HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1998/05/18
'" declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Monday, May 18, 1998 Office of the City Gier:\ and that I posted Council Conference Room
5:30 p.m. this Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at Administration Building
the Public Services Building and at City Hall on
S ecial Joint /Worksh oft f Chula Vista Cit Council
Growth Mana ement Oversl t ommission and Plannm commIssion
3'" ~~? 9' ýj7' ~- .
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Moot -' Padilla -' Rindone -' Salas -, and
Mayor Horton -'
Growth Management Oversight Conunissioners Aguirre -, Dull -, Fisher
-, Hyde -, Munoz -, Peter -, Tarantino -, Thomas -, and
Chair Hubbard -
Planning Conunissioners Aguilar -' O'Neill -' Ray -' Tarantino -,
Thomas -, Willett -, and Chair Davis_.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Growth Management Oversight Conunission Minutes from March 26,
1998 (GMOC Members only).
BUSINESS
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 98-12 REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S 1997 ANNUAL REPORT
The GMOC's 1997 Annual Report on compliance with the City's Quality-of-Life
Threshold Standards focuses on the period from 7/1/96 to 6/30/97. Pertinent
issues identified in later 1997 and early 1998 are also included. The workshop
provides the opportunity to comprehensively review the Report's findings and
recommendations. Staff recommends that:
1. The Planning Conunission accept the 1997 GMOC Annual Report and
recommendations as presented, and adopt a motion recommending that
Council do the same; and
2. The Council:
a. Accept the GMOC's 1997 Annual Report and
recommendations contained therein; and
b. Direct staff to undertake actions necessary to implement those
recommendations as presented in the "1997 GMOC
Recommendations/Implementing Actions Summary."
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the
Councü'sjurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda for public discussion. (State law, however, generally
prohibits the City Councüfrom taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) ¡fyou wish to
address the Councü on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" avaUable in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak,
please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will adjourn to the regular City Council meeting on May 19, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers. The Planning Conunission will adjourn to a regular meeting on May 27, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
Memorandum
DATE: May I, 1998
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Edalia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Plann1i
SUBJECT: Rescheduled Joint City Council and Planning Commission Workshop
Meeting with the Growth Management Oversight Commission
Presentation of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's Report to the City Council
and Planning Commission previously scheduled for April 27, 1998 has been rescheduled to
Monday, May 18, 1998 at 5:30 PM in the Council Conference Room. The enclosed Council
Conference Agenda Statement has been revised to include a summary review for the Schools
Threshold which was inadvertently omitted from the previous Agenda Statement.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 691-5257.
Enclosure
cc: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning
Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner
(H:\hom,lplanningl,daJiaoglgmoc97\rewkshp.m,mo)
SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING
~" CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL,
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
COUNCIL CONFERENCE AGENDA STATEMENT
Item -
Meeting Date ~
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing; PCM-98-12, Review and Consideration of the Growth
Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 1997 Annual Report.
SUBMITIED BY: Director of Planning .fdt!.
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5tbs Vote: Yes_No..K)
The GMOC's 1997 Annual Report was previously distributed and scheduled for hearing on
Monday, April 27, 1998. The meeting date has been rescheduled due to lack of a City Council
Quorum. The Agenda Statement includes a revision to incorporate a summary review for the
Schools Threshold which was inadvertently omitted from the previous Agenda Statement.
On March 26, 1998, the GMOC finalized its 1997 Annual Report to the City Council regarding
compliance with the City's Quality-of-Life Thresholds Standards. The Report focuses on the
period from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997, although issues identified in the second half of
1997 and early 1998 are also included where pertinent. A summary of the GMOC's
recommendations and staff's proposed implementation actions is contained in Attachment A.
This year's GMOC Annual Report discusses each Threshold in terms of threshold compliance,
key issues, and corresponding recommendations (see Attachment B). The workshop will give
the GMOC an opportunity to discuss in detail the Report's full findings and recommendations with
the Planning Commission and City Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
(1) That the Planning Commission accept the 1997 GMOC Annual Report and
recommendations as presented therein, and adopt a motion recommending that the City
Council do the same.
(2) That Council:
(a) Accept the GMOC's 1997 Annual Report and the recommendations contained
therein; and
On'
Page 2, Item-
Meeting- Date ~
(b) Direct staff to undertake actions necessary to implement. those recommendations
as presented in Attachment A - "1997 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed
Implementing Actions Summary".
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission is
jointly participating in the workshop with Council, and will provide its comments and
recommendations at that time.
DISCUSSION:
OVERVIEW! ~RY OF ISSUES OF IHI<~ ]997 ANNUAl. REPORT
In summary, the GMOC found the following with respect to Threshold Standard COmpliance as
presented in greater detail in Attachment B:
Threshold with
Potential for Thresholds Thresholds
Non-Compliance Not in Compliance In Compliance
Traffic Police Schools Drainage
FireÆMS Parks & Rec. Fiscal
Libraries Air Quality
Sewer Water
Threshold with Potential for Non-Compliance
Traffic - The GMOC is concerned about projected growth in eastern Chula Vista and how the City
will manage street system improvements to ensure continuing compliance with the Traffic
Threshold. Recent traffic models prepared for several master plan EIRs indicate that a number of
roadway segments in the City and in the County will fall below the Threshold Standard, and operate
at Level-of-Service D or worse, ifland use projections for the year 2005 are realized, and if SR-125
is not constructed by 2005.
Council's adoption of the Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study (HNTB Study)
identified that prior to SR125's construction, there is a limit to the amount of development that
can be accommodated on the arterial street system in eastern Chula Vista under the City's
Threshold Standard. The Planning and Public Works Departments have been preparing a draft
policy document regarding development phasing to enable advance coordination of the amount,
location and timing of development in relation to available street system capacity, prior to the
construction of SR125. The proposed, draft policy essentially establishes a "gate" at the Final
Subdivision Map level through which each project must pass in order to obtain "priority status"
Page 3, Item-
Meeting Date !ISLl8L28
to receive building permits. The "gate" is based on available street system capacity and/or the
identification, and commitment to construction, of needed improvements to create sufficient
capacity.
While the current Traffic Threshold Standard allows Council to establish a moratorium in the
event of a Threshold failure, the intent of the proposed phasing policy is to provide forward
monitoring for Threshold compliance. It should be noted that the mentioned year 2005 forecast
(based on SANDAG's Series 8 information) is considered to be aggressive, and that current CTV
schedules indicate that the SR125 Tollway will be in place prior to 2005.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council adopt the forthcoming policy document regarding
development phasing, to ensure maintenance of Traffic Thresholds in eastern Chula Vista prior to
the completion ofSR-125. The GMOC also recommends that the City Council continue to support
the construction ofSR-125 within the earliest possible time frame.
Thresholds Not in Compliance
Police - The Police Threshold for Priority I emergency calls for service (pI CFS) was not met.
The Threshold Standard for PI CFS is to respond to 84% of calls within 7 minutes, with an
overall average response time of 4.5 minutes. The Police Department responded to 83.8% of
calls within 7 minutes with an average response time of 4.5 minutes.
The Threshold Standard for Priority n urgent CFS, to respond to 62% of calls within 7
minutes with an overall average response time of 7 minutes, was again met and surpassed. The
Police Department responded to 62.2% of PI CFS within 7 minutes.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council support the Police Department's efforts to address
the Threshold deficiency by preparing a long range strategic plan, a facility master plan, and by
continuing to work to reduce the high incidence offalse alarms.
The PI CFS shortfall is again slight, however, the GMOC is concerned since this is the ~
consecutive vear in which the PI CFS standard has not been met. The Police Department is
embarking on a two-pronged approach to address this threshold deficiency. This approach includes
the completion of a long range strategic plan and a police facility master pl.an. The long range
strategic plan will evaluate service levels, staff levels, methods of deployment, and any other
factors related to service delivery. This will also include an evaluation of the established Threshold
which may need to be adjusted.
The GMOC notes with concern that, as stated in the Police Threshold Report, "the current
facilities, equipment and staff will he insufficient to ahsorb forecasted growth during the next
5 to 7-year time frame". Considering that it will take apprmåmately 3-5 years to plan and
Page 4, Item-
Meeting Date ~
construct a new police facility the GMOC requests that the Police Department proceed rapidly in
the assessment of future facility needs.
One of the contributing factors to the Threshold deficiency continues to be the high incidence of
false alarms. Presently, 98% of all CFS for alarms are false. While there are many factors that
influence response times, the most significant factor is an increase in residential robbery and panic
alarms in eastern Chula Vista. Capabilities of the new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system will
provide a managerial too] to address this problem. The CAD system will be able to track the total
number of false alarm response time and the number of responses to specific locations, including
chronic violators.
One year of data from the CAD system will help determine if current issues influencing police
performance can be solved through managerial techniques, or if an alteration of the current
Threshold Standard is warranted. In addition, the new Mobile Data Computers (MDC) and 800
MHZ radio co=unication systems which allow patrol officers to make inquiries and complete
police reports in the field which should help bring the Police Department into compliance with the
PI CFS Thresho]d Standard.
Fire/EMS - The GMOC finds that the City is not in compliance with the Fire and Emergency
Medical Service (EMS) Threshold Standard of responding to calls throughout the City within
seven (7) minutes in 85% of the cases. The Fire Department responded to 81% of caIls within
7 minutes. Even though this shortfall appears slight, the GMOC continues to express concern since
this is the fifth consecutive vear that the Threshold Standard has not been met.
This noncompliance continues to be largely attributable to changes in the manner of data collection,
and not a reduction in fire service levels. The GMOC,is satisfied that the pending Fire Station
Master Plan Update (FSMP) and the installation of the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system will
significantly address and clarify the deficiency. The Updated FSMP provides for an expanded
network of fire stations and addresses future fire service needs in conjunction with projected growth.
The pending Public Facilities Deve]opment Impact Fee (PFDIF) Update analyzes financing for
related facilities and equipment to serve new development.
As a result of the Draft 1998 FSMP Update, it was discovered that the current Fire Threshold
Standard was formulated based on erroneous data. The error reflects the fact tb;¡.t different portions
of the dispatch process are being measured today than were measured in the past. According to the
Draft 1998 FSMP Update, the true threshold at that time would have been set at 79.7% of calls
within 7 minutes. A change in the Thresho]d Standard is not reco=ended until the City can
establish a more accurate database from the new CAD system. The GMOC requests that the City
Council recognize the need for reconsideration of the Threshold Standard at an appropriate future
date, when at least one year of CAD statistics is available.
Page 5, Item-
~. Meeting.Date ~
As also stated in the Draft 1998 FSMP Update, there has been a steady deterioration in travel time
in western Chula Vista. This has led to a corresponding deterioration in the overall response time
rates. Undoubtably, as the City continues to expand easterly,.it will become increasingly challenging
for the City to meet the current Threshold. Although some possible causes were identified in the
FSMP Update, operational details are not explored in detail. collection and review of CAD data
will be necessary to assess causes and mitigation strategies in more detail.
Thresholds in Compliance
Schools - The GMOC finds that the Chula Vista Elementary School and Sweetwater Union High
School Districts are in compliance with the School Threshold Standard based on their expressed
ability to accommodate projected student enrollment. However, both the Elementary and High
School Districts continue to experience an overall increase in student population with most schools
operaring at or above capacity. Reported growth rates for the Elementary and High School Districts
are 5% and 3% respectively.
The GMOC is concemed with the extensive use of relocatable classrooms and classroom
conversions at schools built within the last 5 years. For example, Discovery, Olympic View and
Chula Vista Hills Elementary Schools are relatively new schools and are equipped with relocatable
classrooms. The Elementary School District is faced with accommodating an average of 700
students in schools originally contemplated for 600 students. Additionally, the District is also faced
with accommodating a smaller student teacher ratio (20 studentsll teacher) in schools designed for
larger student teacher ratios (30+ students/I teacher).
The large number of master plans currently being processed for the eastern territories presents the
Districts and the City with an opportunity to plan and build schools large enough to accommodate,
the growing student population and floor space needs. Since more students will be attending schools
and more floor space is required to accommodate elementary students due to class size reduction,
Mello-Roos fees may need to be adjusted to fund larger school facilities.
Additionally, the modernization of older schools in the Chula Vista Elementary School and
Sweetwater Union High School Districts is largely dependent on the passage of a bond measure.
Since applications require 50 percent local support and 50 percent state support, passage of state and
local bonds are critical.
Based on these observations, the GMOC recommends that the City Council suggest to the Chula
Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District Boards that they
jointly address mutual growth related matters including: 1) The detennination if a study to adjust
the student generation ratio is needed; 2) The development of a campaign to educate the public
about the need for passage of a school facilities construction and modernization bond measure;
and 3) Consideration of the formation of a policy level committee to review issues of mutual
concern on an ongoing basis rather than an ad hoc basis.
Page 6, Item-
Meeting Date ~
Parks and Recreation - The GMOC continues to recommend that the City Council adopt a revised
City-wide Threshold Standard, as presented in Appendix A. The Threshold will continue to be
applied to the area east ofI-80S at the current ratio of3 acres of park land per 1,000 populati.on.
Application of the Threshold to the area west of 1-805 will necessitate the adoption of
implementation strategies as part of the City's pending Parks Master Plan. By employing measures
incJuded in the Parks Master Plan, the City will strive to achieve compliance over a long-term (20+
year) period.
Library - The Library Department is currently undertaking a Master Plan Update. The consultant,
David M. Griffith & Associates, is scheduled to complete the Library Master Plan Update by August
I, 1998. This updated Master Plan will address many issues the GMOC has raised over the years.
These issues include library siting and phasing, the impacts of new technologies on library usage and
the Threshold Standard, floor space needs, and staffing.
Sewer - There are ongoing efforts to ensure the availability of adequate, cost-effective sewage
treattnent capacity to meet the long-term needs for build-out of the City's General Plan Area.
These efforts are also strategically related to the future availability of reclaimed water. The
GMOC is requesting that Council continue to support and fund efforts to those ends.
Drainage - There continues to be a number of unfunded drainage improvements needed in western
Chula Vista. The GMOC requests that the Department of Public Works provide them with a list of
such projects, a report on their status, and Proposition 218's impact on construction of these
unfunded drainage improvements
FisC21- Given the important role of Development Impact Fees (DIPs) in maintaining compliance
with Fiscal and other thresholds, and the level of ÒTIgoing planning in eastern Chula Vistl . .
affecting DIP facility considerations, again, the GMOC is recommending that the Council continue
to ensure adequate Stiffing and fiscal resources are allocated in appropriate City departments so
that the DIP's can be reviewed on a regular, periodic schedule (every 2 years), to determine if
updates are necessary. Additionally, standard procedure should be adopted to evaluate the
accuracy of projections, facility. costs and other assumptions, including a requirement for the
inclusion of standard 5-year growth projections in each of the DlF updates.
Air Quality - Air quality in Chula Vistl and the San Diego region continues to improve. A draft
of a City CO2 Reduction Plan has existed since August 1996. It has since been reviewed by the
CO2 Reduction Task Force, the Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, and
the Economic Development Commission. The Plan is anticipated to be before Council for adoption
in May, 1998. The GMOC recommends that the City Council expeditiously adopt the proposed
CO2 Reduction Plan. The Plan contains a comprehensive range of air pollution reduction strategies,
and a set of20 priority action measures. Several of those measures are related to growth and land
use planning such as: enhanced pedestrian connections to mass transit, increased employment and
housing density near transit, and site design with pedestrian, bicycJe, and mass transit orientation.
Subsequent to Plan adoption, the GMOC further recommends that the City Council direct staff to
Page 7, Item-
Meeting Date ~
~. prioritize imp]ementation of these land use oriented measures. Staffhas already begun to analyze
these measures, and will move forward on an implementation program once the overall plan has
been adopted.
Water -The Interagency Water Task Force and the Otay Water District continue to work towa:rd the
expansion of the reclaimed water market. As a result of development in eastern Chula Vista the
reclaimed water market is expected to increase. Large development projects in the eastern territories
have been required to install parallel reclaimed water delivery systems. The GMOC recommends
continued coordination at the staff level to allow for orderly and planned development of the
necessary transmission facilities to service major development projects and that the City Council
continue to support the Interagency Water Task Force and their efforts to expand the reclaimed water
market at the local level.
CONCLUSION
To assist the Council in evaluating and acting upon the Report's many recommendations, a concise
summary of recommendations and proposed Council implementing actions is presented in
Attachment A. Staff requests direction from Council to implement those recommendations as
outlined in the right-hand column of Attachment A. Appendices to the 1997 Annual Report (see
Attachment C) contain the threshold compliance questionnaires/reports presented to the GMOC
by the various City departments and outside agencies.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. As specific follow-up actions are brought forward to the
City Council, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided.
Attachments:
A - 1997 GMOC RecommendationslProposed Implementing Actions Summary
B - Chairman's cover memo and GMOCI997 Annual Repon.
C- Appendices to the 1997 Annual Report.
(H,I HOMEI PLANNINGI EDALlAOGICMOC97\CCAGENDA.REP)
SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL,
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
COUNCIL CONFERENCE AGENDA STATEMENT
Item -
Meeting Date 4/27/98
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing; PCM-98-12, Review and Consideration of the Growth
Management Oversight Comniission's (GMOC) 1997 Annual Report.
SUBMITTED BY: Dm=, of -, J1f JÞ
REVIEWED BY: City M=g~~ ~ ~ l (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX)
On March 26, 1998, the GMOC fmalized its 1997 Annual Report to the City Council regarding
compliance with the City's Quality-of-Life Thresholds Standards. The Report focuses on the
period from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997, although issues identified in the second half of
1997 and early 1998 are !Ùso included where pertinent. A summary of the GMOC's
reco=endations and staff's proposed Ïmplementation actions is contained in Attachment A.
This year's GMOC Annual Report discusses each Threshold in terms of threshold compliance,
key issues, and corresponding reco=endations (see Attachment B). The workshop will give
the GMOC an opportunity to discuss in detail the Report's full findings and reco=endations with
the Planning Commission and City Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
(1) That the Planning Commission accept the 1997 GMOC Annual Report and
reco=endations as presented therein, and adopt a motion reco=ending that the City
Council do the same.
(2) That Council:
(a) Accept the GMOC's 1997 Aunual Report and the reco=endations contained
therein; and
(b) Direct staff to undertake actions necessary to implement those reco=endations
as presented in Attachment A - "1997 GMOC Reco=endations/Proposed
Implementing Actions Summary".
Page 2, Item-
Meeting Date ~
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission is
jointly participating in the workshop with Council, and will provide its comments and
recommendations at that time.
DISCUSSION:
OVERVIEW! SUMMARY OF ISSUES OF THE 1997 ANNUAL REPORT
In summary, the GMOC found the following with respect to Threshold Standard compliance as
presented in greater detail in Attachment A:
Threshold with
Potential for Thresholds Thresholds
Non-Compliance Not in Comnliance In Compliance
Traffic Police Library Drainage
Fire/EMS Sewer Air Quality
Fiscal Parks & Rec.
Water
Threshold with Potential for Non-Compliance
Traffic - The GMOC is concerned about projected growth in eastern Chula Vista and how the City
will manage street system improvements to ensure continuing compliance with the Traffic
Threshold. Recent traffic models prepared for several master plan EIRs indicate that a number of
roadway segments in the City and in the County will fall below the Threshold Standard, and operate
at Level-of-Service D or worse, ifland use projections for the year 2005 are realized, and if SR-125
is not constructed by 2005.
Council's adoption of the Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study (HNTB Study)
identified that prior to SR125 , s construction, there is a limit to the amount of development that
can be accommodated on the arterial street system in eastemChula Vista under the City's
Threshold Standard. The Planning and Public Works Departments have been preparing a draft
policy document regarding development phasing to enable advance coordination of the amount,
location and timing of development in relation to available street system capacity, prior to the
construction of SR125. The proposed, draft policy essentially establishes a "gate" at the Final
Subdivision Map level through which each project must pass in order to obtain "priority status"
to receive building permits. The "gate" is based on available street system capacity and/or the
identification, and commitment to construction, of needed improvements to create sufficient
capacity .
Page 3, Item-
Meeting Date 4/27/98
While the current Traffic Threshold Standard allows Council to establish a moratorium in the
event of a Threshold failure, the intent of the proposed phasing policy is to provide forward
monitoring for Threshold compliance, It should be noted that the mentioned year 200S forecast
(based on SA..1\IDAG's Series 8 information) is considered to be aggressive, and that current CTV
schedules indicate that the SR125 Tollway will be in place prior to 2005.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council adopt the forthcoming policy document regarding
development phasing, to ensure maintenance of Traffic Thresholds in eastern Chula Vista prior to
the completion ofSR-125. The GMOC also recommends that the City Council continue to support
the construction of SR-125 within the earliest possible time frame.
Thresholds Not in Com,pliance
Police - The Police Threshold for Priority I emergency calls for service (pI CFS) was not met.
The Threshold Standard for PI CFS is to respond to 84% of calls within 7 minutes, with .an
overall average response time of 4.5 minutes. The Police Department responded to 83.8% of
calls within 7 minutes with an average response time of 4.5 minutes.
The Threshold Standard for Priority n urgent CFS, to respond to 62% of calls within 7
minutes with an overall average response time of7 minutes, was again met and surpassed. The
Police Department responded to 62.2 % of PI CFS within 7 minutes.
The GMOC recommends that the City Council support the Police Department's efforts to address
the Threshold deficiency by preparing a long range strategic plan, a facility master plan, and by
continuing to work to reduce the high incidence offalse alarms.
The PI CFS shortfall is again slight, however, the GMOC is concerned since this is the seventh
consecutive year in which the PI CFS standard has not been met. The Police Department is
embarking on a two-pronged approach to address this threshold deficiency. This approach includes
the completion of a long range strategic plan and a police facility master plan. The long range
strategic plan will evaluate service levels, staff levels, methods of deployment, and any other
factors related to service delivery. This will also include an evaluation of the established Threshold
which may need to be adjusted.
The GMOC notes with concern that, as stated in the Police Threshold Report, "the current
facilities, equipment and staff will he insufficient to absorh forecasted growth during the next
5 to 7-year time frame". Considering that it will take approximately 3-5 years to plan and
construct a new police facility the GMOC requests that the Police Department proceed rapidly in
the assessment of future facility needs.
One of the contributing factors to the Threshold deficiency continues to be the high incidence of
false alarms. Presently, 98% of all CFS for alarms are false. While there are many factors that
Page 4, Item-
Meeting Date 4/27/98
influence response times, the most significant factor is an increase in residential robbery and panic
alarms in eastern Chula Vista. Capabilities of the new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system will
provide a managerial tool to address this problem. The CAD system will be able to track the total
number of false alarm response time and the number of responses to specific locations, including
chronic violators.
One year of data from the CAD system will help determine if current issues influencing police
performance can be solved through managerial techniques, or if an alteration of the current
Threshold Standard is warranted. In addition, the new Mobile Data Computers (MDC) and 800
MHZ radio communication systems which allow patrol officers to make inquiries and complete
police reports in the field which should help bring the Police Department into compliance with the
PI CFS Threshold Standard.
Fire!EMS - The GMOC fmds that the City is not in compliance with the Fire and Emergency
Medical Service (EMS) Threshold Standard of responding to calls throughout the City within
seven (7) minntes in 85% of the cases. The Fire Department responded to 81 % of calls within
7 minutes. Even though this shortfall appears slight, the GMOC continues to express concern since
this is the fifth consecutive vear that the Threshold Standard has not been met.
This noncompliance continues to be largely attributable to changes in the manner of data collection,
and not a reduction in fire service levels. The GMOC is satisfied that the pending Fire Station
Master Plan Update (FSMP) and the installation of the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system will
significantly address and clarify the deficiency. The Updated FSMP provides for an expanded
network offire stations and addresses future fire service needs in conjunction with projected growth.
The pending Public Facilities Development lmpact Fee (PFDlF) Update analyzes financing for
related facilities and equipment to sOerve new development.
As a result of the Draft 1998 FSMP Update, it was discovered that the current Fire Threshold
Standard was formulated based on erroneous data. The error reflects the fact that different portions
of the dispatch process are being measured today than were measured in the past. According to the
Draft 1998 FSMP Update, the true threshold at that time would have heen set at 79.7% of calls
within 7 minntes. A change in the Threshold Standard is not recommended until the City can
establish a more accurate database from the new CAD system. The GMOC requests that the City
Council recognize the need for reconsideration of the Threshold Standard at an appropriate future
date, when at least one year of CAD statistics is available.
As also stated in the Draft 1998 FSMP Update, there has been a steady deterioration in travel time
in western Chula Vista. This has led to a corresponding deterioration in the overall response time
rates. Undoubtably, as the City continues to expand easterly, it will become increasingly challenging
for the City to meet the current Threshold. Although some possible causes were identified in the
FSMP Update, operational details are not explored in detail. collection and review of CAD data
will be necessary to assess causes and mitigation strategies in more detail.
Page 5, Item-
Meeting Date 4/27/98
Thresholds in Compliance
Parksud Recreation - The GMOC continues to recommend that the City Council adopt a revised
City-wide Threshold Standard, as presented in Appendix A. The Threshold will continue to be
applied to the area east on-805 at the current ratio of3 acres of park land per 1,000 population.
Application of the Threshold to the area west of 1-S05 will necessitate the adoption of
implementation strategies as part of the City's pending Parks Master Plan. By employing measures
included in the Parks Master Plan, the City will strive to achieve compliance over a long-term (20+
year) period.
Library - The Library Department is currently undertaking a Master Plan Update. The consultant,
David M. Griffith & Associates, is scheduled to complete the Library Master Plan Update by August
1, 1995. This updated Master Plan will address many issues the GMOC has raised over the years.
These issues include library siting and phasing, the impacts of new technologies on library usage and
the Threshold Standard, floor space needs, and staffing.
Sewer - There are ongoing efforts to ensure the availabHity of adequate, cost-effective sewage
treatment capacity to meet the long-term needs for build-out of the City's General Plan Area.
These efforts are also strategically related to the future availability of reclaimed water. The
GMOC is requesting that Council continue to support and fund efforts to those ends.
Drainage - There continues to be a number of unfunded drainage improvements needed in western
Chula Vista. The GMOC requests that the Department of Public Works provide them with a list of
such projects, a report on their status, and Proposition 21S's impact on construction of these
unfunded drainage improvements
Fiscal- Given the important role of Development Impact Fees (DIPs) in maintaining compliance
with Fiscal and other thresholds, and the level of ongoing planning in eastern Chula Vista
affecting DIP facility considerations, again, the GMOC is recommending that the Council continue
to ensure adequate staffing and f!Seal resources are allocated in appropriate City departments so
that the DIP's can be reviewed on a regular, periodic schedule (every 2 years), to determine if
updates are necessary. Additionally, standard procedure should be adopted to evaluate the
accuracy of projections, facility costs and other assumptions, including a requirement for the
inclusion of standard 5-year growth projections in each of the DIF updates.
Air Quality - Air quality in Chula Vista and the San Diego region continues to improve. A draft
of a City CO2 Reduction Plan has existed since August 1996. It has since been reviewed by the
CO2 Reduction Task Force, the Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, and
the Economic Development Commission. The Plan is anticipated to be before Council for adoption
in May, 1995. The GMOC recommends that the City Council expeditiously adopt the proposed
CO2 Reduction Plan. The Plan contains a comprehensive range of air pollution reduction strategies,
and.a set of20 priority action measures. Several of those measures are related to growth and land
use planning such as: enhanced pedestrian connections to mass transit, increased employment and
Page 6, Item-
Meeting Date 4/27/98
housing density near transit, and site design with pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit orientation.
Subsequent to Plan adoption, the GMOC further recommends that the City Council direct staff to
prioritize implementation of these land use oriented measures. Staffhas already begun to analyze
these measures, and will move forward on an implementation program once the overall plan has
been adopted.
Water -The Interagency Water Task Force and the Otay Water District continue to work toward the
expansion of the reclaimed water market. As a result of development in eastern Chula Vista the
reclaimed water market is expected to increase. Large development projects in the eastern territories
have been required to install parallel reclaimed water delivery systems. The GMOC recommends
continued coordination at the staff level to allow for orderly and planned development of the
necessary transmission facilities to service major development projects and that the City Council
continue to support the Interagency Water Task Force and their efforts to expand the reclaimed water
market at the local level.
CONCLUSION
To assist the Council in evaluating and acting upon the Report's many recommendations, a concise
summary of recommendations and proposed Council implementing actions is presented in
Attachment A. Staff requests direction ftom Council to implement those recommendations as
outlined in the right-band column of Attachment A. Appendices to the 1997 Annual Report (see
Attachment C) contain the threshold compliance questionnaires/reports presented to the GMOC
by the various City departments and outside agencies.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. As specific follow-up actions are brought forward to the
City Conncil, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided.
Attachments:
A "" GMOC -- - A<""" ~ J ~ ~~
B - Chairman's cover memo and GMOC 1997 Annual Report. tß-
C - Appendices to the 1997 Annual Report. .
(E" HaMEl PLANNINGI EDAUAOGlCMOC97ICCAGENDA.REP)
ATTACHMENT A
1997 GMOC Recommendations/
Proposed Implementing Actions Summary
-
"" t .,
15~:E - ,,~ ,,"¡¡ ¡:j'
Õ ""::> ,'-;>0 ~= 2.~ - c..
"" c..oE ...,'" ~¡;;. -'"' ~'"
"'~ ~c..c.. ~~ ~E! !~ æ~
15~ ",~5 ~õ ~Ei EU ~~~
""~ ~,,~ ~"" ~B~ ~~ ~~E
~t ~=~ ~! ~5~ !~ j~!
<::: '" '" .£ ù5 ~ D, '" E-~ ~ 0 '" u ...
~.~ @';'oö ~;g 1iJ E~ ;,~ :E:Eö
~g ~¡~ ~~ o~g ~~ ~~<
..::: O..,- ¡::", 00:: -0"" ¡:¡..u
F"*- ~ ~ t ¡j ~ -;; ~ ;, ~ 1§ ë ,:is ~,š
~~ ~~j¡ ¡~ ,š~.£ ~< :¡S
~ u ~ 8 Ö ~ J! Ë- .5 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ;¡; .§
~ ~:: "s~15~ ~§ ~;;-,;; =;;; -;;;.;;;~
u 8-E. .E~.~:¡.£U ~¡;~ g,~ ~.:~
e;¡.. ~.~ ,~'¡;;l;;5 ë~ .§"~;; 'De ¡;~o
~'"" -~ ">0""",, -- -- -" 'õ~
",3 ~~ ~~] ~ g-g, ~: ~ ]::~';11 ~
~~ ~-¡;; ,,"::~ 0;:> ~=~ ~o=:: .¡::""~o;
z. -.. E~"~ u~ =Eë c..~~ =Eo~
0"'" "o".:!Jo "'- =~:: ""::0 ~
-;;> ~~ U::::=t."so ~E'Ë ~~-;2 ~~oö-
~UJ ~~ ~-i~:,: ~~ ~~~ ï¡i~~ ~~~§
:::~ 175.. 'û ~õ,= ~õ í7:É ~ ~gö 17';;::;'
$0 O.E!~ ':~§" ~~ 0.21: ~õõ 0",.Q.D
""- ,,-~ ""UU 0'" ,,~- """" "u=-o
o~ ~i- ~~ 0 ~~ ~~'" °8~ ~-"B
Uu õ=t õ"'>.::;:.!!?~ õ_~ ~<::~ õÞ"E..~
. <: :; § j :; ~ §" i::! cò ~ E -= " õ ~ ~'§ t% :B
£'" ~8ö ~g~,š ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~æ~~
~1;;
r;:;;-.
~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[;;;;)[;;;;) -
~~ ~ -
o¡;;:¡ ~ 0 ""'-=
......;¡ i §" ~..¡= "¡¡ 'E"s'~
z::" i:::::~ 8 ~u¡i! :E .g...u
[;;;;) ~ ~ {~ .. ~ !> § ~;: ~~ 0
~:: .Þ §~;§ ~ !!::;: ~ -5 .£ûð
¡;;:¡UJ ~ u~" :: fi~,::¡ "" ""E~"
",z = ~..u ~ E-=". E ..o"s
.....0 o:r -=~o ,,-~co 0 ~u"
~- ~. õ.£::;: " õ,-=õ~ u ~~~
..... :: ~ ~ :;, @", õ. .5 .§ ::., :: 'õ .;; .¡g .~
'"-'"- -- -'-" 0 ""ë"" = -~~
~Q !t t~"s i i~~j ~ ~i:
_Z é!.D =-" ". ".-"'u "::"
¡::¡;;:¡ ,,-r¡ ""í7~ OJ! §~"so ~ .E:-E..E
~ ¿; .~ 0 -g ge :; ~ õi Q. -g ~ ~ ¡.... " l;i
""::¡S -... "0"" :::"" >~"-'- ~'õO""
00 fi~ ~~F- ~:: ~45Ëg"š ';;l;;ö
~ E- -=- ø- -0"'" --
OU "f:...!!! ~..E ~...!!! "û-- £ - ..~~
¡;;:¡ z.~ l;;.Ef~ .~':: g.EË~ {~ ~,,'§o;
.~:::: öõO g.~I7oö:§£ E.;=~ E£: ~~c..~
~ "l;; ~]O~~: EEõE 8~ ~o~::
-:5- ".."- ,,::;: -~::::"" -.D -g¡,-"
1::-:;; "~ljt,,s- fi",g.. fiE 13E-;;;.g
&~ ~-Ê~.g E.1i .§~"¡¡;§.§~ .§"",sû "t:
g-° E';;;"û.@ð l;i~:~;;0 ;;.§-go 0
.: § =15"sO.:: u í7'õ ~u í7"È' ~~ ~."È' ãf
]j ]~-;;;~]i ~§-';;~ ~~ ~~Ei ~
gg- s~~S s.:; lj:¡;~" ~~ ~~~í7 ~
Uõ u~"í7 u= O=~" oU o,,~- =:
"'I"'u ...:..- >0" """¡¡ -:5 c..,::, "":o~ .:J
u:::~ :::~E~;=¡;;- -="-~" ,š-." ~.D<~ <t;
-::- ::¡¡~ ~::;:: ::~;-:E - -;;; ::"'U ~ U
"';¡.."" ""'-~..'""" ..-<> ,,"" .."',,-
0 -=" ,::=~E -='" -=~~E ,.::.:!J -=U""" 0
"" ¡....<E .......""", ~b ¡.....£""'" ¡....o ;--::.. ::E
c:>
r-
~ - : : ~ : ~ !
C; 1: c; 'õ -: ~
¡:¡"E~ .§ ~ E.-' ~
~,¿ §~i ~~ ~: -
Ë. g; "§ .!<J ] Ii ;; ~ i
~~ E~; ~ü ~5
..E~ ]u.!<J ~o "E
.c:; "" ~ -=::E ~."
-=~ "":¡u "'° ~"E
l!<E 3""'0 -" .:;c
~¡¡ ~~::E ~.; [:j~
gi ][:j~ ~..E ~E
~] _5-[:: ~15 Û~
.;-= ~ ~~ ~R' g;-
~" "Uc ~~ ,:
~.~ 4=<>::§ .Ë~ ~g
.='d g,~'d "ED -"-
5; 'DB] .ê[ ~Ji
.::~ .:¡¡~.¡; §~ ~¿
~~ "E~~ ~~ ~E
~E ~..EE .~£ :e~
~~ .~-gU ¡j,;- ~ ~
~;:: E.;:~,¿ É'~'¿ .::~
_. ~ """'" ;-0 C ~::.
-=11 ~-fÏ :: ::; R' ;;; ~ É f
-;,~ og~ t ~ Ë:;2 [~
B~ ð~~E ~=~ 0=
,,2 ""O~ ,,~~ ,,~
~æ ¡::~~o ¡::~¡:: ¡::t
..,
- ~ ~ ~
N N N N
" -0
" " ~ ~
"- -0 .~.
f: U ~:;;: ~~ ~ "
~ g,<E ƣ ~5o; !'
~ ~~ R~ ~~" <
"'~ ë~ E~ "E"S ~~
,;:U ¡j ~ 8~ ~:;s:;; :~
~"a" .....~ ~~~" 8?
~: ~~ ~û ~]i] ~~
28 ¡;~ .g~ ¡¡]~.š 50-:
",.g 0" ~~ ~""'" ~8
~g]~ ~Æ ~~~~ ==
Vi" iSg- .=R g¡::;E~ ~~
"c ~--g ~E ..E,,~E "'¡;;.
i~ ~s ~u =J¡~ ~g
=~~: ~I ]:~¡ ::;~
~;g~:Ë E-° g~.~1È ~ 5
~~ ~t 8~ ~~~~ ~~
::"Q::J5.. ë..g .f!.§.;~ to.
ê'7J ê'-5 Ë::E ':':::'õ.::-, E.~
-00 -o~ --0 "'~-~~ o.~
;g-;~ [;;; Ëe-~~~ ;.;;;=- 1::
f: § 7J.~ OQ~ ï~;;,;.; §,:-¡; 8-
011 o"g,§ ~<u~ ""'~~1i oo~ B
u- U:;¡u - oo,,~- u-Q. ~
"'~ Þ~<E "":;;-t ,,:;~o~ þ.Ë~ -¡¡;
ð~ U~¡¡ ~~E iJ~E.~ u~~ =
'd-fÏ 'd@¡¡ 'd~~ 'dÆ~~" 'd.f!"E ~
.,::~ ,.c"",, ..::0'-0" ,.c""".c-= ,.cEo -<
~~ ~~'" ~ ~-o_-... ~-u
U
0
- '" ,., ~ ~ ::s
"¡IN -N N N N c::>
r- .
0\
0\
-
<"')
'"
""
'"
v, ~
on
- ;:; Ë. ~,., ~~
1 ! ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~j
, "iis Q~ §i~ OË';~ 11';
.~.. ~-.5 Ëi:§ g~~ ~~~~ t~
!:¡' E~ l!£ ;'§<.9 ii &f.¡;¡ .9::
d n fh tH au H
::::f3; ~.:: ~-gg ¡;'~-E. -5¿;~.§-= ~~
:t:""ii ,g.ê ,g8] E~§ "fi-5¡:§~,gl'i
:<a1¡ "ß~ -§Ë¡:: ~§U 'Šg6;;:~ 1ì£
~i in HI HI Hin iL
; ~~g ':;;::~ ¡:;~.~ ~[~]-5' ';;~:g
=-5ê =§t,¡; Æ~B 5ë¿¡1i~ ::;[8
- N '"' ..,. on
,,", ...; ...; ...; ...;
-5~ ~~ Q ~
§o;-:S ;;;[ ~.9 ¡: -~~ .gï.;
1~~ æ~ ]~] ¿;"fiB ~~
:: ¡;"" " ~ E ~ 0. :@ ~ -ê' ~ ~ ~ E
~=~~ ð~ ~;E ~~~~~ g~
Jgio ¿;~ o;~> ~~g~~ 1~
ua~¡;' o~ ~~~ E2~~~"~
E<::~ l!~ -:S~! ~-g~l! E~
~ue~ ~o; ,,~u W~ß~= ~~
!e~~ ~o e~E~ I=o~g 1£
""":!- 6'.' o~~- g,-¡f"o-:S ~t;;
Õ 0 -= ~ ~ E 00..£ ~ C: -" -:S o'¡; 0 ~
;;:¡;;v.>g:-o '§~"v.> õ"t>EÈ'" ;;:.£,
~~~= ~~ ="o~ "]on~N ~Ë
õ-:~ °E~ 8~~~ È~~u~ õ~
~l!-= ~ ~E 8. i"!.Eõ.§ s..~E"Ê:E ~<.9
,g~~~ ,g~~ <.9~~~ .9~~~] ,g~
1ì-~-;; -g§~ -5~~E ~9"5~':: 1ìf
~-o= ~u- ~~o 0-' -0 ~-
~"~l! ~~~ ~~uu =~~~o ~~
.:: ::oo~ .::~ ~ ..g i:1Sl! Ë-¡;;~õíE .::~
o~,,~ o~r: ~E~- uõõi':'" 00
~~~] ~~~ 1~~~ 1~Z1i IZ &
~--~ ~-~ oE,,~ oU~o'"' ~- '"
u ¿¡:t;;¡;¡ o~~ u~g¡;¡ U]o~~ ¿¡~ ~
.ï<:: ""É~"" ,,~~ £g~Ê .È'~E~~ ".S;..; -¡¡¡
~ ~~~g ~<.9ê ~Jt~ ~]1J~ ~!~ !~
= ~a~" ~t;;~ ~~-~ ~a,,~= ~~~
~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~õË¿ ~.9~g~ ~~8
U
0
- N .., ..,. on ¿:
~ ...; ...; ...; ...;...; 0
1'-.
