HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/07/25 (2)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION,
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL CONFERENCE AGENDA STA"),'EMENT
Item ~
Meeting Date 7/25195
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight
Commission's (GMOC) 1994 Annual Report
Director of Plannin~.M-f'
City Manage~ T'T1r (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X.)
REVIEWED BY:
On June 1, 1995, the GMOC fInalized its 1994 Annual Report to the City Council regarding
compliance with the City's Quality-of-Life Thresholds Standards. The Report focuses on the
period from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1994, although issues identifIed in the second half
of 1994 and early 1995 are also discussed where they are pertinent. The chainnan's cover
memorandum to the Report provides a summary of the GMOC's fmdings and recommendations
(please see Attachment C).
On June 20, 1995, the GMOC transmitted its 1994 Annual Report at the regular City Council
meeting, and highlighted several of its recommendations which had potential budget and/or
staffing implications for Fiscal Year 1995-96. The purpose of the transmittal was to apprise
Council of those potential implications prior to closing deliberations on the FY 1995-96 budget.
A copy of the 6120/95 Agenda Statement initially addressing those recommendations is provided
in Attachment B. Tonight's workshop will give the GMOC an opportunity to discuss in detail
the Report's full fIndings and recommendations with the City Council.
The GMOC is scheduled to commence its next review in October 1995, and will focus on the
period from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council:
1. Accept the GMOC's 1994 Annual Report and the recommendations contained therein;
2. Direct staff to undertake actions necessary to implement those recommendations as
outlined in Attachment D - "1994 GMOC Recommendations 1 Implementing Actions
Summary", except as listed below;
3. Direct staff to prepare the necessary Statement of Concern for issuance by the Mayor
~-/
Page 2, ltem--1...
Meeting Date 7/25/95
regarding the Air Quality Threshold, and to finalize proposed revisions to the Air Quality
Threshold Standard and return with the necessary adopting ordinance and resolutions by
October, 1995.
4. Direct staff to return within six months with specific work program proposals for
preparing master plan updates for police, fire and library facilities; and,
5. Direct staff to finalize proposed revisions to the Growth Management Program's
development phasing and monitoring policies and return with the necessary adopting
ordinance and resolutions by October, 1995.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission, on June 14, 1995, voted 5-0 (two members absent) to accept the
1994 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations as presented, and to recommend that Council
do the same. Minutes of the meeting are contained in Attachment A.
DISCUSSION:
Main Conclusions / Issues of the 1994 Annual ReDort
The GMOC approved their final 1994 Annual Report and recommendations on June 1, 1995.
In summary, the GMOC found the following with respect to Threshold Standard compliance:
Thresholds in comDliance -
Libraries
Drainage
Sewer
Fiscal
Water
Schools
Traffic
Parks & Recreation
Thresholds not in full comDliance -
Police
Fire/EMS
Air Quality
Regarding non-compliance for the Police threshold, the shortfall was again slight, and only
related to one of the two measures for Priority I (emergency) calls for service (CFS). The
Priority II CFS Threshold was met and exceeded. As outlined in the GMOC's report, the Police
Department continues to implement a variety of operational and managerial changes which have
resulted in ever-improving threshold performance over the last two years. Given a full staffing
complement, and the institution of a number of proactive, community-based policing programs,
.:J-P-
Page 3, Item--1-
Meeting Date 7/25/95
the Police Department anticipates that Priority I threshold compliance will be achieved for the
next reporting period (July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995). In support of these and other operational
improvements, the GMOC strongly supports the purchase and installation of the prop"'sed
Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System (CAD/RMS) system in assistillg the
Police Department to better structure and manage its resources.
As presented in detail last year, non-compliance for the Fire/EMS threshold is the result of a
change in the manner of response time data collection, and not the result of a reduction in fire
service levels for Fiscal Year 1993-94. When the threshold was established in 1987, the Fire
Department's semi-automated dispatch system was not capable of recording the call intake and
dispatch time components of overall response. Call intake time was thereby not included with
the present 7 minute standard, and a fixed 30 seconds was allocated for the dispatch component.
The remaining 6 minutes and 30 seconds was allocated for the turnout and travel time
components. In July, 1992, new automated communications equipment was installed in the
Dispatch Center. That system now captures the actual total response time, including the call
intake and dispatch components. The result is that available threshold reporting statistics now
include time frames inconsistent with those represented in the present threshold standard, and
result in an inability to directly determine compliance. While this has produced data indicative
of non-compliance, the Fire Department was able to effectively show that turnout and travel
times remain largely unchanged from prior years, again illustrating that the delivery of fire and
emergency medical services has not deteriorated. Along with the Police Department, the Fire
Department is also relying on the proposed installation of the CAD/RMS system to facilitate
better management of resources, and to resolve the present statistical inconsistencies in threshold
response time measurement.
Once the CAD/RMS system has been operational for at least one year, the GMOC is
recommending that the Police and Fire/EMS Thresholds be reviewed for possible revision. At
least one year of CAD/RMS statistics are believed necessary in order to produce indicators
and/or measurable results for use in the re-evaluation.
On Air Quality, a draft revision to the Threshold Standard is being proposed, and is presented
in Appendix D to the 1994 Annual Report. That Appendix is part of Attachment E to this
agenda statement. The revision is intended to address prior APCD comments that the present
standard is problematic in its call for APCD to review the City's 12-18 month growth forecast
and provide comments regarding that forecast's impacts on current and future air quality
management programs. By law, APCD relies on SANDAG's regional growth forecasts for their
air quality planning and monitoring efforts. The GMOC and the APCD concur that the draft
proposed revision appears well-reasoned and innovative, and forms a workable and logical
foundation for annual progress/compliance reporting on air quality improvements efforts at the
local and regional level. Staff is requesting Council accept the draft, and direct staff to finalize
the amendment and return for formal public hearing adoption later this year.
While regional air quality continues to improve, with the APCD noting that 1994 is the cleanest
d-3
Page 4, Item~
Meeting Date 7/25/95
year on record, state and federal standards have not yet been met, and the GMOC again
recommends issuance of a Statement of Concern to the APCD.
With regard to some of the thresholds found in compliance, the GMOC is also making several
recommendations which should be noted:
Librarv - re-evaluation of this threshold standard is proposed to commence in
approximately 1997 based on the substantial technological developments occurring in the
library field. The technology will effectively bring library resources into homes, schools
and businesses via computer, and thereby reduce the need to physically go to the library
and potentially reduce library space needs.
Drainal!e - installation of drainage monitoring devices to measure the effect of
developments in eastern Chula Vista upon older infrastructure in western Chula Vista is
proposed for major drainage courses in the vicinity of 1-805.
Traffic - the GMOC remains extremely concerned over the ability to maintain longer-
tenn compliance on H Street, particularly west of 1-805 where constraints to widening
are presented by existing development. Requested is a report which would identify
anticipated future threshold conditions on H Street, along with a full range of possible
remedial actions and their relative effect on maintaining longer-tenn compliance. Based
on this report, the GMOC is requesting Council give direction on which remedy(ies) are
to be implemented, and accordingly, whether a future lower level-of-service for this
segment will be deemed acceptable. [Staff response to this request is provided under
Item lO.la on page 8 of Attachment D].
Parks and Recreation - revision of the threshold to apply City-wide is again being
requested, and a proposed draft amended standard is presented in Appendix L to the 1994
Annual Report. That Appendix is part of Attachment E to this agenda statement. The
GMOC conceptually endorsed this draft, and, based on the relationship of infonnation
in the forthcoming Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) to the possible structure and content
of a final standard, is recommending that Council direct staff to finalize the proposed
amendment, and return it for fonnal public hearing adoption with the PIP in Fall, 1995.
In addition to threshold compliance review, the GMOC also considered, and recommended
adoption of revisions to the Growth Management Program's (GMP) development phasing and
monitoring policies. The proposed policy revisions were brought forward by the Planning
Department in follow-up to direction stemming from the recent adoption of the "Interim SR-125
Financing Study" which was prepared by HNTB, an engineering consulting finn, In conjunction
with preparation of the HNTB SR125 study, staff noted the need to expand and enhance the
GMP's existing development phasing and monitoring policies, given the lead time necessary for
the planning and financing of major infrastructure. The purpose of the proposed additional
policies is to further define how the City will evaluate the status of development approvals in
c:R-'I
Paj;C 5, Item 2
Meeting Date 7/25/95
forecasting the timing and phasing of new development, and how this infonnation should be used
in updating public facility plans such as the Transportation Phasing Program (TPP). The
additional policies would ir:lprove the City's ability to oversee the status of development activity,
and ensure that the City, other service providers, and, developers become aware at the earliest
possible time of facilities that will be needed in order to maintain adopted threshold standards.
A draft of the proposed additional policies is contained in Appendix N to the GMOC's 1994
Annual Report. Those Appendices are in Attaclunent E to this agenda statement. Based on the
GMOC's input, staff is requesting direction to fInalize the proposed GMP policy amendments,
and return them for r..!blic hearing adoption before the Planning Commission and City Council
later this year.
The GMOC's Report, included as Attaclunent C, contains complete discussions on each
threshold topic, and related specific recommendations for Council action may be found within
the report in bold italic print, and denoted by "." markings. To assist the Council in
evaluating and acting upon the Report's many recommendations, a more concise summary of
recommendations and proposed Council implementing actions is presented in Attaclunent D.
Staff would request Council direct staff to implement those recommendations through actions
as outlined in the right hand column of that Attaclunent.
Response to Select GMOC Recommendations Presented to the Citv Council on 6/20/95 -
As previously indicated, at the June 20, 1995, City Council meeting, the GMOC transmitted its
1994 Annual Report to Council, and highlighted several of its recommendations which had
potential budget and/or staffIng implications for Fiscal Year 1995-96. At that time, management
staff of the affected departments (Public Works, Police, Fire, Library, Planning) and
Administration had only had a brief opportunity to evaluate the budget implications of those
GMOC recommendations, and provided a report outlining initial responses (please see
Attaclunent B). Council directed that staff return with a more specific work program which
addresses the proposed timing for responding to GMOC's concerns, in conjunction with the City
Council / GMOC workshop in July.
Recently, management staff of those departments and City Administration met to discuss the
work program issues as a result of the approved FY 1995-96 budget. Based on that meeting,
the folJowing more specific work program responses are provided relative to the items outlined
in the 6120/95 Agenda Statement:
1.) CAD/RMS Svstem -
The CAD/RMS system refers to Capital Improvement Project PS-115 which has four
components:
1. Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD)
2. Management Infonnation System (MIS)
.;?_S
Page 6, Item-1-
Meeting Date 7/25/95
3. Records Management System (RMS)
4. Mobile Computer System (MCS)
Staff issued the project Request for Proposals (RFP) in December 1994. Staff is
presently evaluating responses from five firms, and will identify a preferred vendor in
August and bring forward a recommendation and proposed agreement for City Council
review later this year. Once an agreement is signed, initial project implementation
activities can begin.
