The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 2003/06/12 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADJOURNED REGULAR. MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 12,2003 4:00 P.M. CORPORATION YARD 1800 MAXWELL ROAD CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla Growth Management Oversight Commissioners Arroyo, Cortes, Krogh, Munoz, Nordstrom, Palma, Spethman, Tripp, and Chair Garcia Planning Commissioners Castañeda, Cortes, Felber, Horn, Madrid, O'Neill, and Chair Hall 1. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S 2002 ANNUAL REPORT On May 1,2003, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) finalized its 2002 annual repòrt to the City Council regarding compliance with the City's eleven quality-of-life threshold standards. The report covers the period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, identifies current issues in the second half of 2002 and early 2003, and finally addresses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. Staff recommendation: A. Planning Commission accept the 2002 GMOC annual report and recommendations as presented therein, and adopt a motion recommending that the Council do the same; and B. Council accept the GMOC's 2002 annual report and recommendations contained therein, and direct the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of June 17, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula VIsIa In the Office of the City Clerk and that I polted this document on the bulletin board according to Brown Act requlrementa. Dated ~ frpfr),8 Signed 2her lL ~ . SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOPIMEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item-1 Meeting Date 06/12/03 ITEM TITLE: Report: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 2002 Annual Report / . ;?J// SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building;i-tf...... REVIEWED BY: City ManagerGt: vI (4/5tbs Vote: Yes_No-X] On May I, 2003, the GMOC finalized its 2002 Annual Report to the City Council regarding compliance with the City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold Standards. The report covers the period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, identifies current issues in the second half of 2002 and early 2003, and finally assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next 5 years. The report discusses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. Of note, "Statements of Concern" have been issued for both school districts regarding the school construction schedules. A summary of the GMOC's recommendations and staffs proposed implementation actions is included as Attachment A. The workshop will give the GMOC an opporturutyto discuss their findings and recommendations with the Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMENDATION: I) That the Planning Commission accept the 2002 GMOC Annual Report and approve the recommendations as presented herein, and adopt a motion recommending that Council do the same; and 2) That the City Council: a) Accept the 2002 GMOC Annual Report and approve the recommendations contained therein; and direct the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations as presented in the "2002 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary" (Attachment I). b) In regard to the "Statements of Concern" relative to the two school districts, staff supports the GMOC position that the school districts are responding to the situation in an appropriate manner and that a resolution rrom the City Council to the school districts is not necessary. Page 2, Item-1 Meeting Date 06/12/03 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission will provide comments and recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION: 1. Changes in the GMOC Over the last two years the GMOC has strived to become a more dynamic and responsive body. In last year's GMOC Annual Report and presentation, several initiatives to change the GMOC were brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and City Council. This year there are an additional array of recommendations throughout the report that seek to enhance the GMOC's ability to function effectively and respond to community concerns. The changes implemented by the GMOC this year include: (I) A shift to a more future oriented and proactive posture with emphasis placed on the impacts of growth over the next five years. (2) A greater emphasis is being placed on western Chula Vista, and (3) Greater community participation has been instituted by holding two public outreach events. In addition, the current set ofrecommendations contains various proposed additions and changes within several critical thresholds. Among these additions and changes is the recommendation to create a western Chula Vista threshold for Parks and Recreation, that targets for staffing and reduction of false alarms be created to augment the Police response time threshold, in a similar fashion that targets for fire station construction, equipment purchase, and staffing be created to augment the Fire/EMS response time threshold, and that a threshold for transit be considered for inclusion in the Traffic threshold. The GMOC will also take into consideration during the coming year's deliberations, the many recommendations made by the Schools Task Force. 2. Summary of Findings GMOC Development Forecast The forecast for growth rrom 2003 through 2007 reflects an average of approximately 2,500 dwelling unit completions per year, with minor fluctuations on an annual basis. The ability for this amountof growth to be sustained over the 5-year period will be deternrined by the strength of the economy and housing market, but it will also be affected by the timing of major roadways and other inrrastructure and facilities needed to support that growth. Construction of State Route 125 is particularly important in supporting this 5-year forecast. Page 3, ltem-1. Meeting Date 06/12/03 Current Threshold Compliance Not In Com liance Police Fire/EMS In Com liance Schools Traffic Parks & Recreation Libraries Fiscal Air Quality Sewer Drainage Water Future Threshold Compliance - December 2007 Threshold I Threshold Likely to Potential for Future Statement of be Met Non ComDliance Concern Fiscal X Air Quality X Sewer X \Vater X Libraries X Drainage X Parks and Recreation X Police I X Fire/EMS X Traffic X Schools X X Page 4, Item.J. Meeting Date 06/12/03 3. Summary of Key Issues Thresholds Not In ComDliance Police Emergency response time improved rrom 79.7% of Priority 1 calls responded to within 7 minutes in FY 00-01 to 80% in FY OJ -02; this is relative to the 81 % threshold level. The 1% overage in Priority I calls represents onJy 12 calls and is within statistical variation. The GMOC considers this "virtual" compliance. Fire/EMS A surprise decline in the percent of calls responded to within 7 minutes has occurred. In the last reporting period 80.8% of calls were responded to within 7 minutes, which did meet the threshold of 80% within 7 minutes. In the most recent term, only 69.7% had responses within 7 minutes. This was unexpected as it was anticipated that changing to a new dispatch provider would improve response time. Increases in dispatch, turn out, and travel time have been experienced. While there are various reasons for the decline, the GMOC concluded that fire station construction, staffing, and acquiring equipment is lagging behind growth relative to maintaining the growth management threshold. Fire Station 7, which serves the area most impacted by the decline in response time, will be operational in September 2003 and therefore provides a mitigation measure. In addition, the Fire Department Master Plan is scheduled to be updated this year and will provide direction as to further appropriate actions. Within 60 days staff will return to the City Council with a report regarding alternatives for addressing the Fire/EMS threshold non-compliance. Statement of Concern: Schools The construction schedules for both school districts are aggressive in their efforts to stay abreast of growth. The ChuJa Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) is planning to build at least one school a year over at least the next 4 years assuming state matching funds are available. This schedule will result in the school district maintaining capacity in their schools to accommodate the student population district wide. However, Otay Ranch Villages 6 and 11 may have a combined total of over 3,000 housing units occupied before a school is built. Bussing may occur for several years to Hedenkamp Elementary School in Sunbow. While the GMOC acknowledges that capacity district wide is assured and that the construction schedule of one school a year may be all that is practical. However, the GMOC believes that busing this distance and for this length of time raises a serious community problem, and rises to a formal "Statements of Concern". The Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) has indicated that an additional high school will be needed by the 2006/07 school year. Efforts are fully underway between the school district, the City and the major developers in eastern Chula Vista to meet this schedule. While all efforts are being made to keep to this schedule there is no room for delays. The GMOC believes that this Page 5, Item...! Meeting Date 06/] 2/03 situation represents a potentially serious problem and therefore as a precautionary note also rises to a formal "Statement of Concern". In both cases cited above, the GMOC acknowledges that the City and the school districts are taking appropriate measures, but there remain potential1y serious conditions that is recognized by the GMOC and that should be communicated to the City Council, Planning Commission, and community. According to the Growth Management Policy: Should the GMOC determine that a potential1y serious problem exists with respect to schools, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC's report, to be directed to the responsible public agency(s) with follow-up to assure appropriate response by that agency. In both situations, however, the GMOC believes that the CVESD and the SUHSD are responding to the concern in the appropriate manner and that a resolution is not required. City staff concurs with this assessment. Thresholds With Potential Non-Compliance Fire/EMS As discussed above. Traffic Traffic is listed as having a future non-compliance issue. It is expected that with the Permit Monitoring Program, with planned traffic enhancements completed, traffic for the next three years should be within threshold standards. After that point, the completion of SR-125 should provide the necessary capacity to avoid a traffic threshold failure. To be conservative and recognizing the many variables in play, and to reflect continued community concern, the GMOC has determined that a potential traffic threshold failure exists. The GMOC will evaluate the situation on a year-to-year basis. Other Sienificant Issues/Recommendations Parks and Recreation The GMOC has stated that with the Parks Master Plan in place, it is now time to establish a Park and Recreation quality of Life Threshold Standard for western Chula Vista. This standard is not envisioned as being the same as stipulated for the east. There must instead be an examination of what win bring an equitable level of service to the west, to be reasonable, and achievable over a number of years based upon a practical financing scheme. Page 6, Item..l Meeting Date 06/12/03 Conclusions: To assist Council in evaluating and acting upon the GMOC" s recommendations, a concise summary of the GMOC"s recommendations and corresponding staff responses is presented in Attachment I (labeled as Appendix A in the GMOC Report). Staff requests direction rrom Council regarding implementation of those recommendations as outlined in the right-hand column of Attachment 1. Additional appendices to the GMOC Report contains the Public Outreach Event Write-ups, Growth Forecast and Threshold Compliance Questionnaire/supplemental reports presented to the GMOC by the various City Departments and outside agencies. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. As specified follow-up actions are brought forward to the City Council, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided. Attachments: 1 - 2002 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Will be included as Appendix A, in the 2002 GMOC Annual Report) 2 - Chairperson's Cover Memo and GMOC 2002 Annual Report 3 - Appendices (Is included under separate cover, as Volume II, 2002 GMOC Annual Report, Appendices B, C, and D). Rev.June 5, 2003 (1 0:54AM) June 5, 2003 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Chula Vista FROM: Arthur Garcia, Chairperson Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) SUBJECT: 2002 GMOC Annual Report (July 2001 to June 30, 2002, and Five Year Forecast) The GMOC is appreciative of the time and professional expertises given by the various City department staff as well as the school districts, water authorities, and Air Pollution Control District in helping us complete this year's annual report. The comprehensive written and verbal reports presented to the GMOC illustrate the commitment of these dedicated professionals to serving the Chula Vista community. Special thanks to Dan Forster, Cherryl Cisneros, Mark Stephens, and Terry Smith who provided excellent staff support. I would like to recognize the commissioners of the GMOC: Vice Chair, Bill Tripp, Rafael Munoz, Michael Spethman, Steve Palina, David Krogh, Marco Cortes, Gary Nordstrom, and Richard Arroyo. This dedicated and diverse team of citizens read numerous reports, listened to detailed presentations, and participated in hours of thoughtful discussion about the impact of development on the "quality of life" in Chula Vista. The underlying theme of this year's GMOC process is that we are changing in three specific ways with more changes to come. First, and for the first time, the GMOC cultivated public participation with two public outreach events. Each event brought out between 70 and 90 participants. Second, our focus has become more proactive, emphasizing the next 5 years as opposed to the previous fiscal year. Third, although not as obvious, growth is occurring in the west. We are taking an ever- closer look at the impacts that this situation is causing. When considering further changes we are left with a fundamental question. Are we tasked with grox~h management by monitoring quality of life indicators, or are we expected to monitor the impacts of growth and the quality of life overall? Technically, the answer is the former, but from the comments we have heard many in the community expect the latter. One of the basic objectives of the City's growth management program was to insure that eastern growth did not erode the quality of life that the west side of the community had become accustomed to. In example, the GMOC can say that drainage in the east is, or is not, keeping pace with growth and recommend appropriate actions. On the other hand, we are not empowered to comment on the decayed drainage system in the west as that decay is no! specifically growth related. We have commented on the state of drainage in the west anyway, but it is not within our charge to do so. The dilemma; should we not have a system that monitors the quality of life on both the east and west side of the City regardless of the cause, be it growth, service levels, or just inadequate upgrades and maintenance? Let me be clear on two points. First the GMOC membership is not unified in an answer to this and continues to struggle with defining our role. Second, even if there was a unified position, the GMOC acknowledges that the east and west are different and that different quality of life standards and implementation methods for each area would be appropriate. As the City Council has stated, the City's growth management program needs a top to bottom review. We are in agreement. As for this reporting period, it is not a surprise that the City of Chula Vista continues to experience unprecedented growth. This growth reflects the prosperity of the region but if not managed poses a threat to our quality of life. This underscores the importance of managed growth to assure the continued "quality of life" the citizens of Chula Vista appreciate and have come to expect. The GMOC recognizes the complexity of this issue and commends the City Council for its commitment to managed growth and the actions taken on April 15, 2003 implementing a permit monitoring system. The GMOC found nine of the eleven threshold standards in compliance, two out of compliance, two potential future non-compliance, and has issued two Statements of Concern. Thresholds not in compliance: Police The Police response time threshold while not being met, was within 12 calls of achievement. This represents virtual compliance. The GMOC notes continued improvement and anticipates threshold achievement in the next reporting cycle. Fire/EMS After reaching the threshold level last year, the Fire/EMS response times made a surprise decline. One of the factors is that fire station development is not keeping pace with growth, although a new station will open in September 2003. Potential for future non-compliance: Traffic In addition to Fire/EMS (discussed above) Traffic is listed as having a future non- compliance issue. It is expected that with the Permit Monitoring Program, including traffic enhancements in place, traffic for the next three years should be within threshold standards. After that point, the completion of SR-125 should provide the necessary capacity to avoid a traffic threshold failure. To be conservative, and to reflect continued community concern, the GMOC has determined that a potential traffic threshold failure cxists. The GMOC will evaluate the situation on a year to year basis. In addition, the GMOC is recommending that there be a community workshop on traffic, that the relationship of freeway traffic and the City's traffic threshold be evaluated, and for an investigation on a transit related threshold be conducted. Statement of Concern." Schools Statements of concern are being issued for both elementary and high schools regarding construction schedules relative to student population growth. The City and the school districts are taking appropriate measures, but there remain a potentially serious conditions that the GMOC must recognize. In addition, the GMOC believes that the recommendations of the Schools Task Force need to be taken seriously and acted upon as appropriate. Summary of other findings: Parks and Recreation With the Parks Master Plan in place, it is now time to establish a Park and Recreation quality of Life Threshold Standard for western Chula Vista. This standard is not envisioned as being the same as stipulated for the east. There must instead be an examination of what will bring an equitable level of service to the west, to be reasonable, and achievable over a number of years based upon a practical financing scheme. The following report highlights the eleven threshold standards, with the issues and recommendations to the City Council. I look forward to the joint City Council, Planning Commission and GMOC workshop on June 12, 2002. CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2002 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT Review Period 7/1/01 to 6/30/02 And Five Year Forecast to December 2007 Commission Members Arthur M. Garcia, Chair (Education) William Tr/pp, Vice Chair (Environmental) Rafael Munoz (Eastern Territories) Michael Spethman (Center City) Steve Palma (Southwest) David W. Krogh (Sweetwater/Bonita) Richard Arroyo (Business) Gary Lee Nordstrom (Development) Marco Polo Cortes (Planning Commission) Staff Daniel Forster, Growth Management Coordinator Cherryl Cisneros, Management Assistant Terrance Smith, Planrfing Intern Mark Stephens, Principal Planner June 12, 2003 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2002 ANNUAL REPORT Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) ........................................................... 3 1.2 Review Process ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Growth Forecast ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Changes In The GMOC ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Future Orientation .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.4.2 Western Chula Vista .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Greater Community Participation ...................................................................................................... 6 1.4.4 Threshold Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Top to Bottom Review .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.19 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 7 3.~0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 FISCAL ................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.1 DII: Fees ........................................................................................................................................... 29 3.2 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines ..................................................................................... 12 3.3 SEWER ............................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Timely Construction o£the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer ..................................................................... 13 3.4 WATER ............................................................................................................................................... 15 3.4.1 Water Distribution System Capacity .............................................................................................. 15 3.5 LIBRARIES ........................................................................................................................................ 17 3.5.1 Librat3' Building Plan ..................................................................................................................... 17 3.6 DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................................................ 18 3.6.1 Unfunded Drainage Projects in Western Chula Vista ..................................................................... 18 3.7 PARKS & RECREATION ................................................................................................................ 19 3.7.1 Facility Adequacy .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.7.2 Equivalence of Recreational Opportunities .................................................................................... 19 3.7.3 Completion of Greenbelt Master Plan ............................................................................................ 20 3.7.4 Joint Use of City/School Recreation Facilities ............................................................................... 20 2002 GMOC Annual Report 1 dune 12, 2003 3.8 POLICE ............................................................................................................................................... 22 3.8.1 Performance Targets ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.8.2 Removal of False Alarms from Response Times ............................................................................ 23 3.8.3 Additional Measures to Reduce Response Time ............................................................................ 24 3.8.4 False Alarms ................................................................................................................................... 26 3.9 FIRE / EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES .............................................................................. 29 3.9.1 Maintaining Threshold ..................................................................................................................... 30 3.9.2 Monitoring Tai'gets ......................................................................................................................... 31 3.10 TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................................................ 32 3.10.1 Timely Construction of SR-125 ................................................................................................. 32 3.10.2 Traffic Enhancement Opportunities ........................................................................................... 32 3.10.3 Traffic Monitoring Program Reporting ...................................................................................... 33 3.10.4 Traffic Thresholds and Measurement ......................................................................................... 34 3.] 1.5 Highway Traffic and Quality of Life .......................................................................................... 34 3.11.6 Transit Threshold ........................................................................................................................ 35 3.11 SCHOOLS ........................................................................................................................................... 36 3.11.1 Monitoring Growth ...................................................................................................................... 37 3. I 1.2 School Construction - Elementary Schools ............................................................................... 38 3.11.3 School Construction - Middle and High Schools ...................................................................... 39 3.11.4 The Schools Task Force .............................................................................................................. 40 4..~.0 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 41 4.1 Appendix A - Recommendations and Implementing Actions ............................................................ 41 2002 GMOC Annual Report 2 June 12, 2003 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) In November 1987, the City CounciI adopted the original Threshold Standards Policy for Chula Vista establishing "quality-of-life'~ indicators for eleven public facility and service topics. The Policy addresses each topic in terms of a goal, objective(s), a "threshold" or standard, and implementation measures. Adherence to these citywide standards is intended to preserve and enhance both the environment and residents' quality of life as growth occurs. To provide an independent, annual, City-wide Threshold Standards compliance review, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) was created. It is composed of nine members representing each of the City's four major geographic areas, a member of the Planning Commission, and a cross section of interests including education, environment, business, and development. The GMOC's review is structured around three time frames: 1. A fiscal year cycle to accommodate City Council review of GMOC recommendations, which may have budget implications, therefore the report focuses on the previous fiscal year for detailed data collection, which in this case is July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. 2. Pertinent issues identified during the second half of 2002 and early 2003 are also addressed. This is to assure that the GMOC can and does respond to current events. 3. A five-year forecast covering the period from January 2003 through December 2007 is assessed for potential threshold compliance concerns. This assures that the GMOC has a furore orientation. The GMOC 5 Year Forecast is included in Appendix B. During this process, thc GMOC encourages each City Depmtl~ent and outside agency, which has responsibility for reporting on the threshold status, to review the appropriateness of the threshold and whether new thresholds and or standards should be considered. 1.2 Review Process The GMOC held 11 regular meetings from September 2002 through May 2003. In addition, GMOC members par6cipated in a City field ~a-ip, and two Public Outreach Events, and the Joint Worl~hop with the City Council and Planning Commission scheduled for June 12, 2003. 8 City Depa~wnents and 5 outside agencies completed threshold questionnaires. GMOC members reviewed the questionnaires, and where necessary, asked depmh~ent or agency representatives to appear in person to answer questions. The GMOC detcrrmned whether it would be appropriate to issue a "statement of concern" for issues dealing with "outside agencies" or to make other recommendations regarding each threshold. Once individual threshold reviews were completed, this report was prepared for presentation at a joim workshop with the GMOC, the Planning Comrmssion and City Council. At the City Council, Planning Commission and GMOC joint workshop, as specified by the Growth Management Program document, the GMOC requests that the Annual Report be accepted and both the Planning Commission and City Council approve the recommendations contained therein. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 3 June 12, 2003 1.3 Growth Forecast In October 2002 the GMOC "Preliminary" Five Year Growth Forecast was issued. This forecast was issued to provide departments and outside agencies with an estimate of the magnitude of residential growth to be anticipated over the over the next five years. Each department and outside agency was then asked how their respective public facility/service would be able to accommodate that growth. The forecast fi.om January 2003 through December 2007, indicated an additional 12,500 residential units would be constructed in the city, for an annual average of 2,500 units. One of the assumptions of that forecast was that "Building caps are not imposed on development". In essence, the Permit Monitoring Program adopted by the City Council on April 15, 2003 has imposed such a system to be applied over the next 3 years (April 2003 through March 2006). The Permit Monitoring system will lower the number of permits relative to the forecast over that selected 3 year period. However, as the GMOC forecast is for a five-year period, units that were forestalled by the Permit Monitoring Program may after March 2006 come forward. In addition, to be conservative, it is prudent to maintain the estimate of 12,500 residential units over the next 5 years so that facility and service levels are measured against a higher standard. Annual updates will be provided. 1.4 Changes In The GMOC Over the last two years the GMOC has strived to become a more dynamic and responsive body. In last year's GMOC Annual Report and presentation, several initiatives to change the GMOC were brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and City Council. This year there are an additional array of recommendations throughout the report that seek to enhance the GMOC's ability to function effectively and respond to community concerns. The changes brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and City Council last year were initiatives to: (1) shift to a more furore oriented and proactive posture, (2) provide a greater emphasis on western Chula Vista, and (3) obtain greater community participation in the growth management process. In addition, the current set of recommendations contains various changes within several critical thresholds, including Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire/EMS, and Traffic. 1.4.1 Future Orientation Within the growth management program there is the provision for a future orientation. The perception by many was that the GMOC only took into consideration what occurred in the previous fiscal year. To direct attention to the future, the Annual Report has been changed in two ways. There are now two summary tables for how thresholds are met, one for the previous fiscal year period and the other covering a five-year forecast, in this case the calendar years from 2003 through 2007. These tables provide a clear delineation between how thresholds were achieved in the past and how they are expected to do in the future. 2002 GMOC AnnuaI Repor! 4 June 12, 2003 The second formatting change is when each of the thresholds is introduced in the body of the report. Traditionally, a statement indicating how the thresholds faired in the previous fiscal year was indicated. In the current report, two statements are offered, one with the "current" evaluation and a second with a "future" evaluation for how the GMOC believes the threshold will be maintained over the next five years. While in some ways cosmetic, this change in presentation sends a clear message to the community that the GMOC is future oriented and is recommending proactive measures that will assist in thresholds being met. 1.4.2 Western Chula Vista The conventional interpretation of growth is that it comes with new homes and commercial industrial activities. In this regard, Chula Vista's eastern areas have been recognized as where growth is taking place. Corresponding to this growth has been a considerable amount of planning and investment in public infrastructure (financed in large part by the new home owners.) In fact, the creation of Chula Vista's growth management program was part of the planning effort to insure that this new eastern growth did not diminish the quality of life that residents of Chula Vista had become accustomed. The GMOC is shifting the focus of attention from eastern Chula Vista to the west. Growth in the east remains considerable and is expected to continue. However, this growth is taking pace within planned communities with a financing/development impact fee structure that helps assure proper and timely provision of public infrastructure and services. There remain significant issues with sewer, traffic and schools, but these are largely a timing issue. The City now faces a dilemma, in that growth is also occurring in western Chula Vista. Most of this growth is not a product of new housing but through demographic change. In short, there are more persons per household and an increase in the number of families that share a residence. The dilemma is that while the public infrastructure required by growth in the east can be financing through "development impact fees" or DIFs, supporting the infrastructure needs of growth occurring through demographic change cannot be financed as easily. Ironically, it is this absence of more conventional growth in the west that is making public improvements financed through development impact fees a problem. This is compounded by the fact that some of the facilities in the west are ageing, and that expansion is difficult as the area is largely fully developed. The prospect of infill, redevelopment, and intensification of land uses brings opportunities for financing public facilities. But this development must also be consistent with quality of life standards. The GMOC formally recognizes that there are growth related impacts in the west and will seek to apply thresholds and standards that are both reasonable and result in maintaining an acceptable quality of life. Maintaining quality of life standards for our western residents is as important as in the east. One small step in this direction was spending half of the GMOC's annual field trip in the west visiting sites with problems and those offering development opportunities. In addition, as described later, the GMOC is investigating additional threshold measures, and looks forward to working with the Department of Community Development and the newly created position of Western Chula Vista Development Manager. The GMOC will recommend tailored quality of life threshold standards for western Chula Vista that both maintain the quality of life are appropriate and implementable 2002 GMOC Annual Report 5 June 12, 2003 1.4.3 Greater Community Participation The GMOC sought to bring the presence and role of the GMOC to the attention of the community and to hear directly from residents about concerns. This has been addressed during this year's GMOC process by holding two "Public Events" at locations within the community, one in western Chula Vista and the other in eastern Chula Vista. All of the GMOC meetings are open to the public, but these public events were intended to provide a specific forum where the community can interact with the GMOC. It is significant to note that these public events were the first of their kind, and will be held in the future. The first public event was held on January 9, 2003. This event was held to better inform the community on the role of the GMOC and to hear from the community regarding their growth related concerns. The event drew an estimated attendance of 75 residents. The second event was held on April 24, 2003 and was an opportunity for the community to respond to the draft GMOC recommendations and to indicate where additional attention should be placed. A group of over 80 residents was estimated to be in attendance. A whte-up for each of the events is included in Appendix B. 1.4.4 Threshold Evaluation In an effort to respond to resident concerns and to improve the effectiveness of the GMOC process, several recommended changes are being proposed within this year's Annual Report. In summary, they are: · a threshold for park acreage for western Chula Vista needs to be established; · performance targets other than response times for Police and Fire/EMS; · removal of false alarm calls from police response time calculation; · alternative ways of measuring traffic should be explored; · the impact of highway congestion on city traffic needs to be evaluated; · explore the possibility of a transit related threshold; · modifying the school threshold to a 5 year forecast period; · seriously consider the growth management related recommendations of the Schools Task Force. 1.5 Top to Bottom Review The changes that the GMOC has instituted, and is recommending, are consistent with the need for a "top to bottom" review of the overall growth management program as recognized by Council. Our fncst recommendation is therefore: Recommendation: That the City Council directs the City Manager to provide sufficient staff and supporting resources to facilitate a thorough review of the growth management program and that the GMOC is a vital part of the review process. 2002 GMOC Annual Repor! 6 June 12, 2003 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE 3.1 FISCAL Threshold: The GMOC shall be provided with an annual Development Impact Fee (DIF) Report, which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. THRESHOLD FINDING: Current In Compliance Future: Threshold Likely Met 3.1.1 DIF Fees Issue: Collections and expenditures of DIF revenues have been sufficient to ensure that necessary infrastructure and services are available to support the demands of new growth. In addition, the GMOC was provided with a presentation detailing the basis for the recent Public Facilities Development impact Fee (PFDII:) increase. Recommendation: No recommendations at this time. 2002 GMOC Annual Repor! 9 June 12, 2003 3.2 AIR QUALITY Threshold: The GMOC Shall Be Provided With An Annual Report Which: I. Provides an overmew and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies, and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable federal, state, and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall 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 affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT: In Compliance FUTURE Threshold Likely Met Discussion: In addition to the Air Quality Improvement Plans that are required by the growth management ordinance for all projects over 50 units, the City continues to implement several of the measures recommended in the CO2 Reduction Plan adopted by City Council on November 14, 2000. A selection of those on-going measures is listed below. 2002 GMOC Annual Repor! 10 June 12, 2003 1 - Purchase of Alternative Fuel Vehicles, including: · Operating Transit Bus CNG Fueling and Maintenance Facility at Corp Yard · Public Access CNG Fueling Facility at Corp Yard · 40 New CNG Busses · Five CNG Vehicles: 4 Vans and 1 Car · Four Neighborhood Electric Cars (2 leased) · On road demonstration of world's first zinc fuel cell car in June 2002 2 - Green Power, Renewable Energy Efforts include: · Council approved 10 kw PV system for Nature Center- 2003. · Pending Council approval, and California Energy Commission (CEC) approval to reallocate grant funding for additional 10 kw PV system at new Public Works Yard - 2003. · Council approved 30 kw PV system for new Police HQ - 2003/04. · Staff to investigate City aggregation program to purchase green electricity for all Chula Vista electricity users in 2003/04. · Staff to evaluate installation of 1MW PV for Corp Yard. 3 - Municipal Clean Fuel Demonstration Project · The City is continuing to work with SunLine to demonstrate hydrogen electrolyzer and hydrogen fuel cell bus in 2003 using $1 million in funding from the Department Of Energy (DOE) and the CEC. · Expanded project scope will procure up to four fuel cell busses for a two-year demonstration for the San Diego region with Chula Vista as the anchor. 4 - Municipal Building Upgrades and Trip Reduction · Facility and infrastructure retrofits are generating savings of 4.7 MW-hrs/yr. · City also replaced 24 refrigerators with EnergyStar rated units. · Past retrofits include upgrading lights, many HVAC systems and other appliances with energy-saving devices. Additional improvements will be made as major capital items are scheduled to be replaced or refurbished. · The Building Division's eastern office and permitting process via the Internet continues to result in trip reduction by City employees and the public. 