MTS in their fair freeze program. And this sort of points to what
Board member Snow was speaking of
and Board member Contreras
This was a big flag that you raised when we first started discussing this item.
And third, that all transit riders in our region have benefited from the ease and simplicity of the Pronto Cards Regional Fare structure. So
When the NCTD board voted to support the updated regional fair ordinance, it came with a caveat. We sent a letter to Sandag. You may all recall this, requesting that a low income fair program be studied. And we continue to believe in the importance of thoroughly evaluating the financial impacts pros and cons, and other aspects of a low income
program. One that fits our region. However, with a desire to continue along the path of regional cooperation, the NCTD board unanimously voted to participate in MTS's low-income fare freeze program
and directed staff to bring additional information to the board to reevaluate participation in the program through the approval of our FY 2028 budget. We want to take another look. We want to take a deeper dive. We need time to study this to really understand all the impacts, both to the transit agencies and to our riders
So I hope that you will take that in consideration when you vote.
Thank you for that information. Councilmember Shin.
Thank you for the report. Just quick questions. What takes place if we voted no right now and what would take place with MTS' initial decisions to have to do?
That would be up to my board of directors. Of course, yeah. What would you kind of recommend? I can also tell you from a Sandac perspective
We go to we go back to zero and then this whole process will have to be reinitiated.
I mean, are we talking that we're going to lose
different routes. Is it going to be that dramatic of an issue with Mts and Nctd. Oh, as I mentioned, our budget deficit is
Severe. But what we're trying to do is
stretch out the money we do have in reserves and from other revenue sources so that we can get to a point where we find a solution to our larger problem.
And part of the pie, as we're calling it, is this fair increase, the revenue that we can generate right away that will help us offset the cost, which means that we can stretch the reserves farther out
If we don't have that piece of the pie filled, then we will have to come up with some other way to fill it. Whether that's you know there's been some conversations here with Sandag where we can offset using Transnet money
By reapportioning transit monies, but that's a larger discussion that will not probably be had here in time for us to hit
An earlier year with our more severe structural deficit problem. So
The other things that are in the hands of transit agencies is the level of service that we offer.
And that would have to be a conversation. That's why, when we talked to
Our passengers in the community. We talked to them in terms of
Would you rather pay a little bit more and still keep your service
or
the opposite and everybody as we have
Rightly said here today really needs this service, especially in the service area of the Metropolitan transit system.
They're mostly transit dependents, over 70%. And just verifying the truth of what Director Duncan said in regards to there hasn't been a increase in quite some time. The adult monthly pass has not been increased since 2009. Okay.
That I agree there with what the director had said. I had a business through this whole entire 2020s and everything doubled. And for us to not factor that in is a consideration. It's terrible that we have to end up increasing this to people who need it the most
Do we also have any type of Do we do any type of charting? I see the subsidy charts, but do we do any type of charting if an individual were to have to be forced to get their own private transportation and that cost versus what we're able to provide them per month
We actually have on our website
We actually have on our website a calculator for that. What a household can save by using public transportation versus buying their own car.
And the American public transportation Association just printed something that says that an average household could save $13,000 a year by using public transportation. So there is that aspect of it
That we provide a service to people who can really not afford that extra household cost of owning a car. Does this increase create an impact on that where the lines cross or anything?
Or are we still far below and still the least expensive means of transit for an individual to take besides for purchasing or leasing their own vehicle? Yes, it's significantly less expensive. Okay. I think sometimes we got to factor in what some of these
charts really mean, and it, you know, if we're trying to get people off having private vehicles and to public transportation, we do have to kind of factor in, okay, there's still going to be an increase of costs, but, you know, what does make sense?
port of this increase, because I would hate for any person to say that I can't even now I can't even
go anywhere. Again, I want them to get on e-bike lately. So it's another question. Yeah, it's another session. I yield. Okay, thanks so much. Council Member Dillard.
Thank you. I appreciate all the comments. Everyone
is making here, and I'm definitely not gonna beat the horse. I don't know if it's dead, but I'm not gonna add anything to those comments, but I do appreciate
board member, Karina Contreras' comments, they were very comprehensive. As a board of directors for MTS
The one thing that I remind you of, and thank you
Council Member Chavez for your comments and your concerns about your city. Because I think there's a little bit of that, or a lot of that
group
within all of the ridership. You know 60 to 70% is a very high percentage
of low-income
But the one thing that I would like to add for when we are working through all of these huge challenges that we have for public transportation
is the culture.
If you go anywhere back east
Everybody rides public transportation.