The estimated cost of the overall project is approximately $1,788,679.1 Total
appropriations through FY 1995-96 are $283,800, leaving $1,504,879 in estimated
project costs unfunded at this time. As part of the evaluation currently underway, staff
is analyzing the price proposals submitted in response to the RFP. The price proposals
received, which range from a low of $1.6 million to a high of $4.9 million, reflect both
the requirements expressed in the RFP, non-essential options offered by particular
vendors, and the way responding firms chose to design and implement their proposed
systems. Therefore, staff is currently conducting a price proposal normalizing analysis
to ensure an accurate comparison among the competing proposals is effected. Due to the
highly technical nature of the proposals and the responding firms' tendency to bundle
different cost components, the process of normalizing the price proposals is labor
intensive. Staff recently requested that vendors submit supplemental price proposals in
a much more tightly structured format than required by the RFP. These supplemental
price proposals are due back on July 21, 1995.
Staff anticipates conducting a City Council workshop later this year to review the project
in detail, and discuss its scope, phasing, and funding requirements along with alternative
financing strategies available to underwrite project costs. Staff will proceed with
implementation of the project based on direction received from Council at the workshop.
2.) Updated Master Plans for Police. Fire and Library Facilities -
All affected departments and Administration recognize, and agree with the need for
update of these plans. At present, however, the preparation of such updates is not
directly contemplated in the FY 1995-96 staffing and/or work plans of the affected
departments, nor have the master plan update efforts themselves been fully scoped so that
related staffing and funding implications can be identified.
When the need for eventual update of the plans was initially discussed about a year ago,
it was envisioned that the work could be accomplished through an in-house effort. Past
updates of select facility master plans, and related development impact fees components,
] This amount reflects the estimate included in the 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program budget.
<:2-1,
Page 7, Item-L
Meeting Date 7/25/95
had been coordinated utilizing staff from the Policy Analysis & Program Evaluation unit
(PAPE) of the Management and Infonnation Systems Department. With dissolution of
the P APE unit ur.der the FY 1995-96 budget, additional question arises as to coordination
of the subject master plan updates, and how associated work can be re-allocated to other
City staff and/or to consulting services. To the extent that consulting or other contract
services are deemed necessary, then additional funding considerations may arise which
need to be taken into account in defining how and when the noted master plan update
efforts can be commenced and completed.
Given these outstanding issues, staff requires additional time to fully address work
program considerations and to evaluate staffing, funding and prioritization matters
relative to already scheduled or contemplated major work efforts for each of the affected
departments for both FY 1995-96 and 1996-97. Staff proposes to accomplish this during
the next several months, and to return to the Council prior to the end of 1995 with work
program proposals for accomplishing the updates. Those proposals would define the
scope and estimated costs of the efforts, the staffing and timing plans, and funding
techniques for consideration and action by the Council. Staff of the affected departments
and Administration have agreed that preparation of the work programs can be
accomplished in this time frame.
3.) H Street Traffic Evaluation -
Engineering Division staff is aware of, and generally concurs that there is a potential for
failure to meet the thresholds for traffic on H Street west of 1-805 over the longer-tenn.
In addition to several prior reports prepared by the Division identifying a range of
potential solutions, the Division continues to conduct the annual Traffic Monitoring
Program (TMP) to provide ongoing evaluation of the street network's perfonnance
relative to maintaining threshold compliance. Recent TMP reports indicate that, with one
exception, volumes on H Street west of 1-805 have decreased from those in 1990-91.
The exception is the segment between Hilltop and 1-805 where volumes have grown. As
a result, staff does not view the traffic situation on H Street as immediately critical, but
we are concerned and will continue to monitor it.
That monitoring will occur annually through ongoing TMP efforts, as well as through
the periodic update of the City's Transportation Phasing Program (TPP). Updates of the
TPP take into account proposed new development, and evaluate longer-tenn threshold
perfonnance for the street network on a comprehensive basis. Together, the Engineering
Division believes that the existing TMP and TPP efforts will meet well with the GMOC's
intent to see sufficient monitoring of H Street such that any threshold issues will be
identified and addressed prior to becoming a problem.
-02- 7
Page 8, Item-L.
Meeting Date 7/25/95
4.) Drainal!e Monitorinl! -
On June 27, 1995, Council approved installation of one stream flow gauge in the
Telegraph Canyon Channel near Fifth Ave. as part of the FY 1995-96 CIP.
With regard to the GMOC's request to install additional flow monitoring stations in the
Poggi and Telegraph Canyon drainage channels in the vicinity of 1-805, while the
installation of such facilities is certainly feasible, it should be noted that drainage from
Poggi Canyon affects only a small portion of the City between 1-805 and the confluence
of the Poggi Canyon drainage channel with the Otay River. Consequently, while the
information derived from such an installation would be good to have, it would not be
particularly valuable in identifying drainage impacts on the western portion of the City.
A similar monitoring station in Telegraph Canyon Creek in the vicinity of 1-805 would
provide useful information when used in conjunction with rain gauges.
Such a rain gauge has recently been installed at Fire Station No.2, and the Engineering
Division believes that the inclusion of a flow monitoring station in the Telegraph Canyon
Drainage DIF program would be a worthwhile addition. The Engineering Division
proposes to study such a change during the coming year, and report back to the Council
and the GMOC.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. As specific follow-up actions, such as the report on
Facility Master Plan updates, are brought forward to City Council, fiscal analysis of these
actions will be provided.
Attachments:
A. Draft minutes of the June 14, 1995 Planning Commission 1 GMOC workshop meeting.
B. 6120/95 Council Agenda Statement transmitting the 1994 Annual Report.
C. Chairman's cover memo and GMOC 1994 Annual Report.
D. 1994 GMOC Recommendations 1 Implementing Actions Summary
E. Appendices to the 1994 Annual Report.
(GMOC-94\GM94-CC.AGN)
eJ..-J
ATTACHMENT A
02-7
THIS PAGE BLANK
c::?-IO
DP~FT
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
AND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 p.m.
Wednesdav. June 14. 1995
Conference Rooms 2/3
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista
ROLL CALL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
PRESENT: Chair Hubbard, Commissioners Allen, Peter, Dull, Ray
EXCUSED: Commissioners Annbrust, Hyde, Kell
PLANNING COMMISSION:
PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Fuller, Ray, Salas, and WilIett
EXCUSED: Commissioners Tarantino, Thomas
Staff in attendance included Planning Director Leiter, Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal
PlalUler Griffm, Senior PlalUler Batchelder, Assistant City Attorney Moore
GMOC Chair Hubbard opened the meeting and introduced the Commissioners. All GMOC
members were present except for Commissioners Annbrust (business commitment), and Hyde
and Kell (both of whom had previously arranged out-of-town travel commitments).
MSC 5-0 to excuse Commissioners Armbrust, Hyde, and KelI.
MSC 5-0 to accept the GMOC minutes of May 25 and June 1, 1995.
Planning Commission Chair Tuchscher called the Planning Commission to order and introduced
its members. All were present except Commissioner Tarantino, who had a business conflict,
and Commissioner Thomas who had just been appointed to the Commission and had another
commitment.
MSC (Willett/FulIer) 5-0 to excuse Commio.~oners Tarantino and Thomas.
Senior PlalUler Batchelder then gave a brief introduction of the 1994 GMOC Report, highlighting
its main fmdings. Chainnan Tris Hubbard then presented the report and recommendations,
noting that the thresholds for which compliance had not been fully achieved were police,
fITe/EMS, and air quality.
0< -II
Joint PC/GMOC Meeting
-2-
June 14, 1995
Chair Hubbard noted that the recommendation for Police was based on past years, and that it
is critical that the Police Department have the CAD reporting system. GMOC encouraged the
City Council to assist and support the projected Spring 1996 implementation date for the CAD
system. GMOC felt it would improve the ability of the Police Department to manage and its
resources, and to better understand the affects of growth on the delivery of police services and
maintaining threshold response.
The GMOC was also concerned about development in Eastern Chula Vista--the planning and
impact on the Police Department. The GMOC is recommending an update of the City's master
plan for police facilities, (as well as those for fire and library facilities) to commence and
possibly complete during FY 95/96.
Planning Commissioner Willett was concerned that the CAD system would be cut from the
budget. Based on information received from the Police and Fire Departments, Mr. Batchelder
assured him that it was not in jeopardy; approval was expected for the balance of the cost in this
year's budget.
Commissioner Willett asked if the input hours would stay at the same level. GMOC Chair
Hubbard replied that he understood the CAD/RMS would not require additional personnel.
Commissioner Willett felt that once the system was in, the threshold would be okay.
GMOC Commissioner Allen was concerned about implementation, training and operation of the
CAD system. Mr. Batchelder stated that his understanding that they would retrain existing staff.
Discussion followed regarding the need for the CAD/RMS system. Commissioner Peter noted
that the system would speed up the Police and Fire reporting and productivity in doing their jobs
in the field and dispatch.
Chair Tuchscher recommended that the by-product of the system be emphasized; what will it do
and how will it benefit service delivery.
Chair Tuchscher noted that the volunteer policing program was an important element. He felt
the City needed an update of the Civic Center Master Plan. He felt the Police Department
needed to expand their facilities. He suggested that the police facilities be looked at rather than
the entire civic center. Planning Director Leiter stated that the two did not have to coexist.
Chair Hubbard said the Police needed to address how they were going to meet the needs of the
expanded city.
The Commission then considered the Fire Threshold, and recommended the same as for the
Police Threshold. They felt that the installation of the CAD reporting system would improve
the Fire Department's service delivery. Once it was in its place over a year, the GMOC would
look at the threshold to determine if it was appropriate.
e:< -/~
Joint PC/GMOC Meeting
-3-
June 14, 1995
Air Quality - improvements were being made in the region. The City has also made efforts
through the purchase of several electric and compressed natural gas operated vehicles, and the
opening of two telecommuting centers. The GMOC is recommending revision of the standard
based on prior input from the APCD. Mr. Batchelder !:Jted that the APCD supported the City
staffs proposed draft revised air quality threshold standard.
Discussion then ensued regarding proposed light rail within Otay Ranch. GMOC Chair Hubbard
noted that APCD had indicated that funding for such was unlikely, and encouraged an approach
directed more generally at mass transit rather than solely to light rail as the plan now designates.
Chair Tuchscher felt the General Development Plan language for Otay Ranch regarding mass
transit, and the mass transit corridor versus light transit needed to be reworked.
Planning Director Leiter noted that the next Planning Commission workshop would be on Otay
Ranch, and that topic could be discussed if desired.
Libraries - it was noted that with the opening of the new South Chula Vista Library, the Library
Threshold had been met and would continue to be in compliance at least through the year 2000.
The GMOC felt there was a need to look at the method of evaluating the thresholds. Chair
Hubbard stated that in five years, libraries would be going to CD roms and would be on-line.
Therefore, the libraries may not need to be as large.
Sewer _ in compliance. The GMOC recommended that the City Council and Public Works
continue to fund staff and equipment for the monitoring, replacement and upgrade programs.
Drainage - in compliance.
Fiscal - in compliance, but the GMOC recommended that a five-year development projection be
incorporated into future Public Facilities Development Impact Fee updates as has been done for
the Transportation DlF.
Water _ the water companies were looking for alternative sources for water for both the short-
tenn and long-tenn. There were many positive accomplishments at both the State and regional
level to ensure adequate water supply to San Diego County. GMOC was concerned that they
needed to continue to look at alternatives to develop local resources to reduce dependence on
importation.
