HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-30 Workshop Agenda Packet I declare under penalty oif,pierjury thiatIam empioyea
by t,he c,ty of Chula Vista in the offitice of the Clity Clerk
and,that I posted the document according to Brown,Act
requirements.
All-90WANNNI&
e.
CHUtA VISTA
57
V;
Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor
John McCannl Counci Imem bier- District 1, Gary Halbert,,, City Manager
J�ill M. Galvez, Councilmetuber-Diis,t,rict 2 Glen R. Googilins, City Attorney
Stephen C. Padilla, Councilmember-District,3 Kerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk
Mike Diaz, Councill mem bier-District 4
Thursday,January 3,0,1 2020 6-000, PM Council Chgar rilbers;,
276 4th Avienue, Bulilding:A
Chiufa Neta, CA 911910
CITYCOUNC!L WORKSHOP,
Special meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the
Growth Management Oversight Commissiloin of the City of'Cwine Vista
Notice is hereby given, that the Mayor of the City of Chula, Vista l has called and will convene Special Meetings of the
City Council, Planning Commission, ainid Growth Management Oversight Commission of the City of Chula Vista, on
Thursday, January 30, 20201 at 6-00 p.m. in the Coluincil Chambers, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
Cali folmlial to,consider the items on this aa.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL-*
C,ouincilmembleis Diaz, Galvez, McCann" Paidilla and Mayor Cali llas Si las
Planning Commissioners Burroughs, Del La Rosa, Miliburnil Afava,, Torres, Zakeir, and Chair,
Gutierrez
Growth Management Oversight Co,mmissioners, Alatoirre, Caudillo,, Juarez, Lengyell, Strong,
Torres, and Chair Hooker
PLEDGE OF'ALLEGIANCE 'TO THE, FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
City of Chufal Vista Page I Printed on 1/24/20120
City Council Agenda January 30,2020
WORKSHOP
Council workshops are for the purpose of discussing matters that require extensive deliberation
or are of such length, duration or complexity that the regular Tuesday Council meetings would
not be conducive to hearing these matters. Unless otherwise noticed on this agenda, final
Council actions shall be limited to referring matters to staff If you wish to speak on any item,
please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Comments are limited to five minutes.
19-0564 REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S (GMOC's)
FISCAL YEAR 2019 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CH LA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2019 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND
RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING 'THE FISCAL YEAR 2019
GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS
PRESENTED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF
RESPONSES SUMMARY
Department: Development Services Department
Environmental Notice: The project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 150161(b)(3)
of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Recommended Action: Planning Commission adopt resolution A and Council adopt resolution
B.
ADJOURNMENT
to the regular City Council meeting on February 4, 2020, at 5.-00 p.m., in the, Council Chambers.,
Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for
public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during
normal business hours.
City of Chula Vista Page 2 Printed on 112412020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 2 0f 194
City Council Agenda January►30,2020
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend,
and'or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk's Office at(6 9;
691-504 1(California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least
forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting.
Most Chula Vista City Council meetings, including public comments, are video recorded and aired live
on AT&T U-verse channel 99 (throughout the County), on Cox Cable channel 24 (only in Chula Vista),
and online at www.chulavistaca.gov. Recorded meetings are also aired on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. (both
channels) and are archived on the City's website.
Sign up at www.ch,ulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are
published online.
City of Chula Vista Page 3 Printed on 112412020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 3 of 194
NO
(_'40U NCI' L
1,TY
AGEND(,A ST,A"rEM,E,N'T
CIT Y OF
CHULAVISTA
January 3 0,2020 File ID: 19-0564
T1`TLE
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION of THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT T OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S GMOC's)
FISCAL YEAR 2019 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION OF TIFF PLANNING COMMISSION of THE, CITY of CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2019. GMOC ANNUAL EPO T, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY
COUNCIL
R. RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR
2019 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN "TIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF RESPONSES SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED AC'TION
Planning Commission adopt resolution A and Council adopt resolution B,.
SUMMARY
Chula Vista's Growth Management Program was established in 1991 to assure that,as neve development and
revitalization occurs,public facilities,services and infrastructure will exist or be provided to match the needs
created by growth. Each year, the City's Growth Management oversight Commission (GMOC) conducts a
joint workshop to present its Annual Report to the planning Commission and City Council. The Annual
Report summarizes compliance with the threshold standards established by the Growth Management
ordinance for eleven public facility and service topics (such as Libraries,Police,Traffic,etc.). The Fiscal Year
2019. Annual Report covering July 1, 2018 through June 30, 019) is presented for review and consideration.
of proposed recommendations to address issues identified by the GMOC that result from growth.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 1 S 061(b)(3) of the California Environmental
Quality Act State Guidelines.
BO.ARD/COMMISSION/COMMI,"r,"rEE RECOMMENDA"TION
The Planning Commission will provide comments and any recommendations at the joint worksop.
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 4 of 194
DISCUSSION
1. Introduction
The City's General Plan establishes the policy framework for Chula Vista's Growth Management Program(the
"Program"') and Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), also known as the "Growth
Management" ordinance, serves as a key component in implementing the Program. CVMC 19.,O�9 codifies
threshold standards for eleven public facility and service topics, including eight under the direct control of
the City (Drainage, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Police,
Sewer, and Traffic), two external to the City (Schools and Water), and one that is both City-controlled and
external (Air Quality and Climate Protection). The threshold standards are intended to help the GMOC
identify and make recommendations on growth-related issues, that may affect quality of life in Chula Vista.
