Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/06/07 Item 1 WkshpCITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~`~~ CITY OF -" CHUTA VISTA June 7, 2012, Item SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP/MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL. PLANNING COMMISSION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: Report: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 2012 Annual Report. Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2012 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending Acceptance by the City Council. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2012 GMOC Annual Report, and Directing the City Manager to Undertake Actions Necessary to Implement Report Recommendations as Presented in the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary. SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manairector of Development Services REVIEWED BY: City Manager 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO ^X BACKGROUND Each year, the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with Threshold Standards for the Growth Management Program's eleven quality of life indicators. The 2012 Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 2010 through 1-1 June 7, 2012, Item 1 Page 2 of 8 June 30, 2011; identifies current issues in the second half of 2011 and early 2012; and assesses Threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each Threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. A summary table of the GMOC's recommendations and staffs proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because it involves only acceptance of the GMOC Annual Report and does not involve approvals of any specific projects; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines no environmental review is necessary. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, specific projects defined in the future as a result of the recommendations in the 2012 GMOC Annual Report will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA prior to the commencement of any project. RECOMMENDATION 1) That the Planning Commission: Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2012 GMOC Annual Report, and recommending acceptance by the City Council; and 2) That the City Council: Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2012 GMOC Annual Report and directing the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement report recommendations as presented in the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Attachment 1). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission will provide comments and recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION The 2012 GMOC Annual Report addresses compliance with Threshold Standards for eleven quality of life indicators covered in the City's Growth Management Program. The rate, and, therefore, the effects, of growth in Chula Vista has slowed considerably since 2005, when nearly 3,300 building permits were issued. The number of issued permits steadily declined until 2009, when 275 building permits were issued. For the past two years, however, the number of building permits has been on an upward trend, with a total of 731 permits issued in 2011. In 2012, 208 units have been permitted through May 7th. Presented below is a summary of findings and key issues in regards to Threshold compliance. The Annual Report (Attachment 2) provides additional background information and more detailed explanations of findings and discussion recommendations. 1 ?2 June 7, 2012, Item I Page 3 of 8 Summary of Findings The following table summarizes the GMOC's Threshold compliance findings for the 2012 GMOC Annual Review, including the current (July 1, 2010 -June 30, 2011 review period, and looking forwazd at the potential for non-compliance between 2012 and 2016. Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance Not In Com Hance In Com Hance Potential Future Non- Com Hance Libraries Air Quali Libraries Police, Priority R Draina e Police, Priority II Traffic Fiscal Traffic Fire/EMS Parks and Recreation Fire/EMS Schools Sewer Water 2. Summary of Key Issues Below aze excerpts from the GMOC report, along with staff responses, based on Attachment 1. Thresholds Not in Compliance or With the Potential for Future Non-Compliance Libraries Non-Compliant Threshold Standard -The Librazies Threshold Standard states that library facilities shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) per 1,000 population, and for eight consecutive yeazs, the Threshold Standard has not been met. The city's ratio fell to 387 GSF of library facilities per 1,000 population when the 10,000-square-foot Eastlake Library closed in June 2011. With the opening of the 3,400-squaze-foot Otay Ranch Town Center Library in April 2012, however, some of that square footage has been recouped. The Finance Department projects that funding for the 30,000-square-foot library planned for Rancho del Rey is several years away. Funding for the 30,000-square-foot library planned for the Eastern Urban Center (EUC)/Millenia Project could be available sooner, however, depending on the details of a Library Delivery Agreement that must transpire between the city and the developer within one year of adoption of a new Library Master Plan. Adoption of a new Library Master Plan is on hold until a Library Strategic Plan is updated. However, the GMOC believes that postponing adoption of an updated Master Plan is problematic because interim and long-term solutions to the current square footage deficit need to be addressed; timely delivery of the EUC/Millenia library is dependent on it; and the Finance Department needs the update to do a comprehensive Public Facilities Developer Impact Fees (PFDIF) update. Therefore, the 2012 GMOC Annual Report recommends that City Council, without further delay, adopt a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bring the library system into conformance. 1 '3 June 7, 2012, Item Page 4 of 8 Staff Response: Per City Council direction, an expanded strategic planning element will be included in the draft Library Facilities Master Plan that will be brought back for adoption during FY 2012-13. Police Non-Compliant Priority Two Threshold Standard -The Police Threshold Standazd for Priority Two -Urgent Response Calls for Service states that police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority Two urgent calls within 7 minutes, and shall maintain an average response time of 7 minutes and 30 seconds or less (measured annually). For the 14th consecutive year, the Threshold has not been met. The average response time of ]0 minutes and 6 seconds for the Priority Two calls was 11 seconds higher than last yeaz, but the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes remained at 49.8%. The GMOC's 2011 Annual Report recommended that City Council direct the Police Department to provide the GMOC with historical and statistical data regarding the Priority Two Threshold Standard for top-to-bottom review, when a possible change to the Threshold Standard would be considered. The Police Department complied with the recommendation and provided historical and statistical information to the GMOC. The 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council support a change to the Priority Two Threshold Standard when it is brought forward with the final documents resulting from the top- to-bottom review (approximately fall of 2012). Staff Response: The Police Department supports the GMOC's change to the Priority Two threshold, which would put the response time threshold in line with industry standards, and address the variety of issues with response time calculations in their current format Consideration of Permanent Eastern Satellite Office -With the opening of the small storefront police facility in the Otay Ranch Town Center, discussions between the GMOC and Police Deparhnent concluded Yhat a permanent police facility in eastern Chula Vista could be beneficial, a concept that was last evaluated around 2005. With the city about to embark on comprehensively updating the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF), the GMOC believes the idea of establishing a permanent police facility in eastern Chula Vista should be formally evaluated again, before the PFDIF update, so that any need for fees can be included in the update. Therefore, the 2012 Annual Report recommends that the Police Department evaluate a possible permanent satellite facility in eastern Chula Vista for Council consideration, prior to the next comprehensive PFDIF update. Staff Response: The Police Department will research the various options and relative need for a satellite facility in eastern Chula vista, taking into consideration the cost of new construction (or utilize existing commercial office space), what service levels would need to be provided, and how tl:e department would staff the new facility. The Police Department is currently working with Southwestern Comrruenity College regarding a potential permanent facility to be located in a building Southwestern intends to construct at the corner of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road. 1 44 June 7, 2012, Item Page 5 of 8 Traffic Non-Compliant Threshold Standard -The Threshold Standazd for Traffic specifies that Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, should be maintained, except that during peak hours, LOS "D" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. During the period under review, two arterial segments were non- compliant. The first, Heritage Road northbound from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road, exceeded LOS "D" for all six peak hours. For the past three years, the northbound and southbound segments have alternately been in and out of compliance. City traffic engineers have attributed the non-compliant segment to signal timing issues, which were exacerbated by the retirement of the city's signal systems engineer, who they plan to replace on a full-time basis. The second non-compliant arterial segment was Otay Lakes Road southbound from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road, which exceeded LOS "D" for four peak hours. City engineers expect this segment to be compliant with completion of the 2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funded project that will widen Otay Lakes Road in front of Southwestern College and add a third southbound lane and raised median to the entire road segment. The 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council support city engineers in their efforts to adequately monitor the threshold standard and to provide solutions to be compliant. Staff Response: The Public Works Department concurs with the GMOC recommendation; recommendations are accepted Fire and Emergency Medical Services Non-Compliant Threshold Standard -The Fire and Emergency Medical Services Threshold Standard states that "Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven minutes in eighty percent of the cases." For the first time since Fiscal Year 2003-04, the Threshold Standard has not been met. The percentage of calls responded to within seven minutes (78.1) dropped by nearly seven percent from last year's annual report (85) - a significant drop in one year, and two percent below the Threshold of 80 percent. The Fire Department attributed the decline to slower turn-out times -the amount of time it takes an engine to leave a station once an alarm is sounded -due, largely, to staff performance. To address the situation, the Fire Department is implementing visual aids and reviewing monthly response time reports from each station. The 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue turn-out improvement strategies that will ensure that the Threshold Standard will be met. Staff Response: The Fire Department has implemented a Battalion Chief and Company Officer monthly report that provides each unit with response data. This monthly report includes dispatch, turnout and travel times so each Company Offuer is aware if they met or fell below the standard each month. Officers that do not meet the minimum standard are required to meet with their Baualion Chief to set goals and address issues to bring them into compliance. We continue to look for funding that will allow us to purchase and install turnout timers in each station so the crews can visually see if they met the standard on each response. 1 55 June 7, 2012, Item 1 Page 6 of 8 Fire Facilities Master Plan -The GMOC was informed that the Fire Facilities Master Plan update is complete, including a fiscal analysis to accompany the document, and that it must be presented at a series of public information meetings before it is brought to Council for consideration. The GMOC stressed the importance that an updated plan be approved by Council as soon as possible so that it can be included in the pending Public Facilities Development Impact Fees update. Therefore, the 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council ensure expeditious completion of the public information meetings and scheduling for Counci] consideration so the updated Fire Facilities Master Plan can be included in the next PFDIF update. Staff Response: The financial document that accompanies our Fire Facility Master Plan is now complete. We are currently working on the PowerPoint presentation for the Council and public outreach meetings. This will be followed by Council consideration for the adoption of t/ae plan. Thresholds Currently in Compliance Threshold Standards were found to be compliant for Parks & Recreation, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, Drainage, Air Quality, and Water. However, the GMOC made two recommendations for Parks and Recreation, one for Fiscal, and one for Drainage, as outlined below: Parks and Recreation Threshold Comt~liance -The Pazks and Recreation Department noted in their responses to GMOC's 2012 questionnaire that there is a possibility of a pazk acreage shortage (up to 24.9 acres) in eastern Chula Vista by 2016, and that the potential shortfall could be avoided if physical issues on individual Otay Ranch Village 2 park sites (including a water line relocation issue) are resolved; and if work commences on individual Park Master Plan design. The 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council direct Parks and Recreation staff to closely monitor parkland development phasing to keep it in compliance with the Threshold Standazd. Staff Response: Staff will schedule the preparation of individual park master plans with the objective of keeping in compliance with GMOC park thresholds to tJze extent t/aat is possible within theJZuctuating timelines and physical constraints inherent in development. Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - A draft Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan has been completed and was scheduled to go to Council in spring 2011. However, before reviewing the document, Council directed staff to solicit more public review, which has been completed. At this time, however, it is unclear to the GMOC when the updated Master Plan will be taken to Council for consideration. The 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council adopt the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. Staff Response: The city-wide Parks and Recreations Master Plan will be submilled for Council action upon resolution of the incorporation of "Landmark Park" implementation policies into the document 1 66 June 7, 2012, Item ~ Page 7 of 8 Fiscal A comprehensive update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) has not been done since 2006, and the GMOC believes it is important for an update to occur again as soon as possible 1) because the current amount of PFDIF fees being used to pay debt service may exceed what was originally assumed when the PFDIF was last updated; and 2) three updated facilities master plans that are awaiting Council's approval need to be calculated into the PFDIF to ensure that adequate fees will be collected to pay for construction of new public facilities. With two large development proposals being processed in the next 6-18 months; there is also the potential that several thousand more dwelling units will need to be calculated into the PFDIF. The 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council direct the Finance Department to begin the process of comprehensively updating the PFDIF based on the updated master plans so that it will be completed within 120 days of Council's action on each of the large projects involving the proposed dwelling unit increases. Staff Response: Finance Department staff supports the GMOC's recommendation to begin n comprehensive update of the PFDIF. In addition to Council action on proposed unit increases, Council action to adopt the pending Library, Fire, and Park & Recreation master plans is also necessary. Staff recommends that any Council direction reflect these additional required steps in advance of the comprehensive PFDIF update. Development Impact Fee programs must meet certain legal requirements, generally referred to as `nexus' and `proportionality'. The nexus requirement states that a city must establish a reasonable relationship, or nexus, between a development project or class of development projects and the public improvements for which a developer fee is charged The proportionality requirement states that a city must establish a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion ojthat facility allributable to development. Drainage Adequate funding for channel maintenance is an ongoing issue, and the GMOC recognizes that maintaining existing channels in western Chula Vista is challenging because environmental permits to allow specific maintenance tasks aze expensive. The 2012 Annual Report recommends that City Council direct city engineering staff to closely monitor the status of channel maintenance to keep it in compliance with the Threshold Standard. StafjResponse: Engineering staff will monitor the status of channel maintenance to keep it zn compliance will: tlae Threshold Standard 3. Conclusions To assist Council in evaluating and acting upon the GMOC's recommendations, staff from departments associated with specific Threshold Standards reviewed the annual report's recommendations and provided responses and/or recommended implementing actions, as presented in Attachment 1. 1 ~7 June 7, 2012, Item 1 Page 8 of 8 DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has determined that, since the GMOC Annual Report is not site specific, the 500-foot notification rule found in California Code of Regulations Section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this action. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT As follow-up implementing actions are brought forward to the City Council beyond June 30, 2012, ongoing, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided, as applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1 - 2012 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2012 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo 3 - 2012 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B Prepared 6y Kimberly Dander Bte, Associate Planner, Development Services Deparlment I 80 2012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY J n 2 m z -~ 3 GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 1. Libraries 1. Libraries 3.1.1 That City Council adopt the Library Facilities Master Plan 3.1.1 Per City Council request, an expanded strategic that provides interim and long-term solutions to bring the planning element will be included in the draft Library library system into conformance. Facilities Master Plan that will be brought back for adoption during FY 2012-13. 2. Police 2. Police 3.2.2 That City Council support a change to the Priority Two 3.2.2 The Police Department supports the GMOC's change to Threshold Standard when it is brought to them in top-to- the Priority Two Threshold, which would put the bottom's final documents. response time threshold in line with industry standards, and address the variety of issues with response time calculations in their current format. 3.2.3 That the Police Department evaluate a possible permanent 3.2.3 The Police Department will research the various options satellite facility in eastern Chula Vista for Council and relative need for a satellite facility in eastern Chula consideration, prior to the next comprehensive PFDIF Vista, taking into consideration the cost of new update. construction (or utilize existing commercial office space), what service levels would need to be provided, and how the department would staff the new facility. The Police Department is currently working with Southwestern Community College regarding a potential permanent facility to be located in a building Southwestern intends to construct at the corner of East H Street and Ota Lakes Road. 3. Traffic 3. Traffic 3.3.1 That City Council continue to support city engineers in 3.3.1 The Public Works Department concurs with the GMOC their efforts to implement improvements that will result in recommendation; recommendations are accepted. Threshold compliance, such as: 1) funding a signal systems engineer, and 2) timely completing the Otay Lakes Road widening project. Page 1 of 3 2012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY J 0 GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 4. Fire & Emergencv Medical Services 4. Fire &Emergencv Medical Services 3.4.1 That City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue turn- 3.4.1 The Fire Department has implemented a Battalion out improvement strategies that will ensure that the Chief and Company Officer monthly report that Threshold Standard will be met. provides each unit with response data. This monthly report includes dispatch, turnout and travel times so each Company Officer is aware if they met or fell below the standard each month. Officers that do not meet the minimum standard are required to meet with their Battalion Chief to set goals and address issues to bring them into compliance. We continue to look for funding that will allow us to purchase and install turnout timers in each station so the crews can visually see if they met the standard on each response. 3.4.2 That City Council ensure expeditious completion of the .4.2 The financial document that accompanies our Fire public information meetings and scheduling for Council Facility Master Plan is now complete. We are currently consideration so the updated Fire Facilities Master Plan can working on the PowerPoint presentation for the Council be included in the next PFDIF update. and public outreach meetings. This will be followed by Council consideration for the adoption of the plan. 5. Parks and Recreation 5. Parks and Recreation 3.5.1 That City Council direct Parks and Recreation staff to 3.5.1 Staff will schedule the preparation of individual park closely monitor timely preparation of park master plan master plans with the objective of keeping in designs and land development phasing to keep it in compliance with GMOC park thresholds to the extent i compliance with the Threshold Standard. that is possible within the fluctuating timelines and physical constraints inherent in development. 3.5.2 That City Council request staff return the Parks and 3.5.2 The city-wide Parks and Recreations Master Plan will be Recreation Facilities Master Plan to them for action. submitted for Council action u on resolution of the Page 2 of 3 2012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY J f GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS incorporation of "Landmark Park" implementation policies into the document. 6. Fiscal 6. Fiscal 3.6.1 That City Council direct the Finance Department to begin 3.6.1 Finance Department staff supports the GMOC's the process of comprehensively updating the (PFDIF) so recommendation to begin a comprehensive update of that it will be completed within 120 days of Council's action the PFDIF. In addition to Council action on proposed on proposed unit increases. unit increases, Council action to adopt the pending Library, Fire, and Park & Recreation master plans is also necessary. Staff recommends that any Council direction reflect these additional required steps in advance of the comprehensive PFDIF update. Development Impact Fee programs must meet certain legal requirements, generally referred to as `nexus' and `proportionality'. The nexus requirement states that a city must establish a reasonable relationship, or nexus, between a development projector class of development projects and the public improvements for which a developer fee is charged. The proportionality requirement states that a city must establish a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or ortion of that facilit attributable to develo ment. 7. Drainage 7. Drainage 3.7.1 That City Council direct Engineering staff to closely monitor 3.7.1 Engineering staff will monitor the status of channel the status of channel maintenance to keep it in compliance maintenance to keep it in compliance with the with the Threshold Standard. Threshold Standard. Page 3 of 3 GMOC Annual Report, Including the Chair Cover Memo ATTACHMENT 2 -12 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 ANNUAL REPORT Threshold Review Period 7/1/10 to 6/30/11 June 7, 2012 Approved by the Planning Commisslon (Resolution No. PCM 11-19) and City Council (Resolution No. 2011-~ on June 7, 2012 1-13 GMOC Members Armida Torres, Chair (Business) Russ Hall, Vice Chair (Center City) Carl Harry (Development) David Danciu (Southwest) David W. Krogh (Sweetwater/Bonito) Francisco Sevilla (Education) VACANT as of 3.19.12 Mark Liuag (Planning Commission Representative) Regina Ong-Garcia (Southeast) VACANT (Environmental) Ciiv Staff Kimberly Vander Bie -Associate Planner/ Growth Management Coordinator Patricia Laughlin -Management Assistant Ed Batchelder-Advance Planning Manager City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourfh Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 www. chulavistaca, gov 1-14 GMOC Chalr Cover Memo DATE: June 7, 2012 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Chula Vista FROM: Armida Torres, Chair Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) SUBJECT: Executive Summary - 2012 GMOC Annual Report The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its 2012 annual report for. your consideration and action. In reviewing information for this year's report, it became very apparent to the GMOC that city budget cuts and staff reductions in recent years have taken a toll in almost all of the areas monitored by this Commission. Drainage channels and parks are not maintained as well as they should be; recreation facilities and libraries are open less frequently; and police and fire response times have slowed down, to name a few of our observations. Threshold Standards for seven of the eleven quality-of-life indicators were found to be "compliant," including: Air Quality, Drainage, Fiscal, Parks and Recreation, Schools, Sewer and Water. Threshold standards found to be "non-compliant" were Fire, Libraries, Police (Priority Two) and Traffic. While the details of each are outlined in the attached report, the GMOC would like to highlight a few items of special interest. Fire -For the first time in eight years, response times fell below the threshold standard, which the Fire Department attributed to increased turnout times associated with staff performance issues. The underperformance was not immediately apparent to the Fire Department because data mining was set aside when staffing was reduced. However, the Fire Department has returned to collecting data from individual fire stations and they are addressing performance issues with the companies not meeting the standard. The GMOC is pleased that the Fire Department has been working to provide an Advance Life Support (ALS) program to make certain the residents of Chula Vista receive the finest and most appropriate emergency medical care in a timely manner. We are concerned, however, that City Council's consideration of the updated Fire Facility Master Plan has been delayed. This delay is affecting timing of the comprehensive PFDIF update, last completed in 2006.. Libraries -For the eighth successive year, Libraries is non-compliant. The GMOC supports the Library Director's determination to explore creative approaches to provide library services to the citizens of the city, and is pleased that a small library branch has been set up at the Otay Ranch Town Center, replacing the former branch at Eastlake High School. However, we are frustrated that the updated Library Facility Master Plan, which would outline concrete interim and long-term solutions to the perpetual square footage deficit, has been postponed for consideration by City Council until a strategic plan is updated. 2012 Annual Report 1-1 5 1 June 2012 Police -The Police Department is operating with the lowest number of officers in the county (per 1,000 persons), and there is a need to clarify the way that the response times are being reported, which we presented in last year's Annual Report and which is being addressed through the top-to-bottom review process. Although the Police Priority One threshold standard has not been greatly affected by the reporting process and continues to be in compliance after several consecutive years, the Police Priority Two threshold standard is non-compliant for the 14'" year in a row. The GMOC has concluded that modifications to the Police thresholds are necessary, and we would appreciate Council's support when those changes are proposed in a revised growth management ordinance resulting from the top-to-bottom process. Traffic -Heritage Road continues to be a challenging arterial segment to comply with the threshold standard. It has been consistently out of compliance for several years, in either the northbound or southbound direction. During this reporting period, northbound Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road was out of compliance, which the city engineers attributed to signal timing issues. Apparently, during this review period, the city was operating without afull-time signal systems engineer. The GMOC supports restoring the signal timing position to a full-time capacity. Southbound Otay Lakes Road, between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, was also out of compliance during this review period, and the GMOC is pleased that a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been approved to implement road widening improvements. City engineers also informed the GMOC that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) has incorporated regional light rail trolley improvements into their 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, and the GMOC encourages City Council to continue supporting staff efforts to pursue grade crossing improvements at Palomar Street, H Street and E Street. Although Fiscal was found to be compliant, the GMOC has some concerns. First, the Finance Department stated that they have been waiting to do a comprehensive update of the Public Facilities Developer Impact Fees (PFDIF) (last updated in 2006) until updated facility master plans are adopted by Council. Although three facility master plans (including Fire, Libraries, and Parks and Recreation) were recently updated, Council has postponed considering them for approval until strategic plans or fiscal analyses to accompany them are completed. The timeframe for this additional information may take up to two years. With two potential density increases materializing in the next 1S months, it is imperative that the master plans be adopted promptly so that a comprehensive PFDIF can be completed as soon as any additional dwelling units may be approved by Council. Our second concern is in regards to Developer Impact Fees (DIF) fees being used to pay debt service. The Finance Department reports that, based on cash flow restraints in the PFDIF, 100% of fee revenues is currently being applied to the PFDIF fund's debt service obligation. They state that when they complete the next comprehensive PFDIF update, they will include an analysis of the percentage of each fee dollar going to pay debt service. It appears to the GMOC that overall debt service costs have increased, which would also need to be factored into the update. Thus, the GMOC underscores its recommendation that Council require the PFDIF to be updated sooner than two years from now. The GMOC also encourages Council to pursue a sustainable economic policy to address service shortages resulting from budget cutbacks. The GMOC appreciates the time and professional expertise provided by the staff of various city departments (as well as the school districts and water districts) for their input to this year's annual report. The written and verbal reports presented to the GMOC demonstrate the commitment of these dedicated individuals to serve the citizens of Chula Vista. 2012 Annual Report 1-16 2 June 2012 Cfly of Chula Vlsta GMOC 2012 Annual Report Table of Contents GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO ............................................................................ 1-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 4-5 1.1 Threshold Standards 4 1.2 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 4 1.3 GMOC 2012 Annual Review Process 5 1.4 Growth Forecast 5 1.5 Report Organization 5 2.0 THRE SHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ................................................. 6 3.0 THRE SHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ........................................... 7-24 3.1 Libraries ................................................................................... 7-8 3.1.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 7-8 3.2 Police ............................................................................... 9-13 3.2.1 Priority One Threshold Findings 10 3.2.2 Non-Compliant Priority Two Threshold Standard 11-12 3.2.3 Consideration of Permanent Eastern Satellite Office 13 3.3 Traffic ..................................................................................... 13-14 3.3.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 13 3.4 Fire and Emergency Services ...................................................... 14-15 3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 14-15 3.4.2 Fire Facilities Master Plan 15 3.5 Parks and Recreation ................................................................. 15-16 3.5.1 Threshold Compliance 16 3.5.2 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 16 3.6 Fiscal ..................................................................................... 17-18 3.6.1 Updating Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) 17-18 3.7 Drainage ................................................................................... 18-19 3.6.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels 18-19 3.8 Schools ............................................................................ 19-20 3.8:1 School District Updates 19-20 3.9 Sewer .................................................................................. 20-21 3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity 20-21 3.10 Air Quality 21-22 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 22-23 3.11 Water ..................................................................................... 23-24 3.11.1 Meeting Water Demands 24 4.0 APPE NDICES ..................................................................................... 25 4.1 Appendix A - Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B - Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2012 Annual Report ~ _ ~ ~ 3 June 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Threshold Standards In November 1987, the City Council adopted a Threshold Standards Policy for Chula Vista, establishing threshold standards, or "quality-of-life" indicators, for eleven public facility and service topics, including: Air Quality, Drainage, Fire and Emergency Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks & Recreation, Police, Schools, Sewer, Traffic and Water. The Policy addresses each indicator in terms of a goal, objective(s), threshold standard(s), and implementation measures. Adherence to the threshold standards is intended to preserve and enhance the quality of life and environment of Chula Vista residents, as growth occurs. 1.2 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) The 1987 Threshold Standards Policy also established the creation of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), a body appointed by City Council to provide an independent, annual review of Threshold Standards compliance. The GMOC is composed of nine members, representing each of the city's four major geographic areas; across-section of interests, including education, environment, business, and development; and a member of the Planning Commission. There were several commissioner changes during the past year. After serving as the Planning Commission representative for three years, Bryan Felber's position was filled by Mark Liuag last fall. At the same time, Regina Ong-Garcia filled the Eastern Chula Vista vacancy, and Francisco Sevilla joined the Commission as the Education representative, but he resigned in March. David Danciu became a commissioner in February, filling the Southwestern Chula Vista vacancy. The Environmental position has been vacant since Duane Bazzel's resignation last fall; therefore, two positions are currently vacant: Education and Environmental. The Sweetwater/Bonita position will be vacated by David Krogh on June 30, 2012 when his second term as a commissioner expires. With over eight years as a commissioner, two as Chair, Commissioner Krogh is one of the longest serving members of the GMOC, and we are grateful for his service. The GMOC's review is structured around three timeframes: 1. A Fiscal Year Cycle to accommodate City Council review of GMOC recommendations that may have budget implications. This 2012 Annual Report focuses on fiscal year July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011; 2. The second half of 2011 and beginning of 2012 to identify and address pertinent issues identified during this timeframe, and to assure that the GMOC can and does respond to current events; and 3. A five-year forecast to assure that the GMOC has a future orientation. The period from January 2012 through December 2016 is assessed for potential threshold compliance concerns. The GMOC annually distributes questionnaires to the relevant city departments and public facility and service agencies to monitor the status of Threshold Standards 2012 Annual Report ~ _ ~ 8 4 June 2012 compliance. When the questionnaires are completed, the GMOC reviews them and deliberates issues of compliance. They also evaluate the appropriateness of the Threshold Standards, whether they should be amended, and whether any new Threshold Standards should be considered. 1.3 GMOC 2012 Annual Review Process The GMOC held 11 meetings between October 2011 and May 2012, which were open to the public. Representatives from the city departments and public agencies associated with the threshold compliance questionnaires gave presentations to the Commission and discussed the questionnaires they had completed (attached in Appendix B). Through this process, city staff and the GMOC identified issues and conditions, and they are discussed in this report. The final GMOC annual report is required to be transmitted through the Planning Commission to the City Council at a joint meeting, scheduled for June 7, 2012. 1.4 Growth Forecast The Development Services Department annually prepares aFive-Year Growth Forecast; the latest of which was issued in November 2011. The Forecast provides departments and outside agencies with an estimate of the maximum amount of residential growth anticipated over the next five years. Copies of the Forecast were distributed with the GMOC questionnaires to help the departments and agencies determine if their respective public facilities/services would be able to accommodate the forecasted growth. The Growth Forecast from November 2011 through December 2016 indicated an additional 5,900 residential units could be permitted for construction in the city over the next five years, (5,537 in the east and 363 units in the west), for an annual average of 1,107 in the east and 73 units in the west, or just over 1,180 housing units permitted per year on average, citywide. The projected units permitted per year on average, citywide, is down 232 units from last year's forecast of 1,412 units. 1.5 Report Organization The 2012 GMOC Annual Report is organized into four sections: Section 1: Introduction; description of GMOC's role and review process; an explanation of the Residential Growth Forecast; and an outline of the 2012 report Section 2: A threshold compliance summary in table format Section 3: A threshold by threshold discussion of issues, acknowledgments, statements of concern (if any), and recommendations Section 4: Appendices 2012 Annual Report ~ _~ 9 5 June 2012 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC's conclusions regarding threshold standards for the 2011 annual review cycle. Seven thresholds were met and four were not. 2012 THRESHOLD;STANDARD-ANNUAL;REVIEW SUMMARY R~UIE9N PERIOD 7/1/1D THROUGH 6/30/11 AdoptlFund Potential of Threshold Threshold Met Threshold Not Future Non- Tactics to Met Achieve compliance - Com liance 1. Libraries X X X 2. Police Priority I X Priority II X X X 3. Traffic X X X 4. Fire/EMS X X X 5. Parks and ~~ ~~ ~'i~s ~y s s' ~ ~ ~ ,{ r , ;, Recreation ~ ~ ` ~,~ ~~~~'3i<< ~i~ ~' ti's` ~,~ ., , __ ~r'~3~; ..., .=f ..~ d ~~:~1 . ;~ , , r _. Land X Facilities X 6. Fiscal X 7. Drainage X 8. Schools CV Elementary X School District Sweetwater X Union High School District 9. Sewer X 10. Air Quality X 11. Water X 2012 Annual Report ~ _ 2 ~ 6 June 2012 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS 3.1 LIBRARIES Threshold Standard: Population ratio: 500 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed library facility per 1,000 population. The city shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by build-out. The construction of said facilities shalt be phased such that the city will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. Threshold Finding: Non-Compliant 3.1.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 'LIBRARIES ` Population . ~ Total Gross Square ' Footage of Library '' Facilities' ~ 'Gross Square Feet of Library Facilities Per 1000' Po ulation Threshold X X 500 S`. Ft. 5-Year Projection (2016) 266,126 95,400 358 12-Month Projection 12/31/12 252,271 95,400 378 FY 2010-11 246,496 102,000/92,000' 414/387' FY 2009-10 233,692 102,000 436 FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437 FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441 FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448 FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457 FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464 FY 2003-04 211,800 102,000 482 FY 2002-03 203,000 102,000 502 FY 2001-02 195,000 102,000 523 FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571 'After closure of Eastlake Library in June 2011 2012 Annual Report ~ _ 2 ~ 7 June 2012 Issue: After eight consecutive years, the city continues to be out of compliance. with the threshold standard. Discussion: Since the GMOC's last annual report, the Libraries total square footage deficit grew, primarily due to closure of the Eastlake Library in June 2011. A portion of the lost square footage was recouped, however, with the recent opening of a modular storefront library in the Otay Ranch Town Center. Although the 3,400-square-foot library at the Otay Ranch Town Center will not close the threshold standard gap, it will serve as an interim facility for at least three years, and possibly until funds are available to construct a permanent library in eastern Chula Vista. As has been discussed in previous GMOC reports, it may be up to ten years before adequate Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) funding is available to construct a 30,000-square-foot library in eastern Chula Vista's Rancho del Rey. However, with development of the Eastern Urban Center (EUC)/Millenia Project underway, construction of a 30,000-square-foot library in the EUC may occur before the Rancho del Rey is constructed because a Development Agreement between the city and the developer ties developer entitlements to delivery of library space in the EUC. The agreement states that, within a year of adoption of a new Library Master Plan, the developer is required to enter into a Library Delivery Agreement with the city that identifies a location, as well as timing, for delivery of library space. Adoption of a new Library Master Plan is on hold, however. A draft of the Library Facilities Master Plan was completed and agendized for City Council review on July 12, 2011, but was pulled from the agenda because Council requested that the Library Strategic Plan be updated to replace the existing one, which expired in 2006, before a Facilities Master Plan is brought forward. A Strategic Plan may not be completed for another 12- 18 months, which would postpone consideration of the updated Master Plan for at least as long. The GMOC believes that postponing adoption of an updated Library Master Plan for up to two years is unacceptable because 1) It is important to adopt interim and long-term solutions to the current square footage deficit; 2) The clock will start ticking for delivery of a library in the EUC, once an updated Master Plan is adopted; and 3) The city's Finance Department needs the Master Plan update to update the PFDIF, which will ensure that adequate funds are being collected to implement the Master Plan. Recommendation: That City Council, without further delay, adopt a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bring the library system into conformance. 