HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2004/06/23 GMOC &
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted this
document on the bulletin board according to
Brown Act requirements.
CITY OF CHULA VDafe\f ~';/JI{Jlf Signed '5J1C./JLltdli~l
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
June 23, 2004
6:00 P.M.
JOHN LIPPITT PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
1800 MAXWELL ROAD
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Padilla
Growth Management Oversight Commissioners Arroyo, O'Neill, Krogh,
Munoz, Nordstrom, Palma, Spethman, Garcia, and Chair Tripp
Planning Commissioners Castafieda, Cortes, Felber, Horn, Madrid, O'Neill,
and Chair Hall
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION'S 2003 ANNUAL REPORT
On May 3, 2004, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) finalized its
2003 annual report to the City Council regarding compliance with the City's quality-of-
life threshold standards. The report covers the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003, identifies current issues in the second half of 2003 and early 2004, and finally
assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next five years. The report addresses
each threshold. in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding
recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission accept the report and approve the recommendations as contained
therein, and recommend that Council do the same; and
Council accept the report, direct the City Manager to implement the recommendations as
contained therein, and adopt the following resolutions:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE FIRE/EMS ELEMENT
OF THE 2003 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 2003 GMOC
ANNUAL REPORT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FIRE/EMS, AND
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL
C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ACCEPTING THE 2003 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND APPROVING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE
"2003 GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS/PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING
ACTIONS SUMMARY"
D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CONCURRING WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OF
CONCERN TO BOTH SCHOOL DISTRICTS REGARDING THE NEED FOR
RESEARCHING FINANCING STRATEGY TO ALLOW THE PROBABLE
NEED FOR SCHOOL CAPACITY EXPANSION IN THE WESTERN
PORTION OF THE CITY
E. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CONCURRING WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT A POTENTIAL SERIOUS
PROBLEM EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO ANY DELAYS TO SCHOOL SITE
13 AND REQUESTING A CONTINGENCY PLAN BE PREPARED IN THE
EVENT HIGH SCHOOL 13 IS NOT COMPLETED FOR OPENING FOR THE
2006 SCHOOL YEAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
The Growth Management Oversight Commission and the Planning Commission adjourn to their
respective Regular Meetings. City Council adjourns to the next Regular Meeting on July 13,
2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOPIMEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item---1
Meeting Date 06/23/04
ITEM TITLE: Report: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's
(GMOC) 2003 Annual Report
Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The City OfChula Vista Accepting And
Approving The FireÆMS Element Of The 2003 GMOC Annual Report And
Recommending Approval By The City Council.
Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The City Of Chula Vista Accepting And
Approving The 2003 GMOC Annual Report With The Exception Of FireÆMS; And
Recommending Approval By The City Council.
Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Chula Vista Accepting The 2003
GMOC Annual Report And Approving The Recommendations Contained Therein; And
Direct The City Manager To Undertake Actions Necessary To Implement Those
Recommendations As Presented In The "2003 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed
Implementing Actions Summary" .
Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Chula Vista Concurring With The
Growth Management Oversight Commission's Recommendation To Issue A Statement
Of Concern To Both School Districts Regarding The Need For Researching Financing
Strategy To Allow The Probable Need For School Capacity Expansion In The Western
Portion Of The City.
Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Chula Vista Concurring With The
Growth Management Oversight Commission's Recommendation That A Potential
Serious Problem Exists With RespectTo Any Delays To School Site 13 And Requesting
A Contingency Plan Be Prepared In The Event High School 13 Is Not Completed For
Opening For The 2006 School Year.
SUBMITTED BY: D_~ ofF- ood BC~
.' ('-
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ 9.,..1 (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On May 3, 2003, the GMOC finalized its 2003 Annual Report to the City Council regarding compliance with the
City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold Standards. The report covers the period ITom July I, 2002 through June
30, 2003, identifies current issues in the second half of 2003 and early 2004, 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 school financing and a "Statement of Concern" in regard to a contingency plan should high
I-I
Page 2, Item..l
Meeting Date 06/23/04
school 13 not meet it's construction schedule. A summary of the GMOC's recommendations and staff's proposed
implementation actions is included as Attachment I. The workshop will give the GMOC an opportunity to discuss
their findings and recommendations with the Planning Commission and City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
I) That the Planning Commission:
a) Adopt a resolution accepting and approving the 2003 GMOC Annual Report as presented herein
in regards to FireÆMS, and recommends approval by the City Council; and
b) Adopt a resolution accepting and approving the 2003 GMOC Annual Report as presented herein
with the exception ofFireÆMS, and recommends approval by the City Council.
2) That the City Council:
a) Adopt a resolution accepting the 2003 GMOC Annual Report and approving the
recommendations contained therein; and direct the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to
implement those recommendations as presented in the "2003 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed
Implementing Actions Summary" (Attachment I).
b) Agree to issue a resolution concurring with the GMOC "Statement of Concern" and to
communicate with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School
District Boards in regards to developing a financing strategy for possible new western Chula Vista schools
(draft letters for Mayor Padilla as a follow-up to the resolution included as Attachment 3).
c) Agree to issue a resolution concurring with the GMOC "Statement of Concern" and to
communicate with the Sweetwater Union High School District Board in regards to requesting the
preparation of a contingency plan for accommodating students in the event the high school 13
construction schedule is delayed (draft letter for Mayor Padilla as follow-up to the resolution included as
Attachment 4).
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission will provide comments and
recommendations at the workshop.
DISCUSSION:
1. Summary of Findings
GMOC Development Forecast
The forecast for growth ITOm 2004 through 2008 reflects an average of approximately 2,280 dwelling unit
completions per year, with minor fluctuations on an annual basis.
The ability for this amount of growth to be sustained over the 5-year period will be determined by the strength of
the economy and housing market, but it will also be affected by the timing of major roadways and other
inffastructure and facilities needed to support that growth. Construction of State Route 125 is particularly
important in supporting this 5-year forecast.
1- 2
--~_.--~-~----~~
Page 3, Item..l
Meeting Date 06/23/04
Current Threshold Compliance
Not In Com liance In Com liance
Police (Urgent) Police (Emergency)
FireÆMS Schools (Elementary)
Schools (High Schools Traffic
and Middle Schools) Parks & Recreation
Libraries (current) Libraries (up to 6/30/03)
Fiscal
Air Quality
Sewer
Drainage
Water
Future Threshold Compliance - December 2008
Threshold Threshold Likely to be Potential for Future Statement of Concern
Met Non Compliance
Fiscal X
Air Quality X
Sewer X
Water X
Libraries X
Drainage X
Parks and Recreation
Land X
Facilities X
Police
Emergency X
Urgent X
FireÆMS X
Traffic X
Schools
CVESD X X
SUHSD X X
1-3
Page 4, Item..l
Meeting Date 06/23/04
2. Summary of Key Issues
Thresholds Not In Compliance
Library
At the current time the library growth management threshold of 500 gross square feet per 1,000 population has
been exceeded. According to the Growth Management Program "Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold
Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library
system into compliance. Construction or other actual solutions shall be scheduled to commence within three
years."
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 Paseo
Ranchero. This library is expected to be open by 2006. The addition of30,000 square feet oflibrary will meet the
library standard for several years to come. A grant request for funding is pending.
Because construction of the new library is scheduled to be completed within 3 years the GMOC does not see the
need for a recommendation for further action at this time.
Police
The threshold for responding to urgent calls has not been met. Urgent calls are a misdemeanor in progress;
possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls. Urgent calls are defined as domestic violence or other disturbances
with potential for violence; burglary alarms. Police response is for immediate response by two officers ITom clear
units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.)
Fire/EMS
Although improved, for the second year the FireÆMS response time threshold was not met. This is likely not the
current situation as the period when the response times were tabulated was prior to the full operation of Fire
Station 7, which was dedicated on September II, 2003. This station serves the area most impacted by the decline
in response time. The opening of Station 7 is expected to show improvement in response times but this has not yet
been documented. In addition, the Fire Department Master Plan is scheduled to be updated beginning this year
and will provide direction as to further appropriate actions.
In addition, the GMOC has asked for an investigation as to how changing requirements since 1989 have impacted
turnout times, to better assess the impact of growth relative to other factors.
Schools (SUHSD)
One ofthe traditional measures of whether schools have met the growth management threshold for the "Capacity
to accommodate students used now or committed" has been based on a self-assessment, by the districts, of their
ability to house students. To house students has been interpreted to mean to provide a desk. Using this definition
the SUHSD has met the threshold, and this has been acknowledged by the GMOC.
However, this year the GMOC has stated that this defmition is not appropriate when defining a "quality of life"
threshold, which according to the GMOC must include a more qualitative standard. In their annual report the
GMOC states "that in the spirit of creating a quality oflife threshold, it is a reasonable interpretation that a quality
of life threshold cannot be only students being housed, but must instead be inclusive of those aspects that give it
quality". "Just providing seats," they have concluded is not what the threshold was intended to measure. While
this is unprecedented, the GMOC points to language in the Growth Management Program that lends support to
their position, "The purpose of the threshold standard is to ensure that the districts have the necessary school sites
and funds to meet the needs of students in newly developed areas in a timely manner, and to prevent the negative
/- L/
Page 5, Item..l
Meeting Date 06/23/04
impacts of overcrowding on the existing schools." Therefore, the GMOC concluded that the SUHSD has not
adequately accommodated students.
The GMOC recognizes that a qualitative standard should have a quantitative basis. "The GMOC aims to provide a
meaningful and fair determination in regard to threshold compliance and structure this evaluation on an objective
basis. To do so there needs to be a set of standards with an accompanying assessment. Unfortunately, these
elements are not currently available to the GMOC." The GMOC has requested such data from the school districts
in the past with no response. "In the absence of this data the GMOC has relied on personal observation and third
party reports in order to draw a conclusion on threshold compliance."
During the GMOC public workshop on April 8, 2004, Katherine Wright, Director of Planning and Construction
for the SUHSD, argued that this determination by the GMOC was incorrect, with short notice, arbitrary and
without basis. At a later meeting with the GMOC Dr. Edward Brand, Superintendent of the SUHSD, indicated
the need to maintain an open and constructive dialog and expressed his willingness to present the soon to be
completed School District Facilities Master Plan.
Statement of Concern:
Financing for West Side Schools
There is potential for significant residential growth on the west side of the City. These demands, while several
years away, will likely exceed the school districts current capacity to accommodate students. The remedy to build
additional capacity is hampered due to the lack of identified financing.
The GMOC recognizes that being proactive in identifying a strategy for financing construction of new school
capacity in the City's established western neighborhoods is of paramount importance. The GMOC believes that
the respective school districts should take the lead role once the broad growth parameters are identified in the
General Plan Update and Urban Core Specific Plan. In that regard, the GMOC is issuing a "Statement of
Concern" to both school districts that operate in Chula Vista to undertake proactive research on identifying
fmancing options that are both feasible and politically acceptable for building schools in western Chula Vista. As
will be discussed under "Other Significant Issues and Recommendations" the GMOC is recommending City
support.
It needs to be emphasized that this "Statement of Concern" is not being made in response to an existing problem
or school district error. It is instead being made to avoid a future problem. In addition, the GMOC has made a
similar request of the City (described under Other Significant Issues/Recommendations).
Contingency Plan
Last year the GMOC issued a Statement of Concern regarding the timing for high school 13, which the
Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) has indicated, will be needed by the 2006/07 school year. As
then, it is recognized that 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, however delays often occur due to unforeseen administrative, regulatory issues or whether
conditions. The GMOC believes that this situation represents a potentially serious problem and therefore rises to
a formal "Statement of Concern".
As stated above, the GMOC acknowledges that the SUHSD, the City and the development community are taking
appropriate measures to meet the completion schedule, but there remains a potentially serious condition if there is
a delay. This possibility for a delay is recognized by the GMOC and wishes this possibility be communicated by
them to the City Council, Planning Commission, and community. In addition, the GMOC believes that it is
prudent that a contingency plan for how students will be accommodated in the event the construction schedule for
high school 13 is not met be developed and is requesting that such a plan be developed by the SUHSD.
¡ - ç
Page 6, Item..l
Meeting Date 06/23/04
The GMOC as an advisory commission to the City Council does not have the standing to make recommendations
directly to departments and agencies. Based on a GMOC recommendation the City Council can direct the City
Manager to take the necessary implementing action when a City department is involved. When a GMOC
recommendation concerns an outside agency the process is for the GMOC to request that Council pass a resolution
authorizing the transmittal of the concern to the respective agency. According to the Growth Management
Program:
Should the GMOC determine that a potentially 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 concem 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.
Attachments 3 (school financing) and 4 (contingency plan) contain draft correspondence as follow-up to the
resolutions !Tom the Mayor to the respective school districts.
Other Sil!nificant IssueslRecommendations
Parks and Recreation
The GMOC has, over the past several years, requested that a Park and Recreation quality of Life Threshold
Standard for western Chula Vista be enacted. 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. It has been
reported to the GMOC that a Western Chula Vista Parks Master Plan will be developed and will encompass an
appropriate standard. The GMOC seeks a reasonable time !Tame for completion.
Traffic
That the City Council does not approve additional residential development to receive building permits in eastern
Chula Vista prior to the opening ofSR-125 above what the current Permit Monitoring Program allows without
verified additional traffic capacity that will be in place concurrent with development.
Schools
As referenced in the item above regarding the Statement of Concern for new school financing in western Chula
Vista, although the school districts have lead responsibility, school financing will likely require multi-
jurisdictional cooperation and contribution. In that regard, the GMOC is recommending that the City Council
direct the City Manager to assemble a team of staff from the City, to assist school district staff in a review of
financing options that are both feasible and political1y acceptable, and report to both the GMOC and the Schools
Ad Hoc Committee, on their findings.
3. Conclusions
To assist Council in evaluating and acting upon the GMOC's recommendations, a concise summary of the
GMOC'srecommendations and corresponding staff responses is presented in Attachment I (labeled as Appendix
A in the GMOC Report). Staff requests direction !Tom Council regarding implementation of those
recommendations as outlined in the right-hand column of Attachment I. If Council selects to issue resolutions in
response to the "Statements of Concern" draft letters for Mayor Padilla's signature have been prepared as a means
of implementing the resolutions, Attachments 3 and 4 respectively. Additional appendices to the GMOC Report
contains the Public Outreach Event Write-ups, Growth Forecast, and Threshold Compliance
I~' t,
Page 7, Item..l
Meeting Date 06/23/04
Questionnaire/supplemental reports presented to the GMOC by the various City Departments and outside agencies
as Attachment 5.
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:
I - 2003 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Will be included as
Appendix A, in the 2003 GMOC Annual Report).
2 - Chairperson's Cover Memo and GMOC 2003 Annual Report.
3 - Draft transmittal letters as follow-up on resolution for "Statement of Concern" regarding western
Chula Vista schools financing research.
4 - Draft transmittal letter as follow-up on resolution for "Statement of Concern" regarding contingency
plan for accommodating students if construction schedule for high school 13 is delayed.
5 -- Appendices (Is included under separate cover, as Volume TI, 2003 GMOC Annual Report,
Appendices B, C, and D).
/-1
..----- -_.._----~~-------_.._._-----~~
A TT A CHMENT 1
2003 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Will
be included as Appendix A, in the 2003 GMOC Annual Report)
I-~
'" '" "
as ~ "õi';:;
5h.~ S :> ~ ç
~ ] .~ [1j ~ 'õ jj ,
,,~o~S "" ~ § '" 0 -
~ ~ 0 ." i , ~ . 2 - g.
00°" -" - ... 0 ". S
".r/J ":3'" ê'- " <£ :.a ¡g"O "lJ
ð~. ~ 01 . ~ ,~"o
"u .! , , ~ , . ~ ~!."
'" " " " ". ¡¡ .~ ","0'" -,".$
,-., ~g~" ..- ~ . =1 'õ
u .., ° ::: '" " >- ;¡ " 0" ~ :>
~~ s¿",-"'>- ..È° i:8 '" 0 ti'" 00
","0 '" ".;¡ 0;':: " !¡ ~ -'" - õ
85'11 II ~ : I II ¡'
~~ ¡ ! , . . ~ , ,e ~ g ~ ! .
° o"O..c: '" " :;:: G ;.:: ° ¡'j ..c
S~ ~,u'l 81 ' ~ ..- d
" I-< "", '" " " -¡) " -B" ¡:¡ -'""
¡¡~'8' ,.. ~ ~ ..."
ír1ír1 1.-'- "S . . ".".
ír1ír1 "O~jj~ b'~ü as ~ :§ J> b~
""z d .~ . ~.. ~ , ¡ 'i' û"
~O p"õ .,,' ' - 8~'
~.... "., " .' ~ ~ .š' ~ ~.!! ~ ' "
oE-; "O~.e"~ B " -"" ~ ",.$
I ,0--- ,". .- - -.-
UU ... ~ ". """ .". . &.'
. - ~ -I-' ~, ~. ..~ 'i g 8 ~ ;;
E-;< " ..§"š o(j.~ ..co..c: ã ..cU 0 "O ~ã
=~ "5Sõi~"O ~]~..c: 0>- -¡) -B'" "
« ~Z ~ ' . 0 ~ 0. B ~. ~ ~ .".' ~, ~ .,
....¡:: "",o_-u ",~..c ~ ",,-_"0
,,'~ "ò'~ "."..$ 00"0 s" .~~
~ ~Z 0,,1-< 00 "" b I-< "B
u-B~~§~ ~.:> ~Q °š :.a -~ -'"
"..c: 00° .~ S" u 11 fo I-<"'§
C ~~ .¡ ~.~."UO ~d. . ß.
Z >~ -BBÈ~ ~~~ - N ~ .
w o~
Q. E-;"';¡ b" '" '" .~ " '<t ".;
Q. Q-B:S~
« Z=-
~e ~ .E;'] >-
.¡:: "0 - ><
go ~]::J
~ír1 s.~þOO
~~ ~".~§
~.... g¡,:B ,;;.g
~ .~ :g -B u
,,"'>-0
~ B G~ ~
=Z b'-§.J.j ò
E-;~ ~"':.a"
~8 ãb~-B
~Q-¡:¡B
b"-¡)"O
~U Q"O~-ê
a~ " ,,0
~~'.Èe-
- "I-<
Q ~85~
N
.~ ,,-
"0 I-<õi "
'5 ] 'õ ..§
g ". ~.g
u..e~"
J .£ ~ ã ~ "
u"O § 8 -¡¡
~ .!:I ~B~~G
-< <¿¡¡~3.G ~
.;!J ~ ~ [-ã'~
:i "....
... N
-C}
"'l!
"'-
"""'
] g~ "~o
. '" - <I .þ "
~." ..,-: ~ ~-aõ O.~
"" .D >- -" "'0 -
S~ § S ~~ ~]~ ~~
O§ 0 ~ ~~ ~~" -~
t; ~ -a .", "" ""..c:: '" -;:::
~~ I I 11 I.~ ~I
~[~ '" ~.~ t;;""" 1:::",
~o >.:: -æ-g p.~~ $Jþ
¡¡OJ ." 8 ~:.õ ~ã~ """
~~ ~ t; h . '.. , ~
.s~ ~ ~ eþ j]~ £0
10. " ,,!:J 10.;.::: ~ .D .§ ~ ....
~ . '" s ~ , "-~ ] ¡ .
.°. 0 . . ".. 0
~>- - 0 ~-;::: ~....~ - - >'¡;¡
~ "" ~. " ",> , . .
u "'>~ ¡¡¡ .Eo -æ ¡:; ~'"1 s-æ "
0 ~ ,. . § '- 0 . .
" "~~ 0 ~~ ~~e- "0 1
:0: - ,~" ~ ~; ~,> "" ,
" <: h] ~ ] , . ,], ~ . 8
~ :¡; 'S ~." , , h ] ~ . . ,
Z~ .0..£, ~2 eo" ~g. ~
0 " ~ . 0 0 " ." 0 h"., . ."
- .go ,~~ ~. . 0 , , "" ,
~~ .'.'~,., ~þo ", !
"""š;¡ ", "U ~. ":J~. , 0 ~ 0
- Z . . " .. ~ " " "- ". . 0 " - .
::! 0 ~HHh H, ~~,~ 'I 8~] 8
-- L" ,~ "", t "" Þ
~ .... . , . . ~-, " '. ~ . H-
e u 8 ., ~,~ ~ ! ~ ~ R£ > . " 0 u
u< '.¡;¡1i~ ;>->. '"
'-' $J '- '" ~
~ '" . - ~.. .
~¡¡ ~i
.. ;J1z: ~~
>< :¡.. "
is >~ ~,
z 0- "
w ... s: . .!
i!: z - " !
.. ,,~ .~
-- .'.
~oo ".
f'Ii z ~.,
~o 0<
<~- '.
.... .'
< -,
~ ~.
z o.
=" ,~
"'::;: s.
~ :0: ! ."
Iii o~ § i
,. u ! ~ .,
-~ "~,
~ =< þ- .
Q .. ."
0 u-.
M 'I "þS
~ iJ.¡:: gp
OJ 0.-
~ ~iJ'"
¡S~-ê
~ ~ ~
M
\-\D
" a~dbB~~
..c: ~u"~S"'u
g ... ž ¡;:; "", <.¡:; 6b ~
'" ~",5~"'~~~
U "'a-;::sB~ ~
] ~~~]t~!]
a. u~~ u~~
u§ gj'uo.o.",¿j.~
=~ 'C~!SS"",~
.;:- ,,'" a~=ao
?u o.",~u",~~o
~8 u"...Uu~~N
'!3u 6.~~::õ"g.lJ
~§ lJ~~ê~]&~
,-, .,€ = '-"a""".'"
U 5 ~ .~ .g > u- u 5 § 5
0..... ._'" .f" '" '" U '"
r .u E ~"""u!'"
.... ~ '" ¡g ;:: ..c: 5 .D '" ;::s
~ 60. '-'"u~8 ;::SS
~ sa SU <,..,p"BOI)a
'-'~ s6. s",saC¡"""a U
Z 8lJ 8 ~ {;!.5~] ~:;; 0
9 ~'Ë.~ ~§.~.ê~~~ ~ ~
íI:JíI:J :E'" 10 ;;¡:;<g.5",g~ u
íI:JíI:J -..8 ~ """'~6. .s",u ¿j
~Z . ""'0. ~ ~~No.",u<B.~ ¿j
~o ~ ~~ ~ ..."-","~¿j~,,, ."
.... ",~" U.."""p,,<,..,.s..:.: ~
~ ¡:: "'I'" I"'!:; -g E ~ :: § ~ a BE'"
ou u .5 [ ~ ¡j ~ = {;! E ~ ~ ~ ,§ 'õ ~ ~
< ... - ." "'01) .. uè;>"a6--.¡::; a
E-< .c 8 f 8s ¡ ~,,~~c¡ig¡u U
.....~ ;.:::¡ u ~ ~1J p" uS1A~'" siJ¿j ~
""'Z ¡!J .s'c """C'" lJa8"'.s
<I: ~"'" &~.D 1-0.< _u,<,<a ~
""'E-< '" - ~ N
>< ~Z I<Î ~ '<Ó '<Ó ,...: ,...: ,...:
- ~~
C ;, ~~ 5 ~s ~~ B § ,g .¡¿ g¡
2 O~ Uuo.u "¡::u~u ""'õ]
~...;¡ B~B~ ~~~'9 ~o.",
c. E-< ~ .~ u ~ .~ .g <.¡:; g.§ 'g 1i ~
.A Z.... Po~...... '" -""" :.!g'"
.... r~'~ au'";::s'" a"'~- ?"
- "'" ...." C" g¡" " -
~-- §:~~] ~~1j¿j i5.~.~
~íI:J u"'u" "B'()~ 5"u.,;
~Z >a.D.. -"'!+::> ;::",-t3u
<0 l!~¡:::b 1A~":i~ "~~~
Z¡:: B~~g, :~;.D -B~§g¡
~< b"'~ ua"~. """....lJ
~ ~ ~ gj';;S ~p" ..9 ~ a ];3 a õ
== Z § '5 " 2J " ~ .. c¡ ~ ss :; ã
E-<~ ~",~6 ~;;Bu;< <SOI)~
::> ~ Þ OI)õ ~~ ~ '" 15 g 1A..E '"
Õ~ û~p~ U.ê§ -B ~5~]
..J 0 u 'C 11 6. lJ U '" '" .s'~ 't
..... ¿j.D"'S -P~~~~u""""
~ U ü " ~" 48 11.g ~- ~ ~ a g
f<')~ ~u",.~ = ~~5",~ <B...~",
-~ .-0'-;;5" .-"..s.-", ~u-<,..,
- "'~-;::s ~ "'~"'uU u"""a
Q "-'~"'o. .."-u"'~> u;::SBÞ
N uv~.. U¿ju",.~ g-§..<::
§ 1; Po 'õ b § B . lJ -5 "'.5 a:.õ
a'+'au ~ au"u" <,..,.;è,u.~
U~"a ~ U~"'~lJ a~U?
"'I ~ þ¡;>..." '" ÞS"'..." ",c.DP
.u '-a~'" :; '-a§-§ ""'õC
¡: "U"'......: Uu.u a...-cB
~ .~ -B~~~~ ~ -B~f~~ ~~~-~
~ ~ ~ .~~~i p" ~-So~o u~~~
;::S ..c:.so]"e...",... ..<::~~..."
.~ 1-",...,,_0. -0.,"0. I-~w-
I<Î i '<Ó ~ ,...: ~ ~
\ -II
~
"
"õ 1:! gp g¡ &
;S ~ 'ê§ fj ~
15 ç,. ç,."¡:: iJ! -
'-'" ';"'-"-0 '§ '" ""§
t:ç,.oç,.§ ~
&g",~~ 5
~o"~o ~
"'<'>-g-~ ;J
"'~5b~5 "
uOJ)§<,,§ 13
O§ "'-êP ¿!
::E::E .. gp ã 8
d f,j.s, 8 0
",.t; 51, g.- <!::
-5~e8~ .",
""'u ~ 1#ç,.!::~ .g
~.- '" 0
0 "'! °g ! " ~ u
..,.. ¡:¡::: "."".t;'-.g "0
~... ". '. ".
í.-'..,.. §:"'"ð.z ,D,~
'-' I!!!:; '" <.>~ '" -'-'
Z..,.. ~-¡¡ã > ~"
I!!!:; ".", > " ~-5
O~ "~~-gg¡t .!!JB
.... tI) ,.t; oiJ ~ .",
æ", ~~~,~, o~
....z "u::~", -1:: "0
~O O~O~]& j~
~.... 1:! '" 8'6h.. ~ "':;;
0 E-< '! ~ .~ ¡ " ] ,
Uu ."~.ê'Ê ~"
-< " 1#'\;i <.> ~ ~
E--í.-' ¡:5'i3t;B",..s ~
=Z 00
í.-'.... -
.. "'... . - >
"'... Z OJ) ~ ~ ~
X ¡:¡::: ~ t).§ ~ "',D B
- ~..,.. "- "8 .",
C > I!!!:; :g :.c:.~B""8 "
Z 0 "' :.. " . ~.¡ ,
~ ..¡¡; ~"' ð~, ~
.. Z ~ "¡:: 0.", ~.- '"
.... '" U '" "", .-
<C ~ .- 0 '"
.... .;,: 0-. ""¡:: '"
-.. '~~ -5 g¡ '§,.t; .§
~tI) """",.t;ç,. <.> ~.
,-", !:1' h, "
-< 51 ¡¡ ~ ~ ..~ ,~ § ,
~ E-- 0. '" 2 .", ~ OJ) <.> '" 1#~
..... "" '" 0 ,- .", "¡:: .. " "
"" O.g 1#8 ~ã ~õ o-..!!J
¡:¡ 1:!¡:! ÔOJ) õ. ~ 1:!..s
Z ._"" ~ ç,. .0
=r~' õ:'S!]1:8 -5õ bj)i"i" ;;:~
E--- i><r:¡ ~~ ".- "~"'J JjOJ)
,,:;: ~8 ~- :. '",~. ."
0 ~o '~è ~] ;§ ~ ~ ~i] § <£ §.
..J -..9 .",'" ç,../:J"o-. "',-", .!!J",
.... U ;§ 1;1, 2! ç,. "-0 ~.9 g"" § '" ~ ~
í.-'¡;¡ .", "" 00",." ..¡::-p, u",
~ ".E gp;S '" ~ .z 5 ~ '" ~ ~ :¡;¡
Q ;SOJ) U::'õ ~§!:,t).~ã.¡:: 5<.>
0 ~., ~".';",,~. ""
N &:06 '" '" 51,.13 "8 £ B § § ~ 0
§<" fj;J ~~"'.S~<.> ,,-5
"'> """8~""§fj . . 13.i
U:;. 1#¡¡i:!.~./:Jt;¡.;,D <.> ¿!u
o¡; 'i3.'¡::OJ)ta~~ ~O
~~ ~8~-p,~~ ~~
Jq .. ...; .,¡ ~
l-< -N 00
-:B
00 I-\~
'-
- 0
á] 00 0
~uê ";; £
.~ 0" 0 "
43~ ~ :a1B
§Jj £ iJ~
'" -..<: 8 !>
";>,.,, 8 00
" ,D ~ 0 '"
~1 ~ ~~
81J e g þ
~if S- ~û
,-,u .;;:;;; .~...; d"
0 '" '2 " ,,£
0;;" !5.¡'j '" ~ £..<:
~~ £8"Eu 'õ."
"~~'" ~~
~ ê ,,5 § !! ~ iJ
'-' .., ~ " .., .-2 0 8
Z ~ § g, 8 ~ g,! ~
0 ~ 0 ¡'j " .~ 0.,-.. 1;¡
""r~ ;:::;>-<,D§ ¡¡¡~'"
oo~. ."" ;:::;~ ",.",'"
00 00 " 0.:;: .~ ,,""
.... - ,,;> - '" B
~Z iJ.~ ~8 iJš¡'j
....9 8¡'j .~'fi 8.,g,
~Eo< ~.", ~'" ~,,~
°u ¡¡..€ 'õ~ ¡¡.~o~
u ..... CI § ~ .~ CI ..
...... " ~ "CI " B
Eo< r ~ .!= ~ ~ .!= :>..!¡
= 'wi ~ ~ .~ ~ ;> 0.
~Z "8 ,,~ ".~8
<t....¡:: ¡5'õ ¡543 ¡5~8
OOz ~ N M
X ~ '" '" '"
- r;¡¡¡~
~ ~ ¡§ ¡'j .s :s "E '" ,g ~ Jj '2 'õ £ 1J 15:Ê iJ æ]
w 0- ~ §" §~'@"""'" <:;:"""-]£"
c.. Eo< ...;¡ ~ § ~.~ -tJ 43 ~ ¡1 ] ] ~ ~.~:€ !! 11 €
c.. Z~ "",U¡¡ "'>-<",8iJ", 0~¡::1!,".¡¡¡
<t ~ ~ ~" .2 0 '" ,g::!:j §'.., 8;E §, ~ if '" >-< 1::
.... ]~>-< "0"<:"""" .~~ ""'8
- ,Dd~ æ.",!>~~. ~"'1 81
r;¡¡¡oo ¡¡.~,,] ""o.g,,§¡'j "'£ "'.';;]:€
~ Oz CI .g¡ ¡5 ~§ ~ '2 ¡'j ~.§ £ .", ~ g:: ~ 0 ~
-< ,," '" '" >-< - "" ~ 0 "
~t: ,þ~." 1;¡§"!!~g t1,:g"8"~~!ii
.. ~-"~ ".".9 . '" O".~"'.
= .sHj~ t!!il~ ~.m6~i~a~
Z '" g. 1;¡ ~ ;: ,,'fiJ:; !5. '- ~ if 8 ..<:.Ê § ~
=r;¡¡¡ £,,§." , 1!~Jj"",~.,j .€"::':..::!~¡j°o
Eo< ~ .", > 0. ;;: "E - ." - 0..<: 0" U § '" 0. 1;¡ - U -
:;;.. " " '" " '" .¡:¡ " 0 o.~ ~ !3 '" .", "
~ "",,~~~ "E~!,"¡¡¡¡5 "O.",iJ"'æO~
9 0 ~ £ § ~.~ "5:6 §, £ '" "E § £ ¡¡¡ g ~ ~ of ~ ,~
""u 8~§,'õ~ 8~~g,£~~ ¡¡.s!5."],,,,~
~~ ~"~.~"'.5 80,,>-<"S£,D .!=" .?:,,~£,-..
f') "'"" .~"""""o ""0"""'00 '"
= £ ~.s.,D ¡j;>,1¡¡'fi..!¡'~- ~-.0"<:o""'8'"
= ",00'" >-<,D,D 0>-<"" .~""-U".~""
N "oþog u"o~-£~ O§š~1!Os-õ
~ .~oo", oo-"""á]iJ "'.¡;¡"'~ "'..<:
I!~.~~ ~iJ]~~:8 8~..!¡¡'jd~ie
O.¡::S.¡¡H v""'-!>..!¡¡¡¡S '" 00",,--;:'
o.oo~ ,,8"'0.0.00 þ~8æ£~<"
u.",o~..!¡ £,D"g~~¡j û"""'fi"~.,§
°æ'-B~ >-<~""'~§,;;; "1.9.",£-
~ o.~" ~~E!3 .fiJ.~ ~""'5",",,~1;¡
d~<>o£ ;>',Dt.",U",~ ..-S,.ë¡::§<>o"
""'~..<: -;>,~8° ." _!>o~o"'~g,
"¡::o.o.- ""-"~o '" "'.", .~'<=<o. '"
¡5~§§'.~ j~8!5.~;~ ¡5§£§.5.§£~
~ N M
'" '" '"
I-I~
01)" '" -" .... - "'-0
Ë£ ;;.i!J áJ.B~!Sð ~
" 0 8 i;: " 8 - '" .... "
,,~ ",.au; -;:S,,~>, ~
."t: 6b§1S ~"::õ°:: "S
~& 8"'~ "'.s;~ ߧ
~ ~ P-'g ~ tJ ~ g.g '", .s ..3
'g", ~""" *~~~~ ~§
:0 -0 ~ ¡'¡ ~ !5.=!iÏ.s 0 ~ ~
=~ 1j§] 1::;5,,"'ê '"~
i§ ~~u "P-~"'~ '"
S~ .SP->, ¡j~1::!3" !]
~= 8þ§ >~.~j£ ~'"
,-, , .~ iJ Û 'õ §. 1ií E ~ " ~ tJ
u .. §] §,-" ~ E £ S 8.'~ ..15- u;
O~ .§§ .~'" ~.~~ ~§~OI)~ .§!5.¡'¡
""¡::z:: 1ií 1ií ]-'< = "6 §~~.§", liíooiJ
~~ -0 -0 "gj ""'" -,,~" -0.=;;
~ 5 iJ E~~ lií~E gp.§g~E 5E~
'-' 8 E E.~" -S.¡:;8 ._,,"-o~ 88'"
Z ~ E E 8 -S .~ ~ IS Û .g 8 ~ !iÏ E E §<]
O~ 8 8 ~§~ ~go .~u.ß0I)8 8""
tijoo. ~ ~ ."'>,;; 5"'::E "iE'6.=-.. ~;:::B
00.00. ]] :s';::~ o.=ò ooe§813'" ]0'"
~ Z ~ ~ £= ~ ';; >,lJ !iÏ E-< u ~.9;:; ~.~ ë
~ £ -" . on ;:S-~ -"-0-0 U-O £-0
",,0 .-.u ~.~" S~ë ~,,"0I)'o1j .~f,~
~~ ~ ~ ",.goo .1::ê'0 ~¡;:.§"'g¡;! ",p-.-
°u !3!3 g~§ 8!5.1¡ ;;~.§-o!iϧ !3-š~
u< g g §=-o :3-0= o"'Bg....ii gëE
E-< r ~ UI 8 8 u .~ U ~ J! .~ :1!iÏ JiE ~ E 8 0 .g
.....~ IS ~ ~ ~s-o ~'O;~ ",,¡'¡,,-o'" ~'§.>
""'Z "'.s.s .s~::E """.s ,.c:>""""'" .s."o
<r: ~~ Þ '" '" "'~ò i!i5~", E-<!'õ'õ1!8 "'s....
CI1 <"'" "'"<t or¡ \0 r- 00
>< ~z = = = = = 0 =
- ~~ .... - - - - - -
c......~ ' . -""01)- ""'-0" "O "-0" U'
Z "'r~' ~'" .~.o,,:¡:: -"""'0 ~"1ií"'-" ",.u
0- ",'" ~¡::.¡::" ~ S o~~....
W ~ ~.~ 5p-o~ 1::;;t: 0'" .[""01) ;:S~
c.. E-<... 0> -o.s.u", 6b"_0 ~! 0" P-
c.. zC;;: ,,"::;'~.~§£ .00liP-@'.i!J" !5.à.§ "']
<r: ~~ .ß..ê "">::EÞ gj~,.-o !SIS §o~-o ~1!
""~ uu-"'.- """"'~ "'"
~-- E "';:;.šáJ S.E1!'" "'~ 6b"'¡'¡ IT£
r~'oo. ",E s-"¡::P- "' ,," .0;!iÏ ....
~ Z "S ""u" ~ ....] '" o-S '" ~- P-¿
~ 0'" ,- ~ "",....".", "'.~- 00
<0 ~G :g¡j1:::B ;',;:<B;; §] .g~~ ::B
~.... -""'~"'" ~...'" ""'" -'" "E
~ J.i ~R6~ ::E1sl.1 .~~ II: r~
~ ,,:: 8.=,,13, Þ.B",g~ õiri !iÏ~.- ~8~
Z -". ~8-"°1::-",E._",~.a ::E°-'<' ~-o-
== 1::-0 "'ê:~" u!5.g~;; 5§ IS¡'¡ Þð.e
E-<[;;1 &] õ¡j~"'g[ 1j,,&ij~ §,"'d .£g~.ê û~1J
~~ p-", "P-"'-o..9 ~£~._>< "g.ß u~.i!J- ,,£¡;!
O~ Œg ",~~"~~,,],, "'",g "."',3~ £00-0
0 0-;:; ""6°""" glií,,"'" -o.e~ £áJ>'" ",s!iÏ
.oJ o_~¡::-o ""OI)OI)~OI) '" ~....",. : ~.
~u "'~ -o.s"'~£ "6."'.0;5.= 8,=8 gP-~-,< g"E'
~ "~~or¡.~ ""'E!3 ".... """ ~"'"
f<')~ s,ê '6"~:;,, ::~-op--o ]]£ "61j£8. 'o~ï'j
Q =: .ß '" § .~ ~ ..8 ¡¡ § .= ..9 u ~ i5. '" :: ~ " § :: .....'"
~ 8 .ß 8 ß '" .~ ~ 0 .gii ~ ~ ¡'¡ g '§ § 2 :g ~ § .ê> 1j
::2 ""'õ",~ u~!iÏ.g~ ""'~ o~,,~ o~~
U§& þSoo~§ Þ.sÞ~~ ~£Œ u~~~ uE<B
0'" û1:i.¡j::§u û'" ."'£ u'~] .£~,,~ ,£~.!!
u~ ,,~8."'g 22~.g o~'" U=.9!iÏ u~13
Þ~ -sP-o~i 1j~,!.a", ::E5§ "oUOI) "nB
û'" ~~"6b" ~ê'ê'i¡'¡ ò!~ -S~E'= -S....e
~ ~~ !~~£] ~IIHI ~RI ~¡Ri ~E-š
E-< "'"<t ~ \0 r- ~
g s s S S 0 ~
I-Itf
~oQ~.9~.9~ gj'-ã ,£ ~ .9 .S 'C"s.~ I::
"".'" 0 ".g" ;Qð§g::~ 0 ~.~ <;j :
&~ §:.§ 8' ~"s ~ e"" ,,"" g¡ 10 ~ '"
",.~ "'... ""
I:: 0 ~ ¡J ã;>,i ]td¡58 >'-""(/)05
u > P;¡'~-'"
1J~,£g¡;::~€ "", > ~ ~ .
~ ~ " ;>,- '" S t~~¡'j~ ..,"'u 0
~""o",,(/)
1í"']S~So <E'~ 'õ~"s1J§P;¡
-¡;¡ ~ ~ ~ " ,,~ ".B 8;§i þ ",.~ >
.9 ~ § .s ë 3§ '~" "'.~ t ~.g en " U
.~ <' ... <E U tê Õ '~ ~ ~ .,13
g"",tl1J;>,:@ -g~g~.,13 ~.s 15. ~~ .s
::E .D .'§ !t -;;"" ~e:,::E:g""
,-., 0 0 > s.~ 3 g g~O p.ã "s'3.9..s~"2
~ .~ "" '" Ë.8~§tê11
u 1J""-ãõ...g;=:-¡;¡ .g~.,13~~~
o~ .~ "'" "'"
~ ¡j.., o.~ ~.~ 5 ~'õ~'~~ 'a:ß~!;¡¡
~~ 'õ"u~5 ê ê"'~°'6'" <E~o"""""
~ "e "" "'" 0 ~-¡;¡õ~
5.., ~.~ t ~ '" 5 011 .~
~ ~ ~ 011 '" 8 ~ ¡: ,S õ"s ~§~L.""
SOll~ ..s~1J 1::.5'~ ê.fi.5
1JS ~ § 2~ ~ ""'""p.,,[;¡j
1J "'.., " ",.g¡ ~.9[;¡jê"i3~
~ E ".", ,,011. ~ [;¡j ~"" "'Ë
tijr.l1 .., ".~ '" I:: '" " 5 "s E '" p..§ 'Ë
~"""õ""':E "s.5 ~ ""s '"
r.I1r.11 '~ § õ ~ 1;; "s .~ "" .~ ~ ~"s ~ '6 ~ ~~ s ~ '"
""Z """.8""',,:E8 ""'.15"'-- ,~ 0 þ-¡;¡ .a p.
~o !3""""'~~.ap. !3:€",,~~8 s.l5.ûJJ"'þ
~.... g.t : 'õ" ~ .~ g 'a """S iÏ 8 011 " "" oQ.~
o~ 8~..s1j"s,,~ 0 "'.., ~ - '" 1::;g¡5 ã'~~
UU II <:::'6gj'~§ .13; ~~:Ëg¡~-š ~ 'ã ,~;;",s
~< .a .~ ~ '" '" ~ .a:Ë¡;:~~"
'" - '" '" "'.¡:: '" "'::s.a°"~ ~.o-""~,,
=~ 8 [;¡j.~ 1j" '" ;.1= :;;; .a "" :E
~~ .f'iÏ",,08<;j~ f'~ .~.fi 8 ~ û-Šã~~'~
~ u"""",s5¡,p.E.~ U '" > '" p..~
....~
r.I1z ...: " ~ "1
~ ¡::Z:::f;IiI .... ::: ::: :::
c f;IiI~ -š.9]":5'3 S~1jU~~~'§ .S 5
z >f;IiI
w O..;¡ .."-,...,,,g1;;..8 "0!3°'S":.D. ~"s
c.. ~~ ~§2:;~~ 8£~~~l::iM 8-g
c.. z~ -g'6I::"g¡""".~ iÏ '"
~ 0118 -;;, 5S l! ~§ .f'"s .9 .S ~ :;:"0
f;IiI.... " ".'" ",-
~-- '§ .,13£ ê'-g.9 -š:~§"in1,3B8 " "
.~ 011
f;IiIr.I1 '" ~ OIl.., ¡: ,,-aê~"""~'" ::si '"
~z § gj' I::.¡j ~ ~ -'" E "ã -"" 0 's s
<0 "'.~ '" ã 011" .a,,8'::::EË~:r: ~>....:
z"" § .~ -e ".S.D .9'3 iJ'.s þ.~ p.~ .~..c: 5
0 '" E
~~ '§ ~ 1J "";!j .9 Þ <:><-'" .~ """" (/) ~ p.
õæ~gj'.Ë" ;="'1::",.s~-gã'3 P;¡ 0
> ;>,"
=~ ~ 'Ë ¿, s .g ,e ;>, ~ ~..c: ..c: ~ ..8 U .a ¡j
... "" .'" '" '" í!J];:: ~,e~ 1Jo~
~f;IiI ~ ã:6 5 ~.~ o.~ '" ¡¡ ~ g¡
~~ ¡¡J < Õ:-S! ~ § ~= õ § ,1= .¡;j <E .,13 ~ " 0
1::~.82:::~"s"" "s'~"s
o~ .~ 5.8 5 ¡} ê .g¡,,~-'~ooã ~ -g !t
¡::z:::0 ;§~]~8 """ "'~.o -'"..c:-
'.E~.:50.6"U ... '" '"
~u ¡j U ~ ~.Q] 0 '" '"
:6~9£ u.~ t;¡ ° ~ ,,:'ij
~~ 5¡,,- .D ~ -¡;¡ ~ - .~ ;; '6 þ U <;j ::E .9"s '"
'" 0 0 "'.~ 'õ 0 "s.D ",.~ ""s 0 "'..c: "
Q ,-,... ¡: ~ ~;Ei ;>, .8 ..E '§ U "s" ê~~
~ § " 5£ 8. ê' ¡j '" gj' "'~l! E í!J"s
oE""""""'1=: ~g88;::,gg"s .", . 0
U Ë 8 ~ ã <~ -:~§~.s<:::ê'2. § § gj'
'" :E ,J
f' r' .~ ~ :Ë ,s 0 ":"",,'~~~gj'.9~ Þ"'.D
JI U "s "',~ '" U '~~os.",-.~t.~ û<E-
" .'" "" t: ~;;: '" ib¿,'.g 0 ~ 0 g 0] ;>,-
1J-"
"sgt;¡.g<E",~ g~ !; ~ s ~ ¡}"" ;:: å ~
<;j::E~§"s].,j "'¡:ê'~o~ ';;.1= ~':~
¡5o..s.92u< ~:98.s~:;;'õã-Š
...: " ~ "1
.... ::: ::: :::
¡-15
gp,.g s "'.8
.- - ",-
"\) '" !i > ~
š "".t;¡.2 g.
" t .þ 0 ~
.- > .~ - u
~Hjo=o
:I:°.-s.g::E
::J:I: " 2d
<IJ . -' 0."
.5 ~ ~~ ~ .
'õ õ "; .;::;: Æ
...0- "0.
"-"'<::"0="':>-.
-- ~~.g!igg
Uo"- ,.g.g,~"§~
,...., _.- " " 0 "
~i :5::g"~'~
~ ~0't "fi~8
'-' :>-. " B;::s ."
"",g 8. '" ~ ..
Z ¡¡ 0 ,- "..s..s
0 .~ g.g...." OJ)
t;j íJ'1 '6 ~ g . JLê
íJ'1 íJ'1 OJ) 0 § !3"" OJ
.... Z ,,0 0 0
~ ;Q .. ",' g ¿ "
0 s..s B .!:!.9
.... ~,,~go."S
0 E-<~ -S 'g 0 ~~
U U ~ '"8.- ,¡¡ ~
< ;3"fiUtgp"
E-<~ "'",O-5..¡::"
..... Z þ,,::E G" ¡¡J
ë::S û -5 d ~ 8.~
<c....¡:: "'"
~Z '
~ ~~
~ 6 ~ .5 : ~.5 ãÆ ~~ ~
w ...;¡ -5',,~'õ,,¡>., ~'"
8: E-< ~ .~ § B "';; ~ ~ ~ «:
<c z~ OJ)88..,g '¡¡,H5~
~.... .~ ,,~ggp"'.~g
~-- !3,.g-5.þ'-"¡::~;¡5"<::
~íJ'1 O-OJ)~""oo"o;::s~
~z ~gp'Ë8~s30=~"
<0 ,,:S¡¡:;¡o.',,~..s-5
~.... 0 ..""'" '" "",
E-<§.8 ~ ,,:,5 ~,.g-5.8
< - "S ",'- .. 0. - § -
~ ~"a~..s~.ss¡¡
Z .. '" 0 -¡:¡ 0.", '" '"
=r~' ",g~"'~OB,,]
E-<- "0"""-""-
~~ ~~SffJ~@'~1~.8
o~ ';;8::J"3~:I:s §
~ 0 - " <IJ '" ,... ::J 0 Þ..¡::
.... '" 0 " <IJ 0 v "
r~U ¡su,.g.. "á!G.~
WI ~ 5b"-' - = ui..<:: .. §
~ "'O.8'~!3;]]ê
<:> -- 00-0
<:> '" " E .. 0 0.'"- -
N §""..<::O;::s~ 0
Sg-õ=",go
8 Ë 8.§.8 ~ 1i ¡;:: jj
£r'.~ m ~ a] ~,:: "
u",-5.¡;;.g,~"'¡¡O~
.5 g] ~;E '"iJ§ ~.r ~Ë
.. ::E ~g ;< 0 -: § 0 §
¡5d..s1Agu..su«:u
":
-
1- I (p
A TT A CHMENT 2
GMOC Chairperson's Cover Memo and GMOC 2003 Annual Report
\ -Il
June 1,2004
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members ofthe Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
FROM: William Tripp, Chairperson
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
SUBJECT: 2003 GMOC Annual Report (July 2002 to June 30, 2003, to the Current Time and
Five Year Forecast)
The GMOC is appreciative of the time and professional expertise 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 and Cherryl Cisneros who
provided excellent staff support.