In addition, CVMC 19.09 establishes, administration and implementation measures for the threshold
standards.
In compliance with CVMC Section 19.,09.030 (F), the Growth Management Oversight Commission (the
"GMOC)') shall annually prepare a report regarding the current and potential future compliance status of
threshold standards set forth in the Growth Management ordinance,. The report is intended to serve as a
basis for recommending changes,to the City's capital improvement program,changes to the City organization
and management,engagement in interagency cooperation,and implementation of actions to assure that the
threshold standards are sustained. Tonight, this Annual Report is being submitted for consideration to the,
Planning Commission for their input and recommendation and to the City Council for their review and action.
Growth in Chula Vista
Between 2010 and 2019,the number of residential building permits issued in Chula Vista averaged 913 units
per calendar year. This rate of growth is projected to continue or increase over the next five years,according
to Chula Vista's 2019 Residential Growth Forecast (Attachment 3, Appendix A). With growth comes the
demand for additional services and facilities.
Review of Growth Management Threshold Compliance for Fiscal Year 2019
The GMOC's Annual Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 covers the period between July 1, 2018 through June
30, 2019. The Report addresses compliance with delivery of services and facilities, based on threshold
standards for the eleven service topics identified in the City's Growth Management ordinance.Each threshold
is discussed in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations.Additionally,the
report identifies current issues in the second half of 2019 and assesses threshold compliance looking forward
over the next five years.
Presented below is a summary of findings and key issues regarding threshold compliance,.A summary table
of the GMOC's recommendations, staff s responses, and recommended implementing actions is included as
Attachment 1. The GMOC's Annual Report for FY 2019 (Attachment 2) provides additional background
information and more detailed explanations of findings and discussion/recommendations.
P a g e 2
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 5 of 194
2. Summary of Findings
Table 1 below summarizes the GMOC's threshold compliance findings for FY Year 2019 and looking forward
at any potential areas for non-compliance between 2019 and 2023. Eight threshold topics were compliant
and three were not.,
Table 1
01�
Air Quality and Climate Protection
Drainage
Fire/EMS
Fiscal
Libraries
Parks and Recreation 0
............. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Police 0
,,,..............."I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll""I'll""I'll",'ll'I............... ............... ...................... ...............
Schools 0
............. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sewer 0
............... ...................... ...............
Traffic
.........."I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",,,'ll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I.......... .......... .......... ...............
Water
3. Threshold Compliance Discussion
Below are threshold compliance summaries from the GMOC report, along with staff responses to those
recommendations (as indicated in Attachment 1).
NON-COMPLIAN'T Threshold Standards and Potential for Future Non-Compliance
LIBRARIES
Threshold Standard.- The City shall notfall below the citywide ratio o 500 gross squarefeet(GSF) of library
space, adequately equipped and staffed,per 1,0100 residents.
The Libraries threshold standard was not met in FY 2019 and was last met in FY 2002. The current square
footage is approximately 40,000 square feet (or 30 percent) below the threshold standard, and the library
square footage per capita will not increase until new library facilities are constructed. The GMO�C
recommends that construction of a new library should be a top priority of the City.
Recommendation: 'That the City Council direct the City Manager to provide staff to support a GMOC library
subcommittee or assign staff to prepare a report to the GMOC on possible locations, land use options, and
funding options for library facilities east of Interstate 805.
StaffResponse: The library is currently exploring several options in providing increased service to the east side
community and can report on possible locations, land use options, andfunding optionsfor an east side library
and will support a GMOC library subcommittee.
P a g le 3
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 6 of 194
POLICE
Threshold Standard:
1. Priority 1 - Emergency Calls. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to at least 81% of
Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes 30 seconds and shall maintain an average response time of 6 minutes or
lessfor all Priority 1 calls(measured annually).
2. Priority 2 - Urgent Calls. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to all Priority 2 calls
within 12 minutes or less(measured annually).
Priority 1
Table 2, below, indicates that a total of 73.72 percent of the Priority 1 calls were responded to within 7
minutes 30 seconds, approximately 7 percent short of the threshold standard of 81 percent, but a 1.92
percent improvement from Fiscal Year 2018. The average response time was six minutes and twelve
seconds, missing the threshold standard of six minutes by twelve seconds; however, the average response
time was 31 seconds better than in Fiscal Year 2018, and the best average response time s,ince Fiscal Year
2013.
Table 2
111110 lip
1Y 2019 �506 7,3.7,2�% 6:12
..........
............... .........."I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",,,'ll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'llI........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
IFY 20118 507 71.8% 6:43`
............................................................................-
521 72.2%
FY 2017 6:47
..........
IFY 201160 520 71.0% 6:31
............................................................................-
FY 2015 6:49
�465 71.2%
..............."I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",ll,"'I.............................................................."I'l""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'l'll""I'll""I'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'l'll""I'll""I'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'l'll""I'll""I'll""II..........
IFY 20114 534 73.6% 6:45
............................................................................-
517 74.1%
FY 2013 6:42
..........
IFY 20112 529, 72.8% 6:31
............................................................................-
518 80.7% 6:03
FY 2011
..............."I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",ll,"'I.............................................................. ..........
FY 200211 80.0% 5:07
............................
81.2%
FY1992c 4:54
.......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
FY191910' 87.6% 4:08
............... .............. ............
a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No.2015-3339 to current standard.
b. Priority 1-81%within 7 minutes,maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57%within 7 minutes,maximum average of 7-30,
(Reso. No,.2002-159)�.
