Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC AGENDA PACKET 2012/06/07 (GMOC JNT MTG) CITY COUNCIL rF AGENDA STATEMENT w pM9. ~ ~ CIIY OF CHULA VISTA Iune 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 I 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 I the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary. SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Manag irector of Development Services 'i REVIEWED BY: City Manager 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO BACKGROUND Each year, the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with Ihreshold Standards for the Growth Management Program's eleven quality of life indicators the 2012 Annual Report covers the period fiom ,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, the report discusses each Ihreshold in terms of June 7, 2012, Item No..: Page 2 of 7 current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. Asummary 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 i 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(6)(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) Ihat 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, Far 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. Summary of Findings The following table summarizes the GMOC's Threshold compliance findings for the 2012 GMOC Annual Review, including the current (.July I, 2010 -.June 30, 2011 review period, and looking forward at the potential for non-compliance between 2012 and 2016. June 7, 2012, Item No.: Page 3 of 7 Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance Potential Future Non- Not In Com Hance In Com Hance Com Hance Libraries Air Quality Libraries Police, Priori II Draina e Police, Priority II Traffic Fiscal Traffic Fire/EMS Parks and Recreation Fire/EMS Schools Sewer Water 2. Summary o1' Key Issues Below are excerpts fiom 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 Ihreshold Standard -The Libraries Ihreshold 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 years, the 'Ihreshold 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-square-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 anew 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.. 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 adoptiou duriug FY2012-L3. Police Non-Compliant Priority Iwo Ihreshold Standard -the Police Ihreshold Standard for Priority Iwo - Urgent Response Calls for Service states that police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority Iwo 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 Ihreshold has not been met.. the average June 7, 2012, Item No.: Page 4 of 7 response time of 10 minutes and 6 seconds for the Priority Two calls was 11 seconds higher than last year, 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 Iwo Threshold Standard when it is brought forward with the final documents resulting from the top-to-bottom review (approximately fall of 2012), StaffResponser The Police Department saepports 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 Department concluded that 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, StaffResponsex The Police Department will research the various options and relative need fora satellite facility in eastern Chula Vista, taking into consideration the cost of new construction (or I 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 Otay Lakes Road, 1 Traffic Non-Compliant Ihreshold Standard -the Ihreshold Standard 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 Ielegraph Canyon Road, exceeded LOS "D" fox 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.. I The second non-compliant arterial segment was Otay Lakes Road southbound from East H Street to Ielegraph 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 June 7, 2012, Item No.: Page 5 of 7 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 Ihreshold 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 Ihreshold 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. Io address the situation, the Fire Department is implementing visual aids and reviewing monthly response time reports fiom 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 Ihreshold Standard will be met.. Staff Response.: The Fire Department has implemented a Battalion Chief and Company Officer monthly r'epor't that provides each unit with response data. This monthly report includes dispatch, turnout and travel times so each Company Offuer is aware 1 they met or, fell below the standmd each month,. Officers that do not meed the minimum standard me 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. 