Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2017_04_27Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor Patricia Aguilar, Councilmember Mike Diaz, Councilmember John McCann, Councilmember Stephen C. Padilla, Councilmember Thursday, April 27, 2017 I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the office of the City Clerk and that I posted the document according to Brown Act requirements. Dated: ;Zo Sued: e Cnv of CHULA VISTA 6:00 PM Celti'L��IiI�L�i>�f!Le7 l:�'IC�7 /Yeltile-&- Gary Halbert, City Manager Glen R. Googins, City Attorney Donna R. Norris, City Clerk Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 Special Meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista Notice is hereby given that. the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista has called and will convene Special Meetings of the City Council, the Planning Commission and Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista on Thursday, April 27, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California to consider the item on this agenda. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Aguilar, Diaz, McCann, Padilla and Mayor Casillas Salas Planning Commissioners Anaya, Calvo, Livag, Nava, Zaker, and Chair Gutierrez Growth Management Oversight Commissioners Alatorre, Caudillo, Hooker, Juarez, Lengyel, Mosolgo, Rosales, Zaker, and Chair Torres PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE City of Chula Vista Page 1 Printed on 4/20/2017 April 27, 2017City 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’s) 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY 17-00761.17-0076 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 City Council adopt resolution B. Staff Recommendation: CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORTS COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to the Mayor's State of the City Address on May 2, 2017, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers; and thence to the Regular City Council Workshop on May 4, 2017, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers; and thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 9, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Page 2 City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 2 April 27, 2017City 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 4/20/2017 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 3 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION’S (GMOC’s) 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission adopt resolution A and City Council adopt resolution B. SUMMARY Chula Vista’s multi-faceted Growth Management Program continues to assure that as new development and revitalization occurs, public facilities, services and infrastructure will exist or be provided to match the needs created by growth. Each year, the City’s Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with the established threshold standards for the “Growth Management” ordinance’s eleven public facility and service topics. The 2017 Annual Report covering Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) is presented for review and consideration of implementing actions to address growth-oriented concerns. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice The Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Environmental Determination The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because it involves only acceptance of the GMOC Annual Report and does not involve approvals of any specific projects; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines no environmental review is necessary. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, specific projects defined in the future as a result of the recommendations in the 2017 GMOC Annual Report will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA, prior to the commencement of any project. City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 1 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 4 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission will provide comments and any recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION 1.Introduction The City’s General Plan establishes the policy framework for Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program and Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), also known as the “Growth Management Ordinance”, serves as a key component in implementing the Program. CVMC 19.09 codifies threshold standards for eleven public facility and service topics, including eight under the direct control of the City (Drainage, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Police, Sewer, and Traffic), two external to the City (Schools and Water), and one that is both city-controlled and external (Air Quality and Climate Protection). In addition, it establishes administration and implementation measures for the threshold standards. In compliance with CVMC Section 19.09.030 (F), the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) shall annually prepare a report regarding the current and potential future compliance status of quality of life threshold standards set forth in the “Growth Management” ordinance. The report is intended to serve as a basis for recommending change in the capital investment program, changes to the City organization and management, engagement in inter-agency cooperation, and implementation of actions to assure that the threshold standards and related quality of life in the City are sustained. Tonight, this Annual Report is being submitted for consideration to the Planning Commission for their input and recommendation and to the City Council for their review and action. Growth in Chula Vista Between 2012 and 2016, the number of residential building permits issued in Chula Vista averaged 811 units per calendar year. This rate of growth is projected to continue or increase over the next five years, according to Chula Vista’s 2016 Residential Growth Forecast (Attachment 3, Appendix A). With growth comes the demand for additional services and facilities. Fiscal Year 2016 Compliance with Growth Management Threshold Standards The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report covers Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016). The Report addresses compliance with delivery of services and facilities, based on threshold standards for the eleven service topics identified in the City’s “Growth Management” ordinance. Each threshold is discussed in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. Additionally, the Report identifies current issues in the second half of 2016 and early 2017 and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. Presented below is a summary of findings and key issues regarding threshold compliance. A summary table of the GMOC’s recommendations and staff's responses and proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report (Attachment 2) provides additional background information and more detailed explanations of findings and discussion/recommendations. 2.Summary of Findings City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 2 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 5 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. The following table summarizes the GMOC’s threshold compliance findings for Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016) and looking forward at any potential areas for non-compliance between 2017 and 2021. Facility & Service Topics CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE Not In Compliance In Compliance Potential Future Non-Compliance Libraries l l Police - Priority 1 l l Police - Priority 2 l l Traffic l l Fire/EMS l l Parks and Recreation l l Air Quality and Climate Protection l Drainage l Fiscal l Schools l Sewer l Water l 3.Threshold Compliance Discussion Below are threshold compliance summaries from the GMOC report, along with staff responses to those recommendations (as indicated in Attachment 1). Non-Compliant Threshold Standards and/or Potential for Future Non-Compliance 3.1 LIBRARIES 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. 3.1.1 - Non-Compliant Threshold Standard The Libraries threshold standard has not been met for the thirteenth consecutive year. The current square footage per capita is 26%, or approximately 40,000 square feet less than the standard requires. The material and staffing budgets for Libraries were well below averages posted in the California State Library Statistics Portal for Fiscal Year 2015. The statewide staffing average was .47 Full-Time Employees (FTE) per 1,000 population and Chula Vista’s ratio was .15 FTE per 1,000 population. Although Chula Vista’s staffing ratio was in the bottom 16% of public libraries in California, Chula City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 3 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 6 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. Although Chula Vista’s staffing ratio was in the bottom 16% of public libraries in California, Chula Vista exceeded the statewide average in workload indicators (visits per open hour and circulation transactions per open hour). In Fiscal Year 2015, the statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. was $2.49 per person. Chula Vista’s Fiscal Year 2017 baseline materials budget was equal to $0.21 per person (excludes supplemental TUT funds received in fiscal years 2014-15 through 2016-17). The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: §That City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize Libraries, right below public safety, and increase Libraries’ total operating budget, including materials and staffing, to meet the state average, based on the most recent data available. §That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure commencement of construction of a 40,000 square-foot library by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. Staff Response: The City will continue to seek funding for library services and will consider such options during the regular budget development process. Any future library facilities would be best sited in the eastern portion of the City. We appreciate the GMOC’s continued support. 3.2 POLICE Threshold Standard: 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). 3.2.1 - Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard In Fiscal Year 2016, the Priority 1 average response time missed the 6-minute threshold standard by 31 seconds. However, despite more calls for service in Fiscal Year 2016, an 18-second improvement was actually made. The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds remained relatively stable at 10% below the 81% threshold. It appears that recent staffing increases, including officers on patrol and Community Service Officers, have positively impacted response times. Fully implementing a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in 2017 is also expected to improve response times and to provide more accurate data. While the threshold standard was not met, Chula Vista has been identified by various reputable sources (Law Street Media,Niche) as a very safe community. To continue to improve response times from those shown on the table below and to keep the City safe as growth occurs, the Police Department reported that increasing staffing levels and purchasing new equipment will be imperative. Priority 1 - Emergency Calls or Services Fiscal Year Total No. of Calls Priority 1 Calls % of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes 30 Seconds = 81%) Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 6 Minutes) FY 2016 67,048 742 71.0%6:31 FY 2015 64,008 675 71.2%6:49 FY 2014 65,645 711 73.6%6:45 FY 2013 65,741 738 74.1%6:42 FY 2012 64,386 726 72.8%6:31 FY 2011 64,695 657 80.7%6:03 City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 4 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 7 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1.Priority 1 - Emergency Calls or Services Fiscal Year Total No. of Calls Priority 1 Calls % of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes 30 Seconds = 81%) Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 6 Minutes) FY 2016 67,048 742 71.0%6:31 FY 2015 64,008 675 71.2%6:49 FY 2014 65,645 711 73.6%6:45 FY 2013 65,741 738 74.1%6:42 FY 2012 64,386 726 72.8%6:31 FY 2011 64,695 657 80.7%6:03 The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: §That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department in implementing their 2014 Strategic Plan to develop a long-term comprehensive staffing plan that will accommodate growth in the City. Staff Response: The Police Department will continue to work with the City Manager to implement the 2014 Strategic Plan. 3.2.2. - Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard For the second year in a row, the Priority 2 Average Response Time missed the 12-minute threshold standard by 1:50 minutes. The Priority 2 threshold standard has not been met for 19 consecutive years. The Police Department reported that increasing staffing levels and purchasing new equipment would help them improve Priority 2 response times, which are shown on the table below: Priority 2 - Urgent Calls for Service Fiscal Year Call Volume (# of Priority 2 Calls out of Total Calls for Services) Average Response Time (Minutes)(Threshold = 12 Minutes) FY 2016 19,288 of 67,048 13:50 FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13:50 FY 2014 17,817 of 65,645 13:36 FY 2013 18,505 of 65,741 13:44 FY 2012 22,121 of 64,386 14:20 FY 2011 21,500 of 64,695 12:52 As with the Priority 1 threshold standard, the Police Department attributed non-compliance with the Priority 2 threshold standard to “staffing.” Performance should be improved with recent staff increases and the full implementation of new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in 2017. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 5 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 8 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. §Same as for Priority 1 in Section 3.2.1, above. Staff Response: Same as for Priority 1 in Section 3.2.1, above. 3.3 TRAFFIC Threshold Standard: 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. 3.3.1 - Non-Compliant Threshold Standard All Urban Streets Level of Service (ULOS) roadway segments complied with the Traffic threshold standard, and only one Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) Non-Urban segment, Palomar Street, did not. The LOS on Palomar Street, between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway, exceeded the threshold in both the eastbound and westbound directions. NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENT Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS) Palomar Street (Between Industrial Blvd. and Broadway) EB WB D (6 hours) D (4 hours) and E (2 hours) Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS) -N/A -N/A City engineers attributed the failure to the rail crossing at Palomar Street, where slow vehicular traffic, due to the trolley at the Palomar Trolley Station, causes back-ups onto Palomar Street. The crossing is the busiest in San Diego County. City staff is currently working with SANDAG on preliminary engineering and environmental documents for grade-separating the Palomar Street rail crossing from vehicular and pedestrian traffic. With a grade separation, the level of service is expected to improve and bring the street closer to threshold compliance. The environmental document is anticipated to be completed in calendar year 2017. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: §That City Council direct the City Manager to support City engineers in their efforts to work with SANDAG on securing funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing. City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 6 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 9 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. Staff Response: The City will continue its efforts with SANDAG to secure funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing. 3.4 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Threshold Standard:Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in at least 80% of the cases (measured annually). 3.4.1 -Non-Compliant Threshold Standard The threshold has been non-compliant for six consecutive years. Fiscal Year 2016 had 920 more calls than Fiscal Year 2015. With 74.8 percent of calls responded to within 7 minutes, the response times dipped 3.5 percent below the previous year’s percentage. The 80 percent threshold mark was missed by 5.2 percent. The average response time of 6 minutes 15 seconds was just one second longer than last year. Average dispatch and turn-out times improved, but the average travel time was 34 seconds slower, as outlined on the table below. FIRE and EMS Response Times Fiscal Year Calls for Service % of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) Average Response Time Average Travel Time Average Dispatch Time Average Turn-out Time 2016 13,481 74.8 6:15 4:25 0:55 0:56 2015 12,561 78.3 6:14 3:51 1:12 1:10 2014 11,721 76.5 6:02 3:34 1:07 1:21 2013 12,316 75.7 6:02 3:48 1:05 1:08 Fire Stations 6, 7 and 8, all located within eastern Chula Vista, continue to struggle to meet the threshold standard; however, there were some modest improvements from last year. Station locations, geography, number of homes, and software deficiencies have all contributed to challenges. The GMOC believes that identifying traffic patterns could help provide solutions. In order to comply with the threshold standard requiring “properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units,” the Fire Department reported that the City’s new “accepted years of service” standard for fire apparatus is 17 years, rather than 25. This should result in less major mechanical breakdowns. The City’s Fire Facility Master Plan includes moving from the current “3 employee” staffing model to the “4 employee” staffing model, which would put four people on each engine. By following the Master Plan, it is anticipated that there should be increased efficiency on medical calls and a reduction in fire company on-scene times. This would allow units to be more readily available for calls for service. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 7 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 10 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. §That City Council direct the City Manager and the Fire Department to focus on improving response times at stations 6, 7, and 8, and that fire trucks be equipped with moderately priced video capabilities to identify traffic patterns. Staff Response: The City’s Traffic Division in Public Works has access to data information related to traffic patterns and conditions. The Fire Department can inquire as to whether the compiled information can assist with optimizing Fire Department response routes throughout the City. §That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that any future analytical software purchases made for the Fire Department be compatible and/or align with the City’s master plan to participate in the countywide Regional Communications System. Staff Response: The City is endeavoring to use Smart City technology and it is understood that future Fire Department analytical software acquisition must be compatible with citywide improvements that may assist in becoming a Smart City. The Fire Department will coordinate these efforts with the consultant hired to assist the City in its pursuit of becoming a Smart City. 3.5 PARKS AND RECREATION 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 On June 30, 2016, the threshold standard was non-compliant at 2.83 acres per 1,000 persons. By the end of 2017, the projected acreage falls further below the standard with only 2.78 acres per 1,000 persons. As shown in the table below, within five years, park acreage is expected to increase to 2.99 acres per 1,000 persons within the threshold standard for Parks and Recreation. CITY-OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons Threshold Standard Area of CityCurrent (6/30/16) Forecasts Prior Year Comparisons 18-Month (12/31/17) 5-Year (2021) June 2013 June 2014 June 2015 3 acres per 1,000 Population¹ East of I-805 East I-805 AC/1,000 persons 2.83 2.78 2.99 3.05 2.96 2.94 West I-805 AC/1,000 persons 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Citywide AC/1,000 persons 2.11 2.08 2.22 2.21 2.17 2.16 Acres of parkland East I-805 421.04*421.04 470.62**418.44 418.44 418.44 West I-805 142.66 142.66 143.36 138.76 138.76 138.76 Citywide 563.70 563.70 613.98 557.20 557.20 557.20 Population¹East I-805 148,714 151,250 157,169 137,313 141,436 142,547 West I-805 118,291 118,740 119,786 115,300 115,788 115,801 Citywide 267,005 269,990 276,955 252,643 257,224 258,348 Acreage shortfall or (excess) East I-805 25.10 32.71 0.89 6.50 5.87 9.20 West I-805 212.21 213.56 216.00 207.23 208.61 208.64 Citywide 237.32 246.27 219.89 200.73 214.46 217.84 City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 8 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 11 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. CITY-OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast, and ComparisonsThresholdStandardArea of CityCurrent(6/30/16)Forecasts Prior Year Comparisons18-Month(12/31/17)5-Year(2021)June2013 June2014 June20153 acres per1,000Population¹East of I-805East I-805AC/1,000persons 2.83 2.78 2.99 3.05 2.96 2.94West I-805AC/1,000persons 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Citywide AC/1,000 persons 2.11 2.08 2.22 2.21 2.17 2.16 Acres of parkland East I-805 421.04*421.04 470.62**418.44 418.44 418.44 West I-805 142.66 142.66 143.36 138.76 138.76 138.76 Citywide 563.70 563.70 613.98 557.20 557.20 557.20 Population¹East I-805 148,714 151,250 157,169 137,313 141,436 142,547 West I-805 118,291 118,740 119,786 115,300 115,788 115,801 Citywide 267,005 269,990 276,955 252,643 257,224 258,348 Acreage shortfall or (excess) East I-805 25.10 32.71 0.89 6.50 5.87 9.20 West I-805 212.21 213.56 216.00 207.23 208.61 208.64 Citywide 237.32 246.27 219.89 200.73 214.46 217.84 *Assumes completion of Stylus Park 2.6 acres,including equivalency acres. (Actually opened in August 2016.) **Assumes completion of V2 P-3 (Ph1)3.9 acres, V2 P-2 7.10 acres, Millenia Orion Park 2.01 acres, Millenia Strata Park P-5 2.57 acres, Millenia Park P-3 3.03 acres, Millenia Park P-6 4.79 acres, Millenia Park P-2 2.16 acres, Village 3 P-1 6.7 acres, Village 8 West P-1 7.5 acres, Village 8 West Town Square 3 acres, and V8 East Neighborhood Park 6.8 acres. Millenia Park Acreages include park equivalency acreage per the EUC Parks Agreement. ¤Assumes completion of Orange Park 3.9 acres (Actually opened in August 2016.) ¹Population figures were adjusted from 2016 Residential Growth Forecast projections. The GMOC noted that, while an increase in park acreage may not be readily attainable, additional utilization of existing park acreage may be attained by improving lighting so the public can use parks for a longer period of time each day. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: §That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure financing for new park acreage to keep up with the pace of development, and to implement sustainable funding sources for maintenance of the parks. Staff Response: The City will continue to collect appropriate impact fees to fund acquisition and development of park acreage for new development, and continue to develop maintenance funding opportunities. 3.5.2 - Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan In February 2016, a Recreation Needs Assessment was completed by CityPlace Planning, Inc. on behalf of the Recreation Department. The findings of this assessment were consistent with and confirmed the results of a 2006 report by Research Network Ltd. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is currently being revised, with plans to present a final draft to the Parks and Recreation Commission this spring. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: §That City Council approve an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by fall 2017, and resolve any outstanding issues through future amendments to the document. Staff Response: Staff will work to bring the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update to City Council City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 9 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 12 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. for their consideration by fall of 2017. Threshold Standards Currently in Compliance Threshold standards were found to be compliant for Air Quality and Climate Protection, Drainage, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, and Water.However, the GMOC had comments and or recommendations for Air Quality and Climate Protection, as outlined below: 3.10 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE PROTECTION 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- Threshold Compliance A report completed by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) indicated that Chula Vista continues to comply with smog standards 365 days per year. A separate questionnaire was completed by staff from the City’s Environmental Services and Sustainability Division of the Economic Development Department, and the Development Services Department. Department representatives were not in attendance at the GMOC meeting to present the questionnaire responses and there was not an opportunity for questions or clarification of the information provided. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends: §That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that a department representative(s) presents a completed Air Quality and Climate Protection questionnaire to the GMOC for next year’s review. Staff Response: Staff from Development Services Department and the Office of Sustainability will make themselves available to address the questions that pertain to their departments. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site- specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(11) is not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code section 87100,et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council Member or Planning Commission Member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 10 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 13 File#:17-0076, Item#: 1. interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Growth Management Program’s Fiscal threshold standard supports the Economic Vitality goal, “encouraging policies, planning, infrastructure, and services that are fundamental to an economically strong, vibrant city.” The Air Quality and Climate Protection, Libraries, and Parks and Recreation threshold standards support the Healthy Communities goal, promoting “an environment that fosters health and wellness and providing parks, open spaces, outdoor experiences, libraries and recreational opportunities that residents can enjoy.” The Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Traffic, Sewer and Drainage threshold standards support the Strong and Secure Neighborhoods goal, ensuring “a sustainable and well-maintained infrastructure to provide safe and appealing communities to live, work and play” and maintaining “a responsive Emergency Management Program.” CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Staff costs associated with the preparation of the annual GMOC report are included in the adopted budget. Additional costs related to implementation of recommended actions may be brought forward for Council consideration during the annual budget development process. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Staff costs associated with the preparation of future annual GMOC reports will be included in future budgets. Additional costs related to implementation of recommended actions may be brought forward for Council consideration during future budget development processes. ATTACHMENTS 1 - 2017 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2017 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo 3 - 2017 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B Staff Contact: Kimberly Vander Bie - Associate Planner City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/20/2017Page 11 of 11 powered by Legistar™2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 14 Attachment 1 1 2017 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary GMOC Recommendations Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Libraries – 3.1.1 Libraries – 3.1.1  That City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize Libraries, right below public safety, and increase Libraries’ total operating budget, including materials and staffing, to meet the state average, based on the most recent data available.  That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure commencement of construction of a 40,000 square-foot library by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. The City will continue to seek funding for library services and will consider such options during the regular budget development process. Any future library facilities would be best sited in the eastern portion of the City. We appreciate the GMOC’s continued support. Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department in implementing their 2014 Strategic Plan to develop a long-term comprehensive staffing plan that will accommodate growth in the City. That City Council direct the City Manager to support City engineers in their efforts to work with SANDAG on securing funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing. The City will continue its efforts with SANDAG to secure funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing. Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1 Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1  That City Council direct the City Manager and the Fire Department to focus on improving response times at stations 6, 7, and 8, and that fire trucks be equipped with moderately priced video capabilities to identify traffic patterns.  The City’s Traffic Division in Public Works has access to data information related to traffic patterns and conditions. The Fire Department can inquire as to whether the compiled information can assist with optimizing Fire Department response routes throughout the City. Traffic – 3.3.1 Traffic – 3.3.1 The Police Department will continue to work with the City Manager’s Office to implement the 2014 Strategic Plan. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 15 Attachment 1 2 GMOC Recommendations Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions  That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that any future analytical software purchases made for the Fire Department be compatible and/or align with the City’s master plan to participate in the countywide Regional Communications System.  The City is endeavoring to use Smart City technology and it is understood that future Fire Department analytical software acquisition must be compatible with citywide improvements that may assist in becoming a Smart City. The Fire Department will coordinate these efforts with the consultant hired to assist the City in its pursuit of becoming a Smart City. Parks and Recreation – 3.5.1 & 3.5.2 Parks and Recreation – 3.5.1 & 3.5.1  That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure financing for new park acreage to keep up with the pace of development, and to implement sustainable funding sources for maintenance of the new parks.  That City Council approve an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by fall 2017, and resolve any outstanding issues through future amendments to the document.  The City will continue to collect appropriate impact fees to fund acquisition and development of park acreage for new development, and continue to develop maintenance funding opportunities.  Staff will work to bring the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update to City Council for their consideration by fall of 2017. Air Quality and Climate Protection – 3.10.1 Air Quality and Climate Protection – 3.10.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that a department representative(s) presents a completed Air Quality and Climate Protection questionnaire to the GMOC for next year’s review. Staff from Development Services Department and the Office of Sustainability will make themselves available to address the questions that pertain to their departments. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 16 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2017 ANNUAL REPORT For Fiscal Year 2016 (7/1/15 through 6/30/16) April 27, 2017 Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. MPA16-____) and City Council (Resolution No. 2017-___) on April 27, 2017 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 17 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 Paul Oberbauer – Senior Engineer City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 www.chulavistaca.gov 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 18 2017 Annual Report 1 April 27, 2017 GMOC Chair Cover Memo DATE: April 27, 2017 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 - 2017 GMOC Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its 2017 annual report for Fiscal Year 2016 for your consideration and action. In reviewing information for this year’s report, it was discovered that five threshold standards were non-compliant. Threshold standards for six of the eleven quality of life topics were found to be compliant, including: Air Quality and Climate Protection, Drainage, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, and Water. Threshold standards found to be non-compliant were: Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Police Priority 1 and 2, and Traffic. While the details of each are outlined in the attached report, the GMOC would like to highlight a few items of special interest. Fire and Emergency Medical Services – For the sixth consecutive year, response times failed to comply with the threshold standard. Call volume was up by 920 calls responded to, and the percentage of calls responded to within seven minutes went down by 3.5 percent. There were modest improvements for Fire Stations 6, 7 and 8, where responses times have been the poorest. However, those stations continued to contend with geographic challenges, in addition to software deficiencies that all the stations struggled with. Libraries – For the thirteenth consecutive year, Libraries was non-compliant. The deficit in library space is expected to continue for several more years. While the Rancho Del Rey Library is the first priority on the list of future public facilities, it is expected to be pushed down the list due to the need for fire stations. Police – The Priority 2 threshold standard was non-compliant for the nineteenth year in a row. This is the fourth year of non-compliance for Priority 1. The Police Department has been successful in filling officer vacancies and relieving sworn officers of duties that can be performed by Community Service Officers. However, this is an ongoing process as officers retire or get injured, and there will be additional demands as growth continues. Traffic – Eastbound and westbound Palomar Street, between Industrial and Broadway, was found to be non-compliant. The rail crossing at Palomar Street causes traffic to accumulate and has been a concern for some time. City engineers are working with SANDAG on plans 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 19 2017 Annual Report 2 April 27, 2017 to grade-separate the rail crossing from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, which should significantly improve the level of service. Parks and Recreation – For the first time, Parks and Recreation fell below the threshold standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents east of I-805, reporting a total of 2.83 acres per 1,000. The 5-year projection is to be back in compliance; however, the GMOC hopes that new parks will be added at a pace that keeps up with increased growth. The prevailing discussion throughout meetings with the various departments was the need for additional funding to support the crumbling infrastructure throughout the city. The passage of Measure P is expected to assist in meeting many of those needs. The GMOC had the opportunity to take a tour of new and proposed development. In addition, we visited Fire Station No. 7, in Otay Ranch Village 2, which provided insight to some of the challenges faced by crews in meeting the response time threshold. GMOC thanks the many departments who took time on a Saturday to join us for this important tour. The information provided assists the GMOC in better understanding the challenges in meeting thresholds. 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 and Patricia Salvacion, 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. . . 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 20 2017 Annual Report 3 April 27, 2017 City of Chula Vista GMOC 2017 Annual Report For Fiscal Year 2016 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 2017 Annual Review Process 5 1.4 Annual Five-Year Residential Growth Forecast 5-6 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ………………………………………….7 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS …………………………………….8-9 3.1 Libraries…………………………………………………………………………8-9 3.1.1 Threshold Compliance 8-9 3.2 Police ………………………………………………………………………….10-11 3.2.1 Threshold Compliance 10-11 3.2.2 Threshold Compliance 11 3.3 Traffic ………………………………………………………………………….11-12 3.3.1 Threshold Compliance 12 3.4 Fire and Emergency Medical Services……………………………………13-14 3.4.1 Threshold Compliance 13-14 3.5 Parks and Recreation………………………………………………………..14-16 3.5.1 Threshold Compliance 14-15 3.5.2 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan 16 3.6 Fiscal ………………………………………………………………………….16 3.6.1 Threshold Compliance 16 3.7 Drainage ………………………………………………………………………..17 3.7.1 Threshold Compliance 17 3.8 Schools………….………………………………………………………………17-18 3.8.1 Threshold Compliance 18 3.9 Sewer…………………………………………………………………………….18-19 3.9.1 Threshold Compliance 19 3.10 Air Quality and Climate Protection…………………….…………………...19-20 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 19-20 3.11 Water ……………………………………………………………………….….20-21 3.11.1 Threshold Compliance 20-21 4.0 APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………….21 4.1 Appendix A –Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B –Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 21 2017 Annual Report 4 April 27, 2017 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). In 2015, the Growth Management ordinance was updated by Council after a multi-year effort by the Growth Management Oversight Commission, City staff, City Council, and various community stakeholders to review the Growth Management Program from “top-to-bottom.” The ordinance addresses each quality of life topic in terms of a goal, objective(s), threshold standard(s), and implementation measures. The eleven topics include eight within the City’s control: Drainage, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Police, Sewer, and Traffic. Two topics, Schools and Water, are controlled by outside agencies, and one topic, Air Quality and Climate Protection, is controlled by both the City and an outside agency. 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 for compliance with the threshold standards. 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, the following individuals served as commissioners on the GMOC: Armida Torres, Chair Business Eric Mosolgo, Vice Chair Environmental Raymundo Alatorre Northwest Javier Rosales Northeast Gloria Juarez Southwest Rodney Caudillo Southeast Michael Lengyel Development Duaine Hooker Education Gabriel Gutierrez Planning Commission 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 22 2017 Annual Report 5 April 27, 2017 The GMOC’s review of quality of life topics is structured around three timeframes: 1. A Fiscal Year cycle to accommodate City Council review of GMOC recommendations that may have budget implications. The 2017 Annual Report focuses on Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016); 2. The second half of 2016 and beginning of 2017 to identify and address pertinent issues identified during this timeframe, and to assure that the GMOC responds to current events and conditions; and 3. A five-year forecast to assure that the GMOC has a future orientation. The period from January 2017 through December 2021 is assessed for potential threshold compliance concerns. The GMOC annually distributes questionnaires to relevant City departments and public facility and service agencies to monitor the status of compliance with the threshold standards. When the questionnaires are completed, the GMOC reviews the information for compliance with the identified threshold standards and deliberates issues of concern and possible recommendations. 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 2017 Review Process for Fiscal Year 2016 The GMOC held eight regular meetings and one city-wide development tour between September 2015 and April 2016, all of which 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 2016 Annual Report. At the subsequent meetings, the GMOC reviewed the eleven quality of life topics and the associated questionnaire responses (attached as Appendix B). Representatives from the appropriate City departments and public agencies were invited to attend and provide presentations to the Commission. Through this process, and as outlined in this report, City staff and the GMOC discussed each of the topics, recognized status of threshold compliance and efforts made, and identified concerns and recommendations. The final GMOC annual report is required to be transmitted through the Planning Commission to the City Council at a joint meeting, which is scheduled for April 27, 2017. 1.4 Annual Five-Year Residential Growth Forecast The Development Services Department annually prepares a Five-Year Residential Growth Forecast; the latest edition is dated August 30, 2016. Determining the projected number of residential building permits to be issued begins by soliciting projections from developers and builders that have completed or are undergoing the entitlement process for Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans or design review, then determining status of compliance with environmental mitigation measures that must be met prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The projected 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. The Forecast provides City departments and outside agencies with an estimate of the maximum amount of residential growth anticipated over the next five years. Copies of the 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 23 2017 Annual Report 6 April 27, 2017 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 September 2016 through December 2021 indicated an additional 8,429 residential units that could potentially be permitted for construction in the City over the next five years, (7,152 units in the east and 1,277 units in the west). This equates to an annual average of 1,685 housing units, with 1,430 units in the east and 255 units in the west. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 24 2017 Annual Report 7 April 27, 2017 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following table is a summary of the GMOC’s conclusions regarding threshold standards for the Fiscal Year 2016 review cycle. Six thresholds were met, five were not met. FISCAL YEAR 2016 THRESHOLD STANDARD REVIEW SUMMARY Review Period 7/1/15 Through 6/30/16 Threshold Standard Threshold Met Threshold Not Met Potential of Future Non- compliance Adopt/Fund Tactics to Achieve Compliance 1. Libraries X X X 2. Police Priority 1-Emergency X X X Priority 2-Urgent X X X 3. Traffic X X X 4. Fire/EMS X X X 5. Parks and Recreation X X X 6. Fiscal X 7. Drainage X 8. Schools X 9. Sewer X 10. Air Quality and Climate Protection X 11. Water X 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 25 2017 Annual Report 8 April 27, 2017 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS 3.1 LIBRARIES –NON-COMPLIANT 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. 3.1.1 Threshold Compliance Issue:The threshold standard was not met. LIBRARIES Threshold Standard = 500 Square Feet Per 1,000 Residents Population Total Gross Square Feet of Library Facilities Gross Square Feet of Library Facilities Per 1,000 Residents 5-Year Projection (2021)274,745 132,412 (a) 129,009 (b) 489 (a) 470 (b) FY2016 265,070 97,412 367 FY 2015 257,362 97,412 379 FY 2014 256,139 97,412(c)380 FY 2013 251,613 95,412 379 FY 2012 249,382 92,000/95,412 (d)369/383 (d) FY 2011 246,496 102,000/92,000 (e)414/387 (e) FY 2010 233,692 102,000 436 FY 2009 233,108 102,000 437 FY 2008 231,305 102,000 441 FY 2007 227,723 102,000 448 FY 2006 223,423 102,000 457 FY 2005 220,000 102,000 464 FY 2004 211,800 102,000 482 FY 2003 203,000 102,000 502 (a) Includes projected Millenia Library at 37,000 square feet and retaining Otay Ranch Branch (b) Includes projected Millenia Library, closing Otay Ranch Branch (c) After opening the Hub annex (d) After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012 (e) After closure of Eastlake Library in 2011 Note: Square footages do not include the San Diego County Library Bonita-Sunnyside Branch Library in Bonita 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 26 2017 Annual Report 9 April 27, 2017 Discussion:For the 13th consecutive year, the Libraries threshold standard has not been met in terms of square footage. The current square footage per capita is 26% lower than the standard requires and the deficit continues to grow. It is expected that a new 37,000 square-foot full-service library in the Millenia development will be started, and possibly completed, during the next five years. However, the total library square footage in Chula Vista would still be as much as 30 square feet per thousand below the threshold, depending on whether or not the 5,400 square-foot temporary Otay Ranch Town Center Library, which is leased until 2020, remains. Since the recession of 2008-09, the City has also struggled to meet the “adequately equipped and staffed” aspect of the Libraries threshold standard. The material and staffing budgets for Libraries were well below averages posted in the California State Library Statistics Portal for Fiscal Year 2015, where the statewide staffing average was .47 Full-Time Employees (FTE) per 1,000 population, and Chula Vista’s ratio was .15 FTE per 1,000 population. Although Chula Vista’s staffing ratio was in the bottom 16% of public libraries in California, Chula Vista exceeded the statewide average in workload indicators (visits per open hour and circulation transactions per open hour). In Fiscal Year 2015, the statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. was $2.49 per person, while Chula Vista’s Fiscal Year 2017 baseline materials budget was equal to 21 cents per person. For the past three years, Telecommunication Utility Tax (TUT) settlement funds have supplemented the non-personnel budget, but those funds will expire in fiscal year 2018. Recommend:That City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize Libraries, right below public safety, and increase Libraries’ total operating budget, including materials and staffing, to meet the state average, based on the most recent data available. Recommend:That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure commencement of construction of a 40,000 square-foot library by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. 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 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 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 activities (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.” 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 27 2017 Annual Report 10 April 27, 2017 3.2.1 Threshold Compliance Issue: The threshold standard was not met. Priority 1 –Emergency Calls or Services Fiscal Year Total No. of Calls Priority 1 Calls % of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes 30 Seconds (Threshold = 81%) Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 6 Minutes) FY 2016 67,048 742 71.0%6:31 FY 2015 64,008 675 71.2%6:49 FY 2014 65,645 711 73.6%6:45 FY 2013 65,741 738 74.1%6:42 FY 2012 64,386 726 72.8%6:31 FY 2011 64,695 657 80.7%6:03 Discussion:Although the Priority 1 average response time missed the 6-minute threshold standard by 31 seconds, it improved by 18 seconds from last year, despite more calls this year. The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds remained relatively stable at 10% below the 81% threshold. It appears that significant staffing increases, including officers on patrol and Community Service Officers, have had a very positive impact on response times. Depending on the outcome of a response time analysis, additional improvements may be recorded in the future. The Police Department reported that some response times were excessively long and could be skewing the numbers. Therefore, they are analyzing calls to determine if these calls were given the correct priority call for service level. Fully implementing a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in 2017 should help response times improve and to be accurately reported. While the threshold standard was not met, Chula Vista is identified as a very safe community. In 2015, Chula Vista was ranked the 10th safest city in the country with a population over 200,000 (Law Street Media). In 2016 Chula Vista ranked 9th safest out of 17 cities in San Diego Metro (Niche). Any significant growth in the next 18 months and over the next five years is expected to place additional strain on the Patrol Division in keeping our city safe and complying with the growth management threshold standards. To improve response times and meet the demands of growth in the City, the Police Department reported that increasing staffing levels and purchasing new equipment will be imperative. Therefore, the Department continues to implement their 2014 Strategic Plan, which includes developing a long-term comprehensive staffing plan that will identify staffing needs to accommodate growth and increased calls for service in the City. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 28 2017 Annual Report 11 April 27, 2017 Recommend:That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department in implementing their 2014 Strategic Plan to develop a long-term comprehensive staffing plan that will accommodate growth in the City. 3.2.2. Threshold Compliance Issue:The threshold standard was not met. Discussion:For the second year in a row, the Priority 2 Average Response Time missed the 12-minute threshold standard by 1:50 minutes. The Priority 2 threshold standard has not been met for 19 consecutive years. As discussed regarding Priority 1 above, increasing staffing levels and purchasing new equipment will continue to be important for the Police Department to improve response times. Recommend:That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department in implementing their 2014 Strategic Plan to develop a long-term comprehensive staffing plan that will accommodate growth in the City. [Same as recommendation for Priority 1.] 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. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service Fiscal Year Call Volume Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 12 Minutes) FY 2016 19,288 of 67,048 13:50 FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13:50 FY 2014 17,817 of 65,645 13:36 FY 2013 18,505 of 65,741 13:44 FY 2012 22,121 of 64,386 14:20 FY 2011 21,500 of 64,695 12:52 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 29 2017 Annual Report 12 April 27, 2017 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. 3.3.1 Threshold Compliance Issue:The threshold standard was not met. NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENT Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS) Palomar Street (Between Industrial Blvd. and Broadway) EB WB D (6 hours) D (4 hours) and E (2 hours) Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS) -N/A -N/A Discussion:As indicated in the table above, all Urban Streets Level of Service (ULOS) roadway segments complied with the Traffic threshold standard, and one Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) Non-Urban segment, Palomar Street, did not. Between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway, the LOS on Palomar Street exceeded the threshold in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The threshold failure can be attributed to the rail crossing at Palomar Street. With 204 crossings a day, this is the busiest crossing in San Diego County, which tends to slow down traffic at the Palomar Trolley Station and causes back-ups onto Palomar Street. City staff is currently working with SANDAG on preliminary engineering and environmental documents for grade-separating the Palomar Street rail crossing from vehicular and pedestrian traffic. With a grade separation, the level of service should improve and bring the street closer to threshold compliance. The environmental document is anticipated to be completed this year. Recommend:That City Council direct the City Manager to support City engineers in their efforts to work with SANDAG on securing funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 30 2017 Annual Report 13 April 27, 2017 3.4 FIRE and EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) – 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). Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch, turnout and travel time to the building or site address. 3.4.1 Threshold Compliance FIRE and EMS Response Times Fiscal Year Calls for Service % of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) Average Response Time Average Travel Time Average Dispatch Time Average Turn-out Time 2016 13,481 74.8 6:15 4:25 0:55 0:56 2015 12,561 78.3 6:14 3:51 1:12 1:10 2014 11,721 76.5 6:02 3:34 1:07 1:21 2013 12,316 75.7 6:02 3:48 1:05 1:08 Issue: The threshold standard was not met. Discussion:This is the sixth consecutive year of non-compliance. Between Fiscal Years 2013 and 2015, response times improved by 2.6 percent. In Fiscal Year 2016, however, calls for service increased by 920 and response times suffered. At 74.8 percent, response times dipped 3.5 percent below the previous year’s percentage and missed the 80 percent threshold by 5.2 percent. The average response time of 6 minutes 15 seconds was just one second longer than last year. Average dispatch and turn-out times improved, but the average travel time was 34 seconds slower. FIRE and EMS Response Times in FY 2016 - By Fire Station Fire Station # Calls for Service % of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) Average Response Time for all Calls Average Travel Time Average Dispatch Time Average Turn-out Time 1 3987 87.5 5:11 3:24 0:58 0:49 2 964 79.8 5:58 4:15 0:52 0:53 3 784 77.0 6:05 4:23 0:56 0:46 4 865 76.3 6:09 4:23 0:52 0:55 5 3298 85.0 5:59 4:00 1:07 0:53 6 551 71.3 6:25 4:27 0:56 1:03 7 1055 55.8 7:12 5:15 0:52 1:05 8 735 57.3 7:21 5:26 0:49 1:07 9 1242 83.3 5:56 4:13 0:52 0:51 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 31 2017 Annual Report 14 April 27, 2017 Fire Stations 6, 7 and 8, all located within eastern Chula Vista, continue to struggle to meet the threshold standard, as indicated on the table above; however, there were some modest improvements from last year. Station locations, geography, number of homes, and software deficiencies have all contributed to challenges. Identifying traffic patterns could help provide solutions. Over the past 18 months, the Fire Department has implemented some new tools and programs to help improve response times, including: Battalion monthly reports (initiated October 2015); Auto-dispatching through Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)(initiated June 2015); Implementing Pulsepoint (a smartphone application voluntarily used on personal devices); and Outfitting Fire Stations 2, 3 and 4 with transitional lighting for night responses to bring them up to current standards. In order to comply with the threshold standard requiring “properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units,” the Fire Department reported that the City’s new “accepted years of service” standard for fire apparatus is 17 years, rather than 25. This should result in less major mechanical breakdowns. Also, following the City’s Fire Facility Master Plan’s call to move from the current “3 employee” staffing model to the “4 employee” staffing model, which puts four people on each engine, should increase efficiency on medical calls, reduce fire company on-scene times, and allow units to be available for calls for service. Recommend:That City Council direct the City Manager and the Fire Department to focus on improving response times at stations 6, 7, and 8, and that fire trucks be equipped with moderately priced video capabilities to identify traffic patterns. Recommend:That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that any future analytical software purchases made for the Fire Department be compatible and/or align with the City’s master plan to participate in the countywide Regional Communications System. 3.5 PARKS AND RECREATION –NON-COMPLIANT 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:The threshold standard was not met. Discussion:As of June 30, 2016, the threshold standard is non-compliant at 2.83 acres per 1,000 persons. By the end of 2017, the projected acreage falls further below the standard with only 2.78 acres per 1,000 persons. However, within five years it is 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 32 2017 Annual Report 15 April 27, 2017 expected to increase to 2.99 acres per 1,000 persons, as shown on the table below. CITY-OWNEDPARKACREAGE Threshold,Forecast,andComparisons Threshold Standard AreaofCity Current (6/30/16) Forecasts PriorYearComparisons 18-Month (12.31.17) 5-Year (2021) June2013 June2014 June 2015 3 acres per1,000Population¹East ofI-805 EastI-805 AC/1,000 persons 2.83 2.78 2.99 3.05 2.96 2.94 WestI-805 AC/1,000 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Citywide AC/1,000 persons 2.11 2.08 2.22 2.21 2.17 2.16 Acresof parkland EastI-805 421.04*421.04 470.62**418.44 418.44 418.44 WestI-805 142.66* 142.66 143.36 138.76 138.76 138.76 Citywide 563.70 563.70 613.98 557.20 557.20 557.20 Population¹EastI-805 148,714 151,250 157,169 137,313 141,436 142,547 WestI-805 118,291 118,740 119,786 115,300 115,788 115,801 Citywide 267,005 269,990 276,955 252,643 257,224 258,348 Acreage shortfallor (excess) EastI-805 25.10 32.71 0.89 6.50 5.87 9.20 WestI-805 212.21 213.56 216.00 207.23 208.61 208.64 Citywide 237.32 246.27 219.89 200.73 214.46 217.84 *AssumescompletionofStylusPark 2.6acres includeequivalency acres.(ActuallyopenedAugust2016) **Assumescompletionof:V2,P-3(Ph1)3.9 acres.V2,P-2,7.10 acres.Millenia,OrionPark,2.01 acres.MilleniaStrata Park P-5,2.57 acres. Millenia Park P-3,3.03 acres, Millenia Park P-6,4.79 acres. Millenia Park P-2,2.16 acres. (Millenia ParkAcreagesincludepark equivalencyacreagepertheEUCParksAgreement)Village3,P-1,6.7 acres.Village8 West, P- 1,7.5 acres.Village8WestTownSquare,3 acres. V8 East, Neighborhood Park 6.8 acres. *AssumescompletionofOrangePark 3.9acres(Actuallyopenedin August2016) ¹Population figures were adjusted from 2016 Residential Growth Forecast projections. The GMOC noted that, while an increase in park acreage may not be readily attainable, additional utilization of existing park acreage may be attained by improving lighting so the public can use parks for a longer period of time each day. Recommend:That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure financing for new park acreage to keep up with the pace of development, and to implement sustainable funding sources for maintenance of the parks. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 33 2017 Annual Report 16 April 27, 2017 3.5.2 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Issue:An update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan has yet to be considered by Council. Discussion:In February 2016, a Recreation Needs Assessment was completed by CityPlace Planning, Inc. on behalf of the Recreation Department. The findings of this assessment were consistent with and confirmed the results of a 2006 report by Research Network Ltd. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is currently being revised; a final draft will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission this spring. Recommend:That City Council approve an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by fall 2017, and resolve any outstanding issues through future amendments to the document. 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. 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 Threshold Compliance Issue:None. Discussion:Growth in population will require new fire stations, police officers, streets, and parks that were originally projected to cost much less than what they will actually cost, according to the City’s Finance Department. Efforts are being made to manage the City’s new and existing assets and to establish funding mechanisms to gradually accrue for their maintenance and eventual replacement. A 10-year financial plan is being developed for Council’s consideration, which will include addressing these needs, as well as escalating retirement costs. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 34 2017 Annual Report 17 April 27, 2017 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, with respect to the impacts of new development, to determine its ability to meet the goal and objective for drainage. 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. Additionally, no new facilities will be needed to accommodate projected growth in the next 12-18 months or the next five years. They provided information on implementation of a Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) required by the Regional Municipal Separated Storm Sewer System Permit. This permit requires the City to collaborate with other jurisdictions to develop a Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) for the San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area. The plan outlines priority pollutants, goals, and strategies for the watershed. The City’s pollutant focus is trash, and the City has committed to implementing strategies to address trash within the City. Additional components of the San Diego Bay WQIP include a Monitoring and Assessment Plan and an Adaptive Management Process. 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 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; 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 35 2017 Annual Report 18 April 27, 2017 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 Threshold Compliance 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. Chula Vista Elementary School District Muraoka Elementary School in Otay Ranch Village 2 is currently under construction and will open in July. It will accommodate 800 students and provide some relief to other schools in the area, such as Wolf Canyon and Camarena, which are currently over capacity. By 2020-2021, another new school, with a capacity of 600 students, will be opening in Otay Ranch Village 2 South. The CVESD representative was unable to attend the meeting when the questionnaire was discussed. Sweetwater Union High School District As the population in Chula Vista continues to grow, the Sweetwater Union High School District plans to install additional relocatable classrooms during calendar year 2017, including: 10 classrooms at Eastlake High School 6 classrooms at Olympian High School 4 classrooms at Chula Vista High School An additional middle school and high school will be needed in eastern Chula Vista by July 2021. 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. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 36 2017 Annual Report 19 April 27, 2017 3.9.1 Threshold Compliance SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fiscal Year 2014-15 Fiscal Year 2015-16 18-month Projection 5-year Projection "Buildout" Projection Average Flow 15.466 15.499 15.385 15.986 17.235 20.760* Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 Issue:None. Discussion:Increased water conservation efforts appear to be having a positive impact on the City’s sewage flow and treatment capacity. Chula Vista’s 2014 Wastewater Master Plan (WMP) identifies a sewer generation rate of 230 gallons per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and estimates the City’s ultimate sewer treatment capacity required for build-out to be 29.89 million gallons per day (MDG). However, sewage flow has dropped off considerably since 2014 and the treatment capacity requirement could be as low as 20.76 MGD, as shown in the table above, using a generation rate based on current metered flow data. The City’s actual ultimate capacity needs are expected to be between the WMP estimate and the projections using the current metered flow. The Wastewater Engineering Section will continue to track water usage trends and changes in land use and population projections to validate current generation rates and project the ultimate need for the City. Recommend:None. 3.10 AIR QUALITY and CLIMATE PROTECTION – COMPLIANT 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 Threshold Compliance Issue:The appropriate City staff did not attend the GMOC meeting as scheduled. Therefore, there was not an opportunity for questions or clarification of the information presented. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 37 2017 Annual Report 20 April 27, 2017 Discussion: A report completed by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) indicated that Chula Vista continues to comply with smog standards 365 days per year. The Environmental Services and Sustainability Division of the City’s Economic Development Department completed the Air Quality and Climate Protection questionnaire, which included input from the Development Services Department regarding implementation of air quality improvement measures pursuant to relevant regional and local strategies, and the number of solar permits issued. No department representatives attended the GMOC meeting to present the questionnaire responses. Last year, an Environmental Services representative attended the GMOC meeting but the questionnaire was incomplete as submitted. The GMOC expects that a department representative(s) will present a completed questionnaire to the GMOC next year. Recommend:That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that a department representative(s) presents a completed Air Quality and Climate Protection questionnaire to the GMOC for next year’s review. 