'"
'"
-
.",.
OJ
01)
.,
c..
1)] j~tl~}~
.§ § É ";:,B £.;;; Q..~ j¡
':; ~ ~ 'ê ~~:E-< g=
':::04:; %0"õ'.::::0
:; "-0 ~ § 1i :: t..,g r¡ ~
¡¡~~¡¡: õ;::ß¡¡15.£á5
~=~~ ~§~~E~c
E~j] ~~~t~~!
0.£;::0 T;!::::::-;;N~~
Ui! !UHH
B:; gg';; 1j 8 õ ¡'; q; '¥
~i¡¡:E ~~~~]8~
-;~.,~ =~,g~¡g,==
:: f~ 8 ~.§-gjd¡1i~
~E~T; ~§~~§~~
~iJ! J~J)~j~
'¡;i7-=g5 ~ij~5"§.ši
~~~~ ~~~8û~~
- N
-.i -.i
!] '1]] ~.~ ~
=-g .':? -g"§ .~j ;;;
Ul1 U If i1
>"" p 'ü "'= =~
,g== -g' -:::1!'õ~ .~~
-ð-Eê' ..9 .§>g~-§t 15-;;
,,¡g'Õ ~ ¡g,~ 5~ ¡j ~-= ..;
=~~ E ~:~ê8 ~~ &
~1': : ~'õË.£]]~ § ~
~Ü.B ~ 'õ1;\,g-Ës 8~ 'E ~
:~" e ~~2~~ -=~ ~ ~
~~E ~~Ë[15~~ ~~ ~ 'õ
--T; --oQ.~_o" -- 15-
~!i:§ ê ~~.£~~ ~ ~~ .'~1.Æ ~
ð~~ ~;;;¡';T;~~; c; !g~~ ~
~ ~i1 ~¡~!i¡~ ~8 jil~ ~
~ b£.8 ~!~=E8~ o£ ~~~< ~
" .. ~ " -¡¡¡
e ~-Ë¡ Bj ~
... "-0- ,,-= 13
~ ~¡¡s - N ~ ~8 ~N~-.i ~
U
0
.1 -: ~ ::s
... ..,...,. D
r-
0\
0\
-
.,.,
'"
01)
~
I I it i
Ù3:6 ¡g ~ .;;; :
;¡;;¡¡z .3~::
II' ~ R !
¡;;,,~, ¡;.!: '" -g
;¡;;;...~ "" -c..'" "
t~~, ~ ~jj ~OO
:cI)' :; Ë ~ õj 'õ ~
~ ~ IH H
<:IJ '" <;; :..!;:¡
....
or,
- N ~
or; or; or;
~ - t=
üo~ õ <;;c
-~;:E-::: 'Ë.. E 2~~
~.~~ R -o.g ~ -= ['E
~~2'; ¡¡~ §~ .t-g$
~]]] -B § Ë'S ~~-Ë.
¡:;r::::; ~ 0':8 oB.E Ô¡;,:;:::
~~;:;: 1!¡; ~., ,5~::E
.:::¡g..;.~ .;:=. ::;31 ~:;"
~~85 ~-<oO ii..ê ~~¡;
Jj';;;g"" Jj~~ ".::E F-'¡¡¡;
10"-";( --- """ c..D¡;':;
c.-eg" E¡;t <;;¡.... .9¡¡~
¡ji§~":; ~ÉtE 2~ .?;>~~
"Co", ~<'E -""~ ;;t:)..
z .98~", .9~~ ~~ o~~
t::: ""'ü ~ t::: ~ = c.." '" - j:¡
., -S I:: -0 ., -0 -= Jj.9 -g ë. ~
-;;:;-15":: -;;¡;.. -~ c..gc..
11 "Ê,:s .13 ¡¡ iij ¡;,:; ë. '&1, r¡ ~ .t
-::""'.g" .::31t.g~ ~-ü;;::
~]~.D ~.g~ ~~ ~§Od -
]"".E~ ]~~ ~~ E8§.!: ~
õ~¡....õ õ.E~ =0 c._~c.. ~
oc..."" 0....-'" O'='. ""..g.= '"
u""O_~ u~~ u~~ ôæ-os ~
""¡¡~o ""õc.. ",,¡¡.~ -0"" -
~-~'=' =~.t "'E> ~¡¡""~ =
~~~1 ~~- ~~~ ~~~~ !=
1!E¡<j~ ..~;@ "c..E 1!'§¡¡§
~"",," ;:~'" ;:!u ~c..c.u
u
0
01' ~ '"] ~ ~
II> or, or, or, or, v
t-
'"
'"
-
I:)
"
O )
'" ~ ~
M -
j~] ~1~i' ~~j!~;~~~ ~!]i
:u.:¡ =.E1i .,::Q.E~ "Ë-::~¡¡"EõitE1i:J;;;Q.ê"
z:; EQ.., .,'õ°J:;:. oo~-;;;::.!o!"-=""E==="
.."..... ]ü¡:: ~ =';,~ ~ E"Ë i:;'~ ~.::.;~-¡¡ 0.Ë:§-:
~ =~.' &E=~ ~8io:J~~~~S~01~
~o B j¡j ~ ~ J:;:. ] § :g ~ ~::g ii ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ :¡ ~ 'G
u ~~~- Em=Q. _"M:EO::~O--_o.,-
-~ ~¿~:J =tl~ ~t!~=~~~~~~~:g
~.¡:;¡ .;;õi.!!-=; l;!~ ~-:E o-:E'=- :J~ü ~-=';;; ¡¡ EZ ~
"'2;' - - ~ '- 0 - 0 '- " 0 "0 E - = .~ ~ " .;;: - u 0 0
-- =!~o !.,~o tj¡j.!o!£~~m~~o~b~~
Z.+-<o ~., "0 0"0--= ~-;:M-;:;""=;::J:;:..,'-,,-
OZ ;,~.; ¡¡ ~-f¡:;-~ § g-E"-= t ~=E ~~7j~'g §
~¡, ~i~~ i~1!~ îilr!iii~1~~!~
._...:¡,. e 0 0 - "0 - .. Q. - -= :: ., = - u 0 ;>, - -= -
""":;:./ ~-=U) >!'ü,,'- "o-~'c-miJ"b'-:::~OD-
1::::;..,.. ~;d-Ž i:2]E;¡ ê';;È'~:;~!::Õò.,::.,g""g.E
~:5 ¡¡5'.§~ 5~~%~ :5¡j~~fI'g~~~~TI£-5t'.-'..
;;~ 15 E:¡:¡ ~ ~:g !¡; 5--:: Ë õ¡:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ê'¥ ;¡ ~ .£i P
"",. ~-~., =Q.;;;B.E !::o .;;;fI'.~="E::.õ.~">'::;
Uy -= K O.D ¡¡ ::> "0 '- "0 ~ ¿ .!!1 !2 Õ -= ~ -:E ~ = ~ã:> 11 t ""
p: to~~;:: ~~1ê~.; :S":-5¿=~:;'õ",Ë";t~.:::;
-, ]¡¡.!2~ E.ë:¡).!2õ. ;;":;9ri3E.!o!=]iJ~"Oõi';.O-:
:~.: ~~Ji ~Jlli ðiiið~fJj:~ff~~
,,",
- ~ -
~ ~ ~
'" - ., ~
d; K -g to .~ "0 r ~
g;¡§ ~'õ] =~ ~;
~~ ~~~ l~ ~~~
0 M,- " 00 I:: ..0
00- t;:;.!;o 00 .,~.,
J1 Ii! ~f IJ~
Be 'd~& ~~ B~~
~~ ~-5~ ~$ 1~=
.;; ¡j S 5-':: g;;¡ c""E,iJ
5-"5. £]£. ¡¡¡¡¡; ~-~;
i~~ E~~ E~ ~~~
¡~I i~; i~¿ Ji~
g'dt 'g~] 'g.,.!! ~~E
:¡¡¡~:; B"£.ËE B~~ 'gE;;;¿
~-:E§ ~~~~ ~]-:E 5~Èt ~
I ~_5; ~.§ 1::$ ~ ag. ~;'~õi ~
~ U~M :;]:;¡ UB~ ;::]B~ ~
~ :-o:;.!2E ,e.!:!:!¡ë: È.!2'::- c:: ~,-!2=ð -;
u-.;= ""¡!::°t u~i5, ¡,;¡ -:E;.¡;:J., '"
-M;;: -.¿Q.;;; --'::5 ... -.,.::- ~
#I "'-=- "'-5", "'¡§o ... ":0."=
- ¡::Ë~ ¡::~8:: ¡::.,¡¡:, ¡¡:j ¡::~~'õ
u
0
- "~- ~
";1 ~ -ó -ó ~I '" 0
r-
'"
'"
-
I"--
"
01)
t':S
. ~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
~ 0
~ Ë~
~ ii~
'" ~ ~
0..0
0 " u
~ :; ::
E o~
~ '" "
- " ~
.~ Š.g
~ c; ~
~ .~:
0 on ~
~ ê~
'" 0
.- ::s .s
~ þ:
.51 iJ g.
.~ Jj -¡¡
õ ~~æ
~""-
~ ~Bo
~ 'ii~Jj
~ 6 8'::
'§> Jj~~
~ :: .!'? ~
Jj ~ :g .:;
f- ~o..~
S -
~ ~
'"] :s]
'Ê.g ENS'"
¡?;..o <Ei1$ ç-;;¡J£'õ.;
ðU Û] ~~8§~
::s E 0 'E -:;; 1$ .£'¡;; "8-
O~ ::So,; :Jg'¡jEo
~¡?; O~."E =ì5.'::.Š~
-=.5 ~.::> :""~.,,O
Þ"" ~o..!: ~;;§-=~
i5;.g fI'§.Ë! 0]""8'::
~~ ~"3U ,š~'~~~
~~ ~.ËE '-<~"u
~¡¡b ~ì!J~ ~ '<E~:J
.5Sê'" .68~ ¡?;~ .:0.5
" ~ " 0 5 .~ õi to g. ì!J
800 80' ~"8-e~~
oì5.~ o~1$ ~08'"u
.!26::1 .!2g1$ ~8gËf'~
:~ .~ t1, :~.§ ~ ~ ~ ,13 'c S.
°ê8 o~~ ~~,,{j-=
~.; = ~~ ¡¡ 11 ~ õi.5 ¡?;
'c-<3'" 'CNS ""..oE.;-8
~1$§ ~§~ §;;~§~ "§
r.1 .@¡] ~ .~:~ ì5. Þ'Ë B 'ß. ~ ~
~ .¡¡ 'E ~ .¡¡ g,.S iJ :Ë 1$ § J, ~
Z ,š~; ,13£ ~ ~I ,šBg.~] ~
õi 2 ~ õi B .5 ~ õi ~ -g ~]
~ ¡:;!g:> ¡:::¡ .¡; ¡;: ¡: ~~ ~ ~ ~
U
0
- N - :::E
";1 oô oô ",I ~ C)
I"--
0\
0\
-
00
OJ
OJ)
'"
° ""
~. ,5 :.r
¡J ~I¿ i ~
;¡¡ ;; i< ='..!! e"
e t " '0 Po. '" 00
]] ~~E ~ ~
.,e 'c,," u u
28 s.iH~ Ei,g
~= ¡p:]. ~ ~
~ § B .[ <>;.~ ~ 11 '0
18 iB8~ ¡~ ~
~.£ ~ ~,5 ~ Ë -:J .s
"U ",.,~o e~ '0
ì:..~ &ã°-;;; 8" ~
~.s Q2~t ~-= ã
~ã I"Eiì:.. ~!~.
~ ¡;: 'ê 13 ~ ¡;. ,00 .!!1 ~ ~
8:5 ",£S'a .£~::6;,
c.., ¡;:"ee UOO co
~g ~~~g "B §~
-] -s..u -=e~-
.=~ BEiÞ B§ 3.-=
£ö têSu t.s ÄB
¡¡u ~8~B ~t oo~
~~ E'¡:S"E So. .=13
~; ~~~g ~~ §£
~~ :~~~ :~ ¡;:~
~~ ~Þ~~ ~§ ~~
ø.s ~us~ ~.s ~~
- N ,...,..".
~ ~ ~ ~
:5 ,5.-= ~
'g§ 'ë; ~gs ~ '0
'0'-5 §.¡,.. Þ 'Cg .
~" .- ooS .- ee S
NO¡¡ B ~'C :g "','-g ~ e
0:; ¡¡ Eã .g 28 .s~
~~ 6 ~~ 1 ~~ R~
I" ~ e» 00 "0 ~"E
&î ]~] j ~; ~Ë
8~ ""e' '0 ".,!! ~"
0. .¡;; .lj ê .~ ã -= 11 t::: ~
,5" ~..o.¡, M- ~~ "'ã
-~ ~~~~]E :i ~2
0." o...c"", 8 000 -
.go. ° ¡'L8 o.e I;;:, ='00 ¡¡~
"'~ ;~~~~;~ SB ,go
~~ .~]i<Se~ ~ã "5
gi =eo.ej..!!"~ Eo§ B-;;;
.-'" u.,].~~'C]e ° "e
~é ~Ë~~~~~; ~~ ~s
!:to. ~oo 'C';;;~~gs l!:t '"E~
DB ~~i!ãgg"'E ~Æ 8~
" e",~~Þ-- ..c "
I 'as g¡;: 'ae 'a-= ~
~ gE ~.£1 g ~ g .~ ~
~ u8 ~ü uË uo ~
-« » .; u".. .. ,., ,.", -
-." - '0 ...'..c. ...'"
;:¡ '-ee ji" '-0000 '-0. '"
u"'e ~~ u=s u~ ~
e:i -coo -M -..c." _.- ¡:¡
=< ~£[ ~8 ~~.g ~¡ ~
u
0
- N ,...,..". ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e
t:-
'"
'"
-
0\
'"
Ol)
~
.: "E 11 ;.., -
,,] ~-g,- 5 f
~]~t~ ~~
~ "t:::ü ~ .-::: =
'5..<>,,=: ::..
o~"iñ';= ".£
~ llli~ ~ j
~ ~'5-g~] 8',;i
!I) ¡¡¡It it
UJ" .E= ""':.::~ "".£ ~
~, HUH m
~ "!
- -
"E ~ ~
= .£ "-:::
t; .¡; :: = 1:J -= ~
ë ~ .:§ .~ .~ l;' ~ fJ
~.. "'~~ ~""~
;..,1; B 'g =- ~ = 'õ;
Ë~ -¡¡Pi g~1j
0/)- ¡;~: ~u-
~ ~ ~ ~~ ;~ ~
-=£ ;;;~¡; '~Q¡;
~~ ~~~ ~2~
"5& ..~~ 'õ~¡;
ê:.¡;; .§ ~ 8' fl. È-~
¡¡;~ g~::- ¡jo ¡¡ ~
£~ '5¡¡.~ 8]: ~
~;:-.! 5a~ ~,,~ ~
,§oi; 8§~ ::.6§ '"
§-t!= .; ~-~ 5'§"§ ~
-= t§ g ~ oS ~.; ê:~ ~ ~
g~-;; Ë"E~~ ~<~ ~ -
5== sg;;:: '~2e is &.
;.)12.. ~-"'oS"E a ¡: go ß 2
;..,@" ~ 0", = °.::::.::; <5 -
5~-t: g-g~.¡;¡ ~~'õ ~ õì
=:1 ,,5!!: ¿:;"'~ü .-:::::" :¡! ='
¡,¡¡ -=..." o.=:-=~ u"'o ~
!< :::'>:2 "t;=.-:; ...6:- <5 ~
~ ~~ ~ t:~J;J-¡; t:o g, ~ U
:5 0
- N M ~ ::E
""';1 - - - ~ c;¡
... - ~ r--.
- '"
'"
-
ATTACHMENT B
Chairman's Cover Memo &
GMOC 1997 Annual Report
DATE: April 2, 1998
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista ;:fíj
FROM: Tris Hubbard, Chairman, ~~~
Gr~Ch Managa=n' ~ara~ C ~CI
SUBJECT: 1997 GMOC Annual Report (7 1/96 to 6/30/97)
The GMOC is please to present the 1997 GMOC Annual Report on
schedule and look forward to the scheduled meeting and
presentation of the Report to the Mayor, City Council and
Planning Commission. The GMOC extends it's appreciation to Duane
Bazzel, Ed Batchelder, Edalia Olivo-Gomez, and Linda Bond for
scheduling meetings and expeditiously completing minutes and
Commission recommendations. A Saturday Field Trip, to observe
new developments in the city, organized and led by Duane Bazzel
and Ed Batchelder, was especially helpful to Commission members
to gain a first hand perspective of the accelerated growth in our
city.
Nine of the eleven Threshold Standards have been met for the 1997
review.
Thresholds in ComDliance Thresholds Not in
Full ComDliance
Schóols Parks & Recreation Fire/EMS
Libraries Air Quality Police
Drainage Fiscal
Sewer Traffic
Water
GROWTH FORECAST
Based on Local and Regional forecasts (See Appendix B), and the
Commission's observation of the number of current developments
under construction it is our perception that the growth rate is
accelerating. For several years the growth rate of Chula Vista
has been 3%. However Local and Regional projections indicate
that it may be as high as 6%. The GMOC therefore encourages that
preparations must be made to accommodate threshold standards
based on a 4 to 6% annual population growth rate.
SCHOOLS
EastLake Developments are generating 0.44 elementary students per
household as opposed to the long standing generation rate of 0.30
students per household. This coupled with the State reduced
class size program for Elementary Schools, and the student
enrollment increases for both western and eastern segments of the
city is placing a strain on districts to provide classroom space.
Districts are providing for the student increase by adding
portable classrooms. The GMOC encourages the city and school
districts to monitor and share knowledge and resources to meet
the anticipated student enrollment increases in a timely manner
and coordinate their efforts to meet the anticipated student
enrollment.
LIBRARIES
The GMOC is pleased to note that the Library Master Plan Update
is in process to be completed in August. As a follow-up to the
Master Plan Update the shortfall in material collections and
inadequate Library technology infrastructure need to be
addressed.
SEWER
The sewer threshold has been met. While sewer capacity looks
good tþrough 2030 the GMOC encourages continued monitoring of
sewer capacity to meet projected city build out.
DRAINAGE
The Threshold is met. The GMOC recognizes that due to
environmental regulations the regular cleanup and maintenance of
earth bottom channels and basins requires environmental
clearance permits from the environmental agencies. The City is
encouraged to streamline the permitting process to reduce costs
and achieve efficiency.
AIR QUALITY
The overall air quality picture for the City is as promising as
it has been since this Commission has been in existence. The
GMOC encourages the implementation of the CO2 Reduction Plan to
provide continued air pollution reduction for the city. The plan
includes:
8 Enhanced pedestrian connections mass transit.
8 Site design with pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit
orientation
8 Increased land use mix
8 Increased employment and housing density near mass
transit
FISCAL
DIFs are essential for financing public improvements associated
with growth. The importance of regular, periodic reviews and any
necessary updates to the fee schedule cannot be over-emphasized.
WATER
Thresholds have been met and the delivery and guaranteed
availability of water to the City of Chula Vista continues to
improve through the cooperative efforts of our water districts
and the San Diego County Water Authority. The negotiations for
an additional water supply from the Imperial Irrigation District
are near completion. In addition, the scheduled completion of
the Eastside reservoir will assure San Diego County of adequate
water to meet build out needs.
TRAFFIC
Thresholds have been met. However, the GMOC alerts the Council
that unless SR-125 is completed by 2005, traffic will operate at
LOS D or less on several major east/west corridors. Recent
traffic models identify 5 City and 4 County roadway segments that
will operate below the acceptable LOS C standard:
Citv of Chula Vista
1. East H Street ( I-80S to Paseo del Rey ).
2. Telegraph Canyon Road ( I-80S to Paseo del Rey ).
3. Otay Lakes Road(Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road).
4. Olympic Parkway ( I-80S to Paseo Ranchero).
5. Paseo del Rey(East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road).
Countv of San Dieoo
1. Briarwood Road ( SR-54 to Sweetwater Road).
2. Proctor Valley Road ( San Miguel Road to Mt. Miguel
Road) .
3. Bonita Road ( Otay Lakes Road to Palm Drive ).
4. San Miguel Road ( Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road).
PARKS & RECREATION
The GMOC continues to recommend that the Council adopt a revised
city-wide threshold standard. The GMOC calls to Council's
attention that the ratio of park land for the eastern territories
has declined over the years (Appendix A). Unless the City
coordinates the phasing of new parks accordingly, this slight
decrease will continue as population in the eastern territories
continues to increase at a relatively constant rate,. Given the
substantial amount of pending developement, we want to highlight
the need to evaluate projected growth and park phasing conditions
to respond to this decline, and ensure that a Threshold deficit
does not occur.
POLICE
Priority II calls met the threshold and Priority I calls were
within 0.2% of meeting the threshold. The GMOC urges the timely
completion and adoption of a long range strategic plan and a
facilities master plan as the current facilities, equipment and
staff are insufficient to meet the projected growth.
FIRE/EMS
The GMOC commends the Department and staff for completion of the
Fire/EMS Master Plan. Council should adopt the plan as well as
the updated DIF to provide adequate fiscal resources to implement
the plan. Following full implementation of the CAD system, a
review of the threshold will be in order.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1997 REPORT
(Threshold Standard Review Period 7/1/96 to 6/30/97)
Submitted
APRIL 1998
>'-
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1997 REPORT
Commission Members
Tris Hubbard, Chairman (Education)
Loren R. Tarantino, Vice-Chair (Center City)
Bob S. Thomas (Planning Commission)
Rafael L. Munoz (Eastern Territories)
Manuel R. Aguirre (Development)
Walter L. Fisher (Montgomery)
Charles G. Peter (Business)
C. Lynn Dull (Sweetwater)
Will 1. Hyde (Environmental)
Staff
Edgar Batchelder, Senior Planner
Edàlia Olivo-Gomez, Associate Planner
Linda Bond, Administrative Office Specialist
April 1998
"'
Table of Contents
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................1
Pmpose................................................................1
ReviewProcess ........................................................ I
DevelopmentForecasts . ..... ...... ........... ... ...... ................ ...1
ll. THRESHOLDCOMPLlANCESUMMARY.......... ........... ............. ...4
ill. FINDINGS, KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Police................................................................5
Fire/EmergencyMedicalServices ........................................ 8
Traffic """","""""""""""""""""""""'".........11
Schools...............................................................14
Parks&Recreation......................................................17
Libraries..............................................................19
Sewer................................................................21
Drainage..............................................................22
Fiscal .....................................,..........................24
Air Quality .............................,..............................25
Water """""",,""""""""""""""""""""..........27
Appendices*
(hound under separate cover)
APPENDIX A - THRESHOLD QUESTIONNAIRES
Police
Fire/ Emergency Medical Services
Traffic
Schools
Parks and Recreation
Draft Revised Parks and Recreation Threshold
Libraries
Sewer
Drainage
Fiscal
Air Quality
Water
APPENDIX B - GROWTH FORECASTS
APPENDIX C - SOLID WASTE INFORMATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE
"Attachments to Questionnaires are on file in the Planning Dep¡inment
I. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
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 a
geographical balance of residents, as well as a cross section of interests including education,
environment, business, development, and the City Planning Commission.
The GMOC's review is structured around a fiscal year cycle to accommodate City Council review
of GMOC recommendations which may have budget implications. The official review period for
this report is July I, 1996 through June 30, 1997, although pertinent issues identified during the
second half of 1997 and early 1998 are also addressed as necessary.
REVIEW PROCESS
The GMOC held 10 meetings from October 1997 through March 1998. Threshold reports were
submitted and orally presented by a nnmber of City departments and extema! agencies, to
determine the compliance status for each threshold. The GMOC also reviewed whether or not it
was appropriate to issue a "statement of concern" or to make other recommendations regarding
each threshold. Following completion of the individual threshold reviews, the GMOC prepared
this annual report for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
As requested by the Planning Commission last year, the GMOC reviewed and discussed a report
(Appendix C) on solid waste programs, and whether a "Solid Waste" Threshold' Standard might
be established in the future. The Commission found that Solid Waste is adequately addressed in
State law, and as part of the Regional Growth Management Strategy, and that a local Threshold
Standard was not needed.
DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS
The Threshold/Standards Policy calls for the City to prepare both short-range (12 to 18 month)
and mid-range (5 to 7 years) development forecasts at the beginning of the annual GMOC review
process. Complementary to threshold performance evaluation, which reviews the prior
GMOC Annual Report
March 26,1998
(H: home/planning/edaliaog/gmoc97/rec. 5.doc) Page 1
year period, these forecasts serve to provide a common basis by which the GMOC, staff and
external agencies can identifY and address any potential threshold issues before a problem arises.
A copy of this year's forecast information is included as Appendix B and summarized below.
12-18 Month Forecast
The 12-18 month forecast is the main set of development projectjons employed for annual
threshold reviews. This forecast focuses on near-term development which will place demands on
available infrastructure and services, and presents information at the project-specific level. The
forecast is derived from a survey of local developers and builders as to their anticipations, and
from a review of development under processing by the City including design review, subdivision
maps, plan checks and building permits. By experience, the 12-18 month forecast based on
developer inputs is an aggressive, or worst case, scenario. Such a worst case scenario, however,
is beneficial for growth management purposes in that it represents a maximum potential impact
to facilities and services.
Two tables are used in Appendix B to present the forecast figures; one for the Otay Water District
area which encompasses new development east of the 1-805 freeway, and one for the Sweetwater
Authority area which encompasses mostly infill development in older areas of the City west of 1-
805. The figures cover the 18-month period from July 1997 through December 1998. As indicated
in these tables, during this period approximately 2 425 housing units are anticipated to be
authorized for construction, and 1.864 housing units are anticipated to reach occupancy within the
Otay Water District area. For the Sweetwater Authority service area, the 18-month projections
are for 43 housing units to be authorized for construction, and 28 units to reach occupancy.
5-7 Year Forecast
The mid-range (5-7 year) forecast is more general, and presents information on a City-wide basis.
It is intended to provide sufficient foresight to identifY potential growth management issues before
they become a problem. The original table provided to agencies and departments was modified
to reflect the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Update (PFDIF). The City used
SANDAG's Series 8 Interim Forecast to produce figures starting from 1997-2000 and continuing
in five year increments from 2000 to 2015.
As indicated on page 3, a total of 4 735 units are projected for the period between 1997-2000.
That represents a yearly average of.l...821 housing units. Projected totals for years 2000 to 2015
are 24510 units, which represent a yearly average of ~housing units.
GMOC Annual Report ~
March 26,1998
(H; ho melp lann in g/ edaliao g/ gmoc 9 7/ rec. 5. doc) Page 2
M
OJ
C>
'"
C.
..
>
- "
~ !i.
- i¡;
D-
ûi
I-
Z
W
:æ:
w
c:::
0 .
z ~
- "
c::: ~!i.
« ~
w
>- 0 ~ ~ ~~MM ~M - ~~ = ..
It) '0 ~ ~ ;:!: ~~~~ ~~ ~ -- þ "';;
- "'..... Ñ"'¡ Ò ~"
It) ~~ '" - """'¡;:-
....0 ~ ~ ~
W - on
N~
ß¡§ a: cø~
r-- !5 i1i ~ !i.
CÐ..... > -.
~Õ ~
,~ .
mE ~~
t; ¿ ~!i.
« ~ - i¡;
..... D-
°u
w-
c:::¡¡
0:;)1f
u.£L.~ :j
~u ~
-I ~w '"
« If ..., '"
_>0 ¡:¡
I-~Π~ ~
zSo U .!<¡
wJ:w Z :;
CUZ ~ .g
-..... Z '§
mo~ ~If .. on.. .Q
W ..J ~:! ñi ñi::: ';16
c:::~~ 1ñ:¡::§:§:5 ~~
«(3w ~c¡ og ¡¡jog ¡¡¡ ~E -
I-õõlñ u~ ~ u~ Õ .~~ ~
.'" ~ ~..J c a:c. ~ ,,'-'.
~fß:E ..J..J:::I ~1f ~:::1 >- cJ;; ¡;¡
>- 00 u~ If W£L.ij Z .!!!;§ on
a:~ ..J a: £L.~" w~>-c ~ <>';0 ~ f-
<a::¡:jlñ ~ ~ 5- ~oii! 3:~w&! £L. ~~ () ê5
..Jc¡> > 5c¡ Z~If If If ~;¡;':'--Iñ::!¡;.û¡~ ä¡~ ~ f;:;
::I~~ ~ zSË ~~ffi..Jgo~ ~~W~53:u t'J~ 52 ""
J:§1s ~ ~a: =a:~~ozlñ 1f 1f ~;: g 0 ¡¡~ ~ ...J 00
O~If J: ~..J~ ~~c¡~~:3> 55¡¡:~ ~~ ~ë ~ ~ ~
u. u w~=wwwwwww ~~ W..J "", :S Z:"""
ofiJZ ~= S°3:~~~~~~~ ~~~o :E Z ~ g g, ;¡¡:
>-~ffi :E~=SË:Eouu:3:3:3:3j a:a: ~ ~o ~~ w ~
-~ J:-- ~ID~~~~~~~ >->-J::;) t:: If . EO" ~ g <-
I-°lf wa:a:Z~Z..J..J1f 1f 1f 1f 1f ~~u~ z~ .;~.!!! I ::E c.
C3§1~ ::5~~~~~~:¡~~~~~ bbm~ g~ ~~f ~ C!> «
~ ~,
<:t
!'
oS "
d
~'ã.
... e
'" Q
¡¡u
r.. ~
~:å
Q "
~<
oS~
E "
~ ~
8 e- t;>
'5 ~ ~
-.c<
;.. ii-m
=: iig,
~ 1H¡
~ iñ=:
"'s;
~~
~; ~§~
:;15 !~'ã.
~es ~.s~
... u
...
'"
.0.
",;:¡
íi!ï=::
<§
f@¡ '"
<,.¡ õ
>- ¡¡;; ]~
=: 9[:J J;
-< 0> ...
~ ¡;;~
~ ~
;¡ ¡:
00 ~
¡;¡J
U
~
....
,.;¡ ~ -
=-- li l:' oS
~ c -"C.,,;
~ ŠC C '~l! ~
0 ~'å~]¡~.s
,.¡;:;¡ i1 ~< ¡:;:
U l!t ¡; tt g
Q ~ ;;~ ~ l:' -a~ ~
, ~ '" ,,-"'~ " := ~- "-
.... ~ ~ " ~=t ã" ~ " ~t ~
0 tf<!¡::gð~.:¡E!t.cõ1&11l!~ :§!
~ :="1i.c ~.c!OëiI"~"O t:{!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ æ < ~ ~oo~
~ ~~I
~ . . " .§
~ ..;"'..;..; .,;";r-oõ,,,:=:=: ~...:~
... u .~ ¡¡
~ c~
= ~~~
ill. FINDINGS, KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
POLICE
Threshold Finding
The GMOC fmds that the City is not in compliance with the Police Threshold for Priority I
calls for service (CFS). The Threshold Standard for Priority I calls is to respond to 84% of
CSF within 4.5 minutes.
The Threshold Standard for Priority II CFS, to respond to 62% of calls for service (CSF)
within 7 minutes was again met and surpassed.
In fiscal year 1996-97 the Police Department's responded to 83.8% of calls within an average of
4.5 minutes. Although this shortfall is again slight, the GMOC expresses concern since this is the
seventh consecutive vear in which the Priority 1 CFS standard has not been met. As the City
continues to expand easterly the response time will most likely continue to deteriorate. There is
urgency for the Police Department to address the Threshold deficiency.
Key Issues
Police Plannin¡: Activities
In accordance with the above-noted information, the Police Department is embarking on a two-
pronged approach to address the threshold deficiency. This approach includes the completion of a
long range strategic plan and a police facility master plan.
Long Range Strategic Plan
The Police Department is presently in the process of selecting a consultant to prepare a long range
strategic plan to evaluate service levels, staff levels, methods of deployment, and any other factors
related to service delivery. This will include evaluation of the established Threshold which may
need to be adjusted.. The GMOC requests that the Police Department move forward expeditiously
and complete this strategic plan in time for the next GMOC review cycle.
Police Facility Master Plan
The GMOC notes with concern that, as stated in the Police Threshold Report, "the current
facilities, equipment and statIwill be insufficient to absorb forecasted growth during the next
5 to 7-year time frame". Considering that it will take approximately 3-5 years to plan and
GMOC Annual Report ~
April, 1998
(H: homeJplanningiedaliaogigmoc9 7lTec. 5 .doc) page 5
construct a new police facility the GMOC requests that the Police Department proceed rapidly in
the assessment of future facility needs.
The current Police facility is part of the Civic Center Master Plan (CCMP) which is in the process
of being updated. The CCMP Update assesses two expansion plans. Plan #1 is based on the
assumption that the Police Department is relocated to a new site. In turn, the vacated Police building
is remodeled and expanded. Plan #2 assumes that the Police Department remains at its present
location. Then, space needs of Civic Center departments are met by adding second stories to City
Hall and the Public Services Building, and acquiring additional properties.
Based on the CCMP Update, Council established a Police Facility Committee to explore the
relocation of the Police Department in more detail. As such, the Committee is in the process of
preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Needs Assessment, Siting Analysis, and Concept
Design for a new police facility.
Public Facility Development Impact Fee Update
The City's Public Facility Development lmpact Fee (PFDlF) program is also being updated. This
update, targeted for April-May, 1998 will develop a preliminary Police Building Project, to be
funded in part by impact fees. The analysis supporting the new police project will be based on
preliminary staffing projections and space needs forecast. It will enable the City to begin collecting
aDlF for police facility needs while the RFP is undertaken. The 1998 PFDlF Update will examine
the two options presented in the CCMP Update.
False Alarms
Presently, 98% of all CFS for alarms are false. While there are many factors that influence response
times, the most significant factor is an increase in residential robbery and panic alarms in the east.
The Police Department is working to reduce the high incidence of false alarms through participation
in the MODEL STATES False Alann Reduction Program. This is a program of the Alann Industry
Research and Education Foundation, in cooperation with a number of agencies including the
International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Security Industry Association. The Department
has many of the measures. recommended by the program in place. They are working to incorporate
additional measures such as a revised ordinance with penalties for chronic false alanns.
New capabilities of the CAD system will provide a managerial tool to address this problem. The
CAD system will be able to track the total number offalse alann response time and the number of
responses to specific locations, including cronic violators.
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Mobile Data Comnuters (M1)C)
The installation of the CAD and MDC systems are currently in progress. The CAD system has the
ability to capture the complete dispatch time and to track the number of responses to specific
GMOC Annual Report > .
April, 1998
(8: ho me/p lannin g/ edaliao g/ gmoc 9 7/rec. 5. doc) page 6
locations. The CAD system will enable data management in a manner which can readily quantify
whether increases in calls for service are growth related. One year of data from the CAD system will
help determine if current issues influencing police performance can be solved through managerial
techniques, or if an alteration of the current Threshold Standard is warranted.
The installation ofMDCs is complete and all officers are currently recieving training and using the
MDCs. The MDC system allows patrol officers to make inquiries and to complete police reports
in the field. The radio communication system will switch over to 800 MHZ in April and will enable
full use oftheMDCs.
Recommendations
. That the City Council support the Police Departmeuts efforts to adequately staff and
fund the completion of a long range strategic plan by October 1998. The strategic plan
,should address service levels, staff levels, methods of deployment, and any other
factors related to delivery of service in compliance with the Police Threshold Standard
for Priority I CFS.
. That the City Council provide adequate staff and funding for the completion of a Needs
Assessment, Siting Analysis, and Concept Design for a new Police Facility; and that the
Police Department provide the GMOC with a progress report in October 1998.
. That the City Council adopt the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (pFDIF)
and Civic Center Master Plan Update.
. That the Police Department continue to evaluate and implement methods for the
reduction of false alarms, including participation in the MODEL STATES false alarm
reduction program; and that the Police Department provide the GMOC with a
progress report in Octoher 1998.
. That the Police Department complete the installation of Computer Aided Dispatch
(CAD) by December 1998.
. That the Police Department re-evaluate the Threshold standard for priority 1 CFS
based on the findings of the strategic plan and one year of data collected from the new
CAD system; and that the Police Department provide the GMOC with a progress
report by October 1999.
GMOC Annual Report ?"
March 26, ]998
(H: homelp lonning / eda liao g/ gmoc 9 7/ rec. 5. do c) page 7
FIRE/ EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that the City is not in full compliance with the Fire and Emergency Medical
Service (EMS) Threshold Standard of responding to calis throughout the City within seven
(7) minutes in 85% of the cases.
During the 1996-97 fiscal year, the Fire Department responded to 81% of the calls within 7
minutes. This noncompliance is attributable to changes in the manner of data collection and not a
reduction in fire service levels. The GMOC continues to express concern, since this is the fifth
consecutive vear that the Threshold Standard has not been met.
Key Issues
Fire Station Master Plan Update
Despite the continuing non-compliance conditions, we are satisfied that the pending Fire Station
Master Plan Update (FSMP) and the installation of the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system will
significantly address and clarifY the deficiency.
The 1989 FSMP is currently being updated as part of the overall update of the Public Facilities
Development lmpact Fee (PFDlF). The 1989 FSMP projected a need for seven fire stations at build-
out. Based on detailed development and performance information, the Draft 1998 FSMP Update
projects a need for a nine-station network at build-out. The GMOC is satisfied that the updated
FSMP and PFDlF adequately address future fire service needs, financing for facilities and equipment
to serve new development.
Re-evaluation ofthe Threshold Standard
As a result of the Draft 1998 FSMP Update, it was discovered that the current threshold was
formulated based on erroneous data.. The errorreflects the fact that different portions of the dispatch
process are being measured today than were measured in the past. According to the Draft 1998
FSMP Update, the true threshold should he set to respond to 79.7% of calIs within 7 minutes.
A change in the Threshold Standard is not recommended until the City can establish a more accurate
database from the new CAD system. The GMOC requests that the City Council recognize the need
for reconsideration of the Threshold Standard at an appropriate future date, when at least one year
of CAD statistics is available.
GMOC Annual Report ~ .
April, 1998
(H: home! pI ann in g/ eda Ii ao g/ gmoe 9 7/ree. 5 . do e) page 8
Computer Aided Di$patch
The installation of the CAD is currently in progress. The CAD system must withstand an error ftee
90 day test period prior to its acceptance. It will take a year to obtain a useful database, and it will
likely take another year beyond that to obtain the first year-to-year comparisons on the new system.
The new CAD system has the capability to capture more of the dispatch process than is being
measured today. Due to this enhanced capability, it is likely that average dispatch time statistics
will increase again.
Deterioration in Travel Time
As stated in the Draft 1998 FSMP Update, there has been a steady deterioration in travel time in
western Chula Vista. This has led to a corresponding deterioration in the overall response time rates.
For example, ftom fiscal year (FY) 1988/89 to FY 1990/91 the 5.0-minute travel time rate was
88.5% for Fire Stations #1 and #5. For FY 1993/94 to FY 1995/96 the travel time rate for Fire
Stations #1 and #5 had decreased to 85.1 %. For the same time period the 5.0-minute travel time rate
for Fires Stations #2 and #3 had decreased ftom 78.3% to 69.6% (1998 FSMP Update, PART 2-1).
Undoubtably, as the City continues to expand easterly, it will become increasingly challenging for
the City to meet the Threshold. Although some possible causes were identified in the FSMP Update,
the operational details were not explored in detail. Therefore, City staff needs to assess causes and
mitigation strategies in more detail.
Some of the possible causes of deterioration in travel time identified in the FSMP Update include
increased traffic congestion in western Chula Vista, increased requirements for in-service training,
and an increase in the percentage of freeway incidents. Other factors may be the topography of
eastern Chula Vista and the circuitous layout of the street network which are not conducive to the
high speed and maneuvering oflarge fire engines.
