HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-23 Agenda Packet I declate under penalry�f perjury thai I am employed
�y the Ciry of Chula Vista in[he oRce of the City Clerk
aad that 1 posted the documrn[aaording to Brown Act
requiremrnu. - -
_ - - — — - -�'-� .
_. - ,-� . Dated: I 2- �'Sigoed: �.. , � �
_ ,
, .._ !.
- - \ � �
,
� . -. cm oF
; ` CHULA VISfA
_ \
• •
� f�4���li��"�
�
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor
Patricia Aguilar, Councilmember Gary Halbert, City Manager
Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attomey
John McCann, Councilmember ponna R. Norris, City Clerk
Steve Miesen, Cauncilmember
Thursday, April 23, 2015 6:00 PM Council Chambers
276 4th Avenue, Building A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Special Meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission and the
Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista
Notice is hereby given that the Ma}ro� o/ the City o/ Chula Vista has calfed and will convene a Special Meeting of
the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Growth Management Oversight Commission on Thursday,
April 23, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, Cali(omia to
consider the item on this agenda.
CALLTO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Mayor Salas
Planning Commissioners Anaya, Fragomeno, Fuentes, Gutienez, Livag, Nava and Chair
Calvo
Growth Management Oversight Commissioners Alatone, Bunker, Danciu, Lengyel, Livag,
Masolgo, Rosales and Chair Torres
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
Ciry ol ChNa Ysta Paga 7 Pnntatl on 477/M75
City Council Agenda April 23, 2015
WORKSHOP
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. 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. 15 -0114 REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S (GMOC)
2015 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015
GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING
ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015 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
Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public meeting, Planning Commission adopt
resolution A, and Council adopt resolution B.
ADJOURNMENT
to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 5, 2015, at 5:00 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 411712015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 2
.� Emma
CITY OF
CHULAVISTA
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION'S (GMOC) 2015 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING THE 2015 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE
BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE
2015 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 meeting, 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 2015 Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30,
2014; identifies current issues in the second half of 2014 and early 2015; and assesses threshold
compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each threshold in
terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. A summary table of the
GMOC's recommendations and staffs proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the
activity may have a significant effect on the environment because it involves only acceptance of the
GMOC Annual Report and does not involve approvals of any specific projects; therefore, pursuant to
Section 15061(b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines no environmental review is necessary. Although
environmental review is not necessary at this time, specific projects defined in the future as a result
of the recommendations in the 2015 GMOC Annual Report will be reviewed in accordance with
CEQA, prior to the commencement of any project.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission will provide comments and any recommendations at the workshop.
DISCUSSION
The 2015 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
City of Chula Vista Page 1 of 9 Printed on 4/17/2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Po Page i Legistar TM
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
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 gradually moving upward with
930 units being issued building permits in 2014.
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, more detailed
explanations of findings and discussion /recommendations.
1. Summary of Findings
The following table summarizes the GMOC's 2015 threshold compliance findings for the current
review period (July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014) and looking forward at any potential for non - compliance
between 2015 and 2019.
Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance
Not In Compliance
In Compliance
Potential Future Non -
Compliance
Libraries
Air Quality
Fire /EMS
Police - Priority 1
Drainage
Libraries
Police - Priority 2
Fiscal
Parks and Recreation
Traffic
Parks and Recreation
Traffic
Fire /EMS
Schools
Sewer
Water
2. Summary of Key Issues
Below are threshold compliance summaries from the GMOC report, along with staff responses (as
indicated in Attachment 1).
Thresholds Not in Compliance
LIBRARIES
3.1.1 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
The Libraries threshold standard has not been met for the eleventh consecutive year. Despite
population growth in Chula Vista during this review period, the libraries 30,000- square -foot deficit
remained steady due to a 2,000- square -foot expansion ( "The Hub ") at the Otay Ranch Town Center
Library Branch. The lease for the Otay Ranch Library is scheduled to expire at the end of 2017,
which would result in a potential loss of 5,412 square feet of library space if the lease is not renewed.
Since Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) funding for construction of a new library
will be insufficient for several more years, the GMOC would like to see the Otay Ranch Library lease
extended until the Millenia library is built. According to the 2009 Development Agreement, a
City of Chula Vista Page 2 of 9 Printed on 4/17/2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Po Page ""
b Legistar T
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
timetable for delivery of the Millenia library would be established within one year of completion of the
updated Libraries Master Plan. Council approved the Master Plan in April 2014 and the City
Manager is currently in discussions with the developer about extending the trigger.
The GMOC also determined that existing facilities were not being fully utilized during the review
period because of inadequate equipment and staffing.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
• That City Council direct the City Manager to negotiate extension of the Otay Ranch
Town Center Library Branch until the library at Millenia is built, and actively campaign
for library grants, endowments, partnerships and other funding mechanisms to support
library needs.
Staff Response:
• Talks are progressing for the library at Millenia.
3.1.2 Renovation of Civic Center Library
Based on reports from the Library Director, the GMOC determined that the basement of the Civic
Center Library is currently underutilized and, if renovated, could be a great community space or
source of revenue from potential tenants.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
That City Council direct the City Manager to find funding to renovate the Civic Center
Library, focusing on the underutilized basement so that it could be accessible to the
community or serve as a revenue source from potential tenants.
Staff Response:
• Civic Center space is being renovated as funds are found.
3.1.3 Expanding Opportunities
The GMOC is supportive of enhanced levels of service and any other opportunities to generate
revenue, including integrating leasable space into existing and /or future facilities to supplement
ongoing operational expenses. The Library Director reported that the City has had discussions with
various schools about leasing some existing library space and the GMOC supports that option, as
well. In addition, as future parks are constructed, especially the 70 -acre park in Otay Ranch, the
GMOC endorses shared use of parks and recreation and library facilities. For example, a performing
arts venue, community meeting rooms and WiFi centers or computer rooms could be incorporated
into recreation facilities.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
• That City Council direct the City Manager to continue seeking opportunities within the
City of Chula Vista Page 3 of 9 Printed on 4/17/2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Po Page ""
b Legistar T
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
library system for potential revenue generation, and support mixed use of parks and
recreation and library facilities.
Staff Response:
• Opportunities for mixed use and revenue generating options are being explored.
POLICE
3.2.1 Non - Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard
For the second time in three years, compliance with the "Percentage of Call Responses within 7
Minutes" portion of the threshold standard was not met. It fell 1.7% short of the 81 % standard.
The "Average Response Time" component of the threshold standard has been met for several
consecutive years, and at 4 minutes and 57 seconds was the same as in Fiscal Year 2013.
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)
79.3%
7 minutes
4:57 min. /sec.
Urgent Response (Priority 2)
42.7%
7 minutes
11:26 min. /sec.
The Police Department attributed missing the threshold standard to chronically low staffing in the
Community Patrol Division and indicated that they have hired a full -time recruiter to fill officer
vacancies.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
• That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the retention and recruitment
programs and procedures for police officers so that the department will be properly
staffed and response times to Priority 1 calls can improve.
Staff Response:
• The Police Department has recently added hourly staff to assist with processing police
officer recruit backgrounds. With these additional resources, along with new mobile
data computers, improvements should be seen in response times. The Police
Department will continue to monitor and evaluate recruiting and retention programs.
3.2.2. Non - Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard
The number of Priority 2 calls went down by almost 700 from Fiscal Year 2013 to Fiscal Year 2014;
however, the threshold standard of responding to 57 percent of calls within 7 minutes was not met for
City of Chula Vista
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Page 4 of 9
Printed on 4/17/2015
pow frredeby LegistarT""
g 6
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
the 17t" consecutive year (see table above). At 42.7 percent, the percentage of calls responded to
within 7 minutes was the same in Fiscal Year 2014 as it was in Fiscal Year 2013, which was 14.3
percent below the threshold standard.
The average response time of 11 minutes and 26 seconds was an 11- second improvement, but still 3
minutes and 56 seconds above the threshold standard of 7 minutes and 30 seconds. However, the
response time would have complied with the new Priority 2 threshold standard of 12 minutes, which
will be in effect during the next review period. During the top -to- bottom process, it was determined
that the new threshold standard is a more accurate barometer for Priority 2 calls.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
Pending implementation of the new threshold standard that will be in effect for next
year's report, the GMOC has no recommendation at this time.
TRAFFIC
3.3.1 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
One arterial segment was non - compliant during the review period, northbound Heritage Road from
Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road. It has been chronically non - compliant over the years
and exceeded the Level of Service (LOS) threshold standard by four hours (three hours at LOS D
and one hour at LOS E).
Once Heritage Road is connected to Main Street, the City's traffic engineers expect this segment to
improve, along with other arterial segments where slower traffic patterns may be emerging. In the
meantime, however, the potential for non - compliance continues to exist.
For this review period, City staff chose not to measure some arterial segments that are typically
included in their analysis for the GMOC because several traffic improvement construction projects
were underway, creating abnormal traffic patterns. As those construction projects conclude and the
omitted arterial segments are included into future analyses, the expectation is that those segments
will be compliant. However, compliance is uncertain until construction projects are completed and
data from all relevant arterial segments are analyzed.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
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 2016.
Staff Response:
• The Public Works Department concurs with the GMOC recommendation;
recommendation is accepted. The environmental document has been completed as part
of the Village Three EIR. This section of Heritage Road has been fully bonded for. The
developer is endeavoring to complete the connection by December 2016.
City of Chula Vista Page 5 of 9 Printed on 4/17/2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Po Pagebi Legistar TM
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
3.4.1 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
The Fire and Emergency Medical Services threshold standard has not been met for the fourth
consecutive year.
FIRE and EMS Response Times
Review Period
Call
Volume
% of All Calls
Responded to
Minutes
Average
Response Tim
for all Calls2
Average Travel
Time
Average
Dispatch Time
Average Turn -
out Time
Threshold Standard: 80.0%
FY 2014
11,721
76.5%
6:02
3:34
1:07
1:21
FY 2013
121316
75.7%6-02
3 :48
1 :05
1 :08
FY 2012
111132
76.4%
5 :59
3 :43
FY 2011
91916
78.1%
6 :46
3 :41
FY 2010
101296
85.0%
5 :09
3 :40
FY 2009
91363
84.0%
4 :46
3 :33
FY 2008
91883
86.9%
6 :31
3 :17
FY 2007
101020
88.1%
6 :24
3 :30
CY 2006
101390
85.2%
6 :43
3 :36
The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes improved from 75.7% in FY 2013 to 76.5% in
FY 2014; however, the threshold standard of 80% was missed by 3.5 %. The Fire Department
reported that the geographical layout of the fire stations on the east side of the city and the number of
stations available to serve the community contribute to response times that do not comply with the
threshold standard. Response times from fire stations 6, 7 and 8, in particular, have not been
meeting the threshold standard, and the GMOC would like the Fire Department to focus on these
stations to improve their response times.
The Fire Department is implementing several system improvements that could significantly impact
compliance, including working on solutions to problems with their FirstWatch data reporting system,
and improving methodology for data collection, amongst others. The GMOC is hopeful that these
and /or other system improvements will result in threshold compliance.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
• That City Council direct the City Manager to collaborate with the Fire Chief in
implementing effective measures that improve response times and result in threshold
compliance.
Staff Response:
City of Chula Vista Page 6 of 9 Printed on 4/17/2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Po Page ""
by Legistar T
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
• Response times will become an objective to the goal of improving service delivery in
the Fire Department's 5 -year strategic plan. It is agreed to discuss with the City
Manager all strategic measures that must be implemented to reach the objective.
Thresholds Currently In Compliance
Threshold Standards were found to be compliant for Parks and Recreation, Fiscal, Schools,
Sewer, Drainage, Air Quality, and Water. However, the GMOC had comments and or
recommendations for Parks and Recreation and Fiscal, as outlined below:
PARKS AND RECREATION
3.5.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan
A draft of the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) has been completed and is being
reviewed by department directors. It will then be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
After that, it will move on to Council for their consideration. City staff is projecting that the PRMP will
be approved by the end of June 2015
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
That City Council approve the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan by the end of
June 2015 and make additional updates, as necessary.
Staff Response:
• Staff is preparing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan for presentation before the
Parks and Recreation Commission for early summer 2015 and a presentation before
City Council in summer /fall 2015.
3.5.1 Mixing Uses
As noted in the Libraries discussion, when future parks are constructed, especially the 70 -acre park
in Otay Ranch, shared use of parks and recreation facilities and library facilities should be explored.
For example, a performing arts venue, community meeting rooms or WiFi and computer centers
could be established in parks or recreation facilities.
The 2015 Annual Report recommends:
• That City Council direct the City Manager to support mixed use of parks and recreation
and library facilities.
Staff Response:
• Opportunities for mixed use and revenue generating options are being explored.
City of Chula Vista Page 7 of 9 Printed on 4/17/2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Po Page 4 Legistar TM
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
It should also be noted that, while the Parks and Recreation threshold standard was compliant as of
June 30, 2014, the report from Public Works indicates that it may be non - compliant by December 31,
2015, with 2.86 acres per 1,000 residents -- a deficit of 21.2 acres. By 2019, the ratio may fall to 2.67
acres per 1,000 residents - a deficit of 58.69 acres.
These projections assume that 44.48 acres of new parks will be completed as follows:
ACREAGE
LOCATION
13.10
Village 2
6.70
Village 3
3.48
Millenia
10.50
Village 8 West
6.80
Village 8 East
13.90
10range Park
The figures regarding threshold compliance are based on population and development projections,
which are subject to change. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that a park shortage may arise if
master planning and construction of at least portions of the 70 -acre community park site in Otay
Ranch are not actively pursued.
FISCAL
Although the threshold standard is technically compliant for this review period, the new threshold
standard, which will be in effect during the next review period, will provide a better barometer for
measuring compliance. As discussed in the Top -to- Bottom report brought to City Council earlier this
year, the current Fiscal threshold standard does not incorporate quantifiable benchmarks or
mechanisms to measure whether or not specific growth management goals are being met. Instead, it
requires that the GMOC be provided with an annual fiscal impact report and a Development Impact
Fee report, which was complied with.
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
City of Chula Vista Page 8 of 9 Printed on 4/17/2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet page pa LegistarT""
File #: 15 -0114, Item #: 1.
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. 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 - 2015 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary
2 - 2015 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo
3 - 2015 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Staff Contact: Kim Vander Bie
City of Chula Vista
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Page 9 of 9
Printed on 4/17/2015
p Page 1b LegistarT""
ATTACHMENT 1
2015 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY
Page 1 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 12
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS
STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
i.
Libraries
i. Libraries
3.1.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to negotiate
3.1.1 Talks are progressing for the library at Millenia.
extension of the Otay Ranch Town Center Library Branch
until the library at Millenia is built, and actively campaign
for library grants, endowments, partnerships and other
funding mechanisms to support library needs.
3.1.2
That City Council direct the City Manager to maximize use
3.1.2 Civic Center space is being renovated as funds are
of available space by finding funding to renovate the Civic
found.
Center Library, focusing on the underutilized basement so
that it could be accessible to the community, or serve as a
revenue resource from potential tenants.
3.1.3
That City Council direct the City Manager to continue
seeking opportunities within the library system for potential
3.1.3 Opportunities for mixed use and revenue generating
revenue generation, and support mixed use of parks and
options are being explored.
recreation and library facilities.
2.
Police
2. Police
3.2.1
That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the
3.2.1 The Police Department has recently added hourly staff
retention and recruitment programs and procedures for
to assist with processing police officer recruit
police officers so that the department will be properly
backgrounds. With these additional resources, along
staffed and response to Priority 1 calls can improve.
with new mobile data computers, improvements should
be seen in response times. The Police Department will
continue to monitor and evaluate recruiting and
retention programs.
Page 1 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 12
ATTACHMENT 1
2015 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY
Page 2 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 13
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS
STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
s.
Traffic
s.
Traffic
3.3.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to support City
3.3.1
The Public Works Department concurs with the GMOC
engineers in their efforts to ensure that a minimum of two
recommendation; recommendation is accepted. The
lanes of Heritage Road be constructed from Santa Victoria
environmental document has been completed as part
Road to Main Street by the end of calendar year 2016.
of the Village Three EIR. This section of Heritage Road
has been fully bonded for. The developer is
endeavoring to complete the connection by December
2016.
4.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
4.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
3.4.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to collaborate with
3.4.1
Response times will become an objective to the goal of
the Fire Chief in implementing effective measures that
improving service delivery in the Fire Department's 5-
improve response times and result in threshold
year strategic plan. It is agreed to discuss with the City
compliance.
Manager all strategic measures that must be
implemented to reach the objective.
s.
Parks and Recreation
s.
Parks and Recreation
3.5.1
That City Council approve the updated Parks and
3.5.1
Staff is preparing the Parks and Recreation Master
Recreation Master Plan by the end of June 2015 and make
Plan for presentation before the Parks and Recreation
additional updates, as necessary.
Commission for early Summer 2015 and a
presentation before City Council in Summer /Fall 2015.
3.5.2
That City Council direct the City Manager to support mixed
3.5.2
Opportunities for mixed use and revenue generating
use of parks and recreation and library facilities.
options are being explored.
Page 2 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 13
GTY OF
CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
2015 ANNUAL REPORT
Threshold Review Period 7/1/13 to 6/30/14
April 23,, 2015
Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. PCM 14 -11) and
City Council (Resolution No. 2014 -1 on April 23, 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 14
GMOC Members
Armida Torres, Chair (Business)
Leslie Bunker, Vice Chair (Education)
David Danciu (Southwest)
Eric Mosolgo (Environmental)
Javier Rosales (Northeast)
Mark Livag (Planning Commission Representative)
Michael Lengyel (Development)
Raymundo Alatorre (Northwest)
VACANT (Southeast)
Cify Staff
Kimberly Vander Bie - Growth Management Coordinator
Patricia Salvacion - Secretary
Scott Donaghe - Principal Planner
Ed Batchelder - Planning Manager
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691 -5101
www.chulavistaca.gov
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 15
GMOC Chair Cover Memo
DATE: April 23, 2015
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
FROM: Armida Torres, Chair
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
SUBJECT: Executive Summary - 2015 GMOC Annual Report
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its 2015 annual report for
your consideration and action. In reviewing information for this year's report, it was discovered that the
same four threshold standards were non - compliant as reported last year.
Threshold Standards for seven of the eleven quality -of -life topics were found to be compliant, including: Air
Quality, Drainage, Fiscal, Parks and Recreation, Schools, Sewer and Water. Threshold standards found to
be non - compliant were Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Libraries, Police Priority 1 and 2, and Traffic.
While the details of each are outlined in the attached report, the GMOC would like to highlight a few items
of special interest.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services — For the fourth consecutive year, response times failed to comply
with the threshold standard, which the Fire Department attributed to the existing network of fire stations
within the city. They stated that this issue will resolve itself at build -out, according to the 2014 Fire Facility
Master Plan. The GMOC was alarmed to hear the fire response issue may not be resolved until that time.
The performance of 20% of the calls, primarily from stations 6, 7 and 8 in eastern Chula Vista, caused the
threshold standard to be non - compliant. Narrowing down the specific problems and implementing
remedies should not be that complicated, and the GMOC urges the Fire Department to address this. The
Fire Chief stated that, historically, response time data has not been shared with the rank and file. However,
the strategic plan that the department is working on will include goals involving individuals at all levels
within the department to help improve response times. The GMOC believes this and other measures
outlined in the report would be a good start.
The Fire Department also spoke about their use of the 911 First Watch dashboard program, which provides
instant feedback on a call -by -call basis to each unit. It was discovered that this software had been
disconnected and was not being utilized. At this time, the issues with the software are not reconcilable and,
therefore, a potentially valuable tool in improving response times is not being utilized.
Libraries — For the eleventh consecutive year, Libraries is non - compliant. The Libraries Strategic Facilities
Plan approved by City Council last April confirmed that a minimum of 500 square feet of library space per
1,000 residents is the standard that the City should be using, yet the City's library square footage continues
to be grossly low, with a deficit of more than 30,000 square feet and growing. The GMOC supports the
Library Director's determination to explore creative approaches to provide library services to the citizens of
2015 Annual Report 1 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 16
the city and to go outside the box to find grant sources. However, the fact remains that the City is short one
entire library, and that is not acceptable. In addition, there is concern regarding prolonged deferred
maintenance for existing facilities. In light of the tremendous shortage of new library space, the
maintenance of existing space is critical and must be a priority.
Police — Although the Priority 1 threshold standard was found to be non - compliant for the second time in
three years, response times are expected to improve as staffing models fall into place and the new
threshold standard takes effect. The Police Department continues to improve upon the staffing issues
identified in previous reports and the GMOC is pleased that a high standard of hiring the finest caliber is
held in place as the Police Chief focuses on adding officers to fill vacancies, which was as high as 22 at
one point, and is currently down to 13.
The Priority 2 threshold standard was non - compliant for the 17th year in a row. However, it would have
been compliant with the new threshold standard that will go into effect in the next review period.
Traffic — Once again, the northbound Heritage Road segment between Olympic Parkway and Telegraph
Canyon Road failed to comply with the threshold standard. It has been consistently out of compliance for
several years, in either the northbound or southbound direction. According to the City's traffic engineers,
level of service improvements to this short segment are expected to occur when Heritage Road is extended
south to Main Street.
City staff reported that, during this review period, there were several arterial segments that were not
measured because results would have been skewed due to construction. Despite the lack of data, the
GMOC has an overall sense that traffic is becoming more congested throughout the City. We will continue
to monitor traffic carefully and look forward to seeing a full report on all arterial segments.
The GMOC is pleased that the top -to- bottom process has been completed and would like to thank the City
Council for their diligence in approving the proposed changes to the Growth Management Program, which
included changes to the growth management ordinance and creation of the Growth Management
Implementation Manual. The final products were the result of many hours of work from many dedicated
individuals seeking to improve the Growth Management Program to best serve the residents of our City.
The GMOC looks forward to working with the revised threshold standards for next year's report.
The GMOC appreciates the time and professional expertise provided by the staff of various city
departments (as well as the school districts, the water districts, and the Air Pollution Control District) for
their input on this year's annual report, specifically a big thank you to Kim Vander Bie, Patricia Salvacion,
Scott Donaghe and Ed Batchelder for their continued support and guidance. The written and verbal reports
presented to the GMOC demonstrate the commitment of these dedicated individuals to serve the citizens of
the City of Chula Vista.