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 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:The Otay Water District (OWD) recently completed its Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) for anticipated growth through the year 2050, which includes Chula Vista’s future university innovation district. The WFMP assures that facilities are or will be 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 38 2017 Annual Report 21 April 27, 2017 in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. Even though water conservation is now voluntary, OWD customers continue to conserve and consumed the same amount of water as last year and as they did in 1999. To encourage continued conservation, the OWD created a mobile application that customers can download to improve their conservation efforts and reduce water waste even further. Sweetwater Authority updated its Urban Water Management Plan during Fiscal Year 2016 and updated the Water Distribution System Master Plan in the fall of 2016. Both documents were developed in coordination with local agencies, including Chula Vista, and assure that water will be available in the future. The Master Plan includes expansion of water sources, investing in maintenance and upgrade programs to replace aging pipelines, valves, and other critical water facilities. Current projects are listed in their Capital Budget and include drilling new wells (including one behind Chula Vista’s Civic Center Library), expanding the Richard Reynolds Desalination Facility and maintaining and replacing pipelines through Bonita. Recommend:None. 4.0 APPENDICES 4.1 Appendix A – Residential Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B – Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 39 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 40 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 41 2016 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2016 Through 2021 August 30, 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 42 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 2016 through December 2021. 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 and Climate Protection 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: 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 43 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 175 building permits would be issued for single-family units in 2016; as of August 23, 2016, 60 single-family permits had been pulled. For multi-family units, 520 building permits were projected, and 400 had been pulled. Nearly all of the building activity was in the master planned communities east of Interstate 805. FORECAST SUMMARY Looking forward, as many as 2,084 housing units could be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista and 526 in western Chula Vista, for a total of 2,610 units between September 2016 and December 2017 (see Figure 1). In the five-year forecast period (calendar years 2016 through 2021), eastern Chula Vista could have as many as 7,152 housing units permitted (averaging 1,430 annually), and development in western Chula Vista could total as many as 1,277 units, averaging 255 units annually. The total number of units permitted citywide could be 8,429, with an annual average of 1,685 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. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 44 3 Eastern Chula Vista - Projections Through 2021 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 is projected to occur in Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3 North, Eastern Urban Center (EUC) “Millenia”, and Freeway Commercial (see Table 1) through 2019, when Villages 8 East and 8 West come on board. Below is a summary of the residential building permits projected through 2021:  OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2: 612 SF units + 1,083 MF units = 1,695 total units projected  Baldwin & Sons is the primary developer in Village 2, projecting 528 single-family and 952 multi-family units over the next five years, including 116 single-family and 507 multi-family units by the end of 2017.  JPB is projecting to pull 22 single-family permits by the end of 2017 and 35 multi-family units in 2018.  Between 2019 and 2020, Homefed Village 2 West is projecting 62 single-family units.  Reylenn Properties, owner of the neighborhood R-28 parcel, is projecting 96 multi- family units in 2018.  OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 3 NORTH: 813 SF units + 453 MF units = 1,266 total units projected  Homefed Otay Land II is the developer of Village 3 North and it is projecting to pull permits for all of its units by 2020, starting with 213 single-family and 355 multi-family units by the end of 2017.  OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 EAST: 411 SF units + 402 MF units = 463 total units projected  Homefed Otay Land II is also the developer of Village 8 East. Development is not projected to occur until 2020, when 261 single-family and 202 multi-family units are planned.  OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST: 150 SF units + 462 MF units = 612 total units projected  Otay Land Company, developer of Village 8 West, is projecting 362 multi-family units in 2019 and 100 more in 2020, along with 150 single-family units in 2020.  OTAY RANCH EASTERN URBAN CENTER (EUC) “MILLENIA”: 2,091 MF total units projected  The Millenia Real Estate Group is projecting 707 multi-family units through 2017 and 1,384 additional units by 2021.  OTAY RANCH FREEWAY COMMERCIAL: 600 MF total units projected  Baldwin & Sons is projecting 128 multi-family units by the end of 2017 and the remainder of a total 600 multi-family units by the end of 2020.  BELLA LAGO: 52 SF total units projected  Shea Homes has acquired the final 52 lots of this 140-unit, single-family development from Bella Lago LLC, and they are projecting to pull permits for all of the lots by the end of 2018, starting with 36 lots in 2017. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 45 4  BONITA RIDGE ESTATES: 14 SF total units projected  Bonita Ridge Estates is a 7.5-acre development on Lynndale Lane, just east of Interstate 805 and south of Bonita Road. All 14 single-family units are projected by the end of 2018. As of August 23, 2016, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in eastern Chula Vista is approximately 20,970. If 8,429 units were permitted over the next five-year forecasted period, approximately 12,541 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 - Projections Through 2021 Several entitled projects in western Chula Vista remain undeveloped. However, 522 multi-family units are projected by the end of 2017, including:  230 Church Avenue – 28 units  387 Roosevelt Street – 2 units  Bahia Vista Townhomes – 16 units: Ada Street  Creekside Point – 119 units: 944 Third Avenue  D Street Townhomes – 85 units  Monterey Place – 24 units: 267 Oxford Street  Stone Creek Casitas – 97 units: 3875 Main Street  Vista del Mar – 71 units: Third & K  Vista del Oro – 80 units: Broadway & Moss 2018 projections include 735 units, specifically:  Bayfront – Pacifica – 161 units  The Colony – 162 units: 435 Third Avenue  El Dorado Ridge – 104 units: Brandywine Avenue  Industrial Townhomes – 42 units  Urbana – 266 units: H Street between Third and Fourth Avenues There are no single-family developments projected. However, four second accessory units are projected each year during the five-year forecast. There are no other development projections beyond 2018, at this time. 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: 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 46 5 DECADE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED PER YEAR 1980-1989 330 1990-1999 693 2000-2009 2,094 2010-2016 665* *Through August 23, 2016 On an annual basis, the number of building permits issued for housing units in Chula Vista has fluctuated from 195 to 3,525 between 1980 and August 2016, with an average of 1,166 units per year over the past 37 years (see Table 3). Between 1984 and 1990, over 1,000 building permits were issued annually, averaging 1,430 units per year over that six-year timeframe. There was a ten-year streak of over 1,000 permits issued annually between 1997 and 2006, averaging 2,254 units per year. In 2001, 2003 and 2004, the permits exceeded 3,000. A significant cause of Chula Vista’s growth was, and continues to be, development of the master planned communities in eastern Chula Vista, including Rancho del Rey, Eastlake, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, and Bella Lago, which are mostly built out, and Otay Ranch, which has several thousand more units to be constructed. The number of building permits issued has not exceeded 1,000 since 2006. Between 2007 and 2016, the lowest number of permits issued was 275 in 2009, and the highest was 829 in 2014. Through August 23, 2016, 460 residential building permits had been issued (see Figure 3), with over four more months 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 3.29 persons per household. Assuming this estimate over the next five years, and assuming a 3.2% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 293,847 persons by the end of 2021. This is based on the following: The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated Chula Vista’s population on January 1, 2016 as 265,070; An additional 607 units were occupied from January 1, 2016 to August 2016; and An additional 8,429 units may be permitted between September 2016 and December 2021. 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. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 47 L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2016\CV Res building permits statistics.pdf.8.26.16 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 6 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 48 LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS City of Chula Vista Boundary Toll Road 5 805 Sweetwater Reservoir San Diego Bay Otay Landfill L o w e r O t a y L a k e 54 125 L St K St J St H St G St E St F St D St C St Naples St Moss St Palomar S t Oxsford S t Orange Av Main StHi l ltop DrFirst Av Second Av Third Av Fourth Av Fi fth Av BroadwayE P a lo m a r S t Ol y m p ic P arkw ayTelegraph Canyo n R d E H St La Medi a Rd Eastl ake Pkwy Otay Lakes R d Hunt e P k wy P roctor V a l l e y R d B i r c h R dH er i tage RdResidential Development Forecast Map 9/2016 - 12/2021 230 Church Avenue 387 Roosevelt Street Bahia Vista Town Homes Bayfront The Colony Creekside Point D Street Town Homes El Dorado Ridge Industrial Town Homes Monterrey Place Stone Creek Casitas Vista del Mar Urbana Villa de Oro Otay Ranch Village 2 Otay Ranch Village 3 North Otay Ranch Village 8 West Otay Ranch Village 8 East Eastern Urban Center Freeway Commercial Bella Lago Bonita Ridge Estates A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2016\Residential Forecast Development Map.ai.8.21.15 K F E P R O D S T U Q J B G I L A H M V C N FIGURE 2 7 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 49 SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF OTAY RANCH Village 2 North - Baldwin & Sons 0 69 0 0 60 0 36 30 0 0 96 99 Village 2 East - Baldwin & Sons 0 300 0 0 6 0 0 25 0 0 6 325 Village 2 South - Baldwin & Sons 116 138 111 168 88 118 0 0 0 0 315 424 Village 2 West - Baldwin & Sons 0 0 0 0 24 44 47 60 40 0 111 104 Village 2 West - Homefed Village 2 West 0 0 0 0 30 0 32 0 0 0 62 0 Village 2 - JPB 22 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 Village 2 - JPB 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 Village 2 - Reylenn Properties LLC (R-28)0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 Village 3 North - Homefed Otay Land II 213 355 260 73 199 25 141 0 0 0 813 453 Village 8 East - Homefed Otay Land II 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 202 150 200 411 402 Village 8 West - Otay Land Co.0 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 150 100 150 462 Freeway Commercial - Baldwin & Sons 0 128 0 236 0 224 0 12 0 0 0 600 EUC - Millenia Real Estate Group 0 707 0 554 0 513 0 171 0 146 0 2,091 Otay Ranch Sub-Total 351 1,697 415 1,127 407 1,286 517 500 340 446 2,030 5,056 Bonita Ridge Estates 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 Bella Lago - Bella Lago LLC 36 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 SUB-TOTAL 387 1,697 445 1,127 407 1,286 517 500 340 446 2,096 5,056 TOTAL UNITS *ISSUE = Building Permit Table 1 GMOC 2016 - EASTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST SEPTEMBER 2016 - DECEMBER 2021 Five Years Forecast PROJECT SEP 2016 - DEC 2017 JAN - DEC 2018 JAN - DEC 2019 JAN - DEC 2021 SEP 2016 - 2021 ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE* JAN - DEC 2020 Annual Average:1,430 2,084 1,572 1,693 1,017 786 7,152 8 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 50 SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF 230 Church Avenue 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 387 Roosevelt Street 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Bahia Vista Townhomes (808 Ada)0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Bayfront - Pacifica 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 The Colony (435 Third Ave)0 0 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 Creekside Point (944 Third Ave)0 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 D Street Townhomes 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 El Dorado Ridge (Brandywine)0 0 0 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 Industrial Townhomes ( Ind Blvd)0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 Monterey Place (267 Oxford St)0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Second Accessory Units 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 20 0 Stone Creek Casitsas (3875 Main)0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 Urbana (371 H St)0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 Vista del Mar (Third & K)0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 Vista del Oro-Broadway & Moss 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 SUB-TOTAL 4 522 4 735 4 0 4 0 4 0 20 1,257 TOTAL UNITS *ISSUE = Building Permit Table 2 GMOC 2016 - WESTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST SEPTEMBER 2016 - DECEMBER 2021 Five Years Forecast PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2016 - DECEMBER 2017 JAN. - DECEMBER 2018 JAN. - DECEMBER 2019 JAN. - DECEMBER 2020 JAN. - DECEMBER 2021 SEPTEMBER 2016 - 2021 ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE* Annual Average:255 526 739 4 4 4 1,277 9 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 51 Table 3 HISTORIC HOUSING & POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - AUGUST 23, 2016 Calendar Year Units Authorized for Construction (Issued) Units Completed (Final) Certified Year End Population (State D.O.F.) (1) Foot Note Yearly Number Yearly Number Yearly Number Yearly % Change 1 1980 407 374 84,364 2 1981 195 496 86,597 2.6 3 1982 232 129 88,023 1.6 4 1983 479 279 89,370 1.5 5 1984 1,200 521 91,166 2.0 6 1985 1,048 1,552 116,325 27.6 (2) 7 1986 2,076 1,120 120,285 3.4 8 1987 1,168 2,490 124,253 3.3 9 1988 1,413 829 128,028 3.0 10 1989 1,680 1,321 134,337 4.9 11 1990 664 1,552 138,262 2.9 12 1991 747 701 141,015 2.0 13 1992 560 725 144,466 2.4 14 1993 435 462 146,525 1.4 15 1994 700 936 149,791 2.2 16 1995 833 718 153,164 2.3 17 1996 914 820 156,148 1.9 18 1997 1,028 955 162,106 3.8 19 1998 1,339 1,093 167,103 3.1 20 1999 2,505 1,715 174,319 4.3 21 2000 2,618 2,652 181,613 4.2 22 2001 3,525 3,222 191,220 5.3 23 2002 2,250 2,923 200,798 5.0 24 2003 3,143 2,697 208,997 4.1 25 2004 3,300 3,043 217,512 4.1 26 2005 1,654 2,525 224,006 3.0 27 2006 1,180 1,448 227,850 1.7 28 2007 576 837 231,157 1.5 29 2008 325 518 234,011 1.2 30 2009 275 398 244,269 4.4 31 2010 517 422 245,987 0.7 32 2011 728 631 249,382 1.4 33 2012 798 847 251,973 1.0 34 2013 631 777 256,139 1.7 35 2014 829 394 257,362 0.5 36 2015 692 657 265,070 3.0 37 2016 460 607 267,005 0.8 (3) 38 2017 39 2018 40 2019 41 2020 42 2021 Annual Average 1,166 1,173 4,785 3.3 (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 3.2% vacancy rate and 3.29 persons per unit, and are estimated prior to California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, available in 2017. (4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation. 10 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 52 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 53 Air Quality and Climate Protection - 2017 Page 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Air Quality and Climate Protection – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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. Development within Chula Vista is guided by a number of planning documents and review processes to help improve local air quality. The Chula Vista General Plan, which provides a blueprint for future development, highlights the City’s goal to “improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants (Objective E6).” At a project level, new developments are evaluated through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for the following air quality impacts: 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 54 Air Quality and Climate Protection - 2017 Page 2 Approximately 632 new building units were permitted in FY16, which met the City’s green building and enhanced energy efficiency standards, which require levels of efficiency 15-20% higher than state codes. In addition, Chula Vista has continued to host monthly trainings for City staff and local developers on all applicable building codes. 2. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and procedures consistent with current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs? If not, please explain any inconsistencies and indicate actions needed to bring development regulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance. Yes X No _______ 3. Are there any new non-development-related air quality programs/actions that the city is implementing or participating in? If so, please list and provide an explanation of each. Yes X No _______ The City of Chula Vista continued to institutionalize our efforts to increase air quality and environmental health. In October 2016, the City of Chula Vista’s efforts were recognized by the Institute for Local Government with a Platinum Beacon Spotlight Award for Agency GHG reductions in response to reducing GHG emissions from City facilities by 29% from 2005 levels. Strategic Planning In the last year, the City has made progress on two major plans to guide its future air quality and overall environmental sustainability efforts. First, City staff presented the City Operations Sustainability Plan two-year implementation update to City Council. The plan establishes numeric targets and strategies for energy use, water use, green purchasing, waste management, pollution prevention, transportation, and green CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AQ Standards: Based on South Coast Air Quality District GREENHOUSE GASES AQ Standards: Based on Assembly Bill 32/Climate Action Plan Ozone Carbon Dioxide Particulate Matter Methane Lead Nitrous Oxide Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Hexafluoride Sulfur Oxide Hydrofluorocarbons Nitrogen Oxide Perfluorocarbons 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 55 Air Quality and Climate Protection - 2017 Page 3 buildings/infrastructure and some of the highlights that impact air quality in Chula Vista are as follows: a nearly 30% reduction in GHG emissions from City operations since 2005 (55% reduction since 1990), the City fleet reaching 36% hybrid or alternative fuel technologies and increasing the “green” purchases to 70% of Office Depot purchases, and 35% of custodial purchases. Second, the City continued to work to update its Climate Action Plan (CAP) by drafting implementation actions for the 12 Climate Change Working Group recommendations. The group held monthly public meetings to identify new opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and related air pollutants and some of the notable recommendation include the following: incorporating solar photovoltaic into all new residential and commercial buildings (on a project level basis), expand the City’s “cool roof” standards to include re‐roofs and western areas, and require energy‐savings retrofits in existing buildings at a specific point in time (not at point of sale). City staff anticipates the full CAP to be sent to City Council by the end of July 2017. Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, & Renewable Energy Electricity generation and natural gas use are significant sources of air emissions. Likewise, water use requires energy due to related pumping, treatment, and heating. To help reduce community energy and water use, the City facilitated a competitive and robust Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) market in Chula Vista, which assists property owners with financing energy and water upgrades. Since program inception in November of 2014, Chula Vista residents and businesses have financed more than 30 million dollars for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water conservation projects. Participants repay the financing through a tax assessment on their property and the assessment obligations generally transfer with the property upon sale, because the new owner continues to benefit from the efficiency improvements. The City also continued to offer a variety of energy efficiency programs and services in the community through its Local Government Partnership with San Diego Gas & Electric and the California Public Utilities Commission. As a result, over 3,800 “hard-to-reach” individuals were engaged through the Empower Hour (youth), Library Energy Lounges (seniors & others), and the Green Homes for All (low-income households) programs, City staff preformed more than 1,000 on-site evaluations for residents and businesses, and engaged more than 1,250 residents at 43 events in 2015. Smart Growth & Transportation Chula Vista has taken significant efforts to increase the alternative transportation options that are available to City residents and business. One of these efforts has been to expand the publicly available charging infrastructure for electric vehicles by adding a total of 28 chargers (including one DC fast charger) at 5 public facing municipal facilities. In 2017, we anticipate adding to this network by working with SDG&E to install 70 EV chargers exclusively for City staff (for City fleet and employee commuters) at 3 facilities. This investment in EV infrastructure will allow the City to exceed its goal for alternative fuel vehicles and make significant reductions to local air pollution caused by the City fleet. City staff has also begun to encourage active transportation options for employees 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 56 Air Quality and Climate Protection - 2017 Page 4 by including a “bike valet”, which is a designated and monitored safe location for people to leave their bikes, at all major City events. We have also encouraged employees to utilizing alternative commuting options by encouraging the use of the SANDAG “iCommute” program and offering monthly rewards and lunch-and-learn educational opportunities for City employees. 4. Please identify any increases or reductions in air quality emissions. During FY16, there were no significant reductions in local air quality emissions. 5. How many residents and/or commercial facilities have added solar panels in the past year? 2,448 6 Are there any new non-development-related program efforts that the city needs to undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? If so, please list and provide a brief explanation of each. Yes No ___X___ While no new programs are required at this time, two pieces of state legislation that our programs will aim to comply with and support are Senate Bill 32, which codified the goal previously stated by the state to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 by 2030, and AB350, which set a goal of doubling states’ energy efficiency savings. 7. Please update and/or add new categories to the table below (dated 10.7.14), indicating a side-by-side comparison of what neighboring communities are doing for climate control. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CEQA GHG Review* Climate Action Plan Pedestrian/ Bicycle Plans Green Building Standards Free Energy Evaluations Energy Upgrade Financing City of Chula Vista X X X X X X City of Imperial Beach X X X 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 *As a result of CEQA review, development projects in all jurisdictions have to mitigate GHG emission impacts 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 57 Air Quality and Climate Protection - 2017 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. PREPARED BY: Name: Lynn France Title: Environmental Services Manager Date: December 22, 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 58 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 59 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 60 CVESD - 2017 Page 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire CVESD – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast THRESHOLD STANDARDS 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 tables below, adding schools, if applicable. EXISTING CONDITIONS - DECEMBER 2016 Schools # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2016 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary AND Attending This School December 2016 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Attending This School Regardless of Their Residency December 2016 Building Capacity (# of Students) % Building Capacity Used # of Overflow Students* Permanent Portables In Out NORTHWEST Cook 365 184 325 440 59 65.13% Feaster-Edison 1092 879 1049 450 475 113.41% Hilltop Drive 538 361 564 488 63 102.36% Mueller 875 659 880 500 525 85.85% 38 Rosebank 700 447 577 426 363 73.13% 1 1 Vista Square 865 561 635 350 464 78.01% 4 SOUTHWEST CVLC Charter No Attendance Boundary 936 750 150 104.00% Castle Park 513 312 378 488 38 71.86% 7 Harborside 579 456 680 525 451 69.67% Kellogg 263 153 327 464 50 63.62% Lauderbach 1060 671 786 476 526 78.44% 9 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 61 CVESD - 2017 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS - DECEMBER 2016 Schools # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2016 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary AND Attending This School December 2016 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Attending This School Regardless of Their Residency December 2016 Building Capacity (# of Students) % Building Capacity Used # of Overflow Students* Permanent Portables In Out Loma Verde 490 308 476 450 234 69.59% 1 1 Montgomery 407 284 337 434 125 60.29% Otay 668 463 536 500 300 67.00% 1 Palomar 415 253 364 452 0 80.53% Rice 957 535 637 525 302 77.03% 9 Rohr 372 249 327 464 50 63.62% SOUTHEAST In Out Arroyo Vista 627 552 842 750 125 96.23% Camarena 1234 1003 1014 800 200 101.40% 3 50 Olympic View 952 734 800 500 350 94.12% 26 Parkview 321 223 381 534 93 60.77% Rogers 388 242 460 614 84 65.90% Valle Lindo 558 423 474 472 276 63.37% Hedenkamp 1081 926 1079 1000 0 107.90% 10 Heritage 763 668 823 750 150 91.44% 1 Veterans 898 755 880 743 150 98.54% 38 McMillin 936 783 842 693 100 106.18% 1 Wolf Canyon 1026 847 917 764 150 100.33% 15 NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 252 183 390 540 13 70.52% Casillas 441 314 514 589 150 69.55% 60 Chula Vista Hills 450 340 555 500 100 92.50% Clear View 341 264 496 415 150 87.79% Discovery 659 540 814 584 325 89.55% Eastlake 463 384 656 500 239 88.77% 92 Halecrest 326 241 508 501 88 86.25% 17 Liberty 588 494 742 764 0 97.12% 5 Marshall 705 539 681 577 109 99.27% 1 Salt Creek 1064 867 968 764 150 105.91% 1 27 Tiffany 543 402 517 510 163 76.82% 15 TOTAL *Each grade level class size is capped at 24 students. When that cap is reached, overflow refers to students sent to different schools where capacity exists. 2. Taking into consideration the city’s 2016 Residential Growth Forecast, please complete the two forecast tables below, adding new schools, if applicable. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 62 CVESD - 2017 Page 3 SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2017 Schools Projected # of CVESD- Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2017 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2016 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Attending This School Regardless of Their Residency December 2016 Projected Additional or Decreased Building Capacity (# of Students) % of Capacity used by Projected December 2017 # of Overflow Students* Permanent Portables In Out NORTHWEST Cook 366 365 184 73.35% Feaster-Edison 1164 1092 879 125.84% Hilltop Drive 563 538 361 102.18% Mueller 870 875 659 84.88% Rosebank 775 700 447 98.23% Vista Square 977 865 561 120.02% SOUTHWEST Castle Park 521 513 378 99.05% Harborside 644 579 680 65.98% Kellogg 303 263 327 58.95% Lauderbach 1103 1060 786 110.08% Loma Verde 477 490 476 69.74% Montgomery 389 407 337 69.59% Otay 673 668 536 84.13% Palomar 421 415 364 93.14% Rice 1026 957 637 124.06% Rohr 396 372 327 77.04% SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 610 627 842 69.71% Camarena 1219 1234 1014 121.90% Olympic View 903 952 800 106.24% Parkview 338 321 381 53.91% Rogers 512 388 460 73.35% Valle Lindo 607 558 474 81.15% Hedenkamp 1037 1081 1079 103.70% Heritage 721 763 823 80.11% Veterans 935 898 880 104.70% McMillin 934 936 842 117.78% Muraoka 844 800 105.50% Wolf Canyon 779 1026 917 85.23% NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 226 252 390 40.87% Casillas 477 441 514 64.55% 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 63 CVESD - 2017 Page 4 SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2017 Schools Projected # of CVESD- Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2017 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2016 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Attending This School Regardless of Their Residency December 2016 Projected Additional or Decreased Building Capacity (# of Students) % of Capacity used by Projected December 2017 # of Overflow Students* Permanent Portables In Out CV Hills 450 450 555 75.00% Clear View 367 341 496 64.96% Discovery 667 659 814 73.38% Eastlake 499 463 656 67.52% Halecrest 356 326 508 60.44% Liberty 643 588 742 84.16% Marshall 707 705 681 103.06% Salt Creek 1029 1064 968 112.58% Tiffany 553 543 517 82.17% TOTAL *Each grade level class size is capped at 24 students. When that cap is reached, overflow refers to students sent to different schools where capacity exists. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2021 Schools Projected # of CVESD- Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2021 Projected # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2017 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2016 Projected Additional or Decreased Building Capacity (# of Students) % of Capacity used by Projected December 2021 # of Overflow Students* Permanent Portables In Out NORTHWEST Cook 388 366 365 77.76% Feaster-Edison 1138 1164 1092 123.03% Hilltop Drive 589 563 538 106.90% Mueller 862 870 875 84.10% Rosebank 682 775 700 86.44% Vista Square 1019 977 865 125.18% SOUTHWEST Castle Park 517 521 513 98.29% Harborside 632 644 579 64.75% Kellogg 316 303 263 61.48% Lauderbach 946 1103 1060 94.41% Loma Verde 439 477 490 64.18% Montgomery 304 389 407 54.38% Otay 557 673 668 69.63% Palomar 369 421 415 81.64% Rice 956 1026 957 115.60% 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 64 CVESD - 2017 Page 5 FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2021 Schools Projected # of CVESD- Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2021 Projected # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2017 # of CVESD-Enrolled Students Residing in This School Boundary December 2016 Projected Additional or Decreased Building Capacity (# of Students) % of Capacity used by Projected December 2021 # of Overflow Students* Permanent Portables In Out Rohr 394 396 372 76.65% SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 610 610 627 69.71% Camarena 1184 1219 1234 118.40% Olympic View 824 903 952 96.94% ORV 3 473 600 78.83% Parkview 341 338 321 54.39% Rogers 527 512 388 75.50% Valle Lindo 567 607 558 75.80% Hedenkamp 901 1037 1081 90.10% Heritage 669 721 763 74.33% Veterans 915 935 898 102.46% McMillin 903 934 936 113.87% Muraoka 1145 844 143.13% Wolf Canyon 1634 779 1026 178.77% NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 155 252 390 28.03% CV Hills 453 441 514 61.30% Clear View 455 450 555 75.83% Discovery 367 341 496 64.96% Eastlake 620 659 814 68.21% Halecrest 599 463 656 81.06% Liberty 342 326 508 58.06% Marshall 672 588 742 87.96% Salt Creek 654 705 681 95.34% Tiffany 927 1064 968 101.42% TTOTAL 515 543 517 76.52% *Each grade level class size is capped at 24 students. When that cap is reached, overflow refers to students sent to different schools where capacity exists. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,092 4,087 4,173 4,179 4,287 % of Change Over the Previous Year -1.15% .12% -2.1% -0.14% -2.5% % of Enrollment from 94.93% 93.55% 81.4% 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 65 CVESD - 2017 Page 6 Chula Vista SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5784 5,997 5,933 5,940 5,895 % of Change Over the Previous Year -3.6% 1.08% -.12% 0.76% 0.29% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 94.27% 93.55% 96.04% SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 8511 8,760 8,752 8,370 7,901 % of Change Over the Previous Year -.28% .09% 4.56% 5.94% 1.2% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 96.58% 99.13% 95.61% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6872 6,924 6,934 7,138 7,114 % of Change Over the Previous Year -.14% -.14% -2.86% 0.34% 3.34% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 92.71% 80.21% 92.2% DISTRICT-WIDE Total Enrollment 28191 28,694 28,493 28,442 27,328 % of Change Over the Previous Year -1.75% .71% .18% 4.08% -1.6% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 87.88% 83.88% 87.15% 3. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes _______ No ___X____ A new school, Saburo Muraoka Elementary School, is anticipated to open in Otay Ranch Village 2 in July 2017 and will have a capacity of approximately 800 students. Designed by Ruhnau Ruhnau Clarke Architects, it is a departure from a "prototype" school design used on multiple campuses in Chula Vista from the 1990s through 2007. It will consist of one two-story building with two wings that will house 32 classrooms, collaboration rooms, an Innovation Center, nutrition bar, and administration. A second building will house the Multi-purpose room/Performing Arts Auditorium. The Performing Arts Auditorium and the Innovation Center will face each other with a courtyard in between the two. Both will have sliding glass doors that open onto the courtyard. There are multiple outdoor learning spaces planned into the campus. The School is named for Saburo Muraoka, a farmer who immigrated to Chula Vista in the early 1900s and built a booming agricultural business. His family was detained in an internment camp and when he returned, he had lost his business and property. He re-built his business and his life here in Chula Vista and 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 66 CVESD - 2017 Page 7 gave back to community, including establishing the Japanese Friendship Garden in Balboa Park. In his honor, the school will have its own Japanese Friendship garden with cherry blossom trees donated by the Muraoka family. 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes _______ No ___X____ A new school in Otay Ranch Village 3 tentatively planned to open in 2020-2021 will have a capacity of 600 students. 5. Please complete the table below. NEW SCHOOLS STATUS School # and Name (If Known) Site Selection Architectural Review/Funding ID for Land and Construction Commencement of Site Preparation Service by Utilities and Road Commencement of Construction Time Needed By Muraoka X X X X June 2016 July 2017 Otay Ranch V3 X July 2020 6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities? If not, please explain. Yes ___X____ No _______ 7. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carolyn Scholl Title: Facilities Planning Manager Date: January 27, 2017 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 67 a a a a a a a a a a aa aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnmnmnmnm nm nmnmnm nmnmnm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm 42 45 20 33 22 4 27 253 26 15 467 193 287 585 168 68 1 24 29 12 7 Village 9HomeFed Village 10HomeFed Bayfront -Pacifica TheColony Vista DelMar 3rdand K CreeksidePoint Vistade Oro Bahia VistaTownhomes StoneCreekCasitas Village2 East Village 2 South Village 2 West Village2 WestHomeFed Village2 JPBVillage2 JPB Village 2 ReylennProperties LLC R-28 Village3 NorthHomeFed Village8 WestHomeFed Village8 EastHomeFed EUCMillenia FreewayCommercialPA12 BonitaRidgeEstates BellaLago 230 ChurchAvenue 387 Roosevelt Street D StreetTown Homes El DoradoRidge IndustrialTown Homes MontereyPlace Urbana 74 27 76 94 13 22 SUNNYSIDE VALLEYVISTA MARSHALL ALLEN EASTLAKEROSEBANK CLEARVIEW TIFFANYFEASTERCHARTER DISCOVERYCHARTER ARROYOVISTACHARTER OLYMPICVIEW CHULA VISTA HILLS HALECRESTVISTASQUARE HILLTOPDRIVE CASILLAS MUELLERCHARTER COOK ROGERSKELLOGG RICE CASTLEPARK PARKVIEW PALOMARHARBORSIDE LAUDERBACH VALLELINDO LOMAVERDE ROHR MONTGOMERY OTAY FINNEY JUAREZLINCOLN SILVERWING LOSALTOS HERITAGE MCMILLIN CVLCC LIBERTY SALTCREEK HEDENKAMP VETERANS WOLFCANYON CAMARENA MURAOKA 252 513 450 341 365 659 463 1092 339 326 579 538 482 263 1060 490 273 407 875 952 668 415 321957 388 372 700 467 356 543 558 606 865 441 705 627 763 936 588 1064 1081 898 1234 476 550 Chula Vista Elementary School District µ0 1.5 30.75 MilesCity Of Chula Vista Projects Source: Chula VIsta Elementary School District March 2014 Legend nm Existing Schools CV City Limit a CV Projects (GMOC) Red #s Indicate the # of Students Residing in an Attendance BoundaryBlue #s Indicate the # of Students Generated at 5Y Build Out Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community City of Chula Vista and CVESD 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 68 Drainage – 2017 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Drainage – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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.  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program o Prohibition and elimination of non-storm water discharges via the Storm Water Ordinance (CVMC Chapter 14.20) 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 69 Drainage – 2017 2 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. PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto Yano Position: Program Manager Date: 10/28/16 Name: Boushra Salem Position: Senior Civil Engineer Date: 10/28/16 Name: Dave McRoberts Position: Wastewater Collections Manager Date: 10/28/16 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 70 Page 1 Fire and EMS - 2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Fire and EMS – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast 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). Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch, turnout and travel time to the building or site address. Please complete the table below: FIRE and EMS Response Times Fiscal Year Calls for Service % Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) Average Response Time Average Travel Time Average Dispatch Time Average Turn-out Time 2016 13,481 74.8 6:15 4:25 0:55 0:56 2015 12,561 78.3 6:14 3:51 1:12 1:10 2014 11,721 76.5 6:02 3:34 1:07 1:21 2013 12,316 75.7 6:02 3:48 1:05 1:08 Please provide responses to the following questions: 1. During the review period, were 80% of all calls responded to within 7 minutes? If not, please explain why. Yes __ No __X ___ Chula Vista Fire Department did not meet Fire and EMS response times (74.8%) as identified by the GMOC, decreasing by 3.5% over 2015. Over this past year there was a significant increase in call volume of an additional 920 emergency calls for service equaling a 7.3% growth. In spite of the decrease in compliance, department member performance improved tremendously. Average dispatch time improved by 17 seconds and turnout times improved by 14 seconds for an overall decrease of 31 seconds. There was a 34 second increase in average travel time, netting a 3 second increase overall from last year. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 71 Page 2 Fire and EMS - 2017 Improvements were attributed to the following:  Battalion Monthly Reports (Initiated October 2015)  Auto-Dispatching (Initiated June 2015)  Pulsepoint  Outfitted fire stations 2, 3, and 4 with transitional lighting for night responses to bring them up to current standards The Fire Department would need the following system adjustments in order to make significant improvements to be in compliance: (Bullet points 1 through 5 are from last year’s report. The sub bullets indicate more detail and any progress/status). 1. Additional fire stations within the network (Millenia and Bayfront funding identified) 2. Additional improvements in call for service dispatch processes  Auto-Dispatching Completed June 2015  Pulsepoint used by many personnel on personal devices (voluntary) 3. Additional improvements in unit and station alerting  Outfit fire stations 5, and 9 with transitional lighting for night responses to bring them up to current standards (FS 2, 3, and 4 completed)  Provide turnout time count down clocks for each unit (not funded)  Replace all fire station alerting systems (not funded)  Provide smart phone for each seated position 4. Improved management of response time performance to include interactive discussion with fire crews, use of mapping capabilities, and shared data with stakeholders.  Battalion Monthly Reports (Initiated October 2015)  Update response map books (not funded) 5. Replacement of old and failing fire apparatus within the fleet (6 Engines, 2 Trucks, and 1 US&R need to be replaced)  2 Engines ordered Nov 2015  1 Truck ordered Aug 2016 6. Pilot squad response program (not funded) 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. 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. The new accepted years of service for fire apparatus has been changed to 17 years from 25 years. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 72 Page 3 Fire and EMS - 2017 3. During the review period, were fire and medical units properly staffed? If not, please explain why. Yes No _X___ The Fire Facility Master Plan calls for an 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. 4.0 staffing will reduce fire company on-scene times, allowing units to be available for calls for service. 4.0 staffing will allow fire companies to remain in service in the event of firefighter assisted transports. For fire responses, 4.0 staffing improves time of initial attack on the fire by 25% over a 3.0 staffed engine and fulfills the OSHA 2-in 2-out mandate as well as NFPA Standard 1710. It also allows fire companies to expedite the cleaning and preparation of used fire equipment and return it to ready and available status reducing out of service time. 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___ Call volume is on the rise. Calls on the east side have more negative impact than the increase in calls on the west. Should the trend continue (especially in the east), it is not likely for compliance to meet the threshold. Please see the recommended system adjustments in the answer to #1 above. Future consideration: The Fire Department partner agency, AMR provides ALS transport service. Effective September 15, 2016, AMR has deployed a new staffing model which decreases the number of paramedics on-scene of emergency medical calls. This is anticipated to increase fire company on-scene times. The change will also increase the number of firefighter assisted transports resulting in extended out of service time that will necessitate fire companies from other districts to cover calls for service. 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____ Without implementation of the recommended measures the response time threshold is not anticipated to be met. 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. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 73 Page 4 Fire and EMS - 2017 6. Please complete the tables below: FIRE and EMS Response Times - By Geography Fiscal Year Calls for Service % of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) Average Response Time for All Calls 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 2016 2341 7285 3855 57.9 85.7 78.7 6:59 5:35 6:02 5:03 3:42 4:18 0:52 1:02 0:53 1:05 0:51 0:51 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 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 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). FIRE and EMS Response Times in FY 2016 - By Fire Station Fire Station # Calls for Service % of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) Average Response Time for all Calls Average Travel Time Average Dispatch Time Average Turn-out Time 1 3987 87.5 5:11 3:24 0:58 0:49 2 964 79.8 5:58 4:15 0:52 0:53 3 784 77.0 6:05 4:23 0:56 0:46 4 865 76.3 6:09 4:23 0:52 0:55 5 3298 85.0 5:59 4:00 1:07 0:53 6 551 71.3 6:25 4:27 0:56 1:03 7 1055 55.8 7:12 5:15 0:52 1:05 8 735 57.3 7:21 5:26 0:49 1:07 9 1242 83.3 5:56 4:13 0:52 0:51 Types of All Calls Responded To % Change Fiscal Year Total Call Volume % Calls for Fire Service % Calls for Emergency Medical Services % Calls for Other Services % Change 2016 19,626 1.8 (348) 67.8 (13305) 30.4 (5973) 6.1 2015 18,503 2.1 (400) 80.3 (12724) 17.6 (5379) 8.6 2014 16,918 2.5 (417) 70.2 (11875) 27.3 (4626) 5.4 2013 16,011 2.6 (419) 66.8 (10699) 30.6 (4893) 2.5 2012 15,613 2.4 (371) 64.3 (10045) 33.3 (5197) 1.5 2011 15,373 2.2 (334) 66.0 (10143) 31.9 (4897) 0.9 2010 15,234 2.3 (356) 64.7 (9852) 33.0 (5023) 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 74 Page 5 Fire and EMS - 2017 7. Please explain and/or provide information on what “emergency” or “Code 3” calls are. For instance, are sirens on or off? Are calls for life threatening situations only? Does the dispatcher determine how to classify the calls? If not, who does? Emergency or ‘Code 3’ calls are synonymous and are responses that include a unit responding with lights and sirens and use of Opticom traffic control devices. Data provided for the GMOC threshold reports emergency responses only, all other non-emergency calls are not included in the report. Dispatchers use information from the caller to categorize the call for service using Emergency Medical Dispatch procedures. This determines the priority for the call and is dispatched accordingly. 8. The GMOC’s 2016 Annual Report recommended that the City Manager and the Fire Chief collaborate “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.” The response provided by the Fire Department was: “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.” Please report on the progress that has been made. Initial costs for the consultant analysis were $5000 per scenario with an anticipated cost of $15,000 for 3 scenarios. After additional conversations and research, the Fire Chief has chosen to delay the per scenario option. Due to future forecasting of department needs and the possibility of squad implementation a full purchase of the Optimizer software, at $30,000, is a better investment. Owning the software outright will enable the fire department to use the software for numerous projects and analysis moving forward. A funding source needs to be identified. 9. Please explain if the roving response unit, which is being used in some other cities, might be beneficial in Chula Vista. The Fire Department is exploring this option. With the purchase of the Optimizer software an in- depth analysis can be conducted to assist with the decision. Many other factors come into play and will all be considered (staffing, costs, equipment, vehicles, etc.). 10. One goal of Chula Vista’s Fire Facilities Master Plan is to comply with the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) 1710 standards. Please complete the table below to report on Chula Vista’s efforts to comply with NFPA. National Fire Protection Association 1710 Compliance Table – FY 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 75 Page 6 Fire and EMS - 2017 # of Calls Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Response EMS - 1st Unit 12,960 STANDARD 1:00 1:00 4:00 6:00 Average Time 0:51 1:03 3:55 5:56 % Compliant 80.0 51.4 61.8 63.4 Fire - 1st Unit 277 STANDARD 1:00 1:20 4:00 6:20 Average Time 1:19 1:06 4:15 7:14 % Compliant 48.7 66.8 49.8 50.2 Effective Fire Force - 14FF 32 STANDARD 1:00 1:20 8:00 10:20 Average Time 1:42 1:10 5:34 8:28 % Compliant 38.6 62.7 85.5 37.5 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 method for identifying and marking times to signify actual enroute start, and end time is desired to be implemented along with an update to MDC screens by adding an Acknowledgement button to the screen. PREPARED BY: Name: Jim Geering Title: Fire Chief Date: 10/12/16 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 76 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 1  GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)  Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Fiscal – 2017 Review Period:  July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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(7‐01‐15 to 6‐30‐16);   b. The current fiscal year, 2016‐2017; and   c. What is anticipated in the coming five years.      FISCAL IMPACT REPORT    a. Fiscal Year 2015‐16 (last fiscal year – 07/01/15‐06/30/16)    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 $139.4 million in General Fund revenues.       The following table summarizes and compares actual revenues, expenditures, and staffing  for all funds in fiscal years 2014‐15 and 2015‐16.             2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 77 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 2  ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands) FY 2014‐15  Actual FY 2015‐16  Actual Increase/  (Decrease) Revenues Property Taxes 34,796$    35,535$       739$            Sales Taxes 30,456       33,317          2,862           Other Local  Taxes 36,099       28,430          (7,668)         Licenses and Permits 3,300         3,439            139              Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 2,278         1,943            (335)             Use  of Money  & Property 5,842         8,210            2,368           Revenue from Other Agencies 48,585       44,502          (4,083)         Charges for Services 59,456       56,193          (3,263)         Development Impact Fees 7,526         11,900          4,374           Other Revenue 37,020       73,014          35,994        Transfers In 30,033       84,256          54,223        Total  Revenues 295,391$  380,740$     85,349$      Expenditures Personnel Services 127,778$  133,097$     5,319$        Supplies & Services 54,628       50,458          (4,170)         Other Expenses 39,666       77,359          37,693        Capital 3,038         2,089            (950)             Transfers Out 30,033       84,256          54,223        CIP Project Expenditures 21,051       14,906          (6,145)         Non‐CIP Project Expenditures 1,026         2,987            1,961           Utilities 7,709         7,145            (565)             Total  Expenditures 284,931$  372,296$     87,366$      STAFFING  SUMMARY (FTEs) FY 2014‐15  Actual FY 2015‐16  Actual 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 Li fe  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              ‐               Successor Agency ‐             ‐                 ‐               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)257,362    265,070       7,708           FTEs per 1,000 population 3.73           3.64              (0.09)           2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 78 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 3        b.  Fiscal Year 2016‐17 (current fiscal year)    On June 7, 2016, the City Council adopted the fiscal year 2016‐17 operating and capital  budgets.  The adopted all funds budget totaled $292.2 million, including a General Fund  operating budget of $146.5 million, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $20.8  million, $35.5 million in interfund transfers, and $89.4 million in operating budgets for  other City funds, including Sewer, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency,  Development Services, and Fleet.  The fiscal year 2016‐17 budget assumed all funds  revenues totaling $282.5 million, including $146.5 million in General Fund revenues.     The following table summarizes and compares actual revenues, expenditures, and staffing  for all funds in fiscal years 2015‐16 and 2016‐17.      ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands) FY 2015‐16  Actual FY 2016‐17  Projected Increase/  (Decrease) Revenues Property Taxes 35,535$    36,142$    607$            Sales Taxes 33,317       35,550       2,233           Other Local  Taxes 28,430       31,083       2,653           Licenses and Permits 3,439         3,325         (114)             Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 1,943         1,663         (279)             Use  of Money  & Property 8,210         3,497         (4,712)         Revenue from Other Agencies 44,502       47,927       3,424           Charges for Services 56,193       48,355       (7,838)         Development Impact Fees 11,900       5,472         (6,429)         Other Revenue 73,014       33,986       (39,029)       Transfers  In 84,256       35,522       (48,734)       Total  Revenues 380,740$  282,522$  (98,218)$     Expenditures Personnel Services 133,097$  139,441$  6,345$         Supplies & Services 50,458       53,913       3,455           Other Expenses 77,359       28,457       (48,903)       Capital 2,089         4,379         2,291           Transfers  Out 84,256       35,522       (48,734)       CIP Project Expenditures 14,906       20,789       5,884           Non‐CIP Project Expenditures 2,987         1,071         (1,916)         Utilities 7,145         8,619         1,474           Total  Expenditures 372,296$  292,193$  (80,103)$                  2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 79 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 4  STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs) FY 2015‐16  Actual FY 2016‐17  Projected Increase/  (Decrease) General Fund Legislative/ Administrative 111.00       105.00       (6.00)            Development/ Maintenance 205.75       218.25       12.50           Public Safety 458.50       462.50       4.00             Community Services 39.50         39.50         ‐               General Fund Subtotal 814.75       825.25       10.50           Other Funds Advanced Life  Support 1.00           1.00           ‐               Development Services 44.50         50.00         5.50             Police Grants/ CBAG 36.00         39.00         3.00             Federal Grants  Fund 3.00           2.00           (1.00)            Environmental  Services 6.00           7.00           1.00             Housing Authority 4.00           4.00           ‐               Successor Agency ‐              ‐              ‐               Fleet Management 10.00         10.00         ‐               Transit ‐              ‐              ‐               Sewer 46.00         46.00         ‐               Other Funds Subtotal 150.50       159.00       8.50             Total  All Funds 965.25       984.25       19.00           Population (as of January 1)265,070    267,005    1,935           FTEs per 1,000 population 3.64           3.69           0.04                   c.  Five‐Year Forecast (fiscal year 2016‐17 through fiscal year 2020‐21)    Each year the City has prepared a General Fund Five‐Year Financial Forecast which serves as  a tool to identify financial trends, shortfalls, and issues so that the City can proactively  address them. The Finance Department has updated its Five‐Year Financial Forecast in  preparation of developing the City’s first Long‐Term Financial Plan.  Once finalized, the Long‐ Term Financial Plan will provide a more in depth analysis of the City’s fiscal condition to aide  in proactive financial decision making and assess the City’s ability to continue current service  levels based on projected growth, preserve the City’s long‐term fiscal health, and to slowly  rebuild the operating reserves.      It is important to stress that this forecast is not a budget.  It does not make expenditure  decisions but rather highlights the need to prioritize the allocation of City resources.  The  purpose of the forecast is to provide an overview of the City’s fiscal health based on various  assumptions over the next five years and provide the City Council, management and the  citizens of Chula Vista with a “heads up” on the financial outlook beyond the annual budget  cycle.  The five‐year forecast is intended to serve as a planning tool to bring a long‐term  perspective to the budget process.      The following assumptions were used in the preparation of the Fiscal Years 2016‐2017 to  2020‐2021 Five‐Year Financial Forecast.        2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 80 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 5    Economic & Population Growth     Inflation is a measure of the increase for the cost of goods and services.  With the  recent announcement by California Governor Jerry Brown that the State minimum  wage will be increasing to $15 per hour by the year 2022, expenditure inflation is  anticipated to be much higher than normal over this period of time.  The five‐year  forecast includes expenditure inflation on supplies and services category ranging from  5% to 9% during the forecast period.   The regional economies will continue to recover at a modest pace from the recession  of 2007‐2009.   City population will continue to reflect modest increases.   Development Impacts – The five‐year forecast includes anticipated revenues from  development projects within the City beginning in fiscal year 2017‐2018.  It is  important to note that the forecast excludes additional operating expenses related to  the development projects, with the exception of the following:  o Assumes the addition of fire staffing and supplies and services for the Millenia  fire station in fiscal year 2018‐19. The Bayfront fire station is not estimated to  come online within the five‐year forecast period.  o Assumes funding of 1.0 Peace Officer per year beginning in fiscal year 2018,  for a total of 4.0 Peace Officers during the forecast period. (It is important to  note that these Peace Officers are not new positions, but positions that were  frozen during the recession period.)      Major Revenues   Sales tax revenues will increase throughout the forecast period at a base rate of  approximately 2.5% a year.   A housing recession is not assumed during the forecast period. Base assessed property  values are projected to increase by 3% per year beginning in fiscal year 2017‐2018.   Also included in Property Tax revenues is a projected Redevelopment Property Tax  Trust Fund (RPTTF) loan repayment of approximately $1.0 million per year beginning  in fiscal year 2017‐2018.   Modest base increases of between 1% to 2% for Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT),  Utility Users Tax (UUT), and Franchise Fees.   Anticipated development revenues are based on fiscal impact analysis prepared by  Pro Forma Advisors LLC, dated December 15, 2015.      Expenditures   Personnel Services expenditures reflect fiscal year 2016‐2017 approved staffing  levels and agreed to negotiated increases with all bargaining groups. No additional  personnel are assumed in the forecast with the exception of the funding of 1.0  Peace Officer per year beginning in fiscal year 2017‐2018 and the addition of fire  staffing for the Millenia fire station in fiscal years 2018‐2019 as previously  mentioned.   Flexible Benefit Plan expenses assume increases of 5% for Miscellaneous and 10%  for Safety each year throughout the forecast period.   Retirement (PERS) costs are based on the estimated contribution rates as provided  by Bartell and Associates, LLC as of the June 30, 2014 Annual Valuation Report and  assumes the 75th Percentile on a 7.5% Return on Investment (ROI).  This report  was prepared by Bartell and Associates, LLC on May 2, 2016.  Retirement costs  were projected conservatively based on the recent ROI earnings of 2.4% in fiscal  year 2014‐15 and 0.6% in fiscal year 2015‐16, both of which are well below  CalPERS assumed ROI of 7.5%.   Fiscal year 2016‐2017 reflects a higher than normal salary savings (vacancies) in  order to balance the General Fund.  Starting in fiscal year 2017‐2018 salary savings  2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 81 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 6  is based on 1% of projected Salary/PERS/Medicare.   In fiscal year 2017‐2018 it is anticipated that the Workers Compensation Fund will  have depleted its fund balance.  It is assumed in the forecast that the General  Funds’ share of the increased costs will be approximately $570,000 in fiscal year  2017‐2018 and then increased by 2% per fiscal year thereafter.   Other expenditures include the following:  o Anticipated costs for utilities, equipment, debt service, and other  expenses;  o As mentioned earlier, the supplies and services category includes  expenditure inflation ranging from 5% to 9% during the forecast period  due to the anticipated cost increases related to the increase in State  minimum wage;  o The estimated cost for the operation of the Millenia station beginning in  fiscal year 2018‐2019;  o The anticipated financing cost for the Regional Communications System  (RCS); and  o The cost for the Police Department’s Computer Aided Dispatch System.   Capital and maintenance needs are not included in the below forecast. The City  has developed a separate Intended Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment  Expenditure Plan report. The report describes the City’s infrastructure needs and  recommended funding based on criteria established through the Asset  Management Program (AMP).     The Intended Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan and other related  presentations and publications related to the AMP can be found on the City’s website at:  http://www.chulavistaca.gov/infrastructure.    The Five‐Year Forecast was updated in August 2016 to reflect the Adopted Budget for fiscal  year 2016‐2017.    The following tables represent the updated Five‐Year Financial Forecast for fiscal years  2016‐2017 to 2020‐2021.  It includes major revenue and expenditure categories for the  City’s General Fund.  As illustrated on the table below, expenditure increases continue to  outpace projected revenue growth.     The deficit is larger, when taking into account the following items that are not included in  the forecast:  •     Additional expenditures related to new development that will be required; and    •     Capital and maintenance requirements.    Staff will continue to monitor economic trends and refine estimates as needed. It is  important to understand that this is only a forecast and no way indicative of future year  budgets.     As mentioned above, the City is currently working to expand the below forecast into a ten  year analysis.  Staff anticipates the completion of the Long‐Term Financial Plan in Fall fiscal  year 2016‐17.            