I would like to recognize the commissioners of the GMOC: Vice Chair, David Krogh, Rafael
Munoz, Michael Spethman, Steve Palma, Arthur Garcia, Kevin O'Neill, 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 oflife" in Chula Vista.
Over the last few years the GMOC has been in the lead identifying ways we can become more
responsive to the community and effective in our message to Council. The most important
aspects of those changes has been:
. Holding regular public workshops;
. Focusing greater attention on western Chula Vista; and,
. Having greater future vision, by dealing with current issues and looking critically at the
next 5 year time period.
The GMOC is pleased with these accomplisbments and looks forward to additional changes
brought forth through the "top to bottom" review process.
As we review the City's growth over the last several years, two things are clear, first there has
been a lot of growth, and second the City has done a remarkable job in providing the facilities
and services necessary to accommodate this rate of development. It is a testament to the current
growth management program, and all the individual actions that have taken place, that we are
doing so well. We all hear the complaints about growth, but I know of no other jurisdiction that
has handled this level of growth so well, and has maintained a desirable city image.
\ -I~
But, we all know we can and must continue to strive to do better.
Seven of the eleven quality of life thresholds were judged by the GMOC to be in full
compliance, these include:
. Fiscal
. Air quality
. Sewer
. Water
. Drainage
. Parks and Recreation
. Traffic
Four of the thresholds had at least partial non-compliance:
. Library has fallen below the threshold but a program is in place to correct this.
. The Police threshold has two components, Emergency and Urgent response times. The
emergency response time threshold was met but the urgent response time was not.
. The Fire/EMS response time did not meet the threshold.
. The school threshold is divided into elementary schools and secondary schools.
Elementary schools were judged to be in compliance but secondary schools were found
to be non-compliant.
There are two Statements of Concern that the GMOC has identified. The GMOC asks that
Council issue appropriate resolutions so that our concerns are fonnally sent to the responsible
agency. Although both concerns are about schools, neither represents a current problem or
shortcoming. The first simply recognizes that eventually new schools will be needed in western
Chula Vista as redevelopment occurs, and that a financing plan for this eventuality needs to be
identified. Second, while efforts to construct high school 13 are reported to be on track for an
06/07 school year opening, there is no room for delay. But, we all know delays do happen.
Again, the GMOC simply recognizes this and believes that it is both appropriate and prudent that
a contingency plan be prepared for how students will be housed in case there is a delay.
The following report includes a more detailed presentation of the eleven threshold standards,
identified issues, findings, and recommendations to the City Council.
I look forward to the joint City Council, Planning Commission and GMOC workshop on June 9,
2004.
\-/9
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
2003 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT
Joint Workshop June 9. 2004
Review Period 7/1/02 to 6/30/03
And Five Year Forecast to December 2008
Commission Members
William Tripp, Chair (Environmental)
David W. Krogh, Vice Chair (Sweetwater/Bonita)
Arthur M. Garcia, (Education)
Rafael Munoz (Eastern Territories)
Michael Spetbman (Center City)
Steve Palma (Southwest)
Richard Arroyo (Business)
Gary L. Nordstrom (Development)
Kevin O'Neill (Planning Commission)
Staff
Daniel Forster, Growth Management Coordinator
Cherryl Cisneros, Management Assistant
June 2004
(Note: prior to the acceptance by the City Council, the contents of this report represents the findings
and recommendations of the GMOC and are not necessarily those ofthe City ofChula Vista,)
I-~O
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
2004 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP EDITION
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................4
1.1 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) ...........................................................4
1.2 Review Process......................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Growth Forecast...................................................................................................................................4
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 6
3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................8
3.1 FISCAL.................................................................................................................................................8
3,1.1 DIF Fees..,..,..,...,..,..,...,.."..,......,..,..,..,....,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,...,..,...,......,..,......,..,..,..,..,.,..,..,..,..,...........8
3.2 AIR QUALITY .....................................................................................................................................9
3.3 SEWER...............................................................................................................................................10
3,3.1 Timely Construction of the City's Trunk Sewer System ...............................................................10
3.3.2 Purchasing Rights Capacity With The San Diego Metropolitan Water Authority (METRO)......... I I
3.4 WATER...............................................................................................................................................12
3.4.1 Water Distribution System Capacity.........................................................................,...........,..,...,,12
3.5 LIBRARIES........................................................................................................................................14
3.5.1 Library Building Plan ...........................................................................................,..,.,..,..,..,..,..,,...,14
3.6 DRAINAGE........................................................................................................................................16
3.6.1 Drainage East and West.................................................................................................."..,..,..,...,.16
3.6.2 GMOC Drainage Workshop ,..,..,..,..,..,....,..,.....,..,..,.........,..,...,..,...,..,..,...,..,..,..,..,..,.,..,.".....,..,...,.17
3.7 PARKS & RECREATION................................................................................................................18
3.7.1 Western Chula Vista Park Standard....................,........,.......................................,.........................18
3.7.2 Joint Use of City/School Recreation Facilities ..................................................................,............19
3.8 POLICE...............................................................................................................................................20
3.8.1 Threshold Met..,.."..,..,..,...,..,.."..,..,..,..........,..,..,..,..,..,......,..,......,......,..,..,...,..,..,..,....,..,.....,..,..,...,.21
3.8.2 Removal of False Alarms from Urgent Response Times................................................................22
3.9 FIRE / EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES..............................................................................23
3.9.1 Maintaining Threshold..........................................,..,...............,...,..,..,...............".".,..,....................23
3.10 TRAFFIC............................................................................................................................................25
3,10.1 Traffic Workshop ,...,..,...,.......................,......................."..,..,.."..,..,...,..,..,.."....,.".......,.....,......25
3,10.2 Traffic Threshold Met ,.."..,..,..".,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,.."...............,...................................,...,..25
3.10.3 Timely Construction of SR-125 ..................,.."."."..,..,..,.."..,..,.."..,..,...,..,..,..,..,.".,..,..,..,..,...,..26
3.10.4 Moderating Growth Due to Traffic Impacts,..............................................................................26
3.10.5 Traffic Issues: Highway Congestion and Transit Threshold ......................................................27
3.10,6 Road Classification Error .,..".".".".".,..".".,...,..........................................................................28
2003 GMOC Annual Report 2 \ -)\ June 2004
3.10.7 Concurrent Construction and Public Notification .....................................................................,29
3.11 SCHOOLS...........................................................................................................................................30
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance......,....".,..,.,..,..,.,..,..,.........,..."...,.."..,..".".......,..,..,....,..,...,.............,..".31
3.11.2 Growth and School Financing ..........,.".,..,..,..,......................,.."..,.".,................"..,...,.............,.33
3.11.3 School Construction ..".."..,..,.".,..,.,.............,..,..,...,..."..".............,..,.,..,..,.".,.............,...,...,,......35
3.11.4 Joint Use ...............,.......,...,..,.".,..,.,..,.,.......,,..,..,.."...,..."..,..,......,..,..,..,....,..,.,......"..".."..."......36
2003 GMOC Annual Report 3 \ -J~ June 2004
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
In November 1987, the City Council 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
col1ection, which in this case is July 1,2002 through June 30, 2003.
2, Pertinent issues identified during the second half of 2003 and early 2004 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 2004 through December 2008 is assessed for
potential threshold compliance concerns. This assures that the GMOC has a future orientation.
During this process, the GMOC encourages each City Department 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 has held 13 regular meetings ITom September 2003 through March 2004. In addition, GMOC
members participated in a City field trip, hosted a Community Workshop on how the traffic threshold is defined
and monitored, City Departments and outside agencies completed threshold questionnaires, GMOC members
reviewed the questionnaires and, where necessary, asked department or agency representatives to appear in
person to make clarifications and to answer questions.
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.
1.3 Growth Forecast
In October 2003 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
I The forecast was updated after January 1, 2004 to reflect actual building permits issued and housing units finaled. The forecast is
available on the City's web site.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 4 \ - .:J.~ June 2004
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 from January 2004
through December 2008, indicated an additional 11,400 residential units would be permitted for construction in
the city, for an annual average of2,280 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 from April 2003 through March 2006. The Permit Monitoring system will lower the number of permits
relative to the forecast over that period. However, as the GMOC forecast is for a five-year period, units that
were forestal1ed by the Permit Monitoring Program may after March 2006 come forward. In addition, to be
conservative, it is prudent to maintain the estimate of 11,400 residential units over the next 5 years so that
facility and service levels are measured against a higher standard. Annual updates will be provided.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 5 \ -~~ June 2004
~
'"
.....
~
.¡¡
~
~
"0
] ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ><: ~ ><: ><:
'"
( ,)
...
-=
...
~
-<
~
~
~ - '"
00 ~
~ õ
~ ~ ~ ><: ><:
-< ~
¡..¡ ...
~ ~
~
~
0
u
~ ~ ~ ~"".g
~ s S .':! ~ ij
0 § ~ ~ ~ 13 J
= .ä. .~ ~~ ~t~.~~
00 ~ 13 ~~ .':!~'-.È~
~ þ <> "'.....~ .~'-~Q.¡;-
'ä ~<>P::.~ ÞÞ'" U)~~"<5§
;::S .g~o( _:::: '~.~:::;:o~ ""'~"'~
~ 1-<1-< ~._<>I-<I-< 0- ~
= ",C;<><> .O::Jà","ooo~i:Eio "~"iJ ~
.~ I-< ~ ~ ,Éj ,g t;j ¿¡ ~ ;g æ æ .~ ~ -5 ð c)S ~"" u
~ ~<"';;>""¡~Il< Il< ~f-;", U
~
= ~
N ~
\ -~5
..----..-----.-.--------..----.------
'"
.~
-¡¡¡ " "
E-< :> 0
-0 :Ë ,§
SOP, :x:
g;<a
p.B8
0
-0
<
= a
" "
~ 1; g :x: :x:
õi 0
ci5 u
'"
00::9-0=
ç: 0 a "
'6~-o.§
ç: tJ" § ç:
" ~"
p., <Z)~
'-< , "
<£ ç: 0
~ ~.§
'~ f:! P, :x: ~ :x: :x:
".a a
õ ;:I 0
p.,p;..U
-0
õþ~
~]" :x: ::<: :x: :x:
",~::g ~
.E"'¡
E-<
-0
- "
o~~
iJ a ~ :x::x::x::x: :x: :x::x:
tJ~
'Õ' g; ;.. ...,
bl) '" ",' bl)
f! .... .¡:¡ ¡;::
§ ~ ~ ~ .....
::9 .J: ~ ~ ö: §
0 '" ~ ~ ~ '-~
~ i': 0 1'- t.t¡ :§.~
f:! ~ ~~ {¡~.~
..0 Þ ..... '" -.. '-~c::¡
E-< ~ ~~-g.::¡ þþ~ ",~~è
;:I .c '" '" .~ .¡:: "" u - ..... .c: <:>
~ CI t 11 ëS..!:l 11 '<:J 1ì !S 0 ~ S g J¡ ~...,
~""~,".D,g""c'1'?-o.c.ci':,"..c: u¿c:5
~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -,
\-:J-(p
___...0___.__---.--.--------.
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 (PFDIF) increase,
Recommendation: No recommendations at this time.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 8 \ -:J.l June 2004
3.2 AIR QUALITY
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 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
3.2.1 Discussion: City Policy on Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Issue: It has come to the attention of the GMOC that the City does not have a
policy regarding the acquisition and use of alternative fuel vehicles.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to assign appropriate City
staff to develop and recommend a City policy position regarding the
acquisition and use of alternative fueled vehicles by the City and that this
policy recommendation be reported to the GMOC during next years
review cycle.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 9 \ - ~i5 June 2004
-------------__._0__----.0.--...--.
3.3 SEWER
Threshold: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shan not exceed City Engineering
Standards.
2. The City shan annuany provide the San Diego Metropolitan
Wastewater Authority with a 12-18 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 forecasted and continuing growth, or the City
Public Works Department staff shan gather the necessary data. The
information provided to the GMOC shan 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 shan 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 City's Trunk Sewer System
Issue: Two major trunk sewer systems are necessary to support the City's
growth through build out, these are the Salt Creek and Wolf Canyon
sewer lines.
Construction of the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer segments is necessary to
serve growth over the next five to seven years. Until the Salt Creek
Trunk Sewer is instaned, new development in the Poggi Canyon basin
must temporarily pump sewage to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk sewer.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 10 \-d-'1 June 2004
~----~-~_._-----_.. - --~---
Construction on the Salt Creek Sewer began in 2002 and is expected to
be completed within 2004. The estimated cost for the Salt Creek Trunk
Sewer is $18 million.
The Wolf Canyon Sewer is currently in the preliminary planning stages,
It is estimated to cost $7 minion and be completed by June 2006.
Acknowledgment: Trunk sewer segments to support the City's sewer collection and
transmission system through buildout are either in place or planned to
coincide with growth. The GMOC will seek annual updates on progress,
3.3.2 Purchasing Rights Capacity With The San Diego Metropolitan
Water Authority (METRO)
Issue: The City now has 20.875mgd of capacity rights with METRO. However,
recent analysis indicates that this may not be sufficient to support the
City's overall sewer capacity needs at buildout. As part of the
Wastewater Master Plan Update, the City's buildout requirement is being
evaluated. Based on flow analysis by City staff, it is estimated that by
the year 2020, the city will be generating approximately 21.468 MGD of
sewage. Further analysis will be conducted based on the updated
General Plan.
0 19.508 21.468
5 20.875 20.875
.. Increase in capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacity rights resulting fi"om the construction of the new
Southbay Treatment Plant
I 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.
Recommendation: That next years report to the GMOC provide an update on the capacity
shortfall and the strategy to increase the City's capacity rights or other
options that may be available.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 11 \-30 June 2004
3.4 WATER
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 12-18 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
In Compliance
FUTURE
Threshold Likely Met
3.4.1 Water Distribution System Capacity
Issue: In western Chula Vista the ability of the existing water distribution
system to support potential land use in-fill and intensification is reported
to be well positioned. The Sweetwater District has engaged an
aggressive upgrading program whereby the water system is getting
younger every year, The district's capital improvement program is
poised to upgrade their system to meet current standards and support
growth. There will remain site specific situations that will have to be
addressed, but the system as a whole is sound.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 12 \ -"31 June 2004
Recommendation: That the City continues to work in cooperation with the Sweetwater
Authority in identifYing strategic water distribution improvements and
funding mechanisms.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 13 I -:,~ June 2004
3.5 LIBRARIES
Threshold: The City shan 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 shan be
phased such that the City will not fan 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 (6/30/2003)
Actual: 502 gross square feet per 1,000 population.
Not in Compliance (12/31/2003)
Estimated: 491 gross square feet per 1,000 population.
FUTURE
Not in Compliance
3.5.1 Library Building Plan
Issue: The Library Master Plan calls for the construction of a 30,000 square
foot fun-service, regional library in Rancho Del Rey by 2005. This
library would be constructed on City-owned property located at East H
Street and Paseo Ranchero. This library is expected to be open by 2006,
Given the population growth of the community a temporary library
threshold failure will occur. In fact, based on current population
estimates for year end 2003 of 207,888, the total library square feet
required equals 103,944 (207,888/1000 X 500). This represents a current
shortfan of approximately 1,944 square feet (103,944 - 102,000).
According to the Growth Management Program "Should the GMOC
determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the
City Council shan forrnany adopt and fund tactics to bring the library
system into compliance, Construction or other actual solutions shall be
scheduled to commence within three years."
2003 GMOC Annual Report 14 \ - ~3 June 2004
One way to address this shortfall is to begin construction of additional
library space by year end 2006. As stated above, construction of the
Rancho del Rey library is expected to be completed by this time.
Acknowledgement: The City has taken a proactive position and is continuing to actively
pursue the Rancho Del Rey Library Planning/Building Plan Program and
has placed as a priority the identification of adequate construction
funding with a target completion date of 2006.
2003 GMOC Annual Repart 15 1- 3~ June 2004
-- .------------...----...-------
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 Drainage East and West
Issue: The adequacy of drainage facilities in Chula Vista's eastern "new"
growth areas is an integral aspect of planning and development with
financing documented in a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). The
drainage inITastructure is then made a requirement as development
proceeds so as to attain concurrency. This process has been an apparent
success as the GMOC has not found drainage to be an issue in eastern
Chula Vista.
Drainage in the west is another matter. While not a product of growth
drainage facilities in the west are in various degrees of service. Some
facilities provide adequate service while others have decayed with age
and are not performing adequately, Further, as standards for drainage
has increased over the years the older western facilities have not been
updated nor are they required to be. Given these combined factors,
portions of the current drainage system in western Chula Vista represent
a level of service that is below what the GMOC would consider adequate
in eastern Chula Vista. It is a positive step that these conditions are
being comprehensively identified in the current Drainage Master Plan.
Although, the GMOC has no direct role in non-growth related impacts,
there is still a quality of life concern that the GMOC believes the City
should address. At the same time, the GMOC recognizes that the city
has budgeted $5.3 million for the current fiscal year to upgrade drainage
in western Chula Vista. This amount of funding is significant because it
represents as much as a ten fold increase ITom previous years. The need
2003 GMOC Annual Repart 16 \-35 June 2004
for additional funding to carry out further improvements relative to the
soon to be completed Drainage Master Plan wi]] be reviewed by the
GMOC,
Development in-fill and land use intensification are likely to occur in
western Chula Vista, This growth wi]] fa]] under the purview of the
growth management program and therefore the GMOC. It is the
understanding of the GMOC that a comparable public facilities financing
program will be implemented to assure that this new growth wi]] pay
their fair share for drainage improvements in western Chula Vista.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to have appropriate City
staff to provide the GMOC a briefing during next years review cycle on
how new development in western Chula Vista wi]] be required to pay
their fair share of public improvements in general and drainage in
particular.
3.6.2 GMOC Drainage Workshop
Acknowledgment: As one oflast year's recommendations the GMOC requested a workshop
on how funding priorities are set for the replacement of corrugated metal
pipes (CMP). This workshop was presented to the GMOC at their
meeting of December 11,2003.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 17 1-3~ June 2004
-,,-- -------,,---- --------
3.7 PARKS & RECREATION
Threshold: Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate
facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east ofI-805.
THRESHOLD FINDING:
CURRENT:
In Compliance
Laud: Actual: 3.14 acres per 1,000 residents east ofI-805
Facilities: Actual Facilities - Based on Parks Master Plan
FUTURE:
LAND: Will Be Met
FACILITY: Threshold Likely Met
3.7.1 Western Chula Vista Park Standard
Issue: Currently, there is no park standard in place for western Chula Vista,
The GMOC has made two observations/recommendations related to this
situation over the last several years:
1. there should be a park standard developed for western Chula
Vista, and;
2. that the standard adopted will of necessity need to be different
from that of the east given the vastly different situations
between each areas.
It is understood that at the current time there are efforts to create a
western Chula Vista standard through the development of a western
Chula Vista Parks Master Plan and an accompanying financing plan
with appropriate developer impact fees. The GMOC agrees with this
tailored approach and one that indicates funding sources,
The GMOC does not wish to dictate the specifics of such planning
efforts, but instead seeks to focus on their results, However, we know
that the Parks Master Plan, that was adopted last year, took nearly 8
years to complete. We do not want a repeat of that situation.
Recommendation: That the City Council directs the City Manager to set a reasonable time
frame to complete the Western Chula Vista Parks Master Plan, financing
program, and related standards and to al1ocate sufficient resources to
2003 GMOC Annual Report 18 1-37 June 2004
---.- .----
insure that the schedule is met. The GMOC believes that significant
progress can be achieved within the next year.
3.7.2 Joint Use of City/School Recreation Facilities
Issue: In last year's report the GMOC made the recommendation that "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."
The reason for making such a recommendation is that while joint use of
facilities is a laudable concept and may work in some communities, the
record of success in Chula Vista is not encouraging. The typical scenario
is that an agreement or contract is entered into and with all the best
intentions the joint use goes forward. Over time, however, there is the
erosion of general public use to greater school use. There is no denying
that the schools need the recreation facilities for the programs they are
responsible to implement. The general public has increasing needs as
well.
Recommendation: The rewards of successful joint use makes the attempt worthwhile.
However, any joint use recreational facilities should, as current policy
dictates, not be counted toward meeting a park and recreation standard as
the long term viability of such efforts cannot be assured.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 19 \-~8 June 2004
3.8 POLICE
Threshold: 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 (7.30 minutes) or
less (measured annually).
THRESHOLD FINDING:
CURRENT:
Emergency response within 7 min.: Threshold Met
Emergency response average time: Threshold Met
Urgent Response within 7 minutes: Threshold Not Met
Urgent response average time: Threshold Not Met
FUTURE:
Emergency response within 7 min.: Threshold Likely Met
Emergency response average time: Thresholds Likely Met
Urgent Response within 7 min.: Threshold Likely Not Met
Urgent response average time: Threshold Likely Not Met
Percent Time Avera e Time
81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec,
57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec
80.8% 7 minutes 4:55min./sec.
50.2% 7 minutes 9:24min./sec.
1 Priority 1 - Emergency Calls, Life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident);
robbery or panic alarms; urgent cover calls fiom officers, Response: Immediate response by two officers ITOm any
source or assignment, immediate 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 with potential for violence); burglary alanns. Response: Immediate response by two
officers ITom clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc,)
2003 GMOC Annual Report 20 1-39 June 2004
3.8.1 Threshold Met
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 and technological improvements.
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 initiatives as listed in last years report
to continue the reduction in response times.
The GMOC has determined that the Emergency Response Call for
Service response time threshold has been met.
HISTORIC RESPONSE TIMES
PRIORITY I - Emerl!ency Response, Calls For Service
Call Volume % of Call Response w/in Average Response
7 Minutes Time
Threshold 81.0% 5:30
FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55
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 1999 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50
While achieving the response time threshold, the GMOC is confident
that the Police Department will remain diligent in meeting and achieving
shorter response times than what is indicated as the Threshold Standard.
In achieving shorter response times, the Police Department has made a
set of recommendations for which GMOC support is requested, The
recommendations are reasonable and the GMOC lends their support
aware that budgetary constraints and priority setting will result in a case
by case evaluation.
Recommendation: The GMOC supports the following Police Department initiatives subject
to necessary overriding budgetary considerations:
1. the dispatch staffing model and the Dispatch Manager Concept.
2. continued use of the patrol staffing model and the advance hiring
program,
3. planned upgrades of police technologies, such as MDCs, wireless
data transmission to patrol vehicles, and global positioning systems
'The FY9B-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-199B.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 21 I~ 40 June 2004
4. research and evaluation of:
a. internet crime reporting;
b. alternative deployment tactics, such as revised beat
configurations and bike patrol; and
c, an aerial platform.
3.8.2 Removal of False Alarms from Urgent Response Times
Issue: The incidence of false alarms seems endemic, and one that win not easily
be remedied. As such the GMOC requested that response times to
Urgent Calls for Service be calculated without those for false alarms.
The result was that response times improved. The GMOC believes that
this is a more accurate measure of the Police Department's response to
actual urgent calls for service.
Recommendation: That future Urgent Cans for Service response times be reported to the
GMOC without calls responding to false alarms,
15,024 of 71,268 50,2% 9:24
22,930 of 71,268 46.8% 10:00
22,199 of71,859 45.6% 10:04
25,234 of 73,977 47,9% 9:38
23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37
20,405 of 74,405 45,8% 9:35
22,342 of 69,196 52,9% 8:13
22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50
21,7430f71,197 64,5% 6:38
21,900 of 73,485 63.4% 6:49
2003 GMOC Annual Report 22 1- 41 June 2004
3.9 FIRE / EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Threshold: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical
units shan respond to cans throughout the city within seven (7) minutes
in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annuany).
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 75.5 7 minutes
3.9.1 Maintaining Threshold
FIRE/EMS - Emergency Response Times Since 1994
Years Call Volume % of All Call Response w/in 7:00
Minutes
FY 2002-03 8,088 75.5%
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%
Issue: Last year the GMOC listed three fundamental issues that in part
explained the lower decline in response times from FY 00-01 when the
threshold was met, these were:
(I) 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
2003 GMOC Annual Report 23 1-4~ June 2004
(3) improved management information systems in regards to
monitoring response times.
In addition to the three items listed above, the GMOC is also asking the
question of whether changes in state regulations regarding equipment
and uniform readiness prior to departure has created longer response
times, particular in the turn-out phase.
Support: The GMOC supports the current Fire Department initiative to prepare a
Strategic Plan and then an updated Master Plan. Through this effort the
Fire Department can reassess how the number and physical location of
fire stations, equipment, and staffing, are optimum to meet community
needs. The GMOC looks forward to receiving these documents as they
are developed.
Recommendation: The GMOC continues to recommend that the Fire Department makes
formal and written comments to development review bodies on the
impact of community design on response time. The GMOC would
appreciate receiving copies of such reviews so we are better acquainted
with the relevant issues being discussed.
Recommendation: Last year the GMOC recommended that response time feedback on a
daily basis broken out by individual trip and station would offer the Fire
Department a tool to better diagnose the situation and perhaps identify
procedural/operational changes that could improve response times, The
GMOC was pleased to learn that such a program was implemented and
was a significant factor in the reduction of turn-out times. This level of
review is recommended to be continued.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to assign staff to
undertake an assessment on the amount of time added to a response due
to changes in legislation, procedural requirements, and equipment-
uniform changes that have taken place since 1989. With this
information the GMOC can better assess how response times have been
impacted by legal, management, and technological changes rather than to
growth. At this time the GMOC cannot state with certainty that response
time threshold failure is due to growth,
2003 GMOC Annual Report 24 j- 43 June 2004
3.10 TRAFFIC
Threshold: City-wide: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "c" or better as measured
by observed average travel 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
Likely Met
3.10.1 Traffic Workshop
Issue: During last years GMOC community workshop to present the draft
recommendations numerous questions were raised about the nature of the
traffic threshold standard and how it is measured. In response to this the
GMOC hosted a workshop on November 13, 2003 where the City's
Engineering Department staff provided a presentation and responded to
questions. Approximately 50 community members attended.
The questions received were principally on the timing of planned road
improvements and transit. The issue of the traffic threshold itself and
how it is measured did not become a focus for discussion. The GMOC
considers the workshop a success.
3.10.2 Traffic Threshold Met
Issue: Many in the community are concerned that the traffic threshold is met
when they have experienced a deterioration in travel speed over the
years. This is an understandable reaction. We offer two considerations:
(I) The roads in eastern Chula Vista are undergoing almost
continuous construction for either putting in another lane or
2003 GMOC Annual Report 25 I - '+'f June 2004
. ---.---------..
adding sewer and water capacity. Roads undergoing such
improvements are by definition not functioning at their design
capacity and are therefore not subject to monitoring, Therefore,
traffic created by road construction is not included when
measuring threshold compliance.
(2) Many of the roads were initially "over built". That is
they were designed to provide level of service C to the build out
population long before that population moved in. As a result, in
the early years roads like Telegraph and East H Street were
viewed like Olympic Parkway is today providing a level of
service A or B. But now those streets are functioning at their
design capacity and this is perceived as traffic levels above what
some feel is desirable. But, the current traffic levels are within
the threshold limits which is level of service C with no more than
2 hours ofD,
3.10.3 Timely Construction of SR-125
Issue: 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 by the end of calendar year 2006. A possible
early opening of the Birch Road to SR-54 northbound link may come as
early as late-summer of 2006
Recommendation: That City Council continues to support the timely construction ofSR-125
to avoid a potential traffic threshold failure in eastern Chula Vista.
3.10.4 Moderating Growth Due to Traffic Impacts
Issue: Based upon traffic model analysis conducted through the City's
Engineering Department and outside consultants, the City's road system
is expected to function within the growth management quality of life
threshold given three factors:
1. Efforts are being undertaken to increase road capacity
including:
. East H Street west-to-north bound I-80S on-ramp
improvements to be under construction by summer
and completed by end of calendar year 2004 (east
bound improvements were completed in March
2003);
. Telegraph Canyon Road north side widening project
to I-80S interchange, construction is underway on
the channel and shopping center entrance
improvements and the roadway completion date is
end of calendar year 2004 (we are not widening the
on-ramp);
2003 GMOC Annual Report 26 1-4'5 June 2004
. Improvement of the Olympic Parkway I-80S
interchange construction starts by May 2004 and
construction is completed by end of 2005;
. Promoting Transportation Demand Management
Techniques (TDM).
2. The City has implemented a residential building "Permit
Monitoring" program that matches future growth in eastern
Chula Vista with road capacity till the time SR-125 opens.
3. In the event of a growth management traffic threshold
failure, the provisions in the growth management ordinance
will override the "Permit Monitoring" program.
Recommendation: That the City Council does not approve additional residential
development to receive building permits in eastern Chula Vista prior to
the opening of SR-125 above what the current Permit Monitoring
Program allows without verified additional traffic capacity that will be in
place concurrent with development.
3.10.5 Traffic Issues: Highway Congestion and Transit Threshold
Issue: In last years report the GMOC made 2 recommendations for additional
research that has been provided. This information related to Chula
Vista's contribution to traffic increases on I-80S and the development of
a transit quality oflife standard.
3.10.5 A Growth Impact on Highway Traffic
Not surprisingly, City growth has added to highway congestion, The
magnitude of this contribution is what is in question. Overall, traffic
counts indicate that Chula Vista's share of the amount of traffic on I-80S
is around 33%. In terms of how much Chula Vista's growth contributes
to the year to year increase in traffic, it was found that from 1997 to 2001
about 30% of the change in the traffic count can be attributed to Chula
Vista. This means that non-city influences accounted for about 70% of
the traffic increase on the I-80S.
The City has limited means to influence highway improvements on 1-5 or
I-80S through the City's membership in SANDAG. Given this, it is
unlikely that local growth could be regulated based on the finding that
city growth has an impact on highway congestion. And, even if the city
were to restrict growth the vast majority of the increases in traffic are
outside of the City's jurisdiction so traffic levels would continue to build.
Therefore, further action by the GMOC is not contemplated at this time.
The GMOC recognizes that addressing highway traffic congestion
requires a regional solution, While the GMOC is not in a position to
endorse a specific solution, we are aware of current regional proposals to
2003 GMOC Annual Report 27 I - L.ftp June 2004
deal with traffic being discussed through SANDAG. This is viewed as
the correct forum for such matters.
3.10.5 B A Transit Threshold
A transit level of service threshold was also evaluated. Principal1y
because transit service itself is external1y funded and because it is a
reoccurring cost with no long term financial commitment, it was not
deemed practical to create a threshold related to service. However,
physical improvements and site planning that are designed to
accommodate transit are within City control and represent a one time
capital expense, Such things as bus pul1 outs, transit medians as on East
Palomar Street in Otay Ranch, and pedestrian oriented walkways are
examples of possible transit related improvements that can be linked to a
threshold. Another alternative is to adopt public policy that such transit
related improvements are made a design requirement on designated
transit corridors in new planned communities and in redevelopment and
intensification projects. The GMOC's initial evaluation is that
establishing the appropriate policy structure to require a physical
environment that accommodates transit is a more practical approach as
opposed to creating a new threshold.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to assign the appropriate
staff to investigate the practicality, and implement as appropriate, transit
design requirements for new planned communities, redevelopment and
intensification areas, and report on progress to the GMOC during next
years reVIew.
3.10.6 Road Classification Error
Issue: In the GMOC report for the 2001 fiscal year review, the City
recommended, and the GMOC agreed, that road segments and
classifications needed to be updated due to growth and changing
situations. It has been reported to the GMOC that two of the road
segments were incorrectly identified. Those road segments are:
1. Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H St. - Olympic Parkway): This segment
was reclassified as Class I, but should be a Class ll.
2. Paseo Ranchero/Heritage Road (Rancho Del Rey Parkway -
Olympic Parkway): This segment was added to the
Classification Map in 2002 as Class I, but should have been a
Class II.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 28 1-41 June 2004
--..----..------ --
Recommendation: The GMOC agrees that road segment classifications needs to be
consistent with accepted industry standards, and therefore has no
objection and supports the correction.
3.10.7 Concurrent Construction and Public Notification
Issue: The City is moving forward with several needed traffic enhancement
projects as referenced in item 3,10.2 above, Beginning this summer
(2004) there will be simultaneous work on Telegraph Canyon Road, East
H Street, and the Olympic Parkway interchange, the 3 major points that
residents of eastern Chula Vista access I-80S. Much of this activity will
continue through the end of the year.
These road improvements are essential and should not be delayed. At
the same time there will be increased traffic congestion during
construction with little means for avoidance.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to assign appropriate staff
to investigate the practicality of employing a daily road construction
schedule that avoids work in travel lanes during the morning and
afternoon peak travel times,
Recommendation: That the City Council directs the City Manager to prepare a public
awareness campaign regarding the road construction, the need for it, the
rationale for the timing, and schedules.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 29 I-L/-g June 2004
"..---.....--...--.".--.---.. ". --- .----..------.---.
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:
I. 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 Districts desire to communicate to the
City and GMOC,
THRESHOLD FINDING:
CURRENT: Capacity to accommodate students used now or committed.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT -
Threshold Met
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT -
Threshold Not Met
FORECAST: Ability to accommodate 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
2003 GMOC Annual Report 30 ) - If~ June 2004
3.11.1 Threshold Compliance
Discussion: The school threshold issue is undoubtedly the most complex topic the
GMOC has to consider. Schools are among the most important
community resources but since the schools are governed by a political
body separate ftom the City, the GMOC has no direct means to affect
change. Moreover, because of Senate Bill 50, which was enacted to
obtain support ftom the Building Industry Association (BIA) for school
bond issues, local governments cannot require extra fees or require the
establishment of a Mello Roos ftom new development to finance
schools. So, although the City can levy fees for road, sewer, and park
improvements, the city cannot do the same for schools. Also, based on
the same law cities are not allowed to regulate the rate of growth of
residential development based on school impacts.
Even though there is little recourse for action, the GMOC believes that it
must take a strong position when a school threshold is in question,
In this context the GMOC must make a judgment call on whether the
schools are accommodating the existing student population and whether
there will be adequate capacity to accommodate future students in the
next 5 years. If the GMOC believes that students are not being
accommodated now, then the threshold fails. If the GMOC believes that
accommodation cannot be made in the future, a "Statement of Concern"
is issued.
The definition of the term "accommodate" is key. Since the threshold
has been monitored If the term "accommodate" has been interpreted to
mean the physically housing of students, specifically that each student
has a chair. Keeping to this definition it can be anticipated that #ieR the
threshold, by one means or another, will likely be met. If, however, the
term "accommodate" is used in a broader context that includes more
qualitative topics such as adequate non-classroom facilities as restrooms,
proper lighting, or technologically equipped, then a threshold failure is
possible.
Statement: After a significant amount of discussion, the GMOC has concluded that
"accommodate" as referenced in the Schools quality of life threshold
language, te means more than just to house students. The GMOC has
decided that in the spirit of creating a quality of life threshold, it is a
reasonable interpretation that a quality of life threshold cannot be only
students being housed, but must instead be inclusive of those aspects that
give it quality.
Herein lies a dilemma. The GMOC aims to provide a meaningful and
fair determination in regard to threshold compliance and structure this
evaluation on an objective basis. To do so there needs to be a set of
2003 GMOC Annual Report 31 J- 50 June 2004
standards with an accompanying assessment. Unfortunately, these
elements are not currently available to the GMOc.
The decision to change how the GMOC traditionally defined school
accommodation was made in March 2004 just prior to the Community
Workshop. The GMOC acknowledges that this has not allowed time for
the school districts to fully respond. However, the GMOC had attempted
to obtain relevant information nom both school districts in regard to
facility and campus adequacy. As referenced in the GMOC 2000 Annual
Report, the school districts were requested to provide information on:
. What constitutes adequate outdoor activity space,
. To identify facility deficiencies that will not be met by the current
bond issues and describe how these deficiencies will be addressed.
. Present current or develop standards of what constitutes adequate
non-classroom in-door facilities relative to student population and if
these standards are being met.
These requests have not been addressed.
The GMOC is advised that a Facilities Master Plan for the SUHSD is
being prepared. This plan should provide a more objective guideline
upon which the GMOC can base future assessments.
The GMOC will strive to associate quantitative values to define adequate
accommodation, However, in the absence of this data the GMOC will
rely on personal observation and third party reports in order to draw a
conclusion on threshold compliance. While this approach should be
improved it represents a first step to a more qualitative evaluation and is
consistent with the recommendations of the Schools Task Force I.
Finding: The GMOC recognizes that both school districts currently meet the
threshold standard as it has been historically dermed, At the same
time the GMOC has concluded that this definition is not in itself
adequate in addressing the intent of the threshold.
Currently, the GMOC considers the Chula Vista Elementary School
District to be in threshold compliance.
The GMOC cannot conclude that the middle and high schools within the
City of Chula Vista are currently providing consistent and adequate
accommodation for students. Therefore, in order to emphasize the
importance of this issue, the GMOC must conclude that the threshold
standard for middle and high schools has uot been met. Schools and
classrooms differ tremendously in attributes among the various schools.
While it is not expected that each school and classroom will be
equivalent it is expected that a minimum standard will be in place so as
I The Schools Task Force, in their report of March 2003, stated that a GMOC schools threshold should be
developed that is consistent with the other ten quality oflife standards and that among other items, an analysis
should include "A comparison of data for each school in relation to state standards,"
2003 GMOC Annual Report 32 1-6/ June 2004
. ----------..------
to be equitable, Great disparities are self evident in the quality of
maintenance, air conditioning, accessibility to technology, erosion of
recreational space to relocatable classrooms, ratio of functional
restrooms per student, and cafeteria capacity, to name some, By next
years review the SUHSD will have a completed facilities Master Plan
and the GMOC will again request that the SUHSD provide objective
physical criteria upon which to evaluate adequate accommodation.
3.11.2 Growth and School Financing
Issue: School financing in new growth areas has been accomplished through the
willingness of developers to add Mello Roos fees to their homes. While
not required to do so, developers understand that without schools the
marketability and therefore value of their homes will suffer. While this
is a product of enlightened self-interest, many suburban developers in
other areas are still not willing to add these fees to their homes. Chula
Vista is fortunate to have the willingness of the developers who are
building in our eastern areas. This financing stream is then used to
match state funds, and school construction goes foreword.
In urban areas experiencing infill and demographic change financing is
not so easy. When a new home is built or added on to, the owner must
pay a set per foot fee with the maximum set by the state to offset school
impacts. In Chula Vista that per foot fee is about $3.00 and covers both
elementary and secondary schools. According to the school districts this
amount is far short of what it takes to reach the match level to attract
state funds for new construction. The other way to finance schools is for
the impacted area to establish a community finance district (CFD) and
then assess themselves a Mello Roos fee to pay for the school. This
requires a 2/3 vote of approval !Tom residents to pass. Most believe that
such self-assessment is unlikely to receive the necessary votes,
particularly in the lower income parts of the city and where there is a
predominance of rental property by non-resident owners.
There are three growth dynamics in play in the City's older urban areas.
The first is thus far anecdotal, due to the steadily rising cost of housing it
is believed that household sizes are increasing and the occurrence of
more than one family per home/apartment is also increasing. Both of
these actions produce more children per home/apartment. The second is
the recently enacted right to build an accessory unit of 850 square feet on
single-family lots. An 850 square foot unit is suitable to support a small
2 bedroom home/apartment. Depending upon the market, this could
contribute an additional source of new students. And third, there is the
possibility for residential intensification with increased densities across
the range !Tom town-home style, to low-mid and high-rise (8 to 14
stories) development.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 33 1- s;; June 2004
--......_--
Judging the acceptability of paying increased fees to pay for schools is
speculative. As referenced earlier, areas experiencing demographic
change and increased accessory units may not agree to a self-assessment.
Residential intensification may be more agreeable to accept the fee but a
school impact fee cannot be mandated. If the builder does not see the
marketing advantage of having school availability they may not agree.
The school districts and the City are aware of the impending demands
that may be made on the areas older established schools. These demands
will exceed the school districts capacity to house the students, The
remedy to build additional capacity is hampered due to the lack of local
financing. The Chula Vista area cannot be alone in facing this dilemma.
Other jurisdictions, as close as San Diego, have faced the problem of
financing schools in urban areas and found solutions.
The GMOC believes that finding a solution for financing construction of
new school capacity in the City's established neighborhoods is of
paramount importance, It is not enough for the school districts to ask the
City for assistance, the respective school districts should take the lead
role once the broad growth parameters are identified, as they have been.
In that regard, by this action the GMOC is issuing a "Statement of
Concern" to both school districts that operate in Chula Vista to
undertake proactive research on identifying financing options that are
both feasible and politically acceptable for building schools in Chula
Vista's urban areas,
This action by the GMOC of issuing a "Statement of Concern" 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.
Recommendation: That the City Council agrees to issue a resolution concurring with the
GMOC's "Statement of Concern" and authorizing the Council to forward
this concern to both school district boards reflecting the need to
undertake proactive research on identifying financing options that is both
feasible and politically acceptable for building schools in western Chula
Vista. A copy of this communication to be sent to the Schools Ad-Hoc
Committee.
Recommendation: Although it is the school districts responsibility to take the lead role in
identifying financing, this issue will likely require multi-jurisdictional
cooperation and contribution, Schools are a key community resource
that recognizes no jurisdictional boundary, In that regard, the GMOC
recommends that the City Council direct the City Manager to assemble a
team of staff ITom the City, to assist school district staff in a review of
financing options that are both feasible and politically acceptable, and
report to both the GMOC and the Schools Ad Hoc Committee, on their
findings.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 34 J~53 June 2004
3.11.3 School Construction
Discussion: Both school districts serving Chula Vista, Chula Vista Elementary
School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High School
District (SUHSD) have engaged in significant building and expansion
programs to match the areas rapid growth. The school district's efforts
are commendable. At the same time the pressure to provide more
classrooms and more schools to satisfy demand shows no sign of a
slowdown, In response to this challenge each district is continuing to
expand.
3.11.3 A School Construction - Elementary Schools
Issue: In last years GMOC report, it was recognized that the CVESD had
maintained a pace of building a new elementary school a year not to
mention the addition of relocatable classrooms on existing school sites.
As one of last years recommendations the GMOC stated that over the
next 2 years that 3 schools be built as compared to the usual 2. It has
been reported that over the last year construction of 2 schools has
commenced, one located in Rolling Hills Ranch and the other in
EastLake. The next school is targeted to be in Otay Ranch Village 6.
Recommendation: That the City continues to work with the CVESD in building schools in a
timely fashion, with the school in Otay Ranch Village 6 and then Village
II being on the critical path of development.
3.11.3 B School Construction - Middle and High Schools
Issue: The SUHSD has completed the construction of 2 high schools and I
middle school in the last two years. The only thing more remarkable
than tills achievement is that this added capacity at the high school level
will be consumed in the next 2 years, It was reported last year by the
SUHSD that another high school, starting with a 9th grade class, is
needed for the school year beginning in 2006.
The SUHSD, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community
are working in close coordination to meet this timetTame. Currently new
high school sites are being evaluated, 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 receiving the necessary environmental approvals and the ability to
2003 GMOC Annual Report 35 I' 5'1 June 2004
. ~.__._.--_._-----_._--_.
provide inITastructure to the location in a timely fashion so that
construction can begin on schedule, City assistance has been requested
and given to facilitate this effort.
While the GMOC recognizes that focused effort is being undertaken to
bring the high school on-line in a timely fashion there is no room for
delay in an already compressed development program. Delays, however,
are all too common. Given this situation 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 construction
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
districts with follow-up to assure appropriate response by that agency.
Recommendation: That the City Council agrees to issue a resolution concurring with the
GMOC's "Statement of Concern" and authorizing the Council to forward
this concern to the SUHSD Board reflecting the potentially serious
situation that will result if a delay in the construction of the next high
school occurs. To prepare for this possibility, the City Council will call
upon the SUHSD to prepare a "Contingency Plan" for how students will
be accommodated in the event of a delay. The Contingency Plan to be
ready within 6 months for public discussion. A copy of the
communication to be sent to the Schools Ad Hoc Committee.
3.11.4 Joint Use
Issue: Schools belong to the community, Naturally their priority is for
education. But schools are also a community resource and should be
potentially available for broader usage. In fact this philosophy is in
practice with a joint use library, some joint use recreational resources,
and joint use offacilities. The GMOC holds public workshops in school
facilities and recognizes this as a form of joint use,
The overall success of joint use activities depends upon the mutual
benefit that can be derived between the City and the school districts,
While some successes can be pointed to, there are also examples of
failure, These failures have been attributed to organizational culture and
the individual principal being able to act unilaterally in restricting such
activities. Ultimately, the joint use agreement fails when the two parties
do not see an overriding benefit.
2003 GMOC Annual Report 36 /-'56 June 2004
A TT A CHMENT 3
Draft transmittal letters as follow-up on resolution for "Statement of Concern"
regarding western Chula Vista schools financing research.
¡-51¡;
DRAFT
June 9, 2004
President Cheryl S. Cox and Member of the Board of Trustees
Chula Vista Elementary School District
84 East J Street
Superintendent's Office
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission 2003 Annual Report,
Statement of Concern - Western Chula Vista School Financing
Dear President Cox and Members of the Board:
On June 9, 2004, the Chula Vista City Council took final action on the 2003Annual Report from
its Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding compliance with the City's
Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The GMOC's report also considers potential growth
impacts over the next 5 years and the readiness of agencies to respond. In this regard, the
GMOC has recognized that there is the possibility of significant residential growth in the area
west ofI-80S. At the same time existing school capacity may ultimately be unable to satisfy this
need, with expansion being necessitated.
While the potential for growth in western Chula Vista and the ensuing impacts on schools is
widely understood in principle, the means for financing the possible purchase of land and the
construction of necessary facilities is not identified. The GMOC believes that it is a prudent
course of action to request the school districts to take the lead in developing a strategy for school
financing that is both practical and politically acceptable, and has issued a Statement of Concern
in this regard. The Chula Vista City Council agrees with the GMOC position. The
recommendation was stated as below:
That the City Council agrees to issue a resolution concurring with the GMOC's "Statement
of Concern" and authorizing the Council to forward this concern to both school district
boards reflecting the need to undertake proactive research on identifying financing options
that is both feasible and political1y acceptable for building schools in western Chula Vista,
A copy of this communication to be sent to the Schools Ad-Hoc Committee.
I wish to emphasize that this GMOC "Statement of Concern" does not imply an error or is it
being critical of the School District. Issuing a Statement of Concern is the means through which
the GMOC can fonnally request the City Council to forward a growth related concern to an
agency external to the City,
).. 51
The GMOC has also requested that the City Council directed the City Manager to assign
appropriate City staff to assist the school districts in this effort. That recommendation has also
been approved by the City Council. The City is in fact pioneering this effort in undertaking a
"Public Facilities Financing Assessment" for western Chula Vista, an activity that will invite
school district participation.
We invite both Boards of Education to take a leading role in identifying financing options in
anticipation of western Chula Vista residential growth with the City of Chula Vista providing
support assistance within the range of our responsibility. We request that this request be acted
upon favorably and can represent one more positive step forward in providing facilities for the
community.
Upon your favorable action, and if practical, I suggest that this item be placed on the next
Schools Ad Hoc Committee agenda, where the mechanics of implementation can be discussed.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Padilla
Mayor
cc: City Council, City Manager, Dr. Lowell Billings, Superintendent, Schools Ad Hoc
Committee, GMOC
J,58
._---~~~~._-_._------~------
DRAFT
June 9, 2004
President Pearl Quinones and Mernber of the Board of Trustees
Sweetwater Union High School District
Superintendent's Office
Administrative Center
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911-2868
RE: City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission 2003 Armual Report,
Statement of Concern - Western Chula Vista School Financing
Dear President Quinones and Members of the Board:
On June 9, 2004, the Chula Vista City Council took final action on the 2003Armual Report from
its Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding compliance with the City's
Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The GMOC's report also considers potential growth
impacts over the next 5 years and the readiness of agencies to respond. In this regard, the
GMOC has recognized that there is the possibility of significant residential growth in the area
west of I-80S. At the same time existing school capacity may ultimately be unable to satisfy this
need, with expansion being necessitated.
While the potential for growth in western Chula Vista and the ensuing impacts on schools is
widely understood in principle, the means for financing the possible purchase of land and the
construction of necessary facilities is not identified. The GMOC believes that it is a prudent
course of action to request the school districts to take the lead in developing a strategy for school
financing that is both practical and politically acceptable, and has issued a Statement of Concern
in this regard. The Chula Vista City Council agrees with the GMOC position. The
recommendation was stated as below:
That the City Council agrees to issue a resolution concurring with the GMOC's "Statement
of Concern" and authorizing the Council to forward this concern to both school district
boards reflecting the need to undertake proactive research on identifying financing options
that is both feasible and politically acceptable for building schools in western Chula Vista,
A copy of this communication to be sent to the Schools Ad-Hoc Committee,
I wish to emphasize that this GMOC "Statement of Concern" does not imply an error or is it
being critical of the School District. Issuing a Statement of Concern is the means through which
the GMOC can fonnally request the City Council to forward a growth related concern to an
agency external to the City,
1-5~
The GMOC has also requested that the City Council directed the City Manager to assign
appropriate City staff to assist the school districts in this effort. That recommendation has also
been approved by the City Council. The City is in fact pioneering this effort in undertaking a
"Public Facilities Financing Assessment" for western Chula Vista, an activity that will invite
school district participation.
