HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-01 Agenda PacketI declare under penalty of perjury that 1 am employed
by the City of Chula Vista in the office of the City Clerk
and that 1 posted the document according to Brown Act
requirements. n
J '
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor
John McCann, Councilmember - District 1 Gary Halbert, City Manager
Jill M. Galvez, Councilmember - District 2 Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
Stephen C. Padilla, Councilmember - District 3 Kerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk
Mike Diaz, Councilmember - District 4
Thursday, August 1, 2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers
276 4th Avenue, Building A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Special Meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the
Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista
Notice is hereby given that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista has called and will convene Special Meetings of the
City Council, Planning Commission, and Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista on
Thursday, August 1, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
California to consider the item on this agenda.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Diaz, Galvez, McCann, Padilla and Mayor Casillas Salas
Planning Commissioners Burroughs, De La Rosa, Milburn, Nava, Torres, Zaker, and Chair
Gutierrez
Growth Management Oversight Commissioners Alatorre, Caudillo, Juarez, Lengyel, Strong,
Zaker, and Chair Hooker
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
City of Chula Vista Page 1 Printed on 712512019
City Council Agenda August 1, 2019
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.
�. 19-0172 REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S (GMOC'S)
FISCAL YEAR 2018 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2018 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 2018
GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS
PRESENTED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF
RESPONSES SUMMARY
Department: Development Services Department
Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of
the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Recommended Action: Planning Commission adopt resolution A and Council adopt resolution
B.
ADJOURNMENT
to the regular City Council meeting on August 6, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
Materials provided to the City Council related to any open -session item on this agenda are available for
public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during
normal business hours.
City of Chula Vista Page 2 Printed on 7/25/2019
City Council Agenda August 1, 2019
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.
City of Chula Vista Page 3 Printed on 7/25/2019
v . 0 0 1 P a g e | 1
August 1, 2019 File ID: 19-0172
TITLE
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION’S (GMOC’s)
FISCAL YEAR 2018 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION NO. MPA-18-0008 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 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
2018 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 City Council adopt resolution B.
SUMMARY
Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program was established in 1991 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)
conducts a joint workshop to present its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council. The
Annual Report summarizes compliance with the threshold standards established by the Growth
Management ordinance for eleven public facility and service topics (such as Traffic, Police, Libraries, etc.).
The Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report covering July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018) is presented for review
and consideration of proposed recommendations to address issues identified by the GMOC that result from
growth.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental
Quality Act State Guidelines.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission will provide comments and any recommendations at the joint workshop.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page4
P a g e | 2
DISCUSSION
1. Introduction
The City’s General Plan establishes the policy framework for Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program
(the “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). The threshold standards are intended to help the GMOC
identify and make recommendations on growth-related issues that may affect quality of life in Chula Vista.
In addition, CVMC 19.09 establishes administration and implementation measures for the threshold
standards.
In compliance with CVMC Section 19.09.030 (F), the Growth Management Oversight Commission (the
“GMOC”) shall annually prepare a report regarding the current and potential future compliance status of
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 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 2013 and 2018, the number of residential building permits issued in Chula Vista averaged 1,008
units per calendar year. This rate of growth is projected to continue or increase over the next five years,
according to Chula Vista’s 2018 Residential Growth Forecast, updated in April 2019 (Attachment 3,
Appendix A). With growth comes the demand for additional services and facilities.
Review of Growth Management Threshold Compliance for Fiscal Year 2018
The GMOC’s Annual Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 covers the period between July 1, 2017 through June
30, 2018. 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 2018 and early 2019 and assesses
threshold compliance 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, staff's responses, and recommended implementing actions is
included as Attachment 1. The GMOC’s Annual Report for FY 2018 (Attachment 2) provides additional
background information and more detailed explanations of findings and discussion/recommendations.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page5
P a g e | 3
2. Summary of Findings
Table 1 below summarizes the GMOC’s threshold compliance findings for FY Year 2018 (July 1, 2017 - June
30, 2018) and looking forward at any potential areas for non-compliance between 2019 and 2023. Eight
threshold topics were in compliance and three were not.
Table 1
Facility & Service Topics Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance
Not In
Compliance
In Compliance Potential Future Non-
Compliance
Libraries
Police - Priority 1
Police - Priority 2
Traffic
Fire/EMS
Parks and Recreation
Air Quality and Climate Protection
Drainage
Fiscal
Schools
Sewer
Water
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 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 was not met in FY 2018, and was last met in FY 2002. The current square
footage is approximately 40,000 square feet (or 29 percent) below the threshold standard.
Statewide data was consulted to assess whether or not Chula Vista libraries are adequately equipped and
staffed. The City’s annual expenditures and staffing were substantially below comparable statewide
averages for library expenditures ($14.07 per capita in Chula Vista versus $33.75 per capita statewide);
library materials1 ($0.21 per capita in Chula Vista versus $3.18 per capita statewide); and library staffing
(0.15 full-time equivalent [FTE] staff per 1,000 population in Chula Vista versus 0.43 FTE staff per 1,000
population statewide). Despite relatively low staffing per capita, Chula Vista libraries exceed the statewide
1 Consisting of books, digital materials, magazines, and other materials.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page6
P a g e | 4
average in numerous workload indicators, including population served per FTE, reference questions per
hour, visits per open hour, etc. Nevertheless, given the disparity between City and statewide averages for
expenditures and staffing, it is concluded that Libraries are not adequately equipped or staffed and
therefore not compliant with the threshold standard.
It is not anticipated that existing facilities will be able to accommodate projected growth. However, if a
new full-service library in the Millenia development were to be completed within the next five years, the
total library square footage would be closer, but still below, the threshold standard assuming projected
population growth over this period.
Measure P funds have been used to complete deferred maintenance projects, including renovating one set
of restrooms in the Civic Center Library and replacing the roofing there; the South Library has received a
new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system
The GMOC’s FY 2018 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation 1: That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize Libraries, right below
public safety, with the objective of increasing the amount of materials and staffing to meet the state
average, based on the most recent data available.
Staff Response 1: The Library agrees with the GMOC recommendations and will continue to work with the City
Manager’s office to identify ways to better serve the community in innovative programming and to identify
funding to support materials and staffing.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to allocate a portion of any surplus
from future budgets to supplement the library materials budget. The amount should be at least as much as
the fees collected in any given year for processing passport applications.
Staff Response 2: The Library will work with the Finance Department and the City Manager’s Office to
determine a fiscally responsible ongoing approach to supplement the library materials budget and staff
support.
3.2 POLICE -Non-Compliant
Threshold Standard:
1. Priority 1 - Emergency Calls. 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 Calls. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to all Priority 2 calls
within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page7
P a g e | 5
Priority 1
As shown in Table 2 below, the Priority 1 threshold for responding to 81% of calls within 7 minutes and 30
seconds was not met; the percentage reported by the Police Department was 71.8%, which was 0.4% less
than in FY 2017. The threshold of a 6-minute response time was also not met; however, the response time
of 6:43 was four seconds better than in FY 2017.
The department’s effective patrol staffing was down about five officers in FY 2018, due to injuries and
other staffing challenges. Tax revenue generated by approval of Measure A will help fund approximately
31 more sworn officers in the next five years. However, the projected ratio of 0.90 officers per 1,000
residents is substantially below the San Diego County average of 1.29 officers per 1,000 residents. In order
to match the countywide average by the year 2023, the City would need to hire an additional 148 officers.
Specific units are properly staffed, but the actual units per beat count (the territory and time that a police
officer patrols) is below the necessary levels to meet the demands of the community. The average amount
of time officers spent on-scene in FY 2018 increased by 8:10 minutes; the reasons are being evaluated.
The Police Department was properly equipped to deliver services at the levels to comply with the threshold
standards in FY 2018. However, the Police Department reported that current facilities, equipment and staff
are not anticipated to be sufficient to accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or five
years.
Table 2
Priority 1 – Emergency Calls or Services
Fiscal Year Call Volume
(Initial
Priority
Assigned)ᵉ
Timed Call Volume
(Calls used in the
calculation of
response timesg)
% of Call Responses
Within
7 Minutes 30 Seconds
(Threshold = 81%)
Average Response
Time (Minutes)
(Threshold = 6
Minutes)
FY 2018 675 of 65,581 507 71.8%6:43 f
FY 2017 765 of 65,672 521 72.2%6:47
FY 2016a 742 of 67,048 520 71.0%6:31
FY 2015 675 of 64,008 465 71.2%6:49
FY 2014 711 of 65,645 534 73.6%6:45
FY 2013 738 of 65,741 517 74.1%6:42
FY 2012 726 of 64,386 529 72.8%6:31
FY 2011 657 of 64,695 518 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
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).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page8
P a g e | 6
Priority 1 – Emergency Calls or Services
Fiscal Year Call Volume
(Initial
Priority
Assigned)ᵉ
Timed Call Volume
(Calls used in the
calculation of
response timesg)
% of Call Responses
Within
7 Minutes 30 Seconds
(Threshold = 81%)
Average Response
Time (Minutes)
(Threshold = 6
Minutes)
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.
e. Calls are assigned an initial priority but the priority may be changed at the end of the call as the entire set of circumstances
associated with the call are known. Call Volume figures are not used in any calculations.
f. In FY 2018, the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times. Response times now include any call
where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same (i.e. officer is “flagged-down” in the street). Additionally, incidents
where the call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also included. These calls were excluded from previous year’s reporting.
The modified methodology produced more accurate data but resulted in a significant increase in reported response times for
Priority 2 calls. Using the previous methodology, for example, Priority 2 response times for FY 2018 would have increased by 31
seconds (Average Response Time: 14:24). But, using the revised methodology, Priority 2 response times increased by 5:53
minutes (Average Response Time: 20:17). Priority 1 calls were not affected by the change since they are addressed immediately.
g.In FY 2018, the department included the Time Call Volume column. Timed Call Volume represents the actual count of Priority 1
calls used in determining Average Response Time and % of Call Responses within 7:30. Timed Call Volume includes calls where
the priority does not change as more information is known. Call Volume, on the other hand, includes the total number of calls
received where the original priority is assigned based on the immediate information known, and where the priority changed
after more information is available.
The GMOC’s FY 2018 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 County’s median staffing levels per capita.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department to
aggressively expand a new officer recruitment campaign, providing it with the proper tools, technology and
resources to aid in the process of recruiting new police officers.
Staff Response 1 and 2: On June 5, 2018, voters approved a one-half cent transaction and use tax ordinance
that secures funding for additional officers and support staff. The City Manager’s Office is working closely
with the Chula Vista Police to ensure proper staffing levels and together have developed a 10-year plan to add
43 additional positions to help improve response times. In FY 2019, the department was funded for nine new
sworn and civilian positions. In FY 2020, 12 new sworn and civilian positions were approved to be budgeted.
Additionally, the department is proactively seeking grant opportunities that will fund additional positions to
help close the gap with the County’s staffing levels per capita. The City Manager’s Office has allocated funds to
support the department’s recommended recruitment campaigns.
Priority 2
In FY 2018, the Police Department revised the methodology for calculating response times, which affected
the response time calculations for Priority 2 calls. Under the new methodology, response times include any
call where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same, and any call that had been holding for more
than one hour. The change in methods did not affect the response time calculations for Priority 1 calls.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page9
P a g e | 7
As shown in Table 3 below, the Priority 2 threshold of a 12-minute average response time was not met, and
the response time using the updated methodology was 20:17, or 6:34 worse than in FY 2017. However,
using the previous method of response time calculation, the average response time would have been 14:24,
which is 31 seconds longer than last year.
As discussed above regarding Priority 1, current facilities, equipment and staff are not anticipated to be
sufficient 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.
Table 3
Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service
Fiscal Year Call Volume
(Initial Priority
Assignede)
Timed Call Volume (Calls
used in the calculation of
response times)
Average Response Time
(Minutes) (Threshold =
12 Minutes)
FY 2018
18,969 of 65,581 16,023 20:17 f
FY 2017 19,309 of 65,672 14,829 13:53
FY 2016a 19,288 of 67,048 14,729 13:50
FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13,694 13:50
FY 2014 17,817 of 65,645 13,681 13:36
FY 2013 18,505 of 65,741 14,258 13:44
FY 2012 22,121 of 64,386 17,185 14:20
FY 2011 21,500 of 64,695 17,054 12:52
FY 2002b 22,199 of 71,859 --10:04
FY1992c ----6:30
FY1990d ----6:15
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.
e. Calls are assigned an initial priority but the priority may be changed at the end of the call as the entire set of
circumstances associated with the call are known. Call Volume figures are not used in any calculations.
f. FY 2018, the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times. Response times now
include any call where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same (i.e. officer is “flagged-down” in the
street). Additionally, incidents where the call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also included. These
calls were excluded from previous year’s reporting. The modified methodology produced more accurate data
but resulted in a significant increase in reported response times for Priority 2 calls. Using the previous
methodology, for example, Priority 2 response times for FY 2018 would have increased by 31 seconds (Average
Response Time: 14:24). But, using the revised methodology, Priority 2 response times increased by 5:53
minutes (Average Response Time: 20:17). Priority 1 calls were not affected by the change since they are
addressed immediately.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page10
P a g e | 8
The GMOC’s FY 2018 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendations: Same as for Priority 1, above.
Staff Responses: 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.
As shown in Table 4 below, two non-urban street segments were non-compliant in Fiscal Year 2018:
southbound Otay Lakes Road from Ridgeback Road to Telegraph Canyon Road, and eastbound and
westbound Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway.
Table 4
Non-Compliant Roadway Segments
Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (# of hours)
Otay Lakes Roada
(Ridgeback Rd to Otay Lakes Rd)Southbounda D (3) | E (1)a
Palomar Street
(Between Industrial Blvd & Broadway)
Eastbound
Westbound
D (2) | E (4)
E (3) | F (3)
Past Performance Baseline
Number of Non-Compliant Segments, FY 2017b 1 (Non-Urban)
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections, FY 1992c 0
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections, FY 1989d 8
a. Existing SCATS adaptive traffic signal system that improves traffic signal coordination was offline when data
was collected. The modern replacement system will be online and fully functional before the end of FY19.
b. Threshold standard was amended by Ord. No. 2015-3339 to be based on roadway segments instead of
intersections.
c. Threshold standard was amended by Ord. No. 1991-2448.
d. Baseline as defined in the threshold standard approved in the City Council Policy adopted by Resolution No.
1987-13346. The LOS for 1989 was based on the 1990 GMOC Report dated June 1990.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page11
P a g e | 9
An inoperable intelligent adaptive traffic signal system (the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic Signal
System, or SCATS) along the non-compliant Otay Lakes Road segment most likely caused that segment to
fail the applicable growth management threshold standard. The faulty SCATS has been replaced and, with
this improvement, the Otay Lakes Road segment is expected to be compliant in Fiscal Year 2019.
Eastbound and westbound Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway has been non-
compliant since FY 2016. The poor LOS at this location is attributed to the at-grade transit crossing that
regularly interrupts vehicular flow throughout the day. City staff continues to work with SANDAG on plans
for a grade separation at that location.
Due to lack of funding, urban street segments were not studied during FY 2018. Since August 2018, the
Traffic Engineering Division has been fully staffed and more automated traffic monitoring devices are being
installed, so substantially more data should be available for the GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2019 report.
Statement of Concern: The GMOC is concerned that continued growth and development will worsen
existing traffic congestion on Palomar Street in future years, given that the planned grade separation
improvements will likely take five years to complete.
Threshold Standards Compliant in FY 2018
Threshold standards were found to be compliant for: Air Quality and Climate Protection, Drainage, Fire
and Emergency Medical Services, Fiscal, Parks and Recreation, 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 1,000-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.
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page12
P a g e | 10
ATTACHMENTS
1 – Fiscal Year 2018Report Recommendations & Staff Responses Summary
2 –Fiscal Year 2018GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo
3 – Fiscal Year 2018GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Staff Contact: Kimberly Vander Bie, Associate Planner
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page13
Attachment 1
1
Fiscal Year 2018 GMOC Annual Report
Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary
GMOC Recommendations
Staff Responses and Proposed
Implementing Actions
Libraries – 3.1.1 Libraries – 3.1.1
1. That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize
Libraries, right below public safety, with the objective of
increasing the amount of materials and staffing to meet the
state average, based on the most recent data available.
2. That the City Council direct the City Manager to allocate a
portion of any surplus from future budgets to supplement
the library materials budget. The amount should be at least
as much as the fees collected in any given year for processing
passport applications.
1. The Library agrees with the GMOC recommendations and will
continue to work with the City Manager’s office to identify ways to
better serve the community in innovative programming and to
identify funding to support materials and staffing.
2. The Library will work with the Finance Department and the City
Manager’s Office to determine a fiscally responsible ongoing
approach to supplement the library materials budget and staff
support.
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 with the objective of increasing staffing
levels per capita to be consistent with the County’s median
staffing levels per capita.
2. That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the
Police Department to aggressively expand a new officer
recruitment campaign, providing it with the proper tools,
technology and resources to aid in the process of recruiting
new police officers.
recommended recruitment campaigns.
On June 5, 2018, voters approved a one-half cent transaction and use tax
ordinance that secures funding for additional officers and support staff.
The City Manager’s Office is working closely with the Chula Vista Police
Department to ensure proper staffing levels and together have developed
a 10-year plan to add 43 additional positions to help improve response
times. In FY 2019, the Department was funded for nine new sworn and
civilian positions. In FY 2020, 12 new sworn and civilian positions were
approved to be budgeted. Additionally, the Department is proactively
seeking grant opportunities that will fund additional positions to help
close the gap with the County’s staffing levels per capita. The City
Manager’s Office has allocated funds to support the Department’s
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page14
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT for Fiscal Year 2018
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018
May 2, 2019
Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. MPA18-0008) and
City Council (Resolution No. _____) on August 1, 2019
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page15
GMOC Members
Duaine Hooker, Chair - (Education)
Raymundo Alatorre, Vice Chair - (Northwest)
Michael Lengyel - (Development)
Gloria Juarez - (Southwest)
Rodney Caudillo - (Southeast)
Andrew Strong - (Environmental)
Max Zaker - (Planning Commission Representative)
VACANT - (Business)
VACANT - (Northeast)
City Staff
Kimberly Vander Bie – Associate Planner, GMOC Staff Liaison
Patricia Salvacion – Secretary
Scott Barker – Transportation Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5101
www.chulavistaca.gov
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page16
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 1 May 2, 2019
GMOC Chair Cover Memo
DATE: May 2, 2019
TO: The City of Chula Vista Mayor and City Council
The City of Chula Vista Planning Commission
The City of Chula Vista
FROM: Duaine Hooker, Chair
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
SUBJECT: Executive Summary - Fiscal Year 2018 GMOC Annual Report
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its Fiscal Year 2018 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 and Emergency Medical Services, Fiscal, Parks and
Recreation, Schools, Sewer, and Water.
Non-compliant were Libraries, Police (Priority 1 and Priority 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 fifteenth consecutive year, Libraries was non-compliant. The deficit in library space is
expected to continue for several more years until a large library is built in Millenia. While the Rancho del Rey
Library is included 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.
In addition to the shortage of library space, the GMOC is also concerned about inadequate budgeting for
library materials. Chula Vista’s expenditures for library materials (per capita) are 59% below the statewide
average, and the Otay Ranch branch is the highest U.S. Passport processing center in the nation. To help
increase expenditures for library materials, the GMOC highly recommends that any future surplus in the City’s
budget should be used to supplement the library materials budget, and the amount should be at least as much
as the revenue generated by processing passports.
Police – The Priority 1 threshold standard was not met, and the Priority 2 threshold standard was non-
compliant for the 22nd year in a row. 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 to fill vacant positions. Currently, and
throughout the next five years, additional officer positions, funded from Measure A, are being added.
Population growth is projected to outpace staffing levels and the Police Department does NOT anticipate being
able to accommodate citywide growth forecasted over the next 12 months or 5 years. The GMOC
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page17
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 2 May 2, 2019
recommends that the City Council and City managers continue to make adding more police officers a top
priority, working toward the County median staffing levels per capita.
Traffic – Eastbound and westbound traffic conditions on Palomar Street, between Industrial Boulevard and
Broadway, were 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.
On January 26, 2019, the GMOC, along with some members of the Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee,
went on its annual tour of new and proposed development throughout the City. We were pleased to witness
some of the Measure P infrastructure projects that have been completed, thus far, and of new construction
projects within the City. During the tour, we visited the Loma Verde Recreation Center and met employees
there who showed us photos of the building during recent rainstorms, when garbage cans were needed to
capture water gushing through the ceiling. The GMOC understands that City management has visited the site
and is aware of the building’s poor condition; however, the GMOC recommends that the City Council also visit
the center and explore solutions to remediate the problems. The GMOC would like to thank the City staff from
various departments who took time on that Saturday morning to join us for this important tour.
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.
.
.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page18
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 3 May 2, 2019
City of Chula Vista
GMOC Fiscal Year 2018
Annual Report
Table of Contents
GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO …………………………………………………………………. 1-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………… 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………….. 4-5
1.1 Threshold Standards 4
1.2 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 4-5
1.3 GMOC Fiscal Year 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 ……………………………………. 8-24
3.1 Libraries………………………………………………………………………… 8-9
3.1.1 Threshold Compliance 8-9
3.2 Police …………………………………………………………………………. 10-13
3.2.1 Threshold Compliance 10-11
3.2.2 Threshold Compliance 12-13
3.3 Traffic …………………………………………………………………………. 13-15
3.3.1 Threshold Compliance 13-15
3.4 Fire and Emergency Medical Services…………………………………… 15-16
3.4.1 Threshold Compliance 15-16
3.5 Parks and Recreation……………………………………………………….. 16-18
3.5.1 Threshold Compliance 16-18
3.6 Fiscal …………………………………………………………………………. 18
3.6.1 Threshold Compliance 18
3.7 Drainage ……………………………………………………………………….. 19
3.7.1 Threshold Compliance 19
3.8 Schools………….……………………………………………………………… 20-21
3.8.1 Threshold Compliance 20-21
3.9 Sewer……………………………………………………………………………. 21
3.9.1 Threshold Compliance 21
3.10 Air Quality and Climate Protection…………………….…………………... 22
3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 22
3.11 Water ……………………………………………………………………….…. 23-24
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance 23-24
4.0 APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………. 24
4.1 Appendix A – Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B – Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page19
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 4 May 2, 2019
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 one or more goals, objectives, and implementation measures 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,
comprehensive review of the Growth Management Program (i.e., a “top-to-bottom” review). The
process involved members of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), 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 Areas, 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
The GMOC (also referred to as “the Commission”) 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 of the City. The GMOC membership
provides for representation from the City’s four major geographic areas and from a cross-section of
interests, including education, environment, business, and development, and from the City’s Planning
Commission. One commissioner also represents the GMOC on the Measure A Citizens’ Oversight
Committee (COC) and another serves on the Measure P COC (noted on the table below), During this
review cycle, the following individuals served as commissioners on the GMOC:
COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS OR INTERESTS
Duaine Hooker, Chair Education
Raymundo Alatorre, Vice Chair Northwest, and Measure A COC Representative
Gloria Juarez Southwest
Rodney Caudillo Southeast
Michael Lengyel Development, and Measure P COC
Representative
Andrew Strong Environmental
Max Zaker Planning Commission
VACANT Business
VACANT Northeast
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page20
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 5 May 2, 2019
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 2018 Annual Report focuses on Fiscal Year 2018
(July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018);
2. The second half of 2018 and beginning of 2019 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 2019 through December 2023 is assessed for potential threshold compliance
concerns.
The GMOC annually distributes questionnaires to relevant City departments and public facility and
service (“outside”) agencies (i.e., school districts, water districts, and the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District)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 2018
The GMOC held nine regular meetings and one city-wide development tour between September 2018
and April 2019, all of which were open to the public. At the first regular meeting, Assistant City
Manager Maria Kachadoorian provided updates on expenditures for sales tax Measures A and P. At
subsequent GMOC meetings, the commissioners reviewed the eleven quality of life topics and the
associated questionnaire responses (attached as Appendix B). Representatives from the appropriate
City departments and outside 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 May 2, 2019.
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 September 21, 2018. Determining the projected number of residential building
permits to be issued begins by soliciting projections from developers and builders who 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page21
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 6 May 2, 2019
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 outside agencies determine if
their respective public facilities/services would be able to accommodate the forecasted growth. The
growth projections from September 2018 through December 2023 indicated an additional 7,760
residential units that could potentially be permitted for construction in the City over the next five
years, (7,349 units in the east and 411 units in the west). This equates to an annual average of 1,455
housing units, with 1,378 units in the east and 77 units in the west.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page22
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 7 May 2, 2019
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
The following table is a summary of the GMOC’s conclusions regarding threshold standards for the Fiscal Year
2018 review cycle. Eight thresholds were met, three were not met.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 THRESHOLD STANDARD REVIEW SUMMARY
Review Period 7/1/17 Through 6/30/18
Threshold
Standard
Threshold
Met
Threshold
Not Met
Potential for
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
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page23
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 8 May 2, 2019
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.
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
(2023) 293,663 134,412 (a)
129,000(b)
458 (a)
439(b)
FY 2018 275,158 97,412 354
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 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 square feet 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page24
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 9 May 2, 2019
Discussion: For the fifteenth consecutive year, the City’s library facilities did not comply with the
threshold standard to provide 500 GSF of library space per 1,000 residents. City library
facilities total 97,412 GSF, which is about 29 percent or 40,000 square feet below the
threshold standard requirement. Until Chula Vista increases library facilities by a minimum
of 40,000 square feet, the libraries threshold standard will be out of compliance. As
projected growth continues, the square footage deficit will continue to inflate.
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 $3.18 per person and Chula
Vista’s baseline materials budget equals $0.21 per person. Median state public library
expenditure per capita for Fiscal Year (FY) 16/17 was $33.75 compared to Chula Vista’s
expenditure of $14.07.
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 5.4 percent of libraries
statewide, relative to a statewide average of 0.43 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. The Otay Ranch Library is the busiest passport office in the country.
Grants and donations have helped the library sustain itself and implement new and
innovative programs that educate and serve the community, such as VReX, a classroom
style virtual reality experience, mental health first aid resources, and a Seed Library that
gives seeds to community members who want to plant their own gardens.
Measure P funds have been used to complete deferred maintenance projects, including
renovating one set of restrooms in the Civic Center Library and replacing the roofing there;
a new HVAC system has been installed at the South Library.
A new, full-service library in the Millenia development is anticipated to be under
construction within the next five years. The Growth Management Oversight Commission
believes that, simultaneously, the Rancho del Rey library site should also be developed.
Recommendation 1: That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize Libraries, right below public
safety, with the objective of increasing the amount of 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 allocate a portion of any surplus from
future budgets to supplement the library materials budget, on a one-time basis. It is
further recommended that the supplemental funds should be equal to the fees
collected in any given year for processing passport applications.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page25
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 10 May 2, 2019
3.2 POLICE – NON-COMPLIANT (Priority 1 and 2)
Threshold Standards:
1. Priority 1 – Emergency Calls¹. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to at least
81% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes 30 seconds and shall maintain an average response time of
6 minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls (measured annually).
2. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls². Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to all Priority
2 calls within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
¹Priority 1 – Emergency Calls are life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident); robbery or panic alarms; urgent cover
calls from officers. Response: Immediate response by two officers from any source or assignment, immediate response by paramedics/fire if injuries are
believed to have occurred.
²Priority 2 – Urgent Calls are misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic violence or other disturbances with
potential for violence). Response: Immediate response by one or more officers from clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field
interviews, etc.)
Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch and travel time to the building or site address, otherwise referred to as
“received to arrive.”
3.2.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: The threshold standard was not met.
Priority 1 – Emergency Calls or Services
Fiscal
Year
Call Volume
(Initial Priority
Assigned)ᵉ
Timed Call Volume
(Calls used in the
calculation of response
timesg)
% of Call Responses
Within 7 Minutes
30 Seconds
(Threshold = 81%)
Average Response
Time (Minutes)
(Threshold = 6
Minutes)
FY 2018 675 of 65,581 507 71.8% 6:43 f
FY 2017 765 of 65,672 521 72.2% 6:47
FY 2016a 742 of 67,048 520 71.0% 6:31
FY 2015 675 of 64,008 465 71.2% 6:49
FY 2014 711 of 65,645 534 73.6% 6:45
FY 2013 738 of 65,741 517 74.1% 6:42
FY 2012 726 of 64,386 529 72.8% 6:31
FY 2011 657 of 64,695 518 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
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).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page26
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 11 May 2, 2019
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.
e. Calls are assigned an initial priority, but the priority may be changed at the end of the call as the entire set of circumstances
associated with the call are known. Call Volume figures are not used in any calculations.
f. In FY 2018, the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times. Response times now include any call
where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same (i.e. officer is “flagged-down” in the street). Additionally, incidents
where the call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also included. These calls were excluded from previous year’s
reporting. The modified methodology produced more accurate data but resulted in a significant increase in reported response
times for Priority 2 calls. Using the previous methodology, for example, Priority 2 response times for FY 2018 would have
increased by 31 seconds (Average Response Time: 14:24). But, using the revised methodology, Priority 2 response times
increased by 5:53 minutes (Average Response Time: 20:17). Priority 1 calls were not affected by the change since they are
addressed immediately.
g. In FY 2018, the department included the Time Call Volume column. Timed Call Volume represents the actual count of Priority
1 calls used in determining Average Response Time and % of Call Responses within 7:30. Timed Call Volume includes calls
where the priority does not change as more information is known. Call Volume, on the other hand, includes the total number of
calls received where the original priority is assigned based on the immediate information known, and where the priority
changed after more information is available.
Discussion: Table 1, above, indicates that a total of 71.8 percent (column 4) of the Priority 1 calls were
responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds, nearly ten percent less than the threshold
standard of 81 percent, and 0.4% less than in Fiscal Year 2017. The response time
threshold standard of six minutes was also not met; however, the response time of 6:43
(column 5) was four seconds better than in Fiscal Year 2017.
Although the Police Department was properly equipped to deliver services at the levels
necessary to comply with the threshold standards in Fiscal Year 2018, they reported that
they were not properly staffed to do so. Effective patrol staffing was down by about five
officers in Fiscal Year 2018, due to injuries and other staffing challenges. Specific units
were properly staffed, but actual units per beat count (the territory and time that a police
officer patrols) were below the necessary levels to meet the demands of the community.
The Police Department is actively recruiting to fill the officer vacancies, and the GMOC
encourages the City to explore non-traditional incentives for recruiting. One possible idea
would be to provide temporary housing for officers with long commutes.
Measure A, a permanent half-cent sales tax initiative approved in June 2018, will help fund
approximately 31 more sworn officers in the next five years; however, the City will remain
among the lowest staffed law enforcement agencies in the County. Projected population
growth through 2023 would necessitate hiring 148 officers to bring the ratio of officers per
1,000 residents in line with the County average of 1.29.
Chula Vista’s crime rate is currently below the County average; however, the Police
Department reported that current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to
accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or five 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 County’s median staffing
levels per capita.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department to
aggressively expand a new officer recruitment campaign, providing it with the proper
tools, technology and resources to aid in the process.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page27
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 12 May 2, 2019
3.2.2. Threshold Compliance
Issue: The threshold standard was not met.