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, Iherefore, the 2012 Annual Report recommends 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, 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 the plan. June 7, 2012, Item No..: Page 6 of 7 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 Compliance -the Parks and Recreation Department noted in their responses to GMOC's 2012 questionnaire that there is a possibility of a park 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 Ihreshold Standard.. Staff Response,: Staff will schedule the preparation of individual park master plans with the objective of keeping in compliance with GMOC park thresholds to the extent that is possible within the /Itecturding 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 submitted for Council action upon resolution of the incorporation of "Landmark Park" implementation policies into the document. 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 I 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.. Stuff Response: Finance Department staff supports the GMOC's recommendation to begin a comprehensive update of the PFDIF. In nddition to Cotencil action on proposed unit increases; Council action to adopt the pending Library, Fire, and Park & Recreation master plans is also June 7, 2012, Item No.: Page 7 of 7 necessary. Staff recommends that any Corrnci[ direction reflect these additional required steps in advance ofYhe comprehensive PFDIF update. Development Impact F'ee programs mrrst 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 of that, facility atbibutable to development. In practical terms, in order to meet the nexus and proportionality legal requirements, development impact, fee programs must be set to recover the cost of providing those ,facilities necessary to serve the same development the ,fees are being allocated to. Drainage Adequate funding for' channel maintenance is an ongoing problem, and the GMOC recognizes that maintaining existing channels in western Chula Vista is challenging because environmental permits to allow specific maintenance tasks are 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 Staff Response.: Engineering staff will monitor the status of channel maintenance to keep it in compliance with the Threshold Standard, 3. Conclusions Io 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. 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 Ihere is no fiscal impact, ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT As follow-up implementing actions are brought forward to the City Council beyond June .3Q 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 by Kimberly Yonder Bie. Associate Planner. Development Services Deportment Y N C N O ~ ~ f6 L C Q U ~ +N+ W ~ ~ H yam O~ ~ w a°i > cy ° ~Y-a-a y R U ~ C7 ~ Ew ~ s._ao £ ~r o N R vI V ~ ~ ~ t ~ Y T L .C ~ G ~ ~ T ~ y p ~ i. w Z a N O y 3 N d R w r V •a y C~~ 7 O° U ZZ axioms p3c>~ d"oc3~`o°.3cR ~c aw Rc3"' a cdy =mRwNO~U~oo and 2R' N~ 3~• -and°xd3Nyo~~ E~ C ~ N N O a7 "O > N C ~ J O~ y 0 C a1 O N N a7 a) of d a) C 7 Q a) Y a o ZOO LL~ m~3`-°~ Esayi~~ °'~~«~•C~£,~c~ Hw •~yY° a ~ ~a°cO,OdQ-U:_. Lo C~_ to c 3 d m a yr v v O o Cc Q d V a) ~ ~ r ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ i+ L r ~ N C fYq ~ ~ ~ G Q N G7 N C V L N •p a) V~~ V 3 3 V N N O Q O UU aa: Uc-a aaovo aLICNVLaytj~y~ ~ ao F- Q d~ m v a t° y R y m c y o a c~ o m o y m t° 2U' ~ aaLLa: ~r~H~ Fas>c,w~aFinamx ~ i-~ Z r N M r r N N M C Z r M N M M M M G C ~ W a y C C Y J L C O ~ .C J LL_ 3 Z N d 3 a of i a1 i W ~ as o F- ,o ~ D m L ~ r a) - lL a1 O W a7 y •L ~ 3 "j~ a) Q 0 ~ _3 aw N O a)L _ ° yU C rr C Z ~ O ~ ° s ° L L V ~ ~ a1 LL a) a.