2015 Annual Report 2 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 17
City of Chula Vista
GMOC 2015 Annual Deport
Table of Contents
GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO ............................................. ............................... 1 -2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................... ...............................
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................... ...............................
4 -5
1.1
Threshold Standards
4
1.2
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
4
1.3
GMOC 2015 Annual Review Process
5
1.4
Growth Forecast
5
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY .................. ...............................
6
3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ............ ...............................
7 -22
3.1
Libraries ..................................................... ...............................
7 -9
3.1.1 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
7 -9
3.1.2 Renovation of Civic Center Library
9
3.1.3 Expanding Opportunities
3.2
Police ...................................................... ...............................
10 -12
3.2.1 Non - Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard
10 -11
3.2.2 Non - Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard
12
3.3
Traffic ...................................................... ...............................
13
3.3.1 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
13
3.4
Fire and Emergency Services ....................... ...............................
14 -15
3.4.1 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
14 -15
3.5
Parks and Recreation .................................. ...............................
15 -16
3.5.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan
15 -16
3.6
Fiscal ...................................................... ...............................
16
3.6.1 Threshold Compliance
16
3.7
Drainage .................................................... ...............................
17
3.7.1 Threshold Compliance
17
3.8
Schools ...................................................... ...............................
17 -18
3.8.1 School Districts' Updates
18
3.9
Sewer ................................................... ...............................
19 -20
3.9.1 Long -Term Treatment Capacity
19 -20
3.10
Air Quality .................................. ...............................
20 -21
3.10.1 Threshold Compliance
20 -21
3.11
Water ...................................................... ...............................
21 -22
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance
21 -22
4.0 TOP- TO- BOTTM: CHANGES TO THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 22
5.0 DEVELOPMENT TOUR 22
6.0 APPENDICES ...................................................... ............................... 22
6.1 Appendix A — Growth Forecast
6.2 Appendix B — Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2015 Annual Report 3 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 18
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 topic 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 comprised 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: Armida Torres, Chair (Business); Leslie Bunker, Vice
Chair (Education); David Danciu (Southwest); Eric Mosolgo (Environmental); Javier
Rosales (Northeast); Mark Livag (Planning Commission); Michael Lengyel
(Development); and Raymundo Alatorre (Northwest). The Northeast position 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 2015 Annual
Report focuses on Fiscal Year July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014;
2. The second half of 2014 and beginning of 2015 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 2015 through December 2019 is assessed for
potential threshold compliance concerns.
The GMOC annually distributes questionnaires to relevant city departments and public
facility and service agencies to monitor the status of threshold standards compliance.
When the questionnaires are completed, the GMOC reviews them and deliberates
issues of compliance. They also evaluate the appropriateness of the threshold
standards, whether they should be amended, and whether any new threshold standards
should be considered.
2015 Annual Report
4
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 19
1.3 GMOC 2015 Annual Review Process
The GMOC held nine regular meetings and one development tour field trip between
October 2014 and April 2015; 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 a joint meeting, which is scheduled for April 23, 2015.
1.4 Growth Forecast
The Development Services Department annually prepares a Five -Year Growth Forecast,
the latest of which was issued in September 2014. 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 2014 through December 2019 indicated
an additional 10,827 residential units could be permitted for construction in the city over
the next five years, (9,760 units in the east and 1,067 units in the west), for an annual
average of 1,952 units in the east and 213 units in the west, or 2,165 housing units
permitted per year on average, citywide.
2015 Annual Report
5
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 20
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC's conclusions regarding threshold standards for
the 2014 annual review cycle. Seven thresholds were met and four were not.
2014 ANNUAL THRESHOLD STANDARD REVIEW SUMMARY
REVIEW PERIOD 7/1/13 THROUGH 6/30/14
Threshold
Threshold Met
Threshold Not
Met
Potential of
Future Non-
compliance
Adopt/Fund
Tactics to
Achieve
Compliance
1. Libraries
X
X
X
2. Police
Priority I
X
X
Priority II
X
X
3. Traffic
X
X
X
4. Fire /EMS
X
X
X
5. Parks and
Recreation
Land
X
X
Facilities
X
X
6. Fiscal
X
7. Drainage
X
8. Schools
CV Elementary
School District
X
Sweetwater
Union High
School District
X
9. Sewer
X
10. Air Quality
X
11. Water
X
2015 Annual Report
C
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 21
3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Libraries
Threshold Standard:
Population ratio: 500 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed library facility per
1,000 population. The city shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library
space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by build -out. The
construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the city will not fall below the city -wide
ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and
staffed.
Threshold Finding: Non - Compliant
3.1.1 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
LIBRARIES
Population
Total Gross Square Feet
of Library Facilities
Gross Square Feet of Library
Facilities Per 1000 Population
Threshold
500 Sq. Ft.
5 -Year Projection
(2019)
2671427
971412
364
12 -Month Projection
(12/31/15)
2571362
971412
378
FY 2013 -14
2561139
971412
380
FY 2012 -13
2511613
951412
379
FY 2011 -12
2491382
921000/951412 **
369/383 **
FY 2010 -11
2461496
1021000/921000*
414/387*
FY 2009 -10
2331692
1021000
436
FY 2008 -09
2331108
1021000
437
FY 2007 -08
2311305
1021000
441
FY 2006 -07
2271723
1021000
448
FY 2005 -06
2231423
1021000
457
FY 2004 -05
2201000
1021000
464
FY 2003 -04
2111800
1021000
482
FY 2002 -03
2031000
1021000
502
FY 2001 -02
1951000
1021000
523
FY 2000 -01
1 187,444
1021000
1 544
*After closure of Eastlake Library in 2011
* *After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012
2015 Annual Report
7
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 22
Issue: The Libraries threshold standard has not been met for the eleventh
consecutive year.
Discussion: Despite population growth in Chula Vista, the libraries square footage
deficit remained steady during this review period due to a 2,000- square-
foot expansion (dubbed "The Hub ") at the Otay Ranch Town Center
Library Branch in the fall of 2014. However, the total square footage of
libraries is still at least 30,000 square feet less than the threshold
standard requires, and is on course to get worse over the next decade as
Chula Vista's population increases and funding for additional facilities
remains uncertain. The lease for the Otay Ranch Library is scheduled to
expire at the end of 2017, which would result in a loss of 5,412 square
feet of library space.
2015 Annual Report
The GMOC would like to see the Otay Ranch Library lease extended until
the Millenia library is built. According to the 2009 Millenia Development
Agreement, a timetable for delivery of the library would occur within one
year of completion of the updated Libraries Master Plan. Council
approved the Master Plan in April 2014 and City management is currently
in discussions with the developer about extending the trigger. Granting
an extension, however, would be contradictory to what the GMOC
recommended in last year's report when it recommended:
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.
And the City's response was: The Library and City Manager will work
with the developers of Millenia to explore opportunities for accelerating
delivery of a new library.
In addition to insufficient square footage of facilities, the existing facilities
were not being fully utilized during the review period because of
inadequate equipment and staffing. In Fiscal Year 2014, the baseline
budget provided by the city's General Fund equaled 16 cents per capita
for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. With help from Friends of
the Library and additional grants and donations, the total amount rose to
about 50 cents per capita, far below the statewide average annual
materials expenditure of $2.68 per capita.
In terms of staffing, Chula Vista's library staffing ratio per capita is in the
bottom 15% of public libraries in California, according to the most recent
statistical data available (California Library Statistics 2013, published by
the CA State Library). The statewide staffing average is 3,429 persons
served by each library full -time employee. In Chula Vista, the ratio is
6,562 persons served by each library full -time employee.
8 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 23
Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to negotiate extension of the
Otay Ranch Town Center Library Branch until the library at Millenia is
built, and actively campaign for library grants, endowments, partnerships
and other funding mechanisms to support library needs.
3.1.2 Renovation of Civic Center Library
Issue: The Civic Center Library needs to be renovated to maximize use of
available space.
Discussion: The Civic Center Branch is showing the effects of prolonged deferred
maintenance (as is the South Branch), and is the oldest "main library" in
any city in San Diego County without a major renovation completed or
planned. The basement of the Civic Center Library is underutilized and, if
renovated, could be a great community space or source of revenue from
potential tenants. The GMOC strongly urges the City Council to take
action and make the Civic Center Library a priority.
Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to maximize use of available
space by finding funding to renovate the Civic Center Library, focusing on
the underutilized basement so that it could be accessible to the
community, or serve as a revenue resource from potential tenants.
3.1.3 Expanding Opportunities
Issue: Opportunities to generate substantial revenue for libraries must continue
to be aggressively pursued.
Discussion: The Chula Vista Public Library Strategic Vision Plan (February 2014)
states that one of the themes that arose during the course of the
development of the Strategic Vision Plan was "having tiers of service,
even offering opportunities for revenue generation at enhanced levels."
The GMOC is supportive of enhanced levels of service and any other
opportunities to generate revenue, including integrating leasable space
into existing and /or future facilities to supplement ongoing operational
expenses. The Library Director reported that the City has had
discussions with various schools about leasing some existing library
space and the GMOC supports that option, as well.
Also, as future parks are constructed, especially the 70 -acre park in Otay
Ranch, shared use of parks and recreation facilities and library facilities
should be strongly considered. For example, a performing arts venue,
community meeting rooms and WiFi centers or computer rooms could be
incorporated into recreation facilities.
Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to continue seeking
opportunities within the library system for potential revenue generation,
and support mixed use of parks and recreation and library facilities.
2015 Annual Report
9 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 24
3.2 Police
Threshold Standard:
Priority 1
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 % of
Priority 1 emergency calls within seven minutes and maintain an average response time to all
Priority 1 emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
Priority 2
Urgent Response: Respond to 57% of Priority 2 urgent calls within seven minutes and maintain
an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7.5 minutes or less.
Threshold Finding: Priority 1: Non - Compliant
Priority 2-. Non - Compliant
3.2.7 Non - Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard
Priority 1 — Emergency Response Calls or Services
Call Volume
% of Call Responses
Within 7 Minutes
Average
Response Time
Threshold Standard
81.0%
5:30
FY 2013 -2014
711 of 65,645
79.3%
4:57
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
1 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.
2015 Annual Report
10
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 25
Issue: The threshold standard was not met.
Discussion: For the second time in three years, compliance with the "Percentage of
Call Responses within 7 Minutes" portion of the Threshold Standard was
not met. It fell 1.7% short of the 81% standard.
The "Average Response Time" component of the Threshold Standard has
been met for several consecutive years, and at 4 minutes and 57 seconds
was the same as in Fiscal Year 2013.
The Police Department attributed missing the Threshold Standard to
chronically low staffing in the Community Patrol Division and indicated
that they have invested in marketing, hired a full -time recruiter, and hired
35 new officers. They have reduced the training program for new recruits
from 6 months to 4 months and have been striving to reduce the number
of vacancies, which was as high as 22 at one point, but is now down to
13.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the retention and
recruitment programs and procedures for police officers so that the
department will be properly staffed and response to Priority 1 calls can
improve.
2015 Annual Report
11
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 26
3.2.2. Non - Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard
Priority 2 — Urgent Response Calls for Service
Call Volume
% of Call Responses
Within 7 Minutes
Average
Response
Time
Threshold Standard
57.0%
7:30
FY 2013 -2014
17,817 of 65,645
42.7%
11:26
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
,L_EY 2003 -04
24,741 of 71, 000
48.4%
9:50
Issue: The Police Priority 2 threshold standard has not been met for the 17th
consecutive year.
Discussion: The number of Priority 2 calls went down by almost 700 from Fiscal Year
2013 to Fiscal Year 2014; however, the threshold standard of responding
to 57 percent of calls within 7 minutes was still not met. At 42.7 percent,
the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes was the same in
Fiscal Year 2014 as it was in Fiscal Year 2013, which was 14.3 percent
below the threshold standard.
The average response time of 11 minutes and 26 seconds was an 11-
second improvement, but still 3 minutes and 56 seconds above the
threshold standard of 7 minutes and 30 seconds. However, as a result of
the top -to- bottom process, the Priority 2 threshold standard was changed
to 12 minutes. The response times would comply with the new threshold
standard, which is a more accurate barometer for the Priority 2 tasks.
Recommendation: Pending implementation of the new threshold standard that will be in
effect for next year's report, the GMOC has no recommendation at this
time.
2015 Annual Report
12
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 27
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 2013 and 2014, 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
non - compliant. It exceeded the Level of Service (LOS) threshold
standard by four hours (three hours at LOS D and one hour at LOS E).
According to the traffic engineers, this arterial segment is short (less than
a mile) and, therefore, hypersensitive to the smallest changes in speed.
Once Heritage Road is connected to Main Street, they expect this
segment to improve.
Several traffic improvement construction projects were underway during
this review period, creating abnormal traffic patterns. Therefore, City staff
chose not to measure some arterial segments that are typically included
in their analysis for the GMOC.
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 2016.
2015 Annual Report
13
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 28
LOS 2013
LOS 2014
SEGMENT (Limits)
DIR
(Hours)
(Hours)
CHANGE
Heritage Road
(Olympic Parkway to Telegraph
NB
D(5) E(1)
D(5) E(1)
None
Canyon Road )
Non - Compliant
Non - Compliant
According to the traffic engineers, this arterial segment is short (less than
a mile) and, therefore, hypersensitive to the smallest changes in speed.
Once Heritage Road is connected to Main Street, they expect this
segment to improve.
Several traffic improvement construction projects were underway during
this review period, creating abnormal traffic patterns. Therefore, City staff
chose not to measure some arterial segments that are typically included
in their analysis for the GMOC.
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 2016.
2015 Annual Report
13
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 28
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% of the cases.
Threshold Finding: Non - Compliant
3.4.7 Non - Compliant Threshold Standard
FIRE and EMS Response Times
Review
Period
Call
Volume
% of All Calls
Responded
to Within 7
Minutes
Average
Response
Time
for all Calls'
Average
g
Travel
Time
Average
g
Dispatch
Time
Average
g
Turn -out
Time
Threshold Standard: 80.0%
FY 2014
113721
76.5%
6:02
3:34
1:07
1:21
FY 2013
121316
75.7%
6:02
3:48
1:05
1.08
FY 2012
111132
76.4%
5:59
3:43
FY 2011
91916
78.1%
6:46
3:41
FY 2010
101296
85.0%
5:09
3:40
FY 2009
91363
84.0%
4:46
3:33
FY 2008
91883
86.9%
6:31
3:17
FY 2007
101020
88.1%
6:24
3:30
CY 2006
101390
85.2%
6:43
3:36
CY 2005
91907
81.6%
7:05
3:31
FY 2003 -04
81420
72.9%
7:38
3:32
FY 2002 -031
81088
75.5%
7:35
3:43
FY 2001 -021
71626
69.7%
7:53
3:39
FY 2000 -01
71128
80.8%
7:02
3:18
FY 1999 -00
61654
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."
Issue: The Fire and Emergency Medical Services Threshold Standard has not
been met for the fourth consecutive year.
Discussion: The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes improved from
75.7% in FY 2013 to 76.5% in FY 2014; however, the Threshold Standard
of 80% was missed by 3.5 %. The Fire Department reported that the
geographical layout of the fire stations on the east side of the City and the
number of stations available to serve the community contribute to
response times that do not comply with the Threshold Standard.
Response times from fire stations 6, 7 and 8, in particular, have not been
meeting the Threshold Standard, and the GMOC would like the Fire
Department to focus on these stations to improve their response times.
2015 Annual Report
14
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 29
According to the Fire Department, three system improvements could
significantly impact compliance, including:
1. Additional fire stations within the network;
2. Additional improvements in call for service dispatch processes;
and
3. Improved management of response time performance to include
interactive discussion with fire crews, use of mapping capabilities,
and shared data with stakeholders.
To help effectuate change and improve response times, the Fire
Department is doing the following:
• Forming a group to help generate ideas on how to improve turnout
and travel times.
• Creating a method for identifying and marking times to signify
actual en route start and end times.
• Gathering and sharing data at individual crew levels to solicit
discussion and awareness of crew response time effectiveness.
• Establishing a method to determine what to do with anomaly data
that affect the data set being analyzed.
• Working on solutions to problems with the FirstWatch software
that was purchased to help the Fire Department address dispatch
and turnout problems by using real time data notification.
Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to collaborate with the Fire
Chief in implementing effective measures that improve response times
and result in threshold compliance.
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 1 -805.
Threshold Finding: Compliant at 2.96 acres per 1,000
3.5.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan
Issue: An update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan has still not gone to
Council for approval.
Discussion: A draft of the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) has
been completed and is being reviewed by department directors. It will
then be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. After that, it
2015 Annual Report 15 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 30
will move on to Council for their consideration. City staff is projecting that
the PRMP will be approved by the end of June 2015.
Recommendation: That City Council approve the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan
by the end of June 2015 and make additional updates, as necessary.
3.5.2 Mixing Uses
Issue: Combining the use of parks and recreation and libraries should be
considered.
Discussion: As noted in the Libraries discussion, when future parks are constructed,
especially the 70 -acre park in Otay Ranch, shared use of parks and
recreation facilities and library facilities should be explored. For example,
a performing arts venue, community meeting rooms or WiFi and computer
centers could be established in parks or recreation facilities.
Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to support mixed use of parks
and recreation and library facilities.
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
Issue:
Discussion:
2015 Annual Report
Threshold Compliance
None.
Although the Threshold Standard is technically compliant for this review
period, the new Threshold Standard, which will be in effect during the next
review period, will provide a better barometer for measuring compliance.
16
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop 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 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
Discussion: According to the City's engineers, increased growth will not directly
impact current channel operation over the next five years because
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. In western Chula Vista, where the parcels are
redeveloped at a higher density, developers may need to construct
additional facilities or reconstruct existing facilities in order to
accommodate new development.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board's Order No. R9- 2013 -0001
(NPDES Municipal Permit) has additional requirements for pollutant
control and hydromodification management on development projects and
developers will be required to construct facilities that comply with new
regulations going into effect in December 2015.
Recommendation: None.
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;
2015 Annual Report 17 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 32
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
3.8.7 School Districts' Updates
Issue: None.
Discussion: The Chula Vista Elementary School District is still waiting to be
reimbursed by the state for partial construction costs of Camarena
Elementary School in Village 11, which opened in 2013. This has made it
more challenging for the school district to secure funding for additional
schools. However, both the Chula Vista Elementary School District
(CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD)
reported that, within the next five years, they should be able to provide
the facilities necessary to accommodate additional students in eastern
Chula Vista.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Construction of an elementary school in Otay Ranch Village 2 is
scheduled to begin in 2016 and open in 2017. The District is still working
on securing a second school site in Village 2, which will be necessary
when triggers are reached due to projected growth actually occurring.
Sweetwater Union High School District
A combined high school /middle school had been planned for the District's
site on the northeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway.
However, because of an increase in SANDAG's 2030 housing
projections, the District decided to include the middle school in Otay
Ranch Village 8 West and leave the Hunte Parkway site for a high school
only. Splitting the two schools would result in a capacity increase of 1,000
students. Construction of both schools is currently scheduled to begin in
2016 and both are planned to open in 2018.
Recommendation: None.
2015 Annual Report
18
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 33
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
per Day (MGD)
FY 11/12
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
18 -month
projection
5 -year
Projection
"Build -out"
Projection*
Average Flow
15.935
15.734
15.466
16.67
18.34
29.89
Capacity
20.864
20.864
20.864
20.864
20.864
20.864
Issue: None.
Discussion: In July 2014, the City adopted an update to the 2004 Wastewater Master
Plan, documenting that the demand for sewer treatment capacity at build-
out has increased from 26.20 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) to 29.89
MGD. The increase of 3.69 MGD is due to planned densification in the
undeveloped portions of the City and it includes projected water savings
due to conservation efforts.
2015 Annual Report
19
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 34
At current growth projections, the City has enough capacity for the next
10 years. Staff will continue to monitor flow rates in order to secure
treatment capacity before it is needed.
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: None.
Discussion: Since 2010, smog trends in Chula Vista have not exceeded the one -hour
per day state standard; and since 2008, they have not exceeded the 1997
8 -hour federal standard. The City meets all current air quality standards
and ranks amongst the best air quality in San Diego County, according to
the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Air pollution in the entire region
continues to improve due to effective emission control strategies and
programs.
The City's green building and enhanced energy efficiency standards
require levels of efficiency 15 -20% higher than state codes. During the
review period, approximately 732 new /remodeled building units were
permitted, which complied with these standards.
2015 Annual Report 20 April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 35
In Chula Vista, nine development projects underwent formal CEQA
review for their contribution to local criteria air pollutants and greenhouse
gases. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was issued for four of
those projects (Otay Ranch Villages 2, 8, 9 and 10) because the projects'
air quality emissions were significant and unmitigable. This was due to
their construction and operation emissions not meeting City thresholds
and /or the regional air quality basin already being designated a
nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act.
Most development projects were found to have air quality impacts below
a level of significance and /or were required to incorporate mitigation
measures into their construction and operation.
As of July 1, 2014, new buildings and major renovations must be
approximately 25% more energy efficient than previous standards, due to
the 2013 Title -24 (Section 6) code requirements. Section 11 of the 2013
Title -24 code also updated statewide green building standards for indoor
air quality, effective on January 1, 2014. The City has hosted monthly
trainings for staff and local developers on the new code.
Recommendation: None.
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 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
2015 Annual Report
21
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 36
Discussion: Both the Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority reported that
water demand has not grown in recent years because customers are
conserving. Sweetwater indicated that the State Department of Water
Resources may decide to cut the water supply to its customers, however,
due to the drought in the state of California.
Over the next five years, both water companies stated that they will be
able to meet the water demands anticipated with projected growth.
Specific data is available in the Otay Water District and Sweetwater
Authority questionnaires, located in Appendix B of this report.
Recommendation: None.
4.0 TOP -TO- BOTTOM - CHANGES TO THE CITY'S
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
On October 22, 2014, the GMOC reviewed staff's final edits to the City's Growth Management
Program's documents, including the "Growth Management" ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code) and the Growth Management Program Implementation Manual.
Upon review, the GMOC voted to approve the documents and forward them to the Planning
Commission.
On November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve
the Growth Management Program documents, which were forwarded to Council and
subsequently approved on April 14, 2015, as recommended. Next year's GMOC report will
abide by the amended documents.