I just recently was in London and Scotland
And
Everybody
takes public transportation. They walk a lot. They take public transportation. I didn't see a whole lot of bike riding, but there was a lot of bike riding more than
I see in this city, and I know that that started to pick up
But the culture is something that we need to work on. You know, some people have the idea in their head that if they have to take public transportation, it means they're poor or they're disadvantaged in some way and
they're embarrassed. And growing up in San Diego and having to take the bus myself, especially when I graduated from high school and I wanted to go to community college, I had to, you know, get on the bus stop at six o'clock in the morning so I could make my
My early morning classes and
There was a stigma then, and I'm not going to tell everybody when that was, but there is a culture issue
in San Diego regarding public transportation. And I agree we're not everywhere that we could be, and we do need to do more about evasion
But I just wanted to make sure that everyone, that we included culture and work on that
And then the other thing is, is
And Carlina, you brought it up about the fact that
Some people think that they that they can't afford it if we raise the rate
But
The survey was just what would you prefer?
And the thing is, is if you say to a person
That they're not going to be able to get to work anymore.
And that they, you know, they just need to walk or something. I mean, I don't know what the other alternative would be for them.
That's detrimental, and of course they're going to say
that they prefer to have the fare increase. But all it means is that they didn't they don't. There's no other choice. And I think that that really needs to resignate with this board
that people don't have a choice. They don't have another way to get to work. And and everyone in here that is responsible for a city or a district needs to remember that
I am going to support the fare increase. It's been a long time since there was one, but I also want to hear more and find ways to solve the problem with the fare freeze and see
you know what can we do, at least for the most lowest income residents that we have. Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor Ehlers.
Yeah, I won't repeat all of the very good comments we've heard here about a long time with no increase and the need to look at low income programs. But I want to go to the, you know, obviously
The boards are the closest to this, so I got a couple of questions for Jewel and for Sharon. Was it a unanimous vote to support the fare increase?
Yes. And Sharon, was it a No. No. And how, what kind of split
Close. I don't remember what the exact split was. Okay, I talked to my deputy mayor who's on the NCTD and we talked about this and basically I'm going to support it because I don't think there's a choice.
I think that was the same wording I just heard. We don't have a choice while NCTD and in the case of
North County doesn't have a choice. If you don't support this, you're only partway to the solution, as Sharon had pointed out. You have a financial cliff coming, and the worst thing we could do is say no to the fare increase and put you in an even worse
financial cliff, where you have to start reducing services or cutting entire routes out. And so I'm going to be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Edson, you're up again. Did you have some more to add, please? Yes, I just wanted to chime in
Sorry, have crazy notes all over the place, but in response to provide a little more information in response to Council member board member Shin's question. So
During our NCTD board workshop and retreat, we also looked at what kind of changes we might need to make in the future, considering what's going on with the fiscal cliff. And
One of the things that's very real is the possibility of reduction in frequency. And that means, you know
In the future if things if there isn't significant funding in the future, in the near future, we could have reduced times between sprinters. We could end up with maybe no week in service on coaster or and some bus lines cut for weekends
reductions in, again, frequency on bus lines. So, you know, we would do everything that we possibly could to continue to have service
But people may just have to wait a lot longer, or have days where they have none. So I hope that helps answer that question from the NCTV point. And one thing that I think is clear, is important here, too, is the ordinance actually one of the components allows the transit agencies some flexibility
So that will allow us, if we study this and Sandag studies and we come back with something that's a better solution to actually make that change on the fly, not have to come back and go through an entire year-long process to do so
It also allows flexibility for other pilot programs, such as NCTD Plus and YOP, those sort of things. So it's
There are components in this that are not just the fare freeze that are worth considering.
Thank you. Councilmember Lee
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, everyone, for your feedback as well. Certainly, this has been an oft-discussed item in the last couple of months. Mayor Ehlers, if it helps as a recollection, MTS voted 7-4, I believe, when they approved the increase
And so I think the question I might have, just if this would be helpful, is to understand are both
NCTD and MTS's budgets accounting for the fare increase as it's currently designed, or at least is it built into its
It's longer term projection for operations given the fiscal cliff
When we the board approved the fiscal year 27 budget. They did not include the revenue expectations from the fair study. So that will be a subsequent decision and an amended budget point
And same is true with NCTD. We weren't going to count any chickens that, you know, the eggs hadn't hatched.