2012 Annual Report ~ _22 8 June 2012 3.2 POLICE Threshold Standard: Priority One Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 % of the Priority One emergency calls throughout the city within seven minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority One calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less. Priority Two Urgent Response: Respond to 57% of the Priority Two urgent calls throughout the city within seven minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority Two calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less. Threshold Finding: Priority One: Compliant Priority Two: Non-Compliant Threshold Standard Percent Time _ Avera a Time Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. Priorit One Urgent Response 57.0°/a 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec (Priorit Two Actual Emergency Response 85.7% 7 minutes 4:40 min./sec. Priorit One Urgent Response 49.8% 7 minutes 10:06 min./sec. Priorit Two 2012 Annual Report ~ _23 9 June 2012 Issue: None Discussion: During the period under review, the Police Department responded to 85.7% of Priority One Emergency Response calls within 7 minutes, .6 percent better than the previous year, and 5.7% better than the Threshold Standard requires. With an average response time of 4 minutes and 40 seconds, the response time was 12 seconds longer than the previous year; however, it was still 50 seconds better than the Threshold Standard requires. 1 Officers are dispatched while in the field on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched. z All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority Two figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. Prior to FY 01-02, citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to received source. s The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. 2012 Annual Report ~ _24 10 June 2012 3.2.1 Priority One Threshold Findings 3.2.2 Non-Compliant Priority Two Threshold Standard Issue: Priority Two response times continue to fall short of complying with the Threshold Standard. Discussion: For the 14`" consecutive year, the Threshold Standard for Priority Two - Urgent Response has not been met. The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes, 49.8%, was identical to the previous year's percentage; however, the average response time of 10:06 minutes was 11 seconds longer. The Police Department reported that it has exhausted all resources with the goal of improving Priority Two response times; and without funding for additional staff, the Priority Two Threshold Standard will remain unmet in the foreseeable future. The City Manager has approved a comprehensive staffing study, which will examine the appropriate staffing levels necessary to achieve compliance with both the existing Priority Two Threshold Standard and a modified one. The modified Threshold Standard comes as a result of staff analyzing data and working with the Police Department during top-to-bottom review of the Growth Management Program. The GMOC will be proposing changes to the Priority Two Threshold Standard when it brings the top-to- 1 OHlcers are tlispalchetl while in the fieltl on patrol, therefore there Is no time tlelay when a call is dispamhetl. 2012 Annual Report ~ _25 11 June 2012 bottom documents to City Council later this year. The changes will clear up some confusing aspects of how response times are currently reported and establish a response time goal that is reasonable and appropriate. Recommendation: That City Council support a change to the Priority Two Threshold Standard when it is brought to them intop-to-bottom's final documents. 3.2.3 Consideration of Permanent Eastern Satellite Office Issue: The concept of a permanent Police Department facility in eastern Chula Vista has not been formally evaluated in several years. Discussion: Although funding is not currently available to construct a permanent satellite office in eastern Chula Vista, in 2011 the non-profit Chula Vista Police Foundation was able to provide a couple years of funding for the Chula Vista Police Department to open up a small storefront facility in the Otay Ranch Town Center. The facility helps bring police resources closer to the community and to maintain safety in local neighborhoods. In discussions the GMOC had with the Police Department, both agreed that a permanent satellite facility in eastern Chula Vista could be beneficial, although the concept has not been formally evaluated since about 2005. With the city about to embark on comprehensively updating the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF), the GMOC believes the idea of establishing a permanent police facility in eastern Chula Vista should be formally evaluated again, before the PFDIF update, so that any need for fees can be included in the update. Recommendation: That the Police Department evaluate a possible permanent satellite facility in eastern Chula Vista for Council consideration, prior to the next comprehensive Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) update. 3.3 TRAFFIC Threshold Standard: Citywide: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. West of I-805: Those intersections which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current (year 1991) LOS, but shall not worsen. Threshold Finding: Non-Compliant 2012 Annual Report ~ _ 2 6 12 June 2012 3.3.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard Issue: Two arterial segments were non-compliant with the Threshold Standard. Discussion: During the period under review, two arterial segments were non- compliant. The first, Heritage Road northbound from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road, did not meet the Threshold Standard, exceeding Level of Service (LOS) "D" for more than two hours during peak hours. During the previous review period, it was compliant, but the southbound segment was not. This year, however, the southbound segment was compliant (see table below). SEGMENT (Limits) DIR LOS 2010 Hours LOS 2011 Hours CHANGE I, Heritage Road NB C(5) D(1) D(5) E(1) C(-1) D (+4) (Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Compliant Non-Compliant E (+1) Canyon Road ) SB C(2) D(4) C(6) C(+4) D(-4) (Telegraph Canyon Road to Non-Compliant Compliant OI m is Parkwa Otay Lakes Road NB C(6) B(1) C(5) B(+1) C(-1) (East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Compliant Compliant Road) SB C(6) C (2) D(4) Com liant Non-Co~liant C(-4) D(+4) This same scenario occurred between the 2009 and 2010 review periods. So, for the past three review periods, both the northbound and southbound segments have alternately been in and out of compliance. Engineering attributed the non-compliant segment to signal timing issues, specifically, that signals were not monitored consistently, due to the loss of the city's signal systems engineer, who retired. Although the city hired a consultant on an as-needed basis to carry out the city's Traffic Signal Optimization Program (evaluating and monitoring signal synchronization and corridor coordination), the effect it had on the non-compliant segment was insufficient. The city budget currently has a halftime position budgeted for the traffic signal program; however, one fulltime Associate Civil Engineer will eventually be in charge of the city's 268 traffic signals. This person will be in charge of evaluating and monitoring existing signals for desired signal timing improvements and make changes to improve the signal synchronization and corridor coordination. Numerous signal systems/ corridors will be analyzed for phasing and timing improvements, based on traffic data collected by city forces, which will help determine the need for re-timing analysis. Significant improvement in traffic flow characteristics, including fewer vehicle stops and delays, should result. 2012 Annual Report ~ _27 13 June 2012 The second non-compliant segment was Otay Lakes Road, southbound between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road; it was operating at LOS "D" for four hours, exceeding the threshold standard by two hours (see table above). There is a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funded project allocated for this non-compliant segment, which includes widening Otay Lakes Road in front of Southwestern College and adding a third southbound lane and raised median to the entire block (down to Mira Costa). Construction will occur in spring and summer 2013. Recommendation: That City Council continue to support city engineers in their efforts to implement improvements that will result in Threshold compliance, such as: 1) funding a signal systems engineer, and 2) timely completing the Otay Lakes Road widening project. 3.4 FIRE and EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Threshold Standard: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Threshold Finding: Non-Compliant 3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard FIRE/ ` Re EMS Emergency sponse Times LL COMPARISON ~` Revtew Period ~' '~ ` ~ -` CaII Volume ~ % of A11 Call Response w/in ; 7:00 Minutes ` gverage Response Time ' foC 80% of Calls, Average Travel Time THRESHOL D 80''.0% FY 2011 9,916 78.1 6:46 3:41 FY 2010 10,296 85% 5:09 3:40 FY 2009 9,363 84.0% 4:46 3:33 FY 2008 9,883 86.9% 6:31 3:17 FY 2007 10,020 88.1 % 6:24 3:30 CY 2006 10,390 85.2% 6:43 3:36 CY 2005 9,907 81.6% 7:05 3:31 FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9% 7:38 3:32 FY 2002-03 8,088 75.5% 7:35 3:43 FY 2001-02 7,626 69.7% 7:53 3:39 FY 2000-O1 7,128 80.8% 7:02 3:18 FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% 3:29 Note: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003. The difference in 2004 performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5 % range of expected yearly variation and not statistically signifcant. 2012 Annual Report ~ _28 14 June 2012 Issue: The Fire Department failed to respond to at least 80% of calls within minutes; therefore it was non-compliant with the Threshold Standard. Discussion: The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes (78.1%) dropped by nearly 7% from Fiscal Year 2010 (85%) to Fiscal Year 2011 (78.1). While 78.1 % is only slightly below the Threshold Standard of 80%, the drop in one year is significant. The Fire Department attributed the decline to slower turn-out times -the amount of time it takes an engine to leave a station once an alarm is sounded -due, largely, to staff performance. To address the situation, the Fire Department has identified some "Lean" program techniques and solutions, including implementing visual aids and response time reports. For instance, clocks that count down when the tone goes off are being installed in each fire station. In addition, monthly response time reports from each station are being sent to the Deputy Fire Chief so that he can be kept up-to-date on status. Medical (84.9%) and other emergencies (10%) accounted for the majority of calls responded to during the period under review. The percentage of calls for fires was 5.1 %. Recommendation: That City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue turn-out improvement strategies that will ensure that the Threshold Standard will be met. 3.4.2 Fire Facilities Master Plan Issue: Delay of acouncil-approved Fire Facilities Master Plan update will hinder the Finance Department's efforts to complete a comprehensive Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) update. Discussion: The Fire Facility Master Plan update is complete, including a fiscal analysis to accompany the document. Before the Master Plan is brought to Council for consideration, the Fire Department will schedule a series of public information meetings, where they will share the document with the community and solicit input. Recommendation: That City Council ensure expeditious completion of the public information meetings and scheduling for Council consideration so the updated Fire Facilities Master Plan can be included in the next PFDIF update. 3.5 PARKS and RECREATION Threshold Standard: Population Ratio: Three acres of neighborhood and community park land with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of I-805. 2012 Annual Report ~ _29 15 June 2012 Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.5.1 Threshold Compliance Issue: Although the Threshold Standard is currently compliant, there is a possibility that it will fall short by 2016. Discussion: The Parks and Recreation Department noted that there is the possibility of a park acreage shortfall in eastern Chula Vista by 2016 (up to 24.9 acres, which would calculate to only 2.83 acres per 1,000 residents east of I-805, rather than the 3 acres/1000 required by the Threshold Standard). Parks and Recreation staff reported that park delivery would be expedited and the potential shortfall could be avoided if physical issues on individual Otay Ranch Village 2 park sites (including a water line relocation issue) are resolved; and if work commences on individual Park Master Plan design. Their report also noted the need to review the rate of Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fee collection and fund balances to ensure monies will be available when needed. Recommendation: That City Council direct Parks and Recreation staff to closely monitor timely preparation of park master plan designs and land development phasing to keep it in compliance with the Threshold Standard. 3.5.2 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Issue: Delay of acouncil-approved Parks and Recreation Master Plan update will hinder the Finance Department's efforts to complete a comprehensive PFDIF update. Discussion: A draft Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan update was considered at a Council workshop in December 2011, where Council instructed staff to further assess options for the city's Landmark Park. Staff is still involved in that process, and it is uncertain when the updated Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan will be taken back to Council for their consideration. Recommendation: That City Council request staff return the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan to them for action. 2012 Annual Report 1-30 16 June 2012 3.6 FISCAL Threshold Standards: The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12- to 18-month period, and 5- to 7- year period. 2. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual Development Impact Fee (DIF) Report, which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.6.1 Updating Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) Issue: A comprehensive Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) update has not been done since 2006 and must be a priority. Discussion: There are currently five major facilities planned for construction using PFDIF funds. They are (listed in order of construction priority provided by the Finance Department): 1. Rancho del Rey Library 2. EUC Fire Station 3. EUC Library 4./5. Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatics Center & Recreation Facility The Finance Department has existing debt obligations and a commitment to fully fund the debt service reserve before funding construction of new facilities. The Finance Department also recognizes that, with the city's current budget issues, the ability to staff and operate existing facilities is very limited, in the short-term. And, until budget issues improve, staffing new facilities would not be possible. The GMOC wants to ensure that adequate fees are being collected to pay for construction of the new public facilities, acknowledging that construction may be several years away, and is concerned that the current amount of PFDIF fees being used to pay debt service exceeds what was originally assumed when the PFDIF was last updated. This is one reason why the Finance Department should be prepared to update the PFDIF as soon as possible. 2012 Annual Report 1 -31 17 June 2012 Another reason is that two development proposals are currently being processed, which may result in several thousand more entitled dwelling units. The first proposal, from Otay Land Company, will go before Council in 6-9 months; the second proposal, from JPB, will go before Council in approximately 18 months. If additional dwelling units are approved, as a result, the PFDIF should be updated within 120 days of Council's action on each item. By then, the pending master plan updates for Fire, Libraries, and Parks and Recreation should be adopted by Council, so an accurate facilities amount can be calculated. Recommendation: That City Council direct the Finance Department to begin the process of comprehensively updating the Public Facilities Development Improvement Fees (PFDIF) so that it will be completed within 120 days of Council's action on proposed unit increases. 3.7 DRAINAGE Threshold Standards: 1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards as set forth in the subdivision manual adopted by city council Resolution No. 11175 on February 23, 1983, as may be amended from time to time. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the city's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.7.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels Issue: Adequate funding for channel maintenance is an ongoing problem. Discussion: While not a direct result of growth, the GMOC recognizes that funding to maintain existing channels in western Chula Vista is challenging because environmental permits to allow specific maintenance tasks are expensive. In addition, the Public Works Department reported that they have struggled to fulfill current state requirements for storm sewer systems, due to insufficient staffing levels. Specifically, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board mandates specific maintenance tasks for Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System and Structural Controls, and the city's Public Works staff has been unable to fulfill all of the state requirements. City engineers warned that insufficient funding could result in: 1) an increased potential for flooding, particularly in western Chula Vista; 2) collapse of corroded corrugated metal pipe (CMP); and 3) erosion, particularly in natural channels and canyons. For the city's National 2012 Annual Report ~ _32 18 June 2012 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, this could result in impairment of water quality within receiving waters and create a condition of non-compliance with the Municipal Permit, exposing the city to penalties. Recommendation: That City Council direct Engineering staff to closely monitor the status of channel maintenance to keep it in compliance with the Threshold Standard. 3.8 SCHOOLS Threshold Standard: The city shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities; 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; 4. Other relevant information the district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the city and the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC). The growth forecast and school district response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Threshold Finding: CVESD -Compliant SUHSD -Compliant 3.8.1 School Districts Updates Issue: None. Discussion: Both Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District reported that they have adequate facilities to accommodate students now and in the next five years. Their respective summaries are below: Chula Vista Elementary School District Construction of a two-story K-6 school in Otay Ranch Village 11 has begun and should be open by July 2013. With the addition of this school, the district expects to have adequate facilities to house all projected students for up to five years. Bonding is financing the new school, which is the first school to be constructed in the district in five years. 2012 Annual Report 1-33 19 June 2012 Wolfe Canyon Elementary School, with 38 classrooms, is currently the largest school in the district, serving Villages 2, 7 and 11 in Otay Ranch. Enrollment has not declined in any of the schools east of Interstate 805. Sweetwater Union High School District District-wide, enrollment is declining, primarily in the older northwestern schools; schools in the southwest area are growing, but only slightly. District-wide, they are expecting a reduction of 400 students next year. With the construction of Olympian High School approximately five years ago, there is not a capacity problem in the foreseeable future, but funding cuts to the district have led to larger class sizes. Both a new middle school and a new high school will be built at Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway in about five years. 3.9 SEWER Threshold Standards: Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards as set forth in the subdivision manual adopted by city council Resolution No. 11175 on February 12, 1983, as may be amended from time to time. 2. The city shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the city's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the city engineering department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth; c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Threshold Finding: Compliant 2012 Annual Report 1 _34 20 June 2012 3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity *Buildout Projection based on Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005) utilizing the "Preferred Alternative" model as was adopted in the last General Plan Update. *'Assumes a total of 1752 EDU's per year Issue: None. Discussion: Sewer continues to be in compliance with the Threshold Standard and is projected to remain in compliance for the next ten years. As the city begins to approach build-out projections, however, additional treatment capacity will need to be obtained. The 2005 Wastewater Master Plan estimated that an additional 5.336 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) of additional capacity would be needed. However, City of Chula Vista residents continue to conserve water both indoors and outdoors, so sewer discharge has been decreasing. This means that the build-out treatment capacity required could be less than what the 2005 Master Plan estimated. Staff is working on an update to the 2005 Master Plan in order to verify the build-out treatment capacity needs of the city; it should be completed in 2013. Staff will then compare the cost per gallon of two options for acquiring additional treatment capacity: 1) Constructing a sewer treatment facility in Chula Vista; or 2) Purchasing additional treatment capacity rights from other agencies within the San Diego Metropolitan System. Since the rate of city growth continues to be slower than projected and conservation efforts continue, the city has additional time to better understand the options available to meet the build-out needs. The city will continue its diligent efforts to secure treatment capacity before it is needed. 3.10 AIR QUALITY Threshold Standard: The GMOC shall be provided with an Annual Report which: 2012 Annual Report ~ _35 21 June 2012 2. 3. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. Identifies whether the city's development regulations, policies, and procedures relate to, and/are consistent with current, applicable federal, state, and regional air quality regulations and programs. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the city toward compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the city has achieved compliance. The city shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related federal and state programs, and the effect of those efforts/programs on the city of Chula Vista- and local planning and development activities. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance Issue: None. Discussion: The City of Chula Vista's development standards meet and/or exceed regional, state, and federal air quality regulations. Chula Vista leads the region with its ambitious Climate Action Program/greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target and policies and initiatives that contribute to lowering criteria air pollutants. Chula Vista recently became the first jurisdiction in southern California to expand its Climate Action Program to include climate "adaption" strategies designed to reduce the community's vulnerability to expected local climate change impacts, including more poor air quality and heat wave days. Some of the 11 strategies (such as cool paving, shade trees and cool roofs) will directly help improve local air quality by mitigating the urban heat island effect and will help educate community members about air quality levels as the strategies begin to be implemented over the next 3 years. Over the last year, the city, in collaboration with other regional jurisdictions through the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) updated the Regional Transportation Plan to include a regional "Sustainable Communities Strategy," which would ultimately lower emissions by 7% by 2020 and 13% by 2035. The new plan is the first in the state to Comply with California Senate Bill 375 that directs local governments to reduce transportation- 2012 Annual Report 1-3 6 22 June 2012 related greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable land use practices. • The city's Sustainable Communities program provides technical support to permit applicants, contractors, and other public agencies on energy efficiency building measures, since energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities contribute to local air quality improvement. • The city's Design Manual was recently updated to emphasize improved air quality by encouraging urban forests and sustainable design concepts, including multi-use, compact development favoring pedestrians, biking and public transit that reduce air pollution. • Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIPS), which are required for new larger developments, were completed for Otay Ranch Villages 8 West and 9, representing 6,050 residential units and 1.8 million square feet of commercial space. The city is currently working with community stakeholders to develop policies and regulations for evaluating the siting of future Electrical Generating Facilities (EGFs) within the city to better protect public health and safety. It also continues to increase its participation in several non- development-related air quality programs/actions, including two newer additions: Students Taking Active Routes to Schools (STARTS) Project - Developing and distributing a suggested school route pedestrian/bike map, facilitating non-motorized transportation and ultimately improving local air quality. Public CNG Dispenser-Anew Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling infrastructure at the Public Works Corp Yard allowing residents and other commercial fleets to refuel their vehicles at the site. 3.11 WATER Threshold Standards: Developer will request and deliver to the city a service availability letter from the water district for each project. The city shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the city and planning area, considering both short- and long- term perspectives; b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed; c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth; 2012 Annual Report ~ _37 23 June 2012 d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; e. Other relevant information the district(s) desire to communicate to the city and GMOC. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.11.1 Meeting Water Demands Issue: None. Discussion: Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority serve the City of Chula Vista, and both reported that they will be able to meet the water demands of anticipated growth over the next five years. Specific data is available in the Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authoriiyquestionnaires, located in Appendix B of this report. OtaY Water District The Otay Water District (OWD) has developed, and annually reviews, its Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP), which relies on growth projection data provided by SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community; it serves as a guide to reevaluate the best alternatives for providing reliable water system facilities. Integral to the annual review process is ensuring that capital improvement program projects are funded and constructed in a timely manner, and verifying that they correspond with development construction activities and water demand growth that require new or upgraded facilities. Service reliability levels have been enhanced with the addition of major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix Water District Levy Water Treatment Plant, the City of San Diego South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, and the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant. The Otay Water District, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, also continues to expand the use of recycled water. The Otay Water District continues to actively require the development of recycled water facilities and related demand generation within new development projects within the City of Chula Vista. Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater Authority's 2010 Water Facilities Master Plan lists estimated costs and almost all proposed projects. Several maintenance and upgrade programs where pipelines, valves and other facilities are constantly being renewed. Also, the desalination facility capacity may be increased, and the Perdue Treatment plant is being upgraded to meet new treatment standards. These projects allow the Authority to continue to provide service in the near- and long-term. 2012 Annual Report ~ _38 24 June 2012 4.0 Appendices 4.1 Appendix A -Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B -Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2012 Annual Report 1-3 9 25 June 2012 Annual Report Appendices A and B ATTACHMENT 3 1-40 Growth Forecast APPENDIX A 1-41 November 14, 2011 City ofChu/a Vista 201 1 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle ,,~14/~ ~~v RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2012 Through 2016 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 1-42 INTRODUCTION As a component of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program, the city's Development Services Department provides annual residential growth forecasts looking out five years in the future. This year's growth forecast covers the period from November 2011 through December 2016. As part of the city's annual growth management review process, the growth forecast is provided to assist city departments and other service agencies in assessing potential impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with quality of life threshold standards associated with each facility or improvement listed below: Air Quality Drainage Fire and Emergency Medical Fiscal 5. Libraries 6. Parks and Recreation 7. Police 8. Schools 9. Sewer 10. Traff c 11. Water The Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) annually sends out the growth forecast and compliance questionnaires to city departments and service agencies, soliciting information regarding past, current and projected compliance with the quality of life threshold standards for the facilities and services listed above. The responses to the questionnaires form a basis for the GMOC's annual report, which includes a set of recommendations to the City Council regarding maintenance and/or revisions to each of the city's threshold standards. Recommendations may include such actions as adding or accelerating capital projects; hiring personnel; changing management practices; slowing the pace of growth; or considering a moratorium. The City Council ultimately decides what course of action to take. To prepare the growth forecast, the city solicits projections from developers and builders, which encompasses residential projects that have been or are undergoing the entitlement process, and could potentially be approved and permitted for construction within the next fve years. These projects are under the city's control with respect to the standard entitlement process time frames. As such, these numbers do not reflect market or other economic conditions outside the city's control Commonly referred to as the "growth management" or "GMOC" forecast, it is important to note that the housing market is influenced by a variety of factors outside the city's control, and this forecast: • Does not represent a goal or desired growth rate; • Is what may occur given a set of assumptions listed on page 4; • Is produced by the city and not necessarily endorsed by home builders; and • Represents a "worst-case" or more liberal estimate to assess maximum possible effects to the city's threshold standards. Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 1-43 Last year's growth forecast estimated that 367 building permits would be pulled for single-family units in 2011. As of November 14, 2011, 312 permits have been pulled. For multi-family, 754 units were forecast, and 335 have been pulled. Nearly all of the building activity continues to be in the master planned communities in eastern Chula Vista. Increased residential infill and redevelopment in western Chula Vista continues to be slow, as projects that were originally planned for 2012-2014 have been postponed for at least another year. This includes two small multi-family projects (17-25 units) on Moss Street and Broadway, and a 167-unit multi-family project on Third Avenue. Residential development of the Bayfront is not projected to occur until 2017. Should other projects emerge, they will be reflected in future forecasts. FORECAST SUMMARY Over the next twelve months (January -December 2012), as many as 1,349 housing units could potentially be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, with 12 projected in western Chula Vista (see Figures 1 and 2). In the five-year forecast period (calendar years from 2012 through 2016), eastern Chula Vista may have as many as 5,537 housing units permitted (averaging 1,107 annually), and western Chula Vista may have as many as 363 units (averaging 73 annually). This totals 5,900 units citywide, with an annual average of approximately 1,180 housing units permitted per year (see Tables 1 and 2). Using more aggressive development figures in this forecast allows the City of Chula Vista to evaluate the maximum likely effect this growth will have on maintaining the quality of life, and the ability to provide concurrent development of necessary public facilities and services. The following discussions and figures describe the context, conditions and assumptions behind the forecast, and are provided to further qualify that this forecast is a "worst case' planning tool and not a prediction or specific expectation. FORECAST INFORMATION Projections are derived primarily from approved development plans, and estimated project processing schedules for project plan reviews, subdivision maps, and building plans. The forecast is predicated upon the following five assumptions: 1. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged; 2. That the Growth Management Program's threshold standards are not exceeded; 3. That the housing market begins to revive; 4. That entitlement processing for Otay Ranch areas subject to recent Land Offer Agreements is completed as anticipated; and 5. That projects follow a normal project regulatory processing schedule. 3 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 1-44 Eastern Chula Vista As noted above, most of the growth forecasted continues to be in eastern Chula Vista (see Figure 4), where several different companies, particularly in Otay Ranch Village 2, own property. In Otay Ranch Villages 2, 7 and 11, entitlements for the 2012 projected single- and multi-family developments have been secured by various developers, including Baldwin & Sons, JPB, KB Homes, and McMillin. Entitlements are also in place for Eastlake's Summit and Olympic Pointe, as well as Bella Lago, Rolling Hills Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. Until 2013, the majority of building activity is projected to occur in Eastlake and in Otay Ranch Village 2 (see Table 1). In 2013, McMillin is projecting 180 multi-family units for its Millenia project (formerly known as the Eastern Urban Center), with 401 more units in 2014 and over 500 additional units between 2015 and 2016. In 2014, building activity is projected to commence and continue for several years in Villages 8 and 10. As of December 2011, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in eastern Chula Vista is approximately 20,959, based on the city's 2005 General Plan. If 5,537 units were permitted over the next five-year forecasted period, 15,422 units would remain. At that rate of growth, the capacity could potentially be built out around 2030. However, potential General Plan amendments in the future could result in additional units added to the inventory of housing units, thereby extending the build-out timeframe. Western Chula Vista Western Chula Vista has not shown significant increases in housing since the city's growth management program was instituted in the late 1980's. This situation is slowly changing, with growing interest in infill and redevelopment and density increases updated in the 2005 General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). Reflective of development interest in western Chula Vista, several projects have been completed there in recent years, particularly along Broadway. At this time, as shown on Table 2, 363 units are projected over the next five years, with the largest development being the 167-unit Creekside Vistas project on Third Avenue. Residential Construction History As depicted on Table 3, the number of building permits issued for housing units in Chula Vista has fluctuated from a few hundred units a year to over 3,000, with an average of approximately 1,238 units per year over the last 30 years. Several market cycles have occurred, including recessions of the early 1980's (averaging 330 units/year) and 90's (averaging 693 units/year) and a downward trend in the number of units permitted between 2005 and 2009. The number of units is currently on an upward trend, with the number doubling from 2009 (275) to 2010 (500), and 647 units being issued in 2011, thus far (see Figure 3). A record 3,525 unit permits issued in 2001 represents a peak of residential permits that is not likely to return. Between the years 1996 and 2001, the number of building permits issued for housing units steadily increased from about 1,000 units to the peak 3,525 units. A significant part of this is attributable to the onset of construction in Eastlake, Otay Ranch and other eastern Chula Vista 4 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 1-45 master planned communities. During the construction boom years from 2001-2006, the average annual number of units receiving permits for construction was approximately 2,200. FORECASTED POPULATION This report focuses on the forecasted residential units as the primary indicator to measure future population increases. Western Chula Vista (as evidenced by U.S. Census data) has been undergoing growth in the form of demographic changes as the average household size increases; however, such growth is difficult to track on a year-to-year basis and is not reflected in this report's future population forecast. The California State Department of Finance estimates that Chula Vista has an average of 3.21 persons per household. Assuming that this estimate remains valid over the next five years, and assuming a 4.91% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 266,126 persons by the end of 2016. This is based on the following: The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated Chula Vista's population on January 1, 2011 as 246,496; An additional 531 units were occupied from January 1, 2011 to November 2011; and An additional 5,900 units may be permitted between November 2011 and December 2016. This is only a rough estimate for planning purposes, as the vacancy rate, persons per unit factors, and the number of actual units completed may vary. Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 1-46 Figure 1 Number of Units Eastern .~ Year r, --.-T_____ _ ~ ~ GMOC 2011 Chula Vista aesidential Development Forcast ~._____ ~_ _` 2012 Through 2016 ~ 1500 1200 900 600 300 0 s Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 2012 2013 2014 .2015 2016 Figure Z Number of Units Western J Year r GMOC 2011 Chula Vsta Residential Development Forcast 2012 Through 2016 `~---------- - -- 1 200 150 100 50 0 ~~,weR,.rr'•,ulxe tiv vuni.rumw.aawwa.aerw~i Wa~.~wve audc'~vassow.ss~«~ Fp~._a iv u~.~ Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201b Figure 3 J fD Number of Units 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 ~ ()DD 500 5 ~ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Yedr kY~ [utem Chula Vida ~ Westcm Chula YsU r -~ Residential Units Receiving Building Permits Issued 2001 - 2011, and Forecast 2012 - 2016 - -' ....o. o~Gan..ge,e~nwU««~a~m rnma.,e.~o..ww~„~uw.:.er...a wa.ra,a.,, wb~aaaw.n~w o..aar~~.,~i.~ zm:-zmi ra,.L,v~sxmc:.naxn 8 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 Ol O Figure 4 ~~ 1 ti I'm f r, r'_'' fo .la:' //r /~~~~ ~.~,~, br~rv4Y 1 ,` r; l s 1,`~, 1 ~ _ k•~.~' 1 l ~ ~ 't4 ~~~ -~ -'~` . i--~._J. __~l , ~.y~T 1 i LJ ~ ~ r~ s1 ti . ' ~.-~' ~Q., ,, k _ _ y s ~ .. r ~i N t !!} at--~ r ''~' i~ c ' s ~ ©" .~ r ~ - ~ `~ s ]]]~~~ i ~ '~ _. .- - ~ r +~ ,.1 OM lva9 '.1 9 p 'li _ _ - i _ L.~ I! J I _ r P ~._. ..• , - -., ~ , `, rs~ i t •, ~_ fl Residential Development Forecast Map 10/2011-12/2016 ~ CHU A V6TA LIST OF CITYWIDE PRTJJECTS Oa Creekside Vistas Q Moss SI Condors Q Otay Ranch ~'llage 2 UD Millenia Q ptpy Ranch Ullags 7 O Olay Ranch V Iloge e O Otay Ranch Vllage 10 0 Ofay Ranch l4Aage 11 ~1 Eastlake Summit Eosflake biym~ic. Pointe 0 San Miguel Ranch Ui Rotting Hills Ranch 0 Eastlake Urban Center -.. cry dcnwo uruo noarndory "~ rana~d s Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 Tab/e 1 GMOC 20,12 - EAS/PRJV CHL/LA YlSTA RESIOENTTAL DEVELOPME/VTPoRECAST November 2011-December 2016 C)7 OTAY RANCH Village 2 -Baldwin & Sans 139 379 61 74 85 98 103 ~~ 95 49 37 _ 457_ , 678 YUlege 2-7PB 67 30 34 63 0. A O ! 0 0 D 101 ~ 93 Village 2-K.B. Homes 3 0 0 0 _ 0 0. 0 0 0 D 3 j 0 _ Village 7-Baldwin & Sans 18 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 D 0 20 0 Village 7-7P6 23 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 i 0 0 23 ~ 0 Pillage 7-McMillin 57 0 86 0 59 _ 0 ...___--. ...... 5 ~ 0 . .__. D ....._.._. 0 ..._.._.._:. _ ___.... 207 T- 0 Village 7-Shea D 33 0 90 0 42 0 40 0 21 .__. 0 j 176 ~ ..,_.__ _._w VUlage 8 Weat OtaY Land Co 0 ._ ~ 0 ._ 0 0 50 .. 100 50 r l50 1W 200 200 450 Village 8 East and/or Village l0 - 7PB 0 _-_. 0 V ., _._ 0 ., w ,q 0 . 130 125_ ~ 300 ( 250 _ ~ ~ 30_0 ~ 250 ~ 7T_J 625 _ w ~ ~ _ _ ~~VUlage 9-Otay LandCO. ~ _ 0~ ~0 0~ _ _ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 4 0 0 ~ Village 11-Shea 0 20 _ _ 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 D 0 ( 20 Eastern Urban Centex-McMillin 0 0 0 l8D 0 901 0 275 0 29D 0 ~ 1096 Ota RentRStib-7oh1 307 467 ZOl -357 326 786 #58 81g AA9 748 1,741 .3,138 EASTLAKE ~ ~ Greens The Sum_mtt) ~~ 0 ~_- ~~ _15 (~~~- 0 12 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 _ -- 0 _-~ 0 ~ 27 ~ ~~~ Vistas (OIYmPic Pointe) 0 427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427 Eastlake Sub-total 0 442 0 12 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 45q BELLA LAGO-Shea 20 D 0 17 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 20 I 17 _ - _ _ _ BELLA LAGO LLC _ _~ 0 _ - 0 0 - _v 0 0 0 8 0 ~ 8 0 16 i 0 Bella Logo Safi-total ~20 ~D. : "0 '17 0`--' ~ ~~0 8 'O 8.- '. :0 ~ :~ 17- . ROLLING HILL5 RANCH 39 0 28 D 0 tl 0 ~, 0 0 0 87 O SAN MIGUEL RANCH 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 SUB-TOTAL 968 983 220 986 326 76b 466 810 457 748 1;844 3,693 _.. .. *tssue - Buileiiq Pernit Annual Average: 1,107 'Axsurtes ldoPEm o/XW6 GDPA ~~ Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 J N Tab/e 2 GMOCZOSZ - WFSTERIV GWULI VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTFORECAST November 2011-December 2016 11 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2011 *SSSUE _ &tild:p Cami[ *• These prvjear are m conapNal dixussion, and da not have speti6C paje<t buidinq plans tinder miew al Ms time. Tab/e 3 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 -NOVEMBER 2011 12 Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-53 (2) Montgomery Annexation (3) Population estimates are subject to change and refnemen[. They assume a 4.91 % vacancy rate and 3.21 persons per unit, and are estimated prior to California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, available in 2012. (4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation. Threshold Compliance Questionnaires APPENDIX B 1-54 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/10 - 6/30/11, to the Current Time and Five-Year Forecast) LIBRARIES THRESHOLD STANDARD In the area east of I-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city-wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. 