5.0 DEVELOPMENT TOUR
On January 17, 2015, City staff and Mayor Casillas Salas took the GMOC and a few members
of the public on a development tour throughout the City that 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
2015 Annual Report
22
April 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 37
Q��a�O G3c�po�
ap
F�F'
C) ED
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 38
El
008 d -K
(:� F� , A
QTO0 C:�
(0)� (0)T(:@C2O
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 39
��sr/
1�� =QO��
an of
CHULA VISTA
2014
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
FORECAST
Years 2014 Through 2019
September 22, 2014
2015 -04 -23 Workshop 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 2014 through December 2019.
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:
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 41
• 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.
For example, last year's growth forecast estimated that 451 building permits would be issued for
single - family units in 2014. As of September 17, 2014, 95 permits had been pulled. For multi - family
units, 1,322 building permits were projected, and 734 had been pulled. Nearly all of the building
activity was in the master planned communities east of Interstate 805.
FORECAST SUMMARY
Between September 2014 and December 2015, as many as 1,592 housing units could be permitted
for construction in eastern Chula Vista, and 421 in western Chula Vista (see Figure 1).
In the five -year forecast period (calendar years 2015 through 2019), eastern Chula Vista could have
as many as 9,760 housing units permitted (averaging 1,952 annually), and development in western
Chula Vista could total as many as 1,067 units, averaging 213 units annually. The total number of
units permitted citywide could be 10,827, with an annual average of 2,165 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.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 42
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 in 2015 is projected to
occur in Otay Ranch Village 2 and in the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC) "Millenia" (see
Table 1). Following is a summary of the projects included in the forecast:
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 27 single - family custom homes still unbuilt in "The Gates "). Lennar Homes is projecting
to pull a total of 79 building permits before the end of 2014 and the remaining majority (136) in
2015.
Otay Ranch Village 2 — Baldwin & Sons continues to be the dominant developer in Village 2,
projecting 640 single - family and 1,533 multi - family units over the next five years, including 151
single - family and 591 multi - family units by the end of 2015.
JPB is projecting to pull permits for 98 single - family units between 2014 and 2015.
Otay Ranch Village 3 North — JPB is in the final stages of the entitlement process for development in
Village 3 North, with completion expected by the end of 2014. Starting in 2016 with 150 single -
family and 100 multi - family units, they are projecting a total of 1,472 units by the end of 2019 — 902
single - family and 570 multi - family.
Otay Ranch Village 8 West — With the zoning and map entitlement process completed in December
2013, Otay Land Company is projecting 1,043 units over the next five years, staring with 148 in
2015.
Otay Ranch Village 8 East and Village 10 — As with Village 3 North, the entitlement process for
Village 8 East and Village 10 should be completed by the end of 2014. Starting in 2017 with 100
single - family and 125 multi - family units in Village 8 East, JPB is projecting a total of 1,125 there by
the end of 2019 — 550 single - family and 575 multi - family.
Otay Ranch Village 9 — Otay Land Company completed zoning and map entitlements for Village 9 in
June 2014 and is projecting to begin construction in 2017 with 202 multi - family units and 726 more
by the end of 2019.
Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC) "Millenia" — McMillin is projecting 1,972 multi - family units
in Millenia over the next five years, starting with 353 units in 2014 /2015.
Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial — Baldwin & Sons is in the final stages of the entitlement process
for the Freeway Commercial area and is projecting up to 600 units by 2019.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 43
Bella Lago — Bella Lago LLC owns the final 52 lots of this 140 -unit, single - family development and
expects to contract other builders to develop 32 of them over the next five years, starting with 8 in
2016.
As of September 2014, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in
eastern Chula Vista is approximately 22,072, based on the city's current General Plan amendments.
If 10,827 units were permitted over the next five -year forecasted period, approximately 11,245
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 began in the late 1980's. Several developments projected for 2014 did not
materialize, with the exception of "Lofts on Landis ", a 33 -unit multi - family project currently under
construction at 240 Landis Avenue.
Both "Urbana ", a 266 -unit multi - family project at H Street between Third and Fourth Avenues, and
"The Colony" at 435 Third Avenue (162 units) have been pushed back to 2016. At the Bayfront, the
first 186 of 1,500 multi - family units are projected for 2016, also.
Three other large multi - family projects are projected for 2015, including "Creekside Point" at 944
Third Avenue (119 units), "El Dorado Ridge" on Brandywine Avenue (104 units), and Stone Creek
Casitas at 3875 Main Street (97 units). Two smaller multi - family projects are also projected for
2015, including Bahia Vista Townhomes at 778 Ada Street (21 units) and a 17 -unit development at
354 Moss Street.
In terms of single - family development, the 16 -unit project at 35 Tamarindo Way has been pushed
from 2014 and 2015, and a 6 -unit project at 386 Date Street is projected for 2015, also.
Residential Construction History
Several market cycles, including recessions, have contributed to a broad range in the number of
building permits issued each decade since 1980, as indicated below:
DECADE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS
ISSUED PER YEAR
1980 -1989
330
1990 -1999
693
2000 -2009
21094
2010 -2014
697*
*Through September 17, 2014
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 44
On an annual basis, 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 1,552 units per year
over the past 16 years (see Table 3).
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.
The number of building permits issued began to taper off in 2005 when 1,654 residential permits
were issued, and bottomed out in 2009 when 275 permits were issued. Since then, permits have
been on an upward trajectory, with the exception of 2013, when they went down 167 from the
previous year. Through September 17, 2014, 829 residential building permits had 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 3.26
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 294,007 persons by the
end of 2019. This is based on the following:
• The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated Chula Vista's population on
January 1, 2014 as 256,139;
• An additional 394 units were occupied from January 1, 2014 to September 2014; and
• An additional 11,820 units may be permitted between September 2014 and December 2019.
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.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 45
Number
of Units Figure 7
4000 � Actual - ANN, - Forecast -Aftft..-
3,525
3500 3,300
3,143
3000
2,618
2,505
2500 21250 2,290
2,091
2000 1 X837 12950
11654 11592
1500
1 000 72$ 798 829*
576 631 614
500 411
500 325 275
8 8 8
0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
D Eastern Chula Vista
*Through September 17, 2014 D Western Chula Vista
Residential Building Permits Statistics
Issued and Forecast 1999 - 2019
L: \Gabe Files\GWI-SLV#-23DMrftilOWAVt4fflci1 Packet Page 46 6
I
Si
1
•
I
•
CB
1
IL
1
I
•
I
• San Diego
Figure 2 Sweetwate r
Reservoi r
—•� r•-
� I I
r• —•�
• •�•L�• -. -•I
00M 0
• ` ♦ • Proctor Valle Rd
• r• , • 'loop •,�
Opp
• i
�.•
0 otay Lakes �•,
a N�
:� ��•� :..r.'
E
• i
y EHSt r ,oF •
S
Telegraph Q m
ca on Rd
C
a
cr � � �•
A
of
040000
` •�
a \o - •
Q
an q� I D
Otay Landfill O P •r�
o o
• , i
. Main St O
I' 0
• , /•I
i•
400P 000 0 000
Residential Development Forecast Map
9/2014 - 12/2019
L: \Gabe Files \GMOC \2014 \Residential Forecast Development Map.ai.9.22.14
W 70"�"
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS
—•— City of Chula Vista Boundary
Toll Road
354 Moss Street
0
Bayfront
co
Creekside Point
O
El Dorado Ridge
QLofts
on Landis
OTamarindo
O
The Colony
O
Urbana
Oi
Bahia Vista Town Homes
0
386 Date Street
OStone
Creek Casltas
O
Otay Ranch Village 2
O
Otay Ranch Village 3 North
O
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
°o
Otay Ranch Village 8 West
O
Village 9
OFreeway
Commercial
OEastern
Urban Center
Os
Eastlake Vistas
OBella
Lago
—•— City of Chula Vista Boundary
Toll Road
Table 1
GMOC 2015 - EA S TERN CHULA V/S TA RES /DEN T/A L DEVEL OPMEN T FORECA S T
SEPTEMBER 2014 - DECEMBER 2019
PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2014 - DECEMBER 2015
JAN. - DECEMBER 2016
JAN. - DECEMBER 2017
JAN. - DECEMBER 2018
JAN. - DECEMBER 201c.
ISSUE*
ISSUE*
ISSUE*
ISSUE*
299
ISSUE*
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
MF
OTAY RANCH
575
0
1,043
0
928
0
600
0
1,972
2,190
Village 2 North - Baldwin & Sons
95
167
57
48
27
63
29
9
0
0
Village 2 East - Baldwin & Sons
0
348
0
300
10
0
19
0
0
0
Village 2 South - Baldwin & Sons
56
76
102
166
113
72
28
77
0
63
Village 2 West - Baldwin & Sons
0
0
0
0
24
24
40
60
40
60
Village 2- JPB (Anacapa I I R -9)
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Village 2- JPB (Presidio I I R -7)
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Village 2- Bank -owned (R -28)
0
0
0
0
0
96
0
0
0
0
Village 3 North - JPB
0
0
150
100
250
160
250
160
252
150
Village 8 East - JPB
0
0
0
0
100
125
225
225
225
225
Village 8 West - Otay Land Co.
0
148
0
203
0
238
0
223
0
231
Village 9- Otay Land Co.
0
0
0
0
0
202
0
324
0
402
Freeway Commercial - Baldwin & Sons
0
36
0
372
0
72
0
72
0
48
Eastern Urban Center - McMillin (Millenia)
0
353
0
325
0
507
0
541
0
246
Otay Ranch Sub -Total
249
1,128
309
1,514
524
1,559
591
1,691
517
1,425
Eastlake Vistas - Lennar Homes (Lake Pointe)
0
215
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bella Lago - Bella Lago LLC
0
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
SUB -TOTAL
249
1,343
317
1,520
532
1,559
599
1,691
525
1,425
TOTAL UNITS
1,592
1,837
2,091
2,290
1,950
Annual Average:
*ISSUE = Buildinq Permit
Five Years Forecast
SEPTEMBER 2014 - 2019
ISSUE*
SF
MF
208
287
29
648
299
454
104
144
31
0
67
0
0
96
902
570
550
575
0
1,043
0
928
0
600
0
1,972
2,190
7,317
0
221
32
0
2,222
7,538
9,760
1,952
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 48
PROJECT
354 Moss Street
Bahia Vista Townhomes (778 Ada St)
Bayfront - Pacifica
Creekside Point (944 Third Ave)
386 Date St
El Dorado Ridge (Brandywine Ave)
Lofts on Landis (240 Landis)
Stone Creek Casitas (3875 Main St)
Tamarindo (35 Tamarindo)
The Colony (435 Third Ave)
Urbana (NE corner of H St & Fourth Ave)
Second Accessory Units
SUB -TOTAL
TOTAL UNITS
*ISSUE = Buildinq Permit
Table 2
GMOC 2015 - WESTERN CHULA V ISTA RES /DENT /AL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
SEPTEMBER 2014 - DECEMBER 2019
EPTEMBER 2014 - DECEMBER 2015
JAN. - DECEMBER 2016
JAN. - DECEMBER 2017
JAN. - DECEMBER 2018
JAN. - DECEMBER 2019
ISSUE*
ISSUE*
ISSUE*
ISSUE*
ISSUE*
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
MF
SF
MF
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
186
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
104
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
266
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
8
0
30
391
8
614
8
0
8
0
8
0
421 622 8 8 8
Annual Average:
Five Years Forecast
SEPTEMBER 2014 - 2019
ISSUE*
SF
MF
0
17
0
21
0
186
0
119
6
0
0
104
0
33
0
97
16
0
0
162
0
266
40
0
62
1,005
1,067
213
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 49 9
Table 3
HISTORIC I HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - SEPTEMBER 2014
CALENDAR
YEAR
U n its Au tho rued for
on tru tion (Issued)
Units Completed
(Final d)
Certified Year End Population
(State D.0. F_) (1
No-
No.
O_
% Chan
1980
40 7
374
84,364
1 981
195
400
861597
2.6%
1982
232
129
88,023
1,00/0
1983
479
279
891370
1.5%
1084
14200
521
011100
-0%
1085
1,048
1,552
116.325
7.0%
1086
2) 076
11120
1201285
3.4 %
1987
1,108
21490
124, 253
3.3%
1988
11413
320
1281028
3.0%
1989
11680
11321
134,337
4.9%
1990
004
11552
138,262
2.9%
1091
747
701
141,015
,0%
1 992
560
725
1441466
2.4%
1003
435
462
146,525
1 A%
1 904
700
036
1491791
2.2%
1995
833
718
1531164
2.3%
1096
014
820
156,148
1.9%
1007
11028
955
1621106
3.8%
1008
11339
11093
1071103
3.1%
1099
21505
11715
1741319
4.3%
2000
2101
21052
1811013
4.2%
2001
3,525
3,222
191 P O
5.3%
2002
23250
2,923
200,708
5.0%
2003
31143
2}007
O ?907
4.1%
004
3,300
3,043
217,512
4.1%
2005
1,654
21525
2241006
3.0%
2000
1180
11448
227,850
1.7%
2007
576
837
2311157
1.5%
2308
325
518
2341011
1.2%
2000
275
308
2441209
4.4%
2010
517
422
245,987
O.7%
2011
728
631
249,382
1.4 %
2012
798
847
251,973
1.0%
2013
631
777
256o139
1.7%
2014
820
394
2 57, 362
0.5%
Annual Aver
1.199
11203
4,943
.7%4
(1) Deflects Department of Finance (DOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year,
() Montgomery Annexation
(3) Population estimates are subject to change and refinement. They assume a 4.9% vacancy} rate and 3.26 persons per Unit, and are
estimated prior to California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, available in 2015.
(4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation _
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 50 10
ED
Q
OD o C�C� 0�
ED
p
(0
D)( �pOo�n(K�
oon n�ao���
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 51
Air Q uality - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 —June 30, 2014 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
AQ Standards: Based on South
Coast Air Quality District
GREENHOUSE GASES
AQ Standards: Based on Assembly
Bill 32 /Climate Action Plan
Ozone
Carbon Dioxide
Particulate Matter
Methane
Lead
Nitrous Oxide
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Hexafluoride
Sulfur Oxide
Hydrofluorocarbons
Nitrogen Oxide
Perfluorocarbons
During FY14, nine development projects underwent formal CEQA review for their
contribution to local criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. In addition, two
new projects within the Palomar Gateway Plan area and one within the Urban
Core Specific Plan area were found to be in compliance with their respective
original air quality analyses. In most cases, development projects were found to
have air quality impacts below a level of significance and /or were required to
incorporate mitigation measures into their construction and operation, such as
integrating dust control, energy efficiency technologies, water -wise landscaping,
or pedestrian /bicycle - friendly design. In four cases, the City issued a CEQA
Statement of Overriding Consideration, because the projects' air quality
emissions were significant and unmitigable. This was due to their construction
Air Quality 2015 Page 1
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 52
and operation emissions not meeting City thresholds and /or the regional air
quality basin already being designated a nonattainment area under the Clean Air
Act.
Approximately 732 new /remodeled building units were permitted in FY14, which
met the City's green building and enhanced energy efficiency standards, which
require levels of efficiency 15 -20% higher than state codes. In addition, Chula
Vista began hosting monthly trainings for City staff and local developers on the new
2013 Title -24 code, which will require new buildings and major renovations to be
approximately 25% more energy efficient than current standards starting on July 1,
2014 (Section 6). The new Title -24 code (Section 11) also updated statewide green
building standards for indoor air quality effective on January 1, 2014.
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
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.
The City of Chula Vista continued to emphasize air quality and environmental
health as a priority. In February 2014, the City of Chula Vista's efforts were
recognized by the federal EPA with an "Organizational Leadership Award" at the
National Climate Leadership Conference. In addition, the City received a Beacon
Spotlight Award from the Institute for Local Government for its sustainability and
climate action initiatives.
Strategic Planning
In FY14, Chula Vista developed several new plans to guide its future air quality
and overall environmental sustainability efforts. First, the City Council adopted a
new Strategic Plan to direct municipal programs and policies over the next 5
years. One of the plan's five core goals is creating a "Healthy Community" by
protecting environmental resources for both current residents and future
generations and by fostering the health of the physical environment through
balanced, connected, and sustainable land uses. City staff also participated in a
6 -month corporate sustainability training developed by True Market solutions.
Through the training, Chula Vista created its first -ever City Operations
Sustainability Plan, which establishes numeric targets and strategies for energy
use, water use, green purchasing, waste management, pollution prevention,
transportation, and green buildings /infrastructure. Finally, the City began a formal
update process for its Climate Action Plan by convening a Climate Change
Working Group — comprised of residents, business, non - profit, education, and
utility representatives. The group held monthly public meetings to identify new
opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and related air pollutants.
Air Quality 2015 Page 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 53
Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, & Renewable Energy
Electricity generation and natural gas use are significant sources of air emissions.
Likewise, water use requires energy due to related pumping, treatment, and
heating. To help reduce community energy and water use, the City created a
local Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which assists property
owners with financing energy and water upgrades, with project financing expected
to start in July 2014. Participants repay the financing through a tax assessment
on their property and the assessment obligations generally transfer with the
property upon sale, because the new owner continues to benefit from the
efficiency improvements. The City also continued to offer a variety of energy
efficiency programs and services in the community through its Local Government
Partnership with San Diego Gas & Electric and the California Public Utilities
Commission. As a result, over 6,000 "hard -to- reach" individuals were engaged in
FY14 through the Empower Hour (youth), Library Energy Lounges (seniors &
others), and the Green Homes for All (low- income households) programs.
Smart Growth & Transportation
Chula Vista implemented a number of projects to facilitate non - motorized
transportation and improve local air quality in FY14. With the assistance of City
financing, the new 33 -unit "Lofts on Landis" mixed -use affordable housing project
began construction, which will meet LEED - Platinum standards for efficiency,
indoor environmental quality, and sustainable transportation. The City continued
to work with SAN DAG on the development of the new South Bay Bus Rapid
Transit, which will connect Chula Vista to downtown San Diego and the Otay
Mesa border crossing. The new transit service will help minimize traffic
congestion along major transportation corridors, thus helping to improve local air
quality. Finally, the City began using "sharrow" markings along bike routes to help
remind motorists about sharing lanes with bicyclists within the Third Avenue
Village and on Broadway between C and Main Streets. These recent investments
in bicycle infrastructure and other programming efforts helped Chula Vista receive
recognition from the American League of Bicyclists though their "Bicycle- Friendly
Workplace" and "Bicycle- Friendly Community" designations in FY14.
4. Identify any significant reductions in air quality emissions.
During FY14, 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
yea r?
Over the last year, 390 total permits were issued for solar photovoltaic and solar
hot water systems at residential and commercial properties.
Are there any new non - development - related program efforts that the city needs to
undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? If so, please list
and provide a brief explanation of each.
Yes No X
Air Quality 2015 Page 3
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 54
7. Please provide a "side -by- side" comparison of what neighboring communities are doing
for climate control.
LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS
CEQA
GHG
Review*
Climate
Action
Plan
Pedestrian/
Bicycle
Plans
Green
Building
Standards
Free
Energy
Evaluations
Energy
Upgrade
Financing
City of Chula Vista
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Imperial Beach
X
X
X
City of National City
X
X
X
X
City of Coronado
X
X
X
City of San Diego
X
X
X
X
X
County of San Diego
X
X
X
Port of San Diego
X
X
X
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.
City staff has no additional information, recommendations, or suggestions related to
the Air Quality threshold and /or questionnaire.
'1:197!1:19DO5aw
Name: Brendan Reed
Title: Environmental Resource Manager
Date: 10/7/2014
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.
Air Quality 2015 Page 4
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 55
APCD - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 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
2014
STATE STANDARD
(1 -Hr)
San Diego Region
18
8
7
5
2
2
2
Chula Vista
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
FEDERAL STANDARD
(8-Hr —1997 STD)
San Diego Region
11
4
1
3
0
0
1*
Chula Vista
0
1 0
1 0
0
0
0
0
*2014 Federal 8 -Hr (1997 Std) impacted by fires in May 2014
Please provide brief responses to the following:
1. How does air quality in areas that surround Chula Vista affect Chula Vista's air quality?
The Chula Vista monitoring station is defined as a neighborhood scale site. The air quality
monitored at the site is therefore representative of the local and a radius of approximately 4
kilometers around the site. In the 1980"s and 1990's the site did see impacts (i.e., exceedancesof
standards) from Tijuana on a few days per year. Since the air quality in Tijuana has improved over
the years the impacts have been lessened.
2. How was the monitor location determined, and is the monitor in Chula Vista in the most effective
place?
The Chula Vista monitoring station has been in operation since 1972. It was initially sited over
concerns over emissions from the South Bay power plant. Although the South Bay power plant is
no longer in operation, the Chula Vista site remains the County's oldest, continuously operating air
monitoring station, and is important for documenting the long -term improvements in air quality
achieved over the last few decades due to emission reduction programs.
3. For the period under review, how does Chula Vista rank in air quality, countywide?
Chula Vista is representative of other populated areas of the coastal region and ranks amongst the
best air quality in San Diego County. It meets all current air quality standards.
APCD - 2015
Page 1
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 56
4. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during
the period under review.
The air quality in the entire region continues to improve due to effective emission control
strategies and programs.
5. Were there any changes in federal or state programs, during the period under review that could
affect Chula Vista?
Yes No X
If yes, please explain:
6. Are there existing or future RAQS programs that Chula Vista needs to be aware of?
Yes No X
If yes, please explain:
7. How does the changing climate affect air quality in Chula Vista?
Warmer weather has the potential to contribute to higher ozone concentrations. As hotter days
become more common in the warming future climate, the warmer weather could somewhat
counterbalance the continuing pollution emissions reductions, and thus slow the rate of air quality
improvement.
8. Please provide an explanation for how particulate data is collected and what is collected. Also, what
is controllable /generated by humans?
Particulate data is collected in Chula Vista using filters that trap particulates that pass through a
size - selective inlet (PM2.5 and PM10 are both collected at the Chula Vista site). PM2.5
(particulate matter less than equal to 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter) are primarily the
result of combustion processes, and therefore controllable. Emission reductions of PM2.5 have
been achieved by cleaner engines and fuels (e.g., reduction of sulfur content in diesel fuel). Some
PM2.5 is formed through chemical reactions, but these too are generally of anthropogenic origin.
