HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2018_04_26 WkshpApril 26, 2018City 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)
FISCAL YEAR 2017 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2017 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND
RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017
GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS
PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY
18-00901.18-0090
Development Services Department Department:
The Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)
of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Environmental Notice:
Planning Commission adopt resolution A and Council adopt resolution
B.
Staff Recommendation:
CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORTS
COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
to the Regular City Council Meeting on May 1, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
Page 2 City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 2
April 26, 2018City 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 4/19/2018
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 3
City of Chula Vista
Staff Report
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION’S (GMOC’s) FISCAL YEAR 2017 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING
ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2017 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS
PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Planning Commission adopt resolution A and 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 Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report covering
July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) 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
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 1 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 4
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
CEQA, prior to the commencement of any project.
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 changes to the City’s capital improvement program,
changes to the City organization and management, engagement in interagency 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 2017, the number of residential building permits issued in Chula Vista averaged
849 units per calendar year. This rate of growth is projected to continue or increase over the next five
years, according to Chula Vista’s 2017 Residential Growth Forecast (Attachment 3, Appendix A).
With growth comes the demand for additional services and facilities.
Fiscal Year 2017 Compliance with Growth Management Threshold Standards
The GMOC’s Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 covers July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. 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 2017 and early 2018 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 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 (Attachment 2)
provides additional background information and more detailed explanations of findings and
discussion/recommendations.
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 2 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 5
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
2. Summary of Findings
The following table summarizes the GMOC’s threshold compliance findings for Fiscal Year 2017 (July
1, 2016 - June 30, 2017) and looking forward at any potential areas for non-compliance between
2018 and 2022. Eight threshold topics were in compliance and three were not.
Facility & Service Topics CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED
THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE
Not In
Compliance
In CompliancePotential 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 - 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.
The Libraries threshold standard has not been met for the fourteenth consecutive year. The current
square footage is approximately 40,000 square feet (28 percent) less than the standard requires, and
materials and staffing budgets per capita are some of the lowest in the state.
The statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. is
$2.49 per person and Chula Vista’s baseline materials budget equals $0.21 per person. Median
state public library expenditure per capita (reporting period FY 15/16) was $32.25 compared to Chula
Vista’s expenditure of $13.23. This is 59 percent below the statewide average.
Staffing for Chula Vista’s libraries equals 0.15 full-time employees (FTE) per 1,000 residents, a perCity of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 3 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 6
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
Staffing for Chula Vista’s libraries equals 0.15 full-time employees (FTE) per 1,000 residents, a per
capita ratio that is at the bottom 6 percent of the statewide average of 0.46 FTE for public libraries.
Despite low staffing per capita, Chula Vista’s libraries continue to exceed the statewide average in
many workload indicators, such as population served, reference questions per hour, visits per open
hour, etc.
Revenue from Measure P is being used to address deferred maintenance at existing libraries.
However, current facilities will not be able to accommodate projected growth.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation 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.
Staff Response 1: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations and will continue to
work with Library staff to identify ways to better serve the community in innovative programming and
to identify funding to support materials and staffing.
Recommendation 2: 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 2023.
Staff Response 2: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation. The need remains
for a full-service branch on the east side of Chula Vista.
3.2 POLICE - Non-Compliant
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).
Priority 1
The Priority 1 threshold standard was not met for the sixth consecutive year. With an average
response time of 6 minutes 47 seconds, the threshold was missed by 47 seconds, and was 16
seconds longer than last year. At 72.2 percent, there was a 1.2 percent improvement in the
percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds from the previous year. However, the
threshold of 81 percent was not met.
Specific units are properly staffed; however, the actual unit-per-beat count is below the necessary
levels to meet the demands of the community. The Police Department emphasizes that any
population growth that is not supported by the correct level of sworn staff will negatively impact the
level of service a police force can offer.
Current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate forecasted growth in the next
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 4 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 7
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
Current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate forecasted growth in the next
12-18 months or 5 years.
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 2017 765 of 65,672 72.2%6:47
FY 2016a 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
FY 2002b 1,539 of 71,859 80.0%5:07
FY1992c --81.2%4:54
FY1990d --87.6%4:08
Notes: a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to current standard. b.
Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes, maximum
average of 7:30 (Reso. No. 2002-159) c. Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5
minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes (Ord. No. 1991-2448). The
1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum average of
4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation 1: That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize the City’s annual
budget so that staffing levels per capita will be consistent with the state’s median staffing levels per
capita.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department
by providing it with the proper tools, technology and resources to aid in the process of recruiting new
police officers.
Staff Response 1 and 2: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations and
continues to work with the Police Department to identify funding to hire at the necessary staffing
levels and provide equipment consistent with the Public Safety Report presented to City Council
during the current Fiscal Year.
Priority 2
The Priority 2 threshold standard was not met for the twentieth consecutive year. With an average
response time of 13 minutes, 53 seconds, the 12-minute threshold standard was missed, and was 3
seconds longer than last year.
As discussed above regarding Priority 1, current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to
accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or 5 years. Therefore, the GMOC has the
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 5 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 8
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or 5 years. Therefore, the GMOC has the
same recommendations for Priority 2 as for Priority 1.
Priority 2 - Urgent Calls for Service
Fiscal Year Call Volume Average Response Time (Minutes)
12 Minutes)
FY 2017 19,309 of 65,672 13:53
FY 2016a 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
FY 2002b 22,199 of 71,859 10:04
FY1992c --6:30
FY1990d --6:15
Notes:a.Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to
current standard.b.Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of
5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7:30 (Reso. No.
2002-159)c.Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5
minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes
(Ord. No. 1991-2448).d.The 1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard:
Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2:
62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation:Same as for Priority 1, above.
3.3 TRAFFIC - Non-Compliant
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.
Traffic Level of Service (LOS) during Fiscal Year 2017 was compliant for all urban streets and for all
arterial segments, with one exception: Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway,
in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The same situation occurred in Fiscal Year 2016.
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
Palomar Street (Between Industrial Blvd. & Broadway)EB WB D(5 hours)D(5 hours) E(1
hour)City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 6 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 9
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
Palomar Street (Between Industrial Blvd. & Broadway)EB WB D(5 hours)D(5 hours) E(1
hour)
The primary cause of this trend is the rail crossing at Palomar Street, which interrupts traffic flow
when trolleys pass. Separating the tracks from the road crossing would allow road traffic to be
unaffected by passing trains (increasing service frequency on blue line, making it worse). SANDAG’s
top priority is improving rail crossings where grade separations are needed in the County.
City staff anticipates completing the grade separation environmental document by the end of 2018
and is seeking approval by February 2019. Thereafter, staff will request that the SANDAG Board of
Directors recommend approval for design or design/build funding for the project beginning in Fiscal
Year 2020. To continue moving forward with the grade separation, the GMOC is repeating the
recommendation made in last year’s GMOC Annual Report.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation: 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.
Staff Response: The City Manager concurs with the recommendation.
Threshold Standards Compliant in FY 2017 but Non-Compliant in FY 2016
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).
For the first time in five years, Fire and EMS complied with the growth management threshold
standard of responding to calls within 7 minutes, 80 percent of the time. They responded within 7
minutes, 80.6 percent of the time.
The percentage of all Fire Department calls responded to increased 4.5 percent from last year.
Emergency medical response calls accounted for 68.4 percent, fire calls accounted for 2.1 percent,
and all other calls accounted for 29.6 percent. Examples of “all other calls” include: child lock-in/out;
hazardous situation; animal issues; electrical wires down; lift assist; medical evaluation with no
transport; and welfare check.
Even with increased call volume, response times improved City wide, and the Fire Department
credits equipment replacement, changes to dispatch, and monthly Battalion reports for helping this
occur. However, improving response times in eastern Chula Vista will always be more challenging
than in western Chula Vista due to the layout of streets, fire station locations, facility designs and
traffic in the east.
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 7 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 10
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
FIRE and EMS Response Times
Fiscal
Year
All 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
2017 13,665 80.6 5:50 4:07 0:53 0:50
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
Although response times have improved in eastern Chula Vista, current facilities, equipment and staff
will not be able to accommodate projected growth by December 2018 or June 2022, according to the
Fire Department. To improve outcomes, such as EMS critical task completion and attacking a fire
upon the arrival of the first engine on scene, the Fire Department requested additional staff. Their
first 4.0 unit was approved for Engine 51 last July. It is anticipated that the 4.0 staffing will result in
improved reliability and availability of the engine.
The Fire Department’s first responder units are planning to defer Level 3 calls for service to American
Medical Response (AMR) for transport. Level 3 calls for service are considered urgent for both first
responders and transport units. Out of the approximately 1,800 Level 3 calls for service analyzed by
the Fire Department, less than 0.12 percent involved patients suffering from acute conditions.
Therefore, for nearly all Level 3 calls for service calls, response by AMR for transport is appropriate.
By eliminating first responder units from Level 3 calls for service, it is anticipated that
availability/reliability of Fire Department first responder units will improve.
Chula Vista’s Public Safety Committee recommended this change so that fire personnel would be
freed up to respond to calls that require their specialized resources. Despite this, the GMOC has
some concerns regarding Level 3 calls not being addressed by first responder units, and
recommends that this change continue to be analyzed and should be tried as a pilot program.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation:That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Fire Department in
monitoring the proposed pilot program, whereby the Fire Department will no longer respond to Level
3 calls. The program should include goals for AMR and statistics to analyze and evaluate response
time improvements that may result from this change.
Staff Response: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation. If the Fire Department
moves forward with the pilot program, they will implement the recommended action to include a
response time goal for the transport provider. The new response to level 3 calls would include a
transport unit dispatched as non-emergency (no lights/siren), with a response time criterion of less
than 15 minutes equal to or greater than 90 percent measured and reported on a monthly basis.
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 8 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 11
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
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.
The threshold standard was not met in last year’s report, with only 2.83 acres per 1,000 residents in
Chula Vista. It was forecasted to be nearly compliant by 2021 with 2.99 acres per 1,000 residents.
However, after a thorough review of the existing park inventory in Chula Vista, done in conjunction
with the comprehensive update of the City Wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP), it was
determined that there are currently 3.99 park acres per 1,000 residents in eastern Chula Vista,
exceeding the threshold standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The City forecasts it will have 3.92
acres per 1,000 residents by 2018 and 3.94 acres per 1,000 residents by 2022 in eastern Chula
Vista.
Several categories of parkland not previously included were added to the inventory, including
acreages of extra credit allocated to parks with additional amenities, acres within HOA maintained
public parks that were given park credit at the time of construction, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf
Course, City open spaces that function as parks, and special purpose parks.
Montecito Park in Otay Ranch Village 2 should be open to the public in April 2018, and a new park at
D Street and Woodlawn could potentially be open to the public by fall 2019.
Revenue from Measure P will help fund deferred maintenance projects in various parks, while
Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) have been set up to partially or wholly fund maintenance in
newer parks.
Other Threshold Standards Compliant in FY 2017
The other threshold standards found to be compliant were for Air Quality and Climate Protection,
Drainage, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, and Water.
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
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
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 9 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 12
File#:18-0090, Item#: 1.
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 - Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary
2 - Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo
3 - Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Staff Contact: Kimberly Vander Bie - Associate Planner
City of Chula Vista Printed on 4/19/2018Page 10 of 10
powered by Legistar™2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 13
Attachment 1
1
Fiscal Year 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
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.
2. 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 2023.
1. The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations
and will continue to work with Library staff to identify ways to
better serve the community in innovative programming and to
identify funding to support materials and staffing.
2. The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation.
The need remains for a full-service branch on the east side of
Chula Vista.
Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2
1. That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize the
City’s annual budget so that staffing levels per capita will be
consistent with the state’s median staffing levels per capita.
2. That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the
Police Department by providing it with the proper tools,
technology and resources to aid in the process of recruiting
new police officers.
The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations and
continues to work with the Police Department to identify funding to
hire at the necessary staffing levels and provide equipment consistent
with the Public Safety Report presented to City Council during the
current Fiscal Year.
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 Manager concurs with the recommendation.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 14
Attachment 1
2
GMOC Recommendations
Staff Responses and Proposed
Implementing Actions
Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1 Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to support the Fire
Department in monitoring the proposed pilot program,
whereby the Fire Department will no longer respond to Level 3
calls. The program should include goals for AMR and statistics
to analyze and evaluate response time improvements that may
result from this change.
The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation. If the Fire
Department moves forward with the pilot program, they will
implement the recommended action to include a response time goal for
the transport provider. The new response to level 3 calls would include
a transport unit dispatched as non-emergency (no lights/siren), with a
response time criterion of less than 15 minutes equal to or greater than
90 percent measured and reported on a monthly basis.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 15
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT for Fiscal Year 2017
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017
April 26, 2018
Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. MPA17-0007) and
City Council (Resolution No. MPA ___) on April 26, 2018
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 16
GMOC Members
Armida Torres, Chair (Business)
Duaine Hooker, Vice Chair (Education)
Javier Rosales (Northeast)
Max Zaker (Planning Commission Representative)
Michael Lengyel (Development)
Raymundo Alatorre (Northwest)
Gloria Juarez (Southwest)
Rodney Caudillo (Southeast)
Andrew Strong (Environmental)
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
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 17
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 1 April 26, 2018
GMOC Chair Cover Memo
DATE: April 26, 2018
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 - 2018 GMOC Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its Fiscal Year 2017 annual
report for your consideration and action. In reviewing information for this year’s report, it was discovered that
threshold standards for eight of the eleven quality of life topics were compliant and three were non-compliant.
Those found to be compliant were Air Quality and Climate Protection, Drainage, Fire, Fiscal, Parks and
Recreation, Schools, Sewer, and Water. Those found to be non-compliant were Libraries, Police Priority 1 and
2, and Traffic. While the details of each are outlined in the attached report, the GMOC would like to highlight a
few items of special interest.
Libraries – For the fourteenth consecutive year, Libraries was non-compliant. The deficit in library space is
expected to continue for several more years until the large library is built in Millenia. While the Rancho Del
Rey Library continues to be the first priority on the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees list of future
public facilities, it has been, and will continue to be, pushed down the list due to the need for additional fire
stations.
The GMOC is also concerned about inadequate budgeting for library materials. Chula Vista’s expenditure for
library materials (per capita) is 59% below the statewide average, and Chula Vista citizens deserve better,
specifically children who rely on the library for books, research materials, and educational programs. We
commend the library for applying for and receiving grants that enable the development of outstanding
programs, such as REAL card, One Mile, Innovation Station Project, and many others.
Police – The Priority 2 threshold standard was non-compliant for the 20th year in a row. This is the fourth year
of non-compliance for Priority 1. There was incremental improvement in Priority 1 response times; however,
Priority 2 response times were worse than last year. Police reported they have the equipment necessary to
deliver services, but adequate staffing continues to be an issue.
The Police Department is in the process of recruiting new officers; however, the City’s existing budget limits
the number of new recruits. Therefore, we urge City Council to identify fiscal resources to add sworn officers
to the budget. This may mean re-prioritizing the budget if next June’s proposed ballot measure does not get
approved by the citizens. Chula Vista remains second to the lowest in sworn officer per capita in San Diego
County and, once again, the citizens of this city deserve better. It is time to make public safety a priority
within the City of Chula Vista.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 18
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 2 April 26, 2018
Traffic – Eastbound and westbound Palomar Street, between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway, was found to
be non-compliant, once again. The rail crossing at Palomar Street causes traffic to accumulate and has been a
concern for some time. This rail crossing has been identified by SANDAG as the County’s eminent rail crossing
in need of repair. City engineers continue to work with SANDAG on plans to grade-separate the rail crossing
from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, which should significantly improve the level of service.
Schools – Although the threshold for Schools was compliant, there is cause for concern about the physical
condition of aging schools, mostly located in western Chula Vista. The Sweetwater School District shared that
their budget of $11.2 million/year was significantly below the $36 million/year needed to conduct routine
maintenance and repair. The GMOC believes students should attend schools in properly maintained buildings,
regardless of whether they live on the west or east side of the City. As the City continues to grow, both on the
west and east side, schools must be equipped and properly maintained to accommodate the incoming student
population.
GMOC Commissioner Michael Lengyel serves on the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC) and has
been keeping the GMOC apprised of projects scheduled for repair. Last January, the GMOC, along with some
members of the COC, went on its annual tour of new and proposed development throughout the City, and we
were pleased to witness some of the Measure P infrastructure projects that have been completed thus far.
Many thanks to City staff from various departments who took time on that Saturday morning to join us for this
important tour. The information provided assists the GMOC in connecting the challenges for City departments
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.
.
.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 19
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 3 April 26, 2018
City of Chula Vista
GMOC 2018 Annual Report
For Fiscal Year 2017
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 2018 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 …………………………………………………………………………. 10-12
3.2.1 Threshold Compliance 10-11
3.2.2 Threshold Compliance 11-12
3.3 Traffic …………………………………………………………………………. 12-13
3.3.1 Threshold Compliance 12-13
3.4 Fire and Emergency Medical Services…………………………………… 13-15
3.4.1 Threshold Compliance 13-14
3.4.2 Elimination of Level 3 Calls for Service 14-15
3.5 Parks and Recreation……………………………………………………….. 15-16
3.5.1 Threshold Compliance 15-16
3.6 Fiscal …………………………………………………………………………. 17
3.6.1 Threshold Compliance 17
3.7 Drainage ……………………………………………………………………….. 17
3.7.1 Threshold Compliance 17
3.8 Schools………….……………………………………………………………… 18-19
3.8.1 Threshold Compliance 18-19
3.9 Sewer……………………………………………………………………………. 20
3.9.1 Threshold Compliance 20
3.10 Air Quality and Climate Protection…………………….…………………... 20-21
3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 20-21
3.11 Water ……………………………………………………………………….…. 22
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance 21-22
4.0 APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………. 22
4.1 Appendix A – Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B – Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 20
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 4 April 26, 2018
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, along with a goal(s), objective(s), and implementation measure(s) for each
topic, are memorialized in the City’s “Growth Management” ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code), which was updated and approved by City Council in 2015 after a multi-year
effort to review the Growth Management Program from “top-to-bottom.” The process involved
members of the Growth Management Oversight Commission, City staff, City Council, and various
community stakeholders.
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 the City Council in 1987,
and its purpose is to provide an independent, annual review for compliance with the threshold
standards. The 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
Duaine Hooker, Vice Chair Education
Raymundo Alatorre Northwest
Javier Rosales Northeast
Gloria Juarez Southwest
Rodney Caudillo Southeast
Michael Lengyel Development
Andrew Strong Environmental
Max Zaker Planning Commission
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 21
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 5 April 26, 2018
The GMOC’s review of the eleven 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 FY 2017 Annual Report focuses on Fiscal Year 2017
(July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017);
2. The second half of 2017 and beginning of 2018 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 2018 through December 2022 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 considers 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 Review Process for Fiscal Year 2017
The GMOC held nine regular meetings and one city-wide development tour between September 2017
and April 2018, all of which were open to the public. At the first regular meeting, Assistant City
Manager Maria Kachadoorian provided status updates on “Staff Responses and Proposed
Implementation Measures” that addressed issues and recommendations brought forth in the GMOC’s
2017 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 26, 2018.
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 25, 2017. 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.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 22
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 6 April 26, 2018
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 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 2017 through December 2022 indicated an additional 8,300 residential
units that could potentially be permitted for construction in the City over the next five years, (7,397
units in the east and 903 units in the west). This equates to an annual average of 1,438 housing units,
with 1,287 units in the east and 151 units in the west.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 23
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 7 April 26, 2018
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
The following table is a summary of the GMOC’s conclusions regarding threshold standards for the Fiscal Year
2017 review cycle. Eight thresholds were met, three were not met.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 THRESHOLD STANDARD REVIEW SUMMARY
Review Period 7/1/16 Through 6/30/17
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
5. Parks and
Recreation
X
6. Fiscal X
7. Drainage X
8. Schools X
9. Sewer X
10. Air Quality and
Climate Protection X
11. Water X
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 24
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 8 April 26, 2018
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.
Table 2. ADEQUACY OF LIBRARIES BASED ON THE THRESHOLD STANDARD
Population
Total Gross Square
Footage of Library
Facilities
Gross Square Feet of Library
Facilities Per 1000 Residents
(Threshold = 500 GSF/1000)
5-Year Projection (2022) 290,144 134,412 (a)/129,000 (b) 463 (a)/ 445 (b)
FY 2017 271,323 97, 412 359
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
FY 1990 135,163 57,329 425
Notes:
*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
Baseline per threshold standard adopted by Resolution No. 1987-13346. Threshold standard has not been amended.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 25
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 9 April 26, 2018
Discussion: For the fourteenth consecutive year, the City’s library facilities did not comply with the
threshold standard to provide 500 gross square feet (GSF) of library space per 1,000
residents. City library facilities total 97,412 GSF, which is about 28 percent below the
threshold standard.
The City’s library materials also did not comply with the threshold standard to provide
adequately equipped library facilities. The statewide average annual materials
expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. is $2.49 per person and Chula
Vista’s baseline materials budget equals $0.21 per person. Median state public library
expenditure per capita (reporting period FY 15/16) was $32.25 compared to Chula Vista’s
expenditure of $13.23. This is 59 percent below the statewide average.
Library staffing for Chula Vista’s libraries did not comply with the threshold standard to
provide adequately staffed library facilities. At 0.15 full time employees (FTE) per 1,000
residents, Chula Vista Library’s FTE ratio per capita is at the bottom 6 percent of libraries
statewide, relative to a statewide average of 0.46 FTE for public libraries. Despite low
staffing per capita, Chula Vista Library continues to exceed the statewide average in many
workload indicators, such as population served, reference questions per hour, and visits
per open hour.
Current facilities will not be able to accommodate projected growth under the threshold
standard, and the lease for the Otay Ranch Branch and the Hub is set to expire April 2020.
A new, full-service library in the Millenia development is anticipated to be under
construction within the next five years, which could reduce the current square footage
deficit.
Revenue from Measure P is being used to renovate existing libraries, where there has
been deferred maintenance.
The library applies for and has successfully received grants that benefit the community,
which has enabled the development of programs such as: the Innovation Station’s Full
STEAM ahead; a project with KPBS and the New Americans Museum, which uses virtual
reality headsets to record stories about the home towns of migrants; REAL Cards for
kindergarteners and first graders, allowing them to take home two books with no fines or
fees; using MacGyver grant funding to maximize learning spaces in the library; and Career
Online High School.
The GMOC is recommending the same two recommendations as last year, with a slight
modification to the second one. Instead of ensuring construction of a new library by 2020
(last year’s recommendation), the GMOC is extending the date to 2023, based on City
staff’s report indicating that a new library is anticipated in Millenia within the next five
years.
Recommendation 1: That the 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.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to ensure construction of a 40,000
square-foot library by the end of Fiscal Year 2023.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 26
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 10 April 26, 2018
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 parame dics/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.”
3.2.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: The threshold standard was not met.
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 2017 765 of 65,672 72.2% 6:47
FY 2016a 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
FY 2002b 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07
FY1992c -- 81.2% 4:54
FY1990d -- 87.6% 4:08
Notes:
a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to current standard.
b. Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7:30
(Reso. No. 2002-159)
c. Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7
minutes (Ord. No. 1991-2448).
The 1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62%
within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 27
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 11 April 26, 2018
Discussion: The Priority 1 threshold standard was not met for the sixth consecutive year. With an
average response time of 6 minutes 47 seconds, the threshold was missed by 47 seconds,
and was 16 seconds longer than last year. At 72.2 percent, there was a 1.2 percent
improvement in the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds.
However, the threshold of 81 percent was not met.
The Police Department has implemented PremierOne to help route calls for service more
efficiently. The system went live summer 2017 and continues to be reviewed and adjusted.
Specific units are properly staffed; however, the actual unit-per-beat count is below the
necessary levels to meet the demands of the community. The Police Department
emphasizes that any population growth that is not supported by the correct level of sworn
staff will negatively impact the level of service a police force can offer.
Current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate forecasted growth
in the next 12-18 months or 5 years.
Recommendation 1: That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize the City’s annual budget so
that staffing levels per capita will be consistent with the state’s median staffing levels per
capita.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department by
providing it with the proper tools, technology and resources to aid in the process of
recruiting new police officers.
3.2.2. Threshold Compliance
Issue: The threshold standard was not met.
Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service
Fiscal Year
Call Volume
Average Response Time (Minutes)
(Threshold = 12 Minutes)
FY 2017 19,309 of 65,672 13:53
FY 2016a 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
FY 2002b 22,199 of 71,859 10:04
FY1992c -- 6:30
FY1990d -- 6:15
Notes:
a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to current standard.
b. Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes, maximum average of
7:30 (Reso. No. 2002-159)
c. Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum
average of 7 minutes (Ord. No. 1991-2448).
d. The 1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes;
Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 28
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 12 April 26, 2018
Discussion: The Priority 2 threshold standard was not met for the twentieth consecutive year. With an
average response time of 13 minutes 53 seconds, the 12-minute threshold standard was
missed, and was 3 seconds longer than last year.
As discussed above regarding Priority 1, current facilities, equipment and staff will not be
able to accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or 5 years. Therefore,
the GMOC has the same recommendations for Priority 2 as for Priority 1.
Recommendation 1: That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize the City’s annual budget
designated for public safety to be consistent with the budgets designated for public safety
in other jurisdictions.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department by
providing it with the proper tools, technology and resources to aid in the process of
recruiting new police officers.
3.3 TRAFFIC – NON-COMPLIANT
Threshold Standards:
1. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Non-Urban Streets: Those Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP)
roadway segments classified as other than Urban Streets in the “Land Use and Transportation
Element” of the City’s General Plan shall maintain LOS “C” or better as measured by observed
average travel speed on those segments; except, that during peak hours, LOS “D” can occur for
no more than two hours of the day.
2. Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS): Those TMP roadway segments 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 SEGMENTS
Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
Palomar Street
(Between Industrial Blvd. & Broadway)
EB
WB
D(5)
D(5) E(1)
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 29
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 13 April 26, 2018
Discussion: Traffic Level of Service (LOS) during Fiscal Year 2017 was compliant for all urban streets
and for all arterial segments, with one exception: Palomar Street between Industrial
Boulevard and Broadway, in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The same
situation occurred in Fiscal Year 2016.
The primary cause of this consistent trend is the rail crossing at Palomar Street that
interrupts traffic flow when trolleys pass. Improving this crossing is SANDAG’s top priority
for rail crossings where grade separations are needed. Separating the tracks from the road
crossing would allow road traffic to be unaffected by passing trains.
City staff is finishing up the environmental document and coordinating with SANDAG on
securing funds for designing and constructing the grade separation. Staff is also designing
a traffic signal improvement and a bike lane Capital Improvement Project for this segment.
To continue moving forward with the grade separation, the GMOC is repeating the
recommendation made in last year’s GMOC Annual Report.
Recommendation: 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.
3.4 FIRE and EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) –
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
Issue: The threshold standard was met.
FIRE and EMS Response Times
Fiscal Year
All 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
2017 13,665 80.6 5:50 4:07 0:53 0:50
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
Discussion: For the first time in five years, Fire and EMS complied with the growth management
threshold standard of responding to calls within 7 minutes 80 percent of the time. They
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 30
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 14 April 26, 2018
responded within 7 minutes 80.6 percent of the time. The Fire Department did not comply
with the National Fire Protection Association 1710 threshold standards.
Even with increased call volume, response times improved City wide, and the Fire
Department credits equipment replacement, changes to dispatch, and monthly Battalion
reports for helping this occur. Improving response times in eastern Chula Vista will always
be more challenging there than in western Chula Vista, however, due to the layout of
streets, fire station locations, facility designs and traffic in the east.
Fire stations in western Chula Vista exceeded the threshold standard by 7.6 percent,
central fire stations came in at 0.1 percent below, and eastern fire stations (numbers 3, 4,
6, 7 and 8) came in at 19.6 percent below the threshold standard.
FIRE and EMS Response Times in FY 2017 - By Fire Station
Fire Station #
And Location
All Calls
For Service
% of All Calls
Responded to
Within 7 Minutes
(Threshold = 80%)
Average
Travel Time
For All Calls
Average
Dispatch
Time
Average
Turn-out
Time
Average
Response
Time
1 -447 F St. 4202 89.2 0:03:25 0:00:53 0:00:44 0:05:02
2 -80 East J. St 952 80.7 0:04:18 0:00:42 0:00:52 0:05:52
3 -1410 Brandywine 858 77.9 0:04:33 0:00:51 0:00:43 0:06:07
4 -850 Paseo Ranchero 812 75.3 0:04:22 0:00:53 0:00:53 0:06:07
5 -391 Oxford 3273 85.5 0:04:01 0:01:04 0:00:49 0:05:55
6 -605 Mt. Miguel 585 71.5 0:04:36 0:00:50 0:01:00 0:06:26
7 -1640 Santa Venetia 1060 54.8 0:05:15 0:00:51 0:01:02 0:07:07
8 -1180 Woods Dr. 767 59.6 0:05:16 0:00:42 0:01:01 0:07:00
9 -266 E. Oneida 1156 84.0 0:04:12 0:00:46 0:00:49 0:05:46
Although response times have improved in eastern Chula Vista, current facilities,
equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate projected growth by December
2018 or June 2022, according to the Fire Department. To improve outcomes, such as EMS
critical task completion and attacking a fire upon the arrival of the first engine on scene,
the Fire Department requested additional staff, and their first 4.0 unit was approved for
Engine 51 last July, resulting in improved reliability and availability of the engine.
3.4.2 Elimination of Level 3 Calls for Service
Issue: The Fire Department’s first responder units will be deferring Level 3 calls to American
Medical Response (AMR).
Discussion: Internal Fire Department analysis shows that eliminating first responder units from Level 3
calls for service—which are considered urgent for both first responders and transport
units--will improve unit availability/reliability. Out of the approximately 1,800 Level 3 calls
for service in the analysis period, less than .12 percent involved patients suffering from
acute conditions. Therefore, first responders will no longer respond to Level 3 calls; such
calls will be handled by a transport (AMR) only response.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 31
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 15 April 26, 2018
Chula Vista’s Public Safety Committee recommended this change so that fire personnel
would be freed up to respond to calls that require their specialized resources. Despite
this, the GMOC has some concerns about Level 3 calls not being addressed by first
responder units, and believes that this change should be tried as a pilot program.
The percentage of all Fire Department calls responded to increased 4.5 percent from last
year. Emergency medical response calls accounted for 68.4 percent, fire calls accounted
for 2.1 percent, and all other calls accounted for 29.6%. Examples of “all other calls”
include: child lock-in/out; hazardous situation; animal issues; electrical wires down; lift
assist; medical evaluation with no transport; and welfare check.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Fire Department in monitoring
the proposed pilot program, whereby the Fire Department will no longer respond to Level
3 calls. The program should include goals for AMR and statistics to analyze and evaluate
response time improvements that may result from this change.
3.5 PARKS AND RECREATION – 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: None.
Discussion: On June 30, 2017 the City had 3.99 park acres per 1,000 residents in eastern Chula Vista,
exceeding the threshold standard requiring 3 acres per 1,000. The City forecasts it will
have 3.92 acres per 1,000 by 2018 and 3.94 acres per 1,000 by 2022 in eastern Chula Vista.