So that might be helpful just to know from a short-term operation standpoint, obviously both agencies are
are not counting anything in advance. But I think what Jaron mentioned is important as well, which is, I imagine for both when they are facing the fiscal cliff, this is really about how long they can extend operations as they see it.
in a way that makes it a more sustainable, so that the cliff can be addressed. And I do appreciate that both agencies have had the discussions around a fair waiver, also recognizing that fair waiver does the opposite. It would
It would ultimately chip into what an increase would ultimately present us, and I think we're all facing the same thing, right? Certainly the city of San Diego has struggled with not increasing fares across the board on a number of items for, in some cases the better part of 2 decades
And a reminder to everyone that I think part of that challenge is that in 2020, starting with the pandemic, we probably saw in every agency and every municipal portion of government that there was a discussion about freezing
Costs, recognizing what residents were facing between that and inflation and everything else. And so even for the last five or six years, we have all sort of sat here and recognized that everything is increasing at a time where it is very difficult to add on to that increase
But it's still going to continue. So
I appreciate the conversations here about the reality that we have to face sort of a reckoning on how we're going to address that moving forward. I do also think that it means that we need to be more proactive
So that even if we are
increasing fares, or at least providing the capacity to do that today, that we're also having discussions in the future about how we're going to account for inflation and the increasing costs on an ongoing basis. I think the biggest shock to folks at any given time is when you have one large increase coming after
a long period of time. And it's never easy to justify that to any resident or constituent recognize that. And so we need to do a better job of having that conversation on a more regular basis so that this isn't the shock that it becomes
Each time that we have it, so
It's my two cents. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilmember Picas
Two brief things. I get the impression that
If we raise the fares, the service, if we don't raise the fares, the services will definitely be cut and the schedules be reduced. But if we do them
It probably won't be reduced or may not be reduced as much
I get that impression. So I realized that public transit is, at least in San Diego
You know, notwithstanding other jurisdictions, it's the transportation of last resort. It's what you do if you can't afford a car and you have to get to work. So in that case
So much as I hate to be in favor of a fare increase
If you have to get to work and you need to take the bus, we need to have the bus there. So that's that. That being said for the last year, all I've heard about was youth opportunity pass and what a great deal it was and how awesome it was
And you don't have the money to pay for it. So I don't want to hear any more about youth opportunity pass for free.
If we have to charge everyone else a fare increase. So that's something you give away when you have your flush with cash. And I don't see that here. So I will vote for this
But
I've changed my position on youth opportunity pass because we can't afford that one.
Thank you. Councilmember Fisher.
Thanks, Sherry. I just really have a basic question. Why is it that Sandag has to deal with fare increases for MTS and NCTD? I'm not, I guess I'm sure there's some process. I'm just not sure why that is.
Is it AB805? What's it or which one? Antoinette, welcome. One of the laws within Sandac or charters that gave that authority to this agency. And that's standard across the state, they do that as well? No, but state law made Sandag the consolidated agency, which means we're responsible for
the fair ordinance. So it is state law that's specific to our region
And this is delegated to the Transportation Committee per board policy.
Okay.
Councilmember Gasterlyn.
Yes, I have a question and a brief comment. What is the percent of the total budget that is the deficit? So if you take the deficit, what percent of the total annual budget is it?
It's about 25%.
And the fare increase will cover all of that deficit or some of that deficit. No, again, it's part of a broader strategy in which we've cobbled together enough
Other policy changes and efficiencies, et cetera, that are able to get us to stretch our operating deficit fiscal cliff out so that we can come up with the bigger solution.
So for instance, we moved some
Capital improvements
out into the out years, so that we can put that money into the operating budget, and those are flexible dollars that we get that are
can be flexed for either.
We did some other things with our pension. It's a very small pension in-house that we were able to kind of
shifted the money buckets around and
get some of that funding into the operating budget now. Then there's also some efficiencies we've already enacted and we're always looking for efficiencies in the service. If we have empty seats
At a time where we can maybe shift them from 15 minutes service to 20 minute service. We try to do that. We actually do those kinds of efficiency measures three times a year. But there's
A whole host of things that we're doing, we've been really aggressively pursuing non-fair revenues. And non-subsidy
advertising, etc. We've actually grown the amount of money we get from things like advertising, naming rights, all those things. Since 2020, we've increased it almost 50%. So we're getting $34 million dollars a year in our budget from all these
other
sources that are not our riders, and they're not the taxpayer. So there's a lot of pieces here.
It's a broader strategy. We're undergoing a comprehensive operations analysis right now in order to help us get to that point where perhaps if we find more funding, we might be able to do even more for our communities
expand our services, maybe finally get the trolley out to the airport. But if that doesn't happen, we're also looking at what does happen if we fail
To get a broader solution to our fiscal cliff. And that is an undergoing, we're undergoing that study right now. We asked Sandag to do the fair study
Purposely to try to have a piece of that pie be filled. In the meantime while we get that broader solution.
