Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/04/25 Item 01CITY COU NCI L AGENDA STATEMENT ~ ~~~ CITY OF CHUTAVISTA Apri125, 2013 Item ~ SPECLAL 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) 2013 Annual Report. Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2013 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending Acceptance by the City Council. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2013 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 Manager/Director of Development Services ' `C/ REVIEWED BY: City Manag r 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO ^X BACKGROUND Each yeaz, the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with threshold standazds for the Growth Management Program's eleven quality of life indicators. The 2013 Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012; identifies current issues in the second half of 2012 and early 2013; and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five yeazs. The report discusses 1-1 April 25, 2013, Item E Page 2 of 10 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 2013 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 2013 GMOC Annual Report, and recommend acceptance by the City Council; and 2) That the City Council: Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2013 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 2013 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 have slowed considerably since 2005 when neazly 3,300 building permits were issued. The number of issued permits steadily declined until 2009, when 275 building permits were issued. For the past three years, however, the number of building permits has been on an upward trend, with a total of 846 permits issued in 2012. 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 2013 GMOC Annual Review, including the current review period (July 1, 2011 -June 30, 2012) and looking forwazd at the potential for non-compliance between 2013 and 2017. 2 1-2 r Apri125, 2013, Item f Page 3 of 10 CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE Not In Com 6anee In Com fiance Potential Future Non- Com fiance Libraries Air Quali Librazies Police -Priori 1 and 2 Draina e Police -Priori 1 and 2 Traffic Fiscal Traffic Fire/EMS Parks and Recreation Fire/EMS Schools Sewer Water 2. Summary of Key Issues Below are threshold compliance summaries from the GMOC report, along with staff responses (as indicated in Attachment 1). THRESHOLDS NOT IN COMPLIANCE OR WITH POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE NON-COMPLIANCE LIBRARIES Non-Compliant Threshold Standard -The Libraries threshold standard states that library facilities shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) per 1,000 population; however, for the ninth consecutive yeaz the threshold standard has not been met. By the end of 2013, a deficit of 121 square feet per 1,000 population is projected (30,370 square feet total). Construction of additional library square footage is dependent upon funding from Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF), which are expected to be insufficient for several more years. Therefore, the 2013 Annual Report reiterates the 2012 Annual Report recommendation: "That the 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 Council request, a strategic visioning component is being added to the draft Library Facilities Master Plan and negotiations are currently underway to finalize the contract. We expect to bring the documents to City Council this fall. POLICE Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard -For the fast time since Fiscal Year 2004-05, the Police Priority 1 -Emergency Response times did not comply with the threshold standazd of responding to 81 percent of calls within 7 minutes; 78.4 percent of Priority 1 calls were responded to within 7 minutes, 2.6 percent below the standazd. (See table below.) The average response time was 5 minutes 1 second, which was within the 5 minute 30 second standazd. The Police Department reported that low staffmg in the Community Patrol Division was the reason for the longer response times. The department indicated that they are in the process of hiring more officers and that they have implemented a hybrid patrol schedule, which should have a positive effect on response times. 1-3 Apri125, 2013, Item Page 4 of 10 Threshold Standard Percent Time Avera a Time Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. (Priori 1 Urgent Response 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec (Priori 2) Actual Percent Time Avera a Time Emergency Response 78.4% 7 minutes 5:01 min./sec. (Priori 1) Urgent Response 41.9% 7 minutes 11:54 min./sec. Priori 2 The 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council support the Police Chiefs efforts to 1) increase staff to budget levels, and 2) effectively manage the work schedules to improve response times." StajjResponse: 1) The Police Department is actively recruiting both entry level and lateral peace officers in order to be able to come up to full staffing levels in the sworn ranks. The Department has also temporarily reassigned the S[reet Team to patrol to enhance staffing levels while the Department continues to recruit officers. The department will also be seeking Council approval on a new False Alarm ordinance which will seek to reduce the number of false alarms by upwards of 75%. If the new ordinance is successful, this endeavor will help improve response times. 2) The Police Department has successfully implemented the hybrid 3/12 shift deployment plan. Staff is monitoring the plan and will be conducting further studies to see whether this plan has impacted response times and whether any adjustments to the plan need to be made. Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard -The Police Priority 2 -Urgent Response Calls for Service times did not comply with the threshold standard of responding to 57 percent of calls within 7 minutes; 41.9 percent of Priority 2 calls were responded to within 7 minutes, I5.1 percent below the standard. (See table above.) The average response time for Priority 2 was 11 minutes 54 seconds, which was 4 minutes 24 seconds above the 7 minutes 30 seconds threshold standard. As with Priority 1, The Police Department reported that low staffing in the Community Patrol Division was the reason for the longer response times. It should be noted that previous GMOC annual reports explained that the City's growth management staff and Police Department staff studied the Priority 2 threshold standazd and determined that it needs to be modified to more accurately report response times and better reflect typical industry standards for Priority 2 response. This change will be part of an amended growth management ordinance that will be brought to Council later this year as paR of the Top-to-Bottom review. Overall, the GMOC is concerned that response times for both Priority 1 and 2 aze not improving. The 2013 Annual Report makes the following recommendation: "That City Council support the Police Chief s efforts to 1) increase staff to budget levels, and 2) to effectively manage work schedules to improve response times." Staff Response: Same as response to recommendation for Priority 1, above. 4 1-4 Apri125, 2013, Item Page 5 of 10 TRAFFIC Non-Comaliant Threshold Standard - As in the previous reporting period, two signalized arterial segments (northbound Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road and southbound Otay Lakes Road from H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road) were non-compliant with the threshold standazd. The level of service (LOS) remained the same for Heritage Road; however, the LOS for Otay Lakes Road slightly worsened. The City's traffic engineers reported that regular monitoring and signal timing adjustments aze necessary to bring the Heritage segment back into compliance. But, according to the completed traffic questionnaire, they have not been able to monitor corridor timing on a continual basis because of reduced staff. In regards to Otay Lakes Road, significant LOS improvement is expected later this year, after the second phase of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to widen the road is completed. Another upcoming CIP will increase the storage length of the westbound Olympic Pazkway to southbound Brandywine Avenue lefr turn pocket, where vehicles have been blocking a westbound through lane thereby reducing the LOS. The 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council support city engineers in their efforts to implement improvements that will result in threshold compliance, including 1) funding to monitor corridor timing on a continual basis, and 2) timely completion of the Otay Lakes Road widening project and the Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue left turn pocket extension project." Staff Response. The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation; recommendation is accepted. 1) One Technician position is currently budgeted at 0.5 FTE. Increasing to 1.0 FTE In current FY would restore Traffic Engineering to previous TMP staffing levels in time for 2014 GMOC TMP program. 2) Otay Lakes Road widening project has been awarded and contractor will be starting work within 30-days. Olympic Parkway left turn pocket is currently in design with construction scheduled for later this calettdar year. Underutilization of SR-125 -City traffic engineers reported that, since SANDAG took ownership of the SR-125 toll road in December 2011 and lowered toll road fees in June 2012, ridership increased approximately 30%. However, the road is still being underutilized. The GMOC believes that the cause of underutilization needs to be examined and ridership needs to increase on SR-125 because it would divert the ever-increasing traffic volume from East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. Therefore, the 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council and staff work with SANDAG on incentives for Chula Vista residents to use SR-125 more frequently." Staff Response: The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation; recommendation is accepted. Construction of F[eritaee Road - A recurring subject reported to the GMOC from the City's traffic engineers is that the absence of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street is one of the major reasons for traffic congestion on Olympic Parkway. Fortunately, construction of Phase 1 (Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road) is expected to begin later this year. Developers have provided a bond and improvement plans have been submitted to the City for review. Construction of Phase 2 (Santa Victoria to Main Street) will begin after 1,276 Equivalent 5 1-5 Apri125, 2013, Item~_ Page 6 of 10 Dwelling Units (EDUs) in Otay Ranch Village 2 have received Final Map approval. The current permitted construction is approximately 400 units below the 1,276 EDU threshold. The 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council support city engineers in their efforts to construct Heritage Road, and that the City work with SANDAG and/or the City of San Diego to ensure construction of the connector from Main Street to SR-905. Staff Response: The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation; recommendation is accepted. City staff has reached an agreement with developer to secure and commence construction of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway south as ftrst phase. Future phase to extend to Main Street will be expedited. City staff will continue to work with SANDAG and City of San Diego for needed improvements in the east Otay Mesa area, including but not limited to SR-905. Grade Seaaration of Palomar St. LRT Crossin¢ -Grade separation of this crossing has been identified as a top priority, according to an August 2012 Chula Vista/SANDAG combined technical study report; however, funding has not been identified. Therefore, the 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council and staff work with SANDAG on .securing complete funding for the Palomar Street/Light Rail Trolley grade separation." Staff Response: The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation; recommendation is accepted. Funded environmental document work will begin later this fiscal year. Staff will pursue funding for design & construction. FII2E AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Non-Compliant Threshold Standard -For the second year, the Fire response time threshold standard of responding to 80 percent of calls within 7 minutes has not been met; 76.4 percent of calls were responded to within 7 minutes, 3.6 percent below the standard. The Fire Department explained that, during the reporting period, the call volume increased by 1,493 calls (10 percent medical and 24 percent fire). FIREIEMS -Emergency Response Times Review Period Call Volume % of All Calls Responsed to wfin 7:00 Minutes THRESHOLD 80.0% FY 2012 17,732 76.4 FY 2011 9,916 78.1 FY 2010 10,296 85 FY 2009 9,363 84 FY 2008 9,883 86.9 FY 2007 10,020 88.1 CY 2006 10,390 85.2 CY 2005 9,907 81.6 Comparison Average Response Time for 80°k of Calls 9 Travel Time 5:59 3:41 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 6 1-6 Apri125, 2013, Item ~ Page 7 of 10 Despite the lower response times, the Fire Depaztment reported that the average response time for 80 percent of the calls actually improved by 47 seconds, due to the fact that the majority of the calls were on the west side of the city. Response times in the west averaged 5 minutes 39 seconds; response times in the east averaged 6 minutes 48 seconds. The 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council direct the Fire Department to implement effective measures that will ensure that the threshold standard will be met." Staff Response: The Fire Department recently purchased a 911 dashboard program called "FlrstWatch" that will alert Senior Staff and Battalion Chiefs anytime one of the citywide or GMOC threshold standards are not being met. This will allow staff to take immediate acfion to address and resolve any issues related to these parameters. Fire Facilities Master Plan - In the GMOC's 2012 Annual Report, the Commission recommended expeditious completion of the Fire Facilities Master Plan approval process so the Master Plan could be included in the next Public Facilities Development dmpact Fee (PFDIF) update. The Master Plan has not yet been approved. For the 2013 Annual Report, the Fire Department reported that "The Fire Facility Master Plan is complete as is the fiscal analysis. The Fire Department is scheduling a series of public information meetings where we will share the plan with civic groups and solicit feedback prior to asking the city council to adopt the document." The GMOC reiterated their 2012 recommendation in the 2013 Annual Report: "That City Council ensure expeditious completion of the public information meetings and scheduling for Council consideration by the end of 2013 so the updated Fire Facilities Master Plan can be included in the next PFDIF update." Staff Response: The meetings for public outreach are being scheduled and will take place by the end of July. The Fire Facility Master Plan will then be. presented to Council with a recommendation for adoption. Thresholds Currently in Compliance Threshold Standards were found to be compliant for Parks and Recreation, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, Drainage, Air Quality, and Water. However, the GMOC made recommendations for Pazks and Recreation, Fiscal, and Drainage, as outlined below: PARKS AND RECREATION Threshold Standard Findin¢s -The Pazks and Recreation Department reported that non- compliance with the threshold standazd is projected by the end of 2013, which is three years eazlier than they reported in the 2012 Annual Report. A shortage of 5.2 acres would bring the pazk/population ratio to 2.96 acres per thousand, marginally below the threshold standazd of 3 acres per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. The GMOC understands that these figures are based on population and development projections, which are subject to change. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that there could be a park shortage if master planning and constructing individual parks are not actively pursued. Parks staff reported that proactive measures are being taken to prevent shortages and stated that significant progress has been made in resolving physical issues on individual sites in Village 2, 7 1-7 April 25, 2013, Item Page 8 of 10 which would allow Park P-3 (6.93 acres) and the 70-acre community park to move forward, beginning with prepaation of park master plans. The GMOC recognizes the importance of proactive parks planning so that pazk acreage will keep up with the pace of development and meet the threshold standard. Therefore, the 2013 Annual Report repeats the recommendation from the 2012 Annual Report: "That City Council direct Parks staff to closely monitor timely preparation of individual park master plan designs and land development phasing to keep it in compliance with the threshold 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, fluctuatBng timelines and physlcal constraints inherent in development. Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - As with the Libraries and Fire Master Plans, the GMOC believes that adoption of an updated Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan is a top priority. A comprehensive Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) cannot be done without the updated master plans. A draft Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan was presented to Council in December 2011; however, Council requested additional staff analysis on the landmark park in Otay Ranch Village 2 before they considered the document. The City's current processing of land entitlements related to the University Villages portion of the Otay Ranch have resulted in the need for staff to reanalyze future park development locations and facilities, including evaluation of a landmark park. Staff anticipates returning to City Council in 2013 with an updated document. The 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council support staff in their efforts to resolve issues that may affect expeditious scheduling of the citywide Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan for Council consideration by the end of 2013." Staff Response: The citywide Parks and Recreations Master Plan will be submitted for Council action upon resolution of the incorporation of "Landmark Park" implementationpolicies into the document, by the end of 2013. Revenue Generating Capital Improvements -Currently, the City leases gazebos in its parks to generate revenue. Beyond gazebos, the GMOC is proposing that the Recreation Department evaluate other programs and/or capital improvements that would help generate recurring revenue, similar to the Chula Vista Golf Course, which generates revenue by lease of the operation to a private party with the appropriate pricing controls and oversight. The 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That the City review opportunities for potential capital improvements that will provide new services and recreation to the community while generating revenue to offset recurring costs for new and existing parks." Staff Response: Staff will consider the revenue generating aspects of facilities during the master planning stages of individual park master plans in conjunction with the program elements listed in the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 8 1-8 Apri125, 2013, Item ~ Page 9 of 10 FISCAL PFDIF Debt Service - A comprehensive update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) has not been done since 2006, and the GMOC asserts that it is important for an update to occur again as soon as possible because 1) the current amount of PFDIF fees being used to pay debt service may not correspond to 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 lazge 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 2013 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council direct the Finance Department to continue the process of comprehensively updating the Public Facilities Development Improvement Fees so that it will be completed within 120 days of Council's action on proposed unit increases, and that Council adopt a debt service payment policy as soon as possible." Staff Response: Finance Department staff supports the GMOC's recommendation to continue the process of comprehensively updating the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF). In addition to Council action on proposed unit increases, Council action to adopt the pending Library, Fare, 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. Staff is in the process of drafting a debt service policy. The draft policy will be presented to Council for consideration in calendar year 2013. DRAINAGE Maintenance of Existine Drainaee Channels -The GMOC recognizes that maintaining existing channels in western Chula Vista is challenging because of shortages in resources, staffing levels and funding. However, the City is mandated to fulfill state requirements from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), which are about to become more stringent with the reissuance of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit. Therefore, the 2013 Annual Report makes the following two "recommendations: "That City Council direct engineering staff to closely monitor the status of channel maintenance to ensure sufficient operation and continue threshold standard compliance." "That City Council identify funding to implement state mandated storm water flow regulations designed to avoid potential flooding and/or health issues." Staff Response ((or both recommendations): The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation; recommendation is accepted. 3. Conclusions To assist Council in evaluating and acting upon the GMOC's recommendations, staff from departments associated with specific threshold standazds reviewed the annual report's 9 1-9 Apri125, 2013, Item Page 10 of 10 recommendations and provided responses and/or recommended implementing actions, as presented in Attachment 1. 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 decision. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no flscal impact. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT As follow-up implementing actions are brought forward to the City Council beyond June 30, 2014, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided, as applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1 - 2013 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2013 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo 3 - 2013 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B Prepared by Kimberly Vander Bie, Associate Planner, Development Services Department 10 -~~ 2013 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OV~~2SIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY J i J D D GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 1. Libraries 1. Libraries 3.1.1 That City Council, without further delay, adopt a Library 3.1.1 Per Council request, a strategic visioning component is being added to the draft Library Facilities Master Plan Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bring the library system into conformance. and negotiations are currently underway to finalize the contract. We expect to bring the documents to City Council this fall. 2. Police 2. Police 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 That City Council support the Police Chief s efforts to: 1) The Police Department is actively recruiting both entry 1) increase staff to budget levels, and level and lateral peace officers in order to be able to 2) effectively manage the work schedules to improve come up to full staffing levels in the sworn ranks. The response times. Department has also temporarily reassigned the Street Team to patrol to enhance staffing levels while the Department continues to recruit officers. The department will also be seeking Council approval on a new False Alarm ordinance which will seek to reduce the number of false alarms by upwards of 75%. If the new ordinance is successful, this endeavor will help improve response times. 2) The Police Department has successfully implemented the hybrid 3/12 shift deployment plan. Staff is monitoring the plan and will be conducting further studies to see whether this plan has impacted response times and whether any adjustments to the plan need to be made. Page 1 of 4 2013 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY j N GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 3. Traffic 3. Traffic 3.3.7 That City Council continue to support City engineers in 3.3.1 The Public Works Department concurs with the their efforts to implement improvements that will result in recommendation; recommendation is accepted. 7) One threshold compliance, including: 1) funding to monitor Technician position is currently budgeted at 0.5 FTE. corridor timing on a continual basis, and 2) timely Increasing to 1.0 FTE in current FY would restore completion of the Otay Lakes Road widening project and Traffic Engineering to previous TMP staffing levels in the Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue left turn pocket time for 2014 GMOC TMP program. 2) Otay Lakes Road extension project. widening project has been awarded and contractor will be starting work within 30-days. Olympic Parkway left turn pocket is currently in design with construction scheduled for later this calendar year. 3.3.2 That City Council and staff work with SANDAG on 3.3.2 The Public Works Department concurs with the incentives for Chula Vista residents to use SR-125 more recommendation; recommendation is accepted. frequently. 3.3.3 The Public Works Department concurs with the 3.3.3 That City Council support city engineers in their efforts to recommendation; recommendation is accepted. City construct Heritage Road, and that the City work with staff has reached an agreement with developer to SANDAG and/or the City of San Diego to ensure secure and commence construction of Heritage Road construction of the connector from Main Street to SR-905 from Olympic Parkway south as first phase. Future and the Heritage Road southerly extension from Olympic phase to extend to Main Street will be expedited. City Parkway to Main Street. staff will continue to work with SANDAG and City of San Diego for needed improvements in the east Otay Mesa area, including but not limited to SR-905. 3.3.4 That City Council and staff work with SANDAG on securing 3.3.4 The Public Works Department concurs with the complete funding for the Palomar Street/Light Rail Trolley recommendation; recommendation is accepted. grade separation. Funded environmental document work will begin later this fiscal year. Staff will pursue funding for design & construction. Page 2 of 4 2013 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OV~r2SIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY J w GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS a. Fire and Emerqencv Medical Services a. Fire and Emerqencv Medical Services 3.4.1 That City Council direct the Fire Department to implement 3.4.1 The Fire Department recently purchased a 911 effective measures that will ensure that the threshold dashboard program called "FirstWatch" that will alert standard will be met. our Senior Staff and Battalion Chiefs anytime one of our citywide or GMOC threshold standards are not being met. This will allow staff to take immediate action to address and resolve any issues related to these parameters. 3.4.2 That City Council ensure expeditious completion of the 3.4.2 The meetings for public outreach are being scheduled public information meetings and scheduling for Council and will take place by the end of July. The Fire Facility consideration by the end of 2013 so the updated Fire Master Ptan will then be presented to council with a Facilities Master Plan can be included in the next PFDIF recommendation for adoption. update. 5. Parks and .Recreation 5. Parks and Recreation 3.5.1 That City Council direct Parks staff to closely monitor timely 3.5.1 Staff will schedule the preparation of individual park preparation of individual park master plan designs and land master plans with the objective of keeping in development phasing to keep it in compliance with the compliance with GMOC park thresholds to the extent threshold standard. that is possible within the fluctuating timelines and physical constraints inherent in development. 3.5.2 That City Council support staff in their efforts to resolve 3.5.2 The citywide Parks and Recreations Master Plan will issues that may affect expeditious scheduling of the be submitted for Council action upon resolution of the citywide Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan for incorporation of "Landmark Park" implementation Council consideration by the end of 2013. policies into the document, by the end of 2013. 3.5.3 That the City review opportunities for potential capital 3.5.3 Staff will consider the revenue generating aspects of im rovements that will rovide new services and recreation facilities during the master planning stages of Page 3 of 4 2013 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY I a GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS to the community while generating revenue to offset individual park master plans in conjunction with the recurring costs for new and existing parks. program elements listed in the citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan. s. Fiscal s. Fiscal 3.s.1 That City Council direct the Finance Department to continue 3.s.1 Finance Department staff supports the GMOC's the process of comprehensively updating the Public recommendation to continue the process of Facilities Development Improvement Fees so that it will be comprehensively updating the Public Facilities completed within 120 days of Council's action on proposed Development Impact Fee (PFDIF). In addition to unit increases, and that Council adopt a debt service Council action on proposed unit increases, Council payment policy as soon as possible. 