5 - Bicycle Integration with Transit and Employment · Encourages employers and transit providers to provide bike storage at major transit stops and employment areas 2002 GMOC Annual Report 11 June 12, 2003 and includes bike racks on buses. Employers are also encouraged to provide showers at major transit nodes. 6 - Municipal Life-Cycle Purchasing Standards · This measure involves the inclusion of life-cycle energy costs as a selection criterion in a comprehensive purchasing policy for energy-consuming equipment. The policy has lead to the purchase of a number of Energy Star appliances and building design or equipment changes that promote energy efficiency. 3.2.1 Air Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines Issues: Since 1991 the Growth Management Ordinance has required that all major development projects (50 dwelling units or greater) include Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQ~P). The Plans are prepared to address State and Federal mandates regarding air quality. As a result of the CO: Reduction Plan thc City initiated a pilot study leading to preparation of the AQ~ guidelines. In summary, thc pilot study involved the development of a computer model to evaluate the relative effectiveness of applying various site design and energy conservation features in new development projects. The pilot study analyzed Otay Ranch Village Eleven and Six, and Eastlake I]3 SPA projects and will result in preparation of AQIPs for these SPAs. Thc pilot study was completed and the three SPA plan AQI~s were developed based on the study results. The AQ]3~s were adopted on August 13, 2002. The establishment of formal guidelines for the preparation of AQI~s based on the pilot study results is now underway. Thc guidelines are scheduled for presented to Council by the end of June 2003. Staff will also review and determine any necessary amendments to the Grow~ Management Ordinance and any other related Codes or documents. Recommendation: The GMOC continues to endorse the development of updated guidelines for the AQIP. Any proposed change to the Growth Management Ordinance should be brought before the GMOC for comment. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 12 June 12, 2003 3.3 SEWER Threshold: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Authority with a 12-I 8 month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT In Compliance FUTURE Threshold Likely Met 3.3.1 Timely Construction of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer Issues: Construction of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer segments has been identified as necessary to serve growth over the next five to seven years. Until the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer is installed, new development in the Poggi Canyon basin must temporarily pump sewage to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk sewer. Unless the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer comes on line, costly upgrades will be needed to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer to accommodate additional pumped flows. Currently the developments served by the Poggi Canyon sewer have limits placed on the number of 2002 GMOC Annual Report 13 .lune 12, 2003 units that can be built until the Salt Creek Sewer is completed. The estimated cost for the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer is $18 million. Recognition: It is recognized that the City is pursuing an aggressive construction program for the Sal! Creek Sewer, as indicated in the current schedule: Phase 1 - From Industrial Blvd. to 1-805 (Completed) Phase 2 - From Industrial Blvd. past I-5 to West Frontage Rd. Construction Schedule - October 2002 through September 2003; Phase 3 & 4 - From Interstate 1-805 to Olympic Parkway Construction Schedule - August 2002 through May 2003. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 14 dune 12, 2003 3.4 WATER Threshold: 1. Developer wiI1 request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Author/ty, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12-18 month development forecast and request evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the Districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT ~Compliance FUTURE ThreshoML~elyM~ 3.4.1 Water Distribution System Capacity Issue: In western Chula Vista the ability of the existing water distribuhon system to support land use in-fill and intensification is limited. The aging water system is between 40 and 50 years old and was built to a standard much lower than today's fire fighting flow requirements. What are now undersized pipes proliferate in the western portion of the city. Such a state of infrastructure will have a limiting effect on development 2002 GMOC Annual Report 15 June 12, 2003 and may lead to substandard conditions given recent trends in a shift to larger household sizes. Recommendation: That the City work in cooperation with the Sweetwater Authority in identifying strategic water distribution improvements and funding mechanisms. Issue: A supplemental set of 3 questions was sent to the Otay Water District on April 30, 2003. In part, these questions were issued to track capital expenditures as a means of better quantifying progress toward meeting threshold standards. A response by the Otay Water District has been provided, but due to the late timing of the request, a review by the GMOC was not possible prior to the conclusion of this years review cycle. The GMOC will continue with this review during the coming fiscal year. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 16 dune 12, 2003 3.5 LIBRARIES Threshold: The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT In Compliance Actual: 544 gross square feet per 1,000 population. FUTURE Threshold Likely Met, Possible Temporary Failure 3.5.1 Library Building Plan Issues: The Library Master Plan calls for the construction of a 30,000 square foot full-service, regional library in Rancho Del Rey by 2005. This library would be constructed on City-owned property located at East H Street and Pasco Ranchero. This library is expected to be open by either 2005 or 2006. It is possible that given the population growth of the community a temporary library threshold failure may occur. Recommendation: That the City continue to actively pursue the Rancho Del Rey Library Planning/Building Plan Program and place as a priority the identification of adequate construction funding by the target completion date of 2005 or 2006 at the latest. 2002 GMOC Annual Report I7 dune 12, 2003 3.6 DRAINAGE Threshold: Stormwater flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering standards. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives listed above. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT In Compliance FUTURE Threshold Likely Met 3.6.1 Unfunded Drainage Projects in Western Chula Vista Issues: The GMOC has consistently requested Council to authorize additional funds for the rehabilitation of drainage projects in western Chula Vista. Some of the projects date back to 1964. Historically the City has allocated funds in thc $300,000 to $500,000 range to address drainage concerns. This amount is inadequate. It is the understanding of the GMOC that a funding request is going to Council as part of the budget package requesting approximately $4 m/llion to replace corrugated metal pipes and other drainage projects. While not lirmted to western Chula Vista, this is a welcomed investment. Recommendation: That Council approves the funding request. Recoramendation: That the GMOC be provided a briefing on the criteria that will be used to prioritize which drainage projects receive funding, and that the GMOC is allowed the opportunity to comment on the criteria. 2002 GMOC Annual Repor! l 8 June 12, 2003 3.7 PARKS & RECREATION Threshold: Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east ofl-805. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT: In Compliance Land: Actual: 3.45 acres per 1,000 residents east of 1-805 Facilities: Actual Facilities - Based on Parks Master Plan FUTURE: LAND: }Viii Be Met FACILITY: Threshold Likely Met Discussion: For several years the City has been attempting to complete a Parks Master Plan. That plan and associated financing program (ILECD~) was adopted late last year. This is a long awaited and welcomed event. Now, for the first time, the GMOC has an objective measure upon which to evaluate the adequacy of recreational facilities. 3.7.1 Facility Adequacy Issues: Facility Adequacy East of 1-805 Evaluation of appropriate recreation facilities can now begin based upon the Parks Master Plan. Recommendation: The GMOC requests that the City Manager direct staff to provide an annual progress report on facility development and staffing per the Parks Master Plan. 3.7.2 Equivalence of Recreational Opportunities Issue: As reported last year, recreational opportunities in eastern Chula Vista compared to western Chula Vista are different. That difference is expected to continue. However, the GMOC believes that there can and should be a qualitative equivalence in respective park and recreation 2002 GMOC Annual Report 19 June 12, 2003 experiences in east and west. With the approved Parks Master Plan, focus can now be applied to innovative approaches to creating a quality recreation experience for residents in western Chula Vista comparable to what is being developed in the east. According to the Parks Master Plan even when counting existing school lands, there is a deficit of approximately 100 acres of parkland citywide following the 3 acres per thousand standard. Since eastern Chula Vista exceeds the 3 acres per thousand standar& this deficit must fall in the west. While the GMOC is not specifically recommending the 3-acre of parkland per thousand population standard be applied to a "subarea" tike the west, it is indicative in illustrating the disparity between east and west. The GMOC is particularly concerned with recreational opportunities in the southwestern part of the city. When the city annexed the southwest area in 1985 there was already a disparity between the recreational resources there and the "original" western part of the city. Recommendation: That the City Council directs the City Manager to actively pursue innovative recreational funding opportunities for western Chula Vista. Grants from foundations, businesses, and state and federal government sources should be pursued. Recommendation: in conjunction with this, the GMOC requests that the City Council direct the City Manager to assign appropriate city staff in the Departments of Recreation, Building and Parks Construction, or other department to propose an amended GMOC Threshold for Parks and Recreation, which includes western Chula Vista. As western Chula Vista is experiencing growth due to demographic change and further land use intensification is a possibility, this portion of the City should also be covered in a Park and Recreation threshold standard. A report on the status of this recommendation will be appreciated as a part of next year's GMOC review. 3.7.3 ' Completion of Greenbelt Master Plan Issue: The City hired a staff person from the firm of Chapin Land Management in June 2001 to work in concert with City staffto complete the Greenbelt Master Plan. A draft version of the Master Plan is expected to be completed this spring and possibly adopted this summer. The plan is currently under public review. The GMOC looks forward to the completion of the Greenbelt Master Plan. 3.7.4 Joint Use of City/School Recreation Facilities Issue: in the draft "Schools Task Force" report the joint use of school and city facilities to reach recreational objectives is recommended. This may 2002 GMOC Annual Report 20 June 12, 2003 have particular relevance to western Chula Vista, which has a scarcity of available recreational land. The joint use of recreational land between the city and school districts is sound in principle, and it serves to maximize a community resource. While the rewards of successful joint use makes the attempt worthwhile the record is mixed in terms of results. One of the key elements is to establish a long term master field allocation system to establish the equitable use of the playing fields among competing interests and secondly to design schools so that their fields, sports areas, libraries and parking are easily accessible to the public and can be used by the public after normal school hours. Recommendation: The City Council should consider the additional joint use of park and recreational resources with the school districts only after a careful analysis of the equitable use of these areas for the benefit of the general public. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 21 dune 12, 2003 3.8 POLICE Threshold: Emergency ResponseS: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81% of the Priority I emergency calls throughout the City · within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). Urgent Response": Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority 11, urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.30 minutes) or less (measured annually). THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT: Not In Compliance However, it is noted that emergency response time improved from 79.7% in FY 00-01 to 80% in FY 01-02. Moreover, the 1% overage in Emergency Response time represents only 12 calls and is within statistical variation. The GMOC considers this "virtual" compliance. FUTURE: Threshold Likely Met Threshold Standard Percent Time Average Time Emergency Response 81.0 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. Urgent Response 57.0 I 7 minutes 7:30 minutes Actual Emergency Response I 80.0% 7 minutes min./sec. Urgent Response I 45.6% 7 minutes min./sec. 1 Priority 1 - Emergency Calls. Life-threateinng calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident); robbery or panic alarms; urgent cover calls fi'om officers. Response: Immediate response by two officers from any source or assignment, mmaediate response by paramedics/fire if injuries are believed to have occurred. 2 Priority 2 - Urgent Calls. Misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic violence or other disturbances w/th potential for violence); burglary alarms. Response: Immediate response by two officers fi'om clear umts or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.) 2002 GMOC Annual Report 22 dune 12, 2003 Discussion: Police response time is just one measure of how police services are keeping pace with growth. Measures to improve response time have been and continue to be implemented; these include such items as maintaining full staffing to technological improvements. Response time is recognized as being less than an ideal threshold particularly when i! is looked at in isolation. A community attitude survey concerning the quality of police service consistently shows the police receiving high marks. The community is satisfied yet the threshold has failed. The difficulty is defining a threshold measure that reflects some aspect of police service which is directly impacted by growth, and that some corrective action can be taken to correct a failure. Linking a threshold to a crime rate figure is flawed, as crime is often inversely related to growth. That is, in a strong economy accompanied by increased growth crime rates typically go down. The reverse occurs when the economy is weak. So, use of such a threshold measure could in the extreme lead to a strategy of promoting ever more growth to lower the crime rate. Two measures that do relate to the ability of the Police Department to maintain the quality of life and are growth related are maintaining adequate staffing and reducing false alarms. 3.8.1 Performance Targets Issue: In the search to find additional appropriate measures through which to monitor the quality of police service in the face of growth, the GMOC will investigate establishing a set of "targets" to be monitored. Currently, these "targets" are outside of the parameters as established by the city's Growth Management Ordinance. Monitoring these "targets" may lead to a specific recommendation by the GMOC for their formal inclusion as a threshold measure. This initial investigation period will evaluate the difficulty and cost of providing the information and if the target ultimately proves useful in assessing how the Police Department is responding to growth. The targets are: 1. Maintaining the advanced hire program and an effective number of officers relative to the population. 2. A decrease in the rate of false alarms, particularly in new developments. Recommendation: Beginning with the next year's review cycle the GMOC will, working in conjunction with the Police Department, establish targets and monitor staffing and false alarms and how this is related to growth, and report on this to the City Council on or before next year's joint workshop. 3.8.2 Removal of False Alarms from Response Times Issue: 98% of alarms are false. However, that 2% which are real requires continued vigilance and response. The GMOC believes that including 2002 GMOC Annual Report 23 dune 12. 2003 the response times when responding to false alarms dilutes the response time threshold. Recommendation: For GMOC purposes, response times for false alarms should not be included in the Police threshold calculation for emergency or urgent response when calculating the percent responded to within 7 minutes and the average response times. 3.8.3 Additional Measures to Reduce Response Time Issue: As the table below indicates, the Police Department has made progress in reducing their response time over the past several years. The Police Department is engaged in several current or proposed initiatives to continue the reduction in response times. HISTORIC RESPONSE TIMES PRIORITY I - Emergency Response, Calls For Service Call Volume % of Call Response w/in Average Response 7 Minutes Time Threshold 81.0% 5:30 FY 2001-02 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07 FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 I CY 1999~ 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 These initiatives include: · Dispatch staffed. The Dispatch section is now fully staffed. · Additional police car in East during busy times. An additional car has been added to the eastern beat. · Greater area familiarity. Team policing has been instituted. · Full Staffing. Due to the implementation of the advance tfzre program staffmg overall is at a record level with 223 positions filled out of 228 (as of 3/31/03 ). · Faster address location. The Department has now upgraded so that the entire patrol fleet has Mobile Data Computers (MDCs) to allow for mapping capabilities. In-car mapping helps officers ascertain the quickest route to a The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. 2002 GMOC AnnuaI Report 24 dune 12, 2003 call location. In addition, these maps can be more easily updated to include new streets in east Chula Vista Global positioning system. The Department has purchased the GPS hardware for this system, and is currently preparing the software base needed to implement this technology. This technology will integrate GPS in cars with the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, which will allow police dispatchers to route the nearest available units to calls for service. · Continning efforts under the Advance Itire program. Under this initiative, the Department is able to hire five officers over the number authorized. This program takes into account anticipated officer turnover and the lengthy lead-time required to place new officers on the street. This initiative helps ensure that adequate numbers of officers will be available for patrol duties, which in mm, favorably affects response times. It is anticipated being in an overhire situation in January 2003, with the beginning of the 55th Regional Academy Recommendation: That the Police Department remain diligent in meeting and achieving shorter response times than what is indicated as the Threshold Standard t~ough the active pursuit and implementation of their current and planned programs and report on how these measures improved response times to next years GMOC. Specifically: · The GMOC continues to support plans to conduct a dispatch staffing study, including the Dispatch Manager Conceptl. This study will aid in identifying ways of reducing response time for priority calls for service. · The GMOC supports continued use of the patrol staffing model and the advance hiring program. Both enhance the depamnent's ability to respond to calls for service, maintain a 1:1 ratio of officer time spent responding to calls for service: officer-initiated activities, and a zero vacancy factor in patrol. · The GMOC continues to support planned upgrades of police technolog/es, such as MDCs, in-car mapping and global positioning systems. It is imperative that the Department continues to build a solid technology infrastructure in order to service a growing communil¢,. · The GMOC continues to support research and evaluation of call management options, and alternative response and deployment tactics, such as Internet reporting, revised beat configurations, and 1 The dispatch manager would be responsible for supervising all communications operators; scheduling and assignments; training of staff; and nuPlementing policies. Currently the lead communicalions operators (LCO) serve as working commumcations operators as well as supervisors. A dispatch manager would increase efficiency of the dispatch function by allowing the LCOs to spend more time handling calls. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 25 June 12, 2003 evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of an aerial platform. Research staff should be looking at several of these issues over the next 18 to 24 months, as a means of maximizing both the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department, and report progress to the GMOC. 3.8.4 False Alarms Issue: As indicated in the tables below, the number o£ false alarms within the community has declined during the current reporting period. NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS FY 1997-98 THROUGH FY 2001-02 FY 1998- FY 1997-98 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 99 6,073 6,28,7 6,690 7,207 6,918 % Change 3.5% 6.4% 5.0% -4.0% Includes Calls N/A N/A 8,238 8,013 Cancelled en-Route % Change -2.7% Calendar Year Totals for False Alarms Per System Per Year (Available only for calendar year, but fiscal year totals should be similar) 1999 2000 2001 2002 (Annualized) (Annualized) Cormnercial 2.13 1.93 1.44 1.56 Includes Calls Cancelled en-Route 1.58 Residential 0.90 0.71 0.52 0.48 Includes Calls Cancelled eh-Route 0.57 Total (Comm. & Res.) 1.33 1.12 0.79 .77 Includes Calls Cancelled en-Route 0.84 The false alarm analyst position was vacant from September 2001 through June 2002. However, an alarm analyst was hired in August 2002, 2002 GMOC Annual Report 26 dune 12, 2003 and thai person has undertaken a number of projects designed to reduce false alarms, as follows: · Alarm Company Subscriber List Exchange. Under this initiative, the alarm companies forward their lists of subscribers to the alarm analyst, who cross-references the company lists with city lists. Cross- referencing the two lists enables the analyst to identify alarm users without permits, increase the accuracy of the company lists, and collect additional information regarding monitoring company contacts for specific alarm users, should their alarms be set off. There have been two such list exchanges to date and several more are planned. · Alarm Company Meetings. During the first quarter of 2003, the alarm analyst will hold individual meetings with the 5 alarm companies with the highest false alarm rates. During the meetings, the companies will receive information packets that contain a description of the Chula Vista Alarms Program; registration materials for both alarm agents (installers) and alarm companies; updated alarm user applications; City of Chula Vista municipal ordinance information; registered alarm users for that company in the City's False Alarm Analysis Program (FAAP) database; and information on false alarm rate rankings for that company as compared to others. · Billing from FAAP. The Alarms Program is on the verge of using the FAAP database as the sole source for billing accounts and tracking alarm user account information. Using only the FAAP will cut alarm data entry by 50%, fleeing up additional time for the analyst to work proactive]y to reduce false alarms. · Weekly Calls. Every Monday and Tuesday telephone calls are made to locations thai have had 2 false alarms during the prior week. as well as those that have had 3, 6 or more for the year. The goal of calling these locations is to reduce false alarms by informing the alarm user of the seventy of the situation. The alarm user is asked have his or her system inspected and to re-train those that have access to the system. A total of 136 calls to repeat false alarm locations have been documented since the log was created in September 2002. · Business License Checks on Alarm Companies. In early September 2002, the Alarms Program supplied the City of Chula Vista Business License Office with the names and addresses of alarm companies that operate within the city. The Business License Office plans to cross-reference the list with their licensing database to ensure that all alarm businesses are legally licensed to operate in the city. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 27 June 12, 2003 · Alarm Company Registration Requirements. With thc help of the Special Investigations Unit in October 2002, it was determined that both alarm companies and alarm agents (installers) must register with thc Police Department per City of Chuta Vista Ordinance chapter 9.06. Registration of alarm companies will help the analyst obtain accurate contact information for these businesses. In addition, alarm agent registration will enable thc analyst to develop a database of instal]ers who operate within the city limits, and also compare installation quality across installers. Installation standards could subsequently be set, based on data obtained from the registration database. · Ordinance Research. Research continues on necessary revisions to the existing city ordinance that governs alarm systems, alarm users, and alarm companies. Several model ordinances have been identified. The revised Chula Vista ordinance will address a number of issues, including alarm company and alarm agent registration compliance and installation standards. Recommendation: That the City Council continues to support the Police Department's actions to reduce false alarms. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 28 June 12, 2003 3.9 FIRE / EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Threshold: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the cio within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT: Not in Compliance FUTURE: Potential for Future Non-Compliance Threshold Standard Percent Time Emergency Response 80.0 7 minutes Actual Emergency Response 69.7 7 minutes Discussion A surprise decline in the percent of calls responded to within 7 minutes has occurred. In the last reporting period 80.8% of calls were responded to within 7 minutes, while in the most recent term, only 69.7% had responses within 7 minutes. This was unexpected as it was anticipated that changnng to a new dispatch provider would improve response time. However, increases in dispatch, turn out, and travel time have been experienced. Both east and west Chula Vista have been impacted, although the degree of impact was considerably less in the west. FIRE/EMS - Emergency Response Times Since 1994 % of All Call Response w/in 7:00 Years Call Volume Minutes FY 2001-02 7,626 69.7% FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8% FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% CY 1999 6,344 77.2% CY 1998 4,119 81.9% CY 1997 6,275 82.4% CY 1996 6,103 79.4% CY 1995 5,885 80.0% CY 1994 5,701 81.7% 2002 GMOC Annual Report 29 dune 12, 2003 There are no easy answers to explain the decline in performance. There have been regulatory and procedural changes that result in longer response times. And, there has been continued growth in the east. It was reported that 79.4% of calls in the west are responded to within 7 minutes compared to 43.7% of the calls in the east. Fire Station 7 will be operational in September 2003, and will assist in improving response times. Station 7 will ultimately have a staff of 21 with 9 staff upon opening. In addition, Fire Station No. 6 is planned for Rolling Hills Ranch, to be relocated from the temporary location in the Eastlake Business Park. The process to relocate the station will be completed 1 year after Fire Station 7 is completed. The station has a staff of 3 per shift for a total ofg. However, the GMOC must conclude that fire station construction, staffing, and acquiring equipment is lagging behind growth relative to maintaining the GMOC threshold. As indicated the disparity in response time from eastern and western portions of the city is in large part a function of the relative number and proximity of fire stations to residences and businesses. A complicating factor may be community design. Fire Department staff has indicated a concern that relative to the western portion of the city, the new master planned areas are characterized by long circuitous streets, some guarded/gated communities, and in some rare cases speed bumps on sections of private road. All of these features are believed to retard response times. While the impact of community design on the response time of an individual trip can be speculated, the relative value of this over the greater than 7,500 total priority trips taken in a reporting period is not known. In other words, the exact magnitude of design features on overall response time averages has not been quantified. Therefore, the significance of "design" in the decline in response times remains uncertain. In any event, the future physical layout of eastern development is now being adjusted to more closely resemble a grid pattern, which may improve response time performance. The GMOC believes that the response time standard must be applied equally to both east and west. The Fire Department is tasked with providing this level of sermce in an equitable fashion. 3.9.1 Maintaining Threshold Issue: There are three fundamental issues, (1) the correct fire station configuration given Chula Vista's current and future population and physical layout, (2) continued explicit and formal Fire Department input into community design considerations, and (3) improved management information systems in regards to monitoring response times. Recommendation: The Fire Department has indicated the need to update their master plan to better plan for current and future development. This is fully endorsed by 2002 GMOC Annual Repor! 30 dune 12, 2003 the GMOC. A presentation on the findings of the updated master plan is requested during next year's GMOC review cycle. Recommendation: Comments have been made by the Fire Department regarding the impact of community design on response time. The GMOC recommends that the Fire Department wi!! continue to make formal and written comments to development review bodies on the impact of community design on response time. A report on such activity will be requested in next year's questionnaire so that the GMOC is better acquainted with the relevant issues being discussed. Recommendation: The GMOC believes that with call for sermce response time feedback on a daily basis broken out by indiv/dual trip and station the Fire Department will be better able to diagnose the situation and perhaps identify procedural/operational changes that could improve response times. As such, the GMOC is recommending that the Fire Department work with Heartland Dispatch to set up the methodology and implement a daily reporting regime so that response times can be monitored and analyzed in house. 3.9.2 Monitoring Targets Issue: Similar to the Police threshold, response time alone is not a complete measure by which to rate the Fire/EMS Department's response to growth. Other measures should be considered. A set of '"targets" has been identified that represent benchmarks in how resources are being allocated to the fire Department in order for them to maintain the threshold. Monitoring these "targets" may lead to a specific recommendation by the GMOC for their formal inclusion as a threshold measure. This initial investigation period will evaluate the difficulty and cost of providing the information and if the target ultimately proves useful in assessing how the City is responding to growth. Recommendation: That, the Fire D~partment, develops targets (i.e. schedules) for the following inputs, to be monitored by the GMOC through future questionnaires: (1) timing of Fire Station construction, (2) equipment purchase for these stations, and (3) staffhire relative to growth. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 31 dune 12, 2003 3.10 TRAFFIC Threshold: City-wide: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "C' or better as measured by observed average ~'avel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours a LOS "D' can occur for no more than two · hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections that do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT In Compliance FUTURE Potential For Non-Compliance 3.10.1 Timely Construction of SR-125 Issues: The timely construction of SR-125 is critical for the City to maintain the quality of life standards for traffic. Currently, the projected completion of SR-125 is expected in October of 2006. A possible early opening of the northbound link may come as early as November or December of 2005. Recommendation: That City Council continues to support the timely construction of SR-125 to avoid a potent/al traffic threshold failure in eastern Chula Vista. 3.10.2 Traffic Enhancement Opportunities Issues: Based upon traffic model analysis conducted through the City's Engineer/ng Department, Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805 and East H Street could experience a GMOC traffic threshold failure prior to the completion of SR-125. This possibility requires the GMOC to state that there is the "Potential for Non-Compliance". To address this situation Olympic Parkway completion was accelerated, and the City working in concert with the development community is implementing several additional traffic capacity enhancement initiatives. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 32 June 12, 2003 These efforts are intended to avert a traffic threshold failure by increasing road capacity and decreasing demand. These initiatives include: · East H Street north bound 1-805 on-ramp improvements to be completed July 2003 (south-bound improvements completed in March 2003); · On-ramp improvements at the Telegraph Canyon Road 1-805 interchange, completion date November 2003; · Improvement of the Olympic Parkway 1-805 interchange completed by May 2005; · Promoting Transportation Demand Management Techniques (TDM). The road capacity enhancement initiatives will add additional capacity to the city's roadways, and therefore allow additional housing that can be constructed without a threshold failure. The action taken by Council on April 15, 2003 that established a three- year building permit "Monitoring" program should provide the restraint necessary to avoid a traffic threshold failure during that period. In the event of a growth management traffic threshold failure, prior to the completion of the three-year monitoring program, the provisions in the growth management ordinance will prevail. Recommendation: The GMOC compliments the City Council, City staff, and the major developers, for engaging in a collaborative and proactive program to avoid a potential traffic threshold failure. As stated last year, the GMOC expects that the City Council w/ll continue to support and take action to protect the integrity of the Traffic Threshold. Specifically, the GMOC endorses the action of the City to address and avoid a threshold failure namely: · Traffic enhancement projects. · Implementing appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. Continues ongoing Traffic Monitoring (TMP) of strategic road segments 3.10.3 Traffic Monitoring Program Reporting Issue: The Traffic Engineering Division of the Engineering Department conducts regular traffic runs through the traffic monitoring program (TMP), to measure road segment performance relative to the growth management threshold standard. These reports are then presented to the GMOC as part of the annual reporting process. The traditional reporting process has the GMOC receive the report conducted in the spring of the previous fiscal year. Traffic runs are often conducted at a later date that 2002 GMOC Annual Rel~ort 33 dune 12. 2003 may show either improvement or further decline relative to the traffic threshold, but these reports are not routinely provided to the GMOC. Recommendation: In an effort to be current, all TMP runs should be reported to the GMOC immediately after they are conducted and tabulated. A short report indicating the findings of the TMP relative to the traffic threshold should be prepared and transmitted to the GMOC. 3.10.4 Traffic Thresholds and Measurement Issue: As indicated earlier, based upon the findings of the traffic monitoring program (TMP), all city streets are in compliance with the growth management traffic quality of life indicator. In fact, the traffic situation has improved on Telegraph Canyon Road since the full opening of Olympic Parkway. The traffic threshold and the traffic monitoring program are complex undertakings. It has become apparent through the GMOC public outreach events that a better understanding of both the way the traffic threshold is defined and how it is monitored needs to be presented to the community. There also needs to be a discussion of alternative means of defining a traffic related threshold. Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to allocate sufficient resources for a public workshop on traffic thresholds and monitoring, to be held under the auspices of the GMOC. The purpose of the workshop is for the City's technical staff to present the traffic threshold and traffic monitoring program, identify possible alternatives, and to respond to questions from the public. And in preparation for this workshop that staff review and evaluate the existing traffic thresholds and traffic monitoring process, identify possible alternatives, and bring back specific recommendations for GMOC and then possible Council Action after the workshop. This workshop to be conducted at the request of the GMOC during next year's review cycle and be held in a venue convenient to the community. 3.11.5 Highway Traffic and Quality of Life Issue: The current u-affic threshold applies to city streets and excludes highways/freeways. Highways/freeways were excluded because they are not under City control and there is no direct means to influence improvements that could alleviate a freeway threshold failure. Members of the community have questioned the value of a quality of life threshold that clears city streets only for the commuter to be stopped or slowed by freeway traffic. It has also been pointed out that there are other thresholds where the City does not have direct influence such as schools and air quality. And, while there is no direct control the question has 2002 GMOC Annual Report 34 June 12, 2003 been asked, doesn't allowing continued growth that places traffic on area freeways contribute to that congestion? Recommendation: In order to better assess this situation, the GMOC requests that the City Council directs the City Manager to investigate the relationship of continued city growth to highway/freeway congestion, and to report the findings to the GMOC by January of 2004. 3.11.6 Transit Threshold Issue: As congestion increases and the region continues to urbanize questions have arisen about creating a "traffic" related threshold standard for the level of transit services. The GMOC believes that further investigation is warranted. Recommendation: That the Council direct the City Manager to assign appropriate staff to investigate the form and appropriateness of a transit quality of life standard that could be incorporated into the growth management program, and report on their findings to the GMOC by January 2004. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 35 dune 12, 2003 3.11 SCHOOLS Threshold: The City of Chula Vista shall annually provide the two local School Districts with a 12-18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities. 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. 4. Other relevant information the Districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT: Capacity used now or committed. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT - In Compliance SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - In Compliance FORECAST: Ability to absorb forecasted growth - Funding and site availability for projected new facilities. CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT - Statement of Concern SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - Statement of Concern Discussion: Schools are arguably one of the most important services that a community offers to its residents. Growth has an obv/ous impact on 2002 GMOC Annual Report 36 June 12. 