The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 2006/06/15 1 ueelare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Hiee of the City Clerk and that I posted this on the bulletin board according to r quirements. Ob Signed ~~ft- ::~~ '~~~~ --~- Stephen C. Padilla, Mayor Patricia F. Chavez, Councilmember John McCann, Councilmember Jerry R. Rindone, Councilmember Steve Castaneda, Councilmember Ann Moore, City Attorney Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Notice is hereby given that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista has called and will convene a Special Meeting of the City Council on Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Operations Center, 18 axwell Road, Chula Vista, California to consider the item on this agenda. t Ie SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 15, 2006 6:00 P.M. John Lippitt Public Works Operations Center 1800 Maxwell Road CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, Chavez, McCann, Rindone, and Mayor Padilla PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Castaneda, Chavez, McCann, Rindone, and Mayor Padilla Growth Management Oversight Commissioners: Arroyo, Garcia, Krogh, Little, Moya, Palma, Tripp, Waters, and Chair Spethman Planning Commissioners: Bensoussan, Felber, Nordstrom, Tripp and Chair Madrid PUBLIC HEARING The following item has been advertised as a public hearing as required by law. If you wish to speak on the item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 1. REVIEW OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S 2006 ANNUAL REPORT The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) has finalized its 2006 annual report regarding compliance with the City's quality of life threshold standards. The report reflects the outcome of analysis of information presented by various City departments and external agencies regarding the impacts on growth on each of the 11 facility and service topics covered by the threshold standards. The report addresses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 2006 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2006 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE "2006 GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS/PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY" PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. ADJOURNMENT The Growth Management Oversight Commission and the Planning Commission adjourn to their respective Regular Meetings. The City Council adjourns to a Regular Meeting on June 20,2006, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Page 2 - Council Agenda http://www.chulavistaca.gov June 15, 2006 In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 3 - Council Agenda http://www .chulavistaca.gov June 15, 2006 SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOPIMEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item-1. Meeting Date 06/15/06 ITEM TITLE: Report: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 2006 Annual Report Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Accepting and Approving the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending Acceptance and Approval by the City Council. SUBMITTED BY: Resolution of the City Council of the City ofChula Vista Accepting the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and Approving the Recommendations Contained Therein; and Directing the City Manager to Undertake Actions Necessary to Implement Those Recommendations as Presented in the "2006 GMOC RecommendationslProposed Implementing Actions Summary" Director ofPl~ and Building ~ City Manager r/ J ~ ;p f( (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX-) REVIEWED BY: Each year the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with the City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold Standards. The 2006 Annual Report covers the period from July 1,2004 through June 30, 2005, identifies current issues in the second half of2005 and early 2006, and assesses any threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. A summary of the GMOC's recommendations and staffs proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1. The workshop will give the GMOC an opportunity to discuss their findings and recommendations with the Planning Commission and City Council. The report also contains a summary of forthcoming actions regarding the update of the growth management program and ordinance resulting from the "top-to-bottom" program review conducted. RECOMMENDATION: I) That the Planning Commission: a) Adopt the Resolution accepting and approving the 2006 GMOC Annual Report, and recommend approval by the City Council; and 2) That the City Council: a) Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and approving the recommendations contained therein; and direct the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations as presented in the "2006 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary" (Attachment 1). I-I Page 2, ItemJ. Meeting Date 06/15/06 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission will provide comments and recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION: The 2006 GMOC Annual Report addresses compliance with the eleven quality oflife thresholds covered in the City's Growth Management Program. Presented below are a summary of fmdings regarding threshold compliance, a summary of key issues with respect to threshold compliance, information on the GMOC development forecast, a summary of forthcoming actions resulting from the top-to-bortom program review, an overview of public input, and conclusions. The Annual Report (Attachment 2) supplements these highlights with additional background information and a more detailed explanation of findings and recommendations. 1. Summary of Findings The following table summarizes threshold compliance for the 2006 GMOC Annual Review, including the current July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 review period, and looking forward at the potential for future non-compliance during the period of 2006 through the year 2010. Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance Not In Compliance In Compliance Potential Future Non-Com liance Libraries Police (Urgent) FirelEMS Libraries Police (Urgent & Emergency*) Parks & Recreation (Land)* Schools Traffic Parks & Recreation (Facilities) Fiscal Air Quality Sewer Drainage Water FireIEMS** * Police (Emergency) and Parks & Recreation (Land) were out of compliance as of June 30, 2005, but have attained compliance since that time. ** FirelEMS was in compliance for calendar year 2005, but data were unavailable for fiscal year 2004-2005. 2. Summary of Key Issues Thresholds Not in Compliance or with the Potential for Future Non-Compliance Libraries The growth management threshold for libraries contains a provision that calls for construction of additional library space to be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet per 1,000 population. With continued population growth prior to completion of a new branch library, the latest reported ratio is 464 square feet per 1,000 population. According to the Growth Management Program, "Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into compliance. Construction or other actual solutions shall be scheduled to commence within three years." The Library Master Plan calls for a 30,000 square foot full-service, regional library in Rancho del Rey, with construction currently scheduled to begin by January 2007. This library will be built on City-owned property 1- d- Page 3, Item...! Meeting Date 06/15/06 located at East H Street and Paseo Ranchero. With this library expected to open by the end of2007, addition of the approximately 31,200 square foot branch will meet the library space standard for several years to come (through at least 2009). Because of the Rancho del Rey Library's timing, the GMOC has not identified additional measures to address short-term threshold compliance beyond recommending continued efforts to expedite completion of this new branch. Looking ahead to the City's future growth potential and the submittal of initial planning documents for the Eastern Urban Center (EUe) in Otay Ranch, site of the fourth branch library, the GMOC also recommends actively pursuing plans for this facility. In addition, the GMOC recommends that ultimate future library needs be assessed based upon the increased capacity for future growth provided by the City's updated General Plan, and that the City continue to assess the optimum hours of operation in terms of meeting the needs of service area patrons. Police Priority 1/Emergencv Calls - The Police Department fell slightly below the 81 % (80%) threshold in FY 2004-05 for responses within 7 minutes for Priority 1/emergency calls. While the average response time standard (5 minutes and 30 seconds) was met and the amount below the threshold is small (i.e., 13 calls out of nearly 1,300), this concerned the GMOC. For the period of July 2005 through December 2005, the GMOC is pleased to note that performance for Priority 1 calls (83.8%) was significantly improved and well within the threshold. Priority 2/Urgent Calls - The threshold for responding to Priority 2/urgent calls (57% of call responses within 7 minutes, and average response time of 7.5 minutes) has not been met for several years, and the most recent reporting period showed the longest response times (over 11 minutes average response time) for the last several years reported. Urgent calls are: a misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls. While of less urgency than Priority 1/emergency calls, the trend for Priority 2/urgent call responses still concerns the GMOC. The GMOC recommends that the City Council direct the City Manager to have the Police Department prepare and implement an action plan addressing the decline in performance relative to meeting the GMOC threshold for Priority 2 calls. Parks and Recreation A developed park acreage shortfall of approximately six acres was identified in eastern Chula Vista as of June 30, 2005, primarily as a result of a delay in opening Veterans Park to spring 2006 because of inclement weather during the 2004-2005 rain season. With Veterans Park and other parks now open, the small acreage deficiency has been eliminated. Additional park openings programmed in eastern Chula Vista will meet the projected need for the remainder of the 2006-2010 period. Fire/EMS The Fire/EMS response time threshold was met during calendar year 2005 for the first time in several years, and the GMOC commends this improvement. The Fire Department has also begun to implement are-established emergency response time reporting function by station as a management tool. The GMOC recommends that the emergency response time reporting function be continued, and that a regular internal review process be put in place to address any issues and to take timely corrective actions. In addition, the GMOC recommends that a consistent reporting period be used in the future for reporting response times on an annual basis. Use of calendar year data for 2005 complicated the comparison with fiscal year data in prior years. The GMOC also recommends that the Fire Facility Master Plan update and other pending related studies be completed as soon as feasible. 3. GMOC Development Forecast The forecast for growth from 2006 through 2010 reflects an average of approximately 3,000 dwelling unit completions per year, with minor fluctuations on an annual basis. The ability for this amount of growth to be maintained over the 5-year period will be determined by the strength of 1-3 Page 4, ItemJ. Meeting Date 06/15/06 the economy and housing market, but it will also be affected by the timing of major roadways and other infrastructure and facilities needed to support that growth. Completion of State Route 125 is particularly important in supporting this 5-year forecast. The number of dwelling units receiving building permits during 2005 (1,654) was significantly less than in other recent years (2,250 to 3,525 since 1999). Next year's GMOC forecast will update assumptions about future growth based upon the most recent trends. 4. Growth Management - Proposed Changes to Thresholds and Implementing Measures Last year's Annual Report described a comprehensive "top-to-bottom" review of the Growth Management Program that was directed by the City Council and concurred with by the GMOC. The recommended changes in the 2005 GMOC Annual Report were endorsed by the GMOC and approved in principle by the City Council. The first major milestone reached was approval on the City's updated General Plan in December 2005, which included a new Growth Management Element. Based on this new Growth Management Element, staff and the consultant have prepared drafts of a Growth Management Guidelines document to replace the previous program document, and a new ordinance. These documents are currently under internal review and will soon be presented to the GMOC, and then forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for action. 5. Community Meeting and Public Comments To expand public awareness and involvement opportunities, the GMOC scheduled a community workshop to preview the Draft Annual Report on June 7. Because this year's community workshop is a relatively short time prior to the June 15 joint City Council, Planning Commission, and GMOC meeting, the workshop results and any additional recommendations will be conveyed via a separate transmittal. Public input was also obtained over the course ofthe annual review, and a section of the report (3.12.3) references comments received. Among written comments received to date were a request from Ms. Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition that the Drainage Threshold be changed to also address storm water quality, and a request from local resident Mr. Peter Watry that the GMOC arrange to monitor the annual increase in dwelling units in Northwest Chula Vista. 6. Conclusions To assist Council in evaluating and acting upon the GMOC's recommendations, a concise summary of the GMOC's recommendations and corresponding staff responses is presented in Attachment 1. Staff requests direction from Council regarding implementation of those recommendations as outlined in the right-hand column of Attachment 1. The GMOC 2006 Annual Report is included as Attachment 2. Additional appendices to the GMOC Report will contain the Community Meeting Write-up (to be added following the June 7 public meeting), Growth Forecast, and Threshold Compliance Questionnaire/supplemental reports presented to the GMOC by the various City Departments and outside agencies as Attachment 3. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. As specified follow-up actions are brought forward to the City Council, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided as applicable. Attachments: 1 - 2006 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2006 GMOC Annual Report inclusive of Chairperson's Cover Memo 3 - 2006 GMOC Annual Report Appendices 1- if Page 5, Item-1, Meeting Date 06/15/06 H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\council\Council_ Agenda _ Statement_Revised _Draft _ 06-02-06.doc 1-5 RESOLUTION NO. PCM 06-01 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 2006 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold standards, and to submit their annual report to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in May 2006, the GMOC finalized its 2006 Annual Report regarding compliance with the City's eleven quality of life threshold standards; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, identifies current issues in the second half of 2005 and early 2006, and finally assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista accepts and approves the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept and approve the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and the recommendations contained therein. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 15th day of June, 2006 by the following vote to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Vicki Madrid, Chair Diana Vargas Secretary to Planning Commission H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\Council\PC _ Reso _ GMOC _2006_ Annual_ Report_Draft _Rev _06-07 -06.doc 1- (p RESOLUTION NO. PCM 06-01 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 2006 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold standards, and to submit their annual report to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in May 2006, the GMOC finalized its 2006 Annual Report regarding compliance with the City's eleven quality oflife threshold standards; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, identifies current issues in the second half of 2005 and early 2006, and fmally assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula accepts and approves the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept and approve the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and the recommendations contained therein. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 15th day of June, 2006 by the following vote to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Vicki Madrid, Chair Diana Vargas Secretary to Planning Commission H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\Council\PC _ Reso _ GMOC _2006_ Annual_Report _Draft_Rev _ 05-31-06.doc ) - ry RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2006 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE "2006 GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS/PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY" WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold standards and reporting their findings and recommendations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, in May 2006, the GMOC finalized its 2006 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, identifies current issues in the second half of 2005 and early 2006, and finally assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista accepts the 2006 GMOC Annual Report and approves the recommendations contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations as presented in the "2006 GMOC Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary." Presented by: Approved as to form by: James D. Sandoval Director of Planning and Building H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\Council\CC _ Reso _ GMOC _2006_ Annual_Report _Draft_Rev _ 05-31-06.doc /-/ _" .h~"'"_~."_____~._'_."__~~'"'""--'-'-~'--~."- CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2006 GMOC ANNUAL REP / Threshold Review Period 7/1/04 to 6 To the Current . And Five-Year Forecas to n ce Staff Stephens, Growth Management Coordinator Rabbia Phillip, Management Assistant DRAFT - FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY June 2, 2006 June 2006 Approved by the Planning Commission on _, 2006 Approved by the Chula Vista City Council on ---' 2006 GMOC Chair Cover Memo June 2006 FROM: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Chula Vista TO: Michael Spethman, Chairperson Growth Management Oversight Commission (GM SUBJECT: 2006 GMOC Annual Report (July I, 2004 to Forecast) rrent Time and Five Year ous City department staff as ice Chair, David Krogh, Steve Palma, Arthur ia M a, and Bill Tripp. This dedicated and diverse team e resentations, and participated in hours of thoughtful lity of life" in Chula Vista. e lead identifying ways we can become more responsive to the ncil. The most important aspects of those changes has been: . . . This report includes a b ie pdate on the status of proposed changes to the Growth Management Program as a result of the "Top to Bo om" program review conducted. Over the past year, the new Growth Management Element of the General Plan has been adopted, and a draft of an updated Growth Management Ordinance and a draft Program Guidelines Document are being completed for review. The proposed Growth Management Program changes will be presented shortly after this year's annual review. While Chula Vista continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in the region and the state, the City has done a remarkable job in providing the facilities and services necessary to accommodate this rate of development. It is a testament to the current growth management program, and all the individual actions that have taken place, that we are doing so well. We all hear the complaints about growth, but I know of no other jurisdiction that has handled this level of growth so well, and has maintained a desirable city image. At the same time, the GMOC is dedicated to continuing to improve the City. 11 Eight of the eleven quality of life thresholds were determined by the GMOC to be in compliance, and these include: · Fiscal · Air Quality · Sewer · Water · Drainage · Fire/EMS · Traffic · Schools . . . for calendar year 2005. (Data were presented for the er than a fiscal year period as used the last several annual C neil, Planning Commission and GMOC public hearing/workshop. 111 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2006 ANNUAL REPORT Table of Contents 1.0 1.1 The Growth Management Oversight Commission /0 1.2 Review Process...... ............. ...... .............................. ............ .................................... ..........................4 1.3 Growth For ecas! .......... ....... ....... .... .... .... ......... ......~... ..... ... ........ ......"\. ... ..... .... ............ ..... ........ ... 5 1.4 Report Organization ..............................7~......\............ .................. .....................................5 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMAR Y ........~.....~............ ......................................................... 6 \ 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE ........................ ............ .................. ......................................................9 3.1 FISCAL ................................... ....... .......... .. ............. \.... ......................................................... 9 3.1.1 Five Year Fiscal Forec~............ ..... ......... ................ .............................................................9 3.2 AIR QUALITY..........L....a........ ..... ............ .... ..................................................................10 3.2.1 City Programs for ir Qu~~ 1m e~nt...... ............................................................................10 3.2.2 Alternative Fueled ehicles.................... ......... ............................................................................11 3.3 SEWER ....7............ .... ............ .. ............. ..................................................................................13 3.3.1 Long r Treatm t apaci ... ........ .......................................................................................13 3.4 WATER........ ... ............. .... ............ ... .............................................................................................15 3.4.1 Wat r Avai b ity and ikribuf ................................................................................................15 3.5 LIB ES ....... ... ........... ..... .........................................................................................................16 3.5.1 uildin an .... ................................................................................................................ 16 3.6 DRAIN" A G ........... ...... ................................................................................................................ ....18 3.6.1 Enhancing e Exi . g Drainage System........................................................................................18 3. 7 PARKS & RE A TION ................................................................................................................19 3.7.1 Land Threshold......... ............... ........................................................................................................ 19 3.7.2 Park and Recreation Facilities.......................................................................................................... 20 3 .8 POLl CE............. ..... ........... ........ ......................................... ............................ ............ .........................21 3.8.1 Priority 1 Threshold ............. ........................................................................................................... .22 3.8.2 Priority 2 Threshold......................................................................................................................... 22 3.8.3 Priority 1 Calls Taking Longer Than 10 Minutes ............................................................................23 3.9 FIRE / EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES..............................................................................24 3.9.1 Maintaining Response Time Threshold.. ........ ......... ............. .......... ....... ............ ..... ..... ....... ......... ....24 3.9.2 Reporting Management Tool........................................................................................................... 25 3.1 0 TRAFFI C ................. .................................... ................................ ....................................................... 2 6 G M OC Chair Cover Memo. .................. .............. ............. ...................... ...................... .......... ...... ......................... ii GMOC Annual Report June 2, 2006 3.10.1 3.10.2 Traffic Signal Adjustment.......................................................................................................... 26 Format of Tables........................................................................................................................ .26 3 .11 SCHOOLS. ....... ......... ......................................................... ....... .................. .............. .................. ........ 2 8 3.11.1 GMOC School Recommendations .............................................................................................29 3.11.2 School District Accomplishments.............................................................................................. 29 3.11.3 City Assistance ............................................. ...... .... ....... ....................................... ... ...................29 3.12 4.0 5.0 5.1 _5.2 5.3 5.4 OTHER TOPICS................................................................ ............................... 31 RECOMMENDED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CHAN-GES. ......................................32 APPENDICES ........ ......................................................................... ............ ........................................... 33 Appendix A - Recommendations and Implementing Ac .ons............... ........................................34 Appendix B - Workshop Report (see Volume D) co /. Appendix C - Growth Forecast (see Volume D) / A Appendix D - Threshold Questionnaires and S~pplem tal ata see Vo me D) GMOC Annual Report 2 June 2, 2006 Report Preface - Quality of Life: A Broad Overview The Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC's) principal task is to assess the impacts of growth on the community's quality of life and to recommend corrective actions in areas where the city has the ability to act and can make a difference. This is an important and vital service. No other city in the region has an independent citizen body, as the GMOC, to provide this kind of report card to an elected body. an reporting to the City r onsibility to express , but may impact the With adoption fthe C ula lsta's updated General Plan in December 2005, the City achieved a major milestone, and set. place a new vision for future growth and development over the next 25 years. The ne Ge ral Plan includes an updated Growth Management Element that provides a framework for c tinuing evolution of the City's Growth Management Program. A revised Growth Management Ordinance and a Growth Management Program Guidelines document will soon be presented. GMOC Annual Report 3 June 2, 2006 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 2. 3. c ity Department and outside agency that has old st s to review the appropriateness of the threshold ould be considered. 1.2 etings from July 2005 through May 2006. In addition, GMOC members partici ated in City field trip. City Departments and external agencies completed threshold questio air . GMOC members reviewed the questionnaires and, where necessary, asked department agency representatives to appear in person to make clarifications and to answer questions. In addition, a community workshop was held June 7, 2006. The final GMOC annual report is required to be transmitted through the Planning Commission to the City Council. This occurs at a public hearing typically held in Mayor June. GMOC Annual Report 4 June 2, 2006 1.3 Growth Forecast In late September 2005 the GMOC "Preliminary" Five Year Growth Forecast was issued!. This forecast was issued to provide departments and outside agencies with an estimate of the magnitude of residential growth to be anticipated over the over the next five years. Each department and outside agency was then asked how their respective public facility/service would be able to accommodate that growth. The forecast from January 2006 through December 2010, indicated an additional 15,150 residential units would be permitted for construction in the city, (10,700 in the east and 4,450 units in the west) for an annual average of2 40 in the east and 890 units in the west, or just over 3,000 housing units permitted per year on e ge citywide. 1.4 f the threshold findings for both the most recent years. b threshold presentation, presents discussions, Issues, , and recommendations as may be made. f recommended changes in growth management program thresholds, rganizational issues described in the 2005 Annual Report. 1 This forecast will be updated prior to presentation to the City Council to reflect actual building permits issued and housing units finaled in calendar year 2005 and California Department of Finance annual estimates issued in early May. The forecast is available on the City's web site. GMOC Annual Report 5 June 2, 2006 ..... ~ ~ ~ <c "0 - :E 0 :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: -= :E ~ ~ ::> .. -= en E-- 3:10 Wo -- >0 ~ wt:? a::: CD ..JI -< <c(9 ::>:J ~ Z~ ~ ZI <C..... ~ I -.::t 0 ..... C;::: \0 rJ). ~ a::: .~ ~ ~ ..... <cO 0 "- U CO Z " "- Zo::: "0 X'" Z - <CW 0 -= -< t-O- ~ enS ~ ~ .. ~ CW -= E-- ~ ..J> OW ~ :I: 0::: 0 en w U a::: :I: ~ t- ~ U) 0 0 0 N !::: == tJ .8 .... ...... Q. ~ rJ). 0 (l) E-- ;.... u ~ .-6' ~ ~ ...... ...... ...... en c;j VJ (l) .- .0 .-6' ::;E "'"- (l) 0.0 0'8 ..... VJ ,S! ;::l .~ ~ .- ~~ u - 0 "l::l - c;j CI ~ ;.... !::: VJ .- (l) ;.... ~ !+:: 0 0 == (l) l:: \.J .~ .8 0 ;:: ...::: u ~ ...... ;.... ..... ~ ~ ~ <+-< c5 ;.... ~ .D ~ ~ '0 ;.... ;.... ~ ...s:: ~ VJ < (l) ~ ..... ;.... >-.:1 ~ ~ ;.... ~ u ~ ~ en .....1 0 ~ ~ ~ en = . N ~ <( :E :E ::J en 3: 0 W ~ >t-~ wz~ ~WQ) ..J:E.Q <(enE ::JenQ) zW. ~ zeno <(~.c I ~ ~ 0<(0 ~w~ <(>-; O'CD ZWO <(~O t-LLN enO ~ ozea ..J<(~ o c J: ea en .., W ~ J: t- CD o o N o Q) ..... 0 ~ ::: ._ cd ..... .- 0"- ~a "t:j 0 :::u ::s Q) ~ > ..... Q) 0.. .- 0-5 ~< '5 s S....... Q) Q) 0 g ~ 0 cZi u l-. ,..t:i..-..... (/) Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ .El....:l E-< "t:j ..- Q) ]l=Q..... (/)"- Q) (l):;:::~ .El~ E-< "t:j ..- o ,..t:i (/) Q) .El E-< x x x X X X ~~ ~ ~ ::: ~ ~ o ~ ~ '.g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u -., t-... ~ ~ ~ .-S' t--; ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ :; ~ ~ U) ~ g. iJ iJ '~ ~ U) ~ ::::: Q) 'i::: 'i::: ~ i3 0 ~ I-< ~ "'i;j .El '8 ~ l:: 't) ] 2 2 ~ ~ ,g _ :;;:: Q) :> ''j ~ ,~ ~ r~ 0 ~:... ~:... - I- ~ ..::! ;:s 6 l:: .9 ts l:: '- ;:::s.t: , .;::: ~Q t:s- ~ 2 ~..J::: ~c.55 ~ l:: o & "'=: ~ ::l l:: l:: ~ \..l ~ \::I DLA-N ~ 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE 3.1 FISCAL The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This rep should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as ell s projected growth over the next 12- to 18-month period, and 5- t7 ar pod. The GMOC shall be provided with an ual Deve pment Impact Fee (DIF) Report, which provides an analysis v ment 1 expended over the previous 12-m th pod. Threshold: Future: 3.1.1 Discussion: e ith a five-year fiscal forecast. Based upon this owth is anticipated to produce the kinds of land uses Recommendation: GMOC Annual Report 9 June 2, 2006 3.2 AIR QUALITY Threshold: The GMOC Shall Be Provided With An Annual Report Which: Future: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measur s designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant r evant regional and local air quality improvement stra gies. 2. evelopment regulations, dlor are consistent with an regional air quality 3. activities being THRESHOL 3.2.1 City Programs for Air Quality Improvement The GMOC supports the efforts being undertaken by the City of Chula Vista to improve local and regional air quality. The City continues to implement several measures contained in the Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan adopted by the City Council on November 14, 2000. Following is an explanation of the non-development related air quality programs identified as Action Measures in the CO2 Reduction Plan that have been updated during the reporting period: GMOC Annual Report 10 June 2, 2006 Purchase of Alternative Fuel Vehicles The City's alternative fuel vehicles inventory has been expanded to include: . Chula Vista Transit has 32 CNG Busses (Chula Vista Transit received 7 new 2005 CNG busses and retired 7 diesel busses). . The Nature Center received a dedicated CNG bus in June 2005. . Two hybrid vehicles: Ford Hybrid SUV and Honda Civic Hybrid olicy in February 2005. . . for all city building he city's energy use . ehicles and Fueling Stations Discussion: While it is recognized that the issue of air quality should be addressed on a regional basis, the City of Chula Vista is moving forward in several areas to lower energy consumption and emissions. One area that was of interest to the GMOC in last year's report concerned the acquisition of or conversion of City vehicles using alternative fuels. In response to a previous GMOC recommendation, a draft City policy position regarding the acquisition and use of alternative fueled vehicles has been prepared for review. The policy has not been finalized for City Council consideration. GMOC Annual Report 11 June 2, 2006 Comment: The GMOC looks forward to receiving the draft or adopted City policy regarding use of alternative fueled vehicles. The GMOC also supports provision of additional stations for alternative fuels, including providing planned public access to the CNG Fueling Facility at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, a site in conjunction with the Auto Park, given the auto orientation of that area, and other strategic locations in Chula Vista convenient to drivers. GMOC Annual Report 12 June 2, 2006 3.3 SEWER Threshold: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. a. for projected new 3.3.1 Discussion: In about five years the City's current contracted capacity rights with METRO are expected to be exceeded. However, with an allocation from the South Bay Treatment Plant, additional capacity will be available. For the longer-term capacity needs it is the understanding of the GMOC that the Wastewater Master Plan has determined the need to acquire approximately 5 MGD of additional treatment capacity. It is also understood that negotiations to acquire those rights are ongoing, and that a variety of options is also being assessed within the defmed cost parameters. The GMOC appreciates the complexity of these negotiations. GMOC Annual Report 13 June 2, 2006 Average ~~~r-;;l~ Flow (MGD) L.::::JL::JL::.J~L:L1 1 Capacity 1119.843 1120.875** 1120.875** 1120.875** 1120:~f5** 1 * Buildout Projection based on the General Plan Update preferred alter~~ ** Increase in capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacit ights re Treatment Plant (allocation process still under way). 26.2* 20.875** Recommendation: That: . g the allocation of treatment e South Bay Sewage Treatment GMOC Annual Report 14 June 2, 2006 3.4 WATER Threshold: 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 3.4.1 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Mu c' al Water District with a 12-18 month development forecast and ~ uest aluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and c tinui growth. The Districts' replies should address the followin a. b. acity, now used or c. d. new e. . cts desire to communicate to the Current: Discussion: oth of the major water districts serving the City of Chula Vista, the Otay Water District and the Sweetwater Authority, report that they will be able to meet the water demands of anticipated growth over the next five years. Chula Vista has been a leader in water conservation and the recycled water distribution system has been expanded in the master planned communities of eastern Chula Vista through efforts with the Otay Water District and the development community. The GMOC supports these efforts as a way to limit potable water demands and maximize efficient use of available water supplies. The GMOC also supports the efforts of the Sweetwater Authority to address the feasibility of recycled water use in western Chula Vista. Recommendation: That recycled water use be maximized where feasible throughout the City. GMOC Annual Report 15 June 2, 2006 3.5 LIBRARIES 3.5.1 The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by build-out. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped a taffed. Threshold: THRESHOLD FINDING: Issue: aster Plan calls for the construction of a 30,000 square foot ll-se ice, regional library in Rancho del Rey. This library will be c ns ted on City-owned property located at East H Street andPaseo an ero. The City has a design/build agreement to complete a 31,200 s are foot library by the end of calendar year 2007. According to the Growth Management Program, "Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into compliance. Construction or other actual solutions shall be scheduled to commence within three years." As stated above, with construction of the Rancho del Rey library expected to commence this calendar year and be completed in 2007, no additional action is needed if this schedule is met. With growth forecast over the next five years, the threshold would again be approached over the latter part of the forecast period, and could again fall GMOC Annual Report 16 June 2, 2006 just below the 500 square feet/1,000 population standard by the end of 2010, The existing library at EastLake High School, which previously was assumed to close as a City branch library when the Rancho del Rey facility opens, is now to remain until the Eastern Urban Center (EUe) branch library opens, Planningis also commencing for the EUC. Recommendations: The City has taken a proactive position and is continuing to actively pursue the Rancho del Rey Library P1anning/Building Plan Program and has placed as a priority the identification of construction fu 'ng. The principal reason for the delay was to await notification of whe er a 'brary construction grant had been received. Unfortunately, the c' wa not successful in being awarded that grant. The new library is eing fu ed through development impact fees collected. That the City Council direct the ity ~nager 0: 1) 'te deli~ 0 the n w Ran 0 del Rey branch 2) 3) 4) GMOC Annual Report 17 June 2, 2006 3.6 DRAINAGE Threshold: Stormwater flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering standards. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives listed above. Current: THRESHOLD FINDING: Future: 3.6.1 Discussion: GMOC looks forward to completion of the City's Drainage Report that ill look at drainage deficiencies, project priorities, and funding sources. The GMOC has also expressed concerns regarding external constraints to downstream drainage channel maintenance. Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to provide status reports addressing drainage projects to the GMOC twice per year, generally coinciding with submittal of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget, and submittal of the annual GMOC questionnaire response. The GMOC supports continuing efforts to secure additional funding for enhancements to the drainage system and to be proactive in minimizing the potential for future drainage and flooding problems. GMOC Annual Report 18 June 2, 2006 3.7 PARKS & RECREATION Threshold: Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east ofI-805. THRESHOLD FINDING: 3.7.1 Land Threshold Future: LAND: FACILITY: Current: Threshold Not Met* Land: Actual: 2.94 acres per 1,000 resid~ eas Facilities: Actual Facilities - Based on P ks Mas Discussion: ista pa 1 inventory as of June 30, 2005 provided ommo ate up to 99,794 persons with the 3 acres per a e 30, 2005 estimated eastern Chula Vista he IS-month forecast calls for an eastern Chula Vista population of 110,670 (an increase of 8,870); therefore, the current inventory will need to be increased by 32.6 acres (including the six-acre shortfall referenced above) to meet the 18-month forecast. With a 2010 forecast of 137,315 in eastern Chula Vista (a gain of 26,645), 79.9 acres of additional parkland will be needed. Subtracting the 51.12 residual acres identified in the preceding paragraph, 28.78 additional acres of parkland would be required through 2010. With San Miguel Community Park, Otay Ranch Village Seven neighborhood parks and phase 1 of Otay Ranch Community Park in Village Two scheduled for construction by December 2010, approximately 37.4 acres would be added, providing a total eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory of 420.5 acres, capable of accommodating 140,167 persons, which exceeds the forecast of 137,315. GMOC Annual Report 19 June 2, 2006 The GMOC commends the efforts to deliver the new Harborside Park in western Chula Vista, and the largest park development program in the City's history with a number of key facilities including new parks and recreation centers in eastern Chula Vista coming on line in 2006. Recommendation: The GMOC looks forward to receiving updated studies and plans that address how future parkland and facility needs will be addressed in western Chula Vista, including the updated Parks and Rec tion Master Plan. Comment: rate its position that park lation threshold standard 3.7.2 Park and Recreation Facilities Discussion: New parks are e That the City Council direct the City Manager to complete the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update as soon as feasible, along with an active effort to identify new sites and a program for funding anticipated new growth needs in western Chula Vista. The GMOC also recommends to the City Council that in planning the future development of a major city park, the City of Chula Vista centennial anniversary in 2011 be taken into consideration, where a park or parks could reflect a theme related to Chula Vista's history and accomplishments. GMOC Annual Report 20 June 2,2006 3.8 POLICE Threshold: Emergency Response!: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 % of the Priority I emergency calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). THRESHOLD FINDING: Urgent Responsi: Properly equipped and s ed lice units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II, urgent calls thrcfughou the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average r.6ponse ti to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7. i es) or 1 s (measured annually). ld Not Met shold Not Met Threshold Likely Met Threshold Likely Met Threshold Likely Not Met Threshold Likely Not Met Percent 81.0% 57.0% Time 7 minutes 7 minutes Average Time 5:30 min./sec. 7:30 min./sec 80.0% 40.5% 7 minutes 7 minutes 5:11 min./sec. 11 :40 min./sec. 1 Priority 1 - Emergency Calls. Life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident); robbery or panic alarms; urgent cover calls from officers. Response: Immediate response by two officers from any source or assignment, immediate response by paramedics/fIre if injuries are believed to have occurred. 2 Priority 2 - Urgent Calls. Misdemeanor in progress; possibility of severe injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic violence or other disturbances with potential for violence); burglary alarms. Response: immediate response by one or two officers from clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.). GMOC Annual Report 21 June 2. 2006 3.8.1 Priority 1 Threshold Discussion: After five consecutive years of improved performance relative to meeting the threshold for the percentage of Priority 1 call responses within seven minutes, the Police Department fell slightly below the 81 % threshold in FY 2004-05. While the average response time standard (5 minutes and 30 seconds) was met and the amount below the thre old is small (i.e., 13 calls out of nearly 1,300), this concerned the GMO . Fo the period of July 2005 through December 2005, the GMOC is pIe ed to te that performance for Priority 1 calls (83.8%) was signific~ imp ved and well within the threshold. Therefore, the GMOC is not aking any additional recommendations beyond request" g t olice epartment to closely monitor performance in meeting is 3.8.2 Priority 2 Threshold FY 2004-05 FY 2003-04 FY 2002-03 FY 2001-02 FY 2000-01 FY 1999-00 CY 1999 FY 1997-98 FY 1996-97 FY 1995-96 FY 1994-95 .5% ~8.4% 50.2% 45.6% 47.9% 46.4% 45.8% 52.9% 62.2% 64.5% 63.4% 11 :40 9:50 9:24 10:04 9:38 9:37 9:35 8:13 6:50 6:38 6:49 * These figures do not include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03. All other Priority 2 calls received and dispatched with a final priority of 2 are included. Discussion: GMOC Annual Report The Priority 2 Threshold has not been met for several years, as illustrated in the table above. In addition to the decline in performance relative to this threshold during FY 2004 (July I, 2004 - June 30, 2005), over the period of July 2005 - December 2005, the Priority 2 response (% within 7 minutes and average response time) performance further declined (to 38.2% and 12 minutes and 45 seconds). Police Department analysis of Priority 2 calls by time of day indicates that the number of Priority 2 calls has increased 22 June 2, 2006 significantly, much more so than Priority 1 calls. The number of Police Officers on duty (i.e., authorized and filled positions with sworn staff on duty) declined during the FY 2004 reporting period to be well below the amount of authorized staffing (as low as 182 compared to 231 authorized). This was due to factors such as on-duty injuries and officers in field training, rather than growth of the city. The highest percentage of longer response times for Priority 2 calls was experienced in the late afternoon through the eve g during the swing shift, and the Police Department has suggested that e fi t new officers available be assigned to the swing shift as one way to ddre ibis response time issue. ent s equested GMOC support for various . Whi the GMOC is not opposed to any of these, it u erstand how implementation of any of these improve Priority 2 response times. u 11 direct the City Manager to have the Police Department ement an action plan addressing the decline in performance to eting the GMOC threshold for Priority 2 calls. The GMOC nds that this be done expeditiously so that progress in developing d i lementing the plan can be reflected in the Police Department's report t year's GMOC review. aking Longer Than 10 Minutes Discussion: During the current reporting period, 6.4% of Priority 1 calls (65 of the 1,023 calls available for analysis) had response times greater than 10 minutes. The most frequent type of PI calls with response times over 10 minutes were robbery alarm calls, which are almost always false1. Other PI calls with response times over 10 minutes included attempted suicide/overdose calls; and fraud now calls. The most typical reasons for PI response times over 10 minutes were (1) lengthy distances had to be traveled to provide a response; and, (2) a limited number of units were available to respond. lA 2002 study of robbery/duress alarm calls to the Department found that 99.7% were false. GMOC Annual Report 23 June 2, 2006 3.9 FIRE / EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Threshold: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Threshold Standard Emergency Res onse Actual Emergency Res onse Threshold Met Potential for Future Non-Ca THRESHOLD FINDING: CURRENT: FUTURE: 3.9.1 FIRE/EMS - Emergency Response Times Since 1994 Call Volume % of All Call Response w/in 7:00 Minutes 9,907 8,420 8,088 7,626 7,128 6,654 6,344 4,119 6,275 6,103 5,885 5,701 81.6% 72.9% 75.5% 69.7% 80.8% 79.7% 77.2% 81.9% 82.4% 79.4% 80.0% 81.7% Discussion: The Fire response time threshold was met during calendar vear 2005 for the first time in several years, even with a substantial increase in the number of reported emergency calls. Dispatch time improved significantly with full operability of its dispatch center. The GMOC commends the Fire Department GMOC Annual Report 24 June 2, 2006 for this improvement. As of this wntmg, additional information is still pending on response time for FY 05. The GMOC is also awaiting the results of the Fire Facility Master Plan update and the study of housing paramedics/ambulance services with within the Fire Department. Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to complete the Fire Facility Master Plan update and other related studies as soon as feasible. Recommendation: 3.9.2 Reporting Management Tool Discussion: GMOC Annual Report 25 June 2, 2006 3.10 TRAFFIC Threshold: City-wide: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. Current West of 1-805: Those signalized intersection that above, may continue to operate at their worsen. not meet the standard 991 LOS, but shall not THRESHOLD FINDING: Threshold Met Future Likely Met 3.10.1 Discussion: Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP), it was e He age Road segment between Telegraph Canyon Road w was not performing to the appropriate level of service, IC free flow speed reflecting an LOS of A. Upon a . on as assessed that the problem lay in the long delays at the interse io ue to the traffic signal timing. During the 2005 GMOC review, t is w at least partly attributable to the Telegraph Canyon Road/I-80S . pr ements. During this year's review, it was at least partly attributable to 01 pic Parkway/I-80S improvements. With a high free flow LOS on this gment of Heritage Road and completion of the current interchange improvements, the GMOC views this as a technical compliance issue that should be closely monitored, but does not warrant further action at this time. 3.10.2 Format of Tables Discussion: The GMOC requested that a more "reader friendly" format be devised for the tables illustrating road segment threshold compliance. In response, the Engineering Department devised a series of colored maps to show the Level of Service (LOS) on identified segments at a.m., mid-day and p.m. peak traffic periods. GMOC Annual Report 26 June 2, 2006 Comment: The GMOC finds the maps prepared for this year's review to be a useful tool in making the findings easier to understand, commends and commends the Engineering Department for this effort, and requests that this be used in future TMP reviews. At the same time, any enhancements to the tables themselves would also be appreciated. GMOC Annual Report 27 June 2, 2006 3.11 SCHOOLS THRESHOLD FINDING: The City of Chula Vista shall annually provide the two local School Districts with a 12-18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: Threshold: 1. 2. 3. 4. SCHOOL DISTRICT - a mmodate forecasted growth - Funding and site for projected new facilities. VIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT - old Likely Met SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT- Threshold Likely Met GMOC Annual Report 28 June 2, 2006 3.11.1 GMOC School Recommendations Discussion: Over the years the GMOC has not been hesitant to raise issues and concerns regarding schools. This year represents continued progress in moving forward in a pragmatic and comprehensive manner. The GMOC supports the proactive efforts of the Sweetwater Union High School District to extend the modernization program beyond completion of Proposition BB improvements (see discussion below), and to secure funding for such a program. The GMOC also supports the ongoing efforts of e hula Vista Elementary School District to provide additional schools lann in Otay Ranch Village Eleven, Village Seven and Village Two to cco odate continuing growth. 