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. Staff is in the process of drafting a debt service policy. The draft policy will be presented to Council for consideration in calendar year 2013. 7. Drainage 7. Drainage 3.7.1 That City Council direct engineering staff to closely monitor 3.7.1 The Public Works Department concurs with the the status of channel maintenance to ensure sufficient recommendation; recommendation is accepted. operation and continued threshold standard compliance. 3.7.2 That City Council identify funding to implement state 3.7.2 The Public Works Department concurs with the mandated storm water flow regulations designed to avoid recommendation; recommendation is accepted. otential fioodin and/or health issues. Page 4 of 4 U ll LS ~J ~1'~ ~i ~ L.li lJ~! RAJ! ~ ~ ~~ ~ t~f ~f LY~ V ~0!~~~~~~a~~c~ ~~~ ~~ao'~~ C~a~~~ ~r~o~ G~~~~~C~~l~ ~ 1-15 ~~sr, 41r1-4 -h.~•~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Threshold Review Period 7/1/11 to 6/30/12 April 25, 2013 Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. PCM 12-41) and City Council (Resolution No. 2012-~ on April 25, 2013 1-16 GMOC Members Armida Torres, Chair (Business) Carl Harry, Vice Chair (Development) David Danciu (Southwest) Eric Mosolgo (Environmental) Javier Rosales (Northeast) Leslie Bunker (Education) Mark Liuag (Planning Commission Representative) Russ Hall, Vice Chair (Center City) Zaneta Encarnacion (Southeast) Ci Staff Kimberly Vander Bie -Growth Management Coordinator Patricia Salvacion and Pat Laughlin -Management Assistants Ed Batchelder -Advance Planning Manager City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 www. chulavisfaca. gov 1-17 GMOC Chair Cover Memo DATE: April 25, 2013 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 - 2013 GMOC Annual Report The GMOC appreciates the time and expertise given by the staff of various City departments, as well as the school districts, water districts, and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in helping us complete this year's annual report. The written and verbal reports presented to the GMOC demonstrate the commitment of these dedicated professionals to serving the citizens of Chula Vista. Special thanks to Kim Vander Bie, Pat Laughlin and Patricia Salvacion who provided direct staff support to the Commission. There were seven quality of life threshold standards that the GMOC found to be in compliance: • Air Quality • Drainage • Fiscal • Parks and Recreation • Schools • Sewer • Water The following four quality of life threshold standards were found to be out of compliance: • Fire • Libraries • Police (Priority 1 and 2) • Traffic The details of each of the above are outlined in the attached report. The GMOC would like to highlight a few items of special interest. Fire -For the second consecutive year, response times have fallen below the threshold standard. In last year's report, the Fire Department identified the problem as increased turnout times. In this report, an increased call volume of 1,493 calls (10% medical and 24% fire), with no increase in staffing and resources, was reported as a hindrance. Regarding the Fire Facilities Master Plan, there does not appear to be much progress made since last year when the GMOC recommended expeditious completion of public information meetings and scheduling for Council consideration. 2013 Annual Report 1-181 April 2013 Libraries -For the ninth consecutive year, Libraries is non-compliant with the threshold standard, due to inadequate PFDIF funds to construct additional square footage. Therefore, once again, the GMOC stresses the importance of Council adopting an updated Libraries Facilities Master Plan that identifies interim and long-term solutions to the current square footage deficit. Police -For the first time since 2004, the Priority 1 threshold standard was non-compliant; calls responded to within 7 minutes dropped by more than 6%. The Police Department attributed this shortfall to low staffing in the Community Patrol Division and noted that additional officers are being hired. The Police Priority 2 threshold standard was also, for the 15t" year in a row, non- compliant. The Police Department cited low staffing for this deficiency, as well. However, part of the problem, as noted in previous GMOC annual reports, is that the current Priority 2 threshold standard has some flaws that will be modified through the Top-to-Bottom process. Overall, the GMOC is concerned that the trend for both Priority 1 and 2 is headed in the wrong direction and will continue to monitor these closely in future reports. Traffic -This year, two signalized arterial segments were found to be non-compliant (northbound Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road, and southbound Otay Lakes Road between H St. and Telegraph Canyon Rd. The GMOC has serious concerns surrounding the chronic non-compliance of the Traffc threshold standard and the delay in constructing Heritage Road to Main Street. While it is within the GMOC's purview to request that City Council hold a public hearing to consider a moratorium on tentative maps or building permits, due to non-compliant traffic conditions, we are choosing a different course of action. We are asking that the City conduct a public workshop to discuss the Traffic issues as they stand today, as well as forecasted conditions and roadway improvement plans. This workshop would highly informative and beneficial to the public in understanding the planning and expansion of the circulation system, and ongoing threshold compliance conditions. Economic challenges have affected the City across the board, and it is very apparent to the GMOC that fiscal trials have impacted the non-compliant threshold standards mentioned above. As the economy recovers, however, the GMOC anticipates that Police and Fire response times and Traffic's level of service will improve. We will be watching closely. 2013 Annual Report 2 April 2013 1-19 C11y of Chula Vista GMOC 2013 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 2013 Annual Review Process 5 1.4 Growth Forecast 5 1.5 Report Organization 5 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ............................................. .... 8 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ....................................... .... 7-25 3.1 Libraries ................................................................................ ... 7-8 3.1.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 7-8 3.2 Police ............................................................................... 8-11 3.2.1 Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard 9-10 3.2.2 Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard 10-11 3.3 Traffic .................................................................................. ... 11-14 3.3.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 11-13 3.3.2 Underutilization of SR-125 13 3.3.3 Construction of Heritage Road 13-14 3.4 Fire and Emergency Services ................................................... ... 14-18 3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 15-16 3.4.2 Fire Facilities Master Plan 16 3.5 Parks and Recreation .............................................................: ... 16-18 3.5.1 Potential Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 16-17 3.5.2 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 17 3.5.3 Revenue Generating Capital Improvements 17-18 3.6 Fiscal .................................................................................. ... 18-19 3.6.1 PFDIF Debt Service 18-19 3.7 Drainage ............................................................................... .... 18-19 3.7.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels 19-20 3.8 Schools ............................................................................ 20-21 3.8.1 School Districts Updates 20-21 3.9 Sewer .................................................................................. 20-21 3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity 22 3.10 Air Quality ................................................... 22-23 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 23 3.11 Water .................................................................................. ... 23-25 3.11.1 Meeting Water Demands 24-25 4.0 APPE NDICES ................................................................................. .... 25 4.1 AppendixA- Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B - Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2013 Annual Report ~ _203 Apri12013 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Threshold Standards In November 1987, the Chula Vista City Council adopted the Threshold Standards Policy, 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 and 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 who represent 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. All of these citizens are volunteers and this report could not have been written without the time and effort that they have put into it. The GMOC welcomed two new commissioners last fall, Javier Rosales (Northeast) and Leslie Bunker (Education), who joined Armida Torres (Business); Carl Harry (Development); David Danciu (Southwest); Mark Liuag (Planning Commission); and Russ Hall (Northwest). Two remaining vacancies were filled last month with Eric Mosolgo (Environmental) and Zaneta Encarnacion (Southeast). 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. The 2013 Annual Report focuses on Fiscal Year July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012; 2. The second half of 2012 and beginning of 2013 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 2013 through December 2017 is assessed for potential threshold compliance concerns. The GMOC annually distributes questionnaires to relevant city departments and public facility and service agencies to monitor the status of threshold standards 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. 2013 Annual Report 4 April 2013 1-21 1.3 GMOC 2013 Annual Review Process The GMOC held ten meetings between October 2012 and April 2013, 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 recommendation, which 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 April 25, 2013. 1.4 Growth Forecast The Development Services Department annually prepares aFive-Year Growth Forecast, the latest of which was issued in November 2012. 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 2012 through December 2017 indicated an additional 9,103 residential units could be permitted for construction in the city over the next five years, (8,196 in the east and 907 units in the west), for an annual average of 1,639 in the east and 181 units in the west, or just over 1,820 housing units permitted per year on average, citywide. The citywide average of projected units permitted per year is up 640 units from last year's forecast of 1,180 units. 1.5 Report Organization The 2013 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 2013 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 2013 Annual Report 5 April 2013 1-22 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC's conclusions regarding threshold standards for the 2012 annual review cycle. Seven thresholds were met and four were not. 2012 THRESHOLD STANDARD-ANNUAL REVIEW SUMMARY REVIEW PERIOD 7/1/11 THROUGH 6/30/12 Threshold Threshold Met Threshold Not Met Potential of Future Non- compliance Adopt/Fund Tactics to Achieve Com liance 1. Libraries X X X 2. Police Priority I X X X Priority II X X X 3. Traffic X X X 4. Fire/EMS X X X 5. Parks and Recreation Land X X Facilities X X 6. Fiscal X 7. Drainage X 8. Schools CV Elementary School District X Sweetwater Union High School District X 9. Sewer X 10. Air Quality X 11. Water X 2013 Annual Report 6 April 2013 1-23 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 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 (2017) 279,608 95, 412 341 12-Month Projection (12/31/13) 251,563 95,412 379 FY 2011-12 249,382 92,000/95,412 369/383** 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 *After closure of Eastlake Library at Eastlake High School in June 2011 **After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012 2013 Annual Report 7 April 2013 1-24 Issue: The threshold standard has not been met for the ninth consecutive year. Discussion: The gap between the threshold standard square footage and the City's actual square footage of library space continues to broaden. By the end of 2013, a deficit of 121 square feet per 1,000 population is projected. Libraries reported that there will be insufficient staff and facilities to serve forecasted growth in the next 18 months and in five years. Construction of the Rancho del Rey branch has been indefinitely postponed due to insufficient Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) funding. And the Millenia (EUC) library, planned for the later phase of the project, is also several years away. Per the Millenia Development Agreement, a phasing plan for library delivery is due within one year of adoption of an updated Libraries Master Plan. As the GMOC recommended in its 2012 Annual Report, the City Council needs to adopt an updated Library Facilities Master Plan that will identify interim and long-term solutions to the current square footage deficit. Creative resolutions and partnerships, such as the Otay Ranch Town Center Library, need to continuously be explored. In addition, partnering opportunities that will both add services to library patrons and generate revenue to offset recurring costs for new and existing libraries should be pursued. Although an updated Master Plan was completed in 2011, the City Council postponed consideration of the document until a Library Strategic Plan could concurrently be brought to them. Funds to complete the Strategic Plan have been identified and work is scheduled to begin this spring. Upon completion, the Strategic Plan and Library Facilities Master Plan will simultaneously be brought to City Council for their consideration this summer. 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. 3.2 POLICE Threshold Standard: Priority 1 Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81% of the Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the city within seven minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less. 2013 Annual Report 8 April 2013 1-25 Priority 2 Urgent Response: Respond to 57% of the Priority 2 urgent calls throughout the city within seven minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less. Threshold Finding: Priority 1: Non-Compliant Priority 2: Non-Compliant Threshold Standard Percent Time Avera a Time Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. Priorit 1 Urgent Response 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec Priorit 2 Actual Percent Time Avera a Time Emergency Response 78.4% 7 minutes 5:01 min./sec. Priorit 1 Urgent Response 41.9% 7 minutes 11:54 min./sec. Priorit 2 3.2.1 Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard Priority 1-Emergency Response Calls for Service Call Volume % of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes Average Response Time Threshold 81.0% 5:30 FY 2011-12 726 of 64,386 78.4% 5:01 FY 2010-11 657 of 64,695 85.7% 4:40 FY 2009-10 673 of 68,145 85.1% 4:28 FY 2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26 FY 2007-08 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19 FY 2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59 FY 2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 FY 2004-OS 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 FY 2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 Issue: The threshold standard was not met for the first time since FY 2004-05. Discussion: During the period under review, the Police Department responded to 78.4 percent of Priority 1 -Emergency Response calls within 7 minutes, which was 2.6 percent below the threshold standard of 81 percent, and 7.3 2013 Annual Report 9 April 2013 1-26 percent below the percentage reported for the previous year. The average response time, however, was within the threshold standard. With an average response time of 5 minutes and 1 second, the response time was 29 seconds better than the threshold standard requires, but 21 seconds longer than the previous year. The Police Department attributes the increased response times to chronically low staffing in the Community Patrol Division. However, grant funding received in 2012 may relieve the situation somewhat because it allows the department to recruit six new officers to the Patrol Division in 2013. Another 2.5 Community Service Officers will also be added. Implementation of a hybrid patrol schedule in 2013 is also expected to have a positive effect on response times. The 4/10-3/12 schedule adds more staffing on Friday -Sunday, when call-for-service volumes are highest. Officers work a 10-hour schedule from Monday through Thursday and a 12-hour schedule Friday through Sunday. Recommendation: That City Council support the Police Chief's efforts to 1) increase staff to budget levels, and 2) effectively manage the work schedules to improve response times. 3.2.2. Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard PRIORITY 2 -Urgent Response Calls for Service Call Volume % of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes Average Response Time Threshold 57.0% 7:30 FY 2011-2012 22,121 of 64,386 41.9% 11:54 FY 2010-11 21,500 of 64,695 49.8% T0:06 FY 2009-10 22,240 of 68,145 49.8% 9:55 FY 2008-09 22,686 of 70,051 53.5% 9:16 FY 2007-08 23,955 of 74,192 53.1% 9:18 FY 2006-07 24,407 of 74,277 43.3% 11:18 FY 2005-06 24,876 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33 FY 2004-OS 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 FY 2003-04 24,741 of 71,000 48.4% 9:50 FY 2002-03 22,871 of 71,268 50.2% 9:24 These figures do not include responses to false alarms, beginning in FY 2002-03. Issue: The threshold standard was not met for the 15t" consecutive year. Discussion: The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes dropped to 41.9 percent, 7.9 points lower than last year, putting it 15.1 points below the threshold standard of 57 percent. This is the largest noncompliant gap 2013 Annual Report 10 April 2013 1-27 since FY 2005-06, when 40 percent of the calls were responded to within 7 minutes. At 11 minutes and 54 seconds, the average response time was 4 minutes and 24 seconds above the threshold standard -which was 1 minute and 48 seconds worse than last year and the worst time ever reported to the GMOC. The Police Department reported that staffing must significantly increase in the Community Patrol Division in order to meet the Priority 2 threshold standard. "This is most likely the best that can be achieved without additional patrol personnel," they stated. As mentioned above, the Police Department is in the process of hiring additional officers. It should also be noted, however, that part of the non-compliance problem is the threshold standard itself. Previous GMOC annual reports explained that the City's growth management staff and Police Department staff studied the Priority 2 threshold standard and determined that it needs to be modified to more accurately report response times. This change will be part of an amended growth management ordinance that will be brought to Council later this year as part of the Top-to-Bottom review. Overall, the GMOC is concerned that the trend for both Priority 1 and 2 is headed in the wrong direction, and will continue to monitor these closely in future reports. Recommendation: That City Council support the Police Chief's efforts to 1) increase staff to budget levels, and 2) effectively manage work schedules to improve response times. 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 3.3.1 Issue: Non-Compliant Threshold Standard Two arterial segments were non-compliant with the threshold standard. 2013 Annual Report 11 1-28 Apri12013 Discussion: During the period under review, two arterial segments were non- compliant (see table below). The first, Heritage Road northbound from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road, was unchanged from last year, exceeding the Level of Service (LOS) threshold standard by four hours (three hours at LOS D and one hour at LOS E). SEGMENT (Limits) DIR LOS 2011 Hours LOS 2012 Hours CHANGE Heritage Road NB D(5) E(1) D(5) E(1) None (Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Canyon Road ) Otay Lakes Road SB (East H Street to Telegraph Canyon C (2) D(4) D(6) C(-2) D(+2) Road) Non-Compliant Non-Compliant According to the City's traffic engineers, regular monitoring is necessary to bring the segment back into compliance, but "With the reduced staff, we have not been able to monitor corridor timing on a continual basis," they stated. The second non-compliant segment was Otay Lakes Road, southbound between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, which operated at LOS D for six hours, exceeding the threshold standard by four hours. To address the problem, the second phase of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that will widen Otay Lakes Road will commence in 2013. It encompasses the segment between Elmhurst Avenue and the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road/La Media Road. The improvements will increase the capacity on Otay Lakes Road and improve the traffic within the area of Southwestern College. The engineers also reported that, during the period under review, westbound Olympic Parkway from east of Brandywine Avenue to Oleander Avenue near the I-805 was operating at LOS F during the two- hourpeak morning period. Because, it did not operate at LOS D or worse for more than two hours, this segment was compliant with the threshold standard. However, to improve the situation, the storage length of the westbound Olympic Parkway to southbound Brandywine Avenue left turn pocket needs to be increased so that the left turning traffic does not block one of the three westbound through lanes. The City Council approved a CIP Project (TF-377), currently in the design phase, in Fiscal Year 2011/2012 to implement the improvements. The project will provide additional left-turn vehicle storage from 220 feet to 450 feet in the single westbound left-turn lane on Olympic Parkway to southbound Brandywine Avenue. The GMOC has serious concerns regarding the chronic non-compliance of the Traffic threshold standard and the delay in constructing Heritage Road to Main Street. While it is within the GMOC's purview to request that City Council hold a public hearing to consider a moratorium on 2013 Annual Report 12 April -2013 1-29 tentative maps or building permits, due to threshold non-compliance, we understand that a moratorium would not be the solution at this time. We do believe, however, that a public workshop to discuss expansion of the City's circulation system and ongoing threshold compliance conditions is necessary so that citizens can better understand current traffic issues, forecasted conditions and roadway improvement plans. Recommendation: That City Council continue to support City engineers in their efforts to implement improvements that will result in threshold compliance, including: 1) funding to monitor corridor timing on a continual basis, and 2) timely completion of the Otay Lakes Road widening project and the Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue left turn pocket extension project. 3.3.2 Underutilization of SR-125 Issue: SR-125 continues to be underutilized. Discussion: City engineers reported that, since SANDAG took ownership of the SR- 125 toll road in December 2011 and lowered toll road fees in June 2012, ridership increased approximately 30%. However, the road is still being underutilized. The cause of underutilization needs to be examined because increasing use of SR-125 diverts the ever increasing traffic volume from East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. Recommendation: That City Council and staff work with SANDAG on incentives for Chula Vista residents to use SR-125 more frequently. 3.3.3 Construction of Heritage Road Issue: Heritage Road needs to be extended as soon a possible. Discussion: A recurring subject reported to the GMOC from the City's traffic engineers is that the absence of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street is one of the major reasons for traffic congestion on Olympic Parkway and some arterial segments. Fortunately, construction of Phase 1 (Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road) is expected to begin later this year. Developers have provided a bond and improvement plans have been submitted to the City for review. While this extends Heritage part way, completion of Phase 2 is necessary to provide threshold performance relief to Olympic Parkway. Construction of Phase 2 (from Santa Victoria to Main Street) will begin after 1,276 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) in Otay Ranch Village 2 have received Final Map approval. Approximately 400 units are outstanding, to date, The GMOC would also like the city to work with SANDAG and/or the City of San Diego to ensure construction of the connector from Main Street to SR-905. 2013 Annual Report 13 April 2013 1-30 Recommendation: That City Council support city engineers in their efforts to construct Heritage Road and that the City work with SANDAG and/or the City of San Diego to ensure construction of the connector from Main Street to SR-905. 3.3.4 Grade Separation of Palomar Street/LRT Crossing Issue: Funding is needed to complete the Palomar StreeVLight Rail Trolley grade separation improvements that will improve traffic flow. Discussion: In December 2012, the SANDAG Transportation Committee and the Board of Directors approved a Memorandum of Understanding between SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista to commence work on the environmental document for grade separating the Palomar .Street Light Rail Trolley (LRT) crossing between Broadway and Interstate 5. Vehicular traffic along Palomar Street, a major east-west arterial, is increasing due to area build-out in the City's western urban areas, and the current at-grade crossing requires traffic to stop each time a train passes the crossing. As ridership and the number of trolley trips per day of the Blue Line LRT increases, the wait time will get worse. The combination of increased vehicular traffic and increased wait time behind the rail crossing arms will result in major traffic delays for vehicles at the at-grade crossing and potential non-compliance of the threshold standard. An August 2012 combined technical study report between the City and SANDAG identified the crossing as Priority 1 for improvements; however, complete funding has not been identified. Recommendation: That City Council and staff work with SANDAG on securing complete funding for the Palomar Street/Light Rail Trolley grade separation. 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 2013 Annual Report 14 1-31 April 2013 3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard FIRE/EMS -Emergency Res onse Times Review Period Call Volume of All Call Response w/in 7:00 Minutes THRESHOL D 80.0% FY 2012 11,132 76.4 FY 2011 9,916 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 CY 2006 10,390 85.2% CY 2005 9,907 81.6% FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9% FY 2002-03 8,088 75.5% FY 2001-02 7,626 69.7% FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8% FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% COMPARISON Average Response Time for 80 /° of Calls Average Travel Time 5:59 3:41 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 pertormance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant. Issue: Discussion The threshold standard has not been met for the second consecutive year. The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes dropped nearly 2% ear 2012 (76.4). That is eduction in public works .6% below the threshold lained that, during the 493 calls (10% medical and facilities remained available resources and They indicated that the s) also hampered their Despite the downturn in response times, the Fire Department reported that the average response time for 80% of the calls actually improved by 47 seconds, due to the fact that the majority of the calls were on the west side of the City, where navigation through the roadways is easier. Response times in the west averaged 5.39 minutes; response times in the east averaged 6.48 minutes. As noted above, there were 1,493 more calls for service in 2012 than in 2011 and the majority of increased calls were for fires. The percentage of 2013 Annual Report 15 April 2013 1-32 between Fiscal Year 2011 (78.1%) and Fiscal Y down a total of 8.6% in the past two years, and 3 standard of 80%. The Fire Department exp reporting period, the call volume increased by 1, and 24% fire) while available resources, staffing the same. This resulted in a higher demand on made the standard increasingly difficult to meet. aging fleet of fire apparatus, combined with a r support staff (radio technicians and mechanic ability to meet the standards. fire calls went from 5.1% in 2011 to 7.19% in 2012. The other calls in 2012 were medical (84.59%) and other emergencies (8.22%). Recommendation: That City Council direct the Fire Department to implement effective measures 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: In last year's Annual Report, the GMOC recommended expeditious completion of the Fire Facilities Master Plan approval process so the master plan could be included in the next Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) update. In response, the Fire Department stated that both a master plan and a fiscal analysis to accompany it had been completed, and they were working on the PowerPoint presentation for the Council and public outreach meetings. For the 2013 Annual Report, the Fire Department reported, once again, that "The Fire Facility Master Plan is complete as is the fiscal analysis. The Fire Department is scheduling a series of public information meetings where we will share the plan with civic groups and solicit feedback prior to asking the city council to adopt the document." Since the Master Plan appears to be in a similar place as it was a year ago, the GMOC would request a defined time for completion. Recommendation: That City Council ensure expeditious completion of the public information meetings and scheduling for Council consideration by the end of 2013 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. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.5.1 Potential Non-Compliant Threshold Standard Issue: Potential non-compliance with the threshold standard is projected by the end of the year. 2013 Annual Report 16 April 2013 1-33 Discussion: Based on population and development projections, there may be a slight shortage in park acreage by the end of 2013. Specifically, the potential project shortage of 5.2 acres would bring the park/population ratio to 2.96 acres per thousand, marginally below the threshold standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. However, significant progress has been made in resolving physical issues on individual sites in Village 2, which will allow Park P-3 (6.93 acres) and the 70-acre community park to move forward, beginning with preparation of park master plans. Parks staff reported that parks are also on the horizon for the Millenia Development as triggers in the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) Parks Agreement are met. Recommendation: That City Council direct Parks staff to closely monitor timely preparation of individual 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: As with the Libraries and Fire Master Pfans, the GMOC believes that adoption of an updated Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan is a top priority. A comprehensive Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) update cannot be completed without the updated master plans. A draft Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan was presented to Council in December 2011; however, Council requested additional staff analysis on the landmark park in Otay Ranch Village 2 before they considered the document. The City's current processing of land entitlements related to the University Villages portion of the Otay Ranch have resulted in the need for staff to reanalyze future park development locations and facilities, including evaluation of a landmark park. Staff anticipates returning to City Council in 2013 with an updated document. Recommendation: That City Council support staff in their efforts to resolve issues that may affect expeditious scheduling of the citywide Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan for Council consideration by the end of 2013. 3.5.3 Revenue Generating Capital Improvements Issue: The City needs to maximize opportunities to generate revenue for parks and expand services. 2013 Annual Report 17 April 2013 1-34 Discussion: Parks staff reported that in calendar year 2012, the City experienced a decline in gazebo rentals from a total of 4,948 in 2010 and 4,074 in 2011 to 3,053 in 2012. They explained that the decline in rentals in 2011 was largely due to budget reductions, which eliminated the Park Ranger program. This led to gazebos not being cleaned and conflicts between day users and those who had reserved sites going unresolved, which discouraged people from reserving gazebos. In Fiscal Year 2012-13, the Park Ranger was partially restored, increasing gazebo reservations. With the partial restoration of the Ranger program, Public Works is actively promoting gazebo availability to the public and facility reservations are expected to continue to increase. Beyond gazebos, the GMOC proposes that the Recreation Department evaluate other programs and/or capital improvements that would help generate recurring revenue. The Chula Vista Golf Course, for example, generates revenue by lease of the operation to a private party with the appropriate pricing controls and oversight. Also, higher education facilities provide lease space for private businesses to bring services needed for that institution, and the state is looking to lease space to private business for rest stops, bringing greater services at these locations that otherwise would not be there. Recommendation: That the City review opportunities for potential capital improvements that will provide new services and recreation to the community while generating revenue to offset recurring costs for new and existing parks. 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 PFDIF Debt Service Issue: The City does not have a debt service payment policy. 2013 Annual Report 18 April 2013 1-35 Discussion: In last year's GMOC report, the Commission recommended that a comprehensive update to the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) be done as soon as possible. The update has not been done and the Commission, once again, urges the Finance Department to update the PFDIF as soon as pending facility master plans are adopted by City Council and within 120 days of Council's action on proposed unit increases associated with pending General Plan amendments in eastern Chula Vista. Along with the update, the Commission urges the City to adopt a debt service payment policy as soon as possible. Last year, the GMOC expressed concern that the amount of PFDIF fees being used to pay debt service exceeded what was originally assumed when the PFDIF was last updated; a debt service payment policy could potentially establish standards to prevent that from occurring. According to the Finance Department, a debt service payment policy is in development, and will be presented to the City Council for consideration. In regards to the PFDIF debt service issue, they explained that bond covenants for the individual debt issuances detail the terms of the obligation. When the comprehensive fee update is processed, unanticipated financing costs will be included in the calculation of the various DIF fees. During the interim between comprehensive updates, the PFDIF is subject to annual inflationary increases. The inflationary updates implemented to date in the PFDIF program are anticipated to fully cover additional financing costs incurred since the last comprehensive update of the program. The next comprehensive PFDIF program update will consider all program cost increases, including increases to construction estimates for existing projects, addition of new construction projects and additional financing costs. Recommendation: That City Council direct the Finance Department to continue 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, and that Council adopt a debt service payment policy as soon as possible. 3.7 DRAINAGE Threshold Standards: 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. 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 2013 Annual Report 19 April 2013 1-36 3.7.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels Issue: Adequate funding for channel maintenance is an ongoing problem. Discussion: As noted in last year's annual report, the GMOC recognizes that the City's challenge to maintain existing channels is not a direct result of growth. However, there is inadequate funding, staffing levels and resources to address citywide storm drain infrastructures that require structural maintenance or replacement, routine weed abatement, and silt and debris removal to maintain channel and detention basin capacity. The City is mandated to fulfill state requirements from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), which are about to become more stringent with the reissuance of the City's NPDES Municipal Permit. Additional funds and resources will be necessary for the City to implement the new regulations within 18 months of the reissued permit. Staff will prepare cost estimates for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and subsequent fiscal years during the next permit cycle. Recommendation: That City Council direct engineering staff to closely monitor the status of channel maintenance to ensure sufficient operation and continued threshold standard compliance. Recommendation: That City Council identify funding to implement state mandated storm water flow regulations designed to avoid potential flooding and/or health issues. 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 2013 Annual Report 20 Apri12013 1-37 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 for the next 18 months. However, additional facilities may be necessary within five years in the Sweetwater Union High School District. Summaries of the schools are below: Chula Vista Elementary School District A K-6 school in Otay Ranch Village 11 will be opening in July. With the addition of this school, the district expects to have adequate facilities to house all projected students for the next five years. Currently, several schools in eastern Chula Vista are over capacity, including Arroyo Vista, Hedenkamp, Veterans, McMillin, Wolf Canyon, and Salt Creek, which has the highest number (89). The Learning Community in western Chula Vista is also over capacity (25) and is projected to be 154 over capacity in five years, along with Mueller (58). Sweetwater Union High School District The Sweetwater Union High School District reported that the unstable economy, high foreclosure rate, and expansion of charter schools into the 7-12 arena make the 5-year projections for eastern Chula Vista very tentative. If charter schools continue to siphon students, it is likely that the District will have capacity for five years of residential growth. However, if there is a significant increase in development and re- occupation of foreclosed homes, construction of Middle School No. 12 and High School No. 14 at Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway may be necessary within the next 5 years. Recommendation: None. 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: 2013 Annual Report 21 April 2013 1-38 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 3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity Sewage Flow and Treatment Capacity Million Gallons per Day (MGD) FY 10/11 FY 11/12 18-month projection 5-year Projection "Build-out" Projection* Average Flow 18.272 15.935 16.853** 17.948** 28.2` Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 •Buildout Projection based on 2005 Chula Vista Wastewater Master Flan "Growth rate per the "Residential Growth Forecast Years 2012 through 2016" Issue: None. Discussion: Once again, Sewer is 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. Staff is working on updating the 2005 Master Plan in order to verify the build-out treatment capacity needs of the City. Two "cost per gallon" options for acquiring additional treatment capacity are being considered: 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. Recommendation: None. 3.10 AIR QUALITY Threshold Standard: The GMOC shall be provided with an Annual Report which: 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 2013 Annual Report 22 Apri12013 1-39 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: During the period under review, the Chula Vista's development standards met and/or exceeded regional, state, and federal air quality regulations. At a regional level, the number of unhealthy air quality days for older adults and children in San Diego County decreased from 19 to 13 from 2010 to 2011, which is significantly lower than neighboring regions, and San Diego County met federal ozone emission standards for the first time in 2012. A summary of the City's accomplishments can be found in the Air Quality questionnaire (Appendix B). Recommendation: None. 3.11 WATER Threshold Standards: 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: 2013 Annual Report 23 April 2013 1-40 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 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. Otav 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 The Sweetwater Authority's 2010 Water Facilities Master Plan lists estimated costs and almost all proposed projects, including several maintenance and upgrade programs where pipelines, valves and other facilities are constantly being renewed. For example, the Perdue 2013 Annual Report 24 Apri12013 1-41 Treatment plant was recently upgraded to meet new treatment standards and the desalination facility capacity may be increased. These projects allow the Authority to continue to provide service to the City in the near- and long-term. The Sweetwater Authority closely monitors development activities within the City of Chula Vista, including the Bayfront and the urban core which will require major infrastructure coordination. Recommendation: None 4.0 Appendices 4.1 Appendix A -Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B -Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2013 Annual Report 25 April 2013 1-42 °~ ~~~~~ ~~~o ~~p~~~D~~~ 1-43 bb-L l/ ~~~IIUU~~~ 1'!/ ~~~~~ -,.~.~~. ~~v ~ CMUL~ VISW 2012 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2013 Through 2017 November 16, 2012 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 1-45 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 into the future. This year's growth forecast covers the period from November 2012 through December 2017. 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 of the facilities or improvements listed below: 1. Air Quality 2. Drainage 3. Fire and Emergency Medical 4. Fiscal 5. Libraries 6. Parks and Recreation 7. Police 8. Schools 9. Sewer 10. Traffic 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 five 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 3; 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 cites threshold standards. 2 Five-YearGrowth Forecast, November 2012 1-46 Last year's growth forecast estimated that 371 building permits would be issued for single-family units in 2012. As of November 15, 2012, 281 permits had been pulled. For multi-family units, 990 building permits were projected, and 456 had been pulled. Nearly all of the building activity was in the master planned communities in eastern Chula Vista (the area east of Interstate 805). Residential infill and redevelopment in western Chula Vista was minimal. FORECAST SUMMARY Over the next twelve months (January -December 2013), as many as 1,389 housing units could be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, with just five projected in western Chula Vista (see Figures 1 and 2). In the five-year forecast period (calendar years 2013 through 2017), eastern Chula Vista could have as many as 8,196 housing units permitted (averaging 1,639 annually), and development in western Chula Vista could pick up significantly, with as many as 907 units permitted (averaging-181 annually). The total number of units permitted citywide would be 9,103, with an annual average of 1,820 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 would 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 continues 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 normal project regulatory processing schedules. Eastern Chula Vista As noted above, most of the city's growth has been and will continue to be in eastern Chula Vista (see Figure 4) for the next several years, where numerous companies, particularly in Otay Ranch Villages 2 and 7, own property. As in 2012, the majority of building activity in 2013 is projected to occur in Eastlake and in Otay Ranch Village 2 (see Table 1). 3 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 1-47 In Otay Ranch Villages 2, 7 and 11, entitlements for the 2013 projected single- and multi-family developments have been secured by various developers, including Baldwin & Sons, JPB, Shea, and McMillin. In addition, Sunwood Otay, LLC is projecting 16 single-family units in 2013 and they expect to sell 200 plus lots to developers in subsequent years. Development of those lots is not forecasted in the near term; however, that is likely to change when the properties are acquired by development interests. Entitlements are also in place for Bella Lago, Rolling Hills Ranch and Eastlake's Olympic Pointe and Summit. In Village 3 North, 1P6 is projecting a total of 255 units in 2014, with several hundred more in subsequent years: In Village 8 East, JPB projects another 805 units between 2016 and 2017. And in Village 8 West, Otay Land Company projects 810 by 2017, beginning with 35 units in 2014. The 180 Millenia multi-family units McMillin previously projected for 2013 have been moved to 2014, however, along with 186 additional units, for a total of 366. Another 932 Millenia units receiving zoning level entitlement are projected between 2015 and 2017. As of November 2012, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in eastern Chula Vista is approximately 20,222, based on the city's 2005 General Plan. If 8,196 units were permitted over the next five-year forecasted period, 12,026 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). Three large multi-family projects recently receiving entitlements are projected for 2014, including: Urbana at H Street between Third and Fourth Avenues (167 units); The Colony at 435 Third Avenue (162 units) and a project at 1130 Fifth Avenue (137 units). In August, 1,500 multi-family units received zoning level entitlement at the city's bayfront when the California Coastal Commission approved the San Diego Unified Port District and City of Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan. The first 200 units are projected to be developed in 2016. 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 737 units being issued in 2012, thus far, up 4 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 1-48 9 units from 2011 (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 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 forecast focuses on the projected number of 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 3.24 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 279,608 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, 2012 as 249,382; • An additiona1708 units were occupied from January 1, 2012 to November 2012; and • An additional 9,103 units may be permitted between November 2012 and December 2017. 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. 5 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 1-49 Figure 1 Number of Units Eastern 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Year GMOC 2012 ', Chula Vista Residential Development Forcast 2013 Through 2017 J Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 1-50 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Figure 2 Number of Units WPSteffl 500 471 400 300 205 205 200 100 21 5 0 2013 2014 2015 201b 2017 Year GMOC 2012 Chula Vsta Residential Development Forcast 2013 Through 2017 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 1-51 Figure 3 Number of Units 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -..._, .......... i v, c..~n i 3 .30 0 3 .14 3 1.2 A zms t 66 1661 1.167 ,.389 1,368 ,.>~ 776 737• 576 51p 471 325 776 2U6 21 5 2002 2G03 2004 2W5 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2072 2013 2074 2015 2016 2017 O7'e7 Eas}ern Chula Vista •Tkwgh Nwenber 16.2011 ~ WE'S1efn Chula vnfa GMOC 2012 Residential Units Receiving Building Permits Issued 2002 - 2012, and Forecast 2013 - 2017 ~ 8 Five-Year Growth Forecast, Novemher 2012 1-52 I W Figure 4 Residential Development Forecast Map »..,,>., Nxnab Y ~ , s ~ _-- , i 7 , ti ~ l i ._.; . ' a ~ _ i _ - , ~~r- O i ~ '~ I ' Q ~ .~ j • - ~ ..-- 1 ,, ~ ~ ~ -~ ~- 1 I r ~ ~ . A , . ' , exsr t t I `. . ~ ' t ' -,~ i~. {It ' a r,. o r. f~ ~e ~~~ O RL O \ !~ ~ .v / f ~ ~ by ~ ~ ~' I ~1 4 ; e ~ ' F ~~~ ~ 1 - ~ _.t n~ ~ I~-_ ~ 0 ~ ©~~ ~ ~ ~ - r ~ i « ~ j oiw m,aw r ~ i - L.~. ~.~..~• ~ f~' 1; ~ ~% a- tL p' J I~ ~ - i i ~ _ .. _ ~ _ C- J a _ ~ ,i• ~. ~ i _ `_` - ., Residential Development Forecast Map 11/2012 -12/2017 Five-YearGrowQh Forecast, November 2012 \~1 ~~ , CH A LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS Q 9ayfront © ~~ ©the Cdany OD 1130 Fifth Avenue 0 Easlem Urbpn Center InnReriu) © Ofay Ranch Village 2 Qc Oiay Ranch ~/~AOge 3 North x0 Oloy Ranch V Wge 6 Qi Olay Ranch VBage 7 lO Otay Rwrch V;tage 8 0 Otoy Ranch Ytage 9 ©OIaY Ranch Vitoge 10 0 Otay Ranch Vlage I I R~ Freeway Commercial Uo Easlbke Sumrril Qr Easlbke Olymgc Pdnle Qo Easlbke Lake Pdnte Qp Bella Logo Qs RdFng hfils Ranch ~.-cRyacnwa w,w ROOndory -- ioN Rood s Table 1 GMOL2013 - EA57ERNCNULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTFORECAST November 2012- December 2017 wrTi enV~ltes I ' ° he ~ •rl~T NOy 301L~DECEMRER 3011 ~2~^il19Uk, T "' "n*-1F~~'~'-'^?~'NF ]AN DECEM6ER2014 ..:,. ISSUES%!"'y°°^ BF -'MF'^ JAN ~DECEM6ER 1015 `~"' I15UE' ~a`~"° SF':° ~ MF JAN DECENpER 3016 '{'~""'" IEEUEr- T~°'°' °°SF 'MF' AN :~bECE -"" ISS SF M6ER 20 UER "Y~' ~~MP ~ '~~XOy`2011 1612:^ w., '[SSUEf" " 9F' ~ i MF" OTAV RANCH Village 2 -Baldwin & Sons 132 912 117 144 122 1R 97 55 27 30 495 793 Village 2-3PB 75 ll0 57 GO 0 36 0 0 0 0 132 266 Village 2- Sunwood Otay, LLC 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 Village 3 North - 7P8 0 0 130 125 300 250 300 250 300 250 1,030 875 Yllage 6- Marquis II-Oakwood (R15B) 0 55 0 55 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 110 Village 7-Baldwin & Sons 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 3 0 Village 7- MCMillin 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 Village 7 -Shea 0 92 0 37 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 158 Village eEast - 7P8 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 125 300 250 430 375 Village 8 Wast - Otay Land Co. 0 0 30 25 50 175 60 200 50 290 170 640 Village 9- Otay land Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 175 40 175 Village 11 -Shea 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Freeway Commercial - 8aldwln & Sons 0 0 0 0 0 510 0 0 0 0 0 510 Eastern Urban Center (Mlilenia) - McMillin 0 0 0 366 0 392 0 290 0 300 0 1,298 Otay Ranch Sub-Total 275 739 315 812 472 1,544 587 870 717 1,245 2,366 5,210 EASTLAKE Greens (The Summit)- Cornerstone 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 Vistas (Olympic Pointe)- Integral Communities 0 297 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 247 Vistas Laka Pointe)- Integral Communities 0 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 225 Eastlake Sub-total 0 304 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 529 BELLA LAGO -Shea 19 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 BELLA LAGO LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 - - Bella La o Sub-total 19 - '0 16 -0 0 0 '0 0 4 0 39 0 ROLLING HILLS RANCH - M[Millin 92 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 ROLLENG HILLS RANCH -Van Daele f0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 10 O SUB-TOTAL ALfUN1T5.. 346 1,043 1389`3..et5*~nC 331 w*o":^'1,3 1,037 68 ~« 472 1,544 ~t ?';x`2,018: .. 587 870 ..~457.u ,~,..~ 721 v1,9 1,245 68:; 2,457 5,739 $."='+x!...8,198, ::`;; Annual Average: 1639 10 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 *ISSUE = BuiMirp Petri[ Table 2 GMOC 2013 - WES7ERNCHUL4 VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOiDME/VT FLMEC45T November 2012 -December 2017 Annual Average: xH>.';;NOY. 7a13-!3017 ' -~k u;~^i 399UP r -'; ~i: 9Fo .6.'RF 0 ,.. 4~ . 0 167 16 0 O 162 0 137 25 0 41 866 161 11 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 Table 3 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 -NOVEMBER 2012 +r~ll~T .~.~ CALEND Y ~~"~i "~"°~~"~~v5ai UnitsAuihonzed fob Coristlvctlon jlssued~ Y - Yy5 t - s.p Unts Completed max (Flnaled) ~" ~$''ywc vh'~ z , , ~Cer[Ified Year End Population , ,`~ (State D O F ~ {1j,, ~.' *, No. No. No. % Chan e 1980 407 374 84,364 1981 195 496 86,597 2.6% 1982 232 129 88,023 1.6% 1983 479 279 89,370 1.5% 1984 1,200 521 91,166 2.0% 1985 1,048 1,552 116,325 27.6% 2 1986 2,076 1,120 120,285 3.4% 1987 1,168 2,490 124,253 3.3% 1988 1,413 829 128,028 3.0% 1989 1 680 1,321 134 337 4.9% 1990 664 1 552 138 262 2.9% 1991 747 701 141 015 2.0% 1992 560 725 144,466 2.4% 1993 435 462 146,525 1.4% 1994 700 936 149,791 22% 1995 833 718 153,164 2.3% 1996 914 820 156,148 1.9% 1997 1,028 955 162,106 3.8% 1998 1,339 1,093 167,103 3.1% 1999 2,505 1,715 174,319 4.3% 2000 2,618 2,652 181,613 4.2% 2001 3,525 3,222 191,220 5.3% 2002 2,250 2,923 ~ 200,798 5.0% 2003 3,143 2,697 208,997 4.1% 2004 3,300 3,043 217,512 4.1% 2005 1,654 2,525 224,006 3.0% 2006 1,190 1,448 227,850 1.7% 2007 576 837 ~ 231,157 1.5% 2008 325 518 234,011 1 2% 2009 275 398 244,269 4.4°/a 2010 517 422 245 987 0.7% 2011 728 631 249,382 1.4% 2012 737 708 251563 0.9% 3 Annual Avera a 1,226 1 237 5 067 2.6% 4 (i) Reflects Deparlnrent of Fnance (DOF) comprehensively revised population fgures for the en of the referenced year. (2) Montgonery Mnexatian (3) Population estimates are suhJect to change and refinement. They assume a 4.91% vacancy rate and 3.24 persons per unit, and are estimated prior to California Depar6nent of Finance (DOF) estimates, availahle in 2013. (4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Mnexation. Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 12 Five-Year Growth Forecast, November 2012 1-56 ~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~ /i-~1~ L~ ~ Lk V L~'1 l~Ll~ 1-57 ~~~" ~c~~po~~~~ ~~ Q~p~c~c~~~~~~c~ ~c~~~o~~ ~a~~~ ~~aC~~]~~~]~~ 1-58 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®~3 - L~RA~S Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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 thatthe Citywill notfall belowthe city-wide ratio of SOOGSF 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 Population Threshold X X 500 Sq. Ft. 5-Year Projection (2017) 279,608 95,412 341 12-Month Projection (12/31/13) 251,563 95,412 379 FY 2011-12 249,382 92,000/95,412** 369/383** 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 2004-06 220,000 102,000 464 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 ~' *After closure of Eastlake Library at Eastlake High School in June 2011 **After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012 1-59 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 x 3. Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No x 4. Will new facilities and staff be required to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes x No 5. Please complete the table below: LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS Annual Attendance Annual Circulation Guest Satisfaction FY 11/12 726,310 969,168 FY 30/11 614,841 952,847 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 OS/O6 1,170,168 1,467,799 85% FY04/OS 1,121,119 1,414, 295 91% FY03/04 1,076,967 1,308,918 88% - i ne uorary wept ellminatetl its mystery shopper program in Og-09 for budget reasons, so no customer satisfaction survey was undertaken. The "mystery shopper" program sends feld 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 performed in May-August 2010. Rating factors are no[ identical to previous years. Updated customer satisfaction survey will be completed by June 2013 using intern labor. 6. What is the status of completing the Library Strategic Plan and updating the Library Facilities Master Plan? The draft ofthe Library Facilities Master Plan was completed and agendized for City Council review on July 12, 2011, butwas 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 to complete the plan have been identified. The Library Strategic Plan will begin in Spring 2013. The library Facilities Master Plan update is complete and will be presented to Council along with the strategic plan results, in summer 2013. 2 1-60 The draft version of the Library Facilities Master Plan validates the 500 sq ft of library space per 1000 population threshold specified in the currentversion 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? The Rancho del Rey Library project is on hold, while sufficient fees in the Developer Impact Fund are collected. 8. What is the status of constructing the EUC library? Construction is not expected for several years; it will take place in the later phase of the Millennium project. 9. Please provide an update on the storefront library facility at Otay Ranch Town Center and any other potential options for providing library services. The Otay Ranch Branch Library at Otay Ranch Town Center opened on April 14, 2012. The library occupies 3,412 square feet in the Food Pavilion area courtesy of a no-cost 3 to 5 year lease. It averages 10,000 visitors and 12,000 items circulated per month. It offers popular storytimes and after school homework help, free wi-fi and has been recognized by the national publication Library Journal as an example of outstanding use of an existing space. 10. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2011-2012, and include any available data for the County's Bonita-Sunnyside Branch. 11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldliketo relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. 