Schools - GMOC had sent an early message to the Council regarding legislation (SBI066),
which if approved could have severe consequences on local schools' planning and funding
activities.
Traffic _ GMOC recommended that the City Council and staff look at impacts on "H" Street;
there was a limit on "H" Street expansion, particularly west of 1-805, which would produce
future threshold problems if not addressed. SR-125 would help alleviate some east/west traffic.
They were concerned that the interim SR-125 plan would not meet the circulation needs of
d-/.J
Joint PC/GMOC Meeting
-4-
June 14, 1995
already approved development. Commissioner Ray noted that if thresholds were not met, there
would have to be a moratorium on building.
Parks & Recreation - The GMOC has an ongoing concern because of inadequa\e park and
recreation thresholds for west ofI-805. They hoped that the forthcoming Parks Implementation
Plan (PIP) would be defInitive and would insure that there is an ongoing program to bring parks
and recreation up to threshold standard levels west ofl-805.
Chair Hubbard noted that the GMOC strongly endorsed the need for a greenbelt master plan,
and asked the Planning Commission to support its preparation and adoption.
Planning Director Leiter stated that the MSCP program is a precursor to the greenbelt master
plan. Within the next year, the habitat issues should be resolved, and such a plan should be able
to be assembled.
MSUC (Fuller/Willett) 5-0 (Commissioners Tarantino and Thomas excused) to accept the
1994 annual report and their recommendations, and recommend that the City Council do
the same.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:15 p.m. with the Planning Commission adjourning to their regular
meeting immediately following, and the GMOC to their workshop meeting in later July with the
City Council (date to be set).
CfJ._~'fJc /J.~h'1
Nancy pley, SecreWy
Planning Commission
(m:\hOmc\planning\nancy\gmocpc.min)
~ - /t/-
ATTACHMENT B
--
,:( _/ J
THIS PAGE BLANK
;l-/'"
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item J '7
Meeting Date 6120/95
"-
ITEM TITLE: Select Recommendations from the Growth Managemen~ Oversight
Commission's 1994 AlUlual Budget Pertaining to the FY 1995-96 Budget
SUBMITTED BY: Director of PlalUling /1/!(
REVIEWED BY: City Manager~i ~;j'~~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No_XJ
On June I, 1995, the GMOC finalized its 1994 AlUlual Report to the City Council. At that
meeting. the GMOC identified several of its recommendations which have the potential for
budget and/or staffing implications during the coming fiscal year (FY 1995-96). Since the
GMOC wi11 not be able to meet in workshop with the Council to comprehensively review their
report until later July, they felt it was important that Council receive the report prior to closing
deliberations on the FY 1995-96 budget. As a result, they voted unanimously to immediately
forward the report. and their chainnan, Tris Hubbard, prepared the attached transmittal letter
to the Mayor and Council outlining the budget related issues.
At this time, management staff of the affected departments (Public Works, Police, Fire, Library,
PlalUling) and Administration have had a brief opportUnity to evaluate the budget implications
of the GMOC recommendations, and are providing the following report and recommended
follow-up actions.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council accept this report, and direct staff to return with
a specific work program which addresses the proposed timing for responding to GMOC's
concerns, in conjunction with the City Council/ GMOC workshop to be held in late July.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: See attached letter from Tris Hubbard,
Chainnan of the GMOC.
DISCUSSION:
..
Since receiving the letter from the GMOC chainnan on June S. staff has only had the
opporrunity to initially review and discuss the subject recommendations. Based on those
discussions. the following initial responses are provided to assist the Council's review of the
subject matters. For ease of reference, the responses are correspondingly numbered to the items
in the attached June 5, 1995, transmittal letter.
,,;< - / /'}
'f .
~ I
Page 2, Item /1
Meeting Date 6/20/95
1.) CAD/RMS Svstem-
Staff of the Police ~nd Fire Departments indicate that the CAD/RMS system is generally
moving forward as scheduled. Evaluation of responses to the Request For Proposal for
system installation should be completed by June, 1995. Selection of a vendor, and
related Council approval, could occur in July, 1995, depending upon funding.
With regard to funding, staff has identified alternative funding mechanisms, however,
it is still being evaluated internally in order to recommend options to the City Manager.
Then a proposal for possible inclusion of this project in the 1995 -96 CIP will be
formulated.
2.) Updated Master Plans for Police. Fire and Librarv Facilities -
Police- Police facilities are presently addressed as a component of the Civic Center
Master Plan. As recently indicated by the City Manager, and pursuant to the Civic
Center Master Plan, the near-term plan is for the existing police facility to remain at its
present location and be expanded. Therefore, the Police Department has not included
in its FY 1995-96 budget any staffing, funding or other provisions for commencing a
review/update of the present plan during the coming year.
Fire- The Fire Chief and City Administration have previously discussed, and concurred
on the need to undertake update of the Fire Station Master Plan. As initially discussed,
the effort was originally contemplated to be accomplished utilizing existing staff from
appropriate City departments including Fire, Administration, Planning, and Management
Services (PAPE). Given this premise, the update effort was not viewed as a direct
budget appropriation item, but rather, more a work program consideration for potentially
affected departments in terms of staff availability, and prioritization among other already
scheduled major work efforts.
Subsequent to final action on the FY 1995-96 budget, staff of the potentially affected
departments will be preparing and finalizing their FY 1995-96 work plans. As part of
those efforts, it is envisioned that the noted departments would confer to scope and
develop a work program for the master plan update, to then be considered in relation to
their overall work plans for FY 1995-96. It should be noted, however, that given recent
initial FY 1995-96 budget "actions regarding the Fire Department's Principal Management
Assistant position, and the elimination of PAPE staff, the ability of staff to commence
such a master plan effort during FY 1995-96 may be in question. Any consideration of
the potential need to employ consultant services will be addressed in developing the
proposed work program, and subsequently presented to the Council.
dl-/J'
-/f-,2.
, . Page 3, Item 11.
Meeting Date 6/20/95
Librarv- Similar to the above, the Library Director indicates that general discussions
regarding the need to update the Library Master Plan, and possible funding sources, have
occurred with City Administration over the last year. No specific budget consideration
has been gi'/en, however, to commencing this effort during FY 199~.96.
From a FY 1995-96 work program perspective, the Library Director did indicate that
existing, budgeted staff were anticipated to prepare the "Library Strategic Plan" which
addresses the range of library services to be delivered over the next year, and how that
will be accomplished. Utilizing those existing staff, the Director has indicated that
development of a work program, along with staffing and funding needs, for conducting
the master plan update could be prepared. That work program could then be more fully
considered for commencement as part of the FY 1996-97 budget.
3.) H Street Traffic Evaluation- The City Traffic Engineer indicates that various studies
regarding the longer-tenn disposition of H Street's threshold perfonnance have already
been conducted, and that sufficient infonnation exists regarding the potential range of
remedial actions and their relative influence on threshold perfonnance. Rather than
conduct additional studies as suggested, the City Traffic Engineer proposes that range of
existing infonnation be packaged and presented to the GMOC as part of their upcoming
review to commence in October, 1995. with the intent that the GMOC make more
specific recommendations regarding potential remedial actions. Those recommendations
could then fonn the basis for further Council direction regarding which action(s) are
preferred.
4.) Draina!!e Monitorin!!- The Engineering Division indicates that the proposed 1995-96
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes project no. DR-l2S. "Telegraph Canyon
Channel _ Stream Flow Gauge" which would install a flow monitoring gauge in the
Telegraph Canyon Channel at Fifth Avenue. Implementation of the project is conting~nt
on Council's approval of the proposed 1995-96 CIP.
With respect to additional monitoring stations. the Engineering Division indicates that it
would make sense to also monitor Telegraph Canyon Channel and Poggi Canyon Channel
in the vicinity of Interstate-80S. Evaluation of siting and installation of those stations
would occur in the future in conjunction with the review of the Otay Ranch project. It
was noted that to be of the most value. any monitoring to occur at those locations should
start prior 10 developmeni of Olay Ranch.
SUMMARY
As discussed above, the various recommendations highlighted by the GMOC in their report do
appear to have significant implications for several department work programs, which will need
to be further evaluated once the overall staffing levels for thos~ departments are determined in
d -/'1
-/1-;;
Page 4, Item !i..
Meeting Date 6/20/95
the FY 1995-96 hudget process. Therefore. staff recommends that the City Council acccpt this
repun. and direct staff to return in latc July with a specific work program and schedulc fur the
above referenced projects. taking into acconnt approved staffing levels and other priority
projects. This infonnation couldoe considered by Council in conjunction with its joint
workshop with the GMOC. and specific direction could be given to staff at that time regarding
the scheduling of these projects.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff will provide a specific fiscal impact analysis of these
recommendations in the follow-up repon to be provided in July.
ATTACHMENTS;
A. TRANSMITTAL LETTER FIlOM OMOC CHAIRMAN
8 _ OMOC 1994 ANNUAL REPORT AND COVER MEMO
(MIHOMEIPLANNINOIEDIOMOCBUD,A II)
~
.,;l-~O
/9 r
ATTACHMENT C
,p-;1./
THIS PAGE BLANK
,;(-:L~
MEMORANDUM
June 7, 1995
TO: The Honc.able Mayor and City Council
FROM: The Growth Management Oversight Commission
SUBJECT: 1994 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT
The Citizen's of Chula Vista are fortunate to have past and present community leadership that
maintains procedures, policies and monitoring for community service thresholds to assure
quality of life standards.
The GMOC is pleased to report to Council that in 1994, threshold compliance was met in 8 of
the 11 service areas as follows:
Libraries
Drainage
Sewer
Fiscal
Water
Schools
Traffic
Parks & Recreation
The thresholds for which compliance was not fully achieved are:
Police
Fire/EMS
Air Quality
In addition to these basic findings, the accompanying 1994 Annual Report addresses a variety
of relevant issues in each of the threshold standard areas. In brief summary, those are:
SCHOOLS
While school thresholds have technically been met, many of the schools, particularly
west of I-80S, continue to operate above capacity. A total of 584 elementary students
were being bused within the district during 1994. No schools are scheduled to be built
in the west, and only Feaster School is projected for expansion to alleviate the
overcrowded schools west of the 1-805. The Elementary District will add new schools
in the east through Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts that are in place, or
planned.
Given that SB 1066 threatens to take away full mitigation costs for school construction,
and that a recent ruling that relocatable classrooms 20 years or older count against
districts in calculating eligibility for state funding, the outlook for state supported school
-1-
8.- d. :3
building funding is clouded. Solutions to school building construction will therefore be
dependent on several avenues:
1) Defeat or modification of SB 1066;
2) That the City Council and Boards of Education jointly consider an equitable
method for providing full mitigation for development projects;
3) That the City support legislation lowering general obligation bonds from 2/3 to
sim')le majority;
4) That Districts begin employment of innovative school scheduling, such as multi-
track, to increase existing facility capacity.
LIBRARY
The 1995 completion of the 37,000 square foot South Chula Vista Library assures
compliance to the Library threshold through the year 2000. The Library Board will be
examining the impact of new technologies on future library service delivery in the next
two years.