2003 schools as the addition of students creates a commensurate need for additional facilities. The role of the GMOC is to assure that the City's planning program provides for the timely designation and land use entitlements for new school sites and that roads and utilities are provided so that construction can commence, and once completed, that the facility can operate. The City and the GMOC has no direct role in determining when a school is actually constructed. Construction is the responsibility of the respective school districts. In like fashion, issues regarding class size, thc quality of education, test scores, and thc maintenance and upgrading of facilities are beyond the City's and the GMOC's scope. In addition, with the passage of SB50, thc City is prohibited from restricting or limiting growth duc to impacts on schools. Never the less, the GMOC views itself as a forum for the expression of community sentiments, and will alert the City Council and Planning Commission on larger school development issues as it deems is relevant and important. 3.11.1 Monitoring Growth Issue: Both the Chula Vista Elementary (CVESD) and Sweetwater Union High School Districts (SUHSD) were judged to be technically in compliance with the threshold standard. The GMOC recognizes and appreciates the effort of the school distr/cts to keep abreast of growth. The CVESD has a history of building schools on a parallel track with development. The SUHSD has recently completed San Ysidro High School, and both Otay Ranch High School and EastLake Middle School completions arc expected by July 2003. These efforts will help to assure that school capacity at the elementary, middle and high school level will be maintained. The GMOC recognizes that even though the threshold standard is being met, the strains of growth are being felt. As school design capacity is exceeded students are either bussed outside their schools service area or new "relocatable" classrooms are constructed on existing school campuses. And, as the number of these relocatable classrooms increases, outdoor activity space decreases and there is not the commensurate increase in facilities such as restrooms. This is particularly evident at the older west side high schools. These facilities are showing the signs of age and inadequate fiscal resources for some basic maintenance. While not within the GMOC purview, it appears that there is no obvious or comprehensive program to address these deficiencies. This is a concern to the GMOC and the community. 2002 GMOC Annual Report 37 June 12, 2003 Recommendation: That the school districts continue with their proactive efforts in identifying funding and building new schools before the need is at an even greater critical stage. 3.11.2 School Construction - Elementary Schools Issue: Overall, sites and funding for additional elementary schools have kept pace with growth. In order to leverage state funds for construction and avoiding full cost recovery from new homeowners, which keeps housing costs more affordable, the CVESD may be limited to building only one school per year. A school for San Miguel Ranch is set for next year, followed by Easflake Woods, and then Otay Ranch Village 6, and Village 11. As a result a school for Otay Ranch Village 6 may not be available until the 2006/07 school year. Based on the recently approved "Monitoring" program there may already be 3,500 units permitted between Otay Ranch Villages 6 and 11 by this time with most of those units occupied. Mass bussing will take place for up to 3 years to take elementary school aged students to the Hedenkamp Elementary School in Sunbow. The GMOC recognizes that the CVESD is employing a fair and equitable construction sequencing program and are utilizing their financial resources prudently. The outcome that extensive bussing will be necessitated because schools will not be built in a timely fashion at appropriate sites is because of state funding constraints beyond the control of the CVESD._ The situation never the less must be recognized by the GMOC as community impact and warrants a GMOC "Statement of Concern". A GMOC "Statement of Concern" is issued in response to this situation so that the Council and the community are made aware of the problem. This "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC's report (aka Joint Workshop), to be directed to the school districts with follow-up to assure appropriate response by that agency. In this situation, however, the GMOC believes that the CVESD and the City are responding to the concern in the appropriate manner and therefore a resolution is not required. Moreover, the CVESD is proceeding at a pace dictated by the state's release of funding for new school construction. Reconunendation: It is actn~owledged that the City has no direct control over school facility construction, and that regulating growth due to school impacts is prohibited by SBS0. However, it is recommended that the Council direct the City Manager to coordinate City resources as appropriate and join with the CVESD in 2002 GMOC Annual Report 38 dune 12, 2003 their on-going efforts to build a new elementary school in Otay Ranch Village 6 at the earliest time possible. Recommendation: That the CVESD endeavor to find creative financing to build three elementary schools in the next 2 years, one each at San Miguel Ranch, EastLake Woods, and Otay Ranch Village 6. 3.11.3 School Construction - Middle and High Schools Issue: A new middle school will be opened this August. The need for an additional middle school is not anticipated for the next 3 years. Based on the most recent forecast as provided by the SUHSD, it is estimated that high school number 13 will be required by mid-2006. The SUHSD, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community are working in close coordination to meet this timeframe. Currently a new high school site is being identified, funding is anticipated to be available, and plans used for the Otay Ranch High School can be reused so as to fast track the approval process. Site selection will be contingent upon the ability to provide infrastructure to the location in a timely fashion so that construction can begin on schedule. A 3 to 3.5 year process, while achievable, is acknowledged to be ambitious with no room for delay. While the GMOC recognizes that focused effort is being undertaken to bring the high school on-line in a timely fashion, delays are not uncommon. Given this situation the GMOC will issue a "Statement of Concern". In all likelihood if the process takes longer existing high school sites will be called upon to absorb additional growth through bussing, larger class sizes and the placement of relocatable classrooms. While solving the immediate problem, such an outcome is not desirable. The GMOC recognizes that the SUHSD is pursuing the new high school with all due diligence, however the GMOC would be remiss if it did not recognize this situation and determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to school capacity if the schedule is not met. This warrants a formal "Statement of Concern". This "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public hearing on the GMOC's report (aka Joint Workshop), to be directed to the school distr/cts with follow-up to assure appropriate response by that agency. In this situation, however, the GMOC believes that the SUHSD the City, and the development community are responding to the concern in the appropriate manner and therefore a resolution is not required. Recommendation: Assuming that there is no change in the expected number of students as forecasted by the SUHSD, facilitating high school construction should be 2002 GMOC /Innual Report 39 dune 12, 2003 placed as the CiD' Manager's highest priority when working with the SUItSD and developers to finalize site selection and to assure road and utility access to the site in a timely fashion. This will constitute the City's primary contribution to maintain the school threshold. 3.11.4 The SchoOls Task Force Issue: A Schools Task Force was created in July of 2002 to address issues regarding school crowding, school planning, construction, financing, and the joint use of recreational areas. The task force was comprised of 15 members, 5 appointed by the City, and 5 each from the two school districts. Former Councilperson John Moot was appointed as the Chair. The task force had a series of 8 meetings and one field trip taken jointly with the GMOC. At this writing a set of recommendations are in draft form. There are several recommendations that concern the City's growth management program and the GMOC. Recommendation: The GMOC will consider the recommendations of the Schools Task Force and report to Council on or before next year's joint GMOC, City Council, Planning Commission workshop with a response. 2002 GMOC~ nnual Report 40 June 12, 2003 4.0 APPENDICES 4.1 Appendix A - Recommendations and Implementing Actions (Presented as Attachment 1, in the Joint Planning Commission and City Council Workshop version.) 4.2 Appendix B- Workshop Reports (Included in Volume II) 4.3 Appendix C - Growth Forecast (Included in Volume II) 4.4 Appendix D - Threshold Questionnaires and Supplemental Data (Included in Volume II) 2002 GMOC Annual Report ~ 1 .lune 12, 2003 Attachment 3 VOLUME II CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ~OMMISSION 2002 ANNUAL REPORT APPENDICES Appendix B - Workshop Reports Appendix C - Growth Forecast Appendix D - Threshold Questionnaires and Supplemental Data 1. Fiscal 2. Air Quality 3. Sewer 4. Water 5. Libraries 6. Drainage 7. Parks and Recreation 8. Police 9. Fire/Emergency Medical Services 10.Traffic 11.Schools May 2003 City of Chula Vista GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Public Outreach Meeting Summary During the 2001/02 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) deliberations it was decided that greater public awareness of the City's growth management program was desired. In addition, the GMOC wanted to have greater public involvement. These two objectives: greater awareness and involvement by the public, were embodied in a recommendation as part of the GMOC's Annual Report to the City Council in May of 2002. In carrying out this reco~nmendation, and to meet the stated objectives, a special public outreach meeting was organized for the evening of Thursday, January 9, 2003. The meeting was scheduled for two hours and included a presentation on the City's Growth Management Program and the role of the GMOC. The second half of the session was devoted to public comments and questions. Approximately 75 Chula Vista residents attended the meeting. A second meeting will be scheduled in late March or early April, where the GMOC draft recommendations to the City Council will be presented to the community for comment prior to going to Council. This summary contains the following: 1. List of Community Inputs with Responses 2. Meeting Age~da 3. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation A copy of this summary will be sent to all the event participants who provided a mailing address on the sign-in sheet. In addition, a direct mail invitation to the next public outreach meeting will also be sent to those on the list. Community Input Summary GMOC Public Outreach Event January 9, 2003 The following recommendations, statements, questions, and observations represents the community input received at the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Public Outreach Event. This is not a verbatim transcript. The responses are represented in italics. These responses were either provided during the meeting or as a result of follow-up staff research. Recommendation: Public transportation should be an integral component of the growth management program as transit can relieve congestion and improve air quality. Response: the City's Growth Management Program does not currently have a threshold for transit. The City does operate Chula Vista Transit and is cooperating with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board on a plan to improve transit in the south county area. Recommendation: A train from National City to hnperial Beach would be a benefit in reducing traffic in Chula Vista and should be supported by the City. Response: Comment noted. Statement: The current bus system is not efficient; transfers are difficult. Response: A program called "Transit First" is attempting to improve transit service. Observation: That Otay Ranch has design features in the roadway that anticipates the future use of transit, such as median lanes and pullouts for transit vehicles. Response: This is correct, and these areas have designated land uses that are intended to support transit use. Recommendation: The City/GMOC should place a greater priority in providing pools for competition. Response: The GMOC's primary.tbcus is to assure that there is land and financing available for adequate parks and facilities. The definition of necessary facilities is embodied in the recently completed Parks Master Plan. That plan serves as the basis for determining what are adequate facilities. The Park and Recreation Commission and the Recreation Department are the entities that are closest to this issue. Question: ls there a plan for a pool in Otay Ranch Village 7? Response: Yes, there are two pools planned for Village 7, a 50 and a 25-meter pool as contained in the Parks Master Plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Public Outreach Meeting Summary Page 2 Recommendation: That pools be opened year round. Response: This recommendation will be forwarded to the Recreation Department. Recommendation: Pools are under represented relative to playing fields. Response: Until the adoption of the Parks Master Plan and the Recreation Development Impact Fee (RECD1F) in November, there were no funds available to build facilities, including pools, in eastern Chula Vista. With the RECD1F in place, recreation facilities, as defined in the Parks Master Plan, will commence and provide a balance with playing fields. Question: Why not adds pools to the GMOC quality of life threshold? Re~oonse: The GMOC typically does not set specific standards; it is the responsibility of the implementing body to develop a plan through a public process that specifies what the standards should be. The GMOC then monitors that standard. In the case of pools, it is the Recreation Department, and the Parks and Recreation Commission that determine the standards that are then incorporated into the Parks Master Plan. Working with these entities can change the standard. Recommendation: Thresholds should be changed over time as situations change. Response: Thresholds are changed periodically. Every year an opportunity is provided for departments and agencies to recommend threshold changes. The public may also bring specific recommendations for threshold changes. Statement: A City Code states that there should be one 50-meter pool per 20,000 population, but this has not been enforced. Response: Chapter 17.10.050 of the City Code did contain required standards for the development of recreation facilities, including pools as indicated above. This has been replaced with a new Chapter and the ~7~ecific recreation facility standards have been removed from the code and placed as an element of the Parks Master Plan that includes a facility financing program. The absence of such a financing program made the earlier standards impossible to implement. The financing program is funded through a Recreation Development Impact Fee or RECDIF. Each new homeowner in eastern Chula Vista will pay this fee. Question: How is the City responding to the potential water shortage situation? Response: The potential water shortage is a long-term issue that the City is monitoring. In the short term, the water districts have verified that water will be available to support growth in the City. The City has implemented water conservation and recycling programs. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Public Outreach Meeting Sununary Page 3 Recommendation: When the GMOC has a threshold but no real authority to act, as in regards to schools, the lack of authority should be noted in the report. Response: The next GMOC Annual Report will include language to indicate when the City or GMOC has little direct influence on a topic. Statement: The school district does not build pools, what cooperation between the school and the City needs to happen for joint use to be achieved? Further, the Otay Ranch High School is being built with plumbing and wiring for a pool, but the school district has no money at this time to build a pool. Response: Recommending joint use between the school district and the City to achieve a specific level of service could be a GMOC action. However, as indicated, pools are not a specific GMOC standard except as represented in the Parks Master Plan, as it is that plan that defines adequate facilities. However, the joint use issue is on the agenda for the Schools Task Force, and they may make specific recommendations in this regard. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Public Outreach Meeting Summary Page 4 City of Chula Vista GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Second Public Outreach Mectin~ Summary During the 2001/02 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) deliberations it was decided that greater public awareness of the City's growth management program was desired. In addition, the GMOC wanted to have greater public involvement. These two objectives: greater awareness and involvement by the public, were e~nbodied in a recommendation as part of the GMOC's Annual Report to the City Council in May of 2002. In carrying out this recommendation, and to meet the stated objectives, special public outreach meetings were organized and held on January 9, 2003 and April 24, 2003. The meetings were each two hours long. The first public event included a presentation on the City's Growth Management Program and the role of the GMOC with the opportunity for comlnunity members Jo ask questions and to express their concerns on growth. The second public outreach event focused on the draft GMOC recommendations, the appropriateness of the threshold standards, and generai community input. Approximately 75 Chula Vista residents attended the first meeting with about 85 in attendance at the second. A smmnary for the first meeting was distributed in February. The following summary discusses the second public event. A copy of this summary will be sent to all the event participants who provided a mailing address on the sign-in sheet. Community Input Summary GMOC Public Outreach Event April 24, 2003 The following recommendations, statements, questions, and observations represent the community input received at the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) second Public Outreach Event, both verbal and written comments. This is not a verbatim transcript and some discussion may have been inadvertently omitted. The responses are represented in italics. These responses were either provided during the tneeting or as a result of follow-up staff research. Comment: Traffic levels on 1-805 are terrible so what good is it if we maintain the GMOC level of service on city streets only to be slowed or stopped in traffic on the freeways? It is acknowledged that the city has no direct control of the freeways, but the city does continue to issue boilding permits for homes occupied by more commuters that then create the freeway traffic congestion. Can't the city stop issuing these permits (through a moratorium) to ease highway congestion? Response: Based upon this concern, the GMOC has recommended that the City examine the relationship between growth in the east and freeway congestion. Comment: The GMOC report indicates that the traffic threshold has been met, but there is still a lot of traffic on the streets at rash hour. Maybe two hours of LOS D is not the correct level to set. And, how has the traffic threshold changed over the years? Response: The GMOC recognizes that there are many questions regarding the details of the traffic threshold and how it is monitored. A GMOC recommendation has been made fi~r a community workshop to be held under the auspices of the GMOC and presented by the City's engineering staff to present the details of the traffic threshold and monitoring program. It is expected that the workshop will be held during the next GMOC review cycle. Recommendation: There should be a public transit growth management quality of life threshold. Response: Based upon this recommendation the GMOC has recommended that the City investigate a transit threshold and how it could be developed and implemented. Recommendation: That the GMOC consider including the cumulative impact of health risks due to air quality. Response: Comment noted. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Second Public Outreach Meeting Summary Page 2 Comment: The city did not do enough to encourage a broader participation in the GMOC public event. Announcements should have been made in a Spanish language newspaper. Response: Comment noted. Suggestion: To add various threshold topics, such as compliance with the MS4 storm water permit, solar and other clean energy generation units, affordable housing and length housing stays affordable, and type of jobs created. Response: Suggestion noted. Comment: The City is not doing a good job in following the storm water mitigation program with 22 violations. Response: In response to this allegation, the City's engineering staff prepared a memo to the GMOC. After staff assessment, it was determined that there were actually 5 violations, and that the City has received praise for the quality of its storm water monitoring program. The response is included in Appendix D, Volume H of the GMOC Annual Report following the Drainage questionnaire. Question: How many days reserve does the Otay Water District have for emergency water supply? Response: According to recent reports, the Otay Water District has, or is planning to have, 10 days of emergency water supply. Recommendation: Due to the lack of recreational space in western Chula Vista, increased joint use agreements opening school sites for public use should be encouraged. Response: The GMOC has included a recommendation concerning joint use of recreational areas and also recognizes the efforts of the Schools Task Force in this endeavon Recommendation: The Chula Vista Mid-Bay Front project area should be used as open space for the people of Chula Vista. Response: The role of the GMOC is to monitor thresholds such as parks and recreation. At the moment there is no park and recreation threshold requirement for western Chula Vista that the · GMOC monitors. In the event that a threshold is developed for western Chula Vista, the GMOC will not be commenting on site specific issues but rather if the overall acreage objective has been achieved. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Second Public Outreach Meeting Summary Page 3 Recommendation: The west side of the city should have a park threshold standard like there is for the east. Response: The GMOC has requested that the City develop such a threshold standard and that it be presented to the GMOC during next year's review cycle. Recommendation: That the GMOC issue a "Statement of Concern" due to inadequate aquatic facilities. Response: The GMOC Parks and Recreation threshold applies to the east and stipulates a ratio qf 3 acres of recreation area per 1,000 populating and adequate facilities. The GMOC will be monitoring the recently approved Parks Master Plan to assess facility adequacy and has recommended that a report on this be presented to the GMOC during next year's review cycle. As a point of reference a formal "Statement of Concern" is only applied with non-city activities where this concern is then presented to the outside agency. Correction: In relation to aquatic resources, in the write-up for the first workshop it was indicated that the new Otay Ranch High School had a site that was plumbed for a pool. That statement was made in error. Recommendation: The level of fines for false burglar alarms should be increased as a way of encouraging a reduction of false alarms. Response: Comment noted. This strategy has been discussed by the Police Department in the past. Recommendation: Define what is meant by Priority I and Priority II when referring to police response times. Response: Priority 1 and 11 is now defined within the text of the GMOC report. Priority 1 - Emergency Calls. Life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime 6r 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. Misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic' violence or other disturbances with potential for violence); burglary alarms. Response: Immediate response by two officers from clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.) GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Second Public Outreach Meeting Summary Page 4 Recommendation: Police response time may not be the best threshold standard. How about using the rate at which crimes are solved? Response: The GMOC and the Police Department are open to considering alternative threshold measures. However, growth management thresholds must be growth related in a way where it can be shown specifically that increased growth led to the degradation of the threshold. Such a connection is not clear in this case. Question: Why does the Fire Engine always accompany an emergency medical call? This seems to be wasteful of resources. Response: This practice is Fire Department polir?~ and not mandated by any legal requirement. The GMOC will inquire of the Fire Department, during next year's review o~cle, how this policy impacts their level of service. Recommendation: The school threshold should include higher education like Southwestern College. Response: Comment noted. Recommendation: The school threshold should include such things as the number of students over the school's design capacity, the number of relocatable classrooms using up campus open space, and a measure that recognizes that as relocatables are added to a campus other school facilities typically stay at the same level thereby degrading overall student support capacity. Response: These obsen'ations mirror many of the suggestions coming out of the Schools Task Force. The GMOC will be assessing this recommendation and those of the Schools Task Force during the coming review cycle. Questions: Questions regarding how new development is financed including how schools are financed were raised. Response: Regarding schools it was indicated that schools are constructed based upon a combination of Mello-Roos, bonds, or equivalent fees plus state funding. The school districts utilize state funding as one way to lower local costs which consequently keeps home prices lower, otherwise the full cost would be passed on to the new home buyer. Public improvements on the east side for streets, fire stations, parks, etc., are paid for through "Development Impact Fees" or DIFs. D1Fs are ultimately paid for by the new homeowners, and therefore the west does not subsidize homes on the east for capital improvements. Further, homeowners on the east likely pay more property tax per home than in the west. There are two reasons fi~r this. First the average home in the east is more expensive than the average home on GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Second Public Outreach Meeting Summary Page 5 the west. Second, Proposition 13 provides greater property tax relief the longer you own your home, and home owners in the east will on average not have owned their homes as long as those in the west. A home on the west owned for 30 years and valued at $500,000 may pay $1,000 a year in property taxes, while a new home sale at $500,000 may pay $5,000 a year in property taxes. Typically residential areas do not raise 'enough property taxes to pay for the services they receive. Sales tax revenues are what most cities depend 'upon for staying fiscally strong. The planned Eastern Urban Center and the Freeway Commercial development is expected to provide such a tax base. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION Second Public Outreach Meeting Sumrnary Page 6 City of Chula Vista 2002 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle 18-MONTH and 5-YEAR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2003 Through 2007 May, 2003 City of Chula Vista 2002 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle 18-MONTH and 5-YEAR GROWTH FORECAST Years 2003 through 2007 May 2003 As a component of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program, the City's Planning and Building Department provides annual growth forecasts for two time frames: 18 months and 5 years. Providing this information enables City departments and other service agencies to assess the probable impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with the City's facility and service Threshold Standards. With this data, these bodies will be able to report possible threshold impacts to the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission. The 18-month forecast covers the period from July 1, 2002 through December 31,2003. In addition, a two-year forecast covering calendar years 2003 and 2004 is provided. The five-year forecast spans the calendar years from 2003 through 2007. Further, a possible growth profile is provided to the year 2010. Context As last year, this report reflects a substantial inventory of potential development as a result of continued strong regional demand for housing and South County's increasing role in meeting this demand. Historically (Figure 1, also see Exhibit 1) the rate of housing construction in Chula Vista has fluctuated, with the years since 1995 indicating steady increases, leveling off in calendar year 2002. The San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) Preliminary 2030 Growth Forecast indicates that the South County subregion will host a substantial amount of the region's projected growth over the next 28 years. This growth stems mainly from the limited General Plan capacity in several cities in the county, as well as from the lower average price of housing in areas south of I-8. Based largely on the amount of vacant land within master planned projects in Chula Vista's eastern area, SANDAG projects that the City will add over 31,000 housing units and over 109,000 new residents between the years 2000 and 2030. In order for the City of Chula Vista to accommodate this growth and maintain the quality of life there must be the concurrent development of public facilities and services. It is the role of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) to assess if the established quality of life standards are being met and to make recommendations to the City Council to insure future compliance. Forecast Assumptions This forecast is being developed with the following assumptions: 1, That building caps are not imposed on development. 2. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged, 3. That GMOC growth management thresholds are not exceeded. 4. That the housing market remains robust in Chula Vista. 5. No significant housing development in western Chula Vista. 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 1 of 12 Figure 1 Housing Units Finaled in City of Chula Vista 1980 to 2002 3,500 2,500 2,000 1980 1981 1989 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1999 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year 18 Month and 2 Year Forecast Annually, the City requests developers to indicate how many housing units will be permitted and how many finaled over the next 18 month period. Based upon the response (Figure 2) the City can expect to experience continued significant housing development. During the 18-month period from July 2002 through December 2003 housing developers anticipate the issuance of building permits for 5,334 dwelling units, and the completion of 5,076 dwelling units. During just calendar year 2003 the figures reflect building permit issuance for 4,136 dwelling units, and completion of 3,302 dwelling units. As indicated, during calendar year 2003, housing developers are projecting that they will request building permits for over 4,100 dwelling units, and that 3,300 dwelling units will be completed (A detailed developer response is attached as Exhibit 2.) While such growth has the potential to occur, historically these "raw" ndmbers have been consistently optimistic and resulted in overstating actual growth by a factor ranging between 18% for permits and 20% for finals. In that regard, the developer forecast for year 2003 housing permits and finals has been reduced accordingly to 3,366 units to be permitted and 2,642 units to be finaled. A depiction of the trend between forecasted and actual development is presented in Figures 3 A and B for housing units issued permits and those finaled, respectively. 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 2 of 12 Figure 2 CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT "RAW" DEVELOPER FORECAST July 2002 - December 2003 This is not a City of Chula Vista forecast and should not be quoted as such. These numbers represent developer expectations and have historically been approximately 18% to 20% higher than actual. 18 Month Forecast Calendar Year 2003 PROJECT Issued Final Issued Final MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total OTAY RANCH Otay Ranch Co. 1,463 955 2,418 1,351 1,148 2,499 1,455 602 2,057 710 734 1,444 McMillin 180 248 428 126 120 246 108 240 348 126 12¢ 246 Brookfield Shay Otay 128 208 336 32 72 104 t 28 208 336 32 72 104 EASTLAKE 198 702 900 222 527 749 138 437 575 129 427 556 ROLLING HILLS RANCH 168 343 511 0 313 313 168 193 361 0 225 225 SUNBOW 3 151 154 434 267 701 3 50 53 224 116 340 SAN MIGUEL RANCH 90 497 587 60 404 464 70 336 406 60 327 387 TOTAL 2,230 3,104 5,334 2,225 2,851 5,076 2,070 2,066 4,136 1,281 2,021 3,302 MF - Multiple units under one ,ermit, SF = One unit per pcmfit, Issued - Building Permit issued, Final = Occupancy Pemfit issued. A two-year forecast has been created utilizing historic trends and the adjusted totals for units to be permitted and finaled based on the developer forecast. In calendar year 2003 there is estimated to be 2,600 finals. This level of finals appears reasonable as year 2002 is expected to produce a total of 2,360 units permitted. At the same time over 3,300 permits are expected in 2003. This would represent the second highest yearly total of units permitted in City history. The highest number came in year 2001 with 3,500 units permitted. That peak was fueled, in part, by a large number of multi family units. The developer forecast indicates that permits for over 2,000 multi family units could be requested in year 2003. This would lead to a "spike" as in 2001. However, multi family units typically reach occupancy status at a slower pace than single-family units. So, many of the multi family units permitted in year 2003 will likely not be finaled until 2004. Therefore, year 2004 may experience an increase in finals that will likely reverse a 3-year downward trend. The exact number is uncertain, but an estimate of 2,900 units has been set as a target. The number of units being issued permits for 2004 is set at the five-year average, or 2,500 (Figure 4). 2002Annual Growth Forecast Page 3 of 12 Figure 3A Historical Comparison of Forecast to Actual Housing Units Permitted 1906 to 2002, I/~th 2003** Forecast 1996 1997 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Calendar Year ** Forecast 2003 is "raw" developer numbers, Actual uses the cumulative % difference beiw een 1996 and 2002 Forecast vs. Actual at 18.71%, and applies this to the year 2003 forecast number. Figure 3B Historical Comparison of Forecast to Actual Housing Unit Finals 1996 to 2002, With 2003** Forecast Calendar Year Forecast 2003 is "raw · developer numbers, Actual uses the cumulative % difference betw eec 1996 and 2002 Forecast vs. Actual at 20%, and applies this to the year 2003 forecast number. 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 4 of 12 Figure 4 TWO YEAR GROWTH FORECAST YEAR 2003 AND 2004 YEAR PERMITS FINALS 2003 3,366 2,642 2004 2,500 2,900 Total 5,866 5,542 Year 2007 (5 Year) and 2010 Forecast Preparing a 5-year forecast always incorporates a significant degree of uncertainty. The current forecast period, years 2003 through 2007, offers an even greater challenge given the sluggish national economy, the decline in the stock market, the continuing war against terror, declining rate of job creation, and interest rates at 40 year lows with upward movement likely. It is anticipated that the next 5 years will produce as many as 12,500 additional housing units being finaled. This number is derived from a variety of sources including housing market absorption rate studies, development utilization plans, with cross referencing with the SANDAG 2030 forecast (Figure 5). Essentially, by the year 2007 the only area available for major residential development will be the remaining Otay Ranch area. Figure 5 Five Year Residential Unit Growth Forecast 2003 Through 2007 Forecast of Units Finaled Units Remaining After 2003 to 2007 2007 Projects MF SF Total MF SF Total Otay Ranch, V's 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,11,12 2,550 3,805 6,355 4,565 2,653 7,218 Eastlake 1,500 1,229 2,729 Rolling Hills Ranch 168 1,172 1,340 Sunbow II 195 124 319 Bella Lago 150 150 San Mi~luel Ranch 331 986 1,317 Vista Mother Mi~uel 40 40 West Chula Vista* 125 125 250 NA NA Total 4,869 7,631 12,500 4,565 2,653 7,218 * The number of units developed in westem Chula Vista has been variable. An estimate of 50 units per year equally divided between multi and single family has been entered as a target. 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 5 of 12 A possible growth profile for housing unit finals over this 5-year period is presented in Figure 6. This profile depicts a steady decline in finals after 2004, which by the year 2007 may be 2,100 units. While this number would be the lowest number of finals since 1999, it nevertheless represents a significant amount of growth. Figure 6 Annual Housing Unit Increase Relative to Projection/Forecast 2002 through 2010 3500 2500 ~ ~'~ ~ '--)'('--Alternative / 400 '300 ~ 191511 2,100 1520 ~,~..__1,600 50( 1000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 As a point of reference, the preliminary 2030 SANDAG forecast indicates that between years 2000 and 2010 Chula Vista can expect an increase of 20,800 housing units. Since there will be 6,300 units finaled by 2002, according to the SANDAG forecast there remains 14,400 units to be finaled till year 2010. That equates to an average annual number of 1,800 units a year. Based upon the GMOC forecast, the SANDAG rate is lower than what may actually occur. The main difference between the GMOC and SANDAG forecasts is timing. By year 2030 the forecasts are expected to converge; however growth in Chula Vista is progressing faster in the early years and can be expected to experience slower growth in the period after 2010. As an illustration, Figure 7 describes a possible growth profile through 2010, with the latter years falling below the SANDAG annual average. Overall, SANDAG is expecting that the regional housing market will begin to decline after about 2005. This decline is due for several reasons, namely a reduced rate in job creation, lower fedility rates than originally expected, and that due to the relative high cost of housing growth will be directed to south Riverside County (Temecula area) and to the Tijuana region. The 2010 growth profile presented is consistent with this expectation. 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 6 of 12 " Figure 7 Annual Housing Unit Increase Relative to Projection/Forecast 2002 through 2010 3,500 '~ 'SANDAG 2030 3,000 ~ ~,,,,~900 - Alternative Growth - ~.~,,~'~ ~o '~. Profile 2,400 ...... A population forecast can also be derived using the number of homes to be finaled. The California State Depadment of Finance estimates that Chula Vista has on average 3.036 persons per household. Assuming that this factor is accurate and remains valid over the next five years, Chula Vista can expect a total population of 238,429 persons. Utilizing the SANDAG forecast for housing the population would be 226,521. The relative population growth rates are depicted in Figure 8. The GMOC and SANDAG forecasts provide a range of possible outcomes for year 2007. A summary table describing this range is provided below. Summary Table Housing and Population Growth Forecast Range 2003 to 2007 Additional Housing Units Population Change Total Population SANDAG 9,000 27,324 226,521 GMOC 12,500 37,950 238,429 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 7 of 12 Figure 8 Comparison of Population Growth Forecasts: 2001 through 2010 270,000 261,199 Higl ~--~ ~oroj-;~5OO~i~als Yr. -' 250,000 J ~ 'SANDAG 2030 ~ ~...-~-~,~ 2.~,.3os I- ,0 230,000 0 220,000 _ - _ 210,000 - -- 190,900 180,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Figure 8 illustrates three growth scenarios to the year 2010. A high end projection is provided assuming that the average of 2,500 dwelling units finaled per year is maintained, a Iow end forecast using the SANDAG 2030 estimate, and a mid range trend line illustrating a gradual decrease in the number of units being finaled as profiled in Figure 7. 