1. Please update the table below: ;LIBRARIES Population , Total Gross Square Footage of Library Facilities Gross Square Feet of Library Facilities Per 1000 Po ulation Threshold '! X X SOO S . Ft. 5-Year Projection (2016) 266,126 95,400 358 12-Month Projection 12/31/12) 252,271 95,400 378 FY 2010-11 246,496 102,000/92,000' 414/387* FY 2009-10 233,692 102,000 436 FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437 FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441 FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448 FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457 FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464 FY 2003-04 211,800 102,000 482 FY 2002-03 203,000 102,000 S02 FY 2001-02 195,000 102,000 523 FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571 'otter closure of tast~aKe uorary m dune zu~ ~ 1-55 Please provide brief responses to the following.' 2. Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes No xx 3. Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No xx 4. Will new facilities and staff be required to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes xx No 5. Please complete the table below: .. LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS Annual Attendance 'Annual Circulation. Guest Satisfaction FY 10/11 614,841 952,847 90%*** FY 09/10 605,979 985,157 90%** FY 08/09 820,213 1,160,139 FY 07/08 1,296,245 1,265,720 89% FY 06/07 1,148,024 1,344,115 88% FY 05/06 1,170,168 1,467,799 85% FY04/05 1,121,119 1,414,295 91% FY03/04 1,076,967 1,308,918 88% 'The Library Dept eliminated its mystery shopper program in 08-09 for budget reasons, so no customer satisfaction survey was undertaken. The "mystery shopper" program sends field representatives to the library as ordinary library users to observe and rate staff, service, collection, facilities, etc, both in person and on the phone. "An in-house survey using intern labor was pertormed in May-August 2010. Rating factors are not identical to previous years "' Survey done as part of Library Facilities Master Plan project. Rating factors are not identical t° previous years. . 6. What is the status of updating the Library Facilities Master Plan? The draft of the Library Facilities Master Plan was completed and agendized for City Council review on July 12, 2011, but was pulled. Subsequently, the Council requested that the Library Strategic Plan be updated to replace the existing one that expired in 2006, before a Facilities Master Plan is brought forward. Funds are being sought to undertake a strategic planning process. The draft version of the Library Facilities Master Plan validates the 500 sq ft of library space per 1000 population threshold specified in the current version of the Library Facilities Master Plan. The draft plan estimates that 60,000 square foot of library space is needed to bring library facilities into compliance with threshold standards, and observes that one 60,000 sq foot facility would be more cost effective to operate than two 30,000 sq foot facilities. What is the status of constructing the Rancho del Rey library? On hold. Finance Department estimates that DIF funds will be used to pay debt service for the next 10 years. Library is investigating a temporary space option for the Rancho Del Rey area, at the Page 2 1-56 request of City Council. What is the status of constructing the EUC library? According to Development Services Division, McMillin is expecting to start processing grading plans in the first quarter of 2012. It is unlikely we would see any actual construction in Millenia before the end of next year. As you know, we entered into a Development Agreement with McMillin as part of their entitlements for the Millenia project. Part of that agreement sets a timetable for delivery of library space. It states that within a year of adoption of a new Library Master Plan, McMillin is required to enter into a Library Delivery Agreement with the City that identifies a location as well as timing for delivery of library space. So once the new Library Master Plan is adopted the clock will start. 9. Please provide an updateon potential options for providing library services, such as leasing storefront space or setting up a mobile library. Otay Ranch Branch Library is scheduled to open in March 2012, in 3400 sq foot of leased space at Otay Ranch Town Center. 10. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2010/2011, and include any available data for the County's Bonita-Sunnyside Branch. 11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Although the move of library service from the Eastlake High School shared use library to leased premises at Otay Ranch Town Center results in a slight loss of square footage, the improved location, convenience, and ability to offer better hours will more than make up for it. We anticipate that this temporary measure will increase library use and satisfaction until permanent library facilities are built on the east side of Chula Vista. 12. What are the libraries' current and projected hours of operation? Sunda Monda Tuesda Wednesda Thursda Frida Saturda Civic Center 1 - 5 10-8 10-8 10-8 10-8 10-5 10-5 South 1 - 5 10-8 10-8 10-8 10-8 10-5 10-5 Ota closed closed 11-7 11-7 17-7 12-6 12-6 PREPARED BY: Name: Betty Waznis Title: Library Director Date: December 12, 2011 Page 3 1-57 Bonlta Branch Libra - I -- 1 Use Statistic ~ __ ~ --- _ s uareft q Population . - ,Circulation card holders Hours open weekly Bonita Branch 10,000 13,544 336,096 36,052 58.0 0 5/1 012 01 2 FY 10-1 t Mnthly Stats ,GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Periodi 7/1/!0 - 6/30/11, through the Current time, and Five-Year Forecast) POLICE THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81°/r, of the Priority I emergency calls throughoutthe Citywithin seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). 1 Officers are dispatched while in the field on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched. s All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. Prior to FY 01-02, citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to received source. 3 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. Page 1 Ponce-zolz 1-59 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. During the period under review, were 81% of Priority I emergency calls citywide responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes (maintaining an average of 5.5 minutes)? If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority I emergency calls citywide. Yes _X_ No Please provide brief responses to the following: 4. During the period under review, were 57% of the Priority II urgent response calls citywide responded to within seven minutes (maintaining an average of7.5 minutes)? If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meetthe threshold standard for Priority II urgent response calls citywide. Yes No _X_ Staffing must be significantly increased in the Community Patrol Division in order to meet the priority two response time goals. Without adding additional staff this is most likely the best that can be achieved without additional patrol personnel. Further discussion regarding staffing issues and priority response times are included below. 4 Officers are tlispatched while in the field on patrol, therefore there is no lime delay when a call is dispatched. Page 2 Police - 2012 1 _ 6 O 5. Was the Police Department properly equipped to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the period under review? Yes X No If not, please explain. 6. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the period under review? Yes No _X_ If not, please explain. As has been discussed in previous GMOC questionnaires, the police department has experienced significant staffng issues due to budget reductions throughoutthe Department. Since fiscal year 2007, the Department has eliminated 23 sworn positions. Although the Patrol Division's staffing level has remained essentially unchanged, the additional elimination of Community Service Officers has added additional workload to patrol officers. This additional workload is normally associated with low level reports which will undoubtedly have an effect on priority response times, especially Priority II responses. The elimination of 11 SRO positions also means a portion of calls for service that would have been normally covered by an SRO might be handled by a regular patrol officer. In addition to the staffing reductions, the Police Department is currently not staffed at levels recommended by the staffing model last completed in 2005. This staffing model recommended adding a total of 10 new officers (three to meet current CFS requirements and seven to staff a new beat in the eastern territory), as well as three additional Community Service Officers. In FY 07/08 the Department cut eleven sworn positions, four Police Dispatchers, and the remaining four Community Service Officers from patrol due to budget constraints. The Chula Vista Police Department has chronically been the lowest staffed agency in San Diego County. The staffing levels are currently 0.9 officers authorized per 1,000 residents as of June 28, 2011 (see chart below). Chula Vista Police Department: Sworn Officers Per 1,000 Population 7.84 2- 1.57 N Chula Vista '~,, t 45 ^ GaAS batl 7.8~ 1.17 1.t9 120 ~~ ^Fscontlido rt 7.98 1.17 ~„? ~~:. ^ La Mesa 0.9 '~gceanside ', ®e Calon ii ^ San Diego ^ National City ^ Coronado Page 3 Police - 2012 1 - I) 7. Has growth during the last year negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes No _X If yes, please explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the threshold standard. Although growth slowed during the reporting period the Department has been understaffed based on growth in previous years. As noted earlier, our current staffing levels are below those recommended in a six-year old staffing study. Chronic understaffing will inhibit the Department's ability to meet the thresholds. 8. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate citywide growth forecasted, and meet the threshold standard, for the next 12 to 18 months? Yes No _X_ If not, please explain. Currently the facilities are able to accommodate growth over the next 12 to 18 months. It was reported in the previous year's GMOC report that the elimination of the vehicle replacement fund was going to impact the department's ability to fund other police programs. One-time funding was utilized to replace aging patrol vehicles and will be unavailable in the future. In addition, the continued understaffing facing the department will dramatically impact the Police Department's ability to meet the threshold standard. 9. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate citywide growth forecasted, and meet the threshold standard, for the next five years? Yes No _X_ If not, please explain. Current facilities are able to accommodate growth for the next five years, but staffing, equipment and maintenance are not. The elimination of the Vehicle Replacement fund will have a negative impact on the readiness of patrol vehicles for service. As patrol vehicles reach higher mileage, there may be increased down time due to service needs. Additionally, staffing cuts in the Public Works Department to the mechanics and radio shop employees will mean longer out-of-service times for vehicle and equipment awaiting repairs. The Department has had to secure contracts for service to outfit new patrol vehicles with radios and other equipment (computer, lights/siren, gun mounts, etc) which has also diverted funds which could have been used to support enforcement programs throughout the department (e.g. In car video cameras, mobile data computer (MDC) replacement, etc). In addition, the Building Maintenance fund has been eliminated, which will hinder maintenance needs which need to be resolved. The Police Department is approaching the time to upgrade our Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD), however there are currently no funds available for such an upgrade to occur. Currently the Police Department is seeking other funding to maintain the equipment needs of the department, which will prevent using the funds for other police services and programs. Page 4 Police - 2012 1 - 6 2 10. Please update the table below: NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS PER YEAR FY 2005-Dfi FY2006-OZ i FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 '' FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 ' 8,077 8,257 7,861 5,924 6,694 6,424 11. Please provide an update on the Police Department's efforts to improve the Priority II threshold standard. Maintaining staffing levels in the patrol division continues to be a priority forthe Department. The Department has used light-duty officers to take low-level crime reports overthe phone, which allows officers in the field to respond to higher priority level calls for service. The use of light-duty officers is sporadic however and there may not always be a light-duty officer available for reports. Residents are still encouraged to utilize the Department's Online Crime Reporting System to report low-level crimes, including vehicle burglaries, thefts and vandalisms. However, given the current budget crisis, along with the cuts that have already been made in the Department, we do not anticipate the necessary resources being available to meet the threshold standard for priority two CFS. The Police Department has exhausted all resources with the goal of improving priority two response times, but without funding for additional staff the priority two CFS threshold will remain unmet in the foreseeable future. The City Manager has approved a comprehensive staffing study to be conducted to look at the appropriate staffing levels needed throughout the organization, especially in patrol. This staffing study will examine the appropriate staffing levels to achieve compliance with the Priority II response threshold. There are several developments in the last year that will help mitigate any further erosion to the Priority II response times. First, the Department recently entered into a contract with the US Marshals Office to house Federal prisoners in the Departments 48 bed jail. This contract will essentially eliminate the remaining $500,000 in general fund support of the jail. This will lower the Departments net cost to the general fund, which should reduce the chance of further reductions. As a result of this contract, the Department has hired a private security firm to conduct all transports of prisoners, which will mean officers will no longer be required to perform prisoner transports, resulting in more time available for officers on-duty. The Department is also hiring four new experienced officers who should have minimal training times and be able to be fully ready for regular patrol duty in a short time. As was mentioned in the paragraph above, the Department will be undergoing a comprehensive staffing study, and one of the areas that will be explored will be the use of Community Service Officers or other civilian staff (e.g. volunteers, hourly employees, etc) to handle the low priority reports, which should result in more available time for officers to handle higher priority calls for service. The Department is also examining different methods to handle responses to alarm calls. With 99% of the alarm calls being classified as false alarms, a significant amount of officer time is spent responding to these calls, which in-turn places additional response delays to legitimate calls for service. 12. What is the status of School Resources Officers? The City was able to secure funding for 7 SRO Officers from the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District (from 18 Officers previously). Despite their significant budget issues, they realize the importance of the Page 5 Police - 2012 ~ -63 SRO program for their schools and have committed the funds to continue these important programs, albeit in a significantly reduced format. Funding for this program is year-by-year because of budgetary issues at the school districts. Despite the reduction in the number of SRO's, the SRO program continues to meet the most crucial needs of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, as well as the Sweetwater Union High School District. Based on the discussions the department participated in during the top-to-bottom review it was our understanding that the proposed changes to the response time methodology would include: • Calculating response time from the time the call was received in the Communications Center to the time that the first unit arrived on scene. Elimination of the normalization calculation. • Include false burglary alarms calls for service in Priority 2 calculation. The response time threshold for Priority 1 calls for service would be increased to 6:00 minutes. • The response time threshold for Priority 2 call for service would be increased to 12:00 minutes. The response time figures represented in the tables reflects the outlined criteria above. 13. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. As was mentioned in Question #11 above, the City Manager has approved a comprehensive staffing study to be conducted to look at the appropriate staffing levels needed throughout the organization, especially in patrol. This staffing studywill examine the appropriate staffing 5 Officers are dispatched while in the field on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched. Page 6 Police - 2012 ~ - I) 4 13. As a result of top-to-bottom discussions, there will be a proposal to report response times from "received to arrive." In anticipation of this change, please report "received to arrive" response times in the tables below for the period under review. levels in patrol to maintain compliance with the Priority I response threshold, as well as achieve compliance with the Priority II response threshold. This study will also look at staffing levels and management structures throughout the department to ensure that the department is running as efficiently as possible. PREPARED BY: Name: Ed Chew/Melanie Culuko Title: Continuous Improvement Manager/Public Safety Analyst Date: December 19, 2011 Page 7 Police - 2012 1-65 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION''2012'QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/7Y70-6/30/17, to the Current Time, and Five-YeacForecast) TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Citywide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours LOS "D"can occur for no more than two hours of the day. With appropriate maps and tables, please provide brief responses to the following: 1. During the period under review, has the city maintained LOS "C" or better on all signalized arterial segments? If not, please list segments involved and explain. Yes No X During the period under review Heritage Road northbound from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road southbound from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road did not meet the City's GMOC threshold standards during this period. 2. During the period under review, were there arterial segments operating at LOS "D" for more than two hours during peak hours? If yes, please list segments involved and explain. Yes X No Citywide, Heritage Road in the northbound direction, from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road, the arterial segment exceeded LOS "D" for more than two hours during peak hours. During the six-hour peak period under review, the segment is operating at five hours of LOS "D" and one hour of LOS "E". Also, Otay Lakes Road southbound from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road, the arterial segment exceeded LOS "D" for more than two hours during peak hours. During the six-hour peak period under review, the segment is operating at four hours of LOS "D" and two hours of LOS "C". During this review period, the City hired a consultant on as-needed basis to carry out the City of Chula Vista's Traffic Signal Optimization Program. This is necessitated due to the retirement of the City's Signal Systems Engineer. The City budget currently has 0.5 position budgeted. However, we are planning to assign one of our Associate Civil Engineers (full time) to be in charge of the City's 268 traffic signal program. This individual will be in charge of evaluating and monitoring existing signals for desired signal timing improvements and make changes to improve the signal synchronization and corridor coordination. For about one-year, we have not been able to monitor corridor timing. Traffic - 2012 1-66 Numerous signal systems/corridors will be analyzed for phasing and timing improvements based on traffic data collected by city forces. These shall determine the need for re-timing analysis and the results shall be significant improvement in traffic flow characteristics including fewer vehicle stops and delays. 3. Are current facilities able to accommodate growth for the next 12 to 18 months without exceeding the threshold standards? If not, please list new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth for the 12- to 18-month timeframe. Yes No X Recent traffic monitoring runs conducted after this reporting period show that westbound Olympic Parkway from east of Brandywine Avenue to Oleander Avenue near I-805 is experiencing varying degrees of traffic congestion. During the a.m. period, there is a need to increase the storage length of the westbound Olympic Parkway to southbound Brandywine Avenue left turn pocket so that the left turning traffic does not block the westbound through lane that consequently blocks one of three westbound lanes. There is a proposed project to increase existing storage from 220 feet to 450 feet in the single westbound left-turn lane on Olympic Parkway to southbound Brandywine Avenue (TF-377 CIP Project). Therefore, more traffic will be able to utilize the left-turn movement in each cycle since blocking of the single left lane by the queue in the through lane is less likely with doubling of the storage length. The City Council has approved this new CIP Project TF-377 in Fiscal Year 2011/2012 for this work. This project will be implemented after collecting data from the wireless detectors system that is currently under construction (CIP Project TF379). The scope of TF379 Project is to install wireless vehicle detection systems on Olympic Parkway that will provide real-time 24-hours per day, 365 days-a-year level of service data. Thus, seasonal peaks and other short-term impacts can be identified and mitigated. The loss of one westbound through lane increases delay to the through movement along Olympic Parkway roadway segment. The a.m. Level of Service is at "E". Throughout the rest of the day, the roadway segment is operating at Level of Service "B" for mid-day and level of Service "C" for the p.m. peak period. Ultimate improvements needed are the southerly extension of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. In the interim, additional signal loop detectors had been constructed and added this fiscal year at the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway signals in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). This work will allow Caltrans the ability to make even further traffic signal timing changes to help reduce vehicular delays approaching the interchange. How will these facilities be funded? These facilities will be funded by developers as project mitigation measures or with development impact fees such as the TDIF, for east of I-805, the WTDIF, for west of I- 805and/or acombination of other local, TransNet, state and federal funds. Traffic - 2012 2 ~-67 b. Is there an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes, there are appropriate funding mechanisms in place to provide funding for needed roadway improvements. 4. Are current facilities able to accommodate growth for the next five years without exceeding the threshold standards? If not, please list new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth for the 5-year timeframe. Yes No X Olympic Parkway traffic levels will increase as development continues to the east. With continued traffic monitoring, the schedule for constructing the southerly extension of Heritage Road will be determined. Heritage Road south of Olympic Parkway is only partially graded. Caltrans is currently working on the design of the I-805 Managed Lanes project which will provide for carpool and bus access to and from the north. The project may also include a value-pricing program allowing toll-paying single occupant vehicles access onto and off of 1- 805 at East Palomar Street. The project construction is expected to commence in Year 2012 with the East Palomar Street northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp completed by Year 2014. Due to a need to widen and provide a new bridge profile, Caltrans plans to demolish the East Palomar Street Bridge in the summer of 2012 and complete the construction by August 2014 as part of the East Palomar Street Direct Access Ramp (DAR) Project. It is expected that with the project, some traffic originating in the area bounded by parallel streets such as Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road would divert to East Palomar Street, since a DAR is available for carpool vehicles. Subsequent phases of work will continue north to State Route 94 and those phases will be completed by year 2020. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is also working on the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (SBBRT) project that will also utilize this East Palomar Street corridor from the Otay Ranch Mall to downtown San Diego in Year 2014. When completed, the Caltrans Managed Lane project, DAR Project, and the SANDAG SBBRT project will help reduce traffic congestion at Olympic Parkway, Telegraph Canyon Road and at East H Street. After an exhaustive due diligence and public hearing process, the SANDAG Board of Directors voted December l6 to purchase the asset for$341.Smillion. The transaction that transferred ownership of the lease to operate the State Route 125 toll road was completed on December 21, and beginning December 22 SANDAG is the operator of the South Bay facility. No significant changes are expected in the first few months. SANDAG has contracted with the formeroperator and is retaining the existing staff to continue running the facility during a six-month transition phase. SANDAG will oversee the operations. Traffic - 2012 1-68 Next spring, SANDAG expects to begin a process to lower tolls. Reduced tolls are expected to attract more users to SR 125, relieving congestion on I-805 and reducing the need for some improvements there. Construction will begin in 2012 on two carpool lanes - one in each direction - on I-805 in South Bay. However, the acquisition of SR 125 will make it unnecessary to add another two carpool lanes on I-805 in the future. a. How will these facilities be funded; and b. Is there an appropriateladequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Development is required to pay their fair share in mitigating any project impacts. The City of Chula Vista has transportation development impact fees that will collect sufficient funds for needed transportation improvements. The development impact fees pay only for the proportionate share of the project that is impacted by development. Existing deficiencies are the responsibility of the City to fund with other sources such as local TransNet, State and Federal funds. The transportation development impact fee program is periodically updated so that program identified project costs and scopes are updated as well as adding or deleting projects. The city does have in the current Capital Improvement Program a project identified to update both the TDIF and the WTDIF programs. Both the Caltrans and SANDAG projects have a combination of regional, state and federal funds for all of the phases of work such as preliminary engineering, planning, environmental, design and construction. As each of these projects completes a phase of work, the region approves funding for the subsequent phases. City of Chula Vista funds are being used for City staff time only. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The City of Chula Vista is wrapping up a regional study with Caltrans and SANDAG for the Interstate-5 Multi-modal corridor study. This study makes recommendations for transportation and goods movement projects along the Interstate-5 corridor. Recommendations include improvements for bicyclists, the freeway, light rail trolley projects, local-street improvements, pedestrian facilities, and transit improvements. Top priority for the Interstate-5 freeway is the Palomar Street interchange as well as other freeway improvements such as ultimately constructing carpool lanes through Chula Vista. The highest priority is for the light rail trolley projects to grade separate the Palomar Street at-grade crossing followed in priority by the H Street crossing then followed by the E Street crossing. SANDAG has incorporated these regional improvements into their 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. Regarding local roadways, recommendations toincrease traffic signal staffing will help keep roadways in compliance with GMOC standards. PREPARED BY: Name: Francisco X. Rivera P.E., T.E, Title: Principal Civil Engineer Name: Muna Cuthbert P.E. Title: Senior Civil Engineer Traffic - 2012 Date: January 11, 2012 1-69 GMOC 2010 - 2011 TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS _ _ _ _ _ ALLTIME PERIODS AM PERIOD AM PERIOD MID-DAY MID-DAY PM PERIOD PM PERIOD _ _ _- -- - - ~ 7-SAM 8-9AM 11.30-12:30 _ ]2:30-1:30 - - 4-SPM -- 5-6PM __ -_ SEGMENT (CLASS) _ _ DIR. LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED T LOS ; SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED ThirdAve. _ - 'i ~ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ I __ G St. Naples St. NB __ __ B 22.5 ('09) C ___ 18.3 ('08) __ C_ 16.7. ('08) (3RD1 -HCM 4) SB B - L9.5 ('09) C 16.4 - ('OS) ` _ C 18.9 ('08) __ _ z , Naples St. - S. CVCL NB _ B 20.2 ('OS) _ B 20.3 ('10) _ _ C_ 19.0 ('OS) (3RD2 -HCM 4) SB ~ B 20.8 _ ('OS) B ' _ _ - 20.7 (']0) - __ __ C 18.2 ('OS) _ -_ _... _ s Fourth Ave. Brisbaoe St. - H St. i NB B 21.8 _- ('09) B 21.6 ('09) - B -- 21.6 - ('09) - _ (4TH1 _HCM 4) SB B ~ 19.1 ('09) B _ 19.3 ('09)_ _ C. _ 18.5 ('09) _ H St -Naples St. NB _ ' B 23.4 ('OS) _ B 19 8 ('08)_ C 18.7 ('08) (4TH2 -HCM 4) SB B 22.7 ('08) ~ B 23.8 _ _('OS) B 21.7 ('08) s i - Naples St. - Mam St. NB - _ B 23.8 _ ('07) _ B 23.8 --- ('07) _ _ B _ 23.3 ('07)_ _ (4TH3 -HCM 4) ' SB B -- _ 21.9 ('07) _ B 20.9 ('07) _ _ B 20.3_ ('07) _ - e IBonita Rd. - - laza Bonita -East CVCL EB -I - -- ~ B 29.2 ~ ('07) - _ A I - - _- 31 9 - ('07) ~ --_____-j ' - A - __. - . - 32.2 - - ('07) (BR1 -HCM 3) WB - -- A 30.8 ('07) ' - A 31.8 ('07) - B_ 28.0. _ ('07) ___ Broadway • I --- ~ - C St. H St. _ NB _ ~ B 23.0 ('ll) -- B 21.3 ('08) B 20 0 (08) _ (BRD I -HCM 4) SB -- __ B 19.5 ('11) C l7 3 __ ('08) _ C 16 8 _ ('OS) s _ _ 'H St. L St _ NB B 21.4 ('07) C 16 3 (70) C 18.8 _ ('08) (BRD2 -HCM 4) SB B 23.8 ('07) C 18.5 (' 10) C 18.1_ _ ('08) 9 _ ~ L St. - S. CVCL NB B _ 22.6 ('07~ __ B _ 20.3 _ ('07) __ ____ _ C 17 7 ('OS) M 4 ) S R ( ~ - 1 ~ _ 18.7 (08) __ to ~ C t - Main St NB I A 26.6 I ('09) B 21. ~ O9) B ~ 21.2 ('09) , _ (BRDTI'350 -HCM4) SB _ B - i _ 21.9 ('09) _ __ C 18.2 ('09) B _ 19.1 ('09) - _ ESt. i . __ I _ -_ ` n - Woodlawn Ave. -Third Ave. EB - A - 27.1 ('O8) _ _ C _ 17.4 _ ('10) C 16.6 ('08) (ESTI-HCM4) WB A 253 ('OS) B _ 224 ('10) B 20_1_ ('08) Third Ave. -Bonita Glen EB _ _ A ~ 25.2 I ('09) _ A ' 25 1 _ ('08 _ B _ 20.3 ('08) ~ _ _ _ 4) ; ~~(EST2-HCM WB _ _. ~ A 25.3 _ ('09) B 23.5_ - ('08) _ _20.7 ('OS) _ _ _ _ - _ _ i __- -_ _ Runs completed 7/1/10 - 6/30/11 BOLD _ ' - ---. - Lower Half of LOS C - - - - ~ - _ __ _ __ T LOS D J \Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONtFOR1NG PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'I1 TMP Summary Results - GMOC 05!30/2012 GMOC 2010 - 2011 TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - _ - ---- ALLTIME PERIODS i --- _ -t --- - AM PERIOD M PERIOD _ MID-DAY - MID DAY __ ~1 - PM PERIOD _ -- PM PERIOD t 7- 8AM 8- 9AM 11:3 0-12:30_ 12:30 -1:30 4- SPM _ 5 6PM _ SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR. LOS _ SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS T SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED ~ FSt ~ I ' ~ - _ -- - - _ _ 13 _ Broadway -Hilltop Dr. I _ EB B - 19.7 ('09) C I8.0 ('08) CC 18.2 ('OS) (FST1 -HCM 4) __ _- - - H St. WB C - 18.3 _ ('09) - - _ i B - - 19.2 ('08) - ~ 17.8 _ ('08) 14 - Woodlawn Ave -Third Ave. EB ~ -- C 18.9 ('09) C 18.0 -('10) _ -. C 1d.6 ','('09 _ -- (HST] -HCM 4) WB _ _ B 20.0 ('09) _ C 18.7 ('10) C 16.3 ('09) Is - Third Ave. -Hilltop Dr. - EB B 20.1 ('09) - - - B -- 21.1 ('08) C _ 16.7 ('OS) _ (HST2 HCM 4) __ WB B _ 20.2 _ ('09) _. - B 21.3 _ ('08) C t8.2 ('08) _ _.. __ _ _._ ~ EastHSt. -.~ . _. __ ~... . Ie ~HiddenVista-Ps Ranchero EB B 32.0 ('08) A 36.5 ('08) B 32.3 ('OS) _~ (EHS1_-HCM 2) II WB _ _ B _ _ 33.6 ('08) B _ 32.4 (08) _. _ B __._ _ _ - 31.8 - ('08) -- ~&ast H St. _ 17 s Ranchero- Eastlake Dr. EB B 25.9 i ('OS) B 28.6 ('OS) C 23.7 ('OS) _ _ --- (EHS2 -HCM 3) i WB _ A ~ ~ 30.2 ~ ('08) _ A _ _ 30.4 ('08) - B _ 24.3 ('08) - _ - - Heritage Rd. - - Is s . _ ~n Rd -Olympic Pkwy .T NB D 21.0: ('11) D 189 ('ll) D 19:5 ('ll) ' D 18.4 ('ll) D 19:1('1 l) (HR -HCM 2) SB i C 25.1 ('1l) Hilltop Dr. i ~ _ 19 o ___ P St L St. ~ ~ I CHILI -HCM 4) L SL -Orange Ave NB SB NB _ -' ~ ~ ~ C - B_ _ C ~ 17.7 -_ 19.1 18.4 ('08) ('OS) ('08) _ B B B 19.4 - 20.7 23.3 ('08) _ ('OS) ('09) ~ _ _ __ C B -- A 18.5 20.3 26.6 ('OS) ('O8~ ('04) _ . (HIL2 -HCM 4) _ - Industrial Blvd SB - _ B i i 20.0 ('08) - B - _ 21.2 ('09) _ B _ 23.4 ('04) ' zl . _ L St Main St _ ~IND1 HCM 4) Runs completed 7/1/10 - 6/30/11 O NB SB LD -~ B ~ i 21 8 24 3 ('08) ~_ (OS) _ _ _ B B _ 22 1 22 2 ('07) ('07) - B 21.0 I ('10) ' Lower Half of LOS C - _ __ ~, LOS D LOS E ...__. _ - ~ - I I_ __ -.~ _ - --_ I - 1:\Engineer\"PRAPFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORPJG PROGRAM\ZOlO TMP\'I I TMP Summary Results - GNIDC 05/302012 CMOC 2010 - 2011 TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS -__ ' ALL TIME PERIODS -- - ~ __ -- ~_ - - ----- AM PERIOD AM PERIOD MID-DAY MID-DAY PM PERIOD PM PERIOD 7-SAM 8-9AM 11:30-12:30 12:30-1:30 4-SPM 5-6PM - _ SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR. ' LOS SPEED -- LOS - SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED - LOS SPEED J SL - - ~ -- zz Oaklawn Ave. - 3rd Ave. EB C 17.8 ('09) C 17 0 ('08) -- (JSTI _HCM 4) _ - WB - - -- B 19.6 ('09) C 18 2 ('08~ C 17.4 X08) _ __ _ . --- - - _. - zs I Industrial Blvd 3rd Ave. EB C -- - 18 4 -- (09) C 17.0 ('OS) (LSTI - HCM 4) WB B 19 4 (09) C 16.5 ('OS) za _ 3rd Ave. -Tel. Cyn Rd./Nacion --- i EB , _ B 23 8 ('07) A 259 ('07) B 225 ('07) (LST2 -HCM 4) j WB B 24.8 ~ ('07) A 26.2 ('07) A 25.2 ('07) _ _ _ ___ _ -__ i ___,_ _ __ _ La Media Rd za Tel. Cyn Rd. -Olympic Pkwy NB C 25.8 ('10) _ ~(LMI -HCM 2) ________ ____ SB D 18.4:('08 C 26.8 ('OS) _- ' Main St. zs ndustrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave. EB B 24.6 ('08) ! B 20 5 ('08) B 21 A ('OS)_ (MA 1 -HCM 4) { WB __ _B _ 31.4 ('08) B 24.0 ('08) B __ _24 0 ('OS) _ _ ~ ,~ ze 13rd Ave. -Melrose Ave. . EB B 30A ('09) B -- 293 ('09) A 30A ('1I) - (MA2 -HCM 3) WB B i 28 5 ('09) - - - - - -- B 259 ('09) B 26.3 - ('ll) _ _ _. ~ --- _... -- - _ -- - Main SL . - j z~ _ Oleander Entertainment CIr. S. I BB - - A i 41.3 ('l l) A 419 (71) A -- 40.1 _ ('06)_ ~~MA3 -HCM 2) WB B j 349 ('11) B 31.8 (71) B 32 2 ('06) - _ _--_ - - --------- ----- ------ -- - IOlympic Parkway za Oleander Ave. Heritage Rd. EB C 32.6 ('10) B 37.2 (70) B 40.6 ('10) ' (OP -HCM 1) ~ WB _ ~ C 31.2 ('10) B 38:6 (']0) ~ _ - - Orange Ave./E Orange Ave. __. z9 Palomar St. -Hilltop Dr. EB ~ A j _ 269 ('11) B 23 5 ('ll) _ _B 22.1 _ ('OS) _ ~OR1 HCM 4) WB ~ _ A j 25.9 ('ll) B 21.9 ('71) A 252 ('OS) so+Hilltop Dc-Melrose Ave. EB ~ A ~ 272 ('08) ~ _ A 29.4 ('08) A 25.7 ('08) ~! (OR2 HCM 4) _ ___ WB A 269 ('OS) A 294 ('08) _B _ 229 ('OS) --- - - * LC = 60% FULL SHEET - ~ j ~ i I _ - _ ~_ _ -- __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ Runs completed 7/1/10 - 6/30/11 BOLD __ _ I Lower Half of LOS C ~ -- __ _ - __ _ - - -- ' -_ _ _ LOS D . I _._ __ ------_ - _ ___ __ ' LOSE ~ n. ,f \Enginecr\TRAPFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'1l TMP Summary Results - G<`ROC OS/30/20I2 GMOC 2010 - 2011 TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - --- ALL TIME PERIODS - _ _. _ - - - AM PERIOD AM PERIOD MID-DAY MID-DAY PM PERIOD PM PERIOD 7-SAM 8-9AM 11:30-12:30 12:30 -1:30 4-SPM S-6PM SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR. -- LOS SPEED LOS ~ _ SPEED LOS SPEED - LOSS _ - SPEED - LOS SPEED LOS SPEED -_ -- -- _ - _ _ - -- -- - ~ Otay Lakes Rd. ~ _ --- _ --- 3i ~ Bomta Rd. - East H St - -_ NB B 30.4 ('OS) B 34.5 x'07) B 32.0 ('OS) (OLRI HCM 2) SB C 26 8 - ('08) B 33.2 _ ('07) __ B 29 7 (OS) n E. H St Telegraph Cyn Rd NB B 28.0 ('ll) - -(OLR2 HCM 3) SB D 17.5'('11) D 17.9:.('11). I D 17.7 ('ll) ? D 14f$ ('11)' __ _ _ __ Palomar SL _ ___. ..-- -._.. _.._.__. as Industrial BL -Broadway _- EB C 18.6 ('11) (PALI -HCM 4) WB - - --- ~ C 16.] ('1l) * D ' 10.6 , ('1l) 3a - _ _ Broadway -Hilltop Dr. EB _ B 21.4 ('07) B 209 _ ('07) __ B 19 9 ('08) (PAL2 -HCM 4 )_- WB B 22.5 ('07) ~ B 19.6 ('07) - C - 18.6 - ('OS) - i - -- - - _ - aseo Ranchero 3 ast H St. -Tel Cyn Rd._ NB B ( 26.2 - ('09) C 25.4 ('08) (PR] HCM 3) SB C 21 6 ('09) B I 249 ('09) C - _ 23 9 __ _ ('08) ----- ~- _ _ Telegraph Canyon Rd./ Otay L _ _ ake s Rd. se Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero ~ EB _ _ B 349 ('07) A _ __ 36.5 - - ('06) A 35.2 - _ ('0~ (TCl -HCM 2) _ WB _ B 315 ('07) A 35.1 ('06) ! __ A 35.4 - ('07) ~ PS Ranchero - St. Claire Dr __ _ EB -- B 34.0 ('07) A 40.2 ('07) A - _ _ 37.2 - ('08) (TC2 HCM 2) - _ WB B ----- 30.2 _ ('07) _ _ _ A 38.1 _ ('07) _ B 33.2 ('08) --- - - -- -- - _ * LC = 60% FULL SHEET ' Runs completed 7/1/10 - 6/30/11 -- BOLD Lower Half of LOS C - - - LOS D - - - -- ' --- LOS E --__ ~ -- - - I - J \Enginccr\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORRJG I'ROGRAM\2070 TMP\'l l TMP Summery Rcsul[s - C690C 05/302012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 711/10;- 6/30/11, to the Currenf Time, and'Five-Year Forecast) FIRE t EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES" THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Please complete the following tables: FIRE/EMS -Emergency Response Times Review Period Call Volume i' %ofAll Call Response w/in 7:00 Minutes .THRESHOLD 80:0% FY 2011 9916 78.1 FY 2010 10,296 85% FY 2009 9,363 84.0% FY 2008 9,883 86.9% FY 2007 10,020 88.1°/a CY 2006 10,390 85.2% CY 2005 9907 81.6% FY 2003-04 8420 72.9% FY 2002-03 8088 75.5% FY 2001-02 7626 69.7% FY 2000-O1 7128 80.8% FY 1999-00 6654 79.7% COMPARISON Average Response Time r for80% of Calls, Average Travel Time.' 6:46 3:41 5:09 3:40 4:46 3:33 6:31 3:17 6:24 3:30 6:43 3:36 7:05 3:31 7:38 3:32 7:35 3:43 7:53 3:39 7:02 3:18 3:29 Note: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003. The difference in 2004 performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically signifcant. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. During the period under review, were 80% of calls responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes? If not, what is required to meet the threshold standard? Yes No X** **See comments under question #10. 2. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have sufficient properly equipped fire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. Page 1 Fire - 2012 1-74 Yes X ** No "See comments under question #9. 3. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have adequate staffing citywide for fire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. Yes X No 4. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes X No 5. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes X No Our existing facilities, staffing and equipment should be sufficient over the next five years given the current lack of growth in the City. Fire station #5 located at Fourth Ave. and Oxford Street was built in 1960 and is in need of major renovation. This facility is on the City's Capital Improvement List however the City has limited funding available to address these capital improvements and the list is extensive. 6. Please report any significant progress in the adoption of the Fire Facility Master Plan. The Fire Facility Master Plan update is complete and we are working with the consultant on developing a fiscal analysis to accompany the document. The Fire Department is scheduling a series of public information meetings where we will share the plan with civic groups and solicit feedback. 7. On the table below, please provide comparative data on response and calls for service before and after the transition to San Diego Dispatch. " DISPATCH COMPARATIVE DATA ' Before and After Transition to San Diego Dispatch Dates Call Volume Average Res onsi: Time Average Dis atch Time Average Travel Time Percentage of Calls Within 7 Minutes FY 2010/11 9916 7:10 23 seconds 3:41 78.1 FY 2009/10 10,296 6:11 20 seconds 3:40 85.0 FY 2008/09 9,363 5:23 32 seconds 3:33 84.0 3-4-08 thru 6-30-08 3,012 5:29 35 seconds 3:14 82.2 7-1-07 thru Page 2 Fire - 2012 1-75 `Prior to transfer of dispatching services to San Diego Dispatch on 11 seconds 8. What percentage of calls received were for fire services, and what percentage were for medical emergency services? Fire 5.1 Medical 84.9 Other Emergencies 10 9. The 2011 GMOC Annual Report included the following recommendation: That City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue maintenance/replacement strategies foraging equipment that will ensure that the threshold standard will continue to be met. What is the status of completing this recommendation? The Fire Department is currently working with Finance and Public Works to develop and bring to Council an apparatus replacement policy specific to the Fire Department. The City's existing vehicle replacement policy is broad and does not meet the needs of the Fire Department. We will be asking Council to adopt the National Fire Protection Associations Standard for Fire Apparatus Replacement (NFPA 1901). The adoption of this standard will provide a policy addressing replacement of both our frontline and reserve emergency response fleet. 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Over the last year the Fire Department has seen an increase in our turnout times. This is being monitored and addressed through our Operations division. We are collecting and reviewing turnout and response data by individual units and addressing this issue with the companies that are not meeting the standard. The Fire Department has been working towards several milestones that will significantly improve our ability to serve the citizens. With the adoption of the Fire Facility Master Plan comes the implementation of NFPA 1710 and a road map to future fire stations, staffing and response criteria. The adoption of NFPA 1901 provides the Fire Department with an Apparatus Replacement Policy that guarantees our personnel will always have the necessary equipment to perform at their best. Finally, the Fire Department has been working to provide an Advance Life Support (ALS) program to make certain our citizens receive the finest most appropriate Emergency Medical care in a timely manor. These programs will enable the City of Chula Vista Fire Department to provide superior services to our community.. PREPARED BY: Name: Dave Hanneman Title: Fire Chief Date: 12/22/11 Page 3 Fire - 2012 ~-76 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/10 - 6/30/11 to Currenf Period and Five Year Forecast) PARKS AND'RECREATION - THRESHOLD STANDARD Population Ratio: three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805. The following table compares City of Chula Vista population estimates from previous years with current and forecasted population estimates. Park acreage provided or anticipated to be provided is also identified. Additionally, the table identifies the park acres to population ratio, (acres of parkland provided per 1,000 persons) for the respective review periods. 3 Acres per East I-805 3 16 3 05 2.83 3.02 3.16 _ 1,000 AC/1,000 persons . . Population East of I-805 West I-805 1 21 121 1.23 1.21 1.21 - AC/1,000 persons . Citywide AC/1,000 persons 2.25 2.21 2.13 2.17 2.25 - Acres of East I-805 418.01 418.01 424.91 390.44 418.01 - Parkland West I-805 138.76 138.76 142.66 138.76 138.76 - Citywide 556.77 556.77 567.59 529.20 556.77 - Population East I-805 132,357 137,152 149,931 129,307 132,357 - (based on new West I-805 ~ benchmark 115 077 115,124 116,195 114,936 115,077 - 2010census) , Citywide 247,434 252,276 I 266,126 244,243 247,434 - Acre Shortfall East I-805 20.94 i 6.55 (24.9; 2.52 20.94 - or Excess West I-805 ("106.?7} (206.511 ~2D5.93} {206.05} {206.47) Citywide (185.53} (200A6) (230.79} {203.53) (185.53} - "Assumes completion of Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhood Park P-3 (6.93 acres) and Orange Park (3.9) -77 Page 1 GENERAL PLANNING ESTIMATES Chula Vista Po ulation -- East versus West Area/Year 2000 2010 2015 East of I-805 64,827 129,307 149,931 West of I-805 118,473 114,936 116,195 Total 183,300 2aa,za3 2ss,lzs Please provide brief responses to the following: Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold, did the eastern Chula Vista parks system have the required parkland acreage (3 acres/1,000 persons) during the period under review? If no, what actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland shortages? Yes X No 2. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 12- to 18-months? Yes X No See response to question 8 for information on the citywide situation. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? 3. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next five years? Yes No X The projected construction of Parks in Village Two will maintain a park supply in Eastern Chula Vista that complies with the City of Chula Vista Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold until the projected five years of this GMOC forecast period at which point a ratio of 2.83 acres per one thousand persons is predicted. The shortfall in acres for Eastern Chula Vista will be 24.9 acres The reasons for the shortfall are as follows: Parkland has been offered for dedication in Otay Ranch Village Two in a timely manner but the City has not accepted IODs and progressed park design where there are some physical issues on the individual sites that developer's have to resolve before the City can commence park development. As an initiative to stimulate construction activity during the economic downturn, the City approved a temporary deferment of payment of PAD fees from final map to certificate of occupancy. All park development fees continue to be collected but they are received later in the develo~lm~gt process. Receipt of development fees needs Page 2 to catch up with receipt of IODs. The rate at which development fees accumulate is slower than before the economic downturn. • Also a result of the economic downturn the funding available to Public Works forthe maintenance of City parks has been less per acre than in previous years. There have been significant cuts in staffing in Public Works and the remaining staff is challenged to maintain the existing parks. This department will only be able to commence maintenance of additional parkland once maintenance budgets improve. See response to question 8 for information on the citywide situation. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? 24.9 acres. b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? Yes. c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? PAD fees, though currently deferred will eventually provide funding. 4. Are there other growth-related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold standard as Chula Vista's population increases? If yes, please explain. Yes No x 5. Regarding recreation facilities, how do current hours ofservice compare to previous years? How have they been affected by budget cuts over the past two years? And what is projected in the future? Budget reductions in FY 11 & FY 12 resulted in a 66% reduction in operating hours at all Recreation Centers, the complete elimination of Recreational Swimming periods, a 50% reduction in Adult Lap Swimming periods, and a 60% reduction in available Fitness Center hours. Some operational hours at Recreation Centers and Fitness Centers have been restored by reprioritizing the use of existing resources. Also grants and donations have provided some temporary and short-term recovery of lost hours. 6. Are parks and recreation facilities, such as gazebos, being leased to the maximum? Yes, from the start of April to the end of October reservations ran close to capacity. Approximately 4,948 reservations were made in 2010 and 4,074 in 2011. What is the status of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan? The Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan update document was presented at a City Council Workshop on December 1, 2011. In response to Council comments received at the workshop, additional edits to the document are being made. The document will be returning to Council for final action in early 2012. 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The table at the start of this questionnaire indicates that the ratio of park acres to projected population in Eastern Chula Vista will drop below 3 acres/thousand by 2016 unless additional park acres are added. By extrapolating between the 2012 and the 2016 figures, and dependant on the speed of population growth, the actual date when the Eastern Chula Vista dips below 3 acres/thousand will probably be in 2014.This indicates that the City needs to address this projected situation by seeking remedies to the challenges listed in question #3. ~ -7 g Page 3 • Seek ways to resolve the physical issues on individual Otay Ranch Village 2 park sites. • At the end of 2012, when the PAD fee deferral expires return to the collection of PAD fees at final map per chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. • Commence individual park master plan design work in order to expedite park delivery. • Obtain increased funding for Public Works for maintenance of new parks. It should be noted that, when the GMOC process began, the inherited situation was that the western part of the City was already built with less than 3 acres per one thousand persons park provision. As a result of this legacy in Western Chula Vista projections are not able to meet the standard of 3 acres per one thousand persons that applies to new development. Since the inception of GMOC the City has exacted park obligations from developers, per the PDO, in the both the eastern and western portion of the City concurrent with development. The Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Master Plan (approved in November 2002 and currently being updated) identifies future park sites and the locations of future facilities Citywide. In addition to defining development of new park sites and upgrades to existing parks the Master Plan includes a park programming matrix which clearly defines where needed facilities will be located. The Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Master Plan identifies timing of planned facilities and funding sources. The plan also recognizes that the acreage required to accommodate desired recreation facilities exceeds the total amount of parkland obligations associated with future development. The assignment of needed recreation facilities tonon-public park sites, such as future school sites, is necessary to accommodate future demand since the total developer obligated future park acreage is less than the total acres required by demanded facilities. PREPARED BY: Name: Mary Radley Title: Landscape Architect Date: 2/22/12 1-80 Page 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE Reporting Period: 7/1/10'- 6/30/11, to Current Time, and Five-YearForecasf FISCAL THRESHOLD STANDARDS: 1. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual Fiscal Impact Report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the city, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12- month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18-month period, and 5-7- year period. 2. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual development impact fee report, which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Please provide an updated Fiscal Impact Report showing an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the city's Operations and Capital. The evaluation should include the following three timeframes: a. The last fiscal year (07-01-10 to 06-30-11); b. The current fiscal year, 2011-2012; and c. What is anticipated in five year's time. Chula Vista, like many cities throughout the nation, continues to struggle with the impacts of the national recession. The City has experienced significant reductions to its revenue sources. Since 2008, the City has experienced a decline across all major revenue sources including: • 7% decrease in sales tax receipts • 14% decrease in property tax receipts • 23% decrease in franchise fee revenues • 25% decrease in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues • 13% decrease in Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) revenues • 56% decrease in Utility Users Tax (UUT) revenues In total, major discretionary revenues in the General Fund have dropped from a high in fiscal year 2007-08 of $97.1 million to an estimated $81.5 million in fiscal year 2011-12, a loss of 16%. In an effort to keep expenditures in line with declining revenues, the City Council has approved several budget balancing plans. As a result of the City Council's decisive actions to reduce expenditures and the cooperation of the City's bargaining groups, the City has been able to end each of the last three fiscal years without negatively impacting the General Fund reserves. Budget reductions have impacted all departments in the City's General Fund, the Redevelopment (RDA) and Housing funds, Fleet fund, and Development Services fund (DSF). Fiscal - 2012 Page 1 -8~ The fiscal challenges the City has faced over the last five years are the result of the signifcant issues surrounding the housing market, the slowdown in the overall economy, and the loss of Telecommunications Users Tax (TUT) revenues as a result of the November 2, 2010 election (Proposition H). Specific growth-related impacts are not easily discernible from these general economic impacts. a. Fiscal Year 2010-11 (Last Fiscal Year) As part of the development of the fiscal year 2010-11 budget, the Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2010-11 to 2014-15 was developed. The goal of the Five-Year Financial Forecast is to assess the City's ability over the next five years to continue current service levels based on projected growth, preserve our long-term fiscal health by aligning operating revenues and costs, and rebuild reserves. The Forecast serves as a tool to identify financial trends, shortfalls, and issues so the City can proactively address them. The Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2010-11 to 2014-15 reflected a balanced budget for fiscal year 2010-11, but identified an ongoing structural imbalance in the General Fund for fiscal years 2011-12 through 2014-15. The fiscal year 2010-11 balanced budget reported in the Five-Year Forecast relied upon the use of sizeable one-time revenues. All budgets developed since 2007 have reflected significant revenue shortfalls and budget reductions intended to be ongoing solutions. Unfortunately, as revenues continued to deteriorate, additional reductions were needed. The use of one-time revenue in the fiscal year 2010-11 budget allowed the City to better assess the "new normal" for revenues and develop along-term budget balancing plan. The City recently closed the books for fiscal year 2010-11. Despite continued economic challenges, the City was able to increase General Fund reserves from $10.2 million to $11.4 million. Overall, the City's General Fund Reserves are now at 9%, their highest level since 2006. b. Fiscal Year 2011.12 (Current Fiscal Year) For fiscal year 2011-12, the Five-Year Forecast identified a projected General Fund deficit of $12.5 million. This deficit later grew to $19.6 million with updated revenue and expenditure projections, including the failure of Proposition H. The fiscal year 2011-12 budget represents the ffth consecutive budget that has required expenditures reductions in order to keep expenditures in line with declining revenues. As part of the development of the fiscal year 20110-12 budget, a total of 88.0 positions were eliminated from the budget. This reduction in staffing resulted in reductions in all service areas. Some of the major service reductions implemented in fiscal year 2011-12 include: • Eliminated graffti abatement crews • Reduced hours of operation at Library branches • Reduced hours of operation at Recreation centers • Reduced staffing on the Police Street Team • Eliminated permanent Park Ranger staffing • Eliminated Tree trimming staffing; limited services provided on a contractual basis • Reduced School Resource Officer staffing • Reduced custodial services for all City facilities • Eliminated recreational swimming hours • Reduced free programming at Recreation Centers • Reduced books and materials budget for Library branches by 86% Fiscal - 2012 Page 2 1-82 A preliminary update of the Five-Year Financial Forecast was completed and considered as part of the development of the fiscal year 2011-12 budget. The following are key assumptions used in the development of the preliminary Five-Year Financial Forecast: • Modest economic recovery (property tax 2%, sales tax 3%, transient occupancy tax 2%j • No salary savings from attrition • RDA loan repayments averaging $1.5 million per year • Health care increases of 10% per year • Reflects salary increases for Police Officers Association & International Association of Fire Fighters per MOU agreements • No salary increases beyond existing MOU agreements • No revenues or expenditures budgeted for UUT wireless revenues • Projected pension cost increases per CaIPERS • No additional state takeaways or revenue swaps • No new positions • Final payment of the 1994 Pension Obligation Bonds c. Five Year Forecast The following table represents the preliminary Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2011-12 through 2015-16. It reflects the budget-balancing plan that was implemented in January 2010 to address the projected deficit for fiscal year 2011-12 through structural changes. As noted in the table below, the forecast indicates that there is a deficit for the out-years, though at a significantly reduced level when compared to previous forecasts. Staff continues to monitor economic trends and recommend adjustments as needed. Additional significant service impacts are not anticipated based upon the Preliminary Five- Year Financial Forecast. Financial Forecast (in mil Ongoing Revenues $ 126.8 $ 121.7 $ 121.2 $ 122.5 $ 125.0 $ 127.5 $ 130.4 One-Time Revenues $ 4.0 $ 9.6 Total Revenues $ 130.8 $ 131.3 $ 121.2 $ 122.5 $ 125.0 $ 127.5 $ 130.4 Expenditures $(129.9) $ (128.9) $ (123.6) $ (123.4) $(127.1) $(129.1) $ (131.6) Eronomic Continaencv Reserve $ (2.4) $ 2.4 0.9 Notes: 1. The forecast represented above reflects the projected expenditures and revenues for fiscal year 2010-11 as reported in the Third Quarter Financial Report 2. The Fiscal Year 2011-12 Proposed Budget reflects the City Managers Proposed Budget, as presented at the 6/21/11 Council meeting. The Council adopted budget differs from the proposed budget presented above. A full update of the Five-Year Financial Forecast report is currently being prepared and will be presented to City Council in conjunction with the Recovery and Progress Plan, currently scheduled for January 2012. The Recovery and Progress Plan is intended to guide decision making when considering short-term and long-term resource allocation. If schedules allow, staff will provide the GMOC with a copy of the updated Five-Year Financial Forecast during the 2012 questionnaire review process. Fiscal - 2012 Page 3 1-83 2. According to the updated Fiscal Impact Report, how is the city's current fiscal health, and what are the primary growth-related fiscal issues facing the city? Chula Vista, like many cities throughout the nation, continues to struggle with the impacts of the national recession. The City has experienced significant reductions to its revenue sources. In total, major discretionary revenues in the General Fund have dropped from a high in fiscal year 2007-08 of $97.1 million to an estimated $81.5 million in fiscal year 2011-12, a loss of 16%. Through these economic challenges, the City has responded with the necessary actions to stabilize the City's finances and has positioned itself to better weather future economic downturns. Over the last few years, the City has: • Stabilized and maintained operating reserves • Adopted a new reserve policy that increases the operating reserve goal from 8% to 15% and establishes two new reserve funds -Economic Contingency Reserve and Catastrophic Event Reserve • Maintained A- bond rating, which indicates that Chula Vista has a stable financial outlook • Implemented comprehensive pension reform for current and future employees • Maintained the majority of core services At this time, as a result of the significant slowdown in development, we do not anticipate fiscal issues resulting from new development. The fiscal challenges the City has faced over the last five years are the result of the significant issues around the housing market, the slowdown in the overall economy, and the loss of TUT revenues as a result of the November 2, 2010 election (Proposition H). 3. Given the city's budget constraints, will you be able to continue to maintain current and projected level of service consistent with the threshold standards? The City's current and projected service levels are determined by both the resources available and the efficient application of those resources. As summarized in the Preliminary Five-Year Financial Forecast table provided on page 3, significant General Fund deficits are not anticipated through fiscal year 2015-16. If future revenues and expenditures are consistent with the forecast, the City will be able to maintain current service levels. In fscal year 2011-12, the City is focusing on three new initiatives. These initiatives support the development of additional resources and the efficient use of existing and new resources. The three initiatives are: • Implementation of the Continuous ImprovemenULean program -components o1 this program include: o Determining appropriate service levels o Developing departmental staffing analysis plans o Continuing to identify and implement efficiency measures o Further developing public/private and public/public partnerships • Development of a Recovery & Progress Plan -the development of this plan will help the City consider short-term and long-term resource allocation. One of the components of this plan includes development of a long term financial plan that will identify and help determine a strategy for addressing deferred maintenance and equipment replacement. • Renewed focus on Economic Development -during fiscal year 2010-11 the City Manager reorganized Conservation and Environmental Services and reassigned Fiscal - 2012 Page 4 1-84 the Director of Conservation and Environmental Services to be the Director of Economic Development. This position will focus on short-term and mid-term initiatives that will support the financial stability of the City. In acknowledgement of the need for marketing in the City's economic development success, the fiscal year 2011-12 budget included the creation of a new Marketing & Communications position, which is funded out of cable and other communications revenues. In the current fiscal year the City anticipates a modest recovery in the local economy. The City of Chula Vista has been financially challenged over the last few years and there are many competing priorities as City revenues begin to grow. Implementation of the Continuous ImprovemenULean program, development of a Recovery and Progress Plan, arid a renewed focus on economic development will help the City focus its resources in the most cost effective manner. This focus on effcient use of resources supports optimum service levels. 4. What are the potential implications of a sustained building decline to the city's fiscal health and the ability to maintain threshold standards? The building decline has negatively impacted the City's finances over the last five years. As development has slowed, the City has experienced a significant reduction in development processing/review revenues. In order to offset these revenue shortfalls, the City has made significant reductions in the General Fund and Development Services Fund operating budgets. These reductions were intended to bring staffing and expenditures into alignment with reduced workload and revenues resulting from .the slowdown in development activity. To the extent possible, the City has attempted to limit service level impacts resulting from these cuts. In addition to impacts to the City's fiscal health resulting from reduced development processing and review, a sustained building decline could result in additional service impacts in all General Fund service areas. The downturn in development activity over the last few years created cash flow challenges in the City's Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) fund. The PFDIF program has significant external debt service obligations. This debt is associated with construction and renovation of large facilities, including the City's Corporation Yard, Police Facility, and Civic Center. The General Fund is the guarantor of the PFDIF debt, and if the PFDIF is unable to meet its obligations, the General Fund must provide the funding. There are not sufficient General Fund revenues to absorb any such cost, and additional budget cuts (with associated service impacts) would be necessary. In an effort to protect the General Fund from this risk, the City has extended interfund loans to the PFDIF and restructured the PFDIF's external debt obligations. In fiscal year 2008-09, the City Council authorized an interfund loan from the TDIF to the PFDIF in the amount of $5.2 million. This loan amount was sized to meet the debt service obligation of the PFDIF for a single fiscal year. An additional $5.3 million interfund loan from the TDIF to the PFDIF was authorized in the fiscal year 2009-10 budget, increasing the interfund loan total to $10.5 million. The use of interfund loans was recommended because of the interest rate environment and the uncertainty surrounding the municipal credit market at that time. In addition, the interfund loans provided the City with an opportunity to restructure the PFDIF's external debt obligations, with the objective of creating cash flow relief to meet debt obligations over several years. The objective of PFDIF cash flow relief was achieved through the issuance of the 2010 Certificates of Participation (COPS). This debt issuance included two components: restructuring the previous 2000 COPS (issued for the construction of the Corporation Yard) Fiscal - 2012 Page 5 1-85 and the issuance of new debt for the final phase of Civic Center construction. The restructuring of the 2000 COPS extended the term of the debt, decreasing the PFDIF annual debt payment. The new debt issuance reimbursed the PFDIF for project costs previously paid using cash-on-hand. The proceeds of the new debt issuance were then used to pay the PFDIF's remaining external debt obligations (Police Facility, Civic Center Phase I, and Civic Center Phase II COPs). Overall, the 2010 COP provided sufficient cash flow relief to meet the PFDIF's updated debt obligations through fiscal year 2011-12. Based on fees collected in recent fiscal years, and conservative development projections, staff anticipates the PFDIF will meet its external debt obligations through fiscal year 2016- 17, as summarized in the table below. PFDIF Projected Cash Flow (585,490) 3,461,224 5,403,684 4,790,440 2,530,040 1,133,404 619,383 Revenues Investment Earnings (8,849) Expenditures COP Debt Servicea (19,636) (3,663,204) (6,196,360) (6,269,636) (6,273,021) (6,276,063) Debt Service Reserve 3,461,224 5,403,684 4,790,440 2,530,040 1,133,404 619,383 502,320 Fee Paying Residential Development Units° 844 225 350 450 550 650 650 Notes: ' Does not include debt service reserve funds held with fiscal agent or deferred revenues, both of which are available fo meet debt service obligation. The Debt Service Reserve variance from the audited fund balance for the PFDIF provided on page 7 is the result of deferred revenues (PFDIF prepayment program). ~ Actual FY 2011-12 DIF fee revenues as of 11/15/2011 total $1.2 million; FY 2011-12 through FY 2016-17 revenues reflect projected fee paying multi-family residential development. FY 2010-11 through FY 2012-13 COP payments reflect application of bond proceeds from 2010 Refuntling COP and available balance of COP debt service funds. ° FY 2010-11 actual building permits issued: 352 single family + 492 multi-family; FY 2011-12 through FY 2016-i7 reflects projected (ee paying multi-family residential development. ' FY 2010-11 actual DIF fee revenues tlo not mathematically tie to fee paying residential development units. This disconnect is the result of fee deferral programs (fees not collected at builtling permit issuance). As shown in the above cash flow projection, the PFDIF is anticipated to meet its external debt obligations through fiscal year 2016-17 without impacting the General Fund. This projection assumes modest increases in development activity over the next six years (average of 480 multi-family building permits per year). Beyond that point, an average of 710 multi-family building permits must be issued annually in order to generate sufficient fee revenues to meet the PFDIF's external debt obligation. In fiscal year 2010-11, the City issued 844 residential building permits (352 single-family and 492 multi-family). As of November 2011, the Finance Department projects a total of 700 residential building permit issuances for calendar year 2011. The residential development activity assumed in the above PFDIF cash flow projection is significantly below the residential permits projected in the '2011 Annual Residential Growth Forecast' report prepared for the GMOC. In order to understand the worst-case scenario of possible impacts to infrastructure and service delivery resulting from development, it is more conservative to assume the maximum possible development activity. In contrast, the worst-case scenario for PFDIF cash flow purposes results from reduced development Fiscal - 2012 Page 6 -86 activity. For this reason, the PFDIF cash flow projection assumes significantly lower development levels than the 2011 Growth Forecast document. It is important to note that the above cash flow projection does not reflect any repayment of the interiund loans from the TDIF (total debt of $10.5 million). If sufficient PFDIF revenues are collected as a result of additional development those funds would be available to begin repaying this debt. Failure of the PFDIF to repay this debt in a timely manner may result in delays in TDIF project construction. Any such delays would be to projects constructed by the City, using DIF funds collected. The outstanding PFDIF debt does not impact projects constructed by developers in exchange for TDIF credits. If project delay was not possible, and PFDIF funds were not available, the General Fund could repay the TDIF on the PFDIF's behalf. Any such decision would be considered in the context of citywide competition for financial resources and would likely impact other service delivery areas. 5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below for the period under review. Fiscal - 2012 Page 7 ~-87 various fee schedules included in Attachment 1. "On a separate sheet of paper list the projects to be funded and/or completed over the next twelve months. "`Public Facilities DIF Funtl Balance is reservetl for debt service payments (Debt Service Reserve). Funds are no[ available for project expentlitures. For each of the DIF funds: a. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next 12 to 18 months? If the funds are inadequate, is the city able to borrow necessary funds to complete the projects? b. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next five years? If the funds are inadequate, is the city able to borrow necessary funds to complete the projects? Adequacy of Funds Under normal circumstances, additional revenues are received by DIF funds in times of development. These funds are then available to mitigate the impacts of the development paying the fees. This timeline is impacted by the need to construct large facilities, such as the civic center complex, police facility, and fire stations in advance of development. DIF projects are constructed via three financing scenarios: • Cash-on-hand • External debt financing • Developer construction If a facility is constructed or acquired using cash-on-hand, the fund provides direct financing using developer fees. This means of project financing has the greatest short term impact upon fund balance and avoids financing costs. If the project is constructed via external debt financing, the fund does not directly finance the project, but instead makes debt service payments over a given period of time. As development occurs, their DIF fees go to repaying these debt obligations. This means of project financing has the smallest short term impact on fund balance. The financing costs incurred in securing external financing increase overall project costs, and thereby increase the fees charged to developers. As DIF funds are unable to guarantee debt, all DIF debt obligations are secured by the City's General Fund. The recent slowdown in development activity has significantly reduced the fees collected by the program, impacting the City's ability to meet these debt obligations. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the 'Ability to Borrow Funds' section of this response. In the instance of developer construction, the required facilities are constructed by the developer in exchange for a credit against their fee obligation. In this scenario, no fees are received by the City. The majority of Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) projects are constructed in this manner. Far these projects, the Eastern TDIF's fund balance has a negligible impact on the timing of project construction. A new factor impacting the timing relationship between development and the construction of facilities is the City's 'Development Processing and Impact Fee Deferral Program'. The program was proposed in light of the economic downturn, with the intent of stimulating development. In December 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3120, establishing a payment plan program for certain development fees (Attachment 2). In April 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3126, expanded the program to include the deferral of Park Acquisition and Development Fees (Attachment 3). In August 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3163, further amending the fee deferral program to allow the payment of Fiscal - 2012 Page 8 1-88 fees at building permit final inspection, rather than at building permit issuance (Attachment 4). This ordinance included a December 31, 2011 sunset. In November 2011, the City Council adopted an ordinance extending the deferral program for an additional year, to December 31, 2012, at which time the fees will revert back to their traditional triggers: building permit issuance or final map approval (Attachment 5). The only exception to the December 31, 2012 sunset is the Eastern Urban Center (EUC)/Millennia project. This project will be eligible to defer impact fees to occupancy through the term of the project, with no set expiration date. Cash flow impacts of the fee deferral program are difficult to determine. For every building permit which defers fees to final inspection, receipt of development impact fee revenues are also deferred, reducing short term revenues. Conversely, according to the development community (and anecdotal evidence), if the fee deferral program were not in place, we would not be issuing as many building permits, also reducing short term revenues. The relative success of this program can be seen in the $4.2 million in PFDIF revenues collected-in fiscal year 2010-11. For each of the funds, the available fund balance as of June 30, 2010 is listed on the Development Impact Fee Overview table on page 7. The adequacy of these funds to complete projects necessitated by either the 12-to 18-month or the 5-year forecasted growth will be determined by a number of factors including the actual rate of development (likely to fall significantly below the rate of development projected in the GMOC Forecast Report); and other fund obligations. These other obligations include debt service, capital acquisitions, and program administration costs. In addition to these obligations, the City has created a debt service reserve in the PFDIF fund, which has a significant future debt service obligation. The creation and anticipated use of this debt service reserve is shown in the 'PFDIF Projected Cash Flow' included on page 6 of this report. Based upon the Finance Department's development projections, as shown in the PFDIF cash flow, this reserve may be significantly underfunded by the end of fiscal year 2016-17. Ultimately, this debt service reserve should be funded at a level sufficient to meet the PFDIF's debt service obligation for a single fscal year. This reserve will mitigate the impacts of future swings in the development market on the PFDIF's ability to meet its debt service obligations. The funding of this debt service reserve will further reduce the funds available for project expenditures in the near future. Ability to Borrow Funds The only development impact fee program which has historically borrowed funds outside the City is the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF). As detailed in the table on page 7, the PFDIF ended fiscal year 2010-11 with a $5.1 million fund balance. As a result of the debt restructuring plan implemented by the City in 2010, the PFDIF is anticipated to meet its debt obligations without impacting the General Fund through fscal year 2016-17, as shown in the 'PFDIF Projected Cash Flow' included on page 6. At that time, the fund will be reviewed to determine if any additional cash flow relief is necessary. Prior to the debt restructuring, the PFDIF had an annual debt service obligation of approximately $5.2 million annually. The restructuring resulted in increased debt payments in the future of approximately $1.1 million annually for a total annual debt payment of $6.3 million. Fiscal - 2012 Page 9 1-89 In addition to its external debt obligations, the PFDIF fund must begin repayment of two interfund loans from the Eastern TDIF as soon as practical, in order to avoid impacts to TDIF project timing. The TDIF loaned the PFDIF $5.2 million in fiscal year 2008-09 and an additional $5.3 million in fscal year 2009-10, for a total of $10.5 million in interfund loans. These loans were necessary for the PFDIF to meet its external debt obligation while the City pursued restructuring the PFDIF's debt. The PFDIF's annual payment to repay the $10.5 million in interfund loans from the TDIF is projected to range from $0.4 million to $1.1 million, with an average payment of $1.0 million over a 10-year repayment period. The actual annual debt payment will vary depending on the repayment period (may be greater than 10 years if available fund are insufficient) and the City's pooled interest rate. When combined with the annual external debt obligation of $6.3 million, a $1.1 million annual internal debt obligation results in a total annual debt obligation of $7.4 million. Minimum development activity required to meet the PFDIF's internal and external debt obligations is summarized in the table below. PFDIF Annual Debt Obligation, Minimum Development Required External Debt $ 6,300,000 710 Internal Debt $ 1,100,000 130 Total $ 7,400,000 840 Based upon existing debt obligations, the City will not seek financing to construct additional facilities in the near future. It is also important to note that the General Fund guarantees all PFDIF debt. If the PFDIF is unable to meet its debt obligations, the obligation shifts to the General Fund. In light of the recent challenges in the General Fund, this additional risk is not advisable at this time. In the future, as economic conditions continue to change, the appropriateness of financing additional facilities will be reviewed. c. In the table below, please indicate whether the existing DIF fund is adequate or needs to be revised. Fiscal - 2012 Page 10 1-90 Police Facilit Cor .Yard Relocation Libraries Fire Suppression S stems Recreation Facilities 6. Please provide a comprehensive list, through build-out, of the PFDIF-funded facilities that remain to be constructed, and estimated date of delivery. There are five (5) major facilities planned for construction using PFDIF funds. These projects are as follows (listed in order of construction priority): 1. Rancho del Rey Library 2. EUC Fire Station 3. EUC Library 4./5. Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatics Center & Recreation Facility In light of current budgetary constraints resulting from the economic downturn, the City's ability to staff and operate these facilities is very limited in the short term. Prior to staffing any new facilities, the City will likely seek to restore services at existing facilities. Once the staffing/operational budgetary issues are addressed, the construction of the facilities themselves will be a function of the PFDIF's available fund balance (taking into account existing debt obligations and the need to fully fund the debt service reserve). 7. Based on City Council's acceptance of the 2011 GMOC Annual Report at the joint workshop in April 2011, please attach a copy of the PFDIF priorities policy. No PFDIF priority policy has been developed by staff or presented to the City Council. At the joint workshop in April 2011, the Council accepted the alternative recommended in staffs response, as modified at the meeting by the City Manager (Minutes included as Attachment 6, see page 3 for discussion of fscal threshold). 2011 GMOC Fiscal Threshold Recommendation: That, within 90 days of the date of this report, the City Council agendize for a Council meeting action to decide whether or not to adopt a PFDIF prioritization policy or other appropriate mechanism for construction or delivery of the remaining facilities in the PFDIF fund. Staff Response (City Manager modification underlined): Staff recommends that a new approval process for the construction of the PFDIF facilities be implemented. This process would require that PFDIF capital projects be brought forward to Council for authorization to proceed prior to significant expenditure of project funds (project design, land acquisition, etc.). At that time, a list of other PFDIF eligible projects would be presented to Council, along with staff's justification for moving forward with the proposed project, and the extent to which project implementation will affect the delivery of other PFDIF facilities and anv related affects to growth management threshold compliance. Per the City Council's direction, staff plans to implement the new 'authorization to proceed' process with the next PFDIF project recommended for construction. No new facilities are anticipated in the near-term. Fiscal - 2012 Page 11 ~-91 8. What is the amount of debt service for this year compared to last year? Fiscal year 2010-11 all funds actual debt service expenditures totaled $12.8 million. The fiscal year 2011-12 debt service expenditure budget totals $12.9 million, an increase of $100,000, or 0.6%. Please note, the above figures reflect the following assumptions: • Includes bonded debt • Excludes equipment leases • Excludes intertund loan repayments • Includes principal, interest and arbitrage payments • Includes monies expended by the trustee and directly out of City funds • Includes debt service expenditures for all City funds, including General Fund, PFDIF, and Residential Construction Tax (RCT) 9. Please state the city's debt service payment policy and indicate how future DIF amounts would be affected by interest paid on debt service in-excess of the original DIF planned amounts. The City does not have a debt service payment policy. Bond covenants for the individual debt issuances detail the terms of the obligation. Via the comprehensive fee update process, unanticipated financing costs are included in the calculation of the various DIF fees. These additional costs result in higher DIF fees. 10. Are PAD fees adequate to construct necessary parks? All residential development in the City (including hotels/motels) pays a PAD fee to fund acquisition and development of parkland. The development portion of the PAD fee is tied to an inflationary index with annual adjustments occurring each October. The index ensures that the development fees collected keep pace with the cost of constructing facilities. Both the development and acquisition components of the fee will be reviewed in the next comprehensive update of the PAD program (currently unscheduled). While adequate mechanisms are in place to ensure the City collects sufficient fees to acquire and develop parkland, there are some issues related to the availability of these funds that should be noted. As mentioned in staffs response to #1 on this questionnaire, the City applied one-time revenues to balance the General Fund budget in fiscal year 2009-10. The majority of these one-time revenues ($9.6 million) were the result of the Redevelopment Agency repaying an outstanding debt owed to the General Fund. The Agency generated the $9.6 million used to repay the City by selling parkland to the PAD fund. At a March 2, 2010 joint meeting, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency approved the purchase of a 14.25-acre site from the Agency using PAD funds totaling $9.6 million. The City has worked to identify potential suitable park sites in western Chula Vista, generally identified in the 2005 General Plan Update and the 2007 Draft Park and Recreation Master Plan. The property sold by the Agency to the PAD fund is one of the locations identifed as being a suitable park site, and is a large step toward meeting the City's goal of providing 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents citywide. The property is now referred to as Lower Sweetwater Community Park. The resolution adopted that evening also authorized a $9.6 million intertund loan between the Eastern PAD fund and the Western PAD fund. The Lower Sweetwater Community Fiscal- 20"12 Page 12 1-92 Park will serve and be funded by future western Chula Vista residents, including residents of the Urban Core Specific Planning Area. As a result, the PAD fund has not yet collected sufficient funds from the development in western Chula Vista to finance the purchase of the park site. It was therefore necessary to internally borrow the funds from the eastern PAD fund (monies collected for the 60 Acre Otay Ranch Community Park). The internal loan will be repaid as funds become available, either as a result of credit acquisitions by the Redevelopment Agency or the payment of PAD fees by developers in western Chula Vista. The Agency will ensure that PAD funds are repaid to fully fund the development of the park for which they were originally collected. The staff report and resolution approving the site purchase and interfund loan are included as Attachment 7. An additional interfund loan from the Eastern PAD to the Western PAD in the amount of $310,000 was authorized by the City Council at its December 6, 2011 meeting. The loan funds will be combined with the Westem PAD fund's available balance of $630,000 (unaudited estimate, as of November 2011) to finance the $940,000 purchase of 1.89-acre parcel located in the Chula Vista Auto Park. The 1.89-acre parcel in the Auto Park will be exchanged fora 1.89-acre parcel located adjacent to the 14.25-acre Lower Sweetwater Community Park site purchased per the March 2010 Council action and $9.6 million loan from the Eastern PAD to the Western PAD. The PAD interfund loans and related parkland acquisition are summadzed in the table below. March 2010 December 2011 14.25 acres 1.89 acres Total $ 9,910,000 $ 630,000 $ 10,540,000 16.14 acres Unlike the original $9.6 million interfund PAD loan, the $310,000 December 2011 loan is not secured by the Redevelopment Agency. The repayment schedule will vary based upon the rate at which PAD fee paying development occurs in western Chula Vista. As Western PAD funds are collected, the first priority for the use of the funds will be the repayment of this loan. Slow development may impact the ability of the Western PAD fund to repay the Eastern PAD fund, potentially impacting the timing of Eastern PAD project construction. The interest rate applied to the outstanding loan balance will be based upon the City's pooled interest rate (currently 0.385%). Assuming a 10-year repayment schedule and the current pooled interest rate, the annual debt payment from the Western PAD to the Eastern PAD would total $31,660. In order to meet this annual debt service obligation, the City would have to collect PAD fees from four to five residential units each year, depending on the land use classification of the units permitted. In addition to the authorizatibn for the $310,000 PAD interfund loan, the purchase of the 1.89-acre parcel in the Auto Park, and the exchange of the Auto Park parcel for the 1.89- acre Lower Sweetwater Community Park parcel, this Council action also authorized an option agreement to exchange a 9.3-acre City owned parcel adjacent to the SR-125 and Eastlake Drive for a 3.94-acre parcel located adjacent to the Lower Sweetwater Community Park site. Fiscal - 2012 Page 13 1-93 PAD Interfund Loans, Park Site Acquisition The staff report and resolution approving the site purchase and intertund loan are included as Attachment 8. 