C. Priority 1:85%within 7 minutes,maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2:62%within 7 minutes,maximum average of
7 minutes(Ord. No. 1991-2448).
d. The 1990 GIVIOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1:84%within 7 minutes,maximum average of 4.5 minutes;
Priority 2:62%within 7 minutes,maximum average of 7 minutes.
e. In FY 2018,the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times. Response times now include any
call where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same (i.e. officer is "flagged-down"' in the street). Additionally,
incidents where the call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also included.These calls were excluded from previous
year's reporting.The modified methodology produced more accurate data but resulted in a significant increase in reported
response times for Priority 2 calls. Using the previous methodology, for example, Priority 2 �response times for FY 2018
would have increased by 31 seconds (Average Response Time- 14:24). But, using the revised methodology, Priority 2
response times increased by 5:53 minutes (Average Response Time: 20:17). Priority 1 calls were not affected by the
change since they are addressed immediately.
Page 4
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 7 of 194
The Police Department reported that not meeting the threshold standard was due to not being properly
staffed, and they project that they will not have adequate facilities, equipment and staff to be able to
accommodate citywide growth in the next 12-18 months or the next five years, based on population
projections in Chula Vista's 2019 Residential Growth Forecast. The City Manager's office continues to work
with the Police Department to improve staffing levels beyond what Measure A will fund,however.In October
2019,the Police Department presented their Long-Term Staffing Plan to the City Council,recommending the
addition of three sworn officers per year for the next five years, and some civilian support positions, all
funded by the City's General Fund. 'The GMOC supports this recommendation.
Despite staff shortages, Chula Vista remains as one of the safest cities in California and in the United States.
In a 2018 WalletHub survey Chula Vista was ranked the safest city in San Diego county and the third safest
city the state of California. And in a resident opinion survey conducted by SANDAG last July, 91 percent of
the participants said that they were "ver�y satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the Chula Vista Police
Department. The Police Department has been able to bring the responses down by implementing several
innovations and streamlining efforts,including:
• Dispatching based on unit closest to the call;
• Deploying drones as first responders;
• Retraining staff on how to dispatch calls more efficiently;
• Changing procedures to reduce the need to modify call priority; and
• Downgrading Priority 2, calls when the urgency has changed
Drones,which are based at the police station,have been especially successful at enhancing the effectiveness
of Chula Vista's police officers, and the GMOC supports expanding use of them by adding another drone
center in eastern Chula Vista.
The GMOC's FY 2019 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation 1: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support staff in expanding the drone
program into eastern Chula Vista.
Staff Response: The Department agrees with the recommendation. The Chula Vista Police Department, with
the support of the City Manager's Office, has successfully established a second launch site for the UAS1. By
partnering with, Paradise Valley Hospital and Rush Properties., the Department has been able to deploy drones
from their facility effective August 2019. With this new launch site drones can now respond to 30% of the
geographic area within our City. The area represents approximately 70% of all the Calls for Service (CFS)
received We continue to work with the FAA and consultants to develop our capability to deploy more UAS
launch, sites and improve our support and response to CFS in the eastern sections of our community. The
Department continues to study the proposed expansion and identify the properfunding sources.
Unmanned Aerial Systems,or drones.
P a g e 5
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 8 of 194
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department's Long-
Term Staffing Plan, as presented to City Council in October 2019, which recommends adding three sworn
positions to the General Fund each year through Fiscal Year 2025, and a small number of civilian positions
to provide for critical support needs.
Staff Response: The Department agrees with the recommendation. However,funds from Measure A will be
recommended to fund three sworn positionsfor FY2021. The Chula Vista Police Department will continue to
work with the City Manager's Office to identifyfunding for the positions discussed in the Long-Term Staffing
Plan for FY2022 through FY2025. Thefunding sources will be discussed during the budget processfor each
respectiveyear. The Long-Term Staffing Plan has been developed after severalyears of studying the needs of
the community and looking at best practices across the County.
Priority 2,
As indicated on Table 3 on the following page,the Priority 2 average response time for Fiscal Year 2019 was
above the 12-minute threshold standard by 5 minutes 27 seconds- however,this was a 2-minute 51-second
improvement from Fiscal Year 2018.
As discussed above regarding Priority 1, current facilities, equipment and staff are not anticipated to be
sufficient to accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or five years. Therefore, the GMOC
has the same recommendations for Priority 2 as for Priority 1.
P a g e 6
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 9 of 194
Table 3
IFIN
AIR
..........."I'll
15,571 17:27
FY 2019
...............................................................................................
...............
FY 2018 151
989 20:18
�FY 2017 14�829 13:53
....................................................................... ............
FY 2016a
14729 13:50
13�694
�FY 2015 13:50
...............
FY 2014
13,681 13:36
�FY 2013 14�258 13:44
....................................................................... ............
FY 2012 17185 14:20
17�054
�FY 2011 12:52
...............
FY 2002'
10:04
C
�FY1992 6:30
..............................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................ ........... .....................................
FY199101 6:15
........... ...........
a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No.2015-3339 to current standard.
-301; Priority 2-57%within 7 minutes,maximum average of
b. Priority 1:81%within 7 minutes,maximum average of 5.
-159).
7:30(Reso.No.20012
- 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 6,2%within 7 minutes, maximum
c. Priority 1.
