HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-14 Workshop Packet I dalue under perulry of perjury thu I un employed
by the Ciry of Chula Vim in the o�a of the Ciry Clerlc
snd ffiat 1 posted the documrnt�ccordin�to Brown Att
tequvanents.
Dwd: /I /II b Bl�rd� _ ;7, , �
�'-T
��
cm os
CHULA VISTA
A ����Z���
/ `
�
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor
Patncia Aguilar, Coundlmember Gary Halbert. City Manager
Pameta Bensoussan, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attomey
John McCann, Coundlmember �onna R. Norris, Ciry Clerk
Steve Miesen. Councilmember
Thursday, July 14, 2016 6:00 PM Council Chambers
276 4th Avenue, Building A
Chula�sU, 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 fhe Mayor of the Ciry oJ Chula Visfa has called and wilf convene Specia/ Meehngs of
the Ciry Councif, Planning Commiss�on and Growth Management Oversight Commission of tAe G�ry ol CAufa
Vista m fiursday, July 74, 2pJ6, at 6�OOp.m. in the Couxi! Chambers, located at 276FouRh Avenue, CAula
Vista, Cali/omia to consider the ifem on Mis agenda.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan, McCann, Miesen and Mayor Casillas Salas
Planning Commissioners Anaya, Fragomeno Fuentes, Gutierrez, Lruag, Nava and Chair
I Calvo
Growth Management Oversight Commissioners Alatorre, Caudillo, Gutierrez, Hooker.
Juarez, Lengyel, Mosolgo, Rosales and Chair Torres
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
Cky o/p�W 1/bh Paye 1 Pn�rtsd on]R/1016
July 14, 2016City Council Agenda
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. Unless otherwise noticed on
this agenda, final Council actions shall be limited to referring matters to staff. If you wish to
speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes.
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION’S (GMOC)
2016 ANNUAL REPORT
A.RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2016
GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING
ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2016 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
16-01361.16-0136
Development Services Department Department:
The Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)
(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Notice:
Planning Commission adopt resolution A and Council adopt
resolution B.
Staff Recommendation:
CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORTS
COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
to the Regular City Council Meeting on July 19, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers.
Page 2 City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 2
July 14, 2016City Council Agenda
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.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend,
and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (619)
691-5041(California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least
forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting.
Most Chula Vista City Council meetings, including public comments, are video recorded and aired live
on AT&T U-verse channel 99 (throughout the County), on Cox Cable channel 24 (only in Chula Vista),
and online at www.chulavistaca.gov. Recorded meetings are also aired on Wednesdays at 7 p.m.
(both channels) and are archived on the City's website.
Sign up at www.chulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are
published online.
Page 3 City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 3
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
REVIEWANDCONSIDERATIONOFTHEGROWTHMANAGEMENTOVERSIGHT
COMMISSION’S (GMOC) 2016 ANNUAL REPORT
A.RESOLUTIONOFTHEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTA
ACCEPTINGTHE2016GMOCANNUALREPORT,ANDRECOMMENDINGACCEPTANCEBY
THE CITY COUNCIL
B.RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAACCEPTINGTHE
2016GMOCANNUALREPORT,ANDDIRECTINGTHECITYMANAGERTOUNDERTAKE
ACTIONSNECESSARYTOIMPLEMENTREPORTRECOMMENDATIONSASPRESENTEDIN
THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Planning Commission adopt resolution A and Council adopt resolution B.
SUMMARY
Eachyear,theGMOCsubmitsitsAnnualReporttothePlanningCommissionandCityCouncil
regardingcompliancewiththresholdstandardsfortheGrowthManagementProgram’selevenquality
-of-lifeindicators.The2016AnnualReportcoverstheperiodfromJuly1,2014throughJune30,
2015(FiscalYear2015);identifiescurrentissuesinthesecondhalfof2015andearly2016;and
assessesthresholdcomplianceconcernslookingforwardoverthenextfiveyears.Thereport
discusseseachthresholdintermsofcurrentcompliance,issues,andcorresponding
recommendations.AsummarytableoftheGMOC’srecommendationsandstaff'sproposed
implementing actions is included as Attachment 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
TheProjectqualifiesforanExemptionpursuanttoSection15061(b)(3)oftheCalifornia
Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Determination
TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthatthereisnopossibilitythatthe
activitymayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironmentbecauseitinvolvesonlyacceptanceofthe
GMOCAnnualReportanddoesnotinvolveapprovalsofanyspecificprojects;therefore,pursuantto
Section15061(b)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesnoenvironmentalreviewisnecessary.Although
environmentalreviewisnotnecessaryatthistime,specificprojectsdefinedinthefutureasaresult
oftherecommendationsinthe2016GMOCAnnualReportwillbereviewedinaccordancewith
CEQA, prior to the commencement of any project.
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 4
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission will provide comments and any recommendations at the workshop.
DISCUSSION
Inthepastfiveyears,thenumberofresidentialbuildingpermitsissuedinChulaVistahasaveraged
746unitsperyear,andthisrateofgrowthisprojectedtocontinueorincreaseoverthenextfive
years,accordingtoChulaVista’s 2015ResidentialGrowthForecast (Attachment3,AppendixA).
Withgrowthcomesthedemandforservices,andtheChulaVistaGMOC’s2016AnnualReport
addressescompliancewithdeliveryofservices,basedonthresholdstandardsforelevenservice
topics identified in the City’s “Growth Management” ordinance.
Presentedbelowisasummaryoffindingsandkeyissuesregardingthresholdcompliance.The
GMOC’s2016AnnualReport(Attachment2)providesadditionalbackgroundinformationandmore
detailed explanations of findings and discussion/recommendations.
1.Summary of Findings
ThefollowingtablesummarizestheGMOC’sthresholdcompliancefindingsforthereviewperiodJuly
1,2014-June30,2015andlookingforwardatanypotentialfornon-compliancebetween2016and
2020.
CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE
Not In Compliance In Compliance Potential Future Non-
Compliance
Libraries Air Quality and Climate
Protection
Libraries
Police - Priority 1 Drainage Police - Priority 1
Police - Priority 2 Fiscal Police - Priority 2
Traffic Parks and Recreation Traffic
Fire/EMS Schools Fire/EMS
Sewer Parks and Recreation
Water
2.Summary of Key Issues
BelowarethresholdcompliancesummariesfromtheGMOCreport,alongwithstaffresponsesto
those recommendations (as indicated in Attachment 1).
Non-Compliant Threshold Standards and/or
Potential for Future Non-Compliance
LIBRARIES
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 5
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
3.1.1 - Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
TheLibrariesthresholdstandardhasnotbeenmetforthetwelfthconsecutiveyear.Untilthis
thresholdisbroughtintocompliancethroughconstructionofanewlibraryofatleast33,200square
feetinMilleniaorattheRanchodelReysite,theGMOCisencouragingremodelingthespaceinthe
lowerleveloftheCivicCenterLibrarysothattheusefulnessofexistingsquarefootagecanbe
maximized.
The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommends:
§ThatCityCouncildirecttheCityManagertomaximizeuseofavailablespacebyfinding
fundingtorenovatetheCivicCenterLibrary,focusingontheunderutilizedbasementso
thatitcouldbeaccessibletothecommunity,orserveasarevenueresourcefrom
potential tenants.
StaffResponse:Renovationoftheunderutilizedlowerlevelisunderway.Spacewillbeconvertedto
aSTEM(Science,Technology,Engineering,Mathematics)lab/makerspaceincooperationwith
Qualcomm and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Estimated completion is July 2016.
POLICE
3.2.1 - Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard
Whenthe“GrowthManagement”ordinancewasupdatedin2015,thePolicePriority1threshold
standardchangedfrom7minutesto7minutes30secondsfor81percentofcallresponses,andthe
averageresponsetimechangedfrom5minutes30secondsto6minutes.Withthesechanges,the
GMOChadexpectedtheresponsetimesreportedtobecompliantinFiscalYear2015.However,
despiteaslightdeclineincallvolume,thethresholdstandardforcallsrespondedtowithin7minutes
30secondswas9.8percentbelowthe81percentthresholdstandard.Andthe“AverageResponse
Time”componentofthethresholdstandard,whichhadbeenmetforseveralconsecutiveyears,fell
49 seconds short of the threshold standard (see table below).
PRIORITY 1
Fiscal Year Call Volume % of Call
Responses
within 7:30
Average Response
Time (Minutes)
Threshold Standard 81.0%6:00
FY2015 675 of 64,008 71.2%6:49
Oneexplanationfornon-compliancewasthatwhenthethresholdstandardchanged,the
methodologyforreportingtheresponsedataalsochanged.Specifically,theclocknowstartsat
“receivedtoarrive”insteadof“routetoarrive”;anormalizationcalculationinplacesince1999has
beeneliminated;andfalsealarmcallsforservice,whichwereexcludedfromcalculationssince2003,
havebeenaddedbackin.Becausethetwocannotbecompared,theGMOC’sreportincludesa
tableshowingtimesreportedusingboththeoldmethodologyandthenewmethodology,for
informational purposes only.
Anotherexplanationfornon-compliance,accordingtoPoliceChiefBejarano,ischronicallylow
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 6
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
Anotherexplanationfornon-compliance,accordingtoPoliceChiefBejarano,ischronicallylow
staffingintheCommunityPatrolDivision.Duringthereviewperiod,thereweresomegainsin
staffingandtheGMOCsupportsensuringthatadequatestaffingcontinuestobeaprioritysothat
response times can improve.
The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommends:
§ThattheCityCouncildirecttheCityManagertomonitortheretentionand
recruitmentprogramsandproceduresforpoliceofficerssothatthedepartmentwill
be properly staffed and Priority 1 response calls can improve.
StaffResponse:AspartofthePoliceDepartment’sStrategicPlan,the“People”initiativeprioritizes
recruitmentandretentionprogramstodevelopthebestpossiblestafftocarryouttheDepartment’s
mission.Unfortunately,theDepartmenthasthelowestswornofficertopopulationratiointheregion
(0.93per1000residentscomparedtotheregionalaverageof1.31).Currentswornstaffinglevels
have challenged the Department to meet its response thresholds.
AlthoughadequatestaffinghasbeenaconcernforthePoliceDepartmenttomeetitsGMOC
responsetimethresholds,theDepartmentisseekingalternatesolutionstomeetthethresholds.The
PoliceDepartmentisintheprocessofupdatingitsComputer-AidedDispatch(CAD)system,which
willincludeAutomatedVehicleLocation(AVL)technology.AVLwillshowdispatcherswhichunitsare
closest to a given call, which will have a positive impact to police response times.
3.2.2. - Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard
AswiththePriority1thresholdstandard,thePriority2thresholdstandardchangedwhenthe“Growth
Management”ordinancewasupdatedin2015.The“AverageResponseTime”changedfrom7
minutes30secondsto12minutes,andthe“percentageofcallsrespondedtowithin7minutes”
portionofthethresholdstandardwaseliminated,infavorofallcallsneedingresponsewithinthe12
minutes.ImplementationofthecurrentPriority2thresholdstandardfollowsthesamemethodology
usedforthecurrentPriority1thresholdstandard,including:1)Startingtheclockat“receivedto
arrive”ratherthan“routetoarrive”;2)Eliminatinga“normalization”calculationthatwascreateddue
tohigherreportingtimesineasternversuswesternChulaVista;and3)Addingfalsealarmstothe
call volume.
ThePriority2AverageResponseTimecamein1minute50secondsshortofthecurrentthreshold
standard(seetablebelow).Forthe18thconsecutiveyear,thePolicePriority2thresholdstandard
has not been met.
PRIORITY 2
Fiscal Year Call Volume Average Response
Time (Minutes)
Threshold Standard 12:00
FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13:50
AswiththePriority1thresholdstandard,thePoliceChiefattributednon-complianceofthePriority2
thresholdstandardto“staffing,”addingthatit“mustbesignificantlyincreasedintheCommunityCity of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 7
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
thresholdstandardto“staffing,”addingthatit“mustbesignificantlyincreasedintheCommunity
PatrolDivisioninordertomeetthePriority2responsetimegoals.Withoutadditionalstaff,
improvements to the response time will most likely be limited.”
AsnotedinSection3.2.1ofthisreport,theGMOCwouldexpecttoseeimprovedresponsetimesin
thenextreport,duetosignificantstaffincreasesandcomputeradvancesthathaveoccurredsince
the growth management review period ended.
The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommends:
§Same as for Priority 1 in Section 3.2.1, above.
Staff Response:Same as for Priority 1 in Section 3.2.1, above.
TRAFFIC
3.3.1 - Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
TwoArterialLevelofService(ALOS)non-urbanstreetsdidnotcomplywiththeTrafficthreshold
standard,asindicatedinthetablebelow.However,allUrbanStreetLevelofService(ULOS)streets
complied with the current Traffic threshold standard, updated in 2015.
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS
NON-URBAN STREETS Direction LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
(Threshold allows maximum of 2 hours at
LOS D during peak hours)
Otay Lakes Road (East H St./Telegraph Canyon
Rd.)
NB SB D(4 hours) D(4 hours) E(1
hour)
Heritage Road (Telegraph Canyon Rd./Olympic
Parkway)
NB SB D(6 hours) D(5 hours)
URBAN STREETS Direction Level of Service (LOS)(Threshold
allows maximum of 2 hours at LOS E
during peak hours)
None --
HeritageRoadbetweenTelegraphCanyonRoadandOlympicParkwayhasbeenchronicallynon-
compliantineitheroneorbothdirectionsforseveralyears,andwasnon-compliantbothnorthbound
(sixhoursatLOSD)andsouthbound(fivehoursatLOSD)duringthisreviewperiod.Inorderto
complywiththethresholdstandardsasprojectedgrowthoccursoverthenextfiveyears,connection
ofHeritageRoadtoMainStreetwillbeessential,accordingtocityengineers.However,progresson
constructionofHeritageRoad,whichisfundedbydeveloperimpactfees,hasbeendelayedwhilethe
developerforVillage3securesenvironmentalmitigationnecessarytoobtainstateandfederal
permits.TheGMOCisconcernedaboutfurtherdelays;however,theyappreciatethedeveloper’s
efforts to comply with the environmental regulations so that progress on Heritage Road can continue.
Also,despiterecentimprovementstoOtayLakesRoadbetweenTelegraphCanyonRoadandEast
HStreet,OtayLakesRoadwasnon-compliantbothnorthbound(fourhoursatLOSD)and
southbound(fourhoursatLOSDandonehouratLOSE)duringthisreviewperiod.Cityengineers
expectthissegmenttocomplywhenhardwareandsoftwareupdatesfortheadaptivesignalsystem,
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 8
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
expectthissegmenttocomplywhenhardwareandsoftwareupdatesfortheadaptivesignalsystem,
in the process of being implemented, are completed.
The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommends:
§ThatCityCouncildirecttheCityManagertosupportCityengineersintheireffortsto
ensurethataminimumoftwolanesofHeritageRoadbeconstructedfromSanta
Victoria Road to Main Street by the end of calendar year 2016.
StaffResponse:ThePublicWorksDepartmentconcurswithandacceptstherecommendation.
Obtainingthe404permitfromtheArmyCorpsofEngineersisstillinprocess,andcompletionofthe
HeritageRoadextensionfromSantaVictoriaRoadtoMainStreetisexpectedtobedelayeduntil
approximately February 2017.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
3.4.1 -Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
TheFireandEmergencyMedicalServicesthresholdstandardwasnon-compliantforthefifth
consecutive year, as outlined on the table below.
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 2015 12,561 78.3 6:14 3:51 1:12 1:10
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
Note ²: Through FY 2012, the data was for “Average Response Time for 80% of Calls.”
At78.3percent,thecitywidepercentageofcallsrespondedtowithin7minuteswasjust1.7percent
belowthethresholdstandardof80percent,animprovementfromFiscalYear2014,whichaveraged
76.5percent.However,theaverageresponsetimeforallcallstook12secondslongerthanthe
previous fiscal year, which the Fire Department attributed to travel time.
SinceFiscalYear2013,theFireDepartmenthasprovidedstatisticaldatatotheGMOC,pertheir
request,onresponsetimesforfirestationsintheeast,west,andcitywide.Thestatisticsshowthat
firestations6,7and8ineasternChulaVistahavebeenmorethan20percentbelowthethreshold
standard.Althoughtherewasa5.7percentimprovementfromFiscalYear2014toFiscalYear2015,
theGMOCisconcernedabouttheshortfallandisrecommendingthatimprovingresponsetimesin
the east should be a priority.
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 9
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommends:
§ThatCityCouncildirecttheCityManagertocollaboratewiththeFireChiefin
conductingastatisticalanalysistoprovidemoredetailedinformationregarding
specificstationresponsetimesandthepercentageofcallswherethereiscross-
coverage, and to focus on improving the response times by fire stations 6, 7 & 8.
StaffResponse:Staffmetwithsoftwarevendor,DECCANINTL,toincludethisanalysisaspartof
ourannualupdate.Stationandunitplacement/coveragearetobeexaminedandrecommendations
made. Responses are expected by summer 2016.
Threshold Standards Currently In Compliance
Thresholdstandardswerefoundtobecompliantfor ParksandRecreation,Fiscal,Schools,
Sewer,Drainage,AirQualityandClimateProtection,andWater.However,theGMOChad
comments and or recommendations for Parks and Recreation and Fiscal, as outlined below:
PARKS AND RECREATION
3.5.1 -Threshold Compliance
Theparkstopeopleratioisat2.94acresper1,000ineasternChulaVista,asofJune30,2015.
Whilethethresholdstandardis3acresper1,000peopleineasternChulaVista,theGMOC
considersanythingabove2.9tobecompliantand,therefore,determinedthatthethresholdstandard
iscompliant.Populationforecastsforthenextfiveyearsindicatethattheparkstopeopleratiomay
beaslowas2.82acresper1,000peopleineasternChulaVistain2020.Thiscalculationassumes
thatseveralparkstotalingover38acreswillbedeliveredineasternChulaVistabythen,including:
StylusParkinMillenia(1.97acres);P-3inVillage2,Phase1(3.9acres);P-2inVillage2(7.10
acres);StrataParkinMillenia(1.51acres);P-1inVillage3(6.7acres);P-1inVillage8West(7.5
acres);TownSquareinVillage8West(3acres);andtheNeighborhoodParkinVillage8East(6.8
acres). The GMOC has no recommendation at this time.
3.5.2 - Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan
Basedonstaff’sresponsetotheGMOC’srecommendationthatthedraftParksandRecreation
FacilitiesMasterPlangotoCityCouncilbyJune2015,theGMOCexpectedtheplantogotoCouncil
byfall2015.However,staffnowreportsthatthedraftplanwillgotoCouncilfall2016,afteritgoes
back to stakeholders and the general public.
StaffmembersfromDevelopmentServices,PublicWorksandRecreationDepartmentshave
identifiedtheneedtoincorporateanupdated"RecreationNeedsAssessment"(completedin
February2016)andtoaddanewchaptertothedocumentaddressingoperationsandmaintenance.
Inaddition,theremaybeitemsrelevanttothe"CostRecovery,ResourceAllocationandRevenue
EnhancementStudy,"whichwillbecompletedthisfall.TheGMOCisrecommendingthatCouncil
approvethedocumentbyfall2016,andthatanyoutstandingissuesshouldbehandledthrough
future amendments to the document.
The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommends:
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 10
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
§ThatCityCouncilapprovetheupdatedParksandRecreationMasterPlanbyfall2016,
and resolve any outstanding issues through future amendments to the document.
StaffResponse:TheParksandRecreationMasterPlanisonscheduletogotoCityCouncilfortheir
consideration by fall 2016.
FISCAL
3.6.1- Deferred Maintenance Costs
Forseveralyears,theGMOChasbeenwellawarethatthecityhasbeensufferingfromdeferred
infrastructuremaintenance,andtheyhavemaderecommendationsinpreviousannualreportstotry
to address the issues.
Thisyear,theGMOCwasvisitedbycitystaffmemberswhoprovidedupdatesonthecity’sfiscal
health,andonthecity’sassetmanagementprogram/studytoidentifyCitywideinfrastructureneeds
andtodevelopafinancingplantocoverthoseneeds.Staffintroducedtwopotentialbondmeasures
tothecommissioners-asalestaxincreaseand/orabond/propertytaxmeasure.TheGMOCwas
very supportive and made the recommendation below.
The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommends:
§ThatCityCouncildirecttheCityManagertostronglyconsiderballotmeasuresto
increase property and/or sales taxes to address identified infrastructure needs.
StaffResponse:OnJuly12,2016,staffisbringingarecommendationforwardtoCouncilfortheir
considerationtoplaceatemporary½centsalestaxmeasuretofundinfrastructureontheNovember
2016 ballot.
ChulaVista’seconomicdevelopmentisalsoofgreatinteresttotheGMOCandtheyareinfavorof
economic development through tax incentives.
§ThatCityCouncildirecttheCityManagertoworkwiththeDirectorofEconomic
Development to explore economic development through tax incentives.
StaffResponse:TheCitydoesconsider,onacasebycasebasis,taxincentivesforcertain
industriesthatgeneratejobsandanoverallincreaseinthegenerationofsalesand/orpropertytax
revenue to the City.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite-
specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section
18702.2(a)(11)isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal
property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov’tCodesection
87100,et seq.).
Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilMemberorPlanning
CommissionMember,ofanyotherfactthatmayconstituteabasisforadecisionmakerconflictof
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 11
File#:16-0136, Item#: 1.
interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy
Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.TheGrowth
ManagementProgram’sFiscalthresholdstandardsupportstheEconomicVitalitygoal,“encouraging
policies,planning,infrastructure,andservicesthatarefundamentaltoaneconomicallystrong,
vibrantcity.”TheAirQuality,LibrariesandParksandRecreationthresholdstandardssupportthe
HealthyCommunitiesgoal,promoting“anenvironmentthatfostershealthandwellnessandproviding
parks,openspaces,outdoorexperiences,librariesandrecreationalopportunitiesthatresidentscan
enjoy.”AndthePolice,FireandEmergencyServices,Traffic,SewerandDrainagethreshold
standardssupporttheStrongandSecureNeighborhoodsgoal,ensuring“asustainableandwell-
maintainedinfrastructuretoprovidesafeandappealingcommunitiestolive,workandplay”and
maintaining “a responsive Emergency Management Program.”
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Noneofthestaffresponsesandproposedimplementingactionsappeartorequireadditionalstaffor
otherresourcesbeyondthosealreadyincludedinthecurrentlyapprovedbudget.Insuchinstanceas
anyadditionalresourcesmayberequired,theserequestswillbereturnedtoCouncilfor
consideration along with fiscal analysis, as applicable.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
ThePoliceDepartment’sFiscalYear2017budgetrequestsrelatedtoresponsetimesandstaffing
includetwonewpoliceofficerpositionsandapart-timecivilianHomelessOutreachCoordinator
(approximate annual cost of $336,813) and a new Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system ($1.4M).
TheFireDepartment’sFiscalYear2017budgetrequestsrelatedtoresponsetimesandstaffing
includethreefull-timeemployeefirefighter/emergencymedicaltechnicianstoupgradeoneengine
company to a staffing of four (annual cost of $358,027).
Asanyfollow-upimplementingactionsarebroughtforwardtotheCityCouncil,fiscalanalysisof
these actions will be provided, as applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
1 - 2016 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary
2 - 2016 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo
3 - 2016 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Staff Contact: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista Printed on 7/7/2016Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 12
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 3
43
2016 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Libraries
3.1.1 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.
1. Libraries
3.1.1 Renovation of the underutilized lower level is underway.
Space will be converted to a STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics) lab/maker space in cooperation
with Qualcomm and Chula Vista Elementary School
District. Estimated completion is July 2016.
2. Police
3.2.1 That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the
recruitment programs and procedures for police officers so
that the department will be properly staffed and response to
Priority 1 calls can improve.
3.2.2 That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the
recruitment programs and procedures for police officers so
that the department will be properly staffed and response to
Priority 2 calls can improve.
2. Police
3.2.1 & 3.2.2
As part of the Police Department’s Strategic Plan, the
“People” initiative prioritizes recruitment and retention
programs to develop the best possible staff to carry out the
Department’s mission. Unfortunately, the Department has
the lowest sworn officer to population ratio in the region
(0.93 per 1000 residents compared to the regional average
of 1.31). Current sworn staffing levels have challenged the
Department to meet its response thresholds.
Although adequate staffing has been a concern for the
Police Department to meet its GMOC response time
thresholds, the Department seeks alternate solutions to
meet the thresholds. The Police Department is in the
process of updating its Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD)
system, which will include Automated Vehicle Location
(AVL) technology. AVL will show dispatchers which units are
closest to a given call, which will have a positive impact to
police response times.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 13
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 3
43
2016 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
3. Traffic
3.3.1 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.
3. Traffic
3.3.1 The Public Works Department concurs with and accepts the
recommendation. Obtaining the 404 permit from the Army
Corps of Engineers is still in process, and completion of the
Heritage Road extension from Santa Victoria Road to Main
Street is expected to be delayed until approximately
February 2017.
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Services
3.4.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to collaborate with the
Fire Chief in conducting a statistical analysis to provide more
detailed information regarding specific station response times
and the percentage of calls where there is cross-coverage, and
to focus on improving the response times by fire stations 6, 7
and 8.
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Services
3.4.1 Staff met with software vendor, DECCAN INTL, to include
this analysis as part of our annual update. Station and unit
placement/coverage are to be examined and
recommendations made. Responses are expected by
summer 2016.
5. Parks and Recreation
3.5.1 That City Council approve the updated Parks and Recreation
Master Plan by fall 2016, and resolve any outstanding issues
through future amendments to the document.
5. Parks and Recreation
3.5.1 The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is on schedule to
go to City Council for their consideration by fall 2016.
6. Fiscal
3.6.1-1) That City Council direct the City Manager to strongly consider
ballot measures to increase property and/or sales taxes.
6. Fiscal
3.6.1-1) On July 12, 2016, staff is bringing a recommendation
forward to Council for their consideration to place a
On May 17, 2016, City Council approved a motion to direct staff
to return to Council within 45 days with draft languagew
l
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 14
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3 of 3
43
2016 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
3.6.1-2) That City Council direct the City Manager to work with the
Director of Economic Development to explore economic
development through tax incentives.
7. Air Quality and Climate Protection
3.10.1 A full report was not provided by City staff.
temporary ½ cent sales tax measure to fund infrastructure
on the November 2016 ballot.
3.6.1-2) The City does consider, on a case by case basis, tax
incentives for certain industries that generate jobs and
an overall increase in the generation of sales and/or
property tax revenue to the City.
7. Air Quality and Climate Protection
3.10.1 In the future a team of city staff members from
Development Services, Public Works and the Economic
Development Department will be convened to address all
questions that cover the various areas of responsibility.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 15
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
2016 ANNUAL REPORT
Threshold Review Period 7/1/14 to 6/30/15
May 5, 2016
Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. MPA15-0011) and
City Council (Resolution No. 2016-___) on May 5, 2016
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 16
GMOC Members
Armida Torres, Chair (Business)
Eric Mosolgo, Vice Chair (Environmental)
Javier Rosales (Northeast)
Gabriel Gutierrez (Planning Commission Representative)
Michael Lengyel (Development)
Raymundo Alatorre (Northwest)
Duaine Hooker (Education)
Gloria Juarez (Southwest)
Rodney Caudillo (Southeast)
City Staff
Kimberly Vander Bie – Growth Management Coordinator
Patricia Salvacion – Secretary
Scott Donaghe – Principal Planner
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5101
www.chulavistaca.gov
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 17
2016 Annual Report 1 May 5, 2016
GMOC Chair Cover Memo
DATE: May 5, 2016
TO: The City of Chula Vista Mayor and City Council
The City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
The City of Chula Vista
FROM: Armida Torres, Chair
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
SUBJECT: Executive Summary - 2016 GMOC Annual Report
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its 2016
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 the last two years. Threshold Standards for seven of the eleven quality-of-life
topics were found to be compliant, including: Air Quality and Climate Protection, 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.
Libraries – For the twelfth consecutive year, Libraries is non-compliant. The GMOC
continues to be impressed with the efforts of the Library Director as she explores creative
approaches to provide library services to the citizens of the city and to go outside the box
to find grant sources, as well as the efforts of Friends of the Library. The issue regarding
prolonged deferred maintenance for existing facilities continues to be a concern. In light of
the tremendous shortage of new library space, the maintenance of existing space is critical
and must be a priority. Interesting information was shared with GMOC indicating an
unacceptable budgeting concern. The statewide average annual materials expenditure is
$3.74 per capita. In Chula Vista, the budget is 15 cents per capita. We also discovered
75% of funding for supplies comes from sources outside of the General Fund.
Police – The GMOC was concerned and surprised to find that the Police response times
were non-compliant with the current Threshold Standards, which were adopted last year
with completion of the top-to-bottom update. The response times reported last year would
have complied with the current Threshold Standard.
The Priority 2 Threshold Standard was non-compliant for the 18th year in a row. This is the
third year of non-compliance for Priority 1 in four years.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 18
2016 Annual Report 2 May 5, 2016
Traffic – The northbound Heritage Road segment between Olympic Parkway and
Telegraph Canyon Road failed to comply with the Threshold Standard, as did Otay Lakes
Road, between East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, both north- and southbound.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) – For the fifth consecutive year, response
times failed to comply with the Threshold Standard. The Fire Department informed the
GMOC that improvement in response times will not be noticed until completion of the fire
station network improvements, and they listed five major factors necessary to achieve this:
1. Additional fire stations within the network
2. Additional improvement in call for service dispatch processes
3. Additional improvements in unit and station alerting
4. Improved management of response time performance to include interactive
discussion with fire crews, use of mapping capabilities, and shared data with
stakeholders
5. Replacement of old and failing fire apparatus within the fleet
The GMOC was disappointed with the tone of the Fire Department’s resigna tion to
continue in a state of non-compliance until build-out (defined in the 2014 Fire Facilities
Master Plan). In addition, the GMOC noted that some responses in the Fire and EMS
questionnaire were identical to responses in the previous year’s questionnaire, indicating
that there might have been little effort made by the Fire Department to follow through with
last year’s goals to improve response times. It is also important to note that response
times on the west side of the city consistently comply with the Threshold Standard, while
response times on the city’s east side do not. The GMOC wonders if citizens in eastern
Chula Vista would find it acceptable to wait until build-out for their emergency calls to be
responded to by the Fire Department within the Growth Management Program’s response
time Threshold Standard.