Last year’s GMOC Annual Report indicated that the threshold standard was not met, with
only 2.83 acres per 1,000 residents, and it was forecasted to be nearly compliant by 2021
with 2.99 acres per 1,000 residents. The significant increase of acreage since last year was
based upon the way that the park acreage was calculated, not the addition of new parks.
In conjunction with the comprehensive update of the City Wide Parks and Recreation
Master Plan (PRMP), which is set to go to City Council this spring, City staff completed a
thorough review of the existing park inventory for the city of Chula Vista. Several
categories of parkland not previously included were added to the inventory, including
acreages of extra credit allocated to parks with additional amenities, acres within HOA
parks allocated park credit at the time of construction, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf
Course, and City open spaces that function as parks and special purpose parks. The
resulting acreage is larger than previous year’s totals and translates to a higher acreage of
parkland per 1,000 residents. This new total will be used, henceforth, as the baseline,
superseding the 1989 baseline.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 32
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 16 April 26, 2018
The PRMP demonstrates that, with the inclusion of undeveloped City-owned parks and
parkland offered for dedication to the City, it is possible to accommodate City wide growth
forecasted for the next 5 years. The table below, from the GMOC questionnaire, does not
include those acreages (138 total) and, therefore, indicates that the City wide figures do
not achieve a ratio of 3 acres of parkland per thousand population.
Montecito Park in Otay Ranch Village 2 should be open to the public in April 2018, and a
new park at D Street and Woodlawn could potentially be open to the public by fall 2019.
Revenue from Measure P will help fund deferred maintenance projects in various parks,
while Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) have been set up to partially or wholly fund
maintenance in newer parks.
PARK ACREAGE
Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons
Baseline 1989a – Population: 131,603 Parkland Acreage: 299.15 Parkland/1000 Residents: 2.27
Threshold Standard
Area of City
Current -
Available Park
Acresb
6/30/17
Forecastsc
Prior Year Comparisonsd
18-Month
(12/31/18)
5-Year
(2022)
June
2014
June
2015
June
2016
3 acres per 1,000
population East
of I-805
East I-805 3.99 3.92 3.94 2.96 2.94 2.83
West I-805 1.19 1.16 1.15 1.2 1.20 1.21
Citywide 2.77 2.72 2.78 2.17 2.16 2.11
Acres of parkland
East I-805 604.25b 608.15 665.71 418.44 418.44 421.00
West I-805 138.95b 138.95 139.65 138.76 138.76 142.66*
Citywide 743.30b 747.1 805.36 557.20 557.20 563.07
Population East I-805 151,266 155,328 168,808 141,436 142,547 148,714
West I-805 116,651 119,695 121,336 115,788 115,801 118,275
Citywide 267,917 275,023 290,144 257,224 258,348 266,969
Acreage shortfall or
(excess)
East I-805 (150.45) (142.17) (159.29) (5.87) 9.20 25.67
West I-805 211.00 220.14 224.36 (208.61) 208.64 212.17
Citywide 60.55 77.97 65.07 (214.46) 217.84 237.84
Notes:
a. Baseline per threshold standard adopted by Resolution No. 1987-13346. Threshold standard has not been amended.
b. Available park acreage includes publicly owned and maintained parks and recreation facilities, acreages of extra credit allocated to parks with
additional amenities, Bayfront parks in west Chula Vista only, acres within HOA parks allocated park credit, Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course, City open
spaces that function as parks and special purpose parks. (Park acreage does not include undeveloped park areas either owned or offered to the City for
dedication. See additional information below.) This is now the figure used to calculate the acres of developed parkland available per 1,000 residents.
c. Forecast data identified includes addition of parkland anticipated to be opened within the identified time horizon.
d. Previous year’s acreage figures were based on availability of City parks only, as calculated in previous years. There are differences between the
comprehensive analysis figures included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) draft dated 12/17 and previous figures.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 33
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 17 April 26, 2018
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 f unding programs or
mechanisms.
3.6.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
Discussion: To ensure that the City’s revenues generated from major development projects will meet or
exceed anticipated expenditures, Fiscal Impact Analyses (FIAs) are required from developers
for their projects. FIAs prepared for projects before the recession and before Chula Vista
property value reductions occurred did not anticipate these events. Therefore, revenue
deficiencies have resulted. City staff is working with a consultant to update a FIA model that
will become the new standard model going forward for development projects. The model,
which includes all key components to analyze from a surplus/deficit standpoint, indicates
that non-residential uses generate greater fiscal benefits than a prototypical residential
project.
Available Development Impact Fee (DIF) funds are adequate to complete projects needed in
the next 12-18 months, including the Millenia Fire Station, which is expected to be
constructed by the developer for credits against their Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee (PFDIF) obligation. The adequacy of DIF funds to complete projects necessary 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 (which may fall below the rate of
development projected in the City’s Residential Growth Forecast) and other fund obligations.
These other obligations include debt service, capital acquisitions, and program
administration costs. Chula Vista has created a debt service reserve in the PFDIF fund, which
has a significant future debt service obligation. The continued reserve of these funds
reduces the funds available for project expenditures, such as City libraries and recreation
centers.
The City’s Master Fee Schedule was updated and adopted by Council in 2017, and the fee
changes increased the cost recovery rate of Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire. In
most cases, the range of cost recovery increased from 30%-70% to 70%-100%.
Property tax revenue is the City’s most stable revenue source and a housing recession is not
predicted during the forecast period.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 34
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 18 April 26, 2018
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 Fiscal Year 2017. Additionally, no new facilities will be
needed to accommodate projected growth in the next 12-18 months or the next five
years.
The City continues to implement storm water quality management efforts and routinely
monitors storm water quality per the requirements of the Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System permit.
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;
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).
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 35
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 19 April 26, 2018
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 they will not be able to accommodate projected
growth unless new facilities are constructed within the next five years.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
In the absence of State funding to supplement Community Facilities District (CFD) tax
revenue, the CVESD is struggling to keep up with growth. They are completing their due
diligence for the new school site in Otay Ranch Village 3, which will be needed by 2021.
The CVESD updated their facilities master plan in 2012 in association with Proposition
Bond Measure E, and they are in the process of conducting a facilities needs analysis in
association with a proposed bond measure.
The school district is also in the process of revising its Emergency Operation Plan (EOP). It
contains planning for such circumstances as Pandemic Influenza, Campus Closure, and
Food Defense. Each of the district’s 46 school sites are required to complete a
Comprehensive School Safety Plan (CSSP), attend training and participate in mandatory
drills and exercises (both at the school and district-wide level). The District engages in on-
going training and completes exercises that test the capabilities and resources to maintain
operations. The EOP and CSSP, training and exercises all address the ability to maintain
operations and education.
Sweetwater Union High School District
Portable units continue to be put on the sites of existing schools to accommodate
students.
Middle school #12 will be needed by July 2022 at the site secured on Hunte Parkway and
Eastlake Parkway; a site for high school #14 has not yet been identified, but the school
district is working with the City and developers to secure a location. After-school
programs and adult education continue to be viable programs.
The SUHSD’s master plan is being updated and should be completed next year.
Each school has procedures for handling everything from natural disasters to active
shooters.
Open enrollment projection methodology is undergoing review; therefore, the 18-month
and five-year enrollment projections are draft and subject to change.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 36
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 20 April 26, 2018
3.9 SEWER - COMPLIANT
Threshold Standards:
1. Existing and projected facility sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City engineering
standards for the current system and for budgeted improvements, as set forth in the Subdivision
Manual.
2. The City shall annually ensure adequate contracted capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan
Sewer Authority or other means sufficient to meet the projected needs of development.
3.9.1 Threshold Compliance
SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity
Million Gallons
per Day (MGD)
Fiscal Year
2015
Fiscal Year
2016
Fiscal Year
2017
18-month
Projection
5-year
Projection
"Buildout"
Projection
Average Flow 15.499 15.385 15.426 15.986 17.235 20.760*
Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864
Issue: None.
Discussion: The City continues to have sufficient sewage treatment capacity. Since 2014, sewage
flows have dropped significantly, due to water conservation efforts.
The City’s Wastewater Engineering section is continuing to monitor trends and update
projections for the City’s ultimate needed treatment capacity at build-out.
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.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 37
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 21 April 26, 2018
3.10.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
Discussion: The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) reported, during Fiscal Year 2017, Chula Vista did
not exceed the 1997 State or Federal smog standards, and it met the ozone and air quality
standards. The APCD also noted that the 1997 smog trends standard (0.08 part per
million) should be updated. However, the EPA has not designated San Diego Air Basin for
the 2015 standard (0.070 parts per million).
Chula Vista continues to institutionalize its efforts to increase air quality and
environmental health through strategic planning, energy efficiency, water conservation
and renewable energy, and smart growth and transportation. In Fiscal Year 2017, it met
its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Because there were no rebates, the
number of solar permits issued in 2016 went down from 2,448 to 1,557 .
Trying to lead by example, the City is certifying City Hall as a LEED Gold building.
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: Both the Otay Water District (OWD) and Sweetwater Authority reported that they have
adequate water to accommodate the demand for several years.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 38
Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report 22 April 26, 2018
Otay Water District
The OWD’s supply and storage capacity for both potable water and non-potable water
exceeds the current demand and the demand projected by December 2018 and June 2022.
The primary source of water is the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), with
smaller amounts coming from four other sources. OWD continues to investigate the
Rosarito, Mexico desalination facility as an additional water source. Discussions with the
State of California regarding treatment requirements are continuing.
Two dozen maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects needed to serve Chula
Vista are included in the Fiscal Year 2018 six-year OWD Capital Improvement Program.
Sweetwater Authority
Sweetwater Authority’s supply and storage capacity for potable water exceeds the current
demand and the demand projected by December 2018 and June 2022. The primary
sources of water are the Robert A. Perdue Water Treatment Plant (San Diego County
Water Authority (SDCWA) and the Sweetwater Reservoir), with smaller amounts coming
from National City wells and the Reynolds Desalination Facility.
Sweetwater Authority offers a variety of rebates for water conservation devices. Planned
improvements, along with estimated costs, are listed in the 2015 Water Distribution
System Master Plan.
4.0 APPENDICES
4.1 Appendix A – Residential Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B – Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 39
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 40
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 41
2017
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
FORECAST
Calendar Years 2017 through 2022
August 25, 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 42
2017 Annual Residential Growth Forecast August 25, 2017
1
INTRODUCTION
As a component of the City of Chula Vista’s (“City”) 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 2017 through December
2022.
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:
Does not represent a goal or desired growth rate;
Is what may occur given a set of assumptions listed below under “Forecast Methods”;
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 43
2017 Annual Residential Growth Forecast August 25, 2017
2
Is produced by the City and not necessarily endorsed by home builders; and
Represents a more liberal estimate to assess possible effects to the City’s threshold
standards.
Last year’s growth forecast estimated that 391 building permits would be issued for single-family
units in 2017; as of August 25, 2017, 244 single-family permits had been pulled. For multi-family
units, 2,219 building permits were projected, and 284 had been pulled. Most of the building activity
was in the master planned communities east of Interstate 805.
FORECAST SUMMARY
Looking forward, approximately 2,839 housing units are projected for construction in eastern Chula
Vista and 593 in western Chula Vista, for a total of 3,432 units between September 2017 and
December 2018 (see Table 1).
In the forecast period (September 2017 through December 2022), eastern Chula Vista is projected
to have approximately 7,397 housing units permitted (averaging 1,287 annually), and development
in western Chula Vista is estimated to total approximately 903 units, averaging 151 units annually.
The total number of units permitted citywide is estimated to be 8,300, with an annual average of
1,438 housing units permitted per year (see Figure 1 and Tables 1 and 2). Refer to Figure 2 for a
map of the anticipated developments in the City during the forecast period.
These developer-provided projections were averaged with the projected 10-year moving average of
issued permits to present a liberal growth forecast that is likely to occur given numerous
unanticipated factors. Citywide, 5,976 units are forecasted to be approved. Combining the more
liberal development figures with the 10-year moving average in this forecast allows the City and
service providers to evaluate the likely 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 qualify that this forecast is a planning tool and not a prediction or
specific expectation.
FORECAST METHODS
With input from individual developers, projections are derived by reviewing the status of project
entitlements, including estimated project processing schedules for plan reviews, subdivision maps,
and building plans.
The forecast is predicated upon the following three assumptions:
1. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged;
2. That the housing market remains stable; and
3. That projects follow normal project regulatory processing schedules.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 44
2017 Annual Residential Growth Forecast August 25, 2017
3
To provide context for forecasted units to be constructed, the City uses several analyses that
illustrate the range of possibility in which development in the City could proceed. These methods
are a combination of simple statistics and market absorption estimates provided by land developers
with consideration for typical permit progression through the City’s entitlement process.
Statistical (10-Year Simple Moving Average) Projection
The statistical method for projecting permitted units provides a readily-available estimate for future
development accounting for the dynamics of approximately a full market cycle. Each future year’s
citywide projected completed units are the average of the citywide completed units for the ten
prior years, representing a 10-year simple moving average for completed dwelling units. This
projection results in the issuance of 3,651 permitted units, amounting to approximately 11,845
additional residents during the forecast period. Additional details can be found on Table 3 and the
red lines on Figure 3.
Developer Estimates & Permit Process Projection
As part of the Growth Forecast preparation process, the City solicits projection estimates from land
developers in the City based on their permitting and construction schedules coupled with their
understanding of market absorption conditions. The City then incorporates the status and
progression of the units in the entitlement process into the anticipated schedule. In doing so, any
unanticipated regulatory impacts to the schedules of planned projects can be accounted for.
Typically, this results in some minimal deviations from the developer’s projected schedule. This
projection results in the issuance of 8,300 permitted units, amounting to approximately 28,638
additional residents during the forecast period. Additional details can be found on Table 3 and the
green lines on Figure 3.
Below is a summary of anticipated projects that comprise this projection:
Eastern Chula Vista
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. Most building activity is projected to occur in Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3 North,
and the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), “Millenia”, as well as Planning Area 12, “Freeway Commercial”
(see Table 1) through 2019. In 2020, development in Villages 8, 9 and 10 is projected to be most
active. Below is a summary of the residential building permits projected through 2022:
Description Single Family
DUs
Multi-family
DUs
TOTAL
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 711 1,550 2,261
Baldwin & Sons
Primary Developer
421 single family and 1,055 multi-family units
Majority of construction occurring between 2018-2020
Cornerstone
194 single family units in three communities (Aventine, Cambria, and Estancia) by 2019
36 multi-family units in Monterra by 2018
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 45
2017 Annual Residential Growth Forecast August 25, 2017
4
Description Single Family
DUs
Multi-family
DUs
TOTAL
R&V Management
96 multi-family units on R-28 parcel by 2017
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 3 NORTH 463 755 1,218
All building permits should be issued by 2020.
HomeFed Otay Land II
396-unit apartment complex in 2018-2019
Brookfield
Two single-family developments totaling 189 units (Haciendas and Prado Front Load)
101 Alley Row units
Completion is expected by 2020.
CalAtlantic
Two single-family developments totaling 148 units underway (Castellana and Valencia)
79-unit multi-family product (Citron)
Issuance of all permits should be complete by 2019.
Shea
72-unit multi-family (Strata) by 2018.
107-unit multi-family project (Sierra) targeted for 2020.
126-unit single-family product (Seville) over four years, beginning in 2017.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGES 8, 9, & 10 583 752 1,335
HomeFed Otay Land II
Multi-family development expected to begin in 2019.
Single-family development expected to begin in 2020.
OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 4 48 277 325
Dansk
Development expected to occur between 2018 and 2021.
OTAY RANCH EASTERN URBAN CENTER (EUC; “MILLENIA”) 79 1,524 1,603
Meridian Development
Primary Developer
154 multi-family units issued in 2017 for the Evo/Trio/Metro project
102 multi-family units issued in 2017 for the Genesis project
365 multi-family units planned for 2019 at the Main Street Apartments
Shea
102 multi-family units planned for the Element and Z projects
Trammel Crow
309 multi-family units planned in 2017 as part of the Alexan project
253 multi-family units planned in 2018 in Alexan
KB Homes
79-unit Skylar single family project projected between 2017 and 2019
CalAtlantic
78 multi-family units planned during 2018 and 2019
OTAY RANCH PLANNING AREA 12 (FREEWAY COMMERCIAL) 0 856 856
Baldwin & Sons
Construction planned in 2017 with all permits issued by 2021
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 46
2017 Annual Residential Growth Forecast August 25, 2017
5
Description Single Family
DUs
Multi-family
DUs
TOTAL
3 multi-family products planned with 212 and 80 condo and 5 64 apartment units (308 apartment
units entitled)
A SPA amendment is required to add 256 units to the apartment complex to implement this
BELLA LAGO 43 0 43
Shea
Final 43 lots of the 140-unit Bella Lago development in the gated Vista del Cielo neighborhood
14 single family units projected by end of 2017
14 single family units projected by end of 2018
15 single family units projected by end of 2019
BONITA RIDGE ESTATES 14 0 14
7.5-acre site on Lynndale Lane east of I-805 and south of Bonita Road
All 14 single-family units projected to be issued by the end of 2018.
As of August 25, 2017, the remaining capacity for residential units are projected to be permitted in
eastern Chula Vista is approximately 19,852. If 7,397 units were permitted over the next five-year
period, approximately 12,455 units would remain. Assuming that continued rate of growth, the
capacity could potentially be built out around 2030, although changes in economic conditions
and/or future revisions to plans will affect that timing.
Western Chula Vista
Several entitled projects in western Chula Vista remain undeveloped, including:
264-276 Palm Avenue Homes – 4 units
635-641 E. Naples Homes – 4
Date Street Residences - 5
El Dorado Ridge – 104
Flower Street Apartments – 18
Fourth Avenue 4-Plex – 4
Fourth Avenue Residences – 10
Industrial Townhomes – 42
Limon Apartments – 3
Vistas Del Mar - 71
However, 150 multi-family units are projected by the end of 2017, including:
230 Church Avenue Apartments – 29 units
387 Roosevelt Street – 2 units
577 Fourth Avenue – 10 units
Monterey Place (267 Oxford) – 23 units
Second Accessory Units – 15 units
Vista del Mar (Third and K) – 71 units
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 47
2017 Annual Residential Growth Forecast August 25, 2017
6
Another 759 units are projected by the end of 2022, including:
1262 Third Avenue – 6 units
288 Center Street – 29 units
222 Church Avenue – 16 units
260-270 Broadway – 62 units
287 Roosevelt Street – 2 units
Bayfront – Pacifica – 450 units
Second Accessory Units – 55 units
Urbana (385 & 395 H Street) – 135 units
Villa Nuevos Apartments – 4 units
Average of Projections
Generally, the statistical and developer projections form the lower and upper bounds of future
trends, respectively. For the purposes of this analysis, the mean of these projections is interpreted
as the most likely outcome and is used as the forecasted permit activity and population growth.
This projection results in the issuance of 5,976 permitted units, amounting to approximately 19,385
additional residents in the forecast period. Additional details can be found on Table 3 and the light
blue lines on Figure 3.
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
Residential
Several market cycles, including recessions, have contributed to a broad range in the number of
building permits issued each decade since 1980, as indicated below:
DECADE AVERAGE NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS
ISSUED PER YEAR
1980-1989 330
1990-1999 693
2000-2009 2,094
2010-2017 721*
*Through August 25, 2017
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 2017, with an average of 1,181 units per
year over the past 38 years (see Table 3 and Figure 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,
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 48
2017 Annual Residential Growth Forecast August 25, 2017
7
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 did not exceed 1,000 between 2006 and 2015 (see Figure 1).
Between 2007 and 2017, the lowest number of units issued was 275 in 2009, and the highest was
1,050 in 2016. Through August 25, 2017, 528 residential building permits had been issued, with
over four more months to go this calendar year.
Commercial & Industrial
Commercial and industrial development in the City has been significantly outpaced by residential
development characterized by periodic upticks, typically due to the opening of retail centers. Such
surges have not occurred in the last five years.
However, Commercial development in the City is anticipated to accelerate with the development of
the Millenia, Freeway Commercial, and the Bayfront areas. Approximately 340 hotel rooms are
planned to be permitted in 2017 in the Eastlake Business Park and Freeway Commercial areas.
Additionally, approximately 131,000 square feet of commercial retail space has permitted in
Millenia with the first phase of the Millenia Office project anticipated to be permitted by the end of
2018.
Development in the Bayfront includes construction of a 267-stall recreational park and a 1,100-
room resort hotel and convention center planned to open in 2022, which themselves are expected
to catalyze further commercial development in the Bayfront area. Other areas planned for
commercial and industrial development include Otay Ranch Village 3 and Village 2 West, which are
expected to begin development around 2020. Additionally, the University Innovation District is
anticipated to be a substantial commercial development in the near future.
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 290,144 persons by the
end of 2022. This is based on the following:
The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated Chula Vista’s population on
January 1, 2017 as 267,917;
An additional 203 units were occupied from January 1, 2017 to August 25, 2017; and
An additional 5,976 units may be permitted between September 2017 and December 2022.
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.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 49
Residential Building Permits Statistics
Actual Issued 2002 - 2017 and Forecast 2018 - 2022
L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2017\CV Res building permits statistics.pdf.9.1.17
Number of Units Actual Forecast
Through August 25, 2017
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Western Chula Vista
Eastern Chula Vista
Figure 1
2,250
3,143
3,300
576
325 275
500
882
692
528
1,441
1,878
443
160 150
981
660
1,050
1,654
1,180
728 798
631
4 0 0
1,476
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 50
LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS
City of Chula Vista Boundary
Toll Road
CITY OF CHUL
A
V I STA
COUN T Y OF SAN D
I
E
G O
Village
2
Village
1
Village
3 Village
4
Village
6
Village
7
Village
9
Village
10
Village
8 - EastVillage
8 - West
University
University
Chula VIsta
Elite Athlete
Training Center
Village
11
Freeway
Commercial
OtayRanchTownCenter
Millenia
OTAY
LANDFILL
San Miguel
Ranch
Rolling Hills Ranch
Bella
Lago
Eastlake
Greens
805
Sweetwater
Reservoir
San Diego
Bay
L
o
w
e
r
O
t
a
y
L
a
k
e
54
125
5
L St
K St
J St
H St
G St
E St
F St
D St
C St
Naples St
Moss St
Palom ar StOxsford St
Orange Av
Main StHi
l
l
top
D
rFi
rs
t
Av
Second Av
Thi
rd
Av
Four
th
Av
Fi
f
th
Av
Broadway
E H St
Telegraph Cany o n R d
E P alom a r S t
O lym p ic ParkwayH
erita
g
e
RdLa Med
i
a
R
d
Bi r c h R d East
l
ake
Pkwy Hunte P
k
w
y
P roctor Val l e y Rd
Otay Lakes Rd
Residential Development Forecast Map
9/2017 - 12/2022
1262 Third Avenue
222 Church Avenue
230 Church Avenue
260-270 Broadway
288 Center Street
387 Roosevelt Street
577 Fourth Avenue
Bayfront Pacifica
Monterrey Place - 287 Oxford
Urbana - 385-395 H Street
Vista del Mar
Otay Ranch Village 2
Otay Ranch Village 3
Otay Ranch Village 4
Village 8, 9 & 10
Millenia (EUC)
Freeway Commercial
Bonita Ridge Estates
Vista del Cielo
L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2017\Residential Forecast Development Map.ai.8.31.17
13 15
12
3
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
16
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
17
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 51
2017, 1141
2018, 1485
2022, 702
2017, 271323
2018, 275023
2022, 290144
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Estimated Year-End Population Annual Units Issued Figure 3 - Historic, Projected, & Forecasted Population Growth
Historic Units 10-yr Avg Projected Units Developers' Projected Units Average of Projected Units
Historic Population 10-yr Avg Projected Population Developers' Projected Pop.Average of Projected Pop.
Montgomery
Annex
Note: Population increase assumed to occur at occupancy, which for the purposes of this analysis is assumed to lag issuance by one year.
2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 52
SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF
OTAY RANCH
Village 2 North - Baldwin & Sons 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 39 21 0 0 0 127 39
Village 2 North - JPB 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0
Village 2 East - Baldwin & Sons 0 0 0 300 0 285 25 34 6 56 0 0 31 675
Village 2 South - Baldwin & Sons 50 55 156 93 91 48 0 373 0 0 0 0 297 569
Village 2 South - Cornerstone 38 24 105 12 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 36
Village 2 West - Baldwin & Sons 0 0 0 0 44 44 40 60 27 60 0 60 111 224
Village 2 West - HomeFed Village 2 West 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 32 0 0 0 62 0
Village 3 (Escaya) - HomeFed Otay Land II 179 167 274 254 211 30 149 0 0 0 0 0 813 451
Portion of Village 4 - Dansk 0 0 0 0 15 20 39 129 19 128 0 0 73 277
Villages 8, 9, & 10 - HomeFed Otay Land II 0 0 0 0 150 150 200 200 300 300 300 300 950 950
PA-12 Freeway Commercial - Baldwin & Sons 0 27 0 292 0 199 0 52 0 32 0 0 0 602Ph 1: Millenia Lots 5 & 6 (Evo/Trio/Metro) -
Meridian 0 46 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154
Ph 1: Millenia Lot 9 (Element & Z) - Shea 0 27 0 41 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102
Ph 2: Millenia Lots 4, 5 & 6 (Alexan) - Trammel Crow 0 309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309
Ph 2: Millenia Lots 7 & 8 (Genesis) - Meridian 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102
Ph 2: Millenia Lot 14 (Skylar) - KB Homes 11 0 52 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0
Ph 2: Millenia Lot 17 - CalAtlantic 0 0 0 40 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
OTAY RANCH SUB-TOTAL 278 655 622 1,242 578 848 589 887 405 576 300 360 2,772 4,568
Bonita Ridge Estates 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Bella Lago Vista Del Cielo - Shea Homes 14 0 14 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0
SUB-TOTAL 292 669 636 1,242 593 848 589 887 405 576 300 360 2,815 4,582
TOTAL UNITS
*ISSUE = Building Permits Issued
Table 1
GMOC 2017 - EASTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
SEPTEMBER 2017 - DECEMBER 2022
Five Years Forecast
EASTERN PROJECTS JAN - DEC 2018 JAN - DEC 2019 JAN - DEC 2020SEP - DEC 2017
ISSUE*
JAN - DEC 2022 SEP 2017 - 2022
ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*
JAN - DEC 2021
961
Annual Average
2018-2022:1,287
1,878 1,441 1,476 981 660 7,397
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 53
SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF
1262 Third Avenue 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
222 Church Avenue 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
230 Church Avenue 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
260-270 Broadway 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62
288 Center Street 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
387 Roosevelt Street 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
577 Fourth Avenue 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Bayfront - Pacifica 0 0 0 150 0 150 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 450
Monterey Place (267 Oxford St)23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0
Second Accessory Units 15 0 45 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0
Urbana (385 & 395 H)0 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135
Vista del Mar (Third & K)0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
SUB-TOTAL 38 112 45 398 10 150 0 150 0 0 0 0 93 810
TOTAL UNITS
*ISSUE = Building Permits Issued
Annual Average
2018-2022:151
443 160 150 0 0 903
WESTERN PROJECTS
JAN - DEC 2018 JAN - DEC 2019 JAN - DEC 2020SEP - DEC 2017
ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*
150
Table 2
GMOC 2017 - WESTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
SEPTEMBER 2017 - DECEMBER 2022
Five Years Forecast
JAN - DEC 2022 SEP 2017 - DEC 2022
ISSUE*ISSUE*ISSUE*
JAN - DEC 2021
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 54
Page 1 of 2
Calendar Year
Units Authorized
for Construction
(Issued)
Units Completed
(Final)
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 1050 607 267,917 1.1
38 2017 1141 311 271,323 1.3 (3)
Table 3
HISTORIC HOUSING & POPULATION GROWTH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 -2017
Year End Population Estimate (State
D.O.F.) (1)
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 55
Page 2 of 2
Calendar Year
Units Authorized
for Construction
(Issued)
Units Completed
(Final)
Foot
Note
Yearly Number Yearly Number Yearly Number Yearly % Change
Table 3
HISTORIC HOUSING & POPULATION GROWTH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 -2017
Year End Population Estimate (State
D.O.F.) (1)
39 2018 1485 275,023 1.4
40 2019 1141 279,840 1.8
41 2020 1174 283,541 1.3
42 2021 862 287,349 1.3
43 2022 702 290,144 1.0
Average 1,181 1,150 2.2 (4)
(1) Reflects Department of Finance (DOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the
referenced year.
(2) Annexation of unincorporated community of Montgomery.
(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. Actual residential units permitted 528, units completed 202 as of 8/25/2017.
(4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 56
Calendar Year Multi-Family
Units Permitted
Single Family
Units Permitted
Commercial/
Industrial 1,000 SF
Permitted
Hotel Rooms
Permitted
Foot
Note
2012 443 204 36.3 0
2013 387 225 161.6 0
2014 755 107 65.47 0
2015 420 57 67.9 0
2016 950 71 239.7 150
2017E 1,065 574 193 339
2018P 1,640 681 339 267
2019P 998 603 50 1100
2020P 1,037 589 80 270
2021P 576 405 120 0
2022P 360 300 400 250
Annual Average 946 525 197 371
Table 4
HISTORIC/PROJECTED NEW CONSTRUCTION UNITS PERMITTED BY LAND USE
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 57
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 58
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2017
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Air Quality and Climate
Protection – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.050
A. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE PROTECTION.
1. GOAL.
To maintain and improve the ambient air quality enjoyed by the residents of Chula
Vista.
2. OBJECTIVES.
a. In an effort to address the impacts of transportation and building-related energy use
at both the regional and local level, the City shall endeavor to implement applicable air
quality improvement strategies and programs that meet or exceed those established
through the current adopted Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), California’s Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), and the Chula Vista climate protection
program.
b. In an effort to maintain and improve ambient air quality, the City shall endeavor to
locally mitigate any new stationary source development project’s criteria air pollutant
emissions that exceed local air quality standards.
3. 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.
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. In order to determine compliance with the air quality and climate protection
threshold standard, City staff shall provide the GMOC with an annual report that
evaluates the City’s progress toward adherence with relevant federal, state, regional,
and local air quality improvement strategies, regulations, and programs. The report
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 59
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2017
Page 2
shall include the following:
i. An overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the
prior year identifying compliance levels and progress towards meeting the air
quality and climate protection threshold standard.
ii. An assessment of whether the greenhouse gas emissions reduction levels
should be revised based on updated state and federal standards, as applicable.
iii. Additional information on non-development activities being undertaken by the
City that contribute to meeting or furthering the air quality and climate
protection threshold standard, including the City’s most recent greenhouse gas
emissions inventory.
b. After the City prepares an annual evaluation report, it shall provide a copy of the
report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for its response. The APCD should
provide the City with a report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the
status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional
Air Quality Strategy and related federal and state programs, and the effect of those
efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development
activities.
c. Should the GMOC determine that a deficiency exists with respect to any of the above
air quality and climate protection implementation measures, either locally, regionally
or both, it may issue a statement of concern in its annual report.