-2448)�.
average of 7 minutes(Ord. No. 1991
Priority 1: 84%within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5
d. The 1990, GMOC Report stated threshold standard.
minutes; Priority 2:62%within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes.
e. FY 2018,the department modified the methodology used to calculate response times.Response times now include
"flagged-down" in the street).
any call where the received-time and the arrival-time are the same (i.e. officer is
Additionally, incidents where the call has been holding for more than 1 hour are also included.These calls were
excluded from previous year's reporting.The modified methodology produced more accurate data but resulted in
a signi icant increase in reported response times for Priority 2 calls.Using the previous methodology,for example,
Priority 2 response times for FY 2018 would have increased by 31 seconds(Average Response Time: 14-24).But,
using the revised methodology, Priority 2 response times increased by 5:54 minutes (Average Response Time:
20:18). Priority 1 calls were not affected by the change since they are addressed immediately.
The GMOC's FY 2019 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendations: Same as for Priority 1,above.
Staff Responses: Same asfor Priority 1, above.
TRAFFIC
Threshold Standards:
1. Arterial Level of Service(ALOS)for Non-Urban Streets: Those Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP)roadway
segments classified as other than Urban Streets in the "'Land Use and Transportation Element*"of the City's
General Plan shall maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on those
segments;except, that during peak hours, LOS"D"can occur rnIo more than two hours of the day.
fo
2. Urban StreetLevelofService(ULOS): Those TMProadwa segments classified as Urban Streets in the "Land
y
Use and Transportation Element"of the City's General Plan shall maintain LOS "D"or better, as measured
by observed or predicted average travel speed,except that during peak hours,LOS"E"can occurfor no more
than two hours per day.
P a g e 7
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 10 of 194
As shown in Table 4 below, one non-urban street segment was non-compliant: eastbound and westbound
Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway,which has been non-compliant since FY 2016.
Most of the delay at this location can be attributed to the at-grade rail crossing for the Blue Line Light Rail
System that interrupts vehicular flow over 200 times per day.Grade separating the rail crossing is necessary
to improve the situation. City staff is working with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on
approval of the environmental document by January 2020, and on an agreement to provide $5 million in
funding for preliminary engineering and design for the project., Identification of appro�ximately$50 million
in future funding is still necessary to cover construction costs.
Table 4
Palomar Street EB D(6)
(Between Industrial Blvd & Broadway) WB E (4) J F(2)
Number of Non-Compliant Segments�FY 2017a 2 (Non-Urban)
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections FY 19912 b 0
Number of Non-Compliant Intersections IFY 19891 8
e 1989 LOS was based on the June 1990 GIVICIC Report.
Notes:
a. Threshold standard was amended by Ord�.No.2015-3339 to be based on roadway segme�nts instead of intersections.
b. Threshold standard was amended by Ord.No.1991-2448.
c. Baseline as defined in the threshold standard approved in the City Council Policy adopted by Resolution No.1987-13346.
SANDAG anticipates completing construction of the 1805/SR-94 Bus On(freeway)Shoulders Demonstration
Project by the fall of 20,20 and planned regional transportation projects in the South Bay are to be funded by
TransNet. The GMOC believes that Chula Vista must aggressively pursue funding from TransNet to complete
these projects.
Recommendation-. 'That the City Council direct the City Manager to aggressively pursue funding for all the
regional transportation projects in Chula Vista.
Staff...........Response: The City agrees with the GMOC recommendation to pursue funding for all the regional
transportation projects.
COMPLIANT Threshold Standards:
Threshold standards were found to be compliant for: Air Quality and Climate Protection,Drainage,Fire
and Emergency Medical Services,Fiscal,Parks and Recreation,Schools,Sewer,and Water. 'The GMOC
had recommendations for the following topics:
P a g e 8
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page I I of 194
AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE PROTECTION
Threshold Standard:,
The City shall pursue a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target consistent with appropriate,City climate
ch a nge a n d en ergy efficien cy reg u la tio ns in effect a t th e tim e of p roject app lica tio n fo r SPA p la ns o rfo r th e
following,subject to the discretion of the Development Services Director.-
a. Residential projects of 50,or more residential dwelling units;
b. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres(or equivalent square,foo tage);
C. Industrial projects of24 or more acres(or equivalent squarefootage);or
d Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units orgreater.
The GMO�C supports the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and implementation of commercial. solar facilities.
It would like future versions of the CAP to require electric vehicle charging stations, for multi-family
developments.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support implementation of the
1.
commercial solar photovoltaic requirement in the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and, in future CAP
updates,include a requirement for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at multi-family developments.
# This is in process. Both, recommendations will be presented to the Climate Change Working
Staff Response.
Group and incorporated in anyfuture CAP update. Staff plans to evaluate how statewide 202'0 code changes
(residential solar requirement and EV pre-wiring for multi-family) impact related developments before
proposing additional measures later in 2020'.
DRAINAGE
Threshold Standards.,.
1. Storm waterflows and volumes shall not exceed City engineering standards and shall comp�ly with current
local,state andfederal regulations, as may be amendedfrom time to time.
2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system,with,respect to the impacts
of new development, to determine its ability to meet the goal and objectivefor drainage.
The GMO,C recognizes that storm drain fees are currently insufficient for the City's Storm Management
Program and supports the possibility of increasing them.
Recommendation: 'That the City Council direct the City Manager to support staff in exploring the potential
to increase storm drain fees and assessments,as outlined in California Senate Bill 231.