Last September, the GMOC met with the City Manager to kick off this review period. The
City Manager provided an update on all items that were referred to him during last year’s
Joint Workshop. We look forward to continuing these conversations with the City Manager
on an annual basis to ensure there is follow-up to GMOC recommendations.
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, and Scott Donaghe 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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 19
2016 Annual Report 3 May 5, 2016
City of Chula Vista
GMOC 2016 Annual Report
Table of Contents
GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO …………………………………………………………………. 1-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………… 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………….. 4-5
1.1 Threshold Standards 4
1.2 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 4-5
1.3 GMOC 2016 Annual Review Process 5
1.4 Annual Five-Year Residential Growth Forecast 5
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY …………………………………………. 6
3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ……………………………………. 7-23
3.1 Libraries………………………………………………………………………… 7-9
3.1.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 7-8
3.1.2 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions for GMOC’s
2015 Annual Report Recommendations 8-9
3.2 Police …………………………………………………………………………. 9-12
3.2.1 Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard 9-11
3.2.2 Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard 11-12
3.2.3 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions for GMOC’s
2015 Annual Report Recommendations 12
3.3 Traffic …………………………………………………………………………. 12-14
3.3.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 13-14
3.3.2 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions for GMOC’s
2015 Annual Report Recommendations 14
3.4 Fire and Emergency Medical Services…………………………………… 14-16
3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard 14-16
3.4.2 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions for GMOC’s
2015 Annual Report Recommendations 16
3.5 Parks and Recreation……………………………………………………….. 16-18
3.5.1 Threshold Compliance 16-17
3.5.2 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 17-18
3.5.3 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions for GMOC’s
2015 Annual Report Recommendations 18
3.6 Fiscal …………………………………………………………………………. 18-19
3.6.1 Deferred Maintenance Costs 19
3.7 Drainage ……………………………………………………………………….. 19-20
3.7.1 Threshold Compliance 20
3.8 Schools………….……………………………………………………………… 20-21
3.8.1 School Districts’ Updates 20-21
3.9 Sewer……………………………………………………………………………. 21-22
3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity 21
3.10 Air Quality and Climate Protection…………………….…………………... 22-22
3.10.1 Incomplete Questionnaire 22
3.11 Water ……………………………………………………………………….…. 22-23
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance 23
4.0 APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………. 23
4.1 Appendix A – Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B – Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 20
2016 Annual Report 4 May 5, 2016
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Threshold Standards
Threshold standards for eleven quality of life topics were established by the Chula Vista
City Council in 1987. These standards are memorialized in the City’s “Growth
Management” ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code), which was
updated by Council in 2015 after a multi-year effort by the Growth Management Oversight
Commission, City staff, City Council, and various community stakeholders to review the
City’s Growth Management Program from “top-to-bottom.” The ordinance addresses each
topic in terms of a goal, objective(s), threshold standard(s), and implementation measures.
The eleven topics include eight under the City’s control: Drainage; Fire and Emergency
Services; Fiscal; Libraries; Parks and Recreation; Police; Sewer; and Traffic. Two topics
are controlled by outside agencies: Schools and Water. And one topic is a hybrid between
City and outside agency control: Air Quality and Climate Protection. 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 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) was established by City Council
in 1987 to provide an independent, annual review of threshold standards compliance. The
purpose and function of the Commission is outlined in Chapter 2.40 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code.
The GMOC is comprised of nine members who are residents in the community and
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. During this review cycle, only six of the seats were filled, including
those held by: Armida Torres, Chair (Business); Eric Mosolgo, Vice Chair (Environmental);
Javier Rosales (Northeast); Gabriel Gutierrez (Planning Commission); Michael Lengyel
(Development); and Raymundo Alatorre (Northwest). The three vacant seats were recently
filled by: Duaine Hooker (Education); Gloria Juarez (Southwest); and Rodney Caudillo
(Southeast).
The GMOC’s review is structured around three timeframes:
1. A Fiscal Year cycle to accommodate City Council review of GMOC
recommendations that may have budget implications. The 2016 Annual
Report focuses on Fiscal Year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015;
2. The second half of 2015 and beginning of 2016 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 2016 through December 2020 is assessed for potential
threshold compliance concerns.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 21
2016 Annual Report 5 May 5, 2016
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.
1.3 GMOC 2016 Annual Review Process
The GMOC held ten regular meetings between September 2015 and April 2016; all were
open to the public. At the first regular meeting, City Manager Gary Halbert provided status
updates on “Staff Responses and Proposed Implementation Measures” that addressed
issues and recommendations brought forth in the GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report. At a
subsequent meeting, City staff provided updates on asset management and economic
development. The other meetings were attended by representatives from the City
departments and public agencies associated with the threshold compliance questionnaires,
who gave presentations to the Commission and discussed responses they had provided
earlier (attached in Appendix B). 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 May 5, 2016.
1.4 Annual Five-Year Residential Growth Forecast
The Development Services Department annually prepares a Five-Year Residential Growth
Forecast, the latest of which was issued in August 2015. 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 departments and agencies determine if their respective
public facilities/services would be able to accommodate the forecasted growth. The growth
projections from August 2015 through December 2020 indicated an additional 7,457
residential units could be permitted for construction in the city over the next five years,
(6,057 units in the east and 1,400 units in the west), for an annual average of 1,211 units in
the east and 280 units in the west, or 1,491 housing units permitted per year on average,
citywide.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 22
2016 Annual Report 6 May 5, 2016
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC’s conclusions regarding threshold standards
for the 2015 annual review cycle. Six thresholds were met, four were not met, and one was
inconclusive, due to insufficient information.
2015 ANNUAL THRESHOLD STANDARD REVIEW SUMMARY
Review Period 7/1/14 Through 6/30/15
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 X
Priority II X X X
3. Traffic X X X
4. Fire/EMS X X X
5. Parks and
Recreation
Land X X
Facilities X X
6. Fiscal X
7. Drainage X
8. Schools
CV Elementary
School District X
Sweetwater
Union High
School District
X
9. Sewer X
10. Air Quality and
Climate Protection
Inconclusive due to
insufficient
information
11. Water X
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 23
2016 Annual Report 7 May 5, 2016
3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS
3.1 LIBRARIES – NON-COMPLIANT
Threshold Standard:
The city shall not fall below the citywide rati o of 500 gross square feet (GSF) of library space,
adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 residents.
3.1.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
Issue: For the past twelve years, the Libraries threshold standard has not been met.
LIBRARIES
Population Total Gross Square Feet
of Library Facilities
Gross Square Feet of Library
Facilities Per 1,000 Residents
Threshold 500 Sq. Ft.
5-Year Projection
(2020) 281,942
97,412 (a)
134,412 (b)
129,009 (c)
345 (a)
476 (b)
427 (c)
12-Month
Projection
(12/31/16)
261,187 97,412 373
FY 2014-15 257,362 97,412 379
FY 2013-14 256,139 97,412 380
FY 2012-13 251,613 95,412 379
FY 2011-12 249,382 92,000/95,412** 369/383**
FY 2010-11 246,496 102,000/92,000* 414/387*
FY 2009-10 233,692 102,000 436
FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437
FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441
FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448
FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457
FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464
FY 2003-04 211,800 102,000 482
FY 2002-03 203,000 102,000 502
*After closure of Eastlake library in 2011
**After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012
(a) Without Millenia Library completion
(b) With Millenia Library completed, retaining Otay Ranch Branch
(c) With Millenia Library completed, closing Otay Ranch Branch
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 24
2016 Annual Report 8 May 5, 2016
Discussion: The GMOC is encouraged that there appears to be progress made in securing a
library in Millenia within the next five years. However, at 30-35,000 square feet,
the size of the facility would be barely enough to finally achieve Threshold
Standard compliance. Either doubling the size of the Millenia library to 70,000
square feet or constructing two 35,000 square-foot libraries – one in Millenia and
one on the Rancho del Rey library site – will be necessary to achieve
compliance at build-out. Until then, however, focus should be on remodeling
the space in the lower level of the Civic Center Library so that the area’s
usefulness can be maximized.
Recommend: 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.
3.1.2 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions
for GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Recommendations
The table below provides status on staff’s proposed implementing actions in response to Libraries
issues and recommendations brought forth in the GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report.
Status of Implementing Actions for Issues Identified in the
GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report (7/1/14-6/30/15) Regarding Libraries
Issue
Recommendation
Staff Responses and
Proposed
Implementing Actions
Status
3.1.1 - The Libraries
threshold standard has not
been met for the eleventh
consecutive year.
3.1.1 - 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.
3.1.1 - Talks are
progressing for the library
at Millenia.
Otay Ranch Town Center
Library Branch: We’ll try to
extend the current win-win
situation at the library, which
attracts people to the center,
for as long as possible.
Future Millenia Library: A new,
full-service library is expected
to be completed, or nearly
completed, within the next five
years, although it is market
dependent. This would bring
the threshold closer to
compliance.
Library Needs: Several active
library partnerships help the
library accomplish its functions.
3.1.2 - The Civic Center
Library needs to be
renovated to maximize use
of available space.
3.1.2 - 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.
3.1.2 - Civic Center space
is being renovated as
funds are found.
The City is collaborating with
the CVESD and Qualcomm for
a Thinkabit Lab to potentially
open in the lower level of the
Civic Center Library by July
2016.
3.1.3 - Opportunities to
generate substantial
revenue for libraries must
3.1.3 - That City Council
direct the City Manager to
continue seeking
3.1.3 - Opportunities for
mixed use and revenue
generating options are
Efforts are underway for a view
deck at the Civic Center
Library, which may be a source
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 25
2016 Annual Report 9 May 5, 2016
Status of Implementing Actions for Issues Identified in the
GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report (7/1/14-6/30/15) Regarding Libraries
Issue
Recommendation
Staff Responses and
Proposed
Implementing Actions
Status
continue to be
aggressively pursued.
opportunities within the
library system for potential
revenue generation, and
support mixed use of parks
and recreation and library
facilities.
being explored. of revenue in the future. The
recently renovated auditorium
and computer lab at that
library, as well as the future
Thinkabit Lab in the lower
level, may also be future
revenue sources when the
City’s Master Fee Schedule is
revised.
3.2 POLICE – NON-COMPLIANT (Priority 1 and 2)
Threshold Standards:
1. Priority 1 – Emergency Calls¹. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to at
least 81% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes 30 seconds and shall maintain an average response
time of 6 minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls (measured annually).
2. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls². Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to al l
Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
¹Priority 1 – Emergency Calls are life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident); robbery or panic alarms; urgent
cover calls from officers. Response: Immediate response by two officers from any source or assignment, immediate response by paramedics/fire if
injuries are believed to have occurred.
²Priority 2 – Urgent Calls are misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic violence or other disturbances with
potential for violence). Response: Immediate response by one or more officers from clear units or those on interruptible acti vities (traffic, field
interviews, etc.)
Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch and travel time to the building or site address, otherwise referred to as
“received to arrive.”
3.2.1 Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard
Issue: Despite implementation of a new Priority 1 Threshold Standard, the Threshold
Standard was not met.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 26
2016 Annual Report 10 May 5, 2016
Priority 1 Response Times
Fiscal Year Call Volume
% of Call
Responses
within 7:30
Average Response
Time
(Old Methodology*)
Average Response
Time
(New Methodology)
Threshold Standard 81.0% 5:30 6:00
2014/2015 675 of 64,008 71.2% 5:17 6:49
% of Call
Responses
within 7:00
Average Response
Time
(Old Methodology*)
Average Response
Time
Threshold Standard 81.0% 5:30 6:00
2013/2014 711 of 65,645 79.3% 4:57 6:45
2012/2013 738 of 65,741 81.5% 4:57 6:42
2011/2012 726 of 64,386 78.4% 5:01 6:31
2010/2011 657 of 64,695 85.7% 4:40 6:03
2009/2010 673 of 68,145 85.1% 4:28 5:50
2008/2009 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26 5:58
2006/2007 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59 6:13
2007/2008 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19 5:52
2005/2006 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 6:19
2004/2005 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 6:37
*Old Methodology criteria: 1) Calculated from "route to arrive" rather than “received to arrive”;
2) Includes normalization calculation; and 3) Excludes false alarm calls for service.
Discussion: This is the first GMOC annual report that implements the current Police Priority 1
and 2 Threshold Standards, which were revised and adopted in 2015. Because
the old and new Threshold Standards cannot be compared, this report includes
tables showing response times under both the old and the new Threshold
Standards, using their respective methodologies, for informational purposes
only.
The Priority 1 Threshold Standard was changed from 7 minutes to 7 minutes 30
seconds, with an average response time changed from 5 minutes 30 seconds to
6 minutes. Implementation of the current Threshold Standard included changing
the reporting methodology, as follows: 1) Starting the clock at “received to
arrive” rather than “route to arrive”; 2) Eliminating a “normalization” calculation
that was created due to higher reporting times in eastern versus western Chula
Vista; and 3) Adding false alarms to the call volume.
The table above indicates that Priority 1 call volume was down slightly from the
previous year; however, the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes
30 seconds was 9.8% below the 81% Threshold Standard. The “Average
Response Time” component of the Threshold Standard fell 49 seconds short of
the Threshold Standard.
The Police Chief attributed the shortfalls to “chronically low staffing in the
Community Patrol Division.” During the current review period, however, staffing
has increased significantly (as of October 2015, there were 98 officers on patrol,
just 5 short of the 103 that the Chief desired); several Community Service
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 27
2016 Annual Report 11 May 5, 2016
Officers (CSOs have been added); and fleet mobile data computers (MDCs)
were updated in the patrol fleet. Therefore, the GMOC would expect to see
improved response times in the next report.
Recommend: That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the recruitment
programs and procedures for police officers so that the department will be
properly staffed and response to Priority 1 calls can improve.
3.2.2. Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard
Priority 2 Response Times
Fiscal Year Call Volume
Average Response Time
(Old Methodology)
Average Response Time
(New Methodology)
Threshold Standard 7:30 12:00
2014/2015 17,976 of 64,008 11:35 13:50
2013/2014 17,817 of 65,645 11:26 13:36
2012/2013 18,505 of 65,741 11:37 13:44
2011/2012 22,121 of 64,386 11:54 14:20
2010/2011 21,500 of 64,695 10:06 12:52
2009/2010 22,240 of 68,145 9:55 12:40
2008/2009 22,686 of 70,051 9:16 12:00
2007/2008 23,955 of 74,192 9:18 12:07
2006/2007 24,407 of 74,277 11:18 14:21
2005/2006 24,876 of 73,075 12:33 15:28
2004/2005 24,923 of 74,106 11:40 14:38
*Old Methodology criteria: 1) Calculated from "route to arrive" rather than “received to arrive”;
2) Includes normalization calculation; and 3) Excludes false alarm calls for service.
Issue: Despite implementation of a new Priority 2 Threshold Standard, the Threshold
Standard was not met.
Discussion: As with the Priority 1 Threshold Standard, this is the first GMOC annual report
that implements the revised Priority 2 Threshold Standard adopted in 2015. The
Priority 2 “Average Response Time” was changed from 7 minutes 30 seconds to
12 minutes, and the “percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes” portion
of the Threshold Standard was eliminated. Implementation of the new Priority 2
Threshold Standard follows the same methodology used for the new Priority 1
Threshold Standard, including: 1) Starting the clock at “received to arrive” rather
than “route to arrive”; 2) Eliminating a “normalization” calculation that was
created due to higher reporting times in eastern versus western Chula Vista; and
3) Adding false alarms to the call volume.
The table above indicates that the Priority 2 Average Response Time came in
1:50 short of the new Threshold Standard. This is the 18th consecutive year that
the Police Priority 2 Threshold Standard has not been met.
As with the Priority 1 Threshold Standard, the Police Chief attributed non-
compliance of the Priority 2 Threshold Standard to low staffing, stating that it
“must be significantly increased in the Community Patrol Division in order to
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 28
2016 Annual Report 12 May 5, 2016
meet the Priority 2 response time goals. Without additional staff, improvements
to the response time will most likely be limited.”
The GMOC is encouraged that, during the current review period, staffing has
increased significantly, CSOs have been added and MDCs were updated in the
patrol fleet. Therefore, as noted in Section 3.2.1 of this report, the GMOC would
expect to see improved response times reported in the next review period.
Recommend: That the City Council direct the City Manager to monitor the recruitment
programs and procedures for police officers so that the department will be
properly staffed and response to Priority 2 calls can improve.
3.2.3 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions
for GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Recommendations
The table below provides status on staff’s proposed implementing actions in response to Police
issues and recommendations brought forth in the GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report.
Status of Implementing Actions for Issues Identified in the
GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Regarding Police
Issue
Recommendation
Staff Responses and
Proposed
Implementing Actions
Status
3.2.1 – The threshold
standard [Priority 1] was
not met.
3.2.1 - 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.
3.2.1 - 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.
As of October 2015: 1) there
were 98 officers on patrol, just 5
short of the 103 that the Chief
desired; 2) 12 officers were in
field training; 3) 5 officers were
in the Police Academy; 4) 5
CSOs were handling over 3,000
reports annually; 5) fleet mobile
data computers (MDCs) were
updated in the patrol fleet; 6)
Automated Vehicle Locating
(AVL) system for the Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) system
is being implemented.
3.3 TRAFFIC – NON-COMPLIANT
Threshold Standards:
1. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Non -Urban Streets: Those Traffic Monitoring Program
(TMP) roadway segments classified as other than Urban Streets in the “Land Use and
Transportation Element” of the city’s General Plan shall maintain LOS “C” or better as measured
by observed average travel speed on those segments; except, that during peak hours, LOS “D”
can occur for no more than two hours of the day.
2. Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS): Those TMP roadway segments class ified as Urban
Streets in the “Land Use and Transportation Element” of the city’s General Plan shall maintain
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 29
2016 Annual Report 13 May 5, 2016
LOS “D” or better, as measured by observed or predicted average travel speed, except that
during peak hours, LOS “E” can occur for no more than tw o hours per day.
Notes to Standards:
1. Arterial Segment: LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and special
circumstance variations.
2. The LOS measurement of arterial segments at freeway ramps shall be a growt h management consideration in situations
where proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanges.
3. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to the anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards.
4. The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in
the most recent Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the city’s traffic engineer.
5. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the HCM.
3.3.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
Issue: Two arterial segments were non-compliant with the Threshold Standard.
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS
NON-URBAN STREETS Direction
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
(Threshold allows maximum of 2 hours
at LOS D during peak hours)
Otay Lakes Road
(East H St./Telegraph Canyon Rd.)
NB
SB
D(4 hours)
D(4 hours) E(1 hour)
Heritage Road
(Telegraph Canyon Rd./Olympic Parkway)
NB
SB
D(6 hours)
D(5 hours)
URBAN STREETS Direction
Level of Service (LOS)
(Threshold allows maximum of 2 hours
at LOS E during peak hours)
None - -
Discussion: All Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS) streets complied with the current
Traffic Threshold Standard, updated in 2015. However, two Arterial Level of
Service (ALOS) non-urban streets did not comply. Heritage Road between
Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway has been chronically non-
compliant in either or both directions for several years, and was non-compliant
by two hours northbound and three hours southbound during this review period.
Also, despite recent improvements to Otay Lakes Road between Telegraph
Canyon Road and East H Street, Otay Lakes Road was non-compliant in both
directions during the review period. City engineers have indicated that, in order
to comply with the Threshold Standards as projected growth occurs over the
next five years, connection of both Heritage Road and La Media Road to Main
Street is essential, and funding will be covered by developer impact fees.
The GMOC is concerned that completion of the Heritage Road connection has
been further delayed due to resolution of environmental issues, but appreciates
the efforts by City staff to comply with the environmental regulations so that
progress on the road can continue.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 30
2016 Annual Report 14 May 5, 2016
Recommend: 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.
3.3.2 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions
for GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Recommendations
The table below provides status on staff’s proposed implementing actions in response to Traffic
issues and recommendations brought forth in the GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report.
Status of Implementing Actions for Issues Identified in the
GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Regarding Traffic
Issue
Recommendation
Staff Responses and
Proposed
Implementing Actions
Status
3.3.1 - One arterial
segment was non-
compliant with the
Threshold Standard.
3.3.1 - 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.
3.3.1 - 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.
Obtaining the 404 permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers is
still in process and completion
of the Heritage Road
connection is expected to be
delayed until approximately
February 2017.
3.4 FIRE and EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES –
NON-COMPLIANT
Threshold Standard:
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to
calls throughout the city within 7 minutes in at least 80% of the cases (measured annually).
3.4.1 Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
FIRE and EMS Response Times
Review Period Call
Volume
% of All Calls
Responded
to Within 7 Minutes
(Threshold = 80%)
Average
Response Time
for all Calls²
Average
Travel Time
Average
Dispatch
Time
Average
Turn-out
Time
FY 2015 12,561 78.3 6:14 3:51 1:12 1:10
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
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 31
2016 Annual Report 15 May 5, 2016
Review Period Call
Volume
% of All Calls
Responded
to Within 7 Minutes
(Threshold = 80%)
Average
Response Time
for all Calls²
Average
Travel Time
Average
Dispatch
Time
Average
Turn-out
Time
FY 2010 10,296 85.0% 5:09 3:40
FY 2009 9,363 84.0% 4:46 3:33
FY 2008 9,883 86.9% 6:31 3:17
FY 2007 10,020 88.1% 6:24 3:30
CY 2006 10,390 85.2% 6:43 3:36
CY 2005 9,907 81.6% 7:05 3:31
FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9% 7:38 3:32
FY 2002-03¹ 8,088 75.5% 7:35 3:43
FY 2001-02¹ 7,626 69.7% 7:53 3:39
FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8% 7:02 3:18
FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% 3:29
Note ¹: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003. The difference in 2004 performance when
compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant.
Note ²: Through FY 2012, the data was for “Average Response Time for 80% of Calls.”
Issue: The Threshold Standard was non-compliant for the fifth consecutive year.
Discussion: The percentage of “Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes” fell just 1.7% short of
the 80% Threshold Standard, which was a 1.8% improvement from the previous
review period. The average response time for all calls was 12 seconds slower,
however. The slowest times were reported from stations 6, 7 and 8, at 21.6%
below the Threshold Standard, as shown in the table below:
FIRE and EMS Response Times (By Geography)
Review
Period
Call
Volume
% of All Calls
Responded to
Within 7 Minutes
(Threshold = 80%)
Average Response
Time
for all Calls²
Average
Travel Time
Average
Dispatch Time
Average
Turn-out Time
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 2015 2,014 6,970 3,577 58.4 92.5 73.3 7:48 5:40 6:27 4:53 3:21 4:15 1:36 1:13 0:58 1:19 1:06 1:14
FY 2014 1,890 6,198 3,633 52.7 86.7 71.9 7:15 5:29 6:22 4:33 3:04 3:55 1:08 1:08 1:04 1:34 1:16 1:22
FY 2013 1,976 6,670 3,670 54.3 85.9 68.7 7:06 5:29 6:27 4:48 3:16 4:15 1:08 1:05 1:04 1:12 1:06 1:09
Note: “East” = Calls responded to east of I-805 (Fire Stations 6, 7 and 8).
“West” = Calls responded to west of I-805 (Fire Stations 1 and 5).
“E/W” = Calls responded to citywide (Fire Stations 2, 3, 4 and 9).
The slow response times concern the GMOC and we believe that focusing on
the areas where the response times are the slowest should be a priority until
additional fire stations are built and response times can comply with the
Threshold Standard. Accurate data collection is paramount so that weaknesses
can be verified and addressed.
The Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) reported that, while response times
collected are accurate, it is challenging to collect accurate travel and turn-out
times with the current system, FirstWatch, which is operated by the San Diego
Fire Department, on a contractual basis. Although turn-out and travel times are
captured via a GPS system, the AVL (automated vehicle location system) does
not pick up the data until the apparatus moves out of the bay; therefore, the
CVFD is seeking new technology that will report actual turnout time.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 32
2016 Annual Report 16 May 5, 2016
Recommend: That City Council direct the City Manager to collaborate with the Fire Chief in
conducting a statistical analysis to provide more detailed information regarding
specific station response times and the percentage of calls where there is cross-
coverage, and to focus on improving the response times by fire stations 6, 7 & 8.
3.4.2 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions
for GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Recommendations
The table below provides status on staff’s proposed implementing actions in response to Fire and
EMS issues and recommendations brought forth in the GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report.
Status of Implementing Actions for Issues Identified in the
GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Regarding Fire & EMS
Issue
Recommendation
Staff Responses and
Proposed
Implementing Actions
Status
3.4.1 - The Fire and
Emergency Medical
Services Threshold
Standard has not been
met for the fourth
consecutive year.
3.4.1 - 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.
3.4.1 - 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.
Response times are improving
and when more fire stations are
added they should improve
even more. Fire response
times continue to be better in
western Chula Vista than in
eastern Chula Vista. However,
overall fire response times are
better than AMR (ambulance)
response times. We are
pushing to become a
technologically “Smart City” so
that we can be as efficient as
possible. A Google route finder
device only works if we have
fiber optics throughout the city.
Many firefighters have a phone
app that calls them before bells
go off in the fire stations.
Implementation of a 5-year
strategic plan would bring in
new equipment and more
stations.
3.5 PARKS AND RECREATION – COMPLIANT at 2.94 acres/1,000
Threshold Standard:
Population Ratio: Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate
facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805.
3.5.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 33
2016 Annual Report 17 May 5, 2016
Discussion: Rounded up to 3 acres, the Threshold Standard is compliant at 2.94 acres per
1,000 people in eastern Chula Vista, as indicated on the table below. Forecasts
for 18 months and five years, however, indicate that the margin will be
broadening if adequate park land is not dedicated in a timely manner.
CITY-OWNED PARK ACREAGE
Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons
Threshold
Standard
Area of City
Current
(6/30/15)
Forecasts
Prior Year Comparisons
18-Month
(12.31.16)
5-Year
(2020)
June 2012
June 2013
June 2014
3 acres per
1,000
population
East
of I-805
East I-805
AC/1,000 persons
2.94
2.91
2.82
3.1
3.05
2.96
West I-805
AC/1,000 persons
1.2
1.22
1.19
1.2
1.20
1.2
Citywide
AC/1,000 persons
2.16
2.16
2.13
2.2
2.21
2.17
Acres of
parkland
East I-805 418.44 420.41⁺ 456.92* 418.01 418.44 418.44
West I-805
138.76
142.68⁺ 142.68 138.76 138.76 138.76
Citywide 557.2 563.09⁺ 599.60* 556.77 557.20 557.20
Population
East I-805 142,547 144,577 161,773 135,205 137,313 141,436
West I-805
115,801 116,610 120,169 115,130 115,300 115,788
Citywide 258,348 261,187 281,942 250,335 252,643 257,224
Acreage
shortfall or
excess
East I-805 (9.2) (13.32) (28.40) 12.4 6.5 (5.87)
West I-805 (208.64) 207.15 217.83 (206.6) (207.23) (208.61)
Citywide (217.84) 220.47 246.23 (194.24) (200.73) (214.46)
⁺ Assumes completion of Orange park 3.9 acres and Millenia, Stylus Park 1.97 acres.
*Assumes completion of: V2, P-3 (Ph1) 3.9 acres. V2, P-2 7.10 acres. Millenia, Strata Park 1.51 acres. Village 3, P-1 6.7 acres. Village
8 West, P-1 7.5 acres. Village 8 West Town Square 3 acres. V8 East, Neighborhood Park 6.8 acres.
Recommend: None.
3.5.2 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan
Issue: An update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan has still not gone to Council
for consideration.
Discussion: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) was further delayed because a
Parks Needs Assessment identifying recreational needs had to be completed,
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 34
2016 Annual Report 18 May 5, 2016
and a Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study
needed to be finalized. In addition, Public Works decided to add a chapter on
Operations and Maintenance. City staff is planning to take the draft document to
stakeholders by June, to the general public by July, and to City Council by fall
2016.
Recommend: That City Council approve the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan by fall
2016, and resolve any outstanding issues through future amendments to the
document.
3.5.3 Status of Staff’s Proposed Implementing Actions
for GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Recommendations
The table below provides status on staff’s proposed implementing actions in response to Parks and
Recreation issues and recommendations brought forth in the GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report.
Status of Implementing Actions for Issues Identified in the
GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report Regarding Parks and Recreation
Issue
Recommendation
Staff Responses and
Proposed
Implementing Actions
Status
3.5.1 - An update to the
Parks and Recreation
Master Plan has still not
gone to Council for
approval.
3.5.1 - That City Council
approve the updated Parks
and Recreation Master
Plan by the end of June
2015 and make additional
updates, as necessary.
3.5.1 - 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.
The Master Plan is expected to
go to Council in September or
October 2016. Public Works is
adding a chapter on operations
and maintenance, and
Recreation is adding a section
on Cost Recovery, Resource
Allocation and Revenue
Enhancement.
3.5.2 - Combining the use
of parks and recreation
and libraries should be
considered.
3.5.2 - That City Council
direct the City Manager to
support mixed use of parks
and recreation and library
facilities.
3.5.2 - Opportunities for
mixed use and revenue
generating options are
being explored.
Recreation is maximizing
opportunities to lease facilities
when they are not being used
for City services; for instance
several rec centers lease to
churches, and long-term facility
rentals have increased
programming offerings. The
second floor of the Norman
Park Center has become a one-
stop shop for social services,
such as Meals on Wheels,
Home Start, and Southern
Caregivers Resource Center.
3.6 FISCAL - COMPLIANT
Threshold Standards:
1. Fiscal Impact Analyses and Public Facilities Financing Plans, at the time they are adopted,
shall ensure that new development generates sufficient revenue to offset the cost of providing
municipal services and facilities to that development.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 35
2016 Annual Report 19 May 5, 2016
2. The city shall establish and maintain, at sufficient levels to ensure the timely delivery of
infrastructure and services needed to support growth, consistent with the threshold standards,
a Development Impact Fee, capital improvement funding, and other necessary funding programs
or mechanisms.
3.6.1 Deferred Maintenance Costs
Issue: Funding is needed for deferred maintenance.