Discussion: The Police Department reported that they recently conducted an extensive review of
methods used to calculate response times prior to Fiscal Year 2018 and determined that
previous methods did not include data subsequently deemed pertinent. Using new
methodology that includes previously omitted data (such as calls that are on hold for more
Table 2. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service
Fiscal Year
Call Volume
(Initial Priority
Assignede)
Timed Call Volume
(Calls used in the
calculation of
response times)
Average Response
Time (Minutes)
(Threshold = 12
Minutes)
FY 2018
18,969 of 65,581 16,023 20:17 f
FY 2017 19,309 of 65,672 14,829 13:53
FY 2016a 19,288 of 67,048 14,729 13:50
FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13,694 13:50
FY 2014 17,817 of 65,645 13,681 13:36
FY 2013 18,505 of 65,741 14,258 13:44
FY 2012 22,121 of 64,386 17,185 14:20
FY 2011 21,500 of 64,695 17,054 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.
e. Calls are assigned an initial priority but the priority may be changed at the end of the call as the entire
set of circumstances associated with the call are known. Call Volume figures are not used in any
calculations.
f. FY 2018, the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times. Response times
now include any call where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same (i.e. officer is “flagged-
down” in the street). Additionally, incidents where the call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also
included. These calls were excluded from previous year’s reporting. The modified methodology
produced more accurate data but resulted in a significant increase in reported response times for Priority
2 calls. Using the previous methodology, for example, Priority 2 response times for FY 2018 would have
increased by 31 seconds (Average Response Time: 14:24). But, using the revised methodology, Priority
2 response times increased by 5:53 minutes (Average Response Time: 20:17). Priority 1 calls were not
affected by the change since they are addressed immediately.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page28
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 13 May 2, 2019
than one hour), the table above indicates that the Priority 2 average response time for
Fiscal Year 2018 was above the 12-minute threshold standard by 6 minutes 24 seconds.
(Priority 1 calls were not affected by the change because they are addressed immediately.)
If the department had continued using the methodology used in previous years, the
average response time would have increased by only 31 seconds.
The Police Department attributed the 31-second increase from the previous year to three
primary reasons: 1) During Fiscal Year 2018, the Department’s effective patrol staffing
dropped below historical averages; 2) At the beginning of Fiscal Year 2018, the
Department implemented a new CAD system, which required considerable time for
personnel to adapt to; and 3) The average amount of time that officers spent on-scene
investigating calls increased. For Priority 2, the call was completed in 57 minutes 30
seconds, which was 8 minutes 10 seconds longer than in Fiscal Year 2017.
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 five 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 so
that staffing levels per capita will be consistent with the County’s median staffing
levels per capita.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department to
aggressively expand a new officer recruitment campaign, providing it with the proper
tools, technology and resources to aid in the process.
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page29
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 14 May 2, 2019
3.3.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: The threshold standard was not met.
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Non-Urban Streets Direction Level of Service (LOS)
Otay Lakes Road*
(Ridgeback Rd to Telegraph Canyon Rd) SB* D (3) | E (1)*
Palomar Street
(Between Industrial Blvd & Broadway)
EB
WB
D (2) | E (4)
E (3) | F (3)
PAST PERFORMANCE (BASELINE)
Number of Non-Compliant Segments FY2017a 1 (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:
*Existing SCATS adaptive traffic signal system that improves traffic signal coordination was offline when data was collected.
The modern replacement system will be online and fully functional before the end of FY19.
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 Resolution No. 1987-
13346.
Discussion: Two non-urban street segments were non-compliant: southbound Otay Lakes Road
from Ridgeback Road to Telegraph Canyon Road, and eastbound and westbound
Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway.
Southbound Otay Lakes Road from Ridgeback Road to Telegraph Canyon Road fronts
Southwestern College and Bonita Vista High School, where there are several signalized
intersections and many pedestrian crossings that can cause vehicle delays. The
intelligent, adaptive traffic signal system in this area (the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive
Traffic Signal System, or SCATS) broke down, which is probably why this segment failed
to comply with the applicable growth management threshold standard. A Capital
Improvement Project replaced the offline SCATS System with a new and improved
system at the end of calendar year 2018; this is expected to improve the LOS and bring
the street back into compliance with the growth management threshold standard.
Eastbound and westbound Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard to Broadway
has been non-compliant since Fiscal Year 2016. The poor LOS at this location is
attributed to the at-grade transit crossing that regularly interrupts vehicular flow
throughout the day. City staff continues to work with SANDAG on plans for a grade
separation at that location; the project is likely to be completed in five years.
Due to lack of funding, urban street segments were not studied during this fiscal year.
As of August 2018, the Traffic Engineering Division is fully staffed so the Fiscal Year
2019 questionnaire will provide substantially more data. More automated traffic
monitoring devices are being installed, and the City has an agreement with Waze, the
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page30
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 15 May 2, 2019
roadway navigation and traffic reporting application, to share data, which will support
aggregation and assessment of LOS on City roadways.
Statement of Concern: The GMOC is concerned that continued growth and development will worsen
existing traffic congestion on Palomar Street in future years, given that the
planned grade separation improvements will likely take five years to complete.
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: None.
FIRE and EMS Response Times FY 2018
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
2018 13,986 81.4 5:45 4:06 0:50 0:49
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 second consecutive year, Fire and Emergency Medical Services (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 81.4 percent of the time, nearly
one percentage better than the previous year, even with 4.3 percent more calls. While the
threshold standard was met on a citywide basis, it was not met by certain individual fire
stations in eastern Chula Vista, despite improved response times. This pattern has been
observed in previous years as well.
Fire calls accounted for 2.1 percent of all calls, EMS calls accounted for 68.9 percent, and
all other calls accounted for 29.1 percent.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page31
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 16 May 2, 2019
FY 2018 FIRE and EMS Response Times - By Fire Station
Fire Station #
And Location
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
1 -447 F St. 4424 90.7 04:54 03:19 00:53 00:42
2 -80 East J. St 964 78.3 05:58 04:23 00:45 00:51
3 -1410 Brandywine 836 79 06:11 04:44 00:46 00:42
4 -850 Paseo
Ranchero 868 76.9 06:12 04:32 00:47 00:53
5 -391 Oxford 3275 85.5 05:37 03:55 00:51 00:51
6 -605 Mt. Miguel 607 75.7 06:14 04:24 00:50 01:01
7 -1640 Santa Venetia 1152 56.8 07:04 05:13 00:53 00:58
8 -1180 Woods Dr. 841 62.7 07:04 05:19 00:48 00:56
9 -266 E. Oneida 1019 82.6 06:00 04:23 00:45 00:52
The fire and EMS units were properly equipped and staffed to meet the threshold
standard, and current facilities, equipment and staff should be able to accommodate
citywide projected growth and meet the threshold standard during the next 12-18 months.
However, current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate citywide
projected growth and meet the threshold standard during the next five years.
Updates to the Fire Facilities Master Plan were approved by City Council in August 2018.
Changes include: implementation of 4-0 staffing, implementation of squads, relocation of
stations 5 and 9, and Retention Policy for apparatus and equipment. A fire station under
construction in Millenia will serve that community, and a fire station will be part of the
Bayfront development, as well. Funding from the Measure A one-half cent sales tax will
provide staffing improvements, and the Measure P temporary one-half cent sales tax will
provide infrastructure improvements, such as relocating fire stations 5 and 9 and
purchasing fire apparatus and equipment. These enhancements are expected to help
improve response times.
The Fire Department’s proposal to discontinue responding to Level 3 calls for service has
not been implemented. It was not agreeable through contract negotiations with American
Medical Response. The City is preparing a Request for Proposal seeking qualified transport
providers, a process that may take up to two years to complete.
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page32
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 17 May 2, 2019
3.5.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
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
City-
Owned
6/30/18
Current
Availableb
12/31/18
Forecastsc
Prior Year Comparisons
18-Month
(12/31/19)
5-Year
(2023)
June
2015
June
2016
June
2017
3 acres per
1,000
population
East
of I-805
East I-805 3.72 3.75 3.65 3.66 2.94 2.83 3.99
West I-805 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.3 1.20 1.21 1.19
Citywide
2.61 2.62 2.58 2.69 2.16 2.11 2.77
Acres of
parkland
East I-805 578.98 582.88 582.88 632.94 418.44 421.00 604.25
West I-805 138.95 138.95 138.95 157.11 138.76 142.66 138.95
Citywide
717.93
721.83 721.83 790.05 557.20 563.07 743.30
Population East I-805 155461 155461 159,693 173,005 142,547 148,714 151,266
West I-805
119697 119697 120,081 120,658 115,801 118,275 116,651
Citywide 275,158 275,158 279,774 293,663 58,348 266,969 267,917
Acreage
shortfall or
excess
East I-805 (112.6) (116.5) (103.8) (113.93) 9.20 25.67 (150.45)
West I-805 220.14 220.14 221.39 204.86 208.64 212.17 211.00
Citywide 107.54 103.64 117.49 90.94 217.84 237.84 60.55
Notes:
a. Baseline per threshold standard adopted by Resolution No. 1987-13346. Threshold standard has not been amended.
b. Current available park acreage includes:
Publicly owned and maintained parks and recreation facilities (including existing Bayfront parks),
Acreages of extra credit allocated to parks with additional amenities,
Acres within HOA parks allocated park credit,
Chula Vista municipal golf course,
City open spaces that function as parks and special purpose parks, for example, Pedestrian Park and Circle Park.
(Park acreage does not include undeveloped park areas either owned or offered to the City for dedication.)
Since the 2017/2018 questionnaire was completed, park acreages were refined during the City-wide Parks and
Recreation Master Plan finalization process. During the final inventory of the City’s Parks, prior to the adoption of the
Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 25 acres of MSCP areas and open space land adjacent to parks were
deducted from the total. This was because they are not available for active park use. The deduction made a significant
revision to the total park acreage currently available.
Added to the figure this year are the 3.9 acres of new park opened at Montecito Park Phase 1.
c. Forecast data includes addition of parkland anticipated to be opened within the identified time horizon.
Please also note that there is some acreage expected to be created as a result of the expansion of the existing Bayside Park
(aka future Harbor Park), however, the limits of work for this expansion have yet to be determined. Therefore, the acreage
has not yet been included in the 2023 total.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page33
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 18 May 2, 2019
Discussion: The City currently has 3.75 park acres available per 1,000 residents in eastern Chula Vista,
exceeding the threshold standard requiring 3 acres per 1,000 residents; it is forecasted to
have 3.65 acres per 1,000 residents by 2020, and 3.66 acres per 1,000 by 2023 in eastern
Chula Vista.
Citywide, there are currently 2.62 acres per 1,000 residents; 2.58 are forecasted by 2020
and 2.69 per 1,000 residents are forecasted by 2023. The Citywide Parks and Recreation
Master Plan was adopted by the City Council on August 7, 2018.
On April 1, 2018, updated facility fees went into effect.
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: Adequate funds are available to complete some development and growth-related projects in
the next 12-18 months. The largest project anticipated is the Millenia Fire Station, to be
constructed by the developer for credits against their Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee (PFDIF) fee obligation, rather than through direct expenditures for the PFDIF fund
balance. More than $48 million in Transportation Development Impact Fees have been
appropriated for roadway improvements in the eastern portion of the City.
The adequacy of funds to complete necessary 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 development projected in
the September 21, 2018 Residential Growth Forecast) and other fund obligations These
other obligations include debt service, capital acquisitions, and program administration
costs.
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. Several Development Impact Fee funds are planned for revision in 2019.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page34
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 19 May 2, 2019
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: City engineers reported that storm water flows and volumes did not exceed City
Engineering Standards during Fiscal Year 2018. Additional storm water control structures
were added, and more are expected as growth continues; however, no new facilities will
be needed to accommodate projected growth in the next 12-18 months or the next five
years.
Development projects that capture, store, or re-use storm water will become more
important as storm water regulations change and demand for water increases. To keep
the City in compliance with these regulations, and to support the City’s growth at a
watershed and regional level, continued support of the storm water management
programs is important.
In October 2017, the Governor of California signed Senate Bill 231, which clarifies the
definition of “sewer” to include both sanitary and storm sewers (drainage). City staff is
evaluating if allowing the process used to set sanitary sewer fees may provide additional
funding to operate and maintain the City wide storm sewer system assets in the future.
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;
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page35
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 20 May 2, 2019
2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities and identification of what facilities need
to be upgraded or added over the next five years;
3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities identified; and
4. Other relevant information the school district(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City and the
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
3.8.1 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
CVESD reported that it will be able to accommodate forecasted growth through 2019. The
District currently accommodates overflow conditions by shifting students to different
schools when the maximum capacity at a given school is reached. This calendar year, the
CVESD anticipates providing portable units at Muraoka Elementary to house 200 students.
In spring 2020, construction of a new school, funded by a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District, will begin in Otay Ranch Village 3 to accommodate future students. The addition
of this school will enable the school district to provide enough facilities for the growth that
is projected over the next five years.
CVESD continuously monitors enrollment and capacity to plan for additional students
resulting from new residential development. Tools include a Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) database and the City’s Major Project Development Status Report.
The CVESD prioritizes maintenance for existing facilities using a Deferred Maintenance
Plan and relevant Master Plans. The District maintains a GIS database of buildings, interior
spaces, roofs, and other facilities and elements.
Sweetwater Union High School District
SUHSD is currently reviewing its enrollment projection methodology; thus, one-year and
five-year projections should be considered draft, and are subject to change.
Currently, the SUHSD projects that its existing schools/facilities will be sufficient to
accommodate forecasted growth through December 2019. The District has experienced a
decline in enrollment, and this trend is expected to continue with reduction of
approximately 300 students in 2019. However, with the amount of growth projected
through the year 2023, additional facilities will be needed. The SUHSD is planning to add
new buildings to the Eastlake High School and Olympian High School sites to accommodate
the additional students anticipated with the projected growth.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page36
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 21 May 2, 2019
In June 2018, the SUHSD’s Board of Trustees adopted a new Facility Master Plan, which
will be updated annually, as needed.
Regarding maintenance of existing facilities, prioritization is determined by the following
internal tools: (1) facility condition assessments (2) site work order requests (3) life cycle
analysis, and (4) preventative maintenance. Currently routine maintenance is funded at
2.6%, with a forecast of 3.0% for fiscal year 2019-20.
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
2016
Fiscal Year
2017
Fiscal Year
2018
18-month
Projection1
5-year
Projection
"Buildout"
Projection2
Average Flow 15.385 15.426 15.280 15.7901 16.072 20.7602
Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864
1. Represents an averaged projected flow for FY2019 and 2020.
2. 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 is preliminarily estimated at 20.76 MGD using a generation rate based on current metered flow data. The decrease in
flow can be attributed, in part, to the recent increase in the cost of water combined with on-going water conservation efforts. 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. Additionally, the City is currently soliciting consultants to conduct a new 5-year Sewer Rate Study which will also
review appropriate generation rates.
Issue: None.
Discussion: The City continues to have sufficient sewage treatment capacity, and consistent
conservation efforts are having a positive impact on average flow, which was down 0.146
Million Gallons per Day from Fiscal Year 2017 to Fiscal Year 2018.
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page37
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 22 May 2, 2019
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 De velopment Services Director:
a. Residential projects of 50 or more residential dwelling units;
b. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres (or equivalent square footage);
c. Industrial projects of 24 or more acres (or equivalent square footage); or
d. Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units or greater.
3.10.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: None.
Discussion: The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) reported that, during Fiscal Year
2018, Chula Vista did not exceed the state or federal ozone standards, and outperformed
many other areas of the County. San Diego County failed to meet the 2008 standard for
ozone; thus the Environmental Protection Agency will re-designate the APCD as “Serious”
or “Severe”. The designation determines which levels of emissions move into more
restrictive categories.
In September 2018, the City Council adopted the 2014 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory
report, which showed total community emissions in 2014 were 5 percent below their 2005
baseline. The City is targeting a 15 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels
by 2020. The report also showed the City’s per capita emissions to be 4.8 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent per year, which is below the target of 6 metric tons per person
by 2030.
The City continues to support efforts to increase air quality and environmental health
through strategic planning, energy efficiency, water conservation and renewable energy,
and smart growth and transportation. Staff launched the process for a Community Choice
Aggregation feasibility study and a Climate Action Plan (CAP) outreach website that will
provide information to residents about how to take actions to help support the CAP. No
GHG California Environmental Quality Act thresholds were exceeded in any environmental
documents during Fiscal Year 2018.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page38
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 23 May 2, 2019
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.
Otay Water District
The OWD’s supply and storage capacity for both potable water and non-potable water
exceeds the current and future demands projected for December 2019 and June 2023.
Chula Vista’s long-term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply, primarily
from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), and smaller amounts coming from
four other sources. SDCWA’s Carlsbad Desalination Plant and San Vicente Dam, whose
height was recently increased by over 100 feet, which doubled the size of the reservoir,
help fulfill the demands.
Through planning, designing, and constructing water system facilities to meet projected
demands, facilities are assured to be in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all
existing and future customers. Currently, twenty-two maintenance, replacement, and/or
upgrade projects needed to serve Chula Vista are included in the Fiscal Year 2019 six-year
OWD Capital Improvement Program. The water facilities will be constructed when
development activities require them for adequate cost-effective water service.
The need for a ten-day water supply during a SDCWA shutdown is being implemented and
is addressed in the Water Facilities Master Plan and Integrated Water Resources Plan.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page39
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 24 May 2, 2019
Water conservation efforts remain voluntary and a prohibition of wasteful water practices
in San Diego County remains in effect. State executive orders and laws include
establishing goals to help make water conservation a way of life, requiring urban water
suppliers to set annual indoor water use goals to 55 gallons per person per day, and
determining an allowance for outdoor water uses, which is not expected until June 2022.
Sweetwater Authority
Sweetwater Authority’s supply and storage capacity for potable water exceeds the current
and future demands projected for December 2019 and June 2023. The primary sources of
water are the SDCWA and the Sweetwater Reservoir, with smaller amounts coming from
National City wells and the Reynolds Desalination Facility.
Sweetwater Authority continues to invest in several system maintenance and upgrade
programs to replace aging pipelines, valves, and other critical water facilities, allowing
them to continue providing reliable service in the near and long term. 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.
4.0 APPENDICES
4.1 Appendix A – Residential Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B – Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page40
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page41
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page42
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
FORECAST
Calendar Years 2019 through 2023
September 2018
(revised April 2019)
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page43
2
Annual Residential Growth Forecast, CY 2019 to CY 2023 September 2018 (rev 4/19)
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 from period January 2019 through December 2023.
The growth forecast is provided to assist City departments and other service providers in assessing
potential impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with threshold standards for
each of the quality of life threshold topics established in Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 19.09,
Growth Management, as 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 providers, 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 compliance and/or 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; or slowing the pace of growth (such as a moratorium).
The City Council ultimately decides what course of action to take.
To prepare the growth forecast, the City requests that developers and builders provide residential
projections for projects that have been or are undergoing the entitlement process, and that 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 do
not reflect market or other economic conditions outside the City’s control. Therefore, the growth
forecast is characterized as follows:
It does not represent a goal or desired growth rate;
It represents what may occur given a set of assumptions listed below under “Forecast
Methods”;
It is produced by the City and is not necessarily endorsed by home builders; and
It assumes that market and economic conditions, as well as developer funding and
resources, will consistently be synchronized to support the projections. This is a more
liberal estimate to assess possible effects to the City’s threshold standards.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page44
3
Annual Residential Growth Forecast, CY 2019 to CY 2023 September 2018 (rev 4/19)
As shown in Table A, below, last year’s growth forecast estimated that 681 building permits would be
issued for single-family units in 2018; a total of 564 single-family permits were actually pulled. For
multi-family units, 1,640 building permits were projected, and 1,213 were pulled. Overall, actual
pulled permits were about 23 percent below the projection for 2018. Most of the building activity in
2018 occurred in the master planned communities east of Interstate 805.
Table A
# Permits %
Single-family 681 564 -117 -17%
Multi-family 1,640 1,213 -427 -26%
TOTAL:2,321 1,777 -544 -23%
Difference
Description Projected Permits
to be Issued in 2018
Actual Permits
Issued in 2018
FORECAST SUMMARY
In the forecast period covering calendar year 2019 through calendar year 2023, the developer
projection for eastern Chula Vista is approximately 7,087 housing units permitted (averaging 1,417
annually), and development in western Chula Vista is estimated to be approximately 406 units,
averaging 81 units annually. The total number of units permitted citywide between 2019 and 2023 is
estimated to be 7,493, with an annual average of 1,498 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 growth forecast that “smooths out” annual fluctuations (Table 4).
Citywide, approximately 1,423 permits are projected to be issued in 2019, dropping to about 679 in
2023. The data presented in Table 4 provides a historical context for assessing and validating the
developer-generated projections contained in Tables 1 and 2.
The following discussions and figures describe the context, conditions and assumptions behind the
forecast. It should be noted that this forecast is a planning tool and not a prediction or specific
expectation.
FORECAST METHODS
With input from 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. Public policy regarding development remains unchanged;
2. The housing market remains stable; and
3. Projects follow normal project regulatory processing schedules.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page45
4
Annual Residential Growth Forecast, CY 2019 to CY 2023 September 2018 (rev 4/19)
To provide context for the forecasted units to be constructed, the City uses several analyses that
illustrate the range of possibilities in which development in the City could proceed. These methods
are a combination of simple statistics and market absorption estimates provided by developers with
consideration for typical permit progression through the City’s entitlement process.
Developer Estimates and Permit Process Projection
As part of the Growth Forecast preparation process, the City solicits estimates from 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 developers’ projected schedules. This projection indicates the
permitting of a total of 7,493 residential units citywide between 2019 and 2023.
Statistical (10-Year Simple Moving Average) Projection
As discussed above, 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 indicates the permitting of approximately 3,916
residential units between 2019 and 2023. As shown on Table 3, the moving average includes data
from the preceding 10 years, when development was significantly slowed by the national financial
crisis and its aftermath. Therefore, the moving average is substantially lower than developer
projections. The average between developer projections and the 10-year moving average is 5,705
(see Table 4). Additional details can be found in Tables 3 and 4, and the light blue lines on Figure 3.
Information regarding projected growth in the eastern and western portions of the City is
presented in the paragraphs that follow.
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. Development is projected to be most active in Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, 8
East, 8 West, and Millenia (formerly the Eastern Urban Center or EUC) through 2023 (see Table 1).
Starting in January 2019, the remaining capacity for residential units projected to be permitted in
eastern Chula Vista is approximately 17,425. If 7,493 units were to be permitted over the next five-
year period, then approximately 9,932 units would remain. Assuming the continuation of the
projected five-year growth projection into the future, the City’s residential capacity would be fully
built out in seven years (i.e., by the end of 2030). However, it should be noted that this is a
projection of long-term future growth based on a five-year-projection; this buildout estimate is
subject to revision resulting from changes in economic conditions and/or future revisions to
development plans.
Western Chula Vista
Several projects in western Chula Vista are entitled but remain undeveloped, as indicated in
Table B, below:
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page46
5
Annual Residential Growth Forecast, CY 2019 to CY 2023 September 2018 (rev 4/19)
Table B
Name/Address Number of Entitled Units
MULTI-FAMILY
1262 Third Avenue Apartments 6
201 Third Avenue 23
230 Church Avenue Apartments 29
288 Center Street 29
577 Fourth Avenue Residences 10
Bayfront–Pacifica 450
Flower Street Apartments 18
Fourth Avenue 4-Plex 4
Industrial Townhomes 42
Roosevelt Street 6
Urbana (385 & 395 H Street) 135
Villas Nuevos Apartments 4
Vistas Chulitas 9
Vistas Del Mar 71
Woodlawn 4
SUBTOTAL 840
SINGLE-FAMILY
264-276 Palm Avenue Homes 4
635-641 E. Naples Homes 4
Date Street Residences 5
SUBTOTAL 13
TOTAL 853
Development of the Bayfront–Pacifica units is projected to begin in 2019. However, there is no
clear indication when the other projects will move forward.
In 2017, 17 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were permitted, and 14 ADUs were permitted in 2018.
Approximately 20 accessory dwelling units are expected to be permitted each year between 2019
and 2023.
Average of Projections
As discussed previously, 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. As discussed in the “Statistical (10-Year Simple Moving Average) Projection”
section above, approximately 3,916 total permitted units are projected between 2019 and 2023,
based on the moving average, while 7,493 would be permitted based on developer projections.
The average between the 10-year moving average and developer projections is 5,705 units
between 2019 and 2023. Additional details can be found in Tables 3 and 4, and the light blue lines
on Figure 3.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page47
6
Annual Residential Growth Forecast, CY 2019 to CY 2023 September 2018 (rev 4/19)
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 in Table C, below:
Table C
Decade
Average Number of Building
Permits Issued per Year
1980-1989 990
1990-1999 973
2000-2009 1,885
2010-2018 899
On an annual basis, the number of building permits issued for housing units in Chula Vista has
fluctuated from a low of 195 in 1981 to a high of 3,525 in 2001. The average number between
1980 and 2018 was 1,194 (see Table 3 and Figure 3).
Between 1984 and 1989, the average number of permits issued each year was 1,431. There was a
ten-year streak of at least 1,000 permits issued annually between 1997 and 2006, averaging 2,254
units per year. In 2001, 2003 and 2004, the annual permits issued exceeded 3,000. A significant
cause of Chula Vista’s growth was, and continues to be, development of the master planned
communities in eastern Chula Vista, including Rancho del Rey, Eastlake, Rolling Hills Ranch, San
Miguel Ranch, and Bella Lago, which are mostly built out; and Otay Ranch, which has several
thousand more units to be constructed.
Between 2007 and 2015, the number of building permits issued each year never exceeded 1,000
per year, due to the lingering effects of the housing and financial crisis. Since 2016, annual permits
issued have exceeded 1,000 and have increased with each successive year.
Commercial and 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.
Commercial development in the City has recently accelerated with the development of the
Millenia, Freeway Commercial, and Bayfront project areas. Approximately 1,600 hotel rooms are
projected to be permitted in 2020 in the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan area.
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
experienced 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 (DOF) estimates that Chula Vista has an average of 3.29
persons per household. Applying this rate to the residential units projected over the next five
years using the City’s 10-year moving average, and assuming a 2018 year-end population of
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page48
7
Annual Residential Growth Forecast, CY 2019 to CY 2023 September 2018 (rev 4/19)
273,267 and a 3.2% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately
282,450 persons by the end of 2023 (see Figure 3, solid red line). Applying the developer’s
projections to the same assumptions would result in a projected 2023 population of 297,574.
When taking the average of developer projections and the 10-year moving average, the projected
population would be 290,012 by 2023. This represents an increase of approximately 17,000
residents, as compared to the estimated year-end population of 273,267 for 2018.
This is only a rough estimate for planning purposes, as the vacancy rate, persons per unit factors,
and the number of actual units completed may vary.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page49
Figure 1 - Residential Building PermitsActual Issued 2004 - 2018 and Forecast 2019 - 2023
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Eastern Chula Vista
Western Chula Vista
L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2019\CV Res building permits statistics.pdf.4.22.19
Number of Units
Actual Forecast
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
3,300
1,654
1,0731,050
692
829
631728
517
275325
576
1,180
798
1,941
176
20 20 20
170
530
2,056
1,533
1,027
1,777
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page50
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
6
Village
7
Village
9
Village
10
Village
8 - EastVillage
8 - West
University
University
Chula VIsta
Elite Athlete
Training Center
Village
11
PA-12
OtayRanchTownCenter
EUC
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 StD 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
t
h 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
Bayfront Pacifica
Village 2 - Otay Ranch
Village 3 North - Otay Ranch
Village 4 - Otay Ranch
Village 8 West - Otay Ranch
PA-12 Freeway Commercial - Otay Ranch
EUC "Millenia" - Otay Ranch
Bella Lago "Vista del Cielo"
L:\Gabe Files\GMOC\2019\Figure 2 - Residential Forecast Development Map.pdf.4.11.19
2
3 4 5
7
8
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Figure 2 - Residential Development Forecast Map
2019 - 2023
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page51
2018, 1,2342019, 2,1172023, 6792023, 282,4502023, 297,5742023, 290,012050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,00002004006008001000120014001600180020002200240026002800300032003400360038001980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Estimated Year-End PopulationAnnual Units IssuedFigure 3 - Historic and Projected Population GrowthHistoric Units10-yr Avg Projected UnitsDevelopers' Projected UnitsAverage of Projected UnitsHistoric Population10-yr Avg Projected PopulationDevelopers' Projected Pop.Average of Projected Pop.Montgomery AnnexNote: Populationincrease assumed to occur at occupancy, which for the purposes of this analysis is assumed to lag issuance by one year.20182019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage52
025050075010001250150017502000225025002750300032503500375040002013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E 2019P 2020P 2021P 2022P 2023PIssued Dwelling Units (DUs), Hotel Rooms, or 1,000 Commercial Square FeetFigure 4 - Historic and Projected Units Issued by Land UseMulti-Family (DUs)Single Family (DUs)Commercial/Industrial (1,000 SF)Hotel (Rooms)2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage53
SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SFMFOTAY RANCH Village 2 NORTH - Baldwin & Sons25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 Village 2 NORTH - JPB11 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 Village 2 EAST - Baldwin & Sons0 55 0 317 0 25 0 160 0 274 0 831 Village 2 SOUTH - Baldwin & Sons88 51 36 27 0 260 0 130 0 0 124 468 Village 2 SOUTH - Cornerstone60 24 37 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 36 Village 2 WEST - Baldwin & Sons0 0 24 24 40 60 47 60 0 60 111 204 Village 2 WEST - HomeFed Village 2 West0 0 32 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 Village 3 (Escaya) - HomeFed Otay Land II325 0 218 0 44 162 0 163 0 0 587 325Portion of Village 4 - Dansk0 0 15 20 39 129 19 128 0 0 73 277 Village 8 HomeFed Otay Land II263 468 50 742 232 180 232 67 139 57 916 1514 PA -12 Freeway Commercial - Baldwin & Sons0 83 0 193 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 524 Millenia Lots 7 & 8 (Metro/Evo/Trio) - Meridian0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Millenia Lot 17 - CalAtlantic0 34 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 042 Millenia Lots 12 & 13 (Pinnacle) - Meridian0 54 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 Millenia (Other - TBD)0 392 0 205 0 84 0 21 0 0 0 702 OTAY RANCH SUB-TOTAL772 1,161 436 1,620 385 1,148 298 729 139 391 2,030 5,049Bella Lago Vista del Cielo - Shea Homes8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 SUB-TOTAL780 1,161 436 1,620 385 1,148 298 729 139 391 2,038 5,049 TOTAL UNITS*ISSUE = Building Permit *Assumes Adoption of 2006 GDPA Table 1EASTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST2019 - 2023Five Years Forecast1,9412,0565301,417Annual Average:7,087ISSUE*1,533JAN - DEC 2023ISSUE*2019 to 2023JAN -DEC 2021ISSUE*JAN - DEC 2022ISSUE*1,027EASTERN PROJECTSISSUE*JAN - DEC 2020JAN - DEC 2019ISSUE*2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage54
SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MFBayfront - Pacifica0 156 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 156Accessory Dwelling Units20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 100 40SUB-TOTAL 20 156 20 0 20 0 20 150 20 0 100 306TOTAL* ISSUE = Building Permits Issued5-Year ForecastISSUE*2019 - 2023Table 2WESTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST2019 - 2023PROJECTISSUE*JAN- DEC 2023Annual Average:8117620 40617020 20JAN - DEC 2019JAN - DEC 2022ISSUE*JAN - DEC 2020ISSUE*JAN - DEC 2021ISSUE*ISSUE*2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage55
1980 407 374 84,364
1981 195 496 86,597 2.6
1982 232 129 88,023 1.6
1983 479 279 89,370 1.5
1984 1,200 521 91,166 2.0
1985 1,048 1,552 116,325 27.6 2
1986 2,076 1,120 120,285 3.4
1987 1,168 2,490 124,253 3.3
1988 1,413 829 128,028 3.0
1989 1,680 1,321 134,337 4.9
1990 664 1,552 138,262 2.9
1991 747 701 141,015 2.0
1992 560 725 144,466 2.4
1993 435 462 146,525 1.4
1994 700 936 149,791 2.2
1995 833 718 153,164 2.3
1996 914 820 156,148 1.9
1997 1,028 955 162,106 3.8
1998 1,339 1,093 167,103 3.1
1999 2,505 1,715 174,319 4.3
2000 2,618 2,652 181,613 4.2
2001 3,525 3,222 191,220 5.3
2002 2,250 2,923 200,798 5.0
2003 3,143 2,697 208,997 4.1
2004 3,300 3,043 217,512 4.1
2005 1,654 2,525 224,006 3.0
2006 1,180 1,448 227,850 1.7
2007 576 837 231,157 1.5
2008 325 518 234,011 1.2
2009 275 398 244,269 4.4
2010 517 422 245,309 0.4
2011 728 631 250,349 2.1
2012 798 847 255,607 2.1
2013 631 777 259,811 1.6
2014 829 394 261,801 0.8
2015 692 657 263,611 0.7
2016 1,050 607 265,357 0.7
2017 1,073 809 267,503 0.8
2018 4 1,777 1,319 273,267 2.2
1,194 1,167 2.2 3
(1) Reflects Department of Finance (DOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year.