DRAINAGE
Thanks to completion of several drainage projects, it was reported to the GMOC that
fewer drainage problems occurred in 1994 than in the previous two years. The GMOC
remains concerned, however, with the large list of needed but unfunded drainage
projects in western Chula Vista, and therefore recommends an effort to continue funding
a portion of the list each year so that serious problems do not develop for lack of
preventive maintenance.
SEWER
The GMOC notes that the Engineering Department's sewer monitoring program is
providing valuable information to predict problem areas, and strongly advocates
continued staffing and funding for the sewer monitoring program. Current waste water
disposal contracts will adequately carry the city through 2004, however, it is
recommended that the Council continue to actively support staff in the exploration and
development of a wastewater reclamation project here in the South Bay, as a long-
range solution to waste disposal and self-sufficient water management.
TRAFFIC
The City Traffic Engineering Division has done a commendable job monitoring traffic
corridors that were of concern to the GMOC in its 1993 report. While thresholds have
been met for 1994, the GMOC remains concerned with regard to "H" Street and SR-
125. As growth continues, "H" Street has the potential of not meeting current traffic
threshold standards due to the limitations of solutions to modify "H" Street to increase
traffic capacity. The altematives to widening would be to curtail growth and/or live with
a lowered level of service during peak traffic hours. SR-125 freeway project is needed
to help alleviate east/west traffic to the 1-805 from the EastLake and Otay Project areas.
The GMOC is concerned that the Interim Facility Plan (HNTB) will not satisfactorily meet
traffic demands of already approved eastern area developments .
.;( -,g. I-
-2-
FISCAL
Fiscal thresholds are met, and the GMOC perceives that staff is projecting expenditures
and income based on the continuation of recession and possible state budget cuts to
balance the budget, and continue with current levels of service.
WATER
The GMOC is impressed with the effort of the Water Agencies, and with the cooperative
effort of the Agencies and the City staff to meet community water service needs. In
addition, the development of continuing plans for sharing of water resources, the
delivery of water in spite of planned or unplanned emergencies, and in increased
storage, assures the expectation of meeting future water needs. The GMOC
encourages the City to support efforts to develop local water treatment projects to
reduce dependence on importation.
PARKS AND RECREATION
While the GMOC notes that the Parks and Recreation Department has met the
threshold standard, the majority of last year's recommendations are still outstanding as
they are contingent on the completion of the Parks Implementation Plan (PIP) and
related work efforts. There is concem since the PIP has been promised for a number
of years but has yet to be completed and adopted. Therefore, the GMOC highly
recommends that the PIP be brought to Council for review and approval by the Fall of
1995 so that it will be available for consideration in the next GMOC review cycle. The
GMOC is pleased to note that a draft of a revised Parks and Recreation threshold which
would apply city-wide has been created. The GMOC conceptually endorses this draft,
and based on the relationship of information in the PIP to the possible structure and
content of a final standard, recommends that Council direct staff to finalize the draft for
public hearing and Council adoption by Fall, 1995, in conjunction with the PIP.
POLICE
While the Police threshold standard has not been met for Priority I calls for service, the
deficiency was only 2.2% below the standard. In addition, Priority II call thresholds were
met. The GMOC encourages Council to support the completion of the CAD/RMS
system which will assist with managing and monitoring police services. The GMOC
commends the Police Department and City for developing and supporting volunteer
policing programs.
The GMOC encourages the Council to direct the Department to update the City Civic
Center Master Plan as it relates to police services, and more specifically as it relates
to a significantly larger service area due to the EastLake, San Miguel Ranch, Salt Creek
Ranch and Otay Ranch developments.
/"
;l -~J
~
FIRE
While the GMOC finds that the Fire/EMS threshold has not been met, the deficiency
appears to be related to a change in the manner of collecting and reporting response
time. The GMOC encourages Council to support the completion of the CAD/RMS
system which will assist the Department with managing and monitoring services. The
GMOC also encourages Council to direct staff to update the City's Fire Station Master
Plan specifically with 'egard to serving a significantly larger s3rvice area with the
addition of the EastL..ike, San Miguel Ranch, Salt Creek Ranch and Otay Ranch
communities.
AIR QUALITY
While regional air quality continues to improve, with the APCD noting that 1994 is the
cleanest year on record, state and federal standards have not yet been met, and the
GMOC again recommends issuance of a Statement of Concern.
Notwithstanding this concern, the GMOC is pleased to note that the Federal EPA has
downgraded the San Diego Region's smog classification from severe to serious. The
downgrade has direct local impact on less stringent smog control requirements for
business and industry that will help our economy, and will not affect health standards.
SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO THE ANNUAL GMOC REVIEW PROCESS
At staff request, GMOC considered possible conversion of our annual review process
to a "checklist" format similar to that employed by SANDAG in conducting compliance
reviews with the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS). We reviewed the
Checklist report required by SANDAG. It was the conclusion of the GMOC that
conversion to such a process could be beneficial, provided that the depth, breadth and
material value of our annual review effort is not lessened or compromised. The
conversion should help to streamline the process by integrating the two efforts. The
GMOC recommends that staff prepare such a checklist for review and use in the
conduct of future annual GMOC threshold reviews.
Sincerely;
€~
Chairman, GMOC
(GMOc-94\RPT .cOVR..MEM)
c7l -.;1 h
4
glTY OF CHJJLA V(~T A
GROWTH MANAGE~ OVERSIGtiT COMMI~SION
1J94_REPOR'[
SUBMITTED
JUNE 1995
~ -d'7
..
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEME~.T OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1994 REPORT
Commission Members
Tris Hubbard, Chairman (Education)
Elizabeth Allen, Vice Chairman (Montgomery)
Will T. Hyde (Environmental)
Chuck Peter (Business)
John Ray (Planning Commission)
Mike Armbrust (Center City)
James Kell (Eastern Territories)
C. Lynn Dull (Sweetwater)
-vacant- (Development)
..
Staff
Edgar Batchelder, Senior Planner
June 1995
':<-,;2t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TODic
Introduction
Process
Development Forecasts
Threshold/Annual Review Summary
Annual Review of Thresholds
Thresholds Reflectina Non-ComDliance
Police
Fire
Air Quality
Thresholds Reflectina ComDliance
Libraries
Sewer
Drainage
Fiscal
Water
Schools
Traffic
Parks and Recreation
Additional Proposed Actions
Revisions to the Annual Review Process
Expanded Development PhasinglMonitoring Policies
Paae
1
2
2
4
5
8
10
14
15
18
19
22
26
31
35
38
39
d-~9
LIST OF APPENDICES
ADDendix
A. Police Department Memorandum
B. Fire Department Memorandum
C. APCD Communications
D. Draft Revised Air Quality Threshold Standard
E. Library Memorandum
F. Engineering Sewer and Drainage Report
G. Finance Department Memorandum
H. Water District Communications
GMOC Letter of Commendation
I. School District Communications
J. Engineering Traffic Reports
K. Parks and Recreation Department Memorandum
L. Draft Revised Parks and Recreation Threshold Standard
M. Interim Development Forecast Report
N. Draft Development Phasing/Monitoring Policy
cl,-~
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
1994 REPORT
June 5, 1995
.. INTRODUCTION
In November 1987, through the input of citizens and developers, the City Council adopted
the Threshold/Standards Policy for Chula Vista. The Policy addresses eleven public
facilities and services, and each is discussed in terms of a goal, objectives, "threshold" or
standard, and implementation measures. The Standards form the backbone of an overall
growth management program for the City which has evolved since 1987 through adoption
of a Growth Management Element of the General Plan in 1989, and a Growth Management
Program document and Implementing Ordinance in 1991. Adherence to these Citywide
Standards is intended to preserve and enhance both the environment and residents'
quality-of-life as growth occurs.
To provide an independent annual City-wide Threshold/Standards compliance review, a
Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) was created. The GMOC was
originally appointed by the City Council in the summer of 1988. It is composed of nine
members representing a geographical balance of residents as well as a cross section of
interests including education, environment, business and development. There is also
representation from the City Planning Commission. In April of 1991, the City Council
changed the designation of the Committee to a full City Commission.
In conducting its annual review, the GMOC's responsibilities include the following:
a determination of whether the thresholds have been complied with on both a
project and cumulative basis over the prior year;
whether compliance is likely to be maintained based on both short-term and long-
term development forecasts;
whether each threshold is appropriate for its goal;
whether any new thresholds should be adopted for any issues;
whether any issues should be added to or deleted from the threshold group;
whether the City has been using developer fees for the intended purpose;
what the fiscal impact of threshold compliance may be; and
whether the means of compliance are appropriate and being achieved.
Development projects in Chula Vista are required to demonstrate that the Threshold
Standards will be maintained as growth occurs. Each project is reviewed, and
appropriately conditioned to assure that needed facilities and services are in place in
advance of, or concurrent with, proposed development. This requirement promotes the
continuation of a high quality-of-life for existing as well as future City residents.
1
~-3J
PROCESS
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) held a series of 10 meetings
from December 1994 through May 1995. The Commission spent the first meeting
reviewing the City Council's actions on their 1993 Annual Report and recommendations,
and in reviewing the established thresholds, Commission responsibilities, and the status
of City-wide development as an orientation. The next 7 meetin(s were spent reviewing
threshold reports submitted by both individual City departments alld extemal agencies, and
in determining the status of compliance. Presentations were made by representatives of
the Sweetwater and Otay water districts, Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater Union
High School Districts, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and City staff
including Public Works, Traffic Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Library, Fire, Police,
Finance, and Planning. The GMOC also reviewed whether or not it was appropriate to
issue a "statement of concem" or to make other recommendations regarding each
threshold. Following completion of the individual threshold reviews, the GMOC prepared,
reviewed and adopted this annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The GMOC's review is structured around a fiscal year cycle. The intent is to accommodate
City Council consideration of GMOC recommendations which may have budget
implications. The official review period for this report is July 1, 1993 through June 30,
1994, although pertinent issues identified during the second half of 1994 and early 1995
are also addressed as necessary. The next GMOC review period is scheduled to begin
in October, 1995, and will address the period from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995.
DEVELOPMENT FORECASTS
The Threshold/Standards Policy calls for the City to prepare both short-range (12 to 18
month) and mid-range (5 to 7 years) development forecasts at the beginning of the annual
GMOC review process. Complimentary to threshold performance evaluation, which
reviews the prior year period, these forecasts serve to provide a common basis by which
the GMOC, staff and external agencies can identify and address any potential threshold
issues before a problem arises. This year's forecast report was substantially abbreviated
in comparison to prior years due mainly to a prolonged schedule in the completion of
SANDAG's Series 8 Regional Forecast. SANDAG's forecast data has become increasingly
integral to local forecasting efforts as the City has adjusted its methodology to be more
cognizant of sub-regional development pattems which could influence infrastructure and
services within the City's Planning Area. This is particularty true of major transportation
facilities such as SR125. A copy of the abbreviated forecast report is included as
Appendix M.
2
c;:?3.,2..