2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 82 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 7  Five‐Year Financial Forecast (FY 2016‐17 through FY 2020‐21)    Description Council Adopted Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast  FY 2017 FY 2018 FY  2019 FY  2020 FY  2021 Revenues: Property Taxes 31,174,827$          33,262,710$    34,169,395$    35,102,933$     36,064,127$      Sales Tax 32,350,442$          33,159,203$    33,988,183$    34,837,888$     35,708,835$      Franchise Fees 11,795,951$          11,989,120$    12,185,754$    12,385,920$     12,589,688$      Utility Users  Taxes 6,379,964$            6,443,764$      6,508,201$      6,573,283$        6,639,016$         Transient Occupancy Taxes 3,654,779$            3,727,875$      3,765,153$      3,821,631$        3,898,063$         Motor  Vehicle License  Fees 19,692,436$          20,511,230$    21,021,408$    21,544,341$     22,080,347$      NEW DEVELOPMENT MAJOR REVENUE Property Taxes ‐$                        449,073$         716,780$         1,017,226$       1,405,229$        Sales Tax ‐$                        150,356$         317,618$         452,595$           593,568$            Franchise Fees ‐$                        130,317$         207,079$         291,487$           382,774$            Utility Users Taxes ‐$                        53,757$            85,422$            120,241$           157,897$            Transient Occupancy Taxes ‐$                        529,779$         529,779$         529,779$           1,548,586$        Motor Vehicle License Fees ‐$                        313,628$         500,732$         710,983$           985,205$            SUBTOTAL MAJOR DESCRETIONARY REVENUES 105,048,399$        110,720,811$  113,995,504$  117,388,307$   122,053,336$    Development Revenue 1,036,053$            1,041,233$      1,046,439$      1,051,672$        1,056,930$         Licenses and Permits 1,160,596$            1,183,808$      1,207,484$      1,231,634$        1,256,266$         Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties 1,020,700$            1,041,114$      1,061,936$      1,083,175$        1,104,839$         Use  of Money  and Property 2,731,601$            2,758,917$      2,786,506$      2,814,371$        2,842,515$         Other Local  Taxes 2,448,304$            2,472,787$      2,497,515$      2,522,490$        2,547,715$         Police Grants 854,229$                655,450$          655,450$          655,450$           655,450$            Other Agency Revenue 2,034,789$            2,055,137$      2,075,688$      2,096,445$        2,117,410$         Charges for Services 6,203,718$            6,234,737$      6,265,910$      6,297,240$        6,328,726$         Interfund Reimbursements 9,791,546$            9,844,691$      9,938,718$      10,033,685$     10,129,602$      Other Revenues ‐ Miscellaneous 2,194,224$            909,171$          913,717$          918,285$           922,877$            Transfers From Other Funds 11,937,171$          10,803,009$    12,289,021$    10,803,009$     10,803,009$      NEW DEVELOPMENT OTHER REVENUE Other Revenues  ‐ Miscellaneous ‐$                        168,749$         268,276$         377,353$           495,043$            Other Local Taxes ‐$                        154,439$         148,326$         184,516$           255,672$            SUBTOTAL OTHER REVENUES 41,412,931$          39,323,241$    41,154,987$    40,069,325$     40,516,053$      TOTAL REVENUES 146,461,330$        150,044,053$  155,150,492$  157,457,632$   162,569,390$    Description Council Adopted Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast  FY 2017 FY 2018 FY  2019 FY  2020 FY  2021 Expenditures: Personnel Services 84,240,278$          85,593,535$    85,685,101$    85,764,263$     85,840,979$      Flex/Insurance 12,509,147$          13,629,615$    14,627,017$    15,705,880$     16,873,438$      PERS 23,685,152$          24,580,868$    28,063,783$    30,595,473$     32,729,519$      Salary Savings (On Going)(1,811,130)$           (936,366)$        (987,991)$        (1,015,216)$      (1,038,434)$       PERS Prepayment Savings ‐$                         (1,588,013)$     (1,845,291)$     (2,015,515)$      (2,159,614)$       NEW DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL 4.0 Staffing for Millenia Fire Station ‐$                        ‐$                  1,748,335$      1,820,935$       1,880,913$        Peace Officer Funding ‐$                        122,085$         260,153$         417,095$           589,696$            SUBTOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES EXPENDITURES 118,623,447$        121,401,724$  127,551,107$  131,272,915$   134,716,497$    Supplies and Services 14,113,962$          15,484,033$    16,877,596$    18,227,804$     19,686,028$      Utilities 5,511,582$            5,787,161$      6,076,519$      6,380,345$        6,699,362$         Other Expenses 559,300$                570,486$          581,896$          593,534$           605,404$            Equipment (Capital not CIP)1,595,081$            160,028$          161,628$          163,245$           164,877$            Transfers/Debt Service 5,999,307$            6,121,920$      6,145,682$      6,216,887$        6,083,420$         Regional  Communication System (RCS Financing)‐$                        350,000$         350,000$         350,000$           350,000$           Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) ‐ PD 150,000$          150,000$          150,000$           150,000$            Capital Improvement Projects 39,951$                  ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                    ‐$                     Non‐CIP Project Expenditures 18,700$                  18,700$            18,700$            18,700$              18,700$               NEW DEVELOPMENT OTHER EXPENDITURES Fire Station Supplies and Services ‐ Millenia ‐$                        ‐$                  160,000$         160,000$           160,000$            SUBTOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES 27,837,883$          28,642,328$    30,522,021$    32,260,514$     33,917,792$      TOTAL EXPENDITURES 146,461,330$        150,044,052$  158,073,128$  163,533,429$   168,634,289$    TOTAL GENERAL FUND SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)0$                             0$                       (2,922,637)$     (6,075,797)$      (6,064,899)$       SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) AS % OF BUDGET 0%0%‐2%‐4%‐4%       2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 83 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 8  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 Fiscal Impact Report was originally designed with the intent to illustrate the City’s  current fiscal health and the ability to meet GMOC standards in the future.  The tables  used in the Fiscal Impact Report illustrate actual and projected financial information as  of June 30, 2016.  From an actual operating perspective, the City appears to be in solid  fiscal condition, with revenues outpacing expenditures in both fiscal year 14/15 and  fiscal year 15/16.  The projections summary shows a slightly different picture with  projected expenditures outpacing projected revenues in fiscal year 16/17.  It is critical to  note that the adopted General Fund budget was balanced for fiscal year 2016/17.  This  means that the projections for expenditures to exceed revenues was entirely related to  non‐operating funds that have accumulated over the years and are being budgeted to  be spent in fiscal year 2016/17.  Spending accumulated funds is not an indicator, positive  or negative, of the City’s current fiscal condition.      The most notable fiscal impact that occurred during the most recent fiscal year is not  actually reflected in the fiscal impact report.  The five year forecast does indicate that a  modest deficit is projected beginning in fiscal year 2019, but those numbers were  derived from the best information available at the time the budget was being developed  in April 2016.  Since that time, the financial statements have been finalized and actual  costs have been re‐calculated for pension and health care benefits.  CalPERS finished  fiscal year 2016 with an investment yield of just 0.6%.  This is far below their targeted  investment return of 7.5%.  The results of this poor investment performance can be  seen in the Statement of Net Position within the City’s audited financial statements.   This statement indicates the City’s pension liabilities grew by over $25 million in one  year.  So instead of the City paying down its unfunded pension obligations, they actually  grew as a result of the poor investment performance by CalPERS.  This means that  future pension payments will increase in future years beyond what was originally  projected in the five year financial forecast.    In conclusion, the City’s current and projected service levels are determined by both the  resources available and the efficient application of those resources.  The City’s ability to  maintain current service levels into the future may be compromised as a result of these  pension issues.  The City will continue to seek new ways to maximize limited resources  to deliver high quality services to our community.      3. Are there any growth‐related fiscal issues facing the city?  If so, please explain.    The City is currently facing considerable fiscal pressure from increasing health care costs,  pension costs, and maintenance costs.  These costs are increasing at a rate higher than  what anticipated City revenues are projected to grow.  Growth in population will require  new fire stations, police officers, streets, and parks that were originally projected to cost a  much lower overall amount.  Ultimately, the City will need to achieve a sustainable fiscal  solution.  A long‐term financial plan is currently in development and will be presented to  City Council soon for consideration.              2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 84 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 9  4. Please update the table below:       SOURCE FY 16 FY  15 FY 141 FY 13 FY  12 FY  11 FY  10 FY 092 FY 083 FY 07 FY  06 FY  05 FY  04 Sales Tax     33.32     30.39     29.17     28.63     27.28     26.70     23.67     25.59     28.30     28.83     26.72     23.60     21.42  Property Taxes     30.22     28.62     27.45     27.88     24.52     24.71     25.73     29.26     29.31     26.67     22.19     18.13     16.36  Motor Vehicle License   Fees     18.93     17.88     16.77     16.25     16.29     16.94     17.70     19.90     19.80     17.68     18.35     13.94        9.14  Franchise Fees     11.71     10.83        8.85        9.27        8.40        8.26        8.47        9.38        9.66        8.81       9.49        9.84        7.82  Charges for Srvcs.      7.79        7.90        7.94        8.36        7.58        6.45        7.17        7.00     14.47     16.26     15.23     14.48     14.40  Utility Users Tax       5.84        6.36     17.53        4.43        3.47        4.94        9.06        7.85        7.38        6.98       6.36        6.58        5.62  Other     37.87     38.27     34.65     36.00     34.17     40.73     38.97     41.53     45.02     56.34     59.46     51.19     48.01  SUM $ (Millions) 145.69  140.26  142.36  130.81  121.70  128.74  130.78  140.50  153.94  161.56  157.81  137.76  122.77  PER CAPITA $ 549.61  543.67  555.79  519.89  490.35  523.38  536.60  586.97  652.92  697.61  695.69  626.37  581.78  FY 16 FY  15 FY  14 FY  13 FY  12 FY  11 FY  10 FY  09 FY  08 FY  07 FY  06 FY  05 FY  04 Police     49.18     46.48     44.28     42.66     41.99     43.10     43.70     45.40     47.77     49.63     45.34     42.54     37.15  Public Works     25.79     25.54     24.93     23.82     22.97     23.80     24.62     26.86     32.58     38.27     37.04     31.86     29.97  Fire     26.80     25.11     24.40     24.03     22.43     21.81     22.09     23.13     24.35     22.72     21.31     17.93     14.31  Support4       9.49        8.59        8.36        8.21        8.10        9.56        9.63     11.34     11.61     12.31     12.10        9.96        9.41  Community Services5       7.75        7.27        6.93        6.55        6.68        7.90        9.82     12.95     15.07     16.91     15.89     14.23     12.27  Non‐Departmental6     11.23     10.83     17.69     10.93     14.07     10.49        9.81     10.10        5.31        3.60       5.47        3.17        4.14  Admin/Legislative7       8.35        7.65        6.96        6.43        5.83        5.61        5.64        8.15        8.16        8.90       9.04        8.97        8.57  Other8       5.19        5.22        4.82        4.90        4.97        5.62        5.93        2.42     10.17     13.72     14.64     13.52     12.29  SUM $ (Millions) 143.77  136.70  138.37  127.53  127.03  127.89  131.24  140.37  155.02  166.06  160.83  142.20  128.11  PER CAPITA $ 542.38  529.87  540.23  506.84  511.83  519.91  538.51  586.40  657.52  717.01  708.99  646.52  607.09  3  See footnote #2. 4  Support includes ITS, HR, and Finance. 5  Community Services  includes Recreation and Library. 6  Non ‐Departmental  includes debt service, insurance, transfers  out, etc. 7  Admin/Legislative includes City Council, Boards  & Commissions, City Clerk, City Attorney, and Administration. 8  Other includes Animal  Care Facility and Development Services.  EXPENSES FROM GENERAL FUND (Millions) 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 fi scal  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 ti me 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). REVENUE COLLECTED FOR GENERAL FUND (Millions)                     2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 85 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 10  5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below.    DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW (7/1/15 – 6/30/16)    DIF FUND  CURRENT  DIF 1  During Reporting Period FUND   BALANCE  (Audited)  Date DIF Last  Comprehensively  Updated  Date of Last   DIF   Adjustment  Next  Scheduled  DIF  Update Amount  Collected  Amount  Expended 2  Eastern Transportation DIF 13,541/EDU 2,023,603 1,084,623 24,002,149 Nov‐14 Oct‐16 Oct‐17  Western Transportation DIF 4,084/EDU  94,798 104,967 228,798 Nov‐14 Oct‐16 Oct‐17  Bayfront Transportation DIF 9,871/EDU ‐ ‐ ‐Nov‐14 Oct‐16 Oct‐17  Traffic Signal 37.28/Trip  218,770 332,840 2,024,379 Oct‐02 Oct‐16 Oct‐17  Telegraph Canyon Drainage 4,579/Acre  76,056 773,633 4,177,663 Nov‐15 N/A Unscheduled  Telegraph Canyon   Gravity Sewer 3 217/EDU  ‐  1,122,600  ‐Sep‐98 N/A Unscheduled  Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin 4 265/EDU  106,407 1,836 2,593,403 Jun‐09 N/A Unscheduled  Salt Creek Sewer Basin 5 1,381/EDU  198,792 1,491,700 242,705 Jun‐15 Oct‐16 2017  Pedestrian Bridges     ‐  Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 857/SFDU  177,074 9,832   1,234,446 Feb‐07 Oct‐16 Oct‐17  ‐  Otay Ranch Village 11 2,432/SFDU  52,268 2,253 3,147,213 Sep‐05 Oct‐16 Oct‐17  ‐  Millenia (EUC) 615/SFDU  98,077 ‐  223,221 Aug‐13 N/A 2017  Public Facilities      ‐    Administration 632/SFDU 481,619 104,131 5,078,435 Nov‐06 Oct‐16 Oct‐17   ‐    Civic Center Expansion 2,907/SFDU 1,950,126 3,095,200 3,949,321 """" ""   ‐    Police Facility 1,760/SFDU 1,229,851 1,599,655 (3,709,292)"""" ""   ‐    Corp. Yard Relocation 472/SFDU 316,331 845,325 1,117,548 """" ""   ‐    Libraries 1,671/SFDU 1,328,712 9,974 14,591,386 """" ""   ‐    Fire Suppression         Systems 1,469/SFDU 635,620 2,175,824 (11,164,969)"" "" ""    ‐    Recreation Facilities 1,269/SFDU 809,881 ‐(1,947,427)"""" ""  PUBLIC FACILITIES   TOTAL 6  10,180/SFDU 6,752,139 7,830,108 7,915,003 Nov‐06 Oct‐15 Oct‐16     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?        1 Rates per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown, as of date of report (includes increases beyond 06/30/2016).    2 On a separate sheet of paper list the projects to be funded and/or completed over the next twelve months. See Attachment 1.  3 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.  4 See footnote #3. 5 See footnote #3.  6 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.  2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 86 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 11    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 facilities 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 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  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  decreased pace of development activity compared to a decade ago has significantly  reduced the fees collected by the PFDIF, impacting the City’s ability to meet these debt  obligations.      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, 2016 is listed on the  Development Impact Fee Overview table on page 10.  The adequacy of these funds to  complete projects necessitated by either the 12‐to‐18‐month or the 5‐year forecasted  growth will be determined by a number of factors, including the actual rate of  development (likely to fall significantly below the rate of development projected in the  GMOC Forecast Report); and other fund obligations.  These other obligations include debt  service, capital acquisitions, and program administration costs.    In addition to these obligations, the City has created a debt service reserve in the PFDIF  fund, which has a significant future debt service obligation.  The creation and anticipated  use of this debt service reserve is shown in the ‘PFDIF Projected Cash Flow: FY 2005‐06  through Build‐out’ included as Attachment 2 to this report.  The debt service reserve  funding target is equivalent to the PFDIF’s maximum future annual external debt service  obligation (currently $5.8 million).  As shown in the PFDIF cash flow, the debt service  reserve was fully funded as of the end of fiscal year 2011‐12.  This reserve will mitigate the  impacts of future swings in the development market on the PFDIF’s ability to meet its debt  service obligations.  The continued reserve of these funds reduces the funds available for  project expenditures.      2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 87 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 12  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   WESTERN TRANSPORTATION Adequate   EASTERN TRANSPORTATION Revise   BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION Adequate   TRAFFIC SIGNAL Adequate   TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE Adequate   SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN Revise – 2017   POGGI CANYON SEWER  BASIN Adequate   PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES Adequate       Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 Adequate       Otay Ranch Village 11 Adequate       Millenia (EUC) Revise – 2017   PUBLIC FACILITIES         Administration Adequate        Civic Center Expansion Adequate        Police Facility Adequate        Corp. Yard Relocation Adequate        Libraries Revise – 2017        Fire Suppression Systems Revise – 2017        Recreation Facilities  Revise – 2017      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.  It should also be noted that a reprioritization of  PFDIF projects emphasizing public safety is anticipated for Council consideration in 2017.     The PFDIF projects are as follows (listed in order of 2016 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.  Construction of  the facilities themselves will be a function of the PFDIF’s available fund balance (taking into  account existing debt obligations and the need to maintain the debt service reserve).    Additional facilities may be added to the PFDIF, as appropriate, based on the recently  approved Fire and Library Master Plans and the pending Park & Recreation Master Plan.  2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 88 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 13    7. What is the amount of debt service for this year compared to last year?      Fiscal year 2015‐16 all funds actual debt expenditures totaled $9.8 million.  The fiscal year  2016‐17 debt expenditure budget totals $9.3 million.  Please note, the above figures reflect  the following assumptions:     Includes bonded debt   Excludes principal extinguished due to refundings   Excludes Premium on Called Bonds, Bond Discount and Cost of Issuance   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 2015‐16, the City had $111.2 million in outstanding debt in the  form of Certificates of Participation (COPs).  The City has no outstanding general obligation  debt.  In fiscal year 2016‐17, the remaining portion of the 2006 COPs and all of the 2010  COPs issued to finance Phases 2 and 3 of the Civic Center renovation project were  refunded.  Annual all funds savings of $452,000 are projected to result from the refunding  ($110,000 General Fund and $342,000 PFDIF).    9. Please provide median income by zip code.    Zip Code Median Income 1 91910 58,802$                  91911 54,647$                  91913 93,551$                  91914 119,180$                91915 107,397$                      10. 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 2015.  The amounts provided represent point of sale transactions and  revenues from the county pool.          1Source:  SANDAG Demographic & Socioeconomic Estimates for 2015.  Median  Household  Income  values current as of 2014.   http://datasurfer.sandag.org/download/sandag_estimate_2015_zip_XXXXX   2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 89 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 14  City Sales Tax  per Capita Del  Mar 505 Carlsbad 299 National City 289 Poway 268 El  Cajon 238 Escondido 237 Solana Beach 228 Santee 223 La Mesa 213 Encinitas 212 San Diego 191 Lemon Grove 191 Vista 182 San Marcos 177 Coronado 143 Chula Vista 123 Oceanside 113 Imperial Beach 36       11. Please provide a general list of priority projects to be funded by Measure P tax revenue.     Citywide Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan 1/2 cent Sales Tax Revenues over 10 year period Summary Table Total by Major Category 10‐Year Timeframe Fire Stations  Repairs/Replacement 22,839,549$            Fire Response Vehicles  (Apparatus)19,847,580$            Fire Safety Equipment 5,197,913$              Total Fire Services 47,885,042$            Police Response Vehicles 12,951,470$            Public  Safety Communication Systems  (Dispatch and Regional Communication Systems)7,849,290$              Police Facility Repairs 1,000,000$              Total Police Services 21,800,760$            Streets  (Arterials/Collectors/Residential)24,474,861$            Other Public Infrast. (Public  Bldgs, Storm Drains,  Drainage Systems, Sidewalks, Trees etc)23,012,955$            Sports  Fields  and Courts 16,966,595$            Non‐Safety Vehicles  (i.e. Public  Works  Crews)11,195,100$            Public Facilities  (i.e. Senior Center, Recreation Centers, Libraries, Living Coast Discovery Center, Public  Works  Center)7,522,558$              Traffic Signal  Systems 7,000,000$              Park Infrastructure (Playground Equipment, Gazebos, Restrooms, Benches, Parking etc. )5,682,740$              Total Infrastructure 95,854,809$            Total Proposed Allocations 165,540,611$           Notes: 42% allocated to Public Safety and 58% allocated to  Citywide Infrastructure Actual  allocations to specific projects will  be brought forward as part of the annual budget with the intent to allocate resources in the major categories noted above.            2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 90 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 15      12. Please provide examples of any tax incentives provided for industries in Chula Vista during Fiscal  Year 2016.     A tax incentive agreement was entered into in December 2015 for a BMW dealership.     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 continues to grow 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.     The recently confirmed California Prevailing Wage Law (SB7) requires charter cities to pay  prevailing wages on locally‐funded construction projects.  This includes projects  constructed by the agency itself as well as projects constructed by other parties which  have an ultimate governmental purpose (e.g. developer constructed DIF facilities).   Prevailing wages are specific, minimum hourly wage rates determined by State or Federal  government for trade workers on public works projects and include fringe benefit amounts  for health insurance, vacation and pension. The effects of this law impact the cost of  material, construction, and maintenance, which can correlate to increased development  costs.  All DIF programs will be reviewed and updated as appropriate in order to reflect the  new prevailing wage requirement.  The first such update will be to the Parkland Acquisition  and Development (PAD) Fee, tentatively scheduled for Council consideration in spring of  2017.     Additionally, legislative changes made to CEQA in 2013 via SB743 have altered the way  transportation impacts from development projects are calculated. It is mandated that by  2019, measurements of the transportation impact of a development must transition from  using level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Determination of how VMT will  affect the City’s transportation DIFs will be analyzed in the next two years pending the  anticipated release of guidance from the State for implementing the new VMT standards.     In addition to the fee updates discussed in #5 above, staff also anticipates bringing forward  repeal of the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer Fee for consideration by the City Council in  calendar year 2017.  All associated improvements have been installed, and the fund  balance has been exhausted.      Finally, as part of the annual reporting process the City must make specific findings every  five years regarding unexpended DIF funds.  The next 5‐year findings will be made at the  end of fiscal year 2016‐17.  In preparation for this action, staff will be reviewing all active  DIF programs and funds on account to ensure appropriate findings can be made and/or  necessary actions taken. Given the balances in the respective DIF funds and their  associated planned expenditures, it is anticipated that the findings will conclude that the  funds are still needed.          2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 91 Fiscal ‐ 2017  Page 16      PREPARED BY:     Name:  David Bilby    Title:  Director of Finance/Treasurer    Name:  Tiffany Allen  Title:  Assistant Director of Development Services    Name:  Tessa Nguyen  Title:  Budget & Analysis Manager    Name:  Robert Synnott  Title:  Senior Accountant    Date:  2/2/2017            2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 92 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 93 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 94 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 95 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 96 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 97 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 98 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 99 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 100 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 101 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 102 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 103 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 104 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 105 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 106 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 107 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 108 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 109 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 110 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 111 PFDIF Cash Flow: FY 2005-06 through Build-out Actual Estimated Estimated Program Total Increment 1 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Increment 3 Increment 4 2006 - 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 2021 - 2030 2031 - Build-out 2006 - Build-out Beginning Fund Balance 24,427,641 1,092,007 5,138,721 8,578,171 10,712,381 9,270,410 8,992,972 7,915,003 6,023,604 7,379,042 8,267,299 9,655,940 16,798,960 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 6,473,892 7,312,260 9,063,561 9,063,561 9,097,237 127,846,092 50,547,000 268,734,212 #Investment Earnings 1,223,226 (8,850) 58,366 (220,306) 211,858 86,036 275,470 67,096 - - - 1,692,896 Misc / Other Revenues 18,846,015 - 310,395 - 194,760 - 2,777 - - - - 19,353,947 TOTAL REVENUES 45,334,135 4,199,353 3,491,091 6,588,559 4,961,342 5,457,629 6,752,139 7,379,355 9,063,561 9,063,561 9,097,237 127,846,092 50,547,000 289,781,054 EXPENDITURES CIP Projects Rancho del Rey Library 8,644,605 - - - - - - - - - - 20,416,903 - 29,061,508 EUC Fire Station - - - - - - - 1,135,690 - - - 9,069,018 - 10,204,708 EUC Library - - - - - - - - - - - - 28,174,355 28,174,355 OR V4 Rec Facility - - - - - - - - - - - 9,236,906 - 9,236,906 OR V4 Aquatic Facility - - - - - - - - - - - 10,394,797 - 10,394,797 Other 33,678,110 - - 59,545 - - - - - - - - - 33,737,655 CIP Projects Total 42,322,715 - - 59,545 - - - 1,135,690 - - - 49,117,624 28,174,355 120,809,929 - Debt Service Payments 22,610,385 69,192 51,041 4,161,797 6,108,865 5,633,759 7,711,514 7,778,265 6,643,902 7,111,084 6,644,376 60,943,244 24,571,342 160,038,765 Non CIP Expenditures 3,736,669 83,447 600 233,007 294,448 101,308 118,594 356,800 1,064,220 1,064,220 1,064,220 10,642,204 2,800,000 21,559,738 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,669,769 152,639 51,641 4,454,349 6,403,313 5,735,067 7,830,108 9,270,755 7,708,123 8,175,304 7,708,596 120,703,072 55,545,697 302,408,433 Ending Fund Balance 1,092,007 5,138,721 8,578,171 10,712,381 9,270,410 8,992,972 7,915,003 6,023,604 7,379,042 8,267,299 9,655,940 16,798,960 11,800,263 11,800,263 Less Debt Service Reserve - 5,138,721 5,800,000 5,800,000 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 1,092,007 - 2,778,171 4,912,381 3,470,410 3,192,972 2,115,003 223,604 1,579,042 2,467,299 3,855,940 11,398,960 11,800,263 11,800,263 Anticipated Development Single Family Units 1,823 353 324 350 148 121 86 131 131 131 133 1,217 - 4,948.00 Multifamily Units 1,400 508 157 604 393 894 547 447 447 447 447 10,925 5,250 22,466.00 Commercial Acres 22 - - - - - - 75 75 75 75 196 - 518.41 Industrial Acres 16 - - - - - - 107 107 107 108 436 - 881.52 Residential Subtotal 645 861 481 954 541 1,015 633 578 578 578 580 1,214.20 656.25 27,414 Average Average Average Total INCREMENT 22017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 112 1 Libraries 2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Libraries – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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. Please update the table below: LIBRARIES Population Total Gross Square Footage of Library Facilities Gross Square Feet of Library Facilities Per 1000 Residents (Threshold = 500 GSF/1000) 5-Year Projection (2021) 274,745 134,412(a)/129,000(b) 489 (a)/470 (b) FY 2016 265,070 97, 412 367 FY 2015 257,362 97,412 379 FY 2014 256,139 97,412*** 380 FY 2013 251,613 95,412 379 FY 2012 249,382 92,000/95,412** 369/383** FY 2011 246,496 102,000/92,000* 414/387* FY 2010 233,692 102,000 436 FY 2009 233,108 102,000 437 FY 2008 231,305 102,000 441 FY 2007 227,723 102,000 448 FY 2006 223,423 102,000 457 FY 2005 220,000 102,000 464 FY 2004 211,800 102,000 482 *After closure of Eastlake library in 2011 **After opening of Otay Ranch Town Center Branch Library in April 2012 *** After opening the Hub annex (a) Includes projected Millenia Library at 37,000 sq ft and retaining Otay Ranch Branch (b) Includes projected Millenia Library, closing Otay Ranch Branch 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 113 2 Libraries 2017 Please provide responses to the following: 1. During the review period, were facilities adequately equipped? If not, please explain. Yes __________ No ___x_______ Chula Vista remains behind the eight ball compared to other California public library jurisdictions. Median state public library expenditure per capita for the most recent reporting period (FY 14/15) was $30.22. For Chula Vista, library expenditure per capita during the same reporting period was $12.54. This is 42% of the statewide average public library support. Current facilities 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 26% 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 city has managed to make partial facility renovations and improvements in the past year, with financial assistance from Friends of the Library, Chula Vista Public Library Foundation, and various grants. The library auditorium received new improved lighting, a digital projection system, new carpet, paint, and seating. The Chula Vista Heritage Museum was moved out of its inadequate site in Memorial Park into a newly designed corner of the Civic Center Library, resulting in a projected 700% increase in visitors. In a major collaborative effort, the city partnered with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Qualcomm to create the Innovation Station, a maker space/community STEM lab in the former Technical Services Department in the lower level of the Civic Center Library. Technical Services staff was relocated into re-configured empty offices and work space formerly occupied by positions that had been eliminated during the economic downturn. Renovation of one of the three sets of public restrooms at the Civic Center Library is scheduled for FY16-17. The material budget also shows significant deficiencies. The statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. is $2.49 per person (last reported year FY 14/15). The anticipated FY 16-17 Chula Vista baseline materials budget equals 17 cents per person. A critical supplement to the materials budget, resulting from the TUT settlement, has provided $65,000 in additional funds to the baseline materials budget each year for the last three years. This funding is set to expire after FY16/17. So the decline in the annual book and material budget will be severe, even with the continued support of the Friends of the Library. 2. During the review period, were facilities adequately staffed? If not, please explain. Yes __________ No _____x_____ 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 114 3 Libraries 2017 The staffing picture continues to show inadequate resources. According to the most recent statistical data available, Chula Vista’s library staffing ratio per capita is in the bottom 16% of public libraries in California. The statewide staffing average is 0.47 FTE staff per 1000 population. In Chula Vista the ratio is 0.15 FTE staff per 1000 population. Yet Chula Vista exceeds the statewide average in workload indicators. Chula Vista: 99.02 visits per open hour Statewide average: 68.99 visits per open hour Chula Vista: 104.20 circulation transactions per open hour Statewide average: 79.03 circulation transactions per open hour 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 to 18 months. We expect no significant change in staff in the next 12 to 18 months. The lease for the Otay Ranch Branch and the Hub expires in April 2017; a proposal for a three-year extension will be considered by City Council on November 15, 2016. 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. Yes __________ No ______x____ 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. At completion, it will bring the library much closer to threshold compliance for square foot per 1000 population, closer than at any time since 2002. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 115 4 Libraries 2017 5. Please complete the table below: LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS Fiscal Year Annual Attendance Annual Circulation Guest Satisfaction FY 2016 857,475 710,680 See attached outcomes survey results FY 2015 803,565 839,616 See attached outcomes survey results FY 2014 822,895 954,071 ** FY 2013 832,975 992,005 * FY 2012 726,310 969,168 * FY 2011 614,841 952,847 90%** FY 2010 605,979 985,157 90%** FY 2009 820,213 1,160,139 * FY 2008 1,296,245 1,265,720 89% FY 2007 1,148,024 1,344,115 88% FY 2006 1,170,168 1,467,799 85% FY 2005 1,121,119 1,414,295 91% FY 2004 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. According to the table above, annual attendance and annual circulation went down between Fiscal Years 2013 and 2015. Could you please provide an explanation for the reduction (for instance, electronic borrowing, etc.)? Attendance has risen in FY 16 as a result of improved hours at the Otay Ranch Branch, increased hours and use of the passport acceptance facilities, opening of the Heritage Museum in Civic Center, and continued aggressive outreach and programming. The drop in circulation is due to the substandard materials budget; you can’t borrow what the library can’t afford to buy. We do have a healthy circulation in e-books. However, that too has declined with our inability to keep up with demand. 7. Please provide a breakdown of the various rooms in the libraries and what they are used for. Civic Center  Auditorium. 152 fixed seats with upgraded digital projection and sound. Used for meetings, concerts, recitals, performances, presentations, forums, monthly Film Forum  Conference Room. Seats 25. Recently renovated as an Eagle Scout project. Used for meetings, classes, book clubs, tax preparation help in the spring; lunch service in intersession  Computer Lab. 13 seats, upgraded equipment. Used for trainings, classes, cooperative computer learning sessions; genealogy research sessions 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 116 5 Libraries 2017  Galley kitchen. Used in conjunction with auditorium or conference room bookings. Used for staging refreshments for programs and meetings, occasional cooking and healthy eating demonstrations  Local History Room. Seats 10-12. Recently renovated and added to bookable inventory. Used for small meetings, tutoring; research  Storytime Room. Capacity 25. Recently renovated. Used for early literacy programs, Kindergarten Boot Camp, youth activities, classes  Study rooms (3). Capacity 4 each. Used for individual and group study and tutoring  Innovation Station. Capacity 49. Formerly a staff space, renovated and now used as a multipurpose room and learning space in a collaborative effort with Chula Vista Elementary School District and Qualcomm  Friends of the Library bookstore In addition there are dedicated spaces, not rooms, for:  Chula Vista Heritage Museum  Passport Acceptance Service  Law Reference Service  Energy Lounge  Veteran counseling and support (cubicle)  Community Outreach tables (lobby) South Chula Vista  Room A. Capacity 25. Used for meetings, classes, group study  Room B. Capacity 50. Used for classes, meetings, seminars, presentations. Includes galley kitchen and digital projection capabilities  Literacy Wing. Used for Kindergarten Boot Camp sessions; Princess Project outreach event; parenting classes; other special classes and events  Literacy offices; Capacity 20. Used for private and small group literacy tutoring  Storytime room; capacity 60. Used for early literacy activities; small performances  Study rooms (3). Capacity 4 to 6 each. Used for individual and group study and tutoring  Fragrant Garden. Capacity 20. Atrium space used for parenting classes; school tours; study and reading  Café Garden. Capacity 12. Atrium space used for study, reading; small classes and programs  Café patio. Capacity 12. Interior patio used for study, reading, small group activities; refreshment area  Rosemary Lane Galleria. Art gallery available for booking by individual artists and art groups, library art programs  Friends of the Library Bookstore 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 117 6 Libraries 2017 Otay Ranch  Study room (1). Capacity 8. Used for individual and group study and small meetings.  The Hub. Library annex. Capacity 75. Divided into 3 zones for simultaneous programming. Includes Passport Acceptance desk. Used for homework help sessions, early literacy activities, various library programs, community meetings, classes, small performances, seminars, workshops, lectures, Friends of the Library book sales. 8. What is the status of constructing a new library facility? Would renovating a vacant commercial building for library uses be an interim solution until a new library facility can be built? City leadership is actively pursuing financing for the planned Millenia Library (est. 37,000 square feet). Renovating a vacant commercial space might take the funds needed for Millennia’s opening. The interim solution we have now, the commercial space at the Otay Ranch Town Center, is performing pretty well for us. 8. Please provide an update on any other potential possibilities for providing library services. We’re starting a pilot project with Chula Vista Middle School to use student ID cards as library cards for digital access – we hope to expand to all SUHSD sites. CENIC Broadband access is scheduled to begin in December 2016, bringing powerful broadband access to library services and users and increasing speed by 500%. 9. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2015/2016, and include any available data for the County’s Bonita-Sunnyside Branch. Requested from San Diego County Library. Not yet received. 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. PREPARED BY: Name: Betty Waznis Title: Library Director Date: September 22, 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 118 Chula Vista Public Library Outcome Measurements GMOC Questionnaire 2017. Question 5: Guest Satisfaction Since 2014 the Chula Vista Public Library has collected data to determine Outcome Measurements. Outcome Measurements gauge the impact a library’s programs, collections, or services have on the participants. The Chula Vista Library developed two Outcome Measurement forms – one for children to complete and one for adults to complete. We encourage staff to distribute these at the end of library programs, or make them available to the public at events. The forms are also made available in Spanish. This is a departure from the statistical gathering that libraries did previously, when we would report that x number of people attended a program, signed up for a library card, or how many books were being borrowed. We still collect this information but counting the number of attendees tells us nothing about how they feel about the library, if the event they have attended is having any impact on their life, or what they hope to do in the future. We ask them a lot of questions! Both the adult and children’s forms breakdown into four basic sections – 1. Why they came to the library? 2. What they found at the library? 3. How the library makes them feel? 4. What they will do after they leave the library? The adult form offers 53 different selections that they can record their opinions on, as well as space for them to record anything not listed. There is no limit to how much information they can provide us. The children’s form is a scaled down version of the adult form with 38 options and room for their own suggestions. What have we learned about our library users? So far, we have collected adult feedback at storytimes (when they brought a child), citizenship classes, Ballet Folklorico performances, painting classes, English as a Second Language classes, Yoga, and Taichi classes. 219 surveys from adults were collected between 2014 and 2015. Adults using the Chula Vista Public Library are telling us –  They frequently visit the library because they are bringing a child to an event (46%)  They come to check out books and other materials (49%)  They find what they came for 43% of the time (could be a program or a book)  They are appreciative of the library – 60% are “thankful” there is a public library service available  46% record a level of happiness after they have visited the library 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 119  31% say their child “knows more” after attending a library program (remember some of the surveys were collected at adult events and not all adults surveyed were accompanying a child)  Participants often record that they will “tell others” and “come to other library events” What the children and teens say At recent STEAM programs we distributed outcome measurement forms and learned that – 70% of the respondents came to the library specifically for STEAM programing and 30% of the respondents checked out materials. 95% of the respondents found the item, program, or information they were looking for 50% of the participants felt happy after attending the program and 55% said they felt welcome in the library. 45% felt they were smarter after attending a STEAM program. 50% said they would tell their friends about the STEAM events and 50% said they would tell their teacher about STEAM programing at the library. 60% felt they knew more about library programs. At our Storytimes in May, 2016 (all library branches) we were able to see that – 89% of the respondents came to the library specifically to attend Storytime and 55% of the respondents also checked out library materials. 82% of Storytime participants found what they were looking for Across all three library branches, 86% said they felt happy when they attended the library, over 65% said they felt welcome and 62% felt the library was a “fun place”. 31% said they felt safe in the library and 34% said the library was a favorite place to visit. 76% of Storytime participants said they would attend more library programs in the future, 72% said they would invite friends to come with them to the library, and 69% said they would tell friends about the library. Opinions vary from event to event and similar library programs can record very different outcome measurements from one sample to the next. However, using outcome measurements and recording them over time allows the library to gauge the popularity of its programing, determine what library services attract people to visit the library, and better understand what the public enjoys and appreciates about their public library. Library staff invests time and resources in planning programs, so it is prudent that we record the impact of these to better determine where library resources should be spent and ensure that the public receive the programs and services they desire. Prepared by Stephanie Loney, Principal Librarian, September 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 120 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 121 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 122 Otay Water District - 2017 Page 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Otay Water District – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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 6/30/21) 30.0 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.5 7.2 43.7 12-18 Month Projection (Ending 12/31/17) 25.0 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.0 7.2 43.7 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 123 Otay Water District - 2017 Page 2 WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water Non-Potable Water FY 2015/16 22.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.4 7.2 43.7 FY 2014/15 27.0 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.9 7.2 43.7 FY 2013/14 29.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.4 7.2 43.7 FY 2012/13 28.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.9 7.2 43.7 FY 2011/12 28.1 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.6 7.2 43.7 FY 2010/11 26.85 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.59 7.2 43.7 Sources of Water – FY 2016/17 (MG – Millions of Gallons) Water Source Capacity (MGD) Percentage of Total Capacity Actual Use (MGD) San Diego County Water Authority 121.5 80.6% 16.1 Helix Water District 12.0 8.0% 6.7 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% 2.5 Other 0.0 0% 0.0 TOTAL 150.7 100% 26.2 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 __X____ No __ ____ The District has been able to serve its customers at higher demands in the past than what is currently projected for the next five years. The existing potable and recycled water systems though are anticipated to require the inclusion of the following near term list of Otay Water District Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project facilities to ensure serving the forecasted growth within the City of Chula Vista over the next five year time frame. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 124 Otay Water District - 2017 Page 3 The listed CIP projects are in various stages of development, from planning through construction completion, including some with pending developer reimbursement expenditure release. The CIP project details, such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc., are provided within the current Otay Water District Fiscal Year 2017 through 2022 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 2016 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. Although the current drought required the District to declare a Water Shortage Response Level 2 in 2015, the District voted in July 2016 to rescind that declaration based upon new state guidelines and the San Diego 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 125 Otay Water District - 2017 Page 4 County Water Authority addition of the Carlsbad Desalination water supply. Water conservation is now voluntary, but conservation efforts are still being encouraged. 5. Please provide information on any specific water conservation efforts being made. While conservation efforts are now voluntary, the District has the following practices in effect:  Prevent water waste resulting from inefficient irrigation, such as runoff or overspray. This includes stopping water flows onto non-targeted areas such as adjacent property, sidewalks, driveways, roadways, or structures.  Restaurants and other food service establishments should continue to serve and refill water in only upon request.  Hotels, motels, and other commercial lodging establishments must offer guests the option of not laundering towels and linens daily.  Fountains or other decorative water features must re-circulate water.  When washing automobiles, motorhomes, boats or recreational vehicles, a hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle is required.  Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians can only be performed using recycled water. The “median” is the center strip of land in the roadway.  Repair all water leaks within 48 hours of notification by the District.  Irrigation is not allowed during a rainstorm, or for 48 hours after one-quarter inch or more of rainfall is measured at Lindbergh Field.  No washing down of paved surfaces including sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, tennis courts, or patios, except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitation hazards. 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. The 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. 6. 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 ______ 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 126 Otay Water District - 2017 Page 5 The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects within the FY 2017 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 2017 through 2022 CIP documents. CIP Project No. CIP Project Title 7. 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 planning process followed by the Otay Water District is to use the 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 in late 2016. Growth projection data provided by SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community is used to develop the WFMP. T he 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 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 ensure that the necessary 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 127 Otay Water District - 2017 Page 6 planning information remains current considering changes in development activities and land use planning revisions within Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch. The District also recently completed updating the IRP. 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 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 are 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 San Diego County Water Authority’s Carlsbad Desalination Project, the near term water supply outlook has improved while the City of Chula Vista’s long -term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court ruling regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues. Challenges such as these essentially always will be present. The regional water supply agencies, the SDCWA and MWD, along with Otay Water District nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. 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 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 128 Otay Water District - 2017 Page 7 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: Name: Robert Kennedy, PE Title: Engineering Manager Date: September 21, 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 129 Parks and Recreation - 2017 Page 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 to Present Time and 5-Year Forecast Please update the table below: CITY-OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons Threshold Standard Area of City Current (6/30/16) Forecasts Prior Year Comparisons 18-Month (12.31.17) 5-Year (2021) June 2013 June 2014 June 2015 3 acres per 1,000 population East of I-805 East I-805 AC/1,000 persons 2.83 2.78 2.99 3.05 2.96 2.94 West I-805 AC/1,000 persons 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Citywide AC/1,000 persons 2.11 2.08 2.22 2.21 2.17 2.16 Acres of parkland East I-805 421.04* 421.04 470.62** 418.44 418.44 418.44 West I-805 142.66* 142.66 143.36 138.76 138.76 138.76 Citywide 563.70 563.70 613.98 557.20 557.20 557.20 Population East I-805 148,714 151,250 157,169 137,313 141,436 142,547 West I-805 118,291 118,740 119,786 115,300 115,788 115,801 Citywide 267,005 269,990 276,955 252,643 257,224 258,348 Acreage shortfall or (excess) East I-805 25.10 32.71 0.89 6.50 5.87 9.20 West I-805 212.21 213.56 216.00 207.23 208.61 208.64 Citywide 237.32 246.27 219.89 200.73 214.46 217.84 *Assumes completion of Stylus Park 2.6 acres inc. equivalency acres. (Actually opened August 2016) **Assumes completion of: V2, P-3 (Ph1) 3.9 acres. V2, P-2, 7.10 acres. Millenia, Orion Park, 2.01 acres. Millenia Strata Parks & Recreation – 2017 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. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 130 Parks and Recreation - 2017 Page 2 Park P-5, 2.57 acres. Millenia Park P-3, 3.03 acres, Millenia Park P-6, 4.79 acres. Millenia Park P-2, 2.16 acres. (Millenia Park Acreages include park equivalency acreage per the EUC Park Agreement) 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. *Assumes completion of Orange Park 3.9 acres (Actually opened in August 2016) 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 No X The current ratio is 2.83 acres per thousand using the population forecast figures provided for use in this table. See notes in response to question 2. 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? 32.71 in Eastern Chula Vista 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? The City’s ability to provide parks and related facilities is a function of both one-time funding to acquire and develop the parks, as well as ongoing funding for maintenance and operations. Pursuant to Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, new development may provide turnkey park facilities or pay in-lieu Parkland Acquisition & Development (PAD) fees as a condition of development. Based upon the PAD fund balance as of the end of fiscal year 2015-16, the City has sufficient funds on hand to construct approximately 45 acres of parks, assuming a typical development cost of approximately $610,000 per acre. This projection excludes funds on hand that are dedicated to parks in Millenia and Otay Ranch Village 2, already assumed in the forecast table above. Based upon the City’s Five-Year Forecast, there are limited General Fund dollars available to fund ongoing maintenance and operations of these planned additional park acres. In order to mitigate this funding challenge, the City has recently included limited use of special districts to supplement park maintenance and operation funding (Millenia and Freeway Commercial residential projects). The City will continue to look for opportunities to increase efficiency in operating and maintaining parks and to generate additional revenues for the same. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 131 Parks and Recreation - 2017 Page 3 3. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 5 years? Yes X No If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? 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 X No The ability for the City to fund long term, on-going maintenance of future park facilities at the current 3 acre per thousand population rate may be a limiting factor. 5. Please provide two separate maps: one showing existing and proposed parks in eastern Chula Vista and the other showing existing and proposed parks in western Chula Vista. Maps are provided at the end of the 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: In February of 2016, a Recreation Needs Assessment was completed by CityPlace Planning, Inc. on behalf of the Recreation Department and funded by the REACH grant program with Community Health Improvement Partners (CHIP). The 2016 Recreation Needs Assessment findings were consistent with the 2006 report by Research Network Ltd. and confirmed the earlier report’s results. Revisions of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan are in process. It is anticipated that the current plan will be available for public review in early spring 2017 with a final draft presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission in May 2017. Master Fee Schedule update: Development Services staff is comparing recent prevailing wage bid prices on two parks to the current park development fees with the aim of quantifying prevailing wages increases and proposing a Park Development fee increase for City Council to approve. Council action is anticipated in spring of 2017. Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study: Recreation Department has been working with consultants preparing a study with recommendations on this topic. Community meetings were held on the pricing philosophy for programs and their cost recovery percentage. Those recommendations were then presented at the Parks and Recreation Commission on May 21, 2015. The Commission approved the recommendations. The consultant has been working with the Recreation Department and Public Works Department/Park Operations in regards to facility use fees (community centers and picnic shelters). Community meetings will be held in spring 2017 to review the entire Cost Recovery, 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 132 Parks and Recreation - 2017 Page 4 Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study. After the community meetings, a final report with the Master Fee Schedule update will be taken to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and approval of recommendations, then forwarded to the City Council for approval. The Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study with PROS Consulting, Inc. 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 2.83 acres of developed park per 1000 population. 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. Nothing at this time. 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 59 58 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 133 Parks and Recreation - 2017 Page 5 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 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 58 Stylus Park 2025 Stylus Street 1.97 (2.6 equivalency) 59 Orange Park 1475 Fourth Ave 3.9 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 134 Parks and Recreation - 2017 Page 6 Orange Park on Opening Day Stylus Park after dark Montecito Park Ground Breaking Orion Park (formerly Strata Park) Master Plan 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 135 Parks and Recreation - 2017 Page 7 Urban Park at D St. 58 Millenia: Orion Park Strata Park Park P-6 Park P-2 Park P-3 Vill. 8E, Park P-1 59 Vill.8W, Park P-1 Vill.3, P-1 Vill.8W, T.C. Vill 2, Park P-3. Montecito Park Vill 2, Park P-2 Future Parks – as described in this Report (for comprehensive list see City-Wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan) Eastern Chula Vista -Assumes completion of: V2, P-3 (Ph1) 3.9 acres. V2, P-2, 7.10 acres. Millenia, Orion Park, 1.51 acres. Millenia Strata Park P-5, 1.93 acres. Millenia Park P-6, 3.6 acres. Millenia Park P-2, 1.62 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. Western Chula vista - Assumes completion of the D street Park 0.7 acres (Western Chula Vista) PREPARED BY: Name: Mary Radley Title: Landscape architect – Development Services Date: 1-31-17 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 136 Page 1 Police - 2017 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Police – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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); burglar alarms. 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 update the tables below. Priority 1 – Emergency Calls or Services Fiscal Year Call Volume % of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes 30 Seconds (Threshold = 81%) Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 6 Minutes) FY 2016 742 of 67,048 71.0% 6:31 FY 2015 675 of 64,008 71.2% 6:49 FY 2014 711 of 65,645 73.6% 6:45 FY 2013 738 of 65,741 74.1% 6:42 FY 2012 726 of 64,386 72.8% 6:31 FY 2011 657 of 64,695 80.7% 6:03 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 137 Page 2 Police - 2017 1. During the review period, were police units properly equipped 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 equipped. Also, please provide status information on implementation of the new CAD/AVL system. Yes No ___X___ The Department continues to work toward 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 will continue into the current fiscal year with complete rollout anticipated in the next 18 months. The CAD Project team held the official kickoff meeting and set project expectations and timelines. The tentative go-live schedule is mid-year 2017. The new CAD will allow dispatchers to utilize Automated Vehicle Locator system, which allows them to see the closest unit to a call and dispatch accordingly. 2. 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___ During this reporting period the Department was able to make great progress in achieving the Priority 1 response time threshold by reducing the average response time by 18 seconds. The Department continues to be committed to keeping the Patrol Division fully staffed in an effort to meet the Priority 1 threshold. The Department is analyzing calls that are reporting an excessive response time to determine if these calls were given the correct priority call for service level. These calls may be unnecessarily skewing response times. We are working with our Dispatchers to better understand these circumstances around these calls. 3. 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. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service Fiscal Year Call Volume Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 12 Minutes) FY 2016 19,288 of 67,048 13:50 FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13:50 FY 2014 17,817 of 65,645 13:36 FY 2013 18,505 of 65,741 13:44 FY 2012 22,121 of 64,386 14:20 FY 2011 21,500 of 64,695 12:52 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 138 Page 3 Police - 2017 Yes No ___X___ There are still significant concerns with staffing and equipment. As stated above the Department continues to experience attrition due to retirements. 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. The Department continues to work with the Finance Department to identify funding to replace the aging vehicle fleet. During fiscal year 2016 the Department received City funding to replace 17 patrol vehicles. Due to the aging Patrol fleet the reliability and replacement of the patrol vehicles continues to be of concern. Any significant growth in the next 18 months will place additional strain on the Patrol Division to comply with GMOC threshold standards. 4. 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. However, the Department continues to implement the 2014 Strategic Plan. Specifically, the Department is developing a long-term comprehensive staffing plan. This report will highlight historical staffing in the Department, as well as identifying staffing needs to accommodate growth in the City and increasing calls for service. The Department will submit a proposed staffing plan to the City Manager before the end of the year. Any significant growth in the next five years, without additional staffing, will place a strain on the Patrol Division to comply with GMOC threshold standards. 5. 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 X No ______ The Department still continues to be concerned about maintaining and ideally increasing staffing levels. The threat of upcoming retirements is of real concern and the Department continues to work very hard to identify highly qualified lateral and recruit candidates. By comparison the last time the Department met the Priority 1 response time threshold (using the new methodology) was in 2009/2010. The table below highlights some of the important differences in staffing and population then and now. Increasing staffing levels is imperative for the Department to continue to meet the growing demands in the City. 2009/2010 2014/2015 Population 233,108 257,989 Authorized Staffing 240 225 Equipment needs is another area that continues to be of concern. The funds to purchase new equipment, as well as replacing aging equipment is limited. The Department is 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 139 Page 4 Police - 2017 committed to continuing to work with the Finance Department and the City Manager to identify funding for this critical need. 6. 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. The Department recently reviewed the proactive time calculation and between January- June 2016 we achieved an overall proactive time of 46.5%. This increase is directly related to the focus on hiring and maintaining staffing in the Community Patrol Division. This time is used by patrol personnel to problem solve crime and disorder issues in the community and meet with residents and businesses to strengthen their relationships. 7. Please update the table below: Number of False Alarms Per Year Fiscal Year Volume FY 2016 3,479 FY 2015 5,047 FY 2014 6,119 FY 2013 6,116 FY 2012 6,234 FY 2011 6,424 FY 2010 6,694 FY 2009 5,924 8. Please explain the current false alarm policy and provide information on its effectiveness. The City Council adopted an updated Security Alarm Ordinance in 2013, which went into effect in July 2014. The updated ordinance made several changes to the alarm program. Those changes include:  Alarm permit fee was changed to $28.75 annually  The false alarm fines: o First false alarm during a 12-month period is $100 fine. Current permit holders have the option to take an online false alarm awareness class. Upon successful completion of the course the false alarm fine is waived. o Second false alarm during a 12-month period is $200 fine. o Any additional false alarms within one year are $500 per false alarm. o Any location that has four false alarm activations during a 12-month period will be placed on verified response. For alarm sites with four or more false alarms in a 12-month period, verification that a crime or attempted crime is in progress must be provided by the alarm company concurrently with a request for a police response to a security alarm. Verification shall be by real- time audio or video surveillance provided by the alarm system and reviewed by the alarm company, or by a third-party report from the alarm site sent to the alarm company, that positively verifies evidence of a crime or an attempted crime at the alarm site. This verified response requirement shall not apply to duress alarms. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 140 Page 5 Police - 2017 After two years of implementation the updated ordinance continues to be effective in reducing the number of false alarm activations that officers are responding to. Since the ordinance false alarms have been reduced by 43%. The Department continues to work with alarm companies, as well as alarm permit holders to reduce the number of false alarm activations. 