Traffic Silmal Pre-emption Svstem
As stated in last years' GMOC Report, while the City awaits the benefits of comparative data from
the new CAD system, all ways to reduce the travel portion of the overall response time need to be
examined. The Fire Chief has been working with the Public Works Department on the installation
and operation of a traffic signal pre-emption system. Presently, the installation of the pre-emption
system for the remaining signals in the 'H' Street corridor (from Woodlawn to the eastern terminus
of East 'H' Street) and for the Fire Department emergency vehicles has been included in the current
year ClP ($160,000). This phase of the project is expected to be completed in April 1998. The
1998-99 ClP request will include Phase II of the project for the installation of the devices on signals
in the FourtbAvenue corridor, and if funded, the expected completion date is November of1998.
,
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: homelplanningledaliaoglgmoc9 7lrec. 5. doc) Page 9
Recommendations
. That the City Council adopt the 1998 Fire Station Master Plan Update which
adequately addresses fire needs for the City.
0 That the City Council adopt the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (pFDIF)
Update which provides for adequate fiscal resources for needed facilities.
. That the Fire Department coordinate with the Police Department to complete the
installation of Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Mobile Data Computer (MDC)
systems by December 1998.
. That the Fire Department staff continue to assess causes in the deterioration of travel
time rates since 1989, and mitigation strategies including expansion of the traffic signal
pre-emption system; and that a progress report on these assessments be included in
next year's Fire Threshold report.
0 That City Council approve the 1998-99 CIP request for the installation of a traffic
signal pre-emption system for the Fourth Avenue corridor (phase II).
GMOC Annual Report "
March 26,1998
(H: home/planning/edaliaog/gmoc9 7/rec. 5 .doc) Page 10
TRAFFIC
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that the City is in compliance with the Traffic Threshold Standard on both
a project and cumulative basis as evidenced by the Engineering Division's 1997 Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP) report.
The TMP, however, looks at actual conditions, and is reviewed by the GMOC "after the fact". In
order for the GMOC to be effective, we múst be able to ensure the maintenance of Traffic
Thresholds by using projections to identify problems before they occur. The review of pending
development in eastern Chula Vista and its impacts on street capacity, especially prior to completion
ofSR-125 is crucial to maintaining Threshold compliance. Therefore, it is important that the Public
Works Department continue to provide the GMOC with 3 to 5 year traffic forecasts, and an
evaluation of street system performance on an annual basis.
Key Issues
Traffic Monitorin!! Report ITMP)
The 1997 TMP, noted four locations that were found to operate at or below the middle of the LOS
C range of travel speeds. Of those four, the following three roadway segments are considered the
top three pending traffic problems since they carry in excess of 30,000 vehicles per day:
1. Fourth Avenue (SR-54 EB Ramp to H Street) operates in the lower half of the LOS
C from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Delay for northbound traffic along this segment primarily
occurs at Brisbane Street and C Street.
2. ~ (1-5 NB Ramp to Third Avenue) operates in the lower half of LOS C from
12:00 to 12:30 PM and from I :00 to I :30 PM. Delay along this segment primarily
occurs at the signalized intersections ofH Street and Broadway, and H Street and
Fourth Avenue.
3. Palomar Street (1-5 NB Ramp to Broadway) operates in the upper half of LOS D for
one hour during the evening (from 4:00 to 4:30 PM and from 5:00 to 5:30 PM).
The fourth location, Otay Lakes Road ( East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road) carries
approximately 18,000 vehicles per day and is expected to improve after construction of dual left turn
lanes at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and East H Street is completed.
GMOC Annual Report ~.
April, 1998
(H: homelplanningledaliaoglgmoc97lrec. 5. doc) Page 11
Forecasted Transportation Demand
SR-125
According the Department of Public Works, the approval process schedule for SR -125 has slipped
at least one year. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final EISIEIR was expected to be issued
by the end of1997. Under that schedule, California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV) anticipated
that the tollway would be open by late 2000 or early 2001. However, CTV and Cal Trans are
expecting that the ROD will not be issued until the end of 1998. If a cause of action is filed after the
ROD is issued, this could further delay the approval process another year, perhaps two. years.
Traffic Models
As noted previously, the GMOC is concerned about future development in east Chula Vista and
how the City will manage this growth to ensure continuing compliance with the Threshold. Recent
traffic models prepared for several master plan projects' EIRs indicate that the following roadway
segments will operate at LOS D or worse:
CitY of Chula Vista
1. East H Street ( 1-805 to Paseo del Rey ).
2. Telegraph Canyon Road (1-805 to Paseo del Rey).
3. Otay Lakes Road (Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road ).
4. Olympic Parkway ( 1-805 to Paseo Ranchero ).
5. Paseo del Rey (East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road ).
County of San Die\!0
1. Briarwood Road ( SR-54 to Sweetwater Road ).
2. Proctor Valley Road (San Miguel Road to Mt. Miguel Road).
3. Bonita Road ( Otay Lakes Road to Palm Drive ).
4. San Miguel Road ( Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road ).
These traffic models were based upon the following assumptions:
a. Land use projections for the year 2005 are realized;
b. SR-125 is not constructed by 2005;
c. Level of service is determined by the ratio of projected volume to classified
capacity; and
d. Highway system 1inks and capacities as given to SANDAG by the City for the year
2005 are realized.
When SR-125 is completed, there will be a significant improvement in the level-of-service of these
roads.
GMOC Annual Report '
March 26,1998
(H: home/planning/edaliaog/gmoc9 7/rec. 5.doc) Page 12
Development Phasing
The Planning Department, in conjunction with the Public Works Department and City
Administration, is preparing a Proposed Development Phasing Amendment to the City's Growth
Management Program and Ordinance. Coordination of the amount, location, and timing of
development in relation to the available highway system is a critical factor in ensuring maintenance
of the Traffic Threshold Standard in eastern Chula Vista prior to construction of SR-125.
Future Li¡:ht Rail SerVice in Eastern Chula Vista
Compliance with future Traffic Thresholds is also dependent on the improvement and addition of
other modes of transportation. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan includes right-of-way
for light rail service. The realization of these plans will require a continued effort by the City to
encourage Metropolitan Transit Development Board (M1DB) to evaluate the extension of the trolley
line from 1-5 to the Otay Ranch project's northwest boundary at Telegraph Canyon Road.
Recommendations
. That the Department of Public Works continue to closely monitor the segmements
listed on page 11, and other key arterial segments such as H Street from 1-805 to Fourth
Avenue, and include them in each annual TMP Report.
. That the Department ofPuhlic Works provide the GMOC with 3 to 5 year forecasts of
'traffic conditions for major arterial streets as part of its annual Traffic Threshold
report; and that this forecast include the street segment of H Street between 1-805 and
4th Street.
. That the City Council adopt the forthcoming Growth Management Ordinance
amendments regarding development phasing to ensure maintenance of Traffic
Thresholds in eastern Chula Vista prior to the completion of SR-125.
. That the City Council Continue to support the construction of SR-125 within the
earliest time frame.
. That City Council continue to pnrsue ongoing dialogue with MTDB to fund and
conduct right-of-way and design studies for the extension of the trolley line from 1-5 to
the Otay Ranch project's northwest boundary at Telegraph Canyon Road. The future
Otay Ranch trolley line will not materialize without these studies.
. That the Department of Public Works continue to evaluate a grade separation at the
trolley tracks for major arterial streets along the 1-5 corridor.
GMOC Annual Report ~.
March 26,1998
(H; homelplanningledaliaoglgmoc9 7lrec. 5.doc) Page 13
SCHOOLS
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that both the Chula Vista Elementary School and Sweetwater Union High
School Districts are in compliance 'with the School Threshold Standard hased on their
expressed ability to accommodate projected student enrollment.
Key Issues
Increased Student Enrollment
Contributing Factors
Chula Vista Elementary School District
The Chula Vista Elementary School District continues to experience an increase in the overall
number of students with most schools continuing to operate near capacity. A 5 % increase in
student population was reported for 1997-98. This growth is due to several factors, including:
1. Demographic changes in older neighborhoods in the west;
2. New growth in the eastern territories; and
3. Higher student generation ratios (student per household) in some new developments
in the east.
In addition, the implementation of class size reduction has resulted in the need for more physical
floor space.
The Elementary School District has discovered that the student generation ratio, which is used to
predict student enrollment, is higher in some eastem communities. For example, the District found
that the EastLake community has a generation ratio of 0.44 children per household vs the
current 0.30 student generation ratio which amounts to a 47% increase over the average ratio.
Sweetwater Union High School District
Excluding class size reduction, the Sweetwater Union High School District is confronting the same
factors in accommodating an increasing student population. The District reported an average 3%
increase in student population. Schools in the northwest portion of the City increased by 2% (142
students) and the largest increase, 7% (400 students) occurred in schools located in eastern Chula
Vista.
~
GMOC Annual Report
April, 1998
(H: home! p Ianni n g/ edaliao g/ grrw c 9 7/ rec. 5. doc) Page 14
Accommodating Existing and Projected Growth
Chula Vista Elementary School District
To accommodate increased enrollment the Elementary School District has entered into
public/private partnerships (charter schools), adjusted student attendance boundaries, implemented
multi-track schedules, and used relocatable classrooms. To resolve increased floor space needs
the District has had to convert auxiliary rooms (library, computer lab, teacher's lounge, etc.) to
classrooms, reduce the physical size of classrooms through the use of partitions and use
relocatable classrooms. In addition, the District recently completed 23.5 million dollars of
modernization on 11 of its oldest schools.
Based on 12 to 18 month development forecasts and the current 0.30 student generation ratio, the
Elementary School District indicates that it will need three to four schools in the next 7 years. Three
sites, Rolling Hills Ranch, Sunbow, and EastLake Trails have been, or are in the process of being
acquired. In addition, the District has begun initial contact with the City's Planning staff for a
proposed charter school (Chula Vista Community Facility) on Brandywine Avenue.
Sweetwater Union High School District
The High School District has met these growth demands by adjusting attendance boundaries and
installing relo::atable classrooms. The District is currently reviewing the addition of six additional
classrooms and will also complete the construction of Phase I of the Rancho del Rey Middle
School in July 1998. Middle school students temporarily housed at EastLake High School will
be relocated to the Rancho del Rey Middle School.
To accommodate future growth projections the District would have to open a new middle school by
2003/2004; most likely in EastLake; begin construction of the first high school in Otay Ranch by
2000/01; and construct another new high school and middle school in Otay Ranch around 2005.
Given what were cited as aggressive growth forecasts provided by the City, the District based these
needs on about 50% of the forecasted growth actually occurring. However, assuming that the
forecasts are not overstated, the District would need to commence construction on both a new high
school and middle school immediately. It takes approximately four years to design a school and
receive State approval to complete construction; therefore, cooperation between the City and the
District is critical for meeting growth demands.
Planning Future Schools
The GMOC is concerned with the extensive use of relocatable classrooms and classroom
conversions at schools built within the last 5 years. Discovery, Olympic View and Chula Vista
Hills are relatively new schools which are equipped with relocatable classrooms. The Elementary
School District is faced with accommodating an average of 700 students in schools originally
contemplated for 600 students. Additionally, the District is also faced with accommodating a
smaller student teacher ratio (20 studentsll teacher) in schools designed for larger student teacher
ratios (30+ students/I teacher)
~ .
GMOC Annual Report
March 26,1998
(H: homelplanning/edaliaog/gmoc9 7/rec. 5.doc) Page 15
New facilities have a financing mechanism available, Mello-Roos Community District Financing.
The large number of master plans currently being processed for the eastern territories presents the
Districts and the City with an opportunity to plan and build schools large enough to accommodate
the growing student population and floor space needs. Since more students will be attending schools
and more floor space is required to accommodate elementary students due to class size reduction,
Mello-Roos fees may need to be adjusted to fund larger school facilities.
The sizing, acquisition, and phasing of school sites can be addressed in large part through conditions
of approval on new development. City staff and District staff have been coordinating these issues
via the Major Projects Technical Committee which meets on a regular basis.
Modernizin~ Existin~ Schools
The modernization of older schools in the Chula Vista Elementary School and Sweetwater Union
High School Districts is largely dependent on the passage of a bond measure. The Elementary
School Board recently approved modernization applications for II additional schools and the High
School District has applied for $30M in modernization funds. Since applications require 50 percent
local support and 50 percent state support, passage of state and local bonds are critical. Therefore,
cooperation between the two Districts and the City Council is necessary in order to develop a
campaign to educate the public about the need for passage of a school facilities construction and
modernization State and/or Local bond measure.
Recommendations
. Based on the above-noted observations, that the City Council suggest to the Chula
Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District
Boards that they jointly address mutual growth related matters including the
following:
1. The determination if a study to adjust the student generation ratio is needed;
2. The development of a campaign to educate the public about the need for
passage of a school facilities construction and modernization bond measure;
and
3. Consideration of the formation of a policy level committee to review issues of
mutual concern on an ongoing basis rather than an ad hoc basis.
. The City of Chula Vista in coordination with District staff should continue to
comprehensively examine issues such as:
1. Development phasing;
2. School site location selection;
3. Sizing; and
4. Acquisition of school sites.
~.
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: home/planning/edaliaog/gmoc9 7/rec. 5 .doc) Page 16
PARKS & RECREATION
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that the City meets and exceeds the Parks and Recreation Threshold ratio
of 3 acres of park land per 1,000 population east of 1-805.
Key Issues
Decline of Park land Ratio
While the park land ratio in eastern Chula Vista (4.40ac/l 000 population) is currently above the Park
and Recreation Threshold Standard, prior year comparisons of the park land ratio show a continuing
downward trend. According to the Parks and Recreation Questionnaire (Appendix A), park ratios
east on-805 were 5.02, 4.75, 4.53, and 4.40 for 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively. Although
apparently slight, this decrease will continue as population in the eastern territories continues to
increase at a relatively constant rate, unless the City coordinates the phasing of new parks
accordingly.
For example, the average annual construction of I ,000 dwelling units would generate approximately
2,900 persons, and under the Threshold, the need for about 9 acres of new park land annually. As
indicated in the Questionnaire's table, eastern Chula Vista's population grew by about 7,285 persons
over the three years between 6/94 and 6/97. During that time 7 acres of parkland were added,
compared to the theoretical 21.8 acres needed under a 3 acres per 1,000 persons ratio. For the 18
month period from 6/97 to 12/98, population is forecast to grow by an addition 5,400 persons,
generating the theoretical addditional need for about 16.2 acres of parkland. No additonal parkland
will come on line during this period, and the ratio in eastern Chula Vista is projected to be at 3.95
acres per 1,000 population.
The GMOC understands that the ratio will always be in ebb as parks are phased in, but given the
substantial amount of pending development, the GMOC wants to highlight the need to evaluate
projected growth and park phasing condititions to respond to this trend, and ensure that a Threshold
deficit does not occur.
City-wide Application of The Threshold Standard
The City, west of 1-805. remains severely park land deficient as a result of development which
predated current park land standards, and because of the annexation of the park land-deficient
Montgomery community. The GMOC continues to recommend that the City Council adopt a
revised City-wide Threshold Standard, as presented in Appendix A. The Threshold will continue
to be applied to the area east of 1-805 at the current ratio of 3 acres of park land per 1,000
population.
~-
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: home/planningledaliaoglgmoe9 7lree. 5. doc) Page 17
Application of the Threshold to the area west of 1-805 will necessitate the adoption of
implementation strategies as part of the City's pending Parks Master Plan. By employing measures
included in the Parks Master Plan, the City will strive to achieve compliance over a long-term (20+
year) period.
Greenbelt Master Plan
The GMOC notes the progress toward completion of the Greenbelt Master Plan, and the measures
being undertaken to coordinate and integrate the Greenbelt Master Plan with the Parks Master Plan.
The Parks Masterplan will include a thorough description of the physical nature of the Greenbelt.
It will also identify issues within segments of the Greenbelt, action currently being taken to
implement the Greenbelt concept within master planned communities, and subsequent
implementation plans that are being prepared. Related implementation efforts include the
Sweetwater and Otay Valley Regional Parks and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. Portions of the
Greenbelt are being implemented via the Otay River Valley Regional Park acquisition program with
the City and County of San Diego.
Recommendation
. That the City Council direct staff to comprehensively evaluate projected growth and
park land phasing conditions in eastern Chula Vista to ensure that the Threhsold
deficit does not occur. The results of this evaluation should be included with next
year's Threshold report
. That the City Council direct staff to return the revised City-wide Parks and Recreation
Threshold Standard (Appendix A) for Council adoption with the Parks Master Plan
iu summer 1998.
. That the City Council adopt the Parks Master Plan and focus on implementation
strategies to achieve Threshold ratios in western Chula Vista.
. That the City proceed expeditiously to prepare the Greenbelt Master Plan; and that
Council adopt the Greenbelt Master Pian subsequent to pending adoption of the Parks
Master Plan and the Multiple Species Conservation Plan.
~
GMOC Annual Report
March 26,1998
(H: homelp/anning/_da/iaog/gmoc9 7/r_c. 5.doc) Page 18
LIBRARIES
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that the City continues to be in compliance with the Library Threshold
Standard of 500 square feet of adequately equipped and stafied lihrary per 1,000 population.
The Library Department is currently undertaking a Master Plan Update. The consultant, David M.
Griffith & Associates, is scheduled to complete the Library MasterPlan Update by August I, 1998.
This updated Master Plan will address many issues the GMOC has raised over the years; such as
library siting and phasing issues, and the impacts of new technologies on library usage, floor space
needs and staffing.
Key Issues
Material Collections
Although the Threshold has been met, there are concerns with regard to the "adequately equipped
and staffed" portion of the Threshold standard. There is a shortfall in material collections which
encompass, books, videos, compact discs, talking books and audio cassettes. In particular, the Civic
CenterlMain Library has experienced considerable strain upon its materials collection. The current
Library Master Plan states a goal of 3.0 items per person, and the Libraries have approximately 2.6
items per person. Part of this can be attributed to a reduction of $182,000 in the General Fund
materials budget over the last few years.
Floor Space. Stamn~. and StatTTraininl:
Due to the integration of computers into the Libraries, adequate floor space, staff levels, and staff
training continue to be of concern. Furth=ore, the Library technology infrastructure is inadequate
at both Civic Center and EastLake Libraries. The Library's "integrated local computer system
(inlex)" is now out-dated and the Library is requesting funding to replace it in the 1998-99 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
Recommendations
. That the City Council allocate adequate fiscal resources in the 1998-99 budget to bring
the materials collection ratio up from 2.6 items per person to 3.0 items per person.
.
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: home/planningl edaliaoglgmoc9 7lrec. 5.doc) Page 19
. That Lihrary staff continue to ensure that potential floor area and staff-related
threshold issues stemming from the integration of computers are evaluated and
reported upon as part of the Library Master Plan Update.
. That the City Council continue to support the Library Department's efforts to complete
the Master Plan Update by August 1998 and promptly adopt that plan.
,
GMOC Annual Report
March 26,1998
(H: home/plonning/edaliaog/gmac9 7/rec. 5 .doc) Page 20
SEWER
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that the City is in compliance with the Sewer Threshold Standard on both
a project and cnmulative hasis.
Key Issues
Capacity & Reclamation
Once again the challenge for the future continues to be the assurance of adequate capacity to support
full build-out of the City's present General Plan, which is presently projected for the year 2030 or
beyond. A vai1able sewer capacity at build-out is 19.34 million gallons a day (MGD). Sewage flows
for this reporting period are 11.63 MGD. In the next 12 to 18 months projected sewage flows are
12.48 MGD and at build-out projected sewage flows are 19.23 MGD.
If actual build-out flows should exceed capacity, the City can purchase excess capacity from other
cities within the Metro System, such as Lemon Grove which most likely will not need all the
capacity under their current contracts.
Recommendation
. That the City Council support staff and consultant efforts to expeditiously develop a
strategic plan which ensures future sewage treatment capacity sufficient to meet the
long-range build-out needs of the General Plan.
,
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: homelplanni.g/edaliaog/gmoc9 7/rec. 5. doc) Page 2]
DRAINAGE
Threshold Finding
The GMOC fmds that the City is in compliance with the Drainage Threshold Standard on
both a project and cumulative hasis.
Current facilities are adequate to handle forecasted growth in the next 12 to 18 months. Existing
facilities in all basins, except the Telegraph Canyon Channel (improvements should be completed
within the next several years), are also adequate for the 5- 7 year growth time frame. The installation
of requested monitoring equipment at the Telegraph and Poggi Canyon drainage courses is presently
underway.
Key Issues
Maintenance of Earth Bottom Channels and Basins
A current concem is the cost and time associated with the maintenance of earth bottom storm drain
channels and retention/detention basins. New drainage facilities are required to be built with the
environment in mind and are intended to establish wetland habitat. However, when significant plant
materials are established in these "natural" channels and basins, the California Department of Fish
and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers consider the
channelslbasins as environmentally sensitive, and require a lengthy permit process and mitigation
in order to maintain them. Given the fact that ongoing maintenance will occur, a mechanism for
addressing cost and permitting difficulties must be established.
Unfunded Drainage Improvements
For the last two years, the GMOC has mentioned that there remains $23 million of unfunded
drainage improvements that need to be made in western Chula Vista. Sources of funding for many
of these drainage projects are limited and may be further impacted by the passage of Proposition
218.1 The annual Drainage Threshold Report should continue to include a list of these
improvements and a summary of progress in funding and completing them.
I Proposition 218 approved by the state's voters in November 1996 limits the authority of local government to impose taxes and
property related assessments, fees and charges without a majority vote.
GMOC Annual Report ~
March 26, 1998
(H: h 0 melp I ann i n g 1 ed aliao gl gmoc9 71 rec. 5. doc) Page 22
Recommendations
. That the Engineering Division continue to supply the GMOC with a list of unfunded
drainage improvements needed in western Chula Vista, and an annual progress
summary.
. That the Engineering Division coutinue to keep the GMOC informed as to Proposition
ll8's impacts on construction of the unfunded drainage improvements needed in
western Chula Vista,
GMOC Annual Report '
April, 1998
(H: home/planningledaliaoglgmoc97lrec.5 .doc) Page 23
FISCAL
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that the City is in compliance with the Fiscal Threshold on both a project
and cumulative basis. The City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) programs continue to
produce sufficient revenue to fund current, related facilities.
Key Issues
Development Impact Fee IDIFI Updates
The City's policy that growth should pay for itself accentuates the important role of Development
lmpact Fees (DlFs). DlFs are essential for financing public improvements associated with growth,
and the importance of regular, periodic reviews and any necessary updates to the fee schedule cannot
be over-emphasized. Even a temporary shortfall could substantially affect the financing and
construction of needed facilities. Standard periodic reviews of the fees continue to be necessary to
assure adequate funding and phasing, and to protect against any shortfalls.
Recommendation
. That the City conduct regular reviews of the Development Impact Fees (DIFs) at least
every two (2) years to identify the need for updates. A standard procedure should be
adopted to evaluate the accuracy of projections, facility costs and other assumptions,
including a requirement for the inclusion of standard 5-year growth projections in each
ofthe DIF updates.
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: homelp lannin g/ edal iao g/ gnwe 9 7/ree. 5. doe) Page 24
AIR QUALITY
Threshold Finding
The GMOC finds that the City is in compliance with the Air Quality Threshold. The City's
regulations are consistent with Federal, State and Regional air quality regulations, and the
City is proactively implementing programs to reduce air pollution emissions.
The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) reported that overall air quality in the San Diego region
continues to improve. Although Chula Vista had a dramatic increase in violations of the State ozone
standard (from 1 day in 1996 to 10 days in 1997), this increase was due entirely to shifts in wind
patterns bringing greater transport from other areas, including Los Angeles.
Key Issues
Air Oualitv Projections
State Standards
The introduction of reformulated gasoline in July of 1996 resulted in a downward trend in State
ozone violations. However, projections from the State Air Resources Board indicate the downward
trend will ultimately reverse direction sometime after 20 I 0 because of growth in vehicle travel. Cars
continue to produce 60% of ozone precursor emissions in the region. Efforts to reduce vehicle trips
for Chula Vista residents should be a continued goal for the City.
Federal Standards
In 1997, the F edera1 Environmental Protection Agency adopted a more stringent air quality standard.
The APCD anticipates violations of the Federal standard will number 30-40 per year when the new
standard becomes effective (some time after 1999). Approximately half of these violations will be
traceable to Los Angeles transport, but new emission reduction measures will be needed in the San
Diego region. As noted above, actions taken now by the City, particularly to reduce vehicle
emissions, will contribute to a reduction of region-wide impacts in the future.
Carbon Dioxide (CO, ) Reduction Plan
A draft of a City CO2 Reduction Plan has existed since August 1996. It has since been reviewed by
the CO2 Reduction Task Force, the Planning Commission, Resource Conservation Commission, and
the Economic Development Commission. The plan is ready to be considered for adoption by the
City Council. It contains a comprehensive range of air pollution reduction strategies, and a set of
20 priority action measures. Nine (9) of those measures relate to growth and land use planning
GMOC Annual Report
March 26,1998
(H: home! pi onnin gl edaliao gl gmoc9 7lrec. 5. doc) Page 25
considerations. With the amount of new growth being planned in Chula Vista, priority
implementation of these nine measures are key to achieving vehicle trip reduction.
Chula Vista Telecenter Project
The City continues to be proactive in the reduction of air pollution emissions through the
implementation of various programs. One program is the operation of the East H Street Telecenter.
The Telecenter has been operating for three years and has a 43% occupancy rate. However, the
Grant funding for the Telecenterwill run out in April. Therefore, continuation of the Telecenter is
dependent upon either additional grants or a Council appropriation. The Telecenter's annual
operating cost are approximately $65,000.
Regional Policy
The GMOC recommends that the City continues to participate in the formulation of air quality and
related land use policy at the regional level. City staff is actively involved with SANDAG's
Regional Growth Management Program of which air quality and land use are components of this
regional strategy.
Recommendations
. That the City Council expeditiously adopt the proposed CO2 Reduction Plan and
continue to pro-actively pursue air pollution reduction programs.
. That the City Council direct staff to prioritize implementation of the CO2 Reduction
Plan's measures, such as:
. Enhanced pedestrian connections to mass transit
. Site design with pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit orientation
. Increased land use mix
. Increased employment and housing density near mass transit
. That City Council closely monitor use of the Telecenter, and establish measurable
performance goals related to its continued funding.
. That City Council continue to allocate staff resources for participation in the SANDAG
Regional Growth Management Program.
GMOC Annual Report > .
March 26,1998
(H: home! p lannin g/ edaliao g/ gmoc 9 7/ rec. 5 . doc) Page 26
WATER
Threshold Finding
The GMOC í"mds that both the Sweetwater Anthority and Otay Water District are in
compliance with the Water Threshold Standard.
The two water districts have sufficient water supply and availability to meet short-term (12 to 18
months) and long-t= (5 to 7 year) growth projections for the City. The Sweetwater and Loveland
Reservoirs provide the Sweetwater Authority with an adequate emergency water supply. Potential
interruptions to the Otay District's water supply have been addressed through the development of
the San Diego County Water Authority's Emergency Storage Project (3 months), the Metropolitan
Water District Eastside Reservoir (six months), and Otay Water District's ten day storage/supply
plan. The delivery and availability of water to the City of Chula Vista has been a direct result of the
cooperation achieved through the formation of the Interagency Water Task Force (IWTF) and shared
resources agreements executed by the Sweetwater Authority and Otay Water District.
Key Issues
Reclaimed Water
The IWTF and the Otay Water District continue to work toward the expansion of the reclaimed water
market. The Otay Water District currently supplies 285 million gallons of reclaimed water per year
at a cost of 85% of the potable water rate. As a result of development in the eastern territories the
reclaimed water market is expected to increase. Large development projects in the eastern territories
have been required to install parallel reclaimed water delivery systems. Transmission mains,
storage, and pumping facilities are installed and funded by the Otay Water District through collection
of water meter capacity fees.
The GMOC reco=ends coordination at the staff level to allow for orderly and planned
development of the necessary transmission facilities to service major development projects.
Additionally, the City should support the Districts' efforts to increase the supply of available
reclaimed water in order to meet future demands. The City Council should also continue to support
the joint use of City and Water District facilities for mutual benefits.
Recommendations
. That the City Council continne to support the Interagency Water Task Force and the
efforts of the Task Force to expand the reclaimed water market at the local level.
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: h orne! p Ianni n g/ edal ia 0 g/ gmoc 9 7/ re c. 5. doc) Page 27
. The GMOC recommends coordination at the staff level to allow for orderly and
planned development of the necessary transmission facilities needed to service major
proposed development projects with reclaimed water.
. That the City Council support the concept of sharing resources by the City, the
Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District with the purpose of improved
customer service and government effectiveness.
.
GMOC Annual Report
March 26, 1998
(H: homelplanningledaliaoglgmoc9 7lrec. 5.doc) Page 28
ATTACHMENT C
Appendices
APPENDICES
Growth Management Oversight Commission
1997 Annual Report
April 1998
APPENDIX A
Threshold Questionnaires
Page
Police ............................................................................................................................. Al
FireÆmergency Medical Services ................................................................................... A7
Traffic ............................................................................................................................ AI6
Schools .......................................................................................................................... A47
Parks and Recreation ....................................................................................,................ A56
Draft Revised Parks and Recreation Threshold ......................................... ..................... A61
Libraries ......................................................"""""""""""""""""""""""""""............ A63
Sewer ............................................................................................................................ A67
Drainage ........................................................................................................................ An
Fiscal ............................................................................................................................. A74
Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... A76
Water ............................................................................................................................ A83
APPENDIX B
Growth Forecasts
Growth Forecast Information ........................................................................................... BI
FIGURE 1 - Historic Housing and Population Growth Table ........................................... B3
FIGURE 2 - Major Projects Map ..................................................................................... B4
FIGURE 3 - Current 12-18 Month Residential Forecasts .................................................. B5
FIGURE 4 - Previous Period's Forecasts and Comparison to Actual Development ........... B6
FIGURE 5A - Five Year Phased and Buildout Residential Forecasts for Master
Planned Projects ....................................................................................... B7
FIGURE 5B - SANDAG Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast ........................................... B8
FIGURE 6 - CommerciallIndustrial/Institutional Project Status Table ............................... Bll
4 Area Counties Among Population Gain Leaders, "Los Angeles Times",
March 18, 1998 ......................................................................................... Bl2
APPENDIX C
Solid Waste Iuformational Questionnaire
Solid Waste ...................................................................................................................... CI
H: \hom,'plmming\£daliaoglgm0c97\apdx. doc
APPENDIX A
Threshold Questionnaires
THRESHOLDS
1, Please fill in the blanks on this table.
FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50
FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38
FY 1994-95 21,900 of 73,485 63.4% 6:49
FY 1993-94 20,580 of 74,749 63.5% 6:48
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
Section 19.09.040.A.1. of the Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance) states that
police units shall be "properly equipped and staffed".
2. Was the Police Department properly eQuipped to deliver services at the level
necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the
reporting period? Please explain.
Yes, the department was properly equipped with sufficient patrol vehicles, motorcycles
and communication equipment to deliver services.
3. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level
necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the
reporting period? Please explain.
The department's budget reflects appropriate staffing levels to deliver services and
achieve threshold compliance. The actual deployment of patrol staff, however, was not
sufficient to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold
compliance. Patrol staffing fell short due to officer injuries and high tumover of senior
staff. Also, the ongoing staffing of the department continues to focus on a number of
enforcement "teams" in order to address specific law enforcement concems (auto theft,
domestic violence, etc.) Rather than to shift these personnel into patrol, in order to
þ..\
-
meet the Growth Threshold standards, the Department feels it is appropriate to meet
its broader goals and objectives to address its larger law enforcement objectives with
its current allocation of staff.
GROWTH IMPACTS
4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Department's
ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard?
Adequate data is unable at this time to determine if growth has had an impact on
service levels. We anticipate that the new CAD will provide a mechanism to evaluate
growth impacts in the near future.
5. Describe the ability of current facilities, equipment andstaffto absorb forecasted
growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5 to 7 year time frame.
For the next 12 to 18 months current facilities (Police building and Patrol vehicles) and
equipment will be able to absorb forecasted growth. Additional staff may be required
to meet forecasted growth. In the event additional staff is required, the department has
requested up to six new officers from the Universal Hiring Grant. This grant provides
for partial funding of new officer position over a three year period.
The current facilities, equipment and staff will be insufficient to absorb forecasted growth
during the next 5 to 7 year timeframe. Additional facility space, patrol vehicles and staff
will be necessary to meet forecasted growth. The department is working with Marty
Chase, the Development Impact Fee Consultant, to determine appropriate facility needs
and staffing levels. Additionally, the department is evaluating consultants for
development of a comprehensive Strategic Plan for the delivery of service. The plan
will define the current service mix provided by the Police Department in the context of
geography and forecasted growth. A component of this strategic plan will address how
the department will absorb growth in the next five to seven years. This plan will also
help the department set service levels for an array of current and future services to be
provided.
6. What new facilities, equipment and/or staff will be required to accommodate the
forecast growth?'
. Police Station
. Patrol Vehicles
. Patrol Officers
. Support Staff
a. Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities, equipment
and/or staff?
No site has been allocated for construction of a new police station, unless the
present Police Station is expanded on its current site. The Development Impact
Fee Consultant is updating the Civic Center's facility Master Plan which includes
A2-
an evaluation of the existing Police Station and its ability to accommodate
forecasted growth. We anticipate a recommendation will be made by March
1998.
b. How will these be funded?
The consultant is negotiating with the BIA plus local developers to establish a
Development Impact Fee for partial payment of the facility, equipment and
staffing. The balance of the funding has not been identified at this time.
c. Are there appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this
funding?
Yes, Development Impact Fees and the City's Capital Improvement Project
process. Additionally, the department has been successful in establishing a
Grants Committee to seek non-general funding for needed equipment and staff.
7. What growth-related issues do you see affecting maintenance of the current level
of service as Chula Vista's population increases?
The development and population of geographical areas within City limits will require an
increase of service beyond current resources. More resources will be necessary in
order to maintain existing service levels. It is expected that growth will generate needed
new revenues to support these service levels based on the FIND model projections.
Future growth will add to the diverse composition of Chula Vista's population. This will
require the development and implementation of law enforcement deployment strategies.
This would include examining community based policing strategies for the provision of
mixed services. These issues will be addressed in the facility Master Plan update and
the department's long-range Strategic Plan for service provisions.
It should be kept in mind that factors other than growth, such as changing social issues
and a change in the economy, can have a significant impact on police levels. That is
why the number of police officers per 1,000 is a relatively meaningless way to measure
whether or not the City has enough police officers. Workload measures (Calls for
Service) and increases or decreases in the crime rate are more useful in determining
the number of police officers needed and the service level being provided.
MAINTENANCE
8. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities
and equipment?
Yes, the facility is currently maintained by the Construction and Repair Division of the
Public Works Department and vehicles are maintained by. the Central Garage.
Maintenance of all vehicles is performed on a schedule. Additionally, all patrol vehicles
are part of a vehicle replacement program.
Àó
-
9. What major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the
current 1-year and 5-year CIP?
. Purchase of a Computer Aided Dispatch system and Mobile Data Computers for
patrol vehicles. This project is currently in progress. We anticipate final
acceptance of the project by mid-year 1998.
. Construction of a new animal control shelter.
The questions be/aware follow-ups to the GMOC's recommendations from last year.
FALSE ALARMS
The GMOC's 1996 Annual Report requested that the Police Department create a'course of
action to reduce the number of false alanns.
10. Please fill the blanks on the table below.
NOTE: The above statistic reflects billable alarms only not total false alarms. We currently do
not have a mechanism to track the total number of false alarms.
11. What course(s) of action have been identified to reduce the number of false
alarms?
The Chula Vista Police Department is one of twenty agencies selected in the State of
California to become a site for MODEL STATES False Alarm Reduction Program.
Although the department has many of the processes recommended by the program
(required alarm permits, false alarm activation penalties, automated false alarm tracking
system, billing and invoicing procedures, false alarm notification, etc.), there are some
aspects of the program that we would need to incorporate. These include a revised
ordinance with penalties such as restricting or suspending responses to chronic false
alanns. Although this capability is not currently possible, the new CAD system will have
a component that allows for tracking of number of responses to specific locations.
The program also emphasizes interaction between alarm dealers, alarm monitoring
services, the alarm user and the law enforcement agency. Training users on system
operation, annual inspections of alarm systems, and optional alarm user classes
sponsored by the law enforcement agency are a few of the recommendations.
12. Have these been officially implemented, and if so, when?
The department recently received notice of award. Participation in the MODEL STATES
False Alarm Reduction Program is scheduled for January, 1998.
13. Is there an indication that the chosen course of action is having an effect?
1\4
Based on previous experiences with agencies utilizing the MODEL STATES False
Alarm Reduction Program, the department should expect significant reductions in false
alarm dispatches of at least 20% - 50% within 12 to 24 months.
In the interim, our existing alarm permit and false alarm activation marking system
indicates that the number of billable false alarms (those false alarm activations for which
a penalty can be assessed) have decreased by only 11 % over the pastfour year period
FY 1993-94 to FY 1996-97. The department believes penalty assessment have
discouraged false alarms.
CAD/MDC (Mobile Data Computer)
The GMOC recommended that the City Council aggressively support the timely purchase,
installation and operation of the proposed CAD/MDC.
14. What is the status of the CAD/MDC?
This project is currently in the implementation phase. CAD interfaces are in progress
and the software will be installed by December, 1997. This will be followed by training
and system testing and acceptance. Complete installation of the CAD is anticipated by
April, 199B.
Mobile Data Computer installations are in progress and anticipated to be completed by
December, 1997. This will allow patrol officers to complete their reports in the field.
Upon switch over of the radio communication system to BOD MHz, officers will have full
capability to do inquiries from the field. For example, license plate checks, can be done
without disrupting dispatch. This is anticipated to be completed by March, 199B.
LONG RANGE PLAN FOR POLICE SERVICES
The GMOC recommended the commencement of a long range strategic plan for the future
delivery of police services to the expanding eastem area of the City.
15. What is the status of such a plan?
The first phase of the Strategic Plan has been completed. A community survey
evaluating service provision was conducted by SANDAG. We are currently in the
process of selecting a consultant to establish a plan for long-range staffing and facility
needs (please refer to response #5 for details). In addition, a Strategic Plan for the
department was submitted for COPS grant funding (Advancing Community Policing).
Unfortunately, the grant was rejected. We are currently looking for other funding
sources for implementation of the plan (copy attached).
MISCELLANEOUS
16. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
Yes. The Police Department recommends modification be made after CAD information
is available.
À-r:s
17. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
None at this time.
18. Other relevant information the department desires 10 communicate to the GMOC.
None.
Prepared for: R. P. Emerson. Chief of Police
Prepared by: Iracsema Quilantan. Principal Manaaement Assistant. ex!. 5144
Captain Jim Zoll. ex!. 5209 Date: November 25. 1997
À(P
THRESHOLD
1. Please fill in the blanks in the following table:
81.8%
80.0'..
Please provide brief responses to the following:
Section 19.09.040.8.1. of the Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance) states that
"properly equipped and staffed" fire and medical units shall respond to calls within the above
prescribed time frames.
2. Did the Fire Department have properly equipped fire and medical units as necessary
to maintain threshold standard service levels during the reporting period? Please
expJain.
The Fire Department emergency response vehicles are properly equipped as necessary
to respond to calls for service.
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? Please
explain.
The Fire Department emergency response vehicles are properly staffed to respond to
calls for service.
GROWTH IMPACTS
4. Has growth during the reporting period negativeJy affected the Departments ability
to maintain service levels?
Fire Department services levels have generally remained constant.
5. Describe the ability of current facilities, equipment and staff to absorb forecasted
growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5 to 7 year time frame.
See attached Executive Summary from the Proposed Fire Station Master Plan Update.
A7
~
6. What new facilities, equipment andlor staff will be required to accommodate the
forecast growth?
For each of these questions, please see the attached Executive Summary from the
Proposed Fire Station Master Plan Update.
a. Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities?
b. How will1hese be funded?
c. Are there appropriateladequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this
funding?
7. What growth-related issues do you see affecting the ability to maintain service
levels as Chula Vista's population increases?
To the extent that new developments can be designed with street infrastructure which is
conducive to safe and efficient travel of emergency response vehicles, the City can
provide fire protection and emergency medical seNices in a more cost-effective manner.
MAINTENANCE
8. 15 adequate funding secured andlor identified for maintenance of existing facilities
and equipment?
Taking recent economic conditions and the resulting budget constraints into account,
funding has been available to maintain existing facilities and equipment at a basic level.