We invite both Boards of Education to take a leading role in identifying financing options in
anticipation of western Chula Vista residential growth with the City of Chula Vista providing
support assistance within the range of our responsibility. We request that this request be acted
upon favorably and can represent one more positive step forward in providing facilities for the
community.
Upon your favorable action, and if practical, I suggest that this item be placed on the next
Schools Ad Hoc Committee agenda, where the mechanics of implementation can be discussed.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Padilla
Mayor
cc: City Council, City Manager, Dr. Edward Brand, Superintendent, Schools Ad Hoc Committee,
GMOC
1- &0
A TT A CHMENT 4
Draft transmittal letter as follow-up on resolution for "Statement of Concern"
regarding contingency plan for accommodating students if construction schedule
for high school 13 is delayed.
/ - {PI
DRAFT
June 9, 2004
President Pearl Quinones and Member of the Board of Trustees
Sweetwater Union High School District
Superintendent's Office
Administrative Center
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911-2868
RE: City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission 2003 Annual Report,
Statement of Concern - Contingency Plan for High School 13 Delay
Dear President Quinones and Members of the Board:
On June 9, 2004, the Chula Vista City Council took final action on the 2003Annual Report from
its Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding compliance with the City's
Quality of Life Threshold Standards. The GMOC's report also considers potential growth
impacts over the next 5 years and the readiness of agencies to respond.
In the GMOC Annual Report to Council it was stated that "the SUHSD has engaged in
significant building and expansion programs to match the areas rapid growth. The school
district's efforts are commendable."
The report further indicates that:
The SUHSD has indicated that another high school, starting with a 9th grade class is
needed for the school year beginning in 2006....The SUHSD, the City of Chula Vista,
and the development community are working in close coordination to meet this
timeframe. ... While the GMOC recognizes that focused effort is being undertaken to
bring the high school on-line in a timely fashion there is no room for delay in an already
compressed development program. Delays, however, are all too common.
Given this situation the GMOC concluded that "a potentially serious problem exists with respect
to school capacity if the construction schedule is not met. This warranted a formal 'Statement of
Concern'. The GMOC has made the following recommendation:
That the City Council agrees to issue a resolution concurring with the GMOC's "Statement
of Concern" and authorizing the Council to forward this concern to the SUHSD Board
reflecting the potentially serious situation that will result if a delay in the construction of the
next high school occurs. To prepare for this possibility, the City Council will call upon the
SUHSD to prepare a "Contingency Plan" for how students will be accommodated in the
) - rß;)-
event of a delay. The Contingency Plan to be ready within 6 months for public
discussion. A copy ofthe communication to be sent to the Schools Ad Hoc Committee.
The City Council concurs with the GMOC and believes that development of a contingency plan
is a reasonable request. Therefore, as indicated in the GMOC recommendation, I have been
authorized by the City Council to request that the SUHSD prepare a contingency plan for how
students will be accommodated in the event the construction schedule for high school 13 is not
met. And, that the contingency plan be prepared within 6 months and presented to the
community.
I wish to emphasize that this GMOC "Statement of Concern" does not imply an error or is it
being critical of the School District. Issuing a Statement of Concern is the means through which
the GMOC can fonnally request the City Council to forward a growth related concern to an
agency external to the City.
Upon your favorable action, and if practical, I suggest that this item be placed on the next
Schools Ad Hoc Committee agenda, where a future presentation on the contingency plan can be
scheduled.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. Padilla
Mayor
cc: City Council, City Manager, Dr. Edward Brand, Superintendent, Schools Ad Hoc Committee,
GMOC
/- (p3
l?e vì '3e 1 It
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
THE FIRE/EMS ELEMENT OF THE 2003 GMOC ANNUAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE AND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is
responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold
standards one of which is Fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS), and to submit
their annual report to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2003, the GMOC finalized its 2003 Annual Report
regarding compliance with the City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold Standards; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003, identifies current issues in the second half of 2003 and early 2004, and finally
assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next 5 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula accepts the 2003 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained
therein in regards to Fire/EMS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council accept and approve the 2003 GMOC
Annual Report and the recommendations contained therein in regards to Fire/EMS.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
~~
James Sandoval A Moore
Director of Planning and Building ity Attorney
/-(:;'1
!e ý; sed 8-
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
THE 2003 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF FIRE/EMS; AND RECOMMENDING
ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is
responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold
standards, and to submit their annual report to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2003, the GMOC finalized its 2003 Annual Report
regarding compliance with the City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold Standards; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003, identifies current issues in the second half of 2003 and early 2004, and finally
assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next 5 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula accepts the 2003 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained
therein with the exception of Fire/EMS which was acted on separately;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council accept and approve the 2003 GMOC
Annual Report and the recommendations contained therein with the exception of
Fire/EMS which was acted on separately.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
James Sandoval
Director of Planning and Building
l/&;S-
~V¡œd C
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2003 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND
APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN; AND
DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS
NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS
PRESENTED IN THE "2003 GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS/PROPOSED
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY"
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is
responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold
standards and reporting their findings and recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2003, the GMOC finalized its 2003 Annual Report to the
City Council regarding compliance with the City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold
Standards; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003, identifies current issues in the second half of 2003 and early 2004, and finally
assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next 5 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula accept the 2003 GMOC Annual Report and approving the recommendations
contained therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs
the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations
as presented in the "2003 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions
Summary."
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
k~
James Sandoval Ann Moore
Director of Planning and Building City Attorney
J:IATTORNEY\RESO\RESO GMOC ANNUAL REPORT
(-&&
~v'1 ~C\ })
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA CONCURRING WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE A
STATEMENT OF CONCERN TO BOTH SCHOOL DISTRICTS
REGARDING THE NEED FOR RESEARCHING FINANCING
STRATEGY TO ALLOW THE PROBABLE NEED FOR SCHOOL
CAPACITY EXPANSION IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is
responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold
standards and reporting their findings and recommendations to the City Council;
WHEREAS, if the GMOC determines that a serious problem exists with respect
to schools, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report.;
WHEREAS, when such a "Statement of Concern" is issued the City Council is
required to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern directed to the
responsible public agency with follow up to assure appropriate response by that agency;
WHEREAS, the GMOC has determined that a potential serious problem does
exist with respect to schools and has issued a "Statement of Concern" regarding the
need for researching a financing strategy to accommodate the probable need for school
capacity expansion in the western portion of the City;
WHEREAS, the GMOC has recommended that such a financing strategy which
is both feasible and politically acceptable be developed with the school districts taking
the lead role;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista concurs with the GMOC's statement of concern to both School Districts
regarding the need for researching a financing strategy to accommodate the probable
need for school capacity expansion in the Western portion of the City.
l-b7
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council request that research
be conducted and financing options be developed for the purpose of developing a
financing strategy for the probable need for school capacity expansion in the Western
portion of the City and authorize the Mayor to issue a letter, in substantially, the form
attached to the staff report, to the respective School Districts' boards regarding the
same.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
CA~
James Sandoval Ann Moore
Director of Planning and Building City Attorney
/ - (¿ %
e
"Reví ~d
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA CONCURRING WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT A
POTENTIAL SERIOUS PROBLEM EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO ANY
DELAYS TO SCHOOL SITE 13 AND REQUESTING A CONTINGENCY
PLAN BE PREPARED IN THE EVENT HIGH SCHOOL 13 IS NOT
COMPLETED FOR OPENING FOR THE 2006 SCHOOL YEAR.
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is
responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold
standards and reporting their findings and recommendations to the City Council;
WHEREAS, if the GMOC determines that a serious problem exists with respect
to schools, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report,;
WHEREAS, when such a "Statement of Concern" is issued the City Council is
required to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern directed to the
responsible public agency with follow up to assure appropriate response by that agency;
WHEREAS, the GMOC has determined that a potential serious problem does
exist with respect to schools and has issued a "Statement of Concern" regarding the
need for a contingency plan for how students will be accommodated in the event that
the construction schedule for high school 13 is not met;
WHEREAS, the GMOC has recommended that such a contingency plan be
developed by the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) within 6 months with
the findings presented to the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Chula Vista concurs with the GMOC's concern that a potential serious problem does
exist with respect to delays in the timing of the construction of high school 13;
1-W1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council
requests the SUHSD Board prepare a contingency plan for how students will be
accommodated in the event the construction schedule for high school 13 is not met and
that the findings be presented to the community, and authorize the Mayor to issue a
letter, in substantially, the form attached to the staff report, to the Board requesting the
same.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
a.- ~tt... ./
James Sandoval Ann Moore
Director of Planning and Building City Attorney
1- 70
Attachment 5
VOLUME II
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
2003 ANNUAL REPORT
APPEND ICES
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. FirelEmergency Medical Services
10. Traffic
1 1. Schools
June 2004
Appendix B
Workshop Reports
City of Chula Vista
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
Public Outreach Meetings Summary
Traffic Workshop
Casillas Elementary School, November 13, 2003, 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM.
During the 2002/03 Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) community
workshop of April 24, 2003, a number of questions were raised concerning the nature of how the
traffic threshold is monitored. In response to these requests, a "GMOC Traffic Workshop" was
recommended with the objective of presenting the specifics on the Growth Management
Threshold. The workshop was held on November 13, 2003, hosted by the GMOC but presented
b.y the City's Engineering Department, by Mr. Alex Al-Agha, City Engineer. Approximately 30
members of the community attended the meeting.
The presentation covered development trends and related traffic, recent efforts in traffic
reduction through road improvements, the definition of the Growth Management Traffic
Threshold, the history of how the threshold came about, and how the threshold is measured and
the frequency of those measurements.
One line of community comments/questions dealt with "How can you say the threshold is met,
while we are still stuck in traffic?" and "The threshold is not correctly set." A similar comment
was made that "the roads are planned to be congested just when you need to travel".
Another range of topics dealt with the timing of road improvements. Some participants indicated
that the road improvements being planned "should have been done last year not next year."
However, no questions were raised regarding how the threshold was established or how it is
measured.
Draft Recommendations Presentation
Vista Square Elementary, April 8, 2004, from 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM
The GMOC presented the community a set of draft recommendations, in order to obtain
comment prior to finalizing what is presented to Council. Approximately 25 community
members attended the meeting. The GMOC draft report was put on the City's web site a week
prior to the meeting, postcard invitations were sent to over 200 individuals, and copies of
material was made available at the meeting. The GMOC presentation included a specific
mention of each recommendation with time provided for comment.
It was requested that the GMOC request additional air quality monitoring sites from the Air
Pollution Control District. The GMOC deferred this recommendation to City staff.
Comment was made that school busses are Very polluting and should be addressed in a
recommendation.
It was indicated that there seemed to be at least some east to west impacts on the drainage
system, particularly during a recent heavy rain.
Regarding Police, an alternate threshold of "major crime solved" was recommended.
Regarding traffic, a question was raised regarding how the quality of life threshold could be met
when traffic is considered so bad.
In regards to schools, Katy Wright, Director of Planning for the Sweetwater Union High School
District (SUHSD), took issue with the GMOC finding that the district had failed to meet the
threshold. She stated that the GMOC had arbitrarily changed the definition and that the finding
did not fit the facts. Further, that the school district was caught off guard by the finding and did
not have proper time to respond.
The GMOC acknowledged that the timing was short although rnaintained their prerogative to
interpret the threshold to be more than "kids in seats" as was the traditional measure. The
GMOC stated that there needs to be a more qualitative dimension. The lack of quality was
through "observed fact".
Several community members indicated support for the GMOC threshold finding.
A community member suggested that SB50, the state law that restricts local govemments from
regulating development due to school impacts, should be changed. It was further suggested that
a coalition be created through local leadership to lobby Sacramento for such a change, as fast
growing communities such as those in South Bay have no recourse to coordinate school
infrastructure with growth. It was recommended that the coalition be comprised of members of
all city council and mayor offices, school board leadership and superintendents in the regions
experiencing growth.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
Public Outreach Meetings Summary Page 2
~I(?
7~--;-
mY Of
CHUIA VJSrA
l'
GROWTH
.. Created.in 1987 in response to
""ANAC$Et.AENT increased growth, the GMQC's
0 objective is to maintain the Q\lality of
VERSIGHT Life by establishing and monitoring
11 indicators.
CoMMISSION
=z-
1
,.'.-'
~{rt-
7,r~7
em Of
OIUIA VISTA
. Established to provide a "Citizens; al'mual review" of
the Gròwth Management Program.... a report card
. .
. The GMOC consists of Nine Members .ofthe
Community ..,. nominated by the Mayor ônd approved
by Council
. Each member represents an Interest or Geographical
Area
+ E¡;¡ch member can serve up to Two- Four Year
Terms
~!rt-
-,-,-:
em Of
CHlJIA VISTA
~~n!:Tl~ ~~m~~'~
EPRESENTING MEMBER
Education Arthur Garcia
Development Gary Nordstrom
Environment Bill Tripp
Business Richard Arroyo
Planning Kevin O'Neal
Eastefl) Territories Rafael Munoz
Center City Michael Spethman
Southwest Steve Palma
Sweetwater/Bonita David Krogh
2
._.___n..----. ~Ift..
7J1\";""
mY Of
nn CHIJlA VlsrA
ri ~H9fj'!J'!J~~~~
. . .n. .. .
. City staff prepares forecast (July - October)
;~. ....~ ,~~ -~ '~'_"M'~OO~'~'
.. GMOC reviews responses
~Ift..
7.JJ1J:-
mY Of
CKJIA VISrA
I
In response to the community's interest in
traffic, the GMOC has prepared this workshop to
allow the City Engineering Department to explain
how traffic planning works, how traffic
thresholds are established and monitored, and
to discuss possible alternatives.
3
"". " ""',,,"*., .CkÆ'",*"" ,""'"
Traffic & Growth
Workshop. Agenda
+ How does the City J:llimfor growth? ,
. . Fundameritals of !raffiC Þlånning
. How does the City ~to growth?
. . Re<;ent Roadway ¡rnprovem~n~
+ How does the City control groWth?
. . . GMOC Thresholds
. Building permits
. How does the City monitor traffic?
. Growth & Traffic monitoring lT1~àsur~s
. What about freeway congestion?
. Corridor studi~s
. Fuhding
. Questions and Recommendations
HOW DOES TH E CITY PLAN
FOR GROWTH?
~I~
---
~~~¡:
01Y Of
CHUlA VISTA
4
. ".',"'0'- ,""' ",' ,.",."."". . . ".".
Transportation Plan n ing
+ Re:gional perspective
. SANDAG
. Funding
+ Localactìons
.. GroWth Management Ordinance
+ Project based Traffic mitigations
. Process
TranSportation Planning
Regional' Perspective
+ SANDAG
. Work - Housing balance
. 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
. Long-range, $ 42 Billion "MObility Plan"
. Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
. Short-range, congestion prevention strategies.
. Regional Transit Vision
. TransNet
. 1/2 cent sales tax to improve transportation
5
"""""'.""""..,, .'"
Transportation Planning'
. Local Actions
. Growth Management Ordinance
. Mo.nitor traffic performance
. Requîre developers to comply
+ TDIF
" Collect. fees to pay for transportation.
.. Current fee is $8,290 per SFR
+TS Fee
. Collect fees to pay for traffic signals
TranSportation Planning
Project based mitigations
+ CEQA
.. Project's traffic impacts are identified.
. Impacts are mitigated by construction
+ PFFP
. Defines when improvements are needed
. Ties development to improvements
+TM
. Establishes legal framework for complìance
6
HOW DOES TH E CITY
RESPOND TO GROWTH?
~(I?-
-11-
crrv OF
CHUIA VISTA
Growth of the City's Roadway
Infrastructu re
+ Construction of new arterial roadways
+ Upgrade existing. roadways
+ Reconstruction of existing I-80S interchanges
+ Construction of SR-125
+ Congestion relief tool box
7
~I~ Major Roadway Improvement Projects .-+-,
~
CHID ~ Since 2000
._-~
CONSTRUCTION
~
. -----.-
----
-----
~!~ SR-125 Construction .-+-,
~
CHID ~ ,
8
""-- "'" "".tr_*...
Roadway Congestion Relief Measures
. SCATS
.. Adaptive traffic signal timing
.. Traffic Signal IntercOnnect
. . Assists .with traffic. signal. coordination
.. Traffic Signal Modifications/Installations
-----
~"t- Traffic Signal Installations/Modifications .*,
~ Since 2000
C>iÚ1À ~ .
9
. .. .
HOW. DOES THE CITY
CONTROL GROWTH?
~!~
-11-
~
em OF
CHUIA VISTA
Traffic controls Growth
+ Infrastructure FIRST.
+ Traffic improvements are prerequisite to
Entitlements.
+ Building permits' allocation program
+ GMOC Traffic Thresholds
10
""~,""'""'%' ,""t"',""-,~ "",",. """~",,,
ContrQlof Building Permits
.. Agreements with ALL major developers
. Annual ceiling for building permits
. Reduction of building permits
. Three-Years program
'--'-
~, :,;
11
----------------
4/1/03 - 3/31/04 ------ __:?,1Z~--,__-------------
_m_-------------------'------"""""-- ______m
4/1/04 - 3/31/04 ----------_--_2A?? --
------------~---------_...~~------------ --
4/1/05 - 3/31/06 m_--_-----__----..12!3,Q--___-
NUMBER OF UNITS PERMITED BY YEAR
1980 - 2002
" ",w'""'" "'""""m.".",,,",,,".',,' ,"""'.,
GMOC Traffic Thresholds
+ . Level Of Service (LOS)
. ilNo more than. 2 hours of LOS D
.. Based on nationally recognized standards
.. Un-biased, technical measurement
HOW DOES TH E CITY
MONITOR TRAFFIC?
~I~ I
--- I
-
CI1Y Of
~~ ---t
I
13
." " ,"""j\""', """".>J"""""'",,",w:' "',," ." "" .' .""
TrafficMQnitoring Program (TMP)
+ HISTORY
. 1988... City adopted Growth Management Plan
. 1990- Recommended that Threshold Standards
be base(:i òn.1985 Highway CapaCity Manual
(HCM)
. 1991& 1992 ~ Citywide TMP developed to study
street segments based on average travel spèed
utilìzìngthe floating car method.
Traffic. Monitoring Measures
. GMOC
TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
. Traffic Volume Counters
. "'~""" CO"", """'"' .~.~
14
"'~""'\"""""""'¡"""'"">""""','*",""";""""'A",W.,"""';
TMP - Floating Car Method
+MethodSummÇiry
.. Deploy specially equipped vehicles into
~v~rage we~kly' peak traffic to gather
average speedl travel time and delay
information for each roadway segment
studied.
TMP - Floating Car Method
15
---"
~!It- ...>iÍ...
~ Streets Currently Studied in the T.M.P. wT'
0UAV1SrA ,
I
TMP - Floating Car Method
.. Staff lime (ForTypical Annual Study)
. Preparation, Performing Runs & Analysis 1,000 hours
. Traffic Count Data Collection - 120 hours
.. Number of Segments Studied in 2003
TIME: SEGMENTS RUNS
STUDIED: PERFORMED:
AM PERIOD 23 947
(7:00 - 9:00 am)
MID-DAY PERIOD 24 9S0
(11:30-1:30 pm)
PM PERIOD 24 980
(4:00-6:00 pm)
TOTAL 71 2877
16
.,," ~." ", o. . ., '.""""'.."."".."~"""s<""",,.'P.¡"""
Examples of different Level of Services
Examples of different Level of Services
r
I
bQS...Ç
17
"'" ",>". .,.. "", '.' """," """""""^,,:
Examples of different Level of Services
LOSD
Examples of different Level of Services
r-
LOSE
18
, """",<C"'." iO. . ,"""" .",
Examples of different Level of Services
SOUTHBA YFREEWAY SYSTEM
FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
~M~
-"11-
CßY Of I
CHUIA VISfA ~
19
,",',^'d",- '.""" .C."","" ',",,",
~"80S I ¡"STransportation Study
.. sAt'mAG 8i.CALTRANS
. 1-5 From the BorderstoSR-54
.. 1-805 From the Borders to 1~5.
.. Short-range, Cönge~ti()rt relief
. Medium~range, localized improvements
.. Long-range, Additional freeway lanes
Planned Highway PrOjects
Chula Vista
',;;;; f("7¿:~:5;~iJ~~!;f~;?;t{I~;:7t¡"ITl¡¡ F¡;¡:¡~B I,' ,." (I j?]:'~~~\lJJ;;;::V~";{F?tÆgt;i'j
~~~~~~~
2010 5R-54/5R-125 1-5 SR-94 6F/'" + 2HOV 6>+2HOV $llO
2010 SR-125 SR-go5 5on Mlgo<l Rd "" 4T $400
2010 5R'I2S Son M"""I Rd SR-54 .. .... '" $140
2020 1'5 SR-go5 $0'54 SF St'+2HQV $130
2020 !-SO5 SR-905 5R,54 SF SF+'Ml $300
2030 SR-l2S 50,905 San Miguel Rd 4T Sf $110
2030 5O-l2S 5o"Miguel Rd 50'" 'F SF $60
$1,260
"~M~"".
h'.~.
~._.~.
......_~.,,-
"".~.~-
20
Appendix C
Growth Forecast
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle
24-MONTH and 5-YEAR
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST
Years 2004 Through 2008
January 2004
City of Chula Vista
2003 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle
24-MONTH and 5-YEAR
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST
Years 2004 through 2008
INTRODUCTION
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: 24 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 growth management quality of life threshold standards. With this data, these bodies will
be able to report possible threshold impacts to the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight
Commission (GMOC). The 24-month forecast covers the period from July 1, 2003 through June
30, 2005. The five-year forecast spans the calendar years from 2004 through 2008.
This forecast is commonly referred to as the Growth Management or GMOC forecast. It is
important to note that this forecast:
. Does not represent a goal or desired growth rate;
. Is not a recommend cap;
. Is what is expected to occur given a set of explicit assumptions.
Based upon the results of the City's growth management review process, the GMOC will provide
a set of recommendations for the purpose of maintaining the City's quality of life threshold
standards. Those recommendations can include the addition or acceleration of capital projects,
hiring personnel, changing management practices, or slowing the pace of growth.
This years forecast report highlights anticipated growth in the west and eastern portions of the
City. Traditionally, most of the emphasis of the forecast was directed to the east, as that is where
the vast majority of growth is taking place and will continue to take place for the next decade.
However, based on the level of private sector interest, there will likely be an increase in in-fill and
redevelopment in western Chula Vista, and as such should be noted. It should also be noted that
this forecast report focuses on physical changes as evidenced by the addition of residential units.
Western Chula Vista rnay also be undergoing growth in the form of demographic change as
household size increases and more than one family may live in a residence. Such growth is not
necessarily reflected in this report.
CONTEXT
As was widely reported in the media, in the year 2001, the City of Chula Vista was the 7th fastest
growing community of its size in the nation. The San Diego Association of Governments'
(SANDAG) Preliminary 2030 Growth Forecast indicates that the South County subregion will
continue to host a substantial amount of the region's projected growth over the next 26 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 1-8. 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 20,000 housing units and over 60,000 new residents between the years
2004 and 2030.
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page 10f11
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 1993 indicating steady increases, leveling off in calendar year
2002.
The City has recently acted to moderate growth, On April 15,2003 the Chula Vista City Council
adopted a Permit Monitoring program. This program established the maximum number of permits
that can be issued for selected major projects in eastern Chula Vista over three 12 month time
periods, running from April 1 to March 31, beginning in 2003 (Figure 2). This action is intended to
moderate growth over the next 3 years so that the City's Growth Management traffic threshold is
not exceeded. The timing of the measure is set to coincide with the estimated completion of SR-
125. The Permit Monitoring Program will have an effect over the number of units permitted in the
next 2 to 3 years. The longer-term forecast is unaffected.
Even with a leveling growth rate and the Monitoring Program, the level of anticipated growth
remains significant. 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. This forecast document is provided to the City Departments and outside
agencies that are responsible for maintaining the thresholds. These departments and agencies
are then asked whether they can support the forecasted growth.
Figure 1
Housing Units Permitted in City of Chula Vista 1984 to 2003
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
~
~ 2,000
.;
z
1,500
1,000
500 III III III I
IIIIII
~1~1~1_~ ~-~ 1=1~1~1_~ ,_,_,~=~ =-
Ye.,
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page2of11
Figure 2
Limits on Monitored Projects
Year
(April! to March 31) Units Permitted
4/1/03 - 3/31/04 2,475
4/1/04 - 3/31/05 2,375
4/1/05 - 3/31/06 1,780
Total 6,630
Forecast Assumptions
This forecast is being developed with the following assumptions:
1. That construction of SR-125 proceeds.
2. There are no additional building caps imposed on development.
3. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged.
4. That Growth Management thresholds are not exceeded.
5. That the housing market remains strong in Chula Vista.
EASTERN CHULA VISTA
24 Month Forecast
Annually, the City requests developers to indicate the number of housing units they expect to
receive building permits for and how many units are expected to be finaled over the next 24 month
period. Based upon the response (Figure 3a) the City can expect to experience continued
significant housing development. During the 24-month period from July 2003 through June 2005
housing developers anticipate the issuance of building permits for 7,000 dwelling units, and the
completion of 6,400 dwelling units. During just calendar year 2004 the figures reflect building
permit issuance for 3,200 dwelling units, and completion of 3,800 dwelling units.
While such growth has the potential to occur, historically these "raw" numbers have been
consistently optimistic resulting in overstating actual growth by a factor ranging between 18% for
permits and 20% for finals. In that regard, the developer forecast for year 2004 housing permits
and finals should be reduced to reflect the likely amount. Because the Permit Monitoring Program
has placed a limit on permits, the developer forecast is already tempered relative to previous
years. Therefore, instead of an 18% reduction in permits, a 12% reduction is applied; reducing
the number of residential units receiving building permits. This results in an estimated 6,100 units
permitted between July 2003 and June 2005, and 2,800 units permitted in calendar year 2004 for
eastern Chula Vista. In like fashion, the number of finals is reduced by 14% instead of 20%
(Figure 3b).
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page30f11
Figure 3a
EASTERN CHULA VISTA
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT "RAW" DEVELOPER FORECAST
July 2003 - June 2005
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.
24 Month Forecast Calendar Year 2004
PROJECT Issued Final Issued Finai
MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total
OTAY RANCH
Otay Ranch Co. 1,580 830 2,410 1,336 963 2,299 727 250 977 865 440 1,305
McMillin 284 395 679 200 317 517 106 184 290 160 159 319
Brookfield Shay Otay 372 593 965 228 536 764 186 286 472 120 359 479
EASTlAKE 1,045 563 1,608 654 793 1,447 489 270 759 554 477 1031
ROLLING HILLS RANCH 168 365 533 152 460 612 120 138 258 92 260 352
SAN MIGUEL RANCH 370 430 800 230 455 685 270 200 470 120 225 345
SUNBOW 0 0 0 55 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0
BELLA LAGO 0 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 3,819 3204 7,023 2,855 3524 6,379 1,898 1328 3226 1,911 1920 3,831
MF ~ Multiple units under one permit, SF ~ One unit per permit, Issued ~ Building Permit issued, Final = Occupancy Permit issued.
Figure 3b
EASTERN CHULA VISTA
ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPER FORECAST
July 2003 - June 2005
24 Month Forecast Calendar Year 2004
Issued Final Issued Final
MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total
Adjusted
Developer 3,300 2,800 6,100 2,400 3,000 5,400 1,400 1,400 2,800 1,600 1,600 3,200
Forecast
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page 4 of 11
Year 2008 (5 Year) Forecast
Preparing a 5-year forecast always incorporates a significant degree of uncertainty. The current
forecast period, years 2004 through 2008, offers an even greater challenge given the improving
but sluggish national economy, the continuing war against terror and possible future domestic
attacks, questionable 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 11,400 additional housing units
permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, for an average annual rate of 2,280 units. This
number is derived from a variety of sources including housing market absorption rate studies;
development utilization plans, and estimated project-processing schedules (Figure 4), This
reflects a roughly 7% decrease over the previous 5 year forecast for eastern Chula Vista.
Essentially, by the year 2008 the only site in eastern Chula Vista avåilable for major residential
development will be the remaining Otay Ranch area. Based on the current Otay Ranch General
Development Plan (GDP), there will be approximately 4,000 units remaining to be permitted
(Figure 4). Unless there are density increases to the GDP or the University site is developed as
housing, given the current rate of growth eastern Chula Vista could be built out between 2010 and
2012.
WESTERN CHULA VISTA
Western Chula Vista has not shown significant increases in housing since the growth
management program was instituted. This situation is expected to change due to an increased
level of infill, redevelopment, and possible density increases through the General Plan update.
Growth in eastern Chula Vista is made up of a series of planned communities being built by a half
dozen major companies, each with development schedules that can be quantified, and has an
established market trend, making it relatively easy to assess. Western Chula Vista presents just
the opposite situation. With the exception of the mid-bay front development proposal there are no
master planned areas, there exists a plethora of potential development sites each with their own
opportunities and constraints, multiple potential investors, and a housing market that is largely
untested.
In the short term there are several projects in the approval process that constitute up to an
additional 230 units that could be permitted within the next calendar year (Exhibit 2). In the mid-
range, units that could be permitted between 2005 and 2008, there are several large and small
private sector project proposals that are in various stages of discussion but without a formal
approval or commitment to proceed. In addition, a rough analysis by SANDAG has indicated that
between the years 2000 and 2030, assuming some land use intensification, there could be a net
increase of 6,000 residential units in western Chula Vista. This equates to an average of 200
units a year net increase although the SANDAG estimate indicated that the added numbers would
be skewed to latter years.
Although somewhat speculative, it is prudent to assume that residential development will increase
in western Chula Vista, so that facility and service providers can be aware and prepare for this
influx. Greater forecasting precision can be expected in coming years as the General Plan update
and Specific Plans are completed and the infill/redevelopment process proceeds and housing
markets are established. Based on the information today, it can be indicated that over the next 5
years we can expect an increase of 1,000 residential units in western Chula Vista with 10% of
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page 5 ofll
these being single family, for a 900 to 100 multi-family vs. single family split. Historically, this
number is large, but is an underestimation based on the level of interest, albeit without formal
commitment. This number of units may also be spread over a large swath of western Chula Vista.
This forecast assumes that there will not be a Mid-Bay Front project occurring in the next 5 years.
These numbers should be revised upwards if such a project is realized.
Figure 4
Five-Year Residential Unit Growth Forecast 2004 Through 2008
Forecast of Units Permitted Approximate Units
2004 to 2008 Remaining After 2008
Projects MF SF Total MF SF Total
Otav Ranch 4,094 3,746 7,840 2,300 1,700 4,000
Eastlake 926 784 1,710 0 0 0
RollinQ Hills Ranch 168 594 762 0 0 0
Bella LaQo 0 140 140 0 0 0
San MiQuel Ranch 411 518 929 0 0 0
Sub- Total 5,599 5,782 11,381 2,300 1,700 4,000
Western Chula Vista 900 100 1,000
Total 6,499 5,882 12,381
PERMITS BY YEAR
A year-to-year estimate of how many building permits will be issued has been developed for
general planning purposes, but should not be relied upon for exactness. The total number of
permits that will be issued over the next five years is reasonably certain however many variables
may and will affect what the actual annual distribution will be. Figure 5 and 6 illustrates a possible
growth path over the next 5 years.
Figure 5
Approximate Number of Residential Units Receiving Permits
Years 2004 to 2008
Years
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
East 2,841 2,232 2,342 2,218 1,748
West 100 165 200 240 295
Total 2,941 2,397 2,542 2,458 2,043
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page6of11
_.~.~._-_._--_..
Figure 6
Residential Units Receiving Building Permits 1995 to 2003 Actual
and 2004 through 2008 Forecast
4,000 Actual 3,525 Forecast
3,500
3,000
~ 2,500
::>
Ö 2000
Ii; ,
~ 1,500
z
~;OOO
500
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
The Permit Monitoring Program, as referenced earlier, has placed limits on the number of permits
that can be issued for selected projects in eastern Chula Vista, this includes Otay Ranch Villages
6 and 11, Eastlake III, and portions of San Miguel Ranch and Rolling Hills Ranch. The limit for the
period from April 1 2003 to March 31, 2004 is 2,475, and 2,375 for the following 12 months.
Actual permit will exceed this amount as they include units in western Chula Vista, affordable units
and model homes which are excluded from the Permit Monitoring Program, and roughly 1,300
housing units in eastern Chula Vista in established projects that were not yet permitted but not
subject to the Permit Monitoring Program.
FORECASTED POPULATION
A population forecast is derived using the number of homes constructed. The California State
Department 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 over 245,000 persons by the end of 2008 (Figure 7 and Exhibit 1).
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page 7 of 11
This is estimated as follows:
. At the end of 2002 the California State Department of Finance (DO F) estimated a Chula
Vista population of 199,700.
. An additional 2,697 additional units were finaled and occupied by the end of year 2003.
. It is forecasted that an additional 12,381 units may be permitted-occupied between 2004
and 20081.
Using the DOF factor of 3.036 persons per housing unit, the analysis as illustrated in Figure 7,
indicates a population of over 245,000 by the end of 2008.
Figure 7
Projected Population Change Table 2004 to 2008
Year Additional Units Population
2002 199,700
2003 2,697 8.188
2004 -2008 12,381 37,589
Population Year end 2008 245,477
1 It is assumed that the number of units permitted in this period but still under construction will be the same degree of
magnitude that are currently under construction, and therefore have a canceling effect.
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page Bot 11
------
EXHIBITS:
1 Historical Growth Table
2 Major Projects Map
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004
Page 9 of 11
Exhibit 1
HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - 2003
No. % Change No, % Change No. % Change
1980 407 374 84,364
1981 195 -52% 496 33% 86,597 2.6%
1982 232 19% 129 -74% 88,023 1,6%
1983 479 106% 279 116% 89,370 1.5%
1984 1,200 151% 521 87% 91,166 2.0%
1985 1,048 -13% 1,552 198% 116,325 27,6% 1)
1986 2,076 98% 1,120 -28% 120,285 3.4%
1987 1,168 -44% 2,490 122% 124,253 3.3%
1988 1,413 21% 829 -67% 128,028 3.0%
1989 1,680 19% 1,321 59% 134,337 4.9%
1990 664 -60% 1,552 17% 138,262 2.9% 2)
1991 747 13% 701 -55% 141,015 2,0%
1992 560 -25% 725 3% 144,466 2.4%
1993 435 -22% 462 -36% 146,525 1.4%
1994 700 61% 936 103% 149,791 2,2%
1995 833 19% 718 -23% 153,164 2,3%
1996 914 10% 820 14% 156,148 1,9%
1997 1,028 12% 955 16% 162,106 3.8%
1998 1,339 30% 1,093 14% 167,103 3,1%
1999 2,505 87% 1,715 57% 174,319 4.3%
2000 2,618 5% 2,652 55% 183,300 5.2%
2001 3,525 35% 3,222 21% 190,300 3.8%
2002 2,250 -36% 2,923 -9% 199,700 4.9%
2003 3,143 40% 2,697 -8% 207,888 4,1% **
2004 - 2008 12,381 245,477 ***
(1) Montgomery Annexation
(2) 1990 Census Figures 135,163
* Reflects Department of Finance (DOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year.
.. Year 2003 population is an estimate based upon the number of residential unit finals multiplied by the State DOF unit size occupancy
multiplier of 3.036,
... Population is approximate based on the number of units permitted between 2004 and 2008. While a number of these units will be
under construction at the end of 2008, there are currentiy an equivalent or higher number of units currently under construction this factor
will maintain a reasonable level of accuracy.
2003 Annual Growth Forecast, January 2004 Page 10 of 11
z
~~
~~...'..'I..."'I..!..'.I..~...>.'"I..
;ql O~ø
l'( . J: æ
~~
:S
a..
;: ..
¡i - :: i
!e,~ .~ Î-¡;
-M- -::,.
riih!.æ.;!
.~'ä- .. ~.-
5¡¡¡1I!;:~"1I';=:
II! ..15 Ii,.!!.'; Ì '..!!
¡,:,;,:¡¡.,::¡!i;
t::J
¡:¡o1:1:........--
;; ::
II ==
N ¡ i -~~~
~ . . ----
"'...: ¡¡¡I
m =~l~--¡¡
- It~,;..ë'¡;¡;¡i!
I =,,"I~ia.:~~~
X nhi.¡,;...ã,.i.&!!....i~
u.J ""',",.!Iæ."'."""'.
:I¡; :t:l..oI~¡I~å¡
~............ -""""" CD
"""..."""..............
..
- iii,:::
~ .~~~~.,::!!
.. E !ã=~::":,=i
E 'I .: .... ¿:.!! 11:;; 11.:1 ill;
. __4".!I~.'"'.-"-
..¡:U -:=¡'! IJi
en hj~i~i'iii!='¡~
.... .; = ~ ~&!!,=iII;=.:I:I:; ':I
Ii ~
... fa 1!;!:1!\!!1=\!!¡!!!a;:¡;:~=
.. a
-= -=~.
- 11..- I;
~ -= - ..
- c::t 'iI :~... i..
~ -IE .~~~i)
.. !!!!II: ..~-=¡!!..;.!!~¡~,;!
... Ii .. =: ...... == -iII.!!;;-.
- . .... ii~:i!¡¡:i!..,¡s=.=':
- . c::t
E~ ~
- ~
::::¡ -...................¡æ¡::=
Appendix D
Threshold Questionnaires and
Supplemental Data
THRFSHOln
The GMOC shall be provided with an annual dAvAlopmAnt imp"'" fAA 'Aport, which
provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the
previous 12-month period.
TRANSPORTATION $ 8,180/EDU 5,534,559 6,134,858 9,624,126 Aug 2002 Oct 2003
INTERIM PRE-5R 125 820/EDU 2,493,802 118,432 14,425,539 Jan 1994 Unscheduled
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 23.72/ trip 1,253,741 958,627 1,832,328 Oct 2002 Oct 2003
TELEGRAPH CYN DRAINAGE 4,579/acre 556,088 89,137 4,926,876 Apr 1998 Unscheduled
TElE. CYN GRAVITY SEWER 216.50/EDU 275,975 1,817,240 824,611 Sep 1998 Unscheduled
TElE. CYN PUMPED SEWER 180/EDU 32,751 80,418 303,090 Jan 2003 Unscheduled
SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN 2841EDU 631,670 9,154,746 1,136,343 Dee 1994 Dee 2003
POGGI CYN SEWER BASIN 400/EDU 401,812 139,640 2,331,516 Dee 1997 Unscheduled
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5 & 6 783/EDU 643,253 179,076 1,672,365 Jan 2003 Unscheduled
Otay Ranch Village 11 827/EDU 0 0 0 New Unscheduled
PUBLIC FACilITIES $ 5,048/SFDU 16,064,198 12,183,611 17,163,317 Nav 2002 Jan 2004
AdministraUon 139/SFDU 400,770 912,063 (670,8861 " "
Civic Center Expansion 1,089/SFDU 3,236,216 1,050,079 10,045,584 " "
Police Facility 804lSFDU 3,000,879 2,266,582 (2,069,928) " ..
Corp, Yard ReloæUon 706/SFDU 2,300,272 1,531,441 4,273,961 " ..
Libraries 753/SFDU 2,537,891 436,496 8,194,651 " ..
Fire Suppression Sys. 450/SFDU 1,130,065 5,837,261 (5,577,884) " ..
Geographic Info. Sys. 9/SFDU 27,380 0 (241,648) " ..
Computer Systems 6/SFDU 15,351 14,138 (96,360) " ..
TelecommuniæUons 5/SFDU 38,068 2,205 201,644 " ..
Records Mgmnt. Sys. 8/SFDU 17,353 25,618 (168,042) " ..
RecreaUan Facilities 1,079/SFDU 3,379,953 107,728 3,272,225 " ..
.Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown. Fee varies by type of residential unit, and for commercial and
industrial development - see various fee schedules included in Attachment A.
Page 1
Please provide bJ:æf. 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 November 2002 update of the Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) was completed,
increasing the residential fee by 3% to $ 5,048 per single family dwelling unit, and
decreasing the fees overall for multi-family, commercial, and industrial development.
The increase was largely due to a new PFDIF fee to fund major public recreation
facilities such as community parks, gymnasiums, and swimming pools. Addition of the
$1,079 recreation fee was offset by significant decreases in the Police and Civic Center
Expansion fees due to a reduction in projected financing costs for those projects.
Staff completed a November 2002 update of the Park Acquisition and Development
(PAD) fee 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.
Council approved an update of the Transportation DIF during the reporting period
(August 2002), increasing the fee from $6,240 to $8,180 per single family dwelling unit.
This was a major increase of 31% reflecting expansion of the program to include a
number of additional transportation improvements. and a significant increase in
construction costs beyond the annual inflation factor. The increase also resulted from a
shift in the originally planned commercial to residential land use ratios. The ordinance
provides for an automatic cost increase in October of each year, based on the ENR
Construction Cost Index.
The Traffic Signal Participation fee was adjusted slightly (by 72ft per average daily
vehicle trip) in October 2002 to account for inflation, Prior to this adjustment, the Traffic
Signal fee had been significantly increased only once since 1993 - necessitated by
higher costs for equipment and installation of new traffic signals needed to serve new
development. A resolution adopting the revised fee provides for an automatic cost
increase in October each year, based on the ENR Construction Cost Index,
The Otay Ranch Village 1, 5 & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF was updated in January 2003 to
include the construction of a new pedestrian bridge in Village 6, thereby raising the
impact fee from $545 to $783 per single family DU, In addition, a new Otay Ranch
Village 11 DIF, with a fee of $831 per single family DU, was created that will fund the
construction of four new pedestrian bridges in that development.
An update to the Salt Creek Sewer Basin fee was in progress during the reporting
period, with plans to present the update to Council in December 2003. Finally, the
Telegraph Canyon Pumped Sewer fee update was completed in January 2003, reducing
the fee from $560 to $180 per EDU, due largely to the infrastructure project coming to a
close.
Page 2
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. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating all of the DIFs.
3. In reference to operations and capital improvements, is the City addressing the
impacts of growth?
Yes --X...- No-
Explain: A recent update of the Fiscal Impact of New Development (FIND) model was
completed in May 2002, The FIND model is an analytical tool used to clarify whether net
revenues from development will be sufficient to offset the cost impacts associated with
Otay Ranch as it develops. If costs are greater than revenues, then according to agreed-
upon terms, an offsetting transfer of funds from San Diego County to the City would be
indicated by growth conditions. In FY2002, the model concluded that a transfer was not
necessary. In FY2003, the ratio of revenues to costs remained stable and it was therefore
deemed unnecessary to run the model. Should the situation change in the future and it
becomes less clear if a transfer is in order, the FIND model would be rerun.
With regard to capital improvements, a November 2002 Public Facilities DIF update
revealed the need for $302 million to complete all planned public facilities projects funded
with PFDIF funds, to meet growth needs through buildout. This includes the new police
facility, the civic center expansion, new libraries, fire stations and major recreation
facilities, The total includes both developer (DIF) and the city's share of project costs, as
well as a significant debt service that will be incurred in order to finance a number of
projects.
Since the last reporting period, city staff and a team of consultants developed a Traffic
Capacity Enhancement plan to accommodate interim growth in Eastern territories until SR-
125 is complete. In $1.75 million of capital improvement projects, East H Street was
widened at the 1-805, eliminating all of the southbound queuing that used to occur on the
freeway for the southbound off-ramp at East H Street. New "through" traffic lanes and a
right-turn only lane on East H Street at 1-805 are relieving congestion for morning and
evening commuters. Other enhancements at this location are speeding up the flow of
public transit buses by allowing them a few seconds to clear the intersection ahead of
other traffic. In progress at this time are $29 million in Traffic Capacity Enhancement
projects, including additional major improvements to East H Street at 1-805, Telegraph
Canyon Road at 1-805, and Olympic Parkway/East Orange Avenue at 1-805.
A federally funded Traffic Signal demonstration project replaced old-style fixed traffic
signal controls at eleven intersections in the vicinity of East 'H' Street and Otay lakes
Road with a $750K state-of-the-art adaptive traffic signal control system. The project
has improved travel speed by 18%, reduced travel time for motorists and will ultimately
improve air quality.
4. What Is the status of the citywide Operations Fiscal Impact Model?
A citywide Operations fiscal impact model was developed as part of the comprehensive
fiscal analysis component of the General Plan update. A consultant - Economics
Research Associates (ERA) prepared the fiscal impact model in order to calculate the
Page 3
fiscal impacts of various General Plan land uses and alternatives. Once the Planning
Department provides the necessary land use data, the model will be run for each
altemative.
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..-
Please explain, why or why not:
The City's fiscal policy with regard to new development is that new 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.
lAST YFAR'S GMOC RFCOMMFNnATIONS
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. DIF updates are now scheduled for October-January of
each year. In many cases, this "annual update" will be accomplished through an
automatic cost increase based upon the ENR Construction Cost Index rather than a full
analysis.
MISCFI I AN FOilS
7. Does the current threshold standard need any modification?
Yes- N o...lL-
Explain:
Page 4
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:
Prepared by: Evelyn Ong
Title: Senior Accountant
Date: November 20, 2003
And: Cathy Burciaga
Title: Administrative Services Manager
Page 5
~{f?
=-~:-:
~-- =
ClN OF
CHULA VISTA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DATE: February 2, 2004
TO: GMOC Members
VIA: O",¡" Fo~t", Growth M,""'m;£"""'too
FROM: Evelyn Ong, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Transportation DIF Other Expense and Interest Earned
In response to the questions raised during the GMOC meeting on January 29,
2004, we are providing you the details of Transportation DIF Other Expense in
the attached spreadsheet. Please also take note that the interest earned on
TDIF fund relates to the higher cash balances over the year when compared to
the SR125.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Ong at (619) 476-5376 ext.
3406.
Thank you.
c: Maria Kachadoorian, Finance Director
City of Chula Vista
Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF)
FY 02/03
Details of Other Expenses: Description:
City Staff Services $ 585,701 Staff time reimbursement to General Fund.
Other Refunds 581,069 Reimbursement to developers due to overpayments.
Interest Expense 335,772 Interest payments related to loans.
Contingencies 1,949 Minor miscellaneous expenses such as purchase of software.
Total $ 1,504,491
Interest Earned 6/30/2003 Endina Cash Balance
Transportation DIF $1,029,649 $17,051,784
SR125 $281,543 $7,359,089
"E
Q)
E
-< g-
f- Qj
z >
w Q)
:2 ."
I i!!
tJ .3
« :J
~ :;
-< t::
0
c.
c.
~ ~
c ~ Noomo 00 ~
- N ~~~o ~ N
ø ~ N~~O 00 ~
~ ~ ~ gg~~ ~ ~
E 0 ~ ~~~M ~ ~
~ Q)"'." Z 0 ~N~ ~ m
U. 15.ê.ê 0 ~
15 a. ~o c;;¡::
I- .1;; Q :ê ~ « ... ...
;(/) § ~~ ~~Of- ~~~~1
W "" c c"":::J ~~ oo~~
WW ~ ~~§ LL¡)¡ ¡g~~~~
U. ~ 8.,§,§ g> Z ¡gt~f~¡;;
1-1- ø QjQj= ë2 M~~ON
°15 ~ :;::;:~ f- ~....: "":c?
~Z ; ~~~Q) - -
::æ~ :¡¡ f¡jf¡jÆ~Q)
¡: >< ~.~ .~ .~ g: ~
~ZW !!! """"¡}eø ~
~WC .::: ~~Q)~~ ¡;;
:::J::æZ 0 ==~cuQ)
0 Q. « § ~ ~ .Ë .~ m ~
We(/) "" --CUQ)'¡: ., cu
i3¡¡jw ~ ~~~ê~ ð ~
(/) > :J iñ.s.s E o2! ¡:: ~w
wZ § ~~~~.~ « (/)0
c~ ~ ¡ii¡ii¡ii¡ii¡ii ~ rJ~ e
zw :5 0 .!!!O ~
QO:: ~ g~¡gg5ã' ~ ';:;§ø ¡¡;
1-<') c ~_~_m_....._~- - N Q) ø""i!! 0
~~ ~ oo~~t:~ ~ ~ .ê:ß ø ~m£! B
0::0 ~ ~ Z ~ (/) ê ~ 8~2! :¡¡
0>- f-... ::s 0 ijJJ!! ~ .2:ø,~¡ii m
Q.u. .... -< oj õJ!! Q) Q)g¡-,x aJ
(/) æ Q) aJ 0 ~(/) ~ (/)c¡¡¡:;~ Q)
Z LL.g¡ o:¡¡ QcðJø ..cð¡iiEoo .s
« õ Q) Z m tJ2Eõ :ßøx~¿.!!1, 2!