Projected future years reflect the average between developer projections and a rolling average of population growth.
(2) Annexation of unincorporated community of Montgomery.
(4) Population estimated based on permitted units x 3.29 persons per unit x 0.986 occupancy factor.
(3) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation.
Table 3
HISTORIC HOUSING & POPULATION GROWTH
1980 - 2018
-
Units Authorized for
Construction (Issued)
Units Completed
(Final)
Year End Population
Estimate1
Annual Percentage
ChangeCalendar Year
Average
Page 1 of 12019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page56
20192,117280,135728272,1101,423276,12320202,076286,869774274,6211,425280,74520211,553291,907800277,2141,176284,56120221,197295,790807279,8311,002287,8112023550297,574808282,450679290,0127,4933,9165,705(2) Units estimated based on 10-year moving average of permitted unit trend.Calendar YearDeveloper Unit Projections110-Year Moving Average Unit Projections2Year-end Population3Average of Developer Projections and 10-Year Moving AverageUnitsYear-end Population4TOTALYear-end Population3UnitsUnitsTable 4POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS2019-2023(3) Year-end population includes the increase in population resulting from development during that year, based on a projected City population of 273,267 for the end of 2018. Annual growth is estimated based on the number of units x 3.29 persons per unit x 0.986 growth factor.(4) Year-end population is an average of the population based on developer unit projections and 10-year moving average projections.(1) Units estimated based on developer projections.2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage57
Calendar YearMulti-Family Units PermittedSingle Family Units Permitted2013387225161.60201475510765.47020154205767.90201695071239.715020175105631931352018E1,213564339 E204E2019P1,3178005016002020P1,620456802702021P1,14840512002022P8793184002502023P39115980152Annual Average 872339Note: (E ) = estimated; (P) = projectedTable 5HISTORIC/PROJECTED NEW CONSTRUCTION, BY LAND USECommercial/ Industrial 1,000 SF Permitted163Hotel Rooms Permitted2512019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage58
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page59
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2018
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Air Quality and Climate
Protection – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page60
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2018
Page 2
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
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 Office of Sustainability
Please provide responses to the following:
1. What was the city’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target during the review
period?
The GHG emissions reduction target was 15% reduction in GHG emissions below 2005
levels by 2020, and 55% below 2005 levels by 2030. Additionally, the state has adopted
a local government reduction goal of below 6 Metric Tons(MT)/per person by 2030,
which the City can adopt after conducting analysis to scale the per capita reduction goal
down from the statewide GHC inventory to only account for the GHG emission sources
relevant to the City (such as removing emissions from oil refining because there are no
oil refineries in Chula Vista).
2. What programs does the city currently implement or engage in to help meet the
greenhouse gas emissions reduction target?
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page61
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2018
Page 3
The City of Chula Vista continued to institutionalize our efforts to increase air quality and
environmental health. In September of 2018, City Council adopted the 2014 Greenhouse
Gas Inventory report which showed significant progress being made on reducing GHG
emissions in our community. Total community emissions in 2014 were 5% below their
2005 baseline and per capita emissions were 21% below 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 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 16% reduction in
GHG emissions from City operations since 2012 (55% reduction since 1990), the City fleet
reaching 28% hybrid or alternative fuel technologies (the Fleet Manager is still evaluating
the logistics regarding switching from Biodiesel to renewable Diesel to meet the needs of
new Fire Department vehicles) and Purchasing increased the “green” purchases to 50%
of Office Depot purchases and 90% of custodial purchases. Second, City Council adopted
the updated 2017 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which included 11 strategies for reducing
GHG emissions in Chula Vista. Some of the early CAP implementation actions to be
completed include requiring LED outdoor lights on non-residential projects and the start
of limited service for the South Bay Bus Rapid transit system. Staff is still working to
design policies related to requiring energy efficiency upgrades at some point of time and
other implementation actions.
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 49
million dollars for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and water conservation projects.
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 11,625 “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,.
Additionally, City staff preformed almost 270 on-site evaluations for residents and
businesses, and engaged more than 1,113 residents at 40 events in FY18. As part of the
Library Energy lounge effort a stairwell and hallway, that all 6th grade students will pass
to participate in the Innovation Station STEAM programing, was updated to incorporate
energy efficiency messaging and residents can now check out LED lights and internet
hotspots (with an energy efficiency resource guides included).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page62
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2018
Page 4
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 (EV) by
maintaining a total of 28 chargers (including one DC fast charger) at 5 public facing
municipal facilities. We finalized contracts with SDG&E and worked with them to install
more than 120 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 by the City fleet. In late 2017, the first order for fleet EVs was placed and fifteen
100% electric fleet vehicles arrived at City Hall in Q1 2018. Additional plans are being
made now to transition to EV and hybrid vehicles where appropriate when phasing out
older, less efficient fleet vehicles. Staff has also started working on adding bike lanes to
Broadway and F Street and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that connects the eastern
residents with downtown San Diego has begun limited service recently. 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 capital 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 states long-term goal of 2 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent (MTCo2e) per person by 2050.
Jurisdiction Per Capita GHG Emissions MTCo2e (year)
Chula Vista 4.8 (2014)
City of San Diego 7.4 (2016)
County of San Diego 6.4 (2014)
La Mesa 4.4 (2012)
National City 10.5 (2005)
Carlsbad 6.6 (2011)
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page63
Air Quality and
Climate Protection – FY 2018
Page 5
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 buildings B and C as LEED Silver buildings,
upgrading all indoor lighting to LED, installing additional solar to 12 additional City
facilities, and expanding the fleet of EVs (15 purchased in FY18, 30+ planned for FY19).
Staff continues to investigate new and innovative ways to reduce GHG emissions such
launching the process for a Community Choice Aggregation feasibility study and a
Climate Action Plan (CAP) outreach website that will provide information to residents
about how to take actions to help support the CAP.
SECTION 2 – To be completed by 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 1
Residential Projects of 50 or More Dwelling Units 4
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. Was the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target met during the review period? If
not, what obstacles prevented it and how are they being dealt with?
GHG CEQA thresholds not exceeded in any environmental documents.
3. How many residents and/or commercial facilities have added solar panels in the past
year, and what was their capacity?
Residential Installations: 1,384 completed installations (344,030 Kw)
Non-residential Installations: 8 completed installations (Kw unknown)
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: Steve Power
Title: Principal Planner
Date: 10/17/18
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page64
APCD – FY 2018
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
San Diego County
Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 and 5-Year Forecast
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 Standard
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018*
STATE OZONE
STANDARD
(1-Hr)
San Diego Region 2 2 3 3 7 13 0
Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FEDERAL STANDARD
(8-Hr)
San Diego Region 24 25 33 34 34 54 10
Chula Vista 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
*2018 data through June 30th
Please provide responses to the following:
1. During the review period, how did Chula Vista rank in air quality, countywide?
Chula Vista had no ozone exceedances in 2018, which was much better than many
other areas of the county.
2. What is the ozone standard and how did Chula Vista perform?
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page65
APCD – FY 2018
Page 2
1-Hr State Average: 0.09 ppm
8-Hr Federal Average: 2015 Std: 0.070 ppm
2008 Std: 0.075 ppm
1997 Std: 0.08 ppm
Chula Vista meets all standards.
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 PM2.5.
4. Were there any changes in federal or state programs, during the review period that could affect
Chula Vista? If so, please explain.
Yes X_ No ___ _____
San Diego County has failed to meet the 2008 standard for ozone. This will cause us to be
re-designated by the EPA. This will require a new State Implementation Plan (SIP). San Diego
County will be designated as Serious, or even Severe. The designation determines which levels of
emissions move into more restrictive categories. APCD won’t know final determinations until we
reach an agreement with EPA.
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.
EPA has now designated the San Diego Air basin for the 2015 8-hour standard.
Therefore, the numbers provided above are for this standard.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Jaime DiFulvio
Title: Associate Meteorologist
Date: October 24, 2018
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page66
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
CVESD – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page67
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 2
1. Please complete the tables below, adding schools, if applicable.
Table 1. EXISTING 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 2018
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Attending This School
Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2018
Building Capacity
(# of Students)
% Building
Capacity Used
# of Overflow
Students*
Permanent
Portables In Out
NORTHWEST
Cook 410 226 355 463 25 72.75%
Feaster-Edison 1,119 899 1,009 450 813 79.89%
Hilltop Drive 565 353 527 501 50 95.64%
Mueller 939 691 877 500 500 87.70% 13
Rosebank 791 486 570 401 288 82.73% 4
Vista Square 829 527 642 325 439 84.03% 5
SUBTOTAL 4,653 3,182 3,980 2,640 2,115 83.70% 5 17
SOUTHWEST
CVLC Charter N/A N/A 864 775 150 93.41%
Castle Park 514 313 374 463 33 75.40% 1
Harborside 760 555 661 438 377 81.10% 1 11
Kellogg 303 180 338 427 0 79.16% 11
Lauderbach 986 645 754 488 502 76.16% 1
Loma Verde 511 343 497 450 220 74.18%
Montgomery 389 258 318 381 100 66.11%
Otay 742 493 569 488 250 77.10%
Palomar 358 206 330 422 0 78.20%
Rice 914 570 633 484 206 91.74% 4
Rohr 342 231 296 502 0 58.96%
SUBTOTAL 5,819 3,794 5,634 5,318 1,838 78.73% 14 15
SOUTHEAST
Arroyo Vista 579 507 779 750 125 89.03%
Camarena 1,235 1,033 1,036 800 300 94.18%
Olympic View 890 677 729 488 325 89.67%
Parkview 329 215 349 497 27 66.60%
Rogers 381 233 405 502 65 71.43%
Valle Lindo 534 370 429 438 214 65.80%
Hedenkamp 1,060 862 995 1000 0 99.50% 10
Heritage 713 635 780 713 150 90.38% 2
Veterans 953 793 884 743 150 98.99% 35
McMillin 919 770 843 700 100 105.38%
Muraoka 793 672 716 864 0 82.87%
Wolf Canyon 677 578 735 776 125 81.58% 35
SUBTOTAL 9063 7345 8680 8271 1581 88.10% 35 47
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page68
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 3
Table 1. EXISTING 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 2018
# of CVESD-Enrolled Students
Attending This School
Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2018
Building Capacity
(# of Students)
% Building
Capacity Used
# of Overflow
Students*
Permanent
Portables In Out
NORTHEAST
Allen/Ann Daly 207 154 353 428 125 63.83%
Casillas 452 324 441 522 125 68.16% 16
Chula Vista Hills 412 309 538 488 100 91.50% 1
Clear View 369 276 507 435 150 86.67% 1
Discovery 691 565 814 551 345 90.85% 4
Eastlake 465 387 556 476 263 75.24%
Halecrest 312 217 483 451 88 89.61%
Liberty 552 477 694 739 0 93.91% 1
Marshall 701 536 644 599 68 96.55% 1
Salt Creek 1,000 821 897 800 150 94.42%
Tiffany 591 375 473 477 163 73.91% 2
SUBTOTAL 5,752 4,441 6,400 5966 1577 63.83% 19 7
TOTAL 25287 18762 24694 22195 7111 84.26% 73 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.
2. Taking into consideration the City’s 2018 Residential Growth Forecast, please complete the
two forecast tables below, adding new schools, if applicable.
TABLE 2. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS –
DECEMBER 2019
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2019
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of
Their Residency
December 2019
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December
2019 Permanent Portables
NORTHWEST
Cook 422 355 - - 72.75%
Feaster-Edison 1,186 1,054 - - 83.45%
Hilltop Drive 583 507 - - 92.01%
Mueller 1045 915 - - 91.50%
Rosebank 813 597 - - 86.65%
Vista Square 894 682 - - 89.27%
SUBTOTAL 4,943 4,110 0 0 86.44%
SOUTHWEST
CVLCC N/A 829 - - 89.62%
Castle Park 541 404 - - 81.45%
Harborside 784 657 - - 80.61%
Kellogg 299 335 - - 78.45%
Lauderbach 1,019 741 - - 74.85%
Loma Verde 515 521 - - 77.76%
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page69
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 4
TABLE 2. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS –
DECEMBER 2019
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2019
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of
Their Residency
December 2019
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December
2019 Permanent Portables
Montgomery 393 310 - - 64.45%
Otay 747 581 - - 78.73%
Palomar 346 324 - - 76.78%
Rice 912 635 - - 92.03%
Rohr 325 282 - - 56.18%
SUBTOTAL 5,881 5,619 0 0 78.52%
SOUTHEAST
Arroyo Vista 568 768 - - 87.77%
Camarena 1,213 1,036 - - 94.18%
Olympic View 862 701 - - 86.22%
Parkview 334 362 - - 69.08%
Rogers 343 414 - - 73.02%
Valle Lindo 537 421 - - 64.57%
Hedenkamp 1,032 960 - - 96.00%
Heritage 699 725 - - 84.01%
Veterans 924 847 - - 94.85%
McMillin 921 826 - - 103.25%
Muraoka 1,684 1,582 - 200 148.68%
Wolf Canyon 1,619 1,663 - - 184.57%
SUBTOTAL 10,736 10,305 - 200 102.52%
NORTHEAST
Allen/Ann Daly 196 347 - - 62.75%
Casillas 451 439 - - 67.85%
CV Hills 409 523 - - 88.95%
Clear View 405 506 - - 86.50%
Discovery 673 820 - - 91.52%
Eastlake 512 569 - - 77.00%
Halecrest 305 479 - - 88.87%
Liberty 533 664 - - 89.85%
Marshall 730 639 - - 95.80%
Salt Creek 1,006 898 - - 94.53%
Tiffany 590 478 - - 74.69%
SUBTOTAL 5,810 6,362 0 0 84.34%
TOTAL 27,370 26,396 0 200 89.46%
*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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page70
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 5
TABLE 3. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS --
DECEMBER 2023
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2023
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2019
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December
2023 Permanent Portables
NORTHWEST
Cook 368 356 - - 72.95%
Feaster-Edison 1,246 1,048 - - 82.98%
Hilltop Drive 608 439 - - 79.67%
Mueller 1,134 1,051 - - 105.10%
Rosebank 824 605 - - 87.81%
Vista Square 901 702 - - 91.88%
SUBTOTAL 5,081 4,201 0 0 88.35%
SOUTHWEST
CVLCC N/A 697 75.35%
Castle Park 579 477 96.17%
Harborside 761 592 72.64%
Kellogg 264 345 80.80%
Lauderbach 956 694 70.10%
Loma Verde 518 561 83.73%
Montgomery 357 254 52.81%
Otay 670 541 73.31%
Palomar 323 309 73.22%
Rice 886 604 87.54%
Rohr 287 222 44.22%
SUBTOTAL 5,601 5,296 0 0 74.01%
SOUTHEAST
Arroyo Vista 585 800 - - 91.43%
Camarena 1142 1030 - - 93.64%
Olympic View 750 587 - - 72.20%
Parkview 318 353 - - 67.37%
Rogers 372 388 - - 68.43%
Valle Lindo 535 425 - - 65.18%
Hedenkamp 1,044 938 - - 93.80%
Heritage 689 700 - - 81.11%
Veterans 821 739 - - 82.75%
McMillin 871 808 - - 101.00%
Muraoka 2,973 2,575 - 200 242.01%
Wolf Canyon 3,345 3,414 - - 310.08%
Future ORV3 N/A N/A 600 -
SUBTOTAL 13,445 12,757 600 200 119.76%
NORTHEAST
Allen/Ann Daly 189 334 60.40% 60.40%
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page71
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 6
TABLE 3. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS --
DECEMBER 2023
Schools
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Residing in This
School Boundary
December 2023
# of CVESD-Enrolled
Students Attending This
School Regardless of Their
Residency
December 2019
Projected Additional or
Decreased Building
Capacity
(# of Students)
% of Capacity
Used By
Projected
December
2023 Permanent Portables
Casillas 467 418 - - 64.61%
CV Hills 382 492 - - 83.67%
Clear View 394 508 - - 86.84%
Discovery 623 803 - - 89.62%
Eastlake 512 558 - - 75.51%
Halecrest 298 467 - - 86.64%
Liberty 467 590 - - 79.84%
Marshall 727 636 - - 95.35%
Salt Creek 952 820 - - 86.32%
Tiffany 574 466 - - 72.81%
SUBTOTAL 5,585 6,092 0 0 80.76%
TOTAL 29,712 28,346 600 200 94.15%
*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.
Table 4. ENROLLMENT HISTORY
2017-2018 2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014
NORTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 3,980 4,063 4,092 4,087 4,173
% of Change Over
the Previous Year -2.04% -0.01% 0.12% -2.1% -0.14%
% of Enrollment
from Chula Vista 79.77% 93.5% 93.55% 81.4% (a)
SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 5,634 5,817 5,997 5,933 5,940
% of Change Over
the Previous Year -3.15% -0.03% 1.08% -0.12% 0.76%
% of Enrollment
from Chula Vista 81.54% 94.65% 93.55% 96.04% (a)
SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 8,680 8,760 8,760 8,752 8,370
% of Change Over
the Previous Year -0.91% 0% 0.09% 4.56% 5.94%
% of Enrollment
from Chula Vista 83.04% 8,760 99.13% 95.61% (a)
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page72
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 7
Table 4. ENROLLMENT HISTORY
2017-2018 2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014
NORTHEAST SCHOOLS
Total Enrollment 6,400 6,646 6,924 6,934 7,138
% of Change Over
the Previous Year -3.70% -0.04% -0.14% -2.86% 0.34%
% of Enrollment
from Chula Vista 68.20% 93.33% 80.21% 92.2% (a)
DISTRICT-WIDE
Total Enrollment 27,347 27,958 28,694 28,493 28,442
% of Change Over
the Previous Year -2.19% -0.03% 0.71% 0.18% 4.08%
% of Enrollment in
CV Schools from
Chula Vista
92.24% 95.14% 83.88% 87.15% (a)
(a) Data not available.
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. However, with the anticipated new school at Otay Ranch Village 3 (Escaya), there will be
sufficient facilities/schools to accommodate forecasted growth.
5. Please complete the table below.
Table 4. 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
Date
Needed By
47 ORV3
Mello-Roos
Community
Facilities District
Site has been
sheet graded Unknown Spring 2020 July 2021
6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page73
CVESD – FY 2018
Page 8
facilities? If not, please explain.
Yes ___X___ No _______
7. How is maintenance of existing facilities prioritized?
Deferred Maintenance Plan and Master Plans provided by an architectural firm. In addition,
the District maintains a GIS (Geographic Information System) database of buildings, interior
spaces, irrigation controls and assets, HVAC units, and roofs and their condition.
8. 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 District continuously monitors enrollment and capacity to plan for housing of additional
students generated from new construction. A GIS database of building and classroom
inventory is used in addition the Major Projects Development Report provided by the City of
Chula Vista and GIS demographic and enrollment data.
9. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you
would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
It would be helpful for planning if the District were able to access Permit and Building
Inspection status to determine timing of construction and occupancy of new dwelling units. It
would also be helpful if this information were available in a GIS format.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Carolyn Scholl
Title: Facilities Planning Manager
Date: January 29, 2019
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page74
Drainage – FY 2018 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Drainage – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page75
Drainage – FY 2018 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
o Cleanup and abatement of any illegal discharges.
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 Maintenance of the City’s BMP Design Manual
Construction Program
o Requirement of minimum BMPs on construction sites
o Inspections program
Existing Development Program
o Requirement of minimum BMPs for existing development
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page76
Drainage – FY 2018 3
o Inspections of municipal, industrial, commercial, and residential facilities
o Operation and maintenance activities of the MS4 and sewer system
Routine inspection, operation, maintenance, and cleaning activities related to all
MS4 structures such as catch basins with filter inserts, storm drain inlets/outlets,
water quality basins, detention basins, and various treatment BMPs such as Bio-
Filters, Modular Wetland Systems, CDS Units, and Filterra Units
Verify proper operation of all its municipal structural treatment controls.
Properly disposing of all materials removed from MS4 structures.
Implement controls to prevent infiltration of sewage into the MS4 from defective
sanitary sewers by utilizing CIP funds to upgrade sewer infrastructure.
o Street sweeping
Enforcement Response Plan
o Enforcement of all components of the JRMP and City’s Storm Water Ordinance
Education and Public Participation Program
o Educational activities to promote positive behaviors to the reduce discharge of
pollutants to the storm drain
o Provide opportunities for the public to engage and participate in pollution prevention
(cleanup events, volunteer opportunities)
In addition to the JRMP, the regional storm water permit has also required the City to collaborate
with other jurisdictions to develop a Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) for the San Diego Bay
Watershed Management Area. This plan outlines priority pollutants, goals, and strategies for the
watershed. The City’s pollutant focus is trash and the City has committed to implement strategies to
address trash within City. Additional components of the San Diego Bay WQIP include a Monitoring
and Assessment Plan and an Adaptive Management Process.
5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to
relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
As the City of Chula Vista continues to grow, increased urbanization and development can have
impacts on the environment, particularly to local waterways. Within the development and
watershed planning aspects of the City’s storm water management program, there are requirements
for implementation of low impact development BMPs and treatment systems to mitigate the effects
of increased pollution from developed areas within the City. Development projects that capture,
store, or re-use storm water will become more important as regulations change and demand for
water increases.
Storm water management program costs continue to increase with each re-issued permit. It is
important to continue support of these programs not only to keep in the City in compliance with
storm water regulations, but also to support the City’s growth at a watershed and regional level.
Upcoming regulations such as the 2019 Regional Storm Water Permit and the Statewide Trash
Amendments will require the City to create additional programs and implement programs these
over time. These regulations have increased costs associated with them which requires more
staffing and resources, operation and maintenance of new and existing storm drain structures, and
implementation of inspection and water quality monitoring programs, just to name a few.
Additional storm water control structures were added this past year, and more are expected as
Chula Vista continues to grow. This directly impacts the amount of maintenance, operation,
monitoring and enforcement needed. Public works has six maintenance workers and three
combination machines to maintain approximately 1.7 million feet of pipe, 1.6 million feet of storm
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page77
Drainage – FY 2018 4
channels, 19,000 access points and 150 other miscellaneous structures (e.g. Continuous Deflective
Separation units, water quality basins and modular wetlands). The existing City staff and resources
are barely able to meet existing regulatory compliance. Thus, the increase in work due to growth
this year and in the coming years is the tipping point at which more resources are needed. Examples
of maintenance items include but are not limited to: weed abatement, silt and debris removal, and
replacement of undersized structures.
Although some of the storm drain infrastructure inventory mentioned above are in funded
Community Facility Districts maintenance areas, most of the storm system assets are not. These
unfunded areas tend to have the oldest assets and are downstream of the growth. This means that
the growth in the upstream areas requires the use of downstream facilities and increases rate of
wear and tear and higher levels of maintenance.
On October 6, 2017, the Governor signed SB 231, which clarifies that the definition of “sewer”
includes both sanitary sewers and storm sewers. By allowing the process used to set sanitary sewer
fees, SB 231 may provide a means to finance the operation and maintenance of the city wide storm
sewer (drainage) system assets in the future. City staff is currently evaluating this option.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Marisa Soriano/ Beth Gentry/Mark Sanchez/ Frank Rivera
Position: Stormwater Program Manager/ Sr. Civil Engineer – Wastewater/ Public Works Manager/Principal
Civil Engineer
Date: 10/5/18
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page78
Page 1
Fire and EMS – FY 2018
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Fire and EMS – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page79
Page 2
Fire and EMS – FY 2018
Please update the table below.
Table 1. FIRE and EMS Response Times FY 2018
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
2018 13,986 81.4 5:45 4:06 0:50 0:49
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 _____
For purposes of meeting the response threshold related to growth management only (7 minutes at
80%), fire and medical units were staffed properly.
For purposes of meeting response thresholds related to improving outcomes such as EMS critical
task completion and attacking a fire upon the arrival of the first engine on scene, the Fire
Department was not properly staffed.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page80
Page 3
Fire and EMS – FY 2018
4. Please complete the table below and explain the methodology for the responses.
Table 2. FY 2018 All Response Times
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) 13,986 81.4 5:45 4:06 0:50 0:49
Fire and EMS Code (CAD) 20,121 75.9 6:04 4:20 0:57 0:50
No Code 1,196 77.7 5:57 4:13 0:55 0:47
All 21,397 75.8 6:04 4:20 0:57 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 X No _____
However, call volume is on the rise at 5% per year over the past 3 years. The increase in calls on the
east side continues to affect our ability to achieve compliance in the east. While the GMOC threshold
is citywide, it is important to note that the GMOC threshold has never been met on 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___
Using current facilities and without implementation of the recommended Measure A staffing
improvements, the response time threshold is not anticipated to be met in the next 5 years. Call
volume trends at a 5% increase per year over last 3 years.
However, Millenia and the Bayfront developments will consist of additional fire stations, fire
apparatus and personnel to meet the demand of said developments. In addition, Measure A
improvements, such as squad implementation and 4-0 staffing, along with Measure P
improvements, such as relocation of fire stations and purchase of fire apparatus and equipment will
contribute to improvements in response thresholds.
7. What operational practices and measures have been implemented to maintain compliant response
time performance and improve performance at stations with non-compliant response times?
Please include the methodology used to conduct the analysis.
FY18
New Engine in service at St 7
New Truck in service at St 7
New Engine in service at St 6
Battalion Monthly Reports
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page81
Page 4
Fire and EMS – FY 2018
FY19
4.0 staffing at St 7
New Station Alerting
New apparatus bay doors
8. Please update the tables below.
Table 3. FY 2018 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
2018 2600 7699 3687 63.2 93.8 79.3 6:52 5:12 6:05 5:03 3:35 4:30 0:51 0:52 0:46 0:58 0:46 0:50
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 4. FY 2018 FIRE and EMS Response Times - By Fire Station
Fire Station #
And Location
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
1 -447 F St. 4424 90.7 04:54 03:19 00:53 00:42
2 -80 East J. St 964 78.3 05:58 04:23 00:45 00:51
3 -1410
Brandywine 836 79 06:11 04:44 00:46 00:42
4 -850 Paseo
Ranchero 868 76.9 06:12 04:32 00:47 00:53
5 -391 Oxford 3275 85.5 05:37 03:55 00:51 00:51
6 -605 Mt. Miguel 607 75.7 06:14 04:24 00:50 01:01
7 -1640 Santa
Venetia 1152 56.8 07:04 05:13 00:53 00:58
8 -1180 Woods Dr. 841 62.7 07:04 05:19 00:48 00:56
9 -266 E. Oneida 1019 82.6 06:00 04:23 00:45 00:52
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page82
Page 5
Fire and EMS – FY 2018
Table 5. FY 2018 Percentage Change of All Types of Calls Responded T o
Fiscal
Year
Total Call
Volume
% Calls for
Fire Service
% Calls for
Emergency Medical
Services
% Calls for
Other Services
% Change
2018 21,397 2.1 (439) 68.9 (14735) 29.1 (6223) 4.3
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 Fiscal Year 2018 statistics on
who was first to arrive on the scene for all calls and the time difference between the two.
Table 6. FY 2018 First Unit Arrival to Incident
Arrival
Unit Type
1st 2nd
Total
Count Count %
Average
Response Count %
Average
Response
AMR 2496 15.7 5:54
1339
7 84.3 9:26 15895
CVFD
1339
7 84.3 5:14 2496 15.7 8:30 15895
Total
1589
3 100.00%
1589
3 100.00% 31790
*Units are not always dispatched at the same time.
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 7. Threshold Comparison to Other Agencies FY 2018
Fire Department Threshold Standard Compliance Met
San Diego
Information
Pending
Escondido
Oceanside
San Marcos
Chula Vista
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.
Will provide at time of meeting due to limited resources.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page83
Page 6
Fire and EMS – FY 2018
12. The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommended that the City Manager 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. What is the status of the
proposed pilot program?
This program has not been implemented and was not agreeable through contract negotiations with
our transport provider (AMR). The City is preparing to administer a Request for Proposal (RFP)
seeking qualified transport providers to undergo a competitive selection process. The process could
take up to 24 months to complete.
13. What is the status of the Fire Facility, Equipment, and Deployment Master Plan that is in the process
of being updated?
The plan was taken to Council in August of 2018 and approved unanimously. The amendment
included four changes to the plan; implementation of 4-0 staffing, implementation of squads,
relocation of Stations 5 and 9, and Retention Policy for apparatus and equipment.
14. 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. Please complete the table
below and explain how the EFF standard compares to the growth management threshold standard.