3.11.2 mancing of future improvements remains perhaps the most critical llenge facing both school districts. This challenge is being met with programming and innovative proposals, which deserve a close Recommendation: Discussion: 3.11.3 City Assistance Discussion: The City is restricted by state law from moderating or slowing growth due to the impacts on schools. At the same time the City has responded to the needs of the school districts by providing data on new growth and facilitating the planning and permit process for construction of new school facilities particularly regarding High School 13, and now Middle School 12/High GMOC Annual Report 29 June 2, 2006 School 14 (grades 7-12 campus), as well as planned elementary school facilities. The City has also worked with developers to insure that the necessary roads and utilities are in place when needed to support school construction activities, The GMOC is pleased to see this level of interagency cooperation and how it is resulting in success. While the school districts and the city are separate political entities with different sets of responsibilities, we are in the end one community with the common goal of impzoving quality of life for all our residents. The GMOC is hopeful that this positiver ationshl will continue and that all reasonable efforts at how we as a co mun'ty can hieve our goals will be pursued. / GMOC Annual Report 30 June 2, 2006 3.12 3.12.1 3.12.2 3.12.3 OTHER TOPICS A new section has been added to this year's Annual Report to identify other topics that may not fit within a single prior section of the document, but warrant mentioning. New Challenges in Western Chula Vista While the GMOC's focus has traditionally been on new gro eastern Chula Vista, the GMOC in recent years has devoted increased attention to spects for changes in western Chula Vista, which is largely already developed. W' ad tion of the City's General Plan Update, preparation of the Urban Core Specific PI , and fo ation of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, for instance, the GMO s a mptin to anticipate the growth related issues and challenges associated with a gr;a er s n this p of the City. Pending revisions to the Growth Management Program esulf g fro the "T to Bottom review" also contemplates this. . . . o the plans are noted in the completed questionnaires and in ing veral of these threshold topics. Creating a comprehensive list of d t r status can assist the GMOC in reviewing and understanding progress anagement thresholds. In addition to the June 7 Community Workshop, public comments have been received during the course of the annual review process. Formal comments received and responses are included in the Appendices. GMOC Annual Report 31 June 2, 2006 4.0 RECOMMENDED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CHANGES One of the GMOC's primary responsibilities under the Growth Management Program is to identify whether any threshold standard should be changed or ed. Another focus is on achieving enforcement of the threshold standards through i Ie ntation measures. Last year's Annual Report described a comprehensive "Top-t~otto review of the Growth Management Program that was directed by the City uncil d concurred with by the GMOC. The recommended changes described in th GMOC 2 5 Annual Report were endorsed by the GMOC and approved in principle b tl:l Councl bcommittee for the n, reviewed and and ordinance for the growth or e recommended changes. With repared and is undergoing internal e is also under review. These items are shortly after this year's Annual Report sented to the Planning Commission and City GMOC Annual Report 32 June 2, 2006 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 Appendix A - Recommendations and Implementing Actions 5.2 Appendix B - Workshop Report (Included in Volume II) 5.3 Appendix C - Growth Forecast (Included in VeIl) 5.4 Appendix D - Threshold Questionnaires an u lemental Data (Included in Volume II) GMOC Annual Report 33 June 2, 2006 Appendix A 2006 Growth Managem Oversight Commission Recommendations / Imple . / Summ ry enda Statement as Appendix A H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\Annual_Report\GMOC _report _ cc-pc Jevised _draft _ 06-02-06.doc GMOC Annual Report 34 June 2, 2006 ~ -- u O~ ~~ C-'< -~ z~ 9;;;;J 0000 0000 ~z ~o ~~ o~ uU ~< =C-' C-'z ~~ oo~ ~z ~~ >~ o~ ~~ z~ ~~ ~~ ~oo C-'z <0 z~ <~ ~~ =z ~~ ~~ o~ ~o C-'u \O~ o~ o N .... Z w :E :J: U <( .... .... <( "'Ci Q) ... .:; C" e ..... o ::: Q) rJl ::: o 0. rJl ~ 00 Z o ""'" Eo-< -< Q Z IiIil ~ ~ o U IiIil =:r:: U o ~ I-' vi ::: .9 ..... ee ""0 ::: Q) 5 5 o (.) ~ o Z ~I ~ 00 ...s::: ...s::: ~ g ~'G t::: 0 Q) > Q)._::: 0 ee en...s::: ::: ..... ee ~ ::: O;:l t::: VJ .~ ..... ~ ~ ::: ~ ee Q) Q) '"0 51]~O""'Uo Q)"-<'"';>' .....................o5...s:::Q) _.... o~.D"-< (.).......... ~~." ~ = oE"~O".. o 0 '" ._ ~^ ~ · 1l ~.~.c._"'2 '" -'" .9- . ~ ~ 1J " .!e' '" " ~. = 00 ~ 5 u .. -'" 0 _ 0 u ~ .lJ U 1: '".2 u ~ iJ'~ ".u ._ . ~ " " 0 = 0 ~ 0 0 "' "' E ~ ._ ." ,0 'i' 0 _'- 0 0 ~. = 0 ~ - · - - _ _ 0 "' ",",", ='~ '=- - - · = 5. . = u ~ 0 _ ._ _.. ~.- 0 <E.9 . 0 .c E u iJ >> '" 0. ~ " ~ '3 - E " " ~ '3 _ 0 0 0 -'" = ..- '" 0 - "' o 0 " . ""' -'" .~ 0 0 - ~ ~ . '" - .s ..a 2 1l . ~ - 0 1l'c 0 iJ 51 '3 .~..j. 0 ~..~~ ~P~~go.~",=O~O"E .!l . iJ. 'O.~" "' ~ ,," · 8 ~ 0 = 0 0 ~",o.o >.>...~'" .~~=~ 0. _ "-'" " = go ~ 15 ~ 0 "O.s ."' · · 1J ~ E ~ 0 _ .s': 0 0'- = = - " .= -:a · - ~. o _ 0 _ = ~ .-. 0 - 0. - 0 - 0 o . = " . ~ 0 00 _ ~ . - .~ .9 . - '" 0 f- -",.S · _ ~" =.!l ~ 0 8" 0 ",~ ... . E.s 0. rJl ":::" ~ s::; ee 0 (.) rJl...s::: ... - t: ... '-.. >-- Q).- ee o ~ ~ " 0 b .'" .~ ~ 0 ...: · 0 - .". E ~ 0 E 0 _ _ ~ ..- ~ ^^.s ~ 0. - · ~ - -= - ._ - ._ - = ~ 0" - - - - - . " . . _ 0 ~.= . '" " 0 . ~"' go ~.!l = . '3 ":a ".'" . - 1J ~ "' ",.s E'~ 0 = 0.9 . 0 > _ O'~ ~ = ~ . - - "- 00.'" "' _ 0 =._ 0 0 ~ - - "= '" -'" 0 = = ~ o. _00 o.o",...-=.~ ooo~1:",~o-",~~e ~~.o. 0_>>__0...= ~~~o- 0 ._ _ 0 =... 0 . 0 0 = 0 .-. 0 ~ Cl.9 = ~.= ."' "'>> "' -fji 0 if 0 ~ 15 -'" 0 = " 0 .!l ,,' g ~ N .. -..: E'- - .'''' - 0 ,~ g 1J' ~ .~ .j? ~ ':; - .~ E -9 g. Cl ~ ~ .. ., ~ "" _ ._ U _ _ . = ,- - 0 0 - > ~ ~..~]15._"'~~~~0.~"~>>~ o ._ ._ ._ ",'s I 0 ",. t '" <I!. ~ 0 ~o" ,,__"' =~ =.=00. .!e'.s 0. ~ " >>= 0 - - . 0 ~ 0 = ~ - U ._", 0 _ .!l 00" = 0 ~ - 0'- · "0 · o 0 ~"o.~ 0 0 00- = ,," 0._ o >'il <::'~ 0 0. Cl > g.~ · ~ 0 0 '" ..s " "'." . . = to" Cl . 0'- - ~ .~ - 0 f-~o._oo "'"U....- ~ .ou" > .-",.s~ ~ (I) bJ) ce 0... ~ ,-.., N ~ CO Q) ...s::: ..... vi ... t: <8 0 t::: 2 Q) v"g :8~ 05 e .~ ~ ...s::: Zlo -Eb"'=' "C ~ .02 .- ::: g Q) 0.5 ee Q) (.) .:: e S- .- Q) ;:l ... C"..... (.) ::: ee Q) o 5 .....~ rJl Q) i5.l::: .- Q) .~ ~ ..... ~ o Q) ~rJl ::: 5 "-< ... o 2 I ~ gf ~ 0 .....~ rJl rJl ~b f-U ,-.., N ...s::: ..... ;:l o VJ Q) ...s::: ..... 5 o c;:: ee ..... rJl ;> ce ::; ...s::: U o ..... II .0 ilb .0 ::: ee .- 0. "Bee"'=' ee (.) ::: OIl..... ee e::: ~ Q).o "'=' 5 .- ~~=-= .~ ee (.) ;> e ee '"O.....~ ce 4- ..... Q) 0 ::: .D Q) ui5.E 0...... ee ..... Q) ~ ee ... Ogf- = Q) Q) ee OIl ...s::: Q) ee ..... ..... ~ ~j:::~ ..c f-:::;' or- .- u o~ ~~ ~< '-'~ z~ o~ tijrLl rLlrLl ~z ~o ~~ oE-l UU E-l< =~ ~~ ~E-l rLlz ~~ ~~ >~ o~ E-l~ z~ ~~ ~- ~rLl ~z <0 z~ ~~ =~ E-l~ ~~ o~ ~o ~U ~~ = N ~ Z w 2 :I: U <C ~ ~ <C 8"E ~ gf gf ] ~ .f' --g ~n] '0 q .2] S ~ ..... !=:.................... ........ ...... ~ "'" "'.8...........;:j ~ 0 cj ~n ~ '+-< .g ';:)...!=:.g '" '" .......... 0 -.....~""'.....O... ~u~~o OV..J::u O~O 0 ...... ~......u",ou~...Bu _RSPo....~ ~~......O~. ~......o ~"~ ~ ~ v !=: '" .tl v .... ...... !=: o..,..c ... ~ S ... ~ c S ~ 0...... '" ro 0..;;::: 0 ...... ~ ro o '" "'...... 0 '.g Q !=: OJ:; 0 r9 '.p .~ 'C OJ:; ;>-. OJ:;.~ ~ '" t; cj"" R !=:..g ~ 0..0 ~ ~ g. 5"'08 U 0.."'O'+< ~ 0 ~..... - ". ro .... 1J:J...... ;:j cj !=: ~ 0 ...::! ~ '+-< '", !=: ~ '" "'~ 0.. Z ca i/.i ~ ~ u ~ "'0 u > 0 jg ...... "'0 .::: .~.s ~ 0..J:: ~~0~8 ~~~uoo~=!=: _u!=:"'o~g!=: ....~~.~~;;:::'+-< .g5 E-<S]8~~",,,, B"';;:::o..",~oc~ . U ~ g.UJ <+-< ~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 r9 '+-< .~ ~ ",';:) 1.0 8 ~-<"'ca~o~..J::~' ~.s;ogo~a~o ~ ~ > u ~ .... t:::: U ... .~ ~ .... 0 .... 0 ro ... "'0 1J:J 7. '+:l '" ~...... ro ;;> .~....."'" OJ:; 0 S u ?<';:) ~~"'O~~Q]~~ ~",O~~SO......Oo .,~ c..... 0 .~. ~"... '+:l !=: ..J:: 0 Qj ro !=: "'0 Zl:"""uu'+-< ~OJ:;c ~o"'!=:o~ 800 o Z <rl ro 0 S !=:...... '+-< OJ:;'UJ O........E 0 '" ...... ..J:: ... ~ ~::g 0 ~ '" .~ 's:. u 0 !=: ~ t; ... ~ g.-<;:: ... !=: '" '" U ...... ~~. .;>-. .~ u 0-;::; ~ 0 o..'c;g.s 0 .,~ ...... "'..... ... .............. ~ '" - ~..J:: 0 ..... '.p ~ ~ ~ ~...........-......... ~......?< ........ c..... .... ::-'" ro "'0 ...... o ,.D...... .... "'0 ~ .tl "'0 0 0.." 0.. OJ:; 0 '" ~;..J:: og.8~ "'!=:o ~ o!=:~~ ~ ~ ..J::;: 0 ~ cr' '" ~ !=: ...... ... !=: ... .B ,..c .UJ........ - ~ !=: 0 ~ !=: <+-< 0 '+< 8 ,.Q ~.g "5b... ... ro g. ~ ....,ol 0 ...... o,..c!=: '+-<"'~' -<;::...... !=: 0..J:: ~ !=: ""'" ,.., '.p !=: ~ ~ '" ... ...... o!=:'C Cj .... ~ .... 8 0...... E-<-o..oc~"''+-<", oo~c~ro;:juo 1J:J ~ o'.p <2 ::- ~ o.~ c !::i .s ...::!...... ~ g. 0.. ~ .D ",0 oo!=:u ~;:);:j~~!=:6,..c"""""'O 9~~"'O~~.g5 ~",<""0..8u~S3 0..... " ~:l ..... ... OJ:; UJ ...... ro ;> :::. 0 I oo~]~ro roc2~u~~"'O;>~ ~",u~~~g.~~~'U""'ro~~~g~q~o~ ..... 0] .;:: en 6 ..0 .-t::. ~ ~ ~ 0 .::: ~ .~ ;:j .-t::. ...... 'g E-< ~ g ;:j u S ~ ~] 8 B .E .s 15 ~ U t) ~< ~ ~~.B S ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.B.B ~ ,..-.., u ... !=: o ... .~ '" !=: o u "'0 !=: ro o !=: I.;:: ~I !=: ...~ ro !=: ;:;::: '" 0 .... ,..-..,jgc.l:: .... 0 ~ ~ !=: ~!=: ~~""''''''''o'"''o 4-< ~ 0 """"' ...... ..... ..... o ~ '.p ':' a ~ ''5 ;>-. ~OO"'.D ...... .... "'0... ...... .~ -<;::B!=:ro"'O>.p .....roO>O '" ~~S~o~~ ;:j S"'OO;:j.... u"'Oo~?,..co ...~uu....u~ o u 0 ;>-"8 0 ~ !=: ;>-. .... ~ o,..c ~~]O:::~~"E o 0::: .:: ro ~...... U "'Oooo~~;>-. C E3 !=: ~ .~...::! ~ ...... " 0...... ... 0.. .... ~ t; ~ '.p "'0 ~ ... ~ ~ .s~~5,..c50J:; ~ ~ ~ 5 S ~ S.S "'0 osogo~ o ~ ~ 0 "'0...... ~ 0 u ~ 'c; ~ q v: -a 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... a'3 ~ ~-a ~uo~o~~~s o '.p ~ O,J::: 0 0.. .... ...... ..J::~ !=:t-<0J:;!=:<2"" E-< ~.~~...... tri ~.g 0 <2 _ ~O"""~::Oca .;..; !=:............ 0 ro .... ~...... 'f; ~ t; c; N gf ~ .!:: ~ '" ;:j.s ~ .s...... 0 ~ B ~~<;:j...."'O ~ OJ:;'"1:j ~ Hv ooU~o""'" ....!=:....~~~~t;] B~B~-a!=:oS'" ~~~"ESo~~ogf ~ o..~...... u 0 cj...... ...... ouuo........~u ~.s~;>-."'~08.2 ... ...... ;> u ro ..... 0 0 v o~iZl~~;Eu.D~ N o 00 cO p.. .~ ... !=: o S S o u ...t i> U 0 .s '5 0 "5b ;:j 0 1J:J .B Z 0 0 ;e - E-< '" -< ro ~ ~ 0 .... ~ 0 ~ ~ "'0 0 0 N u '8 ~ .~ ro U S 0 0 ::g .D 0 ~ '" ;::l .... 0 ... ro tl ~ "'0 ~ 0 ~ u ;>-. u 0 .... ~ ...t E5 - -. u O~ ~~ ~< -~ z~ o~ ~CZl CZlCZl ~z ~O ~~ O~ UU ~< =~ ~=S ~~ CZlZ ~~ ~~ >~ O~ ~~ Z~ ~~ ~- ~CZl ~Z <0 Z~ ~~ =Z ~~ ~~ O~ ~O ~U ~~ Q N I- Z w ~ J: U c:x: l- I- c:x: !=: l3 00 ..:s ~ ~ ~ I-< <1)...... I-<<BCZl 0..<1) . 2 "'0 0..9 .s ~ OO<1)tl<1)~,.o ~ ~ ~ ~.8- ~ 1JJ. <1) ,.,:; "'0 0.. 8 Z]il].8<1)b:: O~~"C;~~~ ......... ;::3 ...... "'0 .... I-< E-t - "'0 !=: .....] 0 u'a <1)..... g...... S ..'>I < ~ ~ .-2"'0 ~> "Q ,.. "0 _ u ~ - ~ 1JJ. "'" !=: ;::3 ~ t:i o..~ ~7.''''' 0 0....... g. 1JJ.i=l"O~~>oogf Z E-t <1)...... ~ I-< ..... Z 00 ~ <1) _ <1) ~ O~ g il ~.@ 1;; ~ ~...~ OO~..c U ~ ~ 1JJ. ~ ;.a ~ U '+-< "'0 "'O~ ~ ~...... ~.;!l 0 <1) <1) ~_O~"'O -u ~ e= !=: ,-,- .-2 ~.g ~~~8~Ug~ -< <1) u.9 <1) I-< <1) E-t ~ ~ ~."';:: il "a ,.0 1JJ.~"",,<1)"'O,+-<U"'O 1JJ.~~-g>;..9"5 o :; .9 <1) "a ~ 0 ~ !=: ~ .!:: '.c 2 ~ 9 .9 0 6< a3 ~ ~ ~p.5go~~ ..... 0 ..... .~ 0.. d) U l3~.8<1)bIl<1) ...s:::-<~!=:"'O!:l ...... ......O!=:+i o ......;!l 00 ~ U S .~ ~ .~ i ~ 2_"5......g~ ~3..c ~o!=: 00 00 U 00 u..... 1JJ. Z o .... E-t < ~ ~ ~ o u ~ u o ~ Ci il .~ :>-. ~ ~ rI.l Q,l .... '"' ~ '"' ,.Q ~ .0..8] "a !=: 00 ...... S..g] .s ..... ~ <1) !=: 15l3!=:..g ~ 0 0..."';:: ~ ,.0 U 0 '+-< S ~ '+-< ..... ....., eOI-< <1) ~ 00 0,.0 E J58!=::=: .~ Q) ...... 0 (1)...... >-r-.:~ ~..c~~ a" 0 ~ <1) bIl !=: I-< 0 ..c .S bIl 0 ,.0 N ...... "0 .S 'U; :.=: c] oo~.2 .S 'u ...s::: ~...... 00 U ~ <1) U ;::3!=: ~.S I:: "0 ~~o 8<1)~2-< E";.!=: o..u..g. :>-.,.0 So bIl'E '+-< ~ <1) !=: <1) !=: <1) 0;:;-,. ~ 'So,.o 'S ~ ~ ': - <1):>-. ~;.:::: ~ 2 ~,.o"'O -,.0000 .....o~ 0..;::31-<~ 0...... <1) o..o..~ ...s::: "0 ..!:: .g '+-< <1) U<1)~ bIlO.....oo !=: u <1) oo~ <1) ~ 11) r.f) 1:d QJ ~:--5 ~ 0.. ~ tl;> ..... ;;:: ~..c 'OO<1)OOU (1) - >,. ......-I...... cd il !=: gf a' ~:=: >- ~ ~ '+-< 0 ..... I-< ..... ~ a' <1) o'.c!=:~.....OOI-<~:>-' U !=: -....... <1),.0..... !=: ;::l ~..c bIl 1;;..... <1) bIl bIl.t:lp'u;::3;::3~"""!=: ..... 00 I !=: 0 - <1) ~'s ~s~~.E~...s:::"&o Ou~,.ot-<<1)t-<;::3u I-< <1) ...... !=: <1) U I-< <1) "0 [3 ~ .- ~ '<t ~ N ~ ~ lI'i rI.l Q,l .... '"' ~ '"' ,.Q ~ ...s::: <1) I-< "'0 u ..c <B!=: ~ 6; o~ E ~ .S 'u!=:~ :>-. ~I:: ;:!..:s <1) - <1) ~~ ~ ..cOO U _ u'+-< ....._ .g ~~ Q3~ l=: ~ 00 <1) o -I:: i35 ...s::: I-< <1) ~ ,'" U 2...... ..... ~ ~ 5 .S S !=: ~ u..... '<1) "'0 ~ .... ..c2- :> !=:o ......~~ ?- ~ '.c !=: "'0 I-< ~ ,.o~ 08-<1) 0<1) 0& g.--~ "i3 il E 0 "'0 ~oo ~ bIl'+-< 2'0 ~Ooo g~ ~oo ~u.15 "':::'~ ~8 00 ~ ,.,:;..... ~o "'O<1)U O:.=: <1)...s:::"'O~...s::: ~ ..... <1) !=: S !=: !=: ...... ~ u"O ~g":>-:>-.~ <1) <1) I-< ~ 00 \-<',.0 ~ ..c ."';:: ,9.....!=: ~ l=: ...... "0 ~ P. 0 ,.0 "'0 .-::: ...... <1) bIl 0 tl ..... <1) . 1 Uo.. !=: ~- ...... ~ ~ .:= <1) 0.. <1):"Q <1) ..... <1) S il ~ !:l 6 il ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ ~ I-< <1) '0 ~ ~ U) C':t c.;:: ~ ~ !=: 00 <1) <1) "'0 ;::3t:: <1)~u2..c0.. o ~ ~ ~'> ~ ~ ;::3 U 1) ;::3.8 [) .S 0 .0 C<1) 0.. OO~hbll .....;::3 :>-. <1) '+-< ;::3 00 !=: u!=:>:~SOoo :.e <1) ..... \-<' ;>..... 00 00 <1) I-< ...s:::15 ~'.p15"'O ~ 8 0 ......o.Euo~oo......8 ~u;.::::-<u!=:-<..s~ E5~ N'&;- ~ lI'i J U o ~ Cj <1) il~ '0 E !=:<B .9 bIl o...S .g-g ~ 0.. _ <1) 'u ~ !=:...... ;::3 ~ 02 U .~ bIl~ ~ 0 ..... U ~ ~ ..9 <1) - 00 o ..... ~ ~ 00"0 sa '-g ~ "'O~ ~ ~ <1)...... ~ .~ gu ~ t::~ il8. ..... <1) ~~ 1-<- 8 ~ 8~ ~ (1) OJ) c<l P-; ~ I -te.o~U.8~ o"a~~~.a 0..l3;::3,.,:;~<8 ~ !=: ~ Cj <1) I-< 00 ~~ S -. 1ij ~ a3 2 ~1-<5hSI-<8. 0&80..<8 <1) a ~ ~ bIlil <1) 00 I-<.S bIl o .g 15 <1)"0 ~ ...... ~ <1).!:: ~'N l3 ...... S ~ <8 's bIl U ~ ~ - ..... ~ 0 0 .9 ~.S ~~ a~..g S ,.,:; Ci S ;::3..... ~ ...... 0"'"0 ..... C - "0<1) ..... ~ .s U ~ .~ U~.....O (1)...... <1) ~ 8 g ..gou~uo ~"""<1)Ci~aoo u~il-o<1)S ~g'+-<~""",.o~ ..... .= 0 !=: ~ 0,.0 "'OO_~I-<"""O -a.s~~"Oa 'u ."';:: <1) 1) ~ 00 ~ <1) S...s::: ~ g~,.o...... gfS;.a u ~ 5l '+-< ..... 2 0 'a...s::: 0 S 00 0 cl-< ......-..... ~~ ..... "'0 "~ .s 15 <1) "'0 U bIl bIl.<g 8 bIl ~ !=: ~ ~ c<l ~ ..... .....,.0 00 ~ <1) ....... 00 "'0 ;::3 t:: 'C~ o~ ~~ z~ ~~ ~- ~(/) ~z <0 z~ ~~ =z ~~ ~~ o~ ~o ~U ~~ Q N I- 2: w :2E J: (.) e:( l- I- e:( Vl Z o Jo-I ~ Co) ~-< Vl~ ~~ oo.~ Zz ~~ ~~ t:~= ~~:8 00. ~ ~ 00. '"' o ~ ~~ 0"0 ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ '"' ~ ~ Vl Z o Jo-I ~ -< ~ ~ o u ~ u o ~ ~ a\O ~8 I-<N Q) .... '" ~ ~ - ~ ~ ;>.. .D Set:: ..... ~ ~-B Q) I-< 0 o ..... Q)- ~.g ",0.. I:: ~ ~ '" Q) "'~ ~.e- ~ 0 p.. ..... .... Q) a ..c E-<~ ~ .... CZl r...: u:i I-< ::l . g ~ 8 ~ .... Q) 1::'" Q) S €b ~1:: 0..Q) Q) b o ::l I:: 0 o '" .~ .~ ~ Q) Q)~ 1-<", o 0.. ~~ = o .... - ~ ~ '"' C"j ~ ~ "0 = ~ ~ ~ '"' ~ ~ ]t:~ ~18Q) <+-i Q) '" Q) I:: ~Q)...c: p:: ..5 ~ Q) ~ ~. ..c I:: OIl .... ~ ~ 2...c: Q) Q).t:: I:: -~'" g. Q) I"< 00.... o I:: ~ o ..9 .e- o ~.S! +J d.r 15 ~::C~ ~'[j) gf I:: ~ ..... ~~'" "=::' '" I:: ..,:;~OE .01::1-< ..... 0 c.8 U 55 5 Q) '" ~ -:S ~ 50 t) ~ 8 Q) '" 0.. .~ ~ ~ "'~'" :-;:: 8 E cd C'.)....:::: ""'" ~ I:: p.. '" '" ::l1-<2> 8 ~ '[j) .;S c~ ~.2 .......,:; I::U U I:: ;>.. S Q) .g ~ Q) ..c~1::"" :~Q)~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ...c: Q) 0 I:: E-< ~ ..... ..... r...: '" 5 o I:: o o .... I:: ~ ~ 0.. Q) o I:: .g .... ~ Q) I-< o Q) ~ Q)-'" ...c: .;OS 0-;:::; .... I:: ..... I-< I:: 0 o Q) 0 e;::.1::~ OOQ)I-< . I:: 0 ~ '" .~ ~~ @ .s I-< 5 ~ .~ 0 5 0..>~{J I:: ~ ~ ..... ..... '3 0.. 0.. .......c:~5 1!uQ)o ....<;...;~8 ;;::O...c:~ oc~'" S..... ~ I:: o U I:: ~ U Q).g c c-B~.8 ..... ~~..g .~ U I-< ..... ..c ~ '" '" ] 0.. S ~~ .... .0 0 ti .8 'u .8 > '" I-<.S ~ ",0 - I:: 'Cd' I:: ::l 85]0 5~.s.8 0<;"'; Q)", oo.DQ) Q)+J~+J I-< I:: _ ~ oQ)oQ:) ,.;!l 5 N I-< ~ g..S 8 g ~ ~.s ~..g~~ tJo~t) Q) 5..... Q) ..c....@~ E-<<E~~ ~I ;>..~ Q)..c Q) I-< Q) Q) 000 ~~...c:o..cc.8..c~I::"" ~0"";E"" ....1::..9..... Q) ~ ~'" 00"'..... ~ ~ .S 0 ~ n ~ ~ Fa.5 oon '0 I:: .~ lj ~ 8 I:: Q:) I-< Q) ~..... 0.. I:: 0.. ::l "'~ ~ ~ E:: l5.. ..... 0..<';::' 00 0 ~ Q) 00:>~"'1::....<+-i ~ u.S ~ b Q) ';> '" 0 Q) Q)ot: >.1::] ~ ~~ 1;3 I:: 0 1-<" Q) - '" 0 I:: '[j) ~ 0...;S 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ::l ,,", Q) ~ Q).S C <+-i ..... a P=lv I-< ",I-< ~o.t::_ o Vil::;;:::..c~ "Op.. ..... 00 0 ..... 0 0 '" 0 "0 001:: I ....I::;E -~o Q) ..... '<:t .... ::l ~ ..... ~ ~ 0 .g 0 :> C I-< ~ a:f ~~~aU g-~<2~~ I-<"'~ 5.€,_", 5f:-<~ u:i ~~Q),,:up..a~u:i Q) ;>.. u,~ -B ..... Q) ~ 5 50 ~ Q) .5.... J.,- V7...c:Q) oo-B.... ~..s Q)E-< 1::<;...; I-< 0 ~ ~ :>.'[j) 0 0.. I-< I:: ~ '" . Q) 00 ::l 0....... I:: Q) ..... I:: N'I I:: Q) 0 2 I-< Q)..c \.i:1 - 0 I-< ~'" 0.. Q) 0 ~ 0 <+-i .............. Q) '" - . Cd' ,..s:; ~ ~.S! .... ..c .~ .... Q) 0.. d.... .... 00 0 ~..... '" I-< 51"<1-<.8~2.g:>...c:~N o Q)"'....~Q)0Q)cr< 0~'SQ)..::.t:1-< ..cQ)C 1::'[j) ::l .!:: ~ CZl Q) a -;; I-<'~ 8 '" I:: g. t::: 1;3 -B <;...; ..... ~.~ t:..g~~Q)Q) ~o~~p.. ~ ::l 0 '" ~ ~ ~ .1"< ~ t) 0.. U 00 ~ 1:: Vi Q) I:: .p 'E ~ )< I:: '" ~ Q) '" ~.g 00 g. ~ .~ .~ +J ~ ~ C"j....j +J C'd QJ ~ Q) I:: .8 I:: 0 .s - ~..... 0~"'Q).t:Q) 1::00::J;>" ..... ..c '" € Q) d Q) I:: .... - "0 .... "0 '" I"< ~ d..... <E Q) ..c t:Q)I"<....:> p.. Vi '" ~ ~ ~ I:: ~'8 ......p Q) 0 Q) 0.. "'d 0.. 0.. I=< ':>:: . [j) ..c 0 1:: Q) ~ Q) r-- 5 0..... 0 E-< N .... 0 ..c 0 -..... ~ ~ 0.. 00 ~I ....Q)Uoot: I:: 00 I:: 0 8 a ~ 's. fr ~8CJ~~ 0..<2 :>.... Q) I-< Q) Q) I:: 0Q)..c"'dQ) 0.. E-< d Q) I:: .S I"< ] .....,.;!l '" ~ ~~~~fr Q)~ 0 500 ...c:Q)N8Q) ~ "'d .0 0...S! :> Q)..... .... "0 1! -B .9 l! p.. ool-<....Q) .8 .S p.. 55-:S I-< '" I-< ~ ~ <8 b'S ~-B"'d;g"'d a"'d-02 "=::' ~ 0..... 0 ..,:; ......c.t:: Q) >-.ta~"'d~ +.,.' _ !-oj Q) Q) ..... o..,..l:; 0.. I- "'d .... Q).D 0.. Q) - 5 -B .~ Q) ~ 'g 5 00 -B -B 0 ::lQ)1:: OO"=::' 0-'.p~1::"':; U S ~ -B '.p CJ >-...... 5 '" 5 '" .-t::. "'d "'d 5 ~I-< Ua.8I::Q)~ Q)Q)Q)50..;>" -B 1;3.~ ; .S "E ~fr~o"Ol:: ...c: I-< Q:) ~ I:: I:: E-< 0.. I-< I-< ~ ..... 00 u 0 0.... ~ ~ CJ .S .... I:: Q) 0 -B 0 ~ -B .~ .~ '<:t <1) OIl <<l Po. ~ ~ C"j .... :> '"' ~ Vl - ~ C"j .... "0 ~ ~ ~ = ~ '"' ~ 5 ~ -- ~ '"' ~ .... I:: Q) ~€ o ~ I:: d) 80 Q) ~ .!= 5~ €~ ~ ..... fr> o ~ ] u Q) I-< ~ Q) ..c ~E-< .... '" > Q\ '" I:: .g .... ~ ~ - "'d .2 I:: U ~ Q) 0 ..c 0 E-< ~ ~ ~ C"j .... :> '"' ~ 00. .0 ;..=: 'u ~ ~ Q) I-< ~ Q) -B 0 (t)~ .... '" Q) ~ o..~ 5 '" o ~ o I:: o 0 .... 0 I-< '" Q) '" oo~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~] .0'" ..... "'d U2 Q) ~ ..cQ:) .... I-< .... I-< o Q) ~-B ..... 0 "'d"'d :-;::: ~ o ~ S 2 o ~ U"[ c::l U a Q)~ -B ~ ........ ~ '" ..c ~ E-<~ - ~ C"j :a ~ ~ G = ~ '"' ~ 5 ~ -- ~ - ~ Q\ - .- U 0> ~~ ~< '-'~ z~ o~ ~rJJ rJJrJJ ~z ~o ~~ o~ uU ~< =~ ~~ ~~ rJJz ~~ ~~ >~ o~ ~~ z~ ~~ ~- ~rJJ ~z <0 z~ ~~ =z ~~ ~~ o~ ~o ~u ~~ Q N ~ Z w ~ :I: (.) <C ~ ~ <C 1:::::::1:: Ol-< OJ) o ..... ..... ...... c.8 I:: '.;j ~ ell eIl......~~oo"t~ t:i I::~ I:: "0 0 II) ..... 0 0 0. ~ SlI)o.'C ~ t+:<t::u~1I)1I) ell a l-< 0. > ~ fr E .S ~.~ 00 .;; "0 0 ..5 ~ ZOIl)<H1:: rn ~ a~ &~ 5 ~ ~.8 .e;...........t:i5 U 00 0 (1)..... II) ~-<~8~ta@Z ~oo..;j~ooull) 00700-01:: .D ~~~II)l-<OOJ)oo oo.~ II) ;; o.'.g.s o$:l Z. Z I:: ~ ~ ell ~, o ~ .~ "'2'~ II) ~.~ ~~;E ell ~'E~ E ~ .~ :B -So ~ ~..8 0 ~~eIl eIl~UU ~...e= ~ E E o.S ~ ~..~ U B ~ U .;!l ..9 ~ ~ gp oil.....,.Q,.!:i '""@ oo~ ..... .S 2 II) E-< _ rJJ. t:: ,.!:i ......5 0-;:::: o 8..8 II) ...... ui .~ ". II) ell I:: ...... II) ...... ~ l-< o.t+:< ell ;:l "ell 9 ...".;!l !U.,g oo;S ""'" IS' "0 - ~ .;!l ~ 's.. $:l .8 ~ "0 ~ o 0 ;:l II) 00 -eIllI)oo......;>. ~~;:lI::.::!c:3 " ''''S II) -II) $:l ..0"0...... l-<eIl U I:: 0 . g~8::gg.g ~ ~ ~ ~ ::;s ::;s 'C g, ~c:3 6 Cj Cj 8. rJJ. Z o .... ~ -< ~ ~ ~ o u ~ u o ~ ~ OJ) ~ "0 U ~ "0 'E~ t30Ba l-< '" ..... ":::< ;:l 00. 'E~<;;;';:Pt: fr .;!l ~ v II) .;:: 0 l-< "0 .;:: ] ;S ~ ~ (1)] OOE-<I::~II) 00...... g. ..... ~ .;!l s ~ ~1515"O. ~ "0 $:l "0 I:: U u....... "O~oll)~ 1::;:: ell ...... ..... ~eIl o~~~~ l-<I:: ......~O'E-<g o~o ~$:l0J) ...c: ...... ~..... ell I:: $:l d 00 l-<II)!S o..eIl'-e~s ~"O 00] I:: S 0 "0 II) ell II) ;>. ell..... ;>. 0. t:i a...c:.D ~OOV~~;>. ,,:::<.;!l I:: 2..... S ...... ~ 00 ~:D 0 $:l 00..... $:l'.;j 00 .oell'.;j ~ ~"""2 (1).0 ..... t:i ell 0 U eIl.;!l 00 U ? E E 8 .S ~ S ~ ~ ~c.8 0 0.00 0 2-:-: ...... I:: ::. $:l U ~,~ ...... ;>...... U ~.S ell ~ '+- c:3 .::; $l $:l;"::::: U ;3 E........... ell..... sll)<;;;'~1I)~50J)~ o-B~"O'E~~I::~ U ,.!:i 1::..... 0 ..... U ...... ell U t:: .oll)$:l I:: (1)0 o OJ) ..... ;:l 0 ...... ell ~ U 0. $:l U .S..... ; II) ell ~ ~'-e ......t)0""'...... 0 ~$:l$:lBE~"O~l-<O' ...... uO;:l $:l $:l_ 0 II) ~ <;;;. ~ ell ell <H l-< ,.!:i """' """' E-<- C"1 ~ IE ell '"' ~ o ~ ~ e ell '"' E-i Q ..... .,s II) l-< 'S 0" II) l-< ...... o $:l II) 00 I:: o 0. 00 II) ~ 00 $:l o '.g "0 $:l II) ~ o U II) ~ o Z '" - Q Q -= ~ rJJ. 6 ~ ell oo~+-J g Z g C"1~~ .Q ~ ell ;:l rJJ. ...... ....., 00 .s.g> gps~ ..... II) ;:l I::,.!:i...c: II) U U 0.00 ~So'o <8'1;j.o : "0 (1)....."0 II)"OU 0 "501l)P. "0 .........c: II) 1I)................c: ...c:eIl ...... ~B]gf 00 fr ell ..... ''I''''''l U CI) ....... .... 00 ;:l 0"'(1)-'::'" 00..... ~ ,.!:i U 'g .S ~So.~ C"1 8 II) a ~~~8 r-- ~.::; eo 15"0 a.s ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 00 ell 0 0.$:l0J)l-< ooeIl$:lc.8 ~ 0.. II) ~ 00 0.8- eIl~"""...c: Z 00 ~ II) .] ~ ~~2t:: ;;> ~ $:l ~ r.Il ,.......oI.f""'l .... ~ ~ '" - Q Q -= ~ rJJ. ...... I:: II) .a ..... .D ......"O,.!:i 00 II) U "Ot)1:: 5~~ ~ ~ ~ 0.0...... u..... 0 (1);':: I:: l-< u..... U ~ 00 . o_;:l"O ::;s g E~ Cj 0. ~ .8- II) 15 ~ ..3 ,.!:i N _ I:: E-< '1;j _ ell I 0 "0 I .~ 0 I:: t) ~~ s ..... ;>..rJJ. -tl-...c:~ i5o.;:P~ -J3e3:E o C"1 II) Oe;.....-,.!:i ~o............. CIl (1)0 I:: 00.8 ~ ...c: ;:l u..... .;:P "0 CIl OJ) ::c: ~ ~..q $:l.a"O 6 o 00 ~ ..... '8 l-< ::;s !5. ~<8 ell II) 00 [)2-BeIl ......$:ll-<"O ~~c.8~ ...... ~ 00 II) II) 00 II) II) II) $:l.t; ~ 5h~"O CIlello.eIl ~ ~ lI") (l) 00 ~ p.. u o "0 \Ci o -0 '9 1.0 o >1 (l) ';;;1 ~ 01 :1 ~ (l) E ..c u ~ :t::: ~ '0 ~ ;::3 o U --- 1.0 o U o ::;s o U o ::;s o --- '" (l) S :9 ~ a @ z ~ ....l e:. ;I: VOLUME II CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2006 ANNUAL REPORT APPENDICES Appendix B - Workshop Report Appendix C - Growth Forecast Appendix D - Threshold Questionnaires and Supplemental Data 1. Fiscal 2. Air Quality 3. Sewer 4. Water 5. Libraries 6. Drainage 7. Parks and Recreation 8. Police 9. Fire/Emergency Medical Services 10. Traffic 11.Schools June 2006 Appendix B Workshop Report NOTE: COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY TO BE ADDED FOLLOWING JUNE 7,2006 MEETING ..~ .~----~..~~....^.,_._,.....,~",..._,~"-._--_.._--"~-'._--'."'-.......--.--.. MEMORANDUM March 30, 2006 File No. KY-181 TO: Mark Stephens, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations SUBJECT: GMOC Report, Responses to Questions 18 & 19 (Environmental Health Coalition) The following is in response to issues/recommendations made by the Environmental Health Coalition to the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding the annual report's drainage sections and thresholds: Question 18. Threshold should be changed to explicitly state that conditions of the municipal storm water permit are met and that a threshold that addresses water quality be added. It should be clear that the threshold applies not only to flow and rate, but storm water quality as well. Response: Compliance with the municipal storm water permit is only partially a growth management issue since full compliance with the permit is applicable to all parts of Chula Vista, not just new development and redevelopment. In addition, new development is held to, and at, a greater level of compliance with storm water permit regulations compared to development completed prior to issuance of storm water quality regulations and requirements due to the requirement to implement structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) an~ Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs). Further, because compliance with the municipal storm water permit is based upon compliance with narrative water quality objectives and prescriptive requirements, not numeric water quality standards, establishment of a threshold standard for storm water quality is not practical or feasible - in essence, compliance is measured in terms of either "compliance" or "non-compliance. " Question 19. The GMOC should strongly recommend to the City Council that all Specific Plans incorporate clear direction on stormwater BMPs to address flows and water quality of dry and wet weather flows. For example, the landscaping design guidelines in the Urban Core Specific Plan should require landscaping features to function as stormwater BMPs. Also, sufficient land should be designated and zoned for storm water projects. Response: Under the storm water permit regulations, all new development and redevelopment projects are required to comply with all storm water management requirements, including the design and implementation of BMPs and/or SUSMP requirements, all of which are based upon dry and wet weather water quality pollutants of concern. Specific and prescriptive requirements are not recommended since the selection of the most appropriate BMPs are specific to site conditions and pollutants of concern. Where appropriate to effectively treat pollutants of concern, landscaping features are routinely used to function as stormwater BMPs; however, the use of landscaping features to pretreat stormwater should be considered on a site-by-site basis, based upon identified pollutants of concern and other site specific criteria. With respect to the designation and zoning of sufficient land for storm water projects, this is also site specific and pollutant specific and should be considered on a project-by-project basis. As a matter of practice, larger development projects, in order to comply with SUSMP requirements, do set aside significant areas of land for storm water treatment and detention. Please contact Kirk Ammerman, Principal Civil Engineer, at Ext. 6121 if you should have any questions. c: Jack Griffm, Director of General Services Rick Hopkins, Assistant Director ofPWOPS Leah Browder, Acting Director of Engineering Khosro Aminpour, Senior Civil Engineer Shared on Citywide (2000):\Public Works Operations\NPDES\Response to GMOC Q 18 & 19.doc Environmental Health Coalition 401 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310 + National City, CA 92101 + (619) 474-0220 + FAX: (619) 474-1210 ehc@environmentalhealth.org + www.environmentalhealth.org MEMORANDUM March 23,2006 TO: FROM: GMOC Laura Hunter, Environmental Health Coalition Environmental Health Coalition would like to make the following recommendations for modification to the GMOC regarding the Drainage Sections and thresholds. Question 18. . Threshold should be changed to explicitly state that conditions of the municipal storm water permit are met and that a threshold that addresses water quality be added. It should be clear that the threshold applies not only to flow and rate, but storm water quality as well. Question 19. The GMOC should strongly recommend to the City Council that all Specific Plans incorporate clear direction on stormwater BMPs to address flows and water quality of dry and wet weather flows. For example, the landscaping design guidelines in the Urban Core Specific Plan should require landscaping features to function as stormwater BMPs. Also, sufficient land should be designated and zoned for storm water projects. For questions, I can be reached at (619) 474-0220 ext 102 Thank you very much for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Laura Hunter, Director Clean Bay Campaign #0 March 2, 2006 TO: Growth Management Oversight Commission FROM: Peter Watry 81 Second A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 SUBJECT: A suggestion for an additional item to be monitored As you will see by the attached table, according to the recently adopted GPU the number of dwelling units in "Northwest Chula Vista" may increase by as much as 40% over the existing number of dwelling units. That is a very large increase in the rate of growth. Growth Management Element, Chapter 10 of the GPU: "The rate of growth influences the quality of life of the community and when excessive, can create stress on the community cohesiveness, the loss of a sense of place, and a potential degradation of community values caused by rapid increases in population." Growth Management Policy 1.3: "Prepare detailed development forecasts and monitor development activity as it occurs in support of growth management program activities." Growth Management Policy 1.5: "As part of the Growth Management Program, conduct an ongoing Development Monitoring Program focused on new development activity and related infrastructure and public facility construction to determine compliance with Threshold Standards and other City policies and programs. " Growth Management Policy 1.13: "Establish the authority for the City Council to impose limits upon the rate of development as needed to assure that development occurs at an optimal rate that does not negatively affect quality of life and public health, safety or welfare of the City." I request that the GMOC arrange to monitor the annual increases in dwelling units in Northwest Chula Vista, as indicated in GM Policies 1.3 and 1.5, so that the City Council may make judgments about whether or not to impose limits as indicated in GM Policy 1.13. z o - l- e.. :E :::) U) U) <x: LU U) :::) Cl Z <( ....J u.. o >- 0:: <t: ~ ~ ::> V) ':::':: ~ ;::<: "" 0' 0' 0' O' 0 0 0 .:> CO ~ 0 ('I) I"-- 0) l!) 0 o~ .... .... C\l ('I) .... T'"" <D I"-- ~ foot~i,;. 0 e~" ~I~ l!) I"-- <D ~ 0 .... C5 0 CO ~ .... ,"'I) l!) l!) ~ 0 CO ('I) ~ CO CO') ~ .... I"-- cs:i 0)- <D CO')- cs:i cs:i C'i C .... .... ;:) . ~..cc:,:, ,,.- , ?ft. ?ft. ?ft. ?ft. ?ft. ?ft. ::Ie ::Ie " 0 0 ," l!) 0 .... N I"-- l!) ~g'5f~ T'"" ..- l!) i.O ('I) -;t C\l ;-.. I"-- <D ~ 0 ~~l' n. - ~,'c2;' .... -;t CO l!) CO') <D ~ .... en C\l C\l .... .... 0) .... ,~~o. :tI: CO I"-- I"-- CO 0) 0) C\l C\l .... 0 lI'i .... I"-- ri C\l- 1"--- ('1)- ".' '2 ~ ('I) .... C\l (.,(-; ~.-: :) ::Ie '<f!. ::Ie ::Ie ::Ie ::Ie ::Ie ::oR ._ .C 0 0 0 .:> 0 0 0 - C\l I"-- l!) I"-- ('I) 0 0 l!) il~l ('I) C\l l!) .... I ~ 0 f:,,&;i~ <D I"-- C\l 0) CO') l!) C\l -,,' en 'a!,~ ~ 0 l!) .... C\l OJ ~ co ,I) CO a en ~- ~ .... 0) C\l .... ri ai eD I '2 .... .... vr C\l .... .... :) , " ;;;l a 0) .... .... 0 co l!) C\l a C\l l!) 'i) ~ Q. en l!) CD ~ en CO') 0) CD 0 cs:i CO" eD I"-- ai .... C\l Q. .;f .... ('1)- .... ~ ~ O'l (") I"-- CD l!) ~ C\l C\l .... .... r;.l 00 0 C\l .... ~ I"-- CD .... ~ l!) i .s C\l 0) a fiJ co OJ co ~ '2 .... I"-- OJ C\l 0) I"-- r--- lI'i l!)" ai N i eD .... :) .... a I"-- cO ~ .... .... ~ C\l C\l ..... ;Z; a CD (") ..... C\l CO') I"-- CO') :s Q. a I"-- co .... I"-- I"-- f2 I"-- 0 ('I) CO') (") a (Y) "3" CD Q. i r-: N ai ri N r-: N =-- 10 .... 10 l!) "3" C\l ..... C\l C\l .... .... ~ ~ ~ ~ II) I"-- "3" .... a .... ('I) .... "3" 0 .... ('I) C\l 0) "3" 10 (") ~ C\l '2 a ..... CJ) ..... OJ .... ~ cO ai ai cO cO 0 I"-- :) .... .;f 0) co ('I) C\l .... "3" ..... a a ('I) .... C\l I"-- CO') ('I) Q. a a CJ) CO') f8 a I"-- C\l Z 0 CO') C\l "3" CJ) I"-- .... .... " Q. C\l- ai 0 eD ri cO lI'i ri !:i 0 C\l a .... l!) 'i) 0) C\l .... ..... C\l C\l .... ~ C 'J1 ~ ~ Z .s ..- I"-- CJ) ..... OJ co CJ) ('I) >-l 0 CO') ~ I"-- .... ~ OJ 0) CD '2 C\l a I"-- CJ) U .;f 0 co" ai cO "3" CJ) :::) ..- ai .;f I"-- I"-- ('I) ..... .... ('I) - - 0 0 CO CO ~ Q) (!) '- Q) < LO <( <( 0 0> 0> ~ CO - c: - c: UJ CO (/) CO I - - Q) .c Q) .c: < CO UJ UJ ~ ~ CO - ~ Q) U U Q) - .c .c Q) .... 0 ~ 1:: - '- <( .c ::J <( - .c: 0 (/) 1:: - - 0 a. :>. ~ ::J UJ Z en :!: 0 0 CO (I) () '7' (1'1 II I Appendix C Growth Forecast City of Chula Vista 2006 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle 24-MONTH and 5-YEAR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2006 Through 2010 June 2006 City of Chula Vista 2006 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle 24-MONTH and 5-YEAR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2006 through 2010 INTRODUCTION As a component of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program, the City's Planning Division provides annual growth forecasts for two time frames: 24 months and 5 years. Providing this information enables City departments and other service agencies to assess the probable impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold standards. With this data, these bodies will be able to report possible threshold impacts to the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC). Ultimately through the City's growth management review process, the GMOC will provide a set of recommendations to the City Council for the purpose of maintaining the City's quality of life threshold standards. Those recommendations can include the addition or acceleration of capital projects, hiring personnel, changing management practices, slowing the pace of growth or imposing a moratorium. It is the City Council that will ultimately decide what course of action to take. The 24-month forecast covers calendar years 2006 and 2007. The five-year forecast spans the calendar years from 2006 through 2010. This forecast is commonly referred to as the Growth Management or GMOC forecast. It is important to note that this forecast: · Does not represent a goal or desired growth rate; · Does not at this time reflect or recommend a building permit cap; · Is what's expected to occur given a set of assumptions (presented on page 2). · Is not necessarily endorsed by home builders. This year's forecast report highlights anticipated growth in the west and eastern portions of the City. Traditionally the emphasis of the forecast was directed to the east, as that is where the majority of growth is taking place and will continue to take place for the next five years. However, based on the level of private sector interest there is the expectation that an increase in in-fill and redevelopment in western Chula Vista will take place and that potential should be recognized. This forecast report focuses on the addition of residential units as the primary indicator to measure future population increase. Western Chula Vista as evidenced by US Census data has been undergoing growth in the form of demographic change as household size increases and more than one family may live in a residence. Such growth is difficult to track on a year-to-year basis and is not reflected in this report. Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 1 of 13 FORECAST SUMMARY Over the next two years (January 2006 - December 2007) it is expected that over 4,000 housing units will be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista and 1,350 housing units permitted in western Chula Vista for a citywide total of approximately 5,400 units. In the 5-year forecast period for the calendar years from 2006 through 2010, eastern Chula Vista may have 10,700 housing units permitted and western Chula Vista 4,450. This combines for a citywide total of 15,150 units for an annual average of 2,140 in the east and 890 in the west, or just over 3,000 housing units permitted per year on average citywide. CONTEXT As was widely reported in the media, in the year 2001, the City of Chula Vista was the ih fastest growing community of its size in the nation. While the year 2001 represented a peak in the number of residential units receiving building permits (3,500) the level of growth remains significant and is expected to continue. This is supported by the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 2030 Growth Forecast, which indicates that the South County subregion will continue to host a substantial amount of the region's projected growth over the next 25 years. This growth stems mainly from the limited General Plan capacity in several cities in the county, as well as from the lower average price of housing in areas south of 1-8. Based largely on the amount of vacant land within master planned projects in Chula Vista's eastern area, SANDAG projects that the City will add nearly 20,000 housing units and over 60,000 new residents between the years 2004 and 2030. As in the last several years, this report reflects a substantial inventory of potential development as a result of continued strong regional demand for housing and South County's increasing role in meeting this demand. Historically (Figure 1, also see Exhibit 1) the rate of housing construction in Chula Vista has fluctuated from a few hundred a year to thousands. In the years between 1993 and 2001 there was a steady increase from under 500 units to a peak of over 3,500 housing units receiving building permits. Since 2001 the annual number of units receiving permits for construction has fluctuated between 1,650 and 3,300. The City, with the voluntary cooperation of the development community, acted to moderate growth in April 2003 by instituting a "Permit Monitoring Program". This program established the maximum number of permits that can be issued for selected major projects in eastern Chula Vista over three 12-month time periods, running from April 1 to March 31, beginning in 2003 (Table 1). This action was intended to moderate growth over that three-year period so that the City's Growth Management traffic threshold was not exceeded. The Permit Monitoring Program has had an effect over the number of units that can be permitted through March 2006. The longer-term forecast is unaffected. Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 2 of 13 Figure 1 Residential Units Permitted in Chula Vista 1993 - 2005 4,000 500 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Table 1 Limits on Monitored Projects Year (Aprill to March 31) Units Permitted 4/1/03 - 3/31/04 2,475 4/1/04 - 3/31/05 2,375 4/1/05 - 3/31/06 1,780 Total 6,630 Note: the Permit Monitoring Program has placed limits on the number of permits that can be issued for selected projects in eastern Chula Vista, this includes Otay Ranch Villages 6 and 11, Eastlake III, and portions of San Miguel Ranch and Rolling Hills Ranch. Actual permits issued per year in eastern Chula Vista exceeded the monitored amount as they included units which are excluded from the Permit Monitoring Program. As of August 30, 2005 out of the total of 6,630 units allowed to be permitted for construction, 4,752 units were permitted since April 1, 2003. There remained 1,878 units to be permitted under the program. Not all of these units received permits by March 31,2006. Five-Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 3 of 13 Even with a leveling growth rate and the Monitoring Program, the amount of anticipated growth remains significant. In terms of population, Chula Vista is accommodating between 6,000 and 9,000 new residents every year. In order for the City of Chula Vista to accommodate this growth and maintain the quality of life there must be the concurrent development of public facilities and services. It is the role of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) to assess if the established quality of life standards are being met and to make recommendations to the City Council to insure future compliance. This forecast document is provided to the City Departments and outside agencies that are responsible for maintaining the thresholds. These departments and agencies are then asked whether they can support the forecasted growth. Forecast Assumptions 1. That construction of SR-125 proceeds on schedule. 2. There is no additional building "caps" imposed on development that would restrict the number of units below what is forecasted. 3. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged. 4. That Growth Management thresholds are not exceeded. 5. That the housing market remains strong in Chula Vista. 6. The General Plan Update draft Preferred Alternative, as of August 18, 2005, will guide development for forecast purposes over the next 5 years. 7. A 4-year college/university has committed to develop the University site by 2009. 8. The forecast assumes a normal project regulatory processing schedule. FORECAST PROCESS AND PERSPECTIVE Based upon the assumptions presented above, a draft forecast for a 24-month and 5-year period for both east and western Chula Vista is produced. This forecast is then shared with the respective major land developers in eastern Chula Vista for the purpose of obtaining their comment and possibly consensus. If consensus is not possible city staff will make a determination and post any qualifying comment as a footnote in the forecast table. The forecast is not necessarily approved or agreed to by the major land developers. Since there are as yet no major developers with active projects in western Chula Vista that forecast is based upon the status of project processing and city staff expectation for future activity based upon trends and level of investor interest. Preparing a 5-year forecast always incorporates a significant degree of uncertainty. The current forecast period, years 2006 through 2010, offers an even greater challenge given the steep run- up in home prices, the continuing war against terror and possible future domestic attacks, and interest rates still near record lows with some upward movement likely. East - The next two years growth for eastern Chula Vista is reasonably predictable based upon the overall assumptions. The various planned communities have a number of projects in the "pipeline" with over 4,000 units ready for permitting over the next two years (Table 2). Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 4 of 13 It is anticipated that the next 5 years will produce as many as 10,700 additional housing units permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, for an average annual rate of approximately 2,143 units. This number is derived from a variety of sources including housing market absorption rate studies; development utilization plans, and estimated project-processing schedules (Table 3). Table 2 EASTERN CHULA VISTA TWO YEAR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST OF UNITS PERMITTED Calendar Years 2006 and 2007 PROJECT/AREA 2006 2007 TOTAL MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total OT A Y RANCH 777 550 1,127 1,021 630 1 ,492 1,798 1,180 2,978 EAST LAKE 230 163 393 0 0 0 230 163 393 ROLLING HILLS RANCH 0 70 70 0 70 70 0 140 140 SAN MIGUEL RANCH* 54 42 96 0 234 234 54 276 330 BELLA LAGO 0 69 69 0 57 57 0 126 126 Other 50 0 50 54 0 54 104 0 104 TOTAL 1,111 894 2,002 1,075 991 2066 2,186 1,885 4,071 MF = Multiple units under one permit, SF = One unit per permit. Table 3 EASTERN CHULA VISTA FIVE YEAR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST OF UNITS PERMITTED Calendar Years 2006 Through 2010 Forecast of Units Permitted 2006 to 2010 Projects MF SF Total Otay Ranch 6,310 3,261 9,571 Eastlake 230 163 393 RollinQ Hills Ranch 0 193 193 Bella Lago 0 126 126 San Miguel Ranch 54 276 330 Other 104 0 104 Total 6,698 4,019 10,717 Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 5 of 13 Based on the General Plan Update there are almost 19,000 residential units remaining to be permitted in eastern Chula Vista estimated as of January 2006. If the 10,700 units are permitted over the 5 year forecast period there will be 8,300 units remaining. Given the current rate of growth eastern Chula Vista could be built out around 2015. However, additional general plan amendments are likely with additional units added to the potential inventory of housing units thereby extending the ultimate build-out date. West Western Chula Vista has not shown significant increases in housing since the growth management program was instituted in the late 1980's. This situation is expected to change due to an increased interest in infill, redevelopment, and possible density increases through the General Plan update. Growth in eastern Chula Vista is made up of a series of planned communities being built by a half dozen major companies, each with development schedules that can be quantified, and has an established market trend, making it relatively easy to assess. Western Chula Vista presents just the opposite situation. With the exception of the Bayfront development proposal, there are no master planned areas, and a plethora of potential development sites exist, each with their own opportunities and constraints, multiple potential investors, and a market for new housing that is largely untested. In the short term there are several projects in the approval process that constitute up to an additional 300 units that could be permitted within the next calendar year. In addition there are also several projects with potential in the Northwest and additional infill and accessory units that may potentially be permitted (Table 4). Table 4 WESTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST OF UNITS PERMITTED Calendar Years 2006 Through 2007 PROJECT/AREA 2006 2007 TOTAL MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total Northwest 275 0 275 400 0 400 675 0 675 Southwest 300 20 320 300 20 320 600 40 640 Bayfront 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accessory 0 20 20 0 20 20 0 40 40 Total 575 40 615 700 40 740 1,275 80 1,355 In the mid-range, there are several large and small private sector project proposals that are in various stages of discussion but without a formal approval or commitment to proceed. Although somewhat speculative, it is prudent to assume that residential development will increase in western Chula Vista, so that facility and service providers can be alerted to the potential and prepare for this influx. Greater forecasting precision can be expected in coming years as the General Plan update is implemented and Specific Plans are completed and the infill/redevelopment process proceeds and housing markets are established. Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 6 of 13 Based on the information provided in this year's forecast, it can be indicated that over the next 5 years western Chula Vista can expect an increase of 4,250 multi-family residential units which includes the initial phases of Bayfront development, plus a small addition of accessory units tracking at an average of 20 per year for 100 units, and some infill single family homes totaling about 100 units over the 5 year period. This provides a total of 4,450 residential units for an annual average of 890 units (Table 5). It should be noted that the City of Chula Vista has a policy not to condemn residential structures for redevelopment purposes. Table 5 WESTERN CHULA VISTA FIVE YEAR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST OF UNITS PERMITTED Calendar Years 2006 Through 2010 Forecast of Units Permitted 2006 to 2010 AREA MF SF Total Northwest 2,175 0 2,175 Southwest 1,800 100 1,900 Bavfront 280 0 280 Accessory 0 100 100 Total 4,255 200 4,455 Combined Forecast Table 6 COMBINED CITY-WIDE FORECAST 2006 AND 2007 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST OF UNITS PERMITTED Calendar Years 2006 Through 2007 2006 2007 TOTAL AREA MF SF Total MF SF Total MF SF Total EAST 1,111 894 2,002 1,075 991 2,066 2,186 1,885 4,071 WEST 575 40 615 700 40 740 1,275 80 1,355 TOTAL 1686 734 2,620 1,775 1,031 2,806 3,461 1,965 5,406 Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 7 of 13 Table 7 COMBINED CITYWIDE FORECAST 2006 THROUGH 2010 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST OF UNITS PERMITTED Calendar Years 2006 Through 2007 AREA 2006 -2010 MF SF Total EAST 6,698 4,019 10,717 WEST 4,255 200 4,455 TOTAL 10,953 4,219 15,172 PERMITS BY YEAR A year-to-year estimate of how many building permits will be issued has been developed for general planning purposes, but should not be relied upon for exactness. The total number of permits that will be issued over the next five years is reasonably certain however many variables may and will affect what the actual annual distribution will be over the next 5 years. Table 8 and Figure 2 illustrate a possible growth path over the next 5 years. Table 8 Approximate Number of Residential Units Receiving Permits By Year 2006 to 2010 Years 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total East 2,005 2,066 2,293 1,903 2,450 10,717 West 615 740 940 1,020 1,140 4,455 Total 2,620 2,806 3,233 2,923 3,590 15,172 Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 8 of 13 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Figure 2 Forecasted Residential Units Permitted by Area 2006 through 2010 500 llilEast llilWest 1,140 940 2006 2008 2010 2009 2007 Year Figure 3 Summary: Residential Units Receiving Building Permits 1996 to 2005 Actual and 2006 through 2010 Forecast 4,000'" Actual ~ ... Forecast ~ 3,590 3,500 3,000 .l!l 2,500 "2 :::l .... 0 2,000 .. CD .c E ::l 1,500 z 1,000 500 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 9 of 13 FORECASTED POPULATION A population forecast is derived using the number of homes constructed. The California State Department of Finance estimates that Chula Vista has on average 3.026 persons per household. Assuming that this factor is accurate and remains valid over the next five years, and assuming a 3% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 268,000 persons by the end of 2010 (Table 9 and Exhibit 1). This is estimated as follows: · At the end of 2005 (1/1/06 estimate) the California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated a Chula Vista population of 223,423. · It is forecasted that an additional 15,172 units may be permitted with an assumed 3% occupancy between 2006 and 2010. Using the DOF factor of 3.026 persons per housing unit, the analysis as illustrated in Table 9 indicates a population of approximately 268,000 by the end of 2010. Note, this is only a rough estimate for planning proposes, and the vacancy rate may chance over time as will the number of persons per unit. Table 9 15,172 e Table 2005 to 2010 Po ulation 223,423 44,534 267,957 Year 2005* 2006-2010 Po ulation Year-End 2010 Pro"ected Po ulation Chan Additional Units * 2005 "Year-End Population" (12/31/05) considered equivalent to 1/1/06 DOF estimate. The past year has seen increasing interest rates, a general slowing of development within the region, and a decrease in the number of new dwelling units permitted for construction in Chula Vista. These trends will be assessed as part of next year's GMOC forecast. Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 10 of 13 EXHIBITS: 1 Historical Growth Table 2 Major Projects Map (Not included in electronic version) Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 11 of 13 Exhibit 1 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - 2005 A d F U 2006 Th h 2010 n orecas or rou No. % Change No. % Change No. % Change 1980 407 374 84,364 1981 195 -52% 496 33% 86,597 2.6% 1982 232 19% 129 -74% 88,023 1.6% 1983 479 106% 279 116% 89,370 1.5% 1984 1,200 151% 521 87% 91,166 2.0% 1985 1,048 -13% 1,552 198% 116,325 27.6% 1) 1986 2,076 98% 1,120 -28% 120,285 3.4% 1987 1,168 -44% 2,490 122% 124,253 3.3% 1988 1,413 21% 829 -67% 128,028 3.0% 1989 1,680 19% 1,321 59% 134,337 4.9% 1990 664 -60% 1,552 17% 138,262 2.9% 2) 1991 747 13% 701 -55% 141,015 2.0% 1992 560 -25% 725 3% 144,466 2.4% 1993 435 -22% 462 -36% 146,525 1.4% 1994 700 61% 936 103% 149,791 2.2% 1995 833 19% 718 -23% 153,164 2.3% 1996 914 10% 820 14% 156,148 1.9% 1997 1,028 12% 955 16% 162,106 3.8% 1998 1,339 30% 1,093 14% 167,103 3.1% 1999 2,505 87% 1,715 57% 174,319 4.3% 2000 2,618 5% 2,652 55% 183,300 5.2% 2001 3,525 35% 3,222 21% 190,300 3.8% * 2002 2,250 -36% 2,923 -9% 199,700 4.9% * 2003 3,143 40% 2,697 -8% 209,133 4.7% * 2004 3,300 5% 3,043 13% 217,543 4.0% * 2005 1,654 -50% 2,525 -17% 223,423 2.7% ** 2006 - 2010 15,172 267,957 4.0% ** (1) Montgomery Annexation (2) 1990 Census Figures 135,163 * Reflects Department of Finance (OOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year. (That is, the 12/31/05 population is assumed to be equivalent to the 1/1/06 DOF estimate.) ** Population is approximate based on the number of units permitted between 2005 and 2009 less an assumed 3% vacancy rate and assuming that there are 3.026 persons per unit While a number of these units will be under construction at the end of 2010. there are currently an equivalent or higher number of units currently under construction this factor will maintain a reasonable level of accuracy. Five- Year Growth Forecast, June 2006 Page 12 of 13 N ... - m - :I: >< w a-~ c. E en .... Q ... ... =>> II: a- Il: =>> ... III: E L;J <3: ~ o z ..... Z ~~ ~Ii~'~ 0> ~ ~l ~ 6~~ ( :I:~ UZ ~ ..... Q. . ;=: -::& ;; !i! !i =-Ei- -. . -=-...tie 1111II 1!==.=a.=:E!! 11I=5--="-- a.!!...DE.. ==._IIIII!...a'l:ll i:E.!I!IlI=.!!i!iS &:l1!ialiJ!!'Ca ..=-=-11I11I...;:;;:; ... CD en PIlPllPllc.ua...... N co I! I: III :!:! .. Ii! 55n 11 ~ u;;;;. . = ...11II :iif! !!!a iil-I:I:I!~ =-_aclllllllllc .I!II-............ !......I.:::&:llll&:l&:l&:llll :ii;'I:lI.!:!~i:5iii:5 ....-il:E-=---= ~'"':~_s.=I':EI'I'I':E :1:1:1:1_=1511515151 l!3~EU:i=~=;:;~Hgilfi~= ;; .!! ... i i =1_= =.D .1:.... e =i.!!iI;::!!!! ;; !If[;1iIi-.ii;s _ =.".ulllluu.. 'i a-a.!!'!:!aaa: .._..'5~=.5.."'1II :E.=i lIlI-..=a'l:ll'l:ll !!1Ie_':g=1I~~:: =li';I'II=!!i~~iI!iI! '::t~S.l.li!.!I:I:I:I:I -: u en l- e ... - = II: a. II: = - CI: E ... = I- en - ... <D ~ N o cD o $2 ;I \!2 $B ~ . S!! =a ;:; :::l ::US ..= .= .. 'Ii. = .. = ~ _ aU iE :I Ii!SI) ... _=.:I.!I~e:. !!II---&:l.a ....= 'I:lIC---i=I'S;;-= .~===_as.:!a:3~ '- B .0 <2- a. '<if E en n. m "' ~ o ~ ~ 'c c m 9- ..:.; _N PIl_lIIaD... CD_sa;=: = _._.m....v_.~.v_~"~."~.._,."'-.........."..,,.~">O_~'"~."._~.~.~~.....,-"~-_._~-"_."....._.'"---~.....- Appendix D Threshold Questionnaires and Supplemental Data THRESHOLD 1. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the city, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 5-7 year period. 2. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual development imoact fee r~ort, which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. QUESTIONS 1. Please attach a fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City in terms of impact on: · operations · capital improvements Please evaluate these two factors of the last fiscal year, the current fiscal year, and what is anticipated in five years time. Explicitly indicate how the City's fiscal health is being impacted by addressing the needs of growth. Please use the Growth Management 5 Year Residential Forecast in your analysis. (The report that was provided last year serves as an acceptable model for this years response, although you may provide another format that meets the growth management threshold objective if you wish.) Page 1 2. Please update the table below Please change the dates accordingly. TRANSPORTATION 18379570 2226913 INTERIM PRE-SR 125 936 411 16645290 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1 398106 1 112 123 TELEGRAPH CYN DRAINAGE 140435 20 654 TELE. CYN GRAVITY SEWER 216.50/EDU 100 693 78 189 PUMPED EWER O/EDU 66410 137 978 SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN 1 330/EDU 1132676 273 043 POGGI CYN SEWER BASIN 400/EDU 52441 159 377 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES 5&6 783/EDU 46315 48 225 827/EDU 425 158 2203 PUBLIC FACILITIES Dec 2005 Tolled Oct 2005 Unschedul d Unscheduled Re ealed 1 699 376 Jan 2003 Unscheduled 818854 New Au 2005 Libraries 822 357 2 878 044 1 171 869 1 975 361 293 409 3291 903 " " 149/SFDU 355733 1 220/SFDU 10652143 809/SFDU 2736109 717/SFDU 2 042 271 843/SFDU 2120919 504/SFDU 933 822 10/SFDU 13 828 6/SFDU 11654 10814 5 SFDU 18692 1 578 9/SFDU 12363 27794 1 208/SFDU 1742188 6894595 PUBLIC FACILITIES TOTAL 5480/SFDU 20639722 17 367 724 Oct 2005 *Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown. Fee varies by type of residential unit, and for commercial and industrial development - see various fee schedules included in Attachment A. Administration Civic Center Ex ansion Police Facilit Cor. Yard Relocation " " " " " " " Please provide bJ:iEt narrative responses to the following: 3. In relation to the last column on the Table above, were any DIF updates completed or are any DIF updates in progress during the reporting period? If yes, please explain. Yes --X.