Staff,R,esponse: The Citys storm drain(storm water)fee brings in approximately$665,,00,0,each year. Incontrast,
the City spends approximately $2 m�illion annually operating and maintaining the City"s stormwater system,
including program administration. This results in an annual impact to the General Fund for the storm water system
of approximately$1.3 million annually.
P a g e 9
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 12 of 194
Effective January 1,, 2018, SB 231 reduced barriers to increasing the city's storm drain fee by exempting
storm water-related fees from the voter approval requirements of Proposition 218. Staff supports the GMOC*s
recommendation to explore potential storm drain fee increases in light of this new law.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL,SERVICES
Threshold Standard:
Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout
the City within 7 minutes in at least 80,%of the cases(measured annually).
With the possibility of the Fire Department taking over ambulance services from American Medical Response
Services,the GMOC supports the requirement to analyze if this move would be fiscally prudent to the City.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to require a fiscal impact analysis on the
cost effectiveness of the Fire Department taking over AMR services.
Staff,Res l2onse: For the past 3 years, the Chula Vista Fire Department has been researching and studying all
opportunities related to ambulance transport. In September 2019, Council approved a resolution allowing the
Fire Department to contract with an outside consultant to establish, the value of medical transport,
recommended system design,and potential system reinvestment value. The results of this study will be presented
to Council on January 28,2020. The study will include the requested fiscal impact analysis.
FISCAL
Threshold Standards:
I. Fiscal ImpactAnalyses and Public Facilities Financing Plans, at the time they are adopted,shall ensure that
new development,generates sufficient revenue to offset the cost of providing municipal services and facilities
to that development.
2. The City shall establish and maintain., at sufficient levels to ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure and
services needed to supportgrowth, consistent with the threshold standards, a Development Impact Fee, capital
improvem en tfun ding, and other n ecessaryfun ding programs or mechanisms.
used on projections, from the City's FY 2021 - 2030 Long-Term Financial Plan,there will be deficits inthe
future,primarily related to retirement and health care costs. The GMOC is concerned about the sustainability
of long-term retiree benefits.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to: 1) prioritize a detailed written plan to
ensure that long-term retiree benefits can be sustained; and 2) have a strategic plan to ensure that benefits
are not offset by future adverse market conditions.
Staff Response: The City Council is provided a Long-Term Financial Plan which, takes into account the
anticipated increases in pension costs over the next 10years. Pension related payments and debts are required
payments that must be paid prior to any other obligations. The City participates in the CalPERS'retirement
program who is responsible far calculating the annual payment due by the City to ensure that retiree benefits
are sustained'. The annual payment,which fluctuate based on actual investment returns by CalPERS,is included
in the annual budget far Council consideration.
P a g e 10
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 13 of 194
Theh
I T e City has a General Fund reserve policy to maintain a 15% operating reserve level and 5% economic
contingency reserves. These funds are available to assist in managing during tough economic times or adverse
market conditions.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLIC T
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and
consequently, the 1,000 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations 'Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(11) is
not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real property-related financial
conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal., Govt Code section 871001,et sea.).
I
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council Member or Planning
Commission Member,of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in
this matter.
CURREN'TYEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Staff costs associated with the preparation of the annual GMOC report are included in the adopted budget.,
Additional costs related to implementation of recommended actions may be, brought forward for Council
consideration during the annual budget development process.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Staff costs associated with the preparation of future annual GMOC reports will be included in future budgets.,
Additional costs related to implementation of recommended actions may be brought forward for Council
consideration during future budget development processes.
.ATTACHMENTS
1 - Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary
2 - Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report,including the,Chair Cover Memo
3 - Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Staff Contact:Kimberly Vander Bie,Associate Planner
P a g e
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 14 of 194
Attachment 1
Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report
Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary
Staff Responses and Proposed
GMOC Recommendations Implementing Actions,
Air Quality and Climate Protection — 3.1.1 Air Quality and Climate Protection — 3.1.1
That the City Council direct the City Manager to support This is in process. Both recommendations will be presented to the
implementation of the commercial solar photovoltaic requirement in Climate Change Working Group and incorporated in any future CAP
the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and, in future CAP updates, update. Staff plans to evaluate how statewide 2020 code changes
include a requirement for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at (residential solar requirement and EV pre-wiring for multi family)impact
multi-family developments. related developments before proposing additional measures later in
2020.
Drainage — 3.2.1 Drainage —3.2.1
That the City Council direct the City Manager,to support staff in The City's storm drain (stormwater)fee brings in approximately
exploring the potential to increase storm drain fees and assessments, $665,000 each year. In contrast, the City spends approximately$2
as outlined in SB 231. million annually operating and maintaining the City's stormwater
system, including program administration. This results in an annual
impact to the General Fund for the stormwater system of approximately
$1.3 million annually.
Effective January 1, 2018, SB 231 reduced barriers to increasing the
City's storm drain fee by exempting stormwater-related fees from the
voter approval requirements of Proposition 218. Staff supports the
GMOC's recommendation to explore potential storm drain fee increases
in light of this new law.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services— 3.3.2 Fire and Emergency Medical Services — 3.3.2
That the City Council direct the City Manager to require a fiscal impact For the past 3 years, the Chula Vista Fire Department has been
analysis on the cost effectiveness of the Fire Department taking over researching and studying all opportunities related to ambulance
AMR services. transport. In September 2019, Council approved a resolution allowing
the Fire Department to contract with an outside consultant to establish
1
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet Page 15 of 194
Attachment 1
Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report
Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary
Staff Responses and Proposed
GMOC Recommendations Implementing Actions,
the value of medical transport, recommended system design, and
potential system reinvestment value. The results of this study will be
presented to Council on January 28, 2020. The study will include the
requested fiscal impact analysis.