SECTION 1 – To be completed by the Office of Sustainability
Please provide responses to the following:
1. What was Chula Vista’s community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target
during the review period?
The target was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and
6 metric tons per person or lower by 2030.
2. What programs does the city currently implement or engage in to help meet the
greenhouse gas emissions reduction target?
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 continues to
implement the City Operations Sustainability Plan. The plan establishes numeric
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 60
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2017
Page 3
targets and strategies for energy use, water use, green purchasing, waste
management, pollution prevention, transportation, and green 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 (the Fire
Department is currently switching from Biodiesel to renewable Diesel to meet the
needs of new vehicles) 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 reviewing the implementation actions with
internal and external stakeholders for the 11 Climate Change Working Group
recommendations. Working with internal staff and consultants City staff began to
prepare to implement various CAP recommendations such as: 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). The CAP was presented to the Sustainability Commission in August of
2017 and adopted by City Council on September 26th 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 42
million dollars for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water conservation
projects. To increase competition the City brought a new PACE administrator, with
three new PACE programs (1 Residential and 2 commercial) into the City in August of
2017. 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 10,890
“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 almost 700 on-site evaluations for
residents and businesses, and engaged more than 1,00 residents at 35 events in 2016.
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
maintaining a total of 28 chargers (including one DC fast charger) at 5 public facing
municipal facilities. We finalized contracts with SDG&E install more than 100 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 implement its
three phase alternative fuel vehicle procurement strategy and exceed its goal for
alternative fuel vehicles and make significant reductions to local air pollution caused
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 61
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2017
Page 4
by the City fleet. Staff has also started working on adding bike lanes to Broadway and
F Street and begun construction of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that will connect the
Eastern residents with downtown San Diego. City staff has also begun to encourage
active transportation options for employees 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.
3. 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 _______
4. How do Chula Vista’s per capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions compare to other jurisdictions
in San Diego County?
As shown in the table below, Chula Vista’s per capita emissions are amongst the lowest
in the region but the City will need to continue taking ambitious actions to ensure that
we will be able to comply with the state’s long term goal of 2 metric tons of carbon
dioxide per person by 2050.
JURISDICTION PER CAPITA GHG EMISSIONS MTCo2e
(Year)
Chula Vista 5.9 (2012)
City of San Diego 7.8 (2015)
County of San Diego 6.4 (2014)
La Mesa 4.4 (2012)
National City 10.5 (2005)
Carlsbad 6.6 (2011)
5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you
would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
In addition to many of the community-wide efforts listed above, the City is also trying
to lead by example by certifying City Hall as a LEED Gold building, upgrading all indoor
lighting to LED and piloting a small-scale wind turbine to complement our existing PV
solar. Staff continues to investigate new and innovative ways at reducing GHG
emissions such as the “Smart” City’s mural at Civic Center Library and allowing
residents to check out LED light bulbs as part of the Library Wide Energy Lounge.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 62
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2017
Page 5
SECTION 2 – To be completed by the Development Services Department
1. Please provide a breakdown of applications submitted to the Development Services
Department during the review period:
APPLICATION TYPE NUMBER
SUBMITTED
SPA Plans 2
Residential Projects of 50 or More Dwelling Units 2
Commercial Projects of 12 or More Acres (or Equivalent Sq. Ft.) 0
Industrial Projects of 24 or More Acres (or Equivalent Sq. Ft.) 1
Mixed Use Project of 50 Equivalent Dwelling Units or Greater 0
2. What was the development standard greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target
during the review period, and was it met? If not, what prevented the target from being
met and how can the potential for meeting the target increase?
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) greenhouse gas emissions reduction
threshold was 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 6 metric tons per person or lower by
2030. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidelines
target was 900 Mte (metric ton equivalent) or below for small projects (50 units or less
EDUs) and 1.3 Mte or below for large projects per person in the service population.
The reduction target was met during the review period.
3. How many residents and/or commercial facilities have added solar panels in the past
year, and what was their capacity?
SOLAR PERMITS ISSUED
Fiscal Year # of Permits
2017 1,557
2016 2,448
2015 Not reported
2014 390
4. 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: Cory Downs
Title: Conservation Specialist II
Date: October 18, 2017
Name: Steve Power
Title: Principal Planner
Date: October 23, 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 63
APCD – FY 2017
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
San Diego Air Pollution
Control District (APCD)
FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
Reporting by Calendar Year
Chula Vista’s goal is to maintain and improve the ambient air quality enjoyed by
the residents of the City.
Please update the table below:
SMOG TRENDS - Number of Days Over 1997 Standards
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD
STATE STANDARDS
San Diego Region 5 2 2 3 3 7 13
Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FEDERAL STDS
San Diego Region 3 0 0 1* 0 2 7
Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*2014 Federal 8-Hr (1997 Std) impacted by fires in May 2014
Please provide responses to the following:
1. During the review period, how did Chula Vista rank in air quality, countywide?
No ozone exceedances. Better than most other areas of the county.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 64
APCD – FY 2017
Page 2
2. What is the ozone standard and how did Chula Vista perform?
Chula Vista meets all standards.
8-Hour Averages
(ppm = parts per million)
2015 Standard 0.070 ppm
2008 Standard 0.075 ppm
1997 Standard 0.08 ppm
3. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during
the review period.
Chula Vista also meets air quality standards for particulate matter (PM): 2.5 microns
and less in diameter.
4. Were there any changes in federal or state programs during the review period that could affect
Chula Vista? If so, please explain.
Yes _ No ___X___
5. Are there existing or future Regional Air Quality Standards programs that Chula Vista needs to be
aware of? If so, please explain.
Yes No ___X___
6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
At some point we should update smog trends for more current standard. However, EPA
has not designated San Diego Air Basin for the 2015 standard.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Bill Brick
Title: Chief, Monitoring and Technical Services Division
Date: 10/23/2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 65
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
CVESD – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
_________________________________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.050
B. SCHOOLS.
1. GOAL.
To ensure that the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and Sweetwater Union High School District
(SUHSD) have the necessary school sites, infrastructure and funding mechanisms to meet the needs of students in
new development areas in a timely manner.
2. OBJECTIVE.
Provide school district personnel with current development forecasts so that they may plan and implement school
building and/or allocation programs in a timely manner.
3. FACILITY MASTER PLAN.
The GMOC will request updates of the school districts’ facility master plans or equivalent documents that define
the schools’ essential facility needs necessary to provide adequate physical accommodation.
4. 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 five -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:
a. Amount of current classroom and “essential facility” (as defined in the facility master plan) capacity now
used or committed;
b. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities and identification of what facilities need to be
upgraded or added over the next five years;
c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities identified; and
d. Other relevant information the school district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City and the Growth
Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
5. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE.
Should the GMOC determine that a capacity problem exists with respect to physically accommodating students,
either currently or within the next five years, it may issue a statement of concern in its annual report. The annual
report shall be provided to both school districts, with follow-up, to assure appropriate response.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 66
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 2
1. Please complete the tables below, adding schools, if applicable.
Table 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS - JUNE 2017
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2017
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary AND
Attending This School
December 2017
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Attending This School
Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2017
Building Capacity
(# of Students)
% Building
Capacity Used
# of Overflow
Students*
Permanent
Portables In Out
NORTHWEST
Cook 358 177 339 500 75 59%
**Feaster-Edison 1076 882 1055 450 675 94%
Hilltop Drive 535 359 563 488 63 102% 1
**Mueller 868 661 868 500 525 85% 13
Rosebank 726 468 587 426 363 74%
Vista Square 824 530 651 350 464 80%
SUBTOTAL 4,387 3,077 4,063 2,165 4,879 83% 0 14
SOUTHWEST
CVLC Charter NA NA 912 750 150 101%
Castle Park 496 311 386 488 22 76%
Harborside 750 582 711 525 463 72% 3
Kellogg 304 182 332 464 38 66%
Lauderbach 954 618 784 476 538 77%
Loma Verde 469 320 497 450 234 73% 1
Montgomery 392 275 338 450 93 62%
Otay 685 470 552 488 300 70%
Palomar 382 236 365 436 0 84%
Rice 843 513 611 525 302 74%
Rohr 355 237 329 464 50 64%
SUBTOTAL 5,630 3,744 5,817 5,516 2,190 75% 0 4
SOUTHEAST
**Arroyo Vista 590 529 794 750 300 76%
Camarena 1254 1073 1079 800 300 98% 10
Olympic View 930 728 792 500 350 93%
Parkview 306 204 357 534 93 57% 1
Rogers 377 245 448 626 84 63%
Valle Lindo 533 384 458 488 276 60%
Hedenkamp 1059 892 1031 1000 0 103%
Heritage 721 657 812 750 150 90%
Veterans 901 794 911 743 150 102%
McMillin 912 768 825 693 100 104% 6
Muraoka 625 521 545 748 0 73% 10
Wolf Canyon 562 490 618 764 150 68%
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 67
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 3
Table 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS - JUNE 2017
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2017
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary AND
Attending This School
December 2017
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Attending This School
Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2017
Building Capacity
(# of Students)
% Building
Capacity Used
# of Overflow
Students*
Permanent
Portables In Out
SUBTOTAL 5,630 3,744 5,817 5,516 2,190 75% 11 16
NORTHEAST
Allen/Ann Daly 232 170 371 600 25 59%
Casillas 450 318 470 589 134 65% 32
Chula Vista Hills 452 354 566 500 100 94% 3
Clear View 327 267 507 415 150 90%
**Discovery 720 590 850 584 425 84% 23
Eastlake 446 368 562 500 239 76%
Halecrest 325 248 516 501 88 88% 5
Liberty 582 508 727 788 -24 95%
Marshall 693 527 660 577 109 96%
Salt Creek 1031 855 946 800 125 102%
Tiffany 536 380 471 510 163 70%
SUBTOTAL 5,794 4,585 6,646 6,364 1,534 84% 37 26
TOTAL 24,581 18,691 25,196 22,990 7,842 82% 48 40
*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.
**Charter Schools serve Grades 7-12—Enrollment for this questionnaire includes Grades KT and K-6 only
2. Taking into consideration the City’s 2017 Residential Growth Forecast, please complete the two forecast
tables below, adding new schools, if applicable.
Table 2. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2018
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2018
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary AND
Attending This School
December 2017
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2017
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December 2018
Permanent Portables
NORTHWEST
Cook 355 176 338 59%
**Feaster Edison 1081 917 1070 95%
Hilltop Drive 545 374 539 98%
**Mueller 931 724 869 85%
Rosebank 787 538 607 77%
Vista Square 890 604 681 84%
SUBTOTAL 4,589 3,333 4,104 84%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park 511 345 395 77%
Harborside 744 588 691 70%
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 68
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 4
Table 2. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2018
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2018
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary AND
Attending This School
December 2017
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2017
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December 2018
Permanent Portables
Kellogg 336 214 339 68%
Lauderbach 961 632 746 74%
Loma Verde 467 317 492 72%
Montgomery 387 286 331 61%
Otay 681 473 555 70%
Palomar 403 264 356 82%
Rice 877 554 607 73%
Rohr 387 233 320 62%
SUBTOTAL 6,085 632 5,713 74%
SOUTHEAST
**Arroyo Vista 559 510 750 71%
Camarena 1223 1052 1055 96%
Olympic View 906 721 765 90%
Parkview 350 232 355 57%
Rogers 477 356 429 60%
Valle Lindo 533 392 437 57%
Hedenkamp 1015 861 991 99%
Heritage 696 647 748 83%
Veterans 917 822 897 100%
McMillin 921 755 797 101%
Muraoka 1143 1078 1073 150 143%
Wolf Canyon 1143 1084 1163 127%
SUBTOTAL 9,883 8,510 9,460 91%
NORTHEAST
Allen/Ann Daly 229 226 351 56%
Casillas 479 348 455 63%
CV Hills 438 347 546 91%
Clear View 362 303 492 87%
**Discovery 715 592 847 84%
Eastlake 481 411 571 77%
Halecrest 355 282 507 86%
Liberty 620 557 716 94%
Marshall 697 548 633 92%
Salt Creek 996 838 907 98%
Tiffany 580 422 472 70%
SUBTOTAL 5,952 4,874 6,497 82%
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 69
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 5
Table 2. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2018
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2018
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary AND
Attending This School
December 2017
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2017
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December 2018
Permanent Portables
TOTAL 26,509 21,585 25,774 84%
*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.
**Charter Schools serve Grades 7-12—Enrollment for this questionnaire includes Grades KT and K-6 only
Table 3. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2022
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2022
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary AND
Attending This School
December 2018
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2017
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December 2022
Permanent Portables
NORTHWEST
Cook 333 165 337
59%
**Feaster-
Edison 1016 883 999
89%
Hilltop Drive 559 398 538
98%
**Mueller 970 757 953
93%
Rosebank 869 638 706
89%
Vista Square 859 569 640
79%
SUBTOTAL 4,606 3,410 4,173 86%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park
329 1030 740
82%
Castle Park 510 364 455
89%
Harborside 724 598 724
73%
Kellogg 344 205 348
69%
Lauderbach 937 599 674
66%
Loma Verde 509 352 502
73%
Montgomery 309 230 278
51%
Otay 580 500 539
68%
Palomar 402 268 370
85%
Rice 894 564 608
74%
Rohr 357 232 318
62%
SUBTOTAL 5,895 4,942 5,556 72%
SOUTHEAST
**Arroyo Vista 514 476 668
64%
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 70
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 6
Table 3. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2022
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2022
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Residing in This
School Boundary AND
Attending This School
December 2018
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2017
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December 2022
Permanent Portables
Camarena 1211 1069 1069 97%
Olympic View 869 707 714
84%
Parkview 347 229 354
56%
Rogers 437 328 383
54%
Valle Lindo 462 338 377
49%
Hedenkamp 871 734 851 85%
Heritage 687 645 700 78%
Veterans 913 839 873 98%
McMillin 901 704 738 93%
Muraoka 1404 1383 1379 150 184%
Wolf Canyon 2204 2148 2239 245%
ORV3 600
SUBTOTAL 10,820 9,600 10,345 100%
NORTHEAST
Allen/Ann Daly 191 155 294
47%
Casillas 474 346 447 62%
CV Hills 425 351 530
88%
Clear View 362 318 491
87%
**Discovery 747 634 898
89%
Eastlake 499 450 623
84%
Halecrest 344 272 538 91%
Liberty 665 619 695 91%
Marshall 663 550 614
90%
Salt Creek 911 790 821 89%
Tiffany 582 437 468
70%
SUBTOTAL 5,863 4,922 6,419 81%
TTOTAL 27184 22874 26,493 86%
*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.
**Charter Schools serve Grades 7-12—Enrollment for this questionnaire includes Grades KT and K-6 only
Table 4. ENROLLMENT HISTORY
2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013
NORTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 4063 4,092 4,087 4,173 4,179
% of Change Over the
Previous Year
-.01% .12% -2.1% -0.14% -2.5%
% of Enrollment from
Chula Vista
93.50%
93.55% 81.4%
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 71
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 7
Table 4. ENROLLMENT HISTORY
2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014 2012-2013
SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 5817 5,997 5,933 5,940 5,895
% of Change Over the
Previous Year
-.03% 1.08% -.12% 0.76% 0.29%
% of Enrollment from
Chula Vista
94.65%
93.55%
96.04%
SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 8760 8,760 8,752 8,370 7,901
% of Change Over the
Previous Year 0% .09% 4.56% 5.94% 1.2%
% of Enrollment from
Chula Vista
96.70%
99.13% 95.61%
NORTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 6646 6,924 6,934 7,138 7,114
% of Change Over the
Previous Year
-.04%
-.14% -2.86% 0.34% 3.34%
% of Enrollment from
Chula Vista
93.33%
80.21% 92.2%
DISTRICT-WIDE
Total Enrollment 27,958 28,694
28,493 28,442
27,328
% of Change Over the
Previous Year
-.03% .71% .18% 4.08% -1.6%
% of Enrollment from
Chula Vista
95.14%
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 __X__ No _______
4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? On the
table below, please identify what facilities may need to be upgraded or added over the next five years.
No
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 72
CVESD – FY 2017
Page 8
5. Please complete the table below.
Table 5. NEW AND/OR UPGRADED SCHOOLS STATUS
School #
and/or
Name
Site Architectural
Review/Funding
ID for Land and
Construction
Commencement
of Site
Preparation
Service by
Utilities and
Road
Commencement
of Construction
Time
Needed
By
47 ORV3 Property ID’d Completing Due
Diligence
X Tentative 2020 2021
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 an update of the school districts’ facility master plans or equivalent documents that define
the schools’ essential facility needs necessary to provide adequate physical accommodation .
CVESD updated the facilities master plan in 2012 in association with Proposition Bond Measure E and is in
the process of conducting a facilities needs analysis in association with a proposed bond measure.
8. What type of contingency plan does the school district have in place in the event of an emergency or
natural disaster that would impact the capacity of some schools?
CVESD operates under a written and tested Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which is currently being
revised. It contains planning for such circumstances as Pandemic Influenza, Campus Closure, and Food
Defense. Each of the District’s 46 school sites are required to complete a Comprehensive School Safety Plan
(CSSP), attend training and participate in mandatory drills and exercises (both at the school and district-
wide level). The District engages in on-going training and completes exercises which test the capabilities
and resources to maintain operations. The EOP and CSSPs, training and exercises all address the ability to
maintain operations and education.
9. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay
to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
The District continues to struggle to keep up with growth in the absence of State funding to supplement CFD
tax revenue.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Carolyn Scholl
Title: Facilities Planning Manager
Date: January 24, 2018
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 73
Drainage – FY 2017 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Drainage – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
F. DRAINAGE.
1. GOAL.
To provide a safe and efficient storm water drainage system to protect residents and property in
the City of Chula Vista.
2. OBJECTIVE.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with current City engineering
standards and local, state and federal regulations.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARDS.
a. 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.
b. 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.
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. Should the GMOC determine that the threshold standards are not being met, with respect to
new development, then the City Manager should present to the City Council, for their
consideration, a plan of action that includes timing benchmarks and a finance plan that will bring
the storm drain system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled
to commence within three years.
b. Should the GMOC determine that the threshold standard is not being met, with respect to
existing development, it may issue a statement of concern in its annual report.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 74
Drainage – FY 2017 2
Please provide brief responses to the following:
1. During the review period, have storm water flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards
(i.e. Chula Vista Subdivision Manual and Design Standards) at any time?
Yes No x
If yes:
a. Where did this occur?
b. Why did this occur?
c. Was any public/private property damaged as a result of this exceedance?
c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation?
2. Will any new facilities or improvements to existing 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 or improvements to existing 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)
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
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 75
Drainage – FY 2017 3
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 from citizens 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 within the watershed 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.
The Statewide Trash Amendments require MS4s to prevent trash from entering our local waterways
by 2028. These new requirements have a variety of cost implications for the City, which include the
installation of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices. The City is currently in the
process of developing an Implementation Plan to comply with these new regulations.
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 long-term goals as an environmental steward.
5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
None.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Marisa Soriano/Dave McRoberts/Roberto Yano
Position: Environmental Health Specialist/Wastewater Collections Manager/Wastewater Engineering Manager
Date: September 21, 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 76
Page 1
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
___________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
B. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.
1. GOAL.
To maintain and improve the quality of fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) in
the City of Chula Vista.
2. OBJECTIVE.
Ensure that fire/EMS staff are properly equipped and trained to provide the desired level of
service throughout the City.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARD.
a. Emergency Response. Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to
calls throughout the City within seven minutes in at least 80 percent of the cases (measured
annually).
b. Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch, turnout and travel
time to the building or site address.
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. Should the GMOC determine that the threshold standard is not being met due to growth
impacts, and the facility master plan milestone targets are not being met, then the City Council
can, within 60 days of the GMOC’s annual report, schedule and hold a public hearing to (i)
consider adopting a moratorium on the issuance of building permits, or (ii) adopt other actions
sufficient to rectify the deficiency(ies).
b. The GMOC may issue a statement of concern in its annual report if it determines that the
threshold standard: (i) is not being met, but the reason is not due to growth impacts; or (ii) is not
being met due to growth impacts, but the facility master plan is meeting its milestone targets, in
which case the Fire Department will address the adequacy of the facility master plan.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 77
Page 2
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
Please update the table below.
Table 1. FIRE and EMS Response Times
Fiscal Year
All 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
2017 13,665 80.6 5:50 4:07 0:53 0:50
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
1. During the review period, were 80% of all calls responded to within 7 minutes? If not, please
explain why.
Yes X No _____
2. During the review period, were the fire and medical units properly equipped to deliver services at
the levels necessary to achieve or maintain threshold standard compliance? If not, please provide
information on any solutions you found to help reach your goals.
Yes X No _____
3. During the review period, were fire and medical units properly staffed to deliver services at the
levels necessary to achieve or maintain threshold standard compliance? If not, please provide
information on any solutions you found to help reach your goals.
Yes X No _____
Although the GMOC standard was met and units were properly staffed, the units are still not
sufficiently staffed for purposes of improving outcomes such as EMS critical task completion and
attacking a fire upon the arrival of the first engine on scene.
As of July 7, 2017, Council authorized the addition of the Fire Department’s first 4.0 staffed
engine – Engine 51 located at Fire Station 1. Shortly after this policy decision by Council, in early
August 2017, Engine 51 responded to an apartment fire in the 400 block of Oaklawn Avenue.
The 4.0 staffed unit arrived on scene in 4 minutes and 3 minutes later, knocked the fire down
thereby eliminating flashover and preventing the fire from burning longer and hotter and
destroying the occupant’s property. This is the first documented success story of the actions
taken by Council. The success also directly supports the findings of an internal timing study
conducted by the Fire Department that prove the positive impacts and outcomes of a 4.0 staffed
engine company.
In addition to this successful outcome, the Fire Department made a comparison analysis of
Engine 51’s time on task or “on scene time.” The comparison below verifies the positive results
anticipated by the Fire Department. Compared to a 3.0 staffed engine, one additional staff
member on a fire engine contributes to the reduction of overall time spent at scene.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 78
Page 3
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
Unit reliability and availability are two key factors that affect operational performance. Since
implementing 4.0 staffing and based on the comparison analysis, Engine 51 has improved
system reliability through increasing by more than 22 hours, its availability to receive calls. As a
result of improvements to Engine 51’s reliability and availability, it could accept emergency calls
more often, thereby reducing response times that otherwise would have required a further unit
to respond.
The table below compares unit availability with 3.0 vs. 4.0 staffing.
Table 2. Comparison of 3-0 v. 4-0 Staffing on Engine 51
Incident Type Group
3-0 Staffing 4-0 Staffing
Calls for
Service
Average
Time at
Incident
Calls for
Service
Average
Time at
Incident
Fire 42 0:32:56 32 0:39:34
EMS 1070 0:14:53 939 0:13:30
Total 1112 0:15:32 971 0:14:09
Saved an average of
0:01:24 per incident
Time
saved
with 4-0 25:50:57
Approx.
time
saved 22:34:17
3-0 Staffing of E51 from Mar 20, 2017 - July 6, 2017 (109 days); 4-0 Staffing of E51 from July 7, 2017 - Oct 23, 2017 (109 days)
4. Based on the information in Table 1, above, please provide two tables, one reporting on emergency
calls only, and one reporting on non-emergency calls only.
Table 3. All Response Times FY2017
Response Type
All 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
Fire and EMS Code (FH) 13,665 80.6 5:50 4:07 0:53 0:50
Fire and EMS Code (CAD) 16,972 78.5 6:04 4:13 1:08 0:50
No Code 3,535 43.4 10:23 7:56 1:19 0:52
All 20,507 74.8 6:31 4:37 1:10 0:50
5. 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 increased by 4.5% citywide over last year. Even though call volume is slowly increasing
in the east, there have been improvements made in response times (see Table 4, below). The
percentage of calls responded to in 2017, thus far, is 60.4% in 7 minutes, showing a three-year
improvement of nearly 8% since 2014. If the positive trend continues at this rate, it would still be
insufficient to meet the 80% threshold in 18 months.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 79
Page 4
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
In addition, the construction of fire station 10 in Millenia is anticipated for completion at the end of
calendar year 2019. The addition of station 10 will help to improve this trend in the east.
6. 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__
Call volume trends at a 5% increase per year. 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 and surrounding fire station coverage areas. The construction of fire station 11
at the Bayfront is anticipated for completion in fiscal year 2021. In addition, the Fire Department is
adding 4.0 staffing to four total units in May 2018. According to data, this should increase unit
availability and reliability system wide.
The Fire Department would need the following system adjustments in order to make significant
improvements to continue to be in compliance: (The sub bullets indicate more detail and any
progress/status).
1. Additional fire stations within the network
Millenia fire station estimated completion end of calendar year 2019.
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 (funded with station alerting)
Replace all fire station alerting systems ($300,000)
Provide smart phone for each seated position ($30,000 with $12,000 ongoing)
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. Pilot squad response program ($750,000 per 12 hour squad)
7. Please provide information on what solutions have been devised to address any threshold shortfalls
(i.e. new equipment, software, dispatching and response procedures, etc.).
Equipment replacement
Changes to dispatch
Monthly reports
Elimination of response to level 3 calls for service - The current emergency dispatch
triage classifications utilized by our communications center, San Diego Emergency
Communications and Data Center (ECDC) aka San Diego Metro, involve a triaged rating
of Level 1 (Emergent) to Level 4 (Non-Emergent). The CVFD responds only to Level 1,
Level 3, and Traffic Accident classifications currently, all in an emergent (lights and siren)
mode. Level 3 calls are considered urgent responses for both first responder and
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 80
Page 5
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
transport units, but the current practice is to send both units to scene emergently with
lights and sirens to these responses.
An internal Fire Department analysis revealed that out of the approximately 1,800 Level
3 calls for service, less than .0012 percent of these responses involved patients suffering
from acute conditions which can therefore translate into a transport (AMR) only
response. The elimination of a first responder unit from these calls is consistent with
community standards in Metro dispatched agencies. The elimination of Level 3
responses by Chula Vista Fire Department resources will serve to improve unit
availability/reliability thus assisting with meeting the 7 minutes 90% goal.
8. Please update the tables below.
Table 4. FIRE and EMS Response Times - By Geography
Fiscal
Year
All 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 C E W C E W C E W C E W C E W C
2017 2412 7475 3778 60.4 87.6 79.9 6:55 5:25 5:57 5:06 3:41 4:21 0:48 0:58 0:47 1:01 0:47 0:49
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).
“Central” = Calls responded to citywide (Fire Stations 2, 3, 4 and 9).
Table 5. FIRE and EMS Response Times in FY 2017 - By Fire Station
Fire Station #
And Location
All Calls
For Service
% of All Calls
Responded to
Within 7 Minutes
(Threshold = 80%)
Average
Travel Time
For All Calls
Average
Dispatch Time
Average
Turn-out Time
Average
Response
Time
1 -447 F St. 4202 89.2 0:03:25 0:00:53 0:00:44 0:05:02
2 -80 East J. St 952 80.7 0:04:18 0:00:42 0:00:52 0:05:52
3 -1410 Brandywine 858 77.9 0:04:33 0:00:51 0:00:43 0:06:07
4 -850 Paseo
Ranchero 812 75.3 0:04:22 0:00:53 0:00:53 0:06:07
5 -391 Oxford 3273 85.5 0:04:01 0:01:04 0:00:49 0:05:55
6 -605 Mt. Miguel 585 71.5 0:04:36 0:00:50 0:01:00 0:06:26
7 -1640 Santa Venetia 1060 54.8 0:05:15 0:00:51 0:01:02 0:07:07
8 -1180 Woods Dr. 767 59.6 0:05:16 0:00:42 0:01:01 0:07:00
9 -266 E. Oneida 1156 84.0 0:04:12 0:00:46 0:00:49 0:05:46
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 81
Page 6
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
Table 6. 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
2017 20,507 2.1 (425) 68.4 (14019) 29.6 (6063) 4.5
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)
9. Between the Chula Vista Fire Department and AMR, please provide statistics on who was first to
arrive on the scene for all calls and the time difference between the two in Fiscal Year 2017.
Table 7. First Unit Arrival to Incident
Oct 2016 Arrival
Unit Type
1st 2nd Total
Count Count % Ave. Resp Count % Ave. Resp
AMR 177 15.65% 0:06:13 954 84.35% 0:09:11 1131
CVFD 954 84.35% 0:05:22 177 15.65% 0:09:03 1131
Total 1131 100.00% 1131 100.00% 2262
*Units are not always dispatched at the same time.
When AMR arrives 1st, CV arrives 2nd an average of 0:02:50 later.
When CV arrives 1st, AMR arrives 2nd an average of 0:03:50 later.
10. Please provide a table indicating how Chula Vista’s response times compare with other comparable
jurisdictions in the region, particularly jurisdictions with similar master planned communities.
Table 8. Threshold Comparison to Other Agencies
Fire Department Threshold Standard Compliance Met
San Diego 7.5 Minutes 90% of the time No
Escondido 7.5 Minutes 90% of the time Yes
Oceanside 5 min. (notification) 90% of the time No
San Marcos 7.5 Minutes 90% of the time Yes
Chula Vista 7 Minutes 80% of the time Yes
Chula Vista 7.5 Minutes 90% of the time No - 8:05 @ 90%
11. Please provide a map of hotspots in the City overlaid on the roadway system and the locations of
the fire stations in relation to incidents.
See attachment
12. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommended that the City Manager and the Fire Department
“focus on improving response times at stations 6, 7 and 8, and that fire trucks be equipped with
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 82
Page 7
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
moderately priced video capabilities to identify traffic patterns.” The response provided by the Fire
Department was: “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 through the City.” Please
report how each fire station in the east is using the traffic data and what outcomes are expected.
The Department of Public Works has provided the following response related to traffic studies:
We are deploying infrared (and GPS-capable) Opticom emergency vehicle (EV) pre-emption
systems at our new/modernized intersections based on our recently adopted Opticom standard.
The new Opticom systems are still primarily infrared EV pre-emption systems, but have the built-
in GPS capability to allow for that future enhancement whenever Fire is able to equip their fleet
with GPS Opticom systems. It’s also important to note that good communications between
signalized intersections and a Central Management System are also key to the success of this
system.
Public Works’ short-term plans/hopes were to deploy a GPS-enabled EV system through most
parts of the city. Unfortunately, this will not occur at this time since a couple of weeks ago we
found out that we were not one of the recipients of the ATCMTD federal grant. In spite of the
fact that we didn’t receive the grant, in the next 12-18 months, we are planning to deploy GPS-
enabled “transit priority-ready” Opticom GPS-capable systems at our signalized intersections
along Broadway, H St, 3rd Av, and Main St. These systems will also have the capability to serve
EV GPS pre-emption calls. However, Fire (and/or other emergency vehicles) will need to have
their vehicles equipped with the proper GPS Opticom system to pre-empt these signals. Again,
good communications and Opticom’s Central Management System are required for the system
to be effective. To that end, we are currently in the planning stages on our traffic signal
communications upgrades (in multiple phases, depending on funding) which will be funded using
grants, TransNet, and Measure P funds. Traffic signal communications upgrades to Broadway, H
St, 3rd Av, and Main St are expected to be completed prior to the end of 2018. Also, as we get
closer to the operational deployment of the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, we will be
securing an Opticom Central Management System through the BRT project (mid 2018).