0:: :5 :::J aJ øcucuQ)S~Æw~.g¡e w
I- § - LL Q) Q)"t::W c ¿.3i5.~- ø~ ."
"" 0 M c Q)o-.!!!Q)iJc.Q).cc~ Q)
c. ~ 0 ~ LLiØQj~c:J:5Q)!!!- ""
~ :J N c ~ci!!ocQ)(/)OOf-tJ ~
:ß ~ ~, ~~~I~! ~
0 « LL aJ - :::J
~ ag ~~~~~~a~~8aa8a8
~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'U~ -- --------------
~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
00 ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ a~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~b~bb~bmbboobbbmbbb
z -õ ~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~o
~ 1~ œ~~~8~8~88~88~~88~
I e~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~
t) D..
~ õ~
!;( * §
~
rJ 8 8
§ '0 0" , ,
'" "" "" a>
~ '" ~ œ
~ 'g. ~ ~
- ~~
1.1.. a.
- a.
0 ~
t:.
~~ § NOOOO~O~MOOOOOOooo
Ww "" ~o~~o~oo~ooooooooo
W~ .~M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I.I..~ ~oQ ~~~~8~~~~~~g~~~~~~
1-1- ~o N~~~~ œM~~~~
0 - a.~ "" N- å "" coi
«0 ~~ ~
11. Z - '"
:EW 19
-11. 0
I- X ~
--:ZW
~WO æ ~8~~~~gœ~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~:Ez ~~ Mo~~œO~~NM~O~ONoooœ ~
ÔI1.« t)~ Ñå ~~~a>~åå",,~coiåå~Ñ~ ~
UJg~ !:!:jõ ~N ~ ~- ~gg¡ ~~~M~ g¡-
IWW Oz N M
~>~ ~UJ
W Z D..D..
OW ~ ~
>
zw
o~
~M '"
«~ ~
I-N > ~ iU'
~o - a. ~ ==
0> ¡¡¡ E "'æ ~~EE~
5;1.1.. ~ ~ i ~è5", ~~!5,!5,æ æ
z ê5 ",8 g>e æ ~~ g> t)t)££~ ~
« ~ .~ ~a. fic~"'~ ¡¡ ! ~
~ D.. ~~ ",E ~o ~u "':;:;"""rJ -
I- - a. rJ ~-~""¡¡; 'c~~e, "5.5,,, CI
~ ~~ID>~oëcooæ$oD..~~ooUJ z
.. t) c"'",>cOO-$ _c"""'--""""¿' UJ
ø 00 ",:;_"",,~~xIO-l9crJ rJ cco D..
~ ~ ~§&~fi~~~~~~~~~~ii; ~
~ iii"" -'cID~"""",S:¡:,c"""""uuiii n
~ ~",rJ ~- -cc~"'~Ccc==- ~
- ",>~_c~OO",~D..",o~~~"""rJ 5
CI ¡¡¡O",oo=cæå",u~t)~OOOO~~E ~
z ~¡¡¡~~oo~E B~OOuuuu~~iii ~
~ g:iU'~;¡:o.Qu.j3:~.5;¡ij1ij1ij1ij8~c ~
X ~œO->~œ"'oo--O~~~~~oo~ 0
UJ t) œ > œ,œ D.. œ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N 00 ~
a..
Õ ~
~ ~ œM~~~~g¡M~~~~~~~ooœM
N ~ ~OMNMMMMMMM~ooœœœœo
= ~ ~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ D.. ~~oooooooooooooooooo~~~~~~~
«
f-
Z
UJ
:;;:
J:
C,,)
~
~
-0
'"
>-
-m '" '" '" ~~ '"
~ N~ ~ ~~ NO '"
. "'B ~ ~~ ~~ ~
g ~~ ~ ~OO ~O ~
~ Z 0 NN -- ~
11 =>it: Ñ Ñ "1-
~ ~en -
]j ff> ff>
0
0
~
N
it:
en
w - ~
WCI) :ß ",a¡
II.. W .5 -5 -5
.... 0:: "".f '"
(..)::> ~ ~1ä
<c .... f-.- .- -
a.C E §§.§
;!z * g>g>",
....w '" ==.s
zec ~ ~~'¡¡¡
NWW ..c: ~~~
~~c £ &i&i"E~ z '"
=>O~ :ß ~~fJ"'~ Q ~
fa ....I E'5 .5 .2: g¡ '" I- £2
i3~:3 ~ ggg~g¡ :¡¡ N ~
enW::> ~ ~~>-"ffi~ D:: ~ ai
CZ ~ EE~~"ffi 0 a :ß g
It)W 1ií J!!J!!",ã;.,::: II.. ¡:: o.!!!
N> ¡ ~~~EU ~ 0 ~ ~ Æ
~!::! c. g>g>'§E-ê UJ ai.æ "'~ '"
CI) ~ ëñ ëñ E 8 .s () g ¡¡j a¡ ~ UJ .s
M '" ~~~~~ z '" = wc- ~
~o ~ """"""'" « "ffi ~E"",,¡¡j c
""'- '" c.c.c.c.c. ...J CD ~"'~ '- UJ
ã:~ 06 ~~~gg « '" :ß~~Æ£ a¡
w> 'S: a>~~~~ aJ .s "':ßcc. ""
1-11.. 0 aID 0 ê ~~",c.!;!, -g
Z ~ N- Z .- ~ '" c."C,,) '"
- ~ ::J 5\' B:š~en c
æ ff> II.. CD =>
C')
0
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
<= -
.Q 0
:§. "E
~ "
0 0
:ß E
0 «
«
f-
Z
L.U
::;;
:J:
U
~
D
"C D
~~ ~
ro"C ;::
""Q) D
E1j §
(f)
a¡~ ~
-go co
"Q) D
IJ.. OJ D
-'" ~
0 c
.~'i.i!
~O
c..u
Õf-
;í1.£>
ê D Q);í1.
~ . ~
~~ ~ ~
~ g. ~
1J..a. .æ
~ c
« -
C D
.2 D
- D
.ê", ò
e~ ~
w ~!:2
w f/) ~~
u.W ro'"
1-0:: Õ
O::J f-
<!::
D..C UJ:g:g g
::5z c:: co. co. ë D.
¡:~ 8~ 0 0 5 g
z>< ë;¡õ ~ ~ E D.
;:¡ W W Dæ¡ ~ .....
UJif:C ~c.. g¡
so Z [;) ...J
o..J< fI>
UJWf/)
:J:>W
UW::J
(f)cz
I )W
N>
...W C
0:: 0:: fß ,g ,...:
f/)M ê5 ~ c:: ~-ðg
::5S2 .. - c.. => O",N
i:2~ fß ~ ~ ~ æ 6~~
I!:! >- ~ 5'~ æ¡ ~ '¡jig ~
zu. f- (f) IJ.. c.. 0 5""
- 15 ~ ~ [;) 6 g.8 ~
ffi ~!!: "" ~£>~
II.. (f) U t; f-a¡~
~ .§;¡! ~ ~ e ;;
!!: .æ b g¡ §:~
0 .!: f- ...J '" '*t
S t; to . .1
Ñ UJ.... ~
0 <3:¡¡ «
>- c:: f- 0
II.. c.. (f) ...J
----_..._..--.--.._------~---'--'---"
«
f--
Z
w
:2
J:
0
~
ê'
'"
E
a.
(/ .Q
W ~ ~
W(/ ~ ~ ~ ~~O omø ø
~W ~ « ~ ~~'" ~~ '"
I- ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~~~ ~;}::}
U~ c ~~C M ~"'~ ~M M
<I: 1-'" .. en z ~- m '" ~m ø-
D..-.o CO=>
:¡¡¡C aJ ~¡¡:LL
- Z '" LLLL
I-W ffi «
Z D.. <J 0:::
W >< '" f--.,. .,.
M:¡¡¡W E
~D..C -8
=>Oz >
c...J <I: Œ1
~W(/ ~
o>W -
en W ~ "t>
C Z g¡
...J W (1
<I: > II!
z W g
C) ~ "-
-(') E
(/ o e
~ N g,
~ 0 ""
~>- "S M
<I:~ g¡ Q
~ ~ " ~
I- {j -g Õ3
:¡¡ 1:j 2 '" ¡Ii "-
~ z ~ Æ ~-~ g
S, Q § 8 ¡lið ~ ~
"Iii a. ~ ",- g¡ ~ .æ"ê' IJJ
Œ1 E:2 g '" "t> ~ê~ ~
(1 ~ 0::: (1 LL_"'""~(1 ~ ~
~ ¡Ii 0 Æ ~~~~õ~u ~
:2:- '" LL '" ,Q><9W,ê "t>
- ~ z c en~-"t> '"
0 ~ - ~ <J~g¡c ~
~ '" w E ~~~¡Ii ~
~ 0 '" (1 ",-X (1
Z '" .':::LL.!:W c
~ IJJ ~ =>
.,. ã!i
iJj ¡,; 0
LL .II! z
- '" :J
~ ,;; LL
~ ~ ~
"5 ~ ~
g¡ E >-
C « LL
"C (J) C\I (J) (J)........................C\I
~~ ~~~88~o~88888MMMM
ro"C œ~œ~N~O~~~~~~OOOO
~~ ~O~O~O~OOOOOO~~~~
-~ 13 13~13 1313~131313
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~ œ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~ ~~88~~~~8~~g8~888
w ~~ ............ ...... ...... ..................
:::E "õ'u
13 è:: 1ij
~ Õ t=
~ ~ >-
~ 0 ~
oooooooooooo~oooo
~ N
~ ~
0 .
Q 15 '"
:; '¡::
- "-
:J 0
"-15.
"-
~
U)
W
WU) § 8~~8888~88~~~8888
~w ~ ~œ"'o~O~"'O~~NvOOOO
~~ fa ~gg~~gg~g~g~gg~g~
<~ eõ ......~............ ............ ~ .................. ..................
Do - "-!:2
:æ ~ ~~
- w - ro
~ Do .!!!
z>< (!.
......W W
~:æc M""""'~"""~......~......Mv~~O~~ '"
~DoZ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~ ~
~°...J< M~ ~O~~~Ñ~ Ñ~~~ÑO~~~ ~
0 o~ ......N N œ......œœN............ M
wwU) NO N ...... ............ œ
J:>W Oz
()W::J >-w
en C Z "- a.
...JW ><
<> W
zw ~
C)a::
-I")
U)e;) ~
0 Ñ §,
~e;) ø~
~>- ~Q §
~~ E§E~ E ..:
~ ~15 ~ g ~ ~
::2 e 8m-' e .s:::.
.& a.-,Q ~ a. ~ ~
~ ë~~~ ë ~~"C§"C
Î - ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~
;n ~ ~iiíiií, ~~~C:::(;jrooro
.Q ro ro~~~ rooo~a.E-,E en
::2i.s:::. ~~~~ ~~~~Q Q~Q w
z M~a._Q ~:J~~Q ()()ro~~õ~ c:::
Q @~~Hc:::~~~2c:::"C"C-'I_~- ~
en ~ "'~ro~~en>-enro~Q Q ~~~ro~ t:
w ~ ØE~82~~~~2~~õ~~~~ ~
~ 5 ~1~~jl~l~jii~~~§~ w
en ~>---Q ---Q Q ~~ooo~o a.
t: w Een~EOEEEC:::OEE~~~ro~ ~
~ 0 ~~~~~æ~æ~~~~~~~~~
w a.§,en§,§,Q¡~Q¡§,§,§,§,.gH!~-g~ ~
D. ~ø~øø~2~ØØØØEEE:::EE ~
Xw eg~ggH~Hgggg~~~~~ ~
a.~~~~_ro_~~~~~~~~~ ~
D. ~~",~~ele~~~~~~~~~ a
õ (J)~œ~~a._a.~~~~enenenenen ~
C') ~
0 ()
Ñ ~ v~OMM"'œNM~"'~......Mv~'"
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ a. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"'...
>- ]j ¡H~
~-È
"'"
".c:
-0
(f)
« ,¡¿ ,¡¿
~ ~!:, ~fg
w ,,0 0""'
~ æ" ~r--
~ ¡!
~ ~~
« ~u
Of-
?fl.};
!:, ~ ffi~ ~~ ~ 00
0 œ oo~ ri~ 00 00
w ""' "'~ ~~ N "
~~ :: "'N ~ ,,~
i~ ;~
::>~ "- K
~ "-0 a.
~ U «
C f-
W '" '"
~ ~ CO >;!
i!!: [ß ~ 5 tj. °.
~~ &J ~'" ~~
C I- ~ Š-e ri
u ë :;; a.~
t:.ifi ¡¡¡ ~~
~~ ~ E]jm
..~w ~<ri * ~
~,,~ ß~ ~
0« 00:;: B co~ :t
wi!!: æo 00 gJ:::: ìb
i3<[ß j"]j Ü:!OJ œ~ ~
(f)1I:::J ~ ~ ~ r-- ~
Cz "a; ~ 8E
~~ ~~ æ 8 §i
~~ §-5 ð g ~~
ëjs ~~ N aJ .9g¡ ¡g ~
J: § 50 ~ ¡ ¡j,ê 13 '"
D..> ~§ ~ 'õ q ¡¡¡
<LL 10 "Ie 0 U lOa. ãi
II:: uo . 00 ~~ m
"£.~ is:iJ is g>
w m~ ¡¡¡ "-aJ..-¡;:U 'õ 00
..J 6>.2 ãi "Eg¡,,-!!!. " ;;:
W "-c m g'mS(f)E! w a.
I- ~ ¡¡¡ :Z g>~~;¡¡:ã~ aJ ~
oš ~ g -§ 0 ~ ¡¡~ë3 ~ ~ ffJ
~~; ~ ~ ~!M ~ ~ j~ ~
Uoo a. 0:: m ::> Iii ¡:: ulf. t::
.Èoo 0> 0 W ~ ""2 0
ê -~ iõ- ~ g¡ 5 ~ð ¡¡¡
8!!!" ¡;j I- (f) lOa; ~
õm U Õ ~ ~~ ~
"- '" z z a.~ ~
::i ~ ~ü: ë3
~ ~ ~ x ~$ ~
~ ~ 0 w ~(f) f-
0 ~ ~ G ~§ ~
~ ~ ~ g t
~ § ~ Ñ ~ ~~
00 0 0 0 0 ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
« ~~~~~
~ NNN~~
~ M~~ NN
~ ~ ~~O
I ¡ ~I~ ~
~ E §U~
~ .~ ~ooOO
« ~m e
~ ij; .~
m~ OO~ OOONN
~O ~~ OOO~~
e- mE -~~ ~~M~~
~B ~~ ~~o MM
¡n I~ ~I,5
"'5~ §e §u~
.g~ ~~ ~o..oo ~
"i5:¡¡ 8:g
- -~ oo~oo
em a, ~~MOO
~~ ~~ ---~~
II) J!!i; 0..;: M~~ --
II)W ma. 1?g] ;1;~,:
We:: £.9 -~ ~Em
W:J .5~ .5~.,; §æ~
u.!:: £'" ~~'" ~ 00
I- 0 .¡¡ g¡ ~ :¡¡ ~
~ffi ~~¿ ~~J3
Q.Q. ~e'¡¡; ~2- ggg;¡
~ ~n~ ~ ,~ J!! È:¡¡; ~ - Z'~ ~ ~ ¡;oj
wl-O §;;¡~ ~§.¡g ;1;';;0 NN-:J:J
~z .o~ °ae ~~~ ii
5W~ - 'ö~i § n §C> ~ 00
w:¡¡lI);1; §~~ iji~ ~~oo ~~
5~w -g '¡¡;.Q§ Èi3£ ~ NN
oo..J§il ~ ¡g U~ §~.9
~W ~ M~ ~1ñ£ o~itì ~'6'
W> 0 ~§ m§.5 1?"'~ i~ i:¡¡
OW ~ ~~ £0£ -E¡¡¡ {j1? """
e:: e:: ~ §¡L 55'¡¡ 520.. $ ~ J!!~
wS IM~O ~~ ~ -8ï¡¡ '1§'§
~ Ñ ~;1; 15'¡¡¡ '1§ '1§ '" ~ !!
II)~ e§.5~ !!; ~~§5~
u. C>~~~ 0 §§g>~~
U~oo~ ~.. ~~~~
t:.~:;;m ~ ~ ~~~
~~~~ I!!;~ ~~~m
o~ooo.. Z' O'¡¡; mmet¡
:;;mu~ I ~~ JJI"'~
~~~o (5..~:;; .~.~.~~'"
oom~e e~ oo~ mm~~g¡
~~~.~ g,,: ~I ~~;~§,
~o..~~ ~~ m§ EE~~~
C>~"'m Um oo~ aa.,m~
§15~~ æ~~ æ~ æ ~~~ê~
~~~oo ~"m ~~ - ee:Jo~
~~me 'ö~~ Ua 1? ~~Eo~
UmOOg, e~§ 'iä~ ;:: ~:;;:;;:;;:;;
~ool~ ~~o.. 000.. ° ~~~~~
~i!!u ~ e
~~Ua t¡ ~
~§'iä~ Og] «E
~o..ooo..
< ~
f- >o~
~ ~~ § 8 ~
~ ~~ N N -
I -0
U 00
Ë 0'> 0'>- ¡::-O'> '" ¡¡LL *' *' *'
< :;: ~;¡i;,;;1;12 ò!; -gõ g g ¡;:
~æ~ g g~ ~g ~ ~~ ~ g ~
~~o ~ N'" -~ ~ õê -
~ 8J .S 0'> 0'> - .!!!"~
§u~ £0
LLoom õ~
.,. .,. *' ~
... <D<D a <D <II a a a
-æLL ò!; ~~ ,~~ § g
:g ~õ g g~ ~;; ~~ ~
-goo.¡j¡ ~ N- - "'. -§ a. '"
::10m N N LLe
LL~m ~
.,. .,. <
:;;:g~ ~ g g g g ~
r--N~"'" a m a a a
enlß ~¡¡ô g ~~ g 8" '§.g¡ g g g
We::: ~a..'" - '" eg"". '" r--.
W :J -g § ~ ~¡¡; N ~
u..!:: ~~Q) <õí
~C ø m
~ if¡ .,. .,. ~
!i~ ~ ~8 ~;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g¡ g¡
"'"":-w -~~ "'. "'.~.' 'N. <D, ",:J N. "!. <D. <D. "'. "'.
~~c ;¡i;';;;0 ~ g5:6 ~ ~ at: ~ ~ ~ ~ g g
-'Zz ~eæ"'- '" '" C:¡o """ -- --
¡S!!:1< §C9~ Ñ ...: ~ifí ...:...: 0; 0;
w~en LL~OO LL~
GO W .,. .,. tiS.,. .,. .,.
oom~ ~
>w 00
w> ~
C W "
e::: e::: ';; "
W S ð ~
:¡: Ñ 00 ,- 00 2 00
We ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
en> .. :J LL~:J o:J
LL. êj t: Õõ t: 0 t:
¡:: ~ '=8 ~ 15~ ~
< W :N W ,,00 W
~ g¡ üi Z ~ m.¡¡ ~ 'iii~ ~
0 g¡ g w Q w :OmW Æ2w
~ !5 8 II:: I;: !b ~~!b .f-!b
- N 'õ, ¡:! ¡:¡:: 0 00" 0 ~ð 0
l'.j ~ ¡¡ 1J i5 0 :;¡! ,,-g:;¡! "=::;¡!
Z 52 ::¡¡¡. æ z ffJ f- °6, f- ~oo f-
~ ¡; ~ :gw ~ ~ 0 ~ ¡~ ~ ::g¡ ~
å'í 1f ~ r~ 0> ~ ~ (3
c æÆ¡¡..we'¡¡ II..!! :¡¡
Z m °E ::¡æ~ " - ~ ~ tJ)
:J m O""!5~~ w U
~ g> ::¡~~i§ÕC::; ¡¡ g b:;: ;i; :;:
~ ~ ~~¡¡¡ ~ Ñ ~:~ :¡;: :~
~ 'g> 5~~Æ" ê ~ ~ §~ §~ §~
LL m :J II.. ~ LLOO LLOO LLOO
«
~ .
z CD
W oð
::;: '"
J: -
0 ~
« :¡¡
1= g> .
« =:::
> W
.s::'"
u '"
e=
&.>
ß'g
0 '" LL
~ -
eo' ,
W~ OOJ:
~Õ ffio
We OZ
~~ z~
mm ~r
EE LL«
W W ~
1) 1) 0 '" '"
W 5.5. 00
W .~ .~ CO> 0 LL ~ ;;; ~ ~ ~
II.. W ~ ~ ~ ~;'!: £5 ~- t'--_"'_o- "'-
I- .g>:g OO~O OOCD t'--J: ~ ~;:!~ ~
0 1õ :§i; ffi~~ ffio "'- '" ~ CD-
c:( '" e .!!!-c OZ ~ ~
~ -g .¡L~ §>~ z~
;:¡ß ~oo -gj:¡¡ LLgj-g '" ~~
Zo:: ---ffi -g-g Q. ~
W~ ~-c c.c. 0 '" '"
==1- ~§ 00 0
D..i5 ",LL ee "'00
Oz :gu::,g~ "'LL ~'"
...IW 00£5 g2 t'--oð£5 '"
WD.. e .Þ- oo~w
>X .!!1~ ~~ ",W",
CD ~ W i¡¡ :g 8 8 -g ~:g
W C .:goo WW :J=OO
-'Wz we.s::.s:: LL>-c
5 C) c:( Q. .~ ~ ~ ~o ¡f
wc "'- u u
J:i:t:¡ß oð~ ¡¡¡~
°a:a~ ::w .Eo:: 1:: '"
rJ) Z >Q. 00 ~ §
~W ~::: ~~ ã) :¡¡ £2
i:t: ~ Q.> .. ~ '" ~ ¡g
1-0:: ~~ ~.. e'g e ~ oj
¡ßM OQ. ~~ ~~ 0 Jj g
c e ~LL.g>° @,5.. § ID"*
We-.! :g£5 ,¡:~ w'ijj Z - -g .s:: 00
D..C asw OO:g ~~ Q ~ õ Õ '"
:r: >- ¡¡¡ ~ .ffi as "E :: I;;: ¡¡¡ ~ -g.;, ,g
011.. ~~ ~e we::;: ~ oew e
Z i¡¡OO 1ií.!!1 ~.!!! ~ 00 O(¡¡5 w
~ we w.Þ .2:£! 0 ",IIJW--c
-c.!!! -g1lJ :J~ LL e w_~ W
¡fi¡¡ Q..:g gà- Z ï:: If~m '§
>- CD.:g "'¡f ~~ ill .g, ~.g¡~ æ
c:( oðW oð~ E= 0 W ClEw e
I- ",Q. ~~ '" E Z 00 ~
0 ..:::::g,:g, ~~:5
ww ~~~.. ~~ «
II If» J ~E ~
»ogjgj ~ ~~ ~
gg.§ ~ ~
&.&. ~ § ~
ß'ß' ~ ~ 0
00 0 « ¡:
~ g ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~
z ~ ~ ~~~~ --roM- M
W < N m~ ~ ~Orom~ M
~ ~ ~ ~~ M N~ON~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~â ~
~ ; - ;
< """ 0 iii '"
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~ g~ ~ ~ ~
"'. M 0 ~ N
~ ~ Ñ ~ - g
¡::::- ~;=- ro N
. ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ë.;;; ~ ~~ ~ 00
~~~ ~ N- N ~
'" ~ ~
¡;; ~
j~m~ ~~ ~~
~~~ ~ ~OO Ñ ~
.... Ii> ~
." f2 ~~ ~ 15
E.!Om ~ ~~ ~, M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~::;: "t g
c ;:¡ <3 '" - ~
~ U E iii ~:;r ro
;;; w g. ~....~. g. ~- ~-
Wo c.Jj'~ ~ ~::: :;:
~Z ~~ ~ - :
I- ~ - - ---
O<c . :8 ~;¡;~ :8!:;~o;;:!;
<cm ~E ~ ~~~ ""~O~ ro
D.c §-.m c;j u;ju;j ",-c;jc;j~"':
::EZ ø.,¡.... ~ ~ro -~M~ ~
~ :J ~ Jj' ~ ~ ~ - --:;;-::} Ii
ZLL ~ ~ ~
~WLL ~
~~~ . ~ ~~ i ,~¡¡¡ æ
00 Z .~ ~..; "'00 '" ~... .5
! !..JW ~.... m ON ~ ro m >-
¡¡J~::E ~~ ~ ~M - M ¿ î
W ~ ~ ~ E!
C <c -- Co
æti ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~¡;¡~ ¡¡¡ ~
E S ~ g ~ ~ ~&j "tic:; ~ ~
::!¡:;¡ <3&! ~ N ~~ ~ ~
0° ~ - ~ -
~ ~ iñ 0 m iñ ô~ ro ~
0 ~ ~ q~ ~,~~ ~ ~
~ ~~~ ~ ~g ~ ~O; ~ ~
g¡ ft. ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ s-
D. '" :
- -- .<::
~ roro M OO~ ~ -
::ON; : ~~ g¡ ,~~g::¡ .E
I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
O:g,..: N. c;j ~
.~ ~ Q;
¡; ~ ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ & ~~~ ~ ~ g
~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ¡¡ ~ -~ - ~ ~
ø
ø ~ ~
.~ ~ g
N ~ '" ~
~ :f ~g>.2
~ Øe ø ø i I ~
O. .~, ~ ~ ~ ~ >=
~ ø~¡¡n'g $ §
.. '!!WE CI)~~- M -
Æ n~.5~~~$ð:a¡ ¡g
'" ¡';¡;E~:;;~~.J:j-:;;ê' ~
§ ê~~~~'g~]i~~ ~ w
a ~ô.5I~liðð~c ~ S
Æ 0:: úJ ::;) z
«
f-
Z "C
W >0"
~ ~~ 8 ffi888 ~~ ~ §~
~ ££ N ~NNN ~~ ~ N~
~ en
« "C ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~
" ~ en~~ID ~m ID o~
"C ~ ~MID~ ~en ~ DID
~~ ~ ~~~~ O~ ~ g~
135
.~&
E! >0
a..c
Õ
~
~ M 0
e m 0
.2 0 ' 0 '
r~ ~ g
.¡: E! ö
en ~ ~
W
g:; .§ re ~~¡;;::5 ~::J: ;2; 8:2
- m ~ IDIDmM en~ ~ NM
~c ~a g gdtg ri~ ~ ~t
00 en M ~ 0 ~~
u:-æ §:¡¡¡ -.i ,..:.,.:
- II.. «-
c >< oj <0
LLW Õ
!!::.C f-
'":!!::~ "g! g! C!;~g¡¡;j ¡g :ß¡; ~ Sf Sf g¡re ¡:;¡
~c- M5 M M N::J:MM M IDen::J: en en m~ ~
wen« ~'" ri ri ri-.iö d "':a>"': .,.:.,.: -.iN""':
5!:!:!1u o~ ~ ~ ~ en 0; g¡. gJ. N N ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡
ß~C ìt¡¡.
I::! LL w.,. .,. .,. .,. .,.
UUO
en«W
LL..J
U~
~C z z
m~ Q 0
~U ~ ø
II.. en c:: Z 0
... ~ it en ~
~ ?; [;] ~ >-
0 ::;: c:: :J is
> 5! I:! u ¡::: en
LL ..J 15 L1: ~ ~ ~
~ U'" wI;; 0 c::
We WN ul;;~"C:5: ~
W~ 151;; ~-ge Ô§ 0 ~
0:: ." ¡::: c.:>;:: 13 U".2 a. ~ U
~ ~: ~ ~ Ie ~ ~ B ~ z ~ ~ j æ
ëoe"c::"Ca.,g~c::C)§ c::Q~c:: ~c::
z '¡:~~§:sg!~~21:E ~!;(~~ en~
æ z:3" 5 ~ .~g ~ 5 ¡¡j 5 5 g Jj 5 ~ 5
>< Qe15i5~~:3"15g';,~15..JQ;15 ~,915
W f-£a.-JjQ;--a.::;¡ãí:;¡a.~'ij¡a. !!!..Ja.
II.. r:i m [;] ~ ~ë~~ [;] ~ ~~ [;] 0 æ [;] ~ ~~ [;]
ü t; Q; ..J it ~c3~.§ ..J en ~.~ ..J c:: m :i I;; ,,~ :i
LL z:¡¡;!: >< U".g"m ;!: !!! 25° ;!: ~ E f- .., :20 f-
- - c.:> 0 W .~C::ii5 0 f- "a. 0 '2; 0 § en" 0
f2 ::;¡ >0 f- c:: .gUcc" f-:J a.~ f- i5 « f- ~ 1ií« f-
II.. C'" W 2men~ U- ~~ - ID <Om
~ U f- Uma.~ ~ mZ f- m en Wm
S oJ ¡jj ~ r:i !!!
~ ~ m U m~~ w 0 ID ~
N 13 w ~ U MID~en 0 enm "- en c:: ~M
= I ¡jj ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~::
LL a. c.:> c.:> u c.:>c.:>c.:>a. a. a.a. U c.:> ..J..J..J
«
~ -g
~ ~~ g ¡oj 1£ 0 8 8 8 g g
I E Q) OO( )OOOO ( ) °
tJ C:-5 NN~NNNN ~ N
~ -00
« "C "'- "'- "'- "'- "'- "'- "'- "'- "'-
~ ~8~~~~ß fu 8
æLL ~g~gm~~ ~ ~
,,15 ~
.~dt
e,.,
D...c
Õ
"#.
OJ) °
c: °
.2 , I'- '
n g
"5 g. N.
LLa.
"-
II) «
w c: ~ "'N( )M~ o o
~ ~ ~g~~~~~ ~ ~ Q)
~ 1M ~Ó~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
ë "-Q """NOM OM ~ <0 a: "'- "'-
~Z ~~ '" ~~( ) I'- M ~ ]j ¡g 8
!!: ~ ~~ :;; cO .;
f2>< ]j'" :£
!!:.~ {3. .,. .,.
"!a~ Mi!! ¡e¡g~g¡1£:¡¡g¡ m ~ ~ § ¡!¡ ~
~II)< ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
s!!!tu o:¡¡ ~¡g~g !e. N « ~. ¡:¡
ß!::C ~ß: ... '" ~ ~
G~:S w .,..,..,....J
00 « w
IL....I
0:::1 ~
~ß w
~ J: ~ :¡¡
0..0 ¡j; "C~ ~
II) OJ) g¡<:>.
:;: ~ ~ ~~ ~
Ñ (jj ~ "-" :>
0 fß ~ ;:.~ ~
> a::J c:~ C:'
IL it w c: ~~ ê~8
.. c: iiJ ~ ~ .3 ~<: 50~
æ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ õ:¡¡.2 ';,~';,
!!; .5 In Q) u;: LLS.~ Q) 5 C;;~ ~ 5~
~ OJ) c:"'-oo OJ) "C --0 """
~ Q) 1! I 5.2~C: w B .~ .- c: 0.25
ë O::J 1;; ij~.9 Q) a: z e i!:' ~ 218 00 S¡o
z LL '" C:::J¡j)OO[:J OD.. .- Q) -N EQ)M
W :=; ~ ~~i!!~.~ 5 ~ ,~ E tJ 0 ~,§ .g~¡
0.. W .2 ¡j)5¡¡C:W Z « 0 S ~ 0"5 mc:c:
)( I- ~ i tJ ,.,.2 Q) W D.. > '" .- "E"õ I: ::J 0
~ ~ ¡j)c:i!!I'-Q)~~ D.. X "C ,., ~ "'OJ)~ .8~
e: 1/1 Q)~¡¡~~¡j)~ [;] ~ ffi ~ .ê ~[q ~~~
0 ~ i'Er7J~.20.~Q) :;;! U :g Q) "E ~'¡j¡jj iR"Ci!!
!!: (jj ~ Q)"ê!§~~~ I- !;: ~ ~ ~ Pm ;: g¡ ¡;-
C 1/1 Q)."""OOoo"" 0 :> "- '" '" ,,-°E -oc:
ILo.. !!J ~~~,~ ffiË ~ I- ~ "* :! g 5';,.2 6: 2:¡!¡,
... ~ ( )( )( )LLa:ID.. ~ I- :!!! 0 I U.c« D.. ",«
o:J J: '" ..
Ñ ,,1/1 O<O( )O<OI'-'" ¡¡ ~ '2 ;!: !'1
0 Q) W ~~~~~~~ ...J ~ 8 «
~ £ ~ æææææææ I!! ¡g ~ ¡g 9
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 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.
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
1. Has the City submitted an annual report to the GMOC and the Air Quality Pollution
Control District that covers points 1, 2, and 3 above?
Yes X No -
Explain:
2. 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?
Since the last reporting period the City has adopted guidelines for the preparation of Air
Quality Improvement Plans as required by the Growth Management Ordinance. The
guidelines were developed based on the information gained in the Air Quality Improvement
C:ldffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed quesllO3 GMOC Planning AQ3.doc Page 1
Plan pilot study that was conducted in 2002, The adopted guidelines allow for a flexible
approach to meet the requirements by permitting project developers to choose from
participation in the GreenStar Building Efficiency Program or evaluation of their project using
the CO2 INDEX computer model. The GreenStar Program requires residential construction
methods that exceed the CA Title 24 Energy Code requirements by at least 15% resulting in
energy conservation and having favorable impacts on air quality.
Since July 2002, two major projects were approved by the City Council. Consistent with the
newly adopted Guidelines, these projects were required to prepare Air Quality Improvement
Plans,
The Freeway Commercial SPA Plan was approved April 1, 2003. Located in Otay Ranch,
this project contains 160 acres intended for commercial uses that require automobile
orientation near regional transportation systems. The AQIP for this project requires
installation of energy efficient lighting systems, heating and cooling equipment and cool
roofing materials, It also includes a public transit alignment, transit station and park-and-ride
facility.
Bella Lago, a 90-acre residential estate development was approved April 8, 2003, This
project consists of 140 large lots containing a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Located
north of Rolling Hills Ranch in eastem Chula Vista, the AQIP for this project requires 100%
participation in the GreenStar Building Efficiency Program.
Several major developments are currently in the entitlement process including Otay Ranch
Villages 2, 3, 4 and Planning Area 18b, Otay Ranch Village 7, and the Eastern Urban
Center. These projects represent a large portion of the remaining undeveloped land in Otay
Ranch and may proceed through the review process during the next reporting period.
Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, 4 and Planning Area 18b consists of 847 acres. The project is
estimated to provide 3,262 residential dwelling units, a school, parks, commercial and
industrial uses. This project is required to prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan as a part
of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
Otay Ranch Village 7 SPA Plan is a 420-acre site. The project proposes a transit oriented
development consisting of approximately 1501 dwelling units and includes schools, parks,
retail commercial and greenbelt areas. The property is controlled by five separate land
owners, one of which is currently preparing a SPA Plan for 748 dwelling units. This owner is
proposing participation in the GreenStar Building Program for half, or374, dwelling units, in
their portion of the project. The owners of the remaining property are required to prepare an
AQIP consistent with the Guidelines prior to approval of their projects.
The Eastern Urban Center proposal consists of 283 acres to be developed as a mixed-use
urban village, The plan includes 2,332 multi-family units, a regional mall, low rise and high
rise business and office uses as well as a cultural arts facility.
In addition to the development occurring in eastern Chula Vista there are several smaller
projects in the southern and western portions of the City required to prepare AQIP's that
have been approved or are in the planning stages. The 39 acre Auto Park North project
located approximately one half mile east of Interstate 805 on the North side of Main Street
was approved in June 2003. Planning has begun on the Auto Park East expansion project
located adjacent south of Auto Park North. These projects are intended to establish the
Chula Vista Auto Park as a regional automobile sales and service destination.
The Chula Vista Crossings is another project in the entitlement process. The 17 acre site is
located at the southeast corner of Interstate 805 and Main Street and is proposed to be a
retail shopping center anchored by a Kohl's Department Store.
C:\dffilesIGMOClGMOC 031Retumed quesM3 GMOC Planning AQ3.doc Page 2
Also in the preliminary planning stage is the Espanada Specific Plan. This mixed-use
proposal includes 182 condominium units, a 16-unit town house complex, retail and
restaurant uses. The 4.6 acre site is located on the north side of H Street between Third
Avenue and Fourth Avenue.
3. 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.
4. 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 the 20 Action Measures contained in the Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) Reduction Plan adopted by the City Council on November 14, 2000. Following is an
explanation of the non-development related air quality programs identified as Action
Measures in the CO2 Reduction Plan and their current status:
Measure 1 - Purchase of Altemative Fuel Vehicles
The City's Altemative Vehicle Fuel Assets include:
. Operating Transit Bus CNG Fueling and Maintenance Facility at the John Lippitt
Public Works Center.
. Hydrogen Fueling Facility installed at the John Lippitt Public Works Center in April
2003.
. Public access to CNG Fueling Facility at the John Lippitt Public Works Center.
. 40 CNG Busses.
. Five CNG Vehicles: 4 Vans and 1 Car.
. Two Neighborhood Electric Cars (leased).
. On road demonstration of world's first zinc fuel cell car in June 2002,
. The Transit Division anticipates replacement of eight diesel buses with CNG buses
within the next 12 months.
Measure 2 - Green Power
Renewable Energy efforts include:
. 4 kw Photovoltaic (PV) system at the John Lippitt Public Works Center.
. 30 kw PV system for new Police HQ - to be installed in 2003/04.
. 10 kw PV system for Nature Center - to be installed in 2003.
. Additional 4 kw PV system planned at the John Lippitt Public Works Center in 2003.
. Staff to evaluate installation of 1 MW PV for the John Lippitt Public Works Center.
. Staff to continue to investigate City aggregation program to purchase green
electricity for all Chula Vista electricity users in 2003/04.
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed quesfiO3 GMOC Planning AQ3.doc Page 3
Measure 3 - Municipal Clean Fuel Demonstration Project
. The City is continuing to work with Sun Line to demonstrate hydrogen electrolyzer
and hydrogen fuel cell bus from 2004 to 2006, Funding of $3.4 million from the
Department Of Energy (DOE) and the CEC is pending organization of a Regional
project. Regional 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 5 - Municipal Building Upgrades and Trip Reduction
. Facility and infrastructure retrofits are generating savings of 4.7+ MW-hrs/yr.
. The City has replaced 24 refrigerators with EnergyStar rated units since June 2003.
. 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.
. In addition to the Building Division's eastern office the City has expanded it's website
opportunities for the public to access information and communicate with staff without
traveling to the Civic Center and other City facilities. Planning and land Use
applications as well as Building permit forms and specifications are available via the
Internet resulting in trip reduction by City employees and the public.
. 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
. Global warming seminars were held in February and September 2002.
Measure 12 - Bicycle Integration with Transit and Employment
. During project development stages employers and transit providers are encouraged
to provide bike storage at major transit stops and employment areas, Employers are
also encouraged to provide showers at major transit nodes.
Measure 16 - Traffic Signal and System Upgrades
. Green traffic signal light lED retrofit completed in 2001 reducing electricity use by
1.1 MW-hrs/yr.
. Additional projects are being identified.
Measure 19 - Municipal Life-Cycle Purchasing Standards
. Life-cycle energy costs were included 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.
In addition to the CO2 Reduction Plan measures, the City has initiated the following programs:
Transportation Demand Management
. In March 2003, the City was awarded a $414,325 grant by the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District to develop and implement a transportation demand
management program. The program includes an express bus from eastern Chula
Vista to downtown San Diego and an express shuttle from eastern Chula Vista to a
trolley stop. City staff is preparing a work program to proceed with implementation.
Light Bulb Exchange Program
. The City partnered with SDG&E to facilitate a light bulb exchange program targeting
western Chula Vista, Replacement compact fluorescent lights were provided to 800
households. The City has also provided energy audits to residents and funded mini-
grants (up to $2,500) to small businesses for energy efficient lighting retrofits,
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlO3 GMOC Planning AQ3.doc Page 4
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Program
. In September 2002, the City and the Otay Ranch Company sponsored an electric
vehicle pilot program with Mobility Lab and Global Electric Motorcar, LLC (GEM).
Twenty-five families in Otay Ranch received electric vehicles to be used over a 12-
week period. Over 1600 zero emission trips were logged with 89% traveling to
necessary destinations as opposed to leisure activities. At the conclusion of the pilot
program a number of participants and community members purchased electric
vehicles. Mobility Lab and Global Electric Motorcar are planning additional phases
of the pilot including a neighborhood and community ridesharing program, It is
anticipated that these phases will occur over the next two years,
5. 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 -1L....:
Explain:
a. If so, please identify.
6. Are any new air quality programs scheduled for implementation during the next year?
Yes X No -
Explain:
In cooperation with the San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO) and People for Trees,
the City's Conservation and Environmental Department is coordinating participation in the
SDREO Cool Communities Shade Tree Program in Chula Vista. This is a community
program that provides trees to homeowners at no cost.
PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS
7. Have City Departments been tasked to identify alternative transportation options and
potential implementation measures?
Yes X No -
Explain:
The Planning Division, Engineering Department and Community Development Department
are continuing efforts to incorporate altemative transportation objectives and policies into the
comprehensive General Plan Update that is progressing. Draft Vision and Goals prepared
emphasize mobility options locally and regionally, and integration of land use and
transportation plans. Draft policy objectives prepared also emphasize alternative
transportation modes.
Land use and transportation concepts that are central to the General Plan Update reflect
transportation options identified through the South Bay Transit First Study that the City
participated in cooperatively with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and surrounding local jurisdictions. This
study identified a proposed "Tier One" network of transit alignments, stations, and priority
measures for transit vehicles.
C:ldffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed ques~O3 GMOC Planning AQ3,doc Page 5
The City is also working with SANDAG on a proposed South County Transit "Early Action
Project" that would link Otay Ranch and Downtown San Diego, and ultimately also extend
south to the border.
The Engineering Department, in cooperation with other City departments, has completed an
updated Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan,
MISCELLANEOUS
8. Does the current threshold standard need any modification?
Yes - No -2L...
Explain:
9. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes - No ---1L.....:
Explain:
10. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC.
Yes X No -
Explain:
On April 22, 2003, the City of Chula Vista was presented with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's 2003 Climate Protection Award. Chula Vista was one of 13 recipients
to receive the award that honors significant contributions to protecting the environment.
CO2 Reduction Plan is a key element in the City's effort to safeguard the environment and
was a contributing factor in the award.
San Diego County met the federal one-hour clean air standard for ozone (smog) during the
three-year period from 1999 to 2001. The Air Pollution Control District has submitted a
request for designation to attainment status from the Environmental Protection Agency,
Efforts are now being focused on the federal eight-hour standard and the more restrictive
state standards.
The Chula Vista monitoring station did not exceed the federal standard eight-hour ozone
concentration level during 2002 and reported only one day during which the state standard
one-hour ozone concentration was not met.
Federal 24-hour particulate matter PM,o and PM2.5 standards have not been exceeded in
Chula Vista in 2002. The more restrictive state PM,o daily standard was not met anywhere
in the state except rural Lake County.
Prepared by: Mary Venables
Title: Associate Planner, GreenStar Program Coordinator
Date: December 11, 2003
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed quesl\O3 GMOC Planning AQ3.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 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.
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
1. Please fill in the blanks on this table, and update any prior years' figures ifthey have
been revised.
SMOG TRENDS - Number of days over standards
STATE STANDARDS 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
San Diego Region 54 27 24 29 15 23
Chula Vista 2 4 0 2 1 0
FEDERAL
STANDARDS
San Diego Region 9 0 0 2 0 1
Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0
C:\dffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed ques"GMOC APCD 03.doc Page 1
1a. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality
conditions during the reporting period.
Please provide brief responses to the following:
2. Were there any changes in Federal or State programs during the reporting period?
Yes X No
Explain
The federal Environmental Protection Agency approved the APCD's ozone maintenance plan and
redesignated the region as attainment relative to the federal one-hour ozone standard, effective July
28, 2003.
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 -1L
Explain:
MISCELLANEOUS
5. Does the current threshold standard need any modification?
Yes - No -1L
If yes, explain:
6. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed ques"GMOC APCD 03.doc Page 2
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes- No X
Explain:
7. Do you have any other relevant information that the APCD desires to communicate to
the City and GMOC?
Yes - No X
Explain:
Prepared by: Carl Selnick
Title: Air Quality Specialist
Date: 12/1/03
C:\dffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed ques"GMOC APCD 03.doc Page 3
THRESHOLD:
1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards (75% of
design capacity).
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 cityDs 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.
Average
Flow (MGD) 14.262 14.756 15.316 15.951 17.500 19.508 21.468
Capacity 19.843 19.843 19.843 20.875** 20.875 20.875 20.875
** Increase In capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacity rights resuiting from the construction of the new Southbay
Tr lant
C:\dffliesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed quest\GMOC-SEWER 03,ac,doc Page 1
1b Is bu ildout sewage flow estimates higher than treatment capacity? Y es~ No-
If Yes, please explain how the projected flow will be accommodated and financed.
Explanation The City currently has a monitoring program in place to measure the amount
of sewage generated from the City. As the City continues to develop, and the flow
generation level begins fo approach our contractual capacity, the City will need to take
the necessary steps to acquire addifional capacity rights through negotiafions with either
the City of San Diego or other Participating Agencies (PAs) who are members of the
Metropolitan Wastewater who may not need all their treatment capacity rights.
Additional capacity rights will be financed utilizing funds from the Trunk Sewer Capacity
Reserve Fund, which is derived from capacity fees charged to new connections.
The City is currently in the process of updating the Wastewater Master Plan, as a component
of the General Plan Update. One of the major components of this study is to evaluate the
City's treatment capacity, and the Capacity Fee to ensure that the Capacity Fee is set at
the level necessary to generate the revenue that would be needed to fund the acquisition
of additional capacity rights.
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 - No 2
If yes:
a. Where did this occur?
b. Why did it occur?
c. What has been, or will be done to correct the situation?
GROWTH IMPACTS
3. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain
service levels?
Yes - No ~
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 ~
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-
C:ldflilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed quesfiGMOC-SEWER 03.ac.doc Page 2
year time trames. 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?
Explain: (a) The "GO Street Improvements belween Broadway and Interstate 5
Freeway.
(b) The Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer extension from Olympic Parkway to
EastLake Parkway.
(c) The Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor - from Interstate - 5 Freeway
easterly on Main street past Interstate-805 through Salt Creek to
Olympic Parkway.
a. How have these facilities been funded?
(i) The "G" Street Improvements belween Broadway and Interstale 5 were funded
through utilizing Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds.
(ii) The Poaai Canyon Trunk Sewer Extension was constructed by developers as part of
the construction of the Olympic Parkway and EastLake Parkway. These developers
will later be reimbursed utilizing Poggi Canyon Sewer OIF and/or Trunk Sewer Capital
Reserve Funds,
(Iii) The Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor was funded utilizing a combination of funds
from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund and the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Basin
OIF.
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
Drovide an update to each and include additional measures as aPDroDriate.
i. Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor - downstream portion (Reach 9) - (Estimated at
$17 Million) current construction schedule - currently 90% complete - will be 100%
complete by March 2003.
ii. Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor - upstream portion (Reaches 3 - 8) - (Estimated
at $13 Million) completed.
Iii. Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer- the project is still in preliminary planning (Total Estimated
Cost $7 Million). Estimated completion date is June 2006.
iv. "G" Street Trunk Sewer Improvements - completed
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
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed ques"GMOC-SEWER 03,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 ofthe City's General Plan?
Yes - No ~
Explain: In 1998, the City signed a wastewater disposai agreement with the City ot San
Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and other participating agencies (Metro). This
agreement granted the City of Chuia Vista 19.843 Million Gallons Per Day (mgd) of sewage
capacity rights wilhin the Metro system, and lasts till 2050. Based on a recent reallocation of
capacity in lhe Metro system, the City now has 20.875mgd of capacity rights.
However, recent analysis indicates that this may not be sufficient to support the City's overall
sewer capacity needs at build out. As part of the Wastewater Master Plan Update, the City's
buildout requirement is being evaluated. The study will make recommendations on the
timing and strategy for the acquisition of additional capacity rights. That study is expected
to be completed by February 2004.
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 I - From Industrial Blvd easterlv to Interstate -805 Freewav
This phase has been completed.
Phase 2- From Industrial Blvd. westerlvto W. Frontaae Rd. sliahtlvwestof Interstate-5 Freewav
The portion of this phase from Industrial westerly to Interstate -5 has been compieted.
However, the remaining portion, which involves micro tunneling under Interstate-5 freeway,
should be completed by March 2004.
Phase 3 - From Inlerstate-805 Freewav easterlv alona Auto Park Drive (Main Street] to the
beainnina of the exislinq portion of the Salt Creek Gravitv Sewer line (installed as a ioint
Proiect with SDG&E a few vears aao],
Completed.
Phase 4 - From the end of the existina portion of the Salt Creek Gravitv Sewer line to Olvmpic
Parkwav.
Completed.