9. What major maintenancelupgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the
current 1-year and 5-year CIP?
See attached applicable pages from the current CIP.
LAST YEAR'S RECOMMENDATIONS
The questions below are a follow up to last year's GMOC recommendations.
10. What is the status of the CAD/MDC (Mobile Data Computer) System Project?
(The report forwarded to the Commission from the Police Department on this subject may
contain more detail.) UNISYS is currently in the midst of installing various components of
the overall CAD system. The MDC's will be installed in the emergency vehicles starting in
December, 1997. Although the MDC's will be used in the vehicles to aid in field report
writing, their full use will not be realized until such time as the CAD system comes on-line
(see below) and certain existing VHF radio frequencies are made available when the City
switches its public safety radio communications to BOO MHz frequencies (February-March
199B). In April, 199B, it is anticipated that UNISYS will "go-live" with the CAD system
which will start their required 9D-day test period. Following successful completion of the
9D-day test period, the System will be accepted and will be in full-time use.
AS
11. What is the status of signal preemption equipment funding and installation?
The installation of the OPT/COM system for the remaining signals in the 'H'Street
corridor (from Woodlawn to the eastern terminus of East 'H' Street) and for the Fire
Department emergency vehicles has been included in the current year CIP ($160,000).
Specifically, the plans and specs will be ready in early December, we anticipate going to
the Council for award of the contract in January/early February, with this phase of the
project completed in April, 1998. The 1998-99 CIP request will include Phase II of the
project for the installation of the devices on signals in the Fourth Avenue corridor, and it is
expected to be complete by November of 1998. The source of capital for this project is
from the Traffic Signa/ Fund.
12. What is the status of the Fire Station Master PJan Update?
The Fire Station Master Plan Update (Proposed) has been completed, presented to the
Commission, and will be forwarded to the City Council for review in the near future.
MISCELLANEOUS
13. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
See Page 11. of the attached Fire Station Master Plan Update Executive Summary.
14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
None at this time.
15. Other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC.
None at this time.
Prepared by: James B. Hardiman
Title: Fire Chief
Date: 11/24197
(H,"'.melplonròng\jQrk\gmocIOFi"'.Qj
þJi
---..-
~
October 13,1997
TO: Growth Management Oversight Committee
FR.: Marty Chase, City Consultant
RE: Fire Station Master Plan-1997 Update
The cuITentFire Station Master Plan (FSMP), adopted in 1989, is being updated at this
rime as part ofthe overall update of the City's Public Facilities Development Impact Fee.
It is these f::es which will finance the capital facilities and equipment needed to serve new
development.
The 1989 FSMP projected a need for 7 City fire stations at build-out. While the
recommended me station network reflected the best information available at the time, it
was limited in two important areas: (1) plans for the Otay Ranch (and severa] other major
projects) were _speculative or only available at general development levels and (2) Fire
department perfonnance data relating to new development projects was minimal. Based
on more detailed development and perfonnance infonnation, the updated FSMP projects a
need for 9 City fire stations at build-out.
TheUvdated FSMP
Figure 1 at the end of this memo illustrates the City's present 6-fire station network.
Existing stations are located at
Station Location
FS#l (ladder æuI ~gine companies) Civic Center
FS#2 (engine company) , East "J" Street near Hilltop Ave
FS#3 (engine company) Melrose and East Oneida
FS#4 (engine company) Otay Lakes Road south of East "If' St
FS#5 (engine company) Fourth and Oxford
FS#6 (engine company) INTERIM site @ Olay Lakes Rd and Lane Ave
(Eastlake Bus Park)
The proposed network at build-out is illustrated in Figure 2 at the end of this memo.
lmportant points to note about the differences and similarities between the
1
,Å.. \ \
--
1989 (7 fire s-.ation ) and] 997 (9 fire station) FSMPs are:
?roposed NeTWork -J 997 Proposed NeTWork. ] 989
. Recomm..-nds 2 fire stations 10 serve ala)' Ranch ] fire station in ala)' Ranch
(FS#7 and FS #9) 1
. Reco=ds relocation ofFS#3 to Sunbow-IJ Same rerommendation
devclopment (FS# 3A)
. Recommonds Telocation ofFS#4 to Rancho del Re)' Same recommendation
development (FS #4A)
. Rt:commeruis relocation of interim FS#6 to EastJake-IISaJt Creek Ranch
EastJake Trails (FS #6A)
. Recommends new FS#8 in SaJt Creek Ranch An 8th fire station not rerommended
(Rolling Hills Ranch)
Recommended GMOC Action: It is recommended that the GMOC endorse the
updated FSMJ>.
The FSMP will be forwarded to the City Council for adoption as part of the revised Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee report.
The Threshold
In 1988 growth management thresholds were established for various City services. For
the Fire department, the threshold was to principally reflect the City's then current level of
service. Based on a limited workload sample, the recommended threshold standard for
fire service was set to:
respond to 85% of emergency calls for service within 7 minutes.
As later discovered, tills threshold was based on erroneous data. (The "error" reflects the
fact that different portions of the dispatch process, one ofthethree components wruch
constitute overall response time, are being measured today than were measured in the
past.) Using current dispatch and turnout time measures in conjunction with rustorical
travel time àata, 81.7% of emergency calls had response times of 7 minutes or less around
the time the threshold was established. To account for expected year-to-year variation
and the lag time in building new fire stations, the original threshold was set at 5% below
the actual rate. Thus, had the correct data been available, the fire threshold would have
been set to respond to 76.7% of emergency calls witrun 7 minutes. However, as
discussed in the main report, a smaller offset factor of2% would be recommended today.
1 FS"#7 is proposed to have both 11 ladder and engine capability.
2
1\ ,-
- , ApJl]ying that factor, the fir~ threshold would have been set to respond to 79.7% of
~mergency caBs within 7 minut~s.
-
Recommended GMOC Action: Despite the error, NO change in the threshoJd
standard is recommended Jlt this time.
Within the next year, the new computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system will be
implemented. Fortunately or unfortunately that system will capture more of the dispatch
process then is being measured today. As such, there is the strong potential "that average
dispatch tim~ statistics will once again increase. It's important to emphasize that the
actual time taken to dispatch a call will not have increased but the City's ability to measure
that time will have been enhanced. If this occurs, then the historical response time rate
will have to b~ reassessed. At that time, the threshold should be modified as applicable.
Until CAD has had the final say, annual performance rlata needs to be reviewed with the
understanding that the present threshold standard is flawed.
Performance Deterioration
Last but certainly not least, the report documents that a significant deterioration has
occurred in the CitY's travel tim~ rates since 1989. This has ]~d to a corresponding
deterioration in the overall response time rates that has nothing to do with measurement
error. Possible causes ofth~ decline and possible solutions are explored.
Recommended GMOC Action: NoneJltthistime.
As discussed in the main report, City staff need to assess causes and mitigating strategies
in more detail.
***************
I look forward to discussing these topics with you in more detail at our meeting scheduled
for October 23rd.
Sincerely,
Marty Chase
cc: Chief Hardiman
3
AI3
--
~
z~ ~~I¡¡J
~¡I ~
l
'"
%::
~
2
tI)
~
u..
. ~
-
c
$
...
c..
Z
!:
0
~~
CÞ.5
~ J)
C)Q.)
.- l-
Ll.. .-
Il..
I
CD
.....
t:
Q.)
-
:;...
-
-'
(J
t. \J
.
~ ~~¡: ~~L
- z ~ ~ìlß5~p
ð
~
a::
0
~
f-
W
Z
Z
0
~¡::
~
~f-
, """') ~ en
O)w
ù:a::
-
LL.
I
0')
.a
w
en'
0..
a.
0
a::
a.
'-
-E
..
()
It) !:
'r: ..
0 -e
- >.:::¡
-:ã :;¡ !:
- ... '-
U) ""
>-
E :::::
- :::¡w
u.
()
!\ \6 . ..., ¡;>, SUMM.AR.Y-1~
ME MORAND TIM
February 17, 1998
File: 0610- 75-GY051
0735-1O-YF248
TO: Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning
TIo<\.: Clifford 1. Swanson, Deputy Public wor~
Director/ City Engineer
FROM: Ralph R. Leyva, Senior Civil Engineer4£¡
Ø{jL
SUBJECT: Supplemental Info=ation for the 1997 Traffic Monitoring Program
FIDaI Report for the GMOC
Tnis report is in response to specific requests for information from the GMOC at the meeting of
January 29, 1998.
Question 1: What are the existing top three lTaffic problems?
Answer: !'\lthough the Threshold Standards have been met for the 1997 TMP, there are four
locations on page 3 of the TMP report that were found to operate at or below the middle of the LOS
C range oflTavel speeds. Of the four locations, the following three roadway segments would be
considered the top three traffic problems since those segments carry in excess of 30,000 vehicles per
day.
1. Fourth Avenue (SR54 EB Ramp - H SlTeet).
2. H SlTeet (1-5 NB Ramp - Third Avenue ).
3. Palomar SlTeet (1-5 NB Ramp - Broadway)
The fourth roadway segment at Otay Lakes Road (East H SlTeet - Telegraph Canyon Road) carries
approximately 18,000 vehicles per day and is expected to improve after the construction is
completed near the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and East H Street.
Question 2: What is staff's candid opinion of the status of SR-125?
Answer: It is staff's opinion that the approval process schedule has slipped at least one year.
The record of decision (ROD) for the [mal ElSÆIR was expected to be issued by the end of 1997.
Under that schedule, CTV anticipated that the tollway would be open by late 2000 or early 2001.
However, Califomia Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV) and Caltrans is expecting that the ROD
will not be issued until the end of 1998. 1f an environmental organization files a cause of action after
the ROD is issued, this could further delay the approval process another year, perhaps two years.
In addition, the SR-54/SR-125 interchange project, which includes the San Miguel Connection is
a TransNet project administered by SANDAG. SANDAG has indicated that this project is not
scheduled for completion unti12008. However, CTV indicated that the interchange project, known
as the "gap", has been added to the design/build package for the SR-125 and would thus follow the
same schedule of private funding used for the SR-125 tollway.
Âlf¡)
GMOC Memo
Pag~ 2 of2
During the course of the meeting on January 25,1998, it became evident that certain members of
the GMOC were interested in looking at future development in East Chula Vista and how the City
was going to plan for this growth. Although this information is beyond the scope of the Traffic
Monitoring Program Report, staffwill attempt to respond to this request for information.
Currently, there are several efforts by the City and transportation consultants for the various
developers to determine future Jransportation demand on our highway system. Using information
provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers and also by BRW, Consultants, the !ollowing
roadway segments will operate at Level of Service "D" or worse based on the following
assumptIOns:
a. Land use projections for the year 2005 are realized.
b. SR-125 is not constructed.
c. Level of service is determined by the ratio of projected volume to classified capacity.
d. Highway system links and capacities as given to SANDAG by the City for year 2005.
The above assumptions represent a transportation situation that could be considered "worst case
scenario" for the near term projections. When SR-125 is completed, there will be a significant
improvement in the level of service of these roads.
Count<' of San Die~o
L Briarwood Road ( SR-54 to Sweetwater Road ).
2. Proctor Valley Road (San Miguel Road to Mt. Miguel Road).
3. Bonita Road ( Otay Lakes Road to Palm Drive ).
4. San Miguel Road (Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road).
CitY of Chula Vista
L East H SJreet (1-805 to Paseo del Rey ).
2. Telegraph Canyon Road (1-805 to Paseo del Rey ).
3. Otay Lakes Road (Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road ).
4. Olympic Parkway (1-805 to Paseo Ranchero ).
5. Paseo del Rey (East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road ).
The Planning Department in conjunction with the Public Works Department through the
Administration is preparing a Proposed Development Phasing Amendment to the City's Growth
Management Program and Ordinance. It is recognized that the coordination of the amount, location,
and timing of development in relation to the available highway system is a critical factor in ensuring
maintenance of growth management Threshold Standards
A copy of the updated Regional Arterial System (RAS) Project list is included with this memo to
help the GMOC identify the projects that have been subnùtted for the Regional Transportation Plan.
H: IH 0 ME\EN GINEER \ TRAFFI C\9 7TMP . wpd
!,. I,
DUPLICATE MEMORANDUM
January 1 5, 1998
File: 0610-75-GYO51
0735-10-TF248
TO: Ken Lee, Acting Director of Planning
VIA: Cliff Swanson, Deputy Public Works Director~
City Engineer
FROM: Ralph Leyva, Senior Civil Engineer - Traffic ~~~
SUBJECT: 1997 Traffic Monitoring Program Final Report¿GGMOC
Annual Review of Threshold Compliance
This report is being forwarded to the Growth Management Oversight
Commission (GMOC) to summarize the results of the 1997- Traffic
Monitoring Program (TMP). This program assesses the operating
performance of the City's arterial street system for compliance
with the Threshold Standards of the Growth Management Plan.
Threshold Compliance Findinqs
This year's study indicates that all arterial segments evaluated
during each time period operate at LOS C or better except for
the westbound direction of Palomar st. (from Broadway to the I-5
northbound ramps) which operates in the upper half of LOS D for
one hour during the evening (from 4:00 - 4:30 PM and from 5:00 -
5:30 PM) -
The Threshold Standards specify that Level of Service (LOS) Cor
better, as measured by observed average travel speed, shall be
maintained on all signalized arterial segments except that
during peak hours LOS D can occur for no more than any two hours
of the õay. Therefore, the Threshold Standards have been met
for the 1997 TMP.
This year 's TMP evaluated arterial segments from last year's
program which were operating at LOS C or less, as well as segments
where traffic volumes have increased 10% or more since the segment
was last studied for a previous report. Additional segments were
studied where new traffic signals have been built which
significantly affect the operational characteristics of the
roadway- H st. lEast H SL, from I-5 to Rutgers Ave., was also
evaluateõ to provide the most current information possible for this
traffic corridor.
The following table summarizes the results of the 1997 TMP showing
the number of arterial segments, listed by classification, which
conform to each Level of Service during each of the three time
periods studied (AM, Mid-day and PM). For more details, please
refer to Attachment 1. This attachment presents the 1997 TMP
results comparing this information to the corresponding 1996 data
(or the most recent data collected) for each segment listed.
A \6
--..---
M-97TMP 2 January 15, 1998
1997 TMP ARTERIAL PEP~OP~CE
ALL TIME PERIODS
AM PERIOD
7AM-9AM
CLASS
LOS I II III ~
A - - 1 1
A/B* - - - -
B 2 - ..; 6
B/C* - 2 1 3
C - - - -
C/D* - - - -
D-F - - - -
MID-DAY PERIOD
11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
CLASS
--1&L I II III ~
A 1 - - 1
A/B* 1 1 - 2
B 1 - 5 6
B/C* - 2 1 3
C - - 3 3
C/D* - - - -
D-F - - - -
PM PERIOD
4PM-6P.M
CLASS
LOS I II III ~
A 1 - - 1
A/B* - - - -
B 2 1 3 6
B/C* - 2 - 2
C - - 5 5
C/D* - - - -
D-F - - - -
* Indicates segments operating at different
LOS's in different directions.
f\ leA¡
M-97TMP 3 January 15, 1998
Current Relevant Issues Related to Threshold Compliance
Of the arterial segments studied this year, the following segments
were found to operate at or below the middle of the LOS C range of
average travel speeds:
1. Fourth Ave. (SR54 EB Ramps - H St.) operates in the lower
half of the LOS e range of average travel speeds for 1 hour
during the day (from 5:00 to 6:00 PM) in the northbound
direction. Northbound speeds during this hour range from
12.5 MPH to 16.6 MPH which are generally below the mid-range
speed of 1 6 MPR for a class III arterial segment. Delay for
northbound traffic along this segment primarily occurs at
Brisbane st. and at e street.
2. H St. (1-5 NB Ramps - Third Ave.) operates :in the lower half
of LOS e for 1 hour in the eastbound direction during the
mid-day period (12; 00 - 12:30 PM and 1:00 - 1~30 PM).
Between Noon and 12:30 PM average travel speeds vary from
13.8 to 16.2 MPH and from 1;00 to 1:30 PM speeds range from
11.8 MPR to 18.7 MPH. These speeds are generally below the
mid-range speed of 16 MPH for a Class III arterial. Delay
along this segment primarily occurs at the signalized
intersections of H St./Broadway, and H St./Fourth Ave.
3. otay Lakes Rd. (East H st. - Telegraph Canyon Rd.) operates
:in the lower half of LOS e for 1 hour during the day (4:30 -
5:30 PM) in the northbound direction of travel. Between 4: 30
and 5:00 PM average travel speeds vary from 14.7 to 29.7 MPH
and from 5:00 to 5:30 PM speeds range from 16.8 MPH to 34.0
MFR. These speeds are generally below the mid-range LOS e
speed of 21 MPH for this class II arterial segment.
The City currently has a eIP project under construction to
widen Otay Lakes Rd. at East H St. and to provide duel left
turn lanes for northbound and southbound traffic on otay
Lakes Rd. at this location. Once completed, this project
should improve the LOS for Otay Lakes Rd. by increasing the
capacity of the intersection.
4. Palomar St. (1-5 NB Ramps - Broadway) operates in the lower
half of LOS e for 1 1/2 hours in the eastbound direction in
the evening and for 3 hours in the westbound direction during
the day. The westbound direction of this segment also
operates in the upper half of LOS D for one hour in the
evening. The travel speeds for these periods are as follows:
LOS e
EB 4:00 - 5:00 PM 10.1 - 29.3 MPH (avg. 14.7 MPH)
EB 5:30 - 6:00 PM 7.6 - 38.9 MPH (avg. 14.7 MPH)
WE 11:30 - 1:30 PM 11.8 - 24.9 MPH (avg. 15.1 MPH)
WE 4:30 - 5:00 PM 10.2 - 30.6 MPH (avg. 14.9 MPH)
WE 5:30 - 6:00 PM 10.3 - 22.8 MPH (avg. 15.5 MPH)
A -ZÕ
M-97TMP 4 January 15, 1998
LOS D
WE ~:OO - 4:30 PM 6.0 - 18.9 MPH (avg. 12.6 MPH)
WE 5:00 - 5:30 PM 9.2 - 18.2 MPH (avg. 11.9 MPH)
The average travel speeds on this segment for LOS C are below
the mid-range speed of 16 MPH for a Class III arterial. The
average speeds shown for LOS D are above the mid-range speed
of 11 MPH for this Level of Service. For westbound traffic,
delay along this portion of Palomar st. primarily occurs at
the 1-5 northbound ramps and at Industrial Blvd.; delay to
eastbound traffic occurs at the intersections of
Broadway/Palomar st. and Industrial Blvd./Palomar Street.
Some of the delay experienced at Industrial Blvd./Palomar st.
(in both the eastbound and the westbound direction) is due to
the trolley crossing immediately to the east of the
intersection. When a trolley approaches the crossing,
traffic signal timing at Industrial Blvd. /Palomar St. is
inte=upted by the trolley pre-emption which stops all
vehicular/pedestrian traffic on Palomar st. and some of the
traffic on Industrial Blvd. to give signal priority to the
trolley. This signal pre-emption occurs every three to five
minutes, disturbing traffic progression and increasing delay
in this area.
There is a future CIP project proposed for Palomar St.
between 1-5 and Industrial Boulevard. Phase I of this
project will provide for pavement rehabilitation and the
construction of asphalt concrete sidewalks on this portion of
Palomar Street. Phase II will provide for the construction
of ultimate street improvements including the widening of
Palomar st. to provide for six lanes of traffic.
In addition to studying arterial segments, the 1997 TMP assessed
the LOS of the arterial/freeway interchanges which were found to
operate at LOS D by the 1996 TMP. Additional studies were also
done on H st. at 1-5 and East H st. at 1-805 to maintain current
information at these locations. The results of this year's TMP
indicate that along 1-805, each interchange studied is operating at
LOS C or better. Along 1-5, all interchanges studied are operating
at LOS C except for the following locations which operate at LOS D:
ESt. (Bay - Woodlawn) WE 4 - 5 PM* & 5 - 6 PM
H St. (Bay - Woodlawn) EB 7-8AM
WE 7-9AM
WE 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM*
WE 4 - 5 PM* & 5 - 6 PM
Palomar St. (Bay - Industrial) EB 4 - 6 PM*
* Operating in the lower 1/2 of LOS D
1\2\
M-97TMP 5 January 15, 1998
Further analysis of the collected data (see Attachment 4) indicates
that westbound H st. at 1-5, is functioning at the lower limit of
LOS D (within 1 MPH of LOS E) from 11 :30 AM - 12:00 PM and from
12:30 - 1:00 PM. This westbound location operates at LOS E from
1:00 - 1:30 PM (0.2 MPH below LOS D) and from 4:00 - 4:30 PM (0.5
MPH below LOS D).
Although these locations are not subject to the City's Threshold
Standards, they were evaluated to maintain current data for
information purposes. Using existing guidelines which consider LOS
D (or better) as acceptable for arterial/freeway interchanges, all
the locations studied this year were found to operate at acceptable
Levels of Service except for westbound H St. at 1-5. This location
operates at LOS E (8.8 MPH) for 3D minutes at mid-day and at LOS E
(8.5 MPH) for 30 minutes in the evening. This LOS E condition,
however, is not considered significant because the average travel
time across this short (883') section is only 1 minute 13.8
seconds.
Response to Recommendations from the 1996 GMOC Final Report
Recommendation 1. That the Public Works Department, Engineering
Division, Traffic Section continue to conduct
the annual TMP using the methodology presented
with the 1996 TMP.
Response:
Staff will continue to use the methodology of the 1996 TMP in
conducting future TMP studies. This methodology is described in
the following section of this report titled "Proposed Actions for
the Current Year".
Recommendation 2. That the annual TMP program and the "Arterial
Segment Map" which defines the streets to be
monitored by the TMP be amended to remove
Third Ave. (C St. to G st.), exempting that
segment from evaluation under the TMP. The
remaining portion of the Third Ave. segment
between G st. and H st. will be combined with
the existing segment between H st. and Naples
st. for future TMP studies.
Response:
Staff has incorporated these changes into the 1997 (and future) TMP
studies. Staff will update the "Arterial Segment Map" and return
it for City Council adoption as necessary.
A1--?-
M-97TMP 6 January 15, 1998
PéoDosed Actions for the Current Year
For the 1998 TMP, Traffic Engineering staff will use the same
methodology used for the 1996 and 1997 studies. Therefore, the
1998 TMP will study the following segments:
0 arterial segments from the 1997 study that operated at ~ LOS
C,
0 arterial/freeway interchanges from the 1997 study that
operated at ~ LOS D,
0 segments where traffic volumes have increased 10% or more (at
any count station along the segment) since the segment was
last studied for a previous TMP report,
0 segments where major street widening has occu=ed and/or where
new traffic signals have been constructed which significantly
affect the operational characteristics of the roadway,
0 H St. /East H St., from I-5 to Rutgers Ave., (to provide the
most current information possible for this traffic corridor).
Attachments:
1 - Arterial Segment LOS Comparison (1996 VS. 1997)
2 - 1997 TMP Arterial Segment LOS (All Time Periods)
3 - 1997 TMP Arterial Segments Operating at ~ Mid LOS C
4 - 1997 TMP Arterial Interchanges Operating at ~ Mid LOS D
(H:\HOME\ENGINEER\TRAFFIC\M-97TMP.SM)
A2-3
'""I -1t1 UU "b~ UU \DO UU UU
N~O ~N ZZ ~~ ZZ ~~ ZZ zz
-> ~- MM N~
- NN
-.0
:O:ø""
C:>""
a>C:[¡;
~ \DO It1N O\D a>1t1 ~O 01t1 MN
a> UJ .. . . . .
~ 0 0 ~N 1"'">1"'"> N- 00 \D\D I"'">N ~-
- '"" NN NN NN -N NN 1"'">1"'"> NN
-'0
:o:ø"" ~~ ~~ ~~ U~ <c: ~~ ~U
c:>""
c:a.
0 '"
UJ
Z ~ 0
0 '""
'"
<-<
::::
<
'"
:0:
0
- U_¡;; '""I '"b'"b CO~ ';'.,'0 I"'">~ uu ~O -~ -g
~ ~8~ N~O ~N CO- \DO \DI"'"> ZZ -~ ~1t1 ~~
æ '""~, -> ~~ :::: ~1t1:~ ~: ~g ~8
] ~""'" ~~
U ¡;¡a.> - :ì",g
'" :O::;:\D .0 z
~ t:><~ :O:t:>"" 0
~ ""-~ c:>æ ~~
'" - a>C:", ~
~ ~ I '" ~~ ~~ ~~ ~CO ~~ ~M It1CO ;
~ ~ CO 0 ~N NN ~- CO~ ~~ ~1t1 \DN ~
"" - '"" NN NN NN -- NN ,..."..., NN ~
~ ~
:::: -'0 ,;mm
c: :o:t:>"" ~~ ~'" """ U'" ~~ ~< ~U >-:;-:;
C:>"" <CC
<a. ~~ø
CO '" ~O>O>
I i§~~
~ ¡g ¡;
'"" ~~ø
i
::::1 "'~ "'~ ~~ "'~ ~~ ~'" """ go
<-< ZUJ Z'" ""~ ""~ ""~ ""~ ""~ m
C œ
.s:
~ ~
- ~6
0:>::
- ~ ~ - - '>
"" 0 -"" OJ - I¡,
'" ::: ~'" '" c::.... ~ m
~ 0 ~o - UJ "" ~ o>œ
~-O OJ CO I ~~ '" "" ~:;:
ZUJ< ~~ ....~.... It1 U ~ '"
[;3~r-- ¡t- 11 :::ò:a ~ ~ ~ .B;:
t:>:>:~ . "'~ 'EU '- ~U 10 U U ~
""<-<- 'Z III::::Z Z <-<N o'Z o'Z o..m
UJ,"" III....... > =-... I 0 ~ ~ -¡: ¡-:;
~>, <"'....... '" ....... 1-"'~"""'tO~....... Q.C
t; ~ ~ <.7:, .::: "" 0 ';'0 ~ 0 '0 ~ :I: Z 0 :I: ¿¡ 0 ~ E ~
"""" "'",,0 ~~co .",1"'"> ' \D"'" 1t1~ CO mco>
~~~ ~"'~ ~~~ ~B~ ~~~ ~:a""'" ~~~ ~~~ c~-
UJ - ':::t:>~ OUJO "'I"'"> <-<0 ~U """"0 to""...,
~-N ~-I"'"> ~-- :::-,..., :::-Z ""-\D ~-N 4-N
A-z.4
...:1/ "'.... ....... uu
NgjO ....'" """ ZZ
> 0.... """
-.0
::¡:~r.:¡
<>r.:¡
",<~
...., "'.... "'- M....
'" '" " ..
'" 0 0 N- ....'" -....
- ...:I NN MN NN
::¡:ciß C¡¡XI IX! IX! UIX! ]
<>r.:¡ ~
< c. c
C '" ð
~
'" 0
- 0 z
5 '...:1
~ ~
c:
<
c.
::¡:
0
- U_~ ...:II ~~ ~oo N....
~ roo", N~D "",0 """ ...'" m
C ss- -> M.... NCD -N -:;:
Q c: . - - -- Q
S ~r.:¡", ~
13 zc.> '"
'" r.:¡ - ° -
~ š~~ ~g¡j
< ~-~ ",<~ ..
~ ~ I '" ~~ ~~ ~~
~ '" COM.., -0 -M
r.:¡ - ...:I NN MM NN
,..
;¿ ::¡::ß t!¡1X! IX! IX! UU ~
<>r.:¡ c
< C. ..,
CD '" '"
'"
I -
'"
.... 0
...:I ..,
0:1 IX! II> IX! IX! IX! IX!
¡...¡ zro Zro Z'"
°
~
- 5
:I:
~ ~ ~
~ ~
'" U .,
'"' 0 0 œ
f->-O -'" 'N :;:
Z"'< 'CD or.:¡.... ,.-< '"
~t:.... ~Ò ';g,.¡; ';g~ ~
¡;¡~.:" "';...:1- ",,¿N "" g f
ro...:lf-> 0,' ~o:, ~~, m
.~ '0 c..., "'.,.. "'to li
¡,¡~< 0'0 '""~O '"" 0 -
~~'" ~~~ >.-ag >."'~ :5
,..-'" .-< - "'0 - "'.-
to - ....r...N ~IX!N ~¡,¡....
=-- D-N 0-- -
A 1-£7
..:lION UU ""0 "b~ UU ""'0 UU UU
N~O ~O ZZ ~O N~ ZZ ~O ZZ zz
-> ~~ ~;:;:; ~O\ ~~ "i
I ~
:<::<:-.0 ....~ ð
~~~~ ID.... t
gg<~ -- z
~.:: !i
.... - [J) UU
~ 0 ""N 00 ~- ~"" ID~ ~~ 0'"
~ ,.:¡ . . . . . .
- O~ ~~ ~O -0 ..,.~..,...,. ""-
N- -- -N NN NN ~~ NN
I -
:<::<: ,0 ~"".
<~~~ ~~ UU U~ ~~ ID.... ~~ ~~ ~U ~
OO<~ -- Q
~~ [J) '"
.... '"
-N '"
Z -- [J) UU -
0 0
'" ..:I
~ '"
t::
<
~
[5-
- US"" ,."., ~"""
H~ ,.:¡I ""'" 0- ""~ ~..,. N"" UU ....- ~-
~ ~~~ Nt::O -~ ~~ -~ ~O\ -N ZZ ~O ~~ ~~
g ,.:¡æ. => ~~ ;::¡~ ~;::¡ ~~ g~ :;;:;;~::: Æ~
5 ,"",[J) ,,~
tJ i;1<> '- ; g-
ß §9~ ~~øß ~
~ '"o~ >'" +'
< "'~- gg<~ "~
~- ~ ~- [J) ~~ ....~ ~~ ~~ ....~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~
§ ~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~~ N~ ~~ ;::¡~ :;;~~;::¡ ë
'" -, ...
t:: :<::<:-'0 m,;
< <~D," ~~ ~~ u~ ~~ uu ~~ <~ ~U ~>
>'" Q<
gg<~ ~~
.::~ ~~
-- [J) e
0 0
,.:¡ "'+,
r
~I ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~
H Z'" Z[J) Z[J) r.¡~ r.¡~ r.¡~ r.¡~ r.¡~ 0
0 1
L+'
- 5L
::E:D
- t';; ~ - - L:
~ 0 - ~ II) K-
[J) x "'", ~ C.... 0....
'" 0 0.-10 - [J) r.¡ Q) ..'"
,"-0 II)~ I --.-I..,. '0 0> ~'"
Z[J)< Q).... ..:I~........."" ~ U.., '"
,"E-< .-I. II) U.X...... 0 3:" c,¡¡
:<:H"" c.N c. >~ .0 ..c ~ [J) a: -
D:E:~ . "'N . eu UN '- ¡"'U IOU L
¡;j~- mZ ~~Z.ñ ,Z H~ ...;'Z "';'~ H
E-<>I""'<~""'>""" ¡;;.......... I.[J)~""'<I:>"""" Q.
f;; ø ~ 0:::."6 ..c r.¡ 0 ~ '."'0 ~O ¡¡: 0 '0 ~ = Z 0 :.:&10 :E ~
r.¡r.¡ '0"'0 ..,..,.~ '0""'" 'ION . ~..... ~..,. ~ em
~~~ ~[J)~ ~~~ ~[J)~ t';;e~ t';;~~ t';;~..... ~g~ ~~~ ~Q
'" - ..cD..,. 0<1:>0 1.<..:1..,. ~N HO E-<U "'HO III[J)'"
E-<-N ~-~ ~-N ~-- =-~ =-z r.¡-~ ~-N -.
À -:2. (p
~I -~ DO ~~ DO ~~ DO ~N
N~O ~~ ZZ ~~ ZZ ~- ZZ ~-
-> ~~ ~~ -M ~~
-- -- NN
J
:';:';-.0 ~N
"""D<iI
><iI ~~
gg<~
N-
~ - [/) DO
~ 0 ~~ ~~ N~ ~~ ~O M~
~ ~ . . . .
- -~ ~~ ~O N~ ~~ ~~
NN -- ~~ NN ~~ MN
, ~
:.;:.; '0 <0-
<"'D<iI ~~ ~~ <~ O~« <~
><iI ~~
00<'" --
~~ [/)
-N
Z -- '" DO
0 0
[/) ~
>-<
c:
<
'"
5Õ
- OBi;; ...:J ':.-'6 ~~ 1r.~ ~~ DO ~O DO
~ ~c:~ NC:O ~- ~~ o~ o~ ZZ ~~ ZZ
ID ~~- => ~~ ~~ =~ ~~ ~~
.2 i!>~
t.> <iI< , - '" '"
rtI :.;O~ :.;:.; .0 M~
~ D'~ """D'"
~ "'O~ ><iI D-
o:: "';t- gg<~ ~ NN
;¡¡- ~ ~- '" ~~ 1r.~ ~O ~-;., ~N ~1r.
>-< ~ 0 ~~ 00 M~ ~N <O~ N~
~ ~ ...:J NN M~ NN ~~ -- MN
¡... - ãi
c: :i: :.;-. 0 '" '" œ ...
< <"'D<iI ~~ ~~ ~~ O~ <0:: DO o::~ ~§
OO~~ ~O ~8
~~ '" -N "'...
'" 0
-N -z
-- '"
S ~~ ~~
c:1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
>-< Z[/) "'~ Z'" Z'" "'~ "'~ "'~
0
~ g
~ ~ '"
Û - í: ~ - ~ c
~ ~ ... rn ... 0 III
.,..¡ '" 0 ..... rtI ø
¡... o.c 0 ~ ~ '0'0 œ
¡"'~O ~~ ¡""N W '0 c:~ ~
Z"'<'~ ':I:~""", rtI "':'; '"
~~~ ~, ' ;g.-;g~ 'dJ'" E: ~J ~
D:';~ ,~ ""'0 "'~ 0 '0 -~O 0 0
"'>-<- ~~ rnzw !J ,Z"'~~Z ~M ~.'!
"'~¡... 0,' ~,~" ~~, ~~~ [/)1, iID~ œ~
f;; ~ ~ §' -'6 t; 0 ~ 2""0 ~ tJ: 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 e t ~ ~ ~
~ ¡;;~ ;::~ ~ ~.g:::; >, cg >,=~ >"-,, 6~~ g'~, :5~
¡...-~..... - [/)C- rtlO- rtI-. rtI~ ....., -.....rtI
tJ: - ""r...N I-<~ ~~N ~<iI~ ~¡...O rtll-<- ~=O
=-- ~-- O-N 0-- O-Z "'-M E-<-Z -~
Þ<.7-1
","" Ie,""
~I -~ m~ UU UU ~C UU m-
N~O ~- ~m zz zz ~~ ZZ -m
-> ~N ~~ ~~ ~m
-N NN ~N
-- 0
1;; t~[:j m
~ ~;::o. ~
- '" -
I
O~ - ~m ~~ ~m ~~ ~C
m tI) . .
0 m~ U~ m~ m~ 0- ~~ ~~
~ -- - NN -- NN -- NN
:;:'-'0
o.O~ UU mu ~~ UU ~~ UU ~~
>~ .
m,,:o. ~
'" -
Z ~ tI)
0 0 U
tI) ,.:¡
H
0:;
..:
0.
:;:.
0
U ~
- -0>
-'-' "'00> ~I 'i.,'N ~';-, ~~ N~ '&,';;, O~ UU .
= S~- N=O O~ ~N O~ N~ m- Zz ~
m 0:; . - > ~- mm ~O -m -0 ~N ..
] ~~tI) -N NN ~N N- -- NN œ
0 150.> -- ¡]
10 :;:':;:'\D ~.O z§
:::: i3~g: o.¡;>[:j 28
< '" - ~<¡)) ..;(;
~ I NN ~~ NN ",z
~ ~ ID tI) DID -- ~~ ~O ~m m~ m- z
~ ~ S ~~ gÑ ~~ ~~ ~Ñ ~~ ~~ êg
~ ~
~ :;:'-'0 ø
< o.O~ ~~ ~~ ~U UU ~~ U~~..: >
> ~ ..
m<o. "C
tI) c
i5l'Jl'J
~ tI) c "'.
0 000
,.:¡ ~~w
c"""
~~~
0:;1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~
H Z", Z", ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ..
0 œ~w
.rc
~
- c
0
- -'-' - ~
'" 0, ..
-'-' - 0 - -
[J) :::w ~ -'-'w ~ ....
~ 0 0 U - ~O - '" '"
~-O IDm 1m> '0 -<..,. '0 ~:x:
z"'< m~ ~ U ~ ~~ ~ ID ~
~ ~ ~ - ID - ~::: - -... 0 2%:
':t:.H~ ~ 0,0 ~ 0 ~ m c
o:;:.~ * ION 'E~ ~U ~U '- ...U 10 ~-
~H- 'Z mc:; z Z Z HN .j1 œ..
[J)~ m......>......'O1 1 ......... I 0 ~~~
...>1 <~ C:;............ 10 ...... 1- Q.....
f;;t£ê <.'0 .<::~'O .. ~O ~O ~ ~O 'O~ .:J.:J~
~~ "0-'-'0 -'-'~- -'-'~~ . N .10'" . \D .~ "-D>
c:;[ )~ ~"'~ WID~ ~~m -'-'ID~ -'-'DO -'-'m~ -'-'~...... O!~
~-~~ -::SO:;-C""-[ )I-[ )~-[ )I-[ )~
[ ) - .<::O~ D[ )- o~- HID """ HO ~U
~-N ~-'" ~-'" ~-N ~-- :::-~ :::-Z *-N
A2-S
~I uu uu uu ~N UU -m UU
N50 zz ZZ ZZ 1:>1:> ZZ N- ZZ
~> r-I:>"'I:>
-N N-
::;:-.0
1; "'O¡;j I:> mM
I» I:>~ '" 0 ~M
- tIJ N_-
,
Mr- -- Mm M~ M "'0
~ tIJ . .
0 om ~N 1»0 ON Ur- 00 UU
~ MN NN -N ..,.., N ......
::;:'"'.0
"'O~ ~~ ~U ~~ ~~ ..,~ « r-r--
>~
~< '" -.....,
tIJ N_-
,
Ë5 ... ¡g u uu
tIJ ~
I-<
c:;
<
'"
::;:
0
- U r-
-I»
~ ~§'" c:;~ ~- 00 ..,N UU NN ~~ 01:>
æ ~~- N:I:~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ZZ ~~ ~~ g~
§ ~~~ ~.., N- -- -- - NN
Ü fZ"'> - ]
'" ::;:::;:1:> ::;: .0 ~
~ 0"'1» -""-o¡;j ~r-..,~ 8
< ~-~ I:>~¡;; ~~~::: ...
~ I:> I om -N r-I» '0% ~'N ~
~ ~ ~ ¡g ~~ ..,- m- "'0 u~ ..,m uu u
~ - ~ ~~ NN -N"'~ ...,., z
~
~ ~~ß ~~ uu u~ ~~ r-I» « ~r-
>~
~< '" o~~,.,
tIJ NN_-
,
... tIJ ~
0 uu uu 0
~ N
g:
c:;1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
I-< ~~ ~~ ~~ ZtIJ ZtIJ ~~ ~~
0 N
- - - w
- - 'tJ C -" -
..., U) '" ..., >. ro >.
C '" .... tIJ U ..... ro
~-1:; ~ ~ ti ~~ ~ ¡¡:
z"'< U ~ .:c...... ""m ro :>:
~;::r- ~ .ê I ~. ~~ 'i~.; B £
0::;:"" U u.....u ~o U 'N .~U
¡g~- ~ I Z .; I Z ~z m I ~ m '.% me, t:, z ~
~.1:; "'~' "'1:' lJ' TJ ItI";- TJt:' ~O;,. k~' !J
~o< = 0 =~o WO ~""N ~ 0 ~ 0 "'%0 -
~¡gl:> ~:g: ...,U~ ~.gg; >.-a, >.=~ >....;~ ~~~ :5
~-""wm-w~_",c.",o ",..row-....,-
'" - rol-<O """,., 1-<1:> ...,~U ~~r- ""~N ItIH-
~-I:> ~-N ~-- o-z 0-- 0-- "'-,., -
A -:z~
...:¡ uu ...:¡j uu
N~O ZZ N~O ZZ
x> =>
:E-'¡;¡ 00 :E-'¡;¡
<D~ MN <D~
>~ >~
m<~ m<~
I r--
~ ~ . .
