HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-01 Item 1 Additional Information cm Of
CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT for Fiscal Year 2018
July 1 , 2017 - June 30, 2018
May Z 2019
Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. MPA18-0008) and
City Council (Resolution No. ) on August 1, 2019
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.chulavistoca.gov
GMOC Chair Cover Memo
DATE: May 2, 2019
T0: 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
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 1 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 2 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
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 3 May Z 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
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 4 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 identif=ied
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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 5 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 6 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
Potential for Adopt/Fund
Threshold Threshold
Threshold Future Non- Tactics to
Standard Met Not Met Achieve
compliance 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 X
Recreation
6. Fiscal X
7. Drainage X
8. Schools X
9. Sewer X
10. Air Quality and X
Climate Protection
11. Water X
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 7 May 2, 2019
3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS
31 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
Total Gross Square Gross Square Feet of Library
Population Footage of Library Facilities Per 1000 Residents
Facilities (Threshold=500 GSF/1000)
5-Year Projection 134,412(a) 458 (a)
(2023) 293,663 129,000(b) 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 8 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 9 May 2, 2019
3.2 POLICE — NON-COMPLIANT (Priority 1 and 2)
Threshold Standards:
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).
'Priority 1—Emergency Calls are fife-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.
'Priority 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
Timed Call Volume %of Call Responses Average Response
Fiscal Call Volume (Calls used in the Within 7 Minutes Time(Minutes)
Year (Initial Priority calculation of response 30 Seconds (Threshold=6
Assigned)' timesg) (Threshold =81%) 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 2002° 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).
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 10 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 11 May 2, 2019
3.2.2. Threshold Compliance
Issue: The threshold standard was not met.
Table 2. Priority 2 — Urgent Calls for Service
Fiscal Year Call Volume Timed Call Volume Average Response
(Initial Priority (Calls used in the Time (Minutes)
Assigned') calculation of (Threshold=12
response times) Minutes)
FY 2018 18,969 of 65,581 16,023 20:17f
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 2002° 22,199 of 71,859 -- 10:Q�
FY1992c -- -- 6:30
FY1990,� -- -- 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.
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
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 12 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 13 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* SB* D (3) E (1)*
(Ridgeback Rd to Telegraph Canyon Rd)
Palomar Street EB D (2) E (4)
(Between Industrial Blvd&Broadway) WB E (3) F(3)
PAST PERFORMANCE (BASELINE)
Number of Non-Compliant Segments FY20173 1(Non-Urban)
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections FY3992b 0
8
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections FY1989, 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 modem 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
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 14 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
All Calls % of All Calls Average
Fiscal For Service Responded to Response Time Average Average Average
Year Within 7 Minutes For All Calls Travel Time Dispatch Time Turn-out Time
(Threshold=80%)
2018 13,986 81.4 5:45 4:06 0:50 0:49
2017 1 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 15 May 2, 2019
FY 2018 FIRE and EMS Response Times-By Fire Station
%of All Calls
All Calls Average
Fire Station# For Service Responded to Response Time Average Average Average
And Location Within 7 Minutes For All Calls Travel Time Dispatch Time Turn-out Time
(Threshold=80%)
1-447 F St. 4424 90.7 04:54 I 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 868 76.9 06:12 04:32 00:47 00:53
Ranchero
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 I 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 1-805.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 16 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
Forecasts` Prior Year Comparisons
Threshold Area of City City- Current 18-Month 5-Year June June June
Standard Owned Availableb
6/30/18 12/31/18 (12/31/19) (2023) 2015 2016 2017
3 acres per East 1-805 3.72 3.75 3.65 3.66 2.94 2.83 3.99
1,000 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.3 1.20 1.21 1.19
population West 1-805
East Citywide
of 1-805 2.61 2.62 2.53 2.69 2.16 2.11 2.77
Acres of East 1-805 578.98 582.88 582.88 632.94 418.44 421.00 604.25
parkland West 1-805 138.95 138.95 138.95 157.11 138.76 142.66 138.95
Citywide 717.93 721.83 721.83 790.05 557.20 563.07 743.30
Population East 1-805 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 East 1-805 (112.6) (116.5) (103.8) (113.93) 9.20 25.67 (150.45)
shortfall or West 1-805 220.14 220.14 221.39 204.86 208.64 212.17 211.00
excess 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 17 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 funding 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 18 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 GMCIC 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 (LVESD) 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;
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 19 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 20 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 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 18-month 5-year "Buildout"
per Day(MGD) 2016 2017 2018 Projection) Projection Projection
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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 21 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 Development Services Director:
a. Residential projects of 50 or more residential dwelling units;
b. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres (or equivalent square footage);
C. Industrial projects of 24 or more acres(or equivalent square footage); or
d. Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units or greater.
3.10.1 Threshold Compliance
Issue: 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 22 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.
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 23 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
Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report 24 May 2, 2019
V Q) O,t3 C3
O 3 v
� C31
O -C3i a O O Qi �
cz
a v -C3 a o ° a :° a `a 4
c) a Oi C Cl.
O t i � O Q
C3 Qj 0 N E = M ° a v c Qa, a i" a c °
Q. C Q) a o `Q a rn ° c o c a m h
0 0 E a, a o Z; °; o ff .� 3 c° a y c o,
a o o_ V, c, Q, o c . a 3 v a
Q, H Q, v u v 3 a a 3Q) v $ a E
° a = c o E o v E ..' v c
N ° c ° Q, `� a c a, i oN° v _ °
a .�+ a $ vi 0 C)
o c ° c ti o
a m u ° 3 Q, c crf Q, v Q) a L a a E
O CL
X 0 3 a o ° o c Q z aCS IZL 4)C4
co Ch
-j t3 Cil
o oI u� u Q,v v c v o s Q=,
•L c a s Qj a So a o 4- o ~
in Q Q 4 v
(,� V bn cu
JJ /� � +� o •N c c s to
l� •V N ++ CU a U N f0 41 L M ++
�+ Q! Q) i, it i+ Y O L w O O
Q N `o ? E o °' ami a o a
L.- • 41
QCU •l0 m Q- 'a O •Q .y N p Q 4—
O -' 00 > O `� O M c414- CU
0 3 p p
T L O C L O O L U O L c CL N
coo � ° M+ 41 C R ` CD
� CUi "o O
++ L
-.� f0 c f0 to = > f0 p Ld f0 f0 t Q
V : C +>+ >. H i CU Y cu R C U 3 +>+ 4+ C
•� '_� � L 0 U � L � V A C U a C -p
L H aN+ E �'" t O ap+ •y "a R
++ m ++ 1 } CU a•+ of +1 N >
E w U E a ++ v 4J H U v p o
O
to U c to
of cu 0 cu
41 m
CL
U p 41 0
p p U Q io W O N .v Q1 p U v +, m vi
(� o m o 4--
u N p ;g Q p a' E a U
O U y U > M = M U •Q y U E � c
` 4 U vi c a) U p M to a�-1 U c a V a)CL
O v
a, o
a .N > a, i a� c Q o E p
a m a I H U n H a° °' c
L
a