12. What are the libraries' current and projected hours of operation? Current hours 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 11-7 12-6 12-6 1-61 Proposed hours effective July 2013 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 11-7 11-7 11-7 11-7 12-6 12-6 PREPARED BY: Name: Betty Waznis Title: Director, Library and Recreation Date: January 23, 2013 1-62 Chula Vista Public Library Usage Statistics FY 2011-12 Hours Open CC 2,829 Hours Open SO 2,840 Hours Open Otay 450 Hours Open Total 6,119 Internet Sessions CC 95,857 Internet Sessions Otay 2,139 Internet Sessions 50 76,522 Internet Sessions Total 174,518 Items Circulated CC 442,876 Items Circulated 50 352,445 Items Circulated Otay 38,285 Ebooks circulated 7,760 Items Circulated Remotely 141,331 Items Circulated Total 982,697 Program Attendees CC 8,622 Program Attendees Off 1,367 Program Attendees SO 5,815 Program Attendees Otay 4,772 Program Attendees Total 20,576 Visitors CC 433,143 Visitors 50 251,232 Visitors Otay 36,816 Visitors Total 721,191 New Cards CC 9,470 New Cards SO 7,127 New Cards Otay 2,418 New Cards Total 19,015 1-63 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 - P®I,ICE Questionnaire covering 7/1/11-6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast THRESHOLD STANDARDS Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81%of the Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the City within 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 2 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. Please update the Priority 1 table, below: Priority 1-Emergency Response Calls for Service Call Volume % of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes Average Response Time Threshold 81.0% 5:30 FY 2011-12 726 of 64,386 78.4% 5:01 FY 2010-11 657 of 64,695 85.7% 4:40 FY 2009-10 673 of 68,145 85.1% 4:28 FY 2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26 FY 2007-08 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19 FY 2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59 FY 2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 FY 2004-OS 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 FY 2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 FY 2001-021 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07 FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 CY 19992 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 FY 1997-98 1,512 of 69,196 74.8% 5:47 FY 1996-97 1,968 of 69,904 83.8% 4:52 FY 1995-96 1,915 of 71,197 83.0% 4:46 ~ All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority 2 figures on the neM 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. z The FY96-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998 Page 1 Police - 2013 1-64 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. During the period under review, were 81% of Priority 1 emergency calls citywide responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes (maintaining an average of 5.5 minutes)? Yes No X If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority 1 emergency calls citywide. For the first time since FY 2004/2005 the Police Department has not met the Priority 1 Threshold Standard. Although the average response time was within the threshold, the percentage of call responses within 7 Minutes fell short of the 81%threshold. Chronically low staffing in the Community Patrol Division continues to negatively impact the response time of officers. Additional staffing in the Community Patrol Division is necessary to improve response times. The Department recently received grant funds to add six additional officers to Patrol. The Department is actively recruiting at this time with new officers projected. to start in January/February. Additionally, the Department will be implementing a new patrol schedule in January in which additional staffing will be realized during the days with the highest call-for- service volumes (Friday-Sunday). The hybrid 4/10-3/12 schedule will have officers working a 10 hour schedule from Monday through Thursday, and a 12 hour schedule Friday through Sunday. Please update the Priority 2 table, below: PRIORITY 2 -Urgent Response Calls for Service Call Volume %of Catl Responses Within 7 Minutes Average Response Time Threshold 57.0% 7:30 FY 2011-2012 22,121 of 64,386 41.9% 11:54 FY 2010-11 21,500 of 64,695 49.8% .10:06 FY 2009-10 22,240 of 68,145 49.8% 9:55 FY 2008-09 22,686 of 70,051 53.5% 9:16 FY 2007-08 23,955 of 74,192 53.1% 9:18 FY 2006-07 24,407 of 74,277 43.3% 11:18 FY 2005-06 24,876 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33 FY 2004-OS 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 FY 2003-04 24,741 of 71,000 48.4% 9:50 FY 2002-03 22,871 of 71,268 50.2% 9:24 FY 2001-02 22,199 of 71,859 45.6% 10:04 FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50 FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38 * These figures do not include responses to false alarms, beginning in FY 2002-03. Page 2 Police - 2013 1-65 Please provide brief responses to the following: 4. During the period under review, were 57%ofthe Priority 2 urgent response calls citywide responded to within seven minutes (maintaining an average of 7.5 minutes)? Yes No X If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority 2 urgent response calls citywide. 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 mostlikelythebestthatcan be achieved without additional patrol personnel. Further discussion regarding staffing issues and priority response times are included below. 5. Wasthe Police Department properly equipped to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority 1 and Priority 2 threshold standard compliance during the period under review? Yes X No If not, please explain. Although we've indicated a "Yes" response, it should be noted that there are significant issues facing the Police Department in terms of being properly equipped. The Departments Mobile Data Computers are over 7 years old and in need of replacement. Funding will need to be identified in order to replace these important tools for community patrol ($500,000). Additionally, the Department is also trying to replace the mobile and portable radios used by officers in order to comply with the Federal governments' regulations for interoperability (^'$1.2M). With dwindling grant funds and the economic downturn experienced by the City, identifying funds for these replacements will be challenging. 6. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority 1 and Priority 2 threshold standard compliance during the period under review? Yes No X If not, please explain. The City of Chula Vista hired Matrix Consulting Group to perform an extensive staffing studyfor both Patrol as well as the rest of the department. Matrix completed Phase One of the report detailing specific recommendations for making operational changes, as well as hiring additional sworn and non-sworn staff to address staffing concerns. The department is currently in the hiring process for six new Peace Officers and 2.5 CommunityService Officers. Furtherexplanation ofthe study results is included in #7 below. Has growth during the last year negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes No X Page 3 Police - 2013 1-66 If yes, please explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the threshold standard. Although growth remained slow during the reporting period the Department has been understaffed based on growth in previous years and the staffing reductions from the economic downturn. The Department recently completed a comprehensive patrol staffing study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group, which indicated that besides making several procedural changes in the Community Patrol Division, the Department should add at least 5 Peace Officers in order to meet proactive enforcement goals. Proactive enforcement addresses all other workloads that are not in response to acommunity-generated call for service. These include important services as officer self-initiated activity, proactive or preventive patrol, investigative follow-up, directed traffic enforcement, etc. Currently, the Community Patrol Division has roughly 20%of their available time which can be spent doing proactive patrol. This is far too low. The recommended amount of proactive patrol time should be approximately 40% of their available time. As such, the Department is currently recruiting for six new patrol officers in patrol. Further compounding the staffing needs in patrol are the number of vacancies due to retirements, medical retirements and military leave that have occurred over the last year. Currently the department has 13 sworn vacancies which also affect patrol staffing. Another recommendation of Matrix Consulting Group was to hire 5 Community Service Officers and deploy them in the Community Patrol Division. These additional staff positions would defer approximately 5,000 crime reports from being taken by Officers, which results in additional proactive time and potentially quicker response times to emergency calls for service. Due to budgetary constraints, the Department will only be able to hire 2.5 CSO's this year. The Department is currently moving forward on this recommendation. 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. A one-time funding source was utilized to replace some of the aging police vehicles, however this funding is no longer available. This, along with the elimination of the vehicle replacementfund,will hinder the Department's ability to provide adequate resources to meet the threshold standard. Additionally, the Department needs to replace the aging mobile data computer (MDC) fleet in the patrol vehicles. These computers are over 7 years old. The city's computer replacement fund was eliminated several years ago in response to the budgetary crisis. 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 continues to have a negative impact on the readiness of patrol vehicles for service. As patrol vehicles reach higher Page 4 Police - 2013 1-67 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 10. Please update the table below: NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS PER YEAR FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-SO FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 8,257 7,861 5,924 6,694 6,424 6,234 11. Please provide an update on the Police Department's efforts to improve the Priority 2 threshold standard. The Police Department will be implementing a new staffing schedule for Community Patrol. This new staffing schedule will help add staffing to the days of the week in which our call-for-service volume is the highest. The schedule is a hybrid 4/10 - 3/12 schedule whereby on Monday through Thursday, officers will work a more traditional 10 hour work schedule (divided among three shifts) and on Friday through Sunday, officers will work a 12 hour shift (divided among two shifts). By moving to a 3/12 plan on the weekend, the department will be able to offer'additional coverage during the peak call for service times. This, coupled with operational changes to how calls are dispatched, a focus on releasing back-up officers more quickly and the addition of Community Service Officers back into patrol, the department expects to reduce response times to both priority one and priority two calls-for-service. 12. What is the status of School Resources Officers? The City continues to contract with both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District for 7 officers, which are dedicated to the SRO program. At the height of the SRO program, there were 18 officers assigned to the SRO unit, with the school districts and the City sharing the costs of the program. With the economic downturn, both the City and the school districts had to significantly scale back funding for the program. At this point in time, the school districts are again struggling with funding of the program and the funded allocation will be examined year to year. 13. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOCand/or the city council. Police - 2013 Page 5 1-68 As part of the Matrix study, the department asked the consultant to review the Cit~/s use of response time thresholds as the sole indicator of police performance. In the report, Matrix opined: "response times should be considered desirable targets as opposed to directives upon which to build patrol staffing levels. While an appealing customer service metric, police response time should not be a fundamental building block linked to patrol staff resources as such an approach can ultimately have undesirable outcomes for the City to include unnecessarily increased policing costs:' They further referred to several studies conducted on response times and their overall relevance to crime apprehension and suppression. As part of the study, Matrix repeatedly indicated that proper staffing levels should be based upon the amount of proactive time available to officers to conduct proactive police work during their shift. Matrix recommended that an acceptable goal for proactive time be 40% of an officers available time while on duty. Currently the department averages approximately 20% proactive time, with almost no proactive time available during peak call-for-service times. This proactive time goal would allow officers to conduct preventative/proactive patrol in orderto address the various crime and disorder issues throughout the City. The Department has adopted this 40% goal and will be tracking proactive time in the future as one measure to determine proper staffing. The Department is also moving forward with significant changes to how the department responds to residential and commercial burglar alarms. The goal is to significantly reduce the number of false alarms that the police department responds to. The Matrix study recommends implementing a "Verified Response' policy in that the police department would only respond to residential or commercial burglar alarms which have been independentlyverified as in progress. Staff is continuing to work through the issues and will be presenting a plan to the City Council in early 2013. PREPARED BY: Name: Ed Chew/Melanie Culuko Title: Administrative Service Manager/Public Safety Analyst Date: November 16, 2012 Page 6 Police - 2013 1-69 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®I3 -TRAFFIC Questionnaire covering 7/1/11-6/30/12 to Current Time And Five-Year Forecast 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. West of Interstate 805: Those signalized arterial segments that do not meet the standard above may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. 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 Parkwayto 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. 2. Duringthe 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 the 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 six hours of LOS "D". In December of 2010, the City's Traffic Signal Systems Engineer retired and was solely responsible for signal timing throughout the city. Subsequently in order to meet budget reduction goals, the Signal Systems Engineer position and the Engineering Technicianpnsition Traffic - 2013 1-70 were reduced to half-time positions resulting in the net loss of one full-time position. These two positions are responsible for the traffic monitoring program. The process to fill the Signal Systems position on a part-time basis was initiated but ultimately was not successful. Therefore, during this review period, the City extended apart-time on-call traffic signal timing services contract with a signal timing consultant to carry out the City of Chula Vista's Traffic Signal Optimization Program and to calculate and implement new signal timing on newly installed and modified traffic signal locations. The consultant contract ended June 30, 2012. Thus, with the reduced staff, we have not been able to monitor corridor timing on a continual basis. However, the City budget currently has afull-time Associate Civil Engineer (Signal Systems Engineer) position budgeted and in November 2012 the City hired an Associate Civil Engineer with signal timing experience to be in charge of the City's 268 traffic signals plus the 10 at the SR-125 interchanges. This individual is in charge of evaluating and monitoring existing signals for desired signal timing improvements and makes changes to improve the signal synchronization and corridor coordination. We are still at a 0.5 position shortfall with the part time Traffic Engineering Technician position. 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 forthe next 12 to 18 months without exceedingthe 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 Duringtheperiod under reviewwestbound Olympic Parkwayfrom east of Brandywine Avenue to Oleander Avenuenearthel-805 is experiencingvaryingdegreesoftrafficcongestion. 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 on of the three westbound lanes. There is an existing capacity increasing project to provide additional left-turn vehicle 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, during peak periods, more traffic will be able to utilize the left-turn movement in each cycle, since blocking of the single left lane bythe queue in the through lane is less likely with doubling ofthe storage length. The City Council approved this CIP Project (TF-377) in Fiscal Year 2011/2012 and it is in the design phase at this time. This project will be implemented after collecting data from the recently installed wireless detectors system (TF-379). The wireless vehicle detection systems on Olympic Parkway 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. Traffic - 2013 1-71 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 "F". 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. In order to improve the levels of service at Olympic Parkway the following improvements are needed: • The southerly extension of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. • Direct Access Ramps at I-805 and East Palomar Street Bridge. In the interim, additional signal loop detectors had been constructed and added last 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 Caltransthe abilityto make even further traffic signal timing changes to help reduce vehicular delays approaching the interchange. For the Otay Lakes Road improvements (STM-355), the city has wrapped up the design forthe next phase of improvements, generally along the frontage of Southwestern College. Improvements consist of additional through lanes and raised medians from south of East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road/La Media Road. The project will be advertised in early 2013 and construction will commence in late FY12/13. This project will reduce vehicular delays on this segment. a. How will these facilities be funded? The Heritage Road extension facility is funded by developers as land development project mitigation measures or with development impact fees such as the TDIF, for east of I-805, the WTDIF, for west of I-805 and/or a combination of other local, TransNet, state and federal funds. The I-805 Direct Access Ramp project is funded by Regional, State and Federal funds. The Otay Lakes Road Widening Project is funded with TDIF and TransNet funds. b. Is there an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes, there are appropriate funding mechanisms in placeto 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 Traffic - 2013 3 1-72 Olympic Parkway traffic levels will increase as development continues to the east. With continued traffic monitoring, the schedule for constructingthe southerly extension of Heritage Road will be determined. Improvements plans have been submitted to construct the first phase of the roadway between Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria Road. Construction should be recommended to commence in 2013. Further monitoring of the Olympic Parkway corridor and the number of building permits issued will trigger the ultimate improvements of Heritage Road to the south. Alongthe freeway medians, Caltrans is currently in construction ofthe freeway portion ofthe I- SOSManaged Lanes project between East Palomar Street and EStreet/Bonita Road. The I-805 Managed Lanes will continue north to State Route 94 and terminate in Downtown San Diego. Pending regional approval, subsequent phases of the project are planned to be completed by 2020. This project will provide for a northbound on-ramp and a southbound off-ramp via carpool lane access points towardsthe center ofthe I-805 freeway, not the typical on/off ramps where you merge from the right side of the freeway. The project includes avalue-pricing program allowing toll-paying single occupant vehicles access onto and off the I-805 at East Palomar Street. Due to the need to widen and provide a new bridge profile, Caltrans plans to demolish the East Palomar Street Bridge sometime in the Spring of 2013 and complete the construction by early 2015 as part ofthe East Palomar Street Direct Access Ramp (DAR) Project. As the construction schedule is made available, staff will present it to the Council and to the public. Once completed, it is expected that with the I-805 DAR Project providing another access point to the freeway, that some traffic originating in the area bounded by parallel streets such as Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road would divert to East Palomar Street. The DAR is considered a Managed Lane project in that it is available for carpool vehicles at no charge but single occupancy vehicles will have to pay a user fee, via an electronic transponder, similar to the Interstate-15 corridor. However, in the interim while construction is underway, Olympic Parkway, East Naples Street and Telegraph Canyon Road will see an increase in traffic volume until the East Palomar Street Bridge is reconstructed. Separately, city staff is working with SANDAG on the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit project which will have access from the I-805 DAR then east towards the Otay Ranch shopping center generally utilizing the median area within the Sunbow II and Otay Ranch neighborhoods. This project is in the environmental phase now and it is anticipated that construction will commence in FY13/14 with a completion date early 2015. By providing rapid bus service to/from downtown San Diego to the eastern territories of Chula Vista, this service will also reduce the number of vehicles traveling on the local arterial network. Since the time SANDAG has taken ownership of the SR-125 toll road in December 2011, ridership has increased approximately 30%. This is due to the reduction in the toll road fees SANDAG implemented in June 2012, which has made it more affordable to the residents of Chula Vista. The increase in ridership on SR-125 diverts the traffic volume from East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. SR-125 traffic volumes which were historically in Traffic - 2013 4 1-73 the 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day range are now well into the 30,OOOto 35,OOOvehicles per day range. The design of Phase 2 of the Otay Lakes Road widening project should commence in 2013 and be completed in late 2013. This is the segment between a point south of East H Street near Elmhurst Avenue then south to the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road/La Media Road. SouthwesternCollegetrafficsignificantlyimpactsthissegment. The improvementsv~illincrease the capacity on Otay Lakes Road and improve the traffic within the area of Southwestern College. Lastly, within the past fiscal year, a new full time traffic monitoring system has been installed in the pavement of East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway from I-805 to the east. These three corridors are utilizing SENSYS Wireless Vehicle Detection System, which allows the City to monitor and collect real time traffic data by lane 24hours a day, including weekends and holidays. The data is now obtained from the office and the results help traffic engineering staff evaluate the fluctuations in traffic patterns and trackthe traffic volumes and delays more closely. a. How will these facilities be funded; and b. Is there an appropriate/adequate 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 stafftime only. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. In August of 2012, the city completed a combined technical study with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). This Project Study Report for "The Chula Vista Light Rail Corridor Improvements" can be found on the city website. (http://www.ch u lavistaca.gov/City_Services/Development_Services/E ngineeri ng/docu menu/PSRCVLRT-Final- August2012.pd1 Traffic - 2013 1-74 The Study documents the analysis of alternatives for grade separating the LRT tracks from the roadway crossings at E Street, H Street and Palomar Street. Alternatives being considered include elevating the tracks over the roadway; lowering the tracks under the roadway; and in the case of Palomar Street,loweringtheroadwayunderthetracks. Currently the tracks in this area are also used by freight trains. Since the freight train will not be grade separated, each of the projects includes an at-grade bypass track for the freight trains to utilize. The Blue Line Light Rail Trolley (LRT), operated by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) runs north and south from the San Ysidro Transit Center near the U.S: Mexico Border through Downtown San Diego to the Old Town Transit Center. This line experiences the highest ridership of any LRT line in the San Diego region with over 20 million riders in 2009 (State ofthe Commute, SANDAG 2010). Projections indicate that the ridership will continue to rise into the foreseeable future. This projected rise can be attributed to expected population growth and the development of the Bayfront area to the west. Within the Chula Vista city limits the LRT traverses east of and parallel to Interstate 5 (I-5). Vehicular traffic along Chula Vista's major east-west arterials heading to and from the I-5 is increasing due to area build-out in the City's western urban areas. Three at grade street crossing locations along the Blue Line LRT in Chula Vista have been identified as candidates for future grade separations. E Street, H Street and Palomar Street all are major arterial streets that convey traffic to and from I-5. The current at grade crossings require traffic to stop each time a train passes the crossings. Ridership of the Blue Line LRT is expected to increase, and as such plans are in place to increase the number of trolley trips per day. Consequently, headways between trains are expected to decrease. The combination of increased vehicular traffic and increased wait time behind the rail crossing arms will result in major traffic delays for vehicles at the at grade crossings of E Street, H Street and Palomar Street, and diminish the Level of Service. On December 14th, 2012 the SANDAG Transportation Committee and then subsequently on December 21st, the Board of Directors took action to approve Chula Vista and SANDAG's Memorandum of Understanding in commencing work on the environmental document for grade separating the Palomar Street LRT crossing. Palomar is the highest ranked location in Chula Vista with H Street and E Street following, respectively. This phase ofwork is expected to take about 24-months to complete. Design and construction funds have not yet been identified. The Coastal Commission approved the Bayfront Master Plan on August 9, 2012. The Master Plan will oversee the development of residential and multi-family units, office and commercial development. This proposed development west of the trolley station would increase pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic volumes crossingthe trolleytracks and west of 1-5. The LRT improvements will be an integral part to the development of the Bayfront and provide alternative modes of transportation. The Bayfront Master Plan will also benefit from the Interstate 5 (I-5) South Multimodal Corridor Study, prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, December 2010) and Traffic - 2013 6 1-75 the City of Chula Vista, in collaboration with Caltrans District 11. The study analyzes a varietyof conceptual alternatives for multimodal improvements along I-5 between State Route (SR) 54 and Main Street within the City of Chula Vista. This segment of 1-5 lies within what is referred to as the I-5 South Corridor, which consists of various transportation facilities adjacent to, and including, I-5 between I-15 and the San Ysidro Port of Entry. The focus study area for the I-5 South Multimodal Corridor Study is I-5 and the adjacent transportation facilities located between Main Street and SR 54, including transit, freight rail, bicycle, and pedestrian modes. The Study also includes a conceptual strategy for implementation of future multimodal transportation improvements within the I-5 South Corridor. A portion ofthe Bayshore Bikeway was recently completed in March 2012. The 1-3/4-mile long segment between H Street and Palomar Street provides a dedicated trail route separated from the street to bicyclist and recreation users. This southerly segment connects to the existingtrail bridge adjacent to the salt mine at the southern edge ofthe San Diego Bay and provides access to Imperial Beach and the trails to Coronado. For the north half ofthis facility, there are plans to continue the Bayshore Bikeway north from H Street to E Street. City staff has already identified several alignment alternatives and in early 2013 will present these to the SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Working Group to gain their approval of the preferred alignment. This project may coincide with the Bayfront Development and complete the City of Chula Vista's participation to complete the entire Bayshore Bikeway around San Diego Bay. PREPARED BY: Name: Francisco X. Rivera P.E., T.E, Title: Principal Civil Engineer Name: Ben Herrera Title: Associate Engineer Date: January 4, 2073 Traffic - 2013 7 1-76 V .`~ Q4 n n °z 0 b a 0 0 C] a° M M N b 'rte N $7. a O n w N O ~ W J O~ c n .A - W N ~ ~~ ~ n r ~ n ~ ~ ^ ba ~ z ~ x a~h n z c> y ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ t a i b ~ ~ ~ ~a ° , ~ ~ o . ~ H ~ y o:G ;"v' ~ u' ~' ~ rJ t N " N ~ r ~ x ~ < ~ ° x ~ ~ hy"1 w ~ ~• w VI n N r"' ~ ' '~,~ ~~ ~ '~" n ~ ~- r` c ~ x ~ x ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ x pi ~ ; C ~ ~ ~ ~ r° n ' n a o ~n ~ C ~ n ' '~ ~' n ~ n ~ ~ ~ n ~ r,~ n ~ y ~ ' C° ~ a ~ ~ '~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v, ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ a to , n . , ~" ~ °, ~ ro a , ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ r. O O a` ~ ~ ~ o N CSS trs to ~n ~~ n Zc n Z, m ~ ~ tr7 t n ed Z ~ tc ~ ~ ta ~ ~ a7 ~ ~ a~ Z d O ~ m ~ ~ ts~ ~ tr~ ~ m ~o td ta ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : r _ _ -- C I I a a a a a~ a a co a~ ~o ~ ~ a ~a ~ ~ ~c m rc ao ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ N N v N v N v N ~-• N O'~ N ~n N N N w N ~-• ~D N w O ~ ~ ~ N w ~ ~ N H+ ~+ ~O '"'' ~o N N b l~ '~' J ~ C Z N cn i,,.a , N ~ c.w ~ ~D rn ~] Ov Co A ~n O CO N `O 00 ~ ] A ~' OD ~-+' I~+ In C!r LS d ' i 1 O d O W -_ O 0 0 O' O 0 0 O U C O ~ ~ O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 F~ ,F + O ~D O' ~O O ~ ~ ~p W o0 00 ~O ~P ~l ~l ~l v ~ w J J ~7 ~.1 00 ~ `O ~U I.