+ a'~ N C O C. Q L ~cc w Jim s~ m~« Nola a) ' Qc ~ s~E V"N a>isN ~~tE O ~ " a O c U C ~ ,r ~ ~ a O C S y r d i t C C a) N Nw W v°Ec°i Q3d ~yo o~~c T~ ~ of ~~L O 7 ~ is m L V C of N UO •c ~ ~ N~ c3i m = ~ a~ d ~ 3 y E c°~ d a a ~ o E c C d w 3 r f6 V~ C O ° ~ U 'a H O fA ~ p 'v O U 'pC N U w N U a N t~ ~ .0. ~ y C7I U y N ~ R t ~1I fya i a~'.+ fya d N of ~ a3 y i N C 'O L .C t r N M r r N N M r M N M M M M ° O Y ° C T C~ Y ° C O_ N Y N O R Cf L U ~ 1C C O ~ p~~ N 7' a ~O L 3 N 03 C O. y R N (n ~Y.+ r£ Y L O t 3 p N R L U Y N N Y ~ Z O N~~ C Y N . L W ~ d L w L a_~ C C ~ O mks>mo,;.N R°~, oRO~,,.. a~o'~~ a ~yH RQ.~`L°Ea..N =j_~t Ndc.n° a.cNE W Q a L Y a R N N C Y ~ Y y'a Y O uNi ~>'~~t""Ea RNE a,.°~':4N~ oY,°cc> W Z V O Y N Y w V Y fC Y N T £ Q N L O O O y ~p a fn N O C O d V'aa ~E L O NH a O L O V Z ~ d O c fL0 y... ~ ~ _ V O i Vl ~ IY6 > w V Z C G L IO Y w N Y O} Q W y E S N S N V C O Q U Y C w R V i~ d UQ WW :a m~t~ycLOR LLN „co~,o L.c yt „2 ~J m LO = a d o ~ a~Q ,o~ ~,ya ~ c aoU c.= a Y 3 ~ an d _ y ° c d m0„ N~ `p ~ ~Q'3Hp~~wO c~iaaa~m m ~='.Vc3:°. r W d O = d f. d Y Y c O O L d Y a a S O Y ~ Z O ~C~ ~fq L Q.o~vyamt, dcRL' aYY.zy ~ d 3.ON GC Z O d N U ~ 7 O. G N U 3 N C7 O N N= O c ~ V C y N p G O Q. W 0~ y C£ a ~ C d r O N N U V a y~ C O V O~ ~ ~ LL w a U r Y O L ~ ~ !6 w C 7 'U N - y~ y ~ V U Q a ~ tt.o a~ m 5 m 3 m~ oa = ~ ~ R E R w 2C9 'L F-Ua~m-~Ema ~o.rm Fii3~U a yEc°~ra C7 Z ~ N N Z d' M M ~ M W CWC G O W r C J d'V /C C Z~ ~ r y a o R W_ ~t o°`m ~a,c ~ Y L Y W\ O L ° L y H Y ~ ti+w ~ N d ~ Y N ~ c /0 d V Y QO cA aci3 ~Yo Z ~ L Y c a ~ C~ NL IC .d+ O O~N C =Z ~ v C3 oNmv act:° H W Z Y a L o. c° O,fA W i L y a c~~ R A Y -O CC ~ _ CC ~ fn V' t' ~ C N y LL i ~ ~ t O C ~ ~ t~ Q N~ lYC ~ (Q y Q N d'O ~,a aL°~ U 'v NW W ~ d `R3 yy~y c i>`>F- C~ U ° ~ a N~ d o« y ~ a E a Y Y Y a N OC ~ ~ ~~ca '~;~u°iw ~ '~LCy G C d 7~ r 7 0=~ d 3 ~ •?i ~ ~ £ U> y U O y ~ U O C d O W w Q O r= d 7 N w~ N IC c ~ `6~s` tom ~`a RoNE ~ ii F of ~ o.~s d H v r N r V N d' M M ~ M N a _ L L C 3 t C ~ O c N=~ N 7 R t p C N t,1 t O Y° a Q a V x Y N N R Y Y Y o A ~p w N Q OL C RI 0 2 Y N N C N£ E y R E N .OC O d M Z a p G O m~ O. (YA eY6 O N N~ V O = N V O R Q y N V N O y~~ ~ N C N Y N O- N O N~ O Q t R 2~ N~ y O d ~ R O O d d O Y R (a L = P L O Y E F Y r+ Q N d> O Y {L otSQ ~aNia r'°~o~YaLL ~m.a.~a°i.~-oY-4°~o°'°Lmc N L£ L IE Ia6 0 N` 0 y i i C d O. y Y s N (n ~ ~ Q~ ~ O •O Y i d C d ~ i~ R= id ~ Y R~ d N~ d O/}/ O^ Z L C 0. ~ N I°, ° E NV E Y~ N C L~ Y N Y O O ~ Ol .C {E A~ i W R O B= N= v V Y. U a ~ Q' L d L Q. a R R d R Y Y ~ N R R C7 CQ ~ W ~ C> GI R r /C ~j ~ IaC t N C= N° ep0 d E L .C Y L a 7 = Y- v c ~ 0. C~ C 7 Y S O C f0 ~ N Q Y O) F~ y Y N ~ C w~ L N •f0 .L p G~ LL~ N o d °v oar o ay~y ~ m o~ c ~ a~~ m e Q L°~ a C a U a Y~ R w C O R L N iF ~ R L Q R f/) y H W a ll o t G'C R yj' f0 y d O y d N lC p N O L ~fn Nfq Lc•' e.R=m~R~w cm~°y=a' :'..cr€' Q,"o Z O a ° d C R L N i ~ d O~ 2 d 13 C N w- r C d C d ~ p n. °3a R,c o dLL ~ ° ° E'ap'y~ os o O o~c,:a ~ O~ ~ «=QaNi c~dc~c~c o~Q,R~o'zo'-mow-,o~om UQ d HI ccoia~=QN~> >~a~x>3o:°O~moQ-Q-E C a N C d N L t/1 E O L L (p = C' F N O. LL l.L ~ 'L'' p J N a t6 ~ d R lC+ Caw O. d N O, O. O. O N U _Z N N ~ CZ M <O M C O O W G O I- J ~°1 N ~ Za ~LL!