~ 0 uO ~ 0 r-o
...:¡ ...:¡ NM
r- r-
m m
m m
- -
-.0 m- -.0 a¡<
z :ED"". . :ED~
g <~~ ~~ <~~
H ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I
;;: ~ ~
:E ~ r- 0 00 r- 0
0 ~...:¡ ...:¡
u z
~
~ :E
0 D
...:¡ ""
~
F-< r-
- Z-m ""
... ~ g~ D§
DH ! I "'I I
ID ""~. '" ~...:¡ Mr- 0 ~"':¡.,.O
!š ~~~ Û I N:¡:O \DM ~ N=O -m
Û ""~> ¡;j H > ~~ ~ >~:
t ¡@~~ ~
< <-m H
~ - ~ -'0 Mr- -'0 ~m ã:
:ED"" . . :ED"" ..,
~:;J <>"".,..,. <>"" \Dm 5
Z "" .o:~ -- <~ NN 0
H ~ ~ m ~ ~ m ~ ~
...:¡ ~ ~I~ ~ U) ,g
~ r- 0 UU r- 0 a¡ a¡
~ ...:¡ ...:¡ u
~ z
F-<
~
.0:
~I a;¡ a;¡ ~I a¡ a¡
H ~~ H ""~
0 0
-10 ...
H'" ~
- H_~:!?
H tI]>...
~ H::: ~ tI] 2è
~-o H:< ~-o 10'
~~.o: tI]~U ~~.o: ~~u ~
:EHr- tI]~Z :!:Hr- -:z ~
D:Em 10 0 D:Em ::E
""H- .-< 0...... "" H- , ""'" "
U)...:¡ u~ U)...:¡..., c. -
~ - 0 ~ ~ DO ..
~ '0 I \D !'< -0....,. ...
""D<.,. ""D< ::.....,. ..
""~ '>.- ~""....- en
œ~\D ""100 œ~\D ...,~o ..,
!'<-m u:>a¡M !'<-m 1n:\D c:
~ - ~ - 10 ::>
= ""
"-3D
...:¡ uu ...:¡) uu
~O zz ~O zz
N=> N",>
0 °0 ............ 0 °0
......to", ""to",
..>", ""', ..>",
-<", - -<",
I ~ I ~
,... 0 .... 0 .,.-
'" ...... ~ '" "" ~ 00
'" .. 0 Uo '" .. 0 "'-
- N ...:¡ - N"':¡ N""
- -
O~O COO 0-0 "'<
~D~ ~O ~D~
;::,~¡;, -- ;::,~¡;,
I I
0 0
"" ~ "" ~
Ô :.: S Uo :.: S
~ - -
...,
~
~ I I
:;: u:> ...:¡ N..,. ...:¡ r--
0 ~ N$O -N N~O ~O
U ¡;¡ -> 0..,. "'> r-r-
U:>:E: """N ............
0 to
...:¡ '"
,..:;_U:> 0~00 """ 0-.0
- ¡;¡8~ ~ ~~~..,.'" ~~~
., :;:~- z -<'" - I -0::'"
æt:>'" < ,~ ~ ,~
~ ","'. = ~ '" 0 0 '" 0 ~N
-=~><[lJUI """'~ CO """'~
[) <>:::;...,1", DUO I", 0 ""'"
m ~O'" ~ - N ...:¡ ..., - N"':¡ NN
.... Z ,", z - -
~ $~'" ...,
-:;:-
[i-:2 O-.O......~ CoO U'"
..., ......" '" """ '"
~:::; ..>'" ""0 ..>'"
z '" N<'" -- NO::'"
..., ~ "";- u:> "";- ~
...:¡ ~ g u:> g ~
::; .. 0 Uo .. 0
¡;j :: ...:¡ :: ...:¡
,.. ã:
~ .,
< c
8
c.>
:::;/ """ :::;/ """ ~
..., '" 3= ..., '" 3=
0 0
§È
-m
...,.,
...,w
- ~
..., w>
,.. ...,:: ,.. w
"'-0 H'" "'-0 m 0
z~< m zu:>< ~~
"'E-< U!~u "'E-< u~u :I:
:;:...,r- w~z :;:""r- -=z Q.
,,:;:'" '" 0 t:>:;:cn %:
"'...,- ~o,- "'...,- 0',- c
U:>...:¡ U3= ~...:¡ 01.> C. -
,.. - 0 E-< u:> 00 GI
E-<.o "" ""0 .,.,. c
""'0::.,. ""'0:: ::......,. GI
""" '>,. """..... . ø
:::;~'" """'0 :::;~'" 0I.>~0 .,
,..-'" U:>"'...... ,..-'" w='" c
~ - u:> - m =:>
= '"
b. ::>\
..:¡I uu uu uu ..:¡I uu
<:::01 zz zz zz <:::0 zz
N=> N=>
'0 CO 100 0'" '0
:EC>¡'¡ . . :EC>¡'¡
~>¡,¡ N M- 010 ~>¡,¡
oo::~ - -- -- <~
'" ~ '" ~
,... '" ,..., N-
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 10 0 "'0 UO OU ~ 10 0 -CO
- ..:¡ - - ..:¡ NN
- 0 U~ ""N ~'" - 0 UII
~g~ 0 ~~ ~~ ~g~
IOOO::~ - - IOOO::~
,
~ ~
Z .." 0 0 UO OU ... 0
O..:¡ ..:¡
~
H
c::
~ I
:E ~ ..:¡ N'" 0'" 0'" ..:¡ 10-
0 ~ N~O 0.." CO- O~ NC::O-M
U; -> -10 ""N 10M X> ~'"
~ ~ N- NN NN 10M
0 C>
,..:¡ ¡,¡
E-<""~ -.0 M - ~ -.0.."
- Z-~ ¡,¡ :Ec>¡'¡ :Ec>¡'¡
¡'¡O~ C> ~>¡,¡.." 0 - ~>¡,¡ CO
..., :E 0- Z < ~ - - - I 00:: ~ -
äi¡;¡:i.t§1O "'~ ~ "'~
1! ~¡,¡~ U , :; , ~ - M M CO :; '~ '"
tJ ¡,¡~> ¡;¡ H~ ~ 10 0 ""U ""0 0.." ~ ~ 10 0 UN
m C>:E'" E-< - ,..:¡ - - - -..:¡ M
t Z~~ Z
00:: :;;-~ H
~,..:¡ -'0 U'" UCO r-U -'0 10<
00:: :EC>¡,¡ :EC>¡,¡
~:i ~>¡,¡ - 0 ~ ~>¡,¡ r-
Z ¡,¡ oo::~ - - <~ -
H E-< 10 ~ 10 ~
,..:¡ Ž ~ ~]
~ .." 0 0 0 0 .." 0 0 ~
c::..:¡ ..:¡ ð
¡,¡ ~
E-< 0
c:: z
00::
!f
a:1 II II II II II II a:1 II II
H ¡,¡~ ¡,¡~ ¡,¡~ H ¡,¡~
0 0
- -m"
::: :::-:;;]
- - H"" ....-
E-< ::::: ::::: tI)~ E-< ~> K
E-<-O H:< H:< ...." E-<-O m.
~~oo:: tI)~U tI)~U ~-:;;U ~~< U~U ]
5;i~ :g-gZ ~-gZ ..gZ 5;i~ -XZ >:
¡'¡H- ""0-""""0-""""::-"" ¡'¡H- ,,-.... ~
~,..:¡ U~ U~ ~H ~..:¡ ~~ ~
E-< - 0 - ODE-< tt¡ 00 ~
E-<'O 'N """'CO E-<'O"""" "
¡'¡C>C M .." m - ¡,¡C>< =......" m
¡,¡¡,¡. ,>,- '>,- e>,- ¡,¡¡,¡....- ..
~ C::~'" ""rnlO ""mo Om- a:~'" """"0 ~
E-<-~ tt¡II N ~II M ""II M E-<-~ tl)X'" C
~ - ¡,¡ = re ~ - ~ D
A?J1-
'" ""/ ~
""~~ ~
o::..~
~ ::.. ~
~~~ -
g: I ~ 'fn~o~~o",';;,,~ ':...0<7>.:>0 -O~';¡.,~N
~~3 ~~~o~~~~ u~~~~~ o~~~~~
--NN---N -NNNN ~~NN~~
~~"'" ~
O",fj UUa¡a¡UUa¡a¡ .Ua¡a¡a¡a¡ <a¡a¡a¡«
~ ::.. ~
ffi~~ -
'" I ~I
::æ: 0
"'~~ u
0 """
~ ':':2/ ":"":
><- ~ ~~
< '" --
o,~
10 ~~ ~~
~,:,:~, uu~"":"":~~~ ~~"":~~~ ~~~~~~
::æ:N~ 000<7>-- OO~~~N ~-O~Na.
- NNN-NN --NNNN ~~NN~~
tJ:)
0
... go/ ~"b.
. .. ..~ . .a¡tetetetete UUte«te «tete«
:-< ><N~ ~~
~ ;§-;-f!) --
:!:: tJ:) '0
N ~§ ~,:,:¡gl uu
..., Ü:¿ -~
r:: ... t:.1 !'I,:!
Q) '::::1< 'e
e H ~~
..r:: a: t:.1 .., I ."""
~ t:.1;¡;; g~2 ~~~
..., E2~ ~c~ .;
..., .:: ~"'~ ><Dr-
.:: ... '" I ~I -::"~O~'W'òN~ ';¡.,'NON~O a.~oo~o ~
~~ ~o3 ~O~~~NON ~~O~~~ ~~~~~O ~
~ -NNNNNNN NNNNNN ~~NN~~ ~
~ ~ OJ ~
0\ o::æ:~ tete tete tete te te a¡teteteca¡ <Ctete« ice
0\ ~cE: "'-:;;-:;;
- ~o~ ~::'::
I ~ """D<
;:;: 0 ..~~
c~~ ê
:>
'8"'"
~I tetea¡tetetetete tete te a¡ tete te a¡ tete a¡ a¡ i
H z~z~z~z~ z~z~z~ ~~~~~~ ~
o c
..... ~
- ~-~ OJ- ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ í~
~ - V) V) ~ H ~ V):: ~O:U .....0: ]2
V) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ $~
V)~o.o.u II! 0.;:;: ~::II!-""'C: ..ci5.
II! II! II! ..... II! ::>~~ c:::> ..
..... '" Z Z U Z 0 HOJO u¡¡:
¡... ~ ~ -g¡, I IU""UU ~::E:
Z I I I 'e II! - V) I - ~'"
~ ¡¡j ..... ~ 0: ..... '0 ~H ...;~~~ "f;:,:!
g ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ 0: 6~~~~", ~
tI) V)':: V) III IIJ III ~ U V) '"
'Ou OJ~.,. OJ ~.....o It! CUD<
.~ :;: ~ ~ 'ri. ~";' ~ 'ri. -S ~~::: ~(j ;;;.!;~
.:: ..... It! 0 0: II! 0......... II!-
¡... ~ '" ~ Z ~ ~ '" Z IIJ '" ~ ~ *-~
Å "7.'J...
N "'[
~-'"
õt",
f. '" f;o!
:: ' ~I 'i:: ": '": ~ ~ ~ 'W 'W \D 0> \D.,., ';;.. ';;.. 'à, 'Co
t.,.,~ NO>~-O>o> ø~~\D 0- \D~~~
N-NN-- --NN NN --NN
NO:E:O!
O~~ mmmmmm oom< mm oomm
H ~
fie">",
~ I "'I
:E: 0
~~~
0 ~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ßI 00> ":": ":'":
><-te¡ -0 0>'" .,.,~
0:: ~ NN -- --
0""
'0 ~~ ~~ ~~
'::;"""'/ ~\Dø- ø~ ~.... ""ø-
HnO mm-'" mm.. .. 00..
:E:N~ 0O>~0 ~.,., -0 ....~
- N--N NN NN NN
'"
0
..:¡ 0 ~~ ~~ ~~
""::;'1 ~- -N ~~
- ""ute¡ ..a¡a¡0a¡ ..m< ma¡ .,a¡m
".. ><Nte¡ 0>0 .,.,~
Z ;§-~ NN -N --
~.. tI) I ¿, "',
".0 0~"'1
N ¡,¡ 0 :: .. 0 a¡ a¡ m mOO
..., ~") "" ~=~
C ~ mm
..:¡ ¡,:¡ ......
Q) < '" m m
§ "" :~
- ~¡,:¡ M 01 ."""
~ ¡;::i:l:: §:E:te¡ ~~~
..., ~ ~ ~o::~ 'õi
..., < - te¡""" >",~
<..:¡ ~ I "'I ";;,.";:..";:..";:.."'¡:,,¡... ~-~- 'ò'W ò>'ù,~'ò 1),
'" :E: 0 . . . . . . m
:I::~ o::o~ ~-\D~-- ON\D~ N- ØO\D\D ~
~ NNNNNN NNNN NN -NNN ~
~ ~ "'I ~
0"1 O:E:te¡ 0:: a¡ 0:: 0:: a¡ a¡ a¡a¡<::<:: ma¡ oa¡« imm
0"1 HO::'" ......
~ " Nmm
- "'O~ œCC
~ ~..",
I "'I m '" '"
:E: 0 m~~
<::~~ ~
~
8""'"
¿I a¡ma¡a¡a¡m a¡mmm mm a¡ma¡a¡ ~
H z"'z"'z", "'~"'~ "'~ "'~"'~ ...
0 -
H ~
¡¡¡ ,,~. g¡, ~
~~ 0 ",~Æ í
~ 13 <", go ~<a¡ ¡:
~ ~ ~ t -] ~ - ~ D] '" $
tI) tI) H .,..¡ c: H... -.,..¡.,., ~
~=~tI) ~t;g ~;! .t;~ ~
'" ~ H m
'" ... UI I I '" '" I ,:!!
Z U I I UI UI UI I '" I ~
te¡ - '" ~ '" == ~ ~mm
'" ... E OJ... E OJ ....,....
'" >. or>:> u>. 'r>:> mm
'" '" - <:: -'" '" < ,!cc
tI) 3: a¡ 3:...... a¡ D>N'"
'0 Z '0 . '0 . Z '0 ~"""
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ '" ~" ~~~
0'" '" '" "'.,.,.,..¡ '" 0 "'.,.,.,..¡
" I .c: " I .c:
a¡ U == ~ '" H ~ ~ a¡ == H ~ *NM
À 3z.t
§t~:
..... -,
í;J""v. ~~~~ """ """ ~~
~I~ M~-- ~Oø~ ~~ 00 MØON
:z ::>
~~~, OØ~N NN~N ON NN ~O~M
MNNN NNNN NN NN -NNN
~:z""1
O~~ mmmu mmmm mm mm mm<m
..... ~
ffi~",.
~ I ~I
p.,~~
0
M"'"
"">.:: ;::'
.:: ;:;1
'" I "'I
10 ~~~~ ~~ ~~
"'MW W~O~ ~~~~ ~"" W- ~~~N
¡~~ ...- -.NM O. ~~ ~~~~ ~
- MMNN NNNN NN NN --NN o
~ ~
0 ~
~ 0"" -
;..¡ "L ~ "'!. m m mUm m m m m m m m m m < < ~
- -N'"
Z <_p.,I
!:)« "'",,:
::::~ '0
t.?::;' SMrni
N r:; 0 :z:: 3:
""' 11'. :j .
c: ,;¡ ¡;¡ ~ ~
CJe < Po< ~;:;
;.;
.r: ~ [:J ... ""I .~,
t) ¡;;¡:::: "':z", x:~~
!I '"';.; ~.::'" ~
..., i:: '"' c:: ~I ';
..., <- "'~'" ~~~~ ~~""" """ >"""
< ,;¡ ~IW O~MN ~~-~ 00 N. NO~~ I
Po<":¡ :z OJ MN~- N--O ~M ~~ NIOIO~ ~
::::< <"'~ MMNN NNNN NN NN NNNN;
~ ~
r-- '1 "'" ;
~ o:z ",i m m mUm m m m m m < < m < < < l' ~ ~
~ ~.:: 5:1 N ~ ~
""""', œOO
~ ~...~
""I ~~~
~~S ~~~
~
'õ"'~
¿ mmmm mmmm - mm mm mmmm ~
B "'~"'~ Z"'Z'" ~ zrn "'~ "'~"'~ ~
Q) .... . - $
..... > - '" . Q). ~
ß < ~ ~ gj ~ ~;¡¡:Ë~
'" .... <..... < ." ~
I.< U '0. .
..... OJ '" Q) - '0 I.< C ~."
c;Z- gj.....g' ;:;,:; ;:;Mt; ~~
u;:;,ê::: ¡j rn ~ ~"i;; ~, ~' ~,;
~ - ..:¡ 0 ..... .......... ~o.
!-< '" '" , '" ¡¡¡ C '" '" '" ¡¡¡ Q) ~'"
Z ",.....",. -.... """ '" E- ~'"
'" . '" C '" I.< " ..... '" It! e "'..... ~N
:¡: ..... ,....."'..... '" "':¡¡;..... It! ..... It! , ¡¡~.:¡
'-' tI) uu ..... uc:: U...... œ~
'" m-.- '" 1.<, - -I.<Q) ,!']O
'" =z..... 0 ..... ¡¡¡ .....> "'-0
.....~8 ~.......... ~....."';z ...;~< ~];
'" 0 ..... '" '" '0 '" tI) 10 tI) '0 '0 '"
'" '" ~..... C I C I.<
'" ..... '" = ~..:¡ """:¡ ~.... ..:¡.... M *-N
A?:5'
N 01 -
O~~ ~
ê~~ e
~~~ N
~ ~~ -- --- ~~
~I~I ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~U~~~ O~
~~~ N~Ø- ~-ø~ ON ~OO NN
NNMM NNNN MM N-- -M
~~Ol ~
B~~ ~"""'" "'~""" ~~~~""" "'~
ffi~~ N
~ I ~I
~ e u
~...~
gel
~ ..r,¡
><- r,¡
'" ~
o,tl)
'0 ------ ~~
OMtI) NMO- ""r-N~ N~~~"'O '-0'
Hue . . . . . .
~N~ ONM- ~Nom ØON""~M ...~
- NNMM NNMN MMNN""'" "'M
t1J
0
... gol
.... >. .. '" aJ aJ '" '" '" ~ '" '" '" aJ U ~ '" '" ..:..:
Z "'::::~
r:::¡« 0 I tI)
:E: t1J '0
"Q ~MtI)l
N r:::¡ 0 ~..o
.;.J t1J H :: ~
...~ ~
~ <~ ~
!j H -
Õ ~~ 'èdJI gig:
11 1-<H B""" ,:!-
~1-< ~ ~ e
.;.J < r,¡mtl) ----~~ ~~ >-
< ... ~'tI)l Mm-ø ~~~~ ~~~~~~ N~ ~
~ 0 NN~O ø....øø ....m-""NO ...... m
:E:~ ž~~ NNMM NNNN MNNN....... ......, ~
!-< ~
~ 1, 0 5
0\ 0~r,¡1 aJaJ"'", "'aJ""" aJaJUaJ<::<:: <::~ ,gmm
0\ H""" ~~
.... ffiø¡:; :~~
~ ,~~
, tl)1 m"""
~ D ..~~
"'~~ ~
~
'õ~~
~I aJaJaJaJ aJaJaJaJ aJaJaJ~aJ~ aJ~ ;
H "'~"'~ "'~"'~ Ztl)Ztl)"'~ "'~ ~
0 ,
CII - ~
. > OJ >, H œ
~ ~ <:: ~ ~ ~] ~ ~
<::E CII tI)-o~ "'~ ...
m O\Q,OJ ~ mu
~ ~ m B ~ = = ~ ü ~ ~
MaJ '-<....... ~>'m - .::;
-tI) 0 ....-....- '" u-"", 0
'.:::~;:;- . ~:::~::: ,.;'J;:;-.....:::t;;:;- .¿ '" B
¡... íriH~H.!:: IH,H ;¡¡ ",,~~.;'J~ ~ J, .!I
Z ~H~ 0 .~.~ ~ ""~ ... Q, ,
~ ~~I~ ~ ~~~~ ID .¿~'~~~ ~ ~ i"
t:> ............... <::........ ..:~u.uu H me
'" ~ '-<UOJU '-<UQ,U m --'-'-=- III a¡ :£c>c>
tI) u¡-,-,->- CIIm-o- ..:illltl», >z """'"
~ '" 0\ E ~ ~ U 0"""
.~ .g 'D m ~::: 1;' ~ :>:..... 1;':g ;;:;~~
m=... '-<m.... -'-'OoCII ~~
~ H M 0 ~:>: 0 aJ '" ¡... 0 H *N'"
!\ 3(P
'" DI ~ ~
DZIiI t<>M
D"'1iI
~ '" L')M
..,""" --
t wwww
""1 .0 NO-~
Z D UD
"'~~ NO ~~~.
NN NN.,..,.
"6::¡: DI ';:..';:..
0",1iI . .""" """""""
H iii .,.M
ffi~;;; --
'" I "'I
::¡: 0 DU
",.~
gel ';..~N
., ..1iI
>< - iii CO L')
"" '" --
DI'"
'0 ~~ww
DM"'I ~O M~~~
H..O UU .
::¡:N~ N- ~~~~
- NN MN.,..,.
tf)
0
... g DI 'CD':.
;., ., .. iii . . '" '" "" '" "" ""
. ><N iii ~~
~ §-;-;;; --
:!: tf) '0
ø Q DM "'I
N '-' 0 ~..o UU
.¡.) ¡¡:; H :: ~
c::
c ... ¡,:¡ .:'ì.:'ì
~ <~ œ.
S H :~
Õ c:: ¡,:¡ '0 Dj ~"i- ~ g: g:
ItS ¡,:¡:I:: D::¡:1iI . . ~--
.¡.) 12 E:: ~""~ ;;;;;; .;
.¡.) < iii""" ",www >",~
-=: ... '" 1 "'I ~~ ~~N'" g,
~... ::¡: D """MN o~.,.~ ~
~ < ""t<>~ NN MN.,..,. ~
r- '0 01 "i-~ ;
'" OZIiI . .""" """"""'" J1œœ
'" H<:¡'¡ ON ..,"'"'
c:: '" NN "'œœ
~ lilt<>'" œOO
'" L.. '"
I "'I '" '" '"
::¡: 0 """ ..~~
""~~ ~
8"'"
¿ """""" """""" ~ ~
H 1iI~1iI~ 1iI~1iI~ M "'"'
0 . . c
" '0 m
;::¡- ..... '" "'" ~
H '" " . "'!:: 1:
H-6D .,;lJ~ ~ ã:
"""'" c:="'" c
'" 0 0 U ~ iii $
'" ".., c: '" c
..... "'..... 0 'OH""~ ~
~ ,:;:: .... ~H~H:¡j ..
,... = íä "'D'" H !
z '" U 1 '" '" c: ...
¡;j t; ~ J:: ..,~'.~ ~ ~.:'ì.:'ì
!;i \..1";0 go ~~lJ~:æ !.l!J.l!J.
t1J ItS '" ~ \..I" C CO"""
B Z 'g g ~ U:¡j H~
..... ~ 0 .......... '0 ,...
'" ," Q) '" OJ 0
'" H '" ,...:I:::¡:,... * """
!\ 31
N 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O~~ ~ ~O ~~ O~
Dp<~
~ p< N M- ~~ D~
~~~ - -- -- --
æ 1 tlJl ~ NO M~
~ 0 '0 uo UU OU -.
"'~,..:¡ ~ Mr- N-
- MM NM
"6:<: ßI 'ò, ~Ñ ~'; 'ò,'";c
~p<~ U¿ M~ MM c< ~~ C<
ffi~~ --
'" I tlJl
:<: 0 0 UO UU OU
""""":¡
0 ~~ ~~ """
MOl N~ MM r-..,.
., ..~
><-~ ~'" ~~ ~~
< '"
O,W
10 """
OMtIJ Mr- r-~ -M
~"O UU UO UU - -
:<:N"':¡ NØ ..,...,. NN
- MM -- NM
tI)
...
Z; 0 ~~ ~~ ~~
t:::i MOl ~~ COO M~
tI) ~ ~~::J ~~ r-o ~~ C< UU C<
g.. r:¡ 9"7 ~ -- -- --
tI) tI) 00
- 0 ~MtlJl
N :-< 0. t:::i :<:"0 uu uo uu
z -,..:¡
..., r:¡ 61 ~ -
= :£r:¡.:: ~~
11) ~ p.. = tnll ~~
..2 tl)r:¡ ¡¡¡ ,!¡~ .., 01 "'"' ~~ """ .~¡;;
~ p..:£ r:¡ g::;:~ NCO 00 r-- ~~~
..., :£~... - ~<~ NCO MN ~~ :=
..., ... ~ ffi~~ N- -- -- '" '" ~"'~
'::..:¡ "'ltlJl ~~"'r-..,.,., ~
¡;;:¿:¿ ;]!coS!IJU UO UU ;;;~ ::~ NM ~
0\ H >
,... c:: .., '" '" ~ ~ '" '" :
t:::i 0 01 N~ .cr>- ON ,
... D:<:~ . - !IJ< U!IJ!IJ< 2mm
;;j H < ~ r-..,. -N cr>,... ~~
~ '" -- N ~ ~
~ CO tIJ . """
p< C.,'"
1 tlJl ~ """
:<: 0 uu 00 !IJU m~~
< r-,..:¡ ~
"
8""
~I !IJ!IJ !IJ!IJ !IJC !IJ!IJ !IJ!IJ!IJ!IJ ~
~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ZtIJ ~~ ~~ ~
c "
.
.
~""""" ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ]
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ]
~ ~ ~ ~ woo HW C
-0 ~o -0 ~ w~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 00 It! It!~ 00-0 "
:::~ :::~ :::~ ::¡õ u~::¡~ 5
1 ,.......... ~..... m
,... 00 00 00 UIt! I UI ~
- Zoo. 00- w. ~'" ~ C
~ ~"g ~"g ~"g -, ~"g ~ h1!
to u..... u..... u......" ..... -It! ~~
~ ~!IJ ~!IJ ~!IJ > - ~!IJ ~~ ~QQ
tIJ .....~ Ct tIJ C O>N'"
..;~ ..;~ ..;~ !IJtIJ 5~ cE ~;;
tIJ!IJ tIJ!IJ tIJ!IJ >.':> ..... C -.i ¡,.
Ct Ct Ct
~ X ':> !IJ p<::;: *N'"
A 33
-- ~~--
N "'I
"':0'"
0"""
ffi.ot:;;
"',~ ~- ~~ ~~ o~ ~~
æ~~ -0 -w w~ .o- 00
NM NN N- NN NN
.'11::,:0°/
~"'~ W< UW <W <W UU
¡;jlt1~
I>< I "'
'" 0
I><~":¡
;; 01 ~~
'" ..",
><-'" N.o
<:: to. N-
O""
I 0 ~ ~ """
OM"' OW -- ~- .oW
H "0 WU "
"'N":¡ -lt1 .o- ~~-M
- NN NM NN NN
tJ)
Eo<
Z 0 ~ø
¡:::¡ MOl W-
~ "'..", "'< W< .. « UU
tJ)" ;;:~~ ~~
Q.. ¡:::¡ 0 ""
""tJ) tJ) '0
Q OM"'!
N Eo<O ¡:::¡ ~..o WU
.J.J E62" ::..:¡
ß ~¡:::¡ ~ L"~ ~~
e ¡:::¡"" - 0 ""
,¡: rn Íi! 'T .., 'H
~ "" ~ ¡:::¡ H ê::¡:f;J¡ ~~~
.J.J ¡E: E:: Eo< ;;!<::~ ~
.J.J :-< ~ -~'" ~ ~ "HO >",~
o::..:¡ 1><",,/ lt1.o ~- O~ N~ -0 !:.
~ '" 0 ON ~O N~ W~ N~ E
~ ~ ~ <W..:¡ NN NM N- NN N- D
- H ~
IX: .., L
¡:::¡ 0 01 - ~
Eo< 0""" WW W< WW <W Ut.> - ,gmm
IX: H<'" ~~
0:: ¡;jw~ :££
I>< L",ø
'" I gJ¡ tlJi :~~
<~..:¡ ~
I '" S..-ø
~ WW WW WW WW WW tIJ ~
H "'~ "'~ "'~ "'~ "'~ ~
0 '" - - t:1 "
.... '" H H - ~ æ
--.-¡ .... H H H ~
He -tIJ H H H ¡¡;
H 0 H-.-¡ t.>.D
HW H> ~~ ~~ ~~ ¡;¡ d;
~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~'g :::'g ~ 1:
"'.-< """ U U u", '" H c
u~ u~ -~ -~ ~~ ..:¡ ~
-e -:I: .", QJO ~O < ~
E-o QJ "':I: > H ~
[j.r::; '~, <, iV" ¡;¡ l;
'" """'0. e QJQJ'-<QJ E-o i:¡:¡
f3 ";2 "'B G6 g'~ n: ~ ~ ,!££
tIJ ",.... :I:.-< -.-¡ '" k > k DON..,
:::;§ ....:::: ai~ ¿j~ >.~ :2 ~~~
e", tIJ:I:.-<z '" """ E-o
0 '" QJ .... 0
W '" E-o '" 0 E-o *N..,
^ ?,c1
Attachment 3
1997 TMP
ARTERIAL SEGMENTS OPERATING AT ~ MID LOS C
(Data Reported at ~ 60% Level of Confidence)
Fourth Ave. (H St. - SR54 EB Ramps) - Class III
Lower Half of LOS C
Avg. MPH Above LOS D LOS C
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Rañqe
NB 5:00 - 6:00 14.5' 1.5 13 - 19
(6 MPH)
, This speed is an average of 3 data runs with a Level of Confidence (LC)
o~ éO%.
This segment operates near the lower end of the range of average
travel speeds for LOS C (within 1.5 MPH of LOS D) for one hour of
the day (during the PM period). During the rest of the day, this
segment operates in the upper half of LOS C or better. Further
analysis of this segment to determine LOS for periods of time less
than the one hour noted above was not possible due to the limited
number of ~ns completed on this segment.
A.4D
Attachment 3
1997 TMP
ARTERIAL SEGMENTS OPERATING AT ~ MID LOS C
(Data Reported at ~ 60% Level of Confidence)
H Street (I-5 NB Ramps - Third Ave.) - Class III
Lower Half of LOS C
Avg. MPH Above LOS D LOS C
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
EB 12:00 - 12:30 14.5' 1.5 13 - 19
EB 1:00 - 1: 30 14.22 1.2 (6 MPH)
, This speed is an average of 5 data runs with a Level of Confidence (LC)
0: 95%.
2 T~is speed is an average of 5 data runs with a LC of 60%.
This analysis indicates that this segment operates near the lower
end of the range of average travel speeds for LOS C for one hour of
the day (during the mid-day period). For two 30 minute periods
(12:00 - 12:30 PM and 1:00 - 1:30 PM) for northbound traffic, this
segment operates within 1.5 MPH of LOS D. During the rest of the
day, this segment operates in the upper half of LOS C or better.
A 4\
Attachment 3
1997 TMP
ARTERIAL SEGMENTS OPERATING AT ~ MID LOS C
(Data Reported at 40% Level of Confidence)
Otay Lakes Rd. (East H St. - Telegraph Canyon Rd.) - Class II
Lower Half of LOS C
Avg. MPH Above LOS D LOS C
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
NB 4:30 - 5:00 18.6 0.6 18 - 24
NB 5:00 - 5:30 19 - 9 1.9 (6 MPH)
This segment of Otay Lakes Rd. operates near the lower limit of LOS
C (0.6 MPH above LOS D) in the northbound direction for 30 minutes
in the evening (from 4:30 to 5:00 PM) and in the lower 1/3 of LOS
C (1.9 MPH above LOS D) in the northbound direction for an
additional 30 minutes between 5:00 - 5:30 PM. This lower Level of
Service C condition for northbound traffic is due to delay at the
intersection of East H SL and otay Lakes Rd. This study was
completed prior to the beginning of construction at the
intersection of Otay Lakes Rd. and East H Street. This
construction will improve LOS for this segment by adding an
additional northbound through lane and a second northbound to
westbound left turn lane on Otay Lakes Rd. at East H Street.
ALf2-.
._~--
Attachment 3
1997 TMP
ARTERIAL SEGMENTS OPERATING AT ~ MID LOS C
(Data Reported at ~ 60% Level of Confidence)
Palomar SL (I-5 NB Rmps - Broadway) - Class III
Lower Half of LOS C
Avg. MPH Above LOS D LOS C
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
WE 11:30 - 12:00 14.7 1.7 13 ~ 19
WE 12:00 - 12:30 15.5 2.5 (6 MPH)
WE 12:30 - 1: 00 15.4 2.4
WE 1: 00 - 1: 30 15.0 2.0
EB 4:00 - 4;.;;!0 14.8 1.8
EB 4:30 - 5:00 14.7 1.7
EB 5:30 - 6:00 14.7 1.7
WB 4:30 - 5:00 14.9 1.9
WB 5:30 - 6:00 15.5 2.5
LOS D
Avg. MPH Below LOS C LOS D
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
WB 4:00 - 4:30 12.61 0.4 9 - 13
WB 5:00 - 5:30 11.92 1 .1 (4 MPH)
1 This speed averages 12 data runs with a Level of Confi.dence (LC) of 40'1;.
2 This speed is an average of 11 data runs with a LC of BO%.
Analysis indicates that this segment operates in the lower half of
LOS C for 11/2 hours in the eastbound direction (Írom 4:00 - 5:00
PM and 5:30 - 6:00 PM) and for 3 hours in the westbound direction
(from 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM, 4:30 - 5:00 PM and 5:30 - 6:00 PM). The
westbound direction of this segment operates in the upper half of
LOS D Íor one hour in the evening (from 4:00 - 4:30 PM and from
5:00 - 5:30 PM).
~Z+3
Attachment 4
1997 TMP
ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE SEGMENTS OPERATING AT .i MID LOS D
(Data Reported at ~ 60% Level of Confidence)
E SL (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave) - Class III
Lower Half of LOS D
Avg. MPH Above LOS E LOS D
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
WE 4:00 - 4:30 9. B* O.B 9 - 13
(4 MPH)
'* Data reported with a 40% Level of Confidence
AnalYSis of the field data indicates that westbound ESt. at I-5,
is functioning at the lower limit of LOS D (within 1 MPH of LOS E)
for 30 minutes in the evening. This condition is not considered
significant, however, because the average travel time across this
1256' long segment at this level of service is only B7.6 seconds.
"4~
-- .---
Attachment <4
1997 TMP
ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE SEGMENTS OPEP.ATING AT i. MID LOS D
(Data Reported at ~ 60% Level of Confidence)
H st. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave) - Class III
Lower Half of LOS D
Avg. MPH Above LOS E LOS D
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
WE 11:30 - 12:00 9.1 0.1 9 - 13
WE 12:00 - 12:30 10.8 1.8 (4 MPH)
WE 12:30 - ,1 :.00 9.9 0.9
WE 4:30 - 5:00 10.1 1 .1
WB 5:30 - 6:00 10.7* 1.7
* D~~a reported with a 40% Level of Confidence
LOS E
Avg. MPH Below LOS D LOS E
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
WE 1:00 - 1: 30 8.8 0.2
WE 4:00 - 4:30 8.5* 0.5
7 - 9
(2 MPH)
" Da~a reported with a 40% Level of Confidence
Analysis of the field data indicates that westbound H st. at I-5,
is functioning in the lower half of LOS D for. 2 1/2 hours during
the day and at the upper limit of LOS E (within 0.5 MPH of LOS D)
for one hour during the day. This LOS E condition (8.5 MPH) is not
considered significant, however, because the average travel time
across this short (883') segment at this level of service is only
70.8 seconds.
Á. 46
Attachment 4
1997 TMP
ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE SEGMEJ-.."'TS OPERATING AT S- MID LOS D
(Data Reported at ~ 60% Level of Confidence)
Palomar St. (Bay Blvd. - Industrial Blvd.) - Class III
Lower Half of LOS D
Avg. MPH Above LOS E LOS D
Dir. Time Speed Threshold Speed Ranqe
EB 4:00 - 4:30 9.7 0.7 9 - 13
EB 4:30 - 5:00 10.2 1.2 (4 MPH)
EB 5:00 - 5:30 9.4 0.4
EB 5:30 - 6:00 10.7 1.7
Comparison between 1996 and 1997
1996 1997
Avg. Avg.
Dir. Time Speed Speed
EB 4:00 - 4:30 9.4 9.7
EB 4:30 - 5:00 10.2 10.2
EB 5:00 - 5:30 12.1 9.4
EB 5:30 - 6:00 11.7 10.7
As shown in the above table, eastbound Palomar st. at I-5 is
functioning at or slightly better in 1997 than in 1996 between the
hours of 4:00 and 5:00 PM. However, between 5:00 and 5:30 PM, the
average travel speed has decreased from 12.1 MPH to 9.4 MPH and
£rom 5:30 to 6:00 PM the average travel speed decreased £rom 11.7
MFH to 10.7 MFH. This means that eastbound Palomar st. at I-5 is
operating at the low end of LOS D for one hour during the day. At
the low end of LOS D (9.4 MPH), this corresponds to an average time
of 2 minutes 30 seconds to travel the length of the 2,071 foot long
segment. Compared to the middle of LOS D (2 minutes B seconds at
11.0 MPH), this lower level of LOS D adds an additional 22 seconds
to the travel time along this segment.
Delay for eastbound traffic along this segment occurs primarily at
the I-5 southbound ramps with some additional delay occurring at
Industrial Blvd.. There is currently a CIP project planned which
will provide topographic mapping and traffic data to Caltrans £or
the preparation of a project study report for the I-5/Palomar st.
interchange. This project study report will identify the ultimate
improvements for the interchange.
(H:\HOME\ENGr~LER\TRAFFIC\M-97TMP.SM)
" 4(p
1. Please fill in the table belowto indicate the existing enrolment conditions and capacity at the
end oft he Teviewpeñod noted above. I nfonmt ion the District.has already compiled, which is close,
or subse~nt 10 this date, is :also acceptable. Data is as of Janua¡y 1998. Capac:iy is shown as
Mpenmnent" Updated PelTTBnentIPortable infonmtion wDi be available in April 1998.
-
fII.OB<rfly¡t£ST" .' .." . ...'. .'. ,}:.t .,é
ook 533 535 2 12 Traditional Exceeds capacity
easter-Edison 9B7 1025 38 0 Traditional Charter I
Hilitop Drive fiT! 605 28 2 Tradilional I
Mueller 796 861 65 0 Muit~YRS Excess space is in 1
(Charter) Kindergarten
Rosebank 6B6 695 9 13 Traditional Exceeds capacity I
I
ista Square 660 730 70 'Zl YRS !
SDJrnHW£ST ".':,"",,:; ..., , ,.,.,
astle Park 588 590 2 12 Traditional Exceeds capacity i
;arborside 715 770 55 7 Traditional Excess space is in kdg !
ellogg 418 435 17 4 Traditional I
Lauderbach 931 925 -6 0 Muit~YRS I
oma Verde 708 725 17 2 Traditional i
~ontgomery 433 435 2 4 Traditional Exceeds capacity !
Otay 672 700 28 16 Traditional Excess space is in kdg
Palomar 455 470 15 7 Traditional
Rice 732 785 53 20 Traditional I
IRohr 538 575 37 3 YRS .-
olympicview 7~ 740 3 0 'YRS
arkview 521 550 29 0 'Traditional
1'Iogers 449 465 16 1 YRS
rvalle Undo 527 535 8 1 Traditional
'.' .'.'. ,,'.
Allen 456 470 14 2 Traditional I
Chula Vista Hills 642 710 68 0 Traditional Excess space is for growth
learVi- fiT! 645 68 0 Traditional Excess space is for growth
Charter
Discovery B38 855 17 0 YRS Charter
l::astLake 810 840 30 0 YRS
Halecrest 569 605 36 0 Traditional
triffany 729 770 41 1 Traditional Excess space is for growth
"(-J denotes amount over capacity
A 47
CHULA ViSTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLDlslRlCT PAGE 2
2. PJease fill in the table below to indicate the projected conditions based on the City's 12-18
month forecast.
Forecasts for 1998-1999 and beyond indicate that short of reducing class size for Kindergarten, calendar st
and new school construction will be sufficient to accommodate student growth.