So 25% of the total budget is that fiscal deficit. And what percent of the total budget does the fair increase represent? It's about $4 million in the first year, if I read the report properly. Yeah, for a $500 million operating budget
That's a very small piece of that
Okay, thank you. So the comment is, I'm not hearing the word reliability in the conversation. So I really appreciate
What board member Dillard said, and that's
Framing a question as, do you want to pay a little more or do you want to have less frequency, less service? That's a difficult question for anybody as a kid and a teenager, I took the T4 and the J2 in the DC area to get around to the community college for math classes
For exercise classes in Bethesda.
So I appreciate the bus and wanting to have it. But for me, as a user, and I use the 101 now on a regular basis, reliability is more important than anything. If
Apple Maps or Google Maps is telling me a bus is going to be there at a certain time, and then it fails to show
That drives people to not want to ride, so where does reliability come up in the conversation about reduced service? Does reduced service mean reduced reliability?
Not at all, but when you reduce service, the longer people have to wait for the next bus.
That becomes a real challenge for them if it's 10 minutes late. So if you're already waiting
for to catch a bus, you know you're getting to the bus stop, and it's going to be a whole hour before the next bus, having to wait 10 minutes is another real hardship.
So what you try to do is, and we do track on time performance very steadily. We report it out to the board 4 times a year. It's something that we have in our goals. This is we have
A huge system regional transportation management system that we actually
maintain for both us and North County Transit District that helps us keep it on time as much as we possibly can.
So, reliability is also a component of
Are you maintaining your vehicles well? So that's another component of reliability. Whether or not you have the funding doesn't impact reliability.
Other than if
You know, you have older buses because you can't afford to replace them. Or older rail cars or whatever, and they break down more frequently.
Thank you. I will be voting no on this for the reasons articulated by Supervisor Aguirre and Councilmember Contreras, and it's in the spirit, as Mayor Ehlers has brought up, MTS vote was 7-4
And I think our Sandag board vote should not be unanimous.
Okay, that's our final speaker. Thank you, everybody, for your comments. They were very
considered Carmen's heartfelt comments, opened a lot of doors for future discussions that I think are very important for us to have. In a way, this was a proxy conversation for just the whole affordability crisis
In our region, the levels of what is considered affordable. Thank you for Mayor Stone for bringing that up, the different standards for those. I just had a conversation yesterday with an affordable housing manager, and I found out some very interesting things about the standards
One of which was that if you are a senior, you can barely have any savings at all. And if you're a senior, what are you going to do? You're not going to go, you know, polish up your resume and get out there and get another job
There are a lot of things that are out of sync to qualify for a low-income housing unit as a single person, you have to earn
Up to $96,000, not less than that. You have to earn that much. That's kind of crazy. We all think that low-income, you know, we're talking about people are making $20 an hour. That's extremely low, and there are very few of those produced in this region. And transit is attached
Right? To the housing requirements, and who's taking them and who can't take them in North County, the coaster arrives at our station one time an hour.
That's it, one time an hour. It's very hard to rely on that if you are trying to really get different places in Italy, we don't have connections really east and west that are viable either.
We're a built-out region, we really have some challenges here. We at this board get to have more discussions and see where we can go with finding some different ways. I liked how Mario put it, you know, we need to, like, start looking at 21st century solutions, but we also really need, some strong conversations with our state representatives, to understand the realities on the ground
What we are facing in our cities, what we are seeing from our residents, from our businesses, how they're responding, what their real concerns are, because, you know, they're the ones that are, you know, and many of us too living this sort of
dilemma that we see. So with that, I'm going to call the vote. We have a motion by Sanchez, a second by Duncan. I know this is a difficult vote for many of us, but I think that the case personally, I think the case is made for this is an interim step to find different solutions in the longer term
Please use your devices to vote.
Okay, that passes with Chula Vista, City of San Diego, Del Mar, Lemon Grove, and National City voting no.
County of San Diego, not city of San Diego. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you so much for correcting me. The city of San Diego voted yes, the county of San Diego voted no. All right, so we are now going to move into closed session.
I… don't we have to have comments on closed session public comment on closed session? Yes, we have to have an opportunity for public comment. Okay, thank you.
So, Michael, how many comments do we have on closed session?
We have three in person and we have two online. This is 4.1 and 4.2. So three in person, two online. And 1st is truth, followed by allegedly Audra. This is closed session.