~ W ~ c o r~'~ ~ R Y a ~ WtA Ym ~"''o t9Z a° EYU Q O w Z~ ~ s£ m°jO O, C y ~ F.. ° ~ Q Yt ~a'Ra ' = Z p ' " ° ~ ° N E- W Z i /C0 R r ~'i ~ W ~ a ° d c ~ R LL>~ (~V ~ aNi'N° .:sam ~ ~ 3~ d iw ~ N s y L O. N ~ rC U m Y ~ o Q';c N ~ ~u~Oc c ° c~ v ° O O LL O fq ~ y U = U y _ m Y Y Y V •3 Q I. R 0 Y ° Y L V Y Y C. t 0 NI L d l4 C F- R' LL F Y Y O N r t0 t0 M c0 M d = o _ ~ ~d z ~y O cw a U 33 otS Q v to t9 y c W Z ~ U ~ ~ w a aW r~ U` Q tow ° c a O ~ LL ~ 3 ~ R fns Fa-O ~pC ~Z O =c~i~ O_ a Lea O ~ ~ to ~ H a Q. ~i C _ z r; r ~ Z ~ ri W W o`er OJ c= Z~' o°. W ~ c y~ W ~ o c C7 Z " QO m Sa Z~ ZO ~ d _ .i~ Y ~0 ~ N° Z _ ~ ~ W m~ ~ ~ = a=i v Y L ~ O O W R 'a W W ~ £ w N ~ - ~ o ~ cc~iw ~ o 0 y U HH a~ m to t = U ti ` qtr o ~ 3 is M; 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 Commission (Resolution No, PCM 11-19) and City Council (Resolution No. 2011-~ on June 7, 2012 GMOC Members Armida Torres, Chair (Business) Russ Hall, Vice Chair (Center City) Carl Harry (Development) David Danciu (Southwest) David W.. Krogh (Sweetwater/Bonita) Francisco Sevilla (Education) VACANT as of 3.1912 Mark Liuag (Planning Commission Representative) Regina Ong-Garcia (Southeast) VACANT (Environmental) City 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 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 97970 (67 91 697 -51 01 www chulavislaca gov GMOC Chair 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 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 14t" 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 18 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 2 June 2012 City 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 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY 6 3.0 THRESHOLD 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 APPENDICES _ 25 41 AppendixA- Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B - Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2012 Annual Report 3 June 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 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 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 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 2Q121'HRESHQLD "STANDARD -"ANNUAL REVIEW:.St1MMARY RE~IE~I PERIQD 7/1`Ti"O THROUGH"6/30/;11 " l" . . Potentai of Aciopt/Fund :Threshold Not ~ Tactics fo'" " ,Threshold; ~ ~hreshold~ttlet" €~FutureNon- Met gchieue " compliance "GoinPliance 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 Recreation _ 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 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 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, Threshold Finding: Non-Compliant 3.1.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard ~la~~~ti~s 'ratat Grass Square Gross Square Feef of Papuiatton ` Footage of Library; L~braKy Faalrttes Pet 1000 i -Facfitias : - Fo ulafiott i.: n: Ftrireshofd ~ ........X .t~. 500..Sq Ft.......a.. 5-Year Projection 266,126 95,400 358 (2016) 12-Month Projection 252,271 95,400 378 (12/31/12) 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-OS 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 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 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 ThreshotdSfandard...- .:._~ercent.~`=.. ._T~rne Auera° eTitnei::: Emergency Response 81 0% 7 minutes 5:30 min /sec. (Priorit One) Urgent Response 57..0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec Priorit Two) Actaai _ a Emergency Response 857% 7 minutes 4:40 min /sea Priorit One Urgent Response 49,8% 7 minutes 10:06 min./sec. Priorit Two 2012 Annual Report 9 June 2012 3.2.1 Priority One Threshold Findings x~.<; .:PRIQFtITY~ONE.,....~meigenc}i~ResponserGat(s.For_Sen!tce=.` , ~ Cat[ Volume ofCatt"Responses Average- , Aue~rage 5 ` ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° . UUtfhtn 7lNlnutes Response tlispatcfr'' T~reSFTO~(~:. , _~...s._....."',t , .~_~.'.~.Q°C°~ vr....~ ~ v'tQ.`-.~~.