-"-~~-...Iim.'.........."... ..J!!Ij........--.""".....'. Z!'J~ .. I 1..- Ii,'~
f~" ,., !"j)~' j1,:..
,\",',,; "".," ',", ,,'
" "-
"- i
. i
"- I
"- ,
~ I
5+""'1',,','<.
"- I
" I
~ I
"- ¡
"-
I
"- !
'"
"
"T,,' ,i,f '\:' ,"; "',',, "':""":<...,:,.,;:,,¡,,
"- !
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
"-
"-
"-
'"
*(-) denotes amount over capacity
A46
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY S,-,ttOOLDIS1RICT PAGE 3
3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history.
.
~~~~.
~
o.ta.1 Enrollme- nt 4,239. 3,933 3,822
Yo of Change Over the Previous Year 8% 3% 3%
Yo of Enrollment from Chula Vista 98% 97.5% 97%
-
of Change Over the Previous Year 4% 4% -1%
of Enrollment from Chula Vista 98% 97.5% 97%
3. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the District's ability to
accommodate student enrollment? The District has purchased relocatable classrooms and has plans for a
new school to open in July 199B, as well as a new school by July 1999. In four instances, classrooms have
been doubled (2 teachers, 1 room, 30 students) to accommodate class size reduction in grades 1-3.
4. Describe the ability of current facilities to absorb forecasted growth for the 5 to 7 year time
frame. Current facilities are sufficient when combined with new school construction and
the recent shift to multi-track year round in one school for 1997-9B.
5. What new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth? Three to four new
schools in the next seven years.
a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities?
Three sites have been or are in the process of being acquired: Rolling Hills Ranch,
Palomar @ Medical Center, EastLake Trails
b. How will these facilities be funded?
Mello-Roos or builder-deferred payment
c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
Mello-Roos financing has worked well for CVESD
6. What growth-related issues do you see affecting maintenance of the current level of service
as Chula Vista'spopuJation increases? Demographic shifts in older areas of the city will affect increased
student population.
1\ t-\q
-~_..~
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY S\,;HOOLDISTRICT PAGE 4
MAINTENANCE
7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Although
the Govemor's budget looks promising, bonded financing and the maintenance of Mello-Roos financing will be
needed to maintain existing iacilities and build new ones.
8. What major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the School
District's current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Now that modemization of 11 of the district's oldest schools is
complete, the district has plans to modemize additional facilities as soon as funding sources are identified.
GMOC'S PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATJONS
9. What is the status of the schools task force? The Schools Task Force is a compilation of many
groups, irom the District's Budget Committee, to District Advisory Committee, and planning staff.
10. What are the accomplishments of the schools task force? Identified needs are additional facilities
and improved facilities.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
Sites of 10-12 acres are advisable.
12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council? Sites of 10-12 acres. Support for continuance of Me"-
Roos financing and its alternatives
13. Other relevant information the District desires to communicate to the City and GMOC.
We are grateful for the opportunity to work with Planning staff regarding upcoming and forecast growth issues.
Prepared by: Cheryl S. Cox for Lowell Billings
Title: Administrator,Student Placement, for Assistant Superintendent,
Business Services and Support
Date: January 3D, 1998
H :\home \plan n i ng\edalia \gm oc97\QCVES D 2. Q
Åt7D
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Planning & Facilities
RECE1\lED
February 3, 1998 FEB 0 3 'I9W
Mr. Ed Batchelder PLANNiNG
Senior Planner
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
The sweetwater Union High. School District is again pleased to provide input to the Growth
Management Oversight Commission. Since our last report to the GMOC the District has
implemented aggressive efforts to meet growth demands. The District installed 18 additional
relocatable classrooms during the 1997/98 school year and is in the plan review stage required to
add six classrooms. More importantly, the District will complete Phase I construction Of the Rancho
del Rey Middle School in the July 1998 time frame. These middle school students, who are
temporarily housed at Eastlake High school, will be relocated to the new school upon completion.
Synopsis
Enrollments at all schools within the District continue to push capacities; however, the construction
efforts noted above along with school attendance boundary adjustments, have allowed the District
to cope with the continuing growth surge. critical to our ongoing success in meeting growth
demands in the eastern territory of the City, will be the timely location and construction of a new
Table 1: CBEDs ENROLLMENT 10/8/97 10/9/96 Change
Northwest ChUla Vista Jr High 1,384 1,385 -1
Hilltop.Mlddle 1,2S6 1,230 26
Chula Vista High 2,178 2,092 86
Hilltop High 1,783 1,752 31
¡otalŒ~~"¡;¡ ~~,q59_117~
Southwest castle Park Middle 1,269 1.282 -13
castle Pari< High 1,993 2,037 -44
Palomar High 470 433 37
~ ~., f-
"u
Northeast Bonita Vista High 2,253 2,192 61
Bonita Vista Middle 1.484 1,616 -122
EastJake High 1,711 1,534 177
RDR Middle 284 284
;cta ~~.
TOTAL Chula Vista 16,075 15,553 522 I
. CBEDs number less SAC and Learning Center Students
high school on the Dtay Ranch. The District is working with the developer to locate a suitable
school site and to put in place the necessary financing mechanisms. concurrently, the District has
commenced efforts to locate a new high school on the Dtay Mesa. Timely construction of a site
here is also a key to meeting student housing requirements in the southern portion of the District.
!\ 1:3 \
Page 2
Although this facility is not located within the city of Chula Vista, Sweetwater facilities could
conceivably be impacted should this facility not come on line by 2001/02.
Table 1 of our report indicates the enrollment conditions at District schools in ChUia Vista. It should
be noted that 31,760 day students are located in the District at 10 high schools and 10 middle
schools. Within Chula Vista city limits, 16,075 full time day students were enrolled on October 8,
1997, at5 high schools and 5 middle schools.
Housinq Conditions Throuqh June 3D 1997
At the beginning of the 1996/97 school year, enrollment topped 15,533 fUll time day students.
However, toward the end of the school year, enrollment had dropped to 15,058 fUll time day
students at the April 22, 1997, count. For purposes of the GMDC's June 3D, 1997, analysis, this date is
used to most closely match the GMDC review period.
Table2 Capacity Capacity 4IZ2l'ðT
Conditia'lS thru fSI3DffIl Perm. PcrIabIe Tolal Iìmand'
NoI1I1west Ollila Vista Mddle 1,185 384 1,5613 1,346
HIItDp Mddle 1,4Œ5 128 1,534 1,218
Ollila Vista H¡j1 1,389 544 1,933 1,!l23
HiIItDp Hi¡j1 1,385 256 1,641 1,616
5ouII1voest cætle ParI< Mddle 1,352 256 1,6œ 1,238
cætle ParI< H¡j1 1,579 512 2,C91 1,764
PalorrarHi¡j1 47D 150 620 470
tb1heast Bonita Vista H¡j1 1,384 576 1,$0 2,104
Bonita Vista MddI 1,341 320 1,æ1 1,621
Eas11aI<e H¡j1 2,413 0 2,413 1,474
RæMddle 2B4 0 2B4 2B4
~1Ø 14,188 3,126 17,314 15,058
. C8ED; n.rrter Jess SI\C ¡nj l.æni~ Center SI1œnIs
The District's site master plan identifies housing capacity at each school site. Where necessary, a
school site is augmented with reloc:atable structures and/or trailers. It is clear from Table 2 that
during the 1996/97 school year school housing impacts focused entirely on Bonita Vista High School.
As a result, two classroom trailers were added to the site in 1997.
Trailers/relocatables were also added at castle Pari< High and Chula Vista High Schools. These two
sites are each scheduled to receive one more classroom trailer to be installed mid 1998. As a result
of the measures noted, capacity demands were generallY met by the District through the period
ending June 3D, 1997.
1130 FIFTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA. 91911
PHONE (619) 691.5553 . FAX (619) 420.0339
1\ 62-
Page 3
LonCi Term Forecast
The City has provided the District with long-term development forecasts. Based upon the forecast
of new housing units, the District would exhaust the available high school capacity at Eastlake High
in 1999, and the:available capacity at Rancho del Rey Middle by 2001. Should those projections be
realistic, the District would need to commence construction on both a new high school and middle
school immediately. It takes approximately four years to design a sChool, receive state approval
and complete construction. Therefore, the City's assistance in the siting and timely acquisition of
property for these next two facilities (otay Ranch and EastlakeJ will be critical to meeting the
forecasted demand.
City Forecast 1998 - 2000 forecast 2000 - 2005
Growth Forecast Housing JHS HS Housing JHS HS
units Students Students Units Students Students
Brehm Terra Nova 20 2 4 0 0 0
RDR I &11 561 56 107 0 0 0
RDRIII 1141 114 217 0 0 0
San Miguel Ranch 246 25 47 586 59 111
Vista Miguel 0 0 0 43 4 8
5unbow II 640 64 122 1306 131 248
Salt Creek I 54 5 10 0 0 0
Salt Creek Ranch 525 53 100 1092 109 207
EastJake 1817 182 345 1110 111 211
Otay Ranch 1343 134 255 3220 322 612
Bonita Meadows 0 0 0 100 10 19
Watson Land 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 6347 635 1206 7457 746 1417
Average annual 2539 1491 ."."
City Forecast 2005'2010 2010 -2015
Growth Forecast Housing . JHS HS Housing JHS HS
Units Students Students Units Students Students
Brehm Terra Nova 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROR I &11 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROR III 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Miguel Ranch S62 56 107 0 0 0
Vista Miguel 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sunbow II 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salt Creek I 0 0 0 0 0 0
Salt Creek Ranch 999 100 190 0 0 0
Eastlake 2127 213 404 0 0 0
otay Ranch 2549 255 484 10930 1093 2077
Bonita Meadows 0 0 0 0 0 0
watson Land 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 6237 624 1185 10930 1093 2rJ77
Average annual 1309 2215
1130 l'IFTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIF ORNIA . 91911
PHONE (619) 691-5553. FAX (619) 420-0339
~53
---
Page 4
However, based upon historical data, the District is assuming that these forecasts are very
aggressive. If the District were to assume that the forecasts are 50 percent overstated, which more
closely resembles development conditions over the past several years, we would still need to open
a new middle school by 2003/04 and a new high school by 2004. This framework is within the
realistic parameters in which the District can deliver a site. Ac¡ain It is import2nt to emphasize that
the onc¡oinc¡ cooperation of the City is import2nt to the timelv sltinc¡ and acQuisition of new school
sites as well as formation of CommunitY Facilities Districts.
Even at a pace of development that is 50 percent of the forecast provided to the GMOC, the District
exPects to begin constructing a new high school on otay Ranch by 2000/01. Additionally, the next
junior high school site (most likely in Eastlake) will be needed in this same time frame. Following
these two facilities, will be the next high school and junior high school on the otay Ranch, which
will need to be purchased during the 2005 time frame. The District, along with City staff will be
monitoring development so that these target dates can be accomplished.
Other issues/Questions
03. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the District's ability to
accommodate growth?
The District has been able to accommodate student enrollment during the enrollment period
through construction of relocatable facilities and modifications to attendance boundaries.
04. Describe the ability of current facilities to absorb forecasted growth for the 5 to 7 year time
frame.
Two District schools have the capacity to accommodate future growth. One facility is the Rancho
del Rey Middle SChool, now under construction and scheduled to open in July 1998. This school will
have the capacity for 1,400 students. It will open in 1998 with approximately 800 students and have
available capacity for 600 additional students. Middle school classes are currently being held for
these 286 students at Eastlake High SchooL Eastlake High school has the capacity to absorb 2,400
students and is operating at around 1,800 students.
05. What new facilities will be required to accommodate forecast growth?
This issue has been addressed above in terms of school siting. Facilities will be funded through the
Community Facilities District mechanisms currently in place in most new communities in the
eastern territories. New projects in the Otay Ranch will likewise be required to create CFD's in order
to fund school capacity.
06. What growth-related issues do you see affecting maintenance of the current level of service as
Chula Vista's population increases?
The District was unsuccesSful in obtaining bond approval in 1997 that would nave 1argeted repair
and in some cases, replacement of school facilities 3D years and older. The District has applied to
the State for $30 million in"Modernization Funds" affecting 14 District SChools, 8 of which are in
Chula Vista. Availability of State funds is contingent upon voter approval of State Bond initiatives.
Short of State-wide or local funding, the District will be hard pressed to provide further
modification/exPansion of existing facilities to meet growth demands.
07. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance Of existing facilities?
The District reserves approximately 2 percent of the annual operating budget of $160 million for
maintenance. This is within State guidelines for maintenance budgets. However, as the vast
majority of the District's school sites are 20+ to 50 vears old, this 2 percent allotment will continue
to be stretched.
08. What major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the District's
current 1 year and 5 year CIP?
1130 FIFTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA' 91911
PHONE (619) 691.5553 . FAX (619) 420-0339
A ~.A...
Page 5
AS previously stated, the District will install new reloc:atable classrooms on three Chula Vista school
sites by mid-199B and complete the construction of the Rancho del Rey Middle School by Fall 1998.
Within the 5-year time frame, we anticipate the need to commence construction of an additional
middle school and an additional high school.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, vJ
át~
Director of Planning
Sweetwater Union High school District
1130 FIFTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA. 91911
PHONE (619) 691-5553 . FAX (619) 420-0339
f>-- '5 c;
THRESHOLD STANDARD
Section 19.09.040.E ofthe Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance)
states that "three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with
appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of 1-805".
1. Please "fill in the following park acreage and population table.
EAST 1-805
3 ACRES PER 1000 AC/1000- 4.40 3.95 4.53 4.75 5.02
POPULATION EAST WEST 1-805
OF 1-805 AC/1000 1.18 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21
CITY-WIDE
AlC1000 2.16 2.08 2.16 2.20 226
210.40 210.40 203.40 203.40 203.40
129.45 129.45 129.45 129.45 129.45
339.85 339.85 332.85 332.85 332.85
47,780 53,217 44,885 42,821 40,495
109,647 109,793 109,162 108,151 106,759
157,427 163,010 154,047 150,972 147,254
67.06 67.06 68.75 74.94 81.92
-199.49 -199.49 -198.05 -195.00 -190.83
-132.43 -132.43 -129.30 -120.06 -108.91
*Information for areas WEST of 1-805 and CITY-WIDE are shown for comparative purposes only.
*"'The number of acres necessary to bring the ratio up to 3 acres per 1,000 population.
-Acres per 1,000 population
~ r;;(p
Please provide a brief narrative response to the following:
2. Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO), has the eastern Chula
Vista parks system had the required facilities during the reporting period?
The response has two parts:
Per the POD requirement of 3 acres per 1,000 population, the eastern Chula Vista
parks system meets and exceeds the requirement for the reporting period with a
4.40 acres per thousand ratio.
Per the PDO requirement of buildings and facilities, the eastern Chula Vista parks
system is deficient in one main area; there is no recreation community cénter.
3. For any shortages of parkland or facilities during the reporting period, what
actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to achieve the standards?
For the shortage of facilities, all required actions, perthe POD, have been taken.
A facility was required by the City in the Chula Vista Community Park at EastLake
Greens. Due to funding constraints following the completion of the park
requirement, the facility was not built. Per an agreement between LeastLake and
the City, €ntered into in 1996, EastLake will be placing $880,738 into an escrow
account for a community center on July 1, 1999.
For future requirements, staff is adhering to the POD by requiring the facilities as
stated in the POD. For new parks in eastern Chula Vista, staff will be placing the
required conditions as a' part of the discretionary project approvals with the
appropriate parties.
GROWTH IMPACTS
4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to
maintain the threshold standard?
No.
5. Indicate those parklands and facilities necessary to accommodate forecasted
growth for both the 12 - 18 month and 5 - 7 year time frames.
a. Are there sites available for the needed parkland and facilities?
Yes; staff is negotiating with the developers in eastern Chula Vista'to site
and provide the necessary parklands and facilities.
 t:S1
b. How will the park land and facilities be funded?
Based on past actions, the developer fully funds the parkland utilizing the in-
lieu Parkland Acquisition and Development fee process as stated in the
PDO, or constructing equivalent turnkey parks. Facilities are normally
funded in the same manner.
c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism{s) in place to provide this
funding?
Yes, through the Parkland Acquisition and Development Ordinance (PDO).
6. Please indicate any additional issues you see affecting the ability to maintain
the threshold standard as Chula Vista's population increases?
None. Based on past experience, and the fact that eastern Chula Vista exceeds the
parkland requirement by 1.40 acres per thousand (eastern Chula Vista ratio is 4.40
acres per thousand), it appears that no major issues will arise.
PARKLAND AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing
parklands and facilities?
The maintenance of all parklands and facilities is a budget issue. At the current
time, park maintenance is ~nder-staffed, since budget cuts occurred approximately
three years ago, which deleted two Gardener positions and part-time hours from the
budget. It is anticipated, that as the budget funding picture improves in the City of
Chula Vista, that these positions will be restored and adequate funding for
maintenance of existing parklands and facilities will be in place.
8. What major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken
pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP?
PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR FY 99/00
Woodlawn Park Feasibility $12,500 - CDBG
Greg Rogers - Phase I $1,525,486 - PAD
McCandliss Memorial- Phase IV (PR-179) $380,000 - PAD
Rohr Park- Phase V (PR-182) $712,000 - PAD
Rohr Pari< Maintenance Shed (PR-213) $323,950 - PAD
Sport Court Renovation - Phase II (PR-212) $100,000 - PAD
Restroom Construction (PR-214) $96,500 - PAD
Rohr Park Soccer Field (PR-216) $146,300 - PAD
Þ--I5Cò
-.-
PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR FY 00/01
Rohr Manor (PR-103) $530,978 - PAD
Eucalyptus Park Master Plan (PR-136) $1,234,600 - PAD
Greg Rogers - Phase II (PR-170) $971,900 - PAD
Rohr Park - Phase VI (PR-186) $291,400 - PAD
Restroom Construction (PR-214) $96,500 - PAD
PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR FY 01/02
Greg Rogers - Phase III (PR-171) $1,015,000 - PAD
Rohr Park Maintenance Shed (PR-213) $323,950 - PAD
PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR FY 02/03
Greg Rogers - Phase IV (PR-172) $618,900 - PAD
PARKS MASTER PLAN
The following questions are follow-ups to previous GMOC recommendations.
9. What is the status of the Parks Master Plan?
At this meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Planning Departments
will be presenting a preliminary draft of Chapter Two of the Parks Master Plan -
Westem Chula Vista Parks Study Area, as well as a schedule of the remaining
tasks and the input process necessary for adoption. As the original Parks Master
Plan scope of work was expanded to include park implementation issues in eastem
Chula Vista, the completed Parks Master Plan is now expected to be completed by
June of 1998. Staff will encourage the City Council to adopt the GMOC-
recommended Revised Parks Threshold Standard this year so that next year's
growth management oversight effort will address park implementation on a City-
wide basis.
10. What measures are being undertaken to coordinate and integrate the
Greenbelt Master Plan with the Parks Master Plan?
As requested by the GMOC at their November 1997 meeting, the Parks Master Plan
includes a thorough description of the physical nature of the Chula Vista Greenbelt.
The Parks Master Plan is a policy document that includes a description of issues
faced within identifiable segments of the Greenbelt, what actions are currently being
taken to implement the Greenbelt concept within master planned communities along
the Greenbelt and subsequent implementation plans that are being prepared to
further implement this important resource and opportunity.
A ~(:A
Implementation efforts include the establishment of a hierarchy of defined trails,
including regional connections, community and neighborhood-level linkages, major
active and passive park and open space ties along the Greenbelt and standards for
continuity in signing, trail sizes and materials. The Greenbelt Master Plan, like the
Parks Master Plan, is an unfunded effort receiving staff input from the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Department, the Planning Department, the
Engineering Department and the Building and Housing Department. Related
implementation efforts include the Sweetwater and Otay Valley Regional Parks and
the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. It is expected that the Master Plan will be
completed by the end of 1998. Portions of the Greenbelt are being implemented
via the Otay River Valley Regional Park acquisition program with the City and
County of San of San Diego.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
No. Staff believes, that through long-range planning, the current threshold standard
of 3 acres per 1,000 population, in eastem Chula Vista can be maintained, or even
exceeded.
12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management
Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council?
None at this time.
13. Other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the
GMOC.
Staff will be pleased to answer any questions the Commission may have at the
meeting.
H: ISHAREDIG M 0 C\QUES11 DNIGM Des. RPT
~O
PARKS AND RECREATION
3.7 Parks and Recreation
3.7.1 Existinl! Threshold Policy
~
To provide a diverse and flexible park system which meets both the active and passive
recreational needs of the citizens of Chula Vista.
Objective
Provide public park and recreational opportunities in a timely manner, :implementing a
:§ , e ) eM i~..š.~~~~ãñ master plan which describes the
location, facility improvements, and funding program for proposed neighborhood and
community. parks.
Threshold Standard
Population ratio: Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community park land with
appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents ~ eø ef mærst!ite 8(}5.
ImDlementation Measures
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 park and. recreation system
into conformance. !fi~Õ'PJ!I~~'ttli~1JI!.~;7".
W~øffi'I~
¡JE~}~.£! ¡¡¡¡,¡¡i1~:E~m-'"2'",ÑIEm"""_"i")7'" :-";,~IUDT:i;:;:;iili~~I'E¡"'..'
Jt.L,t"\~(fJ.!!~1~1~:dt?7;'z,3:,'i3~~l ;;.r:""J:w1ilEfr~¡'"' \íYE~.J:"'.'i'Ð.£.,,T',:
i<.. ¿. '~'!!'!!'"41"-' ~ - ... -"'~.. - ..~. ~~ - ,.~ 1!11'~- - -. "'dO .'-- -~u..".,..,
~ (,; \
-.--. -
~~~~"'-~~~§l'~~is~
. ~~~~If~"'I~~Tññ1lIfiìffiÏ"~..'!~œJ~
~Ö :">ir'ffi i'o/~mw "",¡.;,¡rnñ öD:i:õh~~pn;h lfJ1~ ~pn e,rii'l.f'1I iiíì~~p ~
EäSŒmflfiiifii1t1"4Šfi1
Ð~., J.. ..!I'j~pšf~.II>!~' .....r~~~lï~~.~11 ~~
~þsbI""'r:lf'11t""~ € É°nsttuc:tÏon or other actual solutio~~
~ shall be scheduled to commence within three years. If construction of
needed new park and recreation facilities is not started within three .years of the
deficiency reported by the GMOC, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of
the GMOC's repon, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting
a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications ~:;X..!!:1>.,
based on all of the following criteria:
1. That the moratorium is limited to an æ:ea wherein <I causal relationship to
the problem has been established; and,
2. That the moratorium provides <I mitigation measure to a specifically
identified impact.
Should <I moratorium be established, the time sha1l be used to expeditiouslyprepare
specific mitigation measures for adoption which æ:e intended to bring the condition
into conformance. Any such moratorium shall be in effect until consttuction of the
needed new park and recreation facilities has commenced.
(M, IHOMEIPLA NNINGIPIPIPR. THR -1.STD)
fk (~"I
THRESHOLDS
1. Please fill in the blanks on this table.
FY 1994-95 151,477 67,329 sq. ft.* 445 sq. ft.
FY 1995-6 154,656 102,000 sq. ft. 662 sq. ft.
FY 1996-97 156,041 102,000 sq. ft. 653 sq. ft.
FY 1997-98 157,427 102,000 sq. ft. 649 sq. ft.
12-18 Month Projection 160,256 102,000 sq. ft. 637 sq. ft.
5-7 Year Projection 175,328 132,000 sq. ft.(esL) 754 sq. ft.
Buildout Projection 268,000 162,000 sq. ft.(esL) 604 sq. ft.
(ChuJa Vista Gene",' Plan)
*The South Chula Vista Library opened in April 1995. At that time the Castle Park and
Wood law Park Libraries closed. The cumulative library square footage then increased to
102,000.
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
Section 19.09.040.0. of the Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance) states that
libraries shall be "adequately equipped and staffed".
2. What constitutes an ftadequately equipped" library?
An adequately equipped library would include:
. An appropriate materials collection (books, videos, compact discs, talking
books, etc) in terms of breadth, depth and scope. Per the Librarv Master
Plan and the City's General Plan, our goal is 3 items per capita. There would
need to be adequate shelving to house the collection.
* It would also include the necessary number of "state of the art" public
computer workstations to access Internet and local-area -networked software.
It would also include an up-te-date, integrated local automated library system
~(P9
for circulation, cataloging, the catalog, inventory control, acquisitions,
management reports and fund accounting.
* An appropriate number of tables, study carrels and chairs in good condition
a. Are the Libraries adequately equipped?
b. If not, please explain.
The General Fund materials budget has been reduced by $182,000 over the last few
years which is placing considerable strain upon the collections (especially at Civic
Center/Main Library). We currently have approximately 2.6 items per capita. The
Library technology infrastructure is good at South Chula Vista Library and weak at
both Civic Center and EastLake Libraries. The Library's Inlex (or integrate local
computer system) is now out of date and the Library is requesting funding to replace
it in the 1998-99 CIP.
3. What constitutes an "adequately staffed" library?
a. Are the libraries adequately staffed?
b. If not, please explain.
r-
The current Librarv Master Plan outlines staffing standards. It calls for one FTE
Professional Librarian for every 6,000 residents. Based on the current population of
156,100 the Library should therefore have 26.0 FTE Professional Librarians and we
have 25.5. However, this fonnula has some weaknesses and the Library is currently
short 2 FTE Librarians to adequately cover the public service desks all open hours.
The fonnula also calls for two FTE support staff for every professional. Based on
that fonnula we should therefore have 52 FTE support staff. We actually have
52.03.
GROWTH IMPACTS
4. Has growth negatively affected the current ability to maintain service levels?
With the construction of the South Chula Vista Library and the opening of the joint-
use facility at EastLake, the Library has appeared to maintain services.
5. Describe the abiJity of current facilities to absorb forecast growth for both the
12 to 18 month and 5 to 7 year time frame.
The current facilities will absorb growth during the next 18 months. The planned
construction of a 30,000 square foot east side library will absorb growth during the 5
to 7 year time frame.
6. What new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth?
The current plans include a 30,000 square foot library in the Sweetwater/Bonita
Planning Area and a 30,000 square foot library in the Otay Ranch. This will be
reviewed during the upcoming master plan update.
Ä.{P4
a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities?
A six acre site at Paseo Ranchero and East H Street has been dedicated for a
library in the Sweetwater/Bonita Planning Area. No site has been selected for an
Otay Ranch Library
b. How will these facilities be funded?
Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (DIF)
c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
Yes, the Public Facilities DlF is being revised this year, although the Library.
component may be deferred until after the completion of the master plan update.
7. What growth-related issues do you see affecting maintenance of the current
level of services as Chula Vista's population increases?
Those issues will be determined as part of the master plan update.
MAINTENANCE / UPGRADE OF EQUIPMENT & COLLECTIONS
8. Has adequate funding been identified and/or secured for maintenance of
existing facilities?
Historically, there has been adequate dollars for building maintenance from the
General Fund.
9. What major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to
the current 1-year and 5-year CIP?
The carpet and banners at the Civic Center Library will need to be replaced during
the next 1 - 5 years. As mentioned above, the Library is also requesting funds to
upgrade itS automated systems next fiscal year.
LIBRARY MASTER PLAN UPDATE
10. What is the status of the Library Master Plan Update?
On November 13, 1997 the City Council is scheduled to approve the contract with
David M. Griffith and Associates to conduct the master plan update. The contract
calls for the update to be completed by August 1,1998. A copy of the scope of work
is attached.
A(p5
11. Does the update include an analysis of the floor area and staff needs
stemming from the integration of computers?
Yes. See attachment.
12. Does the update include an analysis of the interim and permanent library siting
issues in the EastLake master plan area?
Yes. See attachment.
13. Does the update include consideration of the desirability of an additional joint
location with a school library?
Yes, including Southwestern College and -the proposed Higher Learning Center. See
attachment.
MISCELLANEOUS
14. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
Gross square footage based on population should not be the only growth related
threshold. It is important to also consider geographic factors (e.g. driving and walking
distance to a branch library) when determining whether or not the City is providing
adequate library service. The library square footage must be equitably distributed
throughout the City. This issue will also be considered during the master plan
update.
15. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management
Oversight Commission tó recommend to the City Council.
None at this time.
16. Other relevant jnformation the department desires to communicate to the
GMOC.
The County Board of Supervisors have voted to re-create the Regional Library
Authority with the purpose of placing another quarter of a cent sales tax initiative on
a 1998 ballot. The Chula Vista City Council joined the other 17 cities in the county in
approving a resolution of support for the re-authorization of the Authority. The
previous tax initiative, in November 1996, garnered an impressive 59.5% of the vote
in Chula Vista and over 59% county-wide. There is a great deal of confidence that
with more time and a better organized and funded campaign, the five year library
sales tax could receive the necessary two-thirds vote. Approval of such a measure
would raise approximately $20 million for the Chula Vista Public Library. Funds
could only be used to supplement, not supplant existing General Fund support.
Expenditure plans are due to the Library Authority by December 11, 1997.
Therefore, the City Council will be asked to approve a proposed expenditure plan at
its December 9, 1997 meeting.
(H'lhonElplannmg_.wpd)
1\ {pCp
THRESHOLDS
1. Please fill in the blanks on this table.
Average * 10.709 10.870 11.329 11.631 12.483* 14.417 19.234
Flow (MGD)
Capacity 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.34 19.34 19.34 19.34
**
* Projection is average daily flow over the entire fiscal year
** includes purchase of 0.140 mgd of capacity from National City
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? No
GROWTH IMPACTS
3. Has growth negatively affected the current ability to maintain service levels? No
4. Describe the ability of current facilities to absorb forecast growth for both the 12 to
18 month and 5 to 7 year time frame.
Current sewerage facilities should be able to handle the growth anticipated during the 12
to 18 month period. However, due to the development expected to occur in the eastern
areas of Chula Vista in the 5 to 7 year time frame (such as Otay Ranch and Sunbow II), it
is anticipated that several major trunk sewer lines will need to be constructed or upgraded
during that time period.
5. What new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth?
The following new major sewer facilities may be required within the 5 to 7 year time frame:
A. Upgrade to the Telegraph Canyon Interceptor Sewer (estimated cost: $1.740
million without pumped flows, $5.890 million with pumped flows)
B. The Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer (estimated cost: $8.171 million)
C. The Poggi Canyon Interceptor Sewer (estimated cost: $6.133 million)
D. Relief sewer parallel to Main St./ Date-Faivre lines (estimated cost: $9.897 million)
Þ--ep1
~---
a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Yes.
b. How will these facilities be funded?
Development Impac:t Fees (DIFs), which will need to be paid by developers at the time
when building permits are acquired, have been enac:ted to fund construc:tion of the Salt
Creek Sewer and improvements to the Telegraph Canyon sewer. A sewer basin plan has
been prepared for the Poggi Canyon Sewer. It is proposed that the City finance the portion
of this line which will be construc:ted in existing developed areas (estimated cost $1.756
million) and that the rest of this facility be financed through a DIF payable by developers.
This contribution is justifiable because it will finance replacement of the existing line. A
public hearing date has been set for the City Council meeting of November 25.
Since the Main Street parallel sewer is a regional facility, it is proposed that it be funded by
the City from sewer capacity charges paid by developers.
c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
See response to #5b above.
6. What growth-related issues do you see affecting maintenance of the level of service
as Chura Vista's population increases?
The two growth-related issues would be the ability of Chula Vista's interceptor sewers to
handle the additional sewage flow associated with new development and the adequacy of
Chula VIsta's capacity in the Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro). As discussed above,
several sewer construc:tion and expansion projects are being planned to handle this flow.
Additionally, the low flow toilets installed in new developments should reduce the amount
of sewage flow and possibly the size and length of improvements needed.
Based on the amount of additional development projec:ted by the Planning Department and
our current average unit flow rate, it is predic:ted that the City will have just enough capacity
in the Metro system to handle ultimate flows. These projec:tions will be reevaluated in the
future based on the results of the City's flow monitoring.
7. Please provide a status/update of the ongoing negotiations with the City of San
Diego regarding the provision of adequate treatment capacity to meet the buildout
needs of the Chula Vista General PJan.
.During Fiscal Year 1996-97, the City purchased an additional 140,000 gallons per day
(0.140 mgd) of capacity in the Metro System from the City of National City. The largest
portion of this capacity (0.100 mgd) is serving SDG&E, which needed to commence
discharging to the sewer process water that was formerly discharged to San Diego Bay.
Chula VIsta later entered into agreements with the City of San Diego regarding the transfer
of these capacity rights.
The City of Chula Vista has participated in the negotiations between AFFORD (an
organization composed of most of the agencies discharging into the Metro system) and the
City of San Diego regarding the development of new Metro agreement which would reflec:t
the expanded Metro system. This agreement has gone through several drafts, and it is
anticipated that a new agreement will be enacted in this Fiscal Year. The term of the new
agreement is to 2050 and thereafter indefinitely as long as the City pays its fair share of
þ... (17 9-,
of system costs.
The City of San Diego has acknowledged existing capacity rights and the right of the Metro
agencies to sell capacity -to each other. In the absence of a new agreement, the City's
existing Metro agreement is valid until September 2003, and can be unilaterally extended
by the City of Chula Vista for an additional ten years- San Diego, by letter agreement
dated November 25, 1996, has agreed to serve Chula Vista until the year 2050.
PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATION
8. What will be Proposition 218's impacts on construction of needed sewer
improvements in western Chula Vista?
Sewers constructed in western Chula Vista are generally financed through Fund 222, the
Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund, which consists of sewer capacity fees paid by
developers at the time that building permits are acquired. Improvements required due to
development in the eastern areas are frequently financed by a DIF, such as with the
Telegraph Canyon line. Proposition 218 would not affect either funding source-.
Please list:
a. Identified sewerage problems, or needed improvements, which are not yet
funded or scheduled (list in order of importance).
b. Estimated cost of the above improvements.
c. How the above improvements are likely to be funded.
The Main Street relief sewer (estimated at $9.897 million) would be the main unscheduled
project which will impact the western area of Chula Vista. As previously discussed, it is
anticipated that this project will be funded from Fund 222 (sewer capacity fees).
MAINTENANCE
9. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
The City allocates approximately $300,000 each year for the repair and! or reconstruction
of sewer mains at various locations as part of the Sewer Rehabilitation Program. This
program is funded through a charge of $0.70 per month per single family home which is
billed with the sewer service charges. Construction of Phase VII of this program was
completed in Fall 1997.
The remainder of operation and maintenance costs, including salary and equipment costs,
are paid from the sewer service charges assessed to residents or property owners
connected to the sewer.
10. What major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the
current 1-year and 5-year CIP?
The Sewer Rehabilitation Program indicated above is an annual program included in the
current CIP.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
Current standard is adequate.
~CM
----
12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Not at this time.
13. Other relevant infonnation the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC.
All issues are addressed above.
EM C:H:\HOMEIENGINEERISEWERIGMOC97 .EMC
A70
~ ",I
L-v-J', ~\I:~I ~
1 ~ ::s:¡'¡
,~. ""\ -
-~l, u
' ~ . ,
... " \
\ ,
I .
. I .+: .~I
I \ -I
" ,
z: I
¡¡; :
< ,
... i
""
...
~
<.'>
~
<
'"
\
!i
---¡¡ :
:~ !
11 1
If 1-
i{ i
\«
~ Ii
- J
~- ,
> c ~ '" ,
= : 0 ," ,
'" -= ~.«
~~~ ,
U~~ I
~ E I
- ~ ~ ,
0 ¡; ~ 'I ,
þ- :"
u ~!"
fl <-. "-
AIl
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
THRESHOLDS
1. Have storm water flows or volumes exceeded the capacity of any City facilities at any
time during this reporting period? No If so,
2. Where did this occur? N/A
b. Why did it occur? N/A
c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation? N/A
GROWTH IMPACTS
2. Has growth negatively affected the current ability to maintain service levels? No
3. Describe the ability of current facilities to absorb forecast growth for both the 12 to
18 month and 5 to 7 year time frame.
Current facilities are adequate for projected growth within the next 12 to 18 months.
New facilities within the Telegraph Canyon basin should be completed within the next 5
to 7 years. Facilities in all other basins are adequate for the 5 to 7 year time frame.
4. What new facilities will be required to accommodate this forecasted growth?
Completion of the planned improvements between First Ave. and Third Ave. to the
Telegraph Canyon Channel (project No. DR-118). Drainage studies for Developments
draining intothe Poggi Drainage Basin indicate no increases in overall runoff due to the
construction of detention basins. A long range (longer than 10 years) project which may
be needed is the construction of an additional conduit under Interstate 5 at the western end
of the Telegraph Canyon Channel. Future. flow monitoring and drainage studies will
determine the need for this facility.
a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Yes
b. How will these facilities be funded? The Telegraph Canyon Channel
Development Impact Fee will pay for channel improvements between First Ave. And
Third Ave. Funding for the conduit under 1-5 has yet to be determined pending
future studies.
c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
Yes, staff is currently reviewing the existing fee to determine if the funds projected
are adequate to complete the work.
p..,/2-
~.
5. What growth-related issues do you see affecting maintenance of the current level of
service as Chula Vista's population increases? Maintenance costs of major storm drain
facilities have increased dramatically due to the policy of environmental agencies regulating
wetlands. Storm drain channels and detention basins tend to become environmentally
sensitive and require mitigation in order to clean and maintain. New drainage facilities are
now built with the environment in mind. Natural channels are difficult to maintain and meet
regulatory agencies requirements. Long term maintenance and a mechanism for funding
these environmental difficulties must be addressed in the future. Environmental regulatory
agencies also need to recognize that the primary function of a storm channel is to convey
water safely and must be maintained in order to do so.
PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATION
6. What is the status of the budgeted flow monitoring stations at the Telegraph and
Poggi Canyon drainage courses. Proposals were received in August of 1997 by two
firms for installation of monitoring equipment The proposals received exceeded the
budgeted amount and did not meet the specification for the .accuracy levels hoped for by
staff. Due to these factors staff is revising the proposals for equipment which will measure
depth and approximate the velocity and the flow. It is anticipated to have this equipment
in place in mid 1998.
7. What will be Proposition 218's impacts on construction of needed drainage
improvements in western Chula Vista? Impacts from Proposition 218 may effect the
City's ability to increase the drainage fee which is collected City wide. Any changes to this
existing fee may need to be voted on in a general election.
MAINTENANCE
8. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
Yes, maintenance of drainage facilities is generally supported from the General Fund and
to a lesser extent by gas tax and storm drain fee funds.
9. What major maintenance projects are to be !Jndertaken pursuant to the current 1-
year and 5-year CIP? See attached exhibit "Aft. Note that only the project within the
telegraph canyon basin is related to growth (rank No. 13).
MISCELLANEOUS
10. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please expJain. No
11. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council? Not at this time.
12. Other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC.
N/A
Attachments
H:\HOMEIENGI NEERIADVP LANIGM OCDRAI. aus
Þ.'"Ï'À
THRESHOLDS
The table below pmvides a summary of the Development Impact fee (DlF) collections and
expenditures during the repmting period. The annual repmt is included in its entirety as Attachment
1.
1. Please fill in the table below.
862,107 2,070,808 1/4/1994 After SR125
finalized
190,822 1,328,218 2/4/93 FY99
227,162 1,227,511 8f7190 FY99
11,776 99,564 11/10192 FY99
31,248 130,068 3/15/94 FY99
~0,258 108,159 12/6/94 FY99
2,347,283 5,580,290 4/27/93 FY98
In Process
Administration $79 $89,610 $163,036 $69,027
Civic Cntr. Expansion $527 $597,778 $44,469 $2,776,213
Police Facility . $235 $266,561 $18,877 ($935,761)
Corp. Yard Relocation $515 $592,326 $0 $3,521,398
Libraries $544 $608,901 $816,808 ($262,250)
Fire Suppression Sys. $141 $68,469 $21,518 $716,834
Geographic Info. Sys. $49 $55,581 $12,122 ($171,880)
Main Frame Computer $23 $26,089 $0 ($55,542)
Tele. Sys. Upgrade $32 $36,298 $6,899 ($79,371)
Records Mgrnnt. Sys. $5 $5,672 $3,500 $1,626
* Single-Family Detached (SFD) housing unit shown. Fee varies by type of residential unit, and
for commercial and industrial development - see various fee schedules included in Attachment 1.