Hi, it's public comment here. Item 4.2. The CEO's performance evaluation is the perfect time for a memory refresher of the ridiculousness that has been going on. I heard it today as well
We just had a State presentation where the public was denied a comment opportunity on after when it was presented. Why would we comment on something we haven't heard yet? That's on the CEO, and that is on the chair. Another failure.
And
For the record, I saw the corrupt county hugging the corrupt state earlier. I thought that was perfect.
And recently, Mario's been talking in circles to nowhere rather than simply answering the question, which is really a reversal compared to when he finally cut down his 20-minute monologues. Now it's a 10-minute monologue that sometimes feels like 20 minutes because nothing was actually resolved
We've had staff recently play project and money games. There was the AB 3090 backroom deal that suddenly changed the funding strategy and project phasing order. Then staff was allowed to keep calling YOP a pilot program, even though they know darn well it never was. Why would the CEO allow staff to keep lying
Changing the story, shuffling our tax dollars around like we're stupid, like we don't see what's going on.
With this vector. Then it came out that the fake working group that was requested two years ago has gone absolutely nowhere. Shame on this board for not following through. Pero Beach, that Cord Auto.
should have been pressing the CO every single day. We didn't hear an update
And then Mario said something about it, it's gonna be on today's border committee. It's not, it is not on the agenda.
There's nothing about Mexico sewage. Yet another delay to go along with the two years and endless decades of inaction. Yannette Marty had an audacity to say this at the July 17th Transportation Committee.
And if our partners have to do something, we initiate that
coming from the board of those agencies, we definitely are not going to sit on it. Thank you. Your time passing next is allegedly Audra, followed by Cesar Javier. This is closed session. Item 4.1 and 4.2.
It's ridiculous that we're seeing items after this, after you already discuss what's going to happen. And it's very concerning the behaviors and actions of Mario and the fact that he walked out of here because he knows he doesn't want to hear the truth because it's damning
But his goal should be not to violate the law if he's going to get a raise. And I don't think that he needs to make any more money than he does. He makes $385,000 is pretty ridiculous, and then to just continue to give these people raises, I want to know who he's getting kickbacks from
Who's pulling his strings and who is, you know.
You know, and encouraging him to abuse his authority so that he can pass items like the port of entry item. That one is very interesting to see the way he acted. Knowing it was illegal
And then in the next meeting, like I said, in the audit committee saying he cannot do the exact same thing he did in the meeting prior. That man cannot be trusted
And the fact that we have council that can't be trusted either
And then you guys sit here, and you're gonna give them a raise
You guys can't be trusted because you don't even pay attention to what's going on.
I mean, Minto, sometimes you'll bring it up, but then you still go ahead, you're even voting. Like, even if you say no, you should abstain knowing that it's illegal.
But yet, you guys continue to engage in those behaviors and you're going to pay people more money just to screw us over, especially it's like, think about all the people that are just out here trying to make it. They don't get almost $400,000 a year
So you need to think about the people that are paying your guys' salaries
And the actions that are taking place by these individuals
who should be good stewards of our money, not engaged in fraud, waste, and abuse, and racketeering. So it's going to be found out who he
Thank you. Next is Cesar Javier, followed by Paul Hanken online. This is item 4, 4.1 and 4.2 closed session.
Burita Cesar
District 9, City of San Diego.
Mr. Young Pen.
My fellow citizen
Claiming for something.
City of San Diego
Body analysis
consistent attendance with the City Council meeting
We learned that it is
Procuring
Investing, paying.
Council
or lawyers, or firm
To serve us
What do you call that? Protective
Against any one
Proposing
What else
That's the language I could only pronounce
Beware
Tax money being spent to procure top lawyers to fight you, Mr. Yang Ben
On public employee performance, if I may include elected officials.
by God. By God
We have already made evaluation
Forgive me, God, but this is casting from our experience.
Threatened by the poison gust.
Business approved by the city
And
Oh, they are the ones being threatened by Mr. Cesar and my partner here.
My question is
Public
Employee elected officials.
Thank you, your time has expired. Next is Tom Hanken online, and followed by phone number ending in
1, 6, 7, 2.
Let's see, the closed session, Mario's performance eval, hope he passes, but no big raise, please. There have been too many recent legal problems
where Sandag is in the wrong, like, not allowing public comment on an agenda item today, which was pulled from consent
By the way, these items are the closed session items should take 10 minutes or less
The case
versus City of San Diego. Dangerous condition. Plaintiff bicyclist alleges that as he pass through an intersection on a bike path. He was cut
fine to do with the vehicle dwarfen by defendant Luciano Manson Neo
who was exiting the driveway of parking lot. Hardly believable, but not sure how Sandag's involved, or why it's even wasting time on this
But we keep telling you that the bike paths are too dangerous with bike lanes crossing busy streets or freeway on and off ramps
parking mid streets and then you have to cross the bike lane and all sorts of other hazards besides their sparse use. There have been deaths and injuries on the bike paths, probably a lot of bike riders look at this and think, why use the special lanes
It's not worth all the money you spend, not worth all the losses
Thanks.