Fiscal — 3.4.1
That the City Council direct the City Manager to: 1) prioritize a The City Council is provided along-Term Financial Plan which takes into
detailed written plan to ensure that long-term retiree benefits can be account the anticipated increases in pension costs over the next 10
sustained; and 2) have a strategic plan to ensure that benefits are not years. Pension related payments and debts are required payments that
offset by future adverse market conditions., must be paid prior to any other obligations. The City participates in the
COWERS retirement program who is responsible for calculating the
annual payment due by the City to ensure that retiree benefits are
sustained. The annual payment, which fluctuate based on actual
investment returns by CaIPERS, is included in the annual budget for
Council consideration.
The City has a General Fund reserve policy to maintain a 15%operating
reserve level and 5%economic contingency reserves. These funds are
available to assist in managing during tough economic times or adverse
market conditions.
Libraries—3.5.1 Libraries—3.5.1
That the City Council direct the City Manager to provide staff to The library is currently exploring several options in providing increased
support a GMOC library subcommittee or assign staff to prepare a service to the east side community and can report on possible locations,
report to the GMOC on possible locations, land use options, and land use options, and funding options for an east side library and will
funding options for library facilities east of Interstate 805. support a GMOC library subcommittee.
2
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet Page 16 of 194
Attachment 1
Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report
Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary
Staff Responses and Proposed
GIVIOC Recommendations Implementing Actions,
Police — 3.7.1 & 3.7.2 Police — 3.7.1 & 3.7.2
1. That the City Council direct the City Manager to support staff in 1. The Department agrees with the recommendation. The Chula Vista
expanding the drone program into eastern Chula Vista. Police Department, with the support of the City Manager's Office,
has successfully established a second launch site for the UAS. By
partnering with Paradise Valley Hospital and Rush Properties, the
Department has been able to deploy drones from their facility
effective August 2019. With this new launch site drones can now
respond to 30%of the geographic area within our City. The area
represents approximately 70%of all the Calls for Service(CFS)
received. We continue to work with the FAA and consultants to
develop our capability to deploy more UAS launch sites and improve
our support and response to CFS in the eastern sections of our
community. The Department continues to study the proposed
expansion and identify the proper funding sources.
2. That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the 2. The Department agrees with the recommendation. However,funds
Police Department's Long-Term Staffing Plan, as presented to from Measure A will be recommended to fund three sworn positions
City Council in October 2019, which recommends adding three for FY 2021. The Chula Vista Police Department will continue to
sworn positions to the General Fund each year through Fiscal work with the City Manager's Office to identify funding for the
Year 2025, and a small number of civilian positions to provide for positions discussed in the Long-Term Staffing Plan for FY 2022
critical support needs. through FY 2025. The funding sources will be discussed during the
budget process for each respective year. The Long-Term Staffing
Plan has been developed after several years of studying the needs of
the community and looking at best practices across the County.
3
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet Page 17 of 194
Attachment 1
Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report
Recommendations and Staff Responses Summary
Staff Responses and Proposed
GMOC Recommendations Implementing Actions,
Traffic— 3.10.1 Traffic—3.10.1
That the City Council direct the City Manager to aggressively pursue The City agrees with the GMOC recommendation to pursue funding for
funding for all the regional transportation projects in Chula Vista. all the regional transportation projects.
4
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet Page 18 of 194
�NNRfhyun, �W
� Kry!umu�+dux� m�,{IfhNlll�7�l�����E
C1[Yff
CF-ILAA
GROWTH
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
..........................................
MIN
..........................................
..........................................
ii i;,i i�// i i i ii/, ,,,illi/ i� i i�_i ,,,ii/l%,,, i///����✓„ � i� / //// ri
r �
aoso
i
t
f,
I
i
> r
r
a
January 30,, 2020
Approved by the PlanninCommission n Fie ution No. MPA1 -14 and
City Council (Resolution No. on January 30, 2020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet gage 19 of 194
GMOC Members
Duaine Hooker, Chair- (Education)
Raymundo Alatorre, Vice Chair- (Northwest)
Michael Lengyel - (Development)
Gloria Juarez- (Southwest)
Rodney Caudillo - (Southeast)
Andrew Strong- (Environmental)
Jerome Torres- (Planning Commission Representative)
VACANT'- (Business)
VACANT- (Northeast),
city :51aff
Kimberly Vander Bie—Associate Planner, Project Manager
Claudia Ramos—Secretary
Scott Barker—Transportation Engineer
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista,CA 91910
(619)691-5101
www.chulavistoca.gov
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 20 of 194
DATE: January 30,, 2020
TO: The City of Chula Vista Mayor and City
Council The City of Chula Vista Planning
Commission The City of Chula Vista
FROM: Duaine Hooker, Chair
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
SUBJECT: Executive Summary- Fiscal Year 2019 GMOC Annual Report
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its Fiscal Year 2019 annual
report for your consideration and action.
In reviewing information for this year's report, it was discovered that threshold standards for eight of the
eleven service topics were compliant and three were non-compliant. Those found to be compliant were Air
Quality and Climate, Protection, Drainage, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Fiscal, Parks and Recreation,
Schools, Sewer, and Water.