MAINTENANCE
9. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
C:ldffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed ques"GMQC-SEWER 03.ac.doc Page 4
Yes .-...X..- No -
Explain:
The City allocates approximately $300,000 each year for the repair and/or reconslruction of
sewer mains at various locations as part of the Sewer Rehabilitation Program. This program is
funded through a charge of $0.70 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,
Part of the Wastewater Master Plan update is to re-evaluate this funding level to determine if
it is sufficient to meet the pace of the required rehabilitation.
10. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the
current 1-year and 5-year CIP?
Yes ----1L- 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 ----1L- No -
Explain:
There are preliminary indications from the Wastewater Master Plan update that a small
portion of the sewer line close to "J" Street at Woodlawn may need to be improved.
However, since the study is not yet complete, the scope of the improvements and other
related areas that may need improvements have not yet been thoroughly analyzed and
identified. City staff and the consultant are verifying field data and calculation assumptions.
12. May land use intensification in western Chula Vista create a sewer capacity collection
shortfall overall or in specific areas?
Yes ----1L- 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
downstream impacts. Depending on how quickly and where the intensificalion occurs, it
could lrigger the upsizing of downstream facilities. Part of the scope of work for the
Wastewater Master Plan update, includes coordination with the General Plan update to
analyze the impacts of the various land uses (including intensification on the westem side of
Chula Vista) on the wastewater collection system.
Furthermore, all proposed development/redevelopment projects must provide wastewater
capacity studies to show that there is adequate capacity for their project. If there is
insufficient sewer capacity, the project must implement a mitigation measure or the project
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed ques~GMOC-SEWER 03.ac.doc Page 5
will not be approved.
13. Does the current Sewer Threshold Standard need any modification?
Yes - No -2L....:
Explain: The City is in compliance with the current Sewer Threshold Standard for our
current and future needs, However, the current standard is being reviewed as part of the
Wastewater Master Plan effort to ensure compliance with new National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements, There is a possibility that this may necessitate
revisions to the current standards.
14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the GMOC to recommend to the City
Council?
Yes - No ---1L....:
Explain: We have no suggestions at this time.
15. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC?
Yes - No ---1L:
Explain: All pertinent issues have been addressed above.
Prepared by: Anthony Chukwudolue
Title: Civil Engineer
Date: 12/02/03
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed ques~GMOC.SEWER 03.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 OtayWater 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 10,660 92% 12,007 97% 97% 97%
Helix WD 589 5% 0 0% 0% 0%
RWCWRF 364 3% 356 3% 3% 3%
otal (MG) 11,613 100% 12,363 100% 100% 100%
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03lRet\Jmed ques~GMOC 2003 Otay Water,doc Page 1
otal Flow Supply 125.9 125.9 125.9 130.5 136.5
Capacity
Potable Stora e Capacity 175.4 189,7 190.7 192.0 222.2
Non.Potable Storage 28.3 28.3 28.3 31.7 43.7
Capacity
Potable Supply Flow 124.9 124.9 124.9 129.5 129.5
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 ---1L
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 and increase supply capacity
from the Helix WD Levy Water Treatment Plant, which came on line during FY 2003-
2004. This is due to the extensive and excellent planning Otay WD has done over the
years including the development of a Water Resources 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 of Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch.
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed ques"GMOC 2003 Qtay 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 ---1L 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 (MWDSC) take the leadership role in these efforts.
An excellent example of this is, on April 29, 1998, the SDCWA signed a historic agreement
with Imperial Irrigation District (liD) for the long-term transfer of conserved Colorado River
water to San Diego County. Under the Water Authority-liD Agreement, Colorado River
water will be conserved by Imperial Valley farmers, who voluntarily participate in the
program, and then transferred to the SDCW A for use in San Diego County. The water to
be conserved is part of liD's Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the
Lower Colorado River Basin. Imperial Valley farmers will conserve the water by employing
extra-ordinary conservation measures.
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 a final
agreement with the City of Diego for recycled water supplies from their South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The City of San Diego formally approved the agreement
on October 20,2003, The agreement provides for 6 MGD of supply from the 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 completion of construction of a new connection with Helix WD known as Flow
Control Facility No. 14 was placed into operation during FY 2003 - 2004. This
connection made the increased capacity a reality.
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 and exceed 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 1 0
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 has completed the construction of their SBWRP
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed questlGMOC 2003 Qtay Water,doc Page 3
capable of producing approximately 15 MGD. Recycled water from this facility will be
available for distribution by the Otay WD per terms of the agreement with the City of San
Diego. This supply source it Otay WD will occur once construction of a transmission
main, storage facility, and a pump station are complete. The estimated schedule is fall of
2006.
The Otay WD continues to encourage water conservation through a school education
program, penalties on excessive use of water for irrigation, and water conservation
incentive programs.
4. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 12-18
month time frame? Yes ---1L- No _,
For the 5 year time frame? Yes ---1L- No -
Explain:
a. Type of facility.
b. Location offacility.
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. The Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity
fees funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. 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 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 system connected to the Central Area and Otay Mesa Systems.
. The 680-1 Reservoir and 944-1 Pump Station projects are located underground
C:ldllilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC 2003 Otay Water,doc Page 4
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 now
complete. These facilities will serve recycled water to the communities of Rancho
Del Rey, Sun bow 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 Otay WD property.
These improvements will increase water flow rate capacity and insure continued
high water quality for existing and future customers,
. The 980-2 Pump Station project will be located adjacent to the existing 30 MG
EastLake Greens Reservoir on existing Otay WD property. This significant
capital investment will increase the pumping capacity within the 980 and 711
Pressure Zones to meet anticipated demand requirements.
. The 30-inch transmission main to transport recycled water from the SBWRP to
the Otay WD will be constructed from the plant to a location upon the existing
Otay landfill property site.
. A 12 MG recycled water 450-1 Reservoir project will be constructed at the
terminus of the 30-inch transmission main, This reservoir is required to balance
relatively constant flow from the SBWRP with the widely variable recycled water
demand conditions.
. A 16.5 MGD recycled water 680-1 Pump Station project will be constructed
adjacent to the proposed 450-1 Reservoir. The pump station will provide the
pressure and flow capacity necessary to meet demand requirements, met by
supply from the SBWRP, of the existing and future recycled water markets within
the City of Chula Vista.
5. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level
of service as Chula Vista's population increases?
Yes - No --1L
Explain:
An historic and very positive water supply event was recently transacted, which is the
final approval of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and other related
agreements between all interested parties and agencies. With execution of the QSA and
related agreements, delivery of 10,000 acre-feet into San Diego County from the transfer
will be made in 2003. The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 acre-feet by the year
2021 and remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement. The initial term of the
agreement is for 45 years, with a provision to extend the agreement for an additional 30-
year term under certain circumstances. This agreement assures the San Diego County
region a reliable water supply. 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.
On September 25, 2003, the SOCWA Board voted to accept assignment of the MWO's
water rights to 77,700 ac-ft/yr from projects that will line the All American Canal (ACC)
and Coachella Canal (CC). The projects will stop the loss of water that currently occurs
C:\dffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed ques"GMOC 2003 Otay Water.doc Page 5
---------------- ---.
through seepage, and that conserved water will go to the SDCW A. This will provide the
San Diego region with an additional 8,5 million acre-feet of water over the 11 O-year life of
the agreement.
The SDCW A has a proposed Seawater Desalination Project at Encina (Desai Project)
consists of a 50 MGD reverse osmosis desalination plant sited adjacent to the Encina
Power Station in the City of Carlsbad and the pipelines and ancillary facilities necessary
to convey product water from the plant to local and regional water distribution systems.
The Desai Project is anticipated to produce 56,000 acre-feet annually of new water
supply generated from seawater drawn in by the Encina Power Station cooling water
circulation system from the Pacific Ocean via the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Desai
Project would provide a new source of high quality water that would meet or exceed state
and federal standards.
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.
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 2004 Otay WD Five-Year CIP project plan. The City of Chula Vista is
provided each year at least one copy the Otay WD Five Year CIP Notebook, which
contains detailed information on all the CIP projects.
CIP Project Title
Page 6
8009
S014
W259
W267
W270
W306
W307
W308
W316
W349
W358
W366
W382
W384
W388
W419
RECYCLED WATER
8. Please updatelfill in the table below.
RECYCLED WATER DEMAND PER YEAR (Million Gallons (MG»
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
TOTAL 252 299 415 894 720 769
USES
Irriaation 252 299 415 894 720 769
IndustrY
Recharae
8a. How many gallons of recycled water can OWD currently deliver?
The Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) can produce about 1
MGD of recycled water. When the recycled water demand exceed supply capabilities of
the RWCWRF typically limited to about 365 MG per year the supply shortfall will be met
by supplementing the recycled water system with potable water. The recycled water
system will continue to be supplemented with potable water until the additional source of
recycled water supply from the City of San Diego's SBWRP is available. The supply of
recycled water from the SBWRP is expected to begin in the fall of 2006 with construction
completion and operation of the transmission, storage, and pump station systems
necessary to receive the SBWRP recycled water,
8b. Is OWD meeting demands per the table above?
Yes.
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed quesfiGMOC 2003 Otay Water.doc Page 7
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 TOS, 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, TOS 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 WO 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 WO
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 WO through collection of water meter capacity fees funds the recycled
water transmission main, storage reservoir, and pump station capital facilities.
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 WO 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. The City of Chula Vista should continue to encourage joint use land use
projects for mutual benefit such as the Sunset View Park, which is an excellent example.
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed questlGMOC 2003 Otay Water.doc Page 8
12. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the
GMOC?
Yes ---1L No -
Explain:
Recvcled Water
On the recycled waterfront, the Otay WD continues to actively require the development of
recycled water facilities and related demand generation within new development projects
within the City of Chula Vista, and support the City of San Diego's South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant. The City of San Diego has identified Otay WD as their major market
for recycled water produced at the SBWRP. The agreement between the City of San
Diego and Otay WD is approved. The Otay WD plans to receive recycled water from the
SBWRP, which is currently scheduled to occur in the fall of 2006.
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 SDCWA, in conjunction with the Otay WD, Helix
WD, and Cuyamaca College operate the educational Water Conservation Garden.
Hiahliahts of Otav Water District's Operation
The following are a few highlights of the FY 2002-2003 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 recently approved and signed the final
agreement for 6 MGD of recycled water supply from their SBWRP.
6. The Otay WD is in the environmental documentation and design phases of the 30-
inch transmission main from the SBWRP and the related 12 MG 450-1 Reservoir and
680-1 Pump Station projects.
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. The historic and very positive event
being the final approval of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and other related
agreements between all interested parties and agencies assures a long term water
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed ques"GMOC 2003 Otay Water,doc Page 9
supply future. An additional assured water supply occurred with the SDCW A Board
acceptance of the assignment of the MWD's water rights from projects that will line the
All American Canal and Coachella Canal. Also, the SDCWA has a proposed Seawater
Desalination Project at Encina, which consists of a reverse osmosis desalination plant
sited adjacent to the Encina Power Station in the City of Carlsbad and the pipelines and
ancillary facilities necessary to convey product water from the plant to local and regional
water distribution systems.
The potential for 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,
P..repared by: James F. Peasley
Title: Engineering Planning Manager
Date: 11/18/2003
C:ldffilesIGMOC\GMOC 031Retumed ques"GMOC 2003 Otay Water.doc Page 10
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.
otal 8063 100 100 100 100 100
Notes: 1) Use of local vs. Imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and
therefore unpredictable.
Page 1
- ------_.. ----------
2) Table values are for portion of Chula Vista served by Sweetwater Authority only.
FY 2000 FY FY FY 12-18 Mo 5 Year
2001 2002 2003 Projection Projection
Demand - (Purchased by 8,234 8100 8350
consumers) 8,048 7,618 8063
Supply Capacity 26,740 26,740 26,740 26740 27740 27740
Storage Capacity - Treated 42 42 42 42 45
Water 42
Storage Capacity - Raw
Water 16,712 16,172 16,172 16,172 16,172 16,172
Notes: 1 )Normal maximum supply capacity is from Robert Perdue Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds DesaI. plant
(4mgd) and National City Wells (2 mgd).
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:
Growth observed within the Sweetwater Authority service area during the review
period was approximately 0.5% as shown in the Authority's Master Plan. This is not
significant.
3. Do current facilities have the ability to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18
month time frame?
Yes _X- No
Explain:
Based on current planning by City of Chula Vista, no significant growth is expected
within the Sweetwater Authority service area during the next 12 to 18 month period.
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-
Page 2
Explain:
a. Type of facility. Infrastructure improvements are proposed in conjunction
with our 2002 Water Distribution System Master Plant.
b. Location of facility.
c. Projected production, in gallons.
d. Projected operational date.
e. Are sites avaUable for these facilities?
f. How will these facilities be funded?
g. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
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:
The ability of the San Diego County Water Authority to continue delivering water the current
and projected demands, as we rely on this agency to supplement water supply.
MAINTENANCE
6. Is adequate funding secured andlor identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
Yes _X- No
Explain:
Maintenance is directly funded by our rate payers, and we are not dependent on state or
federal funding.
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 Perdue Treatment $40 million upgrade to future water treatment standards.
MasterPlan improvements within the CityofChula Vista is approximately $20 million.
8. Does the District have any plans to produce or distribute reclaimed water?
Yes No_X-
Explain:
No current or future plans at this time as past analysis found significant cost to
retrofit and install the required infrastructure to obtain and convey reclaimed water in our
service area.
Page 3
MISCELLANEOUS
9. Does the current threshold standard need any modification?
Yes No_X-
Explain: The threshold for water service appears to be working fine.
10. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes _X- No
Explain:
Ensure that water supply is available at the state level to support local growth
11. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the
GMOC?
Yes No_X-
Explain:
None at this time.
Prepared by: Hector Martinez
Title: Deputy Chief Engineer
Date: 12/03/03
Page 4
--------------..-,
THRESHOLD STANDARD
In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buildout(approximatelyyear2030) 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
FY 1997.98
FY 1998.99
FY 1999-00
FY 2000-01
FY 2001-02*
FY 2002-03*
217,000 102,000 470
245,000 122,000*** 512
Buildout Projection 282,664
(SANDAG 2030) 152,000 538
.Planning Division Estimate
**5-year projections are based on GMOC Forecast.
...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 Eastiake 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 shortfall.
Comment:
The ratio of library square feet to the population will only increase when the new Rancho del Rey
Branch Library opens. The City Council has twice approved applications for State Library Bond Act
grant funds to help construct a 36,000 sq. ft. facility at the corner of East H Street and Paseo
Ranchero.
Although the City's request did not receive round one or round two funding, we intend to reapply for
round three in January 2004. Those awards will be announced in early summer 2004. Should the
City be awarded a grant at that time, the new branch should open by January 2007.
Even if the City does not receive grant funds in the third and final round, the Rancho del Rey Branch
Library will still be built per this schedule, since Public Facilities Development Impact Fees have
been collected for this project.
3. When asked last year to provide an objective measure for what constitutes
"adequately equipped" libraries your response indicated that "Adequately equipped"
must be defined locally. It was indicated that the Chula Vista Public Librarv Strateaic
Plan 2002-2006 had just been completed and that staff was formulating appropriate
annual outcome measurements. The stated results from those measurement tools
would 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.
Please provide a status report on these outcome measurements and how they relate
to indicating that the libraries are adequately equipped.
The formulation of specific measurement tools for outcomes are being developed in conjunction with
the City's Office of Budget and Analysis and should be completed in 2004. With these tools in place
the Library will be able to provide objective measurements regarding our six (6) major goals for the
next GMOC update. However, steps taken to date include:
. Library staff has chosen to use the most recent available Public Library Data Survey
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 2
Statistical Analysis (currently 2001) as our measurements benchmarks. The Library's
comparison with 240 other public libraries in our population group (100-249,999) indicate the
following:
Cate90ry
6.9
136
6.3
6.9
1.8
2.5
2.8
$31.17
49.5%
83,3
11,9%
$3.71
41.3%
. The Chula Vista Public Library is well known for its excellent staff, A sampling of comments
from the Library's most recent Materials Availability Survey (October 2003, 1000 surveys
distributed) support that premise:
1. I enjoy coming to the Library
2. 100% satisfied, everything is great!
3. This is a beautiful library.
4. The library staff is great. The staff does such a wonderful job.
5. Excellent staff. My daughter was very happy with the story time.
4. Are libraries "adequately equipped"?
1 In 2002 South Chula Vista Branch Library opened ~ additional hours per week.
The system's public service hours per week now totals 144.
2 In October 2001, the Library implemented its new Integrated Online Library
System (IOLS). This required re-registering all users- a lengthy process.
The percentage of library users now total 52.2%.
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 3
Yes ---1L- No -
Explain:
a. Have resources been provided to improve the library technology infrastructure
for the Civic Center, South Chula Vista, and EastLake Libraries?
The resources provided are sufficient to maintain the level of technology presently being utilized,
This means the library can keep pace by virtue of the fact that the annual cost of the ILOS
(Integrated Library Online System) includes software upgrades to keep the system current, but does
not necessarily enhance or improve the functionality in ways that are visible to the end user, nor
does it introduce new technology. The library's network servers are being replaced to keep pace
with demands for enhanced network security and to enable the library to cOmply with mandated
legislation. Similarly, the technology offered to the public, PC's with access to the Internet and
common Microsoft software, are on a replacement cycle that permits 5-10% per year to be replaced
as they age or become inoperative, The replacement technology provides faster and more powerful
computers and is an improvement.
The Chula Vista Public Library compares very favorably to the other public libraries in its population
group when analyzing technology based on performance measurements. For example, Chula Vista
Public Library provides:
. Internet access from outside the Library
. Commercial resources/reference databases via the Web
. Software and CD-Rom products for use inside the Library
. Single search software (239.50)
. Reference services via email
. Workstations with Intemet access
Chula Vista Public Library does not provide:
. Local digitized collections
. Document delivery via fax
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 595,569 total items in the collection at all three facilities, averaging
2.9 items per capita, based on population of 203,000 (FY 02-03). However, only 40,000 of
these items are housed in the Eastern territory, which is also the area in the City
experiencing rapid growth.
The construction of the Rancho Del Rey branch will add an additional 170, 1 00 items to the
collection and to the Eastem portion of the City. Therefore, in 2008, with the population
projected to be 245,000, the items per capita ratio would become 3.125
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 4
5. Are libraries "adequately staffed"?
Yes ~ 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.
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 staff is working on a staffing plan for library branches that will allocate
a core number of staff at each facility, consisting of 4-5 permanent librarians, 5-7 permanent
paraprofessionals, and a large contingency of hourly support staff to maintain the high level of
service.
The plan, which does not include the current staffing levels at the shared-facility at EastLake High
School, is designed to provide the community with the maximum number of hours open in the most
efficient and cost effective manner. This plan will allow for branches to be open to the community
between 56-64 hours a week.
Of course, it is not just the number of staff members that is important. The Chula Vista Public
Library understands that in order to be able to attract and recruit qualified staff, there must be a
commitment to a high quality of work life for both staff and volunteers and excellent internal training
programs must be in place. Recent training opportunities have included:
. Reference 101- available to all public services staff covering basic reference techniques,
customer services issues, and current library resources available,
. Bi-Annual All-Staff meetings provide time for staff to learn and reflect on current issues, past
progress, and future goals.
. Software Computer Classes- held monthly to provide library staff an opportunity to keep up
with technology
The library system also has a vibrant volunteer program. During the past year approximately 553
individuals have 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
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 5
recruitment and retention issues. Volunteers are registered with the City and fingerprinted for
liability and personal safety reasons,
GROWTH IMPACTS
7. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain
service levels?
Yes - No --1L-.:
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 FY02-03, library circulation overall
in,creased 2.68%, and EastLake's Branch circulation increased 10.7%, The Library is 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.
8. Are current facilities able to serve forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year
time frame?
Yes - No --L
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 Rey branch is
constructed. The EastLake facility, which is currently serving all of eastem 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 ---1L- No -
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 Rey area at
the comer 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
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
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 6
costs will be paid by the Bond funds.
10. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the provision of library services?
Yes - No -X......:
Explain:
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 -
Explain:
The Civic Center branch library will be undergoing a major renovation over the next 2-3 years.
Funding is being secured for the needed building upgrades, including upgrading of the electrical
system to handle the increased number of computers, self checkout machines, printers, the
replacement of the carpeting and banners, refinishing and/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 overcrowded staff cubicles in the Circulation and
Information and Reader Services sections. The Civic Center Branch library's HVAC system and
roof have been replaced over the past five years.
The Library will be undertaking a major fundraising effort in 2004, with funds to be used to help
offset some of the costs of the Civic Center renovation.
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 is pursuing funding through the Capital Improvement Project budget to fund the
implementation of Radio Frequency Identification technology (RFID), which will allow the Library to
move circulation functions to a new level of self-service.
The Library has stated its desire to use technology to improve service and reduce costs. Radio
Frequency Identification [RFID] is the technology that promises to fulfill those desires. RFID uses
tags placed in library materials to transmit an identification number to the existing Integrated Library
Online System [I LOS] linking a description ofthe item with the borrower. It is ideally suited to a self-
service model. To checkout materials the borrower is only required to place the items in a certain
place to be 'read' and deactivate the theft strip, eliminating the need for staff to handle each item.
Similarly, when the borrower returns the item, they place it in a return slot that reads the RFID tag,
C:\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC 03\Returned questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 7
credits the borrower's account for the retumed item and prints a receipt. Mechanized sorting
equipment with conveyer belts reads the RFID tag and sorts the materials, further reducing handling
by staff.
Implementation of RFID begins with purchasing tags and coding equipment and inserting the RFID
tags in the materials. While the conversion takes place, the ILOS continues to use the present
barcodes scanned by staff to checkout materials. Once a significant percentage of the collection
has been tagged at all branches, RFID equipment can be installed. Iffunding exists, the conversion
to complete reliance on RFID, as described, can be phased in over a period of about 2 years.
There will be costs associated with physical modifications to furniture, electrical wiring,
communications wiring and work areas to accommodate the new equipment in existing buildings.
The most maintenance intensive component will be the mechanized sorting equipment. Supplies
(RFID tags) and service maintenance contracts will be an on-going cost of operating an RFID
system.
12. Please provide an update on the funding and building program for the Rancho Del
Rey Library.
Describe:
The City Council has twice approved applications for State Library Bond Act grant funds to help
construct a 36,000 sq. ft. facility at the comer of East H Street and Paseo Ranchero. The City's
request did not receive round one or round two funding, we intend to reapply for round three in
January 2004. Awards will be announced in early summer 2004. Should the City be awarded a
grant at that time, the new branch should open by January 2007,
If the City does not receive grant funds in the third and final round, the Rancho del Rey Branch
Library will still be built and opened by January 2007. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees
(DIF) have been collected for this project, which is 100% DIF eligible.
MISCELLANEOUS
13. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes - No ---1L:
Explain:
14. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to
the GMOC?
Yes L- No -
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Returned questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 8
Explain:
The Chula Vista Public Library is currently implementing year three of its five-year Strategic Plan and
is formatting Initiatives to comply with the City's new Performance Management System based on
the "Balanced Scorecard" concept.
Prepared by: Mariya G. Anton
Title: Administrative Analyst II
Date: November 21, 2003
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 9
THRESHOLD STANDARD
In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 60,000
GSF of library space beyond the city-wide June 3D, 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 uDdate the information on this table.
FY 1996-97
FY 1997-98
FY 1998-99
FY 1999-00
FY 2000-01
FY 2001-02'
FY 2002-03'
217,000 102,000 470
245,000 122,000'" 512
Buildout Projection 282,664
(SANDAG 2030) 152,000 538
'Planning Division Estimate
'OS-year projections are based on GMOC Forecast.
"'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 shortfall.
Comment:
The ratio of library square feet to the population will only increase when the new Rancho del Rey
Branch Library opens. The City Council has twice approved applications for State Library Bond Act
grant funds to help construct a 36,000 sq. ft, facility at the comer of East H Street and Paseo
Ranchero.
Although the City's request did not receive round one or round two funding, we intend to reapply for
round three in January 2004. Those awards will be announced in early summer 2004. Should the
City be awarded a grant at that time, the new branch should open by January 2007.
Even if the City does not receive grant funds in the third and final round, the Rancho del Rey Branch
Library will still be built per this schedule, since Public Facilities Development Impact Fees have
been collected for this project.
3. When asked last year to provide an objective measure for what constitutes
"adequately equipped" libraries your response indicated that "Adequately equipped"
must be defined locally. It was indicated that the Chula Vista Public Librarv Strategic
Plan 2002-2006 had just been completed and that staff was formulating appropriate
annual outcome measurements. The stated results from those measurement tools
would 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.
Please provide a status report on these outcome measurements and how they relate
to indicating that the libraries are adequately equipped.
The formulation of specific measurement tools for outcomes are being developed in conjunction with
the City's Office of Budget and Analysis and should be completed in 2004. With these tools in place
the Library will be able to provide objective measurements regarding our six (6) major goals for the
next GMOC update. However, steps taken to date include:
. Library staff has chosen to use the most recent available Public Library Data Survey
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03,doc Page 2
Statistical Analysis (currently 2001) as our measurements benchmarks. The Library's
comparison with 240 other public libraries in our population group (100-249,999) indicate the
following:
---------Chula Vista Public Libra
Category Upper Quartile Median (50%)
75%
6.9
136
6.3
6.9
1.8
2,5
2,8
$31.17
49.5%
83.3
11.9%
$3.71
41,3%
. The Chula Vista Public Library is well known for its excellent staff. A sampling of comments
from the Library's most recent Materials Availability Survey (October 2003, 1000 surveys
distributed) support that premise:
1. I enjoy coming to the Library
2. 100% satisfied, everything is great!
3, This is a beautiful library.
4. The library staff is great. The staff does such a wonderful job.
5. Excellent staff. My daughter was very happy with the story time.
4. Are libraries "adequately equipped"?
1 In 2002 South Chula Vista Branch Library opened ~ additional hours per week.
The system's public service hours per week now totals 144.
2 In October 2001, the Library implemented its new Integrated Online Library
System (IOLS). This required re-registering all users- a lengthy process.
The percentage of library users now total 52.2%.
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03,doc Page 3
Yes -1L- No -
Explain:
a. Have resources been provided to improve the library technology infrastructure
for the Civic Center, South Chula Vista, and EastLake Libraries?
The resources provided are sufficient to maintain the level of technology presently being utilized,
This means the library can keep pace by virtue of the fact that the annual cost of the ILOS
(Integrated Library Online System) includes software upgrades to keep the system current, but does
not necessarily enhance or improve the functionality in ways that are visible to the end user, nor
does it introduce new technology. The library's network servers are being replaced to keep pace
with demands for enhanced network security and to enable the library to comply with mandated
legislation. Similarly, the technology offered to the public, PC's with access to the Internet and
common Microsoft software, are on a replacement cycle that permits 5-10% per year to be replaced
as they age or become inoperative. The replacement technology provides faster and more powerful
computers and is an improvement.
The Chula Vista Public Library compares very favorably to the other public libraries in its population
group when analyzing technology based on performance measurements. For example, Chula Vista
Public Library provides:
. Internet access from outside the Library
. Commercial resources/reference databases via the Web
. Software and CD-Rom products for use inside the Library
. Single search software (239.50)
. Reference services via email
. Workstations with Internet access
Chula Vista Public Library does not provide:
. Local digitized collections
. Document delivery via fax
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 595,569 total items in the collection at all three facilities, averaging
2.9 items per capita, based on population of 203,000 (FY 02-03). However, only 40,000 of
these items are housed in the Eastern territory, which is also the area in the City
experiencing rapid growth.
The construction of the Rancho Del Rey branch will add an additional 170, 1 00 items to the
collection and to the Eastern portion of the City. Therefore, in 2008, with the population
projected to be 245,000, the items per capita ratio would become 3.125
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Returned questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 4
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.
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 staff is working on a staffing plan for library branches that will allocate
a core number of staff at each facility, consisting of 4-5 permanent librarians, 5-7 permanent
paraprofessionals, and a large contingency of hourly support staff to maintain the high level of
service.
The plan, which does not include the current staffing levels at the shared-facility at EastLake High
School, is designed to provide the community with the maximum number of hours open in the most
efficient and cost effective manner. This plan will allow for branches to be open to the community
between 56-64 hours a week.
Of course, it is not just the number of staff members that is important. The Chula Vista Public
Library understands that in order to be able to attract and recruit qualified staff, there must be a
commitment to a high quality of work life for both staff and volunteers and excellent internal training
programs must be in place. Recent training opportunities have included:
. Reference 101- available to all public services staff covering basic reference techniques,
customer services issues, and current library resources available.
. Bi-Annual All-Staff meetings provide time for staff to leam and reflect on current issues, past
progress, and future goals.
. Software Computer Classes- held monthly to provide library staff an opportunity to keep up
with technology
The library system also has a vibrant volunteer program. During the past year approximately 553
individuals have 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
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 5
recruitment and retention issues, Volunteers are registered with the City and fingerprinted for
liability and personal safety reasons.
GROWTH IMPACTS
7. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain
service levels?
Yes - No -1L..:
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 FY02-03,library circulation overall
increased 2,68%, and EastLake's Branch circulation increased 10,7%, The Library is 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.
8. Are current facilities able to serve forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year
time frame?
Yes - No ---1L.,
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 Rey branch is
constructed. The EastLake facility, which is currently serving all of eastem 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 --1L- No -
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 Rey 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
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
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 6
costs will be paid by the Bond funds.
10. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the provision of library services?
Yes - No ~
Explain:
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 ---1L- No -
Explain:
The Civic Center branch library will be undergoing a major renovation over the next 2-3 years.
Funding is being secured for the needed building upgrades, including upgrading of the electrical
system to handle the increased number of computers, self checkout machines, printers, the
replacement of the carpeting and banners, refinishing and/or replacement of fumiture and
fumishings, improvement of the energy efficiency of the lighting system, and redesign of
underutilized non-public areas of the library and overcrowded staff cubicles in the Circulation and
Information and Reader Services sections. The Civic Center Branch library's HVAC system and
roof have been replaced over the past five years.
The Library will be undertaking a major fundraising effort in 2004, with funds to be used to help
offset some of the costs of the Civic Center renovation.
a. Are there any major maintenance/upgrades to be undertaken over the 1-year
and 5-year time frames?
Yes ---1L- No -
Explain:
The Library is pursuing funding through the Capital Improvement Project budget to fund the
implementation of Radio Frequency Identification technology (RFID), which will allow the Library to
move circulation functions to a new level of self-service.
The Library has stated its desire to use technology to improve service and reduce costs. Radio
Frequency Identification [RFID] is the technology that promises to fulfill those desires. RFID uses
tags placed in library materials to transmit an identification number to the existing Integrated Library
Online System [I LOS] linking a description of the item with the borrower. It is ideally suited to a self-
service model. To checkout materials the borrower is only required to place the items in a certain
place to be 'read' and deactivate the theft strip, eliminating the need for staff to handle each item.
Similarly, when the borrower retums the item, they place it in a return slot that reads the RFID tag,
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03.doc Page 7
credits the borrower's account for the returned item and prints a receipt. Mechanized sorting
equipment with conveyer belts reads the RFID tag and sorts the materials, further reducing handling
by staff,
Implementation of RFID begins with purchasing tags and coding equipment and inserting the RFID
tags in the materials. While the conversion takes place, the ILOS continues to use the present
barcodes scanned by staff to checkout materials. Once a significant percentage of the collection
has been tagged at all branches, RFID equipment can be installed. If funding exists, the conversion
to complete reliance on RFID, as described, can be phased in over a period of about 2 years.
There will be costs associated with physical modifications to furniture. electrical wiring,
communications wiring and work areas to accommodate the new equipment in existing buildings.
The most maintenance intensive component will be the mechanized sorting equipment. Supplies
(RFID tags) and service maintenance contracts will be an on-going cost of operating an RFID
system.
12. Please provide an update on the funding and building program for the Rancho Del
Rey Library.
Describe:
The City Council has twice approved applications for State Library Bond Act grant funds to help
construct a 36,000 sq. ft, facility at the comer of East H Street and Paseo Ranchero. The City's
request did not receive round one or round two funding, we intend to reapply for round three in
January 2004. Awards will be announced in early summer 2004. Should the City be awarded a
grant at that time, the new branch should open by January 2007.
If the City does not receive grant funds in the third and final round, the Rancho del Rey Branch
Library will still be built and opened by January 2007. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees
(DIF) have been collected for this project, which is 100% DIF eligible.
MISCELLANEOUS
13. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes - No ---1L.:
Explain:
14. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to
the GMOC?
Yes -1L- No -
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Returned questlGMOC Library 03,doc Page 8
--- n~n_'___'-'~----
--.----- ------ .
Explain:
The Chula Vista Public Library is currently implementing year three of its five-year Strategic Plan and
is formatting Initiatives to comply with the City's new Performance Management System based on
the "Balanced Scorecard" concept.
Prepared by: Mariya G, Anton
Title: Administrative Analyst II
Date: November 21, 2003
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlGMOC Library 03,doc Page 9
THRESHOLD STANDARD:
1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards.
2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance ofthe 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 ---1L-
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 over 2,000 new homes during the reporting period negatively
affected the ability to maintain service levels?
Yes - No ---1L-
Explain: As a condition of development, the additional new homes (development)
has not negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels since the drainage
facilities that require maintenance such as detention basins have been incorporated
into maintenance districts that are funded by the area of benefit.
3. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 24 -month and 5-
year time frame, constituting over 5,000 and 11,000 new homes respectively?
Page 1
Yes ~ No -
Explain:
4. Western Chura Vista may experience the addition of 1,000 or possibly additional
housing units over the next 5 years, what are the issues, if any, that need to be
monitored in regards to this level of growth and drainage?
Describe:
1. Storm water quality runoff requirements may inhibit the ability to be able to
improve existing natural drainage channels.
2. More intense development will be placing additional needs to have a covered
drainage facility so that parking or other passive uses can. be provided on the
surface.
3. All development/redevelopment projects are required to comply with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
4. Development along these existing unimproved drainage facilities will be
considerably more expensive to develop than for property not along natural
drainage channels.
5. City requirements regarding development within the floodplain are sufficient and
should not be relaxed.
6. Although there has been very minimal, if any. property damage caused by
inadequate drainage facilities, the City has almost completed the drainage master
plan update that will identify and prioritize areas of improvement. Historically,
property damage has been confined to areas developed within or adjacent to flood
plains. Recent City projects such as the Telegraph Canyon channel
improvements near Second Avenue improved drainage and reduced/eliminated
property damage.
5. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate this forecasted growth
(differentiate between east and west)?
Yes ---1L- No -
1. East: New facilities will be required in some of the natural drainage channels.
land development projects will be required to provide all necessary facilities and
their respective share of maintenance costs to accommodate their impacts.
2. West: It is anticipated that there will be some facilities that will be required as
parcels encroach onto natural drainage areas due to redevelopment at a higher
density. Redevelopment may also require that some existing facilities be modified
or reconstructed so that more of the parcel can be redeveloped.
a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities?
Yes, pending environmental resource agency approval, there are some limited
areas in each ofthe drainage basins where additional drainage facilities could
be added.
Page 2
b. How will these facilities be funded?
It is expected that since the area for these facilities is generally privately
owned, that the property owner will be funding these improvements as a
condition of development. In some cases, depending on the type and
magnitude of development, consideration of City funding participation could
be approved by the City Council.
c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
There is a funding mechanism in place that is called the "Storm Drain Fee".
This fee generates approximately $500,000 per year and is used for new
construction, rehabilitation projects and the City's NPDES compliance staff.
The fee cannot be increased without a public vote and a 2/3 majority approval.
6. 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 --L-
Explain:
PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATION
7. Please provide an update on the status of the Drainage Master Facilities Plan, that
will identify high priority drainage projects and applicable federal funding.
Description: The consultant PBS&J has generally completed the work in the western
part of the City and is finalizing their work on the eastern side of the City. There was
considerable more field work and research of records required on the western side of
the City since areas previously improved by the County did not have plans or plans
could not be located. The consultant required additional surveying information on
some of these facilities so that an adequate drainage study could be completed in
those areas.
The drainage master plan will be completed by February 2004.
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 ofthe
EI 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.
Page 3
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. Past 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. This summer, the City was informed that this funding source
would be terminated due to the State's fiscal crisis.
The City is currently working on an outside-financing source, such as a HUD loan,
that would provide a financing plan that would allow construction of needed
improvements to be expedited.
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 priority program, through the City's Storm Water Management Unit to
prioritize these projects.
9. Are there any major maintenance projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-
year and 5-year CIP? 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 now, 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 ofChula Vista, generally bound by L Street
to the north and Hilltop Drive to the east. Scattered throughout the Montgomery area
are incompleted street and drainage improvements, such as curb-and-gutter and
sidewalks. As a result ofthe incomplete improvements, both drainage and pavement-
related problems occur. The drainage and street improvements need to be
constructed prior to any pavement rehabilitation in orderto preserve pavement life. In
addition, due to inadequate drainage facilities and in some cases, drainage
betweenlwithin residential properties, problems occur in these areas during the rainy
season.
Page 4
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 --1L..
Explain:
12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes - No --1L-
Explain:
13. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to communicate
to the GMOC?
Yes ---2L- No -
Explain: Once the Drainage Master plan is completed, it will be a very useful
document that will benefit the City with respect to project priorities and identifying
impacts due to planned development and redevelopment.
Prepared by (NamefTitle): Frank Rivera, Deputy Director of Engineering -Infrastructure Services
J:\EngineerIADVPLAN\DRAINAGE 03 GMOC.jcm.doc
Page 5
. Growth Manag~ment
, Oversight Commission
(GMOC)
Evaluation Process & Criteria for
Ranking Corrugated Metal Pipe
(CMP) Rehabilitation Projects
~-".=' "".,_...
Goals of Tonight's
Presentation
+ Explain the +Status of drainage
evaluation process & projects
criteria for ran (jng
CMP rehabilitation
projects
~._H.=' "".~.-
Evaluation Process & Criteria
for ~nkJng CrvlP
Rehabilitation Projects
~'-H.=' "".,_...
Growth Management Oversight Commission
(GMOC) 1
--.-..---..- -
Why Is It Necessary to Rank
CMP Rehabilitation Projects?
+There are over 530 known segments of CMP
(Corrugated Metal Pipe) in the entire city with
potential problems that need to be replaced
or rehabilitated
+ There are not sufficient funds to replace ail
segments of CMPs
+ Not ail identified drainage problems have the
same severity or risk involved
~'_U,~' "'"'..,..~
What Is the Criteria Used to Rank or
Prjorltize the CMP Rehabilitation Projects?
1. Condition of Pipe 4. Shape of Pipe
(value: 1.0 to 5.0) (value: 1.0 or 1.1)
2. Location of Pipe 5 Age of Pipe
(value: 1.0 to 1.5) (value: 1.0 to 1.2)
3. Size of Pipe 6. Other Conditions
(value: 1.0 to 1.7) (value: 1.0 to 1.5)
~_u.m' ",.,_.~
What Is the Criteria Used to Rank or
Prioritize the CMP Rehabilitation Projects?
(Cant)
+Multipiying the values assigned to each
factor, we can assign a priority number or
rank to each CMP rehabilitation project
+The formula used:
Rank = Condition X Location X Size X Shape X
Age X Other
~_u,m' ",.,_.~
Growth Management Oversight Commission
(GMOC) 2
Example of How to Rank a
. ÇM.p Project
. 1. Coo""" <0'.'"
I"""'S.O)
2. l"""""do~"'h,"~
I""'" 1.2)
,:. . '. 3. S;"""('~"'U)
r,~~~ '."'.'.'...'. . 4. Sh'p" "",., (""" 1.0)
.,-11. . ~ ,'ij<',' " S. """-1"",,'.2)
i~;i'r:~=L~ - :'k::~~:,::: ,~p:, 1.0,
Rook. '0.30
_u.., ",.~.-
Example of How to Rank a
CMP Project
1 Cood'"" ,ood I"""
.. 1.0)
"2. ""~""pffl'"
pro",rtyfood.m.,.
I""" 1.0)
3. S",,24"(,,'œ, 1.2)
,. Sh.pe";"""I'~"'1.0)
S. A,.. '96'11""" 1.0)
6 0°""00 ""."
ooodlOoo, I"'"" 1.0)
Rook- 1.0.1.0.1.2.1.0.
1.0>1.0
Rook. 1.2
~._U." "'.~.-
Status of CMP Rehabilitation
Projects
~_U," "'"'~..-
Growth Management Oversight Commission
(GMOC) 3
-
Storm Drain Projects
-".~' "'"'-.- ..
Questions
-".~, ",.~.- "
Growth Management Oversight Commission
(GMOC) 4
EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR RANKING OR
PRIORITIZING THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPES (CMPs) TO BE
REHABILITATED OR REPLACED
FORMULA
RANK = CONDITION X LOCATION X SIZE X SHAPE X AGE X OTHER
Best Case Scenario (minimum points): 1.00
Worst Case Scenario (maximum points): 26.93 .
FACTORS
1. Condition of Pipe (Value Range: 1.0 to 5.0)
VALUE CONDITION OF PIPE
1.0 Good Condition
2.0 Mild Corrosion
3.0 Severe Corrosion with Some Defonnations
4.0 Extremely Corroded"with Numerous Deformations
5.0 Collapse
2. Location of Pipe
å. Right-of-Way (Value Range: 1.0 to 1.6)
Value varies depending on street classffication and volume of traffic
b. Private Property (Value Range: 1.0 to 1.4)
VALUE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY
1.0 No Damage
1.1 Minor Damage
1.2 Moderate Damage
1.3 Severe Damage
1.4 Extreme Damage
:\EngineerIGMOClRank System for CMPs.sh.doc
last Revised: 12/05/2003
Page 1 of2
/'
3. Size of Pipe (Value Range: 1.0 to 1.7)
VALUE SIZE OF PIPE
1.0 Less than 12"
1.1 12" to 19"
1.2 20" to 28"
1.3 29" to 37"
1.4 38" to 46"
1.5 47" to 55"
1.6 56" to 67"
1.7 68" or greater
4. Shape of Pipe (Value: 1.0 or 1.1)
VALUE SHAPE OF PIPE
1.0 Circular
1.1 Arched
5. Age of Pipe (Value Range: 1.0 to 1.3)
VALUE AGE OF PIPE
1.0 1980's +
1.05 1970's
1.10 1960's
1.15 1950's
1.20 1940's
6. Other Factors (Value Range: 1.0 to 1.5) -
VALUE CONDITIONS
1.0 No Unusual Conditions
1.1 }SWeri'Y of 0",", ("mdi6om ("""'" typo of wi, "0)
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5 ¡olEngineerlGMOClRank System for CMPs.sh.doo
Last Revisedo 12/0512003
Page 2 of2
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.
3 Acres per East 1-805 3.14 2.86" 4,16 3.72
1,000 AC/1,000 persons 3.45
Population
East West 1-805 1.03 1,02
of 1-805 AC/1,000 persons 1.03 1.03 1,03
Citywide 1.91 1.87 2,05 2.02 1.98
AC/1 ,000 persons
Acres of East 1-805 266.35 278.85 240.61 255.28 265.06
Parkland
West 1-805 122,33 122.33 120.65 122.43 122.33
Citywide 388.68 401.18 361.26 377.71 387,39
Population' East 1-805 84755 97,400 57,866 68,644 76,845
West 1-805 119089 119,517 118,473 118,800 118,845
Citywide 203,844 216917 176,339 187,444 195,689
Acre Shortfall East 1-805 12,08 -13,35 67.01 49.35 34.52
or Excess
West 1-805 -234.94 -231.22 -234.77 -233.97 -234,21
Citywide -222.85 -249,57 -167.76 -184.62 199,69
. GMOC/Planning Division Estimate (thru 6/30/03), totals may not add due to rounding.
.. Although 19,3 acres of parkland will be under construction by 12/31/04, these parks are not anticipated to be open to
the public until the following quarter, and have therefore not been included in the park acreage count. Inclusion of the
19.3 acres translates to a ratio of 3.06 acres per 1,000 persons, which more than meets the threshold standard.
18 month projections (thru 12/31/04) 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.
Page 1
Estimated Chula Vista East versus West Population
Area/Year* 2000 2001** 2002** 2003** 2008***
East of 1-805 64,827 72,199 80,735 88,774 123,327
West of 1-805 118,473 118,701 118,965 119,214 122,250
Total 183,300 190,900 199,700 207,988 245,577
'Vear end population unless otherwise indicated,
.. Assumes that 97% of growth takes place in eastern Chula Vista, with no major residential projects in the west.
... Assumes that there is a 1,000 unit increase in westem Chula Vista between 2003 and 2008.
Population Estimate As Of June Population Estimate As Of Year
2003 End 2004
East of 1-805 84,755 East of 1-805 97,400
West of 1-805 119,089 West of 1-805 119,517
Total 203,844 Total 216,917
Please provide a brief na"ative 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,OOO persons)
during the reporting period?
Yes --1L- 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. 14
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 -1L
Page 2
. .-.----- _n__---
Explain:
The POD was just updated in November 2002. This update included a new
determination and ratio of the number of each facility that is needed. With these
new ratios having just been adopted, it is recognized that the City's public park
system does not immediately comply with some of them. Therefore, the City's park
system alone has not provided the required facilities per the POD. The following
table identifies facilities required under this updated POD, and shows the shortfall or
overage based only on the City's park system. Please note, however, that, per the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the provision of needed recreation facilities on
non-public park sites, such as schools, is necessary to help meet this demand.
Eastern Chula Vista Recreational Facility Needs 2003
Softball
Organized Adult 1/7,900 7 Per the attachment to question 15, many softball, baseball,
Organized Youth 1/12,700 -5 and soccer fadiities are provided at school sites.
Practice/Informal 1/2,850 16
Baseball Per the attachment to question 15, many softball, baseball,
Organized Adult 1/12,200 3 and soccer fadiities are provided at school sites,
Organized Youth 1/4,400 7
Practice~nformal 1/3,300 11
Football fadiity means any fiat turf area suitabie for informal
Football 1/21,400 -12 play, not an offidal football field.
Soccer Per the attachment to question 15, many softball, baseball,
Organized Games 1/5,400 3 and soccer fadiities are provided at school sites,
Practicellnformal 1/2,450 19
This number is so high because it Incudes the 117 picnic
Picnic Tables 1/600 -121 tables found in Rohr Park, which Is east of 1-805, but is really
more of a regional serving park.
Nearly all of the parks east of 1-805 contain tot lots and
Tot LotsIPlaygrounds 1/2,650 8 playgrounds.
The City's two pubiic pools are west of 1-805 and are
Swimming Pool 1 /45,800 2 therefore not counted. The quasi-public pools of the YMCA
and Southwestem College are also not counted.
Not induded in the count are the 14 Southwestem College, 6
Tennis 1/3,200 15 Bonita Vista High, 10 Eastlake High, and 4 Rancho del Rey
Middle School courts, which are all iisted in the Recreation
Department's quarterly Recreation Brochure listing classes,
programs, and events.
No outdoor school basketball courts are counted,
Basketball 1/2,150 24
Incudes the recently opened Len Moore Skate Park,
Skateboarding 1/ 56,950 1 operated by the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Ciub, but built
and owned by the City.
Includes the recently opened Len Moore Skate Park,
Roller Blading 1/59,100 1 operated by the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club, but built
and owned by the City.
Does not include the quasi-pubiic South Bay YMCA fadiity
Interior Assembly Space 1/3,900 20. nor the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club fadiity.
Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan based needs ratio - November 12, 2002.
Negatlve Value indicates overage.
. Represents approximately 56,520 square feet
Page 3
a. What actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any
shortages of facilities?
The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation MasterPlan (approved in November
2002) 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 facilities, and funding sources. The plan also recognizes
that the 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 --1L-
Explain:
While growth during the reporting period has not affected the ability to provide
required parkland acreaae, 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, basebalVsoftball) for adult and youth leagues.
5. Are any additional Darklands necessary to accommodate forecasted growth
by December 2004 and 2008?
Yes ---Å- No -
Explain:
a. What is the amount of needed parkland?
Current eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory will provide adequate
acreage to accommodate up to 88,783 persons.
Page 4
The 18-month forecast calls for an eastem Chula Vista population of 97,400,
therefore cu"ent inventory will need to be increased by approximately 25.85
acres to meet the 18-month forecast. With 12.5 acres of parkland being
available for use by January 2004, and construction of 19.3 acres developed
and potentially available for use by December 2004, a total of31.8 acres will
be available to serve an additional 10,600 persons.
The 19.3 acres of parkland to be constructed during 2004, is comprised of
three neighborhood parks that will be under construction. These parks are
located in atay Ranch Village One West (Horizon Park), atay Ranch Village
Six (Santa Venetia Park) and atay Ranch Village 11 (Windingwalk Park).
The atay Ranch Company will construct Horizon Park and Santa Venetia
Park; and Brookfield Shea atay will construct and Windingwa/k Park. These
parks represent the last "tum-key" parks. A "tum-key" park is a park that is
constructed by the developer and upon completion is dedicated to the City.