- No_ a. If any DIFs are currently being updated, where are they in the process? b. How long it's been since each DIF has been updated? c. Is there a need to update any of the DIFs? d. Who is responsible for the update of each DIF? Explain: Page 2 Tran~pnrtatinn DIF On October 1st 2004, staff completed an update of the Transportation DIF, increasing the fee from $8,290 to $8,825. This update represented the second automatic update of the TDIF fee since the adoption of the annual update methodology in August of 2002. The next automatic update is scheduled for October 1, 2005. Staff anticipates increasing the fee at that time from $8,825 to $9,190. In May of 2005, staff presented the City Council with a comprehensive update of the TDIF program. This update included modifications to the land use categories, additions and deletions of program facilities, revised project cost estimates, and updated development forecasts (per the General Plan - Preferred Plan). The update recommended increasing the fee from $8,825 to $10,050 per EDU. The revised fee will go into effect concurrently with the adoption of the City's General Plan Update. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating this DIF. Traffic Signal In October 2004, the Traffic Signal Participation fee was increased by $1.55 per daily vehicle trip, per the adopted automatic annual fee update. The current fee is $25.59, and staff anticipates increasing the fee to $26.65 (an increase of $1.06) in October of 2005. Staff is in the early stages of a comprehensive update of the Traffic Signal Participation fee program that will be brought to Council after the adoption of the General Plan Update, . which staff anticipates completing in December of 2005. The Engineering Department is responsible for this update. PlImpp-d Sp-wp-r DIF Originally titled the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Pumped Flows OIF, this DIF was established to fund improvements to the Telegraph Canyon sewer main due to out-of- basin flows. In October 2002, the fee was amended to include Poggi Canyon out-of- basin flows, and renamed the Pumped Sewer DIF. With the Salt Creek sewer main constructed, there is no need to pump flows out of the Salt Creek basin, and therefore no need to continue collecting this DIF fee. As a result, the Council approved the repeal of this fee in November of 2004. The available fund balance at the date of repeal was appropriated to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer Project CIP. This project was identified in the original Willdan study, which formed the basis of the original Telegraph Canyon Pumped DIF. The funds were utilized for outstanding project expenses. Salt Crp-p-k Sp-wp-r Ba~in OIF Staff presented Council with an update of the Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF in August of 2005. That action increased the fee from the original 1994 rate of $284 per EDU by $1,046, resulting in an updated fee of $1,330 per EDU. No future update is anticipated at this time. pp-dp-~trian Bridgp- DIF~ Neither the Otay Ranch Village 1, 5, & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF, nor the Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF was updated this fiscal year. During the course of the next fiscal year, staff anticipates updating the Village 1, 5, & 6 DIF to include Village 2. Staff also anticipates updating the Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF to account for both increased project scope and construction costs. Staff anticipates taking this update to Council in August of 2005, and increasing the fee by $981 per EDU (from $827 to Page 3 $1,808). Both of these updates will also include modifications of their respective ordinances to include an automatic annual indexed fee increase. The Engineering Department is responsible for these updates. Park Acqlli~ition & Dp.vp.lopmp.nt Fp.p. In July of 2004, Council approved the increase of this fee from $7,869 to $8,771 per single-family residence (an increase of $902 per unit). The PAD ordinance was also modified to allow for an automatic annual indexed fee update of the development portion of the fee. Staff anticipates revising this component in October of 2005 per this automatic update. In addition, staff anticipates updating the land acquisition portion of the fee in October of 2005. The General Services Department is responsible for updating this DIF. Public Facility DIF The Public Facility DIF has not been updated since the comprehensive update of November 2002. In June 2005, Council authorized the modification of the PFDIF ordinance to allow for an automatic annual indexed fee update. For construction related projects, the index assigned was the Engineering News Records Building Construction Cost Index (Los Angeles Index); and for the non-construction components, the index assigned was the Consumer Price Index for the San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area. The first indexed increase will occur in October of 2005. Staff anticipates completing a comprehensive update of this DIF by the end of Fiscal Year 2006. The Office of Budget & Analysis is responsible for updating this DIF. Othp.r Sp.wp.r DIF~ There are no current plans to update the Telegraph Canyon Drainage fee, the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer fee, or the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin fee. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating these DIFs. 4. The City is anticipating the addition of up to 15,000 additional homes and nearly 45,000 new residents in the next 5 years. Of these as many as 4,400 units and more than 12,000 residents may locate in western Chula Vista. Are there any changes in the City's fiscal policy in regard to development that should be considered to best accommodate these additional units and population? Yes X No__ Please explain, why or why not: In a coordinated effort with the Urban Core Specific Plan and Bayfront Master Plan, the City has initiated various studies including a Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP) for the Urban Core to assess the infrastructure and facility needs in western Chula Vista. In addition, these studies will address funding sources required, including a combination of Development Impact Fees and other funding sources. This exercise is expected to be completed by the end of 2006. Page 4 FOLLOW-UP ON PREVIOUS YEAR'S GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS 5. In response to last years GMOC question "Has a standard procedure been adopted for an annual review of Development Impact Fees (DIFs)" it was reported that "D1F updates are now scheduled for October-January of each year. In many cases, this "annual update" will be accomplished through an automatic cost increase based upon the ENR Construction Cost Index rather than a full analysis. To date, annual automatic cost increase methodologies have been adopted for the Transportation DIF, and the Traffic Signal Participation Fee. Staff anticipates recommending such a methodology for the Park Acquisition and Development Fee during the next update." Please provide an update. The following Fee programs now include an automatic cost increase: 1. Traffic Signal Fee 2. Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) 3. Park Acquisition & Development Fee (PAD) 4. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Staff anticipates modifying the ordinances of the following DIFs to allow for indexed automatic fee updates: 1. Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5, & 6 Pedestrian Bridge 2. Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge MANAGEMENT 6. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No _x_ Explain: 7. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes_ No --X..- Explain: Page 5 8. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No x Explain: Prepared by: Evelyn Ong Smior Accountant Iffany Allen Smior Management Analyst Date: lbcember 12, 2005 Page 6 ~~~ 2~~ ;..-..; -..;:: -..;:: ~ --""""'-- -"""=>..-- CllY OF CHUlA VISTA FINANCE DEPARTMENT DATE: December 8, 2005 TO: VIA: Growth Management Oversight Commission David D. Rowlands, ~ty Manager FROM: Maria Kachadoorian, Director of Financ~ nk. Fiscal Overview SUBJECT: The purpose of this report is to update the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding the economic and fiscal well being of the City of Chula Vista. It also provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City over the previous 12 months (7/1/2004 to 6/30/2005) and projected impacts over the next 12-18 month period, and 5-7 years. Fiscal Overview In spite of continued State revenue "take aways", the City of Chula Vista continues to maintain healthy reserve levels. This is primarily due to increased revenues in sales taxes, property taxes, franchise fees related to growth in the eastern sections of the City over the past few years. The following graph displays the year-end reserve balances compared to prior years. Over the past fiscal year, the City's reserves decreased from 14.9% to 9.7% of the General Fund budget primarily due to Council approved mid-year appropriations. The most significant appropriations were related to additional overtime costs for Public Safety ($1.5 million), additional staffing/reorganizations in the Office of Communications, Human Resources, Library, Animal Shelter, Code Enforcement and Fire personnel ($1.2 million), consultant costs for various studies such as the University Project, Cultural Arts Master Plan, Ambulance Life Support Study, 501 c3 formation and Transient Occupancy Tax Audit ($1.1 million), reimbursement to the Port District related to property at 980 Lagoon Drive ($575,000), unanticipated Public Liability claims ($485,000) and repairs to the Chula Vista Library ($450,000). Other uses of reserves were approved for amendments to Public Safety's health care benefits ($200,000) and upgrades to the City's Emergency Operations Center ($120,000). In addition, there were a total of Fund Balance Reserves as of June 30, 2005 (with 8% Reserve Trendline) $35 $30 $25 Ul .2 $20 i $15 $10 $5 $0 00-01 01-02 02-03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Fiscal Year GMOC 2005 Annual Fiscal Overview December 8, 2005 Page 2 of 3 $1.1 million in fund balance adjustments related to increased reserves for advances and encumbrances resulting in a net decrease of $5.4 million in available fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2004-05. Overall General Fund revenues increased by $15 million or 12.2% from the previous fiscal year. The increase is primarily attributed to increased sales tax, property tax, franchise and utility users tax. The City's sales tax revenues increased by $2.2 million or 10.2% in fiscal year 2005. Sales taxes statewide are showing healthy increases largely due to improved economic conditions. Contributing to sales tax growth in Chula Vista is the continued growth in population and the opening of several new retail centers in the eastern section of the City. Prior to the State take away of revenues, the City's property tax revenues increased by $3.3 million or 21 % in fiscal year 2005. Property taxes continue to grow at a healthy rate Countywide. San Diego County is one of the least affordable housing markets in the nation but despite this the supply cannot keep up with the demand causing prices for new and resale homes to keep rising. Chula Vista continues to offer a wide variety of housing options and is in a good position to continue benefiting from the increased housing demand. Other local taxes such as franchise fees, utility users, transient lodging and business license taxes increased by $3.7 million or 19.6% which also reflects healthy increases primarily due to the continued increase in population. Total expenditures for the year amounted to $142.2 million, which is $14 million or 11 % greater than the previous fiscal year. The increase is primarily attributed to increased personnel costs related to increased employer contributions for retirement costs and increased employee compensation costs and additional staff positions in police, fire, public works and code enforcement. 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 l:!ach 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. 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 are required to be performed on all developments and are initially presented in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). This model will continue to be employed to review future development at the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level. DIF Financial Reports that identify the revenue and expenditure activity of each DIF Fund and their respective fund balance for fiscal year endinQ June 30, 2005 are included in the attached GMOC 2005 questionnaire. GMOC 2005 Annual Fiscal Overview December 8, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Fiscal Impact As previously mentioned, the main purpose of a fiscal impact analysis performed for each new development is to measure the impact on the City's operating budget as a result of new development. This is done by calculating the amount of operating revenues generated to the City resulting from the development project compared to the cost to the City of providing municipal services to the development. All major proposed development projects are required to have a fiscal impact analysis as part of the review process. Considering the significant increase in housing prices in the San Diego region over the past 5 years, the City's property tax revenues have increased at very healthy rates. The property tax generated is therefore greater than the conservative estimates used in the fiscal impact analysis performed and presented in the PFFP. Also included in the PFFP are assumptions related to the sale or turnover of homes, which result in reassessments by the County Assessor and in turn leads to increased property tax revenues. A survey conducted in December 2003 indicated that 67% of new homeowners in the Rolling Hills Ranch and Otay Ranch were Chula Vista residents. Therefore, the new developments in the eastern section of the City appear to have contributed to a higher tax base Citywide. Tax revenues generated by new development will continue to fully pay for the expanded City services needed to serve new residents. Forecast (12 -18 months and 5 - 7 years) Based on current fiscal projections, operational expenses, including debt service, is anticipated to increase by an average of 7% per year over the next 5 years. Revenues overall are anticipated to increase by approximately 8% over the same period; however, major discretionary revenues such as sales taxes, property taxes, franchise and TOT revenues are projected to increase by 11 % primarily due to continued growth in the eastern section of the City and the anticipated opening of several commercial centers particularly the Otay Ranch Town Center, which is expected to rival Fashion Valley in size and will offer upscale shopping options for all Southbay residents and cross border shoppers. These base revenues support City services such as police, fire, libraries and recreation. Based on the forecasted new residential units anticipated over the same period the revenues generated should be sufficient to fund services for the new residents. <( ~ z W ~ I () ;:: ~ <( - u.. o I- - f/)f/) Ww Wo::: u..::J t)t: <0 a.Z :E~ 1->< ZW wWO ....J:Ez 50.< wOf/) I..JW () W ::J en> Z Ww 0> zw 00::: i=1O <e I-'l:t 0:::0 0>- a.u.. f/) z ~ I- c Q) E 0. o Qi > Q) "0 Q) .... ::l "5 - - o t:: o 0. 0. ::l (/) ,5 (/) c Q) E Q) > o .... 0. ,5 c: ,2 m t:: o 0. (/) c: g "0 c: ro U ~ ro .... - - o c: o :+:: U ::l .... iii c: o U Q) =: Q) U c: ro c: ;;::: o ~ Qj Q) ll. - o c: o a ';:: U (/) Q) o ~ '00 c: Q) "0 "0 Q) .s "0"0 Q) Q) .s:::..s:::. U U 2 ro Q):::: "0 ro - - 'c 'c ~ ::l ::l c: OlOl::l c: c: Ol = = c: QiQi= ~~~ __"0 C:C:_Q) Q) Q) c: 0 roro~ro~ ,~,~ ~ (/) U ::l ::l ,_ (/) ro C"C"::l0(/) Q)Q)C"....(/) ~~Q)~e 'E 'E ~ ,!!! Ol roroEero - - ro Q) ';:: ~~:!Eiii g>g>'3 E~ '00 '00 E 8,5 ~~~L-L- Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) 0.0.0.0.0. I() 0 I() I() 0 N(OO>NO 00 ON('I) (0 c:Or-:LriLrici 00 I'- ..- EA- Qj Q) ll. Q) =: - o - c: ::l o E <( ll. o Z o ..- - O>~ I()<( o~ zO:: :::>0 ll.e. en z <( 0:: ~ z o i= <( ~ 0:: o ll. Z W () Z <( ....J <( III o z :::> ll. I() o -- '<t o >- ll. .. .. I() 00 I() I() 0> 00 0> (0..-001()0 NO>I'-Ol'- ('I). (0. N. 1'-. I(). I()'<t'<t'<to o'<tO>(01'- I(). (0 ('I) ~ '<to ..- ('I)N ..- .................. ..- ('I) 0(0 I() 0 ('1)0 I() 00 ~~ ~I() ..... ('I) 00 I() ON ..- 00 -('I) ..- EA- '<t o -- ..- o -- I'- o Q) U c: ..!!! ro III Ol c: c: ,5 Ol Q) III (/)e. >-0 en() -Ol rl c: (/) ,- ,_ "0 ll. c: Q).a~ (/) Q) .... (/) ro 0:: ::l Q) (/) Q) ~ ::l Q) ro8-g c: U ()0Q) ~ Q) .0 '2: (/) · N 0. U ii)Q) Q):g_.x Q) 0::"0 enc:C:_w ="0 _ Q)Q)::l_ OQ)(/)O iJjceso.x~9~ () E 5 (/) Q) (/) ro.... '~ (/) ro Q) (/) c: ~,~ We. ~ .... Q)wc::g'Z~c.Qj_(/)e. Q)-..!!! Q) Q)"o o..s:::..o lije. ll.(/)->-c:::l_Q)...._ ll. ~ Q) ,- (/) Q) en 0 0 ~ () _Q)~~C:0. o - ,- 0 e! x ~E~ll.~w E ';:: Q) c N '<t N 00 '<t o (0 N Q) .s:::. Q) -.s:::. - - 0_ Q) 0 U (/) c: Q) ro (/) ro ~ .00. -g Qj .a ~ OlOl c: c: 'c :0 'm .:! E g Q) ,- .... . Q)2 .s:::. c: - Q) '0 E .... Q) Q) > 'ti e c: 0. e! E ...... .- -0 Q) Ol c: .s:::. ,5 ::l -U- "OC:ll. ~~B ';:: c: o Q) 6 ;s ~~ ::l~ ro roUt:: . ro 0 (0 0. 0. I() ro (/) ..- U c: u1roe! OQj~ o > Q) NQ).s:::. c:(/)- o .... 0 _0- ::l - >- o-g~ (/)::lro Q)-> 0:: Q) ....Q)~ Q).. W "0......- c:-o ::lli3"O =0.C: U E ro C:_"O ::l_ro o c: 0 ()Q)O:: >-Ec: ::: a.._ () 0 ro Q)Qic =: ii) 5 LriO~ Ol()..l<: ONU N.....O . Q) 0:: 0__ ..- 6 ro ~o::~ ~Q)..- c:mrr. Owen .. EA- I() o -- o ('I) -- (0 o Q) U c: ro ro III Ol c: :0 c: W "0 ~ "0 ::l ro c: ::> <{ f- Z W ~ I o <{ f- f- <{ LL C I- - mm Ww Wo::: lL.:J be <t;C a.Z :;sW -a. 1->< """:zW ..-wc ~:;sz ::Ja.<t; OOm ~...Jw OW:J CI)>z Ww c> ZW 00::: -It) ~~ I-"lt 0:::0 0>- a.lL. m z ~ I- "0 >-~ = ::J .~ "0 ~ Q) c.c -() CI) u. 015 .~f- o >- 0:..0 ....."0 OQ) "0 ~c o ::J U. lIJ C :2 ~ co :::J 'C +-'0. ~ e 0. 0. <{ C o ~LO 'C !2 0.0 0('1) ....- 0. co 0...... <{ 0 Iii lIJ +-' co o f- CI) W f-C:: o::J w!:: ...,0 oz C::W a. a. X W C/) w n:: ::J t- o Z W 0- X W 0- U LO o - "'it o >- u. ('I)('I)N('I)"<t 00000 00000 NNNNN -... ......... ....... ........ ~r--...T"""'~ ONOO ........ -.. -... ........ I'-LOI'-I'- 0000 LO())())..-()) o ()) ()) 0 ()) O())())O()) NT"""'~NT""'" ........ -... -... -.. ~T"""'T"""'''C''''''"' 0000 ......... -- ........ ......... 01'-1'-1'- 000 N('I) 00 00 NN -- ..- ..- 00 -- 1'-1'- 00 cf?cf?cf?cf?cf?cf?.cf?.."#.cf?..cf?..cf?..cf?.. ('I)OOO"<t('l)COI'-OOOO ('I)OOOI'-NCO"<tOOOO Mcicicicri""':ccicricicicici ('I)OOO())())..-())ONOO "C""""' T""'" T""'" T""'" OOI'-OOOCO"<tOOOO 00..-0001'-00"<t00 LOO..-OOOCO())..-I'-O0 r-: Lri ~ 0 0 N- ('1)- oi N 1'-- 0 0 NLO..-O 0('1)0 LO CO COCO 0 ..- CO_()) ~N"<t_"<t_CO_O_..- N ..- ('I) ('I)"<t('l)..- ......... LO"<t('l)LOCO"<tI'-CO N..-OLO())CO..-M ..-COCOCO..-..-COI.O ... .. ... .. - - N('I)"<tN())LO())1.0 NNN())"<tOCON "C""""' "C""""' (""') T""'" LO ....... ~CO())COLO "<to"<t"<t('l) CC!. 1'-_ CO_ M_ .~ NCO..-MN N('I) ..-CO ....... ..-('1) ..- ..- ~ Z o i= a. 02 o CI) W o "0 C C ::J o 0 >-..0 c.c cot: O~ Q) .9LO C I g .~ l .c +-,,"0 "0 E 0. lIJ-Q) C ~ co "0 ~ co co 0> oW C .... t5>C/) o co _coco III oW 0. - O>+-,...J 0 .......... o ~ C: ,S CI) 0 .... 0> a. LL. f- ....0 +-' 2 :: .S ::J - ...J5jIQ)cCQ)c O>t- >- ~ C"O . 0>- 0 "0 Q) C - -g, ~ :; > W co LO 'w C "0 lIJ 'c 0 coZf-> c'Eoco C co> 5 cZ t5>c;:::"OoQ)-!..2~>:;:Jcow OOQ)COo>I ~OQ)~O:a. o ~ ...J f2..S ' ~ '" - 0> CI) C X ..c~-LL. c'U...... '" S:-:Q+-, oW ~ ::J co Q) ............. Cl :> .... C .- .....()::JlIJ'ULL.Q)C~Ill::Jroa. ,g .!:: 0 ~ > C 0> ~ a. +-' 0 t: U t:O+-'co>~Co()C/)Oo O .c CI) ...J o..c::: ~ .'0.. ~ () 0....J l+-'c>-E~owE.Q!E~~ CI) ::J 'm co () >- = co co 0 - 0 +-' co O())co O->..'::..'::L- C)CI)~OC::C:::())()) >.-.-.- f- o W ..., o c:: a. O..-LOco I'-co..-"<t..- ('I)LOLOLOLOLONM"<tCO"<tN CO ('I) ('I) ('I) ('I) ('1)('1) ('I) MNI'-"- c;~~~~~~~~~~~ C)C/)CI)CI)C/)CI)CI)CI)CI)CI)f-f- COUNCll.. AGENDA STATEMENT Item /8 Meeting Date 5/10/05 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance modifying the existing Transportation Development Impact Fee and amending Chapter 3.54 of the Municipal Code Resolution ~ 0 O-.r _ {s J Accepting a report prepared by staff recommending an updated Transportation Development Impact Fee to mitigate transportation impacts within the City's Eastern Territories Ordinance Amending the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program, Chapter 3.54 of the Municipal Code Resolution 2iJOS - lE5 Approving a $7 million loan repayment, plus interest, from the Transportation Development Impact Fee fund to the Interim SR-125 Development Impact Fee fund Resolution ).005 - {~(, Transferring the fund balance of the Interiin SR-125 Development Impact Fee fund to the Transportation Development Impact Fee Fund and forgiving the $3.3 million, plus interest, loan between these funds SUBMITTED BY: City Engineer~ IV REVIEWED BY: City Manager (J ~ ~ ". (4/Sths Vote: Yes..1L No-.J The City's Transportation Development Impact Fee ([DIF) Program was established on January 12, 1988 by Ordinance 2251. S inee its inception, the pro gram has been updated several times to reflect new land use approvals, proposed changes to the General Plan, and updated project cost estimates. The last TDIF update was approved on August 13, 2002. Tonight, Council will consider the approval of the 2005 IDll' update recommending an increase from the current fee of $8,825 to $10,050 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The public hearing has been duly noticed. RECOl\1MENDATION: That Council: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing. 2. Approve the Resolution accepting the report prepared by staff. 3. Approve the Ordinance amending Chapter 3.54 of the Mmrlcipal Code(fust reading). 4. Approve th~ Resolution repaying the $7 million outstanding loan from the TDIF' to the Interim SR-125 DIF. 5. Approve the Resolution transferring the balance of the Interim SR-125 fund to the Transportation Development Impact Fee fund. 6. Approye the concept oftoll reduction. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None. 18-1 . -".,"...,~_._.-..."...~~-~"......,..._--"_.~-~-~._- Page2,Item l~ Meeting Date 5/10/05 DISCUSSION: 2005 roIF Update New developments place demands on the existing transportation infrastructure, which can be mitigated by upgrading existing andior constructing new transportation facilities. Chula Vista's TOIF program functions as a system to distribute the cost of constructing infrastructure facilities in an equitable manner among new development in Eastern Chula Vista. The proceeds from the fee are used to construct new transportation improvements or expand existing facilities. The 2005 update recommends a TDIF of $10,050 per EDU. Table 1 below presents the rates for the different land uses. Table 1. Proposed Fee , I'. ~ _' .' - _ ' _ \ ._\ : ~ ~ - _ ~. -~..- _ ~ - . I . , ," \ -:> ~ .- - '_. - 't _'. _ ~, ~.-<: ';:;._~,:~'." ~':~>i .:.'.: .:' .'.' ;.'.,'~.:~~', "~~ '.~..:.':, _ .~_\ .:,..';~:~ ~..-7 ({.' ~." '. ,_.-:.....:', :~.':.!;' :.' <., <-',:: - " .-~ ,.:_'~,( esi.9-entj.al. CI:.OW) __.._____. !._.~,822.00 per QU .__ !..JQPSO.OO pe! DlI.___, _ ___ esidential (MED) $ 7,060.00 er DU $ 8,040.00 per DU esidential (HIGH) ...__ $_ _?,2~5:90 p.er DU $ 6,Q~0700 per !?U_________ enior Housing _______ 1._ 3,?30.0Q~er DU $ 4,020.0q.Eer D~____,__ esidential}y'li~d l!.se~_.__.___._ ___,_ N/A._____ _~__4,020.00.E.~!:q:g_._...__ Commercial Mixed Use* N/A $160,800.00 per 20,000 ~..sl_L General Comrnerci~JAc~e) __..._u._U 8~,325..:.QQ..E.er Ac.!~_._ ~J 60,~QQ:QQ.p.~~, A~~_".___ _~nal C~~~~!.a1l!\cr~~"_. __ __. .__.__r}ll ~.._.__ ___._ ~l! O,~~O.~Q.P_~~~~c:.__., __ "gh Rise Commercial ~Acret.__ _t?O<?,O~O.OO P~._~.E.!.~_ $28J,4Q.Q:.9..9....E~ ~cn~_...__ Office ~~_e)~_______P__..__.__._.. _________~Z~____ t 90,4?Q:90 ~~ Ac.re _.___. dustrial RTP (Acre) __._._.___ !... 70.!.~OO.OO per Acre $ 80,400..9.Q.E.~A~~___ G~lf Course (per golf co~e) ______ $ ~_~ 7,750.00~~ Course $703,500:9_Q.E~~ Co\!~~____ edical Center (Acre) $ 573,625.00 er Acre $653,250.00 er Acre *New land use classification proposed to be created via this update Basis and Methodology The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this update is consistent with the basis and methodology used in the "Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fee For Street.s" adopted in January 1988 and also the "Eastern Area Development Impact Fees For Streets" adopted in January 1990. One of the primary assumptions in the formulation of the previous fees is that the need for additional public facilities is generated by new development and the cost of the facilities should be paid by that new development. The first step in this update was to determine which road improvements are required to be constructed in order to maintain an acceptable level of service on the City's circulation system east of I-80S. The improvements that are to be constructed will serve the entire benefit area by either providing roads . for residents, employees, or customers to use, or by providing new streets for existing traffic, thus freeing up capacity on existing streets that can be used by new development. The next step was to determine the method upon which the costs for the improvements would be 18-2 Page 3, Item l g Meeting Date 5110/05 spread. One of the most common tools used to equate benefit impact fees among the different land uses and densities is the "Equivalent Dwelling Unit" or "EDU". There is a clear relationship between the use of transportation facilities and the generation of traffic trips based on the land use and density of a specific parcel. As in previous methodologies, this update relies on the report "San Diego Traffic Generators" t published by SANDAG. This report details the traffic trips generated by various classes of land use. This update has relied on traffic modeling techniques and technical studies to detennine the percentage of industrial and commercial trips that originate from within the TDIF benefit area that are already counted as part of other land uses in the TDW program. Only those trips which originate outside of the TDIF' benefit area are recommended for determining the fee for the commercial and industrial land uses. The analysis recommends revision to the commercial EDD rates based on a tiered system similar to residential use. The proposed street improvements are based on an analysis of the circulation system for various levels of development within the entire area of benefit, which is discussed below. All of proposed street projects included are consistent with the Preferred Plan of the proposed General Plan Update and Specific Plans that have been adopted by the City Council. In addition, the street projects are required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance as a condition to all development within the area of benefit in order to maintain acceptable levels of service on the major roadways. The absence of contiguity to the proposed street projects is not essential to conferring a benefit to properties. The area of benefit is based on an analysis of impacts on the total circulation system east ofl-805 for various stages or increments of cumulative development within the total area of benefit The circulation system must be viewed as a whole. Each of the proposed street projects will mitigate the adverse traffic iinpacts generated by new development; because every development will create traffic; which will utilize the entire system to access work, commerce, schools, residences and the many other land uses throughout the City. A failure in any part of the system will have a negative impact in other parts of the system and traffic from the development closest to an impacted segment of street will be just as affected as traffic from a more distant development. The analogy of a water system is sometiIrtes used where constrictions or breaks in any part of the system will have significant impacts on the whole system. Area of Benefit The TDIF' program encompasses most properties within the City's jurisdiction located south of Bonita Road and east of 1-805 (see Exhibit 1). The proposed area of benefit contains a total of 20,542 EDUs. Transportation Facilities There are 40 remaining projects within the proposed TDIF program (See Exhibit 2). The cost estimate for constructing these roads is $229.8 million, including soft costs. This update includes most roads in the proposed Circulation Element of the General Plan in addition to capacity enhancement projects. These additional projects include. : 1. ooy Lakes Road from Canyon Drive to EastH Street 2. Hunte Parkway from SR-125 to Eastlake Parkway 3. Traffic Management Center 18-3 Page 4, Item Ii Meeting Date 5/10/05 4. Transportation Demand Management 5. Rock Mountain Road Overpass of SR-125 6. Otay Valley Road Overpass of SR-125 The TDIF program does not include those streets within the area of the Proposed University Site (Villages 9 and 10 of the Otay Ranch). It is anticipated that the University, once approved, would be responsible for constructing suitable transportation facilities. This report also excludes the traffic EDUs contained within the proposed University site. Interim SR-125 DIF Funds In addition to updating the TDIF program to reflect current land uses, projected development, and future program facilities, staff also recommends folding the Interim SR-125 DIP funds into the TDIF' program. Since its inception in 1988, the TDIFprogramhas identified the need for an interim SR~125 facility, and has included such facilities as proj ects numbers 1 and 2. In 1994, a separate Interim Pre-SR -125 Development Impact Fee (SR-125 DIF) was established to ensure that sufficient funds would be available to construct a north-south transportation corridor should the SR-125 freeway not be constructed in time to serve impending development. With fmancing now secured, environmental constraints addressed and construction underway for SR -125, Council tolled the fee in April of 2004. At that time, Council also amended the Ordinance to allow transportation capacity enhancement improvements to be funded from fees already collected for the SR-125 DIF. Staff now recommends that the remaining Interim SR..125 DlF funds be transferred to the TDIF' fund for several capacity enhancing improvements, including overpasses of the SR-125 at Rock Mountain Road and Otay Valley Road. Staff is recommending the addition of project number 66 to the program to improve traffic circulation and to relieve peak-hour congestion in Eastern Chula Vista. The underlying premise is that widening roadways is not the sole option available to relieve congestion. Transportation Demand Management (TOM) is one strategy that promotes efficient use of our transportation resources. The following internet site: http://www.vtpi.or2ltdml has extensive, pertinent information regarding TDM. The proposed project consists of funding allocations for two specific TOM programs to alleviate congestion by encouraging alternative modes of travel during the peak. commuting hours as follows: a) $200,000 to supplement the existing TDM program as approved by the City Council on July 24,2001. Attached is Exhibit #4 with background on the subject program. b) $1.8 Million for "toll reduction" targeted for SR-125. Staff is only recommending the approval of the "toll reduction" concept at this time. Staff will work with California Transportation Ventures (CTV) to develop specific implementation strategy for Council consideration by the end of this year. Staff will be recommending an implementation strategy that is fair and equitable to residents whose homes have paid the interim SR125 fees. Additionally, staff will ensure that the resultant benefit of the "toll reduction" is. maximized by securing substantial "volume discount" from cry for ChuIa Vista residents. 18-4 Page 5, Item J <t Meeting Date 5110/OS In December of 2003, Council approved a loan of $3.3 million from the Interim SR-l25 DIF to the TDIF' to fund a capacity enhancement project widening the westbound East H Street to northbound Interstate 805 on-ramps (STM-356). Tonight's action will effectively forgive this loan, as the two funds will combined into a single fund. It is staff's recommendation that the $3.3 million continue to be dedicated to the East H Street project. In addition, Council approved a loan of $7 million from the Interim SR-125 DIF to the TDIF' to fund interchange improvements at Interstate 805 and Olympic Parkway (STM-328) in 2002. Alternative funding has been secured through a federal grant, therefore Council is being asked to approve the repayment of the loan to the Interim SR-125 fund with interest. It is staff's recommendation that this $7 million be used to fund a portion of the project costs for the aforementioned SR -125 overpasses at Rock Mountain Road and Otay Valley Road. Staff will return to Council with a request for budget amendments reflecting the allocation of the $7 million to these projects. TnIF' Credits There are a number of developers who have constructed TDIF roads in the past and maintain a credit against future TDIF fees in the estimated total amount of $20 million. The credits are summarized in Exhibit 3. EDU Rates Government Code 66000 requires, among other things, that the City establish a reasonable relationship between the projects to be funded and the amount of the fee. The TDIF program uses the Average Daily Trip (ADT), which is converted to the Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDD) as the tool to equate impact fees among the different land uses. As indicated above, ADT generation rates published by SANDAG are primarily used to determine the impacts of the different land use categories on the transportation system. Each land use category is assigned a specific EDU rate. A single family, detached residential unit is equal to 10 ADT or 1 EDU. Table 2 presents a comparison between the current and proposed rates. EDUIDU ~~~~~?:!. ~L__._________.__J!:~_. _~!?_~[Q:Q._u_O.:~ ~D_!HIJ~I._ _.____ _ ___u __~~~~.~t.!~J._(WQ~L--_- __________l_.2~6._j~ll(DQ... - - .- 9.:?_._. ~y~!!_-------- .--- :E:~~~Uj::.~:-~t~~ JliIJY- _t- ~~~-':~!t~~ ~. eneral Commerci~ -(Acre) 21~ilinuiAcr; 16.0 EDU/A~----- .~iona1 Comm~rcia1 (Acre)* N/A 11.0 EDU/Acre Rise Commercial (Acre) 34.0 EDU/Acre 28.0 EDU/Acre 'ce (Acre)* N1A ~ 9.0 EDU/Acre .___. c!l:l_stri_al_l!.~(Acre)__=~---1 8.0__ EDU;Acr~_ _=8.0 EDU/~c~_____ Golf CoursC?_(per B.<2.1!_~ourseLlJO~9 _~/Cours 70..Q_._..U/Co~~.____- edical Center (Acre) I 65.0 U/Acre 65.0 lEDU/Acre *N ew land use classification proposed to be created via this update Table 2. EDU Rates 18-5 Page 6, Item l<:6 Meeting Date 5/10/05 Following is a brief discussion on the EDU rate schedule: · The SANDAG Report ("San Diego Traffic Generators") identifies several categories of residential land use generating average daily trips (ADTs) ranging from 12 to 4 ADTs. The City historically had refmed the SANDAG approach, identifying four categories based on the type of residential structure whether attached, detached, multifamily or senior housing, which also related to the density of the residential development according to the SANDAGReport. Via the 2002 update, this product-type basis was replaced with system based upon the density of the residential development, as a more accurate reflection of housing development within the Area of Benefit. Following this methodology, this TOIF update is also based on the density of the residential development. Staff, therefore, recommends the following: 10 ADTs generated from a residential unit with densities ranging on average from 0 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre; 8 ADTs from a residential unit with densities ranging from greater than 6 to 18 dwelling units per gross acre; 6 ADTs from a residential unit with greater than 18 dwelling units per gross acre; and 4 trips from a unit in a senior housing complex or mixed use residential with commercial. · As part of this TDIF Update, the City hired a traffic consultant, Katz, Okitsu, & Associates (KOA), to conduct an area specific traffic study. The study, identifying commercial trips origin, distribution, and generation rates, was performed for eastern ChuIa. Vista. The consultant's analysis found that approximately 72 percent of the commercial trips are generated from within the City of Chula Vista TDIF area and 28 percent are generated from outside the TDIF area. Thus, the commercial trip rates for the purpose of the TDIF program were adjusted to reflect the study's conclusions. Environmental Review The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, environmental review will be required prior to the approval of final design plans and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities funded through Transportation Development Impact Fees. It should also be mentioned that the TDll1 program includes funding for habitat mitigation that may be triggered by the construction of the facilities. Proposed Ordinance By amending Chapter 3.54 of the Municipal Code, Council will establish a new TDIF rate of $10,050 per EDU, will modify the number of EDUs for various land uses, and will amend the existing TDll1 program to include all the properties and transportation facilities identified in the report. This ordinance will become effective 60 days after the second reading which will occur following Council adoption of the proposed General Plan Update. FISCAL IMPACT: 18-6 Page 7, Item ~ Meeting Date 5110/05 The TDll' fee calculation, including the combination of the Interim SR-125 DIF' fund and the roll' fund, is summarized in the following table (in millions): $255.5 ess Total Program Assets $48.7 $206. This future program cost, when spread over the remaining 20,542 EDUs generates the proposed TDIF'rate of $10,050 per EDU. The available fund balance of the Interim SR-125 fund after the $7 million loan repayment will be approximately $12 million. Staff is proposing to designate $11'.9 million for SR-125 related CIP projects, including SR.125 overpasses at Rock Mountain Road and Otay Valley Road, and Transportation Demand Management. . The positive fiscal impact to the TDIF' fund is approximately $100,000, plus the $3.3 million related to the forgiving of the loan, which has already been expended on project costs. The transfer of the futerim SR-125 Dil' fund to the TDIF' fund, the forgiveness of the $3.3 million loan, and the repayment of the $7 million loan will all be effective June 30, 2005. Exhibits: 1. Area of Benefit 2..Transportation Facilities 3. TDIF credits 4.TDM Attachment: Engineer's Report J :\Engineer\AGENDA \CAS2005\5-1 0-05\200STDJFUpdate.doc 18-7 ..-.. III <( a:l ~ c l5 w ro - z III a:: ...J a:l dQl "'Q <( <Xl C CO Z C l- I- ea ";:: o ILl z ell E ~ ~ Z t- <( 0 ...J ....1Ll jcn~ Z .... ~ ~IL "~IJJi . 1 W :a: W r-.. 0 '-'" <( ~ticn ~ a:: - ~ tS ~ti olLlj ...J .... .... ca ..... fhfa !Ilh <( >- E 0 0 ~ .$ a.. ro "(tj' "C (/) OC r,"'u ai'"'h .-t8 0 ~ I- ~ "i: "(tj' 0 Cl) C "'C _A. A. ceO -II If' H .1 >. 0... S; ~ ~ ('i:l L1JUl:E Z~Z )lllld ,; !~ ....l U. ea t.) ;: (.) ~ CA.O W t) w 3= (J) a:l Cl) a:l <( ~Z'" Zl-H jthii lhf! Gj Cl) c:: c: <lJ ::Jel- zS ) :> z CD ~ c: en c:: ~~z a. ca ro ca co C) .... Cw :11!11 lrll w e ...J en <lJ _...w 0 cj Jj ....J ...J ~ ..0 ea J:: l.I...cC:E OCZ= I t5jlll- CO u. (0 (0 ..... ..... II.IA.CJ .--., ~ U :J :> 0 ...a. ctoa: H ! " . il I I-I I UlO ! J ,! I ,= I I I I 0(....)04 · <If' II" I I r I I I H.... ...ILIU 1 I I I >),1,1 i II HI hJiii I I I I j~ )o4>:r:: I I L..J I u.w... I_.,..J I =Q IIlQ)04 ::c ffi J ~ CJ lG ~E ~la>1 ~l 8~ ! I I I I ....~-, ,_.....' I I ,---"""'I I I I I \! , I I 1------ - I ... I I I ",__I EXH'B'T 1 18-8 .-....._'"...........---~--------~-""-..".,,...,.,..,-~,--...--.,.,"...""'--,....,~.."_... .. EXHIBIT # 2 TRANSPORTA TION FACILITIES 3b Telearaph Canyon Rd 1-805 Interchanoe 200' east of TC Shoppina Ctr $5,228,842 rc East H St 1-805 Interchange Phase II $3,373,829 11 Bonita Ad Otay Lakes Ad Central $1.304,121 17b East Palomar St Paseo Ladera Subdivision boundary $1,231,542 24d Olvmpic Pkwy Heritaoe Rd SR-125 $1,162.375 25a Olympic Pkwy 1-805 Interchange $3.510,807 26 East Palomar St Heritage Rd Subdivision boundarv $3,146,039 28b Otay Lakes Rd Lake Crest Wueste Rd $2,472,334 37 Easttake Pkwy CWA Easement Olympic Pkwy $5,121,613 42 Birch Rd La Media Ad SA-125 $8,937,276 43 Birch Rd SR-125 Eastlake PkWY' . $3,469,782 45 Eastlake Pkwy Olympic Pkwy Birch Rd $4,839,645 46 Eastlake Pkwy Birch Rd Hunte/Rock Mountain Rd $8.728,976 47a San Mlouel Ranch Rd Proctor Valley Rd (N) SR-125 $5,378,378 48 Hunte Pkwy Olympic Pkwy Eastlake Pkwy $16,359,525 51a La Media Rd Olympic Pkwy Santa Venetia $2.858,732 51b La Media Rd Santa Venetia Birch Rd $2,335,669 .52 La Media Rd Birch Rd Rock Mountain Rd $14,974,125 53 La Media Rd Rock Mountain Rd Otay Vallev Rd $8,875,075 55a Otay Lakes Rd East H St Telegraph Canyon Rd $4,921,095 55b Otay Lakes Rd Canyon East H St $1,578,208 56a Main St Nirvana Ave 1600' West of HeritaaelRock Mtn Rd $2,451,931 56c Otav Valley Rd La Media Rd SR-125 $3,400,442 56d Main St 1-805 underpass $1,777.750 56e Main St --"-- 1600' West of HeritagelRo!::k Mtn Rd HeritagelRock Mtn Rd $3,247,813 57 Heritage Rd -+~lvmpic Pkwy Mai~ St $20,649,250 58a Heritaae Rd Main St City boundary $6,564,000 58b Heritage Rd Otay River Bridge $6,222,125 59b Proctor Valley Rd RtlR Neigh 9 ~est Entrance RHR Neiah 9 East Entrance $1,234.897 5ge Proctor Valley Ad RHR Neigh 9 East Entrance City boundary $4.176.489 60a Rock Mountain Rd MainlHeritage Rd La Media $28,238.875 60b Rock Mountain Rd La Media Rd SR-l25 $9,333,188 61 Willow St Bonita Rd Sweetwater Rd $2,026,519 62 East H St Buena Vista Otay Lakes Rd .,_.. $2,001,758 ------- 63 Traffic si~nalization System-wide ' $4,923,000 64 Hun..!~ Pkwy _ .~_. ~!3.:~25 ____ . -~---'E;stlake Pk~ ______.-=-~~ $3.779.070 ~_?_--. J:!!~~~c:. Ma'!:~_Qem~.!::!_~~~.!~!....-____.._l?1~~'=E!'.:-~i~~___._-______-___1-___.______________.____________J______~.~!~~9,4~~ 66 Transportation Demand Mgmnt System-wide $2,000,000 67 Rock Mountain Rd SR-125 $6,480,000 68 Otay Valley Rd SR-125 $8,424,000 18-9 EXHIBIT #3 REMAINING TDIF CASH CREDITS Estimated Sunbow Brookfield Shea Otay Eastlake McMillin Otay Ranch San Miguel Ranch $ $ $ $ $ $ 148,053.97 1,915,674.86 12,126,753.57 3,392,203.04 2,137,977.80 947,006.06 ~,UmI~~~!t~~~~;~~~::~~_~:~~:[:~~l~i~~?-ff:~~;C:;~~.!~~~~. 18-10 Transportation Demand Mana2:ement EXHIBIT # 4 The Eastern Chula Vista Traffic Enhancement Program was initially presented to Council on May 31, 2001 at the joint City CouncillGMOC/Planning Commission Workshop. The implementation plan was then presented to' Council on July 24, 2001. Development of the TDM program was funded through $98,000 in developer contributions and included a 400 household random sample survey conducted of eastern Chula Vista residents that had at least 1 peak: hour commuter. The objective of the investigation was to identify potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques that would be appropriate for eastern Chula Vista and to approximate the number of users. That survey was carried out in February 2002. Based upon the findings of the survey and with additional allied data, 3 TDM programs were recommended, that were identified as having the greatest chance for success. These include: 1. Financial Incentives, Marketing and Promotions, and Establishing an Implementing Organization 2. Express Bus from eastern Chula Vista to Downtown San Diego. 3. Express shuttle from eastern Chula Vista to the trolley. In July of 2002 the City applied for three separate grants from the County of San Diego, Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The request was for matching funds to implement these three TDM programs, over a two year period. All three grants were approved by the APCD on March 12, 2003. The TDM two year program is budgeted for $754,485 comprised of a grant of $414,325 and a $340,160 match, for a 55% and 45%.percent split. The 45% match to be paid for by the eastern Chula Vista development community. The first years match of $157,183 was then gathered from equal contributions from the Otay Ranch Co., Eastlake Co., Corky McMillin Co., Brookfield Shea Otay, and Tri-Mark Pacific and placed in a City managed deposit account. On April 20 of 2004 the City Council formally accepted the grants, authorized the City Manager to sign an agreement with SANDAG to assist the City in implementing the program . and allocated $414,325 to provide bridge funding for later reimbursement under the APCD want. BUDGET SUMMARY TWO YEAR APeD TDM GRANT Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 and 2 -----. --;- _.- -.-- Local Local % from Amount from Proi ect Total Match Yr2 Match Total APCD Local Match APCD Financial Incentive $200,600 $80,240 $170,230 $68,092 $370,830 60% $148,332 $222,498 Express Bus $134,928 $134,927 To Downtown $103,285 $51,643 $166,570 $83,285 $269,855 50% Express Shuttle $56,900 To Trollev $50,600 $25,300 $63,200 $31,600 $113,800 50% $56,900 TOTAL $354,486 $157,183 $400,002 $182,977 $754,485 $340,160 $414,325 18-11 <( ~ Z LU ~ I o <( ~ ~ <( W wen LLW ....a:: ():J <(!:: o..c :!z ....W zo.. W>< N:!W ~o..c ::>OZ 0...1<( LUwen I>W ~W:J cz Lt)W N> -W a:: a:: enLt) :!Q a::~ W> ~LL -0 Q) >- m "Q) -0 .!a c: o :p U ::::J ..... in c: o U 1.0 N ..- 0::: (f) ~ l/l Q) 'C o - 'C ..... Q) ~ c: ..... Q) - l/l m LU Q) .c - -0-0 Q) Q) .c.c U U .!9 m Q):::: -0 m ~ :!: 55:g ::::J g>g>Cl ==c: "Q)"Q)= ~~~ __-0 c:c:-Q) Q) Q) c: t5 coco~m~ > > m U ':; ':; .2: ~ m c-c-::::J0l/l Q)Q)c-.....l/l >->-Q)~O ==>-mo, E EET) J!!J!!mCD~ Q)Q)"lEin c;,c;,EE::::J C:C:::::J -0 'w'w E 8.5 L- L... "- ..... L- Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) a. a. a. a. a. 00000 .5 l/l Q) ~ '0 J!! c: o :p m t:: o a. l/l c: m ..... - Cl .5 -0 'S: o ..... a. ..... o LL. EA- Qj Q) LL. - o c: o a 'C U l/l Q) o Qj Q) LL. Q) :5 - o C ::::J o E <{ N!:!:: mo o~ z..- ::>0::: LL.(f) ..-. ..... Q) ~ Q) ~ NE (j)..... 1.00 o;t z- ::>LL. LL.Ci 1.0 N ..- 0::: (f) z o I- <( :2 c::: o u.. Z w o z ::s <( a:l o Z :J u.. LO o -- -.;t o >- u.. (j) r- IX) IX) o r- 1.0 IX) C") ..- (j) (j)V v..- C") (j) EA- (j) r- IX) IX) o r- 1.0 ..- IX) C") ..- 0 (j) r- V 1.0 r- (j) EA- ~N IX) 1.0 v_ C")_ ..- (j) -C") t::- LL. o c: o ~ t:: l/l 0 Q) a. U 15 ~ '2: Q) m -0 Q)l/l-o,::a. Q) (f)Q)-,X t) -ol/lO_LU ~-o c:C:l/l::::J (5~l/lm~~9lrl o.....~~Jjc:.....B l/l~.2_=.....~.l!:! ..... Q) a. Q) .- l/l 0.. Q) l/l-o a..c e>ffio.. LL.Q)@::::J-o.....- LL. CD a. (f) 0 LL. ~ 0 - x OELU v o -- ..- o -- r- o <Ii U c: m co llJ Cl c: c: c: Cl Q) llJ (j) r- ..- (j) (0 EA- (j) r- 1.0 N -0 Q) c: Q) g .Q .!:::! Q) m t::ro ~ :5 ~o;;E 0..... a.iil-o ~ _C: .g>_ ~ ~ .2 -..-Q) -O......Q) c:0~LL. Q).$o..... ~.~~ [ -g e .Q E mQ.'5_ LL. g> (5 @ o '0 ~ E 1.0 c: 0::: a. ~~~~ 5::::Jo E :P '0 1.0 'C m c: N Q)t::::::J"- co02 Q) 5}o ::::J .cc:~o - m.- 0::: g>.P 0 Q) =C:~ro E~-_U5 (j)Q)I.OE 1.0 .l!:! 0 ._ (j) 0..... NI.ON2 ~~ciE c:0:::..-Q) ~ (f) >-:5 .- '0 m_ "EQ)~0 0.....c:Q) -o:Eog Q)-O m -a.c:uico OQ)N.o -0 ~..- -0 m Q) Q) c: '0 Q) '5 .2 c:.coCl ::::J - 0:::.5 0l!jQ)C: . o 'C - .- -0 >.o.!9mc: :<.::.c(f)E::::J 0- Q)- ::::J0.....LL. Q)m-Q)_ :5E~:5o - .-.. 16 '4- C gU"Q)og o ..... CD m N..-l/l(j;t:: oc:Ec:8. =.Q ~ ~ l/l "-<:5 0')....... C ~Q)e~~ c: (f) a. - I- 1.0 IX) v ai r- IX) 1.0 ..- EA- 1.0 o -- o C") -- (0 o Q) U c: m co llJ Cl .5 -0 c: LU -0 :m -0 ::::J m c: ::> Qj (5 z <( I- Z w :2: I o <( I- ~ W wen u.w ....0:: (,,):J <(!:: c..c :Ez ....W zc.. 'r" W ><W N:E Wc..C ...JoZ 5.....<( wwen I>W OW:J Cf.)cz It)W N> T""W 0::0:: en It) :EQ -~ 0::0 W> !zu. -0 >-~ = :J .~ -0 ~ Q) C.L: - 0 Cf.) -g!:!:: -go :J Q) u.. Cl ...... ro o C Q) .- "Q'~ 1-0 a.. 0 01- ~~ o Q)~ I- ._ :J I- ...... a. ~e a. a. C o ~L() .- 0 I- __ 0.0 OC") I- __ a. CO a. ..... <( 0 Iii en ...... ro o I- w a::: 10:::> 01- -- - ~o oz >-W u..a.. >< w en w 0:: ::> !:: c z w a. >< w a.. () I.t) o - "'=" o > 11. oo~ 000 000 NN N -- -- 'r" I"-- 00 -- -- I"--'r" o 'r" cf!.cf!.'Cf!. ooco 00 N c::ic::i""": 00 'r" 'r" 000 000 000 as..oN COCO~ 10 N NI"--OO> C")tOIDI"-- O>~I"--'r" 1"--- N as 0> 10 co ~ z o i= a.. a::: o Cf.) w o 10 o to ..!..Cf.) ZW a::: .L:~~:::> a.. Q) I- >-.-;';:: - ~ > VJ 0 =Q)IZ ~a:::WW u.. ~ C> a.. 10 .- C >< N .L: .- W 'r"OC ,CQ)a.. rvro-o_ u... I- .- 0 Cf.)u..> ELO>...J .- N EO. <( I-'r" I- 2 a::: roO ECf.)a:::1- I- o W -, o a::: a.. CO to CO ~~LO C") C") C") :2::2::2: 1-1-1- Cf.)Cf.)Cf.) <( f- Z w :2: I o ~ !< en W Wen ll..W 1-0:: O:J <(I- c..c ~z I-W zc.. . >< C')" W W w:!:c -lc..z ::)0<( 0-1 WWen I>W OW_ 0) C Z -IW <(> ZW C)O:: en I() o O~ ll.O ll.>- <(ll. 0:: I- ..... c Cll E 0. o lii > Cll "0 3= Cll c >- .a "0 Cll I/) :J ro U Cll E :J o > u :E ro ..... ...... "0 Cll I/) ro Cll ..... u .5 E e - 01 C E :J I/) Cll ..... I/) "0 Cll Cll c ro c Ol '00 u :E ro ..... ...... I/) ~ U ..... o LL Qj Cll LL - o C o :;::: 0. .;:: u I/) Cll o 0. .;:: ...... ..... Cll 0. 0> LO Lri N tI7 Qj Cll LL 0) ..c ...... - o ...... C :J o E <( -l <( LOZ NQO NO)Z 00::) Z-LL ::)LL LLLL <( c:: f- z o J- <( ~ 0:: o LL Z W U z ::s <( CO o Z ::) LL LO o -- '<;f" o ~ LL o C') r--. co 0> co N mNN 0......0 LON'<t LO.C').~ ...... ...... <X) --0 ...... NO'<t OOON 00. a. N. co'<tr--. co LO r--. N ...... '<t o -- ...... o -- r--. o Cll u c ro ro III Ol c 'c .5 Ol Cll III I/) Cll ..... :J :!: "0 "0 C 2 I/) Cll U Cll 0. ~ I/) >< - c...... W "0 Cll :J ...... o 0.0 ~ rn >< ......~ Cll w~e LLCll "0 ..... rn a... _...... Cll ..~ ffia... roccl/)...........- c~ro~Of-O .Q> (9 w .3 0)-......:0 u ~ rn c ~ 0) ~ Cll -"00)0. ~Cll""">< f-LL.E:W C') ...... r--. N <X) 0> N tI7 LO o -- o C') -- co o Cll. u c ro ro III 01 .5 "0 c W "0 2 :0 :J ro c :::> <( I- Z w :2: I U <( l- I- <( (I) W W(/) U-w 1-0:: O::l <(I- 0.- :EO _Z I-LU zo. ..-W>< tyj:EW Wo.O SOZ O...J<( WW(/) I>W UW::l enOZ ...JW <(> ZW c)o:: -I.&') (/)0 0- _''It U-O U->- ~U- I- "0 >...9:! =:J .m "0 :!:::Q) c.c -u en "OLL Q)- -gO :J- LL~ - C) U .- Q)en "Cu a:!E ro '>- L.. 01- ~>. o .c l/) C o Q)1ij L..._ :J L.. -0. :J 0 LL L.. 0. 0. <( C o 1ijll) .-0 L.. -. 0.0 0(") L.. -. 0. CO 0. '>- <(0 -l/) -Sro o I- w 0:: ll)::l 01- ~o Oz >-w LLa. >< w en w 0:: ::J t: c z w c.. X w c.. (.) It) o - 'I:t o >- LL "<tONN 0000 0000 N~~~ ..- ..- ..- 000 -. -. -. 1"--1"--1"-- 000 N"<t(")(") 0000 0000 NNNN ""'- ......... ......... ......... -r- -r- ~ ~ 0000 -- --- --- -... I"-- ..- I"-- I"-- 0000 (")(") 00 00 NN -. -. ..- ..- 00 -. -. I"-- I"-- 00 (")"<t"<t(")"<t"<tll)ll)0> 000000000> 000000000> NNNNNNNN..- -.... ......... -- ......... ........ -.... or- 'T""'" .,..... "" .,..... .,..... 000000 -.... """- -... ......... ......... ......... I"-- I"-- I"-- I"-- I"-- I"-- 000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "<to>00000000000000000 co..-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tyj~ooooooo~ooooooooo ..-NOOOOOOOI"--O>OOOOOOOO .,......,......,......,......,......,......,..... .,......,......,......,......,......,.....-.:-.,..... 000(")000000000000000 0001"--000000000000000 000"<t000000000000000 ~oo~oooooooooo~o~o~ 1"--1l)00(")O>COCOO>O(")0..-1l)"<t1"--"-0000 ..-N..-..-..-..-..- "<tNNN..-..-..-..-..- 10(")10(") COO>CO(") (")_ N.. N 00 NOO o ..- 1.0 OOOOooCONOO"<t(")N(,,)O>..-I"--N o I"--I"--COO>I"--O..-..-OOOOI"--..-OO 000 NN(")"<tNll)O>O>(,,)O>"<tNOOOCO"<t oj r-: N- 0 ~ r-: ~ N r-: CO- ~ oj "<t- ri "<t"<t..- "<tN"<tCO..-N..-O>..- 00 .,......,......,......,......,..... 0 ..- EI7 z o i= a. c:: t) en UJ o l/) ~ L.. C ...; Q) ::i 0 >. Ie OJ g ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -g ro ul/)W cccro ~ ro ~ roco Q)Q)ONu- - Q) c ~Qo =~~o6~en g B :J -'-Q) ~Q)Q)-.Q)l/).c 06 E ~g~ ~C)~I:2:~~~l/) l/) E l/)~a. Q)~Q)-'o6:2:-Sc~~..9:!Een o Q)l/)~oo~L..eooL.. cQ)o.oo.Uw SU ~:J~L..~O- roo6S=ro~roC)o:: cu-roo~~ ~CO~EQ)a<(Zrou~-~ Q)!Eu~-_ en~~eo>0606o6-CCl)~ ~~~>.roCl)o606Q)CQ)ro<( "00'>-_ >l-c-S>.ro..<(>._QEa..c"O"OEE~~O o 0 I E - Q) - c 0:: .- c ~ I- Z e"O~1 w O.co.>w~~ro~roro UJ o.cQ)c~cQQ)~Ee~cc:!:::c~_UJa. ~~eQ~orol/)lmo.OQQocQoo~R>< O-_ro~a.:JQ)L..E~-- -Q)-..-w ~~ro~~~~~~D.-~~~~~"Oroo ~ccro"Oroc.c~>.crororo>ro~CND. .c 0 C) 00 0 00 .2>.2 0. u .Q 00 00 00 c. 00 ...... .2> Q) (3 ::i~WE:2:ECI)U::l~oEEE~C~en~~ rorou- -u~-C)Q)-~~l/) rou.c<( :!:::~!E~~~!E~~OJ~~CCL..~~~~I- ~~~999~99E-cQ)en999~90.L..:J0 ~UI-CI)CI)CI)I-CI)CI)UJ_ enen_CI)::lI-D.1- l- t) w . o 0:: D. "<to(")..-IO"<tNOOO>O..-"<tll)COI"--OO(")"<tN ooo>coooo>ooo..-..-..-..-..-..-..-NNI"-- "-NN(")(")N(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")(")N 0LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ~I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I- <( I- Z UJ ~ I o <( ~ - LL o W C) <(UJ Zw :((0:: O:::J O!::: 00 .-Z -W LLo.. -X -.rOW UJWO SC)Z O~<( UJ-UJ 5C2~ Cl)OZ ZW 0> >-W zO:: <(It) Oe ::I:'l:t 0..0 <(>- o::LL C) W ...J W .- L(j o 00 ...!.. - o tl ~ Qj c c ra .r::. u Q) :5 - o c o :e o 0. ra .... .E "0 C ra .... Q) c Q) o en en Q) C "w :J CD Q) -" ra 1ii ra UJ Q) :5 "0 C ra ra Qj "0 ra -l o Q) en ra 0- c Q) ~ Q) ..c Qj c c ra .r::. u c o >- c ra o .r::. 0. ra 0, Q) Qj I- - o c o n .s en C o U .... o LL. Q) l3 ra Qj 0. 0) ..... 10 '- LL. ..... ..... CO cO 10 o Lri" .....00 ('1")0) 1000 cri ('I") ..... ~('I") .....00 COo) N"r-: ~..... -.r e ..... o r::: o <Ii u c ra n; CD Cl C "c c "61 Q) CD 0- o o Cl c '6 c :J - Q) 0::: ('I") o "0 .8:3 Q) - .... U c:J ~ Q):!: "6 ~-g o raQ) en 0- ~ Q) Q)UJ Q)"O u_ LL.Q)"""2:u Q) c :3 Q) "~ g> ro :s CJ) e cUJ__O- "m - '6 ..c 0- ....:3cQ)- O....Q)OO o2~ I-..5UJ 00 0) ('I") cO ..... ..... Lri" ~ 10 o 25 ('I") -- CO o <Ii u c ra n; CD Cl c '6 c UJ "0 2 '6 :J ra c :J "0 >-~ =:J "!l;! "0 :!:::Q) c.r::. -u CJ) "0 Q) "0 C :J LL. u!:!: Q)O oe' ..c 0- o ?!- en c o ~~ :J .... - 0. :J 0 LL..... 0. 0. <( c o ~~ .... -- 0.0 0('1") 0..<0 0._ <(0 n;~ (5 I- UJ 0::: IO:J ot:: ~O oz >-UJ LL.O- X UJ (/J w 0:: :J I- Ci Z W n. >< w n. U It) o ~ o >- LL ('1")..... 