A lack of the common is phone number ending in 1672. This is closed session. Item 4.1 and 4.2.
Okay, Consolo here. So, yeah, goodie
more political theater
And, you know, most of you are all forked, spineless people who could only care. You could only care, you only care about saying the right thing to keep your jobs and climbing up that ladder, I swear. And you know what? Perhaps Chair Clarissa Falcon
Should look to her own government affairs consulting business, Belkin Strategies, before asking working families to dig even deeper into their own pockets. Once again, out of touch, are in charge
Well, the people
Already struggling are expected to pay the price. You in positions of influence often have far more financial flexibility than the residents you're making decisions for.
And, you know, everyday families are already forced to stretch every dollar
While you guys continue pushing policies that increase the cost of living in the name of net zero. Again, I have to, like, I'm thinking back, like, wow, that was such great theater. Anyways, living in the name of net zero
And the United Nations agenda 2030-2050 goals
So, yeah, it's just business as usual, more effing bureaucracy, more spending, more stress placed on the backs of the taxpayers, and honestly, you know, y'all don't give the same… you all
You truly don't seem to give two flying sucks about what the people who are barely making it are, you know, having to struggle with. You continue advancing these policies that make life so much more harder and expensive, and then expecting people to just simply accept it.
And the taxpayers, they're not your personal piggy banks
And
Yeah, they just have to continue
Taking it up the behind with no lube
Got it.
Unfortunate
That concludes our public comment, Chair. Thank you. Before we go to closed session, we'll probably need to extend this meeting to 1:30. So may I have a motion to extend the meeting to 1:30? So moved. Moved by Sanchez, second by Chavez. Please vote.
Okay, sorry. Sorry again.
Okay, we're ready.
There we go.
Mayor Ehlers
Okay. You don't want to… does that mean you're gonna leave? Alrighty, that passes with Coronado. I'm Santee. Opposing, we do need to leave, should we have voted no? No, no.
No. Okay, so let's take a very, very short break. Those of you who should not be in the room for closed session, please leave
And I'll be back in three minutes.
Okay, team, give me a signal when you're ready to go.
Okay, all right. Welcome back. I'll now turn it over to Lali for any reportable action. Thank you, Chair. The board met in closed session on item 4.1 and provided direction to Council on item 4.2, the board performed a performance evaluation on the CEO
Very good. I'll now move on to the CEO Performance Review and Compensation adjustment item. To begin, as part of Sandag and this board's commitment to accountability and good governance, I'd like to provide some background on the CEO evaluation process we established at the end of last year.
The board's responsibility is to set clear, measurable goals for the CEO, ensuring alignment with Sandag strategic priorities and accountability to the agency and the public. The board developed an evaluation process that includes a CEO self-assessment for reflection and accountability
Direct performance discussions between the board and the CEO, and a confidential feedback survey that gathered input from board members and a randomly selected representative group of employees across the organization.
Today, we just wrapped up a closed session focused on the annual performance evaluation of Mario Orso, our Chief Executive Officer. This is something the board does take very seriously. It's a key part of how we make sure that the agency stays on track and is well led. The review looked at a few different things
We started with the CEO performance goals, objectives, and metrics that were approved by the board on July 11, 2025. Mario provided us with his review, which included his reflections on accomplishments, challenges, and areas for growth
We also reviewed the confidential feedback survey to give us a broader perspective. In accordance with the CEO's employment agreement and established policy, if the board is considered the CEO's performance to be satisfactory, the board can consider a salary adjustment. The board has expressed
The CEO's performance exceeded expectations. In alignment with market trends while ensuring financial sustainability, the agency has moved forward with a 2.75% general salary increase for all employees hired before April first, effective June 29, th 2026
To be consistent with this, I would like to propose that the board find Mario's performance to be actually exceeding expectations, not just satisfactory, and approve a salary adjustment of 2.75% to be effective retroactively to June 22nd, 2026
In line with what employees have received as part of the fiscal year 2027 general salary increase. The board appreciates Mario's leadership and express so during our session and hard work over this past year. We also want to recognize the incredible efforts of the entire staff
Achieving these goals takes teamwork across every single area of this agency, and we're grateful for everyone's dedication and commitment. Thank you to all the board members and staff who contributed to the evaluation process. The input helps ensure it is meaningful and well-rounded.
