Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-01 Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the - _ _ Otfice of the City Clerk and that I posted this "'i� _ __ _����""�� document on the bulletin board according to —.�-='""`� �_�,.. Brown Act requirements. ����� � �? - -�<_:._ -- �,�-"` 2�1 � _ Signed `� � • f= - cm oF � �,r �.. �'' CHULA VISTA •x <.'- - . `:t�'t-; ;,.:.:�,.,- ,...,�> o 0 .� \ /� L°���;�G2� � Cheryl Cox, Mayor Patncia Aguilar, Councilmember James D. Sandoval, City Manager Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attomey Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember ponna R. Norris, City Clerk Mary Salas, Councilmember Thursday, May 1, 2014 6:00 PM Police Department- Community Room 315 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Special Meeting of the City Councii, the Planning Commission and the Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista Notice is hereby given that the Mayor of the City of Chula Visfa has cal/ed and will convene a Special Meeting of the City Council, fhe Planning Commisison and the Growlh Managemenf Oversight Commission on Thursday, May 1, 2014, at 6:00 p.m in the Police Department Community Room, /ocated at 315 Fourth Avenus, Chula Vsta, Califomia to consider the item on this agenda. CALL TO ORDER � ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Mayor Cox Growth Management Oversight Commissiona;s Bunker, Danciu, Harry, Mosolgo, Rosales, and Chair Torres Planning Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Fragomeno, Livag, Nava, Vinson, and Chair Moctezuma PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Ciry a/Chula I�isfa Page f Pnntetl on N7N2014 City Council Agenda May 1, 2014 WORKSHOP I PUBLIC HEARING Council Workshops are for the purpose of discussing matters that require extensive deliberation or are of such length, duration or complexity that the Regular Tuesday Council Meetings would not be conducive to hearing these matters. The following item has been advertised as a public hearing as required by law. If you wish to speak on this item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 1. 14-0211 Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 2014 Annual Report. A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2014 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2014 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 Department: Development Services Department - Advance Planning Division Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing, Planning Commission adopt Resolution A, and Council adopt Resolution B. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 6, 2014, at 2.00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during normal business hours. City of Chula Vista Page 2 Printed on 412412014 City Council Agenda May 1, 2014 In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk's Office at(619) 691-504 1(California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online. City of Chula Vista Page 3 Printed on 412412014 City of Chula Vista CTY CHUILAVISTA Staff Report File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S (GMOC) 2014 ANNUAL REPORT. A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2014 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2014 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 RECOMMENDED ACTION Council conduct the public hearing, Planning Commission adopt Resolution A, and Council adopt Resolution B. SUMMARY Each year, the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with threshold standards for the Growth Management Program's eleven quality -of-life indicators. The 2014 Annual Report covers the period from July 1 , 2012 through June 30, 2013; identifies current issues in the second half of 2013 and early 2014; and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. A summary table of the GMOC's recommendations and staff's 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 2014 GMOC Annual Report will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA, prior to the commencement of any project. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 1 File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. The Planning Commission will provide comments and any recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION The 2014 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 nearly 3,300 units were issued building permits. The annual number of issued permits steadily declined until 2009, when 275 units were permitted. The number of annual permitted units has been on a gradual upward trend with 630 units being issued building permits in 2012. Presented below is a summary of findings and key issues in regards to threshold compliance. The GMOC 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 2014 GMOC Annual Review, including the current review period (July 1 , 2012 - June 30, 2013) and looking forward at any potential for non-compliance between 2014 and 2018. Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance Not In Compliance In Compliance Potential Future Non- Compliance Libraries Air Quality Fire/EMS Police - Priority 2 Drainage Libraries Traffic Fiscal Parks and Recreation Fire/EMS Parks and Recreation Police - Priority 2 Police - Priority 1 Traffic 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 City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 2 File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. 3.1.1 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 tenth consecutive year the threshold standard has not been met. By the end of 2014, a deficit of 123 square feet per 1 ,000 population is projected (approximately 32,000 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 2014 Annual Report makes the following two recommendations: • "That City Council direct the City Manager to work with the developers of Millenia to establish a phasing plan that accelerates delivery of the Millenia library using creative financing." Staff Response: The Library and City Manager will work with the developers of Millenia to explore opportunities for accelerating delivery of a new library. • "That City Council direct the City Manager to initiate grants, endowments, partnerships and other funding mechanisms to support library needs." Staff Response: The Library continues to aggressively pursue and compete for any suitable grant funding. Partnerships to leverage resources are a priority. POLICE 3.2.2 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; 42.7 percent of Priority 2 calls were responded to within 7 minutes, 14.3 percent below the standard. (See table below) The average response time for Priority 2 was 11 minutes 37 seconds, which was 4 minutes 7 seconds above the 7 minutes 30 seconds threshold standard. Threshold Standard Percent Time Average Time Emergency Response (Priority 1) 81 .0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. Urgent Response (Priority 2) 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec Actual Percent Time Average Time Emergency Response (Priority 1) 81 .5% 7 minutes 4:57 min./sec. Urgent Response (Priority 2) 42.7% 7 minutes 11 :37 min./sec. However, during Top-to-Bottom review, the Police Department and city staff concluded that the existing threshold standard is not the correct indicator for reporting P2 response times and should be revised. This change will be part of an amended growth management ordinance staff anticipates bringing to Council by the end of 2014. In the meantime, the Police Department continues to make procedural, staff and equipment improvements wherever possible to improve efficiency and performance. City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 3 File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. The 2014 Annual Report makes the following recommendation: "That City Council direct the Police Chief to continue to monitor procedures and programs to improve response times and achieve threshold compliance." Staff Response: The Police Department will continue to monitor and evaluate the impact of current programs on response times. In addition, the Department will continue to identify strategies to achieve threshold compliance. TRAFFIC 3.3.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard - One signalized arterial segment -- northbound Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road -- was non-compliant with the threshold standard. This segment has been non-compliant off and on over the past several years, and the city's traffic engineers are developing a new signal timing plan to improve service levels on this arterial segment. The 2014 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council continue to support City engineers in their efforts to implement improvements that will result in threshold compliance, including funding to monitor corridor timing on a continual basis." Staff Response: The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation. City staff will continue to implement continual basis corridor monitoring, as long as funding is available. 3.3.2 Construction of Heritage Road to Main Street -Last year's GMOC report noted increasing traffic pressures on portions of Olympic Parkway and, along with supporting interim operational improvements near Brandywine Ave, emphasized completing the extension of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street. The GMOC was encouraged that two lanes between Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria Road were recently completed, and that the City is working with the owners and developers of Otay Ranch Village 2 to complete the connection to Main St. The 2014 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council support city engineers in their efforts to ensure that a minimum of two lanes of Heritage Road be constructed from Santa Victoria Road to Main Street by the end of calendar year 2014." Staff Response: The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation. City staff will continue to work with developers to expedite construction of Heritage Road from Santa Victoria Road to Main Street with a goal to finish construction as quickly as possible. Recent schedule discussions with the developers, however, have construction of two lanes of the remaining portion of Heritage Road starting in 2014 but not being completed until 2016. 3.3.3 Grade Separation of Palomar St./ LRT Crossing - Grade separation of this crossing has been identified as a top priority, according to an August 2012 Chula Vista/SANDAL combined technical study report; however, full funding has not been identified. Therefore, the 2014 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council and staff work with SANDAG on securing complete funding for the Palomar Street/Light Rail Trolley grade separation." City of Chula Vista Page 4 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 4 File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. Staff Response: The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation. City staff will continue to work with SANDAG staff to secure construction funding for the Palomar Street/Light Rail Trolley grade separation project. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard - For the third consecutive year, the Fire/EMS threshold standard of responding to 80 percent of calls within 7 minutes has not been met; 75.7 percent of calls were responded to within 7 minutes, which is 4.3 percent below the standard and 0.7 percent below what was experienced in FY 2012. However, it should be noted that the call volume increased by 1 ,184 calls during the period under review, a 10.6 percent increase in the call volume of FY 2012. FIRE and EMS Response Times Review Period Call % of All Calls Average Average Trave Average Average Turn- Volume Responded to Response Timi Time Dispatch Time out Time Minutes for all Calls2 Threshold Standard: 80.0% FY 2013 12,316 75.7% 6:02 3:48 1:05 1:08 FY 2012 11,132 76.4% 5:59 3:43 FY 2011 9,916 78.1% 6:46 3:41 FY 2010 10,296 85.0% 5:09 3:40 FY 2009 9,363 84.0% 4:46 3:33 FY 2008 9,883 86.9% 6:31 3:17 FY 2007 10,020 88.1% 6:24 3:30 CY 2006 10,390 85.2% 6:43 3:36 In December 2013, the Fire Department implemented the 911 FirstWatch real time data and notification dashboard program to help address concerns related to dispatch and turnout. Since this occurred after the close of the current threshold reporting period (June 30, 2013), next year's report will have the benefit of approximately six months of data from FirstWatch. The 2014 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council continue to direct the Fire Department to implement effective measures that will ensure that the threshold standard will be met." Staff Response: The Fire Department is continuing to work on our response time thresholds. This process includes working to implement the FirstWatch program which will assist us in monitoring these thresholds with real-time data notifications. Thresholds Currently In Compliance Threshold Standards were found to be compliant for Police Priority 1, Parks and Recreation, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, Drainage, Air Quality, and Water. However, the GMOC made recommendations for Parks and Recreation, Drainage, and schools, as outlined below: PARKS AND RECREATION City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 5 File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. 3.5.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - City staff had anticipated bringing the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) update to City Council in 2013. However, park planning efforts tied in with processing entitlements for the future University Villages in Otay Ranch has necessitated postponement. The GMOC is concerned that additional delays may arise and postpone approval of the PRMP indefinitely. The 2014 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council approve the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan by the end of 2014 and make additional updates as necessary." Staff Response: Completion of the Citywide Parks & Recreation Master Plan is subject to future park planning efforts within the future University Villages. The University Villages located within the Otay Ranch area are currently being processed for entitlement approvals. Staff continues to work with project applicants in the development of the overall land use plans, including future park sites, for the villages. These Villages anticipate new park acreages and park locations beyond that envisioned in the former Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) December 2010. Once the conceptual park plans for each of the Villages has solidified, final edits of the PRMP will occur. Thus far only one of the five villages, Village 8 west, has been approved by City Council at SPA level. The Draft PRMP will be updated when a more complete picture of future park locations and sizes is available. Staff anticipates completion of the updated draft in 2014. Revenue Generating Capital Improvements - The GMOC is pleased that the City generates revenue by leasing gazebos in its parks and renting recreation facilities on Sundays. However, they would like the Recreation Department to continue exploring programs and/or capital improvements that would help generate additional recurring revenue. The 2014 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council direct the City Manager to seek 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: City Staff will work to review and update the Master Fee Schedule to maximize revenue from the City's Park Assets and will consider new revenue opportunities in the growing Parks System. In an effort to continually improve and enhance services and overall organizational effectiveness, the Recreation Department solicited competitive proposals from qualified firms to conduct a Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study. The comprehensive review and analysis will assist the Recreation Department in refining its service delivery and financial management philosophy to enhance and/or sustain services over both the short and long term. DRAINAGE 3.7.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels - The GMOC recognizes that maintaining existing channels in western Chula Vista is challenging because of shortages in resources, staffing levels and funding. The 2014 Annual Report makes the following two recommendations: A. "That City Council direct the City Manager to support engineering staff to closely City of Chula Vista Page 6 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 6 File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. monitor the status of the storm water conveyance system to ensure sufficient operation and continued threshold standard compliance." Staff Response: A. The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation. City staff will continue to monitor the status of the storm water conveyance system to ensure sufficient operation and continued threshold standard compliance. B. "That City Council identify funding to 1) implement locally mandated storm water flow regulations designed to avoid potential flooding and/or health issues; and 2) comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements." Staff Response: B.1) The Public Works Department concurs with the recommendation. City staff will continue to work with City Council to identify funding to implement locally mandated storm water flow regulations designed to avoid potential flooding and/or health issues B.2) The proposed FY 14-15 budget will provide sufficient funds for compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements until the Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) for the San Diego Bay Watershed is completed in June 2015. In FY 15-16, the City will start implementing activities identified in the WQIP. The implementation phase may require additional funding which cannot be estimated until the WQIP document is completed. SCHOOLS 3.8.1 School Districts Updates - Both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District indicated they will need new schools in eastern Chula Vista by 2016 or 2017. The Chula Vista Elementary School District is in the process of securing a site for an elementary school in Village 2 of Otay Ranch; the Sweetwater Union High School District has sites and funding for a new joint high school / middle school in Village 11 of Otay Ranch. The 2014 Annual Report recommends: "That City Council encourage the school districts to continue being proactive in identifying funding and school sites so that schools will be constructed before the need becomes more critical." Staff Response: CVESD has indicated that they will continue to act as proactively as possible to identify funding to construct schools before the need becomes critical. SUHSD will continue to identify funding sources and school sites as recommended. State funding is one source that currently does not have enough funding. SUHSD would appreciate support for a state-wide school bond and also recommends that the City Council not approve projects without a funding source in place (such as a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District). AIR QUALITY 3.10.1 Additional Air Monitoring Desired - The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) operates nine real-time, ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the region, including one station in Chula Vista. However, the GMOC would like more monitoring stations in the Chula Vista area to obtain more data. City of Chula Vista Page 7 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 7 File#: 14-0211, Item#: 1. The 2014 Annual Report makes the following recommendation: " That the City advocate for at least one more monitoring station in Chula Vista." Staff Response: The City can send a formal letter to the Air Pollution Control District requesting an additional air monitoring station within Chula Vista. It should be noted that the APCD only has 8 monitoring stations countywide (with 1 in Chula Vista), so the agency may be hesitant to add a redundant station in the City, when other parts of the region are unmonitored. 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 or Planning Commission Member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Growth Management Program's Fiscal threshold standard supports the Economic Vitality goal, "encouraging policies, planning, infrastructure, and services that are fundamental to an economically strong, vibrant city." The Air Quality, Libraries and Parks and Recreation threshold standards support the Healthy Communities goal, promoting "an environment that fosters health and wellness and providing parks, open spaces, outdoor experiences, libraries and recreational opportunities that residents can enjoy." And the Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Traffic, Sewer and Drainage threshold standards support the Strong and Secure Neighborhoods goal, ensuring "a sustainable and well- maintained infrastructure to provide safe and appealing communities to live, work and play" and maintaining "a responsive Emergency Management Program." CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT None of the staff responses and proposed implementing actions appears to require additional staff or other resources beyond those already included in the currently approved budget and/or in the fiscal year 2014/15 proposed budget. In such instance as any additional resources may be required, these requests will be returned to Council along with fiscal analysis as applicable. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT As any follow-up implementing actions are brought forward to the City Council fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided, as applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1 - 2014 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2014 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo 3 - 2014 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B City of Chula Vista Page 8 of 8 Printed on 4/24/2014 powered by Legis 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 8 o� O a� ca y 30 � �n Z O L t C O +°+ V O Y W O O �' `� L Q O a`� O O O a' t y y 0 L +°+ U o O ° 0 06 Q O 0 O V ?� O . p d C W C x O O L 0 0 O m > O � O O +O+ c� Z M O `� ayi 0 3 c�i � � -0 O '� y V 0 V p Q L O C Z 'O 3 Q (Q O yy_E R L- .- ' O + O 2 M O O - M + � y L� ++ - — t O a ayi c a o aai > o c _ a� a� i a� 0 v �> a � a>i � � v N - N (n C� ri ri Z T" m 04 m ri ri ri t M O M t 0 ° L OO � � L � ai� � � � � � 0o O W G O V N O Q N � y � 3 ° � o � f E 0 . � 0 n � Z o ° Er- o - � L L 0 a L - �_ L O m z Q N O N y N L E O C o 0 O L O C V 5 5 Q Z ±+ ±+ O 0 C C C a, - C L L R 2Z W 00a� agcy �= � v0i � LcO �= cc � W O t 0 U o U .O = L 0 0 0 0 4' o O +�+ O O 0 a0i 'c (1)L (1) M L L L O ++ U C O M > L O 0) O () o y o = c t C t +V+ V Q a' Q OL N ++ y u H00M H � � O M = o0i 0 cM Q L- N � J Q + o0 0 o li � a a0 H y ._ ._ � r N r N r N M M r r M N M M M M ° un 0 d' r 0 N O rl bD E L n Z L 0 O O � .+ y ±+ O L O O A C M C � > O O 3 a� L ° � 3 '3 0 > a 0) o � � o ° o � ++ Y v O L C O >+ U W O ° o ++ L ° 0 v otS y _ v °� +�+ 0 L C ++ G z O v >+ 5 y �� y c 0 O O O 0 CL c� a OW � 3 = ° =— O a � > 0 ° =_ `� `� ayi = 0 = 00- y L V 00 Z C/) O O i C 0 y d v O W 0 M _O O O + O O W 0 O O Y O � i E 15 z 0 ++ a) W 0 act , N O y 0 d 0 .O C y C N 0 O V V O a E 0 L c y as �c 0 o 0 �� E oa I- 0 a a 0 0z 0 iL oY � � L c � L 0 � � � � Q L = ,n O — � � = d V 0 Lcna a L� L 3 3 a Ua 3 > 0cn '0 � MMo 0) cn E t? z aM � P: M ocz M M M w > 5 -_ Owe - J 0 L N o 3 3 � E Z o c o � 'a ?r L 00 O y y C V z O }' +O+ +°' 0 L � � � r Z O Q E � U aL a�iN � V IM O 'a = W vi y y O C C OCO (� U zcm — L - 0 0 _ cn � W = " 3 _ W 0 r N U 3 � U y Imo^ U 0 V U E U Y N � U L O E o a na 3 E .8 a � � ch C i Ln M li cri Ln cli ° Ln 0 d• r 0 N o� Z oE O LO t 3 +O+ O O y V N 3 C 0 O O C t i V 0 � o � U � � a� Ua� > cc � vc Q N = = O E N w V G vZ// aOc L O c c Q c � = O W Z 0 r } ° — o p v + +' y c = N±+ _ o W > L O c 0 c 3 c a > Nc30My 0 M °r M Lv N o Z W W L E O N p p — H p .- p N N L OW ., V � ++ Q O V Q >+ c Y }' O C/) � a � N L 3 c a = y r r LU o � 3 °o c 3occcimQE0cny a� oo ° m 00 % G Z ++ = p N ++ L p 0 p ++ p O r- L ++ +, 0 <C C Q Q _ N p 00 L c = N ++ p N p — ++ ++ c O ~ W > 70 3 a) .- v m p cn E t N 0 v d C a0+ cn c o 0 +� (D E- 0 -W 0 > cn > U . a, o �_ a E 0 c o M a V V O .y M U) U Y O r- 0 i N rl bD O O y V y Q �0 0 C L O Y i tG fn Q O ++ O O L °p L 00 '� C y a O y o 4a m � i � 0 0 N V Op 0)V 0 O Q L N a1 'V L O '� +O+ +°+ Q fn y y U i (n Q ++ L co V � CY - 0) a c am_ -0 O ,o O O O d c c c -0 >+ O ' (n V O O c t y V c i t y ' U IM M O cn ° t __ V V O N +O+ c U- E 5O O O N .> N 3 G OC Z Z Q L = V c O y 0 L c cIM c V Z � W acia � }--, ° � m o y oU o a= o O c O . c (n QCa- O L 3Q OC 0-.2 ° 3 y ; y D o y E '3 0 cU LL 3 m 0a � �+, 2 in L � O E y � ° Q LL ° La Ear c � ° ° aci -0 cn M 0 0 —° C Z Q O � C N O 'er L c N y ' m N �a C ° Q cn 0 + �QO t 2 Q (j)0 '3 ° O ° °O 0 o ° o� a oo oL O0UU c 0- O L O > ° Ocncoc0-o U 0 mN M E 0 c V + Z w a C F- C r LPL ZZ I` M 00 M C � y � C O w L � a ° '55a) c Z O C 0 O E G C/) CO y V 0 V � �w C/) ) z +L, V L Z O y O ao p 0 � � �, L Z H a ° C a c Q Q V N M G M (U L y O M Lcc O r O V ice+ OC O w O y 0 U � O UQo �p �7f V L U y O C ++ O d O N O H .0 Q t y c L ~ � � � H N O d• H O N M rl bD C/) Z `O 0 ° LO L F- (Q +O+ 0) U 0 co c c 06 a 0 0 U W V N N 0 � � ZcL HOC z ~ 5 -0 c 0 � � W W � W Fn U) � - T a0 sL) c/) LL 2 = `uu) 5z L 30 Q � 0 � w70 ; � 0 � cnU) � mw U y 0�, = O O = t? 0 o (I) = z Fn p a w z w Ow F- J za W2 2 -� C/) WC/) z 0 z 0 a0 H a ~ o w =w O o0G O U OW w oc r � U N 0 O x u 0. '6 bD ti O N O d' H O N CI1Y OF CHULA VISFA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2014 ANNUAL REPORT Threshold Review Period 7/1 /12 to 6/30/13 May 1, 2-014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 14 Aptoo-oved. b-9 fk p- P UL+,-� (Reti�� No: PCM a ,& C49 Coi� (Retio� No: _) ovv May 1, 2014 GMOC Members Armida Torres, Chair (Business) Carl Harry, Vice Chair (Development) David Danciu (Southwest) Eric Mosolgo (Environmental) Javier Rosales (Northeast) Leslie Bunker (Education) Mark Livag (Planning Commission Representative) VACANT (Center City) Zaneta Encarnacion (Southeast) City Staff Kimberly Vander Bie - Growth Management Coordinator Patricia Salvacion - Management Assistant 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 15 City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 www.chulavistoca.gov 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 16 GMOC Chair Cover Memo DATE: May 1, 2014 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 - 2014 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 and Patricia Salvacion who provided direct staff support to the Commission. For the period under review, threshold standards for eight of the eleven quality of life topics were in compliance, including: 3.2 Police, Priority 1 3.5 Parks and Recreation 3.6 Fiscal 3.7 Drainage 3.8 Schools 3.9 Sewer 3.10 Air Quality 3.11 Water In GMOC's 2013 Annual Report, we expressed concern that there was potential non- compliance with the Parks and Recreation threshold standard by the end of that year, based on population and development projections. We are pleased that the Parks and Recreation threshold standard was not out of compliance and that there are several parks in the pipeline to help keep it that way. Threshold standards for the following four topics were out of compliance for this year's period under review: 3.1 Libraries 3.2 Police, Priority 2 3.3 Traffic 3.4 Fire and Emergency Services The details of each of the above are outlined in the attached report, while summaries of the topics that were out of compliance are highlighted below: 2014 Annual Report 1 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 17 Libraries — The Libraries threshold standard is non-compliant for the 10th successive year. The delivery of a library must remain a priority. The Millenia Development Agreement clearly requires a phasing plan for delivery of a library within one year of adopting an updated Libraries Master Plan and the GMOC urges the adoption of this Master Plan when it goes before City Council this spring. Police - The Police Priority 2 threshold standard is non-compliant for the 16th year in a row. As mentioned in last year's report, both the GMOC and the Police Department agree that modifications to the Police threshold standards are necessary, and the Top-to-Bottom review of the Growth Management Program produced proposed changes that will be brought before Council for adoption. Once the Priority 2 threshold standard is changed, the GMOC believes that the Police Department will be able to comply with it. Traffic — This year, one arterial segment was noncompliant with the threshold standard -- the chronically noncompliant Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road. The GMOC is concerned that this segment does not comply year after year and that the construction of Heritage Road to Main Street continues to be delayed. The Traffic Forum that the GMOC sponsored last fall was informative and beneficial to the public in providing insights on planning and expanding the circulation system, and ongoing Traffic threshold compliance conditions. Fire — Response times failed to comply with the threshold standard for the third consecutive year. The Fire Department indicated that this is largely due to an increase in call volume but no change in staffing, resources and facilities. Top-to-Bottom — The GMOC has an underlying concern about the status of the Growth Management Program's Top-to-Bottom review. Considerable strides had been made by this Commission towards bringing the review to completion. However, the project seems to have been sidetracked and we are concerned that all of our efforts may fade into the background. We believe it is important to adopt and incorporate the proposed changes as quickly as possible so that the Growth Management Program can function optimally. Conclusion — The Commission recognizes its role in measuring the impact of growth on the quality of life in Chula Vista and believes that key components to a high quality of life are the economic development strategies and sustainability of the City in the face of continued growth. The GMOC appreciates the focus the City is showing towards attracting high quality jobs and companies to the City and urges continued emphasis in that endeavor. As the improving economy provides more resources to apply towards long-neglected city services, the GMOC looks forward to continued improvement in all non-compliant thresholds. 2014 Annual Report 2 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 18 City Of C_k4_-1 V 4fo_ GMOC 2014 AK*L.gal. Re f"-vt Tam of 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 2014 Annual Review Process 5 1.4 Growth Forecast 5 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ................................................. 6 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 Priority 1 Threshold Standard Compliance 9-10 3.2.2 Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard 10-11 3.3 Traffic ..................................................................................... 11-13 3.3.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 11-12 3.3.2 Construction of Heritage Road to Main Street 12 3.3.3 Grade Separation of Palomar Street/LRT Crossing 12-13 3.4 Fire and Emergency Services...................................................... 13-14 3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 13-14 3.5 Parks and Recreation................................................................. 14-15 3.5.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 14-15 3.5.2 Revenue Generating Capital Improvements 15 3.6 Fiscal ..................................................................................... 15 3.6.1 Threshold Compliance 15 3.7 Drainage ................................................................................... 16 3.7.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels 16 3.8 Schools............................................................................ 17-18 3.8.1 School Districts Updates 17-18 3.9 Sewer.................................................................................. 18-19 3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity 18-19 3.10 Air Quality ................................................................. 19-20 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 19-20 3.11 Water ..................................................................................... 20-21 3.11.1 Meeting Water Demands 20-21 4.0 TRAFFIC FORUM 21 5.0 FIELD TRIP 21 6.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 21 6.1 Appendix A— Growth Forecast 2014 Annual Report 3 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 19 6.2 Appendix B— Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 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; a cross-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 commissioners are: Leslie Bunker, Vice Chair (Education); David Danciu (Southwest); Zaneta Encarnacion (Southeast); Carl Harry (Development); Mark Livag (Planning Commission); Eric Mosolgo (Environmental); Javier Rosales (Northeast); and Armida Torres, Chair (Business). The Northwest position, most recently held by Russ Hall, has been vacant during this review period. 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 2014 Annual Report focuses on Fiscal Year July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013; 2. The second half of 2013 and beginning of 2014 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 2014 through December 2018 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 2014 Annual Report 4 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 20 issues of compliance. They also evaluate the appropriateness of the threshold standards, whether they should be amended, and whether any new threshold standards should be considered. 1 .3 GMOC 2014 Annual Review Process The GMOC held nine regular meetings, one traffic forum and one field trip between October 2013 and April 2014; all were open to the public. At the regular meetings, representatives from the city departments and public agencies associated with the threshold compliance questionnaires gave presentations to the Commission and discussed the completed questionnaires (attached in Appendix B) with them. Through this process, city staff and the GMOC identified issues and recommendations, 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 ajoint meeting, which is scheduled for May1, 2014. 1 .4 Growth Forecast The Development Services Department annually prepares a Five-Year Growth Forecast, the latest of which was issued in September 2013. 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 projections from September 2013 through December 2018 indicated an additional 10,115 residential units could be permitted for construction in the city over the next five years, (8,757 units in the east and 1,358 units in the west), for an annual average of 1,751 units in the east and 272 units in the west, or 2,023 housing units permitted per year on average, citywide. 2014 Annual Report 5 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 21 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC's conclusions regarding threshold standards for the 2013 annual review cycle. Seven thresholds were met and four were not. 2013 ANNUAL THRESHOLD STANDARD REVIEW SUMMARY REVIEW PERIOD 7/1/12 THROUGH 6/30/13 Potential of Adopt/Fund Threshold Threshold Met Threshold Not Future Non- Tactics to Met compliance Achieve Compliance 1. Libraries X X X 2. Police Priority I X Priority 11 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 X School District Sweetwater X Union High School District 9. Sewer X 10. Air Quality X 11. Water X 2014 Annual Report 6 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 22 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 Total Gross Square Gross Square Feet of Population Footage of Library Library Facilities Per 1000 Facilities Population Threshold X X 500 Sq. Ft. 5-Year Projection 284,366 97,412t 343 (2018) 12-Month Projection 258,664 97,412*** 377 (12/31/14) FY 2012-13 251,613 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 in June 2011 tlf the Millenia library is delivered this figure would be higher. **After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012 ***After addition of 2000 sf at Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in July 2014. 2014 Annual Report 7 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 23 Issue: The Libraries threshold standard has not been met for the tenth consecutive year. Discussion: As Chula Vista's population increases, so does the gap between the amount of library square footage required by the Libraries threshold standard and the actual amount of library square footage in Chula Vista. By the end of 2014, a deficit of 123 square feet per 1,000 population is projected —that is a total of approximately 32,000 square feet. With the recent acquisition of 2,000 more square feet for the widely popular Otay Ranch Town Center Library, the projected deficit is just two square feet per 1,000 population higher than last year. The additional space is currently being converted into an area for story time, classes, community meetings and passport processing, and will have a rotating collection of books. It should be completed by summer. As reported previously, construction of the 30,000 square foot Rancho del Rey library branch is several years away due to insufficient Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) funding. And the timeline for the 30,000 square-foot Millenia (EUC) library is uncertain. Per the Millenia Development Agreement, a phasing plan for delivery of the library is due within one year of adoption of an updated Libraries Master Plan, which was approved by City Council on April 8t". If neither of these future libraries is constructed within five years, the projected square footage deficit would be approximately 46,000 square feet. In addition to shortfalls in square footage, Libraries reported that there will be insufficient staff to serve forecasted growth in the next 18 months and in five years. According to California Library Statistics 2012, published by the California State Library, Chula Vista's library staffing ratio per capita is in the bottom 15% of public libraries in California. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to work with the developers of Millenia to establish a phasing plan that accelerates delivery of the Millenia library using creative financing. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to initiate a campaign for library grants, endowments, partnerships and other funding mechanisms to support library needs. 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. 2014 Annual Report 8 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 24 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 - Compliant Priority 2- Non-Compliant Threshold Standard Percent Time Average Time Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. (Priority 1) Urgent Response 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec (Priority 2) Actual Percent Time Average Time Emergency Response 81.5% 7 minutes 4:57 min./sec. (Priority 1 Urgent Response 42.7% 7 minutes 11:37 min./sec. (Priority 2) 3.2.1 Priority 1 Threshold Standard Compliance Priority 1 — Emergency Response Calls for Service Call Volume % of Call Responses Average Within 7 Minutes Response Time Threshold 81.0% 5:30 FY 2012-13 738 of 65,741 81.5% 4:57 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 2004-05 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: None. 2014 Annual Report 9 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 25 Discussion: The GMOC is pleased that the Priority 1 threshold standard was met in Fiscal Year 2013 after being non-compliant in Fiscal Year 2012. Slightly ahead of the 81 percent threshold standard, the Priority 1 response time of 81.5 percent of calls within 7 minutes was an improvement of 2.6 percent from last year. The "Average Response Time" component of the threshold standard has consistently been met and at 4 minutes and 57 seconds was a four- second improvement in Fiscal Year 2013. Although the Police Department is in compliance with the Priority 1 threshold standard, they reported that "staffing levels are still a serious concern." They have a proactive policing goal of 40%; the Patrol Division is currently at approximately 22%. Recommendation: None. 3.2.2. Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard PRIORITY 2 — Urgent Response Calls for Service Call Volume % of Call Responses Average Within 7 Minutes Response Time Threshold 57.0% 7:30 FY 2012-13 18,505 of 65,741 42.7% 11:37 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 2004-05 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 Police Priority 2 threshold standard has not been met for the 16th consecutive year. Discussion: There were 3,600 less Priority 2 calls in Fiscal Year 2013 than in Fiscal Year 2012; however, the threshold standard of responding to 57 percent of calls within 7 minutes was not met. At 42.7 percent, the percentage of calls improved by nearly one percent from the previous year, but is still 14.3 percent below the threshold standard. 2014 Annual Report 10 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 26 The average response time of 11 minutes and 37 seconds was a 17- second improvement, but still 4 minutes and 7 seconds above the threshold standard of 7 minutes and 30 seconds. During top-to-bottom review, the Police Department and the GMOC agreed that the 7-minute threshold standard is not the correct indicator for reporting response times and should be amended. Under the proposed changes, the Fiscal Year 2013 response time of 11 minutes and 37 seconds would comply with the proposed change of 12 minutes. The Police Department continues to make procedural, staff and equipment improvements wherever possible to improve efficiency and strive for threshold compliance. They reported that an updated Security Alarm Ordinance that took effect January 1, 2014 should reduce the number of responses to false alarms "by at least 50 to 80W. They are hiring additional Community Service Officers (CSOs) to help free up officer time and are hoping to add a full-time IT manager, as well. The mobile data computers (MDCs) in the Patrol fleet are being updated and an Automated Vehicle Locating (AVL) system for the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system is being implemented. The AVL and the new MDCs should aid dispatchers in dispatching the nearest available unit to a call. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to work with the Police Chief to continue to monitor procedures and programs to improve response times and achieve threshold compliance. 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 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard Issue: One arterial segment was non-compliant with the threshold standard. Discussion: Between Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013, there was no change in the status of northbound Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road, which was the one arterial segment that continued to be 2014 Annual Report 11 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 27 noncompliant. It exceeded the Level of Service (LOS) threshold standard by four hours (three hours at LOS D and one hour at LOS E). LOS 2012 LOS 2013 SEGMENT (Limits) DIR (Hours) (Hours) CHANGE Heritage Road NB D(5) E(1) D(5) E(1) None (Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Canyon Road ) In an effort to combat the non-compliance issue, City traffic engineers coordinated and implemented a new signal timing plan last April. However, it was not enough, so a revised timing plan is being developed. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to continue to support City engineers in their efforts to implement improvements that will result in threshold compliance, including funding to monitor corridor timing on a continual basis. 3.3.2 Construction of Heritage Road to Main Street Issue: Heritage Road needs to be extended to Main Street. Discussion: According to City engineers, regional traffic modeling confirms that when the City's roadway network is completed in accordance with build-out plans, the system will operate within the growth management threshold standards. An important link in this ultimate plan is the extension of Heritage Road as a 6-lane arterial between Olympic Parkway and Main Street. Two lanes of Heritage Road were recently opened between Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria Road; however the road needs to be extended to Main Street to help relieve some of the delays that have been occurring to varying degrees on Olympic Parkway. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to support City engineers in their efforts to ensure that a minimum of two lanes of Heritage Road be constructed from Santa Victoria Road to Main Street by the end of calendar year 2014. 3.3.3 Grade Separation of Palomar Street/LRT Crossing Issue: Funding is needed to complete the Palomar Street/Light Rail Trolley grade separation improvements that will improve traffic flow. Discussion: As reported in GMOC's 2013 Annual Report, an August 2012 combined technical study report between the City and SANDAG identified the Palomar Street/Light Rail Trolley (LRT) Crossing as Priority 1 for improvements. 2014 Annual Report 12 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 28 Palomar Street is a major east/west arterial where vehicular traffic is increasing and the current at-grade crossing requires traffic to stop each time a train passes the crossing. 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 LRT crossing between Broadway and Interstate 5. Design and construction funding have not yet 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 3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard FIRE and EMS Response Times Call %of All Calls Average Average Average Review Period Responded Response Average Dispatch Turn-out Volume to Within 7 Minutes Time Travel Time Time Time for all Calls2 Threshold Standard: 8 0.0 FY 2013 12,316 75.7% 6:02 3:48 1:05 1:08 FY 2012 11,132 76.4% 5:59 3:43 FY 2011 9,916 78.1% 6:46 3:41 FY 2010 10,296 85.0% 5:09 3:40 FY 2009 9,363 84.0% 4:46 3:33 FY 2008 9,883 86.9% 6:31 3:17 FY 2007 10,020 88.1% 6:24 3:30 CY 2006 10,390 85.2% 6:43 3:36 CY 2005 9,907 81.6% 7:05 3:31 FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9% 7:38 3:32 FY 2002-03' 8,088 75.5% 7:35 3:43 FY 2001-02' 7,626 69.7% 7:53 3:39 FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8% 7:02 3:18 FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% 3:29 Note ': Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003. The difference in 2004 performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant. Note 2: Through FY 2012,the data was for"Average Response Time for 80%of Calls." 