In the future, it is anticipated that the City will construct all City parks. Since
the developers will construct these three parks, the City does not have direct
contractual control of the projects. It is our goal that all of these parks will be
completed and open to the public by December 31, 2004. We will work very
closely with the developers to meet this goal. If this goal is met, we will be in
compliance with the threshold standard. It is possible, however, that one or
more of these parks may not be complete as of that date which could cause
the threshold to not be met. In that instance it would be a very short period of
time before the threshold was met, as all three of the parks will be completed
within a month or two of December 31, 2004.
It should also be noted that there would be three community parks under
construction by the City during 2004. These parks are Veterans Park in
Sunbow, Salt Creek Park in Eastlake Trails and Montevalle Park in Rolling
Hills Ranch. All of these parks should be completed in 2005. Upon their
completion, the amount of park acreage to persons should comfortably
exceed the threshold standard.
Approximately 128.7 park acres are forecasted to be constructed between
June 2003 and December 2008 time frame. This translates to an eastem
Chula Vista parkland inventory of 395.05 acres, which is capable of
accommodating a total of 131,700 persons.
By the end of 2008, the eastern Chula Vista population would be 123,327.
This would necessitate 369.98 acres of parkland in eastern Chula Vista to
meet the threshold standard. Since a total of 395.05 acres of parkland is
forecasted, (existing inventory plus acreage forecasted to come online), this
amount is more than adequate to meet the threshold standard.
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 atay
Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch, and EastLake. The table
Page 5
contained in item 13 below identifies available park sites currently being
designed or developed.
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 Park/and Dedication
Ordinance Fees (PAD Fees).
6" Are any additional facilities necessary to accommodate forecasted growth by
December 2004 and 2008?
Yes ----1L- No -
Explain:
a. What facilities are needed?
Based on updated POD defined facility needs ratios, to accommodate a population
increase of 38,572 (Year 2008) and taking into consideration existing (2003)
inventory, the following facilities will be needed in eastem Chula Vista.
Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan-Based
Needs Ratio - 2004 and 2008
Softball
Organized Adult 1/7,900 -3 -1
Organized Youth 1/12,700 -7 -7
Practice~nformal 1/2,850 29 23
Baseball
Organized Adult 1/12,200 4 7
Organized Youth 1/4,400 5 25
Practice~nformal 1/3,300 12 14
Football 1/21,400 -2 -32
Soccer
Organized Games 1/5,400 0 -3
Practice~nformal 1/2,450 22 21
Picnic Tables 1/600 -166 -207
Tot LotsIPlaygrounds 1/2,650 8 11
Swimming Pool 1/45,800 2 3
Tennis 1/3,200 16 20
Basketball 1/2,150 25 24
Skateboarding 1/56,950 0 -3
Roller Blading 1/59,100 2 -2
Interior Assembly Space 1/3,900 23 11
Notes:
1. Negative Value indicates overage,
2. Number of facilities needed has been round up when one-half or greater,
3. "Interior Assembly Space" refers to an increment of building facility utilized for recreation purposes. Each
Increment represents approximately 3,140 square feet. Community Centers and Gymnasiums count toward
this requirement.
Page 6
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).
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 --1L- 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
Page 7
parkland, is being implemented to ensure that staffing levels are adequate to meet
cu"ent and forecasted maintenance needs.
9. Were any major parkland or facilities maintenance/upgrade projects
completed during the reporting period? If yes, please list.
Yes ~ No -
Explain:
The following programmed maintenance/upgrade projects have been completed or
started during the reporting period.
Proiects Completed or Started Durina the Reportina Period CIP Number
Skate Park at Greg Rogers Park (Construction Completed) PR-239
Greg Rogers/Los Ninos Comfort Stations (Design Underway) PR-214
Tiffany Park Playground Renovation (Design Completed) PR-225
Otay Park Comfort Station (Construction Underway) PR-240
PARK PLANNING
10. 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 has implemented a staffing strategy to insure that both
full-time and part-time staffing levels are commensurate with community demand
and Department needs overall. A standard based on facility size and program
elements is being developed to provide staffing that is adequate to meet both
current and forecasted demand. The provision of staff for planned facilities,
pursuant to this proposed plan, is contingent upon City management and budget
approval by Council, in FY2004-05 and FY2005-06.
11. As one of last year's recommendations approved by the City Council, the
GMOC requested that a quality of life threshold be proposed for western
Chula Vista. Please advise on the status of this effort.
Note, the GMOC recognizes that a different park and recreation threshold may
be applied to western Chula Vista from what is in place for the eastern
territories.
Comment:
A Western Chula Vista Parks Staff Committee has been created to address park
issues in western Chula Vista. The committee is cu"ently developing a scope of
Page 8
~.~. -
work for the preparation of an updated park and recreation needs assessment and
a westem Chula Vista Park and Recreation Facility Implementation Plan. A
threshold standard for western Chula Vista will be analyzed in the plan. Consistent
with policies contained in the Council adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan
(November 2002), the Western Chula Vista Implementation Plan will address
opportunities to obtain funding and acquire land suitable for park development in the
westem part of the City. Strategies to fund and implement park develop on acquired
sites will also be addressed.
12. Please indicate specific opportunities for acquiring park land for western
Chula Vista and the means for financing these acquisitions.
Describe:
The City is currently proceeding with the development of the recently purchased
Oxford Park site in westem Chula Vista. The City acquired the park site from a
private property owner earlier this year. Community workshops have been
conducted to solicit comments from the community on potential design schemes for
the park site. The site Master Plan will be prepared and presented to the Parks and
Recreation Commission and the City Council for review and approval in 2004. The
construction documents will be underway within a year. The project is part of a $ 9
million effort by the City to improve parks on the west side. The money would come
from a federal loan through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
13. Please update the parkland-phasing program for eastern Chula Vista as
presented in last year's response to the GMOC.
Park Phasing
Construction Last
Nearing Under Quarter
Completion Construction of 2003
Horizon 5.30 Construction First Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter
Document of 2004 of 2004 of 2004
Preparation
Mountain Hawk 12.00 Master Plan Third Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter
Preparation of 2004 of 2005 of 2005
Underway
Santa Cora 5.70 Dedicated Construction Construction December
12/4/03 Completed Completed 2003
Santa Venetia 7.00 Construction First Third Quarter Fourth Quarter
Document Quarter of 2004 of 2004
Preparation of 2004
Sunsetview 10.00 Under Under Last Quarter Second Quarter
Construction Construction of 2004 of 2005
Page 9
Veterans 10,00 Construction Second Second Quarter Fourth Quarter
Document Quarter of 2005 of 2005
Preoaration of 2004
Windingwalk Construction First Third Quarter Fourth Quarter
7,00 Document Quarter of 2004 of 2004
Preparation of 2004
Community Parks
Montevalle Construction Fourth First Quarter Third Quarter
Community 29.00 Document Quarter of 2005 of 2005
Park Preparation of 2003
Saltcreek Construction First ~fe~gg Quarter Fourth Quarter
Community 19,80 Document Quarter of 2006
Park Preparation of 2005
San Miguel Master Plan Third Quarter First Quarter Third Quarter
Ranch 16,10 Preparation of 2004 of 2005 of 2005
Community Underway
Park
14. Please provide a progress report on implementing the Parks Master Plan in
terms of facility development and staffing.
Describe:
In terms of Facility Development staff is cu"ently moving forward on the design
and/or construction coordination of eleven parks. This represents one of the most
active park development periods in the City's entire history. The Council adopted
Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies facilities desired for each park site. As
site-specific park designs are developed identified facilities are sited. The Parks
and Recreation Master Plan identified facilities are included for consideration. With
With regard to facility staffing, a staffing strategy for new facilities has been
implemented by the Recreation Department, per the response to question 5.
15. Please describe the current situation regarding the joint use of park and
recreational resources with the school districts.
Describe:
1) Joint use of Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista Elementary
School District field facilities for use by Youth Sports Council members are shown at
the end of this document. (Appendix A)
2) In addition, the Recreation Department provides middle school after school
programming at Rancho Del Rey Middle School, Castle Park Middle School, Chula
Vista Middle School and Hilltop Middle School.
3) Additionally, the Library Department has after school programs at 28 elementary
school sites.
4) Chula Vista Community Youth Center, which is located in western Chula Vista,
is a model of successful joint use that offers a mix of school, recreation and
community uses in class offerings that sometimes blur between the Chula Vista
High School and the Recreation Department.
5) The City and High School District have a joint use agreement for Rancho del Rey
Page 10
Middle School and Voyager Park, whereby the middle school and the City have
access to each other's facilities, including soccer fields, softball fields, basketball
and tennis courts, and parking.
6) The City and High School District have a joint use agreement for Eastlake High
School and Chula Vista Community Park, whereby the high school and the City
have access to each other's facilities, including softball fields, basketball,
volleyball, and tennis courts, a track complex, and parking.
7) At the two City pools, various high school swim and water polo teams pay fees
for pool time and City lifeguard service for their practices. The Recreation
Department offers elementary schoollearn-to-swim programs to elementary
schools for a fee. Aquatics staff also goes to first grade classes at various
elementary schools to teach an Aquatic Safety Awareness Program.
8) The Recreation Department has been in contact with the principal and ASB
Director at the newly opened Dtay Ranch High School regarding collaborations
and use of school facilities.
THRESHOLDS AND COMMUNICATIONS
16. Does the current threshold standard need any modification?
Yes ----L- No -
Explain:
Staff will continue to evaluate the concept of a 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 ~
Explain:
18. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC.
Yes X No -
Explain:
At its January 6, 2004 meeting, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending
the Municipal Code Chapter relating to the collection of Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fees to enable the City to collect PAD fees from all residential
development regardless of the land development approval process they are
required to follow. This amendment allows the City to collect PAD fees for those
Page 11
residential developments not required to submit subdivision or parcel maps, typically
found in redevelopment and in-fill development in the more mature areas of the City.
Prepared by: Joe Gamble
Title: Landscape Planner II
Last Update: January 8, 2004
Contributing Editors: Jack Griffin, Buck Martin, Dave Byers, Shauna Stokes, Larry Eliason, Ed Hall
Page 12
Appendix A
YOUTH SPORTS COUNCIL
FIELD ALLOCATION
SUHSD I CVESD FIELD USE
Fall- Winter 2003-4, AUGUST 1 - JANUARY 31, 2004
LEAGUE SUHSD CVESD
C.V. GIRLS FAST PITCH HILLTOP HIGH HILLTOP
KELLOGG 2 FIELDS
CASTLE PARK
GREG ROOGERS
YMCA CASTLE PARK HIGH SCHOOL DISCOVERY -SAT ONLY
EASTLAKE- MON - FRI
THURGOOD MARSHALL - SAT ONLY
RICE
AYSO 116 BONITA MIDDLE SCHOOL VALLEY VISTA, ALLEN SCH, EASTLAKE,
BONITA VISTA HIGH SCHOOL SUNNYSIDE, ARROY VISTA, TIFFANY,
DISCOVERY, ,HERITAGE, CLEAR VIEW,
RANCHO DEL REV MIDDLE (SAT & C,V, HILLS
SUN)
AYSO 290 CV HIGH SCHOOL VISTA SQUARE, RICE, MUELLER,
CASTLE PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL ROSEBANK, KELLOGG, PALOMAR,
CASTLE PARK HIGH SCHOOL HILLTOP, GREG ROGERS, HALECREST,
BOTH CASTLE PARK SCH'S ARE PARKVIEW, LAUDERBACK
PENDING RICE RELEASED 9-23-03
CHULA VISTA YOUTH SOCCER CASTLE PARK MIDDLE
CASTLE PARK HIGH SCHOOL
EASTLAKEIBONITA YOUTH FooRBALL EASTLAKE HIGH SCHOOL MARSHALL
OLYMPIC VIEW- PENDING
MAINTENANCE
MCMILLAN
NATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE FFEASTER,VISTA SQ., MUELLER,
RICE, HARBORSIDE, LAUDERBACH,
CASTLE PARK, MONTOGOMEERY,
EASTLAKE LITTLE LEAGUE ARROYO VISTA, OLYMPIC VIEW,
EASTLAKE,
POP WARNER & EASTLAKE L.L. TO
COORDINATE THURGOOD MARSHALL
CHULA VISTA YOUTH FOOTBALL CASTLE PARK HIGH SCHOOL HALECREST, COOK
RICE ADDED 9-23-03
RANGER SOCCER RANCHO DEL REV MIDDLE
MONDAY - FRIDAY
YOUTH SPORTS COUNCIL
FIELD ALLOCATION
SUHSD I CVESD FIELD USE
Spring/Summer 2003. FEBRUARY 1 - JULY 31,2003
Page 13
LEAGUE SUHSD CVESD
CHULA VISTA HIGH PENDING SCHOOL USE COOK, MUELLER, HARBORSIDE,
C.V PONY NORTH HILLTOP HIGH LAUDERBACH, HILLTOP, RICE,
J.V. FIELD MON - FRI MONTGOMERY
C,V AMERICAN L.L CHULA VISTA MIDDLE SCHOOL CLEARVIEW M -F 3-6,SAT. 8-6
DISCOVERY
AFTER CONSTRUCTION FEASTER
HILLTOP
RICE,
ROSEBANK
VISTA SQUARE AND COOK
KELLOGG
SOUTH BAY L.L. ROHR M - F 3-DARK
. CASTLE PARK Middle SCHOOL LOMA VERDE
.PENDING SCHOOL USE VALLE LINDO
PARKVIEW L.L HALECREST M - F 4:30-DARK
HERITAGE
PARKVIEW
PALOMAR
GREG VALLE LINDO
CASILLAS
BONITA VALLEY ASA BONITA VISTA MIDDLE SCH COORDINATE TIFFANY M - F 3-DARK
THE SOCCER AREA WITH AYSO 116 ALLEN SCHOOL
RANCHO DEL RAY MIDDLE HERITAGE
HILL TOP HIGH HILLTOP TUES & THURS 4-DARK
C.V. GIRLS FAST PITCH SOFTBALL FIELD KELLOGG M-F 4-DARK SAT 8-5
CASTLE PARK M-F 4-DARK SAT,8-5
GREG
RODGERS M-F4-DARK SAT 8-5PM
LEAGUE SUHSD CVESD
MONTGOMERY HIGH
FLAME GIRLS SOFTBALL SAT/SUN 8:00AM-4:00PM
LAUDERBACH MUELLER
NATIONAL LITTLE LEAGUE COOK
MONTGOMERY
HARBORSIDE
EASTLAKE LITTLE LEAGUE EASTLAKE MON - FRI 4-7
OLYMPIC VIEW
YSO 116 BONITA MIDDLE SCHOOL
M-F 3:00-8:00PM
SAT/SUN 8AM-8PM
AYSO 290 CV HIGH SCHOOL
FEB 1-JULT31
M-F 3:00PM - 8:00PM
SAT JUNE 30 AND JULY 7
12:00-6:00PM
SUN 12:00-6:00PM
CHULA VISTA YOUTH SOCCER CASTLE PARK HIGH (UPPER)
CASTLE PARK MIDDLE
Page 14
GMOC Follow-Up Questions On Parks and Recreation Questionnaire
Question 3
The GMOC recognizes that per the PDO, the required recreation facilities exceed
what is currently in place and that this situation will be resolved over time. It would
be helpful if a schedule was provided within the questionnaire response that
identifies the timing for when the current shortfal1 is expected to be met.
Response: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the anticipated completion
dates (years) for future parks and the respective facilities. The table contained in GMQC
Questionnaire response to question 13 identifies the parks anticipated to come on line
within 2004 to 2008 timeframe, An additional table has been prepared (Attachment Table
A) that identifies which facilities are to be contained in each respective park. The last
.row of Table A identifies the residual number of needed facilities as well as number of
planned facilities that will exceed the projected need of 2008 timeframe. The Parks and
Recreation Master Plan acknowledges that all desired facilities will not be sited in future
park sites, therefore while the current shortfall will be lessened, it is not expected to be
met. Needed facilities selected to be located in future park sites have been distributed to
achieve a balanced and equitable approach to providing as many recreational
facilities/opportunities across the entire park system, to strive to meet the recreational
facility goals of the PDQ,
As part of the response to "What actions are being taken ... to correct the
shortage?" it is indicated that' "The assignment of needed recreation facilities to
non-public park sites, such as future school sites, is uecessary to accommodate
future demand since the total developer obligated future park acreage is less than
total acres required by demanded facilities."
The GMOC wishes an explanation on three items:
1. Explain how the PDO resulted in there being more facilities required
than what can be accommodated on public park sites.
Response: The number of facilities required is based on recreation needs assessment
survey results (prepared in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
November 2002). The survey respondents (residents) were not limited to the type or
number of facilities desired. Newproject development is required to provide a limited
number of park acres (3 acres per 1, 00 persons). It is not possible to site a "limitless"
number of facilities on a "limited" number of acres ofparkland.
2. When facilities are located on non-public land how does this count
toward meeting the "appropriate facilities" to be provided on
"neighborhood and community parkland"?
Response: The threshold standard requires 3 acres of parkland with "appropriate
facilities ", The threshold standard does not state that all desired facilities are to be
located in public parks, This is not feasible, The Parks and Recreation Master Plan
identifies the total number of facilities desired and distributes as many facilities as is
physically possible in an equitable manner on a limited number offuture public park
acres. The limited number offuture park acres will contain "appropriatefacilities",
3. In general, how are parks and facilities on non-public park sites
intended to be treated in regard to meeting the GMOC threshold?
Response: The Growth Management Program does not include "non-public park" sites
as being counted toward meeting the park and recreation threshold standard. The Parks
and Recreation Master Plan acknowledges that along with future public park sites,future
non-public park sites will also contain needed recreation facilities.
Question 5
In part of the response to Question 5, it is indicated, "In the future, it is anticipated
that the City will construct al1 City parks." This is in contrast to the practice of
al1owing "turn-key" park development. Please indicate how having the City
construct al1 parks increases public benefit and is this cost effective?
Response: The "turn-key" method of park construction has yielded mixed results at best,
There are a number of reasons for this, most of which are not within the City's purview,
Since the City is relegated to basically the role of an inspection agency, it has no ability
to provide direction to the contractor in terms of the quality at scheduling of work.
In the design/build process, the City contracts with a single contractor from its already
approved list of design/build contractors. This contractor oversees all elements of the
project, including the design phase. In a design/build project, prior to the start of
construction, the City and the design builder agree on a Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP). Once the GMP is established and approved by City Council, any cost overruns
that occur during construction that are not the result of a change in project scope by the
City, are borne by the design builder. These overruns cannot be covered by reduction in
the project's program.
The designlbuild process both ensures that projects are undertaken and completed within
reasonable schedules, in conformance with the approved master plans and within the
budgetary constraints that all of these projects face, The City has developed a significant
amount of experience with the designlbuild process, i,e., Fire Station No.7, new Police
Facility, Fire Station 2 expansion, Fire S!ation 4 expansion, David Wergeland Shark and
Ray Experience, All of these projects, with the exception of the Police Facility were
completed in 2003, either at or below budget and on time. The City is quite confident
that the use of the design/build process will be a significant improvement over the turn-
key methodology used previously.
Question 10
The GMOC intended to request a copy of the staffing plan for planned recreational
facilities. It is the GMOC's position that facilities are not adequate if they are not
adequately staffed.
The response by the Recreation Department indicated that a "staffing strategy has
been implemented". A copy and discussion ofthis strategy would be appreciated.
The response continues that "A [staffing] standard based on facility size and
program elements is being developed to provide staffing that is adequate to meet
both current and forecasted demand." Naturally, this is contingent on funding.
The GMOC would appreciate a briefing on this standard in order to assess whether
,a recommendation by the GMOC in regards to that funding may be appropriate.
A staffing strategy has been implemented in that we provide adequate fUll-time staff and
part-time stafffor each recreation facility, which is dependent on the hours of operation,
the programming that we provide, and the community's use of the facility via rentals and
visits. Shown below in Table B is the FY2003-04 staffing plan for Heritage Center as an
example. Please note that contract instructors teach our recreation classes, which are
fee-based, and are therefore not included in the staffing plan.
We are currently developing a staffing model for Veteran's Park Center, which will be
unique, for this will be the City'sfirst community center located in a community park
with ballfields, The staffingfor this facility will reflect the programming and scheduling
needs for the Center itself as well as the ballfields and park grounds, This model will
then set the stage for the staffing models we will be developing for Montevalle and Salt
Creek Recreation Centers, At this time, we do not have a copy of these staffing plans, as
they are currently in development and must first be approved by the City Manager and
City Council.
Question 11
Regarding the recommendation for the development of a parks and recreation
quality of life threshold for western Chula Vista, the response indicated that a
Western Chula Vista Parks Staff Committee has been created with a forthcoming
needs assessment and "Chula Vista Park and Recreation Facility Implementation
Plan" which will contain a threshold standard for western Chula Vista. Please
provide a target date for the completion of this work.
Response: The update of the Recreation Needs Assessment will be based on the total
anticipated dwelling units and population forecasts related to the General Plan Update,
The Needs Assessment (first phase) is anticipated to be completed in approximately one
year. The "Chula Vista Park and Recreation Facility Implementation Plan" preparation
is anticipated to be completed after the update to the Recreation Needs Assessment,
Question 14
The GMOC would appreciate a broad discussion of the progress in implementing
the Parks Master Plan, perhaps in combination with further discussion on items 3
and 10 above.
Response: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan implementation is reflected each time
a future park site is selected and a park design is created, Recently approved designs for
future parks are based on the master plan identified recreation facilities intended to be
sited in each respective park. Everything from park design, to park programming, to park
maintenance takes into account the goals and policies contained in the master plan.
Please refer to our response in Question 10, As stated in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, our goals are to "maintain a staffing strategy that insures staffing levels
are commensurate with recreation program demands and adequate supervision of
facilities," and to "strive to maintain and hire quality staff that is professional and
cognizant of the latest recreational trends."
Question 15
Thank you for the inventory of the joint use of park and recreation resources with
the school districts. The GMOC would like to discuss the specifics regarding some
of these joint use agreements. In particular, the GMOC would like to better
understand why the Chula Vista Community Youth Center is considered a success.
The Chula Vista High School (CVHS), Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD),
and the Chula Vista Recreation Department Staff at the Chula Vista Youth Center work
so well together because of their consistent and effective communication with one
another. Each stakeholder has learned who to contact if any particular situation should
arise regarding the Youth Center. All three stakeholders have learned to be flexible with
each other's demands, The Youth Center gives it's gym to CVHS JV teams during the
winter until 5:30pm and in response CVHS gives the Recreation Department use of their
fields when needed, Above all, communication has been the key for all the changes in the
past year. Simply talking with people and not telling them what had to be fixed, but
asking them what the best way to fv;; problem would be has made the difference, We have
had our interior of the building painted, new tile floors throughout the center, and the
gymnasium painted. Above that, we have established security guidelines, direct
communication to immediately address situations, and buy-in from all stakeholders for
ownership of the building.
Table A
Future Parks and Facilities (2004 - 2008 Forecast)
OJ >-
-'¡;"ffi -'¡;"ffi ¡ß"ffi OJ "8 C) C) ~~
Park ~ ð E ~ ð E !6 E ~ a. ~ ~ :g ~
Park Name Acres « >- .E >- .E ø .E.g g> =¡¡¡:¡¡ OJ ~ <T
_aJaJ~ =~aJ~ - aJ'¡;¡ I- .- :B 0 ãi ...~
.. .¡g¡g.g ,g ,= .¡g.g,g ä¡¡g 1! "~ ~ ~ "2 ~ ~ ~ .2 ~
Se.e.~ ~e.e.~ 'õ ~e.~ 5 :: ";¡: :¡¡ :3 ~ '5 $~
.~ 0 0 a. ~ 00 a. ,? ,;:: 0 a. ã: ~ I/) I- II] I/) D:: ..5 I/)
Harvest 6.8 1 1,1 13 1
Horizon 5.3 1,1,1 1 1,1 10 1 1
1
Mountain 12,0
Hawk 2 2,2 7 1 1
Santa Cora 5.7 26 1 1 1
Santa 7,0
Venetia 1,1,1 111,171 121
Sunsetview 10,0 2 2,2 22 1 0 2
Veterans 10,0 1,1,1 1 1 1,1 20 2 0 3 15,885
Windinawalk 7,0 1,1,1 1 1 1,1 10 1 1 1 1
Montevalle 29,0 1,1,1 1 3 3,3 12 1 2 3 1 1 21,000
Saltcreek 19,8 3 3,3 12 1 2 2 1 1 21,000
San Miauel 16,1 1,1,1 1 121 1 2 1 1
Totals: 128.7 6,6,6 6 15 15,15 151 12 8 18 5 3 57,885
2003-2008
Need' 115,8 5,3,14 3,9,12 2 7,16 64 15 1 12 18 1 1 31,055
Residual
Need -12,9 1,3,8 3,9,6 -13 -8,1 -87 3 1 4 0 -4 -2 -26,830
* Assumed Population 38,572 (2004 - 2008 projected gain)
Negative Values represent overages.
Table B
- ---'-'. l _._~---~~_.. -I II n II1IB
Full-Time Staff
Recreation Supervisor II
Recreation Supervisor I
Hourlv Staff
Center Supervision
Ree Aide B' 10 wks @ 15 hrs/wk Summer
Ree Ldr B 10 wks @ 42 hrs/wk Summer
Ree Aide B 36 wks @ 15 hrs/wk PNS"
Ree Ldr B 36 wks @ 33 hrs/wk PNS
Staff Meetinqs
Rec Aide B 12 wks @ 2 hrs/wk 4 staff
Ree Ldr B 12 wks @ 2 hrs/wk 5 staff
Ree Ldr C 8 wks @ 24 hrs/wk - Registration
Special Events
Ree Aide B 24 wks @ 4 hrs/wk 2 staff
Ree Ldr B 24 wks @ 4 hrs/wk 1 staff
Intersession Camp - Revenue
Ree Ldr A 10 wks @ 44 hrs/wk 2 or 5 staff
Rec Spee A 10 wks @ 44 hrs/wk
Aftersehool Proqram - Revenue NEW
Ree Aide B 35 wks @ 17 hrs/wk 3 staff
Ree Ldr B 35 wks @ 17 hrs/wk
Bumble Bee Sports - Revenue
Ree Aide B 36 wks @ 5 hrs/wk 2 staff
Ree Ldr B 36 wks @ 5 hrs/wk
Emerqinq Athlete - Revenue NEW
Rec Aide B 27 wks @ 4 hrs/wk 2 staff
Ree Ldr B 27 wks @ 4 hrs/wk
Hard Court Basketball Leaque Rev NEW
Rec Aide B 12 wks @ 5 hrs/wk
Ree Ldr B 12 wks @ 5 hrs/wk 2 staff
Kickball Leaque Revenue NEW
Ree Aide B 12 wks @ 5 hrs/wk
Ree Ldr B 12 wks @ 5 hrs/wk
Totallv Art Class Revenue
Ree Ldr B 32 wks @ 2 hrs/wk
Rentals - Revenue
Ree Ldr B 48 wks @ 27 hrs/wk
* The Letter "B" refers to the Pay Step
** FWS means Fall, Winter, Spring
--------
THRESHOLD STANDARD:
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 % ofthe
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).
1. Threshold Standard
FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71 ,268' 80.8% 4:55
FY 2001.02 1,539 of71,859 80.0% 5:07
FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.70/. 5:13
FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21
CY 1999 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
'These figures (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria, Prior to FY 01-
02, citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to received source. Using the oid
method of reporting calls for service to better compare change over time, total citizen-initiated calls actually increased 1.5% from
FYOQ-O1 to FY01-02.
2 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the Implementation of the new CAD system in mld-199B.
Page 1
FY 2002-03 15,024* of 71 ,268 50.2"10 9:24
FY 2001-02 22,199 of71,859 45.6"10 10:04
FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9"10 9:38
FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4"10 9:37
CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8"10 9:35
FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9"10 8:13
FY 1996-97 22,1400f69904 62.2"10 6:50
FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5"10 6:38
FY 1994-95 21,900 of73,485 63.4"10 6:49
. This calculation not to include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03,
2. As a comparison, please indicate response times for Urgent Response calls that
include false alarms.
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
3. Was the Police Department properly eauiDDed to deliver services at the level
necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the
reporting period?
Yes ...lL.- No -
Explain:
The department was properly equipped with patrol vehicles. motorcycles. officer safety
equipment, and communication equipment to deliver services.
4. 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?
Yes X No -
Page 2
Explain:
The authorized police budget is sufficient to handle calls for service. Staffing levels are
based on the patrol staffing model. The Department is authorized 103 officers in Patrol.
Currently, 94 officers are in Patrol; 1 additional officer is in field training; 1 additional officer
graduates from the regional academy in January 2004, and 3 additional officers graduate in
April 2004. Between 6 and 10 officers were deployed for military service during the reporting
period. As a result, while these officers were receiving full pay, they were unable to provide
local police services to the community. Because we anticipate that a number of officers will
continue to be on military leave in the near future, this issue will likely resurface in the 2004
GMOC report. We do not expect military leave to be an issue over the long-term, however.
In order to meet budget constraints, all City departments reduced expenditures this past
year. The majority of the Police Department's reductions were achieved through attrition. In
particular, a number of civilian positions were frozen. As a result, nearly 25 civilian positions
(more than 20% of all authorized) are currently vacant. Nine of these vacancies are in the
Dispatch Center, which is authorized 30 full-time positions. There are currently 20 full-time
and 2 part-time dispatch staff. Nine communications operators are in the backgrounds
process, and one conditional offer of employment has been made.
GROWTH IMPACTS
5. 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 at addresses on new streets. In-car mapping technology, which has been
operational in all patrol car MDCs during the past calendar year, allows officers to rapidly
locate addresses on newly built roadways. While the in-car mapping technology has helped
meet response time thresholds, a global positioning system program that will automatically
identify the closest unit to a call address is expected to more favorably impact response
times. The global positioning system equipment was purchased this year, and we expect to
be able to implement the system in 2005.
6. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth through
December 2003 and 2007?
Yes - No X
Page 3
---.---------.------ --
Explain:
We are planning to vacate our existing facility in mid-February 2004 for a much larger
structure that will enable us to meet the needs associated with forecasted growth for at least
the next 25 years, Sworn staff and associated equipment will be added according to the
patrol staffing model to absorb forecasted growth.
7. Are new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted
growth?
Yes ---1L- No
To accommodate forecasted growth while improving public safety, there is a need for a staff
person 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, Other
crime and disorder problems that can be significantly minimized by design include traffic
collisions (roadway design); auto theft (parking lot design); noise disturbances (residential
unit designs that include adequate sound-proofing); residential burglary (neighborhood
layout); and street robbery and graffiti (building in natural surveillance of high-risk locations),
among others. Traffic collisions are currently our third most frequent call type; auto theft is
our sixth most frequent call type (and vehicle burglary is our eighth most frequent); noise
disturbances are our seventh most frequent call type; and vandalism/graffiti is our ninth most
frequent call type. These five call types alone account for almost 20% of all citizen-initiated
calls for service to the Police Department.
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 through grants or other means. 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 $63 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.
Page 4
,-------- -
c. Are there appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
Yes.
8. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the provision of police services?
Yes ---1L- No -
Explain:
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.
9. Please assess the City's advance hire program relative to keeping pace with growth
as presented in the 5 Year forecast.
The Department expects to augment staffing through the advance hire program as the city
grows. The advance hire program helps ensure that shortfalls in staffing do not occur. To
date, the advance hire program has provided us with enough flexibility in hiring to maintain
adequate staffing levels.
10. Is there a ratio of police officers to the population that is an appropriate model for a
city like Chula Vista?
Yes - No X
Explain:
The most important factors for determining an appropriate staffing model are an agency's
workload and goals for proactive time availability, Staffing decisions based on population
figures do not take into account the nature and volume of calls for service received, the non-
call-related response expectations of sworn personnel, a community's crime rate, resident
levels of concem about public safety, or other factors unique to an agency.
If yes, please indicate Chula Vista's situation relative to this ratio.
MAINTENANCE
11. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities
and equipment?
Yes ---1L- No
Page 5
Explain:
Equipment replacement funded through the General Fund ensures the ongoing upgrades of
equipment such as MDCs.
12. 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
. Police Technology Enhancements
FALSE ALARMS
The GMOC continues to recommend that the Police Department follows a course of action to
reduce the number of false alarms,
13. Please fill the blanks on the table below.
14. Please describe the current status of the Department's goal oriented action plan to
reduce the number of false alarms.
Discussion:
One of the most valuable developments during FY 2002-03 was the creation of a new database
that streamlined the data entry, billing and reporting of false alarms. Because the Alarm Analyst
position was filled during only nine months of FY 02-034, many of the programs summarized in
last year's report to reduce the number of false alarms were not implemented.
The department has continued to focus on the locations with the highest number of false alarms,
both by category and by specific address. In an effort to monitor and reduce false alarms at
Chula Vista Elementary Schools, false alarm data is provided on a monthly basis to both school
principals and administrators. Residential and business alarmed locations are contacted by
phone when the number of false alarms becomes excessive. Additionally, site visits to business
locations with a high number of false alarms are conducted whenever necessary, To accomplish
3 These flgures reflects a change in reporting of alarm calls to indude 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 responded to
decreased 5% from FYOO-01 to FY01-02 (from 7,207 to 6,918); and 2% from FY01-02 to FY02-03 (from 6,918 to 6,804).
4 Due to mandatory budget cuts, the false alarm analyst position has been frozen and vacant since April 2003.
Page 6
the goal of false alarm reduction by providing alarm system users with the broadest scope of
information, Community Relations, Alarm Program and Research and Development staff meet
with business owners and managers.
15. 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
JAN-JUN 2001 3,197 -16.5% second six-month period compared to first
six-month period of the fiscal year
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
JUL-DEC 2002 4190
JAN-JUN 2003 4072 -2.8% 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 20025 20035
(annualized) (annualized) (annualized)
Commercial 2.13 1.93 1.44 1.58 1.96
Residential 0.90 0.71 0.52 0.57 .59
Total (Com & Res) 1.33 1.12 0.79 0.844 .95
MISCELLANEOUS
16. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council, including additional threshold
indicators?
5 These figures reflect a change in reporting of alann calls to include those that are dispatched, but canceled en route, Using the old
method of reporting alann calls to better compare change over time, the total false alann rate actually decreased 1,3% from FYOO-01
to FY01-02 (0.79 to 0.77).
Page 7
Yes X No
Explain:
Suggested Recommendations Comments
That the GMOC continue to support the The model assists in meeting response time
dispatch staffing model and the Dispatch thresholds for priority calls for service.
Mana er Conce t.
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 to officer-initiated activities, and a zero
vacanc factor in atro!.
That the GMOC continue to support planned It is imperative that the Department continue to
upgrades of police technologies, such as build a solid technology infrastructure in order
MDCs, wireless data transmission to patrol to service a growing community.
vehicles, and lobal ositionin s stems.
That the GMOC continue to support research Research staff have looked at several of these
and evaluation of Intemet crime reporting; ideas over the past year and expect to continue
alternative deployment tactics; such as revised to research various options over the next 18
beat configurations, bike patrol; and an aerial months, with the aim of maximizing both the
latform, effectiveness and efficienc of the De artment.
17. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate
to the GMOC?
Yes - No X
Explain:
Prepared for: Chief Rick Emerson
Prepared by: Karin Schmerler, Research Analyst
Date: 1/6/04
Page 8
Daniel Forster
From: Karin Schmerler
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:48 AM
To: Daniel Forster
Subject: Follow Up to 1/20 GMOC Meeting
Dan:
As requested by the GMOC, attached is supplementary information regarding the limitations of response time measures
with respect to crime prevention and crime control, as well as additional information on topics of interest to the GMOC
raised at the 1/20 meeting.
~
R..po",e T1me
Re..a"".GMOC.do...
Projected Retirements
During the next 3 years we have informally projected 5 to 7 retirements. Only two of these positions would be at the senior
staff level; the remainder would be at the agent level.
Impact of Military Deployments on Patrol Staffing
Of the 94 officers currently assigned to Patrol, 4 are on military leave, Although we had a number of officers on military
leave during the reporting period, we have been able to ensure that public safety needs were met in a number of ways.
The Watch Commanders never allow patrol staffing to go below shift minimums, which were established a number of
years ago; if necessary, overtime can be used to ensure that minimums are met. In addition, a number of other sworn staff
are available to respond to emergency calls, including the 20 school resource officers and 5 motor officers who work the
day shift, as well as the 5 officers on the Street Team, who work swing shifts during our heaviest evenings (Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday). One of the primary negative consequences of working at staffing levels below the 103
authorized Patrol positions is that less time is available for officers to engage in proactive problem-solving efforts. The goal
of the current staffing formula was to establish a 1:1 ratio of officer time spent responding to citizen-initiated calls to officer-
initiated activities, but this goal is difficult to achieve without full staffing.
Please assess the City's advance hire program relative to keeping pace with growth as presented in the 5- Year
forecast.
Ideally, the Department would like to be in a position to augment staffing through the advance hire program as the city
grows. However, we have recently experienced challenges to attracting qualified officer candidates, despite an increased
emphasis on recruiting efforts,
Please let me know if you would like additional information.
Karin
1
Response Time Research
From Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising: A Report to the
United States Congress, prepared for the National Institute of Justice by Lawrence W.
Sherman, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn
Bushway in collaboration with members of the Graduate Program, Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, 1997.
8.2, Rapid Response to 911
One major theory about the crime prevention benefits of hiring more officers is that it
reduces police response time. The research on this theory is an excellent example of how
different conclusions can result from research results with very different levels of
scientific strength. The initial studies of the response time hypothesis produced strong
--support, suggesting that shaving minutes off response time could lead to the arrest of
many more offenders. The extension of this hypothesis into a strategy of policing
included the development of9ll systems to speed victim contact with police radio
dispatchers, and the hiring of more police nationwide in the early 1970s in order to
reduce average response times and deter crime through greater certainty of arrest. Only
the 1977 NIJ response time analysis in Kansas City study, and the NIJ replications in four
other cities, were able to call that strategy into question, and open the door to more
focused alternatives (Goldstein, 1979).
The original test of the hypothesis was based on a scientifically weak research design, a
non-random sample of265 police responses to citizen calls by the Los Angeles Police
Department (Isaacs, 1967). Its results were confinned by a later study in Seattle (Clawson
and Chang, 1977): the probability of arrest per police response increased as police time in
travel to the scene decreased. Two other studies (Brown, 1974; Holliday, 1974, as cited in
Chaiken, 1978) failed to fmd that pattern, perhaps because, as Chaiken (1978: 130)
observes, "the curves are essentially flat for response times larger than three minutes, and
therefore a substantial amount of data for responses under three minutes is needed to
observe any effect."
The Kansas City (1977) response time analysis took a far more systematic approach to
the issue. Its first step was to divide crimes into victim-offender "involvement" (e.g.,
robbery, assault, rape) and after-the-crime "discovery" categories (e,g.,burglary, car
thèft). It then focused response time analysis on involvement crimes, since the offender
would not be present at the discovery crimes, The analysis then divided the involvement
crime "response time" into three time periods: crime initiation to calling the police
("reporting time"), police receipt of call to dispatch ("dispatch time"), and "travel time" of
police from receipt of dispatch to arrival at the scene. Using systematic observation
methods and interviews of victims, the Kansas City study (1977, Vol. 2: 39) found that
there was no correlation between response-related arrest probability and reporting time
once the time exceeded 9 minutes. The average reporting time for involvement crimes is
41 minutes (K.c.P.D. 1977, Vol. 2: 23). Cutting police travel time for such crime ITom 5
to 2.5 minutes could require a doubling of the police force, but it would have almost no
impact on the odds .of making an arrest.
Police chiefs in the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) told NIJ that they did not
think citizens in their own communities would take so long to call the police. NIJ
responded by commissioning PERF to replicate the citizen reporting component of the
response time analysis in four other cities. Over 4,000 interviews about 3,300
"involvement" crimes produced unequivocal support for the findings of the Kansas City
response time analysis (Spelman and Brown, 1981). The probability of arrest in those
serious crimes was only 29 per 1,000 reports, with 75% of serious crimes being
discovered by victims long after the crimes occurred. Ofthe 25% that directly involved
the victims, almost half were reported five minutes or more after the crime was
completed. The findings were consistent across cities, including one that had a 911
system and three that did not.
The conclusion that reduced response time will not reduce crime is based on strong but
indirect evidence. The evidence is strong because it is based on large samples, careful
measurement, and a replicated research design in five diverse cities showing little
variation in arrest rates by police travel time, the main factor that tax dollars can affect. It
is indirect because an experimental test of the effects of reduced police travel time on
city-wide arrest and crime rates has never been conducted. Yet there is neither empirical
nor theoretical justification for such an expensive test. Given the strong evidence of
citizen delays in reporting involvement crimes, and the small proportion of serious crimes
that feature direct victim-offender involvement, further tests of this theory seem to be a
waste of tax dollars. Those dollars might be better spent on communicating the findings
to the general public, which still puts great priority on police travel time for public safety
(Shennan, 1995).
----.-
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 2002-03 8088 75.5% 7:35 3:43
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
Note: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30,
2003. Also, the reporting period only includes two-weeks of operation for Fire Station 7 which
opened on September 11, 2003.
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:
There were several capital purchases made to properly equip the Fire Department. A new
ladder truck and fire engine were purchased for Fire Station 7. A new Light and Air Rescue
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlFIRE GMOC 03.doc
Page 1
THRESHOLD STANDARD:
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 % ofthe
Priority I emergency calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an
average response time to all Priority I calls offive 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).
FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268' 80.8% 4:55
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 1999 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 83.80/. 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
1These figures (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change In citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. Prior to FY 01-
02, citlzen·initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to received source. Using the old
method of reporting calls for service to better compare change over time, total citizen-initiated calls actually increased 1.5% from
FYOO-01 to FY01-Q2.
2The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-199B.
Page1
FY 2002-03
FY 2001-02
FY 2000-01
FY 1999-00
CY 1999
FY 1997-98
FY 1996-97
FY 1995-96
FY 1994-95
15,024* of 71,268
22,199 of 71,859
25,234 of 73,977
23,898 of 76,738
20,405 of 74,405
22,342 of 69,196
22,140 of 69,904
21,7430f71,197
21,900 of 73,485
50.2%
45.6%
47.9%
46.4%
45.8%
52.9%
62.2%
64.5%
63.4%
9:24
10:04
9:38
9:37
9:35
8:13
6:50
6:38
6:49
* This calculation not to include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03.
2. As a comparison, please indicate response times for Urgent Response calls that
include false alarms.
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
3. Was the Police Department properly eauipped to deliver services at the level
necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the
reporting period?
Explain:
Yes X
No
The department was properly equipped with patrol vehicles, motorcycles, officer safety
equipment, and communication equipment to deliver services.
4. 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?
Yes
X
No
Page 2
Explain:
The authorized police budget is sufficient to handle calls for service. Staffing levels are
based on the patrol staffing model. The Department is authorized 103 officers in Patrol.
Currently, 94 officers are in Patrol; 1 additional officer is in field training; 1 additional officer
graduates from the regional academy in January 2004, and 3 additional officers graduate in
April 2004. Between 6 and1 0 officers were deployed for military service during the reporting
period. As a result, while these officers were receiving full pay, they were unable to provide
local police services to the community. Because we anticipate that a number of officers will
continue to be on military leave in the near future, this issue will likely resurface in the 2004
GMOC report. We do not expect military leave to be an issue over the long-term, however.
In order to meet budget constraints, all City departments reduced expenditures this past
year. The majority ofthe Police Department's reductions were achieved through attrition. In
particular, a number of civilian positions were frozen. As a result, nearly 25 civilian positions
(more than 20% of all authorized) are currently vacant. Nine of these vacancies are in the
Dispatch Center, which is authorized 30 full-time positions. There are currently 20 full-time
and 2 part-time dispatch staff. Nine communications operators are in the backgrounds
process, and one conditional offer of employment has been made.
GROWTH IMPACTS
5. 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 at addresses on new streets. In-car mapping technology, which has been
operational in all patrol car MDCs during the past calendar year, allows officers to rapidly
locate addresses on newly built roadways. While the in-car mapping technology has helped
meet response time thresholds, a global positioning system program that will automatically
identify the closest unit to a call address is expected to more favorably impact response
times. The global positioning system equipment was purchased this year, and we expect to
be able to implement the system in 2005.
6. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth through
December 2003 and 2007?
Yes
No
x
Page 3
Explain:
We are planning to vacate our existing facility in mid-February 2004 for a much larger
structure that will enable us to meet the needs associated with forecasted growth for at least
the next 25 years. Sworn staff and associated equipment will be added according to the
patrol staffing model to absorb forecasted growth.
7. 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
person 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. Other
crime and disorder problems that can be significantly minimized by design include traffic
collisions (roadway design); auto theft (parking lot design); noise disturbances (residential
unit designs that include adequate sound-proofing); residential burglary (neighborhood
layout); and street robbery and graffiti (building in natural surveillance of high-risk locations),
among others. Traffic collisions are currently our third most frequent call type; auto theft is
our sixth most frequent call type (and vehicle burglary is our eighth most frequent); noise
disturbances are our seventh most frequent call type; and vandalism/graffiti is our ninth most
frequent call type. These five call types alone account for almost 20% of all citizen-initiated
calls for service to the Police Department.
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 through grants or other means. 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 $63 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.
Page 4
c. Are there appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
Yes.
8. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the provision of police services?
Yes
x
No
Explain:
The estimated 40,000 housing units that will be built in Chula Vista between 1995 and 2020
pose challenges with respect to false alamn calls. Many of the new housing units will be pre-
wired for burglar alamns, facilitating the purchase and use of alamn devices.
9. Please assess the City's advance hire program relative to keeping pace with growth
as presented in the 5 Year forecast.
The Department expects to augment staffing through the advance hire program as the city
grows. The advance hire program helps ensure that shortfalls in staffing do not occur. To
date, the advance hire program has provided us with enough flexibility in hiring to maintain
adequate staffing levels.
10. Is there a ratio of police officers to the population that is an appropriate model for a
city like Chula Vista?
Yes
No
x
Explain:
The most important factors for determining an appropriate staffing model are an agency's
workload and goals for proactive time availability. Staffing decisions based on population
figures do not take into account the nature and volume of calls for service received, the non-
call-related response expectations of sworn personnel, a community's crime rate, resident
levels of concem about public safety, or other factors unique to an agency.
If yes, please indicate Chula Vista's situation relative to this ratio.
MAINTENANCE
11. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities
and equipment?
Yes
x
No
Page 5
Explain:
Equipment replacement funded through the General Fund ensures the ongoing upgrades of
equipment such as MDCs.
12. 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
. Police Technology Enhancements
FALSE ALARMS
The GMOC continues to recommend that the Police Department follows a course of action to
reduce the number of false alamns.
13. Please fill the blanks on the table below.
14. Please describe the current status ofthe Department's goal oriented action plan to
reduce the number of false alarms.
Discussion:
One of the most valuable developments during FY 2002-03 was the creation of a new database
that streamlined the data entry, billing and reporting of false alamns. Because the Alamn Analyst
position was filled during only nine months of FY 02-034, many of the programs summarized in
last year's report to reduce the number of false alamns were not implemented.
The department has continued to focus on the locations with the highest number of false alarms,
both by category and by specific address. In an effort to monitor and reduce false alarms at
Chula Vista Elementary Schools, false alamn data is provided on a monthly basis to both school
principals and administrators. Residential and business alamned locations are contacted by
phone when the number of false alamns becomes excessive. Additionally, site visits to business
locations with a high number of false alamns are conducted whenever necessary. To accomplish
3 These figures reflects a change in reporting of alarm calls to indude 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 responded to
decreased 5% from FYOo-01 to FY01-02 (from 7.207 to 6,918): and 2% from FY01-02 to FY02-03 (from 6.918 to 6,804).
4 Due to mandatory budget cuts, the false alarm analyst position has been frozen and vacant since April 2003.
Page 6
the goal of false alarm reduction by providing alarm system users with the broadest scope of
information, Community Relations, Alarm Program and Research and Development staff meet
with business owners and managers.
15. 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
JAN-JUN 2001 3,197 -16.5% second six-month period compared to first
six-month ceriod of the fiscal vear
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
JUL-DEC 2002 4190
JAN-JUN 2003 4072 -2.8% 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 20025 20035
(annualized) (annualized) (annualized)
Commercial 2.13 1.93 1.44 1.58 1.96
Residential 0.90 0.71 0.52 0.57 .59
Total (Com & Res) 1.33 1.12 0.79 0.84' .95
MISCELLANEOUS
16. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council, including additional threshold
indicators?
5 These figures reflect a change in reporting of alarm calls to ¡ndude those that are dispatched. but canceled en route. Using the old
method of reporting alarm calls to better compare change over time. the total false alarm rate actually decreased 1.3% from FYOQ-Q1
to FY01-Q2 (0.79 to 0.77).
Page 7
Yes
x
Explain:
No
Suggested Recommendations Comments
That the GMOC continue to support the
dispatch staffing model and the Dispatch
Mana er Conce t.