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 8 of 12 EXHIBITS: I Historical Growth Table 2 Detailed Developer Forecast 3 Maior Projects Map 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 9 of 12 EXHIBIT 1 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - 2002 % Chan( No. % Chan¢ No. % Change 1980 374 84,364 1981 -52% 496 33% 86,597 3% 1982 19% 129 -74% 88,023 2% 1983 106% 279 116% 89,370 2% 1984 151% 521 87% 91,166 2% 1985 -13% 1,552 198% 116,325 28%' 1986 98% 1,120 -28% 120,285 3% 1987 -44% 2,490 122% 124,253 3% 1988 21% 829 -67% 128,028 3% 1989 19% 1,321 59% 134,337 5% 1990 -60% 1,552 17% 138,262 3% 1991 13% 701 -55% 141,015 2% 1992 -25% 725 3% 144,466 2% 1993 -22% 462 -36% 1% 1994 61% 936 103% 149,791 2% 1995 19% 718 -23% 153,164 2% 1996 10% 820 14% 156,148 2% 1997 12% 955 16% 162,106 4% 1998 30% 1,093 14% 167,103 3% 1999 87% 1,715 57% 174,319 4% 2000 5% 2,652 55% 183,300 5% 2001 35% 3,222 21% 190,900 4% 2002 -36% 2,923 -9% 199,774 5% Montgomery Annexation 1990 Census Figures 135,163 Reflects Department of Finance (DOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referertced year, Year 2002 population is an estimate based upon the forecasted number of residential unit finals multiplied by the State DOF unit size occupancy multiplier of 3.036. Annual Growth Forecast Page 10 of 12 EXHIBIT 2 CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT "RAW" DEVELOPER FORECAST July 2002 - December 2003 This is not a City of Chula V~sta forecast and should not be quoted as such. These numbers represent developer expectations and have histodcalty been approximately 18% to 20% higher than actual. OTAY RANCH I Greens 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 Annual Growth Forecast Page 11 of 12 The GMOC shall be provided with an annual developm~_nt irnp~.t f~e. report, which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. 1. Please fill in the table below. FRANSPORTATION $ 6,240~DU * 10,5~,640 3,733,099 17,054,625 Oct 2001 Aug 2002 INTERIM PRE-SR 125 $ 820/EDU 1,749,139 7,217,514 4,937,166 Jan 1994 Unscheduled fRAFFIC SIGNAL** ; 23/traffic trip 1,067,129 597,805 1,519,179 Nov 2001 Unscheduled fEEEGRAPH CYN DRAINAGE $ 4,579/acre 494,157 98,562 4,408,584 Apr 1998 Unscheduled 'ELE. CYN GRAVITY SEWER $ 216.50/EDU 1,720,302 308,162 2,347,509 Sep 1998 Unscheduled fELE. CYN PUMPED SEWER $ 560/EDU 28,909 347,002 Mar 1994 Oct 2002 SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN $ 284/EDU 2,008,634 527,361 9,566,906 Dec 1994 Jan 2003 POGGI CYN SEWER BASIN [ $ 400/EDU 639,013 98,286 2,046,767 Dec 1997 Unscheduled OTAY RANCH VlLL 1 & 5 $ 545/EDU 210,337 537,229 1,189,858 1997 Dec 2002 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DIF PUBLIC FACILITIES $ 4,888/EDU 7,747,926 9,347,183 13,~3,902 March 2002 Nov 2002 Administration $149/EDU 283,155 667,179 ( 163,183) Oivic Center Expansion $1,202/EDU 2,020,207 514,297 7,765,552 Co~. Yard Rel~ation $707/EDU 1,222,700 2,118,295 3,467,113 Libraries $716/EDU 1,582,761 2~,683 6,031,703 Fire Suppression Sys. $449/EDU 389,749 415,302 ( 870,689) Geographic Info. Sys. $9/EDE 11,307 25,171 (269,029) Computer Systems $7/EDL 8,270 14,138 ( 97,573) Records Mgmnt. Sys. $8/EDL 6,664 ( 159,777) R~reation Facilities $0/EDL · Equivalent ~velling Unit (EDU) shown. Fee varies by ~pe of residential unz& and for commercial and industrial development - see various fee schedules included in Attachment A. H:\GMOC\2002 RETURNED QUES\02 GMOO FISCAL REPORTS.doc Page 1 Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 2. In relation to the last column on the Table on Page 1, were any DIF updates completed or are any DIF updates in progress during the reporting period? If yes, please explain. Yes X No a. If any DIFs are currently being updated, where are they in the process? b. How long it's been since each DIF has been updated? c. Is there a need to update any of the DIFs? d. Who is responsible for the update of each DIF? Explain: A March 2002 update of the Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) was completed, increasing the residential fee to $4,888 per equivalent dwelling unit, and increasing the fee for commercial or industrial development to $20,860 per acre. The previous update was in June 2000. The increase was largely due to higher project cost estimates resulting from more thorough cost analyses, and also due to significant anticipated increases in financing cost estimates for two major capital projects - the new police facility and the civic center expansion. In addition to the update performed during the reporting period, staff completed November 12, 2002 updates of the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fee and of the PFDIF, to coincide with adoption of the updated Parks & Recreation Master Plan. The PAD fee increased from $5,050 to $7,869 per single family dwelling unit. 80% of the increase was due to higher land values. In regard to the PFDIF update, a new component was added to fund major recreation facilities. Overall, the fee increased by $160 per single family dwelling unit. The commercial fee was reduced slightly and the industrial fee was lowered from $20,860 per acre to $3,848 per acre. The Office of Budget & Analysis is responsible for updates to the PFDIF. Public Works, Engineering, is responsible for all of the following DIFs. An update of the Transpodation DIF was approved by Council during the reporting period (October 2001), increasing the fee from $6,065 to $6,240 per single family dwelling unit. Transportation DIF was additionally updated on August 13, 2002 and the fee went from $6,240 per equivalent dwelling unit to $8,180. The industrial fee was reduced from $93,600 per acre to $65,440 per acre. A new Traffic Signal Participation fee, last updated in 1993, was approved by Council in November 2001. The increase from $13 to $23 per average daily vehicle trip was necessitated by increased costs for equipment and installation of new traffic signals needed to serve new development. Updates to the Otay Ranch Village 1&5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF, the Salt Creek Sewer Basin fee, and the Telegrapl~ Canyon Pumped Sewer fee were also in progress during the reporting period. There are no current plans to update the Interim Pre-SR125 DIF, the Telegraph Canyon Drainage fee, the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer fee, or the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin fee. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\02 GMOC FISCAL REPORTS.doc Page 2 3. In reference to operations and capital improvements, is the City addressing the impacts of growth? Yes X No Explain: A May 2002 update of the Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND) model was completed. The update reassessed the net revenues and cost impacts associated with Otay Ranch as it develops, and determined whether an offsetting transfer of funds from San Diego County to the city was indicated by growth conditions. The analysis concluded that through FY01 revenues generated in Otay Ranch were sufficient to cover costs associated with serving the development. The city and county am required to update the FIND model annually. With regard to capital improvements, a March 2002 Public Facilities DIF update revealed the need for $265 million to complete all planned public facilities projects funded with PFDIF funds, to meet growth needs through buiidout. This represents the total for all projects including the new police facility, the civic center expansion, completion of the corporation yard, new libraries, and new fire stations. The total includes both developer (DIF) and city shares of project costs, as well as a significant debt service that will be incurred in order to finance a number of projects. During the reporting period, city staff and a team of consultants developed a Traffic Capacity Enhancement plan t~) accommodate growth in Eastern territories. The plan will include enhancing freeway interchanges at 1-805 and accelerating construction of certain roadways. In addition to developer impact fees, staff is also in the process of updating the. city's Park Acquisition and DevelopmeRt (PAD) fee, which was last updated in April 2001. The new PAD fee referenced under item #2 is based on the FY2002 Parks & Recreation Master Plan update and calls for the development of five community parks and a large number of neighborhood parks to serve new growth. 4. What is the status of the citywide Operations Fiscal Impact Model? Describe: A citywide Operations fiscal impact model is being developed as part of the comprehensive fiscal analysis component of the General Plan update. Currently, staff are preparing to take an item to Council on December 10, 2002 to hire a consultant - Economics Research Associates (ERA). ERA will be responsible for preparation of the fiscal impact model and the analysis and presentation of fiscal impacts of various General Plan land uses and a{ternatives. The anticipated completion is in Summer 2003. 5. The City is anticipating the addition of up to 12,500 additional homes and 38,000 new residents in the next 5 years, are there any changes in City's fiscal policy in regard to development that should be considered to best accommodate these additional units? Yes_ No X H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\02 GMOC FISCAL REPORTS.doc Page 3 Please explain, why or why not: The City's fiscal policy with regard to new development is that r~ew development shall pay for itself. This policy, of which regular impact fee updates are a part, contains ample flexibility to allow the city to adjust the amount of revenue from development impact fees to keep pace with growth impacts on city facilities. Careful cash flow modeling of impact fees ensures that sufficient funds will exist to meet future needs despite unanticipated growth fluctuations. LA.~T YEAR'R GMDC RECt~MMENDATIONR 6. Has a standard procedure been adopted for an annual review of Development Impact Fees (DIFs) Yes No Pending X Explain: The GMOC has recommended that DIF updates be prepared annually, with the final report available in January of each year. Currently, two departments - Public Works Engineering, and the Office of Budget & Analysis - have responsibility for aligning and updating the various DIFs, as described previously. All DIF updates are now scheduled for October of each year. In addition, certain procedural standards were in development during the reporting period. These would not only ensure timely updates, but also ensure that the review process and the resulting recommendations regarding each DIF are in accordance with the City's accepted fiscal policies and procedures, conducting cash flow and other fiscal analyses where necessary. Moreover, the standards will highlight growth impacts and capital project modifications that may affect fee structure. 7. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: 8. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes__ No X _ Explain: 9. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No X Explain: H:\GMOC\2002 RETURNED QUES\02 GMOC FISCAL REPORTS.doc Page 4 Prepared by: Evelyn Ong Title: Senior Accountant Date: November 20, 2002 And: Cathy Burciaga Title: Fiscal and Management Analyst H:\GMOC\2002 RETURNED QUES\02 GMOC FISCAL REPORTS.doc Page 5 THRESHOLD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation etforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Have any major developments or Master Planned Communities been approved during the reporting period? Yes X No a. List any approved projects and indicate to what extent these projects implement measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant federal, state, regional and/or local policies and regulations? Three major master planned community projects were approved during the reporting period. EastLake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and related documents were adopted by the City Council on July 10, 2001. This development consists of two subdivisions, EastLake Woods and EastLake Vistas, that will include a total of 2061 dwelling units. Otay Ranch Village Eleven SPA Plan, EIR, and related documents were adopted by the City Council on October 9, 2001. This development will include 2304 dwelling units. Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan, EIR and related documents were adopted by the City H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Plan~ing AQ 021.doc Page 1 Council on January 22, 2002. This project will include 2086 dwelling units. All three projects were required to prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) addressing the project's air quality impacts and proposing measures to reduce those impacts. They also participated in a pilot study to assist in the development of AQIP guidelines. The study evaluated the relative effectiveness of applying various site design and energy conservation features in the developments and resulted in the preparation of AQIP's for the each of the SPA's. Upon completion of the pilot study the three projects amended their original SPA Plan documents to incorporate the AQIP's. The implementation measures included such things as energy efficient building programs and additional tree planting to cool ambient air temperatures and increase CQ2 uptake. Bella Lago, a 140 unit residential project is under preparation and will likely be considered for approval during the next year. An AQIP is required for the project and the draft document is currently undergoing review. Also under preparation is the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial SPA Plan. This project will also likely be considered for approval during the next reporting period. An AQIP is also required for this project. Planning has also begun on future major developments including the Eastern Urban Center and Otay Ranch Village 2. 2. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and procedures consistent with current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs? Yes X No Explain: a. With respect to any inconsistencies, please indicate actions needed to bring development regulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance. 3. Are there any non-development related air quality programs that the City is currently implementing or participating in? Yes X No Explain: a. Identify and provide a brief explanation of each. The City continues to implement several of the measures recommended in the CO2 Reduction Plan adopted by City Council on November 14, 2000. The following nine non- development related measures have been implemented and are on-going projects: Measure 1 - Pumhase of Alternative Fuel Vehicles The City's Alternative Vehicle Fuel Assets include: · Operating Transit Bus CNG Fueling and Maintenance Facility at Corp Yard · Public Access CNG Fueling Facility at Corp Yard · 40 New CNG Busses · Five CNG Vehicles: 4 Vans and 1 Car · Four Neighborhood Electric Cars (2 leased) · On road demonstration of world's first zinc fuel cell car in June 2002 H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Planning AQ 021.doc Page 2 Measure 2 - Green Power Renewable Energy Efforts include: · Installed City's first Photovoltaic System (PV) - 4 kw system - in May 2001 at new Public Works Yard. · Council approved 10 kw PV system for Nature Center- 2003. · Pending Council approval, and California Energy Commission (CEC) approval to reallocafe grant funding for additional 10 kw PV system at new Public Works Yard - 2003. · Council approved 30 kw PV system for new Police HQ - 2003/04. · Staff to investigate City aggregation program to purchase green electricity for all Chula Vista electricity users in 2003/04. · Staff to evaluate installation of 1MW PV for Corp Yard. Measure 3 - Municipal Clean Fuel Demonstration Project · The City is continuing to work with SunLine to demonstrate hydrogen electrolyzer and hydrogen fuel cell bus in 2003 using $1 million in funding from the Department Of Energy (DOE) and the CEC. · Expanded project scope will procure up to four fuel cell busses for a two year demonstration for the San Diego region with Chula Vista as the anchor. Measure 4 - Telecommuting and telecenters · City staff has submitted two grant proposals to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District to develop and implement a Van Pool and Telecommuting Program in 2003. Measure 5 - Municipal Building Upgrades and Trip Reduction · Facility and infrastructure retrofits are generating savings of 4.7 MW-hrs/yr. · City also replaced 24 refrigerators with EnergyStar rated units. · Past retrofits include upgrading lights, many HVAC systems and other appliances with energy-saving devices. Additional improvements will be made as major capital items are scheduled to be replaced or refurbished. · The Building Division's eastern office and permitting process via the Internet continues to result in trip reduction by City employees and the public. The City is also expanding opportunities for the public to use the City's website to access information and communicate with staff without traveling to the Civic Center and other City facilities. City staff is evaluating the feasibility of implementing a Vanpool Program for City employees who live in eastern Chula Vista and commute to the Chula Vista Civic Center. Measure 10- Green Power Public Education Program · In June 1998 staff developed a public education program for Chula Vista residents. The program provided information about renewable power choices as deregulation of the power industry occurred. In the future this information will be made available on the City's web site. · A global warming education module has been successfully implemented in the Chula Vista Elementary School District. Measure 12 - Bicycle Integration with Transit and Employment · Encourages employers and transit providers to provide bike storage at major transit stops and employment areas and includes bike racks on buses. Employers are also encouraged to provide showers at major transit nodes. Measure 16 -Traffic Signal and System Upgrades · Recent projects include green traffic signal light LED retrofit completed in 2001 that reduced electricity use by 1.1 MW-hrs/yr. H:\GMOC~O02 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Planning AQ 021.doc Page 3 Measure 19- Municipal Life-Cycle Purchasing Standards · This measure involves the inclusion of life-cycle energy costs as a selection criterion in a comprehensive purchasing policy for energy-consuming equipment. The policy has lead to the purchase of a number of Energy Star appliances and building design or equipment changes that promote energy efficiency. 4. Are there additional non-development related program efforts that the City needs to undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? Yes No X Explain: a. If so, please identify. 5. Are any new air quality programs scheduled for implementation during the next year? Yes X No Explain: The Growth Management Ordinance requires that all major development projects (50 dwelling units or greater) prepare Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIP's) to address Federal, and State mandates and local issues regarding air quality. As a result of the CO2 Reduction Plan a pilot study was initiated that will lead to the preparation and adoption of guidelines for AQIP'S. As mentioned earlier, the pilot study involved the development of a computer model to evaluate the relative effectiveness of applying various site design and energy conservation features in new projects. The study has been completed and it is anticipated that guidelines will be adopted during the next year. The guidelines will include air quality and energy conservation measures identified in the pilot study. Consistencywith the CO2 Reduction Plan will continue to be a requirement of all AQIP's The City and the Otay Ranch Company are sponsoring an electric vehicle pilot program with Mobility Lab, and Global Electric Motorcars, LLC (GEM). Twenty-five families in Otay Ranch are participating in the pilot program using Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. Otay Ranch was selected due to the variety of pedestrian-oriented land use features. The vehicles were delivered to the families in September 2002. Staff is participating in the California Public Utilities Commission process to fund energy efficiency projects from Public Good Charge fees. PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS 6. Is the CO2 Reduction Plan being used as a guide to implement measures to reduce co2 emissions? Yes X No Explain: The City continues to use the CO2 Reduction Plan to assist in the development of the H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Planning AQ 021 .doc Page 4 "Sustainable Development Program" incorporating the land use measures into planning at the citywide, sectional/community planning and project levels. CO2 reduction, energy efficiency and improvements in air quality will be addressed through the City's General Plan update in addition to specific projects processed as new SPA plans and community plans. 7. In the context that this is a regional issue, has SANDAG been apprised of the City of Chula Vista efforts in reducing CO2 emissions? Yes X No Explain: SANDAG is aware of the CO2 Reduction Plan adoption and the City's effort to implement the Plan. 8. Have City Departments been tasked to identify alternative transportation options and potential implementation measures? Yes X No Explain: The Planning Division, Engineering Division and the Community Development Department staff are continuing work incorporating alternative transportation objectives and policies into the comprehensive General Plan update that is underway. The Engineering Division is continuing to implement the Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan. A Bikeway Master Plan update is also under way. The City has continued to work cooperatively with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and surrounding local jurisdictions on the South Bay Transit First Program. This program is determining how to implement the recently adopted Transit First regional transportation vision in the South San Diego County area. It is identifying transit routes, stations, and priority meas'bres for transit vehicles, as well as addressing integration with transit supportive land uses. City participants include representatives of the Planning Division, Public Works Department and Community Development Department. The project commenced in January 2002, and is targeted for completion in June 2003. MTDB has endorsed a "Tier One" network of transit alignments that will be the focus of subsequent analysis. MISCELLANEOUS 9. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES~GMOC Planning AQ 021 doc Page 5 10. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes __ No X Explain: 11. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC. Yes No X Explain: Prepared by: Mary Venables Title: Associate Planner, GreenStar Program Coordinator Date: 11/25/02 H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Planning AQ 021 .doc Page 6 THRESHOLD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development specific activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quaiity Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Please fill in the blanks on this table, and update any prior years' figures if they have been revised. SMOG TRENDS - Number of days over standards STATE STANDARDS 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 San Diego Region 43 54 26 24 29 15 Chula Vista 10 2 4 0 2 1 FEDERAL STANDARDS San Diego Region 1 9 0 0 2 0 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC APCD 02_rev.doc Page 1 la. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during the reporting period. Please provide brief responses.to the follot4,fng: 2. Were there any changes in Federal or State programs during the reporting period? Yes x No Explain Minor rule changes were adopted, but none that would noticeably affect the City of Chula Vista or its air quality. The air basin met, for the first sequence of three years (as required under the federal Clean Air Act), the one-hour ozone standard. Redesignation to "attainment" is being pursued. 3. Has the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) been updated or revised during the reporting period? Yes No x Explain: a. What changes were made/adopted? 4. Will the above-noted changes (under questions 2 &3), if any, affect Chula Vista's local planning and development activities and regulations? Yes No x Explain: MISCELLANEOUS 5. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No x If yes, explain: 6. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes x No Explain: Chula Vista has many streets that don't accommodate pedestrians well. This is H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC APCD 02rev.doc Page 2 consistent with national trends in suburban cities with wide adedal roads. Such conditions inhibit alternatives to driving (bicycling, walking, transit ridership), which increases congestion and vehicle emissions. Some cities are addressing this by changing road standards and retrofitting key roads for greater pedestrian safety (without affecting traffic flow). These include the City of San Diego's comprehensively revised "Street Design Manual," Carlsbad's "Livable Street Standards" and the County's exceptions to road standards in pedestrian-oriented locations. All three jurisdictions are retrofitting problem roads with traffic calming treatments. Chula Vista should consider revising its road standards and undertaking a thorough review of pedestrian accommodations on existing roads, consistent with SANDAG's recently adopted "Planning and Designing for Pedestrians" guidance. Other resources are available at www.walksandie.qo.orq and www.t rafficcalminq.or,q. 7. Do you have any other relevant information that the APC D desires to communicate to the City and GMOC? Yes No x Explain: Prepared by: Andy Hamilton Title: Air Quality Specialist-Indirect Sources Date: November 21, 2002 H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC APCD 02_rev.doc Page 3 THRESHOLD: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed, b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. 1. Please fill in the blanks and provide relevant updates on this table. 12.918 14.262 14.756 15.316 16.642 19.034 21.522 19.843 19.843 19.843 19.843 19.843 20.784** 20.784 ** Increase in capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacity rights resulting from the construction of the new Soutbbay Treatment Plant 1 In fiscal year 01/02 the city added approximately 2,500 new homes and 7,600 increase in population citywide. 2 Anticipate that there will be up to an additional 3,750 dwelling units and 11,385 residents between 7/1/02 through 12/31/03. 3 Over the next 5 years (year ending 2007) there may be up to 12,500 new homes and 38,000 additional residents. J:\CherylC\GMOC-SEWER 02.ac.doc Page 1 Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 2. Have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at any time during this reporting period? Yes x No If yes: a. Where did this occur? At manhole # GIS - 3] ] g located on "G" Street west of Broadway, b. Why did it o¢¢LIr? The threshold was exceeded due to the volume of flow in the system and the geometrics of the sewer line. Further analysis indicated that the high readings obtained could have been as a result of grease build-up within the trunk line, which compromised the overall capacity within the line, Furthermore, that portion of the trunk line is the last portion of the trunk sewer line that needed to be upsized due to the increase in the flows from the tributary areas. c. What has been, or will be done to correct the situation? As part of the Fiscal year 2001/02 budget, Council approved the "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvement project (SW228) to upsize that portion of the "G' Street Trunk Sewer line, The project design is 90% complete, however, the original project estimate and funding was based on preliminary evaluations and was inadequate. Subsequently, as pad 6f the Fiscal year 2002/03 budget, Council approved additional funds in order to complete the project. GROWTH IMPACTS 3. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain ' service levels? Yes No x Explain: Service levels were maintained during the reporting period despite the increased pace in development in the eastern portion of the City. 4. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes No x Explain: Current sewerage facilities should be able to handle anticipated growth during the 12 to 18 month period. However, due to the pace of development in the City, especially in the eastern portion, existing sewerage facilities within that area currently do not have adequate capacity to handle forecasted growth during the next 18 months and 5- year time frames, However, the completion of several planned facilities within this same period should adequately mitigate this condition. 5. What new facilities have been constructed to accommodate the forecasted 'growth? J:\CheryrC\GMOC-SEWER 02.ac.doc Page 2 Explain: Portions of the Telegraph Canyon Trunk sewer, the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer and the Salt Creek Gravity sewer Interceptor have already been constructed by the City and various developers who constructed these facilities with the goal of seeking Development Impact Fee credits at a later date. a. How have these facilities been funded? The improvements to the Tde.qraph Canyon Trunk Sewer were funded through utilizing a combination of Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds and the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin Development Impact Fee, The Po,qgi Canyon Trunk Sewer was constructed mostly by developers as part the construction of the Olympic Parkway Project, which was a required infrastructure necessary for development. These developers were later issued DIF credits (from the Poggi Canyon Gravity Basin DIF) for constructing various portions of this facility. Portions of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer were constructed by developers who would be issued DIF Credits (from the Salt Creek Gravity Basin DIF) for constructing various portions of this facility. Some other portions of this sewer line were constructed as a joint project with SDG&E and were funded utilizing the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds, 6. In response to last years' questionnaire it was indicated that the following facilities may be required to accommodate the forecasted growth over the next 5 years. Please provide an update to each and include additional measures as appropriate. i. Upgrades to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer (Estimated to cost $3,2 Million) current construction schedule- competed. ii. Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor - downstream portion (Reach 9) - (Estimated at $9 Million) current construction schedule October 2002 - June 2003, iii. Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor ~ upstream portion (Reaches 3 - 8) - (Estimated at $13 Million) current construction schedule October 2002 - March 2003. iv. The Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer (Total Estimated Cost $6,133 Million)- Completed. v. Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer- the project is still in preliminary planning (Total Estimated Cost $6.5 Million). Estimated completion date is June 2005. vi. "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements (Total Estimated Cost - $700,000), Estimated completion date is July 2003, a. How will these facilities be funded? Explain: These projects will be primarily funded through Development Impact Fees paid by developers at the time building permits are issued. However, the downstream portion of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements will be funded utilizing the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds, which is derived from the one-time payment of the sewer capacity charge paid for each new connection to J:\CherylC\GMOC-SEWER 02.ac.doc Page 3 the City's sewer system. 7. Has the City finalized an agreement with the City of San Diego regarding the provision. of adequate treatment capacity to meet the buildout needs of the City's General Plan? Yes No X Explain: In 1998, the City signed a wastewater disposal agreement with the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and other participating agencies (Metro). This agreement granted the City of Chula Vista 19,843 Million Gallons Per Day (mgd) of sewage capacity rights within the Metro system, and lasts till 2050. At the time the agreement was signed, this allocation seemed adequate to meet the City's needs for severatyears. Recent data indicates that the City's overall sewer capacity needs at buildout will be approximately 22.120 mgd. Recently, there was an action taken by metro to allocate additional capacity rights to participating agencies. The City of Chula Vista's share of this additional allocation amounts to 0.941 mgd. However, the allocation process has not yet been finalized. To further address this issue, the City sent a letter of request for additional capacity to Metro indicating our need for additional capacity rights and our willingness to pay the associated costs for the acquisition of additional capacity rights. This letter will be kept on file and as the City's sewage generation approaches our capacity rights, Metro will take appropriate steps to assist the City in acquiring additional capacity rights to meet our buildout needs. PREVIOUS GMOC COMMENT 8. Please provide an update on the status and schedule for the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer. Describe: To expedite the construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor, the project was broken into four phases as follows: Phase 1 - From Industrial BIvd easterly to Interstate -805 Freeway This phase has been completed, Phase 2 - From Industrial Blvd. westerly to W. Fronta~le Rd. sli,qhtly west of Interstate-5 Freeway Construction is currently scheduled begin by January 2003 and be completed by June 2003. Phase 3 - From Interstate-805 Freeway easterly alon.q Auto Park Drive (Main Street) to the be.qinnin.q of the existing portion of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer line (installed as a ioint proiect with SDG&E a few years a,qo). Construction started in October 2002 and should be completed by March 2003. Phase 4 - From the end of the existing1 portion of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer line to Olympic Parkway (See A~achment No. 1 for details). J:\Che~C\GMOC-SEWER 02.ac.doc Page 4 Construction started in November 2002 and should be completed by March 2003. MAINTENANCE 9. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No Explain: The City allocates approximately $300,000 each year for the repair and/or reconstruction of sewer mains at various locations as part of the Sewer Rehabilitation Program. This program is funded through a charge of S0.70 per month per single family, which is billed as part of the sewer service charges. The remainder of operation and maintenance costs, including salaries and equipment costs, are paid from the sewer service charges assessed to residents or property owners connected to the sewer system. 10. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: The Sewer Rehabilitation Program mentioned above is an annual citywide program included in the current CIP. MISCELLANEOUS 11. Are there areas of western Chula Vista that have inadequate sewer collection capacity? Yes X No Explain: As earlier stated in response to Question No, 2, the "G" Street Trunk currently needs to be improved. Therefore, the area tributary to this trunk sewer, which is also in the western Chula Vista, may be classified as having inadequate capacity to accommodate peak period flows, 12. May land use intensification in western Chula Vista create a sewer capacity collection shortfall overall or in specific areas? Yes X No Explain: Land use intensification will obviously result in increased flow generation. Since the City wastewater collection system is a gravity sewer system, there will be resulting J:\Chery]C\GMOC-SEWER 02.ac.doc Page 5 downstream impacts. Depending on where the intensification occurs, it could trigger the upsizing of downstream facilities. 13. Does the current Sewer Threshold Standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: The City is in compliance with the current Sewer Threshold Standard for our current and future needs. However, the current standard will be reviewed this year as a result of recent developments resulting from the issuance of the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and its accompanying requirements. There is a possibility that this new permit may necessitate revisions to our current standards. 14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the GMOC to recommend to the City Council? Yes No X Explain: We have no suggestions at this time. 15. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No X Explain: All pertinent issues have been addressed above. Prepared by: Anthony Chukwudolue Title: Civil Engineer Date: 11 / 13/2002 J:\Chery~C\GMOC-SEWER 02.ac.doc Page 6 THRESHOLD 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Otay Water District or Sweetwater Authority for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and requests an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or update the tables below. SDCWA 11,053 93% 12,287 96% 97% 97% ~lelix WD 539 4% 0 0% 0% 0% ~WCWRF 352 3% 373 4% 3% 3% rotal (MG) 11,944 100% 12,660 100% 100% 100% H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 1 Total Flow Supply 125.9 125.9 125.9 134.5 140,5 Capacity Potable Storage Capacity 175.4 175.4 189.7 190.7 208.0 Non-Potable Storage 28.3 28.3 28.3 31.7 43.7 Capacity Potable Supply Flow 124.9 124.9 124.9 133.5 133.5 Capacity Non-Potable Supply Flow 1,0 1,0 1.0 1.0 7.0 Capacity GROWTH IMPACTS 2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the current ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X Explain: The Otay Water District (Otay WD) has anticipated growth, effectively managed the addition of new facilities, and does not foresee any negative impacts to current or future service levels, In fact service levels have been enhanced with the addition of new major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs. This is due to the extensive and excellent planning Otay WD has done over the years including the development of a new Water Resoumes Master Plan (WRMP) dated August 2002 and the annual process to have the capital improvement program (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 process of planning followed by the Otay WD is to use WRMP as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best alternatives for providing a reliable water supply and system facilities. Growth projection data provided from SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community was used to develop the WRMP. The WRMP incorporates the concepts of water storage and supply from neighboring water agencies to meet emergency water supply needs, The Otay WD works closely with City of Chula Vista staff to insure the WRMP remains current and incorporates changes in development activities within all areas such as the Otay Ranch. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 2 3. Do current facilities have the ability to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5 year time frames? Yes 'X No Explain: The Otay WD 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 WD 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. Potable water supply within San Diego County is typically planned for and acquired through the regional approach process. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) take the leadership role in these efforts. An excellent example of this is the recently announced Imperial Irrigation District (liD) water supply agreement to bring additional water into the San Diego County region. The Otay WD assures that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. Also, the Otay WD successfully reached agreement with the City of Diego on the principals of understanding for recycled water supplies from their South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The Otay WD is actively pursuing development local water supply through the sharing of treatment plant capacity with agencies such as Sweetwater Authority, Helix Water District, and the City of San Diego. An agreement with the City of San Diego for 10 MGD from their Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has been achieved. In addition 8 MGD from the Helix Water District's Levy Water Treatment Plant is currently available to Otay WD. The MWD, SDCWA, and Otay WD have addressed the availability of water supply in emergency conditions. The Otay WD need for a ten-day water supply during a SDCWA shutdown has been fully addressed in the WRMP. The Otay WD is currently able to meet this requirement through its own storage and existing interconnections with other agencies. MWD, SDCWA, and Otay WD all have programs to continue to meet or exceed the emergency water supply needs of the region into the foreseeable future. As mentioned above the Otay WD executed a 50-year renewable agreement with the City of San Diego to provide 10 MGD of immediate capacity and an additional 10 MGD capacity in the future from the Otay WTP. The Otay WD, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, continues to expand the use of recycled water. The City of San Diego is nearing construction completion of the first phase its SBWRP planned for to be capable of producing approximately 7 MGD. Recycled water from this facility will be available for distribution by the Otay WD per terms of an agreement with the City of San Diego. The Otay WD continues to encourage water conservation through a school education program and penalties on excessive use of water for irrigation. The education program includes classroom programs for elementary schools, as well as science fair participation for elementary and junior high school levels. There is a water quality testing certification available for the senior high levels and a video lending library for all school grade levels. The school community continues to enthusiastically receive the Otay WD school education program, which includes schools within the City of Chula Vista. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 3 4. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 12-18 month time frame? Yes X No For the 5 year time frame? Yes X No __ Explain: a. Type of facility. b. Location of facility. c. Projected production, in gallons. d. Projected operational date. e. Are sites available for these facilities? f. How will these facilities be funded? g, Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? The Otay WD WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay WD. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay WD CIP for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceed through the City of Chula Vista approval process, Otay WD requires the developer to prepare a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project consistent with the WRMP. 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. Those facilities identified as CIP projects are funded by the Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity fees. These fees were established to fund the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. Examples of this process are the Otay Ranch SPA One, EastLake Trials, Salt Creek Ranch, Village One West, San Miguel Ranch, Village 6, Sunbow II, and etc. development projects. The SAMP identifies the major water transmission main and distribution pipeline facilities typically located within the roadway alignments. A few examples of significant new CIP project facilities include the following listed projects. Funding for these projects are provided from water meter capacity fees. The 16.0 mg 711-3 Reservoir project is located within the Otay WD Use Area property. The reservoir was placed into operation last spring. · The Central Area-Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline project is located primarily in the SDCWA right-of-way. This major capital investment has been completed and was placed into operation in mid 2000. This water facility allows for water delivery from the City of San Diego's Otay WTP into Otay WD Central Area and Otay Mesa Systems and allows for the transfer .of up to 47 MGD of water stored within the Otay Mesa System to the rapidly growing Central Area System (i.e. eastern City of Chula Vista). The Lower Otay Pump Station project is located adjacent to the City of San Diego Otay WTP. This significant capital investment will pump the treated water produced at the Otay WTP into the Central Area-Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline connected to the Central Area and Otay Mesa Systems. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 4 · The 680-1 Reservoir and 944-1 Pump Station projects are located underground in the planned Sunset Park as a joint use project concept coordinated with the City of Chula. These major recycled water storage and pumping facilities are under construction. These facilities will serve recycled water to the communities of Rancho Del Rey, Sunbow II, Otay Ranch, etc. · The Patzig Reservoir inlet and outlet pipeline capacity enhancements and a new disinfection facility are located south of Otay Lakes Road on ©ray WD property. These improvements will increase water flow rate capacity and insure continued high water quality for existing and future customers 5. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes X No Explain: A positive component is the agreement between Imperial Irrigation District and the other major agencies to provide 200,000 acre-feet per year (ac-ftJyr) at 20,000 ac-fVyr increments over ten years into San Diego County. This agreement assures the San Diego County region a reliable water supply. The SDCWA is working diligently to determine the best reliable alternative to cost effectively bring this water to San Diego County. Also, the SDCWA is nearing the completion of a Regional Water Facilities Master Plan that will address water supply needs through 2030 and its delivery. Two potential areas that could affect growth are the Arizona Water Banking and the Bay- Delta. The State of Arizona has implemented a Water Bank program to store much of their unused allotment (260,000 acre-feet per year) of Colorado River water in aquifers. This action limits California utilizing Arizona's unused allotment and MWD will have to find alternative sources. The MWD believes that Arizona's Water Bank will not have an immediate impact on Californians for a few years. The Bay-Delta issue is headed towards a solution. The state and federal cooperative process is to develop long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta Estuary related to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and water supply. The intent is to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan, which addresses all of the resource issues. MAINTENANCE 6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No Explain: The Otay WD has an established renewal and replacement fund within the Operating Budget for all facilities. There is adequate funding secured and identified for maintenance and replacement of existing facilities, as they are required to be maintained and/or replaced. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNEE) QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 5 7. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and upgrade CIP projects within the current FY 2003 Otay WD Five-Year CIP project plan. The City of Chula Vista is provided each year two copies the Otay WD Five Year CIP Notebook, which contains detailed information on all the CIP projects. CIP Proiect ClP Proiect Title No. 043 Cathodic Protection Systems Installation and Maintenance Program 077 Reservoir Maintenance Interior/Exterior Coating/Painting/Repair Program 083 PS - 870-2 Pump Station (10,000 GPM) 098 Res - 1004-2 Reservoir 1.4 MG 101 Water Service Lateral Replacement Program 102 Water System Valve Replacement Program 205 Disinfection Systems Minor Installation and Maintenance Program 226 PS - Buena Vista Expansion, Upgrades, and Replacement 250 Telemetry System Installation and Maintenance 295 624-"i Reservoir Disinfection, Inlet/Outlet/Bypass & 613 Reservoir Demolition S004 Calavo Sewer Lift Station Force Main Replacement S005 Steele Canyon Lift Station Generator Set Replacement S008 Steele Canyon Lift Station Rehabilitation S009 Sewer System Manhole Rehabilitation Program W259 Air/Vacuum Valve Assembly Replacement and Maintenance Program W261 Water Service Tapping Saddle Replacements W267 Existing 36-Inch Main Pumpouts and Air/Vacuum Ventilation Installations W268 520-3 Reservoir Repairs/Modifications W270 Facilities Pavement Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Program W306 Engine Power Equipment Repair and Replacement Program W307 Pump/Motor/Electrical Switchgear Repair and Replacement Program W308 Automatic Control Valve Repair and Replacement Program W316 Building Roof Repair and Replacement Program W349 PL - Regulatory Reservoirs Inlet/Outlet/LMSE Inlet System Improvements W358 Dictionary Hill PRS Improvements W360 Administration Building Electrical Power Enhancement W365 Fleet Fuel System Control Replacement W366 APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits W382 Safety and Security Improvements W384 Administration and Operations Buildings Enhancements W386 Reservoir Drain Catch Basins H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 6 RECYCLED WATER 8. Please update/fill in the table below. RECYCLED WATER DEMAND PER YEAR (Million Gallons (MG)) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 TOTAL 290 252 299 415 894 1,121 USES Irrigation 290 252 299 415 894 1,121 Industry Recharge 9. Please give a brief description of the impact the below items have on the District's current efforts to market recycled water. a Water quality b. Price of water c, Willing customers d. Distribution lines e. Other Explain: The total dissolved salt content of the recycled water supply, typically ranging between 900 and 1,000 TDS, is the primary factor potentially impacting the cost of recycled water production to meet regulatory requirements on limitations of salt loading within market areas. Currently, TDS levels are well below regulatory levels and do not impact water quality requirements, nor increase the cost for the production. The landscape planting materials need to be selected such that those that are highly sensitivity to salt levels are not integrated into the landscape-planting scheme. The Otay WD currently markets recycled water at 85% of the potable water rate and does not charge for electrical energy pumping requirements within the recycled water rate structure which when combined represents about a 75% cost relative to potable water. This pricing level has increased user willingness and acceptance of the Otay WD mandatory recycled water use ordinance. Customer acceptance of recycled water overall has been positive. When resistance is encountered it is typically due to concerns of increased capital cost to install the necessary distribution pipelines to the irrigation areas. The Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity fees funds the transmission main, storage reservoir, and pump station capital facilities. H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 7 MISCELLANEOUS 10. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: The current threshold standard addresses all the significant aspects of water service and the capability to accommodate the continuing growth within the City of Chula Vista. 11. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: That the Otay WD and the Growth Management Oversight Commission recommend that the City of Chula Vista fully support and continue to require and encourage the use of recycled water. Aisc, the City of Chula Vista should continue to encourage joint use land use projects for mutual benefit such as the Sunset Park, which is an excellent example. 12. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the GMOC? Yes X No Explain: Recycled Water On the recycled waterfront, the Otay WD continues to actively require the development of recycled water facilities within new development projects, and support the City of San Diego's South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The City of San Diego has identified Otay WD as the major potential market for recycled water. The Otay WD will receive recycled water from the SBWRP and approval of a final agreement will soon occur. Water Conservation The Otay WD continues to have a Water Conservation Program Ordinance to reduce the quantity of water used by customers for the purpose of conserving water supplies. The program actually provides a water "budget," thereby requiring irrigation efficiency by water accounts dedicated solely to the irrigation of landscaping. A study suggested that if users could be encouraged to manage their landscape with a maximum annual amount of 48-inches of water, approximately 1,000 acre-feet of water would be saved annually. Conservation is also promoted by the education of the public through the Otay WD school education program, which includes several schools in Chula Vista and many others throughout the Otay WD. The Otay WD, in conjunction with Helix Water District and Cuyamaca College operate the educational Water Conservation Garden. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 8 Hiqhliqhts of Otay Water District's Operation Th~ following are a few highlights of the FY 2001-2002 accomplishments by Otay WD. 1. No water rate increases associated with Otay WD operations. 2. No water meter capacity fee increases. 3. $26 million capital improvement program budget. 4. The Otay WD is in the design phase of the Lower Otay Pump Station to supply the currently available 10 MGD from the City of San Diego's Otay WTP. 5. The City of San Diego and Otay WD have signed the principals of understanding document for recycled water supply from the SBWRP. In summary, the water supply outlook is excellent and the City of Chula Vista's long-term growth will be assured of a reliable water supply. Potential interruptions to the water supply have been addressed by Otay WD, SDCWA, and MWD through the development of long-term emergency water supply such as the SDCWA Emergency Storage Project (90 days), the MWD Diamond Valley Reservoir (six months) and Otay WD ten-day storage and supply strategy. 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: James F. Peasley Title: Engineering Planning Manager Date: 11/14/2002 H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 2002 Otay Water.doc Page 9 City of Chula Vista 2002 GMOC May 2003 Follow Up Questions for Otay Water District 1. Please provide a table of CIP budget versus actual expenditures for 1997 to 2002, the 2002-2003 budget and what has been spending as of March 31, 2003. Your report indicates a $26 million capital budget for 2002-2003, what are expenditures? Capital improvement program budgeted versus actual expenditure data for fiscal years 1997 - 2002 is not yet available. We have requested this information from our Finance Department. Current year information was much more easily retrieved. For FY 2003, the approved total CIP budget is $26.1 million. Through the first three quarters of FY 2003 (July 1,2002 through March 31,2003), the total expenditures were $16.3 million. 2. Please provide the GMOC a copy of the principles of understanding for recycled water that you have reached with the City of San Diego and provide the GMOC a copy of the interagency agreements with the City of San Diego. A transmittal has been mailed today enclosing a copy of the principals of understanding for recycled water supply from the South Bay Water Recycling Plant with the City of San Diego and a copy each of our existing interagency agreements with the City of San Diego. The terms of the final agreement with the City of San Diego is still being negotiated and are subject to change. 3. How many gallons of recycled water can OWD currently deliver and is OWD meeting demands per the table in question 8 of Otay's GMOC questionnaire response. The District is able to produce recycled water at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) at a rate of 1 million gallons per day (MGD). The Otay Water District supplies water to meet 100% of the indicated recycled system water demand at all times. If recycled water system demands exceed this supply capacity, then the recycled water supply is supplemented with potable water to make up the difference. If recycled water system demands are less than I MGD, then the RWCWRF is operated a rate to meet the demand and no potable water supplement is necessary. THRESHOLD 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the 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 a 12 to 18 month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The District's replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast 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 GMOC. 1. Please fill in the tables below. .oc , l°° Imported 6371 78 6060 58 Total ~100 100 100 Notes: 1) Use of local vs. Imporled water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and therefore unpredictable. 2) Table values are for portion of Chura Vista served by Sweetwater Authority only. H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\SWEETWATER 02.doc Page 1 WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY ( MILLION GALLONS) FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2001 12-18Mo 5Year Projection Projection Demand - (Purchased by 8048 7618 8400 9200 consumers) 7,215 8234 Supply Capacity 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 Storage Capacity - Treated Water 42 42 42 42 42 42 Storage Capacity - Raw Water 16172 16,712 16,712 16172 16172 16172 Notes: 1)Maximum supply capacity is from Pipeline 4 aqueduct (40mgd), wells (2mgd). Additional 30 mgd capacity is available from treatment plant. Please provide brief responses to the following questions. GROWTH IMPACTS 2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X Explain: No significant growth expected within the Sweetwater Authority service area. 3. Do current facilities have the ability to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month time frame? Yes X No Explain: No significant growth is forecasted 4. Will any new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 12-18 month time frame? Yes No__X ; for the 5-7 year time frame? Yes No X Explain: a. Type of facility. N/A b. Location of facility. N/A c. Projected production, in gallons. N/A d. Projected operational date. N/A H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\SWEETWATER 02.doc Page 2 e. Are sites available for these facilities? N/A f. How will these facilities be funded? N/A g. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? N/A 5. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes X No Explain: Balance needs to be maintained between redevelopment~fill-in population growth and existing water supply infrastructure in older areas of Chula Vista to ensure the necessary facilities are in place and adequate water supply is available. This needs to be accomplished through communication between the City and utility agencies. MAINTENANCE 6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No Explain: Construction funding for maintenance of existing facilities is based on pay as you go basis collected from rate payers 7. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: The Sweetwater Authority master plan and metallic main replacement program includes $3,000,000 per year in improvements. Other ClP's to modernize and maintain the water distribution system. 8. Does the District have any plans to produce or distribute reclaimed water? Yes No X Explain: No plans at this time because the Authority does not have the necessary plumbing, sources or demand. MISCELLANEOUS 9. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\SWEETWATER 02.d0c Page 3 Yes No X Explain: It appears to be adequate for wate'r facilities 10. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes x No Explain: Require developer funded infrastructure upgrades when redevelopment occurs in older areas of Chula Vista. 11. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the GMOC? Yes X No Explain: As discussed with Mr. Dan Forster all of the information above is based on no new major development in western Chula Vista like the Mid-Bayfront Marina, or major density, or zoning changes. Prepared by: _Hector Martinez Title: _Deputy Chief Engineer Date: _11/15/02 H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\SWEETWATER 02.doc Page 4 THRESHOLD STANDARD In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buiidout (approximately year 2030) 60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city-wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. Please fill in the blanks or update the information on this table. FY 1996-97 156,041 1102,000 654 FY 1997-98 163,417 102,000 624 FY 1998-99 169,265 102,000 603 FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571 FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 FY 2001-02' 195,000 102,000 523 18 Month Projection 208,500 102,000 (12/31/03)* 490 5 Year Projection 238,429 122,000'** (2007)** 512 Buildout Projection (SANDAG 2030) 282,664 152,000 538 *Planning Division Estimate **5-year projections ara based on GMOC Forecast with an average of 2,500 residential units per year and a population coefficient of 3.036 persons per household. ***Assumes successful award of State Library Bond Act funds to help construct a 30,000 square foot branch library in Rancho del Rey and closure of the 10,000 square foot Eastlake Library. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 2. By December 31, 2003, the ratio of library square feet to the population may drop below the 500 square foot threshold minimum. Please comment on this situation and what actions can be taken to mitigate the ~hortfall. Comment: The ratio of library square feet to the population will only increase when the new Rancho del Rey Branch Library opens. Over the past year the Library staff, in conjunction with the amhitectural firm of Carrier Johnson, has expended considerable time and effort in preparing conceptual plans for a 36,000 square foot branch library to be constructed at the corner of East H Street and Paseo Ranchero. Additionally, the City Council approved an application for Library Bond Act grant funds to help construct the facility. Although the City's request did not receive round one funding, we intend to reapply for round two. Those awards wilt probably be announced in early fall 2003. Should the City be awarded a grant at that time, the new branch should open by December 2005. Even if the City does not receive grant funds, the Rancho del Rey Branch Library will be built. The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee for libraries was recently increased based upon the estimated $22 million cost of the Rancho del Rey Branch Library. This increase will ensure that enough funds are collected to construct and equip the project as planned. Under this scenario, the new branch is estimated to open in 2006. 3. Please provide an objective measure for what constitutes "adequately equipped" libraries. Comment: "Adequately equipped" must be defined locally. It results when the library services match the community needs, interests, and priorities. During the past 12 months the Library has undertaken a community analysis to determine the role of the library that resulted in the Chula Vista Public Library Strate,qic Plan 2002-2006. Staff is currently formulating appropriate annual outcome measurements to ensure we are achieving our six major goals identified in the Plan. These outcome measurements include, but are not limited to, materials and book availability, customer satisfaction, program effectiveness, condition of facility and fixtures, technology, and reference service effectiveness. The results from these measurement tools will indicate if we are using our existing resources to provide adequate and effective library service to meet the community generated Strategic Plan. The Library will be able to provide these objective measures for the next GMOC update. 4. Are libraries "adequately equipped"? Yes x No Explain: a. Have resources been provided to improve the library technology infrastructure for the Civic Center, South Chula Vista, and EastLake Libraries? H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 2 Yes. The Chula Vista Public Library has a long history of effective utilization of technology. As early as 1981, the Library installed an automated inventory control/circulation system. A second- generation system, with online catalog, became operational in 1991. The Library introduced self- checkout units at its Civic Center and South Chula Vista branches in 1995 and at Eastlake in FY2001-02. By the late 1990s, the Library was continuing to enhance its services by embracing the Internet as a tool and a resource. The library utilizes OCLC for catalog records and Interlibrary Loan and Baker & Taylor TitleSource II for electronic ordering. Innovative Interfaces Millennium system In October 2000, the library migrated its legacy DRA Inlex integrated library system to an Innovative Interfaces Millennium system that incorporates a Digital 500U server and 7-bay RAID hard drive army. The new system utilizes client-server technology with appropriately configured Pentium III or higher workstations and peripherally connected self-checkout units at all branches. The system enables patrons to connect remotely from home or office via the Internet, as well as to browse the OPAC to obtain holdings/shelf status information. Dial-up lines to a TRS (Telephone Renewal System) and a TNS (Telephone Notification System) respectively allow patrons to remotely renew checked out items and to receive overdue item notification via automated phone call (e-mail notification is also available for patrons who have provided an e-mail address for their account). Thanks to a grant from the California State Library, the online catalog now provides book cover photos, reviews and annotations. These features, enabled by the implementation of the new automated library system, greatly enhance the library's ability to serve internal customers as well as at-home users. All Integrated Online Library System (IOLS) servers in the network are completely backed up five times per week and a copy of the most recent backup is kept offsite. All IOLS servers are protected from power surges and fluctuations by Uninterruptible Power Supplies that provides the servers with about fifteen minutes of battery power during which time they would be able to be shut down gradually without harm to the components. Networks The Library's network telecommunications system is primarily Cisco hardware-based, employing routers and hubs at the central site (Civic Center branch) and branch libraries to establish and maintain the required WAN (Wide Area Network). The network is currently configured to support the T1 connections between the two remote sites (EastLake and South branches) and the Civic Center branch and the Rancho del Rey branch will be configured accordingly. A Pix firewall product provides firewall protection for the internal networks. Pacific Bell Internet Services provides the basic Internet connectivity. The Library uses Windows NT 4.0 as its network operating system for its staff and public Local Area Networks. Utilizing 9 servers maintained by the City's MIS department, these LANs provide file and print services, as well as access to a variety of shared office applications. In addition, the Library employs the PHAROS system for patron reservation and printing services. System-wide, the library has 71 staff workstations and 155 direct patron-use or patron services- related computers. The staff workstations are used for standard office applications, e-mail and Internet browsing, as well as for functions that directly support the IOLS. The patron workstations are used as dedicated OPACs, dedicated database access workstations, children's CD-ROM workstations, PHAROS printing or reservations stations, and multipurpose office applications and Internet browsing. Thanks to a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant the Library also maintains a H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 3 13-seat Computer Lab for patron and staff instruction on a variety of software products. This grant further provided 16 children's and adult workstations and servers. It should be noted that staff believes Civic Center Library is at maximum capacity regarding the number of computers, printers, self-check out machines, due to the electrical wiring and electrical capacity of the building. Additional technology hardware cannot be added until the building's electrical wiring is replaced and upgraded. This library's wiring, which is in the concrete floor, was adequate when the building was constructed in 1976. However, the building was not built to handle today's computerized technology and the concurrent electrical needs. The Library will be submitting a capital improvement program (CIP) project funding request for FY2002-03 to address this issue. Internet Services Forty-five (45) staff and 98 public computers have potential access to the Internet. Most staff workstations, including public service desks, have unfiltered access to the Intemet for web browsing. Most public workstations have either filtered or unfiltered Internet access for web browsing. The Library utilizes the PHAROS reservation software to allow patrons to choose whether or not they want filtered or unfiltered access to the Internet for themselves or their children. The Library finds that almost all adults choose unfiltered access for themselves and filtered access for their children. The Library uses N2H2's "Bess" product as its filtering software. The Internet workstations in the Children's Room are all filtered. This is done primarily to keep adults, without children, from using the limited resources in the Children's Rooms. Children whose parents are guardians have selected that unfiltered access to the Internet may use the adult workstations. While the basic Internet service is provided by Pacific Bell Internet Services, the Library hosts many of its own services. E-mail is provided by the Library's in-house Exchange e-mail server in conjunction with Microsoft Outlook as an e-mail client. Most staff workstations have access to e- mail. The Library also has a considerable presence on the City's website, which may also be accessed by typing in "Chula Vista Public Library" in your favorite search engine. The Library pages contain all the usual and expected components including access to the online catalog along with the ability to reserve and renew materials. There is a calendar of events, directory of branches, text of public service policies, and many informational resoumes. From the site, registered patrons may access over 20 subscription databases, such as Gale's General and Health Reference Centers, News Bank, Net Library, and Encyclopedia Britannica. A number of these online resoumes are in Spanish. The Library is currently committing over $100,000 of its materials budget for the cost of these electronic products. In 2002, the Library, through its membership in the Tierra del Sol Regional Library Network, was able to provide online access to 24/7 reference service. Maintenance and Support Staff support of the Library's technology comes from two directions. The Library's Automation Manager is responsible for the IOLS (Innovative Millennium). The City's Management and Information Systems Department provides one full-time Microcomputer Specialist on-site at each of the larger branch libraries (Civic Center and South Chula Vista). The Microcomputer Specialists are responsible for all networked PCs, the servers, interface of software applications with the local integrated system, telecommunication interfaces, etc. All software being used by the library system, as well as the server hardware, is covered by maintenance contracts with the appropriate vendor. H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 4 b. What is the current materials collection ratio per person and, if not already at this point, what is necessary to bring this to 3.0 items per person? Currently Chula Vista has 415,154 items in the collection at all three facilities, averaging 2.3 items per capita, based on the 2000 Census population of 183,300. All facilities are at capacity and the addition of the Rancho del Ray branch is necessary to raise the per capita ratio. Listed below is information by branch - the item per capita, along with the collection size and the collection size needed to meet the 3 books per capita. Current 3 item per capita Service Area Population Collection item per capit.a Collection needed City of Chu~a Vista 183,300 415,154' 2.3 549,900 Civic Center 50,706 232,288 4.6 152,118 South Chula Vista 64,674 180,913 2.8 194,022 Eastlake 67,920 49,359 0.7 203,760 *This figure includes 3,631 items not allocated among the three branches. The Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan: Facility Planninq to the Year 2010 (1987) prescribed 3 items per capita as a desirable standard for planning new facilities~ In planning both South Chula Vista and Rancho del Ray libraries this standard was applied. It is derived from the national upper quartile average for public libraries serving communities similar in population to Chula Vista. At build-out Chula Vista would maintain the collection size for which each facility was built, which might fall above or below 3 items per capita depending on the current population. The intent is to fill the branches to their capacity to hold materials, with the material collections tailored at each branch to best meet the needs of the community within the branches' service areas. 5. Are libraries "adequately staffed"? Yes x No Explain: a. Have staffing levels been increased for the South Chula Vista Library? Yes. In August 2002 public service hours increased from 48 hours per week to 56 hours per week. (Monday through Thursday 10 am to 8 pm, Friday and Saturday 12 pm to 6 pm, Sunday 1pm to 5 pm). As a result, staffing was increased to cover these additional hours. On an hourly basis, staffing levels at South Chula Vista Branch Library are comparable to those at Civic Center Branch Library. 6. Please provide a staffing plan which illustrates how the existing and planned library facilities for Chula Vista will be staffed and operated in light of measured community needs related to hours of operation and staffing. Describe or Attach: The Chula Vista Public Library is well known for its excellent staff. A sampling of comments from H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 5 the Library's most recent (2002) Materials Availability Survey support that premise: · Excellence service The library and staff are great. My 4-year-old grandson and I have found them very helpful · I love the story time and the storytellers · Telephone courtesy is great · I would like to comment that this library is very friendly and that is why I like to come here · Excellent staff Additionally, some 98% of respondents to the 2001 needs assessment telephone survey agreed, "Library staff does a good job in answering my questions." The library system also has a vibrant volunteer program. Approximately 150 individuals are registered as volunteers working in literacy, technical service, circulation and other customer service areas. The Library's Volunteer Coordinator works closely with the City's Volunteer Coordinator on the establishment of job descriptions and job performance standards, as well as on recruitment and retention issues. Volunteers are registered with the City and fingerprinted for liability and personal safety reasons. Like most libraries in the United States, the Chula Vista Public Library has experienced the impact of the closing of library schools, the re-direction of traditional library school programs to information technology, and the small number of minority (or multNingual) students entering into the profession. At times, professional level jobs within the Library are vacant for months, due to a lack of qualified candidates, even though library salaries are competitive with other California municipalities. As a result of these factors, the library system has been working on the establishment of a new staffing model..., or at least a model that is different from the one that it has previously use in this library system. This model is partially implemented as of today and will be fully in place by the time the Rancho del Rey Branch Library is open. The Library Department's organizational chart will be: Deputy City ManaqedLibrary Director Assistant Library Director Public Services Automation Services Community Relations Educational Services Manager Manager Manager Manager Civic Center New Technologies Public Relations Literacy Center Branch Library Online Services Programming After-School Programs EastLake Digital Librarians Volunteers "Born to Read" Branch Library Fund Raising Family Resource Ctr Rancho del Rey Outreach Branch Library Cultural Arts South Chula Vista Branch Library Youth Services Technical Services Manager Collection Development Cataloging H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 6 Over the years, the Library has centralized various functions, including collection development and the coordination of children's and young adult services. It also heavily relies upon self-directed teams for problem identification and solving. Currently, there are almost 20 such committees dealing with circulation, reference delivery, branch communication, children's services, training, etc. Staffs from all locations and from all job classifications are invited to participate. Co-missioning between the teams is greatly encouraged. The new branch-staffing model now being implemented is intended to recognize the changing nature of librarianship and the changing library system in Chula Vista. When the City had only one library facility in the 1970s and 80s, it could attract, retain and afford to hire over a dozen public service librarians. Today, that model is neither practical nor affordable. Therefore, each large branch library (those over 30,000 square feet) will now have a core group of five professional librarians. These will be: Branch Manager (Senior Librarian) Assistant Branch Manager (Librarian III) Youth Services Librarian Reference/Digital Librarian Outreach Librarian (Librarian II) (Librarian II) (Librarian II) This professional staff will be the key management team for the branch library. They will take the lead in program development and implementation (in collaboration with the appropriate service coordinator and self-directed team), as well as supervise the rest of the staff. The majority of the staff members at the branch level will be Customer Services Representatives. The Customer Service Reps (previously known as Library Associates) will staff the Customer Service Desk (Information and Circulation) and serve as the "rovers" throughout the libraries. Because of the heavy reliance on new Radio Frequency Identification technology, which will allow the Library to move circulation functions to a new level of self-service, there will eventually be far fewer staff members in the traditional Circulation classifications. Of course, re-shelving the books has not been automated - yet - so Pages (aka Library Aides) will continue to be required. The Chula Vista Public Library understands that in order for this staffing model to work, there must be a commitment to a high quality of work life for both staff and volunteers and excellent internal training program must be in place. Customer service cannot and will not suffer because of the change to having more para-professional staff members on the floor in place of MLS degreed librarians. As a result, a new training program is being developed and will be implemented in February 2003. This training model, created in collaboration with the City of Chula Vista's Organization, Development and Training Office (ODT), will feature a number of learning modules. Certain basic elements such as quality customer service, software training, conflict resolution, supervisors academy, etc. will be taught by ODT in classroom settings and via online tutorials. A separate 12-session, 24 hour, training module will concentrate on public library philosophies and tenets, CVPL policies, and practical applications. On-staff professional librarians will teach these components. Finally, the Library will utilize the Effective Reference Training program developed and conducted by the Tierra del Sol Regional Library Network to teach and reinforce reference skills. H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 7 These formal training programs will be augmented in a number of ways. Permanent employees are being encouraged to utilize their Professional Development Funds to register for attendance at InfoPeople workshops and at the California and Public Library Associations conferences. Scholarships are being offered to select staff to pay for room and board at these conferences. Librarian "table talks~ are also held on a regular basis to encourage discussion of relevant issues such as filtering, collection development, etc. Finally, each December the library system closes all branches for one full day of staff development. Staff looks forward to this day of reflection on past progress and a look at the future direction. They hear from keynote speakers and then attend breakout sessions on various topics. The Chula Vista Public Library's "Professional Development Day" was inaugurated in 1997 and is so well regarded that the City's Recreation Department now holds a similar event. GROWTH IMPACTS 7. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No x . Explain: During this reporting period, growth has not negatively affected the ability of the Library to maintain service levels, as the threshold standard was met. In fact, during FY2001-02, library circulation increased over 6%, and In-Library use of materials increased 16%. Eastlake's circulation increased 32%. We are able to handle the increase, which is mainly due to growth, through management restructuring and reallocation of staff, and new technology such as the improved automation system. The Library added a self-checkout machine at Eastlake in January 2002 to handle the increase in attendance and circulation. 8. Are current facilities able to serve forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes No x Explain: Pressures are building due to projected growth and the current facilities are at their maximum, and these pressures on the existing facilities will not be resolved until the Rancho del Ray branch is constructed. The Eastlake facility, which is currently serving all of eastern Chula Vista, has space limitations and service hour limitations, due to its location on the Eastlake High School campus. 9. Will new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth? Yes x No H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 8 Explain: a. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? In order to accommodate forecasted growth, the 1998 Library Master Plan calls for the construction of a full service regional library of approximately 30,000 square feet in the Rancho del Ray area at the corner of Paseo Ranchero and East H Street by 2005, and the construction of a second full service regional library of the same size in the Eastern Urban Center in Otay Ranch. [The recently completed concept plan for Rancho del Rey calls for an approximately 36,000 square foot facility.] Public Facilities Development Impact Fees are being collected to pay 100% of the costs of these facilities, and were recently updated. The City is pursuing a State Library Bond Act grant in order to offset some of the DIF costs for the Rancho del Rey Library. If the grant is approved, 65% of eligible costs will be paid bythe Bond funds. 10. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the provision of library services? Yes x No Explain: As shown in the 2000 Census, the City's Latino and Asian populations have increased, especially in eastern Chula Vista. In addition, western Chula Vista has seen an increase in the number of families with children. The Library is addressing these growth-related issues by allocating more of the materials collection budget toward Spanish language materials and Asian cultural collections. In addition, the Library is offering more Family Literacy programs and establishing Family Reading Corners at both the Civic Center and South Chula Vista branches. MAINTENANCE/UPGRADE OF EQUIPMENT & COLLECTIONS 11. Has adequate funding been identified and/or secured for necessary maintenance and/or upgrade of equipment and collections? Yes x No x Explain: Yes, please see information under 4a and 4b. No. Although the Civic Center Library's HVAC system was replaced and upgraded in FY2001-02, funding has not been secured for the needed building upgrades, including upgrading of the electrical system to handle the increased number of computers, self checkout machines, and printers, the replacement of the carpeting and banners, refinishing or replacement of furniture and furnishings, improvement of the energy efficiency of the lighting system, and redesign of underutilized non-public areas of the library and ovemrowded staff cubicles in the Cimulation and Information and Reader Services sections. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 9 a. Are there any major maintenance/upgrades to be undertaken over the 1-year and 5-year time frames? Yes x No .. Explain: The Library will continue.to pursue funding through the Capital Improvement Project budget to fund the aforementioned interior renovation of the Civic Center Library, including upgrading of the electrical wiring and system, replacement of the carpeting, banners, repainting, and upgrading of the staff work areas in Cimulation, Information and Reader Services, and Technical Services whose layouts and furnishings reflect programs from the 1970s. The Library will be undertaking a major fundraising effort in 2003, with funds to be used for either the Civic Center renovation work or the pumhase of additional books to update the existing materials collection. 12. Please provide an update on the funding and building program for the Rancho Del Ray Library. Describe: One of the requirements of the Library Bond Act application was that there be a building program in place for the Rancho del Ray Branch Library. Therefore, the project team began in spring 2001 to internalize the outcomes of the needs assessment process, attend and carefully listen to additional focus groups and community meetings, and discern possibilities for a collaborative program with the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The project team was grouped into several working units that met simultaneously to discuss and make recommendations on their respective specialties. The teams, with sub-groups if appropriate, focused on core library services and possible service responses, collaborative services, early childhood services, customer services, technology services, staffing, and space adjacencies. The teams also considered the data from the needs assessment, the initiatives and goals from the Strategic Plan, and the identification of key library service responses in developing the building program. The result is a 190-page document that provides an overview of the project, discusses the relationship of the Library Building Program to the architectural design process, and identifies the roles and interrelationships of the library building team members. The plan outlines the general requirements including occupancy, type and size of collections, flexibility, staff efficiency, energy efficiency, fenestration, space finishes, access for the disabled, acoustics, environmental conditions, illumination, power and data communication requirements, security systems, signage, audio-visual systems, special relationships, and furnishings and equipment. Then a conceptual plan was created for the new library, based upon the building program and additional public input, by the architectural firm of Carrier-Johnson. This conceptual plan includes a site plan, which places the Rancho del Rey Branch Library directly on the corner of East H and Paseo Ranchero in order to ensure that the branch has considerable civic presence (as requested by the community). The site plan also shows two ingress and egress points, as approved by the City's Traffic Engineer, one off of Paseo Ranchero and a right turn in and right turn out only drive- H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 10 way on East H Street. There will also be a deceleration lane on H Street to allow safe turns into the library site. The plan provides for 175 parking places. The plan has also been developed in manner to best site the library vis-B-vis the Fire Station and the Fire Training Tower. A conceptual floor plan has also been developed for a 36,392 square foot library, which provides for all appropriate functional adjacencies for the Customer Service Desk, Circulation, Children's Room, Adult Reference, etc. Because of the elevation changes on the site, pedestrian access from East H and Paseo Ranchero will occur on a mezzanine level, the bulk of the library will be on the ground floor level, off the parking lot. The centerpiece of the Rancho del Rey Library will be the unique joint-venture with the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The "Born to Read" Center will provide eastside residents with something their westside counterparts have long had...access to a community hub for healthy child and family development, parent and community involvement, and life-long literacy beginning at birth. The "Born to Read" Family Resource Center is designed to be a place for early childhood information, parent education, and family support. It will especially concentrate on teaching the joy of reading since a child's earliest experiences with language and literacy begin the first months of life and form a critical foundation for later reading success. Working under the guidance of an Early Childhood Specialist, the "Born to Read" Center will ensure that neighborhood children are ready to read as the move from infancy, to preschool, to kindergaden and into first grade. The library facility will be one of the most significant new buildings in the community. Therefore, to maintain its scale and relationship within the overall context, Carrier-Johnson proposes a building, which has been divided into a series of identifiable volumes. The use of warmly colored, natural materials such as beige plaster, gold colored stone tile and copper or rust colored metal roofing will reflect the existing palette of the community's architecture. The main floor of the library is set below the intersection allowing it to have a modest profile on this significant corner. Canopies attached to the library add pedestrian scale, while glass entries dramatically accent major access points into the building. As a two-stow facility, the library will not overwhelm the existing buildings and will be a welcome addition to the Rancho del Rey area. The Design Review Committee and the City Council have endorsed the design and the conceptual plan. As mentioned in the answer to question #2, the City recently learned that it did not receive a Library Bond Grant in round one competition. Only 13 of 61 applicants were funded. The City's application was deemed by State Library staff to be "Very Good" and two of the four evaluation factors were rated "Outstanding." Applications for the next round of funding are due in March 2003 and staff will be working to further refine and improve the application. Decisions about round two funding are expected in late summer or early fall 2003. Also, as discussed above, the Public Facilities DIF was recently increased to a level that will ensure that the Rancho del Rey Library will be built within the next few years regardless of the outcome of the grant application process. MISCELLANEOUS 13. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes x No H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Librar~ 02.doc Page 11 Explain: The Library, which runs the Chula Vista Heritage Museum, suggests that funding be allocated for a Heritage Museum Facilities Master Plan that would study space needs, location, ultimate size, and funding. 14. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes x No Explain: The Library completed its Five Year Strategic Plan in January of this year. As a result of the planning process, the Library will allocate its critical resources to focus on the following six primary services: Basic Literacy, Commons/Community Center, Current Topics and Titles, General Information, Lifelong Learning, and Local History. Goals and objectives have been developed and are being implemented to provide these primary services. Copies of the summary report are available for the Commission, if desired. Prepared by: Shauna Stokes Title: Administrative Services Manager Date: December 5, 2002 H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC Library 02.doc Page 12 THRESHOLD STANDARD: 1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Have storm water flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at any time during this reporting period? Yes No X If yes: a. Where did this occur? b. Why did it occur? c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation? GROWTH IMPACTS 2. Has the addition of 3,000 new homes during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X 3. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5- year time frame, constituting up to 12,500 new homes? Yes X No Explain: Based on current knowledge, current facilities are adequate for projected H:\GMOC\2002 RETUR/~ED QUES\DRAINAGE 02 GMOC.jcm.doc Page 1 growth within the 18-month and 5-year time frame. The City will be hiring a consultant to prepare a Drainage Master Plan, which we anticipate will present any deficiencies to drainage structures throughout the City of Chula Vista. The Drainage Master Plan was last updated in 1989. At the completion of the Drainage Master Plan, we will be able to identify problematic areas and determine if the facilities are able to absorb forecasted growth for the future years. Anticipated completion date for the Drainage Master Plan update is November 2003. 4. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate this forecasted growth? Yes X No NPDES on-site detention/desiltation will be required in addition to individual systems. a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Sites shall be made available with each development. b. How will these facilities be funded? Facilities will be funded by each developer. c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? A maintenance CFD or HOA will be used for funding. The City will maintain it's ability to enforce adequate maintenance of these facilities. 5. Are there, or do you foresee any growth related issues affecting the maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? The population is growing at about 7,800 persons per year. Yes No X Explain: PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATION 6. What is the status of the master maintenance agreement with environmental agencies? Describe: The City of Chula Vista Environmental Section is currently working on the initiation of a master maintenance agreement. 7. Please provide an update on the status of the Drainage Master Facilities Plan, that H:\GMOC\2002 RETURNED QUES\DRAINAGE 02 GMOC.jcm.doc Page 2 will identify high priority drainage projects and applicable federal funding. Description: The City has recently awarded a contract to PBS&J as a consultant for the Drainage Facilities Master Plan with anticipated start date in November 2002. MAINTENANCE 8. Please provide an update on the adequacy of Secured funding identified for maintenance of existing facilities. Explain: Maintenance of drainage facilities is generally supported from the General Fund and to a lesser extent by Gas Tax and Storm Drain Fee funds. As a result of the El Nino storms of 1998, we became aware of a pressing need to rehabilitate the old metal drainage pipes. The need was underscored by the "Malta Sinkhole" incident. We think that this rehabilitation effort will use up most of the revenue from said funds for a five to ten year period. Rehabilitation and/or replacement of some of the City's drainage infrastructure facilities are a priority. Specifically, corrugated metal pipe (CMP) facilities are in need of rehabilitation and/or replacement due to corrosion. In late 2000, the City received Assembly Bill 2928 Traffic. Congestion Mitigation funds that could only be used for "maintenance-related" work confined to the public right- of-way. The City has earmarked approximately $300,000 per year for the next five years solely to the CMP rehabilitation/replacement projects. Unfortunately, since the funding source is short-termed and cannot be used for drainage projects located outside of street rights-of-way, those projects still require funding. The City is currently working on an outside-financing source that would provide a long-term financing plan that would allow construction of needed improvements to be expedited. This year's AB-2928 funds were used for the CMP pipe work along Bonita Road between Willow Street and Otay Lakes Road and for other CMP work generally located west of 1-805. On February 21,2001, the San Diego watershed area's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was adopted which requires that all runoff be "treated" so that pollutant levels at the storm water outfalls are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. This requirement will create additional work on the City's behalf to modify or construct the drainage infrastructure so that "first flush" pollutants are captured and treated during significant rainfall events. This is an un- funded statewide requirement that all private development and City projects must incorporate in all new projects and/or retrofit to the extent practicable. The costs have been estimated to be in the millions of dollars and it is the City's intent to establish a p¥iority program, through the City's Storm Water Management Unit to prioritize these projects. H:\GMOC\2002 RETURNED QUES\DRAINAGE 02 GMOC.jcm.doc Page 3 9. Are there any major maintenance projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1- year and 5-year ClP? If yes, Please provide a list of projects in order of importance. Yes No X 10. Describe the key drainage maintenance issues facing western Chula Vista, and what corrective work need to be undertaken, the cost of this work, and what is currently not funded. Provide a list of unfunded drainage projects. Description: The primary area of concern in western Chula Vista is the Montgomery Area, located within the southwestern area of Chula Vista, generally bound by L Street to the north and Hilltop Drive to the east. The Montgomery area was annexed from the County of San Diego in 1986. Prior to annexation into the City, the Montgomery area received little attention from the County for. public improvements. Scattered throughout the Montgomery area are missing street and drainage improvements, such as curb-and-gutter and sidewalks. As a result of the missing improvements, both drainage and pavement-related problems occur. The missing improvements need to be constructed prior to any pavement rehabilitation in order to preserve pavement life. in addition, due to inadequate drainage facilities and in some cases, drainage between/within residential properties, problems occur in these areas during the rainy season. The Drainage Facilities Master Plan will be prepared to determine any drainage inadequacies and costs associated with those projects. MISCELLANEOUS 11. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: 12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes No X Explain: We suggest that all proposed ClP drainage projects be recommended for Council approval due to the need to rehabilitate the existing metal pipes and other drainage facilities. Funding drainage projects located in easements along private property have been difficult to construct due to restrictions in funding sources. Additionally, some resistance by property owners to allow drainage projects to be H:\GMOC\2002 RETURNED QUES\DRAINAGE 02 GMOC.jcm.doc Page 4 constructed on their property has added time and expense to these types of projects. 13. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC. Yes No X Explain: Prepared by (Name/Title): Jeff Moneda/Civil Engineer H:\GMOC\2002 RETUP~NED QUES\DRAINAGE 02 GMOC.jcm.doc Page 5 MEMORANDUM May 5, 2003 File #0780-70-KY 181 TO: Daniel Forster, Growth Management Coordinator ~_, = ~, _ _ VIA: 'rk Ammerman, Deputy Director of Engineering~r IH Ill MAY 0 7 2003 FROM: Muna Cuthbert, Civil Engineer ~ lu u[.__~. ' Lvuff_j[.~/ SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ItEALTH COALITION'S, 2003 LETTER TO THE GMOC REGARDING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS We have reviewed the attached April 28, 2003 letter from the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) to Mr. Al Garcia, Chairman, and members of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding the City's storm water management compliance. Said letter, as presented, is misleading and staff feels it is necessary to provide the following clarification: 1. The list of violations attached to the EHC's letter implies that during the referenced period, 27 Notices of Violation were issued to the City and developers in the City of Chula Vista. A close examination of the list attached to EHC's letter reveals that those 27 "violations" are details of seven individual Notices of Violations, of which three were issued to the City and four were issued to various developers within the City of Chula Vista. 2. The Federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the San Diego County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit all require implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) and there are no regulations requiring zero pollutant discharge. Municipalities and other dischargers of storm water are, therefore, in compliance if BMPs are implemented to MEP standards. 3. According to the San Diego County NPDES Municipal Permit, construction sites are subject to dual (state and local) regulations. Under this system, most construction sites within the City are required to obtain coverage under the statewide General Permit for Discharges from Construction Sites (Order No. 99-08- DWQ). Each municipality is responsible for enforcing its local permits, plans, and ordinances within its jurisdiction, while the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for enforcing the statewide General Permit. On Daniel Forster Page -2- May 5, 2003 several occasions, City staff and Regional Board staff have worked together to assure compliance by dischargers. The City continues to fulfill its responsibilities under this dual enforcement system and has made very strong efforts to bring construction sites into compliance with its Grading and Storm Water Management Ordinances and to prevent violations through education, inspection, and enforcement. In February 2003, two Storm Water Compliance Inspectors were hired to inspect construction sites and existing industrial and commercial facilities. These two inspectors are in addition to twelve Public Works Inspectors who inspect construction sites in the City of Chula Vista on a daily basis and water quality issues receive high priority on their list of duties, as well as Building Inspectors that also look for proper implementation of BMPs during their routine building code inspections. The City of Chula Vista is the second largest city in the County and a major part of the City is currently under development to accommodate the region's housing needs. It is, therefore, not surprising that, of the numerous developers, contractors, and builders currently engaged in construction activities, a few of them, knowingly or negligently, violate water quality regulations. The City of Chula Vista has a set procedure for enforcing its ordinances on construction sites. The procedure is outlined in the City's Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program and includes Verbal Warnings, Notices to Comply, Notices of Code Violation, Stop Work Orders, Administrative Citations, Civil Penalties, and Criminal Proceedings. With reference to the Notices of Violation issued by the Regional Board to the four developers in Chula Vista, the City issued Notices of Code Violation and Stop Work Orders to the following project developers during the 2002-2003 rainy season (October 1, 2002 to April 30, 2003) for non-compliance with the BMP/MEP standards: a. Mission Apartments at Sunbow, Project No. PG660 b. Sunbow II Phase 2B, Project No. SB022I c. Sunbow II Phase lC (Seasons I), Project No. SB0131 d. Eastlake III Vistas VR10, Project No. E007G e. Eastlake III Vistas Phase 2 VR3, Project No. E004G f. RWR Homes Sutter Creek, Neighborhoods R-49A & R-49B g. Pacific Coast Communities, Otay Ranch Village 1 West (South), Neighborhood R-54 & R-55 h. Camden Development - The Park at Otay Ranch, PG663 i. RWR Homes R-50B, Project No. OR3151 2 Daniel Forster Page -3- May 5, 2003 The City cancels Stop Work Orders only when full compliance with permit requirements and ordinances has been achieved. The Regional Board staff also inspects construction sites in Chula Vista on a regular basis and has received full cooperation and prompt response from City staff in each case of a reported violation. It is, therefore, not reasonable to place the blame on the City when a developer or contractor violates any of the City's ordinances or NPDES Permit requirements. Further, EHC's own letter indicates, "It is interesting to note that we understand from the Regional Board that Chula Vista inspectors do a good job regulating storm water impacts from construction sites....' 4. The Regional Board frequently uses a Notice of Violation format to correspond with municipalities and other permit holders on permit issues. For instance, after reviewing the City's Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) and in order to propose amendments to the City's SUSMP, the Regional Board issued a single Notice of Violation, which is appears in the list submitted by the EHC as five separate violations, including: a. "The City of Chula Vista's local SUSMP did not include a definitions section.' b. "The City of Chula Vista's local SUSMP did not include an implementation Section." c. "When the SUSMP conflicts with local practice, the City will make the final determination of applicability. Correctly, where the SUSMP conflicts with local practice the more stringent rule applies, as determined by the City.' d. "The local SUSMP states that design options are determined applicable and feasible by the developer. Correctly, design options should be determined applicable and feasible by the City of Chula Vista with input from the developer." e. "'to the extent feasible' added in the section on locating Best Management Practices near pollutant sources. Correctly, feasibility is granted by a waiver by the City." Subsequently, the City responded to the Notice of Violation and satisfied the Regional Board's concerns without rna. king any revisions to the City's SUSMP. In effect, the City was never in violation of its NPDES Municipal Permit requirements. However, the Regional Board does not appear to have a mechanism for rescinding a Notice of Violation and the EHC subsequently and erroneously cited the above five items as "violations" in its letter to the GMOC. We believe that the Regional Board's policy of providing comments of the above nature in the form of a Notice of Violation is not appropriate and will continue to lead to misunderstanding on the part of third parties regarding the City of Chula Vista's level of compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit. 3 Daniel Forster Page -4- May 5, 2003 5. During inspections of the City's old Public Works Yard by EPA/Tetratech and Regional Board staff, the City was in the process of transferring all equipment, machinery, materials, and office furniture to their new public works center at 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista. The yard and most of the buildings were vacated, but some areas were still being used for various temporary purposes, such as temporary storage of materials. Therefore, it was not unexpected that one or two drums or some trash were left in the yard. It was explained to the EPA/Tetratech and Regional Board inspectors at that time that relocation to the new Public Works Center would be completed soon and that final cleanup of the old Public Works Yard would occur after the relocations was completed. 6. An 11/19/2002 Notice of Violation to the City regarding the lack of storage "of pollutant materials and for waste handling and storage" at the new Police Station construction site is misleading in that the pollutants referenced were significantly below the elevation of the adjacent streets and it was not possible for these pollutants to leave the site via storm water runoff. No threat to water quality existed from the cited failure of the City "...to ensure implementation of the designated BMPs." 7. Staff does not understand the Regional Board's criteria for categorizing violations as either significant or insignificant, but all violations listed for Chula Vista are categorized as significant. However, Engineering staff does not agree that many of the violations listed as significant should been categorized as such since, in almost all cases, an imminent threat to water quality did not exist. Further, in the case of the five listed "violations" of the SUSMP requirements, no threat to water quality existed at any time. The City is committed to complying with all federal, state, regional, and local laws and regulations on public and private projects and on existing land uses. The City has four full- time staff members dedicated solely to its Storm Water Management Program. In addition, the City's Public Works Inspectors and Public Works Operations, Land Development, Planning, Building, Code Enforcement, Special Operations, and other staff contribute to assure compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit requirements. As mentioned in the Environmental Health Coalition's letter, the Regional Board has, on several occasions, acknowledged the City of Chula Vista's efforts in the implementation of its storm water program. This observation is based on the visible improvements in the implementation of Best Management Practices on all construction, industrial, commercial, municipal, and residential land uses, and the City's comprehensive program to enforce storm water laws and regulations. EHC's letter urges "...the GMOC to recommend all actions not yet included in the City's ordinances for storm water be added so that full enforcement can be pursued." The City Attorney's Office has determined that the City's current ordinances are adequate and comply with the NPDES Municipal Permit requirements. Further, the City's enforcement program is Daniel Forster Page -5- May 5, 2003 effective because staff not only makes every effort to assure compliance, but also works with storm water dischargers to educate them and to gain their acceptance of the requirements to implement BMPs and to minimize or eliminate pollutant discharges. Regional Board staff has pointed out, on several occasions, that storm water problems cannot be solved overnight. Municipalities and other storm water permittees are expected to demonstrate their utmost efforts to control discharges of pollutants through implementation and enforcement of effective water quality programs. The City of Chula Vista is a recognized leader in San Diego County in implementing effective storm water management programs. In its April 28, 2003 letter, EHC recommended that the GMOC should: · ... issue a statement of concern to the City regarding storm water compliance"; and, · ... add a specific threshold for compliance with the MS4 storm water permit.' Engineering staff does not believe that "a statement of concern" is warranted upon full review of the facts for the violations noted by the EHC. Further, staff does not consider it necessary for the GMOC to consider a "specific threshold" regarding compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit since the City is, in fact, in compliance with said permit. Should you have any questions or if you need further information please contact me at extension 6111. c: Clifford Swanson, Director of Engineering Attachment J:\Engineer\NPDES\Miscellaneous\Environmental Coalition Letter.doc 5 APR 3 0 2003 April 28, 2003 Mr. A1 Garcia, Chairman and members of the Growth Management Oversight Commission Planning and Building Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: EHC comments on the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Annual Report Dear Sirs: Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) is a 23-year old non-profit environmental justice organization working in the San Diego/Tijuana region to protect human health and the environment from the impacts of toxic chemicals and poor land-use planning. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 2002 GMOC Annual report. The GMOC is a unique body with a very important function--to document and alert the City Council regarding the impacts of growth on the City. The Oversight Commission has a significant task and this responsibility will increase in importance over the next 2-5 years as significant plans are considered for the west side of Chula Vista. We understand that the two actions of the GMOC are to assess the past year and forecast through the next five years. EHC's primary focus is on west side and Bayfront development and we recommend that it figure prominently in the forecast section of your report and be a focal point for future year actions. GMOC should recognize and report on City Council decisions' contribution to key growth impacts. We would like to address one over-arching issue that came up repeatedly at the public meeting. It was very apparent that school over-crowding and traffic are the most significant problems of growth for the residents. These are among the most acute symptoms that growth is not being adequately managed by the City. However, we do not agree that the traffic and schools issues are the sole purview of CALTRANS or the school districts as was frequently represented at the hearing. The City's actions have a direct causal relationship through the number of new housing units they allow to be constructed. For example, the traffic and the schools issue xvilI be greatly worsened on the west side if, for example, the City pursues and approves 2,000 more housing units on the Mid-Bayfront. However, if they plan the site differently, then conditions could improve instead. This is a direct impact of City actions on negative growth-impacts and what we encourage the GMOC to truthfully document these impacts, successes and failures, for the City. WATER QUALITY/DRAINAGE: · The GMOC should issue a statement of concern to the City regarding storm water compliance. · The GMOC should add a specific threshold for compliance with the MS4 storm water permit. f- ]EHC sub,rnitted a list of storm water permit vlolatlons at the public meeting last.~w_e_ek~.~gver a several montt/L~er~od, Chula Vista h~d the most vi~)l-~h'ons oI me MS'* in th~ounty~most o~sted as significant. The violations which are of the most concern are those related to failure of the City to regulate the storm water discharges of development. If the City is unwilling to assertively regulate developers and development in the long-term, water quality in the region will continue to worsen. We recommend that the report be revised to highlight this concern and the threshold of compliance with regnlations be clearly instated. It is interesting to note that we understand fi.om the Regional Board that Chula Vista inspectors do a / good job regulating storm water impacts from construction sites. It is in the post-construction phase that there( b needs to be improvement in the program. We would also urge the GMOC to recommend all actions not yet ~ included in the City s ordinances for storm water be added so that full enforcement can be pursued. ~ PARKS AND RECREATION: · The GMOC should require the threshold for open space and parks be met for the West side. · The GMOC should communicate to the City that the Mid-Bayfront should be planned in a manner to significantly improve the lack of parklands for existing western Chnla Vista residents. As noted in the report, the outdoor options for the west side are "different" than for the east side. This is a significant understatement. Using SANDAG land use codes for park space, we used GIS to map population to park lands for western and eastern Chula Vista. The differences are dramatic. In Eastern Chula Vista the ratio is 34 people per acre of park. In Western Chula Vista there are 183 people per acre of park. The situation for West Chula Vista is even more dire if you consider that half of the 616 acres of parkland is Wildlife Refuge and people are not allowed access to most of that land due to its sensitive nature. If200 acres of the wildlife refuge are removed as accessible park space, the number of people per acre of park rises to 282. This is more than a difference, this is a significant disparity that must be rectified. The report also states that this difference is expected to continue. This does not have to be the case. In the next two years, plans for the entire Chula Vista Bayfront will be developed. The development of the Bayfront could either exacerbate the problem of lack of parks or could alleviate it. The GMOC, as overseer of growth impacts, is in a unique position to urge the Council to develop a Bayfront plan that provides more parks and open space to existing residents of western Chula Vista. The Chula Vista Mid-Bayfront is located adjacent to the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and Chula Vista Nature Center. It is uniquely poised for the development of open space parks. The current proposal for high-density, residential development threatens to devastate the fragile ecosystem surrounding the site, and obliterate the last available open space accessible to western Chula Vista. While the proposed parkland may meet the needs of the new residents, it will leave current residents in a worse position as they will have lost the potential of the Bayfront for significant public access. The community is very clear what they would like to see on the Bayfront. EHC commissioned a scientific public opinion poll about what Chula Vista residents wanted to see on the Mid-Bayfi-ont development. Results from the EHC-commissioned survey of 500 randomly selected Chula Vista residents show that: · 79 % of residents surveyed prefer minimal development or restoration of natural wildlife habitat that includes nature trails · 88 % favored parks, playgrounds and trails, while 74 % opposed residential condominium development. · 36 % would develop only a portion of the Mid-Bayfront site and leave the remainder undeveloped; 31 % would prefer to keep the entire Mid-Bayfront site undeveloped. · 79 % of those who prefer some development believed that half or less of the site should be developed. · 60 % expressed support for a hypothetical bond measure that would use public funds to purchase some of the site for wildlife habitat and park areas. AIR QUALITY: · The GMOC should include text demonstrating concerns regarding asthma hospitalization rates. · GMOC should add a threshold for tracking lost school days due to asthma as a threshold for air quality. · The GMOC may want to consider a periodic analysis of cumulative impacts of toxic air contaminants. Tracking the health of the population should be an important indicator of the management of growth. According to a recent article in the Union Tribune, asthma hospitalization rates in South Bay were determined to be 23% higher than the rest of the County. Further, with major toxic air polluters on the west side, and upwind of most of Chula Vista, there should be a stronger attempt to took at air toxics and work to minimize them. Removal of the South Bay Power Plant and replacement of it will a less-polluting, more efficient plant and more renewable energy would be a major and important threshold to measure. It is important to remember that the impacts of air are a cumulative nature, while the regulation is a site by site process--and transportation sources are not even regulated. The cumulative health risks should be calculated by the City to determine if growth is being managed in a maturer that does not worsen air quality. The impacts of traffic also contribute significantly to the air quality in the region. ENERGY: · The GMOC should add a threshold of solar and other clean energy generation units employed by and in the CID,. The City of Chula Vista has an aggressive renewable energy program. It also suffers the health and enviroranental impacts of one of the most inefficient and polluting power plants in the county. As growth in the City adds to demands for power, a threshold of how those power needs are met without further degrading air quality would be an important measure. Data could be gathered from the City program, solar vendors, and the IBEW's training program for solar installation. SCHOOLS: · TheGMOC should include a Statement of concern about the proposed growth of the west side residential units without adequate plans or space for accommodating children in the schools. · The GMOC should add a threshold that tracks the number of students against a schools design capacity. · If schools are unacceptably overcrowded, then the GMOC should not give a "passing grade" to the City in this area. Our analysis of data available on the State Department of Education web site show that shows that in School year 01-02--the schools were significantly overcrowded above design capacity. Chula Vista High School was 72% over ori~nal enrollment. With developers proposing several thousand new housing units on the west side of CV, this issue must be dealt with proactively. As the GMOC states "Schools are arguably one of the most important services that a community offers to its residents." We agree. The GMOC should be very frank and truthful with the Council regarding these impacts of growth. We noted at the public meeting that there was a lot of frustration regarding the problem of school over- crowding. As we mentioned above while we agree that the school districts must weigh in with their concerns, the City's actions (permitting new housing units) do directly contribute to school enrollment. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND JOB QUALITY · The GMOC should add a threshold to assess the availability of affordable housing and the length of time is stays affordable. · The GMOC should add a threshold to assess the range of jobs that are created in the City. These are new areas that we recommend be tracked by the GMOC. In a recent action by the City Council to consider the re-direction of existing affordable commitment to athletes raises the need for this. There is no measure to decide if this affordable housing was needed for residents or what the impact the region will be if it is lost to visiting athletes. Chula Vista has permitted tens of thousands of houses within its boundaries, but the mount of affordable housing and, most importantly, how long it stays affordable remain more obscure. Management of growth should also look at job quality as it related to housing stock. The City will not be managing its growth if its new jobs pay only minimum wages so that families work two jobs to live in poverty or if they must live in Imperial County to find housing they can live in. There are significant social and environmental impacts to this kind of paradigm. These are additional aspects to growth that should be tracked. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. Sinc~ly, . ura Hunter, D~rector Clean Bay Campaign ce. Mr. Daniel Forster, Project Planner Mayor and City Council City Manager THRESHOLD STANDARD 1. Population Ratio: three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. The following table compares City of Chula Vista population estimates from previous years with current and forecasted population estimates. Park acreage provided or anticipated to be provided is also identified. Additionally, the table identifies the threshold standard, (acres of parkland provided per 1,000 persons), for the respective reporting periods. * GMOC/Planning Division Estimate (thru 6/30/02), totals may not add due to rounding. 18 month projections (thru 12/31/03) are based on GMOC forecasted residential units and a population coefficient of 3.036 persons per household. East-West distribution based on an approximate 97% of additional units being located in east Chula Vista, with a population coefficient of 3.036 persons per household. West parkland inventory includes Otay Recreation Center and Women's Club Facility. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A doc Page 1 Estimated Chula Vista East Versus West Population 2002 Area/Year* 2000 2001 (as of 6/02) 2003 2007 East of 1-805 64,827 72,199 76,845 89,271 118,302 West of 1-805 118,473 118,701 118,845 119,229 120,127 Total 183,300 190,900 195,68~c 208,500 238,429 *Year end population unless otherwise indicated, may not add due to rounding. Assumes that 97% of growth takes place in eastern Chula Vista, with no major residential projects in the west. Please provide a brief narrative response to the following: 2. Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO), has the eastern Chula Vista parks system had the required parkland acreage (3 acres/1,000 persons) during the reporting period? Yes X No Explain: As identified in the preceding table, the Eastern Chula Vista park system met and exceeded the parkland requirements for the reporting period with a ratio of 3.45 acres per one thousand persons. a. What actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland shortages? No action is necessary since no shortages to Eastern Chula Vista parkland have been experienced. 3. Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO), has the City's park system provided the required facilities during the reporting period? Yes No X Explain: The required number of certain recreation facilities, as identified by the updated PDO, has not been available during the reporting period. The updated PDO will implement new ratios and as such will result in a new determination of how many of each facility will be needed. Having just been adopted, it is recognized that some of the ratios will not immediately be able to be complied with. The following table identifies facilities required under the updated PDO. H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 2 Eastern Chula Vista Recreational Facility Needs 2002 Recreation Facility PRMP Need RatiO ++ (Less Supply) Softball Organized Adult 1 / 7,900 18 Organized Youth 1 / 12,700 4 Practice/Informal 1 / 2,850 30 Baseball Organized Adult 1 / 12,200 16 Organized Youth 1 / 4,400 35 Practice/Informal 1 / 3,300 0 Football 1 / 21,400 9 Soccer Organized Games 1 / 5,400 8 Practice/Informal 1 / 2,450 39 Picnic Tables 1 / 600 -2 Tot Lots/Playgrounds 1 / 2,650 26 ! Swimming Poop 1 / 45,800 1 Tennis 1 / 3,200 43 Basketball 1 / 2,150 76 Skateboarding 1 / 56,950 3 Roller Blading 1 / 59,100 3 Interior Assembly Space 1 / 3,900 18' ++ Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan based needs ratio - November 12, 2002. Negative Value indicates overage. ' Represents approximately 56,520 square feet. a. What actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any shortages of facilities? The newly adopted Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies future park sites and identifies future facility locations. In response to identified shortages, the Master Plan includes a park programming matrix which clearly defines where needed facilities will be located in conjunction with the development of new park sites as well as upgrades to existing park sites. This plan of action will serve to remedy facility shortages. The Master Plan contains an action plan that identifies timing of planned facflities, and funding sources. The plan also recognizes that the H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 3 acreage required to accommodate desired recreation facilities exceeds the total amount of parkland obligation associated with future development. The assignment of needed recreation facilities to non-public park sites, such as future school sites, is necessary to accommodate future demand since the total developer obligated future park acreage is less than total acres required by demanded facilities. Facilities being targeted for future parks include swim complexes with 50 meter swimming pools and multi-purpose community centers with gymnasiums. GROWTH IMPACTS 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain the threshold standard? Yes No X Explain: While growth during the reporting period has not affected the ability to provide required parkland acreage, growth during the reporting period has further exacerbated the shortage of certain recreation facilities, such as a community center, a swimming pool, sports courts (basketball and tennis), and sport fields (soccer, baseball/softball) for adult and youth leagues. 5. Are any additional parklands necessary to accommodate forecasted growth by December 2003 and 2007? Yes X No Explain: a. What is the amount of needed parkland? Current eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory will provide adequate acreage to accommodate up to 88,353 persons. The 18-month forecast calls for an eastern Chula Vista population of 89,271, therefore current inventory will need to be increased by a m/n/mum of nearly one acre to meet the 18-month forecast. With an additional 12.5 acres of parkland being developed over the next 18 months, and at least an additional 114.65 acres forecasted for 2007 time frame, an additional 38,217persons can be accommodated. This translates to an eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory of 392.21 acres, which is capable of accommodating a total of 130, 737 persons. By end of 2007, the eastern Chula Vista population would be 118,302. This would necessitate 354.90 acres of parkland in eastern Chula Vista to meet the threshold standard. A total of 392.21 acres of parkland is forecasted, (existing inventory plus acreage forecasted to come online), an amount adequate to meet the threshold standard. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 4 b. Are there sites available for the needed parklands? Park sites are available and have been identified on SPA plans and Tentative Maps for major projects within the eastem territory such as Otay Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch, and EastLake. The table contain be/ow identifies available park sites currently being designed or developed. Park Phasing Park Anticipated Estimated Estimated Park Name Acreage Status ConStruction ConstruCtion ; Acceptance Start Date Completion Date Date Heritage (P-l) 10.17 Open to Public (Otay Ranch August 2002. N/A N/A N/A Village 1 ) Santa Cora (P-7) 5.68 Under Fourth Second Third (Otay Ranch Construction. Quarter Quarter Quarter Village 5) of 2002 of 2003 of 2003 Breezewood (P-9) 0.9 Open to Public (Otay Ranch Jury 2002. N/A N/A N/A Village 5) Harvest Park 6.86 Construction Fourth Third First (Otay Ranch Documents Quarter Quarter Quarter Village t) Approved of 2002 of 2003 of 2004 December 2002. Sunsetview Reservoir Under Second Second Third (Eastlake Greens) 10.00 Construction. Quader Quarter of Quarter of 2003 2004 of 2004 Rolling Hills Master Pran Fourth First Third Ranch To PRC Quarter Quader Quader Community Park 20.00 December of 2003 of 2005 of 2005 2002. EastLake Trails Master Plan First Sec6nd Fourth Preparation Quarter Quarter Quarter Community Park 19.80 Anticipated First of 2005 of 2006 of 2006 Quarter 2003. EastLake Vistas Master Plan Second First Third Neighborhood Preparation Quader Quarter Quarter Park 10.00 Anticipated of 2004 of 2005 of 2005 Second Quader 2003. San Miguel Master Plan Second First Third Ranch Preparation Quarter Quarter Quarter Community Park 16.10 Anticipated of 2004 of 2005 of 2005 Second Quarter 2003. Sunbow 10~00 Master Plan Fourth Second Foudh Neighborhood Preparation Quarter Quarter Quarter Park Anticipated of 2003 of 2004 of 2004 Fourth Quarter 2002. c. Is funding available for needed parklands? Funding for needed parklands in eastern Chula Vista is available through the development of turnkey park facilities and/or payment of Parkland Dedication Ordinance Fees (PAD Fees). H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 5 6. Are any additional facilities necessary to accommodate forecasted growth by December 2003 and 2007? Yes X No Explain: a. What facilities are needed? Based on updated PDO defined facility needs ratios, to accommodate a population increase of 42, 740 (Year 2007) and taking into consideration ex/sting (2002) inventory, the following facilities will be needed in eastern Chula Vista. Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan-Based Needs Ratio - 2002 and 2007 PRMP PRMP (2002) (2007) Combined Recreation Facility PRMP Need Need 2002 & Ratio ++ (Less (LesS 2007 Need Supply) Supply Softball Organized Adult 1 / 7,900 0 5 5 Organized Youth 1 / 12,700 0 3 3 Practice/Informal 1 / 2,850 12 14 26 Baseball Organized Adult 1 / 12,200 6 3 9 Organized Youth 1 / 4,400 11 9 20 Practice/Informal 1 / 3,300 0 12 12 Football 1 / 21,400 3 2 5 Soccer Organized Games 1 / 5,400 4 8 12 Practice/Informal 1 / 2,450 15 17 32 Picnic Tables 1 / 600 -127 8 -59 Tot Lots/Playgrounds 1 / 2,650 4 5 19 Swimming Pool 1 / 45,800 1 1 2 Tennis 1 / 3,200 10 13 23 Basketball 1 / 2,150 19 19 38 Skateboarding 1 / 56,950 1 1 2 Roller Blading 1 / 59,100 1 1 2 Interior Assembly Space 1 / 3,900 17 10 27 Notes: 1. Negative Value indicates overage. 2. Number of facilities needed has been round up when one-halt or greater. 3. "Classrooms' refers to an increment of building facility utilized for recreation purposes. Each increment represents approximately 3,250 square feet. Community Centers and Gymnasiums count toward this requirement. b. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Yes, sites become available and are reserved as part of the land development process (Tentative Map, SPA Plan, and Final Map). H:\GMOC~O02 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.do~ Page 6 c. Is funding available for needed parklands? Yes, funding of needed parklands (turnkey parks) will be available at Final Map recordation. 7. Are there any other growth related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold standard as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes X No Explain: If not properly phased, growth has the potential to affect the ability to provide necessary parkland and facilities in a timely fashion. Future park sites need to be developed early in the development phasing sequence. Furthermore, depending on facility type needed, it may be necessary to develop community park sites prior to neighborhood park sites in a given development. The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan includes goals, policies, and action items that address sequencing of park development in conjunction with population increases. PARKLAND AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 8. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing parklands and facilities? Yes X No Explain: The maintenance of all parklands and facilities is a budget issue. As new parks come online, additional maintenance staff will be needed to maintain parks that are added to the park system. 8A. Is there adequate staff for park maintenance? Yes X No Explain: The Public Works Department has implemented a staffing strategy for ensuring that staffing levels are commensurate with parklands maintenance needs. A standard, based on identifying number of park maintenance staff persons per acre of parkland, is being implemented to ensure that staffing levels are adequate to meet current and forecasted maintenance needs. 9. Were any major parkland or facilities maintenance/upgrade projects completed during the reporting period? If yes, please list. Yes X No H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 7 Explain: The following programmed maintenance/upgrade projects have been completed or staRRed during the reporting period. Pro/ects Completed or Started During the Reporting Period ClP Number Skate Park at Greg Rogers Park (Design Completed) PR-239 Greg Rogers/Los Ninos Comfort Stations (Design Completed) PR-214 Tiffany Park Playground Renovation (Design Completed) PR-225 PARK PLANNING 10. Congratulations on the completion of the Parks Master Plan. Please provide 9 copies of the approved plan for the GMOC members. Please provide an assessment of standards set for park facilities in eastern Chula Vista. Explain: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies general standards for the two primary park types (community park and neighborhood park). The general standards, which pertain to a park's physical size, topographical characteristics, and type and quantity of park facilities, are described in the definitions for each of the two park types. Currently Staff has relied on the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual as the source for park facility standards. The Office of Building and Park Construction is currently developing more precise standards for individual park facilities and recreation buildings. The more precise standards are intended to augment the standards in the Landscape Manual. 11. Has the Greenbelt Master Plan been completed? Yes No X Explain: City Staff is currently completing the preparation of the Greenbelt Master Plan. It is anticipated that the Greenbelt Master Plan will be presented to City Council in March 2003. 12. Please provide a staffing plan for planned recreational facilities, or indicate when such a plan will be prepared. (Response prepared by Recreation Department). Comment: The Recreation Department is in the process of developing a staffing plan for upcoming recreation facilities and programs associated with the Neighborhood Park at Sunbow, Eastlake Trails Community Park, Rolling Hills Ranch H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 8 Community Park and San Miguel Ranch Community Park. The plan will be finalized as part of the FY 04-05 budget process and details will be available in June 2003. The staffing plan Will be predicated on full-time Recreation Supervisor staffing levels for each facility (Sunbow, Eastlake Trails and Rolling Hills Ranch), similar to staffing levels at the City's two most recently constructed recreation facilities, Heritage and Otay Recreation Centers. This ensures professional supervision and programming at afl times. Part-time staff, with FTE (full-time equivalent) hours to be determined during the budget process, will be included as well; staffing levels will be dependent upon programming needs involved with the new standard of recreational facilities with responsibility for adjacent ball fields, picnic shelters and other associated recreational components. Additional managerial and clerical staff is also anticipated to be included in the staffing plan. 13. Has a parks and recreation standard been developed for western Chula Vista? Yes X No If yes please indicate, if no, please describe the current status of developing such a standard. Note, the GMOC recognizes that a different park and recreation threshold may be applied to western Chuia Vista from what is in place for the eastern territories. Comment: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan park facility ratios pertain to future development in both east and west Chula Vista. The applying of a new standard retroactively to existing areas experiencing shortages presents numerous challenges. The Master Plan recognizes the need to actively pursue opportunities, such as state and federal bonds/grants, in order to acquire land for development of new parks in previously developed portions of the City, that were not subject to the requirements of new subdivision development. 14. Please indicate opportunities for acquiring park land for western Chula Vista and the means for financing these acquisitions. Describe: The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies general locations for future park opportunities throughout the entire city including the west. The Plan also identified specific park facilities to be distributed. 15. Please update the parkland-phasing program for eastern Chula Vista as presented in last year's response to the GMOC. The updated table is contained under item 5. b. H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 9 MISCELLANEOUS 16. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes X No Explain: Over the past GMOC cycles, recommendations have been forwarded to the City Council by the GMOC to make the 3-acres/I, O00-population threshold a citywide goal. Staff has been supportive of this revised threshold recommendation. The current standard should continue to be applied as a citywide goal with the understanding that preexisting acreage shortages should be reduced to the greatest extent possible but may never be completely eliminated. 17. Are there any suggestions you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes No X Explain: 18. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC. Yes No X Explain: Prepared by: Joe Gamble Title: Landscape Planner II Date of Preparation: December 5, 2002 H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\PARKS GMOC 02A.doc Page 10 THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81% of the Priority I emergency calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). Urgent response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II, urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes~ or less (measured annually/I. 1. Threshold Standard FY 2001-02 1,539~ of 71,859 80.0% 5:07 FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 CY 19992 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 FY 1997-98 1,512 of 69,196 74.8% 5:47 FY 1996-97 1,968 of 69,904 83.8% 4:52 FY 1995-96 1,915 of 71,197 83.0% 4:46 FY 1994-95 2,453 of 73,485 84.9% 4:37 FY 2001-02 22,199~ of 71,859f ~ 45.6% 10:04 FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50 FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38 FY 1994-95 21,900 of 73,485 63.4% 6:49 ~These figures reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. In the past, citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type; beginning with this repod, they will be determined according to received source, Using the old method of repoding calls for service to better compare change over time, total citizen-initiated calls actually increased 1.5% from FY00-01 to FY01*02. 2 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. Page 1 Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 2. Was the Police Department properly equipped to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the reporting period? Yes X No Explain: The department was properly equipped with patrol vehicles, motomycles, officer safety equipment, and communication equipment to deliver services. 3. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II Threshold Standard compliance during the reporting period? In addition, please include comment on the 16 new peace officers and I Community Service Officer that were authorized by Council in December 1999, and the 19.5 additional staff approved for hiring in the previous fiscal year and what impact, if any, these positions have had on threshold compliance. Yes X No Explain: The authorized police budget was sufficient to handle calls for service. Staffing levels are based on the Patrol Staffing Model. The Department is authorized 86 officers in Patrol. Currently, there are 72 officers in Patrol; 9 additional officers are in field training; 6 additional officers graduate from the regional academy in March 2003; and 1 officer is on military leave. The Dispatch Center is at full staffing. Several dispatchers are still in training, but there are no vacant positions. The City Manager's Office of Budget and Analysis is scheduled to complete a dispatch staffing study during the Winter of 2003. Strategic Planning Positions Approved Actual I V.05acancy Officers 16 16 Civilians 20.5 20 The Department has filled all of the positions approved in the Strategic Plan but has experienced turnover in two of the civilian positions, neither of which are in Patrol. Page 2 GROWTH IMPACTS 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Department's ability to · maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes X No Explain: Although traffic volume has increased each year, traffic volume is not correlated with East side travel times. In other words, increasing traffic does not appear to have increased East side travel times, which are generally higher than West side travel times. However, the estimated 40,000 housing units and accompanying street infrastructure that will be built in Chula Vista between 1995 and 2020 poses a challenge for patrol officers trying to quickly respond to calls ~t addresses on new streets. In-car mapping technology allows officers to rapidly locate addresses on newly built roadways. A global positioning system and an in-car mapping program detailed in Question #15 are expected to favorably impact response times in newer areas. 5. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2003 and 2007? Yes No Explain: Although the existing facility is inadequate, few, if any, modifications are being made to it at this point, with the new facility expected to open by Winter 2004. As mentioned earlier, a dispatch staffing study currently underway will provide recommendations on communications staffing levels necessary to absorb forecasted growth. 6. Are new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes X No To accommodate forecasted growth while improving public safety, there is a need for a staff pemon who can help coordinate efforts among the Police Department, Planning & Building, and Community Development to incorporate crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) into the planning process for new and redeveloped areas. For example, 8 trolley stops have been proposed along an East-West Chula Vista line. Public transit locations, particularly subway/trolley stops, are usually crime generators in public transportation systems throughout the world. (The three existing trolley stops in Chula Vista are among our top 10 call for service locations.) However, if the trolley stops are designed using advanced CPTED principles, the amount of crime generated by the stops can be significantly minimized. An example of a very well-designed subway system is the Washington, DC, Metro, which has relatively little crime compared to similar systems. Page 3 Other crime and disorder problems that can be significantly minimized by design include auto theft (parking lot design); traffic collisions (roadway design); residential burglary (neighborhood layout); and street robbery and graffiti (building in natural surveillance of high- risk locations), among others. If yes: a, Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities, equipment and/or staff? We are in the process of determining whether the necessary resources for the staff position are available. Resources are available for the new facility. b. How will these be funded? The new facility is being financed; the total cost is estimated to be $70 million, including site acquisition, demolition, design, construction, and building equipment. Approximately $48 million of the total facility budget is hard construction. Development impact fees are funding 48% of the project. c. Are there appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes. 7. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the provision of police services? Yes No Explain: Yes, false alarms. The estimated 40,000 housing units that will be built in Chula Vista between 1995 and 2020 pose challenges with respect to false alarm calls. Many of the new housing units will be pre-wired for burglar alarms, facilitating the purchase and use of alarm devices. MAINTENANCE 8. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities and equipment? Yes X No Explain: Equipment replacement funded through the General Fund ensures the ongoing upgrades of equipment such as MDCs. Page 4 9. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: · New Police Facility · Transition to County RCS - 800 MHz, including upgrade in dispatch, completed in Spring 2001 · Police Technology Enhancements FALSE ALARMS The GMOC recommended that the Police Department create a course of action to reduce the number of false alarms. 10. Please fill the blanks on the table below. NOTE: Total false alarm statistics for FY 96-97 are not available. 11. Has the Department's goal oriented action plan to reduce the number of false alarms been implemented in full? Yes, in part X No Explain: The false alarm analyst position was vacant from September 2001 through June 2002. However, since an atarm analyst was hired in August 2002, he has undertaken a number of projects designed to reduce false alarms. · Alarm Company Subscriber List Exchange. Under this initiative, the alarm companies forward their lists of subscribers to the alarm analyst, who cross- references the company lists with city lists. Cross-referencing the two lists enables the analyst to identify alarm users without permits, increase the accuracy of the company lists, and collect additional information regarding monitoring company contacts for specific alarm users, should their alarms be set off. There have been two such list exchanges to date and several more are planned. Th~s figure reflects a change in repoding of alarm calls to include those that are dispatched, but canceled en route. Using the old method of reporting alarm calls to better compare change over time, the total number of false alarms actually decreased 5% from FY00-01 to FY01-02 (from 7,207 to 6,918). Page 5 · Alarm Company Meetings. During the first quarter of 2003, the alarm analyst will hold individual meetings with the 5 alarm companies with the highest false alarm rates. During the meetings, the companies will receive information packets that contain a description of the Chula Vista Alarms Program; registration materials for both alarm agents (installers) and alarm companies; updated alarm user applications; City of Chula Vista municipal ordinance information; registered alarm users for that company in the City's False Alarm Analysis Program (FAAP) database; and information on false alarm rate rankings for that company as compared to others. · Billing from FAAP. The Alarms Program is on the verge of using the FAAP database as the sole source for billing accounts and tracking alarm user account information. Using only the FAAP will cut alarm data entry by 50%, freeing up additional time for the analyst to work proactively to reduce false alarms. · Weekly Calls. Every Monday and Tuesday telephone calls are made to locations that have had 2 false alarms during the prior week, as well as those that have had 3, 6 or more for the year. The goal of calling these locations is to reduce false alarms by informing the alarm user of the severity of the situation. The alarm user is asked have his or her system inspected and to re-train those that have access to the system. A total of 136 calls to repeat false alarm locations have been documented since the log was created in September 2002. · Business License Checks on Alarm Companies. In early September 2002, the Alarms Program supplied the City of Chula Vista Business License Office with the names and addresses of alarm companies that operate within the city. The Business License Office plans to cross-reference the list with their licensing database'to ensure that all alarm businesses are legally licensed to operate in the city. · Alarm Company'Registration Requirements. With the help of the Special Investigations Unit in October 2002, it was determined that both alarm companies and alarm agents (installers) must register with the police depadment per City of Chula Vista Ordinance chapter 9.06. Registration of alarm companies will help the analyst obtain accurate contact information for these businesses. In addition, alarm agent registration will enable the analyst to develop a database of installers who operate within the city limits, and also compare installation quality across installers. Installation standards could subsequently be set, based on data obtained from the registration database. · Ordinance Research. Reseamh continues on necessary revisions to the existing city ordinance that governs alarm systems, alarm users, and alarm companies. Several model ordinances have been identified. The revised Chula Vista ordinance will address a number of issues, including alarm company and alarm agent registration compliance and installation standards. 12. Please update the information provided last year regarding the effectiveness of the Alarm Analyst in reducing false alarms (last year's information below). JUL-DEC 2000 3,830 -16.5% second six month period compared to first JAN-JUN 2001 3,197 six-month period of the fiscal year Page 6 JUL-Dec 2001 4,060 JAN-JUN 2002 3953 -2.7% second six month period compared to first six-month period of the fiscal year Calendar Year Totals for False Alarms Per System Per YeAr (available only for calendar year, but fiscal year totals should be similar) 1999 2000 2001 2002 (annualized) (annualized) Commercial 2.13 1.93 1.44 1.584 Residential 0.90 0.71 0.52 0.574 Total (Com& Res) 1.33 1.12 0.79 0.844 MISCELLANEOUS 13. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council, including additional threshold indicators? Yes X No Explain: That the GMOC continue to support the This study will aid in identifying ways of dispatch staffing study, including the Dispatch reducing response time for priority calls for Manager Concept. service. That the GMOC support continued use of the Both will enable the department to respond to patrol staffing model and the advance hiring calls for service, seek a 1:1 ratio of officer time program, spent responding to citizen-initiated calls for service: officer-initiated activities, and a zero i vacancy factor in patrol. 4 These figures reflect a change in reporting of alarm calls to include those that are dispatched, but canceled en route. Using the old method of reporting alarm calls to betler compare change over time, the total false alarm rate actually decreased 1.3% from FYO0-01 to FY01-02 (0.79 to 0.77), Page 7 That the GMOC continue to support planned it is imperative that the Department continues upgrades of police technologies, such as to build a solid technology infrastructure in MDCs, in-car mapping and global positioning order to service a growing community. systems. That the GMOC continue to support research Research staff have looked at several of these and evaluation of call management options, ideas over the past year and expect to continue and alternative deployment tactics, such as to research Various options over the next 18 revised beat configurations, bike patrol, and an months, with the aim of maximizing both the aerial platform, effectiveness and efficiency of the Department. 14. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No X Explain: GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2001 15. Please provide an update/edit on last years response concerning "Additional Measures" that are being undertaken by the Police Department in order to reduce response times. Include additional measures as appropriate. · Faster address location. The Department upgraded the MDCs to allow for mapping capabilities. The entire patrol fleet now has this technology. In-car mapping is helping officers ascertain the quickest route to a call location, in addition, these maps can be more easily updated to include new streets in East Chula Vista. · Global positioning system. The Department has pumhased the GPS hardware for this system, and is currently preparing the software base needed to implement this technology. This technology will integrate GPS in cars with the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, which will allow police dispatchers to route the nearest available units to calls for service. · Continuing efforts under the Advance Hire program. Under this initiative, the Department is able to hire five officers over the number authorized. This program takes into account anticipated officer turnover and the lengthy lead time required to place new officers on the street. This initiative helps ensure that adequate numbers of officers will be available for patrol duties, which in turn, favorably affects response times. We anticipate being in an overhire situation in January 2003, with the beginning of the 55~h Regional Academy. Page 8 16. During the current reporting period, please indicate (1) the number and percent of priority I calls that have a 10-minute or greater response time, (2) characterize the nature of the calls, and (3) characterize the typical reasons for the lengthy response times. During FY01-02, 5% of priority I calls (69 of the 1,305 calls available for analysis) had response times greater than 10 minutes. The most frequent type of P1 calls with response times over 10 minutes were alarm calls (robbery/duress), which are almost always falses. Other P1 calls with response times over 10 minutes include attempt suicide calls; domestic violence calls; and overdose calls. The most typical reasons for P1 response times over 10 minutes were (1) lengthy distances had to be traveled to provide a response; (2) a limited number of units were available to respond. Prepared for: Chief Rick Emerson Prepared by: Karin Schmerler, Research Analyst Date: 12/12/02 ~ln FY01-02, 99.7% of the 353 robbery/duress alarm calls were false. Page 9 CURRENT AND PROPOSED THRESHOLD STANDARD: 1. Threshold Standard Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Please fill in the blanks in the following tables using normalized data: FY 2001-02 7626 69.7% 7:53 3:39 FY 2000-01 7128 80,8% 7,02 3:18 FY 1999-00 6654 79.7°/° 3:29 CY 1999 6344 77.2% 3:41 CY 1998 4119 81.9% 3:40 CY 1997 6275 82.4% 3:32 CY 1996 6103 79.4% 3:44 CY 1995 5885 80.0% 3:45 CY 1994 5701 81.7% __ 3:35 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. Did the Fire Department have properly equipped fire and medical units as necessary to maintain threshold standard service levels during the reporting period? Yes X No Please explain: The Fire Department was able budget for the staffing of fire Station 7, purchasing new three new apparatus and construction of a new Fire Station in the east to handle fire calls for service. Construction of Station 7 in Otay Ranch is also underway and anticipated to be completed by September 11, 2003. The apparatus for this station has been ordered and will arrive sometime in March/April of 2003. Fire staff has begun the process of purchasing the equipment to outfit the apparatus. Fire personnel to staff the station will be hired in July 03. This will allow ample time for completion of a Fire Academy and proper training prior to the grand opening of Station 7. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\FIRE GMOC 02.doc Page 1 3. Did the Fire Department have proper staffing for fire and medical units as necessary to maintain threshold standard service levels during the reporting period? Yes Unknown at this time No Explain: The Department experienced a significant drop in threshold response times. The decline in performance can be attributed to increases in the dispatch, turnout and the average travel time from the previous years. The average dispatch per call increased from 23 to38 seconds, an increase of 15 seconds per call. While we have experienced an increase in dispatch time, the Fire department believes dispatch services are more efficient. Some of the increase in dispatch time can be attributed to the exchange of more detailed instructions. The increase in turnout time can be attributed to an increase in time spent to equip and prepare to respond. Due to additional State and Federal mandates more time is spent putting on the appropriate protective gear, preparing for the specific nature of the call for service and identifying the location prior pressing the button to notify the engine is in route. As a result the only 69.7% of the citywide call volume met threshold compliance. However, analysis of response times for fire stations in he west (stations 1&5) have revealed that 79.4% of the priority I calls were responded to within 7 minutes. These fire stations accounted for 59% of the total response call volume. The eastern stations responded to 40.8% of the call volume. More detailed analysis is required to determine proper staffing and infrastructure exists to improve response times in the east. While the eastern stations do not have the call volume experienced by those stations in the west, demographics continue to play a role in response times. The Fire department has requested the Fire Facility Master Plan be updated to ensure adequate stations are built to help maintain service levels as the City continues to grow. GROWTH IMPACTS 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X Explain: Growth has necessitated the need to construct Station 7, which will help the Fire Department to service a growing eastern community. There is no conclusive evidence that growth had an impact on service delivery during this reporting period. Further analysis is needed as well as an update and evaluation of the existing Fire Facility Master Plan. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\FIRE GMOC 02.doc Page 2 5. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5-year time frame (to December 2007)? Yes No __X Explain: Our resources continue to be stretched to meet service demands. The addition of Station 7 and relocation of the Rolling Hills Station will help the Fire Department deal with forecasted growth in the short term. Construction of the EUC and Eastlake Woods stations will help us absorb forecasted growth in the 5 to 7 year period. An update of the Fire Facility Master Plan will ensure the proper infrastructure is in place to absorb forecasted growth. 6. Are new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes X No If yes: Construction of Fire Station #7 a. Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities? Yes, Station 7 will be located in Otay Ranch. The Design Built Team of Rudolph and Sletten were hired in October to build the station. Ground breaking is scheduled for January 2003. Apparatus for Station 7 is on order and due to arrive in March/April. Staffing is planned for July 2003. The Rolling Hills Station is planned to be relocated in the next 18monthsand the re-build of Fire Station 5, at 4th and Oxford should also be accomplished within the five-year period. b. How will these be funded? 100% Development Impact Fees. Fire Station 5 is not DIF eligible; funds may come from the general fund and Community Development Block Grants. c. Are there appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes for Fire stations in the east, Developers have agreed to pay the DIF fees for construction of the station. Construction and remodel of Fire Stations in the west continue to rely on the general fund. 7. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the provision of fire services? Yes No X Explain: Demographics and gated communities in the east continue to play a role in travel times. MAINTENANCE 8. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities and equipment? Yes X No Explain: The Fire Department's budget is adequately funded to maintain existing facilities. Additionally, funds have been identified to remodel Fire Station 4 adding the training capacity needed to meet future growth and remodel the "buttler building" at Fire Station 2. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\FIRE GMOC 02.doc Page 3 9. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: As mentioned above the buttler building at Fire Station 2 is in the process of being built by the design built team of Erickson-Hall. Relocation of Fire Station 6 in Rolling Hills will be included in the upcoming CIP. Funds are currently budgeted for programming at this station. Programming funds have been requested for construction of Fire Station 5 and 8. 10. What is the status of Fire Stations 7? Describe: As mentioned above the ground breaking for Fire Station 7 is scheduled for January 2003. The Design built team has been working with City Building and Construction and Fire staff since October. The Design Review Committee has approved the project and Council has approved funding for the project. The project will be completed by September 2003. MISCELLANEOUS 11. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: Support full staffing of Fire Station 7. 12. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes X No This year has been a year of significant positive change in the Fire Department: · In April, the Fire Department was reorganization enabling two divisions (Fire Operations and Fire Administration) to be lead by Deputy Fire Chief's. The new structure will enable the department to continue to provide responsive fire suppression and emergency medical services in addition to increasing fire administrative duties and responsibilities. New housing and commercial development has also prompted the need to add a civilian Fire Marshal to handle an increase in fire inspections, in addition to development of fire prevention and disaster preparedness programs. A 3/~ time Administrative Services Manager position was also added to centralize and provide for better coordination of H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\FIRE GMOC 02.doc Page 4 administrative and financial functions of the department. The position directs and manages fiscal and analytical operations of the department. · September 11th heightened the need for homeland security measures at the local government level. Terrorism added a new dimension to traditional disaster preparedness. A Disaster Preparedness Manager was added to the Fire Department in October. The position has been filled. Carlos Bejar will be responsible for development and maintenance of a comprehensive emergency preparedness plan and citywide disaster preparedness training. · In October, a training engineer was added to Fire Department to begin the recruitment and training process for new positions associated with Fire Station 7 and anticipated department turnover and the Chula Vista Fire Explorer Program was re-established to address department recruitment and training needs. The goal of the fire explorer program is to introduce young men and women to the fire service. · The Fire Department was selected to receive a trained search and rescue dog (Cody). The addition of a US&R canine/handler team further complements and strengthens the Department's search & rescue capabilities as well as the City's Disaster Preparedness efforts. · New MDC's were purchased for all Fire Apparatus in November. They will help improve communications with Headland Dispatch. Explain: Prepared by: Doug Perry Title: Fire Chief Date: 3/25/03 H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\FIRE GMOC 02.doc Page 5 FIRE DEp~'-~" TMENT PRESENTATIOI%~'O GMOC March 27, 2003 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE RESULTS - GMOC 2001-02 REPORTING PERIOD · The City commenced contracting with Heartland Communications for dispatching services in October of 2001. · The sample of priority I calls used for the analysis totaled 7,626 priority calls for service. This sample represented an increase of 6.9% over the FY2000-01 priority call volume (7,128 calls). Threshold ComPliance · The Fire Department responded to 66.3% of the priority I calls within 7 minutes compared to the established threshold of 80%. After normalizing, the threshold compliance level increased to 69.7%. · Both of these two measures fall shod of the compliance standard. The actual percentage of calls that were responded to within 7 minutes in FY 2000-01 was 79.2% and the normalized measure was 80.8%. · West vs. East - Analysis of the response times for stations in the west (stations 1 & 5) revealed that 79.4% of the priority I calls were responded to within 7 minutes. The stations in the west accounted for 4,510 or 59.1% of the total response call volume. By comparison, 47.3% of the calls in the east (stations 2,3,4,6) were responded within the 7-minute threshold. The eastern stations responded to 3,116 calls or 40.8% of the total call volume. Variables contributing to the decline · This decline in performance can be can be attributed to increases in the dispatch, turnout and average travel times from the previous year. · The average dispatch time per call increased from 23 to 38 seconds. The increase of 15 seconds per call represented a 65.2% decrease in performance from FY 2000-01. While more efficiencies can be derived by further review, staff believes the increase in dispatch time can be attributed to the exchange of detailed information prior to pressing the in route button. -- · The average turnout t;:,ie gained 13 seconds from F'~ =000-01 as it increased from I minute and 58 seconds to 2 minutes and 11 seconds. The average turnout time has increased by 23 seconds since calendar year 1999 - most can be attributed to new State and Federal mandates as well as pre-route preparation. · The demographics of planned communities in the east as well as gated communities continue to have an impact on response times. · While every attempt has been made to compare "apples to apples" after transitioning from Police Computer Aided Dispatch to Heartland Dispatch - there may still be un identified variables causing discrepancies in the reported data. Staff plans to actively monitor the Heartland data to ensure response times are recorded accurately. ' Planned solutions · Opening of Fire Station 7 - Fire station 7 will be opened this fall in the Otay Ranch, the Fire Department believes the opening of this station will help improve response times in eastern Chula Vista. Construction of this station is currently on time. A total of nine new firefighters to staff Fire Station 7 are in the hiring process and planned to be hired by July of 2003. The new fire apparatus have been purchased and in the process of being outfitted. · Staffing of a new ladder truck company to be located at Fire Station 7 is planned for 2004-05. · Update and evaluation of the Fire Facility Master Plan is planned to begin this summer. · Relocation of Fire Station 6 in the Rolling Hills which is currently in the programming stage and design/built/construction process is scheduled to begin in October 2003. · Expansion and construction of Fire Station 5 in western Chula Vista · Construction of Fire Station 8 · Additional analysis of Heartland call for service data As always, the Fire Department will continue to provide a proactive and professional evel _ of service to the community. THRESHOLD City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours a LOS of D can occur for no more than two hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. 1. Please revise this table according to the newly defined segments and their respective TMP LOS ratings. ~ ~.:~,~:~:~ ~,~ 1998 1999 ~ 2000 2001 2002 ~ ~ ~ ~: ,~ ~ TMP TMP TMP TMP HSt. (Bay Blvd.-Woodlawn Ave.) (2) EB~B C/D CID DClC D/C CID HSt. (I-5 NB - Third Ave.) EB~B C/B B/B C/B C/B C/C (5) E. H St. (SW College Ent. - Rutgers Ave.) EB~B C/C B/C B/C C/C C/C Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H St. - Tel. Canyon Rd.) NB/SB C/C CIA B/C C/C CIC H St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave) (2) WB (only) D CD O D DC HSt. (I-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.) EB~B C/C C/C C/C C/C C/C(5) E. H St. (SW College Ent. - Rutgers Ave.) EB~B B/C B/C BIB B/C Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H St. - Tel. Canyon Rd) NB~B C/B C/B C/A C/C ClC C/C C/CD C/CD C/C C/C E St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) (2) WB (only) D (4) (4) D D H St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) (2) WB (only) D E ED D D Palomar St. (Bay Blvd. - Industrial Blvd.) (2) EB (only) D F D D / C D ESt. (I-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.) EB~B ClC B/C BIB (1)/(1) (1)/(1) HSt. (I-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.) EB~B ClC C/C C/C C/C ClCD (5) E. H St. (SW College Ent. - Rut~ers Ave.) EB~B B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C O~y Lakes Rd. (E. H St.- TeL Canon Rd.) NB/SB C/B C/B C/B B/C Palomar St. (I-5 NB ramps - Broadway) EB~B DC / C C I C DC / C C / C D / D * Single leRers indicate 2-hour average LOS (example: C). Double leffers (example: DC) indicate hourly (first hour and second hour) LOS. Study dir~tions are separated by a backslash (example: EB~B). (1) Not studied because previous LOS was B or be~er. (2) These segments are at Freeway Interchanges and are not subject to threshold standards. For information only. (3) East of 1-805, LOS D was not exceeded for more than ~o hours. West of 1-805, only A~erlal Interchange segments (4) Omi~ bemuse of road construction. (5) Studied with road construction in progress. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16 final doc Page 1 2. Should any street segments be added to the above list as a result of the current TMP? Yes X No ' a. Please update the following table as prepared by you last year. E St. (Bay - Woodlawn) (2) EB/~VB (AM) C / D C / D (Mid~a¥) C / CD C / D H St, (Bay- Woodlawn) (2) EB (PM) DC CD East H St. (Hilltop Dr.- Hidden Vista) (2) EB/WB (PM) CD / B D / B ! St. (Bay- Woodlawn) (2) EB/WB (PM) D / D C / D ~alomar St. (Say- Industrial) (2) EB/WS (AM) C / BC D / B (Mid-day) D / C D / C ~ Ave. (Naples St.- South CVCL) (6) NB/SB (Mid-day) B / B ('94) C / B 3roadway (C St, - H St.) NB/SS (Mid-day) B / C B / C (PM) B/C B/C 3roadway (H St.- L St.) (6) NB/SB (Mid-day) e / B ('94) C / B = St. {I-5 NB Ramps - Third Ave.) EBONS (AM) B / C C I C (Mid-day) (6) B / B ('95) C / C Hilltop Dr, (F St. - L St.) NB/se (PM) C / B C / S J St. (I-5 NB ramps- Third Ave.) EB/WB (PM) C / B C ! C L St. (Industrial - Third Ave.) (6) EB/WB (PM) B / B ('97) C / B Palomar St. (I-5 NB ramps - Broadway) EB/WB (AM) C / C B / C Palomar St. (Broadway- Hilltop Dr,) (6) EB/WB (Mid-day) S / B ('94) B / C Telegraph Canyon Rd. (Halecrest - Medical Center) I'aken during road construction] EB/WB (AM) BA/C A/ce (Mid~ay) B / CB S / C (PM) B/CB BIC (2) These segments are at Freeway Interchanges and are not subject to threshold standards. For information only. (6) These segments have been added to the table since last year. The number in parenthesis next to the Level of Service indicates the year the segment was last studied prior to being studied in 2002, (7) All segments listed were studied in 2001 except where indicated by a number in parenthesis (see note 6). Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 3. Were any major streets, or other traffic improvements constructed during the reporting period (01/02) fiscal year? Yes X No Ex-~lain: 1) R0adway impr0vements at O~ympic Parkway from 1-805 t0 Heritage Road. 2) Hunte Parkway Street improvements from South Greensview to Olympic Parkway. 3) East Palomar Street improvements from Paseo Ladera to Heritage Road. 4) Paseo Ladera Street improvements from Telegraph Canyon Road to East Palomar Street, 5) Traffic signal improvements at Maxwell Road and Main Street. 6) Street light improvements on Main Street from Nirvana Avenue to Heritage Road. 7) Traffic signal improvements at Main Street and Mace Street. 8) Traffic Signal improvements at Hunte Parkway and North Greensview/Kings Creek Way. 9) Traffic signal improvements at East Palomar Street and Paseo Ladera, 10) Traffic Signal improvements at Olympic Parkway and Concord Way. 11) Traffic signal improvements at Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway. 12) Traffic signal improvements at Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road. 13) Street widening on "H" Street and Third Avenue for the Gateway Project. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1 16_final.doc Page 2 FREEWAY ENTRANCES ! EXITS 4. Use the following two tables to report the status of freeway entrance/exit studies and/or improvement projects. Information received Last year - Please Update Tables ~ Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2005. FI Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2005. J Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2003. L StreetJlndustrial Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2003. Blvd. Palomar Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2003. Main Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2003. Bonita Road Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2003. East H Street Current projects (as of January 2003) include an additional westbound lane onto northbound 1-805 and an additional eastbound lane in the vicinity of the northbound off-ramp. These two enhancements will ~mprove traffic flow during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The westbound improvement project is funded by the developers. The eastbound improvement project is a CIP project (STM-340) funded with $160,000.00 of DIFTRANS funds. Separately, the Northbound ramp meter is tentatively scheduled for 2003. Telegraph Canyon The Current project (as of January 2003) includes the widening of Road Telegraph Canyon Road by approximately 20 feet from 1-805 to a point approximately 500 feet east of Halecrest Drive. The improvements along Telegraph Canyon Road would provide three to four-lanes westbound and the construction of an additional lane on the northbound on-ramp from Telegraph Canyon Road. The project is to be funded by the developers. Separately, the Northbound ramp meter is tentatively scheduled for 2003 from the ramp metering Project Study Report. Olympic Parkway Design is nearing completion for interchange improvements and access to 1-805 at Olympic Parkway. Separately, the North and Southbound ramp meters are tentatively scheduled for 2003. Main Street Northbound ramp meter is tentatively scheduled for 2003. GROWTH IMPACTS 5. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain LOS levels? H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16_finaLdoc Page 3 Yes No X Explain: As a result of various construction activities on major roads throughout the City, infrequent traffic delays have been observed during the peak hours. However, Levels of Service for theses segments are still within GMOC thresholds. 6. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth (without exceeding the LOS threshold) for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes X No Yes for the short term. If SR-125 is constructed by the year 2005, then current facilities will be able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year time frame. a. Please indicate those new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forcasted growth consistent with maintaining the Threshold Standards, 18-month timeframe: { from the end date of this reportinq period, i.e. June 30, 2002) 1) Palomar Street from I - 5 to Industrial Blvd. (Completion Date by end of 2003) 2) La Media Road from East Palomar Street to Olympic Parkway. (Opened to traffic as of January 2003) 3) Olympic Parkway from Heritage Road to Wueste Road. (Opened to traffic as of January 2003) 4) Eastlake Parkway from SDG&E easement to Birch Road. (Completion Date by end of 2003) 5) Birch Road from SR-125 R-O-W to Eastlake Parkway. (Completion Date by end of 2003) 6) Hunte Parkway from Olympic Parkway to Village 11 entrance. (Completion Date by June 2003) 7) Proctor Valley Road from Hunte Parkway to the easterly entrance to Eastlake Woods. (Opened to traffic as of January 2003 with some final improvements pending) 8) Olympic Parkway Interchange at 1-805. (Completion Date is tentatively scheduled for December 2005) 5-year timeframe: {from the end date of this reportin.q period~ i.e. June 30, 2002) 1)Birch Road from Eastlake Parkway to La Media Road. 2)La Media Road from Olympic Parkway to Birch Road. 3)Eastlake Parkway from Birch Road to Hunte Parkway. 4)Hunte Parkway from Village 11 entrance to Eastlake Parkway. b, How will these facilities be funded? H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16_final.doc Page 4 TDIF, TRANSNET and developer exactions. c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s} in place to provide this funding? Yes. 7. What is the Status of SR-1257 As of January, 2003, all environmental permits and required approvals have been processed and/or approved. Financing is anticipated early in the spring of 2003. Construction activities for the gap between SR-54 and SR-125 and for the connector interchange and roadway improvements have begun as of January, 2003. 8. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's transportation demand increases? Yes x No Explain: During the first half of Calendar Year 2000, City Staff recognized that traffic volumes were increasing on City streets while prevailing speeds were declining. In June, 2000, Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LLG), a local traffic consultant, took these models and wrote a report entitled "Near Term Capacity Analysis of East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, Chula Vista, California" in response to the City's request for a review of the City's street network capacity east of 1-805, during the pre-SR-125 time frame. The report concluded that, based on the traffic model results, Telegraph Canyon Road just east of 1-805 was determined to be the "constraint" in the short term for the eastern Chula Vista street system. Based on the land use assumptions utilized in this study, the report forecasted that Telegraph Canyon Road will exceed City Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Standards once 9,429 additional dwelling units are constructed east of 1-805. The 9,429 dwelling unit count started from January, 2000. As of November, 2002, 8,077 dwelling units had been finaled east of 1-805. The analysis correctly assumed the completion of Olympic Parkway. However, today, Olympic Parkway has shown a greater traffic demand than previously assumed. In other words, a greater volume of vehicles is utilizing Olympic Parkway than what was assumed in the original traffic report by LLG. This is advantageous for the forcasted Levels of Service on East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road because more vehicles are now travelling on Olympic Parkway than previously thought and modelled. As a result of the traffic volume shift towards Olympic Parkway, the City has commenced contract negotiations with Linscott, Law and Greenspan (LLG) Traffic Consultants (as of January 2003) to provide professional traffic engineering services for work related to updating the current "9429-residential unit threshold amount". LLG will conduct a traffic study for the East H Street and the Telegraph Canyon H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16 finaLdoc Page 5 Road corridors to determine how many additional dwelling units might be able to be constructed before the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Threshold Standard level is exceeded. The study will specifically determine the maximum amount of building permits to be issued if the 1-805/East H Street and I- 805 Telegraph Canyon Road future improvements are implemented prior to completion of SR-125 as detailed in question # 4. In addition, LLG will prepare a second traffic study for the Mount Miguel Road corridor to determine how many additional dwelling units could be constructed if Mount Miguel Road is extended westerly of the SR-125 corridor and is in place prior to construction on SR-125. MAINTENANCE 9. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes No x Explain: The maintenance of public infrastructure is under-funded at this time. 10. Has the Public Works Department.developed an annual list of priority streets with deteriorated pavement? Yes x No Explain, if yes please attach list: The Public Works Depadment established an annual priority for all deteriorating streets after pavement analysis was pedormed. 11. a. Are any major roadway construction/upgrade or maintenance projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes x No Explain: 1) East "H" Street (See description under # 4 above). 2) Olympic Parkway / 1-805 Interchange (2001 - 2004). 3) Olympic Parkway from Brandywine Avenue to Hunte Parkway (2000 - 2003). · Street has been open to motoring public as of November 2002. 4)Main Street Pavement Rehab (2002 - 2003). · Street pavement is now complete. 5)"H" Street Reconstruction, I-5 to Broadway (2002 - 2003). · Construction is underway as of November, 2002. 6) Palomar Street Improvements from I-5 to Industrial Blvd. (2002-2003). H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16 final.doc Page 6 MISCELLANEOUS 12. What is the status of the City's public information efforts to inform citizens and local businesses about its current and longer term transportation planning efforts? Describe: The City of Chula Vista continues in its commitment to long-range planning, which involves public input during all stages of proposed developments. In addition, the City is continuing the Genera. I Plan update process which is scheduled for completion in early 2004. During this process, extensive public involvement is essential at all stages, including the "visioneers" public meetings and the various planning committees and public forums. The public's input and participation in this General Plan update insures a shared vision and strategy for the City's future and quality of life. 13. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: The Arterial Highway Segment map has been updated to include new segment lengths and classifications as previously requested and documented by the GMOC. 14. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes X No Explain: When traffic volumes on major roadways in eastern Chula Vista exceed 10,000 A.D.T., those roadways will be added to the TMP segment runs in order to monitor the LOS and ensure that threshold standards are not exceeded. In addition we would like to inform the GMOC that the following transportation study is presently being conducted by Wilbur Smith & Associates: · South Bay "Transit First" Study. (San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) Funding) The South Bay "Transit First" Study is being conducted by Metropolitan Transit Development Board (M'~DB) separately from the General Plan Update. The primary objective of this study is to develop a transit plan and identify transit projects in the South Bay area of San Diego that support and refine the MTDB's adopted "Transit First" strategy. The South Bay "Transit First" Study will include a phased implementation strategy so that the identified projects can be defined and incorporated into the San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG's) Regional H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16finaLdoc Page 7 Transportation Plan (RTP), the City of Chula Vista's General Plan Update and land use planning activities for the Cities of San Diego, National City, Imperial Beach and the County of San Diego. 15. Are there any other suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: Continue the support for the timely construction of SR-125 and for monitoring the level of service on our major streets. Prepared By: Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer & Majed AI-Ghafry, Civil Engineer Date prepared: January 16, 2003 J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\GMOC\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16_final.doc H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\GMOC 02 TRAFFIC 1-16_finaLdoc Page 8 THRESHOLD The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: Amount of current capacity now used or committed 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or "Update" the information in the table below to indicate the existing enrollment conditions and capacity for current conditions. The most recent information available is requested, please indicate reference date. NDITiONS (FY0~/03) EXISTING CO ~ Schools Current capacity Amount overflowed Type of Comments EnrOllment (Please Up IDate) ~ Under/Over (~ut School (Please up bate) (Indic~te Perm~tieht IPortabies Capac ty~ · CalEndar , Date)I NoRTHWEsT Cook 551 466 22 -23 10 ]'rad Feaster-Edison 1137 400 350 13 Ext. Trad Charter Hilltop Drive 561 466 77 - 18 12 ]'rad Mueller 920 437 518 35 Ext. Trad Charter Rosebank 723 426 301 4 9 Trad Vista Square 599 447 364 112 Y'RS 1 Sp. Ed. class, 5 DHH classes Learning Comm. 535 500 65 Ext. Trad Charier Castle Park 501 456 133 - 12 26 Trad 2 Sp. Ed. classes Harborside 730 435 352 57 4 Trad 2 Sp. Ed. classes Kellogg 413 390 93 70 2 Trad I Sp. Ed. class Lauderbach 988 521 439 -28 44 YRS 2 Sp. Ed. classes Loma Verde 656 461 275 80 3 YRS 1 Sp. Ed. class Montgomery 419 381 122 84 Trad 1 Sp. Ed. class Otay 652 515 155 18 36 Trad Palomar 440 487 ~ 47 Trad 2 Sp. Ed. classes Rice 723 530 247 54 6 Trad 2 Sp. Ed. classes, 1 K-6 SH/SDC class, 1 SH class, 1 Part B teacher Rohr 490 512 51 73 YRS 1 Sp. Ed. class SOUTHEAST , : Arroyo Vista 805 732 80 ? fRS 4 permanent modulate set on concrete 02-03 Olympic View 689 455 277 4.3 fRS ~arkview 533 550 105 122 I'rad 3 Sp. Ed. classes, 1 Speech, 4 ~ermanent modulars set on concrete 02-03 F~ogers 589 457 120 -12 fRS 5 permanent modulars set on concrete, 2 Part B teachers Valle Lindo 505 355 248 98 Yrad Sp. Ed class, 9 permanent modulars set on concrete ~leritage 875 710 131 -34 133 IYRS 6 permanent modulars set on concrete to accommodate'growth VIcMillin 719 694 71 46 fRS 4 permanent modulars set on concrete NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 421 500 0 79 rrad Sp. Ed. 2 SH. 1NSH class Sasillas 712 594 111 -7 5 fRS 1Sp. EdJNSH class Shula Vista Hills 559 539 60 40 rrad Slear View 521 468 115 62 Ext, Trad Charter, 1 Sp. Ed. class Discovery ;821 623 255 57 fRS Charter, 1 Sp. Ed, class; 1 Part B teacher Eastlake i610 499 239 128 fRS Halecrest 536 494 80 38 ]'rad 1Sp. Ed. class Marshall 558 523 60 25 fRS Sp. Ed. class Tiffany 357 514 217 74 ]'rad 2 Sp. Ed. classes 2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for December 2003 (a) and 2007 (b) based on the City's forecast. 2a. Cook :easter-Edison ~iiltop Drive ~ueller ~osebank Vista Square SOUTHWEST ~ _earning Comm. ;astle Park ~arborside Kellog Lauderbach Loma Verde Montgome~ Otay Palomar Rice {ohr souTH~sT Arroyo Vista Olympic View Parkview Ro~ers Valle Lindo Heritage McMillin NORTHEAST , Allen/Ann Daly Casillas Chula Vista Hills Clear View Discove~ Eastlake Halecrest Marshall Tiffany *(-) denotes amount over capacity 2.b FIv~ YEA. FORECASTED CO"~iTI?.$ DECEMBER 200? P~a,~nt ~P~ble~ ~er~ out ~c~i NORTHWES~ .. Cook Feaster-Ed[son Hilltop Drive Muelier Rosebank V~sta Square SOU~WEST . Learning Comm. Castle Park Harbors~de Kellog Lauderbach _oma Verde ~ontgome~ 3ray ~alomar ~ice ~ohr SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista ~lympic View Parkview Rogers Valle Linde Heritage McMiflin Allen/Ann Daly Casillas ;hula Vista Hitls Clear View DiscoveW Eastlake Halecrest Marshall Tiffany *(-) denotes amount over capacity 3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history. 4,591 4,559 4,500 ge Over the Previous Year 1% 1% 3% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 97% Enrollment 6,647 6,721 I 6,709 % of Change Over the Previous Year 1% 0% 2% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 97% 98% 97% l-oral Enrollment 4,715 3,782 2,805 of Change Over the Previous Year 20% 26% 12% '/o of Enrollment from Chula Vista 97% 98% 97% Total Enrollment 5,395 5,374 5,598 % of Change Over the Previous Year 0% -4% 6% ¥o of Enrollment from Chula Vista 97% 98% 97% DiSTRicT WIDE · Total Enrollment 21,348 20,436 19,612 % of Change Over the Previous Year 4% 4% 5% I% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 97% 98% 97% 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Districts ability to accommodate student enrollment? Yes No X Explain: Extra modular classrooms were added during the summer 2002 at Rogers School. During its modernization, Valle Lindo School was also expanded. Heritage and McMillin Schools both received additional modular classrooms in September, 2002. 5. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2003? Yes X No Explain: Anticipating additional new students resulting from home sales, additional capacity was added at Valle Lindo and Greg Rogers, Heritage and McMillin Schools. 6. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth? Yes X No Explain: a. What facilities will be needed? One site is currently under construction in the Sunbow area. b. Are sites available for the needed facilities? Yes c. How will these facilities be funded? 50% CFD; 50% State School Bond= d. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes 7. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year (December 2007) time frame? Yes X No Explain: Schools that will accommodate all projected growth are in the planning stages. Approximately one to two schools are planned per year as long as new communities expand at the current rate. 8. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the maintenance of the level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes X No Explain: The modernization program has been very helpful in allowing the district to revitalize and expand existing school sites. Five sites were modernized during the summer of 2002. We have now completed modernization/renovation of 23 sites. MAINTENANCE 9. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No Explain: 3% of the District's general fund must be designated for facilities maintenance. $4,450,600 - General Fund $ 610,000 - Deferred Maintenance Fund 10. Are there any major upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the School District's current 1- year and S-year CIP that will add capacity? Yes X No Explain: Rogers Elementary (East & West) will be modernized during the summer 2003. MISCELLANEOUS 11. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: 12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: Please continue strong commitment to our public schools. The City's staff has exhibited great teamwork and communication. We look forward to continued powerful collaboration for the benefit of the District's children. 13. Do you have any other relevant information to communicateto the City and GMOC. Yes X No Explain: The City has been a strong partner with the Chula Vista Elementary School District. We are both building a community, not just schools, roads, or infrastructures. Chula Vista Elementary School District, Sweetwater Union High School District, and the City have collaborated to support the Joint Task Force on growth, sponsored by former Mayor Shirley Horton. The process has allowed staff to review and gain a better appreciation of each agency's procedures. Prepared by: Yolanda Sierra Title: Student Placement Tech. Date: January 7, 2003 THRESHOLD The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or "Update" the information in the table below to indicate the existing enrollment conditions and capacity for current conditions. The most recent information available is requested, please indicate reference date. , . . ~, , OuR~CONDIT!~S (~ 02/03) .- ~ ~ /-;:-- Chula Vista Middle 1,383 ~ ,260 150 1,410 220 Yes 0 Hilltop Middle 1,198 1,200 120 1,320 220 Yes 0 Chura Vista High 2,503 1,290 990 2,280 220 No Yes Hilltop High 2,073 1,500 510 2,010 220 Yes 0 Castle Park Middle 1,504 1,440 150 1,590 220 Yes 0 Castle Park High 2,047 1,350 600 ~,950 220 Yes 0 Palomar High 453 527 210 737 220 Yes 0 Chula Vista Adult Appmx 5,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 0 I ---i---I---I ---I --- I --- I --- I Bonita Vista HiGh 2,562 1,770 780 2,550 220 Yes 0 ~onita Vista Middle 1,224 1,110 420 1,530 220 Yes 0 Eastlake High 2,910 2,460 480 2,940 220 Yes 0 Rancho del Rey 1,745 1,380 60 1,440 220 No Yes Middle *Excludes students and capaci~ assigned to special education and learnin( centers. Note 1: Capaci~ figures taken from Long Range Facili~ Master Plan - Januaw 25, 2003 (Draft) H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\SUHSD 03.doc Page 1 2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for December 2003 (a) and 2007 (b) based on the City's forecast. 2.a Chula Vista Middle 1,406 1,260 150 1,410 220 Yes 0 Hilltop Middle 1.165 1,200 120 1,320 220 Yes 0 Chula Vista High 2,503 1,290 990 2,280 220 No 0 Hilltop ~i~h 2,099 1,500 510 ,2,010 220 Yes 0 · Castle Park Middle 1,500 1,440 150 1.590 220 Yes 0 Castle Park High 2,099 1,350 600 1,950 220 Yes 0 Palomar High 433 527 210 737 220 Yes 0 Chula Vista Adult N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 0 3onita Vista High 2,608 1,770 780 2,550 220 Yes 0 ~onita Vista Middle 1,226 1,110 420 1,530 220 Yes 0 Eastlake High 2,605 2,460 480 2,940 220 Yes 0 ~ancho del Rey 1,400 1,380 60 1,440 220 Yes 0 Middle Dtay Ranch High 700 2,600 --- 2,600 220 ...... Eastlake Middle 500 1,700 --- 1,700 220 ...... H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\SUHSD 03.doc Page 2 2,b Chula Vista Middle 1,425 1,260 150 1,410 220 Yes 0 Hilltop Middle 778 1,200 120 1,320 220 Yes 0 Chula Vista High 3,428 1,290 990 2,280 220 No 0 (3) Hilltop High 1,298 1,500 510 2,010 220 Yes 0 Castle Park Middle 1,752 1,440 150 1,590 220 Yes 0 Castle Park High 2,242 1,350 600 1,950 220 No 0 (3) Palomar High 600 527 210 737 220 Yes 0 Chula'Vista Aduit N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes 0 Bonita Vista High 2,145 1,770 780 2,550 220 Yes 0 Bonita Vista Middle 1,051 1,110 420 1,530 220 Yes 0 Eastlake High 2,794 2,460 480* 2,940 220 Yes 0 Rancho del Rey 1,600 1,380 60 1,440 220 Yes 0 Middle (2) Dtay Ranch High 2,974 2,600 300 2,900 220 Yes 0 -_-astlake Middle 1,600 1,700 0 1,700 220 Yes 0 VIS #12 (2) 194 1,700 0 1,700 220 Yes 0 -IS #14 (2) 1,268 2,600 0 2,600 200 Yes 0 KEY ASSUMPTIONS: (1) Projections prepared by Davis Demographics & Planning, Inc., based upon 2001 (:;BEDS data as students residing within current attendance boundaries (January 9, 2003). (2) New middle school will be under construction or open by 2007. New high school will be under construction or open by 2007. (3) The Long-Range Facility Master Plan will identify solutions to reduce this impact and others and balance enrollments district wide. H:\GMOC~2002 RETURNED QUES\SUHSD 03.doc Page 3 3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history. 4,004 4,124 3,807 Previous Year -3% 8.3% 1.6% /o of Enrollment from Chula Vista 91% 89% 89% Enrollment 8,441 7,994~ 7,239 ge Over the Previous Year 5.3% 10.4% 11.7% % of Enrollment from Chula Vista 94% 95% 94% ~/IDE Enrollment 37,878 37,275 35,330 % of Change Over the Previous Year 1.6% 5.2% 3.6% 49% 51% 51% 4. Please explain how capacity is for curricular areas is defined. Explanation: Capacity for specialized site-based programs are determined by site capacity and teaching staff capacity. 5. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the DistrictDs ability to accommodate student enrollment? Yes X No Explain: In eastern part of Chula Vista, new school construction has kept pace with growth, despite public comment to the contrary. The district will open Otay Ranch High School And Eastlake Middle School in July 2003. Rancho del Ray Middle School and Eastlake High School accommodated the additional student population utilizing relocatable classrooms for the 2002/2003 school year. In the western part of Chula Vista, infill residential development has absorbed the district's available capacity. H:\GMOC~O02 RETURNED QUES\SUHSD 03.doc Page 4 6. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2003? Yes No X Explain: As previously noted, two new schools will open in eastern Chula Vista in July 2003. Without these new facilities the district could not absorb the forecasted growth. In western Chula Vista, a number of alternatives for accommodating growth are being analyzed including construction of new facilities, boundary adjustments, night school, multi-track year round, etc. These alternatives are being analyzed through the district's Long Range Facility Master Plan. 7. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth? Yes X No Explain: a. What facilities will be needed? In addition to Otay Ranch High School and Eastlake Middle School, additional new schools will be required in eastern Chula Vista for the build out scenario. As previously noted, additional school facilities, expansion of existing school sites and other options for accommodating growth in western Chula Vista are under study. b. Are sites available for the needed facilities? Unknown at this time. c. How will these facilities be funded? New schools in eastern Chula Vista are funded primarily via Mello Roos districts and state funds. Funding for growth/new construction in western Chula Vista does not have a resource at this time. d. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? See "c" above. 8. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year (December 2007) time frame? Yes No X Explain: Same response as noted in numbers 6 and 7 above. 9. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the maintenance of the level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes X No Explain: The district is unable by law to require infill developments in western Chula Vista to annex to Community Facilities Districts to assist in paying for new school construction. These projects simply pay a school fee, which is inadequate to fund new school construction. MAINTENANCE 10. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\SUHSD 03.doc Page 5 Explain: The district receives its full share of State Deferred Maintenance funds. 11. Are there any major upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the School District's current 1-year and 5-year CIP that will add capacity? Yes X No Explain: A new high school and middle school will be constructed in Otay Ranch that will add capacity. ADDITIONAL GMOC QUESTIONS 12. What facility deficiencies have been identified for which there is no corresponding confirmed funding source? Additional capacity is needed at numerous school sites in western Chula Vista and for permanent replacement of relocatable classrooms, State school bond funds may provide for a portion of funds needed however no local match for "growth" is available, In addition, facility assessments conducted as part of the Long Range Facility Master Plan will likely identify modernization requirements for each site far in excess of the funding available from Proposition BB. A full assessment will result from completion of the Plan in mid-2003. 13. Based upon the analysis of the SUHSD, can the increase in students be accommodated without the need to bus students outside of their service areas or by placing relocatables on campus? If not, what recommendations can the GMOC make to help avoid the need for busing or building relocatables? An increase in student population can be accommodated in eastern Chula Vista by continuing the district's aggressive new construction program. As previously noted, the district is undertaking a Long Range Facility Master Plan, which should be completed by mid-2003. The demographic portion of the study is nearing completion, the site assessment work has been completed and the analysis element is underway. Preliminary data shows the need to expand capacity at many school sites district-wide, undertake boundary adjustments, implement alternative school calendars or other options as may result from the Master Plan study. 14. What is the status of the SUHSD Facilities Master Plan? Initial phases of the Plan are nearing completion and will be presented to the district's board of trustees in January 2003. The study will not be completed in its entirety until mid 2003. MISCELLANEOUS 16. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\SUHSD 03.doc Page 6 17. Are there any suggestions that you would like the GMOC to recommend to the City Council? Yes No x . Explain: 18. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and GMOC. Yes No X Explain: Prepared by: KatyWright Title: Director of Planning and Construction Date: January 21,2003 H:\GMOC~002 RETURNED QUES\SUHSD 03.doc Page 7 Draft Supplemental GMOC School Threshold Questions Documenting Forward Looking Planning In Response to Existing Threshold Criteria Current Threshold With Specific Forward Lookin~l Aspects Hiqhliqhted The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed 2. Ability to absorb forecasted .qrowth in affected facilities. 3. Evaluation of fundin.q and site availability for projected new facilities. 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. High School 1. Is there a need for one or more additional high schools, in addition to any currently under construction, within the next 5 years (by 2007)? Yes No 2. If yes to 1, specify the number and by what year the school(s) need is anticipated. The d/strict expects that a high school, in addition to Otay Ranch High School now under construction will be needed by 2007. 3. If yes to 1, has a site(s) been identified? Yes No If no, explain. Several sites are being discussed with thc district in conjunction with the City siting of a 70 acre park. 4.If yes to 1, is an architectural review in process? Yes No If no, explain. 5. Ifa high school is needed in less than 3 years, has adequate funding been secured for site acquisition, preparation and facility construction? N/A Yes No If no, explain. Funding ~'or Otay Ranch has been secured ofcourse. An Application for State funding cannot be made on the next school until plans are submitted to the State. 6. If a high school is needed in less than 2 years, has the site been acquired and site preparation work commenced? N/A Yes No If no, explain. It is expected that a school site for high school number 13 must be identified by mid year 2003. Work is underway in this regard. 7. Ifa high school is needed in less than 18 months is the site adequately served by roads and utilities? N/A Yes No If no, explain. 8. Ifa high school is needed in less than 18 months has construction commenced? N/A Yes No If no, explain. Middle School 1. Is there a need for one or more additional middle schools, in addition to any currently under construction, ~vithin the next 3 years (by 2005)? Yes N~o 2. If yes to 1, specify the number and by what year the school(s) need is anticipated. 3. If yes to 1, has a site(s) been identified? Yes No If no, explain. 4. If yes to 1, is an architectural review in process? Yes No If no, explain. 5. Ifa middle school is needed in less than 2 years, has adequate funding been secured for site acquisition, preparation and facility construction? N/A Yes No If no, explain. 6. If a middle school is needed in less than 18 months, has the site been acquired and site preparation work commenced? N/A Yes No If no, explain. 7. Ifa middle school is needed in less than 1 year is the site adequately served by roads and utilities? N/A Yes No If no, explain. 8. Ifa middle school is needed in less than 1 year has construction commenced? N/A Yes No If no, explain. The answer assumes this question refers to school construction for a facility after Eastlake MS, now under construction and scheduled to open in July 2003. UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT d MI MAR 2 7 2003 1 ~ w,~ht PL AI4;II~1G Director of Planning and Con_~c~on March 26, 2003 Mr. Dan Forster City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Subject: Additional Input to SUHSD's 2002 GMOC Report Dear Mr. Forster: In the district's recent GMOC report we indicated in our response to question 7a that a new high school would be needed in Otay Ranch to serve the growth in that area. The question did not ask for information on timing so I would like to clarify this for you and the GMOC. Based upon our current demographics data (2001 CBEDs) we believe that the district will need to open a new high school as early as July 2006. In order for us to accomplish'this, we need to identify a specific site by June 30, 2003. We are currently working with City staffand the development community toward this end. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1130 Fifb% Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911 Phone (619) 691-5553 Fax (619) 420-0339 katy.wright@suhsd.k12.ca.us