Discussion: The City has been undertaking an asset management program/study to identify
Citywide infrastructure needs and develop a financing plan. During the recession,
the City deferred equipment replacement and building maintenance costs, which
are now catching up. Therefore, the City’s Five-Year Financial Forecast includes
several major expenditures, but it does not include funding recommendations from
the asset management studies.
City staff reported that the City’s financial outlook is more stable than it has been
in recent years, due to positive revenue growth, implementation of efficiency
measures, cooperation of City labor groups, and strong Council leadership; and
they do not anticipate fiscal issues resulting from new development. However, the
cost for deferred maintenance is so great that supplemental funds will be
necessary. Therefore, they are considering bringing forth two different bond
measures: a sales tax increase and/or a bond/property tax measure. The GMOC
would support this proposal.
Recommend 1: That City Council direct the City Manager to strongly consider ballot measures to
increase property and/or sales taxes.
Recommend 2: That City Council direct the City Manager to work with the Director of Economic
Development to explore economic development through tax incentives.
3.7 DRAINAGE - COMPLIANT
Threshold Standards:
1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards and shall comply
with current local, state and federal regulations, as may be amended from time to time.
2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the city’s storm drain system, w ith
respect to the impacts of new development, to determine its ability to meet the goal and
objective for drainage.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 36
2016 Annual Report 20 May 5, 2016
3.7.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
Discussion: According to the City’s engineers, storm water flows or volumes did not exceed
City Engineering Standards during the review period, and no new facilities will
be needed to accommodate projected growth in the next 12-18 months or the
next five years.
They did stress, however, that storm water reuse and pollution prevention are
important factors in smart growth, and help to minimize the impact of
development on water quality. Implementation of low-impact development best
management practices (BMPs), re-use of storm water, and treatment systems to
reduce the pollution and runoff coming from new development are essential.
Recommend: None.
3.8 SCHOOLS - COMPLIANT
Threshold Standard:
The city shall annually provide the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the
Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) with the cit y’s annual 5-year residential growth
forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth, both
citywide and by subarea. Replies from the school districts should address the following:
1. Amount of current classroom and “essential facility” (as defined in the Facility Master Plan)
capacity now used or committed;
2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities and identification of what facilities
need to be upgraded or added over the next five years;
3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities identified; and
4. Other relevant information the school district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the city and the
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
3.8.1 School Districts’ Updates
Issue: None.
Discussion: 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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 37
2016 Annual Report 21 May 5, 2016
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Construction of a new 800-student school (#46) in Otay Ranch Village 2 will
begin in April 2016 and is projected to open in July 2017, providing relief to Wolf
Canyon Elementary, which is nearing capacity. A second school in Village 2,
which will accommodate 600 students, will come later. New schools will also be
added in Village 3 and the Eastern Urban Center (Millenia). The school district
is limiting and eventually discontinuing zone transfers (from the west side to the
east side) so that students that live in the new communities can attend their
home school.
Prop E funds are being used to update older schools and address deferred
maintenance.
Sweetwater Union High School District
The school district is working on updating its Long-Range Facilities Master Plan
and has met with the City to discuss potential high school and middle school
sites. Current plans are to begin construction of high school #14 on the
northeast corner of Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway, and middle school
#12 in Otay Ranch Village 8 West in 2017 and open in July 2019. The district
will need to acquire another 25-50-acre site to accommodate future growth.
Recommend: None.
3.9 SEWER - COMPLIANT
Threshold Standards:
1. Existing and projected facility sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering
standards for the current system and for budgeted improvements, as set forth in the Subdivision
Manual.
2. The city shall annually ensure adequate contracted capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan
Sewer Authority or other means sufficient to meet the projected needs of development.
3.9.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity
SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity
Million Gallons per
Day (MGD)
Fiscal Year
2012-13
Fiscal Year
2013-14
Fiscal Year
2014-15
18-month
Projection
5-year
Projection
"Buildout"
Projection
Average Flow 15.734 15.466 15.729 16.59 18.60 29.89
Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864
Issue: None.
Discussion: The City’s permit with the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority is on a five-
year cycle and it was submitted in early 2015 with the expectation that it would
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 38
2016 Annual Report 22 May 5, 2016
be renewed for another five years. With renewal of the permit, the City is well
within capacity until at least 2027. Staff will continue to monitor flow rates in
order to secure treatment capacity before it is needed.
Recommend: None.
3.10 AIR QUALITY and CLIMATE PROTECTION -
INCONCLUSIVE
Threshold Standard:
The city shall pursue a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target consistent with appropriate
city climate change and energy efficiency regulations in effect at the time of project application
for SPA plans or for the following, subject to the discretion of the Development Services
Director:
a. Residential projects of 50 or more residential dwelling units;
b. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres (or equivalent square footage);
c. Industrial projects of 24 or more acres (or equivalent square footage); or
d. Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units or greater.
3.10.1 Incomplete Questionnaire
Issue: A full report was not provided by City staff.
Discussion: Only one of nine questions was responded to by City staff. The explanation
provided to the GMOC was that there have been staff changes, as well as
changes in software, making it challenging to obtain the necessary information
to complete the report.
A report completed by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) indicated that
Chula Vista continues to comply with smog standards 365 days per year.
Recommend: Correct data accessibility software issues so that a full report can be provided
next year.
3.11 WATER - COMPLIANT
Threshold Standards:
1. Adequate water supply must be available to serve new development. Therefore, developers
shall provide the city with a service availability letter from the appropriate 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 the city’s annual 5 -year residential growth
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 39
2016 Annual Report 23 May 5, 2016
forecast and request that they provide an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted
growth. Replies should address the following:
a. Water availability to the city, considering both short- and long-term perspectives.
b. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity, including
storage capacity, now used or committed.
c. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted 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 the
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
Discussion: Both the Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority reported that, despite the
State of California’s water conservation mandates between June 1, 2015 and
February 13, 2016, Chula Vista’s water supply is in good shape because
customers have been exceeding water conservation goals for several years, in
preparation for the drought. (Note: Water Conservation Plans required by Chula
Vista’s “Growth Management” ordinance for all SPA Plans, Tentative Maps, and
major development projects have also had a positive effect on water
conservation in the City.)
With ample water in storage, the Otay Water District’s water supply is very
high—well over what is currently demanded. They continue to pursue a future
desalination plant in Rosarito, Mexico as another source of water, however,
saying that doing so may provide price stability.
The Sweetwater Authority has several reliable sources of water, including the
Richard Reynolds Groundwater Desalination Facility, which is adding five new
wells that will result in double the amount of drinking water when complete.
Recommend: None.
4.0 APPENDICES
4.1 Appendix A – Residential Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B – Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 40
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 41
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 42
2015
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
FORECAST
Years 2015 Through 2020
August 21, 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 43
1
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 2015 through December 2020.
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:
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 44
2
Does not represent a goal or desired growth rate;
Is what may occur given a set of assumptions listed below under “Forecast Information”;
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.
Last year’s growth forecast estimated that 279 building permits would be issued for single-family
units in 2015. As of August 21, 2015, 63 permits had been pulled. For multi-family units, 1,734
building permits were projected, and 532 had been pulled. Nearly all of the building activity was in
the master planned communities east of Interstate 805.
FORECAST SUMMARY
Between September 2015 and December 2016, as many as 441 housing units could be permitted
for construction in eastern Chula Vista and 254 in western Chula Vista, for a total of 695 units (see
Figure 1).
In the five-year forecast period (calendar years 2016 through 2020), eastern Chula Vista could have
as many as 6,057 housing units permitted (averaging 1,211 annually), and development in western
Chula Vista could total as many as 1,400 units, averaging 280 units annually. The total number of
units permitted citywide could be 7,458, with an annual average of 1,491 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 four 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 remains stable; and
4.That projects follow normal project regulatory processing schedules.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 45
3
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 2016 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:
Otay Ranch Village 2 – Baldwin & Sons continues to be the dominant developer in Village 2,
projecting 524 single-family and 1,032 multi-family units over the next five years, including 75
single-family and 167 multi-family units by the end of 2016.
JPB is projecting to pull 31 single-family permits for the Anacapa II R-9 development and 53 single-
family permits for the Presidio II R-7 development by the end of 2016.
Between 2019 and 2020 Homefed Village 2 West is projecting 62 single-family units.
The R-28 parcel zoned for 96 multi-family units is currently bank-owned; development is projected
to occur by 2017.
Otay Ranch Village 3 North – Entitlement for this SPA plan was completed at the end of 2014 and
ownership has since transferred from JPB to Homefed Otay Land II. Starting in 2017 with 527
single-family and 70 multi-family units, they are projecting a total of 1,493 units by the end of 2020:
978 single-family and 515 multi-family.
Otay Ranch Village 8 East – Entitlement for this SPA plan was also completed at the end of 2014
and ownership has transferred from JPB to Homefed Otay Land II. Development is not projected to
occur until 2020, when 261 single-family and 202 multi-family units are planned.
Otay Ranch Village 8 West – Otay Land Company’s projections for this village over the next five
years are considerably lower than the projections reported in last year’s Growth Forecast. Instead
of 1,043 units beginning in 2015, revised projections are 362 multi-family units in 2019.
Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC) “Millenia” – Hundreds of multi-family building permits have
already been issued in Millenia, and the Millenia Real Estate Group is projecting 1,863 more over
the next five years, including 89 units by the end of 2016.
Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial – With the entitlement process complete, Baldwin & Sons has
revised last year’s projection of 600 multi-family units by 2019 to just 26 units by the end of 2016.
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 13 in
2017.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 46
4
As of August 21, 2015, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in
eastern Chula Vista is approximately 21,527. If 6,057 units were permitted over the next five-year
forecasted period, approximately 15,470 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 and that trend is continuing. Many multi-family
developments projected in last year’s Growth Forecast have been postponed for one to two years,
including:
Bahia Vista Townhomes – 21 units at 778 Ada Street
The Colony – 162 units at 435 Third Avenue
Creekside Point – 119 units at 944 Third Avenue
Stone Creek Casitas – 97 units at 3875 Main Street
16 units at 354 Moss Street
Two other multi-family developments included in previous growth forecasts have fallen off of the
five-year forecast completely, including:
El Dorado Ridge – 104 units on Brandywine Avenue
Urbana – 266 units at H Street between Third and Fourth Avenues
At the Bayfront, Pacifica’s 1,500-unit multi-family development has been pushed back an additional
two years from previous projections, beginning with the first 150 units in 2018.
There are also several new multi-family developments that are projected to occur between 2017
and 2018, including:
The Cove – 135 units at 1130 Fifth Avenue
Palomar Gateway District – 100 units
Villa del Oro – 80 units at 980 Broadway
42 units at 753 Dorothy
80 units at Third Avenue and K Street
75 units at Third Avenue and Park
The only single-family development currently on the horizon is a 16-unit project at 35 Tamarindo
Way projected to begin before the end of 2016.
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:
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 47
5
DECADE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS
ISSUED PER YEAR
1980-1989 330
1990-1999 693
2000-2009 2,094
2010-2015 689*
*Through August 21, 2015
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 August 21, 2015, 595 residential building permits had been issued (see
Figure 3), with over a 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 4.8%
vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 281,942 persons by the
end of 2020. This is based on the following:
The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated Chula Vista’s population on
January 1, 2015 as 257,989;
An additional 261 units were occupied from January 1, 2015 to August 2015; and
An additional 7,457 units may be permitted between September 2015 and December 2020.
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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 48
Residential Building Permits Statistics
Actual Issued 2000 - 2015 and Forecast 2016 - 2020
L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2016\CV Res building permits statistics_02.pdf.8.18.15
Number of Units
Actual Forecast
Through August 21, 2015
Eastern Chula Vista
Western Chula Vista
Figure 1
2,618
3,525
2,250
3,143
3,300
576
325 275
500
882
595
441
1,577 1,516
254
461 385
150 150
1,654
1,180
728 798
1,539
631
984
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
6 2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 49
5
805
125
54
Sweetwate r
Reservoi r
San Diego
BayL St
J St
H St
E St
Naples St
Palomar
S
t
Orange Av
Main St
H
i
l
l
t
o
p
D
r
F
i
r
s
t
A
v
T
h
i
r
d
A
v
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
E P a l o m a r S t
Ol y m p i c P a rk w a y
Telegraph Canyo n R d
E H St
L
a
M
e
d
i
a
R
d
E
a
s
t
l
a
k
e
P
k
w
y
Otay Landfill
L
o
w
e
r
O
t
a
y
L
a
k
e
Otay Lakes R
d
H
u
n
t
e
P
k
w
y
P roctor V a l l e y R d
B i r c h R d
LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS
City of Chula Vista Boundary
Toll Road
A
H
K
F
P Q
O
E
T
S
U
RD
J
B
C
G
I
L
N
M
Residential Development Forecast Map
9/2016 - 12/2020
354 Moss Street
386 Date Stree
753 Dorothy Street
Bahia Vista Town Homes
Bayfront
The Colony
The Cove
Creekside Point
Palomar Gateway District
Stone Creek Casitas
Tamarindo
Third & K Street
Third & Park Way
Villa de Oro
Otay Ranch Village 2
Otay Ranch Village 3 North
Otay Ranch Village 8 East
Otay Ranch Village 8 West
Freeway Commercial
Eastern Urban Center
Bella Lago
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2016\Residential Forecast Development Map.ai.8.21.15 7
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 50
SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF
OTAY RANCH
Village 2 North - Baldwin & Sons 46 105 24 34 0 0 19 0 23 35 112 174
Village 2 East - Baldwin & Sons 0 0 0 300 0 0 14 0 15 0 29 300
Village 2 South - Baldwin & Sons 29 62 97 126 145 148 28 118 0 0 299 454
Village 2 West - Baldwin & Sons 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 40 60 84 104
Village 2 West - Homefed Village 2 West 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 32 0 62 0
Village 2 - JPB (Anacapa II R-9)31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0
Village 2 - JPB (Presidio II R-7)53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0
Village 2 - Bank-owned (R-28)0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96
Village 3 North - Homefed Otay Land II 0 0 527 70 271 301 137 61 43 83 978 515
Village 8 East - Homefed Otay Land II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 202 261 202
Village 8 West - Otay Land Co.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 0 362
EUC - Millenia Real Estate Group 0 89 0 290 0 638 0 669 0 177 0 1,863
Freeway Commercial - Baldwin & Sons 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
Otay Ranch Sub-Total 159 282 648 916 416 1,087 272 1,254 414 557 1,909 4,096
BELLA LAGO - Bella Lago LLC 0 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 13 0 52 0
SUB-TOTAL 159 282 661 916 429 1,087 285 1,254 427 557 1,961 4,096
TOTAL UNITS
*ISSUE = Building Permit
Annual Average:1,211
441 1,577 1,516 1,539 984 6,057
JAN. - DECEMBER 2020 SEPTEMBER 2015 - 2020
ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*
JAN. - DECEMBER 2019PROJECTSEPTEMBER 2015 - DECEMBER 2016 JAN. - DECEMBER 2017 JAN. - DECEMBER 2018
Table 1
GMOC 2016 - EASTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
SEPTEMBER 2015 - DECEMBER 2020 Five Years Forecast
8 2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 51
SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF
354 Moss Street 17 0 17
386 Date Street 5 5 0
753 Dorothy Street 42 0 42
Bahia Vista Townhomes (778 Ada Street)21 0 21
Bayfront - Pacifica 150 150 150 0 450
The Colony (435 Third Avenue)162 0 162
The Cove (1130 Third Avenue)135 0 135
Creekside Point (944 Third Avenue)120 0 120
Palomar Gateway District 100 0 100
Second Accessory Units 0 0
Stone Creek Casitas (3875 Main Street)97 0 97
Tamarindo (35 Tamarindo)16 16 0
Third & K Street (798 Third Avenue)80 0 80
Third & Park Way 75 0 75
Villa de Oro (980 Broadway)80 0 80
SUB-TOTAL 16 238 5 456 0 385 0 150 0 150 21 1,379
TOTAL UNITS
*ISSUE = Building Permit
Annual Average:280
254 461 385 150 150 1,400
JAN. - DECEMBER 2019 JAN. - DECEMBER 2020 SEPTEMBER 2015 - 2020
ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2015 - DECEMBER 2016 JAN. - DECEMBER 2017 JAN. - DECEMBER 2018
Table 2
GMOC 2016 - WESTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
SEPTEMBER 2015 - DECEMBER 2020
Five Years Forecast
9
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 52
Table 3
Historic Housing and Population Growth
City of Chula Vista 1980 - August 21, 2015
Calendar Units Authorized for Units Completed Certified Year End Population
Year Construction (Issued)(Finaled)(State D.O.F.) (1)
No.No.No.% Change
1980 407 374 84,364
1981 195 496 86,597 2.6%
1982 232 129 88,023 1.6%
1983 479 279 89,370 1.5%
1984 1,200 521 91,166 2.0%
1985 1,048 1,552 116,325 (2)
1986 2,076 1,120 120,285 3.4%
1987 1,168 2,490 124,253 3.3%
1988 1,413 829 128,028 3.0%
1989 1,680 1,321 134,337 4.9%
1990 664 1,552 138,262 2.9%
1991 747 701 141,015 2.0%
1992 560 725 144,466 2.4%
1993 435 462 146,525 1.4%
1994 700 936 149,791 2.2%
1995 833 718 153,164 2.3%
1996 914 820 156,148 1.9%
1997 1,028 955 162,106 3.8%
1998 1,339 1,093 167,103 3.1%
1999 2,505 1,715 174,319 4.3%
2000 2,618 2,652 181,613 4.2%
2001 3,525 3,222 191,220 5.3%
2002 2,250 2,923 200,798 5.0%
2003 3,143 2,697 208,997 4.1%
2004 3,300 3,043 217,512 4.1%
2005 1,654 2,525 224,006 3.0%
2006 1,180 1,448 227,850 1.7%
2007 576 837 231,157 1.5%
2008 325 518 234,011 1.2%
2009 275 398 244,269 4.4%
2010 517 422 245,987 0.7%
2011 728 631 249,382 1.4%
2012 798 847 251,973 1.0%
2013 631 777 256,139 1.7%
2014 882 475 257,989 0.7%
2015 595 261 258,840 0.3%(3)
Annual Average 1,184 1,180 4,392 2.7% (4)
(1) Reflects Department of Finance (DOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year.
(2) Montgomery Annexation
(3) Population estimates are subject to change and refinement. They assume a 4.8% vacancy rate and 3.26 persons per unit, and
are estimated prior to California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, available in 2016.
(4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation.
27.6%
10 2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 53
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 54
Air Quality and Climate Protection 2016 Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Air Quality and Climate
Protection – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
The city shall pursue a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target consistent with appropriate
city climate change and energy efficiency regulations in effect at the time of project application
for SPA plans or for the following, subject to the discretion of the Development Services
Director:
a.Residential projects of 50 or more residential dwelling units;
b.Commercial projects of 12 or more acres (or equivalent square footage);
c.Industrial projects of 24 or more acres (or equivalent square footage); or
d.Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units or greater.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Please provide responses to the following:
1.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 for development that occurred during the review period.
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 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.
Yes No _______
4.Please identify any slight increases or reductions in air quality emissions.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 55
Air Quality and Climate Protection 2016 Page 2
5.How many residents and/or commercial facilities have added solar panels in the past
year?
6 Are there any new non-development-related program efforts that the city needs to
undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? If so, please list
and provide a brief explanation of each.
Yes No ______
7.Does the city have an Urban Forestry program? Yes.
The Urban Forestry Program provides the following services:
1.Emergency response to tree issues that pose a potential threat to the public or
property.
2.Removal of City trees that are dead in the public right-of-way.
3.Contractual safety tree trimming to prevent future potential tree failures or right -
of-way issues, as budget permits.
Planting of trees on City Property
No tree, palm, shrub, or other vegetation may be planted within City parkways or other
public right-of-ways without prior approval from the City Forester or the Open Space
Manager. They will approve the plant material, designate the location thereof, and
determine if root barrier is required for the species allowed.
Chula Vista Urban Forest Tree List
The City of Chula Vista promotes the planting of the right tree in the right place for spatial
definition and the abundant benefits which the City’s urban forest provides. Chula Vista
Municipal Code Chapter 12.32 contains the City’s Tree Ordinance and specifies which trees
cannot be planted in the City. View list of trees approved for planting in Chula Vista.
LFrance
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 56
Air Quality and Climate Protection 2016 Page 3
8.Please update and/or add new categories to the table below, indicating a side-by-side
comparison of what neighboring communities are doing for climate control.
9.Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you
would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
PREPARED IN PART BY:
Name: Lynn France
Title: Environmental Services Manager
Date: December 18, 2015
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 X x
City of National City X X X x X x
City of Coronado X X x X x
City of San Diego X X X x X X
County of San Diego X X x X
Port of San Diego X X X X x
LFrance
*As a result of CEQA review, development projects in all jurisdictions have to mitigate GHG emission impacts
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 57
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 58
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 59
Drainage – 2016 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Drainage – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards and shall comply with
current local, state and federal regulations, as may be amended from time to time.
2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the city’s storm drain system, with respect to the
impacts of new development, to determine its ability to meet the goal and objective for drainage.
Please provide brief responses to the following:
1. During the review period, have storm water flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards
at any time?
Yes No X
If yes:
a. Where did this occur?
b. Why did this occur?
c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation?
2. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate growth projected in the next 12-18 months? If
so, please explain.
Yes No X
3. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate growth projected in the next 5 years? If so,
please explain.
Yes No __X___
4. Please provide a summary (highlights) of storm water program activities designed to comply
with the regional storm water permit.
The Regional Storm Water Permit requires jurisdictions to implement a Jurisdictional Runoff
Management Program (JRMP) to control the contribution of pollutants to and the discharges from
its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). The following is a summary of the various
components of the City’s JRMP.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 60
Drainage – 2016 2
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program
o Prohibition and elimination of non-storm water discharges via the Storm Water Ordinance
(CVMC Chapter 14.20)
o Response to Storm Water Hotline reports
o Inspection of major MS4 outfalls
Development Planning Program
o Requirement of all development and redevelopment projects to implement Low Impact
Development (LID) and source control Best Management Practices (BMPs)
o Requirement of Priority Development Projects (PDPs) to also implement structural and
hydromodification BMPs to minimize impacts from pollutants and increased runoff from the
project site
o Inspection, operation, and maintenance of all permanent BMPs
o Update of the City’s BMP Design Manual, which provides details on the above components
Construction Program
o Requirement of minimum BMPs on construction sites
o Inspections program
Existing Development Program
o Requirement of minimum Best Management Practices for existing development
o Inspections of municipal, industrial, and commercial facilities
o Operation and maintenance activities for the MS4 and sewer system
o Street sweeping
Enforcement Response Plan
o Enforcement of all of the above programs
Education and Public Participation Program
o Educational activities to promote positive behaviors to the reduce discharge of pollutants to
the storm drain
o Provide opportunities for the public to engage and participate in pollution prevention
(cleanup events, volunteer opportunities)
In addition to the JRMP, the regional storm water permit has also required the City to collaborate
with other jurisdictions to develop a Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) for the San Diego Bay
Watershed Management Area. This plan outlines priority pollutants, goals, and strategies for the
watershed. The City’s pollutant focus is trash and the City has committed to implement strategies to
address trash within City. Additional components of the San Diego Bay WQIP include a Monitoring
and Assessment Plan and an Adaptive Management Process.
5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
Storm water reuse and pollution prevention are important factors in smart growth, and help to
minimize the impact of development on water quality. Within the development and watershed
planning aspects of the City’s storm water management program, there are many requirements that
provide for the implementation of low impact development BMPs, re-use of storm water, and
treatment systems to reduce the pollution and runoff coming from new development. Storm water
management program costs continue to increase with each re-issued permit. It is important to
continue support of these programs not only to keep in the City in compliance with storm water
regulations, but also to support the City’s growth at a watershed and regional level.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 61
Drainage – 2016 3
PREPARED BY:
Name: Roberto Yano
Position: Senior Civil Engineer
Date: 10/23/15
Name: Boushra Salem
Position: Senior Civil Engineer
Date: 10/23/15
Name: Dave McRoberts
Position: Wastewater Collections Manager
Date: 10/23/15
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 62
Page 1
Fire - 2016
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Fire & EMS – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARD
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and s taffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls
throughout the city within 7 minutes in at least 80% of the cases (measured annually).
Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch, turnout and travel time to the building or site address.
Please complete the following table:
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%
FY 2015 12,561 78.3 6:14 3:51 1:12 1:10
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 2002-03¹ 8,088 75.5% 7:35 3:43
FY 2001-02¹ 7,626 69.7% 7:53 3:39
FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8% 7:02 3:18
FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% 3:29
Note ¹: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003. The difference in 2004
performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant .
Note ²: Through FY 2012, the data was for “Average Response Time for 80% of Calls.”
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 63
Page 2
Fire - 2016
Please provide responses to the following questions:
1. During the review period, were 80% of calls responded to within 7 minutes? If not, please
explain why.
Yes __ No __X___
There was an improvement overall in response times due to several factors . First, employees on
their own initiative noticed a time difference between the station alerting and Pulsepoint, with
Pulsepoint proving to be faster. The Fire Department added the app to all department iPads and
crews added the app to their personal devices to speed up their response (turnout times).
Second, the Fire Department initiated efforts to get response time data out to the crews. This
process was delayed due to difficulties identifying data avenues and creating reporting
processes for distribution. The process is rolling out October 2015. The Battalion Monthly Report
provided multiple performance measures, times being one of them. Third, Department moral e
has improved with transparent communication and improved trust through relationships
resulting in improved attitudes towards work.
Council approved the Fire Facility Master Plan in early 2014. 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. According to the plan, 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.
The fire department would need the following system adjustments in order to make significant
improvements to be in compliance:
Additional fire stations within the network
Additional improvements in call for service dispatch processes
Additional improvements in unit and station alerting
Improved management of response time performance to include interactive discussion
with fire crews, use of mapping capabilities, and shared data with stakeholders.
Replacement of old and failing fire apparatus within the fleet
2. During the review period, were the fire and medical units properly equipped? If not, please
explain why.
Yes No __X___
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. Down time due to more
frequent service repairs coupled with increased significant mechanical failures has an impact on
response delivery.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 64
Page 3
Fire - 2016
We continue to see a marked degradation in our fleet to include more frequent major
mechanical breakdowns. Last year the Fire Department reported to the GMOC that it would
adopt a new standard for apparatus years of service. A recommendation on apparatus
replacement is being developed for a council resolution in order to replace the existing 1985
resolution. The new resolution will include a total life cycle of 17 total years for all apparatus
compared with the existing 25 year total life cycle .
3. During the review period, were fire and medical units properly staffed? If not, please explain
why.
Yes x No _____
The Fire Facility Master Plan calls for and increase to 4.0 staffing from the current 3.0 model. 4.0
Staffing allows for improved efficiency on medical calls by providing 2 personnel for patient
assessment and care. For fire responses, 4.0 staffing improves time of initial attack on the fire
and fulfills the OSHA 2-in 2-out mandate.
4. Will current facilities, equipment and staff be able to accommodate citywide projected growth
and meet the threshold standard during the next 12-18 months? If not, please explain why.
Yes No __x___
Given the fact that the fire department has failed to meet the threshold since 2010, it is
anticipated that with or without future growth within the City, there will be an increase to call
volume which will therefore continue to hamper the department’s ability to be in compliance. In
addition, until the fleet of apparatus is replaced to a suitable standard, the Fire Department wil l
continue to see an effect on service delivery.
5. Will current facilities, equipment and staff be able to accommodate citywide projected growth
during the next five years? If not, please explain why.
Yes No __x___
Given the fact that the fire department has failed to meet the threshold since 2010, it is
anticipated that any future growth within the City will continue to hamper the department’s
ability to be in compliance. In addition, until the fleet of apparatus is replaced to a suitable
standard, the Fire Department will continue to see an effect on service delivery.
However, projected growth of Millenia and the Bayfront will consist of additional fire stations,
fire apparatus and personnel to meet the demand of said developments.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 65
Page 4
Fire - 2016
6. On the table below, please provide data on response times and calls for service by geography,
specifically by calls east of I-805 (“East”) and calls west of I-805 (“West”).
FIRE and EMS Response Times (By Geography)
Review
Period
Call
Volume
% of All Calls
Responded to
Within 7 Minutes
(Threshold = 80%)
Average Response
Time
for all Calls²
Average
Travel Time
Average
Dispatch Time
Average
Turn-out Time
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 2015 2,014 6,970 3,577 58.4 92.5 73.3 7:48 5:40 6:27 4:53 3:21 4:15 1:36 1:13 0:58 1:19 1:06 1:14
FY 2014 1,890 6,198 3,633 52.7 86.7 71.9 7:15 5:29 6:22 4:33 3:04 3:55 1:08 1:08 1:04 1:34 1:16 1:22
FY 2013 1,976 6,670 3,670 54.3 85.9 68.7 7:06 5:29 6:27 4:48 3:16 4:15 1:08 1:05 1:04 1:12 1:06 1:09
Note: “East” = Calls responded to east of I-805 (Fire Stations 6, 7 and 8 ).
“West” = Calls responded to west of I-805 (Fire Stations 1 and 5 ).
“E/W” = Calls responded to citywide (Fire Stations 2, 3, 4 and 9 ).
7. Please complete the table below.
TYPES OF CALLS RESPONDED TO
FISCAL
YEAR
% OF CALLS FOR
FIRE SERVICE
% OF CALLS FOR
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
% OF OTHER CALLS
2015 2.1 80.3 17.6
2014 2.5 70.2 27.3
2013 4.8 83.7 11.5
2012 7.2 84.6 8.2
2011
2010 4.3 85.8 9.9
8. Please report on the status of the 911”FirstWatch” dashboard program.
The Fire Department is currently using FirstWatch for response data and is reviewing the data for
accuracy. There are adjustments needed to be made in terms of how the data is captured and at
this time there is no funding for implementation of the adjustments. At this time FirstWatch
data has not been released for crew self-monitoring.
The Chula Vista Fire Department is working with San Diego Fire who is in need of the same
adjustments. It is hoped that San Diego will make the improvements on its own and that Chula
Vista may be able to benefit from it.
9. The GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report recommended that the City Manager and the Fire Chief
collaborate on implementing effective measures that improve response times and result in
threshold compliance. Please report on the progress that has been made.