That the GMOC support continued use of the
patrol staffing model and the advance hiring
program.
That the GMOC continue to support planned
upgrades of police technologies, such as
MDCs, wireless data transmission to patrol
vehicles, and lobal osition in stems.
That the GMOC continue to support research
and evaluation of Internet crime reporting;
altemative deployment tactics; such as revised
beat configurations, bike patrol; and an aerial
latform.
The model assists in meeting response time
thresholds for priority calls for service.
Both will enable the department to respond to
calls for service, seek a 1:1 ratio of officer time
spent responding to citizen-initiated calls for
service to officer-initiated activities, and a zero
vacanc factor in atrol.
It is imperative that the Department continue to
build a solid technology infrastructure in order
to service a growing community.
Research staff have looked at several of these
ideas over the past year and expect to continue
to research various options over the next 18
months, with the aim of maximizing both the
effectiveness and efficienc of the De artment.
17. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate
to the GMOC?
Yes
No
Explain:
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Date:
Chief Rick Emerson
Karin SChmerler, Research Analyst
1/6/04
Page 8
x
Daniel Forster
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Karin Schmerler
Thursday, February 12. 2004 10:48 AM
Daniel Forster
Follow Up to 1/20 GMOC Meeting
Dan:
As requested by the GMOC, attached is supplementary information regarding the limitations of response time measures
with respect to crime prevention and crime control, as well as additionai information on topics of interest to the GMOC
raised at the 1/20 meeting.
~
Response Time
Research.GMOC.do...
Projected Retirements
During the next 3 years we have informally projected 5 to 7 retirements. Only two of these positions would be at the senior
staff level; the remainder would be at the agent level.
Impact of Military Deployments on Patrol Staffing
Of the 94 officers currently ass.igned to Patrol, 4 are on military leave. Although we had a number of officers on miiitary
leave during the reporting period, we have been able to ensure that public safety needs were met in a number of ways.
The Watch Commanders never allow patrol staffing to go below shift minimums, which were established a number of
years ago; if necessary, overtime can be used to ensure that minimums are met. In addition, a number of other sworn staff
are available to respond to emergency calls, including the 20 school resource officers and 5 motor officers who work the
day shift, as well as the 5 officers on the Street Team. who work swing shifts during our heaviest evenings (Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday). One of the primary negative consequences of working at staffing levels below the 103
authorized Patrol positions is that less time is available for officers to engage in proactive problem-solving efforts. The goal
of the current staffing formula was to establish a 1:1 ratio of officer time spent responding to citizen-initiated calls to officer-
initiated activities, but this goal is difficult to achieve without full staffing.
Please assess the City's advance hire program relative to keeping pace with growth as presented in the 5- Year
forecast.
Ideally, the Department would like to be in a position to augment staffing through the advance hire program as the city
grows. However, we have recently experienced challenges to attracting qualified officer candidates, despite an increased
emphasis on recruiting efforts.
Please let me know if you would like additional information.
Karin
1
Response Time Research
From Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising: A Report to the
United States Congress, prepared for the National Institute of Justice by Lawrence W.
Shennan, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn
Bushway in collaboration with members of the Graduate Program, Department of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, 1997.
8.2. Rapid Response to 911
One major theory about the crime prevention benefits of hiring more officers is that it
reduces police response time. The research on this theory is an excellent example of how
different conclusions can result ITOm research results with very different levels of
scientific strength. The initial studies of the response time hypothesis produced strong
..support, suggesting that shaving minutes offresponse time could lead to the arrest of
many more offenders. The extension of this hypothesis into a strategy of policing
included the development of 911 systems to speed victim contact with police radio
dispatchers, and the hiring of more police nationwide in the early 1970s in order to
reduce average response times and deter crime through greater certainty of arrest. Only
the 1977 NIl response time analysis in Kansas City study, and the NIl replications in four
other cities, were able to call that strategy into question, and open the door to more
focused alternatives (Goldstein, 1979).
The original test of the hypothesis was based on a scientifically weak research design, a
non-random sample of265 police responses to citizen calls by the Los Angeles Police
Department (Isaacs, 1967). Its results were confinned by a later study in Seattle (Clawson
and Chang, 1977): the probability of arrest per police response increased as police time in
travel to the scene decreased. Two other studies (Brown, 1974; Holliday, 1974, as cited in
Chaiken, 1978) failed to find that pattern, perhaps because, as Chaiken (1978: 130)
observes, "the curves are essentially flat for response times larger than three minutes, and
therefore a substantial amount of data for responses under three minutes is needed to
observe any effect."
The Kansas City (1977) response time analysis took a far more systematic approach to
the issue. Its first step was to divide crimes into victim-offender "involvement" (e.g.,
robbery, assault, rape) and after-the-crime "discovery" categories (e.g., burglary, car
theft). It then focused response time analysis on involvement crimes, since the offender
would not be present at the discovery crimes. The analysis then divided the involvement
crime "response time" into three time periods: crime initiation to calling the police
("reporting time"), police receipt of call to dispatch ("dispatch time"), and "travel time" of
police ITom receipt of dispatch to arrival at the scene. Using systematic observation
methods and interviews of victims, the Kansas City study (1977, Vol. 2: 39) found that
there was no correlation between response-related arrest probability and reporting time
once the time exceeded 9 minutes. The average reporting time for involvement crimes is
41 minutes (K.C.P.D. 1977, Vol. 2: 23). Cutting police travel time for such crime ITom 5
to 2.5 minutes could require a doubling ofthe police force, but it would have almost no
impact on the odds .of making an arrest.
Police chiefs in the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) told Nil that they did not
think citizens in their own communities would take so long to call the police. NIl
responded by commissioning PERF to replicate the citizen reporting component of the
response time analysis in four other cities. Over 4,000 interviews about 3,300
"involvement" crimes produced unequivocal support for the findings ofthe Kansas City
response time analysis (Spelman and Brown, 1981). The probability of arrest in those
serious crimes was only 29 per 1,000 reports, with 75% of serious crimes being
discovered by victims long after the crimes occurred. Of the 25% that directly involved
the victims, almost half were reported five minutes or more after the crime was
completed. The findings were consistent across cities, including one that had a 911
system and three that did not.
The conclusion that reduced response time will not reduce crime is based on strong but
indirect evidence. The evidence is strong because it is based on large samples, careful
measurement, and a replicated research design in five diverse cities showing little
variation in arrest rates by police travel time, the main factor that tax dollars can affect. It
is indirect because an experimental test of the effects of reduced police travel time on
city-wide arrest and crime rates has never been conducted. Yet there is neither empirical
nor theoretical justification for such an expensive test. Given the strong evidence of
citizen delays in reporting involvement crimes, and the small proportion of serious crimes
that feature direct victim-offender involvement, further tests of this theory seem to be a
waste oftax dollars. Those dollars might be better spent on communicating the findings
to the general public, which still puts great priority on police travel time for public safety
(Shennan, 1995).
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 2002-03 8088 75.5% 7:35 3:43
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
Note: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30,
2003. Also, the reporting period only includes two-weeks of operation for Fire Station 7 which
opened on September 11, 2003.
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:
There were several capital purchases made to properly equip the Fire Department. A new
ladder truck and fire engine were purchased for Fire Station 7. A new Light and Air Rescue
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed ques"FIRE GMOC 03.doc
Page 1
Rig was purchased for the Department and a new reserve ladder was added to the fire
fleet. Additionally, Council approved the sale of the telesquirt and purchase of a new fire
engine. The Fire Department now has two frontline aerial ladder trucks and one reserve
aerial ladder truck to be able to better serve the community in the event of a fire.
Additionally, new breathing apparatus were purchased for the entire fire department.
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 1- No -
Explain: Council acted on July 22,2003 to add an additional 9 positions to accelerate
the in-service date for the second ladder truck to be located at Fire Station 7. The second
ladder truck and staffing have been added one year earlier than originally planned. A total of
18 positions were added to staff Fire Station 7, which is located in Otay Ranch Village 2.
Additional staffing will be needed as the City continues to grow. Sufficient medical units
were also provided by AMR to maintain service levels.
GROWTH IMPACTS
4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Department's
ability to meet the response time threshold or to maintain service levels?
Yes - No X
Explain: Growth has necessitated the need to update and evaluate the existing Fire
Facility Master Plan and construct planned stations earlier than originally anticipated.
Station 7 opened in September 2003 and will help the Fire Department to service a growing
eastern community,
The average travel time increased by 4 seconds from 3 minutes 39 seconds t03 minutes 43
seconds, which is not significant. Overall, the average total response time improved from 6
minutes 30 seconds to 6 minutes 11 seconds marking a 19 second improvement.
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 2008)?
Yes -L- No
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. However, construction of the Eastlake Woods station
may need to be accelerated. Staff is in the process of reviewing alternatives and making a
final recommendation to the City Manger. Construction of the EUC 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.
C:ldffiles\GMOClGMOC 03\Retumed quest\FIRE GMOC 03.doc Page 2
6. Are new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted
growth?
Yes X No
If yes:
a. Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities? Yes
b. How will these be funded? New stations in the eastern part of the City will be
funded by development impact funds. Station requirements in western Chula Vista
will be primarily funded by the general fund with exception of Re-construction of Fire
Station 5, which will be partially funded by redevelopment funds.
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 fire services?
Yes - No _X-
Explain: However, demographics and gated communities in the east continue to playa
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.
Furthermore, remodels of Fire Station 4 the "butler building" at Fire Station 2 were
completed in 2003. Construction of Fire Stations 5 and 1 are planned for the near future.
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 storage facility at Fire Station 2 and the remodel of
Fire station 4 training facility were completed in 2003.
Relocation of Fire Station 6 in Rolling Hills is currently in progress. The design built
team of Erickson Hall was selected to build the new fire station in Rolling Hills.
Programming funds have been requested for construction of Fire Station 5 and the
Eastlake Woods station. Growth in the Eastlake Woods and the relocation of Station 6
C:ldffilesIGMOClGMOC 031Retumed questlFIRE GMOC 03.doc Page 3
,._._~~---- ------.---..---
to it's permanent location in Rolling Hills will prompt the need to build the Eastlake
Woods station earlier than anticipated. Staff is in the process of working with the
Department of Building and Park construction to identify funds and build the station.
A major CIP project currently underway is the establishment of a fire dispatch center with in
the new Police Station, Council approved funds for CAD interface and equipment in
addition to a new message switch for both Police and Fire, The new dispatch center is
planned to be operational by July 1, 2004. Funding in this project also includes funds for a
Fire records management system, which will help in the tracking and managing of accurate
call for service data required for reporting to the GMOC,
MISCELLANEOUS
10. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes X No
Explain: Continue to support the Fire Department in the future construction of new stations
and hiring of new fire personnel.
11. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to
communicate to the GMOC?
Yes X No
Explain:
Threshold Compliance
For the period analyzed, the Fire Department responded to 75.5% of the priority I calls within 7
minutes compared to the established threshold of 80%. This falls short of the compliance
standard, however this measures marks an improvement in performance when compared to the
2001-02 results. The actual percentage of calls that were responded to within 7 minutes in 2001-
02 was 69.7%, This improvement in performance can be attributed to a decline in the average
turnout time, which improved from 2 minutes 11 seconds to 1 minute 50 seconds. This 21-second
(16%) improvement in the average turnout time accounts for the majority of the improvement in
total response time for this reporting period, The average dispatch remained relatively unchanged
as it decreased slightly from 38 to 36 seconds. Average travel time increased by 4 seconds from 3
minutes 39 seconds to 3 minutes 43 seconds. Overall, the average total response time improved
from 6 minutes 30 seconds to 6 minutes 11 seconds marking a 19 second improvement.
EmerQencv Medical Calls
Emergency medical calls totaled 6,808 during this period accounting for a 7.8% increase from
2001-02. Emergency medical calls accounted for 84.2% of the priority I call volume vs. 82.8% in
2001-02. When examined by themselves, 72.5% of the emergency medical calls were responded
to within 7 minutes versus 67.6% in 2001-02. Analysis of the balance of the calls (non-medical
emergency priority I) revealed that 66.5% of these calls were responded to within 7 minutes. The
volume of non-medical emergency priority I calls totaled 1,280 and decreased from at total of 1,308
calls in 2001-02.
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed ques"FIRE GMOC 03,doc Page 4
" ------,-,-,----..---
12. Please provide the status of GMOC recommendations made last year.
a, Please describe the status of the update of the Fire Department Master Plan.
Update of the Master Plan has been postponed until July 2004. The need to
postpone the update was prompted by the need to incorporate major land decisions
that will be made in the General Plan update to be adopted by Council in June and
the need to complete an internal business strategic plan to align services, programs
and outcomes to meet the service needs of the community. The business strategic
plan is proposed to be completed by June. Staff is in the process of releasing an
RFP and selecting a consultant.
b. Please provide the GMOC with copies of comments made by the Fire Department
over the reporting period to the current time regarding their concerns or indicating
recommended changes to proposed development that have been made in the
course of the Fire Department's role as one of the City's reviewing bodies,
Most of this year's fire department comments and communication focused on
improving turnout times for fire personnel. The results were positive as we
experienced a 21 second improvement in the average turnout time, which
accounted for the majority of the improvement in total response time during the
reporting period.
During the reporting period various communications were exchanged with The
Heartland Communication Facility Authority reference call for service data and
reporting requirements, The end result was the action by the City Council to return
dispatch services to the City of Chula Vista.
c. Has the Fire Department instituted a process whereby a daily report is provided by
Fire station and by trip regarding response times? And if so, what has been the
result?
During the reporting period various communications were exchanged with The
Heartland Communication Facility Authority reference call for service data and
reporting requirements, The end result was the action by the City Council to retum
dispatch services to the City of Chula Vista.
On October 7, 2003, Council took action to notify the HCFA of the City's intent to
terminate the Joint Powers Agreement for dispatch services on July 1, 2004. The
Fire Department's re-examination of the JPA and the services provided was
prompted by several changes within HCFA. Specifically:
. An inadequate existing Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with no guaranteed
accountability and/or clear lines of policy and administrative authority.
. The current HCFA Board of Commissioners has shown no realistic or
sustainable interest in re-writing the existing JPA to address several key issues
that are of major concern to Chula Vista.
C:ldffiles\GMOC\GMOC 03\Retumed ques"FIRE GMOC 03.doc Page 5
.. - - - ..__..--.._-~-_....~~_.._.._--_.----_.-
. Ongoing frustrations and concerns at the Operations Committee level, which
dictates HCFA policy and daily operations and leads to a general lack of
flexibility to address the specific needs or issues of individual JPA agencies.
There are two main causes of these operational concerns, the first is the
philosophy that all agencies should be dispatched and operate in the same
manner regardless of specific agency differences. The second reason is that
the HCFA CAD system is not capable of adjustments to specific agency needs
or issues.
. HCFA records management software is incomplete and unable to meet the Fire
Department's reporting requirements, Heartland's RMS software is still in a
development stage and does not allow the department to maintain fire
inspection records or generate reports such as the annual call for service
thresholds for the Growth Management Oversight Committee. HCFA current
RMS software continues to generate errors on a daily basis.
. Many of the advantages for transitioning to HCFA in 2001 can now be
duplicated and/or improved upon at an even higher level within the City of Chula
Vista's fire dispatch center,
. The current HCFA facility is not adequate to support the JPA's recent growth of
member and contract agencies, The long-term facility needs of HCFA must be
addressed to deal with the physical size, equipment infrastructure and personnel
expansion needs.
. The City of Chula Vista is the largest member agency that generates revenue
for the JPA. Under the current structure of the JPA and the subsequent Board
of Commissioners, Board of Fire Chiefs and the Operations Committee, Chula
Vista has little or no ability to guide operational, administrative or other policy
matters at a level commensurate to the City's level of need, risk and financial
obligation,
Prepared by: Doug Perry
Title: Fire Chief
Date: February 3, 2004
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlFIRE GMOC 03.doc Page 6
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 LOS D can occur for
no more than two hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments
that 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.
E Sl. (1-5 NB Ramps - Third Ave.) EBIWB B/B('93) B/C C/C BIB
H 51. (1-5 NB-ThlrdAve.) EBIWB BIB CIS CIS C/C Rd. Consl.
E. H 51. (5W College Ent. - Rutgers Avo,) EBIWB B/C B/C C/C C/C B/B(2)
Clay Lakes Rd. (E. H 51. - Tel. Canyon Rd.) NB/5B CIA B/C C/C C/C
Clay Lakes Rd. (E. H 51. - Olympic Parkway) NBISB DC/C(3)
Palomar 5t. (1-5 NB ramps - Broadway) EBIWB BIB Not Studied C/C B/C CIS
Telegraph Canyon Rd. (Halecrost- Medical Center) WB C DC C CB B(2)
3~ Ave. (Naples 51. - 50uth CVCL) NB B ('94) C B
Broadway (C 51. - H 51.) 5B C C C C C
Broadway (H 51. - L 51.) NB B ('94) C C
E 5t. (I-S NB Ramps - Third Ave,) EBIWB BIB ('95) C/C CIS
H 51. (1-5 NB ramps - Third Ave,) EBIWB C/C C/C C/C C/C Rd. Consl.
E, H 51. (5W College Eni. - Rutgers Avo.) WB C B C C B(2)
Otay Lakes Rd. (E, H 51. - Tel. Canyon Rd) NBi5B CIS CIA C/C C/C
Clay Lakes Rd. (E. H 51. - Olympic Parkway) NBi5B DC/C(3)
Palomar 51. (1-5 NB ramps - Broadway) EBIWB C/CD C/CD C/C C/C C/C
Palomar 5t. (Broadway - Hilltop Dr.) WB B ('94) C C
Telegraph Canyon Rd. (Halecrost- Medical Cenler) WB A B CB C BA(2)
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed quos"O3 GMOC traffic Quostionaire.doc
Page 1
E. H 51. (SW College Enl. - Rutgers Ave,) we C C C C B(2)
HllltopDr. (FSI.-LSt.) NB/SB B/B('92) C/B C/B B/C
J 51. (1-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.) E BIWB B/B('92) C/B tiC tiC
L 51. (Industrial- Third Ave.) EB B('97) C C
Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H 51. . Tel. Canyon Rd.) NB/SB C/B C/B B/C tiC
Otay Lakes Rd. (E, H St. - Olympic Parkway) NB/SB D/BC (3)
Pal"mar 51. (1.5 NB ramps - Broadway) EBIWB tiC DC/C tiC DID D/D(4)
Telegraph Canyon Rd. (Halecrest- Medical Center) we B A CB C B(2)
. Single letters indicate 2-hour average LOS (example: C). Double letters (example: D/C) indicate hourly (first hour and
second hour) LOS. Study directions are separated by a backslash (example: EB/WB).
(1) Not studied because previous LOS was B or better.
(2) Street was studied w~h different begin and/or end points or classificatIon.
(3) The street segment between E. H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road was improperly classified. Please see further
explanation under question 13.
(4) The street segment between 1-5 and Industrial Is currently under construction to widen the street to six lanes,
Note:
The TMP results revealed that two slreetsegments have discrepancies regarding the City's Threshold Standards related to the adequacy
of the segment lengths and the accuracy of the ciassification, These segments are:
1. Otay Lakes RdJLa Media (E, H 51. - Olympic Pkwy) - northbound
2. Paseo RancherolHeritage Rd. (Rancho del Rey Pkwy - Olympic Pkwy) - both directions
Additionally, the street segment on Palomar Street (1-5 Northbound Ramps - Broadway) is operating at the Threshold Standards for both
directions in the evening peak period from 4 - 6 PM. Palomar Street is currentiy under construction to widen the roadway from the i-5
northbound ramps to Industrial Bivd.
'~illill'r~¡'llifilli~!:~ill¡í~'ît¡~r¡i't;iir¡§:~i;K'¡¡¡fll~ï;.:~t~,ill~~~¡,~illŒI%l~1J:m¡H~l.¡¡l::D:'l,r';:l:lßl-1.illf[lD0~1~~ÊllJ[¡l'.lj~,'ll;"jl
[¡[lIT :ll'lll..lll.ll'.ll',lO'j:'¡['l ~:.i.ll,~¡l(ll.¡lÚ ¡l:¡:~'l..'ll¡lll:~.tt'lljll.j-l'l 1,l.l1;"ll' illll.lr~llllll'
""-'/.'.".'..../..'...,-,...."".,. """"""""""""'."."" .'.....----
r~;l¡rli~l;lljlj'l¡llf¡j,j:l":;:"':;i:;::'ll':i:jll;rli¡,n ": ,,~ ", ". I"
-"'-""'.."\""""""""':""""""""""""""'"..........".,..,."...",.....::.,:.:...,:..;",.:.::::
¡m.!!'ml!!!! ll.:lm"mlllj!l':~f~l¡l.ll¡l_ll 'll¡TJ"~~îlllll¡jl::~.Eft..l.I'lll'l.lllll.lil"lll;! llnlln:llilll'I'l¡l"illl,1
E 51. (Bay - Woodlawn) we C Not Studied P D C
H St. (Bay Blvd, -Woodlawn Ave.) EBIWB C/D DC/C D/C C/D Rd Const.
Palomar 51. (Bay - Industrial) EB C('96) D C D CD
E 51. (Bay - Woodlawn) we C Not Studied CD D C
H 51. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave) we CD D D DC Rd Consl.
Palomar 51. (Bay - Industrial) EB D D D D D
H 51. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) EBIWB
C:\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC 03\Retumed quest\O3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page 2
East H St. (Hilltop Dr. - Hidden Vista) EB C D CD D Rd Const.
J St. (Bay - Woodlawn) EBIWB C/C/'95} DID C/D DID
Palomar St. (Bay Blvd. - Industrial Blvd.) EB F D D/C D DElCD
2. Should any street segment be added to the above list as a result of the current TMP?
Yes ---1L- No -
a. Please list those segments in the following table:
Third Avo. (G St. - Naples St.) NB/SB (Mid-day) B/B('99) C/C
East H St. (Hidden Vista Dr. - Paseo Ranchero) WB (Mid-day) Added to Program in C
(PM) 2003 C
Otay Lakes RdJLa Media (E. H St. - Olympic Pkwy) NB/SB (AM) DC/C
(Mid-day) Added to Program In DC/C
2003
(PM) D/BC
Paseo Ranchero/Heritage Rd. (Rcho del Rey - Olympic) NB/SB (AM) DID
(Mid-day) Added to Program in DID
2003
(PM) C/D
East Orange Avo. (Melrose Avo. - Oleander Ave,) (a) EBIWB (AM) C/C('98) DID
(PM) B/B('98) DID
Telegraph Cyn Rd. (Nacion Avo. - Canyon Plaza dlw) (a) WB (AM) Added to Program In D
2003
(a) These segments are at Freeway Interchanges and are not subject to threshold standards. For inlannatlon only.
Note:
When traffic volumes on major roadways in eastem 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.
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
3. Were any major streets, or other traffic improvements constructed during the reporting period
(02/03) fiscal year?
Yes---1L- No-
Explain:
1) Olympic Parkway street improvements from Heritage Road to Hunte Parkway
2) Hunte Parkway street improvements from South Greensview to Olympic Parkway
3) East Palomar street improvements from Vista Sonrisa to Olympic Parkway
4) Traffic signal improvements at East Palomar Street and Paseo Ladera
5) Traffic signal improvements at Olympic Parkway and Hunte Parkway
6) Westbound East "H" Street widening at the 1-805 Northbound on-ramp
7) Eastbound East "W Street widening east of 1-805 Northbound off-ramp
8) Mount Miguel Road north of Proctor Valley Road
9) Olay Lakes Road street Improvements east of Hunte Parkway
10) "W Street improvements between 1-5 and Broadway
11) Palomar Street widening and improvements between 1-5 and Industrial
C:\dffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed quesfiC3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page 3
FREEWAY ENTRANCES I EXITS
4.
E Street Northbound ram meter is scheduled for 2009
H Street Northbound ram meter is scheduled for 2009
J Street Northbound ram meter is scheduled for 2009
L Street/Industrial Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2009
Blvd.
Palomar Street Northbound ram meter is scheduled for 2009
Main Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for 2009
Northbound ram meter is scheduled for 2008
Two projects were completed to include an additional westbound lane
onto northbound 1-805 and an additional eastbound lane in the vicinity of
the northbound off-ramp. These two enhancement projects will improve
traffic flow during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The
westbound improvements project was funded by the developers. The
eastbound improvement project is a CIP project (STM-340) funded with
$160,000 of DIFTRANS funds.
Northbound ram meter is tentative I scheduled for 2008
Telegraph Canyon Completed project included the widening ofTelegraph Canyon Road by
Road approximately 20 feet from 1-805 to a point approximately 500 feet east
of Halecrest Drive. Additional planned 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. This project is funded by the developers and is
anticipated to start in early 2004. .
Northbound ramp meter is tentatively scheduled for 2008 from
the ram meterin Pro"ect Stud Re ort
Olympic Parkway Design has been completed and construction is scheduled to commence
in May 2004 on the interchange improvements at 1-805/0Iympic
Parkway.
Northbound and Southbound ramp meters are tentatively
scheduled for 2008
Main Street Northbound ramp meter is tentatively scheduled for 2008
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlO3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page 4
GROWTH IMPACTS
5. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to
maintain LOS levels?
Yes - No X (see explanation below)
Explain:
As a result of the various construction activities on major roads throughout
the City, coupled with the fact that SR-125 has not been built yet, traffic
delays have been observed during the peak hours. However, we are
maintaining threshold levels currently. Furthermore, due to the rapid rate of
growth the City has been experiencing, the construction ofthe following three
projects is imperative and will occur at the same time in 2004:
1. 1-805 and Olympic Parkway Interchange
2. Telegraph Canyon Road widening east of 1-805
3. East H Street northbound on-ramp widening
Therefore, It is anticipated that additional traffic delays on Olympic Parkway,
Telegraph Canyon Road and East H Street for calendar year 2004 may
occur due to the construction activities for those roadways. We estimate that
motorists may start utilizing alternate routes when construction activities
necessitate a lane closure on these roadways. This will lead to a reduction
of traffic volumes on the roads under construction and a traffic volume
increase on alternate routes. Separately, in the next three years, we also
anticipate delays stemming from construction activities associated with the
construction of SR-125 as the work zone of the roadway crosses local
easUwest arterials. The same trip diversions may occur as motorists devise
alternate routes during the day, which may lead to temporary congestion on
other street systems.
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
For the next 18-month period, there will be delays as noted above on a few
select roadways in the City. The Traffic Section staff feels that with the
planned completion of SR-125 in December 2006, coupled with the
completion of a variety of local arterials that were exacted from recent
subdivision entitlement processes, the City will continue maintaining an
acceptable Level of Service on local arterials and the roadway's isolated
intersections.
a. Please indicate those new roadways and/or improvements necessary to
accommodate forecasted growth consistent with maintaining the Threshold
Standards.
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed ques~O3 GMOC traffic Questionalre.doc
Page 5
18-month timeframe: (from the end date of this reportinq period. i.e. June 30.
2003)
1) Palomar Street from I - 5 to Industrial Blvd. (Completion Date by mid 2004)
2) Olympic Parkway from Heritage Road to Wueste Road. (Opened to traffic as of
January 2003)
3) Eastlake Parkway from SDG&E easement to Birch Road. (Completion Date by
end of 2004)
4) Birch Road from SR-125 R-O-W to Eastlake Parkway. (Completion Date by end
of 2004)
5) Olympic Parkway Interchange at 1-805. (Completion Date is tentatively
scheduled for November 2005)
5-vear timeframe: (from the end date of this reportinq period. Le. June 30.
2003)
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?
TDIF, Transnet, and Developer funds.
c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this
funding?
Yes.
7. What is the Status of SR-125?
The SR-125 project is proposed to extend approximately 11 miles from State
Route 905 (Otay Mesa Road) in Otay Mesa to State Route 54 near Spring
Valley. Initially, this facility will consist of a 4 lanes toll-way and ultimately, it
will be expanded to 8 lanes north of Birch Road and 6 lanes south of Birch
Road.
The estimated total cost for the facility is $540 million. Funding is provided
by San Diego Express Limited Partnership (SDELP), a private limited
partnership managed by its general partner California Transportation
Ventures, Inc, (CTV). The Environmental Document for the project was
approved in January 2003. Construction has commenced within the right of
way in October 2003. It is anticipated that the Toll-way phase will be opened
by mid October 2006.
8. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance ofthe current
level of service as Chula Vista's transportation demand increases?
C:\dffilesIGMOClGMOC 03\Retumed quesM3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page 6
Yes -1L- No
Explain:
The City hired the firm of Linscott Law & Greenspan to analyze the traffic capacity
of the Eastern Area circulation system with the completion of Olympic Parkway and
other traffic enhancement projects pre-SR-125. The objective of the study was to
estimate the number of new homes that could be built, assuming various
improvements are constructed, before a growth management traffic threshold is
exceeded on any particular roadway segment. The salient points of the completed
traffic study include the following:
. Average daily traffic volumes were obtained on East "H" Street, Telegraph
Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway in November and December of 2002
and February of 2003. The weekday average volumes on East "H" Street
were between 45,550 and 66,700 vehicles per day for various segments. On
Telegraph Canyon Road, the volumes were between 44,600 and 60,950.
Olympic Parkway had volumes ranging between 16,000 and 28,600 trips per
day. All segments of all roadways operated within the parameters of the
growth management threshold standards.
. The basic methodology was to do traffic volume and speed surveys on the
various roadway segments in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
Next, linear regression formulas were developed using historical traffic
monitoring program speed and traffic volumes to forecast future travel
speeds. A table was developed relating volume to level of service. The
amount of hourly traffic that would trigger a degradation of service in excess
ofthe acceptable traffic threshold was forecast. Finally, that amount oftraffic
was correlated to a dwelling unit amount in the eastern territories.
. With a starting date of January 1, 2003, it was predicted that 6,150
residential units could be constructed and occupied before the City's
thresholds would be exceeded. This assumed no additional roadway
improvements are constructed and with Olympic Parkway east of
Brandywine Avenue to Wueste Road already completed. The analysis
indicated that the first roadway segment to exceed two hours of LOS D
during peak time was Telegraph Canyon Road westbound in the AM peak
period.
. If an additional lane was provided westbound at Telegraph Canyon Road
and 1-805, approximately 1,350 additional units could be constructed.
Further, additional 600 units could be provided if an additional lane was
provided on westbound East "H" Street and 1-805. This would result in a total
additional dwelling unit amount of 8,050. In addition, Olympic 1-805/East
Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway Interchange will add an estimated
additional 940 units for a grand total of 8,990 housing units.
MAINTENANCE
9. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing
facilities?
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed Quest\O3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page 7
Yes No ----L-
Exolain:
Funding for basic maintenance activities is adequate at present and the City
does not anticipate any shortfalls or difficulties in its effort to maintain its
street and traffic infrastructure in a safe and efficient manner. It should be
noted that the City does recognize the possibility that local funding of all City
operations could be affected by the State's on-going budget difficulties and
that once any specific impacts are identified, adjustments to maintenance
and operational activities may be necessary.
10. Has the Engineering Department developed an annual list of priority streets
with deteriorated pavement? '
Yes ----L- No
Explain, if yes please attach list:
City staff established an annual priority list for all deteriorating streets after
pavement analysis was performed.
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 ----L- No
Explain:
1) Olympic Parkway /1-805 Interchange (2003 - 2005).
2) "H" Street Reconstruction, 1-5 to Broadway (2002 - 2004).
3) Palomar Street Improvements from 1-5 to Industrial Blvd. (2002-2004).
4) East H Street: additional lane on the westbound to northbound 1-805 ramp.
(2002-2003)
5) Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805 westbound roadway widening. (2004)
MISCELLANEOUS
12. What is the status ofthe 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 General Plan update process, which is
scheduled for completion in mid 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.
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed quest\O3 GMOC traffic Questionalre.doc
Page 8
13. Does the current threshold standard need any modification?
Yes X No
Explain:
In November 2001, City staff prepared a study outlining the need to update
the originally adopted Arterial Highway Segment Map in order to include
newly developed arterial segments, not previously shown, for the purpose of
additionally monitoring the recent developments in eastern Chula Vista. As a
result of the study and subsequent concurrence from the GMOC, the Map
was updated in 2002 to include new segment lengths and classifications.
While performing TMP runs for this reporting period, staff has discovered
that there were two street segments that were improperly classified during
the Map update. The segments were:
. Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H St. - Olympic Parkway): This segment was
originally classified as Class II. When the Map was updated, the
assumption was made to revise this segment to Class I in order to
provide classification continu ity to the entire Otay Lakes Road corridor
from Bonita Road to Olympic Parkway. However, in analyzing this
particular segment, it was apparent that the functionality of the
roadway, including the presence of several intersecting driveways and
roads, coupled with other factors such as the absence of a dividing
median, the installation of an additional traffic signal and the proximity
of Southwestern College with a large pedestrian concentration, qualify
this segment as a Class II. Therefore, staff is proposing to reclassify
this segment back to the original Class II designation.
. Paseo Ranchero/Heritage Road (Rancho Del Rey Parkway - Olympic
Parkway): This segment was added to the Classification Map in 2002
as Class I, assuming that the segment has low density roadside
development with insignificant pedestrian activities and minimum
cross street interruptions. After further analysis, staff realized that the
northerly portion of said segment ( from Rancho Del Rey Parkway to
East H Street) carries less than 10,000 daily trips and, therefore,
should not have been included in the classification. Furthermore, the
southerly portion (from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road) has
frequent cross street interruptions and significant pedestrian activities
due to the presence of elementary and junior high schools in the
vicinity of the East J Street and Paseo Ranchero intersection.
Therefore, staff recommends the removal of the link of Rancho Del
Rey Parkway to East H Street from the current Map and the
reclassification of the segment from East H Street to Telegraph
Canyon Road to Class II in accordance with local and federal criteria.
Please refer to the attached maps for existing segments and
proposed changes.
14. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC?
Yes ---L- No
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 03\Retumed quest\O3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page g
Explain:
The following information is provided to the GMOC to inform the Commission of vital
programs and projects that City staff and/or regional officials are pursuing:
South Bay "Transit First" Study. (San Diego Association of Government
(SANDAG) Funding), a transportation study is presently being conducted by
Wilbur Smith & Associates:
The South Bay 'Transit First" Study is being conducted by Metropolitan
Transit Development Board (MTDB) 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 Governmef1t's (SANDAG's) Regional 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.
TransNet Program:
In 1987, California voters approved the TransNetprogram - a half-cent sales
tax to finance transportation projects. TransNet funding is combined with
local, state, and federal dollars to improve the region's transportation
network. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
administers this major public works program and last year allocated more
than $170 million to regional transportation projects. The program has
generated nearly $2 billion for the region with another $1.3 billion to be
collected and used to fund transportation improvements through 2008. The
funding is distributed in equal thirds among highway, transit, and local road
projects. In addition, $1 million is earmarked annually for bicycle paths and
facilities. The TransNet sales tax expires in 2008. Residents, community and
business leaders, transit advocates, environmentalists, builders, elected
officials, and others are collaborating together and have decided to put a
measure on the 2004 ballot to extend the program for additional 30 years.
This program is vital for the continued funding of essential projects and also
maintenance programs such as the City's annual Pavement Rehabilitation
Program.
15. Are there any other suggestions that you would like the Growth Management
Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Yes ----L- No
Explain:
Continue the support for the timely construction of SR-125 and for monitoring
C:ldffiles\GMOC\GMOC 03\Retumed quest\D3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page 10
the Level Of Service (LOS) on our major streets.
Prepared By: Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer & Majed AI-Ghafry, Civil Engineer
Date prepared: December 29, 2003
C:ldffiles\GMOC\GMOC 03\Retumed quest\O3 GMOC traffic Questionaire.doc
Page 11
~!ft.
-~-
-
CIlY Of
CHUlA VISTA
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DMSION
MEMORANDUM
January 15, 2004
FileNo: 0110-1O-LYOI0
To: Daniel Forster, Growth Management Coordinator
From: Alex Al-Agha, City Engineer
Subject: 2004 GMOC Report - Traffic Issues
Attached I am forwarding the GMOC traffic questionnaire for 2003. I am also outlining our
response to the recommendations that were made by the GMOC last year regarding the traffic
section. The following are the GMOC's six traffic recommendations (shown in bold font) and
Engineering's response to each one:
1. That City Council continues to support the timely construction of SR-125 to avoid a
potential traffic threshold failure in eastern Chula Vista.
2. 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 will 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:
. Continue work on traffic enhancement projects.
. Implementing appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
programs.
. Continued ongoing traffic monitoring of strategic road segments.
The following is staffs response to the first two recommendations:
The SR-125 project is proposed to extend approximately 11 miles from State Route 905
(Otay Mesa Road) in Otay Mesa to State Route 54 near Spring Valley. Initially, this
facility will consist of a 4 lanes toll-way and ultimately, it will be expanded to 8 lanes
north of Birch Road and 6 lanes south of Birch Road. The estimated total cost for the
facility is $540 million. Funding is provided by San Diego Express Limited Partnership
(SDELP), a private limited partnership managed by its general partner California
Transportation Ventures, Inc, (CTV). The Environmental Document for the project was
approved in January 2003. Construction has commenced within the right of way in
October 2003. It is anticipated that the Toll-way phase will be opened by mid October
2006.
Daniel Forster 2 5/25/2004
To ensure that the traffic thresholds established by the Growth Management Oversight
Commission were being maintained during 2003, the City's Traffic Monitoring Program
(TMP) continued to monitor the speed and level of service on critical segments of the
street system. In addition, City Council enacted a Permit Monitoring program that, over a
3-year period, limits the number of new building permits issued. New housing units will
not be allowed to exceed the estimated capacity of the City's roadways thereby helping to
ensure that traffic thresholds are met up to the opening ofSR-125.
3. 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.
In accordance with the GMOC recommendation, all future TMP runs will be reported to
the GMOC as requested. The TMP runs collected in 2003 will be presented to the
GMOC with this year's report. During 2004, Traffic Engineering staff will tabulate,
summarize and forward TMP results with a short summary of the thresholds [IDdings.
The results will be presented in a fonnat acceptable to the GMOC.
4. 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. In preparation for this workshop, staff should 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.
Engineering and Planning staff held a GMOC traffic workshop on November 13, 2003 at
the Casillas Elementary School. GMOC members, and approximately fifty citizens
attended the workshop. The workshop covered the following areas in this order:
Traffic And Growth
How Does The City Plan For Growth?
Local Actions
How Does The City Respond To Growth?
Major Roadway Improvement Projects Since 2000
SR-125 Construction
Roadway Congestion Relief Measures
Traffic Signal Installations/Modifications Since 2000
How Does The City Control Growth?
Control Of Building Permits
GMOC Traffic Thresholds
Level Of Service
Daniel Forster 3 5/25/2004
How Does The City Monitor Traffic?
Traffic Monitoring Program
South bay Freeway System Future Improvements
I am enclosing a copy of the PowerPoint presentation for your infonnation.
5.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.
During 2003, the City continued to plan for, monitor, and respond to the City's rapid growth and
its inevitable effects on traffic. A Traffic Modeling & Allocation program identified capacity
limitations of the existing roadway system in the Eastern Territories and determined the number
of new dwelling units that the current system can support. Eleven miles of new streets and roads
were built in the new Eastern Territories in 2003 ahead of housing, with about the same number
planned for 2004. The City also continues to be an active participant in other programs that plan
for regional growth such as the long-range $42 billion regional "mobility plan" and the
Congestion Management Plan. We have reviewed and analyzed data collected by Caltrans
regarding the increase in average daily traffic on regional freeways over a long time period (1989
through 2001). Please see the attached charts. The data shows that regional traffic has increased
at a higher rate than the I-80S freeway corridor in the Chula Vista area. The data also shows that
most of the increase in traffic during said time period has been generated from areas outside
Chula Vista's limits. We will continue to monitor this data and work with SANDAG and
Caltrans to implement regional projects that will respond to growth issues. We believe that with
the planned completion of SR-125 in December 2006, coupled with the completion of a variety
of local arterials, the City will continue to maintain acceptable levels of service on local arterials
and intersections. SANDAG is continuing in its endeavor to perfonn a corridor study along the
entire reaches of I-80S and 1-5 south of SR-54 to the border. This report will analyze in greater
detail than ever before the regional and local impacts of growth on these interstates in the City.
6. 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 fmdings to the GMOC by
January 2004.
This is still being analyzed and will be brought back at a later date.
Attachments: GMOC 2003 Traffic Questionnaire
GMOC Workshop Presentation
Increase of Regional Highway Traffic (two charts)
Cc: Jack Griffm, Director Of General Services
J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\STAFF\Samir\GMOC\03 gmoc memo, doc
TRANSIT QUALITY OF LIFE THRESHOLD ANALYSIS
Introduction
On June 12, 2003 the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) presented their
annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council. Recognizing the role that transit
will play in the increasingly urbanizing south County region, the GMOC recommended 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." The
Council concurred and accepted the GMOC recommendation.
This report is intended to satisfY the GMOC recommendation.
Threshold Measurement Criteria
In order to provide a context for the discussion, a review of criteria for quality of life threshold
measures is provided below:
. Growth related - that is the measure is a direct reaction to growth.
. Within the City's ability to control or influence.
. Be a public facility or service dealing with life, health or safety.
. Can be objectively measured.
. Preference for a capital activity rather than progranunatic, that is a one time expense
versus one that is reoccurring.
These criteria are reasonably self-derIDed. All of the criteria are applicable in order to insure that
a threshold measure will be appropriate, practical, and legally enforceable.
Potential Transit Threshold Measurements
A transit related quality oflife threshold could be based on at least three measures:
. Physical design
. Ridership
. Service levels
Physical design are standards that would require new construction to incorporate features that
accommodate transit services. An example of a transit physical design is how the roadway
median in East Palomar St. was planned in Otay Ranch to accommodate a future light rail
system. Other examples could be space for bus pullouts, and supporting street amenities like
benches and shelters.
Ridership measures the number or percent of persons either using or are targeted to use transit
servIce.
Service levels is a combination of factors including frequency and type of service,
quality/reliability, effectiveness and efficiency. One example is a bus operating between two
points and how many times per hour the route is serviced, express or rapid service, what percent
the bus is on time, etc.
The table, with discussion below, compares each of these measures to the threshold criteria.
CRITERIA VS TRANSIT THRESHOLD MEASUREMENT OPTIONS COMPARED
CRITERIA! Growth Ability to Public Facility Objective Capital vs.
THRESHOLDS Related Control or Service Measure Prol!:rammatic
Physical Desil!:n Potential Possible Yes Yes Capital
Ridership Potential No No Yes Programmatic
Service Levels Potential No Yes Yes Programmatic
Discussion
Growth Related - All of the threshold options are potentially growth related.
Phvsical design to accommodate transit can be required for new construction, including
redevelopment, and is growth related when combined with the provision of
commensurate service levels that in turn are based on a reasonable anticipation of the
increase in ridership. Physical design alone may not produce increased ridership.
Ridership, in general, can be expected to increase with growth but this is dependent upon
the kind of growth and the correct service levels being available so that this potential
demand can be expressed.
Service levels can be expected to change to accommodate new growth, but based on the
nature of that growth service level improvements may not lead to greater ridership.
Ability to Control-
Phvsical design - The ability to control physical design through plan and ordinance is
possible, if properly created so that a direct public safety and welfare link is established.
Ridership is an individual decision and cannot therefore be controlled. Ridership can be
encouraged through incentives and appropriate service levels. In another way, without
adequate service levels ridership may be potential but not expressed.
Service levels - Funding for service is entirely from non-city sources; therefore the city
may be able to influence service levels but will not have control.
Public Facility or Service -
Phvsical design or improvements are typically public or are accessible to the public.
Ridership, as mentioned earlier, is an individual action, and is therefore not a public
facility or service.
Service levels is, by defmition, a public service.
Objective Measure - All of the possible threshold options can be objectively measured.
Capital vs. Programmatic - The only potential transit threshold measure that is a capital vs. a
programmatic expense is physical design, Physical design/improvements are essentially
a one-time expense. Ridership and service levels require on-going funding.
Conclusion
Given the analysis above, of the potential threshold measures for establishing a transit level of
service: physical design, ridership; and service levels, only physical design potentially meets all
of the required or preferred criteria.
Assuming that the physical design approach is desired, transit design criteria and standards could
be adopted and incorporated into the General Plan and subsequent implementing plans. The
design criteria and standards can then be applied in Otay Ranch and in north west Chula Vista if
significant redevelopment occurs, and can be further detailed in the forth coming Urban Core
Specific Plan.
Once adopted, such criteria are implemented through the development review and entitlement
process, as is done with landscape guidelines. As such, a physical design based transit quality of
life threshold measure will be met as a matter of course through staff review and enforcement.
Staff Recommendation
The objective of having a transit level of service threshold is to support transit as a viable
transportation option. Applying a threshold measure can be problematic as discussed above.
However, through appropriate planning and implementing ordinances physical design
requirements in support of transit can be required of new development either through developer
fair share contributions, or by developers constructing the design improvements themselves. The
improvements, or basis for the fair share requirement, would be predicated on a combination of
policy in the General Plan Update, and subsequent plans such as Sectional Planning Area Plan
(SPA), or Specific Plans.
As a plan based system the transit related improvements become requirements and are then
monitored by staff. An annual report can be made to the GMOC, similar to the manner the
Planning and Building Department reports on progress in implementing the Air Quality
hnprovement Plan Guidelines, on the status of transit physical design features.
1:>
Q)
1:>
"
13
~ ~
w ~
rn M
:;: >-
~ ~
1:> 1:>
rn Q)
0 w
tt:: rn
rn Q)
"" W W t;
SEE ';'
~ rn rn c
.s:: Q) Þ tt:: tt:: 0
~ C) ,- c: c: .J!
s: æ ~ Q) Q) w
0 "5ê ! ! 5
... Q; ,9 Q) Q) .!!!
C) :š ~ ~~ ~g; .È
CIS g> õ g M g ori ~
U i ~ § § ;
.- E E ~ ~ 6
> ~= õj õj Q)
CIS ~ E Q; Q; =
c:J! > > C)
~ at: a a ,S
.s:: -g g ~ ~ ¡o
CJ rn Q) l!!
~ = 00 ~ gg ~
S ~ S .J! gg .J! OO ~ ~O ~
Q) ~ õjOO õj~o l!! mN
ø ~ ~ 0000 o~~ c:
~ f- 0 ~CD ~~ ~
"'C ~~ ~
I/ 5= 1:> ;
m ~ ~ g¡ E
CIS ~ ~ tt::oo ~ :;:
ø U m l!!gg ~gg l!!
... ~ ~ õj~~ o~~ ~
u "" >- >~~ m~~ :;:
C :;: rn rn
- w:ê.J! w
.2 g, . gO;
:a:: .êmCIJ ~
CIS o~Q) ~ rn
... $~:: .ð' 'ffi
I- .s 'g ~ . a¡ ~
~ î~õj oWOO ~OO g §
0 ~Q)a¡ ~Igg mgg ~ I ~
= 5~1:> ~CIJ~OO rn~oo 0 Q) Q)
~ :i~ f-I~m I~~ £ ~rn ¡
~ e.s t'! a. 0 ê'ffi ~
"-.J! - ~ ~ g1:> 1:>
13t!1rn > '1= 0 ~> >
£rn1:> .!!! ~ 0 ~U U
a¡zt!1 .È ~ 2
Nl!!rn U rn~oo~ 00
~ ~ê~ j!~g ~
<: æ:êê .- Q) ~N =
0 rn õj .9 U tt:: C)
:¡:: ñís~ f-I § §
E ~~;¡; 0 ïjj õj
:::J ~Q)~ « .2 0
0 f-~f- 2 g ~
«0 ,~, "í' 0 ~
~-N - U f-
U tOOl:
E
i! .-,
cu
J- t:
)III i
" .-,~!
. 'g-8o.-,
.I: ~ ~ 'ê ~
at £66t "'>cðUl
:t::!CU ~
.- C :E ° U
::c .8-""'8
U)'a
- O:)œUl
" ... ..... 0
fa ~ .s .~ ...I
C GJ CU - ..... 0
> ... ICICI C .....
0 ~ 0 ::II ...
.- ... 0 c
en :c:s!:E'a
= =~ãi"i
1;; C E 'iæ
m "' ... CU
1; £66t -!!?ð~
Inln-~
OOIn-
coCO""CO
I . I I I
... ... ... ...
f + +
"
!
u
c
....
- 686t
'I- 'I- 'I- 'I- 'I- 'I- 'I- 'I- 'I-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
co " \Ø In "I:t' "" N ....
(0/0) :>!:I:JeJ.1 A !ee a6eJaAV U! aseaJ:>UI
100l:
.c
I
e i
' 0
~ œ
ftI
œ ~
r £661 i
~ s
œ ~
~ ~ œ
::; fa .b
..... IU U)
S > ~
1/1
C œ m
0 m-
~ E ~
v, œ Q
.- £661 > cp
~ ~ M
I + t
E
B
6861
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
\Ø ~ ~ 1'1) N ....