PM 10 (10 micrometers and less in diameter) includes PM2.5, but also contains larger particles that
include windblown dust or re- entrained road dust. In San Diego County, sources tend to be
anthropogenic, and air quality rules are designed to minimize emissions.
9. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and /or the City Council.
PRFPORFfI RV.
Name: Bill Brick and Carl Selnick
Title: Senior Meteorologist and Air Quality Specialist
Date: October 21 2014
APCD - 2015
Page 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 57
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 - 2015
Page 3
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 58
Drainage - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 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?
If yes:
Yes No X
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. Regional Water Quality Control Board's Order No. R9- 2013 -0001 (NPDES
Municipal Permit) has additional requirements for pollutant control and hydromodification
management on development projects. The new regulations will go into effect in
December 2015. Developers will be required to construct facilities to meet the new
requirements.
4. What are the City Engineering Standards for storm water flow and volume, particularly
for existing storm drainage facilities downstream of new development? Does the
standard differ between public storm drains, private storm drains, concrete channels,
and natural channels?
All proposed public and private Priority Development Projects are reviewed for
compliance with hydromodification control standards to ensure that downstream natural
Drainage - 2015 1
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 59
channels and habitat are not adversely impacted by the project. Hydromodification
control measures limit flow rates to pre - project conditions and mitigate potential
downstream erosion of natural channels and habitat impact. In compliance with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board's Order No. R9- 2007 -0001, the Co- permittees of San
Diego County have developed a Final Hydromodification Management Plan, which is the
engineering standard used throughout San Diego County. Public and private
developments are subject to the same standards. There are some exemptions from
hydromodification control requirements for projects that have low potential for
downstream erosion or habitat impact such as projects that discharge to underground
systems or stabilized engineered channels.
5. 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
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. 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.
Current maintenance practices in storm channels acceptable to resource agencies area
as follows:
a. Site specific maintenance plans are currently being developed by
Engineering firms. As a result, defined areas within channels are identified
with direction on maintenance methods.
b. Current maintenance method: Hand removal of vegetation, silt and debris at
sites identified in maintenance plans.
c. Application of herbicide on invasive species
6. 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 $963,000. The
current staff level consists of a supervisor, Public Works Specialist, three Senior
Maintenance Workers and two Maintenance Workers to inspect and maintain the
current storm drain infrastructure of 302 miles pipes, 296 miles lined and unlined
channels, over 20 detention basins and 13,894 storm structures.
Drainage - 2015 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 60
Although Public Works utilize private contractors to inspect and maintenance CFD
areas as well as inspect and maintenance some areas outside CFD areas, staff is
unable to keep up with inspection goals let alone repairs, vegetation and debris
removal that are needed.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order NO. R -9 -2013 -0001
mandates the following for Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System and Structural Controls:
NPDES REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. R9- 2013 -0001:
(b) Existing Development BMP Implementation and Maintenance
(c) BMP Operation and Maintenance
(i) Each Co- permittee must properly operate and maintain, or require the
proper operation and maintenance of designated BMPs at commercial facilities and
areas, industrial facilities, and municipal facilities in its inventoried existing
development.
(ii) Each Co- permittee 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.
(2) Residential Areas:
(c) BMP Operation and Maintenance Each Co- permittee must properly operate and
maintain, or require the proper operation and maintenance of designated BMPs at
residential areas in its inventoried existing development.
In addition, the City has embarked on an Asset Management Program. In order to
inspect and rate current condition of storm drain piping, funds are needed to routinely
inspect pipe via closed- circuit television (CCTV). Avery limited amount of CCTV has
been done on reinforced concrete pipe and box culverts. Corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) inspections are over ten (10) years old and need to be reevaluated.
7. 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
Drainage - 2015 3
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 61
quality within receiving waters and create a condition of non - compliance with the
Municipal Permit, exposing the City to penalties.
PPFPAPFI) RV-
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 - 2015 4
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 62
Fire and EMS - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 —June 30, 2014 to Present Time and 5 -Year Forecast
Please complete the following tables:
FIRE and EMS Response Times
Review Period
Call
Volume
% of All Calls
Responded
to Within 7 Minutes
Average
Response Time
for all Calls2
Average
Travel Time
Average
Dispatch
Time
Average
Turn -out
Time
Threshold Standard: 80.0%
FY 2014
11,721
76.5
6:02
3:34
1:07
1:21
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."
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
Earlier this year, Council approved the Fire Facility Master Plan. The plan includes additions
to the network of fire stations already in place. According to the plan, these additions to the
network will allow fire department emergency response time improvement to 7 minutes
90% of the time. The additions to the network include construction of a fire station in the
Millenia Project, Bayfront Project, and Village 8. This improvement in response time will not
be noticed until completion of the fire station network improvements. At this time, the plan
does not specify definitive dates or triggers for fire station construction to begin; nor has a
funding mechanism been identified in the plan.
Page 1
Fire - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 63
The fire department would need the following system improvements in order to make
significant improvements to be in compliance:
• Additional fire stations within the network
• Additional improvements in call for service dispatch processes
• Improved management of response time performance to include interactive
discussion with fire crews, use of mapping capabilities, shared data with
stakeholders.
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
Although the fleet of apparatus used by the fire department continues to age and therefore
plays a role in increased response times due to the lack of speed and maneuverability when
reserve apparatus are placed in front line service; that alone is not a factor in failing to meet
the GMOC threshold.
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 19, 2014.
It is the desire of the fire department to adopt the National Fire Protection (NFPA) 1901
Standard for Fire Apparatus Maintenance and Replacement at Council. It should be noted
there is no identified funding plan should the Standard be adopted.
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
Given the fact that the fire department has failed to meet the threshold since 2010, any
future growth within the City will continue to hamper the department's ability to be in
compliance.
5. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth for
the next five years? If not, please explain.
Page 2
Fire - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 64
Yes No X
Given the fact that the fire department has failed to meet the threshold since 2010, any
future growth within the City will continue to hamper the department's ability to be in
compliance.
6. On the table below, please provide data on response times and calls for service by
geography, specifically by calls east of 1 -805 ( "East ") and calls west of 1 -805 ( "West ").
FIRE and EMS Response Times (By Geography)
% of All Calls
Average
Call
Responded to
Response Time
Average
Average
Average
Review
Volume
Within 7 Minutes
for all Calls2
Travel Time
Dispatch Time
Turn -out Time
Period
(Threshold = 80 %)
E
W
E/W
E
W
E/W
E
W
E/W
E
W
E/W
E
W
E/W
E
W
E/W
FY ' 14
IM0
(Plg8
3633
52:1
f l(P l
111
1:15
5:21
10:22
4:33
3:o4
3:55
1:08
1:08
i:o4
1:34
1:16
x:22
FY ' 13
11976
6,670
31670
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
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).
7. What percentage of calls received were for fire services, and what percentage were for
medical emergency services?
Call Type I Percentage of Calls
Fire 2.5%
Medical 70.2%
Other 27.3%
8. Please report on the performance of the 911 "FirstWatch" dashboard program. Has it
helped improve response times?
Not at this time. The FirstWatch software helped to uncover a few flaws. The concept was
to provide instant feedback on a call by call basis to each unit, in real time the units'
response times. In testing this last year, a few idiosyncrasies were identified; lag time in the
WiFi after a unit has been in the station for a period of time, lag time in the alerting tones
going off in the stations and delays in MDC response due to WIFI. All of these issues have
been discussed and due to technology, infrastructure and costs are currently not
reconcilable. We are working with San Diego Fire, who also uses FirstWatch, to address
these issues so that both agencies can take advantage of this useful tool.
Page 3
Fire - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 65
9. What other measures have been taken to improve response times?
None to date during fiscal 2014.
10. Please complete the table below.
NFPA COMPLIANCE TABLE — FY 2014
# of
Total
Calls
Dispatch
Turnout
Travel
Response
EMS - 1st Unit
11408
Standard
1:00
1:00
4:00
6:00
Ave Time
1:02
1:21
3:33
6:01
% Compliance
65
30
70
60
Fire - 1st Unit
313
Standard
I
1:00
1:20
4:00
6:20
Ave Time
I
1:33
1:28
4:01
7:11
% Compliance
27
44
62
46
Effective Fire Force - 14FF
55
Standard
1:00
1:20
8:00
10:20
Ave Time
1:26
1:52
8:07
13:07
% Compliance
38
41
65
35
"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 It 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.
• A work group will be formulated to assist with providing ideas on how to improve
turnout times and travel times.
• An effort to find solutions to the FirstWatch product deficiencies will be undertaken.
• A method for identifying and marking times to signify actual enroute start, and end
time will be formulated.
• Data will be gathered and shared at individual crew levels to solicit discussion and
awareness of crew effectiveness in terms of response times.
• An agreed upon method will be established to determine what to do with anomaly data
which can affect the data set being analyzed for this study.
Page 4
Fire - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 66
pDr -PAD n Rv-
Name: Jim Geering
Title: Acting Fire Chief
Date: 11-13-14
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 5
Fire - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 67
Fiscal - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 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 -13 to 06- 30 -14);
b. The current fiscal year, 2014 -2015; and
C. What is anticipated in the coming five years.
FISCAL IMPACT REPORT
a. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 (last 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.
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 actual revenues, expenditures, and staffing for
all funds in fiscal years 2012 -13 and 2013 -14.
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
Revenues
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties
Use of Money & Property
Revenue from Other Agencies
Charges for Services
Development Impact Fees
FY 2012 -13 FY 2013 -14 Increase/
Actual Actual (Decrease)
$ 32,333 $ 34,297 $ 11963
28,628
29,171
543
25,797
33,865
81068
31877
31102
(775)
11640
11666
26
31261
61330
31069
44,834
50,764
51930
59,144
58,400
(744)
14,667
91784
(41883)
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 68
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
Population (as of January 1) 251,613 256,139 41526
FTEs per 1,000 population 3.71 3.71 0.00
Significant year to year changes in all funds revenues include an increase of $8.1 million in
Other Local Taxes, primarily attributable to the recognition of $10.5 million in wireless
telecommunications Utility Users' Tax (UUT) revenues. These funds were received in fiscal
years 2011, 2012, and 2013 and deferred pending outcome of a legal challenge to the City's
collection of UUT on wireless telecommunication services. The lawsuit was settled in fiscal
year 2013 -14, including a reduction in the UUT rate for telecommunication services from 5%
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 69
FY 2012 -13
FY 2013 -14
Increase/
Actual
Actual
(Decrease)
Other Revenue
36,660
88,782
521123
Transfers In
32,027
40,487
81460
Total Revenues
$ 282,868
$ 356,648
$ 73,780
Expenditures
Personnel Services
$ 115,792
$ 119,238
$ 31445
Supplies & Services
541214
55,286
11073
Other Expenses
41,684
91,816
50,133
Capital
11724
11773
49
Transfers Out
32,027
40,487
81460
CIP Project Expenditures
23,253
17,648
(51605)
Non -CIP Project Expenditures
51319
31195
(21124)
Utilities
71001
71977
976
Total Expenditures
$ 281,013
$ 337,420
$ 56,406
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2012 -13
FY 2013 -14
Increase/
Actual
Actual
(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
UASI
-
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) 251,613 256,139 41526
FTEs per 1,000 population 3.71 3.71 0.00
Significant year to year changes in all funds revenues include an increase of $8.1 million in
Other Local Taxes, primarily attributable to the recognition of $10.5 million in wireless
telecommunications Utility Users' Tax (UUT) revenues. These funds were received in fiscal
years 2011, 2012, and 2013 and deferred pending outcome of a legal challenge to the City's
collection of UUT on wireless telecommunication services. The lawsuit was settled in fiscal
year 2013 -14, including a reduction in the UUT rate for telecommunication services from 5%
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 69
to 4.75 %, effective March 1, 2014. Funds will be recognized as received in fiscal year 2014 -15
and forward.
b. Fiscal Year 2014 -15 (current fiscal year)
On June 17, 2014, the City Council adopted the fiscal year 2014 -15 operating and capital
budgets. The adopted all funds budget totaled $283.6 million, including a General Fund
operating budget of $132.8 million, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $19.8
million, $33.5 million in interfund transfers, and $97.5 million in operating budgets for other
City funds, including Sewer, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Development
Services, Transit, and Fleet. The fiscal year 2014 -15 budget assumed all funds revenues
totaling $269.2 million, including $133.3 million in General Fund revenues.
In comparison with the fiscal year 2013 -14 adopted budget, the total all funds expenditure
budget for fiscal year 2014 -15 reflected an increase of $14.8 million. Significant drivers of this
increase include personnel services and CIP projects, totaling $5.1 million and $4.4 million,
respectively. Increased personnel expenditures reflect a net increase of 11 positions,
increased costs related to retirement and medical (flex) benefits, the annualized cost of salary
increases approved in fiscal year 2013 -14, and an increase in workers compensation charges
based on higher expenditure trends in the Workers Compensation fund.
The following tables summarize and compare revenues, expenditures, and staffing for all
funds in fiscal years 2013 -14 (actual) and 2014 -15 (adopted budget).
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 70
FY 2013 -14 FY 2014 -15
Increase/
Actual
Projected
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes
$ 34,297
$ 34,538
$ 241
Sales Taxes
29,171
30,456
11285
Other Local Taxes
33,865
28,078
(51787)
Licenses and Permits
31102
31743
641
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties
11666
11753
88
Use of Money & Property
61330
31248
(31082)
Revenue from Other Agencies
50,764
46,520
(41244)
Charges for Services
58,400
511282
(71119)
Development Impact Fees
91784
41457
(51327)
Other Revenue
88,782
31,655
(57,127)
Transfers In
40,487
33,470
(71017)
Total Revenues
$ 356,648
$ 269,201
$ (87,448)
Expenditures
Personnel Services
$ 119,238
$ 126,464
$ 71226
Supplies & Services
55,286
611121
51834
Other Expenses
91,816
29,113
(62,704)
Capital
11773
31259
11486
Transfers Out
40,487
33,470
(71017)
CIP Project Expenditures
17,648
19,803
21155
Non -CIP Project Expenditures
31195
21214
(980)
Utilities
71977
81152
175
Total Expenditures
$ 337,420
$ 283,595
$ (53,824)
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 70
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2013 -14
FY 2014 -15
Increase/
Actual
Projected
(Decrease)
General Fund
Legislative/ Administrative
105.00
106.00
1.00
Development/ Maintenance
203.00
204.25
1.25
Public Safety
455.00
457.50
2.50
Community Services
38.50
38.50
-
General Fund Subtotal
801.50
806.25
4.75
Other Funds
Advanced Life Support
1.00
1.00
-
Development Services
44.50
45.50
1.00
Police Grants/ CBAG
37.00
40.00
3.00
UASI
1.00
2.00
1.00
Environmental Services
5.00
5.00
-
Housing Authority
4.00
4.00
Successor Agency
1.00
-
(1.00)
Fleet Management
8.00
10.00
2.00
Transit
1.00
1.00
-
Sewer
46.00
46.00
-
Other Funds Subtotal
148.50
154.50
6.00
Total All Funds
950.00
960.75
10.75
Population (as of January 1) 256,139 256,139 -
FTEs per 1,000 population 3.71 3.75 0.04
c. Five -Year Forecast (fiscal year 2014 -15 through fiscal year 2018 -19)
A Five -Year Financial forecast for fiscal years 2014 -15 through 2018 -19 was developed in
conjunction with the fiscal year 2014 -15 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, to preserve the City's long -term fiscal health by aligning
operating revenues and costs, and to 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 (formerly 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.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 71
Major Revenues
• Sales tax revenues will increase throughout the forecast period.
• Base assessed value will increase by 4% in fiscal year 2015 -16 due to anticipated
improvements in the housing market and are assumed to increase by 4% each year
throughout the forecast period.
• Utility Users' Tax (UUT) wireless telecommunications revenues in the amount of $3.6
million are assumed in the forecast beginning in fiscal year 2014 -15. This reflects the
new UUT rate for telecommunication services of 4.75 %, effective March 1, 2014.
Expenditures
• Personnel Services for fiscal year 2014 -15 reflect the annualized cost of the salary
increases approved for miscellaneous employees during fiscal year 2013 -14. At the
time of budget development, the City had reached agreement with CVEA, WCE,
MM /PROF, and unrepresented employee groups, and negotiations were ongoing with
IAFF and POA bargaining groups. The estimated cost for Personnel Services in the
forecast reflects current staffing levels, adjusted to reflect tentative agreements
regarding wages. Future forecasts will be updated to reflect the final agreements with
the bargaining groups.
• Flex Plan increases based on 10% health care premium increases per fiscal year based
on historical trends.
• Retirements costs are based on the October 2013 Annual Valuation Report provided
by CalPERS and reflects the estimated increases based on CalPERS meeting the 7.5%
return on investment. CalPERS has also provided an estimate for the impact of the
mortality rate changes that will be incorporated into the contribution rates beginning
in fiscal year 2016 -17. The impact of the contribution rate is listed separately on the
forecast, as the impact is still uncertain.
• Fiscal year 2014 -15 reflects higher than normal salary savings (vacancies) in order to
balance the General Fund. Starting in fiscal year 2015 -16, salary savings is based on
1% of projected salaries /PERS /Medicare.
• 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.
• Beginning in fiscal year 2015 -16 it is anticipated that the Workers Compensation fund
will have depleted its fund balance and that the General Fund's share of the increased
costs will be approximately $500,000 per year.
• Other expenditures include anticipated costs for utilities, supplies and services,
equipment, the anticipated cost for maintenance of Orange Park, and other expenses.
Other Items to be Considered (New)
The fiscal year 2015 to 2019 financial forecast has been expanded to include major
expenditures that are anticipated to occur during the forecast period. During the
recession, the City deferred equipment replacement and building maintenance costs. The
following expenditures have been included in the five -year forecast due to their
significance and potential impacts to the General Fund. As resources become available, it
is important to highlight the need to fund these high priority items.
• Regional Communication System (RCS) financing and equipment costs.
• The cost of replacing breathing apparatus in the Fire Department.
• Equipment and technology replacement costs, including vehicles and information
technology needs.
• Building maintenance costs for City facilities.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 72
The following table presents the updated Five -Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years
2014 -15 to 2018 -19, as presented to the City Council in March 2014 and updated to
reflect the final fiscal year 2014 -15 adopted budget. As noted in the table below,
expenditure increases continue to outpace projected revenue growth. The deficit is
larger, when taking into account other items to be considered such as anticipated
maintenance, and equipment and technology replacement costs. Staff will continue to
monitor economic trends and revise estimates as needed.
Five -Year Financial Forecast (FY 2014 -15 through FY 2018 -19)
Revenues
Property Taxes
$
28,659,698
$
29,499,414
$
30,638,439
$
31,822,205
$
33,073,537
Sales Tax
29,961,561
30,560,792
311477,616
321421,944
33,394,603
Franchise Fees
10,188,250
111234,049
11,383,047
11,535,317
11,690,933
Utility Users' Taxes
71175,000
71246,750
71319,218
71392,410
71466,334
Transient Occupancy Taxes
21687,833
21768,468
21851,522
21937,068
31025,180
Motor Vehicle License Fees
17,870,912
18,405,951
19,139,967
19,903,300
20,697,122
Other Revenues
40,134,838
39,454,851
39,660,300
39,926,982
40,377,845
Total Revenues
$ 136,678,093
$ 139,170,275
$ 142,470,108
$ 145,939,226
$ 149,725,553
Expenditures
Personnel Services
$
78,047,309
$
78,611,354
$
79,480,908
$
79,817,569
$
79,817,569
Flex /Insurance
111443,288
121423,952
13,336,883
14,324,646
15,393,901
PERS
20,146,426
21,608,612
22,996,199
241219,312
25,307,850
Salary Savings
2241909
(840,946)
X840,946
Pension Impact (Mortality Change)
-
-
11087,219
21174,326
31262,036
Workers Comp GF Liability
-
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
Other Expenditures
28,187,802
27,611,875
28,214,468
28,818,069
29,590,640
Total Expenditures
$ 136,599,916
$ 139,914,847
$ 144,774,731
$ 149,012,976
$ 153,031,050
Surplus /(Deficit)
$
78,177
a
(744,572)
$
(2,304,623)
$
(3,073,750)
$
(3,305,497)
Other Items to be Considered
RCS Financing
$
-
$
-
$
400,000
$
400,000
$
400,000
RCS Radios
-
-
11500,000
-
-
Tel Cyn Rd Stabilization Project
11700,000
-
-
-
-
Fire Dept. Breathing Apparatus
-
600,000
-
-
-
Vehicle Replacement
-
11268,500
11134,500
11069,000
110091000
Building Maintenance
-
200,000
200,000
200,000
200,000
Total Other Items
$
1,700,000
$
2,068,500 $
3,234,500 $
1,669,000 $
1,609,000
Surplus /(Deficit) with Other Items
$
(1,621,823)
$
(2,813,072)
$
(5,539,123)
$
(4,742,750)
$
(4,914,497)
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 modest economic growth in major revenue categories. The City's
financial condition, while improving, remains fragile as there are many competing priorities with
limited resources.
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 faced by the City since the recession
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 73
are the result of the significant issues around the housing market and the slowdown in the overall
economy.
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 6, the City anticipates continuing
challenges throughout the forecast period, primarily resulting from impacts of CalPERS mortality
rate changes and deferred maintenance and investment in technology and equipment. 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.
Over the last few years, the City has been challenged to find new ways to continue to deliver
quality services with limited resources. Two programs that have helped the City in this endeavor
are the Strategic Plan and Continuous Improvement program. In the coming year, the City will
continue to focus on the implementation of these programs.
Strategic Planning
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 steps of how the City will get there.