13. Are the milestone targets in Chula Vista’s Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan
(March 12, 2012) being met?
Conclusions and recommendations are listed on page 149 of the master plan. With the exception
of the implementation of 4.0 staffing on Engine Company 51, no other recommendations have
been met.
14. At this time, is there any need to update Chula Vista’s Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment
Master Plan?
An update is required and in progress for the approval of relocation of fire station 9.
15. One goal of Chula Vista’s Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan is to comply with
the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA’s) 1710 standards. On the table below, please
define “Effective Fire Force – 14FF and report on Chula Vista’s efforts to comply with NFPA.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 83
Page 8
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
Table 9. National Fire Protection Association 1710 Compliance Table – FY 2017
# of Calls Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Response
EMS - 1st Unit 13,837
STANDARD 1:00 1:00 4:00 6:00
Average Time 0:53 0:50 4:09 5:51
% Compliant 82.1 71.1 55.6 63.9
Fire - 1st Unit 116
STANDARD 1:00 1:20 4:00 6:20
Average Time 1:37 0:48 5:27 7:52
% Compliant 53.5 69.0 36.2 34.5
Effective Fire Force - 14FF 59
STANDARD 1:00 1:20 8:00 10:20
Average Time 1:32 0:54 7:33 9:59
% Compliant 64.4 83.1 25.4 71.2
Effective Fire Force (EFF) aka. Effective Response Force – An effective response force is defined as the
minimum number of firefighters and equipment that must reach a specific emergency incident location
within a maximum prescribed travel (driving) time.
Excerpt below from NFPA 1710:
5.2.4.2 Initial Full Alarm Assignment Capability.
5.2.4.2.1* The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initial full alarm assignment within an
8-minute travel time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4.
5.2.4.2.2 The initial full alarm assignment shall provide for the following:
(1) Establishment of incident command outside of the hazard area for the overall coordination and
direction of the initial full alarm assignment. A minimum of one individual shall be dedicated to
this task.
(2) Establishment of an uninterrupted water supply of a minimum 1520 L/min (400 gpm) for 30
minutes. Supply line(s) shall be maintained by an operator who shall ensure uninterrupted water
flow application.
(3) Establishment of an effective water flow application rate of 1140 L/min (300 gpm) from two
handlines, each of which shall have a minimum of 380 L/min (100 gpm). Each attack and backup
line shall be operated by a minimum of two individuals to effectively and safely maintain the line.
(4) Provision of one support person for each attack and backup line deployed to provide hydrant
hookup and to assist in line lays, utility control, and forcible entry.
(5) A minimum of one victim search and rescue team shall be part of the initial full alarm assignment.
Each search and rescue team shall consist of a minimum of two individuals.
(6) A minimum of one ventilation team shall be part of the initial full alarm assignment. Each
ventilation team shall consist of a minimum of two individuals.
(7) If an aerial device is used in operations, one person shall function as an aerial operator who shall
maintain primary control of the aerial device at all times.
(8) Establishment of an IRIC that shall consist of a minimum of two properly equipped and trained
individuals.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 84
Page 9
Fire and EMS – FY 2017
Through City Council Resolution, EFF was approved in January 2014.
In addition, 4.0 staffing on Engine Company 51 began on July 7, 2017. With the acceptance of a
SAFER grant, 12 new firefighters have been approved to be added beginning in January 2018.
These new firefighters will be trained in the fire academy and upon graduation will be staffed to
enable 4.0 staffing at Engine Company 51, 52, 55, and 57.
Recently, a Public Safety Advisory Committee has been organized to discuss and address staffing
and response issues in Public Safety.
16. 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: Jim Geering
Title: Fire Chief
Date: 11/14/17
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 85
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 86
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Fiscal – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
H. FISCAL.
1. GOAL.
To implement land uses and activities that generate an adequate tax and revenue base that meets
the economic needs of the residents of the City of Chula Vista, with new project development
providing self-financing of capital projects.
2. OBJECTIVES.
a. Monitor the impacts of growth on the City of Chula Vista’s fiscal well-being, considering both
operating and capital improvement costs and revenues.
b. Monitor and update the effectiveness of the development impact fee programs, considering the
appropriate and timely use of such funds.
c. Monitor and update the effectiveness of various public facility master plans to ensure adequate
funding will be available to meet the demands of growth.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARDS.
a. 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.
b. 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 necess ary funding programs or
mechanisms.
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. Use fiscal impact analyses (FIA) and public facility financing plans (PFFPs) to evaluate and ensure
that new development requiring the preparation of an SPA plan, or equivalent, pursuant to Chapter
19.48 CVMC, contribute to the City’s fiscal well-being by generating revenues and related economic
activity that, at a minimum, offset the cost of providing municipal services for the new development.
b. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report that provides an evaluation of the
impacts of growth on the City in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report shou ld
evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next
five-year period.
c. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual development impact fee report, which provides an
analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period and
projected for expenditure for projects included within the DIF programs. (Ord. 3339 § 3, 2015).
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 87
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 2
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 improvements. The evaluation should include the following three time
frames:
a. The last fiscal year (07-01-16 to 06-30-17);
b. The current fiscal year, 2017-2018; and
c. What is anticipated in the coming five years
a. Last Fiscal Year 2016-17 (07/01/16-06/30/17)
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 $146.4
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 $146.4 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
Actual
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 35,535 $ 36,162 $ 628
Sales Taxes 33,317 32,952 (365)
Other Local Taxes 28,430 36,641 8,211
Licenses and Permits 3,439 3,914 474
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 1,943 1,806 (137)
Use of Money & Property 8,210 4,551 (3,658)
Revenue from Other Agencies 44,502 242,869 198,367
Charges for Services 56,193 52,414 (3,779)
Development Impact Fees 11,900 8,929 (2,971)
Other Revenue 73,014 87,604 14,590
Transfers In 84,256 114,694 30,439
Total Revenues $ 380,740 $ 622,537 $ 241,797
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 88
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 3
FY 2015-16
Actual
FY 2016-17
Actual
Increase/
(Decrease)
Expenditures
Personnel Services $ 133,097 $ 138,168 $ 5,072
Supplies & Services 50,458 57,953 7,495
Other Expenses 77,359 73,703 (3,656)
Capital 2,089 3,418 1,329
Transfers Out 84,256 114,694 30,439
CIP Project Expenditures 14,906 34,196 19,291
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 2,987 3,090 103
Utilities 7,145 7,690 545
Total Expenditures $ 372,296 $ 432,913 $ 60,617
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2015-16
Actual
FY 2016-17
Actual
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
b. Fiscal Year 2017-18 (current fiscal year)
On June 20, 2017, the City Council adopted the fiscal year 2017-18 operating and capital budgets. The
adopted all funds budget totaled $373.0 million, including a General Fund operating budget of $166.6
million, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $73.9 million, $46.7 million in interfund transfers,
and $85.8 million in operating budgets for other City funds, including Sewer, Successor Agency to the
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 89
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 4
Redevelopment Agency, Development Services, and Fleet. The fiscal year 2017-18 budget assumed all
funds revenues totaling $373.0 million, including $166.6 million in General Fund revenues.
The CIP Project Expenditure category reflects the largest change when compared to fiscal year 2016-17
adopted budget. This category is projected to grow by a net $53.1 million. This increase is mainly
attributed to $ 52.1 in budgeted capital improvement projects within the 2016 Measure P Sales Tax Fund.
The following table summarizes and compares fiscal year 2016-17 actual revenues, expenditures, and
staffing for all funds to projected fiscal year 2017-18 measures of the same.
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
FY 2016-17
Actual
FY 2017-18
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 36,162 $ 38,588 $ 2,426
Sales Taxes 32,952 49,255 16,303
Other Local Taxes 36,641 32,595 (4,046)
Licenses and Permits 3,914 3,676 (238)
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 1,806 1,718 (87)
Use of Money & Property 4,551 3,534 (1,017)
Revenue from Other Agencies 242,869 48,898 (193,972)
Charges for Services 52,414 49,542 (2,872)
Development Impact Fees 8,929 8,137 (793)
Other Revenue 87,604 81,213 (6,391)
Transfers In 114,694 46,670 (68,024)
Total Revenues $ 622,537 $ 363,827 $ (258,711)
Expenditures
Personnel Services $ 138,168 $ 145,123 $ 6,955
Supplies & Services 57,953 60,067 2,114
Other Expenses 73,703 29,729 (43,974)
Capital 3,418 8,884 5,467
Transfers Out 114,694 46,670 (68,024)
CIP Project Expenditures 34,196 73,872 39,676
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 3,090 69 (3,022)
Utilities 7,690 8,556 866
Total Expenditures $ 432,913 $ 372,971 $ (59,942)
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 90
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 5
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2016-17
Actual
FY 2017-18
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
General Fund
Legislative/ Administrative 105.00 105.00 -
Development/ Maintenance 218.25 218.75 0.50
Public Safety 462.50 468.50 6.00
Community Services 39.50 39.50 -
General Fund Subtotal 825.25 831.75 6.50
Other Funds
Advanced Life Support 1.00 1.00 -
Development Services 50.00 50.00 -
Police Grants/ CBAG 39.00 43.00 4.00
Federal Grants Fund 2.00 2.00 -
Environmental Services 7.00 7.00 -
Housing Authority 4.00 4.00 -
Successor Agency -
-
Fleet Management 10.00 9.00 (1.00)
Transit -
-
Sewer 46.00 46.00 -
Other Funds Subtotal 159.00 162.00 3.00
Total All Funds 984.25 993.75 9.50
Population (as of January 1) 267,005 267,917 912
FTEs per 1,000 population 3.69 3.71 0.02
The table below is provided to demonstrate that revenues and expenditures were not double counted. The
table removes Transfers In, Transfers Out Advances, Due to, Due From for actual fiscal year 2016-17 and
projected fiscal year 2017-18 figures.
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY NOT INCLUDING TI/TO (in Thousands)
FY 2016-17
Actual
FY 2017-18
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 36,162 $ 38,588 $ 2,426
Sales Taxes 32,952 49,255 16,303
Other Local Taxes 36,641 32,595 (4,046 )
Licenses and Permits 3,914 3,676 (238)
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 1,806 1,718 (87 )
Use of Money & Property 4,551 3,534 (1,017)
Revenue from Other Agencies 242,869 48,898 (193,972)
Charges for Services 52,414 49,542 (2,872)
Development Impact Fees 8,929 8,137 (793)
Other Revenue 70,812 63,269 (7,543)
Total Revenues $ 491,051 $ 299,212 $ (191,839)
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 91
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 6
FY 2016-17
Actual
FY 2017-18
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
Expenditures
Personnel Services $ 138,168 $ 145,123 $ 6,955
Supplies & Services 57,953 60,067 2,114
Other Expenses 69,055 24,312 (44,744)
Capital 3,418 8,884 5,467
CIP Project Expenditures 34,196 73,872 39,676
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 3,090 69 (3,022)
Utilities 7,690 8,556 866
Total Expenditures $ 313,571 $320,883 $ 7,312
c. Ten-Year Forecast (fiscal year 2017-18 through fiscal year 2020-27)
In prior years, the City of Chula Vista prepared a General Fund Five-Year Forecast which served as a tool to
identify financial trends, shortfalls, and issues so that the City can proactively address them. For fiscal year
2017-2018, the City’s first Long Term Financial Plan was presented in order to expand the duration of the
forecast to ten years from the previous five-year model, as well as to provide a more in-depth analysis of the
City’s fiscal condition to aid in proactive financial decision making. The goal of the Long Term Financial Plan is to
assess the City’s ability over the next ten years to continue to provide current service levels based on projected
growth, preserve the City’s long term fiscal health by aligning operating revenues and costs, and to prudently
rebuild the operating reserves. As a financial planning document, revenue and expenditure assumptions are
included to forecast the impacts of development, legislative changes, pension costs, health care, economic
cycles, and many other factors over the next ten years.
It is important to stress that this plan 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 plan is to provide an
overview of the City’s fiscal health based on various assumptions over the next ten years and provide City
Council, management, and the citizens of Chula Vista with a “heads up” on the financial outlook beyond the
annual budget cycle. The Long Term Financial Plan 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 ten-year projections attached.
Economic & Population Growth
Inflation is a measure of the increase for the cost of goods and services. Inflation impacts many revenues,
such as rents and leases, and most expenditure categories throughout the plan. Normally inflation averages
around 2% per year. With the approval of Senate Bill 3 by California Governor Jerry Brown the state
minimum wage will be increasing to $15 per hour by 2022. As a result, expenditure inflation may be
significantly higher than normal over this period. While it is impossible to calculate the exact impacts year by
year, it is reasonable to assume that employers will be passing along the increased labor costs into their costs
of goods and services. The state minimum wage proposal calls for an increase in minimum wage to $11 in
2018 and one dollar each year through 2022. The ten-year forecast includes expenditure inflation on the
supplies and services category ranging from 5%-9% per year until 2022. While the City does not currently
pay minimum wage for any of its authorized positions, the increases in minimum wage will exceed current
wages for some hourly, part-time, and seasonal staff. Those positions are adjusted by a higher than normal
inflation factor through 2022 in the ten-year forecast.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 92
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 7
The regional, state, and national economies continue to recover at a modest pace from the recession of
2007-2009. The two major factors that have supported the recovery are the growth in the housing market
related to new development and housing price appreciation, as well as job creation reflected in the strong
unemployment figures. While most current U. S. economic forecasts show continued growth over the next
12-18 months, global recessionary pressures continue to exist. This is exemplified by China’s explosive
economic expansion slowing to a more sustainable level. Oil producing nations have suffered greatly as a
result of the oil price collapse over the last 36 months. Many of the European economies continue to
struggle to achieve any measurable growth which has required the European Central Bank to maintain
extremely low interest rates to avoid a pronounced recession. This lack of inflation in Europe has put
pressure on U.S. interest rates as the “risk-off” trade of Federal Securities continues to be the investment
vehicle of choice for many conservative investors. The U.S. national debt continues to build while
entitlement liabilities within the Social Security, Medicare, and the Health Care system provides cause for
concern as it relates to future economic growth assumptions.
Major Revenues
Sales tax revenue will increase moderately in FY 2018 with projected slow growth anticipated at 2%. In Fiscal
Years 2019-22 the projected growth is expected to be 2.5%. A reasonable assumption of sales tax growth in
forecast years 5-10 is based upon normal inflation increases along with population growth.
Property tax revenue is the City’s most stable revenue source. The severe housing recession late last decade
decimated property values and therefore severely reduced property tax revenues from 2008 -2012. A steady
recovery has ensued since that time. Another housing recession is not predicted during the forecast period.
Stable property tax revenue growth is assumed throughout the forecast period.
Franchise Fees, Utility User Taxes, and Motor Vehicle License Fees are all projected to grow at a steady rate
throughout the forecast period.
Transient occupancy tax will see significant increases as a result of the October 2017 opening of the
Residence Inn by Marriot, and two additional major hotels planned for development in the eastern part of
the City over the next five years. Most of the City’s current hotels/motels are of the discount or budget
variety. These new hotels will be in the mid-range service level and will attract more business travelers and
tourists to the City. In January 2017, the City took over the ownership and operation of the Olympic Training
Center in the eastern part of the City. It is anticipated that future events at the training center will further
support robust growth in transient occupancy tax. In fact, the new Residence Inn is running near capacity,
due in part to its proximity to the Olympic Training Center. The City anticipates the second and third hotels
opening in 2019.
Expenditures
Personnel Services for fiscal year 2017-18 reflects assumed wage inflation of 2% for the year. At the time of
the writing of this document the City has completed negotiations with four of the five bargaining groups and
is currently in negotiations with the fifth. For purposes of the ten-year forecast, wage inflation is assumed at
2% per year. It is important to note that this figure is simply an assumption and does not represent a
commitment or obligation, but rather provides a baseline for wage related inflation in the future.
Beginning in 2017-18, salary savings are calculated at 1% of projected Salary/PERS/Medicare expenditures.
This is based upon normal position vacancy rates and savings as a result of voluntary furlough elections by
employees.
The Workers Compensation Fund fund balance increased significantly during fiscal year 2016-17; however,
this increase was the result of a one-time transfer (net $600,000) and actual expenses coming in lower than
expected ($612,000). Anticipated increases to worker compensation claim expenses during fiscal year 2017-
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 93
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 8
18 are expected to quickly deplete the fund balance. This fund was established to account for revenues and
expenditures related to workers compensation claims and litigation. The Workers Compensation charges
allocated to the General Fund will need to increase in order to fund the anticipated Workers Compensation
expenditures and begin to build reserves based on actuarial assumptions.
The Public Liabilities Trust Fund is anticipated to deplete its fund balance by the end of fiscal year 2017-18.
This fund was established to account for revenues and expenditures related to litigation activities citywide.
Additional General Fund allocations will be required during the second half of fiscal year 2017-18 in order to
maintain sufficient reserves within this fund.
Pension Cost
The City contracts with CalPERS for retirement benefits for all full time benefitted employees. The City
currently has three tiers of employees based upon their start date within the CalPERS system and with the
City of Chula Vista. For each of the benefit rates referenced below, CalPERS uses the percentage of service
credit earned in one year (3%, 2%, etc.) and the full retirement age (60, 50, etc.) to describe their tiers. Tier
1 employees include employees who became members of CalPERS and started with the City of Chula Vista
prior to 4/22/2011. Miscellaneous tier 1 employees receive benefits at the rate of 3% at 60. Public Safety
tier 1 employees receive benefits at the rate of 3% at 50. Tier 2 employees include employees that became
members of CalPERS or a reciprocal agency prior to 1/1/2013 but started with the City after 4/22/2011.
Miscellaneous tier 2 employees receive benefits at the rate of 2% @ 60. Public Safety tier 2 employees
receive benefits at the rate of 3.0% @ 55. PEPRA, or Tier 3 , employees include all employees that are new
members to CalPERS on or after 1/1/2013. Miscellaneous tier 3 employees receive benefits at the rate of 2%
@ 62. Public safety tier 3 employees receive benefits at the rate of 2.7% at 57.
All City employees are separated into two retirement employment categories, miscellaneous and public
safety, in the annual CalPERS actuarial valuation reports. These reports provide the City with two very
important figures. The first is the City’s unfunded liability which is the amount the City would have to pay to
CalPERS today to completely pay off all pension liability. The unfunded liability is the amount of money it
would take to bring the City’s pension plan to 100% funded status. As of June 30, 2016, the most recent
CalPERS valuation report available, the City’s unfunded liability for the miscellaneous category was $181.7
million and $139.9 million for the public safety category. The second important figure is the City’s Total
Employer Contribution. This is amount of money the City will need to contribute for the fiscal year towards
pension costs. For fiscal year 2017-18 the required employer contribution for the miscellaneous category is
$15.3 million, an increase of approximately $1.1 million from fiscal year 2016-17. For the public safety
category, the fiscal year 2017-18 Total Employer Contribution is $13.4 million, an increase of approximately
$1.2 million from fiscal year 2016-17. These two numbers are used to quantify the City’s minimum employer
contribution rate. The quotient of these figures and total estimated payroll is the rate of base pay the City
must contribute to cover an employee’s pension costs.
CalPERS valuation reports also provide the City with a five-year projection of future employer contribution
rates that the City can utilize in making long term projections. Since the projection will always be almost a
year and half old by the time it is complete, the City has hired an actuarial consultant to prepare a more up
to date analysis of our projected employer contribution rates. The results of this analysis are included in the
ten-year projections provided. For miscellaneous employees, the projected future employer contribution
rate will rise from 31.5% in fiscal year 2017 -18 to 44.4% in 2026-27. For public safety employees, the
projected employer contribution rate will rise from 35.6% in fiscal year 2017-18 to 57% in 2026-27. This
means in 2027 for every $1 the City pays to miscellaneous employees the City will have to contribute an
additional $0.44 to CalPERS to cover pension obligations. Comparatively, this number is $0.57 for public
safety employees.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 94
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 9
In December 2016, the CalPERS board approved a reduction in their stated discount rate from 7.5% to 7.0%.
This change will result in a 30-40% increase in the City’s unfunded pension liability as well as increasing
normal pension costs. The 10-year forecast includes the anticipated impacts of this change.
Part time employees receive retirement benefits through PARS. PARS is an alternative to Social Security for
Part-Time, Seasonal, and Temporary employees. The City and employees both currently contribute 3.75% of
salary towards the PARS contribution amount of 7.5%.
Health Care
The City currently offers employees four medical plan options: Kaiser HMO, UHC (value and full), and UHC
PPO. The City does allow eligible retirees to stay enrolled in the City’s health plans at the same rate as our
active employees. Last year, the City went out to bid to ensure the best overall value for the plans offered to
our employees. As a result of the bid process, Aetna was replaced by UHC for the value, HMO, and PPO
plans. A comparison of 2018 to 2017 rates is shown below. The medical plan cost history over the last five
years shows that Kaiser has increased by an average of 3.9% per year. Cost history for UHC is limited to the
data below, since they are a new provider to the City. The City’s health insurance broker anticipates that
average annual health insurance costs will increase by 10% per year over the ten-year forecast period, in line
with the industry average.
MEDICAL COVERAGE 2018
Annual Cost
2017
Annual Cost
∆ $
Annual Cost
∆ %
Annual Cost
KAISER
Employee Only $6,624 $6,408 $216 3.37%
Employee + 1 $13,248 $12,816 $432 3.37%
Employee + Family $16,608 $16,068 $540 3.36%
UHC VALUE NETWORK
Employee Only $8,424 $7,524 $900 11.96%
Employee + 1 $16,836 $15,036 $1,800 11.97%
Employee + Family $21,072 $18,816 $2,256 11.99%
UHC FULL NETWORK
Employee Only $9,096 $8,160 $936 11.47%
Employee + 1 $18,156 $16,296 $1,860 11.41%
Employee + Family $22,704 $20,376 $2,328 11.43%
UHC PPO
Employee Only $14,172 $12,888 $1,284 9.96%
Employee + 1 $28,344 $25,776 $2,568 9.96%
Employee + Family $35,424 $32,220 $3,204 9.94%
Asset Management
The Asset Management Program was developed to identify, assess, and plan for the repair and replacement
of all City assets. The first step of the program consists of documenting all assets owned and managed by the
City. This documentation includes inventorying all assets, performing a condition assessment on each of
them, valuing the assets, and creating a hierarchy. The second step of the program is to prioritize the need
by critically ranking all assets by risk level and level of importance. The third step of the program is to
perform a life cycle cost assessment in order to develop a plan for financing the entire program.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 95
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 10
The program consists of nine separate systems which are outlined below. Using the steps described above,
the assets in each system have been sorted by red (high risk zone), yellow (medium risk zone), and green
(low risk zone). This allows for the City to make decisions on each asset (repair, replace, renovate, liquidate,
shut down, relocate, etc.), and to budget available resources towards the repair and replacement of these
assets. Last year, City Council approved the Measure P Expenditure Plan to address all red category (high
risk) assets and some of the yellow category (medium risk) assets. The approved Measure P Plan,
summarized in Question 8 below, totals $169.6 million over a 10-year period. With seven of nine
management systems completed, the red category has approximately $112 million in estimated funding
required to repair and replace these high-risk assets. The yellow category currently has an estimated $400
million in funding required for repair and replacement costs.
• Building Management System (BMS)
• Drainage Management System (DMS)
• Fleet Management System (FMS)
• General Government Management System (GGMS)
• Open Space Management System (OSMS)
• Parks Management System (PMS)
• Roadways Management System (RMS)
• Urban Forestry Management System (UFMS)
• Wastewater Management System (WMS)
During the development of the Asset Management program, it became clear that additional funding would
be needed to fund the additional infrastructure projects and equipment. After extensive research into viable
funding options, City staff recommended moving forward with Measure P, a ten-year, half-cent sales tax
measure. City Council approved the ballot measure in July 2016 and the measure ultimately passed with
approximately 68% of the vote in favor. Staff projects Measure P revenue at approximately $170 million
dollars over the ten-year period.
Development Impacts
As new major developments are proposed in the City, each developer is required to submit a fiscal impact
analysis to ensure that the City’s revenues generated from the project will meet or exceed the anticipated
expenditures. Many of the developments within the City were initiated prior to the recession and housing
market crash late last decade. The recession and reduction in property values has caused a deficiency in
revenues compared to what was originally anticipated. The timing of the revenues related to new
development can vary greatly depending on how fast the market can absorb new inventory and the
economic condition throughout the development process.
Staff has been working with a consultant over the last nine months developing an updated Financial Impact
Analysis model that will become the new standard model going forward for development projects. The new
model is not finalized, but has all of the key components built to analyze development projects from a
surplus/deficit standpoint. Based upon the updated pension, public safety staffing, and public works
maintenance costs, the model indicates that non-residential uses generate greater fiscal benefits than a
prototypical residential project. It is imperative that the City continue to pursue a balanced development
plan that supports optimal sales tax capture and job creation.
Items not included in the plan
Several projects are in conceptual planning or negotiation stages and therefore cannot be accurately forecast
during the ten-year forecast period. The Bayfront project has been discussed for many years. This project
would bring a variety of residential and commercial developments to an area of the City that is currently
underutilized. Discussions are ongoing with the various resource agencies, governments, and developers. The
Long Term Financial Plan does not include potential revenue growth assumptions from Bayfront related indirect
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 96
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 11
development. As mentioned previously, the City acquired the Olympic Training Center in January 2017.
Although it is likely that this change in use of the venue will attract new tourism to the City, additional actual
data is needed to provide an accurate forecast for revenue generation by the Center. That being said, early
results for the Center indicate the operations are going well, but not yet profitable. The Center’s operations are
having a positive effect on the new Residence Inn which opened within the last year. Once additional data is
available, a forecast will be composed and updated annually to provide a more quantitative view of these
projects, and any future projects that are being considered.
10 Year Projections
The following table includes major revenue and expenditure categories for the City’s General Fund over a ten-
year forecast period assuming maintaining current baseline services. It is important to understand that this is
only a forecast and not indicative of what the budgets will be in future years. Assumptions have been made
about the state of the economy, the City’s future costs, as well as projected expenditures. In general, the
farther you project into the future the less accurate the forecast will be. Every effort was made in the creation
of the forecast to base assumptions on industry best practices.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 97
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 12
Description Adopted Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Revenues:
Property Taxes 33.62$ 34.36$ 35.30$ 36.26$ 37.26$ 38.28$ 39.34$ 40.42$ 41.54$ 42.69$
Sales Tax 49.26$ 50.25$ 51.42$ 52.63$ 53.85$ 55.11$ 56.40$ 57.72$ 59.07$ 55.57$
Franchise Fees 11.97$ 11.57$ 11.76$ 11.96$ 12.16$ 12.36$ 12.56$ 12.77$ 12.98$ 13.20$
Utility Users Taxes 5.86$ 5.92$ 5.98$ 6.04$ 6.10$ 6.16$ 6.22$ 6.28$ 6.35$ 6.41$
Transient Occupancy Taxes 4.32$ 4.36$ 5.61$ 5.73$ 5.84$ 5.96$ 6.08$ 6.20$ 6.32$ 6.45$
Motor Vehicle License Fees 20.84$ 21.16$ 21.79$ 22.44$ 23.11$ 23.80$ 24.51$ 25.25$ 26.00$ 26.78$
SUBTOTAL MAJOR DESCRETIONARY REVENUES 125.87$ 127.62$ 131.87$ 135.05$ 138.32$ 141.67$ 145.11$ 148.64$ 152.26$ 151.10$
Development Revenue 1.21$ 1.21$ 1.22$ 1.22$ 1.23$ 1.24$ 1.24$ 1.25$ 1.25$ 1.26$
Licenses and Permits 1.36$ 1.39$ 1.42$ 1.45$ 1.48$ 1.51$ 1.54$ 1.57$ 1.60$ 1.63$
Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties 1.08$ 1.10$ 1.12$ 1.14$ 1.16$ 1.19$ 1.21$ 1.24$ 1.26$ 1.29$
Use of Money and Property 2.42$ 2.45$ 2.47$ 2.49$ 2.52$ 2.55$ 2.57$ 2.60$ 2.62$ 2.65$
Other Local Taxes 2.60$ 2.62$ 2.65$ 2.68$ 2.70$ 2.73$ 2.76$ 2.79$ 2.81$ 2.84$
Police Grants 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$ 0.76$
Other Agency Revenue 2.03$ 2.05$ 2.07$ 2.09$ 2.11$ 2.13$ 2.15$ 2.17$ 2.19$ 2.22$
Charges for Services 7.21$ 7.25$ 7.28$ 7.32$ 7.36$ 7.39$ 7.43$ 7.47$ 7.50$ 7.54$
Interfund Reimbursements 9.82$ 9.92$ 10.01$ 10.11$ 9.76$ 9.86$ 9.96$ 10.06$ 10.16$ 10.26$
Other Revenues - Miscellaneous 1.03$ 1.04$ 1.04$ 1.05$ 1.06$ 1.06$ 1.07$ 1.07$ 1.08$ 1.08$
Transfers From Other Funds 11.21$ 10.91$ 10.91$ 10.91$ 10.91$ 10.91$ 10.91$ 10.91$ 10.91$ 10.91$
SUBTOTAL OTHER REVENUES 40.72$ 40.68$ 40.95$ 41.21$ 41.04$ 41.31$ 41.59$ 41.87$ 42.14$ 42.43$
NEW DEVELOPMENT REVENUES
Property Taxes -$ 0.73$ 1.01$ 1.41$ 1.76$ 2.10$ 2.46$ 2.79$ 3.19$ 3.37$
Sales Tax -$ 0.32$ 0.45$ 0.59$ 0.74$ 0.85$ 0.96$ 1.06$ 1.16$ 1.26$
Franchise Fees -$ 0.20$ 0.28$ 0.36$ 0.45$ 0.54$ 0.63$ 0.72$ 0.80$ 0.88$
Utility Users Taxes -$ 0.08$ 0.11$ 0.14$ 0.18$ 0.21$ 0.25$ 0.28$ 0.32$ 0.76$
Transient Occupancy Taxes -$ 1.19$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Motor Vehicle License Fees -$ 0.48$ 0.67$ 0.94$ 1.17$ 1.40$ 1.64$ 1.86$ 2.12$ 2.24$
Other Revenues - Miscellaneous -$ 0.27$ 0.38$ 0.50$ 0.62$ 0.74$ 0.86$ 0.98$ 1.06$ 1.69$
Other Local Taxes -$ 0.15$ 0.19$ 0.26$ 0.26$ 0.28$ 0.31$ 0.33$ 0.35$ 0.30$
SUBTOTAL NEW DEVELOPMENT REVENUES -$ 3.41$ 3.09$ 4.20$ 5.18$ 6.12$ 7.09$ 8.02$ 8.99$ 10.50$
TOTAL REVENUES 166.59$ 171.71$ 175.90$ 180.46$ 184.54$ 189.10$ 193.79$ 198.52$ 203.39$ 204.03$
Expenditures:
Personnel Services 88.93$ 90.70$ 91.99$ 93.74$ 95.52$ 97.34$ 99.20$ 101.10$ 103.03$ 105.01$
Flex/Insurance 12.37$ 12.82$ 13.76$ 14.78$ 15.88$ 17.07$ 18.36$ 19.75$ 21.27$ 22.91$
PERS 24.43$ 27.79$ 30.53$ 33.49$ 36.41$ 39.07$ 41.28$ 43.89$ 45.17$ 47.17$
Salary Savings (On Going)(0.84)$ (0.86)$ (0.89)$ (0.92)$ (0.95)$ (0.98)$ (1.01)$ (1.05)$ (1.07)$ (1.10)$
Salary Savings (One-Time)(1.34)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
SUBTOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES EXPENDITURES 123.56$ 130.45$ 135.39$ 141.09$ 146.85$ 152.49$ 157.82$ 163.70$ 168.40$ 173.99$
Supplies and Services 14.21$ 15.49$ 16.73$ 18.07$ 19.34$ 19.72$ 20.12$ 20.52$ 20.93$ 21.35$
Utilities 5.06$ 5.32$ 5.58$ 5.86$ 6.15$ 6.46$ 6.79$ 7.12$ 7.48$ 7.85$
Other Expenses 0.64$ 0.66$ 0.67$ 0.68$ 0.70$ 0.71$ 0.72$ 0.74$ 0.75$ 0.77$
Equipment (Capital not CIP)0.15$ 0.15$ 0.15$ 0.16$ 0.16$ 0.16$ 0.16$ 0.16$ 0.16$ 0.16$
Transfers/Debt Service 22.94$ 24.01$ 23.95$ 24.19$ 24.48$ 24.91$ 25.26$ 25.60$ 25.97$ 21.23$
Capital Improvement Projects -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$ 0.02$
SUBTOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES 43.03$ 45.65$ 47.10$ 48.98$ 50.84$ 51.98$ 53.06$ 54.17$ 55.31$ 51.38$
NEW DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES
4.0 Truck Staffing for Millenia and Bayfront -$ 1.86$ 1.97$ 2.08$ 4.38$ 4.60$ 4.82$ 5.05$ 5.27$ 5.51$
Peace Officer Funding -$ 0.76$ 1.61$ 2.55$ 3.59$ 4.71$ 5.91$ 7.22$ 8.60$ 10.10$
Millenia Parks Maintenance -$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 0.08$
Fire Station Supplies and Services -$ 0.16$ 0.16$ 0.16$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$
SUBTOTAL NEW DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES -$ 2.86$ 3.82$ 4.87$ 8.36$ 9.71$ 11.12$ 12.67$ 14.26$ 16.01$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 166.59$ 178.96$ 186.31$ 194.93$ 206.06$ 214.18$ 222.01$ 230.53$ 237.97$ 241.38$
TOTAL GENERAL FUND SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)-$ (7.24)$ (10.42)$ (14.47)$ (21.52)$ (25.08)$ (28.22)$ (32.01)$ (34.58)$ (37.35)$
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) AS % OF BUDGET 0%-4% -6% -7% -10% -12% -13% -14% -15% -15%
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Utility Savings through Measure P Projects -$ 0.83$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$
Citywide Transition to Paperless Operations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS -$ 0.83$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$ 1.65$
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) WITH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS -$ (6.42)$ (8.77)$ (12.82)$ (19.87)$ (23.43)$ (26.57)$ (30.36)$ (32.93)$ (35.70)$
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 98
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 13
2. Please provide an update on the City’s current fiscal health and how it affects 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, 2017. From a current actual operating perspective, the City appears to be in solid fiscal
condition, with revenues outpacing expenditures in both fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17. In addition,
near-term forecasts for fiscal year 2017-18 are favorable, given that many of the capital expenses are
funded with revenues accumulated in prior years.