9. The GMOC’s 2016 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. The Department continues to focus on employee recruitment through the Strategic Plan. During this reporting year the City Council approved two additional sworn positions to establish a Homeless Outreach Team. In addition, a Homeless Outreach Team Coordinator was hired by the City to work with the sworn personnel. This team, along with City and community partners, is responsible for working with the local homeless population to help identify long-term housing solutions. In addition, this team is able to work with residents and businesses to reduce crime and disorder related to homelessness. 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. The Department has been historically understaffed and any growth has a direct impact on meeting response time thresholds. Over the last four years the Police Department has been committed to implementing the recommendations made in the Matrix Staffing 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 back to their assignment of conducting proactive policing. PREPARED BY: Name: Melanie Culuko Title: Police Support Services Manager Date: October 3, 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 141 Sewer - 2017 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Sewer – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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 2013-14 Fiscal Year 2014-15 Fiscal Year 2015-16 18-month Projection 5-year Projection "Buildout" Projection Average Flow 15.466 15.499 15.385 15.986 17.235 20.760* Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 *see text on question no. 5 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 _______ 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 142 Sewer - 2017 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. Current flow trends are still below what is projected. 5. Please make any necessary changes to the table below. The current Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (WMP) identifies a conservative planning level sewer generation rate of 230 gallons per EDU. The WMP estimates the City’s ultimate sewer treatment capacity required for the currently planned build out condition will be 29.89 MGD. However, the treatment capacity requirement could be as low as 20.76 MGD using a generation rate based on current metered flow data. The recent drop in flow can be attributed, in part, to the recent increase in water conservation efforts. The City’s actual ultimate capacity needs are expected to be some place in between the WMP estimate and the projection using the current metered flow. The Wastewater Engineering Section will continue to track water usage trends, changes in land use and population projections to validate current generation rates and project the ultimate need for the City. PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto Yano Title: Wastewater Program Manager Date: 10/28/2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 143 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire SUHSD – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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 – DECEMBER 2016 SCHOOLS # of Enrolled Students Residing in School Boundary* 12/16 Building Capacity (# of Students) Adjusted Building Capacity** (# of Students) % of Building Capacity Used % of Students Residing in Boundary Where They Attend School Permanent Portables NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 570 / 824 1,050 188 1,238 67% 69% Hilltop Middle 500 /951 1,268 88 1,357 70% 53% Chula Vista High 1490 / 2,405 1,892 452 2,344 103% 62% Hilltop High 1,110 / 1,986 1,940 406 2,346 85% 56% SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 800 / 865 1,108 17 1,125 77% 92% Castle Park High 1,275 / 1,480 1,323 461 1,784 83% 86% Palomar High 284 / 284 241 238 479 59% 100 % 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 144 SUHSD - 2017 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS – DECEMBER 2016 SCHOOLS # of Enrolled Students Residing in School Boundary* 12/16 Building Capacity (# of Students) Adjusted Building Capacity** (# of Students) % of Building Capacity Used % of Students Residing in Boundary Where They Attend School Permanent Portables SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,500 / 2,940 1,500 1,019 2,519 117% 85% Eastlake Middle 1,490 / 1,618 1,577 119 1,696 95% 92% Otay Ranch High 1,390 / 2,305 2,041 286 2,326 99% 60% Olympian High 1,500 / 2,500 1,990 167 2,156 116% 60% Rancho Del Rey Middle 1,580 / 1,754 1,034 636 1,669 105% 90% NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 1,500 / 2,156 1,607 605 2,213 97% 70% Bonita Vista Middle 725 / 1,115 1,063 305 1,369 81% 65% TOTAL 21,300 / 23,183 19,635 4,987 24,622 94% 92% *Does not include moderate/severe special education students. **Adjusted Building Capacity Includes physical education capacity, but excludes special education learning centers. It 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. 2. Taking into consideration the city’s 2016 Residential Growth Forecast, please complete the two forecast tables below, adding new schools, if applicable. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2017 SCHOOLS # of Enrolled Students Residing in School Boundary* 12/31/17 Building Capacity (# of Students) Adjusted Building Capacity** (# of Students) % of Building Capacity Used % of Students Residing in Boundary Where They Attend School Permanent Portables NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 570 / 823 1,050 188 1,238 66% 69% Hilltop Middle 535 / 972 1,095 88 1,183 72% 55% Chula Vista High 1,595 / 2,574 1,658 452 2,111 110% 62% Hilltop High 1,055 / 1,881 1,753 406 2,159 80% 56% SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 825 / 895 1,108 17 1,125 80% 92% Castle Park High 1,395 / 1,620 1,323 461 1,784 91% 86% Palomar High 290 / 290 241 238 479 61% 100% 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 145 SUHSD - 2017 Page 3 SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2017 SCHOOLS # of Enrolled Students Residing in School Boundary* 12/31/17 Building Capacity (# of Students) Adjusted Building Capacity** (# of Students) % of Building Capacity Used % of Students Residing in Boundary Where They Attend School Permanent Portables SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,540 / 2,820 1,500 1,019 2,519 112% 90% Eastlake Middle 1,570 / 1,655 1,577 119 1,696 98% 95% Otay Ranch High 1,505 / 2,316 2,041 286 2,326 100% 65% Olympian High 1,570 / 2,415 1,990 167 2,156 112% 65% Rancho del Rey Mid. 1,485 / 1,648 1,034 636 1,669 99% 90% NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 1,405 / 2,009 1,607 605 2,213 91% 70% Bonita Vista Middle 730 / 1,123 1,063 305 1,369 82% 65% TOTAL 21,200 / 23,043 19,635 4,987 24,622 94% 92% *Does not include moderate/severe special education students. **Adjusted Building Capacity Includes physical education capacity, but excludes special education learning centers. It 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. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2021 SCHOOLS # of Enrolled Students Residing in School Boundary* 12/31/21 Building Capacity (# of Students) Adjusted Building Capacity** (# of Students) % of Building Capacity Used % of Students Residing in Boundary Where They Attend School Permanent Portables NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 645 / 920 1,050 188 1,238 74% 70% Hilltop Middle 525 / 950 1,095 88 1,183 70% 55% Chula Vista High 1,710 / 2,630 1,658 452 2,111 112% 65% Hilltop High 1,200 / 2,000 1,753 406 2,159 85% 60% SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 825 / 810 1,108 17 1,125 72% 95% Castle Park High 1,350 / 1,500 1,323 461 1,784 84% 90% Palomar High 280 / 280 241 238 479 58% 100% SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,850 / 3,000 1,500 1,019 2,519 119% 95% Eastlake Middle 1,710 / 1,800 1,577 119 1,696 106% 95% Otay Ranch High 2,790 / 3,100 2,041 286 2,326 133% 90% 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 146 SUHSD - 2017 Page 4 FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2021 SCHOOLS # of Enrolled Students Residing in School Boundary* 12/31/21 Building Capacity (# of Students) Adjusted Building Capacity** (# of Students) % of Building Capacity Used % of Students Residing in Boundary Where They Attend School Permanent Portables Olympian High 2,700 / 3,000 1,990 335 2,156 139% 90% Rancho del Rey Mid. 2,045 / 2,150 1,034 636 1,669 129% 95% NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 1,470 / 2,100 1,607 605 2,213 95% 70% Bonita Vista Middle 715 / 1,100 1,063 305 1,369 80% 65% TOTAL 23,400 / 25,400 19,635 4,987 24,622 103% 92% *Does not include moderate/severe special education students. **Adjusted Building Capacity Includes physical education capacity, but excludes special education learning centers. It 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. 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY SCHOOLS 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-2011 NORTHWEST Total Enrollment 6,166 6,379 6,579 6,798 6,798 6,823 % of Change Over the Previous Year † -3.3% -3.0% -2.1% -1.1% -0.4% -3.5% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 73% 86% 87% 87% 87% 88% SOUTHWEST Total Enrollment 2,629 2,600 2,606 2,712 2,792 3,068 % of Change Over the Previous Year † 1.1% -0.2% -3.9% -2.9% -9.0% 3.1% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 98% 91% 90% 91% 91% 92% SOUTHEAST Total Enrollment 11,117 9,736 9,582 9,414 9,007 8,550 % of Change Over the Previous Year † 14.2% 1.6% 1.8% 4.5% 5.4% 1.2% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista (Note 1) 90% 93% 93% 92% 93% 94% 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 147 SUHSD - 2017 Page 5 ENROLLMENT HISTORY SCHOOLS 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-2011 NORTHEAST Total Enrollment 3,271 5,359 5,170 5,071 5,071 4,854 % of Change Over the Previous Year † -39% 3.7% 2.05% 4.5% 4.5% -1.7% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 91% 88% 88% 91% 91% 72% DISTRICT-WIDE Total Enrollment 40,371 41,123 41,120 40,507 40,507 40,740 % of Change Over the Previous Year † -1.83% 0.01% 0.45% -0.57% -0.57% -2.02% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 55% 53% 57% 55% 55% 55% † Change in percentage may be affected by not including Special Ed students in enrollment figures as they were in prior years. In addition, Rancho Del Rey Middle School was moved from the NE schools to the SE schools, which further affects those percentages. 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____ We are adding portables in the east to handle enrollment growth. Eastern schools are closed to transfers. 5. Will existing facilities/schools be able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No X We are adding portables in the east to handle enrollment growth. Eastern schools are closed to transfers. 6. Please complete the table below. NEW SCHOOLS STATUS School # and Name (If Known) Site Selection Architectural Review/Funding ID for Land and Construction Commencement of Site Preparation Service by Utilities and Road Commencement of Construction Time Needed By MS #12 * * * * 2019 July 2021 HS #14 * * * * 2019 July 2021 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 148 SUHSD - 2017 Page 6 *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. For instance, the District’s proposed maintenance budget for 15-16 was about $11.2 million and staffing approximately 50 percent of industry standards. Underfunded maintenance is typical in most public agencies. 8. Are any schools slated to close? No 9. What is the status of various after-school programs, adult education, etc.? After-school programs and adult education continue as viable programs. 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. Factors to be considered in this report: 1. We installed a new student information system and IT and staff are focused on direct school needs; therefore, the numbers in this report are estimates. 2. Capacity definition was changed to include PE. 3. Rancho Del Rey Middle School was moved from the NE schools to the SE schools since it is geographically within Otay Ranch and Olympian High School boundaries. PREPARED BY: Name: Paul D. Woods Title: District Architect Date: January 27, 2017 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 149 Sweetwater Authority – 2017 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Sweetwater Authority – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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 Timeframe Demand Supply Capacity Storage Capacity Local Imported Treated Raw 5-Year Projection (Ending 6/30/21) 20.1 39.5 30 44.15 17,421 12-18 Month Projection (Ending 12/30/17) 18.0 37 30 43.35 17,421 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 150 Sweetwater Authority – 2017 2 WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Potable Water FY 2015/16 15.2 37 30 43.35 17,421 FY 2014/15 17.2 37 30 43.35 17,421 FY 2013/14 19.0 37 30 43.35 17,421 FY 2012/13 18.8 37 30 43.35 17,421 FY 2011/12 18.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 FY 2010/11 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 FY 2009/10 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 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 Tables 3-1 and 3-3 of Sweetwater Authority’s 2015 Urban Water Management 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 2015 Draft Water Distribution System Master Plan lists existing and recommended treated water storage. The 0.8 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 _______ 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 151 Sweetwater Authority – 2017 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 2015 Draft 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? Sweetwater Authority’s Governing Board adopted a budget for FY 2016-17 that resulted in no increases to the water rates. Furthermore, 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 updated its Urban Water Management Plan during FY 2015-16 and is updating the Water Distribution System Master Plan in the fall of 2016. Both documents have been developed in coordination with local agencies including the City of Chula Vista. Please continue to 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 152 Sweetwater Authority – 2017 4 keep Sweetwater Authority informed and involved in all development and capital improvement projects to reduce the potential for unexpected water infrastructure requirements. PREPARED BY: Name: Ron R. Mosher Title: Director of Engineering Date: September 22, 2016 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 153 SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR.LOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDThird Ave. 1Naples St. - S. CVCLNBB19.1('11)B 20.3 ('10)C 19.0 ('08) (3RD2 - HCM 4)SBB21.1('11)B 20.7 ('10)C 18.2 ('08)Fourth Ave. 2Naples St. - Main St.NB B 23.8 ('07)B 23.8 ('07)B 23.3 ('07) (4TH3 - HCM 4)SB B 21.9 ('07)B 20.9 ('07)B 20.3 ('07)Bonita Rd. 3Plaza Bonita - East CVCL EB B 29.2 ('07)A 31.9 ('07)A 32.2 ('07)(BR1 - HCM 3)WB A 30.8 ('07)A 31.8 ('07)B 28.0 ('07)Broadway 4L St. - S. CVCLNB B 22.6 ('07)B 20.3 ('07)C 17.7 ('08) (BRD3 - HCM 4)SB A 25.7 ('07)B 20.6 ('07)C 18.7 ('08)5C St - Main St NBB20.4 ('16)C 17.3 ('16)C 17.8 ('16) (BRDTF350 - HCM4)SBB 19.7 ('16)C 16.2 ('16)C 14.9 ('16)East H St. 6Hidden Vista - Ps Ranchero EB A 35.5 ('14)B33.9('14)B30.0('14) (EHS1 - HCM 2) WB B 32.6 ('14)B30.0('14)B31.5('14)East H St.7Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr. EBB29.8('12)A32.2('12)C 23.7 ('08) (EHS2 - HCM 3) WBB29.2('12)B26.9('12)B 24.3 ('08)Heritage Rd. - ADS8Tel Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy NBC24.9C23.8B31.4B32.3C23.3C25.0 After south seg. Opened ('14) SBC22.6C24.3B34.0B32.3B28.2B30.1Runs completed 7/1/15 - 6/30/16 BOLDLower Half of LOS C ADS - Adaptive Detection SystemLOS DLOS ELOS FAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - ALL TIME PERIODSPM PERIOD4 - 5 PMPM PERIOD5 - 6 PMMID-DAY11:30 - 12:30MID-DAY12:30 - 1:30J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls110/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 154 SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR.LOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - ALL TIME PERIODSPM PERIOD4 - 5 PMPM PERIOD5 - 6 PMMID-DAY11:30 - 12:30MID-DAY12:30 - 1:30Hilltop Dr. 9F St. - L St.NB C 17.7 ('08)B 19.4 ('08)C 18.5 ('08) (HIL1 - HCM 4)SB B 19.1 ('08)B 20.7 ('08)B 20.3 ('08)10L St. - Orange Ave.NB C 18.4 ('08)B 23.3 ('09)B24.1('11) (HIL2 - HCM 4)SB B 20.0 ('08)B 21.2 ('09)B22.6('11)Industrial Blvd. 11L St. - Main St.NB B 21.8 ('08)B 22.1 ('07)B 21.0 ('10) (IND1 - HCM 4)SB B 24.3 ('08)B 22.2 ('07)C 15.9 ('10)J St. 12Oaklawn Ave. - 3rd Ave. EB C 17.8 ('09)C 17.0 ('08)C 15.3 ('08) (JST1 - HCM 4)WB B 19.6 ('09)C 18.2 ('08)C 17.4 ('08)L St.133rd Ave. - Tel. Cyn Rd./Nacion EB B 23.8 ('07)A 25.9 ('07)B 22.5 ('07) (LST2 - HCM 4)WB B 24.8 ('07)A 26.2 ('07)A 25.2 ('07)La Media Rd - ADS14Tel. Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy NBC24.0C22.5 C 26.5 C 25.9 D 21.6 C 23.1 (LM1 - HCM 2) SBC26.0C26.1 B 30.1 B 28.8 C 26.1 C 25.5Main St.15Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave. EB B 24.4 ('14)B21.5('14)B 20.6 ('14) (MA1 - HCM 4) WB A 25.9 ('14)B24.1('14)B 23.3 ('14)163rd Ave. - Melrose Ave.EBA 27.8 ('14)B 30.0 ('14)C 23.1 ('14) (MA2 - HCM 3)WB A 27.2 ('14)B 29.8 ('14)B 26.3 ('14)17Oleander-Entertainment Cir. S. EB A 41.3 ('11)A41.3('11)A41.3('11) (MA3 - HCM 2)WB B 34.9 ('11)B 35.0 ('11)B 35.0 ('11)Runs completed 7/1/15 - 6/30/16 BOLDADS - Adaptive Detection SystemLower Half of LOS CLOS DLOS ELOS FJ:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls210/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 155 SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR.LOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - ALL TIME PERIODSPM PERIOD4 - 5 PMPM PERIOD5 - 6 PMMID-DAY11:30 - 12:30MID-DAY12:30 - 1:30Olympic Parkway - ADS18Oleander Ave. - Heritage Rd. EBB39.3A42.9A47.4A47.2C31.9C31.8 (OP - HCM 1) WBB34.6B37.3A43.2A42.7C30.2B39.2Orange Ave./E. Orange Ave. 19Palomar St. - Hilltop Dr. EB A 26.9 ('11)B 23.5 ('11)B 22.1 ('05) (OR1 - HCM 4)WB A 25.9 ('11)B 21.9 ('11)A 25.2 ('05)20Hilltop Dr.- Melrose Ave. EB A 27.2 ('08)A 29.4 ('08)A 25.7 ('08) (OR2 - HCM 4)WB A 26.9 ('08)A 29.4 ('08)B 22.9 ('08)Otay Lakes Rd.21Bonita Rd. - East H St.NB B 30.4 ('08)B 34.5 ('07)B 32.0 ('08) (OLR1 - HCM 2)SB C 26.8 ('08)B 33.2 ('07)B 29.7 ('08)Palomar St. - ADS23Industrial Bl. – Broadway EBD9.5D9.40D10.8D10.9D10.5D9.9 (PAL1 - HCM 4) WBD10.6D11.4D10.5D10.5E8.9E7.924Broadway - Hilltop Dr.EB B 21.4 ('07)B 20.9 ('07)B 19.9 ('08) (PAL2 - HCM 4) WB B 22.5 ('07)B 19.6 ('07)C 18.6 ('08)Paseo Ranchero 25East H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd. NB C 19.1 ('11)B 26.7 ('11)C 20.8 ('11) (PR1 - HCM 3)SB C 21.5 ('11)C 21.9 ('11)B 24.1 ('11)Telegraph Canyon Rd./ Otay Lakes Rd. 26Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB A 44.0 ('14)A 47.0 ('14)A 43.9 ('14) (TC1 - HCM 2)WB A 39.2 ('14)A 39.8 ('14)A 39.4 ('14)27Ps Ranchero - St. Claire Dr. EBA38.7A 42.2A 37.2 (TC2 - HCM 2)WBB32.5A 36.0B 33.2Runs completed 7/1/15 - 6/30/16 BOLDADS - Adaptive Detection SystemLower Half of LOS CLOS DLOS ELOS FJ:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls310/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 156 SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR.LOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - ALL TIME PERIODSPM PERIOD4 - 5 PMPM PERIOD5 - 6 PMMID-DAY11:30 - 12:30MID-DAY12:30 - 1:30Eastlake ParkwayMiller Dr - Trinidad Cove SBC 23.3 B 21.4 B 22.0(EAS - HCM 4) NBC 21.2 C 18.1 C 18.6Olympic Parkway - ADSHeritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EBC 30.8 B 35.6 B 37.6 B 37.8 C 29.6 C 30.8(OP2 - HCM 1) WBC 31.3 C 32.2 B 38.6 B 36.5 C 27.0 C 28.0Otay Lakes Rd - ADSRidgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd NBB 24.9 C 18.9 B 21.3 B 20.7 C 17.4 C 17.7(OLR3 - HCM 4) SBB 23.9 B 17.9 B 19.1 C 19.0 C 16.9 C 17.4NEW SEGMENTS BEING STUDIEDJ:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls410/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 157 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED Third Ave. (3RD2 - HCM 4) Naples St - CVCL NB B 19.1 ('11) 18,530 (11) / 20,529 ('07) SB B 21.1 ('11) Fourth Ave. (4TH3 - HCM 4) Naples St - Main St. NB 13,449 ('11)/ 14,119 ('07) SB Bonita Rd. (BR1 - HCM 3) Plaza Bonita - East CVCL EB 31,610 ('11)/ 31,500 ('06)WB Broadway (BRDTF350)NB B 21.7 ('14)B 20.4 (C St - Main St)SB B 19.8 ('14)B 19.7 Broadway (BRD3 - HCM 4) L St. - S. CVCL NB 29,295 ('07)SB East H St. (EHS1 - HCM 2) Hidden Vista - Ps Ranchero EB A 35.5 ('14) 48,044 ('10) / 48,885 ('08) WB B 32.6 ('14) East H St. (EHS2 - HCM 3) Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr. EB B 29.8 ('12) 33,129 ('11)/ 40,639 ('07)WB B 29.2 ('12) Heritage Rd. (HR - HCM 2) Tel Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB D 20.0 ('15) D 20.5 ('15)C 24.9 C 23.8 17,962 ('09)/ 17,966 ('07)SB D 17.5 ('15) D 18.6 ('15)C 22.6 C 24.3 Hilltop Dr. (HIL1 - HCM 4) F St. - L St.NB C 17.7 ('08) 9,964 ('07)/ 12,935 ('03)SB B 19.1 ('08) Hilltop Dr. (HIL2 - HCM 4) L St. - Orange Ave.NB C 18.4 ('08) 10,830 ('11) / 10,546 ('07) SB B 20.0 ('08) Industrial Blvd. (IND1 - HCM 4) L St - Main St.NB B 21.8 ('10) 6,334 ('10) / 7,970 ('07)SB B 19.2 ('10) J St. (JST1 - HCM 4) Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave. EB C 17.8 ('09) 13,021 ('07)/ 14,099 ('04) WB B 19.6 ('09) L St. (LST2 - HCM 4) Third Ave. - Tel. Cyn Rd. EB 21,355 ('07)WB Lower Half of LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (AM PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) Latest 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM J:Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls1 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 158 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (AM PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) Latest 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM La Media Rd. (LM1 - HCM 2) Tel. Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB C 23.6 ('15)C 24.0 C 22.5 22,877 ('10)/ 21,910 ('08) SB C 22.6 ('15)C 26.0 C 26.1 Main St. (MA1 - HCM 4) Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave. EB B 24.4 ('14) 23,632 ('07)/ 24,539 ('03) WB A 25.9 ('14) Main St. (MA2 - HCM 3) Third Ave. - Melrose EB A 27.8 ('14) 23,433 ('11) / 22,830 ('07) WB A 27.2 ('14) Main St. (MA3 - HCM 2) Oleander - Entertainment Cr. S EB A 41.3 ('11) 26,896 ('11) / 26,355 ('08) WB B 34.9 ('11) Olympic Parkway (OP - HCM 1) Oleander - Heritage Rd EB C 30.9 ('15) B 32.5 ('15)B 39.3 A 42.9 49,645 ('08)/ 48,140 ('06) WB B 40.6 ('15) B 41.3 ('15)B 34.6 B 37.3 Orange Ave. (OR1 - HCM 4) Palomar St - Hilltop Dr. EB A 26.9 ('11) 18,040 ('10)/ 17,557 ('07) WB A 25.9 ('11) E. Orange Ave. (OR2 - HCM 4) Hilltop Dr - Melrose Ave. EB A 27.2 ('08) 21,496 ('10)/ 21,866 ('07) WB A 26.9 ('08) Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR1 - HCM 2) Bonita Rd. - East H St. NB B 30.4 ('08) 31,977 ('11)/ 32,440 ('07) SB C 26.8 ('08) Palomar St. (PAL1 - HCM 4)Acyclica Industrial Blvd. – Broadway EB C 13.9 ('15)D 9.5 D 9.4 39,230 ('11) / 47,631 ('10)WB C 16.4 ('15)D 10.6 D 11.4 Palomar St. (PAL2 - HCM 4) Broadway - Hilltop Dr.EB 19,341 ('07)WB Paseo Ranchero (PR1 - HCM 3) East H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd.NB C 19.1 ('11) 14,374 ('09)/ 14,262 ('07)SB C 21.5 ('11) Telegraph Canyon Rd. (TC1 - HCM 2) Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB A 44.0 ('15) 72,925 ('06)WB A 39.2 ('15) Telegraph Canyon Rd./Otay Lakes Rd (TC2 - HCM 2) Ps Ranchero - St. Claire Dr. EB A 35.5 ('11)A 38.7 48,393 ('07)WB B 29.2 ('11)B 32.5 72,925 ('06)WB B 31.8 ('11) Lower Half of LOS C LOS E LOS D LOS F J:Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls2 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 159 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (AM PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) Latest 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM Eastlake Parkway TMP Runs Miller Dr - Trinidad Cove SB C 23.3 (EAS - HCM 4) NB C 21.2 Olympic Parkway - ADS Acyclica Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EB C 30.8 B 35.6 (OP2 - HCM 1) WB C 31.3 C 32.2 Otay Lakes Rd - ADS Acyclica Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd SB B 24.9 C 18.9 (OLR3 - HCM 4) NB B 23.9 B 17.9 ** NEW SEGMENT ** J:Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls3 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 160 §¨¦5§¨¦805E H STMAIN STE J STT H I R D A V I STE STJ STL STF STF O U R T H A V H STI-5 F R EE WAY S I-5 FRE E WAY N B R O A D W A Y OLYMPIC PWI-805 FREEWAY SG STI-805 FREEWAY NB A Y B L E PALOMAR STH I L L T O P D R K STOTAY LAKES RDS E C O N D A V F I R S T A V M E L R O S E A VSR-125 TOLL ROAD SSR-125 TOLL ROAD NMOSS STTELEGRAPH CANYON RDPALOMAR STLA MEDIA RDO L E A N D E R A V OXFORD STD STF I F T H A V N A C I O N A V BONITA RDE NAPLES STNAPLES STORANGE AVE L STBIRCH RDI N D U S T R I A L B L C STBRANDYWINE AVB E Y E R W YEASTLAKE PWE ORANGE AVE OXFORD STM A R I N A P W B U E N A V I S T A W Y P A S E O L A D E R APASEO R A N C H E R O S RANCHO DEL REY PWN RANCHO DEL REY PWH E R IT A G E R D BEY ER BLTERRA NOVA DRP L A Z A B O N IT A R D SR-54 FREEWAY EPASEO DEL REYRUTGERS AVLAGOON DRMEDICAL CENTER DRRIDGEBACK RDDEL REY BLN F O U R T H A V W O O D L A W N A VEASTLAKE DRF I F T H A V N A C I O N A V C STH E R I TA G E R DLOS CLOS CLOS DLOS DLOS BLOS BGMOC 2017GMOC 2017LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)AM Peak PeriodAM Peak Period0375075001875FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGF2017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 161 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR) DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED Third Ave. (3RD2 - HCM 4) Naples St. - S. CVCL NB B 20.3 ('10) 18,530 (11) / 20,529 ('07) SB B 20.7 ('10) Fourth Ave. (4TH3 - HCM 4) Naples St. - Main St.NB B 23.8 ('07) 13,449 ('11)/ 14,119 ('07)SB B 20.9 ('07) Bonita Rd. (BR1 - HCM 3) Plaza Bonita - East CVCL EB A 31.9 ('07) 31,610 ('11)/ 31,500 ('06)WB A 31.8 ('07) Broadway (BRDTF350)NB B 21.1 ('09)C 17.3 C St - Main St SB C 18.2 ('09)C 16.2 Broadway (BRD3 - HCM 4) L St. - South CVCL NB B 20.3 ('07) 29,295 ('07)SB B 20.6 ('07) East H St. (EHS1 - HCM 2) Hidden Vista - Ps Ranchero EB B 33.9 ('14) 48,044 ('10) / 48,885 ('08)WB B 30.0 ('14) East H St. (EHS2 - HCM 3) Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr.EB A 32.2 ('12) 33,129 ('11)/ 40,639 ('07)WB B 26.9 ('12) Heritage Rd. (HR - HCM 2) Tel Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB D 18.8 ('15) D 20.3 ('15)B 31.4 B 32.3 17,962 ('09)/ 17,966 ('07)SB D 21.4 ('15) C 22.7 ('15)B 34.0 B 32.3 Hilltop Dr. (HIL1 - HCM 4) F St. - L St.NB B 19.4 ('08) 9,964 ('07)/ 12,935 ('03)SB B 20.7 ('08) Hilltop Dr. (HIL2 - HCM 4) L St. - Orange Ave.NB B 23.3 ('09) 10,830 ('11) / 10,546 ('07)SB B 21.2 ('09) Industrial Blvd. (IND1 - HCM 4) L St. - Main St.NB B 21.6 ('10) 6,334 ('10) / 7,970 ('07)SB C 18.5 ('10) J St. (JST1 - HCM 4) Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave.EB C 17.0 ('08) 13,021 ('07)/ 14,099 ('04) WB C 18.2 ('08) L St. (LST2 - HCM 4) Third Ave. - Tel. Cyn. Rd EB A 25.9 ('07) 21,355 ('07)WB A 26.2 ('07) Lower Half of LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F 11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (MID-DAY PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) 11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 Latest (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls1 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 162 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR) DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED 11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (MID-DAY PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) 11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 Latest (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) La Media Rd. (LM1 - HCM 2) Tel. Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB C 25.8 ('10)C 26.5 C 25.9 22,877 ('10)/ 21,910 ('08) SB C 24.5 ('10)B 30.1 B 28.8 Main St. (MA1 - HCM 4) Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave.EB B 21.5 ('14) 23,632 ('07)/ 24,539 ('03)WB B 24.1 ('14) Main St. (MA2 - HCM 3) Third Ave. - Melrose Ave. EB B 30.0 ('14) 23,433 ('11) / 22,830 ('07)WB B 29.8 ('14) Main St. (MA3 - HCM 2) Oleander-Entertainment Cr. S EB A 41.7 ('11) 26,896 ('11) / 26,355 ('08)WB B 31.8 ('11) Olympic Parkway (OP - HCM 1) Oleander - Heritage Rd EB B 34.5 ('15) C 33.0 ('15)A 47.4 A 47.2 49,645 ('08)/ 48,140 ('06)WB B 41.4 B 40.3 A 43.2 A 42.7 Orange Ave. (OR1 - HCM 4) Palomar St - Hilltop Dr. (III)EB B 23.5 ('11) 18,040 ('10)/ 17,557 ('07)WB B 21.9 ('11) E. Orange Ave. (OR2 - HCM 4) Hilltop Dr - Melrose Ave. (III) EB A 29.4 ('08) 21,496 ('10)/ 21,866 ('07)WB A 29.4 ('08) Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR1 - HCM 2) Bonita Rd. - East H St.NB B 34.5 ('07) 31,977 ('11)/ 32,440 ('07)SB B 33.2 ('07) Palomar St. (PAL1 - HCM 4) Industrial Blvd. – Broadway EB C 15.7 ('13)D 10.8 D 10.9 39,230 ('11) / 47,631 ('10)WB C 17.1 ('13)D 10.5 D 10.5 Palomar St. (PAL2 - HCM 4) Broadway - Hilltop Dr.EB B 20.9 20.9 ('07) 19,341 ('07)WB B 19.6 19.6 ('07) Paseo Ranchero (PR1 - HCM 3) East H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd.NB B 26.7 ('11) ('09) 14,374 ('09)/ 14,262 ('07)SB C 21.9 ('11) ('09) Telegraph Canyon Rd. (TC1 - HCM 2) Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB A 47.0 ('14) 72,925 ('06)WB A 39.8 ('14) Telegraph Canyon Rd./Otay Lakes Rd (TC2 - HCM 2) Paseo Ranchero - St. Claire EB A 40.2 ('07)A 42.2 48,393 ('07)WB A 38.1 ('07)A 36.0 Lower Half of LOS C LOS E LOS D LOS F J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls2 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 163 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG. AVG. AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR) DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED 11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (MID-DAY PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) 11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 Latest (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) Eastlake Parkway TMP runs Miller Dr - Trinidad Cove SB B 21.4 (EAS - HCM 4) NB C 18.1 Olympic Parkway - ADS Acyclica Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EB B 37.6 B 37.8 (OP2 - HCM 1) WB B 38.6 B 36.5 Otay Lakes Rd - ADS Acyclica Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd SB B 21.3 B 20.7 (OLR3 - HCM 3) NB B 19.1 C 19.0 ** NEW SEGMENTS ** J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls3 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 164 §¨¦5§¨¦805E H STMAIN STE J STT H I R D A V I STE STJ STL STF STF O U R T H A V H STI -5 F R E E W A Y S I-5 FRE E WAY N B R O A D W A Y OLYMPIC PWI-805 FREEWAY SI -8 0 5 F R E E W A Y N G STB A Y B L E PALOMAR STH I L L T O P D R K STSR-125 TOLL ROAD SOTAY LAKES RDS R -1 2 5 T O L L R O A D N BONITA RDS E C O N D A V F I R S T A V M E L R O S E A V MOSS STTELEGRAPH CANYON RDPALOMAR STLA MEDIA RDO L E A N D E R A V OXFORD STD STEASTLAKE PWF I F T H A V N A C I O N A V E NAPLES STNAPLES STORANGE AVE L STBIRCH RDSR-54 FREEWAY ESR-54 FREEWAY WI N D U S T R I A L B L C STBRANDYWINE AVE ORANGE AVE OXFORD STM A R I N A P W B U E N A V I S T A W Y P A 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 RANCHO DEL REY PWN RANCHO DEL REY PWB E Y E R W Y P L A Z A B O N IT A R D H E R IT A G E R D TERRA NOVA DRN S E C O N D A V PASEO DEL REYRUTGERS AVLAGOON DRMEDICAL CENTER DRB E Y E R B LRIDGEBACK RDDEL REY BLN F O U R T H A V W O O D L A W N A VEASTLAKE DRI -5 S B T O S R -5 4 E B T R A N S E X I T 9 SR-125 TOLL ROAD NC STF I F T H A V N A C I O N A V H E R I T A G E R DEASTLAKE DR.LOS CLOS CLOS DLOS DLOS BLOS BGMOC 2017GMOC 2017LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)Mid-Day Peak PeriodMid-Day Peak Period0380076001900FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORING2017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 165 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG.AVG.AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED Third Ave. (3RD2 - HCM 4) Naples St. - CVCL NB C 19.0 ('08) 18,530 (11) / 20,529 ('07) SB C 18.2 ('08) Fourth Ave. (4TH3 - HCM 4) Naples St. - Main St. NB B 23.8 ('07) 13,449 ('11)/ 14,119 ('07) SB B 21.9 ('07) Bonita Rd. (BR1 - HCM 3) Plaza Bonita - East CVCL EB B 29.2 ('07) 31,610 ('11)/ 31,500 ('06)WB A 30.8 ('07) Broadway (BRDTF350 - HCM 4)NB B 21.2 ('09)C 17.8 (C St - Main St) SB B 19.1 ('09)C 14.9 Broadway (BRD3 - HCM 4) L St. - South CVCL NB C 17.7 ('08) 29,295 ('07)SB C 18.7 ('08) East H St. (EHS1 - HCM 2) Hidden Vista - Ps Ranchero EB B 30.0 ('14) 48,044 ('10) / 48,885 ('08)WB B 31.5 ('14) East H St. (EHS2 - HCM 3) Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr. EB 33,129 ('11)/ 40,639 ('07) WB Heritage Rd. (HR - HCM 2)Acyclica Tel Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB D 21.2 ('15) D 18 ('15)C 23.3 C 25.0 17,962 ('09)/ 17,966 ('07) SB D 19.4 ('15) D 20.5 ('15)B 28.2 B 30.1 Hilltop Dr. (HIL1 - HCM 4) F St. - L St. NB C 18.5 ('08) 9,964 ('07)/ 12,935 ('03) SB B 20.3 ('08) Hilltop Dr. (HIL2 - HCM 4) L St. - Orange Ave. NB B 24.1 ('11) 10,830 ('11) / 10,546 ('07) SB B 22.6 ('11) Industrial Blvd. (IND1 - HCM 4) L St. - Main St. NB B 21.0 # ('10) 6,334 ('10) / 7,970 ('07) SB C 15.9 # ('10) J St. (JST1 - HCM 4) Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave. EB C 15.3 ('08) 13,021 ('07)/ 14,099 ('04) WB C 17.4 ('08) L St. (LST2 - HCM 4) Third Ave. - Tel. Cyn. Rd. EB B 22.5 ('07) 21,355 ('07) WB A 25.2 ('07) Lower Half of LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Latest (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (PM PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM J\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls1 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 166 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG.AVG.AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED Latest (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (PM PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM La Media Rd. (LM1 - HCM 2)Acyclica Tel. Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB *C 22.2 ('09)D 21.6 C 23.1 22,877 ('10)/ 21,910 ('08) SB *C 23.6 ('09) * LC = 60%C 26.1 C 25.5 Main St. (MA1 - HCM 4) Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave. EB B 20.6 ('14) 23,632 ('07)/ 24,539 ('03) WB B 23.3 ('14) Main St. (MA2 - HCM 3) Third Ave. - Melrose Ave.EB C 23.1 ('14) 23,433 ('11) / 22,830 ('07)WB B 26.3 ('14) Main St. (MA3 - HCM 2) Oleander-Entertainment Cr. S EB A 41.3 ('11) 26,896 ('11) / 26,355 ('08)WB B 35.0 ('11) Olympic Parkway (OP - HCM 1)Acyclica Oleander - Heritage Rd EB C 30.3 ('15) C 31.3 ('15)C 31.9 C 31.8 49,645 ('08)/ 48,140 ('06)WB B 38.1 ('15) B 40 ('15)C 30.2 B 39.2 Orange Ave. (OR1 - HCM 4) Palomar St. - Hilltop Dr.EB 18,040 ('10)/ 17,557 ('07)WB E. Orange Ave. (OR2 - HCM 4) Hilltop Dr. - Melrose Ave.EB A 25.7 ('08) 21,496 ('10)/ 21,866 ('07)WB B 22.9 ('08) Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR1 - HCM 2) Bonita Rd - East H St.NB B 32.0 ('08) 31,977 ('11)/ 32,440 ('07)SB B 29.7 ('08) Palomar St. (PAL1 - HCM 4)Acyclica Industrial Blvd. – Broadway EB C 13.4 ('14)D 10.5 D 9.9 39,230 ('11) / 47,631 ('10)WB D 11.2 ('14)*E 8.9 E 7.9 *60% LC Palomar St. (PAL2 - HCM 4) Broadway - Hilltop Dr.EB B 19.9 ('08) 19,341 ('07)WB C 18.6 ('08) Paseo Ranchero (PR1 - HCM 3) East H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd.NB C 20.8 ('11) 14,374 ('09)/ 14,262 ('07)SB B 24.1 ('11) Telegraph Canyon Rd. (TC1 - HCM 2) Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB A 43.9 ('14) 72,925 ('06)WB A 39.4 ('14) Telegraph Canyon Rd./Otay Lakes Rd (TC2 - HCM 2) Paseo Ranchero - St Claire EB A 37.2 ('08)A 37.2 48,393 ('07)WB B 33.2 ('08)B 33.2 Lower Half of LOS C LOS E LOS D LOS F J\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls2 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 167 STREET (Class) SEGMENT LIMITS AVG. AVG.AVG.AVG. ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED Latest (7/01/15 - 6/30/16) ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON (PM PERIOD) GMOC 2017 (7/01/2015 - 6/30/2016) 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM Eastlake Parkway TMP runs Miller Dr - Trinidad Cove SB B 22.0 (EAS - HCM 4) NB C 18.6 Olympic Parkway - ADS Acyclica Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EB C 29.6 C 30.8 (OP2 - HCM 1) WB C 27.0 C 28.0 Otay Lakes Rd - ADS Acyclica Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd SB C 17.4 C 17.7 (OLR3 - HCM 3) NB C 16.9 C 17.4 ** NEW SEGMENTS ** J\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'16 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'17 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls3 10/26/20162017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 168 §¨¦5§¨¦805E H STMAIN STE J STT H I R D A V I STE STJ STL STF STI -5 F R E E W A Y S F O U R T H A V H STI-5 F R EE WAY NOLYMPIC PWB R O A D W A Y I-805 FREEWAY SI -8 0 5 F R E E W A Y N G STB AY B L E PALOMAR STH I L L T O P D R K STSR-125 TOLL ROAD SSR-125 TOLL ROAD NOTAY LAKES RDS E C O N D A V F I R S T A V M E L R O S E A V MOSS STTELEGRAPH CANYON RDPALOMAR STLA MEDIA RDBONITA RDO L E A N D E R A V OXFORD STE A S T L A K E P W D STF I F T H A V N A C I O N A V E NAPLES STNAPLES STORANGE AVBIRCH RDE L STSR-54 FREEWAY EI N D U S T R I A L B L SR-54 FREEWAY WC STBRANDYWINE AVE ORANGE AVE OXFORD STM 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 P A S E O L A D E R A P A S E O R A N C H E R O S RANCHO DEL REY PWN RANCHO DEL REY PWP L A Z A B O N IT A R D H E R IT A G E R DCORRAL C A N Y O N R D TERRA NOVA DRB E Y E R B LPASEO DEL REYRUTGERS AVN S E C O N D A V LAGOON DRMEDICAL CENTER DRRIDGEBACK RDDEL REY BLN F O U R T H A V W O O D L A W N A VEASTLAKE DRN A C I O N A V F I F T H A V C STH E R I TA G E R DEASTLAKE DR.LOS CLOS CLOS DLOS DLOS BLOS BGMOC 2017GMOC 2017LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)PM Peak PeriodPM Peak Period0375075001875FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORING2017-04-27 Agenda PacketPage 169 Traffic - 2017 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Traffic – 2017 Review Period: July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 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. Please provide responses to the following questions and supplement with applicable maps and/or tables: 1. For non-urban roadway segments, did the city maintain LOS “C” or better during the review period? If not, please list non-compliant segments on the table below and explain how the situation is being addressed. Yes ______ No __X__ 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 170 Traffic - 2017 2 NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS) Palomar Street EB WB D(6) D(4) E(2) Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS) N/A N/A Palomar Street (Industrial Blvd to Broadway On Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Blvd, the LOS, continues to perform below satisfactory 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 2017. Staff is also pursing the engineering design and construction phase funding with SANDAG. (See attachment #1) 2. For urban streets, did the city maintain LOS “D” or better during the review period? If not, please list non-compliant segments on the table below and explain how the situation is being addressed. Yes __X__ No ______ (See attachment #1) 3. Please attach a map delineating urban and non-urban streets. (See attachment #2) 4. 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 X No ______ 5. 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__ 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 171 Traffic - 2017 3 Blue Line Trolley and Freight Rail Grade Separation (STM-361) An environmental study is being prepared for grade separating the highest ranked rail crossing in San Diego County which is at Palomar Street along the Blue Trolley Line and rail freight line. The environmental document should be completed in late 2017. Concurrently, staff is also working on the ‘E’ Street, ‘F’ Street and ‘H’ Street Trolley/Freight Rail Grade Separation Project Alternatives Analyses/Feasibility Study Report which should be completed in early 2017. Preliminary analysis shows that additional improvements will be required at the ‘J’ Street railroad crossing too. Palomar Street traffic signal modifications and pedestrian improvements between Murrell Drive and Broadway (TF-390) Project will upgrade existing traffic signals at Broadway, Trolley Center commercial site and Murrell Drive and improve pedestrian facilities and add bike lanes all east of the rail road crossing. Funding is with Traffic Signal and Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds. Completion will be late 2017. Heritage Road (Developer facility) The interim 2-lane roadway connecting Olympic Parkway to Main Street is expected to be opened by mid-2017. The ultimate construction of Heritage Road to 6-lanes of traffic is expected to be completed 2 to 3 years later. Heritage Road is being built with TDIF funds. Heritage Road Bridge (South of Main Street, near Sleep Train Amphitheater) (STM-386 & STM-389) Design of the bridge to commence in the Spring of 2017. Proposed date for construction is in the Fall of 2018. Bridge to be built with 88.53% Federal funds and 11.47% balance with TDIF funds. Previous phase for preliminary engineering was funded at 80% Federal and 20% TDIF (STM-364). Final local costs paid out of TDIF will then be reimbursed 50/50 with City of San Diego. Main Street widening from Nirvana Avenue to Heritage Road (STM-388) An eastbound travel lane will be provided as well as remaining improvements for this segment as part of the Heritage Road bridge project. Main Street extension (Heritage Road to SR-125 and to Eastlake Parkway) (STM-357)_ A Request for Proposals (RFP) is being prepared to provide preferred alignment, environmental review and feasibility study to construct full improvements on Main Street. The project shall include curb, gutter and sidewalk, landscaped parkways and medians and bike lanes. Study will evaluate bridges across Wolf Canyon and SR-125. RFP to be issued in December 2016 and work completed in 2018. East ‘H’ Street (STM-382) East ‘H’ Street roadway widening, between Paseo Ranchero and Southwestern College Driveway is under construction to install an eastbound to southbound right turn lane onto Southwestern College, replace a pathway & sidewalk, landscaping, upgrade traffic signals, drainage and install bike lanes. The 2011 Bikeway Master Plan included this segment to bridge the gap of bike lanes to west and east of this segment. This project will complete the bike lanes along East ‘H’ Street from I-805 to the eastern City Limits. This project is funded by TDIF funds. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 172 Traffic - 2017 4 East Palomar Street Direct Access Ramp to I-805 (CAL-78C & TF-344) The local street crossing was opened up in September 2016 after a closure of approximately 3-years to demolish and rebuild the bridge overcrossing and direct access ramps. The southbound freeway off-ramp and northbound on-ramp are expected to be opened to the public later this year. Chula Vista staff costs are funded by TransNet. The construction is led by Caltrans and has funding from Local, State and Federal funds. Willow Street Bridge (STL-261) Design of the bridge is completed. Water and gas utility relocation was completed. Proposed date for bridge construction is in spring 2017. Construction is estimated to be completed by winter 2018. Funding for bridge is with Federal, TransNet & TDIF funds. 6. 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. In the eastern part of the City (east of I-805), developers have paid for 28 permanent traffic count stations. The count stations store traffic volume data and can be 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. The Traffic Management Program (TMP) is currently using MicroFloat automated data collection and processing system, specially developed by Frederick R. Harris, Inc. (FRH) is based on the floating car methodology. The method requires a vehicle with specialized recording equipment and a driver to drive the segment being studied during an AM, Mid-day and PM 2-hour peak periods. The data is then processed using the software. The data is then converted to travel time, speed, and delay for the corridor. The current software has been used for over 10 years and has become antiquated and obsolete as the City continues to upgrade computers, operating systems and network software. Extensive research has been done on both the software, MicroFloat, and the engineering company that developed the software in hopes to upgrade to software that is compatible with our processing systems. No data was found suggesting the software has been updated and supported since the 1990’s. Although in past years this process was our main method of data collection it has over the last few years been used less and replaced with newer technology. Acyclica is a wireless device that uses MAC address recognition technology which provides continuous scanning of Wi-Fi devices at intersections to determine the travel time of vehicles between the start and end of a street. This portable wireless device 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 much higher data samples and more reliable and higher quality data. The device is mobile and can be installed for long term data collection and roadway monitoring or short term roadway analysis and only requires minimal calculations to determine the LOS of a segment. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 173 Traffic - 2017 5 Sensys is a wireless vehicle detection system in which magnetic-resistive sensors installed in the travel lanes are used to detect vehicle presence and movement. This system has been in use since November 2008 allowing us to monitor from our office our busiest segments and automatically calculating travel times and speeds without the need to drive the corridor since every vehicle on the road provides us with the travel time data. These detectors are installed on East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway from I-805 then to the east. System expansion further east on each of these three corridors and elsewhere in the city using this or other similar technology is being considered. Future Actions As the city continues to grow, mobility options to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles on the road and decrease the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) are expected to be implemented. To that end, the City of Chula Vista has been following the following legislation and working with SANDAG in order to be able to come up with appropriate measures that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide guidance to developers. SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013) and Opportunities for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Governor Brown signed SB 743 in September 27, 2013, which made several changes to CEQA for projects located in areas served by transit, also known as Transit Priority Areas. SB 743 required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Since 2013, OPR recommended that VMT replace LOS as the primary measure of transportation impacts, particularly within Transit Priority Areas. Since development projects will be assessed by the VMT they generate, SB 743 presents an opportunity for TDM to assist with reducing VMT. OPR released the Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA for public review in January 2016. As part of these guidelines, cities will be required to establish baseline and target VMT reduction levels throughout the city in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming trends. With a state-wide and city-wide goal of 15% VMT reduction by 2035, cities have the option of setting higher reduction targets in the Transit Priority Areas and lower targets in areas that are not as well served by transit. Due to the ease of access to public transit in Transit Priority Areas, utilizing TDM strategies in these areas could yield the highest amount of VMT reduction. For the City of Chula Vista, the Smart Growth Opportunity Areas identified by SANDAG could be used as starting point when identifying the City's own Transit Priority Areas. It is expected that the guidelines will become effective by early 2017 upon completion of the formal rulemaking process. There will then be a two-year opt-in period when jurisdictions may shift from using LOS to VMT as a measure of transportation impact. Implementation of the guidelines will not be required statewide until 2019. Early adopters of SB 743 include the City of San Francisco, which was the first to include VMT-based goals in its General Plan in November of 2013. The City of Pasadena followed and incorporated VMT measures for their Transit Priority Areas in a General Plan update in December of 2014. Both San Francisco and Pasadena have TDM ordinances in place that provides guidance to developers with 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 174 Traffic - 2017 6 trip reduction strategies, while serving as an implementation tool for SB 743 VMT reduction goals. Pasadena and San Francisco feature menus of TDM strategies to guide developers in the creation of their own TDM plans. The City of Pasadena’s TDM ordinance includes a list of development types regulated by the ordinance and the City's Traffic Reduction Strategies Study provides traffic reduction strategy sheets that serve as guides for developers. San Francisco’s ordinance applies to all development projects in the City's Transit Priority Areas. The City provides a range of materials including TDM program standards, a fact sheet for each of the TDM strategies on the menu, and a TDM tool that helps developers calculate the points of their selected TDM strategies. Chula Vista has laid the ground work for a TDM ordinance and has developed a TDM matrix as a first step in developing tools for reducing VMT at the project level. The TDM matrix (in current or modified form) could serve as a “menu” to help developers with creating their own TDM plans for projects in order to reduce VMT. Additional work will need to be undertaken to provide the nexus between the strategies selected and the level of trip reduction achieved, but the matrix provides a baseline for these discussions that will ultimately inform development of the City’s TDM ordinance. 7. Please provide an update on public transportation projects and indicate how they are anticipated to affect threshold compliance. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project started construction in the fall 2016. It is anticipated that the completion of the project from the Millenia Development to the I-805 freeway, via East Palomar Street, will be completed by summer 2018. The project will provide mass transit from eastern Chula Vista to downtown San Diego via SR-94, I-805 & SR-125. The BRT will help alleviate congestion along the City's prime arterial roadways and the I-805 freeway. The San Diego Trolley crosses several City roadways along the I-5 corridor, E Street, H Street, J Street and Palomar Street. The City is working with SANDAG on grading separating E Street, F Street, H Street and Palomar Street. This project will help alleviate the congestion on these local streets and the freeway on and off ramps. It is expected that the Blue Line trolley will operate for longer periods in the day with a reduced headway of 7-1/2 minutes versus the typical 15-minute non-peak period headways. Thus, the increase in frequency of daily light rail crossings is expected to negatively impact the local streets level of service for a longer duration throughout the day. 8. Please provide current statistics on transit ridership in Chula Vista. Based on data from the American Public Transportation Association 2015 First Quarter Report, transit ridership within the City of Chula Vista has increased slightly (+3.12%) from the 2014 First Quarter Report. The 2014 First Quarter Report listed a total of 766,800 riders through March 2013. The 2015 First Quarter Report listed a total of 790,700 riders through March 2014. 9. Please provide any updates to the construction schedule, between now and 2021, for new roads and improvements funded by TDIF funds. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 175 Traffic - 2017 7  Hunte Parkway The proposed segment will be from Eastlake Parkway to SR125, but completion of this segment is dependent on adjacent development in Otay Ranch Village 9.  La Media Road The proposed segment will be from Santa Luna Street to Main Street and further to the south and east across SR-125. This segment will be built in several phases as development into Otay Ranch Village 8 West & Village 8 East occurs.  Magdalena Avenue The proposed segment will be from Main Street (Rock Mountain Road) to the intersection with La Media Road as La Media Road turns to the east then across SR-125 towards Otay Ranch Village 9 & Village 10 and continues easterly to the University and Innovation District.  Main Street extension The proposed segment will be from Heritage Road to SR125. This segment will be built in several phases as Otay Ranch development occurs in Village 3, Village 4, Village 8 West & Village 8 East. 10. When is Heritage Road expected to be completed? Heritage Road south of Olympic Parkway to Main Street is expected to open as an interim 2-lane facility by mid-2017. Olympic Parkway, west of Brandywine Avenue to the I-805, is seeing significant congestion. The opening of Heritage Road to the south combined with the I-805 Direct Access Ramp at East Palomar Street will help alleviate the congestion of Olympic Parkway near the freeway. 11. Please provide an update on the completion of the East Palomar Street direct access ramp. The East Palomar Street Bridge over I-805 was partially opened to traffic in September 2016. The opening of the Direct Access Ramp (DAR) to the I-805 freeway is expected to open by the end of year. 12. Please provide any monitoring data available for highly congested roadway segments, including Olympic Parkway between La Media Road and Heritage Road. (See attachment #3) 13. Please provide traffic data for the past three years on State Route 125. The Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT): Daily volumes of over 41,000 AWDT are almost double since SANDAG purchased the toll road on December 21, 2011. Calendar Year AWDT (Spring) Percent Change 2014 35,500 - 2015 37,500 5.33% 2016 41,600 9.85% 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 176 Traffic - 2017 8 Per SANDAG, for FY16 SR 125 Facility Operations were $0.9 million under projections due to lower than expected costs for irrigation, insurance, equipment, and professional services. Continued operations of the SR 125 Toll Road, where the number of trips was 6 percent higher than the forecast budget, and actual revenue exceeded forecast revenue by 3 percent. Other accomplishments include providing effective cost control to meet debt obligations, contributing funds to the reserve accounts to cover planned maintenance and tolling equipment upgrades, and implementing plans for a centralized tolling system. 14. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the city council. Otay Lakes Road, from Telegraph Canyon Road/La Media Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive was widened from 4-lanes to 6-lanes in 2014. The 2005 General Plan classifies this segment as a 4-lane Major north of East ‘H’ Street and a 6-lane Prime facility south of East ‘H’ Street. However, based on research in the FHWA Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), the Chula Vista Design Manual and Subdivision Manual, this entire segment should be reclassified as a 6-lane Major facility (HCM Class IV) for the following reasons:  A Prime roadway facility serves to distribute traffic to/from the freeway system.  A Major roadway serves primarily to distribute more localized trips than regional trips.  The number and type of driveways that are not traffic signal controlled per each block.  Monolithic sidewalks (up against the curb) instead of separated by a landscaped parkway.  Lower design speed (less than 40 MPH) and lower posted speed limit (40 MPH) than a 6- Lane Prime roadway (55 MPH design speed and 50 MPH posted speed limit).  The speed limit on Otay Lakes Road from Telegraph Canyon Road/La Media Road to Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive is 40 mph instead of 50 mph.  Landscape buffer areas shall be provided for 6-Lane Prime roadways. Six-Lane Prime Arterials  East H Street from I-805 to Otay Lakes Road.  Main Street from I-805 to Heritage Road  Olympic Parkway from I-805 to Hunte Parkway.  Otay Lakes Road from La Media Road to east of Hunte Parkway.  Proctor Valley Road from SR-125 to Hunte Parkway.  Telegraph Canyon Road from I-805 to Otay Lakes Road/La Media Road. Six-Lane Major Arterials  Palomar Street from Interstate-5 to just east of Broadway at Orange Avenue.  (Proposed) Otay Lakes Road from Canyon Drive/Ridgeback Road to La Media Road/Telegraph Canyon Road. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 177 Traffic - 2017 9 The General Plan should be amended or updated to reflect the updated classification of Otay Lakes Road from Canyon Drive/Ridgeback Road to La Media Road/Telegraph Canyon Road based on the Highway Capacity Manual standards and City of Chula Vista design criteria. In the 2016 GMOC, Otay Lakes Road maintained a LOS “C” or better when it was calculated as a 6-lane Major facility (HCM Class IV). PREPARED BY: Name: Frank Rivera Title: Principal Civil Engineer Date: November 2, 2016 Attachments: #1) Arterial Segment Summary – All Time Period #2) General Plan Circulation Map #3) Data Sets for Olympic Pkwy, Otay Lakes Rd & Palomar St J:\Engineer\GMOC\GMOC 2017\Chula Vista's 2017 GMOC Questionnaire - Traffic 110216.klvfxr.doc 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 178 RESOLUTION NO. MPA16-009 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’S 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 19.09 establishes threshold standards designed to assure that, as new development occurs, public facilities, infrastructure and services will exist, or concurrently be provided, to meet the demands generated by new development; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CVMC Section 19.09.030 (F)and CVMC Section 2.40.030, the City’s Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring threshold standards for eleven quality of life topics associated with the City’s Growth Management Program (Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Libraries, Parks and Recreation Areas, Sewer, Drainage, Traffic, Fiscal, Air Quality and Climate Protection, Schools and Water), and for submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the GMOC prepared and finalized its annual report on March 16, 2017 for Fiscal Year 2016 (from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016), which also identifies current issues in the second half of 2016 and early 2017, assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years,and sets forth recommendations and implementing actions to be considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public meeting with the City Council to consider the GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016, and to make recommendations to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept and forward the GMOC’s 2017Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016 and recommendations contained therein to the City Council for consideration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept the GMOC Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016. Presented by:Approved as to form by: _______________________________________________________________ Kelly Broughton, FSLA Glen R. Googins Director of Development Services City Attorney 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 179 Resolution No. MPA15____ PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 27th day of April, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________ Gabriel Guiterrez, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Patricia Laughlin Secretary to the Planning Commission 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 180 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 19.09 establishes threshold standards designed to assure that, as new development occurs, public facilities, infrastructure and services will exist, or concurrently be provided, to meet the demands generated by new development; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CVMC Section 19.09.030 (F) and CVMC Section 2.40.030, 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 (Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Libraries, Parks and Recreation Areas, Sewer, Drainage, Traffic, Fiscal, Air Quality and Climate Protection, Schools and Water), and for submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the GMOC prepared and finalized its annual report on March 16, 2017 for Fiscal Year 2016 (from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016), which also identifies current issues in the second half of 2016 and early 2017, assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years, and sets forth recommendations and implementing actions to be considered by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public meeting with the Planning Commission to consider the GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016; 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 hereby accepts the GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016. 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: 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 181 ________________________________________________________ Kelly Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins Director of Development Services City Attorney 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 182 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California this 27th day of April 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Donna Norris, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Donna Norris, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2017- was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 27th day of April, 2017. Executed this 27th day of April, 2017 _____________________________ Donna Norris, City Clerk 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 183 Exhibit A 1 2017 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Recommendations / Implementing Actions Summary GMOC Recommendations Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Libraries – 3.1.1 Libraries – 3.1.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize Libraries, right below public safety, and increase Libraries’ total operating budget, including materials and staffing, to meet the state average, based on the most recent data available. That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure commencement of construction of a 40,000 square-foot library by the end of Fiscal Year 2020. The City will continue to seek funding for library services and will consider such options during the regular budget development process. Any future library facilities would be best sited in the eastern portion of the City. We appreciate the GMOC’s continued support. Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department in implementing their 2014 Strategic Plan to develop a long-term comprehensive staffing plan that will accommodate growth in the City. The Police Department will continue to work with the City Manager to implement the 2014 Strategic Plan. Traffic – 3.3.1 Traffic – 3.3.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to support City engineers in their efforts to work with SANDAG on securing funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing. The City will continue its efforts with SANDAG to secure funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing. Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1 Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1 That City Council direct the City Manager and the Fire Department to focus on improving response times at stations 6, 7, and 8, and that fire trucks be equipped with moderately priced video capabilities to identify traffic patterns. The City’s Traffic Division in Public Works has access to data information related to traffic patterns and conditions. The Fire Department can inquire as to whether the compiled information can assist with optimizing Fire Department response routes throughout the City. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 184 Exhibit A 2 GMOC Recommendations Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that any future analytical software purchases made for the Fire Department be compatible and/or align with the City’s master plan to participate in the countywide Regional Communications System. The City is endeavoring to use Smart City technology and it is understood that future Fire Department analytical software acquisition must be compatible with citywide improvements that may assist in becoming a Smart City. The Fire Department will coordinate these efforts with the consultant hired to assist the City in its pursuit of becoming a Smart City. Parks and Recreation – 3.5.1 & 3.5.2 Parks and Recreation – 3.5.1 & 3.5.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure financing for new park acreage to keep up with the pace of development, and to implement sustainable funding sources for maintenance of the new parks. That City Council approve an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by fall 2017, and resolve any outstanding issues through future amendments to the document. The City will continue to collect appropriate impact fees to fund acquisition and development of park acreage for new development, and continue to develop maintenance funding opportunities. Staff will work to bring the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update to City Council for their consideration by fall of 2017. Air Quality and Climate Protection – 3.10.1 Air Quality and Climate Protection – 3.10.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that a department representative(s) presents a completed Air Quality and Climate Protection questionnaire to the GMOC for next year’s review. Staff from Development Services Department and the Office of Sustainability will make themselves available to address the questions that pertain to their departments. 2017-04-27 Agenda Packet Page 185