Table 8. National Fire Protection Association 1710 Compliance Table – FY 2018
# of Calls Dispatch Turnout Travel Total Response
EMS - 1st Unit 13656
STANDARD 1:00 1:00 4:00 6:00
Average Time 1:04 0:51 4:29 6:19
% Compliant 81.4 71.2 58.5 66.1
Fire - 1st Unit 330
STANDARD 1:00 1:20 4:00 6:20
Average Time 2:03 4:24 10:21 12:18
% Compliant 60.1 85.8 49.2 56.8
Effective Fire Force* - 14FF 61
STANDARD 1:00 1:20 8:00 10:20
Average Time 1:20 1:01 8:04 11:14
% Compliant 48.3 70.5 70.5 63.9
*Effective Fire Force (EFF), aka Effective Response Force, is the minimum number of firefighters and equipment that must reach a specific emergency
incident location within a maximum prescribed travel (driving) time.
15. 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: 11/1/18
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page84
1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire Fiscal – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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 necessary 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 should
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).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page85
2
Please provide responses to the following:
1. Please provide an updated Fiscal Status Report showing the city’s operations and capital improvements.
The report should include the following three time frames:
a. The last fiscal year (07-01-17 to 06-30-18);
b. The current fiscal year, 2018-2019; and
c. What is anticipated in the coming five years
a. The last fiscal year (07-01-17 to 06-30-18);
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 Redevelopment Agency,
Development Services, and Fleet. The fiscal year 2017-18 budget assumed all funds revenues totaling $363.8
million, including $166.6 million in General Fund revenues.
The following table summarizes and compares actual revenues, expenditures, and staffing for all funds in fiscal
years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Note, the $205.9 million reduction in Revenue from Other Agencies is due to the
one-time recordation of the Chula Vista Elite Athletes Training Center in fiscal year 2016-17, and the shift of
Property Tax in lieu of VLF to the Property Taxes category. Also, there are no Measure A-funded positions
included in the table, since Measure was not approved by the City’s voters until June 2018.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page86
3
FY 2016-17
Actual
FY 2017-18
Actual
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes 36,162$ 59,401$ 23,239$
Sales Taxes 36,468 50,058 13,590
Other Local Taxes 33,125 34,467 1,342
Licenses and Permits 3,914 6,534 2,621
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 1,806 2,036 230
Use of Money & Property 4,551 6,832 2,280
Revenue from Other Agencies 242,869 36,935 (205,934)
Charges for Services 52,414 57,618 5,204
Development Impact Fees 8,929 23,088 14,159
Other Revenue 87,604 129,842 42,238
Transfers In 114,694 58,472 (56,222)
Total Revenues 622,537$ 465,284$ (157,254)$
Expenditures
Personnel Services 138,168$ 147,198$ 9,029$
Supplies & Services 57,953 55,131 (2,822)
Other Expenses 73,703 48,481 (25,222)
Capital 3,418 13,137 9,720
Transfers Out 114,694 58,472 (56,222)
CIP Project Expenditures 34,196 61,101 26,905
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 3,090 2,141 (949)
Utilities 7,690 8,522 833
Total Expenditures 432,913$ 394,183$ (38,730)$
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2016-17
Actual
FY 2017-18
Actual
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
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page87
4
b. The current fiscal year, 2018-2019;
On June 12, 2018, the City Council adopted the fiscal year 2018-19 operating and capital budgets. The adopted
all funds budget totaled $347.5 million, including a General Fund operating budget of $174.7 million, a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $30.1 million, $48.9 million in interfund transfers, $8.0 million in
utilities, and $85.8 million in operating budgets for other City funds, including Sewer, Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency, Development Services, and Fleet. The fiscal year 2018-19 budget assumed all funds
revenues totaling $337.0 million, including $174.7 million in General Fund revenues.
The projected CIP Project Expenditure category reflects the largest change when compared to fiscal year 2017-
18 actuals. This category is projected to decrease by a net $31.0 million. The decrease is mainly attributed to a
reduction of budgeted capital improvement projects within the 2016 Measure P Sales Tax Fund. The final fiscal
year 2017-18 adopted budget included the receipt of $71.4 million in Measure P bond proceeds (with $70.8
million available to fund Measure P-associated capital projects and asset replacements) as one-time revenues
as well as associated capital replacement expense commitments of $70.7 million. Not all the expense
commitments were incurred in fiscal year 2017-18, however the funding for these capital projects
automatically rolls forward to the next fiscal year, per City policy, and thus will occur in fiscal year 2018-19 or
subsequent fiscal years.
The following table summarizes and compares fiscal year 2017-18 actual revenues, expenditures, and staffing
for all funds to projected fiscal year 2018-19 measures of the same. Note, the Parks Division was moved from
Public Works to Community Services effective July 1, 2018. In addition, public safety staffing additions that
were originally budgeted in the General Fund were transferred to the Measure A Fund effective October 1,
2018.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page88
5
FY 2017-18
Actual
FY 2018-19
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes 59,401$ 61,963$ 2,562$
Sales Taxes 50,058 51,783 1,725
Other Local Taxes 34,467 32,036 (2,431)
Licenses and Permits 6,534 5,396 (1,138)
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 2,036 1,884 (152)
Use of Money & Property 6,832 4,055 (2,777)
Revenue from Other Agencies 36,935 33,368 (3,567)
Charges for Services 57,618 49,856 (7,762)
Development Impact Fees 23,088 8,136 (14,952)
Other Revenue 129,842 39,582 (90,260)
Transfers In 58,472 48,934 (9,538)
Total Revenues 465,284$ 336,992$ (128,291)$
Expenditures
Personnel Services 147,198$ 151,102$ 3,904$
Supplies & Services 55,131 58,255 3,124
Other Expenses 48,481 42,634 (5,847)
Capital 13,137 7,829 (5,308)
Transfers Out 58,472 48,934 (9,538)
CIP Project Expenditures 61,101 30,059 (31,042)
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 2,141 697 (1,444)
Utilities 8,522 8,016 (506)
Total Expenditures 394,183$ 347,526$ (46,657)$
STAFFING SUMMARY (FTEs)
FY 2017-18
Actual
FY 2018-19
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
General Fund
Legislative/ Administrative 105.00 105.00 -
Development/ Maintenance 218.75 180.25 (38.50)
Public Safety 468.50 480.50 12.00
Community Services 39.50 78.50 39.00
General Fund Subtotal 831.75 844.25 12.50
Other Funds
Advanced Life Support 1.00 1.00 -
Development Services 50.00 55.00 5.00
Police Grants/ CBAG 43.00 43.00 -
Federal Grants Fund 2.00 2.00 -
Environmental Services 7.00 7.00 -
Housing Authority 4.00 4.00 -
Successor Agency - -
Fleet Management 9.00 8.00 (1.00)
Transit - -
Sewer 46.00 46.00 -
Other Funds Subtotal 162.00 166.00 4.00
Total All Funds 993.75 1,010.25 16.50
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (in Thousands)
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page89
6
The table below shows that revenues and expenditures were not double counted. Removing Transfers In,
Transfers Out Advances, Due to, Due to From for actual fiscal year 2017-18 and projected fiscal year 2018-
19 figures
FY 2017-18
Actual
FY 2018-19
Projected
Increase/
(Decrease)
Revenues
Property Taxes 59,401$ 61,963$ 2,562$
Sales Taxes 50,058$ 51,783$ 1,725
Other Local Taxes 34,467$ 32,036$ (2,431)
Licenses and Permits 6,534$ 5,396$ (1,138)
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties 2,036$ 1,884$ (152)
Use of Money & Property 6,832$ 4,055$ (2,777)
Revenue from Other Agencies 36,935$ 33,368$ (3,567)
Charges for Services 57,618$ 49,856$ (7,762)
Development Impact Fees 23,088$ 8,136$ (14,952)
Other Revenue 129,842$ 39,582$ (90,260)
Total Revenues 406,811$ 288,058$ (118,753)$
Expenditures
Personnel Services 147,198$ 151,102$ 3,904$
Supplies & Services 55,131$ 58,255$ 3,124
Other Expenses 48,481$ 42,634$ (5,847)
Capital 13,137$ 7,829$ (5,308)
CIP Project Expenditures 61,101$ 30,059$ (31,042)
Non-CIP Project Expenditures 2,141$ 697$ (1,444)
Utilities 8,522$ 8,016$ (506)
Total Expenditures 335,711$ 298,592$ (37,119)$
ALL FUNDS SUMMARY NOT INCLUDING TI/TO (in Thousands)
c. What is anticipated in the coming five years
City of Chula Vista Fiscal Year 2020 -2029 General Fund Long-Term Financial Plan
The City of Chula Vista Fiscal Year 2020 – 2029 General Fund Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP) serves as a long-
range fiscal planning tool to identify financial trends, identify projected budgetary surpluses or shortfalls, and
encourage discussion to proactively address the City’s long-range needs. The goal of the LTFP is to assess the
City’s ability over the term of the plan to: maintain current or expand service levels; preserve the City’s long-
term fiscal health; and strategically increase the City’s reserve funds to meet the City’s reserve policies
thresholds. The LTFP will serve as a guideline for the development of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 General Fund
budget. The LTFP is only applicable for the City’s General Fund. Information related to the City’s non-General
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page90
7
Fund funds can be found on the City’s website within the FY 2019 Adopted Budget (www.chulavistaca.gov).
The LTFP focuses on baseline revenues and expenditures that are essential for the City to achieve the City’s
strategic goals over the next ten years.1 These goals include:
Providing the highest level of municipal services based upon available resources
Maintaining safe and appealing neighborhoods
Providing funding for City infrastructure
Continuing to expand the City’s economic development and financial base
It is important to stress that the LTFP is not a budget. It does not make expenditure decisions but rather
highlights the need to prioritize the allocation of City resources to ensure the continuation of core City services.
The purpose of the plan is to provide the City Council, key stakeholders, and the public an overview of the City’s
fiscal health based on various financial and service level assumptions over the next ten years; and allow for the
discussion of necessary steps to be initiated during the development and implementation of future budgets.
The LTFP is intended to look beyond the annual budget cycle and serve as a planning tool to bring a long-term
perspective to the budget process. Should projected expenditures exceed projected revenues in any given year;
the City Manager will need to identify steps to mitigate the shortfalls prior to presenting a balanced budget to
the City Council for consideration during the annual budget development process.
MAJOR REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
The following assumptions were used in the preparation of the ten-year projections attached.
REVENUES
The City’s major revenue sources include: Property Tax, Sales Tax, Measure P Sales Tax, Measure A Sales Tax,
Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF), and Franchise Fees. The listed revenues account for approximately $134.1
million, or 71 percent, of the City’s General Fund revenues for FY 2019. The following are brief descriptions of
the listed revenue sources.
Property Tax
Property tax revenue is generated from a 1 percent ad valorem tax on “real property” (land, buildings, and
other permanent structures/improvements), based upon the assessed value of the property. Property tax
revenue is the City’s most stable revenue source. For FY 2019, property tax revenue is anticipated to total
$35.3 million, which accounts for 19 percent of the overall General Fund revenue budget.
The LTFP includes a three percent increase in property tax revenues throughout the term of the LTFP based on
expected continued but moderate growth in property values. The current strong economy and full employment
of the labor market are anticipated to support continued growth in property revenues; however, rising interest
rates, increasing prices and affordability issues are anticipated to temper the growth for the remainder of the
outlook.
1 The City’s Strategic Plan can be found on the City’s website (https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/finance/budget-
information).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page91
8
Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax (Sales Tax)
Sales tax revenue is generated from a percentage tax imposed by the City on the sale of retail goods and
services that occur within the City of Chula Vista. The total citywide sales tax rate is 8.25 percent (as of
6/30/2018), of which the City’s General Fund receives 1.0 percent of all the sales transactions within the City.
The General Fund sales tax revenue is anticipated to be approximately $33.7 million in FY 2019, which
represents the second largest revenue source for the City. In addition to this tax revenue, the citizens of Chula
Vista approved the Measure P Sales Tax Measure in 2016 which established a temporary ten-year ½ percent
sales tax rate upon sales within the City (which is included in the total 8.25% tax rate).
Beginning October 1, 2018, a third component started to contribute to the City’s overall sales tax revenue. In
June 2018, the Measure A Sales Tax was approved by the citizens of Chula Vista. The Measure A Sales Tax is a ½
percent sales tax on goods and services sold within the City to support the public safety needs of the city. This
increased the overall sales tax rate to 8.75 percent as of October 1, 2018, and the ½ percent sales tax will
continue until the citizens of Chula Vista vote to discontinue.
Measure P Sales Tax
The Measure P sales tax revenue is to support repairing and replacing City infrastructure. While the revenue
generated from the Measure P Sales tax is collected in the General Fund, the General Fund transfers this
revenue to the Measure P Fund for accountability and transparency in the usage of these funds. These actions
result in an overall net zero impact to the General Fund. Measure P sales tax revenue are anticipated to be
approximately $18.1 million in FY 2019.
Measure A Sales Tax
The Measure A sales tax revenue is to support the public safety needs of the City. This revenue will be collected
and tracked within the General Fund but is intended to only support public safety needs. Separate accounts
(one for the fire department and one for the police department) have been established to support the
monitoring and allocation of these funds. Original preliminary estimates anticipated approximately $8.0 million
to be generate in FY 2019 (for two quarters of the fiscal year); however, this tax will be implemented in October
2018, allowing for the tax to be in place for three quarters of the year, revenues are anticipated to be higher
than the original estimates. The revised revenues estimate for FY 2019 is $13.4 million to be split evenly
between the fire and police departments.
Based on high consumer confidence and projections of continued growth in the economy, the LTFP assumes a
one percent growth factor in sales tax revenues over the term of the plan. Inflation may impact this revenue
source as rising prices would generate additional revenue; however, increased prices may also decrease sales.
Staff engages an outside consultant to assist in the monitoring and projections for all sales tax related revenues.
Measure Q Cannabis Business/Cultivation Tax
In March 2018, the City adopted Ordinance No. 18-3418 (Chula Vista Municipal Code chapter 5.19) to permit,
regulate and license commercial cannabis activity in the City. In August 2018, the Chula Vista City Council
adopted Ordinance No. 18-3434 adding chapter 5.21, “Cannabis Business Tax” to title 5 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code to establish a tax on cannabis business activity. The ordinance took effect ten days after the
certification of its approval by the voters at the November 6, 2018 election, pursuant to Election code section
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page92
9
9217, and imposes a general tax that generates revenue that may be used for any lawful purpose of the City, in
the discretion of the City Council. Chula Vista Municipal Code chapter 5.21 imposes a tax, to be adopted by
ordinance or resolution of the City Council. In January 2019, the City Council adopted resolutions setting the tax
at 7% of gross receipts on all cannabis businesses excluding cannabis cultivation businesses, and $15 per square
foot of canopy on all cannabis cultivation businesses, with annual review by the City Council beginning in
January 2021 and every January thereafter. No revenue from this new tax is included in the FY 2019 budget. As
this is a new industry to the City, the LTFP does not attempt to project revenues for this measure. The LTFP will
develop revenue projections based upon actual revenue receipts from the business taxes after allowing for this
industry to develop.
Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF)
The City’s MVLF revenue is projected to be $21.9 million for FY 2019. With the State Budget Act of 2004, the
allocation of MVLF revenues to cities and counties was substantially changed. Since 2006, the majority of MVLF
revenues for each city grew essentially in proportion to the growth in the change in gross assessed valuation.
Due to the new formula by the State, 96 percent of the City’s MVLF revenues fluctuated with changes in
assessed property values within the City. As such, this revenue category reflects a three percent increase
throughout the term of the plan, similar to the property tax revenue category.
Franchise Fees
Franchise fees are revenue generated from agreements with private utility companies in exchange for use of
the City’s rights-of-way. Franchise fees are collected from three primary sources: San Diego Gas & Electric (2%
on gas and 1.25% on electricity), trash collection franchises (20% fee), and cable franchises (5% fee). As each
source is impacted by various factors, an individual growth factor is applied to each source. Overall, while the
gas & electric and trash sources have remained relatively stable, the cable fees have fluctuated in recent years
due to changes in the cable industry. For FY 2019, total franchise fee revenue is projected to be $11.7 million.
The LTFP anticipates these revenues, in the aggregate, to grow slightly over the term of the plan.
EXPENDITURES
The City’s major expenditure categories include: Personnel costs, Retirement Benefits, and Health Insurance.
The listed expense categories account for approximately $128.2 million or 68 percent of the City’s General Fund
expenditures for FY 2019. The following are brief descriptions of the listed expenditure categories.
Personnel
Since the last economic recession, the City has focused on recovering its staffing levels to support City services.
Since 2015, the City has increased staffing by approximately five percent by adding 38.0 Full-time Equivalent
(FTE) positions to various departments. The primary beneficiary has been public safety as 23 of the 38 added
FTEs (61 percent) have fallen into this service category. For FY 2019 Adopted Budget, the total General Fund
staffing is 844.25 FTEs. For FY 2019, personnel costs, not including retirement benefits or health insurance, ar e
projected to be approximately $87.1 million. The projected salary expenses are net anticipated salary savings
from the City departments. Salary savings is the amount of salary expense that a department saves when a
position is held vacant for a period of time or filled at a lower salary level than the originally budgeted level.
The LTFP includes the annualized costs of negotiated salary increase approved per the current Memoranda of
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page93
10
Understanding (MOU) with each of the City’s employee groups. The MOUs vary in negotiated salary increases
from 2.0 to 2.5 percent annually and vary in duration. Beyond the expiration of the current MOUs, the LTFP
assumes wage inflation of 2 percent per year. It is important to note that this figure is simply an assumption for
financial projections and does not represent a commitment or obligation, but rather provides a baseline for
wage related inflation in the future.
Retirement Benefits
The City contracts with California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for retirement benefits for all
full-time benefitted employees. The City has two employee retirement plans (Miscellaneous and Safety), each
with three tiers of employees based upon their start date within the CalPERS system and the City of Chula Vista.
The Miscellaneous plan covers all qualified City employees except those which are considered public safety
employees (fire and police departments). The Public Safety plan covers all qualified public safety employees.
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 percent
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 percent @ 60. Public Safety tier 2 employees receive benefits at the rate of 3 % at 55.
Tier 3, or Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), 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 percent at 62. Public Safety tier 3 employees receive benefits at the rate of 2.7 percent at 57.
CalPERS provides separate annual valuation reports for the two retirement employment plans. These reports
provide the City with two very important figures. The first is the City’s unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) which is
the amount the City would have to pay to CalPERS today to completely pay off all pension liability. The UAL
represents the unfunded liability the plan has incurred. As of June 30, 2017, the most recent CalPERS valuation
report available, the City’s unfunded liability was $171.1 million for the Miscellaneous plan and $140.8 million
for the Public Safety plan for an overall total of $311.9 million. Based on the CalPERS valuation report, the
FY 2019 UAL prepayment amount for the Miscellaneous plan and the Public Safety plan are $10.9 million and
$7.3 million, respectively.
The second important figure is the City’s required employer contribution for the Normal Cost or the annual cost
of service accrual for the upcoming fiscal year for active employees. This is amount of money the City will need
to contribute for the current fiscal year towards pension costs. For FY 2019, the required employer Normal Cost
contribution for the Miscellaneous plan is $5.7 million and the Public Safety plan is $7.9 million, for a total cost
of $13.6 million, respectively.
The UAL and Normal Cost payment amounts are used to calculate the City’s fiscal year total pension
contribution amount. The City’s total pension contribution amount for FY 2019 is $31.9 million, with the City’s
General Fund portion being $27.6 million. The following table shows the City’s General Fund total retirement
contributions since FY 2016.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page94
11
General Fund Retirement Contributions (millions)
Fiscal Year FY 2016
Actual
FY 2017
Actual
FY 2018
Adopted
FY 2019
Adopted
Contribution Amount $20.87 $23.78 $24.53 $27.59
Increase ($) from Prior Year $2.90 $0.75 $3.06
Increase (%)from Prior Year 13.9%3.2%12.5%
The CalPERS valuation reports also provide the City with a five-year projection of future employer contribution
amounts that the City utilizes in making long term projections. Based on the projections within the valuation
reports, the City’s General Fund retirement contributions will increase from approximately $31.2 million in FY
2020 to $42.7 million in FY 2025. The following chart illustrates the increasing Retirement costs from FY 2019 to
FY 2025.
$27.59
$31.24
$34.44
$37.12
$39.43 $40.95 $42.69
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
$45.00
FY 2019
Adopted
FY 2020
Projected
FY 2021
Projected
FY 2022
Projected
FY 2023
Projected
FY 2024
Projected
FY 2025
Projected
General Fund Retirement Contributions
Millions
On December 21, 2016, the CalPERS Board of Directors decided to lower the rate of return assumption from 7.5
percent to 7.0 percent over a three-year period beginning in FY 2019. The assumed rated of return would
change to 7.375 percent in FY 2019, decreasing to 7.250 percent in FY 2020, and settling at 7.00 percent in FY
2021. This change may result in approximately 30-40 percent increase in the City’s unfunded pension liability as
well as increasing normal pension costs. The LTFP includes the anticipated impacts of this change.
Part-time employees receive retirement benefits through Public Agency Retirement System (PARS). PARS is an
alternative to Social Security for Part-Time, Seasonal, and Temporary employees. The City and employees both
currently contribute 3.75 percent of salary towards the PARS contribution amount of 7.5 percent.
Health Insurance
The City currently offers for qualified benefitted employees four medical plan options: United Healthcare (UHC)
(value and full plans); UHC Preferred Provider Organization (PPO); and Kaiser Health Maintenance Organization
(HMO). The City does allow retirees to stay enrolled in the City’s health plans at the same rate as active
employees. The City recently 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.
For FY 2019, health insurance expenses are budgeted to total approximately $13.6 million, or 7.7 percent of the
FY 2019 expenditures. This represents an increase of $1.2 million or 9.7 percent from the fiscal year 2018
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page95
12
Adopted Budget. Kaiser and AETNA/UHC insurance premiums have increased an average of 4.3 percent and 5.9
percent per year respectively since the beginning of Calendar Year 2014.
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
To identify the City’s infrastructure and capital needs, the City developed an asset management plan. The asset
management plan inventoried all City infrastructure and property assets, conducted condition assessments on
each asset, prioritized the assets by risk level and importance, and performed a life cycle cost assessment. This
information allowed the City to develop a cost estimate for the capital improvement program. The asset
management plan sorted the City assets into three categories: red (high risk), yellow (medium risk), and green
(low risk). This allows for the City to make necessary 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. Currently, 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 $437.6 million in funding
required for repair and replacement costs.
In light of the projected costs to repair and replace the City’s capital assets, the City Council placed a temporary
ten-year ½ percent sales tax measure (Measure P) on the November 2016 ballot to address the high priority
capital needs. In November 2016, Chula Vista voters approved Measure P. The sales tax was projected to
generate $178 million in additional revenue over the ten-year period. To guide the expenditure of these
revenues, the City developed the Intended Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan (IFEEP)
based on information from the City’s asset management plan. As the Meas ure P Sales Tax has a limited term,
the IFEEP focuses on critical one-time items to address deferred maintenance and improve the safety of the
City’s infrastructure. As the IFEEP focuses on one-time allocations, any additional operating costs for new or
improved facilities, such as fire stations, will need to have an alternative funding source. Examples of ongoing
operational costs include additional staff or increased utility costs.
The LTFP includes the Measure P revenues as General Fund revenues; however, these revenues are paired with
a corresponding transfer out of the General Fund to the Measure P fund. The transfer of the funds provides for
accurate monitoring of the allocation and expenditure of these funds to ensure compliance with the original
intent of the sales tax measure. The corresponding transfer results in a net zero impact to the General Fund.
The LTFP includes minimal capital expenditures beyond those anticipated to be funded through Measure P
funding. Information on Measure P allocations and projects can be found on the City’s website:
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/engineering.
General Fund alternative funding sources, such as grants and transportation funds, support the City’s capital
program. However, as the LTFP only addresses the General Fund, these resources and expenditures are not
included in this report. Additional information related to the City’s capital program and funding sources can be
found on the City’ website: https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/public-works/projects.
OUTSTANDING CITY DEBT
The City has three outstanding Certificates of Participation (COP) that are funded with General Fund
contributions, Public Facilities Development Improvement Funds (PFDIF), and/or the Residential Construction
Tax Funds (RCT). The outstanding COPs consist of: the 2014 Refunding COP, the 2015 Refunding COP, and the
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page96
13
2016 Refunding COP. These COPs have refunded the outstanding principal of various earlier COPs which were
used to fund the construction of the City’s Police Facility, Civic Center improvements, Western Chula Vista
Infrastructure projects, and Nature Center Improvements.
In addition to the outstanding COPs, the City has four outstanding lease revenue bond issuances. These include:
the Chula Vista Municipal Financing Authority (CHMFA) 2016 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds (2016 Refunding
Bonds); 2017 Lease Revenue Bonds (2017 Bonds); and the CHMFA Lease Revenue Bonds (New Clean Renewable
Energy Bonds) Series 2017A and Series 2017B (2017A and 2017B Bonds). The 2016 Refunding Bonds refinanced
the 2010 Certificates of Participation (COP) that were issued for the Civic Center Phase III and Corporation Yard
Refunding (2000 COP); the 2017 Bonds (Measure P) were issued to finance infrastructure, facilities, and
equipment; and the 2017A and 2017B Bonds were issued to finance photovoltaic (solar) energy systems at
various City facilities. Funding from the Measure P Sales Tax will address the annual debt service for the 2017
Bonds. It is anticipated that savings in City utility costs will exceed the annual debt service for the 2017A and
2017B bonds, resulting in a positive impact to the General Fund.
The following table illustrates the City’s General Fund debt obligations. While the City has several outstanding
bond issuances, the General Fund’s portion of the annual debt service payments is approximately $3.6 million
for FY 2019. This represents approximately 2 percent of the General Fund revenues for FY 2019. The low annual
General Fund debt service payment supports maintaining flexibility within the General Fund as a low percentage
of the General Fund revenue is dedicated to long-term ongoing obligations.
General
Fund Other1
2014 Refunding COP Police Facility Project $45,920,000 $39,440,000 $3,601,806 $2,004,405 $1,597,401 FY 2033
2015 Refunding COP Civic Center Project $34,330,000 $30,220,000 $2,921,263 $424,304 $2,496,959 FY 2034
2016 Refunding COP Civic Center Project $8,600,000 $8,600,000 $282,550 $57,112 $225,438 FY 2036
2016 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Capital Lease Refunding Project $25,885,000 $23,130,000 $2,150,075 $612,091 $1,537,984 FY 2033
2017 Lease Revenue Bonds Measure P $61,355,000 $55,805,000 $8,120,250 $0 $8,120,250 FY 2027
Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2017A CREBs $12,045,000 $12,045,000 $485,781 $485,781 $0 FY 2049
Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2017B Tax-Exempt $1,085,000 $1,085,000 $42,350 $42,350 $0 FY 2029
Total $189,220,000 $170,325,000 $17,604,075 $3,626,043 $13,978,032
1Other Funding sources include Public Facilities Development Improvement Fees (PFDIF), Residential Construction Tax (RCT) Funds, and Measure P funds.
General Fund Obligations Description
Principal
Outstanding
6/30/18
FY 2019
Debt
Payment
Final
Maturity
Payment Sources
Original Issuance
Amount
Additional information related to the City’s outstanding debt can be found on the City’s website:
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/finance/financial-reports.
NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLAN
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. However, the actual timing of the impact from new development in revenues and expenditures is
difficult to predict. As the development projects vary, such as new hotels or new housing, various factors
influence the impact of the projects. The timing of the revenues related to new development can vary greatly
depending on how fast the market can absorb the new inventory and the economic condition throughout the
development process. Staff is currently working on developing an updated fiscal impact model to provide
projections based on the best information available. The LTFP currently projects minimal revenue impacts from
new development based upon percentage increases to existing base revenues.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page97
14
Economic downturn
As previously discussed, the potential for an economic downturn is plausible. However, the LTFP does not
attempt to incorporate the impact of a downturn as the timing and duration of a downturn is difficult to
project. While the growth projections incorporated into the LTFP are conservative, the growth factors will be
re-evaluated as needed based upon future economic indicators.
10 YEAR PROJECTIONS
The following table projects the revenue and expenditure categories for the City’s General Fund for FY 2020 –
2029. It is important to understand that this is only a forecast and not indicative of what the budgets will be in
future years. The following key assumptions were incorporated into the financial projections.
The LTFP maintains current staffing and program levels throughout the term of the plan. No new
staffing was included in the projections except for necessary staff to operating new facilities (fire
stations) coming online within the Plan period; and five new peace officers annually as part of the City’s
goal to increase police staffing. The expense for the additional staff for the new fire stations is included
in the New Development category as these positions will be necessary to operate the new facilities.
The additional expenses for the five additional peace officers are shown under the “High Priority
Programs” section of the table as these support the goals of the City.
As noted, the LTFP include expenses related to staffing and operation of two new fire stations (Millenia
and Bayfront) as new development expenses for the General Fund. Future discussions with the
oversight committee for the newly approved Measure A Sales Tax may lead to re-evaluating these
expenses as future General Fund obligations.
General Fund expenses related to twelve firefighter positions added in FY 2018 will be addressed with
Measure A funding after October 1, 2018.
The new revenue sources included in the LTFP are related to Measure A. Revenues from the newly
approved Measure A Sales Tax are budgeted as General Fund revenues and will be tracked with
separate accounts for the police and fire departments. The separate accounts will assist in the
monitoring and use of the funds. These revenues are dedicated to supporting the City’s public safety
needs and will have a corresponding expenditure appropriation each year.
The City was successful in negotiating more favorable health care rates for our employee for calendar
year 2019. The LTFP incorporates approximately $1.1 million in health insurance cost savings beginning
in FY 2020.
The LTFP does not include any future debt issuances for capital projects.