Non-compliant topics included Libraries, Police (both Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls), and Traffic. While the
details of each are outlined in the attached report, the GMOC would like to highlight a few items of special
interest.
Libraries — For the sixteenth consecutive year, Libraries remains non-compliant. The deficit in library space is
expected to continue until a large library is built in eastern Chula Vista. The GMOC feels strongly that
construction of a new library is long overdue and that providing a large, full-service library in eastern Chula
Vista should be a top priority.
In addition to the shortage of library space, the GMOC is concerned about inadequate budgeting for library
materials and personnel. The GMOC recognizes, notwithstanding budget shortfalls, that our libraries continue
to exceed the statewide average in many workload indicators, including reference questions per hour and
visits per hour.
Police .— The Priority 1 threshold standard was not met, and the Priority 2 threshold standard was non-
compliant for the 23nd year in a row. The Police Department reported that it has the equipment necessary to
deliver services, but adequate staffing continues to be an issue. In their Long-Term Staffing Plan dated
October 2019,the Police Department recommended to City Council that three new sworn officers per year for
the next five years, along with some support staff, be added to the General Fund budget. The GMOC supports
this recommendation.
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report 1 January 30, 2020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 21 of 194
The Police Department is having great success with its drone program, and the GMOC encourages expansion of
the program into eastern Chula Vista. Although not meeting the threshold standards, the GMOC appreciates
the fact that Chula Vista is consistently ranked one of the safest cities in the state and the nation, and in a
resident opinion survey conducted by SANDAG last July, 91 percent, of the participants said that they were
"very satisfied" or"somewhat satisfied" with the Chula Vista Police Department.
Traffic--Since Fiscal Year 2016, the level of service on both eastbound and westbound Palomar Street between
Industrial Boulevard and Broadway has not complied with the threshold standard due to delays caused by at-
grade crossing of the, San Diego Trolley Blue Line,. (Funding in the amount of five, million dollars for the
preliminary engineering and design for the grade separation at the rail crossing is being pursued from SANDAL
by staff. With approval of the environmental document expected in January 2020, this is a good start to this
long-waited improvement. Many traffic, projects in Chula Vista are to be funded by TransNet, and the GMOC
recommends that these funds be aggressively pursued.
Drainage — Although the threshold standard for Drainage, was met, it was brought to the GMOC's attention
that current storm drain fees are too low to provide adequate funding for, maintenance of existing facilities.
The GMOC encourages the City to raise fees, within the, scope of state legislation, to levels that will
significantly increase funding to maintain existing facilities.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) —The GMOC was pleased to learn that the threshold standard for
Fire and EMS was met for the third consecutive year, and that investments in new equipment and staffing,
along with improvements to internal procedures, appear to be having a positive impact on response times. A
potential change proposed by the Fire Department is to take, over ambulance services from American Medical
Response, Inc. when their contract expires. The GMOC is recommending that a fiscal impact analysis be done
before the City considers such a change to ensure that it would be cost effective to the City's budget.
On October 19, 20191, the GMOC, along with City staff,, went on its annual tour of new and proposed
development throughout the City. We were pleased to see some of the new construction projects, as well as
some of the Measure P projects that have been completed, including a new trailer for animal control officers
at the animal care facility. It is our understanding that the animal care facility is another City department that
is und�erstaffed�, and the situation gets worse when personnel retire and are not replaced. While there is
currently not a growth management threshold standard for animal care in the growth management ordinance,
the GMOC plans to discuss the possibility of adding one.
The GMOC is looking forward to reviewing the metrics of existing threshold standards, and possible inclusion
of new quality of life topics and threshold standards, during a comprehensive review of the growth
management ordinance in 2020. Despite not meeting their thresholds for several years, departments such as
Police and Libraries have consistently done an OUTSTANDING job of serving the public with the resources at
their disposal.
The GMOC appreciates the time and professional expertise provided by the staff of various City departments
(as well as the school districts, the water districts, and the Air Pollution Control District) for their input on this
year's annual report, specifically a big thank you to Kim Vander Bie and Claudia Ramos for their continued
support and guidance. The written and verbal reports presented to the GMOC demonstrate the commitment
of these dedicated individuals to serve the citizens of the C,ity of Chula Vista.
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report 2 January 30, 2020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 22 of 194
Tab�le of Contents
GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO .......................................................................... 1-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......... ....................................................................... 4-5
1.1 Threshold Standards 4
1.2 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 4-5
1.3 GMOC, Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Review Process 5
1.4 Annual Five-Year Residential Growth Forecast 5-6
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ................................................. 7
3.1 'THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ............................................. 8-24
3.2 Air Quality and Climate Protection................................................ 8-9
3.1.1 Threshold Compliance 8-9
3.2 �Drainage..................................................................................... 9-10
3.2.1 Threshold Compliance 9-10
3.3 Fire and Emergency Medical Services........................................... 10-12
3.3.1 Threshold Compliance 10-11
3.3.2 Financial Impacts of Taking Over American Medical Services,1 Inc. 11-12
3.4 Fiscal,............ .............................................................. 12-13
3.4.1 Threshold Compliance 12-13
3.5 Libraries...................................................................................... 13-15
3.5.1 Threshold Compliance 13-15
3.6 Parks and Recreation.................................................................... 15-16
3.6.1 Threshold Compliance 15-16
3.7 Police ................................................................ .......................... 17-19
3.7.1 Threshold Compliance 17-19
3.7.2 Threshold Compliance 19
3.8 Schools........ ................................... .................................. 20-21
3.8�.1 Threshold Compliance 20-21
3.9 Sewer........................................................................................ 21
3.9-1 Threshold Compliance 21
3.10 'Traffic.................................................. ............................. 22-23
3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 22-23
3.11 Water ...................................................................................... 23-24
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance 23-24
4.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 25
4.1 Appendix A— Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B—Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report 3 January 30, 2020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 23 of 194
1 .1 Threshold Standards
Threshold standards for eleven quality of life topics were established by the Chula Vista City Council in
1987. These standards, along with one or more goals, objectives, and implementation measures for
each topic, are memorialized in the City's Growth Management ordinance (Chapter 19.09 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code), which was updated and approved by City Council in 2015 after amulti-year,
comprehensive review of the Growth Management Program (i.e., a "top-to-bottom" review). The
process involved members of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), City staff, City
Council, and various community stakeholders.