2014 Annual Report 13 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 29 Issue: The Fire threshold standard has not been met for the third consecutive year. Discussion: The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes dropped less than one percent between Fiscal Year 2012 (76.4%) and Fiscal Year 2013 (75.7%). However, that is down a total of 9.3% in the past three years, and 4.3% below the threshold standard of 80%. The Fire Department attributed the decline to an increase in call volume (1,184 more). Between Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013, the number of fire calls decreased by 2.4% for a total of 4.8%, and the number of medical calls decreased by .9% for a total of 83.7%. The number of calls categorized as "Other" increased by 3.28% for a total of 11.5%. The Fire Department has been monitoring and addressing response times with the companies that are not meeting the standard. In addition, they purchased the FirstWatch real time data and notification program to help address concerns related to dispatch and turnout. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to continue to direct the Fire Department to implement effective measures that will ensure that the threshold standard will be met. 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 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Issue: A council-approved Parks and Recreation Master Plan update continues to be delayed. Discussion: City staff had anticipated bringing the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) update to City Council in 2013. Since that did not occur, they are aiming for the end of 2014, but it is subject to completing park planning efforts within the Otay Ranch's future University Villages that are still being processed for entitlement approvals. Those villages (3, 8 East, 9 and 10) anticipate new park acreages and park locations beyond what was envisioned in the former draft PRMP from December 2010. Since unforeseen delays in the entitlement processes could continue to postpone adoption of an updated Master Plan, the GMOC would prefer 2014 Annual Report 14 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 30 that the most recent draft of the updated plan be approved, and additional updates be made as necessary. Recommendation: That City Council approve the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan by the end of 2014 and make additional updates as necessary. 3.5.2 Revenue Generating Capital Improvements Issue: The City needs to continue maximizing opportunities to generate revenue for parks and expansion of recreation services. Discussion: The GMOC is pleased that reservations for gazebos and picnic shelters continue to increase and that the City leases recreation facilities on Sundays to increase revenue. However, we would like the Recreation Department to continue to explore programs and/or capital improvements that would help generate recurring revenue. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to seek 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 Threshold Compliance Issue: None. Discussion: In last year's GMOC report, the Commission recommended that City Council adopt a debt service payment policy, and we are pleased that this recommendation was fulfilled last January. 2014 Annual Report 15 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 31 3.7 Drainage Threshold Standards: 1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards as set forth in the subdivision manual adopted by city council Resolution No. 11175 on February 23, 1983, as may be amended from time to time. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the city's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.7.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels Issue: Adequate funding for channel maintenance continues to be a problem. Discussion: Increased maintenance of the City's storm water conveyance system would provide a higher level of service. However, additional funding is necessary. In June 2013, new Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations (Permit No. R9-2013-0001) became effective and the City began a two- year transition period to identify the best strategies to meet the new requirements, which may necessitate increased storm drain maintenance activities; baseline water quality levels are being monitored to determine the extent. Additional funds and resources will be necessary for the City to implement the new regulations within 18 months of the reissued permit. Recommendation:.That City Council direct the City Manager to support engineering staff to closely monitor the status of the storm water conveyance system to ensure sufficient operation and continued threshold standard compliance. Recommendation: That City Council identify funding to 1) implement locally mandated storm water flow regulations designed to avoid potential flooding and/or health issues; and 2) to stay in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 2014 Annual Report 16 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 32 3.8 Schools Threshold Standard: The city shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities; 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; 4. Other relevant information the district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the city and the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC). The growth forecast and school district response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Threshold Finding: CVESD — Compliant SUHSD — Compliant 3.8.1 School Districts Updates Issue: New schools will be needed in the next 2-3 years to accommodate projected growth. Discussion: Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District are starting to feel some growing pains in eastern Chula Vista, and both districts reported that new schools will be needed by 2016 or 2017. Summaries of the schools are below. Chula Vista Elementary School District Based on current growth projections, a K-6 school in Otay Ranch Village 2 will be necessary by the 2016/17 school year. However, the school district indicated that the cost of the school site is more expensive than they had planned and they are continuing to negotiate with the developer so that they can acquire the necessary land for the school. Sweetwater Union High School District For the first time in five years, enrollment has increased in the Sweetwater Union High School District. And, based on the amount of growth projected over the next five years, construction of Middle School No. 12 and High School No. 14 at Hunte Parkway and Eastlake Parkway will be necessary by 2017. Plans are already complete for this proposed joint facility on school sites that have already been acquired. However, 2014 Annual Report 17 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 33 since the plans are five years old, they need to be updated to accommodate common core curriculum changes and building code amendments. Recommendation: That City Council encourage the school districts to continue being proactive in identifying funding and school sites so that schools will be constructed before the need becomes more critical. 3.9 Sewer Threshold Standards: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards as set forth in the subdivision manual adopted by city council Resolution No. 11175 on February 12, 1983, as may be amended from time to time. 2. The city shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the city's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the city engineering department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth; C. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity Sewage Flow and Treatment Capacity Million Gallons 18-month 5-year "Build-out" per Day (MGD) FY 11/12 FY 12/13 projection Projection Projection* Average Flow 15.935 15.734 16.870** 18.583** 26.2* Capacity 20.864 j 20.864 j 20.864 j 20.864 j 20.864 *Buildout Projection based on 2005 Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan "Growth rate per the"Residential Growth Forecast Years 2013 through 2018" 2014 Annual Report 18 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 34 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: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the city's development regulations, policies, and procedures relate to, and/are consistent with current, applicable federal, state, and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the city toward compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the city has achieved compliance. The city shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related federal and state programs, and the effect of those efforts/programs on the city of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance Issue: Additional air monitoring is desired. Discussion: During the period under review, Chula Vista's development standards continued to meet or exceed regional, state, and federal air quality regulations. 2014 Annual Report 19 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 35 In December 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency tightened the annual standard for fine particles PM2.5 (the smallest inhalable particles) from 15 to 12 micrograms per cubic meter and this stricter standard has been met throughout San Diego County. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) operates nine real- time, ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the region, including one station in Chula Vista. However, the GMOC would like more monitoring stations in the Chula Vista area to obtain more data. Recommendation: That the City advocate for at least one more air monitoring station in Chula Vista. 3.11 Water Threshold Standards: 1. Developer will request and deliver to the city a service availability letter from the water district for each project. 2. The city shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the city and planning area, considering both short- and long- term perspectives; b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed; C. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth; d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; e. Other relevant information the district(s) desire to communicate to the city and GMOC. Threshold Finding: Compliant 3.11.1 Meeting Water Demands Issue: None. Discussion: Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority serve the City of Chula Vista, and both reported that they will be able to meet the water demands of anticipated growth over the next five years. Specific data is available in the Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority questionnaires, located in Appendix B of this report. Otay Water District The Otay Water District (OWD) provided a list of the maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects within the Fiscal Year 2014 six-year 2014 Annual Report 20 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 36 Otay Water District capital improvement program (CIP) that are planned and anticipated to be needed to serve the City of Chula Vista. They have effectively anticipated growth, managed the addition of new facilities, and documented water supply needs. Additional water supply sources are continually under investigation by OWD, with the most significant potential source being the Rosarito, Mexico desalination facility. Projected to ultimately produce 100 MGD of potable water, there is the potential for up to 50 MGD to be purchased by Otay Water District. Significant regulatory and permitting issues need to be resolved before this project can be deemed viable, but the current outlook is promising. The Presidential permit process is underway as well as discussions with the State of California regarding treatment requirements. Sweetwater Authority The majority of Sweetwater Authority's planned improvements to pipelines, valves and other facilities are listed in the 2010 Water Distribution System Master Plan. This includes the Desalination Facility Expansion project that has been designed and is ready for construction to begin in early 2015. In addition, Sweetwater plans to replace approximately three miles of 36-inch water transmission pipeline through Bonita Valley, which is critical for continued long-term water supply to the City of Chula Vista. Recommendation: None. 4.0 TRAFFIC FORUM On October 24, 2013, the GMOC sponsored a traffic forum for the citizens of Chula Vista to update them on threshold standard compliance and road improvements that are currently underway or planned in the short-term (18 months) and long-term (five years). Several members of the public attended and viewed presentations given by City staff and representatives from Caltrans and SANDAL. 5.0 FIELD TRIP On January 11, 2014, City staff and Mayor Cox took the GMOC and a few members of the public on a field trip that covered every corner of the City. The itinerary included sites of future development, projects currently being developed, and projects that have been completed. 6.0 APPENDICES 6.1 Appendix A — Growth Forecast 6.2 Appendix B — Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2014 Annual Report 21 May 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 37 El 0) 0) ( 0 t0 ED o ED 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 38 El 21 z o o (� pp �onto K ZA elr(D\IH\ qh - (:DT(@C2O 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 39 Aw"00 r � My of: CHULAVISTA 2013 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2013 Through 2018 September 19, 2013 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 40 INTRODUCTION As a component of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program, the city's Development Services Department provides annual residential growth forecasts looking out five years. This year's growth forecast covers the period from September 2013 through December 2018. 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 Services 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 threshold maintenance and/or the need for revisions to any 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. The numbers reflect consideration of the city's standard entitlement process and permitting time frames, and, as such, 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 city's threshold standards. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet 2 Page 41 For example, last year's growth forecast estimated that 367 building permits would be issued for single-family units in 2013. As of September 13, 2013, 210 permits had been pulled. For multi- family units, 1,043 building permits were projected, and 319 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). Less than ten residential permits were pulled for infill and redevelopment in western Chula Vista, where 21 units were projected. FORECAST SUMMARY Between September 2013 and December 2014, as many as 1,450 housing units could be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, and 323 in western Chula Vista (see Figure 1). In the five-year forecast period (calendar years 2014 through 2018), eastern Chula Vista could have as many as 8,757 housing units permitted (averaging 1,751 annually), and development in western Chula Vista could pick up significantly, with as many as 1,358 units permitted (averaging 272 annually). The total number of units permitted citywide could be 10,115, with an annual average of 2,023 housing units permitted per year(see Tables 1 and 2). Using more aggressive development figures in this forecast allows the city and service providers to evaluate the maximum potential effect on maintaining 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 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 2) for the next several years. The majority of building activity (1,450 units) in 2014 is projected to occur in Eastlake Vistas, Otay Ranch Village 2, and the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC) "Millenia" (see Table 1). Following is a summary of the projects included in the forecast: 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet 3 Page 42 Eastlake—"Lake Pointe" in Eastlake Vistas is a 221-unit multi-family project across from the Olympic Training Center, and is the final residential project in the Eastlake Master Planned Community (other than 28 single-family custom homes still unbuilt in "The Gates"). Lennar Homes is projecting to pull building permits for all 221 units in 2014. Otay Ranch Village 2 — Baldwin & Sons is projecting the bulk of development in Village 2 over the next five years, including 187 single-family and 486 multi-family units in 2014. Many of these units, including 300 multi-family units in Neighborhood R-12a, are carry-overs from their projections for calendar year 2013. JPB is projecting around 98 single-family and 96 multi-family units in Village 2 by the end of 2015, also carry-overs from their projections for calendar year 2013. Otay Ranch Village 3 North—JPB is currently in the entitlement process for development in Village 3 North. They have moved a combination of 255 single- and multi-family units back to 2015 from 2014, and project several hundred more units in subsequent years. Otay Ranch Village 6 — In 2014, Oakwood Communities is planning to pull permits for the final project in Village 6, 108 multi-family units formerly named "Marquis II" and now called "Contessa at Otay Ranch". Otay Ranch Village 7 — By the end of 2014, JPB plans to pull the final permits for "Monte Sereno" in Village 7 (16 single-family units), while Shea intends to pull the last permits for "Mosaic" (34 multi- family units). Otay Ranch Village 8 West — Otay Land Company is nearing completion of the zoning and map entitlement process, with hearings anticipated in late 2013/early 2014. Construction start-up is targeted for 2015, when 178 units are projected. An additional 653 units are projected by the end of 2018. Otay Ranch Village 8 East and Village 10 —JPB is in the entitlement process for Villages 8 East and Village 10, and is projecting a total of 1,355 units between 2016 and 2018 for the two villages. Otay Ranch Village 9 — Otay Land Company is working on completing zoning and map entitlements for Village 9 in early 2014 and is projecting to begin construction in 2017. The five-year projection is 175 single-family units and 437 multi-family units. Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC) "Millenia" — McMillin is projecting 769 multi-family units in Millenia by 2018; 310 of those units are projected for 2014 and include their "Genesis" project, and the 273-unit "Fairfield Apartments" at the corner of Birch Road and Eastlake Parkway. This projection is down 529 units from last year's growth forecast, which projected 1,298 units by 2017. Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial — Baldwin & Sons is going through the entitlement process and is projecting 448 multi-family units in 2015. Bella Lago —This 140-unit single-family development is approximately 60 percent built out, with 83 units completed and 20 under construction. In 2014, Shea is projecting to build 18 more units and Bella Lago LLC projects to pull building permits for the remaining units between 2016 and 2018. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet 4 Page 43 Rolling Hills Ranch — Besides the 60-unit active care senior facility currently under construction, the final project in Rolling Hills Ranch is "Verona", a 77-unit single-family development that is approximately 49% complete. With 20 units currently under construction, McMillin is projecting to pull the final 15 building permits for this project in 2014. As of September 2013, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in eastern Chula Vista is approximately 19,687, based on the city's 2005 General Plan. If 8,757 units were permitted over the next five-year forecasted period, approximately 10,930 units would remain. Assuming that continued rate of growth, the capacity could potentially be built out around 2030, although changes in actual growth rates and/or future revisions to plans will affect that timing. 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; however, that is projected to change with a number of multi-family projects on the horizon, along with a 16-unit single-family development projected at 35 Tamarindo Way in 2014, and eight second accessory units per year projected over the five-year forecast. Projected multi-family projects include 299 units in 2014 and 411 units in 2015, with bayfront development beginning in 2016. "Urbana", a 266-unit multi-family project at H Street between Third and Fourth Avenues, is projected for 2014, along with the 33-unit "Lofts on Landis" at 240 Landis Avenue "The Colony" at 435 Third Avenue (162 units) is currently projected for 2015. Two other large multi-family projects are also projected for 2015, including "Creekside Point" at 944 Third Avenue (119 units) and "El Dorado Ridge" on Brandywine Avenue (104 units). In August 2012, the San Diego Unified Port District/City of Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan was approved by the California Coastal Commission, and the Chula Vista City Council approved the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) in September 2012. The plans include a total of 1,500 multi-family units located on land owned by the Pacifica Companies,where the first 200 units are projected 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, including recessions, have contributed to the various number of units, broken down as follows: 1980's—averaged 330 units/year; 1990's— averaged 693 units/year; and 2000's—averaged 1,885 units/year. Between the years 1996 and 2001, the number of building permits issued annually for housing units steadily increased from about 1,000 units to 3,525 units, a peak that is not likely to return. A significant cause of the growth was the onset of construction in Eastlake, Otay Ranch and other eastern Chula Vista master planned communities. During the construction boom years from 2001- 2004, the average annual number of units receiving permits for construction was approximately 2,200. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet 5 Page 44 The number of building permits issued began to taper off in 2005, when 1,654 residential permits were issued, and hit a low in 2009, when 275 permits were issued. The number of permits has been on an upward trend for the past four years, however, with 798 units being issued in 2013. Through September 13, 2013, 529 residential building permits have been issued (see Figure 3), with one more quarter to go this calendar year. 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 this estimate over the next five years, and assuming a 4.9% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 284,366 persons by the end of 2018. This is based on the following: • The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated Chula Vista's population on January 1, 2013 as 251,613; • An additional 515 units were occupied from January 1, 2013 to September 2013; and • An additional 10,115 units may be permitted between September 2013 and December 2018. 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. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet 6 Page 45 Figure 1 Number of Units 4000 Actual Forecast 3500 3,525 3.300 3.143 3000 2,618 2500 2.505 2,250 2000 1,902 1,8681,845 1,654 1,692 1500 1,450 1,180 11700 728 798 576 500 5�. 500 411 � 3255 323 208 208 208 0 1999 2000 2001 2102 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 3711 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 �Through September 13,2013 O Eastern Chula Vista r Western Chula Vista GMOC 2013 Residential Units Receiving Building Permits Issued 1999-2013,and Forecast 2014 2018 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet 7 Page 46 00 to a ~ -C a w O w u C � Z � O N m 10 N N O 0 W O O O O O O U U a I� � 555555 0 O -C -C -C -C o o ° �° a 0 0 0 0 C: 0 o o c o o 0 ° U w 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 m U o 00000000000000000000 I � P.—•------, �0 3 v. o— �ox v L.1 I _ I � i J* East\ �♦ J �f TI m La Ma�J O `` a� �' ea � •� 1 � 00 w i 0 � N DY c 0) 'YS\ ti � I •!mil Q O � x N N 1 W ` m 0 0 y , v on Q ti 0 N O a' H O N v a m N LL M N n Ln W m N n W M M W T n N O O O O n O O O N Ln M 7 O N 0 0 O O LL * N O a O O Lb wl 7 O Ln a s n � Lb Ln N N 0 N 0 Ln Ln LA n n W 0 pp L d f ~ LL o 0 Ln P% "' ^ 0 0 0 .� a o M n Ln o o in to °0 a Ln e LL y M a N M O N n N N M N N N N M W N LL O O O O M to � C1 eq f O o N 0 0 0 ER O O O O � � w 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O f0 W .-I N N .-I N L co W L N N Ln 01 W cc Q V ti W C1 LL N O O N a N 3 O O O O O O O n O O O O O O O O O n O O co O CO ZN M .-� •-� n Q n Q N N l` N LL m O ON O O O O LCR O O O O LCR 7 n O O O O O LU _I co N N W tb to W CO W Fri C N O O co to 0 O O O O O M O O O O M ^ O O In O O co O to Z1. co co Z co co W iO rn 0 w f I o r" o 0 0 0 ion o 0 0 o n�i Ln O O H ,Ny 0 0 0 O W .-I N .-I .-I M It co Lu 41 w O W W p41y C CD co O N z ^ O N O O O M O O O O M O O O to O O co O n P% n " � n p� W .y O N N Q V M o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o co N 0 0 0 O N W Lb N yWo f rn M W N N QO ' O 0, O al M O M O O co O O � O O 0 0 0 O O O O N z -i a a W LU L N Z a W Zt M W ro LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l 0 0 0 0 2 M C 0 0 O N W .-I M •-� M M Cl N V LU W LU Ln � a 1' N K CO Ln O N O N M O O O .-� ti O O O O O O N M O ti NN O F N W SU n /\ Y lu Y m c fA .. co m O J O 0 O C 01 ^ m C .� f0 � y Q w fA O O Ln O _ O — 0 Ln > ~O 7 m u 3 y .. U c a C '" "" C C m c f o m Q c ro O o o to '" m o m x — n '3 3 ro o fA a0+ g J c� L t L J f fA O 0 -0 L V N 00 m .0 u f0 C .� r U C J H c m m M C i N a O C O C m r U O C O Y Y Y N m m m y Y m U Y N m E [ > m � L Ln 3 y 0. 0. 0. L m m 0. Ln y •'' E m ;,° Ln Lu C 2 Z Lu f1) 3 n n n Z 0 m n f LOU 3 0 � j O N Ln CO 0 C U N N N N N N N M l0 n n n 00 00 01 m — N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i 0 0 = � 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 3 N N 01 01 m f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 LA M J J II Q > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LL W N f0 f0 a H m N N O A O W m m oG ° * a v on a 0 N O a' H O N O� Oq A d N n 0 v f N 0 N N M O N N 0 ti oi ti LL N W w in N i M n m N w W A rj >- m H N 7> O O O O O O in LL a W to co N N O O O O O O O O O N � L W m W co w N Q V W y m 0 = LL O O O O O O O O W w C A a Q h n Q o Iy N LL O O O O O O O O O O Co W O W N h w n 1,� 0 L O O O O O O O O w w On O O wl O O O O O O O O O N O c w V N m w Go Q W 0 O 11\Y m W 4 N LML C 0 ` O O O O O O O O OJ CO W Z SA 0 n Ln W , M c Q 0 r o CD 0 0 ko 0 0 0 N m W N W w 0 .a f Uw 4 a W W ' LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m a0 n V W Q � n rhr- N cl co_1 O O O O M,^ O O N O O1 I W d' n w M O M M N o t` N 1 W t� � � O O O O O ti O O W N V F a W w a' s J H Q � o Z a c y ca J Cp f/1 O F W C J L 'O r L _ d V V m V m H y Ln i o d w V C OI to Ln M L m '0 y m th In r L w o .:3 .o c z w o m o o c w 0 V C C o u Y w u a m y 0 E w V UI d Ln M m V W J H v Oq Q ti O N O a' H O N Table 3 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - SEPTEMBER 2013 CALENDAR Units Authorized for Units Completed Certified Year End Population YEAR Construction (Issued) (Finaled) (State D.O.F.) (1) No. No. No. % Change 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 1,120 120,265 3.4% 1987 1,168 2,490 124,253 3.3% 1988 1,413 829 128,028 3.0% 1989 1,680 11321 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 2.2% 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 27652 181,613 4.2% 2001 3,525 3,222 191,220 5.3% 2002 2,250 27923 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 1,180 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% 2010 517 422 245,987 0.7% 2011 728 631 249,382 1.4% 2012 798 847 251,613 0.9% 2013 529 515 253,201 0.6% 3 Annual Average 1,207 17220 4,966 2.5% 4 (1) Reflects Department of Finance(DOF)comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year. (2) Montgomery Annexation (3) Population estimates are subject to change and refinement. They assume a 4.9%vacancy rate and 3.24 persons per unit,and are estimated prior to California Department of Finance(DOF)estimates,available in 2014. (4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Pageyo o oi� 0 nED 'Th1ra,)Oh (nwo.f. Coo» nclnc�;c QQ u (�@o Q) n n s [M)o 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 51 Air Qualit y - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 -June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please provide brief responses to the following: 1 . Regarding development that occurred during the period under review, please provide an overview of how measures designed to foster air quality improvement, pursuant to 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, new developments are evaluated through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for the following air quality impacts: CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS GREENHOUSE GASES AQ Standards: Based on South AQ Standards: Based on Assembly Coast Air Quality District Bill 32/Climate Action Plan Ozone Carbon Dioxide Particulate Matter Methane Lead Nitrous Oxide Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Hexafluoride Sulfur Oxide Hydrofluorocarbons Nitrogen Oxide Perfluorocarbons During FY13, three development projects underwent formal CEQA review for their contribution to local criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. In addition, two new development projects within the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) area were found to be in compliance with the UCSP's original air quality analyses. In all cases, development projects were either found to have air quality impacts below a level of significance or were required 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. Approximately 1,100 new/remodeled building units were permitted in FY13,which meet the City's green building and enhanced energy efficiency standards, which require levels of efficiency 15-20% higher than state codes. Chula Vista also began work, in partnership with San Diego Gas& Electric and the US Green Building Council (San Diego Chapter), on a new 2014-05-01Qfetftet 2014 1 Page 52 tool to assist developers in achieving the City's enhanced energy efficiency standard. Using the LEED-Neighborhood Development rating system as a framework, the tool would allow developers to quantify the energy savings through community-scale sustainable design features, such as more walkable streets and proximity to community services, in order to provide an alternative (and potentially more cost effective) approach to enhanced energy efficiency standard compliance. The creation of the new tool, which is currently in a beta stage, has been informed by a stakeholder working group. 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. In addition, City staff has drafted new Electrical Generating Facilities (EGFs) guidelines to help further protect public health. The draft guidelines promote the transition towards "cleaner" fuel sources and provide explicit siting and performance standards for new back-up, private, peaker, and baseload generation facilities. The draft guidelines have been developed through an extensive two-year stakeholder engagement process with both industry and environmental representatives. It is expected that the EGF guidelines will be presented to the City Council for consideration in October 2013. 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, Water Conservation, & Renewable Energy Energy end use within Chula Vista's existing building stock is responsible for almost 50% of the community's greenhouse gas emissions. To assist property owners with implementing energy and water efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations, the City began the process to establish a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program in FY13. PACE programs allow property-owners to voluntarily finance energy and water upgrades through a tax assessment on their property and the resulting utility savings are used to help offset the new assessment. Assessment obligations generally transferwith the property upon sale, because the new owner continues to benefit from the efficiency improvements. PACE programs have successfully facilitated building energy and water upgrades in a number of California communities (such as Sonoma County, western Riverside County, City of Palm Desert, and City of Sacramento), while creating local economic development benefits. Chula Vista expects to launch its PACE program in March 2014. Alternative Fuel Vehicles The City of Chula Vista leveraged two public-private partnerships in FY13 to promote cleaner transportation options and to expand alternative fuel infrastructure within the community. At no cost to the City, over 25 electric vehicle charging stations were installed at the Civic Center, Parkway Recreation Center, Loma Verde Recreation Center, and Montevalle Recreation Center. The new chargers provide convenient refueling options for residents, visitors, and municipal employees, who own or lease electric vehicles. The new chargers also enabled City staff to partner with Car2Go to expand their all-electric car 2014-05-01Qfetftet 2014 2 Page 53 sharing service into Chula Vista. Car sharing allows community members to rent vehicles by the minute and provides a convenient, cleaner alternative to owning a second vehicle for households. Finally, the City of Chula Vista served on the "Regional Electric Vehicle Infrastructure" (REVI)working group and helped to develop a new 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 FY13. New infrastructure improvements along Third Avenue between H and Madrona streets were completed, which provide safer mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists including crossings and lane markings. In coordination with CalTrans and SANDAG, new High Occupancy and Direct Access Ramps are being constructed on Interstate 805 in both directions within the City's boundaries. The specialty lanes will offer expedited travel for carpools, vanpools, and buses. Finally, the Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan was finalized in FY13, which outlines future transit-oriented, mixed use development. The District, which is considered the major southern gateway to the City, encompasses approximately 100 acres surrounding the Palomar Transit Station and is one of the busiest traffic interchanges in Chula Vista. 4. Identify any significant reductions in air quality emissions. During FY13, there were no significant reductions in local air quality emissions. 5. How many residents and/or commercial facilities have added solar panels in the last year? Over the last year, approximately 390 solar photovoltaic permits were issued for residential and commercial 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? Yes No X If so, please list and provide a brief explanation of each. 7. Please provide a "side-by-side" comparison of what neighboring communities are doing for climate control. 2014-05-01Qfetftet 2014 3 Page 54 LOCAL CEQA Climate Pedestrian/ Green Free Energy JURISDICTIONS GHG Action Bicycle Building Energy Upgrade Review* Plan Plans Standards Evaluations 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 I Progress 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, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are one of the "proxies"that the City of Chula Vista, like many jurisdictions, utilize to generally assess local air quality. Typically, as GHG emissions decrease (due to direct and indirect reductions in fossil fuel burning), criteria air pollutants also decrease. As such, the City of Chula Vista recently completed a preliminary 2012 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory to identify local carbon-producing sources and activities. The results show that community-wide emissions have increased by 37% since 1990 levels, but only have increased by 1% since 2005. In addition, per capita emissions continue to decrease and are currently 27% below 1990 levels. This information will help guide the formal update of the City's Climate Action Plan over the next year and help the community prioritize actions to lower greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions. PREPARED BY: Name: Brendan Reed Title: Environmental Resource Manager Date: October 7, 2013 AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the city's development regulations,policies and procedures relate to,and/or are consistent with current applicable federal,state and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the city toward compliance with relevant federal,state and local regulations regarding air quality,and whether the city has achieved compliance. The city shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District(APCD)for review and comment. In addition,the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions,the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related federal and state programs, and the effect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. 2014-05-01Qfetftet 2014 4 Page 55 APCD - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 -June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please update the table below. SMOG TRENDS - Number of Days Over Standards 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 STATE STANDARDS San Diego Region 18 8 7 5 2 2 Chula Vista 1 1 1 0 0 0 FEDERAL STDS San Diego Region 11 4 1 3 0 0 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 Please provide brief responses to the following: 1 . 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 lower than in many other areas of the region. Therefore, it appears that Chula Vista is not disproportionately impacted by ozone-precursor emissions from surrounding areas. 2. 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. 2013 continued attainment and was the second year in a row with no days exceeding the 1997 ozone standard countywide. 3. Were there any changes in federal or state programs, during the period under review that could affect Chula Vista? If yes, please explain. Yes X No Effective July 20, 2012, based on the same ozone air quality data monitored in 2009- 201 San Diego County was designated and classified as a Marginal nonattainment area for the more stringent national ozone standard of 75 parts per million that the U.S. EPA established in 2008. APCD - 2014 1 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 56 On December 14, 2012, EPA tightened the annual standard for fine particles PM2.5 from 15 to 12 micrograms per cubic meter, but the tighter standard is met throughout San Diego County, so the County will remain an attainment area for PM2.5. 4. Are there existing or future RAQS programs that Chula Vista needs to be aware of? If yes, please explain. Yes No X 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carl Selnick Title: Air Quality Specialist Date: September 20, 2013 AIR QUALITY THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the city's development regulations,policies and procedures relate to,and/or are consistent with current applicable federal,state and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development specific activities being undertaken by the city toward compliance with relevant federal,state and local regulations regarding air quality,and whether the city has achieved compliance. The city shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition,the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions,the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related federal and state programs, and the effect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. APCD - 2014 2 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 57 Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 —June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast 1. Please complete the tables below, adding schools where appropriate. EXISTING CONDITIONS - JANUARY 2014 Schools Enrollment Building Capacity Amount Overflow % Residing in Enrollment Under/Over Boundaries 1/14 Capacity* Permanent Portables In Out NORTHWEST Cook 454 438 75 -59 0 32 58.28% Feaster-Edison 1060 425 764 -129 0 0 90.40% Hilltop Drive 574 488 88 -2 0 0 63.56% Mueller 850 500 400 -50 52 0 79.17% Rosebank 593 450 277 -134 0 4 74.79% Vista Square 1 6421 363 1 363 1 -841 11 01 81.36% SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 821 775 50 -4 0 0 No Att.Boundary Castle Park 424 476 25 -77 0 2 84.67% Harborside 619 513 376 1 -270 13 0 76.85% Kellogg 314 439 75 -200 0 0 58.73% Lauderbach 823 488 526 -191 17 0 90.51% Loma Verde 542 450 175 -83 1 0 68.19% Montgomery 374 413 100 -139 0 0 87.43% Otay 596 500 275 -179 8 0 82.67% Palomar 3911 468 0 -771 1 01 67.68% Rice 1 686 550 202 -66 0 0 85.25% Rohr 350 451 38 1 -139 0 0 73.85% *(-)denotes amount under capacity 2q4 ft§0j A It a Packet Pa Pale 58 Current Building Capacity Amount Overflow % Residing in Schools Enrollment Under/Over Boundaries Capacity* In Out Permanent Portables SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 884 750 100 34 1 0 69.45% Camarena 952 800 100 52 28 0 95.87% Olympic View 804 500 300 4 26 0 88.38% Parkview 365 518 50 -203 0 0 62.64% Rogers 467 613 0 -146 0 0 63.00% Valle Lindo 528 500 189 -161 6 0 91.65% Hedenkamp 1072 1,000 0 72 21 0 87.52% Heritage 913 750 150 13 17 0 71.88% Veterans 885 727 150 8 45 0 78.35% McMillin 843 750 100 -7 36 0 89.99% Wolf Canyon 657 764 150 -257 0 0 76.79% NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 428 503 0 -75 2 0 49.39% Casillas 595 564 150 -119 0 35 55.67% Chula Vista Hills 563 488 100 -25 0 0 57.40% Clear View 513 418 150 -55 13 0 54.19% Discovery 789 600 300 -111 0 0 65.69% Eastlake 665 475 239 -49 0 132 52.31% Halecrest 522 501 88 -67 0 38 39.85% Liberty 729 764 0 -35 7 0 62.55% Marshall 725 593 100 32 0 0 85.91% Salt Creek 1022 800 150 72 17 0 87.77% Tiffany 587 514 175 -102 1 0 71.40% TOTAL 25621 22,079 6,550 -3008 313 243 *(-)denotes amount under capacity 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2014 and (b) December 2018, based on the city's 2013 Residential Growth Forecast. 2q4ft§01 My$aPacket Pagper59 2 a. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2014 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Overflow %Residing in Enrollment Permanent Portables Over/Under Out In Boundaries 12/31/14 Capacity* NORTHWEST Cook 421 438 75 -92 Feaster-Edison 1096 425 764 -93 Hilltop Drive 564 488 88 -12 Mueller 872 500 400 -28 Rosebank 586 450 277 -141 Vista Square 1 6301 363 1 363 1 -96 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 847 775 50 22 Castle Park 422 476 25 -79 Harborside 615 513 376 -274 Kellogg 309 439 75 -205 Lauderbach 803 488 526 -211 Loma Verde 503 450 175 -122 Montgomery 364 413 100 -149 Otay 576 500 275 -199 Palomar 386 468 0 -82 Rice 664 550 202 -88 Rohr 324 451 38 -165 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 755 750 100 -95 Camarena 992 800 100 92 Olympic View 686 500 300 -114 Parkview 338 518 50 -230 Rogers 416 613 0 -197 Valle Lindo 600 500 189 -89 Hedenkamp 914 1,000 0 -86 Heritage 980 750 150 80 Veterans 857 727 150 -20 McMillin 666 750 100 -184 Wolf Canyon 2707 764 150 1793 NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 415 502 1 0 1 -87 2q4ft§01 My$aPacket Pa&g 60 Casillas 577 564 150 -137 CV Hills 548 488 100 -40 Clear View 489 418 150 -79 Discovery 762 600 300 -138 Eastlake 632 475 239 -82 Halecrest 530 501 88 -59 Liberty 739 764 0 -25 Marshall 640 593 100 -53 Salt Creek 976 800 150 26 Tiffany 576 514 1 175 1 -113 ITOTAL 24865 22,014 6,550 -3699 *(-)denotes amount under capacity 2.b FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2018 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Out Overflow %Residing in Enrollment permanent Portables Over/Under In Boundaries 12/31/18 Capacity* NORTHWEST Cook 365 438 75 -148 Feaster-Edison 701 425 764 -488 Hilltop Drive 471 488 88 -105 Mueller 987 500 400 87 Rosebank 501 450 277 -226 Vista Square 670 363 363 -56 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 1022 775 50 197 Castle Park 394 476 25 -107 Harborside 582 513 376 -307 Kellogg 310 439 75 -204 Lauderbach 739 488 526 -275 Loma Verde 475 450 175 -150 Montgomery 347 413 100 -166 Otay 538 500 275 -237 Palomar 341 468 0 -127 Rice 1 618 550 202 -134 Rohr 291 451 1 38 1 -198 7g4ft§01 A It a Packet Pa&4e 61 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 755 750 100 -95 Camarena 992 800 100 92 Olympic View 686 500 300 -114 Parkview 338 518 50 -230 Rogers 416 613 0 -197 Valle Lindo 600 500 189 -89 Hedenkamp 914 1,000 0 -86 Heritage 980 750 150 80 Veterans 857 727 150 -20 McMillin 6661 750 100 -184 Wolf Canyon 2707 764 150 1793 NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 364 438 0 -74 Casillas 505 564 150 -209 Chula Vista Hills 532 488 100 -56 Clear View 395 418 150 -173 Discovery 667 600 300 -233 Eastlake 626 475 239 -88 Halecrest 499 501 88 -90 Liberty 743 764 0 -21 Marshall 471 593 100 -222 Salt Creek 818 800 150 -132 Tiffany 526 514 175 -163 254091 22,0141 6,550 -3155 *(-)denotes amount under capacity 3. Please complete the table below. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2013-2014 2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-10 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,173 4,179 4,287 4,414 4,537 of Change Over the -0.14% -2.5% -2.88% -2.9% 2% Previous Year % of Enrollment from Chula Vista SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,940 5,895 5,878 5,955 6,208 2q4ft§01 My$a Packet Pa&se 62 of Change Over the 0.76% 0.29% -1.29% -4% 5% Previous Year % of Enrollment from Chula Vista SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 8,370 7,901 7,807 7,243 7,328 of Change Over the 5.94% 1.2% 7.79% -1% 6% Previous Year % of Enrollment from Chula Vista NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,138 7,114 6,884 7,021 7,252 of Change Over the 0.34$ 3.34% -1.95% -3% 2% Previous Year % of Enrollment from Chula Vista DISTRICT-WIDE Total Enrollment 28,442 27,328 27,765 27,521 28,224 of Change Over the 4.08% -1.6% .89% -2.6% 3% Previous Year % of Enrollment from Chula Vista Please provide brief responses to the following: 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes No 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not,please explain. Yes_ _ No 7g4jp§0!A It a Packet Pa Pp$e 63 6. Please complete the table below. NEW SCHOOLS STATUS School Site Architectural Commencement Service Commencement Time Selection Review/Funding of Site Preparation by of Construction Needed ID for Land and Utilities By Construction and Road Village 2 X TBD TBD TBD Est. Spring of 2016 dependent on CFD bonding capacity 7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities? If not, please explain. Yes No 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carolyn Scholl Title: Facilities Planning Manager Date: February 10, 2014 "SCHOOLS"THRESHOLD STANDARD The city shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12-to 18-month forecast and request an evaluation of their abilities to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities; 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities;and 4. Other relevant information the districts desire to communicate to the city and GMOC. 2q4J d)1 My$a Packet Pagpev 64 � a LL co o � � x u) E d a E E > ` � m m o � w ♦ cog d�� r c C7 _ NN ..u) W N E N N N Q u) U E L t H O o O Q O C o O N z Z C 00 o Ew U E F! Q N Z 0 O N ddd LL LL P �P W bb30 � 3sy 000 g0.1P� PsEO DELREY x31N�OlbO�p3W �Y O 2 o�P w � M�0.os0 p .. �o N �o a. y Mpg W f JQLO 0P\'4 /1 0 N SOP Z e 0� P�Pa U, LLI oUVO $2, � 1.6ti -..30.0.,., - O`NPV � U ■V 00.0P � 5 0V'�0 S^Ob0 5O o N �ryP NO 30b1N0 s N 2r N U z o e Drainage - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast 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 Growth will not directly impact current channel operation. Developers in eastern Chula Vista will be required to provide all necessary facilities and their respective share of maintenance costs of facilities they may impact. Developers may need to construct additional facilities or reconstruct existing facilities in order to accommodate new development in western Chula Vista where the parcels are redeveloped at a higher density. This will be reviewed with respect to the Hydro-modification Plan,in effect as of January 2011,as development and redevelopment occurs. 4. What channel maintenance procedures are being used 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 Drainage-2014 10/31/2013 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 66 riparian 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. 5. Do we have appropriate staffing levels and budget resources to keep up with the maintenance schedule? If not, please explain. Yes No_X The current Public Works storm drain maintenance-operating budget is$900,000. The current 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(see attached exhibit). The City allocates resources to address all the other areas throughout the City with storm drain infrastructure that require structural maintenance or replacement, routine weed abatement and silt and debris removal to maintain channel and detention basin capacity. The city has to consider costs of the time-consuming multi-agency permit process for each segment where crews or contractors need remove vegetation and debris. Increase levels of maintenance could always bring the drainage system to a higher level of service if additional funding became available New growth has not appeared to impact current capacity as developers are required to mitigate the impacts they create. In addition,current maintenance level has not resulted in any flooding impacts. On May 8,2013,the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Order NO. R9-2013-0001 (Permit),which became effective on June 27,2013. Section E.5.b.(1).(c).(ii) of the new Permit mandates the following for Operations and Maintenance of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)and Structural Controls: Each Copermittee must implement a schedule of operation and maintenance activities for its MS4 and related structures(including but not limited to catch basins, storm drain inlets, detention basins, etc.), and verify proper operation of all its municipal structural treatment controls designed to reduce pollutants (including floatables) in storm water discharges to or from its MS4s and related drainage structures. Operation and maintenance activities may include, but is not limited to,the following: [a]Inspections of the MS4 and related structures; [b]Cleaning of the MS4 and related structures;and [c] Proper disposal of materials removed from cleaning of the MS4 and related structures. Drainage-2014 10/31/2013 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 67 In addition, the City is required to effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges and ensure that storm water discharges from MS4s meet water quality standards in the Basin Plan. Compared to the previous Permit,the Regional Board has provided some flexibility to the Copermittees in establishing their own priority maintenance activities, frequencies, and areas. However, in order for the Copermittees to meet water quality standards in their discharges,most probably the Copermittees will have to maintain or even increase storm drain maintenance activities, depending on monitoring results. The City began a two year transition to the new permit on June 27, 2013. During this time, baseline water quality levels are being developed through monitoring and assessments.The goal for the two year period is to able to identify the best strategies to meet the new permit requirements. The City will continue to evaluate staffing levels as the best strategies to meet the new permit requirements are identified. 6. Please provide any other relevant information,recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Lack of appropriate resources 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. This could result in impairment of water quality within receiving waters and create a condition of non-compliance with the Municipal Permit, exposing the City to penalties. PREPARED BY: Roberto N.Yano, Sr. Civil Engineer Dave McRoberts,Wastewater Collections Manager Khosro Amnipour, Sr. Civil Engineer 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. Drainage-2014 10/31/2013 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 68 Fire & EMS - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 -June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please complete the following tables: FIRE and EMS Response Times Call %of All Calls Average Average Average Average Travel Time Review Period Responded Response Time g Dispatch Turn-out Volume to Within 7 Minutes for all Calls2 Time Time Threshold Standard: 80.0% FY 2013 12,316 75.7 6:02 3:48 1:05 1:08 FY 2012 11,132 76.4% 5:59 3:43 FY 2011 9,916 78.1% 6:46 3:41 FY 2010 10,296 85.0% 5:09 3:40 FY 2009 9,363 84.0% 4:46 3:33 FY 2008 9,883 86.9% 6:31 3:17 FY 2007 10,020 88.1% 6:24 3:30 CY 2006 10,390 85.2% 6:43 3:36 CY 2005 9,907 81.6% 7:05 3:31 FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9% 7:38 3:32 FY 2002-031 8,088 75.5% 7:35 3:43 FY 2001-021 7,626 69.7% 7:53 3:39 FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8% 7:02 3:18 FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% 3:29 Note 1: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1,2002 to September 30,2003. The difference in 2004 performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5%range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant. Note 2: Through FY 2012,the data was for"Average Response Time for 80%of Calls." 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 Over the last two years the Fire Department has seen an increase in our turnout times. We have been monitoring and addressing these times with companies that are not meeting the standard. In addition the department purchased the FirstWatch real time data and notification program to help address concerns related to dispatch, turnout and travel times. Last year our call volume increased by 1493 calls and this year our call volume increased again by an additional 1184 calls marking two consecutive years. In comparison, our available resources staffing and facilities remained the same. This resulted in a higher demand on available resources Page 1 Fire - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 69 and personnel making meeting the standard increasingly difficult. 2. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have sufficient properly equipped fire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. 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. In October of 2013 the city council approved our request to enter into a Lease/Purchase agreement for one new fire engine. This new engine was ordered and is expected to be placed into service in December of 2014. We are still planning to take the National Fire Protection (NFPA) 1901 Standard for Fire Apparatus Maintenance and Replacement to council for adoption 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 growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes No _X Aging fire apparatus continue to hamper our ability to respond. Our department still needs to identify funding to replace an additional apparatus. 5. Are current facilities,equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No _X_ Aging fire apparatus continue to hamper our ability to respond. Our department still needs to identify funding to replace an additional 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 completed a series of public information meetings and will be asking the city council to adopt the plan on December 10, 2013. Page 2 Fire - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 70 7. On the table below, please provide data on response times and calls for service by geography, specifically by calls east of 1-805 ("East"), calls west of 1-805 ("West") and calls that straddle the 1-805 corridor. FIRE and EMS Response Times (By Geography) %of All Calls Average Response Average Call Responded to Time Travel Time Average Average Volume Within 7 Minutes for all Calls2 Dispatch Time Turn-out Time Threshold = 80% East West E/W East West E/W East West E/W East West E/W East West E/W East Wes E/W FY 1,976 6,670 3,670 54.3 85.9 68.7 7:06 5:29 6:27 4:48 3:16 4:15 1:08 1:05 1:04 1:12 1:06 1:09 2013 Note: "East" =Calls responded to east of 1-805(Fire Stations 6, 7 and 8). "West" = Calls responded to west of 1-805(Fire Stations 1 and 5). "E/W" =Calls responded to citywide(Fire Stations 2,3,4 and 9). B. What percentage of calls received were for fire services, and what percentage were for emergency medical services? Call Type Percentage of Calls Fire 4.8% Medical 83.7% Other 11.5% 9. Please report on the performance of the 911"FirstWatch"dashboard program that the Fire Department purchased earlier this year to alert Senior Staff and Battalion Chiefs anytime one of the citywide or GMOC threshold standards was not being met. Has it been successful in allowing staff to take immediate action to address and resolve any issues related to these parameters? The 911"FirstWatch" dashboard program was purchased in April of 2013. We have been working with the City of San Diego whom manages our Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)system and FirstWatch on the implementation and testing phase of the program. In October we delivered department wide training to all personnel on the use of the program and we are set to go live on December 1 , 2013. 10. Please complete the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) table below. Page 3 Fire - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 71 NFPA COMPLIANCE TABLE— FY 2013 #of Calls Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Response Time*** Time** Time* Time EMS' - 1st BLS2 Unit 11739 NFPA Standard 1:00 1:00 4:00 6:00 Average Time 0:55 1:08 3:47 5:58 % Compliance 71.8 44.8 61.9 76.7 EMS' - 1st ALS3 Unit 0 NFPA Standard 1:00 1:00 6:00 8:00 Average Time % Compliance Fire- 1st Unit 577 NFPA Standard 1:00 1:20 4:00 6:00 Average Time 1:15 1:19 4:26 8:50 % Compliance 28.8 61.8 50.1 54.1 Effective Fire Force 114 (EFF) - 14FF NFPA Standard 1:00 1:20 8:00 10:00 Average Time 1:28 1:24 4:55 10:21 Compliance 10.2 52.6 95.4 54.4 "Dispatch Time"(Alarm Processing): Phone pick-up in communications center to unit assigned to incident "Turnout Time": Unit assigned to unit en route to location "Travel Time": Unit en route to unit arrival at scene "Total Response Time": Phone pick-up in communication center to unit arrival at scene ***Standard for all incident types-1 minute/80%of the time **Standard for EMS-1 minute/90%of the time;Standard for Fire-80 seconds/90%of the time *Standard for EMS BLS and Fire 1 I Unit Arrival-4 minutes/90%of the time;Standard for EMS ALS and Fire EFF-8 minutes/90%of the time 'EMS = Emergency Medical Services 2BLS= Basic Life Support 3ALS=Advanced Life Support 11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Dave Hanneman Title: Fire Chief Date: 11/13/13 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). Page 4 Fire - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 72 Fiscal - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1, 2012- June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast 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 time frames: a. The last fiscal year(07-01-12 to 06-30-13); b. The current fiscal year, 2013-2014;and c. What is anticipated in the coming five years. FISCAL IMPACT REPORT a. Fiscal Year 2012-13(last fiscal year,07-01-12 to 06-30-13) On June 28, 2012, the City Council adopted the fiscal year 2012-13 operating and capital budgets. The adopted all funds budget totaled $274.5 million, including a General Fund operating budget of $123.8 million, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $20.1 million, $34.0 million in interfund transfers, and $96.6 million in operating budgets for other City funds, including Sewer, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Development Services, Transit and Fleet. The fiscal year 2012-13 budget assumed all funds revenues totaling $260.1 million, including $124.3 million in General Fund revenues. At the commencement of the budget process, the City's General Fund was projected to have a deficit of $3.0 million in fiscal year 2012-13. During General Fund budget development, staff focused on the following budget development goals: • Maintain the service levels established in Council's 2011-12 budget • Fund the highest level of municipal services possible based on available resources • Make significant progress on key programs and projects • Continue stabilizing Chula Vista's financial base • Continue to improve efficiency and effectiveness of government services through Continuous Improvement principles Staff made a number of adjustments in order to mitigate the deficit. A balanced General Fund operating budget was adopted, with no reductions in service levels anticipated to result from making these adjustments. In comparison to the fiscal year 2011-12 adopted budget, the total all funds expenditure budget for fiscal year 2012-13 reflected a decrease of$25.2 million. The largest portion of this decrease was due to the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency and the final debt service payment related to the 1994 Pension Obligation Bond,which was made during fiscal year 2011-12. The following tables summarize and compare revenues, expenditures and staffing for all funds in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Fiscal - 2014 Page 1 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 73 ALL FUNDS SUMMARY(in Thousands) FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Increase/ Actual Actual (Decrease) Revenues Property Taxes $ 35,706 $ 32,333 $ (3,373) Sales Taxes 27,276 28,628 1,352 Other Local Taxes 19,857 25,797 5,940 Licenses and Permits 2,973 3,877 903 Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 2,065 1,640 (425) Use of Money& Property 6,526 3,261 (3,264) Revenue from Other Agencies 44,243 44,834 591 Charges for Services 56,549 59,144 2,596 Development Impact Fees 5,619 14,667 9,048 Other Revenue 37,652 36,660 (993) Transfers In 82,248 32,027 (50,220) Total Revenues $ 320,713 $ 282,868 $ (37,846) Expenditures Personnel Services $ 113,576 $ 115,792 $ 2,216 Supplies & Services 52,147 54,214 2,066 Other Expenses 49,047 41,684 (7,363) Capital 2,549 1,724 (825) Transfers Out 82,248 32,027 (50,220) CIP Project Expenditures 17,486 23,253 5,767 Non-CIP Project Expenditures 2,036 5,319 3,282 Utilities 6,433 7,001 568 Total Expenditures $ 325,522 $ 281,013 $ (44,509) STAFFING SUMMARY(FTEs) FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 Increase/ Actual Actual (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 32.00 34.00 2.00 ARRA 4.50 - (4.50) Environmental Services 4.00 5.00 1.00 Housing Authority 7.00 7.00 - Successor Agency - 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 145.50 143.50 (2.00) Total All Funds 922.75 932.35 9.60 Population (as of January 1) 248,185 251,613 3,428 FTEs per 1,000 population 3.72 3.71 (0.01) Fiscal - 2014 Page 2 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 74 b. Fiscal Year 2013-14(current fiscal year,07-01-13 to 06-30-14) On June 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the fiscal year 2013-14 operating and capital budgets. The adopted all funds budget totaled $268.8 million, including a General Fund operating budget of $127.8 million, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $15.4 million, $32.4 million in interfund transfers, and $93.2 million in operating budgets for other City funds, including Sewer, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Development Services, Transit, and Fleet. The fiscal year 2013-14 budget assumed all funds revenues totaling $261.1 million, including $127.8 million in General Fund revenues with the use of$2.3 million in one-time contingency reserves. The City continues to make progress toward implementing a priority based budget process. In the development of the fiscal year 2013-14 budget, staff not only considered normal operating costs, but also evaluated funding needs in relation to the Program Summary (an assessment of current service levels for key functions in each department), Critical Needs List (crucial one-time expenditure requests separate from normal operating costs), and Strategic Plan. In future budgets, the use of these planning tools will be integrated to a greater degree with the budget process. In comparison to the fiscal year 2012-13 adopted budget,the total all funds expenditure budget for fiscal year 2013-14 reflected a net decrease of$5.8 million. The all funds revenue budget of$261.1 million reflected a net increase of$1.0 million when compared to the fiscal year 2012-13 adopted budget. The following tables summarize and compare revenues, expenditures and staffing for all funds in fiscal years 2012-13 (actual) and 2013-14(adopted budget). ALL FUNDS SUMMARY(in Thousands) FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Increase/ Actual Budget (Decrease) Revenues Property Taxes $ 32,333 $ 32,195 $ (138) Sales Taxes 28,628 29,855 1,227 Other Local Taxes 25,797 22,799 (2,998) Licenses and Permits 3,877 3,151 (726) Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 1,640 1,753 114 Use of Money& Property 3,261 3,117 (145) Revenue from Other Agencies 44,834 45,636 803 Charges for Services 59,144 51,552 (7,593) Development Impact Fees 14,667 6,717 (7,950) Other Revenue 36,660 31,887 (4,773) Transfers In 32,027 32,437 409 Total Revenues $ 282,868 $ 261,099 $ (21,769) Expenditures Personnel Services $ 115,792 $ 121,333 $ 5,541 Supplies & Services 54,214 59,289 5,075 Other Expenses 41,684 28,824 (12,860) Capital 1,724 1,476 (248) Transfers Out 32,027 32,437 409 CIP Project Expenditures 23,253 15,376 (7,877) Non-CIP Project Expenditures 5,319 2,903 (2,415) Utilities 7,001 7,201 200 Total Expenditures $ 281,013 $ 268,838 $ (12,175) Fiscal - 2014 Page 3 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 75 STAFFING SUMMARY(FTEs) FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 Increase/ Actual Budget (Decrease) General Fund Legislative/Administrative 101.00 105.00 4.00 Development/ Maintenance 201.75 203.00 1.25 Public Safety 448.00 455.00 7.00 Community Services 38.10 38.50 0.40 General Fund Subtotal 788.85 801.50 12.65 Other Funds Advanced Life Support - 1.00 1.00 Development Services 41.50 44.50 3.00 Police Grants/CBAG 34.00 37.00 3.00 UAS I - 1.00 1.00 Environmental Services 5.00 5.00 - Housing Authority 7.00 4.00 (3.00) Successor Agency 1.00 1.00 - Fleet Management 8.00 8.00 - Transit 1.00 1.00 - Sewer 46.00 46.00 - Other Funds Subtotal 143.50 148.50 5.00 Total All Funds 932.35 950.00 17.65 Population (as of January 1) 251,613 251,613 - FTEs per 1,000 population 3.71 3.78 0.07 C. Five Year Forecast(fiscal year 2014-15 through 2018-19) A Five Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2013-14 through 2017-18 was developed in conjunction with the fiscal year 2013-14 budget. 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 forecast is to assess the City's ability over the next five years to continue current service levels based on projected growth, preserve the City's long-term fiscal health by aligning operating revenues and costs, and slowly rebuild the operating reserves. The key assumptions applied in the financial forecast are as follows: Economic& Population Growth • Inflation is a measure of the increase in costs of goods and services. Inflation impacts many revenues, such as rents and leases, and most expenditure categories throughout the five-year forecast and is projected to average 2% per year. • The regional economies will begin to recover 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. Major Revenues • Sales tax revenues will increase throughout the forecast period. • Base assessed value will increase by 2% in fiscal year 2014-15 due to anticipated improvements in the housing market. Beginning in fiscal year 2015-16 and 2016-17 assessed values are assumed to increase by 4%annually. • No Utility Users Tax (UUT) wireless telecommunications revenues are assumed in the Fiscal - 2014 Page 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 76 forecast. Expenditures • Expenditures related to salary increases are reflected in the forecast based on currently negotiated Memoranda of Understanding. • Flex Plan increases based on 10% health care premium increases per fiscal year based on historical trends. • CalPERS retirement contribution rates will continue to increase due to market losses over the last five years and recent program changes approved by CalPERS. • 1%salary savings(vacancies)are assumed in the forecast. • No additional personnel are assumed in the forecast with the exception of Police grant funded positions, which will be absorbed by the General Fund as the grant funding phases out. The following table presents the updated Five Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2013-14 to 2017-18 as presented to the City Council in May 2013 and updated to reflect the final fiscal year 2013-14 adopted budget. The adopted budget reflects the use of $2.3 million in General Fund contingency reserves in order to avoid additional service level impacts in fiscal year 2013-14. The Forecast reflects the continuing fiscal challenges that are projected for the City. As noted in the table below, deficits are projected throughout the forecast period, primarily resulting from recent changes imposed by CalPERS(PERS Amortization). Five Year Financial Forecast(FY 2013-14 through FY 2017-18) FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Description Adopted Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Major Discretionary Revenues $ 86,646,000 $ 89,354,000 $ 92,570,000 $ 95,909,000 $ 99,377,000 Other Revenues 38,810,000 38,206,000 38,326,000 38,562,000 38,814,000 Total Revenues $ 125,456,000 $ 127,560,000 $ 130,896,000 $ 134,471,000 $ 138,191,000 Personnel Services $ 73,390,000 $ 74,159,000 $ 74,155,000 $ 74,152,000 $ 74,275,000 Flex/Insurance 10,856,000 11,635,000 12,491,000 13,417,000 14,420,000 PERS 18,571,000 19,567,000 19,877,000 20,187,000 20,428,000 PERS Amortization - - 1,361,900 2,724,000 4,086,000 Other Expenditures 24,937,000 25,405,000 25,926,000 26,462,000 27,070,000 Total Expenditures $ 127,754,000 $ 130,766,000 $ 133,810,900 $ 136,942,000 $ 140,279,000 Economic Contingency Reserve $ 2,298,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Surplus/(Deficit) $ - $ (3,206,000) $ (2,914,900) $ (2,471,000) $ (2,088,000) 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? The City is beginning to see economic recovery; however, the impacts of the recession continue to challenge the City to find new and creative ways to deliver high quality services and maintain a balanced operating budget. The General Fund budget for fiscal year 2013-14 was balanced with the use of$2.3 million in Economic Contingency Reserves, allowing the City to continue to provide current service levels and to better evaluate the City's financial picture over the next few years. 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 seven years are the result of the significant issues around the housing market, the slowdown in the overall economy, and the loss of wireless Telecommunications Users Tax(TUT) revenues. Fiscal - 2014 Page 5 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 77 3. Is the city in the position to continue maintaining 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 Five Year Forecast table provided on page 5, the City anticipates continuing challenges throughout the forecast period, primarily resulting from recent changes imposed by CalPERS. As noted in the forecast table, General Fund deficits are indicated throughout the forecast period, though at a significantly reduced level when compared to previous forecasts. Staff anticipates addressing these deficits without further impacts to service levels. Despite the financial challenges the City has faced, additional steps are proposed to strengthen the City's economic base and to operate in a cost effective manner. In the coming year, City staff will focus on the following programs: 1. Continuous Improvement 2. Quality Workforce Program 3. Strategic Plan Continuous Improvement The City remains a strong advocate for Continuous Improvement. In 2008, the City partnered with UTC Aerospace Systems (formerly Goodrich Aerostructures) to train employees in Continuous Improvement. Since that time, the City has worked diligently to implement Continuous Improvement principles in the City with the goal of providing public services in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Quality Workforce Program Over the past year, staff has also worked on two major initiatives that will help the City move towards long-term financial stability—the Quality Workforce Program and the development of a strategic plan. The Quality Workforce Program seeks to comprehensively address employee compensation, training, and performance evaluations with a continued focus on customer service. This program will continue to be developed and implemented in the coming fiscal year. Strategic Plan During fiscal year 2012-13, the City developed a Strategic Plan that took previous long-term planning efforts and synthesized them into five Citywide goals, aimed at improving service delivery. The plan will be reviewed throughout the year so that it encourages focused, meaningful service delivery to benefit all of Chula Vista. Simply put,the Strategic Plan is a road map that identifies where we want to go and includes concrete steps of how the City will get there. City Goals and Initiatives: 1. Operational Excellence 2. Economic Vitality • Fiscal Health • Strong Vibrant City • Continuously Improve • Prosperous Residents and Businesses • Positive Experience Fiscal - 2014 Page 6 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 78 3. Healthy Community 4. Strong and Secure Neighborhoods • Environment Fosters Health and • Public Infrastructure Maintenance Wellness • Crime Prevention and Emergency • Restore and Protect Natural Resources Preparedness • Assets and Facilities • Response and Recovery 5. Connected Community • Civic Engagement • Enrichment Programming 4. Please complete the table below: REVENUE COLLECTED FOR GENERAL FUND(Millions) SOURCE FY 13 FY 12 FY 11 FY 10 FY 091 FY 082 FY 07 FY 06 FY 05 FY 04 FY 03 Sales Tax 28.63 27.28 26.70 23.67 25.59 28.30 28.83 26.72 23.60 21.42 19.61 Property Taxes 27.88 24.52 24.71 25.73 29.26 29.31 26.67 22.19 18.13 16.36 14.65 Motor Vehicle 16.25 16.29 16.94 17.70 19.90 19.80 17.68 18.35 13.94 9.14 11.01 License Fees Franchise Fees 9.27 8.40 8.26 8.47 9.38 9.66 8.81 9.49 9.84 7.82 4.30 Charges for Srvcs. 8.36 7.58 6.45 7.17 7.00 14.47 16.26 15.23 14.48 14.40 13.40 Utility Users Tax 4.43 3.471 4.94 9.06 7.85 7.38 6.98 6.36 6.58 5.62 4.77 Other 36.00 34.17 40.73 38.97 41.53 45.02 56.34 59.46 51.19 48.01 45.28 SUM $ (Millions) 130.81 121.70 128.74 130.78 140.50 153.941 161.561 157.81 137.761 122.771 113.03 PER CAPITA$ 519.89 490.35 523.38 536.60 586.97 652.921 697.611 695.69 626.371 581.781 559.28 EXPENSES FROM GENERAL FUND(Millions) FY 13 FY 12 FY 11 FY 10 FY 09 FY 08 FY 07 FY 06 FY 05 FY 04 FY 03 Police 42.66 41.99 43.10 43.70 45.40 47.77 49.63 45.34 42.54 37.15 33.45 Public Works 23.82 22.97 23.80 24.62 26.86 32.58 38.27 37.04 31.86 29.97 25.65 Fire 24.03 22.43 21.81 22.09 23.13 24.35 22.72 21.31 17.93 14.31 10.92 Support3 8.211 8.10 9.56 9.631 11.34 11.61 12.311 12.10 9.96 9.41 8.49 Community Svcs4. 8.92 8.93 10.17 11.90 12.95 15.07 16.91 15.89 14.23 12.27 12.34 Non-Dprtmntl.* 10.93 14.07 10.49 9.81 10.10 5.31 3.60 5.47 3.17 4.14 9.40 Admin/Legislative' 6.43 5.83 5.61 5.64 8.15 8.16 8.90 9.04 8.97 8.571 8.49 Other 2.52 2.72 3.351 3.85 2.421 10.17 13.72 14.64 13.52 12.291 10.30 SUM $ (Millions) 127.531 127.03 127.89 131.241 140.37 155.021 166.061 160.83 142.20 128.11 119.04 PER CAPITA$ 1 506.841 511.83 519.91 538.511 586.40 657.521 717.011 708.99 646.52 607.09 589.04 *Non-Departmental=Debt Service,Insurance,Transfers Out) 1 In fiscal years 2008 and 2009 the City restructured the General fund budget. This restructuring included budgeting of non-General funded positions directly in their respective funding sources. In prior years,these positions were budgeted in the General fund,which was then reimbursed through a series of inter-fund transfers and staff time reimbursements from the respective funding sources. Positions transferred in fiscal year 2008 include wastewater engineering and wastewater maintenance crews transferred to the Sewer Service fund (Public Works). Positions transferred in fiscal year 2009 include staff in environmental services(Public Works),redevelopment and housing (Other),and development services(Other). In addition to impacting the expenditure budgets for these years, revenues associated with the transferred staff were also moved to their respective new funds(Charges for Services and Other). z See footnote#1. 3 Support includes ITS,HR and Finance. 4 Community Services includes Recreation and Library. 5 Admin/Legislative includes City Council, Boards&Commissions,City Clerk,City Attorney,and Administration. 6 Other includes Animal Care Facility and Development Services Fiscal - 2014 Page 7 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 79 5. Please update the Development Impact Fee(DIF)table below. During Reporting Period FUND Date DIF Last Date of Next CURRENT Amount Amount BALANCE Comprehensively Last DIF Scheduled DIF FUND DIF7 Collected Expended (Audited) Updated Adjustment DIF Update Eastern Transportation DIF 12,480/EDU 2,453,265 2,817,876 24,473,313 Dec-05 Oct-13 Oct-14 Western Transportation DIF 3,476/EDU 67,181 - 130,625 Mar-08 Jul-13 Jul-14 Traffic Signal 33.45/Trip 251,404 948,417 1,955,213 Oct-02 Oct-13 Oct-14 Telegraph Canyon Drainage 4,579/Acre (32,730) 14,045 6,067,612 Apr-98 N/A Unscheduled Telegraph Canyon 216.50/EDU 60,000 3,083,267 Sep-98 N/A Unscheduled Gravity Sewer (5,932) Salt Creek Sewer Basin 1,330/EDU 556,577 312,927 1,761,203 Aug-04 N/A 2014 Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin 265/EDU 45,755 - 2,230,138 Jun-09 N/A Unscheduled Pedestrian Bridges - Otay Ranch Villages 1,2,5&6 1,114/SFDU 194,065 - 568,320 Feb-07 N/A Unscheduled - Otay Ranch Village 11 2,241/SFDU 39,595 - 2,994,253 Sep-05 Oct-13 Oct-14 Public Facilities - Administration 596/SFDU 548,557 233,007 4,294,287 Nov-06 Oct-13 Oct-14 Civic Center Expansion 2,708/SFDU 1,136,135 2,438,514 8,615,472 Police Facility 1,656/SFDU 1,242,685 1,723,283 (1,823,414) Corp.Yard Relocation 446/SFDU 317,502 - 2,887,338 Libraries 1,555/SFDU 1,294,730 59,545 11,310,590 - Fire Suppression 1,369/SFDU 11006,194 - (10,494,601) Systems Recreation Facilities 1,180/SFDU 1,042,757 - (4,077,291) PUBLIC FACILITIES e 9,510/SFDU 6,588,559 4,454,349 10,712,379 Nov-06 Oct-13 Oct-14 TOTAL For each of the DIF funds: a. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next 12 to 18 months? If the funds are inadequate, is the city able to borrow necessary funds to complete the projects? b. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next five years? If the funds are inadequate, is the city able to borrow necessary funds to complete the projects? Adequacy of Funds Under normal circumstances, additional revenues are received by DIF funds in times of development. These funds are then available to mitigate the impacts of the development paying the fees. This timeline is impacted by the need to construct large facilities, such as 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 1. 8 On a separate sheet of paper list the projects to be funded and/or completed over the next twelve months. See Attachment 1. 9 Approximately half of the Public Facilities DIF fund balance($5.9 million)is reserved for debt service payments(Debt Service Reserve). Debt Service Reserve funds are not available for project expenditures. Fiscal - 2014 Page 8 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 80 the civic center complex, police facility and fire stations in advance of development. DIF projects are constructed via three financing scenarios: 1. Cash-on-hand 2. External debt financing 3. Developer construction If a facility is constructed or acquired using cash-on-hand, the fund provides direct financing using developer fees. This means of project financing 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 toward 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 and November 2013, the fee deferral program was extended for an additional year. The current version of the ordinance includes a sunset date of December 31, 2014, 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, 2014 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 $6.8 million in PFDIF revenues collected in fiscal year 2012-13. Fiscal - 2014 Page 9 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 81 For each of the funds, the available fund balance as of June 30, 2013 is listed on the Development Impact Fee Overview table on page 8. The adequacy of these funds to complete projects necessitated by either the 12-to-18-month or the 5-year forecasted growth will be determined by a number of factors, including the actual rate of development (likely to fall significantly below the rate of development projected in the GMOC Forecast Report); and other fund obligations. These other obligations include debt service, capital acquisitions, and program administration costs. In addition to these obligations, the City has created a debt service reserve in the PFDIF fund, which has a significant future debt service obligation. The creation and anticipated use of this debt service reserve is shown in the 'PFDIF Projected Cash Flow: FY 2005-06 through Build-out' included as Attachment 2 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 was 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 8, the PFDIF ended fiscal year 2012-13 with a fund balance of $10.7 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 2). 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 repay 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 10-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 cash 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. The first payment from the PFDIF to the TDIF repaying this loan was included in the fiscal year 2013-14 budget. Minimum development activity required to meet the PFDIF's internal and external debt obligations is summarized in the table below. Fiscal - 2014 Page 10 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 82 PFDIF Annual Debt Payment Obligation, Minimum Development Requirements Minimum Building Permit Description Average Annual Payment Activity(Multi-Family) External Debt(COPS) $ 5,900,000 650 Internal Debt (TDIF) $ 1,100,000 120 Total Debt 1 $7,000,000 770 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. C. 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 TELEGRAPH CANYON GRAVITY SEWER ADEQUATE SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN ADEQUATE POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 &6 ADEQUATE Otay Ranch Village 11 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 3. EUC Library 4./5. Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatics Center and 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 Fiscal - 2014 Page 11 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 83 facilities, the City will likely seek to restore services at existing facilities. Once the staffing/operational budgetary issues are addressed, the construction of the facilities themselves will be a function of the PFDIF's available fund balance (taking into account existing debt obligations and the need to maintain the debt service reserve). 7. What is the amount of debt service for this year compared to last year? Fiscal year 2012-13 all funds debt service expenditures totaled $10.1 million. The fiscal year 2013- 14 debt service expenditure budget totals $10.3 million, an increase of $0.2 million or 1.8%. This minor net increase reflects the payoff of the 2003 Refunding COP (parking structure) and the ramping up of debt service payments for the 2010 COP (per the original payment terms, designed to provide cash flow relief to the PFDIF fund at the height of the recession). 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 provide any progress made in developing a debt service payment policy. Bond covenants for the individual debt issuances detail terms of the obligation (payment terms). The Finance Department presented the City Council with a proposed Debt Policy on January 9, 2014. A comprehensive written debt management policy that is approved by the governing body provides transparency and ensures a common understanding among elected officials and staff regarding the City's approach to debt financing. Establishing a carefully considered policy improves the quality of decisions, articulates policy goals, provides guidelines for the structure of debt issuance, and demonstrates a commitment to long- term capital and financial planning. Adherence to a debt policy also indicates to rating agencies and the capital markets that the City is well managed and is therefore likely to meet its debt obligations in a timely manner. The main objectives of the City's debt policy are: • To establish conditions for the use of debt; • To ensure that debt capacity and affordability are adequately considered; • To minimize the City's interest and issuance costs; • To maintain the highest possible credit rating; • To provide complete financial disclosure and reporting;and • To maintain financial flexibility for the City. The debt policy has six main components: 1. General Policies: this component of the Policy describes general guidelines for the use of debt and selection and descriptions of the Finance Team leading the debt issuance. 2. Types of Debt Instruments: this section describes various types of debt that may be used as financing options, however,does not limit the City to those described. 3. Debt Affordability and Limitations: describes how debt capacity and affordability will be determined. 4. Debt Structuring: describes allowable debt structure methods (not limited to those listed) and the maximum maturity of the debt obligation. 5. Debt Issuance: provides guidance regarding the issuance process such as criteria for Fiscal - 2014 Page 12 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 84 determining a bond sale method. 6. Debt Management Practices: includes descriptions for ongoing administrative activities such as disclosure practices, investment of bond proceeds, and records retention requirements. A copy of the new Debt Management Policy is included as Attachment 3. Also attached for your information is the City's Debt Portfolio (Attachment 4), a summary of the City's outstanding bonded indebtedness by issuance. 9. How much government bonds debt does the city have? As of the end of the fiscal year 2012-13,the City had$128.4 million in outstanding debt in the form of Certificates of Participation (COPS). The City has no outstanding general obligation debt. During fiscal year 2012-13, the City was upgraded from an "A-"to an "A" rating by Standard and Poors for Certificates of Participation,which represents a stable outlook. This credit rating was subsequently upgraded to an "AA-" in October 2013. 10. Are PAD fees adequate to construct necessary parks? All residential development in the City pays a PAD fee to fund acquisition and development of parkland. The development portion of the PAD fee is tied to an inflationary index with annual adjustments occurring each October. The index ensures that the development fees collected keep pace with the cost of constructing facilities. Both the development and acquisition components of the fee will be reviewed in the next comprehensive update of the PAD program (currently unscheduled). While adequate mechanisms are in place to ensure the City collects sufficient fees to acquire and develop parkland, there are some issues related to the availability of these funds that should be noted. As 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 Agency-owned 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. Fiscal - 2014 Page 13 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 85 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 were combined with the Western PAD fund's available balance of $630,000 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 for a 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 West 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 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 2011 loan balance will be based upon the City's pooled interest rate (currently 0.265%). Assuming a 10-year repayment schedule and recent pooled interest rates, 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-125 and Eastlake Drive for a 3.94-acre parcel located adjacent to the Lower Sweetwater Community Park site. 11. What is the city's strategy for job creation through community and industrial development, and what are the most viable industries for the city to recruit? The City's Economic Development Department recently oversaw the preparation of a Business Cluster Analysis Study. The study identified six industry clusters with the best potential for success in expansion and attraction: 1. Advanced Manufacturing 2. Headquarters and Administrative Offices 3. Information and Communication Technology 4. Education & Innovation Centers 5. Clean Tech 6. Health and Wellness, and Sports Medicine Next steps identified in the study to achieve a robust and successful economic development plan include: 1. Real estate readiness for target industries as well as protecting and preserving business park and industrial land use designations; Fiscal - 2014 Page 14 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 86 2. Ensure a permitting process, fee structure and incentive policy that is competitive in the region; 3. Become a key player in the Cali-Baja Mega-Region Initiative and with CONNECT; 4. Strengthen Chula Vista's unique bi-national position by building cross-border partnerships; 5. Package Chula Vista's value proposition to specific target clusters;and 6. Implement focused recruitment around industry clusters and opportunity sites. The Executive Summary of the Business Cluster Analysis is included as Attachment 5. 12. 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 fee shortfalls. City staff is considering two minor modifications of existing development fee programs. The first modification under consideration is an update of the Traffic Signal Fee to exclude non- profit Community Purpose Facilities from assessment of the fee. This modification would make the Traffic Signal Fee program consistent with the Public Facilities and Transportation Development Impact Fee Programs. Community Purpose Facilities are facilities which serve one of the following purposes: 1. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club,Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship,spiritual growth and development. The second modification under consideration is an update of the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee program to exclude hotels and motels (transient residents) from the fee program. This modification will make the fee program consistent with the GMOC parkland threshold, which does not consider transient residents (hotel/motel rooms) in the calculation of threshold performance. This fee is not charged to this land use in any other San Diego County jurisdictions,and has yet to be charged to this land use in the City of Chula Vista. For each of the above proposed modifications, it is important to note that no change in the current fee rate will be required. Neither fee calculation is based on the projected future development, but each is instead based on a flat fee per unit(Traffic Signal Fee per average daily trip, PAD fee per acre assuming average acquisition and development costs). ATTACHMENTS 1. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Financial Schedules for all DIFs 2. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee(PFDIF)Cash Flow: Fiscal Year 2005-06 through Build-Out 3. Debt Management Policy 4. Debt Portfolio 5. Business Cluster Analysis Executive Summary Fiscal - 2014 Page 15 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 87 PREPARED BY: Name: Maria Kachadoorian Title: Finance Director/Treasurer Name: Tiffany Allen Title: Treasury Manager Date: January 15, 2013 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. Fiscal - 2014 Page 16 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 88 ATTACHMENT 1 E \ E E E \ _ ± 0 0 ( t o , ya „ , y , , , w CO / 7 / S 2 \ \ g Q ` E z ƒ / �p U / / = a 2 = z % ® ® % % / f o LL @\ \ e e \ \ ry CL _ _ tf = o � S \ c0) � z u \ 0000 _ ) } UD k � � � \ D e _ / a \0000 \ / \ 207 207 Z3 = e§ ® S z LU / &± w Z 7 EO � .