0)0) 0)0) ..... ..... -- ..... o r::: o ~?fl. OCO 010 dL(j 0..... ..... 00 COO NO 00 criLri" .......... 0) M 1000 .....co ('I") CO '<iM ..... z o i= 0- 0: o CI) UJ o en ::: 0. .E Qj c ffi "61 .r::.Cl O&. 5t: ~~ raQj t)1- .r::.3 g..Q ....LL. g>E (Db I-CI) -.rr::: 0)0) l- t) UJ """J o 0::: 0- 00..... .....('1") ~~ 00 ('I") 00 0) r-: ..... ~ CI) UJ 0::: :J I- Ci Z UJ 0- X UJ 0- t) -l ~ o I- <( I- Z w :2 :r: U ~ ~ rn rnw wO:: w:J u.1- 1-0 oz <w a. a. :!EX lO-W wl-o ...JZz iSw< w:!Ern :r:a.w uo.... (/)...J-' wZ >w w> OW 0::0:: Wit) ~E! W~ rn)- u. ~ .0 -0 C ~ U; [L ~(") o 5 t2 CIl u.-o ~ [L5 w(")o~ ~;1)c!!:: .::; -0 .(ij 0 l5 ~ ~ .~ u~~~ t:.!:!: Q) ..... u.ow~ -mUCIl '2=:Oow CIlCll~U =:W!!::W CIl-oO~ WCIlcu. ~~.(ij0 '> ::I as c::: ~ 00 lD .(ij C)~mas C!!:: =:lD OOCll'- >-,-W ~ ~ ~ C CIl U CIl g.w .r:;WC~ a.-o as CIl as CIl U CIl t>> a.'o cJ ~ E Ol::!::: CIl ::I 0 as I-OoOoW ro C o .0, !!! -0 C CIl ~ ~ .~ g. E ~ CIl as ai E E~. a. 0- ui..Q ~1ii .!!1 ~ en .s: Jl ~~ .!!1 ~'O a.o g,?"..,. 0- 0 Cii ffi- a~ .!!!=:-o e:-.- a> CIl C .i'l~ :5w5 :::JU') .....c.Q ,o_i::L..,; OOG) ~ gJ~:5 .E 5l .g c3 .s CCIl ~'o,~ .~ ~ <;::: ~ =: ..00 5Oo~ ~ Q. :o~~ ~ .9 ai -;; .2 :c e:-. co'~ ~ :t: C\1 ._ Q) >- =::z 13=:- '-CIl ::ICIlO ~o "boom ::> CIl en ~ C 5l C C C 0 ~lll 82ro 5~ c;lO -= '0 C)..... g .....co ou;o-!., 0..... .G>C14- C '0 .s: -0 .Q 0 .Qc~o)oU; :g,g..o'~E ~ as 0 =: C Ul '- a.::Ioascg> Xl:;I;:-O~ CIlUl-oa.OCll CIl l5 CIl CIl CIl Ul ;; 0 a.=~~ ..... ..... E '- '- c o 0 ::I 0 0 ::I U. U. a.u. u. ~ CIl :5 Ii.: o ~ CIl W ~ .::; as c'5 .. c!!:: 00 >-.... C CIl c3~ Gj.r:;w tf ~-g -Ola. o ~ E C CIl ::I .Q I- 00 :Q. ti en CIl o Ii.: ..0 !!::c O.(ij C as .- lD ~ Q) lD =: '- CIl ~W CIl C WO >- ~c CIl as !!!U U'o, ::!::: 01 ro 0 WOo (")'-u. t2~0 -0 ~.s: C Ul ::IUas u.WlD '-u. t2~0 -o~.s: C Ul ::IUas u.OolD (")-o!!:: ;1) ~ '2 -oECIl C ::I =: ::I 00 CIl U. W .... >-u. ;1)30 as '- -o'-CIl cC)=: ::IUCIl u.l-W Gj .S! CIl :5 15 C ::I o E <( 00000 (") (") .0 (") (") (") (") r-..: ~(")_ T'""T"""C>>T"""T""" (J) ER- OOONN 0001'-1'- -.:- -.:- (") .0 .0 riri ER- 00000 ER- OOCO .0 .0 (") eDeDN .... ...... CD NN...... ::I ::I -0 -0 ~~ .0 .0 eDeD .... ...... NN ER- u=O CIl CIl Ul Ul as as ..0 ..0 -g-g -5-5 .i'lro CIl;:: -0 as 'c .c :!::'~ :J:::I 55=2~~ ClC)::J.a.a @ @ .~~ ~ CIl CIl=~~ =:=:~ ~~"O CC-Q) CIl CIl C ti roro~asCll .~.~.~ :z M 0"0"5-0Ul CIlCllCllo,Ul ~~ >-ro ~ ~ ~ E .~ ro ..........cuQ).c ~.$!::!:EU) g'g'3 E~ '(ij'(ij E 8.s: ..... ..... '- ..... '- Q) CIl CIl CIl Q) a. a. a. a. a. <( I- Z w :E J: o ~ I- <( UJ UJW W~ W:J lJ..t:: ....0 OZ <(W a.. a.. :2:~ .0 w~O 5wz 0:2:<( Wa..UJ J:OW O...J:J enwz >W w> OW ~~ Wit) ~g w;:; UJ>- lJ.. M....u.. :2.~ 0 -c IA .5 e: III ~O<1l u..enO) ~CiilJ.. LO~O LO Ol -g en .ljj ~ 0 <1l u..a.0) M-c!:!: ~ ~O -cEiii e:~== ~a.Ol u.. en ...- >. u.. ~30 <1l .... -c....Ol e:<9~ ~OOl u..l-en z o ~ :E 0:: o u.. ~ w (.) z <( ...J <C al o Z ::J u.. 10 Q ~ Q >- u.. en co 1.0 .0 e "<tN co 0> ~o_ ...... ...... N...- 0...- iDco r-- co . co ...... cri M- coo ~N EA- M 0...... 0> M...- 0> "<to .,; <<5<<5 M coco 0> N N- ;:-co r-- 0 r-- co "<t-"; MN ~...... EA- r-- N 0> .,; N "<t "<tco co N co r-- cor-- 0>' MN" r-: 1.0 ...... M ...... EA- M "<t N a;j co co MO 00> "<t 1.0 co 0 -r--LO -.:-0 <<5"; ~a;j r--N r-- EA- "<t e o ;:::: o ~ e: <1l ro 0) 0> e: 'c e: '0, Ol 0) III l!! .a :a e: III Ol :g~ -c e:W Q) ~~ o -c x .~ :mOl ..we oe: 1Il....a. O~e:l!!~c.. ~w~~ou Q)U)~"'O u..l!!:gai !:!::2~~ OEI-w "<t "<t o .,; r-- r-- EA- r-- 1.0 o a;j N ...... M EA- 0> 1.0 M M 1.0 M EA- r-- "<t r-- o 0> co EA- 1.0 o o M <0 o ~ e: <1l ro 0) 0> e: :a e: W -c 2 :a ~ <1l e: ::J e: o ~~ Cia OM .... -- a. co 0._ <(0 -rIl <1l <1l 15 I- W 0:: I.O::J 01- -- - "<to oz >-W u..a. X W en w 0:: ::> l- e z w 0- X W 0- o 10 o ~ o >- u.. -c >.~ =~ .!!! -c ;!:Ol e:..c: -u en -c Ol -c e: ~ u..u.. ~O .~~ 0...0 o "#. III e: o ~~ ~ .... - a. ~ 0 u...... a. a. <( z o i= c.. 0::: o en w o CD ;! I- o W ...." o c::: a. ~ "<t 10 "<t -ON eN ~~ lJ..en o o o ~ o ;:::: o ~ o o o .0 N o o o o o "<t N" 0> o o a;j r-- 0> o o a;j r-- <00 1.0 1.0 "<t ...... cn- y-- N ...- EA- en W 0:: ::J I- o Z w c.. X W c.. U ...J ~ o I- ~ Ol en .><: e: l- e: >. o "0, L... g>Ol u..c..~ ooIA .5 1.0 -2 ~ ~ 2 al..c:1- ;~~ ~~O CD I .- enOlO> e -c g> o ~a. e a. co <1l::J0> (.) o c.. . ~ 10 IOCO"<t -oN"'- eNN ~~~ lJ..enen ...-0> 00> 00> ~...- o ;:::: o cf!.?ft. 00 00 00 00 ...... ...... 00 o"<t o"<t 0<<5 o 1.0 o r-- N~ co o co .,; N ...... EA- en w 0:: ::J I- o Z W a. X W a. U ...J ~ o I- e: Cii.Q e:o o ~ O~ .... rIl Ol e: ~8 !:!::en~ 0-2IA .: 2 ~ Ul I- e: <1l e ~ 0)0'= ... ~..::.:::: ~liju CD 0_ U)~1i5 .><:00> CD~o> ! (.) .... ro U) .., 10 101.00> -ON...... eNN ~~~ u..enen 00> 00> 00> ~~ 00 -- -- r--r-- 00 ?ft.#. "<t co MN MO ......"<t OCO 00> r-- 0 M 1.0- "<t co 0> r-- N" ...... co 0 r--o> "<tco ri..cri "<tLO ...... co <0 ...... M o N EA- en w 0:: ::J I- o Z W a. X w a. U ...J ~ o I- <( ~ z W ~ I o <( ~ ~ <( W W 11. I- o <( 0.. ~ -en I-W zo:: W:J ~I- 0..0 OZ ...JW Wo.. >>< CO W W wO 0 ....JW Z ~C)<( wOen Io::W ~ to:J Zz <(~ o::w 1-0:: en It) Wo 0- W"'l:t 0..0 :::c~ ou. z <( 0:: ~ I- o I'- CO ID -0 e ::l LLCO .co ........ ID !:!::-o o e <1> ::l O)LL -0 ......:: ';:: LL CO- O ~ <1> E.g> IJ) ,- <1> .... -0 CO <1> e 0.. ro LOE c(j l3 .....-0 <1> =0.. >...- 0::::...- 0= ........> LLo:::: 00 <1>........ O)LL -0 - ';:: 0 CO <1> cO) ro32 ,- .... .PCO IJ) e <1> ro -0 ,_ <1> .... o..iii CO <1> -0 "" <1> 1D0.. . ...- ...- ...- 0) <1> 0) 0) :m:m 55 ..c ..c u u e e ro ro 0::::0:::: >, >- ro ro 00 CO "" ID ...- IJ) 0) 0) ro =...- 5"'- ..c 0) uO) e~ ~> >-..c ro u - e o ro cO:::: 0)>- 0) ro ~o ~,s -..... c c 0) <1> E E 0) <1> > > o 0 .... .... a. a. E E <1> <1> C> C> -0 -0 'C "C .0 .0 e e ro ro oc "C - ..... IJ) IJ) 0) <1> -0 -0 0) <1>, a. a. ..... ..... o 0 c e o 0 ~~ () () ::l ::l .... .... - ..... IJ) IJ) c e o 0 u u <1> <1> ..c ..c -..... <1> 0) u u c e ro ro c c ij:: tt= o 0 ~1- LL Bu..: ~B -0<1> ';:: C> CO-o c "L: roCO ';:: c ..... ro IJ) ._ ~.P <1> l3 0..-0 1Drf. ""...- ...- ...- 0) <1> 0) C> :m:m <1> ,_ ,_ <1>>> ::0::::0:::: 000 e o +:i a. ';:: u IJ) <1> o ...-!:!:: CO"'-O CO 0)<1> ID 0) 0) -o:m32 c .- .... ::l>co LLO::::-o 0<1> 0.. IDLL ""- 1'-...-0 m<1>~ -0 g> 32 e -.... ::l=CO LL>-o 0:::: <1> 00.. iJj .E 0) ..c - ..... o - e ::l o E <( 00 00 r--:<ri N...- CO CO fflofflo 00 00 Mc::i CO CO I'- ID fflofflo cD ..c u ro ..... <1> -0 - ,- - e '- ::l C O)::l e C> = c "Q)= ::: 0) -0 ::: .....-0 e..... <1> e - <1> ro- > ro .- > ::l .- c-::l <1> c- >,<1> = >, E= ro E ..... ro <1>"T "'6>E e ::l '00 E L.. .... <1> <1> a. a. LL o COI COo IDZ 0<( Zo:::: :J>- LL<( ~ o LL o I'-I COo IDZ 0<( Zo:::: :J>- LL<( ~ o Z o i= <( ~ 0:::: o LL Z W o Z <( ....J <( CO o Z :J LL ID o -- '<t o >- LL (j) (j) CO ID (j) e<) fflo CO CO N.. ...- o I'- ID ID ...-N I e<). N.. coco '<t'<t ...- fflo '<t o -- ...- o -- I'- o di u e ro ro CO 0) c 'c .5 C> <1> CO L.. -0 0) <1> ..c '0 0 <1> -0 I =<1>1J) o e <1> O(ij.... IJ)w2 :Biii'5 LL~ai ~2~ oEw '<t ID CO CO ...- CO fflo CO I'- e<) (j) (j) co. ...- fflo IJ) <1> IJ) C <1> a. x W ID ,0 -- o e<) -- CO o di u c ro ro CO C> ,5 -0 c W -0 2 '5 ::l ro c :J <( I- Z W 2 I () ~ LL B LL e:. enW Wo Wz LL<( ~..J 0<( <(al ll.O :1:z ~:J ZLL ~WOLL ....1:1: :::>ll.~ OOZ W-JW BW:E m>w W~ C<( en~ Wen E~ :::!~ 00 <()- LLLL o :J m ::::> ll. .. cj ~ N ~ "g ::g u. .. ~ 'Sa; g:ELO ex: " c: E .,g lb m g- i r;; a; en ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ::J '" ol:: a. .tij ~ ::;: u o E ::E Q) e i I' C)tnlO g .E Cl .E 2: E ::J '" '" (fj ~ rn ~ UJ ~ .~ ~ tU v ~~rn u ex: ~ ~ M 'Q-ge; 0.. u. ....I ~ o I- .. " "t:: It) l!! .... .a'" ::; ~N ~ .... -E ~ '" '" u'" o 0> U c: E ~ c; c: '" Cl o LO (0 .0 LO ..- (0 (0 '<tN NO ' aio ..- 0 o co ri ..- N ~ o Ol ..- a5 LO '<t .0 ~ N Ol r- ,,; co ..- ~ ~ N (0 r- ..- (OLO' -.ir-: ..-N C!:!...- Or::::- (0 Ol "Ii:t_q I co (0 ..- ~ (0 '<t ..- a5 ..- N NO om (00' Ncri ..- ~ m- o 0_ e 0<0 LO Ol (Om' -.iN ..- ~ ~ i::' M r-: N U; coO' LO M '<t(O' ocri N~ co '<t N -.i M o ~ ~ ~ ..- Ol (0 M N'<t' ocri LO ..- N..~ ..- r- o (0 a5 N r- o (fl r-N '<tr- co 0 ' -c-- 0) 0..- ~M LO o '<t N- r- co '<t- ~ N Ol LO ..- MOl' -c-~ ci co (0 ~..- Ol r- Ol cri N N (0 M Ol ..- CON' Ilio N ..- (0..- N ~ '<t M M_ ..- co ..- o ~ it) '<t (0 ri o 0_ ..- Ol'<t co 0 LO..-' ci ___- Ol'<t M'<t ri Ol<O LO N '<tr-' a5N co M M ~ ~ .... e o ;::: o ai u c '" OJ <0 C) c: 02 c 00, CD <0 .. C) c: 02 .. i;; ~w cc: CD CD ~ai.5 ::J ll: .. a; u.. ~ a-;o.s ll: CDC: ::J CD c: E g! CD CD e ll: ::J a;E :; "0; Oll: .. CD Ou c: CD C) <I: .<:: 5 o LO ''<t o N co cri aJLO';,:;);:-f'- ~COT"""'LOl.O t"-- T""'" NOLO riaici~ri '<tLOOlLON Nr-M'<tLO ---~-.::t~ ..- ~ it) Ol , LO ' '<t- Ol co ~ ~ Ol , r- ' r-: ~ co r- I ~ I ..- en Ol a5 ~ co;:--C") Ol ..- 0 1CX)(O"I;f" Ili-.iN r-(Oco ~ (0 '<t ci r::::-N '<t(O '..-N .oa5 ~co N ~m-co r-COOl 'l.OtOO rir-:-.i (0 CON ~-~ N Ol '(0 a5 ~ r::::-O co Ol '00 r-:cri LO '<t ~q o LO ''<t o N co cri r::- M~O o C>> LO Ol O)'(oLO<XJ Lei ~cO~ LO -c-("'),...... --- -~q, ..- ..- ~ SMCi)&) NOl'<tOl CO'<tOOl' a50airi or-O>('l")f"-- -~-- .. l!! ~ ~~ c.> .a w '~~:ge- (/)~Q)W_ .scnoa~e-go ~~!!~~'e~ ~:Oc.Q;~a..~ maig-5g-9::~ ~ ~Cf.lOUUI- W '<t ..- , co o ..- co '<t (0 r-: N '<t_ '<t N ~ M co r- Ili o M ~ M N N ai Ol ..- ~ o (0 C'!. LO M N ~ en <0 ..- o en ~ ~ r- ..- ..- cri LO LO N (fl r-: <0 It) "C c ::J IJ.. oS ~ Q) a. e Co o E <11 "C <( Q) .s - o c o :;::; Oijj 03 8" <11 Q) .s ~ .g Q) "C Oijj <11 Qj <II C ::J o E <11 Q) .s <II Q) "C ::J U oS "C C .2 <II :c I- LO ..- M Ol M en -.i ~ C>> ..- N_ ..- C>> "-:. ~ M M '<t Ili LO en r-- ..- ~ C>> (0 N o r- '<t_ ~ CD U c: '" OJ <0 C) c U c W lO o o '" co o ", ~ U ::J '" c: :::J Ii.i I- o Z <( f- Z W ::2: I o <( f- f- <( (J) W rx: => !::: o _z LLW -0 D.. >< LLW !:.O LLW -..J ~O- W(J)~ S!:!:!W 01-0 W:JLL I_O 00 U)<(W LL..J o=> :Jfil mJ: =>0 D..en It) o - 'Ot o >- LL "0 >-~ =::J ~-g c.c -u U) "0 Q) "0 c ~!:!:: -0 gu.. .O'n. C:~ - o eft. en C o Q)'g .... .- ::J.... - a. ::J 0 u...... a. a. <( c o ~~ .... ...... 0..0 O(Y) .... ...... a. CO 0.._ <(0 Iii~ 15 f- Q) LO.... 0.3 ...... .- v"O Oc >-~ u..x W en W rx: => !::: o z W a.. >< W a.. o LL o LL a.. It) o - 'Ot o >- LL c o E. "5 en Q) o t5 Q) "5' a: .... ..... It) "C C ::l U. Z o ~ 0:: f- en Z ~ o <( ...J <( 0:: w z w Cl -r- o o N co ~ -r- -r- ~ o ..... ..... m -r- 0:> N -r- eD 0> -r- co 0> 0> ri ..... Q) ro "0 a. ~ c ro 0: Iii Q; c Q) eJ i?? C3 0> ..... -r- eJ eJ co 0> 0> ri ..... EA- z o ~ c:: f- !:Q z ~ o <( ...J <( 0:: W Z W eJ , U) W c:: :::> f- a z W n. x W ....J ~ o f- vO> 0>0> 0> 0> ~-r- ..-- ;:=: ~~ ~~ M~ N co LO -r- ..... co co .nai o LO ...... 0:> co (Y)..-- N (Y) ai (Y) ~ .... N ..... It) j::: CD It) "C C ::l U. Z o en z <( 0.. X w 0:: w f- Z W o o :> u t5 Q) '0' c .... 0 n.:p c ro o > .- 0 en C C Q) [0:: x .... w2 .... c Q) Q) cO Q) U 0';;: .!d C3 .2: 0> 00> 0> ..... (Y)co -r- -r- eJeJ eJeJ V LO LO aj (Y) co. EA- z o en z <( n. ~ c:: W f- Z W o o :> C3 I U) W 0:: :::> f- a z W 0.. X W ....J ~ a I- M ..... It) "C C ::l U. Cl z :J w o o ::E w 0:: en w i= ::J U <( u. w o ::J o 0.. 0> 0> 0> ~ -r- ...... ..... ~ o 0> LO ..-- ..-- v v .....- -r- ..... -r- r-: ..... 0:> o r-: LO ~ '0 ro u. Q) .!d o 0.. ~ Z 0> V -r- U) 0.. ..... 0:> o t-: LO EA- U) W ~ :J C3 <( u. W () :J a n. o U) W c:: :::> f- a z W 0.. X W ....J ~ a f- (Y)-r- 00 00 ~~ ..-- -r- t:::t::: cf!.cf!. o (Y) 0..-- cieri o -r- ..-- Ov o LO 0..... .nt-: (Y)-r- N co(Y) 0>0> coo> oeD -r- ..... 'Ot ..... II) "C C ::l U. c E.Q Q) en _c en ro >-0.. enx _W 0)...... ::2:~ ..>0::: 'c o Q) ~"8 .= ::2: ro...... a. en Q)>- 0::U) o O/Sc g~ 00.. z o ~ u a ...J w 0:: o 0:: <( >- z o i= <( 0:: a 0.. 0:: o U N -r- 0:>..... -r- ..-- CleJ eJeJ 0> 0:> co r-: 0:> EA- o c:: <( >- z a ~ a 0.. c:: a () I U) UJ c:: :::> f- a z UJ n. x UJ ....J <( f- a f- It) ..... It) "C C ::l U. en w 0:: ~ In ::J o o o ~ -r- ;:=: eft. o o ci o -r- o o N aj 0:> co .... -r- ..... V -r- .n ..... V -r- .n EA- U). W 0:: <( 0:: In :J ~ ro .0 ::J Q) "0 C7.i U) UJ 0:: :::> f- a z W 0.. X W ....J <( f- a f- - en ro UJ V N -r- al ....J <( I- Z w :2 I C) <( l- I- <( (J) W 0:: => t: c _Z u.W C~ U-w e:.C NU-W r--:C::! wcn<( ...JW"" ::::>_W O....C UJ::::iu. I-a C)o (J)<(w U-..J o=> ::::ifil al:I: =>0 D..(J) 10 o - .., o >- u. "0 >-~ =::l (1] ."0 Em c.c -u CI) "0 Q) "0 c ~!!: uO Q)L.L. "Q'a.. C:~ a cf!. cn c o ~~ ::l .... -0.. ::l 0 L.L..... 0.. 0.. <( c o ~:g 0..0 ~C") .... -. 0. co 0..... <(0 - cn (1] (1] 15 I- Q) 10.... 02 ~'C oc >-Q) L.L.~ UJ (J) W 0:: => t: C z W D.. >< W D.. o U. C U. D.. 10 o - .., o >- u. c o "" 0. 'C U cn Q) o u Q) "Q' c: IO.....N'<t'<tION 0000000 0000000 NNNNNNN -. -. -. .......... ..... -. -- -. ..... I'- ..... cf!.~'#.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!. Ol..... coo N 0..... IOCOCOOOlOOl dcricrid..odcri NOlNONOOl ..... ..... OCONNOOCO '<t CON..... 00..... C")C")'<tCOOIOCO "":rici"<itii"<iri C")'<t.....'<tCOOC") I'-Ol IOION CO r--: N CO I'-NC")O.....C") .....I'-COC")I'-N..... 10 CO 0>0>..... C")O C'iaSricri'ri"-:LO NC")O.....'<tO>'<t .....NC").....t-: ..... CD ..... 10 '0 C ~ l1. cn CD "E cc:-- Q) Q)OC E C)u~ 0. cn ~ 0. 'S 5 1;5 'S .... Jr .- C CJ Q) moW cCco (j;C) Q) Q)..!!!'*!: 0. I'- .= co C) a.. C o ,*!:L.L.'*!:.ccn0 >,CQc..8:J:4J uo O(1]ID.!!! ffi 15 ~ 15 fE-.!::! CI) e> en ~ en (5 2.~ Q)Q)~Q)Q)(1]L.L. E .: :::J .!:: .!:: ~ (j) UJL.L.a..L.L.L.L.CI)Ol :!E W I- en >- en z o en en w IX: a. a. ::::> en w IX: u:: ~gffig;:ffi~~ ~T"""T"""T"""T"""T"""T""" '-JCI)CI)CI)CI)CI)CI) <9 a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. 'N ..... co '<t- co co N ~ :2 UJ I- CI) >- CI) z o en CI) UJ a:: a.. a.. ::::> CI) UJ a:: u:: en UJ a:: ::::> I- is z UJ a.. x UJ ...J <( I- o I- en ..... 10 '0 C ~ l1. z o en z <( a. x w ::I: U I- ~ en w z o ::I: a.. w ...J W I- o Ol 0> ..... -. ..... ;::: cf!. C") 10 d N o o I'- N o co ..... N ..... ..... ~ co I'- 10 cn Q) "0 (1] i:>> 0. ::::> E Q) en >- CI) O! C 'w cn Q) U o .... a.. Q) u '0 > "0 C (1] Q) C o .c 0. Q) Q) I- co N ..... <9 <9 co I'- 10 ~ z Q CI) z <( a.. x UJ ::I: C) I- ~ CI) UJ Z o ::I: a.. UJ ...J UJ I- en UJ a:: ::::> I- is z UJ a. X UJ ...J <( I- o I- 1'-0 Ol 0 010 .....N (0 (0 cf!.?ft. co C") coo cr)N 10 C") 10 0 .....'<t I'- 10 "<i'ai NCO N NN C") co co ..... "":cD ...- ...- ...- co 10 '0 C ~ l1. Q) . Q)"O :!E:E11 w:<:_ I- s..._ en~C) >-uo en'O! .....c I- E.- zCO! w:?:~ :!Ecn- w"O- In .... C '-JOQ) <(UE zQ)::l <(ocu :!EI'-O OlO en C a::0l'<t ONI'- u.......... w<9(9 0::(9(9 ..... C")C") 101010 10 0000000 0000000 NNNNNNN -. -. -. .......... ..... -. -. -. 1'-1'-1'- cf!.";f?"cf!.'cf!.?ft.cf!.?ft .....I'-oo'<too N'<tCOOCOOO d'-:..od..odd NIOCOOOlOO ..... .......... '<t o COOl CO CO '<t.....COOl Ol 0 'cooco..... ci NaStiiri N 01OC")C") N .....CONOl LO cDLO '<t Ol I'- ....: N I'-NLOOIOCON O.....COO>'<tIOOl OOIONO>I'-...- N cD ...-- ci ....: ..0 N 100C")C").....0C") mNT""" T"""T""'" N'-- "'-N ~ I- Z UJ :?: UJ (9 <( Z <( :?: CI) o a:: o C) UJ 0:: en UJ a:: ::::> != D Z UJ a.. X UJ ...J <( I- o I- .:.:: a.. c.~~ ~ E ::l U'- ~8 2 CJ(1] ~ g?~{g~L.L.L.L. .- cn 0. cn C C I'ffi::::>~,g.Q N g>.=c::.a~ro CO := ..!Q.~ ~ ~ lO.:.::o--!a..u,gu 'C....OCW(j;cnoc~ 5~~~t)~(1)~ l1.cn1ijQ)(1]'B1ijQ) .c>~:2(1]>~ en~2C)cnL.L.2C) WJ!!c~~oC:::i j::Q)0(1](1]Q)0(1] ;j>:?:cna..OC:2(J) U ~C06""'NI00"'- C")IO 10 COCOI'-I'- UNNNNNNN wo::oca::oca::a::a:: a:: a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. 10 0> 10 '<t- O> CO cD ~ CI) W j:: ::i C) <( L.L. C) W a:: I CI) W a:: ::::> I- ei z w a.. x w ...J <( I- o I- <( I- Z W ~ I o ~ !;( en w c::: => l- e z -w !:!::a.. Ox u.w !!:.O u.w C'>-..J r--:.O - WU)~ -Iww 5i=0 W::::iu. I-O 00 OO<w u...J o=> -0 ...Jw lDJ: =>0 D..en It) o ~ o ~ u. Ol 10 0::: ~ o CD LO cO ..... en Ol iD :s C ::J o E <( c ro o -I l"- N T"" N- ~ T"" c ro o -I - o C g co LO -OT"" Ol(9 >(9 e'll: Cot) CoOl ro.~ -00 c 0.. .tQ: roO ..... ..... Ol 0 c_ OlI"- (91"- 00 ~o roO 00 -N LL .c -0 0:;::::; ::J "Eo ro l3 Ol >-o:::=: C Ol .Q 13 .coo .....C ro::J_ o 0 ro 2-0.S o >- C 0.0<( t5 en Ol o THRESHOLD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development specific activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Please fill in the blanks on this table, and update any prior years' figures if they have been revised. SMOG TRENDS - Number of days over standards STATE STANDARDS 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 San Diego Region 24 29 15 23 12 16 Chula Vista 0 2 1 0 1 0 FEDERAL STANDARDS San Diego Reqion 16 17 13 6 8 5 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 1 0 H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\APCD 06 V2.doc Page 1 2. Please provide a definition of the State and Federal Air Quality Standards State: 9 pphm i-hour average ozone standard Federal: a pphm a-hour average ozone standard 3. Please comment on the placement of the air quality sampling station(s) in Chula Vista and whether this/these stations accurately reflect the air quality of the city as a whole (east and west and" pockets") and if there may be areas with lower standards that go unreported. Discussion: The placement of the air quality sampling station in Chula Vista accurately reflects the air quality of the city as a whole. 4.. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during the reporting period. Please provide brief responses to the following: 5. Were there any changes in Federal or State programs during the reporting period? Yes x No Explain EPA revoked the previously-reported Federal i-hour average ozone standard on June 15,2005, replacing it with the a-hour average standard. 6. Has the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) been updated or revised during the reporting period? Yes x No Explain: a. What changes were made/adopted? a stationary source control measures were scheduled for development during the 2004-2006 planning period. 12 additional further-study stationary source control measures were identified. H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\APCD 06 V2.doc Page 2 7. Will the above-noted changes (under questions 5 & 6), if any, affect Chula Vista's local planning and development activities and regulations? Yes No X Explain: MISCELLANEOUS 8. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X If yes, explain: 9. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: level of Service Threshold: As the city moves forward with redevelopment west of 1-805, APCD staff recommends the Council consider changing the arterial Level of Service (LOS) threshold for Western Chula Vista. The current threshold mandates no decrease in LOS. This has the effect of prioritizing vehicle flow above all other possible urban design, pollution prevention, and quality of life considerations. In our work on smart growth, we have found residents of most cities and neighborhoods favor a balancing of transportation modes. Creating a community that is more compact, walkable, bikeable, and efficient for transit use may cause modest increases in delay at particular intersections, but is considered just as important as the through-movement of vehicles. Blanket policies forbidding any further peak period delay may prohibit what are potentially very effective smart growth goals for Western Chula Vista, as expressed in the General Plan Update. Urban Design Guidelines: In October 2005, several Chula Vista planning and engineering staff attended a one-day training event co-sponsored by the Air Pollution Control District, WalkSanDiego, SANDAG, and the San Diego chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This training focussed on roadway and development designs that reduce vehicle trips and provide a built environment more conducive to walking, bicycling, and transit use. Chula Vista staff indicated that while they strongly support the measures and strategies presented, they lacked legal support to require developers to implement the necessary features. District staff recommends the city adopt urban design guidelines or building permit requirements that make these measures mandatory. Most of them are not expensive, but are very difficult or costly to provide later. This is particularly important as redevelopment occurs and there is a clear legal nexus between the project and the need for onsite or off- site improvements needed to accommodate anticipated increases in pedestrian, bicycling, and transit trips resulting from the project. H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\APCD 06 V2.doc Page 3 10. Do you have any other relevant information that the APCD desires to communicate to the City and GMOC? Yes No x Explain: Prepared by: Carl Selnick and Andy Hamilton Title: Air Quality Specialist (both) Date: 12-15-05 H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\APCD 06 V2.doc Page 4 THRESHOLD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Has the City submitted an annual report to the GMOC and the Air Quality Pollution Control District that covers points 1, 2, and 3 above? Yes X No 2. Have any major developments or Master Planned Communities been approved during the reporting period? Yes X No a. List any approved projects and indicate to what extent these projects implement measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant federal, state, regional and/or local policies and regulations? As of the last reporting period a number of projects required to prepare and implement an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) have either been approved or are in the entitlement process. It is important to note that some of the projects are not Master Planned communities however they do meet the Growth Management Ordinance threshold for the H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\Planning AQ 06.V2.doc Page 1 preparation of an AQIP. The Otay Ranch Village Six SPA Plan was amended October 11, 2005 to permit the development of 158 for-sale condominiums, including live/work units and approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial retail space on a site previously designated as Community Purpose Facility and Mixed-Use zone. The project will meet the AQIP requirement through participation in the Chula Vista GreenStar Building Efficiency Program (GreenStar). The project sponsor will exceed the 2001 Title 24 Energy Standards by participating in either the ComfortWise Homes or SDG&E EnergyStar building program in at least 50% of the structures. Major projects currently in the entitlement process include the following: EI Dorado Ridge, located in central Chula Vista, is a proposal to construct 104 residential townhouse units on approximately 7.17 acres of an 11.46 acre site. The developer of this project has agreed to participate in the GreenStar program as reflected in the draft AQIP under consideration. A minimum of 52 units will exceed the 2001 Title 24 Energy Standards by 15%. 4.29 acres will be preserved as a natural open space lot. The project was approved by the Planning Commission on November 30, 2005 and will be considered by the City Council early in 2006. Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, Planning Area 18b and a portion of Village 4 SPA Plan proposes the development of approximately 1187 acres. The proposal includes construction of 2,786 dwelling units (986 single-family and 1,800 multi-family units) on approximately 335 acres and three industrial areas on 87.9 acres within Village 2. Also part of the project is a 176.5 acre business park within Village 3 and Planning Area 18b. The remaining 575.9 acres is proposed to be developed with non-residential uses, including community purpose facilities, schools, public parks, commercial uses, and open space. The draft document indicates participation in the GreenStar program to meet the AQIP requirement resulting in a minimum of 1,393 dwelling units and at least half of the non-residential development constructed beyond the Title 24 Energy Standards. The BayVista Walk project is located in southwestern Chula Vista, on a 5.3 acre parcel of land. The applicant proposes to construct four structures containing 163 multi-family dwelling units and a mixed-use building with 61 condominiums and 8,000 square feet of retail space with subterranean parking. The draft AQIP submitted for the project identifies participation in the GreenStar program which would apply to 50% of the structures, including the mixed-use building. The EastLake III Seniors Project proposal includes an amendment to the EastLake III SPA Plan to permit an 18.5 acre Commercial- Tourist site be designated high density residential. This project proposes 494 multi-family for-sale dwelling units for use as active senior housing. The developer has indicated participation in the GreenStar Program in order to meet the AQIP requirement resulting in a minimum of 50% of the units to be energy efficient. The Eastern Urban Center (EUC) consists of approximately 230 acres of land to be developed as a mixed-use project. An AQIP must be submitted with the SPA Plan proposal. Other major developments currently in early planning stages include Otay Ranch Village 8 and Village 9 Town Centers. These potential projects represent a large portion of the remaining undeveloped land in Otay Ranch. Following completion of the General Plan Update for these Villages, submittal of SPA Plans is anticipated. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan identified Village 8 project as a 500 acre mixed- use, transit oriented proposal consisting of approximately 565 single-family and 1,017 multi- family residential units. The proposal would also include schools, parks and commercial uses within a quarter mile of a transit station. A 200 acre Regional Technology Park would H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\retumed questionnaires\Planning AQ 06.V2.doc Page 2 also being considered in the Village 8 proposal. Otay Ranch Village 9, referred to as the University Village, is anticipated to be a mixed-use transit oriented development comprised of a Town Center and residential village in support of the proposed University. Village 9 consists of approximately 373 acres. 3. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and procedures consistent with current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs? Yes X No a. With respect to any inconsistencies, please indicate actions needed to bring development regulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance. 4. Are there any non-development related air quality programs that the City is currently implementing or participating in? Yes X No Explain: a. Identify and provide a brief explanation of each. The City continues to implement the 20 Action Measures contained in the Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan adopted by the City Council on November 14, 2000. Following is an explanation of the non-development related air quality programs identified as Action Measures in the CO2 Reduction Plan that have been active or updated during the reporting period: Measure 1 - Purchase of Altemative Fuel Vehicles . The City's alternative fuel assets include the operation and maintenance of the following existing alternative fueled vehicles and fueling stations: Alternative Fuel Vehicles . Chula Vista Transit has 32 CNG Busses (CV Transit received 7 new 2005 CNG buses and retired 7 diesel buses.) . The Nature Center received a dedicated CNG bus in June 2005. . Six CNG Passenger Vehicles: 4 Vans and 2 Cars. . Five Neighborhood Electric Cars. . Honda FCX Fuel Cell Car . Two hybrid vehicles: Ford Hybrid SUV and Honda Civic Hybrid Alternative Fueling Stations . Hydrogen Fueling Facility installed at the John Lippitt Public Works Center in April 2003. . CNG Fueling Station at the John Lippitt Public Works Center. . Public access to CNG Fueling Facility at the John Lippitt Public Works Center. . In response to a previous GMOC recommendation, a draft City policy position regarding the acquisition and use of alternative fueled vehicles by the city has been H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\Planning AQ 06.V2.doc Page 3 prepared for staff review. The policy has not been finalized for City Council consideration. Measure 2 - Green Power . Renewable Energy efforts include . 4 kw Photovoltaic (PV) system at the John Lippitt Public Works Center. . 7 kw PV system for Nature Center. . 30 kw PV system for new Police HQ. Measure 3 - Municipal Clean Fuel Demonstration Project . The City is continuing demonstration of the hydrogen Electrolyzer Honda FCX fuel cell vehicle. Measure 5 - Municipal Building Upgrades and Trip Reduction . The City adopted a Building Energy Efficiency Policy in February 2005. The policy requires the following : . Staff to present options to City Council that exceed state energy efficiency standards (Title 24) by 20% for renovation and new construction of city facilities. . Staff to propose renewable energy options for all city building related projects. The goal is to offset 20% of the city's energy use with non-fossil fuel based renewable energy. . EnergyStar rated equipment be purchased for projects. . Green Power be purchased for city facilities when available. Measure 12 - Bicycle Integration with Transit and Employment . During project development stages employers and transit providers are encouraged to provide bike storage at major transit stops and employment areas. Employers are also encouraged to provide showers at major transit nodes. Measure 19 - Municipal Life-Cycle Purchasing Standards . Life-cycle energy costs were included as a selection criterion in a comprehensive purchasing policy for energy-consuming equipment. The policy has lead to the purchase of a number of EnergyStar appliances and building design or equipment changes that promote energy efficiency. In addition to the CO2 Reduction Plan measures, the City has initiated the following programs: Transportation Demand Management . In March 2003, the City was awarded a $414,325 grant by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District to develop and implement a transportation demand management program. The program includes an express bus from eastem Chula Vista to downtown San Diego and an express shuttle from eastem Chula Vista to a trolley stop. . A three part program was instituted in November 2005. The program include 1. A financial incentive for the first 3 months for those changing from a single occupancy vehicle to a car pool or transit. H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\Planning AQ 06.V2.doc Page 4 2. A free express bus from eastern Chula Vista to downtown San Diego 3. A free express shuttle from eastern Chula Vista to a trolley stop. . An evaluation of program effectiveness will be conduced after 6 months of operation. Light Bulb Exchange Program . The City partnered with SDG&E to facilitate a light bulb exchange program targeting western Chula Vista. Replacement compact fluorescent lights were provided to over 200 households in October 2005. 5. Are there additional non-development related program efforts that the City needs to undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? Yes No -L Chula Vista Transit is required to follow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations to reduce diesel Particulate Matter (PM) levels. CARB requires that CVT maintain a diesel PM baseline below the January 2002 baseline of 6.64 PM. A lower baseline of 0.34 PM was recorded for 2005 down noticeably from 1.94 PM that was documented for 2004. 6. Are any new air quality programs scheduled for implementation during the next year? Yes X No Explain: The City is partnering with the San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO) to coordinate participate in the SDREO Cool Communities Shade Tree Program. This is a community program that provides trees to homeowners and schools at no cost. Approximately 1,500 new trees have been planted in Chula Vista since 2003. In the summer of 2004, the City received a $50,000 grant from the California Forestry and Fire Protection Department to plant 460 trees on City public right of way in 2005/2006. The trees will be planted in City parks, street medians and side walk strips. Approximately 200 trees have been planted in Southwestern Chula Vista. Due to this effort, Chula Vista is a designated state Tree City and the National Arbor Day Foundation is considering bestowing a Tree City USA designation for the Chula Vista. MISCELLANEOUS 7. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No _X_ 8. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes No _X_ H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\Planning AQ 06.V2.doc Page 5 10. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes x No Explain: The City is partnering with SDG&E to improve energy efficiency in Chula Vista. Under the partnership, Chula Vista will receive $731,000 per year from 2006 to 2008 to develop, implement and market energy efficiency programs citywide. The program includes projects that will assist the city with funding to develop retrofit projects for city facilities, market energy conservation programs to residents and businesses, assist condo conversion developers to improve energy efficiency of conversion projects, and assist other Southbay cities to develop energy plans. The total funding for from 2006 to 2008 is approximately $2.2 million. Prepared by: Mary Venables, Associate Planner/GreenStar Program Coordinator \/\Allie Gaters, Environmental Resource Manager Date: January 4, 2006 H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\Planning AQ 06.v2.doc Page 6 THRESHOLD: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity). 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. 1. Please fill in the blanks and provide relevant updates on this table. Average 15.316 15.951 16.6 17.0 17.44 20.22 26.2* Flow (MGD) Capacity 19.843 20.875** 20.875** 20.875** 20.875** 20.875** 20.875** . Buildout Projection based on the General Plan Update (Steering Alternative). (Adopted General Plan "Buildouf' = 23.0 MGD) . ** Increase in capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacity rights resulting from the construction of the new South bay Treatment Plant (allocation process still underway) Page 1 2. Have there been any sewage spills in Chula Vista over the last fiscal year up to the current time? Yes _X_ No Explain: There were 11 recorded sewer spills during the last fiscal year. These were mostly small spills that were due to one or more of the following conditions: a. Root intrusion into a private sewer lateral. b. Contractor Inefficiency- in one instance concrete from a contractor's installation got into a sewer line and blocked the line. C. Vandalism - Toy in sewer line. d. Extreme Grease buildup generated by adjacent uses (i.e. restaurants or other grease generating activities) compromised the pipe capacity. In every instance, the spill was contained by City staff and the triggering condition was adequately mitigated. Afterwards, the event was reported to the State Water Resources Control Board. So far, the City has not been found to negligent and has not been fined for any of these events. Maintenance and operations staff has developed and implemented a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Prevention Plan. This plan was recently updated as part of the recent Wastewater Master Plan Update. 3. Please provide an update on efforts to increase the city's allocated amount of sewage treatment capacity in order to meet buildout sewage flow estimates. Discussion: Through the completion of the Wastewater Master Plan, it was determined that to facilitate the City's buildout, we would need to acquire an additional5MGD of treatment capacity rights. Additional capacity could be provided in either of two ways: the construction of a treatment facility (i.e. a reclamation plant) or the purchase of the required capacity rights from another participating agency in the Metro system that has excess capacity rights. a. Treatment Facility - Early this year, the City retained the services of a consultant (Brown & Caldwell) to conduct a feasibility study, which explored the feasibility of the City constructing its own treatment plant. That study has since been completed and it was determined that it would be more cost effective for the City to acquire the capacity rights from another participating agency. However, the study also established a limit for the purchase price after which the treatment plant becomes the more economical option. b. Purchase of Additional Treatment Capacity Rights b.1 Negotiations with the City of San Diego - Approximately 2 years ago, City staff notified the City of San Diego that the City of Chula Visa would need additional treatment capacity in the Metro system. In accordance with the terms of our agreement with the City of San Diego, they are obligated to evaluate our request and then make a determination on how they intend to meet our request. The request could be met either through the sale of capacity rights from the City of San Diego's reserves, the expansion of existing plants or the construction of a new facility. As part of the review process, the City of San Diego set up a joint committee Page 2 comprising of senior staff from both the City of San Diego Metro Wastewater Department and the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department. This joint committee met for a few months and provided a summary of options to the upper management. Based on the findings of that joint committee, staff is now in the early negotiation phase. The goal is to conclude negotiations in the coming months and depending on the outcome of the negotiations, determine the next course of action. b.2. Letter of interest to the City of Poway - Through a variety of channels, City staff learned that the City of poway might be considering selling off the excess capacity that they had previously purchased from Padre Dam Municipal Water District. Based on that information, the City Manager sent a letter to the City of Poway stating our interest. The request is currently being considered and their response is expected within the next couple of weeks. Staff will continue to pursue and explore available options for the purchase of additional capacity rights within the defined cost parameters. Concurrent with these efforts, Staff is also exploring the feasibility of joint projects with other agencies with whom the City could reach a mutually beneficial arrangement. Some of the recent efforts include, exploring the feasibility of the following projects: a. Joint Project with Sweetwater Authority - Construction of a Wastewater Reclamation Plant to supply reclaimed water to Sweetwater Authority for their high use customer (ex. Duke Energy Plant). b. Joint Project with Otay Water District - Construction of a Wastewater Reclamation Plant to supply reclaimed water to Otay Authority to augment the supply they are currently receiving from the City of San Diego. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 4. Have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at any time during this reporting period? No -1L Yes If yes: a. Where did this occur? N/A b. Why did it occur? N/A c. What has been, or will be done to correct the situation? N/A GROWTH IMPACTS 5. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? No~ Yes Explain: Service levels were maintained during the reporting period despite the pace of development in the eastern portion of the City. Page 3 6. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes No x Explain: Current sewerage facilities should be able to handle anticipated growth during the 12 to 18 month period. However, due of the pace of development in the City, especially in the eastern portion, existing sewerage facilities within that part of the City may not be adequate to handle forecasted growth during the next 5-years. The completion of several planned facilities within this same period should adequately mitigate this condition. 7. Last year it was indicated that part of the City sewerage facilities may not be adequate to handle forecasted growth during the next 5-years but that the completion of several planned facilities within this same period should adequately mitigate this condition. Please provide an update and itemize these planned facilities. Discussion: As at the time report was prepared last year, there were several facilities that had been identified as crucial for the development of the eastern territories; the following is a brief status of these planned facilities: a. Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer Improvement - Upgrade of Reach 205 - This involved the upsizing of the portion of this trunk line, which runs under the Interstate-805 Freeway. This project was completed a few weeks ago. b. Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewers b.1 Rock Mountain Road Trunk Sewer - Due to recent changes in ownership of the adjacent properties along the alignment of this trunk line, the City is in discussions with the Land owners to have this pipeline constructed by the developers as part of their development. The project was initially contemplated as a CIP project. It is currently estimated that this pipeline will be needed by 2010. b.2.Heritage Road Trunk Sewer - This trunk line will be constructed by Otay Ranch Company as part of their Village 2 & 3 project, since the pipeline serves on that project and is a crucial element of their development. The Village 2 project is still going through the entitlement process, it is currently estimated that the trunk line may be constructed by 2008. 8. In addition the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor what new facilities have been constructed to accommodate the forecasted growth? Describe: Reach 205 of the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer line - see details above. Explain how the facilities been funded? This improvement project was funded with Poggi Canyon Gravity Basin Development Page 4 Impact Fees. 9. Has the City finalized an agreement with the City of San Diego regarding the provision of adequate treatment capacity to meet the buildout needs ofthe City's General Plan? Yes No --1L Explain: See response to Question NO.3 MAINTENANCE 10. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes x No _ Explain: 11. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? No_ Yes Explain: a. "G" Street Pump Station Improvement- This project was originally contemplated as a complete reconstruction of the pump station at the BF Goodrich site. However, since the City is in the process of developing the Bayfront, it was decided that it was more prudent to make interim improvements to the existing pump station, and continue to use it, till the Bayfront planning was better defined, at which time, the level of improvements required for this pump station would be better defined. These interim improvements are now planned for next calendar year. MISCELLANEOUS 12. Are there areas of western Chula Vista that have inadequate sewer collection capacity? Yes X No_ Explain: a. Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn b. Colorado Avenue Sewer Improvement between "J" Street and ilK" Street c. Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garrett and Fourth Avenue Page 5 d. Main street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno 13. Last year it was indicated that there were certain areas of the western Chula Vista collection system where the Wastewater Master Plan Update analysis showed that portions of the collection system needed to be upgraded to address near-term peak flow events. To mitigate these conditions, Council approved four CIP projects listed below to deal with these issues, namely: e. Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn f. Colorado Avenue Sewer Improvement between "J" Street and "K" Street g. Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garrett and Fourth Avenue h. Main Street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno Please provide an update on each project and indicate: · If funding has been identified · When started or expected to start · When the project is expected to be completed. Project Status e. Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn - This project was funded with Trunk sewer Capital Reserve Funds. The Design Plans & specifications have been completed and construction is currently scheduled to begin within the first quarter of 2006 and completed by the third quarter of 2006. f. Colorado Avenue Sewer Improvement between "J" Street and "K" Street - This project was funded with Trunk sewer Capital Reserve Funds. Preparation of the Design Plans & specifications and the construction of the required improvements are currently scheduled for Calendar year 2006. g. Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garrett and Fourth Avenue - This project was funded with Trunk sewer Capital Reserve Funds. However the required improvements are being deferred for a while to allow for additional review of the line. This line, which is located behind the new Police Department building, serves a significant number of restaurants and is susceptible to grease buildup. This ultimately impacts the capacity of the line. However, since the situation is currently being contained by frequently ~lmf~l~.d improvements are being deferred for a while, m",,,!~jyL, h. Main Street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno- This project was funded with Trunk sewer Capital Reserve Funds. Preparation of the Design Plans & specifications and the construction of the required improvements are currently scheduled for Calendar year 2006. 14. In addition to the projects above, are there other projects identified as needed over the next 5 years to maintain the integrity of the sewer system? Describe: Historically, the City has annually allocated funds to implement a Sewer Rehabilitation Program. This program facilitates the repair and/or replacement of sewer mains at various locations in the City. Another component of this program provides for the lining of deteriorating pipes. This program is funded through a charge of $0.70 per month per single family and $0.06/HCF for Multi-Family and Commercial properties. The fee is billed as Page 6 part of the monthly sewer service charge 15. Does the current Sewer Threshold Standard need any modification? Yes No x Explain: 16. Are there any suggestions that you would like the GMOC to recommend to the City Council? Yes No x . Explain: 17. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No x . Explain: Prepared by: Title: Date: Page 7 Mark Stephens -----Original Message----- From: Frank Rivera Sent: Monday, January 30,200611:26 AM To: Luis Pelayo Cc: Anthony Chukwudolue Subject: RE: OP projects Old Luis, Thank you for providing me with the information. I mentioned the following information you provided to me at the GMOC meeting and they were happy with the data. Three of the four are CIP projects for this year and the Center Street one is a maintenance issue. I think that for the upcoming wastewater GMOC meeting, to be scheduled, they will probably want more specifics on the limits of the CIP project, the construction schedule and possibly CIP number in a hand out. Also, any updated information on the purchasing of additional WW capacity from Metro or other PA's would help in answering any remaining issues they may have. Overall, I think that they are fine with the wastewater threshold for the year. Frank Rivera -----Original Message----- From: Luis Pelayo Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:09 AM To: Frank Rivera Subject: CIP projects Old Frank, Per our conversation, here below are some of the recent flow meter results associated with the following locations: . Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn- a-inch line @ D/d=O.66 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). . Colorado Avenue Sewer Improvement between "J" Street and "K" Street--15-inch line @ D/d=O.93 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). . Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garret and Fourth Avenue--10" line @ D/d=O.70 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). . Main Street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno-- 15" line @ D/d=O.75 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). Any q's please call me Luis Pelayo X6093 THRESHOLD 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Otay Water District or Sweetwater Authority for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and requests an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or update the tables below. SDCWA Helix WD RWCWRF 11,950 458 375 93% 4% 3% 12,400 460 380 97% 0% 3% 92% 5% 3% 93% 4% 3% Total (MG) 12,783 100% 13,240 100% 100% 100% Page 1 otal Flow Supply 125.9 130.6 130.6 136.6 144.6 Capacity Potable Storage Capacity 190.7 190.7 190.7 197.0 233.6 Non-Potable Storage 28.3 31.7 31.7 43.7 43.7 Capacity Potable Supply Flow 124.9 129.5 129.5 129.5 137.5 Capacity Non-Potable Supply Flow 1.0 1.1 1.1 7.1 7.1 Capacity GROWTH IMPACTS 2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the currerit ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X Explain: The Otay Water District (Otay WD) has anticipated growth, effectively managed the addition of new facilities and water supply needs, and does not foresee any negative impacts to current or future service levels. In fact service levels have been enhanced with the addition of new major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix WD Levy Water Treatment Plant, which came on line during FY 2003-2004. This is due to the extensive and excellent planning Otay WD has done over the years including the development of a Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) dated August 2002 and the annual process to have the capital improvement program (CIP) projects funded and constructed in a timely manner corresponding with development construction activities and water demand growth that require new or upgraded facilities. The process of planning followed by the Otay WD is to use WRMP as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best altematives for providing a reliable water supply and system facilities. Growth projection data provided from SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community was used to develop the WRMP. The WRMP incorporates the concepts of water storage and supply from neighboring water agencies to meet emergency and alternative water supply needs. The Otay WD works closely with City of Chula Vista staff to insure the WRMP remains current and incorporates changes in development activities within all areas of Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch. Page 2 3. Do current facilities have the ability to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5 year time frames? Yes X No Explain: The Otay WD plans, designs, and constructs water system facilities to meet projected ultimate demands to be placed upon the potable and recycled water systems. Also, the Otay WD forecasts needs and plans for water supply requirements to meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The water facilities are constructed when development activities require them for adequate cost effective water service. Potable water supply within San Diego County is typically planned for and acquired through the regional approach process. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCW A) and Metropolitan Water District of Southem California (MWDSC) take the leadership role in these efforts. An excellent example of this is, on April 29, 1998, the SDCWA signed a historic agreement with Imperial Irrigation District (lID) for the long-term transfer of conserved Colorado River water to San Diego County. Under the Water Authority-liD Agreement, Colorado River water is conserved by Imperial Valley farmers, who voluntarily participate in the program, and then transferred to the SDCW A for use in San Diego County. The water to be conserved is part of liD's Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Imperial Valley farmers conserve the water by employing extra-ordinary conservation measures. The Otay WD assures that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. Also, the OtayWD has an agreement with. the City of Diego for recycled water supplies from their South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The City of San Diego formally approved the agreement on October 20, 2003. The agreement provides for 6 MGD of supply from the SBWRP. The Otay WD is actively pursuing development local water supply through the sharing of treatment plant capacity with agencies such as Helix Water District and the City of San Diego. An agreement with the City of San Diego for 10 MGD from their Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has been achieved. In addition 8 MGD from the Helix Water District's Levy Water Treatment Plant is currently available to Otay WD. The new connection with Helix WD known as Flow Control Facility No. 14 was placed into operation during FY 2003 - 2004. This connection made the increased capacity a reality. The Otay WD and SDCW A are on the verge of entering into an agreement that will provide for 12 MGD on-peak and 16 MGD of off-peak capacity from the Helix WD Levy WTP. The MWD, SDCWA, and Otay WD have addressed the availability of water supply in emergency conditions. The Otay WD need for a ten-day water supply during a SDCWA shutdown has been fully addressed in the WRMP. The Otay WD has the ability to meet and exceed this requirement through its own storage, conservation, and existing interconnections with other agencies. MWD, SDCWA, and OtayWD all have programs to continue to meet or exceed the emergency water supply needs of the region into the foreseeable future. As mentioned above the Otay WD executed a 50-year renewable agreement with the City of San Diego to provide 10 MGD of immediate capacity and an additional required capacity in the future from the OtayWTP. The Otay WD, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, continues to expand the use of recycled water. The City of San Diego has placed their SBWRP into operation and it is Page 3 has a rated capacity of approximately 15 MGD. Recycled water from this facility is available for distribution by the Otay WD per terms of the agreement with the City of San Diego. This supply source to Otay WD will occur once construction of a transmission main, storage facility, and a pump station are complete. The estimated schedule to begin operations is spring of 2007. Also, the Otay WD continues to encourage water conservation through a school education and water conservation incentive programs. 4. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 12-18 month time frame? Yes X No _; For the 5 year time frame? Yes X No_ Explain: a. Type of facility. b. Location of facility. c. Projected production, in gallons. d. Projected operational date. e. Are sites available for these facilities? f. How will these facilities be funded? g. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? The Otay WD WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay WD. These facilities are incorporated into the annual OtayWD CIP for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceed through the City of Chula Vista approval process, Otay WD typically requires the developer to prepare a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project consistent with the WRMP. This SAMP document defines and describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. The SAMP also defines the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity fees funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. These fees were established to fund the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. The SAMP identifies the major water transmission main and distribution pipeline facilities which are typically located within the roadway alignments. A few examples of significant new CIP project facilities include the following listed projects. Funding for these projects is provided from water meter capacity fees. . At the City of San Diego's Otay Water Treatment Plant site a trailer amounted engine driven temporary pump system project has recently been installed. This capital investment has the ability to pump the treated water produced at the Otay WTP into the Central Area-Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline system connected to the Central Area and Otay Mesa Systems. This facility nearly triples the flow capacity capabilities to a maximum of about 20 MGQ. Page 4 . The 980-2 Pump Station project is located adjacent to the existing 30 MG EastLake Greens Reservoir on existing Otay WD property. This significant capital investment is under construction and will increase the pumping capacity within the 980 and 711 Pressure Zones to meet anticipated demand requirements. . The 30-inch transmission main to transport recycled water from the SBWRP to the Otay WD is under construction from the plant to a location upon the existing Otay landfill property site. . A 12 MG recycled water 450-1 Reservoir project is under construction at the terminus of the 30-inch transmission main. This reservoir is required to balance relatively constant flow from the SBWRP with the widely variable recycled water demand conditions. . A 16.5 MGD recycled water 680-1 Pump Station project is under construction adjacent to the proposed 450-1 Reservoir. The pump station will provide the pressure and flow capacity necessary to meet demand requirements, met by supply from the SBWRP, of the existing and future recycled water markets within the City of Chula Vista. 5. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes No _X_ Explain: An historic and very positive water supply event was transacted known as the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and other related agreements between all interested parties and agencies. With execution of the QSA and related agreements, delivery of 10,000 acre-feet into San Diego County from the transfer continues since 2003. The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 acre-feet by the year 2021 and remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement. The initial term of the agreement is for 45 years, with a provision to extend the agreement for an additional 30-year term under certain circumstances. This agreement assures the San Diego County region a reliable water supply. Also, the SDCWA Regional Water Facilities Master Plan addresses water supply needs through 2030 and the required systems for its delivery to Otay WD and their other member agencies. On September 25,2003, the SDCWA Board voted to accept assignment of the MWD's water rights to 77,700 ac-ft/yr from projects that will line the All American Canal (ACC) and Coachella Canal (CC). The projects will stop the loss of water that currently occurs through seepage, and that conserved water will go to the SDCWA. This will provide the San Diego region with an additional 8.5 million acre-feet of water over the 11 O-year life of the agreement. The SDCW A has a proposed and continues to move forward with the Seawater Desalination Project at Encina (Desai Project) consists of a 50 MGD reverse osmosis desalination plant sited adjacent to the Encina PO\,/\,8r Station in the City of Carlsbad and the pipelines and ancillary facilities necessary to convey product water from the plant to Page 5 local and regional water distribution systems. The Desai Project is anticipated to produce 56,000 acre-feet annually of new water supply generated from seawater drawn in by the Encina Power Station cooling water circulation system from the Pacific Ocean via the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Desai Project would provide a new source of high quality water that would meet or exceed state and federal standards. The parties of the proposed Desai Project continue negotiations hammering out the intricate details of the deal. The SDCW A Board of Directors approved the concept of the construction of a water treatment plant within the North County. The capacity of the planned facility is 100 MGD. The SDCW A has awarded a design-build-operate contract to implement the project. MAINTENANCE 6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes _X_ No Explain: The Otay WD has an established renewal and replacement fund within the Operating Budget for all facilities. There is adequate funding secured and identified for maintenance and replacement of existing facilities, as they are required to be maintained and/or replaced. 7. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes _X_ No Explain: The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and upgrade projects within the current FY 2006 OtayWD Five-Year CIP project plan and Operating Budget for FY 2006. The Otay WD produces each year a project list, which contains information on all of the proposed projects. Proiect No. CIP Proiect Title P2038 PL - 12-lnch, 978 Zone, Jamacha and Hidden Mesa Road Upsize and Replacements P2043 Cathodic Protection Svstems Installation and Maintenance P2077 Reservoir Maintenance Interior/Exterior Coatinq/Paintinq/Repair P2101 Water Service Lateral Replacement P2102 Water System Valve Replacement P2172 PS - 1485-1 Pump Station Replacement P2250 Telemetry System Installation and Maintenance P2295 624-1 Reservoir Disinfection, Inlet/Outlet/Bypass & 613 Reservoir Demolition R2053 RWCWRF - R.O. Buildinq Remodel and Office Furniture R2086 RWCWRF Force Main AirVac Replacements and Road Improvements Page 6 82009 82013 82015 P2259 P2267 P2270 P2306 P2307 P2308 P2356 P2359 P2366 P2382 P2384 RECYCLED WATER 8. Discussion: The Otay WD has an agreement with the City of Diego for recycled water supplies from their South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The City of San Diego formally approved the agreement on October 20, 2003. The agreement provides for 6 MGDof supply from the SBWRP with the ability to take more if the City of San Diego has capacity to provide additional supply to Otay WD. The City of San Diego has placed their SBWRP into operation and it is has a rated capacity of approximately 15 MGD. Recycled water from this facility is available for distribution by the Otay WD per terms of the agreement with the City. This supply source for Otay WD will occur once construction of a transmission main, storage facility, and a pump station are complete. The estimated schedule to proceed with operations is spring of 2007. Otay WD has recently notified that the State Water Resources Control Board will award a $4,000,000 Proposition 50 grant to go towards construction of the recycled water supply source link from the SBWRP to the Otay WD existing recycled water system. The following three facilities comprise the supply link. . The 30-inch transmission main to transport recycled water from the SBWRP to the Otay WD is under construction from the plant to a location upon the e)(jsting Otay landfill property site. . A 12 MG recycled water 450-1 Reservoir project is under construction at the terminus of the 30-inch transmission main. This reservoir is required to balance relatively constant flow from the SBWRP with the widely variable recycled water demand conditions. . A 16.5 MGD recycled water 680-1 Pump Station project is under construction adjacent to the proposed 450-1 Reservoir. The pump station will provide the pressure and flow capacity necessary to meet demand requirements, met by supply from the SBWRP, of the existing and future recycled water markets within the City of Chula Vista. Page 7 9. Please update/fill in the table below. RECYCLED WATER DEMAND PER YEAR (Million Gallons (MG)) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL 415 894 720 769 1,207 1,082 USES Irrigation 415 894 720 769 1,207 1,082 Industry Recharge 10. How many gallons of recycled water can OWD currently deliver? The Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) produces nearly 1.1 MGD or 1,232 acre-feet per year of recycled water. When the recycled water demand exceed supply capabilities of the RWCWRF typically limited to about 365 MG per year the supply shortfall is met by supplementing the recycled water system with potable water. The recycled water system was planned and constructed to have the capability to deliver and meet of the current and future recycled water demands placed upon the recycled water system. The recycled water system will continue to be supplemented Vllith potable water until the additional source of recycled water supply from the City of San Diego's SBWRP is available. The supply of recycled water from the SBWRP is expected to begin in the spring of 2007 with construction completion and operation of the transmission, storage, and pump station systems necessary to receive the SBWRP recycled water. The recycled water supply will then be at least 7.1 MGD or 2,592 MG per year. 11. Is OWD meeting demands per the table above? Yes, sufficient supplies to meet the entire demand for each of the years within the table have been achieved. 12. Please give a brief description of the impact the below items have on the District's current efforts to market recycled water. a Water quality b. Price of water c. Willing customers d. Distribution lines e. Other Page 8 The total dissolved salt content of the recycled water supply, typically ranging between 800 and 900 TDS, is the primary factor potentially impacting the cost of recycled water production to meet regulatory requirements on limitations of salt loading within market areas. Currently, TDS levels are well below regulatory levels and do not impact water quality requirements, nor increase the cost for the production. The landscape planting materials need to be selected such that those that ale highly sensitivity to salt levels are not integrated into the landscape-planting scheme. The Otay WD currently markets recycled water at 85% of the potable water rate. This pricing level has increased user willingness and acceptance of the Otay WD mandatory recycled water use ordinance. Customer acceptance of recycled water overall has been positive. When resistance is encountered it is typically due to concems of increased capital cost to install the necessary distribution pipelines to the irrigation areas. The Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity fees funds the recycled water transmission main, storage reseNoir, and pump station capital facilities. MISCELLANEOUS 13. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No _X_ Explain: The current threshold standard addresses all the significant aspects of water seNice and the capability to accommodate the continuing growth within the City of Chula Vista. 14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes _X_ No Explain: That the Otay WD and the Growth Management Oversight Commission recommend that the City of Chula Vista fully support and continue to require and encourage the use of recycled water and implementation of water conseNation measures as well. 15. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the GMOC? Yes _X_ No Explain: Recvcled Water Page 9 On the recycled waterfront, the Otay WD continues to actively require the development of recycled water facilities and related demand generation within new development projects within the City of Chula Vista, and support of the City of San Diego's South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The City of San Diego has identified Otay WD as their major market for recycled water produced at the SBWRP. Water Conservation The Otay WD continues to have a Water Conservation Program Ordinance to reduce the quantity of water used by customers for the purpose of conserving water supplies. The program actually provides a water "budget," thereby requiring irrigation efficiency by water accounts dedicated solely to the irrigation of landscaping. A study suggested that if users could be encouraged to manage their landscape with a maximum annual amount of 48-inches of water, approximately 1,000 acre-feet of water would be saved annually. Conservation is also promoted by the education of the public. The SDCW A, in conjunction with the OtayWD, Helix WD, and Cuyamaca College operate the educational Water Conservation Garden. In summary, the water supply outlook is excellent and the City of Chula Vista's long-term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply. The historic and very positive event being the final approval of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and other related agreements between all interested parties and agencies assures a long tenn water supply future. An additional assured water supply occurred with the SDCWA Board acceptance of the assignment of the MWD's water rights from projects that will line the All American Canal and Coachella Canal. Also, the SDCWA has a proposed Seawater. Desalination Project at Encina, which consists of a reverse osmosis desalination plant sited adjacent to the Encina POV\er Station in the City of Carls bad and the pipelines and ancillary facilities necessary to convey product water from the plant to local and regional water distribution systems. The potential for interruptions to the water supply have been addressed by Otay WD, SDCW A, and MWD through the development of long-tenn emergency water supply such as the SDCWA Emergency Storage Project (90 days), the MWD Diamond Valley Reservoir (six months) and OtayWD ten-day storage and supply strategy. The continued close coordination efforts with the City of Chula Vista and other agencies have brought forth significant enhancements for the effective utilization of the region's water supply to the benefit of all citizens. Prepared by: James F. Peasley Title: Engineering Planning Manager Date: 12/12/2005 Page 10 THRESHOLD 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The District's replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in the tables below. Local 1m orted 3512 4164 46 54 4719 3325 22 78 18 82 18 82 otal 7676 100 8044 100 100 100 2) Use of local vs. Imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and therefore unpredictable. Table values are for portion of Chula Vista served by Sweetwater Authority only. Notes: 1) Page 1 FY FY FY FY 12-18 Mo 5 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 Projection Projection Yearly Demand - (Purchased by 7676 8100 8350 consumers, MG) 7,618 8063 8081 27,740 27,740 27,740 Yearly Supply Capacity, MG (1,2) 26,740 26,740 27,740 Storage Capacity, MG - Treated 42 42 45 Water 42 42 42 Storage Capacity, MG - Raw 17,421 17,421 17,421 Water 17,421 17,421 17,421 Notes: (1) Maximum supply capacity includes 62 cfs(40 mgd) treated water connection, Robert Perdue Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds DesaI. plant (4mgd) and National City Wells (2 mgd). (2) Normal maximum supply capacity is from Robert Perdue Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds DesaI. plant (4mgd) and National City Wells (2 mgd). Please provide brief responses to the following questions. GROWTH IMPACTS 2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X_ Explain: Growth observed within the Sweetwater Authority service area during the review period was approximately 0.5% which is not significant. 3. Do current facilities have the ability to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month time frame? Yes_X No Explain: Based on projected future growth current facilities can meet projected demands. 4. Will any new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 12-18 month time frame? Yes No X_ ; for the 5-7 year time frame? Yes X_ No Explain: Infrastructure improvements are proposed in conjuction with our 2002 Water distribution System Master Plan Page 2 a. Type of facility. Pipelines, tanks, etc. b. Location of facility. Multiple locations. . c. Projected production, in gallons. 38.5 M3D maximum day demand. d. Projected operational date. 2030 e. Are sites available for these facilities? Yes f. How will these facilities be funded? Developer capacity charges and Rate payers. g. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes 5. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? X_ No Yes Explain: The ability of the SD County water Authority to continue delivering water for current and projected demands, as we rely on this agency to supplement water supply. MAINTENANCE 6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes_X No Explain: Maintenance is directly funded by our rate payers and we are not dependent on state or federal funding. 7. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes _X_ No Explain: The Perdue Treatment plant $28 million upgrade to meet future water treatment standards. Master Plan improvements within the City of Chula Vista are approximately $20 million. 8. Does the District have any plans to produce or distribute reclaimed water? X_ No Yes Discussion: Last year the Authority reported that a consultant was hired to prepare a Recycled Water Feasibility Study and Master Plan. The driving force behind this effort is Duke's proposed power plant design alternative which requires approximately 5 million gallons per day recycled water supply to cool power generating units. If the Duke Power plant Page 3 construction moves forward Sweetwater Authority continues to plan the supply of recycled water. Subject to approved agreement with Duke and the City of San Diego to acquire the recycled water. MISCELLANEOUS 9. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No x_ Explain: The threshold for water service appears to be working fine 10. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes _X_ No_ Explain: Ensure that water supply is available at the state level to support local growth 11. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the GMOC? Yes No X_ Explain: None at this tirm Prepared by: Hector Martinez Title: Engineering Manager Date: 12/15/05 Page 4 THRESHOLD STANDARD In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city-wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. 1. Please fill in the blanks or update the information on this table. FY 1996-97 156,041 102,000 654 FY 1997.98 163,417 102,000 624 FY 1998.99 169,265 102,000 603 FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571 FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 FY 2001-02* 195,000 102,000 523 FY 2002-03* 203,000 102,000 502 FY 2003-04* 211,800 102,000 482 FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464 232,000 102,000 440 270,000 133,129*** 493 *Planning Division Estimate **S-year projections are based on GMOC Forecast. ***Previous/y assumed that EastLake Branch would close with the opening of Rancho del Rey Branch but because of the high circulation at this location it has been decided to keep it open until the Eastern Urban Center Branch opens late in the decade. Please provide brief narrative responses to the fol/owing: 2. The ratio of library square feet to the population has dropped below the 500 square foot threshold minimum. Please comment on this situation and what actions can be taken to mitigate the shortfall. Comment: With the opening of Rancho del Rey Branch Library, in late Fall 2007 , the Library expects to meet the 500 square foot threshold minimum based upon the thirteen-month population projection. See also Question #15. 3. Are libraries "adequately equipped"? Yes x No_ Explain: The Library expects to receive, in 2006, a second round of grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to replace our computer labs at Civic Center and South Chula Vista Branches. 4. In 2010 the population may be 270,000, based on your report last year given expected materials expansion to 652,393 items for a ratio of 2.4 items per person. What is the significance of not maintaining a ratio of 3 items per person Discussion: Three books per capita is only one of a number of metrics the library uses to gage whether or not there are sufficient resources to meet the needs of the community. Other metrics include the percent of operating budget that goes to purchase library materials, the percentage of the collection that is less than five years old, as well as the results of our bi- annual materials availability survey. Since achieving the 3 books per capita ratio is dependent upon adequate square footage, the system will not be able to meet this metric until both the Rancho del Rey Library and the Eastern Urban Center Library open. 5. Are libraries "adequately staffed"? Yes X No_ Explain: Page 2 Although staffing levels have remained the same in 2005-06, the Library continues to make service adjustments that use staff more efficiently. After a successful debut of the "marketplace" at Civic Center Branch Library in 2004, the Library introduced it at South Chula Vista Library in May 2005. Since one of the features of this model is a reliance on customer self-service, the Library has been able to reallocate existing staff to meet growing demand and usage. 6. Please provide a staffing plan, which illustrates how the existing and planned library facilities for Chula Vista will be staffed and operated in light of measured community needs related to hours of operation and staffing. The Chula Vista Public Library staff has developed a staffing plan for the current and future larger branch libraries that allocates a core number of staff at each facility. This consists of 6 to 7 FTE librarians, 6-7 FTE paraprofessionals, and a large contingency of hourly support staff to maintain a quality level of service. This fiscal year the Library is reinstating Principal Librarians as Branch Managers, at the larger branches, with Senior Librarians as Assistant Branch Managers. This structure, which was in place until 1998, was discontinued as a cost savings measure. However, the complex nature of large branch library management necessitated a return to this organizational structure. At EastLake Branch Library, which is experiencing a 25% increase in circulation, the Library has reallocated hourly staff to help meet the demand. In addition, the Library will be placing a self-check out unit at the branch this winter. Of course, it is not just the number of staff members that is important. The Chula Vista Public Library understands that in order to be able to attract and recruit qualified staff, there must be a commitment to a high quality of work life for both staff and volunteers and excellent intemal training programs must be in place. The library system also has a vibrant volunteer program. During the past year approximately 489 individuals have registered as volunteers working in literacy, technical service, circulation and other customer service areas. The Library's Volunteer Coordinator works closely with the City's Volunteer Coordinator on the establishment of job descriptions and job performance standards, as well as on recruitment and retention issues. 7. The GMOC is interested in library usage trends over the last few years. Please provide information over the last 3 years, or as your data permits, in total and by facility for such things as: · Number of patrons · Materials loaned · Other usage or performance indicators Discussion: Below is a chart that details library usage trends for the last three years: Page 3 Attendance Circulation Guest Satisfaction FY 04/ 05 1130888 1414295 91% FY 03/ 04 1076967 1308918 88% FY 02/ 03 1044755 1302774 86% The guest satisfaction rate is detennined during the Library's bi-annual user survey. GROWTH IMPACTS 8. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X. Explain: During this reporting period, growth has not negatively affected the ability of the Library to maintain service levels. Even with overall library circulation increasing by 8% in FY 04-05, the Library has able to handle the increase because of the implementation of the marketplace retail service model discussed above. 9. Are current facilities able to serve forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes No X Explain: No, the current library facilities (Civic Center, South Chula Vista, and EastLake) totaling 102,000 square feet will not meet the threshold of 500 square feet of library per 1000 population within the 18 month time frame. However, the opening of the Rancho del Rey Branch Library in 2007 will ensure that the threshold is met in that year. Conversations have began with the Planning Department and Corky McMilliin Companies regarding the fourth and final branch to be built in the Eastem Urban Area and for a timely opening to be able to serve the forecasted growth for 5 year time frame. 10. Will new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth? Yes X No Explain: In order to accommodate forecasted growth, the 1998 Library Master Plan calls for the construction of a full service regional library of approximately 30,000 square feet in the Rancho del Rey area and the construction of a second full service regional library of approximately equal size in the Eastern Urban Center in Otay Ranch. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees have been and are being collected to pay 100% of the costs of these facilities. Page 4 11. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the provision of library services? Yes No X Explain: MAINTENANCE/UPGRADE OF EQUIPMENT & COLLECTIONS 12. Has adequate funding been identified and/or secured for necessary maintenance and/or upgrade of equipment and collections? Yes X No Explain: The following was last year's response please update as appropriate. This year the South Chula Vista Branch Library was refreshed with a new coat of paint, cracked title floors were repaired, the fountains were restored, and a new browsing area was created in the central courtyard. The Civic Center branch library will be undergoing a major renovation over the next 1-2 years. Funding is being secured for the needed building upgrades, including upgrading of the electrical system to handle the increased number of computers, self-checkout machines and printers. Funding will also provide for replacement of carpeting, banners, refinishing and/or replacement of furniture and furnishings, improvement of the energy efficiency of the lighting system, and redesign of underutilized non-public areas of the library and overcrowded staff cubicles in the Circulation and Information and Reader Services sections. The Civic Center Branch library's HV AC system and roof have been replaced over the past five years. 13. How will the renovation process disrupt library operations and what effect will this have on patrons and if appropriate what mitigation measures are planned? Discussion: The Library is planning to conduct a Needs Assessment and writing a Plan of Service for the Civic Center renovation in 2006. After we have done that, we will know what the work will be and what mitigation measures will be necessary at that point. 14. Are there any major maintenance/upgrades to be undertaken over the 1-year and 5- year time frames? Yes X No Explain: Page 5 Besides the renovation of the Civic Center Branch library discussed above, the library must continually maintain and upgrade its computers and automation systems. In collaboration with MIS, the library's PCs are regularly upgraded on a revolving schedule. During the coming year, the library's website (or virtual branch) must be revamped in order to better serve the community. Over $1 00,000 worth of subscriptions to online databases are only available via the library's website. Therefore, this site must be very user friendly. A new online calendar of events was just purchased and will be implemented on the library site by January 2006. likewise, new technology will allow the library to greatly improve its catalog. Next year the library expects to redesign the online catalog's public interface so that it is easier to use. The library also intends to implement a new search engine, which will allow guests to access information from the catalog, subscription databases and the Intemet all in one search. We also expect to add a graphical interface to the catalog that \Mil make the catalog even more efficient and effective. Finally, the library continues to explore the use of Radio Frequency Identification tags (RFID). The department expects to implement this technology within the next two to three years. 15. Please provide an update on status of the Rancho Del Rey Library. Describe: A Design-Build team for the Rancho del Rey library project has been selected and City Council is expected to approve the contract at their December 13, 2005 meeting. Construction of the 31 , 129sf branch will begin in the fall of 2006 and the facility should open in late 2007. The project will be paid for with 100% PDIF funds. MISCELLANEOUS 16. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? NoL-: Yes Explain: 17. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No X. Explain: Prepared by: Mariya G. Anton Title: Senior Management Analyst Date: December 9, 2005 Page 6 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON LIBRARIES City of Chula Vista 04/24/06 The following information responds to GMOC questions regarding the hours of operation for City of Chu/a Vista libraries and the breakdown of attendance, circulation and guest satisfaction by library branch. Hours of Operation Civic Center Branch (64 hr./week) Mon - Thu Fri - Sat Sun South Chula Vista Branch (56 hr./week) Mon - Thu Fri - Sat Sun EastLake Branch (24 hr./week) Mon - Thu Fri Sat Sun 10:00 am - 9:00 pm 10:00 am - 6:00 pm 1 :00 pm - 5:00 pm 10:00 am - 8:00 pm 12 noon - 6:00 pm 1 :00 pm - 5:00 pm 3:30 pm - 8:00 pm Closed 10:00 am - 4:00 pm Closed Response to Question reo South Chula Vista Branch Hours of Operation In August 2002, the public service hours at South Chula Vista Branch Library were increased from 48 to 56 hours per week. As a result, staffing was increased to cover those additional hours. On an hourly basis, staffing at South Chula Vista Branch is comparable to staffing levels at Civic Center Branch Library. Staff does not believe that public service hours necessarily need to be consistent between branches. What is important is that our largest branches be open at hours convenient for the public and that we provide seven-day a week service. That is the case at South Chula Vista Branch Library. As a point of comparison, our neighboring libraries are open fewer hours than the South Chula Vista Branch. The Otay-Nester branch of the San Diego Public Library is open 47.5 hours per week, both the Imperial Beach and the Bonita branches of the San Diego County Library are open 50 hours per week, and the National City Public Library is open 40 hours per week. Only the Otay-Nester Branch is open seven days a week. Page 1 Attendance. Circulation and Guest Satisfaction Civic Center Branch FY 04/ 05 FY 03/ 04 FY 02/ 03 630887 538483 522377 747535 658143 674624 85% 87% 81% South Chula Vista Branch FY 04/ 05 FY 03/ 04 FY 02/ 03 360913 432397 438798 505079 524576 518968 84% 90% 90% EastLake Branch FY 04/ 05 FY 03/ 04 FY 02/ 03 139088 106087 83580 161681 126199 109182 95% 94% 92% H:\PLANNING\DanF\GMOC\GMOC _Library_Info _ 04-24-06.doc Page 2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON LIBRARIES City of Chula Vista 04/24/06 The following information responds to GMOC questions regarding the hours of operation for City of Chula Vista libraries and the breakdown of attendance, circulation and guest satisfaction by library branch. Hours of Operation Civic Center Branch (64 hr./week) Mon - Thu Fri - Sat Sun South Chula Vista Branch (56 hr./week) Mon - Thu Fri - Sat Sun EastLake Branch (24 hr./week) Mon - Thu Fri Sat Sun 10:00 am - 9:00 pm 10:00 am - 6:00 pm 1 :00 pm - 5:00 pm 10:00 am - 8:00 pm 12 noon - 6:00 pm 1 :00 pm - 5:00 pm 3:30 pm - 8:00 pm Closed 10:00 am - 4:00 pm Closed Response to Question reo South Chula Vista Branch Hours of Operation In August 2002, the public service hours at South Chula Vista Branch Library were increased from 48 to 56 hours per week. As a result, staffing was increased to cover those additional hours. On an hourly basis, staffing at South Chula Vista Branch is comparable to staffing levels at Civic Center Branch Library. Staff does not believe that public service hours necessarily need to be consistent between branches. What is important is that our largest branches be open at hours convenient for the public and that we provide seven-day a week service. That is the case at South Chula Vista Branch Library. As a point of comparison, our neighboring libraries are open fewer hours than the South Chula Vista Branch. The Otay-Nester branch of the San Diego Public Library is open 47.5 hours per week, both the Imperial Beach and the Bonita branches of the San Diego County Library are open 50 hours per week, and the National City Public Library is open 40 hours per week. Only the Otay-Nester Branch is open seven days a week. Page 1 Attendance. Circulation and Guest Satisfaction Civic Center Branch FY 04/ 05 FY 03/ 04 FY 02/ 03 630887 538483 522377 747535 658143 674624 85% 87% 81% South Chula Vista Branch FY 04/ 05 FY 03/ 04 FY 02/ 03 360913 432397 438798 505079 524576 518968 84% 90% 90% EastLake Branch FY 04/ 05 FY 03/ 04 FY 02/ 03 139088 106087 83580 161681 126199 109182 95% 94% 92% H:\PLANNING\DanF\GMOC\GMOC _Library_Info _ 04-24-06.doc Page 2 THRESHOLD STANDARD: 1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance ofthe City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Have storm water flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at any time during this reporting period? Yes X No If yes: a. Where did this occur? Although no property damage occurred, to our knowledge, there was significant street flooding with deposit of sediment at the Willow St. Bridge and Bonita Road, impeding traffic at that location.. b. Why did it occur? The culvert clogs due to sedimentation from the canyon above and backwater from Sweetwater River. c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation? The culvert needs to be reconstructed to raise the flow line and redirect the flow at the outlet. This should be constructed in conjunction with STL261, Willow Street Bridge Replacement, currently proposed for construction in Fiscal Year 2007/08. 2. Please comment on the City's effort to implement the NPDES program noting both successes and explaining any violations that may have occurred during the reporting period up to the current time. Discussion: During the reporting period, the City has met all its responsibilities for compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit requirements. Significant activities included: a. Staff reviewed development and re-development project submittals for compliance with NPDES regulations, including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP)... that require high priority development and redevelopment projects to implement site design, source control and structural storm water treatment Page 1 Best Management Practices. b. The Regional Water Quality Control Board and their consultants conducted an audit of the City's SUSMP procedures and provided comments. Staff provided response to some of the comments and worked toward improving the procedure where improvements were needed. c. All High Priority industrial facilities in Chula Vista were inspected once during the reporting period, as required by the Municipal Permit. d. Inspections of High Priority commercial facilities continued on an as-needed basis, as required by the Municipal Permit. e. Construction projects were inspected as required by the Municipal Permit, with High Priority construction sites being inspected once per week during the rainy season. f. All Municipal facilities were inspected at least once during the reporting period, as required by the Municipal Permit. g. Reported violations of the Storm Water Ordinance were responded to in the shortest possible time, and follow-up inspections were conducted to ensure satisfactory resolution of each case. h. During the reporting period, staff provided the following public education and outreach: o Participated in several community events and provided public education and outreach to the participants. Various promotional items with watershed protection messages were distributed. o Staff participated in construction site storm water management workshops and educated developers, contractors, and tradespersons on the federal, state, and local regulations and construction site Best Management Practices. o Staff developed a door hanger providing storm water education to residents. The door hanger is used to increase the awareness of Chula Vista residents on the importance of water quality protection and it provides contact phone numbers to report observed violations and ask any questions that they may have regarding storm water regulations. i. The City signed an agreement with I Love A Clean San Diego, a non-profit environmental education organization, to develop and implement a storm water public education campaign with participation of various stakeholders. j. City's consultants conducted dry weather field screening and analytical monitoring at 52 locations throughout the City's storm drainage systems to identify existing pollutants in urban runoff. Upstream investigations were conducted to identify the sources of such pollutants, when possible, and appropriate enforcement actions were taken to eliminate such illegal discharges. k. The City participated in the Regional Wet Weather Monitoring Program. Analytical Page 2 results from samples taken during storm events at a Mass Loading station located near the Willow Street Bridge over the Sweetwater River is used to evaluate the health of the Sweetwater Watershed. I. Staff actively participated in regional and watershed workgroup meetings and provided input for the next Municipal Permit that is due to be adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2006. m. Development of a watershed protection and water quality web page within the City's web site was initiated. Storm Water Management and MIS staff is working together to have the web page available to the public during 2006. n. In April 2005, an Environmental Health Specialist joined the Storm Water Management Section. o. Annual Compliance Reports and other reports required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Municipal Permit were duly prepared and submitted. On September 22, 2004, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued directives to the County of San Diego and municipalities of the San Diego County (including the City of Chula Vista) informing them that channel maintenance activities can not be conducted without the appropriate permits. Since obtaining permits normally involves environmental assessment and mitigation, the process may take a few years and involves several thousands of dollars in costs. This issue has impeded proper maintenance of flood control channels in the City. Public Works Operations currently conducts only such maintenance activities that can be performed manually, as the Regional Water Quality Control Board has indicated in writing that manual channel maintenance activities would not require permits. The City is working with other jurisdictions to develop a streamlined channel maintenance permit application process. Overall, during the reporting period the City has been successful in maintaining compliance with the Municipal Permit requirements and has initiated programs that are designed to enhance the NPDES program. During the reporting period, the City received four Notices of Violation from the Regional Water Quality Control Board; one of these notices of Violation was rescinded by the Board. Such Notices were duly responded to with no follow-up enforcement action. During the same period, the City issued a total of 62 Notices of Violation, Clean & Abate, Cease & Desist, and Stop Work Orders for various violations of the City's Storm Water Ordinance. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is expected to adopt the next Municipal Permit in 2006. The City may need to make changes to its NPDES program as a result of the new permit. GROWTH IMPACTS 3. Has the addition of over 2,600 new homes during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X Page 3 Explain: As a condition of development, the additional new homes (development) have not negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels since the drainage facilities that require maintenance, such as detention basins, have been incorporated into maintenance districts that are funded by the area of benefit. 4. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 24 -month and 5- year time frame, constituting over 5,000 and 15,000 new homes respectively? Yes x No Explain: Developers are required per Section 3-200 of the Subdivision Manual to provide on-site detention facilities such that the post-development flow rate does not exceed the pre- development flow rate at the outlet of the subdivision. 5. Western Chula Vista may experience the addition of 4,500 housing units over the next 5 years, what are the issues, if any, that need to be monitored in regards to this level of growth and drainage? Last year this question was asked when there were 2,600 units anticipated with the response below. Given the increase in the forecast does this warrant any change? Describe: The items identified in last year's response would still be valid. Last year's response: 1. Storm water quality runoff requirements may inhibit the ability to be able to improve existing natural drainage channels. 2. More intense development will be placing additional needs to have covered drainage facilities instead of open channels so that parking or other passive uses can be provided on the surface. 3. All development/redevelopment projects are required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 4. Development along existing unimproved drainage facilities will be considerably more expensive to develop than for property not along natural drainage channels. 5. City requirements regarding development within the floodplain (included in Chapter 18.54 of the City's Municipal Code) are sufficient and should not be relaxed. The lowest floor elevation of residential structures shall be elevated to a minimum of one foot above the regulatory flood elevation. 6. Historically, property damage has been confined to areas developed within or adjacent to flood plains. 6. How is the City protecting natural drainage channels in the west relative to the anticipated increase in development? Discussion: The continued implementation of the City's NPDES Program will protect the natural channels by minimizing the discharge of sediment, oil and grease, and other pollutants to storm drainage systems. Trash and debris are removed from natural drainage channels on a regular basis. New High Priority Developments are required to implement site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices to minimize Page 4 discharge of pollutants to storm drainage systems. Additionally, the construction of detention facilities in the eastern developments should minimize the erosion in certain channels located in the west by reducing the speed of storm flow. 7. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate this forecasted growth (differentiate between east and west)? Yes X No 1. East: Land development projects will be required to provide all necessary facilities and their respective share of maintenance costs to accommodate their impacts. 2. West: It is anticipated that some facilities will be required as parcels encroach onto natural drainage areas due to redevelopment at a higher density. Since the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin has been impacted by development in the east" additional improvements will be required, particularly in the unimproved channel. Redevelopment may also require that some existing facilities be modified or reconstructed so that more of the parcel can be redeveloped. a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Yes, pending environmental resource agency approval, there are some limited areas in each of the drainage basins where additional drainage facilities could be added. However, most of these areas are on private property. b. How will these facilities be funded? Improvements to the Telegraph Canyon Channel can be largely financed through the Telegraph Canyon Drainage D1F. Since the areas adjacent to most new development are generally privately owned, the property owner will fund these improvements as a condition of development. However, general impacts on developed areas may need to be funded by the City. c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? As previously mentioned, the Telegraph Canyon DIF can be used to fund improvements in the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin. The most common sources of funding for drainage projects has been the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the Residential Construction Tax. Council adopted the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program for Fiscal Year 2003-04 in order to improve the condition of City infrastructure in this area. The financing will need to be repaid through the City's annual CDBG entitlement funds generated through the Residential Construction Tax (RCT). Drainage projects that will be funded from these sources include $3.0 million for CMP replacement! rehabilitation, $0.74 million for drainage improvements on Emerson Street, and $0.62 million for other drainage improvements. Current legislation is being considered at the State level which would improve the funding of drainage projects. ACA13 would amend Article XIII of the State Constitution to allow municipalities to impose a levy for capital or operation and maintenance costs for flood control purposes without the need to conduct a ballot process or election. If this bill is passed by the legislature, it will need to be placed on the ballot. Page 5 8. Are there, or do you foresee, any growth related issues affecting the maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? The population is growing at about 7,800 persons per year. Yes x No Explain: The City's growth in the eastern areas will increase the flow into downstream storm drains and may eventually result in storm drain capacity problems in western Chula Vista. One of the functions of the Drainage Master Plan is to identify the location of storm drains which will be undersized to handle a 1 OO-year storm event at buildout. 9. What is the status of the "Master Maintenance Agreement"? Discussion: The City of Chula Vista has been in discussion with other agencies and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine if all area agencies could obtain a Master Maintenance Permit to maintain the natural channels within the county. Unfortunately, the RWQCB did not agree to this concept. The revised strategy involves hiring a consultant who would recommend a set of procedures and requirements which would allow each City to obtain a Master Permit to maintain channels within its jurisdiction. It is anticipated that this contract will be awarded in January and that Chula Vista's share of the cost will be $3000 to $4000. PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATION 10. Please provide an update on the status of the Drainage Master Facilities Plan, that will identify high priority drainage projects and applicable federal funding. Description: The consultant PBS&J has completed their work on the Drainage Facilities Master Plan. However, the Master Plan could not be completed because the City is waiting on the resolution of an issue regarding the use of new hydrology standards recently adopted by the County. This issue will affect the flows calculated for the storm drain basins and thus recommendations for facilities which need to be upgraded. The County is in the process of hiring a consultant to review their standards and propose revisions which would result in a more accurate determination of flow. It is anticipated that their study will be completed in summer 2006. After this issue is resolved, staff will be able to revise the report and use it to determine drainage priorities. The City is also in the process of preparing its own Drainage Report which will review drainage deficiencies identified in the 1993 GMOC report and the 2004 Master Plan, determine priorities and identify potential funding sources. It is anticipated that this report will be completed early in 2006 and be presented to Council in Spring 2006. MAINTENANCE 11. Please provide an update on the adequacy of secured funding identified for' maintenance of existing facilities. Explain: Maintenance of drainage facilities is generally supported from the General Fund and to a lesser extent by Gas Tax and Storm Drain Fee funds. However, the cost of the Page 6 City's NPDES program has expanded after the adoption of San Diego's municipal permit in February 2001 and the entire Storm Drain Fee is needed to fund this program. Other funds can be used to finance capital projects, such as corrugated metal pipe (CMP) rehabilitation. As previously discussed, the Westem Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program includes $3.0 million to rehabilitate! replace corroded CMP in westem Chula Vista.. City staff has also been investigating the feasibility of increasing the Storm Drain Fee to finance maintenance costs. 12. Are there any major maintenance projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1- year and 5-year CIP? If yes, Please provide a list of projects in order of importance. Yes X No The major project has been the televising of existing CMP to determine a priority list for the replacement and repair of CMP. The related project in the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2005-06 is DR 164: CCTV CMP Rehab Program Phase I. Additionally, DR160, F Street Drainage Facilities, includes funding for the redesign and replacement of several failing CMP in the area of F Street west of Broadway. 13. Describe the key drainage maintenance issues facing western Chula Vista now, and what corrective work need to be undertaken, the cost of this work, and what is currently not funded. Provide a list of unfunded drainage projects. Description: The primary area of concern in western Chula Vista is the Montgomery Area, located within the southwestern area of Chula Vista, generally bound by L Street to the north and Hilltop Drive to the east. Scattered throughout the Montgomery area are areas with missing street and drainage improvements, such as missing curb-and-gutter and sidewalks. As a result of the incomplete improvements, both drainage and pavement-related problems occur. The drainage and street improvements should ideally be constructed prior to any pavement rehabilitation in order to preserve pavement life. In addition, due to inadequate drainage facilities and in some cases, drainage between!within residential properties, problems occur in these areas during the rainy season. Some of these areas can be improved through the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program, but there are insufficient funds to construct all missing street and drainage improvements. An additional concern is the maintenance of natural drainage courses. The accumulation of silt and debris in these channels impedes their ability to carry the required storm water flow, but the City has frequently been required to obtain environmental permits from the State and! or Federal government before performing the maintenance, which is very time consuming. We have been involved in discussions with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the permitting process and maintenance needs (see Item #9). The Drainage Report currently being prepared by City staff will provide a list of priority drainage projects and indicate which projects do not yet have funding. 14. During the recent heavy rains in 2004 and 2005, were there any drainage failures or localized flooding? Indicate which instances may be attributable to growth and comment on other issues of which the GMOC should be aware. Yes X No Page 7 Two areas of local flooding during recent rains have been the around the intersection of Third Avenue and L Street and the drainage channel east of Emerson Street and Third Avenue. Both of these problems were largely due to debris blockages, and the problems were eliminated after the debris was cleared away. Also see the discussion under Item #1. Localized drainage issues will also be addressed by City staff's Drainage Report 15. Last year you reported that "The Drainage Master Plan identified 94,158 linear feet of CMP, which would cost an estimated $20.24 million to replace. Since the City does not have sufficient funds to replace or rehabilitate all these pipes at the same time, we will propose a CIP project to first televise the CMP. After this has been done, staffwill establish priorities and take care of the immediate needs first. We will propose to begin this process during Fiscal Year 2005-06." Please provide an update. The City has only recently received a copY' of the results of the CMP televising. We are currently reviewing the Consultant's recommendations and cost estimates. After this review is complete, we will incorporate the results into the Drainage Report being prepared by City staff. 