12-18 Month Forecast
Similar to last year, and in response to the ongoing recession and related economic
climate, the forecast figures consist of a range with a low end and high end. The low end
is based primarily on a 30-month trend analysis of prior construction activity beginning in
1992, and forecasts m housing starts and 909 completions over the 18 month period
from July 1994 through December 1995. The high end forecast primarily reflects the local
development community's anticipated construction schedules, and projects 1.870 housing
starts and 1.741 completions over the same period. The somewhat large variant between
the high 'md low figures reflects the continued slr;w pace of recessionary recovery, and the
related lack of consumer confidence for major purchases such as homes. By comparison,
residential development activity levels in both 1993 and 1994 were about one half of
average annual levels experienced during the mid- to later 1980's when development was
strong. In general, most current economic thinking indicates that the housing market will
not recover until about 1997, and then not to the growth rate levels seen in the latter
1980's.
5-7 Year Forecast
As noted earlier, the City's intent in coordinating the mid-range (5-7 year) forecast with
SANDAG's Series 8, is to further improve forecasting methodology consistent with the
regional and sub-regional models, and to allow for easier and more consistent updates of
these forecasts. In doing so, the same assumptions utilized in the Series 8 Interim
Forecast for projecting future growth and development in the region are applied locally to
the City's forecast. These assumptions include, but are not limited to, population and
economic trends, and infrastructure needs.
Because the Series 8 Interim model considers the remaining development potential of all
lands, both vacant and infill, within the greater San Diego Region and its subregions, local
facility planning efforts can benefit from the City's forecast being linked to it. This linkage
enables consideration of all projects within and adjacent to our Planning Area, and the
ability to more accurately anticipate long-range public facility needs, and to address
necessary preplanning by the development community in concert with the policies of the
City and other affected govemment agencies.
Similar to the 12-18 month forecast, a low and high-end range were again used. City-wide,
during the next five to seven years, the average annual number of dwelling units
anticipated for construction ranges from a low of ~ to a high of 1.510. The high end
figure reflects increased activity expected in the latter years of the forecast (post 1997)
associated with a general shift in county-wide development pattems, and the projected
commencement of construction in Otay Ranch. This forecast also takes into consideration
known facility capacity limitations, particularly those related to traffic circulation such as
State Route 125.
While a majority of the forecast is attributable to growth in eastem Chula Vista, the above
figures include approximately 100 dwelling units per year of infill development in westem
Chula Vista based primarily on an analysis of historic trends.
~-33
3
-,0 0
c-'WZ
~OClW
Z:Z:Z:E
WII)C:E
t-W:z:O
011::(.)(.)
~~ ~
II)
Q(')~W
Zj:: U
CU_~
t:~G::i
gocli
CZOO
::>>...(.)
II.
~
C II. .
~ 00~0 W
~ !z"'III"'~(.)
::>> Z- Z
en WII::II)>- C
! m~~!i5~
Z~W :E
> COIl)ClCO
W ...(.)~c (.)
II:: II)
-'
C
;:) W
Z -,,(.) .,
.Z CZZ
enC !iOC
en, Z::i
~ I!:!a:~
en
0 OO:E
II:: ~II.O
C (.)
Q
Z
C
... OW
en
-,u
C O~...
-'
0 X-w
II)-':E
:z: W~
en II:::E
w iE8
a:
:z:
..
to ~
III
I I i %
j
c: t
c 0 W ::>>
I I I ..
W I
::>> . ~
II) ! '5
!Q ~ z:. 'I
II) .. ~ & . (.)
:E .
:: '! :I J . J 5 j u .
0 .I c: ~ of
~ .. S i u .
~ it C ::i Ii .Ii II) Ii .Ii ~
..: N ... . oft .,; ..: .,; ... 0 ... C:;. :5 Lj.
... ...
-ANNUAL REVIEW OF THRESHOLDS-
THRESHOLDS REFLECTING NON-COMPLIANCE OR STATEMENTS OF CONCERN
D POLICE -
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE CITY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICE
THRESHOLD STANDARD FOR PRIORITY I CFS. ALTHOUGH THE SHORTFALL
WAS SLIGHT. AND PERFORMANCE IS IMPROVING DESPITE INCREASING
WORKLOAD, THE CITY SHOULD CONTINUE TO CLOSELY MONITOR THIS
THRESHOLD IN THE NEAR FUTURE. STANDARDS FOR PRIORITY II CFS
WERE MET AND EXCEEDED.
As reported in the past, the Police Department has been implementing a variety of
operational and managerial changes since its present administration took over in
1991. Many of those changes are designed to improve call-for-service (CFS)
response performance, and intended to address non-conformance with the Police
Threshold Standard. The Police Department is to be commended for their ever-
improving performance and continuing efforts, including new and substantial focus
to community based proactive policing. However, despite continuing improvement
in performance, the Department did not achieve full conformance with the threshold
standard for the fourth consecutive year. While both measures for Priority II Calls
for Service (CFS) were met, only one of the two measures for Priority I CFS was
met as follows:
Priority I Calls for Service (PI CFS)-
The threshold for Priority I (emergency) CFS requires that 84% of these calls
be responded to within 7 minutes, with an average response time of 4.5
minutes or less measured annually. The actual performance for FY 1993-94
indicates that 85.4% of all Priority I calls were responded to within 7 minutes,
but with an average response time of 4.6 minutes (2.2% below the standard).
As a measure of continuing improvement, performance figures for FY '92-'93
were 84.2% of PI CFS within 7 minutes, with an average response time of
4.7 minutes, and for FY '91-'92, 81.2% with an average time of 4.9 minutes.
Priority II Calls for Service (PI! CFS)-
The threshold for Priority II (urgent) CFS requires that 62% of these calls be
responded to within 7.minutes, with an average response time of 7 minutes
or less measured annually. The actual performance for FY 1993-94
indicates that 63.5% of all PII CFS were responded to within 7 minutes, with
an average response time of 6.48 minutes.
5
/'
,d - 3-..\
Although the data indicates that the threshold for PII CFS is again being met,
it evidences a slight deterioration from FY '92-'93 when 64.2% of PII CFS
were responded to within 7 minutes, with an average time of 6.33 minutes.
While the GMOC considers the PI CFS shortfall to be a modest deficiency, we
none-the-Iess remain concemed since this is fourth consecutive year in which Police
performance has been very near, but below, the minimum acceptable standarrl.
The GMOC observes that CFS volumes continue to increase annually, however, the
rate of increase appears to have slowed from 5 to 9% annually over the 1990-93
period to just 1.3% from FY '92-'93 to FY '93.'94. In spite of this change, CFS
volumes appear to continue to slightly outpace added resources In trying to meet
the PI CFS threshold. .
It is difficult for the GMOC to pinpoint causes and/or recommend remedial actions,
as no conclusive evidence exists to indicate that threshold deficiency is attributable
to growth. The Department continues to indicate that the present record keeping
systems do not enable data management in a fashion which can readily quantify
whether increases in CFS are growth related.
Without appropriate records to monitor increased CFS within the City, it is difficult
for the Police Department and the GMOC to Cletermine whether threshold
performance issues will continue to exist. It is also difficult to determine how best
to structure and manage police resources in combating crime and maintaining
appropriate service levels. In these regards, the Department continues to
emphasize the importance of installing the Computer Aided Dispatch and Records
Management System (CAD/RMS), which would also serve the Fire Department.
The GMOC understands that as of the preparation of this report, a vendor will have
been selected, and that the initial components of the system will be installed and
operational by Spring, 1996. Given the importance of the proposed CADIRMS
system to the future of managing police service and response times, the GMOC
recommends:
. That the City Council continue to assist and support the
projected (Spring, 1996) date of completion of the CAD/RMS
system through funding allocation and other related efforts.
If only existing techniques/systems remain in place, the GMOC foresees
continuation of the present inability to identify and quantify growth's impacts on the
delivery of police services. As noted last year, once better data is available, re-
evaluation of the threshold standard is warranted. In ~rder to produce worthwhile
indicators and/or measurable results for use in the reevaluation, it is anticipated that
at least one year of CADIRMS statistics will be necessary to determine if current
issues Influencing police performance can be solved through managerial
techniques, or if an alteration of the current Standard is warranted. Therefore, the
GMOC recommends:
6
c:?-30
. That re-eva/uation of the Police Threshold Standard occur
approximately one year subsequent to the Implementation of the
CAD/RMS system. Assuming the CAD/RMS Is In place by Spring
1996 (as presently scheduled), then the GMOC would consider
the threshold standard for revision In their annual review
commencing October, 1997.
Beyond the CADIRMS proposal, the Police Department should be recognized and
commended for continuing to expand on a multi-faceted proactive policing effort
under the well-grounded philosophy that it is more effective in the long run to
prevent crime than to respond to calls-for-service. In this light, the GMOC
recommends:
. That the City Council support continuing expansion of
community policing efforts and progrems such as the School
Resource Officer, the CItizens Adversity Support Team, Senior
Volunteer Patrol, and Community Resource Officers,
Given the record of continuing CFS increase, and growing fiscal constraints to
significantly expanding the police force, the GMOC believes that this emphasis to
proactive, crime preventative policing may be the only practical answer to
maintaining police thresholds over the longer term.
Toward ensuring long-term efficient delivery of adequate polices services to our
growing community, the GMOC has become aware of the impending need to re-visit
the City's master plan for police facilities. Several large projects in eastem Chula
Vista will be undergoing major planning activities over the next year, among them
Otay Ranch. As the City grows and expands to the east and south, it is becoming
increasingly necessary to consider how best to deliver services to those extending
geographic areas in an efficient and timely manner. In addition, land planning
decisions/strategies for these major projects could have a direct impact on the
future structure, location and timing for establishing police facilities and presence
in eastern Chula Vista, and therefore, should not be made without the benefit and
guidance of an updated police facilities master plan. This is particularty true for
determining methods through which police pre$ence will be projected within the
Otay Ranch project. Therefore, the GMOC recommends:
. That an effort to update the City's master plan for police facilities
(which are presently addressed as part of the City's Civic Center
Master Plan) be commenced, and possibly completed, during
fiscal year 1995-96, The GMOC believes that such a schedule Is
logical and beneficial given the ",..ent timing for completing
master plan reviews for developments In ..stem Chula Vista
such as Eastlake, San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch during
1995-96,
7
c;).-31
Taken together, the Department projects that the collection of present efforts will
result in further response time improvements, and attainment of threshold
compliance for the next reporting period (July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995).
a FIREfEMS -
~HE GMOC FINDS THAT THE CITY IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
NIREfEMS THRESHOLD STANDARD. IT APPEARS. HOWEVER. THAT THIS
_ON-COMPLIANCE IS A REFLECTION OF A CHANGE IN THE MANNER OF
DATA COLLECTION. AND NOT A REDUCTION OF FIRE SERVICE LEVELS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1993-94.
The threshold standard requires that 85% of all emergency fire and medical calls
be responded to within 7 minutes. Response statistics presented for Fiscal Year
1993-94 indicate that only 80% of all emergency calls were responded to within 7
minutes (5% less than the standard). 85% of the calls were responded to within 7
minutes, 26 seconds (26 seconds over standard). Similar to last year, this apparent
non-compliance continues to result from statistical inconsistencies in the manner in
which the present automated system records total call response time, as compared
to the threshold standard's present structure regarding the three major components
of response time: Dispatch time; Tumout time; and Travel time. Therefore, the
GMOC again concludes that it does not have before it statistical performance
measurements consistent with the threshold's present structure.