Ongoing discussions have taken place with the City Manager. Discussions have included the
future implementation of smart phone technology and station alerting as well as Smart City
technology in general. Communication also includes discussion on apparatus replacement and
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 66
Page 5
Fire - 2016
repairs as well as recommendation on total years of service for all apparatus. The Fire
Department is currently working with the Finance Department to identify funding for fire
apparatus.
10. Please update the table below, including national standards.
NFPA COMPLIANCE TABLE – FY 2015
# of Calls Dispatch Turnout Travel
Total
Response
EMS - 1st Unit 12,240
Standard
1:00 1:00 4:00 6:00
Ave Time
0:50 1:10 3:50 6:09
% Compliance
77.0 41.4 64.7 62.9
Fire - 1st Unit 320
Standard
1:00 1:20 4:00 6:20
Ave Time
1:30 1:08 4:44 8:59
% Compliance
18.8 49.0 46.3 42.5
Effective Fire Force - 14FF 39
Standard
1:00 1:20 8:00 10:20
Ave Time
2:36 1:16 8:04 11:56
% Compliance
15.4 43.6 76.9 46.2
“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 st Unit Arrival – 4 minutes / 90% of the time; Standard for EMS ALS and Fire EFF – 8
minutes / 90% of the time
¹EMS = 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. No funding was allocated for this recommendation.
An effort to find solutions to the FirstWatch product deficiencies will be undertaken.
This effort is in progress with the vendor and San Diego Fire.
A method for identifying and marking times to signify actual enroute start, and end time
will be formulated. Tritech to implement and update MDC screens by adding an
Acknowledgement button to the screen.
Data will be gathered and shared at individual crew levels to solicit discussion and
awareness of crew effectiveness in terms of response times. Implementation of this
recommendation to take place October 2015.
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. No progress on this item.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 67
Page 6
Fire - 2016
PREPARED BY:
Name: Jim Geering
Title: Fire Chief
Date: 9-30-15
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 68
Fiscal - 2016
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Fiscal – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
1. Fiscal Impact Analyses and Public Facilities Financing Plans, at the time they are adopted, shall
ensure that new development generates sufficient revenue to offset the cost of providing municipal
services and facilities to that development.
2. The city shall establish and maintain, at sufficient levels to ensure the timely delivery of
infrastructure and services needed to support growth, consistent with the threshold standards, a
Development Impact Fee, capital improvement funding, and other necessary funding programs or
mechanisms.
Please provide 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(07-01-14 to 06-30-15);
b. The current fiscal year, 2015-2016; and
c. What is anticipated in the coming five years
FISCAL IMPACT REPORT
a. Fiscal Year 2014-15 (last fiscal year; 07-01-14 to 06-30-15)
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. The all funds revenue
budget of $269.2 million reflected an increase of $8.1 million when compared to the fiscal
year 2013-14 adopted budget.
The following tables summarize and compare actual revenues, expenditures, and staffing for
all funds in fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Finance Department is in the process of
completing the audited year-end financials for fiscal year 2014-15. As such, the fiscal year
2014-15 numbers presented below are unaudited and subject to change.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 69
Fiscal - 2016
Page 2
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
FY 2013-14
Actual
FY 2014-15
Actual, Unaudited
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 34,297 $ 34,796 $ 499
Sales Taxes 29,171 30,456 1,285
Other Local Taxes 33,865 36,099 2,233
Licenses and Permits 3,102 3,300 199
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 1,666 2,278 612
Use of Money & Property 6,330 5,842 (488)
Revenue from Other Agencies 50,764 48,585 (2,179)
Charges for Services 58,400 59,456 1,056
Development Impact Fees 9,784 7,526 (2,258)
Other Revenue 88,782 37,020 (51,762)
Transfers In 40,487 30,033 (10,454)
Total Revenues $356,648 $295,391 $(61,257)
Expenditures
Personnel Services $119,238 $127,778 $8,540
Supplies & Services 55,286 54,628 (658)
Other Expenses 91,816 39,666 (52,150)
Capital 1,773 3,038 1,265
Transfers Out 40,487 30,033 (10,454)
CIP Project Expenditures 17,648 21,051 3,403
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 3,195 1,026 (2,168)
Utilities 7,977 7,709 (267)
Total Expenditures $337,420 $284,931 $(52,489)
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2013-14
Actual
FY 2014-15
Actual, Unaudited
Increase/
(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
Federal Grants Fund 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) 256,139 257,989 1,850
FTEs per 1,000 population 3.71 3.72 0.02
Fiscal year 2013-14 actuals reflect the refunding of the previously issued Police Facility debt
(2002 COP replaced by 2014 Refunding COP). Receiving and expending the bond proceeds of
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 70
Fiscal - 2016
Page 3
the 2014 Refunding COP results in the significant year-to-year variances in the Other Revenue
and Other Expenditure categories shown in the previous table.
b. Fiscal Year 2015-16 (current fiscal year)
On June 16, 2015, the City Council adopted the fiscal year 2015-16 operating and capital
budgets. The adopted all funds budget totaled $293.4 million, including a General Fund
operating budget of $139.3 million, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $27.5
million, $35.5 million in interfund transfers, and $91.1 million in operating budgets for other
City funds, including Sewer, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Development
Services, Transit, and Fleet. The fiscal year 2015-16 budget assumed all funds revenues
totaling $277.7 million, including $139.4 in General Fund revenues.
The Finance Department is in the process of completing the audited year-end financials for
fiscal year 2014-15. As such, the fiscal year 2014-15 numbers presented below are unaudited
and subject to change. The following tables summarize and compare revenues, expenditures,
and staffing for all funds in fiscal year 2014-15 (actual, unaudited) and 2015-16 (adopted
budget).
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
FY 2014-15
Actual,Unaudited
FY 2015-16
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes $34,796 $36,305 $1,509
Sales Taxes 30,456 30,456 -
Other Local Taxes 36,099 31,273 (4,826)
Licenses and Permits 3,300 3,381 81
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 2,278 1,776 (501)
Use of Money & Property 5,842 3,443 (2,399)
Revenue from Other Agencies 48,585 50,594 2,009
Charges for Services 59,456 47,270 (12,187)
Development Impact Fees 7,526 5,467 (2,060)
Other Revenue 37,020 32,163 (4,857)
Transfers In 30,033 35,549 5,516
Total Revenues $295,391 $277,676 $(17,715)
Expenditures
Personnel Services $127,778 $131,249 $3,471
Supplies & Services 54,628 55,428 799
Other Expenses 39,666 28,900 (10,767)
Capital 3,038 3,402 364
Transfers Out 30,033 35,549 5,516
CIP Project Expenditures 21,051 27,519 6,468
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 1,026 2,221 1,194
Utilities 7,709 9,149 1,439
Total Expenditures $284,931 $293,415 $8,485
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 71
Fiscal - 2016
Page 4
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2014-15
Actual
FY 2015-16
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
General Fund
Legislative/ Administrative 106.00 111.00 5.00
Development/ Maintenance 204.25 205.75 1.50
Public Safety 457.50 458.50 1.00
Community Services 38.50 39.50 1.00
General Fund Subtotal 806.25 814.75 8.50
Other Funds
Advanced Life Support 1.00 1.00 -
Development Services 45.50 44.50 (1.00)
Police Grants/ CBAG 40.00 36.00 (4.00)
Federal Grants Fund 2.00 3.00 1.00
Environmental Services 5.00 6.00 1.00
Housing Authority 4.00 4.00 -
Fleet Management 10.00 10.00 -
Transit 1.00 - (1.00)
Sewer 46.00 46.00 -
Other Funds Subtotal 154.50 150.50 (4.00)
Total All Funds 960.75 965.25 4.50
Population (as of January 1) 257,989 257,989 -
FTEs per 1,000 population 3.72 3.74 0.02
c. Five-Year Forecast (fiscal year 2015-16 through fiscal year 2019-20)
A Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2015-16 through 2019-20 was developed in
conjunction with the fiscal year 2015-16 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 Five-Year
Financial Forecast does not assume new revenues or expenditures related to new
development projects – the forecast reflects the continuation of current service levels.
The key assumptions used 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. Inflation 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.
Major Revenues
All discretionary revenues will continue to grow during the forecast period. An
economic slowdown or recession is not anticipated during the forecast period.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 72
Fiscal - 2016
Page 5
Base assessed property values 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.
The fiscal year 2015-16 projection for Franchise Fees reflects the annualized revenues
for the new agreement negotiated by the City during fiscal year 2015. After the initial
increase, this revenue source is anticipated to grow at approximately 2% per fiscal
year.
As of fiscal year 2014-15, the City began to recognize Utility Users’ Tax revenues
related to wireless telephone services. However, projected revenues for this category
fall short of budget in fiscal year 2014-15. The Forecast reflects this trend in the form
of a lower base in fiscal year 2015-16 and then a small positive increase in the
remaining forecast years.
Expenditures
Personnel Services for fiscal year 2015-16 reflect the annualized cost of the salary
increases approved for miscellaneous employees during fiscal year 2014-15. At the
time of budget development, the City was in negotiations with CVEA, WCE,
MM/PROF, and unrepresented employee groups. The estimated cost for Personnel
Services in the forecast reflects current staffing levels, adjusted to reflect the City’s
wage proposals as of May 2015. Future forecasts will be updated to reflect the final
agreements with the bargaining groups. The forecast reflects known wage increases
for the POA (Police) and IAFF (Fire) bargaining groups.
Flex Plan increases are based on 5% health care premium increases per fiscal year
based on historical trends.
Retirements costs are based on the October 2014 Annual Valuation Report provided
by CalPERS and reflects the estimated increases based on CalPERS achieving a 7.5%
return on investment. The change in mortality assumptions is now reflected in the
estimated CalPERS rates and will impact contribution rates beginning in fiscal year
2016-17.
Beginning in fiscal year 2015-16, budgeted Salary Savings is based on 2% of projected
Salary/PERS/Medicare expenditures.
No additional personnel are assumed in the forecast with the exception of Police
grant funded positions, which will be absorbed by the General Fund as the grant
funding phases out.
The Workers Compensation Fund is close to depleting its fund balance. The Workers
Compensation charges allocated to the General Fund will need to increase in order to
fund anticipated Workers Compensation expenditures and to begin rebuilding
reserves.
Other expenditures include anticipated costs for utilities, supplies and services,
equipment, and other expenses.
Other Items to be Considered (New)
The Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years 2015-16 through 2019-20 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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 73
Fiscal - 2016
Page 6
The cost of replacing breathing apparatus in the Fire Department.
Equipment replacement costs to address the needs of an aging fleet.
Costs associated with upgrading the Computer Aided Dispatch system in the Police
Department.
The City is undertaking an asset management program/study to identify Citywide
Infrastructure needs and develop a financing plan. The Forecast does not include any
funding recommendations from the asset management studies.
The following table presents the updated Five-Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years
2015-16 to 2019-20, as presented to the City Council in May 2015 and updated to reflect
the final fiscal year 2015-16 adopted budget. The deficit is larger, when taking into
account major equipment purchases. Staff will continue to monitor economic trends and
refine estimates as needed.
Five-Year Financial Forecast (FY 2015-16 through FY 2019-20)
Description
FY 2015-16
Adopted
FY 2016-17
Forecast
FY 2017-18
Forecast
FY 2018-19
Forecast
FY 2019-20
Forecast
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 29,896,924 $ 31,025,057 $ 32,197,474 $ 33,437,151 $ 34,725,755
Sales Tax 31,014,797 32,079,410 33,041,792 34,033,046 35,054,037
Franchise Fees 11,426,283 11,659,227 11,897,123 12,140,078 12,388,203
Utility Users' Taxes 6,500,000 6,565,000 6,630,650 6,696,957 6,763,926
Transient Occupancy Taxes 2,890,853 2,977,579 3,066,906 3,158,913 3,253,681
Motor Vehicle License Fees 18,597,204 19,338,951 20,110,325 20,912,510 21,746,738
Other Revenues 39,480,108 38,154,056 38,249,996 38,522,209 38,758,446
Total Revenues $ 139,806,169 $ 141,799,280 $ 145,194,266 $ 148,900,864 $ 152,690,786
Expenditures
Personnel Services $ 80,202,814 $ 82,436,571 $ 82,777,087 $ 82,777,087 $ 82,777,087
Flex/Insurance 11,956,918 12,384,033 12,835,305 13,304,942 13,793,757
PERS 21,289,940 23,182,784 25,334,366 26,523,510 27,713,208
Pension Smoothing - (454,000) (454,000) (454,000) (454,000)
Salary Savings (On-Going) (1,738,037) (1,772,296) (1,803,816) (1,826,990) (1,850,178)
Absorption of PD Grant Positions - 480,119 554,381 629,820 644,054
Workers Comp GF Liability - 225,533 238,683 252,097 265,779
Other Expenditures 28,094,534 28,032,954 28,694,296 29,235,769 29,859,648
Total Expenditures $ 139,806,169 $ 144,515,698 $ 148,176,302 $ 150,442,235 $ 152,749,355
Surplus/(Deficit) $ - $ (2,716,418) $ (2,982,036) $ (1,541,371) $ (58,569)
Other Items to be Considered
RCS Financing $ - $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000
RCS Radios - 1,500,000 - - -
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) - - 1,600,000 - -
Fire Dept. Breathing Apparatus - 600,000 - - -
Vehicle Replacement (Priority 1) - 1,659,500 1,069,000 1,009,000 1,250,000
Total Other Items $ - $ 3,759,500 $ 3,069,000 $ 1,409,000 $ 1,650,000
Surplus/(Deficit) with Other Items $ - $ (6,475,918) $ (6,051,036) $ (2,950,371) $ (1,708,569)
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 74
Fiscal - 2016
Page 7
2. According to the updated Fiscal Impact Report how is the city’s current fiscal health and how
does it affect the city’s ability to provide the facilities and services required by the Growth
Management Program’s Threshold Standards?
The City financial outlook is more stable than it has been in recent years. Positive revenue growth,
implementation of efficiency measures, the cooperation of City labor groups, and strong Council
leadership have helped stabilize the City’s financial base.
As summarized in the Five-Year Financial 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 compared to previous forecasts. Staff anticipates
addressing these deficits without further impacts to service levels.
The City’s current and projected service levels are determined by the both the resources available
and the efficient application of those resources. The City continues to seek new ways to maximize
limited resources to deliver high quality services to our community.
3. Are there are growth-related fiscal issues facing the city? If so, please explain.
At this time, as a result of the significant slowdown in development, we do not anticipated fiscal
issues resulting from new development. The fiscal challenges faced by the City since the recession
are the result of the significant issues around the housing market and the slowdown in the overall
economy.
4. Please update the table below:
REVENUE COLLECTED FOR GENERAL FUND
SOURCE FY 15 FY 141 FY 13 FY 12 FY 11 FY 10 FY 092 FY 083 FY 07 FY 06 FY 05
Sales Tax 30.39 29.17 28.63 27.28 26.70 23.67 25.59 28.30 28.83 26.72 23.60
Property Taxes 28.62 27.45 27.88 24.52 24.71 25.73 29.26 29.31 26.67 22.19 18.13
Motor Vehicle
License Fees 17.88 16.77 16.25 16.29 16.94 17.70 19.90 19.80 17.68 18.35 13.94
Franchise Fees 10.83 8.85 9.27 8.40 8.26 8.47 9.38 9.66 8.81 9.49 9.84
Charges for
Services
7.90 7.94 8.36 7.58 6.45 7.17 7.00 14.47 16.26 15.23 14.48
Utility Users Tax 6.36 17.53 4.43 3.47 4.94 9.06 7.85 7.38 6.98 6.36 6.58
Other 38.27 34.65 36.00 34.17 40.73 38.97 41.53 45.02 56.34 59.46 51.19
SUM $ 140.26 142.36 130.81 121.70 128.74 130.78 140.50 153.94 161.56 157.81 137.76
PER CAPITA $ 543.67 555.79 519.89 490.35 523.38 536.60 586.97 652.92 697.61 695.69 626.37
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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 75
Fiscal - 2016
Page 8
EXPENSES FROM GENERAL FUND
FY 15 FY 14 FY 13 FY 12 FY 11 FY10 FY 09 FY 08 FY 07 FY 06 FY 05
Police 46.48 44.28 42.66 41.99 43.10 43.70 45.40 47.77 49.63 45.34 42.54
Public Works 25.54 24.93 23.82 22.97 23.80 24.62 26.86 32.58 38.27 37.04 31.86
Fire 25.11 24.40 24.03 22.43 21.81 22.09 23.13 24.35 22.72 21.31 17.93
Support4 8.59 8.36 8.21 8.10 9.56 9.63 11.34 11.61 12.31 12.10 9.96
Community Svcs5 7.27 6.93 6.55 6.68 7.90 9.82 12.95 15.07 16.91 15.89 14.23
Non-Dprtmental6 10.83 17.69 10.93 14.07 10.49 9.81 10.10 5.31 3.60 5.47 3.17
Admin/Legislative7 7.65 6.96 6.43 5.83 5.61 5.64 8.15 8.16 8.90 9.04 8.97
Other8 5.22 4.82 4.90 4.97 5.62 5.93 2.42 10.17 13.72 14.64 13.52
SUM $ 136.70 138.37 127.53 127.03 127.89 131.24 140.37 155.02 166.06 160.83 142.20
PER CAPITA $ 529.87 540.23 506.84 511.83 519.91 538.51 586.40 657.52 717.01 708.99 646.52
5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW (7/1/14– 6/30/15) (UNAUDITED)
DIF FUND CURRENT
DIF 9
During Reporting Period FUND
BALANCE
(Unaudited)
Date DIF Last
Comprehensively
Updated
Date of Last
DIF
Adjustment
Next
Scheduled
DIF Update
Amount
Collected
Amount
Expended10
Eastern Transportation DIF 13,330/EDU 793,718 817,759 23,063,170 Nov-14 Oct-15 Oct-16
Western Transportation DIF 4,004/EDU 98,837 7,400 238,966 Nov-14 Oct-15 Oct-16
Bayfront Transportation DIF 9,678/EDU - - - Nov-14 Oct-15 Oct-16
Traffic Signal 36.01/Trip 444,879 160,827 2,138,448 Oct-02 Oct-15 Oct-16
Telegraph Canyon Drainage 4,579/Acre 39,520 1,294,219 4,875,239 Apr-98 N/A 2016
Telegraph Canyon
Gravity Sewer11 216.50/EDU 8,554 - 1,122,600 Sep-98 N/A Unscheduled
Salt Creek Sewer Basin12 1,360/EDU 62,091 4,288,422 1,535,614 Jun-15 Oct-15 Unscheduled
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin13 265/EDU 121,352 641 2,488,831 Jun-09 N/A Unscheduled
Pedestrian Bridges - Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 1,114/SFDU 195,754 - 1,067,204 Feb-07 N/A 2016
- Otay Ranch Village 11 2,390/SFDU 19,906 342 3,097,198 Sep-05 Oct-15 Oct-16
- Millenia (EUC) 615/SFDU 125,145 - 125,145 Aug-13 N/A Unscheduled
Public Facilities - Administration 620/SFDU 365,793 241,646 4,700,947 Nov-06 Oct-15 Oct-16
- Civic Center Expansion 2,835/SFDU 1,572,673 3,200,522 5,094,395 "" "" ""
- Police Facility 1,725/SFDU 1,026,419 1,588,503 (3,339,488) "" "" ""
- Corp. Yard Relocation 465/SFDU 233,254 844,734 1,646,542 "" "" ""
- Libraries 1,627/SFDU 1,005,819 - 13,272,648 "" "" ""
- Fire Suppression
Systems 1,433/SFDU 709,303 - (9,624,765) "" "" ""
- Recreation Facilities 1,235/SFDU 684,705 - (2,757,308) "" "" ""
PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL 14 9,940/SFDU 5,597,966 5,875,405 8,992,971 Nov-06 Oct-15 Oct-16
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.
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 Consistent with last year’s report, 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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 76
Fiscal - 2016
Page 9
For each of the DIF funds:
a. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next 12-18 months? If
not, how will the projects be funded?
b. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next five years? If not,
how will the projects be funded?
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.
For each of the funds, the available fund balance as of June 30, 2015 is listed on the
Development Impact Fee Overview table on page 8. The adequacy of these funds to complete
projects necessitated by either the 12-to-18-month or the 5-year forecasted growth will be
determined by a number of factors, including the actual rate of development (likely to fall
significantly below the rate of development projected in the GMOC Forecast Report); and
other fund obligations. These other obligations include debt service, capital acquisitions, and
program administration costs.
In addition to these obligations, the City has created a debt service reserve in the PFDIF fund,
which has a significant future debt service obligation. The creation and anticipated use of this
debt service reserve is shown in the ‘PFDIF Projected Cash Flow: FY 2005-06 through Build-out’
included as Attachment 2 to this report. The debt service reserve funding target is equivalent
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 77
Fiscal - 2016
Page 10
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.
c. In the table below, please indicate whether the existing DIF fund is adequate or needs to be
revised. If a fund needs to be revised, please provide a timeframe for accomplishing the
revision.
DIF FUND ADEQUATE /
REVISE
TRANSPORTATION
(Eastern, Western, & Bayfront) Adequate
TRAFFIC SIGNAL Adequate
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE Adequate
TELEGRAPH CANYON GRAVITY SEWER Adequate
SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN Adequate
POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN Adequate
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 Adequate
Otay Ranch Village 11 Adequate
Millenia (EUC) Adequate
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Administration, Civic Center Expansion Adequate
Police Facility, Corp. Yard Relocation, Adequate
Libraries, Fire Suppression Systems Revise – 2016
Recreation Facilities Revise - 2016
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. Estimated date of
delivery has been provided; however, it should be noted that actual delivery will vary depending
upon availability of funds.
The remaining PFDIF projects are as follows (listed in order of construction priority):
Priority Description Estimated Schedule
1 Rancho del Rey Library FY 2020-21 thru FY 2023-24
2 Millenia (formerly Eastern Urban Center) Fire Station FY 2024-25 thru FY 2025-26
3/4 Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatics Center and Recreation Facility FY 2026-27 thru FY 2029-30
5 Millenia (formerly Eastern Urban Center) Library FY 2032-33 thru FY 2035-36
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).
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 78
Fiscal - 2016
Page 11
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 2014-15 all funds actual debt expenditures totaled $9.8 million. The fiscal year 2015-16
debt expenditure budget totals $9.8 million. Please note, the above figures reflect the following
assumptions:
Includes bonded debt
Excludes equipment leases
Excludes interfund loan repayments
Includes principal, interest and arbitrage payments
Includes monies expended by the trustee and directly out of City funds
Includes debt service expenditures in all City funds, including General Fund, PFDIF and
Residential Construction Tax (RCT).
8. Please provide an update on the city’s government bonds debt.
As of the end of fiscal year 2014-15, the City had $117.6 million (unaudited) in outstanding debt in
the form of Certificates of Participation (COPs). The City has no outstanding general obligation
debt. In 2015, all of the 2004 COPs and a portion of the 2006 COPs issued to finance Phases 1 and
2 of the Civic Center renovation project were refunded. Annual all funds savings of $225,000 are
projected to result from the refunding ($38,000 General Fund, $187,000 PFDIF).
9. Please provide a financial comparative analysis of projects adopted and completed over the past
10 years.
Question eliminated per email dated November 17, 2015.
10. Please list new roads and improvements to existing roads that will be funded through TDIF
funds through 2019, indicating names, locations and construction schedules.
Question eliminated per email dated November 17, 2015. Requested info included in Traffic
Questionnaire.
11. Please provide median income by zip code.
Zip Code Median Income15
91910 $ 61,378
91911 $ 56,100
91913 $ 98,809
91914 $ 105,561
91915 $ 111,349
15 Source: SANDAG Demographic & Socio Economic Estimates for 2014. Median Household Income values current as of 2013.
http://datasurfer.sandag.org/dataoverview
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 79
Fiscal - 2016
Page 12
12. How much sales tax did Chula Vista collect per capita compared to other cities in the county?
The following table provides the sales tax per capita for each city in San Diego County, for calendar year
2014. The amounts provided represent point of sale transactions and revenues from the county pool.
City Sales Tax per Capita
Del Mar 418
Carlsbad 300
National City 275
Poway 254
Escondido 223
El Cajon 221
Solana Beach 216
La Mesa 206
Encinitas 205
Santee 199
San Diego 190
Lemon Grove 189
Vista 180
San Marcos 176
Coronado 144
Chula Vista 119
Oceanside 115
Imperial Beach 36
13. 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.
PREPARED BY:
Name: David Bilby
Title: Director of Finance
Name: Tiffany Allen
Title: Assistant Director of Development Services
Date: December 18, 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 80
Description of Fee:
Amount of the Fee:13,330$ per single family dwelling unit (low density)
10,664$ per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit (med density)
7,998$ per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit (high density)
213,287$ per general commercial gross acre
119,974$ per industrial gross acre
Beginning Balance, 07/01/14 23,087,210$
Revenues
TDIF Fees Collected 635,882
Interest Earned (includes interfund loan interest)157,837
Total Revenues 793,718
Expenditures
City Staff Services (88,077)
Transfer-Out (6,444)
CIP Project Expenditures (723,238)
Total Expenditures (817,759)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/15 23,063,170$
SCHEDULE A
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
FY 14/15 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 591
TRANSPORTATION DIF
To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development in
eastern areas of Chula Vista.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 81
Project Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
Project Expenditures as of 6/30/15 Funded by DIF Appropriations Scheduled
OP206 Automation - AutoCAD Upgrade -$ 50,000 40.00%- 2010
OP208 CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase - 75,000 36.40%- 2009
STL261 Willow St Bridge Widening 223,118 2,896,260 43.60%1,090,458 1999
STL384 Willow Street Bridge Utility Relocation 169,158 467,638 10.10%- 2012
STM331 98 E. Orange Extension 24,338 3,959,904 100.00%- 1999
STM350 South Circulation Network - 185,000 100.00%- 2003
STM355 Otay Lakes Road Widening, East H to Canyon 125,072 7,720,000 96.30%- 2003
STM357 Rock Mtn Rd - Heritage to La Media 690 257,000 100.00%- 2004
STM382 Bike Lane along East H Street 76,948 200,000 100.00%2,000,000 2015
STM359 Rock Mtn Rd - SR125 Overpass 6,535 300,000 100.00%- 2010
STM364 Heritage Road Bridge Reconstrc - 2,774,510 52.40%- 2007
STM374 Heritage Road - Olympic to Main 1,108 150,000 100.00%- 2012
STM375 SR125 at San Miguel Ranch - 1/2 Interchange 70 172,869 100.00%- 2012
TF325 Transportation Planning Program 40,984 420,000 64.60%- 2007
TF357 SR125 Corridor and Arterial Ops 2,350 50,000 100.00%- 2007
TF364 TDIF (Trans Dev Impact Fund) Update 49,357 255,000 100.00%- 2007
TF379 Traffic Mgmt Center - Traffic Monitoring System 3,511 450,000 100.00%- 2012
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 723,239$ 20,383,181$
Outstanding
Description of Loan Loan Amount
Advance to PFDIF (Fire Suppression)10,385,959$
affirmed and consolidated via Council Resolution No. 2015-033 on February 17, 2015
Description
FY 14/15 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:
SCHEDULE A.1
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
FY 14/15 CIP EXPENDITURES:
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 82
Description of Fee:
Amount of the Fee:4,004$ per single family dwelling unit (low density)
3,203$ per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit (med density)
2,402$ per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit (high density)
64,074$ per street front/retail commercial gross acre
36,042$ per industrial park gross acre
Beginning Balance, 07/01/14 147,529$
Revenues
WTDIF Fees Collected 90,930
Interest Earned 1,463
Transfer-In 6,444
Total Revenues 98,837
Expenditures
CIP Project Expenditures (7,400)
Total Expenditures (7,400)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/15 238,966$
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DIF
FUND 593
SCHEDULE B
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
FY 14/15 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development in
western areas of Chula Vista.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 83
Project Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
Project Expenditures as of 6/30/15 Funded by DIF Appropriations Scheduled
STM381 So Brdwy Imprv Main 2 Sthrn Limit 7,400$ 94,725 5.04%2015
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 7,400$ 94,725$
FY 14/15 CIP EXPENDITURES:
Description
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE B.1
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 84
Description of Fee:
Amount of the Fee:36.01$ per trip
Beginning Balance, 07/01/14 1,854,396$
Revenues
Traffic Signal Fees Collected 279,738
Interest Earned 12,978
Miscellaneous Revenues 126,426
Transfer-In 25,737
Total Revenues 444,879
Expenditures
City Staff Services (931)
CIP Project Expenditures (159,895)
Total Expenditures (160,827)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/15 2,138,448$
FY 14/15 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
FUND 225
TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
SCHEDULE C
To finance the construction of traffic signal improvements required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development
citywide.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 85
Project Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
Project Expenditures as of 6/30/15 Funded by Fee Appropriations Scheduled
OP206 General Services Automation - AutoCad Upgrade -$ 13,000 10.40%- 2010
OP208 CIP Mngmnt & Equipment Purchase - 40,000 19.43%- 2009
STL394 Moss St. Corridor Imprv between 3rd&4th 57,275 60,000 12.51%2013
STM381 So Brdwy Imprv Main to Southern Limit 34,445 150,000 7.99%43,180 2015
TF319 Signal Modification - Anita & Industrial 3,432 254,536 56.00%- 2014
TF337 Traffic Left Turn Modification Program 3,173 226,649 100.00%- 2006
TF366 Trafc Sgnl & Stlight Upgrd/Mtn - 255,913 18.95%- 2009
TF371 Traffic Modification Hilltop Dr & Main Street 6,756 234,882 100.00%- 2010
TF374 Mod Traffic Signal/Equip. 3rd&I and 3rd&K 3,967 200,000 100.00%50,000 2011
TF375 Traffic Signal Mod at “F” St. and Fourth Ave. Intersection 2,412 350,000 100.00%- 2013
TF376 Mod Traffic Signal Modification at 3rd&K 360 80,000 22.09%- 2011
TF382 Traffic Signal Mod at 3rd & Naples 19,852 20,000 4.76%- 2013
TF383 Traffic Signal Install at Industrial & Moss 11,417 50,000 16.67%- 2013
TF388 Traffic Signal Modification at 4 Intersections 8,827 270,000 27.28%- 2015
TF389 Adaptive Traffic Signal System Expansion 6,043 100,000 15.42%- 2015
TF390 Traffic Signal & Ped Fac Modification Palomar 1,938 250,000 100.00%- 2015
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 159,897$ 2,554,980$
Description
FY 14/15 CIP EXPENDITURES:
SCHEDULE C.1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 86
Description of Fee:
Amount of the Fee:4,579$ per acre
Beginning Balance, 07/01/14 6,129,938$
Revenues
Interest Earned 39,520
Total Revenues 39,520
Expenditures
CIP Project Expenditures (1,294,219)
Total Expenditures (1,294,219)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/15 4,875,239$
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE D
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (TC DRAINAGE DIF)
For construction of Telegraph Canyon channel between Paseo Ladera and the Eastlake Business Center and for a portion of the channel
west of I-805.