11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC andlor the City Council. None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Fiscal Year 2010-11 Financial Schedules for all DIFs 2. Ordinance 3120, Establishing the Development and Processing Impact Fee Payment Plan Program 3. Ordinance 3126, Amending the Chula Vista Municipal Code to Facilitate to Deferral of In- Lieu Park Fees 4. Ordinance 3163, Modifying the Fee Deferral Program 5. November 2011 Ordinance, Modifying the Fee Deferral Program _ 6. April 7, 2011 Minutes of a Joint Workshop of the City Council, Planning Commission; and Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vjsta 7. March 2, 2010 Report and Resolution on Purchase of Lower Sweetwater Community Park Site and Intertund Loan 8. December 6, 2011 Report and Resolution on Purchase of Auto Park Site, Exchange for Lower Sweetwater Community Park Parcel, and Intertund Loan PREPARED BY: Name: Maria Kachadoorian Title: Finance Director/ Treasurer Name: Karim Galeana Title: Senior Accountant Name: Tiffany Allen Title: Treasury Manager Date: December 12, 2011 Fiscal - 2012 Page 14 ~-94 J SCHEDULEI TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic and transportation improvements in support of future development. Amount of the Fee: $ 11,317 per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached 9,054 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached (med density) 6,791 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 181,074 per general commercial gross acre 90,542 per industrial gross acre FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 591 TRANSPORTATION DIF Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 $ 25,716,731 TDIF Fees Collected 2,239,280 Transportation State Share - Interest Earned 145,296 Miscellaneous Revenues - Forgiveness of debt - Transfer-I n - Expenditures: Supplies 8 Services (7,935) City Staff Services (168,370) SR-125 DIF Refunds (2007-182) - Debt Payment - Calease Fiscal Sys - Transfer-Out - 2003 Refunding COP - CIP Project Expenditures (2,220,534) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 $ 25,704,468 D -~ D n x m z SCHEDULE t.1 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J I m rn FY 10/11 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation Future % Of Project Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/11 Appropriations Funded by TDIF Scheduled OP220 Global Positioning Virtual Refrn Station OP206 Automation - AutoCAD Upgrade OP208 CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase GG183 GIS-Orthophotography/Topograph STL261 Willow St Bridge Widening STM331 98 E. Orange Extension STM355 Otay Lakes Road Widening, East H to Canyon STM357 Rock Mtn Rd -Heritage to La Media STM359 Rock Mtn Rd - SR125 Overpass STM364 Heritage Road Bridge Reconstrc TF274 Traffic Count Stations TF325 Transportation Planning Program TF355 1805 Corridor Imprv. Arterial Ops TF364 TDIF (Trans Dev Impact Fund) Update TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 17,268 28,951 17,430 20,000 66,019 6,307 1,764,189 10,596 7,597 2,099 249,221 10,837 12,419 7,601 $ 2,220,534 17,500 - 70.00% 2011 30,000 15,000 50.00% 2010 75,000 - 41.70% 2009 80,370 - 25.37% 2003 1,087,740 350,000 9.62% 1999 3,959,904 - 100.00% 1999 5,400,000 1,500,000 100.00% 2003 232,000 - 100.00% 2004 300,000 - 100.00% 2010 1,820,000 2,120,000 52.00% 2007 420,000 - 91.30% 2002 220,000 100,000 56.40% 2007 50,000 - 66.70% 2010 125,000 130,000 100.00% 2007 D D n 2 m z J J SCHEDULE 1.2 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Loan Loan Amount Advance to Western Transportation DIF approved via Council approved FY09 budget 180,000 Advance to PFDIF (General Administration) approved by Council Resolution #2008-300 on December 16, 2008 5,200,000 Advance to PFDIF (General Administration) approved by Council Resolution #2009-137 on June 9. 2009 5,300,000 Interest Rate 2.402% 3.80% 0.56% D -~ D n 2 m z SCHEDULE2 WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 10111 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic and transportation improvements in support of future development. Amount of the Fee: $ 3,243 per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached 2,594 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached (med density) 1,946 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 64,860 per regional commercial gross acre 194,580 per high rise office gross acre J I cD FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 WTDIF Fees Collected Interest Earned Transfer-In Expenditures: Supplies & Services City Staff Services CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 FY 10111 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT DESCRIPTION STL349 UC Bike Path/Ped Accss Std 3rd TF363 Western TDIF Bayfront Update TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 190,215 5,467 1, 962 (16,488) $ 181,156 PROJECT Total Appropriation Future % Of Project Initially EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/11 Appropriations Funded by TDIF Scheduled $ - 55,000 16,488 125,000 $ 16,488 FUND 593 WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DIF - 26.00% 2009 - 100.00% 2009 D D C) x m z SCHEDULE3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: For City's traffic signal needs resulting from increased traffc volume caused by new development. Amount of the Fee: $ 31.80 per trip FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 Traffic Signal Fees Collected ~ Federal Grant m Interest Earned C° Miscellaneous Revenues Transfer-In Expenditures: City Staff Services Other Refunds Transfer-Out-2003 Refunding COP CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 FUND 225 TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND $ 3,703,859 325,097 35,293 4,213 (4,696) (747,945) $ 3,315,821 D D n 2 m z SCHEDULE 3.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 10111 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J 0 0 FY 10/11 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT DESCRIPTION OP206 Surevey Monument Preservation Replacement OP208 CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase STM370 North Fourth Avenue Widening TF300 Traffic Signal Instl Hilltop /Oxford TF316 Signal Installation-2nd & Quintard TF320 Signal Instl Greensgate /Greenvw TF330 Traffic Modification 4th /Main & 4th / Beyer TF331 Traffic Modifcation 3rd /Montgomery TF335 Traffic Signal Installation Brandywine & Sequoia TF337 Traffic Left Turn Modification Program TF349 Traffic Signal Modification 1st Ave. E St. Intersection TF354 Traffic Congestion Relief Program TF355 1805 Corridor Improvement Arterial Ops TF360 Hwy Safety Imprv Prog Mjr Intr TF366 Trafc Sgnl & Stlight Upgrd/Mtn TF370 Traffic Signal Instal Albany & Orange TF371 Traffc Modification Hilltop Dr & Main Street TF374 Mod Traffic Signal/Equip. 3rd&I and 3rd&K TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES PROJECT Total Appropriation Future % Of Project Funded Initially EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/11 Appropriations by Traffic Signal DIF Scheduled $ 6,855 7,000 6,000 12.00% 2010 11,272 35,000 5,000 19.44% 2009 1,273 30,000 - 11.00% 2011 11,150 449,401 - 100.00% 2003 8,644 40,000 - 13.00% 2003 6,251 157,174 - 100.00% 2005 23,729 627,000 - 70.00% 2006 71,745 390,000 - 56.52% 2006 1,720 309,201 - 100.00% 2007 12,140 226,649 - 100.00% 2006 415,340 560,000 40,000 100.00% 2008 16,312 55,000 - 20.00% 2008 430 25,000 - 33.33% 2008 42,519 462,090 240,000 51.00% 2009 109,570 255,913 - 41.89% 2009 5,328 350,000 - 100.00% 2010 3,571 250,000 - 100.00% 2010 96 250,000 - 100.00% 2011 $ 747,945 D n m z -~ SCHEDULE4 TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (TC DRAINAGE DIF) FY 10111 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: For construction of Telegraph Canyon channel between Paseo Ladera and the Eastlake Business Center and for a portion of the channel west of I-805. Amount of the Fee: $ 4,579 per acre FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 J TC Drainage Fees Collected I Interest Earned o Transfer-In j Expenditures: Debt Service Payment to 03 Refunding COP CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 FY 10/11 CIP EXPENDITURES: FUND 542 TC DRAINAGE DIF $ 6,007,031 62,105 (2,194) $ 6,066,942 PROJECT Total Appropriation Future % Of Project Funded Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/11 Appropriations by DIF Scheduled Third & L $ ra h Can on Draina e Stud DR167 Tele 251 000 193 1 y g y g p rovement K-1st ra h Can on Channel Im DR182 Tele , , 134 50 000 y p g p h Can on Draina e Stud DR183 Tele ra , 867 1 000 000 1 y g y g p TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ - 100.00% 2006 - 100.00% 2010 n 600,000 100.00% 2010 = , , , 2,194 ~ m z SCHEDULE 5 SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES I J 0 N Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF (TC Gravity Sewer DIF) Fund 431 Pumped Sewer DIF (Pumped Sewer DIF) Fund 543 Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF (PC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 432 Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF (SC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 433 Description of Fee: Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF: For the expansion of trunk sewer within the basin for tributary properties. Pumped Sewer DIF: For construction of facilities necessary to provide sewer service to developments within the pumped flow basin. Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF: For the planning, design, construction and/or financing of the facilities. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF: For the construction of a trunk sewer in the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin from a proposed regional trunk sewer west of I-805 along Olympic Parkway to the boundary of Eastlake. Amount of the fee: Fund 431 Fund 432 Fund 433 TC Gravity PC Sewer SC Sewer Sewer DIF Basin DIF Basin DIF per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached $ 216.50 $ 265.00 $ 1,330.00 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached 216.50 265.00 1,330.00 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 162.38 198.75 997.50 Commercial land use $216.50/edu $265/edu $1330/edu Industrial land use $216.50/edu $265/edu $1330/edu D D (7 x m z SCHEDULE 5.1 SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J 0 W FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 DIF Fees Collected Interest Earned Transfer-In Expenditures: City Staff Services Depreciation Expense -Infrastructure Oakwood Development Refunds (2008-261 & 2009-00: Interest Paid Transfer Out to Fund 413 Transfer Debt Service CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 Fund 431 Fund 432 Fund 433 TC Gravity PC Sewer SC Sewer Sewer DIF Basin DIF Basin DIF $ 3,246,021 $ 2,011,597 $ 1,551,928 1,418 75,348 366,833 11,243 21,280 58,727 - (552) (150) (60,000) - - - - (62,927) - - (250,000) $ 3,198,682 $ 2,107,673 $ 1,664,411 D D n S m z SCHEDULE 6 OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J 0 Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 587 Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 588 Description of Fee: OR Village 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement between Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5 8 6. OR Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement in Otay Ranch Village 11. Amount of the fee: Fund 587 Fund 588 OR Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 OR Village 11 Ped Bridge DIF Ped Bridge DIF per single family equivalent dwelling unit detache $ per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit $ 1,114.00 $ 2,170.00 826.00 $ 1,612.00 FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 DIF Fees Collected Interest Earned Otay Parkway Ped. Bridge (2008-102) City Staff Services Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 FUND 587 FUND 588 OTAY RANCH DIF OTAY RANCH DIF 11,120 $ 2,375,990 256,834 394,019 1,905 28,360 (100) (1,053) $ 269,759 $ 2,797,316 D D n 2 m z SCHEDULE? PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF) FY 10111 STATEMENT OF FUND BALANCE i J O rn Description of Fee and amount: Admistration (5561)-Administration of the Public Facilities DIF program, overseeing of expenditures and revenues wlleded, preparation of updates, calculation of costs, etc. Civic Center Expansion (52,458) -Expansion of the 1989 Civic Center per the Civic Center Master Plan to provide suf6dent building space and parking due to growth and development. The Civic Center Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to indude the Olay Ranch impacts. Police Fadllty (51,565)-Accommodation of the building space needs per the Civic Center Master Plan, which included the newly constructed police tadlity, upgrading of the communications center and installation of new communication consoles. Also inducted is the purchase antl installation of a computer aided dispatch system (CAD), Police Rewrds Management System, and Mobile Data Terminals. Corporation Yard Relocation (5421) -Relocation o(the Cilys Public Works Center from the bay front area to the more centrally located site on Maxwell Road. Libraries (57,413) -Improvements intautle construdion of the South Chula Vista library and Easlem Territories libraries, and installation of a new automated library system. This wmponent is based on the updated Library Master Plan. Fir¢ Suppression System (57,243)- Projects include the relocation of Fire Stations #3 & #4, construdion of a fire training tower and Gassroom, purchase of a brush rig, installation of a radio communications tower and construction of various Ore stations in the Eastern section of the City. This fee also regeds the updated Fire Station Master Plan, which incudes needs associated with the Otay Ranch development. Major Recreation Facilities (57,072) -New component adopted in November 2002 to build major recreation fatalities created by new development such as community centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen centers. Beginning Balance, 07/01110 Revenues'. DIF Revenues Investment Earnings Other Revenue Reimbursement - Olh Agendes Transfer In Expenditures: Personnel Services Total Supplies 8 Services City SIaH Services Other Refunds Capital Expenditures CIP Project Expenditures Transfer Out Police Corp Vard Fire Supp. Rec. Gen. Admin. Civic Center (1) Facility Relocation Libraries System Facilities 571 567/572 573 574 575 576 582 TOTAL $ 2,914,218 $ 8,382,915 $ (2,327,270) $ 2,356,810 $ 8,560,830 $ (12,516,414) $ (6,279,081) $ 1,092,008 381,400 879,429 624,801 132,404 744,416 696,663 749,087 4,208,200 33,263 96,263 2,061 29,419 94,423 (178,168) (86,130) (8,649) _ - - (83,447) - - - (83447) Unautliled Ending Balance, 06/30/11 $ 3,328,881 $ 9,289 435 $ (1,700,408) $ 2,435,186 $ 9,399,669 $ (11,997,919) $ (5,616,124) $ 5,138,720 NOTE: (1) This fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adame progeny in Funtl 567. D D n 2 m z J 0 m PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: In lieu fee for providing neighborhood community park and recreational facilities. Areas East of I-805 Amount of the Fee: $ 17,415 per single family dwelling unit 12,924 per multi-family dwelling unit 8,150 per mobile home dwelling unit 7,450 per motel/hotel dwelling unit Areas West of I-805 Amount of the Fee: $ 9,733 per single family dwelling unit 7,223 per multi-family dwelling unit 4,555 per mobile home dwelling unit 4,163 per motel/hotel dwelling unit FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 715 PAD FUND Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 $ 31,599,699 Revenues: Park Dedication Fees 1,138,382 Interest Earned 192,233 Miscellaneous Revenues - Expenditures: Supplies and Services - Other Expenses - CIP Project Expenditures (1;231,533) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 $ 31,698,781 D -i D n 2 m z -i PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 10/11 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation Future % Of Project Funded Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/11 Appropriations by PAD Fees Scheduled PR260 San Miguel Ranch Community Park 118,355 8,363,510 - 100.00% 2007 PR261 Otay Ranch Community Park 30,942 697,764 - 100.00% 2009 PR279 All Seasons park 1,036,069 2,900,000 - 100.00% 2007 PR303 Sunset View Park Roller Hockey Rink Modf 46,167 150,000 - 100.00% 2009 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ J I 1,231,533 ~ Note: The ending balance includes fees paid by specific developers for specific parks within those development. These parks include Salt Creek Park, Montevalle Park, Mt. Miguel Park, Mountain Hawk, and the Otay Ranch Community Park. D D n 2 m z TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 0 Description of Fee: For the enlargement of sewer facilities of the City so as to enhance efficiency of utilization and/or adequacy of capacity and for planning and/or evaluating any future proposals for area wide sewage treatment and or water reclamation systems or facilities. Amount of the Fee: $ 3,478 per equivalent dwelling unit of flow when developing or modifying use of any residential property FY 10/11 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 413 TRUNK SEWER (TS) Beginning Balance, 07/01/10 $ 184,190,079 Interest Earned 866,726 Developer Infrastructure Donations - Sewerage Facility Participant Fees 2,416,132 Transferln - Expenditures: Depreciation Expense -Infrastructure (5,295,746) CIP Project Expenditures (199,432) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/11 $ 181,977,759 D -i D n S m z TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY 10/11 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 10/11 EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Approp. Future % Of Project Funded Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/11 Appropriations by TRUNK SEWER Scheduled SW223 Wastewater Master Plan 4,022 65,940 - 100.00% 2001 SW233 Moss Street Woodlawn to Broadway - 247,379 500,000 18.00% 2007 SW234 Sewer Improvement Colorado J & K - 965,883 - 100.00% 2004 SW235 Main St. Sewer Hilltop -Fresno 5,827 86,459 50,000 100.00% 2004 SW249 Joint Feas Stud for Wastewater Reclm 680 49,099 - 100.00% 2007 SW258 Sewer Capacity Analysis 188,447 287,235 - 100.00% 2007 SW261 Industrial Blvd & Main Cap Enhance 75 140,000 - 100.00% 2010 o SW263 Anita Street Sewer Improvement 172 500,000 - 100.00% 2011 m SW265 Industrial Blvd At Moss & K - 10,000 300,000 100.00% 2011 SW266 Oxford Street Sewer Improvement 209 670,000 - 100.00% 2011 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 199,432 D D n 2 m z -~ J LOANS: TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY 10111 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Loan Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #18996 on May 19, 1998 Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19078 on July 16, 1999 for project DR140 (Storm Drain Repair-Orange) Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19607 on Nov. 24, 1999 for project DR 147 (CMP Storm Drain Replacement) Outstanding Loan Amount Interest Rate $ 428,970 6.07% 60,892 5.90% 236,989 5.88% Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19682 on Jan. 19, 2000 Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2001-203 on June 19,2001 Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2002-222 on June 18,2002 Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2002-297 on August 13, 2002 Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2003-278 on June 17, 2003 Total 84,510 5.88% 10,516,522 5.88% 1,983,928 5.34% 2,929,953 1.90% 1,109,491 1.50% $ 17,331,254 D D n 2 m z ATTACHMENT2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ;~~~ CITY OF e CHUTAVISTA 12/16/08, Item ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING AND IMPACT FEE PAYMENT PLAN PROGRAM SUBMITTED BY: DIIZECTOR OF ENGINEERING ,~ DIltECTOR OF PLANNING UILDINC~ DIItECTOR OF FINArNCE~ REVIEWED BY: INTERIM CITY MANAGER ~j~ 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO SUMMARY The City of Chula Vista requires the payment of various processing, development impact, capacity, and in-lieu fees to ensure new development mitigates its impact on public facilities. The payment of these fees is a substantial commitment for many projects, and spreading the payment of the fees over an extended period may assist in the development of projects. Members of the development community have contacted the City and requested an extended payment schedule program be considered. The proposed Ordinance represents the City's response to this request. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Council approve the Ordinance establishing a Development Processing and Impact Fee Payment Plan Program (first reading), to take effect and be in full force 30 days after the second reading and adoption. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION A'ot applicable. DISCUSSION The City collects processing, development impact, capacity, and in-lieu fees from developers as a condition of project approval. These funds are used to offset the City's cost of providing 7-1 1-111 ATTACHMENT2 12/16/08, Item ~ Page 2 of 3 development review services and to finance the construction of public improvements necessary to mitigate the subject project's impact on the City's public facilities. The payment of processing and development fees is a substantial commitment for most development projects. As a result of the current downturn in development and the continued tightening of the credit market, the burden created by the payment of fees at building permit issuance has increased. Local developers and the Building Industry Association (BI.A) have approached the City requesting consideration of an extended payment plan program. In response to this request, staff has surveyed other California jurisdictions and found that several fee deferral programs are being offered. These programs include deferral of fees to various project milestones, including certificate of occupancy and close of escrow. In order to help stimulate economic development and to be responsive to the needs of our customers, staff recommends the creation of an extended payment plan program for certain processing and development impact fees. The Ordinance provides a framework For individual projects to enter into payment plan agreements with the City. The program is intended as a temporary response to the current housing market slump, and as such, will expire on December 30, 2010. General Program guidelines included in the Ordinance aze described below DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING AND IMPACT FEE PAYMENT PLAN PROGRAM The Development Processing and Impact Fee Payment Plan program allows the extended payment of certain processing and development impact fees. Participation in the Program requires the developer enter into an agreement with the City identifying the fees to be paid, total fee amount due, and establishing a payment schedule for the fees (including initial deposit and amount due par month and/or milestone). The fees due are as determined by the fee schedule in effect at the time the agreement is executed. If the applicant fails to comply with al] provisions and requirements of the Ordinance or individual payment plan agreement, the City will adjust the development processing and impact fees due to reflect the then current fee rates. The maximum payment schedule is 12 months, with an optional 12 month extension at the discretion of the City Manager or his designee. Any additional extension of the payment schedule reyuires Council approval. In no event will the fee payment schedule extend beyond either: 1) the City's approval and signah~re on the final inspection card for residential development; or 2) the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a non-residential development. All developers with projects currently submitted to the City for review and permitting are eligible for the extended payment program, including residential, commercial, and industrial projects. Those developers with current outstanding debts with the City are not eligible for the program until their City accounts aze brought current, to the satisfaction ofthe Finance Director. 7-2 1-112 ATTACHMENT2 12/16/08, Item Page 3 of 3 Applicants will not be required to submit an administrative fee to cover the cost of administering the payment plan agreements. In addition, no interest will be charged on the fees included in the individual gayment plans. The order in which payment plan funds are applied to the various fee programs shall be at the sole discretion of the Finance Director. The payment schedule agreement required by the Program is non-transferrable and must be recorded as a lien on the subject property, with the applicant responsible for all recording costs. Upon receipt of payment in full, the City will file a release of lien. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot mle found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the Ordinance creates a framework for a payment program only, and therefore has no General fund impact. For future payment plan agreements as authorized by the Ordinance, applicants will reimburse the City for all costs incurred in the prepazation, execution, and recordation of the individual project agreements, resulting in no net General fund impact. Staff costs incurred in administering individual payment plan agreements will not be recovered via astand-alone administrative fee. [t is anticipated that these costs will not exceed staff time generally spent administering fee programs. Approval of individual project payment plan agreements will result in extended payment of processing and development fees. Delayed receipt of fees will result in decreased interest earnings and may impact project construction phasing. ATTACHMENTS None. Prepared by: Irncsema Quilantan. Assiswnt Director of Engineering. Engineering Deportment M'IEngineerlAGENDAICAS10081/b16-081Fee Deferral Program Staff Report Rev.doc 7-3 1-113 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3120 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESSING IMPACT FEE PAYMENT PLAN PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (City) requires the payment of various types of development impact fees to help address the impacts of new development; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 1990, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2384, the City Council established the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2384 requires that the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee be paid before the approval by the City of the development project, or if not paid at the time of approval of the final map or pazcel map, the fee must be paid before the issuance of the first building permit for the development; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 1997, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2716, the City Council establish the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2716 requires that the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee be paid in cash upon the issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2767, the City Council established the Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2767 requires that the Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for residential development projects; and WHEREAS, on February ]8, 2003, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2898, the City Council established the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for Otay Ranch Village 1 I; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2898 requires that the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee for Otay Ranch Village 11 be paid in cash upon the issuance of a residential building permit; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3.32 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the Residential Construction Tax; and WHEREAS, the Residential Construction Tax requires that the tax be paid upon the application for a building permit; and 1-114 Ordinance No. 3120 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 WHEREAS, Chapter 3.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the Development Impact Fees to Pay for Various Public Facilities (PFDIF); and WHEREAS, the PFDIF requires that the fee be paid upon the issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3.54 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the Transportation Development Impact Fee for the Eastern Territories of the City (TDIF) and Chapter 3.55 of the Municipal Code establishes the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTD1F); and WHEREAS, both the TDIF and the WTDIF require that the fee be paid upon the issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, Section 13.14.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the Sewage Capacity Chazge; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the payment of fees represents a substantial financial commitment for many projects; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that establishing a payment plan for certain fees may assist in the development of projects; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance establishes a payment plan for certain development processing and impact fees for a specified period of time. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section 1. Environmental Review The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Section 2. Purpose The City Counci] of the City of Chula Vista desires to encourage the construction of residential and nonresidential development projects within the City. The City Council finds that the eazly payment of certain impact fees for new development creates such a barrier to such development and desires, by the adoption of this Chapter, to ease such barrier by establishing a payment plan for certain development impact fees. ATTACHMENT2 Ordinance No. 3120 Page 3 Section 3. Definitions "Applicant" means the owner of the real property or the developer with an approved development project who seeks a development impact fee payment plan pursuant to this Ordinance. "Approved Residential Development Project" means a market rate residential development consisting of single-family or multifamily residential units sold or rented at prevailing market rates and free of any affordability restrictions which has received final discretionary action by the City and which is in compliance with all environmental requirements due prior to issuance of a building permit. "Approved Development Project " means a nonresidential development which has received final discretionary action by the City and which is in compliance with all environmental requirements due prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 4. Development Impact Fees Subject to the Payment Plan Program Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 3.32, 3.54 and 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the Ordinances listed below, the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only to the following development impact fees: (a) the Sewer Capacity Fee codified in Section ]3.14.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (b) the Residential Construction Tax codified in Chapter 332 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (c) the Development Impact Fees to Pay for Various Public Facilities codified in Chapter 3.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (d) the Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee codified in Chapter 3.54 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (e) the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee codified in Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (f) the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee established on August 7, 1990 pursuant to Ordinance No. 2384; (g) the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee established on December 9, 1997, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2716; (h) the Otay Ranch Village 1 and S Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee established on January 5, 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2767; and 1-116 Ordinance No. 3 ] 20 Page 4 ATTACHMENT2 (i) and the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for Otay Ranch Village 11 established on February 18, 2003, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2898. Section 5. Establishment of the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program (a) The Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program is established for those development impact fees listed in Section 4. (b) The Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program shall apply only to Approved Residential Development Projects and Approved Development Projects as defined in this Ordinance. (c) An Applicant may file an application with the City to request a payment plan for any or all of those development impact fees listed in Section 4. (d) The Applicant shall deposit with the City an amount to be determined by the City Manager for an Approved Residential Development Project or an Approved Development Project at the time the building permits aze issued. No building pemut shall be issued for an Approved Residential Development Project or an Approved Development Project subject to this Ordinance unless the Applicant has paid this deposit. (e) The Applicant, and the owner of the property, if different, shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to the payment plan. (f) The maximum period for any payment plan pursuant to this Chapter is twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of building permits. This period may be extended once for twelve (12) months at the discretion of the City Manager. Any additional extensions shall be at the discretion of the City Council. (g) All fees subject to the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program shall be paid in frill the eazlier of: (1) the City's approval and signature on the final inspection cazd by the Director of Planning and Building, or designee, for an Approved Residential Development Project; or (2) the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for an Approved Development Project; or (3) the end of the maximum period described in subsection (f) of this Section 5. Section 6. Agreement Shall Constitute a Lien The Applicant and the owner of the property, if different, shall execute a Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement with the City. The Agreement shall be recorded by the City and shall constitute a lien against the property for the payment of the fees. The City Manager shall execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. ATTACHMENT 2 Ordinance No. 3120 Page 5 Once the obligation is paid in full, the City shall record a Release of the Lien. Section 7. Determination of the Amount of Development Impact Fees The amount of development impact fees owed by the Applicant shall be determined by the City pursuant to the provisions outlined in the Municipal Code or in the ordinances establishing the fees. These amounts shall be fixed as of the date of the execution of the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Agreement by the City. The amounts of these fees shall not change as long as the Applicant is in full compliance with all provisions and requirements of this Ordinance and the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement. lf, however, the Applicant fails to comply with all the provisions and requirements of this Ordinance or the Agreement, the City may adjust the development impact fees to reflect the current rates for the fees. Section 8. Not Transferable The City's approval of a Development Impact Fee Payment Plan is not transferable to any other project, even if the Applicant is the same and the other project would qualify for the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program. Section 9. Recordation Costs The Applicant shall pay all costs of recordation of documents required pursuant to this Ordinance and the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement at the execution of the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement by the City. Section 10. Expiration of this Ordinance This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after final passage and shall expire on December 31, 2010, and as ofthat date, is repealed. Presented by _ _.. '~ Richard A. Hopk' Engineering Director Approved as to form by B . Mies eld Crty Atto~ey 1-118 Ordinance No. 3 ] 20 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 6th day of January 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Councihnembers: Bensoussan Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, and Cox NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Cheryl Cox, ayo ATTEST: Donna R. Noms, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, Donna R. Noms, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 3120 had its first reading at a regulaz meeting held on the 16th day of December 2008 and its second reading and adoption at a regulaz meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of January 2009; and was duly published in summary form in accordance with the requirements of state law and the City Charter. Executed this 6th day of January 2009. n ~m,,,,~ 9~ /~,4,~ Donna R. Norris, MC, City Clerk 1-120 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~~lri c1Tr of ''"~°' CHULA VISTA 4/7/08, Item ~' ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHUI.A VISTA AMENDNG TITLE 17, SECTION 17.10.100 OF THE CHULA VISTA MLTIICIPAL CODE TO FACILITATE THE DEFERRAL OF IN- LIEUPARK FEES SUBMITTED BY: DEPUTY CITY MArNAGEIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO SUMNLARY On December 16, 2008, City Council approved the creation of a payment plan pro~am for development processing and impact fees due to the current economic downturn. This action would allow developers to also defer Pazk Acquisition and Development fees to a time later than the approval and recordation of the pazcel or final map, or for development that does not require a parcel or final map, later than permit issuance. The purpose of the fee deferral program is for the purpose of stimulating economic development within the City of Chula Vista. Both fee deferral programs will expire on December 31, ?010 and in no way relieve developers from fee obligations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Envirorunental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity' for compliance' with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 (b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal involves a fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any' specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Council approve the Ordinance amending Title 17.10 of the Municipal Code (Pazklands and Public Facilities), first reading, to tike effect and be in full farce 30 days after the second reading and adoption. 7-1 1-121 ATTACHMENT3 4/7/08, Item Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION The City currently collects Park Acquisition and Development ("PAD") fees pursuant to Section 17.10 of the Municipal Code, which requires that fees be paid at the approval and recordation of parcel or final map, unless a pazcel or final map is not required for the development, in which case the fees are paid at building permit issuance. The proposed changes under consideration consist of the following: 1. To allow all developers who formerly were required to pay PAD fees at the time of pazcel or final map approval and recordation to pay the fees at the time of building permit issuance. 2. To allow those developers who have a demonstrated economic hazdship, as determined by the City Manager, to further delay the payment of PAD fees after the issuance of building permits. This class of developers will be required to enter into an agreement with the City Manager wherein the terms of the payment aze stipulated. All such agreements shall be secured with a lien on the developer's property and all staff time associated with prepazing the agreement shall be home by the developer. Developers entering into a payment agreement will be subject to the fees in effect at the time the agreement is entered into. 3. Developers who have previously paid PAD fees will not be provided refunds as the funds have either been programmed or aze required for the construction of planned pazks. 4. Any park acreage to be dedicated to the City will still be irrevocably dedicated at the time of the final map approval. The payment of PAD fees is a substantial commitment for most development projects. As a result of the current mazket downturn and the continued tightening of the credit mazket, there is a perceived burden created by "frontloading" fees. The current method of collecting PAD fees at pazcel or final map approval and recordation was established in order to enable pazk contracts to be let prior to the last building permit being issued. This provides for the delivery of parks prior to the last building permit being issued, a strategy that can make it possible to open a new pazk at the time when new homes become occupied. However, in light of the current mazket conditions, both residential and park development have been impacted. In order to stimulate both residential and park development, a temporary change in this practice is recommended durine the period of economic downrum. The applicability of this amendment will be limited to the anticipated period of the current mazket slump and will expire on December 31, 2010. The City updates P.AD fees October 1~` of every yeaz to account for construction price changes. Developers will be required to pay the amount of the PAD in effect at the time the fee is paid, unless the payment is deferred to a time after the issuance of a building permit. In this instance, the developer will be subject to the fees in effect at the time the payment agreement is entered into. Interest will be chazged on the deferred fees for the period of deferral. This will ensure that the Citg vrill collect enough funds to complete the facilities identified in the Pazks Master Plan. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decisior_. 7-2 1-122 ATTACHMENT3 4/7/08, Item~_ Page 3 of,3 FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the Ordinance has no General Fund impact because staff time associated with processing agreement and liens will be paid for by the developer. Approval of the ordinance may impact the Pazk Acquisition and Development (PAD) fund and associated project phasing. The deferral of fees to building permit issuance is anticipated to impact project phasing only, not the total fees recovered. Any agreements entered into between the City and developers for deferral beyond building permit issuance would not be subject to fee increases occurring in the interim; however, would be subject to interest, which would accrue on the fees deferred. As the fees deferred would be subject to interest there would be no impact on the total fees collected. ATTACI~NTS Proposed ordinance amendment text. Prepared by: Iom Adler, Development Services Deperiment C: (Documents and Settingsltomalhly DocumentslP.ADIPad deferral vl0. doc 7-3 1-123 ATTACHMENT3 ORDINANCE NO. 3126 ORDINANCE OF THE C[TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING TITLE 17, SECTION 17.]0.100 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO FACILITATE THE DEFERRAL OF IN-LIEU PARK FEES WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is desirous of both assisting economic development and providing pazklands for the community, and WHEREAS, currently, in-lieu park fees ("PAD fees") are collected prior to the recordation of a final map or paccel map or for development that does not require a final map or parcel map, at the time of permit issuance; and WHEREAS, the existing requirements related to the timing of the collection of PAD fees have been identified as a possible impediment to development; and WHEREAS, in those situations where the PAD fees aze not necessary for the public health or welfaze, a deferral in the collection of such fees would not harm the City or its ability to provide its citizens and communities with the Pazks they need; and WHEREAS, the deferral of PAD fees will also provide developers with relief from the upfront capital requirements, so that they may begin pulling building permits; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2008, the City Council approved an ordinance for the deferral of certain development impact fees and other fees associated with development due to the economic downturn; and WHEREAS, similazly, in order to permit the deferral of the collection of PAD fees, the City must amend its Municipal Code by adopting an ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City desires to limit the applicability of such deferred payments of PAD fees to those final maps, paccel maps approved and recorded and those permits issued after the adoption of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, does ordain as follows: That Chula Vista Municipal Code chapter 17, section 17.10.100 be amended with the inclusion of sections 17.10.100(c), 17.10.100(d), and 17.10.100(e); as follows: Ordinance No. 3126 Page 2 Chapter 17, Section ]7.10.100 Collection and Distribution of Fees ATTACHMENT3 (C) Notwithstanding the foregoing Section 17.10.100(A), the City may defer the payment of in-lieu fees for land dedication and/or pazk development for those developments that require a fmal subdivision map or pazce] map until the date of permit issuance provided such final map or parcel map is approved and recorded after the adoption of this ordinance Section 17.10.100(C) and prior to December 31, 2010. The amount of the fees due shall be those fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. (D) Notwithstanding the foregoing Section 17.10.100(A), the City may defer the payment of in-lieu fees for land dedication and/or pazk development due at permit issuance until a date 1 yeaz from the permit issuance or until the call for final inspection, whichever is eazlier, provided the following conditions are met: 1) The permit for which fee defemel is requested was issued after the adoption of this Ordinance Section ] 7.10.100(D) and prior to December 31, 2010. 