As stated last year, in July, 1992, new communications equipment was installed in
the Dispatch Center. The system now captures the actual total dispatch time,
including the call intake component. The resulting effect to threshold performance
measurement is that available statistics now include time factors in the overall
response time statistics which were not included when the current threshold
standard was established in 1987. The present standard allocates a flat 30
seconds for call dispatch, not the actual time for call intake and disoatch as is now
being recorded. This could be adding 20 to 60 seconds to overall response times
per call, and cause the statistical non-compliance indicated above. The Fire
Department emphasized that tumout and travel times remain largely unchanged
from prior years, illustrating that delivery of fire and emergency medical services has
not deteriorated.
Toward correcting the inconsistency, the Fire Department reiterates that the present
dispatch system Is not technically capable of separating out the call intake and
dispatch components, and as with the Police Department, Is anxiously awaiting
purchase and installation of the CADIRMS system. As the GMOC understands it,
the CADIRMS system will provide a wealth of operationa.1 and managerial
enhancements which will directly benefit overall response times. including the ability
to statistically separate all components of overall response time, and for the first
8
J<-3g
time, allow the direct evaluation of growth's impacts on the delivery of services.
Given the significance the CADIRMS system, the GMOC recommends:
. That the City Council continue to support the scheduled Spring,
1996 Installation of the CAD/RMS system which will Improve
services, and enabl", the Fire Department to evaluate Its
response time perfiJrmance In correcting present star/stical
Inconsistencies, and In determining whether any changes to the
Threshold Standard are needed.
The GMOC re-emphasizes its understanding that if only existing systems remain in
place, there will be a continuation of the present inability to evaluate threshold
performance consistent with the provisions of the current standard. Given the
aforementioned beneficial information the CADIRMS system will provide, the GMOC
also recommends:
. That a comprehensive review of the Fire Threshold be
undertaken approximately one year subsequent to
Implementation of the CAD/RMS system. It Is anticipated that at
least one year of CAD/RMS statistics wliI be necessary In
resolving present measurement Inconsistencies, and In
determining if .ny 'alteration of the current standard Is warranted.
Assuming the CAD/RMS system Is In place by the end of 1995,
the GMOC would consider the threshold standard for revision In
their annual review commencing October, 1997.
An additional topic to be raised this year regards the apparent need to update the
City's Fire Station Master Plan. Similar to issues raised under the Police
discussion, the GMOC recognizes that several large projects in eastem Chula Vista
will be undergoing major planning activities during the next year. This includes
remaining areas of Eastlake and disposition ofthe interim fire station presently sited
in their business park, as well as neighboring San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch.
As the City grows and expands to the east and south, it is becoming increasingly
necessary to consider how best to deliver services to those extending geographic
areas in an efficient and timely manner. In addition, land planning
decisions/strategies for these major projects could have a direct impact on the
future structure, location and timing of the fire service network in eastem Chula
Vista, and therefore, should not be made without the benefit and guidance of an
updated Fire Station Master Plan. Therefore, the GMOC recommends:
. Th.t an effort to update the City's Rre Station Master Plan be
commenced, end possibly completed, during fiscal ye.r 1895-96.
The GMOC beileves that such e schedule Is logical and beneficial
given the present timing for completing master p/en reviews for
developments In e.stem Chu/a Vlst. such es Eastiake, San
Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch during 1995-96.
9 cX-~9
D ~IR QUALITY -
THE GMOC FINDS THAT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY WITHIN THE REGION
CONTINUES TO IMPROVE. AS EVIDENCED BY SMOG TRENDS DATA IN
APCD'S ANNUAL REPORT, AND THAT WITH THE RECENT FEDERAL EPA
fiECLASSIFICATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S AIR QUALITY RATING FROM
"SEVERE" TO "SERIOUS". THE REGION IS PROJECTED TO MEET FEDERAL
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS BY 1999. STATE STANDARDS ARE MORE
STRINGENT. AND A PROJECTED COMPLIANCE DATE IS NOT PRESENTLY
KNOWN.
DESPITE THESE IMPROVEMENTS. HOWEVER. THE REGION STILL DOES NOT
MEET STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR AIR QUALITY. AND
THEREFORE. THE GMOC FINDS THAT ISSUANCE OF A STATEMENT OF
CONCERN IS APPROPRIATE.
The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) again provided the GMOC with numerous
written materials and a thorough oral report. The materials consisted of various
handouts on local pollution sources, violators and enforcement actions in Chula
Vista during 1994, a list of APCD's 1994 accomplishments, APCD's 1993 Annual
Report on air quality and 1994 Scorecard, information on the San Diego Region's
smog reclassification, and the February 1995 AirNews publication. APCD is
presently preparing a triennial update on progress in implementing the Regional Air
Quality Strategy (RAQS) which should be available for the GMOC's next review
cycle.
The San Diego Region again continued to experience improvement In overall air
quality. For the San Diego Air Basin, 1994 was the cleanest air quality year on
record. As a yardstick, the following table illustrates improvements since 1990:
;,':':':':':';'::"'-:"-:
.<:.:.:.:.::,::.:::;:~"
':!I:;;II:I:l;IIR~~~~pi:l~IIIII.BI~.II.I:;t~II;~.llll~
:~t;:::>~:::::::::::~
$TATE'$1'pa.
:::::::::::,::::::,::,::
:::::::,:::::::::::,=,::
\:~~II~~~~III::;\~i]~~~~1~l:~:\\[\\i:\
San Diego Region
Chula Vista
79
4
iif:J:DE~t;iJoij
:~i(lli;ti~lilliI1\ti~:liili\~11~11'II}i\';;
San Diego Region
Chula Vista
39
3
14
1
9
o
The APCD noted that Chula Vista enjoys some of the best air quality in the region.
10
:2 -I./D
Despite improvements, however, an acceptable level of air quality for the San Diego
region has not yet been achieved. The APCD indicates that the most significant
future air quality improvements will result from programs addressing mobile sources
(such as automobiles) through strong public transit and other efforts. The region's
largest air quality problem continues to be too many vehicle trips/miles driVen. The
number of miles driven per year continues to grow at a rate almost double that of
population growth, and motor vehicles account for about 64% of the region's smog-
forming emissions.
In this regard, the APCD emphasized a significant new program under the Regional
Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) which is on the horizon for Chula Vista and other cities:
the Indirect Source Program. The program's focus is to review more significant land
use planning efforts to ensure that they foster reduction in automobile usage
(vehicle miles traveled). APCD cited Otay Ranch as an example of a large project
which promotes "villages" and mixed use to reduce automobile usage. APCD's
initial focus under the Indirect Source Program will be two fold; (1) review of large,
regionally significant municipal projects, and (2) requests that cities review, and as
necessary amend, their general plans and any other land use policies to reduce
vehicle miles traveled (VMT's). Examples would be promotion of mixed use, and
transit-oriented development concepts such as those proposed under
redevelopment concepts for the 'E' and 'H' Street trolley station areas. A draft of
an Indirect Source Reduction Program will be ready for review by Winter, 1995.
That program will propose establishment of local regulations and conditions
regarding the siting and approval of land uses which are traffic intensive.
Several other significant matters were addressed in APCD's presentation regarding
last year's Statement of Concern, and the current activities of APCD as they may
affect the City in the future, as follows:
1) The Federal EPA downgraded the San Diego Region's smog classification
from "severe" to "serious". The downgrade has a direct impact on local air
quality programs, actually resulting in a lessening or elimination of some
proposed requirements such as employer trip reduction programs under the
Transportation Control Measures plan.
The downgrade recognizes that a portion of the region's air pollution (smog)
is transported from Los Angeles. Transport was the cause for exceeding
State standards on 51 (57%) of the 90 days the region was non-complying
in 1993. Data for 1994 was not yet available. The APCD indicates that
meteorologically, the Los Angeles area will always affect our region's air
quality.
2) The APCD submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
demonstrating that currently adopted control measures under the umbrella
of the RAQS are sufficient to provide attainment of federal ozone (smog)
standards in San Diego County by 1999. The SIP revision also revised the
11
~-L.//
15% Rate-of-Progress Plan originally submitted in 1993 to correct
deficiencies identified by EPA, and prevented the imposition of sanctions.
3) In November 1994, the District adopted Rule 27 (Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Credit) enabling businesses to offset new or increased emissions
from stationary sources with credits from reducing mobile sources. Such
credits include scrapping old higher pollution cars, purchasing low-emissions
transit buses, purchasing zero-emission (electric) vehicles, or retrofitting
existing vehicles. In keeping with this more business-friendly approach, the
District is also providing more assistance to companies in their compliance
with standards, rather than simply issuing violation notices.
4) The District continues with the Vehicle Registration Funds Program whose
revenues derive from the DMVs collection of a $2.00 registration fee on
motor vehicles. The proceeds are then made available to fund altemate
transportation efforts. The City received the largest share of monies under
the last funding cycle, and applied the funds toward establishing the two
telecommuting centers, and purchasing a compressed natural gas fueled van
and electric parking enforcement vehicles.
5) In June, 1994, the District established the Border Vehicle Task Force to
address issues involved with implementing AB2008, which extends emission
control requirements to Mexican vehicles used in commuting to work in
California. It is comprised of those local, county, state and federal agencies,
and other interests who would most likely be involved in implementing the
program.
The GMOC also discussed proposed draft revisions to the Air Quality Threshold
Standard presented by staff in response to last year's recommendations. The
revisions address prior APCD comments that the present standard is dysfunctional
in its call for APCD to review the City's 12-18 month growth forecast and provide
comments regarding that forecast's impacts on current and future air quality
management programs. By law, APCD relies on SANDAG's regional growth
forecasts for their air quality planning and monitoring efforts. The GMOC and the
APCD concur that the draft (as presented in Appendix D) appears well-reasoned
and innovative, and forms a workable and logical foundation 'for annual
progress/compliance reporting on air quality improvements efforts at the local and
regional level. Therefore:
. The GMOC supports the proposed dreft revised threshold
standard presented In Appendix D which has been Initially
reviewed and supported by the APCD.
. Sased on that review and support, the GMOC recommends that
the City Council endorse the dreft revised air quality threshold
standard, and direct staff to finalize the revision with the APCD
and SANDAG and return with the necessary resolution and
ordinance for formal public hearing and adoption in Summer,
1995.
cP-L/~
12
In response to GMOC questions, the APCD also addressed funding prospects for
mass transit projects, and in particular, light-rail projects such as that proposed with
the Otay Ranch. They expressed doubts that funding for materializing the light-rail
line would become available, citing a number of revenue issues and anticipated cuts
at both the state and federal level. Movement appears to be toward less expensive
altematives such as electiclbattery operated transit vehicles. The GMOC
understands that the present General Development Plan for the Otay Ranch
specifies a mass transit corridor exclusive to light-rail, and that approved densities
are dependant upon that corridor being so developed. Given the uncertain outlook
for future light-rail funding, and as advocated by the APCD, the GMOC
recommends:
. That the City work with the Otay Ranch developer and the
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) to evaluate
redeslgnation of the project's mass transit coorldor to other than
sole limitation to light-rail as Is presently stated In the Otay
Ranch plan.
c2-'I3
13
ISSUES WHERE THRESHOLDS ARE MET
a LIBRARIES -
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE CITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIBRARY
THRESHOLD BASED ON THE OPENING OF THE SOUTH CHULA VISTA
L.IBRARY IN APRIL, 1995. GIVEN GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS,
COMPLIANCE WILL BE MAINTAINED AT LEAST THROUGH THE YEAR 2000.