FY 14/15 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
TC DRAINAGE DIF
FUND 542
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 87
Project Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
Project Expenditures as of 6/30/15 Funded by DIF Appropriations Scheduled
DR182 Telegraph Canyon Channel Improvement K-1st - 50,000 100.00%- 2010
DR183 Telegraph Canyon Drainage Study 345 1,600,000 100.00%- 2010
DR199 Telegraph Canyon Rd Erosion Repair 1,293,850 1,800,000 100.00%2015
DR167 Telegraph Canyon Drainage Study Third & L 23 47,167 100.00%- 2006
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 1,294,218$ 3,497,167$
FY 14/15 CIP EXPENDITURES:
Description
SCHEDULE D.1
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (TC DRAINAGE DIF)
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 88
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: For the expansion of trunk sewer within the basin for tributary properties.
Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF: For the planning, design, construction and/or financing of the facilities.
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF: For the construction of a trunk sewer in the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin from a proposed
regional trunk sewer west of I-805 along Olympic Parkway to the boundary of Eastlake.
Amount of the fee:
FUND 431 FUND 432 FUND 433
TC GRAVITY PC SEWER SC SEWER
SEWER DIF BASIN DIF BASIN DIF
per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached 216.50$ 265.00$ 1,360.00$
per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached 216.50$ 265.00$ 1,360.00$
per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 162.38$ 198.75$ 1,020.00$
Commercial land use $216.50/edu $265/edu $1,360/edu
Industrial land use $216.50/edu $265/edu $1,360/edu
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE E
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 89
FUND 431 FUND 432 FUND 433
TC GRAVITY PC SEWER SC SEWER
SEWER DIF BASIN DIF BASIN DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/2014 1,114,046$ 2,368,120$ 5,761,944$
Revenues
DIF Fees Collected - 102,825 63,508
Interest Earned 8,554 18,528 (1,416)
Total Revenues 8,554 121,352 62,091
Expenditures
Supplies & Services - - (46,276)
City Staff Services - - (13,920)
Interfund Loan Repayment - - (4,228,226)
CIP Project Expenditures - (641) -
Total Expenditures - (641) (4,288,422)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/15 1,122,600$ 2,488,831$ 1,535,614$
Project Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
Project Expenditures as of 6/30/15 Funded by DIF Appropriations Scheduled
SW284 Poggi Canyon Trunk Swr Upgrade Reach 641$ 300,000 100.00%- 2014
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 641$ 300,000$
FY 14/15 CIP EXPENDITURES:
Description
FY 14/15 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION:
SCHEDULE E.1
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 90
Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 587
Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 588
Otay Ranch Millenia Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Millenia EUC Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 718
Description of Fee:
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 FUND 718
OR VILLAGE 1, 2, 5 & 6 OR VILLAGE 11 EUC MILLENIA
PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF
per single family equivalent dwelling unit 1,114$ 2,390$ 615.13$
per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 826$ 1,776$ 456.10$
OR Village 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF:
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE F
OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 91
FUND 587 FUND 588 FUND 718
OR VILLAGE 1, 2, 5 & 6 OR VILLAGE 11 EUC MILLENIA
PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/2014 871,450$ 3,077,634$ -$
Revenues
DIF Fees Collected 189,430 - 124,515
Interest Earned 6,324 19,906 630
Total Revenues 195,754 19,906 125,145
Expenditures
City Staff Services - (342)
Total Expenditures - (342) -
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/15 1,067,204$ 3,097,198$ 125,145$
FY 14/15 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
SCHEDULE F.1
OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 92
Description of Fee and Amount:
Admistration $620- Administration of the Public Facilities DIF program, overseeing of expenditures and revenues collected, preparation of updates, calculation of costs, etc.
Corporation Yard Relocation $465 - Relocation of the City's Public Works Center from the bay front area to the more centrally located site on Maxwell Road.
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
Civic Center Expansion $2,835 - 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 $1,725 - 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.
Libraries $1,627 - 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 $1,433 - 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.
SCHEDULE G
PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF)
Major Recreation Facilities $1,235 – New component adopted in November 2002 to build major recreation facilities created by new development such as community centers,
gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen centers.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 93
Police Corp Yard Fire Supp.Rec.
Gen. Admin.Civic Center (1)Facility Relocation Libraries System Facilities
571 567/572 573 574 575 576 582 TOTAL
Beginning Balance, 07/01/14 4,576,800$ 6,722,244$ (2,777,404)$ 2,258,022$ 12,266,829$ (10,334,068)$ (3,442,012)$ 9,270,409$
Revenues
DIF Revenues 335,937 1,528,283 1,034,870 220,299 922,634 628,577 700,992 5,371,592
Investment Earnings 29,856 44,390 (8,451) 12,955 83,185 (59,612) (16,287) 86,036
Transfer In - - - - - 140,338 - 140,338
Total Revenues 365,793 1,572,673 1,026,419 233,254 1,005,819 709,303 684,705 5,597,966
Expenditures
Personnel Services Total (1,958) - - - - - - (1,958)
City Staff Services (99,349) - - - - - - (99,349)
Transfer Out (140,338) (3,200,522) (1,588,503) (844,734) - - - (5,774,097)
Total Expenditures (241,646) (3,200,522) (1,588,503) (844,734) - - - (5,875,405)
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/15 4,700,947$ 5,094,395$ (3,339,488)$ 1,646,542$ 13,272,648$ (9,624,765)$ (2,757,308)$ 8,992,971$
NOTE:(1) This fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adamo property in Fund 567.
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE G.1
PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF)
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 94
Description of Fee: In lieu fee for providing neighborhood and community park facilities.
Areas East of I-805
Acquisition
Fee
Development
Fee
Total
Fee
Amount of the Fee:12,676$ 5,364$ 18,040$ per single family dwelling unit
9,408$ 3,980$ 13,388$ per multi-family dwelling unit
5,932$ 2,511$ 8,443$ per mobile home dwelling unit
Areas West of I-805
Amount of the Fee:4,994$ 5,364$ 10,358$ per single family dwelling unit
3,707$ 3,980$ 7,687$ per multi-family dwelling unit
2,337$ 2,511$ 4,848$ per mobile home dwelling unit
FUND 715 FUND 716
EAST PAD FUND WEST PAD FUND
Beginning Balance, 07/01/14 38,481,015$ 645,766$
Revenues
Park Dedication Fees 908,574 163,663
Interest Earned (includes interfund loan interest)258,732 5,600
Total Revenues 1,167,306 169,263
Expenditures
CIP Project Expenditures (15,782) -
Total Expenditures (15,782) -
Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/151 39,632,540$ 815,029$
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE H
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)
FY 14/15 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 95
Project Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
Project Expenditures as of 6/30/15 Funded by PAD Appropriations Scheduled
PR261 Otay Ranch Community Park -$ 697,764 100.00%- 2009
PR308 P-3 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)15,440 122,000 100.00%- 2009
PR309 P-2 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)342 122,000 100.00%- 2009
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 15,782$ 941,764$
Outstanding
Description of Loan Loan Amount
Advance from Eastern PAD Fund to Western PAD Fund
affirmed and consolidated via Council Resolution No. 2015-034 on February 17, 2015 10,150,827$
1The 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.
FY 14/15 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:
Description
SCHEDULE H.1
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)
FY 14/15 ACTIVITY
FY 14/15 CIP EXPENDITURES:
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 96
PFDIF Cash Flow: FY 2005-06 through Build-out
Actual Estimated Estimated Program Total
Increment 1 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Increment 3 Increment 4
2006 - 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 & 2018 FY 2019 & 2020 2021 - 2030 2031 - Build-out 2006 - Build-out
Beginning Fund Balance 24,427,641 1,092,009 5,138,723 8,578,173 10,712,383 9,270,409 8,992,971 8,159,885 12,250,313 14,796,164 12,180,076 24,427,641
REVENUES
DIF Fee Revenues 25,264,894 4,208,203 3,122,330 6,808,865 4,554,724 5,371,593 8,080,151 19,632,237 19,686,042 116,460,465 49,050,750 262,240,254
#Investment Earnings 1,223,226 (8,850) 58,366 (220,306) 211,858 86,036 - - - 1,350,330
Misc / Other Revenues 18,846,016 - 310,395 - 194,760 - - - - 19,351,171
TOTAL REVENUES 45,334,136 4,199,353 3,491,091 6,588,559 4,961,342 5,457,629 8,080,151 19,632,237 19,686,042 116,460,465 49,050,750 282,941,755
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 5,633,759 7,955,562 13,626,460 15,224,841 61,800,311 24,200,654 161,442,865
Non CIP Expenditures 3,736,669 83,447 600 233,007 294,448 101,308 957,675 1,915,350 1,915,350 9,576,752 2,800,000 21,614,606
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,669,769 152,639 51,641 4,454,349 6,403,313 5,735,067 8,913,237 15,541,810 17,140,191 119,076,553 54,361,553 300,500,121
Ending Fund Balance 1,092,009 5,138,723 8,578,173 10,712,383 9,270,409 8,992,971 8,159,885 12,250,313 14,796,164 12,180,076 6,869,273 6,869,275
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 3,192,971 2,359,885 6,450,313 8,996,164 6,780,076 6,869,273 6,869,275
Anticipated Development
Single Family Units 1,823 353 324 350 57 118 36 202 12 1,673 - 4,948.00
Multifamily Units 1,400 508 157 604 526 901 616 1,464 1,413 9,628 5,250 22,467.00
Commercial Acres 22 - - - - - 46 98 156 196 - 518.41
Industrial Acres 16 - - - - - 71 142 216 436 - 881.52
Residential Subtotal 645 861 481 954 583 1,019 652 833 713 1,130 656.25 27,415
Average Average Average Total
INCREMENT 2
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 97
1
Libraries 2016
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Libraries – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARD
The city shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) of library space, adequately
equipped and staffed, per 1,000 residents.
LIBRARIES
Population
Total Gross Square
Footage of Library
Facilities
Gross Square Feet of Library
Facilities Per 1000 Residents
Threshold
X
X
500 Sq. Ft.
5-Year Projection (2020) 281,942
97,412 (a)
134,412 (b)
129,009 (c)
345 (a)
476 (b)
427 (c)
12-Month Projection
(12/31/16)
261,187 97,412 373
FY 2014-15 257,362 97,412 379
FY 2013-14 256,139 97,412 380
FY 2012-13 251,613 95,412 379
FY 2011-12 249,382 92,000/95,412** 369/383**
FY 2010-11 246,496 102,000/92,000* 414/387*
FY 2009-10 233,692 102,000 436
FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437
FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441
FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448
FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457
FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464
FY 2003-04 211,800 102,000 482
*After closure of Eastlake library in 2011
**After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012
(a) Without Millenia Library completion
(b) With Millenia Library completed, retaining Otay Ranch Branch
(c) With Millenia Library completed, closing Otay Ranch Branch
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 98
2
Libraries 2016
Please provide responses to the following:
1. During the review period, were facilities adequately equipped? 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. 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 material budget also shows significant deficiencies. The statewide average annual
materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. is $3.74 per person. In
Chula Vista, the baseline budget provided by the general fund equals 15 cents per capita.
Thanks to hard work on the part of the Friends of the Library and additional grants,
donations, and funding sources we managed to pull that up to about 60 cents per capita in
FY 15.
2. During the review period, were facilities adequately staffed? If not, please explain.
Yes __________ No _____x_____
We were fortunate to add a 1.0 FTE to open the Otay Ranch Branch on Sundays. Even with
this welcome addition, the staffing picture also shows inadequate resources. According to
the most recent statistical data available (California Library Statistics 2014, 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 .42 FTE staff per 1000 people served
for libraries in jurisdictions serving 250,000 to 499,999. In Chula Vista the ratio is .16 FTE staff
per 1000 persons served.
3. Will current library facilities and staff be able to accommodate projected growth and comply with
the threshold standard during the next 12-18 months? If not, please explain.
Yes __________ No _____x_____
We expect no change in square footage in the next 12-18 months. We expect no significant
change in staff in the next 12 to 18 months.
4. Will current library facilities and staff be able to accommodate projected growth and comply with
the threshold standard during the next five years? If not, please explain.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 99
3
Libraries 2016
Yes __________ No __________
It is expected that a new full-service library in the Millenia development will be, if not
completed, at least begun during the next five years. There is a favorable outlook for the
project although it is market dependent. If bought to completion, it will bring the library
much closer to threshold compliance for sq foot per 1000, closer than at any time since
2002.
5. Please complete the table below:
LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS
Annual Attendance Annual Circulation Guest Satisfaction
FY 14/15 803,565
839,616 See attached outcomes
survey results
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 1,344,115 88%
FY 05/06 1,170,168 1,467,799 85%
FY04/05 1,121,119 1,414,295 91%
FY03/04 1,076,967 1,308,918 88%
*The Library 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.
6. What is the status of construction of a new library facility?
A developer agreement that includes a public library branch at Millenia is underway. Size is
projected to be approximately 37,000 sq ft. Talks have started and preliminary plans have
been reviewed. The project and completion date is market dependent. Construction could
start in as little as three years, or may be closer to 5 to 6 years.
7. What is the status of renovating the Civic Center Library and fully utilizing the basement of that
facility?
Several renovation projects have been completed at the Civic Center Library. The
auditorium renovation is scheduled for completion and reopening in January 2015. The new
space for the relocated Heritage Museum, moved from Third Avenue, should have its grand
opening at about the same time. San Diego County Law Library is co-locating a law library
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 100
4
Libraries 2016
outlet in Civic Center which we expect to open in spring of 2016. The “Parking Lot to Parklet”
project funded by the Chula Vista Charitable Foundation is almost completed – it has
created a public space, programmable area, and center city oasis in our drab parking lot.
Discussion and partner interest are continuing in regard to the Civic Center Library lower
level. Currently, an office and work space is being provided to the Heritage Museum Board
as part of an MOU that provides for Museum operations and maintenance. CVESD has
toured the facility and is interested in possibly locating a maker space lab there in
cooperation with Qualcomm. Another possibility is a public art space similar the ARTS (A
Reason to Survive) center currently in National City. Several charter schools of CVESD are
also interested.
8. Are there currently any plans to combine library uses with parks and recreation facilities?
The library and Parks and Rec Department continue to cooperate in programming and
outreach. The library helps support Recreation’s small onsite reading corners initially started
through Campaign for Grade Level Reading. The two departments distribute flyers for each
other’s events, and cooperate at public events, such as community fairs, to staff booths
cooperatively, and to have a variety of information available from each department. The
library department always fields “Team Library" for the Rec Department’s Community Fun
Run, and there is good representation from the Recreation Department at the Library
Foundation's annual fundraiser. We look forward to the opening of the Orange Avenue Park
for new opportunities for cooperative programs and activities.
9. Please provide an update on any other potential possibilities for providing library services.
Expanded hours at the Otay Ranch Branch began in October 2016. The new schedule adds
Sunday hours (12 noon to 6 pm ) and lengthens service on Fridays and Saturday
(previously12 -6, now 11 -7).
The South County Regional Office of Health and Human Services on Oxford Street is installing
a 24/7 book and video kiosk to be operated by the County Library.
We’re creating a new “Digital Access” status and library card to give students access to our
wi-fi, computers and research and homework databases.
The library has been accepted into Phase 2 of the CENIC Broadband access program
funded by the CA State Library which will increase our broadband and wi-fi speed capacity
500%.
10. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2014/2015,
and include any available data for the County’s Bonita-Sunnyside Branch.
See attached.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 101
5
Libraries 2016
11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
The reason we are able to accomplish a lot of what we do is because we have several active
library partnerships. Please see the attached list.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Betty Waznis
Title: Library Director
Date: 11/20/15
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 102
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
FY Circulation 78375 76863 80770 76506 65361 63681 67329 61465 65616 68929 64483 70238
2014/15
Program
attendance 3019 1701 2555 3740 4788 2779 1904 3254 4081 2844 2082 6116
Visitors 69831 68068 72350 70821 57522 58235 63077 67928 70961 71811 63189 69742
FY Circulation 89979 87513 86064 91195 79419 68169 77332 72338 75499 75472 71890 79201
2013/14
Program
attendance 3231 1248 3203 2578 1569 1859 1640 1164 1769 2094 1592 5214
Visitors 75521 74776 72587 76147 63128 58708 66284 72673 66506 69470 66564 68840
FY Circulation 93947 91912 89611 91825 75400 64937 86213 76655 78197 78373 76242 88693
2012/13
Program
attendance 1493 1432 1915 1974 885 900 866 1295 2280 3909 4373 6571
Visitors 70954 65529 70756 75626 57998 54572 66597 70854 79653 75953 69565 74918
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 103
FY TOTAL
839,616
38,863
803535
954,071
27,161
831,204
992,005
27,893
832,975
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 104
Bonita Library
Statistical profile
2014-15
Population 14,032
Circulation 387,273
Attendance 225,848
Computer use 70,329
Size 10,000 sq ft
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 105
22.54%55
77.46%189
Q1 Which library did you eat your summer
meal at today?
Answered: 244 Skipped: 0
Total 244
Civic Center
Library
South Chula
Vista Library
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Civic Center Library
South Chula Vista Library
1 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 106
Q2 How old are you?
Answered: 244 Skipped: 0
3 or under
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 or above
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
2 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 107
15.16%37
9.84%24
16.80%41
11.07%27
4.92%12
6.15%15
7.79%19
2.46%6
1.64%4
0.82%2
0.41%1
0.82%2
0.41%1
0.41%1
0.00%0
0.41%1
20.90%51
Total 244
3 or under
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 or above
3 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 108
94.67%231
63.93%156
55.33%135
75.82%185
77.05%188
11.89%29
49.18%120
47.13%115
23.77%58
Q3 Which of these things can you find at
the library? Please check all that apply.
Answered: 244 Skipped: 0
Total Respondents: 244
#Other? Please tell us:Date
1 Story time 9/11/2015 4:28 PM
Books and
other things...
Information
People to help
you
Summer reading
program
Computers
Jobs for kids
Things to make
and play with
Friends
Volunteer
opportunities
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Books and other things to borrow
Information
People to help you
Summer reading program
Computers
Jobs for kids
Things to make and play with
Friends
Volunteer opportunities
4 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 109
2 Music 7/6/2015 5:17 PM
3 Help for many people 7/6/2015 3:56 PM
4 Storytime 7/6/2015 3:43 PM
5 Books about laws 7/3/2015 12:11 PM
6 Healthy food 7/1/2015 3:30 PM
7 Ways to help my child get ready for school 7/1/2015 3:20 PM
8 museum passes 7/1/2015 2:19 PM
9 Lunch and snack 7/1/2015 2:17 PM
10 Book store 7/1/2015 12:51 PM
11 Storytime 6/30/2015 5:23 PM
12 Borrowed museum passes 6/30/2015 5:18 PM
5 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 110
74.07%180
36.63%89
77.37%188
58.02%141
34.98%85
53.50%130
Q4 How do you feel right now? Please
check all that apply.
Answered: 243 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 243
#Other? Please tell us:Date
1 Kindergarten bootcamp 9/11/2015 4:49 PM
2 Curious 9/11/2015 4:35 PM
3 Optimistic 7/6/2015 4:55 PM
4 It is all good 7/6/2015 4:49 PM
5 The lunch helps parents without much 7/6/2015 3:56 PM
6 Excited 7/6/2015 3:43 PM
7 Hungry 7/3/2015 4:05 PM
8 Excited 7/2/2015 4:42 PM
Good about
myself
Strong
Happy
Safe
Important
Calm
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Good about myself
Strong
Happy
Safe
Important
Calm
6 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 111
9 Glad, excited 7/2/2015 4:41 PM
10 Smart 7/1/2015 2:19 PM
11 Smarter 7/1/2015 2:17 PM
7 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 112
45.64%110
50.62%122
3.73%9
Q5 Have you signed up for the library's
summer reading program?
Answered: 241 Skipped: 3
Total 241
Yes
No
Don't know
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
Don't know
8 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 113
Q6 Where else do you get lunch over the
summer?
Answered: 178 Skipped: 66
#Responses Date
1 Home 9/11/2015 5:18 PM
2 Home 9/11/2015 5:15 PM
3 Home 9/11/2015 5:14 PM
4 Home 9/11/2015 5:13 PM
5 Home 9/11/2015 5:12 PM
6 Home or restaurant 9/11/2015 5:11 PM
7 Home 9/11/2015 5:09 PM
8 Home 9/11/2015 5:08 PM
9 Home 9/11/2015 5:07 PM
10 Home 9/11/2015 5:02 PM
11 Home 9/11/2015 5:01 PM
12 Home 9/11/2015 5:00 PM
13 Home 9/11/2015 5:00 PM
14 Home 9/11/2015 4:57 PM
15 Home and Otay Rec Center 9/11/2015 4:56 PM
16 Otay Rec Center 9/11/2015 4:55 PM
17 Home 9/11/2015 4:54 PM
18 Home 9/11/2015 4:53 PM
19 Home 9/11/2015 4:50 PM
20 Home 9/11/2015 4:49 PM
21 Home 9/11/2015 4:47 PM
22 Grandmas house 9/11/2015 4:47 PM
23 Home 9/11/2015 4:46 PM
24 Home 9/11/2015 4:44 PM
25 Home 9/11/2015 4:43 PM
26 Home 9/11/2015 4:42 PM
27 Home 9/11/2015 4:42 PM
28 Home 9/11/2015 4:41 PM
29 Home 9/11/2015 4:39 PM
30 Home 9/11/2015 4:38 PM
31 Home 9/11/2015 4:36 PM
32 Home 9/11/2015 4:35 PM
33 Home 9/11/2015 4:34 PM
34 My house and grandmas house 9/11/2015 4:32 PM
9 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 114
35 Home 9/11/2015 4:30 PM
36 Starbucks 9/11/2015 4:28 PM
37 Home 9/11/2015 4:27 PM
38 Home 9/11/2015 4:26 PM
39 Lots of other places like McDonalds 7/9/2015 1:52 PM
40 At home 7/9/2015 1:50 PM
41 Home 7/9/2015 1:50 PM
42 @ home 7/6/2015 5:17 PM
43 Home 7/6/2015 5:15 PM
44 I make lunch at home 7/6/2015 5:13 PM
45 Home 7/6/2015 5:12 PM
46 At home 7/6/2015 5:09 PM
47 Just the library 7/6/2015 5:07 PM
48 Nowhere else 7/6/2015 5:06 PM
49 At home 7/6/2015 5:04 PM
50 Just here 7/6/2015 5:01 PM
51 Here 7/6/2015 5:00 PM
52 Nowhere else 7/6/2015 4:59 PM
53 This is the only place 7/6/2015 4:56 PM
54 Nowhere else 7/6/2015 4:55 PM
55 Just here - it is close to my home 7/6/2015 4:53 PM
56 Just here 7/6/2015 4:51 PM
57 Just here 7/6/2015 4:49 PM
58 Otay branch library (County)7/6/2015 4:47 PM
59 Only here 7/6/2015 3:58 PM
60 This place 7/6/2015 3:56 PM
61 Nowhere else 7/6/2015 3:51 PM
62 Nowhere else 7/6/2015 3:50 PM
63 Only here 7/6/2015 3:48 PM
64 At the library on F Street (Civic)7/6/2015 3:43 PM
65 N/A 7/3/2015 4:53 PM
66 Only here 7/3/2015 4:52 PM
67 Everywhere 7/3/2015 4:51 PM
68 Everywhere 7/3/2015 4:50 PM
69 Boys and Girls Clubs and Parks 7/3/2015 4:48 PM
70 Boys and Girls Club/Parks 7/3/2015 4:47 PM
71 Nowhere 7/3/2015 4:44 PM
72 Home 7/3/2015 4:38 PM
73 Home 7/3/2015 4:28 PM
74 I don't know other places that offer lunch 7/3/2015 4:21 PM
75 Here and sometimes Otay Recreation Center 7/3/2015 4:19 PM
10 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 115
76 San Ysidro West Park 7/3/2015 4:18 PM
77 San Ysidro West Park 7/3/2015 4:17 PM
78 Only here 7/3/2015 4:14 PM
79 Nowhere else 7/3/2015 4:13 PM
80 Just the library 7/3/2015 4:12 PM
81 Home 7/3/2015 4:10 PM
82 Only here 7/3/2015 4:08 PM
83 Home 7/3/2015 4:07 PM
84 Grandma's house 7/3/2015 4:05 PM
85 Home 7/3/2015 4:00 PM
86 Home 7/3/2015 3:59 PM
87 Home 7/3/2015 3:59 PM
88 At home 7/3/2015 12:11 PM
89 Nowhere 7/3/2015 12:05 PM
90 Home 7/3/2015 12:01 PM
91 No other program 7/3/2015 11:59 AM
92 Not sure 7/3/2015 11:56 AM
93 Grandma's house 7/3/2015 11:54 AM
94 home 7/3/2015 11:50 AM
95 at home 7/3/2015 11:50 AM
96 Our house 7/3/2015 11:48 AM
97 Home 7/3/2015 11:45 AM
98 Only here 7/3/2015 11:42 AM
99 Only here 7/3/2015 11:41 AM
100 Nowhere 7/3/2015 11:34 AM
101 Home 7/3/2015 10:48 AM
102 Home 7/3/2015 10:38 AM
103 Pizza place 7/3/2015 10:35 AM
104 Pizza 7/3/2015 10:32 AM
105 Home 7/3/2015 10:30 AM
106 YMCA 7/3/2015 10:27 AM
107 YMCA 7/3/2015 10:26 AM
108 YMCA 7/3/2015 10:23 AM
109 Home 7/2/2015 5:48 PM
110 Home 7/2/2015 5:47 PM
111 Home 7/2/2015 5:46 PM
112 Home or out 7/2/2015 5:45 PM
113 YMCA and at home 7/2/2015 5:43 PM
114 Restaurants 7/2/2015 5:34 PM
115 Nowhere else 7/2/2015 4:54 PM
116 At home 7/2/2015 4:42 PM
11 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 116
117 Home 7/2/2015 4:41 PM
118 Home 7/2/2015 4:34 PM
119 At home with family 7/2/2015 4:17 PM
120 N/A 7/2/2015 4:08 PM
121 At home and at the library 7/1/2015 3:44 PM
122 Nowhere 7/1/2015 3:40 PM
123 Just here 7/1/2015 3:36 PM
124 Only here 7/1/2015 3:28 PM
125 Chula Vista Library only 7/1/2015 3:26 PM
126 At home 7/1/2015 3:25 PM
127 Just here -my first time 7/1/2015 3:20 PM
128 Only here 7/1/2015 3:17 PM
129 Only at the library 7/1/2015 2:21 PM
130 Other libraries in SD City and County 7/1/2015 2:19 PM
131 SDPL Central, SDCL Spring Valley - using SRP coupons 7/1/2015 2:17 PM
132 Mom cooks at home 7/1/2015 2:14 PM
133 N/A 7/1/2015 2:12 PM
134 Home 7/1/2015 2:10 PM
135 Home 7/1/2015 1:02 PM
136 Just here 7/1/2015 12:56 PM
137 N/A 7/1/2015 12:51 PM
138 Otay Center 6/30/2015 5:41 PM
139 Home or out 6/30/2015 5:40 PM
140 Otay Rec Center 6/30/2015 5:40 PM
141 Home or out 6/30/2015 5:39 PM
142 Home or out 6/30/2015 5:38 PM
143 Out or at home 6/30/2015 5:37 PM
144 Home 6/30/2015 5:35 PM
145 Home 6/30/2015 5:34 PM
146 Home 6/30/2015 5:31 PM
147 N/A 6/30/2015 5:27 PM
148 Mommy's 6/30/2015 5:25 PM
149 Home 6/30/2015 5:25 PM
150 Home 6/30/2015 5:23 PM
151 Home 6/30/2015 5:22 PM
152 Home 6/30/2015 5:19 PM
153 Home 6/30/2015 5:18 PM
154 Home 6/30/2015 5:18 PM
155 My home 6/30/2015 5:17 PM
156 At home 6/30/2015 5:15 PM
157 My house 6/30/2015 5:15 PM
12 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 117
158 Home 6/30/2015 5:14 PM
159 Lincoln Acres 6/30/2015 5:13 PM
160 Lincoln Acres Library (SDPL)6/30/2015 5:12 PM
161 Home 6/30/2015 5:11 PM
162 Home 6/30/2015 4:50 PM
163 Home 6/30/2015 4:48 PM
164 Dad's house 6/30/2015 4:44 PM
165 Home 6/30/2015 4:43 PM
166 Ar home 6/30/2015 4:35 PM
167 Lincoln Acres 6/30/2015 4:20 PM
168 Lincoln Acres Library (SDPL)6/30/2015 4:19 PM
169 My home 6/30/2015 4:18 PM
170 Home 6/30/2015 2:01 PM
171 Just the library 6/30/2015 1:59 PM
172 Home or take out 6/30/2015 1:58 PM
173 Just the library 6/30/2015 1:56 PM
174 Nowhere 6/30/2015 12:57 PM
175 Home 6/30/2015 12:56 PM
176 Home 6/30/2015 12:49 PM
177 None 6/30/2015 12:47 PM
178 Home 6/30/2015 12:41 PM
13 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 118
Q7 Tell us or draw a picture of something
you liked or learned at the library today.