2) Permit applicant demonstrates, to the. satisfaction of the City Manager, that the payment of the in-lieu fees at the time of permit issuances creates a financial hardship. 3) An agreement with the City in a form approved by the City Attorney is executed containing the following terms and conditions: a Interest shall accrue on the deferred fees at the City's average earning rate from the date of permit issuance until the defected fees aze paid in full. b. The City may withhold interim or final inspection, issuance of any additional permits, and/or certificates of occupancy, if applicable, until the deferred fees aze paid in full. c. The payment of the deferred fees and accrued interest shall be secured by a lien recorded on the property for which the permit was issued and such lien shall run with and encumber the property. d. Fees and Accrued Interest shall be paid with a certified check prior to or concurrent with the date on which the deferral period ends. e. If the Owner sells or transfers the property or any portion of the property in any manner, the property shall not be released from any of the obligations, covenants, or conditions under the Agreement relating to the property or portion of the property being acquired f. Permit applicant shall pay all fees associated with the prepazation and recording of the agreement and associated lien. 4) For those deferred fees equal to or in excess of $100,000, the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council. For those defected fees less than $100,000, the City Manager or his/her designee shall execute the Agreement. Separate Agreements shall not be created or executed in order to avoid the approval limitations or requirements of this section. (E) The provisions of Sections 17.10.100(C) and 17.10.100(D) shall expire, terminate, and become void at midnight on December 31, 2010. Upon expiration of this ordinance, all fees for development required to record a final or parcel map, deferred pursuant to the Section 17.10.100(C) and not the subject of a deferral agreement pursuant to Section 17.10.100(D), shall be due and payable on or before January 1, 2011. The amount of the fees due and payable shall be the amount of the fees in effect at the time of payment. ATTACHMENT3 Ordinance No. 3126 Page 3 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its adoption. Presented by Gary`7-lalbe~t, $:E.", AICP ` Deputy Ci Manager/Development Services Director Approved as to form by r" F ';'~ss~/ B C. MiesFe7d ~ ity Atto~y / PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 21st day of April 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Bensoussan, Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, and Cox NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: 0 Donna R. Norris, MC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA Cheryl Cox, ayor I, Donna R. Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 3126 had its first reading at a regulaz meeting held on the 7th day of April 2009 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said Ciry Council held on the 21st day of April 2009; and was duly published in summary form in accordance with the requirements of state law and the City Charter. Executed this 21st day of April 2009. Donna R. Nortis CM ity Clerk 1-1 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~` CITY OF --- CHUTAVISTA August 17, 2010 Item q ITEM TI'L'LS: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MODIFYING THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM ASSISTANT CITY MANAG / DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY MANAGER 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO SUMMARY On December 16, 2OU3, City Council approved the creation of a payment plan program for development fees due to the current economic downturn. This defen~al pro~am was enhanced on April 21, 2009 where City Council also approved the defen~al of Park Fees. The current deferral program requires applicants to enter into an agreement with the City for the deferral of fees. The Building Industry Association (BIA) has approached City staff with two specific concerns: 1. the time, and, 2. the costs associated with processing these deferral agreements. The proposed ordinance answers these two concerns by delaying the nigger for the bulls of development fees from building permit issuance to final inspection. The proposed ordinance also extends the deferral program for an additional year, to December 31, 2011, at which time fees will revert back to their traditional triggers: building permit issuance or final map approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15373 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consists of a fiscal action that will not result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Council approve the Ordinance to take effect and be in full force 30 days after the second reading and adoption. DISCUSSION Since 2008 the City has given applicants the option to defer the bulk of development fees by entering into un agreement with the City. This agreement is recorded against the propei2y as a lien 9-1 I I i-i ~~ ~r ATTACHMENT 8/17/08, Item Page 2 of 3 and released by the City once the fees have been paid. There is a certain amount of time and cost associated with this process and the BIA has requested that deferral program be amended such that the tees are nut due and payahle until each building permit's final inspection, thereby obviating the need for an agreement to deter such fees. Given that the purpose of deferring fees is to stimulate economic development within the City of Chula Vista, staff supports any administrative change that can make the program more efficient as long as the City is protected against a possible non- payment. The proposed ordinance under consideration tonight has these protections. The Deferred Fees The fees to be deferred under this ordinance are as outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1 Fees to be collected prior to final inspection of a building permit Fee Description Authority Fee Amount* for a typical single Famil detached dwellin Sewer Capacity Fee 13.14.090 Munici al Code $3,478.00 Public Facility Development 3.50 Municipal Code $8,735.00 Im act Fee (D1F) Eastem Transportation 3.54 Municipal Code $11,317.00 Develo ment im ac[ Fee Westem Transportation 3.55 Municipal Code $3,243.00 Develo ment im act Fee Telegraph Canyon Drainage Ordinance 2354 $216.50 Pee established Poggi Canyon Sewer Ordinance 2716 $265.00 Develo ment Im act Fee Salt Creek Sewer Development Ordinance 2974 $1,330.00 Lrt act Fee Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Ordinance 2767 $1,114.00 Pedestrian Bride D1F OtayRanchVillagell Ordinance2S98 $2,126.00 Pedestrian Bride DIF Park Acquisition and 17.10 Municipal Code $17,256.00 (East) $9,574 (West) Develo ment Fees It is important to note that not all projects pay all fees. For example, buuamg permits east or r-av~ are obligated [o pay the Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee and building permits issued west of I- 805 are obligated~to pay the Westem Transportation Development Fee. There are also specific sewer basin fees depending on which basin the development occurs in. City Protections Against Non-Payment The major change associated with this ordinance is that un agreement will no longer be recorded against each property. This agreement has been the primary protection against nonpayment of fees as the agreement is a lien on the property through which the City could collect payment. The proposed protections contained in this ordinance are that the City will not allow occupancy or even the final building inspection until such time as the fees are paid. In addition all fees become payable when the ownership changes during construction, requiring the new builder to either pay 9-2 1-198 8/17/118, It m Epd;T 4 Page 3 of 3 the Fees or to pull a new pcrntit if a deferral is requested. Finally, if the program is not proceeding as planned; the City Manager is authorized to collect fees earlier upon the determination by the Finance Director that either the fees are necessary or there is a risk associated with collection of the fees at a later date. Date of Termination of this Ordinance The deferral program has been proposed in light of the current period of economic downturn in order to stimulate development. As such, the deferral program is temporary in nahtre. The applicability of this ordinance will be limited to the anticipated period of the current market slump and will expire on December 31, 201 1. nrclsroly naAx>;IZ colvFLrcT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule fotmd in California Code of Regulations section 1870=4?(a)(1) is not applicable. FISCAL ID4PACT Current FY Impact Approval of this ordinance has no Genera] Fund Impact. Staff time associated with assessing fees will be picked up on the back end of the permit rather than permit issuance. The net effect due to time value of money issues (the City receives fiords later than traditional) should be off-set by the fact the fees will be priced at the time of payment, not the time of building permit issuance. Ongoing Fiscal Impact 1'he effect of this ordinance in the medium to long term should be negligible given that the program expires at the end of 2011. To the extent that new development would not have occurred but for this program the effect may even be positive front a property tax perspective. Prepararl 6y: Tom Adler. Development Services Department 9-3 1-129 ATTACHMENT4 ORDINANCE NO. 3163 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MODIFYING THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (City) requires the payment of vazious types of fees to help off-set the impacts of new development; and WHEREAS, Chapter 5 of the California Government Code starting with §66000 and titled the "Mitigation Fee Act" ("the Act"} establishes processes and conditions for the chazging and payment of impact fees for development project; and WHEREAS, §66007(a) and (b) provides that fees on residential development shall not be required to be paid prior to the date of final inspection or certificate of occupancy; however, if the local agency determines that fees or charges for public improvements or facilities that aze part of a plan are needed prior to such dates, they may be required at an eazlier time; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted several fees and chazges for public improvements and facilities as part of a plan, including: 1. Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee, adopted on August 7, 1990, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2384 2. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee, adopted on December 9, 1997, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2716 3. Salt Creek Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee, adopted on August 24, 2004, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2974 4. Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee, adopted on January 5, 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2767 5. Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for Otay Ranch Village 11, adopted on February ] 8, 2003, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2898 6. "PFD1F" to pay for various public facilities, pursuant to Chapter 3.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code 7. Transportation Development Impact Fee for the Eastern Temtories of the City (TDIF), pursuant to Chapter 3.54 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code 8. Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF), pursuant to Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code 9. Parklands and Public Facilities Fees (Pad Fees) to pay for park related lands acquisition and the development of pazk facilities, pursuant to Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code 10. Sewage Capacity Charge, pursuant to Section 13.14.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code WHEREAS, the City requires the preceding fees to be paid prior to or upon issuance of building permits; and 1-130 ATTACHMENT 4 Ordinance No. 3163 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the payment of fees represents a substantial financial commitment for many projects; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that delaying certain fees may assist in the deve]opment of projects; and WHEREAS, City Council has adopted Ordinance 3120 to establish a payment plan program to help lower the financial commitment for projects within the City until December 31, 2010; and WHEREAS, City Council has adopted Ordinance 3126 to provide for the deferral of Pazk Acquisition and Development Fees; and WHEREAS, the building community has requested that the defer.zl program be modified such that the above referenced fees would be payable prior to fmal inspection of each building permit; and WHEREAS, the City agrees that, provided it determines such fees are not needed prior to or upon issuance of building permits and that deferral shall not impact related Capital Improvement Programs or the provision of facilities, during the period of economic downturn, it would be appropriate to collect fees prior to final inspection or certificate of occupancy; and WHEREAS, the City would like to adopt an ordinance with a sunset period allowing for the payment of such fees prior to final inspection or certificate of occupancy upon request of the applicant and a determination by the City that such fees are not needed at an eazlier time. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain that Ordinances 3120 and 3126 shall be repealed and replaced as follows: Section 1. Environmental Review The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Section 2. Purpose The City Council of the City of Chula Vista desires to encourage the construction of residential and nonresidential development projects within the City. The City Council finds that the eazly payment of certain impact fees for new development is not always essential to the orderly and efficient development and in the current economic downturn, creates a barrier to such development. The City, therefore desires, by the adoption of this Ordinance, to ease such barrier by delaying the trigger for the payment of some fees for a certain period of time, provided the City determines that such fees will have no impact on the City's improvement programs and provision of public facilities. _ _ _ ---------__...1-13.1. __ ATTACHMENT4 Ordinance No. 3163 Page 3 Section 3. Definitions "Applicant" means the owner of the real property or the developer with an approved development project who seeks to defer a development impact fee until final inspection or certificate of occupancy. "Approved Residential Development Project" means a market rate residential development consisting of single-family or multifamily residential units sold or rented at prevailing market rates and free of any affordability restrictions which has received fmal discretionary action by the City and which is in compliance with all environmental requirements due prior to issuance of a building permit. "Approved Development Project" means a nonresidential development which has received fmal discretionary action by the City and which is in compliance with all environmental requirements due prior to issuance of a building pemut. Section 4. Applicafian of this Ordinance This Ordinance shall apply only to Approved Residential Development Projects and Approved Development Projects as defined in this Ordinance. Section 5. Fees Subject to the Payment Plan Program Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters 3.54, 3.55 and 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the Ordinances listed below to the contrary, the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only to the following fees: (A) the Sewer Capacity Fee codified in Section 13.14.090 ofthe Chula Vista Municipal Code; (B) the Development Impact Fees to Pay for Various Public Facilities codified in Chapter 3.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (C) the Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee codified in Chapter 3.54 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (D) the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee codified in Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code; (E) the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee established on August 7, 1990 pursuant to Ordinance No. 2384; (F) the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee established on December 9, 1997, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2716; 1-132 Ordinance No. 3163 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 4 (G) the Salt Creek Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee established on August 24, 2004 pursuant to Ordinance No.2974; (PI) the Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee established on January 5, 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2767; (I) the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for Otay Ranch Village 11 established on February 18, 2003, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2898; and (J) the Pazklands and Public Facilities fees of Title 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Section 6. Time of Payment of Fee (A) All fees subject to this Ordinance shall be paid prior to Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. (B) Nothwithstanding Section 6(A), above, the City Manager, in his/her sole discretion, may require payment of the fees at an eazlier date upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 1. the change of ownership of the Approved Residential Development Project, Approved Development Project, or any portion or portions thereof. 2. upon the City's Finance Director determination that the fees are necessary based on the adopted facilities programs in accordance with section 66007 (b) 1 of the Government Code. 3. upon a determination by the City' Finance Director, that there exists a risk associated with the collection of fees at a date later than permit issuance. Section 7. Amount of Fees Due and Payable (A) The amount of development impact fees due and payable by the Applicant shall be the amount of the fee at the time of payment, not the time of building permit issuance. (B) In the event that the City, for any reason, fails to collect any or all fees prior to Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy, such fee shall remain the obligation of the applicant, be subject to interest at the rate of 2% per annum from the date on which Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy was issued, and be adjusted and increased by any amount incurred by the City related to the collection of such fees. Section 8. Expiration of this Ordinance This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days afrer final passage and shall automatically expire on December 31, 2011, and as of that date, is deemed repealed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any building permit issued prior to the expiration of this Ordinance shall not be required to pay fees until Final Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy, provided none of the events identified in Section 6(B) have occurred. -- 1--1.33_. _. _ ATTACHMENT 4 Ordinance No. 3163 Page 5 Presented by Gary albe .E., AICP Assistant 't Manager/Development Services Director Approved as to form by Bart C. Mies d City Attom y PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 14th day of September 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Councihnembers: Bensoussan, Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez and Cox NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: Dklc&. 0 Donna R. Norris, CMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~~~~~ Cheryl Cox, ayor I, Donna R. Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 3163 had its first reading at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of August 2010 and its second reading and adoption at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 14th day of September 2010; and was duly published in summary form in accordance with the requirements of state law and the Ciry Charter. Executed this 14th day of September 2010. D ~ ,P, ~,~.~.,~ Donna R. Norris, M ,City Clerk 1-134 ATTACHMENT 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~~~~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA November 15, 2011 Item ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MODIFYING THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM ~J~~J~\y" SUBMITTED BY: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGEfpp''91RECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO SUMMARY On December 16, 2008, in response to the economic downturn, City Council approved the creation of a payment plan program ("Deferral Program") for certain development fees. On April 21, 2009, the City Council expanded the Deferral Program to include the deferral of Park fees. On August 17, 2010, through the adoption of City of Chula Vista Ordinance 3163, City Council further amended the Deferral Program by allowing for the payment of fees at a building permits final inspection, rather than building permit issuance. By its terms, the Deferral Program was to automatically expire on December 31, 2011. The proposed ordinance extends the deferral program for an additional year, to December 31, 2012, at which time fees will revert back to their traditional triggers: building permit issuance or final map approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposal consists of a fiscal action that will not result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Council approve the Ordinance to take effect and be in full force 30 days after the second reading and adoption. DISCUSSION The fees to be deferred under this ordinance are as outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1 Fees to be collected prior to final inspection of a building permit Fee Description • Authanry Sewer Capacity Fee 13.14.090 Municipal Code rPublic Facility Development 3.50 Municipal Code 17-1 1-135 ATTACH T 5 Item No.: Meeting Date: 11-15-31 Page 2 of 2 Fee Description Authority Impact fee (DIF) Eastern Transportation 3.54 Municipal Code Development Impact fee Western Transportation 3.55 Municipal Code Development Impact Fee Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee Ordinance 2354 established Poggi Canyon Sewer Development Ordinance 2716 Impact Fee Salt Creek Sewer Development Ordinance 2974 Impact Fee Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Ordinance 2767 Pedestrian Bridge DIF Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Ordinance 2898 Bridge DIF Park Acquisition and 17.10 Municipal Code Development Fees Date of Termination of this Ordinance The deferral program has been proposed in light of the current period of economic downturn in orderto stimulate development. As such, the deferral program is temporary in nature. The applicability of this ordinance will be limited to the anticipated period of the current market slump and will expire on December 31, 2012. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined chat it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a~(1) is not applicable. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Approval of this ordinance has no General Fund Impact. Staff time associated with assessing fees will be picked up on the back end of the permit rather than at permit issuance. The net effect due to time value. of money issues (the City receives funds later than traditional) should be off-set by the fact the fees will be priced at the time of payment, not the time of building permit issuance. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The effect of this ordinance in the medium to long term should be negligible given that the program expires at the end of 2012. To the extent that new development would not have occurred but for this program, the effect may even be positive from a property tax perspective. Prepared by: Tom Adler, Development Services Department 17-2 ATTACHMENT 5 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 8 OF ORDINANCE 3163 IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, as a response to the economic downturn and in an attempt to promote development, the City Council, on December 16, 2008, approved a payment plan program for certain development fees ("Deferral Program"); and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, Council expanded the Deferral Program to include Pazk fees; and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2010, through the approval and adoption of City of Chula Vista Ordinance 3163, City Council altered the nature of the Deferral Program; and WHEREAS, the new Deferral Program, rather than requiring developers to pay fees at permit issuance or enter into an agreement secured by a lien placed on the property to be developed, allowed for the payment of fees at final inspection; and WHEREAS, the Deferral Program is due to expire on December 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the current economic climate is little better than it was at the time the Deferral Program was implemented; and WHEREAS, the need to promote development in the City still remains; and WHEREAS, in light of the above, staff is proposing an amendment to Ordinance 3163 in order to extend the Deferral Program for an additional yeaz, until December 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2013, the time for the payment of fees will revert back to their traditional triggers: building permit issuance or final map approval. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain that: I. Ordinance 3163 be amended to read as follows: Section 8. Expiration of this Ordinance This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after final passage and shall automatically expire on December 31, 2012, and as of that date, is deemed repealed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any building permit issued prior to the expiration of this Ordinance shall not be required to pay fees until Final 17-3 1-137 ATTACHMENT 5 Ordinance No. Page 2 Inspection or Certificate of Occupancy, provided none of the events identified in Section 6(B) have occurred. II. All other provisions of Ordinance 3163 shall remain in full force and effect III. This amendment to Ordinance 3163 shall take effect 30 days after its second reading and approval. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E. AICP Glen R. Googins~~.~ -~~VLeG~ ~-{'~~~.Q.~ Assistance City Manager/ Development City Attorney Services Director 17-4 1-138 ATTACHMENT6 MINUTES OF A JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Apri17, 201 I 6:00 p.m. A joint workshop of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:06 p.m. in the Chula Vista Police Department Community Meeting Room, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Aguilaz, Bensoussan, Castaneda (arrived at 6:11 p.m.), and Mayor Cox Planning Commissioners: Bringas, Felber, Liuag, Tripp, Vinson, and Chair Spethman Growth Management Oversight Commissioners: Bazzel, Doud, Hall, Harry, Lizarraga, Sutton, Torres, and Chair Krogh ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Sandoval, City Attorney Googins, City Clerk Norris, and Deputy City Clerk Bennett ABSENT: Councilmember Ramirez (excused) Planning Commissioner Moctezuma PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Planning Commission Chair Spethman led the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC HEARING 1. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSIONS 2011 ANNUAL REPORT (Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. City Manager Sandoval introduced the item. Page 1 - CC/PC/GMOC Minutes April 7, 201 1 1-139 ATTACHMENT6 Advanced Planning Manager Batchelder welcomed the Council and Commissioners and then introduced Associate Planner Vanderbie, who presented a brief history and overview of the GMOC process. She then introduced GMOC Chair Krogh, who provided a summary on the 2011 Annual Report for the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30 2010, and the second half of 2010/2011. He then reported on the non-compliant threshold standazds for Libraries, Police Priority II, and Traffic. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor Cox closed the public hearing. Librazies Chair Krogh stated the recommendation by GMOC was that the City Council adopt a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bringing the library system into conformance. Staff response: The Library is in the final stages of completing a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bringing the library system into conformance. The plan is expected to be brought to City Council in May 2011. 2. Police Priority I - In Compliance Priority KK -Non-compliance Chair Krogh stated the recommendation by the GMOC was that the City Council direct the Police Deparhrtent to gather and provide the GMOC with historical, statistical and any other necessary information regarding the Priority II threshold standard in time to support the GMOC's review of the standard in its top-to-bottom review. Staff response: The Police Department has been gathering the necessary historical and statistical information regarding both Priority I and Priority II threshold times, including survey data for the San Diego regions as well as approximately 30 similar jurisdictions nationwide, in anticipation of the GMOC's top-to-bottom review. The Police Department looks forward to continuing to work with the GMOC in assuring that there aze appropriate quality of life standards for police responses to [he community. 3. Traffic Chair Krogh stated the recommendation by the GMOC was that the City Council 1) direct City engineers to implement proposed short-term solutions to the out-of-compliance southbound segment of Heritage Road approaching Olympic Parkway; 2) direct City engineers to move in a timely manner to establish development phasing scenarios indicating necessary construction timing to connecting Heritage Road to Main Street; and 3) in cooperation with other agencies, implement strategies to increase usage of SR-125. Staff response: The Public Works Department concurs with the GMOC recommendation; recommendation is accepted. The department will continue to make signal-timing changes at Heritage Road/Olympic Pazkway. In addition, short-term and long-term solutions are being pursued. First phase short-term solutions are underway while improvements will be included in fiscal yeaz 2011/2012 Capital Improvement Program. The City has hired a traffic engineering consultant to conduct a traffic sensitivity assessment on current traffic conditions and will use this information for Environmental Impact Reports and Public Facilities Financing Plans beng Page 2 - CC/PGGMOC Minutes April 7, 2011 1-140 ATTACHMENT6 developed for pending projects in eastern Chula Vista. Other short-terms improvements, including signal timing and roadway improvements, will be proposed in the fiscal yeaz 2011/2012 CIP program. Long-term solutions for the construction of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street are also being evaluated and will be implemented as quickly as possible. In spite of the bankruptcy filing for the State Route 125 Toll Road, the City has been actively participating in all toll road matters and will continue to do so. Discussion ensued regazding the following eight compliant threshold standards: Fiscal Chair Krogh stated the recommendation by the GMOC was that within 90 days of the date of this report, the City Council agendize for a Council meeting, action to decide whether or not to adopt a PFDIF prioritization po]icy or other appropriate mechanism for construction or delivery of the remaining facilities in the PFDIF fund. Commissioner Bazzel suggested to add language to staffs response to the Fiscal threshold to include relative priorities of all PFDIF projects and their affect on threshold standazds. Staff response: Staff recommends that anew approval process for the construction of PFDIF facilities be implemented. This process would require that PFDIF capital projects be brought forward to Council for authorization to proceed pnor to significant expenditure of project funds (project design, land acquisition, etc.). At that time, a list of other PFDIF eligible projects would be presented to Council, along with staffs justification for moving forward with the proposed project. Mayor Cox introduced representatives from the two local water districts to provide independent reports. Mazk Walton, General Manager, Otay Water District, presented information about the Regional Water Supply Diversification process; Otay Water District water supply; future of water rates; Otay Water business model; planning and coordination of water resources between Otay Water and the City. Peggy Strand, Assistant General Manager, Sweetwater Authority, presented information about water supplies regionally and locally; future planning; proposed future water source diversification; and Sweetwater Authority accomplishments. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing. There being no members of the public who wished to speak, Mayor Cox closed the public heazing. Councilmember Castaneda commented on his recent tour of the Bay Delta, and he suggested for the future, to look at water diversification. City Manager Sandoval explained the staff response to the GMOC recommendations, and staff s concern with establishing a priority list that may not always have the ability to be met as a result of unforeseen circumstances such as emergencies. He suggested the earlier recommendation by Commissioner Bazzel to include the following language in staffs response to the Fiscal component of the report: ...At that time, a list of other PFDIF eligible projects would be presented to the Council, along with Staff's justification for moving forward with the proposed _ .. .,, .... • ,. r _.r. ___ ncnit 2. Fire and Emergency Services Page 3 - CC/PC/GMOC Minutes April 7, 2011 1-141 ATTACHMENT6 Chair Krogh stated the recommendation by the GMOC that the City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue maintenance/replacement strategies for aging equipment that will ensure that the threshold will continue to be met. Staff response: As part of the City's Fiscal Health Plan, staff is reviewing maintenance/replacement criteria and funding strategies for aging equipment for al] City functions. An updated replacement policy and funding recommendations will be brought forwazd for Council consideration in fiscal yeaz 20] 1/2012. 3. Schools Chair Krogh stated that both Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and Sweetwater Union High School District were in compliance, but added that there was potential for the CVESD to be non-compliant in the short-term (12-18 months), as well asfiye yeazs from now. 4. Parks and Recreation Councilmember Bensoussan commented that there was no mention of parks on the west side in the GMOC report. Commissioner Bazzel responded that the Commission would be addressing issues regarding pazk development on the west in its top to bottom review. City Manager Sandoval further clarified that legally, it can only be looked at in terms of how it relates to gowth, and suggested to have staff acknowledge the deficits that exist in the west. 5. Sewer No comments. 6. Drainage No comments. Air Quality Commissioner Hall suggested to look at what other cities aze doing regazding air quality compliance, compazed with what Chula Vista is doing. Discussion ensued regazding the following three non-compliant threshold standazds: Librazies Councilmember Bensoussan suggested looking at partnerships and other innovations to meet Library thresholds, and establishing a threshold for staffing measures. Councihnember Castaneda spoke of the need to prioritize Library staffing levels before construction of new Library facilities. Mayor Cox suggested for next yeaz, to consider hours of operation and staffing as measurable Library thresholds. Page 4 - CC/PC/GMOC Minutes Apri17, 2011 1-142 ATTACHMENT6 2. Police-Priority II Councilmember Bensoussan asked and Chief Bejazano responded, that false alarm calls had decreased by approximately 20%, and that staff would be working to bring forward to the Council, a proposal to increase penalties for false alarms. 3. Traffic Mayor Cox commented that SANDAG Boazd had authorized its staff to pursue negotiations regazding SANDAG's purchase of SR-125, located between the gap connector and the approach to 905. Commissioner Liuag recommended that the Council direct staff to sepazate the top to bottom review between growth, and provide a report on critical success factors of a City in general. City Manager Sandoval responded that the City has established new finance policies and procedures and performance standazds for each City department. ACTION: Chair Spethman moved to adopt the following Planning Commission Resolution No. PCM-10-20, heading read, text waived: A. RESOLUTION NO. PCM-10-20, RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2011 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL Commissioner Liuag seconded the motion and it carried 6-0, with Commissioner Moctezuma absent. ACTION: Mayor Cox moved to adopt the following Council Resolution No. 2011-059, heading read,text waived: B. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-059, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2011 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY Councilmember Bensoussan seconded the motion and it tamed 4-0, with Deputy Mayor Ramirez absent. ADJOURNMENT At 8:12 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the meeting to the next Regulaz City Council Meeting on April 12, 20] 1, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Page 5 - CC/PC/GMOC Minutes April 7, 2011 1-143 ATTACHMENT 6 Lorraine Bennett, CMC, Sr. Deputy City Clerk Page 6 - CC/PC/GMOC Minutes April 7, 2011 1-144 CITY C~AI~~L & REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENQA STATEMENT •~------, a ,, .= J ~tSlr c~n~ of ~~ CHULA VISTA MARCH 2, 2010, Item ITEM TITLE: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIlZECTOR TO SELL FROM TIIE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE 14.41 ACRE SITE (APN 563-350-1300 AND 566- 131-0100) LOCATED IN THE LOWER- SWEETWATER VALLEY FOR THE APPRAISED VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY $9.6 MILLION AND APPROVING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE EASTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO THE WESTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO ACQUIRE THE SITE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARX DOCUMENTS TO CONVEY THE SITE TO THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE BE APPLIED TO THE OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE OWED TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010/11. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AGREEING TO REDUCE THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE OWED TO THE GENERAL FUND BY $4.6 MILLION FOR PREVIOUS LOANS OWED TO THE AGENCY BY THE CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER. SUBMITTED BY: DEPUTY C~MANAGER / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR C REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO X~ SUMMARY The Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency previously owed the City of Chula Vista approximately $31 million from loans made to the Agency for Redevelopment Project Area start up costs and payments made on behalf of the Agency towards Certificates of Participation (COPS) issued to build the parking facility at the Chula Vista Shopping Center in 1987. Over the past two years, the Agency has made significant efforts to reduce the debt owed to the City, anticipating that by 8-1 1-145 ATTACHMENT? MARCH 2, 2010, Item Page 2 the end of fiscal yeaz 2009/10 the Redevelopment Agency will have repaid, over the last two years, approximately $9.3 million, reducing the remaining debt to the City to approximately $2I.7 million. To continue to reduce the debt obligations of the Agency, staff recommends that the Agency sell anAgency-owned 14.41 acre site located in the lower Sweetwater Valley to the City and that the Agency and be credited for a previous outstanding loan, owed to the Agency, that was forgiven by the City in 2002. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed action for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 25 (f) (Acquisition, sale, or other transfer to preserve open space or lands for park purposes) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15325 [Transfer of Ownership of Interest in Land to Preserve Existing Natural Conditions) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION That the Chula Vista City Council and Redevelopment Agency approves: A. Joint Resolution of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and City Council authorizing the Executive D'uector to sell the 14.41 acre site (APN 563-350-1300 and 566-131-0100) located in the lower Sweetwater Valley to the City of Chula Vista for the appraised value of approximately $9.6 million and authorizing the Executive Director/City Manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents to convey the site to the City and authorizing that the proceeds of'the sale will be applied to the outstanding loan balance owed to the City's General Fund for Fiscal Yeaz 2010111. B. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista agreeing to reduce the outstanding loan balance owed to the General Fund by $4.6 million for previous loans owed to the Agency by the Chula Vista Nature Center. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation voted 6-0-0-1 at their February 25, 2010 Boazd meeting, unanimously supporting resolution A and 5-0-1-1 in support of resolution B. DI5COSSION Loan Reoavment Efforts by the At;ency At the close of fiscal year 2007/08 the Redevelopment Agency had an outstanding loan balance owed to the City of Chula Vista of approximately $31 million. Approximately $11 million of the outstanding loan balance was from loans made to the Agency for new project azea start up costs and interest accrued over the past thirty years. The remaining $20 million has accrued as a result of the City making annual debt service payments on behalf of the Agency toward Certificates of Participation (COPS) that were issued to build a pazking structure for the expansion of the Chula Vista Shopping Center in 1987. During the 1992 to 2007 period, the Agency was unable to cover all of its outstanding debt obligations and continued borrowing a million dollars each yeaz from the City. Fiscal year 2007/08 was the first time in over fifreen years that the Agency was able to meet all of its annual debt service obligations. 