The LTFP includes the full projected UAL expense for FY 2020 – 2029. The annual valuation reports
from CalPERS provides the City with two payment options for the City’s annual contribution. The City
may pay the full amount of the calculated payment at the beginning of the fiscal year and receive a
discount (approximately 3.5 percent) off the full payment; or the City can make the full payment across
twelve monthly payments. For FY 2019, the City opted to pay the discounted amount at the beginning
of the fiscal year. The decision to pay the full amount at the beginning of the year versus monthly
payments will be made annually based upon available financial resources. The LTFP conservatively did
not assume any discounts to future projected annual contribution amounts.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page98
15
Long-Term Financial Plan FY 2020 - 2029
Proposed Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
Revenue Projections (millions)
Property Taxes 35.30$ 36.36$ 37.45$ 38.57$ 39.72$ 40.91$ 42.13$ 43.39$ 44.69$ 46.03$ 47.40$
Sales Tax 33.70$ 34.04$ 34.38$ 34.72$ 35.07$ 35.42$ 35.77$ 36.13$ 36.49$ 36.86$ 37.22$
Measure P Sales Tax 18.09$ 18.27$ 18.45$ 18.63$ 18.82$ 19.01$ 19.20$ 19.39$ 14.69$ -$ -$
Measure A Sales Tax 1 13.40$ 18.27$ 18.45$ 18.63$ 18.82$ 19.01$ 19.20$ 19.39$ 19.58$ 19.78$ 19.98$
Franchise Fees 11.69$ 11.93$ 12.16$ 12.41$ 12.66$ 12.91$ 13.17$ 13.43$ 13.70$ 13.97$ 14.25$
Utility Users Taxes 5.61$ 5.63$ 5.66$ 5.69$ 5.72$ 5.75$ 5.78$ 5.81$ 5.83$ 5.86$ 5.89$
Transient Occupancy Taxes 4.10$ 4.19$ 4.27$ 4.35$ 4.44$ 4.53$ 4.62$ 4.71$ 4.81$ 4.90$ 5.00$
Motor Vehicle License Fees 21.89$ 22.54$ 23.22$ 23.92$ 24.63$ 25.37$ 26.13$ 26.92$ 27.73$ 28.56$ 29.41$
MAJOR DISCRETIONARY REVENUES 143.77$ 151.22$ 154.03$ 156.91$ 159.87$ 162.90$ 166.00$ 169.16$ 167.51$ 155.96$ 159.17$
Development Revenue 1.25$ 2.06$ 2.06$ 2.07$ 2.08$ 2.08$ 2.09$ 2.10$ 2.10$ 2.11$ 2.11$
Licenses and Permits 1.45$ 1.48$ 1.51$ 1.54$ 1.57$ 1.60$ 1.63$ 1.66$ 1.70$ 1.73$ 1.77$
Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties 1.24$ 1.27$ 1.29$ 1.32$ 1.34$ 1.37$ 1.40$ 1.43$ 1.46$ 1.48$ 1.51$
Use of Money and Property 2.95$ 2.38$ 2.40$ 2.42$ 2.44$ 2.46$ 2.49$ 2.51$ 2.53$ 2.56$ 2.58$
Other Local Taxes 2.60$ 2.62$ 2.65$ 2.68$ 2.70$ 2.73$ 2.76$ 2.79$ 2.81$ 2.84$ 2.87$
Police Grants 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$ 0.84$
Other Agency Revenue 2.25$ 2.27$ 2.30$ 2.32$ 2.34$ 2.36$ 2.39$ 2.41$ 2.44$ 2.46$ 2.49$
Charges for Services 7.32$ 7.24$ 7.27$ 7.31$ 7.35$ 7.38$ 7.42$ 7.46$ 7.50$ 7.53$ 7.57$
Interfund Reimbursements 8.15$ 9.74$ 9.83$ 9.49$ 9.58$ 9.68$ 9.77$ 9.87$ 9.97$ 10.07$ 10.17$
Other Revenues - Miscellaneous 1.07$ 1.07$ 1.08$ 1.08$ 1.09$ 1.09$ 1.10$ 1.10$ 1.11$ 1.12$ 1.12$
Transfers From Other Funds 15.20$ 12.89$ 12.20$ 12.20$ 12.20$ 12.20$ 12.20$ 12.20$ 12.20$ 12.20$ 12.20$
OTHER REVENUES 44.30$ 43.84$ 43.42$ 43.25$ 43.53$ 43.80$ 44.08$ 44.36$ 44.65$ 44.94$ 45.23$
NEW DEVELOPMENT REVENUES -$ 3.12$ 4.24$ 5.22$ 6.21$ 7.18$ 8.12$ 9.10$ 9.65$ 9.77$ 9.89$
TOTAL REVENUES 188.08$ 198.18$ 201.69$ 205.39$ 209.60$ 213.88$ 218.19$ 222.63$ 221.81$ 210.66$ 214.28$
Year-over-Year Change 5.37%1.77%1.83%2.05%2.04%2.01%2.03%-0.37%-5.03%1.72%
Expenditure Projections (millions)
Personnel Services 88.01$ 92.38$ 93.59$ 94.89$ 96.66$ 98.47$ 100.32$ 102.20$ 104.12$ 106.10$ 108.11$
Retirement - PERS 27.59$ 29.54$ 33.51$ 36.19$ 38.50$ 40.02$ 41.76$ 43.51$ 45.32$ 47.22$ 49.20$
Health Insurance 13.53$ 14.60$ 13.66$ 14.21$ 14.79$ 15.40$ 16.03$ 16.69$ 17.38$ 18.11$ 18.86$
Salary Savings (On Going)(0.90)$ (1.75)$ (1.77)$ (1.79)$ (1.81)$ (1.83)$ (1.85)$ (1.87)$ (1.89)$ (1.91)$ (1.93)$
PERSONNEL SERVICES EXPENDITURES 128.23$ 134.76$ 138.99$ 143.50$ 148.14$ 152.05$ 156.26$ 160.53$ 164.94$ 169.51$ 174.24$
Supplies and Services 13.67$ 14.84$ 15.96$ 17.07$ 15.47$ 15.90$ 15.88$ 16.01$ 16.35$ 16.69$ 17.04$
Utilities 4.78$ 4.71$ 4.13$ 4.39$ 4.67$ 5.00$ 5.31$ 5.64$ 5.99$ 6.36$ 5.76$
Other Expenses 0.70$ 0.90$ 0.93$ 0.93$ 0.95$ 0.97$ 0.99$ 1.02$ 1.03$ 1.05$ 1.07$
Equipment (Capital not CIP)0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$ 0.22$
Internal Services 2.96$ 3.02$ 3.08$ 3.14$ 3.20$ 3.26$ 3.33$ 3.40$ 3.46$ 3.53$ 3.60$
Measure A Obligations 13.40$ 18.27$ 18.45$ 18.63$ 18.82$ 19.01$ 19.20$ 19.39$ 19.58$ 19.78$ 19.98$
Transfers/Debt Service 24.12$ 25.24$ 25.33$ 25.45$ 25.72$ 25.89$ 26.06$ 26.24$ 21.29$ 6.70$ 6.80$
OTHER EXPENDITURES 59.85$ 67.20$ 68.09$ 69.83$ 69.05$ 70.25$ 70.99$ 71.91$ 67.92$ 54.33$ 54.47$
NEW DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES -$ 2.01$ 2.14$ 2.88$ 2.99$ 3.11$ 3.23$ 3.34$ 3.47$ 3.57$ 3.62$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 188.08$ 203.97$ 209.22$ 216.21$ 220.18$ 225.41$ 230.48$ 235.78$ 236.33$ 227.41$ 232.33$
Year-over-Year Change 8.45%2.58%3.34%1.84%2.38%2.25%2.30%0.23%-3.77%2.16%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)(0.00)$ (5.79)$ (7.53)$ (10.82)$ (10.58)$ (11.53)$ (12.29)$ (13.15)$ (14.52)$ (16.75)$ (18.05)$
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) AS % OF BUDGET -2.84%-3.60%-5.00%-4.80%-5.11%-5.33%-5.58%-6.14%-7.37%-7.77%
HIGH PRIORITY PROGRAMS
Peace Officer Funding2 -$ 0.81$ 1.72$ 2.71$ 3.80$ 4.96$ 6.24$ 7.59$ 9.05$ 10.52$ 11.98$
TOTAL GENERAL FUND SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)(0.00)$ (6.61)$ (9.25)$ (13.53)$ (14.38)$ (16.49)$ (18.53)$ (20.74)$ (23.57)$ (27.27)$ (30.02)$
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) AS % OF BUDGET -3.24%-4.42%-6.26%-6.53%-7.32%-8.04%-8.80%-9.97%-11.99%-12.92%
(1) Any revenues in excess of actual expenditures in any year will be carried forward to future years as an encumbrance and continue to be dedicated to Measure A obligations. Figures from IPS Expenditure Plan.
(2) New Development Expenditures related to new Millenia parks anticipated to come online during LTFP term. (2) Figure represents City's goal of adding five additional peace
officer positions each year to address anticipated growth in
Description
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page99
16
CONCLUSION
The LTFP projects future structural deficits absent further action by the City to bridge the funding gaps.
Based on baseline projections, growth in expenditures is anticipated to outpace the growth in revenues
for each year of the LTFP period. This long-term structural shortfall generates incremental deficits each
year of the LTFP. The overall General Fund deficits are projected to increase from approximately $6.61
million in FY 2020 to $30.0 million in FY 2029 (last year of LTFP period). In the absence of identifying
new revenues or reducing ongoing expenditures, the structural deficits will lower the City’s unassigned
(fund) balance. In order to preserve and maintain the valuable resources and quality of life the citizens
have enjoyed over the years; the City will need to make a concerted effort to develop and adopt several
potential solutions to resolve the structural deficit. Proactive planning and a commitment to a fiscally
sustainable service delivery model will be required.
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 combined Adopted FY 2019 Budget for all City funds totals $347.5 million. This amount includes a
General Fund operating budget of $174.7 million (which did not include Measure A) and a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $30.1 million. The General Fund provides funding for the
operation of the majority of City core services including, but not limited to, providing police and fire
services; operation of parks, recreation centers, and libraries; and administration of the City. The FY
2019 Adopted General Fund Budget (Adopted Budget) of $174.7 million is an increase of $8.1 million or
4.9 percent when compared to the FY 2018 Adopted General Fund Budget. Capital improvement fiscal
year projects will be funded by the Measure P commitment.
The FY 2019 Adopted Budget is balanced. The City defines a budget as balanced when the amount of
budgeted expenditures is equal to or less than the amount of budgeted revenues plus other available
sources. The FY 2019 Adopted Budget includes funding for programs and services supported by the City
Council in previous fiscal years such as the addition of public safety staff. The FY 2019 Adopted Budget
includes funding for twelve new firefighter positions added during the fiscal year 2018 Mid-Year actions,
and funding for five previously frozen Peace Officer positions within the Police Department’s
Community Patrol Division. With the passage of the Measure A Sales Tax in June 2018, the twelve
added firefighter positions will be transferred to a Measure A expenditure during the fiscal year.
The FY 2019 Adopted Budget reflects positive growth in its revenue source, albeit a slower rate than
previous years. Cognizant of the softening in the revenue growth, the FY 2019 Adopted Budget
expenditures focus on maintaining current levels of service with limited significant additions. Increasing
personnel expenses, primarily pension and healthcare costs, have limited the flexibility of the General
Fund. While the City is attempting to increase and diversify its revenue sources though such efforts as
pursuing additional housing and commercial developments, increased marketing of the City, and
reducing expenses through energy efficient programs, fiscal year 2019 remains fiscally challenged. The
City has identified several one-time resources to remain balanced with the adopted expenditure
budget.
Despite the fiscal challenges present in fiscal year 2019, the FY 2019 Adopted Budget included several
additions from the FY 2018 Adopted General Fund Budget. These include, but were not limited to:
Funding of 5 previously frozen Peace Officers positions
Approximately $1.3 million in funding to initiate the Bayfront Development Project
Re-structuring the Parks Division from Public Works to the Recreation Department to create a
Community Services Department.
$0.08 million for undertaking a Consumer Choice Aggregation feasibility study
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page100
17
Increase of $1.8 million in transfers to the Measure P Fund.
As General Fund revenue levels have improved in recent years, the City has continued the trend of
slowly recovering its staffing levels previously reduced as a result of the economic recession. With the
adopted General Fund staffing levels in fiscal year 2019, the City will have been able to achieve a 4.7
percent increase in staffing since fiscal year 2015. This increase equates to the addition of 38.0 FTEs
being added to city services since fiscal year 2015, of which, 23 FTEs or 61 percent fall into the Public
Safety staffing category.
For fiscal year 2019, the reorganization of the Parks Division from the Public Works Department
(Development and Maintenance staffing category) to the Recreation Department (Community Services)
skews the changes for these two staffing categories. The result of the reorganization is a net increase
to overall FTE count by 0.5 FTEs. For the Public Safety staffing category, the increase of 12 FTEs from
the fiscal year 2018 Adopted General Fund Budget to the FY 2019 Adopted Budget includes twelve
firefighter positions added during the fiscal year 2018 Mid-Year actions and funding of five previously
frozen Peace Officer positions for fiscal year 2019. The additions to the Public Safety category make up
72% of the change in staffing from fiscal year 2018. Staffing for the Legislative and Administrative
service category has remained flat with no change over fiscal year 2018.
While FY 2019 General Fund Adopted Budget is balanced and included several additions over the FY
2018 Adopted Budget, based on projections from the FY 2020 – 2029 General Fund Long-Term Financial
Plan, the City will be facing structural deficits in the future. The City will need to make a concerted
effort to develop and adopt several potential solutions to resolve the structural deficits in order to
protect the gains achieved in the last several years.
3. Are there any growth-related fiscal issues facing the City? If so, please explain.
While no revenue shortfall is anticipated in FY 2019, the 2020-2029 Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP)
projects budget deficits beginning in FY 2020. Assuming no additional financial measure or policy
changes to either increase revenues or reduce expenditures, FY 2020 projects a revenue shortfall of
$6.6 million in FY 2020 to $30.0 million in FY 2029 (last year of the Long-Term Financial Plan).
For revenues, the City has been successful in proposing and gaining public approval of three recent tax
measures: Measure P for funding earmarked to address the City’s deferred infrastructure maintenance;
Measure A for funding earmarked to provide additional public safety services; and Measure Q to fund
general priorities identified by the City Council. Of the three tax measures, only funding from Measure
Q is intended to support the general fund operating needs. As revenue from Measure Q is related to
cannabis businesses, and this market is in its infancy stage, minimal fiscal support is anticipated in the
near-term. The LTFP does not attempt to project revenues from this business-related tax at this point
in time. The LTFP will develop revenue projections based upon actual revenue receipts from the
business tax after allowing for this industry to develop.
Additional revenue sources or increasing growth in existing revenue sources will be needed to resolve
the City’s projected future budget deficits. The City continues to pursue development opportunities
that have the potential to positively impact revenue for the City. These include the development of the
Millenia and the approval of the Bayfront Development Project.
For expenditures, the most significant drivers of the long-term growth in expenditures are related to the
increase in retirement and health insurance costs.
The increase in retirement costs driven by rising pension costs is a significant budgetary challenge facing
the City. For fiscal year 2019, the payments to be made to the retirement system equal approximately
$27.6 million or 15.8 percent of the FY 2019 Adopted Budget. This represents an increase of $3.0 million
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page101
18
from the fiscal year 2018 Adopted General Fund Budget. Retirement costs, due to multiple factors
including changing rates of return and investment returns, are projected to increase from $29.5 million
in FY 2020 to $49.2 million in FY 2029.
Health insurance expenses total approximately $13.6 million or 7.7 percent of the FY 2019 Adopted
Budget expenditures. This represents an increase of $1.2 million or 9.7 percent from the FY 2018
Adopted General Fund Budget. The FY 2018 Adopted General Fund Budget reflected a slight decrease
from fiscal year 2017 actual expenses due to a residual effect of switching health insurance provider in
2017 (City switched from AETNA to United Healthcare UHC). However, for the FY 2019 Adopted Budget,
an increase in costs from both of the City’s selected healthcare providers (Kaiser and United Healthcare
UHC) was budgeted. The FY 2019 Adopted Budget estimates an increase of 9.7 percent in healthcare
premiums in calendar year 2019. Health insurance expenses are budgeted to increase from $14.6
million in FY 2020 to $18.9 million in FY 2029.
The 2020-2029 Long-Term Financial Plan anticipates growth in expenditures to exceed growth in
revenues on an annual basis throughout the term of the plan. City staff continues to explore options to
address the projected future structural deficits.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page102
19
4. Please update the revenue and expenditures tables below.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page103
20
5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below.
CURRENT FUND
DIF FUND DIF 1 BALANCE
(Audited)
Amount Amount
Collected Expended 2
Eastern Transportation DIF $1,455/trip $4,143,371 2,295,584 $26,319,978 Nov-14 Oct-18 2020
Western Transportation DIF $438.70/trip $390,417 $0 $615,291 Nov-14 Oct-18 2020
Bayfront Transportation DIF $1,060.50/trip $0 $0 $0 Nov-14 Oct-18 2020
Traffic Signal $39.92/trip $825,685 $279,685 $2,622,955 Oct-02 Oct-18 Not scheduled
Telegraph Canyon Drainage $4,579/acre $41,239 $96,457 $4,058,356 Nov-15 N/A Not scheduled
Salt Creek Sewer Basin3 $1,484/EDU4 $1,103,751 $31,759 $1,020,582 Jun-15 Oct-18 2019
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin5 $265/EDU $123,291 $2,787 $2,820,117 Jun-09 N/A 2019
Pedestrian Bridges
- Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 $921/SFDU $369,985 $8,275 $1,716,368 Feb-07 Oct-18 2019
- Otay Ranch Village 11 $2,613/SFDU $31,627 $3,999 $3,182,231 Sep-05 Oct-18 Not scheduled
- Millenia (EUC)$615.13/SFDU $13,356 $131 $405,508 Aug-13 N/A 2019
Public Facilities
- Administration $673/SFDU $918,972 $145,810 $6,076,930 Nov-06 Oct-18 2019
- Civic Center Expansion $3,133/SFDU $4,081,871 $2,865,062 $2,311,130 Nov-06 Oct-18 2019
- Police Facility $1,873/SFDU $2,622,610 $1,878,031 ($3,047,168)Nov-06 Oct-18 2019
- Corp. Yard Relocation $502/SFDU $579,588 $727,255 $480,116 Nov-06 Oct-18 2019
- Libraries $1,801/SFDU $2,535,912 $16,753 $18,068,079 Nov-06 Oct-18 2019
- Fire Suppression
Systems
- Recreation Facilities $1,367/SFDU $1,822,387 $0 $555,216 Nov-06 Oct-18 2019
PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL 5
2019
$10,932/SFDU $14,123,833 $5,643,728 $7,147,939 Nov-06 Oct-18 2019
$1,583/SFDU $1,562,494 $10,817 ($17,296,364)Nov-06 Oct-18
Date of Last
DIF
Adjustment
Date DIF Last
Comprehensively
Updated
Table 2.DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW (7/1/17– 6/30/18)
During Reporting Period
Next Scheduled
DIF Update
Notes: DIF = Development Impact Fee; EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit; EUC = Eastern Urban Center; SFDU = single-family dwelling unit; N/A = not
applicable
1 Units used for DIF calculations in this table include daily traffic generation (trips), EDUs, and SFDUs. However, rates are also provided for
commercial and industrial land uses. Please refer to the rate information provided in the DIF activity reports contained in Attachment 1.
2 Per Attachment 1, projects to be funded and/or completed over the next 12 months are listed.
3 Consistent with previous years’ reports, the City is reporting the cash balance instead of the fund balance in the Sewer Basin DIF funds in this report
for comparison purposes.
4 EDUs are analogous to SFDUs in terms of the average number of residents per unit, daily traffic generation, and other characteristics
5 Approximately 33% 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. As discussed in the response to the Fiscal Year 2017 questionnaire, the largest project anticipated
to begin construction in the next 12-18 months is the Millenia Fire Station. This project is to be
constructed by the developer for credits against their Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF)
fee obligation, rather than through direct expenditures from the PFDIF fund balance. 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page104
21
In addition to the construction of the Millenia Fire Station, the City continues to construct roadway
improvements in the eastern portion of the City via the TDIF program. As of June 30, 2018, more than
$48 million in TDIF funds have been appropriated to projects under construction. An additional
$605,000 of TDIF funds has been allocated for the Capital Improvement Program budget in the
adopted Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget. The largest project currently under construction by the City is
the Willow Street Bridge widening. Capital Improvement Program funded transportation projects are
in addition to those being constructed by developers, such as the recently-completed half-width
improvements 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 through 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 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, 2018 is listed in Table 2, Development
Impact Fee Overview (7/1/17 – 6/30/18), which is provided at the beginning of the response to
question 5 of this questionnaire. 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 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
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page105
22
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 - 2020
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION Revise - 2020
BAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION Revise - 2020
TRAFFIC SIGNAL Adequate
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE Adequate
TELEGRAPH CANYON GRAVITY SEWER Adequate
SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN Revise - 2019
POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN Revise - 2019
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5 & 6 Revise - 2019
Otay Ranch Village 11 Adequate
Millenia (EUC) Revise - 2019
PUBLIC FACILITIES Adequate
Administration Revise - 2019
Civic Center Expansion Revise - 2019
Police Facility Revise - 2019
Corp. Yard Relocation Revise - 2019
Libraries Revise - 2019
Fire Suppression Systems Revise - 2019
Recreation Facilities Revise - 2019
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 the payment of 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 based on California Environmental Quality Act review, and
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page106
23
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 one of two mechanisms:
(1) paying the 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 or final inspection. 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:
DIF Fund Status, a number of DIF funds are planned for revision in 2019. These DIF funds include: Salt
Creek Sewer Basin, Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin, Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2, 5, and 6 Pedestrian Bridge,
Millenia (EUC) Pedestrian Bridge, and PFDIF – all Facilities. These fee programs require updates to
synchronize the fee with current development and expenditure projections. The DIF revisions will
incorporate updated information, including growth projections and a minor boundary adjustment
between the Salt Creek and Poggi Canyon sewer basins.
7. How much sales tax did Chula Vista collect per capita compared to other cities in the county?
City Sales Tax per Capita
Del Mar 519
Carlsbad 314
National City 297
Poway 290
El Cajon 253
Escondido 243
Solana Beach 230
Santee 224
La Mesa 216
Encinitas 212
Lemon Grove 205
San Diego 196
San Marcos 182
Vista 178
Coronado 140
Chula Vista 124
Oceanside 115
Imperial Beach 37
8. Please provide an updated list of projects being funded by Measure P tax revenue and provide an
accounting of funding and expenditures.
The following table shows the progress of Measure P funded projects through 12/31/ 2018, and the next
page illustrates the amended spending plan of Measure P funded projects over the ten-year period.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page107
24
Measure P
Citywide Infrastructure, Facilities and Equipment Expenditure Plan
1/2 cent Sales Tax Revenues over 10 year period
Summary Table as of 12/31/18
10-Year Expended as of Remaining
Total by Major Category Timeframe 12/31/2018 Balance
Fire Services
Fire Stations Repairs/Replacement
Fire Response Vehicles
Fire Safety Equipment
Total Fire Services
Police Services
Police Response Vehicles
Public Safety Communication Systems
Police Facility Repairs
Police Equipment
Total Police Services
Infrastructure
Streets
Other Public Infrastructure
Sports Fields and Courts
Non-Safety Vehicles
Recreation and Senior Centers
Civic Center and South Libraries
Other Public Facilities
Traffic Signal Systems
Park Infrastructure
Citywide Network Replacement
Citywide Telecommunications
Total Infrastructure
Total Proposed Allocations
City Staff Time
Total City Staff Time
Debt Service Principal & Interest
Total Debt Service Expenses
Audit
Bond Administration
Banking/Investment Fees
Cost of Issuance
Total Administrative Expenses
Total Expenditures
$ 24,611,549 $ 110,587 $ 24,500,962
$ 19,847,580 $ 4,670,328 $ 15,177,252
$ 5,197,913 $ 355,809 $ 4,842,104
$ 49,657,042 $ 5,136,724 $ 44,520,318
$ 13,301,470 $ 2,201,734 $ 11,099,736
$ 8,678,862 $ 2,164,503 $ 6,514,359
$ 2,101,000 $ 436,346 $ 1,664,654
$ 611,145 $ 159,719 $ 451,426
$ 24,692,477 $ 4,962,303 $ 19,730,174
$ 24,474,861 $ 5,780,628 $ 18,694,233
$ 14,154,295 $ 942,202 $ 13,212,093
$ 16,966,595 $ 372,952 $ 16,593,643
$ 11,195,100 $ 1,458,475 $ 9,736,625
$ 5,000,000 $ 114,963 $ 4,885,037
$ 3,250,000 $ 339,625 $ 2,910,375
$ 6,036,000 $ 228,500 $ 5,807,500
$ 7,000,000 $ 87,817 $ 6,912,183
$ 10,307,740 $ 683,611 $ 9,624,129
$ 2,080,700 $ 1,866,064 $ 214,636
$ 2,000,000 $ 1,518,704 $ 481,296
$ 102,465,291 $ 13,393,541 $ 89,071,750
$ 176,814,810 $ 23,492,567 $ 153,322,243
$ - $ 945,229 $ (945,229)
$ - $ 945,229 $ (945,229)
$ 78,234,834 $ 9,269,459 $ 68,965,375
$ 78,234,834 $ 9,269,459 $ 68,965,375
$ 48,773 $ 5,000 $ 43,773
$ 65,356 $ 48,543 $ 16,813
$ - $ 4,966 $ (4,966)
$ 563,210 $ 553,023 $ 10,187
$ 677,339 $ 611,532 $ 65,807
$ 255,726,983 $ 34,318,788 $ 221,408,195
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page108
25
2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage109
26
9. Please provide an accounting of funding and expenditures for Measure A tax revenue.
There is no accounting data of funding and expenditures for Measure A tax revenue in Chula Vista during
fiscal year 2017-18.
10. Please provide accounting data regarding Chula Vista’s on-line shopping sales tax revenue.
Data specific to Chula Vista’s on-line shopping sales tax revenue is not available. The California
Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) allocates use taxes via a county pool system which
allocates dollars to jurisdictions based on their relative pro-rata sales tax shares within the county.
Fiscal Year 2018 County Pool Sales Tax Allocations
Tax revenues from Online shopping
Dates City of Chula Vista HdL Report Total
July - September 2017 First Quarter FY 2018 Third Quarter CY 2017 1,055,532$ 5,624$ 1,061,156$
October - December 2017 Second Quarter FY 2018 Fourth Quarter CY 2017 1,194,589$ 2,315$ 1,196,904$
January - March 2018 Third Quarter FY 2018 First Quarter CY 2018 991,521$ 5,605$ 997,126$
April - June 2018 Fourth Quarter FY 2018 Second Quarter CY 2018 1,060,428$ 2,471$ 1,062,899$
4,302,070$ 16,015$ 4,318,085$
Source: HdL Report - City of Chula Vista, Sales Tax Allocation Summary, dated 10/16/18.
Reporting Period County Pool
Allocation
State Pool
Allocation
11. Please provide accounting data regarding cannabis sales in Chula Vista, including the cost of law
enforcement associated with sales.
There is no accounting data regarding cannabis sales in Chula Vista during fiscal year 2017-18.
12. What is the ratio of debt per capita?
Per the fiscal year 2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, all funds actual debt expenditures
totaled $9.5 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 $9.5 million.
The City’s fiscal year 2017-18 ratio of debt per capita is $1,046 which is an increase of 31.7% over the prior
year figure of $794. This is primarily due to the issuance of two new bond issues during fiscal year 2017-18
and increases in pension and OPEB liabilities. The debt per capita 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.
13. Please provide examples of any incentives provided for industries in Chula Vista during Fiscal Year 2018.
No incentives were provided for industries in Chula Vista during fiscal year 2017-18.
14. 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 over the past fiscal year was relatively strong and generated substantial cash flows
to DIF programs. These revenues provide additional security for external debt and reduce the risk of
having to use the General Fund to meet DIF debt obligations. A cautious, conservative approach to cash
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page110
27
flow is essential. Protecting debt service reserves is critical to ensure we continue to avoid any General
Fund impacts that may result from DIF fee shortfalls.
Senate Bill 743 mandated the implementation of new CEQA transportation thresholds of significance (i.e.,
vehicle miles traveled [VMT]), which will supersede Level of Service as a performance measure. All
agencies will be required to comply with the new CEQA Guidelines by July 1, 2020. This change will affect
numerous City regulations, planning documents, and programs, including DIFs. City staff is assessing
methods for incorporating VMT into the TDIFs. Initial concepts include partitioning TDIF improvements
based on anticipated benefits to VMT and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, developing a new mobility
fee program to fund multi-modal improvements, modifications to nexus studies to address VMT/GHG
reductions, and other considerations. The City plans to complete a comprehensive update to all three TDIF
programs in 2020 to incorporate the findings of this review.
As discussed in last year’s response, the City is working to update DIF programs to incorporate the
construction cost increases associated with the California Prevailing Wage Law. The first such update was
for the Parkland Acquisition and Development (PAD) fee in summer 2018.
Other planned updates to the DIF programs include the following:
• Incorporation of pedestrian bridge and sewer basin DIF programs into the Chula Vista Municipal
Code
• Transition of the PAD fee from the Quimby Act to the Mitigation Fee Act
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 11, 2019
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page111
Description of Fee: eastern areas of Chula VistaAmount of the Fee:14,126$ per single family equivalent dwelling (low density)11,300$per single family equivalent dwelling (med density)8,475$per multi-family equivalent dwelling (high density)226,016$per general commercial gross acre127,134$per industrial gross acreFY 17/18 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:Sub-Fund 590920Sub-Fund 590921TRANS DEV DIFTRANS ADMIN DIFBeginning Balance, 07/01/1719,858,623$4,613,569$Revenues TDIF Fees Collected3,968,4010 Interest Earned141,13933,830 Transfer-In00Total Revenues4,109,54133,830 Expenditures: Supplies & Services(7,197)(799) City Staff Services(4,443)(83,245) Other Expenditures(4,324)0 CIP Project Expenditures(2,195,575)0Total Expenditures(2,211,540)(84,044)Ending Balance, 06/30/1821,756,623$4,563,354$Note: As of July 1, 2017, the City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 591, 593, and 225 wereconsolidated into fund 590. Sub-Funds to fund 590 are shown on tables above. SCHEDULE ATRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)FY 17/18 ACTIVITY To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new development in2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage112
FY 17/18 CIP EXPENDITURES:PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Future InitiallyPROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/18 Funded by TDIF Appropriations Scheduled +. #(&;5:A >B7=:3;A(B?16/@3
205,873$36.43%-$2006*+% -799<D*A ?7253-723;7;5
36,011,96613.86% 1,582,131 2000*+& )<18&A;)2"3?7A/53 %/&327/
807,00093.80%- 2004*+& )<18&A;)2 *)'C3?=/@@ 300,000100.00%- 2005*+& "3?7A/53)2'9F:=71A<&/7;
150,000100.00%- 2011*+& *)*/;&59);16
#;A3?165
172,869100.00%- 2011*+& 783%/;3/9<;5 /@A"*A?33A
2,760,12484.94%- 2014*+& "3?7A/53)2 ?7253#:=?<C:;A@
2,989,86711.47% 560,000 2014*+& &/7;*A?33A-723;7;5 .
300,000100.00%- 2015*+& "3?7A/53)2-723;7;5 .