City Goals and Initiatives:
1. Operational Excellence
2. Economic Vitality
• Fiscal Health •
• Continuously Improve •
• Positive Experience
3. Healthy Community
• Environment Fosters Health and
Wellness
• Restore and Protect Natural Resources
• Assets and Facilities
5. Connected Community
• Civic Engagement
• Enrichment Programming
Strong Vibrant City
Prosperous Residents and Businesses
4. Strong and Secure Neighborhoods
• Public Infrastructure Maintenance
• Crime Prevention and Emergency
Preparedness
• Response and Recovery
Continuous Improvement
The Continuous Improvement Program at the City of Chula Vista has significantly affected the
agency's strategic direction and increased the quality of services to residents and businesses. In
fiscal year 2013 -14, the City designed an in -house Lean Enterprise Certificate program. The
certificate program offers training and coaching aimed at driving process improvement within the
City. Seventeen staff members participated in the inaugural training. The City continues to work
diligently to implement Continuous Improvement principles in the City, with the goal of providing
public services in the most efficient and cost effective manner.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 74
4. Please update the table below:
REVENUE COLLECTED FOR GENERAL FUND
SOURCE
FY 141
FY 13
FY 12
FY 11
FY 10
FY 092
FY 083
FY 07
FY 06
FY 05
FY 04
Sales Tax
29.17
28.63
27.28
26.70
23.67
25.59
28.30
28.83
26.72
23.60
21.42
Property Taxes
27.45
27.88
24.52
24.71
25.73
29.26
29.31
26.67
22.19
18.13
16.36
Motor Vehicle
License Fees
16.77
16.25
16.29
16.94
17.70
19.90
19.80
17.68
18.35
13.94
9.14
Franchise Fees
8.85
9.27
8.40
8.26
8.47
9.38
9.66
8.81
9.49
9.84
7.82
Charges for Srvcs.
7.94
8.36
7.58
6.45
7.17
7.00
14.47
16.26
15.23
14.48
14.40
Utility Users Tax
17.53
4.43
3.47
4.94
9.06
7.85
7.38
6.98
6.36
6.58
5.62
Other
34.65
36.00
34.17
40.73
38.97
41.53
45.02
56.34
59.46
51.19
48.01
SUM $
142.36
130.81
121.70
128.74
130.78
140.50
153.94
161.56
157.81
137.76
122.77
PER CAPITA $
555.79
519.89
490.35
523.38
536.60
586.97
652.92
697.61
695.69
626.37
581.78
EXPENSES FROM GENERAL FUND
FY 14
FY 13
FY 12
FY 11
FY 10
FY 09
FY 08
FY 07
FY 06
FY 05
FY 04
Police
44.28
42.66
41.99
43.10
43.70
45.40
47.77
49.63
45.34
42.54
37.15
Public Works
24.93
23.82
22.97
23.80
24.62
26.86
32.58
38.27
37.04
31.86
29.97
Fire
24.40
24.03
22.43
21.81
22.09
23.13
24.35
22.72
21.31
17.93
14.31
Support4
8.36
8.21
8.10
9.56
9.63
11.34
11.61
12.31
12.10
9.96
9.41
Community Svcs.5
6.93
6.55
6.68
7.90
9.82
12.95
15.07
16.91
15.89
14.23
12.27
Non- Dprtmntl.6
17.69
10.93
14.07
10.49
9.81
10.10
5.31
3.60
5.47
3.17
4.14
Admin /Legislative?
6.96
6.43
5.83
5.61
5.64
8.15
8.16
8.90
9.04
8.97
8.57
Other
4.82
4.90
4.97
5.62
5.93
2.42
10.17
13.72
14.64
13.52
12.29
SUM $
138.37
127.53
127.03
127.89
131.24
140.37
155.02
166.06
160.83
142.20
128.11
PER CAPITA $
540.23
506.84
511.83
519.91
538.51
586.40
657.52
717.01
708.99
646.52
607.09
1 In fiscal year 2013 -14, the City recognized $10.5 million in wireless telecommunications Utility Users' Tax (UUT)
revenues. These funds were received in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 and deferred pending outcome of a
legal challenge to the City's collection of UUT on wireless telecommunication services. The lawsuit was settled in
fiscal year 2013 -14, including a reduction in the UUT rate for telecommunication services from 5% to 4.75 %,
effective March 1, 2014. Funds will be recognized as received in fiscal year 2014 -15 and forward.
2 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 interfund 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 Public
(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 positions were also moved to their respective
new funds (Charges for Services and Other).
3 See footnote #2.
4 Support includes ITS, HR, and Finance.
5 Community Services includes Recreation and Library.
6 Non - Departmental includes debt service, insurance, transfers out, etc.
7 Admin /Legislative includes City Council, Boards & Commissions, City Clerk, City Attorney, and Administration.
8 Other includes Animal Care Facility and Development Services.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 75
5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW (7/1/13 - 6/30/14)
DIF FUND
CURRENT
9
DIF
During Reporting Period
FUND
BALANCE
(Unaudited)
I Date DIF Last
Comprehensively
Updated
Date of Last
DIF
Adjustment
Next
Scheduled
DIF Update date
Amount
Collected
Amount
Expended 10
Eastern Transportation DIF
121494/EDU
21123,447
31509,552
23,0871210
Nov -14
Oct -13
Oct -15
Western Transportation DIF
31546/EDU
53,755
36,851
147,529
Nov -14
Jul -13
Oct -15
Traffic Signal
34.27 /Trip
251,243
352,060
11854,396
Oct -02
Oct -14
Oct -15
Telegraph Canyon Drainage
4,579 /Acre
66,578
41252
61129,938
Apr -98
N/A
Unscheduled
Telegraph Canyon
Gravity Sewer 11
216.50/EDU
121186
-
11114,046
Sep -98
N/A
Unscheduled
Salt Creek Sewer Basin 12
11330 /EDU
216,825
252,628
51761,944
Aug -04
N/A
2015
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin 13
265 /EDU
141,522
726
21368,120
Jun -09
N/A
Unscheduled
Pedestrian Bridges
- Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6
1,114 /SFDU
303,130
-
8711450
Feb -07
N/A
Unscheduled
- Otay Ranch Village 11
2,243 /SFDU
83,381
-
31077,634
Sep -05
Oct -14
Oct -15
Public Facilities
- Administration
601 /SFDU
576,961
2941448
41576,800
Nov -06
Oct -14
Oct -15
Civic Center Expansion
2,756 /SFDU
11218,997
31112,225
61722,244
_ Police Facility
1,671 /SFDU
766,448
1,720,438
2,777,404
( )
- Corp. Yard Relocation
450 /SFDU
215,957
845,273
21258,022
- Libraries
1 582 /SFDU
�
956 239
�
-
121266,829
Fire Suppression
Systems
1,393 /SFDU
5911461
430,928
(10,334,068)
_ Recreation Facilities
1,201 /SFDU
635,279
-
3,442,012
( )
PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL 14
9,654 /SFDU
41961,342
61403,312
91270,409
Nov -06
Oct -14
Oct -15
9 Fees per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), Single- family Dwelling Unit (SFDU), trip, or acre shown. Fees vary by
type of residential unit, and for commercial and industrial development. See Attachment 1 for fees for each land
use category.
10 On a separate sheet of paper list the projects to be funded and /or completed over the next twelve months. See
Attachment 1.
11 In fiscal year 2007 -08, the City changed the presentation of the Sewer DIF funds from Special Revenue Funds to
Enterprise Funds to better match standard financial reporting practices. Beginning this year, the City is reporting
the cash balance instead of the fund balance in the Sewer DIF funds in this report for comparison purposes.
12 See footnote #11.
13 See footnote #11.
14 Approximately 60% of the Public Facilities DIF fund balance ($5.8 million) is reserved for debt service payments
(Debt Service Reserve). Debt Service Reserve funds are not available for project expenditures.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 76
For each of the DIF funds:
a. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next 12 to 18
months? If the funds are inadequate, is the city able to borrow necessary funds to
complete the projects?
b. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next five years? If
the funds are inadequate, is the city able to borrow necessary funds to complete the
projects?
Adequacy of Funds
Under normal circumstances, additional revenues are received by DIF funds in times of
development. These funds are then available to mitigate the impacts of the development
paying the fees. This timeline is impacted by the need to construct large facilities, such as
the civic center complex, police facility and fire stations in advance of development.
DIF projects are constructed via three financing scenarios:
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
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 77
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. In November 2014 the Ordinance was further amended to remove the
sunset provision. Development impact fees will continue to be due at building permit final
inspection, unless the Council takes further legislative action.
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 $5 million in PFDIF
revenues collected in fiscal year 2013 -14.
For each of the funds, the available fund balance as of June 30, 2014 is listed on the
Development Impact Fee Overview table on page 9. The adequacy of these funds to
complete projects necessitated by either the 12 -to -18 -month or the 5 -year forecasted
growth will be determined by a number of factors, including the actual rate of
development (likely to fall significantly below the rate of development projected in the
GMOC Forecast Report); and other fund obligations. These other obligations 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 $5.8 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 9, the PFDIF ended fiscal year 2013 -14 with a fund balance of $9.3 million ($5.8
million in Debt Service Reserve). As a result of the successful debt restructuring actions
taken by the City in 2010 and 2014, 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 2010 restructuring provided short term cash
flow relief, and resulted in increased debt payments in the future of approximately $0.7
million annually. In March 2014, the 2002 Police Facility COPs were refunded in order to
take advantage of positive market conditions. The 2014 action is anticipated to generate
annual savings to the PFDIF of approximately $100,000 and $1 million over the life of the
new COP. The total annual debt obligation of the PFDIF after the 2010 and 2014
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 78
refundings totals $5.8 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 $5.8 million, a $1.1 million annual internal debt obligation
results in a total annual debt obligation of $6.9 million.
The first payment from the PFDIF to the TDIF repaying this loan was made in fiscal year
2013 -14. A second payment has been included in the fiscal year 2014 -15 budget.
Minimum development activity required to meet the PFDIF's internal and external debt
obligations is summarized in the table below.
PFDIF Annual Debt Payment Obligation, Minimum Development Requirements
Minimum Building Permit
Description Average Annual Payment Activity (Multi - Family)
External Debt (COPs) $ 5,800,000 620
Internal Debt (TDIF) $ 1,100,000 120
Total Debt $ 6,900,000 740
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.
The City will continue to pursue opportunities to refund existing PFDIF debt to reduce
overall financing costs.
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
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 79
POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN
Adequate
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Adequate
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
As demonstrated in the `PFDIF Projected Cash Flow: FY 2005 -06 through Build -out' included as
Attachment 2 to this report, the current PFDIF rate is sufficient to cover all current debt
obligations and planned facilities. The recommendation to update the PFDIF relates to the
intent to reflect new facility master plans and newly approved development projects. As of the
writing of this report, the only remaining outstanding facility master plan is the Park &
Recreation Master Plan. Once the Park & Recreation Master Plan is completed and approved by
Council, the PFDIF will be comprehensively updated.
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. Millenia (formerly Eastern Urban Center) Fire Station
3. Millenia (formerly Eastern Urban Center) 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
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).
Additional facilities may be added to the PFDIF, as appropriate, based on the recently approved
Fire and Library Master Plans and the pending Park & Recreation Master Plan.
7. What is the amount of debt service for this year compared to last year?
Fiscal year 2013 -14 all funds debt service expenditures totaled $10.3 million. The fiscal year 2014-
15 debt service expenditure budget totals $9.8 million, a decrease of $0.5 million or 5.2 %. This net
decrease reflects the payoff of the 2003 Refunding COP (parking structure) and the March 2014
refunding of the 2002 Police Facility COP. The 2002 Police Facility COP was refunded in full,
generating approximately $300,000 in annual savings to the General Fund and the Police Facility
component of the PFDIF (55.65% and 44.35 %, respectively). Savings of more than $4 million are
anticipated over the life of the new COP.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 80
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. How much government bonds debt does the city have?
As of the end of the fiscal year 2013 -14, the City had $121.7 million (unaudited) 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.
9. 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 brought forward two minor modifications of existing development fee programs to the
Council for approval in fiscal year 2013 -14.
The first modification was an update of the Traffic Signal Fee to exclude non - profit Community
Purpose Facilities from assessment of the fee. This modification made 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 made was an update of the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee
program to exclude hotels and motels (transient residents) from the fee program. This
modification made 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 was 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).
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 81
Two new DIF fees were recently approved, but had no activity in the subject reporting period. The
first new DIF is the Eastern Urban Center (Millenia) Pedestrian Bridge DIF. Effective September
2013, this fee was set at $615 per single family unit, and $456 per multi - family unit. The fee will
finance the construction of the Eastlake Parkway Pedestrian Bridge, connecting the Otay Ranch
Millenia (formerly Eastern Urban Center) project to Otay Ranch Village 11. Initial funds were
received in September 2014 and will be included in next year's report to the GMOC.
The second new DIF is the Bayfront Transportation DIF. In November, 2014, the Western TDIF was
amended to exclude Bayfront facilities and development, and a separate Bayfront specific DIF was
established. The new fee will become effective in January 2015. An initial fee of $9,442 per EDU
was established, and the same trip generation factors from the Eastern and Western TDIF
programs will apply. Any activity in fiscal year 2015 will be included in next year's report to the
GMOC.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Fiscal Year 2013 -14 Financial Schedules for all DIFs
2. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Cash Flow: Fiscal Year 2005 -06 through Build -Out
PREPARED RV.
Name: Maria Kachadoorian
Title: Deputy City Manager/ Chief Financial Officer
Name: Tiffany Allen
Title: Treasury & Business Manager
Date: January 15, 2014
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.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 82
SCHEDULE A
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic and transportation improvements in support of future development.
Amount of the Fee: $ 12,494 per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached
$ 9,995 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached (med density)
$ 7,496 per multi - family equivalent dwelling unit
$ 199,901 per general commercial gross acre
$ 99,958 per industrial gross acre
FY 13/14 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 591
TRANSPORTATION DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/13 $ 2474737315
TDIF Fees Collected
119491246
Transportation State Share
-
nterest Earned
1377350
Miscellaneous Revenues
-
Forgiveness of debt
-
Transfer-in
367851
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services
-
City Staff Services
(172, 098)
Transfer -Out
-
CIP Project Expenditures
(373377454)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14 $ 2370877210
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 83
SCHEDULE A.1
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY 13/14 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT
Total Appropriation
% Of Project Future
Initially
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
EXPENDITURES
as of 6/30/14
Funded by TDIF Appropriations
Scheduled
OP206
Automation - AutoCAD Upgrade
$ 11129
501000
40.00% -
2010
OP208
CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase
125
751000
36.40% -
2009
OP220
Global Positioning Virtual Refrn Station
-
171500
70.00% -
2011
STL261
Willow St Bridge Widening
3661232
219551000
57.80% -
1999
STL384
Willow Street Bridge Utility Relocation
241440
1541937
11.50% -
2012
STM331
98 E. Orange Extension
117957
379591904
100.00% -
1999
STM355
Otay Lakes Road Widening, East H to Canyor
213321939
717201000
96.30% -
2003
STM357
Rock Mtn Rd - Heritage to La Media
11325
2321000
100.00% 1007000
2004
STM359
Rock Mtn Rd - SR125 Overpass
287001
3007000
100.00% -
2010
STM364
Heritage Road Bridge Reconstrc
4087565
277747510
49.20% -
2007
STM374
Heritage Road - Olympic to Main
17289
1507000
100.00% -
2012
STM375
SR125 at San Miguel Ranch - 1/2 InterchangE
14
1721869
100.00% -
2012
TF274
Traffic Count Stations
-
4207000
77.10% -
2002
TF325
Transportation Planning Program
177063
4207000
64.60% -
2007
TF355
1805 Corridor Imprv. Arterial Ops
57090
507000
66.70% -
2010
TF357
SR125 Corridor and Arterial Ops
467906
507000
100.00% -
2007
TF364
TDIF (Trans Dev Impact Fund) Update
677941
2557000
100.00% -
2007
TF379
Traffic Mgmt Center - Traffic Monitoring Syste
241438
4501000
100.00% -
2012
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES
$ 313371454
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 84
SCHEDULE A.2
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Loan
Advance to Western Transportation DIF
approved via Council approved FY09 budget
Advance to PFDIF (General Administration)
approved by Council Resolution #2008 -300
on December 16, 2008
Advance to PFDIF (General Administration)
approved by Council Resolution #2009 -137
on June 9, 2009
Outstanding
I nan Amni int
$ 514031075
$ 513001000
IntPrP .qt Rate
2.140%
3.80%
0.56%
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 85
SCHEDULE B
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic and transportation improvements in support of future development.
Amount of the Fee: $ 3,546 per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached
$ 2,836 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached (med density)
$ 2,127 per multi - family equivalent dwelling unit
$ 70,910 per regional commercial gross acre
$ 212,731 per high rise office gross acre
FY 13/14 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 593
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/13 $ 1307625
WTDI F Fees Collected 521115
Interest Earned 11640
Transfer-in -
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services -
City Staff Services -
Transfer -Out - TDIF (36,851)
CIP Project Expenditures -
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14 $ 1477529
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 86
SCHEDULE C
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Fee: For City's traffic signal needs resulting from increased traffic volume caused by new development.
Amount of the Fee: $ 34.27 per trip
FY 13/14 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 87
FUND 225
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FUND
Beginning Balance, 07/01/13
$ 179557213
Traffic Signal Fees Collected
2077016
Federal Grant
-
nterest Earned
207142
Miscellaneous Revenues
247085
Transfer-in
-
Expenditures:
City Staff Services
(12, 745)
Other Refunds
(16, 357)
Transfer -Out
-
CIP Project Expenditures
(3227958)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14
$ 178547396
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 87
SCHEDULE C.1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY 13/14 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT
Total Appropriation
% Of Project Fundec Future
Initially
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
EXPENDITURES
as of 6/30/14
by Traffic Signal DIF Appropriations
Scheduled
OP206
General Services Automation - AutoCad Upgrade
$ -
131000
10.40% -
2010
OP208
CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase
17200
407000
19.40% -
2009
STL362
Third Avenue Streetscape Improvement
547526
4007000
6.80% -
2013
TF319
Signal Modification - Anita & Industrial
-
2047536
50.60% -
2014
TF337
Traffic Left Turn Modification Program
167241
2267649
100.00% -
2006
TF371
Traffic Modification Hilltop Dr & Main Street
-
2507000
100.00% -
2010
TF374
Mod Traffic Signal /Equip. 3rd &I and 3rd &K
763
2007000
100.00% -
2011
TF375
Traffic Signal Mod at "F" St. and Fourth Ave. Intersection
2487739
3507000
100.00% -
2013
TF376
Mod Traffic Signal Modification at 3rd &K
17290
807000
28.30% -
2011
TF386
Traffic Signal Modification 4th & J Street
143
507000
100.00% 2007000
2014
TF387
Traffic Signal Modification Hilltop & L Street
56
507000
100.00% 2007000
2014
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES
$ 3221958
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 88
SCHEDULE D
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (TC DRAINAGE DIF)
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Fee: For construction of Telegraph Canyon channel between Paseo Ladera and the Eastlake Business Center and for a portion of the
channel west of 1 -805.
Amount of the Fee: $ 4,579 per acre
FY 13/14 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
Beginning Balance, 07/01/13
TC Drainage Fees Collected
Interest Earned
Transfer-in
Expenditures:
CIP Project Expenditures
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14
FY 13/14 CIP EXPENDITURES:
FUND 542
TC DRAINAGE D I F
$ 610671612
667578
(4,252)
$ 6,129, 938
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
EXPENDITURES
Total Appropriation
as of 6/30/14
% Of Project Funded Future
by DIF Appropriations
Initially
Scheduled
DR118
94 /Tele Cyn Channl Design
$ -
319191026
100.00% -
1994
DR167
Telegraph Canyon Drainage Study Third & L
31071
112511000
100.00% -
2006
DR182
Telegraph Canyon Channel Improvement K -1st
172
501000
100.00% -
2010
DR183
Telegraph Canyon Drainage Study
11009
116001000
100.00% -
2010
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES
$ 41252
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 89
SCHEDULE E
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF (TC Gravity Sewer DIF) Fund 431
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF (PC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 432
Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF (SC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 433
Description of Fee:
Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF:
Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF:
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF:
Amount of the fee:
For the expansion of trunk sewer within the basin for tributary properties.
For the planning, design, construction and /or financing of the facilities.
For the construction of a trunk sewer in the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin from a proposed regional
trunk sewer west of 1 -805 along Olympic Parkway to the boundary of Eastlake.
per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached
per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached
per multi - family equivalent dwelling unit
Commercial land use
Industrial land use
Fund 431
Fund 432
Fund 433
TC Gravity
PC Sewer
SC Sewer
Sewer DIF
Basin DIF
Basin DIF
$ 216.50 $
265.00
$ 11330.00
$ 216.50 $
265.00
$ 11330.00
$ 162.38 $
198.75
$ 997.50
$216.50/edu
$265/edu
$1330/edu
$216.50/edu
$265/edu
$1330/edu
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 90
SCHEDULE E.1
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY 13/14 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION:
Beginning Balance, 07/01/2013
DIF Fees Collected
Interest Earned
Transfer-in
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services
City Staff Services
Transfer Debt Service
CIP Project Expenditures
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14'
FY 13/14 CIP EXPENDITURES:
Fund 431
Fund 432
Fund 433
TC Gravity
PC Sewer
SC Sewer
Sewer DIF
Basin DIF
Basin DIF
$ 1,101, 860 $
212271324
$ 577971747
-
1167527
1517565
127186
247995
657260
- - (21628)
- - (250, 000)
- (726) -
$ 1,114, 046 $ 213681120 $ 517611944
PROJECT Total Appropriation Of Project Fund( Future Initially
PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/14 by DIF Appropriations Scheduled
SW284 Pogg i Cayon Trunk Swr Upgrade Reach $ 726 3001000 100.00% - 2014
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 726
'In FY 2008 the City changed the presentation of the Sewer DIF Funds from Special Revenue Funds to Enterprise Funds to better match standard
financial reporting practices. Beginning this year, the City is reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Sewer DIF Funds in this report for
comparison purposes.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 91
SCHEDULE F
OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Otay Ranch Village 1, 215 & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 587
Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 588
Description of Fee:
OR Village 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement between Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5 & 6.
OR Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement in Otay Ranch Village 11.