-L (D U) = } w � 2 \ \ [ 07 \ 2 � w2 - kkkkk 0 � E o w O k 0000 \ \ \ c= / ± Q\ J n /6w// i 2 r/ \ E a ( \ / � k } \ / f ° e = o 00 \ mamma z / m \ 00C ( G c � e o = = E � E2 / / E > m ° 5 > _ ° - ° x I 2 a ® / / \_ / ƒ %_ ƒ $ LLZ3 2 LL LL 0 ` o § a) ` ® � E E 0 % ® 0 / f i \ % \ ( @ = > $ \ rn6z ± LL = 4 ± = - = 222E % 2 = / » m ± }$ -2 a) 2 \ ) E ± 3 \ ( LL c: c E / OmEeO e \ \ \ / / \ \ j / j \ ) ) \ \ § § 3 _ ATTACHMENT 1 on n. O � CA N O CO V O I-- N N N 1- O � r- N M -0 O M — M 00 = 0 = = 00 = 00 = O O O O (A O (A O O O O O O O O O O O O 'E N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N — U (n O O O O U) i i i i i i O 0 i i i i i i i i i i c: O O O O (0 CO 7 O' � O Q iZ Q LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NO V ON OOOOO V CD CD 1000 I-- OOO O 0 O co co O O O O N O O I-- V O O O O >+ V CO 1� LO = 0 0 0 0 LO O O CO LC) O O O O o (1) LL o LL 0 0 O O O LO I� V 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O LO Ch O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU (n (h O O L() l rn c O O O L() O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 W - O LO r- 0 V M O N O V O N 0 0 0 0 LO O W N c) LO I� (O LO L(� CO O I- L(� I- N N L(� L(� L(� L(� LL Ch c [A N C`) r— V V N V D Q O N C`') (D N O a z a O � ~ Z W W OO LO NNN Ln000Ln OOOr- LnO V V N000ON = r— ChO (fl � � LO W 0 � V Ch ' (o 00 (D V V 00 00 (A 00 N LO CO Ch O J z U (h (h � d N O N Q � LLo N m 0 N O V O 0 0 W p z N Lu (n W z w (» (» z W E O w o M c in Q co cn H N U U 0) O c o N O c O U) _ $.g` cn o z a) w m U) -)oo co z 0 � �J �, o o U ° co Z3 C L- C)�' c O c 0- '= LL ~ 0 D E Z c — o Q@ Q) o' Qf -ate � ,f ( H a.- � U) �_ MN 0) c .� QQ a p N � 5LU S � o X coo I:co 00 mF, aco c � LU 0 Q otS o h m � � ' coo 0 CO o E 0 0 C) rnm N , �D � � � � (n � x -00 o c ED- o E o co D c c o 4,f - co U Z E �� 3 3o J � � �� aULC� � J aO � -0 O Dui >1 � � : N cLO LL Q X O =_ _ 0 o o c6 c6 O p c6 O 00 w QUo moofofI (n � � � (L U � � c LLI 0 co O ch L L i °i � � � N O O N N co m m m m m m m � N LO LO ((9 1 o Nc\, c\, Ncococococo O of n- n- n- H H H H H H H H H LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 000 (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n � � � � � � o d' H O N ATTACHMENT 1 on n. ° o O� Ln N N (h O C _ O LO O O) Z3 c O c C 7 O (O (h O E (h O O (6 V cr U LO LO 7 (6 0 O LL J fA fA fA 0 L W W W LL w a � aZ � W _ a cl! Z W Z � Wp - Z � aa O LU J LU 0 � D W Z D LU Z W O w M a � H N O � a- LL U _ �g _0 o co o oC � o To oLL � � � � - Q .s Q .s Uo - o � o C U U) C a a) m � � 0 � ry _ o C:)U � U (0 N LL c N LL c x > U 0 0 0 0 0 0. O N �,N tE O_ C > C > U C > C U (6 O (6 O N M O 7 H 0 O D Q (6 Q m O Q m O p d' H O N ATTACHMENT 1 g \ 7 % 7033 \ ± \ \ _ / \ E \ e \ \ 3 = e LL & \ < 0 E \ / $ (Y) \ * \ \ z # 00 (D e \ / eo \ \ g 2 L / 7 \ / m % _ 7 \ - _ � = o e \ \ / mI y \ m \ / 2 2E e e 2 W / 2 / em a zz \ \ \ 7 2 < \ o z F- m . e0) ± � \ / / % U � \ EE 3 + « \ \ $ G ƒ /\ r a �_ o k k \ $ e / 0-\ � � / \ \ c 0) \ § 2 2 (D 4 5 LLI LLI \ \ > gi p e a c IL x § \ \ & / o m ^ O 2 � / 2 ƒ , -j Lu z / / EFo � C � § > « \ o o / 2I ƒ aL \ 77\ kk \ k U \ @ @ e e a ƒ ƒ U0Z kkkkk \ je e � \ % 7 % \ % } % 7worr g a 0n = mQQ / � ± m a 2 A 4 a / / / C) Z > ° e e e e e \ \ _ $ m g / 2 LL \ % \ © S F E 2 ® ® i \ \ \ \ \ \ m g ± LL S § © 7 @m / t ® z7kƒ o z � / i c Im © \ ± � k � � eE « e ± ± ± s m m I m g 5 m E o _0 a_ 7 ° e ° L LL Z3tee _ i < � z k \ \ & \ 6e @ymOeo / / 74ƒ U) o a e ± n x n w I CO 3 / ƒ I © © & ± \ b2gj ƒ / @ O w m \ / IL 0 w/ 4 / / k \ \ \ \ \ � ƒ \ / j 9 3 _ ATTACHMENT 1 § \ t m / w \ ƒ Lu ± < \ % ' \ \ 2 \ m _ / a m z z 2 # & k ( U / � C'4 0') 0') � D /2D ^ � 2 = 2 ƒ LL w ° LL Of Lu b r ) e e \ a ( 2 LU w� / § w> w \ U) -i w J k w o § h m E © U 04 e E LL >- / \ m m kLL co m 5 e 6 _0 \ \ k / \ \ $ 2 $ ' j / > \ / ( / § / t 7 \ 2 m > t % � 7 j % g a o o n I o / ® e 2 ƒ \2 \ < \ u \ / \ § :a e @ / s > co = m = _ 2 o o e o ± I 7 oLU = LO� i \ # ffD 3 a 4 ƒ o e S@ o / \ ^ U / \ \ f / j 2 ± ® / I 2 < \ \ co ) ± ± e / 0 / f ] LL \ \ r.ƒ . g a \ / / § \ < L Ln § _ ATTACHMENT 1 on _0 n m0 ° o - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 'E N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N — U C O 7 Q D O LL Q LLQ Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N V V - O 00 O LO I- O O O O O M 00 LO 0 0 0 0 LL C 00 0-) r-- O O co O — O O co O 00 co co V O O O O N O — O I- LO O O CO O — M V M O O O O N U r r r (D U) p U i O W o W (n O O O O — — V O — — CA LO 00 O O O M 00 O O O O L L W O O O O O V — I- M O O V I- N O O OJ — I- O O O O — M O O O O — M — M O N CO CO O O O O O I- O O O O V C`7 O O O O L(� I� O O O Cfl — OJ L(� L(� N L(� L(� O O O O Q p V O M M M LO O — O N N M LO N O LO — LO O LO 00 ~ 0 M V N CO M M N — LO � N N N N M 0 - Z Q O W W X ~ W M co O M CO CO 0') — CO C) N LO 00 N � w 0 W r— r V Il- Cfl M M LO � CO LO V O CO LO J O Z V = = N O CO LO Cfl 00 M 00 V J Q LO - V 00 O OJ N OJ OJ _ C6 Cfl �w W fn W ~ « rn v r- r- MN � I > W � U) 0 Z a- a- J W X ZW w F» F» fn M .o U N o (D LL T LL >. U a� Q LL c c o 2 (D D (D o a> Q Y m (D EDw O o cM D _0 LL > 06 O A U > (6 °— Q k c m c �-0 a_ LLQ 0)t cO0606 : cU m o . c in o Q 06 -0 m o w z � w c0 m O o m � �_� � � m � aD aD aD - 0 (D2i2i m c cw c � > Q U) U W m � 0) Mme c Uof > ° � QILu m � z U (D (D m c o o m � m o w m o w LJJ D c (D m — 0 � � m � a� m 0 m -- U) � U) 0 Z3 W 2 E m m in in o o 0 awi � o ° )o 0) w x > Q U U U U U .� U U U U) U V U) C) F z U) UnHHHHQHHO—OIHHH2i H2i H LULJ N C) _ _ 0 co O co M O - N OM M C`M C`M V V LO LO CO CO O� � � � � O O N N J 2 co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co N a_ a_ H H LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL c LL w OOU) U) F � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 N ATTACHMENT 1 § \ a ƒ\ mCD / / / 2RRR 0 ® \ k / of / \ ƒ / f 0 / ! » , m , , r m 2222 } _ / p c G 2 GGSS 3 ¥ / ƒ / 7 \ \ \ \ ! o = \ / / / & \ ¥ � � � � 0z o = \ § } £2 � \ / 2 w 2 ® ® 2 2 EGGS 2Lu 3 § epee / \ / \/�/ o R / \ CO B \} / < o LL � / e % LU g / z 5 = o Z o I m � r LU \ 0 m / , 3 j « w \ p z — / ¥ U) $ f r § 0 z ± 2 ze E > \ 0z m a_ a_ k \ m g \ $ \ j e } & = d \ 2 o 0 2 m m o s E « LL / / ƒ / j = f $ / / } _ / \ s 0 L E ° o R ; ± » ƒ 2 / LU & ) 2 % � ( / 0 z eo ) e 2 \ \ \ \ \ / 0 \0 0 0 \ eep000 e m / m 0 / \ / / \ / � \ f ƒ \\ \�LU R 0 w a_ 0 2 -c— = o = ° c z C LU 0 p 0 ! 0 0 o I LU a-/ ® z \z 000 kk0 IL 2k a a i x J J = / 222/ 0 / § B 0 \ § 0 \ n \ ] 3 § 0 2222 \ \ E » » § 2222 2 _ < _ LL z 0000 w 9 3 _ ATTACHMENT 1 on n. C 0 a) a) � L y--/ 0 CL O co � Q Q p p �: co T > Lu a) t3 T) co O L C) 0 LO "O 70 Q O - m co a) O O I� N N co OL • U N co� � � D co co O O O co co m co co Q U � O O C r r co co C co U OC L L U co Ef} Efl 7 (n � C � (� m L O T a) Ef} Efl Efl cu (n C a) co •� L LO LO 00 to p N co LL p N N O LO LO cc cc a/ O L � E i a) 60!) 60!)W L O Co p U C LV � W � U coo — co •— LL W m F- o L L� C 'L Q W ( en T Ef} Ef} Ef} L O d (L a) L) ai O O 00 X a) cnY C LO LO ro W a) C C C o >,LL N N to O r ._ CO CO N O O W H Y N L) N N CD LO LO J Z Z :- C co �p co W Q L 0)� 00 C V r r r �. U W O N N CO EA pN C B LL U) 2 d U -.0> O 'O O o ° n c Cco aiv co o �W Z LL co \ LL co CL a ~ W a) a � a) a) a) � a) a) o ° � = � LL L L L L C y Co W r LL O O C O O C a) N T LL LL LL Q LL LL .`� t3 co C LU � co � � L LL LL m O O O U LL m a) a) a) ~ C) U O (3) LL L >i U LL p o U a) >, L U "= co a) a) cl) > C LL � m > > > a) -0 o ALL : :•� ( n a) LL C — L N c C O co C m co a a co O N C E E 'T co O L L cn �i U O C U a) U ° T � co co co LL cl) o F) _0 a) a) co U a) co T L o L Q 4— co O C p U a) F Fn E U N T U a) C co O a) a) a) ° R L U C Y p a_ (n � 0 Q Q Q U ^C Q Co a) co U Q c-'�U a) E =� a) ° � a_ a_ U Q v� 0 0 N ATTACHMENT 1 on a. co CD m ti o co LO 00 O N O O co LL LO Itt 0) 0) O N co ?j Q ti ti O N O r r 00 co CO LO cc U .a U � r r LL cn m co m Nt 00 00 N ti co M Lf) ti I r LU N � ? LL w co Nt Q Cr b LO co W a) a � N 0 co N N LL LL m F Q LLU Ef} K} d d m N O ti C m co o cc r C w T LL r i 0 i i C= i i i i N LO co r J Z Z O L r O Q w Q c U co co oar LL U) T- LB p L cl) wz w w w o � w M T- W r LL Z O L L CQ co C co co O r Cu C) LL L co Z a U "- CD Q O U X O � CL LLJ J O CU 0 - = CU w Co a (n .� Co U m 4— CO O Q CU Q co '5 !10 a+ Z CO 0 CO CU C [Q U Co c :t-! N.� CLO CLO — W cn W L ;� U Q U -� C LL N a) N L , Q 0)Q Lu c o LL m Ln 0 0 N ATTACHMENT 1 § \ 6 < LO \ 9 . \ \ \ co ± > _ ± o ¥ A n / \ 3 � k � q ± 00 LO LO § / 0 % ƒ \ / / ƒ 04 04 ± / g LL ¥ E E O m m W ° ° � LU / / ± 04 � \ \ � / „ � ._ 3 A ¥ Nt c A o / o o / o o e 3 \ 2 / 0o ro = r \ \ \ 7 > \ ƒ = > I ± ± _ ± » � W LL/ J ƒ / � � � � \ \ ® m 0 m m ° \ \ � k � LL t0 \ KK 0 2 LL _ = r Q o LU w \ % 3 g ¥ LU \ \ \g 0 � � � caLU 77 \ \ 2 \= -j W I \ S E � 2 / \ D < 06 / / O � T 2 U) 2 \ 3 3 0 0 ® Cj / » ƒ § § f / / 2 0 / / § ƒ \ � > LU LL / / \ 0 c � / \ 6 � q \o \ \ o \ 2 § p ± o c / E ¥ w 6 = 3 \ s = 2 ° = a n / (L = o 9 * ° 0 6 0 0 0 Lo c = k R / \ _ 9 / 7 7 f \ \ £ s E % ( / a 2 f 7g = 2 7 m O % $ m § 3 & nL ƒ ct % _ \ ƒ % \ / O 2 0 _ _ ± 3 ± _ _ only \ \ 2 / \ % ƒ % « r2 06 E / 0E000 co F � 1 � 0 2E ƒ I 2 — 00 2 \ < 9 9 k > > \ \ ± ± ƒ k k z\ \ \ f O O \ \ 7 %± § � co % 0 \ § co co 0 0 \ / L \ _ ATTACHMENT 1 on n. U U N _0 L C O a) LO N L 0 cc H U a) -0 3 W -0 W N a) O 2 a) U E E N p N c CL p C O w N 0 'C LO CL O W (0 > _ 0 ° N c _00 E .0-. N 0 a) T W - 0 O) U U) L 0 C N U C W O O) N W m C U _ s (0 W L O LO LO Z' W .2 0 0 L E O d I E i p _0 0 -0 _0 - LO C O () LO co O I� N 0) U (O (O O 0) V f- U C O a) O a In J W M i i i ' V� i i i � M Y — a) LO a) co Q 00 00 O N N L) L) - W L r O N M N U O. E ° a) LO IX) V V N f� -0 a) U U Lp N 00 (O V O C U O x LO 0 "00 CL a) O d 2 � O_ C a) ff3 Efl L) 0 - C C E .2 E _ a) 00 (n N LL p_ 0 D ° LO 0 w0 O It V () 0) 0 W U Q O` (q O M lI7 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' N LL C ` U .N O W 0 > O M O f- LL 0 d N C E N 0 LL a) O V f- O O O of O a) i0 l0 ° fA W a L) n U a) a) W ♦♦ a) L T T f O a1 cc 0 T fA Efl W Z p- a) L T C d d LL "O C p LO .0 0 0 "O l{7 O M m _ O N c O a) a) 0) r 00 O V Q ap) .L.. ,N a) O 0)t= N a E r (O V C0 Q m fn "0 "0 L) U C l0 m ro O L 0) � a Op a) a) -p N a7 C U L) T 0 O 0)LQ rZ 0 N -0 a) O N LL U r O Z O L) E a C a) - ff3 Efl r Z LL a) Oa W W LL .. U j p l0 Lp c LO O O LO O Z) O p m 3 E ° ° w °— c aa0o Ln Ln O d N d C U l0 0 Ln 0 cc LO 0'n LO LO (0 0) O = O Z l0 l0 H U L U m O M M U W a) w a o c 2 ~ a) O r` (n W w to d w w w LO W W p w °— m m o U '0 co u3 v3 0 F- a) a W p o E CL c a) 'O V L.. (O 00 00 LL wx a) (0 L-. c M O i i i i i i i i i (n W N ! U W Lp O 0 a 0 W W M M .E O m M U a7 'C E Z' M c } m y (Op M 00 r Im C)J C aj U LO w d W U N 0 m N N cq 0 U a) a) L � a) = o o °o U o n a W L O_ U N a) iU)) E N ff3 Efl 0 E U �, W W V O d L z: 0 Y (0 a) LO E (° LO CO 00 -0 p a) O_ 0 W 0 W (O O) i i i i i i i i ' N V Q J E a7 C O_ 0 L LL > N r V co co m La n � U d o m 0) 0 N U_ L 0 M N r- 00 d O. U N N d 0 O .E .0 a Li ... O U C 0 0 O LL >_ O a) d (� U CO C 0 U L N 0 N L O d U `o o m _ O (o ' v N :U 0 Oc7 .0-. c0 C N O r CO i i i i i i i i i V l0 U LL L0-. c Q - a) W 0 r r 0) M 00 In 0 LL p p 0 CO W V M L-. U 0 d W 2 O m O) V O 0 0 c y 0 U O) N O j c 0 0 C C l0 p a .N O cl o o L) u o U 0 a) C T U 0 a) a) � In '-' Op_ 0 O C 0 j O O Z r O) N O I� f� co (n (0 i i i O) i i i N O LU C .0 L) C d L) c r r r ' V LO N In O - O U (O C O ` O E 00 0) N M (A C .7 O a) E C t C d (p C Q O) LO `"' N 0 O N E 0 ff3 O N M p - E2 m M V E r _ 'C N O_ U E O a) N U3 U .0-. C7 LO O N C .E C W Q U 'U >O 0 U ff3 Efl .0-. ai C C lO C a) E E2 T d LO a) "0 d ..: O l0 l0 Lfl d Ln O O LL .. OM x C O) O-- O "O J C a) C \ to (O U U LO o W N c u1°7_N .N o "00 O a) U O 'C Ri E c �-' n ' d w N a) v c (0 O C N 'U N N O U)_00 d U V U "O Q C w "O LO ca O_ C a) C O LO L`0 a) W d C O Y N U m m a) , of La m L n m cc 4) a) C 0 a) Ln E w O m O m a7 a) -o m H u ' g c g -o p `m w E m ° o p .p w - ac °) W Q U U a° m H U o i� 0 O � o_ � � � � m a) aa)) ID � -O L j 0 m W c E (n (n 0 0 c V1 c m > m C N N a'J a7 x 0 O W O p a) N l0 Q' W 'O tT m E N .�-. C N 0 o_ c � � ATTACHMENT 1 °o on n. W � N - 00 W -� Nlt:t I I I I co Orn LL rz � � N � ° r-- D co c? - 00 d Z 0 LL L6 C'') CY) .� W LL 0- z LU a z p w U —i a W w o co z a) ° a z aW z ° co ° W co W cam' c U c E c a N O c') a LL L � � i 4) 4) Y L 'T O 'T O T U) Q f) 4) _� (9 L O O L O Z 4) U O 0 co > (v o � j a Q 0 m " co a� a� co O z w ocoLO LO 00LO 000 �,; . w c � o coocoLO r� or� co Z CO r N LQ O) � CO N C Q (B +J 4) 4a-) O a) rl- co00rl- mP-7 W U) 0- E5 U a) a") U) U C- co 0- � x 0 � 2 U) 0 c m � � J Q LO L m 6 p 4) O O 00 0 00 4) LL LL L.L Z O O R 0 +J LL C O co p O p c') Q w U) co O co O r o CJ QQ QQ Lei o a 0 N ATTACHMENT 1 c on n. a� (9 O O O O O O LP O O O O O O C N N N N N - U U) C O co 7 0 LL O- Q Q U)i Y co Q LU 0 0 0 0 0 a) co O O O O O O LU C U) OOOOO LL. :3 O OOOOO 0 LL O O O O O O E ++ LL r r r r r U O d LU o a 0 H T a0i U Z = O > LU 10 c co d Z o (o °O °O °O °O o ry 0 W }, r%_ 0 0 0 0 co J d 2 r- ooNN 0 LLB Q r O O LO N N LU O � CO r r r U O LU cM N ?� U Z Q - Y (9 o Q Y Q W U co co Z w O co co 0 W 0' � r` r rn (o (o U) c0 H > C) CV c'> o c W � p (/) o O Z rY w a a � [Z rl O i (9 aN w Z LL a J 0 a> Y Y a 75 a co -C, ri Y N N Q O z co i p � � � (9 O rl 2 0 0 U) Q) °? E 0 co co rl 0- D � :3 75 D H cn E ,c O O p (9 O O co D p U co � � � LU � Y LU c a�'i -0 -0 X co d c O � �Lu co x � '� a� —j U LU U) ZZQ c co u d M N 0 O U a (� 0 < U) a- a- c M LU on N -3 r O CM 00 O ~ Cq rq O O O a) O N N co co co c Ln LL Z ° a 0 N ATTACHMENT 1 / \ : G \/ / E G / $ �D ± _ ± \ \ , \ \ \ \ 2 \ r4 33 3 6 Ni 3 \ / Q ± � 2 ? % g % / » o E ® e 3 3 V� 3 § 7 s f § % ® / \ LL § \ S k \ e e > D C, / LU p & 0 \ LU a- \ k - x « LU 3 \ 0 2 } / \ U m g 2 C w e ƒw D @a � 2 SS \ » LU LU { ± m � ± \ vƒ � w \ a t \ D \ A_ \ \ e k ) 0) 2 / z ` 5 g § / 0 E \ ® } / \ S k j 2 X & \ ± - > / L ° 00 \ / � % - � \ - _ ® * < ° \ � \ jF / (D CM: : � 2 t t ± 2 = 2 p ec= EE ± 2 = ) f �J = _ = g k } g e = y = = o \ eae ± ae _ z , 0 C) g = ® 2 I e = : = ± E ƒ \ 7 c§ E2ag 2 J / % \ } > \ / _0 Z e \ \ t ® < /7j ƒ & j / / } \ k 0 = 2 LL 2 0 c \ \ t j ] \ / L \ § § 3 _ ATTACHMENT 1 c on n. >' LO 0') I— "T "T r— O N ch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 'E N N N N N N N N N N N N N — U U) 0 i N O � O O O i (6 O LL LL O� Q Q Q N -o LU o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O ch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL LU O co O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 }, U) O r— 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p Z O ~ co 0 � W � � W � > > OrnOVrnchuOu0000000 H Q O I— "T 0 1— 00 (O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Q O ch O (O 0) CO CO 00 O N O O O O O O ; (ouivr- uior- oCT666 W Z Q O O) LC N N (D � N "T (O O) r- 0 0 W m LO LO J x W c6 _ D az V (n W N O LO (O N C) I— LO 00 N W (o O � rn LO LO rn rn (o W = � r— r— O) ' ' N r— N O ' ' r— 00 W W -) 0 N U) > O z Y 0- 0- D w (» (» N o N U U LL co N ?� -0 - m (D -0 N 0 O O C C O p Q Z U N m 2 N w N Y > = � o U w 0 (n cn x O = Q LU w Z LU o 06 a i Q cn E cn �z cp m m N (n N X W �U � U � � U .� co .� - � = J in ° rn c6 o O w m w - .E - x O m O F � rn 0- 2 (n2 (n -S� Q -S� O2w � 0 z W a x w x � u r U ch O) m N m -�T Lo Co M Lo 0 N -�T cm W C:) O 0 vn 0 0 N ATTACHMENT 1 c on n. N r— O 00 00 00 v O O O rn co co co ch rn Lq co Sri Sri Sri Sri Sri c w w W > > LO C LO co O O 00 r- w H 0 c N (0 co LO 00 0') 00 r— w 0 c O rn LO v 00 co 00 v 00 w z E N O N LO 0 C) CD O (h a, w co a N a O N ch J x Z) co O 0 J f!? fA az � a � w wD �: z w w > � w Y Z M —M c \l c N O ch N N E C C N O N N C > > 0 00 C -O -O -O N -O O O 0 > > > >O O>, O O O -0 O) -0 -0 "T O Q 0---) 0---)O j J a) > m N >, O j E2 N MO MO MO MO O E 2 i i z p i m LL m0 LL N LL r- L L 00 p p p p fl- � fl- � � E fl- � N N N N �p O �p O �p O O co O N N N N N N ch O O O O RS 0� 00 p C) (n '6 ONO N O N O N O N O O c\l N Z) 000 o � ~ N LL LL = LL LL Y C Y C Y C Y C c6 o c6 0 o c6 0 c6 o U U U U o o o o U) U) U) U) E o E o E o E o co U) a) U) a) U) a) o � o � p o � p O a) O O O O of � co ( � U) � � o o o ° co � o o U co o .o o :o> > o > o c >U o co � U U U U o co co J 0 J 0 J o J O U U U c U Q Q Q Q u � a z O U J U 0 vn 0 0 N CO CO � M Lf) N M CO M lf) M M O CO ' 00 O O N h - v c> to CO V oO m V LO oO o N o O v LQ �° ATTACHMENT 2 Ln CO O V V CO Lf) CD V O N CD V n LS7 CO r- O C I- LO N Co -I:r � N LO O I- m O LL) mr r- V Co O rl N O LO Lf2 (s O N CO Co co O) (D , I- CO � V LO 00 N Gl .• V � O O O CO O Lf") N N N V O 04 C1 N 00 N N co CO N a) O O O co M O O N ' co O h - m LO L(1 0o 00 CO O N LO N Lf) r- V ' Itt M O O LC) ' N CO N N V O O CO CO L6 ao CT1 Il n M V N Q O) I- n (O CO N O r- -:I- N N N Ul) m M M O N (D co O N O O M O CO CO M LO LA (D V O) V LO O O CT) I- N m M N CO CO � CO ' O N ' n (CL M O U CO (D '-:I- co O O Co N O V V O r- c 0o Co CO (D O CO Co a) I- Co M O r I� r- n M CO O L() Lf) Lf) n L(1 M Q Lf) M M O O m CO V O cn Lf7 -W r � � N I� n O O O O r O Lo d' � ' ' ' ' ' ' ' V � M O CD � 00 O � a) CO � r O N I- n M r O O Lf) L. O I� 00 Cn O O V L() N N M V --w V (D A O O) (D O N W Co LO L(1 m co N O � O CO ' CO ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Lf) cr LP) O Lf) 00 . I-- M M r- O O 0o V tw M O _ V M M O I� O Cn Lf) OCV N V (coo O _ O CO ON L V I� N O ' O ' ' ' ' ' ' Lf) V O O Co 0o Co (D M O M Ln L(1 V LO O O M (D O O O CA - CA I- co 00 r- n L() V I- n V LO a) O O M CO � O ' O ' ' ' ' ' ' co co L�PJ O N N (coo O co 00 M Co a) O 00 V co 00 V LO a) O M I� (= O CD 00 a 0o co 00 co a) L!' r M M M I� Lf") N O Lf")CD co cli CO CEO � O 00 O N cl) N LO co M O CO CO (D LO N O I� � n M M n Cn O V CO CO L() M Lo CO CT1 LO L() I- P- a) O O -:I- co O L() V tw m O --w O LO O O M I L() ' ' ' ' Lf) L. I-- O M O M Co 0o 0o (D 00 m a) co --w O I- O N 00 LO L() CO co L() O Lf) O N L() N Cn 0o Co CO V -W LO O M O CO LO O - O M V r- O N M Co m a) V c:) O n N 00 I� cl cl cl O O Co CO O M Q co N c"J CO LO M CP1 CO •3 Lf) M M L() N m s co O O LO L() m V M N LM O CO O N co M ' ' ' ' ' ' V CO I, M LO 00 O N O O CT) m M N 00 O O O — a) Co 0o L() M y O N r O V CO CO CO Lf) O L(1 CO � ' CT1 M O N CO h V CI N M O CO CO to CO O N O N Q O � CO O N O CO ' ' ' ' . n M CO n O O -:I- r-- V co CD - V 00 N O CD = N - 1- I.A N CD N V M V r- N co CO CT1 O V N N O M CO CD M CO I-- CO O Q O V Lf) - O L() co co N N co 00 N N N co N CO 3 cu _ yo C w 79 :i>, C-) c (1) = N v E a) w > o v Y E z m 4'c n iQ o LL i > N (6 .0 O (�6 W m ca J N w ~ a�i a > W Q W N N N N Q X .• i d' f0 0 O a�i o Q w w y p E T.� Q L o V c" W a) N O •�U Ll J V V 'O N d Q ,N,,, LL- Ga.1 LL E y •`-° LL o ALL- � � a cam- of of a cnCJO~ E 3 C o Q w W cn w a w w 0 0 0 a 0 0o ~ 0 R ,� C O o O a LL v, > Es S t2 a U c) o z N m in c) _= y N IL m = w-j ' a Q 0 on n. d x u 0. '6 bD ti O N O d' H O N ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 1 of 8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. TDATED: January 9,2014 AMENDED BY: BACKGROUND The following policies have been developed to provide guidance in the issuance and management of debt by the City of Chula Vista. The main objectives are to establish conditions for the use of debt; to ensure that debt capacity and affordability are adequately considered; to minimize the City's interest and issuance costs; to maintain the highest possible credit rating; to provide complete financial disclosure and reporting and; to maintain financial flexibility for the City. Debt, properly issued and managed, is a critical element in any financial management program. It assists in the City's effort to allocate limited resources to provide the highest quality of service to the public. The City understands that poor debt management can have ripple effects that hurt other areas of the City. On the other hand, a properly managed debt program promotes economic growth and enhances the vitality of the City of Chula Vista for its residents and businesses. PURPOSE To establish a formal City debt policy. POLICY GENERAL POLICIES The Finance Team All debt issued by the City of Chula Vista shall be under the direction of the City Manager or Finance Director/Treasurer, with the Mayor and City Council providing final approval at a public meeting. The City Manager or Finance Director/Treasurer will determine the composition of the "Finance Team" involved in each issuance. The Finance Team may consist of both City Staff and outside finance professionals. The Finance Director/Treasurer shall decide which City Staff to include on the Finance Team. Critical outside finance professionals include: • Underwriter: markets and sells debt to investors • Financial Advisor: independent financial expert providing advice to the City on all aspects of debt • Bond Counsel: legal counsel that prepares the resolutions, ordinances, agreements and other legal documents required • Disclosure Counsel: provides legal advice on all disclosure documents and issues in connection to the financing. May be same entity that provides Bond Counsel services. • Trustee: typically a commercial bank or trust company responsible for the collection and repayment of principal and interest to bondholders, as well as administering the investment of reserve funds, accounting and disbursement of bond proceeds • District Consultant: provide special district expertise, statistics, data analysis, and disclosure 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 107 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 2of8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. DATED: January 9, 2014 AMENDED BY: support in the issuance of Special District debt. Selection of Outside Professionals When identifying members of the Financing Team, the selection of underwriters and financial consultants providing professional services shall be based upon qualifications, experience, and cost; typically through a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) Process. Procurement of other services related to the issuance of debt shall be through a competitive bidding process whenever reasonable. Depending on circumstances it may be advantageous for the City to participate in a pooled debt issuance with a number of local agencies where issue costs are shared and the underwriters and/or financial consultants are pre-selected by the managing organization. Due to the overall cost savings involved, programs such as the California Statewide Communities Development Authority's "Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note"program are options for the City to consider. Use of Debt The City will consider the use of debt financing primarily for capital improvement projects (CIP) when the project's useful life will exceed the term of the financing and when resources are identified sufficient to fund the debt service requirements. Some exceptions to this CIP driven focus are the issuance of debt such as Pension Obligation Bonds, where the financial benefits are significantly greater than the costs and where the benefits are determined to be a financially prudent option; and short-term instruments such as tax and revenue anticipation notes, which are to be used for prudent cash management purposes. Bonded debt should not be issued for projects with minimal public benefit or support, or to finance normal operating expenses. If a department has any project which is expected to use debt financing, the department director is responsible for expeditiously providing the Finance Department with reasonable cost estimates, including specific revenue accounts that will provide payment for the debt service. This will allow the Finance Department to do an analysis of the project's potential impact on the City's debt capacity and limitations. TYPES OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS In order to maximize the financial options available to benefit the public, it is the policy of the City of Chula Vista to allow for the consideration of issuing all generally accepted types of debt, including, but not exclusive to the following: • General Obligation (GO) Bonds: General Obligation Bonds are suitable for use in the construction or acquisition of improvements to real property that benefit the public at large. Examples of projects include libraries, parks, and public safety facilities. All GO bonds require a 2/3 vote in order to pass. • Revenue Bonds: Revenue Bonds are limited-liability obligations tied to a specific enterprise revenue stream where the projects financed clearly benefit or relate to the ente rise. An 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 108 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 3 of 8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. TDATED: January 9,2014 AMENDED BY: example of projects that would be financed by a Revenue Bond would be improvements to the sewer system, which would be paid back with money raised from the property owner's sewer bills. Generally, no voter approval is required to issue this type of obligation but must comply with proposition 218 regarding rate adjustments. • Lease-Backed Debt/Certificates of Participation (COP): Issuance of COP debt is a commonly used form of debt that allows a City to finance projects where the debt service is secured via a lease or installment agreement and where the payments are budgeted in the annual budget appropriation by the City from the general fund. Lease-Backed debt does not constitute indebtedness under the state or the City's constitutional debt limit and does not require voter approval. • Special Assessment/Special District Debt: the City will consider requests from developers for the use of debt financing secured by property based assessments or special taxes in order to provide for necessary infrastructure for new development only under strict guidelines adopted by City Council, which may include minimum value-to-lien ratios and maximum tax burdens. Examples of this type of debt are Assessment Districts (AD) and Community Facilities Districts (CFD) or more commonly known as Mello-Roos Districts. In order to protect bondholders as well as the City's credit rating, all Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) documents must include the provision that the maximum projected annual special tax revenues must equal I10% of the projected annual gross debt service on any bonds of the community facilities district. The City will also comply with all State guidelines regarding the issuance of special district or special assessment debt. For further information, refer to the City of Chula Vista Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facility Districts. • Industrial Development Bonds — Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) are tax-exempt securities which can fund manufacturing businesses or energy development projects which provides a public benefit. While the authorization to issue IDBs is provided by a state statute, the tax-exempt status of these bonds is derived from federal law (IRS Code Section 103(b) (2). • Tax Allocation Bonds .— Tax Allocation Bonds are special obligations that are secured by the allocation of tax increment revenues that were generated by increased property taxes in the designated redevelopment area. Tax Allocation Bonds are not debt of the City. Due to changes in the law affecting California Redevelopment agencies with the passage of ABX1 26 as codified in the California Health and Safety Code, the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was dissolved as of February 1, 2012, and its operations substantially eliminated but for the continuation of certain enforceable RDA obligations to be administered by the City of Chula Vista Successor Agency. The terms of ABX 1 26 requires successor agencies perform all obligations with respect to enforceable debt obligations, which include Tax Allocation Bonds. • Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds — The City Housing Authority is authorized to issue mortgage revenue bonds to finance the development, acquisition and rehabilitation of multi- family rental projects. The interest on the bonds can be exempt from Federal and State 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 109 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 4of8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. DATED: January 9, 2014 AMENDED BY: taxation. As a result, bonds provide below market financing for qualified rental projects. In addition, the bonds issued can qualify projects for allocations of Federal low-income housing tax credits, which can provide a significant portion of the funding necessary to develop affordable housing. For further information, refer to the Chula Vista Housing Authority — Multi-Family Administrative Bond Policies. • HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program — The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program allows cities to use their annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement grants to obtain federally guaranteed funds large enough to stimulate or pay for major community development and economic development projects. The program does not require a pledge of the City's General Fund, only of future CDBG entitlements. By pledging future CDBG entitlement grants as security, the City can borrow at favorable interest rates because of HUD's guarantee of repayment to investors. DEBT AFFORDABILITY AND LIMITATIONS Debt capacity and affordability will be determined by conducting various analyses prior to the issuance of bonds. The analysis of debt capacity should cover a broad range of factors including but limited to the following: • Statutory or constitutional limitations affecting the amount that can be issued, such as legally authorized debt limits and tax or expenditure ceilings • Other legal limitations, such as coverage requirements or additional bonds tests imposed by bond covenants • Evaluation of trends relating to the government's financial performance, such as revenues and expenditures, net revenues available after meeting operating requirements, reliability of revenues expected to pay debt service and unreserved fund balance levels • Debt service as a percentage of total General Fund Revenues The City will attempt to limit the total amount of annual debt service payments payable by the General Fund to no more than 10% of estimated total General Fund revenues. Under State Law, general obligation bonds shall not exceed 15% of total assessed valuation within the City. An analysis using current market rates and conservative projections showing compliance with the debt affordability limitations included in this Debt Policy shall be conducted before the issuance of any debt with a maturity longer than two years from date of issue. Data showing direct and overlapping debt levels for the City of Chula Vista and surrounding agencies that affect the residents of the City shall be compiled for inclusion in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFR) of the City. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 110 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 5of8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. TDATED: January 9,2014 AMENDED BY: DEBT STRUCTURING In order to maximize financial flexibility in a constantly-changing debt market, the City shall be allowed to structure its debt issuances using generally accepted methods. The guiding principal shall be to structure debt issuances so that the City's overall costs are minimized while still maintaining or increasing the City's credit rating. Allowable structures include, but are not limited to the issuance of: • Serial and/or Term Bonds: Serial Bonds are those in an issue that mature in consecutive years, whereas Term Bonds comprise a large part or all of a particular issue that come due in a single maturity but are prepared in part each year. • Fixed and Variable Rate Debt: Fixed rate debt is when an interest rate on a security does not change for the remaining life of the security, where Variable rate debt or "floating rate" changes at intervals according to market conditions or a predetermined index or formula. • Zero Coupon: Zero Coupon is an original issue discount bond on which no periodic interest payments are made but is issued at a deep discount from par, accreting (amortized) to its full value at maturity. • Capital Appreciation: Capital Appreciation occurs when the investment return on an initial principal amount is reinvested at a stated compounded rate until bond maturity. The investor receives a single payment (maturity value), representing both the initial principal amount and the total investment return. • Bonds with Capitalized Interest: Bonds with capitalized interest have a portion of the proceeds of an issue set aside to pay interest on securities for a specified period of time. • Senior and Junior Lien Structures: Senior Lien bonds have a priority claim against pledged revenues, while Junior Lien bonds have a subordinate claim against pledged revenues or other security. Debt service should be structured so that annual combined principal and interest payments do not dramatically vary year over year. This provides greater budget stability. Limited exceptions from level debt service will be allowed for individual debt issues when level debt service is unsuitable; for instance in the case of some refunding of debt. Redemption provisions should generally be included in most issuances, providing they are structured in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner as determined by the Financing Team. Redemption options include but are not limited to: • Optional Redemption: a call or prepayment provision option that is giving to the issuer, often only on or after a specified date. • Mandatory Redemption: to require the issuer to redeem or call the bond "in-whole redemption" which is all at once, or "partial redemption" which is only a portion on a scheduled basis. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 111 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 6of8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. DATED: January 9, 2014 AMENDED BY: Credit enhancement, such as letters of credit or insurance, may be purchased when the cost of enhancement is more than recovered by the debt service savings created. Entering into a financing utilizing letters of credit or insurance must be planned for and determined to be feasible by the Director of Finance/Treasurer. Maximum Maturity Debt obligations shall have a maximum maturity of the earlier of- the reasonably estimated useful life of the Capital Improvements being financed; or, • thirty years; or, • in the event they are being issued to refinance outstanding debt obligations the final maturity of the debt obligations being refinanced, unless a longer term is recommended by the Finance Team. • Such other terms which meet the financing goals of the debt issuance. DEBT ISSUANCE The City will strive to minimize borrowing costs by: • Seeking the highest credit rating possible; • Maintaining transparency and excellent communications with credit rating agencies regarding the City's fiscal condition; • Purchasing bond insurance or taking action to upgrade the City's current credit rating It shall be the policy of the City to allow the issuance of debt through public sale or private placement, and via competitive or negotiated sales underwriting methods. Consistent with the goal of minimizing costs, competitive sale shall be the primary method of sale considered unless the Financing Team decides that a negotiated sale is warranted. Factors that may impact this decision include: • Issuer/Issue Recognition: competitive sales are easier for an issuer that investors and underwriters are familiar with. If extensive marketing is needed to educate the market about the issuer, a negotiated sale maybe more appropriate. Similarly, even if the issuer is well- known, if the issue itself has a"story" that needs to be told, a negotiated sale may be needed to enhance the marketing and acceptance of the debt. • Issue Size: very large or very small deals may benefit from a negotiated sale over a competitive sale. • Debt Type: GO bonds and other well-known and accepted debt structures are suitable for competitive sales. Others such as CFDs, variable rate, or innovative structures may benefit from a negotiated sale. • Credit Ratings: issuers with high credit ratings and insured bonds lend themselves to competitive sales. Uninsured or lower rated issues are often more suitable for negotiated sales. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 112 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 7of8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. TDATED: January 9,2014 AMENDED BY: • Sale Timing: during times of market uncertainty when conditions are volatile, the flexibility of a negotiated sale may allow an issuer to adjust the sale date and capture additional interest rate savings. The City will seek to issue refunding bonds with the minimum goal of 5% net present value savings of the par value of the proposed bonds. Anything less than an anticipated 5% savings will require additional analysis discussing the benefits of the refunding due to the cost associated with refunding debt. Consideration shall be given to the benefit of delaying a refunding in a declining interest rate environment to capture maximum savings at the least cost. DEBT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Disclosure The City will comply with Rule 15(c) 2-12 of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and provide timely disclosure of relevant information on an annual basis as well as any material event notices as required. The City recognizes the importance of accuracy in disclosure documents and will strive to provide full and complete disclosure. To ensure accuracy of stated facts, directors of any department that originally provided or produced any data appearing in a disclosure document will provide a written statement certifying the accuracy of their department's data along with a statement denying knowledge of any misstatements or material omissions in the remainder of the disclosure document. The City will fulfill its obligations as covenanted in all the Continuing Disclosure Agreements associated with any active issuance. Documents are distributed through Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA)which can be viewed at any time by the public. The City will determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not to retain the services of an independent disclosure counsel. For additional information regarding disclosure procedures, please refer to Administrative Disclosure Procedures. Arbitrage In the past, agencies took advantage of their ability to borrow at tax-exempt rates and invest the proceeds at higher rates, thus earning positive arbitrage. Since 1986, the federal tax code requires issuers of long-term, tax-exempt debt to rebate positive arbitrage to the federal government. The City will diligently monitor its compliance with all federal arbitrage regulations. Due to the complex nature of arbitrage calculations, the City may elect to hire an outside expert consultant to perform this function. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 113 ATTACHMENT 3 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: City Debt Policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 8of8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. DATED: January 9, 2014 AMENDED BY: Compliance with Tax Law Provisions The City will diligently monitor its compliance with all bond legal covenants, as well as Federal and State requirements, with the assistance of its Finance Team and consultants. Furthermore, recognizing that the smallest of mistakes can lead to the appearance of conflicts of interest or wrongdoing, which in turn may lead to severe consequences, including criminal charges, the City will make every effort to ensure its debt financing conduct is above reproach. Investment of Bond Proceeds The City shall comply with Federal and State regulations governing the investment of bond proceeds. Each issue shall detail allowable investments within the Trust Agreements, which the City will adhere to. Where not specifically spelled out, the City will apply the City investment policy guiding principal commonly referred to as"SLY'; Safety, Liquidity, and Yield, in that order of priority. Records Retention The City will retain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of federal and California law necessary to preserve the tax advantage of such City Bonds for the period required by law, presently understood to be the life of the debt obligations or any succeeding refunding obligations plus 3 years. Other Provisions Bond proceeds, reserve, and repayment funds, should have separate accounting from operating or other funds, at a level distinct enough to facilitate arbitrage compliance calculations and ease debt service and expenditure tracking. If any part of this Debt Policy conflict with Federal or State laws, or the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, or Charter, the regulations will take precedence over this Debt Policy. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 114 ATTACH ME NT 4 -_ -W77 TA Cipp DEBT PORTFOLIO CITY OF CHULA VISTA C H U L A VISTA , CALIFORNIA „ ► � f I =-.Mow r __ ATTACHMENT 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 116 Al jAt_MjVjtjj I 2t City of Chula Vista Debt Portfolio Table of Contents Introduction 1 City of Chula Vista Bonded Indebtedness — Outstanding Issuances 3 RDA/Successor Agency Bonded Indebtedness — Outstanding Issuances 17 City of Chula Vista Other Bonded Indebtedness HUD Section 108 Loan 29 Special Tax Districts 33 Resources 41 ATTACHMENT 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet �� Page 118 ATTACHMENT 4 �111� 4444 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Debt Portfolio INTRODUCTION This debt portfolio is a summary of the City's outstanding bonded indebtedness by issuance. The purpose of this report is to provide Chula Vista citizens, investors and the general public, information on the City's bonded indebtedness. Also included within this report are Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency obligations, and other City debt such as Special Tax District liabilities and HUD Section 108 Loan repayments. Each section summarizes the original issuance, the remaining debt of each bond, and describes the improvements funded by the bond proceeds. The projects that the bonds have funded retain a longer useful life than the term of the bonds. The term of each of these bond issuances that have been entered into does vary, but most have a term of 30 years. City of Chula Vista Bonded Indebtedness- Outstanding Bond Issuances Each of the remaining outstanding issuances that the City is responsible for is described within this section. The City of Chula Vista has entered into bonded indebtedness to finance various public facilities throughout the City. Some of these improvements include the Civic Center Complex, Police Facility, Corporation Yard, Western Chula Vista Infrastructure, and improvements to the Nature Center (named changed to Living Coast Discovery Center). The debt service payments (principal and interest payments) for these bonds are paid from the following revenue sources: • General Fund: the City's General Fund is the City's main operating fund. The General Fund revenues consist of mainly discretionary revenue such as Sales & Use Tax, Property Tax, Franchise Fees and Transient Occupancy Tax. • Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF): these fees are charged to new development to mitigate the impacts on the City's existing public facilities. More information on the PFDIF can be found in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 3.50. • Residential Construction Tax (RCT) Fund: this fund contains fees that are charged to new residential units, including hotels and motels, which generate householders who impose a burden upon public facilities and infrastructure of the City. More information on the RCT can be found in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 3.32. Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency Bonded Indebtedness- Outstanding Bond Issuances This section of the report describes outstanding issuances by the Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency. The Redevelopment Agency originally issued debts, or more specifically Tax Allocation Bonds (TABs) for the purpose of eliminating blight within the City of Chula Vista. Funding for the debt payments is paid by tax increment revenues. The bonds are not backed by the City's General Fund. City of Chula Vista Other Bonded Indebtedness-HUD Section 708 Loan The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded the City a Section 108 Loan specifically for the Castle Park Infrastructure Improvement Project. The Section 108 Loan is an "advance" 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 119 1 ATTACHMENT 4 of future Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement funds, therefore debt service payments are made with a portion of the City's annual CDBG entitlement revenue for a 20 year period. The anticipated payoff date is 2028. City of Chula Vista Other Bonded Indebtedness—Special Tax Districts Special Tax Districts are created for the purpose of financing public improvements. To pay the debt service on these bonds, parcels within the district are charged a special tax that is included within their property tax bill. This section of the report includes a summary of the special tax districts bonds, as well as descriptions of each of the special tax districts and the public improvements that they financed. The City has two different types of special tax district indebtedness: • Assessment Districts (AD): these types of bonded ADs were formed under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. Under this type of special district financing, the cost of the improvements is spread proportionally over every parcel of land within the district that receives a direct and special benefit from the improvements. • Community Facilities Districts (CFD): the City's bonded CFDs were created under the Community Facilities District Act, or the Mello-Roos Act, signed into law in 1982. A CFD needs only find a public benefit to the community at large, in contrast to an AD where a direct/special benefit must be found. Similar to an AD, the CFD debt service payments are paid by the property owners of parcels within the specific district. The City, more specifically the Finance Department, is responsible for administering and managing each debt issuance. In addition to the requirement of the City to make the above bonds debt service payments using their stated funding sources, the City is also required to file continuing disclosures on an annual basis to informational repositories that can be accessed by the general marketplace. Continuing disclosures are annual reports that contain current financial information of the issuer which is the City of Chula Vista, City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency, Chula Vista Public Financing Authority or Chula Vista Municipal Financing Authority. To view copies of the City's disclosure reports, please visit the City's Disclosure Consultant's website at: http://disclosure.nbsaov.com/default.asox or the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website at: http://emma.msrb.org/ For more information about the City's financial status, please visit the City of Chula Vista's Finance Department website at: http://www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Administrative_Services/Finance/DefauIt.asp Data Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the maps and data provided; however, some information may not be accurate or current. The City of Chula Vista assumes no responsibility arising from use of this information. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 120 2 Al lgt_MlVltll I 2t CITY OF CHULA VISTA BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OUTSTANDING ISSUANCES UPDATED DECEMBER 2013 ary of CHULAVISTA ATTACHMENT 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 122 4 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Total Annual Debt Service Payments(Principal and Interest) Fiscal Year 2002 COP 2004 COP 2006 COP 2010 COP Total Principal Total Interest Total FY 2003 $ 3,119,664.44 $ $ $ $ 3,119,664 $ 3,119,664.44 FY 2004 $ 2,800,696.26 $ $ $ $ 2,800,696 $ 2,800,696.26 FY 2005 $ 3,925,696.26 $ 741,425.21 $ $ $ 1,125,000.00 3,542,121 $ 4,667,121.47 FY 2006 $ 3,926,946.26 $ 1,617,655.00 $ $ $ 1,160,000.00 4,384,601 $ 5,544,601.26 FY 2007 $ 3,932,146.26 $ 2,392,655.00 $ 804,727.52 $ $ 1,975,000.00 $ 5,154,528.78 $ 7,129,528.78 FY 2008 $ 3,936,146.26 $ 2,392,155.00 $ 1,272,288.75 $ $ 2,465,000.00 $ 5,135,590.01 $ 7,600,590.01 FY 2009 $ 3,936,546.26 $ 2,393,392.50 $ 1,272,498.75 $ $ 2,550,000.00 $ 5,052,437.51 $ 7,602,437.51 FY 2010 $ 3,934,946.26 $ 2,391,117.50 $ 1,272,198.75 $ $ 2,635,000.00 $ 4,963,262.51 $ 7,598,262.51 FY 2011 $ 3,941,346.26 $ 2,391,217.50 $ 1,271,388.75 $ 1,505,929.71 $ 2,735,000.00 $ 6,374,882.22 $ 9,109,882.22 FY 2012 $ 3,945,346.26 $ 2,392,361.26 $ 1,270,068.75 $ 1,477,206.26 $ 2,840,000.00 $ 6,244,982.53 $ 9,084,982.53 FY 2013 $ 3,946,946.26 $ 2,391,386.26 $ 1,268,238.75 $ 1,477,206.26 $ 2,945,000.00 $ 6,138,777.53 $ 9,083,777.53 FY 2014 $ 3,951,146.26 $ 2,392,073.76 $ 1,270,388.75 $ 2,492,206.26 $ 4,080,000.00 $ 6,025,815.03 $ 10,105,815.03 FY 2015 $ 3,958,783.76 $ 2,391,448.76 $ 1,271,308.75 $ 2,491,606.26 $ 4,250,000.00 $ 5,863,147.53 $ 10,113,147.53 FY 2016 $ 3,960,743.76 $ 2,394,511.26 $ 1,270,958.75 $ 2,487,318.76 $ 4,415,000.00 $ 5,698,532.53 $ 10,113,532.53 FY 2017 $ 3,962,668.76 $ 2,393,511.26 $ 1,269,583.75 $ 2,494,343.76 $ 4,600,000.00 $ 5,520,107.53 $ 10,120,107.53 FY 2018 $ 3,970,993.76 $ 2,395,911.26 $ 1,272,458.75 $ 2,489,143.76 $ 4,800,000.00 $ 5,328,507.53 $ 10,128,507.53 FY 2019 $ 3,972,887.50 $ 2,395,123.76 $ 1,268,627.50 $ 2,492,718.76 $ 5,020,000.00 $ 5,109,357.52 $ 10,129,357.52 FY 2020 $ 3,983,125.00 $ 2,391,613.76 $ 1,268,227.50 $ 2,492,881.26 $ 5,260,000.00 $ 4,875,847.52 $ 10,135,847.52 FY 2021 $ 3,985,750.00 $ 2,395,613.76 $ 1,271,827.50 $ 2,494,631.26 $ 5,520,000.00 $ 4,627,822.52 $ 10,147,822.52 FY 2022 $ 3,990,500.00 $ 2,390,707.50 $ 1,268,365.00 $ 2,487,981.26 $ 5,765,000.00 $ 4,372,553.76 $ 10,137,553.76 FY 2023 $ 3,999,500.00 $ 2,393,287.50 $ 1,268,871.25 $ 2,490,293.76 $ 6,050,000.00 $ 4,101,952.51 $ 10,151,952.51 FY 2024 $ 4,002,250.00 $ 2,391,862.50 $ 1,272,581.25 $ 2,490,543.76 $ 6,345,000.00 $ 3,812,237.51 $ 10,157,237.51 FY 2025 $ 4,008,750.00 $ 2,392,737.50 $ 1,269,431.25 $ 2,490,081.26 $ 6,655,000.00 $ 3,506,000.01 $ 10,161,000.01 FY 2026 $ 4,018,500.00 $ 2,393,825.00 $ 1,270,006.25 $ 2,490,518.76 $ 6,990,000.00 $ 3,182,850.01 $ 10,172,850.01 FY 2027 $ 4,026,000.00 $ 2,391,675.00 $ 1,104,093.75 $ 2,491,600.00 $ 7,170,000.00 $ 2,843,368.75 $ 10,013,368.75 FY 2028 $ 4,031,000.00 $ 2,394,250.00 $ 1,102,812.50 $ 2,491,225.00 $ 7,535,000.00 $ 2,484,287.50 $ 10,019,287.50 FY 2029 $ 4,038,250.00 $ 2,393,025.00 $ 1,105,218.75 $ 2,490,350.00 $ 7,920,000.00 $ 2,106,843.75 $ 10,026,843.75 FY 2030 $ 4,047,250.00 $ 2,393,000.00 $ 1,106,093.75 $ 2,488,700.00 $ 8,325,000.00 $ 1,710,043.75 $ 10,035,043.75 FY 2031 $ 4,057,500.00 $ 2,394,250.00 $ 1,105,437.50 $ 2,486,000.00 $ 8,755,000.00 $ 1,288,187.50 $ 10,043,187.50 FY 2032 $ 4,063,500.00 $ 2,390,750.00 $ 1,103,250.00 $ 1,051,975.00 $ 7,765,000.00 $ 844,475.00 $ 8,609,475.00 FY 2033 $ $ 2,392,500.00 $ 1,103,425.00 $ 1,055,000.00 $ 4,095,000.00 $ 455,925.00 $ 4,550,925.00 FY 2034 $ $ 2,394,000.00 $ 1,106,800.00 $ $ 3,250,000.00 $ 250,800.00 $ 3,500,800.00 FY 2035 $ $ $ 1,103,150.00 $ $ 1,010,000.00 $ 93,150.00 $ 1,103,150.00 FY 2036 $ $ $ 1,107,700.00 $ $ 1,060,000.00 $ 47,700.00 $ 1,107,700.00 69,359,042.81 JOL 35,992,027.52 9,461.11 $ 147,065,000.0 ,126,057.281 Note:The above total annual debt service payments include payments made from the General Fund,Public Facilities Development Impact Fee(PFDIF),and Residential Construction Tax(RCT)combined. 2002 Certificates of Participation funded the Police Facility Project 2004 Certificates of Participation funded the Civic Center Phase I Project and Western Chula Vista Infrastructure 2006 Certificates of Participation funded the Civic Center Phase I I Project and Nature Center Improvements 2010 Certificates of Participation funded the Civic Center Phase III Project and refunded the 2000 COP which funded the Corporation Facility 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 123 5 ATTACHMENT 4 N on n. y o 0 c 0 d CO co co f •�+ t Lo T r N co co C 7 co co co co cn Ly 15 O O O O N N N N = E 9EO1 A] o acIIi acIIi acIIi acIIi °- sEOZ Ai F o 0 0 0 cl) cl) cl) cl) 4EOZ A� N 't `° O U- N O O O O A EEOZ Ai -° 0000 = � cDcDcDc V o 0 0 0 a) zEOZ Ai ° Vol Ai oEOZ Ai y E o Rol Aj ° cL U d = _ _ = o ozoz Ai s RozA] zzzz y O O O O N O O O O p o� O O O O p U o o n Lo o =p c� °' co rn N a� o szoz Ai ° co ° co M a y fC Lo co E; c\j N tzoz Aj 000 `° U EZO1Aj 0 0000 p o zzoz Ai E ° ° o cD O cn no N _ N cl) cl) Izol Ai ' ° m ° N a LL d 0101 Aj EL co ° N o 610Z AJ m z O O O O I Oz Aj d °' ° � c 0 7 N N :5 U) Q 0 co 6) co N o O O O O y Zr- .2-) L 101 A� d o . o LL ° a sz 91ozAi : M o o EL s1o1Ai N = U6 U6 = o p _ , N N EIOZA� y .o 'o a EL o o -° t!J o ' � o ,U U y o : ZIOZAi _ LL o_ o_ - o � d = Q) LL _ ¢ d IIOZAJ C) C) c) c o � o Ur a.d U U UQ U U U U m OIOZAJ N p m 6001 Ai ^� _ Z Q �m �° N � ¢ '= looz Ai CID < a loot A] w R R R z = 9001 Aj ) � ° a a a a U U s00Z Aj c o c `o e v v v c o � `o .+ ¢ 0 c '� z �' 0 > > 4001 Ai .2 d v .O d v- fuC — — 5 Eoo1 A] ¢ o fC L L L a - a o L L L O a a EL EL E - p a a EL a_ a_ _ _ = = y °o °o o °e °o °0 7 = y i o 0 o m 7 = y m a) 0 0 V Q ni c m Lei v r �' LL. U U U m m � - - LL. „d, U U U H LL. �n w w w w un � V U `y EL CU CU CU - R o o o y EL CU CU U Ln C C N co o - y v cn C N co O O _ lYOIIIIw y y a� O O o .= -- y y a� o 0 o a, U ¢ V O O O o z° o` o e n U oN O 0 0 O N 6 .4y�l 1 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHUTAVISTA Name of Debt Issued: 2002 Certificates of Participation— Police Facility Project f PAR Amount: $60,145,000 True Interest Cost: 4.93% p. p00CE i Purpose of Debt(Project): Construction of Police Headquarters J Sources of Funds: Uses of Funds: PAR Amount: $60,145,000.00 Project Fund: $49,065,746.74 OID (Discount): ($650,956.15) Capitalized Interest: $5,281,559.19 OIP(Premium): $0.00 Cost of Issuance: $1,083,237.92 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $4,063,500.00 TOTAL SOURCES: $59,494,043.85 TOTAL USES: $59,494,043.85 Prepayment Periods(Call Dates): Disclosure Due Dates: August 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013: 101.00% February 1 —Financial Statements and Tables 1-4, 6, 7, 9& 11 August 1, 2013 through July 31, 2014: 100.50% in Official Statement(page G-2) August 1, 2014 and thereafter 100.00% Financing Team: • Finance Director: Robert Powell • City Attorney: John Kaheny • Financial Advisor: Suzanne Harrell, Harrell&Company Advisors, LLC • Bond Counsel: Bob Whalen, Stradling,Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Bond Insurer: MBIA Insurance Corporation • Competitive Bid Purchaser: Banc of America Securities, LLC • Investment Providers: MBIA(Reserve Fund) • Dissemination Agent: US Bank, N.A. • Disclosure Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Trustee: US Bank, N.A. • Disclosure Administrator: NBS 2042 COP Debt Share by Funding Source usa uN Wo j Uw � sr se s+a il.f0 fIM use s _ ` •G.r�laM •KnK •(yMIV111MMit 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 125 7 ATTACHMENT 4 0 00000000000 00 (o (Orr) 0000000000000 -:I, � (� N N N N N N N N N N N O f� N N CO N l!7 O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CO O (0 O O O O O O O O U) CO O O O r— U) O LO O LO O O LO O LO O O LA rC O O N V V V V V V V V O O O (� V O (� N O rl_ O N Lf) O N Lf) r� O LO N (i O O 00 Lf) cr r� (' Lf) V N r� 00 O Lf) O O Lf) (' O N O N 00 Lf) r-- LA � O (D O ao O V �_ O 00 (v) CO CO f-- N CO l!7 O N 00 00 f" N l!7 O l!7 CO LA O O O O O N N N N N (� (o (o (o co V V l!7 U) U) U) O O n fC f� 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M C � C � Q VA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 64 (� O N � n CO O 00 C d cl) O M M N N O O O O Q N LA m _ U lb� lb� lb� lb� 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- lb� lb� lb� lb� lb� lb� lb� lb� lb� 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 6- 64 O Lf) O rl- rl- rl- r-- r-- r-- r-- m 00 m (D rl- N 00 O Lf) O V 00 O V 00 (D Lf) M O 00 00 m 00 O O 00 O 00 N r— O r— - - O N — r— (� O O m LO V m LO N O M rD (q 00 l!7 N O O 00 M (� co N M N V N co O co 00 CD 00 rD co V O co O CO l!7 O N 00 � CO CO � 00 O N f— (� O CO � (� CO CO O 00 O CO CO l!7 O O l!7 00 O O V O O V N Lf) 00 O M Lf) N (l Lf) O ao N O O Lf) 00 O N r� N O N N o V V V r1) V V (� LO O O r� O O O : O (� (� V O O r— O N N V O 00 O LA p Lo rl_ 00 00 cr) cr) cr) cl) cl) cl) cl) cl) cl) co co V V V V V V V V U') U') U') U') U') U') U') co L.L M O 00 0o r- r- r--:, r--:, r--:, r--:, r--:, r--:, r--:, r--:, r--:, r-- r--:, r--:, r--:, r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r--:, r--:, r--:, n a — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — - - - = a� U L O EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 64 O (n M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 M O (D M N Lf) O O O M O O M V Lf) 00 � (l V O (l N (l M O N r— Lf) — V N N 00 N O O (D (D Lf) Lf) O V rl_ m w O C 00 O V N O M 00 rl_ m Lf) O M N O V V N O M O O M V (� Lf) O O� O O P, O (l r-- N O M 0o r-- cl! Lf) (:: r-- V V (l Lf) — cr V r— V N O r-- (l O O 0o V a0 U- o Lf) V Lf) 00 O O V r-_ O O O N N N LO V 00 r— 00 (l) O 00 O M O r— O O LO O GO rN� N 0 N 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O CO O LL. d Lei N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r A c Ln to N 76 i () V l!7 CO f- 00 O O N (2 V l!7 CO f� 00 O O N (l) V LO O r— 00 O O N (l) J y y0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N (o (o (o co � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o ii O cm LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 0 c� vcoco (0 f.0QDQD QD (o (o (o (0 (0 (0 (0 (000000000000000 -:I' a V N N N N N N N N N N N rl- rl- rl- rl- LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO V O O O O O O O O O O O M M 00 M r— LO O O O O O O O O O O O O LA O O O V V V V V V V V V 00 V O O 00 N LO O O LO LO O O O LO LO N 0 O O O O LfO M O r� r� O O 00 � r� LfLfN r� LfN N LO LO LA H O O LO O N O O V l!7 O 00 O N O N M LO O O N 00 00 (.0 00 r— r— (l) LA (D N N (l) (l) (l) (l) a) V V Lf) LO O O r— f� 00 00 O O O O N 2 (� V LO O n rC 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O Q T E EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA a4 m U L. v (o fo fo (o co co c ococo (o (o (0 (0 (0 (000000000000000 O � V N N N N N N N N N N N f� f� f� f� l!7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O OR �N V O O O O O O O O O O O co co 00 co r-_ Lo O O O O O O O O O O O O LA O O O O V V V V V V V V V 00 V O O 00 N LO O O LO LO O O O LO LO O O N (2 ►+ O O O O Lf) O M M O -- O O 00 — r- l!7 Lf) N r-- Lf) O O N N Lf) Lf) Lr cn O O O O N O O V Lo O O 0o Lo r-- Lo r-- (o O O V N co 0o O O 0o N r-- (o O Q a i � 0 0 0 M O V O V 00 N O O N V O rl_ 00 00 rl_ LO (� O O N rl- LO rl- O M W 00 00 r— r— O O LO LO - V M N N O O 00 r— O LO V M — (D 00 LO cl) N (6 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � O m � N QEA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 64 N O ,V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -p �+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `m o CL L() 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L() O L() L() L() L() O L() O L() O L() 0 0 L() O L() 0 0 LA} O N O O V O V O O N 00 O M O O O O N V f� O LO O LO N O 00 r— � N N � — N N N M - V LO LO O r— 00 O O — N M V LO r— 00 O — M V O 00 to CL O 7 w U ) in R to a� i � ER EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA b4 N � � t o _ _ 0 '>= M V LO O rl_ 00 O O_ �_ N_ (2 V LP (O f� 00 O O N M V Lf) (O r— 00 O O N � O Q O 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N co (� co 0 U d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln N Cn N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d' H O N 8 ATTACHMENT 4 Civic Center Total (All Phases)' Debt Share by Funding Source Fiscal Year General Fund PFDIF Annual Total FY2005 $ - $ - $ - FY2006 $ 14,630.06 $ 115,995.44 $ 130,625.50 FY2007 $ 192,077.43 $ 1,522,899.61 $ 1,714,977.04 FY2008 $ 399,016.16 $ 2,107,316.95 $ 2,506,333.11 - FY2009 $ 432,781.38 $ 2,389,069.27 $ 2,821,850.65 FY2010 $ 432,224.93 $ 2,385,585.08 $ 2,817,810.01 FY2011 $ 475,588.01 $ 2,731,871.90 $ 3,207,459.92 FY2012 $ 474,949.00 $ 2,726,308.83 $ 3,201,257.83 FY2013 $ 474,265.72 $ 2,721,153.33 $ 3,195,419.05 FY2014 $ 549,993.84 $ 3,325,521.58 $ 3,875,515.42 FY2015 $ 549,726.85 $ 3,323,660.59 $ 3,873,387.44 FY2016 $ 550,100.73 $ 3,325,366.81 $ 3,875,467.54 FY2017 $ 550,259.88 $ 3,327,003.39 $ 3,877,263.27 FY2018 $ 550,455.08 $ 3,327,528.44 $ 3,877,983.52 FY2019 $ 549,949.69 $ 3,323,681.87 $ 3,873,631.56 FY2020 $ 549,877.51 $ 3,324,913.20 $ 3,874,790.71 FY2021 $ 550,562.18 $ 3,328,458.10 $ 3,879,020.28 FY2022 $ 549,616.51 $ 3,323,262.12 $ 3,872,878.63 FY2023 $ 549,866.44 $ 3,323,892.71 $ 3,873,759.15 FY2024 $ 549,663.15 $ 3,322,914.61 $ 3,872,577.76 FY2025 $ 549,896.53 $ 3,324,502.16 $ 3,874,398.69 FY2026 $ 549,873.04 $ 3,323,686.37 $ 3,873,559.41 t FY2027 $ 549,644.85 $ 3,322,898.50 $ 3,872,543.35 f FY2028 $ 549,860.42 $ 3,323,372.36 $ 3,873,232.78 FY2029 $ 549,725.43 $ 3,322,960.56 $ 3,872,685.99 FY2030 $ 549,896.29 $ 3,324,371.78 $ 3,874,268.07 FY2031 $ 549,795.74 $ 3,322,962.04 $ 3,872,757.78 FY2032 $ 549,188.28 $ 3,319,648.31 $ 3,868,836.59 FY2033 $ 549,773.70 $ 3,323,517.24 $ 3,873,290.94 FY2034 $ 432,909.84 $ 2,389,831.25 $ 2,822,741.09 FY2035 $ 117,816.42 $ 985,333.58 $ 1,103,150.00 FY2036 $ 118,302.36 $ 989,397.64 $ 1,107,700.00 � ; 31' J.► TOTAL $ 14,562,287.49 $ 87,548,885.59 $ 102,111,173.08 Includes 2004 COP,2006 COP,and 2010 COP Civic Center payments. i ,- Note:Amounts shown above include principal and interest payments. Civic Center Total(All Phases) Debt Share by Funding Source $4.50 S4-00 53.50 $3.00 ! E Sz.50 52.00 — — SrsO - $t.o0 50.50 5- -- M- - ■Genernl Fund ■PFOIF 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 127 9 ATTACHMENT 4 Page Intentionally Left Blank 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 128 10 .4y�l 1 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Name of Debt Issued: 2004 COP Civic Center Phase I and Western Chula Vista Infrastructure PAR Amount: $37,240,000 $26.7m-CC Phase I and$10.5m-Western CV Infrastructure True Interest Cost: 4.65% Purpose of Debt(Project): Construction & Improvements to Civic Center Complex and Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Project Sources of Funds: Uses of Funds: PAR Amount: $37,240,000.00 Project Fund: $31,776,000.00 OID (Discount): $0.00 Capitalized Interest: $2,176,837.68 OIP(Premium): $35,253.70 Cost of Issuance: $926,504.76 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $2,395,911.26 TOTAL SOURCES: $37,275,253.70 TOTAL USES: $37,275,253.70 Prepayment Periods(Call Dates): Disclosure Due Dates: March 1,2014 through February 28, 2015: 101.00% March 1 —Financial Statements and Tables 1-4, 6, 7, 9 & 11 in March 1,2015 through February 28, 2016: 100.50% Official Statement(page G-2) March 1, 2016 and thereafter 100.00% Financing Team: • Finance Director: Maria Kachadoorian • City Attorney:Ann Moore • Financial Advisor: Suzanne Harrell, Harrell&Company Advisors, LLC • Bond Counsel: Bob Whalen, Stradling,Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Bond Insurer: MBIA Insurance Corporation • Competitive Bid Purchaser: UBS Financial Services Inc. • Investment Providers: FSA Capital Management Services LLC(Reserve Fund) • Dissemination Agent: BNY Western Trust Company, N.A. • Disclosure Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Trustee: BNY Western Trust Company, N.A. • Disclosure Administrator: NBS 2004 COP Odd Shore by Funding S.- Hk au Sf k SI N Slk HS{ Il •Fr„r 1•k •IILi •IftiM •fT�'n•ffa.0 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 129 11 ATTACHMENT 4 M O O O O O O co co co co co co (O CO CO CO 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � N O O O LC) LC) LC) N N I- r- N N N I- r- r- LC) LC) LC) LC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O LC) LC) LC) LC) N I-- CO M W cO C 2 C 2 I- r- N r- LC) LC) O LC) O O O O O N ++ N LC) LC) L(") M CO 00 r- V Lo N O W CO M N r- LC) N O LC) LC) O O O V CO CO M N co M O V L(") L(") (T CO CO I-- N W r- W CO N O O N I- LC) O O r-7 N N c' N - N - V c- LC) LC) - LC) O c- - N C`') - V c` c` V O N V 6) r V m m m m m m m CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT m m m m m m m m m m m m LO O I- CO M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M _ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to C Q EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA b4 r I- OO N V CO Ni i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i M OO ~ N LC) CO 76 V r- O = N fO - U C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l lb�lb�lb�C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l 16�16�16�16�16�16�lu�lu�lu�lu� a� d M CO LC) LC) m N I- N V N N m V O LC) W r O co LC) O N CO W N CO L() O O CT M W V 00 r-- CO M M � V N N O M CO LC) CO C`') � I- r- CO r V O CT L() V r- CO CO N O V W M CO M O O I-- M LC) CO I-- M m O m N LC) m W V W N � M W V I- m M O N O I- W N LC) LC) O O O N 00 r'-- N C 2 cO LC) 6) C (O CO LC) oc N N LC) M L(") M N cr (O M M L(") oc V o V I� � CO O N O r- r- r- [,- � � � � � OO I- W OO I- OO I- r- r- r- W r- OO r--- r--- OO r--- r--- OO OO CO CO CO (O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO (O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO (O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO O c U U C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l lb��������16�16�16�16�16�16�16�16�16�16�41�- ' V CT M CO N M V N V N W V O LC) LC) CO M V (O V N W N N M M (m V CO LC) CT M W CO CO O Nr- V N W O M V M LC) o CO W W W N LC) V CD LC) M I- o M M r- O V CO (O LC) O N O O CO W LC) CO CO CO N M LC) CT I� N m m L(") W LC) O I- O V M LC) LC) a) V W N W CT M I- W CO LC) W M LC) cO '.:r cr oc W LC) CO N I- � LC) CT M oc O M oc cr V oc M CO CO M M M N M O L(") N O O M M O M O M O N M N M O M O M O O M O D O N O O m m O CT O a) O O o 0 CT O m O m O O m O O O O CT O O LO O � U � fn y C�l C�l C�l C�l lb�lb�lb�lb�C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l�������tA�l tA�l C�l C�l co O y CO M CO V W N W N O LC) V N M W M M m CO CO M V CO I- O yL+ V p O V O I� (O W CO M N W CO M W M T r-- T CO L) CT V V V CO M V CO n H = O � M V I- W O O W O m V m LC) O m N I- o r- CO LC) N CO CO CO M V = co I- CO N N co W CO LC) CO I- M LC) L(") W r-- O N co W CY) co I- r- co r- O O _ ') a CO O V CO M co V co V co CO (T W M CT N CO V LC) (O M I- LC) LC) I� N L(") I- V N V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V LL. U Ci c"06 � N Q w m a CC � e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es�e�es� m � N ra LC) CO I W CT W CT O N M V LC) (O I- W m O N M V � U y.., O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N M M M co M o N y O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O = O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N t N LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL- LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. LL. `o N 0 � M � � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO (O (O (O (O (O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N 0 0 0 LC) LC) LC) N N I- r- N N N r- r- r- LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O O O O o o p = LC) LC) LC) LC) N I-- r- CO M W - M M M I-- I-- N I-- L(") O O O O O N LC) LC) LC) M CO M T V N o W (D M N I- LC) N O LC) LC) O O N O V CO CO - CO N CO CO O V LC) LC) (T (O (O I- N W r- W (O N O O N I-- LC) o a O N N M N N V C'') LC) LC) LC) o c' N M V co C'') V o N V CY) CY) CT CY) CT CT CT CT CT CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CY) CT CT CT CT CT 0) (T (T I� CO co co co co co co co co co M M M M M M M co co co co co co co co co co M Mi _ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o U C d Q E 0 C E � o 0 0 0 o O co co co co (O (O (O (O (O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O U N o 0 0 LC) LC) LC) N N I- r- N N N r- r- r- LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 E (, LC) LC) LC) LC) N I- r- CO co W - - co co co I- r- N r- LC) LC) O LC) o 0 0 0 o N m N LC) LC) L(") m CO Wr- V N o oO (O M N I- LC) N o LC) LC) o o W Q y V (O CO C`') N C`') C`') O V L(") L(") (T (O (O I' N oc [' oc (O N O O N r- LC) o Q N U d N CO CO I- CO N CO (T CO L(") O O L(") W (O N M V M W V LC) N V V O W (O co O r- V O (O N Oo V (T V W N (O o CO (O W o N N N � _ = I- (O CO CO X X X V V V �cl��cl� �cl�� O O CT CT W (O (O L(") V M N _ > O � � Q- EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA � o �-+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .V O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O a L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O o CO O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a� O O «O O O O «O «O «O O «O «) «) O «) O «) «) «) «) O O O O O «O O LC) O O r o d N V I- m M LC) W LC) W N CO «) O «) O CO N CT O M CT I- CO I� W yr C I- W co W W CT M M O O N N M M V V LC) CO I- W CT O N -o fC yr Q - - - - - - - - - - - - a m Z! d U U z, C � EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA N � b�D a� - O n � � o a> o _ _ LC) CO I- W m O N M V LC) CO I� W CT O N M V LC) (O I- W m O N M - o � L7 C U `y o O O O O N N N N N N N N N N CO M CO co co O N N a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C14 R r 0 N 12 If/ ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHUTAVISTA Name of Debt Issued: 2006 COP Civic Center Phase II and Nature Center PAR Amount: $20,325,000 $18.1 m—CC Phase II and$2.2m-Nature Center Net Interest Cost: 4.32% Purpose of Debt(Project): Construction & Improvements to Civic Center Complex and Nature Center Sources of Funds: Uses of Funds: PAR Amount: $20,325,000.00 Project Fund: $17,183,964.00 OID (Discount): ($77,820.40) Capitalized Interest: $1,159,250.10 OIP(Premium): $0.00 Cost of Issuance: $405,884.21 Underwriter's Discount: $225,622.54 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $1,272,458.75 TOTAL SOURCES: $20,247,179.60 TOTAL USES: $20,247,179.60 Prepayment Periods(Call Dates): Disclosure Due Dates: March 1, 2016 and thereafter: 100.00% March 1 —Financial Statements and Tables 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17 & 18 in Official Statement(pages C-2 and C-3) Financing Team: • Finance Director: Maria Kachadoorian • City Attorney:Ann Moore • Financial Advisor: Suzanne Harrell, Harrell&Company Advisors, LLC • Bond Counsel: Bob Whalen, Stradling,Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Bond Insurer:AMBAC • Competitive Bid Purchaser: Morgan Stanley • Investment Providers: FSA Capital Management Services LLC(Reserve Fund) • Dissemination Agent: BNY Western Trust Company, N.A. • Disclosure Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Trustee: BNY Western Trust Company, N.A. • Disclosure Administrator: NBS 2045 COP Debt Share by Funding Souris Sia 5110 Nk Nlo- HAP w v N td 1 sk—F., .deli •GNWI.[ .(WW_6Wwa w.[vml 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 131 13 ATTACHMENT 4 M N LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) O LC) LC) O O O O O O N C) LC) I-- � � r-- I- r- r- r- r- r- r- LC) LC) LC) O N N N N I-- LC) I-- r-- LC) O O O O O L() �0 I- oO oO oO oO W oO oO oO oO M oO r- i- r- L(") CO co N W co O L(") O O O 1� 0m, ++ N 00 O O 00 (O co 00 O LC) 00 LC) N N N CO I� Cb ZW O m co � m co LC) N O LC) O N o I� N V M O N M M m LC) V CO N oO co W L(") V O O co N O V N V oO - C I O V N N N - (= C>D C:5 - O cr N C>D W - C>D W N m O V N LC) CO LC) M M CO M r- N O I- r- r- r- r-- CO I-. r-. r-. CO I- CO (O I- CO 7 CO I- CO I- O O O O O O O O O O 61 M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6) _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LO = M Q EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA b4 N CO 00 LC) L() O NN i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i . . I- LC) N ~ N V V 6f d _ y 000 M LO O U C�l C�l C�l lb�lb�lb�lb���C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l C�l 16�16�16�16�16�lu�lu�lu�lu�lu����lu�C�l as M LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O m m m m 6'f I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- N N O O O LC) m m m m CD `y CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO (O ; LC) LC) LC) N M M V (A _ e LC) LC) CO O V 00 LC) LC) I-- M LC) LC) LC) M N V M L() d \ O N N � O I� � N C'M N I� CT � I� V LC) � I� N U O (O (O 00 LC) N V LC) I-- M V LC) LC) O (O O LC) m M (O CD 00 y = O M Z � EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA b4 CO LC) V V LC) N 00 V r- r- N O 00 CO M N m M V M a) V 00 O CO 00 V O CO CO I� V (O N L(") I- N O V W CO I� L(") O W L(") CO CT I- CT N I- L(") CO 00 M I- V V 00 � LC) CO V I� M LC) LC) CO CO CO I- 00 CO CO N N CO N M M M I� � LC) W M V m M LC) N W O m W W W m N O W M W CO I- N r- m M m CD LL o - - 0 0 Lo-N CO N cl N cr O O LC) N LC) N cl O cr M V LC) LC) cl cl O I� 00 CO 00 C) CO CO CO m I- 00 LC) m I- m LC) LC) 00 LC) CO LC) I-. r-. r-. LC) LC) 00 LC) m 1- CD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 mr U- cl I� CT CT CT m m m m m m m m m m m CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT m m m m m M N a O N CD L � a N _ _ = O CO CO co CLC) I- N CO co co C>D O N V LO V I� M oO CO M O CT V N CO L() = d � CO N L(") CO I- V N I� V O I� � W � L(") I- � V N CO CO W � � r- N V CO (:7f U LC) I-. O O (O M V M O O V CO co LC) W r- M W N r- O r- O O r- LC) CO CO N O f..1 = L(") L(") O V N N I� N O V LC) W LC) W W V O V N 00 M M CO N V O O CD LC) - CT M cr cr cr M O N I� N O N oc oc oc CT I� O O oc oc N W M � O _ V 00 r- 00 00 � � rl-- 00 00 00 rl-- 00 00 W r- r- W r- r- I- W W W r- r- W r- W O U O O O ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; a1 O T = `5 O o a L (� Eil EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA m � = N I� W m O � N M V LC) CO I� W CT O N M V LC) CO I- 00 m O N M V L(") CO � C j N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M o U N y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL- LL. LL_ LL. LL. LL. LL. LL- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL- LL- LL- `o z 7 � (Q M � N 'a N LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) O LC) LC) O O O O O O m = LC) I- r- r- r- I- r- r- r- r- r- r-- LC) LC) LC) O N N N N I- LC) I- r- LC) O O O O O p I- W W W W W W oO oO oO co oO r- r- r- LC) CO M N W M r- O LC) O O O +O+ N W m CT W (D M W O LC) W LC) N N N CO I� W M O m m M LC) N O LC) O N O I- N V CO O N CO CO CT) LC) V CO N 00 CO W LC) V O O W N O V N V 00 - I- a O ~ V N N N O C>D O O cr N C>D W 06 00 N CT O V N LC) CO LC) M M CO M r- - C j O I- r- r- � r-- CO I- r- r- CO I- CO (O I- CO O - O - 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � C d Q E C E � O N LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) O LC) LC) O O O O O O cn U L(") I- L(") L(") L(") O N N N N I- L(") I- L(") O O O O O Ew W W W W W W W W M W r- r- r- Lo CO M N W M r- O LC) O O O N N W m CT W (O M W O LC) W LC) N N N CO I- W M O m m M LC) N O LC) O n N [' N V C') (:: N C') C') cr LC) V CO N oc M oc LC) V O O W N O V N V oc --L r-- Q N d V I- Nrl-- LC) oO O O m I- M 00 co co N CT LC) CT I- LC) LC) W 00 CO M r- w V O M N O CT I- LC) V N O r- LC) M O W LC) N CT LC) N 00 LC) N CT LC) I� M (T V _ = 00 00 00 00 1- r- r r- CO CO CO (O L(") LC) LC) V V V M M M N N N O o- cfj u Q- EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA � o �-+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o a L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w O O LC) O LC) O LC) O O O O O LC) LC) O O LC) LC) O O LC) LC) LC) O LC) O LC) LC) O O O r o 41 N V M LC) CO W m M LC) I- m M (D m V W V V W LC) W N CO cu �+ C V V V V V L(") LC) LC) LC) LC) CO CO (O CO I� r- r W 00 r- r- ;; 00 00 CT a) w u � EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA N � b�D a� - O n � � o a> o _ _ I- W CT O N M V L(") CO I� W CT O N CO V L(") CO I- W CT O N co V L11 CO o �� Vi O O O N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M � O N N a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C14 R r 0 N 14 If/ ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHUTAVISTA Name of Debt Issued: 2010 COP Civic Center Phase III and Corporation Yard Refunding (2000 COP) PAR Amount: $29,355,000 $12.8m—CC Phase III and$16.5m-Corp Yard Refunding Net Interest Cost: 5.57% Purpose of Debt(Project): Construction & Improvements to Civic Center Complex and refunding of COP Corporation Yard Construction & Improvements i _- Sources of Funds: Uses of Funds: PAR Amount: $29,355,000.00 Project Fund: $9,347,515.00 OID (Discount): ($709,819.05) Capitalized Interest: $1,867,819.82 OIP(Premium): $0.00 Cost of Issuance: $434,247.73 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $1,889,067.91 Escrow Fund: $16,390,035.05 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $2,494,631.26 TOTAL SOURCES: $30,534,248.86 TOTAL USES: $30,534,248.86 Prepayment Periods(Call Dates): Disclosure Due Dates: March 1,2020 and thereafter: 100.00% April 1 —Financial Statements and Tables 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 & 11 in Official Statement(page D-2) Financing Team: • Finance Director: Maria Kachadoorian • City Attorney: Bart Miesfeld • Financial Advisor: Julio Morales, Public Financial Management • Bond Counsel: Bob Whalen, Stradling,Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Negotiated Issuance: E.J. De La Rosa &Co., Inc. • Dissemination Agent: U.S. Bank Trust N.A. • Disclosure Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Trustee: U.S. Bank Trust N.A. • Disclosure Administrator: NBS 2010 COP Debt Share by Funding Source Uq 5750 clso 5-90 wso s •4wa F.y NOW •4W100 lnx.,t •G,wM F..1 •Prorc -SOprWNl.lp.q [fr1 Tm41 IfrlT.l! IfN1YM) fl{IMu nl1 IC{IMS.IIq If{rw,..11 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 133 15 ATTACHMENT 4 M (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (00000000 on I� N N N N I- r- r- r- N N N I- r- Nr- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q, a7 0) (O (O (O (O a0 ('7 ('7 a0 ('7 ('7 a0 O In O O O In O N 0 0 0 0 V O) V a0 O N Ln O O r- O N N N (O ('7 ('7 I� Cl (O O) N Ln O In (O N (h r- O O In r- r- N r- V O) N N V I- O O O O O 00 (O LO j L� V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V 0 0 _ C — — — N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C Q V ((O U) N_ N y CO N V d N N N C � U a' ov ° m0) oo °ONL � (O - o N (0rnoi mrn (Oro (n ° (navr) (0 ,t ) f0 a0 V (O 00 In V a0 O (O O) a0 a0 O In In (O N (O O CO t ('7 In a0 V V I� O In CO (O O O) (O V In In O O) I- d o LL o N V N P- (O V a0 P- O (O (O V P- a0 a0 O) I- N a0 In I� n f (O Lo a0 r— V a0'(O (O (O a0'V I-r— In r- (O (O Lo Lo V V r- .U+ W 0 W V ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 co LL W M ('7 ('7 O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) a) c, d c, U U U cOvrnrnv ° ° Lirn ((OrnMomr- o ((°oU) ((o � U) mU)_ O) V 00 LO O) O (O � O O (O CO (O O O O) ('7 N ('7 00 V O ('7 CO (O ('7 N CO V Cr) (O In O M I- N V O) O) 00 N 3 O) Ln V O Ln N Cr) N Ln O V V N O) O V o Ly o C V y M O co Lo N_ oc oc Lf N C) LO In 0 N � � cr) C U _ -o } t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t»t» C In 00 I- (h N N O In O) N N N O CO V O) CO CO _ U N V 00 I- (O r, O N O O (h V V O (n (O In (h In 00 � d LO O) V O) O (O ('7 U) N N N N (n O O) U) V (n ('7 O I- V O) V V O N (O (O (O CO O V LO (O (O O Q e LL a CO(h N V � V (O ('7 (O O) (O O (n (h O I� (h a0 (� a0'N V V V LO V(0 (0 LO V V V LO V LO LO LO V('7 OD a0 a0 a0 V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V OO O d N N N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO O c%j V � N U V O) O) O) ('7 V V (O I, V LO V V O CO (O O) ('7 N O (O ('7 CO V (O O I- U) (O N O) CO CO O (O ('7 V (O V j O r, () O) (O V CO N ('7 CO O) ('7 M M O O LO O) ('7 0 V N O) N O ('7 CO N I- r- O (O (O O) V V O) CO I- (O (O CO O) O O e LL e N I, O V (O V N ('7 (O O) V (n N N a0 V O a0 ('7 ('7 O) O O O N I-r- N N N N N N O LL- W O O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) _ N (n In In LO LO LO LO LO LO LO In In (n LO In LO In LO O ( m L o ) co a0 O) O O y O O O O O O O O O O N 7 V LO (O r- 00 O) O N 7 ` Z 15 O O O O O O O O O O O O 5. N O Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o O D LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U — (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (o (o (o O O O O O O O a co N N N N r- r- r- r- N N N r- r N r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iC O) (O (O (O (O 00 ('7 ('7 00 ('7 ('7 a0 O In O O O (n O O N 0 0 0 0 V V a0 ('7 a0 O) V a0 O N (n O O � O >. O O) N N N (O ('7 ('7 I- a0 (O O) N (n O (n (O N (h I- O O) N ~ LO r- r- N r- V O) N N V I- O O O O O a0 (O LO (p (p O I- r- O) O) OD O) a0 O) O) O) OD O) O) O) O) O) O) O) OD OD LO LO o > Lr V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V O O (j d - - — N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q m O U (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O (O O O O O O O O E V N N N N r- r- r- r- N N N r- r- N r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) (O (O (O (O a0 ('7 ('7 a0 ('7 ('7 a0 O LO O O O LO O N 0 0 0 0 V V a0 ('7 a0 O) V a0 O N LO O O r- O y O) N N N (O ('7 ('7 I� a0 (O O) N L( O (n (O N (h P- O O) O V i (n �r- r- (O N V O) I- N V N Lo O O(n (O (O O a0 (O (n y O I- r- r- M O (O LO O) N (O O) N V LO (O (O (O V M O LO O V! V V V V ('7 ('7 N O O) O) OD I- (O LO V ('7 N } - O _ - R LL m Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 �° d '> o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i o R N S (n(noo(noo(n(nooLOLOLOoo(n(no N C (n 00 M I� M O r N O) I- LO (h N N ('7 V LO V O O O O O N ('7 ('7 V V LO (O r— a0 O) O N O) O CO C4 CNF C4 76 O j O O C — O a0 O) O N ('7 V LO (O r— 00 O) O N ('7 0 0. O V y N N N N N N N N N N ('7 ('7 ('7 ('7 C,4 N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a c N 16 Al lgt_MlVltll I 2t REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ SUCCESSOR AGENCY BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OUTSTANDING ISSUANCES UPDATED DECEMBER 2013 ciry of CHULAVISTA 2@14 05 01 Agenda Paeket ATTACHMENT 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 136 18 ATTACHMENT 4 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/SUCCESSOR AGENCY Total Annual Debt Service Payments (Principal and Interest) Fiscal Year 2006 Series A TABS 2006 Series B TABS 2008 TABS 2005 ERAF 2006 ERAF Total FY 2008 $ 1,023,689.33 $ 1,000,327.14 $ - $ 99,438.00 $ 123,872.98 $ 2,247,327.45 FY 2009 $ 1,025,545.00 $ 1,004,365.00 $ 104,393.93 $ 101,752.00 $ 128,158.50 $ 2,364,214.43 FY 2010 $ 1,027,145.00 $ 1,002,965.00 $ 963,636.26 $ 98,704.00 $ 123,886.50 $ 3,216,336.76 FY 2011 $ 1,027,945.00 $ 1,000,433.76 $ 963,636.26 $ 100,570.00 $ 124,558.50 $ 3,217,143.52 FY 2012 $ 1,027,945.00 $ 1,001,733.76 $ 963,636.26 $ 102,118.00 $ 124,934.50 $ 3,220,367.52 FY 2013 $ 1,027,145.00 $ 1,001,033.76 $ 963,636.26 $ 98,354.00 $ 125,002.50 $ 3,215,171.52 FY 2014 $ 1,027,845.00 $ 999,433.76 $ 963,636.26 $ 99,526.00 $ 124,749.00 $ 3,215,190.02 FY 2015 $ 1,027,420.00 $ 1,001,433.76 $ 1,538,636.26 $ 100,356.00 $ 124,169.00 $ 3,792,015.02 FY 2016 $ 1,025,870.00 $ 1,001,758.76 $ 1,540,636.26 $ 100,880.00 $ 128,278.50 $ 3,797,423.52 FY 2017 $ 1,026,270.00 $ 1,000,358.76 $ 1,536,636.26 $ - $ 126,804.00 $ 3,690,069.02 FY 2018 $ 1,025,030.00 $ 1,001,608.76 $ 1,536,836.26 $ $ - $ 3,563,475.02 FY 2019 $ 1,027,598.76 $ 1,001,358.76 $ 1,536,036.26 $ $ $ 3,564,993.78 FY 2020 $ 1,023,061.26 $ 999,608.76 $ 1,539,236.26 $ $ $ 3,561,906.28 FY 2021 $ 1,027,461.26 $ 1,000,693.76 $ 1,536,236.26 $ $ $ 3,564,391.28 FY 2022 $ 1,024,430.00 $ 999,993.76 $ 1,537,236.26 $ $ $ 3,561,660.02 FY 2023 $ 1,024,890.00 $ 1,002,325.00 $ 1,536,092.50 $ $ $ 3,563,307.50 FY 2024 $ 1,022,990.00 $ 1,001,637.50 $ 1,538,122.50 $ $ $ 3,562,750.00 FY 2025 $ 1,024,515.00 $ 1,003,850.00 $ 1,537,862.50 $ $ $ 3,566,227.50 FY 2026 $ 1,024,240.00 $ 1,003,700.00 $ 1,540,456.26 $ $ $ 3,568,396.26 FY 2027 $ 536,230.00 $ 526,187.50 $ 1,536,076.26 $ $ $ 2,598,493.76 FY 2028 $ 538,690.00 $ 526,250.00 $ 1,539,226.26 $ $ $ 2,604,166.26 FY 2029 $ - $ - $ 1,540,351.26 $ $ $ 1,540,351.26 FY 2030 $ $ $ 1,538,431.26 $ $ $ 1,538,431.26 FY 2031 $ $ $ 1,539,175.00 $ $ $ 1,539,175.00 FY 2032 $ $ $ 1,537,606.26 $ $ $ 1,537,606.26 FY 2033 $ $ $ 1,538,725.00 $ $ $ 1,538,725.00 FY 2034 $ $ $ 1,540,775.00 $ $ $ 1,540,775.00 FY 2035 $ $ $ 1,539,975.00 $ $ $ 1,539,975.00 FY 2036 $ $ $ 1,536,325.00 $ $ $ 1,536,325.00 FY 2037 $ $ $ 1,539,825.00 $ $ $ 1,539,825.00 Total $ 20,565,955.61 $ 20,081,057.26 $ 40,303,090.37 $ 1,002,474.00 $ 1,254,413.98 $ 83,206,991.22 TABS=Tax Allocation Bonds. These bonds are issued in conjunction with a redevelopment project. Please see"Definition of Terms"for more information. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 137 19 ATTACHMENT 4 co on n. J (A 0 C O N 0 0 0 -Cu E CD W co N r O d7 — 0 W � � x CC � N o Il N N N <C J J O M cEOZ Al ;_ E E > o O 0 X U 9EBl AA M M N N m O N N cf _0 C o ,7EDl A� Y O O O 0. O O O bEOZ A� C, o 0 0 o a s u M M EEBa Ai ¢ 0 M M p >, d N N N M M N 00 O O O X .N 7 2i 2i 2i U O m U O C C C a z z z cl) o cl) E ° M IEOl AO 0 a d 0 0 0EOZ Aj a U � °O N o 0 0 O C O M (O Q U ° Q � ° CC N .0 O+ fC O hj x 0 m Q(.� N 6ZOZ Al '^ m ���° a ° o M � , m � �a o W = m � � �w E 0)5 = BZOZ Ai ° d ¢ m m E c 0. caoZ Ai o 0 CD S o E o �U M N Nk ° N o m w Q C5 9ZOZ Aj m M ) ° °E ° r-- r-- o(6 SZOZ Al r a' m 0 m 0 m �a co co co w -0 o w -0 o °aQ 3 bZOZ A] d ° ° °O °O CD 0 E w E w ° N N N -O 0 cn -O 0 (n (6 N C O L EZOZ A] m o o N m ° m ° m 0 r H O O O C O m L 0 O M t '� C O ZZOZ A] 0 0 Xn Xn M '� N N (n I101AO ° ° 0 ° ° ° U U m m E N O O m N � O = N U) O CC (On N m C m L-� N N iz N x oaoiAi N _ ° = M � o E E o 6101 Aj 0 o 0 U Q 0- o Q o-° -15 -° 22, OIOZAJ • a a � o ¢ amp ¢ aE 0 a 0 0 0 0 ° a) 0 0 o o x v CC CC .� -0 :F -0o -0 L -0 . m 0 J) l) Q Q) o 0 o N o 0 0.1 IIOZ AJ � - - E m -0 0 -0 0 -0 0 -o m � a 0 0 0 0 .� °� 2 .- 2) �, N 0 y 9I OZ Ai C) � 5 — 5 a 5� o m - OR a '0 U N d o O cn cn cn cn -E . E w SIRAj � � cc a� � � � � � � � a0 w o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N Cl m ca CO m F- m-0 0 cn m-0 0 CO° m� O a N u EI OZ AO CO H CO W c 0 0 d Q) a N aloaA� c a N v) v) Q) E cn o d o V m 0 m m 0 w T DIOZ A� -0 . m° - o d m°V) 0 C7 a H m o H m m u cc H .� c a � ¢ oa ¢ 5 o. W y BOOI A� m 0 0 m - m 0 0 m c mN m a0 .00 _ � co a r. a °— o m °— o m m on 0 y © v v o v o v v aC J -° o o o n o o ¢ ¢W 0 p p O W Ln H O O 1RO1111W m 0 0 0 :m 0 0 0 Q H H O o o z o o O O O O N 20 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHUTAVI5TA Name of Debt Issued: 2006 Senior TAB Refunding Bonds Series A PAR Amount: $13,435,000 True Interest Cost: 4.96% Purpose of Debt(Project): Refinance 1994 A Bonds(The Bayfront/Town ►� Centre Project Area) Sources of Funds: Uses of Funds: Bond Proceeds Refunding Escrow Deposits PAR Amount: $13,435,000.00 Cash Deposits: $1,072.25 OID(Discount) ($96,585.40) Open Market Purchases: $13,191,671.50 Other Sources of Funds Other Fund Deposits Existing Debt Service: $1,306,246.01 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $1,027,945.00 Delivery Date Expenses Cost of Issuance: $158,470.25 Underwriter's Discount: $120,915.00 Bond Insurance: $271,470.61 TOTAL SOURCES: $14,771,544.61 TOTAL USES: $14,771,544.61 Prepayment Periods(Call Dates): Disclosure Due Dates: September 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013: 102.00% February 15—Financial Statements and Tables 1-6 in Official September 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014: 101.00% Statement(pages D-2 and D-3) September 1, 2014 and thereafter: 100.00% Financing Team: • Finance Director: Maria Kachadoorian • City Attorney:Ann Moore • Financial Advisor: Suzanne Harrell, Harrell &Company Advisors, LLC • Bond Counsel: Bob Whalen, Stradling,Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Bond Insurer:AMBAC Assurance Corporation • Negotiated Issuance: E.J. De La Rosa &Co., Inc. • Investment Providers: Rabo Bank International • Dissemination Agent: U.S. Bank, N.A. • Disclosure Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Trustee: U.S. Bank,N.A. • Disclosure Administrator: NBS 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 139 21 ATTACHMENT 4 2006 Senior TAB Refunding Bonds Series A Scheduled Debt Service Period' Principal Interest Annual Total Period Principal Interest 2007 $ 395,000.00 $ 628,689.33 $ 1,023,689.33 2008 $ 460,000.00 $ 565,545.00 $ 1,025,545.00 2009 $ 480,000.00 $ 547,145.00 $ 1,027,145.00 2010 $ 500,000.00 $ 527,945.00 $ 1,027,945.00 2011 $ 520,000.00 $ 507,945.00 $ 1,027,945.00 2012 $ 540,000.00 $ 487,145.00 $ 1,027,145.00 2013 $ 565,000.00 $ 462,845.00 $ 1,027,845.00 2014 $ 590,000.00 $ 437,420.00 $ 1,027,420.00 2015 $ 615,000.00 $ 410,870.00 $ 1,025,870.00 2016 $ 640,000.00 $ 386,270.00 $ 1,026,270.00 2017 $ 665,000.00 $ 360,030.00 $ 1,025,030.00 2018 $ 695,000.00 $ 332,598.76 $ 1,027,598.76 2019 $ 720,000.00 $ 303,061.26 $ 1,023,061.26 2020 $ 755,000.00 $ 272,461.26 $ 1,027,461.26 2021 $ 785,000.00 $ 239,430.00 $ 1,024,430.00 2022 $ 820,000.00 $ 204,890.00 $ 1,024,890.00 2023 $ 855,000.00 $ 167,990.00 $ 1,022,990.00 2024 $ 895,000.00 $ 129,515.00 $ 1,024,515.00 2025 $ 935,000.00 $ 89,240.00 $ 1,024,240.00 2026 $ 490,000.00 $ 46,230.00 $ 536,230.00 2027 $ 515,000.00 $ 23,690.00 $ 538,690.00 TOTAL $ 13,435,000.00 $ 7,130,955.61 $ 20,565,955.61 'Period represents period ending September 1. 2006 Senior TAB{Series A}Scheduled Debt Service 51.20 SI.00 = S0.60 50.60 $0.40 $0.20 - 50.00 - – - - -- — -- x Fnncipul Interest 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 140 22 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHUTAVI5TA Name of Debt Issued: 2006 Subordinate TAB Refunding Bonds Series B PAR Amount: $12,325,000 _ True Interest Cost: 5.30% Purpose of Debt(Project): Refinance 1994 C &D Bonds The - - ` Bayfront/Town Centre Project Area) Sources of Funds: Uses of Funds: Bond Proceeds Refunding Escrow Deposits PAR Amount: $12,325,000.00 Cash Deposits: $796.22 OID(Discount) ($97,346.35) SLG/Purchases/Cash: $7,115,825.00 Other Sources of Funds Open Market Purchases: $5,254,157.89 Existing Debt Service: $833,151.36 Other Fund Deposits Debt Service Fund: $609,724.93 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $1,002,165.00 Delivery Date Expenses Cost of Issuance: $106,548.33 Underwriter's Discount: $191,037.50 TOTAL SOURCES: $13,670,529.94 TOTAL USES: $13,670,529.94 Prepayment Periods(Call Dates): Disclosure Due Dates: October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013: 102.00% February 15-Financial Statements and Tables 1-6 in Official October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014: 101.00% Statement(pages D-2 and D-3) October 1, 2014 and thereafter: 100.00% Financing Team: • Finance Director: Maria Kachadoorian • City Attorney:Ann Moore • Financial Advisor: Suzanne Harrell, Harrell &Company Advisors, LLC • Bond Counsel: Bob Whalen, Stradling,Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Bond Insurer: None • Negotiated Issuance: E.J. De La Rosa &Co., Inc. • Investment Providers: Citigroup Financial Products • Dissemination Agent: U.S. Bank, N.A. • Disclosure Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Trustee: U.S. Bank, N.A. • Disclosure Administrator: NBS 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 141 23 ATTACHMENT 4 2006 Subordinate TAB Refunding Bonds Series B Scheduled Debt Service Period' Principal Interest Annual Total 2007 $ 290,000.00 $ 710,327.14 $ 1,000,327.14 2008 $ 410,000.00 $ 594,365.00 $ 1,004,365.00 2009 $ 425,000.00 $ 577,965.00 $ 1,002,965.00 2010 $ 440,000.00 $ 560,433.76 $ 1,000,433.76 2011 $ 460,000.00 $ 541,733.76 $ 1,001,733.76 2012 $ 480,000.00 $ 521,033.76 $ 1,001,033.76 2013 $ 500,000.00 $ 499,433.76 $ 999,433.76 2014 $ 525,000.00 $ 476,433.76 $ 1,001,433.76 2015 $ 550,000.00 $ 451,758.76 $ 1,001,758.76 2016 $ 575,000.00 $ 425,358.76 $ 1,000,358.76 2017 $ 605,000.00 $ 396,608.76 $ 1,001,608.76 2018 $ 635,000.00 $ 366,358.76 $ 1,001,358.76 2019 $ 665,000.00 $ 334,608.76 $ 999,608.76 2020 $ 700,000.00 $ 300,693.76 $ 1,000,693.76 2021 $ 735,000.00 $ 264,993.76 $ 999,993.76 2022 $ 775,000.00 $ 227,325.00 $ 1,002,325.00 2023 $ 815,000.00 $ 186,637.50 $ 1,001,637.50 2024 $ 860,000.00 $ 143,850.00 $ 1,003,850.00 2025 $ 905,000.00 $ 98,700.00 $ 1,003,700.00 2026 $ 475,000.00 $ 51,187.50 $ 526,187.50 2027 $ 500,000.00 $ 26,250.00 $ 526,250.00 TOTAL $ 12,325,000.00 $ 7,756,057.26 $ 20,081,057.26 'Period represents period ending October 1. 2006 Subordinate TAB(Series B) Scheduled Debt Service SI.Yo st.00 Soso So.6o so.ao Selo 9z M ■Principal z Interest 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 142 24 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF CHUTAVI5TA Name of Debt Issued: 2008 TAB Refunding Bonds PAR Amount: $21,625,000 r l ot Hr True Interest Cost: 4.93% Purpose of Debt(Project): Refinance 2000 TABS and to provide funds for redevelopment activities. Sources of Funds: Uses of Funds: Bond Proceeds Refunding Escrow Deposits PAR Amount: $21,625,000.00 Cash Deposits: $0.64 OID(Discount) ($401,835.80) Open Market Purchases: $15,835,267.00 Other Sources of Funds Other Fund Deposits 2000 Bonds on Deposit: $3,239,043.76 Debt Service Reserve Fund: $1,540,775.00 2000 DSRF+Accrued Interest: $1,233,914.23 Delivery Date Expenses 2000 Debt Service Fund: $481,088.23 Cost of Issuance: $216,010.20 Underwriter's Discount: $177,325.00 Bond Insurance: $636,788.83 Other Uses of Funds Street Improvements: $800,000.00 Repay City Loan: $3,732,000.00 2000 Bonds Redevelopment: $3,239,043.75 TOTAL SOURCES: $26,177,210.42 TOTAL USES: $26,177,210.42 Prepayment Periods(Call Dates): Disclosure Due Dates: September 1, 2019: 100.00% March 31 —Financial Statements and Tables 1-7 in Official Statement(page E-2) Financing Team: • Finance Director: Maria Kachadoorian • City Attorney: Bart Meisfeld • Financial Advisor: Suzanne Harrell, Harrell &Company Advisors, LLC • Bond Counsel: Bob Whalen, Stradling,Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Bond Insurer: FSA • Negotiated Issuance: E.J. De La Rosa &Co., Inc. • Investment Providers: None • Dissemination Agent: U.S. Bank, N.A. • Disclosure Counsel: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth • Trustee: U.S. Bank, N.A. • Disclosure Administrator: NBS 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 143 25 ATTACHMENT 4 2008 TAB Refunding Bonds Scheduled Debt Service Period' Principal Interest Annual Total 2008 $ $ 104,393.93 $ 104,393.93 2009 $ $ 963,636.26 $ 963,636.26 2010 $ $ 963,636.26 $ 963,636.26 2011 $ $ 963,636.26 $ 963,636.26 2012 $ $ 963,636.26 $ 963,636.26 2013 $ $ 963,636.26 $ 963,636.26 2014 $ 575,000.00 $ 963,636.26 $ 1,538,636.26 2015 $ 600,000.00 $ 940,636.26 $ 1,540,636.26 2016 $ 620,000.00 $ 916,636.26 $ 1,536,636.26 2017 $ 645,000.00 $ 891,836.26 $ 1,536,836.26 2018 $ 670,000.00 $ 866,036.26 $ 1,536,036.26 2019 $ 700,000.00 $ 839,236.26 $ 1,539,236.26 2020 $ 725,000.00 $ 811,236.26 $ 1,536,236.26 2021 $ 755,000.00 $ 782,236.26 $ 1,537,236.26 2022 $ 785,000.00 $ 751,092.50 $ 1,536,092.50 2023 $ 820,000.00 $ 718,122.50 $ 1,538,122.50 2024 $ 855,000.00 $ 682,862.50 $ 1,537,862.50 2025 $ 895,000.00 $ 645,456.26 $ 1,540,456.26 2026 $ 930,000.00 $ 606,076.26 $ 1,536,076.26 2027 $ 975,000.00 $ 564,226.26 $ 1,539,226.26 2028 $ 1,020,000.00 $ 520,351.26 $ 1,540,351.26 2029 $ 1,065,000.00 $ 473,431.26 $ 1,538,431.26 2030 $ 1,115,000.00 $ 424,175.00 $ 1,539,175.00 2031 $ 1,165,000.00 $ 372,606.26 $ 1,537,606.26 2032 $ 1,220,000.00 $ 318,725.00 $ 1,538,725.00 2033 $ 1,280,000.00 $ 260,775.00 $ 1,540,775.00 2034 $ 1,340,000.00 $ 199,975.00 $ 1,539,975.00 2035 $ 1,400,000.00 $ 136,325.00 $ 1,536,325.00 2036 $ 1,470,000.00 $ 69,825.00 $ 1,539,825.00 TOTAL $ 21,625,000.00 $ 18,678,090.37 $ 40,303,090.37 'Period represents period ending September 1. 