** Fee is $13.00 per traffic trip. Trip rates for various land uses are reflected in Attachment 2.
1\/4
-----..-
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
2. If an update of the DlF is in process during the current reporting period, please give
a brief status report on the update.
The Public Facilities DIF is currently being reviewed and is anticipated to be completed within the
next several months.
3. Provide a report describing how the City is addressing the impacts of growth on the
City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements.
The City's capital improvement needs that are related to growth are analyzed and determined when
the various Development Impact Fees are created. A capital improvement plan is devised in each
DIF based on the capital improvement projects needed to provide the infrastructure necessary to
retain services/facilities at the level set by the applicable threshold. The costs for the needed
projects are then determined and spread over the amount of planned development to set the
individual DIF fees. As a result, capital improvement needs (in the long, medium and short term)
should be mitigated through the DIF fees collected and utilized to fund planned capital improvement
projects.
The operational impacts of growth on the City, are analyzed by using a financial model to evaluate
whether the projected revenue stream from the development (e.g., sales tax, property tax, etc.) is
sufficient to meet estimated operating expenditures for the development. These fiscal impact
analyses have been performed on developments such as Eastlake, Rancho del Rey and the Otay
Ranch. In all cases the projected revenues were more than sufficient to meet projected operating
expenses on an ongoing basis. This model will continue to be employed to review future
development at the SPA level. As such, the operational impacts associated with growth should
be sufficiently mitigated.
MISCELLANEOUS
4. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
Not at this time.
5. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
None at this time.
6. Other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC.
None at this time.
Å7C:;
THRESHOLD
1. Please fill in the blanks on this table, and update any prior years' figures if they have
been revised.
3 0 0
2. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality
conditions during the reporting period.
As the table indicates, violations of the state ozone standard (parts per hundred million or
pphm) were up dramatically in Chula Vista during 1997. this was due entirely to shifts in
wind pattems bringing greater transport from other areas. At this time, meteorological data
are still being analyzed to determine the source.
Coinciding with the beginning of the reporting period (7/96), reformulated gasoline was
introduced throughout Califomia. This resulted in a surprisingly large reduction in ozone
concentrations and continued the downward trend in ozone violations in San Diego County
and the rest of the state. However, projections from the state Air Resources Board
indicates the downward trend will reverse direction sometime after 201 0 because of growth
in vehicle travel. Cars continue to produce 60% of ozone precursor emissions in the region.
Continued growth in vehicle trips should be an air quality concem in Chula Vista.
Please provide brief responses to the following:
3. What is the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under
the Regional Air Quality Strategy, .and Federal and State programs?
Federal programs committed in the 1994 State Implementation Plan are mostly on
schedule. Regarding the state plan, the 1998 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS)
Revisions is scheduled for Air Pollution Control Board consideration in March 1998. It
~Î{o
--..-
.-
indicates rule development efforts affecting industrial and smaller stationary ("area")
sources are largely on track with the 1995 RAQS. Some rules previously scheduled for
adoption were determined to be infeasible, and have been replaced by other stationary
source rules and new statewide measures affecting mobile sources and consumer
products. Also, the District's forthcoming guidance document, "Reducing Vehicle Trips
Through Land Use Design" was approved in December 1997.
4. What effect/affect will the above efforts have on Chula Vista's local planning and
development activities and regulations?
No District rules or programs will require changes in Chula Vista planning activities or
regulations. However, the guidance document mentioned above contains suggested
measures which, if implemented, could reduce vehicle trips associated with existing and
future Chula Vista development The suggested strategies have been worded as policy
statements which can be adopted into a General Plan, Community Plan, or documents
related to specific development projects. They seek to increase opportunities for walking,
bicycling, and transit use. The guidance document could be significant tool for
implementing the city's CO2 emission reduction strategy. It is urged that the City consider
these strategies to combat projected large increases in traffic, associated emissions, and
reduced auto-independence for children, the elderly, and handicapped.
Examples of strategies that should be examined are:
. Reviewing development regulations to determine the effect of infrastructure
standards (street widths, curb radii, parking regulations, signage, etc.) on the
pedestrian environment
. Reviewing the zoning ordinance to determine whether mixed-use projects
encouraging non-automobile travel are legally allowed in Chula Vista.
. Reviewing parking design standards to ensure new parking lots do not pose a
barrier to pedestrians and transit users.
. Programs to continue revitalizing older commercial areas exhibiting high patronage
via walking, bicycling, and transit
. Availability of a "floating" transit village overlay zone similar to that proposed in San
Diego to establish standards for pedestrian/transit-friendly development in
appropriate locations.
MISCELLANEOUS
5. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
No.
-Â Î7
6. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
The District recommends the City Council direct the Chula vista Planning Department to
undertake consideration of the strategies discussed in the District's guidance document,
"Reducing Vehicle Trips Through Land Use Design."
7. Other relevant information that the APCD desires to communicate to the City and
GMOC.
In 1997, the federal Environmental Protection Agency adopted a more stringent air quality
standard. The District anticipates that when the new standard becomes effective (some
time after 1999), violations of the federal standard will number 30-40 per year.
Approximately half of these violations will be traceable to Los Angeles transport, but new
emission reduction measures will be needed in the San Diego region. Actions taken now
by the City, particularly to reduce vehicle emissions, will place it in good stead for the future.
(H :\homelp'an nmglki",lgmoclOAPCD3. a)
~Îß
-- ...... ---- ---.. --'-'-' J--'- ----- -" .,,~ 'o~, ~." Qf'f"uv", IUI LII'" JIUJ"'¡;l. 1-\ numoer
Please provide brief narrative responses to the following:
THRESHOLDS
1. Please identify those local development projects approved during -the reporting
period, and indicate the extent to which they implemented air quality improvement
measures pursuant to relevant federal, state, Tegional and/or local policies and
regulations.
Attachment 1 presents a summary of Air Quality mitigation measures pursu<!nt to the
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for major development projects in eastern Chula
Vista. In order to provide an overview for 1hisfirst use of the questionnaire format, some
of these date back several years based on the last EIR approval for the project. A number
ofthe projects also have approved "mitigation monitoring programs"to ensure that required
measures are implemented.
It is important to note that the City is embarking on a new, and more comprehensive
program with regard to air quality planning and monitoring through the pending adoption of
the "Chuia Vista CO2 Reduction Plan". The GMOC first heard about this Plan during last
year's threshold standards review cycle. Attachment 2 lists the Plan's top 20 action
measures. The nine measures that have been highlighted are those that pertain to land
use and development planning.
Toward carrying those nine items forward and into the City's planning procedures and
regulations, Attachment 3 presents the following, in-process draft proposals; (1) a revised
content outline for the Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) required of large projects at the
Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA) level of review, and (2) a Design Element Checklist to
be used during development review to ensure that air quality related measures are being
incorporated into project designs. Staff intends to apply these two items to pending and
future development project reviews.
2. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and .procedures consistent with
current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs?
Please explained.
Yes. Chula Vista is in compliance with all air quality regulations in terms of all- quality
impacts resulting from development projects. Related policies primarily focus on measures
which aim to develop pedestrian-oriented development projects, reduce vehicle trips and
promote mixed-use development
With respect to any inconsistencies, please indicate actions needed to bring
development regulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance.
There are no inconsistencies with regulations. However, as part of early implementation
efforts noted under item 1. above, it may be advantageous for City staff to review the
Á¡q
----
regional plans for consistency with the City's development agreements and that a system be
devised to trace those air quality mitigation measures listed in the EJR with those in the SPA
plan and those that have monitoring plans for follow-up with those that do not, and identifY
measures which have and have not been implemented in some fashion from one level to the
neÀ"t. This could be reviewed by staff and City Council to determine the level of consistency.
existing practices for carrying air quality measures through from SPA and EJR documents
to actual permit approvals and mitigation monitoring efforts. Such a review could identifY
if certain measures have not been effectively carried through, and why, and assist in refining
pending new procedures under the auspice of the City's CO2 Reduction Plan.
3. Please list the non-development related air quality programs that the City is
currently implementing/participating in, and provide a brief explanation of each.
A) The City is implementing a vanpool program for its employees. It has purchase three
compressed natmal gas vans, and is developing the fueling infrastructure to al1ow easy
fueling for employees.
B) The City has been implementing elements of the Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan. These
elements have an indirect effect on non-development air quality irnprovernents, they focus
on vehicular trip reduction, and air quality improvements through focusing on the
'consumption' side of air quality - encouraging energy conservation programs.
C) The City is continuing operation of its East H Street Telecenter. This is the third year of
operation for the telecenter and occupancy rates have been going up over the past months.
Grant funding for the telecenter is running out in April 1998. We have applied for other
grants, but only one is outstanding to date. Continuation of the telecenter program is
dependent upon either additional grants or a COtmcil appropriation. To date, we have
reduced energy consumption from fossil fuel by 69,600 miles per year and 2,785 gal1ons
annual1y. This amounts to 27 tons a year of carbon dioxide reduction savings. The City
cUITently has an occupancy rate of 43%. We anticipate FY 97/98 to remove 44,000
vehicle miles off our roads.
Are there additional non-development related program efforts that the City needs to
undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? If so, please identify.
There are no non-development related program efforts the City needs to undertake pursuant
to federal, state and regional regulations. The City is awaiting federal rulings on fleet vehicle
purchase gtridelines for municipalities. The ruling is expected this year.
4. What new air quality programs are scheduled for implementation during the next year?
Energy Efficient Landscaping:
Potential Reduction of 1,300 tons/year in 2010
Target of 75% of all homes built during 1996-2010 or 11,500 dwellings
h I"J-.
Staff is proposing to revise the Landscape Manua] used by developers and city planners to
determine the palate of trees and vegetation for new projects. Currently developers may choose
from a list of trees to landscape common areas and roads for new projects. The CO2 Plan cal1s for
implementation of a policy which prioritize vegetation that helps to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. It does so by identifYing trees and vegetation that can be used for strategic shading
armmd buildings to reduce energy consumption. These trees become prioritized vegetation in the
Manual and encouraged to be used by the developers. There wil1 be a palate of choices for these
as wel1 as those that are ctnTently on the list.
GreenStar Building Incentive Program:
Targets over 18,000 new homes with a 10% energy savings in new &
20% energy savings in retrofitted homes.
One of the most critical areas of implementation of the CO2 Plan is implementation of the
GreenStar Builder Incentive Program. The goal of the GreenStar Program is to set a new,
voluntary standard that becomes commonplace for all residential developers to use in every
master planned community being built. GreenStar encourages builders to voluntarily
incorporate energy efficient features in their projects, rewards them with GreenStar
recognition, and links their success with lower permit fees. The objective is to drastically
reduce energy consumption in new buildings through publicly recognizing exemplary
builders, the materials they use and acknowledge energy efficiency as a marketing tool.
GreenStar will target new development, particularly master plan communities. The city
anticipates 50% of new construction and remodeling projects would participate in the
program once fully implemented. This equates to approximately 9,000 homes and 4.5
million square feet of commercial building space by the year 2010. This Tesults in avoided
CO2 damage of $780,000 and energy savings of $2, 664,000. CO, reduction impacts are
approximately 15,600 tons per year by the year 201 O.
PREVIOUS GMOCRECOMMENDATIONS
5. What steps has the ,City taken to promote public Jlwareness of its air pollution control
programs?
The City:has conducted limited public relations activities, such as press advisories and newspaper
articles to notify Chula Vista residents about the City's SrnogBuster Alternative Fuel vehicle rebate
program, the Carbon Dioxide Reduction plamring effort.
6. What steps has the City taken to encourage regional adoption of similar air pollution control
programs?
The City continues to work closely with the APCD to 1Tack their interpretation of changes in federal
and state air quality regulations and the potential irnpact on Chula Vista, as well as monitoring the
upcoming sale of SDGE's South Bay power plant and possible air quality impacts resulting from the
sale.
A-ß\
--
7. Has the City Council adopted the CO2 Reduction PJan?
No. The Council has had a workshop dedicated to the topic and indicated interest and support. We
eJ..-pect the Plan to go to Council in the next month.
MISCELLA.1IŒOUS
8. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please e1.-plain.
Tne Environmental Resource Manager has worked with the Planning Department to revise the Department's
procedures In re,'iewing aIr quality impacts of development projects. I recommend the GMOC threshhold
be revised to match the new checklist being developed to assist planning staff in Teviewing projects.
9. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to
recommend to the City Council?
T elecenter: The telecenter program is the most directJy linked program to trip reduction the City currently
runs. The telecenter also targets new growth areas. It provides an option for reducing commute trips. The
GMOC could recommend integration of the telecenter program and an appropriation of funding for the
telecenter for a three year period.
Electric Restructuring: The City has a historic opportunity to offset the increase in energy consumption and
thus, mitigate air quality, in the coming year through a change in its own purchase habits. Due to Tegulatio:
in the electric utility industry, the City will have a choice to purchase electricity from a supplier which buys
energy from clean sources, such as wind, solar, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, biogass, and/or
hydropower, to less clean production such as natura] gas, to dirty, carbon dioxide emitting energy production
such as coal and fuel oiL Under the new restructuring scheme, the City could dictate how much of the City's
total fuel mix comes from clean power sources such as wind, solar, cogeneration and other less harmful
electricity production methods. Currently the City's fuel mix is the same as the region's fuel mix, since all
energy comes from SDGE. Chula Vista's municipal government uses energy in three ways: fueling
municipal-owned vehicles; space conditioning and powering municipal-owned building; and powering certain
public services, such as street lighting and park irrigation. The City's energy use accounts for 2% of total
community energy use. The current fuel mix purchased frorn SDGE is as follows: nuclear 23%, natural gas-
37%, fuel oiJ-4%, coaJ-20%, hy.dro/geothermal-16%, other-a.
10. Other relevant information the Environmental Resource Manager desires to communicate to the
GMOC.
South Bay Power Plant Sale: In November of 1997, SDGE/Enova Company announced they were planning
to sell the South Bay Power Plant and the Encina Power Plant in 1998. They are proposing to auction the
plants, per PUC approval. Buyers could include those interested in buying the plant to operate it as a power
producer, to shut it down for redevelopment purposes, to repower it and increase production, or tear it down
and build a plant elsewhere. Depending on the outcome of the sale, there may be a change in the amount of
energy produced attbatplant, which results in a change in air pollution coming from the stacks of the South
Bay plant. Once sold, it is likely the plant will be designated as a 'must run' facility for two years. The Soutt-
Bay plant is currently operating at approximately 35% efficiency and produces energy from natural gas or a,
times from fuel oiL Capacity can remain the same regardless of who owns it, or there could be a repowering,
a closer of the plant, an increase in operational efficiency and all of these scenarios will have various air
quality impacts. The GMOC should be aware of this issue and be watching what potentia! air quality impacts
may result from such a sale.
b. (H'Ih_",_,_I~\."""""7\GMOCFINA.WPO)
9:7
1. Pleaseiill in the1ables below.
otal 4118 100 3149 100 100 100
Notes: 1) Use of local vs. Imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and
therefore unpredictable. 2) Table values are for portion off Chula Vista served by Sweetwater
Authority only, all of National City and the Bonita Sunnyside area.
emand - (Purchased by consumers) 19,826 ,345 4,118 3,149
Supply Capacity - 7,046 7,046 7,046 1,526
Storage Capacity - Treated Water 123 123 123 123
Storage Capacity - Raw Water 52,000 2,000 52,000 52,000
Notes: 1) Maximum supply capacity is from Pipeline 4 aqueduct(40mgd), Wells (2mgd). Additional
30 mgd capacity is available from treatment plant.
Please provide ~ responses to the following questions.
GROWTH IMPACTS
2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the current ability to
maintain service levels?
No. Sweetwater Authority's growth is negligible.
þ... 6~
-..-
3. Describe the ability of current facilities to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12
to 1 B month and 5 to 7 year time frame.
Current facilities are l:apable of absorbing forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18
month and 5 to 7 year periods.
4. How will the increase in capacity be created?
Increase in water production capacity by almost 25% will be created by the
construction of the Lower Sweetwater River Basin Demineralization Facility. This
facility will produce local water making the Authority less dependent on imported
water.
5. What new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth?'
a. Type of facility.
Demineralization plant
b. Location offacility.
3066 N. Second Ave. Chula Vista
c, Projected production, in gallons.
First Phase, 4 mgd; Second Phase, 8 mgd
d. Projected operational date.
January 1999
e. Are there sites available for the needed facilities?
Yes. See item b.
f. How will these facilities be funded?
By Sweetwater Authority with subsidy and grant from Metropolitan Water
District and the Bureau of Reclamation
g. Is an appropriateladequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding?
Yes
6. What growth-related issues do you see affecting maintenance ofthe current leveJ of
service as Chula Vista's population increases?
Change in zoning from single family residential to multi family residential increase
requires upgrade to water distribution system mainly to meet higher fire flow
requirements from the Fire Department.
MAINTENANCE
7. Is adequate funding securedand/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
Yes
B. What major maintenancelupgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the
~ 9.¿L
current 1-year and 5-year CIP?
Replacement of metallic mains,pump station upgrades and new water storage tanks.
RECLAIMED WATER
Sweetwater Authority has no cu"ent reclaimed water facilities, or plans to produce or
distribute reclaimed water.
9. Please fill in the table below.
10. Please give a brief description of the impact the following items have on the
District's efforts to market recycled water.
a Water quality
b. Price of water
c. Willing customers
d. Distribution lines
e. Other
There are no plans for the District to market recycled water. The Authority may use
reclaimed water from the City of San Diego to form a sea water intrusion barrier as part of
a planned increase in extraction in Phase J of our Demineralization Plant expansion.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Does the cu"ent threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
No. There is no significant change forthe period to warrant this. Once the Authority
completes the Demineralization Plant, increasing the reliability of our system by not
being as dependent on imported water a note should be made acknowledging this
accomplishment.
12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
Continue to notify property owners intending to increase the density in single family
residential areas, that significant water system upgrades may be required to meet
fire department requirements. This will prevent "surprises" to property owners
",<ðt:;"
and/or developers. This is especially noted for redevelopment areas.
13. Other relevant information the District desires to communicate to the City and the
GMOC.
None.
Prepared by: Hector Martinez
Title: Princ:ipal Enaineer
Date: 1129/97
-.
(H'_I¡> anninglki"'IQm<r'-.Qswtwat,.Q I
1\ S(¡;
~~=~SJ.~~~§'.:~,~=~ .. :~J?2€~~1'cf'~
1. Please fill in the tables below.
I
I
8,161.0 100.0% 8,407.1 6,854.9 7,297.6 8,038.0
otal Flow Supply Capacity (MGD)
otable Storage Capacity (MG)
Non-Potable Storage Capacity (MG)
otable Supply Flow Capacity (MGD)
Non-Potable SuppJy Flow Capacity (MGD)
The reason for the flow supply capacity reduction of 2.6 MGD in 1997 was that a temporary
connection to SDCW A Pipeline No.3 was removed from service when SDCW A Pipeline No.4
was constructed and placed into operation.
Please provide brief responses to the foJ/owing questions.
!\ 61
--
-
GRO\\TH IMPACTS
2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the current ability to main-
tain service levels?
Through the process described below, OWD has anticipated growth, effectively managed addi-
tion of new facilities, and maintain service levels.
The projected water demand in Chula Vista is expected 10 continue to increase at a moderate rate
(approximately 3 percent per year) with new meter sets averaging about 1000 per year for the
ne},:t five-years. The meter sales between July 1996 and June 1997 (FY 96-97) were 1,029, ver-
sus the prior 12 months sales of 812, and current meter sales are running ahead of the projected
900 forFY 97-98, at a rate that may reach 1,200 for the year.
The OWD Board of Directors adopted a Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) which uses the
population growth projections from SANDAG's most recent forecast, designated as the Interim
Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast, Water and Sewer Agencies and input from the City ofChula
Vista, and developers. It has incorporated the concepts of water storage and supply from neigh-
boring water agencies to meet operational and emergency water supply. OWD worked closely
with the City of Chula Vista staff in finalizing the WRMP and incorporated the Otay Ranch
development activities.
The process of planning followed by the OWD is to use the Master Plan as a guide and to revisit
each year the best alternatives for providing a reliable water supply. The Master Plan is also
revised every five years through an in-depth review. Although SANDAG's forecast is for a six
percent growth rate, OWD continues to project a three percent growth rate based on the historical
trends and ongoing co=unication ynth developers.
3. Describe the ability of current facilities to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to
18 month and 5 to 7 year time frame.
Rffioual Water SuDDlv
The short term and long term water supply is expected to meet the projected water demand in
Chula Vista without any restrictions for the following reasons.
The normal rain and snow California received last year in conjunction with the most recent pre-
cipitation events in the State have resulted in many reservoirs, both State-wide and local reser-
voirs, to be at normal levels. Therefore, the water outlook for the next 12-18 months is that there
will be no restriction on the water supply.
The long-range prognosis is also very favorable in that the MWD adopted last year an Integrated
Resources Plan which includes six implementation policies. These policies are as follows:
A f?t()
. Reliabilitv: Agencies wilJ have full capability to meet full service demands at retail lev-
els at all times.
. Balance: Maintaining a resource mix which balances investments and additional
improved imported supply capability in local resource development and conservation.
. Competitiveness: Provide affordable water service and maintain competitiveness by
assuring that the effective rate for MWD will be less than $500 per acre-foot in the year
2005.
. Eastside Reservoir: Commitment to complete the 800,000 acre-feet Eastside Reservoir
Project with water deliveries to storage co=encing in the year 2000.
. Colorado River AQueduct: Assure that the Colorado River Aqueduct will be opêrated at
capacity for the benefit of all member agencies.
. Adaptabilitv: Resource development and financial strategy to provide acceptable water
quality and financial security.
Local Water SnPDJv
As part of OWD's long term plans to assure the reliability of water supply, we are developing an
Integrated Resource Planning (IRP). The OWD's IRP has established a goal of obtaining 40% of
its water supply locally when SDCWA aqueducts are out of service, and 70% from local reser-
voir storage when SDCW A aqueducts are available to replenish the local reservoirs. The IRP
considers development of wells, recharge, desalination, local treatment plants, local storage,
recycled water, raw water and conservation.
The District purchased a well from McMillin Companies, with a known production level of 315
gpm. The water from this well requires extensive treatment, but results in a ten year return of
$1.2 million dollars. This benefit is primarily achieved by avoiding construction of covered res-
ervoirs. This will be the first well the District will integrate into its water system.
The overall outlook for water supply in the State, County and CIty of Chula Vista for the next
12-18 months is excellent. The long term picture is also very positive and capable of supporting
Chula Vista's long term growth. This outlook bas been achieved through the cooperative efforts
of all agencies involved in providing water to Chula Vista and particularly the coordination
efforts of Chula Vista, Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego.
The OWD is actively developing local water through the sharing oftreatment plant and storage
capacity with other local agencies such as Sweetwater Authority, Helix Water District and the
City of San Diego.
The availability of water m.an .emergency is being addressed by Metropolitan Water District
(MWD), San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and Otay Water District (OWD).
OWD's need for a ten day water supply during a SDCW A shutdown has been fully addressed in
A-eft
-~_..._.
-
O\VD' s Water Resources Master Plan. The OWD is currently able to meet this requirement
through its oW]] storage and existing interconnections with other agencies. MWD, SDCW A, and
OWD all have programs to continue to meet or exceed the emergency water needs of the region
into the foreseeable future.
The OWD, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, continues to expand the use of recycled
water. Chula Vista and OWD are both evaluating opportunities to create more recycled water,
and the City of San Diego has begun construction of its South Bay Treatment Plant planned for
completion in the year 2001. Recycled water from this facility will be available for distribution
by OWD.
The District continues to encourage water conservation through; a school education program
and penalties on excessive use of water for irrigation. The education program includes school
site garden grants, treatment plant tours and classroom programs for elementary schools; as well
as science fair participation for elementary and junior high school levels. There is water quality
testing certification availability for the senior high levels and a video lending library for all
school grade levels. The OWD school education program has been enthusiastically received by
the school co=unity, and twelve schools in Chula Vista are currently participating.
4. How will the increase in capacity be created?
Normal Water Supply
To achieve the MWD Integrated Resources Plan policies, MWD is investing in recharge projects,
desalination, funding of recycled water and other new water sources.
The SDCW A and individual agencies are discussing the potential exchange of water between
agencies and "wheeling" of water by SDCW A. This will further increase the reliability of the
long term water supply as this allows for the more effective use of regionally available water.
SDCW A continues studying the feasibility of bringing Imperial Irrigation District (rID) water to
San Diego. The SDCW A is seeking up to 400,000 acre-feet of water annually for at least 50 to
100 years, through a water conservation and transfer agreement with IID. This would further
improve the long term reliability of water supply.
The SDCW A construction ofPipe1ine No.4 has been completed and is in operation. This pipe-
1ine substantially increases "the capacity of the treated water delivery system to OWD. Additional
reliability is also achieved by having both a treated water and raw water pipeline coming to the
South County.
The OWD adopted revisions to our Code of Ordinances, which allows for customers to utilize
and be assured a highly reliable water supply. This is available because the MWD and SDCW A
have committed to provide a water supply from alternative available sources such as farmers and
other member agencies. Also, on the local level, the OWD is developing local interconnections,
local water supplies, wells and recycled water.
 q¡')
OWD has been negotiating with the City of San Diego, SweetWater Authority and Helix Water
Di51rict for treatment plant capacity and lake storage. All have indicated they are willing to enter
into agreements pending Board and Council approvals. At this time SDCW A has finalized an
agreement with Helix Water District which will guarantee Otay 8 MGD from the Helix plant.
The District is negotiating on increasing this to 16MGD for use during a SDCW A shutdown.
Emeœencv Water SuDDlv
The need for an emergency water supply is based on providing for events that may interrupt the
water supply for six months (MWD), three months (SDCW A) and 10 days (OWD). The MWD
is constructing the Eastside Reservoir (formerly mown as Domenigoni Reservoir) to provide six
months of storage in case of an interruption of their raw water supply. The MWD reports that
the Eastside Reservoir construction progress is on schedule. Significant constmction contracts
have been let for the construction. The planned schedule to begin placing water into storage is in
the year 2000 with an estimate of four years 10 complete 1:he filling operation.
SDCW A continues with their efforts to provide for emergency storage fortbree months needs for
delivery to their member agencies in the event of supply outages from MWD deliveries.
SDCW A has finaled the ElR for their Emergency Storage Project (ESP). SDCW A approved a
new combined reservoir in Olivenhain with Lake Hodges improvements and an expanded San
Vicente Reservoir. This project provides for the emergency storage needs of the member agen-
cies by adding 90,100 acre feet of reservoir storage within the county dedicated to use during
emergencies. Combined with storage already dedicated for emergency use, the additional capac-
ity would meet the County's projected emergency needs through the year 2030. SDCW A is also
working with the City of San Diego to develop an agreement to provide SDCW A storage in City
lakes.
OWD has a policy to be able to meet a 10 day outage of SDCW A system by having a maximum
of :five average day's demand in storage and a minimum of :five average day's demand from
other sources. The OWD has a number of interconnections with other agencies to assist during
aqueduct shutdowns.
The OWD has effectively managed ten days of SDCW A planned and emergency shutdowns in
the past, and 1brough its Water Master Plan, has established a program. to address future shut-
downs of the SDCW A aqueduct. OWD has also evaluated the 1ÙIility to withstand various íen
day outages without adding terminal storage reservoirs or interconnections beyond those that
exist today. The conclusion of the evaluation is that OWD can withstand an emergency1en day
outage without any new terminal storage reservoirs or interconnections being built until after the
year 2007.
The maximum of :five average days in storage continues to be developed with completion of a
major 30 MG tenninal reservoir adjacent to EastLake Parkway, mown as the EastLake Greens
Reservoir. This reservoir has two independent 15 MG cells and is in operation. Also, OWD has
under design a project to link storage from its Roll Reservoir in the south to the 30 MG EastLake
Greens Reservoir in the Central Area. This project will deliver 20 MGD 10 the Central Area in
Aq\
------
an emergency and perhaps as a normal supp]y from the Lower Otay Reservoir Complex FaciJi-
ties.
OWD Staff continues to aggressively negotiate alternative water sources in an expedient fashion,
to assure we stay ahead of the projected growth in demand. OWD negotiations with the City of
San Diego for Lower Otay Reservoir!Treatment capacity for the central and southern portions of
the OWD, are in progress as are discussions with Sweetwater Authority.
5. What significant new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecasted growth?
The OWD WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommo-
date the fc:>recasted growth within the OWD. As major development plans are formulated and
proceed through the City of Chu1a Vista approval process the OWD requires the developer to
prepare a Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project. This S.A}..fp is a
document which defines and describes.all the water and recycled water system facilities to be
constructed to provide an acceptab]e and adequate 1eve] of service to the proposed land uses.
The SAMP also defines the financial responsibility of the facilitieSTequired for service. Those
faciJities identified as OWD Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are funded by the
OWD through collection of water meter capacity fees established to fund the WRMP facilities.
All other required water facilities are funded by the developer for service to their project. An
example of this process is the planned Otay Ranch SPA One Development project where the
SAMP is nearing completion. The SAMP establishes typical major water transmission main
facilities gene:rn11y aligned within the roadway alignments of the development. The other signifi-
cant facility is the 8.0 MG 711 Reservoir project to be located within the OWD Use Area prop-
erty. The reservoir is planned to be in operation within 28 months. The developer is required to
enter into an agreement with OWD that insures a water meter capacity fee income stream to con-
struct the needed reservoir.
6. What growth-related issues do you see affecting the .ability to maintain the current level
of service as Chula Vista's popnlation increases?
Two potential areas that could affect growth are the Arizona Water Banking and the Bay-Delta.
The State of.Arizona has implemented a new "Water Bank" to store much of their unused allot-
ment (260,000 acre-feet) of Colorado River water in aquifers. This action limits California uti]-
izing Arizona's unused allotment.and MWD will have to find alternative sources. The MWD
believes that Arizona's "Water Bank" will not have an immediate impact on Californians for at
least two or three years.
The Bay-Delta issue on the other hand is headed towards a solution. California and Federal
cooperation has formalized a CalFed Bay-Delta Program with signing of a Framework Agree-
ment. The Framework Agreement projected that the State and Federal Agencies would work
together in. the following areas of Bay-Delta Estuary Management:
. Water quality standards formulation;
. Coordination of State Water Proj ect and Central Valley Proj ect operations with regula-
tory requirements; and
Aq2-
. Long-t= solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta Estuary.
State - Federal process is to develop long-t= solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta Estuary
related to:fish BIld wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters and water supply. The
intent is to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan, which addresses all of the resource
problems.
A positive component is the recent agreement between IIDand CW A to provide 200,000
AF /year at 20,000 _A,F/year increments over ten years to San Diego County. This agreement
assures San Diego a reliable water supply.
The City of Chula Vista is encouraged by the OWD to continue to pursue construction of Olym-
pic Parkway to the Olympic Training Center from existing East Orange Avenue. This project
would" allow for orderly and planned development of the necessary water transmission facilities
to accommodate the development activities of the major proposed development projects.
RECYCLED WATER
7. Please fill in the table below.
."~~~~~':!..;l"1 -.
~
rrigation 285 332 298
ndustry - - - -
echarge - -
8. Please give a brief description of the impact of the below items have on the District's
current efforts to market recycled water.
The total dissolved salt content of the water supply is the priu:tary factor potentially ÙIlpacting the
cost of recycled water production to meet regulatory requirements on limitations of salt loading
within reuse areas. Currently, salination levels are well below regulatory levels and do not
impact water quality requirements, nor increase the cost for the production of salt removal. The
landscape planting materials however need to be selected such that these are highly sensitivity to
salt levels are not integrated into the landscape planting scheme.
The OWD currently markets recycled water at 85% of the potable water rate. This pricing level
has increased user willingness and acceptance of the OWD mandatory recycled water use ordi-
nance. The OWD receives little customer resistance to use recycled water. When resistance is
encountered it is typically due to concerns of increased capital cost to install the necessary distri-
bution pipelines to "the reuse areas. The transnrission mains, storage and pumping capital facili-
ties are funded by the OWD through collection of the water meter capacity fees.
f:>.,.Q3
----
MA.P\ TEN A.lIJ CEfUPG RIDE
9. Is adequate funding secnred and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities?
The OWD has an established renewal and replacement fund within the Operating Budget. There
is adequate funding secured and identified for maintenance of existing facilities.
10. What major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the cur-
rent 5-year CIP?
The following list is the major maintenance/upgrade ClP projects within the current 5-year ClP:
CIP Number
I 038
I 098
149
226
250
304
043
077
!
i 101
I 102
I W270
MISCELLANEOUS
11. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Please explain.
None.
12. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management ,Oversight
Commission to recommend to the City Council?
The OWD suggests to the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the
City Council that installation of Olympic Parkway be concurrent with the development projects
adjacent to the planned alignment and be installed to provide access to the Olympic Training
Center.
That the City of Chula Vista continues to support and encourage the use of recycled water. Also,
encourage thejoint use of City and OWD facilities for mutual benefit.
13. Other relevant information the District desires to communicate to ,the City and the
GMOC?
À. Cf4
Recvcied Water
On the recycled water front, OWD continues to actively pursue the development of recycled
water facilities within Dew development projects. The OWD is fully supportive of the construc-
tion ofanadvanced wastewater1rea1ment plant in the Otay lliver Valley whicb wou1d provide
recycled water forDewly built distribution facilities. The'City of San Diego is under construc-
ti~ of the South Bay W.ater Reclamation Plant. The current projected date of in1plementation is
around the year 2001. The City of San Diego has identified the Otay Water District as a poten-
tial market forTecycled waterfrom the South Bay Plant. OWD bas expressed our :interest in
receiving recycled water Hom this plant and related joint use of storage and pipeline facilities
that benefit the City and OWD.
The OWD study of the wastewater and the water reclamation program evaluated future expan-
sion of the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF). Future expansion of this
facility will be driven by the market for recycled water.
As additional recycled water demand is Deeded beyond current treatment capacity, the
R W CWRF may be expanded. The future recycled water supply for new markets is well posi-
tioned to meet the.:increasing demands. These efforts have been closely coordinated with the
City of Chula Vista, Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego recycling plans for the
Otay River Valley Plant and the South Bay Plant.
OWD is currently design:ing and starting to construct several projects that will increase the use of
recycled water. One consists of lining and covering a recycled water pond that will improve the
recycled water quality and quantity. This project has been place :into the second project is the
extension of several pipelines to open up new areas for use of recycled water. Otay is also
working closely with the City of San Diego on obtaining recycled water from the South Bay
Trea1ment Plant. Weare also eval1l!!1ing the potential use of raw water in the recycled system.
Water Conservation
The OWD 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 over users could be encouraged
to manage their landscape with a maximum annual amount of 48-inches of water, 1Ipproximately
1 ,000 acre-feet of water would be saved annually.
Conservation is also promoted by the education of the public through its school programs that
include twelve schools in Chula Vista and nineteen others throughout the District. The District is
also currently working with Helix Water District and Cuyamaca College in the design and con-
struction of an "Educational Conservation Garden."
þ>-.q6
--,
----
Intera!!encv CooDeration
Representatives from Sweetwater Authority, Chula Vista City Council and OWD have continued
to meet (Chula Vista Interagency Meetings) during the past year to address issues of joint con-
cern as well as keep the City mformed regarding state-wide water issues which may imp~t
development within Chula VÍsta; These coordination meetings include: Sweetwater Author-
ity/Otay Water District Board Members and Chula Vista representatives. Quarterly meetings of
SWA and OWD Chief Engineers and Chula Vista Director of Public Works are also held.
There ruive been significant acc=plisbments in the coordination efforts of the four agencies.
Some examples are:
1. The shared resources agreement executed between Sweetwater Authority and OWD has been
implernented such as sharing of heavy equipment. The agreement has been expanded to
include Helix Water District, Padre Dam, Lakeside and Riverview Water Districts. The City
of Chula Vista bas also expressed interest in developing a shared resources agreement.
2. Close coordination with Chula Vista and joint planning of water facilities to serve the
planned Otay Ranch SPA One Development.
3. Sweetwater Authority and OWD are jointly investigating opponunities to develop local water
supplies JlDd share WIÚer resources. These include such projects as: The San Diego Forma-
tion Investigation, the Middle Sweetwater River Study, and evaluation of multiple intercon-
nections.
4. Chula Vista, Sweetwater Authority, and OWD are sharing information and data needed to
d~velop Geographical Informati~n Systems that will enhance the operations of all the agen-
cIes.
5. OWD continues to assist Chula Vista with its sewer billings.
Bi!!hIi!!hts of Otav Water District's ODeration
The following are a few highlights of the 1996-1997 accomplishments by OWD.
1. No water rate increases associated with OWD operations.
2. No capacity fee increases.
3. $13.7 million in capital improvements designed and/or constructed.
4. Installed and inspected approximately 35,282 feet ofpipelines.
5. Developers installed approximately $3.2 million in pipelines.
ß t'/ì/-
6. Delivered approximately 24,155 acre-feet of water .
7. Delivered approximately 899 acre-feet of recycled water.
_.
8. During the period between July 1996 to June 1997 Otay sold 1,029 meters.
In summary, the water supply outlook is excellent and the City ofChula Vista's longterm
growth will be assured of a reliable water supply. Potential interruptions to the water supply
have been addressed by OWD, SDCW A and MWD through the long t= emergency water sup-
ply development of the SDCW A's Emergency Storage Project (90 days), the MWD Eastside
Reservoir (six months) and OWD's ten day storage/supply plan. The continued close coordina-
tion efforts with Chula Vista and the other agencies have brought forth significant enhancements
for the effective utilization of the regions water supply to the benefit of all citizens.
The OWD will attend the February 26, 1998 meeting and make a brief presentation as requested.
We will need an overh~ ~ojector for our presentation.
Prep"'" by' ~ ~
Title: Pkri'>-'. ~Jr,
Date: '2.. 1 'l..
--
I\q7
APPENDIX B
Growth Forecasts
GROWTH FORECAST INFORMATION
As required by the Chula Vista Growth Management Program, the City Planning
Department is providing growth forecast information for the 12 to 18 month, and 5 to 7 year
periods commencing from July 1, 1997. Additional information Telating to development and
growth forecasting is also being forwarded -as outlined below. Providing this information
10 City departments, and Dutsidedistricts and agencies, will allow "them 10 analyze the
impacts "that forecasted growth may have on their ability-to maintain compliance with the
City's iacilityand service Threshold Standards, and enable 'them 10 Teport 'those impacts
(if any) to the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission.
The attached materials Tegarding growth forecasts and Telated information are as follows:
fiGURE 1: Historic Housing Bnd Population Growth Table
Shows the housing unit and population growth in Chula Vista since 1980. Please
note that inadditiDn tD the inhabitedMDntgDmery annexation, Dther significant
annexations Df vacant, developable land have also Dccurred .since 1985.
FIGURE 2: Major Projects Map
Illustrates the location Df major residential projects in the City. The numeric and
alphabetic reference numbers Dn the map also appear Dn Figure 3's forecast table.
FIGURE.3: Current 12-18 Month Residential Forecasts
Please note that the forecast figures represent input provided by the respective
project developers. Based Dn historic experiences, the figures tend tD represent a
maximum development scenario. One table has been provided for each Dfthe two
major water districts serving the City. In large part, the Otay Water District
encompasses the City's developing eastem area, while Sweetwater AuthDrity serves
the Dlder, built up westem area. Project entries aœ keyed tD the "MajDr Projects
Map".
FIGURE 4: Previous Period's (7/1/96-12/31/97) Forecasts and Comparison to Actual
Development
Generally speaking, developer's forecasts during the recession years since 1991
have been Dveriy Dptimistic; actual development averaged between 4(J..60% .Df
prqjectiDns.HDwever,asìllustrated 'in this latest comparison table, actual permit
activity .has been quite cDnsistentwith projections, sndin some instances Bxceeded
them. lnterestingly, regional BcDnDmists had predicted that 1997 would mark the
recovery Df residential construction and sales.
FIGURE SA: 5 Year Phased and Buildout Residential Forecasts for Master Planned
Projects
This table shows prqjected housing Ltnit completions in five year increments for
each Df the major projects, along with associated annual averages. It is likely that
thedevelDper-based projections for the 1997-2000 increment will not be fully
realized. Residual units would then be added tD the next incœment, raising the
annual average for years 2000-2005 closer tD 2000 units/year.