8-2 1-146 ATTACHMENT? MARCH 2, 2010, Item g Page 3 During fiscal yeaz 2008/09, the Agency was able to repay the City $3.7 million from a 2008 Tax Allocation Bond issuance, $900,000 from unanticipated additional tax increment revenues and approximately $500,000 in budgetary savings. The total loan repayment for fiscal year 2008/09 was approximately $5.1 million. By the close of fiscal yeaz 2008/09 the Redevelopment Agency had an outstanding loan balance owed to the City's General Fund of approximately $26 million. During the current fiscal year 2009(20 the Agency will repay the General Fund $1.4 million in bond proceeds for project expenditures and $2.8 million in projected tax increment revenues. The total anticipated loan repayment for fiscal yeaz 2009!10 is projected to be $4.2 million. By the end of fiscal year 2009/10 the Agency, over the last two fisca] years, will have reduced the outstanding loan balance owed to the City by approximately $9.3 million, resulting in a remaining balance of $21.7 million. Sale of Aeenev Owned Land To continue the effort of reducing the remaining debt obligations owed to the City, staff recommends the Agency sell two Agency owned parcels (APN 563-350-1300 and 566-131- 0100) to the City. These pazcels have little oppottunity for redevelopment and aze better suited for long term public use as a pazk. The site is 14.41 acres located in the lower Sweetwater Valley. The lower Sweetwater Valley site is a vacant site and has a General Plan designation of Open Space Recreation. The site is well suited, and supported by the General Plan and the community, to be a future park and not a redevelopment project. The sale of this land to the City based on an independent appraisal is estimated to be worth $9.6 million. The sale of this site would leave a remaining outstanding loan balance to the City of approximately $12.1 million. Pazkland in Western Chula Vista The 2005 General Plan Update set the City's standard for pazks and recreation at 3 acres of public pazkland per 1,000 residents. New development is required to provide this additional pazkland via the Parkland Acquisition and Development (PAD) in-lieu fee program. The majority of residential development in the eetem portion of the City is greenfield development. As a result, most developers in the east opt to dedicate on-site land to the City for park uses instead of paying the in-lieu fee. In contrast, the majority of residential development in western Chula Vista is infill. Dedication of on-site park acreage is not practical for these projects. Instead, the City collects fees from these projects to apply in the acquisition of parkland to serve the new development. The same infill character which makes dedication of on-site pazklands impractical creates challenges for the City in the acquisition of park sites. In the westem portion of the City, the pazk standazd is not currently being met. This is the result of a number of factors including the annexation of the Montgomery Area without parklands sufficient to maintain the park ratio and the use of PAD fees for the reconstmction/rehabilitation of existing parks. Acquisition and development of the subject site into a pazk, sewing westem Chula Vista residents, is a lazge step toward meeting the Ciry's goal of providing 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents citywide. The City has worked to identify potential suitable park sites in western Chula Vista, generally identified in the 2005 General Plan Update and the 2007 Draft Pazk and Recreation Master Plan. The property proposed for sale by the Agency is one of the places identified as being a suitable S-3 1-147 ATTACHN),ENT 7 MARCH 2, 2010, Item ~j Page 4 park site. Upon transfer of the property to the City, the Development Services Department would return at a later Council meeting for the Council to consider rezoning the property from single family residential (Rl) and unclassified (L7NZ) to Public/ quasi public zoning (PQ) designating the site for park purposes. The proposed pazk site to be acquired from the Agency will serve-and be funded by future western Chula Vista residents, including residents of the Urban Core Specific Planning Area. As a result, the PAD fund has not yet collected sufficient funds from development in western Chula Vista to firtance this purchase. It will therefore be necessary to internally borrow the funds within the PAD fund, using funds that have been collected for the purpose of constructing a community pazk in eastern Chula Vista. The internal loan within the PAD fiord will be repaid as funds become available, either as a result of credit acquisitions by the Agency or the payment of PAD fees by developers in western Chula Vista. The Agency will ensure that PAD funds are repaid to fully fund the development of the pazk for which they were originally collected. AQencv Investment Credits At the May 2009 CVRC meeting Director Desrochers requested that staff return with a report on what projects, funded by the Agency, could be considered by the City Council as a credit towazd the outstanding loan. In reviewing the list of Agency funded projects, the CVRC considered the list and voted 5-0, with one abstention and one absence, to request the City Council reduce the Agency debt owed to the City equal to the Agency investment made as a loan toward the Chula Vista Nature Center that was forgiven in 2002 when the Nature Center was transferred to the City. This debt forgiveness will coincide with the transition of the Nature Center to anon-profit organization. The Redevelopment Agency funded $1.6 million of the $2.5 million in constmction cost for the Nature Center, provided monies for exhibits, start up costs and annual operations of the Center. By December 2001, the Nature Center had an outstanding obligation to the Agency, including principal and interest, of approximately $4.6 million. However, in 2002, the Nature Center, owned and operated by the Bayfront Conservancy Trust, was no longer able to adequately fund its operation and it was decided that the ownership of the Nature Center would be transferred to the City. As part of this transfer the City Council and the Agency each approved resolutions that eliminated the $4.6 million owed to the Agency without consideration on reducing the debt the Agency owed to the City. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Chula Vista City Council and Redevelopment Agency members and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties that are subject to this action. CIJRRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no current fiscal yeaz impact, all transfers and loan will be part of the fiscal yeaz 2010/11 budget. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT 8-4 1-148 ATTACHMENT? MARCH 2, 2010, Item S Page 5 Resolution A Resolution A, if approved by the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council, would generate approximately $9.6 million in revenue to the Agency that could be utilized to repay the General Fund and reduce the outstanding debt owed to the City. This transaction would result in no net impact to the Agency's fund balance, but would reduce outstanding debt obligations to approximately $12.1 million. The purchase of the property from the Agency would be funded by the City using PAD fee monies. The PAD fee program is the City's primary financing mechanism for pazkland facilities. All new residential development (including hotels/motels) is subject to the PAD fee, which the City collects and uses to construct new parkland facilities or rehabilitate existing facilities. The following cash flow reflects the impacts of the proposed property sale on the available fund balances of the Agency and PAD funds for f seal yeazs 2009/10 through 2014/15. The Agency's fund balance would be available to purchase PAD fee credits to incentivize redevelopment activity in western Chula Vista. Actual property sale amount and credit acquisition schedule will be subject to Council approval. ~ l 1 1 1 1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS Est. Available Fund Balance 1,042,000 41,000 943,000 1,590,000 2,402,000 4,303,000 Estimated Revenues Tax Increment Interest Earnings 14,755,000 25,000 ~ 15,020,000 25,000 15,320,000 25,000 15,627,000 25,000 15,939,000 25,000 16,258,000 25,000 Sale of Pro - 9 600,000 - - - - Total Estimated Revenues 14,780 000 24,645,000 15,345,000 15,652,000 15,964 000 16 283,000 Estimated Expenditures Low/ModandPassthroughs (5,565,000) (5,7b0,000) (5,852,000) (5,946,000) (6,042,000) (6,144,000) Deb[ Pmnt -City (Park $)' - (9,600,000) - - - - DebtPmnt-City (Kon Pazk)= Debt Pmnt-Other Agency Personnel Costs Pro'ect Ex enditures (1,400,000) (6,524,000) (708,000) (1,584,000 (1,500,000) (4,285,000) (708,000) 1,890,000 (1,500,000) (4,798,000) (708,000) 1,840,000 (1,500,000) (5,796,000) (708,000) 890,000) (1,500,000) (4,963,000) (708,000) (850,000) (1,500,000) (5,308,000) (708,000) (850,000 Total Estimated Ex enditures 15,781 000 23,743,000 14,698,000 14,840 000 14 063,000 14,510 000 Est. Available Fund Balance 41 060 943,000 1,590,000 2 402,060 4,303,000 6,076,000 PAD FUND Est. Available Fund Balance 35,500,000 29,410,000 20,750,000 21,410,000 22,090,000 22,790,000 Estimated Revenues InterestEarnin s 910,000 940,000 660,000 680,000 700,000 730,000 Total Estimated Revenues 910,000 940,000 660,000 680,000 700,000 730,000 Estimated Expenditures Purchase of Property - (9,600,000) - - - - Park Pro'ect Ex nditures 7,000,000) - - - - - 8-5 1-149 '~ The $9.fi million debt repayment from the Agency to the Ciry is for an existing debt obligation of the Agency. This lump-sum payment shortens the repayment period for the Agency and makes onefime funds availahle to the City to balance the FY 2010-11 operating budget. ': Annual debt payment amounts are shown for cash Flow forecasting purposes only. The actual payment schedule will be discussed in conjunction with the regular budget process, including potential use o funds for protect expenditures. Total Debt Reduction Implementation of both recommendations would reduce the outstanding loan balance from the City to the Agency to approximately $7.5 million, as detailed below. For forecasting purposes, staff anticipates the repayment of the $7.5 million via annual payments of $1.5 million each over a five year period. Loan repayments from the Agency to the General Fund over the next five years vri11 be critical to avoid additional staffing cuts and service level impacts. Repayment of the debt will be discussed in conjunction with the regulaz annual budget process. ~ ~ Outstanding debt to City (June 30, 2008) S31.0 Less payments F1' 2009-2010 FY 2009 repayments (actual) (5.1) FY 2010 re a ents (bud et 4.2 Subtotal 9.3 Updated outstanding debt to City 21.7 Less recommended actions Safe of Property (9.6) For iveness of Nature Center Loan (4.6) Subtotal 14.2 Updated outstanding debt to City 7.5 The reduction of Agency debt to the City would allow greater resources to be available for reinvestment in the redevelopment project areas. Resolution B Resolution B, if approved by the City Council, would reduce the debt owed to the City by the Agency by approximately $4.6 million. This reduction in debt owed to the City would reduce the future repayments from the Agency to the City, forgoing potential future General Fund revenues. Prepared by: Eric C Crockett. Redevefopme»t Manoger, Development Services Department 8-6 1-150 ATTACHMENT 7 MARCH 2, 2010, Item ATTACHMENT 7 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUI~7CIL AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SELL FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE 14.41 ACRE SITE (APN 563-350-1300 AND 566- 131-0100) LOCATED I1V THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY FOR THE APPRAISED VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY $9.6 MILLION AND APPROVING AN INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE EASTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO THE WESTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO ACQUIRE THE SITE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO CONVEY THE SITE TO THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE BE APPLIED TO THE OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE OWED TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010111 WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency has a $26 million outstanding loan balance owed to the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency over the past two fiscal years has diligently pursued efforts to reduce the outstanding loan balance; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency anticipates that by the end of fiscal year 2009/10 it will have reduced the outstanding debt owed to the City to approximately $21.7 million; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency owns a 14.41 acre site located in the lower Sweetwater Valley (APN 563-350-1300 and 566-131-0100); and WHEREAS, the subject 14.41 acre site is designated by the City's Genera] Plan as Open Space Recreation; and WHEREAS, the community supports the subject 14.41 acre site as a future public park; and WHEREAS, the sale of the subject 14.41 acre site to the City for a future park could generate approximately $9.6 million dollazs in Agency proceeds that could further reduce the debt owed to the City; and S-7 1-151 ATTACHMENT? WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation recommended at their January 14, 2010 Board meeting that the Redevelopment Agency sell the subject 14.41 acre site to the City of Chula Vista for use as a future public park for an amount equal to the current park acquisition fee collected by the Ciiy on development projects in Western Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City will use Parkland Acquisition and Development {PAD) funds to purchase the subject 14.41 acre site from the Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, the City's Western PAD fund has insufficient funds to purchase the subject 14.41 acre site from the Agency; and WHEREAS, the City's Eastern PAD fund has sufficient funds to purchase the subject 14.41 acre site; and WHEREAS, funds from the Eastern PAD fund, in the amount of approximately $9.6 million, will be loaned to the Western PAD fund to fund the acquisition of the subject 14.41 acre site; and WHEREAS, if there are insufficient funds in the Eastern PAD fund to construct the pazk for which they were collected the Redevelopment Agency agrees to purchase credits or loan, up to a maximum amount of $9.6, to the City's Eastern PAD fund to construct the pazk; and WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed action for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 25 (f} (Acquisition, sale, or other transfer to preserve open space or lands for pazk purposes) categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15325 [Transfer of Ownership of Interest in Land to Preserve Existing Natural Conditions] of the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency hereby authorizes the Executive Director to sell the 14.41 acre site (APN 563-350-1300 and 566- 131-0100) located in the lower Sweetwater Valley to the City of Chula Vista for an amount equal to the current pazk acquisition fee collected by the City on development projects in Western Chula Vista; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency and City Council authorize the Executive Director/City Manager or his designee to execute al] necessary documents to convey the subject 14.41 acre site to the City of Chula Vista; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves an interfund loan from the Eastern Pazkland Acquisition and Development fund to the Western Pazkland Acquisition and Development fund to acquire the site; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency hereby authorizes the Executive Director to apply the proceeds of the sale of the subject 14.41.acre site towazd the Redevetopment Agency's outstanding loan balance owed to the City of Chula Vista's General Fund for fiscal year 2010!11. 8-8 1-152 ATTACHMENT 7 Presented by Approved as to form Gary Halbert, AICP, PE Bart Deputy City Manager/Director of "~~ City Development Services 8-9 1-153 ATTACHMENT 7 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AGREEING TO REDUCE THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE OWED TO THE GENERAL FUND BY $4.b MILLION FOR PREVIOUS LOANS OWED TO THE AGENCY BY THE CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency has a $26 million outstanding loan balance owed to the City of Chula V Isla; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency over the past two fiscal yeazs has diligently pursued efforts to reduce the outstanding loan balance; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency anticipates that by the end of fiscal year 2009/10 to have reduced the outstanding debt owed to the City of Chula Vista to approximately $21.7 million; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency funded approximately $1.6 million of the $2.5 million in construction costs for the Nature Center; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency also provided monies for start up costs and annual operations of the Nature Center; and WHEREAS, when the Nature Center in 2002 was transferred from the Bayfroni Conservancy Trust to the City of Chula Vista, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency forgave $4.6 million dollars in loans owed to the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation recommended that the City Council reconsider this forgiveness of debt and credit the amount towards the outstanding loan balance of the Agency; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the State of California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines, therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds that the forgiveness of this debt will provide greater financial resources necessary to accomplish the goals consistent with Community Redevelopment Law and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan by alleviating and preventing the spread of blight and deterioration of the project areas and shall further protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista. 8-10 1-154 ATTACHMENT 7 BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby forgives $4.6 million in an outstanding loan balance owed to the General Fund for previous loans owed to the Redevelopment Agency by the Chula Vista Nature Center. Presented by Gary Halbert, AICP, PE Deputy City Manager/Director of Development Services Approved as to form by B 1 tesfeld ~it 5-11 1-155 1-156 ATTACHr~NT 8 December 6, 201 I, Item 1 `1 Page I of 6 CITY COUNCIL A STATEMENT ~~~ CITY OF CHULAVISfA DECEMBER 6, 2011, Item ~~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR A 1.89-ACRE PARCEL ("MCCUNE") TO BE EXCHANGED FOR A PARCEL IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY FOR PARK PURPOSES FOR THE NEGOTIATED PRICE OF $940,000, APPROVING AN INTERFUND LOAN IN THE - AMOUNT OF $310,OA0 FROM THE EASTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO THE WESTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO PARTIALLY FUND THE ACQUISITION OF THE SITE, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE EASTERN AND WESTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS THEREFOR RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE THE 1.89- ACRE MCCUNE PARCEL (APN# 644-041-41) FORA 1.89- ACRE PARCEL ("FLOIT") LOCATED IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY FOR PARK PURPOSES RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ENTERING INTO AN OPTION AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE A 9.3-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ADJACENT TO SR-125 AND EASTLAKE DRIVE FOR AN APPROXIMATE 3.94 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN THE LOWERS ETWATER VALLEY FOR PARK PURPOSES SUBMITTED BY: ASSISTANT CITY MANAG VELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER /L- 5~ 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO 19-1 1-157 ATTACH ENT 8 December 6, 2011, Item Page 2 of 6 SUMMARY Currently, western Chula Vista suffers from an imbalance of parkland, in relation to the number of residents living west of Interstate 805. The General Plan Update (2005) designated over 20 acres in the Lower Sweetwater Valley as parkland, with the intention of later building a community pazk. In 2010, the City acquired 1425 acres of pazkland in that azea and has been actively searching for other land to add to this site. Recently, the City was presented with an opportunity to obtain an additional 1.89 acres. A deal has been structured that, if closed, will grant the City fee title to the 1.89 acres and also provide an opportunity to later acquire another 3.94 acres, yielding a community park site of 20.08 acres. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity, consisting of the purchase of a 1.89 acre loi, may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, additional environmental review and detemunation will be required as applicable, prior to the approval of any future project specific development entitlements including, but not limited to, site development plans, building permits, land development permits, and conditional use permits. RECOMMENDATION Council adopts the resolutions. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION Currently, western Chula Vista suffers from an imbalance of parkland, in relation to the number of residents living west of Interstate 805. The General Plan Update (2005) designated over 20 acres in the Lower Sweetwater Valley as parkland, with the intention of later building a community park. In 2010, the City acquired 14.25 acres of parkland in that azea and has been actively searching for other land to add to this site. Recently, the City was presented with an opportunity to obtain an additional 1.89 acres. A deal has been structured that, if closed, will grant the City fee title to the 1.89 acres in the Lower Sweetwater Valley and also provide an opportunity to later acquire another 3.94 acres, yielding a community park site of 20.08 acres. The deal is structured in three parts: 1) the purchase of a parcel located at [1877 Auto Pazk Place, Chula Vista, CA ("McCune Parcel") -depicted in Attachment "A"; 2) the exchange of the McCune Pazcel for the 1.89 acres of parkland ("Floit Pazcel") -depicted in Attachment "B"; and 3) the grant of an option to Mid City LLC> which if exercised 19-2 1-158 ATTACHM NT 8 December 6, 2011, Item Page 3 of 6 would provide the City with an additional 3.94 acres of pazkland in exchange fora 9.3 acre pazcel currently owned by the City. The relevant terms follow: 1. Purchase Agreement with Richard S. McCune ("Purchase"): a. The City will acquire the 1.89-acre pazcel owned by Richazd S. McCune for the apprnised value of $940,000 dollazs. b. The City will make payments in eleven monthly installments of approximately $85,000 dollars each, using pazk acquisition and development funds. 2 Exchange Agreement between the City and Mid-Gifu LLC ("Exchange"): a. The City will exchange the McCune Pazcel fora 1.89 acre parcel owned by Mid- City LLC, which will increase the pazk acreage in the Lower Sweetwater Valley from 14.25 to 16.14 acres (see Attachment "C"). b. No additional funds will be paid to either party. It is essential to note that the Purchase and Exchange are contingent upon each other, and the closing on the properties will occur simultaneously. 3. Option Agreement ("Option"): a. The Managing Member of Mid-City LLC, Mr. Dan Floit, will have three yeazs (and two one-year options to extend) to pursue entitlements on a City-owned 9.3- acre remnant parcel located adjacent to SR-125 and Eastlake Drive (see Attachment "D"). b. At any time during the option period, Mr. Floit has the right to exercise the option to acquire the City site by exchanging a 3.94-acre site located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley for park purposes (see Attachment "E"). c. The City retains all of its discretion and is under no obligation to approve any of the entitlements sought by Mr. Floit. d. Mr. Floit is responsible for all costs associated with pursuing his entitlements. Although the size of the City Parcel is over twice the size of the Floit Pazcel, the exchange is equitable. The value of the City Parcel to the City is negligible. The site is constrained by the SR-125 to the east, a 300' SDGE easement to the west (approximately 3 acres), topographic/access issues, zoning, and a lack of utility connections. There is currently no water, sewer, or electric service to the site. Additionally, the City has worked with several potential leaseholders, but the obstacles listed above have made all of the projects financially infeasible. Meanwhile, the Floit Pazcel offers a unique opportunity for the City to add to its existing parkland in an area already zoned and designated by the General Plan for a community pazk. Parkland acreage in western Chula Vista is difficult to acquire, due to the cost and the unavailability of large tracts of land. 19-3 1-159 ATTACHMENT 8 December 6, 2011, Item Page 4 of 6 The Option Agreement will allow the city the opportunity to exchange a remnant parcel[ of little civic value for ownership of an approximately 3.94-acre parcel of land that can be used for public pazk purposes in Western Chula Vista. Provided the Purchase and Sale Agreement and the Exchange Agreement aze approved and the Option Agreement is exercised by Mr. Floit, the City will have compiled over twenty acres of land that will be dedicated to the future development of a Community Park for Western Chula Vista. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties that are the subject of this action. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The acquisition of the 1.89-acre pazcel will be financed using Pazkland Acquisition and Development Fee funds in the amount of $940,000. The Western Parkland Acquisition and Development Fee ("Westem PAD") fund has an available balance of $630,000 (unaudited estimate, as of November 2011). This full amount will be applied to the purchase of the 1.89-acre parcel, requiring a loan from the Eastern Pazkland Acquisition and Development Fee ("Eastern PAD") fund for the remaining $310,000 of the $940,000 purchase price. The proposed $310,000 loan is an addition to the previously approved $9.6 million loan from the Eastern PAD to the Westem PAD for the purchase of 1425 acres of pazkland in the Lower Sweetwater Valley, increasing the total debt between the funds to $9.9 million. The Redevelopment Agency pledged to purchase PAD fund credits if western development did not occur before the $9.6 million in loaned funds were needed for their original park purposes in Eastern Chula Vista (CiTy Council Resolution 2010-052, RDA Resolution 2010-2018). No such pledge is made by the Redevelopment Agency for the proposed additional $310,000 loan. Repayment of this additional loan will be based solely upon the collection of PAD fees from future development in western Chula Vista. Payment of the site purchase funds will occur over aneleven-month period, with seven payments anticipated in the current fiscal year. At approximately, $85,000 per monthly payment, the current fiscal yeaz impact totals $598,000. This amount is recommended for appropriation in the cturent fiscal yeaz. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The Lower Sweetwater Valley park site will serve and be funded by western Chula Vista residents, including residents of the Urban Core Specific Planning Area. The Westem PAD fund has not yet collected sufficient funds to fmance this purchase, necessitating the previous and proposed interfund loans, $9.6 million and $310,000, respectively. These interfund loans will be repaid as funds become available as a result of the payment of PAD fees by developers in western Chula Vista. For the existing $9.6 million loan, the Redevelopment Agency pledged to purchase PAD fund credits if western development did not occur before the loaned funds were needed for their original pazk purchases, ~ The 9.3-acre parcel was dedicated to the City of Chula Vista subsequent to the SR-1?5 construction. 19-4 1-160 ATTACHMENTS December 6, 2011, Item /G} Page 5 of 6 mitigating impacts to Eastern PAD project construction as a result of the interfund loan. No such pledge is made for this additional $310,000 loan. As a result, slow development in western Chula Vista may impact the ability of the Western PAD fund to repay the Eastem PAD fund, potentially impacting the timing of Eastern PAD project construction. The repayment schedule for the proposed $310,000 loan from the Eastem PAD to the Westem PAD will vary based upon the rate at which PAD fee paying development occurs in western Chula Vista. As Western PAD funds are collected, the first priority for the use of the funds will be the repayment of this loan. The interest rate applied to the outstanding loan balance will be based upon the City's pooled interest rate (currently 0.385%). For illustrative purposes, a loan repayment schedule assuming aten-year repayment term and the application of the current pooled interest rate has been prepared and is included below. The actual repayment schedule will depend upon the collection of PAD fees from new development in western Chula Vista. $310,000 Loan from Eastern PAD to Western PAD Ten-Year Loan Repayment Schedule 01/01/2013 $ 30,466.7E 0.385% $ 1,193.50 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2014 $ 30,584.01 0.385% $ 1 ,076.20 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2015 $ 30,701.76 0.385% $ 958.45 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2016 $ 30,819.96 0.385% $ 840.25 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2017 $ 30,938.61 0.385% $ 721.60 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2018 $ 31,057.73 0.385% $ 602.48 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2019 $ 31,177.30 0.385% $ 482.91 $ 3],660.21 01/01/2020 $ 31,297.33 0.385% $ 362.88 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2021 $ 31,417.83 0.385% $ 242.38 $ 31,660.21 01/01/2022 $ 31,538.76 0.385% $ 121.45 $ 31,660.21 $ 310,000.00 $ 6,602.10 $ 316,602.10 The current PAD fee applicable to single-family residential development in western Chula Vista is $9,848 per unit. For multi-family residential development, the fee drops to $7,308 per unit. In order to meet the annual debt service obligation per the above ten- yeaz repayment schedule, the City would have to collect PAD fees from four to five residential units each year, depending on the land use classification of the units pemutted. Payment of the site purchase funds will occur over aneleven-month period, with four payments anticipated in fiscal year 2012-13. At approximately $85,500 per monthly payment, the fiscal year 2012-13 impact totals $342,000. Appropriations in this amount will be included in the proposed fiscal yeaz 2012-13 budget. ATTACHMENTS A. Map of McCune Pazcel (1.89 Acres) B. Map of Floit Pazcel A (1.89 Acres) C. Map of Lower Sweetwater Valley parkland area D. Map of City Parcel (9.3 Acres) E. Map of Floit Parcel B (3.94 Acres) 19-5 1-161 ATTACH NT 8 December 6, 2011, Item f Page 6 of 6 Prepared by: Eric C. Crockett, Redevelopment Manager 19-6 1-162 McCune Parcel ATTACHMENT 8 APN 6440414100 1-163 1-164 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT8 1-165 ~~ City Boundary ~rro~ Future Parkland :Aggregate Parcel: CHULA VISTA c,E~ w~e~-r l~ L U a M a 0 0 ~n O r O z a a Q~ V .'.., U \1 i~~ ~ i-iss Parcel ATTACHMENT 8 -167 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR A 1.89-ACRE PARCEL ("MCCUNE") TO BE EXCHANGED FOR A PARCEL IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY FOR PARK PURPOSES FOR THE NEGOTIATED PRICE OF $940,000, APPROVING AN INTERFUND LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $310,000 FROM THE EASTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO THE WESTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEE FUND TO PARTIALLY FUND THE ACQUISITION OF THE SITE, AND APPROPRIATING_FUNDS FROM .THE EASTERN AND WESTERN PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, western Chula Vista suffers from an imbalance of parkland, in relation to the number of residents living west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update (2005) designated over 20 acres in the lower Sweetwater Valley as pazkland, with the intention of later building a community park; and WHEREAS, in 2010, the City acquired 14.25 acres of parkland in that azea and has been actively searching for other land to add to this site; and WHEREAS, recently, the City was presented with an opportunity to obtain an additional 1.89 acres; and WHEREAS, a deal has been structured that, if closed, will grant the City fee title to the 1.89 acres and also provide an opportunity to later acquire another 3.94 acres, yielding a cotmunity park site of 20.08 acres; and WHEREAS, an appraisal for the 1.89 acre site determined the value to be $940,000 dollars; and WHEREAS, the seller agrees to accept monthly payments over a period of eleven months, at "no interest", from the City until the balance has been paid; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to use Parkland Acquisition and Development Fee funds to purchase the1.89-acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the unaudited available fund balance of the Western Parkland Acquisition and Development Fee Fund as of November 2011 totals $630,000, resulting in a funding shortfall of $310,000; and 19-12 1-168 Resolution 2011- Page 2 ATTACHMENT8 WHEREAS, the City desires to loan Pazkland Acquisition and Development Fee funds in the amount of $310,000 from the Eastern Pazkland Acquisition and Development Fee Fund to the Western Parkland Acquisition and Development Fee Fund in order to fully fund the purchase of the 1.89-acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the loan will be repaid as Western Pazkland Acquisition and Development Fee funds are wllected from future development; and WHEREAS, the loan will be subject to the City's pooled interest rate, currently 0.385%; and WHEREAS, the City will exchange the 1.89-acre parcel for property of equal size in the Lower Sweetwater Valley that will be used for public park purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula does hereby approve a purchase and sale agreement fora 1.89-acre parcel (APN #644-041-4 ]) in the Chula Vista Auto Park, in substantially the form presented with such minor modifications as may be required and approved by the City Attorney and authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase and sale agreement or any other documents necessary to implement the purchase and sale agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Councll of the City of Chula does hereby approve an interfund loan from the Eastern Parkland Acquisition and Development Fee Fund to the Western Pazkland Acquisition and Development Fee Fund in the amount of $310,000, appropriate funds therefore to the Transfers Out expense category of the Eastern Parkland Acquisition and Development Fee Fund, and appropriate $598,000 to the Capital expenses category of the Western Pazkland Acquisition and Development Fee Fund for the purchase of parkland. iii Presented by ,~ ~ Approved as to orm b , t j'._.__ Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP ~GleIYR. Go6g Assistant City Manager City Attorney Development Services Director 19-13 1-169 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE EXCHANGE OF A 1.89-ACRE PARCEL (APN# 644-041-41) LOCATED IN THE CHULA VISTA AUTO PARK FORA 1.89-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY TO BE USED FOR PARK PURPOSES WHEREAS, Western Chula Vista suffers from an imbalance of pazkland in relation to the number of residents living west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the 2005 General Plan update identified the Lower Sweetwater Valley as an appropriate location to site a new fwenty (20)-acre community pazk; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been proactive in securing available acreage for the development of a new community park in the Lower Sweetwater Valley; and WHEREAS, the_City of Chula Vista, in 2010, acquired 14.25 acres of parkland in the Lower Sweetwater Valley; and WHEREAS, the City identified a 1.89-acre parcel located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley ("Floit Site") that, if acquired, would increase the acreage of the community pazk site from 14.25 acres to 16.14 acres; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to exchange a 1.89-acre parcel in western Chula Vista ("McCune Site"), to be purchased pursuant to a certain "Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions, dated 12/6/11, for the Floit Site; and WHEREAS, once acquired, the Floit Site will be used for pazk purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula does hereby approve an Agreement for the Exchange of the 1.89-acre parcel (APN #644-041-41) fora 1.89-acre parcel located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley to be used for park purposes, in substantially the form presented with such minor modifications as may be required and approved by the City Attorney and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any other documents necessary to implement the exchange ag-°°--~°~' Presented by Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Assistant City Manager Development Services Director 19-14 1-170 ATTACHMENT8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN OPTION AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE A 9.3-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ADJACENT TO SR-125 AND EASTLAKE DRIVE FOR AN APPROXIMATE 3.94-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN THE LOWER SWEETWATER VALLEY FOR PARK PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Western Chula Vista suffers from an imbalance of pazkland, in relation to the number of residents living west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the 2005 General Plan update identified the Lower Sweetwater Valley as a appropriate location to site a new twenty (20)-acre community pazk; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been proactive in securing available acreage for the development of a new community pazk in the Lower Sweetwater Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista in 2010 acquired ]4.25 acres of parkland in the Lower Sweetwater Valley; and WHEREAS, Dan Floit, the owner of a 3.94-acre parcel, desires to exchange his property located in the Lower Sweetwater Valley fora 9.3-acre City-owned remnant parcel located adjacent to SR-125 and Eastlake Drive; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to grant an option to Mr. Floit to exchange his 3.94 acre pazcel for the 9.3-acre City pazcel; and WHEREAS, the option will be for a term of 3 yeazs with two 1-yeaz extensions, during which term, Mr. Floit shall have the opportunity to pursue entitlements for the site; and WHEREAS, Mr. Floit understands and agrees that he will be responsible for any and all costs associated with the processing of entitlements; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has made no representations concerning Mr. Floit's ability to secure his desired entitlements, but the City will process his application and present it to the appropriate legislative bodies for review and consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE [T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Option Agreement to exchange a 9.3-acre pazcel located adjacent to SR-125 and Eastlake Drive for an approximately 3.94-acre parcel located in Lower Sweetwater Valley for Pazk Purposes in substantially the form presented with such minor 19-15 1-171 Resolution No. 2011- Page 2 ATTACHMENT 8 modifications as may be required and approved by the City Attorney and authorize the City Manager to execute the Option Agreement and any other documents necessary to implement the Option Agreement. Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director 19-16 1-172 City Attorney GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/10 - 6/30/11, to Current Time, and Five-Year Forecast) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD STANDARDS: Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Please provide brief responses to the following: Have storm waterflows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards atany time during the period under review? Yes No X If yes: a. Where did this occur? b. Why did this occur? c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation? 2. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the 12- to 18-month growth forecast? If so, please explain. Yes No X 3. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the 5-year growth forecast? If so, please explain. Yes No X 4. What channel maintenance procedures are we using that are acceptable to resource agencies and that facilitate obtaining environmental permits? The removal of trash, debris, invasive plants, and sediment, as required under the City's NPDES Municipal Storm water Discharge Permit, supports water quality and ensures proper flood control functioning within open channels and basins. Although the Regional Water Quality Control Board has allowed municipalities to remove trash, debris, and dead vegetation by hand from these flood control facilities without an environmental permit, the City is precluded from equipment-assisted activities or removing native wetland and riparian plant materials and Drainage - 2012 1-173 sediment unless the proper, and costly, environmental permits and mitigations (i.e., streambed mitigation, wetland and riparian habitat mitigation, etc.) are first in place. In addition, if threatened or endangered species are present, channel and detention basin cleaning and maintenance activities must take place during a narrow time window -September through February, five months of which are within the official rainy season of October 1 s` through April 15`. Therefore the maintenance procedures used to facilitate environmental permits are limited to controlling vegetation overgrowth and trash removal. All maintenance activities are done without mechanical equipment. Do we have appropriate staffing levels and budget resources to keep up with the maintenance schedule? No. The current Public Works storm drain maintenance-operating budget is $900,000. The current staff level consists of a supervisor, Public Works Specialist, three Senior Maintenance Workers and two Maintenance Workers to inspect and maintain the current storm drain infrastructure of 276 miles pipes, 296 miles lined and unlined channels, over 20 detention basins and 13,894 storm structures. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order NO. R-9-2007-0001 mandates the following for Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System and Structural Controls: (3) Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and Structural Controls (a) Each Co-permittee shall implement a schedule of inspection and maintenance activities to verify proper operation of all municipal structural treatment controls designed to reduce pollutant discharges to or from its MS4s and related drainage structures. (b) Each Co-permittee shall implement a schedule of maintenance activities forthe MS4 and MS4 facilities (catch basins, storm drain inlets, open channels, etc). The maintenance activities shall, at a minimum, include: i. Inspection at least once a year between May 1 and September 30 of each year for all MS4 facilities that receive or collect high volumes of trash and debris. All other MS4 facilities shall be inspected at least annually throughout the year. ii. Following two years of inspections, any MS4 facility that requires inspection and cleaning less than annually may be inspected as needed, but not less that every other year. iii. Any catch basin or storm drain inlet that has accumulated trash and debris greater than 33% of design capacity shall be cleaned in a timely manner. Any MS4 facility that is designed to be self-cleaning shall be cleaned of any accumulated trash and debris immediately. Open channels shall be cleaned of observed anthropogenic litter in a timely manner. iv. Record keeping of the maintenance and cleaning activities including the overall quantity of waste removed. v. Proper disposal of waste removed pursuant to applicable laws. vi. Measures to eliminate waste discharges during MS4 maintenance and cleaning activities. Current staffing levels are unable to fulfill the current State requirements let alone address all the non-funded areas throughout the city with storm drain infrastructure that require Drainage - 2012 1-174 structural maintenance or replacement, routine weed abatement and silt and debris removal to maintain channel and detention basin capacity. In addition, the city will also have to consider cost of time-consuming multi-agency permit process for each segment where crews or contractors need to remove vegetation and debris. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Developers in eastern Chula Vista will be required to provide all necessary facilities and their respective share of maintenance costs to accommodate their impact. Additional facilities or the reconstruction of existing facilities may be needed in order to accommodate new development in western Chula Vista where the parcels are redeveloped at a higher density or where development encroaches onto natural drainage areas. This will be reviewed with respect to the Hydro-modification Plan, in effect as of January 2011, as development and redevelopment occurs. Insufficient funds may result in an increased potential for flooding, particularly in western Chula Vista, for collapse of corroded CMP and for erosion, particularly in natural channels and canyons. For the City's NPDES program, it could result in impairment of water quality within receiving waters and create acondition ofnon-compliance with the Municipal Permit, exposing the City to penalties. PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto N. Yano, Sr. Civil Engineer Dave McRoberts, Wastewater Collections Manager Khosro Amnipour, Sr. Civil Engineer Date: 12/01 /2011 Drainage - 2012 1-175 THRESHOLD STANDARD: The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12-to 18-month forecast and request an evaluation of their abilities to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities; 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; and 4. Other relevant information the districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS' -NOVEMBER 2011 Schools Currertt .Enrollment Building Capacity Amount 'Under/Over Overflow Overflow Comments -- Permanent Portables Capacity' Out In NORTHWEST Cook 481 459 133 -111 Feaster-Edison 1084 420 766 -102 Hilltop Drive 570 466 95 9 Mueller 892 422 441 29 Rosebank 670 426 305 -61 Vista Square 590 372 344 -126 SOUTHWEST Learnin Comm. 658 616 62 -20 Castle Park 410 432 146 -168 Harborside* 634 413 449 -228 Kellogg 351 403 226 -278 Lauderbach* 822 536 426 -140 Loma Verde 497 426 233 -162 Montgomery 410 359 124 -73 Otay* 587 488 286 -187 Palomar 356 444 0 -88 Rice 769 492 213 64 Rohr 384 452 13 -81 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 862 659 164 39 Olympic View 799 444 328 27 Parkview 421 481 102 -162 Rogers 499 605 13 -11,9 1-1 CVESD-2012 Pagel Valle Lindo 563 444 225 -106 edenkamp 1021 1045 0 -24 Heritage 989 743 120 126 Veterans 856 664 186 6 McMillin 855 772 73 10 Wolf Canyon ~..... o-~,.... ~e.. Allen/Ann Daly g42 3 ~ n 398 736 457 113 R, 0 93 ~ -~., r . -98 P . . Casillas 606 550 146 -90 Chula Vista Hills 557 532 80 -55 Clear View 522 380 186 -44 Discovery 832 535 412 -115 Eastlake 610 470 237 -97 Halecrest 461 483 80 -102 Liberty 713 800 0 -87 Marshall 735 617 144 -26 Salt Creek 1013 799 186 28 Tiffany 532 459 206 -133 TOTAL 24,947 20301 7263 -2252 'QEIA School 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2012 and (b) December 2016, based on the City• s forecast. 