Conversely, the 10-year projection summary shows a different picture with projected expenditures
outpacing projected revenues beginning in fiscal year 2018-19, and continuing through the entire
projection. While this challenging forecast is significant, it is important to note that the adopted
General Fund budget was balanced for fiscal year 2017-18 when the City was facing a multi-million-
dollar deficit. This means the requisite adjustments to spending were made while largely maintaining
service levels. Going forward, City Staff will continue to seek additional revenue streams, and more
efficient delivery methods of services to maintain service levels while reducing costs to bridge
anticipated budget imbalances.
The most notable fiscal impact is the growing CalPERS pension liability. The fiscal impact report does
not directly highlight this concern; however, the impact can be seen in the ten-year forecast which
derived from the best information available at the time the budget was being developed in April 2017.
Since that time, the financial statements have been finalized and actual costs have been re-calculated
for pension liability. A comparison of the City’s Net Position between fiscal year 2015-16 and 2016-17
shows that the City’s pension liability grew by over $50 million in one year. It is worth noting, CalPERS
finished fiscal year 2017 with an investment yield of 11.2%, well above its targeted investment
performance of 7.0%. However, this was the first year CalPERS has met or exceeded its targeted
investment return since 2014. The results of this poor investment performance in the last few years,
prior to fiscal year 2016-17, coupled with the reduction in the CalPERS target investment return from
7.5% to 7.0% are the primary causes of this escalating liability.
Two other fiscal impacts are healthcare costs and maintenance of the City’s capital assets. Healthcare
costs are forecast to increase; however, City Staff continues to work with its insurance consultant to
control this escalation as much as possible. Likewise, the capital asset major repair and replacement
costs are significant, but the approval of Measure P will greatly assist in alleviating this impact. Measure
P is a ½ cent sales tax which began on April 1, 2017, and will be collected for a ten -year period. It is
expected to raise $178 million over that period. In an effort to hasten Measure P’s positive impact on
capital asset remediation, a $71 million bond issue was completed in July 2017. The proceeds from this
bond issue will be used to repair or replace many of the “red” asset categories identified in the Measure
P spending plan. Examples of early Measure P success are: Parkway Community Center gymnasium
flooring and pool area, new fire engines, and new police units.
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 the pension issues highlighted above. The City
will continue to seek new ways to maximize limited resources to deliver high quality services to our
community.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 99
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 14
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 pension liability, health care costs,
and maintenance costs. These costs are increasing at a rate greater than what anticipated City revenues
are projected to appreciate. These concerns, among other long-term fiscal trends, were presented to City
Council in March 2017 with the presentation of the City’s first 10 year Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP).
The LTFP does anticipate population growth, and growth in population will require new fire stations,
police officers, streets, and parks that were originally projected to cost much less.
In an effort to equalize the effects of coming new development, and to collect a greater share of the total
cost to provide development-related services, the Development Services Department took an update to
the City’s Master Fee Schedule in July 2017, which was adopted by City Council. Increasing fee based
revenues and reducing permit subsidies is just one part of a comprehensive approach to structurally
balancing the General Fund budget, but it is a critical one. The fee changes increased the cost recovery
rate of Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire. In most cases, the range of cost recovery increased from
30 % – 70% to 70% – 100%. Other solutions currently being discussed are a public safety sales tax, and a
public safety parcel tax, again to defray the anticipated escalating costs of providing consistent service
levels to a growing City.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 100
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 15
4. Please update the revenue and expenditures tables below.
SOURCE FY17 FY16 FY15 FY14(1)FY13 FY12 FY11 FY10 FY09(2)FY08(3)FY07
Sales Tax 37.36 33.32 30.39 29.17 28.63 27.28 26.70 23.67 25.59 28.30 28.83
Property Taxes 32.29 30.22 28.62 27.45 27.88 24.52 24.71 25.73 29.26 29.31 26.67
Motor Vehicle License
Fees 19.85 18.93 17.88 16.77 16.25 16.29 16.94 17.70 19.90 19.80 17.68
Franchise Fees 11.52 11.71 10.83 8.85 9.27 8.40 8.26 8.47 9.38 9.66 8.81
Charges for Srvcs.8.77 7.79 7.90 7.94 8.36 7.58 6.45 7.17 7.00 14.47 16.26
Utility User Tax 5.79 5.84 6.36 17.53 4.43 3.47 4.94 9.06 7.85 7.38 6.98
Other 42.89 37.87 38.27 34.65 36.00 34.17 40.73 38.97 41.53 45.02 56.34
SUM$ (Millions)158.46 145.69 140.26 142.36 130.81 121.70 128.74 130.78 140.50 153.94 161.56
PER CAPITA$591.46 549.61 543.67 555.79 519.89 490.35 523.38 536.60 586.97 652.92 697.61
FY17 FY16 FY15 FY14 FY13 FY12 FY11 FY10 FY09(2)FY08(3)FY07
Police 50.24 49.18 46.48 44.28 42.66 41.99 43.10 43.70 45.40 47.77 49.63
Public Works 26.64 25.79 25.54 24.93 23.82 22.97 23.80 24.62 26.86 32.58 38.27
Fire 28.33 26.80 25.11 24.40 24.03 22.43 21.81 22.09 23.13 24.35 22.72
Support (4)9.56 9.49 8.59 8.36 8.21 8.10 9.56 9.63 11.34 11.61 12.31
Community Services (5) 8.13 7.75 7.27 6.93 6.55 6.68 7.90 9.82 12.95 15.07 16.91
Non-Departmental (6) 17.35 11.23 10.83 17.69 10.93 14.07 10.49 9.81 10.10 5.31 3.60
Admin/Legislative (7) 7.25 8.35 7.65 6.96 6.43 5.83 5.61 5.64 8.15 8.16 8.90
Other (8)7.11 5.19 5.22 4.82 4.90 4.97 5.62 5.93 2.42 10.17 13.72
SUM$ (Millions)154.62 143.77 136.70 138.37 127.53 127.03 127.89 131.24 140.37 155.02 166.06
PER CAPITA$577.10 542.38 529.87 540.23 506.84 511.83 519.91 538.51 586.40 657.52 717.01
population 267,917
(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.
REVENUE COLLECTED FOR GENERAL FUND (Millions)
EXPENSES COLLECTED FOR GENERAL FUND (Millions)
(1) In Fiscal year 2013-14, the City recognized $10.5 million on wireless telecommunications Utility User's Tax (UUT) revenues. This funds were
received in fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 and deferred pending outcome of a legal challenge to the city's collection of UUT on wireless
telecommunication services. The lawsuit was settled in fiscal year 2013-14, including a reduction in the UTT on wireless 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
position directly in their respective funding sources. In prior years, these positions were budgeted in the General Fund, witch was then
reimbursed through a series of interfund transfers and staff time reimbursements from the respective funding sources. Positions transferred in
fiscal year 2008 include Wastewater Engineering and Wastewater maintenance crews transferred to the Sewer Service Public (Public Works).
Positions transferred in fiscal year 2009 includes staff in Environmental Services (Public Works), Redevelopment and Housing (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 (Change for Services and Other).
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 101
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 16
5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below.
Table 2.DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW (7/1/16– 6/30/17)
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 Amount
Collected Expended 2
Eastern Transportation DIF 14,126/EDU 3,583,166 3,113,123 24,472,193 Nov-14 Oct-17 Oct-18
Western Transportation DIF 4,260/EDU 6,434 10,358 224,874 Nov-14 Oct-17 Oct-18
Bayfront Transportation DIF 10,297/EDU - - - Nov-14 Oct-17 Oct-18
Traffic Signal 38.75/Trip 194,229 141,653 2,076,955 Oct-02 Oct-17 Oct-18
Telegraph Canyon Drainage 4,579/Acre 13,531 77,621 4,113,573 Nov-15 N/A Unscheduled
Salt Creek Sewer Basin3 1,441/EDU 12,243 28,142 119,812 Jun-15 Oct-17 2018
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin4 265/EDU 109,000 2,790 2,699,613 Jun-09 N/A Unscheduled
Pedestrian Bridges
- Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 908/SFDU 121,278 1,066 1,354,658 Feb-07 Oct-17 Oct-18
- Otay Ranch Village 11 2,537/SFDU 10,273 2,885 3,154,601 Sep-05 Oct-17 Oct-18
- Millenia (EUC) 615.13/SFDU 169,062 - 392,283 Aug-13 N/A 2018
Public Facilities
- Administration 653/SFDU 352,845 127,511 5,303,769 Nov-06 Oct-17 Oct-18
- Civic Center Expansion 3,005/SFDU 738,634 2,759,412 1,928,544 "" "" ""
- Police Facility 1,818/SFDU 965,911 1,595,640 (4,339,021) "" "" ""
- Corp. Yard Relocation 488/SFDU 239,111 728,875 627,784 "" "" ""
- Libraries 1,727/SFDU 970,303 12,770 15,548,920 "" "" ""
- Fire Suppression
1,519/SFDU 481,216 1,500 (10,685,253) "" "" ""
Systems
- Recreation Facilities 1,311/SFDU 680,256 - (1,267,171) "" "" 2018
PUBLIC FACILITIES
10,521/SFDU 4,428,276 5,225,708 7,117,571 Nov-06 Oct-17 Oct-18
TOTAL 5
1 Rates per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown, as of date of report (includes increases beyond 06/30/2017). Fee varies by type of
residential unit, and for commercial and industrial development – see various fee schedules included in Attachment 1.
2 Per Attachment 1 projects to be funded and/or completed over the next twelve months are listed.
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 Approximately 77% or $5.3 million of the Public Facilities DIF fund balance is reserved for debt service payments (Debt Service Reserve).
Debt Service Reserve funds are not available for project expenditures.
For each of the DIF funds:
a. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next 12-18 months? If not,
how will the projects be funded?
Yes. The largest project anticipated to begin construction in the next 12-18 months is the Millenia
Fire Station. Rather than direct expenditures from the PFDIF fund balance, the project is
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 102
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 17
anticipated to be constructed by the developer for credits against their PFDIF fee obligation. Final
terms of the application of these potential credits are still under negotiation with the developer.
As illustrated in the PFDIF Cash Flow provided as Attachment 2, PFDIF funds are projected to be
adequate to accommodate the construction of the fire station at this time.
In addition to the construction of the Millenia Fire Station, the City continues to construct roadway
improvements via the TDIF program. As of June 30, 2017, more than $22 million in TDIF funds
have been appropriated to projects under construction. An additional $3.3 million was
appropriated in fiscal year 2017-18. The largest project currently under construction by the City is
the Willow Street Bridge widening. These transportation projects are in addition to projects being
constructed by developers, such as the extension of Heritage Road.
b. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next five years? If not,
how will the projects be funded?
Under normal circumstances, additional revenues are received by DIF funds in times of
development. These funds are then available to mitigate the impacts of the development paying
the fees. This timeline is impacted by the need to construct large facilities, such as the civic center
complex, police 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 of project financing avoids financing costs while creating the greatest
short-term impact upon fund balance.
If the project is constructed via external debt financing, the fund does not directly finance the
project, but instead makes debt service payments over a given period. As development occurs,
their DIF fees go toward repaying these debt obligations. This means of project financing has the
smallest short-term impact on fund balance. The financing costs incurred in securing external
financing increase overall project costs, and thereby increase the fees charged to developers. As
DIF funds are unable to guarantee the debt, all DIF debt obligations are secured by the City’s
General Fund. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program is the only DIF
program to use external debt financing. The 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, 2017 is listed on the Development
Impact Fee Overview table on page 16. 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 (which may fall below the rate of
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 103
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 18
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 $5.3 million). As shown in the
PFDIF cash flow, the debt service reserve was fully funded as of the end of fiscal year 2011-12.
This reserve will mitigate the impacts of future swings in the development market on the PFDIF’s
ability to meet its debt service obligations. The continued reserve of these funds reduces the
funds available for project expenditures.
c. In the table below, please indicate whether the existing DIF fund is adequate or needs to be
revised. If a fund needs to be revised, please provide a timeframe for accomplishing the
revision.
Table 3. DIF FUND STATUS
DIF FUND ADEQUATE /
REVISE
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION Revise - 2019
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION Revise - 2019
BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION Adequate
TRAFFIC SIGNAL Adequate
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE Adequate
SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN Adequate
POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN Adequate
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 Adequate
Otay Ranch Village 11 Adequate
Millenia (EUC) Revise – 2018
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Administration Adequate
Civic Center Expansion Adequate
Police Facility Adequate
Corp. Yard Relocation Adequate
Libraries Revise – 2018
Fire Suppression Systems Revise – 2018
Recreation Facilities Revise – 2018
Note that revisions may be for reasons other than inadequate funding levels such as administrative needs
and updates to reflect changes in planned development.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 104
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 19
6. Is new project development providing self-financing of capital projects?
New development is providing capital projects to mitigate the impacts of development through a
combination of developer constructed facilities and fees. To ensure development continues to fund
mitigating capital projects in the future, the City enforces several regulatory requirements on new
development, discussed in detail below.
During the planning phase for each major development project, the applicant is required to prepare and
submit a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) that addresses the public facility needs associated with the
new development. The PFFP also describes the various responsibilities of the project developer to provide
the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impact of their project on existing facilities and services. The
specific mitigation to be provided is determined by applying the City’s Growth Management Program
(GMP) service thresholds and applicable ordinances. When the established thresholds for a specific facility
or service are projected to be reached or exceeded based on the analysis of the project’s development,
the PFFP identifies the facilities necessary for continued compliance with the GMP.
Typically, the project developer satisfies their public facility obligations through two mechanisms: (1)
paying the Development Impact Fees (DIFs) and/or in-lieu fees associated with specific public facilities, or
(2) constructing needed public facilities themselves in return for credits against the payment of DIFs. The
majority of Chula Vista’s development impact fee ordinances provide for the calculation of fees due, and
payment of said fees at the time of building permit issuance. These fee calculations were determined by
establishing an essential nexus between new development and the need for additional public facilities,
identifying additional public facilities needed, and distributing those costs amongst the anticipated new
growth proportional to the impacts each project creates.
Fee programs need to be updated from time to time to reflect: current construction cost trends; changes
in planned development and public facilities; and changes to governing regulations. As noted in Table 3 on
page 18, a number of DIF funds are anticipated for revision in 2018 and 2019. These DIF funds include:
Western TDIF, Eastern TDIF, Millenia (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge, PFDIF – Libraries, PFDIF – Fire Suppression
Systems, and PFDIF – Recreation Facilities. These fee programs require updates to synchronize the fee
with current development and expenditure projections.
7. 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
2016, which is the latest data available as of the composition of this report. The amounts provided
represent point of sale transactions and revenues from the county pool. The data provided reflects only
the 1% Bradley Burns sales tax and does not reflect local (district) sales taxes, like Measure P.
City Sales Tax per Capita
Del Mar $ 534
National City 300
Carlsbad 280
Poway 269
El Cajon 246
Escondido 239
Solana Beach 233
Santee 231
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 105
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 20
City Sales Tax per Capita
La Mesa 217
Encinitas 209
San Diego 196
Lemon Grove 192
Vista 184
San Marcos 176
Coronado 137
Chula Vista 121
Oceanside 114
Imperial Beach 36
8. Please provide an updated list of projects being funded by Measure P tax revenue. Also provide an
accounting of funding and expenditures.
The table below shows the progress of Measure P funded projects through 12/31/2017, and the following
page illustrates the amended spending plan of Measure P funded projects over the ten-year period.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 106
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 21
10-Year Expend As Of Remaining
Total by Major Category Timeframe 12/31/2017 Balance
Fire Services
Fire Stations Repairs/Replacement 22,839,549$ 10,911$ 22,828,638$
Fire Response Vehicles 19,847,580$ 763,016$ 19,084,564$
Fire Safety Equipment 5,197,913$ 188,356$ 5,009,557$
Total Fire Services 47,885,042$ 962,283$ 46,922,759$
Police Services
Police Response Vehicles 12,951,470$ 1,083,702$ 11,867,768$
Public Safety Communication Systems 8,624,832$ 1,648,764$ 6,976,068$
Police Facility Repairs 1,509,000$ 53,088$ 1,455,912$
Total Police Services 23,085,302$ 2,785,554$ 20,299,748$
Infrastructure
Streets 24,474,861$ 340,555$ 24,134,306$
Other Public Infrastructure 14,154,295$ -$ 14,154,295$
Sports Fields and Courts 16,966,595$ 73,718$ 16,892,877$
Non-Safety Vehicles 11,195,100$ 56,070$ 11,139,030$
Public Facilities 13,100,000$ 239,908$ 12,860,092$
Traffic Signal Systems 7,000,000$ -$ 7,000,000$
Park Infrastructure 7,682,740$ -$ 7,682,740$
Citywide Network Replacement 2,045,000$ -$ 2,045,000$
Citywide Telecommunications 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$
Total Infrastructure 98,618,591$ 710,251$ 97,908,340$
Total Proposed Allocations 169,588,935$ 4,458,088$ 165,130,847$
Administrative Expenses
Bond Sale Expenses -$ 46,843$ (46,843)$
Cost of Issuance 563,210$ 553,023$ 10,187$
Annual Debt Service Payments 78,234,834$ -$ 78,234,834$
Total Administrative Expenses 78,798,044$ 599,866$ 78,198,178$
Total Expenditures 248,386,979$ 5,057,955$ 243,329,024$
Measure P
Citywide Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan
1/2 cent Sales Tax Revenues over 10 year period
Summary Table
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 107
Fiscal – FY 2018 Page 22 Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Spending PlanOne-half cent Sales Tax Revenues over 10 year periodAMENDEDADOPTEDAMENDEDBUDGETBUDGETBUDGETESTIMATEDESTIMATEDESTIMATEDESTIMATEDESTIMATEDESTIMATEDESTIMATEDESTIMATEDESTIMATEDFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearFiscal YearTotal2016-17 2017-182017-182018-19 2019-202020-212021-222022-232023-24 2024-252025-262026-2710 Year Term(1 Qtr Only)(3 Qtrs Only)Estimated Revenues:Estimated 1/2 cent Sales Tax Revenues3,200,000$ 16,320,000$ 16,320,000$ 16,646,400$ 16,979,328$ 17,318,915$ 17,665,293$ 18,018,599$ 18,378,971$ 18,746,550$ 19,121,481$ 14,627,933$ 177,023,470$ Estimated Bond Proceeds-$ 56,380,414$ 71,363,509$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 71,363,509$ Less Annual Debt Service Pmts (Principal and Interest)-$ (5,760,008)$ (7,874,334)$ (8,120,250)$ (8,128,750)$ (8,128,500)$ (8,134,250)$ (7,820,000)$ (7,506,000)$ (7,507,250)$ (7,508,000)$ (7,507,500)$ (78,234,834)$ Estimated Debt Service Reserve Fund for Bonds-$ (5,638,139)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Estimated Cost of Issuance-$ (742,275)$ (563,210)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (563,210)$ Estimated Funds Available for Infrastructure Spending Plan3,200,000$ 60,559,992$ 79,245,965$ 8,526,150$ 8,850,578$ 9,190,415$ 9,531,043$ 10,198,599$ 10,872,971$ 11,239,300$ 11,613,481$ 7,120,433$ 169,588,935$ Proposed Infrastructure Projects:Funded on a Pay- as- You- Go Basis (Cash Basis)Fire Vehicles 385,000$ 1,730,680$ 1,730,680$ 2,892,500$ 2,711,500$ 2,853,500$ 1,772,450$ 607,550$ 2,300,400$ 402,900$ 598,700$ 648,000$ 16,903,180$ Police Vehicles463,940$ 1,798,760$ 1,798,760$ 653,000$ 494,850$ 1,693,500$ 1,547,200$ 944,950$ 285,500$ 1,641,720$ 2,571,150$ 856,900$ 12,951,470$ Total Public Safety Vehicles Cash Basis848,940$ 3,529,440$ 3,529,440$ 3,545,500$ 3,206,350$ 4,547,000$ 3,319,650$ 1,552,500$ 2,585,900$ 2,044,620$ 3,169,850$ 1,504,900$ 29,854,650$ Non-Safety City Vehicles (i.e. Public Works Crews) (Cash Basis)-$ 3,818,000$ 3,818,000$ 1,749,000$ 1,520,100$ 1,674,000$ 2,434,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,195,100$ Fire Equipment (i.e. breathing apparatus, Radios etc) (Cash Basis)183,000$ 1,202,000$ 1,202,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 358,216$ -$ 272,356$ 1,435,251$ 1,747,090$ 5,197,913$ Fire Stations Repair/Replacement (Cash Basis)46,000$ -$ -$ 2,220,238$ 3,104,447$ 1,941,091$ 2,527,773$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,839,549$ Sports Courts and Fields85,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 240,921$ 2,428,135$ 2,428,135$ 2,428,135$ 2,428,135$ 2,428,135$ 12,466,595$ Park Infrastructure250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 386,548$ 386,548$ 386,548$ 386,548$ 386,548$ 2,182,740$ Street Pavement (Arterials/Collectors/Residential)363,940$ 1,062,653$ 1,062,653$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,148,074$ 2,148,074$ 2,148,074$ 2,148,074$ -$ 10,018,888$ Traffic Signal System -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000$ 1,250,000$ 1,000,000$ 500,000$ -$ 4,000,000$ Other Infrastructure (Storm Drains, Sidewalks, Trees etc)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,057,003$ 1,046,298$ 1,921,161$ 496,309$ 233,522$ 4,754,295$ Total Infrastructure Cash Basis698,940$ 1,062,653$ 1,062,653$ -$ -$ -$ 240,921$ 7,269,760$ 7,259,055$ 7,883,918$ 5,959,066$ 3,048,205$ 33,422,518$ Total Projects to be Funded on a Pay-as-you-go (Cash) Basis1,776,880$ 9,612,093$ 9,612,093$ 7,514,738$ 7,830,897$ 8,162,091$ 8,522,344$ 9,180,476$ 9,844,955$ 10,200,894$ 10,564,167$ 6,300,195$ 89,509,730$ Projects to be Financed through Annual Capital Lease PaymentsPolice Communications & Dipatch System17,660$ 353,499$ 353,499$ 361,412$ 369,681$ 378,324$ 358,699$ 368,123$ 378,016$ 388,406$ 399,314$ 170,238$ 3,543,372$ Regional Communications System (RCS) 1,396,460$ 350,000$ 535,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 5,081,460$ Fire Response Vehicles-$ 244,400$ 244,400$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 2,944,400$ Total Police Equipment Capital Lease Pmts1,414,120$ 947,899$ 1,132,899$ 1,011,412$ 1,019,681$ 1,028,324$ 1,008,699$ 1,018,123$ 1,028,016$ 1,038,406$ 1,049,314$ 820,238$ 11,569,232$ Projects to be Financed through Debt Financing Fire Station Replacements-$ 13,000,000$ 13,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,000,000$ Police Facility Repairs9,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,509,000$ Total Public Safety Buildings 9,000$ 14,000,000$ 14,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,509,000$ Recreation Centers and Senior Center-$ 3,000,000$ 5,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000,000$ Civic Center and South Chula Vista Libraries-$ 1,500,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,000,000$ Other Public Bldgs (i.e. Animal Care Facility & Living Coast DC)-$ 3,100,000$ 5,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,100,000$ Total Other Public Facilities -$ 7,600,000$ 13,100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 13,100,000$ Sports Courts and Fields-$ 3,000,000$ 4,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,500,000$ Park Infrastructure-$ 2,000,000$ 5,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,500,000$ Street Pavement (Arterials/Collectors/Residential)-$ 12,500,000$ 14,455,973$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,455,973$ Traffic Signal System (Fiber Network)-$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,000,000$ Other Infrastructure (Storm Drains, Sidewalks, Trees etc)-$ 7,900,000$ 9,400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,400,000$ Citywide Network Modernization-$ -$ 2,045,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,045,000$ Citywide Telecommunications-$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$ Total Infrastructure -$ 28,400,000$ 40,900,973$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40,900,973$ Total Projects to be Financed through Debt Financing 9,000$ 50,000,000$ 68,500,973$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 68,509,973$ Total Project Expenditures3,200,000$ 60,559,992$ 79,245,965$ 8,526,150$ 8,850,578$ 9,190,415$ 9,531,043$ 10,198,599$ 10,872,971$ 11,239,300$ 11,613,481$ 7,120,433$ 169,588,935$ Remaining Funds-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Notes:Sales Tax Revenue projections include a 2% escalator per year.Costs allocated to specific projects will be based on detailed engineering estimates, projects specs, available funding and timing considerations. All proposed expenditures will require City Council consideration and action. 2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 108
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 23
9. What is the ratio of debt per capita?
Per the fiscal year 2016-17 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, all funds actual debt expenditures
totaled $12.0 million, which includes bonded debt (principal, interest, arbitrage payments, and trustee
expended funds), but excludes capital leases, and interfund loan repayments. The fiscal year 2017-18 debt
expenditure adopted budget totals $9.0 million.
The City’s fiscal year 2016-17 ratio of debt per capita is $794. This figure includes both short-term (due
within one year) and long-term (due in more than one year) portions of the City’s bonds, leases, and notes
payable. Other significant factors within the calculation include Claims Payable, Net Pension Liability, and
Net OPEB Liability.
As of the end of fiscal year 2016-17, the City had $106.0 million in outstanding debt in the form of
Certificates of Participation (COPs). The City has no outstanding general obligation debt. In July 2016, the
remaining portion of outstanding 2006 COPs and all of the 2010 COPs were refunded by the 2016 COPs,
and the 2016 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds (LRRBs), respectively. These refundings are projected to
save the City approximately $165,000 annually on average, via the new bond issues’ lower debt service
payments.
In December 2017, the City issued $12.0 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), and $1.1
million in Lease Revenue Bonds. This combined sum of $13.1 million, will fund the construction of solar
projects upon a number of City sites. Once constructed, the energy savings created by the operation of
the improvements will fund the cost of the total debt service and generate additional net energy savings
ranging from $250,000 to $900,000 annually. Construction of the projects is expected to be completed by
December 2018.
10. Please provide examples of any incentives provided for industries in Chula Vista during Fiscal Year 2017.
No incentives were provided for industries in Chula Vista during fiscal year 2016-17.
11. 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.
Effects of the California Prevailing Wage Law (SB7) that requires charter cities to pay prevailing wages on
locally-funded construction projects are still affecting the funding of DIF projects. 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 to reflect the new prevailing wage
requirement. The first such update will be to replace the Parkland Acquisition and Development (PAD)
Fee, tentatively scheduled for Council consideration in 2018 following adoption of an updated Parks and
Recreation Master Plan.
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 2020, measurements of the
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 109
Fiscal – FY 2018
Page 24
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 using the recently released guidance from the State for implementing the new VMT
standards.
On June 8, 2017, the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer Fee was repealed by the City Council due to all
associated improvements having been installed and the fund balance exhausted.
Finally, as part of the annual reporting process, the City must make specific findings every five years
regarding unexpended DIF funds. The requisite 5-year findings were presented to Council on December
19, 2017. In preparation for this action, staff reviewed 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 was found that the funds are still
needed.