(0/0) :>weJ.l Anea a6eJaAV U! aSeaJ:>UI
THRESHOLD
The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an
evaluation oftheir 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.
Feaster-Edison Ex!, Trad Charter
Hilltop Drive 14 Tred 1 NSH class
Mueller Ex!. Trad Charter
732 426 265 -41 13 Trad
721 427 384 90 3 YRS 1 Sp, Ed, class, 5 DHH classes
Learnin Cornrn. 557 600 43 Ex!. Trad Charter
Castle Park 577 456 133 12 7 Trad 2 NSH classes
Harborside 734 419 352 37 Trad 2 NSH classes
Kello g 481 337 232 88 Tred 2 NSH classes
Lauderbach 863 552 419 108 25 YRS 1 NSH class
Lorna Verde 581 426 292 137 5 YRS 1 NSH class
Mont ornery 421 381 122 82 Trad 1 NSH class
Ota 665 475 155 -35 27 Tred
Palomar 437 467 0 30 Tred 1 NSH class and 1 SH class
Rice 714 530 246 62 2 Tred 2 SH classes: 3 NSH classes
Rohr 451 514 51 114 YRS 1 NSH class
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Returned questlCVESD GMOC 03_,doc Page 1
Arrovo Vista 823 732 80 -11 2 YRS Charter
Olympic View 733 444 339 50 YRS
Parkview 485 488 138 141 4 Trad 3 NSH classes
Rogers 542 483 113 54 YRS
Valle.lindo 573 408 201 36 7 Trad 2 NSH classes
Heritage 886 710 142 -34 203 YRS
McMillin 783 716 80 13 YRS 1 SH class
NORTHEAST
Allen/Ann Dalv 417 500 0 83 Trad 2 SH classes; 2 NSH classes
Casillas 707 579 122 -6 1 YRS 2 NSH classes
Chuta Vista Hills 581 514 60 -7 6 Trad 1 NSH class
Clear View 515 439 170 94 Ext. Trad Charter, 1 Sp. Ed. class
Discovery '. 851 583 290 22 YRS Charter; 2 SH classes
Eastlake 610 499 208 97 YRS 1 NSH class
Halecrest 520 494 80 54 Trad 1 NSH class
Marshall 706 599 95 -12 8 YRS 1 Sp, Ed. class
Tiffany 655 514 186 45 2 Trad 2 NSH classes
C:\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC 03\Returned quest\CVESD GMOC 03_,doc Page 2
2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected
conditions for December 2004 (a) and 2008 (b) based on the City's forecast.
2 a.
Cook
Feaster-Edison
Hilltop Drive
Mueller
Rosebank
Vista S uare
I
Learning Comm.
Castle Park
Harborside
KelloQ
Lauderbach
Loma Verde
Montgomery
Otay
Palomar
Rice
Rohr
Arroyo Vista
Olympic View
Parkview
Rogers
Valle Lindo
Heritage
McMillin
Allen/Ann Dalv
Casillas
Chula Vista Hills
Clear View
Discovery
Eastlake
Halecrest
Marshall
Tiffany
*(-) denotes amount over capacity
C:\dffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Returned questlCVESD GMOC 03_.doc Page 3
2.b
Cook
Feaster-Edison
Hilltop Drive
Mueller
Rosebank
Vista Square
Leaming Comm.
Castle Park
Harborside
Kelloa
Lauderbach
Loma Verde
Montaomery
Otay
Palomar
Rice
Rohr
l
Arrovo Vista
Olvmpic View
Parkview
Rooers
Valle Lindo
Heritage
McMillin
Allen/Ann Dalv
Casillas
Chula Vista Hills
Clear View
Discoverv
Eastlake
Halecrest
Marshall
Tiffany
*(-) denotes amount over capacity
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Returned questlCVESD GMOC 03_.doc Page 4
- -- ..- -- -- "-
3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history.
Total Enrollment 21,455 21,348 20,436
% of Change Over the Previous Year 1% 4% 4%
% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 97% 97% 98%
4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Districts ability to accommodate
student enrollment?
Yes No _X-
Explain: Extra capacity was added during the summer of 2003 at Kellogg Elementary,
5. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2004?
Yes _X- No
Explain: Due to the placement of 6 additional modular classrooms at Kellogg Elementary, the District was
able to absorb growth within the South Eastem boundaries.
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlCVESD GMOC 03_.doc Page 5
6. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year (December 2008) time frame?
Yes No _X-
Explain: As development occurs in eastern Chula Vista, the District plans to open additional schools to
accommodate the students generated by this housing.
7. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth?
Yes _x- No
If yes, please identify facilities and when they would be needed, by responding to questions 7.1
through 7.7.
7,1 Last year the GMOC recommended that three new elementary schools be built in the next 2 years, one
each at San Miguel Ranch, EastLake, and Otay Ranch Village 6. Please comment on the status for
constructing these schools.
San Miguel Ranch and Eastlake Woods are currently under construction. San Miguel Ranch is
scheduled to open on a year round schedule, July 2004. Eastlake Woods will open on a traditional
schedule(first year only), September 2004. Depending on State funding and finalization of District's
unhoused student eligibility, Village 6 is tentatively scheduled for construction in 2004-05, opening
September 2005.
7.2 It is the GMOC's understanding thaI construction has commenced on the San Miguel Ranch School,
Have specific sites been identified for the other schools?
Yes X No
If No, explain: See 7.1
7.3 Is an architectural review in process for these schools?
Yes X No
If No, explain: We are designing the school for Village 6. Plans will go to the Division of State
Architect for approval in March 2004.
7.4 Has adequate funding been secured for site acquisition, preparation and facility construction for these
next two schools?
Yes X No
If No, explain:
C:\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC 03\Retumed quest\CVESD GMOC 03_.doc Page 6
---- - - ".. ... '-
7.5 Has the site been acquired and site preparation work commenced?
Yes No X
If No, explain:
The District owns the Liberty Elementary site. Eastlake Woods site will be in escrow shortly
pending a lot adjustment by the City of Chula Vista. Site work commenced on the Eastlake Woods
site in Nov 2003 under an entry permit. Topographic survey and mapping services are currently
under way for atay Ranch Village 6.
7.6 Are the sites adequately served by roads and utilities?
, Yes X No
If No, explain:
Both Liberty Elementary and Eastlake WoodsNistas have adequate access and utilities.
7.7 The current forecast is through calendar year 2008, in addition to the three schools referenced above,
how many more elementary schools do you estimate will be needed to accommodate this growth, please
list?
School are currently planned for atay Ranch Villages 6, 11, 2 and 7
8. Please list current joint use activities/facilities between the City of Chura Vista and the CVESD.
For recent school construction projects, the City of Chula Vista and the District are co-locating parks
and elementary schools.
9. Please comment on the potential for expanding joint use arrangements, please be specific where
possible. The process of co-locating elementary schools and city parks will continue.
10. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the maintenance of the level of service as Chura
Vista's population increases?
Yes No _X-
Explain:
MAINTENANCE
11. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
Yes _X- No
Explain:
12. 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 No - X -
Explain: Loma Verde and Rohr will be modernized during the summer of 2004. Tiffany and Otay will be
modernized in the summer of 2005. At this time, however, there are no plans for expansion of schools facilities at
these sites.
MISCELLANEOUS
13. Does the current threshold standard need any modification?
Yes _X- No
Explain:
14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to
recommend to the City Council?
Yes _X- No
Explain: Continue open dialog/meetings with the two school districts. Teamwork and communication are
paramount and have been outstanding this past year.
15. The City Council has directed that there be a "Top to Bottom" review of the growth management
program. In that regard, and in consideration of the School Task Force Recommendations, do you
recommend any modifications to the threshold standard?
Yes No ----1L
Explain:
16. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and GMOC.
Yes No _X-
Explain:
Prepared by: Yolanda Sierra
Title: Student Placement Tech,
Date: January 9, 2004
C:ldffilesIGMOCIGMOC 031Retumed questlCVESD GMOC 03_.doc Page 8
, _.H - - .... .. ... - .--
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 o.r 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.
Please fill in or "Update" the information in the table below to indicate the existing enrollment conditions and
for current conditions. The most recent information available is re uested, lease indicate reference date.
Bonita Vista High 2,569 1,770 780 2,550 220 Y
Bonita Vista Middle 1,125 1,110 420 1,530 220 Y
Eastlake High 2,414 2,460 480 2,940 220 Y
Rancho Dei Rey Middle 1,577 1,380 60 1,440 220 Y
Eastlake Middle 455 1,665 0 1,665 220 Y
Otay Ranch High 1,121 2,600 0 2,600 220 Y
'Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity, It excludes students and capacity assigned to special
education and learning centers,
Note 1: Capacity figures taken from lon9 Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) - September 2003,
2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected
conditions for December 2004 (a) and 2008 (b) based on the City's forecast.
Bonita Vista High 2,492 1,770 780 2,550 220 Y
Bonita Vista Middle 1,124 1,110 420 1,530 220 Y
Eastlake High 2,399 2,460 480 2,940 220 Y
Rancho del Rey 1,092 1,380 60 1,440 220 Y
Middle
Otay Ranch High 1,685 2,600 0 2,600 220 Y
Eastlake Middle 984 1,665 0 1,665 220 Y
.District staff is preparing boundary adjustment recommendations for the district's board of trustees, The enrollment projections
listed above (with asterisk) assume board adoption of staffs recommendation in January 2004. If adopted by the board of trustees,
any boundary adjustments wouid be implemented in the 2004/05 school year.
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a, doc Page 2
2.b
Hilltop Middle
(Note 2)
Chuta Vista High 3,433 1,290 990 2,280 220 N Will need to
(2) add capacity
1,314 1500 510 2010 220 Y
Castle Park Middle 1,715 1,380 150 1,530 220 Y
(2)
Castle Park High (2)
Palomar High
Chula Vista Adult
Bonita Vista High 1,915 1,770 780 2,550 220 Y
Bonita Vista Middle 937 1,110 420 1,530 220 Y
Eastlake High 3,154 2,460 480 2,940 220 N HS#13
Rancho del Rey 1,687 1,380 60 1,440 220 Y
Middle
Otay Ranch High 3,362 2,600 300 2,900 220 N HS#13
Eastlake Middle 1,860 1,665 0 1,665 220 Y
HS#13 Note 3 2,600 0 2,600 220 -..
MS #11 or 12 Note 4 2,600 0 2,600 200 --
Note 1: Please note that these projections, prepared by Davis Demographics and Planning (DDP) on December 31, 2002, on
behalf of the Sweetwater Union High School District, reflect projected enrollments based upon the students dwelling within
the actual attendance boundary of the respective school. It should be further noted that the school district supports
specialized programs at various schoois, which allow students throughout the district to chose to attend schools other then
their assigned school. This transfer phenomenon is impossibie to project beyond a one yeartimeline. Therefore, the 2008
projections provided herein, are merely a projection by DDP of students residing in the respective school boundary, This
projection is in the process of being updated in January 2004, and was not available in time for this report,
Note 2: These projections were prepared by DDP prior to the analysis of boundary changes, which the board of trustees will
consider in January 2004,
Note 3: The district will construct High School No. 13 by 2006 or 2007, which will provide relief to Otay Ranch and Eastlake High
Schools. The boundaries for the school have not been developed, therefore an enrollment projection is not available.
Note 4: The district staff currently projects this middle school for 2008, Since no boundary exists, no enrollment projections can be
made.
Note 5: Excludes students and capacity assigned to special education and learning centers.
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a. doc Page 3
3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history.
Total Enrollment 39,290 37,878 37,275 35,330
% of Change Over the 3,6% 1,6% 5.2% 3.6%
Previous Year
% of Enrollment from 48% 49% 51% 51%
Chula Vista
4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the District[]s ability to
accommodate student enrollment?
Yes ---1L No - N/A -
Explain
The district has most definitely been impacted, yet we have kept up by opening Otay Ranch High
School and EastLake Middle School in 2003. The pace of growth and the availability of land for HS
No. 13 are the key challenges upcoming.
5. Are existing facilities/schools able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2004?
Yes ---1L No - N/A -
Explain: With opening of Otay Ranch High School and EastLake Middle School in 2003 and
proposed boundary changes, growth can be accommodated,
6. Are existing facilities/schools able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year(December2008)
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a.doc Page 4
--. ----------.. .
time frame?
Yes - No --1L-
Explain: Additional capacity in westem Chula Vista will be needed as well as new campuses in east
Chula Vista.
7. Will new facilities/schools be required to accommodate forecast growth over the next 5 years?
Yes ---1L- No - See Number 6 above.
If yes, please complete the following:
High School
7.1 Last year it was indicated in the SUHSD response that there was a need for an additional
high school by 2007. Is this still the current assessment?
Yes -1L- No -
If No, explain:
We are targeting a 2006 opening for High School No. 13,
7.2 If an additional high school is needed within the next 5 years, has a site been selected?
Yes --1L- No -
If No, explain:
Several siting options are under CEQA review. Once CEOA review is completed, final site
selection can occur.
7.3 If yes to 7.2, is an architectural review in process?
Yes --1L- No -
If No, explain:
An architect has been selected and plan development has commenced,
7.4 If a high school is needed in less than 3 years, has adequate funding been secured for site
acquisition, preparation and facility construction?
Yes - No - Unknown ---1L-
If No, explain:
Local district funding will be available via the community facility districts. The cost of the land for new
schools is expected to rise dramatically and state matching funds are essential for all elements of
acquisition and construction. The passage of proposition 55 in March 2004is a key funding resource
and its passage is not assured. Without state funding, phasing scenarios would need to be
evaluated.
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a, doc Page 5
7.5 If a high school is needed in less than 2 years, has the site been acquired and site
preparation work commenced?
Yes - No - N/A ~
If No, explain:
7.6 If a high school is needed in less than 18 months is the site adequately served by roads and
utilities?
Yes - No - N/A ~
If No, explain:
,7.7 If a high school is needed in less than 18 months has construction commenced?
Yes - No - N/A ~
If No, explain:
7,8 The current forecast is through calendar year 2008, will there be a need for more than one
additional high school by this time?
Yes - No ---1L-
Based upon 2002 demographics projections, one new high school is needed by 2006 or 2007.
This addresses primarily the eastern territories, Until the General Plan data and Bayfront
Development levels are known, the district is not clear on needs in western Chula Vista.
Middle School
7,9 Is there a need for one or more additional middle schools, to service Chula Vista within the
next 3 years (by 2006)?
Yes - No ---1L-
Based upon 2002 demographics projections, the answer appears to be no for both east and
west Chula Vista. However, until the General Plan and Bayfront Development levels are
known, the district is no clear on needs in western Chula Vista..
7.10 If yes to 7,9, specify the number and by what year the middle school(s) need is anticipated,
7.11 If yes to 7.9, has a site(s) been identified?
Yes - No - N/A ~
If No, explain:
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a. doc Page 6
7,12 If yes to 7.9, is an architectural review in process?
Yes - No - N/A --1L-
If No, explain:
7,13 If a middle school is needed in less than 2 years, has adequate funding been secured for
site acquisition, preparation and facility construction?
Yes - No - N/A --1L-
If No, explain:
7,14. If a middle school is needed in less than 18 months, has the site been acquired and site
preparation work commenced?
Yes - No - N/A ---1L-
If No, explain:
7.15 If a middle school is needed in less than 1 year is the site adequately served by roads and
utilities?
Yes - No - N/A ---1L-
If No, explain:
7.16 If a middle school is needed in less than 1 year has construction commenced?
Yes - No - N/A ---1L-
If No, explain:
8. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the maintenance ofthe level of service as
Chula Vista's population increases?
Yes ---1L- No -
Explain: The district needs a new administration center and corporate yard to improve district
management and efficiencies. The current administration center and corporate yard has exceeded
capacity for buses, maintenance facilities, purchasing and human resources. For example, the district
has no capacity to purchase materials in bulk due to lack of storage capacity, freezer storage for food
stocks is rented off-site and overall work conditions are inferior. The original district spaces were
constructed when the administration center supported 7 schools and their students in 1953; today,
there are over 32 campuses with a student population of 55,125.
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a, doc Page 7
9. Please list current joint use activities/facilities between the City of Chula Vista and the SUHSD.
Please see attachment "Community and Joint Use of SUHSD School Facilities."
10. Please comment on the potential for expanding joint use arrangements, please be specific
where possible.
The district supports a multitude of joint-use projects. As expanded opportunities become available,
they will gladly be considered,
MAINTENANCE
11. . Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
Yes - No ----2L-
Explain: The state budget crisis has led to the temporary elimination of State Deferred Maintenance
Funds. These are a critical district resource.
12. 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 ---1L- No -
Explain: Additional classrooms (permanent) are being analyzed at Hilltop High and Chula Vista High
Schools. Also, at Chula Vista Middle School a multi-purpose structure (with classrooms) will be
constructed in 2004. At Chula Vista High School, modernization work in connection with Proposition
BB will commence in 2004/05. If the State Proposition 55 passes in March 2004, modemization work
could commence at all district campuses within 24 months. In 2003. the district developed
modemization plans for all district campuses in order to qualify for $80 million in Proposition 55
dollars.
ADDITIONAL GMOC QUESTIONS
13. What facility deficiencies have been identified for which there is no corresponding confirmed
funding source?
Based upon the initial draft of the Long Range Facility Master Plan (LRFMP) the district has facility
needs for new construction and modernization totaling $750 million (2003 dollars). Funding resources
from Mello-Roos District, Proposition BB and State Funds only partially fill the gap with state funds-a
gap of $234 million (2003 dollars) still exists.
14. 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 locating relocatable buildings on existing campuses?
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a, doc Page 8
It would be helpful if the City encouraged infill development, particularly in western Chula Vista to
annex to a Mello-Roos funding district so the school district has a funding source to construct
adequate new permanent classrooms on impacted sites.
15. What is the status of the SUHSD Facilities Master Plan?
A draft of the plan will be brought to the public in early 2004.
MISCELLANEOUS
16. The City Council has directed that there be a "Top to Bottom" review of the growth
management program. In that regard, and in consideration of the School Task Force
Recommendations, do you recommend any modifications to the threshold standard?
Yes - No ---1L-
. Explain:
17. Are there any suggestions that you would like the GMOC to recommend to the City Council?
Yes - No -
Explain: Same as response to Question 14.
18. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and GMOC.
Yes - No ----L-
Explain:
Prepared by: Katy Wright
Title: Director of Planning and Construction
Date: January 5. 2004
C, /Documents and Settings\SLOPEZ\desltop\GMOC\SUHSDO3a.doc Page 9
. -.. ._--~. ---_._~---- ~ -
~Q ~
~ ~~.
~(3 tl
~~h
~ ~
~~~ :f~
~~Q §
Iq ~~
'p 0
]~-~~V
~i~ ~~ t-
is .~ ~§ ~
õ 11 o...~ dO u..
JJ - ~ 0] «
<>1 ~ .. '" 0
ÍP ;-~ § @
: B J:' ~ ~ ~
.2 1'0 ~, C
:5 ~ ~ 'Ë,g
H ~~ ~
È . . Ë'.
n~d
:§d ~
f ~n:i
1 1~.N1 J . I .1
~ f. .¡j :~ ~ .: '8 " :,§ If ~
I~ æ j~~~= ~J ~ 111 ~ !
~1 ~ ~þu~, I~ ~ jj~ J ~J.
1 j~ g Ij!]ß 'I I ~i ~ li~
'i3 <'<1 I ~ ~ i ~.; 1 $ g ~ 1
E 1 ~IJ ß § ~1U ~ ~I
'>¡3 . ~-.I:j ~ E l"ô
r J~ J ~IIJ~ it'! ~tjl I 1§1
ð ¡¡ ... ~<'< ~ '" I! 8>-~
~ J.~ ! ~ ls ~ ~ t j ] g I J ~ ~ ~ ~ '1 ~ i ~ ~
i ~I ~E ~1~1~8 <'< 1131>0 0-.. f~~
]'~: ~ '8.bD~~ts I~s i ~.,i ~~ . ~f
I ~1 ~J ~J~Jj~ IJll ~tlJ ~I ~ji
t j f] ~ l~ i -0 j ¡ ~ ~ ~. ~ {~ 'ð.Jj!oi
'" ~],,!(
~ ~ . -",. ~ ~ I ~~1~ ~~
t l~ t J g'¡;~1J"']~ jt]~i] '= 'ð~ ]~;] ~ ~ ]
¡~Ij]~ lil~. r ~]~ ~~,,"g JJ
~ .ia~8~i~] i~ fgj, Jj [~ 1:;91§<~"
~ ]-~I 0 oS 2L-o S.§' !(~:tJ ,,\3 i !J ¡Š r~]
e -.9 ~] t j~ [ ~ .13 ] !:] ] B J ~ §
£ ] g .i §.1 -0 ..8 :Q
i 8. ~ M; ~ ~ j ~ ] a. "Ë ~] ~ ¡ 11 ~ ~ I ii.8
!t !gjr 15 ~e 0. 8 iJ-B 0. ~g~~asu
'" '! j~ ; ~ ~ ~. .8 ~g ~ ~ :iJ ~ ~ ~ ~"" ~El~
~.~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~]jtij r!~t~!~ ~ Ii i .8~~g¡š $
~ 8' t~j ~ aoo~ o.æ
~ løJi~t]~ 1t!JiJJ ~ ~ß ~ t~ ~ ~ ~
.5 ! ~ æ: §alJjft
~ . l u -B .g ¡ä.". 1 ":""-ö! ~ !]." 8 >-.8 ~
~ ~ j] ~ ~.E , Æ I i ~ o.~ j j ~ J] ~J II ~ ] l~ ~:9 ,,~§.o. >-
8 -9 U ~ ::z: Ii P 5f=1 o..\j 0.
11 ~" . J B~~t~ "æ ~ ~
æ 9 ,,~ J "" § a b J5,g j r"E ~~~
i ~~ ¡Š { g.¡; 0 .u ~ .g :8 ~ ~ ~ " ~ 6 ~
]I~I-B!§ E=o. 9 ßUUi ~~
:g]~tl{ ~!!1 j~~j ~ 8 § ~ ~ .~ I !i ~ Ii ~ I
>->-5 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~..; ] !(.B~~ j-B
~ ] ~ ] Jj -g' "¡ ~ ~-B ~ >- :E ~ 0. -¡¡ j 0. g" I ~ -0
gæ ie~j:g ~ ~ ] 1;1 ;.~ t '" ~ 11 9 ~ 1'1
~ '" ].g. ~;ug J ~ a J~]Ð B;~i
.§ I t~ {-"'j g>- J § R ~ 's
lJ] -0 -ð" ~ 13 '[1.g ~-a ] JJ ~ ~i j ~ g ~ ~
] ~¡t r 1] j~ .¡¡j~gê § J s ~r-5 j ~ 8: ~ [1~ ~ i ~ Ü ,9
~"'1!"~1° ~ § ~ ::: ~ >- 9 ~ rl ~ 9 " ~ ~
J] jJJ ~]8 ~.ij ¡ä]-~f'o ~ ~i!i g l~ i 1.Jj~1 J i~!
] ~ "", 0 ~
~t~~~] r P .
.[~-1j "E 11 :. .; ,g!~~' ~ ~r e ]:i!o. ~ ~~~
~~I~jl .¡; ~.~ I ~ .8 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ g~ ~ ~~1~ ~ ~~[
~ .9 ~ :~.9 ~ S ~ ] :~g]a ~: !i <~-5,¡:¡::z: ::z: g s
~ .~>- " 8 ] 'ð ,,; j P J
§ "'} J~ '" ~ J ~ ~ ~.
0 ,,] g. .Jj 1: ~ ~]. l!t ';'; gl.~ ~.~
0
:r: j g 1 j § " ~. æ 9 ~ I :a ;¡ ~~ l§ g! §9 8 I !
u 8 -oS ~~"]jj ~-ðo] ~-ðl 1 J~
rnz .~f'" 9 ¡¡ i ~ ~ ~:H :a ~ ~ .~J .r - ¡'J 9 to ) ¡ä ~ ~:ø ~
¡¡;:¡.... Iß"J I i~lpl ¡fill J Illul~li
Uz
~9 - j , ~ I lh 0 ð E H ,¡f ~ ]"'p.1t J ]1
....tF~ if HU Ii ¡]PÎ{I HIH J lUdHhi
~;~
E--O " ..f ., ", , .. t , ~ i . " - , - U 0 . ~ ~ 1
~rn~ ".§§!1]U"'~ ~.~1 $ 9.~ <2.] ~ 80 B¡80tæ.
oz~ J~~ i~~ ~9, ~ . j~~ il§l ~ ]1~0.8 "§tcro.
:r:8 111~ ~~ i§ S~§ ¡Š ~ 1 a Jo.l~¡llliIJJ
,
~ SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
SWEETWATER Offue afthe Superintendent-1130 Fifth Avenue-Chula VISta, CalWomia 91911-2896
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (619) 691-5555 - FAX (619) 498-1997 -e-mail: edward.brand@suhsd.k12.ca.us
Edward M Brand, Ed.D.
Superintendent
April 6, 2004
Dan Forster, AICP
Growth Management Coordinator
Department of Planning and Building
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula'Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Forster:
One ofthe greatest school construction periods in San Diego County history is underway right here in the
Sweetwater Union High School District. Already, in little more than a year, we've opened two new high
schools and a new middle school. We're also making great progress in our modernization of existing
campuses.
That's why we share the Growth Management Oversight Commission's concerns that new home
construction in the city ofChula Vista will outpace future school capacity. The commission notes that the
city apparently is powerless to slow or regulate the rate of growth regardless of school impacts. If the city is
unable to keep growth in check, school districts certainly cannot.
The commission is well aware the city is forecasting 11,400 new homes in eastern Chula Vista alone in the
next five years. In western Chula Vista, 1,000 new homes are forecast. Those numbers cause great concern
to most outside City Hall.
Yet, the commission, with little recourse within its own jurisdiction, has only the option of pressuring local
school districts into matching developers' frenzy. To do this ignores the realities of school construction.
We are just as concerned as the commission about the lack of basic infrastructure-such as roads leading to
proposed new school sites-jeopardizing the timetable for construction of another new high school in
eastern Chula Vista. After all, until you can drive lumber and other building materials over to the new
school site, the new school cannot be built. Securing a suitable school site is a challenge in itself. As early
as March, 2003, group meetings were held among city and Sweetwater staff and development
representatives in order to select a high school site, However, no single site under a single owner was
offered for sale to the district. The selection of a site must take place within the context of the city's zoning
and grading ordinances and environmental review requirements.
With soaring land and construction prices, this new high school could well exceed $100 million by the time
it is built. That is double the cost of our most recently built high schools. Those are costs that will be
The S...twe""o;'trictd""'noIdi=imi_wifh- "- mligion, cokY, netionelcrigin, encesfr¡lethn"ity. m_lapwo_'/et"" age, ph","ela""","ldi,ebi"',
'ox'" orien/etion a eny oIhe-un"wfulcomiden>tion. SUHSOBoaro _'2224.
shouldered by the public. And yet, as the GMOC points out, the pressure to provide more classrooms and
more schools to satisfy demand shows no sign of a letdown.
In regard to our older campuses, the commission has overlooked the tremendous work of school and
community leaders to maximize voter-approved Proposition BB school construction bond funds. The
timetable for completion of our $187 million plan for school repairs has been greatly accelerated. We will
shave seven years from our original 15-year timeframe, This is possible because of a combination of new
or matching state construction dollars (thanks to the passage of Proposition 55 on the March 2 ballot). The
district, by moving aggressively with designs at all schools, is well-positioned to realize more than $80
million in new matching state funding.
Community input has greatly enhanced our effort to renovate and improve our schools. More than 600
residents attended a total of 55 school committee meetings held to date, including 18 that were advertised
in newspapers and held in the evening to maximize public attendance.
We appreciate and share the commission's concerns about the effects of growth on local schools. We've
aggre~sively and pro-actively designed a long-range Facilities Master Plan that is based on needs
assessment, demographic and financial analyses and that meets district standards. The plan is nearly
complete. Our board expects to consider the final plan in late spring. We are certain our stakeholders will
understand community facilities needs facing Sweetwater's future, and will be satisfied that Sweetwater
has a practical plan to meet its needs. But will this enormous public investment be enough?
The term "Growth Management" implies effective planning, not creating unreasonable challenges for
agencies that are powerless to influence rate of growth. Rather than resolving that school districts (which
are outside the jurisdiction of City government) do more, the City Council should look to its own planners
to mitigate lack of community infrastructure, including schools. The sensible way to do this is to effectively
manage growth. That is the nature of the recommendation the GMOC should be making to its Council.
Respectfully submitted,
~ 9r;, ß-/'
Edward M. Brand, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Sweetwater Union High School District
cc: David D. Rowlands Jr.
William Tripp
T"" Swee'"'terDi,fri"d~no/d'scrimin'ts.iIh"'9"" to_de<. ",liqion. """- n,tton" origin. ."",,>yte"n"i!y. morde""penmtsJ,tstos, ego. phY"',/",ments/d""""'.
,&""orientetton""""",,","n"wf"'_iderotion. SUHSD_PoIicyIl2224
Page I of7
Silnons.........com (!§PRINTTHIS
-----
Schools stunned by swift growth
Poor communication, forecasting difficulty, lack of money had roles
By Chris Moran and Amy Oakes
STAFF WRITERS
January 31, 2004
The home-building spree in east Chu]a Vista has in the past decade added 60,000 peop]e to the city's
population, the equivalent of everyone in N ationa] City moving to town.
Some of the strongest echoes of the housing boom reverberate across the city's campuses.
Announcements at Chula Vista High Schoo] admonish students to stay to the right in the halls when
moving from class to class to keep the hordes moving.
Cops and safety patrols hustle cars along - the line can back up. onto city streets as parents drop off their
kids. Chu]a Vista is growing so fast that having 2,600 students at Eastlake High is considered reJief.
Crowded schools are the products of forces colliding:
n Imprecise projections. Predicting enrollment is a guessing game. Homes sometimes get built faster
than expected, which means students arrive before schools are built to accommodate them.
n Inadequate communication. The planners at City Hall who rnap out neighborhoods and the educators
who build schools haven't coordinated their efforts as well as they shou]d, some say.
n Money. The funds to build new schools never come in fast enough.
n Regulations. A state law doesn't allow cities to put the brakes on development even if schools aren't
keeping pace.
It was no surprise to city and school officials in Chula Vista that new residents were on the way. The
surprise was how fast they came.
Now, district administrators are scramb]ing to build new schoo]s and revamp o]d ones with Jimited
funds. And frustrated parents are demanding to know why their "master-p]anned" communities have
schoo]s that are jammed full of students.
The exp]anation is not a simp]e one.
City and schoo] officials use formulas to forecast the number of homes, and of kids. And planning maps
are used to design and divine what will sprout up on the east side's scrub-covered hills.
.../cpt?action=cpt&title=&expire=&urIID=9l4l24l &fb= Y &url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.sign02/02/2004
Page 2 of7
But these tools don't perfectly align school construction with the boom-bust cycles of the real estate
market.
Nor can the forecasts predict what's going to happen to the economy,
Historically low mortgage rates have attracted droves of home buyers and made Chula Vista, like other
cities across the nation, a city of "high enrollment schools," according to the Chula Vista City/Schools
Community Task Force, which examined school overcrowding last year.
Even with good information, projecting enrollments "is like nailing jelly to the wall," said Hilltop High
principal and Chula Vista City Councilman Jerry Rindone.
"We were a bit behind the curve in some ways," said Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla. "The community as
a whole grew at a rapid pace that no one predicted."
Two families
Not only did new homes go up faster than expected, but because of escalating costs, more and more of
them were occupied by two families, or several generations of one family.
According to 2000 Census figures, two or more related families were sharing a home in more than 1,000
households, or 4 percent, of east Chula Vista. In west Chula Vista about 2,000 households, or 16 percent,
had two or more families.
With families doubling up, there were more children than expected.
Some rnembers of the task force are saying it's not just a supply-side issue, but suspiciously high
demand. They accuse Sweetwater of not doing enough to keep nonresidents out of schools.
They believe attendance figures related to the Sept. 11 attacks indicate that students from Mexico are
coming to Sweetwater schools.
Data show that on Sept. 12, 2001, when border crossing was difficult, about 450 fewer students came to
Sweetwater schools than the day before. However, that figure may ignore the possibility that many U.S.
residents kept their children home. Also, the attendance rate was higher on Sept. 12, 2001, than on Sept.
12, 2002, a year removed from the crisis.
There are other anecdotal signs of border crossing.
When Mexican Independence Day fell on a weekday in 2002, attendance dropped. It's also plain to see
school-age children passing through the San Ysidro port of entry in the morning. Some parents complain
about a large number of cars with Baja California plates dropping off students at elementary and high
schools.
The city/schools task force recommended that the district review its residency verification procedures.
Yet Sweetwater already has the strictest requirements in South County. The district requires parents of
students to show a rent receipt or mortgage payment or utility bill other than a phone bill, plus a driver's
license. In cases where more than one family lives in a house, the district requires a utility bill and an ID
reflecting the address reported, plus a bank statement or government correspondence mailed to the
place they're living.
The Sweetwater Union High School District - the nation's largest high school district, with 39,000
., ./cpt?action=cpt&title=&expire=&urIID=9l4124l &fb= Y &url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.sign 02/02/2004
Page 3 of7
middle-and high-schoolers - is just now refining its school-by-school enrollment forecasts because it
didn't hire a professional demographer until two years ago.
Without such planning there can be glitches.
For exarnple, Chula Vista High is so full that it stopped taking new students in September, even if they
move in next door. Newcomers have to go to schools across town.
Otay Ranch High was projected to open with 600 students, but 1,100 students showed up on the first day
of school in July, in part because it serves a larger area than originally intended.
Until recently, Sweetwater's planning was a one-woman operation run by Katy Wright. Her portfolio was
staggering. As director of planning and construction, Wright is responsible for renovating old schools
and planning and building new schools in all of South County.
In 2001, she went to the oversight committee that monitors the spending of school construction money
to ask for help. The committee rejected her request.
Bill Ostrem, president of the Eastlake Company and a committee member, said it was clear that Wright
was overwhelmed but that Proposition BB, the $187 million bond measure for school renovations
approved by South County voters in 2000, had been approved on the promise that none of the money
would be used to hire pennanent administrators.
Sweetwater is now using general fund money to contract with a planner from the San Diego County
Office of Education as it hits stride on a building program that figures to spend more than half a billion
dollars - between Prop. BB rnoney and state funds - by 2008.
Keeping school construction on pace with home construction requires coordination among multiple
governments.
Chula Vista City Hall approves the number and types of homes that get built, and the roads and utilities.
The Chula Vista Elernentary School District is responsible for schools for children in kindergarten
through sixth grade. Sweetwater provides the middle and high schools.
Chula Vista City Councilwoman Mary Salas, who is running for a seat on the Sweetwater board, said poor
relations between the district and City Hall have hampered coordinated planning.
"That distrust contaminates (relations between) the high-level officials," she said.
City and school officials agree that increased communication is necessary, but none could say why that
hasn't happened.
The tensions are obvious.
At a Growth Management Task Force meeting last summer, Wright, Sweetwater's planning director,
announced that another high school was needed in Otay Ranch as soon as possible. She said the city
needed to get on the ball with roads, environmental analyses and pennits to allow a new school to open
by 2006.
Her pronouncement took many city officials aback.
"We didn't get anyinfonnation until May that we must have a high school now," Chula Vista City
Manager David Rowlands said recently.
.. .lcpt?action=cpt&title=&expire=&urIID=9l4l24l &fb= Y &url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.sign 02/02/2004
---.----------.---------
Page 4 of7
But Sweetwater officials say they made it clear in late 2002 that they needed a new high school by fall
2006. The competing versions highlight communication difficulties between city and school officials, as
we]] as their distinct responsibilities.
City officials say it's the district's job to find school sites. But school officials say they can't do that in
isolation: They need the city to bring roads and utilities to these sites.
"The city's obligation is to not issue building permits until the (developers') fees have been co]]ected, and
that's it, period," said City Planning Director Jim Sandoval.
"The land acquisition is up to the school district," he said. "If they really hit crunch time, they can do it
without us."
By state law, school districts can select and acquire any sites for their campuses. Traditionally, however,
districts have worked with cities to make sure that roads, sewer systems and other infrastructure are in
place.
Sweetwater Superintendent Ed Brand's recent letter to Mayor Padilla outlines the district's need for that
type of cooperation.
"The district does not have the legal authority to bring roads and other critical infrastructure to our
school sites, nor can we finance them. The district, likewise, cannot place caps on development or even
slow the pace of development if the infrastructure is not there," Brand wrote.
"The district cannot, from a financial standpoint, buy or condemn land for road right-of-way, nor can we
force other entities to do so. However, taken together all of these issues affect our ability to provide
schools on time."
Even though school and city officials have clearly marked their planning turf, at times the elected
officials have blurred the line.
During his run for mayor in 2002, Padilla campaigned on creating a Chula Vista Unified School District,
a kindergarten-through-12th-grade district, although City Hall does not have the power to do so.
One campaign flier stated, "Steve Padilla is working to create a unified Chula Vista School District in
order to assure that no development is approved and built unless the needed schools are planned and
paid for."
Although such talk may alienate school officials, Padilla believes it's an idea worth exploring. A unified
school district, he said, may provide better coordination in planning and operations.
City handcuffed
One sure way to slow the influx of students is to slow the rate of home building, but the city can only
bend so far.
It is handcuffed by SB 50, which was tucked into the 1998 statewide $9.2 billion school bond measure.
It took away a city's power to curb development due to a lack of adequate schools. A council can slow
building for lack of roads, sewer connections or libraries. But not for lack of schools.
The Chula Vista City Council last year capped building pennits for six major developments, saying there
.. .Icpt?action=cpt&title=&expire=&urIID=9l4124l &fb= Y &url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.sign 02/02/2004
Page 5 on
weren't enough roads to handle the growth. The cap lowers the number of permits that can be issued in
each of the next three years, from 2,475 this year to 1,780 permits in 2006.
Chula Vista's ceiling on pennits has the potential to rein in galloping growth, but it may be shutting the
barn door after the horses have escaped. The city reports that 3,200 hornes will be completed in east
Chula Vista this year.
Artful forecasting and coordinated planning are only half the battle.
It takes money to pre-empt growth's discomforts.
Six years ago, Sweetwater asked the community for a $500 million bond measure that would have paid
for the rebuilding of six schools and the renovation of many others.
About 62 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of the proposition, just short of the two-thirds necessary
for passage.
By the time the district went back to voters in 2000, the housing boom was in full swing. After
commissioning polls to gauge support for the maximum amount of money that would sell politically, the
district asked voters for $187 million.
Proposition BB passed, and the district plans repairs and upgrades to 20 schools throughout South
County.
Most of the money will go to old schools on the west side of Chula Vista, in south San Diego, Imperial
Beach and National City.
The Proposition BB money is still just a fraction of what's needed, Sweetwater officials say.
If Proposition 55, a statewide bond measure, passes this year, the district could get $80 million. Yet
passage of a statewide bond doesn't lock in funding, even for districts as needy as Sweetwater.
In 1998, voters approved Proposition lA, a $9.2 billion statewide school construction bond measure.
Later, state legislation gave Los Angeles schools an advantage in obtaining the money, bumping
Sweetwater off the list.
The lag in state funding delayed the opening of Otay Ranch High School until last July. That fed the
3,200-student enrollment at Eastlake High the year before.
If Otay Ranch High had opened in 2002, Ostrem said, "I don't think we would have heard anything"
from the Eastlake residents who packed a community meeting by the hundreds, formed a school
watchdog group and started interviewing candidates for the school board.
The local money to build new schools comes largely from Mello- Roos districts. Chula Vista Elementary
has 13 and Sweetwater has 12 in Chula Vista.
Homeowners in a Mello- Roos district pay fees for school construction over the life of their mortgages, so
that while the money takes decades to come in, the demand is immediate if there are kids in the house.
Some east side residents who pay these high fees are upset that their neighborhood schools are crowded.
If there's a maddening inconvenience in fighting traffic on Telegraph Canyon Road, there's a sense of
betrayal in hearing that your child had to sit on the floor at school, if even for a day.
,. ./cpt?action=cpt&title=&expire=&urIID=9 I 41241 &fb= Y &url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww .sign 02/02/2004
Page 6 of?
Other parents see their children bused out of the neighborhood because there simply is no space at the'
closest school.
The neighborhood crunch occurs because Mello- Roos fees pay for schools districtwide, which means the
revenue can be spent outside the neighborhood where it is collected.
Ostrem said home sellers are careful to point this out as they walk buyers through the stack of arcane
documents they sign to purchase a home.
Home sales slow then
In the mid-1990s, home sales were so slow that school construction didn't have much urgency. After
Eastlake High School opened in 1992, Sweetwater built only one middle school and no high schools until
San Ysidro High opened in 2002. In the meantime, Chula Vista Elementary built eight schools.
The contrast is not surprising to close observers. It is much more difficult to build a high school than an
elementary school.
First, there's the land. An elementary school typically requires 10 acres. A high school requires 50. The
more acres sought, the greater the chance a school district will have to negotiate with more than one
landowner.
It costs more to build a high school, too. Elementary schools are being built for about $20 million these
days. But the Poway Unified School District, for example, spent $75 million building Westview High
School in Rancho Penasquitos in 2002.
And high schools take longer to build.
Chula Vista Elementary has two schools under construction, and at the groundbreaking for the second
school the builder joked that he had the luxury of nine months to complete it.
Builders broke ground on Otay Ranch High about a year and a half before the first day of school, and it
opened with a long to-do list, one that was expected to be completed this month. But in two years, Otay
Ranch High's enrollment is expected to double, and the growth in east Chula Vista won't stop there.
The forces that caused the crowding are still largely at work. Home sales are still in a build-it-and-they-
will-come mode. The challenge is to make sure the "it" includes schools.
Staff writer Leslie Wolf Branscomb and library researcher Danielle Cervantes contributed to this report.
Chris Moran: (619) 498-6637; chris,moraIJ@uIJiOl1trfb.com
Amy Oakes: (619) 498-6633; amy.oakes@uIJioIJtrib,com
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/satlmetro/news_z 1 m31 schools. html
.. ./cpt?action=cpt&title=&expire=&urIID=9l4l24l &fb= Y &url=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.sign 02/02/2004
From small town to big city j 1t very much time at all Page I of 4
SIßI~com (!§ PRINTTHIS
From small town to big city in not very much time at all
Eastlake plan transformed Chula Vista
By Leslie Wolf Branscomb
STAFF WRITER
January 31, 2004
For the thousands of people in the new homes across eastern Chula Vista, imagining their city as a small
town might seem outlandish. But it was a small town, not so long ago.
Founded in the 1880s and incorporated in 1911, Chula Vista was simply fannland until World War II.
After the war, military families moved in, and it became a community characterized by rows of tiny
bungalows and a cozy small-town atmosphere.
Then came Eastlake, and things have never been the same.
Now Chula Vista is a whole new city, doubled in size over the past 20 years, and growth has outstripped
the ability of the secondary schools to keep up.
It wasn't a problem until recently.
For many years the city and the Sweetwater Union High School District, which oversees the city's middle
and high schools, worked well together, planning new schools years in advance, said retired Chula Vista
building director Andy Campbell.
He was in charge of planning and facilities for the school district for 15 years, from 1985 to 2000, before
joining the city staff.
"Every year we would sit down and map out where we thought growth was going to happen," Campbell
said. "But starting in about 1999, growth in the city intensified dramatically."
The city had been issuing between 600 and 700 building pennits annually for years before housing
construction suddenly accelerated in 1999. The city issued more than 2,500 pennits that year, more than
ever before.
"When interest rates started to soften, it just took off," Campbell said. "We blew by 3,000 (pennits a
year) three years ago."
"You put 2.8 to three people per household in each unit, and all of a sudden you've got a big city,"
Campbell said. "I don't think anybody anticipated that kind of growth."
The Eastlake plan
. . .I cpt? acti on=cpt&ti tl e= From +small +to wn+ to+ bi g+ci ty+in +not+v ery+m uc h+tim e+at+all &e)02/ 02/2 004
From small town to big city j )t very much time at all Page 2 of 4
County Supervisor Greg Cox, whose grandfather moved to Chula Vista in 1918, remembers when Hilltop
Drive, two miles from the waterfront, marked the far eastern edge of town.
The city took its first real leap eastward in the early 1960s, he said, when Southwestern College was built
on Otay Lakes Road. "It took a long period of time to fill in the gap between Southwestern College and
Chula Vista proper," Cox said.
Things really began to change in 1982, when the City Council approved the Eastlake plan. By then, Cox
was rnayor.
"Before, the planning department had been dealing with incremental subdivisions of 200, 300, 400
units," Cox said. "None of these would trigger the need for a school or park"
But Eastlake was much bigger than anything the city had seen. The 3,200-acre master-planned
community of 8,800 homes is still not completely built out.
Johri'Goss, who was Chula Vista's city manager at the time, recalled that Eastlake forced the Sweetwater
district to build its first new high school in 20 years - Eastlake High. In fact, Eastlake was the only high
school built in the 15 years Goss was city manager, from 1983 to 1998.
"It seemed like it took an awful lot of work," said Goss of the school, which opened in 1992.
He said the project took three to four years to build, partly because the high school was designed to serve
as a community center in some respects, with a large gym, a perfonning arts center, and a library to be
shared with the public.
"A lot more went into the planning, and approvals by the state took longer," he said. "I guess I'm not
surprised that the construction of high schools might lag, because you just can't put 'em up as quickly."
After Eastlake, developers rushed to bring more communities to Chula Vista, including Rancho del Rey,
Sunbow, Rolling Hills Ranch and ultimately, the giant 23,000-acre Otay Ranch.
Although Carnpbell, the fonner building director, believes that falling interest rates fueled the boom,
some city planners say the breakup of the original Otay Ranch developrnent company was the biggest
factor.
The entire parcel was once owned by the Baldwin Group of Newport Beach, but the company went
bankrupt in the early 1990s. The land has been broken up into several parcels, which are being developed
by competing companies.
"If it had been just one owner, they would have gone a bit slower," said city planner Rick Rosaler. "The
new owners wanted to bring their projects on line faster."
Because of Otay Ranch and other developments, the city planning department estimates that the part of
Chula Vista east of Interstate 805 will grow by more than 53,000 people, or 82 percent, from 2000 to
2007.
During that same period, the west side is expected to grow by only 1,600 people.
The city is projecting that its population - now just over 200,000 - will increase to 238,429 by 2007,
with 97 percent of the growth on the east side.
. . .I cpt? acti on=cpt&ti tl e= F rom+small +to wn + to+ b i g+ci ty+in+not+very+m uch+time+at+all&e 02/02/2004
From small town to big city i 1t very much time at all Page 3 of 4
Monitoring the pain
City planners say the expansion won't go on forever - Otay Ranch is expected to be finished within eight
years. After that, Planning Director Jim Sandoval doesn't foresee any huge developments on the horizon.
The city will then most likely be finished expanding eastward because most of the land east of Otay Lakes
has been set aside as open space, Sandoval said.
Until then, the city will monitor its growing pains via the Growth Management Oversight Commission, a
group of nine citizens that writes yearly reports scrutinizing how the city is doing on a set of 11 issues
affecting quality of life.
The commission had its roots in the Eastlake planning process.
Goss said it began in the late 1980s when he was city manager, and grew out of a series of conversations
he h:¡,d with Eastlake developer Bob Santos and a group of citizens concerned about growth who called
themselves Crossroads. They discussed transportation and the need for adequate parks and schools.
Goss credits Santos with taking growth management seriously and working to keep the pace of
development at Eastlake under control.
"He knew there was a lot at stake, because he knew the initial development was going to sow the seeds
for future development," Goss said.
"I thought that was a very positive step," Goss said of the Growth Management Commission's creation,
adding that throughout his tenure he tried to make sure the city managed its growth carefully.
The members of Crossroads were also keeping an eye on development as the new communities came in,
attending public meetings and trying to ensure that growth occurred at a sensible pace.
"Crossroads was founded to primarily look over the shoulders of the city with regard to planning the
eastern territories," said Patricia Aguilar, president of Crossroads II, the group's current incarnation.
The original Crossroads considered the Otay Ranch development to be far too large for what the city
could comfortably accommodate and disbanded in 1993 after the project was approved.
"That was disaster," said Peter Watry, a member of the first Crossroads. "We fought the good fight, and
when that was over, it was a good time to quit,"
Home construction in eastern Chula Vista continues at a dizzying pace, and probably will for at least a
few more years.
Where city planners once forecast that Otay Ranch would be a 30-to 50-year project extending until at
least 2030, Rosaler said that if the current pace of construction continues, it will be built out between
2010 and 2012.
"It has happened a bit faster than envisioned," Rosaler said.
Leslie Branscomb: (619) 498-6630; leslie.branscomb(@uniontrib.com
. . .I cpt? actio n=cpt&ti tl e= F rom +small + town + to+ bi g+¿ i ty+in+not +very+much +tim e+at +all& e 02/02/2004
----- ----------- -----------,--_._-----,--