2 a. 13-MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2012 '. Schools' ~ Projected Projected Capacity ~ Amount Overnow Overflow Comments Enrollment Permahent Portables- Over/Under 'Out In 72131!72, Capacity* NORTHWEST Cook 451 459 133 -237 Feaster- 1090 Edison 420 766 -75 Hilltop Drive 569 466 95 54 Mueller 892 422 441 150 Rosebank 613 q26 305 -37 Vista Square 600 372 344 -75 SOUTHWEST Learning 658 _20 Comm. 616 62 Castle Park 418 432 146 -160 Harborside 623 413 449 -239 Kellogg 335 403 226 -294 Lauderbach 856 536 426 -106 Loma Verde 497 426 233 -162 Montgomery 408 359 124 -75 Otay 571 488 286 -203 1-177 CVESD - 2012 Page 2 Palomar 370 444 0 -74 Rice 796 492 213 91 Rohr 370 452 13 -95 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 824 659 164 1 Olympic View 731 444 328 -41 Parkview 406 481 102 -177 Rogers 499 605 13 -119 Valle Lindo 563 444 225 -106 Hedenkamp 985 1045 0 -60 Heritage 875 743 120 12 Veterans 876 664 186 26 McMillin 824 772 73 -21 Wolf Canyon 1038 736 113 189 ~,~ ~E`'.~.~ Allen/Ann Daly 388 457 0 -108 Casillas 588 550 146 -108 CV Hills 547 532 80 -65 Clear View 545 380 186 -21 Discovery 828 535 412 -119 Eastlake 589 470 237 -118 Halecrest 486 483 80 -77 Liberty 709 800 0 -91 Marshall 700 617 144 -61 Salt Creek 989 7gg 186 4 Tiffany 521 459 206 -144 '(-) denotes amount Under capacity 2.b >> FIVE-REAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2016 Schools Projected rProjectedCapacity Amount Overflow Overflow Comments Emrollmerit Permanent ;Portables- Over/Under ' Out In .12131/76 .Capacity NORTHWEST - Cook 355 459 133 -237 Feaster-Edison 1111 420 766 -75 Hilltop Drive 615 466 95 54 Mueller 1013 422 441 150 Rosebank 694 426 305 -37 Vista Square 641 372 344 -75 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 665 616 62 -13 Castle Park 445 432 146 -133 Harborside 773 413 449 -89 Kellogg 335 403 226 -294 979 536 426 ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 i-iro CVESD - 2012 Page 3 Lauderbach Loma Verde 450 426 233 -209 Montgomery 419 359 124 -64 Otay 513 488 286 -261 Palomar 410 444 0 -34 Rice 892 492 213 187 Rohr 535 452 13 70 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 785 659 164 -38 Olympic View 680 444 328 -92 Parkview 388 481 102 -195 Rogers 556 605 13 -62 Valle Lindo 612 444 225 -57 Hedenkamp 847 1045 0 -198 Heritage 778 743 120 -85 Veterans 982 664 186 132 McMillin 718 772 73 -127 Wolf Can on Y 1200 36 13 51 Approximately 422 students are expected to be generated from projected development in Eastern Chula Vista NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 363 457 0 -133 Casillas(move SE) 544 550 146 -152 Chula Vista Hills 533 532 80 -79 Clear View 549 380 186 -17 Discovery 946 535 412 -1 Eastlake 590 470 237 -117 Halecrest 483 483 80 -80 Liberty 683 800 0 -117 Marshall 594 617 144 -167 Salt Creek 867 7gg 186 -118 Tiffany 504 459 206 -161 *(-) denotes amount under capacity 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-09 2007-OS 2006-07 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,287 4,414 4,537 4,447 4,445 of Change Over the Previous Year '2.88% -3% 2% 1 % 1 of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,878 5,955 6,208 5,892 5,979 of Change Over -1.29% -4% 5% -1 % -2% i-ira CVESD - 2012 Page 4 the Previous Year of Enrollment 90% rom Chula Vista SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,807 7,243 7,328 6,923 6,525 of Change Over 7 79% -1 % 6% 6% 2% the Previous Year of Enrollment 90% from Chula Vista NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,884 7,021 7,252 7,105 7,021 of Change Over 1.32 -3% 2% 1 % 6% the Previous Year of Enrollment 90% from Chula Vista DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 27,765 27,521 28,224 27,251 26,919 of Change Over .89% -2% 3% 2°/, 4% the Previous Year of Enrollment 90% 98% from Chula Vista Please provide brief responses to the following: 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes _X_ No 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No _X_ We are beginning construction on the Otay Ranch Village 11 School site March 2012 to open July 2013. So we anticipate that we will have the facilities to house all of the projected pupils. 6. Please complete the new schools status table, below. f ~ ~, -.:,u. .. ,,',~,i~-~r~ y~ ~... ~'~n~'a;" NEV ~,... I~SCHObLSSTAT US ° , ..,.. ., - __ f ," ~,.~: ;..~: v ...:, . , School Site Architectural Commencement Service Commencement Time Selectiorr Review/Funding of Site by of Construction Needed ID for Land and Preparation Utilities By Construction and Road ORV11 X X X X March 2012 July 2013 Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities? If not, please explain. 1-180 CVESD-2012 Pages Yes _X_ No 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carolyn Scholl Title: Facilities Planning Manager Date: December 20, 2011 1-181 CVESD-2012 Page6 THRESHOLD STANDARD: The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12- to 18-month forecast and request evaluations of their abilities to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities; 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; and 4. Other relevant information the districts desire to communicate to the city and GMOC. 1. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS -NOVEMBER 2011 Current Building Capacity Adjusted Physical Within Overtlowed Schools Enrollment PermanenUPortables Building ..Education'' Capacity In or Out '-Comments 11/]1 '; (Note 1). ~ Capacity* Capacity. AI(1RTHWFCT Chula Vista Middle 1,042 812 503 1,315 234 X Hilltop Middle 1,062 1,046 136 1,182 187 X Chula Vista High 2,675 1,725 1,106 2,831 187 X Hilltop High 2,044 1,854 419 2,273 187 X SAl1THWFST Castle Park Middle 1,023 1,231 170 1,401 187 X Castle Park High 1,583 1,340 697 2,037 187 X Palomar High 462 593 0 593 0 X Chula Vista Adult 2,835 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,646 1,469 880 2,349 234 Note 1 Eastlake Middle 1,581 1,504 0 1,504 187 X Otay Ranch High 2,603 2,028 404 2,432 187 X Olympian High (HS#13) 1,720 1,942 0 1,942 187 X NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,221 1,449 795 2,244 187 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,062 907 385 1,292 187 X Rancho Del Rey Middle 1,571 1,524 0 1,524 140 X "'TOTAL 23,295 19,424 5,495 24,919 2,478 X "Capacity is the adjusted building capaaty pius pnysicai eoucauon capacity. it exciuees s[uoerns ana capaary essiyneu w speuai abilities clusters and learning centers. Capacity fgures have been updated to reflect Proposition 0 Modernization work. "*Total for Current Enrollment does not include Chula Vista Adult Enrollment Note 1: Overflow capacity is accommodated on-site throu~h-c~t~te master scheduling and increases in class size. Adopted by SLTIISD Board of Trustees on Feb 21, 2012, Item M-2 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2012 and (b) December 2016, based on the city s forecast. 2.a 13-MONTH FORECASTED-CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2012 Schools 'Projected Enrollment .~ 72/31/12 `~ Building Capacity PermanenUPortables ~ .(Note 1) Adjusted Building 'Capacity` .:Physical .Education -Capacity Within::. Capacity'' Overflowed In or Out Comments NORTHWEST `^. Chula Vista Middle 1,002 812 503 1,315 234 X Hilltop Middle 1,085 1,046 136 1,182 187 X Chula Vista High 2,744 1,725 1,106 2,831 187 X Hilltop High 1,963 1,854 419 2,273 187 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,000 1,231 170 1,401 187 X Castle Park High 1,790 1,340 697 2,037 187 X Palomar High 462 593 0 593 0 X Chula Vista Adult 2,835 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,790 1,469 880 2,349 234 Nole 1 Eastlake Middle 1,596 1,504 0 1,504 187 X Otay Ranch High 2,619 2,028 404 2,432 187 X Olympian High 1,721 1,942 0 1,942 187 X NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,295 1,449 795 2,244 187 X Bonita Vista Middle 954 907 385 1,292 187 X Rancho del Rey Middle 1,612 1,524 0 1,524 140 X *Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning centers. Capacity figures have been updated to reflect Proposition 0 Modernization work. Note 1: Overflow capacity is accommodated on-site through creative master scheduling and increases in class size. SUHSD - 2012 ~ _ ~ 83 Page 2 ~ r, FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED.CONDITIONS--DECEMBER 2016 Schools Projected' JEnrollment 12131/16.:' Building Capacity PermanentlPortables Adjusted Building Capacity' Note 1 Physical Education ' .Capacity Within ' Capacity. Overflowed In or Out 'Comments NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,300 812 503 1,315 234 X Hilltop Middle 875 1,046 136 1,182 187 X Chula Vista High 2,700 1,725 1,106 2,831 187 X Hilltop High 1,800 1,854 419 2,273 187 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 800 1,231 170 1,401 187 X Castle Park High 1,400 1,340 697 2,037 187 X Palomar High 425 593 0 593 0 X Chula Vista Adult 2,835 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,700 1,469 880 2,349 234 Note 1 Eastlake Middle 1,600 1,504 0 1,504 187 X Otay Ranch High 2,800 2,028 404 2,432 187 Note 1 Olympian (HS#13) 2,250 1,942 0 1,942 187 Note 1 MS #12 Note 1 1,000 0 1,000 187 Note 1 HS #14 Note 1 2,000 0 2,000 187 Note 1 NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 1,900 1,449 795 2,244 187 X Bonita Vista Middle 900 907 385 1,292 187 X Rancho del Rey Middle 1,500 1,524 0 1,524 140 X 'Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning centers. Capacity figures have been updated to reflect Proposition O Modernization work Note 1: District staff currently projects the need for Middle School No. 12 and High School No. 14 no earlierthan 2015. The school will relieve Eastlake, Otay Ranch and Olympian High Schools. Since attendance boundaries have not been established, enrollment projections cannot be made nor can we project exactly how the affected schools' enrollment will be reduced. sur+sD- zolz ~ _~ 84 Page 3 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2010-2011 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,823 7,067 7,242 7,446 7,434 of Change Over the Previous Year -3.5% -2.4% -2.7% 0.2% 0.9% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 88% 88% 88% 89% 88% SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 3,068 2,977 3,064 3,281 3,423 of Change Over the Previous Year 3 1 % -2.8% -6.6% -4.2% -4.6% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 92% 94% 94% 94% 95% SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 8,550 8,446 8,242 7,857 7,512 of Change Over the Previous Year 1 2% 2.5% 4.9% 4.6% 5.4% of Enrollment from Chula Vista (Note 1) gq% 95% 94% 96% 87% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,854 4,938 5,088 5,133 5,003 of Change Over the Previous Year -1.7% -1.4% -2.4% 2.6% 0.1 of Enrollment from Chula Vista 72% 72% 71% 94% 95% DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 40,740 41,580 42,420 42,839 42,408 of Change Over the Previous Year 2 02% -1 98% ° -0.98 /° ° 1.0 /0 o 1.7 /o of Enrollment from Chula Vista 55% 49% 48% 57% 55% 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth through the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes X No 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No X District will need construct Middle School No. 12 and may need to construct High School No. 14 within the next 5 years. SUHSD - 2012 ~_ ~ a 5 Page 4 6. Please complete the new schools status table, below. NEW SCHOOLS STATUS chool Site Selection Architectural Review/Funding ID for Land and Construction Beginning of Site Pre aration Service by Utilities and Road Beginning of Construction Time Needed B MS #12 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 2014 Est. 2016 HS #14 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 20114 Est. 2016 7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities/schools? If not, please explain. Yes X No 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions thatyou would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The unstable economy and high foreclosure rate make the 5-year projections for east Chula Vista very tentative. The timing of Middle School 12 and High School 14 may change significantly as the economy recovers. PREPARED BY: Name: Planning Department Date: January 11, 2012 SUHSD - 2012 1_ 1 8 6 Page 5 'GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012'QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 711/10 - 6/3014 9, to the Current Time, and Five-Year Forecast)" SEWER THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity). 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan SewerAuthoritywith a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Services Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Please update the table below: SEWAGE - Elow and Treatment Ca aci Million Gallons per 08/09 09/10 10/11 18-month 5-year "Buildout". * Da MGD Fiscal Year Fiscal Year' Fiscal Year Projection Projection Projection Avera a Flow 16.517 16.225 16.272 16.629** 17.880** 26.20' Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 'Buildout Projection based on 2005 Wastewater Master Plan "Growth rate per the "Residential Growth Forecast Years 2012 through 2016" Please provide brief responses to the following: t. Have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards (75%of design capacity) at any time during the period under review? If yes, please indicate where, when and why this occurred, and what has been, or will be done, to correct the situation. Yes No X_ 2. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 12- to 18-month forecasted growth? If not, what facilities need to be added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site availability? Sewer - 2012 ~ ~-~$~ Yes _X_ No 3. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 5-yearforecasted growth? If not, what facilities need to be added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site availability? Yes _X_ No 4. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? If not, please explain. Yes X No 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The 2005 Wastewater Master Plan estimated that the City would need about 5.336 MGD of additional treatment capacity at build out from the 20.864 the City owns today. The City has been evaluating options on how to meet said need. In 2011, City staff conducted a study evaluating the feasibility of constructing a sewer treatment facility in the City of Chula Vista, as well as the purchasing of additional treatment capacity rights from other agencies within the Metro system. The final draft of the study shows that it is feasible to construct a six (6) MGD treatment plant when compared to purchasing capacity from San Diego or other participating agencies. However, City of Chula Vista residents continue to conserve water both indoors and outdoors and thus sewer discharge continues to decrease. This means that the build out treatment capacity required could be less than what the 2005 master plan estimated. The option of building a Chula Vista's treatment plant becomes less feasible as the required treatment capacity diminishes. Staff is now working on an update to the 2005 master plan in order to verify the build out treatment capacity needs of the City. Said update is scheduled to be completed in 2013. City staff will then compare the cost per gallon of both options. The actual City growth continues to be less than projected. This combined with conservation efforts as explained above have granted the City with additional time to better understand the options available to meet the build out need. At current growth projections, the City has enough capacity for the next 10 years (see graph below). The graph shows the City's average daily flow will reach the City's purchased treatment capacity rights sometime during the 10-year period of year 2020 to Year 2030. The City will continue its diligent efforts to secure treatment capacity before it is needed. Sewer-2012 2 1-188 Average Daily Flow Trend m m < r in o m m 28.00 26.06 24.00 22.00 020.00 C7 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 m m ~ ~ M Owl C] N ~ ~ I~ N N p^ ~~ ryN a m N ro. O N l ~ N N ^^ , - ^ M ETRO Capacity (20.864 mgtlj m i yn ry0. I I hh o~ ' m' ro :^' ry~ ~ m m ^FJ ~ m m 8 N ~ 2 a~ d ° ~ c o - __ __ ~ ? ~ LL N _ N ~ C (G O 00 oh ., ,~O ,~h ry0 tih ,y0 ,jh ~o bh h0 ,LO ,y0 ,10 ,y0 ,y0 ,y0 ,y0 ry0 ry0 ~O ,y0 Average Daily Flow (MGD) -Treatment Capacity -i-' Populati~ PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto Yano Title: Sr. Civil Engineer Date: 12/1 /2011 Sewer-2012 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 3 ~-~89 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE ..(Review Period: 7/1/10 - 6/30/11. to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast) I~ AIR QUALITY -City of Chula Vista II THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please provide brief responses to the following: Regarding developmentthatoccuaed during the period under review, please provide an overview of how measures designed to fosterair quality improvement, pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies, were implemented. Development within Chula Vista is guided by a number of policies and planning documents to help improve local air quality. The Chula Vista General Plan, which provides a blueprint for future development, highlights the City's goal to "improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants (Objective E6)." Through the Plan, the design and siting of new projects are evaluated and modified to promote multi-use, compact development which favors pedestrians, biking, and public transit over owner-occupied vehicles. In the last year, the City's Design Manual, which guides the design of smaller development projects, was updated to emphasize improved air quality by more robustly promoting urban forests and sustainable design concepts. In addition, Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIPs), which are required for new larger developments, were completed for Otay Ranch Villages 8 (west) and 9, representing 6,050 residential units and 1.8 million square feet of commercial space. Air Quality 2012 1-190 Page 1 Energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities -that also contribute to local air quality improvements -within new development projects are pursued through the City's Sustainable Communities program, which works to integrate "clean energy" into the permitting and inspection process. Since January 2010, program staff provided technical supportto over 2,470 permit applicants, contractors, and other public agencies on energy efficiency building measures. In addition, over 100 staff training sessions have been organized to educate permit counter technicians, plans examiners, and building inspectors on advanced energy technologies. Finally, the program facilitated approximately 670 new/remodeled buildings meeting the City's green building and enhanced energy efficiency standards. 2. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and procedures consistent with current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs? If not, please explain any inconsistencies, and. indicate actions needed to bring development regulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance. Yes X No The City of Chula Vista's development standards meet and/or exceed regional, state, and federal air quality regulations. In addition to a revised Design Manual (described under question 1), Chula Vista recently became the first jurisdiction in southern California to expand its Climate Action Program to include climate "adaptation" strategies designed to reduce the community's vulnerability to expected local climate change impacts including more poor air quality and heat wave days. Some of these 11 climate adaptation strategies -specifically strategies #1 (cool paving), #2 (shade trees), #3 (cool roofs), and #6 (extreme heat education) -will directly help improve local air quality by mitigating the urban heat island effect (which contributes to ground-level ozone) and will help educate community members about air quality levels as the strategies begin to be implemented over the next 3 years. Over the past year, the City of Chula Vista collaborated with other regional jurisdictions through the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) to update the Regional Transportation Plan. The new plan will be the first in the state to comply with California Senate Bill 375 that directs local governments to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable land use practices. This new plan will include a regional "Sustainable Communities Strategy" which would ultimately lower emissions by 7% by 2020 and 13% by 2035. Finally, City staff in coordination with community stakeholders has continued to develop policies and regulations for evaluating the siting of future Electrical Generating Facilities (EGFs) within the City to protect the public health and safety. The resulting policy will provide guidelines for making decisions regarding local EGF sitings that are consistent with the intent and spirit of an open, transparent, and inclusive public process. The policy also recognizes the City's commitment to transitioning to a less dependent fossil fuel burning (carbon-based) future in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner. General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance provisions will also be updated, as appropriate, in order to provide clear regulations under the new EGF siting policy. 3. Are there any new non-development-related air quality programs/actions thatthecity is implementing or participating in? If so, please list and provide an explanation of each. Regional Electric Vehicle Projects Air Quality 2012 1-191 Page 2 To support the deployment of zero emission electric vehicles, the City of Chula Vista continues to promote new electric charging stations within its jurisdiction and to recruit residents and businesses, who may be interested in taking advantage of federal and state incentives for the vehicles and receiving free charging stations. The City is also a founding member of a new San Diego Plug-in Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council (PEVCC), which is being organized by SANDAG and is funded through a California Energy Commission grant to help provide direction to the development of a comprehensive regional readiness plan for plug-in electric vehicles. Students Taking Active Routes to Schools (STARTS) Project Over the last year, the City was awarded a SANDAG grant for its Students Taking Active Routes To Schools (STARTS) project in orderto facilitate non-motorized transportation and improve local air quality. The project is evaluating street and sidewalk infrastructure for connectivity and coverage around the middle schools in Chula Vista. Through outreach and survey efforts at the schools, the City is also determining currenttravel patterns of students and safety concerns of parents that will enable the City to develop and distribute a suggested school routes pedestrian/bike map based on the collected information. The STARTS project is mainly focusing on a 1-mile radius around the following five middle schools in the City of Chula Vista: Bonita Vista Middle School, Castle Park Middle School, Chula Vista Middle School, Eastlake Middle School, and Hilltop Middle. Home Upgrade, Carbon Downgrade With funding through federal Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grants, Chula Vista launched its Home Upgrade, Carbon Downgrade program in 2010 to provide technical assistance and financial support to community members interested in installing energy- saving retrofits at their properties. Through the program, over 2,500 point-of-sale rebates have been distributed to residents for energy-efficient appliances at Home Depot, Sears, Best Buy, Pacific Sales, and K-Mart) since its inception. The program has also distributed over $100,000 and $50,000 in incentives and 0%-interest loans, respectively, to homeowners to help them upgrade their homes' energy performance. Free Resource & Business Energy Evaluations (FREBE) As part of the annual business licensing process, storefront and office-based businesses are required to participate in the City's Free Resource & Energy Business Evaluation program. The program offers free, onsite energy and water evaluations to help businesses identify ways to reduce energy/waster use and lower monthly utility costs. In 2011, over 900 businesses participated in the program and approximately 60% integrated a no or low-cost efficiency improvement as a result oftheirevaluations (based on post-evaluation participant surveys). Public CNG Dispenser The City of Chula Vista, in coordination with Clean Energy LLC, recently renovated the Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling station located at the Public Works Corp Yard. The new fueling infrastructure will allow residents and other commercial fleets to refuel their vehicles at the site and pay using their credit cards. The new station fills a major gap in regional alternative fuel infrastructure and helps promote cleaner-burning transportation technologies in the community. During the station's frst month of operation, over 2,000 gallons gas equivalent were distributed to local users. 4. Identify any significant reductions in air quality emissions. One of the most significant reductions in air quality emissions since the last GMOC report has been the decommissioning of the South Bay Power Plant. The 702 megawatt plant, 1-192 Air Quality 2012 Page 3 which represented the largest point-source for air quality emissions in Chula Vista, ceased operation on January 1, 2011 and will be demolished over the following two years. 5. How many residents and/or commercial facilities have added solar panels in the last year? During the past year, 138 permits have been issued for solar hot water and solar photovoltaic systems at residential and non-residential properties. Are there any new non-development-related program efforts that the city needs to undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? If so, please list and provide a brief explanation of each. Yes No _X_ Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. A core component of the City's air quality improvement efforts is its Climate Action Program. Although the program specifically focuses on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, the resulting policies and initiatives also contribute to lowering criteria air pollutants. Over the next 6 months, the City will be working to perform a "gap" analysis of its Climate Action Plan. This quantitative exercise involves forecasting community emissions in 2020 and calculating the GHG emission reductions resulting from planned local, regional, state, and federal climate action measures. In the end, the analysis will allow staff to determine if there is a "gap' between expected 2020 emissions levels and the City's GHG emissions reduction goal. As part of this effort, the City will also reevaluate its original emissions reduction goal (to reduce emissions 20% below 1990 levels) to determine if it needs to be updated, accordingly. Based on results from other municipal governments, who have undergone a similar exercise, the City may also consider shifting its baseline yearto 2005 to be consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act) and other state guidelines. Finally, in an effort to broaden the scope of information provided as a part of its GHG emission inventories, the City will begin to incorporate a more detailed analysis related to materials management, which will better track emission reductions from Chula Vista recycling and composting efforts. PREPARED BY: Name: Brendan Reed Title: Environmental Resource Manager Date: 12/14/11 Air Quality 2012 1-193 Page 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/10- 6/30/11, fo Current'Time andFive-Year Forecast) II AIR QUALITY -AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT II THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development specific activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. 1. Please update the table below: SMOG TRENDS - Number of Days Over Standards 2006 2007 2008 2009 .2010 4' 2011 San Die o Re ion 23 21 18 8 7 ~.. 5 Chula Vista 0 2 1 1 1 0 j~F `. San Die o Re ion 14 8 11 4 1 3 Chula Vista 0 1 0 0 0 0 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. How does air quality in areas that surround Chula Vista affect Chula Vista's air quality? Monitoring data show that ozone levels in Chula Vista are generally lowerthan in many other areas APCD-2012 Page 1 1-194 of the region. Therefore, it appears that Chula Vista is not disproportionately impacted by ozone- precursoremissions from surrounding areas. 3. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during the period under review. As of 2011, San Diego County's air quality attained the ozone national ambient air quality standard that the U.S. EPA established in 1997. 4. Were there any changes in federal or state programs, during the period under review, that could affect Chula Vista? Yes No X If yes, please explain: 5. Are there existing or future RAQS programs that Chula Vista needs to be aware of? Yes No_X_ If yes, please explain: 6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carl Selnick Title: Air Quality Specialist Date: February 9, 2012 APCD-2012 Page 2 1-195 THRESHOLD STANDARDS: Developerwill requestand deliver to the City a service availability letterfrom the Otay Water District or Sweetwater Authority for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. Please complete the tables below. Otay Water District - 2012 Page 1 ~-~96 FY 2011/12 (ending 28.1 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.6 7.2 43.7 6/30/12 FY 2010/11 (ending 26.85 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.59 7.2 43.7 6/30/11) FY 2009/10 (ending 30.9 0.0 137.5 219.6 0.0 3.48 7.2 43.7 6/30/10 FY 2008/09 (ending 37.1 0.0 137.5 215.4 0.0 4.02 7.2 43.7 6130109) ,~ ~-~~ , v~~ So ~ µ „'' ~;~,~£ ~ ``° '%'" urces,of.,Water -~ FY 2010/11 MG ~ Millions of Gallon§ Water Source Capacity tIAGD Percentage of Totai Ca aci "Actual Use MGD " San Diego County Water Authority 121.5 80.6% 19.85 Helix Water District 12.0 8.0% 7.0 City of San Diego 10.0 6.6% 0.0 RWCWRF (Otay Water District) 1.2 0.8% 0.94 SBWRP (San Diego) 6.0 4.0% 2.65 Total 150.7 100.0% 30.44 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. Do current facilities have the ability to serve forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes X No The existing potable and recycled water systems have the ability to serve forecasted growth within the City of Chula Vista over the next 12 to 18 month time frame. 3. Do current facilities have the ability to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes No X The existing potable and recycled water systems with inclusion of the following near term list of Otay Water District capital improvement program (CIP) project facilities, together they are anticipated to be needed to serve forecasted growth within the City of Chula Vista over the next five year time frame. The listed CIP projects are in various stages of development from planning through Otay Water District - 2012 Page 2 1-197 construction completion including some with pending developer reimbursement expenditure release. The CIP project details such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are provided within the current Otay Water District Fiscal Year 2012 through 2017 CIP documents. CIP Proiect No. CIP Proiect Title P2037 Res - 980 - 3 Reservoir 5 MG P2104 PL - 12-Inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road -Birch/Rock Mountain P2106 PL -12-Inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road -Rock Mtn/Ota Valle P2107 PL - 12-Inch, 711 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La Media/SR 125 P2135 PL - 20-Inch, 980 Zone, Ota Lakes Road - Wueste/Loo P2325 PL - 10" to 12" Oversize, 1296 Zone, PB Road -Rollin Hills H dro PS/PB Bnd P2399 PL - 30-Inch, 980 Zone, 980 Reservoirs to Hunte Parkwa P2402 PL - 12-Inch, 624 Zone, La Media Road -Villa e 7/Ota Valle P2431 Res - 980-4 Reservoir 5 MG R2028 RecPL - 8-Inch, 680 Zone, Herita a Road -Santa Victoria/Ota Valle R2042 RecPL - 8-Inch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR-125/EastLake R2047 RecPL - 12-Inch, 680 Zone, La Media Road -Birch/Rock Mountain R2082 RecPL - 24-Inch, 680 Zone, OI m is Parkwa -Villa e 2/Herita e R2083 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Herita a Road -Villa e 2/OI m is R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Villa e 2 -Herita a/La Media R2085 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, La Media -State/OI m is 4. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current year and 6-year capital improvement program projects that are needed to serve the City of Chula Vista? If yes, please explain. Yes X No The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects within the FY 2012 six-year Otay Water District capital improvement program (CIP) that are planned and anticipated to be needed to serve the City of Chula Vista. The CIP project details such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are provided within the current Otay WD Fiscal Year 2012 through 2017 CIP documents. CIP Proiect CIP Proiect Title No. P2366 APCD En ine Re lacements and Retrofits P2382 Safet and Securi Im rovements P2458 AMR Manual Meter Re lacement P2473 PS - 711-1 Pum Station lm rovement P2477 Res - 624-1 Reservoir Cover Re lacement P2484 Lar a Water Meter Re lacement Pro ram P2485 SCADA Communication S stem and Software Re lacement P2493 624-2 Reservoir Interior Coatin and U rades P2496 Ota Lakes Road Utilit Relocations P2507 East Palomar Street Utili Relocation P2513 East Oran a Avenue Brid a Crossin Otay Water District - 2012 Page 3 1-198 P2520 Motorola Mobile Radio U rade P2521 Lar a Meter Vault U rade Pro ram R2091 RecPS - 927-1 Pum Station U rade 10,000 GPM and S stem Enhancements R2096 RWCWRF - U rades and Modifications R2099 Rec cled S stem Air and Vacuum Valve Retrofit 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Otay Water District has anticipated growth, effectively managed the addition of new facilities and documented water supply needs. Service reliability levels have been enhanced with the addition of major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix Water District Levy Water Treatment Plant, the City of San Diego South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, and the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant. This is due to the extensive and excellent planning Otay Water District has done over the years including the Water Resources Master Plan and the annual process to have the capital improvement program projects funded and constructed in a timely manner corresponding with development construction activities and water demand growth that require new or upgraded facilities. The process of planning followed by the Otay Water District is to use Water Resource Master Plan (WRMP) as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best alternatives for providing reliable water system facilities. Growth projection data provided by SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community was used to develop the WRMP. The Otay Water District need for aten-day water supply during a SDCWA shutdown is actively being implemented and has been fully addressed in the WRMP and the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The IRP incorporate the concepts of water storage and supply from neighboring water agencies to meet emergency and alternative water supply needs. The Otay Water District works closely with City of Chula Vista staff to insure that the necessary planning information remains current considering changes in development activities and land use planning revisions within Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch. The Otay Water District WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay Water District. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay Water District six-year CIP for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceeds through the City of Chula Vista approval processes, the Otay Water District typically requires the developer to prepare aSub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project consistent with the WRMP. This SAMP document defines and describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. The SAMP also defines the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay Water District through collection of water meter capacity fees, water rates, and other sources of revenue funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. These funds were established to pay for the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. The SAMP identifies the major water transmission main and distribution pipeline facilities which are typically located within the roadway alignments. The Otay Water District plans, designs, and constructs water system facilities to meet projected ultimate demands to be placed upon the potable and recycled water systems. Also, the Otay Water District forecasts needs and plans for water supply requirements to Otay Water District - 2012 Page 4 ~-199 meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The water facilities are constructed when development activities require them for adequate cost effective water service. The Otay Water District assures that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. The Otay Water District, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, continues to expand the use of recycled water. The Otay Water District continues to actively require the development of recycled water facilities and related demand generation within new development projects within the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District are nearing completion of a feasibility study to provide the City with projected needed sewer disposal capacity and production of recycled water. The near term water supply outlook remains unsettled while the City of Chula Vista's long-term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court ruling regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues. Challenges such as these essentially always will be present. The regional water supply agencies, the SDCWA and MWD, along with Otay Water District nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. The continued close coordination efforts with the City of Chula Vista and other agencies have brought forth significant enhancements for the effective utilization of the region's water supply to the benefit of all citizens. PREPARED BY: Name: Robert Kennedy, P.E Title: Senior Civil Engineer Date: December 1.2011 Otay Water District - 2012 Page 5 ~-200 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2012 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/10 - 6/30/11, to Current Time, and Five-Year Forecast) WATER -.SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ' THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The district's replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and sited district's desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please complete the table below. Potable Water Non-Potable Water Supply Storage Supply Storage Timeframe Demand Ca acit Ca aci Demand Ca aci Ca aci Local Imported Treated Raw 5 -Year 20.0 40 30 44.55 17,421 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending 6/30/16 12-16 Month 19.2 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending Sweetwater Authority - 2012 1 1-201 FY 2011112 nle 36 30 43.35 17,421 nla nla nla (ending 6/30/12 FY 2010/11 18.8 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6130111 FY 2009/10 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a nla nla (ending 6/30110 FY 2008/09 20.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 nla nla nla (ending 6130109 Notes: a. The use of local vs. imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and is, therefore, unpredictable. Based on a 20 year average, 55 percent of water demand has been imported. b. Table values are for all of Sweetwater Authority which only serves a portion of Chula Vista. c. Production demand is taken from the Sweetwater Authority Fact Sheet. d. 12-18 month, and 5 year potable water production demand projection taken from Table 4-2 of the SWA Master Plan Update 2010. e. Local supply components include the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Plant (4 mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd), for a total of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year. The Reynolds Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increaseto 8 mgd in 2012 bringingthe local supply capacity to 40 mgd or 14,600 MG per year. f. Imported supply includes 30 mgd, or 10,950 MG per year of imported raw water treated at the Perdue Plant. SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is I invited by conveyance capacity and imported water availabi lity: g. Total yearly supply capacity of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year, includes the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Plant (4mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd). The Reynolds Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringing the total supply capacity to 40 mgd, or 14,600 MG per year. SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. h. SWA Master Plan Update 2010 lists existing and recommended treated water storage. The 1.2 MG Central- Wheeler tank is scheduled to be built next. i. Raw water storage capacity equals 28,079 ac-ft at Sweetwater Reservoir, and 25,387 ac-ft at Loveland Reservoir for a total of 53,466 ac-ft, or 17,421 MG. Please provide brief responses to the following questions: 2. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes X No 3. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please list any additional facilities needed, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes X No Sweetwater Authority - 2012 ~-202 4. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the currentyear and 6-year capital improvement program projects that are needed to serve the City of Chula Vista? If yes, please explain. Yes X No Sweetwater Authority has several maintenance and upgrade programs where pipelines, valves and other facilities are being renewed. This allows the Authority to continue to provide excellent service in the near and long term. The 2010 Water Facilities Master Plan lists almost all proposed projects and estimated costs. In addition, The Desalination Facility capacity may be increased, and the Perdue Treatment plant was upgraded to meet new treatment standards. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The SweetwaterAuthority is monitoring development activities within the City of Chula Vista, including the bay front, and the urban core-which will require major infrastructure coordination. Please continue to keep Sweetwater Authority informed and involved in all development and capital improvement projects to reduce the potential for unexpected water infrastructure requirements. PREPARED BY: Name: Hector Martinez Title: Engineering Manager Date: 25JAN12 Sweetwater Authority - 2012 1-203 RESOLUTION NO. 2012- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2012 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring threshold standards for eleven quality of life indicators associated with the City's Growth Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2012, the GMOC finalized its 2012 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, identifies current issues in the second half of 2011 and early 2012, and assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2012, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the Planning Commission to consider the 2012 GMOC Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon considering the report, recommended that the City Council accept the report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista accepts the 2012 GMOC Annual Report. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to carry out the implementing actions as presented in the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Exhibit A). Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Deputy City Manager/ Development Services Director Approved as to form by: G1 ~2City 1-204 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-11-19 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2012 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring threshold standards for eleven quality of life indicators associated with the City's Growth Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 2012, the GMOC finalized its 2012 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, identifies current issues in the second half of 2011 and early 2012, and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the City Council to consider the 2012 GMOC Annual Report, and to make recommendations to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula V ista does hereby accept and forward the 2012 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein to the City Council fox consideration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept the 2012 GMOC Annual Report. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Deputy City Manager/ Development Services Director Glen R. Googins City Attorney 1-205 Resolution No. PCM 11-19 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 7th day ofJune, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Michael Spethman, Chair ATTEST Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission 1-206