PREPARED BY:
Name: David Bilby
Title: Director of Finance/Treasurer
Name: Tiffany Allen
Title: Assistant Director of Development Services
Name: Mike Sylvia
Title: Finance and Purchasing Manager
Date: February 7, 2018
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 110
Description of Fee:
Amount of the Fee:$13,541 per single family equivalent dwelling (low density)
$10,832 per single family equivalent dwelling unit (med density)
$8,124 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit (high density)
$216,656 per general commercial gross acre
$121,869 per industrial gross acre
FY 16/17 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 591
TRANSPORTATION DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/16 24,002,149$
Revenues
TDIF Fees Collected 3,519,145
Interest Earned 54,560
Transfer-In 9,461
Total Revenues 3,583,166
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services (6,514)
City Staff Services (179,174)
Other Expenditures (3,557)
CIP Project Expenditures (2,923,878)
Total Expenditures (3,113,123)
Ending Balance, 06/30/17 24,472,193$
SCHEDULE A
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development in aestern areas of
Chula Vista
ATTACHMENT 1
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 111
FY 16/17 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/17 Funded by TDIF Appropriations Scheduled
STM359 Rock Mtn Rd - SR125 Overpass 609 $300,000 100.00%- 2005
STM374 Heritage Rd Olympic to Main 256 150,000 100.00%- 2011
STM355 Otay Lakes Rd Wdng, E H to Cyn 24,540 7,720,000 96.29%- 2003
STM357 Rock Mtn Rd Heritage-La Media 9,614 757,000 100.00%- 2004
STM382 Bike Lane along East H Street 1,962,004 2,344,435 84.94%- 2014
STM386 Heritage Rd Bridge Improvements 260,967 342,820 9.78%- 2014
STM388 Main Street Widening FY16 26,974 300,000 100.00%- 2015
STM389 Heritage Rd Widening FY16 14,077 400,000 100.00%- 2015
STM331 98/East Orange Ave Extention 916 3,959,904 100.00%- 1999
STL261 Willow St Bridge Widening 481,917 4,991,363 21.50%- 2000
STL384 Willow St Bridge Util Relocate 74,682 467,638 10.14%- 2011
TF396 Trfc Mgmt. Cntr&Commn MstrPln1 34,558 42,000 13.13%- 2016
TF325 Transportation Planning Program 32,764 420,000 64.62%- 2004
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 2,923,878$ 22,195,160$
FY16/17 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:
Oustanding
Description of Loan Loan Amount
Advance to PFDIF (Fire Suppression)
affirmed and consolidated via Council Resolution No. 2015-035 on February 17,2015.$8,160,323
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE A.1
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 112
Description of Fee:
Amount of the Fee:4,084$ per single family equivalent dwelling unit (low density)
3,267$ per single family equivalent dwelling unit (med density)
2,450$ per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit (high density)
81,680$ per regional commercial gross acre
245,040$ per high rise office gross acre
FY 16/17 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 593
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/16 228,798$
Revenues
WTDIF Fees Collected 5,708
Interest Earned 726
Total Revenues 6,434
-
Expenditures:
CIP Project Expenditures (10,358)
Total Expenditures (10,358)
Ending Balance, 06/30/17 224,874$
FY 16/17 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Future Initially
PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/17 Funded by TDIF Appropriations Scheduled
TF396 Traffic Mgmt. Ctr & Comm MP Phase 1 10,358 28,000 8.75%2015
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 10,358$ 28,000$
SCHEDULE B
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development in western of
Chula Vista
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 113
Amount of the Fee:37.28$ per trip
FY 16/17 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 225
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FUND
Beginning Balance, 07/01/16 2,024,379$
Revenues
Traffic Signal Fees Collected 183,663
Interest Earned 6,542
Miscellaneous Revenues 4,024
Total Revenues 194,229
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services (936)
City Staff Services (2,651)
Other Expenditures (512)
Transfer-Out 0
CIP Project Expenditures (137,554)
Total Expenditures (141,653)
Ending Balance, 06/30/17 2,076,955
SCHEDULE C
Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic signal improvements required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused bye new development citywide.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 114
FY 16/17 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded Future Initially
PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/17 by Traffic Signal DIF Appropriations Scheduled
TF388 Trfc Signal Modf at 4Intersectns 89,473 270,000 27.28%- 2015
TF389 Adptv Trfc Signal System Expansn 32,600 100,000 15.42%- 2015
TF337 Traf Signal Left Turn Mod Prog 10,469 226,649 100.00%- 2006
TF398 Traffic Sgnl @Jacqua St &Main 2,699 250,000 100.00%- 2015
TF401 Install Ped Countdown Indicati 866 866 100.00%- 2017
TF366 Trafc Sgnl & Stlight Upgrd/Mtn 1,447 255,912 15.99%- 2009
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 137,554$ 1,103,427$
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE C.1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 115
Description of Fee:
Amount of the Fee:4,579$ per acre
FY 16/17 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 542
TC DRAINAGE DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/16 4,177,663$
Revenues
TC Drainage Fees Collected 0
Interest Earned 13,531
Total Revenues 13,531
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services (2,073)
City Staff Services (994)
Other Expenditures (1,132)
CIP Project Expenditures (73,422)
Total Expenditures (77,621)
Ending Balance, 06/30/17 4,113,573$
FY 16/17 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded Future Initially
PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/17 by DIF Appropriations Scheduled
DR203 Telepgraph Cyn Chnl Complnc FS 39,837 42,457 100.00%2015
DR208 Prelim Eng&Env Stds TeleCynChl 33,585 800,000 100%2017
TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES 73,422$ 842,457$
SCHEDULE D
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (TC DRAINAGE DIF)
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
For construction of Telegraph Canyon channel between Paseo Ladera and the Eastlake Business Center and for a portion of the channel west of I-
805.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 116
Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF (TC Gravity Sewer DIF) Fund 431
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF (PC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 432
Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF (SC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 433
Description of Fee:
Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF: For the expansion of trunk sewer within the basin for tributary properties.
Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF: For the planning, design, construction and/or financing of the facilities.
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF: For the construction of a trunk sewer in the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin from a proposed regional
trunk sewer west of I-805 along Olympic Parkway to the boundary of Eastlake.
Amount of the fee:
Fund 431 Fund 432 Fund 433
TC Gravity PC Sewer SC Sewer
Sewer DIF Basin DIF Basin DIF
per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached -$ 265.00$ 1,381.00$
per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached -$ 265.00$ 1,381.00$
per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit -$ 198.75$ 997.50$
Commercial land use $265/edu $1381/edu
Industrial land use $265/edu $1381/edu
SCHEDULE E
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 117
FY 16/17 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION:
Fund 431 Fund 432 Fund 433
TC Gravity PC Sewer SC Sewer
Sewer DIF Basin DIF Basin DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/2016 -$ 2,594,770$ 251,028$
Revenues
DIF Fees Collected - 100,348 11,559
Interest Earned - 8,652 684
Transfer-In - - -
Total Revenues - 109,000 12,243
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services - (1,160) (571)
City Staff Services - (996) (1,597)
Other expenditures - (634) (3,347)
Transfer Out - (22,627)
Total Expenditures - (2,790) (28,142)
Less Other Balance Sheet Assets - (1,367) (115,317)
Ending Balance, 06/30/171 -$ 2,699,613$ 119,812$
1In FY 2008 the City changed the presentation of the Sewer DIF Funds from Special Revenue Funds to Enterprise Funds to better match standard financial reporting
practices. Beginning this year, the City is reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Sewer DIF Funds in this report for comparison purposes.
SCHEDULE E.1
SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 118
Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 587
Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 588
Otay Ranch Millenia Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge (DIF) ( OR Millenia EUC Pedestrian Bidge DIF),Fund 718
Description of Fee:
To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement between Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5 & 6.
OR Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement in Otay Ranch Village 11.
OR Millenia EUC Ped Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement in OR Millenia (EUC).
Amount of the fee:
Fund 587 Fund 588 Fund 718
OR Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 OR Village 11 EUC MILLENIA
Ped Bridge DIF Ped Bridge DIF PED BRIDGE DIF
per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached 857$ 2,432$ 615$
per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 635$ 1,803$ 456$
SCHEDULE F
OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
OR Village 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF:
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 119
FY 16/17 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 587 FUND 588 FUND 718
OR VILLAGE 1,2,5&6 OR VILLAGE 11 EUC MILLENIA
PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF
Beginning Balance, 07/01/16 1,234,446$ 3,147,213$ 223,221$
Revenues
DIF Fees Collected 117,077 - 168,025
Interest Earned 4,201 10,273 1,037
Total Revenues 121,278 10,273 169,062
Expenditures
Supplies & Services (526) (1,424) -
City Staff Services (252) (683) -
Other Expenditures (288) (778) -
Total Expenditure (1,066) (2,885) -
Ending Balance, 06/30/17 $1,354,658 $3,154,601 $392,283
SCHEDULE F.1
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 120
Description of Fee and amount:
Fire Suppression System $1,469 - Projects include the relocation of Fire Stations #3 & #4, construction of a fire training tower and classroom, purchase of a
brush rig, installation of a radio communications tower and construction of various fire stations in the Eastern section of the City. This fee also reflects the
updated Fire Station Master Plan, which includes needs associated with the Otay Ranch development.
Major Recreation Facilities $1,269 – New component adopted in November 2002 to build major recreation facilities created by new development such as
community centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen centers.
Libraries $1,671 - Improvements include construction of the South Chula Vista library and Eastern Territories libraries, and installation of a new automated
library system. This component is based on the updated Library Master Plan.
SCHEDULE G
PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF)
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
Civic Center Expansion $2,907 - Expansion of the 1989 Civic Center per the Civic Center Master Plan to provide sufficient building space and parking due to
growth and development. The Civic Center Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to include the Otay Ranch impacts.
Police Facility $1,760 - Accommodation of the building space needs per the Civic Center Master Plan, which included the newly constructed police facility,
upgrading of the communications center and installation of new communication consoles. Also included is the purchase and installation of a computer aided
dispatch system (CAD), Police Records Management System, and Mobile Data Terminals.
Admistration $632- Administration of the Public Facilities DIF program, overseeing of expenditures and revenues collected, preparation of updates, calculation
of costs, etc.
Corporation Yard Relocation $472 - Relocation of the City's Public Works Center from the bay front area to the more centrally located site on Maxwell Road.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 121
Police Corp Yard Fire Supp.Rec.
Gen. Admin.Civic Center (1)Facility Relocation Libraries System Facilities
571 567/572 573 574 575 576 582 TOTAL
Beginning Balance, 07/01/16 5,078,435$ 3,949,321$ (3,709,292)$ 1,117,548$ 14,591,386$ (11,164,969)$ (1,947,427)$ 7,915,003$
Revenues:
DIF Revenues 335,837 728,492 996,554 235,659 921,107 612,534 699,473 4,529,656
Investment Earnings 17,008 10,142 (30,643) 3,452 49,196 (131,318) (19,217) (101,380)
Other Revenue - - - - - - -
Reimbursement - Oth Agencies - - - - - - - -
Transfer In - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 352,845 738,634 965,911 239,111 970,303 481,216 680,256 4,428,276
Expenditures:
Personnel Services Total - - - - - - - -
Supplies & Services (3,720) (2,205) - (633) (6,304) (1,500) - (14,362)
City Staff Services (122,580) (1,057) - (303) (3,023) - - (126,963)
Other Expenses (1,211) (1,204) - (346) (3,443) - - (6,204)
CIP Project Expenditures - - - - - - - -
Transfer Out (Bounded Debt Services)(2,754,946) (1,595,640) (727,593) - - - (5,078,179)
Transfer Out (Interfund Loan Repayment)- - - -
Total Expenditures (127,511) (2,759,412) (1,595,640) (728,875) (12,770) (1,500) - (5,225,708)
Ending Balance, 06/30/17 5,303,769$ 1,928,544$ (4,339,021)$ 627,784$ 15,548,920$ (10,685,253)$ (1,267,171)$ 7,117,571$
NOTE:(1) This fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adamo property in Fund 567.
SCHEDULE G.1
PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF)
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 122
Description of Fee: In lieu fee for providing neighborhood community park and recreational facilities.
Adquisition Development Total
Areas East of I-805 Fee Fee Fee
Amount of the Fee:$12,676 $5,549 $18,225 per single family dwelling unit
$9,408 $4,118 $13,526 per multi-family dwelling unit
$5,932 $2,597 $8,529 per mobile home dwelling unit
Areas West of I-805
Amount of the Fee:$4,994 $5,549 $10,543 per single family dwelling unit
$3,707 $4,118 $7,825 per multi-family dwelling unit
$2,337 $2,597 $4,934 per mobile home dwelling unit
FY 16/17 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 715 FUND 716
PAD FUND WPAD FUND
Beginning Balance, 07/01/16 43,315,093$ 106,191$
Revenues:
Park Dedication Fees 470,567 355
Interest Earned 111,607 -
Transfer In 10,782 -
Total Revenues 592,956 355
Expenditures:
Supplies and Services (14,581) -
City Staff Services (6,991)
Other Expenditures (7,963)
Other Refunds (856,424) -
Transfer Out Interfund Loan Repayment)- (80,000)
CIP Project Expenditures (31,714) -
Total Expenditures (917,673) (80,000)
Ending Balance, 06/30/17(1)42,990,376$ 26,546$
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 123
FY 16/17 CIP EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded Future Initially
PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/17 by PAD Fees Appropriations Scheduled
PR308 P-3 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)30,882 122,000 100.00%2009
PR309 P-2 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)832 122,000 100.00%2009
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 31,714$ 244,000$
FY 16/17 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:
Oustanding
Description of Loan:Loan Amount
Advance from Eastern PAD Fund to Western PAD Fund
affirmed and consolidate via Council Resolution No. 2015-034 on February 17,2015 $9,219,238
(1) The ending balance includes fees paid by specific developers for specific parks within those development.
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 124
For the enlargement of sewer facilities of the City so as to enhance efficiency of utilization and/or adequacy of capacity and for
planning and/or evaluating any future proposals for area wide sewage treatment and or water reclamation systems or facilities.
Amount of the Fee:3,584$ per equivalent dwelling unit of flow.
FY 16/17 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION:
FUND 413
TRUNK SEWER
(TS)
Beginning Balance, 07/01/2016 43,509,620$
Revenues
Interest Earned 145,693
Sewerage Facility Participant Fees 2,208,737
DIF-Swr Basin Tel Cyn 7,097
Transfer In 22,627
Reimb-Other 4,005
Total Revenues 2,388,160
Expenditures:
Supplies & Services (18,733)
City Staff Services (8,981)
Other Expenditures (10,230)
CIP Project Expenditures (357,094)
Total Expenditures:(395,038)
Ending Balance, 06/30/171 45,502,742$
TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE
FY 16/17 ACTIVITY
Description of Fee:
1In FY 2008 the City changed the presentation of the Trunk Sewer Fund from a Special Revenue Fund to an Enterprise Fund to better match standard financial
reporting practices. Beginning this year, the City is reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Trunk Sewer Fund in this report for comparison
purposes.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 125
FY 16/17 EXPENDITURES:
PROJECT Total Approp.% Of Project Funded Future Initially
PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/17 by TRUNK SEWER Appropriations Scheduled
SW223 Wastewater Master Plan 2,446 2,445 100.00%- 2001
SW266 Oxford Street Sewer Improvement 599 599 100.00%- 2011
SW272 Moss St Swr Improv. at Railroad Crossing 2,358 85,565 100.00%- 2012
SW274 East H Street Sewer Main Upsize 829 1,494,795 100.00%- 2013
SW275 Reline Force Mn @G St Pump Stn 124,314 1,650,000 98.99%- 2013
SW291 J St Junction Box Swr Study 689 99,913 100.00%- 2015
SW292 Indtrl Blvd &Main St Swr Imprv 225,859 454,455 100.00%- 2016
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 357,094$ 3,787,772$
FY 16/17 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:
Oustanding
Description of Loan:Loan Amount
$19,415,983
TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE
FY 16/17 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF
affirmed and consolidate via Council Resolution No. 2015-029 on February 17,2015
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 126
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 7,117,570 9,119,892 25,051,020 32,017,348 36,315,723 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 4,529,656 11,675,000 27,807,779 15,505,898 114,689,712 43,263,176 273,275,722
#Investment Earnings 1,223,226 (8,850) 58,366 (220,306) 211,858 86,036 275,470 (101,380) ---1,524,420
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 4,428,276 11,675,000 27,807,779 15,505,898 114,689,712 43,263,176 294,154,088
EXPENDITURES
CIP Projects
Rancho del Rey Library 8,644,605 - --- - - ---- 21,096,419 - 29,741,024
EUC Fire Station - - --- - -- 3,435,349 3,228,825 1,192,419 1,568,408 - 9,425,000
EUC Library - - --- - - ----- 29,112,054 29,112,054
OR V4 Rec Facility - - --- - - ---- 9,544,329 - 9,544,329
OR V4 Aquatic Facility - - --- - - ---- 10,740,757 - 10,740,757
Other 33,678,110 - - 59,545 - - - ------ 33,737,655
CIP Projects Total 42,322,715 - - 59,545 - - - - 3,435,349 3,228,825 1,192,419 42,949,912 29,112,054 122,300,819-
Debt Service Payments 22,610,385 69,192 51,041 4,161,797 6,108,865 5,633,759 7,711,514 5,078,179 5,488,091 7,536,770 6,236,093 56,330,852 22,009,430 149,025,967
Non CIP Expenditures 3,736,669 83,447 600 233,007 294,448 101,308 118,594 147,530 749,239 1,111,057 1,111,057 11,110,572 2,800,000 21,597,529
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,669,769 152,639 51,641 4,454,349 6,403,313 5,735,067 7,830,108 5,225,708 9,672,679 11,876,651 8,539,569 110,391,337 53,921,484 292,924,314
Ending Fund Balance 1,092,007 5,138,721 8,578,171 10,712,381 9,270,410 8,992,972 7,915,003 7,117,570 9,119,892 25,051,020 32,017,348 36,315,723 25,657,415 25,657,415
Less Debt Service Reserve - 5,138,721 5,700,000 5,700,000 5,600,000 5,500,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000 4,800,000 --
Available Fund Balance 1,092,007 - 2,878,171 5,012,381 3,670,410 3,492,972 2,615,003 1,817,570 3,819,892 19,751,020 26,717,348 31,515,723 25,657,415 25,657,415
Anticipated Development
Single Family Units 1,823 353 324 350 148 121 88 237 641 374 263 2,262 396 7,380.00
Multifamily Units 1,400 508 157 604 393 894 547 741 1,485 2,128 1,009 7,858 3,574 21,298.00
Commercial Acres 22 - --- - - -50 75 75 250 -472.00
Industrial Acres 16 - --- - - -25 25 25 445 345 881.23
Residential Subtotal 645 861 481 954 541 1,015 635 978 2,126 2,502 1,272 1,012.00 496.25 28,678
Average Average Average Total
INCREMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 127
1
Libraries FY 2017
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Libraries – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
___________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
C. LIBRARIES.
1.GOAL.
To provide a high-quality, contemporary library system that meets the varied needs of the
community.
2.OBJECTIVE.
Supplement existing libraries by providing and operating library facilities sufficient to meet the
needs of City residents.
3.FACILITY MASTER PLAN.
A minimum of every five years, or whenever an update is needed, the City Manager shall bring a
libraries master plan to City Council for their consideration. The master plan shall define the
adequacy of library facilities and equipment and what constitutes adequate staffing and
appropriate hours of operation, and identify library square footage needs consistent with the
threshold standard at build-out.
4.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 population.
5.IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a.Should the GMOC determine that the threshold standard is not being met or is expected to fail
within three years (based on forecasted growth and planned improvements), then the City Council
can, within 60 days of the GMOC’s report, schedule and hold a public hearing to: (i) consider
adopting a moratorium on the issuance of new building permits; or (ii) adopt other actions
sufficient to rectify the deficiency(ies).
b.The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report that documents the appropriate staffing
levels, equipment and operating hours of library facilities over the past year, current year
operation, and anticipated hours of operation. Should the GMOC determine that the libraries are
not adequately staffed, equipped, or are not maintaining appropriate hours of operation, it may
issue a statement of concern in its annual report.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 128
2
Libraries FY 2017
1.Please complete the tables below.
(All statistical figures represent FY 15/16, the most recent reported data as published by California State
Library’s California Library Statistics Portal, unless otherwise indicated.)
Table 1. INVENTORY OF LIBRARIES
Facility Leased/Owned
Total Gross Square Footage of Library
Facilities
Existing
Civic Center Branch Owned 55,000
South Chula Vista Branch Owned 37,000
Otay Ranch Branch Leased 5,412
Bonita - Sunnyside County Owned,
In City Limits 10,400
SUBTOTAL 97, 412
Planned – 5 year
Millenia Undetermined 37,000
SUBTOTAL 134,412
Table 2. ADEQUACY OF LIBRARIES BASED ON THE THRESHOLD STANDARD
Population
Total Gross Square
Footage of Library
Facilities
Gross Square Feet of Library
Facilities Per 1000 Residents
(Threshold = 500 GSF/1000)
5-Year Projection (2022) 290,144 134,412 (a)/129,000 (b) 463 (a)/ 445 (b)
FY 2017 271,323 97, 412 359
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
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 129
3
Libraries FY 2017
Table 2. ADEQUACY OF LIBRARIES BASED ON THE THRESHOLD STANDARD
Population
Total Gross Square
Footage of Library
Facilities
Gross Square Feet of Library
Facilities Per 1000 Residents
(Threshold = 500 GSF/1000)
FY 2004 211,800 102,000 482
FY 1990 135,163 57,329 425
Notes:
*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
Baseline per threshold standard adopted by Resolution No. 1987-13346. Threshold standard has not been amended.
a.During the review period, did the current library facilities meet the growth management threshold?
Yes __________ No ___X_______
The City currently provides library services totaling 97,412 gross square feet (GSF), as detailed in
Table 1. This square footage equates to 349 GSF per resident, a shortfall of 141 GSF per resident, or a
total of 38,257 GSF from the threshold target of 599 GSF per resident. As shown in Table 2, the
current square footage is 28% lower than GMOC standards.
Median state public library expenditure per capita for the most recent reporting period (FY 15/16)
was $32.25. For Chula Vista, library expenditure per capita during the same reporting period was
$13.23. This is 41% of the statewide average public library support. In Attachment A, the
expenditure per capita for all San Diego County public libraries is shown.
The existing facilities of the Civic Center Branch and South Chula Vista branch exhibit prolonged
deferred maintenance and join the long list of other city facilities in need of repair. With the approval
of Measure P, a temporary, ten-year, half-cent sales tax to fund high priority infrastructure needs in
November 2016, the Civic Center and South Branches anticipate renovations to the public restrooms,
improved lighting and electrical, and replacement flooring and roofing beginning in 2018.
b.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_____
Current facilities will not be able to accommodate the projected growth. Additional challenges may
arise as the lease with the Otay Ranch Branch and the Hub was renewed effective May 1, 2017, and
is set to expire April 2020.
We continue to expect that a new full-service library in the Millenia development will be completed
or in progress within the next five years. With the growth in the Millenia development, the
completion of housing and retail establishments, a state of the art full-service library in eastern Chula
Vista would be a catalyst for community identity and pride.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 130
4
Libraries FY 2017
Chula Vista Library’s staffing ratio per capita has dropped to the bottom 6% of public libraries in
California. The statewide staffing average is 0.46 FTE per 1000 population. In Chula Vista, the ratio
is 0.15 FTE staff per 1000 population. In Attachment B, the staffing FTE per 1,000 population is
shown for all San Diego county public libraries.
2. During the review period, were facilities adequately equipped? If not, please explain.
Yes __________ No ____X_____
The statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. is
$2.49 per person. The anticipated FY 17-18 Chula Vista baseline materials budget equals $0.21 per
person. The one-time boost in the materials budget resulting from the TUT settlement has been
fully expended.
Table 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC VISION
Library Strategic Vision Supporting Programs, Materials, Equipment, and
Facilities
Nucleus of learning, culture and recreation See Attachment C
Catalyst for innovation, business and growth See Attachment C
Vital and robust community partner See Attachment C
Table 4. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
Information & Technology FY 2017
Number of public computers available for use 90
% of available time used by patrons at public computers (both reserved and
walk in use)
ADULT 52%
TEEN 17%
CHILDREN’S 13% **
Quantity and Availability of Collection Available for Use
Circulation materials available 269,140
New materials made available 14,091
Materials bound and repaired for use N/A
Number of items in languages other than English 39,480
Note: **Children and Teen usage is low due to the issuance of devices by the local school districts. Many visitors use the WIFI within the library on
cell phones, IPads, and Lenovo ThinkPads.
Table 5. MATERIAL EXPENDITURES IN
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FY 2017
Library Staff Materials Expenditures
Per 1,000
Chula Vista $0.57 *
San Diego County $5.04
City of San Diego $2.37
National City $2.32
Carlsbad $7.19
Note: *Materials Expenditure per 1,000 continues to reflect the
last year of the TUT funding.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 131
5
Libraries FY 2017
3. During the review period, were facilities adequately staffed? If not, please explain.
Yes __________ No ____X_____
According to the most recent statistical data available, Chula Vista’s library staffing ratio per capita
has dropped to the bottom 6% of public libraries in California. The statewide staffing average is 0.46
FTE per 1000 population. In Chula Vista, the ratio is 0.15 FTE staff per 1000 population, and Chula
Vista continues to be a model in Library services throughout the state.
In spite of low staffing per capita, Chula Vista Library continues to exceed the statewide average in
many workload indicators.
Chula Vista: 6,561 Population Served per FTE.
Statewide average: 4,045 Population Served Per FTE.
Chula Vista: 13.94 reference questions per open hour.
Statewide Average: 9.30 reference questions per open hour.
Chula Vista: 2,934.01 reference questions per staff FTE
Statewide Average: 1,658.41 reference questions per staff FTE
Chula Vista: 100.86 visits per open hour.
Statewide Average: 71.72 visits per open hour.
Chula Vista: 13.10 public access catalog use per open hour.
Statewide average: 10.87 public access catalog use per open hour.
Chula Vista: 1254.93 program attendance per staff FTE.
Statewide average: 759.807 program attendance per staff FTE.
Table 6. STAFFING
Library Staff FY 2017 Target
FTE Library Staff Per 1,000 0.152 Statewide Median: 0.2962
Number of Volunteers 443 450 **
Volunteer Hours 18,886 (≈ 9.0 FTE) 19,180**
Note: **Volunteer supervision is a workload issue.
Table 7. STAFFING IN
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
Library Staff FY 2015/16 FTE Per
1,000
Chula Vista 0.152
San Diego County 0.233
City of San Diego 0.310
National City 0.282
Carlsbad 0.915
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 132
6
Libraries FY 2017
4. Please complete the table below:
Table 8. LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS
Fiscal Year Annual Attendance per
Business Hour
Annual Circulation per
Square Foot
Guest Satisfaction
FY 2017 1,635,849 629,298 See Attachment D
FY 2016 857,475 710,680 *
FY 2015 803,565 839,616 *
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%
*Previous year outcomes provided.
**The Library Department eliminated its mystery shopper program in 08-09 for budget reasons, so no customer satisfaction survey was undertaken.
The “mystery shopper” program sends field representatives to the library as ordinary library users to observe and rate staff, service, collection,
facilities, etc., both in person and on the phone.
***An in-house survey using intern labor was performed in May-August 2010. Rating factors are not identical to previous years.
5. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report included the following two recommendations for Libraries:
The 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.
Please provide any updates on implementation of these recommendations.
The Developmental Services Department and the City Manager continue to explore strategies for the
construction of an eastside library on the Millenia property.
6. Please provide an update on any other potential possibilities for providing library services.
The library continues to identify ways to better serve their community in innovative programming
while also identifying supplemental funding to support new programming and additional library
resources in materials. Staff is aggressive in applying for grants that benefit the community while
being mindful of the current workload. In the 2016-2017 year, the library has developed the
following programs and received the following grants: REAL card, One Mile, MacGyvering Your
Library, Full Steam Ahead, Innovation Station Project, Career Online High School, CENIC Broadband,
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 133
7
Libraries FY 2017
Steam Camp/Lunch and Lab, Latino Heritage of the South Bay, Onsite Mental Health Care Worker,
FUSE, and NASA at Your Library. For more details on these programs and grants, please see the
Attachment D.
7. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2016/2017,
and include any available data for the County’s Bonita -Sunnyside Branch.
Please see Attachment E for information Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements and
Attachment F is the data for Bonita-Sunnyside Branch.
8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
The need for a full-service branch in the east side of the community remains.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Betty Waznis
Title: Library Director
Date: November 27, 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 134
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 135
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 136
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 137
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 138
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 139
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 140
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 141
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 142
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 143
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 144
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 145
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 146
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 147
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 148
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 149
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 150
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 151
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 152
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 153
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 154
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 155
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 156
Otay Water District – FY 2017 Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Otay Water District –
FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
_____________________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.050
C. WATER.
1. GOAL.
To ensure that adequate supplies of potable and recycled water are available to the City of Chula
Vista.
2. OBJECTIVES.
a. Ensure that adequate storage, treatment and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth.
b. Ensure that water quality standards requirements are met during growth and construction.
c. Encourage diversification of water supply, conservation and use of recycled water where
appropriate and feasible.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARDS.
a. 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.
b. 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 five -year residential
growth forecast and request that they provide an evaluation of their ability to accommodate
forecasted growth. Replies should address the following:
i. Water availability to the City, considering both short- and long-term perspectives.
ii. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity, including
storage capacity, now used or committed.
iii. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted growth.
iv. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities.
v. Other relevant information the district(s) desire to communicate to the city and the
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
Should the GMOC determine that a current or potential problem exists with respect to water, it
may issue a statement of concern in its annual report. (Ord. 3339 § 3, 2015).
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 157
Otay Water District – FY 2017 Page 2
1. Please complete the tables below.
Table 1. PROJECTED 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 6/30/22)
30.0 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.5 7.2 43.7
12-18 Month
Projection
(Ending 12/31/18)
26.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.0 7.2 43.7
Table 2. CURRENT AND PAST 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
FY 2017 24.1 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.3 7.2 43.7
FY 2016
22.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.4 7.2 43.7
FY 2015
27.0 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.9 7.2 43.7
FY 2014
29.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.4 7.2 43.7
FY 2013
28.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.9 7.2 43.7
FY 2012
28.1 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.6 7.2 43.7
FY 2011
26.85 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.59 7.2 43.7
Table 3. WATER SOURCES – FY 2017
(MG – Millions of Gallons)
Water Source
Capacity (MGD) Percentage of Total
Capacity
Actual Use (MGD)
San Diego County Water Authority 121.5 80.6% 16.8
Helix Water District 12.0 8.0% 7.3
City of San Diego 10.0 6.6% 0.0
RWCWRF (Otay Water District) 1.2 0.8% 0.5
SBWRP (San Diego) 6.0 4.0% 2.8
Other 0.0 0% 0.0
TOTAL 150.7 100% 27.4
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 158
Otay Water District – FY 2017 Page 3
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.