16. Last year you reported that "The Drainage Master Plan has enabled us to identify the locations of the CMP within the City and has assisted us in setting priorities for televising all the CMP within the City's storm drain system. Once it is complete, we also anticipate that the Drainage Master Plan will enable us to identify potential drainage deficiencies and correct them." Please provide an update. The Drainage Master Plan has identified a list of areas with past flooding problems which were identified by the Public Works Operations staff. Staff is reviewing this list to determine which problems relate to maintenance issues and which would require Capital Improvement Projects. 17. Please indicate the CMP replacement budget for the last and the current fiscal year and indicate the sites that have been improved. Discussion: During Fiscal Year 2004-05 we spent approximately $1.2 million and replaced the CMP in the following locations: Cuyamaca Avenue to East Olympia Court 84 Minot Avenue First Avenue and H Street Fig Avenue to Guava Avenue 1345 Monserate Avenue Woodlawn Avenue and F Street Second Avenue and Chula Vista Street Page 8 The City has also spent about $650,000 from the budgets of Fiscal Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 for televising of all the CMP. The budget for Fiscal Year 2005-06 also includes $576,000 for replacing several CMP in the area of F Street west of Broadway. MISCELLANEOUS 18. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: 19. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes No X Explain: 20. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No X Explain: Prepared by (Name/Title): Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer Date: December 21,2005 J:\EngineeMDVPLAN\GMOC\DRAINAGE 05 GMOC.emc.doc Page 9 MEMORANDUM March 30, 2006 File No. KY-18l TO: Mark Stephens, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations SUBJECT: GMOC Report, Responses to Questions 18 & 19 (Environmental Health Coalition) The following is in response to issues/recommendations made by the Environmental Health Coalition to the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding the annual report's drainage sections and thresholds: Question 18. Threshold should be changed to explicitly state that conditions of the municipal storm water permit are met and that a threshold that addresses water quality be added. It should be clear that the threshold applies not only to flow and rate, but storm water quality as well. Response: Compliance with the municipal storm water permit is only partially a growth management issue since full compliance with the permit is applicable to all parts of Chula Vista, not just new development and redevelopment. In addition, new development is held to, and at, a greater level of compliance with storm water permit regulations compared to development completed prior to issuance of storm water quality regulations and requirements due to the requirement to implement structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs). Further, because compliance with the municipal storm water permit is based upon compliance with narrative water quality objectives and prescriptive requirements, not numeric water quality standards, establishment of a threshold standard for storm water quality is not practical or feasible - in essence, compliance is measured in terms of either "compliance" or "non-compliance. " Question 19. The GMOC should strongly recommend to the City Council that all Specific Plans incorporate clear direction on stormwater BMPs to address flows and water quality of dry and wet weather flows. For example, the landscaping design guidelines in the Urban Core Specific Plan should require landscaping features to function as stormwater BMPs. Also, sufficient land should be designated and zoned for storm water proj ects. Response: Under the storm water permit regulations, all new development and redevelopment projects are required to comply with all storm water management requirements, including the design and implementation of BMPs and/or SUSMP requirements, all of which are based upon dry and wet weather water quality pollutants of concern. Specific and prescriptive requirements are not recommended since the selection of the most appropriate BMPs are specific to site conditions and pollutants of concern. Where appropriate to effectively treat pollutants of concern, landscaping features are routinely used to function as storm water BMPs; however, the use of landscaping features to pretreat stormwater should be considered on a site-by-site basis, based upon identified pollutants of concern and other site specific criteria. With respect to the designation and zoning of sufficient land for storm water projects, this is also site specific and pollutant specific and should be considered on a project-by-project basis. As a matter of practice, larger development projects, in order to comply with SUSMP requirements, do set aside significant areas of land for storm water treatment and detention. Please contact Kirk Ammerman, Principal Civil Engineer, at Ext. 6121 if you should have any questions. c: Jack Griffm, Director of General Services Rick Hopkins, Assistant Director ofPWOPS Leah Browder, Acting Director of Engineering Khosro Arninpour, Senior Civil Engineer Shared on Citywide (2000):\Public Works Operations\NPDES\Response to GMOC Q 18 & 19.doc Environmental Health Coalition 401 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310 + National City, CA 92101 + (619) 474-0220 + FAX: (619) 474-1210 ehc@environmentalhealth.org + www.environmentalhealth.org MEMORANDUM March 23,2006 TO: FROM: GMOC Laura Hunter, Environmental Health Coalition Environmental Health Coalition would like to make the following recommendations for modification to the GMOC regarding the Drainage Sections and thresholds. Question 18. Threshold should be changed to explicitly state that conditions of the municipal storm water permit are met and that a threshold that addresses water quality be added. It should be clear that the threshold applies not only to flow and rate, but storm water quality as well. Question 19. The GMOC should strongly recommend to the City Council that all Specific Plans incorporate clear direction on stormwater BMPs to address flows and water quality of dry and wet weather flows. For example, the landscaping design guidelines in the Urban Core Specific Plan should require landscaping features to function as stormwater BMPs. Also, sufficient land should be designated and zoned for storm water projects. For questions, I can be reached at (619) 474-0220 ext 102 Thank you very much for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Laura Hunter, Director Clean Bay Campaign GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2006 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/04 - 6/30/05 to Current Period and Five Year Forecast) PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD STANDARD 1. Population Ratio: three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. The following table compares City of Chula Vista population estimates from previous years with current and forecasted population estimates. Park acreage provided or anticipated to be provided is also identified. Additionally, the table identifies the threshold standard, (acres of parkland provided per 1,000 persons), for the respective reporting periods. CITY OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons 18 Month Prior Year Comparisons Threshold Area of City Current* Forecast* Standard (6/30/05) (12/31/06) June 2002 June 2003 June 2004 3 Acres per East 1-805 1,000 AC/1,OOO persons 2.94** 3.47 3.45 3.14 3.01 Population East West 1-805 of 1-805 AC/1 ,000 persons 1.10 1.12*** 1.03 1.03 1.03 Citywide 1.94 2.24 1.98 1.91 1.89 AC/1 ,000 persons Acres of East 1-805 299.38 384.1 265.06 266.35 278.85 Parkland West 1-805 131.12**** 137.52 122.33 122.33 122.33 Citywide 430.50 521.62 387.39 388.68 401.18 Population* East 1-805 101,800 110,670 76,845 84,755 92,500 West 1-805 119,587 122,544 118,845 119,089 119,300 Citywide 221,387 233,214 195,689 203,844 211,800 Acre Shortfall East 1-805 -6.02 52.09 34.52 12.08 1.35 or Excess West 1-805 -227.64 -230.11 -234.21 -234.94 -235.57 Citywide -233.66 -178.02 -199.69 -222.85 -234.22 " Population forecasts are for preliminary planning purposes assumes 3,000 units in the east and 1,000 units in the west over the 18 months, with 3% vacancy and 3.048 persons per unit ""Although 10.5 acres of parkland (Veterans Park) has been under construction since 6/30/05 it will be completed shortly after 12/31/05. The park is be open to the public first quarter of 2006, and therefore has not been included in the 6/05 park acreage count Inclusion of the 10.5 acres translates to a ratio of 3.04 acres per 1,000 persons, which meets the threshold standard. """Harborside Park has been under construction since the second quarter of 2005. It is scheduled to open to the public by second quarter of 2006. """*West park acreage increase since last year due to the Bayfront area park acreage recalculation, inclusion of the Memorial Park pedestrian paseo, and inclusion of the Nature Center (Special Purpose Park -2.4 acres). Page 1 General Planning Estimates Chula Vista East versus West Population ArealY ear* 2000 2005** 2010*** East of 1-805 64,827 105,630 137,315 West of 1-805 118,473 119,600 132,772 Total 183,300 225,230 270,087 *Year end population unless otherwise indicated. ** Assumes that 97% of growth takes place in eastern Chula Vista, with no major residential projects in the west. *** Assumes that there is a 4,450 unit increase in western Chula Vista between 2006 and 2010. Please provide a brief narrative response to the following: 2. Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO), has the eastern Chula Vista parks system had the required parkland acreage (3 acres/1,OOO persons) during the reporting period? Yes No X Explain: As identified in the page 1 table, the Eastern Chula Vista park system did not meet the parkland requirements for the reporting period with a ratio of 2.94 acres per one thousand persons. However, the 10. 5-acre Veterans Park was expected to be completed during the reporting period, but experienced construction delays. Inclusion of the 10.5 acres translates to a ratio of 3. 04 acres per 1,000 persons, which meets the threshold. a. What actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland shortages? Explain: Calendar year 2005 represents the most active park construction period in the City's history with approximately 103 acres* of parkland being developed. One significant park (San Miguel Ranch Community Park) had originally been anticipated to be under construction as well, which would have brought the additional park acreage to 120 acres. Land assembly challenges have resulted in a delay. Construction of the San Miguel Community park is anticipated to occur late 2006/ early 2007. *Includes: Sunsetview, Santa Venetia, Mon te valle, Saltcreek, Veterans, Mountain Hawk, Horizon, and Windingwalk Parks. 3. Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO), has the City's park system provided the required facilities during the reporting period? Page 2 Yes No -X- Explain: The following table identifies facilities required under the POD, and shows the shortfall or overage based only on the City's park system. Please note, however, that, per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the provision of needed recreation facilities on non-public park sites, such as schools and recreation based community purpose facility sites, is necessary to help meet this demand. 4. Eastern Chula Vista Recreational Facility Needs 2004 Recreation Facility PRMP Need I Comments I Ratio ++ (Less Current Inventory) Softball Organized Adult 1/7,900 3 Per the attachment to question 15, many softball, baseball, Organized Youth 1/12,700 -3 and soccer facilities are provided at school sites. Practice/Informal 1 /2,850 24 Baseball Per the attachment to question 15, many softball, baseball, Organized Adult 1/12,200 8 and soccer facilities are provided at school sites. Organized Youth 1 /4,400 15 Practicellnformal 1/3,300 23 Football facility means any flat turf area suitable for informal Football 1 /21,400 -15 play, not an official football field. Soccer Per the attachment to question 15, many softball, baseball, Organized Games 1/5,400 1 and soccer facilities are provided at school sites. Practice/Informal 1 /2,450 18 This number is so high because it includes the 85 picnic Picnic Tables 1 / 600 -134 tables found in Rohr Park, which is east of 1-805, but is really more of a regional serving park. Nearly all of the parks east of 1-805 contain tot lots and Tot Lots/Playgrounds 1 /2,650 8 playgrounds. The City's two public pools are west of 1-805 and are Swimming Pool 1 /45,800 2 therefore not counted. The quasi-public pools of the YMCA and Southwestern College are also not counted. Not included in the count are the 14 Southwestern College, 6 Tennis 1/ 3,200 17 Bonita Vista High, 10 Eastlake High, and 4 Rancho del Rey Middle School courts, which are all listed in the Recreation Department's quarterly Recreation Brochure listing classes, programs, and events. No outdoor school basketball courts are counted. Basketball 1/2,150 30 Includes the recently opened Len Moore Skate Park, Skateboarding 1 / 56,950 0 operated by the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club, but built and owned by the City. Includes the recently opened Len Moore Skate Park, Roller Blading 1/59,100 0 operated by the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club, but built and owned by the City. Does not include the quasi-public South Bay YMCA facility Interior Assembly Space 1/3,900 23* nor the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club facility. f-+ - es overa e. Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan based needs ratio November 12, 2002. Negative Value Indlcat g * Represents approximately 72,220 square feet. Page 3 a. What actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any shortages of facilities? The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan (approved in November 2002) identifies future park sites and identifies future facility locations. In response to identified shortages, the Master Plan includes a park programming matrix which clearly defines where needed facilities will be located in conjunction with the development of new park sites as well as upgrades to existing park sites. This plan of action will serve to remedy facility shortages. The Master Plan contains an action plan that identifies timing of planned facilities, and funding sources. The plan also recognizes that the acreage required to accommodate desired recreation facilities exceeds the total amount of parkland obligation associated with future development. The assignment of needed recreation facilities to non-public park sites, such as future school sites, is necessary to accommodate future demand since the total developer obligated future park acreage is less than total acres required by demanded facilities. Facilities being targeted for future parks include swim complexes with 50- meter swimming pools and multi-purpose community centers with gymnasiums. Three major recreation centers and community parks (Veteran's, Saltcreek, Montevalle) will be opening within the first half of 2006, representing approximately 56,900 square feet of new community recreation facilities and 59.3 acres of parkland. 5. Please describe your current efforts at upgrading and renovating parks in western Chula Vista and those anticipated over the next 2 years. Describe: Harborside Neighborhood Park (5. 1 acres), located within southwestern Chula Vista is currently under construction. The park represents one of the first new parks in western Chula Vista in nearly twenty-five years. Minor upgrades are anticipated for Eucalyptus Community Park during the next two years. Additionally, with the completion of phase one of the Civic Center renovation project, a new urban style park (Plaza de Nadon) has been added to the civic center. The Plaza area includes a large passive turf area surrounded by decorative paving, tree groves and a water feature. GROWTH IMPACTS 6. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to achieve the threshold standard? Yes X No Explain: Page 4 Growth during the reporting period has not affected the ability to provide required parkland. Parkland is dedicated at the time of project final map approval. The pace of residential growth has resulted in a few challenges in regards to the timely construction of new parks. The greater than normal rainfall last season resulted in the delay of progress on nearly 10.5 acres of new parkland. Great progress has been made on park construction during the latter part of 2005. Three parks with major recreation centers (Veteran's, Saltcreek, Montevalle) will be opening within the first half of 2006, representing approximately 56,900 square feet of new community recreation facilities and 70 acres of parkland. 7. Are any additional parklands necessary to accommodate forecasted growth by December 2006 and 2010? Yes X No Explain: a. What is the amount of needed parkland? Current eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory will provide adequate acreage to accommodate up to 99, 794 persons. With a current (6/30/05) east population of 101,800 there is a current developed parkland shortfall of approximately 6 acres. The 18-month forecast calls for an eastern Chula Vista population of 110,670 (an increase of 8,870), therefore current inventory will need to be increased by 32.6 acres (including the previously mentioned 6 acres) to meet the 18- month forecast. With Veterans Park (10.5 acres) available for use in March 2006, Horizon Park (5.3 acres), Windingwalk Park (7.12), Montevalle Park (29 acres), Saltcreek Park (19.8 acres), and Mountain Hawk Park (12 acres) available by mid 2006, a total of 83. 72 acres will be available. A residual of 51. 12 acres of parkland would be available to meet 2006 to 2010 need. With a 2010 east forecast of 137, 315 persons (representing a net gain of 26,645 between December 2006 and 2010) 79.9 acres of additional parkland will be needed. Taking the 79.9 acres of additional need and subtracting the residual 51.12 acres, 28.78 additional acres of parkland would be required through 2010. Approximately 37.4 park acres (San Miguel Community Park, Village 7 neighborhood park and two neighborhood parks and phase one of Otay Ranch Community Park in Village 2) are to be constructed between December 2006 and December 2010 time frame. This translates to an eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory of 420.5 acres, which is capable of accommodating a total of 140, 167 persons (greater than the forecast of 137,315 persons). b. Are there sites available for the needed parklands? Page 5 Park sites are available and have been identified on SPA plans and Tentative Maps for major projects within the eastern territory such as Otay Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch, and EastLake. The table contained in item 12 below identifies available park sites currently being designed or developed. Once the General Plan Update is approved additional park sites will be identified. c. Is funding available for needed parklands? Funding for needed parklands in eastern Chula Vista is available through the dedication of park facilities and/or payment of Parkland Dedication Ordinance Fees (PAD Fees). 8. Are any additional facilities necessary to accommodate forecasted growth by December 2006 and 2010? Yes X No Explain: a. What facilities are needed? The following facilities will be needed in eastern Chula Vista to accommodate a population increase of 31,685 (Year 2010) and taking into consideration existing (2005) inventory. Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan-Based Needs Ratio - 2005 and 2010 Recreation Facility PRMP 12/2005 12/2010 Ratio ++ Need Need (Less 2005 (Less 2010 Supply) Supply) Softball Organized Adult 1/7,900 3 -1 Organized Youth 1/12,700 -3 -8 Practice/Informal 1/2,850 24 21 Baseball Organized Adult 1/12,200 9 11 Organized Youth 1/4,400 16 23 Practice/Informal 1/ 3,300 24 34 Football 1/21,400 -15 -24 Soccer Organized Games 1 /5,400 2 -6 Practice/Informal 1 /2,450 19 19 Picnic Tables 1/600 -128 -126 Tot Lots/Playgrounds 1/2,650 10 17 Swimming Pool 1 /45,800 2 3 Tennis 1 / 3,200 18 18 Basketball 1/2,150 32 28 Skateboarding 1/ 56,950 0 -2 Roller Blading 1/59,100 0 -2 Interior Assembly Space 1 / 3,900 24 14 Page 6 ~ <","..,.,~_~_,....,._.~~..,......._,.._.__,..~~,_"".h"~''''''''_...._-..-___ Notes: 1. Negative Value indicates overage. 2. Number of facilities needed has been round up when one-half or greater. 3. "Interior Assembly Space" refers to an increment of building facility utilized for recreation purposes. Each increment represents approximately 3,140 square feet. Community Centers and Gymnasiums count toward this requirement. b. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Yes, sites become available and are reserved as part of the land development process (Tentative Map, SPA Plan, and Final Map). c. Is funding available for needed parklands? Yes, funding of needed parklands will be available at Final Map recordation or at building permit for those projects not requiring Final Maps. 9. Are there any other growth related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold standard as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes ~ No Explain: If not properly phased, growth has the potential to affect the ability to provide necessary parkland and facilities in a timely fashion. Future park sites need to be developed early in the development phasing sequence. Furthermore, depending on facility type needed, it may be necessary to develop community park sites prior to neighborhood park sites in a given development. The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan includes goals, policies, and action items that address sequencing of park development in conjunction with population increases. PARKLAND AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 10. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing parklands and facilities? Yes X No Explain: The maintenance of all parklands and facilities is a budget issue. As new parks come online, additional maintenance staff and equipment will be needed to maintain parks that are added to the park system. 11. Is there adequate staff for park maintenance? Yes~ No Explain: The City Council has approved a staffing ratio of. 087 per acre to ensure that staffing levels are commensurate with parkland maintenance standards. Page 7 12. Were any major parkland or facilities maintenance/upgrade projects completed during the reporting period? If yes, please list. Yes X No Explain: Sunbow: New Play Equipment Greg Rogers: New Play Equipment Sunridge Park: New Exercise Equipment Los Ninos: New Comfort Station Rohr Parle New Comfort Station PARK PLANNING 13. Last year you reported that a staffing standard based on facility size and program elements was being developed to provide staffing that is adequate to meet both current and forecasted demand. Please indicate the results of this effort. Comment: The Recreation Department has implemented a staffing strategy to insure that both full-time and part-time staffing levels are commensurate with community demand and Department needs overall. The Department has adopted a staffing plan of a minimum of two full time staff per facility with sufficient part time staff to provide adequate coverage for programs and facility operating hours. In addition, we are having our Recreation Supervisors 11/ take on more day-to-day responsibilities. We will be relying more heavily on staff in the field, who directly interact with the public, and giving them more responsibility. We are "clustering" facilities whereby we will have a Recreation Supervisor 11/ responsible for operating a facility or program and also overseeing a nearby facility or like program. For example, the Supervisor 11/ at Veterans Park Center is also responsible for overseeing the nearby Heritage Center. We reclassified two existing Supervisor /I positions at centers in the west and made them responsible for nearby facilities. Loma Verde's Supervisor 11/ will be responsible for Loma Verde and also nearby Otay Center. Parkway's Supervisor 11/ will be responsible for Parkway Center, Memorial Bowl, Woman's Club, and the Community Youth Center. These reclassifications will give more supervisory responsibility to II/s, thus allowing the two Senior Recreation Supervisors, who will be responsible for three more facilities in the east, to remain effective liaisons between the field staff and the administrative staff. 14. You further reported that the provision of staff for planned facilities, pursuant to this proposed plan, is contingent upon City management and budget approval by Council, FY2005-06. Please provide an update. Page 8 Comment: The City Council approved the two reclassifications stated above and having a Recreation Supervisor 11/ and Recreation Supervisor I at each of the three new recreation centers. 15. In addition to Harborside Park, please indicate specific opportunities for acquiring parkland for western Chula Vista and the means for financing these acquisitions. Describe: The General Plan Update includes additional provisions for future park sites and park classifications in western Chula Vista. The future system of parks in west Chula Vista will be comprised of community, neighborhood, and urban parks. Financing of future parks will include the current mechanisms identified in the Municipal Code such as PAD Fees and REC DIF (Development Impact Fees). A review of the west Chula Vista fees is currently being conducted to ensure that the Master Fee Schedule is adequate to facilitate development of needed facilities. 16 Please update the parkland-phasing program for eastern Chula Vista as presented in last year's response to the GMOC. Park Phasing D Park Anticipated Estimated Estimated Park Name AcreagE Status Construction Construction ~cceptance Dab Start Date Completion Date Neighborhood Parks Under First Quarter Fourth Quarter First Quarter 1 Horizon 5.30 Construction of 2005 of 2005 of 2006 Under Second First Quarter Second Quarter 2 Mountain Hawk 12.00 Construction Quarter of 2006 of 2006 of 2005 Under Third Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter 3 Windingwalk 7.00 Construction of 2005 of 2006 of 2006 4 Village 7 7.00 Master Plan Third Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter of 2006 of 2007 of 2007 5 Village 2A 7.00 SPA Plan First Quarter Last Quarter First Quarter of 2008 of 2008 of 2009 6 Village 2 B 7.00 SPA Plan First Quarter Last Quarter First Quarter of 2008 of 2008 of 2009 Community Parks Under Third Quarter Fourth Quarter First Quarter 7 Veterans 10.50 Construction of 2004 of 2005 of 2006 Montevalle Under Third Quarter First Quarter Second Quarter 8 Community 29.00 Construction of 2005 of 2006 of 2006 Park Saltcreek Under Third Quarter First Quarter Second Quarter 9 Community 19.80 Construction of 2005 of 2006 of 2006 Park San Miguel Construction Third Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter 10 Ranch 16.10 Document of 2006 of 2007 of 2007 Community Preparation Park Page 9 17. Last year you reported that you were moving forward on the design and/or construction coordination of ten parks. Please provide a progress report on this construction. Describe: Item 16 above, rows 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 include the current status/progress of eight of the parks from last year. Additionally, from the list from last year, Santa Venetia and Sunsetview Parks have been completed and are open to the public. 18. Please update the list of joint use park and recreational resources with the school districts, highlight any changes. Describe: 1) Joint use of Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista Elementary School District field facilities is available for use by Youth Sports Council members. 2) In addition, the Recreation Department provides middle school after school programming at Rancho Del Rey Middle School, Castle Park Middle School, Chula Vista Middle School, Bonita Vista Middle School, Eastlake Middle School, and Hilltop Middle School. 3) Additionally, the Library Department has after school programs at 32 elementary school sites. 4) Chula Vista Community Youth Center, which is located in western Chula Vista, is a model of successful joint use that offers a mix of school, recreation and community uses in class offerings that sometimes blur between the Chula Vista High School and the Recreation Department. 5) The City and High School District have a joint use agreement for Rancho del Rey Middle School and Voyager Park, whereby the middle school and the City have access to each other's facilities, including soccer fields, softball fields, basketball and tennis courts, and parking. 6) The City and High School District have a joint use agreement for Eastlake High School and Chula Vista Community Park, whereby the high school and the City have access to each other's facilities, including softball fields, basketball, volleyball, and tennis courts, a track complex, and parking. 7) At the two City pools, various high school swim and water polo teams pay fees for pool time and City lifeguard service for their practices. The Recreation Department offers elementary schoollearn-to-swim programs to elementary schools for a fee. Aquatics staff also goes to first grade classes at various elementary schools to teach an Aquatic Safety Awareness Program. Page 10 THRESHOLDS AND COMMUNICATIONS 19. The GMOC is recommending that the 3 acre per 1,000 standard be applied citywide for new construction or an in lieu fee paid for facilities as defined in the parks master plan. What issues, if any, do you foresee in implementing such a threshold? Describe: In west Chula Vista issues pertain to the cost of land acquisition, availability of suitable land, and the phasing of new parkland with new development. 20. Are there any suggestions you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: Staff recommends GMOC recommend to the City Council that in planning the future development of a major city park, the city take into consideration the City's centennial anniversary in 2011. The park or parks could reflect a theme related to the City's history through the integration of public art and/or park design. Two sites to consider are the "lO-acre park" and the "landmark park". 21. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC. Yes X No Explain: Montevalle Community Park, which is under construction and expected to open in spring 2006, will include "universally accessible" playground equipment, which is a first for the City. As with all parks built in Chula Vista over the past eleven years, the master plan for Montevalle Community Park calls for implementation of mandatory guidelines outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which provide for curb cuts, restroom access, and other amenities. However, providing universally accessible playground equipment and play spaces in the children's playground goes even further to achieve the more inclusive spirit of the law. Universally accessible equipment is designed to be sensory-rich and challenging, with rubberized surfacing for running, walking, and climbing; games and signage that teach a variety of communication skills; horizontal ladders and upper body peddlers that encourage multiple motor skills and build upper body strength; and wheelchair accessible play equipment and games. For some time, the community has expressed an interest in providing facilities for the 7.5% of Chula Vista children who have disabilities - ranging from physical to emotional disabilities - who nevertheless have the same need and the same desire to play and socialize with their able-bodied peers in an inviting and accessible environment. A playground equipped with "universally accessible" recreation equipment provides that opportunity and exceeds the intent of traditional playgrounds to "get kids moving" because its design allows a high level of interactive play for all children Page 11 '" ""~~."_....,_~_,_,._v.~._.",_,,.,_._ _..~.~____~..____..._._~~,._____'~ including children with disabilities. As the name suggests, universally accessible equipment can be enjoyed by both able-bodied children and children with disabilities, their siblings and their parents. In the entire San Diego region, only four such playgrounds currently exist and these are located in Mission Bay, EI Cajon, and Santee. In response to the community, the Recreation and General Services Departments are providing a local solution to this problem on behalf of our children by enhancing Montevalle Community Park to include universally accessible playground equipment. We have dedicated $200,000 in Park Acquisition and Development fees for construction of the playground. The City has also been awarded an additional $200, 180 in competitive State grant funds in order to provide an even more enhanced play area. Recommendations from last year's GMOC report 22. As a first step in the updated of the Parks Master Plan you reported last year that the City was in the processes of retaining a consultant to conduct a survey and prepare an update to the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. The Assessment is the first step in developing a Western Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Implementation Plan. The Needs Assessment task was anticipated to be completed mid 2005. Comment on the status and results of this effort: Three major programs relating to the future development of parks in western Chula Vista are currently underway or nearing completion. Completion of the programs required additional time and effort. This has resulted in a delay in the completion of the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan (the policy document that will address western Chula Vista parks and recreation facilities). Once the three programs are completed, work can be completed on updating of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The General Plan Update (the first program) will establish a new framework for future parks in western Chula Vista (adoption now anticipated yearend 2005). The second program is the Western Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan, which will address the integrating of parks in the context of the expanded vision for residential, commercial and office development in the urban core area of western Chula Vista (anticipated adoption second quarter of 2006). The third program is the update of the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment (anticipated to be completed in January 2006). The City retained a consultant to conduct a survey and prepare an update to the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. The initial task of preparing survey questions and conducting a telephone survey, to ascertain current recreation participation rates of residents, has been completed. The survey was conducted in May/June 2005. Information pertaining to current need (2005) for parks and recreation facilities for both east and west has been incorporated into a preliminary report. Future 2030 needs (based on the pending approval of the General Plan Update) is currently being prepared and is to be completed in January 2006. The Assessment will be utilized to update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to be Page 12 consistent with the anticipated General Plan Update and Urban Core Specific Plan. A draft of the update to The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is to be completed during the first quarter of 2006. 23. Please indicate recent efforts and issues toward achieving joint use for parks with the school districts. Comment: No new efforts other than existing agreements. 24. Please update the GMOC on the status of the "70 Acre" park. Comment: Since last year's GMOC report a couple of key steps have been set in motion in regards to the "l0-Acre" community park site. The first key step is the pending approval of the General Plan Update and accompanying land use map diagram. The Land Use Map, once approved, will formally identify the location of the "l0-Acre" park. The second key step is the pending approval of the Village 2 SPA plan and accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The SPA Plan and EIR, once approved, will allow for the approval of a subsequent final map. Council approval of the final map will include the dedication of the first 40 acres of the "70- Acre" community park. With the dedication of the first 40 acres, the City will be in a position to proceed with the design of a site-specific master plan. Prepared by: Joe Gamble Title: Landscape Planner II Last Update: December 9, 2005 Contributing Editors: Shauna Stokes Page 13 -. .,~-"",.~""",~<,,,,,,.,,,,_.--,".,~,._.--~..~.~"-........-'~._--~_" n ~~ ~ 0 CJ -TI un D! ::::r ::J C C - o Q) D- ~< ro -. V'l ~ Q) ::Ei ~*z '" 1101 ~ (Q ~ooo CD ~ ] "'C"'C ::J lIl::l~(Il 0... S10 (I) (I) ::l ;;0 "'C "'C (I) l!: l!l l!l ~ .., (I) (I) n (Il' (Il el)> "U c)"!l CD ::l <' ~ (Il < ~ (Il Q (Il el o' ::l ~ C) CD ::I CD .. m - " - m = :J:a .. CD m o -a CD = '" -a m n CD :s: m -a ~~ ....." r- ~+l}~*)})) ~ ..... .... \. \ !I! a :An'\, . . s~~!r~~~rQ =~~~~;:g;.;~ ~~~~i:g!~~ gg~~~~~~~ OQ.3c~-s.s:.:D,< g~5~ ~~i 8. ~;9 ~;3J~ ;9 ;!1~ ox--u xc xc 3g'~ e-eOJ ~ 2- ~ -<:i} -< .B>@@l@**~ f~~C!'~C!':Odl C)::D2.~3~QG:' eE-C"CD3_CD:::r. dI~~~:oa:~ 3" 3q~~i= ~ ~~ic;~ ~~~~~ ! ~i"g it ~ ~ if ~ i !!l. I ;0/'_...... L,' ! :\.-""'\ r~ \. \.; t[ ~ ~ r;.~~ l... r'\. 1 oC_ ~^yIH ,-~ ..1.*, ~......"'"'""\. C-.....~:~-7;"".? I (\,~..'" .......::..:-LJ ~~\ ,~.~ <: ~1 )1001' ~ "'.....: ~_.. V (is :? 'I..:."-:"/':.J< .~\.:) ,:::':~.:\ ~-' \ '.-.:),~\ ~:., \ <~:;: \ /\ ':::. \' \ ~,:>,. ClB> \'" \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ......\~:. .~..........::... . , .....:~ ....,.J .....-..~......... bf~.r--...jL.Tl, / __J .../ i-. ... I - I I I L"L, '--- I I r-...J I II] L-J, I I I ,.~:.~ .... ..' .' r.....! ("~:: :"/.:::.:~:~...t.....m.. i.' f ("') "T1~~ to. iG 0 ~ @ --f'ol 00 i ("'):::r 600> -::>l:: J\ ~ iii" ~ ~ < ro Vi" ..... OJ . '. III >C i" .. - :I I>> :I a. "'G .. o o .. CD a. "'G c a" - - n "'G I>> .. ~ .. I>> :I a. ::a CD n .. (I I>> .. - o :I -: n - - - .. .- .. ww~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ro~~~~w~~ ~o~ro~~~~w~~o~ro~~~~w ~~o COOIIO~~~~~~O~CCI~IOOOzz<cccm~c~ ~--OO OCDOO~O O~~OO= OO~~~~CO~O ~00==g~~30CDOOC~~U~-~EE~~-~~~0~~~ 0~<&~~~~0~~33~0002BmQ033~0000~0~ 3~CD~~~0~o<m003~33~~~~<<00I333~g3CD CD _ CDO CD~O~CcrCDCDo.OO --~~~CDCDCD~-CD- o.Q^~~~~~aoo.~~go.o.CD-~ ~~~~CDo.o.o.c~o.~ ~CD OO~~=CD~~Q<~~~~~ OOQQ_~~~~o~Q Qg mmQ~~~ Q^~ QQQ~ ~~^^~QQQ~aQ~ ~O ~~^ CD~ ^ O~~~^ CDCDO CD~~~~ ~O ~~ - o.Q ~~O~ 33~ ~o~o ~~~ ~Q ~~ ~g ~ ~o QRi ~ifrl ~~i ~~ ~^ ~ CD -0.3 o~ "O~o- 0 <- CD -- ~ <CD ~ -to ~~ ~o<~ _ 0- - - 00 o~ <: < ~ m i0 ~~ ~~CDCD ~ ~~ 0 ~~ c ~~ 0 0 CD 00 3 - ~ c~ 3 m CD ~ c 0. ~ ~ ~ .,-... ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~wwwww ww w ~ro~~~ ~w~ ~o~ro~~~~w~~o~ro~~~ ~w ~ ~~o~~o~~50~~0~&~~~~~09~~~~~~~~~~ =CDO~_CD~__CD__CD~<O~o.~~o~O~"O~~CD~~CD~ CDm~o<a~~~amm~cro~oCD=CD~o~~oO-ooooo CCD~ ~m~~gmoo~0~~~~goCD<00roz~~33~3 ~~~o- CDCD ~~O~m~o~CDO~m~O-o- CDCD CD ~8oQ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~oo.~~o<o~~~^ 0.0. 0. ~o.~o~ QQ~ oo~_Q^CD~Q~Q~~~~~ o~ 0 Q~~~ ^^ ~~~^^ ~CDo^~~~ 0 Q ~i ~ ^Oo- 0 0 0 ~CD ~o. 0 ^ qJ' ~ ~-^ 0 0 ~ ~ 0= ~ ~ ^^ 3 ^ ~o -~ < ~o ~ 3 0_ ^ 0 CD~ CD 3 3 ~^ ~ ~ Q~ Q 5 c ~ ~ CD~ CD -7 ~ - ~~ ~ ~ < ^ -c- g CD g ro ro ro ro ro ro \ JW::d5bsn~se -. ::J 0 0 0 0 0 Cl~ -CD ~ ::J ::J ~ ::J ro ~ooooo ::J 0 :::r:::r~:::r:::r ~ -+-J ~~~~~ ::;; n 00000 ~ ~ ~~'@~~ ~ ~ C:;W-O~~ fr< ro Vi- ..-I- OJ rororo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~o-oro~~~~w~~o-oro~~ ~o~ <()~~~3 ^~~~~~~ ~ o~C ::!:_~::J~ CD 0" CD v~ CD ---000 ao a~Q~ -gg:::r:::r:::r CD~ CD ^~ ~. <<< ~o ~ 0 Obb___ , ~~~--- mCD CD oCDCDOOO O::J ::J :::roo~~~ ~-CD m ~~CDCDCD m_ - ~oro~~ ~ m C 0 - ~ 0" - o ~ ~~~~~~ ~~w~~o < ~ ()g CD 0 ~~ -< m= 60 -~ o CD <J:>. ~ o ~ o :::r ~~D o 0 ~ ~~o. 00- ~~= ~~ 00 ~~ CD CD ~~ THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 % ofthe Priority I emergency calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls offive minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). Urgent response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II, urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). 1. Threshold Standard - Please u date tables FY 2004-05 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 FY 2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 FY 2001-02 1,5391 of 71,8591 80.0% 5:07 FY 2000-01 1 ,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 CY 19992 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 FY 1997-98 1,512 of 69,196 74.8% 5:47 FY 1996-97 1,968 of 69,904 83.8% 4:52 FY 1995-96 1,915 of 71,197 83.0% 4:46 FY 1994-95 2,453 of 73,485 84.9% 4:37 * Beginning in FY 01-02, call volume figures include all calls received and dispatched with a final priority of 1; some of these calls may have subsequently been canceled prior to officer arrival. lThese figures (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. Prior to FY 01- 02, citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to received source. Using the old method of reporting calls for service to better compare change over time, total citizen-initiated calls actually increased 1.5% from FYOO-01 to FY01-02. 2 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. Page 1 FY 2004-05 16,889 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 FY 2003-04 16,526 of 71,000 48.4% 9:50 FY 2002-03 15,024 of 71,268 50.2% 9:24 FY 2001-02 22,199 of 71,859 45.6% 10:04 FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50 FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38 FY 1994-95 21,900 of 73,485 63.4% 6:49 * These figures do not include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03. All other priority 2 calls received and dispatched with a final priority of 2 are included. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 2. During the current reporting period, please indicate (1) the number and percent of priority 1 calls that have a 10-minute or greater response time, (2) characterize the nature of the calls, and (3) characterize the typical reasons for the lengthy response times. Discussion: During FY 04-05, 6.4% (65) of priority 1 calls had response times greater than 10 minutes. The most common P1 call type with a response time over 10 minutes was robbery/duress alarm. All of the robbery/duress alarm calls were false. Other common P1 call types with response times over 10 minutes included suicide attempt and overdose calls. The most typical reasons for P1 response times over 10 minutes were (1) lengthy distances had to be traveled to provide a response; and (2) no units or a limited number of units were available to respond. Please update/correct the following table. Priority 1 Calls Exceeding A 10 Minute Response Time By Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Priority 1 Calls* Calls over 10 min Percent 04-05 1,023 65 6.4 03-04 1,106 63 5.7 02-03 1,216 62 5.1 01-02 1,305 69 5.3 00-01 1,179 93 7.9 * includes only those calls that had arrive times or were not canceled prior to officer arrival (in these cases no response time can be calculated), and those calls with original priorities of 1. Page 2 3. Was the Police Department properly equipped to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the reporting period? Yes X No Explain: The department was properly equipped with patrol vehicles, motorcycles, officer safety equipment, and communication equipment to deliver services. 4. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II Threshold Standard compliance during the reporting period? Yes X No _X_ Explain: Both "Ves" and "No" were checked above because while the department was operating at budgeted staffing levels during the reporting period, the level of on-duty injuries and officers in field training impeded our ability to meet thresholds (see graphic below). Reporting period Police Department Sworn Staffing 2002 - 2005 190 235 220 III CI) CI) >- ~ 205 E w 175 ~~~~YF~~~~~~~~~~~ ')'lJo~ ~~ ~~ ')~ t:..J0~ ~o ')'lJo~ ~~ ~~ ')~ t:..J0-q ~o ')'lJo~ ~'li ~'lf ')~ r.o0 ell Authorized -Actual A Actual On-Duty I Page 3 In January 2006, the Department will request that Council approve an increase in the advanced hiring program from five to ten officers. In addition, we just completed a patrol staffing study, and as a result, are hiring an additional 11 officers (but it will be up to 18 months before they are in the field and out of training). 5. If the answer to questions 3 and 4 is yes, any of the thresholds have not been met, please explain the reason for not meeting the threshold. N/A: Explain: Because the number of actual on-duty officers was well below the number of officers employed by the Department as described above, we were often working at minimum staffing levels in patrol, which meant no extra officers were available to help respond to calls. In the past, we had more extra officers on each shift who were available for this purpose. In addition, total call volume increased 4% from FY 03-04 to FY 04-05, and P2 call volume has increased 12% increase FY 02-03 to FY 04-05. GROWTH IMPACTS 6. Has growth during the last year negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes No_X_ Explain: As described above, actual on-duty staffing levels were significantly below actual staffing levels, but this was not due to city growth. 7. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth from January 2006 through December 201 O? Yes No _X Explain: Current staff levels are not sufficient to absorb forecasted growth through 2010. We will run the patrol-staffing model every year to ensure our recommended staffing levels keep up with projected growth. 8. Last year you reported that to accommodate forecasted growth while improving public safety, there is a need for a staff person who can help coordinate efforts among the Police Department, Planning & Building, and Community Developmentto incorporate crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) into the planning process for new and redeveloped areas. Has any action occurred in this regard? Page 4 Describe: In our 5-year strategic plan, we identified the need to address, on a citywide basis, environmental design issues that facilitate crime and disorder. We also recommended a study to determine the feasibility and benefits of a formal CPTED program and CPTED manager position with the potential for subsequent year adjustments. 9. Are other new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes X No All projected growth-related needs have been addressed in the 5-year strategic plan, which will be presented to City Council in early 2006. Our six strategic goals are: . Meet GMOC requirements for Priority 1 and 2 response times while maintaining a quality level of service, and responding to 80% of Priority 3 and 4 calls within 60 minutes by July 2007 . 95% overall resident satisfaction by 2007 . 100% fill rate in authorized sworn and civilian actual staff positions by 2007 . 100% of Part 1 crime reports completed, entered and filed within 24 hours; 100% of Part 2 crime reports completed, entered and filed within 72 hours . 95% of residents report feeling safe in public parks and commercial areas by 2007; 90% of residents report feeling safe at transit locations by 2007 . Reduce auto theft rate by 20% to 7.8 annually by 2007; reduce Part I violent crime rate by 20% to 3.2 annually by 2007 If yes: a. Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities, equipment and/or staff? Yes. b. How will these be funded? They will be funded from a variety of sources, including DIF, grant funds and the General Fund. c. Are there appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes. FALSE ALARMS 10 Last year you indicated that a growth-related issue affecting the provision of police services is in regard to the number of new homes that are equipped with security systems and that that results in an increase of false alarms. Please indicate any action being taken to address this issue. Discuss: Page 5 -~-~~_...-._,,-"",...,~"-~.~---~..,.,,~-_..._~~_..--...._~._-~--~_...._- Although the raw number of false alarms continues to increase slightly from year to year, the false alarm rate per residential system has actually decreased significantly since 2001.3 We will continue to monitor the rate closely. 11. Please update the tables below. Calendar Year Totals for False Alarms Per System Per Year (available only for calendar year, but fiscal year totals should be similar) 2001 2002 2003 2004 20055 (annualized) (annualized) Commercial 1.50 1.58 1.37 1.25 1.36 Residential 0.51 0.57 0.37 0.32 0.50 Total (Com & Res) 0.80 0.84 0.64 0.56 0.79 12. Please specify any other action being undertaken to address the issue oHalse alarms. Discussion: When residents contact the Police Department with questions regarding alarm permit requirements or false alarm penalty assessments, Alarm Program staff provide information on false alarm prevention methods and alarm ordinance specifications. Alarm Program staff also proactively contact locations identified as having excessive false alarms and corrective action measures are discussed. OTHER GROWTH-RELATED ITEMS 13. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the provision of police services? Yes No _X_ Explain: 3 Beginning in 2005, false alarm rates were calculated by including all alarm calls that were dispatched, even if they were canceled en route. (In prior years, only false alarms that resulted in a completed officer response were used to calculate the rates.) As a result, the 2005 false alarm rate appears to have significantly increased since 2004, but it has not. 4 These figures reflect a change in reporting of total alarm calls to include those that are dispatched, but canceled en route. S These figures reflect a change in reporting of alarm call rates to include those that are dispatched, but canceled en route. Page 6 14. Please assess the City's advance hire program relative to keeping pace with growth as presented in the 5 Year forecast. On November 1, 2005, the City Council approved an additional 11 peace officers, (funded in part by the Universal Hire Program, or UHP), bringing the total authorized sworn staff to 242. Although we are currently at 236 officers, (or six below authorized strength), prior to these UHP additions we were fully staffed (at 231 sworn) with five positions into advanced hires. In January, the police department will be going to Council with its strategic plan, asking for several additional sworn and civilian staff, as well as an increase in the advanced hire program from five to ten officers. Several lateral officer candidates and police recruit applicants are in the background process, with the goal of sending ten to the academy in January 2006. MAINTENANCE 15. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities and equipment? Yes X No Explain: Equipment replacement funded through the General Fund ensures the ongoing upgrades of equipment such as MDCs. 16. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: . Police technology enhancements MISCELLANEOUS 17. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council, including additional threshold indicators? Yes X No Explain: Page 7 Suggested Recommendations Comments That the GMOC support the CPTED Manager The study will determine the feasibility and position study. benefits of a formal CPTED program and CPTED mana er osition. That the GMOC continue to support the The model assists in meeting response time dispatch staffing model and the Dispatch thresholds for priority calls for service. Mana er Conce t. That the GMOC support continued use of the patrol staffing model and the advance-hiring program. That the GMOC continue to support planned upgrades of police technologies, such as MDCs, wireless data transmission to patrol vehicles, and lobal ositionin s stems. That the GMOC continue to support research and evaluation of Internet crime reporting; alternative deployment tactics; such as revised beat configurations, bike patrol; and an aerial latform. Both will enable the department to respond to calls for service, and seek a 1: 1 ratio of officer time spent responding to citizen-initiated calls for service to officer-initiated activities, and a zero vacanc factor in atrol. It is imperative that the Department continue to build a solid technology infrastructure in order to service a growing community. Research staff have looked at several of these ideas over the past year and expect to continue to research various options over the next 18 months, with the aim of maximizing both the effectiveness and efficienc of the De artment. 18. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No _X_ Explain: Prepared for: Chief Rick Emerson Prepared by: Karin Schmerler Date: 12/19/05 Page 8 ~ ~ ~ N 90-daS N ...... N ~ l"- t>> ~~ 90-~ew 'N c: co ,~ -.r N -- 90-uer :1 m so-das ... en so-~ew c: s.. c;; so-uer 0 N ~ CD 0 to-das en 0 ...... M N N ... to-,{ew c: . Q) N c;; to-uer E N 0 ... 0 N to-das s.. N 0) N m N N C. to-,{ew Q) 0) C N to-uer N Q) ZO-daS 0 co N -- N - zo-,{ew 0 a.. zo-uer 0 La 0 La 0 La 0 CD "ll:t (II) ~ 0 CO .... N N N N N ~ ~ saa~oldw3 t/) ..... co cu OJ - o s- ..... CO D.. cu o .- - o n.. z+~ ~ LO N ,.....j ~ V> "'0 'i:: <.9 (l) u .- o 0.. >- .n (l) u '> "- (l) (f) "- ~ r.J) ro o L() o o N Q.. >-'V ,g .C l.O en Q 0 -'-~tD "'iGlI~ o A. 0 ~~I N r- LO ~ I.,() M T- . MO;. M CD <.0 ~ ~ii CURRENT THRESHOLD STANDARD: 1. Threshold Standard Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Please fill in the blanks in the following tables using normalized data: CY 2005 9907 81.6% 7:05 3:31 FY 2004 8420 72.9% 7:38 3:32 FY 2002-03 8088 75.5% 7:35 3:43 FY 2001-02 7626 69.7% 7:53 3:39 FY 2000-01 7128 80.8% 7.02 3:18 FY 1999-00 6654 79.7% 3:29 CY 1999 6344 77.2% 3:41 CY 1998 4119 81.9% 3:40 CY 1997 6275 82.4% 3:32 CY 1996 6103 79.4% 3:44 CY 1995 5885 80.0% 3:45 CY 1994 5701 81.7% 3:35 Note: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1,2002 to September 30, 2003. The difference in 2004 performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant. Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. Did the Fire Department have properly equipped fire and medical units as necessary to maintain threshold standard service levels during the reporting period? Yes x No Please explain: The Department is currently operating with relatively new equipment as H :\PLANN I NG\Dan F\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\FIRE 06v.2.doc Page 1 most front line apparatus have recently been purchased or replaced. The Fire Department fleet has 5 engines in reserve and also has two frontline aerial ladder trucks, and one reserve aerial ladder truck to be able to better serve the community in the event of a fire. Council approved full staffing 3 Captains and 6 Firefighters for the Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck in November 2005 allowing the department to maximize the service delivery capability of this vehicle. 3. Did the Fire Department have proper staffing for fire and medical units as necessary to maintain threshold standard service levels during the reporting period? Yes X No Explain: Yes, Council approved 9 new firefighting positions 3 Captains and 6 Firefighters to achieve full staffing for the Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck in November 2005. These additional nine positions were approved as result ofthe department receiving $900k from a Federal SAFER grant. The department applied for these grant funds in an effort to achieve full staffing for the Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck. The department is in the process of hiring these positions in order have the Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck fully operational by May of 2006; two years ahead of schedule. GROWTH IMPACTS AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Department's ability to meet the response time threshold or to maintain service levels? Yes No X Explain: The department's improvement to meet the threshold standard is best explained by analyzing the changes in various response time components for CY 2005 and comparing them to the previous year. Briefly, this comparison is as follows: . Dispatch Time: The average dispatch time improved from 28 seconds in 2004 to 12 seconds for this reporting period. This improvement can be attributed to the department's achievement of full operability of its dispatch center. The improvement in the average dispatch time accounted for the largest portion of the improvement in the performance standard as this improvement impacted all calls across all stations. . Turnout Time - The average turnout time improved from 2 minutes and 7 seconds in 2004 to 1 minute and 56 seconds in 2005. This accounted for an 11 second improvement from 2004. Although turnout times will vary from station to station, the department will continue to monitor turnout times for the purpose of identifying possible means for improvement as part of the department's strategic business plan implementation. . Travel Time - The average travel time for 2005 was 3 minutes and 31 seconds. The average travel time remained relatively unchanged from 2004 where the average travel time was 3 minutes and 32 seconds. It is worth noting that although the overall average travel time remained relatively unchanged from the previous H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\FIRE 06v.2.doc Page 2 period, the average travel time in the east improved by four seconds over the previous year. Although this does not account for a significant change that impacts the overall average travel time, it does mark the second year where travel time in the eastern territories has improved. Achievement of stable travel times in the eastern territories will be a major factor in the department's ability to meet the overall threshold standard in the future. This will become more evident as the call volume in the east begins to approximate the call volume in the west. In 2005 the stations in the west responded to 5,596 or 56.5% of the priority 1 emergency response calls vs. 4,311 calls or 43.5% the priority 1 calls that were responded to by stations in the eastern territories. In total, the department responded to 9,907 priority 1 calls in this reporting period. 5. Last year you reported that an analysis of the various response time components revealed that the average turnout time declined from 1 minute 50 seconds to 2 minutes and 7 seconds. This accounted for a 17-second (15%) decline from 2003. You commented further that the Fire Department had completed a Strategic Business Plan, developed performance measures and was in the process of integrating the Plan and measures into individual performance plans, which would be used to guide performance in regards to turnout times. Please indicate what specifics have been done in regards to turnout time improvement. Comment: The department has acquired the ability to better monitor turnout time data. This data will be used to identify ways to improve turnout times as the department continues with the performance measurement portion of its strategic business plan implementation. This implementation is still in the initial stages as data gathering and reporting capabilities are still being developed. The department will further develop its performance measurement program this year by fine tuning its measures and threading these measures through the organization in order to improve performance. 6 In addition, two years ago and again last year the GMOC requested that the impact on turn-out time due to changes in legislation, procedural requirements, and equipment-uniform changes be quantified. The GMOC wishes to know ifthis request is being acted upon and if so what specific steps have been taken. Comment: The department will compare the recent turnout time performance trends against historical trends that will be developed from the analysis of historical data. Changes in legislation, procedural requirements and equipment, uniform changes will be evaluated upon completion of a historical trend of turnout times. 7 In GMOC 's approved recommendation to Council in 2003 it was recommended that the Fire Department work with Heartland Dispatch to set up the methodology and implement a daily reporting regime so that response times can be monitored and analyzed in house. The response by the Fire Department was that you would "work with Heartland communications to improve response time reporting capabilities as well as develop a daily report of response time activity to enhance monitoring capabilities of the department." Since that time dispatch is now run by the Fire Department. Last year the GMOC recommended that the Fire Department "establish H :\PLANN I NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\FI RE 06v.2.doc Page 3 a daily report function that provides a written summary of each Emergency Response trip by station and identifies the dispatch, turnout, and travel time components." Please advise if it is the Fire Department's intent to implement such a function and if so what specific steps have you taken in that regard. Comment: In last year's report, the GMOC asked that the department develop the capability to access response time data directly from the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System for improved monitoring of response time performance. In an effort to accomplish this, the department worked with the CAD system company consultants and the City's MIS department to develop databases that would allow the capture of CAD data on a continuous basis. Staff is currently testing and evaluating the data before formal reporting to the direct service lines levels commences. This new and enhanced capability will enable the department to integrate CAD data into the department's performance measurement program. The department will use this data to better manage response time performance in the future. 8. In last year's survey response you indicated that the costs and benefits of housing paramedics/ambulance service within the Fire Department would be the subject of a study by a consultant pursuant to Council's approval on March 8, 2005. That project was to take 16 weeks to complete. Please comment on the results ofthat study. This study is currently being completed by the consultant. 9. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5-year time frame (to December 2010)? No _Unknown Yes Explain: Current facilities, equipment and staff are able to absorb forecasted growth within the next 12 to 18 months. The department is currently in the process of completing a Fire Facility Master Plan Study. This study will recommend the adequate level of facilities required by the department to deliver future fire and emergency medical response services to the community. This recommendations contained in this study will be in conjunction with the forecasted growth and land use assumptions in the City's General Plan. 10. Are new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted growth? No _Unknown Yes If yes: Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities? a. A site has been selected for new Fire Station 8 in eastern Chula Vista. Construction of Fire Station 8 is projected to begin in the latter part of 2006. Fire Station 9 is proposed to be placed within the EUC. Fire Station 1 will be rebuilt adjacent to the H:\PLANN I NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\retu rned questionnaires\FI RE 06v.2.doc Page 4 current site and Fire Station 5 will be addressed in the Fire Facility Master Plan. The final location of these and other recommended additional facilities will be addressed in the Fire Facility Master Plan Study that is due for completion in late January of 2006. How will these be funded? b. Most Fire Stations are projected to be funded from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fund (PFDIF). Construction of existing Fire Station 5 will require some General Fund. 11. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the provision of fire services? Yes No _X_ Explain: The pace of growth and the transition of the community to a suburban designation with an urban core are issues that are being addressed through the department's strategic business plan. The department is also in the process of completing its Fire Facility Master Plan that will recommend the number and types of fire facilities required for future service delivery as the City transforms. The recommendations contained in this study will be in conjunction with the forecasted growth and land used assumptions in the City's General Plan update. In addition, the department continues the process of implementing its strategic business plan and performance measures. The growth related issues will continued to be identified and managed through the department's strategic business plan. MAINTENANCE 12. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities and equipment? Yes x No Explain: Facility and equipment maintenance and replacement schedules are in existence. 13. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes x No Explain: Additional interface and enhancements are in the process of being made to the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to improve dispatching and data reporting capabilities. Specifically, the department is completing the implementation and outfitting of its mobile data computers. MISCELLANEOUS 14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? H :\PLANN ING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\FIRE 06v.2.doc Page 5 Yes X No Explain: The City Council has been very supportive of the Fire Department. The department welcomes future City Council support as it moves forward with the implementation of the of the strategic business plan. 15. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No _X_ Explain: Prepared by: Doug Perry Title: Fire Chief Date: 01/03/06 H:\PLANNI NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\retu rned questionnaires\FIRE 06v.2.doc Page 6 Page 1 of2 December 2005 Call Type Medical (32) Structure Fire (11) Other (the rest) All Types #of Response Turnout Response Turnout Response Turnout Response Turnout Calls Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Dept 1357 06:29.4 01 :54.5 09:06.1 02:14.0 08:18.8 02:08.4 07:00.4 01 :59.3 Shift A (11 days 463 06:06.0 01:43.7 10:27.8 02:04.4 08:43.8 01:44.6 06:47.4 01:44.9 B52 11 06:18.0 02:22.0 12:21.0 02:02.0 10:13.7 01:58.7 10:44.1 02:02.8 ................................................ ...................... -.. ......................................................... ............................................................. .............. ......-....................................... ....................,.........-......-......... ........-. BR57 ..... ..... ......... _. .............. ....... _._._. ._ ..... _._ ....... ..... '" ........ ..._........ ......_.. .._ ,.... M ... ..... .......... ..... ..... ....... ~....... ....M..... ..... _..... _, ". ..... _._ .....', _._ n..... ................... ..... .... ... ..... ........ ..... _'.' .._... _ ....... '.._.. ......... ... ....... ......... E51 130 05:26.8 01:37.1 11:08.0 01:45.0 06:13.4 01:35.0 05:41.9 01:36.8 .' .,. ......... ". .... .._..... ......... ..... ..... .. ..... .......... ..... ........... ........ ...........M ............... ....._........ ....... ... ..... ........... ....~.. ..... ..... ............ ...... .......... ....... ....... ..... ._....... ... .... . ..... .......... ....... '" .... . _.. ..._.. ....... .......... ..... ....... ...... E52 58 05:39.3 01 :30.6 13:46.0 02:07.8 07:39.0 01 :46.5 06:33.9 01 :36.3 .......................,.............-.....,.... ...................... .............................................,............... ,................-.......................................... ,............................................................ ............................................................. E53 41 07:17.0 01:54.9 07:37.0 01:33.5 11:21.4 01:54.9 08:04.4 01:53.8 . ..... ..... ........... ..... '........... ......... ...... ..........., "" .. '-'" ..... ,-... ........ ...-..... ... ....... ........ ......... ........... ,.... .............. ..........,............. ....... . .......... ....... ....... ...... ......-... ..... .......... "" .'-.. ..... ....... ............ .........-...-..... .......... E54 26 06:39.9 02:11.1 07:42.0 02:35.0 06:39.9 02:11.1 06:58.1 02:10.2 .......,. .... ..... ...,.,... .,... .... ..... ......, . ,.... .....d... ...... ............ ... ............... ~"""" ..... ..... ..... ....... " ......... ..... ....... .... .....,. ..... ..... ........ ......... " _....... ....._....... _............ ... _ .......... ......, ., ..-......_................. .... ... ........,... ..... .... '" .S.??..................................... ...............~.~ .........Q?~?..~.:.Ql........9..~..:..1.~.:.1. .........9.~.:J.?:.9...........9.1..~~.?:9.. .........Q!..:.~.?:.~.........9.J.~?.!..:7. h.......Q?~~7.:.?.......9.J..:.?...1.:.?.. .;.?~.................................... ...............~h~ .h......Q~.~.1.?:..~[........Q~.;.?.9..:7. .................................0........................... .....h..1..1.}~.:.?........Q1..~?..~:..?.. .........9.?:f9..:.?........9...1..:.~.~:.?. E57 21 09:16.2 02:36.5 08:16.0 01:54.0 13:58.0 02:01.8 09:30.3 02:23.0 ..... ... _..... ................. _.. ._..... ._.... ........ ........ "_'. ..,. ....... .......... ..... ""M ..... ..... .... ..... .......... ..... .......... _., .'. .... ....... ..._ ............ '" ........ ....... ........_... ........ ..._.............. ........... ..... . .... ............ _....... ....M .......... ....".. ........... E58 22 07:38.9 02:29.4 10:29.7 01 :40.6 08:32.8 02:09.4 ........ ...... .......... .................. ...... .. .................,.. ................., .........'........ ........, ................ .................................. ............................ .......... ........................................, ....,....., ........ ......................~ ...... .....................-.. R53 6 07:59.0 02:26.5 10:13.7 01:46.0 09:28.8 02:06.2 .............. '. ....... ..... ............... ".. ....,................. ........ .... ..... ...... ..... ......... ...................... . .............................. ............... .n............ .................... ........... ........ ...................... .................... ....... .... ..... ........_............... T. ?1.....h......... .......0..... ....... . ..... ...0. ...~.~ .........9.?:.??.:. ~..... ..... 9..?.:.9..1..:~. ...._ ....._.0..... .0.0.0..0..... ............. ,,0.... ....... .........Q?:.~.?:,9,.. ..... ..9...1 .:.4~.: 9. ........9..?~.?1.:.?..........9..1 ;.?~:g T57 9 08:05.7 01:41.5 07:59.0 02:47.0 15:14.0 02:37.0 10:44.6 02:25.6 Shift B (9 days) 428 06:53.9 02:05.0 09:07.5 02:38.0 07:59.2 02:29.1 07:17.7 02:14.0 .I???.......... ........................... ................!..? .......hQ?~.9..1.:.?........Q?.~.1.?..:9.. ........9.~.~~~.:.?.........9..1..~?..?.:..~ ......h9..!..:9..?:..1...........D..?:.1.~.:?.. .........9.?:?1.:.~......h.9..?.:.9..~.:?. BR57 1 09:04.0 NR 09:04.0 NR .....................................-................................ ..................................,.................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................. .S.?J.... ........... ............ ......... . ........... ..~.Q .... ...9..?:.?.1. :.~.... .....9...1..:.~.1.:?. .... .....9..~.~.?~.:.~......... 9..?:..?. ?:?........9.~. :.9..1. :.~....... ..9...1..:.~~.:? .'"'' ...9.?. ~~.?:.~........9..1 ;.~.~:.? .S.??....... ..... .............. .... ....... ...... .........?Q ..... ....9.7.: .~.~:.9. ....... ..9..?.:..9..~:.~. ...... ...9.~. :.9.?:.?.... ..... 9..~:..9...!..:9. .. .......9.?}? :.7. ......... 9..?.:..~. ~..:~. .... .....9.?:.~?.:.9..... ..... 9..?:..1..1.:.~. .;.?.~.................................... ...............?~ .........Q?~.??:.?..........9.1.~~~.:? .........9.~.;~?:,9,.........9..?.}.1..:9. .........9.~J.?J.........9..?~.1.?:..?. .........9.?:J.~.:.?.......9..1..:.?.~.:.1. .;.?4......................h............. .. .......... ...?.~ ........ .Q?:.??:.?.......g?..~?..?..:.~. .........1.9..:?~.:.Q..........O'.?~?..~.:9. .........D..?:.??:.?..... .....o..?;.~~.:.?. .......g?:.~.?:.~.........9..?.:.~9.}. E55 91 06:59.2 02:20.4 09:54.3 02:32.7 08:30.5 04:21.7 07:18.7 02:46.4 .,. h", ...... .......... _. ... '........ ......... .,..... ..... ..... ..... ,..._..... ..... ....... ... ....~...., ......... ...... _..._.... .........._ ..... h ..._. ..... __... _..._...... ... .... ...... ._.._....._..... ....... ....~.. ....... ...... _............. n.', ..._.. _.__ ....... ....~..h ... ....... ..... ..._ ...... E56 15 07:06.2 02:14.1 10:23.0 NR 11:16.5 02:27.0 08:04.3 02:17.3 ...................... ......'...-.............. ...................... ............................,.~.............................. ..............................~..............,............... .....................................................n...... ...........................-.............-................... .~.?.?....... ................ ....... ....... ...............?.~ ........ 9.7.~.~9.:.~.........9..?~?..Q.:.:!. .........9.~.~f?:.9..........9..?.:.~.?..:9. .........9..8..~~.9. :.Q.........9.~.~~Q.:~ .........9..?~.?.~~9..........9..~~?..~.:.9. E58 32 07:35.5 02:22.0 10:23.0 NR 07:59.7 01 :24.7 07:48.5 01 :58.0 ........... ......... ....... ........,............ ...... ..... ........... .......... ..... ..... ..........~. -.- ..-.. ..... ............ .. -.....---..... ..... ....... ............... -...-....... ,. ..............-- ...-.............. ... -................. ..--.....-... -............ ....-..... .......... .......... R53 . 7 08:42.0 03:19.5 07:33.4 02:38.3 07:53.0 02:52.0 ....................... .........-............... ...................... ....................................................... ..... _ ..-............-............-........................-..... ....... -................. ........-........................... ..............................~....................... ....... T51 16 07:11.0 01:56.3 10:23.0 NR 06:45.9 02:31.7 07:12.1 02:15.4 ................................................ .......... ............ .h'....................................._.................. ................ ............._.............. ..... .....'..... .., .....................................................-... ..-......--....-.........................................'" T57 11 10:07.7 02:40.5 08:42.0 03:02.5 08:33.4 02:34.8 09:03.4 02:41.5 Shift C (11 days 466 06:33.8 01:56.6 07:42.6 01:56.0 08:17.9 02:09.6 06:59.0 02:00.3 I??.?.... ........................... ..... . .......... .....1.? ... ....Q?:.?.~:.9.. ... .....9..1..:.~.~.:~. .... .....9.?~4.?:.? ......... 9...1..:.~~.:? .'0' ..9.?~~? ~~ ......... 9..?:.?.?..:9.. .... .... 9..?;.9.? ~7....... ... 9...1;.? ~"~ .1?!3.??.. ....................... ....... .. . ....... ........... ..... ..... ..... ........ .... .......... ............... ......... .................................................... ......... ................ ......... ........................ ........... .... ... .... ..... ....... ............. ......................... .S.?.t.. .....0.................... ...... ............~..1.~. .........Q?:.4.?:.?...........O'.1..~~.Q.:.~. .........9.?:J.?:.?..........O'.1..~~.1..:.?.. .........9.(?:.?.~J...........9.?..:.9..~.:? .........9.(?:9..~:,9,.........9..t.~.?..:? .;.??.................. ............ ...... ............... ?~ .........Q~t?.9.:.~..........9.1.~?..~:..1. .........9.?~.9..?:.?...........9.?.}..~:..9. .........9.~~?~.:.~........h9..?~?..~:..~. ..... ....9.?~?~.:.L.. ..."O"?.:.9..~.:~. .S.?.~...... ....... ....... ....... ........ ...............~.~ . ..... ...Q~.~.~ .1.: .~........ ..Q1.~??:..?. .........9.~.~ ?~.:.9.. .........Q1..~ ?.?.....?.. ... ......9.~.:..1.~.:.~_........9..?~9."O'.:~. .........9.?~ ?7.:,9,........ .9..1..:.?.~.:4. .;.?4.......... ........ .................. .... ...........?.7. .........9.?:.~?.& ........9..?~9..Z:..?. ..................0................................ .......... . ......J.!.:.9.?.:,9,. ........9..?:.9..~:.?.. .........Q?:.~?:.?....... ...9..?:.9..?:..1. ~.??... ............................... .... 1 09 .. ..... 9.9.:?7.:.7..........9..?.:..9.~.:9. . ........9.~.~4.7. :.? .........9..?~~?.: 9.. . ........9.?.~.1.~.:.1........ ..9..?:..9.?:.?>. .........9.(?~~!:.?........ ..g.~ .:.9..~.:.? .S.?.~. ....... ............ ......... .... . ........ .......1.~. .........9. ?:.~.~ :.~.... .....9..?:..9.1..:?.. ........9..?~.~.1.:,9, .... .....9...1..:.~. ~.: 9.. .... .....9.~.~.~?~? .........9..?.:..1. 7..: 9. ., ......9.7.. :.?? ~~.... ..... 9..?;..9.?:.~ .S.?.?..................................... .... ............!..~ .........9.?:.~.~:.? ..... ....9..?:..9..?..:4 ........ .......................................... ......... .........1.9..~~~.:.~..... ....9..?:.?.!..:?.. ........9..?:.~4.:.~.........9..?.:..1,9,.:?.. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jamessg\My%20Documents\OPERA TIONS\Bat... 01/11/2006 Page 2 of2 .~~?...................... ........... ............. ..?.~ ..... ...qt.~~...~.........9..?:??:.? ............................. ....... ......................... ........Q~~.?..3..:.Q..........9.~.~~.?..~~ ........9..~.~.~}.&........9..?:.1.~:..~. .!3.~.~......_............................. ...................~ ....._............ -....................... ................. .........................9...........................f ........Q?~.~?. :.~..........9..?~.1.~.~?.. .........9.?;~?.:.~.........9..?. ;'.1~.:?. T?..1............. ....................... ...............~.~ .........9.~.~.?!:.?_.......9..1..:..?~.:~. ......g~.~.~!:.~..........9..?.:.9..~.:~. .........9.~.~.??:.Q.........9..?::.9..?:?. ....._g~.~.1.?:.?.........9..?..:.9..9..:! T57 8 04:36.3 01: 18.3 08:29.0 02:22.2 06:49.3 01 :58.3 ~ote: Response Time is from Call Reciept in Dispatch to On-Scene. Turn-out Time is from Unit Notified to NR = Not Reported C = Cancelled file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jamessg\My%20Documents\OPERA TIONS\Bat... 01/1112006 February and March 2006 Call Type Medical (32) Structure Fire (11) Other (the rest) All Types # of Response I I Turnout Response Turnout Response Turnout Response I Turnout Calls Time I Time Time Time Time Time Time Time I Dept 2747 06:32.9 01 :36.5 09:26.1 I 02:01.3 09:15.9 01 :51.5 07:22.2 I 01 :43.0 Shift A (20 days) 882 06:25.3 01 :35.6 09:11.4 02:01.2 09:49.61 01 :45.7 07:22.0 01 :39.9 851 19 C 01:36.0 08:02.0 02:24.0 08:42.01 01:19.8 08:18.6 01:29.2 -..-----...-..-..--...............-.........-....-.......---.....-...-..............-....--....---...........--...--. -...........---..............- .......--..-...----.......-...-.-............-...-..j...--..............-........- -.....-..........-...-.....-...... ...-.........-....-. 852 18 06:43.0 01:13.0 09:47.0 01:09.0 11:32.0 01:45.0 10:34.5 01:24.7 S...R57-....-..............--....... -''''-'''''--'2 NR--'''-'''''''''- NR........-..-......-.- .NR..........--.... NR..-.-...--....... C'''''''-'''---''j''''''''''''''''O'7'1''6.O' c...-....---......-.... .-07~1...0.0. .:~:~~:~:~::~~=~~::=:~~~~ ::::=:~~....1~~~ ~::~~::~l~~l~i=...~~~~~:~: :::~~::~~~~;~~.~~ .=~:::~~.:}~..~. .:~ 6~~.f~~~F=:~~F~~~.~~ ~::=~~~~~:~...==~f~~:~ ......-----......-..-...-..--.... ....-....--....-..... .--...................."...-.....--------.-... --....-......-.-.- -.-...............-.-.. ....-.-....-...-............-..1.-...-...-.-...-........-. ....--....-....-.-.f---...........-...-...- E53 98 07:32.9 01:42.9 09:31.5 02:17.7 09:41.6 02:01.1 08:11.4 01:50.5 ...$.54 ..=:==-~~:~~-=::: ::=~:.-' .~ ~~q~~i~?;~:=-'9.:?O~.:i '=~~:"'O~:~4~;Q ~~~.Q.{~?1?: '=I~~:i~':5I~_9...?:~~j~~ .:~:=~07 ,:56.'0"'''' q?~"'2~9 ..~~~...._...._._...........__._.... ...___ 20...~. _.-9...6....:...~.!.:? _....91~~1..:~. ...._...Q.~.:~~...:Z .._01 :.!~.9. __9.?.:..i..~..~........_Q.~...~~.:.?.. ......._ 06:33~.~..:..~.!:E. ~= ~~;:~=~:::a~j~~~~~~1:-~~::~1 ..~~~ ...........-..._.-....--......-....-..-~~ 'N'FF~:...~.i:?.. NFt~?~...;,,~.~.~16:41:3i'NF303~14:7 .....-}~..~~:6r-.6~:~~.:~ .--}~~:~.~~.-. ~~::~:~. .....-..-...................-.........--... ...-.....-.-... --.-..-.........-- -...-.--. --.--.--...- -.--.....-...---.. "-'--'-'-"''''::r-'-'''-''---'-' ..-.----......- ----... T51 56 06:36.9 01:31.8 08:15.6 01:33.0 08:36.5101:52.7 07:42.3 01:43.2 ......................--.....-...--.-.1-...-.......-- .--....-...--....- ---......--..--. ........-.........--.--- .-.-.--...-- .--....-....--....--.."':"j-.-..-.......-..-- .---....--......................-.....-...........-- T57 20 10:47.3 01:42.0 11:13.0 02:01.5 11:22.41 01:59.8 11:07.7 01:53.0 Shift B (20 days) 996 06:29.6 01 :39.9 09:41.1 02:11.9 08:50.01 01 :56.6 07:19.5 01:47.9 851 18 06:13.0 01:23.5 07:10.8 01:27.2 07:06.9 01:18.9 07:00.6 01:22.0 ~_..._--_......._._. -......-..-.-- .--.........-..-.--- ---.--.-. --.--.-.-- -.-....--...- ----..-... -_..._- ----.--. -.-.----..--.....- 852 25 13:17.0 02:20.3 09:53.3 01 :46.2 10:30.4 02:22.3 10:35.5 02:16.0 --..-.-..-.......-.-..-1--....-.--.- --....-....--.-..........--- ..---.-.--..-.--- --..---.--f-------- ----.- -...--.- 8R57 NR 'E51'-'--"'''--'''''-' ---179 -'05:07~7 '--01'~18. 7 -06:46:'7-" 02: 1"'4.6 -O"'8~52'To1 :40 "'--O"5:""43.6f-- 01 :24:"8' -..--.........-...--. "'--'''''- --. ......----. ....--.---. -..-.-...-1..-.----.--. .-----.......-.-1-.--.--.-....... E52 143 07:25.6 01 :43.9 08:58.2 02:46.5 08:39.3 01 :52.5 07:43.0 01 :48.7 fE~ ==~ 11=!if=!~1~~~.:~~~f~l!! I!f=~ --;!-!!!~~~~}~:~~~~~~~H~ ~~~rL~ ~~_.......~::~:===: ::~=.... ~~ .~~:~:~~~:~~; ~~=~~f~l~: :~~~:.~~~~.~:~ ~~=~11~~ .~~='-~~~~~~f~~~~~{~~ :;;'~~~i~~?: =:~~~~~. "'-"''''''''''''''''''-''''-'-'-''--'-' ..-,,-.-.. ..-.-..........-..-.....-- ----.-.- "''''..--.......--.-.... ..----.---...-. -"'-......-...........-. .-.-.---. '--'-'-"" ..._------_. T57 22 09:20.0 02:31.5 11 :59.0 02:34.0 08:55.2 02:29.7 10:07.2 02:30.6 Shift C (19 days) 869 06:44.5 01 :33.7 09:21.6 01 :52.5 09:14.8 01 :50.4 07:25.4 01 :40.6 ~7 ===:R~~LJ~fN~=::::~~~~~~~ ...-..-.---..."'.......-"''''..--... ...--...--.-- ..--......"...."...........-.---........--.....- ""---"-""-"'-r--'-'---""'---' -.-....,,-........"'......... .--.....-...---"'-"'-.............................-,-.... ...--,,---.-.-.-- fi~~~~==~~:==~~:: .~=:=~~~ ::~:::::~6...fil~;~~=~:~6+~~~:;~ ,~:::=~~~ :~~~~[=:~:~~{~~~: .~""""~~1~i.. "~~~~~~~~~f '::~~.._~:~~i:l=~~::~i~~~:i E53 97 06:39.1 01 :49.2 07:57.01 02:34.0 08:21.9 01..:5~...:.Q. .........,,9LQq.:~....._.......9..~~..?.Q:..!' ...-......"....--.....-...-.-.."... -......-......-.-... ...--"'---.---... .....-.........----.---. -.....-.... ..-.....-....."'...-........ .--.."......"......... -.....-..--- E54 59 06:56.5 01 :32.1 11 :21.0 01 :38.7 08: 19.7 01 :50.5 07:34.0 01 :38.5 '~.~~:~~~:~~~.:~.~:::::=:= ~:::~=:T~I :=-_.Q~;'~:~~~~=:9.i~~?~:.:.~ :=~Q?~~9...:.? -=~~I~:~:~' ~::::~'9"'~'57"~?r=:~Q?'li..~=!: ,,:~~~~~g~~IfT=:~~::::Q1:;~..~!.f: I===ii~~~~~ T5'1'''''''''''''''''''''"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''-' ."'''''''''''"''''''fj'Ei ''''''''''''''07'~-3'6"'9'!''''--'''''01'~i3' .........."'..1..0.~3.1..:.7r"'....-."O..1...~.4.2.:.6 ''''''''''''''69~23:''2r-''''''01''~'48''.6' "...........68~22~1.1.'..............01..:.46:9. .T5.7.....-.....'............."................-.... .........................24. ..............13~03':'5.1"......-..6io3:'8 ...".....".1...0.~.23.:0t......-62.~.2.7.::i """"""""1"0:'1.ii()'r""'''''''O''2''~2'4'''~9' .'''..''.......1...1..~.1..6.:.3..i''''"'-.....O.2~.3.2.~4. Note: Response Time is from Call Reciept in Dispatch to On-Scene. Turn-out Time is from Unit Notified to Enroute. NR = None Reported C = Cancelled Page 1 of 1 Mark Stephens From: Pablo Quilantan Sent: Thursday, May 18, 200611:15AM To: Mark Stephens Subject: FW: ark, Piease find attached the documents and maps depicting the current d,'ployrnent of Fire Department resourc:;s including the addition of Interim Fire Statio! 9 that recently went into operation on May 12, 2006. Please use these documents in conjuction with future performance repots in order establish a reference point for discerning the locations where fire servces are being providecL Please call me if you have any questions. Tnanks, Pablo -----Original Message----- From: Stefanie Balchak Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:05 AM To: Pablo Quilantan Subject: Stefanie Balchak Public Safety Analyst CllU/a Vista Fire Department Station #1/Headquarters 447 F St Cnula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5196 Direct Line ~balchak@ci .chula-vista.ca.u S Fighting Fires with Facts... 05/18/2 006 Station and Unit Locations (Prior to 5/12/2006) = " ~iC.........>> -" ...... -".. ....... . ...i > ....i. cC ~cc .............. ........... Apparatus IJl'litCode .. Fire Staj ion 1 Downtown, Bay Front, Truck 51 T51 447 F Street Northwest City, Interstates 5, (Pierce 2003) Chula Vista, CA 91910 54 & 80S/North Engine 51 E51 (Pierce 2001) Battalion 51 B51 Fire Station 2 Central City, Interstate Engine 52 E52 80 East J Street 80S/Central, Hilltop, Country (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, CA 91910 Club Rescue 53 R53 (Pierce 2003) Fire Station 3 Sunbow, Interstate 805 South, Engine 53 E53 1410 Brandywine Ave. Woodlawn Park, East/Main (Pierce 2002) Chula Vista, CA 91911 Street Reserve Engine Fire Station 4 Rancho Del Rey, Bonita Long Engine 54 E54 850 Paseo Ranchero Canyon, Southwestern College (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, CA 91910 2 Reserve Engines Fire Station 5 Montgomery, Harborside, Engine 55 E55 391 Oxford Street Otay, Interstate s/South (Pierce 1999) Chula Vista, CA 91911 Southwest City, West/Main Street Fire Station 6 EastLake, Rolling Hills Ranch, Engine 56 E56 605 Mt. Miguel Road San Miguel Ranch (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, CA 91914 Reserve Engine Fi re Station 7 Otay Ranch, Village of Engine 57 E57 1640 Santa Venetia Heritage, Heritage Hills, Village (Pierce 2003) Chula Vista, CA 91913 of Countryside Truck 57 T57 (Pierce 2004) Brush 57 B57 (International 1998) Battalion 52 B52 Reserve Truck Reserve Engine Fire Station 8 EastLake, Rolling Hills Ranch, Engine 58 E58 975 Lane Avenue San Miguel Ranch, Tour De (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, 91913 Elegance, The Woods ~....."....-.".., ( "I ,I I \ ,,--'... I ". - \ '" .\ \ I ~ .0 t:: ........ .(1) c5 (l) (I) c:: o Q (I) (l) 0:: ~ , . ..... LL ino.r .' "U ........, .(1) ::; en -- ::J ..c: o .> '\ ~, l,.___.-....--, l, .~-~.._--. .......-. " '. Ii \ i I l 'j --/ ........... .,..---' C .. 0 il ":' ~ ~ - ''II'' . ~ 1[l1~1 ,C! ......... " \.. ", ~ ~-- .... \ ~, { ---. ...... -) } ,.r.....-- \ : i __l~ ~...-- ....-- " ...... ....... ......~ -------...\. ..... ,.I --<:r- \ \ i " ""- (~...... " ,.----..::y--' \, ,,/,,::i I \ ,....... tr / -+-.( ~ '-'""11 ~ \ --~., \: , 1 l ' ~\ \ l, ,,/--t- " \~. ~.,\~ //"-\ ..--./\ _-~ ~!r \ /..... ./ ~__.....::.---/ l \, ) II / 'r;fi: ~\\ \ ~\;~_...,~\) r ~ \ )./- \ t" :,./ V ~\ \ 1.-1---\ ~/ \ 0; V\./F J . \ \ \ \ \ ~ 'I~~~/ '\ " ',', \, 1-' ~ V \ \ \ \ ,'".,...._~ t::;;;;:-e.-..,... /' 1 -- _-----\-. \:~V.:~--~~ (~ l \' /.---:02 \ \ --,' ~ ...... - , .. ..--'). \ .... ) . .,.. .-- \ /. " __' s:.-' ~-_-":--- \ " \ . _..,~._-~-'\. f't: ~ \ ~_,:::\--~C-\ - j'. \ \, \ U \ ,----';. '(\ . , ~ - -~------~ \ \\ \ ' 'I - ,-~-- \ \ ,\\ ~--- I_.~~..- \ l5 ." \ L...J'i--l"--~' \ ,~ \ );::: '; .\._/' .~'t., -- \ \ ~ ,,,---_1--'.. \' f?<. \ , ~-~' \ '. ---- ~ ,,,.-_\,, \ .---- (\ L-------',-...ttl _\--.- I " ../7 \ '. _1-'-' 1 /'Y' ,- \ , , ' / / // '--~~ .,' / // '/ / { .~.., ~i / / / .' ./.../ ,l ,?If( ~""" --.---.------"/ / //~'~ ........../"/....- \1 \ / Station and Unit Locations (As of 5/12/2006) Location Service Area Apparatus Unit Code Fire Station 1 Downtown, Bay Front, Truck 51 T51 447 F Street Northwest City, Interstates 5, (Pierce 2003) Chula Vista, CA 91910 54 & 80S/North Engine 51 E51 (Pierce 2001) Battalion 51 B51 Reserve Battalion RB-1 Fire Station 2 Central City, Interstate Engine 52 E52 80 East J Street 80S/Central, Hilltop, Country (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, CA 91910 Club Fire Station 3 Sunbow, Interstate 805 South, Urban Search and USAR53 1410 Brandywine Ave. Woodlawn Park, East/Main Rescue 53 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Street (Pierce 2003) Reserve Engine ER-1 Fire Station 4 Rancho Del Rey, Bonita Long Engine 54 E54 850 Paseo Ranchero Canyon, Southwestern College (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, CA 91910 2 Reserve Engines ER-2 & 5 Fire Station 5 Montgomery, Harborside, Engine 55 E55 391 Oxford Street Otay, Interstate 5/South (Pierce 1999) Chula Vista, CA 91911 Southwest City, West/Main Reserve Engine ER"':3 Street Fire Station 6 EastLake, Rolling Hills Ranch, Engine 56 E56 605 Mt. Miguel Road San Miguel Ranch (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, CA 91914 Fi re Station 7 Otay Ranch, Village of Engine 57 E57 1640 Santa Venetia Heritage, Heritage Hills, Village (Pierce 2003) Chula Vista, CA 91913 of Countryside Truck 57 T57 (Pierce 2004) Brush 57 B57 (International 1998) Battalion 52 B52 Reserve Truck RT-1 Reserve Engine ER-4 Fire Station 8 EastLake, Rolling Hills Ranch, Engine 58 E58 975 Lane Avenue San Miguel Ranch, Tour De (Pierce 2004) Chula Vista, 91913 Elegance, The Woods Interim Fire Statim Jl Engine 53 E53 266 East Oneida (Pierce 2002) Chula Vista, CA 91911 l.~-~'-'"-) \ \ ) ~ l'--~""" 0) t:: " .0 J ..+:: Jg CI) '~ \) Q) (I) o ~ ~ Q s .~ 42 .0 t: ~ .(1) o Q) (I) t:: o ~ Q) a::: '\ (' " -~ \. '..... ~ . ..... Ll jg .(1) S ..!2 ::s ..c (.) ,I -1 \ \ \ \ l l l \ I .. ,_J .-.....,_...........~.- J:! .. ;; ,g ";' . lil III _ N ,., e; · ~ 1D1J~li · .-.---~7 \ ---------.....~ ." '.... " ......._--..... -\ r ( \, , -----,.\-~ "-"~ -........ -------~~.......... f .,~):-~.- 'I.......... l \ \ ~;.. , .' , ---::-r) -1....... \/ \ ........-=t \,.. , . /~ ..___( --\---"~'1 I, '. \ /....-+--"IIl 1 \V.-.....k..... .!~.-l ...--./ . )--j 1, \--+' / y-... " \ " L /' (.'( />--: ' I ,~.-.--r... II) \ '\ )>.,_' , l \ \, I l \ ~'-i') I "I \ .).,. U ~\ ,', ~-' - \\ ' \ \ '_" ./\ CD ...~l ..' l \ ~~-I., ........1 \ c: xl '-.,/ ? I I \ ", "" \ .e u;~. // t I, \ \ ... }.. _/.t" " , l \' \ CD /' \ \ \ ',' z I' \ \" . " ,~...- -~-- /"" \ I ~_/-I( \ ~---.......-....- ,.' t. -----'\"~\I \ . ...._._~ ,-,., 1 /..... ~ J ...~'\ '~ . ,-J ' ~~C~'>>k\ L ..\ \ ~ " ' \ _ \ ~_---~- -\ \~ \ . A~'- \_.~-\-\r\ \ \ \\ - \\ 1'-\:- I,\,~. \ ~\/1-ACYi-~ ~i :\ 4~ \ t:\-- L.... \ A-,,~0 ,ei . "\ \ ~ -----~ \ \ ". ~,_4- \ -.- ~----.-\/ \ ,.""'/ J -V~ \ \ / /' ..._.....-..'L \ / / ,/' ----" /' ),/' // ,_f .~l .' ...- ) .... I /1 ~-_..:--------.., r~'- -,j~--- -- /----...---~-~ . .-"" ~.-- ./' //// .". -, '" '\1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2006 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/04-6/30/05) I TRAFFIC (Please note, in addition to the questionnaire the GMOC will be requesting a briefing by engineering staff on how the traffic threshold is interpreted and how it is measured.) THRESHOLD City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours LOS "0" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments that do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Note: it is the request of the GMOC that the tables illustrating road segment threshold compliance be revised to a more "reader friendly" format. These more technical tables may be retained but as an attachment to the report. It is the intent to be able to view whether the segment has or has not met the threshold. If you wish to submit samples of possible formats the GMOC will provide comments. 1. Please revise and complete this table according to the newly defined segments and their respective TMP LOS ratings. ARTERIAL SEGMENTS with LOS "e" or "0" 2001 2002 2003 2004 TMP 2005 TMP SEGMENT TMP TMP TMP AM PEAK PERIOD 7 - 9 am Heritage Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) NB/SB ED(2) I C D/C La Media Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) NB/SB B/AC DC/C Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H St. - Tel. Canyon Rd.) NB/SB C/C C/C DC/C C/C C/C Palomar St. (Industrial Blvd. - Broadway) EBIWB C/C BIB Paseo Ranchero (E. H St. - Telegraph Cyn Rd.) NB/SB CB/C B/C MID-DAY PEAK PERIOD 11 :30 am - 1 :30 pm E St. (Woodlawn Ave. - Third Ave.) EBIWB C/C C/B C/C BIB H St. (Woodlawn Ave. - Third Ave.) C/C C/C Heritage Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) NB/SB 0(2) IC D/C J St. (Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave.) EBIWB C/C C/B Page 1 ARTERIAL SEGMENTS with LOS "e" or "0" 2001 2002 2003 2004 TMP 2005 TMP SEGMENT TMP TMP TMP L St. (Industrial Blvd. - Third Ave.) EB B C C La Media Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) NB/SB BC/C C/C Third Ave. (G St. - Naples St.) NB/SB C/C C/C BIB Third Ave. (Naples St. - South CVCL) NB B ('94) C B (1) B Broadway (C St. - H St.) SB C C C C C Broadway (H St. - L St.) NB B ('94) C C C B East H St. (Hidden Vista Dr. - Paseo Ranchero) we C A B Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H St. - Tel. Canyon Rd) NB/SB C/C C/C DC/C C/C C/C Palomar St. (Industrial Blvd. - Broadway) EB/WB C/C C/C Palomar St. (Broadway - Hilltop Dr.) we B ('94) C C B (1) Paseo Ranchero (E. H St. - Telegraph Cyn Rd.) NB/SB BIB (1) PM PEAK PERIOD 4-6pm Broadway (C St. - H St.) SB C C C C C Broadway (H St. - L St.) NB B C C Broadway (L St. - S. CVCL) NB B C C E St. (Woodlawn Ave. - Third Ave.) EB/WB C/C C/C East H St. (Hidden Vista Dr. - Paseo Ranchero) we C B B H St. (Woodlawn Ave. - Third Ave.) EB/WB C/C C/C H St. (Third Ave. - Hilltop Dr.) EB C C Heritage Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) NB/SB ED(2) I C E(2) IC Hilltop Dr. (F St. - L St.) NB/SB C/B C/B B/C C/C C/C J St. (Oaklawn Ave. - Third Ave.) EB/WB C/B C/B L St. (Industrial - Third Ave.) EB B ('97) C C C C Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H St. - Tel. Canyon Rd.) NB/SB B/C C/C D/BC C/C C/D La Media Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) NB/SB C/C CD/C Palomar St. (Industrial Blvd. - Broadway) EB/WB D/C DID Palomar St. (Broadway - Hilltop Dr.) we B ('01) C B Paseo Ranchero (E. H St. - Telegraph Cyn Rd.) NB/SB CB/C C/C Third Ave. (G St. - Naples St.) NB/SB BIB ('98) C/C C/C . Single letters indicate 2-hour average LOS (example: C). Double letters (example: DC/BD) indicate hourly (first hour and second hour) LOS. Study directions are separated by a backslash (example: CIB). (1) Not studied because previous LOS was B or better. (2) The Free Flow Speed (FFS) on this segment reflects LOS A. The illustrated LOS reflects long delays at the intersection with Telegraph Canyon Road resulting from the increased traffic on Telegraph Canyon Road due to construction activities at the 1-805 interchanges at Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road. (see also the response for question 13 below for an additional explanation on this matter). LOS D or worse. Page 2 E Sl (Bay - Woodlawn) we 0 0 C Not Studied Not Studied H St. (Bay -Woodlawn) EBIWB DIC CID Rd Const. CICD CIC East Orange Ave. (Melrose - Oleander) EBIWB DID DC/ED Rd Const. (1) Palomar St. (Bay - Industrial) EB C 0 CD 0 C Main St. (Melrose Ave. - Oleander Ave.) EB C ('96) 0 C Telegraph Cyn Rd. (Nacion - Canyon Plaza d1w) we 0 DIC C E St. (Bay - Woodlawn) we CD 0 C Not Not Studied Studied H St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave) we 0 DC Rd Const. 0 0 Palomar St. (Bay - Industrial) EB 0 0 0 0 C E St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) EBIWB 0 CID CID CID CID H St. (Bay Blvd. - Woodlawn Ave.) EBIWB DCID COlD Rd Const. DIED D/DE East H St. (Hilltop Dr. - Hidden Vista) EB CD 0 Rd Const. C 0 East Orange Ave. (Melrose - Oleander) EBIWB DID DIED Rd Const. (1) J St. (Bay Blvd. - Oaklawn Ave.) EBIWB DID DIC Main St. (Melrose Ave. - Oleander Ave.) we C ('96) 0 0 Palomar St. (Bay Blvd. - Industrial Blvd.) EBIWB DIC DIC DE/CD 01 CD E/DE . Single letters indicate 2-hour average LOS (example: C). Double letters (example: DC/BD) indicate hourly (first hour and second hour) LOS. Study directions are separated by a backslash (example: C/B). (1 ) Segment will be studied after completion of construction anticipated for the first quarter of 2006. LOS 0 or worse 2. Should any street segment be added to the above list as a result of the current TMP? Yes X No a. Please list those segments in the following table: Page 3 STREET SEGMENTS NOW IDENTIFIED WITH LOS. "C" or.WORSE ....... .. Bonita Rd. (Bonita Glen - Plaza Bonita) (a) Broadway (C St. - H St.) H St. (Woodlawn Ave. - Third Ave.) H St. (third Ave. - Hilltop Dr) Otay Lakes Rd. (Bonita Rd. - East H St.) EB I WB (PM) SB (AM) WB (AM) WB (AM) NB I SB (AM) SB PM SB (PM) EB (PM) EB I WB (PM) WB (PM) Third Ave. (Naples St. - CVCL) F St. (Broadway - Hilltop Dr.) East H St. (Ps. Ranchero - Eastlake Dr.) Telegraph Cyn Rd. (Nacion - Canyon Plaza dIw) (a) (a) Arterial Interchange segment Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ..2006 .2005.. C/C C C C C/C C C C C/C C 3. Please list any major streets, or other traffic improvements constructed during the reporting period (04/05) fiscal year? Yes X No Explain: a) Telegraph Canyon Road widening project provided an additional westbound lane along Canyon Plaza Shopping Center and gas station frontages so that two-right turn lanes are provided onto northbound 1-805. This lane was completed in March 2005. 4. Please list any major streets, or other traffic improvements that have been completed or planned for construction during the 05/06 fiscal year? Yes X No Explain: a. Tierra Del Rey /East H Street south to east bound triple left turns. (Completed on Nov. 2005) b. 1-805/0Iympic Parkway interchange completion anticipated for January 2006. c. 1-805/Main Street interchange completion January 2006. d. The widening of the west-to-north on ramp at 1-805 and East H Street to provide a second lane was opened to traffic in November 2005. This ramp widening augments the westbound roadway widening that was completed in year 2004. FREEWAY ENTRANCES I EXITS 5. INTERSTATE"S ENTRANCE/EXIT; . Page 4 E Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 H Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 J Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 L Stllndustrial Blvd. Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Palomar Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Main Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Bonita Road East H Street Telegraph Canyon Road Olympic Parkway Northbound ram meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ram meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Main Street Construction has begun in May 2004 on the interchange improvements. The project is scheduled for completion in January 2006. Northbound and Southbound ramp meters are scheduled for activation 2009 Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 GROWTH IMPACTS 6. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain LOS levels? Yes Explain: No X 7. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth (without exceeding the LOS threshold) for both the is-month and 5 year time frame? Yes No _X_ a. Please indicate those new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth consistent with maintaining the Threshold Standards. 18-month timeframe: - SR-125 Construction completion 5-year timeframe: - See response to question #12 b. How will these facilities be funded? Regional and federal funds Page 5 c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes 8. What is the Status of SR-125? Construction expected to be completed by late 2006. 9. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's transportation demand increases? Yes No_X_ Explain: MAINTENANCE 10. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes_X_ No Exp/ain: Funding for basic maintenance activities is adequate at present and the City does not anticipate any shortfalls or difficulties in its effort to maintain its street and traffic infrastructure in a safe and efficient manner. It should be noted that the City does recognize the possibility that local funding of all City operations could be affected by the State's on-going budget difficulties and that once any specific impacts are identified, adjustments to maintenance and operational activities may be necessary. 11. Has the Engineering Department developed an annual list of priority streets with deteriorated pavement? Yes X No Explain, if yes please attach list: City staff"established an annual priority list for chip and flex seals in April 2005. New priority list will be formulated after pavement testing in early 2006. 12. Are any major roadway construction/upgrade or maintenance projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: Page 6 a) North Broadway reconstruction between "C" and "F" Streets (2006-2008). b) Fourth Avenue reconstruction between Davidson St. and SR54 (2005-2007). c) Willow Street bridge replacement (2007-2008). d) Otay Lakes Rd. widening from Ridgeback Rd. to Telegraph Canyon Rd. (2006-2008) FOLLOW-UP ON PREVIOUS YEAR'S QUESTIONNAIRE 13. Last year it was indicated that road segment "Heritage Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy)" did not meet the threshold. At that time the problem was attributed to signal timing and not to growth or traffic. Has the signal timing issue been resolved, and if not please explain. Discussion: Issue was partially resolved. The Northbound AM peak period LOS improved from ED in 2004 to a LOS D in 2005. The mid-day LOS D/C remained unchanged. On the other hand the PM peak period went from a LOS ED in 2004 to LOS E in 2005. This LOS E - resulting from a TMP run conducted April 19, 2005 - reflects the increased traffic flow at intersection of Heritage Road and Telegraph Canyon Road due to commuters taking advantage of the increased capacity provided by the completion - on March 2005 - of-the additional right turn lane for the Telegraph Canyon Road westbound traffic onto northbound 1-805. At the same time, access to the I-80S/Olympic Parkway interchange ramps was restricted as a result of the ongoing improvement work at that location, which discouraged drivers from using this major transportation arterial. Completion of the work on the 1- 80S/Olympic Parkway interchange is anticipated for early 2006. Staff will continue monitoring the LOS for this arterial segment after the 1-805 improvements are completed by conducting additional LOS studies during the spring and summer of 2006. OTHER RELATED QUESTIONS 14. What is the schedule for Cal-Trans to install traffic sensors on freeways in Chula Vista to enable real-time Internet monitoring of conditions? Discussion: Working with a private firm to install sensors on the Interstates surrounding Chula Vista. Caltrans was successful in installing 11 sensors in the area. At present, there are a total of four bi-directional sensor stations located on 1-805 in the jurisdiction of Chula Vista. There are also four on 1-5 and three stations located on SR-54 east of 1-805. Real time speed data can now be viewed on an Internet site located at www.traffic.com.This web site indicates and locates incidents, advisories, alerts and events on a city map as well providing personalized services which includes user-defined drives and reports. 15. What is the schedule to install the ability for transit buses to be able to control traffic lights? Discussion: The technology presently exists for this process. There is a Joint Transit Study (SANDAG & City of Chula Vista) being prepared which should answer these questions in 2006. The decision to install the apparatus on busses, signal light standards and/or under roadways is not available at this time. Page 7 16. When is it anticipated that there will be dedicated transit lanes on H Street? Discussion: Staff is working on a Joint Transit Study as mentioned above with SANDAG. The study will review H Street between 1-5 and 1-805. It is anticipated that BRT service along this corridor will change into more of a rapid bus system with some elements of traffic priority measures being utilized. The exclusive use of travel lanes by transit vehicles on H Street seems remote at this time. It is envisioned that transit vehicles will be sharing lanes with private vehicles along this corridor. MANAGEMENT 17. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes_X_ No Explain: Based on the latest version ofthe Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000), it is recommended that arterial roadway segments be separated into 4 different classifications, rather than the 3 classifications currently being used. All arterial segments with speed limits above 45 mph will now have a separate scale in determining the associated free-flow LOS. It is anticipated that this updated modification will result in a lower LOS for these roadways during the next coming study year. Staff will ensure that all data listed in the next coming GMOC report (including the previous year's data) will reflect this modification to ensure proper comparison. 18. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes_ No _X_ 19. Are there any other suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes_ No _X_ Explain: Continue the support for the timely construction of SR-125 and for monitoring the Level Of Service (LOS) on our major streets. Prepared By: Francisco X. Rivera, Principal Civil Engineer Date prepared: December 14, 2005 J:\Engineer\TRAFFIC\GMOC\06 GMOC Traffic Questionnaire 12-15-05 (Revised Color).doc Page 8 I ~ I r- ~ m Q r- r- r- r- m 0 0 0 0 Z en en en en a -t" m a n III ~I ~~ ~ :S~ l~ :s ... ~ ... ..:!! ::II n N Oil 0 =o~ / ~z ...,/ iI:; (II o ::II - Z " )> ;0 -I m ;0 )> , en ,-.... m -OG) ~~J -om mZ )>--1 /i:en -0'-"" m' ;00 _en o on ........, = ........, - o /' ... :j r- IP ~o o U. = o ;0 m ... i! ii' III " " ,1 J"," 1"'1 ~~I~ ;Slil I\" ~ ... = "1'1 -f ::j r- !!I )> ;0 -f m ;0 ~~~ ~ (f) " -m o G). I I ~ 0:3:~ )>m -<2 lJ-f mU> )>--.. :;::::s;:r 0 lJ(f) I m 0 ;0 = ( _n 0-= 0 0 """""0 en = 0 ;0 ... ! m CD III ........., -t" I I ~ I r- m C) r- r- r- r- m o 0 0 0 Z en en en en a man all \\.\ \.,-:~_./ /- /-;--- 1> ::;:0 -1 m ::;:0 1> r (f) """' m 1>0 3:3: --Om mZ 1>-1 :;:s;:(f) """' --Or mo ::;:O(f) 0= on -....- = ] ~ J , ~h L/~ UI , "0 ! o o U. = o ::;:0 ... m ! i' III -....- I i I r- m Ci) r- r- r- r- m 0 0 0 0 Z en en en en -t' m ~ n 11II a c;.,..,...',....":.....;,..:,.,;.........;,.,',...........,, ,-.-", ,..'.c,._....~....:.:...',..,..". ""..;.', '-. THRESHOLD The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts= replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or "Update" the information in the table below to indicate the existing enrollment conditions and capacity for current conditions. The most recent information available is requested, please indicate reference date. EXISTING CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2005 Schools Current Capacity Amount Overflowed Type of Comments Enrollment Under/Over Out School 10/06/2005 Permanent Portables Capacity. Calendar NORTHWEST Cook 523 475 93 45 3 Trad Feaster-Edison 1083 400 824 141 1 Ext. Trad Charter, TIIG Hilltop Drive 538 506 77 45 4 Trad 1 NSH class Mueller 889 499 492 102 Ext. Trad Charter, TIIG Rosebank 698 466 330 98 4 Trad Vista Square 678 446 370 138 8 YRS 2 Sp. Ed. class, 5 DHH classes, TIIG&PI SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 576 600 24 Ext. Trad Charter, PI Castle Park 519 496 144 121 3 Trad 2 NSH classes Harborside 666 490 405 229 2 Trad 2 NSH classes, TIIG & PI Kellogg 495 450 232 187 1 Trad 2 NSH classes Lauderbach 822 528 436 142 26 YRS 2 NSH classes, TIIG & PI Loma Verde 536 457 296 217 3 YRS 1 NSH class, NCLB Montgomery 350 472 91 213 Trad 1 NSH class Otay 597 488 193 84 36 Trad PI Palomar 412 446 0 34 2 Trad 1 NSH class and 1 SH class, PI Rice 674 585 310 221 5 Trad 2 SH classes; 3 NSH classes Rohr 442 496 62 116 YRS 2 NSH class SOUTHEAST H:\PLANNI NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _ 06.doc Page 1 Arroyo Vista 817 792 91 -5 4 YRS Charter Olympic View 824 484 368 18 38 YRS Parkview 474 529 90 145 2 Trad 2 NSH classes, 2 SH classes Rogers 551 507 111 67 20 YRS Valle Lindo 601 428 232 59 6 Trad 2 NSH classes Hedenkamp 977 972 -5 18 YRS 2 SH classes Heritage 892 814 120 42 22 YRS Veterans 382 867 485 McMillin 841 772 80 11 27 YRS 1 SH class NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 401 446 0 45 Trad 3 NSH classes Casillas 656 645 133 122 YRS 1 NSH classes Chula Vista Hills 529 534 122 127 Trad 1 NSH class Clear View 502 516 120 134 Ext. Trad Charter, 1 Sp. Ed. class Discovery 771 634 326 189 YRS Charter; 2 SH classes Eastlake 655 539 270 154 YRS 1 NSH class Halecrest 480 525 80 125 Trad 1 NSH class Liberty 472 734 YRS 2 NSH classes, 1 SH class Marshall 716 654 100 38 22 YRS 1 Sp. Ed. class Salt Creek 800 830 30 34 Trad Tiffany 619 463 217 61 1 Trad 2 NSH classes *TIIG - Targeted Improvement Grant *NCLB - No child left behind *PI - Program improvement school H :\PLANNI NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _ 06.doc Page 2 2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for December 2006 (a) and 2009 (b) based on the City's forecast. 