The threshold standard for libraries requires that 500 square feet of library space
(adequately equipped and staffed) be provided per each 1,000 population. Based
on an estimated City population of 150,252 as of June 30, 1994, a total of 75,126
square feet of library space is required. As of that date, 67,329 square feet was
available through the Chula Vista Public Library at 365 "F" Street with 55,000
square feet, the Eastlake Library at 1120 Eastlake Parkway with 10,000 square feet,
and a combined 2,329 square feet in two small branches, Castle ParklOtay and
Woodlawn Park. This resulted in a shortage of 7,797 square feet of library space
at the end of this threshold reporting period.
This shortage which existed on June 30, 1994, has since been ameliorated through
opening of the 37,000 square foot South Chula Vista Library in April, 1995. With
that opening, the City's total library square footage rose to 102,000. Applying this
amount of square footage to a year 2000 projected population of 167,775 (83,887
sq. ft. required), the City would still be over the standard by approximately 18,113
square feet at that time.
The GMOC observes that most of the present library facilities are located in western
Chula Vista. In accordance with the City's existing Library Master Plan (adopted in
1987), library facilities are to be provided in each of the City General Plan's major
communities- in eastern Chula Vista this includes the SweetwaterlBonita and
Eastern Territories Communities. The GMOC is aware that a future 29,000 square
foot library is planned at the northeastem comer of East 'H' Street and Paseo
Ranchero within the Rancho Del Rey development (SweetwaterlBonita Community).
The GMOC understands that $200,000 in Capital Improvement Program funds has
been allocated for commencing preliminary architectural services in FY1996-97.
The Library's report, however, indicates that the project will be .funded by
Development Impact Fees, and its timing may be delayed dependant on the
collection of fees to cover the estimated $9.5 million needed to construct, fumish
and equip the facility.
At issue for the GMOC is that the timing may be delayed despite the fact that
development and population already exist in eastem Chula Vista, and substantial
growth is on the immediate horizon. When taken in conjunction with the present
uncertainty regarding longer-term disposition of the Eastlake High School joint-use
facility (the only available in eastem Chula Vista), and currently unknown locational
and timing issues for a facility(ies) in Otay Ranch, the GMOC has concem. As
similarly stated with Police and Fire discussions, the Eastlake and Otay Ranch
projects will be undergoing major planning activities during the coming year. Given
the above noted timing and coordination concems with planning, financing and
c9.-~y
14 ·
delivering libraries in eastem Chula Vista as regards these and the Rancho Del Rey
projects, the GMOC recommends:
. That an effort to update the City's Ubrary Master Plan be
commenced, and possibly completed, during fiscal year 1995-96.
The GMOC believes that such a schedule Is logical and beneficial
given the present timing for completing master plan reviews for
developments In eastern Chula Vista such as East/ake and Otay
Ranch. Land planning decisions/strategies for those projects will
have a direct Impact on the future structure, location and timing
of the library system In eastern Chula Vista, and therefore,
should not be made without the benefit a"d guidance of an
updated Ubrary Master Plan,
During this year's review, the GMOC received further information regarding
significant changes being brought about in the present and future delivery of library
services through the use of technology. As an example, technology will eventually
enable citizens to access books and other media through a home computer without
having to actually make a trip to the library. According to staff, currently
contemplated technology has the potential to bring about profound effects. Last
year the GMOC concluded that such technological developments could affect future
interpretation of threshold standard, and recommended reconsideration. Library
staff responded that additional time should be given to allow the technology to take
further shape before seriously embarking on review of the standard.
. The GMOC concurs with the Ubrary's response (to last year's
recommendation to begin review of the standard) to walt for one
to two more years to review possible changes to the threshold
until more Is known and defined about technological
developments In the library field, such as electronic data bases
and computer networks which can bring Information to
Individuals without a trip to the library. The GMOC requests that
Council continue to recognize the need for future reconsideration
of the standard.
D SEWER -
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE CITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SEWER
THRESHOLD STANDARD ON BOTH A PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE BASIS.
There were no significant instances of the threshold standard for sanitary sewers
being exceeded as a resu" of new growth during the reporting period. City design
standards for sewers limit the flow in sewers up to 12" in diameter to 50% full, and
to 75% full for sewers larger than 12". The City has also allowed flow up to 75%
full in 8", 10", and 12" diameter sewers if it can be shown that u"imate development
has already occurred in the area served by that sewer.
~
d.--t..fJ
15
The Engineering Department's report outlined several significant activities either
recently completed, or underway, to address the provision of adequate sewer
facilities and maintenance of threshold compliance:
1) A trunk sewer usage agreement is still under preparation and negotiation
with the County for the Proctor Valley Sewer. That sewer was constructed
in 1992 to serve the Salt C~eek I, Salt Creek Ranch, Rancho San Miguel and
Bonita Meadows developments as well as other adjacent parcels in the
unincorporated area of Proctor Valley. The sewer connects to the County's
Frisbee Trunk.
2) A sewer analysis was completed by Wilson Engineering in November, 1994,
for the Salt Creek Sewer Basin. The planned line will serve the Salt Creek
Ranch, Eastlake, Hidden Valley Estates (in the unincorporated area east of
Mt. Miguel), and Otay Ranch developments. Recommended improvements
and a financing plan were also approved by the City Council in November,
1994. A related development impact fee of $284 per equivalent dwelling unit
(EDU) applies to all new development in the basin as of February, 1995.
3) The City's flow monitoring program has identified several problem sites,
including the Palm Canyon area where a parallel sewer is presently under
construction. Additional portable monitoring equipment has been acquired
to improve accuracy and to expand the metering program. These expanded
efforts have commenced on sewer segments where flow is nearing capacity.
4) The City's sewer TV inspection crew continues to monitor problem sites in
order to determine if the condition of the sewer lines has affected the flow.
Phase V of the program was completed in 1994 and provided for the lining
of 1510 feet, and replacement of 440 feet of sewer mains. An additional
84,444 lineal feet were televised during 1994 for Phases VI and VII of the
program. Contracts for lining another 911 lineal feet, and replacing another
150 lineal feet ofsewer mains under Phase VI are included in the FY1995-96
CIP.
5) All new developments are continuing to address the adequacy of sewers to
serve their needs. Remedial actions are required where necessary to
accommodate added flows.
Toward continuing to assure that adequate sewers are provided as the City grows,
the GMOC, again expresses its concem regarding the potential impacts of
development in eastern Chula Vista on sewer facilities in older westem Chula Vista,
and recommends:
. That the City Council and Public Worle. Department continue to
fund, .taff and empha.ize .ewer monitoring, upgrade and
replacement programs, and related CIP's, in order to avoid any
negative impact. from development In e..tem Chula Vi.ta upon
western Chula Vi.ta.
o<-fL0
16
San DieQo Metrooolitan Sewer Authoritv
At present, the City's total daily wastewater flow into the Metropolitan Sewage
System (Metro) is approximately 12.048 million gallons per day (mgd), which is up
1.061 mgd from last year (10.987 mgd), but still well within our current contract
capacity of 19.2 mgd. This 12.048 mgd includes 9.264 mgd of metered flows
discharged directly to the Metro sewer line, and 2.784 mgd of metered and non-
metered flows discharged through the Spring Valley Sewer outfall. Seven new
permanent wastewater metering stations measuring flows to the outfall are in
operation, as is a new metering station on "F" Street west of Bay Blvd. Annual
wastewater flows continue to change at a rate much less than predicted due
primarily to the recent building slowdown and water conservation efforts, and are
now more accurately tracked by the new metering stations. Staff indicates that
there is adequate capacity in the Metro system to serve growth for the coming year.
With regard to longer-term growth projections, our remaining contract capacity of
7.152 mgd should serve the City until approximately 2010.
Of note is that the City's existing Metro contract expires in 2004. The San Diego
Area Wastewater Management District (SDAWMD), however, took effect on January
1, 1993. The SDAWMD effectively replaces Metro, and under it, capacity rights
may not be treated in the same manner as they were under Metro. The SDAWMD
will manage construction and operation of Metro and Clean Water Program sewage
transportation and treatment facilities. The City decided to withdraw from the
SDAWMD without penalty in June, 1994. Since the City of San Diego also
withdrew, it is presently unclear whether San Diego or another entity will ultimately
have responsibility for Clean Water Program facilities. Present efforts on the part
of the City and other South Bay jurisdictions are focusing on various options for
financing, design, construction and operation of a treatment plant in the Otay Valley,
but no decisions have been made yet. This plant is similar to that proposed, but
postponed, under San Diego's original Clean Water Program.
Given these present uncertainties, and in order to assure that adequate sewage
treatment capacity will be available to meet the I~mg-term needs of local growth,
regardless of the entity the City deals with, the GMOC recommends that:
. Given the amount of time It will take to complete development of
a wastewater treatment and reclamation facility, the Council
should place emphasis on the need to act expeditiously based
on the fast approaching Metro wastewater connct expiration
date In 2004, In this regard, Council should continue to support
planning and development efforts for a wastewa"r treatment and
reclamation faclllty(les) In the South Say area.
· As the noted treatment plant would only represent a partial
solution to the City'. totallong-renge sewage treatment needs,
the GMOC also recgonlzes and emphasizes the need to re-
negotiate the Metro contract as well.
~ - ;P1
17
D DRAINAGE.
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE CITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRAINAGE
THRESHOLD STANDARD ON BOTH A PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE BASIS.
No mLjor drainage problems or threshold compliance Issues can be atbibuted to
new growth during the review period. City growth management programs continue
to require major developments to construct detention basins and other infrastructure
so that downstream flows are not increased. Each new subdivision is required to
construct all drainage facilities to handle storms of a 10 to 100 year magnitude,
depending on the facility and size of the drainage basin. The Environmental Impact
Report for each development must address any possible drainage problems either
on-site or off-site. The developer is then required to implement mitigation measures
as necessary.
Last year, the GMOC expressed concem that quantifiable data/evidence was not
available to demonstrate that new growth in eastern Chula Vista is not negatively
impacting older facilities in westem Chula Vista, and recommended development
of a monitoring system to definitively resolve whether such conditions exist. Based
on the Engineering Divisions response that such monitoring could technically be
implemented, the GMOC recommends:
. That the Public Works Department, Engineering Division be
directed to evaluate and report back to Council and the GMOC on
where proposed drainage monitoring atatlons (as referenced In
the GMOC's 1993 Annual Report) would be most effective. The
purpose of such evaluation Is to prepare a work program and CIP
for implementing the monitoring atatlona In the future.
In general, the City experienced fewer drainage problems and flooding in 1994 than
in the two previous years. The Engineering Division cited several recent activities
to improve drainage in both the newer and older areas of the City.
Telegraph Canyon Channel repair east of Paseo del Rey.