2008 TAB Scheduled Debt Service 51.80 51.60 51.40 a S1.20 S1.00 50.80 — so.6o 50.40 50.20 50.00 ■Principal 4 Interest 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 144 26 ATTACHMENT 4 CRA/ERAF Loan Program (All Project Areas) 10 Year Non-Callable As part of the effort to balance the budget of the State of California, redevelopment agencies across the state were obligated to make payments totaling $250 million to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). Individual ERAF payments were determined based on the Agency's tax increment as a proportion of the total tax increment of all agencies throughout the State. As part of the legislation that mandated the payment, the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) created the CRA/ERAF Loan Program,which allowed agencies to spread the payment over 10 years. 04-05 CRA/ERAF 05-06 CRA/ERAF Par$765,000 Par:$930,000 Total Annual Debt Date NIC:4.88% TIC:5.87% Service August 1,2006 $ 100,776.00 $ - $ 100,776.00 August 1,2007 $ 99,438.00 $ 123,872.98 $ 223,310.98 August 1,2008 $ 101,752.00 $ 128,158.50 $ 229,910.50 August 1,2009 $ 98,704.00 $ 123,886.50 $ 222,590.50 August 1,2010 $ 100,570.00 $ 124,558.50 $ 225,128.50 August 1,2011 $ 102,118.00 $ 124,934.50 $ 227,052.50 August 1,2012 $ 98,354.00 $ 125,002.50 $ 223,356.50 August 1,2013 $ 99,526.00 $ 124,749.00 $ 224,275.00 August 1,2014 $ 100,356.00 $ 124,169.00 $ 224,525.00 August 1,2015 $ 100,880.00 $ 128,278.50 $ 229,158.50 August 1,2016 $ - $ 126,804.00 $ 126,804.00 Total $ 1,002,474.00 $ 1,254,413.98 $ 2,256,887.98 CRA/ERAF Loan Program Scheduled Debt Service $0.25 so.zo A! 50.15 — 5o 10 60.05 so.00 ZZ ■04-05 CRAIERAF +05-06 CRAjfRAF 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 145 27 ATTACHMENT 4 Page Intentionally Left Blank 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 146 28 Al lgt_MlVltll I 2t CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTHER BONDED INDEBTEDNESS HUD SECTION 108 LOAN UPDATED DECEMBER 2013 ary of CHULAVISTA ATTACHMENT 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 148 30 ATTACHMENT 4 Department of Housing and Development(HUD) Section 108 Loan In 2006, the City of Chula Vista applied for and was awarded a Section 108 Loan for the Castle Park Infrastructure Improvement Project by the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). The Section 108 Loan is an"advance" of future Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement funds and, as such, debt service payments for the Section 108 Loan will be made with a portion of the City's annual CDBG entitlement for a period of 20 years. HUD 108 Consolidated Scheduled Debt Service Glenhaven Way Improvements Period' Principal Interest Annual Total 2009 $ 287,000.00 $ 512,647.98 $ 799,647.98 2010 $ 302,000.00 $ 443,711.10 $ 745,711.10 2011 $ 317,000.00 $ 434,318.90 $ 751,318.90 2012 $ 332,000.00 $ 423,414.10 $ 755,414.10 2013 $ 349,000.00 $ 410,731.70 $ 759,731.70 2014 $ 367,000.00 $ 396,771.70 $ 763,771.70 2015 $ 385,000.00 $ 381,577.90 $ 766,577.90 ::ago 2016 $ 404,000.00 $ 364,907.40 $ 768,907.40 Oxford Street Improvements 2017 $ 425,000.00 $ 346,808.20 $ 771,808.20 t 2018 $ 446,000.00 $ 327,428.20 $ 773,428.20 2019 $ 468,000.00 $ 306,823.00 $ 774,823.00 2020 $ 492,000.00 $ 284,031.40 $ 776,031.40 2021 $ 516,000.00 $ 259,628.20 $ 775,628.20 2022 $ 542,000.00 $ 233,570.20 $ 775,570.20 _ 2023 $ 569,000.00 $ 205,765.60 $ 774,765.60 T 2024 $ 597,000.00 $ 176,234.50 $ 773,234.50 r 2025 $ 627,000.00 $ 144,892.00 $ 771,892.00 Second Avenue Improvements 2026 $ 659,000.00 $ 111,661.00 $ 770,661.00 2027 $ 692,000.00 $ 76,470.40 $ 768,470.40 2028 $ 724,000.00 $ 39,240.80 $ 763,240.80 TOTAL $ 9,500,000.00 $ 5,880,634.28 $ 15,380,634.28 t 'Period represents period ending August 1. HUD Section 108 Scheduled Debt Service 5690 50.80 50.70 SO.60 $0.50 $0.40 SON SON 50.10 ■Prinripol Interest 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 149 31 ATTACHMENT 4 Page Intentionally Left Blank 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 150 32 Al lgt_MlVltll I 2t CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTHER BONDED INDEBTEDNESS SPECIAL TAX DISTRICTS UPDATED DECEMBER 2013 ciry of CHULAVISTA 2@14 05 01 Agenda Paeket ATTACHMENT 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 152 34 ATTACHMENT 4 N on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( y O O O O (n LO co (h CO N N O CA O LO N V ('7 1- � (d 1� V CO V LO LO l0 LO V C � T = O C) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LZ m \ FR N N N N N N Za to to co cu cu cu cu cu y A A A A A A A A A H N (O (O N O C) O C) O CO O O O O N Y O C) C) C) O CD O CD O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (6 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U y + U U C � m CU m "a ou' CL 3 aii a'i ai a'i a'i a'i ai a'i � a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 � 3 3 w a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O O p y LO Ln c c o LO LD LO o j V W (00 M N CA a0 O 1:', - (6 N O - I- O) V N o� N co mot» r-, <»isli»t»crG- O m 6R v 0 O O O O O O O e ~ r- 0 O O O O O O o n v 0 O O O O O O O e o �O 4- LO LO o LD o 0 0 o ai ¢ V (O a0 (O CO (0 CO N LO O _ = V a0 N CA LD N (fl O) p m cO 3 Oa N Oa 0) N N CO (O ^ N GG GG ER GG E»GG CG m > E o LD O O O O O O O m O U a) (n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N Q Q N v d R P- V V N (O 1- O _ 0 (D 0 O_ N O N N tl N O O O O N 0 0 O U N Q 0 s - U o) 03 3 m U U Q N m C C a) cu m Q C C t4 U c -� of of-� Q E o aa)i ° m a p c o O -� -� 0 > aai e 0 s m m m I- W o) C m° a o o rn a) a) E y C t Clam N_ w w t 5 5 a) y o v a) (6 d' Q a) a O a) p p D 'c o rn -cu a) _ U _ 0 o in O O N U o g W CD CD d' (n O O ON U ~ m p m Q Q E cn O y ~ Q L/1 p U �° O c m O N m a) o. a m O a m U) ¢ c V E cu o m 0 O O O N O vl vi c s x N f2 Q m 0 0 0 O m .3 c m - _N N mxx E mxx CxxO o a U 03 C 0 0 a) a) N a) N (6 61 (n U) H O H H a ° s s x m Q m m w s N E-0 o o � a a) of O LO c)- c) N a) [O [O n L(n O U) U) a) _ fd Q N a) a a O C:) O O a a _ N Q E C C 0 0 0 - - X x J w ¢ _ O H 0 (V O Ch O X m 3 3 3 3 LL c-I L6 m j j ON O O O O („) O C C w Z Z Z Z cu c In C.1 a) a) a) U m O C p N N a) °-N' p y m m m m o N N Q W- of W U U U U c0 z° 7 ° ° ° ° U C N 35 ATTACHMENT 4 Special Tax District Descriptions District Name District/Improvement Description This district covers the Eastlake Greens and Trails developments. Facilities financed include street Assessment District 94-1 improvements and utilities along portions of South Greensview Drive, Hunte Parkway, and Olympic Parkway. Revenue Refunding Bonds Series A Bonds(refinanced as of Fiscal Year 2007-2002) This district covers the Salt Creek I development. Facilities financed include street improvements for Assessment District 90-1 a portion of East H Street and utilities serving the development along East H Street, Proctor Valley Road, and Mt. Miguel Road. This district covers the Eastlake Greens, Trails, and Vistas developments. Facilities financed include Assessment District 90-3 street improvements and utilities along North Greensview Drive, Masters Ridge Road, Clubhouse Drive, Greens ate Drive, Eastlake Parkway, and Hunte Parkway. Assessment District 91-1 This district covers a portion of the Eastlake Greens development and finances the widening of approximately 8,500 feet of Telegraph Canyon Road to a six-lane arterial street. Revenue Refunding Bonds Series B Bonds(refinanced as of Fiscal Year 2007-2002) This district covers the Eastlake Business Center Phase I and Eastlake Village Center. Assessment District 88-1 Improvements consist of the construction/expansion of Otay Lakes Road between Rutgers Avenue and Lane Avenue as a six-lane arterial street. This district covers the Otay Rio Business Park, Coors Amphitheater, and Knott's Soak City. Assessment District 90-2 Facilities financed include the widening of Main Street(Otay Valley Road)to a six-lane arterial street between 1-805 and Nirvana Avenue and includes landscaping, sidewalks, drainage, and some utilities. Assessment District 92-2 This district covers the Chula Vista Auto Park. Improvements include the construction of Auto Park Way, the extension of Brandywine Avenue south of Main Street, and utilities. Special Tax Revenue Refundin Bonds, Series 2073 This district (Improvement Area A) covers the Eastlake Woods and Vistas developments. Proceeds CFD No. 06-1 of the bonded indebtedness of will be used to finance backbone streets and associated 2002 Improvement Area A improvements (i.e. grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF Eastlake—Woods,Vistas improvements, and traffic enhancement facilities. General description of the proposed facilities include: East Olympic Parkway, West Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes Road, Eastlake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Proctor Valley Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, and traffic signals. This district covers the McMillin Otay Ranch Village Six development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF improvements, and interim CFD No. 2001-2 transportation facilities. General description of the proposed facilities include: Olympic Parkway, La Media Road South La Media Road Onsite, La Media Road Offsite, Birch Parkway Offsite, La Media 2003 Special Tax Bonds Bridge, East Olympic Parkway Bridge, and a neighborhood park. This CFD's bonding capacity may McMillin Otay Ranch Village 6 be used for the "Traffic Enhancement Program" within the greater eastern territories of Chula Vista. These transportation facilities will be traffic capacity adding improvements and could include the following projects: Telegraph Canyon Road (east of 1-805), Telegraph Canyon Road/1-805 on ramp improvements, Heritage Road (Olympic Parkway to Main Street), and East H Street Road widening. This district covers the Otay Ranch Village Six development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, sewer, streets, CFD No. 08-1 landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF Improvements, and traffic enhancement facilities. 2003 Special Tax Bonds General description of the proposed facilities include: La Media Road, Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes Otay Ranch Village Six Road, Birch Road, East Palomar Street, View Park Way, Magdalena Avenue, Santa Elisabeth Avenue, Sutter Buttes Street, and "Traffic Enhancement Program" facilities, and facilities to be financed by Development Impact Program Fees. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 154 36 ATTACHMENT 4 District Name District/improvement Description Special Tax Revenue Refundin Bonds, Series 2073(continued) This district covers the Otay Ranch Village Eleven development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, CFD No. 07-1 sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF improvements, and traffic 2004 Special Tax Bonds enhancement facilities. General description of the proposed facilities include: Hunte Parkway, Otay Ranch Village Eleven Eastlake Parkway, Kestral Falls Road, Hidden Path Drive, Windingwalk Street, Discovery Falls Drive, Birch Road, Exploration Falls Drive, Crossroads Street, Evening Star Street, "Traffic Enhancement Program"facilities, and other facilities to be financed by Development Impact Program Fees. This district (Improvement Area B) covers the Eastlake Land Swap development. Proceeds of the CFD No. 06-1 bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. 2004 Improvement Area B grading, sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF Improvements, and traffic Eastlake—Land Swap enhancement facilities. General description of the proposed facilities include: East Olympic Parkway, West Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes Road, Eastlake Parkway, Hunte Parkway, Proctor Valley Road, Telegraph Canyon Road, and traffic signals. Series 2005A Revenue Refundin Bonds This covers the Rancho del Rey development. Improvements financed include the construction of RAID 2005-1 East H Street, as well as water, sewer, and storm drain facilities in this area. It also financed the (AD 87-1 and AD 88-2) widening of approximately 6,600 feet of Otay Lakes Road to a four-lane arterial with associated storm drains,sidewalks, and landscaping. RAID 2005-2 This district covers the Otay Ranch Village One development. Facilities financed include street (AD 97-2) improvements and utilities along portions of Paseo Ranchero, Telegraph Canyon Road, East Palomar Street,and Monarche Drive. CFD No. 97-3 This district covers the Otay Ranch McMillin SPA One development. Improvements include the Otay Ranch McMillin SPA One construction and/or improvements of La Media Road, East Palomar Street, Santa Cora Avenue, Olympic Parkway, as well as a master utilities loop and pedestrian bridge. This district covers the Otay Ranch SPA One development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, sewer, streets, CFD No. 99-1 landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF Improvements, and pedestrian bridges. General Otay Ranch SPA One description of the proposed facilities include: Olympic Parkway Phases 1 and 2, Paseo Ranchero Phase 2, East Palomar, those facilities to be financed from proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees, those facilities to be financed from the proceeds of Pedestrian Bridges Development Impact Fees, slope landscaping, and environmental mitigation costs for Olympic Parkway. This district covers the Sunbow 11 (Villages 5 through 10) development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, CFD No. 2000-1 sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), and Public Facilities DIF Improvements. General Sunbow II (Villages 5—10) description of the proposed facilities include: Telegraph Canyon Road, Medical Center Road/Brandywine Avenue, East Palomar, Offsite sewer improvements, Olympic Parkway, Paseo Ladera, Medical Center Court, and those facilities to be financed from proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. This district covers the San Miguel Ranch development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will CFD No. 2001-1 be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, sewer, streets, Improvement Area A landscaping, utilities, etc.), and Public Facilities DIF Improvements, and interim transportation San Miguel Ranch facilities. General description of the proposed facilities include: Mt. Miguel Road East, Proctor Valley Road East, Calle La Marina, Paseo Vera Cruz, Calle La Quinta, and those facilities to be financed from the proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. This district covers McMillin Otay Ranch Village Seven development. Proceeds of the bonded CFD No. 12-1 indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, 2005 Special Tax Bonds sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), and Public Facilities DIF Improvements. General McMillin Otay Ranch Village description of the proposed facilities include: Magdalena Avenue, Wolf Canyon Loop, Bob Pletcher Seven Way, Santa Luna Way, Birch Road, and Rock Mountain Road. This CFD's bonding capacity may be used for offsite facilities to be financed by Transportation Development Impact Fees, Public Facilities Development Impact Fees, and Poggi Canyon and Salt Creek Sewer Fees. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 155 37 ATTACHMENT 4 District Name District/improvement Description This district covers the San Miguel Ranch development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, sewer, streets, CFD No. 2001-1 landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF improvements, and interim transportation facilities. 2005 Improvement Area B General description of the proposed facilities include: Mt. Miguel Road West, Proctor Valley Road San Miguel Ranch West, and those facilities to be financed from the proceeds of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. This CFD's bonding capacity may be used for certain SR-125 interim transportation facilities within the greater eastern territories of Chula Vista, which may include interim SR-125 and 1-805/East H Street additional on-ramp lane to 1-805. This district covers the Otay Ranch Village Seven development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, CFD No. 13-1 sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), public facilities, and Development Impact Fee 2006 Special Tax Bonds Improvements. General description of the proposed facilities include: La Media Road, Magdalena Otay Ranch Village Seven Avenue, backbone sewer and paving, Fleishbein Street, Kincaid Avenue, trail system/storm drain system, Santa Luna Street, and slope landscaping. This CFD's bonding capacity may be used for offsite facilities to be financed by Transportation Development Impact Fees and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. This district covers the Otay Ranch Village Eleven development. Proceeds of the bonded indebtedness will be used to finance backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e. grading, CFD No. 07-1 sewer, streets, landscaping, utilities, etc.), Public Facilities DIF improvements, and traffic 2006 Special Tax Bonds enhancement facilities. General description of the proposed facilities include: Hunte Parkway, Otay Ranch Village Eleven Eastlake Parkway, Kestral Falls Road, Hidden Path Drive, Windingwalk Street, Discovery Falls Drive, Birch Road, Exploration Falls Drive, Crossroads Street, Evening Star Street, "Traffic Enhancement Program"facilities,and other facilities to be financed by other Development Impact Program Fees. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 156 38 AT' ENO Lo ' DG T�1II N o W o k s � ra W 0 00 ¢ �• p n Q n O1 �7 rJ CO a C ' a t:1 •d' m� N O O O N J .. F< 0 0 as 000 rn Cit m m d O _ `l 000 a S N e G 0 000 cz Vms�v° Q 6 m � 81 •��`A o69p6a ol w 1 O 747 y s a,� � R 04" o c � �? z U w s o ao 0 N 39 HMENT 4 co Ilk ATT g U Eao 0 LU It z c� o � o LL V o� o �3 Q U LL. C1 l —X�f�, — AL Aft a l � Q N r V W O D LL D O M IN 0 v V r; 0 0 0 0 LL. o 0 U U U U rN 0000 4 ^ LL LL LL LL U U U V v 0000 L O ` ~•. `1 LL. y ZI O O V j LL LL U U °h 1 a \ R H It ` w co 8 O i F - moo o -- .,v ,r z oa N 40 Al lgt_MlVltll I 2t RESOURCES UPDATED DECEMBER 2013 j4z��� CITY OF CHULAVISTA 41 ATTACHMENT 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 160 42 ATTACHMENT 4 � • 1 1 • AMORTIZATION: the planned reduction of a debt obligation according to a stated maturity or redemption schedule. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (AD): is a community which is charged a special assessment against the parcels within it for certain public improvement projects. The special assessment may only be levied against parcels that have been identified as having received a direct and unique benefit from the public project. BOND: a security that represents an obligation to pay a specified amount of money on a specific date in the future, typically with periodic interest payments. BOND COUNSEL: an attorney (or firm of attorneys) retained by the issuer to give a legal opinion concerning the validity of the securities. The bond counsel's opinion usually addresses the subject of tax exemption. Bond counsel may prepare, or review and advise the issuer regarding authorizing resolutions or ordinances, trust indentures, official statements, validation proceedings and litigation. BOND INSURANCE: bond insurance is a type of credit enhancement whereby a monoline insurance company indemnifies an investor against a default by the issuer. In the event of a failure by the issuer to pay principal an interest in-full and on- time, investors may call upon the insurance company to do so. Once assigned, the municipal bond insurance policy generally is irrevocable. The insurance company receives an up-front fee, or premium, when the policy is issued. CALL OPTION: the right to redeem a bond prior to its stated maturity, either on a given date or continuously. The call option is also referred to as the optional redemption provision. Often a "call premium" is added to the call option as compensation to the holders of the earliest bonds called. Generally, the earliest callable bonds called carry a 102% premium, the next earliest is a 101% premium, and the balance of the bonds are called at par value. CAPITALIZED INTEREST: bond proceeds which are reserved to pay interest on an issue for a period of time early in the term of the issue. CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION (COP): a type of financing where an investor purchases a share of the lease revenues of a program or particular project. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD): more commonly known as Mello-Roos districts. These districts are created under the Mello-Roos Act, which gave local government agencies means of obtaining community funding. Funding obtained is usually used to finance public improvements and services. The tax is imposed on the property owners within the specific district benefiting from the public improvements and services. COMPETITIVE SALE: a method of sale where underwriters submit proposals for the purchase of a new issue of municipal securities and the securities are awarded to the underwriter presenting the best bid. The underwriting of securities in this manner is also referred to as a "public sale" or"competitive bid" CONTINUING DISCLOSURE: the requirement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for most issuers of municipal debt to provide current financial information to the informational repositories for access by the general marketplace. COST OF ISSUANCE: the costs incurred by the bond issuer during the planning and sale of securities. These costs include but are not limited to financial advisory and bond counsel fees, printing and advertising costs, rating agencies fees, and other expenses incurred in the marketing of an issue. DEBT SERVICE: the amount necessary to pay principal and interest requirements on outstanding bonds for a given year or series of years. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 161 43 ATTACHMENT 4 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND: the fund into which moneys are placed which may be used to pay debt service if pledged revenues are insufficient to satisfy the debt service requirements. The debt service reserve fund may be entirely funded with bond proceeds, or it may only be partly funded at the time of the issuance and allowed to reach its full funding requirement over time, due to the accumulation of pledged revenues. DEFAULT: the failure to pay principal or interest in full or on time. FINANCIAL ADVISOR: a consultant who advises an issuer on matters pertinent to a debt issue, such as structure, sizing, timing, marketing, pricing, terms, and bond ratings. FITCH INVESTORS SERVICE: a financial services company founded in 1913, which provides investors with an independent assessment of credit worthiness of debt obligations. INTEREST: the amount paid by a borrower as compensation for the use of borrowed money. This amount is generally calculated as an annual percentage of the principal amount. ISSUER: the legal entity that is borrowing money by issuing bonds. MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC.: a financial service company, which has provided ratings for municipal securities and other financial information to investors. NEGOTIATED SALE: the sale of a new issue of municipal securities by an issuer directly to an underwriter selected by the issuer. Among the primary points of negotiation of an issuer are the interest rate, call features and purchase price of the issue. The sale of a new issue of securities in this manner is also known as a negotiated underwriting. NET INTEREST COST (NIC): the overall rate of interest to be paid by the issuer over the life of the bonds. The method used to computing the interest expense to the issuer of bonds, which may serve as the basis of award in a competitive sale. NIC takes into account any premium or discount applicable to the issue, as well as the dollar amount of coupon interest payable over the life of the issue. OFFICIAL STATEMENT (FOS): a document published by the issuer which generally discloses material information on a new issue of municipal securities including the purposes of the issue, how the securities will be repaid, and the financial, economic and social characteristics of the issuing government. Investors may use this information to evaluate the credit quality of the securities. ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT (OID Discount): the amount by which the public offering price of a security at the time of its original issuance is at a price lower than its PAR amount, or face value. ORIGINAL ISSUE PREMIUM (OID Premium): the amount by which the public offering price of the security at the time of its original issuance exceeded its PAR amount, or face value. PAR AMOUNT: the stated or face value of a security. The PAR amount can also be viewed as the original debt of the bond offering. PLEDGED ASSETS: assets that are guaranteed by the issuer as security for the bonds PREPAYMENT PERIOD (CALL DATES): the date on which the security can be redeemed before maturity. If there is a benefit to refinancing the issue, the bond may be redeemed on the call date at the PAR or at a small premium to PAR. PRINCIPAL: the face amount or par value of a security payable on the maturity date. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 162 44 ATTACHMENT 4 PROJECT FUND: a fund, sometimes referred to as a "construction fund", under the bond contract in which bond proceeds and other available moneys are deposited pending disbursement to pay costs of the financed project. REFUNDING: a procedure whereby an issuer refinances an outstanding bond issue by issuing new bonds. STANDARD & POOR'S CORPORATION (S&P): a financial service company that provides ratings for municipal securities and other financial information to investors. TAX ALLOCATION BONDS (TAB): bonds issued in conjunction with a redevelopment project. The taxes pledged to their repayment come from the increase of assessed value over and above a pre-established base. The redevelopment creates this added value, known as the tax increment. TRUE INTEREST COST (TIC): a measure of the interest cost of an issue that accounts for the time value of money. Under this method of computing the interest expense to the issuer of bonds, true interest cost is defined as the rate, compounded semi-annually, necessary to discount the amounts payable on the respective principal and interest payment dates to the purchase price received for the new issue of bonds. TERM: with respect to a single bond, the period of time until the maturity date of the bond. With the respect to an issue, the period until the maturity date of the last bond of the issue to mature. UNDERWRITER: purchaser of the bonds from the issuer with the intent to resell the bonds to investors. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 163 45 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 164 MW,- Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis Leveraging Unique to Compete Globally Executive Summary%�Ww-4 0%; qw:zft CITY OF CHULAV[STA August 2013 SDGE connected "This study was partially supported by the Chula Vista Local Government Partnership, AWWW which is funded by California utility ratepayers and administered by San Diego Gas & A Sernpra.Energy utiuty' Electric, under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission." Agenda Packet Page Acknowledgements Tom Adler Charlie Adolphe Leo Alarcon City of Chula Vista Adolphe Commercial Real Estate South County Career Center Jason Anderson Sean Barr Dr. Ron Baza CleanTECH San Diego San Diego Regional EDC Southwestern College Wolf Bielas Andy Berg Paul Borden RSID Technologies National Electrical Contractors Assoc. Otay Land Company Kenneth Brown Efrem Bycer Daniel Canavan Leviton San Diego Regional EDC Nypro Victor Castillo James Clark Tracy Clark Southwestern College San Diego Reg'I Chamber of Commerce Voit Commercial Michael Derr Michele Dingle Scott Finn DNP United Technologies Southwestern College Bob Friar,Sr. Todd Galarneau John Giaquinta Chula Vista Electric Company The Corky McMillan Companies Data Center&Colocation Cindy Gompper-Graves Linda Greenberg Gary Halbert South County EDC Colliers International City of Chula Vista Thomas Harwell Mary Ladiana Martin Lodge Raytheon City of Chula Vista United Technologies Christina Anne Luhn Leo Matthieu Evan McLaughlin San Diego Regional EDC Southcoast Welding &Mfg. San Diego Labor Council Derek McMahon Michael Meacham Christine Moore McMahon Steele City of Chula Vista AT&T Karen Prescott James D.Sandoval Todd Roberts National Electrical Contractors Assoc. City of Chula Vista Marine Group Boat Works Flavio Oliveri Brendan Reed Duane Roth Tijuana EDC City of Chula Vista CONNECT Craig Ruiz Lauree Saba Chris Schodowski City of Chula Vista San Diego Regional EDC Leviton Mink Stavenga Seth Stein Anne Steinberger Southwestern College Green Talent Staffing City of Chula Vista Debbie Trujillo Mike Vogt Jerry Rindone Chula Vista SBDC IRE Development Chamber of Commerce Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 166 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ExecutiveSummary ........................................................................................................ 1 Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis............................................................................ 1 Leveraging Unique Assets to Compete Globally............................................................. 1 1 — Competitive Location Assessment ............................................................................. 3 II — Best Fit Industry Clusters for Chula Vista.................................................................. 6 III — Go-to-Market Strategy.............................................................................................. 8 Project Recommendations ............................................................................................ 10 Recommendation 1.0: Project Development, Policies & Practices............................ 10 Recommendation 2.0: Real Estate Preparedness..................................................... 12 Recommendation 3.0: Positioning ............................................................................. 14 Recommendation 4.0: Packaging.............................................................................. 16 Recommendation 5.0 Marketing, Communications and Prospecting......................... 17 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 19 Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 167 Executive Summary Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis Leveraging Unique Assets to Compete Globally The City of Chula Vista has made exceptional advancement in preparing the City for the future. Leadership has pursued significant economic development initiatives designed to create new mixed-use districts, investment, and jobs in both the newer East Side and historic West Side communities, including unique visionary developments of the Bayfront Master Plan, Millenia and the University Park and Innovation District (UPID). The purpose of the Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis was to assess the City's readiness for recruitment of new businesses to attract and expand quality jobs, identify specific business clusters and provide recommendations for positioning, marketing, and business recruitment. The project involved three distinct tasks: I: Competitive Location Assessment II: Best Fit Industry Clusters for Chula Vista III: Go-to-Market Strategy What is distinctly unique that ✓�,T�p 8i-National Location A competitive advantage—an asset that is differentiates Chula Vista is the valuable,rare and hard to duplicate. proximity to Tijuana, the , '.�t `t rn5� connectivity to San Diego's upPYrv°' YS*^No,r Chula Vista resources and educational LowerOr�; R.mm our impend �—. institutions as well as a NavdRaceo W r _ ImP@fidl L }den Diego multinational residence base. ImpenalBeacnNAi1 7 SAN cau �—.�� DIEGO CO,�, •� B Chula Vista offers a quality �, na \' AJACALIF rt�� '^ ' vau location for headquarters, sales, " research and development, and high tech testing with the cross- border manufacturing opportunity. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 1 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 168 The Executive Summary provides overview findings of each task as well as prioritizes recommendations for policies, practices, and infrastructure needed to address the weaknesses and investment for attracting new businesses, jobs and investment. The next key steps for Chula Vista to achieve a robust and successful economic development plan include: 1. Real estate readiness for target industries as well as protecting and preserving business park and industrial land use designations; 2. Ensure a permitting process, fee structure and incentive policy that is competitive in the region; 3. Become a key player in Cali-Baja Mega-Region Initiative and with CONNECT; 4. Strengthen Chula Vista's unique bi-national position by building cross-border partnerships; 5. Package Chula Vista's value proposition to specific target clusters; and 6. Implement focused recruitment around industry clusters and opportunity sites. These steps will require investment in marketing, business recruitment, and staff support. 1 Need to promote the fast-tracked permitting process,fee structure and incentive policy but also document that the process and fees are competitive- prove the point. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 2 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 169 Competitive Location ' The objective of the Competitive Location Assessment Report was to document Chula Vista's assets and limitations for industry cluster development that leads to significant growth in quality jobs. Over 48 stakeholders were involved during the Competitive Location Assessment, which included a Land Supply & Building Inventory, a Corporate Location Exercise (CLE),3 and Business Climate interviews. Using a Location Decision Factor matrix, 12 key location factors were the basis for ranking Chula Vista to determine competitiveness and readiness. The 12 factors are ranked as a Strengths, Neutral (meaning neither an advantage nor disadvantage in the region), and Weaknesses. These are the same factors that major employers and their site acquisition consultants use to judge the competitive value of your City as a location. Specific details for each factor are included in Appendix Competitive Location Assessment. • • • - • • - - • • - • rIccess . Strength Real Estate Current Weakness (shovel-ready4) / potential Strength Utilities Neutral Transportation Strength / Neutral (potential west/cross town congestion) Workforce Strength /Weakness (Lack of documentation) Business Climate Neutral ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sustainable Practices Strength Risk Management Strength Business Costs Neutral (impact fee concern) Incentives Neutral (loss of Enterprise Zones) Quality of Life Strength ............................................... .................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Readiness Weakness Overall Ranking Neutral 2 Appendix-Corporate Location Assessment 3 Corporate Location Exercise conducted by Austin Consulting,International Site Selectors 'Definition of "shovel-ready" generally refers to commercial/industrial sites that have had all of the planning, zoning, surveys, title work, environmental studies,soils analysis,and public infrastructure engineering completed. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 3 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 170 Competitive Location Exercise Ranking The overall ranking for Chula Vista was Neutral. The basis for evaluating Chula Vista as a potential site location for a corporate business was similar to a typical client project for a site consultant. Information was reviewed on local websites, a sample proposal was provided to the site consultant from the City, a site/City tour was conducted, meetings were requested with key departments and organizations, and interviews with local businesses and stakeholders. The Corporate Location Exercise conducted by Austin Consulting, an international site location firm, would have eliminated Chula Vista from the search process for this project. Several factors contribute to that decision but mainly the lack of: "shovel-ready" land, portfolio of ready-to-go-quality buildings, and protection/preservation of land uses (such as, City allowing non-compatible uses in Eastlake, a designated business park). Lack of information as well as expedited delivery of information from outside agencies also left the evaluation as a "short-list" contender open to question. Challenges and Constraint Findings The following challenges and constraints were identified by the Project Team that will affect marketing, business recruitment, and business locations: Inability to deliver major industrial sites for new users within 6-12 months. The City's plans designate extensive employment land, but much of it is raw land, lacking entitlements, infrastructure, and graded pads —shovel-ready sites. Dispersal of industrial uses throughout various sectors of the City, without clear district identities, consistent public improvements, concentrations of synergistic employment uses, and availability of supporting amenities. Non-conforming uses locating in zoned business-park or industrial areas. Use of conditional use permits (CUPs) allows commercial and non-compatible uses, which diminishes park / district as a viable location for a light industrial operation, i.e., Eastlake. Difficulty in competing for employment uses with huge inventory / development potential and low values / rental rates in Otay Mesa. Lack of reinvestment in older industrial areas, i.e., Interstate 5 corridor (Bay Boulevard / L Street) and western portion of Main Street. Lack of good documentation, expedited delivery of information and central location of data for community evaluation, i.e., sites, transportation, utilities, labor force, skills available, wage and salary survey, et al. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 4 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 171 Lack of quality marketing collateral to support Chula Vista's value proposition to expanding and new businesses specifically in the target industry clusters. Impact and connection fees are high compared to the rest of the San Diego / Imperial region and are a disincentive for new locations5 (by region are we talking San Diego County? What is the source of this finding — the 07-08 BIA fee study?) Border crossing delays, important infrastructure to the growth in industry clusters with dual locations. Perceptions, not always reality, but red flags to address in marketing and promotion to change perceptions particularly within the region: Perception of extensive time for permitting (noted from interviews and survey). Perception of the South Bay as a tertiary market for employment uses within San Diego County. Perception of lack of employers / jobs in the South Suburban Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the important traded industry clusters of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). Chula Vista has employment strength in other key clusters. Perception of limited supply of executive housing and associated lifestyle amenities. Utility rates are comparable to the region. However, they are high compared to other southwestern locations, which for an energy-intensive company may be a disincentive (not within the control of the City). Another constraint not within the City's control is location in California, i.e. higher costs and higher taxes. With this in-depth evaluation from a Corporate Location perspective, Chula Vista has the ability to move from "good to great" to become a very competitive location. The goal is to move neutral and weakness factors to strengths. Recommended Competitive Positioning: The City will need to address policies, practices, real estate readiness, business costs, and preparation and positioning for expanding and attracting new high quality employment in the City of Chula Vista (see Recommendations for details). 5 Using City impact and connection fees and methodology,fees for test project Galaxy were calculated higher than other areas which was also supported by BIA Report. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 5 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 172 11 — Best Fit Industry • In preparation for more aggressive economic development efforts, identification of key industry clusters and specific business targets is important to moving forward. The target industry cluster task focused on opportunities for Chula Vista based on the targets identified by SANDAG as well as unique opportunities related to the large manufacturing base in Chula Vista and cross-border as well as the City's focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy. The target industry _ screening process was mutli-phased. PF Six primary industry F Advanced Manufacturing clusters were identified as "best fits" based on Chula Vista's strengths and assets. Chula Vista There is a convergence of Target Industry strengths and assets Clusters around several of the clusters, i.e. Health, Wellness and Sports Medicine. , , • , Recommended Targeting: Focus on Advanced Manufacturing opportunities linked to Education & Innovation Centers while leveraging the Mexico /Tijuana connection to create a world class advanced manufacturing hub and International Gateway. Join and actively participate in the Cali-Baja Mega-Region Initiative, position as an International Gateway and CONNECT aligning with their focus and research on Advanced Manufacturing and Sports Innovation (see Recommendations for details). 6 Separate Report Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 6 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 173 Recommended Target Industry Clusters I Advanced Manufacturing Advanced Manufacturing, both in Precision Manufacturing and the Aerospace, Including Precision Navigation & Maritime Technologies is Chula Vista's strongest niche in the Region. Manufacturing,Aerospace, This niche is also closely tied to the sectors in Tijuana. Navigation&Maritime Opportunities in this cluster include existing base expansions, new research and Technologies development in the field, component suppliers, and potential technical training. This cluster also provides a unique opportunity to work with Mexico / Tijuana in building an economic gateway to international global markets. The federal / state discussions around advanced manufacturing and the growing trend for"reshoring" and"near-shoring" bring special opportunities to this sector. CleanTech Chula Vista's clean tech reputation can help drive this industry cluster development. This is an emerging field that crosses over industry sectors. Environmental instrument manufacturing and industrial design services could be unique opportunities. Industrial design services may bring an element of innovation to this cluster. Within manufacturing, niche opportunities for small-medium sized companies in instrument manufacturing to support energy monitoring and efficiency. Education & Innovation Education & Innovation Centers are closely tied to Chula Vista's Advanced Centers Manufacturing niche and bi-national location. In addition to attracting a 4-year university Chula Vista could create technology and innovation centers specific to advanced manufacturing—automotive, aerospace, and electronics industries, as well as becoming a provider of technical education for skilled manufacturing employees in these sectors. Information & This cluster could leverage the manufacturing industries by developing better Communications information tracking systems to help manage manufacturing processes. Technologies Health &Wellness Given the strong industry presence in other areas of the region, Chula Vista is not Services (Sports Medicine) generally competitive for the bio-tech component of health services. However, there A convergence of sectors may be demand for additional health service providers in the City and opportunity for with asset opportunities. "health-wellness tourism", people traveling from Mexico and other areas for service and recuperation not just medical side of the equation as health services is typically population-driven. A unique niche and a growing niche in San Diego is the Sports Innovation Cluster (defined by CONNECT). Tying Chula Vista's Olympic Training Center to a "Sports Innovation" or "Sports Medicine" field could mean a convergence of tourism, health, wellness,fitness, and manufacturing industries supporting sports and athletes. Other opportunities for Chula Vista will emerge as the economy returns, new innovation happens and growth in the market occurs, such as diverse manufacturing. The sectors in this analysis are Chula Vista's best opportunity for success. Preparing for the target sectors will also prepare you for a better and more rapid response to inquiries outside the target areas. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 7 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 174 • • Strategy The final task of the project addresses Business Retention, Expansion, and Attraction — a Go-to-Market Strategy. The Go-to-Market Strategy assumes that the City will take appropriate action to address competitiveness and change weaknesses to strengths. The purpose of the Go-to-Market Strategy is to: 1. Recommend Business Retention & Expansion actions focused on Chula Vista's key industries; 2. Recommend packaging, marketing, promotion and recruitment tactics for the targeted Industry Clusters; and 3. Provide an initial screened list of Target Industry businesses (domestic and international) in each cluster to launch prospecting efforts. The Go-to-Market Strategy is focused on the Industry Clusters identified in Task II Business Cluster Analysis and would be supplemental to the City's Economic and Marketing and Communications Plans. It is not intended to be an overall City branding, marketing or communications plan. All information and recommendations are focused on business retention, expansion, business attraction marketing, and prospecting tactics. From a marketing standpoint, there are unique assets and strengths that offer two key messages supported by proof points: Message: Our Location, Your Success Proof Points • Chula Vista's proximity to Mexico and their growing industry clusters; a bi- national location and international gateway; • Availability of affordable land and buildings in combination with lifestyle amenities; • Heavily traveled goods movement along Interstate 5 Corridor; • Central proximity to major educational and regional advanced training centers provides access to graduates from UCSD, SDSU, USD, Point Loma Nazarene and Baja Schools; Presence of a multinational residence base. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 8 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 175 Message: Quality Location, Unique Development Opportunities Proof Points: • Vision-oriented and sophisticated Leadership with the ability to navigate state and federal regulatory agencies (Coastal Commission) to achieve change and results; • United Technologies Aerospace Systems, a leading aerospace company and foundation for advanced manufacturing cluster; • Largest planned University Park & Innovation District in the region; • The Olympic Training Center (only one of three in the nation) provides anchor to the convergence of health, wellness, tourism, recreation and sports cluster; Continued creation and enhancement of "24/7" environments for "live / work / play". Recommended Go-to-Market Strategies are focused on business retention and expansion outreach, packaging and promotion, and business attraction prospecting tactics (see Recommendations for details). Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 9 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 176 Project • • • Recommendations are based on the project findings and focused on moving Chula Vista from "good to great" as it relates to being competitive for business locations. The City is currently constrained with limited "shovel-ready" sites in quality business- park environments. This is a readiness priority and plans should be put in place to have sites ready within the foreseeable future, which will require collaboration with developers/owners. Competitiveness recommendations include: • Project Development, Policies & Practices • Real Estate Readiness • Positioning From a business attraction / recruitment perspective, now is the time to be marketing and calling on prospective businesses. Location decisions from the time of first contact to decision will typically range from 18-36 months, which is well within the range of Chula Vista having "shovel-ready" properties. Go-to-Market recommendations for business retention, expansion and attraction include: • Packaging • Marketing, Communications and Prospecting Recommendation 1.0: Project Development, Policies & Practices The City has done an exceptional job in planning and visioning for the future. As the economy begins to return, the Project Team recommends the City stay focused on the Vision, General Plan and the transformational goals it has put in place as well as addressing policies that will strengthen the long-term competitiveness for significant development and expansion of new, high quality employment uses in Chula Vista: 1.1 Implementation, e.g., groundbreaking of one or more major new mixed-use developments on the East Side — the City does not control the project but should focus on early wins. 1.2 Agreement with a university for development of at least an initial phase campus within the UPID. The City and HomeFed partnership is leading the planning and recruitment effort, with assistance from planners Ayers Saint Gross and U3 Ventures. The City and HomeFed should also consider, in addition to a four-year university, alternative education institutions, such as professional or research schools, institutes, research centers, etc. 1.3 Feasibility study, financing plan, and timeline for completion of Main Street / Rock Mountain / Hunte Parkway. Completion of this corridor from 1-805 to SR 125 is an essential link both for accessibility and marketing sites in the southern portion of Otay Ranch. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 10 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 177 1.4 Continue progress on implementation of the Bayfront Master Plan. 1.5 Protect and preserve business park and industrial zoning. There has been a trend to allow, through Conditional Use Permits, family/consumer focused commercial uses in light industrial and industrial zoned areas. As noted in the evaluation by Site Consultant Frank Spano, "Eastlake was a quality location for small industrial/ assembly type operations until non-conforming uses located within the vacant space. This was one of the few (only) locations where a company could construct a building on a Greenfield site. BUT due to non-conforming uses throughout the park this location would be downgraded by most consultants / companies as a viable location for a light industrial operation." 1.6 A "red flag" item is the length of time for permitting and should be addressed in the short term. The City does have an "expedited" process for permitting priority business opportunities; however, there still remains a perception that the permitting process is difficult and lengthy. This, whether reality or perception, must be documented in sales packages with case studies where projects have been fast-tracked — with a goal of demonstrating that permitting can be completed within six months (ready-to-go property). This should also be a routine item of discussion with brokers. 1.7 Permitting and up-front connections fees appear to be high and even higher compared to other areas in the region. This could be a disincentive for those businesses looking to locate and trying to reduce their upfront costs. Fees should be in line with other areas in the region, documented as such when showing to a prospect. Based on the location test case used for the assessment the fees were higher. This was also a comment voiced often in interviews with business. Whether a perception or reality, documenting and comparing processing time and fee structure to other areas in the region will dispel the perception. 1.8 The key incentive for companies seeking location is the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit (sales and employee credits) that reduces a company's state liability tax. There are other incentives such as Foreign Trade Zone and Recycling Market Development Zone but those will be used on a case by case basis. A draft Local Business and Jobs Investment Policy prepared in July 2012 is an excellent start on a local package. Incentive packages should focus on reducing any fees, or deferral of fees that could become a disincentive to any investment. Most companies with large investments will be looking for incentive opportunities to reduce upfront costs. 1.9 Work with City-owned as well as privately-controlled utility / infrastructure departments to coordinate a "Team Approach" in securing and presenting information to site selectors and companies interested in Chula Vista. Prior to launching any recruitment plan, review with all parties 1) industry targets, 2) high Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 11 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 178 level information needed for sales packages and proposals, and 3) the marketing / recruitment plan and schedule so they can be prepared to answer questions for prospects contacted by the City. When Chula Vista Economic Development requests information from energy or telecommunications, there should be an agreement that the company will get the information back in a timely manner. Recommendation 2.0: Real Estate Preparedness The Corporate Location Assessment identified lack of "shovel-ready"7 land as one of Chula Vista's major weaknesses. The following are recommended as key near-term (five years) actions steps from a land use / real estate perspective in support of the City's goal of attracting high quality employment: 2.1 Complete land use and zoning designations for the remaining Otay Ranch villages. These planning processes are currently underway at the same time that the City and HomeFed Corporation are working on planning and recruitment for the proposed university at UPID. As the City and its development partners complete each successive planning process and initiate new developments, there is an opportunity to publicize and market the City's changing land use pattern. 2.2 Define site constraints and development potential for the 85-acre portion of the University Park and Innovation District, so that marketing efforts can commence now, rather than waiting for the university. 2.3 Bring online within the next 18-36 months, several "shovel-ready" sites demonstrating positioned for that planning, zoning, surveys, title work p- operations that n--d to be environmental studies, soils analysis, utility located within the San "•• metro area, but readiness, and public infrastructure could be competitive for larger 11 111 - be competing with surrounding communities and engineering has been completed. If feasible, to make the shovel-ready site the only - to effectively • p- - is to have more competitive bring public infrastructure "shovel and pad ready" to the site — all utilities including high-speed Frank Spano, Managing Director broadband access. The City has the The Austin Consulting opportunity to utilize its existing infrastructure (Site Selection Consultants) to provide the latest telecom infrastructure to meet the needs of "data-telecom" driven businesses more cost effectively than other areas. 2.4 As noted in Recommendation 1.5, put in place systems to protect and preserve the zoning for high quality employment uses. Definition of "shovel-ready' generally refers to commercial/industrial sites that have had all of the planning, zoning, surveys, title work, environmental studies,soils analysis,and public infrastructure engineering completed priorto puttingthesite upforsale.Often referred to as "pad-ready' and is location ready within six to eight months. Many communities across the US have third parties "certify" sites as "shovel-ready or'certified-ready. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 12 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 179 2.5 Identify a site for an Advanced Manufacturing facility of 100,000 sq. ft. or more. 2.6 Identify City-supported financing strategies and mechanisms available to land developers and builders to assist with site preparation and infrastructure needed for new industrial uses. Many older industrial uses on the West Side are in need of rehabilitation or teardown / new construction. In the absence of redevelopment funding, the City needs to work with property owners and businesses to identify optimal financing approaches to support reinvestment in these areas. 2.7 Assist property owners in branding industrial / employment sub-areas on both the West Side and East Side. 2.8 The City should work with property owners and other district representatives to create stronger district identities, including geographic boundaries, building profiles, tenant mix, and principal strengths and weaknesses. These identities can be used to prioritize public improvements, marketing programs and tenant recruitment efforts. 2.9 Identify opportunities for incubator or "accelerator" space with developers, building owners, and / or current businesses with surplus space. 2.10 The ambitious plans for the City's Bayfront and East Side are difficult to grasp in the abstract. As plans are approved, and new developments initiated, the City and its partners should pro-actively market its readiness for new development, identifying both the opportunities for developers and the City's requirements. This would likely take the form of a continued concerted outreach effort through channels such as NAIOP, BOMA, ULI, BIA, UCSD CONNECT, Regional EDC, Clean Tech, broker caravans, etc. 2.11 "Place making" will continue to be important. Major employers are increasingly concerned about quality of life issues for their employees, as well as economic and environmental sustainability. The creation and enhancement of "24/7" mixed- use environments that accommodate "live / work / play" is an essential economic development tool. The City is aggressively pursuing new mixed-used developments with place making amenities, such as Millenia, University Park and Innovation District, University Village on the East Side and the Bayfront Master Plan and should continue to do so. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 13 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 180 Recommendation 3.0: Positioning Chula Vista's bi-national location is an under-utilized, unique and rare asset. Locating companies in California is a challenge at best given the state's reputation, regulatory climate, and tax structure and puts Chula Vista in direct competition with other southwestern states which, on a comparative basis, have a lower cost structure. Bi-National Location A competitive advantage—an asset that is valuable, rare and hard to duplicate. r nysK 1 Louvr Chu r I• J UPpu-L7u„ ' Resenc is etf a Sea pogo �.1CAL1 BAJA CALIF Sly. ana van Following are recommendations to strengthen this unique bi-national position and opportunity to collaborate with Mexico / Tijuana on creating a dynamic International Gateway and utilizing the advanced manufacturing strength to position for additional recognition in this field: 3.1 Join and be a key player in the Cali-Baja Mega-Region Initiative. Chula Vista needs to be at the table. 3.2 Join and participate with CONNECT, particularly as it relates to Advanced Manufacturing initiatives and Sports Innovation Clusters. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 14 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 181 3.3 Chula Vista is well positioned to be an Advanced Manufacturing Hub linked to education and training (University Park and Innovation District). There is much discussion about potential federal / state funding for an Advanced Manufacturing Center in the US and California. Participate with San Diego State, CONNECT and other organizations in the discussion and plans for competing for a federally designated Advanced Manufacturing Center. This is a short-term opportunity, for the long-term continue to build the Advanced Manufacturing Hub. 3.4 Chula Vista should begin meetings and develop a stronger working relationship with Tijuana EDC. Chula Vista and Tijuana can benefit from a collaborative economic development approach, particularly in attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Beneficial synergies include: 1) Agreement to assist with location packages for Mexican companies seeking to have a US presence but needing to remain close to the border; 2) Chula Vista and Tijuana share industry clusters, particularly in the advanced manufacturing fields. This synergistic relationship creates a unique selling proposition as well as positions both cities as a world-class advanced manufacturing hub; 3) Collaborate and leverage recruitment activities to attract manufacturing to Mexico from China or India (near-shoring) who also desire to have a regional headquarters nearby, but in the United States, a benefit to both and a stronger marketing package to the prospective company; 4) Working together identify assets that each partner can bring to the marketing package to make a stronger value proposition for businesses, such as, proximity to educational and research institutions; 5) Collaborate with Tijuana in a manner that transforms the Chula Vista / Tijuana Region into a North American gateway to the Global Economy that benefits both economies. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 15 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 182 Recommendation 4.0: Packaging The Competitive Location Assessment identified quality location decision information and marketing collateral as a weakness. Existing available data sources are highly fractured and disjointed, generating confusion and lack of awareness among potential users and clients. Resources, beyond staff time, will be needed to complete packaging recommendations: 4.1 Compile a single inventory database and user-friendly map identifying all existing and planned industrial areas within the City, applicable zoning, major property owners / broker contacts, and probable timing of delivery. . t • . tritra F.M112 FTM=l'k TO SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT l 12 MILES(18 MINUTES) I_F Eastlake J l Central , '_ Bayfront (Master Plan) ! or © OTC Bay Blvd/ Landfill Industrial Blvd Buffer 54 Acres __— */ r �N©F "-J Millenia UPRC Main Street Auto Parkway KEY Existing Planned TO TIJUANA,MEXICO Other Opportunity 12 MILES(15 MINUTES) Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 16 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 183 4.2 Collateral materials to support marketing and business attraction should include: 1) Map booklet / brochure; 2) Citywide street map; 3) PowerPoint presentation; 4) Update Website focusing on Chula Vista's value proposition as a premier location for business and industry; 5) Sales package (aka business cases) for each target industry that presents a value proposition of why that industry is a fit for a Chula Vista location. 4.3 Prepare Data Set files (12) that provide detailed information on Chula Vista, including market access, business overview, labor, real estate, utilities, permitting, transportation, government services, incentives, and quality of life. 4.4 Labor, workforce and commuter data is weak and is a key location factor. Chula Vista has unique proximity to the UC-State education systems, which is one component of the workforce, typically engineering. There needs to be a stronger workforce training alliance / coalition with Southwestern College and others to meet the other needs (vocational) of manufacturers, particularly advanced manufacturers. There also needs to be better documentation of the existing labor base, which may require a labor force study / analysis be completed if the data cannot be gathered by local agencies to meet the needs of business. Recommendation 5.0 Marketing, Communications and Prospecting The Go-to-Market Strategy$ focused on those activities to market Chula Vista to the target industry clusters, both existing and new, generating leads, and prospective business expansion and location opportunities. To implement effective marketing and prospecting, this effort will need dedicated resources. The Project Team estimates a budget range of $214,000-$371,000 for implementing and maintaining an effective Marketing Strategy. Specific marketing and business attraction recommendations and tactics, along with budget detail are included in the Go-to-Market Strategy report. Below is an overview of the recommended tactics, which focus on direct marketing / prospecting to business targets: s Separate Report Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 17 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 184 5.1 As a retention program, hold CEO Roundtables with all major manufacturers in Chula Vista and headquarter / regional offices of companies with manufacturing facilities in Tijuana / Baja (3 times per year). The purpose is to listen to their needs, respond and ask in return that they be part of the City's economic development efforts in providing advice, comment, leads and talking with prospective businesses. 5.2 Existing anchor businesses, representing the target industry clusters, should be the focus of economic development staff. Collaborate with other departments and South County EDC to ensure outreach to all industry cluster businesses. 5.3 Schedule trips, as needed, to call on the Headquarters of existing companies located in Chula Vista. 5.4 Use the unique bi-national / international gateway position in all marketing and communications. 5.5 Business attraction marketing and tactics include: 1) Direct Marketing — using a qualified list of target businesses, direct calls and presentations; 2) Bi-National Marketing Collaborative — with Tijuana EDC promote / sell the bi- national location, leverage the assets of both Chula Vista and Tijuana, particularly as a Foreign Direct Investment marketing coalition; 3) Leveraged Marketing — face-to-face connections with decision makers through TeamCalifornia venues; 4) Relationship Marketing — communications and venues with site selctors and brokers; 5) Linkedln Group Marketing — communications with target industry groups. 5.6 Increase earned media with placements of news, articles, announcements, and stories in key industry trade publications. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 18 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 185 Conclusions Chula Vista has built a vision and pathway to unique opportunities to create economic prosperity for the City and its residents. Attracting traded sector businesses, as identified in this report, will provide quality employment to residents as well as generate a higher economic multiplier effect on the local economy...creating more jobs and demand for local services from existing businesses. Now the goal is to remove or mitigate any reason for a company to eliminate Chula Vista from the search process. From a business attraction perspective the City should implement strategic actions to be successful in moving forward on a results-oriented business recruitment initiative: • Focus on improving competitive advantages, providing "shovel-ready" sites and protecting the land use and zoning for high quality employment uses; • Leverage opportunities with Cali-Baja Mega Region, CONNECT and Mexico / Tijuana for an International Gateway that attracts domestic and foreign companies; • Build upon the advanced manufacturing hub opportunities; and • Invest in packaging and direct marketing to prospective businesses. With these actions Chula Vista can market and leverage their unique assets to compete globally. Chula Vista Business Cluster Analysis — Executive Summary 19 1 P a g e 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 186 Libraries - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 -June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please update the table below. LIBRARIES Total Gross Square Gross Square Feet of Library Population Footage of Library Facilities Per 1000 Facilities Population Threshold X X 500 Sq. Ft. 5-Year Projection 284,366 97,412 343 2018 12-Month Projection 258,664 97,412*** 377 12/31/14 FY 2012-13 251613 95412 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 FY 2001-02 195,000 102,000 523 FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 *After closure of Eastlake library in 2011 **After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012 ***After possible addition of 2000 sf at Otay Ranch Library in July 2014. 1 Libraries 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 187 Please provide brief responses to the following: 1 . Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes No X Current facilities and staff are significantly inadequate compared to what is needed to serve current population as well as forecasted growth. As shown above, the current square footage per capita is 24% lower than GMOC standards, and is projected to fall to 31% below GMOC standards in five years. The existing facilities of Civic Center Branch and South Chula Vista Branch are showing the effects of prolonged deferred maintenance just as many other city facilities are. Civic Center Branch is now the oldest "main library" of any city in San Diego County without a major renovation completed or planned. The staffing picture also shows inadequate resources. According to the most recent statistical data available (California Library Statistics 2012, published by the CA State Library)Chula Vista's library staffing ratio per capita is in the bottom 15%of public libraries in California. The state wide staffing average is 3,429 persons served by each library FTE. In Chula Vista the ratio is 6,562 persons served by each library FTE. The material budget also shows significant deficiencies. The statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. is$2.68 per person. In Chula Vista, the baseline budget provided by the general fund equals 10 cents per capita. Thanks to hard work on the part of the Friends of the Library and additional grants and donations, we managed to pull that up to about 45 cents per capita in FY 13. 2. Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No X With increased population and no expectation of increased budget, current facilities and staff are expected to be less able to meet forecasted growth than they are able to meet current growth. 3. Will new facilities and staff be required to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes X No 2 Libraries 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 188 4. Please complete the table below: LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS Annual Attendance Annual Circulation Guest Satisfaction FY 12/13 832,975 992,005 FY 11/12 726,310 969,168 FY 10/11 614,841 952,847 90%** FY 09/10 605,979 985,157 90%** FY 08/09 820,213 1 ,160,139 FY 07/08 1 ,296,245 1 ,265,720 89% FY 06/07 1 ,148,024 1 ,344,1 15 88% FY 05/06 1 ,170,168 1 ,467,799 85% FY04/05 1 ,121 ,1 19 1 ,414,295 91% FY03/04 1 1 ,076,967 1 1 ,308,918 1 88% *The Library Department eliminated its mystery shopper program in 08-09 for budget reasons,so no customer satisfaction survey was undertaken.The"mystery shopper" program sends field representatives to the library as ordinary library users to observe and rate staff,service,collection,facilities,etc., both in person and on the phone. **An in-house survey using intern labor was performed in May-August 2010. Rating factors are not identical to previous years. 5. What is the status of completing the Library Strategic Plan and updating the Library Facilities Master Plan? The draft of the Library Facilities Master Plan was completed and agendized for City Council review on July 12, 2011 , but was pulled. Subsequently, the Council requested that the Library Strategic Plan be updated to replace the existing one that expired in 2006, before a Facilities Master Plan is brought forward. An all-day Library Strategic Vision Workshop was held on September 12, 2013, with 50 community members participating. A subsequent meeting a the Community Advisory Council (CAC) is being held on October 16 to provide a sounding board for the draft recommendations. The CAC will meet again in December to finalize public input. At the same time, the draft Library Facilities Master Plan is being updated. The strategic vision component will be added to the Library Facilities Master Plan and presented to City Council in January or February 2014. The draft version of the Library Facilities Master Plan validates the 500 sq ft of library space per 1000 population threshold specified in the current version of the Library Facilities Master Plan. The draft plan estimates that 60,000 square foot of library space is needed to bring library facilities into compliance with threshold standards. 6. What is the status of constructing the Rancho del Rey library? Plans for the Rancho Del Rey Library have been tabled to permit the DIF to reach sufficient level to begin construction. City Finance Department estimates the timeline to be 10 years. 3 Libraries 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 189 7. What is the status of constructing the EUC library? Millenia (EUC) groundbreaking took place in September 2013. Plans for a 30,000 square foot library are part of the ultimate project build-out. Land for a future library has been set aside. DIF funds need to accumulate in order for library to be built. 8. 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 completed its first full year of operation in April 2013. From April 2012 through September 2013, it had 182,972 visitors, and circulated 217,960 items. General Growth Properties has offered the library an additional 2000 square feet in a vacant next door retail space. Negotiations are proceeding between GPP and the city to occupy the space. 9. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2012/2013, and include any available data for the County's Bonita-Sunnyside Branch. 19,206 customers with Chula Vista zip codes are registered at the Bonita Library (7% of Chula Vista population) 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. 11. What are the current and projected hours of operation for the city's libraries? Mondays were added at the Otay Branch in September 2013. Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 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 Otay closed 11-7 11-7 11-7 11-7 12-6 12-6 PREPARED BY: Name: Betty Waznis Title: Library Director Date: 10/9/2013 THRESHOLD STANDARD In the area east of 1-805,the City shall construct,by buildout(approximately year 2030)60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city-wide June 30,2000 GSF total.The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. 4 Libraries 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 190 Performance Measures Library FY 2012-2103 Current Year Previous %change Hours Open CC 2,852 2,829 1% Hours Open EL 0 7 Hours Open SO 2,804 2,840 -1% Hours Open Otay 1,815 450 75% Internet Sessions CC 83,369 95,857 -15% Internet Sessions Otay 7,619 2,139 72% Internet Sessions SO 71,761 76,522 -7% Items Circulated CC 394,788 442,876 -12% Items Circulated EL 0 0 Items Circulated SO 306,913 352,445 -15% Items Circulated Otay 138,825 38,285 72% Ebooks circulated 14,895 7,760 48% Items Circulated Remotely 136,584 141,331 -3% Program Attendees CC 6,513 8,622 -32% Program Attendees EL 0 32 Program Attendees Off 5,425 1,367 75% Program Attendees SO 3,318 5,815 -75% Program Attendees Otay 6,066 4,772 21% Visitors CC 471,516 433,143 8% Visitors EL 0 600 Visitors SO 248,450 251,232 -1% Visitors Otay 1 113,009 1 36,816 67% �tea:■ mow, New Cards CC 8,867 9,470 -7% New Cards EL 0 0 New Cards SO 6,560 7,127 -9% New Cards Otay 3,447 2,418 30% i r� Card Holders 110,216 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 191 Ota y Water District - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1, 2012- June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast 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 38.3 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.4 7.2 43.7 (Ending 6/30/18) 12-18 Month Projection 31.3 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.0 7.2 43.7 (Ending 6/30/15) WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water FY 2012/13 28.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.9 7.2 43.7 (Ending 6/30/13) FY 2011/12 27.3 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.4 7.2 43.7 (Ending 6/30/12) FY 2010/11 26.7 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.59 7.2 43.7 (Ending 6/30/11) FY 2009/10 27.8 0.0 137.5 219.6 0.0 3.48 7.2 43.7 (Ending 6/30/10) FY 2008/09 31.2 0.0 137.5 215.4 0.0 4.02 7.2 43.7 (Ending 6/30/09) Sources of Water- FY 2012/13 (MG- Millions of Gallons) Water Source Capacity(MGD) Percentage of Total Actual Use (MGD) Capacity San Diego County Water Authority 121.5 80.6% 19.5 Helix Water District 12.0 8.0% 9.0 City of San Diego 10.0 6.6% 0.0 RWCWRF (Otay Water District) 1.2 0.8% 1.0 SBWRP(San Diego) 6.0 4.0% 2.9 TOTAL 150.7 100% 32.4 Otay Water District-2014 Page 1 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 192 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 3. Do current facilities have the ability to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes No X The existing potable and recycled water systems with inclusion of the following near term list of Otay Water District capital improvement program (CIP) project facilities 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 2014 through 2019 CIP documents. CIP CIP Project Title Project 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/Otay Valley P2107 PL - 12-Inch, 711 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La Media/SR 125 P2135 PL—20-Inch, 980 Zone, Otay Lakes Road—Wueste/Loop P2325 PL - 10"to 12" Oversize, 1296 Zone, PB Road - Rolling Hills Hydro PS/PB Bndy P2366 APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits P2399 PL -30-Inch, 980 Zone, 980 Reservoirs to Hunte Parkway P2402 PL - 12-Inch, 624 Zone, La Media Road -Village 7/Otay Valley P2403 PL - 12-Inch, 624 Zone, Heritage Road -Olympic/Otay Valley P2431 Res -980-4 Reservoir 5 MG P2511 Otay Interconnect Pipeline P2528 30-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Manifold at 624 Reservoirs P2541 624 Pressure Zone PRSs R2028 RecPL - 8-Inch, 680 Zone, Heritage Road -Santa Victoria/Otay Valley 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, Olympic Parkway-Village 2/1-leritage R2083 RecPL -20-Inch, 680 Zone, Heritage Road -Village 2/01ympic R2084 RecPL -20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media R2085 RecPL -20-Inch, 680 Zone, La Media -State/Olympic R2087 RecPl—24-Inch, 927 Zone, Wueste Road —Olympic/Otay WTP Otay Water District-2014 Page 2 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 193 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 2014 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 2014 through 2019 CIP documents. CIP CIP Project Title Project No. P2366 APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits P2382 Safety and Security Improvements P2469 Information Technology Network and Hardware P2484 Large Water Meter Replacement Program P2485 SCADA Communication System and Software Replacement P2493 624-2 Reservoir Interior Coating and Upgrades P2496 Otay Lakes Road Utility Relocations P2507 East Palomar Street Utility Relocation P2513 East Orange Avenue Bridge Crossing P2520 Motorola Mobile Radio Upgrade P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program P2529 711-2 Reservoir Interior& Exterior Coating P2530 711-1 Reservoir Interior& Exterior Coating P2535 458-2 Reservoir Interior Coating P2539 South Bay Rapid Transit (BRT) Utility Relocations R2091 RecPS -927-1 Pump Station Upgrade 10,000 GPM and System Enhancements R2099 Recycled System Air and Vacuum Valve Retrofit R2108 927-1 Reservoir Cover Replacement 5. Are rebates available for single-family residences using gray water? No, rebates are not currently available for this. 6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Otay Water District has effectively anticipated growth, 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 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 Otay Water District-2014 Page 3 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 194 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 a ten-day water supply during a SDCWA shutdown is actively being implemented and has been fully addressed in the WRMP and the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The IRP incorporate the concepts of water storage and supply from neighboring water agencies to meet emergency and alternative water supply needs. The Otay Water District works closely with City of Chula Vista staff to insure that the necessary planning information remains current considering changes in development activities and land use planning revisions within Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch. The Otay Water District WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay Water District. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay Water District six-year CIP for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceed through the City of Chula Vista approval processes, the Otay Water District typically requires the developer to prepare a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project consistent with the WRMP. This SAMP document defines and describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. The SAMP also defines the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay Water District through collection of water meter capacity fees,water rates, and other sources of revenue funds those facilities identified as regional 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 completed and the 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 Otay Water District-2014 Page 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 195 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. Additional water supply sources are continually under investigation by Otay Water District, with the most significant potential source being the Rosarito, Mexico desalination facility. Projected to ultimately produce 100 MGD of potable water, there is the potential for up to 50 MGD to be purchased by Otay Water District. Significant regulatory and permitting issues need to be resolved before this project can be deemed viable, but the current outlook is promising.The Presidential Permit process is underway as well as discussions with the State of California regarding treatment requirements. 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: Engineering Manager Date: January 16, 2014 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. Otay Water District-2014 Page 5 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 196 Parks & Recreation - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 -June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please update the table, below: CITY-OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast,and Comparisons Forecasts Prior Year Comparisons Threshold Area of City Current Standard (6/30/13) 18-Month 5-Year June June 2011 June 2012 (12/31/14) (2018) 2010 3 acres per East 1-805 1,000 AC/1,000 persons 3.05 2.94 2.59 3.02 3.16 3.1 population West 1-805 1.20 1.19 1.19 East of 1-805 AC/1,000 persons 1.21 1.21 1.2 Citywide 2.21 2.15 2.01 AC/1,000 persons 1 11 2.17 2.25 2.2 Acres of East 1-805, 418.44 418.44 427.96* 390.44 418.01 418.01 parkland West 1-805 138.76 138.76 142.66+ 138.76 138.76 138.76 Citywide 557.20 557.20 570.62 529.20 556.77 556.77 Population East 1-805 137,313 142,395 164,853** 129,307 132,357 135,205 West 1-805 115,330 116,325 119,513 114,936 115,077 115,130 Citywide 252,643 258,720 284,366 244,243 247,434 250,335 Acre shortfall East 1-805 6.50 (8.75) 66.59*** 2.52 20.94 12.4 or excess West 1-805 (207.23) (210.22) (215.88) (206.05) (206.47) (206.6) Citywide (200.73) (218.96) (282.48) (203.53) (185.53) (194.24) East 1-805,-%credit on existing HOA maintained,publically accessible Alcala Park added to Park inventory(0.43 acres). *Assumes completion of Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhood Park P-3(7.55 acres),Millenia Park P-1(1.97 acres). +Assumes completion of Orange Park(3.9 acres) **Population forecast generated by multiplying the developer provided unit projection by State Department of Finance coefficient. ***This figure compares population projection with anticipated completed parks. However the anticipated complete 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 permit thresholds. The effect will be to offset the type of park shortfall shown in these figures from actually occurring. Also making progress on the parks in Village 2 and a part of Village 4 will substantially improves the amount of acreage delivered. See response to question 3. Parks and Recreation - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 1 Page 197 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 2. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 12- to 18- months? The park/population ratio will be 2.94 acres per thousand, very nearly the required acreage but slightly under. Rounding up there are 3.00 acres/thousand. Yes No X (minimal shortfall,rounded up figure is 3 acres/thousand) If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? 8.75 acres. b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? Yes. Offers of dedication for parkland (IODs) exist in Village 2. c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? There are sufficient fees to proceed with the construction of Park P-3,the 7.55-acre park in Village 2. Grant monies are available for the construction of Orange Park. In the past year the design build contractor has been appointed and the plans are in design development and about to commence construction documentation.The first Millenia Park is a turnkey park to be provided by the developer.The master plan for this park has been approved by Parks and Recreation Commission and will be going to City Council in January 2014. At the 18 month point these parks will be either at construction document production stage or under construction. 3. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 5 years? Yes No X If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? 66.59 acres are needed in eastern Chula Vista for 5 Year Forecast. See footnote *** to Priority 1 Table . b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? Yes, once park planning operations for future villages are finalized and once grading and waterline issues are resolved. The new villages; Village 3, Village 8 east, Village 8 west, Village 9 and Village 10 will all include irrevocable offers of dedication for parkland as part of their approval. Parks and Recreation - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 2 Page 198 c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? There are sufficient fees to proceed with the construction of Park P-3,the 7.55-acre park in Village 2. Grant monies are available for the construction of Orange Park and the first Millenia Park is a turnkey park to be provided by the developer. The new villages,Village 3, Village 8 east, Village 8 west, Village 9 and 10 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. As stated above, staff anticipates that the new Otay Ranch Villages; 3, 8 east 8 west 9 and 10 will provide parks to meet population thresholds obligated in their entitlements. Per the population forecast, the amount of parks that would be in master planning or construction in these villages would be: Village 3 P-1 Neighborhood Park 6.7 acres Village 8 West Neighborhood Park 7.5 acres Village 8 West Town Squares 3.0 acres Village 9 Pedestrian Parks 3.4 acres Village 8 East 6.3 acres Subtotal 26.9 acres To further address the projected park deficit effectively, an emphasis on the remaining Village 2 parks would increase the future inventory of developed park acreage, in particular Park P-2 (7.1 acres) and an initial phase of the Community Park (33 acres). Efforts to resolve planning issues related to these sites would enable staff to commence master planning work on those parks. The amount of parks that this effort could produce would be: Village 2 P-2 Neighborhood Park 7.1 acres Village 2 and a part Village 4 Otay Ranch Community Park 33 acres (first Phase) Subtotal 40.1 acres Grand Total 67.0 acres If all the above park development can be achieved the park threshold on Eastern Chula Vista and Citywide is substantially improved. Threshold Standard Acres of parkland Population Acres shortfall or excess East West Citywide East West Citywide East West Citywide East West Citywide 1-805 1-805 1-805 1-805 Park 1-805 1-805 Pop. 1-805 1-805 Park Park Acres Pop. Pop. Acres Acres Acres Acres Needed Need 3.00 1.19 2.20 494.96** 142.66 637.62** 164,853 119,513 284,366 0 (215.88) 215.88) **Acreage available will be as stated in Priority 1 table+67 acres=494.96 acres Parks and Recreation - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 3 Page 199 Up until recently staff had been anticipating completion of Village 2, Park P-3 to be in 2016. In an effort to bring the park into use earlier (2015) negotiations with the developer have been held to explore ways to achieve that.The current proposal is to draw up an agreement with the developer to deliver the park as a turnkey park meaning that the developer is responsible for the design and installation of the park. During the last six months staff has already developed a draft master plan for P-3 which they plan to take to Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council in the early 2014. 4. Please provide a map showing existing and proposed parks. Commissioners are advised to see the interactive Parks and Recreation map currently on the home page of the City of Chula website showing the location of all existing parks and Recreation facilities. An additional map is attached showing the location of the future parks projected in the time span of this report. For information regarding the park provision at build out see the draft Citywide Parks& Recreation Master Plan. 5. 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 6. Please provide square footage of the city's recreation facilities. According to the draft City wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan there are 133,820 square feet in the City's Community Center and Recreation Complexes. Information regarding location and facilities available at the City's recreation centers can be found on the interactive Parks and Recreation map currently on the home page of the City's website. 7. Regarding recreation facilities, how do current hours of service compare to previous years, and what is projected in the future? Recreation facilities are open to the public an average of six days per week in the current Fiscal Year 2013-2014, a continuation of the operational status of the previous Fiscal Year 2012-2013, when operations increased from three to six days per week as a result of$200,000 in added funding provided by the City Council.This additional funding was for the provision of structured and drop-in activities and programs, provision of meeting space for community groups and organizations and oversight of adjoining outdoor amenities and fitness centers at several locations.This additional funding followed two Fiscal Years, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, during which, due to severe budgetary reductions, there had been 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. At this point, it is projected that the current level of operational service hours will continue for the next Fiscal Year, 2014-2015.The Recreation Department continues to restore the level of programs and services to, or in some cases exceed, pre-Fiscal Year 2010-2011 levels as well as 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. Parks and Recreation - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 4 Page 200 8. Are parks and recreation facilities, such as gazebos, being leased to the maximum? The decline in rental reported last year has ceased, in fact there has been an increase in the reservations for gazebo's and picnic shelter in the past year. There are still times during the year when they are not rented to capacity. 