Amount of the fee:
Fund 587 Fund 588
OR Village 1, 215 & 6 OR Village 11
Ped Bridge DIF Ped Bridge DIF
per single family equivalent dwelling unit detache, $
per multi - family equivalent dwelling unit $
FY 13/14 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
Beginning Balance, 07/01/13
DIF Fees Collected
Interest Earned
Otay Parkway Ped. Bridge (2008 -102)
City Staff Services
Other Refunds
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14
11114 $ 21243
826 $ 11667
FUND 587 FUND 588
OTAY RANCH DIF OTAY RANCH DIF
$ 5681320 $ 219941253
2951810 491960
71320 337421
$ 8711450 $ 310771634
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 92
SCHEDULE G
PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF)
FY 13/14 STATEMENT OF FUND BALANCE
Description of Fee and amount:
Admistration $601- Administration of the Public Facilities DIF program, overseeing of expenditures and revenues collected, preparation of updates, calculation of costs, etc.
Civic Center Expansion $2,756 - Expansion of the 1989 Civic Center per the Civic Center Master Plan to provide sufficient building space and parking due to growth and
development. The Civic Center Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to include the Otay Ranch impacts.
Police Facility $1,671 - Accommodation of the building space needs per the Civic Center Master Plan, which included the newly constructed police facility, upgrading of the
communications center and installation of new communication consoles. Also included is the purchase and installation of a computer aided dispatch system (CAD), Police
Records Management System, and Mobile Data Terminals.
Corporation Yard Relocation $450 - Relocation of the City's Public Works Center from the bay front area to the more centrally located site on Maxwell Road.
Libraries $1,582 - Improvements include construction of the South Chula Vista library and Eastern Territories libraries, and installation of a new automated library system.
This component is based on the updated Library Master Plan.
Fire Suppression System $1,393 - Projects include the relocation of Fire Stations #3 & #4, construction of a fire training tower and classroom, purchase of a brush rig,
installation of a radio communications tower and construction of various fire stations in the Eastern section of the City. This fee also reflects the updated Fire Station Master
Plan, which includes needs associated with the Otay Ranch development.
Major Recreation Facilities $1,201 — New component adopted in November 2002 to build major recreation facilities created by new development such as community centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior /teen centers.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 93
Police
Corp Yard
Fire Supp.
Rec.
Gen. Admin.
Civic Center (1)
Facility
Relocation
Libraries
System
Facilities
571
567/572
573
574
575
576
582
TOTAL
Beginning Balance, 07/01/13
$ 412941287
$ 816151472
$ (11823,414)
$ 21887,338
$ 11,310,590
$ (10,494,601)
$ (41077,291)
$ 10,712,379
Revenues:
DIF Revenues
3361580
111301236
7711685
1821881
8277512
6497088
6561742
475541724
Investment Earnings
931773
881761
(51237)
331076
1281727
(57,627)
(21,463)
2601010
Other Revenue
1461608
-
-
-
-
-
-
1467608
Reimbursement - Oth Agencies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer In
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 93
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14 $ 41576,800 $ 61722,244 $ (21777,404) $ 21258,022 $ 12,266,829 $ (10,334,068) $ (31442,012) $ 91270,409
NOTE: (1) This fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adamo property in Fund 567.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 94
Police Corp Yard
Fire Supp. Rec.
Gen. Admin. Civic Center (1) Facility Relocation Libraries
System Facilities
571 567/572 573 574 575
576 582
TOTAL
Expenditures:
Personnel Services Total
- - - - -
- -
-
Supplies & Services
(21521) - - - -
- -
(27521)
City Staff Services
(2897212) - - - -
- -
(2897212)
Other Refunds
- - - - -
- -
-
Capital Expenditures
- - - - -
- -
-
CIP Project Expenditures
- - - - -
- -
-
Transfer Out
(2, 715) (31112,225) (11720,438) (845,273) -
(430, 928) -
(6,111, 579)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14 $ 41576,800 $ 61722,244 $ (21777,404) $ 21258,022 $ 12,266,829 $ (10,334,068) $ (31442,012) $ 91270,409
NOTE: (1) This fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adamo property in Fund 567.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 94
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Fee: In lieu fee for providing neighborhood community park and recreational facilities.
Areas East of 1 -805
Amount of the Fee: $
Amount of the Fee: $
17,782
per single family dwelling unit
$
13,196
per multi - family dwelling unit
$
8,322
per mobile home dwelling unit
$
7,607
per motel /hotel dwelling unit'
Areas West of 1 -805
Amount of the Fee: $
10,100
per single family dwelling unit
$
7,495
per multi - family dwelling unit
$
4,727
per mobile home dwelling unit
$
4,320
per motel /hotel dwelling unit'
FY 13/14 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
Beginning Balance, 07/01/13
Revenues:
Park Dedication Fees
Interest Earned
Miscellaneous Revenues
Expenditures:
Supplies and Services
Other Refunds
Transfer -Out Western PAD
CIP Project Expenditures
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/142
FUND 715 FUND 716
PAD FUND WPAD FUND
$ 35, 879, 987 $ 3527871
273261398 2877668
3041152 57227
(29,522) -
$ 38,481, 015 $ 6451766
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 95
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY 13/14 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT
EXPENDITURES
Total Appropriation
at 6/30/14
% Of Project Funded Future
by PAD Fees Appropriations
Initially
Scheduled
PR261 Otay Ranch Community Park
$ 14
6971764
100.00% -
2009
PR308 P -3 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)
291380
1221000
100.00% -
2009
PR309 P -2 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)
128
1221000
100.00% -
2009
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$ 291522
Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code was amended via Ordinance 3303, eliminating the PAD fee obligation for hotels and motels effective March
13, 2014 .
2The ending balance includes fees paid by specific developers for specific parks within those development. These parks include Salt Creek Park, Montevalle
Park, Mt. Miguel Park, Mountain Hawk, Otay Ranch Community Park and the Millenia Park.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 96
TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Fee: For the enlargement of sewer facilities of the City so as to enhance efficiency of utilization and /or adequacy of capacity
and for planning and /or evaluating any future proposals for area wide sewage treatment and or water reclamation
systems or facilities.
Amount of the Fee: $ 3,478 per equivalent dwelling unit of flow when developing or modifying use of any residential
property
FY 13/14 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION:
'In FY 2008 the City changed the presentation of the Trunk Sewer Fund from a Special Revenue Fund to an Enterprise Fund to better match
standard financial reporting practices. Beginning this year, the City is reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Trunk Sewer
Fund in this report for comparison purposes.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 97
FUND 413
TRUNK SEWER
(TS)
Beginning Balance, 07/01/2013
$ 3170397564
Interest Earned
3517793
Sewerage Facility Participant Fees
274167335
Transfer In
4497972
Loan Repayments
3507000
Expenditures:
Contributions to Other Agencies (City of SD)
-
CIP Project Expenditures
(6517794)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/14'
$ 3379557870
'In FY 2008 the City changed the presentation of the Trunk Sewer Fund from a Special Revenue Fund to an Enterprise Fund to better match
standard financial reporting practices. Beginning this year, the City is reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Trunk Sewer
Fund in this report for comparison purposes.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 97
TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FY 13/14 EXPENDITURES:
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 98
PROJECT
Total Approp.
% Of Project Funded Future
Initially
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
EXPENDITURES
at 6/30/14
by TRUNK SEWER Appropriations
Scheduled
OP203
Property and Easement Studies
$ 11132
111000
100.00% -
2005
SW219
99 /Slt Creek Trunk Sewer Constructior
454
7061679
73.80% -
1999
SW223
Wastewater Master Plan
2101298
5651940
100.00% -
2001
SW234
Sewer Improvement Colorado J & K
77
9651883
100.00% -
2004
SW261
Industrial Blvd & Main Cap Enhance
11731
1401000
100.00% -
2010
SW263
Anita Street Sewer Improvement
981376
111601000
100.00% -
2011
SW265
Industrial Blvd At Moss & K
91121
4001000
100.00% -
2011
SW266
Oxford Street Sewer Improvement
111952
6701000
100.00% -
2011
SW272
Moss St Swr Improv. at Railroad Cross
3181436
6001000
100.00% -
2012
SW274
East H Street Sewer Main Upsize
217
115001000
100.00% -
2013
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$ 6511794
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 98
LOANS:
TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE
FY 13/14 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Description of Loan
Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by
Council Resolution #18996 on May 19, 1998
Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by
Council Resolution #19078 on July 16, 1999
for project DR140 (Storm Drain Repair- Orange)
Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by
Council Resolution #19607 on Nov. 24, 1999
for project DR 147 (CMP Storm Drain Replacement)
Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by
Council Resolution #19682 on Jan. 19, 2000
Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DI F approved
by Council Resolution #2001 -203 on June 19,2001
Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DI F approved
by Council Resolution #2002 -222 on June 18,2002
Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DI F approved
by Council Resolution #2002 -297 on August 13, 2002
Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved
by Council Resolution #2003 -278 on June 17, 2003
Total
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Outstanding
Loan Amount Interest Rate
$ 1731974 6.07%
677003 5.90%
2617853
5.88%
937425
5.88%
1171057059
5.88%
271727071
5.34%
370737855
1.90%
171547371
1.50%
$ 1871017611
Page 99
Actual Estimated Estimated Program Total
Increment 1 Actual Actual Actual ctual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Increment 3 Increment 4
2006 - 2010 FY 201 Y 201 FY 201 Y 2014 Y 201 Y 2016A FY 2017 & 2018 FY 2019 & 2020 202IL2030 2031 - Build -out 2006 1@uild -out
Beginning Fund Balance 24,427,641 1,092,009 5,138,723 8,578,173 10,712,383 9,270,409 8,169,345 8,727,128 13,415,386 18,539,771 16,803,480 24,427,641
REVENUES
DIF Fee Revenues 25,264,894 4,208,203 3,122,330 6,808,865 4,554,724 8,278,712 8,242,216 20,054,109 20,488,616 116,460,465 49,050,750 266,533,884
Investment Earnings 1,223,226 (8,850) 58,366 (220,306) 211,858 - - - - 1,264,293
Misc / Other Revenues 18,846,016 - 310,395 - 194,760 - - - - 19,351,171
TOTAL REVENUES 45,334,136 41199,353 31491,091 61588,559 41961,342 81278,712 81242,216 20,054,109 20,488,616 116,460,465 49,050,750 287,149,349
EXPENDITURES
CIP Projects
Rancho del Rey Library
8,644,605
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19,827,422
-
28,472,027
EUC Fire Station
-
-
-
-
8,807,175
-
8,807,175
EUC Library
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27,360,899
27,360,899
OR V4 Rec Facility
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,970,216
-
8,970,216
OR V4 Aquatic Facility
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,094,676
-
10,094,676
Other
33,678,110
-
-
59,545
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33,737,655
CIP Projects Total
42,322,715
-
-
59,545
-
-
-
-
-
47,699,490
27,360,899
117,442,650
Debt Service Payments
22,610,384
69,192
51,041
4,161,797
6,108,865
8,510,081
6,814,738
13,626,460
13,624,841
61,800,311
22,600,654
159,978,363
Non CIP Expenditures
3,736,669
83,447
600
233,007
294,448
869,695
869,695
1,739,391
1,739,391
8,696,955
2,400,000
20,663,299
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
68,669,769
152,639
i 51,641
41454,349
61403,313
91379,776
71684,433
15,365,851
15,364,232
118,196,756
52,361,553
298,084,311
1_N_I.1J111�7 i7T1T1 �:fl FTiTiI:�
:
: :
:
eaA 'Me
:
:
i �
e
e
Less Debt Service Reserve
-
5,138,723
5,800,000
5,800,000
5,800,000
5,800,000
5,800,000
5,800,000
5,800,000
5,400,000
-
-
Available Fund Balance
1,092,009
-
2,778,173
4,912,383
3,470,409
2,369,345
2,927,128
7,615,386
12,739,771
11,403,480
13,492,677
13,492,679
Anticipated Development
Single Family Units
1,823
353
324
350
57
42
42
222
62
1,673
-
4,948.00
Multifamily Units
1,400
508
157
604
526
627
627
1,488
1,652
9,628
5,250
22,467.00
Commercial Acres
22
-
-
-
-
46
46
98
110
196
-
518.41
Industrial Acres
16
-
-
-
-
71
71
142
145
436
-
881.52
Residential Subtotal
645
861
481
954
583
669
669
855
857
11130
656.25
27,415
A verage
A verage
A verage
Total
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 100
Libraries - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 to Present Time and 5 -Year Forecast
Please update the table below:
LIBRARIES
Population
Total Gross Square
Footage of Library
Facilities
Gross Square Feet of Library
Facilities Per 1000
Population
Threshold
X
X
500 Sq. Ft.
5 -Year Projection
2019
267,427
97,412
364
12 -Month Projection
12/31/15
257,362
97,412
378
FY 2013 -14
256,139
97,412
380
FY 2012 -13
251613
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
FY 2001 -02
195,000
102,000
523
FY 2000 -01
1 187,444
102,000
544
*After closure of Eastlake library in 2011
* *After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012
Libraries 2014
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 101
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 27% 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 2013, 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 16 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 50 cents per capita in FY 14.
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
4. Please complete the table below:
2
Libraries 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 102
LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS
Annual Attendance
Annual Circulation
Guest Satisfaction
FY 13/14
822,895
954,071
* **
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
1,121,119
1,414,295
91%
FY03 /04
1,076,967
1,308,918
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.
** *Customer satisfaction surveys were re- introduced in FYI 4-15 and can be included in next year's GMOC questionnaire response.
5. What is the status of completing the Library Strategic Plan and updating the Library
Facilities Master Plan?
The Strategic Visioning Component was completed in December 2013. It was presented as
companion piece to the Strategic Facilities Master Plan in April 2014. Both parts were
approved by Council on April 8, 2014.
6. What are some alternatives to constructing the Rancho del Rey library?
Working with Southwestern College to incorporate community use into the proposed
Performing Arts Center. It will feature meeting space and performance spaces that can be
booked by the public, as well as wi -fi access. It may be possible to have some kind of
book /media /library presence that could support select library functions on that site.
7. The GMOC's 2014 Annual Report recommended: "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." What is the status of
the proposed phasing plan to construct the EUC library?
Millenia has been granted an extension so that completion of the Library Strategic Plan will
not trigger mandatory commencement of the Millenia library project. The Otay Library will
continue to serve as an eastside library location through 2017, when the lease with General
Growth expires.
3
Libraries 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 103
8. The GMOC's 2014 Annual Report recommended: "That City Council direct the City
Manager to initiate a campaign for library grants, endowments, partnerships and other
funding mechanisms to support library needs." What is the status of a funding campaign
for libraries?
In 2013 -14 the library received over $200,000 in grants, donations, in -kind and in lieu
services.
Library facilities are a part of the current Asset Management Study which is evaluating city
infrastructure deficits and identifying possible revenue sources to ameliorate them.
9. Please provide an update on the storefront library facility at Otay Ranch Town Center and
any other potential options for providing library services, such as allowing the public to
use the library at Southwestern College.
A 2000 ft. expansion of the Otay Ranch Branch Library, The Hub, will open in fall 2014 in the
space formerly occupied by Geppetto's. It will serve as additional space for meetings,
events, small performances, homework help, classes, etc. Passport acceptance services are
scheduled to begin in FY 14 -15.
The public can currently use the library at Southwestern College.
10. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for
2013/2014, and include any available data for the County's Bonita - Sunnyside Branch.
18,200 Chula Vista residents are registered with the Bonita - Sunnyside Branch.
11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you
would like to relay to the GMOC and /or the City Council.
12. What are the current and projected hours of operation for the city's libraries?
Current hours are displayed in the table below. The Chula Vista Public Library Foundation is
considering funding Sunday hours at Otay.
0
Libraries 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 104
Sunday
Monda
Tuesda
Wednesday
Thursday
Frida
Saturda
Civic Center
1 - 5
10 -8
10 -8
10 -8
10 -8
10 -5
10 -5
South
1 -5
10 -8
10 -8
10 -8
10 -8
10 -5
10 -5
Otay
closed
11 -7
11 -7
11 -7
11 -7
12 -6
12 -6
0
Libraries 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 104
PPFPAPFI) RV-
Name: Betty Waznis
Title: Library Director
Date: November 10, 2014
THRESHOLD STANDARD
In the area east of I -805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately
year 2030) 60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city -wide June 30,2000
GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the
City will not fall below the city -wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population.
Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed.
5
Libraries 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 105
Performance Measures
Library
Moving Year JUL 2013 to JUN 2014
* EXP date is current within 24 months.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 106
Current Year
Previous
% change
Hours Open CC
21857
21852
0%
Hours Open EL
0
0
Hours Open SO
21839
21804
1%
Hours Open Otay
21141
11815
18%
0
qF"M
Internet Sessions CC
65,824
83,369
-21%
Internet Sessions Otay
71206
71619
-5
Internet Sessions SO
Internet.sessions Total
53,122
711761
162Q&Mr
-26%
-22%
Items Circulated CC
383,324
3941788
-3%
Items Circulated EL
0
0
Items Circulated SO
273,791
306,913
-11%
Items Circulated Otay
150,880
138,825
9%
Ebooks circulated
171790
14,895
19%
Items Circulated Remotely
128,286
136,584
-6%
�Items Lirculatea i otar"W
954,U73.
91813
99zP
91299
4%
6%
Program Attendees CC
Program Attendees EL
0
0
Program Attendees Off
11437
61238
-77%
Program Attendees SO
51303
51464
-3%
Program Attendees Otay
10,608
61892
54%
0 T'31�1
. M.,
Visitors CC
473,599
471,516
0%
Visitors EL
0
0
Visitors SO
2341290
248,450
-6%
Visitors Otay
115,006
1 113,009
2
�Visitors Total
.M
822,895
832,975
71=
New Cards CC
81666
81867
-2%
New Cards EL
0
0
New Cards SO
51976
61560
-9%
New Cards Otay
own..
3,244
31447
-6%
Card Holders as of 2/24/14*
112,065
* EXP date is current within 24 months.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 106
ot Water District y - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 to Present Time and 5 -Year Forecast
1. Please complete the tables below.
WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Capacity (MGD)
Potable Water
Non - Potable Water
FY 2013/14
121.5
Supply
Storage
Helix Water District
Supply
Storage
Timeframe
Demand
Capacity
Capacity
Demand
Capacity
Capacity
0.0
4.4
Local
Imported
Treated
Raw
TOTAL
150.7
100%
5 -Year
FY 2012/13
Projection
38.3
0.0
143.5
218.6
0.0
5.2
7.2
43.7
(Ending 6/30/19)
3.9
7.2
43.7
(Ending 6/30/13)
12 -18 Month
FY 2011/12
Projection
31.3
0.0
143.5
218.6
0.0
4.6
7.2
43.7
(Ending 6/30/16)
3.6
7.2
43.7
(Ending 6/30/12)
WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Capacity (MGD)
Potable Water
Non - Potable Water
FY 2013/14
121.5
80.6%
20.6
Helix Water District
12.0
8.0%
9.2
City of San Diego
10.0
29.8
0.0
143.5
218.6
0.0
4.4
7.2
43.7
( Ending 6/30/14)
3.4
TOTAL
150.7
100%
33.2
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
3.6
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)
Sources of Water - FY 2014/15
(MG - Millions of Gallons)
Water Source
Capacity (MGD)
Percentage of Total
Capacity
Actual Use (MGD)
San Diego County Water Authority
121.5
80.6%
20.6
Helix Water District
12.0
8.0%
9.2
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%
3.4
TOTAL
150.7
100%
33.2
Otay Water District - 2015 Page 1
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 107
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 2015 through 2020 CIP
documents.
CIP
Pro'ect
CIP Proiect Title
No.
P2037
Res — 980 -3 Reservoir 5 MG
P2104
PL - 12 -Inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Birch /Rock Mountain
P2106
PL — 12 -Inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road — Rock Mtn/Otay Valle
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 Bnd
P2399
PL - 30 -Inch, 980 Zone, 980 Reservoirs to Hunte Parkway
P2402
PL - 12 -Inch, 624 Zone, La Media Road - Village 7/Otay Valle
P2403
PL - 12 -Inch, 624 Zone, Heritage Road - Olympic/Otay Valle
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 Valle
R2042
RecPL - 8 -Inch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR- 125 /EastLake
R2047
RecPL - 12 -Inch, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Birch /Rock Mountain
R2082
RecPL - 24 -Inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Village 2/Heritage
R2083
RecPL - 20 -Inch, 680 Zone, Heritage Road - Village 2/Olympic
R2084
RecPL - 20 -Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media
R2085
RecPL - 20 -Inch, 680 Zone, La Media - State/Olympic
Otay Water District - 2015 Page 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 108
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
2015 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 2015 through 2020
CIP documents.
CIP
Pro'ect
No.
CIP Proiect Title
P2366
APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits
P2382
Safety and Security Improvements
P2469
Information Technology Network and Hardware
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
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
P2553
Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation
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. 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
Master Plan (WRMP) as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best alternatives for providing
reliable water system facilities. The District is currently updating the WRMP, with completion
projected during 2015.
Growth projection data provided by SANDAL, 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
Otay Water District - 2015 Page 3
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 109
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 District
is also in the process of updating the IRP during 2015.
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 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 completion of the of the San Diego
County Water Authority's Carlsbad Desalination Project expected in late 2015, the near term
water supply outlook has improved while the City of Chula Vista's long -term growth should be
assured of a reliable water supply. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face
climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply
conditions, such as the court ruling regarding the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta issues.
Challenges such as these essentially always will be present. The regional water supply agencies,
the SDCWA and MWD, along with Otay Water District nevertheless fully intend to have
sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands.
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
Otay Water District - 2015 Page 4
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 110
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.
1UW]S!Y\:7S07.Avg
Name: Robert Kennedy, P.E.
Title: Engineering Manager
Date: January 26, 2015
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 - 2015 Page 5
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 111
Chula Vista, CA
Disdarmen- Map and parc af data .7 re t�-efaevied bo br acmraL -, &rt - accuracy rs rm5,t _g Lra ran teed_ 7-h is Fs roof a legal dmmment ar?d shauU Trot b,9 substitubed
fo r a faffe :r,-- ar4:hr a ppra Loo, survey ¢r zo n i ng verffica tf ofr. n. t. s.