The District recently updated the Water Facilities Master Plan from which the listed CIP
projects are derived. These 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 2018
through 2023 CIP documents.
CIP
Project
No.
CIP Project Title
Estimated
Year of
Construction
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 159
Otay Water District – FY 2017 Page 4
4. What is the status of state restrictions on water consumption/usage?
Water conservation efforts remain voluntary in San Diego County since July 2016 when
the drought restrictions enacted in 2015 were rescinded due to the addition of the
Carlsbad Desalination water supply. A prohibition on wasteful water practices such as
watering during rainfall or hosing off sidewalks remains in effect under Executive Order
B-40-17. Future legislation is expected that will establish long-term water conservation
measures and improved planning for more frequent and severe droughts.
The District continues to promote water conservation practices which are reflected in the
water usage reported for the past year remaining lower than FY2015 water demands.
5. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current
year and 6-year capital improvement program projects that are needed to serve the City of Chula
Vista? If yes, please explain.
Yes __X_____ No ______
The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects within
the FY 2018 six-year Otay Water District 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 2018 through
2023 CIP documents.
CIP Project
No.
CIP Project Title
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 160
Otay Water District – FY 2017 Page 5
CIP Project
No.
CIP Project Title
6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would
like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
The Otay Water District has effectively anticipated growth, managed the addition of new
facilities, and documented water supply needs. Service reliability levels have been
enhanced with the addition of major facilities that provide access to existing storage
reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix Water District Levy Water
Treatment Plant, the City of San Diego South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, and the City
of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant. This is due to the extensive planning Otay
Water District has done over the years, including the recently updated Water Facilities
Master Plan (WFMP) and the annual process to have CIP 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.
Growth projection data provided by SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the
development community are 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
planning information remains current considering changes in development activities
and land use planning revisions within Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch. The
District updated the IRP last year.
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
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 161
Otay Water District – FY 2017 Page 6
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 completed San Vicente Dam raise project and the San Diego County Water
Authority’s Carlsbad Desalination Project, the near t erm water supply outlook has
improved while the City of Chula Vista’s long -term growth should be assured of a reliable
water supply. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face
climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source
supply conditions, such as the court ruling regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
issues. Challenges such as these essentially always will be present. The regional water
supply agencies, the SDCWA and MWD, along with Otay Water District nevertheless
fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands.
Additional water supply sources are continually under investigation by Otay Water
District, with the most significant potential source being the Rosarito, Mexico desalination
facility. Projected to ultimately produce 100 MGD of potable water, there is the potential
for up to 50 MGD to be purchased by Otay Water District. Significant regulatory and
permitting issues need to be resolved before this project can be deemed viable. The
Presidential Permit, required to allow this project to move forward, was obtained earlier
this year. Discussions with the State of California regarding treatment requirements are
continuing.
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: November 3, 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 162
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Parks & Recreation Areas
FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
D. PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS.
1. GOAL.
To provide a diverse and flexible park system which meets both the active and passive
recreational needs of the residents of Chula Vista.
2. OBJECTIVE.
Provide public park and recreational opportunities in a timely manner, implementing a five-year
master plan which describes the location, facility improvements and funding program for
proposed neighborhood and community parks.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARD.
Three acres of neighborhood and community park land with appropriate facilities per 1,000
residents east of I-805.
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. Should the GMOC determine that the threshold standard is not being satisfied, then the City
Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the park and recreation system into
conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three
years.
b. If construction of needed new park and recreation facilities is not started within three years of
the deficiency reported by the GMOC, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GMOC’s
report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the
acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria:
i. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a causal relationship to the problem
has been established; and
ii. That the moratorium provides mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact.
c. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific
mitigation measures for adoption, which are intended to bring the condition into conformance.
Any such moratorium shall be in effect until construction of the needed new park and recreation
facilities has commenced.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 163
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 2
Please update the table below:
PARK ACREAGE
Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons
Baseline 1989a – Population: 131,603 Parkland Acreage: 299.15 Parkland/1000 Residents: 2.27
Threshold
Standard
Area of City
Current -
Available Park Acresb
6/30/17
Forecastsc
Prior Year Comparisonsd
18-Month
(12/31/18)
5-Year
(2022)
June
2014
June
2015
June
2016
3 acres per
1,000
population
East
of I-805
East I-805
3.99 3.92 3.94 2.96 2.94 2.83
West I-805
1.19 1.16 1.15 1.2 1.20 1.21
Citywide
2.77 2.72 2.78 2.17 2.16 2.11
Acres of
parkland
East I-805
604.25b 608.15 665.71 418.44 418.44 421.00
West I-805
138.95b 138.95 139.65 138.76 138.76 142.66*
Citywide
743.30b 747.1 805.36 557.20 557.20 563.07
Population East I-805 151,266 155,328 168,808 141,436 142,547 148,714
West I-805 116,651 119,695 121,336 115,788 115,801 118,275
Citywide 267,917 275,023 290,144 257,224 258,348 266,969
Acreage
shortfall or
(excess)
East I-805 (150.45) (142.17) (159.29) (5.87) 9.20 25.67
West I-805 211.00 220.14 224.36 (208.61) 208.64 212.17
Citywide 60.55 77.97 65.07 (214.46) 217.84 237.84
Notes:
a. Baseline per threshold standard adopted by Resolution No. 1987-13346. Threshold standard has not been amended.
b. Available park acreage includes publicly owned and maintained parks and recreation facilities, acreages of extra credit
allocated to parks with additional amenities, Bayfront parks in west Chula Vista only, acres within HOA parks allocated park
credit, Chula Vista municipal golf course, City open spaces that function as parks and special purpose parks. (Park acreage
does not include undeveloped park areas either owned or offered to the City for dedication. See additional information
below.) This is now the figure used to calculate the acres of developed parkland available per 1000 population.
c. Forecast data identified includes addition of parkland anticipated to be opened within the identified time horizon.
d. Previous year’s acreage figures were based on availability of City parks only, as calculated in previous years. There are
differences between the comprehensive analysis figures included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) draft
dated 12/17 and previous figures.
It should be noted that this year, in conjunction with the comprehensive update of the City Wide
Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP), there has been a complete review and recalculation of
the existing park inventory for the City of Chula Vista. Several categories of parkland have now
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 164
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 3
been added to the inventory, which include acreages of extra credit allocated to parks with
additional amenities, acres within HOA parks allocated park credit, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf
Course, City open spaces that function as parks and special purpose parks. The resulting acreage is
larger than previous year totals and translates to a higher acreage of park per 1000 population.
This new total will be used hence forth as the baseline superseding the 1989 baseline.
The draft PRMP demonstrates that, with the inclusion of undeveloped City owned parks and
parkland offered for dedication to the City, it is possible to accommodate City wide growth
forecasted for the next 5 years. (See question 3.)
While the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) achieves a ratio of 3 acres per thousand
population City Wide, this questionnaire indicates that the City wide figures do not achieve a ratio
of 3 acres of parkland per thousand population.
The reason that there is a difference in figures is that the PRMP park acreages also include the
undeveloped acres of parkland that are either owned by the City or offered for dedication to the
City for parkland use which is demonstrated in the table below.)
City Wide (6/30/17) GMOC questionnaire acreage PRMP acreage
Current park acreage 743.30 881
Current population (6/30/17) 267,917 267,917
Acres of parkland per thousand 2.77 3.28*
*difference is 138 acres of undeveloped City owned park or parkland offered for dedication to the City.
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 and is there sufficient acreage dedicated for future parkland and construction capital
available to meet the threshold standard?
Yes X No .
2. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 12-
18 months?
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?
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 165
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 4
c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities?
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 No X
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. See below.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 166
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 5
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 167
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 6
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 168
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 7
LEGEND, Existing Parks - Extract from draft PRMP Dec 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 169
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 8
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 170
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 9
2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 171
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 10
LEGEND, Future Parks by 2020 - Extract from draft PRMP Dec 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 172
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 11
6.Please provide a map showing County parks and multi-jurisdictional parks adjacent to the city limits
of Chula Vista that are not calculated as “City-Owned Park Acreage,” as shown on the table on page
2.See below.
7. 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.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
At the time of writing the draft City Wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, December 2017
update (PRMP), was posted on the City of Chula Vista website for public comment for the period
ending Jan 30th 2018 with a series of public outreach meetings also planned for the month of
January 2018. The purpose of the outreach exercise being to gain further input from the public on
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 173
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 12
the draft document. A final draft of the PRMP will be prepared following these outreach
initiatives. The current timeline is to present the final document for approval to the Parks and
Recreation Commission will be in March, 2018 followed by City Council in April, 2018.
The following is a link to the Dec 12/17 draft PRMP:
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/parks-recreation-
master-plan-update
Master Fee Schedule update, and the Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue
Enhancement Study
The Recreation Department worked with consultants to prepare recommendations on pricing
philosophy and cost recovery percentages for facility use and program delivery costs through a
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study. The recommendations
were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission with unanimous approval on
September 5, 2017. A total of 6 community meetings were held detailing the project and
recommendations. The final report and presentation were taken to City Council on November
7, 2017 with Council unanimously approving the recommendations and updates to be
implemented April 1, 2018.
One of the recommendations of the Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue
Enhancement Study is to update the Master Fee Schedule. Classifications of users have been
redefined to be more clear and effective. No longer are there six classifications. There are now
only two user classifications: Resident/Non Profit and Nonresident/For Profit. Recreation
facility rates are broken into three tiers as follows: Tier 1 – Nonresident/For Profit utilizing
Prime Time hours; Tier 2 – Nonresident/For Profit utilizing non-Prime Time hours or
Resident/Non Profit utilizing Prime Time hours; Tier 3 – Resident/Non Profit utilizing non-
Prime Time hours. These updated facility fees will go into effect on April 1, 2018.
The following is a link to the December 7th, 2017 Council Meeting item.
https://chulavista.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3203178&GUID=3B25A768-B0F6-4E09-
92D4-A5AE6CF3146A
8.The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report made the following recommendation:
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.
The staff response was:
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.
Please provide an analysis on the appropriateness of current impact fees to acquire and develop
park acreage for new development.
Staff has become aware that the cost of park construction has been increasing in recent years.
Additionally, public projects are now required to be bid as prevailing wage contracts which has
also lead to cost increases. Once the PRMP update has been completed and approved, Staff will
focus on the need to increase the park development fees and produce recommendations.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 174
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 13
In addition, please provide an update on any upcoming maintenance funding opportunities.
The recent passage of Measure P provides revenue to replace or repair failed elements of the
Parks and Recreation facilities. The Measure P spending plan will alleviate some of the repair
efforts as the City “catches up” on deferred maintenance. While the majority of park
maintenance funding is from general fund revenues, user fees collected for various park
amenities also contribute a small portion.
Recently the maintenance budget for some parks has been set up to be partially or wholly
funded through a Community Facilities District (CFD).
GMOC standards determine the rate that new parks are constructed in relation to the pace at
which housing development occurs and thus population increase. Commensurate increases in
maintenance resources are required to be made in order to adequately maintain the park
system. Alternative funding sources may be necessary to support park maintenance resources
until general fund revenues catch up to demand and are sustainable, thereby avoiding the
creation of parks with fewer amenities that are less expensive to maintain. An improving
economy may result in increased revenue for parks and recreation maintenance.
9. What is the current park ratio for new development in eastern Chula Vista? 3.99 acres /thousand
10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
Phase 1 of Montecito Park in Otay Ranch Village Two is nearing the end of the maintenance
establishment period after which it will be opened to the public for use (estimated April 2018).
Below are several photographs of this new park in the latter stages of completion.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 175
Parks and Recreation – FY 2017
Page 14
PREPARED BY:
Name: Mary Radley
Title: Landscape Architect
Date: 2-2-18
REVIEWED BY:
Name: Patricia Ferman
Title: Principal Landscape Architect
Date: 2-2-18
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 176
Page 1
Police – FY 2017
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Police – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
______________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
A. POLICE.
1. GOAL.
To maintain and improve the current level of police service in the City of Chula Vista.
2. OBJECTIVE.
Ensure that police staff is adequately equipped and trained to provide police service at the
desired level throughout the City.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARDS.
a. Priority 1 – Emergency Calls¹. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond
to at least 81 percent of Priority 1 calls within seven minutes 30 seconds and shall
maintain an average response time of six minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls (measured
annually).
b. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls². Properly equipped and staff police units shall respond to all
Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
c. 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.”
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); burglar alarms. Response: Immediate response by one or more officers from clear units or
those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.).
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. Should the GMOC determine that the Priority 1 emergency calls threshold standard is
not being met due to growth impacts, then the City Council can, within 60 days of the
GMOC’s report, schedule and hold a public hearing to: (i) consider adopting a moratorium
on the issuance of new building permits; or (ii) adopt other actions sufficient to rectify the
deficiency(ies).
b. Should the GMOC determine that the Priority 2 urgent calls threshold standard is not
being met, it may issue a statement of concern in its annual report.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 177
Page 2
Police – FY 2017
Please update the tables below.
Table 1. 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 2017 765 of
65,672 72.2% 6:47
FY 2016a 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
FY 2002b 1,539 of
71,859 80.0% 5:07
FY1992c -- 81.2% 4:54
FY1990d -- 87.6% 4:08
Notes:
a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to current standard.
b. Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes, maximum
average of 7:30 (Reso. No. 2002-159)
c. Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum
average of 7 minutes (Ord. No. 1991-2448).
The 1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes;
Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 178
Page 3
Police – FY 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/ALS system.
Yes No ___X__
The department continues to have the right equipment to deliver services and although the
PremierOne solution is anticipated to help route Call-For-Service calls in a more efficient way, it is
too early to determine the impact the system will have overall on response times since multiple
variables play a part in addressing the community needs. It is important to note that not one specific
technology improvement will be as impactful as having the right staffing levels to address the needs
of any community. The system went live Mid-July 2017 and continues to be reviewed and adjusted.
Additional related applications are being activated and tested as each stage in the implementation
process is stabilized. This process will continue during Fiscal Year 2018.
2. Please complete the table below, summarizing review period staffing levels. 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 ___
Table 2. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service
Fiscal Year
Call Volume
Average Response Time (Minutes)
(Threshold = 12 Minutes)
FY 2017 19,309 of 65,672 13:53
FY 2016a 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
FY 2002b 22,199 of 71,859 10:04
FY1992c -- 6:30
FY1990d -- 6:15
Notes:
d. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to current standard.
e. Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes,
maximum average of 7:30 (Reso. No. 2002-159)
f. Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7
minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes (Ord. No. 1991-2448).
g. The 1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum
average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 179
Page 4
Police – FY 2017
Table 3. DEPARTMENT STAFFING
Department Staff Amount in FY 2017 Goal Amount
Sworn Officers per 1,000 Residents 0.87 1.29
Sworn Officers 232 346
Community Service Officers (CSOs) 8 12
Civilian Personnel 91 138
Volunteer Hours (Calendar Year 2016) 16,213 22,776
Although the specific units are properly staffed, the actual units-per-beat count is below the
necessary levels to meet the demands of the community. As the Priority 1 and Priority 2 tables
indicate, for the past consecutive six years, the department has failed to meet the established
Priority 1 response time thresholds and Priority 2 response times have not been met for the past 20
years.
3. Please provide and comment on other performance measures during the review period
using metrics identified in the Police Department’s current Strategic Plan (i.e. resident
satisfaction and feeling of safety ratings).
The department continues to explore ways to understand and improve the experience residents
have while interacting with our officers. Discussions have taken place on ways to do effective
surveys and follow-up surveys. With the different priorities, the department has been exploring
automated systems and discussing the full integration of surveys and customer feedback tools.
However, the integration will not take place until after the current Fiscal Year. Discussions are in
place to expand our capacity to share information with the community as well. These tools, along
with the ability of the community to engage more frequently with the department, is a cornerstone
of the Chief’s vision.
4. Will current facilities, equipment and staff be able to accommodate citywide growth
forecasted and meet the threshold standards for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please
explain.
Yes No ___X___
During the month of September 2017, the Police Department, along with the Fire Department,
presented the Public Safety Staffing Study to City Council. Within the report, the department
expressed the concerns and issues that the department is currently facing, including not meeting
response thresholds and investigation workloads impeding the ability to follow-up on cases. Recent
efforts by the department in cooperation with the City Manager’s Office and City Council have
secured an increase in sworn positions by five officers per year. The additional positions are
consistent with the City’s Long Term Financial Plan. However, with the current City expansion plans,
the department will continue to be challenged in meeting the demands of the community since five
new positions every year only helps maintain the current service levels. The new positions do not fall
in-line with the County staffing average. Having a staffing level that is consistent with the County
average ensures that the Police Department will move beyond the status quo and improve its
capability to address the large caseloads that currently go uninvestigated and improve the response
times which we systemically have not been able to meet.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 180
Page 5
Police – FY 2017
5. 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___
As stated in question 4, the department already cannot meet the needs of the community.
Additional City growth will only compound the department’s inability to meet community needs.
6. During the review period, has growth in Chula Vista negatively affected the department's
ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standards? If yes, please
explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the threshold standards.
Yes _ No ___X___
Any population growth that is not supported by the correct level of sworn staff will negatively
impact the level of service a police force can offer. The department was recently approved to fund
five new positions each year, based on the City’s Long Term Financial Plan. The plan addresses city
needs for the next five years but the additional positions are subject to City Council approval based
on available funds. The positions address the projected growth but are geared to maintain the
current service level. The additional positions do not help mitigate the growing number of cases that
do not get reviewed since there aren’t enough offices available to address the growing case load.
Additionally, it is anticipated that the response times for Calls for Service would continue to remain
unchanged until staffing levels are more in line with staffing levels from Cities with similar
population levels.
7. During the review period, did the Police Department maintain 46.5% proactive available
time for an officer on duty? If not, please explain.
The department measures proactivity in calendar years. During the first half of the calendar year,
the department’s proactive time was 37.2%. This is slightly lower than the calendar year 2016
proactive time of 40.0%. The lack of sworn personnel continues to have a direct impact on
proactivity, regardless of the department’s efforts over the past years to introduce technology to
facilitate the flow of information and improve communication.
8. Please update the table below:
Table 4. Number of False Alarms Per Year
Fiscal Year Volume
FY 2017 3,180
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
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 181
Page 6
Police – FY 2017
9. The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommended that the City Manager 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. Please provide an
update on implementation of the 2014 Strategic Plan.
The City Manager’s Office has demonstrated its commitment to make safety a key concern by
allocating funding for five new positions every year consistent with the City’s Long Term Financial
Plan. Although funding for the positions for each year will depend on Council approval, the
department is pleased to see an improvement from the current staffing levels. The additional five
positions help maintain the current service levels. During the month of September 2017, the City
Manager presented the Public Safety Staffing Report to City Council. In cooperation with the Police
and Fire Departments, the report delineates how critically understaffed the departments are. The
report highlights facts regarding the staffing levels as well as the community needs that are currently
being impacted by the staffing shortages. Additionally, the City Manager is actively engaged with the
Police Department and discussions regarding the department’s needs and how to meet them take
place routinely.
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 continues to look for ways to offset costs and streamline how we deliver services.
Recent upgrades in our technology infrastructure and the deployment of communication
equipment, Body-Worn Camera deployment, the CAD system and just recently, the deployment of
handheld devices that have the necessary tools our officers need demonstrate the department’s
interest in reducing costs and do effective policing. We will continue to present our case to increase
staffing levels that are reasonable and necessary to meet the demands of a growing City.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Joseph Walker
Title: Supervising Public Safety Analyst
Date: 10-26-17
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 182
Sewer – FY 2017 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Sewer – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017
_______________________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
D. SEWER.
1. GOAL.
To provide a healthful and sanitary sewer collection and disposal system for the residents of the
City of Chula Vista, consistent with the City’s wastewater master plan.
2. OBJECTIVE.
Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with City engineering
standards. Treatment capacity should be acquired in advance of demand.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARDS.
a. 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.
b. 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 devel opment.
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. The City Engineering Department shall annually gather and provide the following information
to the GMOC:
i. Amount of current capacity in the Metropolitan Sewer System now used or committed and
the status of Chula Vista’s contracted share;
ii. Ability of sewer facilities and Chula Vista’s share of the Metropolitan Sewer System’s
capacity to absorb forecasted growth over the next five years;
iii. Evaluation of funding and site availability for budgeted and projected new facilities; and
iv. Other relevant information.
b. Should the GMOC determine that a potential problem exists with meeting the projected needs
of development with respect to sewer, it may issue a statement of concern in its annual report.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 183
Sewer – FY 2017 2
Please update the table below:
SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity
Million Gallons per
Day (MGD)
Fiscal Year
2015
Fiscal Year
2016
Fiscal Year
2017
18-month
Projection
5-year
Projection
"Buildout"
Projection
Average Flow 15.499 15.385 15.426 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, Subdivision Manual requirements) 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. 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 _______
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 chart 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 the cost of water combined with on-going 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.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 184
Sewer – FY 2017 3
PREPARED BY:
Name: Roberto Yano
Title: Program Manager
Date: 9/21/2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 185
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
SUHSD – FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
___________________________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.050
B. SCHOOLS.
1. GOAL.
To ensure that the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and Sweetwater Union High School
District (SUHSD) have the necessary school sites, infrastructure and funding mechanisms to meet the
needs of students in new development areas in a timely manner.
2. OBJECTIVE.
Provide school district personnel with current development forecasts so that they may plan and
implement school building and/or allocation programs in a timely manner.
3. FACILITY MASTER PLAN.
The GMOC will request updates of the school districts’ facility master plans or equivalent documents
that define the schools’ essential facility needs necessary to provide adequate physical
accommodation.
4. 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 five -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:
a. Amount of current classroom and “essential facility” (as defined in the f acility master plan)
capacity now used or committed;
b. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities and identification of what facilities need to
be upgraded or added over the next five years;
c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities identified; and
d. Other relevant information the school district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City and the
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
5. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE.
Should the GMOC determine that a capacity problem exists with respect to physically accommodating
students, either currently or within the next five years, it may issue a statement of concern in its annual
report. The annual report shall be provided to both school districts, with follow-up, to assure
appropriate response.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 186
SUHSD – FY 2017 Page 2
1. Please complete the table below, adding new schools, if applicable.
Table 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS – DECEMBER 2017
SCHOOLS
# of Enrolled
Students Residing
in School
Boundary*
12/17
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 504 / 849 1,141 188 1,329 64% 70%
Hilltop Middle 519 / 980 1,271 110 1,380 71% 53%
Chula Vista High 1,420 / 2,290 1,928 450 2,377 96% 62%
Hilltop High 1,112 / 1,986 2,135 403 2,538 78% 56%
SUBTOTAL 3,646 / 6,105 6,474 1,150 7,625 80% 60%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 771 / 847 1,160 41 1,201 71% 91%
Castle Park High 1,303 / 1,515 1,873 366 2,238 68% 86%
Palomar High 338 / 338 312 190 502 67% 100%
SUBTOTAL 2,412 / 2,700 3,345 597 3,942 68% 89%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 2,440 / 2,940 1,729 993 2,722 108% 83%
Eastlake Middle 1,565 / 1,701 1,748 119 1,867 91% 92%
Otay Ranch High 1,264 / 2,340 2,335 286 2,621 89% 54%
Olympian High 1,367 / 2,399 2,179 167 2,346 102% 57%
Rancho del Rey Middle 1,456 / 1,693 1,017 629 1,646 103% 86%
SUBTOTAL 8,092 / 11,073 9,009 2,193 11,202 99% 74%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 1,548 / 2,244 1,664 635 2,299 98% 69%
Bonita Vista Middle 724 / 1,114 1,272 242 1,515 74% 65%
SUBTOTAL
2,272 / 3,358 2,937 877 3,814 88% 68%
TOTAL 16,422/23,236 21,765 4,817 26,582 87% 71%
*Does not include special education students.
**Includes physical education capacity but not special education learning centers.
***Because of the change in student information systems, this data is from October 2015 as adjusted for attendance boundary changes in 2016.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 187
SUHSD – FY 2017 Page 3
2. Taking into consideration the City’s 2017 Residential Growth Forecast, please complete the two
forecast tables below, adding new schools, if applicable.
Table 2. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2018
SCHOOLS
# of Enrolled
Students Residing
in School
Boundary*
12/31/18***
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 588 / 840 1,141 188 1,329 63% 70%
Hilltop Middle 535 / 1,009 1,271 110 1,380 73% 53%
Chula Vista High 1,355 / 2,186 1,928 450 2,377 92% 62%
Hilltop High 1,154 / 2,060 2,135 403 2,538 81% 56%
SUBTOTAL 3,632 / 6,095 6,474 1,150 7,625 80% 60%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 831 / 913 1,160 41 1,201 76% 91%
Castle Park High 1,426 / 1,658 1,873 366 2,238 74% 86%
Palomar High 350 / 350 312 190 502 70% 100%
SUBTOTAL 2,607 / 2,921 3,345 597 3,942 74% 89%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 2,361 / 2,844 1,729 993 2,722 104% 83%
Eastlake Middle 1,621 / 1,762 1,748 119 1,867 94% 92%
Otay Ranch High 1,229 / 2,276 2,335 286 2,621 87% 54%
Olympian High 1,288 / 2,259 2,179 167 2,346 96% 57%
Rancho del Rey Middle 1,534 / 1,784 1,017 629 1,646 108% 86%
SUBTOTAL 8,033 / 10,925 9,009 2,193 11,202 98% 74%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 1,617 / 2,344 1,664 635 2,299 102% 69%
Bonita Vista Middle 796 / 1,225 1,272 242 1,515 81% 65%
SUBTOTAL 2,413 / 3,569 21,765 4,817 3,814 94% 68%
TOTAL 16,685 / 23,510 40,593 8,757 26,582 88% 71%
*Does not include special education students.
**Includes physical education capacity but not special education learning centers.
***Projections are DRAFT at this time. Also shown is the total current enrollment.
****Percentage of Building Capacity Used is based on Total Current Enrollment.
*****Because of the change in student information systems, this data is from October 2015 as adjusted for attendance boundary changes in 2016.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 188
SUHSD – FY 2017 Page 4
Table 3. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2022
SCHOOLS
# of Enrolled
Students Residing
in School
Boundary*
12/31/22***
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 630 / 900 1,141 188 1,329 68% 70%
Hilltop Middle 490 / 920 1,271 110 1,380 67% 53%
Chula Vista High 1,375 / 2,215 1,928 450 2,377 93% 62%
Hilltop High 1,030 / 1,835 2,135 403 2,538 72% 56%
SUBTOTAL 3,525 / 5,870 6,474 1,150 7,625 77% 60%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 705 / 775 1,160 41 1,201 65% 91%
Castle Park High 1,190 / 1,385 1,873 366 2,238 62% 86%
Palomar High 350 / 350 312 190 502 70% 100%
SUBTOTAL 2,245 / 2,510 3,345 597 3,942 64% 89%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 2,225 / 2,680 1,729 993 2,722 98% 83%
Eastlake Middle 1,030 / 1,120 1,748 119 1,867 60% 92%
Otay Ranch High 1,335 / 2,470 2,335 286 2,621 94% 54%
Olympian High 1,405 / 2,465 2,179 167 2,346 105% 57%
Rancho del Rey Middle 1,195 / 1,390 1,017 629 1,646 84% 86%
#12 Middle 1,080 / 1,200 1500 0 1500 80% 90%
#14 High 0%
SUBTOTAL 8,270 / 11,325 10,509 2,193 12,702 89% 73%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 1,410 / 2,040 1,664 635 2,299 89% 69%
Bonita Vista Middle 660 / 1,015 1,272 242 1,515 67% 65%
SUBTOTAL 2,070 / 3,055 2,937 877 3,814 80% 68%
TOTAL 16,110 / 22,760 23,265 4,817 28,082 81% 71%
*Does not include special education students.
**Includes physical education capacity but not special education learning centers.
***Projections are DRAFT at this time. Also shown is the total current enrollment.
****Percentage of Building Capacity Used is based on Total Current Enrollment.
*****Because of the change in student information systems, this data is from October 2015 as adjusted for attendance boundary changes in 2016.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 189
SUHSD – FY 2017 Page 5
3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history.
Table 4. ENROLLMENT HISTORY
SCHOOLS 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12
NORTHWEST
Total Enrollment 6,105 6,166 6,379 6,579 6,798 6,798
% Change from Previous Year † -1.0% -3.3% -3.0% -2.1% -1.1% -0.4%
% Enrollment Chula Vista* 73% 73% 86% 87% 87% 87%
SOUTHWEST
Total Enrollment 2,700 2,629 2,600 2,606 2,712 2,792
% Change from Previous Year † 3.9% 1.1% -0.2% -3.9% -2.9% -9.0%
% Chula Vista Enrollment* 98% 98% 91% 90% 91% 91%
SOUTHEAST
Total Enrollment 11,073 11,117 9,736 9,582 9,414 9,007
% Change from Previous Year † -0.4% 14.2% 1.6% 1.8% 4.5% 5.4%
% Chula Vista Enrollment * 90% 90% 93% 93% 92% 93%
NORTHEAST
Total Enrollment 3,358 3,271 5,359 5,170 5,071 5,071
% Change From Previous Year † 2.7% -39% 3.7% 2.05% 4.5% 4.5%
% Chula Vista Enrollment* 91% 91% 88% 88% 91% 91%
DISTRICT-WIDE
Total Enrollment 39,484 40,371 41,123 41,120 40,507 40,507
% Change From Previous Year † -2.2% -1.83% 0.01% 0.45% -0.57% -0.57%
% Chula Vista Enrollment* 55% 55% 53% 57% 55% 55%
† In 2015-16, special education students were eliminated from the enrollment figures, and Rancho del Rey Middle School was moved from
“Northeast” to “Southeast” schools.
*Because of the change in student information systems, the % Chula Vista Enrollment is from October 2015 as adjusted for attendance
boundary changes in 2016.
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 to eastern schools and Chula Vista HS to accommodate new students.
5. Will existing facilities/schools be able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years?
Yes No ___X___
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 190
SUHSD – FY 2017 Page 6
On the table below, please identify what facilities may need to be upgraded or added over the
next five years.
Table 5. NEW AND/OR UPGRADED SCHOOLS STATUS
School #
and/or
Name
Site 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 Complete* 2018 Complete Complete 2020 July
2022
HS#14 TBD 2018 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Upgrade All
Sites N/A 2018 N/A N/A TBD TBD
*SUHSD owns a 27.18-acre site at Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway (the Hunte Site).
6. 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.
7. Please provide an update of the school districts’ facility master plans or equivalent documents
that define the schools’ essential facility needs necessary to provide adequate physical
accommodation.
The master plan update is in process and we should be able to provide document next year.
8. What type of contingency plan does the school district have in place in the event of an
emergency or natural disaster?
Each site has procedures for handling everything from natural disasters to active shooters.
9. Are any schools slated to close?
No
10. What is the status of various after-school programs, adult education, etc.?
After-school programs and adult education continue as viable programs.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 191
SUHSD – FY 2017 Page 7
11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would
like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
Our enrollment projection methodology is undergoing review and, therefore, the one-year and five-
year enrollment projections are draft and subject to change.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Paul D. Woods
Title: District Architect
Date: January 25, 2018
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 192
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2017 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Sweetwater Authority –
FY 2017
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
__________________________________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.050
C. WATER.
1. GOAL.
To ensure that adequate supplies of potable and recycled water are available to the City of Chula
Vista.