Answered: 139 Skipped: 105
#Responses Date
1 I liked looking at the books 9/11/2015 5:18 PM
2 Take care of books for others to use and enjoy 9/11/2015 5:15 PM
3 Books 9/11/2015 5:14 PM
4 History is hard!9/11/2015 5:11 PM
5 Counting 9/11/2015 5:02 PM
6 Stephen Baxter is amazing writer. You feel you are in the stories he writes.9/11/2015 5:00 PM
7 I read a book about Puerto Rico and learned there was a Tsunami there 9/11/2015 4:57 PM
8 Letters L, T, and X 9/11/2015 4:56 PM
9 I liked books 9/11/2015 4:55 PM
10 Drawing 9/11/2015 4:52 PM
11 I learned a,e,i,o, u 9/11/2015 4:49 PM
12 I liked drawing 9/11/2015 4:47 PM
13 Playing and doing activities 9/11/2015 4:47 PM
14 I read about the first Thanksgiving 9/11/2015 4:46 PM
15 Playing with dragon shoes 9/11/2015 4:44 PM
16 Numbers 9/11/2015 4:42 PM
17 I liked the pictures on the book 9/11/2015 4:39 PM
18 Kindercamp is awesome 9/11/2015 4:38 PM
19 Snack time 9/11/2015 4:36 PM
20 How to check out book 9/11/2015 4:35 PM
21 Everyone is helpful and nice 9/11/2015 4:34 PM
22 I learned numbers 9/11/2015 4:33 PM
23 Numbers 9/11/2015 4:33 PM
24 Friendly people at help desk 9/11/2015 4:32 PM
25 @Kindergarten Bootcamp 9/11/2015 4:30 PM
26 I liked snack 9/11/2015 4:28 PM
27 Checked out a book 9/11/2015 4:27 PM
28 Checked out a book 9/11/2015 4:26 PM
29 I like reading and choosing books 7/9/2015 1:50 PM
30 We like reading and the books that we can choose from 7/9/2015 1:50 PM
31 Play with friends and reading books about snakes 7/6/2015 5:17 PM
32 The staff and volunteers are always very nice and helpful 7/6/2015 5:15 PM
33 I liked spending time with my kids while they explored books 7/6/2015 5:13 PM
34 Reading is fun 7/6/2015 5:12 PM
14 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 119
35 I leatned about the snack program 7/6/2015 5:11 PM
36 A book by Hannah 7/6/2015 5:09 PM
37 How to turn off nature (theme)7/6/2015 5:07 PM
38 I liked how it all worked 7/6/2015 5:06 PM
39 Storytime 7/6/2015 5:04 PM
40 The show at lunch time 7/6/2015 5:00 PM
41 I liked the show in the cafeteria for kids and adults.7/6/2015 4:59 PM
42 I always find a book that I like 7/6/2015 4:56 PM
43 I liked the games during lunch 7/6/2015 4:55 PM
44 We like to come here to read and use the computers 7/6/2015 4:51 PM
45 I brought my grandchildren and they had a good time 7/6/2015 4:49 PM
46 I liked the musical program 7/6/2015 3:50 PM
47 I loved the music and I liked to listen 7/6/2015 3:43 PM
48 N/A 7/3/2015 4:53 PM
49 What is a kettle drum and how it sounds 7/3/2015 4:47 PM
50 I learned about the lunch program 7/3/2015 4:44 PM
51 Kinder area 7/3/2015 4:38 PM
52 I learned about the summer reading program today 7/3/2015 4:28 PM
53 Very happy to learn that there is free lunch for kids to enjoy 7/3/2015 4:25 PM
54 Music 7/3/2015 4:23 PM
55 Music 7/3/2015 4:23 PM
56 I learned about music 7/3/2015 4:21 PM
57 The lunch room is always clean and neat. Very friendly workers.7/3/2015 4:13 PM
58 I learned that the library keeps us healthy because they care.7/3/2015 4:12 PM
59 Reading 7/3/2015 4:08 PM
60 Reading books (kids and myself)7/3/2015 4:07 PM
61 The cereal snack 7/3/2015 4:05 PM
62 I liked the kids area where they resd books. It is spacious and nice.7/3/2015 3:59 PM
63 My son learned a lot of new things at the kinder boot camp 7/3/2015 1:10 PM
64 I love to read the National Geographic and found it on the table today. Good idea!7/3/2015 12:14 PM
65 I learned that there are nice people giving out the snacks. I want to know about the volunteer opportunities and jobs
for kids.
7/3/2015 12:11 PM
66 Lunch, storytime, books and the milk 7/3/2015 12:05 PM
67 I love how my daughter loves reading time 7/3/2015 12:01 PM
68 That monsters like school 7/3/2015 11:56 AM
69 Shaking the egg shakes 7/3/2015 11:54 AM
70 Playing 7/3/2015 11:43 AM
71 Play 7/3/2015 11:42 AM
72 Plat, read and listen 7/3/2015 11:35 AM
73 I love to play and read 7/3/2015 11:34 AM
74 Reading and healthy things 7/3/2015 10:35 AM
15 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 120
75 Health, about sharing. I liked reading 7/3/2015 10:33 AM
76 Sharing, reading, and health 7/3/2015 10:32 AM
77 Kinder area 7/3/2015 10:30 AM
78 Kinder area 7/3/2015 10:27 AM
79 Kinder area 7/3/2015 10:26 AM
80 Learned about the kinder area 7/3/2015 10:23 AM
81 Learned about the free lunch 7/2/2015 5:48 PM
82 Learned about the free lunch 7/2/2015 5:47 PM
83 Kindergarten and free food 7/2/2015 5:46 PM
84 That they give free lunch to kids 7/2/2015 5:45 PM
85 Kindergarten bootcamp 7/2/2015 5:43 PM
86 The happy people 7/2/2015 5:31 PM
87 Reading 7/2/2015 5:06 PM
88 Reading 7/2/2015 5:05 PM
89 A movie 7/2/2015 4:55 PM
90 How butterflies are bred 7/2/2015 4:42 PM
91 Hamsters and butterflies 7/2/2015 4:41 PM
92 The helpers who give out the lunch are nice 7/2/2015 4:32 PM
93 The helpers are very nice 7/2/2015 4:17 PM
94 N/A 7/2/2015 4:08 PM
95 I like that we can read at the library 7/2/2015 4:07 PM
96 About the book fair (sale) and an animated story 7/1/2015 3:44 PM
97 I liked to eat with others 7/1/2015 3:30 PM
98 How to eat healthy 7/1/2015 3:28 PM
99 The story time and how to prepare my son for school 7/1/2015 3:25 PM
100 I really like the free lunch program and thank you!7/1/2015 3:23 PM
101 Good ways to prepare my children for school 7/1/2015 3:20 PM
102 It is a beautiful thing to do 7/1/2015 3:17 PM
103 I likes the lunch and crafts.7/1/2015 2:19 PM
104 Free lunch, crafts, exploring, and quieter than home 7/1/2015 2:17 PM
105 I like coming to read then get a healthy meal before heading home.7/1/2015 2:14 PM
106 The baby books 7/1/2015 2:10 PM
107 The lunch program is great!7/1/2015 1:04 PM
108 I liked the friendly and helpful people 7/1/2015 12:59 PM
109 Computers 7/1/2015 12:56 PM
110 Picking up my prizes 7/1/2015 12:51 PM
111 Pete the cat 6/30/2015 5:38 PM
112 Pete the cat 6/30/2015 5:37 PM
113 What kids learn in kinder 6/30/2015 5:35 PM
114 Enjoyed the kindergarten kits/preview activities 6/30/2015 5:34 PM
115 I come for the kinderbootcamp. Love it. I made new friends too 6/30/2015 5:30 PM
16 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 121
116 Bootcamp 6/30/2015 5:28 PM
117 Kinderbootcamp 6/30/2015 5:27 PM
118 Kindercamp 6/30/2015 5:27 PM
119 I learned about kinderbootcamp 6/30/2015 5:23 PM
120 That the library does lunches - I liked that 6/30/2015 5:22 PM
121 Attended storytime 6/30/2015 5:20 PM
122 Lots of entertaining and learning activities for kids 6/30/2015 5:17 PM
123 Storytime 6/30/2015 5:13 PM
124 Stories for children 6/30/2015 5:12 PM
125 A play they did was very nice 6/30/2015 5:11 PM
126 I liked getting two new books. I am really excited to read them.6/30/2015 4:50 PM
127 Picture of family 6/30/2015 4:48 PM
128 I liked storytime 6/30/2015 4:44 PM
129 I liked the play 6/30/2015 4:43 PM
130 Books 6/30/2015 4:35 PM
131 Children's stories 6/30/2015 4:20 PM
132 I like the stories for children 6/30/2015 4:19 PM
133 I came for the "Tales come to life" program 6/30/2015 4:18 PM
134 The program "Tales come to Life"6/30/2015 2:01 PM
135 I don't 6/30/2015 12:58 PM
136 Storytime 6/30/2015 12:57 PM
137 How to tie things (laces)6/30/2015 12:49 PM
138 picture of family (drawing)6/30/2015 12:47 PM
139 Books 6/30/2015 12:41 PM
17 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 122
Q8 Is there anything else you would like to
tell us about the library or the lunch
program?
Answered: 157 Skipped: 87
#Responses Date
1 I love that we can check out books 9/11/2015 5:18 PM
2 Great!9/11/2015 5:15 PM
3 You do a good job!9/11/2015 5:14 PM
4 It was delicious 9/11/2015 5:13 PM
5 Burgers need more cheese 9/11/2015 5:12 PM
6 Add cheese to your cheeseburger 9/11/2015 5:11 PM
7 It's a friendly place and my kids feel safe 9/11/2015 5:09 PM
8 It's a safe place 9/11/2015 5:08 PM
9 I like fat free milk, more fruit, cheese, and a program like the one at Bonita Library - "pay your debt by reading"9/11/2015 5:07 PM
10 Good 9/11/2015 5:04 PM
11 It's good 9/11/2015 5:03 PM
12 It's good 9/11/2015 5:02 PM
13 I like that the adult section has Clive Cussler - one of my favorite series is private detective Isaac Bell.9/11/2015 5:00 PM
14 I appreciate the free lunch - thank you!9/11/2015 4:57 PM
15 Can we have another choice of drink - I don't like milk 9/11/2015 4:54 PM
16 Keep adding kids programs 9/11/2015 4:53 PM
17 Thank you 9/11/2015 4:52 PM
18 Thanks 9/11/2015 4:51 PM
19 I like borrowing books to take home and then bring them back to get new ones 9/11/2015 4:49 PM
20 So many books 9/11/2015 4:47 PM
21 Lots of cool books 9/11/2015 4:46 PM
22 No 9/11/2015 4:44 PM
23 Library is great 9/11/2015 4:41 PM
24 Lunch is good 9/11/2015 4:40 PM
25 I loved reading the books 9/11/2015 4:39 PM
26 Food is in the poor quality side of things 9/11/2015 4:38 PM
27 It's fun to have lunch with lots of other kids 9/11/2015 4:36 PM
28 It's great 9/11/2015 4:31 PM
29 It's fun to have lunch with lots of kids 9/11/2015 4:30 PM
30 I really appreciate the programs in the library and the same for the lunch program - my kids love it.7/9/2015 1:55 PM
31 All the people are very friendly 7/9/2015 1:52 PM
32 Thank you 7/6/2015 5:17 PM
33 Thank you for all your help 7/6/2015 5:15 PM
18 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 123
34 A very good lunch program. This is the first time here for me (lunch)7/6/2015 5:13 PM
35 Great program 7/6/2015 5:12 PM
36 Would like more fresh fruit 7/6/2015 5:11 PM
37 Not all the food was ok 7/6/2015 5:06 PM
38 Would like it to be easy to renew by phone 7/6/2015 5:05 PM
39 The food is well balanced 7/6/2015 5:04 PM
40 Congrats! Good work!7/6/2015 5:01 PM
41 Staff is friendly 7/6/2015 5:00 PM
42 Everything is well organized and the staff is friendly 7/6/2015 4:59 PM
43 This is a great lunch program - thank you 7/6/2015 4:56 PM
44 The lunch is nutritious and the books provided were interesting 7/6/2015 4:55 PM
45 Good that it is for all ages and that the food is good. We are happy to come here.7/6/2015 4:53 PM
46 It is very good to give children nutritional food 7/6/2015 4:51 PM
47 All good - thanks 7/6/2015 4:49 PM
48 Liked the activities for children 7/6/2015 4:47 PM
49 Don't throw the food away. Alow parents to sign for it and take responsibility for it. Parents would be prepared to sign a
document
7/6/2015 3:58 PM
50 No - it's perfect 7/6/2015 3:56 PM
51 (smiley face)7/6/2015 3:50 PM
52 It is perfect 7/6/2015 3:48 PM
53 Thank you for the nutrition 7/6/2015 3:43 PM
54 N/A 7/3/2015 4:53 PM
55 No 7/3/2015 4:52 PM
56 Give out juice too 7/3/2015 4:50 PM
57 Very happy with the lunch program 7/3/2015 4:47 PM
58 Great program for kids over the summer!7/3/2015 4:44 PM
59 Thank you 7/3/2015 4:38 PM
60 Thank you for the summer lunch. Extended hours are phenomenal! Great library staff-amazing.7/3/2015 4:28 PM
61 I think it's a good program 7/3/2015 4:21 PM
62 Good idea to give gifts (incentives), decorate the room, books to read.7/3/2015 4:19 PM
63 It is a long time since grandma came to the library now she is here. She thinks it's awesome.7/3/2015 4:17 PM
64 Thank you for feeding us.7/3/2015 4:13 PM
65 Thank you 7/3/2015 4:12 PM
66 It is a wonderful service for the children. Thank you 7/3/2015 4:10 PM
67 The food is yummy 7/3/2015 4:08 PM
68 It is great for the kids 7/3/2015 4:07 PM
69 Thank you for this program 7/3/2015 3:59 PM
70 We are very thankful for the lunch. It gives a change for my son to interact with other kids and prepare for kindergarten7/3/2015 1:10 PM
71 Consider selling food for the parents 7/3/2015 12:14 PM
72 I like that you think about children. They might not be eating in the summer because they are off school. It is a great
program. Thank you!
7/3/2015 12:11 PM
19 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 124
73 I have some trouble renewing DVD's 7/3/2015 12:01 PM
74 No 7/3/2015 11:56 AM
75 Thank you!7/3/2015 11:54 AM
76 It's ok 7/3/2015 11:42 AM
77 Perfect 7/3/2015 11:34 AM
78 It's something else to do 7/3/2015 10:48 AM
79 It's another choice during vacation 7/3/2015 10:38 AM
80 Great program - we love our library!7/3/2015 10:36 AM
81 Excellent 7/3/2015 10:35 AM
82 Very good 7/3/2015 10:33 AM
83 Excellent - happy!7/3/2015 10:32 AM
84 Thank you 7/3/2015 10:30 AM
85 Thank you 7/3/2015 10:27 AM
86 Thank you 7/3/2015 10:26 AM
87 It is cool free food 7/3/2015 10:23 AM
88 Food options 7/2/2015 5:48 PM
89 Thanks for feeding us 7/2/2015 5:47 PM
90 Thanks for making us feel important 7/2/2015 5:46 PM
91 It's awesome especially for those not as fortunate 7/2/2015 5:45 PM
92 Thank you 7/2/2015 5:43 PM
93 It's great. Thank you.7/2/2015 5:34 PM
94 I liked checking out books 7/2/2015 5:05 PM
95 Good and healthy for the kids 7/2/2015 4:55 PM
96 Food and activities are good 7/2/2015 4:42 PM
97 I like the food and activities 7/2/2015 4:41 PM
98 No 7/2/2015 4:33 PM
99 It's a blessing to get a healthy lunch and snack 7/2/2015 4:32 PM
100 Its good that kids are able to get a balanced meal with the summer lunch and snack 7/2/2015 4:17 PM
101 No 7/2/2015 4:15 PM
102 No 7/2/2015 4:08 PM
103 It's awesome 7/2/2015 4:07 PM
104 It is perfect for families as it encourages children who can get distracted to stay and eat.7/1/2015 3:44 PM
105 Don't like to throw away the food!7/1/2015 3:40 PM
106 Thank you - it is nice to get out each day an be with others.7/1/2015 3:36 PM
107 People are helpful and nice and make things pleasant for others 7/1/2015 3:30 PM
108 I wish I could share my children's food 7/1/2015 3:28 PM
109 No 7/1/2015 3:26 PM
110 Permission to take the food with us - we also have a class at 12:30 elsewhere 7/1/2015 3:25 PM
111 This is a helpful program for children on summer break with their parents 7/1/2015 3:23 PM
112 Thank you - excellent idea!7/1/2015 3:20 PM
113 good to come for a very healthy meal 7/1/2015 3:17 PM
20 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 125
114 The library is doing a good job. Thank you!7/1/2015 2:21 PM
115 Liked drawing and the prizes 7/1/2015 2:19 PM
116 We like prizes and free books @ lunch. We like drawing on the tables (paper runners were provided by library)7/1/2015 2:17 PM
117 Being able to draw or read while eating my healthy meal.7/1/2015 2:14 PM
118 I like it 7/1/2015 2:12 PM
119 Thank you!7/1/2015 2:10 PM
120 Very nice staff!7/1/2015 1:04 PM
121 Mom is a single parent "its very helpful for a single parent that this lunch program is available because it gets tough
sometimes" Also "It's comforting to know that children get a balanced lunch during the summer".
7/1/2015 1:02 PM
122 This is an excellent place 7/1/2015 12:59 PM
123 The computers are now faster 7/1/2015 12:56 PM
124 This is the first year I have taken part in the free lunch program. It has been great! We've had a blast! Civic Center
Library is my library of choice. Thank you!
7/1/2015 12:51 PM
125 Glad for the lunch program 6/30/2015 5:40 PM
126 Glad the lunch program is available 6/30/2015 5:39 PM
127 Good 6/30/2015 5:38 PM
128 It's awesome 6/30/2015 5:37 PM
129 Lunch is appreciated. Enjoyed the atmosphere - eating with other kids and coloring on the table runners (paper)6/30/2015 5:34 PM
130 Excellent 6/30/2015 5:29 PM
131 It is awesome 6/30/2015 5:28 PM
132 It's awesome 6/30/2015 5:27 PM
133 Awesome 6/30/2015 5:27 PM
134 Didn't know about the library lunch program 6/30/2015 5:25 PM
135 Thanks for lunch 6/30/2015 5:23 PM
136 Love the library and like to check out books and movies 6/30/2015 5:22 PM
137 None 6/30/2015 5:17 PM
138 Good program 6/30/2015 5:15 PM
139 Good 6/30/2015 5:15 PM
140 Good program for kindergarteners 6/30/2015 5:14 PM
141 All good 6/30/2015 5:13 PM
142 Everything is good 6/30/2015 5:12 PM
143 No 6/30/2015 5:11 PM
144 Provide juice instead of just milk or water 6/30/2015 4:50 PM
145 Pizza was not good 6/30/2015 4:48 PM
146 No 6/30/2015 4:44 PM
147 It's good 6/30/2015 4:43 PM
148 Uneaten food should be given away and not thrown out 6/30/2015 4:35 PM
149 It's all good 6/30/2015 4:20 PM
150 Everything is good 6/30/2015 4:19 PM
151 Food has to be thrown away and can't be taken home 6/30/2015 4:18 PM
152 Too much food is wasted 6/30/2015 2:01 PM
21 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 126
153 Thanks 6/30/2015 1:59 PM
154 Great program thank you 6/30/2015 1:58 PM
155 Thank you 6/30/2015 12:56 PM
156 Love it (program)6/30/2015 12:49 PM
157 This is my first time and it is awesome they provide lunch 6/30/2015 12:41 PM
22 / 22
2015 Chula Vista Public Library Summer Meals Survey
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 127
Please Tell Us About Your Chula Vista Public Library Experience!
Adults: Please circle the best answers. Be honest – there are no right or wrong answers.
Your replies help us make our Library better. Thank you!
I came to the Library to (circle as many as you want):
Check out/renew books or other items Bring my child to Story Time Get Tutored
Use a Computer Bring my child to the free lunch/snack program Sign up for Reading Program
Apply for a Passport Apply for a Library Card Visit the Bookstore Ask For Information
Attend a program (speaker, music performance, crafting, book club, etc.) Use the Library’s free WiFi
Take a class to learn something new Find out about volunteer opportunities Use the databases
Join the Friends of the Library Find out more about Library services Relax in the air conditioning
Other:_______________________________________________________________________________
Today at the Library I:
Found the items I was looking for Found the information I needed Found staff to help me
I didn’t find what I needed. I wanted: _______________________________________________________
The Library makes me feel (circle as many as you want):
That I know more That my children know more More confident when I’m reading Safe
Better connected to my community More important Better informed Valued
More optimistic Happy Thankful for its many free services More tech savvy
That it’s one of my favorite places Happy I saved money More competent
Proud to live here That my life has improved That the Library is the heart of the community
Other: _______________________________________________________________________________
When I leave the Library I will (circle as many as you want):
Tell others about the importance of the Library in our community Be encouraged to read more
Plan to attend more free Library events Bring my family to more free Library activities
Look at the Library Calendar of Events or Website (www.chulavistalibrary.com) for other programs
Use what I borrowed or learned Tell others about my positive experiences at the Library
Join the Friends of the Library Plan to use the Library’s free access to technology
Keep practicing what I learned at the Library Follow the Library on Facebook
Visit other Chula Vista Public Library branches Use the Library for job searches
Other: ________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Thank you! We appreciate your feedback!
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 128
April 12-30 May June July
Total Guest Accounts Created: 646 729 736 649
Total Authenticated Guests: 1,327 3,028 3,810 3,843
Total Cumulative Connect Time: 204 days, 7 hrs 462 days, 17 hrs 650 days, 15 hrs 666 days, 9 hrs
Wifi Usage 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 129
August September October November December
787 839 714
4,718 4,863 5,203
819 days, 1 hr 831 days,7 hrs 819 days, 23 hrs
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 130
Chula Vista Public Library
Partners 2015
AARP
Altrusa International of Chula Vista,
ARC Starlight Center
Board of Library Trustees
Bonita Country Day School
BuildABear Workshop
California Library Association
Chula Vista Adult School
Chula Vista Animal Care Facility
Chula Vista Art Guild
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
Chula Vista Charitable Foundation
Chula Vista Community Collaborative
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Chula Vista Garden Club
Chula Vista Genealogy Society
Chula Vista Public Library Foundation
Chula Vista Recreation Department
Chula Vista Rotary
Chula Vista Star News
Chula Vista Woman’s Club
City of Chula Vista Conservation Department
City of Chula Vista Recreation Department
Council of Teachers and Artists
County Health and Human Services Agency South Region
Cultural Arts Commission
Eastlake Self-Storage
Family Health Centers of San Diego
First Five
Friends of Chula Vista Library
Funeraria del Angel Humphrey
KPBS
Laubach Literacy Council
Living Coast Discovery Center
My Village Camps
Native Plant Society
Neisha's Dance Studio
New Children's Museum
Norman Park Senior Center
Otay Ranch Town Center
Princess Project
Promise Neighborhood
Reach Out and Read (American Academy of Pediatricians)
San Diego Blood Bank
San Diego County Aging and Independence Services
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 131
San Diego County Law Library
San Diego Deliberation Network
San Diego Futures Foundation
San Diego Gas & Electric
San Diego Museum of Man
San Diego Padres
San Diego State University
San Ysidro Health Center
Sea World
Serra Cooperative Library System
Sharp Wellness
Sleeptrain Amphitheater
South Bay Ambassadors
South Bay Community Services
South Bay Family YMCA
South Bay Historical Society
South Bay Scribes Writers Group
South Bay Volkswagen
South County Career Center
South Shores Retired Teachers
Southwestern College
Sprouts Farmers Market
Sweetwater Authority
Sweetwater Unified High School District
Third Avenue Village Association
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
US Dept of State Passport Office
Veterans Advisory Committee
Words Alive
Youth Action Council
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 132
Customer survey analysis 2015.
Civic – highest number of visitors came to check out materials. (58%). Followed by program visit and
then use of Wi-Fi and computers. Highest thankful for free services measurements.
South - next highest number of materials checked out. Programs bring in on third of participants. High
value placed on HVAC. Visitors appreciate free services. Wi-fi not as highly valued as at Civic.
Otay - Visitors emphasize importance of programs. Fewer materials checked out. Wi Fi not as important
s t Civic. Value of free services not as high. An event-focused visitor group.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 133
Otay Water District - 2016 Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Otay Water District – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
1. Adequate water supply must be available to serve new development. Therefore, developers shall
provide the city with a service availability letter from the appropriate 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 the city’s annual 5-year residential growth forecast and request
that they provide an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth. Replies should
address the following:
a. Water availability to the city, considering both short- and long-term perspectives.
b. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity, including storage
capacity, now used or committed.
c. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted 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 the Growth
Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
1. Please complete the tables below.
WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water Non-Potable Water
Timeframe
Demand
Supply
Capacity
Storage
Capacity
Demand
Supply
Capacity
Storage
Capacity
Local Imported Treated Raw
5-Year
Projection
(Ending 6/30/20)
33.0 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 5.1 7.2 43.7
12-18 Month
Projection
(Ending
12/31/16)
28.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.2 7.2 43.7
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 134
Otay Water District - 2016 Page 2
WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water Non-Potable Water
FY 2014/15
(Ending 6/30/15) 27.0 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.9 7.2 43.7
FY 2013/14
(Ending 6/30/14) 29.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.4 7.2 43.7
FY 2012/13
(Ending 6/30/13) 28.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.9 7.2 43.7
FY 2011/12
(Ending 6/30/12) 28.1 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.6 7.2 43.7
FY 2010/11
(Ending 6/30/11) 26.85 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.59 7.2 43.7
FY 2009/10
(Ending 6/30/10) 30.9 0.0 137.5 219.6 0.0 3.48 7.2 43.7
Sources of Water – FY 2015/16
(MG – Millions of Gallons)
Water Source
Capacity (MGD) Percentage of Total
Capacity
Actual Use (MGD)
San Diego County Water Authority 121.5 80.6% 18.9
Helix Water District 12.0 8.0% 8.1
City of San Diego 10.0 6.6% 0.0
RWCWRF (Otay Water District) 1.2 0.8% 0.9
SBWRP (San Diego) 6.0 4.0% 3.0
TOTAL 150.7 100% 30.9
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 population, and when and where
the facilities 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 population, and when and where the
facilities 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,
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 135
Otay Water District - 2016 Page 3
justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are
provided within the current Otay Water District Fiscal Year 2016 through 2021 CIP
documents.
CIP
Project
No.
CIP Project Title
The District is in the process of updating the Water Facilities Master Plan from which the CIP
projects are derived, but at this time there are no changes to the projects currently planned.
4. Given the state restrictions on water consumption/usage, is there enough water for all the new
development being proposed in Chula Vista? Please explain.
Yes __X____ No _______
All of the currently planned developments that have been identified in the City’s 2015 Annual
Residential Growth Forecast are already accounted for in the District’s planning documents such
as the Urban Water Management Plan, the Integrated Water Resource Plan, and the Water
Facilities Master Plan. At the District’s current level of drought declaration, Level 2 – Supply Alert
Condition, mandatory water use restrictions are in place.
5. Please provide information on any specific water conservation efforts being made.
The Otay Water District is committed to expand the use of recycled water in order to minimize
overall demand for potable water, and currently has one of the largest recycled water
distribution systems in San Diego County. Recycled water now accounts for approximately 12%
of overall demand. Landscapes irrigated using recycled water including parks, golf courses,
open space, and freeway landscaping are not subject to the watering schedule restrictions that
apply to irrigation systems using potable water.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 136
Otay Water District - 2016 Page 4
The District has been proactive in promoting water conservation by our customers to respond to
the extended drought and state imposed water reduction of 20 percent. Irrigation with potable
water has been restricted to two days per week with no longer than 15 minutes per station.
Through the Otay Water District website, a Water Savings Target Calculator is available to our
customers to assist them in identifying ways to reduce their water use. Rebates are available for
new water saving devices. The District has also created a mobile app “Make Every Drop Count”
to improve efforts at identifying and reducing water waste in the community. Customers served
by the Otay Water District have met the 20% conservation goal set by the state. In the month of
July, the conservation savings was 29% when compared to the same month in 2013.
6. What is the legality of making graywater available for residential use?
On January 27, 2010, the State of California finalized the graywater regulations for Chapter 16A
“Nonpotable Water Reuse Systems” into the 2007 California Plumbing Code (CPC). Chapter 16A
of the CPC details the system requirements.
On December 10, 2013, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista amended Chapter 15.28 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code adopting the CPC Code, 2013 edition including Section 15.28.020
Residential Graywater Stub-out. This amendment states the outlet and stub-out shall be
installed in accordance with the Chula Vista Clothes Washer Graywater Pre-Plumbing and Stub-
Out for New Residential Construction or an equivalent alternate method and/or material
approved by the Building Official.
Such systems would be required to ensure no cross connections are created with the potable
water system.
7. 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 2016 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 2016 through 2021 CIP documents.
CIP
Project
No.
CIP Project Title
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 137
Otay Water District - 2016 Page 5
8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would
like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
The 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 Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) 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 WFMP as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best alternatives for
providing reliable water system facilities. The District is currently updating the WFMP, with
completion projected during 2016.
Growth projection data provided by SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development
community was used to develop the WFMP. The Otay Water District’s need for a ten-day
water supply during a SDCWA shutdown is actively being implemented and has been fully
addressed in the WFMP 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, with completion projected in 2016.
The Otay Water District WFMP 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 WFMP. This SAMP
document defines and describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 138
Otay Water District - 2016 Page 6
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 purchased by Otay Water District. Significant regulatory and permitting issues
need to be resolved before this project can be deemed viable. The Presidential Permit
process is underway as well as discussions with the State of California regarding treatment
requirements.
The continued close coordination efforts with the City of Chula Vista and other agencies
have brought forth significant enhancements for the effective utilization of the region’s
water supply to the benefit of all citizens.
PREPARED BY:
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 139
Otay Water District - 2016 Page 7
Name: Robert Kennedy, P.E.
Title: Engineering Manager
Date: September 17, 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 140
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Parks & Recreation – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
Population Ratio: Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities
shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805.