-+ ~ I. +. I y, N -- ~ ~ b ' ` ~ p"'~ F~1 r 1 0 - - - - ~ ~S~Sy ~ -- ~ N y td y t~ n n t~ m tc~ n n n m a s m m td tr~ rn tr~ a~ ~ n n r „ O~ r~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ y - _ ~ v b i d ~ y N W N V~ N N ~ ~ ~ oo N B N O N O ~-+ Oo ~ ~ ~ J N •r W ~ W ~ N O N w ~ N w ~--~ ~ ~--~ b N '~ r N O N O, ~ ~ ~ oo C l7 N ~ v, .-~ -P .A N •y rn w 'v, w w w oo ~D ~D co 00 0o w a~ ~] w ~ W ~ WC C - - ~ - Cs7 n 0 rr 0 ~ ~--` ~ ~-' .--. 0 ~ 0 n 0 1 r~ GO ~ ~ B i-. O o ~ O 0o ~ O J n O ~] i-_. 0 J r-. 0 J i--~ 0 o0 r-.. 0 00 -. O' ~D r. O ~D ~ ~ ~ --` 1 0 .0 ~ O ~ i--~ O o0 r O r+ 0o Oo O 0 u ~D u ~A ~ ~ ~ v ~ O ~ O ~ a .~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...~ ' ~ ~ ~,.i ~a~ ~ ~ V] W ~ u ~ y I I - - _ - o~ a~ ~c n ~ ~ n n n n n r~ ~ a m m ~ n n r~ n n n n I o ~ '~ O O O ~D ~ ~ Oo ~ ~] ~ 00 ~. 00 ~ N O N oa w N N O ~ N N w ~ o0 ~ 00 N .~ ~..~ Co ~ ~ ~-. ' oo ~... O'+ r'C'~ ~ nd ~ O ' v w ~ G~ h~ --~ N ~ ~1 ~--• co 0o cO O N c, ~ i,~ v ~7 c.n O'+ N O 4P ~ d d - - _ O' 0 0 I 0 O O ~ O 40 , O 49 O' 00 O Ga O I W i 0 QQ I O ~ O ~ 0 0 O' l 1 CQ 0 I 00 0 '• ~ 0 ~ I ~ ~ . ~ .~ ,~ ~ , O ~ 7 ~ i 00 ~ 00 ~ W U ~ ~~..i ~ ~..i ~ v ~ !~ : ti..i u ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..i I u u ~ I I~ ; - VI 1 I f ~ ~ ~ b ' ~ '~ O dl BL-- ~ I ~ c ! W ~ ~ ~~ ~ W a ~ - - ' w O o'o~ c c o o~' ; ,~-~ ,~-~ , o' ~ o' o o .~-++ •~-~~ ° h I ~ ~ ~ q O A W i N 00 ~ l~ ~Q ~ M ~D , (~ ~ N ao G1 O ~ ~Il r-i l~ M M ~ ~ ~ v ~ 00 M 0 ~ ~ `D eV O_ ' i a a~ M M N N ~"~ ^' N N N , N W a v~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ O p „ U U U U I U U PE A U GG A U oa a1 A ~ I a i I ~ ~ _ N ~ rn O o W ~ ^ :. ~ A ~ ~ o Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ N. N I A M' N ~ ~ o~ ' oo O O o0 0o ~ rl -~ rl -- N ' N ~ 00 00 O~ O~ l~ [ ~ ~""~ O 0 0 ^ ~--~ O O ~ ~"~ ~"~ :"~ Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 I t T I I oA I •--. ~ ~ N„~, ~ ~r e'!~~W O N O h' , ~ ^ M ~ i O~~O N 01 ~ v , ~ [~ M N N ~ W O~ 00 00 ~ 1 ~ 0 N N N ~, A~Q1 ^ N N M M M N ~ ~ N ~ - O ~ ~ M ~ I i - ~ ~ I I i ,""_, O ~ U W ' U U al GO I f~ ' f~ d . 0.1 Q ~ ' m C4 Cq al A4 ra - - - - o , I L I _ i I - ~ ,., ~ M F A W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ 0.~ I ~a I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ O ~, O n 0 "' I A ° O o ~a . 0 0 U O 3 a hL -/ A o~ w i , ~ ~'' ~ I C ~' _ I ~ I i ~ ~ I ~ O 0'-0 i N C ~T '' ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ -+ _ N n n o~o I ono ono o a. ~~ o o 00 o -r r . o I ~ I i I - - I ) ~ A - - ~ Q O ~" W ~ n ry ~, -~ ' v ' O - ~ O M ~p M 1 O V J ~ ~ ~p ~ N N ~ t~ ~n o, N , a, W a t ~ . i N N N N d N M N r . !}'• (rj' ~ M i N i N- ~ Ni N I , W V) ~ - ~ a1 ~ 0 U m ¢ m m ¢ cc ~ Gq ra as ¢ ¢~ r~ i I - I - - C ~,, ~ ° w d ,., ~ F A ~ I ~ ~ N "'~ ~ 00 00 00 00 O [~ ~ O t` O I O -' 00 O 00 O O~ O 6~ ~ O ~ r1 ~ ri r"I rl ', rl rl ' >~ ,~ ~--~ .-. '--~ Op ~ O 00 O ~ ~ a O ~ O " O ~:. ~ :~ ~ :~; ~ ~ :. H . ;ma c, ~.- :. " :~ ~ ~ -- - ~ - - - - ' , i I ~ ~ ~; o A ~ j B M W ~ O N O~ G'~ N oo ~n O M G~ M O O !ri ~n O~ ~t ~ N ~ t 00 [~ ~D v'> >O ~n O V' ~ ~ ~ 1n ~ Ct ~ cn .-• O~ . Q~ H , .I ~ ~ ~~ N N N N N N N ~~ M M M N N N N ~ I ~ ~ Q -~ ~+ HW ~ ~ M'~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ U ~ U U U ¢ ¢ U ~ - f~ I C1 Cq W ~i ' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~Q - Ca ~ W ¢ ¢ - ~ .-. _ N! ' ~ I ~ - N t ~ ~ -, ~ E'i A °O ~ ~ M ~ a A ~ W G . :..~ ~..~ o a d ~ ~~d aW,, ~ ~ ~o ~ . ~ 0~ ~ 1 ~ ~ N ~ ~ IM ~ 0. ~ I _ ~ ~ ~ o ,- ~ ~, .-. ~ ~, .. r,~ ,-, ~, ,-. ~. ~. ~. ~ ,-, .-, ,-, ~, ~ ~ o v~ ~ , o, o~ rn rn ~- ~ U 00 0o rn rn ~ ,~ , C4 A .~ ~ .~ -~ o0 00 o d O o 0 o o g g 0 0 0 0 ~ .-~ ~ - o o ~ ~ - - -- _ Q W ~ _ ~ ,~, I''~ I ..; ~ l N _.. O ~ oo ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ~ ~ O n ch ~ ~~~ A Q? ~ ~ i"i ~ W [+ ~ 00 ~ M ~ ~ 'd' ^~ C 00 ~• ~ N' ' G i ~D ~ l~ ~O i d .r -~ ^-~ N N ' N M M N I ~ M ~ , N N N N O ~ a r o ~ °° I °r ~ ~ o ~ - - c ~ ~ G~7 - ~ ~ r~ m m Q - oa m r~ m Q~ ~~i ~ ~ ~ i ¢' ¢ ¢ ¢ w ~ ~ O ~ aa U~ ~ ~ io w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ _ I - ~ i A _ m ~ im °a m °a w ry I pa °a ,w ~ m ppa~ as ppaa as ~~aa a~ pp~~ O '' A iw 3 ~w 3 w 3 , z ~ , I w 3 w 3 w 3 ;w 3 w ;3 w 3 cQ I'+ H N ° `~' -o a x ° v~ Q v~ ~ ~ = oC d v~ 0 ~ 0 ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ i ~ $ ' w ~ ~ U M M ^ V ' V ~ M ^ p ^ ' ~" O ^' ^ x ~ i O I N ~ ~, ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ O 'O l z ¢ x ~, x H x a ~ x ~ x ~ x w x a; Q ~ ~ ~; ~ ; x ~ ~ ~ , ~ , 3 'y ~ ! ~ ¢ N ~ ~ ~ ,.... ~ ' '~. ~ N ~ ' b ~, 'a •a '~ i ' a ~ ~ ~ ti ~ o ti " ~ a -~ S a " v M ~ " ' a ~; h a ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ -o M ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 i~ 0 0 ,O ce ~O ° a O ~ x O I ~ ~ N N N N N N N ~ N N ~ _ _ _ M_ O 0 ~~-/ ~ , A W ~ x a ~" N ~ i w ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ :° a ~ O o o A Q 0 0 •~-i ~-+ ~0 0 gyp., , , I i ~ j ~ ~ II t ~ i A ; A W Q O r N .~ _ N N _ '~ _ ' Q~ D - "~ - O~ N N ~ '~ W ~ a a M N ~ o 0 o a` i °o N I M M r~i cM+i w ~ ~ ~ - -- - - ~ ~0 ~" cn m A ~iC aoa v ~4 ~ at ~ ¢, m a ~ 'II i ~ -, A I i N ~ i _ a A ~ ~ °` ; o ~ ~ ~ _ r .~ ~ ~, ~' ~ Q I o o A r, r ! i r r ~ a :.. ~ a , iM, - ' ~ W „ ~~ W d ri W ~r ~~ ~ F A ~--I ny M M 1 1 (/] ~ 7w ~ ~ O ~ °a m A a ~, ~ - N ~--~ O , ~ i M H a A A ~ C'd i~ Q a ~ ~ l ~ N ~ 00 V2 O ~-• o ~-• o A ^ o d , 1 a " " `. I ° ' i I I ~ A A ~ o ; O ~ / W W v O oo N ~ ~ vy ~ A4 , . a . ~, I ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ - O U ca U A ~ ~ ' i ~ - - A z ~ z ~ w 3 j ~ ~ '_ ` ~ ~ d ~ U a x ,, . N ~ .. `'' U 'ti a .~ W ~ Ca v ~~ i ~ U x a~ ~ U z ~ aa L x R ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ a ~ . = a , ,~ '~O x .a O ° ,o ~ v a a O m w a .5 ~-- M N M M M NM n O /~-l rn rn o 0 A w o o ~, ~ c. ~ a, ~ ri a,; ~~ a; o~ i ~, o of ~ ~ M ' ` ~ `/ QI 1 ~ ~./ / ..i - ~ ~ C/J O~ ~O O N a.' ~ O U D D, ~ QI oo ~ U v o0 ~ ' ~ itir~rd), i, ~ i ~ N! M I N N ~ A ~ . A o .,'t, i O ^' a i '~ '~ ~1~ilYi(i '-' ,~ ~ a o ~ A Q ~ a ~ o A W I ~ - M - W - .-, .~, .~ .-. .-, ,-. ,-, ,--, ~ ,-. .-. ~ W , . o 0 0 0 0 o 0 " 0 rn rn o 0 M ~ `. :~ ~ ~ ~ I i `. `. . ~~ ~I `., ~.. ~ I ~ l O a o0 M ^I ~G .Mr ~ I ~ I O G M ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , rn ~ M' A _ [~ ~ _~ a , W I _ z r--^ N f I I ~ Z " ~ ~ ~ V V V U U U ~ Q U U Q Q - O J ~ I ~ !? - A ~,p ~ C ~~ ~a I ~ ~ z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ , ~ ~ J ~ I ~I A ~w i [-~ W E ~ O ~ ~W Ifs, ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 . ~ i o 0 ,.y d ~d1 _ 00 , ~ _ ~ M ~p ~n I Oti .-+ O~ N d' 00 O~ ii ~~ a ti rl .-+ ~--i M M ~"i ~--i N M - E ~ ~ ~ . _ _ A A ~a '~ ~a a ~ '~ v v ~ ~ ¢ ¢ ~ ~ aa ¢ ~ d ~ ,~ 0 I i ~ _ 'A w 3 w3 w '3 z ~ ~ I~ - 3 ~ ~ w 3 - _ ~ a ~~ti?~~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ O ,,,1 , ~ ~ ,~ ~ , ~ as . ;~ t ~ M > O W I v ~ 1A ~ ~.. i ~ a ~ .-a ~ ~ ~ i ~ M ~ -• d i ~ ~ w ~C N v ~ O O ~ V p ~ ~ • ~ Q V] M ~ ~ O ~ n z V x 3 o x O ^ 3 p x ~ o ~ o Il ~ 1 ~ ~~ o ~ b ~ ~ a ~ , ~ ~ o ., ; W . ~ ~ , '° ti v ~ 'fl a me ,w ~, -o o ... . , a~ a ~ b >~ v i > ~ W ~ W ~ ~ N .s ~ o s ~ oo ,r ,, , ~" o CQ ~ •°- C ~ N ~ . w m r i mM ,, ~ m l~ s ~ ' : aa l~ ~ ~` ~N ~ x a la U O 28-/ I A A ° I ~ ~ ~ ; - 1 ray W W p~,r ~ a V] ~ ~''~ v O i 0 ~ 0 o~ O of O ~~ i O ~ O ~ n~ 6 ~ n 0 i ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ _ G ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ _ V2 ~ N . ~OI OOI O N~ OOI ~t' tt o0 Q+ C U \O O O M M lp [~ ~ Vl a ~ N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, I I I i l i ~ ~ 1 ~ w o l p ~!w - ~ a,a W ~~ m U U d (~ U U U m U W ~ - _ a ~ , O U a _ I A I M w - -- -- ~- -- - ! d A ,^' p'' I ~ r ' r-. r ~ .. i . . r,r ' ~ . . no n r . ~ r O ~ r O . 1 ~n O . . v, O ~ ~ M Ul O O O,O O O, H i ti _ ~ N ~ ~ - '~ ~O N Q~ 00 N -~ cn O ~ ~ M M V V1 ~ 00 N ~ ~ N _ I ~ M W ~ d ~l w _ i I Ai ~ Ca/~ U fa I U d U U U U W 0~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ O 0 Iw - z GTa ~~!~yy R+ A ~ ' '~ t 7 I " W~ ~ ~ ~ A w ~ C ~a 0 0 ~ o o o 'o o !o 0 F"Ia ~~ ; ~ ~ c" -' !" " ~ ;v im ~ I~ I ~ ,~ ti di ~ ~ 00 ~ ,--~ O d' r ~ M ~-• ~ O Qti o0 ~"~ i d ~ ,O r N M V' ~ ' N N I ~ 00 E , " - 1 IQ A I A w ~ I ~" ~,w d,~ ° CO U an d U U W Co I Ga U a O ~ _ - ~ v, ~; ~~ I w _ ~ A m m oa m oa i ' w m w w 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 d I 3 ~ _ - I ~ A _ _ z ,~ * ° Ix i ~ U ~ Q Ww W I ~ y ~ ~~ F -' I~ ° 0 00 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ I , z ~ ,~ ~ .~ . ~ ^ ~ ~ a ~ d^ ' / ^ 'G ~ 'b r . d I O .~.. U .~ ~ a~ i~ ~ ~ ~ °•F rk U ~ a U x b U x S O U '~ " O U 'v GG >,o U F C . °' ~, I a a~ C7 C m ~ ~ x a ~ . O ~ .s ~ N x ~ ° oo ~ ~ G ~ = ? ? ~ a :° o W ;~ o W ~ o w ~ o ff , U o ~ .a ~'° o W e b .G c ~ o ~ y ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o H ~ vU , ~ ~ I~ ~ x ~ ~ l ' ~ " ~ ` ~ ~ o Z o ~ , PQ . I W ~ i rW ; ,~ I . [~ n 0 0 O C7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®I3 -- FIRE ANA E1V~ERGENCX SERVICES Questionnaire covering 7/1/11-6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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 % of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes THRESHOLD 80.0% FY 2012 11,132 76.4 FY 2011 9916 78.1 FY 2010 10,296 86% FY 2009 9,363 84.0% FY 2008 9,883 86.9% FY 2007 1D,020 88.1% 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 2000-01 7128 80.8% FY 1999-00 6654 79.7% COMPARISON Average Response Time for 80% of Calls Average Travel Time 5:59 3:43 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 2.6% 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 Page 1 Fire - 2013 1-83 Over the last two years the Fire Department has seen an increase in our turnout times. We continue to monitor and address this through monthly data reviews and meeting with individual companies that are not meeting the standard. During the last year our call volume increased by 1493 calls (10% medical and 24% fire). In comparison our available resources, staffing and facilities remained the same. This resulted in a higher demand on available resources making meeting the standard increasingly difficult. 2. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have sufficient properlyequipped fire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. Yes No X Our aging fleet of fire apparatus combined with a reduction in public works support staff (radio technicians and mechanics) continues to hamper our ability to meet the standards. Older open cab fire apparatus are forced into service daily resulting in increased response times. We have a plan to adopt the National Fire Protection (NFPA) 1901 Standard for Fire Apparatus Maintenance and Replacement however we do not currently have the funding to execute the plan. 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 growthforthenextl2 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes No X Need to purchase Fire Apparatus 5. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growthforthenextfive years? If not, please explain. Yes No X Need to purchase Fire Apparatus 6. Please report the status of adoption of the Fire Facility Master Plan. The Fire Facility Master Plan is complete as is the fiscal analysis. The Fire Department is scheduling a series of public information meetings where we will share the plan with civic groups and solicit feedback prior to asking the city council to adopt the document. On the table below, please provide data on response and calls for service. Fire - 2013 Page 2 1-84 DISPATCH DATA Dates Call Volume Average Response Time Average Dispatch Time Average Travel Time % of Calls Within 7 Minutes FY 2011/12 11,132 6:01 33 seconds 3:43 76.4 FY 2010/11 9,916 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-OS 3,012 5:29 35 seconds 3:14 82.2 7-1-07 thru 3-3-OS* 6,871 4:58 llseconds 3:19 87.4 "Prior to transfer of dispatching services to San Diego Dispatch on 3-4-OS. Below is a sample NFPA 1710 chart that we would prefer to use for GMOC reporting in the future. This national standard is the tool used by fire departments to assess and report response and Effective Fire Force (EFF) statistics. This information would measure us against the National standard of 1 minute dispatch, 1 minute turnout and 4 minute travel time, and would prove to be a much more relevant data set, providing a clear picture of how our department and dispatch center are doing each year. NFPA 1710 Compliance Sample Table # of Calls Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Response EMS - 1st BLS Unit Standard I 1:00 1:00 4:00 6:00 Ave Time %Compliance ~, EMS - 1st ALS Unit I Standard ', 1:00 1:00 6:00 8:00 Ave Time ~ Compliance ~ Fire - 1st Unit Standard 1:00 1:00 4:00 6:00 Ave Time %Compliance Effective Fire Force - 14FF Standard 1:00 1:00 8:00 10:00 Ave Time %Compliance Fire - 2013 Page 3 1-85 8. What percentage of calls received were for fire services, and what percentage were for medical emergency services? Call Tvae I Percentage of Calls Fire 7.19% Medical 84.59% Other 8.22% 9. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldlike to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Fire Department continues to work towards several milestones. 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. Lastly, the City Council approved the long awaited Advance Life Support (ALS) program. We are in the process of hiring 10 new Firefighter Paramedics and working to finalize negotiations with American Medical Response (AMR). This program will 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: 11/29/12 Fire - 2013 Page 4 1-86 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 - 1'A~S & R~C~A'I,I®N Questionnaire covering 7/1/11-6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast THRESHOLD STANDARD Population Ratio: three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. 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. CITY OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, forecast, and Comparisons Forecasts Prior Year Comparisons Threshold Area of City Current Standard (6/30/12) 18-Month 5-Year June June 2011 June 2012 (12.31.13) (2017) 2010 3 acres per East I-805 1,000 AC/1,000 persons 3.1 2.96 2.63 3.02 3.16 3.1 population East of I-805 West I-805 AC/1,000 persons 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.21 1.21 L2 Citywide AC/1,000 persons 2.2 2.2 2.03 2.17 2.25 2.2 Acres of East I-805 418.01 418.01 426.88" 390.44 418.01 418.01 parkland West I-805 138.76 138.76 142.66 138.76 138.76 138.76 CltyWlde 556.77 556.77 569.56 529.2 556.77 556.77 Population East I-805 135,205 141,074 162,050** 129,307 132,357 735,205 West I-805 115,130 115,398 118,123 114,936 115,077 115,130 Citywide 250,335 256,472 280,173 244,243 247434 250,335 Acre shortfall East I-805 12.4 (6.2) (59.3)*** 2.52 20.94 12.4 or excess West I-805 (206.6) (207.4) (211.8) (206.5) (206.47) (206.6) Citywide (194.2) (212.6) (271.0) (203.53) (185.53) (194.2) Page 1 _87 GENERAL PLANNING ESTIMATES Chula Vista Population -- East versus West Area/Year 2000 2010 2017 East oft-805 64,827 129,307 162,050 West of I-805 118,473 114,936 118,123 Total 183,300 244,243 280,173 'Assumes completion of Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhood Park P-3 (6.93 acres), Millenia Park P-1 (1.97acres) and Orange Park (3.9 acres). (Parks forfuture Otay Ranch villages, Village 3, Village 8 east, Village S west and Village 9 are not listed but will be identfied through the SPA planning and entitlement process.) "The population forecast is generated by multiplying the unit projection provided by the Development Community by a State coefficient. ""This figure compares population projection with anticipated completed parks. However the anticipated completed parks do not include those parks obligated by the developments that have yet to be approved and entitled. There will be conditions of approval that obligate these parks to be constructed prior to specific building pertnitthresholds. The effect of this will be to preventthe type of park shortfall shown in these figures from occurring. See table below: Park provision at 5 years (2017) including park obligations for Village 3, Village 8 east, Village 8 west and Village 9 if entitlement and construction proceed at the rate projected by the Development Community Threshold Standard Acres of parkland Population Acres shortfall or excess East West Citywide East West Citywide East West Ci ide East West Citywide I- I-805 I-805 I-805 I-805 I-805 I- I-805 805 805 3.00 1.2 2.25 486.88** 142.66 629.54 162,050* 118,123 280,173 0 (211.8) (211) `The new villages, Village 3, Village 8 east, Village 8 west and Village 9 -assuming these villages generate additional populations in the order of 20,000 the park obligation for that population will be 20,000 x 3 acres/thousand = 60 acres which entitlement approvals will require the applicants to deliver. "Acreage available will be as stated in questionnaire above + 60 acres = 486.88 acres Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. 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 Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted forthe next 12- to 18-months? Yes No X Page 1-$8 The park/population ratio will be 2.96 acres per thousand, very nearly the required acreage but slightly under. Rounding up there are 3.00 acres/thousand. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? 5.2 acres b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? Yes, once the issues described in the response to question #3 are resolved. c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? There are sufficient fees to proceed with the master plan for Park P-3, the 6.93-acre parkin Village 2. 3. Last year, the GMOC Parks and Recreation questionnaire stated that, by the year 2016, there was the possibility of a park acreage shortfall in eastern Chula Vista of up to 24.9 acres (the equivalent of 2.83 acres per 1,000 residents east of I-805, rather than the 3 acres/1000 required by the threshold standard). The potential shortfall could be avoided and park deliveryexpedited if 1) physical issues on individual Otay Ranch Village 2 park sites (including a water line relocation issue) were resolved; and 2) if work commenced on individual park master plan designs. What is the status of this situation? Have issues been resolved and is the city on track to provide adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next five years? Yes No X Progress has been made on one significant issue. In Otay Ranch, Village 2, Baldwin & Sons is negotiating an agreement with the City of San Diego to purchase the waterline and associated easement land that traverses Village 2. The City of San Diego has accepted a relocation plan for the water line into Olympic Parkway and La Media Road. The Purchase and Sale Agreement will be considered by the City of5an Diego City Council in Apri12013; if approved, purchase ofthe land will be completed in May 2013.Once Baldwin & Sonstakes ownership ofthe property they will process their adjustments to the park property line and grading as-well as the water line relocation through the City of Chula Vista. While these preparatory processes are taking place, staff proposes to commence conceptual layout for Park P-3 based on a proposed base plan, which Baldwin & Sons will provide. This will assist with the first steps of the park master plan design after approvals are complete. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? 59.3 acres*** in 2017 b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? Yes, once the outstanding issues are resolved. The new villages, Village 3, Village 8 east, Village 8 west and Village 9 will all include irrevocable offers of dedication for parkland as part of their approval. Page t-89 c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? As mentioned above, there are sufficient fees for master planning the parks in Village 2. The new villages, Village 3, Village 8 east, Village 8 west and Village 9 will all be required to either pay park development fees or deliver completed parks in order to meet their park obligations, as part of their approval. 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 of service compare to previous years, and what is projected in the future? In the last two Fiscal Years, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, there was a 66%reduction in operating hours at all recreation centers, elimination of recreational swimming periods, a 50%reduction in adult lap swimming periods, and a 60% reduction in available Fitness Center hours. For Fiscal Year 2012- 2013,the City Council appropriated $200,000 towards opening facility operations at City recreation centers (Pa rkway Center/Gym, Loma Verde Center, Otay Center, Veterans Center, Heritage Center, salt Creek Center, and Montevalle Center), which included provision of structured and drop-in activities and programs, provision of meeting space for community groups and organizations, oversight of adjoining outdoor amenities, and fitness centers at several locations. The average number of days open to the public changed from three to six days per week as a result of added funding. At this point, it is projected that the future of level of service will continue for the next Fiscal Year, 2013-2014. The Recreation Department continues to seek opportunities for grant funding to operate services to help offset the General Fund, especially in areas of the City's aquatic facilities for swim lessons and pool program operations. 6. Are parks and recreation facilities, such as gazebos, being leased to the maximum? No. In calendar year 2012, the City experienced a decline in gazebo rentals from a total of 4,948 in 2010 and 4,074 in 2011 to 3,053 in 2012. The decline in rentals in 2011 was largely due to budget reductions, which eliminated the Park Ranger program. This led to gazebos not being cleaned and conflicts between day users and those who had reserved sites going unresolved, which discouraged people from reserving gazebos. In Fiscal Year 2012-13, the Park Ranger was partially restored, increasing gazebo reservations. With the partial restoration ofthe Ranger program, Public Works is actively promoting gazebo availabilityto the public and facility reservations are expected to continue to increase. What is the status of City Council approving the updated 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 forfinal action in 2013. 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldliketo relay to the GMOCand/or the City Council. Page ~ -90 While the forecast anticipates an upcoming ratio of less than the 3 acres per thousand in Eastern Chula Vista it is important not to lose sight of significant park projects that are anticipated soon. There is the Village 2 Community Park, also known as the 70 Acre Park. Once this is developed the ratio for Eastern Chula Vista should balance. There will also be a number of additional parks in the Millenia Development as triggers in the EUC Parks Agreement are met. The Chula Vista Bay Front Master Plan anticipates large areas of new park and it is understood that one of these parks will be installed at an early date. The population forecast is generated by multiplying the unit projection provided by the Development Community by a State coefficient. The unit projection increases substantially from the end of 2013 to 2017 representing a large part of the construction of Village 3, Village 8 east, Village 8 west and Village 9. As part of the approval process for these villages conditions of approval will be created that obligate these parks to be constructed prior to specific building permit thresholds. The effect of this will be to prevent the type of park shortfall shown in these figures from actually occurring. It should be noted that, when the GMOC process began, the inherited situation was thatthe 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, 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 the 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 to non-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: 2/12/13 revised 2/26/13 Page ~ _ 9 ~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2013 - FISCAI-, Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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 (07-01-11 to 06-30-12); b. The current fiscal year, 2012-2013; and c. What is anticipated in the coming five years. a. Fiscal Year 2011-12 (last fiscal year; 07/01/2011- 06/30/2012) A Five Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2010-i1 to 2014-15 was developed as part of the development of the fiscal year 2010-11 budget. Primarily because of a continuing decline in revenues, the Five Year Financial Forecast reflected an ongoing structural imbalance in the General fund budget. The fiscal year 2010-11 adopted budget was balanced with the use of one-time revenues in order to better assess the "new normal" for City revenues and develop along-term budget balancing plan. A budget balancing plan was implemented in January 2011. A total of 88.0 positions were eliminated from the budget, with reductions in all service areas. The fiscal year 2011-12 budget reflected the January 2011 budget balancing plan reductions and represented the fifth consecutive budget that required expenditure reductions in order to keep expenditures in line with declining revenues. The following table summarizes and compares revenues, expenditures and staffing for all funds and General fund reserves in fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Fiscal - 2013 Page 1 1-92 ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands) FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Increase/ Actual Actual (Decrease) Revenues Property Taxes $ 38,535 $ 35,706 $ (2,829) Sales Taxes 26,702 27,276 573 Other Local Taxes 22,739 19,857 (2,882) Licenses and Permits 2,909 2,973 64 Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 2,349 2,065 (283) Use of Money & Property 10,189 6,526 (3,664) Revenue from Other Agencies 52,771 44,243 (8,528) Charges for Services 54,527 56,549 2,021 Development Impact Fees 8,686 5,619 (3,067) Other Revenue 42,721 37,652 (5,069) Transfers In 70,525 82,248 11,723 Total Revenues $ 332,654 $ 320,713 $ (11,940) Expenditures Personnel Services $ 116,347 $ 113,576 $ (2,772) Supplies & Services 50,950 52,147 1,197 Other Expenses 45,786 49,047 3,261 Capital 10,965 2,549 (8,416) Transfers Out 70,525 82,248 11,723 CIP Project Expenditures 23,788 17,486 (6,302) Non-CIP Project Expenditures 7,167 2,036 (5,131) Utilities 6,241 6,433 192 Total Expenditures $ 331,769 $ 325,522 $ (6,247) GENERAL FUND SUMMARY (in Thousands) FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Increase/ Actual Actual (Decrease) Revenues $ 128,744 $ 121,697 $ (7,048) Expenditures $ 127,891 $ 122,501 $ (5,391) Year End Fund Balance $ 11,700 $ 11,900 $ 200 Fund Balance as % of Expenditures 9.15% 9.71% 0.57% STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs) FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Increase/ Actual Actual (Decrease) General Fund Legislative/Administrative 103.25 99.00 (4.25) Development/ Maintenance 238.75 199.75 (39.00) Public Safety 456.50 440.50 (16.00) Community Services 65.75 38.00 (27.75) General Fund Subtotal 864.25 777.25 (87.00)' ' A total of 88.0 General fund FTEs were eliminated as part of the budget balancing process. One FTE was added mid-year fiscal year 2010-11, resulting in a net reduction of FTEs when comparing fiscal year 2010-i1 and 2011-12 Fiscal - 2013 Page 2 1-93 Other Funds Development Services 39.00 39.00 - Police Grants/ CBAG 21.00 34.00 13.00 ARRA 6.50 4.50 (2.00) Environmental Services 4.00 4.00 - Housing Authority 7.00 7.00 - SuccessorAgency - - - Fleet Management 10.00 8.00 (2.00) Transit 3.00 1.00 (2.00) Sewer 46.00 46.00 - Redevelopment Agency 4.00 4.00 - OtherFundsSubtotal 140.50 147.50 7.00 Total All Funds 1,004.75 924.75 (80.00) Population (as of January 1) 245,987 249,382 3,395 FTEs per 1,000 population 4.08 3.71 (0.38) Housing Units 79,784 80,408 624 To follow is a brief overview of some the significant changes occurring in fiscal year 2011-12. One-Time Revenues The adopted budget for fiscal year 2011-12 included a transfer of $3.0 million from the City's Economic Contingency Reserve. The Economic Contingency Reserve was funded by budgetary savings resulting from the implementation of the budget balancing plan in January 2011. The funds were used to balance fiscal year 2011-12 with the anticipation that these revenues would be offset with reduced expenditures (the final debt service payment for the pension obligation bonds occurred in fiscal year 2011-12). Declinine Revenues In fiscal year 2011-12, Redevelopment Agencies were eliminated through State action. As a result, the City has eliminated its Redevelopment Agency and established a Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency will receive property tax increment revenues for enforceable obligations approved by the Oversight Board and the State Department of Finance. The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) was originally established in 1948 and directed to local government. In 2004, in an attempt to assist with the State's fiscal crisis, the State dropped the VLF fee from 2% to 0.65%. The State then backfilled this fee reduction with other State funds, with the exception of the first three months of fiscal year 2004-OS. In fiscal year 2011-12, the State eliminated the backfill. This resulted in the loss of approximately $687,000 annually to the City of Chula Vista. The City continues to receive the 0.65% portion of the fee directly from the State, but this amount is now net of County realignment and administrative reductions. The City's VLF revenues now fluctuate along with assessed values that are driven by changes in the real estate market. These fluctuations had a negative impact in fiscal year 2010-11 due to the continued decline in the housing market and an additional drop occurred in fiscal year 2011-12. According to the County of San Diego Assessors' Office, the City's total assessed valuation (both secured and unsecured) for the 2011-12 fiscal year was $21,893,699,349. This is a decrease of $24,750,997, or 0.11% under the 2010-i1 assessed valuation. Actual secured property tax revenues for fiscal year 2011-12 totaled $22.8 million. This is the same amount that was collected in the prior fiscal year. Fiscal - 2013 Page 3 1-94 The City has prudently been recording deferred revenue for collections of the City's Utility Users Tax (UUT) related to wireless telecommunications. Deferral of this revenue resulted in a $4.3 million reduction in UUT revenues that would have been recognized in £scal year 2011-12. Recognizing this revenue in the future will be contingent upon the outcome of lawsuits related to the UUT. Investment earnings were down due to the historically low interest rate environment. b. fiscal Year 2012-13 (current fiscal year; 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2013) In June 2012, the City Council adopted the 2012-13 annual operating budget, which provides $274.5 million in appropriations to fund all City operating activities. The General Fund budget totaled $124.8 million. The current national mortgage crisis continues to impact overall property values and property tax growth. Based on the information received from the San Diego County Assessor, Chula Vista's change in net taxable assessed value for fiscal year 2012-13 is negative 0.71%. This rate of change can be compared to the 2010-I1 negative growth rate of 0.11%. City management anticipated this slowdown in the housing market, and its effects on property tax revenue growth, as well as the overall condition of the economy, and adjusted revenue estimates in the 2012-13 budget accordingly. Current economic reports indicate that the nation is slowly showing signs of recovery with positive, but weak, growth. The estimated revenues for Chula Vista reflect mixed indicators - sales tax revenues are anticipated to increase moderately in the fiscal year 2012-13, while property tax revenues are expected to decrease slightly. Despite continued fiscal constraints, the fiscal year 2012-13 budget provides for substantively the same City services and resources as the fiscal year 2011-12 adopted budget. The following table summarizes and compares revenues, expenditures and staffing for all funds and general fund reserves in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13. ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands) FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Increase/ Actual Projected (Decrease) Revenues Property Taxes Sales Taxes Other Local Taxes Licenses and Permits Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties Use of Money & Property Revenue from Other Agencies Charges for Services Development Impact Fees Other Revenue Transfers In $ 35,706 $ 34,179 $ (1,527) 27,276 27,834 558 19,857 21,177 1,320 2,973 2,490 (483) 2,065 2,548 483 6,526 3,240 (3,285) 44,243 46,678 2,435 56,549 50,965 (5,584) 5,619 4,277 (1,341) 37,652 32,781 (4,871) Total Revenues Fiscal - 2013 Page 4 1-95 Expenditures Personnel Services $ 113,576 $ 117,382 $ 3,806 Supplies & Services 52,147 56,806 4,658 Other Expenses 49,047 27,539 (21,508) Capital 2,549 3,087 538 Transfers Out 82,248 33,969 (48,279) CIP Project Expenditures 17,486 20,144 2,658 Non-CIP Project Expenditures 2,036 8,120 6,083 Utilities 6,433 7,425 992 Total Expenditures $ 325,522 $ 274,471 $ (51,051) GENERAL FUND SUMMARY (in Thousands) FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Increase/ Actual Projected (Decrease) Revenues $ 121,697 $ 124,266 $ 2,569 Expenditures $ 122,501 $ 124,840 $ 2,339 Year End Fund Balance $ 11,900 $ 11,300 $ (600) Fund Balance as % of Expenditures .9.71% 9.05% -0.66% STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs) FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Increase/ Actual Projected (Decrease) General Fund Legislative/Administrative 99.00 101.00 2.00 Development/ Maintenance 199.75 201.75 2.00 Public Safety 440.50 448.00 7.50 Community Services 38.00 38.10 0.10 General Fund Subtotal 777.25 788.85 11.60 Other Funds Development Services 39.00 41.50 2.50 Police Grants/ CBAG 34.00 34.00 - ARRA 4.50 - (4.50) Environmental Services 4.00 5.00 1.00 Housing Authority 7.00 7.00 - SuccessorAgency - 1.00 1.00 Fleet Management 8.00 8.00 - Transit 1.00 1.00 - Sewer 46.00 46.00 - Redevelopment Agency 4.00 - (4.00) Other Funds Subtotal 147.50 143.50 (4.00) Total All Funds 924.75 932.35 7.60 c. Five Year Forecast (Fiscal Year 2013-14 through 2017-18) As part of the development of the fiscal year 2012-13 budget, the General fund Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2012-13 through 2016-17 was developed. Staff is currently in the process of updating the forecast. The forecast serves as a tool to identify financial trends, shortfalls and issues so that the City can proactively address them. 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 Fiscal - 2013 Page 5 1-96 projected growth, preserve the City's long-term fiscal health by aligning operating revenues and costs, and slowly rebuild the operating reserves. Current economic impact reports continue to reflect a soft economy. Therefore, the base forecast assumptions continue to reflect a conservative outlook. The base forecast assumes that major discretionary revenues will increase at very modest levels throughout the forecast period. The following table represents the preliminary Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2012-13 through 2016-17 for the General fund, as presented to the City Council in May 2012. It reflects the continuing fiscal challenges that are projected for the City as shown in the forecast period. 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 the previous forecast. Preliminary Five Year Financial Forecast (FY 2012-13 through FY 2016-17) FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 Forecast Forecast Forecast Revenues $ 124,266,000 $ 123,987,000 $ 125,716,000 $ 127,694,000 $ 130,251,000 Fvnanrliti~rPC S 124.840.000 S 127.303.000 $ 128,831,000 $ 130,380,000 $ 131,980,000 The key assumptions applied in the financial forecast are as follows: Economic & Population Growth • Inflation is a measure of the increasing cost of goods and services. Inflation impacts many revenues, including rents and leases, and most expenditure categories throughout the five-year forecast and is projected to average 2% per year, which is a conservative assumption based on recent projections provided by the UCLA Anderson Forecast. • The regional economies will begin to recovery at very moderate levels. • City population will continue to reflect modest increases. • Millenia Project (Eastern Urban Center) and Bayfront Development - No additional revenues or operating expenses are assumed related to the Millenia Project or the Bayfront project area. As timing of development becomes more certain, the revenues and operating expenses related to additional service demands will be added to the forecast. Maior Revenues • Sales Tax revenues will increase modestly (3% annually) throughout the forecast period. • Base assessed value will remain flat through fiscal year 2014-15 as a result of the continued fall-out from the housing crisis. Beginning in fiscal year 2015-16 and 2016-17, assessed values are assumed to increase by 2% and 3% respectively. • The recent state takeway of motor vehicle license fee revenues are reflected in the forecast. • The Redevelopment Agency continues to fund loan repayments to the General fund at an average of $1.5 million per year. • Franchise Fee revenues no longer assume any funds from the operation of the South Bay Power Plan. • No UUT wireless telecommunications revenues are assumed. Z FY 2012-13 projected reflects the adopted fiscal year 2012-13 budget. Fiscal - 2053 Page 6 Expenditures • Expenditures related to negotiated salary increases are reflected in the forecast based on currently negotiated Memoranda of Understanding. Step increases are included in the fiscal year 2012-13 budget but no additional raises, including step increases, are assumed beyond the current MOUs. • Flex Plan increases based on 10% health care premium increases per fiscal year based on historical trends. • CaIPERS retirement contribution rates will continue to increase due to recent market losses. • No salary savings (vacancies) are assumed in the forecast with the goal of a developing a conservative base budget. • No additional personnel are assumed in the forecast with the exception of a grant funded position approved during fiscal year 2011-12 in the Police Department. 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? In December 2007, the national economy officially entered a recession, now generally considered to be the worst since the Great Depression of 1929. This significant decline in economic activity severely impacted all economic sectors including government agencies. The City of Chula Vista felt the effects of the recession earlier than most agencies, primarily due to previous rapid residential growth and the effects of the foreclosure crisis, which eventually spread across the Country. Adding to the City's fiscal strain was the closure of the South Bay Power Plant and the loss of Utility Users' Taxes for wireless telecommunication services. 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 of Chula Vista has taken steps to avoid deficit spending through a variety of cost saving measures including the reduction or elimination of programs, pension reform, hiring freezes, reductions in staffing levels, and administrative freezes on discretionary spending. These actions were difficult and required the collaborative efforts of the City Council and City employees in order to implement these reductions and to continue providing quality city services. During this time of fiscal stress, the City has had a number of fiscal health achievements, including: • 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. The fiscal year 2012-13 budget process began in January 2012 with presentation of the City's first Fiscal Recovery and Progress Plan. The Fiscal Recovery and Progress Plan provides an overview of the City's financial condition and highlights some of the major challenges the City will need to address in the coming years in order to continue on a path to financial resiliency. The Plan has been included as Attachment 1 to your packet. 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 six Fiscal - 2013 Page 7 1-98 years are the result of the significant issues around the housing market, the slowdown in the overall economy, and the loss of TUT revenues. 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 6, the City anticipates continuing fiscal challenges throughout the forecast period. As noted in the forecast table, General fund deficits are indicated in the out years of the forecast period, though at a significantly reduced level when compared to the previous forecast. Staff anticipates addressing these deficits without further impacts to service levels. In fiscal year 2011-12, the City began focusing on three new initiatives. This focus continues into fiscal year 2012-13. These initiatives support the development of additional resources and the efficient use of existing and new resources. The three initiatives are as follows: 1. Implementation of the Continuous Improvement/ Lean Program 2. Development and Implementation of a Recovery & Progress Plan 3. Renewed focus on Economic Development Continuous Improvement/ Lean Program Program components include: • Determining appropriate service levels; • Developing departmental staffing analysis plans; • Continuingto identify and implement efficiency measures; and • Further developing public/ private and public/ public partnerships. Recovery & Progress Plan Development and Implementation of a Recovery & Progress Plan will help the City consider short-term and long-term resource allocation. One of the components of the Plan includes development of a long-term financial plan that will identify and help determine a strategy for addressing deferred maintenance and equipment replacement. The plan is complete (see Attachment 1) and implementation is underway. Economic Development During fiscal year 2010-11 the City Manager reorganized Conservation and Environmental Services and reassigned the Director of Conservation and Environmental Services to be the Director of Economic Development. This position focuses on short-term and mid-term initiatives that 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 and Communications position, which is funded out of cable and other communications revenues. This new focus on Economic Development has four key areas: • Expand City marketing efforts to enhance revenues, improve business development and attract people to live and work in the City. One program already implemented is the 'Shop Chula Vista Now' campaign which includes an incentive card that provides discounts and other perks to cardholders. In exchange for offering incentives to cardholders, Chula Vista businesses are promoted by the marketing campaign. Fiscal - 2013 Page 8 1-99 • Build sustainable revenue sources to fund quality services (i.e. increase sales tax capture). One program already implemented is the 'Keep it Local' campaign which encourages residents to make their purchases at Chula Vista businesses, increasing local sales tax capture. Identify and recruit new industries that provide quality employment opportunities. Analysis is currently underway to identify businesses or business "clusters" to recruit that would produce high-quality jobs. • Advance key projects that will transform the City. Specific projects to advance include the Chula Vista Bayfront, the Millenia project and the University Park and Research Center. In the current fiscal year the City anticipates modest recovery in the local economy. The City has been f nancially challenged over the last few years and there are many competing priorities as City revenues begin to grow. Implementation of the Continuous Improvement/ Lean program, implementation of the Recovery and Progress Plan, and a renewed focus on economic development will help the City focus its resources in the most cost effective manner. This focus on efficient use of resources supports optimum service levels. 4. The number of residential building permits Chula Vista issued in 2012 will exceed 800 -more than three times the number issued in 2009 (275). How will a sustained increase in residential building permits affect the city's fiscal health and the ability to maintain threshold standards? The impact of a sustained increase in residential building permits on the City's fiscal health and the ability to maintain threshold standards must be considered in terms of both capital and operations (facilities and staffing). Capital Impacts All new residential development in the City pays development impact fees to mitigate its impact on (and demand for) public facilities. A sustained increase in residential building permits will generate the development impact fees required to pay debt on existing facilities (Civic Center, Police, etc.) and construct additional facilities. Any acceleration of the rate of DIF paying residential development will serve to make additional funds available for project construction and/or accelerated repayment of external debt. Operational Impacts All large scale residential development in the City is subject to a fiscal impact analysis during the entitlement process. This analysis considers the additional costs to the City to serve the new development, and compares that with the revenues anticipated to be generated by the new development. As residential development in the City continues to increase, a return to the highs of the early 2000's is not expected. With residential development in the range of 800 to 1,000 residential units annually, the City should realize commensurate increases to property taxes, sales taxes, and other local taxes, offsetting the cost of providing additional operating resources. Fiscal - 2013 Page 9 1-100 5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below for the period under review. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW (7/1/11-6/30/12) During Reporting Period Date of DIF FUND CURRENT DIF * Amount Collected Amount Expended •` FUND BALANCE (Audited) Date DIF Last Comprehensively Updated Last DIF Adjustment Next Scheduled DIF Update Eastern Transportation DIF 12,198/EDU 1,453,551 2,561,101 24,837,924 Dec-OS Oct 2012 OR 2013 Western Transportation DIF 3,408/EDU 41,885 6,703 63,444 Mar-08 Oct 2012 Oct 2013 Traffic Signal 32.57/trip 201,272 864,868 2,652,225 Oct-02 Ott 2012 Ott 2013 Telegraph Canyon Drainage 4,579/acre 57,952 10,507 6,114,387 Apr-98 N/A Unscheduled Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer 216.50/EDU 10,517 60,000 3,149,199 Sep-98 N/A Unscheduled Salt Creek Sewer Basin 1,330/EDU 172,494 69,352 1,517,553 Aug-04 N/A Unscheduled Poggl Canyon Sewer Basin 265/EDU 76,710 2,184,383 lun-09 N/A Unscheduled Pedestrian Bridges - Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 1,114/SFDU 141,752 37,256 374,255 Feb-07 N/A Unscheduled - Otay Ranch Village 11 2,190/SFDU 157,342 2,954,658 Sep-OS Oc[ 2012 Oct 2013 PUBLIC FACILITIES -Administration 586/SFDU 650,456 600 3,978,737 Nov-06 Oct 2012 Oa 2013 - Civic Center Expansion 2,670/SFDU 679,456 - 9,917,850 "" "" "" -Police Facility 1,629/SFDU 357,592 - (1,342,816) "" "" "" -Corp. Yard Relocation 438/SFDU 134,650 - 2,569,836 "" "" "" -Libraries 1,533/SFDU 675,736 - 10,075,405 "" "" "" -Fire Suppression System 1,350/SFDU 497,124 - (11,500,795) "" "" "" -Recreation Facilities 1,164/SFDU 496,076 - (5,120,048) "" "" "" PUBLIC FACILITIES TOTAL g,;70/SFDU 3,491,090 600 8,578,169 Nov-06 Oct 2012 "" 'Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown. Fee varies by type of residential unit, and for commercial and industrial development -see various fee schedules included in Attachment 2. "'On a separate sheet of paper list the projects to be funded and/or completed over the next twelve months. (Attachment 2) •"'Public Facilities DIF fund balance is largely ($5.9 million) reserved for debt service payments (Debt Service Reserve). Debt Service Reserve funds are not available for project expenditures 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? Adeouacv 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. Fiscal - 2013 Page 10 1-101 DIF projects are constructed via three financing scenarios: 1. Cash-on-hand 2. External debt financing 3. Developer construction It a facility is constructed or acquired using cash-on-hand, the fund provides direct financing using developer fees. This means of project financing avoids financing costs while creating the greatest short term impact upon fund balance. 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 the debt, all DIF debt obligations are secured by the City's General Fund. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program is the only DIF program to use external debt financing. The recent slowdown in development activity has significantly reduced the fees collected by the PFDIF, 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 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. For 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 activity. In December 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3120, establishing a payment plan program for certain development fees. In April 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3126, expanding the program to include the deferral of Park Acquisition and Development Fees. In August 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3163, further amending the fee deferral program to allow the payment of fees at building permit final inspection, rather than at building permit issuance. This Ordinance included a December 31, 2011 sunset. In November 2011, and again in November 2012, the fee deferral program was extended for an additional year. The current version of the ordinance includes a sunset date of December 31, 2013, at which time the fees will revert back to their traditional triggers: building permit issuance or final map approval. The only exception to the December 31, 2013 sunset is the Eastern Urban Center (EUC)/ Millenia project. This project will be eligible to defer impact fees to occupancy through project build-out, 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 Fiscal - 2013 Page 11 1-102 revenues collected in fiscal year 2010-i1 and $3.5 million collected in fiscal year 2011-12. Fiscal - 2013 For each of the funds, the available fund balance as of June 30, 2012 is listed on the Development Impact Fee Overview table on page 9. 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 including 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: FY 2005-06 through Build-out' included as Attachment 3 to this report. The debt service reserve funding target is equivalent to the PFDIF's maximum future annual external debt service obligation (currently $5.9 million). As shown in the PFDIF cash flow, the debt service reserve is fully funded as of the end of fiscal year 2011-12. 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 continued reserve of these funds reduces the funds available for project expenditures. 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 9, the PFDIF ended fiscal year 2011-12 with a fund balance of nearly $8.6 million ($5.9 million in Debt Service Reserve). As a result of the successful. debt restructuring plan implemented by the City in 2010, the PFDIF is anticipated to meet its debt obligations without impacting the General Fund through build-out, as shown in the PFDIF projected cash flow (Attachment 3). Prior to the 2010 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 $0.7 million annually, for a total annual debt payment of $5.9 million. 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 Eastern TDIF loaned the PFDIF $5.2 million in fiscal year 2008-09 and an additional $5.3 million in fiscal 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 external debt. The PFDIF's annual payment to repay the $10.5 million in interfund loans from the Eastern TDIF is projected to range from $0.4 million to $1.1 million, with an average payment of $1.0 million over a 30-year repayment period. The actual annual debt payment will vary depending on the repayment period (may be greater than 10 years if available funds are insufficient) and the City's pooled interest rate. When combined with the annual external debt obligation of $5.9 million, a $1.1 million annual internal debt obligation results in a total annual debt obligation of $7.0 million. Based on the current PFDIF cash flow projections (Attachment 3), the PFDIF has sufficient funds to begin repayment in fiscal year 2013-14. This repayment will be considered in development of the fiscal year 2013- Page 12 1-103 14 budget. Minimum development activity required to meet the PFDIF's internal and external debt obligations is summarized in the table below. PFDIF Annual Debt Payment Obligation, Minimum Development Requirements Minimum Building Permit c. Description Average Annual Payment Activity (Multi-Family) External Debt (COPS) $ 5,900,000 660 Internal Debt (TDIF) $ 1,100,000 120 Total Debt $ 7,000,000 780 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 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. In the table below, please indicate whether the existing DIF fund is adequate or needs to be revised. DIF FUND ADEQUATE/ REVISE TRANSPORTATION ADEQUATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL ADEQUATE TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE ADEQUATE TELE. CANYON GRAVITY SEWER ADEQUATE SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN ADEQUATE POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES Otay Ranch Villages 1, S & 6 ADEQUATE Otay Ranch Village it ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES REVISE Administration Civic Center Expansion Police Facility Corp. Yard Relocation Libraries Fire Suppression Systems 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 fiscal- 2013 Page 13 1-104 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 recently funded PFDIF debt service reserve). 7. What is the amount of debt service for this year compared to last year? Fiscal year 2011-12 all funds actual debt service expenditures totaled $12.9 million. The fiscal year 2012-13 debt service expenditure budget totals $10.1 million, a decrease of $2.8 million or 21.4%. This reduction is the result of the payoff of the 1994 Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) in 2011-12 (annual payment of $2.8 million). Please note, the above figures reflect the following assumptions: • Includes bonded debt • Excludes equipment leases • Excludes interfund loan repayments • Includes principal, interest and arbitrage payments • Includes monies expended by the trustee and directly out of City funds • Includes debt service expenditures in all City funds, including General fund, PFDIF and Residential Construction Tax (RCT). 8. 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. This City does not have a debt service payment policy. A policy is currently in development, and will be presented to the City Council for consideration. 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. During the interim between comprehensive updates, the PFDIF (the only DIF program with external debt obligations) is subject to annual inflationary increases. As shown in the PFDIF cash flow projection (Attachment 3j, the inflationary updates implemented to date in the PFDIF program are anticipated to fully cover additional financing costs incurred since the last comprehensive update of the program. The next comprehensive PFDIF program update will consider all program cost increases, including increases to construction estimates for existing projects, addition of new construction projects and additional financing costs. 9. 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). Fiscal - 2013 Page 14 1-105 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 previously reported to the GMOC, 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 identified 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 interfund loan between the Eastern PAD fund and the Western PAD fund. The Lower Sweetwater Community 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). At the time that the loan was approved, the loan was to 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 was to ensure that PAD funds are repaid to fully fund the development of the park for which they were originally collected. With the State's elimination of the Redevelopment Agency, this obligation was rejected, leaving the ability of the western PAD to repay the eastern PAD solely dependent on actual western residential development. 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 Western 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 summarized in the table below. PAD Interfund Loans, Park Site Acquisition Loan from Western Loan East to West PAD Funds Park Acreage Approved PAD Applied Purchase Price Acquired March 2010 $ 9,600,000 $ 0 $ 9,600,000 14.25 acres December 2011 $ 310,000 $ 630,000 $ $940,000 1.89 acres Total $ 9,910,000 $ 630,000 $ 10,540,000 16.14 acres The repayment schedule for the December 2011 loan 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 the outstanding loans. Slow Fiscal - 2013 Page 15 1-106 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 authorization 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-12S and Eastlake Drive fora 3.94-acre parcel located adjacent to the Lower Sweetwater Community Park site. 30. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Development activity has returned at modest levels, generating increased cash flows to development impact fee programs. These revenues provide additional security for external debt and reduce future risk of impacting the General fund to meet DIF debt obligations. A cautious, conservative approach in the future is essential. Protecting debt service reserves is critical in ensuring we continue to avoid General fund impacts from DIF tee shortfalls. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Fiscal Recovery and Progress Plan (FY 2013 - FY 2017) 2. Fiscal Year 2011-12 Financial Schedules for all DIFs 3. Public Facilities Development impact Fee (PFDIF) Cash Flow: Fiscal Year 2005-06 through Build-Out PREPARED BY: Name: Maria Kachadoorian Title: Finance Director Name: Karim Galeana Title: Senior Accountant Name: Tiffany Allen Title: Treasury Manager Date: January 31, 2013 Fiscal - 2013 Page 16 1-107 Attachment 1 Note Attachment 1 of the Fiscal questionnaire is not included with this report. It is a 104-page document entitled "Fiscal Recovery and Progress Plan, Fiscal Years 2013 to 2017." -, 08 SCHEDULEI TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 11112 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J 0 cc Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic and transportation improvements in support of future development. Amount of the Fee: $ 12,198 per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached 9,758 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached (med density) 7,319 per mufti-family equivalent dwelling unit 195,163 per general commercial gross acre 97,594 per industrial gross acre FY 11/12 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION FUND 591 TRANSPORTATION DIF Beginning Balance, 07/01/11 $ 25,704,468 TDIF Fees Collected 1,308,775 Transportation State Share - Interest Eamed 141,490 Miscellaneous Revenues 3,286 Forgiveness of debt - Transfer-In ~ 241,006 Expendttures: Supplies & Services (11,468) City Staff Services (152,984) SR-125 DIF Refunds (2007-182) - Debt Payment - Calease Fiscal Sys - Transfer-Out - 2003 Refunding COP - CIP Project Expenditures (2,396,649) Unaudited Ending balance, 06!30/12 $ 24,837,924 D w n S 3 m 0 rt N SCHEDULE 1.1 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 11112 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J J O FY 11112 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially SCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/12 Funded by TDIF Appropriations Scheduled PROJECT DE OP206 Automation -AutoCAD Upgrade $ 15,879 45,000 29.00% 15,000 2010 OP208 CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase 3,267 75,000 39.50% - 2009 OP220 Global Positioning Virtual Refrn Station - 17,500 70.00% - 2011 STL261 Willow St Bridge Widening 370,953 1,437,740 40.80% 929,015 1999 STL384 Willow Street Bridge Utility Relocation 41,988 50,000 100.00% 104,937 2012 STM331 98 E. Orange Extension 3,155 3,959,904 100.00% - 1999 STM355 Otay Lakes Road Widening, East H to Canyon 1,400,559 6,900,000 100.00% 810,000 2003 STM357 Rock Mtn Rd -Heritage to La Media - 232,000 100.00% - 2004 STM359 Rock Mtn Rd - SR125 Overpass 13,139 300,000 100.00% - 2010 2007 STM364 Heritage Road Bridge Reconstrc 124,272 3,940,000 66.40% - STM374 Heritage Road - Olympic to Main 188 150,000 100.00% - 2012 STM375 SR125 at San Miguel Ranch - 1/2 Interchange 173 172,869 100.00% - 2012 TF274 Traffic Count Stations - 420,000 87.50% - 2002 TF325 Transportation Planning Program 24,810 320,000 66.70% 500,000 2007 TF355 1805 Cortidor Imprv. Arterial Ops 5,799 50,000 66.70% - 2010 TF364 TDIF (Trans Dev Impact Fund) Update 794 255,000 100.00% - 2007 TF379 Traffic Mgmt Center-Traffic Monitoring System 391,673 450,000 100.00% - 2012 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 2,396,649 D d n T N 7 .r N .J J SCHEDULE 1.2 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Loan Outstanding Loan Amount Advance to Western Transportation DIF approved via Council approved FY09 budget 36,094 Advance to PFDIF (General Administration) approved by Council Resolution #2008-300 on December 16, 2008 5,994,560 Advance to PFDIF (General Administration) approved by Council Resolution #2009-137 on June 9, 2009 5,373,785 Interest Rate 2.140% 3.80% 0.56% rD M 91 A S 3 m 0 M N SCHEDULE2 WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic and transportation improvements in support of future development. Amount of the Fee: $ 3,408 per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached 2,726 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached (med density) 2,045 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 66,156 per regional commercial gross acre 204,459 per high rise office gross acre J N FY 11/12 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/11 WTDIF Fees Collected Interest Earned Transfer-In Expenditures: Supplies & Services City Staff Services Transfer-Out -TDIF CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/12 FY 11/12 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES STL349 UC Bike Path/Ped Accss Std 3rd $ - TF363 Western TDIF Bayfront Update 6,703 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 6,703 FUND 593 WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DIF 181.156 39,992 1,893 Total Appropriation as of 6/30/12 55,000 za,sss (152,894) (6,703) $ 63,444 Of Project Funded by TDIF zs.oo°r° 10o.oo°i° Future Appropriations Initially Scheduled zoos zoos D w s 3 3 r~ v SCHEDULE3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: For City's traffc signal needs resulting from increased traffic volume caused by new development. Amount of the Fee: $ 32.57 per trip FY 11!12 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/11 j Traffic Signal Fees Collected I Federal Grant -` Interest Earned w Miscellaneous Revenues Transfer-In Expenditures: City Staff Services Other Refunds Transfer-Out- 2003 Refunding COP CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, O6/30/12 FUND 225 TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND $ 3,315,821 145,470 29,996 25,806 (2,117) (862,751) $ 2,652,225 D x d T a A .. N SCHEDULE 3.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J I FY 11112 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Fundec Future Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/12 by Traffic Signal DIF Appropriations Scheduled OP206 Surevey Monument Preservation Replacement $ 5,273 13,000 9.40% - 2010 OP208 CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase 3,267 40,000 21.10% - 2009 STM370 North Fourth Avenue Widening 25,234 30,000 11.00% - 2011 TF300 Traffic Signal Instl Hilltop /Oxford 31,494 449,401 100.00% - 2003 TF316 Signal Installation-2nd & Quintard 4,399 40,000 13.10% - 2005 TF320 SignallnstlGreensgate/Greenvw 87 157,157 100.00% - 2008 TF330 Traffic Modification 4th /Main & 4th / Beyer - 627,000 70.00% - 2006 TF331 Traffic Modification 3rd /Montgomery 902 390,000 56.52% - 2006 TF335 Traffic Signal Installation Brandywine & Sequoia - 309,201 100.00% - 2007 TF337 Traffic Left Turn Modifcation Program 14,840 226,649 100.00% - 2006 TF349 Traffic Signal Modification 1st Ave. E St. Intersection 2,933 600,000 100.00% - 2008 TF354 Traffic Congestion Relief Program - 55,000 20.00% - 2006 TF355 1805 Corridor Improvement Arterial Ops ~ - 25,000 33.33% - 2008 TF360 Hwy Safety Imprv Prog Mjr Intr 539,595 702,090 51.00% - 2009 TF366 Trafc Sgnl & Stlight Upgrd/Mtn 38,628 255,913 41.89% - 2009 TF370 Traffic Signal Instal Albany & Orange 30,048 350,000 100.00% - 2010 TF371 Traffic Modification Hilltop Dr 8 Main Street 144,251 250,000 100.00% - 2010 TF374 Mod Traffic Signal/Equip. 3rd&I and 3rd&K 1,126 200,000 100.00% - 2011 TF376 Mad Traffic Signal Modification at 3rd&K 20,674 50,000 0.00% - 2011 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES - $ 862,751 D `~ v n S fD 7 .e N SCHEDULE4 TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (TC DRAINAGE DIF) FY 11/12 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 11/12 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01111 TC Drainage Fees Collected Interest Earned ~ Transfer-In I Expenditures: ~ Debt Service Payment to 03 Refunding COP ~ CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/12 FY 11/12 CIP EXPENDITURES: FUND 542 TC DRAINAGE DIF $ - 6,D66,942 57,952 (10,507) $ 6.114,387 PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded Future Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/12 by DIF Appropriations Scheduled DR118 94lfele Cyn Channl Design $ 407 3,919,026 100.00% - 1994 DR167 Telegraph Canyon Drainage Study Third & L 321 1,251,000 100.00% - 2006 DR782 Telegraph Canyon Channel Improvement K-1st 7,700 50,000 100.00% - 2010 DR183 Telegraph Canyon Drainage Study ~ 2,079 1,600,000 100.00% - 2010 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES ~ $ 10,507 D m n s 3 m .. N SCHEDULES SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 11112 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES I rn 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 m ~- 3 m .. N SCHEDULE 5.1 SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 11/12 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Fund 431 Fund 432 Fund 433 TC Gravity PC Sewer SC Sewer Sewer DIF Basin DIF Basin DIF Beginning Balance, 07/01/11 $ 3,198,682 $ 2,107,673 $ 1,664,411 I DIF Fees Collected - 56,108 118,559 Interest Eamed 10,517 20,602 53,935 ~ Transfer-In - - - Expenditures: City Staff Services - - (6,425) Depreciation Expense -Infrastructure (60,000) - - Interest Paid - - (62,927) Transfer Out to Fund 413 - - - Transfer Debt Service - - (250,000) CIP Project Expenditures - - - Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/12 $ 3,149,199 $ 2,184,383 $ 1,517,553 D .. .. v n T 3 m 0 M N SCHEDULE6 OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J I J J 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 $ 2,190.00 826.00 $ 1,627.00 FY 11/12 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/11 DIF Fees Collected Interest Eamed Otay Parkway Ped. Bridge (2008-102) City Staff Services Other Refunds Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/12 FUND 587 FUND 588 OTAY RANCH DIF OTAY RANCH DIF 269,759 $ 2,797,316 138,006 129,296 3,746 28,046 (37,256) - $ 374,255 $ 2,954,658 a ^. d ~' 3 m 3 M N SCNEDULE7 PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF) FY 11/12 STATEMENT OF FUND BALANCE Descripflon d Fee and amount: Admistra6on ($586) -Administration of the Public Facilities DIF program, averxeing of expenditures and revenues colledeq preparation of updates, calculation of wets, etc. Civic Center Expansion (52,670) -Expansion of the 1989 Civic Center par the Civic Center Master Plan to provide su~dent building spew end perking due to growN end development. The Civic Center Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to indude the aey Ranch impacts. Police Facility ($1,629)-Accommodation d the building space needs per the Civic Center Master Plan, which inGuded the newly wnstruded pdice facility, upgrading of the wmmunicafions venter and installation of new wmmunicetion wnsoles. Also induded is the purchase end installation d a wmputer aided dispatch system (CAD), Pdice Records Management System, and Mobile Data Terminals. Corporation Yam Relocation ($438) - Relocetion of the City's Public Works Center from me bay front area to the more cenNally located site on Maxwell Road J 1:0 Libraries (51,533)- Improvements indude wnstmction of the South Chula Vats library and Eastam Terrilodes libreries, and installation of a new automated library system. This wmponent is based on the updated Librery Master Plan. Fire Suppression System ($1,350) -Projects indude the relocation of Fire Stations N3 & #4, construction of a fire training tower end Uassrwm, purchase of a brush dg, installation of a redio communications rower and construction of various Ore sU9ons in the Eastam section d the City. This tee also reflects the updated Fire Steflon Master Plan, which inUudea needs associated with Ne otay Ranch development Major Recreation Facilities (51,164)-New wmponent adopted in November 2002 to build major recreation facil8ies created by new development such as wmmunity centen, gymnasiums, swimming pods, and seniortteen centers. Police Corp Yard Fie SupP. Rec Gen. Admin. Civk Center (1) FBCAIty Relocation Libreiiea System FaNifies 5]1 55]IS]2 573 5]4 575 576 592 TDTAL Bep'vmirg Balance, 07/01/11 $ 3,328,861 $ 9,289,435 $ (1,700,408) $ 2,435,106 $ 8,399,669 5(11,997,919) $(5,616,124) $ 5,138,720 Revenues: OIF Revenues 304,464 580,158 379,978 111,816 581,803 614,384 549,727 3,122,330 Imesened Eam'vrgs 107,754 99,298 (22,386) .22,834 93,933 (117,260) (53,651) 130,522 Other Revenue 238,238 - - - - - - 238,238 Reinbxsement-01h Agencies _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Transfer In _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ExpeMNres: Personnel Services Tgal - - - - - - - 6upplies85ervices (600) - - - - - - (800) C'dy Stall Services - - - - - - - - Olher Refunds - - - - - - - - - CapitalEzpenddures - - ~- - - - _ _ CIP Project EzpeMdures - - - - - TransferOut (51041) - (51,041) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/1 $ 3978,737 $ 9,917,850 $ (1,342,816) $ 2,569,836 $10,075,405 $(11,500,795) $(5,120,048) $8,578,169 NOTE: (1) This fund inGUdes me amount set aside for the acquisition q the Adamo property in Fund 567. d S m N J N 0 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) FY 11/12 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: $ 17,530 13,009 8,204 7,499 per single family dwelling unit per multi-family dwelling unit per mobile home dwelling unit per motel/hotel dwelling unit Areas West of I-805 Amount of the Fee: $ 9,648 per single family dwelling unit 7,308 per multi-family dwelling unit 4,609 per mobile home dwelling unit 4,212 per motel hotel dwelling unit FY 11112 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 715 PAD FUND Beginning Balance, 07/01/11 $ 31,698,781 Revenues: Park Dedication Fees 424,546 Interest Earned 211,531 Miscellaneous Revenues - Expenditures: Supplies and Services - Other Refunds 3,510 Transfer-Out Western PAD (615,985) CIP Project Expenditures (56,619) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/12 $ 31,665,764 a v s 3 m 3 N PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) FY 11112 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J N J FY 11/12 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded Future Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/12 by PAD Fees Appropriations Scheduled PR261 Otay Ranch Community Park 17,922 697,764 100.00% - 2009 PR279 All Seasons park 90 2,900,000 100.00% - 2007 PR303 Sunset View Park Roller Hockey Rink Modf 36,415 150,000 100.00% - 2009 PR308 P-3 Neighborhood Park (ORV2) 1,500 122,000 100.00% - 2009 PR309 P-2 Neighborhood Park (ORV2) 692 122,000 100.00% - 2009 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 56,619 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 m s 3 m .. N TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL. RESERVE FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES J I J N N Description of Fee: For the enlargement of sewer facilities of the City so as to enhance efficiency of utilization andlor adequacy of capacity and for planning and/or evaluating any future proposals for area vride sewage treatment and or water reclamation systems or facilities. Amount of the Fee: $ 3,478 per equivalent dwelling unit of flow when developing or modirying use of any residential property FY 11/12 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 413 TRUNK SEWER (TS) Beginning Balance, 07/01/11 $ 181,977,759 Interest Eamed 669,407 Developer Infrastructure Donations Sewerage Facility Participant Fees 2,034,631 Transfer In Expenditures: Depreciation Expense-Infrastructure (5,123,647) Conhibutions to Other Agencies (City of SD) (115,870) CIP Project Expenditures (107,016) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/12 $ 179,535,264 D m s 3 m .. N TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY 11/12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 11/12 EXPENDITURES: PROJECT SW219 SW223 SW234 SW235 SW249 SW258 SW263 I SW265 N SW266 W SW272 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES 99/SltCreek Trunk SewerConstructior 782 Wastewater Master Plan 74,574 Sewer Improvement Colorado J & K 150 Main St. Sewer Hilltop -Fresno - Joint Feas Stud for Wastewater Reclm 403 Sewer Capacity Analysis 21,949 Anita Street Sewer Improvement 8,518 Industrial Blvd At Moss 8 K 468 Oxford Street Sewer Improvement 172 Moss St Swr Improv. at Railroad Cros: TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 107,016 Total Approp. % Of Project Funded Future Initially at 6/30/12 by TRUNK SEWER Appropriations Scheduled 706,679 73.80% - 1999 565,940 100.00% - 2001 965,883 100.00% - 2004 136,459 100.00% - 2004 41,870 100.00% - 2007 287,235 100.00°/a - 2007 500,000 100.00% 660,000 2011 670,000 - 100.00% - 2011 670,000 100.00% - 2011 500,000 100.00% - 2012 D Z m s 3 m M N I N LOANS: TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY 11112 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Outstanding Description of Loan Loan Amount Interest Rale Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #18996 on May 19, 1998 $ 348,925 6.07% Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19078 on July 16, 1999 for project DR140 (Storm Drain Repair-Orange) 62,929 5.90% Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19607 on Nov. 24, 1999 for project DR 147 (CMP Storm Drain Replacement) 245,277 5.88% Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19682 on Jan. 19, 2000 87,482 5 88°~ Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2001-203 on June 19,2001 10,712,701 5.88% Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2002-222 on June 18,2002 2,033,309 5.34% Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2002-297 on August 13, 2002 2,977,920 1.90% Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2003-278 on June 17, 2003 1,124,451 1.50% Total $ 17,592,993 D w m 3 m 0 .. N FFDIF Cash FIc1~v: FY 2G{35-06 through 8uifd-out :: INCREMENT 2 r ( J N N Beginning Fund Balance 24,427,641 1,092,004 5,138,718 8,578,168 11,634,387 12,160,576 13,568,166 15,971,823 19,239,146 12,846,052 24,427,641 REVENUES DIF Fee Revenues 25,264,894 4,208,203 3,122,330 7,469,273 6,717,130 17,088,052 18,092,712 18,957,036 112,096,611 47,208,000 260,224,242 Investment Earnings 1,223,226 (8,850) 58,366 - - - - - 1,272,742 Misc/Other Revenues 18,846,011 - 310,395 3,704 - - - - 19,160,110 " - ~~- ~ `TOTALREVENUES '45,334p31 ' .4,199,353 .3,491,091+° 7;472,977 ~ -.:6,717,130 +~ ;17,088,052 - - 18,092 712 -, 18,957,036 112 096,611 47,208,000 280,657,094 EXPENDITURES CIP Projects Rancho del Rey library 8,644,605 - - - - - - - 19,103,442 - 27,748.047 EUC Fire Station - - - - - 8,485,589 - 8,485,589 EUC Library - - - - - - - - - 26,361,840 26,361,840 OR V4 Rec facility - - - - - - - - 8,642,677 - 8,642,677 OR V4 Aquatic Facility - - - - - - - - 9,726,078 - 9,726,078 Other 33,678,110 - - - - - - - - - 33,678.110 CIP Projects Total 42,322,715 - - - - - - - 45,957,786 26,361,840 114,642,341 Debt Service Payments 22,610,384 69,192 51,041 4,183,641 5,970,734 13,982,513 13,991,107 13,991,764 64,042,175 23,359,155 162,251,706 Non CIP Expenditures 3,736,669 83,447 600 233,117 220,207 1,697,949 1,697,949 1,697,949 8489,744 2,400,000 20,257,631 ;TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,669,759 "d152,639 y 51,641 4,416,759 '':6;180,941 ;15,680,462 (15,689,056 '.' 15,689,712 118,489,706 .52,120,995 297,151,678 Less Debt Service Reserve E - ~~ E5,138,718 $5,900,000 §5,900,000 §5,900,000 E 5,900,000 $ 5,900,000 $ 5,900,000 E 5,400,000 $ - $ - Available Fundealance 51,092,004 S " - .§2,678,168 55734,387 56,260,576 E -=7,668,166. E 10,011,623 $ 13,339;146 E 7,446;052 E 7,933,057 '.§ 7,933,057 Anticipated Development Single Family Units 1,823 353 324 270 242 102 132 29 1,673 - 4,948 00 Multifamily Units 1,400 508 157 555 500 1,386 1466 1,617 9,628 5,250 22467.00 Commercial Acres 22 - - - - 96 96 109 196 - 51841 Industrial Acres 16 - - - - 142 142 145 436 - 881 52 Residenfia/Subtotal 645 861 481 825 742 744 799 823 1,130 656.25 27,475 Averge Average Average total D w n n s 3 ro w GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 -DRAINAGE Questionnaire covering 7/1/11-6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. 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: 1. Have storm water flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at any 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 Drainage - 2013 1-126 plant materials and 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 15{ through April 30th. 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 cument staff level consists of a Supervisor, a Public Works Specialist, three Senior Maintenance Workers and two Maintenance Workers to inspect and maintain the current storm drain infrastructure of 276 miles of pipes, 296 miles of 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 Operations 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 Copermittee 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 Copermittee 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 and resources are unable to fulfill the current State requirements and address all the other areas throughout the city with storm draih infrastructure that require structural maintenance or replacement, routine weed abatement and silt and debris removal to maintain channel and detention basin capacity. In addition, the city will have to consider costs of the time-consuming multi-agency permit process for each segment where crews or Drainage - 2013 1-127 contractors need 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. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board is in the process of re-issuing the NPDES Municipal Permit. The new permit will include more stringent requirements compared to the current permit and, additional resources and costs to the City are anticipated in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and future years. It is expected that the Regional Board will adopt the new permit in March of 2013. After permit adoption, the city will have an 18 month implementation period. Staff will prepare estimates for necessary resources and cost estimates for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and subsequent Fiscal Years during the next permit cycle. PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto N. Yano, Dave McRoberts, Khosro Amnipour Date: 12/19/2012 Drainage - 2013 Sr. Civil Engineer Wastewater Collections Manager Sr. Civil Engineer 3 1-128 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 - CHLTLA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCH®®L DISTRICT Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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. 1. Please complete the table below. EXISTING CONDITIONS -NOVEMBER 2012 Schools Current Enrollment Building Capacity Amount Under/(Over) Overflow Out Overflow Comments Permanent Portables Capacity' In NORTHWEST cook 449 463 75 89 Feaster-Edison 1067 450 714 97 Hilltop Drive 558 500 88 30 Mueller 882 550 350 18 Rosebank 670 475 289 94 vista square 553 338 363 148 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 713 688 0 -25 Castle Park 454 401 138 85 Harborside 628 513 401 286 Kellogg 330 314 225 209 Lauderbach 832 414 551 133 Loma Verde 512 428 222 138 Montgomery 382 401 125 144 Otay 630 500 275 145 Palomar 356 468 0 112 Rice 699 562 215 78 Rohr 359 476 13 130 1-129 CVESD-2013 Pagel i EXISTING CONDITIONS -NOVEMBER 2012 Schools Current Enrollment Building Capacity Amount Under/Over Overflow Out Overflow Comments Permanent Portables Capacity' In SOUTHEAST Arroyo vista 893 700 150 -43 Olympic View 812 500 325 13 Parkview 439 482 101 144 Rogers 488 622 38 172 Valle Lindo 564 500 214 150 Hedenkamp 1045 1000 0 -45 Heritage 890 750 150 10 veterans 905 777 100 -28 McMillin 876 750 100 -26 Wolf Canyon 9$g 764 150 _75 650 Future Camarena Students NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 416 515 50 149 Casillas 578 589 150 161 Chula Vista Hills 562 488 100 26 Clear View 526 443 150 67 overy 807 587 363 143 Eastlake 617 512 251 146 150 Future Camarena Students Halecrest 478 501 100 123 Liberty 736 748 0 12 Marshall 732 609 125 2 Salt Creek 1039 800 150 -89 Tiffany 623 514 175 66 TOTAL 25109 21092 7051 3034 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2013 and (b) December 2017, based on the city's Residential Growth Forecast. 2 a. 13-MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2013 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Overflow In Comments Enrollment 12/31/12 Permanent Portables Over/Under y Capacity Out NORTHWEST Cook 427 463 75 111 Feaster-Edison 1051 450 714 113 Hilltop Drive 542 500 88 46 Mueller 879 550 350 21 Rosebank 638 475 289 126 1-130 CVESD-2013 Paget 13- MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2013 Schools Projected Enrollment 12/31/13 Projected Capacity Permanent Portables Amount Over/Under Capacity' Overflow Out Overflow In Comments vista square 546 338 363 155 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 732 688 0 -44 Castle Park 518 401 138 21 Harborside 640 513 401 274 Kellogg 319 314 225 220 Lauderbach 843 414 551 122 Loma Verde 533 428 222 117 Montgomery 366 401 125 160 otay 606 500 275 169 Palomar 346 468 0 122 Rice 688 562 215 89 Rohr 355 476 13 134 SOUTHEAST Arroyo vista 886 700 150 -36 Camarena 800 800 100 100 Olympic view 815 500 325 10 Parkview 422 482 101 161 Rogers 486 622 38 174 Valle Lindo 559 500 214 155 Hedenkamp 1031 1000 0 -31 Heritage $75 750 150 25 veterans 930 777 100 -53 McMillin 855 750 100 -5 wolf Canyon 441 764 150 473 NORTHEASj - Allen/Ann Daly 424 515 50 141 Casillas 564 589 150 175 cv Hills 542 488 100 46 Clear view 537 443 150 56 Discovery 810 587 363 140 Eastlake 552 512 251 211 Halecrest 474 501 100 127 Liberty 732 748 0 16 Marshall 692 609 125 42 Salt Creek 1007 800 150 -57 Tiffany 621 514 175 68 "I-)denotes amount over capacity 1-131 CVESD - 2013 Page 3 2.b FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2017 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Overflow Comments Enrollment 12/31/17 permanent Portables Over/Under Capacity' Out In NORTHWEST cook 346 463 75 192 Feaster-Edison 979 450 714 185 Hilltop Drive 493 500 88 95 Mueller 958 550 350 -58 Rosebank 630 475 289 134 Vista Square 541 338 363 160 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 842 688 0 -154 Castle Park 465 401 138 74 Harborside 697 513 401 217 Kellogg 305 314 225 234 Lauderbach 888 414 551 77 Loma Verde 547 428 222 103 Montgomery 306 401 125 220 stay 568 500 275 207 .lomar 331 468 0 137 Rice 605 562 215 172 Rohr 321 476 13 168 SOUTHEAST Arroyo vista 843 700 150 7 Camarena 900 800 100 0 Olympic View 813 500 325 12 Parkview 355 482 101 228 Rogers 445 622 38 215 Valle Lindo 563 500 214 151 Hedenkamp 1008 1000 0 -8 Heritage 835 750 150 65 veterans 1040 777 100 -163 McMillin 732 750 100 118 Wolf Canyon 869 764 150 45 NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 440 515 50 125 Casillas(move SEj 465 589 150 274 ^hula vista Hills 467 488 100 121 .year view 546 443 150 47 Discovery 790 587 363 160 Eastlake 757 512 251 6 Halecrest 452 501 100 149 1-132 CVESD - 2013 Page 4 FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2017 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Overflow Comments Enrollment 12/31/17 permanent Portables Over/Under Capacity* Out In Liberty 741 748 0 7 Ma rsha I I 601 609 125 133 Salt Creek 838 800 150 112 Tiffany 563 514 175 126 *(-) denotes amount over capacity 3. Please complete the table below. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-09 2007-OS NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,179 4,287 4,414 4,537 4,447 %of Change Over the Previous Year -2•S% -2.88% -3% 2% 1% %of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,895 5,878 5,955 6,208 5,892 Yo of Change Over the Previous Year •29% -1.29% -4% 5% -1% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,901 7,807 7,243 7,328 6,923 % of Change Over the Previous Year 1.2% 7.79% -1% 6% 6% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,114 6,884 7,021 ~ 7,252 7,105 %ofChangeOver the Previous Year 3.33% 1.32 -3% 2% 1% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% DISTRICT-WIDE Total Enrollment 28,529 27,765 27,521 28,224 27,251 %of Change Over the Previous Year 2.8% .89% -2% 3% 2% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% 1-133 CVESD-2013 Pages Please provide brief responses to the following: 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 X No 6. Please complete the table below. NEW SCHOOLS STATUS School Site Selection Architectural Review/Funding ID for Land and Construction Commencement of Site Preparation Service by Utilities and Road Commencement of Construction Time Needed By Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existingfacilities? If not, please explain. Yes X No 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. 5 Year Forecast is a Cohort projection. As the current Kindergarten enrollment is carried through, by the fifth year the current Kindergarten enrollment makes up all but 6`" grade. Therefore the forecast is so heavily weighted upon the current kindergarten enrollment that the forecast is not very informative. PREPARED BY: Name: Carolyn Scholl Title: Facilities Planning Manager Date: 2/21/2013 1-134 CVESD-2013 Page6 Adopted by SUHSD Board of Trustees on January 28, 2013, Item M-7. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2013 - SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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- DECEMBER 2012 Schools Current Enrollment 12/12 Building Capacity Permanent/Portables (Note lj Adjusted Building Capaciry* Physical Education Capacity Within Capacity Overflowed In or Out Comments NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,040 870 401 1,271 255 Y Hilltop Middle 1,122 1,043 132 1,175 204 v Chula Vista High 2,638 1,810 902 2,712 204 Y Hilltop High 2,045 1,878 374 2,252 204 Y SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 832 1,284 132 1,416 204 Y Castle Park High 1,603 1,389 544 1,933 204 Y Palomar High 394 314 237 551 0 Y Chula Vista Adult 2,743 ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,837 1,394 923 2,317 255 Notel Eastlake Middle 1,731 1,480 0 1,480 102 Note1 Otay Ranch High 2,659 2,018 315 2,333 204 Note 1 Olympian High(HSt713) 1,855 1,893 0 1,893 204 Y NORTHEAST (Bonita Vista High 2,419 1.508 664 2.172 204 Note 1 1-135 EXISTING NDITI NS-DECEMBER 2 12 Schools Current Enrollment 12/12 Building Capacity Permanent/Portables (Note 1) Adjusted Building Capacity* Physical Education Capacity Within Capacity Overflowed In or Out Comments Bonita vista Middle 1,061 933 328 1,261 204 y Rancho Del Rey Middle 1 701 1,445 0 1,445 153 Note 1 **TOTAL 23,937 19,259 4,952 24,211 2,601 y *Adjusted Building Capacity is based on 85% of the full capacity of the school site. 85% loatling allows teacners to remain in tnev aassroom ror their prep period. It is recalculated annually based on approved student/teacherraIios and room utilization. Total Capacity for each school is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to learning centers. '*TOtal for Current Enrollment does not include Chula Vista Adult. Note 1: These schools are within the 100% capacity of the site. This enrollment is accommodated on-site through master scheduling and travelling teachers which allow classrooms to be used an eMra period each day. 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2013 and (b) December 2017, based on the city's forecast. >> 13-MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2013 Schools Projected Enrollment 12/31/13 Building Capacity Permanent/Portables (Note 1) Adjusted Building Capacity* Physical Education Capacity Within Capacity Overflowed In or Out Comments NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,056 870 401 1,271 255 y Hilltop Middle 1,037 1,043 132 1,175 204 y Chula Vista High 2,714 1,810 902 2,712 204 y Hilltop High 2,042 1,878 374 2,252 204 y SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 732 1,284 132 1,416 204 Y Castle Park High 1,396 1,389 544 1,933 204 y Palomar High 394 314 237 551 0 Y Chula Vista Adult 2,743 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,892 1,394 923 2,317 255 Note 1 Eastlake Middle 1,720 1,480 0 1,480 102 Note1 Otay Ranch High 2,618 2,018 315 2,333 204 Note 1 Olympian High 1,896 1,893 0 1,893 204 y NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,478 1,508 664 2,172 204 Note 1 Bonita vista Middle 1,037 933 328 1,261 204 y Rancho del Rey Middle 1,700 1,445 0 1,445 153 Notel 'See note under previous table. Note 1: See note under previous table. 