2. OBJECTIVES.
a. Ensure that adequate storage, treatment and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth.
b. Ensure that water quality standards requirements are met during growth and construction.
c. Encourage diversification of water supply, conservation and use of recycled water where
appropriate and feasible.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARDS.
a. 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.
b. 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 five -year residential
growth forecast and request that they provide an evaluation of their ability to accommodate
forecasted growth. Replies should address the following:
i. Water availability to the City, considering both short- and long-term perspectives.
ii. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity, including
storage capacity, now used or committed.
iii. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted growth.
iv. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities.
v. Other relevant information the district(s) desire to communicate to the city and the
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
4. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
Should the GMOC determine that a current or potential problem exists with respect to water, it
may issue a statement of concern in its annual report. (Ord. 3339 § 3, 2015).
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 193
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2017 2
1. Please complete the tables below.
Table 1. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
Potable Water
Timeframe
Demand
(MGD)
Supply Capacity
(MGD)
Storage Capacity
Local Imported Treated
(MG)
Raw
(MG)
5-Year
Projection
(Ending 6/30/22)
20.2 39.5 30 44.15 17,421
12-18 Month
Projection
(Ending 12/30/18)
18.6 39.5 30 43.35 17,421
NOTE: MGD = Million Gallons Per Day; MG = Million Gallons
Table 2. CURRENT AND PAST WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
Potable Water
Timeframe Demand
(MGD)
Supply Capacity
(MGD)
Storage Capacity
Local Imported Treated
(MG)
Raw
(MG)
FY 2017 15.8 39.5 30 43.35 17,421
FY 2016 15.2 37 30 43.35 17,421
FY 2015 17.2 37 30 43.35 17,421
FY 2014 19.0 37 30 43.35 17,421
FY 2013 18.8 37 30 43.35 17,421
FY 2012 18.3 36 30 43.35 17,421
FY 2011 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421
FY 2010 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421
NOTE: MGD = Million Gallons Per Day; MG = Million Gallons
Table 3. WATER SOURCES – FY 2017
Water Source
Capacity
(MGD)
Percentage of Total
Capacity
Actual Use
(MGD)
SDCWA (Imported) 30* 76% 12.2
Sweetwater Reservoir (Local) 1.5
National City Wells (Local) 2 5% 1.6
Desal Facility (Local) 7.5 19% 0.5
TOTAL 15.8
NOTE: MGD = Million Gallons Per Day; MG = Million Gallons
* Capacity of the Robert A. Perdue Water Treatment Plant is 30 MGD. Source can be local water from Sweetwater Reservoir, imported water from
SDCWA, or a combination of both.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 194
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2017 3
Additional 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 interpolated from Table 4-2 of Sweetwater
Authority’s 2015 Water Distribution System Master Plan.
e. Local supply components include the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Facility (10 mgd, 7.5
mgd of which is allocated to Sweetwater Authority), and National City Wells (2 mgd), for a total of 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 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 _______
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 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 and the facility was placed back into operation at an expanded capacity in July
2017. 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.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 195
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2017 4
5. Are there rebates or incentives for conservation efforts?
Sweetwater Authority offers a variety of rebates for water conservation devices such as
irrigation sensor controllers and rain sensors, sprinkler nozzles, rain barrels, high efficiency
toilets and clothes washers, and gray water system retrofits. 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
6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
Sweetwater Authority is monitoring development activities within the City of Chula Vista, including
the Bay Front development, which will require major infrastructure coordination. In addition,
Sweetwater Authority updated its Urban Water Management Plan during FY 2015-16 and completed
the 2015 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
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: November 2, 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 196
Traffic – FY 2018
1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Traffic – 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 and 5-Year Forecast
_____________________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE 19.09.040
G. TRAFFIC.
1. GOALS.
a. To provide and maintain a safe and efficient street system for all modes of transportation within the
City of Chula Vista.
b. To accurately determine existing and projected levels of service (LOS) for motorists, using the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) performance measurement methodology.
c. To recognize the unique nature of urbanizing neighborhoods as destinations, and to establish a
commensurate street classification and LOS threshold that encourages alternative modes of
transportation, such as public transit, biking and walking.
d. To maintain a level of service value that represents an acceptable level of traffic flow under
constrained operating conditions during peak periods of traffic activity.
2. OBJECTIVES.
a. Ensure timely provision of adequate local, multi-modal circulation system capacity in response to
planned growth, and maintain acceptable levels of service.
b. Plan, design and construct new roadway segments and signalized intersections to maintain
acceptable LOS standards at build-out of the General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element.
c. Plan, design and construct bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements pursuant to the most
current bikeway master plan and pedestrian master plan.
3. THRESHOLD STANDARDS.
a. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Nonurban 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.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 197
Traffic – FY 2018
2
b. 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.
4. NOTES TO STANDARDS.
a. Arterial Segment. LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding
seasonal and special circumstance variations.
b. 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.
c. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below
established standards.
d. 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.
e. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the HCM.
5. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES.
a. Should the GMOC determine that the threshold standards are not being met, due to growth impacts,
then the City Council can, within 60 days of the GMOC’s report, schedule and hold a public hearing to
consider adopting: (i) a moratorium on the acceptance of new building permits, or (ii) other actions
sufficient to rectify the deficiency(ies).
b. The GMOC may issue a statement of concern in its annual report if it determines that the threshold
standard will likely not be met within three years, due to growth impacts.
c. The Department of Public Works shall annually report on progress made in implementing
construction of facilities listed in the bikeway master plan, pedestrian master plan, the transportation
development impact fee program (TDIF), and the Western TDIF.
6. MONITORING METHODOLOGY.
a. Identify all traffic monitoring program (TMP) corridors and classify according to the latest Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Typically, a TMP roadway is four lanes with a volume of
16,500 trips and at least one and one-half miles in length. If the average daily trip (ADT)-based level
of service is “C” or worse on a street segment located within a City TMP corridor, then the City shall
consider conducting a TMP measurement. ADT volume data shall not be older than two years.
b. A TMP measurement shall consist of a two-hour a.m. peak period measurement, a two-hour midday
period measurement, and a two-hour p.m. peak period measurement.
c. TMP measurement shall be conducted by following the current protocol in the latest adopted HCM.
d. Any speed collection and volume data methodology that utilizes the latest technology consistent with
HCM protocol can be used in obtaining arterial LOS, subject to approval by the City’s Traffic Engineer.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 198
Traffic – FY 2018
3
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 on average 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____
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
Palomar Street EB
WB
D(5)
D(5) E(1)
Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
N/A N/A
PAST PERFORMANCE (BASELINE)
Number of Non-Compliant Segments FY2016a 2 (Non-Urban)
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections FY1992b 0
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections FY1989c
8
The LOS for 1989 was based on the 1990 GMOC Report
dated June 1990.
Notes:
a. Threshold standard was amended by Ord. No. 2015-3339 to be based on roadway segments instead of intersections.
b. Threshold standard was amended by Ord. No. 1991-2448.
c. Baseline as defined in the threshold standard approved in the City Council Policy adopted by Reso. No. 1987-13346.
Palomar Street (Industrial Blvd to Broadway)
On Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Blvd, the LOS continues to perform below satisfactory
levels (see Attachment 1). Staff is currently working with SANDAG on the preliminary engineering and
environmental document for grade-separating the rail crossing, but the grade separation is dependent on
future Transnet and other funding sources. The environmental document is slated to be approved in FY 18/19.
Currently, the Palomar Street corridor between Industrial Blvd. and Broadway is going to have some
signalization improvements and optimization done in 2018.
2. For urban streets, did the City maintain LOS “D” or better on average 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 ______
3. Please attach a map delineating urban and non-urban streets.
See Attachment 2.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 199
Traffic – FY 2018
4
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 No __X__
PALOMAR STREET
On Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Blvd, the LOS continues to perform below satisfactory
levels. Recent improvements to the Blueline Trolley crossing at Palomar Street and to the Palomar Trolley
Station have helped maintain the LOS acceptable levels. Staff is currently working with SANDAG on the
preliminary engineering and environmental document for grade-separating the rail crossing. The
environmental document will be completed in FY 18/19. Staff is also pursuing the engineering design and
construction phase funding with SANDAG.
In addition, a City Capital Improvement Project to modify and update the traffic signals and install bike lanes in
this segment has been approved. Design has already begun, and construction is to commence in the spring of
2018.
OLYMPIC PARKWAY CORRIDOR
Olympic Parkway traffic levels, currently at 53,276 ADT, will continue to increase as development continues to
the east. Along the freeway medians, Caltrans has completed the construction of the carpool lanes between
East Palomar Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. Ultimately, the I-805 Managed Lanes will continue north to
State Route 94 and terminate in Downtown San Diego. Pending regional approval, subsequent phases of the
project are planned to be completed by 2020. The East Palomar Street Bridge has been completed and the
Direct Access Ramp to I-805 was opened in January 2017.
HERITAGE ROAD EXTENSION FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO MAIN STREET
With continued traffic monitoring, the schedule for constructing the ultimate 6-lane southerly extension of
Heritage Road will be determined. Further monitoring of the Olympic Parkway corridor and the number of
building permits issued will trigger the ultimate 6-lane improvements of Heritage Road to the south to Main
Street. Construction of the 2-lane road is partially completed between Olympic Parkway and Main Street and
is scheduled to be completed in FY17/18. The ultimate 6-lane facility is still several years away.
OTAY LAKES ROAD
On-going monitoring of this segment will continue to be studied to ensure it remains at a satisfactory LOS.
LA MEDIA ROAD
Improvement plans have been submitted for the extension of La Media Road, south of Santa Luna Street to
Main Street. This is part of the Eastern Core development.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 200
Traffic – FY 2018
5
TDIF PROGRAM FUNDING
Development is required to pay their fair share in mitigating any project impacts. The City of Chula Vista has
the Transportation Development Impact Fee programs for the Bayfront, Western Chula Vista and Eastern
Chula Vista that will collect sufficient funds for needed transportation improvements. The development
impact fees pay only for the proportionate share of the project that is impacted by development. Existing
deficiencies are the responsibility of the City to fund with other sources such as local TransNet, State and
Federal funds. The transportation development impact fee program is periodically updated so that program
identified project costs and scopes are updated as well as adding or deleting projects. The most recent
updates occurred in FY 14/15. Therefore, the developer impact fees are current.
Both Caltrans and SANDAG projects have a combination of regional, state and federal funds for all of the
phases of work, such as preliminary engineering, planning, environmental, design and construction. As each of
these projects completes a phase of work, the region approves funding for the subsequent phases.
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__
Heritage Road will need to connect to Main Street in 2018. La Media Road will need to be extended to Main
Street in 2019. All will be funded by developer impact fees. Palomar Street at Industrial Boulevard will need
to be grade separated and it will be paid for with regional, local, state and federal funds. The timeline for
grade separation is likely just beyond the 5-year horizon.
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.
The Traffic Management Program (TMP) deploys a specially equipped vehicle into average peak traffic to
gather average speed, travel time and delay information for each roadway segment studied.
The Traffic Management Program (TMP) deploys a specially equipped vehicle into average weekly peak traffic
to gather average speed, travel time and delay information for each roadway segment studied. This program
determines which local streets and arterial roadways have the most delays. The existing software used to
monitor the traffic flow, Micro Float, is old DOS based software. This Fiscal Year, Traffic Engineering will be
researching newer methods to monitor traffic flow in the future.
The Arterial Travel Time System is a wireless application for remotely and continuously managing deployed
detection networks. The system measures and reports Real-Time travel times along East H Street, Telegraph
Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway. The detection is from unique vehicle magnetic detection signatures, re-
identifies vehicles to provide accurate travel times and vehicle density. The system helps in determining
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 201
Traffic – FY 2018
6
performance measures for vehicular counts and traffic delays. It provides data used for incident management
and load balancing of the traveled segment. It has the capability of storing historical traffic volume data than
can be used for future studies.
In the eastern part of the City (east of I-805), developers have paid for 28 permanent solar powered traffic
count stations. The count stations store traffic volume data and can remotely accessed through the internet.
As with the other methods of data collection, they are all used in monitoring the City’s traffic flow for the
GMOC.
7. Please provide an update on public transportation projects and indicate how they are anticipated to affect
threshold compliance.
SOUTH BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is proposing to provide Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services
and corridor improvements in the San Diego area. The proposed South Bay BRT project will extend
approximately 21 miles from downtown San Diego to the Otay Mesa International Transportation Center (ITC)
adjacent to the U.S./Mexico Otay Mesa International Border crossing. The Chula Vista segment will facilitate
the passage of BRT vehicles through the East Palomar Street Corridor with minimal disruption to local traffic.
BRT vehicles will travel on northbound SR-125 into the City of Chula Vista to the Birch Road exit. At the SR-
125/Birch Road interchange, the proposed alignment will follow Birch Road to a guideway entry at the
Millenia/Otay Ranch Town Center (ORTC) Mall eastern perimeter. BRT vehicles will stop at the proposed ORTC
park-and-ride station and existing 250 space park-and-ride lot. After serving the station, the BRT vehicles will
continue north and then west within a proposed guideway along the northern boundary of the ORTC. BRT
vehicles will then continue westward and across SR-125 via a proposed transit/pedestrian guideway bridge
and ramp to where East Palomar Street ends at a T-intersection with Magdalena Avenue. From Magdalena
Avenue to Gould Avenue, the BRT will travel in a center raised median guideway. From Gould Avenue to I-805,
the BRT will travel in mixed flow lanes until the last stop at the I-805/East Palomar Street DAR park-and-ride
lot. There will be three intermediate stops at: Santa Venetia Station, Lomas Verdes Station and Heritage
Station. Construction has already begun and is scheduled to be completed and in operation Spring 2019.
BLUE LINE GRADE SEPERATIONS
The Blue Line Light Rail Trolley system (Route 510) is the busiest transit route in the County with an average
daily ridership of 48,000 passengers. Every four years, SANDAG approves their Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) which looks at the region’s transportation needs for the next few decades. One of the planned projects
is to grade separate the rail crossings at “E” Street, “H” Street and Palomar Street as well as five other Blue
Line locations in the City of San Diego by year 2035. Chula Vista is currently working on the environmental
document for Palomar Street, which is the highest priority location in the County out of the 27 locations
studied. It is hoped that work on the “E” Street and “H” Street locations will also commence within a few
years time.
PURPLE LINE LIGHT RAIL TROLLEY
The SANDAG San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (RTP) shows that that highest ranked transit service in the
County is Trolley Route 562 from Carmel Valley to San Ysidro via Kearny Mesa. In addition, the SDSU to
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 202
Traffic – FY 2018
7
Palomar Station (Chula Vista) via East San Diego, South East San Diego and National City ranked second. The
first phase of work, through Chula Vista, is expected to be completed by year 2035. This would be an entirely
new light rail system for the region.
8. Please provide current statistics on transit ridership in Chula Vista.
FY17 Annual Ridership
Route Riders
701 519,830
703 (Sunday-only route) 36,463
704 466,182
705 240,803
707 70,188
709 915,708
712 715,263
929 2,230,944
932 1,146,682
Blue Line 17,496,871
9. Please provide any updates to the construction schedule, between now and 2022, for new roads and
improvements funded by TDIF funds.
TDIF
Project No.
Project Description Est. Year of Completion
43 Birch Road from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway 2017 - South curb side
improvements only
46 Eastlake Parkwy from Birch Road - Hunte
Parkway
2017 - West curb side
improvements only
52b. La Media Road from Santa Luna Street to Main
Street Couplet intersection
2019
53a. La Media Road Couplet within Village 8 to Otay
Valley Road
2020
53b. Main Street Couplet Road within Village 8W 2020
53c. Otay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR-125
R/W
2022
56e. Main Street from Nirvana Avenue to Heritage
Road
2021
57 Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main St. 2018 for interim 2-lane
58b. Heritage Road Bridge crossing the Otay River 2021
61 Willow Street Bridge from Bonita Road to
Sweetwater Road
2019
64 Hunte Parkway (Main Street) from SR-125 to
Eastlake Parkway
2021
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 203
Traffic – FY 2018
8
69 Millenia Avenue from Birch Road to Hunte
Parkway (Main Street)
2020
Note: Actual year of completion may vary from estimate based on rate of development in the City.
10. Please provide an update on the City’s efforts with SANDAG to secure funding for grade Separation of the
Palomar Street rail crossing.
PALOMAR STREET
City staff is working with our railroad consultant, HNTB and SANDAG staff on the Environmental Document for
Grade Separating the railroad crossing at Palomar Street. The environmental document is scheduled to be
approved in FY18/19. Current funding is only for the environmental phase of work. City staff continues to
work with SANDAG on local, regional, state and federal funding for the Design Phase ($5M) and the
Construction phase ($50M). The Regional Transportation Plan does show that there will be Blue Line
improvements, including grade separations within Chula Vista (see Attachment 3). Staff is working on
expediting these projects.
There is a new statewide finding source created by the passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) which will help fund
needed transportation projects such as the Chula Vista grade separations at various locations. Palomar Street
is ranked as the highest priority location within San Diego County with E Street and H Street also highly ranked.
As SB 1 provides additional funding to the region, this will allow SANDAG the flexibility to amend budgets and
leverage existing funds to be able to deliver more transportation related projects in the County.
Senate Bill 1 – Summary and Preliminary Estimates
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) (Beall, 2017) or the Road Repair & Accountability Act of 2017 was signed by the Governor in
late April 2017. SB1 is a new state program that will provide substantial, long-term funding for a variety of
transportation programs but about two thirds of the funds are intended for “Fix-It First” projects in the state
and local road system, as well as for transit agencies. This legislation is estimated to increase state revenues
for transportation infrastructure system by an average of $5.2 billion annually. Although program guidelines,
funding distribution criteria and other parameters remain to be determined, at this time it is appropriate to
expect that the impact to completion of TransNet projects likely is to be significant. The fact that the revenue
stream is a permanent source and adjusted for inflation over time means that the TransNet Program will be
able to rely on state programs to a longer and greater extent to complete all projects. Strategic use of
TransNet can help the region secure a greater share of these dollars.
Trade Corridors Enhancement Program: This new program also builds on the legacy of Proposition 1B with a
program dedicated to freight corridors, including highway, rail, and maritime infrastructure. Locally, this
program supported access improvements to the Port of San Diego, as well as completing key freight
infrastructure such as State Route 11 (SR 11), State Route 905 (SR 905), and the rail freight corridor in Chula
Vista and San Ysidro, and along the NCC used by Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad. Moving forward,
this program also is anticipated to be managed on a competitive basis. Additional transportation access
improvements at land and seaports, as well as freight corridors along the NCC and others are anticipated to
compete well for this new program. Assuming that over time the region would get its historical share of
similar past statewide programs (between 8% and 10%), the POF assumes that approximately between $1.7
and $2.1 billion would be available through 2048.
11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to
the GMOC and/or the City Council.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 204
Traffic – FY 2018
9
CITY’S TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMMUNICATIONS MASTER PLAN
On September 22, 2017 the City Council adopted the City’s Traffic Signal Communications Master Plan. The
new Plan encompasses four distinct and critical elements: (1) existing systems assessment, (2) needs
assessment, (3) future system Architecture and ITS elements, and (4) implementation phasing plan including
cost-benefit analysis. Each of these elements account for key components to help guide the City toward
effective modernization of a comprehensive traffic signal communications network which will support cutting-
edge transportation systems and serve as a foundation for the City’s deployment of Smart City technologies.
With the City’s emphasis on technology to provide excellent and more efficient services to the public, the Plan
provides the framework for the repair, upgrade, and expansion of a traffic signal communications network
that will utilize the latest in communications technology to provide a reliable and robust communications
network for the asset owner and, perhaps, other departments throughout the City in need of a strong and
effective communications network.
EXPANSION OF ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM PROJECT
The City’s Engineering Department has hired a consultant, Trafficware, to provide consultant services for the
project. The expansion of Adaptive Traffic Signal System along East “H” Street and Telegraph Canyon
Road/Otay Lakes Road will expand the adaptive traffic signal control along East “H” Street, Telegraph Canyon
Road, and Otay Lakes Road through the Highway Safety Improvement Program. The project aims to provide a
more dynamic signal system servicing the traffic along these streets. This will also include acquiring services
for signal retiming, which includes the Otay Lakes Road/Southwestern College area. The design of the project
will commence in December 2017, and construction is proposed in the spring of 2018. The anticipated
completion will be in the summer of 2018.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Ben Herrera
Title: Associate Engineer
Date: September 21, 2017
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 205
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 NBB 20.4 ('16)C 17.3 ('16)C 17.8 ('16) (BRDTF350 - HCM4)SB B 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)Eastlake ParkwayMiller Dr - Trinidad CoveSB C 23.3('16)B 21.4('16)B 22.0('16)(EAS - HCM 4)NB C 21.2('16)C 18.1('16)C 18.6('16)Heritage Rd. - ADS8Tel Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy NBC25.9C22.7C27.9C28.0C23.7C25.7 After south seg. Opened ('14) SBC23.1D20.1C25.0C24.2C22.4C23.8Runs completed 7/1/16 - 6/30/17 BOLDADS - Adaptive Detection SystemLower Half of LOS C LOS FLOS DLOS EAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2018 (7/01/2016 - 6/30/2017) TMP NON URBAN 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\'17 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'18 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls109/21/20172018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 206
SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR.LOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2018 (7/01/2016 - 6/30/2017) TMP NON URBAN 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.NBB 19.7B 21.7B 22.6 (HIL1 - HCM 4)SB B 20.6B 20.2B 21.510L St. - Orange Ave.NB B 19.7 ('17)B 23.3 ('09)B24.1('11) (HIL2 - HCM 4)SB B 20.6 ('17)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 7/1/16 - 6/30/17 BOLDADS - Adaptive Detection SystemLower Half of LOS CLOS DLOS ELOS FJ:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'17 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'18 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls209/21/20172018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 207
SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR.LOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2018 (7/01/2016 - 6/30/2017) TMP NON URBAN 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. EBA46.0A46.4A45.1A45.7A45.5A43.7 (OP - HCM 1) WBA46.9B41.7A45.5A44.2C29.6C32.119Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EBB34.8 C 34.0 B 35.9 B 34.8 C 28.4 C 27.5(OP2 - HCM 1)WBB 35.9 B 36.1 B 35.9 C 33.6 C 33.2 C 31.7Orange Ave./E. Orange Ave. 20Palomar 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)21Hilltop 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. - ADS22Bonita 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)23Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd NBB21.4 C 16.8 C 18.7 C 19.4 C 16.8 C 16.2(OLR3 - HCM 4)SBB 22.5 B 19.8 C 17.6 C 17.3 C 15.5 C 15.1Palomar St. - ADS24Industrial Bl. – Broadway EBC13.3D13.0D12.3D12.1D11.5D11.3 (PAL1 - HCM 4) WBD11.7D11.7D9.8D9.4E8.4D10.625Broadway - 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 26East 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. 27Cyn 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)28Ps Ranchero - St. Claire Dr. EB A 38.7('16)A 42.2('16)A 37.2('16) (TC2 - HCM 2)WBB32.5('16)A 36.0('16)B 33.2('16)Runs completed 7/1/16 - 6/30/17 BOLDADS - Adaptive Detection SystemJ:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'17 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'18 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls309/21/20172018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 208
SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR.LOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDLOSSPEEDAM PERIOD7 - 8 AM AM PERIOD8 - 9 AMGMOC 2018 (7/01/2016 - 6/30/2017) TMP NON URBAN ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - ALL TIME PERIODSPM PERIOD4 - 5 PMPM PERIOD5 - 6 PMMID-DAY11:30 - 12:30MID-DAY12:30 - 1:30Lower Half of LOS CLOS ELOS DLOS FJ:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'17 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'18 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls409/21/20172018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 209
§¨¦5§¨¦805E H STE J STMAIN STT H I R D A V
I STE STJ STL STF STH STF O U R T H A V OLYMPIC PWG STI-805 FREEWAY SI -8 0 5 F RE E W A Y N
B R O A D W A Y
I -5 F R E E W A Y S
I-5 F RE EWAY N
B AY B L E PALOMAR STH I L L T O P D R
K STBONITA RDOTAY LAKES RDSR-125 TOLL ROAD SSR-125 TOLL ROA D N
SR-54 FREEWAY ES E C O N D A V
F I R S T A V
M E L R O S E A V
SR-54 FREEWAY WMOSS 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
E NAPLES STNAPLES STORANGE AVE L STBIRCH RDC O R R A L C A N Y O N R D
I 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 APASEO 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 D
TERRA NOVA DRN S E C O N D A V PASEO DEL REYRUTGERS AVLAGOON DRMEDICAL CENTER DRM O U N T M I G U E L R D RIDGEBACK RDDEL REY BLEASTLAKE PWTHIRD EXT AVH I G H L A N D 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
N A C I O N A V
F I F T H A V
C STEASTLAKE DRLOS CLOS CLOS DLOS DLOS BLOS BGMOC 2018GMOC 2018LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)AM Peak PeriodAM Peak Period0375075001875FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGF2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 210
§¨¦5§¨¦805E H STE J STMAIN STT H I R D A V
I STE STJ STL STF STH STF O U R T H A V G STI-805 FREEWAY SB R O A D W A Y
I -8 0 5 F RE E W A Y N OLYMPIC PWI -5 F R E E W A Y S
I-5 F RE EWAY N
B AY B L E PALOMAR STH I L L T O P D R
K STBONITA RDOTAY LAKES RDSR-54 FREEWAY ES E C O N D A V
F I R S T A V
M E L R O S E A V
SR-54 FREEWAY WMOSS 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
E NAPLES STNAPLES STORANGE AVE L STSR-125 TOLL ROAD SI N D U S T R I A L B L
C O R R A L C A N Y O N R D
C STBRANDYWINE AVBIRCH RDSR-125 TOLL ROAD NE 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 PWP 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 DRMOUNT MIGUEL RDRIDGEBACK RDDEL REY BLTHIRD EXT AVH I G H L A N D 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 9C STN A C I O N A V
F I F T H A VSR-125 TOLL ROAD SSR-125 TOLL ROAD NLOS CLOS CLOS DLOS DLOS BLOS BGMOC 2018GMOC 2018LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)Mid Day Peak PeriodMid Day Peak Period0375075001875FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGF2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 211
§¨¦5§¨¦805E H STE J STMAIN STT H I R D A V
I STE STJ STL STF STH STF O U R T H A V G STI-805 FREEWAY SB R O A D W A Y
I -8 0 5 F RE E W A Y N OLYMPIC PWI -5 F R E E W A Y S
I-5 F RE EWAY N
B AY B L E PALOMAR STH I L L T O P D R
K STBONITA RDOTAY LAKES RDSR-54 FREEWAY ES E C O N D A V
F I R S T A V
M E L R O S E A V
SR-54 FREEWAY WMOSS 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
E NAPLES STNAPLES STORANGE AVE L STSR-125 TOLL ROAD SI N D U S T R I A L B L
C O R R A L C A N Y O N R D
C STBRANDYWINE AVBIRCH RDSR-125 TOLL ROAD NE 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 PWP 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 DRMOUNT MIGUEL RDRIDGEBACK RDDEL REY BLTHIRD EXT AVH I G H L A N D 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 9C STN A C I O N A V
F I F T H A VSR-125 TOLL ROAD SSR-125 TOLL ROAD NLOS CLOS CLOS DLOS DLOS BLOS BGMOC 2018GMOC 2018LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)PM Peak PeriodPM Peak Period0375075001875FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGF2018-04-26 Agenda PacketPage 212
RESOLUTION NO. MPA17-0007
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017
GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING
ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City’s Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible
for monitoring threshold standards for eleven quality of life topicsassociated with the City’s Growth
Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has determined that there is no possibility
that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, no environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2018, the GMOC finalized its Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report;
and
WHEREAS, the report covers Fiscal Year 2017 (from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017),
identifies current issues in the second half of 2017and early 2018, and assesses threshold compliance
concerns looking forward over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public
meeting with the City Council to consider the Fiscal Year 2017GMOC Annual Report, and to make
recommendations to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby accept and forward the Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report and
recommendations contained therein to the City Council for consideration.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council accept the Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report.
Presented by:Approved as to form by:
_______________________________________________________________
Kelly G. Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 213
Resolution No. MPA 17-0007
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 26th day of April, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Gabriel Guiterrez, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Patricia Laughlin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 214
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 GMOC
ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE
STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING
ACTIONS SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City’s Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is
responsible for monitoring threshold standards for eleven quality of life indicators associated
with the City’s Growth Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has determined that there is no
possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant
to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, no environmental review is required; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2018, the GMOC finalized its Fiscal Year 2017 Annual
Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers Fiscal Year 2017 (from July 1, 2016 through June 30,
2017), identifies current issues in the second half of 2017 and early 2018, and assesses threshold
compliance concerns over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public meeting
with the Planning Commission to consider the Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon considering the Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC
Annual Report, recommended that the City Council accept the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista accepts the Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to
undertake actions necessary to carry out the implementing actions as presented in the Staff
Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Exhibit A).
Presented by:Approved as to form by:
________________________________________________________
Kelly G. Broughton, FASLA Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 215
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California this 26th day of April 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO)
CITY OF CHULA VISTA)
I, Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2018- ______ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 26th day of April, 2018.
Executed this 26th day of April, 2018
_____________________________
Kerry Bigelow, City Clerk
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 216
Attachment 1
1
Fiscal Year 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
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.
2. 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 2023.
1. The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations
and will continue to work with Library staff to identify ways to
better serve the community in innovative programming and to
identify funding to support materials and staffing.
2. The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation.
The need remains for a full-service branch on the east side of
Chula Vista.
Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2 Police – 3.2.1 & 3.2.2
1. That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize the
City’s annual budget so that staffing levels per capita will be
consistent with the state’s median staffing levels per capita.
2. That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the
Police Department by providing it with the proper tools,
technology and resources to aid in the process of recruiting
new police officers.
The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations and
continues to work with the Police Department to identify funding to
hire at the necessary staffing levels and provide equipment consistent
with the Public Safety Report presented to City Council during the
current Fiscal Year.
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 Manager concurs with the recommendation.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 217
Attachment 1
2
GMOC Recommendations
Staff Responses and Proposed
Implementing Actions
Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1 Fire and Emergency Medical Services – 3.4.1
That City Council direct the City Manager to support the Fire
Department in monitoring the proposed pilot program,
whereby the Fire Department will no longer respond to Level 3
calls. The program should include goals for AMR and statistics
to analyze and evaluate response time improvements that may
result from this change.
The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation. If the Fire
Department moves forward with the pilot program, they will
implement the recommended action to include a response time goal for
the transport provider. The new response to level 3 calls would include
a transport unit dispatched as non-emergency (no lights/siren), with a
response time criterion of less than 15 minutes equal to or greater than
90 percent measured and reported on a monthly basis.
2018-04-26 Agenda Packet Page 218