400,000100.00%- 2015+) +?/4471 <B;A*A/A7<;@
635,00066.14% 250,000 1990+) +?/;@=<?A/A7<;(9/;;7;5(?<5?:
915,00045.90%- 2004+) +?/;@ 3C#:=/1A B;2,=2/A3
255,000100.00%- 2008+) 2=AC+?41*75;9*F@A: E=/;@;
1,448,50037.87%- 2014+) +?41&5:A ;A? <::B;71A;&(
320,00013.13%- 2015+) +?/4471*75;/9 <::#:=?<C3
800,000100.00%- 2017TOTAL:
FY17/18 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:OustandingDescription of LoanLoan AmountAdvance to PFDIF (Fire Suppression)affirmed and consolidated via Council Resolution No. 2015-035 on February 17, 2015$8,171,140FY 17/18 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE A.1TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage113
Description of Fee:To finance the construction of transportation facilities required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused bynew development in western areas of Chula Vista.Amount of the Fee: 4,260$per single family equivalent dwelling unit (low density)3,408$per single family equivalent dwelling unit (med density)2,556$per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit (high density)85,200$per regional commercial gross acre255,600$per high rise office gross acreFY 17/18 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:Sub-Fund 590922 Sub-Fund 590923 Sub-Fund 590924 Sub-Fund 590925Western Trans DIF Western Trans DIF Western Trans DIF Western Trans DIFRegional Arterial SysRas CIPNon Ras Non Ras CIPBeginning Balance, 07/01/17140,104$61,530$(2,292)$25,532$Revenues WTDIF Fees Collected0 334,3175,135 50,321 Interest Earned1,028(928)567(23)Total Revenues1,028333,3895,702 50,298Expenditures: CIP Project Expenditures0.000.000.000.00Total Expenditures0.000.000.000.00Ending Balance, 06/30/18141,132$394,919$3,410$75,830$Note: As of July 1, 2017, the City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 591,593, and 225 were consolidated into fund 590. Sub-Funds to fund 590 are shown on tables above. SCHEDULE BWESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF)FY 17/18 ACTIVITY2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage114
Amount of the Fee: 38.75$ per tripFY 17/18 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:Sub-Fund 590354TRAFFIC SIGNALBeginning Balance, 07/01/172,076,954$Revenues Traffic Signal Fees Collected804,858 Interest Earned20,828 Miscellaneous Revenues0Total Revenues825,685Expenditures: Supplies & Services(1,012) City Staff Services(1,801) Other Expenditures(608) Transfer-Out0 CIP Project Expenditures(276,264)Total Expenditures(279,685)Ending Balance, 06/30/18
Note: As of July 1, 2017, the City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 591, 593, and 225were consolidated into fund 590. A Sub-Fund to fund 590 is shown in the table above. SCHEDULE CDescription of Fee:To finance the construction of traffic signal improvements required to mitigate increasing traffic volumes caused by new developmentcitywide.TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEESFY 17/18 ACTIVITY2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage115
FY 17/18 CIP EXPENDITURES:PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded FutureInitiallyPROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/18 by Traffic Signal DIF Appropriations Scheduled*+% B?0)/:=@ .
47,379$500,000$ -$*+% (/9<:/?*A
'?/;53C3*723D/9826,585 1,315,000 -+) +?/4*75;/9%34A+B?;&<2(?<54,863226,649 -+) +?/4471 <;53@A7<;)39734(?<530,000495,000 454,575+) +?41*5;9&<24/A#;A3?@31A;@77,226989,900 74,589+) 2=AC+?41*75;9*F@A: E=/;@;72 1,448,500 61,000+) +?41*5;9(32 /1&<24(/9<:?27,300434,744 -+) (32 ?<@@D98 ;6/;1:;A,;1;A?51,547789,25434.21%- 2015+) +?41*75;/9$/1>B/*A&/7;3,773250,000 - 2015+) +?41*75;/9&<2 ?</2D/F
!942829,750 80,000 2016+) (32 <B;A2<D;#;@A*75;/9&<26,577 1,215,900 - 2017TOTAL:276,264$8,494,697$FY 17/18 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE C.1TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage116
Description of Fee:Amount of the Fee: 4,579$ per acreFY 17/18 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:FUND 542TC DRAINAGE DIFBeginning Balance, 07/01/174,113,574$Revenues TC Drainage Fees Collected0 Interest Earned41,239Total Revenues41,239Expenditures: Supplies & Services(1,546) City Staff Services(1,308) Other Expenditures(929) CIP Project Expenditures(92,674)Total Expenditures(96,457)Ending Balance, 06/30/184,058,356$FY 17/18 CIP EXPENDITURES:PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded Future InitiallyPROJECTDESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/18by DIF Appropriations ScheduledDRN0208Prelim Eng&Env Stds TeleCynChl92,674$800,000$100.00%-$2017TOTAL:92,674$800,000$ SCHEDULE DTELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (TC DRAINAGE DIF)FY 17/18 ACTIVITYFor construction of Telegraph Canyon channel between Paseo Ladera and the Eastlake Business Center and for a portion of thechannel west of I-805.2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage117
Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF (PC Sewer Basin DIF) Sub-Fund 430766Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF (SC Sewer Basin DIF) Sub-Fund 430767Description of Fees:Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF:For the construction of a trunk sewer in the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin from a proposedregional trunk sewer west of I-805 along Olympic Parkway to the boundary of Eastlake.Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF:For the planning, design, construction and/or financing of the facilities.Amount of the fees:Sub-Fund 430766Sub-Fund 430767Poggi Canyon SewerSalt Creek SewerBasin DIFBasin DIFbase fee per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU)265.00$1,4411.0 EDU per single family, attached or detached265.00$1,4410.75 EDU per multi-family dwelling unit199.00$1,081Commercial land use$265/edu1,441Industrial land use$265/edu1,441 SCHEDULE ESEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEESFY 17/18 ACTIVITY2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage118
FY 17/18 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION:Sub-Fund 430766Sub-Fund 430767Poggi Canyon SewerSalt Creek SewerBasin DIFBasin DIFBeginning Balance, 07/01/20172,699,613$119,812$Revenues DIF Fees Collected96,1051,105,564 Interest Earned27,186(1,813) Transfer-In--Total Revenues123,2911,103,751 Expenditures: Supplies & Services(1,079)(434) City Staff Services(1,060)(2,287) Other expenditures(648)(29,039) Transfer Out--Total Expenditures
Net Balance Sheet Activity
Ending Balance, 06/30/182
1As of July 1, 2017, City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 431, 432, and 551 wereconsolidated into fund 430. Sub-Funds to fund 430 are shown on tables above.FY 17/18 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE E.1SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES12019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage119
Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Sub-Fund 580940Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vil 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Sub-Fund 580941Otay Ranch Millenia Eastern Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge (DIF) ( OR Millenia EUC Pedestrian Bidge DIF), Sub-Fund 580981Description of Fees: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 fees:Sub-Fund 580940 Sub-Fund 580941 Sub-Fund 580981OR Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 OR Village 11 Millenia EUCPed Bridge DIF Ped Bridge DIF Ped Bridge DIFper single family equivalent dwelling unit detached908$2,537$615$per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit673$1,881$456$ SCHEDULE FOTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEEFY 17/18 ACTIVITYOR Village 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF:2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage120
FY 17/18 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:Sub-Fund 580940 Sub-Fund 580941 Sub-Fund 580981OR VILLAGE 1,2,5&6 OR VILLAGE 11 EUC MILLENIAPED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIF PED BRIDGE DIFBeginning Balance, 07/01/171,354,658$ 3,154,602$ 392,283$Revenues DIF Fees Collected356,211-9,578 Interest Earned13,77431,6273,778Total Revenues369,98531,62713,356Expenditures Supplies & Services(645) (1,858)- City Staff Services(7,242)(1,025)(131) Other Expenditures(388)(1,116)-Total Expenditures(8,275)(3,999)(131)Ending Balance, 06/30/18$1,716,368$3,182,231$405,5081As of July 1, 2017, City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 587, 588, and 718 were consolidated into fund 580. Sub-Funds to fund 580are shown on tables above. SCHEDULE F.1FY 17/18 ACTIVITYOTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE12019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage121
Description of Fees and amounts:Administration: Administration of the Public Facilities DIF program, overseeing of expenditures and revenues collected, preparation of updates,calculation of costs, etc. Single-Family $653/DU; Multi-Family $618/DU; Commercial $2,085/Acre; Industrial $659/Acre.Civic Center Expansion:Expansion of the 1989 Civic Center per the Civic Center Master Plan to provide sufficient building space and parkingdue to growth and development. The Civic Center Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to include the Otay Ranch impacts.Single Family $3,005/DU; Multi-Family $2,847/DU; Commercial $9,588/Acre; Industrial $3,030/Acre.Single-Family $1,818/DU; Multi-Family $1,963/DU; Commercial $8,587/Acre; Industrial $1,851/Acre.Corporation Yard: Relocation of the City's Public Works Center from the bayfront area to the more centrally located site on Maxwell Road.Single-Family $488/DU; Multi-Family $391/DU; Commercial $8,301/Acre; Industrial $3,909/Acre.Single-Family & Multi-Family $1,727/DU.Single-Family $1,519/DU; Multi-Family $1,093/DU; Commercial $4,014/Acre; Industrial $799/Acre.Single-Family & Multi-Family $1,311/DU.Libraries (Residential Only):Improvements include construction of the South Chula Vista library and Eastern Territories libraries, and installation ofa new automated library system. This component is based on the updated Library Master Plan. SCHEDULE GPUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF)FY 17/18 ACTIVITYPolice Facility: 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 computeraided dispatch system (CAD), Police Records Management System, and Mobile Data Terminals.Fire Suppression System:Projects include the relocation of Fire Stations #3 & #4, construction of a fire training tower and classroom, purchase of abrush rig, installation of a radio communications tower and construction of various fire stations in the Eastern section of the City. This fee also reflectsthe updated Fire Station Master Plan, which includes needs associated with the Otay Ranch development.Recreation (Residential Only):New component adopted in November 2002 to build major recreation facilities created by new development such ascommunity centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen centers.2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage122
FY 17/18 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:Police Corp YardFire Supp.Rec.Gen. Admin.Civic Center2Facility Relocation LibrariesSystemFacilitiesSub-Fund Sub-Funds Sub-Fund Sub-Fund Sub-FundSub-FundSub-Fund560896560895/56089735608984560899 5609005609015560902TOTALBeginning Balance, 07/01/175,303,768$1,928,544$(4,339,021)$627,784$15,548,920$(10,685,253)$(1,267,171)$7,117,571$Revenues: DIF Revenues867,111 4,060,281 2,658,287 571,377 2,384,5741,643,194 1,834,175 14,018,998 Investment Earnings51,861 21,590 (35,676) 8,211 151,338(80,700) (11,788) 104,835 Other Revenue------- Reimbursement - Oth Agencies-------- Transfer In--------Total Revenues918,972 4,081,871 2,622,610 579,588 2,535,9121,562,494 1,822,387 14,123,833Expenditures: Personnel Services Total(4,177) ------(4,177) Supplies & Services(2,303) (1,279)--(6,830)-- (10,412) City Staff Services(137,947) (1,162)-(155) (5,818)-- (145,082) Other Expenses(1,384) (2,744) (286,835) -(4,104)(10,817)- (305,883) CIP Project Expenditures-------- Transfer Out (Bounded Debt Services)- (2,859,877) (1,591,195) (727,101)--- (5,178,174) Transfer Out (Interfund Loan Repayment)-------Total Expenditures(145,810) (2,865,062) (1,878,031) (727,255) (16,753)(10,817)- (5,643,728)Restatements:Fund 451 Closeout
(8,162,788)(8,449,737)Total Restatements
Ending Balance, 06/30/18
SCHEDULE G.1PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDIF)1FY 17/18 ACTIVITY2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage123
FY 17/18 ACTIVITY1As of July 1, 2017, City implemented a new ERP finance system, which consolidated multiple funds. Former funds 567, 571-576, and 582 were consolidated into fund 560. Sub-Funds to fund 560 are shown on tables above.2This Sub-Fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adamo property in Sub-Fund 560895.3For Sub-Funds 560895 and 560897, includes restatement for fund 451 closeout4For Sub-Funds 560898, includes restatement for fund 451 closeout2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage124
Description of Fee: In lieu fee for providing neighborhood community park and recreational facilities.AdquisitionDevelopment TotalAreas East of I-805Fee FeeFeeAmount of the Fee:$12,676 $5,768 $18,444 per single family dwelling unit$9,408 $4,281 $13,689 per multi-family dwelling unit$5,932 $2,700$8,632 per mobile home dwelling unitAreas West of I-805Amount of the Fee:$4,994 $5,768 $10,762 per single family dwelling unit$3,707 $4,281$7,988 per multi-family dwelling unit$2,337 $2,700$5,037 per mobile home dwelling unitFY 17/18 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION:FUND 715FUND 7162 PAD FUND WPAD FUNDBeginning Balance, 07/01/1742,990,376$26,545$Revenues: Park Dedication Fees1,688,3171,455,381 Interest Earned346,607(6,744) Transfer In--Total Revenues2,034,9241,448,637Expenditures: Supplies and Services(12,737) - City Staff Services(10,732) - Other Expenditures(7,653)(12,220) Other Refunds(2,666,576)- Transfer Out Interfund Loan Repayment)-- CIP Project Expenditures(15,582)-Total Expenditures(2,713,280)(12,220)Restatements:Fund 451 Closeout(9,222,022)Ending Balance, 06/30/18142,312,020$(7,759,060)$1The ending balance includes fees paid by specific developers for specific parks within those development.2For fund 716, the balance is adjusted by $9,222,022 which is a result of additional Liability of Advance from Other Funds.PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)FY 17/18 ACTIVITY2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage125
FY 17/18 CIP EXPENDITURES:PROJECT Total Appropriation % Of Project Funded FutureInitiallyPROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/18 by PAD Fees Appropriations ScheduledPRK0308 P-3 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)13,453$122,000$100.00%-$2008PRK0309 P-2 Neighborhood Park (ORV2)2,128122,000100.00%- 2008TOTAL:15,582$244,000$FY 17/18 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:OustandingDescription of Loan:Loan AmountAdvance from Eastern PAD Fund to Western PAD Fundaffirmed and consolidated via Council Resolution No. 2015-034 on February 17, 2015$9,219,238PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES)FY 17/18 ACTIVITY2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage126
For the enlargement of sewer facilities of the City so as to enhance efficiency of utilization and/or adequacy of capacity and forplanning and/or evaluating any future proposals for area wide sewage treatment and or water reclamation systems or facilities.Amount of the Fee: 3,738$per equivalent dwelling unit of flow.FY 17/18 CASH BALANCE INFORMATION:FUND 413TRUNK SEWER (TS)Beginning Balance, 07/01/201745,502,742$Revenues Interest Earned473,147 Sewerage Facility Participant Fees 5,747,881 DIF-Swr Basin Tel Cyn Transfer In-Reimb-Other-Total Revenues6,221,028 Expenditures: Supplies & Services(19,501) City Staff Services(16,554) Other Expenditures(11,717) CIP Project Expenditures(331,851)Total Expenditures:(379,623)Net Balance Sheet Activity
Ending Balance, 06/30/18151,518,410$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 matchstandard financial reporting practices. Beginning this year, the City is reporting the cash balance instead of fund balance in the Trunk Sewer Fundin this report for comparison purposes.TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVEFY 17/18 ACTIVITY2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage127
FY 17/18 EXPENDITURES:% Of ProjectPROJECTTotal Approp. Funded by Future InitiallyPROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES at 6/30/18 TRUNK SEWER Appropriations Scheduled*-) &<@@*A*D?#:=?C)/79?2 ?@;5600,000$100.00%-$2012*-) /@A"*A*3D3?&/7;,=@7G3 1,500,000100.00%- 2013*-) )397;3 <?13&;!*A(B:=*A;
1,666,75498.99%- 2013*-) +95?=6 F; @;*D?#:=?CA6#
950,000100.00%- 2014*-) $*A$B;1A7<; <E*D?*AB2F
100,000100.00% 500,000 2015*-) #;2A?9 9C2&/7;*A*D?#:=?C
766,00080.42%- 2016TOTAL:331,851$ 5,582,754$FY 17/18 INTERFUND LOAN INFORMATION:OustandingDescription of Loan:Loan Amount$19,415,983Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIFaffirmed and consolidate via Council Resolution No. 2015-029 on February 17,2015TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVEFY 17/18 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage128
PFDIF Cash Flow: FY 2005-06 through Build-outActualEstimatedEstimatedProgram TotalIncrement 1ActualActualActualActualActualActualActualActualEstimatedEstimatedIncrement 3Increment 42006 - 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 20202021 - 20302031 - Build-out2006 - Build-outBeginning Fund Balance24,427,641 1,092,007 5,138,721 8,578,171 10,712,381 9,270,410 8,992,972 7,915,003 7,117,570 15,597,676 31,223,701 38,182,952 42,410,552 24,427,641 REVENUESDIF Fee Revenues25,264,894 4,208,203 3,122,330 6,808,865 4,554,724 5,371,593 6,473,892 4,529,656 14,018,998 27,807,779 15,505,898 114,689,712 43,263,176 275,619,720 #Investment Earnings1,223,226 (8,850) 58,366 (220,306) 211,858 86,036 275,470 (101,380) 104,835 - - 1,629,255 Misc / Other Revenues18,846,015 - 310,395 - 194,760 - 2,777 - - - - 19,353,947 TOTAL REVENUES45,334,135 4,199,353 3,491,091 6,588,559 4,961,342 5,457,629 6,752,139 4,428,276 14,123,833 27,807,779 15,505,898 114,689,712 43,263,176 296,602,922 EXPENDITURESCIP ProjectsRancho del Rey Library8,644,605 - - - - - - - - - - 21,096,419 - 29,741,024 EUC Fire Station- - - - - - - - - 3,228,825 1,192,419 1,568,408 - 5,989,651 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 Other33,678,110 - - 59,545 - - - - - - - - - 33,737,655 CIP Projects Total42,322,715 - - 59,545 - - - - - 3,228,825 1,192,419 42,949,912 29,112,054 118,865,470 - Debt Service Payments22,610,385 69,192 51,041 4,161,797 6,108,865 5,633,759 7,711,514 5,078,179 5,190,965 7,834,795 6,236,093 56,330,852 22,009,430 149,026,866 Non CIP Expenditures3,736,669 83,447 600 233,007 294,448 101,308 118,594 147,530 452,763 1,118,135 1,118,135 11,181,347 2,800,000 21,385,982 TOTAL EXPENDITURES68,669,769 152,639 51,641 4,454,349 6,403,313 5,735,067 7,830,108 5,225,708 5,643,728 12,181,754 8,546,647 110,462,112 53,921,484 289,278,318 Ending Fund Balance1,092,007 5,138,721 8,578,171 10,712,381 9,270,410 8,992,972 7,915,003 7,117,570 15,597,676 31,223,701 38,182,952 42,410,552 31,752,244 31,752,244 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 Balance1,092,007 - 2,878,171 5,012,381 3,670,410 3,492,972 2,615,003 1,817,570 10,297,676 25,923,701 32,882,952 37,610,552 31,752,244 31,752,244 Anticipated DevelopmentSingle Family Units1,823 353 324 350 148 121 88 237 641 374 263 2,262 396 7,380.00 Multifamily Units1,400 508 157 604 393 894 547 741 1,485 2,128 1,009 7,858 3,574 21,298.00 Commercial Acres22 - - - - - - - 50 75 75 250 - 472.00 Industrial Acres16 - - - - - - - 25 25 25 445 345 881.23 Residential Subtotal645 861 481 954 541 1,015 635 978 2,126 2,502 1,272 1,012.00 496.25 28,678 AverageAverageAverageTotalINCREMENT 2ATTACHMENT 2
2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage129
1
Libraries FY 2018
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Libraries – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page130
2
Libraries FY 2018
1. Please complete the tables below:
All statistical figures represent FY 16/17, the most recent reported data as published by California State
Library’s California Library Statistics Port, unless otherwise indicated.
Table 1. INVENTORY OF LIBRARIES
Facility
Leased/Owned
Total Gross Square Footage of
Library Facilities
Existing
Civic Center Owned 55,000
South Chula Vista Owned 37,000
Otay Ranch Town Center 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
(2023) 293,663 134,412 (a)
129,000(b)
458 (a)
439(b)
FY 2018 275,158 97,412 354
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
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page131
3
Libraries FY 2018
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 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.
a. During the review period, did the current library facilities meet the growth management threshold?
Yes __________ No ___X_____
For the 2017 year, the Chula Vista Public Library did not meet the growth management threshold.
Median state public library expenditure per capita for the most recent reporting period (FY 16/17)
was $33.75. For Chula Vista, library expenditure per capita during the same reporting period was
$14.07. In Attachment A, the expenditure per capita for all San Diego County public libraries is
shown. Chula Vista continues to be the lowest library expenditure per capita in San Diego County
with our library expenditure per capita being 43% lower than Escondido at $24.71 per capita.
Current facilities continue to be inadequate for current population as well as forecasted growth. As
shown in Table 2, the current square footage per capita is 29% lower than GMOC standards. With
the approval of Measure P, many of the library’s deferred maintenance projects have been
completed, including one set of restrooms in the Civic Center library. The South Library has received
a new HVAC system. In November 2018, work has begun to replace the roofing on the Civic Center
Library.
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. With expected changes in
staffing due to several staff retirements and through attrition, the library has experienced a 29%
turnover rate in staffing. 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.
Staffing continues to be inadequate. Chula Vista Library’s staffing ratio per capita has dropped to
the bottom 5.4% of public libraries in California. The statewide staffing average is 0.43 FTE per 1,000
population, a slight decline from last year. In Chula Vista, the ratio is 0.1502 FTE staff per 1,000
population. In Attachment B, the staffing FTE per 1,000 population is shown for all San Diego
County public libraries.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page132
4
Libraries FY 2018
2. During the review period, were facilities adequately equipped? If not, please explain.
Yes __________ No ___X_______
The materials budget continues to decline. The statewide average annual materials expenditure for books,
digital resources, magazines, etc. raised to $3.18 per person, an increase of $0.61 cents than previously
reported. The anticipated FY 17-18 Chula Vista baseline materials budget continues to be $0.21 cents per
person. With additional grants and donations, the library has raised this baseline to $0.45 cents per person.
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 2018
Number of public computers available for use 90
% of available time used by patrons at public computers (both reserved and
walk in use)
Adult 54%
Teen 19%
Children 14%
Quantity and Availability of Collection Available for Use
Circulation materials available 255,003
New materials made available 17,104
Materials bound and repaired for use N/A
Number of items in languages other than English 47,433
Table 5. MATERIAL EXPENDITURES IN
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
Library Staff
Materials
Expenditures Per
1,000
Chula Vista $0.66
San Diego County $5.23
City of San Diego $2.27
National City $2.84
Carlsbad $7.55
3. During the review period, were facilities adequately staffed? If not, please explain.
Yes __________ No ____X______
The staffing continues to be inadequate at the facilities. According to the most recent statistical data
available, Chula Vista’s library staffing ratio per capita has dropped to the bottom 5.4% of public libraries in
California. The statewide staffing average is 0.43 FTE per 1000 population. In Chula Vista, the ratio is 0.1502
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page133
5
Libraries FY 2018
FTE staff per 1000 population.
Chula Vista Library continues to exceed the statewide average in many workload indicators. These include
the following:
Chula Vista: 6,660 population served per FTE.
Statewide average: 3,275 population served per FTE.
Chula Vista: 9.45 reference questions per open hour.
Statewide Average: 8.65 reference questions per open hour.
Chula Vista: 2,012.53 reference questions per staff FTE.
Statewide Average: 1,552.28 reference questions per staff FTE.
Chula Vista: 190.97 visits per open hour.
Statewide Average: 69.88 visits per open hour.
Chula Vista: 13.03 public access catalog use per open hour.
Statewide average: 9.83 public access catalog use per open hour.
Chula Vista: 1,108 program attendance per staff FTE.
Statewide average: 851.14 program attendance per staff FTE.
Table 6. STAFFING
Library Staff FY 2018 Target
FTE Library Staff Per 1,000 0.1502 Statewide Median: 0.3193
Number of Volunteers 465 450**
Volunteer Hours 19,356 (≈9.3 FTE) 19,180**
Note: ** Volunteer Supervision is a workload issue.
Table 7. STAFFING IN
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
Library Staff FY2018 FTE
Per 1,000
Chula Vista 0.1502
San Diego County 0.2315
City of San Diego 0.3384
National City 0.2766
Carlsbad 0.8994
4. Please complete the table below:
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page134
6
Libraries FY 2018
Table 8. LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS
Fiscal Year
Annual Attendance per
Business Hour
Annual Circulation
per Square Foot
Guest Satisfaction
FY 2018 1,724,610 533,240 See Attachments
D and E
FY 2017 1,635,849 629,298 Survey results provided in
separate documents
FY 2016 857,475 710,680 Survey results provided in
separate documents
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 Fiscal Year 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 2023.
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. The Community Services Director and
the City Librarian continue to explore options to serve the community through pop-up library
programs and services, joint use options, and the possibilities of leasing options to expand the Otay
Ranch facility or identify other storefronts in the Northeast community.
6. Please provide an update on any other potential possibilities for providing library services.
The library continues its goal to provide relevant and innovative programming and services by
completing over 2,406 this past year. The library continues to thrive by actively seeking grant and
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page135
7
Libraries FY 2018
donation opportunities when applicable and being successful in receiving over $100,000 in grants
this past year. More notably, the library was awarded a 2018 Pitch an Idea Grant to install two
virtual reality labs at both the Civic and South branches that will allow groups of 20 students and an
instructor to explore the same virtual reality environment at the same time. This will further explore
the library’s ability to expand relevant library programming to the community. In 2018, the library
will also be launching public engagement through Community Conversations, further developing the
library’s role in being reflective of the community we serve. The library will also be launching the
Energy Station at its South branch, in partnership with CVESD, SDGE, and IBEW. This will be our
second workforce development experience that will further deepen our partnership with CVESD and
develop a partnership with SDGE to focus on Clean Energy, providing an opportunity to support
4,300 students to visit the South Branch’s Energy Station per year.
7. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2017/2018,
and include any available data for the County’s Bonita-Sunnyside Branch.
Please see Attachment F for information on the Chula Vista Public Usage Measurements and
Attachment G for data on the County’s 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: Joy Whatley
Title: City Librarian
Date: November 29, 2018
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page136
8
Libraries FY 2018
Attachment A
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page137
9
Libraries FY 2018
Attachment B
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page138
10
Libraries FY 2018
GMOC 2018 – Attachment C
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
The library continues to live its strategic vision and considers the community’s direction to us in everything
we do.
Nucleus of learning, culture, and recreation. To further the vison of the library as “nucleus of learning
culture and recreation”, the library offers the following, in addition to its strong ongoing tradition of
information service, support for reading and learning via early literacy, and reading programs for all ages.
Ongoing
Career Online High School. A full accredited high school diploma online option for adults who did not
have the chance to complete high school. Scholarship made possible by a grant from the CA state
library and generous community donors. Update: Since its inception, we have had 14 students with
4 graduates that have moved onto community college education.
Lunch and Lab. To prevent summer learning loss, the library pioneered a summer “camp", a two-
hour interactive science themed week, followed by lunch (in cooperation with the Chula Vista
Elementary School District and USDA). Update: Over 3,500 students were served this summer.
Homework help. Our popular homework help using volunteer homework helpers continued all year
at all three branches. Update: Over 800 students attended Homework Help this year.
Film Forum. A wide variety of popular, educational and art films were presented often with life
music concerts, courtesy of a City Performing and Visual Arts grant. Update: Film Forum is funded
for 2018 from the PVAG and over 700 community members have attended this program.
Grants for books from Friends of the Library, Chula Vista Public Library Foundation and Altrusa Club
of Chula Vista. Books- both electronic and print – are still a core service of the public library.
Despite our very low book budget, we strive to provide the community with a dynamic and up to
date book, magazine and research collection. The support from the community is essential. Update:
The Friends of the Library, Library Foundation, and Altrusa continue to support our book budget with
over $33,000 in donations this year. The library was also awarded $5000 in books from the California
State Library.
New
“Natural History and Native People. This is the upcoming annual exhibit theme of the Chula Vista
Heritage Museum. Grand opening is January 26, 2019.
The library was awarded $5,000 from the Performing Visual Arts Grant for cultural programming in
the 2018-2019 year.
Seed Library: The library was able to launch a seed library that allows the community to obtain seeds
from the library to plant their garden.
Catalyst for innovation, business, and growth This element of the Strategic Vision Plan is fulfilled through
the following programs, in addition to our multiple spaces available for business networking and
presentations, our computer labs and our many business books and reference sources.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page139
11
Libraries FY 2018
Ongoing
CENIC Broadband. Using a statewide grant opportunity, the Library connected to the super
high-speed and deeply discounted CENIC network, used by the UC and CSU systems, USC,
Caltech, and the K-12 systems in CA. Update: With the increase to a 1GB network, the library
has over 157,833 users within the year.
MacGyvering Your Library. Won a competitive grant to obtain the services of a professional
architecture firm and $5000 to improve an area of the library. We are reinvigorating part of
the children's space at the Civic Center Library. Update: The library has purchased
NASA at Your Library. Another competitive grant to support knowledge and appreciation of
science in the general population, awarded to us in part because of our strong STEM
project. Update: The library was awarded an additional $1500 to continue its programming
on space science for the 2018-2019 year.
Embedded Law research and reference service. Twice a month an embedded librarian from
the San Diego County Law Library (an individual with both a librarian degree and a law
degree) is on site to provide legal research and reference assistance. Update: The Law
Librarian serves over 100 community members per year.
Veterans Connect at Your Library/ Veteran of the Year. A program designed to ease veterans
back into the employment mainstream. Update: The library serves over 100 veterans per
year.
New
Energy Station Project: In partnership with the CVESD, SDGE, and IBEW, the library will be
launching our second workforce development experience-the Energy Station. Located at
our South Branch this experience will focus on Clean Energy and will have its own dedicated
instructor from the CVESD. The official ribbon cutting is set for January 24, 2019.
VReX Project: In partnership with the California State Library, the library was successful in
obtaining a grant ($15k) that will allow us to launch a classroom style virtual reality
experience. This will allow the library to offer virtual reality tours and include virtual reality
experiences within our programming.
Vital and robust community partner. We continue with an outstanding array of over 80 partnerships that
helps alleviate the effect of substandard funding and staffing. Here is the result of just a few.
Ongoing
Full Steam Ahead. This grant from the California State Library provided support to allow for
additional community STEAM programming. Update: Full STEAM Ahead has allowed us to
develop weekly programming in our Innovation Station. For 2014, over 2,400 students have
participated in our Full STEAM Ahead program.
New
Mental Health First Aid Resources: In partnership with the California State Library, the
library received $5000 to purchase a mental health collection of books.
Community Conversations: In partnership with the California State Library, library
management was trained at Harwood’s Public Innovation Lab. Community Conversations
begin in November 2018.
California Humanities: The library was asked to be a mentor for the 2017-18 Library
Innovation Lab Cohort.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page140
12
Libraries FY 2018
Attachment D
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page141
13
Libraries FY 2018
Attachment E
728
357
724
597
2406
Attachment E: 2017 Programming
Adult Programs Young Adult Programs Childrens Programs Preschool Total
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page142
14
Libraries FY 2018
Attachment F
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page143
Otay Water District – FY 2018 Page 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Otay Water District –
FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page144
Otay Water District – FY 2018 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 6/30/23)
32.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.5 7.2 43.7
12-18 Month
Projection
(Ending 12/31/19)
28.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 4.1 7.2 43.7
Table 2. CURRENT AND PAST WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water Non-Potable Water
FY 2018 26.5 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.8 7.2 43.7
FY 2017 24.1 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.4 7.2 43.7
FY 2016
22.8 0.0 143.5 218.6 0.0 3.3 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 2018
(MG – Millions of Gallons)
Water Source
Capacity (MGD) Percentage of Total
Capacity
Actual Use (MGD)
San Diego County Water Authority 121.5 80.6% 18.5
Helix Water District 12.0 8.0% 8.0
City of San Diego 10.0 6.6% 0
RWCWRF (Otay Water District) 1.2 0.8% 0.8
SBWRP (San Diego) 6.0 4.0% 3.0
Other 0.0 0% 0
TOTAL 150.7 100% 30.3
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page145
Otay Water District – FY 2018 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. 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 2019 through 2024 CIP document.