FUTURE PARKS PROJECTED IN THE 2015 GMOC REPORT
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 112
Parks &Recreation - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 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 (6/30/14) 18 -Month 5 -Year
June 2011 June 2012 June 2013
(12.31.15) (2019)
3 acres per
East 1 -805
1,000
AC /1,000 persons
2.96
2.86
2.67
3.16
3.1
3.05
population
East
West 1 -805
of 1 -805
AC /1,000 persons
1.2
1.22
1.2
1.21
1.2
1.20
Citywide
AC /1,000 persons
2.17
2.13
2.1
2.25
2.2
2.21
Acres of
East 1 -805
418.44
418.44
459.02*
418.01
418.01
418.44
parkland
West 1 -805
138.76
142.68+
142.68+
138.76
138.76
138.76
Citywide
557.2
561.1
599.6
556.77
556.77
557.20
Population **
East 1 -805
141,436
146,546
171,869
132,357
135,205
137,313
West 1 -805
1151788
1171093
1191096
115,077
1151130
1151300
Citywide
2571224
2631639
2901965
247,434
2501335
2521643
Acre shortfall
East 1 -805
(5.87)
(21.2)
(58.69)
20.94
12.4
6.5
or excess
West 1 -805
(208.61)
(208.62)
(214.61)
(206.47)
(206.6)
(207.23)
Citywide
(214.46)
(229.82)
(273.3)
(185.53)
(194.24)
(200.73)
+ Assumes completion of Orange park (3.9 acres)
*Assumes completion of: V2, P -3 (Ph1) (6.00 acres); V2, P -2 (7.10 acres); Millenia, Stylus Park (1.97 acres);
Millenia, Strata Park (1.51 acres); Village 31 P -1 (6.7 acres); Village 8 West, P -1 (7.5 acres); Village 8 West Town
Square (3 acres); and V8 East, Neighborhood Park (6.8 acres).
"Based on the "Chula Vista Residential Growth Forecast - years 2014 - 2019"
PdYICS a@A 9"MAPAIQ�;5nda Packet NP1 �3
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?
Yes X No
(2.96 acres rounds to 3.0)
If not, what actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland shortages?
2. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 12- to 18-
months?
Yes No X
If not:
a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? 21.21 acres
b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities?
Yes, there are additional park sites offered for dedication to the City.
c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities?
Park development fees are being collected by the City in accordance with Chapter 17.10 of the
Municipal code. (Parks covered by a parks agreement are being provided as turnkey parks in lieu
of PAD fee payment.) Payment of fees is currently deferred until the units that generate them
are "finaled ". In some instances this leads to residents moving into new homes ahead of the
park 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? 58.69 acres.
b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities?
Yes, there are a number of additional park sites offered for dedication to the City. Recently
approved SPA plans will generate additional park sites offered for dedication to the City. (Those
triggered by population growth in the "Residential Growth Forecast" are included in the Priority
1table, 5 -year forecast.) Additional parks in those subdivisions and the balance of the Village 2
parks will correct the shortfall when they are constructed. (See Table 2, below.)
It should be noted that in recent years the building permit activity in Eastern Chula Vista has
totaled approximately 700 residential units per year, which would total 3,500 units over the
PdYICS a@Ag"MAPAIQ(�;5nda Packet WW1�4
course of a five year period. The "Residential Growth Forecast" anticipates 30,433 new units.
The acreage of parks listed in the Priority 1 table would provide 3 acres per thousand if the
increase in population was generated by only 3,500 new residential units in five years.
At build out the park provision is planned to meet the threshold of 3 acres per thousand in
Eastern Chula Vista.
c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities?
Park development fees are being collected by the City in accordance with Chapter 17.10 of the
Municipal code. (Parks covered by a parks agreement are being provided as turnkey parks in lieu
of PAD fee payment.) Payment of fees is currently deferred until the units that generate them
are "finaled ". In some instances this leads to residents moving into new homes ahead of the park
construction.
Table 2
PARK PROJECTION REQUIRED TO MEET THE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
OF THE CURRENT "RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST" IN EASTERN CHULA VISTA
Threshold
Standard
Area of City
Current 6.30.14
18 -month
12.31.15
5 year
East of 1 -805
2.96
2.86
2.97
3 acres per
AC/thousand
thousand
West of 1 -805
1.20
1.22
1.20
East of 1 -805
AC /thousand
Citywide
AC thousand
2.17
2.13
2.06
Acres of
East 1 -805
418.44
418.44
510.7*
West 1 -805
138.76
142.68
142.68
parkland
City wide
557.20
561.10
599.60
East 1 -805
1411436.00
146,546.00
171,869.00
West 1 -805
1151788.00
117,093.00
119,096.00
Population
City wide
2571224.00
2631639.00
2901965.00
East 1 -805
(5.87)
(21.20)
(4.91)
Acre shortfall
West 1 -805
(208.60)
(208.60)
(214.61)
or excess
City wide
(214.47)
(229.82)
(273.30)
*Assumes completion of both phases V2, P -3 (7.55 acres); V2, P -2 (7.10 acres); V2 P -5 (5.05 acres) and the first phase of the V2
Community Park (44 acres); Millennia Stylus Park (2.67 acres) (Including equivalency acres); Millennia Strata Park (1.81 acres);
Village 3, P -1(6.7 acres); Village 8 West, P -1(7.5 acres); Village 8 West Town Square (3 acres); and V8 East, Neighborhood Park
(6.8 acres).
The time line to achieve development of all these parks in Eastern Chula Vista in five years would
be ambitious. (See Table 3 below.) The Finance Department would need to verify that sufficient
park development fees will have been collected to enable construction of the non - turnkey parks
in the table.
PdYICS a@A 9"MAPAIQ�;5nda Packet NW145
Table 3
PARK PHASING REQUIRED TO MEET "RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST" FIGURES FOR 2019
Park
Park
Master Plan
CD
Construction
Construction
Acceptance
Acreage
completion
completion
Start Date
Completion
Date
Date
V21 P -3 Ph 1
3.90 acres
Approval Jan
1St quarter
Mid 2015
4t" quarter
4t" quarter
2015
2015
2015
2016
V2, P -3 Ph 2
3.65 acres
Approval Jan
4t" quarter
1St quarter
4t" quarter
4t" quarter
2015
2017
2018
2018
2019
V2, P -2
7.10 acres
Mid 2015
1st quarter
Mid 2016
1st quarter
1st quarter
2016
2017
2018
V2 P -5
5.05 acres
Mid 2016
1St quarter
Mid 2017
Mid 2018
Mid 2019
2017
V2 Community
44.00 acres
3rd quarter
2nd quarter
3rd quarter
4th quarter
4t" quarter
Park Ph 1
2016
2017
2017
2018
2019
Millennia
2.67 acres
Approved
Complete.
1St quarter
1St quarter
1St quarter
Stylus Park
Inc
Bid in
2015
2016
2017
equivalency
process.
Millennia
1.81 Inc.
4t" quarter
3rd quarter
4t" quarter
3rd quarter
3rd quarter
Strata Park
equivalency
2015
2016
2016
2017
2018
Village 3, P -1
6.7 acres
1St quarter
4t" quarter
1St quarter
4t" quarter
4t" quarter
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
Village 8
7.5 acres
4t" quarter
3 rcl quarter
1St quarter
4th quarter
4 quarter
West, P -1
2016
2017
2018
2018
2019
Village 8 West
3 acres
1St quarter
4 quarter
1 51 quarter
4 quarter
4 quarter
Town Square
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
V8 East,
6.8 acres
4t" quarter
3 rcl quarter
1 51 quarter
4m quarter
4 quarter
Neighborhood
2016
2017
2018
2018
2019
Park
4. Are there other growth - related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold standard as Chula Vista's
population increases?
Yes No X
If yes, please explain.
5. Please provide a map showing existing and proposed parks if there are changes since last year's report. (See attached
Map)
6. The GMOC's 2014 Annual Report recommended 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's response was that staff would work to review
and update the Master Fee Schedule to maximize revenue from the city's park assets and would consider new
revenue opportunities in the growing parks system. In addition, the Recreation Department solicited competitive
proposals from qualified firms to conduct a Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study.
PdYICS a@A 9"MAPAIQ�;5nda Packet NP,46
Please provide a status report on updating the Master Fee Schedule and on the Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation
and Revenue Enhancement Study.
The Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study was undertaken with the following key
goals and outcomes in mind:
• Consistency in pricing philosophy and classification of services
• Clarity on fees and charges and ways in which fees are established
• Identify alternate revenue generation opportunities
o Identify true costs that takes in account all the different departments involved
■ Account for future anticipated costs i.e. repair / replacement costs for programs and facilities
As a part of that process, a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats ( "SWOT ") analysis was undertaken in
a collaborative effort by the staff and consulting team. An iterative process resulted in the final SWOT analysis that
will be reviewed annually by the staff.
A Service Classification exercise (categorizing offerings as Core Essential, Important and Value- Added) was also
undertaken. This is a nationwide best practice and helps to categorize all offerings based on level of exclusivity and
extent of broad community versus narrow individual benefit that provided. These categories are tied to a mutually
agreed -to cost recovery goal and thus provide staff a clear policy -based directive for future pricing and cost
recovery targets.
Community input meetings (two) were held in Chula Vista to offer residents an opportunity to share their vision
and desired outcomes for pricing and utilization of fields, facilities and programs in the future. Chula Vista staff
also conducted a benchmark comparison study for revenue and pricing strategies, cost recovery rates, scholarship
policies and staff levels based on population.
The consulting team is currently developing a cost of service model that will help identify the true cost of service
(Department direct, Department indirect and City -wide overhead) that will help the staff understand its current
cost recovery and make decisions to meet established cost recovery goals.
Following this, the consulting team will conduct a revenue enhancement exercise with the staff to identify other
potential revenue sources and develop a draft and final report that will be presented to staff and elected
leadership. The final report will provide findings from all the previously undertaken exercises as well as policy and
strategic recommendations for city leadership and staff to undertake in order to ensure long term financial
sustainability for the Recreation Department.
Per the schedule, the project is on track and set to be completed as outlined in April 2015.
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 2014 -2015, a
continuation of the operational status of the previous Fiscal Year 2013 -2014, 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 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,
2015 -2016. 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
PdYICS a@A 9"MAPAIQ�;5nda Packet NW47
help offset the General Fund, especially in areas of the City's aquatic facilities for swim lessons and pool program
operations.
It should be noted that a significant portion of the operational hours at Norman Park Center continue to be
dependent upon CDBG funding and will be reduced if CDBG grant funding for Fiscal Year 2015 -2016 is not secured
and an alternate source of funding is not forthcoming.
8. Are parks and recreation facilities, such as gazebos, being leased to the maximum? Please report any progress on
fees collected for facilities.
Yes, Public Works has continued to experience an increase in park reservations resulting in a steady increase in
revenues associated with gazebo rentals. Revenues in FY 2011 totaled $266,776; then in FY 2012 totaled
$275,013; and in FY 2013 $290,795 holding steady in FY2014. In FY 2015 gazebo revenues are anticipated to
exceed the prior year -end revenues by 10 %. The hiring of the Parks Ranger Supervisor and the partial
restoration of the Ranger program has enabled more facilities to be ready for use and utilized efficiently.
Public Works anticipates this trend will continue. Additionally there continues to be an increase in community
and special events using the parks.
9 What is the status of City Council approving the updated Parks & Recreation Master Plan?
Completion of the Citywide Parks & Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) is subject to future park planning efforts
within the future University Villages. The University Villages located within the Otay Ranch area was approved by
City Council in December 2014. Now that the conceptual park plans for each of the Villages has solidified, final
edits of the PRMP can occur. Staff anticipates completion of the updated draft by middle of 2015
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 1 -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
Title: Landscape Architect
Date: Dec 18, 2014
THRESHOLD STANDARD
Population Ratio: Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per
11000 residents east of 1 -805.
PdYICS a@A 9"MAPAIQ�;5nda Packet NW1§8
Police - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 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
Within 7 Minutes
Average
Response
Time
Threshold Standard
81.0%
5:30
FY 2013 -2014
711 of 65,645
79.3%
4:57
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
1 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 - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 119
2. During the period under review, were 81 % of Priority 1 emergency calls citywide
responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes (maintaining an
average of 5.5 minutes)?
Yes No X
If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold
standard for Priority 1 emergency calls citywide.
The Police Department did not meet the Priority 1 Threshold Standard. Although
the average response time was within the threshold, the percentage of call
responses within 7 Minutes fell short of the 81 % threshold. Chronically low
staffing in the Community Patrol Division continues to negatively impact the
response time of officers. Additional staffing in the Community Patrol Division is
necessary to improve response times. The Department continues to actively
recruit with ten officers currently in field training, with an additional six officer in
the Regional Police Academy. Additionally, the Department recently
implemented a new beat structure that improves geographic coverage
throughout the city.
3. Please update the table, below.
Priority 2 - Urgent Response
Calls for Service
Call Volume
% of Call Responses
Within 7 Minutes
Average
Response
Time
Threshold Standard
57.0%
7:30
FY 2013 -2014
17,817 of 65,645
42.7%
11:26
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.
Page 2
Police - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 120
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.
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. These
necessary updates and purchases are slated to begin during the current fiscal
year with complete rollout anticipated in the next 24 months.
6. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level
necessary to maintain Priority 1 and Priority 2 threshold standard compliance
during the period under review?
Yes No X
If not, please explain.
The Department was unable to meet Priority 1 and Priority 2 response standards
this reporting year. Staffing levels are still a serious concern. The Department hired
Matrix Consulting Group in 2012 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 34 %.
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.
Page 3
Police - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 121
Over the last two years the Police Department has been committed to
implementing the recommendations made in the Matrix Study with the goal of
increasing proactive time in Patrol. To date the Department has implemented
numerous recommendations including: expanded the number of Community
Service Officers in Patrol (5 total), deployed a new hybrid staffing schedule,
adopted the updated security alarm ordinance, reprioritized some call for service
types, and redeployed Street Team to augment Patrol. These changes have
resulted in proactive time increasing from 22.3% to 33.8 %, which represents a
51.8% increase.
8. How has the proactive time goal of 40% affected response times?
Trying to achieve a proactive time goal of 40% has not negatively affected 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 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?
The Department continues to monitor the recommendations implemented as a
result of the Matrix Study. The hybrid schedule was one of several changes
implemented since 2012 and allows for additional patrol units to be available
during peak call for service times. Due to many changes being implemented
simultaneously we cannot isolate the impact that the hybrid work schedule had on
response times, however we know that overall proactive time has increased.
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? If not,
please explain.
Yes No X
There are still significant concerns with staffing. The Department is experiencing
Page 4
Police - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 122
significant turn -over due to retirements, and as of the writing of this report, has
approximately 15 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? If not,
please explain.
Yes X No
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.
13. Please update the table below:
NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS PER YEAR
FY 2007 -08
FY 2008 -09
FY 2009 -10
FY 2010 -11
FY 2011 -12
FY 2012 -13
FY 2013 -14
71861
51924
61694
6,424
6,234
6,116
6,119
14. Please provide an update on the Police Department's efforts to improve the Priority
2 threshold standard.
In the fall of 2013, 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 went into effect on
July 1St, 2014. Also, the Department has added 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 M DC'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.
Page 5
Police - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 123
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 7 School Resource Officers. An
additional School Resource Officer position is being funded through the
Promise Neighborhood Grant. 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. Can citizens submit police reports online?
Several years ago the Police Department offered citizens the option to report low-
level crimes online. In 2012 the Department implemented a new paperless records
management system. The Department researched the compatibility of the two
systems and learned that the online reporting system would require more staff time
to process reports with the new records management system. As such, the
Department ended the program of accepting reports online. However, with the
addition of five Community Service Officers in Patrol residents are now able to report
low -level crimes via phone.
17. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions
that you would like to relay to the GMOC and /or the city council.
In May 2014 this Police Department began the process of developing a Strategic
Plan that will shape the future of the department over the next 3 -5 years. Twenty
members from across the Department were selected to be part of the Process
Planning Team. Team members conducted SWOT (Strengths, Weakness,
Opportunities, and Threat Assessment) assessments and STEEP (Social, Technical,
Economic, Environmental, and Political) analysis of issues facing the Department.
In addition, climate surveys of internal (Department staff and external (city staff,
business community, clergy, and local schools) stakeholders were conducted.
The Department has identified three strategic initiatives (People, Processes, and
Partnerships) and 16 goals-supported by nearly 60 objectives to meet these
goals in the next 3 -5 years. The Strategic Plan is currently undergoing final
revisions and will be published in the coming weeks.
As was mentioned in our previous meetings with 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/Title: Jonathan Alegre /Melanie Culuko
Title: Administrative Services Manager /Public Safety Analyst
Date: October 8, 2014
Page 6
Police - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 124
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 % of the Priority 1
emergency calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to
all Priority I calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually).
Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority 2 urgent
calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II
calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less (measured annually).
Page 7
Police - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 125
Sewer - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 to Present Time and 5 -Year Forecast
Please update the table below:
SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity
Million Gallons per
Day (MGD)
11/12
Fiscal Year
12/13
Fiscal Year
13/14
Fiscal Year
18 -month
Projection
5 -year
Projection
"Buildout"
Projection
Average Flow
15.935
15.734
15.466
16.67
18.34
29.89
Capacity
20.864
20.864
20.864
20.864
20.864
20.864
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
5. What efforts are being made to increase reclaimed water programs or to build a city treatment
plant?
The City Council passed resolution no. 2014 -181 in support of the regional plan known as Pure
Water. This plan seeks to increase the potable reuse in the region by diverting wastewater
from the Point Loma Treatment Plant (PLTP) and taking it to new, or expanded reclamation
plants for treatment in the region. The Pure Water Plan is a central component of the
Advanced Primary waiver application to be submitted in January 2015. The City of San Diego
is in the middle of compiling said application.
Sewer-2015
1
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 126
On July 2014, the City adopted an update to the Wastewater Master Plan. This Master Plan
update showed that the demand for sewer treatment capacity at build -out increased to 29.89
MGD from the projected demand identified in the 2004 Master Plan of 26.20 MGD. The
increase of 3.69 mgd due to planned densification in the undeveloped portions of the City
and it includes projected water savings due to conservation efforts. The graph below shows
that the City's average daily flow will reach its purchased treatment capacity rights of 20.864
Mega Gallons per Day (MGD) sometime during the 2020 to 2030 decade. The City, as one of
its options to meet the built -out sewer capacity needs, is looking at building a treatment plant.
This plant would be design to treat only that portion of flow that exceeds the City's treatment
capacity rights at the Point Loma Treatment plant. One of the byproducts of a treatment plant
would be recycled water. At this time, the decision to build a City owned treatment plant or
to buy additional capacity in the Metro system or from another agency has not been made.
At current growth projections, the City has enough capacity for the next 10 years. Staff will
continue to monitor flow rates in order to secure treatment capacity before it's needed.
6. Please make any necessary changes to the table below.
35.00
30.00
25.00
M
9.00
15.00
10.00
PREPARED BY:
Average Daily Flow Trend
V 4 -
�tic 'cco'
ro ff CP rp C51 ef, -CP rp cl� ef, rp
Average Daily Flow (MGD) — Treatment Cap-aclN ---&— PoPulation
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
Name: Roberto Yano P.E.
Title: Senior Civil Engineer
Date: October 30, 2014
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-2015
2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 127
eV
A
RY
METRE Capacity2_S mgd)
Ib-
0
Er-
■ CfJ M
fwd ■ �
�
�}
Er-
ro ff CP rp C51 ef, -CP rp cl� ef, rp
Average Daily Flow (MGD) — Treatment Cap-aclN ---&— PoPulation
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
Name: Roberto Yano P.E.
Title: Senior Civil Engineer
Date: October 30, 2014
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-2015
2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 127
PENDING APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AT THEIR MEETING ON 2/23/15.
Sweetwater Union High School
District (SUHSD)- 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 to Present Time and 5 -Year Forecast
1. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS — JANUARY 2015
Schools
Current
Enrollment
11/15
Building Capacity
Permanent Portables
Adjusted
Building
lCapacity*
Physical
Education
Icapacity
Within
Overflow
% Residing
Within
Boundaries
In
Out
NORTHWEST
Chula Vista Middle
880
652
378
11030
234
Y
73%
Hilltop Middle
11137
11012
95
11108
187
Y
53%
Chula Vista High
21482
11686
452
21138
187
Note 1
72%
Hilltop High
21080
11733
356
21089
187
Y
58%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle
888
11120
41
11161
187
Y
93%
Castle Park High
11379
11261
420
11681
187
Y
85%
Palomar High
339
265
214
479
0
Y
100%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High
21981
11272
11008
21280
234
Note 1
83%
Eastlake Middle
11721
11400
119
11417
102
Note 1
93%
Otay Ranch High
21539
11862
286
21147
187
Note 1
71%
Olympian High ( #13)
1 2,341
1,747
48
1 11794
1 234
Note 1
1 1
1 63%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High
21332
11427
605
21032
187
Note 1
79%
Bonita Vista Middle
11199
858
295
11153
187
Y
66%
Rancho Del Rey
Middle
11639
891
534
11425
140
Note 1
88%
* *TOTAL
23,937
17,590
41446
22,036
21338
Y
*Adjusted Building Capacity is based on 85% of the tuII 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 Capacity for each school is the adjusted building capacity plus
physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to learning centers.
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 128
* *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.
SHORT -TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2015
Schools
Projected
Enrollment
12/31/15
Building Capacity
Permanent /Portables
Adjusted
Building
Capacity*
Physical
Education
Capacity
Within
Capacity
Overflow
% Residing
Within
Boundaries
In
Out
NORTHWEST
Chula Vista Middle
651
842
188
11030
234
Y
Hilltop Middle
11066
11012
95
11108
187
Y
Chula Vista High
21523
11686
452
21138
187
Note 1
Hilltop High
21107
11733
356
21089
187
Y
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle
832
11120
41
11161
187
Y
Castle Park High
11363
11261
420
11681
187
Y
Palomar High
360
265
214
479
0
Y
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High
21930
11272
11008
21280
234
Note 1
Eastlake Middle
11694
11400
119
11417
102
Note 1
Otay Ranch High
21433
21076
71
21147
187
Note 1
Olympian High
21654
1 11747
167
1 1,913
234
Note 1
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High
21574
11427
605
21032
187
Note 1
Bonita Vista
Middle
11168
858
295
1,153
187
Y
Rancho del Rey
Middle
11706
891
653
11544
140
Note 1
* *TOTAL
24,061
17,590
1 41446
22,036
2,338
Y
*See note under previous table.
* *See note under previous table.
Note 1: See note under previous table.