~.:. :ht r ~.,..n.. ~d rr.r. FY 2010-11 657 of 64,695 85.7% 4:40 N/A FY 2009-10 673 of 68,145 85.1% 4:28 N/A FY 2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26 N/A FY 2007-08 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19 N/A FY 2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59 N/A FY 2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 N/A FY 2004-05 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 N/A FY 2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 N/A FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 N/A FY 2001-02 1,539 of 71,859 80..0% 5:07 N/A FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79..7% 5:13 N/A FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 N/A CY 19993 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 N/A FY 1997-98 1,512 of 69,196 74,.8% 5:47 N/A FY 1996-97 1,968 of 69,904 83..8% 4:52 N/A FY 1995-96 1,915 of 71,197 83.0% 4:46 N/A 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 feld on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched 2 All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority Two figures on the ne# 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 2012 Annual Report 10 June 2012 3.2.2 Non-Compliant Priority Two Threshold =F H, f ~ S _ Y S k PRIORITY II llrgenf Response Cai(s €or Ser~[tce ~ ~ , _ E Auera e ~ Avera e` ' ' Sri a ~w.~~..-.~ r :(„'all ~olktttle c'~4/9 o~~:al~ ReS[1041$Er.S S x e ~ ` c>s i Y'~~ ~ ,wltflFlf~IVlllLltt2s e~~'Resl}ons~ -~,Dls~afct}' ; .:..T: „a-c"`„ e~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ i .~.,s`'~ i.,cS:,i:' s TJ[T?e ' kTlrne.~~: TI>reSltalcl-.~-.~"~~ '...~SxO°f.-_~..... ~ :7 30~ ~ r~r . ......i FY 2010-11 21,500 of 64,695 49.8% 10:06 N/A FY 2009-10 22,240 of 68,145 49.8% 9:55 N/A FY 2008-09 22,686 of 70,051 53.5% 9:16 N/A FY 2007-08 23,955 of 74,192 53.1% 9:18 N/A FY 2006-07 24,407 of 74,277 43.3% 11:18 N/A FY 2005-06 24,876 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33 N/A FY 2004-05 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 N/A FY 2003-04 24,741 of 71,000 48.4% 9:50 N/A FY 2002-03 22,871 of 71,268 50.2% 9:24 N/A FY 2001-02 22,199 of 71,859 45.6% 10:04 N/A FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 N/A FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 N/A CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 NIA FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 N/A FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50 N/A FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38 N/A 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. I 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 I changes to the Priority Two Threshold Standard when it brings the top-to- I, ~ OTfcers are tlispatched while in the feltl on palm) Therefore (here is no time tlelay when a call Is dispatched 2012 Annual Report 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 in top-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 1-805: 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 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) LOS 2010 LOS 2011 SEGMENT (Limits) DIR (Hours) (Hours) CHANGE 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(g) 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-Compliant 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 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/EMS Emergency C©MPARISQIV _ Res~xQnse 'Mmes °l. of AEF Gat! , AveFa~e Response 7~me Reutew peerod Galt Yotume ' Response w/tn ; ~ /~yerage Trarrel Fime for$0%of Calls _ Z:OQ Minutes.:.;; e ~~r~~sHO~o aa:a°~o.. 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 2000-01 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 significant 2012 Annual Report 14 June 2012 Issue: The Fire Department failed to respond to at least 80% of calls within 7 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 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 16 June 2012 3.6 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- 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 I 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 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 18 June 2012 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 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: 1 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 20 June 2012 3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity t F 'tsv S ~rsr.3v-~ ~ ~ .~'~t~f~~a'E ~(Q4Y arrd Tt'eatmenf.;CagacfEy-' ~-r-- i r` ~ t' ' `i, tl Cn.1:...~~-i ~:Cv ~i'~'S ._E..~ 'n? 'b i i :1C i' W: .m. Y ~ 3 i.