We're looking forward to building on this momentum in the year ahead. I'll now turn it over to Mario to present his fiscal year 2027 performance goals and objectives.
And I'll be very brief. As we've discussed before, we came in the agency was going through some challenges. We've been able to stabilize the agency
At that moment, we had some goals that were set up for this specific objective, as well as to gain the trust of the public and the board
Now we have moved into a more mature agency, and we want to have more longer lead or longer goals that will be there for a more sustainable time, and we'll set up a clear vision for the agency.
Those goals are to strengthen our public trust
Pursue organizational excellence.
Cultivate regional opportunities to transformative infrastructure and advance strategic partnerships.
Those are the goals that I'm presenting for the board to approve for, as we move forward. Very good. Thank you. I now like to ask Josh and Hannah from Human Resources to provide an oral summary of the CEO's compensation and fringe benefits in accordance with SB 707
Hannah, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair. I'm here to, I'm Hannah Philly, manager of HR operations, and I'm here to provide the oral summary of the full conversation costs in accordance with SB 707.
For salary, this includes the 2.75% GSI. The value of this would be $406,000, 500 or sorry, 515.20.
Other pay, which includes paid time off, cell phone allowance, paid parking, management benefit, and the executive health benefit totals 63,988.96. Insurance premiums include
48,000,065.94 retirement and pension includes 130,673 and 97 cents.
Which leads to total compensation costs of $649,244.07.
Thank you.
Thank you, Hannah. Let's take public comments and then we'll move to member discussion.
Thank you, Chair. If you're online and want to speak on this item. This is 5
First is truth followed by allegedly Audra.
Pro tip, make sure the mic is green. All right, first request. Nobody referred to anything in a different city from 30 years ago. You're much older. Stay relevant. Thank you.
And then I'm also thinking like, what do you want me to say after I just heard 649,000 are being wasted on one position? What am I supposed to say to that? Like, do you live in the real world with us regular people? I hear nothing but psychosis. You don't have trust. Nobody here has trust on that topic
And I thought satisfactory, like, what a low bar syndax sets, you know, low goal, low results. And I think that's what I'm seeing. So here's more money for doing equal or less, you know?
Oh, man, you're just back to zero trust. But I will say on the funny end of it.
2.75% plus extra, it sounded like that doesn't even come close to what Chula Vista wanted.
Wow. But let's see what's actually happened on the list of things I read here.
Strengthen public trust. Nope. Employee success, nope. Timely and accurate financial reporting. Absolutely not. Nope. Technology improvements, nope. Can't even get the audio well. Regional service performance indicators. Nope. I mean, what does East County get? Nothing
Procurement timelines, absolutely not. You had one item today, 100 months late or something like that. Back office system transition? Nope. In fact, you promised, Murrow, next year, not gonna happen
Tijuana River Valley Regional Coordination? Absolutely not, nope.
What do the alleged accomplishments of governance, stewardship, and organizational excellence even mean?
You're never going to earn trust without a public record system. That's not transparent. It's not accountable.
And I could care less if Mexico is a partner. Prioritize our tribal neighbors instead because as admitted, we can't wait or trust Mexico anyway
And I realized the number one excuse here to continue bad sanding projects is because we've already been planning it forever! Nope, that's not gonna fly anymore, Mario.
And by the way, for someone that ran out of the room while I was speaking, you really think you deserve $649,000. You're out of your mind. Next is allegedly Audra. This is item 5.1 and 5.2.
And show Mario. Oh my gosh, $650,000 pretty much. Lucky you, right? I mean, and you want to, you know. Get more public trust. How is that possible when you're engaged in fraud, waste, and abuse? I want to know who's paying you
Who's in your pocket?
Hmm
Who is it?
Why did you pass that item like you did with a port, knowing that it was illegal?
And you said we have to do this, otherwise it will put our construction contract way far behind.
And in your willingness to move forward and do that, you're going to make that happen.
Because you can't be trusted.
And that's what's so sad is that you blatantly do it. And all of you guys sit up here and you pay these people more and more money, even yourselves. It is disgusting.
Because you sit here and act like you represent the people. No, you don't.
He represents special interests. You represent people that are in your pockets
If you represented the people, the world around us wouldn't look like it does.
And you guys act like you're good stewards of our money. It's disgusting because this is just proof
That you aren't
Because we should be decreasing salaries, especially when the work that you're doing is to control our movements
You don't pay attention to anything that is going on with geoengineering and stuff that is actually affecting the planet
You guys want to get us out of our cars, change our behaviors.