9. What is the status of City Council approving the updated Parks & Recreation Master Plan? Completion of the Citywide Parks&Recreation Master Plan is subjectto future park planning efforts within the future University Villages.The University Villages located within the Otay Ranch area are currently being processed for entitlement approvals. Staff continues to work with project applicants in the development of the overall land use plans, including future park sites,for the villages.These Villages anticipate new park acreages and park locations beyond that envisioned in the former Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) December 2010. Once the conceptual park plans for each of the Villages has solidified,final edits of the PRMP can occur.Thus far only one of the five villages, Village 8 west,has been approved by City Council at SPA level.The Draft PRMP will be updated when a more complete picture of future park locations and sizes is available. Staff anticipates completion of the updated draft in 2014. 10. Please provide any other relevant information,recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. GMOC should be aware of the park development potential of various Public Agency Lands (as identified in draft PRMP) that could substantially increase the inventory of park acreage in Chula Vista if developed. For example: Lower Sweetwater/KOA site 15 acres Undeveloped areas within the SDG&E corridor e.g.: Palomar Gateway 5 acres Rios Avenue site—Otay Valley 10 acres Unified Port of San Diego Bayfront- Bayfront Harbor District 11.38 acres net gain after development It should be noted that the GMOC threshold standard only includes developed parks with appropriate facilities to the east of I-805. These acreages cannot be entered into the park inventory until they are developed. The potential for the development of these sites exists and is described in more detail in the draft Citywide Parks& Recreation Master Plan. PREPARED BY: Name: Mary Radley, Landscape Architect, Development Services Title: Landscape Architect, Development Services Date: 1-7-14 THRESHOLD STANDARD Population Ratio: three(3)acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805. Parks and Recreation - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 5 Page 201 N O N bD f� l a F- y _ = � a LU .:�ti t•� r i N W N = F- A 1t L',�T� ik � �• 4 \ LU F- a WN ID ppp- -- jI�•'1-, t:_ �_- tt w I '� I�,o L LPL � �. � t �. r�• ' L�j 4J O }r 1 N k 4 w ro 0 un 0 d• r 0 N Police - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 -June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please provide brief responses to the following: 1 . Please update the table below. Priority 1 - Emergency Response Calls for Service Call Volume % of Call Responses Average Within 7 Minutes Response Time Threshold Standard 81.0% 5:30 FY 2012-2013 738 of 65,741 81.5% 4:57 FY 2011-2012 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 2004-05 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 2001-02' 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 All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority 2 figures on the next page)reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. Prior to FY 01-02,citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type;they are now determined according to received source. 2 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. Page 1 Police - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 203 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)? If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority 1 emergency calls citywide. Yes X No 3. Please update the table, below. Priority 2-Urgent Response Calls for Service Call Volume % of Call Responses Average Within 7 Minutes Response Time Threshold Standard 57.0% 7:30 FY 2012-2013 18,505 of 65,741 42.7% 11:37 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 2004-05 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 Note: Beginning in FY 2002-03,these figures do not include responses to false alarms. 4. During the period under review, were 57%of the Priority 2 urgent response calls citywide responded to within seven minutes (maintaining an average of 7.5 minutes)? If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority 2 urgent response calls citywide. Yes No _X_ Staffing must be significantly increased in the Community Patrol Division in order to meet the priority two response time goals. Without adding additional staff improvements to the response time will most likely be limited. Page 2 Police - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 204 5. Was the 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 No X If not, please explain. The Department is in need of replacing computers, purchasing new less-lethal equipment, implementing body cameras, upgrading radios and making significant improvements to its information technology infrastructure. With the reduction in grant funds over the last several years, and the elimination of computer replacement and vehicle replacement funds from the normal budget, the department has had to delay purchases of these types of equipment and technology. 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. Although the Department was able to meet Priority 1 response standards this reporting year, the Department's staffing levels are still a serious concern. The Department hired Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a comprehensive patrol staffing study(Matrix Study). The Matrix Study found that the Department is critically low on proactive policing time in the Patrol Division. The goal for the proactive policing time in the Patrol Division is 40%and currently the Patrol Division is at approximately 22%. 7. The Police Department has adopted a goal for proactive time to be 40% of an officer's available time while on duty, and has been tracking proactive time as one measure to determine proper staffing. Please provide any data collected from tracking proactive time. The Department has contracted with the Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a study to review the results are of the changes made in the Patrol Division as a result of the original Matrix Study. The Department expects results of this study in December. 8. How has the proactive time goal of 40% affected response times? Trying to achieve a proactive time goal of 40% should not negatively affect the department's response times to priority 1 and 2 calls for service. With the operational changes that are being made to increase the amount of proactive time, it seems to reason that as officers are freed up from low priority calls for service the response times to higher priority calls for service should improve. The Department has not finalized all of the recommendations from the original Matrix Study, so a full accounting of affects to Page 3 Police - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 205 proactive time and response times is not available at this time. The Department will certainly monitor the situation and make necessary adjustments as needed. 9. How has the hybrid work schedule implemented earlier this year affected response times? It is unknown what the overall effect of the hybrid work schedule has on response times at this point. The hybrid schedule went into effect approximately 6 months ago, and the Department is currently working with Matrix Consulting Group to study the effects of this change, as well as the other operational changes made during this time period. 10. Has growth during the last year negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes No X If yes, please explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the threshold standard. 11 . 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. Although the Department has achieved compliance with Priority 1 response times, there are still significant concerns with staffing. The Department is experiencing significant turn- over due to retirements, and as of the writing of this report, has approximately 22 sworn vacancies at the Peace Officer level. This puts a significant strain on the Department to maintain staffing levels in the Patrol Division. Any significant growth in the next 18 months will place additional strain on the Patrol Division to comply with GMOC threshold standards. 12. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate citywide growth forecasted, and meet the threshold standard, for the next five years? Yes X No _X_ If not, please explain. The Police Department building was designed to meet the growth forecasts through build- out. Staffing and equipment, however, continue to be an issue as the City continues to deal with fiscal issues.Although the City has improved upon its fiscal stability, there are still significant concerns with healthcare and retirement costs in the upcoming year. Therefore, the Department has been unable to include computer replacement and vehicle replacement funds in the normal operating budget. Page 4 Police - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 206 13. Please update the table below: NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS PER YEAR FY 2006-07 FY 2007- FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 08 8,257 7,861 5,924 6,694 6,424 6,234 6,116 14. Please provide an update on the Police Department's efforts to improve the Priority 2 threshold standard. On November 19th, the Department received approval from the City Council for implementation of the updated Security Alarm Ordinance. This updated ordinance seeks to significantly reduce the number of responses to false alarms by at least 50%to 80%. The new Security Alarm Ordinance will go into effect on January 1 st, 2014. Also, the Department will also be adding two additional Community Service Officer's(CSO's) in Patrol(for a total of five CSO's), which will help officers by handling lower priority calls for service. The Department is also currently updating the fleet of mobile data computers (MDC's) in the Patrol fleet as well as getting ready to implement an Automated Vehicle Locating (AVL)system for the Computer Aided Dispatch(CAD)system.AVL and the new MDC's should aid dispatchers in dispatching the nearest available unit to a call. Even with these improvements, a significant change in Priority 2 response times is unlikely.As mentioned earlier in this report, there would need to be significant increases to Patrol staffing to meet the Priority 2 threshold. 15.What is the status of School Resources Officers? The Department currently has contracts with both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District which fully fund the SRO program. Currently those contracts fund 8 School Resource Officers. This is down from a high of 22 SRO's. Until the fiscal situation in the City improves significantly, and the Department is able to achieve the goal of 40% proactive policing time in Patrol, the SRO unit will not be expanded. 16. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. As was mentioned in our previous meetings with the GMOC, we look forward to implementing the new GMOC threshold standards which are included in the"Top to Bottom" review being completed by the GMOC. PREPARED BY: Name: Ed Chew/Melanie Culuko Title: Administrative Services Manager/Public Safety Analyst Date: 11/20/2013 Page 5 Police - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 207 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 11 calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds(7.5 minutes)or less(measured annually). Page 6 Police - 2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 208 Sewer - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 -June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please update the table below. SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity Million Gallons per 10/11 11/12 12/13 18-month 5-year 'Buildout" Day MGD Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Projection Projection Projection* Average Flow 16.272 15.935 15.734 16.870** 18.583** 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 2013 through 2018" Please provide brief responses to the following: 1 . Have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity) at any time during the period under review? If yes, please indicate where, when and why this occurred, and what has been, or will be done, to correct the situation. Yes No X 2. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 12- to 18-month forecasted growth? If not, what facilities need to be added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site availability? 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 Sewer - 2014 10/31/2013 1 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 209 5. Please make any necessary changes to the table below. Average Daily Flow Trend 0) m m ° 4 C C C 28.00 ° ° ° 350,000 LO co M M C M 26.00 ' co N ,� ryo 300,000 1 c4 24.00 250,000 22.00 °' m METRO Capacity(2C,664 rigd co 20.00 200,000 � O � o 1b• 18.00 150,000 a F-- Oh S 16.00 ,. m� 100,000 e r°v 14.00 }o�_ LL: 50.000 12.00 mff - d 1 0.00 0 ti ti ti ry ti ti 'L `L `L `L � Year Average Daily Flow(MGD) —Treatment Capacity —a—Population Staff is now working on an update to the 2005 master plan in order to verify the build out treatment capacity needs of the City. The capacity needs are determined by the 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 adopted in late-2013. At current growth projections, the City has enough capacity for the next 10 years(see graph above).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. PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto Yano Title: Sr. Civil Engineer Date: October 2013 Sewer - 2014 10/31/2013 2 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 210 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 gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. C. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Sewer - 2014 10/31/2013 3 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 211 Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1, 2012- June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast 1. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS - JANUARY 2014 Current Building Capacity Adjusted Physical Within Overflow %Residing Schools Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity Within 1/14 Capacity* Capacity In Out Boundaries NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,007 906 211 1,117 255 Y 75% Hilltop Middle 1,138 1,114 105 1,219 204 Y 65% Chula Vista High 2,494 1,823 770 2,593 204 Y 70% Hilltop High 2,082 1,878 365 2,242 204 Y 65% SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 843 1,298 53 1,351 204 Y 95% Castle Park High 1,504 1,388 535 1,923 204 Y 90% Palomar High 365 287 237 524 0 Y 100% Chula Vista Adult 2,457 n/a n/a SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,913 1,378 922 2,300 255 Note 1 71% Eastlake Middle 1,745 1,488 0 1,488 102 Note 1 84% Otay Ranch High 2,585 2,019 315 2,334 204 Note 1 72% Olympian High (#13) 2,171 1,913 0 1,913 204 Note 1 65% NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,259 1,576 658 2,234 204 Y 79% Bonita Vista Middle 1,101 929 328 1,257 204 Y 78% Rancho Del Rey 1,706 1,522 0 1,522 153 Note 1 Middle **TOTAL 23,913 19,519 4,499 24,018 2,601 Y *Adjusted Building Capacity is based on 85%of the full capacity of the school site.85%loading allows teachers to remain in their classroom for their prep period.It is recalculated annually based on approved student/teacher ratios and room utilization.Total Capacityfor each school is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to learning centers. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 212 **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 extra 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 2014 and (b) December 2018, based on the city's 2013 Residential Growth Forecast. 2.a SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2014 Projected Building Capacity Adjusted Physical Within Overflow %Residing Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity Within Schools 12/31/14 Capacity* Capacity In Out Boundaries NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 959 906 211 1,117 255 Y Hilltop Middle 1,154 1,114 105 1,219 204 Y Chula Vista High 2,584 1,823 770 2,593 204 Y Hilltop High 1 2,102 1,878 365 2,242 204 Y SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 881 1,298 53 1,351 204 Y Castle Park High 1,481 1,388 535 1,923 204 Y Palomar High 367 287 237 524 0 Y Chula Vista Adult 1 2,457 n/a SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 3,034 1,378 922 2,300 255 Note 1 Eastlake Middle 1,804 1,488 0 1,488 102 Note 1 Otay Ranch High 2,545 2,019 315 2,334 204 Note 1 Olympian High 1 2,511 1,913 0 1,913 204 Note 1 NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,218 1,576 658 2,234 204 Y Bonita Vista 1,228 929 328 1,257 204 Y Middle Rancho del Rey 1,696 1,522 0 1,522 153 Note 1 Middle **TOTAL 24,564 19,519 4,499 24,018 2,601 Y *See note under previous table. **See note under previous table. Note 1:See note under previous table. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 213 2.b FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2018 Projected Building Capacity Adjusted Physical Within Overflow %Residing Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity Within Schools 12/31/18 Capacity* Capacity Boundaries NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,000 906 211 1,117 255 y Hilltop Middle 1,400 1,114 105 1,219 204 y Chula Vista High 2,500 1,823 770 2,593 204 y Hilltop High 2,300 1,878 365 2,242 204 y SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,000 1,298 53 1,351 204 y Castle Park High 1,600 1,388 535 1,923 204 y Palomar High 350 287 237 524 0 y Chula Vista Adult 2,450 n/a SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,800 1,378 922 2,300 255 Note 1 Eastlake Middle 1,800 1,488 0 1,488 102 Note 1 Otay Ranch High 2,500 2,019 315 2,334 204 Note 1 Olympian (HS#13) 2,500 1,913 0 1,913 204 Note 1 MS#12 900 y HS#14 1,800 y NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,400 1,576 658 2,234 204 y Bonita Vista 1,300 929 328 1,257 204 y Middle Rancho del Rey 1,700 1,522 0 1,522 153 Note 1 Middle **TOTAL 27,850 19,519 4,499 24,018 2,601 Note 1 *See note under Table 1. **See note under Table 1. Note 1: District staff currently projects the need for Middle School No. 12 and High School No. 14 no earlier than 2016-17.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 Vista,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. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 214 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY Schools 2012-13 2011-12 2010-2011 2009-10 2008-09 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,721 6,798 6,823 7,067 7,242 %of Change Over the -1.1% -0.4% -3.5% -2.4% ° -z.7/° Previous Year %of Enrollment from Chula 87% 87% 88% 88% 88/°° Vista SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 2,712 2,792 3,068 2,977 3,064 %of Change Over the -2.9% -9.0% 3.1% -2.8% Previous Year %of Enrollment from Chula 91% 91% 92% 94% 94% Vista SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 9,414 9,007 8,550 8,446 8,242 %of Change Over the 4.5% 5.4% 1.2% z.5% ° Previous Year 4.9/° %of Enrollment from Chula 92% 93% 94% 95% 94/°° Vista (Note 1) NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,066 5,071 4,854 4,938 5,088 %of Change Over the -0.1% 4.5% -1.7% -1.4% -2.4/° Previous Year %of Enrollment from Chula Vista 89% 91% 72% 72% 71% DISTRICT-WIDE Total Enrollment 45,972 40,507 40,740 41,580 42,420 %of Change Over the 13.49% -0.57% -2.02% -1.98% -0.98% Previous Year %of Enrollment from Chula Vista 59% 55% 55% 49% 48% 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth through the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes X No 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 215 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth fort he next five years?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. 6. Please complete the table below. NEW SCHOOLS STATUS Architectural School Review/Funding Beginning of Service by Time Name/ Site ID for Land and Site Utilities and Beginning of Needed Number 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 7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities/schools? If not, please explain. Yes No X 8. Are any schools slated to close? 9. What is the status of various after-school programs, adult education, etc.? 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. The unstable economy, high foreclosure rate, and the expansion of charter schools into the 7-12 arena make the 5- year projections for east Chula Vista very tentative. The timing of Middle School 12 and High School 14 may change significantly as the economy recovers. PREPARED BY: Name: Paul Woods Title: Director of Planning and Construction Date: February 11, 2014 "SCHOOLS"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; 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 216 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. 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 217 Sweetwater Authorit y - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1 , 2012 —June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast 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 5-Year Projection 20.0 39.5 30 44.55 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (Ending 6/30/18) 12-18 Month Projection 19.5 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (Ending 6/30/15) WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water FY 2012/13 18.8 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/13) FY 2011/12 18.3 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/12) FY 2010/11 18.6 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/11) FY 2009/10 18.6 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/10) FY 2008/09 20.3 37 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 runoff within the Sweetwater River watershed and is, therefore, unpredictable. Based on a 20-year average, 48 percent of water demand has been supplied by imported water sources. b. Table values are for all of Sweetwater Authority, which only serves the western portion of Chula Vista.Sweetwater also serves the City of National City and the unincorporated community of Bonita. c. Production demand is taken from the Sweetwater Authority Water Use Reports that are submitted monthly to SDCWA. d. 12-18 month and 5-year potable water production demand projections are taken from Table 4-2 of Sweetwater Authority's 2010 Water Distribution System Master Plan. e. Local supply components include the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Facility(5 mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd), for a total of 37 mgd or 13,500 MG Sweetwater Authority—2014 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 218 per year.The Reynolds Desalination Facility production is scheduled to increase to 10 mgd in 2017, 7.5 mgd of which is allocated to Sweetwater Authority, bringing the local supply capacity to 39.5 mgd or 14,400 MG per year. f. Imported supply includes 30 mgd, or 10,950 MG per year of imported raw water treated at the Perdue Plant.Sweetwater Authority can substitute or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection with SDCWA.Total supply capacity,however,is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. g. Sweetwater Authority's 2010 Water Distribution System Master Plan lists existing and recommended treated water storage. The 1.2 MG Central-Wheeler tank is scheduled to be built next. h. Raw water storage capacity equals 28,079 acre-feet at Sweetwater Reservoir,and 25,387 acre-feet at Loveland Reservoir, for a total of 53,466 acre-feet, or 17,421 MG. 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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 Sweetwater Authority has several maintenance and upgrade programs where pipelines, valves, and other facilities are being replaced.This allows Sweetwater Authority to continue to provide excellent service in the near and long term.The majority of the planned improvements, along with estimated costs, are listed in the 2010 Water Distribution System Master Plan.The final design of the Desalination Facility Expansion project is under way, with construction anticipated to start in early 2015. In addition, Sweetwater Authority plans to replace approximately 3 miles of 36-inch water transmission pipeline through Bonita Valley, which is critical for continued long term water supply to the City of Chula Vista. 4. Please provide any other relevant information,recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. 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. Sweetwater Authority—2014 2 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 219 PREPARED BY: Name: Ron R. Mosher Title: Director of Engineering Date: January 17, 2014 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. Sweetwater Authority—2014 3 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 220 Traffic - 2014 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire July 1, 2012 —June 30, 2013 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast With appropriate maps and tables, please provide brief responses to the following: 1. During the period under review, has the city maintained LOS "C" or better on all signalized arterial segments? If not, please list segments involved and explain. Yes No X During the period under review Heritage Road Northbound from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road did not meet the City's GMOC threshold standards. In the 2013 GMOC Report, Otay Lakes southbound from East`H' Street to Telegraph Canyon Road did not meet the threshold standards. Due to construction on Otay Lakes Road in front of Southwestern College, this segment was not analyzed for 2014. 2. During the period under review,were there arterial segments operating at LOS "D"for more than two hours during peak hours? If yes, please update the table below and explain how the situation is being addressed. Yes X No LOS 2012 LOS 2013 SEGMENT Limits DIR Hours Hours CHANGE Heritage Road NB D(5) E(1) D(5) E(1) None (Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Canyon Road) Citywide, Heritage Road in the northbound direction, from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road, the arterial segment exceeded the LOS "D" for more than two hours during the peak hours. Numerous signal/corridors have been analyzed for phasing and timing improvements based on traffic data collected by city staff. The data determines the need for re-timing analysis and improving the traffic flow characteristics for fewer vehicle stops and delays. On April of 2013, Heritage Road between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway was analyzed by our Signal Systems Engineer to determine the need for timing improvements. A new coordination timing plan was implemented between East J Street and Olympic Parkway to provide better progression through the Heritage Road corridor. Following an evaluation period from the public and floating car survey, it was determined the improvements were not enough to meet GMOC threshold standards. The new timing was therefore removed and developing a revised timing plan is underway. Traffic - 2014 1 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 221 3. Are current facilities able to accommodate growth for the next 12 to 18 months without exceeding the threshold standards? If not, please list new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth forthe 12-to 18-month timeframe. Yes No X The westbound Olympic Parkway Corridor is still experiencing varying degrees of delay. Regional traffic modeling confirms that when the roadway network is completed in accordance with the build-out plans the system will operate meeting GMOC Standards. An important link in this ultimate plan is the extension of Heritage Road as a 6-Lane arterial between Olympic Parkway and Main Street. Over the next several years, a number of improvement projects are needed in order to improve the levels of service along Olympic Parkway. These near term projects are as follows: o CI P TF-377 will lengthen the westbound Olympic Parkway left-turn pocket to southbound Brandywine Avenue. This project has been approved and will help alleviate the traffic congestion to the I-805 freeway in the near term. o Direct Access Ramps at I-805 and East Palomar Street Bridge. Construction has commenced with completion in late 2014. o The southerly extension of Heritage Road as a 2-lane interim facility from Olympic Parkway to Main Street (Phase 1), between Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria is under construction, completion in early 2014. Phase 11, as a 2-lane interim facility between Santa Victoria and Main Street, to commence construction in FY14/15. For Otay Lakes Road improvements, generally along the frontage of Southwestern College (STM-355), construction has commenced. Improvements consist of additional through lanes in both directions, dual left-turn pockets into Southwestern College and raised medians from south of East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road/La Media Road. This project is anticipated to be completed by early 2014 and will further 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 orwith development impact fees such as the TDIF,for east of 1-805,the WTDIF for west of 1-05 and/or a combination of other local, TransNet, state and federal funds. The 1-805 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 in place to provide this funding? Yes, there are appropriate funding mechanisms in place to provide funding for needed roadway improvements. Traffic - 2014 2 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 222 4. Are current facilities able to accommodate growth for the next five years without exceeding the threshold standards? If not, please list new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth for the 5-year timeframe. Yes No X Olympic Parkway Olympic Parkway traffic levels will increase as development continues to the east. With continued traffic monitoring, the schedule for constructing the ultimate 6-lane southerly extension of Heritage Road will be determined. Construction of the first phase of the roadway between Olympic Parkway and Santa Victoria Road has commenced. Construction should be completed in early 2014. Further monitoring of the Olympic Parkway corridor and the number of building permits issued will trigger the ultimate 6-lane improvements of Heritage Road to the south to Main Street. Along the freeway medians, Caltrans is currently in construction of the carpool lanes portion of the 1-805 Managed Lanes project between East Palomar Street and E Street/Bonita Road. The 1-805 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 towards the center of the 1-805 freeway, not the typical on/off ramps where you merge from the right side of the freeway. The project includes a value-pricing program allowing toll-paying single occupant vehicles access onto and off the 1-805 at East Palomar Street. The East Palomar Street Bridge has been demolished and the new bridge with the Direct Access Ramps should be constructed in FY 14/15 as part of the East Palomar Street Direct Access Ramp (DAR) Project. As the construction progresses, staff will present updates to the Council and to the public. Once completed, it is expected that with the 1-805 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 1-805 DAR then east towards the Otay Ranch shopping center generally utilizing the median area within the Sunbow 11 and Otay Ranch neighborhoods. The SBBRT project is in the design phase now and it is anticipated that construction will commence in FY14/15 with a completion date early 2016. 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 Traffic - 2014 3 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 223 Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. SR-125 traffic volumes which were historically in the 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day range are now well into the 30,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day range. Otay Lakes Road The construction of Phase 3 of the Otay Lakes Road widening project is under construction and should be completed in early 2014. 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. Southwestern College traffic significantly impacts this segment. The improvements will increase the capacity on Otay Lakes Road and improve the traffic within the area of Southwestern College. 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 staff time only. 5. Please provide an update on transit-oriented projects and statistics on current bus ridership and pedestrian access. The following data was provided by the Metropolitan Transit System: 2005 (the most complete sample year prior to Jan 1, 2006) H & 3rd—Westbound —54on/83off(Estimated Weekday Daily Riders) H & 3rd—Eastbound—64on/78off 2009 (the most complete sample year after Jan 1, 20081 H & 3rd—Westbound —188on/129off H & 3rd—Eastbound—102on/193off 6. Please identify public transportation projects and indicate how they will impact meeting threshold standards. Traffic - 2014 4 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 224 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.chulavistaca.gov/City Services/Development Services/Engineering/docume nts/PSRCVLRT-Final-August20l2.pdf) 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, lowering the roadway under the tracks. 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 of the 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 21 st, 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 of work is expected to take about 24-months to complete. Design and construction funds have not yet been identified. 7. Please provide information on what methods of data collection were used to supply the responses in this questionnaire. Traffic Engineering uses several methods of data collection to measure traffic volumes and delays. Traffic hoses are often used to collect traffic volume data to calculate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT). This data is the basis for several types of studies: Engineering and Traffic - 2014 5 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 225 Traffic Speed Survey, Traffic Signal, All Way Stop, Crosswalk and Left-Turn Warrant Studies. The Traffic Management Program (TMP)deploys a specially equipped vehicle into average weekly peak traffic to gather average speed, travel time and delay information for each roadway segment studied. This program determines which local streets and arterial roadways have the most delays. The Arterial Travel Time System is a wireless application for remotely managing deployed detection networks. The system measures and reports Real-Time travel times along East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. The detection is from unique vehicle magnetic detection signatures, re-identifies vehicles to provide accurate travel times and vehicle density. The system helps in determining performance measures for vehicular counts and traffic delays. It provides data used for incident management and load balancing of the traveled segment. It has the capability of storing historical traffic volume data than can be used for future studies. In the eastern part of the City (east of I-805), developers have paid for 28 permanent traffic count stations. The count stations store traffic volume data and can remotely accessed through the internet. As with the other methods of data collection, they are all used in monitoring the City's traffic flow for the GMOC. 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The 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 crossing the trolley tracks and west of I-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 the City of Chula Vista, in collaboration with Caltrans District 11. The study analyzes a variety of 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 I-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. Additional major road improvement projects are being proposed within the next 4-6 years. In the southern part of the City, the design of the street improvements on Broadway, between Main Street and southern City limits is in its initial design phase. The projects will include road widening, curb, gutter and sidewalks and bike lanes. Construction is proposed for late 2014. Traffic - 2014 6 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 226 The Willow Street Bridge project is in its final design phase and construction could start in late 2014. The existing bridge is outdated for seismic and is within the 100-year flood plain. It will be replaced with a wider bridge deck and include sidewalks and bike lanes. The Heritage Road Bridge, near the Sleep Train Amphitheatre will also be replaced. The existing temporary bridge is also within the 100-year flood plain. The new bridge will be constructed above the 100-yearflood level and built widerto accommodate future growth to the east and provide the amphitheater with improved ingress and egress to I-805. As the south eastern portion of the City continues to develop, the Main Street corridor will become another major access thoroughfare to I-805. The Main Street corridor will provide relief to the Olympic Parkway corridor once it is built and provide access from the Eastern Urban Core area to the SR-125 and I-805 freeways. (See Attachment 1) The Traffic Signal Systems Engineer is working on the Signal Optimization Program to implement and monitor new signal timing within the City's major arterial roadways. On May of 2013, the Broadway corridor was re-timed as part of the Protected Left-Turn conversion program. Due to the increased timing needed for protected left-turn phasing, the entire Broadway corridor from C Street to Palomar Street were retimed with new weekday and weekend timing plans. In mid-August, the re-timing of 13 intersections in the Broadway corridor was completed. Olympic Parkway, between Brandywine Avenue and Melrose Avenue, is also under review for signal optimization. Upon evaluation, it was determined that there is a need to fully synchronize all traffic lights along the aforementioned segment which includes Caltrans operated ramp signals. City staff is waiting on traffic volumes counts from Caltrans in order to create the new timing plans. After receiving the traffic volume data, City staff will collaborate with Caltrans to coordinate new timing plans before any field implementation is performed. Work is expected to be completed in December 2013 or early 2014. With the increasing development in the Olympic Parkway corridor, City staff will be evaluating this corridor in 2014. The wireless vehicle detection system installed in 2012 in the three major corridors, East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway will provide real-time 24-hours per day, 365 days-a-year level of service data. After Olympic Parkway is analyzed, the other 2 major corridors will be evaluated. PREPARED BY: Name: Ben Herrera Title: Associate Engineer Date: October 31, 2013 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. 2. 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. Traffic - 2014 7 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 227 •� PW w ntl3rm zQ1Dm o ``:V�f Yr O NGWN1,01SZL-NS O O O O O O O oi00000� � SOtlON„o1SZL-NS � J J J J J J w Ln w \ Sc$¢ od aatlla3W VL U 'yw^, a i LL g, 0'o 4 w °) -� > a mo�Jy po \\ J ►� e \ � e 0 \ v� a L Q 7 - - 'V ^ o rin I Cl Tu �Odsbd )w I LU N ^YW NO'831N30 N0103W w d ` TWO Atl 3N W1AONtlNN � O., T� w >O��>� 0L'Ep"ORR pY I O - - sAtlM3 Asos-I q \ l W •Gti \ NbbNa1 d I✓ PY r O -"pG\0t1 pY SE O \ MEL'RO d0 W O I W d ~< W y O O 3�PeO��P ty "` top oR a I r � e 80 6 F\SS AY \ �Yn ° �a' I rl a L �. d' ntl Nlanoa v J X N 1 SEO0H0 A SWRO pY O ( LL L \FpORSHp r a Yn r I u A LL Yn 0R0p0W \ \\ "FpORt"pY ,� ,W f\FZ"AY WpHS'(RLA�B� J 0 1.6 \ 1-S FREEWAVN Wp00�p REWpVS I V M PW"ppW \ till 0 4 4LrJ 7 1K IN I i r s�7 -- 1 �� G�'j �� �t IIIIIIIIIIII � � �! .� ,O,► � �♦ � =1111111 • ���� - IIII I ' ' V LM � ♦ .�� __ • go i � � <� ,Oj �� �♦ � _1111111 . ♦ ,� Ql � ♦ IIIII � o Ell oil 110"liorxlti ME I I 1-.1 ON d �� Wit► ., . WE �f �� ` ��� �, ' . !� ♦ .^;� iii RESOLUTION NO. PCM-13-11 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2014 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 3, 2014, the GMOC finalized its 2014 Annual Report; and WHEREAS,the report covers the period from July 1,2012 through June 30,2013,identifies current issues in the second half of 2013 and early 2014,and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public meeting with the City Council to consider the 2014 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 2014 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein to the City Council for consideration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept the 2014 GMOC Annual Report. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Kelly Broughton Glen R. Googins Director of Development Services City Attorney 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 231 Resolution No. PCM 13-11 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 1St day of May, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Lisa Moctezuma, Chair ATTEST: Patricia Laughlin Secretary to the Planning Commission 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 232 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2014 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring threshold standards for eleven quality of life indicators associated with the City's Growth Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2014, the GMOC finalized its 2014 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013, identifies current issues in the second half of 2013 and early 2014, and assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public meeting with the Planning Commission to consider the 2014 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 2014 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: Kelly Broughton Glen R. Googins Director of Development Services City Attorney 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 233 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California this 1St day of May 2014,by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cheryl Cox,Mayor ATTEST: Donna Norris, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) CITY OF CHULA VISTA) 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 1St of May, 2014. Executed this 1St day of May, 2014 Donna Norris, City Clerk 2014-05-01 Agenda Packet Page 234 N M N bD O ++ y 3: O Z 0 O O O + O a'L a`O O O O � t y y 0 L y = •— O y t 3: ± O L C O i C Q t_ .— M 4a ++ 4a C a, E U o O ° V 06 Q O V O V ?� O . p d C W C x O O L 0 0 O m > O � O O +O+ c� Z M O `� ayi ° 3 c�i � � -0 O '� y V 0 V p Q L O C Z 'O 3 Q E R -19 L O y_ O s- 0++ O 2 G � M O O O +' 'y M +, � L U W G� V 4- i / _ + O O � J Qi J +O+ .� V +O+ >+ — —E Ofn V 0 0) t aai > o c _ a� a� i a� ° v �> a � a>i � � v N - N (n C� ri ri Z T" m 04 m ri ri ri t M O M t 0 ° L OO W G O V N O Q N � y � 3 ° � o � f E 0 . � 0 n � Z o ° Er- o - � L L V a L - �_ L O m z Q N O N y N L E O C o 0 O L O C V 5 C G Q Z i+ i+ ° Q C C C ++ - C L L B � Lc ° �= cc � W O t 0 U o U .O = L 0 0 0 0 4' o O +�+ O O V a°i 'c (1)L (1) M L L L O ++ U C O M 0) o > L —_ O O () o y o = c t C t J HQ +O Voo VQ a' Q O E O =V 0i Q LL ++ � y M o V N c ° o a ° . u r N r N r N M M r r M N M M M M ° un 0 d' r 0 N M N bD z L o p o O ++ y ±+ O L O p C > O 3 a� L ° � 3 3 0 > a 0) o � mo o ° o C 3 S W i O p V O (a Q O i O ++ Y v O L C p >+ U W C G °O v L>+ 5 ° y a) 4— a) L- oa mo + ++ v + fn y 0)w _ C O O O p z IM 0 Z W C O J U V N O ++ +°+ cn L O p p L m cOj t C d L W C W (1) C 0 U U += p O O Y O OC y v CL L Z o ++ � Q) W ° act N 0 C p02 3 0° ° 0 n 0 0 C O �' Q y O d � 0 O C � y C �' C � O O � � V V v o °O a E � ° ac E O I�a �c =a o p L L 0, ° O > +, + + � 0 O p L� O 3 — m =0 cna a MMo Oa- > W E t? z aM M LQ o� z M M M w Owe - J ° L N o 3 zap, . °;= > � Z o c 4) o �1� 3: L V p (n y C V z O 0 0 +O+ + C p L � L y L 0 r O Q U aL a�iN Z p E 7 Q Q pm C ++ O V IM O N G t_ 0 — > cOj 0 4a O C C OCO U C) Qmy Za, G1 may _ cn � W = " 3 _ W M r Q O pp +�_' L pp t t C N U 3 � V y V o V U U (n U L O � o � � � 0 a na 3 En a � � ch C i Lo M ri Lo ri ° Ln 0 d• r 0 N M N Z oE O LO +O+ O O y V N 3 C 0 O O C t i V 0 � o � U � � a� Ua� > cc � vc Q N = = O E N w V v// aO O c c Q c � = O W Z 0 r } 0 a o y N±+ G Z c p L +, 0 L 0 `~ v v p p v +' c = N ++ _ o W > L O c 0 c 3 c a > Nc30My 0 M °r M Lv N o Z W L O N ++ - W W E V O Q N c Y N L }' O C/) � a � N L 3 c a = y r r LU o � 3 °o c 3occcimQE0cny a� oo ° m 00 % G Z ++ = p N ++ L p 0 p ++ p O r- L ++ +, 0 <C C Q Q _ N p 00 L c = N ++ p N p — ++ ++ c O ~ W > 70 3 a) .- v m p cn E t N 0 v d C a0+ cn c o 0 +� (D E- 0 -W 0 > cn > U . a, o �_ a E 0 c o M a V V O .y M U) U Y O r- 0 i co M N O O y V y Q �0 0 C L O Y tG fA Q O ++ O O L °p L 00 'r C y a O y o �= L � ++ 0 V p V L N m 2 -0 N O 0) o O°F V O a1 y U i y Q ++ L co V � CY - 0) -0 O O O O d c c -0 >+ O ' (n V O O c L y M V c i t y �'' U IM M O y ° v w z '> � � cno +, �, �, � L > � 5O O O N .> N 3 G OC Z z Q L = V c O y 0 L c c ° a� z � � acia � }c--, ° � a ° .0 oU o a= o O c SO c (n QCa- O L 3Q OC 0-.2 oyE '30 � � U -0 °LL Ear y 'M 0 0 — ' m C ° Q L �0 � C'1 73 0- 2 Qy � 3 O ° � 0 0 0o o c � a o UU o � ° O 0- oL O0O SO > 0-U m C/) Q y V M E 0 c V 3+ Z w a C F- C r LPL ZZ I` M 00 M C � y � C O w L J }' = � a ° 'NO z ° .0 O C 0 O E G C/) m y V 0 V � �w C/) ) z +L, V L Z O y O ao p 0 � � �, L Z H a ° C a c Q Q V N M G M m� y L O Lac O te + r— O (1) a V OC O w O y 0 U � O 3c V1 ° moo ° UV N �� aE O UQo � �f v L 0 U y O C O a O N O H .0 Q t y c L ~ � � � H N O d• H O N M N C/) Z `O O � � LO L F- (Q +O+ 0) U 0 co c c 06 a 0 0 U W V N N 0 � � ZcL HOC z ~ 5 -0 c 0 � � W W � W Fn U) � - T a0 sL) c/) LL 2 = `uu) 5z L 30 Q � 0 � w70 ; � 0 � cnU) � mw U y 0�, = O O = t? 0 o (I) = z Fn p a w z w Ow F- J za W2 2 -� C/) WC/) z 0 z 0 a0 H a ~ o w =w O o0G O U OW w oc r � U N 0 O x u 0. '6 bD ti O N O d' H O N