The eleven topics include eight within the City's control: Drainage, Fire and Emergency Medical
Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks and Recreation Areas, Police, Sewer, and Traffic. Two topics, Schools
and Water, are controlled by outside agencies, and one topic, Air Quality and Climate Protection, is
controlled by both the City and an outside agency. Adherence to the threshold standards is intended
to preserve and enhance the quality of life and environment of Chula Vista residents, as growth occurs.
1 .2 Growth Management Oversight Commission
The GMOC (also referred to as "the Commission") was established by the City Council in 1987, and its
purpose is to provide an independent, annual review for compliance with the threshold standards.
The function of the Commission is outlined in Chapter 2.40 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
The GMOC is comprised of nine members who are residents of the City. The GMOC membership
provides for representation from the City's four major geographic areas and from across-section of
interests, including education, environment, business, and development, and from the City's Planning
Commission. One commissioner also represents the GMOC on the Measure A Citizens' Oversight
Committee (COC) and another serves on the Measure P COC (noted on the table below). During the
Fiscal Year 2019 review cycle,the following individuals served as commissioners on the GMOC:
01/1' ___��loll= N g
Duaine Hooker, Chair Education
Raymundo Alatorre,Vice Chair Northwest and Measure A COC
Gloria Juarez Southwest
Rodney Caudillo Southeast
Michael Lengyel Development and Measure P COC
Andrew Strong Environmental
Jerome Torres Planning Commission
VACANT Business
VACANT Northeast
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report 4 January 30, 2020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet Page 24 of 194
The GMOC's review of the eleven topics is structured around three timeframes:
1. A Fiscal Year cycle to accommodate City Council review of GMOC recommendations that
may have budget, implications. The Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report focuses on Fiscal
Year 2019 (July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019);
2. The second half of 2019 to identify and address pertinent issues identified during this
t,imeframe, and to assure that the GMOC responds to current events, and conditions;
and
3. A five-year forecast to assure that the GMOC has a future orientation. The period from
January 20,20 through December 2024 is assessed for potential threshold compliance
concerns.
The GMOC annually distributes questionnaires to relevant City departments and public facility and
service ("outside") agencies (i.e., school districts, water districts, and the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District) to monitor the status of compliance with the threshold standards. When the
questionnaires are completed, the, GMOC reviews the information and considers issues of concern and
possible recommendations. They also evaluate the, appropriateness of the threshold standards,
whether they should be,amended,and whether any new threshold standards should be considered.
oft aft a�1V
1MJ GMOC Review Process 'for Fiscal Year z
The GMIOC held six reguilar meetings, one meeting without a quorum, and one city-wide development
tour between September 2019, and January 2020, all of which were open to the public. At the first
regular meeting, Assistant City Manager Maria Kachadoorian provided updates on new businesses in
Chula Vista., and expenditures for sales tax Measures A and P. At subsequent GMO,C meetings, the
commissioners reviewed the eleven topics and the associated questionnaire responses (attached as
Appendix B). Representatives from the appropriate City departments and outside agencies were
invited to attend and provide presentations to the Commission. Through this process, and as outlined
in this report, City staff and the GMOC discussed each of the topics, recognized status of threshold
compliance and efforts made, and identified concerns and recommendations.
The final GMOC annual report is required to be transmitted through the Planning Commission to the
City Council at a joint meeting,which is scheduled for January 30, 2020.
1014 Annual Five=Y ar Residential Growth Forecast
The Development Services Department annually prepares a Five-Year Residential Growth Forecast; the
latest edition is dated September 2019. Determining the projected number of residential building
permits to be issued begins by soliciting projections from developers and builders who have completed
or are undergoing the entitlement process, for Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans or design review,
then determining status of compliance with environmental mitigation measures that must be met
prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The projected numbers reflect consideration of the
City's standard entitlement process and permitting time frames, and, as such, do not reflect market or
other economic conditions outside the City's control.
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report 5 January 30, 2020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 25 of 194
The Forecast provides City departments and outside agencies, with an estimate of the maximum
amount of residential growth anticipated over the next five years. Copies of the Forecast were
distributed with the GMOC questionnaires to help departments and outside agencies determine if
their respective public facilities/services would be able to accommodate the forecasted growth. Based
on developer input, the growth projections from January 2020 through December 2024 indicated an
additional 6,077 residential units that could potentially be permitted for construction in the City over
the next five years,. (5,671 units in the east and 406 units in the west). This equates to an annual
average of 1,215 housing units,with 1,134 units in the east and 81 units in the west.
Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report 6 January 30, 2020
2020-01-30 Agenda Packet, Page 26 of 194