It's disgusting. And it's like all you people have to do is pay attention to your behaviors and you can see clearly
That you guys do not work for the people which you're supposed to
And so I invoke your oaths that you've taken
But the sad thing is, is that you guys don't even know. Thank you. Your time has expired. Next is Cesar Javier, followed by Paul Hanken online. This is item number five.
Item number five.
We are merely
Living frontliners
In an economically disadvantaged
Community
Councilor Lee is aware of this
to us to comment on this is
Crime against society.
Is something to
Punder upon
Particularly in a leadership like
Business
On mobility and transportation. We will not comment on your intellectual level
Or
human dimensions
Particularly on the moral dimensions. It could not be weighted. It could not be measured.
What could be qualified or described by words or language.
Sir Mario.
We will take your salary
temporarily for the next 6 months, emergency and use it.
To claim the Tijuana Riverbed pollution.
And also to use for the cure care of 10,000 victims as estimated by the county supervisor.
Ma'am, Paloma
I think that is a moral thing to do instead of increasing.
We will not increase, sir. We just asked you to donate as we have been doing in our neighborhood to collect donation for the 106 years old City San Diego survivalist
Sir Mario.
We can still work this correctly. Let's focus on the humans, victims of pollution at the border
Thank you, your time has expired. Next is Paul Hanken, followed by phone number NAN 1672. This is item number five.
Okay, FY26 goals, objectives, and metrics were established next year
Here's what I think. One, enhance the guardrails around our planning and implementation activities to ensure they consistently deliver meaningful, high quality results. No
To institute system of best practices trainings, technologies and guidelines. Yes
3. Strengthen public trust with the board and public by practicing open governments, providing clear, timely and accessible info. Yes
For creating a line deficient, agile organizational and governance structure designed to meet our mandates and accessible to the public, build a culture of continuous improvement
Mostly
5. Plan, maintain, and provide infrastructure improvements and other services in support of a sustainable and thriving future. Deliver appropriate approved work program on time and on budget.
Mostly
I don't know about on budget. 6. Be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, strengthen budget management and develop a work plan to implement the board's short-term and long-term funding priorities
No, because of an entrenched bureaucracy needs transparent budgeting
7. Work closely with the board member jurisdictions and other partners to advance planning program and project delivery. Identify opportunities to leverage funding, cut costs, and advance regional goals
Mostly, which means no
Thank you, your time has expired. Our last public comment is phone number ending in 1672. This is item number five.
Okay, Consolo here, and yeah, gosh, who needs cable? Just tune in to these shit shows with these out-of-touch board members. Anyways, okay, yeah, and since the bar wasn't set that high, replacing Nicarot
I can see how he was deemed exceeding expectations, but nothing new here. He, like Hassan, is still in alignment with the globalist agenda
Hence the obscenely offensive salary of $649,000. Wow. It makes me wonder if the majority of the county knew this information and understood
how this agency truly operates, would they still support it? No, because the majority of the county doesn't even know Sandag exists
Yeah, I mean, honestly, because if that was the case, they would probably start demanding accountability, transparency, like, you guys like to brag about. And an endless waste
Total deception
Honestly, it's like a… it's a
It's just so self-serving.
Anyways, again, the people deserve better.
And all this crap
And
Just so unfortunate, so gross. But you know what? I'm tuning in and I think the rest of
The people who are, holding
These political
Whatever you guys want to call it, you're not leaders, you truly aren't leaders. You're just weasels
Parasites
Honestly, I'm so sorry. I don't mean to go there, but it's true.
Anyways, happy fucking Friday.
Okay, before I go to board member comments, what I'll be looking for is a motion to deem Mario's performance in fiscal year 2026 as not just satisfactory, but exceeding expectations. Approve a 2.75% salary adjustment to be effective as of June 29, 2026
In line with the agency's fiscal year 2027 general salary increase and approve his fiscal year 2027 goals. Our first member on the board is Mayor Ehlers. Would you make that motion? I will, yes. But I had a question of clarification when you were speaking. Did you say June 22nd retro, or June 29th 29th. Okay. I want to clarify that. So
I might have missed it up. So thank you. Second by Mayor Snow. Thank you, Mayor Minto. Do you have some comments?
Okay? And Mayor Sanchez.
No, I'm good. Okay, very
Okay, that passes unanimously. This will conclude our meeting. Happy summer, everyone. The next board of directors meeting will be September 11th at 9 a.m. We are adjourned.