Please update the table below:
CITY-OWNED PARK ACREAGE
Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons
Threshold
Standard
Area of City
Current
(6/30/15)
Forecasts
Prior Year Comparisons
18-Month
(12.31.16)
5-Year
(2020)
June 2012
June 2013
June 2014
3 acres per
1,000
population
East
of I-805
East I-805
AC/1,000 persons
2.94
2.91
2.82
3.1
3.05
2.96
West I-805
AC/1,000 persons
1.2
1.22
1.19
1.2
1.20
1.2
Citywide
AC/1,000 persons
2.16
2.16
2.13
2.2
2.21
2.17
Acres of
parkland
East I-805 418.44 420.41⁺ 456.92* 418.01 418.44 418.44
West I-805
138.76
142.68⁺ 142.68 138.76 138.76 138.76
Citywide 557.2 563.09⁺ 599.60* 556.77 557.20 557.20
Population
East I-805 142,547 144,577 161,773 135,205 137,313 141,436
West I-805
115,801 116,610 120,169 115,130 115,300 115,788
Citywide 258,348 261,187 281,942 250,335 252,643 257,224
Acreage
shortfall or
excess
East I-805 (9.2) (13.32) (28.40) 12.4 6.5 (5.87)
West I-805 (208.64) 207.15 217.83 (206.6) (207.23) (208.61)
Citywide (217.84) 220.47 246.23 (194.24) (200.73) (214.46)
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 141
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 2
⁺ Assumes completion of Orange park 3.9 acres and Millenia, Stylus Park 1.97 acres.
*Assumes completion of: V2, P-3 (Ph1) 3.9 acres. V2, P-2 7.10 acres. Millenia, Strata Park 1.51
acres. Village 3, P-1 6.7 acres. Village 8 West, P-1 7.5 acres. Village 8 West Town Square 3 acres.
V8 East, Neighborhood Park 6.8 acres.
Please provide 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 review period? If not, what actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland
shortages?
Yes X No .
(2.94 rounds up to 3.0)
2. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 12-
18 months?
Yes No X .
If not:
a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? 13.32
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.)
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? 28.40 acres in Eastern Chula Vista.
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 of 3,500 units
over the course of a five year period. The “Residential Growth Forecast” anticipates 6057
new units. The acreage of parks listed in the 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.
b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities?
Yes. Sites are either offered for dedication or identified in the general plan for those
developments that have yet to be mapped. Staff continues to pursue opportunities for
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 142
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 3
park sites is western Chula Vista, the latest of which involves the potential closure of a
part of D Street west of Woodlawn, in order for the developer of 701 D Street to meet
park obligations and create a small 0.5 acres urban park.
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”.
Staff is in the process of preparing a report to City Council seeking to increase Park
Development Fees to more accurately represent increased material costs and increased
labor costs arising from recent legislation that mandates that all public projects be bid as
prevailing wages projects.
4. Are there other growth-related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold
standard as Chula Vista's population increases? If yes, please explain.
Yes No X .
5. Please provide two separate maps: one showing existing parks in Chula Vista and the other showing
existing and proposed parks in Chula Vista. See exhibits 1 and 2 at end of report.
6. Please provide a status report on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Master Fee Schedule
update, and the Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study.
City Wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan: The results of the Parks Needs Assessment report are
needed to in order to incorporate current recreational needs into the document. This information is
anticipated to be finalized by the end of December 2015, enabling the final revisions of the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan to be made in the early 2016. It is hoped to finalize the current plan in
summer 2016.
Master Fee Schedule update: Draft report written. Receipt of bids for Park P-3, Montecito Park, will
verify current standard park construction costs and enable this report to be finalized and taken to
City Council for approval.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study: Recreation Department has
consultants preparing a study with recommendations on this topic.
The Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study is being finalized and the
final report, with the Master Fee Schedule update, will be taken to City Council for approval of the
recommendations on December 15, 2015. The Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue
Enhancement Study has been in progress for 16 months with PROS Consulting, Inc. and will include
fee recommendations for facility use, as well as a pricing philosophy for programs with associated
tools to evaluate true cost of programs and their cost recovery percentage.
7. What is the current park ratio for new development in eastern Chula Vista? The current ratio is 2.94
acres of developed park per 1000 population which rounds up to 3 acres/thousand.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 143
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 4
8. Are there currently any plans to combine library uses with parks and recreation facilities?
Library and Recreation do cooperative publicity and outreach at events promoting each
department’s programs at community events. All Recreation Tiny Tots programs have story time
incorporated in their daily programming, plus offer reading time for free play. Veterans Park
Recreation Center offered two classes, “Sight Works Workshop” and “Tinkertots Learning:
Adventures in Reading and Math.” All Recreation Centers offer a “book corner” with books that have
been provided by the library. The books are geared towards children and can be read at the
Recreation Centers or the children can borrow them and return the books when they are done.
There is a note attached to the “book corner” encouraging participation in reading as well as
opportunities to donate books.
9. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
This year considerable progress has been made on a number of Chula Vista parks that, while not
represented in the park acreage table yet, will become available for use by citizens shortly. These
are:
1. Orange Park (Western Chula vista): Anticipated opening Spring 2016.
2. Stylus Park (Millenia): Anticipated construction completion Feb
2016. Anticipated opening Feb 2017
3. Montecito Park (Otay Ranch Village 2): Finalizing construction drawings prior to
bidding.
4. Strata Park (Millenia): Design consultant selected. Three party
agreement between the City, the
Developer and the Design Consultant to
go to City Council for approval Dec 2015.
Millenia currently anticipates starting the design process for one of their 5 parks every year which
should result in one park being ready every year for the next 5 years.
Similarly the park agreement for Otay Ranch Village 2 includes deadlines to ensure that
neighborhood park delivery stays current with the pace of residential development.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 144
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 5
1. Stylus Park under construction – air view
1. Stylus Park under construction –
Bridge to splash plaza and restroom.
1. Stylus Park Under construction – Dog Park
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 145
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 6
1. Stylus Park under construction – splash pad pipework
2. Orange Park – in maintenance/establishment period – entry monument
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 146
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 7
2. Orange Park – in maintenance/establishment period – play area (above)
and multi-purpose field (below)
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 147
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 8
3. Montecito Park – a detail from the 90% drawings.
4. Strata Park – extract from approved SPA plan – Starting point for park design
PREPARED BY: Name: Mary Radley
Title: landscape architect
Date: Nov 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 148
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 9
Exhibit 1
Existing Park System – source: Public Works Parks web page.
Park Location Acres
1 Lauderbach park 333 Oxford St 3.9
2 All Seasons Park 1825 Magdalena Ave 7.5
3 Bay Blvd Park F St & Bay Park 1.5
4 Bonita Long Canyon 1745 Coltridge Ln 10.9
5 Breezewood Park 1091 Breezewood Dr 2.5
6 Chula Vista Community Park 1060 Eastlake Pkwy 14.9
7 Chula Vista Women Club 357 G Street 0.3
8 Connoley Park 1559 Connoley Ave 0.7
9 Cottonwood Park 1778E Palomar St 6.6
10 Discovery Park 700 Buena Vista Way 20.4
11 Eucalyptus Park Fourth Ave and C St 20.9
12 Explorer Park Rancho del Rey Pkwy & Norella St 5.6
13 Friendship Park Fourth Ave and F St 4.0
14 Gayle L McCandliss Park 415 E J Street 3.1
15 Greg Rogers Park 1189 Oleander Ave 42.1
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 149
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 10
16 Harborside Park 670 Oxford Street 5.2
17 Harvest Park 1550 E Palomar St 6.8
18 Heritage Park (& Rec Center) 1381 E Palomar St 10.1
19 Hilltop Park 780 Hilltop Dr. 9.3
20 Holiday Estates I Park 383 Connoley Cir 0.2
21 Holiday Estates II Park 368 Connoley Cir 0.2
22 Horizon Park 970 e. Palomar St 5.3
23 Independence Park 1248 Calle Santiago 12.8
24 J St Marina Blvd Park 800 Marina Pkwy 21.4
25 Lancerlot Park 750 K street 0.1
26 Loma Verde Park and Rec Center 1420 Loma Ln 6.2
27 Los Ninos Park 150 Teal St 5.1
28 MacKenzie Creek Park 2775 MacKenzie Creek Rd 6.8
29 Marisol Park 916 Ranch Del Rey Pkwy 5.0
30 Memorial Park 373 Park Wy 3.8
31 Montevalle Park and Rec Center 840 Duncan Ranch Rd 29.0
32 Mount San Miguel Park 2335 Paseo Veracruz 19.5
33 Mountain Hawk Park 1475Lake Crest Dr 12.0
34 Norman Park 270 F St 1.5
35 Norman Park Senior Center 270 F St. 1.4
36 Otay Park 1613 Albany St 4.2
37 Otay Recreation Center 3554 Main Street 1.4
38 Palomar Park 1359 Park Dr 2.7
39 Parkway Community Center 373 Park Wy 4.0
40 Paseo Del Rey Park 750 Paseo Del Rey 9.0
41 Rancho Del Rey Park 1311 Buena Vista Wy 9.2
42 Reinstra Sports Complex 1500 Mac Ave 7.1
43 Rohr Park 4548 Sweetwater Rd 59.9
44 SDG&E Park 1450 Hilltop Dr 20.0
45 Salt Creek Park and Rec Center 2710 Otay Lakes Rd 24.0
46 Santa Cora Park 1365 Santa Cora 5.7
47 Santa Venetia Park 1500 Magdelena Ave 7.0
48 Sherwood Park 69 Sherwood St 0.3
49 Sunbow Park 500 E Naples St 3.7
50 Sundridge Park 952 Beechglen 6.6
51 Sunset View Park 1390 S Greenview Dr 11.2
52 Terra Nova Park 450 Hidden Vista Dr 17.0
53 Tiffany Park 1713 E Palomar St 12.0
54 Valle Lindo Park 545 Sequoia Dr 4.3
55 Veterans Park and Rec Center 785 E Palomar St 12.0
56 Voyager Park 1178 E J St 11.2
57 Winding walk Park 1675 Exploration Falls Dr 7.1
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 150
Parks and Recreation - 2016
Page 11
Exhibit 2
Future Parks – as described in this Report (for comprehensive list see City-Wide Parks and
Recreation Master Plan)
Millenia, Strata Park
Millenia, Stylus Park
Vill. 8E, Park P-1
Vill.8W , Park P-1
Vill.3, P-1
Vill 2, Park P-3.
Montecito Park
Vill 2, Park P-2
Orange Park
Vill.8W, T.C..
Potential Urban Park at D St.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 151
Page 1
Police - 2016
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Police – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
1. Priority 1 – Emergency Calls¹. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to at
least 81% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes 30 seconds and shall maintain an average response
time of 6 minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls (measured annually).
2. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls². Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to all Priority
2 calls within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
¹Priority 1 – Emergency Calls are life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident); robbery or panic alarms;
urgent cover calls from officers. Response: Immediate response by two officers from any source or assignment, immediate respo nse by
paramedics/fire if injuries are believed to have occurred.
²Priority 2 – Urgent Calls are misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic violence or other
disturbances with potential for violence). Response: Immediate response by one or more officers from clear units or those on interruptible
activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.)
Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch and travel time to the building or site address, other wise
referred to as “received to arrive.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Please provide responses to the following questions:
1. Please update the table below.
Priority 1 – Emergency Calls or Services
Call Volume
% of Call Responses
Within
7 Minutes 30 Seconds
Average Response Time
Threshold Standard 81.0% 6:00
FY 2014-2015 675 of 64,008 71.2% 6:49
FY 2013-2014 711 of 65,645 73.6% 6:45
FY 2012-2013 738 of 65,741 74.1% 6:42
FY 2011-2012 726 of 64,386 72.8% 6:31
FY 2010-2011 657 of 64,695 80.7% 6:03
2. During the review period, were at least 81% of Priority 1 calls responded to within 7 minutes
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 152
Page 2
Police - 2016
30 seconds?
Yes _______ No ___X___
3. During the review period, did Priority 1 calls maintain an average response time of 6
minutes or less?
Yes _______ No ___X___
4. If the response was “No” to either or both of questions 1 and 2 above, please explain and
describe what is necessary to meet the Priority 1 Threshold Standard.
The Police Department did not meet the Priority 1 Threshold Standard. 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 twelve officers currently
in field training, and an additional five officers in the Regional Police Academy.
5. Please update the table below.
6. During the review period, were all Priority 2 calls responded to within 12 minutes or less? If
not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the Priority 2 Threshold
Standard.
Yes ______ No ___X___
Staffing must be significantly increased in the Community Patrol Division in order to meet
the priority two response time goals. Without additional staff, improvements to the
response time will most likely be limited.
7. During the review period, were police units properly equipped to deliver services at the
Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service
Call Volume Average Response Time (Minutes)
Threshold Standard 12:00
FY 2014-2015 17,976 of 64,008 13:50
FY 2013-2014 17,817 of 65,645 13:36
FY 2012-2013 18,505 of 65,741 13:44
FY 2011-2012 22,121 of 64,386 14:20
FY 2010-2011 21,500 of 64,695 12:52
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 153
Page 3
Police - 2016
levels necessary to maintain Priority 1 and Priority 2 Threshold Standard compliance? If not,
please explain and describe what is necessary for police units to be properly equipped.
Yes No ___X___
The Department is in need of replacing the computer aided dispatch (CAD), computers,
purchasing additional body worn cameras, upgrading radios and making significant
improvements to its information technology infrastructure. These necessary updates and
purchases began during the reporting period and will continue into the current fiscal year
with complete rollout anticipated in the next 24 months. During this reporting period the
Department hired a Senior Technology Specialist who is dedicated to the Police Department.
This position has been instrumental in identifying and prioritizing the current technological
needs, providing a gap analysis to determine anticipated future needs.
At the time of this report the Department had just completed the deployment of 100 mobile
data computers (MDC) in Patrol Operations. These MDCs are equipped with two-factor
authentication, which complies with the Department of Justice standard. In addition, the
speed and memory of the MDCs will allow sworn personnel to receive call for service
information quicker, provide access to improved mapping features, as well as maintain
better connection to the report writing system. The Department also recently switched to
Verizon for service, which resulted in upgrading to 4G network. In addition, the computers
utilized by officers while in the Department have been replaced in an effort to improve
speed and performance. These changes have increased reliability and speed for officers in
the field. This should positively impact response times and decrease reporting writing time.
8. During the review period, were police units properly staffed to deliver services at the levels
necessary to maintain Priority 1 and Priority 2 Threshold Standard compliance? If not,
please explain and describe what is necessary for police units to be properly staffed.
Yes No ___X___
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 continues to
aggressively recruit and hire highly qualified candidates to fill current vacant positions.
However, the Department anticipates additional retirements over the next 12-18 months.
During the reporting period the Department hired 23 sworn officers (lateral and recruit).
However, we lost 23 sworn officers during the same period. These new hires must complete
10 or 20 weeks of field training in Patrol Operations depending on their previous law
enforcement experience. Field Training is a hands-on teaching environment. The investment
of time for learning and teaching may slow down response times. Once the new personnel
have completed training we will see the positive impact on response times.
9. Will current facilities, equipment and staff be able to accommodate citywide growth
forecasted and meet the threshold standards for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please
explain.
Yes No ___X___
There are still significant concerns with staffing and equipment. As stated above the
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 154
Page 4
Police - 2016
Department continues to experience turn-over due to retirement and outside agency
recruitments. This puts a significant strain on the Department to maintain staffing levels in
the Patrol Division.
Patrol vehicles replacement continues to be an area where the current funding available is
unable to keep up with the demands. During fiscal year 2016 the Department received City
funding to replace 1.5 patrol vehicles. At the time of this report the Department has 9 patrol
vehicles that are at least ten years old. Due to the aging Patrol fleet the reliability and
replacement of the patrol vehicles continues of concern. Any significant growth in the next
18 months will place additional strain on the Patrol Division to comply with GMOC threshold
standards.
10. Will current facilities, equipment and staff be able to accommodate citywide growth
forecasted and meet the threshold standards during the next five years? If not, please
explain.
Yes No ___X___
There are still significant concerns with staffing and equipment. As stated above the
Department continues to experience turn-over due to retirements. This puts a significant
strain on the Department to maintain staffing levels in the Patrol Division. Any significant
growth in the next five years will place additional strain on the Patrol Division to comply
with GMOC threshold standards.
11. During the review period, has growth in Chula Vista negatively affected the department's
ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standards? If yes, please
explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the threshold standards.
Yes No ___X___
12. During the review period, did the Police Department reach its goal of 40% proactive
available time for an officer on duty? If not, please explain.
Over the last three 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), who took over 3,300
reports during the reporting period, deployed a new hybrid staffing schedule, adopted the
updated security alarm ordinance, reprioritized some call for service types, and redeployed
Street Team to back to their assignment of conducting proactive policing. The Department is
still working toward achieving the goal of 40% proactive time.
13. Please update the table below:
NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS PER YEAR
FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15
5,924 6,694 6,424 6,234 6,116 6,119 5,047
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 155
Page 5
Police - 2016
14. The GMOC’s 2015 Annual Report recommended that the City Manager 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. Please
report on how the City Manager’s involvement has affected staffing levels.
During the reporting period the Department published and began implementation of a five-
year Strategic Plan (SP14). The Department has identified three strategic initiatives (People,
Partnerships and Processes) and 16 goals-supported by 75 objectives. The Department’s
SP14 has aligned its objectives and goals with those of the overall City-wide strategic plan.
To date, SP 14 is well ahead of schedule with 47% completion of objectives within the first
eighteen months of the initiative. The goals and objectives for the People initiative deal
directly with recruiting the highest quality police recruit and lateral candidates, as well as
focusing on employee retention and career development. These efforts will directly impact
the recruitment and retention of staff.
15. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you
would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
The Department is in the initial planning stage of updating its Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
and Jail Management System (JMS). On August 18, 2015, the City Council approved an
agreement with Winbourne Consulting LLC to provide project management services for this
critical technology upgrade. An updated CAD system will have a positive impact to police
response times.
Included in the CAD upgrade will be the implementation of Automated Vehicle Location (AVL).
Automated Vehicle Location is a closed system technology that uses GPS signals to show
officers, dispatchers and supervisors where police cars are located. Modern police radios also
have internal GPS devices which can be tracked in the CAD system. This technology improves
officer safety by allowing supervisors and dispatchers to immediately locate all officers and on-
duty assets. Additionally AVL will show dispatchers which units are closest to a given call,
allowing them to dispatch the closest unit. Currently, Dispatchers are “blind” to the current
location of officers, who may be patrolling an area far from an incoming call while another unit
has roamed closer to the emerging call. AVL should have a dramatic impact on officer safety
and reduce response times.
The Department is committed to implementing the goals and objectives outlined in the
Strategic Plan, which will enhance partnerships throughout the community, improve efficiency
and identify innovative strategies to better serve the community and engage Department
employees.
The Department has recently engaged in favorable talks with the City to add additional staffing
during the next fiscal year. If approved, these additional positions would continue to move the
Department closer to meeting the response time thresholds.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Jonathan Alegre/Melanie Culuko
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 156
Page 6
Police - 2016
Title: Administrative Services Manager/Public Safety Analyst
Date: September 18, 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 157
Sewer - 2016 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Sewer – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
1. Existing and projected facility sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards for
the current system and for budgeted improvements, as set forth in the Subdivision Manual.
2. The city shall annually ensure adequate contracted capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer
Authority or other means sufficient to meet the projected needs of development.
Please update the table below:
SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity
Million Gallons per
Day (MGD)
Fiscal Year
2012-13
Fiscal Year
2013-14
Fiscal Year
2014-15
18-month
Projection
5-year
Projection
"Buildout"
Projection
Average Flow 15.734 15.466 15.729 16.59 18.60 29.89
Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864
Please provide responses to the following:
1. During the review period, have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards (75%
of design capacity) at any time? If yes, please indicate where, when and why this occurred, and
what has been done or will be done to correct the situation.
Yes No __X___
2. Can the current system and budgeted improvements adequately accommodate existing facility
sewage flows and volumes and 12-18-month growth projections? If not, what facilities need to be
added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site acquisition?
Yes ___X___ No _______
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 158
Sewer - 2016 2
3. Can the current system and budgeted improvements adequately accommodate existing facility
sewage flows and volumes and 5-year growth projections? If not, what facilities need to be added,
and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site acquisition?
Yes ___X____ No _______
4. Does the city have adequate contracted capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority or
other means sufficient to meet the projected needs of development?
Yes (see table below).
5. Is development of the Village 13 site expected to occur within the next 5 years and would the sewer
lines run through Chula Vista? The Development of the Village 13 area is likely to occur within the
next 5 years, however Chula Vista has no set schedule from the developer. Village 13 EIR was
published this year showing two options for sewer service. The one option showed sewer service
going around the City to the north connecting to Spring Valley sewer Outfall, the second option
showed sewer service through the City connecting to the Salt Creek sewer Outfall. The second
option is believed to be less costly for the development of the Village 13 area; however no
agreement between the County Sanitation District and the City has been reached.
6. Please make any necessary changes to the table below.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Roberto Yano
Title: Sr. Civil Engineer
Date: 10/23/15
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 159
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
SUHSD – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5‐Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARD
The city shall annually provide the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High
School District (SUHSD) with the city’s annual 5‐year residential growth forecast and request an evaluation of their
ability to accommodate forecasted growth, both citywide and by subarea. Replies from the school districts should
address the following:
1. Amount of current classroom and “essential facility” (as defined in the Facility Master Plan) capacity now used or
committed;
2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities and identification of what facilities need to be upgraded
or added over the next five years;
3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities identified; and
4. Other relevant information the school district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the city and the Growth
Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Please complete the table below, adding new schools, if applicable.
EXISTING CONDITIONS – SEPTEMBER 2015
Schools
Current
Enrollment
10/1
Building Capacity
Permanent/Portables
Adjusted
Building
Capacity*
Within
Capacity
Overflow
% Residing
Within
BoundariesIn Out
NORTHWEST
Chula Vista Middle 798 8421881,030Y 73%
Hilltop Middle 1,028 1,060881,148Y 53%
Chula Vista High 2,462 1,7094522,162Note 1 72%
Hilltop High 2,091 1,7163802,096Y 58%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 871 1,088411,129Y 93%
Castle Park High 1,438 1,2463721,618Y 85%
Palomar High 291 265214479Y 97%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 3,033 1,2721,0192,291Note 1 83%
Eastlake Middle 1,682 1,428951,523Note 1 93%
DRAFT – WILL BE PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL AT BOT MEETING ON 10/12/15.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 160
SUHSD ‐ 2016 Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS – SEPTEMBER 2015
Schools
Current
Enrollment
10/1
Building Capacity
Permanent/Portables
Adjusted
Building
Capacity*
Within
Capacity
Overflow
% Residing
Within
BoundariesIn Out
Otay Ranch High 2,523 1,8402862,126Note 1 71%
Olympian High 2,498 1,7471671,913Note 1 63%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 2,415 1,4516052,056Note 1 71%
Bonita Vista Middle 1,191 8813051,187Note 1 66%
Rancho Del Rey Middle 1,753 7796361,414Note 1
88%
TOTAL 24,074 17,3254,84822,173Note 1 99%
*Adjusted Building Capacity is based on 85% of the full capacity of the school site. 85% loading allows teachers to remain in their classroom for their
prep period. It is recalculated annually based on approved student/teacher ratios and room utilization. It excludes students and capacity assigned to
learning centers.
Note 1: This enrollment is accommodated on‐site through master scheduling and travelling teachers which allow classrooms to be used an extra period
each day.
2. Taking into consideration the city’s 2015 Residential Growth Forecast, please complete the two
forecast tables below, adding new schools, if applicable.
SHORT‐TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS ‐‐ DECEMBER 2016
Schools
Projected
Enrollment
12/31/16
Building Capacity
Permanent/Portables
Adjusted
Building
Capacity*
Within
Capacity
Overflow % Residing
Within
Boundaries
In Out
NORTHWEST
Chula Vista Middle 816 8421881,030Y
Hilltop Middle 1,030 1,060881,148Y
Chula Vista High 2,503 1,7094522,162Note 1
Hilltop High 2,096 1,7163802,096Y
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 873 1,088411,129Y
Castle Park High 1,443 1,2463721,618Y
Palomar High 291 265214479Y
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 3,037 1,2721,0192,291 Note 1
Eastlake Middle 1,684 1,428951,523Note 1
Otay Ranch High 2,523 1,8402862,126Note 1
Olympian High 2,583 1,7471671,913Note 1
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 161
SUHSD ‐ 2016 Page 3
SHORT‐TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS ‐‐ DECEMBER 2016
Schools
Projected
Enrollment
12/31/16
Building Capacity
Permanent/Portables
Adjusted
Building
Capacity*
Within
Capacity
Overflow % Residing
Within
Boundaries
In Out
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 2,415 1,4516052,056Note 1
Bonita Vista Middle 1,191 8813051,187Note 1
Rancho del Rey Mid. 1,789 7796361,414Note 1
TOTAL 24,274 17,3254,84822,173Note 1
*See note under previous table.
Note 1: See note under previous table.
FIVE‐YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS ‐‐ DECEMBER 2020
Schools
Projected
Enrollment
12/31/20
Building Capacity
Permanent/Portables
Adjusted
Building
Capacity*
Within
Capacity
Overflow % Residing
Within
Boundaries
NORTHWEST
Chula Vista Middle 895 8421881,030 Y
Hilltop Middle 1,040 1,060881,148 Y
Chula Vista High 2,688 1,7094522,162 Note 1
Hilltop High 2,119 1,7163802,096 Note 1
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 883 1,088411,129 Y
Castle Park High 1,466 1,2463721,618 Y
Palomar High 291 265214479 Y
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 2,727 1,2721,0192,291 Note 1
Eastlake Middle 1,419 1,428951,523 Y
Otay Ranch High 2,462 1,8402862,126 Note 1
Olympian High 2,253 1,7471671,913 Note 1
#12 Middle 1,053 1,13501,135 Y
#14 High 1,835 1,93801,938 Y
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 2,415 1,4516052,056 Note 1
Bonita Vista Middle 1,191 8813051,187 Note 1
Rancho del Rey Mid. 1,490 7796361,414 Note 1
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 162
SUHSD ‐ 2016 Page 4
TOTAL 26,227 20,3984,84825,246 Note 1
*See note under previous table.
Note 1: See note under previous table.
3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history.
ENROLLMENT HISTORY
Schools 2014‐15 2013‐14 2012‐13 2011‐12 2010‐11 2009‐10
NORTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 6,379 6,579 6,798 6,798 6,823 7,067
% of Change Over the
Previous Year -3.0% -2.1% -1.1% -0.4% -3.5% -2.4%
% of Enrollment from Chula
Vista 86% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88%
SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 2,600 2,606 2,712 2,792 3,068 2,977
% of Change Over the
Previous Year -0.23% -3.9% -2.9% -9.0% 3.1% -2.8%
% of Enrollment from Chula
Vista 91% 90% 91% 91% 92% 94%
SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 9,736 9,582 9,414 9,007 8,550 8,446
% of Change Over the
Previous Year 1.6% 1.8% 4.5% 5.4% 1.2% 2.5%
% of Enrollment from Chula
Vista (Note 1) 93% 93% 92% 93% 94% 95%
NORTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 5,359 5,170 5,071 5,071 4,854 4,938
% of Change Over the
Previous Year 3.7% 2.05% 4.5% 4.5% -1.7% -1.4%
% of Enrollment from Chula
Vista 88% 88% 91% 91% 72% 72%
DISTRICT‐WIDE
Total Enrollment 41,123 41,120 40,507 40,507 40,740 41,580
% of Change Over the
Previous Year 0.01% 0.45% -0.57% -0.57% -2.02% -1.98%
% of Enrollment from Chula
Vista 53% 57% 55% 55% 55% 49%
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 163
SUHSD ‐ 2016 Page 5
4. Will existing facilities/schools be 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.
5. Will existing facilities/schools be 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
School
Name/
Number
Site
Selection
Architectural
Review/Funding
ID for Land and
Construction
Beginning of
Site
Preparation
Service by
Utilities and
Road
Beginning of
Construction
Time
Needed
By
MS #12 * * * * 2017 July 2019
HS #14 * * * * 2017 July 2019
*SUHSD owns a 27.18‐acre site at Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway (the Hunte Site). The District is in the process
of updating the Long Range Facilities Master Plan which will include making a decision on what school to place on the
Hunte Site.
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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 164
SUHSD ‐ 2016 Page 6
10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
At the October 6, 2015 Community Meeting for the Long Range Facilities Master Plan, there was strong opposition to
the concept of a 7‐12 campus at the Hunte Site. Regardless of whether MS12 or HS14 is placed on the Hunte Site,
another 25‐50‐acre school site will be needed, depending on grades served.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Paul Woods
Title: Director of Planning and Construction
Date: October 7, 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 165
Sweetwater Authority – 2016 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Sweetwater Authority – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
1. Adequate water supply must be available to serve new development. Therefore, developers shall
provide the city with a service availability letter from the appropriate 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 the city’s annual 5-year residential growth forecast and request
that they provide an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth. Replies should
address the following:
a. Water availability to the city, considering both short- and long-term perspectives.
b. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity, including storage
capacity, now used or committed.
c. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted 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 the Growth
Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Please complete the table below.
WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water Non-Potable Water
Timeframe
Demand
Supply
Capacity
Storage
Capacity
Demand
Supply
Capacity
Storage
Capacity
Local Imported Treated Raw
5-Year
Projection
(Ending 6/30/20)
20.5 39.5 30 44.55 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
12-18 Month
Projection
(Ending
12/30/16)
19.7 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 166
Sweetwater Authority – 2016 2
WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water Non-Potable Water
FY 2014/15
(ending 6/30/15)
17.2 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
FY 2013/14
(ending 6/30/14)
19.0 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
FY 2012/13
(ending 6/30/13)
18.8 37 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
FY 2011/12
(ending 6/30/12)
18.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
FY 2010/11
(ending 6/30/11)
18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
FY 2009/10
(ending 6/30/10)
18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
FY 2008/09
(ending 6/30/09)
20.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a
Notes:
a. The use of local vs. imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and runoff within the Sweetwater
River watershed and is, therefore, unpredictable. Based on a 20-year average, 48 percent of water demand has been
supplied by imported water sources.
b. Table values are for all of Sweetwater Authority, which only serves the western portion of Chula Vista. Sweetwater also
serves the City of National City and the unincorporated community of Bonita.
c. Production demand is taken from the Sweetwater Authority Water Use Reports that are submitted monthly to SDCWA.
d. 12-18 month and 5-year potable water production demand projections are taken from Table 4-2 of Sweetwater
Authority’s 2010 Water Distribution System Master Plan.
e. Local supply components include the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Facility (5 mgd), and
National City Wells (2 mgd), for a total of 37 mgd or 13,500 MG 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.
2. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18
months? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and
when and where they would be constructed.
Yes ___X____ No _______
3. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If
not, please list any additional facilities needed, and when and where they would be constructed.
Yes ___X____ No _______
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 167
Sweetwater Authority – 2016 3
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 ______
Sweetwater Authority continues to invest in several maintenance and upgrade programs to
replace aging pipelines, valves, and other critical water facilities. This allows Sweetwater
Authority to continue to provide reliable 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 and current projects are listed in the Authority’s Capital Budget.
Construction of the Richard A. Reynolds Desalination Facility Expansion project began in
September 2015. In addition, Sweetwater Authority plans to replace approximately three miles
of 36-inch water transmission pipeline through Bonita Valley, which is critical for continued long
term water supply reliability to the City of Chula Vista.
5. What efforts are being done by Sweetwater Authority to reduce water rates?
Implementation of the expansion of the Richard A. Reynolds Desalination Facility using grant
funding to offset up to 75 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 lower water rates as compared
to the water rates that would be required without expansion of the Desalination Facility. In
addition, the Authority continually endeavors to maximize efficiency in all areas of operation.
6. 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. As of July 9, 2015, however, the
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) turf replacement program stopped accepting applications
due to exhaustion of funding. MWD and Sweetwater Authority turf rebates will not be available
until more funding becomes available. Please refer to the Sweetwater Authority web site for a
current listing of devices and rebate amounts.
7. 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 development, which will require major infrastructure coordination. In addition,
Sweetwater Authority will be updating both its Urban Water Management Plan and Water
Distribution System Master Plan during FY 2015-16, in coordination with local agencies including the
City of Chula Vista. Please continue to keep Sweetwater Authority informed and involved in all
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 168
Sweetwater Authority – 2016 4
development and capital improvement projects to reduce the potential for unexpected water
infrastructure requirements.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Ron R. Mosher
Title: Director of Engineering
Date: September 14, 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 169
Traffic - 2016 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Traffic – 2016
Review Period:
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast
THRESHOLD STANDARDS
1. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Non-Urban Streets: Those Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP)
roadway segments classified as other than Urban Streets in the “Land Use and Transportation Element” of
the city’s General Plan shall maintain LOS “C” or better as measured by observed average travel speed on
those segments; except, that during peak hours, LOS “D” can occur for no more than two hours of the day.
2. Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS): Those TMP roadway segments classified as Urban Streets in the
“Land Use and Transportation Element” of the city’s General Plan shall maintain LOS “D” or better, as
measured by observed or predicted average travel speed, except that during peak hours, LOS “E” can occur
for no more than two hours per day.
Notes to Standards:
1. Arterial Segment: LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and special
circumstance variations.
2. The LOS measurement of arterial segments at freeway ramps shall be a growth management consideration in situations where
proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanges.
3. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to the anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards.
4. The criteria for calculating arterial LOS and defining arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in
the most recent Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the city’s traffic engineer.
5. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the HCM.
With appropriate maps and tables, please provide responses to the following:
1. For non-urban roadway segments, did the city maintain LOS “C” or better during the review period?
If not, please list segments that did not comply and explain how the situation is being addressed.
Yes ______ No ___X___
The following non-urban segments were monitored during the period of July 1, 2014 to June 30,
2015 and did not maintain the required LOS per GMOC (see Attachment #1).
Heritage Road, between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway, during the northbound
morning, mid-day and evening peak hour periods (2-hours per each), the roadway maintained a
LOS ‘D’ for all six hours. In the southbound peak hour periods the segment maintained five
hours of LOS ‘D’ and one hour of LOS ‘C’
Otay Lakes Road, between East “H” Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, during the northbound peak
hour periods the segment maintained two hours of LOS ‘C’ and four hours of LOS ‘D’. For the
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 170
Traffic - 2016 2
southbound peak hour periods the segment maintained an hour of LOS ‘C’, four hours of LOS ‘D’ and
one hour (7am-8am) of LOS was ‘E’.
2. For urban streets, did the city maintain LOS “D” or better during the review period? If not, please
list segments that did not comply and explain how the situation is being addressed.
Yes __X___ No ______
See (Attachment #2)
3. Please attach a map delineating urban and non-urban streets.
See Attached map (Attachment #3)
4. On the table below, please list all segments that did not comply with the threshold standards:
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
Otay Lakes Road NB
SB
D(4)
D(4) E(1)
Heritage Road NB
SB
D(6)
D(5)
Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
None - -
5. Will current traffic facilities be able to accommodate projected growth and comply with the
threshold standards during the next 12-18 months? If not, please list new roadways and/or
improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth during this timeframe, and indicate
how they will be funded.
Yes No ___X___
OLYMPIC PARKWAY CORRIDOR
Olympic Parkway traffic levels, currently at 53,276 ADT, will continue to increase as development
continues to the east.
Along the freeway medians, Caltrans is currently in construction of the carpool lanes portion of the I-
805 Managed Lanes project between East Palomar Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. Ultimately,
the I-805 Managed Lanes will continue north to State Route 94 and terminate in Downtown San
Diego. Pending regional approval, subsequent phases of the project are planned to be completed by
2020. At East Palomar Street this project will provide for a northbound on-ramp and a southbound
off-ramp via carpool lane access points towards the center of the I-805 freeway, not the typical
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 171
Traffic - 2016 3
on/off ramps where you merge from the right side of the freeway. The East Palomar Street Bridge is
scheduled for a partial opening by the end of calendar year 2015 and for a full opening in Spring of
2016. The Direct Access Ramps should be completed 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.
HERITAGE ROAD EXTENSION FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO MAIN STREET
With continued traffic monitoring, the schedule for constructing the ultimate 6-lane southerly
extension of Heritage Road will be determined. 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. Construction as a 2-lane road will be completed in FY16/17.
OTAY LAKES ROAD
The construction of the Otay Lakes Road widening project is complete. The recent TMP monitoring
of the segment between East 'H' Street and Telegraph Canyon Road is still experiencing LOS 'D'
during all peak hours with an ADT of 29,600. The adaptive traffic signals through this corridor have
been studied and revised. On-going monitoring of this segment will continue to be studied to
ensure it remains at a satisfactory LOS.
Additionally, city staff is working on two budgeted adaptive signal system CIPs. The first, Traffic
Signal System Communication Network Master Plan. The masterplan will outline the design,
specifications and estimates necessary to update, modernize and complete the City's traffic signal
communications network. Project will also provide the design and build of a fully functioning traffic
signal communication room. The City’s Engineering Division advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP)
to provide consultant services for the project. Proposals were received by City staff in July and
interviews were conducted as part of the City’s consultant selection process. As determined through
the RFP and interview process, the most qualified firm was selected for first negotiation preference.
The expected start date is in the spring of 2016. The second, expansion of Adaptive Traffic Signal
System along East “H” Street and Telegraph Canyon Rd/Otay Lakes Road, will expand the adaptive
traffic signal control along East “H” Street, Telegraph Canyon Rd, and Otay Lakes Rd through the
Highway Safety Improvement Program. The project aims to provide a more dynamic signal system
servicing the traffic along these streets. This will also include acquiring services for signal retiming
which includes the Otay Lakes Road/Southwestern College area. The City will be advertising a
Request for Proposals for engineering services at end of this calendar year under the Caltrans Local
Assistance Program. The anticipated start date is in the spring of 2016.
PALOMAR STREET
On Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Blvd, the LOS, continues to perform at very
busy but satisfactory levels. Recent improvements to the Blueline Trolley crossing at Palomar Street
and to the Palomar Trolley Station have helped maintain the LOS to acceptable levels. Staff is
currently working with SANDAG on the preliminary engineering and environmental document for
grade-separating the rail crossing. The environmental document will be completed in FY 16/17.
Staff is also pursing the engineering design and construction phase funding with SANDAG.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 172
Traffic - 2016 4
LA MEDIA ROAD
Improvement plans have been submitted for the extension of La Media Road, south of Santa Luna
Street to Main Street.
I-805/ EAST PALOMAR STREET DIRECT ACCESS RAMP (DAR)
This Caltrans administered project will reconstruct the East Palomar Street overcrossing to provide
for a wider local street and a direct access ramp to the I-805 carpool lanes. When completed in FY
15/16, there will be a northbound on-ramp and a southbound off-ramp. During the approximate 2-
year closure of the overcrossing the approximate 10,000 ADT have been diverted to East Naples
Street and to Olympic Parkway.
Once completed, it is expected that with the I-805 DAR Project providing another access point to the
freeway, that some traffic originating in the area bounded by parallel streets such as Olympic
Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road would divert to East Palomar Street. The DAR is considered a
Managed Lane project in that it is available for carpool vehicles at no charge. 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 I-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
has bid out the first phase of work between Heritage Road and Olympic Parkway. The other phases
are almost completely designed. It is anticipated that Phase I construction will commence in late
FY15/16 with all phases completed in FY 17/18. 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.
TDIF PROGRAM FUNDING
Development is required to pay their fair share in mitigating any project impacts. The City of Chula
Vista has the Transportation Development Impact Fee programs for the Bayfront, Western Chula
Vista and Eastern Chula Vista 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 most recent updates occurred in FY 14/15.
Therefore, the developer impact fees are current.
Both 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.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 173
Traffic - 2016 5
6. Will current traffic facilities be able to accommodate projected growth and comply with the
threshold standards during the next five years? If not, please list new roadways and/or
improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth during this timeframe, and indicate
how they will be funded.
Yes No __X___
Heritage Road will need to connect to Main Street. La Media Road will need to be extended to Main
Street. All will be funded by developer impact fess. Palomar Street at Industrial Boulevard will need
to be grade separated and it will be paid for with regional, local, state and federal funds.
7. What methods of data collection were used to provide 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 (TMP) deploys a specially equipped vehicle into average peak
traffic to gather average speed, travel time and delay information for each roadway segment
studied.
The Traffic Management Program (TMP) deploys a specially equipped vehicle into average weekly
peak traffic to gather average speed, travel time and delay information for each roadway segment
studied. This program determines which local streets and arterial roadways have the most delays.
The 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 and continuously managing
deployed detection networks. The system measures and reports Real-Time travel times along East H
Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. The detection is from unique vehicle
magnetic detection signatures, re-identifies vehicles to provide accurate travel times and vehicle
density. The system helps in determining performance measures for vehicular counts and traffic
delays. It provides data used for incident management and load balancing of the traveled segment.
It has the capability of storing historical traffic volume data than can be used for future studies.
In the eastern part of the City (east of I-805), developers have paid for 28 permanent solar powered
traffic count stations. The count stations store traffic volume data and can remotely accessed
through the internet. As with the other methods of data collection, they are all used in monitoring
the City’s traffic flow for the GMOC.
8. Please provide an update on public transportation projects and indicate how they are anticipated to
affect threshold compliance.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 174
Traffic - 2016 6
SOUTH BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is proposing to provide Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) services and corridor improvements in the San Diego area. The proposed South Bay BRT
project will extend approximately 21 miles from downtown San Diego to the Otay Mesa
International Transportation Center (ITC) adjacent to the U.S./Mexico Otay Mesa International
Border crossing (see Attachment # 4). The Chula Vista segment will facilitate the passage of BRT
vehicles through the East Palomar Street Corridor with minimal disruption to local traffic. BRT
vehicles will travel on northbound SR-125 into the City of Chula Vista to the Birch Road exit. At the
SR-125/Birch Road interchange, the proposed alignment will follow Birch Road to a guideway entry
at the Millenia/Otay Ranch Town Center (ORTC) Mall eastern perimeter. BRT vehicles will stop at
the proposed ORTC park-and-ride station and existing 250 space park-and-ride lot. After serving the
station, the BRT vehicles will continue north and then west within a proposed guideway along the
northern boundary of the ORTC. BRT vehicles will then continue westward and across SR-125 via a
proposed transit/pedestrian guideway bridge and ramp to where East Palomar Street ends at a T-
intersection with Magdalena Avenue. From Magdalena Avenue to Gould Avenue, the BRT will travel
in a center raised median guideway. From Gould Avenue to I-805, the BRT will travel in mixed flow
lanes until the last stop at the I-805/East Palomar Street DAR park-and-ride lot. There will be three
intermediate stops at: Santa Venetia Station, Lomas Verdes Station and Heritage Station.
Construction begins in 2016 and is scheduled to be completed in 2018.
BLUE LINE GRADE SEPERATIONS
The Blue Line Light Rail Trolley system (Route 510) is the busiest transit route in the County with
more then 48,000 daily passengers. Every four years, SANDAG approves their Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) which looks at the region’s transportation needs for the next few decades.
The RTP was adopted by the SANDAG Executive Board on October 9, 2015. One of the planned
projects is to grade separate the rail crossings at “E” Street, “H” Street and Palomar Street as well as
five other Blue Line locations in the City of San Diego by year 2035. Chula Vista is currently working
on the environmental document for Palomar Street, which is the highest priority location in the
County out of the 27 locations studied (see Attachment #5). It is hoped that work on the “E” Street
and “H” Street locations will also commence within a few years time.
PURPLE LINE LIGHT RAIL TROLLEY
The SANDAG San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (RTP) shows that that highest ranked transit
service in the County is Trolley Route 562 from Carmel Valley to San Ysidro via Kearny Mesa. In
addition, the SDSU to Palomar Station (Chula Vista) via East San Diego, South East San Diego and
National City ranked second. The first phase of work, through Chula Vista, is expected to be
completed by year 2035. This would be an entirely new light rail system for the region.
9. Please provide current statistics on transit ridership in Chula Vista.
Based on data from the American Public Transportation Association 2014 First Quarter, transit
ridership within the City of Chula Vista has decreased by 5.1%. The decrease in ridership is due to
several factors. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) absorbed the Chula Vista Transit
Division, which included closing the Chula Vista Transit garage and being consolidated by the MTS
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 175
Traffic - 2016 7
South Bay garage in late January 2015. In addition, the closing of the East Palomar Street Bridge at
I-805 significantly reduced the ridership due to significant detours and delays.
10. Please provide any updates to the construction schedule, between now and 2020, for new roads
and improvements funded by TDIF funds.
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.
- 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 16/17.
- Heritage Road Bridge (STM-364):
South of Main Street - Construction scheduled for FY 16/17.
- La Media Road (OR651I):
South of Santa Luna to Main Street - Construction scheduled for FY 16/17.
- 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 – Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Phase FY 16/17. Design in FY 17/18. Construction scheduled for FY 18/19.
11. Is Heritage Road still expected to be completed by December 2016?
No, the construction of Heritage Road, between Santa Victoria Road and Main Street, will not be
completed by the end of 2016. The rough grading plans should be approved at the end of 2015. The
approval of the improvement plans should occur in late FY 15/16 and it is anticipated that the
environmental review for this segment will be approved by summer 2016. Once the environmental
and plans are approved, construction could commence in FY 16/17 with possible completion in
summer 2017.
12. Please provide an update on the completion of the East Palomar Street direct access ramp.
Construction continues on the East Palomar Street Bridge at the I-805 and the direct access ramp
(DAR). Construction delays have negatively impacted the project schedule due to utility relocation.
It is anticipated that the bridge and the DAR will open late by the spring of 2016.
13. Please provide any monitoring data available for highly congested roadway segments, including
Olympic Parkway between La Media Road and Heritage Road.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 176
Traffic - 2016 8
This segment of Olympic Parkway between La Media Road and Heritage Road will be included as
part of the Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) in the future. Based on the Highway Capacity
Manual, a level of service ‘C’ was calculated using the Vehicle-over-Capacity methodology for
this segment (see Attachment #6).
14. Please provide traffic data for the past three years on State Route 125.
Ridership along State Route 125 has increased over the last several years since SANDAG took
ownership of the toll road on December 21, 2011 from South Bay Expressway. In late 2011, ADT’s
were approximately 22,000 vehicles per day and with a toll schedule higher in cost than today. In
2014, the ADT volumes were approximately 38,000 vehicles in both directions along the northern
section of the toll road. For the first part of 2015, ADT volumes continue to increase to 40,000
vehicles per day.
15. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the city council.
The City was awarded 2 HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) grants in 2015.
1. Project: Traffic Signal System Communication Network Master Plan (TF396)
The Masterplan will outline the design, specifications and estimates necessary to update, modernize
and complete the City's almost 300 traffic signal communications network. Project will also provide
the design and build of a fully functioning traffic signal communication room. The City’s Engineering
Division advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide consultant services for the project.
Proposals were received by City staff in July. Interviews were conducted as part of the City’s
consultant selection process. As determined through the RFP and interview process, the most
qualified firm was selected for first negotiation preference. The Notice to Proceed is expected to be
issued spring of 2016.
2. Project: Expansion of Adaptive Traffic Signal System along East “H” Street and Telegraph Canyon
Rd/Otay Lakes Road (TF389)
The proposed project will expand adaptive traffic signal control along East “H” Street, Telegraph
Canyon Rd, and Otay Lakes Rd through the Highway Safety Improvement Program. The project aims
to provide a more dynamic signal system servicing the traffic along these streets. The City will be
advertising a Request for Proposals for engineering services at end of this year under the Caltrans
Local Assistance Program.
Traffic Engineering is continuing to research new methods and technology for vehicular data
collection. The current software has been used for over 10 years and is becoming more antiquated
as the City continues to upgrade computers, operating systems and network software. One type of
technology being researched is a wireless product. This product will allow us to monitor our busiest
segments and help continuously study travel times, traffic patterns and congestion. Using wireless
technology will help free up manpower while allowing the continuous collection of more data.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 177
Traffic - 2016 9
PREPARED BY:
Name: Frank Rivera
Title: Principal Civil Engineer
Date: October 23, 2015
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 178
Swe
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
Swe
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
City of San DiegoCity of San Diego
Sa
n
D
i
e
g
o
B
a
y
Sa
n
D
i
e
g
o
B
a
y
City of
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
i
t
y
City of
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
i
t
y
County
o
f
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
County
o
f
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
§¨¦5 §¨¦805
E H ST
MAIN ST
E J S
T
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
I ST
E ST
J ST
L ST
F ST
F
O
U
R
T
H
A
V
H ST
I
-
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
S
I
-
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
N
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
OLYMP
I
C
P
W
I-
8
0
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
S
G ST
I-
8
0
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
N
B
A
Y
B
L
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
D
R
K ST
E PALOM
A
R
S
T
OTA
Y
L
A
K
E
S
R
D
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
V
F
I
R
S
T
A
V
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
SR
-
1
2
5
T
O
L
L
R
O
A
D
S
SR
-
1
2
5
T
O
L
L
R
O
A
D
N
MOSS ST
TELE
G
R
A
P
H
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
PALOMAR S
T
LA
M
E
D
I
A
R
D
O
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
A
V
OXFORD ST
D ST
F
I
F
T
H
A
V
N
A
C
I
O
N
A
V
BONITA RD
E NAPLES S
T
NAPLES ST
ORANGE AV
E L ST
BIRCH R
D
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
B
L
C ST
BR
A
N
D
Y
W
I
N
E
A
V
B
E
Y
E
R
W
Y
EA
S
T
L
A
K
E
P
W
E ORANGE AV
E OXFORD
S
T
M
A
R
I
N
A
P
W
B
U
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
W
Y
PA
S
E
O
L
A
D
E
R
A
P
A
S
E
O
R
A
N
C
H
E
R
O
S RANCH
O
D
E
L
R
E
Y
P
W
N RANCH
O
D
E
L
R
E
Y
P
W
H
E
R
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
B
E
Y
E
R
B
L
TE
R
R
A
N
O
V
A
D
R
PL
A
Z
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
R
D
SR-54 FREE
W
A
Y
E
PASEO
D
E
L
R
E
Y
RU
T
G
E
R
S
A
V
LAGOON DR
ME
D
I
C
A
L
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
RIDGEBACK RD
DEL
R
E
Y
B
L
N
F
O
U
R
T
H
A
V
W
O
O
D
L
A
W
N
A
V
EASTLAKE DRC ST
E PALOMAR
S
T
F
I
F
T
H
A
V
N
A
C
I
O
N
A
V
H
E
R
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
LOS CLOS C
LOS DLOS D
LOS BLOS B
GMOC 2016GMOC 2016
LOS ALOS A
LOS ELOS E
ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
AM Peak PeriodAM Peak Period
0 3750 75001875
Feet
LOS FLOS F
LEGENDLEGEND
PROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORING F
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 179
Sa
n
D
i
e
g
o
B
a
y
Sa
n
D
i
e
g
o
B
a
y
Swe
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
Swe
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
City of San DiegoCity of San Diego
City of
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
i
t
y
City of
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
i
t
y
County
o
f
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
County
o
f
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
§¨¦5 §¨¦805
E H ST
MAIN ST
E J S
T
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
I ST
E ST
J ST
L ST
F ST
F
O
U
R
T
H
A
V
H ST
I
-
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
S
I
-
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
N
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
OLYMP
I
C
P
W
I-
8
0
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
S
I-
8
0
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
N
G ST
B
A
Y
B
L
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
D
R
K ST
SR
-
1
2
5
T
O
L
L
R
O
A
D
S
OTAY LAK
E
S
R
D
E PALOM
A
R
S
T
S
R
-
1
2
5
T
O
L
L
R
O
A
D
N
BONIT
A
R
D
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
V
F
I
R
S
T
A
V
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
MOSS ST
TELE
G
R
A
P
H
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
PALOMAR S
T
LA
M
E
D
I
A
R
D
O
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
A
V
OXFORD ST
D ST
EA
S
T
L
A
K
E
P
W
F
I
F
T
H
A
V
N
A
C
I
O
N
A
V
E NAPLES S
T
NAPLES ST
ORANGE AV
E L ST
BIRCH RD
SR-54 FREE
W
A
Y
E
SR-54 F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
W
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
B
L
C ST
BR
A
N
D
Y
W
I
N
E
A
V
E ORANGE AV
E OXFORD
S
T
M
A
R
I
N
A
P
W
B
U
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
W
Y
PA
S
E
O
L
A
D
E
R
A
C
O
R
R
A
L
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
P
A
S
E
O
R
A
N
C
H
E
R
O
S RANCH
O
D
E
L
R
E
Y
P
W
N RANCH
O
D
E
L
R
E
Y
P
W
B
E
Y
E
R
W
Y
P
L
A
Z
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
R
D
H
E
R
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
TE
R
R
A
N
O
V
A
D
R
N
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
V
PASEO
D
E
L
R
E
Y
RU
T
G
E
R
S
A
V
LAGOON DR
ME
D
I
C
A
L
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
RIDGEBACK RD
DEL
R
E
Y
B
L
N
F
O
U
R
T
H
A
V
W
O
O
D
L
A
W
N
A
V
EASTLAKE DR
N
A
C
I
O
N
A
V
E PALOMAR
S
T
C ST
SR
-
1
2
5
T
O
L
L
R
O
A
D
N
F
I
F
T
H
A
V
H
E
R
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
EAS
T
L
A
K
E
D
R
.
LOS CLOS C
LOS DLOS D
LOS BLOS B
GMOC 2016GMOC 2016
LOS ALOS A
LOS ELOS E
ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Mid-Day Peak PeriodMid-Day Peak Period
0 3750 75001875
Feet
LOS FLOS F
LEGENDLEGEND
PROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORING
Text
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 180
Sa
n
D
i
e
g
o
B
a
y
Sa
n
D
i
e
g
o
B
a
y
Swe
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
Swe
e
t
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
City of San DiegoCity of San Diego
City of
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
i
t
y
City of
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
i
t
y
County
o
f
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
County
o
f
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
§¨¦5 §¨¦805
E H ST
MAIN ST
E J S
T
T
H
I
R
D
A
V
I ST
E ST
J ST
L ST
F ST
I
-
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
S
F
O
U
R
T
H
A
V
H ST
I
-
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
N
OLYMP
I
C
P
W
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
I-
8
0
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
S
I-
8
0
5
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
N
G ST
B
A
Y
B
L
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
D
R
K ST
SR
-
1
2
5
T
O
L
L
R
O
A
D
S
SR
-
1
2
5
T
O
L
L
R
O
A
D
N
OTA
Y
L
A
K
E
S
R
D
E PALOM
A
R
S
T
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
V
F
I
R
S
T
A
V
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
MOSS ST
TELE
G
R
A
P
H
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
PALOMAR S
T
LA
M
E
D
I
A
R
D
BONIT
A
R
D
O
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
A
V
OXFORD ST
E
A
S
T
L
A
K
E
P
W
D ST
F
I
F
T
H
A
V
N
A
C
I
O
N
A
V
E NAPLES S
T
NAPLES ST
ORANGE AV
BIRCH RD
E L ST
SR-54 FREE
W
A
Y
E
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
B
L
SR-54 F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
W
C ST
BR
A
N
D
Y
W
I
N
E
A
V
E ORANGE AV
E OXFORD
S
T
M
A
R
I
N
A
P
W
B
E
Y
E
R
W
Y
B
U
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
W
Y
PA
S
E
O
L
A
D
E
R
A
P
A
S
E
O
R
A
N
C
H
E
R
O
S RANCH
O
D
E
L
R
E
Y
P
W
N RANCH
O
D
E
L
R
E
Y
P
W
P
L
A
Z
A
B
O
N
I
T
A
R
D
H
E
R
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
C
O
R
R
A
L
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
TE
R
R
A
N
O
V
A
D
R
PASEO
D
E
L
R
E
Y
RU
T
G
E
R
S
A
V
N
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
V
LAGOON DR
ME
D
I
C
A
L
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
R
RIDGEBACK RD
DEL
R
E
Y
B
L
N
F
O
U
R
T
H
A
V
W
O
O
D
L
A
W
N
A
V
EASTLAKE DR
E PALOMAR
S
T
C ST
F
I
F
T
H
A
V
N
A
C
I
O
N
A
V
H
E
R
I
T
A
G
E
R
D
EAS
T
L
A
K
E
D
R
.
LOS CLOS C
LOS DLOS D
LOS BLOS B
GMOC 2016GMOC 2016
LOS ALOS A
LOS ELOS E
ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
PM Peak PeriodPM Peak Period
0 3750 75001875
Feet
LOS FLOS F
LEGENDLEGEND
PROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORING
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 181
RESOLUTION NO. MPA15-0011
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2016
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 topicsassociated with the City’s Growth
Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services 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 further environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2016, the GMOC finalized its 2016Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2014through June 30, 2015, identifies
current issues in the second half of 2015and early 2016, and assesses threshold compliance concerns
looking forward over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public
meeting with the GMOC and the City Council to consider the GMOC’s 2016Annual Report, and to
make recommendations to the CityCouncil.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept and forward the GMOC’s 2016Annual 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 theGMOC’s2016Annual Report.
Presented by Approved as to form by
_______________________________________________________________
Kelly G. Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 182
Resolution No. MPA15-0011
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 14th day of July, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Yolanda Calvo, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Patricia Laughlin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 183
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2016
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 Director of Development Services 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 further environmental
review is required; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2016, the GMOC finalized its 2016Annual Report;
and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2014through June 30,
2015, identifies current issues in the second half of 2015and early 2016, and assesses
threshold compliance concerns over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public
meeting with the GMOC and the Planning Commission to consider the GMOC’s 2016
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 GMOC’s 2016Annual 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 G. Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins
Directorof Development Services City Attorney
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 184
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, California this 14th day of July2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary Salas, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Donna R. 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. 2016-was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 14th dayof July,
2016.
Executed this 14th day of July, 2016
_____________________________
Donna R. Norris, City Clerk
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 185
ATTACHMENT 1
2016 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary
Page 1 of 3
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Libraries
3.1.1 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.
1. Libraries
3.1.1 Renovation of the underutilized lower level is underway.
Space will be converted to a STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics) lab/maker space in cooperation
with Qualcomm and Chula Vista Elementary School
District. Estimated completion is July 2016.
2. Police
3.2.1 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.
3.2.2 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 2 calls can improve.
2. Police
3.2.1 & 3.2.2
As part of the Police Department’s Strategic Plan, the
“People” initiative prioritizes recruitment and retention
programs to develop the best possible staff to carry out the
Department’s mission. Unfortunately, the Department has
the lowest sworn officer to population ratio in the region
(0.93 per 1000 residents compared to the regional average
of 1.31). Current sworn staffing levels have challenged the
Department to meet its response thresholds.
Although adequate staffing has been a concern for the
Police Department to meet its GMOC response time
thresholds, the Department seeks alternate solutions to
meet the thresholds. The Police Department is in the
process of updating its Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD)
system, which will include Automated Vehicle Location
(AVL) technology. AVL will show dispatchers which units are
closest to a given call, which will have a positive impact to
police response times.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 186
ATTACHMENT 1
2016 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary
Page 2 of 3
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
3. Traffic
3.3.1 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.
3. Traffic
3.3.1 The Public Works Department concurs with and accepts the
recommendation. Obtaining the 404 permit from the Army
Corps of Engineers is still in process, and completion of the
Heritage Road extension from Santa Victoria Road to Main
Street is expected to be delayed until approximately
February 2017.
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Services
3.4.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to collaborate with the
Fire Chief in conducting a statistical analysis to provide more
detailed information regarding specific station response times
and the percentage of calls where there is cross-coverage, and
to focus on improving the response times by fire stations 6, 7
and 8.
4. Fire and Emergency Medical Services
3.4.1 Staff met with software vendor, DECCAN INTL, to include
this analysis as part of our annual update. Station and unit
placement/coverage are to be examined and
recommendations made. Responses are expected by
summer 2016.
5. Parks and Recreation
3.5.1 That City Council approve the updated Parks and Recreation
Master Plan by fall 2016, and resolve any outstanding issues
through future amendments to the document.
5. Parks and Recreation
3.5.1 The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is on schedule to
go to City Council for their consideration by fall 2016.
6. Fiscal
3.6.1-1) That City Council direct the City Manager to strongly consider
ballot measures to increase property and/or sales taxes.
6. Fiscal
3.6.1-1) The City’s asset management team is currently gathering
feedback on a potential revenue measure and will bring
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 187
ATTACHMENT 1
2016 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary
Page 3 of 3
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
3.6.1-2) That City Council direct the City Manager to work with the
Director of Economic Development to explore economic
development through tax incentives.
council their final recommendation by mid-May.
3.6.1-2) The City does consider, on a case by case basis, tax
incentives for certain industries that generate jobs and
an overall increase in the generation of sales and/or
property tax revenue to the City.
2016-07-14 Workshop Agenda Packet Page 188