~: Millro~Gallo~s~ a~ a~OSFrscaf 09f1FFr€ASr~j IPra7ectronfor ProlecUonFor Prolacttoc~for5 t a k;(,tvT~D~ Year's'. V`ear ~nextl8monfhs-.~nexF~~year~ 8r>Idd-one . y s ~e ~i w, ~ Y r a ~ v ~ -a~ ~~°riv Y-~. -N,~r ~,r?r' v L Average 16.517 16„219 16„916** 18„542 26..2 Flow Capacity 20,864 20.864 20.864 20..864 20,864 *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 Tess 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 21 June 2012 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/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 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 C/imafe 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 "adoption" 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 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: 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 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 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 Authority questionnaires, 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 24 June 2012 4.0 Appendices 4.1 Appendix A -Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B -Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2012 Annual Report 25 June 2012 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-11-19 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF IHE CIIY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPIING IHE 2012 GMOC ANNUAL REPORI, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPIANCE BY IHE CIIY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible fox monitoring threshold standards far eleven quality of life indicators associated with the City's Growth Management Program, and fox submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Directoz 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 Tune 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 II RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept and forward the 2012 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein to the City Council for consideration, BE II 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 Glen R Googins Deputy City Manager/ City Attorney Development Services Director Resolution No. PCM 11-19 PASSED AND APPROVED BY IHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF IHE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 7th day of June, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSIAIN: Michael Spethman, Chair AIIESI: Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission RESOLUIION NO 2012- RESOLUIION OF IHE CIIY COUNCIL OF IHE CIIY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPIING IHE 2012 GMOC ANNUAL REPORI, AND DIRECTING THE CIIY MANAGER IO UNDERIAICE ACIIONS NECESSARY IO IMPLEMENI REPORI RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENIED IN IHE SIAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible fox monitoring threshold standards fox eleven quality of life indicators associated with the City's Growth Management Program, and fox 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 though .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, 2011, 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 II RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista accepts the 2012 GMOC Annual Report.. BE II FURIHER 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: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P E, AICP Glen R. Googins Deputy City Manager/ City Attorney Development Services Director PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPIED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California this 7~' day of June 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENI: ABSIAIN: Cheryl Cox, Mayon ATTEST: Donna Norris, CitS' Clerk SIAIE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) CITY OF CHULA VISIA) I, Donna Norris, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No 2010- was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 7~' of ,June, 2012. Executed this 7`h day of June, 2012 Donna Norris, City Clerk