2 a. FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2006 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Type of Comments Enrollment Permanent Portables Over/Under Out School 12/31106 Capacity" Calendar NORTHWEST Cook 545 475 93 23 3 Trad Feaster- 1045 400 824 179 1 Ext. Trad Charter, TIIG Edison Hilltop Drive 525 506 77 58 4 Trad 1 NSH class Mueller 888 499 492 103 Ext. Trad Charter, TIIG Rosebank 698 466 330 98 4 Trad Vista Square 679 446 370 137 8 YRS 2 Sp. Ed. class, 5 DHH classes, TIIG & PI SOUTHWEST Learning 580 600 20 Ext. Trad Charter, PI Comm. Castle Park 521 496 144 119 3 Trad 2 NSH classes Harborside 661 490 405 234 2 Trad 2 NSH classes, TIIG &PI Kellogg 467 450 232 215 1 Trad 2 NSH classes Lauderbach 837 528 436 127 26 YRS 2 NSH classes, TIIG &PI Loma Verde 519 457 296 234 3 YRS 1 NSH class, NCLB Montgomery 351 472 91 212 Trad 1 NSH class Otav 582 488 193 99 36 Trad PI o.v, '''''' 383 446 0 53 2 Trad 1 NSH class and 1 Palomar SH class, PI Rice 650 585 310 245 5 Trad 2 SH classes; 3 NSH classes Rohr 439 496 62 119 YRS 2 NSH class SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 840 792 91 43 4 YRS Charter Olympic View 852 484 368 0 38 YRS Parkview 479 529 90 140 2 Trad 2 NSH classes, 2 SH classes Rogers 550 507 111 68 20 YRS Valle Lindo 567 428 232 93 6 Trad 2 NSH classes Hedenkamp 977 972 -5 18 YRS 2 SH classes Heritage 897 814 120 37 22 YRS 643 867 224 McMillin 852 772 80 0 27 YRS 1 SH class NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 395 446 0 51 Trad 3 NSH classes Casillas 638 645 133 140 YRS 1 NSH classes 511 534 122 145 Trad 1 NSH class H:\PLANN ING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _06.doc Page 3 Chula Vista Hills Clear View 450 516 120 186 Ext. Trad Charter, 1 Sp. Ed. class Discovery 768 634 326 192 YRS Charter; 2 SH classes Eastlake 655 539 270 154 YRS 1 NSH class Halecrest 473 525 80 132 Trad 1 NSH class Liberty 734 734 0 YRS 2 NSH classes, 1 SH class Marshall 716 654 100 38 22 YRS 1 Sp. Ed. class Salt Creek 800 830 30 34 Trad Tiffany 619 463 217 61 1 Trad 2 NSH classes *(-) denotes amount over capacity 2.b FIVE YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2010 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Type of Comments Enrollment Permanent Portables Over/Under Out School 12/31/10 Capacity* Calendar NORTHWEST Cook Feaster-Edison Hilltop Drive Mueller Rosebank Vista Square SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. Castle Park Harborside Kellog Lauderbach Lorna Verde Montgomery Otay Palomar Rice Rohr SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista Olympic View Parkview Rogers Valle Lindo Hedenkamp Heritage H:\PLANN ING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _06.doc Page 4 .-.."~.......--,~-'".,.,_.;_.,,'~_....-----,,--~-_.~- Veterans McMillin NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly Casillas Chula Vista Hills Clear View Discovery Eastlake Halecrest Liberty Marshall Salt Creek Tiffany *(-) denotes amount over capacity 3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2004-05 2003-04 2002-03 2001-02 2000-01 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,409 4,567 4,587 4,591 % of Change Over 0% 0% 0% 1% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 99% 97% 97% 97% from Chula Vista SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,089 6,333 6,481 6,647 % of Change Over -4% -2% -3% 1% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 99% 97% 97% from Chula Vista SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,369 5,854 4,825 4,715 % of Change Over 8% 17% 2% 20% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 99% from Chula Vista 97% 97% 97% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,601 6,266 5,562 5,395 % of Change Over 5% 11% 3% 0% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 99% 97% 97% 97% from Chula Vista DISTRICT WIDE H:\PLANN I NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _06.doc Page 5 Total Enrollment 23,468 23,020 21 ,455 21,348 % of Change Over 2% 7% 1% 4% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 99% 97% 97% 97% from Chula Vista 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Districts ability to accommodate student enrollment? Yes No x Explain: The district's school construction program has kept pace with housing development. 5. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2006? Yes x No Explain: 6. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year (December 201 0) time frame? Yes No x Explain: A new school is planned in eastern Chula Vista in 2006 (Otay Ranch Village 11) to accommodate the continued growth in that area. Additional schools will be constructed in Otay Ranch Villages 7 and 2 as needed for students moving into new housing in those areas. 7. Will new facilities/schools be required to accommodate forecasted growth over the next 5 years? Yes X No Schools are planned in Otay Ranch Villages 11,7, and 2. If yes, please indicate when the facility/school is needed and identify the major milestone points (indicated below) and timing that each facility/school should normally be expected to meel Please indicate if the particular milestone is not relevant or if others should be noted: A. Site Selection - A site for the school in Otay Ranch Village 11 is currently under review by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control. Proposed sites have been identified for Otay Ranch Villages 2 and 7. Staff are working with California Department of Education in preliminary phases of site approval. B. Architectural Review -Funding identification for land and construction - same as A C. Commencement of site preparation - The Department of Toxic Substance Control has mandated additional environmental assessment of the school site in Village 11 prior to final approval of site. Construction will begin immediately following approval of the site by the State. D. Service by utilities and road - unknown E. Commencement of construction - Village 11 plans have been approved by the Division of State Architect. Construction will begin following school site approval by CDE. The district has sufficient unhoused student eligibility and anticipates adequate state and CFD funding for construction on this site. Construction in Villages 2 and 7 will be initiated as student enrollment dictates. 8. Is the school district considering alternative site and facility design and configuration standards in response to the scarcity and cost of land particularly in western Chula Vista? H:\PLANN ING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _ 06.doc Page 6 Yes x No Explain: The District requires the assistance of the City of Chula Vista in identifying affordable school sites in western Chula Vista. The District currently is designing a two-story school facility that will require a smaller land parcel. The District also is evaluating existing sites regarding expansion or replacement of current school facilities. 9. Please list current joint use activities/facilities between the City of Chula Vista and the CVESD. The District has joint use of play fields (soccer, baseball, and basketball) at Rogers and Harborside with the City of Chula Vista. All recent school sites have been constructed adjacent to city parks. 10. Please comment on the potential for expanding joint use arrangements, please be specific where possible. The process of co-locating elementary schools and city parks will continue. 11. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the maintenance of the level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes No x Explain: 12. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes x No Explain: Per State law, 3% of the District's annual budget is reserved for facilities maintenance. The District also qualifies for and receives State deferred maintenance funds. In 2004-05, the District was awarded $986,037 in deferred maintenance funds. These funds are matched with a District contribution. 13. Are there any major upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the School District's current 1- year and 5-year CIP that will add capacity? Yes x No Explain: The District completed modernization of 28 schools this past summer. During this process, modular classrooms were added at Tiffany and Otay Schools, and two additional Kindergartens were constructed at Otay. Two modular classrooms will also be installed at Arroyo Vista in January 2006, and four more modular classrooms are planned for Marshall Elementary. 14. Please comment on the Districts deferred maintenance plan in regard to maintaining schedules, ongoing or upcoming major projects, and funding availability. Comment: The current five-year deferred maintenance plan was approved by the Board of Education on March 15, 2005, for fiscal years 2004-05 through 2008-09. MISCELLANEOUS 15. Please identify ways that the GMOC can assist the CVESD in keeping pace with growth by making recommendations to City Departments and the City Council. H:\PLANN I NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _06.doc Page 7 ~e_.."'''_'''''''"__~'_'.''_''''U'_~ ~_....,...~"__,.,.___~,,__~__ Describe: Continue frequent communication between the City and CVESD. Identify affordable school locations in western Chula Vista that will accommodate the increased student enrollment that result from western Chula Vista redevelopment and bayfront development plans. 16. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and GMOC. Yes x No Explain: The District continues to work with the Office of Public School Construction to increase its unhoused student eligibility. If eligibility is not increased, the District may not qualify for school construction funding. Without State funding, school construction will not keep pace with growth. Prepared by: Title: Date: H :\PLAN N I NG\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\returned questionnaires\CVESD _06.doc Page 8 FINAL - BOT REVIEWED JANUARY 23. 2006 THRESHOLD The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or "Update" the information in the table below to indicate the existing enrollment conditions and capacity for current conditions. The most recent information available is I . d' t f d t reauested, please In Ica e re erence a e, CURRENT CONDITIONS (2005/06 SCHOOL YEAR)) Current Building Capacity Adjusted Schools Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Est. P.E. Within Overflowed Comments 11/2005 (Note 1 ) Capacity" Capacity Capacity Out NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,311 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,297 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,617 1,290 990 2,280 220 X Hilltop High 2,100 1,500 510 2,010 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1 ,405 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 2,012 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 509 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,987 N/A N/A N/A N/A X Full and Part Time Students SOUTHEAST NONE -- --- -- -- --- --- -- NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,332 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,102 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Eastlake High 2,254 2,460 480 2,940 220 X Rancho Del Rey Middle 1 ,439 1,380 60 1 ,440 220 X Eastlake Middle 1,300 1,665 0 1,665 220 X Otay Ranch High 2,854 2,600 360" 2,600 220 X "Temp Portables "Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special education and learning centers. Note 1: Capacity figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) - September 2003. Check Table 2B and 3 2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for December 2005 (a) and 2010 (b) based on the City's forecast. 2.3 FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2006 Projected Enrollment Schools (With Building Capacity Adjusted Est. P.E Within Overflowed Comments Proposed Permanent/Portables Building Capacity Capacity Out Development) (Note 1) Capacity 12/31/06 NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,258 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,112 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,613 1,290 990 2,280 220 X Note 3 Hilltop High 2,137 1,500 510 2,010 220 X Note 3 SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,336 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 1,943 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 600 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,987 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST NONE -- --- --- --- --- -- --- NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,313 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,101 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Eastlake High 2,487 2,460 480 2,940 220 X Rancho del Rey 1,418 1,380 60 1,440 220 X Middle Otay Ranch High 2,645 2,600 360 2,600 220 X Eastlake Middle 1,372 1,665 0 1,665 220 X High School #13 700 2,600 0 2,600 220 X Note 2 Notes: 1. Capacity figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan - September 2003 2. District staff has developed a proposed boundary for board consideration in January 2006. The school will open in Fall 2006 with 9th and 10th graders and the projected population of 700. 3. A two-story structure with 19 classrooms will open in 2006 to expand capacity. Page 2 2.b FIVE YEAR FORECAST CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2010 Projected Adjusted Schools Enrollment . Building Capacity Building Physical Within Overflowed Comments 12/31/10 Permanent/Portables Capacity Education Capacity Out (Note 1) (Note 5) Capacity NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,681 1,140 270 1,410 220 Hilltop Middle 1,378 1,200 210 1,410 220 Chula Vista High 3,494 1,290 990 2,280 220 Note 4 Hilltop High 2,125 1,500 510 2,010 220 Note 4 SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 2,053 1,380 150 1,530 220 Castle Park High 2,752 1,350 570 1,920 220 Palomar High 0 360 240 660 100 Chula Vista Adult 4,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note 5 SOUTHEAST NONE --- --- -- -- --- --- -- NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,202 1,770 780 2,550 220 Bonita Vista Middle 1,220 1,110 420 1,530 220 Eastlake High 3,848 2,460 480 2,940 220 Note 2 + 3 Rancho del Rey 2,330 1,380 60 1,440 220 Note 3 Middle Otay Ranch High 4,771 2,600 300 2,900 220 Note 2 + 3 Eastlake Middle 2,261 1,665 0 1,665 220 Note 3 HS #13 0 2,600 0 2,600 220 Note 2 + 3 MS #12/HS #14 0 2,000 HS 0 3,000 220 Note 2 +3 (Grades 7-12) 1,000 MS Notes: 1. These "worst case" projections were prepared by Davis Demographics and planning (DDP) on April 1. 2005 on behalf of the Sweetwater Union High School District. The projections are based upon the students dwelling within the actual attendance boundary of the respective school. It should be noted that the school district supports specialized programs at various schools, which allow students throughout the district to choose to attend a school other then the school assigned. This transfer phenomenon is impossible to project beyond a one year timeline. Therefore, the 2010 projections provided herein, are merely a projection by DDP of students residing in the respective school boundary. The projection excludes students in special education and learning centers. The district will open a portion of High School No. 13 by 2006 for 9th and 10th grades, which will provide relief to Otay Ranch and Eastlake High Schools. The boundaries for the school will be considered by the board in January 2006. 2. 3. The district staff currently projects this middle school for 2008 and the high school in 2009. Since no boundary exists, no enrollment projections can be made and the students are shown in the Rancho del Rey and Eastlake Middle School boundaries as well as Eastlake High School, Otay Ranch High School, and High School No. 13. 4. In 2006, new classroom buildings will open and will provide additional capacity for the schools. 5. The Adult School will be relocated to t he district's L Street property where a new and expanded facility will be constructed. Page 3 3 PI fll. th t bl bit "d" t II h. ease I In e a e e ow 0 m Ica e enro ment IstOrv. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2004-05 2003-04 2002-03 2001-02 2000-01 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,325 7,429 7,215 7,157 7,175 % of Change Over -1.4% 2.9% .8% -.3% 4.4% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 86% 87% 91% from Chula Vista 86% SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 3,926 4,041 4,129 4,004 4,124 % of Change Over -2.8% -2.1% 3.3% -3% 8.3% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 81% 90% 91% 89% from Chula Vista NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 11,281 10,343 9,261 8,441 7,994 % of Change Over 9.1% 11.7% 8.9% 5.3% 10.4% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 97% from Chula Vista 96% 94% 95% DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 41,853 40,967 39,290 37,878 37,275 % of Change Over 2.2% 4.2% 3.6% 1.6% 5.2% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 48% 48% from Chula Vista 49% 51% 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the District's ability to accommodate student enrollment? Yes No ---1L- N/A Explain: We are accommodating growth through new classroom construction now underway at Chula Vista High and Hilltop High Schools which will be completed by mid 2006. A new multi- purpose facility at Chula Vista Middle School will be completed in early 2006. High School No. 13 will also open in 2006. 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2006? Yes --1L- No N/A Explain: There has been a slight enrollment decrease on the west side and along with new construction efforts the district has been able to absorb new students. 6. Are existing facilities/schools able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year (December 2010) time frame? Yes X (with concern). No Page 4 Explain: With the anticipation of hundreds of infill units on the west side, the district expects capacity issues to occur. However, the district is working with the City on funding and addressing these issues. 7. Will new facilities/schools be required to accommodate forecasted growth over the next 5 years? High School No. 13 is under construction and planning for Middle School No. 12/High School No. 14 (a 7-12 campus) has commenced. The responses provided below are for this campus Middle School No. 12/High School No. 14. Yes x No If yes, please indicate when the facility/school is needed and identify the major milestone points (indicated below) and timing that each facility/school should normally be expected to meet. Please indicate if the particular milestone is not relevant or if others should be noted: A. Site Selection - Complete B. Architectural Review - Underway C. Funding identification for land and construction - Underway D. Commencement of site preparation. Underway E. Service by utilities and road - Underway F. Commencement of construction - Early 2007 8. Is the school district considering alternative site and facility design and configuration standards in response to the scarcity and cost of land particularly in western Chula Vista? Yes x No Explain: Middle School No. 12/High School No. 14 will be multi-story construction. Both new classroom buildings at Chula Vista High and Hilltop High Schools are two story. 9. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the maintenance of the level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes x No Explain: It is not clear if the governor will fully fund deferred maintenance in the S tate budget. 10. Please list current joint use activities/facilities between the City of Chula Vista and the SUHSD. HIGH SCHOOLS Bonita Vista High Bonita Fest Tae Kwon Do New Hope Community Church Registrar of Voters Sun Devils Softball AYSO Tiffany Elementary School Graduation Granger Soccer Bonita Valley Girls Softball Castle Park High Chula Vista Youth Football Registrar of Voters Chula Vista High Presidio Soccer San Diego Flyers City of Chula Vista Rec Dept.- Basketball Tournament NYS Football Girl Scouts Rangers Soccer Chula Vista Adult School - Woodworking & Choral Page 5 Class Eastlake Hiqh Music Conservatory Chula Vista Adult School - Literacy Classes Registrar of Voters Church Services Ramos Tennis Academy Bonita Valley Girls ASA - Softball Twin Hills Softball League United States Amateur Baseball Federation Windchime Homeowners Association The Mariachi Foundation Pima Medical Institute - Graduation SUHSD Middle School Athletic League - Soccer, Football, and Basketball Registrar of Voters Hot Spurs Soccer AYSO City of Chula Vista Rec Dept. - Football Palomar Hiqh Registrar of Voters Hilltop Hiqh Stu Segall Productions Presidio Soccer Hot Spurs Soccer Registrar of Voters San Diego Flyers Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club - Self Defense Classes Chula Vista Fire Dept. - Softball Chula Vista Fire Dept. - Basketball Hilltop Middle School Graduation Republican Party - Register to Vote Table Bonita Valley Church - Football San Ysidro Hiqh Registrar of Voters Chula Vista Rangers Soccer South San Diego Youth Football Esperanza Drum and Bugle Corps SSDIB Youth Football Girl Scouts Rangers Soccer San Diego Gauchos - Soccer Match International Boundary and Water Commission San Ysidro Middle School Graduation Mar Vista Hiqh Stu Segall Productions Registrar of Voters Southwest Hiqh Registrar of Voters Otav Ranch Hiqh Rancho Vista Church Strike Performance - Speed and Agility Training Mater Dei Catholic Church San Diego Clairemont Church - Fundraiser Bonita Rebels Soccer Sweetwater Hiqh Chargers Football - Mini Camp United States Amateur Baseball San Diego Professional Soccer League Community Youth Athletic Center - Boxing Event West Coast Wrestling Starlings Volleyball City of National City Rec. Dept. - Track and Field San Diego County Special Olympics - Track and Field for the Disabled City of National City Rec. Dept. - Basketball League Southwestern College - Activity Leadership Training Class Montqomerv Hiqh School East San Diego Soccer City of San Diego - Recycling Event Greater Apostolic Faith Temple Church - Basketball Team Family - Track H-Town Christian Academy - Baseball Luchamania International- Wrestling ADULT SCHOOLS Chula Vista Adult Registrar of Voters Page 6 MontQomerv Adult Registrar of Voters Imperial Beach TechnoloQV Academv The Bridge Academy - Construction Theory MIDDLE SCHOOLS Bonita Middle AYSO Aram Studios - Music Lessons Castle Park Middle YMCA - After School Program Chula Vista Adult School - Family Literacy Chula Vista Youth Soccer - Pumas Registrar of Voters Chula Vista Rangers South Bay Little League Chula Vista Middle YMCA of San Diego County - School Outreach National Youth Sports - Baseball Chula Vista Adult School - Literacy Program Chula Vista Adult School - Physical Fitness Twin Hills Softball Soccer Central League Eastlake Middle Registrar of Voters Eastlake Youth Football and Cheer Eastlake Little League Sweetwater Valley Little League City of Chula Vista Planning Dept. Bonita Valley Adventist Church Hilltop Middle YMCA of San Diego County - Outreach Services National Youth Sports Chula Vista Boys and Girts Club - Outreach and Self Defense AYSO Mar Vista Middle YMCA of San Diego County - Outreach Services Imperial Beach Little League AYSO ASA Girls Softball MontQomerv Middle Registrar of Voters Girl Scouts Riviera Del Sol HOA Meetings Atlas of San Diego Soccer Lucky Waller Little League Del Sol Spanish Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses National City Middle Knights of Columbus - Soccer Rancho Del Rev Middle National Council of Arab-Americans Filipino Press Adelante Mujer Conference District Science Fair Chula Vista Rangers - Soccer Pima Medical Institute - Graduation AYSO Bonita Leaming Academy - Graduation Mariachi Scholarship Foundation Pacific Coast Talent Dance Competition Jehovah's Witness Congregation Somerset Auctions Southwest Middle YMCA of San Diego County - Outreach Services Registrar of Voters 11. Please comment on the potential for expanding joint use arrangements, please be specific where possible. And entered into if appropriate for all parties Page 7 As new campuses are constructed, new opportunities for joint-use will be considered. 12. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes No X Explain: The State has not fully funded deferred maintenance accounts. 13. Are there any major upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the School District's current 1-year and 5-year CIP that will add capacity? Yes X No Explain: An aggressive modernization effort has been undertaken in 2004 and 2005 and will continue in 2006. What was to have been a 15-year Proposition BB program will now conclude by 2006/07, 11 vears earlv. Work at five campuses was completed in spring 2005, five summer "sprint" projects were completed in the summer of 2005 and five additional projects will start in the fall 2005. The $187 million of Proposition BB funds have been leveraged to obtain over $150 million in State funding. New classroom buildings at Chula Vista High and Hilltop High Schools as well as a multi-purpose facility at Chula Vista Middle School will open in 2006. The relocation of the district office will result in the partial vacation of Chula Vista Adult School, which will create capacity on the west side. Combined, these projects will add nearly 100 new classrooms on the west side of the district. The district will open High School No. 13 in 2006, Middle School No. 12/High School No. 14 is in the planning stages. Combined, these projects will add hundreds of new classrooms on the district's east side. 14. Please indicate what the district considers to be as the major milestones in implementing the Long Range Facilities Master Plan, and the status of those milestones? Please see No. 13 above. MISCELLANEOUS 15. Please identify ways that the GMOC can assist the SUHSD in keeping pace with growth by making recommendations to City Departments and the City Council. Describe: 1. The district will need City assistance to quickly process the EIR on Middle School No. 12/High School No. 14 in m id-2006 so that const ruction can com mence .in early 2007 for a 2008 partial opening. 2. The district will also need City assistance to process entitlements on various district properties to facilitate the upgrading and expansion of district offices and maintenance facilities needed to keep pace with growth. 16. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and GMOC. Yes X No Explain: Over 290 Classrooms were constructed or modernized in 2005. The district has 175 Page 8 classrooms in planning for new construction or modernization in 2006/7 as well as associated restrooms or infrastructure. This will close out funding availability under proposition BB. The district has developed a robust web site that shows all construction projects (essentially the Long Range Facility Master Plan) and their status (new schools and modernization), their associated budgets, status of planning, emerging business outreach, business opportunities, etc. It can be viewed at www.suhsd.k12.ca.us and click on "construction update." It is intended as a helpful resource to the public and the community in general to keep track of the great progress the district has made in 2005 and planned for 2006. With the successful implementation of Proposition BB efforts noted, the district board of trustees may wish to consider a follow-up measure to continue improvements of older school sites in the district. The Long Range Facility master Plan developed in 2004, identified the need for $864 million in improvements to bring each classroom and associated teaching spaces up to the district standards and $584 million in new school construction to fully implement the plan. With Mello-Roos bonding capacity, Proposition BB resources and state funding combined, a shortfall of over $580 million was identified to complete the implementation ofthe combined modernization, expansion and new school construction plan of nearly $1.5 Billion. GMOC and City support of the district's efforts in this arena would be welcomed. Prepared by: Katy Wright Title: Director of Planning and Construction Date: January 2006 Page 9 CJ 6' ~ () r- c) G f{) ;vi A-yo K '-I (?OClAiCIL- MGjf.,{ 8~e ~ ?c. G'H5~ 1/l/.s~RT /1-1/> P#yC:- /0 ?3/J-Ck. t9F i( :> c: /,1;'6/2 <-, (] U G S T /0/1./ A/ 14 /1\ e M6f3 1/1 ;J/;llltf Mark Stephens -----Original Message----- From: Frank Rivera Sent: Monday, January 30,200611:26 AM To: Luis Pelayo Cc: Anthony Chukwudolue Subject: RE: OP projects Old Luis, Thank you for providing me with the information. I mentioned the following information you provided to me at the GMOC meeting and they were happy with the data. Three of the four are CIP projects for this year and the Center Street one is a maintenance issue. I think that for the upcoming wastewater GMOC meeting, to be scheduled, they will probably want more specifics on the limits of the CIP project, the construction schedule and possibly CIP number in a hand out. Also, any updated information on the purchasing of additional WW capacity from Metro or other PA's would help in answering any remaining issues they may have. Overall, I think that they are fine with the wastewater threshold for the year. Frank Rivera -----Original Message----- From: Luis Pelayo Sent: Thursday, January 26,200610:09 AM To: Frank Rivera Subject: OP projects Old Frank, Per our conversation, here below are some of the recent flow meter results associated with the following locations: . Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn- 8-inch line @ D/d=O.66 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). . Colorado Avenue Sewer Improvement between "J" Street and "K" Street--15-inch line @ D/d=O.93 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garret and Fourth Avenue--10" line @ D/d=:O.70 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). Main Street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno-- 15" line @ D/d=O.75 (Existing conditions, dry weather based on peak flows). Any q's please call me . . Luis Pelayo X6093 COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Jim Thomson, Acting City Manager FROM: James D. Sandoval, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Summary of June 7, 2006 GMOC Community Workshop Attached is a summary of the June 7,2006 community workshop conducted by the City Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) on their 2006 Annual Report. This summary will become Appendix B to the 2006 GMOC Annual Report that will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at ajoint meeting with the GMOC on Thursday, June 15,2006. Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition made comments at the community workshop regarding air quality, water quality and public participation. No other members of the public present made comments to the GMOC. The GMOC voted 7-1-1 (Commissioner Krogh opposed based upon personal concerns regarding the Interim State Route 125 Development Impact Fee; Commissioner Moya abstained) to forward the Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council. Following City Council approval, bound copies of the Annual Report will be furnished to the Council, Planning Commission and GMOC. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Stephens at 409-5959, Ed Batchelder at 691- 5005, or me at 691-5002. Attachment: Summary ofGMOC June 7, 2006 Community Workshop cc: Growth Management Oversight Commission Planning Commission Ed Batchelder, Advance Planning Manager Mark Stephens, Growth Management Coordinator Jim Hare, Assistant Director of Planning H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\Council\Council_ Info_Memo _ GMOC _ Mtg_ Summary _06-07-06 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY June 7, 2006 6:00 p.m. Community Meeting Room Chula Vista Police Dept. 315 Fourth Avenue The Chairman of the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), Mike Spethman, convened the workshop at 6:05 p.m. He asked the Secretary to conduct the roll call, after which he invited comment from the Commissioners and the members of the public present for any item not on the agenda. Commissioner Tripp, speaking as a private citizen, noted that the City Council budget workshop on June 8 would address topics of interest related to those considered by the GMOC. He encouraged those present to attend due to the relevance of the items to be discussed. No one else asked to speak. The Chairman asked Mark Stephens, staff liaison for GMOC, to proceed with the presentation. Mr. Stephens welcomed everyone to the meeting on behalf of the GMOC, and thanked the GMOC and other participants for their involvement. He narrated a PowerPoint presentation that explained the City's Growth Management Program and the role of the GMOC, the 11 threshold categories that the GMOC reviews on an annual basis, and the findings and recommendations from this year's review. He also summarized the status of the "top-to-bottom" review of the Growth Management Program under way, and the next steps for its completion over the next few months. He noted that a summary of this meeting would be included in an appendix to the final GMOC 2006 Annual Report. The Annual Report is scheduled to be presented at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the City Council on June 15, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road. At the end of the presentation, the Chairman asked if City staff present from other departments wanted to add any comments. Police Chief Rick Emerson stated that the Police Department staff was only present to answer any questions or supply any additional information as required from the commissioners or members of the public. Commissioner Krogh commented that he felt some revised wording previously discussed had not been included in the section for the Police Department regarding the decline in performance for response times on Priority 2 calls. He moved to include additional specific language to underscore the increase in response times. Commissioner Waters recalled the request to strengthen the report's language, but not the specific wording mentioned by Commissioner Krogh. Mr. Stephens noted that several changes to the previous draft were made based on the discussions referred to by Commissioner Krogh. H:\PLANNING\DanF\GMOC\GMOC ZOOS-2006\COMMUNrTY _ WSHOP _060706.doc Page 1 of 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY June 7, 2006 6:00 p.m. Community Meeting Room Chula Vista Police Dept. 315 Fourth Avenue Chief Emerson stated that some of the information is now approximately 18 months old and changes in the department since that time should reflect significant improvement. Commissioner Arroyo suggested the use of alternative language to recognize the specific time period shown in the report. The Chairman asked what the Commissioners would support in the report. Commissioner Tripp referred to the Commission's recommendation and stated that he felt it was sufficient. Commissioner Palma concurred and commended the Police Department for the work they do. Chief Emerson stated that the Department's five-year strategic plan had recently gone to the Council and the department has identified funding for additional officers, which he felt would help address the concerns of the Commission. He offered to provide the Commission with copies of the five-year strategic plan if they desired. Commissioner Krogh stated that given the amount of time being devoted to this discussion and the lack of a second, he would withdraw his motion. The Chairman asked if any Commissioners had additional questions or comments. He then invited any members of the public who wished to comment to do so. Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) stated that she felt the Commission was not tracking closely enough some of the things that it should be for air quality and water quality as they relate to quality of life for residents of Chula Vista. She stated that the EHC objects to the idea that air quality can only be tracked on a regional basis as the report reflects. She said that the report looks at the cumulative impacts of development, but that there are many air quality impacts that are very local over which the City can take control, citing some examples. Ms. Hunter stated that reporting is not enough to show compliance with a threshold, she felt that the threshold is a performance standard and should be a quantifiable target. She stated that in terms of water quality, it is a part of the quality of life of people and the GMOC should have water quality as a threshold. Ms. Hunter also commented on the level of public participation in the GMOC process and stated that the Commission should review how it's capturing the public input and interest, and how to involve the public in the process. She stated that her organization recommends that these three thresholds be added to the GMOC's current list. No one else from the publiC asked to speak. The Chairman invited comments from the Commissioiners. H:\PLANNING\DanF\GMOC\GMOC 2005-2006\COMMUNITY _ WSHOP _060706.doc Page 2 of 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY June 7, 2006 6:00 p.m. Community Meeting Room Chula Vista Police Dept. 315 Fourth Avenue Commissioner Tripp stated that it is the Council who sets the thresholds and the Commission has to exercise caution in how things are measured. He was in favor of the top-to-bottom review process and voiced his confidence in the City staff. Commissioner Waters asked about publicizing of the meetings. Chairman Spethman responded that the meetings have to be noticed, and for this meeting, a display ad was placed in the newspaper and sent to a variety of groups who in turn forward the information to their members. Jim Sandoval, Director of the Planning & Building Department, addressed the Commission stating that in past years, there have been meetings with much greater attendance when the publiC was very concerned about issues such as traffic congestion and schools. The level of participation tends to fluctuate based upon the level of community concern. He also stated that the City has hired a consultant to review and advise on methods of better communicating to the public. Commissioner Krogh commended Ms. Hunter on her interest and passion and said that he would be open to consider her points in the future. He noted that the City does have extensive involvement in addressing air quality at the local level, and that last year's and this year's reports include a list of many of these activities. Commissioner Waters and other Commissioners expressed appreciation for the input received. The Chairman again thanked everyone for their attendance and participation. Mark Stephens re-emphasized that a summary of the meeting will be prepared for the joint meeting June 15. Commissioner Krogh asked if the Commission should vote on the Annual Report. Commissioner Palma moved for a vote to accept the draft annual report as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tripp. Commissioner Krogh voted not to accept based on his statement at previous meetings that he would take that position if a specific issue he felt strongly about was not pursued regarding the Interim State Route 125 Development Impact Fee. Commissioner Moya abstained stating that air quality issues which she had raised when she first joined the Commission were not in the report and also that she was not present for this entire year, so felt not qualified to approve the report. The vote was 7 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstaining. The meeting was adjourned at 7: 15 p.m. to the next GMOC meeting, which is the joint workshop of the City Council, Planning Commission and the GMOC on June 15 at the John Lippitt Public Works Center. H:\PlANNING\DanF\GMOC\GMOC 2005-2006\COMMUNITY _ WSHOP _060706.doc Page 3 of 3 ~V~ ~ ~- - ~- ClW Of CHUlA VISfA Dep~mentofPbnrnngandBuildrng Date: June 15,2006 Subject: Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and Growth Management Oversight commissioner~ Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager .1/ James D. Sandoval, Director of Planning and Buildin~ Comments Received from the Sweetwater Authority Regarding Responses to 2006 GMOC Annual Report Recommendations To: Via: From: The Sweetwater Authority has proposed revisions in responses ,to the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) recommendations contained in Attachment 1 of the Council Agenda Statement for the June 15 joint meeting of the GMOC with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Specifically, the Sweetwater Authority has proposed clarifying language in the Sewer and Water sections regarding recycled water. The proposed revisions are attached, with the additions and deletions shown in an underline and strikeout format. Staff members in Planning and Engineering have reviewed this request, and have no objections to the proposed changes in agency responses. The Sweetwater Authority also proposed a change in the GMOC recommendation for Water to: "That the water agencies serving Chula Vista endeavor to provide reliable and affordable potable water supply that includes conservation. recycled water. groundwater. and potentially seawater desalination. " Because the GMOC took final action on this year's recommendations prior to receipt of this request, we recommend that this recommendation be considered through next year's review process. Please contact Mark Stephens at (619) 409-5959 or mstephens@ci.chula-vista.ca.us if you have any questions or need any further information. cc: Ann Moore, City Attorney Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Ed Batchelder, Advance Planning Manager Mark Stephens, Senior Planner Leah Browder, Acting Director of Engineering Anthony Chukwulodue, Senior Civil Engineer Hector Martinez, Sweetwater Authority Attachment June 15, 2006 Page 2 H:\PLANNING\DanF\dffiles\GMOC\GMOC-06\Council\cover _memo _ 06-15-06.doc -- u ~~~ ~~< oz~ =o~ ~;..oi~ ~\I:l\l:l <~\I:l ~~z ~~s ~o~ <uU ~~< r"~=~ ....~~~ z~;..oi~ w~\I:lz ~\I:l~~ J:~>~ (J~O~ <(.......~~ ....l"""'" ~ ....=z~ <(~~;..oi ~~- \I:l~\I:l O~OZ ~< OZ;..oi ~~~ ~~~ a~~ ~O~ >~O ~~u ~~ = N 00 ~ E: u ~-< OOe ~~ OOE-< Zz ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ooe 00. o ~ ~ SI ~ 00 00 z o ~ E-< -.:n.s..soS ......s~13 00 J100u o~.o_c .",,0 -~ os"ll~"" 'E"" ." "" 0 0 0 . 0 ~ " o. ..,.~ 0.0 0 1!' 1! " ~ 0 ell .~ ~ 0 ."ll ~.~ -" .0 -g <E .0 .& ~ 0..0 c '0 'E - 0 ro ~ '-+-< ~ ..... ...... Vol I-< ....... ~ 00 OJ 0 .u.::::" 0 .c ~ ..~ ..... ... 0 '" 0 _ " u 0 ~ ..~ ~ "" 0 ., 0 0 - -" - .~ " .0 ~ 0 ... "" u.o "- 0 0 0 0 ",." · 0 s 0 0 0." '0 .;!Z 0" 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 goOO.o ..0 ~ · c "0. 0 "" o .~ '" ~ .0 0;;; 1! ~._ "" ~ ~ ~ · " · 0 0 ;; · 0 s -g . 0 u "" 0 ~ .~ ~ 0 g ~ o:ll'~ 0 0. "" ,.. "" ~.- 0 ~j",S ~sUB",""o.~O.o~.S~B""O~goo" 1!lli :11!B.oi~~J""i",~~~~aBi"ll~ ~.o~;;; ~~;~l~g!~l,..~~~iO..:~"ll "ll . -g ~ ;: .,,"" 11 <l1 ~.:J . 0 0] 0 ~ 0 0.9 ~ 0;3 15 g ,,1! 8. 0 ~ g ~ . . ~;:; "" 0 1;i · ~ 0"" ~ 1;i .9 ~.9 0 Po ~ ><.0 '" 0 0. ~ 0 0 0 o,S ..0 · · 1! ~ oo.E oo...." ~ oOO S 0 0 _ ~.~ ~ 0.9 1!' 0 1;i 0 ~;;; " ~ .,,' 0 · ~ 0 >.0 0 88 g ~ 5 ~,,~ ~ ~~~:r~ 11 >-+11 a~:~ E~ t; C ;;:.:JcS!SBl11~~!".~~~~8~""i1!;;1 o 0 '" 0 0 ~.~ . -6 0 0 - · 0 .~ 0 > · 0'" - - so_E~OO='E ",,~.o.~.g """",aoE""o- " .., " .~ o;g 0 ~ 0 _ 0 0"".0 0.;; E 0 0 · oo'~'s u...... '0 ..9 ~.~ "".il .'~ 1! is 11 .0 ~ o.~ ~ 1!' 0 .9 -'" U .. E ,a . ~ >.0 O'~ 0 . _ ~ 0 - 0 Po ~. · 0'- .,., .0.9 0 ~ o.~ '8 0 f-< ;; ~ a = ".g S S S 'E · 1! .0 .- " q = ~~oo1;i1!~oB~""~,,,..;;.g.o-g11~01!~E. o ~~~ooooo.o ",,~~o=ooo...o....o~~ooE i'd g"" Jj : 11 1l 1<..:.Jj ~ ~ ~ B . 5 B oil ~ ~s '8 1! <E o " 0 E ~ _~ ~ ... M. .0 O'~ · .., = ~ 0. 0 E "- · ~ .S . 0 . ~ .~ .,,' ~ ';; ~ .,,];'.0 goO q'" .s'" · 0'" 0 0 ~... ell .B .~ U 0. ~ . 0 " _ ~ 0 15 >.0 · 0 '" > 0 0 ~ ... _ ",,"" 0 _ ell .9 ."" . 0 " ~ " "" ,.. 0 ;E Po 0 0 .- o ..S.S.9 1!.. I 0 ~ " 0 ~ ell · ~ 0"" ~ f-< S"" ~ a 5 g 8.Jj~d ~ ~ ~ ~ 1l d:: '8~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 81::.Jj! ~ ~.~ .~ 0 o.~ > 0 0 B ~. ~ .0 ~.- 0 0 c 1! ._ ~ l:1 ~ ~ '" 0 0 0 Q ~ 0 .,,'.E " .~ :; B g F: o'~ -@, 0 ~ ~ f-<.a il t! 8 ~ ~ ".0 ~ U . ~ .8 11 15 ~ . i; ~ ;: 8.g0 ~ u. ~,".<.o""",o~. _ ~ ..~.os. M :6 ~ 0 Q) I:lO ell p.. .... ~ o:i ~ o Vol Q) ...c: ..... .s <Ii 1-<1:: <8 0 ti:: g Q) Q)"'O :;;s~ ...c:Q) ..... I-< .~ ] .r!So fn"'O .~ @ 02 '0 5 ro E ~Q) <) .= Q) ;:j .!= g' ;:j I-< 0"..... ~ 5 BE ro ~~ .g Q) .~ ~ ..... ~ o Q) ~VJ ~ E '02 I VJ 00 .a S .s- VJ VJ Q)b ~u g <l:: .s VJ ;; ro ] U B 1\ o bb '0 ~ ro ...... 0.. "Cro"'O ~ U ~ 00..... ro Q)..... ~ 1-<d)0 "'0 ~ ...... o..t:::;::l .;!Z ~ ~ .6.l:l~ ~ '-+-< ..... Q) 0 ~ .D Q) usE 0...... ro :;;s~~ r'" g r-< \...I:::::l~ Q) ro 00 ...c: Q) ro ........c: ~ ~ r-< Q) ...c: Vol r-<::::-- ,......., N ~ -. u ~~~ ~~~ OZ~ =O~ St;Joo <~oo ~~z ~~8 ~o~ <uU ~~< -~=~ t-~~~ 2~~~ W~~Z ~oo~~ J:~>~ (.)=O~ <ct~~ t-~ ~ t-~Z~ <c~~~ ~~oo oo~Z 0<0 ~Z~ ~~~ ~~~ OO=Z Z~~ 8~~ ooo~ >~o ~~u ~~~ <= M I'"OCI:lI=IQ) P a ...~...... Q) CI:l [/)- ...... ~ .E Q) 5 ~.s .8 1: ~ :-;:: 1) ...... .... .... ~'I:: 0 1=1 CI:l Co> ...... 1) ;.=; p.. CI:l '.J:l 1=1 0 - '"0 t$:! t:l ;:i.,.... Q) Q) ;>.......,...........-;:::: [/).t:l~...t::l-< '"O'"O:;::I=I~ 1=1;'::: [/)t;:::;t-< p..Q)'"O Q) [/) 0 Ii? .9 H 1=1 l-< . o...t:: CI:l ...... O'.p ;> ~ l-< 0 o.;!l............ 0Il~ p.. CI:l..... rI1 d B Co> 1) ...t:: ...... Q)'S p.. CI:l S ~ Z~CI:l"""CI:lOllI=Il-<[/)d.....CI:l""'" CI:l > 0 Q) ...... CI:l CI:l CI:l ~..... - ..... o Q ;> l-< l-< ...... p.....t:: 0 ..... Co> l-< ..... Q) ;:.... p.9 p"5 S ~ Co> ~ ~ B E-i. l-< CI:l.......D.,.... ~ 0 ;:J Q) Q) CI:l U [)......] Q) ~ 0 Co> p...D:9~ ~ ~< ~ O'm a p.. Co> '"0 -E a :l t-< '"0 oo~ ~:E e 15 ~ CI:l g .~ ~ ~ d ~ ~.. ..~. 1n ~ ': ~ 1: .s ~ '"0 .g p..g Co> ~.~ ~ ~ -E S E .~ ~ .~ ~ G ~ ~ . O~ CI:l.9 Q) . CI:l .........t:: Co> Q) '+-< 'b '1:: ~. ..~. OIl ~ l-< . Q) ~ ...... ~ Q) -E 0 0 1I:l~1=I:l...sQ)t:l......;:....[/)-5 Q) ,..c ~~'.g Co> ~......_ 0'"0 CI:l...... S ~--s ~.. ..~ ;:i:B Q) a ~ [/) ~ ~ ~.,.... o:l .... ~ r;..~.t:l _o[/) ~.....""" -'..... . [/) 1=1 0 p...,.... Q) ..... ...t:: u [/) 0 r;.. 1=1 .,.... ...... ......';::: Co> P 0 '"0 Co> Q)...... ...... -<..... 0 p .... '"0 0.,.... ...... Q).,.... .... 0 CI:l E-i ~ ~ .s'1:: ..g -g l5.] S a ~.~ Q) Z II:l ~ 0 1=1 0 CI:l Q) .,.... .,.... .,.... p.. ~ Q) 000 p g -5 ~ .s-5 ~ g..,g ~ 8 5 ~ ...... ;::3 3 Q [/) 1=1 c..=. a [/)~ p.. [/) r./J ~ :-;:: Co> ......... Q) ~ .,.... '"O'~ ...t:: ~ ~ Q) o r9 [/) l-< l-< Co> Q) Q) -5 .~ t:: ..... Q)..fi ~ [/).,.... Q) l-< l-< l-< - ........ ~ ~ e >-~B:l CI:l'is'b':::: g CI:lI=I c..=. .~. ~ CI:l p.. [/) Q) [/) . ~ $:l CI:l..o Q) U +=> ~...... .~ '"0 t:: P \0 0 Q) '"0 l-< Q) B 0 Co> d3 .,.... -+ ..0 Q) ~] ~ gj :l 5 ~ S ~ ...... .s '1:l Q) ~I ~ t-< r./J ~] ~ g ~ ~ 6j '0 S ~ ~ ;::, ~Q)Co>I=I.s88~ Co> II:l Z o ..... ~ ~ o u ~ u o ~ ..,r C"l II.l 00 c<l p., ..... $:l B [/) ...... [/) s Co> '"0 a Q) 1=1 !P $:l I CI:l 0 .!:: $:l ....-l cd ,-' 0Il~ .~ ...... 1=1 ~ o Co> [) ...... CI:l ~ '"0 Q) Q ;:..... Co> [/) Q) Q) ~ .~ ~I i- U Q) ...t:: ...... ...... :l o ...t:: OIl 5 .B Q) - ..0 ...... [/) CI:l ~ Q) l-< Q) ...t:: ~ '"0 Q) N '13 .~ S Q) ..0 Q) [/) :l ~ ~ '"0 Q) Q ;:.... Co> Q) l-< ] t-< ..,r -- u ~~~ ~~< oz~ =o~ ~;joo < fa 00 ~~Z ~~8 E-IoE-l <uU ~E-I< ~E-I=~ I-~~~ z~~E-I w~~z ~~~~ :I:=>~ t)E-I0~ <(,,-,E-I~ 1-1"""'" ~ I-~z~ <(~~~ ~~- ootS~ 0<0 ~z~ ~<E-I ~~~ oo=Z ZE-l~ 8~~ fao~ >~o ~~u ~~~ <= M rJJ. Z o ~ ~ ~ ~ o u ~ u o ~ C-' ('<) (l.) ~ ~ u o "0 ..0 o ::1:1 ~ '" ~ ;> (1) ;;1 0; Q _I .....1 s:: (1) E ..c:: u z:l ~ 'u s:: ;:l o U --- '" o U o ~ 9 u o ~ 9 '" (1) fa ..... :9 ~ &; 9 o z ~ e. :i:: June 15,2006 David Krogh Page 1 of 4 (1) Good evening. I am David Krogh, speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of GMOC. (2) The vote to adopt and forward this year's GMOC report to you tonight was not unanimous. Because of a significant concern in one area that I feel has been given insufficient consideration during this year's cycle, I voted against the report as a whole, because I respectfully decline to lend my name in endorsement of our report's statements in that section. (3) My concern is with the Fiscalsection of the report. My concern is that the report says nothing, whereas I am concerned that the city acted illegally, during the year covered by the report, with regard to a large amount of development impact fees. I will describe the city's action in a moment. .. .-". (4) My vote on our report, and choosing to speak tonight, is nothing I undertake . lightly, nor is it a last minute action on my part that has surprised the GMOC. I have , been on the GMOC for three and a half years. This is only the second time that I have been on this end of a 7 ~ 1 vote. In the one other case, subsequent events ultimately proved that my position was the correct one. I believe that to be the case this time also, and in any event, what is clearly without question is that we have not used the time and opportunity of this GMOC cycle to truly consider this issue. (5) In this case, my personal opinion is swayed more by the private comments of several individuals I have consulted, including city employees, a knowledgeable I representative of another governmental organi7.ation subject to the same law, and a local law professor, than it is swayed by partial responsiveness by city legal staff or reticence for GMOC to engage due to possible sensitivity of the issue. A choice quote from the law professor was "the world is not a perfect place, just because something is the law doesn't mean that it happens." My favorite blend of truth and pragmatism was the statement of an experienced businessman knowledgeable from long service on city commissions who said "there's no doubt in my mind that's what the law is, but I'm not sure there is a constituency for it." I understand those pragmatic statement.:;, but I feel that complying with the law is an inherent requirement. Since I am aware of the law, the since the city's actions are still remediable, I feel that I must bring up and point out the law. ose of the Growth Mana ement Oversi t Commission is to review and June 15,2006 David Krogh Page 2 of 4 (7) The issue I refer to involves $15 million of development impact fees. Just as -----' everyone is required to obey the law, for example to pay our taxes, cities are required to obey laws. The city collects and uses development impact fees for the benefit of new and current residents, but it can't just do anything any way it wants, it must follow rules spelled out in state law, just as we must file income tax returns. The rules for development impact fees are contained in the Mitigation Fee Act, section 66000 et seq of state law. The DIP rules say that a purpose must be stated, amounts must be reasonable in relation to the cost and purpose, must be fairly assessed proportionally, must be segregated, accounted and reported while being held and spent, and must be refunded if not spent and no longer needed for the intended purpose. f \. '\ (8)\ ~e illegal acti?n take~ during the year covered by our report is th~t th~ . '---segregation and reporting reqUIred by law has been taken away. By councd action m May 2005, which is clearly evident in documents in the Appendix of our report, the Interim Pre-SRI25 DIP Fund was closed out in FY05, so that the manner in which it will be spent will not be clear as it would be in the separate fund required by law. Unbelievably, I have not been allowed to ask the question "How is Chula Vista's action in compliance with that part of the law?" The checks and balances of law will not protect citizens and businesses unless the law is followed. (9) Beyond this basic question there are other aspects that become more subject to interpretation, but which still are questionable. But let's try to keep it simple. This year, one candidate for Chula Vista office used simple layman's terms and said "We're going to use some of the money we collected to build SR125 in case SR 125 it was never built, and use it to do X." That: "money collected to build SR 125 in case it was never built", is a correct description of the original purpose. Is it reasonable to do A, B, C, or X, Y, Z with that money? Everyone should know that some of the mone collected for that urpose HAS been sent in the ast for other thin s (10) So, I voted against the report because GMOC has not given sufficient consideration this year. Now, I must say that there was some very limited consideration given; there was a private meeting with an assistant city attorney by myself and our June 15,2006 David Krogh Page 3 of 4 That city attorney no longer works for the city; that city engineer no longer works for the city. I have no idea who was so reluctant that this issue be even talked about by GMOC, but the city manager no longer works for the city, either. Maybe enough people have changed that the matter can now be considered. I don't know. (11) In conclusion, let me say that m actions have been accordin 1 . this meeting tonight is the culmination of the GMOC review and reporting process, and I felt that I must do my duty by reporting this here tonight. (13) I place the matter in your hands to consider as you deem appropriate. You are the proper authorities, you have the resources and it is your prerogative to follow up this topic as you consider appropriate. (14) Thank you for your time and attention to this concern tonight. June 15,2006 David Krogh Page 4 of 4 --