CIP
Project
No.
CIP Project Title Estimated Year
of
Construction
4. What is the status of state restrictions on water consumption/usage?
Water conservation efforts remain voluntary in San Diego County since the drought
restrictions enacted in 2015 were rescinded. A prohibition on wasteful water practices such
as watering during rainfall or hosing off sidewalks remains in effect. Under Executive Orders
B-37-16 and B-40-17, the State is taking measures to make water conservation a way of life
through four primary goals of eliminating water waste, strengthening local drought resilience,
improving agricultural water use efficiency, and drought planning.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page146
Otay Water District – FY 2018 Page 4
Earlier this year the Governor signed into law two bills – Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill
1668 – that requires urban water suppliers to set annual water use goals based upon indoor
water use of 55 gallons per person per day and a yet to be determined allowance for outdoor
water use. The laws do not impose fines or individual mandates on residential or commercial
customers. It is expected to take several years for the implementation of the laws, with an
outdoor standard not expected to be adopted until June 2022.
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 2019 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 2019 through 2024 CIP document.
CIP
Project
No.
CIP Project Title
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page147
Otay Water District – FY 2018 Page 5
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 most recent 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. The Otay Water District’s need for a ten-day
water supply during a SDCWA shutdown is actively being implemented and has been fully
addressed in the WFMP and the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The IRP
incorporate the concepts of 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 updates the IRP on a regular basis to respond to local and
regional influences.
The Otay Water District WFMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are
required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay Water District. These
facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay Water District six-year CIP for implementation
when required to support development activities. As major development plans are
formulated and proceed through the City of Chula Vista approval processes, the Otay Water
District typically requires the developer to prepare a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the
specific development project consistent with the WFMP. This SAMP document defines and
describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an
acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. The SAMP also
defines the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay Water
District, through collection of water meter capacity fees, water rates, and other sources of
revenue, funds those facilities identified as regional projects. These funds are established to
pay for the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system
facilities to provide water service to their project. The SAMP identifies the major water
transmission main and distribution pipeline facilities which are typically located within the
roadway alignments.
The Otay Water District plans, designs, and constructs water system facilities to meet
projected ultimate demands to be placed upon the potable and recycled water systems.
Also, the Otay Water District forecasts needs and plans for water supply requirements to
meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The water facilities are constructed when
development activities require them for adequate cost effective water service. The Otay
Water District assures that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for
all existing and future customers.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page148
Otay Water District – FY 2018 Page 6
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 term water supply outlook has improved
while the City of Chula Vista’s long-term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply.
Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climatological, environmental,
legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court
ruling regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues. Challenges such as these
essentially always will be present. The regional water supply agencies, the SDCWA and
MWD, along with Otay Water District nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable
supplies to serve demands.
Additional water supply sources are continually under investigation by Otay Water District,
with the most significant potential source being the Rosarito, Mexico desalination facility.
Projected to ultimately produce 100 MGD of potable water, there is the potential for excess
water produced at the facility 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, has been obtained.
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 1, 2018
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page149
Page 1
Police – FY 2018
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Police – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page150
Page 2
Police – FY 2018
Please update the tables below.
Table 1. Priority 1 – Emergency Calls or Services
Fiscal Year
Call Volume
(Initial Priority
Assigned)ᵉ
Timed Call Volume
(Calls used in the
calculation of
response timesg)
% of Call
Responses
Within
7 Minutes 30
Seconds
(Threshold = 81%)
Average
Response Time
(Minutes)
(Threshold = 6
Minutes)
FY 2018
675 of 65,581
507
71.8%
6:43 f
FY 2017 765 of 65,672 521 72.2% 6:47
FY 2016a 742 of 67,048 520 71.0% 6:31
FY 2015 675 of 64,008 465 71.2% 6:49
FY 2014 711 of 65,645 534 73.6% 6:45
FY 2013 738 of 65,741 517 74.1% 6:42
FY 2012 726 of 64,386 529 72.8% 6:31
FY 2011 657 of 64,695 518 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
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.
e. Calls are assigned an initial priority but the priority may be changed at the end of the call as the entire set of
circumstances associated with the call are known. Call Volume figures are not used in any calculations.
f. In FY 2018, the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times. Response times now
include any call where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same (i.e. officer is “flagged-down” in the
street). Additionally, incidents where the call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also included. These
calls were excluded from previous year’s reporting. The modified methodology produced more accurate data
but resulted in a significant increase in reported response times for Priority 2 calls. Using the previous
methodology, for example, Priority 2 response times for FY 2018 would have increased by 31 seconds
(Average Response Time: 14:24). But, using the revised methodology, Priority 2 response times increased by
5:53 minutes (Average Response Time: 20:17). Priority 1 calls were not affected by the change since they are
addressed immediately.
g. In FY 2018, the department included the Time Call Volume column. Timed Call Volume represents the actual
count of Priority 1 calls used in determining Average Response Time and % of Call Responses within 7:30.
Timed Call Volume includes calls where the priority does not change as more information is known. Call
Volume, on the other hand, includes the total number of calls received where the original priority is assigned
based on the immediate information known, and where the priority changed after more information is available.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page151
Page 3
Police – FY 2018
Police Department recently conducted an extensive review of methods used to calculate
response times in previous years. The review revealed that previous methods omitted
data subsequently deemed pertinent. The methodology was corrected for FY 2018. If the
department had continued using the methodology to compare with previous years,
reported response times would have increased by 31 seconds only.
Table 2. Priority 2 – Urgent Calls for Service
Fiscal Year
Call Volume
(Initial Priority
Assignede)
Timed Call
Volume
(Calls used in the
calculation of
response times)
Average
Response Time
(Minutes)
(Threshold = 12
Minutes)
FY 2018
18,969 of 65,581 16,023 20:17 f
FY 2017 19,309 of 65,672 14,829 13:53
FY 2016a 19,288 of 67,048 14,729 13:50
FY 2015 17,976 of 64,008 13,694 13:50
FY 2014 17,817 of 65,645 13,681 13:36
FY 2013 18,505 of 65,741 14,258 13:44
FY 2012 22,121 of 64,386 17,185 14:20
FY 2011 21,500 of 64,695 17,054 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.
e. Calls are assigned an initial priority but the priority may be changed at the end of the call
as the entire set of circumstances associated with the call are known. Call Volume
figures are not used in any calculations.
f. FY 2018, the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times.
Response times now include any call where the received-time and the arrival-time are
the same (i.e. officer is “flagged-down” in the street). Additionally, incidents where the
call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also included. These calls were excluded
from previous year’s reporting. The modified methodology produced more accurate data
but resulted in a significant increase in reported response times for Priority 2 calls. Using
the previous methodology, for example, Priority 2 response times for FY 2018 would
have increased by 31 seconds (Average Response Time: 14:24). But, using the revised
methodology, Priority 2 response times increased by 5:53 minutes (Average Response
Time: 20:17). Priority 1 calls were not affected by the change since they are addressed
immediately.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page152
Page 4
Police – FY 2018
The corrected FY 2018 data indicates a total increase of 6:24 minutes in the department’s
average response times to Priority 2 calls. While the total increase in Priority 2 response
times is significant, a majority of the increase (5:53 minutes) was exclusively caused by the
change in the calculation method. Of the remaining change (31 seconds), there are a
variety of factors correlated to the increase. These include the following.
During FY 2018, the Department’s effective patrol staffing dropped below
historical averages. The Department typically maintains a minimum of 105 first-
responder personnel in the Uniformed Patrol Division. During FY 2018, the
number of personnel maintained an average hovering at or around 100
personnel, and periodically dropped below 100. This decrease was attributed to
systemic challenges in overall staffing, discussed below, and an unexpected
spike in personnel that were injured or otherwise unable to respond to calls for
service.
At the beginning of FY 2018, the Department implemented a new CAD system.
Implementation of new CAD system is intended to provide an array of benefits
eventually producing a safer and more efficient means of responding to calls for
service. But the implementation of a new CAD system is akin to a “technology
heart transplant.” It is a major operation that requires a methodical approach
and a cautious, step-by-step recovery process. It also requires considerable time
for personnel to adapt to new technologies, new procedures and new
capabilities. A change of this significance was expected to produce a temporary
dip in work efficiency while personnel grow accustomed to new systems.
Accordingly, the Department observed a sudden spike in response times in the
months following the implementation of the new CAD system. A temporal
analysis indicated the spike leveled over the course of the following year, but
leveled at a rate that was higher than previous years. The Department continues
to increase efficiency through additional training and accountability measures,
and has recently begun to observe reductions in response times in the
beginning months of FY 2019 (not part of this report).
During FY 2018, the Department noted an increase in the average amount of
time that officers spend on-scene, investigating Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls. For
example, during FY 2017 the average Priority 2 call was completed after 49:30
minutes on-scene. But in FY 2018 the average increased to 57:40 minutes, a
difference of 8:10 minutes. The causes for the difference are still being
evaluated, but early indicators point to the increasing complexity of the nature
of calls, and evolving community expectations for officer responses. Examples
include new techniques and changing expectations for handling persons under
emotional distress, increased processes for dealing with persons struggling with
dependency or homelessness issues, a greater emphasis on de-escalation
techniques, and increased statutory and procedural requirements for
investigating domestic violence cases. The department continues to regard the
needs of the community as its top priority and officers are encouraged to
dedicate the necessary time to meet those needs as long as the safety of others
is not in jeopardy.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page153
Page 5
Police – FY 2018
The new CAD system allows dispatchers to multi-task to a much greater degree
than ever before. Dispatchers are now able to address multiple calls
simultaneously. This enhancement allows dispatchers to prioritize calls to a
degree of detail greater than that of our numeric prioritization scheme, and
provides greater flexibility to evaluate the urgency of each call based on a
variety of factors not quantifiable. Examples of these factors include the
urgency detected in a caller’s voice, noises and sounds heard in the background
of a telephone call, dispatcher familiarity with prior circumstances involving
specific persons or locations, and many more. But the enhancement results in
some Priority 1 or Priority 2 calls being temporarily suspended so that a
separate, more-urgent call is simultaneously addressed. This affects response
times since calculation methods cannot account for the suspended time frame,
so the overall time continues to accumulate. The department is working to
identify modified procedures and additional training to improve the response
time metrics even when calls are suspended.
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 X No ______
The department has systematically upgraded critical equipment to deliver services. A
new fleet of vehicles has been purchased, body worn cameras, new radios and handheld
devices have been deployed across the department to improve the efficiency while
doing field interviews. The new CAD system is transitioning from the implementation
phase into the management phase where understanding the intricate system
relationships and how to best manage the department operations fully takes flight. It is
at this phase that the department will start evaluating the data and making changes
based on actionable information that will give the department an opportunity to
improve processes and deploy resources more efficiently.
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___
The department continues to maintain the lowest staffing ratio when compared to all
other law enforcement agencies in the county. The recent approval of measure A,
adding a half-cent sales tax, will help the City fund more public safety personnel.
However, the measure is only expected to fund 31 sworn officers over the next 5 years.
Based on population growth estimates from the 2018 Annual Residential Growth
Forecast report, the additional staffing levels would mean that the department’s sworn
population per 1,000 residents would only increase to 0.90 since it is estimated that by
2023 (5 years after the measure was passed) the City’s population will grow by
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page154
Page 6
Police – FY 2018
approximately 18,505 new residents. To stay ahead of the population growth and
consistent with other public safety agencies, the department would need to hire 148
officers by the end of FY 2023. This would bring the ratio officer per 1,000 residents
back in line with the county average of 1.29.
Table 3. DEPARTMENT STAFFING AMOUNTS
Department Staff FY 2017 FY 2018 Goal Amount
Sworn Officers per 1,000 Residents 0.85(a) 0.84(a) 1.29
Sworn Officers 227(b) 232 356
Community Service Officers (CSOs) 8 8 10
Civilian Personnel (Includes CSOs) 91 91 142
Volunteer Hours (Calendar Year
2016 and 2017 data)
16,213 16,866
3. Last year’s questionnaire response mentioned that the units-per-beat count was below
the necessary levels to meet the demands of the community. Please provide an update
on the status of units-per-beat and how it affects compliance with growth management
threshold standards.
The department is invigorated by measure A and has been actively recruiting for new
officers. The department will be able to better ascertain the impact of the increase in
staffing levels once the new staff is fully trained and serving the community. New hire
training is a year-long process and the benefits will take time to realize. However, the
current strategy is to prioritize the hiring of patrol officers to help improve officers-per-
beat staffing and decrease response times.
4. 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).
City crime rates are trending lower across the county. In most crime types, the City of
Chula Vista continues to be below the county average. Currently, Domestic Violence and
False Alarms remain the highest frequency calls. The department has initiated a citywide
Domestic Violence Protocol to help reduce domestic violence. Additionally, a recently
renegotiated contract with the City’s alarm program administrator is focused on
improving specific aspects of the contract, including the reduction of false alarm related
calls.
5. 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___
The department will not be able to fully meet the anticipated citywide growth
forecasted for the City during the next 12 to 18 months. Population growth continues to
(a) Based on 2018 Annual Residential Growth Forecast – 2018 Population figure
(b) Corrected figure
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page155
Page 7
Police – FY 2018
outpace existing staffing levels. Additional funding to hire the necessary personnel will
need to be identified and appropriated to meet the threshold standards.
6. 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___
The department will not be able to fully meet the anticipated citywide growth
forecasted for the City during the next 5 years. Population growth continues to outpace
existing staffing levels. Additional funding to hire the necessary personnel will need to
be identified and appropriated to meet the threshold standards.
7. During the review period, has growth in Chula Vista negatively affected the
department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standards?
If yes, please explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the
threshold standards.
Yes X No ______
Based on the current data available, response times have not improved during the
rating period. The department continues to struggle to meet the thresholds. While new
development often increases revenue before response times are impacted, growing
population eventually changes demand for police services. Serving the community’s
needs and expectations has become more challenging. Primarily, managing the
community’s perception of the officers through more thorough investigations using
video footage and more detailed reports have placed an additional burden on the
existing staff. Additionally, as the City’s population grows, traffic patterns change and
add additional challenges for services rendered in particular to the East side of the City.
8. During the review period, what was the Police Department’s percent proactive time?
38.54% Proactive
The department is looking into revising the methodology used to calculate this metric to
more accurately measure available time and better understand key factors that impact it.
9. Please update the table below:
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page156
Page 8
Police – FY 2018
Table 4. Number of False Alarms Per Year
Fiscal Year Volume
FY 2018 3,331
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
10. The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommended that the City Manager
prioritize the City’s annual budget so that staffing levels per capita will be consistent
with the state’s median staffing levels per capita [of 1.39]. Please provide an update
on implementation of this recommendation.
In FY 2018, the City Manager approved the allocation of 5 new sworn positions to help
improve staffing levels. An additional 5 positions were also budgeted in FY 2019. The
City Manager and city staff worked directly with the Police Department to develop the
best approach to effectively convey the needs of the department as the language for
Measure A was being drafted. The department will use the additional funds generated
from Measure A to hire more personnel to impact response times and improve service
levels. However, as mentioned before, additional funding will be necessary to budget
enough sworn personnel to be consistent with the state’s median staffing ratio of 1.39
officers per 1,000 citizens. This would require an additional 152 officers, representing an
additional $21.6 million in General Fund dollars. The resulting FY 2019 Police
Department budget would total $78.1M, or approximately 45% of the total General
Fund budget.
11. That GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report also recommended that the City Manager
support the Police Department by providing it with the proper tools, technology and
resources to aid in the process of recruiting new police officers. Please provide an
update on implementation of this recommendation.
The department has worked with City Management and staff to allocate the necessary
funding to aid in the recruitment process. The department uses the budgeted funds to
participate in employment fairs, contract graphic designers to publish flyers and
advertise job openings. During FY 2018, the City Manager authorized the Police
Department to increase the incentive pay offered to new applicants with law
enforcement experience. The incentive pay changed from $5,000 to a maximum of
$10,000 per offer. The department is very appreciative of the support the City Manager
continues to provide the department.
12. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you
would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page157
Page 9
Police – FY 2018
The department has no additional relevant information to share at this moment.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Joseph Walker
Title: Supervising Public Safety Analyst
Date: 10-15-2018
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page158
Sewer - 2018 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Sewer – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 and 5-Year Forecast
_______________________________________________________________________________
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 development.
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page159
Sewer - 2018 2
Please update the table below:
SEWAGE - Flow and Treatment Capacity
Million Gallons per
Day (MGD)
Fiscal Year
2016
Fiscal Year
2017
Fiscal Year
2018
18-month
Projection1
5-year
Projection
"Buildout"
Projection2
Average Flow 15.385 15.426 15.280 15.7901 16.072 20.7602
Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864
J:\Engineer\SEWER\Metro\Population-Flow-Projection\POPULATION-FLOW-PROJECTIONS-CV AND SANDAG-2017-18. SS.CW.xls
1. Represents an averaged projected flow for FY2019 and 2020. 2. Reference Question No. 5 for assumptions.
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 buildout flow projections are expected to remain below contracted capacity.
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 is preliminarily estimated at 20.76 MGD using a
generation rate based on current metered flow data. The decrease in flow can be attributed, in part,
to the recent increase in the cost of water combined with on-going water conservation efforts. 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. Additionally, the City is currently soliciting consultants to conduct a new 5-year Sewer Rate
Study which will also review appropriate generation rates.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page160
Sewer - 2018 3
PREPARED BY:
Name: Beth Gentry/ Frank Rivera
Title: Sr. Civil Engineer – Wastewater Engineering/ Principal Civil Engineer
Date: 10/5/18
Metro Capacity (20.864 mgd) Flat Rate Consumption Based Rate Restructure 2004 2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page161
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
SUHSD – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
1. Please complete the table below, adding new schools, if applicable.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page162
SUHSD – FY 2018 Page 2
Table 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS – DECEMBER 2018
SCHOOLS
# of Enrolled
Students Residing
in School
Boundary
12/18
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 606/874 1139 175 1314 67% 69%
Hilltop Middle 750/1005 1334 0 1334 75% 75%
Chula Vista High 2125/2359 2068 470 2538 93% 90%
Hilltop High 1744/2001 2052 241 2292 87% 87%
SUBTOTAL 5225/6239 6593 886 7478 83% 84%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 771/812 1068 41 1109 73 95%
Castle Park High 1514/1595 1715 117 1833 87% 95%
Palomar High 271/271 230 167 397 68% 100%
SUBTOTAL 2556/2678 3013 325 3339 80% 93%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 2681/2794 1731 993 2724 103% 96%
Eastlake Middle 1757/1812 1716 119 1835 99% 97%
Otay Ranch High 2085/2322 2146 286 2432 95% 90%
Olympian High 2211/2412 2314 167 2480 97% 92%
Rancho del Rey Middle 1732/1760 1001 629 1630 108% 98%
SUBTOTAL 10446/11100 8908 2194 11101 99% 94%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 2042/2270 1967 326 2293 99% 90%
Bonita Vista Middle 983/1181 1392 65 1457 81% 83%
SUBTOTAL 3025/3381 3359 391 3750 90% 88%
TOTAL 21272/23468 21873 3796 16197 1.44% 91%
.
2. Taking into consideration the City’s 2018 Residential Growth Forecast, please complete the two
forecast tables below, adding new schools, if applicable.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page163
SUHSD – FY 2018 Page 3
Table 2. SHORT-TERM FORECASTED CONDITIONS - DECEMBER 2019
SCHOOLS
# of Enrolled
Students Residing
in School
Boundary
12/31/19
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 628/882 1139 175 1314 67% 72%
Hilltop Middle 678/985 1334 0 1334 75% 69%
Chula Vista High 1826/2553 2068 470 2538 93% 73%
Hilltop High 1116/1992 2052 241 2292 87% 57%
SUBTOTAL 4248/6412 6593 886 7478 85% 67%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 712/755 1068 41 1109 73% 93%
Castle Park High 1435/1541 1715 117 1833 87% 93%
Palomar High 245/265 230 167 397 68% 88%
SUBTOTAL 2392/2561 3013 325 3339 77% 93%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 2601/2906 1731 993 2724 106% 90%
Eastlake Middle 1689/1743 1716 119 1835 94% 96%
Otay Ranch High 1923/2372 2146 286 2432 97% 81%
Olympian High 1971/2510 2314 167 2480 101% 79%
Rancho del Rey Middle 1737/1794 1001 629 1630 111% 97%
SUBTOTAL 9921/11325 8908 2194 11101 102% 88%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 1704/2275 1967 326 2293 99% 76%
Bonita Vista Middle 821/1106 1392 65 1457 81% 75%
SUBTOTAL 2525/3381 3359 391 3750 90% 75%
TOTAL 19731/23679 21873 3796 16197 146% 81%
* Projections are draft at this time.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page164
SUHSD – FY 2018 Page 4
Table 3. FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS - DECEMBER 2023
SCHOOLS
# of Enrolled
Students Residing
in School
Boundary*
12/31/23
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 1141 188 1329 68% 70%
Hilltop Middle 490/920 1271 110 1380 67% 53%
Chula Vista High 1375/2215 1928 450 2377 93% 62%
Hilltop High 1030/1835 2135 403 2538 72% 56%
SUBTOTAL 325/5870 6474 1150 7626 77% 60%
SOUTHWEST
Castle Park Middle 705/775 1160 41 1201 65% 91%
Castle Park High 1190/1385 1873 366 2238 62% 86%
Palomar High 350/350 312 190 502 70% 100%
SUBTOTAL 2245/2510 3345 597 3942 64% 89%
SOUTHEAST
Eastlake High 2225/2680 1729 993 2722 98% 83%
Eastlake Middle 1030/1120 1748 119 1867 60% 92%
Otay Ranch High 1335/2470 2335 286 2621 94% 54%
Olympian High 1405/2465 2179 167 2346 105% 57%
Rancho del Rey Middle 1195/1390 1017 629 1646 84% 86%
#12 Middle 1080/1390 1500 0 1500 80% 90%
#14 High (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)
SUBTOTAL 8270/11325 10509 2193 12702 89% 73%
NORTHEAST
Bonita Vista High 1410/2040 1664 635 2299 89% 69%
Bonita Vista Middle 660/1015 1272 242 1515 67% 65%
SUBTOTAL 2070/3055 2937 877 3814 80% 68%
TOTAL 16110/22760 23265 4817 28082 81% 71%
(a) No data available at this time
*Projections are DRAFT at this time.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page165
SUHSD – FY 2018 Page 5
3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history.
Table 4. ENROLLMENT HISTORY
SCHOOLS 2017-2018 2016-2017 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13
NORTHWEST
Total Enrollment 6239 6,105 6,166 6,379 6,579 6,798
% Change from Previous Year 2.2% -1.0 -3.3% -3.0% -2.1% -1.1%
% Enrollment Chula Vista 84% 73% 73% 86% 87% 87%
SOUTHWEST
Total Enrollment 2678 2,700 2,629 2,600 2,606 2,712
% Change from Previous Year -0.8% 3.9% 1.1% -0.23% -3.9% -2.9%
% Chula Vista Enrollment 95% 98% 98% 91% 90% 91%
SOUTHEAST
Total Enrollment 11100 11,073 11,117 9,736 9,582 9,414
% Change from Previous Year 0.2% -0.4% 14.2% 1.6% 1.8% 4.5%
% Chula Vista Enrollment 94% 90% 90% 93% 93% 92%
NORTHEAST
Total Enrollment 3381 3,358 3,271 5,359 5,170 5,071
% Change From Previous Year .7% 2.7% -39% 3.7% 2.05% 4.5%
% Chula Vista Enrollment 89% 91% 91% 88% 88% 91%
DISTRICT-WIDE
Total Enrollment 37482 39,484 40,371 41,123 41,120 40,507
% Change From Previous Year -5.1% -2.2% -1.83% 0.01% 0.45% -0.57%
% Chula Vista Enrollment 61% 55% 55% 53% 57% 55%
4. Will existing facilities/schools be able to accommodate forecasted growth through the next 12 to
18 months? If not, please explain.
Yes X No _____
5. Will existing facilities/schools be able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years?
Yes. Accommodation is forecasted due to the upcoming addition of new buildings on two sites (ELH, OLH).
6. On the table below, please identify what facilities may need to be upgraded or added over the next
five years.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page166
SUHSD – FY 2018 Page 6
Table 5. NEW AND/OR UPGRADED SCHOOL 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
Date
Needed
By
MS#12 Complete On-going Complete Complete TBD TBD
HS #14 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Eastlake HS ELH 2019 NA NA 2020 2021
Olympian HS OLH 2019 NA NA 2020 2021
Modernization Various 2019 NA NA 2020 2021
7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing
facilities/schools? If not, please explain.
Yes X No ______
8. How is maintenance of existing facilities prioritized?
The prioritization of maintenance is determined by several internal tools, (1) facility condition assessments
(2) site work order requests (3) life cycle analysis, and (4) preventative maintenance. Currently routine
maintenance is funded at 2.6%, with a forecast of 3.0% for fiscal year 2019-20.
Link: SUHSD Facility Master Plan 2018
9. 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.
In June 2018, the Board of Trustees adopted a new Facility Master Plan (FMP) The new is considered a “live”
document, and will be updated annually as needed.
10. Are any schools slated to close?
No.
11. What is the status of various after-school programs, adult education, etc.?
The Aces and Assets after school programs are held throughout the district. The Adult School program
continues to provide opportunity and program to community members to be life-long learners.
12. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like
to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
1. SUHSD is experiencing a decline in enrollment, the trend is anticipated to continue with a +/- 300 decrease
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page167
SUHSD – FY 2018 Page 7
of students in 2019.
2. Our enrollment projection methodology is under on-going review, and therefore, the one-year and five-year
enrollment projections are draft and subject to change.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Janea Quirk
Title: Director, Planning & Construction
Date: 1.31.2019
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page168
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2018 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Sweetwater Authority –
FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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).
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page169
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2018 2
1. Please complete the tables below.
Table 1. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water
Timeframe Demand Supply Capacity Storage Capacity
Local Imported Treated Raw
5-Year
Projection
(Ending 6/30/23)
20.3 39.5 30 44.15 17,421
12-18 Month
Projection
(Ending 12/30/19)
19.8 39.5 30 43.35 17,421
Table 2. CURRENT AND PAST WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY
MGD (Million Gallons Per Day)
Potable Water
FY 2018 15.7 39.5 30 43.35 17,421
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
Table 3. WATER SOURCES – FY 2018
(MG – Millions of Gallons)
Water Source
Capacity (MGD) Percentage of Total
Capacity
Actual Use
(MGD)
SDCWA (Imported) 30* 76% 1.40
Sweetwater Reservoir (Local) 6.43
National City Wells (Local) 2 5% 1.55
Desal Facility (Local) 7.5 19% 6.31
TOTAL 39.5 100% 15.7
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page170
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2018 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 system 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 the full capacity of 10 mgd in September 2017. In addition,
Sweetwater Authority issued revenue bonds in November 2017 to fund the replacement of
approximately three miles of 36-inch water transmission pipeline through Bonita Valley,
construction of secondary mains to facilitate the work on the 36-inch transmission main,
construction of a new 800,000 gallon Central-Wheeler Tank, and replacement of the stairs on
Loveland Dam, all of which are critical for continued long term water supply reliability to the City of
Chula Vista. Improvements to Sweetwater Dam and the South Dike at Sweetwater Reservoir have
been designed to accommodate the Probable Maximum Flood, as required by the State Department
of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page171
Sweetwater Authority – FY 2018 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, sprinkler nozzles, weather-based irrigation controllers, soil moisture sensor
systems, rain barrels, high efficiency toilets and clothes washers, and gray water system retrofits.
Carwash rebates and residential landscape transformation rebates for replacing turf with
sustainable landscaping features are also currently available, subject to funding availability.
Sweetwater Authority also offers two grant programs to assist customers: (1) Savings Through
Efficiency Program (STEP), and (2) Water Efficiency Education Program (WEEP). 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 1, 2018
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page172
Traffic – FY 2018 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
Threshold Standard Compliance Questionnaire
Traffic – FY 2018
Review Period:
July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 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.
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page173
Traffic – FY 2018 2
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.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page174
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)
Otay Lakes Rd* SB* D (3) | E (1)*
Palomar St EB
WB
D (2) | E (4)
E (3) | F (3)
PAST PERFORMANCE (BASELINE)
Number of Non-Compliant Segments FY2017a 1 (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:
*Existing SCATS adaptive traffic signal system that improves traffic signal coordination was offline when data was collected. The
modern replacement system will be online and fully functional before the end of FY19.
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 Resolution No. 1987-13346.
Palomar Street (Industrial Blvd to Broadway) – Both Directions
On Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Blvd, the LOS continues to perform below the
threshold standard LOS (see Attachment 1). The majority of the low level of service can be attributed
to the at-grade transit crossing that interrupts vehicular flow regularly throughout the day. 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 regional
transport and other funding sources. The environmental document is planned to be approved in FY
18/19. Currently, the Palomar Street corridor between Industrial Blvd. and Broadway is going to
have some traffic signal and pedestrian improvements and traffic signal optimization work to be
completed early 2019.
Otay Lakes Road (Ridgeback Rd to Telegraph Canyon Rd) - Southbound
Otay Lakes Road between Ridgeback Road and Telegraph Canyon Road failed to perform at the
threshold standard LOS. This segment of Otay Lakes Road fronts Southwestern College and Bonita
Vista High School and has multiple signalized intersections in rapid succession that are known to
have many pedestrian crossings that cause delay for vehicles. Prior to FY17, an intelligent adaptive
traffic signal system (the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System or “SCATS System”) was
operating on the traffic signals along this segment since the 1990s. This SCATS System improved
traffic management at the traffic signals along this segment of Otay Lakes Road. Aware of the age of
the SCATS System, City staff in 2014 submitted a grant application to create a Capital Improvement
Project to replace the aging SCATS System. Late in FY17 (after the point when data for the FY17, last
year, GMOC report was collected), the existing SCATS System shut down and could not be repaired.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page175
Traffic – FY 2018 4
The FY18 data presented in this report was collected after the SCATS System shut down, and it is
highly likely that this is the reason that the segment did not perform to the threshold standard. The
previously mentioned Capital Improvement Project will replace the offline SCATS System with a new,
expanded, and more advanced adaptive traffic signal system that can improve the current level of
service by optimizing traffic signal timing in real time using the latest technology. This new system is
anticipated to be online in Calendar Year 2018 with fine-tuning completed in early 2019.
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 ___X*___
*No urban segments were studied this fiscal year due to limited staffing. The Fiscal Year 2019
questionnaire is anticipated to provide substantially more data since the Traffic Engineering Division
is fully staffed as of August 2018. City staff are currently procuring and installing additional
automated traffic monitoring devices to provide more reporting data. In addition, the City has
entered into an agreement with Waze, the roadway navigation and traffic reporting application, to
share data, which will also support aggregation and assessment of LOS on multiple City roadways
each year.
3. Please attach a map delineating urban and non-urban.
See Attachment 2.