8UH8D-2013 Page 2 1-136 2.b FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2017 Schools Projected Enrollment 12/31/17 Building Capacity Permanent/Portables Adjusted Building Capacity` Physical Education Capacity Within Capacity Overflowed In or Out Comments NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,200 870 401 1,271 255 Y Hilltop Middle 1,000 1,043 132 1,175 204 Y Chula Vista High 2,700 1,810 902 2,712 204 v Hilltop High 2,000 1,878 374 2,252 204 Y SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 800 1,284 132 1,416 204 Y Castle Park High 1,100 1,389 544 1,933 204 1' Palomar High 400 314 237 551 0 Y Chula Vista Adult 2,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,900 1,394 923 2,317 255 Note 1 Eastlake Middle 1,700 1,480 0 1,480 102 Notel Otay Ranch High 2,800 2,018 315 2,333 204 Note 1 Olympian (HS#13) 2,250 1,893 0 1,893 204 y MS N12 Note 1 1,000 0 1,000 187 Note 1 HS #S4 Note 1 2 000 0 2,000 187 Note 1 NORTHEAST Bonita vista High 2,400 1,508 664 2,172 204 Note 1 Bonita Vista Middle 1,000 933 328 1,261 204 y Rancho del Rey Middle 1,700 1,445 0 1,445 153 Notel *see note under Table 1. Note l: District staff currently projects the need for Middle School NO. l2 and High School NO. l4 no earlier than 2017. At this time, projected enrollment increases will be mostly offset by increased charter school enrollment. The schools will relieve Eastlake and Rancho Del Rey Middle Schools and Bonita, Eastlake, Otay Ranch and Olympian High Schools. Because attendance boundaries have not been established, enrollment projections cannot be made nor can we project exactly how the affected schools' enrollment will be reduced. SUHSD-2013 Page 3 1-137 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2011-12 2010-2011 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,798 6,823 7,067 7,242 7,446 % of Change Over the Previous Year -0.4% -3.5% -2.4% -2.7% 0.2% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 87% 88% 88% 88% 89% SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 2,792 3,068 2,977 3,064 3,281 % of Change Over the Previous Year -9.0% 3.1 % -2.8% -6.6% -4.2% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 91% 92% 94% 94% 94% SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 9,007 8,550 8,446 8,242 7,857 of Change Over the Previous Year 6.4% 1.2% 2.6% 4.9% 4.6% of Enrollment from Chula Vista (Note 1) 93% 94% 95% 94% 96% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,071 4,854 4,938 5,088 5,133 % of Change Over the Previous Year 4.5% -1.7% -1.4% -2.4% 2.6% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 91% 72% 72% 71% 94% DISTRICT-WIDE Total Enrollment 40,507 40,740 41,580 42,420 42,839 % of Change Over the Previous Year -0.57% -2.02% -1.98% -0.98% 1.0% %of Enrollment from Chula Vista 65% 55% 49% 48% 67% 4. Are existing facilities/schoolsabletoaccommodateforecastedgrowththroughthenext12to18months? If not, please explain. Yes X No 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth forthe nextfiveyears? If not, please explain. Yes X No X This is a transition year because we expect to see growth next year. However, if charter schools continue to siphon students, it is likely that the District will have capacity for five years of residential growth. The District may need to construct Middle School No. 12 and High School No. 14 within the next 5 years if there is a significant increase in development and re-occupation of foreclosed homes. SUHSD-2013 Page 4 1-138 6. Please complete the table below. NEW SCHOOLS STATUS Architectural Review/Funding ID Beginning of Service by Time Site for Land and Site Utilities and Beginning of Needed School Selection Construction Preparation Road Construction By MS #12 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 2015 Est. 2017 HS #14 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 2015 Est. 2017 Note: Please see comments under Item 5 7. Is adequate fu nding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities/schools? If not, please explain. Yes No X The governor's budget has eliminated deferred maintenance funding. 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldliketorelayto the GMOC and/or the city council. The unstable economy, high foreclosure rate, and the expansion of charter schools intothe 7-12 arena makethe 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: Paul Woods Title: Director of Planning and Construction Date: January 28,2013 SUHSD - 2013 Page 5 1-139 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 -SEWER Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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 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 Public Works Services Department staff shall gatherthe 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: Million Gallons er Da MGD 09!10 Fiscal Year 70/11 Fiscal Year 11!12 Fiscal Year 18-month Projection 5-year Projection "Bulldout" Projection' Avera a Flow 16.225 16.272 15.935 16.853** 17.948** 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: Have sewage flows orvolumes 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 - 2013 ~~~~~ Yes X No 3. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 5-year forecasted 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. Staff is now working on an update to the 2005 master plant in order to verify the build out treatment capacity needs of the City. The capacity needs are determined bythe sewer generation rate (the amount of sewage generated per person per day). The master plan update will establish a revised generation rate. Staff expects that the sewer generation rate for the City will be lower. Volume based billing, increase in water prices and continued conservation efforts have helped in the decrease of flow experienced by the City. This means that the build out treatment capacity required could be less than what the 2005 master plan estimated. The option of building a treatment plant in Chula Vista becomes less feasible as the required treatment capacity diminishes. The City will update the analysis of the option to buy additional treatment capacity versus the option to build a treatment plant once the master plan has been completed. The master plan update is scheduled to be completed in mid-2013. 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 2020 to 2030 decade. Staff will continue to monitor flow rates in order to secure treatment capacity before it's needed. Sewer - 2013 1-141 Average daily Flow Trend 28.00 I N i ~ 3 0 I ~Cf ~ CO ~j N M I 1 ~ I ~ a M I 26.00 ~~ .~. l ^ ~- - ~ --; o,-- N "' 'Y -.~. ~Y ` ~ 300.00 ~ m I ~ ~ N 24.00 _ _... ~ ~ ~ ~ . .! N ! ....--. ...._.. I ... Mry ..... ._. !_. ......_... , ~ I `~ ~ ti°' i 250,000 22.00 ~ - ~ - ~ - - -- ' - - ~ -- ~ -------- I ---- -- - - _.~. -• --- i METRO CopadtY i20 £W4 ~ a h ~ i 200.000 20.00 r - O ; A U' ~ i t - 18.00 _ __._. . _ .. .._ ___. _.__ .._... _ -.. __b ___ - ~ .._ __._. - ...__..--- - . . _ _...-~---_ 150,000 ~~ ~ w -_ _...~_ ..._~____ ... ..... .. ..._, . - 16.00 -_ - ~ m~ ~ 1 I ~ 14.00 m ~-~ g do ~ - - E m ~ ~ ~ '~ i ! ~ II i ~ ~ so,ooo ,2.00. .,...... -.__ L_.~ ~ o __._ ~, ~ o ,a.oo ,~~~ ,y~ `t0~o 'yd~`h ry0`~ rt07~ ,y0~~ ,yo`yy ryCP~ ,~~ ry0~ Year ~-Average DatTy Fiow (MGD) --Treatment Capacity -f-Population PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto Yano Title: Sr. Civil Engineer Date: 12/1/2011 Sewer - 2013 3 ~ 1~F2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 -AIR C~UALITX Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year forecast 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 whetherthe 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 underthe Regional AirQualityStrategy 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. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Regarding developmentthat occurred during the period under review, please provide an overview of how measures designed to foster air quality improvement, pursuantto relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies, were implemented. Development within Chula Vista is guided by a number of planning documents and review processes 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)." At a project level, air quality impacts from new development are evaluated through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. During FY12, four development projects underwent formal CEQA review for their contribution to the following local criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases: 1-143 Air Quality 2013 Page 1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AQ Standards: Based on South Coast Air Quality District GREENHOUSE GASES AO Standards: Based on Assembly Bill 32/Climate Action Plan Ozone Carbon Dioxide Particulate Matter Methane Lead Nitrous Oxide Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Hexafluoride Sulfur Oxide Hydrofluorocarbons Nitrogen Oxide Perfluorocarbons In all cases, the development projects were found to have air quality impacts below a level of significance. In some cases, development projects had to incorporate mitigation measures into their construction and operation, such as integrating dust control, energy efficiency technologies, water-wise landscaping, and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly design. Additionally, 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. In FY12, program staff provided technical support to over 760 permit applicants, contractors, and other public agencies on energy efficiency building measures. In addition, over 20 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 200 new solar photovoltaic and solar hot water installations and approximately280new/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 continue to meet and/or exceed regional, state, and federal air quality regulations. As part of its Climate Action Plan, Chula Vista successfully implemented new policies to improve local air quality over the last year. Specifically, the City Council adopted a new Shade Tree policy that emphasizes canopy- forming trees along streets and sets a 50% shade cover threshold for new parking lots. In addition, the City established a "cool roof' requirement for new homes in the eastern area. Both actions help improve local air quality by mitigating the urban heat island effect, which contributes to ground-level ozone. To further protect public health, City staff continued to develop new Electrical Generating Facilities (EGFs) guidelines. The draft guidelines, which will be presented to City Council in 1-144 Air Quality 2013 Page 2 FY13, promote the transition towards "cleaner" fuel sources and provide explicit siting and performance standards for new back-up, private, pecker, and baseload generation facilities. The draft guildeines were developed through an extensive two-year stakeholder engagement process with both industry and environmental representatives. 3. Are there any new non-development-related air quality programs/actions that the city is implementing or participating in? If so, please list and provide an explanation of each. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Existing buildings' electricity and natural gas use comprise approximately 50% of Chula Vista's greenhouse gas emissions. To address existing homes, Chula Vista continued to implement its Home Upgrade, Carbon Downgrade program and provided technical assistance and financial support to community members interested in installing energy- saving retrofits at their properties. In FY12, over $245,000 in incentives and loans were awarded for upgrade projects at 168 residential units. For businesses, over 1,590 free evaluations were performed by City staff to help identify opportunities to reduce utility usage and bills through the Free Resource & Energy Business Evaluation program. Based on participant surveys, approximately 82% of businesses implemented some type of energy efficiency improvement (no cost or low cost) and 87% would recommend the evaluation to others. Altemative Fuel Vehicles The City of Chula Vista actively promotes the transition to cleaner vehicles within its fleet and throughout the community. With the addition of two new hybrid wastewater trucks in FY12, the City fleet is now 29% alternative fuel vehicles. The publically-available CNG fueling station at the Public Works Yard dispensed over 15,000 gallons to community members and business fleets since its installation in October 2011 and the City has started to pursue the installation of electric vehicle chargers at five municipal sites, including City Hall, Third Avenue parking structure, and multiple recreation centers. The City of Chula Vista is also representing the South Bay on the "Regional Electric Vehicle Infrastructure" (REVI) working group, which is developing a comprehensive regional readiness plan for plug-in electric vehicles. Smart Growth & Transportation Chula Vista implemented a number of projects to facilitate non-motorized transportation and improve local air quality in FY12. The City completed street and sidewalk infrastructure evaluations for connectivity and coverage around Chula Vista middle schools through the Students Taking Active Routes to Schools (STARTS) project. As a result, new suggested pedestrian/bike route maps were created for each school based on the collected information. Similarly, Chula Vista worked with community members through its Seniors, Sidewalks, & Centennial project to identify opportunities to improve older residents' alternative transportation options around senior centers and living facilities. New infrastructure improvements along Third Avenue, which provide safer mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists including crossings and lane markings, also began construction in FY12. Finally, the 1.8-mile Bayshore Bikeway segment between H Street and Palomar Street was completed adding to the eventual 24-mile regional bike path. 4. Identify any significant reductions in air quality emissions. At a regional level, the number of unhealthy air quality days for older adults and children in 1-145 Air Quality 2013 Page 3 San Diego County decreased from 19 to 13 from 2010 to 2011, which is significantly lower than neighboring regions, and San Diego County met federal ozone emission standards for the first time in 2012. 5. How many residents and/or commercial facilities have added solar panels in the last year? During the past year, 201 permits have been issued for solar hot water and solar photovoltaic systems at residential and non-residential properties. 6. 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 a "side-by-side' comparison ofwhat neighboring communities are doingforclimate control. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CEQA GHG Review* Climate Action Plan Pedestrian /Bicycle Plans Green Building Standards Free Energy Evaluations Energy Upgrade Financing City of Chula Vista X X X X X X City of Imperial Beach X X City of National City X X X City of Coronado X X City of San Diego X X X X X County of San Diego X X Port of San Diego X prof ress X *As a result of CEQA review, development projects in all jurisdictions have to mitigate GHG emission impacts 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldliketo relay to the GMOCand/or the city council As highlighted in last year's GMOC report, the City's Climate Action Plan is one of the main "instruments" for local air quality improvement efforts. During the next year, Chula Vista will be conducting a new greenhouse gas emissions inventory (using new California-approved protocols) to assess progress towards the City's greenhouse gas emissions target. It is expected that, as a result, a "Climate Change Working Group" (CCWG) will be reconvened in FY14 to provide public input and guidance on new climate mitigation and adaptation 1-146 Air Quality 2013 Page 4 strategies. While the CCWG is hosted by the City's Resource Conservation Commission, any suggested strategies will be vetted through multiple City Commissions before being presented to City Council for consideration. PREPARED BY: Name: Brendan Reed Title: Environmental Resource Manager Date: 2/21/13 1-147 Air Quality 2013 Page 5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 -APCD Questionnaire covering 7/1/11-6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approvedduringtheprioryearto 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 whetherthe 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 whetherthe 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 underthe Regional Air Quality Strategyand related federal and state programs, and the effect 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 SiA .E' -HR STANDARD. 2007 ~. 2008 2009 2010 ,: ~ 2011 . ~; - ~, 2012 ., ,. +,?;~^,, . San Diego Region 21 18 8 7 5 2 Chula Vista 2 1 1 1 0 0 1997FEDERAL 8=HR-`STD ... "'. 'E . ' `!€3s San Diego Region 8 11 4 1 3 0 Chula Vista 1 0 0 0 0 0 Please provide brief responses to the following: 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 of the region. Therefore, it appears that Chula Vista is not disproportionately impacted by ozone-precursor emissions from surrounding areas. APCD - 2013 Page 1 1-148 3. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during the period under review. As of 2009-2011, San Diego County's air quality attained the ozone national ambient air quality standard that the U.S. EPA established in 1997.2012 continued attainment and was the cleanest year on record, the first year with no days exceeding the 1997 ozone standard countywide. 4. Were there any changes in federal or state programs, during the period under review that could affect Chula Vista? Yes X No If yes, please explain: Effective July 20, 2012, based on the same ozone air quality data monitored in 2009-2011, San Diego County was designated and classified as a Marginal nonattainment area for the more stringent national ozone standard that the U.S. EPA established in 2008. S. 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, recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldliketo relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carl Selnick Title: Air Cluality Specialist Date: February 20, 2013 APCD - 2013 Page 2 1-149 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 - ®TAY WATER DISTRICT Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Developer will request and deliver to the city a service availability letter from 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. 1. Please complete the tables below. WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water Supply Storage Supply Storage Timeframe Demand Capacity Capacity Demand Capacity Capacity Local Imported Treated Raw- 5 -Year Projection (ending 38.3 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.4 7.2 43.7 6/30/17) 12-18 Month Projection (ending 30 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.6 7.2 43.7 6/30/14) Otay Water District - 2013 Page 1 1-150 WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water Supply Storage Supply Storage Timeframe Demand Capacity Capacity Demand Capacity Capacity Local Imported Treated Raw FY 2012/13 (ending 28 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.4 7.2 43.7 6/30/13) FY 2011/12 (ending 27.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.4 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 6/30/09) Sources of Water - FY 2011/12 (MG - Millions of Gallons) Water Source Capacity (MGD) Percentage of Total Capacity Actual Use (MGD) San Diego County Water Authority 121.5 80.6% 18.934 Helix Water District 12.0 8.0% 8.542 City of San Diego 10.0 6.6% 0.0 RWCWRF (Otay Water District) 1.2 0.8% ~ 0.584 SBWRP (San Diego) 6.0 4.0% 2.787 Total 150.7 100.0% 30.847 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. Otay Water District - 2013 Page 2 1-151 3. Do current facilities have the ability toserveforecastedgrowthforthenextfiveyears? 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 nearterm list of Otay Water District capital improvement program (CIP) project facilities, togetherthey 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 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 2013 through 2018 CIP documents. CIP Proiect CIP Proiect Title No. 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 P2403 PL - 12-Inch, 624 Zone, Herita a Road - OI m is/Ota Valle P2431 Res - 980-4 Reservoir 5 MG P2528 30-Inch Potable Water Pi eline Manifold at 624 Reservoirs 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 a 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 2013 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 2013 through 2018 CIP documents. Otay Water District - 2013 Page 3 1-152 CIPProiect No. CIP Project Title P2366 APCD En ine Re lacements and Retrofits P2382 Safe 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 Utili Relocations P2507 East Palomar Street Utili Relocation P2513 East Oran a Avenue Brid a Crossin P2520 Motorola Mobile Radio U rade P2521 Lar a Meter Vault U rade Pro ram P2529 711-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coatin P2530 711-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coatin 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 GMOCand/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 Districtworks 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 Otay Water District - 2013 Page 4 1-153 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 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 recently completed a feasibility study to provide the City with projected needed sewer disposal capacity and production of recycled water. With the San Vicente Dam raise project nearing completion and the recent approval of the San Diego County Water Authority's Carlsbad Desalination Project, the near term water supply outlook has improved 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 10. 2012 Otay Water District - 2013 Page 5 1-154 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 - SWE~TWATEIZ ALTTH®IZITY Questionnaire covering 7/1/11- 6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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. WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water Supply Storage Supply Storage Timeframe Demand Capacity Capacity Demand Capacity Capacity Local Imported Treated Raw s-Year 19.9 ao 3o crass 17a21 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending 6/30/17) 12-18 Month 19.3 36 30 43.35 17421 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending 6/30/14) Sweetwater Authority- 2013 1-155 WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water FY 2012/13 n/a 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/13) FY 2011/12 18.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/12) FY 2010/11 18.8 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/11) FY 2009/10 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/10) FY 2008/09 20.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/09) 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, a nd 5 yea r potable water production demand projection taken from Table 4-1 of the 2010 SWA Master Plan. 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 increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringing the local supply capacity to 40 mgd or 14,600 MG per year. f. Imported supply includes 30 mgd, or 10,950 MG peryear of imported raw water treated at the Perdue Plant. SWA ca n substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Tota I supply capacity, however is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. 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 2013 bringing the total supply capacity to 40 mgd, or 14,600~MG peryear. 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. 2010 SWA Master Plan lists existing and recommended treated water storage. The 1.2 MG Central-W heeler tank is scheduled to be built next. i. Raw water storage capacity equals 28,079 ac-ftaT Sweetwater Reservoir, and 25,387 ac-ft atLOVelandReservoirfora 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 Sweetwater Authority- 2013 1-156 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 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 SweetwaterAuthority 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, recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldliketo relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. The Sweetwater Authority 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: 09JAN 13 Sweetwater Authority- 2013 1-157 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2®13 - SWEETWATER A~7TH®RITY Questionnaire covering 7/1/11-6/30/12 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast 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. WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water Supply Storage Supply Storage Timeframe Demand Capacity Capacity Demand Capacity Capacity lornl Imported Treated Raw 5-Year 19.9 40 30 44.55 17421 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending 6/30/17) 12-18 Month 19.3 36 30 43.35 17421 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending 6/30/14) Sweetwater Authority - 2013 1-158 WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water FY 2012/13 n/a 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/13) FY 2011/12 18.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/12) FY 2010/11 18.8 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/11) FY 2009/10 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/10) FY 2008/09 20.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending i 6/30/09) 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 4-1 of the 2010 SWA Master Plan. 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 increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringingthe local supply capacityto 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 su bstitute, 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. g. Total yearly supply capacity of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year, includes the Perdue WaterTreatment 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 2013 bringing the total supply capacityto 40 mgd, or 14,600MG peryear. 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. 2010 SWA Master Plan listr existing and recommended treated water storage. The 1.2 MGCentral-Wheeler tank is scheduled to be built next. i. Raw water storage capacity equals 28,079 ac-ft atSweetwater Reservoir, and 25,387 ac-ft at Loveland Reservoirfora 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 Sweetwater Authority- 2013 1-159 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 4. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant tothe 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 Sweetwater Authority has several ma intenance 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 anyotherrelevantinformation,recommendationsorsuggestionsthatyouwouldliketo relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. The Sweetwater Authority 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 SweetwaterAuthorityinformed and involved in all developmentand capital improvement projects to reduce the potential for unexpected water infrastructure requirements. PREPARED BY: Name: Hector Martinez Title: Engineering Manager Date: 09JAN13 Sweetwater Authority- 2013 1-160 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-12-41 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2013 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 April 4, 2013, the GMOC finalized its 2013 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012, identifies current issues in the second half of 2012 and early 2013, and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the City Council to consider the 2013 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 Vista does hereby accept and forward the 2013 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained thereinto the City Council for consideration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept the 2013 GMOC Annual Report. Presented by: Eric Crockett, AICP Assistant Director of Development Services Approved as to form by: Glen oog ns ~~nCity Attorney 1-161 Resolution No. PCM 12-41 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 25~' day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN Lisa Moctezuma, Chair ATTEST: Patricia Laughlin Secretary to the Planning Commission 1-162 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2013 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 determiried 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 Apri14, 20li, the GMOC finalized its 2013 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012, identifies current issues in the second half of 2012 and early 2013, and assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the Planning Commission to consider the 2013 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 2013 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: Approved as to form by: Eric Crockett, AICP Assistant Director of Development Services /Glen o gi~ns- ~ City Attorney 1-163 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California this 25ei day of Apri12013, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Donna Norris, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) CITY OF CHULA VISTA) Cheryl Cox, Mayor I, Donna Norris, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2013- was duly passed; approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 25a' of April, 2013. Executed this 25~' day of April, 2013 Donna Norris, City Clerk 1-164