SU HSD - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Page 2
Page 129
FIVE -YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2019
Schools
Projected
Enrollment
12/31/19
Building Capacity
Permanent /Portables
Adjusted
Building
Capacity*
Physical
Education
Capacity
Within
Capacity
Overflow
% Residing
Within
Boundaries
NORTHWEST
Chula Vista Middle
800
842
188
11030
234
Y
Hilltop Middle
11100
11012
95
11108
187
Y
Chula Vista High
21400
11686
452
21138
187
Note 1
Hilltop High
21000
11733
356
21089
187
Y
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle
850
11120
41
11161
187
Y
Castle Park High
11350
11261
420
11681
187
Y
Palomar High 350 265 214 479 0 Y
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High
21600
11272
11008
21280
234
Note 1
Eastlake Middle
11600
11400
238
11638
0
Y
Otay Ranch High
21500
21076
190
21266
187
Note 1
Olympian (HS #13)
21500
11747
215
11961
234
Note 1
MS #12
900
11135
0
11135
140
Y
HS #14
11500
11938
0
11938
187
Y
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High
21400
11427
605
21032
187
Y
Bonita Vista
Middle
11300
858
295
11153
187
Y
Rancho del Rey
Middle
11600
891
653
11544
140
Y
* *TOTAL
25,750
1 17,590
1 41446
1 22,036
1 21338
1 Note 1
*See note under Table 1.
* *See note under Table 1.
Note 1: See note under Table 1.
SU HSD - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Page 3
Page 130
3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history.
ENROLLMENT HISTORY
Schools
2013 -14
2012 -13
2011 -12
2010 -2011
2009 -10
2008 -09
NORTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment
6,579
6,721
6,798
6,823
7,067
7,242
of Change Over the
-2.1%
-1.1%
-0.4%
-3.5%
-2.4%
-2.7%
Previous Year
% of Enrollment from Chula
87%
87%
87%
88%
88%
88%
Vista
SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment
2,606
2,712
2,792
3,068
2,977
3,064
of Change Over the
-3.9%
-2.9%
-9.0%
3.1%
-2.8%
-6.6%
Previous Year
of Enrollment from Chula
90%
91%
91%
92%
94%
94%
Vista
SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment
9582
9,414
9,007
8,550
8,446
8,242
of Change Over the
1.8%
4.5%
5.4%
1.2%
2.5%
4.9%
Previous Year
of Enrollment from Chula
93%
92%
93%
94%
95%
94%
Vista (Note 1)
NORTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment
5,170
5,066
5,071
4,854
4,938
5,088
of Change Over the
2.05%
-0.1%
4.5%
-1.7%
-1.4%
-2.4%
Previous Year
of Enrollment from Chula
Vista
88%
89%
91%
72%
72%
71%
DISTRICT -WIDE
Total Enrollment
41,120
40,935
40,507
40,740
41,580
42,420
of Change Over the
Previous Year
0.45%
1.06%
-0.57%
-2.02%
-1.98%
-0.98%
of Enrollment from Chula
Vista
57%
57%
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 No X
Resumed development and growth in eastern Chula Vista will require adding portables to eastside schools until Middle
School 12 and High School 14 can be built.
SU HSD - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Page 4
Page 131
5. Are existing facilities /schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please
explain.
Yes No X
Resumed development and growth in eastern Chula Vista will require adding portables to eastside schools until Middle
School 12 and High School 14 can be built_
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
2015
2015
2016
Part of Village
2016
July 2018
8W
HS #14
Complete
2015
2016
Complete
2016
July 2018
7. Is adequate funding secured and /or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities /schools? If not,
please explain.
Yes No X
In the recent past school districts have not fully funded adequate maintenance. The standard from the facilities
management industry would be two percent of your asset value per year. Our 4,000,000 square feet of building area is
valued at about $1.8 billion which would need about $36 million per year for routine maintenance and repair. The
District's proposed maintenance budget for 15 -16 is about $11.2 million and staffing approximately 50 percent of
industry standards. Underfunded maintenance is typical in most public agencies.
8. Are any schools slated to close? No
9. What is the status of various after - school programs, adult education, etc.?
After - school programs and adult education continue as viable programs.
10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to
the GMOC and /or the city council.
Prior reports to the GMOC included a 7 -12 campus MS12 /HS14. Because of growth forecasted by the City and
SANDAL, the district is in negotiations with the developers of Village 8W who have requested inclusion of a middle
school as part of their development. Splitting the middle school and high school campuses provides more campuses
and avoids having a unique combined 7 -12 campus.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Paul Woods
Title: Director of Planning and Construction
Date: February 10, 2015
SU HSD - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Page 5
Page 132
"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.
SU HSD - 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet
Page 6
Page 133
Sweetwater Authority - 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 —June 30, 2014 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
FY 2013/14
19.0
Supply
Storage
43.35
Supply
Storage
Timeframe
Demand
Capacity
Capacity
Demand
Capacity
Capacity
Local
Imported
Treated
Raw
37
30
43.35
5 -Year
n/a
n/a
n/a
(ending 6/30/13)
Projection
20.3
39.5
30
44.55
171421
n/a
n/a
n/a
(Ending 6/30/19)
n/a
n/a
n/a
(ending 6/30/12)
12 -18 Month
FY 2010/11
18.6
36
30
43.35
Projection
19.6
37
30
43.35
171421
n/a
n/a
n/a
(Ending 6/30/15)
FY 2009/10
18.6
36
30
43.35
WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water
Non - Potable Water
FY 2013/14
19.0
37
30
43.35
171421
n/a
n/a
n/a
(ending 6/30/14)
FY 2012/13
18.8
37
30
43.35
171421
n/a
n/a
n/a
(ending 6/30/13)
FY 2011/12
18.3
36
30
43.35
171421
n/a
n/a
n/a
(ending 6/30/12)
FY 2010/11
18.6
36
30
43.35
171421
n/a
n/a
n/a
(ending 6/30/11)
FY 2009/10
18.6
36
30
43.35
171421
n/a
n/a
n/a
(ending 6/30/10)
FY 2008/09
20.3
36
30
43.35
171421
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.
Sweetwater Authority — 2015
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 134
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
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 design of
the Desalination Facility Expansion project is nearly complete, with construction anticipated to
start in mid -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. What efforts are being done by Sweetwater Authority to reduce water rates?
Sweetwater Authority — 2015 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 135
Implementation of the expansion of the Richard A. Reynolds Desalination Facility using grant
funding and funding from the City of San Diego to offset up to 87.5 percent of the construction
cost helps to stabilize the cost of water production for Sweetwater Authority customers. The cost
of producing potable water from the Desalination Facility is estimated to be less than $500 per
acre -foot (AF), whereas the cost of purchasing treated imported water is currently approximately
$1,200 /AF. The cost of imported water is expected to increase at a rate significantly higher than
the increase in operating cost of the Authority's Desalination Facility. Since Sweetwater
Authority is a public water agency, any reduction in the cost of water production will be
translated into reduced water rates as compared to the water rates that would be required
absent the expansion in the Desalination Facility.
5. Are there rebates or incentives for conservation efforts?
Sweetwater Authority offers a variety of rebates for water conservation devices such as
irrigation sensor controllers and rain sensors, sprinkler nozzles, rain barrels, high efficiency
toilets and clothes washers, and gray water system retrofits. Sweetwater Authority adds $0.50
per sq. ft. to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) turf replacement program. Please
refer to the Sweetwater Authority web site for a current listing of devices and rebate amounts.
6. 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.
PRFPARFD RV--
Name: Ron R. Mosher
Title: Director of Engineering
Date: January 26, 2015
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 — 2015 3
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 136
Traffic — 2015
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
July 1, 2013 —June 30, 2014 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
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
On June of 2014, the southerly extension of the 2 -lane (interim) Heritage Road was
constructed as part of the Phase I Olympic Parkway to Main Street Project. Due to the
construction timeline of this project no timing improvements were made since the
construction surrounding the area would affect signal operations along Heritage Road. In
addition, since the project was not completed until June, the evaluation period of this corridor
was outside the normal study period and any new timing would not appropriately reflect peak
hour conditions. As a result, the corridor will not be re- evaluated for signal timing
improvements until early 2015.
Otay Lakes Road was not monitored in FY 14/15 due to the construction of the street
widening project from East `H' Street to Telegraph Canyon Road. This segment has a
history of performing at a LOS D. In late FY 13/14, the project was near completion with all
6 -lanes open and the traffic signals installed, but a Notice of Completion had not been filed
since the As -Built improvement plans had not been approved. The consultant to the signal
adaptive system in this corridor made the final modification to the traffic signals in May 2014.
Therefore, the traffic monitoring for this segment was not monitored during the reporting
period conducted in FY 14/15. Monitoring will re- commence in FY15/16.
Traffic - 2015 1
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 137
LOS 2013
LOS 2014
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 )
On June of 2014, the southerly extension of the 2 -lane (interim) Heritage Road was
constructed as part of the Phase I Olympic Parkway to Main Street Project. Due to the
construction timeline of this project no timing improvements were made since the
construction surrounding the area would affect signal operations along Heritage Road. In
addition, since the project was not completed until June, the evaluation period of this corridor
was outside the normal study period and any new timing would not appropriately reflect peak
hour conditions. As a result, the corridor will not be re- evaluated for signal timing
improvements until early 2015.
Otay Lakes Road was not monitored in FY 14/15 due to the construction of the street
widening project from East `H' Street to Telegraph Canyon Road. This segment has a
history of performing at a LOS D. In late FY 13/14, the project was near completion with all
6 -lanes open and the traffic signals installed, but a Notice of Completion had not been filed
since the As -Built improvement plans had not been approved. The consultant to the signal
adaptive system in this corridor made the final modification to the traffic signals in May 2014.
Therefore, the traffic monitoring for this segment was not monitored during the reporting
period conducted in FY 14/15. Monitoring will re- commence in FY15/16.
Traffic - 2015 1
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 137
Olympic Parkway has been operating at minimal acceptable LOS levels. In FY14/15, the
Olympic Parkway segment was not monitored due to several factors. Several sensors failed
in FY 13/14 and were not detecting vehicles in the corridor. They are on scheduled to be
inspected and replaced by the end of the year, 2014. Monitoring of the corridor will continue
for the next fiscal year. In addition, traffic patterns along the corridor near 1 -805 are not
operating under normal conditions due to the detour from the construction on the East
Palomar Bridge.
3. Are current facilities able to accommodate growth for the next 12 to 18 months without
exceeding the threshold standards? If not, please list new roadways and /or improvements
necessary to accommodate forecasted growth for the 12- to 18 -month timeframe.
Yes No x
HERITAGE ROAD
Heritage Road, south of Olympic Parkway to Santa Victoria Road, is partially completed.
Half- street improvements have been constructed. Construction is scheduled to commence
in FY 15/16 for the improvements south of Santa Victoria Road.
OLYMPIC PARKWAY
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 within GMOC Standards. An
important link in this ultimate plan is the southerly 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:
• Direct Access Ramps at I -805 and East Palomar Street Bridge. Construction
has commenced with completion in FY 14/15.
• The southerly extension of Heritage Road as a 2 -lane interim facility from
Olympic Parkway to Main Street (Phase I), between Olympic Parkway and
Santa Victoria is completed. Phase II, as a 2 -lane interim facility between
Santa Victoria and Main Street is scheduled to commence construction in
early FY15/16. The grading and improvement plans should be approved by
the end of 2014.
PALOMAR STREET
Palomar Street, between Broadway and Industrial Blvd, is operating at adequate levels for
LOS. Due to construction along the Trolley Blueline and the Palomar Trolley Station, the
segment will continue to be monitored after construction.
a. How will these facilities be funded?
The Heritage Road extension facility is funded by developers as land development project
mitigation measures or with development impact fees such as the TDIF, for east of 1 -805.
Traffic - 2015 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 138
The 1 -805 Direct Access Ramp project is not funded by Chula Vista funds, but rather by
Regional, State and Federal funds.
b. Is there an appropriate /adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
Yes, there are appropriate funding mechanisms in place to provide funding for needed
roadway improvements.
Development Impact Fees (DIF)
The Development Impact Fees are scheduled to be update at the City Council meeting in
January 2015 and will help fund transportation projects in the west, east and the future
Bayfront. The following are proposed to have new rates, per Equivalent Dwelling Unit:
Existin
Proposed
Bayfront BFDI F $(WTDI F)
$91442
Western WTD I F $31546
$31907
Eastern TDIF $121494
$131035
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 CORRIDOR
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 been completed. The
second phase is scheduled for construction in FY 15/16. 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 East Palomar
Street Bridge is scheduled for opening within a few weeks. The Direct Access Ramps
should be constructed in early FY 15/16 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
Traffic - 2015 3
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 139
DAR is considered a Managed Lane project in that it is available for carpool vehicles at no
charge. However, in the interim while construction is underway, Olympic Parkway, East
Naples Street and Telegraph Canyon Road will see an increase in diverted traffic volume
until the East Palomar Street Bridge is reopened.
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 II and Otay Ranch
neighborhoods. The SBBRT project is in the design phase now and it is anticipated that
construction will commence in late FY14/15 with a completion date in the fall of 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.
OTAY LAKES ROAD
The construction of Phase 3 of the Otay Lakes Road widening project is complete. The
improvement plans are waiting for As -Built approval. Once approved, a Notice of
Completion will be filed and the project will be completed. On -going monitoring of this
segment will continue to be studied to ensure it remains at a satisfactory LOS.
PALOMAR STREET
On Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Blvd, the LOS, continues to perform at
satisfactory levels. Improvements to the Blueline Trolley crossing at Palomar Street and to
the Palomar Trolley Station have contributed to the marginal LOS. Staff is currently working
with SANDAG on the preliminary engineering and environmental document for grade -
separating the rail crossing.
HERITAGE ROAD
Construction has commenced on Heritage Road, south of Olympic Parkway, with half street
improvements completed south to Santa Victoria Road. Improvement plans have been
submitted for the segments south of Santa Victoria Road to Main Street. The grading and
improvement plans should be approved by the end of 2014.
LA MEDIA ROAD
Improvement plans have been submitted for the extension of La Media Road, south of Santa
Luna Street to Main Street.
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. In addition, the Bayfront DIF
(BFDIF) will be presented to City Council for adoption.
Traffic - 2015 4
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 140
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.
5. Please provide an update on transit - oriented projects and statistics on current bus ridership
and pedestrian access.
Based on data from the American Public Transportation Association 2014 First Quarter,
transit ridership within the City of Chula Vista has increased by 3.12% over the same period
in 2013.
For the period of January to March 2013, the total number of ridership was 766,800. For the
same period in 2014 (January to March), the total number of ridership was 790,700.
6. Please identify public transportation projects and indicate how they will impact meeting
threshold standards?
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 /PS RCVLRT -Final -Aug ust20 l 2. 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 may
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
1-5 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 1 -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
Traffic - 2015 5
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 141
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 be completed in FY 15/16. 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 Speed Survey, Traffic Signal, All Way Stop, Crosswalk and Left -Turn Warrant
Studies.
The Traffic Management Program JMP) 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 existing software used to monitor the traffic flow, Micro
Float, is old DOS based software. This Fiscal Year, Traffic Engineering will be researching
newer methods to monitor traffic flow in the future.
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 1 -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. For construction of new roads and improvements to existing roads that will be funded
through TDIF funds, please provide a list indicating the names and /or locations of the roads
and a construction schedule through 2019.
Construction of the new improvements utilizing TDIF funding is based on the number of
building permits being approved. The rate of the building permits being approved trigger
when the improvements need to be constructed.
Traffic - 2015 6
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 142
- Willow Street Bridge (STL -261):
Between Bonita Road and Sweetwater Road - Construction scheduled for FY
16/17.
- Heritage Road (OR- 837C):
Santa Victoria Street to Main Street - Construction scheduled for FY 15/16.
- Heritage Road Bridge (STM -364):
South of Main Street - Construction scheduled for FY 16/17.
- La Media Road (OR651 1):
South of Santa Luna to Main Street - Construction scheduled for FY 15/16.
- East'H' Street (STM -382): Street widening, bike lane, sidewalk improvements and an
EB -SB right -turn lane into Southwestern College. Between Buena Vista Way and
Southwestern Driveway - Construction scheduled for FY 16/17.
- Hunte Parkway:
Between Eastlake Parkway and SR -125 - Construction scheduled for FY 17/18.
-Main Street Extension (STM -357):
Heritage Road to La Media Road - Construction scheduled for FY 18/19.
- SR -125 (STM -359):
Interchange improvements at Main Street /Hunte Parkway — Design in FY 16/17.
Construction scheduled for FY 17/18.
9. 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 1 -5. The LRT improvements will be an integral part to the development of the
Bayfront and provide alternative modes of transportation.
The Bayfront Master Plan will also benefit from the Interstate 5 (1 -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 1 -5
between State Route (SR) 54 and Main Street within the City of Chula Vista. This segment
of 1 -5 lies within what is referred to as the 1 -5 South Corridor, which consists of various
transportation facilities adjacent to, and including, 1 -5 between 1 -15 and the San Ysidro Port
of Entry. The focus study area for the 1 -5 South Multimodal Corridor Study is 1 -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 1 -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 - 2015 7
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 143
During the FY 14 reporting period, the Otay Lakes Road improvements (CIP# STM -355)
along the frontage of Southwestern College was nearing project completion. The primarily 4-
lane arterial street is now a 6 -lane street with new north -to -west dual left -turn lanes into
Southwestern College. Raised medians were also constructed between East H Street and
Telegraph Canyon Road. The improvements also included modifying the existing traffic
signals to accommodate the new lanes and changes in traffic flow and one new traffic signal
at Elmhurst Avenue. City Staff employed Transcore, the primary consultant and supplier of
the SCATS signal adaptive system, to provide on -site installation & support of the traffic
signal system. Their scope of work included revisions to the central system, programming of
the controller software, and fine - tuning signal operations during peak hours.
This segment will be evaluated in FY 14/15 now that construction is completed.
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 -year flood level and built wider to accommodate future growth to
the east and provide the amphitheater with improved ingress and egress to 1 -805.
As the south eastern portion of the City continues to develop, the Main Street corridor will
become another major access thoroughfare to 1 -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 1 -805 freeways.
The Traffic Signal Systems Engineer is working on the Signal Optimization Program within
the City's major arterial corridors, East `H' Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. A Federal
HSIP grant was awarded to the City to design and expand our existing adaptive signal
system. The project is scheduled to commence in FY 15/16 and will involve 20 traffic
signals.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Ben Herrera
Title: Associate Engineer
Date: October 14, 2014
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 - 2015 8
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 144
IN,
� ' 1
'ash
� w �
13IRCH RD
cn
i/
CITY OF QMOC 2015 ARTERIALS SEGMENTS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
TRAFFIC MONITORING m 0
CHULAVISTA PROGRAM I ay ea eno
r
�o
i
• �/1�I�i�l jlli uiillllll „�N�f
w a i
- ems
Mid-
MANOR WON-)
1p FA
ca
BIRCH R
$ Yll 11 mpw
cc 5
_ -ice
CITY OF GMOC 2015 ARTERIALS SEGMENTS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
TRAFFIC MONITORING
CHULA VISTA PROGRAM PM Peak Period
IL
IL W- pdapd,
on
BIRCH RD
Nlgs I In -4i 7'I
MAIN ST
".0 CITY OF GMOC 2015 ARTERIALS SEGMENTS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
TRAFFIC MONITORING
CHULAVISTA PROGRAM eak eriod
RESOLUTION NO. PCM -14 -11
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015 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 2, 2015, the GMOC finalized its 2015 Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, identifies
current issues in the second half of 2014 and early 2015, and assesses threshold compliance concerns
looking forward over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public
meeting with the City Council to consider the 2015 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 2015 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 2015 GMOC Annual Report.
Presented by:
Kelly Broughton
Director of Development Services
Approved as to form by:
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 148
Resolution No. PCM 14 -11
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 23rd day of April, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAPES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Yolanda Calvo, Chair
ATTEST:
Patricia Laughlin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 149
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2015 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 2, 2014, the GMOC finalized its 2015 Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30,
2014, identifies current issues in the second half of 2014 and early 2015, and assesses
threshold compliance concerns over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public
meeting with the Planning Commission to consider the 2015 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 2015 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
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 150
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California this 23rd day of April 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAPES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mary Casillas Salas, 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 23rd day of
April, 2015.
Executed this 23rd day of April, 2015
Donna Norris, City Clerk
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 151
ATTACHMENT 1
2015 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY
Page 1 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 152
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS
STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
i.
Libraries
i. Libraries
3.1.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to negotiate
3.1.1 PENDING
extension of the Otay Ranch Town Center Library Branch
until the library at Millenia is built, and actively campaign
for library grants, endowments, partnerships and other
funding mechanisms to support library needs.
3.1.2
That City Council direct the City Manager to maximize use
3.1.2 PENDING
of available space by finding funding to renovate the Civic
Center Library, focusing on the underutilized basement so
that it could be accessible to the community, or serve as a
revenue resource from potential tenants.
3.1.3
That City Council direct the City Manager to continue
3.1.3 PENDING
seeking opportunities within the library system for potential
revenue generation, and support mixed use of parks and
recreation and library facilities.
2.
Police
2. Police
3.2.1
That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the
3.2.1 PENDING
retention and recruitment programs and procedures for
police officers so that the department will be properly
staffed and response to Priority 1 calls can improve.
Page 1 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 152
ATTACHMENT 1
2015 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY
Page 2 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 153
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS
STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
s.
Traffic
s.
Traffic
3.3.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to support City
3.3.1
PENDING
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 2016.
4.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
4.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
3.4.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to collaborate with
3.4.1
Response times will become an objective to the goal of
the Fire Chief in implementing effective measures that
improving service delivery in the Fire Department's 5-
improve response times and result in threshold
year strategic plan. It is agreed to discuss with the City
compliance.
Manager all strategic measures that must be
implemented to reach the objective.
s.
Parks and Recreation
s.
Parks and Recreation
3.5.1
That City Council approve the updated Parks and
3.5.1
PENDING
Recreation Master Plan by the end of June 2015 and make
additional updates, as necessary.
3.5.2
That City Council direct the City Manager to support mixed
3.5.2
PENDING
use of parks and recreation and library facilities.
Page 2 of 2
2015 -04 -23 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 153