Page 1
ß\
--
FIGURE 58: SANDAG Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast - Profile Tables
Two sets of figures reflecting population, housing, and employment growth are
provided, along with a map. The first set represents the 1995 Chula Vista Sphere
of Influence boundary (which includes lands beyond the City limits). The second
set reflects the Otay Ranch area west of the Otay Reservoirs, which .was added to
the Chula Vista Sphere after Series 8 figures were published. The sum total of the
two data sets provides a complete picture of the long-term growth anticipated in the
larger Chula Vista area.
FIGURES: . Commercial I Industrial I Institutional Project Status Table
This information profiles the current regulatory processing and construction status
of active non-residential projects within the City. It is not intended as a forecast for
any particular time table.
(H:\lDmelplanning\kirk\Forcasl2.a1c) Page 2
ß-:2-
FIGURE 1
. - --
HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
II""'.""'. . .....-'... - .¡ ;Jtiits1Aúlhotized:fur .', -." .',.
iCDnstIuction l:Jnits::Completed . ,".." ,I.
..ç~ar .. 1- 'I ~,.. 'T""" ,
'(pBTTT1itted) (FJnaled) i
1980 407 374 84,364
1981 195 496 86,597
1982 232 129 88,023
1983 479 279 89,370
1984 1.200 521 91,166
1985 1,048 1,552 (1)116,325
1986 2,076 1,120 120,285
1987 1,168 2,490 124,253
1988 1,413 829 128,028
1989 1,680 1,321 134,337
1990 664 1;552 (2) 135,163
138,262
1991 747 701 141,015
1992 560 725 144,466
1993 435 -462 146,525
1994 700 866 149,791
1995 798 718 153,164
1996 915 820 .156, 148
1997 742 762 (3) 158,281
(1) 'Montgomery Annexation
(2)1990 Census Population
(3) Planning Department Estimate (Thru 9130/97)
- Reflects DOF comprehensively revised population figures.
H:IHOMEIPLANNINGIGMOCI97HSGPOP .WB1 17 -Nov-!17
63
. ...-.-..".- ........ - -
if:
U) ~
- ~ -~
-::':' 11 ~ ~{
ó~1111~ ~g1 ~~ ~
~~~~~~~ i~~~~~~~~~
ë~~~]]~~~~~~~U)~~E~~
~~~~~~ð~~~-!~!~j~Æ~~~
m~~~~~~~~~w' ~sO~g~5~~
;;twwwwwwww "-
.~ ~~Ñ~~~ææ~reregM~~<mOC
~
- § ~1õm=
- .q' ~ ~5 -¡¡¡ ~
~ ~ = §o~ 5~~~
f~ ~ ~~~~!~~~æ~~
m2:_==-5 ~~"- e-<"!LS m'5."'13 ~
1"""""1 "! E""""'~.g ~.£.!!<'E"E":;;2!1~c.æ
~ ~~~~~~~5~~~~~~~o~Æ
-N~~~W~=~~~~~~~~~~
A.
Cli
:æ;
I-
m z ~
J.I.I ~
~ ~ ~
111 . . ~~ i
N., ~~I' I!!""> ~ ~
w 0 ~ 0 J.I.I ~
11:: D: ; ::r. '. ~~ .c 1
~~. ~~~I
u... 'I: :u 2. i
0 Z I
.., 1 oi ::st
<I'¡: c.. E
¡ Ž 'B-+ f
~
~
~
~
t; -' ¡¡¡ t; -' "
~g~ g ¡;¡ ~ ~g¡ ~
¡§ e- ¡¡: ¡§ e- ¡¡:
~ ~
~ ~
!Z -' " !Z -' "
§¡g~ ~ ¡;¡ ~ §¡g~ ~
~ e- !!1 ~ e- !!1
~ g §! ~ ~ 0
~ ~
m Z m Z
;ü:~ ;Ü:u.W'
ffi ::¡ 0 ~ 0 ffi ::¡.., 0
m m
~ ~
w w
u u
~ ~ g ~;;; ~ ~o
~ Jg ~ Jg
~ 1!j .... ~ 1!j
!!; g ~ 0 (,)!!; 0
.... ~
(,) - II) -
- m - m
I:~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Q~ ~ ~
1I)~g¡ ~ a::~g¡ ~
Q~~ g:;<; ~~~ g:;<;
('1»-'2] ~u.!!; 0 0 0 ~~'2] ~u.!!; 0
~::JE 5 ::JE 5
¡..; "'.. ~ "'.. ~
<7~¡¡ ~ Itl~¡¡ ~
JJ::: ::0 C .. u. 0 '" :s; ::0 C .. u. 0
;:)~O.::> (f 0 m ;:¡¡O.::o (f -
'" ¡..;:I::;¡; ~w II):I::;¡; ~w
\JII):icn ~¡¡: ,:i", ~¡¡:
ii:::;:6"::, !!1 ~6"::, !!1
oq:E"5 !!; 0 0 ¡..;:E"5 !!; 0
."J '" ..., II) '" ...,
:;) ;¡; ::;: ;¡;
::t: ~ oq ~
(,) ~ 0 tõ 5 ~ 0
~ ::t: ~ ~
g: æ (,) = æ
ffi !1¡ 0 ffi !!; 0
m m
~ ~
w w
U U
W W
" U. " ~
.;. (f 0 .;. (f 0
-' w -' w
::> ::> ::> ::J
~ (f .., (f
!!1 !!1
!!; 0 0, 0 !!; 0
.. rñ
I- I-
0) (f
t¡ ~ ~ t¡ .. -
ã ::5 ~ ã ~ ~
0: 0 :¡¡ 0: 0 ~
Il. X U Il. D II:
~ ~ ~ ::5 ~
'" ~ I!! ~ §
. t:::!! ~~mD ~.
z
S
~
"
0
"
ß5 ~
¡ q~
i l
! ~
! ~
! .
c
"" "
;:¡> ~
~ ~ ¡;¡
~ m
~
0
"" "
~ ... 8 ~ ...
:!1 ~ ~ :!1 ~
l' ~" l' ~
m m
n ~ n
~ i ~
œ 3 œ
~ !:: ~ !::
~:g l ~:g
m "" ~ ..
C m
'"
~
~ i ~
% c ~
l' ~ ~
,
[ ~
,,~ ,,:;tJ
~;; ~ m
¡;¡ ~ ¡;¡ <
m - m
. n-
~ 00
; ~C
~; ~ ~en
:!!j; en ; :!!j;;o
~~ ~ 8. ~~ ::1ñ:I:"'T1
~ m . ~ ~~0C5
'1' m '1' 0 ...cnCe:
... -I "'-Ico
:¡:: ~ :¡:: » CO ...¡ en ::0
~m » ~m -< "'O-m
~:g -I g¡:g C ò>Z
¡¡¡~ m ¡¡¡~ Cñ ¡1¡:¡G')~
::0 -I me
C ::0 3>C
- - O'.Z
en (") ~c-
!(¡ -I !(¡ -I ...m----,
:!! ::0 :!! co<~
~ Cï ~ ~~"
-I 00
~"
" " ~m
~ ~ ...¡ (')
~ ~:Þ
en
-I
en
" "
~ 2 ~ 2
~ ~ ~ ~
c c
m m
n n
m m
~ ~
m m
!(¡ !:: !(¡ !::
~ ~ ~ ~
m m
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
% %
l' l'
d ~ d ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ c ~ c
~--I g¡:::-I
¡¡¡:.O ffi:.O
"~-I "~-I
.» ,»
.. ~ õ .. ~ õ
c~en o~en
~ ~ ~ ~
:!1~ :!1~
¡ > '" > '"
¡ ¡;; ~ ¡;; ~
_I
ó
>
~ 01
... .
cø ~
- »
~ t
c.
tñ
I-
Z
w
::E
w
c:::
u .
z ~
~ ~
c::: :;¡ !>.
~ ~
w
> ~~.
0:> "<t to
It) N"<t ~ ... ¡¡
- Ñ"'¡ ~.:
It) ... ~ Ñ ;:-
.... '" '" ..
Ow ~ ~ c.
NI-
.Ei5 a: cø~
< ,...g¡ i'5 ~~
U'J ~!!: >- ~~
....0
.æ "<t.
C;¿ un: ~ ~~
;;¡ I-~ - Ø>.
0 ( )e:; ~~
.... ~ « ~
~ u u.
w2
c:::æ
O::¡1f)
u..~t;
...JI-W
<c If).,
_>0
I-:sf £
z::¡o U
W:J:W Z
Cuz ~
-u.Z
( ) 0 « -If)..".,
W ...I «::j õi õi == ê
..., ~ Q. ti - õ õ c: .0
"'-a: w:J: jj :ë ::¡ jjj
~u~ ::¡o ~ ¡¡f~ ¡¡; .§,
I-cDlf) ui!!::: U:: Õ iß
( )If)« «...1:5 11:::5. I- '"
->!!!:I: ...15 u~ tiæ~.¡¡ ~ .§
11::« ...I 011:: Q.I-OI WI->" « 0..
WI- W:J:~ «0"":>« 01 Q. ¡;;
~1f)1f) «:J:::¡ U:J: :=-: >I-~"'.:;¡ ..
...Jo> ~ u~ ~U~lf)lf)lf)lf)w«If)...I~If)O ~
~«( z~:I: lI::~wdgo« Q.Q.w~õ:=u ~
:J:~5 « 0::11:: ::-1I::~~ozti 1f)1f)~> g 0 ~
O«:J: II::...I~ ~~Ol-:=:S> :J::J:æ« «~ ~
u..If)U ffi Wl-=wwwwwww ~~I-I-o W...l ..
Ooz - ::¡O:>ww~~~~~ ««« :;¡ ~
~ffi ~~=~:1:5~~:S:S:S:S:S 0::0::Q.~ «~ ~
>!!:I- :J:--:l:«ml-I-I-I-I-I-I- »:J:::¡ ~1f).E
I-glf) WII::II::ZtiZ...l...l1f)1f)1f)1f)1f) ««~I- ~~ iß.
õ:;¡~ ~~~~>æ~~~~~~~ bbmæ m:= ~~
Bl
.~-- ~_.-
. cHu1.A: VISTA "S?HEREOF'INF1:ûENCE':'. ,,"'. " " .. ... '" '.
The 2OtO.1Id 2OC5 n:sidenIIa1 10r- are =œtent WIll'> adopIeIj land use I
;>olees. The 201SfDrø::ast may exceed 1toe capacltyspeclfJBd in ",implied by 1990 - 2015 1990-2015
cunent aeneral """ :::mnmunrtv' ~Ians. Chanae Avg. Annual
1990 2000 ZOOS 2D15 Absolute Percent "k Chanae
TOTAL POPULAllON '46.483 188,617 204,-<26 22Z.:ø 73.842 49.7% 1.6%
Household '46~ 186.856 =.469 .22D.D37 73.389 50.0% 1.6%
Group 0- ',835 1,761 , ;1"37 2,2!18 -453 24 7'% U.!l'J(.
ìOTAL'HOUSING UNITS '54~ .63.129 '68,526 76;100 021.743 "'0.11% 1.4,.;
Single Family .31.074 36,619 40:659 .4J;.154 13.060 -42.1% 1.4%
:Multiple F¡¡moly , 6,!164 22.187 Z3.544 27;7112 8.828 46;~ '.5%
Mobile Hames 3.759 3.763 3,763 :3,594 -"\65 -<1.4% -02%
Other-UnItS 560 560 560 S5D 0 O.!J% 0.0%
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS :52.172 61,657 57.,'3 74,714 .22,542 -43.2'1ó 1"c""
VACANCY RATE <:.m::. 2.3'1'. 2.1% '.6% -2..2% -54.7'" -~:I""
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD .2.81 3.03 .2.02 2-95 0.13 4.11% O.2'ló
TOTALEMPLOY~..NT 52,042 :55.244 61,312 &I,ge 17,901 34.4% 1.2S. '
Civilian 52.042 :55,244 51.312 611.943 '7,1101 31104"- ,.2'1(.
Agricu!Wre &Mínmg Z7ß 251 251 2S6 -2[) -7-2'1' -03 ¡,
Constru.."1ion 1.563 1.545 2.099 2.£16 ',055 .67~ :2:1'"
ManulacWrir.¡¡ 10.2113 10,498 10,697 10,5:31 '346 :3;4% 0,'"
T"msp.. Commun.. &. Utü. 1.670 2.170 2.407 2,893 1,223 7.3.2% .2.Z%
WholesaleïlZ:ie .2,472 2,719 3.064 3A25 1153 :36.5% ,~
Retail Trade 12.406 '2,319 14.027 16.962 4,556 :36:7'¡ó 1..3%
;Om.. Ins.. Real Estate 2.500 .2.946 3.314 4,073 '.573 '62.9% 2.0%
Se"'IC8S 12.882 14.900 15.965 '8.406 5.524 42.9% 1.4%
GovemlTl2nt 7.990 7.884 S,25B 11),679 .2.6B9 33.7% 1.2'Jb
Uniformed MililBry t) 0 0 0 t) -- --
TOTAl ACRES 33.752 33.752 33,752 '33,752 0 .0.0'" -D.DS.
Developed Acres ~5.484 17.267 111.026 20;7-49 '5,265 3-4.0% 1~
lDwDens1tySingleFamily 14 14 '4 '4 1) D.O!ó tllI'Jó
Sm91e Family 8.667 9.812 ",152 12,108 3.440 :39:7$. "\::1%
Multiple Family '1.247 1.544 ',774 2,D61 '614 65.3% :2.D%
Mobile Homes 396 396 396 389 -6 -1.9% -0.1%
Other -Res ider1tia I '1 11 " '1 D D.o% 1).0%
IndustriaifTCUlWholesa Ie 1.183 1,256 1.325 1A28 245 20:7",(, 0,8%
; etail 1,327 1.57.9 '.467 1,579 252 111.0% tI.7% j
Office 55 54 71 92 '37 '67..2% 2.110
Schools 721 7112 61B ~2 '21 :115:r¡(, tI.5'J(. j
AQri;ultuno 1. ExtI'llClivè 260 260 260 260 0 -D;D' ¡, D.o% '
Paries ',224 1,224 1.224 1.224 1) tlD% D.o% .
~¡¡. Freeways 3BO .514 514 744 364 :IiS.'8% 2.7S
'\Iac:ant Developable Acres .5,1596 3.913 .2,'55 -'131 -5;255 -52A% -!I.2IS'
1:DwDens~y SIngle !1>mily t) 1) 0 t) tI -- --
Single Family 3,542 .2.496 1.'46 , -3;642 -1oo.t!% -28.7%:
-Multiple Family 537 339 116 11 -625 -98.2% -1<I.II'Jó
Industrial!TCU/Wholesale 532 456 391 291 -241 --.45.3".. -2.4%
Retail 294 243 156 58 -236 -803Ib -15::1% '
OffICe -47 $ 31 10 -'37 -7B:!% -5.K '
"Schools 1111 ,10 64 50 -121 --'l56l!% -43 ¡, ;
Agri:;ulture~ ExtractIVe 0 t) t) 0 1) - --
Roads & l'reeways :364 230 '230 0 -364 -9931% -23.4"" ¡
Constrained Acres ':12.571 12.571 :12.571 12.571 -D ~:D% tI~:
GROSS EMPL DENSITY 1-4.7 1-'1.7 15.6 16;7 :2.,tI õlS.51b 'OS< ¡, ,
GROSS JlESID. DENSITY .5::1 5.4 5.1 .5.:2 -0.1) -tl.M(, -oD% .
SANDAG/SOURCEPOINT 401 BSTREET, SUITE 800, SAN DIEGO CA:92101 (61£1) 595-5300
SClJrœ: Series B Regional GrcwthF.arecast (InterimFDÆCaSt, 5195), SANDAG D5129/95
__'m. -'----
FIGURE 58 BB pg. J1 of 2
__m- -
,. ~~
- ".," .'- -- ..... ,,'-- "t:t1Jt:~ Ii Kt:t:iJONALGROWTH FORECAST
1990 - 2015
ûTAYAANCH ' , WESTiOFTJ' EBESEfWOJR "'. .n,- ':.",.:., '
The =0 BnCl2D05 '8$dertaI1ors::as!s lire consIStent witt-. ad::1pled lard LSt! ..
:PDi::Ies. The 20151...-= may.xceed1he ""¡>;Icity specif Qd 10 D' Imphed by 1930 - 2015 1990-201-5(
curren". ge""..., and ::t>mmunlty- Pia"". Chance AvíJ.t..r.- .
1990 gQQQ ~ ~ AbsolU:e Percent %Chal
TarA!. POPULATION 24 5.7(;7 25.604 4I5,t5O<I ~ '94~ ~
Household 24 8,767 28.5D4 415.6D4 416.560 1Q40B3:3% 35""""
Group Duane", 0 0 0 0 0 -- --
TarAt HOUSING UNITS 7 2,79rJ 9,2:15 15:411B '5.4189 :221~71.4'; "35.1~
SI'1Qle Family 7 1.785 5.650 "5.225 '6221 117442.9'10 32.7,%
Multiple Famüy 0 1,014 3.585 7.256 7.266 -- --.
Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0 0 -- --
D:her Un¡ ¡; 0 0 0 0 0 -- -..
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 7 2,714 '8.1167 15.1:91 15.124 216057.1'" 36."'"
VACANCY RATE 0.0% 5.0% 2."7% 2'1% 2.'1" -- _.
PERSONS PER HDUS!:HOLD 8.45 8-25 5.16 3.05 -V.55 -10_2' ó -OA% :
TDTAtEMPl.OYMENT 23 799 2,425 5,~ 5,454 237'~.o,; 24~
Clllilisn 23 7119 Z~28 !>,,:;T7 5.~ 23713.'0% 24.5"'"
Agrícutture &. MínmI 23 22 22 22 (1) -4.3% -Do2%>
COnstruction '0 34 135 513 313 -- --
ManufacwrÍllf 0 72 355 5D2 602 -- --
ïrensp., Comrnun.. & Uti!. 0 50 251 657 fi67 -- I --
Wholesale Tra:Ie 0 33 179 411 411 -- --
Re:ailTraae 0 Z11 5811 '1,225 1,225 -- --
Fin., Ins.. Rsa! ::sJale 0 ' 82 192 758 758 -- --
5ervCes 0 2Z7 597 1.221 1,221 -- --
GoV!m1mert 0 55 '105 2D6 205 -- -.
UnifDlT1Ied Mili1a.-y 0 0 0 0 0 -- -
TOTAL ACHES 5,0711 11,07.9 '¡;,O79 6.078 (OJ -0.0'; -O~
DevølopedAcr= 150 852 2,534 -:!.1Ië5 3,805 2373;6% 13.7%
Low Density Si:;¡1e Family 0 0 296 448 448 -- --,
Si~le Family .2 467 1.524 2,133 2,13' 101457.,% 21~
Mujtipie Family 3 71 250 559 556 17945.2% 23.1~ ,
Mobile Homos 1 1 t '1 0 0.0% O.~
D:hør'Reside=/ 0 0 0 0 0 -- --
IndLStrialfTCUJWholesaJe 26 56 ,21 196 172 650.0% 6.~.
Re:ail 1 10 27 73 72 7150.0% 18~
Office '0 0 0 14 14 -- --
Schoos 0 5 9 22 22 -- --
Agri::utture B. Extractive 114 114 ,'4 1,4 0 0.0% 0.O7é
Parks 13 13 13 13 0 O.~ , 0.'0""
Fbads 8. F_ys '0 115 -¡7I/ 391 ~91 -- --
Vacant 1)e....1Cpable .Acres -'1,"532 4.140 2."1511 1,027 (S,ðO5) -7B.7% -6.°"
lDwDeœitySin¡¡1e hmily 465 "168 172 :20 (44a) -~.1 'IO -1'.w.
Single FamIly :2.131 1;546 ~O 0 (2,131) -100.0% -31.[)%
MuKiple Family 527 759 560 270 (555) -67.3% -4.41'»
I n:ÜstriaIfTI;UjWnD!e¡;ale 239 210 145 66 (172) -71.8% -4~
Retail 112 103 85 40 (7'2) -54.0"'" -4.t!'J'
Office 46 418 48 3.0: (14) -2911% -1<4"
Schccs 516 611 6D7 595 (22) '-3.5% -0.1~
Agii::utture& Extœ...--tive 0 0 0 0 '0 -- -- i
Roaæ 8. FTæY.-ays '891 295 212 D (391) -99.9% -26.2r
~ Ccr>Stniined Acres ::3,066 :2.055 3.056 ;S,DB6 1> D.O," O.~ t
GROSS EMPL DENSm- V.2 '1.3 .11.1> 15.0 12.11 7890.6%, '1I,2S
¡GROSS 1£SlD- DENSm- ,., 5.0 <4.5 .4..11 8.ð ~_O% $..".
SANDAG/SOURCEPOINT 401 BSTREET, SUITE 800, SANDIEGOCAB21O1 (619) 595-53OC
Source; Series B Regicnal Growth FDre= (Interim FDrecast, 5195), SANDAG 1 1't2/9E
t::",.., ,or: .",., nn ?m?
I
¡...
z
~~
§.Jf11 15> ~
~Im£~~
:I::z
.uz'
~
.c.. '
=~
....1;
~..,
:S!=
....=-,
.w <:
=:>- w
....=: =:
- ::<: <:
- - ....0 0 >-
- ",,;Z .... u:
tI) < .¡5Ë § <:
LI.I~ "".., "" 0 ¡;;
- -- :;:.w ¡¡:: ::> i3r
a:: """ 'c.> :: c :::.
1&1 111 :;:ï5 1È ~ -
0 (.) 5~ :<2 5 ~ '
..... z "" ;z -> ."" "6
- 111 ::~ ~ "" -%'
c:c= ~O ;Q ~ %!:
~ .~ ~. .I.~ < ~~ i .'
c::c u.I" ./ ." 'ê
,-- a::: ... Oc :¡; ,
.-- Zz ~
~.
~ .'
~
p)O
FIGURE 6
JULY 1997 COMMERCIAL ¡INDUSTRIAL ¡INSTITUTIONAL PROJECT STATUS LISTIN
As of 10131/97
Souare F- Total
Status DRC# Project Name Address Office RetaIl Indus1ria1 SQ. F1.
I.Inder Construe
9252 Office Building 2Q3 - SI 1.644 1.644
9438 Commen:ial Retail (2) Bldgs 55-57 & f57 N Broadway 6.632 6.632
9546 H_1tB1 Expansion 373&435HSt 254.500 254.500
QS3O SWBOtwBter Auth. 0IIiœ 505 Gamrtt Ave 2,390 2,390
9711 ZalDir DenlaliRe1ail Bldg. 397 E SI 5.190 5.190
9715 Texaco.A&W.TCBY 902 Broadway 3052 3062
9719 Cox Commun_ons Bldg. 4O0ThinI Ave 7.996 7.Q96
9726 YMCA & Pool 1201 Paseo Magda 13.751 13.751
9744 INS Building 2411 Boswell Rd 54.613 54.613
S_, 351.776
Plan Check
9507 Comm1lOflice 666 Old Teiegraph Canyon Rd. 5'176 £'17S
9619 Broadway Business Homes 760 Broadway 20.704 20.704
9635 AutoSeMœ-RDR 640I..aznCI 17.700 17.700
9713 Burger King I Office 99Bonita Rd 3.099 3.099
9716 Eastlake Community ChurctJ Phase I 2351 OIey lakes Rd 13.129 13.129
9725 Medicel Center Expansion 665ThiTdAve 6,500 6.500
9735 L.evyBuilding - RDR 1055 Toena Del Rey 61.570 61.570
973S OIev lakes P- Expansion 1550 E H St 3,400 3.400
9742 BUl Ðr King - RDR 699EHSt 3.201 3.201
9606 Underwood Office Building - RDR 665 Canarios CI 19.140 19.140
5_' 153.621
Desion Review
953S Hilltop Temaœ Comm'IIRetaii TeJegraph Cyn RdlNacion Ave S.17S 6.176
9541 MCA Amphitheater OIey Velley Rd 55.690 55.690
9543 Wendys 699EHSt 3.309 3.309
9611 MuffiSagenTheaters 1025T..... Del Rey 34.170 34.170
9S2O T",shT",nsferStation 1 B55 Maxwell Rd 7.500 7.500
Ð623 Drive Thru Resteunont 45fo1Broadwav 5.710 £.710
IIS25 Auto Detail 29S2 Main St !!lIS !!lIS
9726 HIIHnnTemu:e7-11 Remodel T"""'" C~ RdlNacion Ave 0
9730 Hl1ltonBe- Chun:h "-_n 740 HiIltoo Dr 0
9735 Business Offices "" Bldno 1 055 T..... Del Rev 61.570 61.570
9741 Humn"""" Mortuan. 753 Broadwav 17.000 17.000
9748 Iff Grobb Denial Buildino 2226 Dtav lakes Rd 4,500 4.500
9610 OIev G=nasium 3554 Main 51 16.000 16.000
9613 T exaco F'~nsion 4430 OIev Valley Rd 1,919 1,919
9615 Marshalls Expansion 310EHSt 7.000 7.000
9617 Plenums Plus 325Trousdele £1,424 51A24
9816 Medicel Center F-nsion 665ThiTd Ave 46.t>00 48.000
SuI><o1at 32DII66
Total SQuare FcoIage: 826.265
H:\HOMEIPLANNINGlGMOC\Q7PIPELN.wB1 1CJ..Nov-97
91\\
..-... . '. .
. . - --. .. .- ~
.~~~î;'~:'::C"::,::~'~~"_,~-:., .-7::',-... u
y~~!
top~~J~'j~~~'~~~~~~~
~~':;'~¡;-:~~-."':; CWhIIe1b£ ' ._<If
..'.::",~:?,=:;;:=.C '" -_. --'!IIo!r ... ...
W~~ hIrIdapo-<If ,praåIoIÌII1D ..... f
----_*nDare
~'~1am"-~
-~,tø_-'""I'PO'
~- '.tbreaIeued. ~
-.rJoi8-8"ja1t aøaIIII!r--1Ip
a1I.--~.-- .
",,' - -" - -' n
'nç.¡ø¡..- ~-a:. .
lII"r..8üiè ' ::~~~~;.¡.;;;:
puwIh';'¡.,,;"aaI\:faILaf"h- I. "DII-~ - baY. 10
'_'0.J.l42'_,__\ .. . ~
~~~:;., :~~~,
l.asAupiaCoomty.IIoe_'. -. 4=.!
""",__w,,__m . &aIbom~- Con- I
Gl,6%I .'J"OPIe 1ImiDg the year, .-" -~
~~"'Al4mU-
_m:lhe._I8IIIII!.'1D-
lIIDIÙIOE8,.the_. puwIh""
~1h8t.af--....
~jn------
- ami -by 82,'tB9 ",",-
eIm'"- ' .
'0rmJø0 ~ lwithe fnurth.
-pin-Y,upJi4.133
¡... . UIW 0£2£1- --
San D;eøo Coomty..... up 45.44'110
=----Cømty ..8/~
... 1Ip 33.1]3 '" :1.+1 --
C8IIIIiD ¡m_---."".
8 JIOCtIftIy, '.
l.DS ANGEŒS 'IDdES
- ArmQounties'~ ~iD~,
: ~;:rhe ,JlØpuJatiao ',pawth that
' ...'~ -:- ~ ' "-, . ~ !ioa1homCaUDmoio-aporieneed
'Naîi' '~':Ieade. "'~-"""':Ihe_:;,oor-'been..
.., on:s~ . :rSC¡ ..;p.a"m2ll-.laag.:tbeeen,
~~~:-
nüm~l -a~~.~- -. ,=~;";' ~'-:Dioøo...~"..nty
. . "-"""""Y ,cc:cmnd-...m:re'iD_~ :m1he-~-"""'m
' :1iIzrfheztœI .ßuohdL,:J.'JIe_~_..t- ~¡baU~CIIImtY-"
.. , 'far_- ~ =ty -. DoagW¡, ""':'~;':;:""':~ICllh.
," ~~= ~~_mColanodo,:-hich ';'~~',~~
~~J-_-.. "'1IERIIEES":JIE1URN ='DiIIiaa:~'¡¡;1S
""""~_Dl,"""""",- ',' .sam.,...".._1IedÞau1h-, ~~~s;;!&iaa""12;n;,,¡¡¡¡.,n '"
;:,' ._~=, ~~;7~::.~~~.i::~
..~~~ ~~-,¡,y~~:!iIans~~"'¡
¡;¡~~.-. -ha-e.".-",:-'betw8aI:IaIY~atY:I!ID'Z.""'--" - - ..,,', _i.
ìi,~~_I~_.,¡,¡¡œ"" O..,.¡ ,CaIarado'-'~--:~'~V"""'" ~;
~IIIiIdìag~ ..aehlmdthreeDliheJO- ,..,fram~- g,
~ '::i{~Cš>~~ ~~
.II!..- ,: ',.."".-, :-
:to'iIC~:~~~-"":~o",~_:tbÒJ.....,.. ;:!.:aI17_"'~>f4~:
:--,:~....."", -- - -,..<iag~-EDIIIpIIIIy"'F:aiaäaj¡"":%bè8izth=--cin'the
I -:n.._~",]IDt:Las :hoadqaartaedjalt......JIB-hor- ,"""".aad~:ia 'the:all-
..A>pIos~_.a1m; ,',der¡---. 1IIid...-o' '.:tioa. .-,-.---: "-!:', --
--1oiø!io>:~."'"",,1y ,-- ~""'--.by ,- ~~, ' ;15S>ifnan
-- ~~ -" J.3$iD l896-9'1,daoterothan 1he -~Jo_~r;"g1Ú4th--
-_n.""""'_...""" '"""",,,,"__ofD.9%. ,JarpstjnthellllltUad8Othmthe
.ahead.DlóederaJ__!Ihøagh 'The CaIIIomia mIIIIbeno ~._..- ,', ,
.both--.m_- '-.nth"""""_ihBt1here ,...!iatIU ~.-.càaiii;,. ;¡row
-1IIIIy~~~~.før --...w:he'1ll--_¡e:m:, -6'--3I0.O0O,
- ~~~,~~ 'i5~~~==-
~:Ihe~,Dd&-- ,:7We~~......,..- '---'*"ÌIPeddile.......:ia
""---"-""'PI:r--d . :periDd;øolloa.-"-:líadz.- """-""'Jedj,,~......,
. . . .....~..-tr-- ..,a,'lbìag2n_-'CaIIfarma,.., -..r-JialE-~,~
:stIII."'~"""..r ad]lOW,people.arn"liziIIB1here .-id,...,..; ;~,"" '-J'i.,-- , .
- oIar;og -- ........ ':ÎII 'IOhI in:them 1hør '1IJIls. - x-r -W... iIoariai'..... -.....
--".",,-- ".;d, _m___-
""",.....,II!~-- ~_c1he:aew -2n~-høve
- - fJed ... -- -- ,- -fjgans -.nw. '-...... --- iiadiI,g 'the -
...'WosbiagIan. ~-. Ne- ciaUy m Baothern CIIIIamia. DeW -- ..."", _as øreoa.. bad œ.n
'VIIAIa - 'Mmúana "'" mming ---""'fn1knriagjDbømthe 1aadeoat.:.he-'
back. - ......... -- dDag ~ -rogina......... 'OriIh - . -'
~ 'PDPuiabna slow - ~ teI:ImoIop:øI - .1Iad ...- - -....,. -
.rlowniDt1øe-- ,,_Dl1he~_DI -"--" --
-'" --~~...-: -- . "" -';"-~~".:~/::::";:::?
.8/3
APPENDIX C
Solid Waste Informational
Questionnaire
LANDFILLS
1. Please fill in the blanks on the table below.
u,NDFJLL- jii:i.j !~~~Ü~!m!!=:cl ~
;;ccj ~¡~es~rn~~- 'j ~
1:996 :2005 1:9:96 :2005 "1:996 2005
Otay 31% up to 50% 98+% 0-100% 37 Years 28 Years
Miramar .001 _001 1% Negligible 20 Years 11 Years
Sycamore .001% Negligible .01% Negligible 62 Years 30-50 Yrs
lOut of County .001% Negligible .01% Negligible N/A* N/A*
Although the current Orange County landfill space is being consumed at a more rapid pace
additionallandf¡lis are being permitted or expanded in Riverside, Imperial Counties and Arizona
Please provide brie; narrative responses to the following.
2. What assumptions underlie the current projected landfill lifespan shown above?
a. Current waste stream reduction or increasing levels?
Waste-Stream DiverSion Stfate,gYi
Source Reduction 1% 5%
Re-use 1% 3%
Recycling 9% 22%
' Composting 12% 20%
Transformation 0% 0%
b. Population growth consistent with SANDAG's Series 8 projections?
Diversion strategies and estimates are based on Series 7 projections.
c. Other assumptions (Please identify).
The City of Chula Vista will continue to dispose of the majority of their waste in the Otay Landfill.
It also assumes that the importation of waste to Otay will not exceed exportation by jurisdictions
or generators currently using the facility. Despite the County's substantial discounts to encourage
North County trash to come to Otay vs Sycamore, Otay's tonnage has not increased. The City of
San Diego and Chula Vista remain the major variables. An increase or decrease of waste disposal
at the site by either jurisdiction will have an inverse effect on the life of the facility. San Diego is
the most likely variable to shift as they maintain an alternative local landfill option at Mira Mar. The
Otay Landfill currently accepts approximately 1,000 tons a day, its permit is being expanded to
3,500 tons per day and Chula Vista disposes of about 300 tons per day.
3. When the Otay landfill is full, where will Chula Vista's solid waste be disposed of?
The City has granted a permit to site and construct a 1,800 ton per day solid waste transfer and
material recovery facility on Maxwell Rd. Although that facility has not been constructed it has
received a preliminary permit to operate from the state. There are also alternative transfer stations
C,\
SC)lidwÚ'iÊ -"ðÖNSERVÃT;Ò~~OÕRDïNAioRi .
Den; Duilt in the south part of the County. These fa:::iiities, future landfill sites and deta:::hable long-
haLl :::mtainer refuse vehi:::les offer the City a variety of disposal options Tne best approach to
reoiJ:rng the :::os: 1: rate payers and our dependen:::y on the in:::reasrng costs 0; final disposal is to
prom:Jte waste reduction and recycling by generators, implement residential volume based pricing
ant encourage the development of local post-consumer content manufacturing. It is also important
to position the City to be able take advantage of competitive disposal options as they occur.
4. Please fill in the blanks in the table below.
LANDFJLL
1985 1990 1997*
I Otay & $8 $18 $30-38
Sycamore
COLLECTION SERVICES
~. What per:::entage of households subscribe to collection services in Chula Vista?
Approximately 95% of the single family and Multi-family dwelling units participate in the trash
service program. The Municipal Code currently allows residents to opt out of trash and recycling
collection by requesting an exemption upon producing weekly landfill receipts.
6. Please fill in the blanks on the tables below.
CHULA VJSTA"S STA'NDARD 'MONTJAL"YCOI..!LECj "¡OÑ!FEE
1985: 1990':~ ~;g93
Single Family (up to 4 units) * $6.10 $7.75 $11.81 $13.09 13.09
Commercial (one 3-yard bin wi $36 $44.90 $65.21 $91.35 $91.62 $76.15
pick-up)
Chula Vista $13.09 $76.15
County-wide Average $14.87 $75.23
County-wide Highest $19.88 $85.95
County-wide Lowest $13.05 $63.98
Orange County** $11.00 $60.00
Los Angeles County** $10.50 $59.00
* Doesn 't Include Recycling or yard waste fees ** Reflects the lowest, most recent competitive bids
ill the region & includes recycling fees.
(1'7
,-- ,- ,--- -
, " , "
SaUD.WASTE --CONSERVATION COORDJNATOR'"
RECYCLING
7. 'Who enforces Chula Vista's recycling mandaœ; City, Coun!}', Stat~, How is it enforced; The
County pulls trucks aside a¡ the landftIJ to inspect for hazardous waste, if they fmd more than 10%
recyclables in a vehicle they can rejec! the load and fme jurisdiction, The state can enforce civil
penalties of up to $10.000 per day for failure to meet state mandated diversion goals of 25 % by
1995 and 505< by the year 2000, Within Chula Vista, the private hauler places a warning tag on
bins or CaDS at homesfbusinesses thaI are no! panicipating properJy, They also leave program
instructions, A letter is sem to the location tagged for a second offense within 2 months, A Code
Enforcemem Officer provided recycling program public education, patrolled to prevent curbside
theft follow~d up on non-panicipams and performed other communi!)' services in 1996/97.
however gran: funding end~d 10/97 and no on~ is currently assigœd !O thar rask,
S. Please fill in the blanks on the tables below.
122,000
37% 39% 55%
RECYCÙNGYONNAGE=m>:MA'mRIM.'STI.'i'E' -, ,"'- ¡."",..-g),;;. .,'
",-y'è_~)"-""---... ;C' 1990*"¡ -"ìl991"~
Green Waste (Yard Clippings) N/A N/A 1O0~ 12481 14315 1650e
Mixed Paper N/A N/A N/A) N/A 421 200e
Newsprint Paper N/A 29261 35481 3900 490C 500e
Metals I N/A 1751 282 286 407 450
I
Glass N/A 880 1126 1337 130C 1350
Plastic N/A 176 138 329 404 47~
Total Diversion 380e 4157 609~ 18333 2174 25775
"City franchised programs OIÙY (curbside), not most commercial efforts or buy-back, six buy/back centers
have opened betWeen 1993 & 97,"*AII diversion for 1990 including five first months of curbside recycling.
MISCELLANEOUS
9, Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight
Commission to recommend to the Cit)' Council;
Residential customers are doing almost all thar can be expected of them. Residential programs are
mandatOry commercia] programs are volunrary. To reach the 50% diversion goal mandated by the Slate
we will need more diversion from commercial generators. Divening paper & cardboard from all
businesses, diverting green waste from large generators and rigid containers from hospitality businesses
such as hotels, resraurants and entenainment facilities or events will be the key to meeting the goal.
The next practical srep in our residential solid wasre management program is to adopt a unit pricing or
volume based rate system. Unit Pricing charges for service based on crash volume and rewards source
reduction. recycling and yard waste efforts with Jower refuse service rates. The current system charges
~
SOUD WASTE:"{;ONSERVATJONCOORDINATGR" Page 4 ij
L~e same pri:e regardless of voiume or effort and requires thar smalI generators subsidize larger generaIDrs.
Lr~',iding raLe p2yers with choices and small financial rewards will rransform their perspective from thaI
0: " vicLim to consurntr. The CODIceS will also provide large gentrarors thar have not participated in
re:ycJing and yard waste programs in the pasr with an incentive ro reduce the amount of waste they
generaLe. A small percentage of larger generarors that choose nor LO recycle will pay a higher fee than they
currently pay however, the rnajoriIy of rare-payers will pay the same or less.
We export potentia] jobs, sales tax and property taX opponuniries along with every LOn of paper, glass.
plastic and metal we send to Los Angeles and Orange Counry. By working with our exisLing businesses
w expand their oppornmiries to use pOSi-consumer materials in the manufactUre of local producLs we will
produce local jobs. reduce the raLe payers COSts for recycling, and reduce our region's dependency on
increasingly expensive solid wasLe coliection and landfill disposal seJ"\'lces. By working with other cities
w combine our maLerials we can generate the volume of feed stack we need to attracL new manufactUrers
to our region !bar will gentrare ntV.' jobs based on a sustainable economic ethic. A single paper plant could
gen::raLe hundreds of jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in Lax revenue whiJe reducing solid wasLe
and recycling cOS'.5.
10. Other releyam information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC.
Aimos¡ 3.000 cities have adopted some form of volume based pricing for solid waste services. These
prog-:ams have Gee!} documented !O produce a ran~e of 15 %-30% diversion. 11 is the mosr effective and
leas, costly Step we can take in meeting the stare mandated recycling goals. Finally, by working with local
business LO develop 2 sustainable economy thaL generates less waste and uses what waste we do generate
in the manufacwre of valuable produclS we will reduce our dependency on landfills as well as the liability
and environmental impåëìthat goes with them.
Prepared by: Michael T. Meacham.
Title: Consenation Coordinator
Date: December 9, 1997
(H,""""".-g"",."""",IOG"""".QI
(iLl-