4. Will current traffic facilities be able to accommodate projected growth and comply with the
threshold standards during the next 12-18 months? If not, please list new roadways and/or
improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth during this timeframe, and indicate
how they will be funded.
Yes No ___X___
PALOMAR STREET
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
FY18/19. 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 the segment has been approved. The construction phase has begun and is expected to
be complete at the end of 2018. Implementing these projects are anticipated to return the LOS on
Palomar Street to above threshold standard.
OTAY LAKES ROAD
There is a current Capital Improvement Project to install an intelligent adaptive traffic signal system
that can potentially improve the current level of service by optimizing traffic signal timing in real
time so that all transportation modes are served based on demand. This project is anticipated to be
online in Calendar Year 2018 with fine-tuning completed in early 2019.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page176
Traffic – FY 2018 5
HERITAGE ROAD
As of Monday, April 23, 2018, construction of the continuous 2-lane road is now complete between
Olympic Parkway and Main Street and will now accommodate the new developments and projected
growth to alleviate additional traffic strain on Olympic Parkway. Further monitoring of the Olympic
Parkway corridor and the number of building permits issued will trigger the ultimate 6-lane
improvements of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street. Construction of this
road will be managed by the developers.
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, gas tax, 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. An update to the transportation development impact fee programs is anticipated in FY
18/19.
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___
PALOMAR STREET
Palomar Street at Industrial Boulevard still requires that the blue line trolley be grade separated to
improve its level of service. The grade separation will be paid for with regional, local, state, and
federal funds. The timeline for completing the grade separation is likely to be at 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 Trips (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 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, with additional segments in FY18/19. The
detection is from unique vehicle magnetic detection signatures, re-identifies vehicles to provide
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page177
Traffic – FY 2018 6
accurate travel times and vehicle density. The system helps in determining performance measures
for vehicular counts and traffic delays. It provides data used for incident management and load
balancing of the traveled segment. It has the capability of storing historical traffic volume data than
can be used for future studies.
In the eastern part of the City (east of I-805), developers have paid for 28 permanent solar powered
traffic count stations. The count stations store traffic volume data and can remotely accessed
through the internet. As with the other methods of data collection, they are all used in monitoring
the City’s traffic flow for the GMOC.
In early 2018, the City entered into an agreement with Waze, the roadway navigation and traffic
reporting application, to share traffic and roadway status data. In the coming years, Waze data for
arterial roadway segments across the City can be monitored for vehicular speed to supplement and
cross-check Level of Service analysis by the other methods described above.
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) will soon be commencing Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) services and corridor improvements in the San Diego area. The 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 using Transit Signal Priority (TSP) technologies 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 guideway along the northern
boundary of the ORTC. BRT vehicles will then continue westward and across SR-125 via a
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
dedicated center 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 Direct Access Ramp park-and-ride lot.
There will be three intermediate stops at: Santa Venetia Station, Lomas Verdes Station and Heritage
Station.
As of September 2018, service has begun on the corridor from the I-805/East Palomar Street park-
and-ride lot to Downtown San Diego. Construction on the remainder of the corridor through the
ORTC is nearing completion with revenue service expected to begin in early 2019.
BLUE LINE GRADE SEPARATIONS
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, “F” Street, “H”
Street, and Palomar Street as well as five other Blue Line locations in the City of San Diego by year
2050. Chula Vista is nearing clearance on the environmental document for Palomar Street, which is
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page178
Traffic – FY 2018 7
the highest priority location in the County out of the 27 locations studied and working with SANDAG
to secure funding for the design phase.
Staff intends to secure funding with SANDAG for the environmental review of the “E” Street, “F”
Street, and “H” Street locations such that design will also commence within a few years’ time.
PURPLE LINE LIGHT RAIL TROLLEY
The SANDAG San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (RTP) shows that that highest ranked transit
service in the County is Trolley Route 562 from Carmel Valley to San Ysidro via Kearny Mesa. In
addition, the SDSU to Palomar Station (Chula Vista) via East San Diego, South East San Diego and
National City ranked second. The first phase of work, through Chula Vista, is expected to be
completed by year 2050. This would be an entirely new light rail system for the region.
8. Please provide current statistics on transit ridership in Chula Vista.
TOTAL PASSENGERS Preliminary Route Data
FY17 Cat.
Avg.
ROUTE DESCRIPTION FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Pass./Rev
Hr.
Pass./Rev
Hr.
701 H St-Hilltop-Palomar St 568,081 539,675 519,830 552,337 22.1 29.7
703 H St-Eastlake, Sunday-only 41,543 38,804 36,463 21,826* 24.6 21.5
704
E St-4th-Naples-Med Ctr-
Orange-Palomar 486,439 467,968 466,182 451,052 22.2 21.5
705 E St-Plaza Bonita-SW College 285,951 264,815 240,803 234,688 21.1 21.5
707 SW College-Eastlake 61,150 56,601 70,188 69,200 22.6 14.2
709 H St-SW College-ORTC 1,048,415 983,470 915,708 880,647 32.5 29.7
712 Palomar St-SW College 844,164 745,622 715,263 708,455 29.1 29.7
929 Iris-CV-NC-Dwtn 2,581,788 2,326,848 2,230,944 2,176,669 32.9 29.7
932 Iris-CV-NC 8th St 1,355,459 1,248,916 1,146,682 1,095,948 27.1 29.7
Blue
Line San Ysidro-Dwtn 16,531,208 17,842,765 17,524,753 17,751,405 299.0 218.4
*Route discontinued
January 2018.
Transit ridership is presented for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 and the three prior fiscal years for
comparison. In addition, to determine route performance relative to comparable routes in the MTS
system, the route productivity in terms of passengers per revenue hour is provided for each route
with the corresponding average route productivity for a given route’s type category.
9. Please provide any updates to the construction schedule, between now and 2023, for new roads and
improvements funded by TDIF funds.
Completion of TDIF projects is triggered by the number of dwelling units constructed by the
developer(s) generating the impacts that brought about the need for the project, which is a result of
economic conditions. Therefore, staff cannot comment on the timing of when the facilities will be
constructed; however, the sequence of when the facilities will be complete can be estimated, which
is reported below if planned dates are not known.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page179
Traffic – FY 2018 8
TDIF
Project No.
Project Description Sequence or Approximate
Date of Completion
43 Birch Road from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway Completed 2017
46 Eastlake Parkway from Birch Road - Hunte
Parkway
Completed 2017
52b. La Media Road from Santa Luna Street to Main
Street Couplet intersection
Second
53a. La Media Road Couplet within Village 8 to Otay
Valley Road
Second
53b. Main Street Couplet Road within Village 8W Second
53c. Otay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR-125
R/W
Fourth
56e. Main Street from Nirvana Avenue to Heritage
Road
2021
57 Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main St. First
58b. Heritage Road Bridge crossing the Otay River 2021
61 Willow Street Bridge from Bonita Road to
Sweetwater Road
Spring 2019
(Under Construction)
64 Hunte Parkway (Otay Valley Road) from SR-125
to Eastlake Parkway
Fifth
69 Millenia Avenue from Birch Road to Hunte
Parkway (Otay Valley Road)
Third
(Currently Partially Complete)
10. The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report included the following 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. Please provide an update
on the City’s efforts with SANDAG to secure funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail
crossing.
SANDAG has preliminarily programmed funding for the design and construction phases of the
Palomar Street grade separation project. This does not guarantee funding at this time; however,
City staff will work to ensure that the funding remains when budgeting regional transportation
projects each fiscal year.
11. 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: Paul Oberbauer
Title: Senior Civil Engineer
Date: October 1, 2018
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page180
§¨¦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 2019GMOC 2019LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)AM Peak PeriodAM Peak Period0380076001900FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGF2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage181
§¨¦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 2019GMOC 2019LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)Mid Day Peak PeriodMid Day Peak Period0380076001900FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGF2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage182
§¨¦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 2019GMOC 2019LOS ALOS ALOS ELOS EARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)ARTERIALS SEGMENTS - LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)PM Peak PeriodPM Peak Period0380076001900FeetLOS FLOS FLEGENDLEGENDPROGRAMPROGRAMPROGRAMTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGTRAFFIC MONITORINGF2019-08-01 Agenda PacketPage183
STREET (Class)
SEGMENT LIMITS AVG.AVG.AVG.AVG.
ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
Third Ave. (3RD2 - HCM 4)
Naples St - CVCL NB B 19.1 ('11)
18,530 (11) / 20,529 ('07)SB B 21.1 ('11)
Fourth Ave. (4TH3 - HCM 4)
Naples St - Main St.NB
13,449 ('11)/ 14,119 ('07)SB
Bonita Rd. (BR1 - HCM 3)
Plaza Bonita - East CVCL EB
31,610 ('11)/ 31,500 ('06)WB
Broadway (BRD3 - HCM 4)
L St. - S. CVCL NB
29,295 ('07)SB
East H St. (EHS1 - HCM 2)
Hidden Vista - Ps Ranchero EB A 35.5 ('14)
48,044 ('10) / 48,885 ('08) WB B 32.6 ('14)
East H St. (EHS2 - HCM 3)
Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr. EB B 29.8 ('12)
33,129 ('11)/ 40,639 ('07)WB B 29.2 ('12)
Eastlake Parkway
Miller Dr - Trinidad Cove SB C 23.3 ('16)
(EAS - HCM 4)NB C 21.2 ('16)
Heritage Rd. (HR - HCM 2)
Tel Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB C 25.85 ('17) C 22.72 ('17)B 33.0 A 42.0
21,244 ('13) / 17,962 ('09) SB C 23.1 ('17) D 20.05 ('17)A 35.4 A 39.6
Hilltop Dr. (HIL1 - HCM 4)
F St. - L St.NB B 19.7 ('17)
9,964 ('07)/ 12,935 ('03)SB B 20.6 ('17)
Hilltop Dr. (HIL2 - HCM 4)
L St. - Orange Ave.NB C 18.4 ('08)
10,830 ('11) / 10,546 ('07) SB B 20.0 ('08)
Industrial Blvd. (IND1 - HCM 4)
L St - Main St.NB B 21.8 ('10)
6,334 ('10) / 7,970 ('07)SB B 19.2 ('10)
J St. (JST1 - HCM 4)
Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave. EB C 17.8 ('09)
13,021 ('07)/ 14,099 ('04)WB B 19.6 ('09)
L St. (LST2 - HCM 4)
Third Ave. - Tel. Cyn Rd. EB B 23.80 ('07)
21,355 ('07)WB B 24.80 ('07)
La Media Rd. (LM1 - HCM 2)
Tel. Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB C 24.0 ('16) C 22.5 ('16)
22,877 ('10)/ 21,910 ('08)SB C 26.0 ('16) C 26.1 ('16)
Main St. (MA1 - HCM 4)
Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave. EB B 24.4 ('14)
NON URBAN ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON
(AM PERIOD)
GMOC 2019 (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
Previous Data
7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM
(7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
J:Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'18 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'19 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls1 10/4/20182019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page184
STREET (Class)
SEGMENT LIMITS AVG.AVG.AVG.AVG.
ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
NON URBAN ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON
(AM PERIOD)
GMOC 2019 (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
Previous Data
7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM 7 - 8 AM 8 - 9 AM
(7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
23,632 ('07)/ 24,539 ('03)WB A 25.9 ('14)
Main St. (MA2 - HCM 3)
Third Ave. - Melrose EB A 27.8 ('14)
23,433 ('11) / 22,830 ('07) WB A 27.2 ('14)
Main St. (MA3 - HCM 2)
Oleander - Entertainment Cr. S EB A 41.3 ('11)
26,896 ('11) / 26,355 ('08) WB B 34.9 ('11)
Olympic Parkway (OP - HCM 1)
Oleander - Heritage Rd EB A 45.97 ('17) A 46.4 ('17)A 42.0 B 36.3
53,276 ('15) / 48,454 ('14) WB A 46.88 ('17) B 41.68 ('17)A 39.3 B 36.9
Olympic Parkway - (OP2 - HCM 1)
Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EB B 36.2 B 40.6 A 37.4 B 33.4
37,945 ('15)/ 35,144 ('13)WB B 35.3 B 36.7 B 33.8 B 31.9
Orange Ave. (OR1 - HCM 4)
Palomar St - Hilltop Dr.EB A 26.9 ('11)
18,040 ('10)/ 17,557 ('07)WB A 25.9 ('11)
E. Orange Ave. (OR2 - HCM 4)
Hilltop Dr - Melrose Ave. EB A 27 ('08)
21,496 ('10)/ 21,866 ('07)WB A 27 ('08)
Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR1 - HCM 2)
Bonita Rd. - East H St.NB B 30.4 ('08)
31,977 ('11)/ 32,440 ('07)SB C 26.8 ('08)
Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR2 - HCM 3)
Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd NB B 24.9 ('16) C 18.9 ('16)B 29.1 B 28.8
29,378 ('15) / 32,463 ('12) SB B 23.9 ('16) B 17.9 ('16)C 23.3 C 22.0
Palomar St. (PAL1 - HCM 4)
Industrial Blvd. – Broadway EB D 9.5 ('16) D 9.4 ('16)D 17.2 E 12.2
38,057 ('14) / 39,230 ('11)WB D 10.6 ('16) D 11.4 ('16)E 12.3 E 12.7
Palomar St. (PAL2 - HCM 4)
Broadway - Hilltop Dr.EB B 21.4 ('07)
19,341 ('07)WB B 22.5 ('07)
Paseo Ranchero (PR1 - HCM 3)
East H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd.NB C 19.1 ('11)
14,374 ('09)/ 14,262 ('07)SB C 21.5 ('11)
Telegraph Canyon Rd. (TC1 - HCM 2)
Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB A 44.0 ('15)
72,925 ('06)WB A 39.2 ('15)
Telegraph Canyon Rd./Otay Lakes Rd (TC2 - HCM 2)
Ps Ranchero - St. Claire Dr. EB A 38.7 ('16)
48,393 ('07)WB B 32.5 ('16)
Lower Half of LOS C LOS E
LOS D LOS F
J:Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'18 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'19 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls2 10/4/20182019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page185
STREET (Class)
SEGMENT LIMITS AVG.AVG.AVG.AVG.
ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
Third Ave. (3RD2 - HCM 4)
Naples St. - S. CVCL NB B 20.3 ('10)
18,530 (11) / 20,529 ('07)SB B 20.7 ('10)
Fourth Ave. (4TH3 - HCM 4)
Naples St. - Main St.NB B 23.8 ('07)
13,449 ('11)/ 14,119 ('07)SB B 20.9 ('07)
Bonita Rd. (BR1 - HCM 3)
Plaza Bonita - East CVCL EB A 31.9 ('07)
31,610 ('11)/ 31,500 ('06)WB A 31.8 ('07)
Broadway (BRD3 - HCM 4)
L St. - South CVCL NB B 20 ('07)
29,295 ('07)SB B 20.6 ('07)
East H St. (EHS1 - HCM 2)
Hidden Vista - Ps Ranchero EB B 33.9 ('14)
48,044 ('10) / 48,885 ('08)WB B 30.0 ('14)
East H St. (EHS2 - HCM 3)
Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr.EB A 32.2 ('12)
33,129 ('11)/ 40,639 ('07)WB B 26.9 ('12)
Eastlake Parkway (EAS - HCM 4)
Miller Dr - Trinidad Cove SB B 21.4 ('15)
23,856 ('13)NB C 18.1 ('15)
Heritage Rd. (HR - HCM 2)
Tel Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB C 27.9 ('17) C 28 ('17)A 39.0 A 39.8
21,244 ('13) / 17,962 ('09)SB C 25 ('17) C 24.2 ('17) A 41.1 B 31.8
Hilltop Dr. (HIL1 - HCM 4)
F St. - L St.NB B 21.7 ('17)
9,964 ('07)/ 12,935 ('03)SB B 20.2 ('17)
Hilltop Dr. (HIL2 - HCM 4)
L St. - Orange Ave.NB B 23.3 ('09)
10,830 ('11) / 10,546 ('07)SB B 21.2 ('09)
Industrial Blvd. (IND1 - HCM 4)
L St. - Main St.NB B 21.6 ('10)
6,334 ('10) / 7,970 ('07)SB C 18.5 ('10)
J St. (JST1 - HCM 4)
Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave.EB C 17.0 ('08)
13,021 ('07)/ 14,099 ('04)WB C 18.2 ('08)
L St. (LST2 - HCM 4)
Third Ave. - Tel. Cyn. Rd EB A 25.90 ('07)
21,355 ('07)WB A 26.20 ('07)
La Media Rd. (LM1 - HCM 2)
Tel. Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB C 26.5 ('15) C 25.9 ('15)
22,877 ('10)/ 21,910 ('08)SB B 30.1 ('15) B 28.8 ('15)
Main St. (MA1 - HCM 4)
Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave.EB B 21.5 ('14)
23,632 ('07)/ 24,539 ('03)WB B 24.1 ('14)
11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30
ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON
(MID-DAY PERIOD)
GMOC 2019 (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30
Previous Data (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'18 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'19 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls1 10/4/20182019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page186
STREET (Class)
SEGMENT LIMITS AVG.AVG.AVG.AVG.
ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30
ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON
(MID-DAY PERIOD)
GMOC 2019 (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30
Previous Data (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
Main St. (MA2 - HCM 3)
Third Ave. - Melrose Ave.EB B 30.0 ('14)
23,433 ('11) / 22,830 ('07)WB B 29.8 ('14)
Main St. (MA3 - HCM 2)
Oleander-Entertainment Cr. S EB A 41.7 ('11)
26,896 ('11) / 26,355 ('08)WB B 31.8 ('11)
Olympic Parkway (OP - HCM 1)
Oleander - Heritage Rd EB A 45.1 ('17) A 45.7 ('17) A 41.8 A 41.5
53,276 ('15) / 48,454 ('14)WB A 45.5 ('17) A 44.2 ('17) A 43.1 A 44.3
Olympic Parkway - (OP2 - HCM 1)
Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EB B 35.85 ('17) B 34.83 ('17) B 35.4 B 35.0
37,945 ('15)/ 35,144 ('13)WB B 35.9 ('17) C 33.58 ('17) B 35.6 B 32.9
Orange Ave. (OR1 - HCM 4)
Palomar St - Hilltop Dr. (III)EB B 23.5 ('11)
18,040 ('10)/ 17,557 ('07)WB B 21.9 ('11)
E. Orange Ave. (OR2 - HCM 4)
Hilltop Dr - Melrose Ave. (III) EB A 29 ('08)
21,496 ('10)/ 21,866 ('07)WB A 29 ('08)
Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR1 - HCM 2)
Bonita Rd. - East H St.NB B 34.5 ('07)
31,977 ('11)/ 32,440 ('07)SB B 33.2 ('07)
Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR2 - HCM 3)
Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd SB C 18.71 ('17) C 19.4 ('17) A 42.0 A 44.7
29,378 ('15) / 32,463 ('12)NB C 17.64 ('17) C 17.26 ('17) D 16.9 D 16.7
Palomar St. (PAL1 - HCM 4)
Industrial Blvd. – Broadway EB D 12.3 ('17) D 12.1 ('17) E 15.7 E 13.8
38,057 ('14) / 39,230 ('11)WB D 9.8 ('17) D 9.4 ('17)F 11.8 E 11.9
Palomar St. (PAL2 - HCM 4)
Broadway - Hilltop Dr.EB B 20.9 ('07)
19,341 ('07)WB B 19.6 ('07)
Paseo Ranchero (PR1 - HCM 3)
East H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd.NB B 26.7 ('11)
14,374 ('09)/ 14,262 ('07)SB C 21.9 ('11)
Telegraph Canyon Rd. (TC1 - HCM 2)
Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB A 47.0 ('14)
72,925 ('06)WB A 39.8 ('14)
Telegraph Canyon Rd./Otay Lakes Rd (TC2 - HCM 2)
Paseo Ranchero - St. Claire EB A 42.2 ('15)
48,393 ('07)WB A 36.0 ('15)
Lower Half of LOS C LOS E
LOS D LOS F
J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'18 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'19 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls2 10/4/20182019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page187
STREET (Class)
SEGMENT LIMITS AVG.AVG.AVG.AVG.
ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
Third Ave. (3RD2 - HCM 4)
Naples St. - CVCL NB C 19.0 ('08)
18,530 (11) / 20,529 ('07)SB C 18.2 ('08)
Fourth Ave. (4TH3 - HCM 4)
Naples St. - Main St.NB B 23.8 ('07)
13,449 ('11)/ 14,119 ('07)SB B 21.9 ('07)
Bonita Rd. (BR1 - HCM 3)
Plaza Bonita - East CVCL EB B 29.2 ('07)
31,610 ('11)/ 31,500 ('06)WB A 30.8 ('07)
Broadway (BRD3 - HCM 4)
L St. - South CVCL NB C 17.7 ('08)
29,295 ('07)SB C 18.7 ('08)
East H St. (EHS1 - HCM 2)
Hidden Vista - Ps Ranchero EB B 30.0 ('14)
48,044 ('10) / 48,885 ('08)WB B 31.5 ('14)
East H St. (EHS2 - HCM 3)
Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr.EB C 23.7 ('08)
33,129 ('11)/ 40,639 ('07)WB B 24.3 ('08)
Eastlake Parkway
Miller Dr - Trinidad Cove SB B 22.0 ('16)
(EAS - HCM 4)NB C 18.6 ('16)
Heritage Rd. (HR - HCM 2)
Tel Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB C 23.7 ('17) C 25.67 ('17) A 47.2 A 42.0
21,244 ('13) / 17,962 ('09)SB C 22.37 ('17) C 23.78 ('17) B 32.1 B 33.6
Hilltop Dr. (HIL1 - HCM 4)
F St. - L St.NB B 22.6 ('17)
9,964 ('07)/ 12,935 ('03)SB B 21.5 ('17)
Hilltop Dr. (HIL2 - HCM 4)
L St. - Orange Ave.NB B 24.1 ('11)
10,830 ('11) / 10,546 ('07)SB B 22.6 ('11)
Industrial Blvd. (IND1 - HCM 4)
L St. - Main St.NB B 21.0 # ('10)
6,334 ('10) / 7,970 ('07)SB C 15.9 # ('10)
J St. (JST1 - HCM 4)
Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave.EB C 15.3 ('08)
13,021 ('07)/ 14,099 ('04)WB C 17.4 ('08)
L St. (LST2 - HCM 4)
Third Ave. - Tel. Cyn. Rd.EB B 22.50 ('07)
21,355 ('07)WB A 25.20 ('07)
La Media Rd. (LM1 - HCM 2)
Tel. Cyn Rd.-Olympic Pkwy NB D 21.6 ('16) C 23.1 ('16)
22,877 ('10)/ 21,910 ('08)SB C 26.1 ('16) C 25.5 ('16)
Main St. (MA1 - HCM 4)
Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave.EB B 20.6 ('14)
23,632 ('07)/ 24,539 ('03)WB B 23.3 ('14)
Previous Data (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON
(PM PERIOD)
GMOC 2019 (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM
J\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'18 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'19 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls1 10/4/20182019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page188
STREET (Class)
SEGMENT LIMITS AVG.AVG.AVG.AVG.
ADT (YR) /ADT (YR)DIR LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
Previous Data (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS COMPARISON
(PM PERIOD)
GMOC 2019 (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM 4 - 5 PM 5 - 6 PM
Main St. (MA2 - HCM 3)
Third Ave. - Melrose Ave.EB C 23.1 ('14)
23,433 ('11) / 22,830 ('07)WB B 26.3 ('14)
Main St. (MA3 - HCM 2)
Oleander-Entertainment Cr. S EB A 41.3 ('11)
26,896 ('11) / 26,355 ('08)WB B 35.0 ('11)
Olympic Parkway (OP - HCM 1)
Oleander - Heritage Rd EB A 45.54 ('17) A 43.69 ('17) A 39.6 A 39.2
53,276 ('15) / 48,454 ('14)WB C 29.59 ('17) C 32.08 ('17) A 39.5 A 39.3
Olympic Parkway - (OP2 - HCM 1)
Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EB C 28.4 ('17) C 27.5 ('17) B 32.7 B 32.6
37,945 ('15)/ 35,144 ('13)WB C 33.15 ('17) C 31.73 ('17) C 30.5 C 29.4
Orange Ave. (OR1 - HCM 4)
Palomar St. - Hilltop Dr.EB B 22.1 ('05)
18,040 ('10)/ 17,557 ('07)WB A 25.2 ('05)
E. Orange Ave. (OR2 - HCM 4)
Hilltop Dr. - Melrose Ave.EB A 26 ('08)
21,496 ('10)/ 21,866 ('07)WB B 23 ('08)
Otay Lakes Rd. (OLR1 - HCM 2)
Bonita Rd - East H St.NB B 32.0 ('08)
31,977 ('11)/ 32,440 ('07)SB B 29.7 ('08)
Otay Lakes Rd - (OLR3 - HCM 3)
Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd NB C 16.81 ('17) C 16.17 ('17) B 31.4 A 34.4
36,236 ('11)/ 33,411 ('07)SB C 15.45 ('17) C 15.12 ('17) D 17.8 E 16.5
Palomar St. (PAL1 - HCM 4)
Industrial Blvd. – Broadway EB D 11.5 ('17) D 11.3 ('17) E 11.9 E 11.9
39,230 ('11) / 47,631 ('10)WB E 8.35 ('17) D 10.57 ('17) F 7.7 F 9.1
Palomar St. (PAL2 - HCM 4)
Broadway - Hilltop Dr.EB B 19.9 ('08)
19,341 ('07)WB C 18.6 ('08)
Paseo Ranchero (PR1 - HCM 3)
East H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd.NB C 20.8 ('11)
14,374 ('09)/ 14,262 ('07)SB B 24.1 ('11)
Telegraph Canyon Rd. (TC1 - HCM 2)
Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB A 43.9 ('14)
72,925 ('06)WB A 39.4 ('14)
Telegraph Canyon Rd./Otay Lakes Rd (TC2 - HCM 2)
Paseo Ranchero - St Claire EB A 37.2 ('16)
48,393 ('07)WB B 33.2 ('16)
Lower Half of LOS C LOS E
LOS D LOS F
J\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'18 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'19 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls2 10/4/20182019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page189
SEGMENT (CLASS) DIR. LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
Heritage Rd. - ADS
1 Tel Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy NB B 33.0 A 42.0 A 39.0 A 39.8 A 47.2 A 42.0
After south seg. Opened ('14) SB A 35.4 A 39.6 A 41.1 B 31.8 B 32.1 B 33.6
Olympic Parkway - ADS
2 Oleander Ave. - Heritage Rd. EB A 42.0 B 36.3 A 41.8 A 41.5 A 39.6 A 39.2
(OP - HCM 1)WB A 39.3 B 36.9 A 43.1 A 44.3 A 39.5 A 39.3
3 Heritage Rd - Eastlake Pkwy EB A 37.4 B 33.4 B 35.4 B 35.0 B 32.7 B 32.6
(OP2 - HCM 1)WB B 33.8 B 31.9 B 35.6 B 32.9 C 30.5 C 29.4
Otay Lakes Rd. - ADS
4 Ridgeback Rd - Telegraph Cyn Rd NB B 29.1 B 28.8 A 42.0 A 44.7 B 31.4 A 34.4
(OLR3 - HCM 4)SB C 23.3 C 22.0 D 16.9 D 16.7 D 17.8 E 16.5
Palomar St. - ADS
5 Industrial Bl. – Broadway EB D 17.2 E 12.2 E 15.7 E 13.8 E 11.9 E 11.9
(PAL1 - HCM 4)WB E 12.3 E 12.7 F 11.8 E 11.9 F 7.7 F 9.1
LOS C ADS - Adaptive Detection System
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
5 - 6 PM
MID-DAY
11:30 - 12:30
MID-DAY
12:30 - 1:30
AM PERIOD
7 - 8 AM
AM PERIOD
8 - 9 AM
GMOC 2019 (7/01/2017 - 6/30/2018)
TMP NON URBAN ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS - ALL TIME PERIODS
PM PERIOD
4 - 5 PM
PM PERIOD
J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM\2010 TMP\'18 TMP Summary Results - GMOC'19 - Urban_Arterials_STRENGTH.xls1 10/4/20182019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page190
RESOLUTION NO. MPA18-0008
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2018
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 21, 2019, the GMOC finalized its Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report;
and
WHEREAS, the report covers Fiscal Year 2018 (from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018),
identifies current issues in the second half of 2018and early 2019, and assesses threshold compliance
concerns looking forward over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2019, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public
meeting with the City Council to consider the Fiscal Year 2018GMOC 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 2018 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 2018 GMOC Annual Report.
Presented by:Approved as to form by:
_______________________________________________________________
Kelly Broughton Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page191
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 GMOC
ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER
TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES
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 21, 2019, the GMOC finalized its Fiscal Year 2018 Annual
Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers Fiscal Year 2018 (from July 1, 2017 through June 30,
2018), identifies current issues in the second half of 2018 and early 2019, and assesses threshold
compliance concerns over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public
meeting with the Planning Commission to consider the Fiscal Year 2018 GMOC Annual Report;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon considering the Fiscal Year 2018 GMOC
Annual Report, recommended that the City Council accept the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, that it accepts the Fiscal Year 2018 GMOC Annual Report, and directs the City Manager
to undertake actions necessary to implement report recommendations as presented in the
Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary (Exhibit A).
Presented by Approved as to form by
Kelly Broughton Glen R. Googins
Development Services Director City Attorney
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page192
Attachment 1
1
Fiscal Year 2018 GMOC Annual Report
Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary
GMOC Recommendations
Staff Responses and Proposed
Implementing Actions
Libraries – 3.1.1 Libraries – 3.1.1
1. That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize
Libraries, right below public safety, with the objective of
increasing the amount of materials and staffing to meet the
state average, based on the most recent data available.
2. That the City Council direct the City Manager to allocate a
portion of any surplus from future budgets to supplement
the library materials budget. The amount should be at least
as much as the fees collected in any given year for processing
passport applications.
1. The Library agrees with the GMOC recommendations and will
continue to work with the City Manager’s office to identify ways
to better serve the community in innovative programming and
to identify funding to support materials and staffing.
2. The Library will work with the Finance Department and the City
Manager’s Office to determine a fiscally responsible ongoing
approach to supplement the library materials budget and staff
support.
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 with the objective of increasing staffing
levels per capita to be consistent with the County’s median
staffing levels per capita.
2. That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the
Police Department to aggressively expand a new officer
recruitment campaign, providing it with the proper tools,
technology and resources to aid in the process of recruiting
new police officers.
On June 5, 2018, voters approved a one-half cent transaction and use tax
ordinance that secures funding for additional officers and support staff.
The City Manager’s Office is working closely with the Chula Vista Police
Department to ensure proper staffing levels and together have
developed a 10-year plan to add 43 additional positions to help improve
response times. In FY 2019, the Department was funded for nine new
sworn and civilian positions. In FY 2020, 12 new sworn and civilian
positions were approved to be budgeted. Additionally, the Department
is proactively seeking grant opportunities that will fund additional
positions to help close the gap with the County’s staffing levels per
capita. The City Manager’s Office has allocated funds to support the
Department’s recommended recruitment campaigns.
2019-08-01 Agenda Packet Page193