Major upgrade in the lower section of the Central Drainage Basin west of
Broadway and south of "G" St. at an approximate cost of $1,500,000.
Installation of a 66 inch pipe in the reconstruction project for Broadway from
"L" St. to Naples St. This facility will help in the alleviation of past flooding
in the vicinity of Woodlawn Av. and Moss St.
Completion of repairs for the erosion, siltation and other damage caused to
the City's major rivers and creeks as a result of the January 1993 storms.
Most notable among these is the Otay Valley Rd. bridge crossing the Otay
River.
~-~I
18
The GMOC also heard from a representative of the Bonita community regarding
drainage issues in Central Creek near the intersection of Bonita Rd. and Central
Ave., and issues near Bonita Rd. and Willow St. Those issues arose in the context
of the City's Sphere of Influence update study. Based on a 3/2/95 memorandum
from City staff (included with Appendix F) the GMOC was able to determine that
both matters were being addressed, and were effectively outside the GMOC's
purview. The GMOC is also aware that the County Board of Supervisors is in the
process of forming a multi-jurisdictional committee to address drainage issues in
these general areas.
While the GMOC commends the City for ongoing attentiveness to threshold
maintenance for new development, we remain concemed over needed, but
unfunded drainage improvements throughout westem Chula Vista. As noted in our
1993 report, in May 1992, the City Council accepted an Engineering Department
report which included proposals for construction of drainage facilities to correct
deficiencies, and established a priority list of needed drainage improvement
projects. That list contained a total of 84 needed but currently unfunded
improvements with an approximated cost of $23,025,000. Considering an inflation
rate of 4% per year, funding of $1,695,000 per year for 20 years would be
necessary to complete the projects. In conjunction with this year's threshold report,
the Engineering Division again presented a select list of the current top 15 priority
projects, totaling $5,400,000, and reflecting necessary new budget appropriations
through FY 1999-2000 to accomplish them. As a result:
. The GMOC notes that completion of recent drainage
Improvement projects In western Chu/a Vista have reduced
previous drainage problems, es evidenced by the leek of major
flooding during recent heavy reins. However, the GMOC remains
concerned about the volume of needed but currently unfunded
dralnege Improvements In western Chu/a Vista as reflected on
the "Summery of Unfunded Drainage Project Needs" prepared by
the Public Works Department, Engineering Division.
Therefore, the GMOC continues to recommend that the City
Council accept and endorse the top 15 priority projects list of
needed drainage Improvements in western Chu/a Vista, and work
toward approprietlng funding for them es soon a. po..'ble.
a FISCAL -
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE CITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FISCAL
THRESHOLD STANDARD ON BOTH A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
NEW GROWTH HAS GENERALLY PRODUCED SUFFICIENT ftEVENUES TO
FUND CURRENT. RELATED FACILITIES AtiD SERVICES.
The Fiscal threshold standard addresses the impacts of growth on the City's fiscal
well being, particularty the collection and expenditure of impact fees from new
development. The Fiscal threshold calls for the preparation of a report to the
19 c?-~7
GMOC which evaluates the fiscal impacts of growth on operations and capital
improvements over both the previous 12 months, and the coming 12-18 month
period, including an analysis of development impact fee collection and expenditure
over the previous 12-month period.
DeveloDment ImDact Fee Procrams
The GMOC contj'lues to be impressed by the ongoing sophistication of the overall
Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, and its periodic updates, to ensure funds
are available commensurate with facility and service needs. Under the Growth
Management Program and Ordinance (GMP), all major development projects are
required to prepare Public Facilities Phasing and Financing Plans (PFFP) to ensure
the timely provision of needed facilities and services consistent with the threshold
standards. Most of the major master planned developments have also prepared
Fiscal Impact Analyses (FIA) to address creation of a positive revenue picture, and
these analyses are periodically updated to reflect actual conditions and
occurrences.
Evaluation of facility needs, and related phasing and financial planning for major
developments and other activities, have become an integral part of the day-to-day
development review process. The various special assessment and financin9
districts required of major new developments are designed to generate sufficient
revenue to fund current projects and services. In addition, an annual DIF funds
financial report is prepared to review the funding status of each DIF and its projects,
and to update the associated costs for these and any new facilities necessary to
support future development. The reports analyze the apportionment of costs to
projected development in order to adjust the DIF's to be applied to new
development.
In accordance with these annual DIF reports, the Finance Director indicated that the
various DIF's (Transportation, Drainage, Sewers and Public Facilities), as well as
related CIP planning efforts, are generally working as planned and appear in good
fiscal health. This takes into consideration that some of the DIF's (being 15-20+
year facility plans) are still in their relative infancy, and that some facilities, such as
major roadways, have been advance constructed by developers who then receive
credit against DIF payments at the time of building permit issuance.
In illustration of the GMOC's perception of the successful workings of the DIF
programs, following is a summary of recent major DIF activities and expenditures:
1) Completion of street improvements for the Rancho Del Rey commercial
center ($210,000), Otay Valley Rd. widening ($280,000), and Otay Lakes Rd.
widening ($171,000).
2) Adoption of the Interim SR125 DIF to finance an interim facility should
CTV/CAL TRANS not produce a freeway (tollroad) facility in a timely manner
to maintain thresholds.
20 ;< . -5v
3) Establishment of a Traffic Signal Fee to provide for signals whose need
arises from traffic volume increases caused by new development. Signals
funded or installed in FY1993-94 include Third Ave. & Anita St., East Orange
Ave. & Loma Ln., Telegraph Canyon Rd. & Paseo Ladera, Otay Lakes Rd.
& Gotham St., and 1-805 & Otay Valley Rd.
4) Re-evaluation of the Eastlake Park DIF, and review and update of the
original Eastlake Park, and Eastlake II and 1/1 agreements.
5) Installation of drainage improvements with the Otay Lakes Rd. widening
($163,000), and drainage design work for Telegraph Canyon ($25,000).
6) Establishment of the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF ($184 per EDU),
and the Telegraph Canyon Pumped Sewer DIF ($560 per EDU).
7) Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) repayment to the General Fund of $1,400,000
to cover the DIF cost of the Police Facility remodeling. $95,000 for adding
new police officers due to growth of the City, and $16,000 towards the
Computer Aided Dispatch project.
8) PFDIF expenditure ($275,000) for property acquisition for expansion of the
Civic Center parking.
9) Establishment of the Eastlake Interim Fire Station ($68,000).
10) Installation of the major hardware and software components of the City's
Geographic Information System ($305,000).
With respect to long-range DIF planning and update, last year the GMOC
recommended that the annual update process for each of the DIF's be expanded
to include a five-year projection of needs based on the 5-7 year growth forecasts
called for under the Growth Management Program (GMP). The intent was to
provide consistency in the assumptions used, and in the identification of issues
before they become a problem. The Finance Director's report responded to this
issue, and indicated that with regard to transportation, drainage and sewer related
DIF's, the five year projections are already effectively incorporated. Under the City's
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process, all capital projects to be
constructed by the City, including those funded through DIF's, go through an annual
review which looks out over a five-year time span in accordance with growth
projections.
The Finance Director's report also indicated, however, that the Public Facilities DIF
differs from the others since it is a City-wide DIF involving many different facets,
with non-DIF funding participation for many of its projects. While the PFDIF
identifies the projects, estimates costs and fees, and provides the status of the
project, it does not specifically say when or if funds are available. Given the recent
"pooling" of the PFDIF funds, which the GMOC believes increases the need for
projections and coordination, and in response to the Finance Director's concurrence
21
c;;( - J-j
with the need for a more formalized program scheduling and projection of
needs/revenues with future PFDIF updates, the GMOC recommends:
. That Incorporation of 5-year development projections Into the Public
Facilities DIF updates occur, 8S has been done for the other DIF's.
City-wide Fiscal Overview
Per the Finance Director's report, most General Fund revenue accounts showed
moderate increases in FY1993-94 (up 5.4% overall); a reflection of continued local
growth and slight improvement in the economy. In overview, increases included
sales tax (3.9%), franchise and utility users taxes, and licenses and permits
(86.8%). Property taxes on the other hand, declined by 8.5% due to ongoing state
shift of these revenues from cities to schools, which is a three year phased
program. Additionally, many property owners, including several large local
corporations such as ROHR Industries Inc., obtained reductions In their tax
assessments resulting from real estate market declines.
In general, the City has lost approximately $3.5 million per year over the last 3
years due to various state budget actions. Fortunately, the City has been able to
offset those losses through the use of one-time revenues, and thus far avoid
significant cuts to staffing and/or services which could affect thresholds. last year,
the GMOC expressed concem over the use of one-time revenues in offsetting state
cuts and recessionary losses. Our premise was that by nature, "one time" revenues
may not always be available, or not in a sufficient amount, to offset losses,
particularly if state cuts and recession continue. Many cities in the region have
already been faced with wholesale cuts and the related deterioration of services.
Under such a scenario, the GMOC envisions potential impacts to threshold
standards as staffing and/or services could be cut, and feels it prudent to make our
concern known even though this situation derives from non-growth related fiscal
issues.
In response, the City Manager has reported verbally to the GMOC that staff is
aware of the potential for non-growth fiscal impacts arising from recession and state
budget cuts to affect the delivery of services, and is approaching budgeting efforts
conservatively in order to maintain fiscal and other thresholds.
D WATER -
THE GMOC FINDS THAT BOTH THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY AND OTAY
WATER DISTRICT HAVE SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY AND AVAILABilITY TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF LOCAL GROWTH OVER THE NEXT 12 TO 18 MONTHS.
!-ND ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ASPECT OF THE WATER THRESHOLD
STANDARD.
The GMOC commends both water districts for their continuing cooperative efforts
together, with other water districts, and with the City regarding the supply and
22 r1
;;< _ J f7'--
delivery of water to meet the needs of development. We also want to recognize
both Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority again for their responsiveness
in addressing prior GMOC concerns regarding shorter-term supply and storage
issues, and for their continuing efforts in these regards. It is also worthy to note that
for the first time in seven years, the GMOC is not recomending issuance of a
Statement of Concem to either district. On the contrary, given the continued
cooperative efforts to address supply issues, and the progress toward assuring a
guaranteed water supply for Chula Vista and South Bay residents and businesses,
the GMOC felt prompt recognition was deserved, and issued a separate letter of
commendation to the Mayor and Council with copies districts (please see Appendix
H).
Both the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Water District indicated that the 12-18
month forecast for water supply was excellent, given rains and the heavy Sierra
snowfalls. In addition, they indicated that the long-term supply outlook has also
greatly improved. Last year the GMOC issued a Statement of Concern to both
districts based mainly on outstanding long-term supply issues. Since that time, the
Metropolitan Water District (MOO) has implemented a water policy to assure long-
term supply. MOO's goal is to meet 100% of the water demand 90% of the time,
and the remaining 10% of the time meet a minimum of 80% of the water demand.
Within the San Diego Region, the County Water Authority (CWA) and individual
agencies are discussing the potential exchange of water between agencies, and the
"wheeling" of water by CWA to further increase long-term supply reliability.
Of further note regarding improved long-term supply reliability, MOO has also
acquired a large tract of land in Riverside County near Hemet, and begun
construction of Domenigoni Reservoir to store excess water in times of plentiful
supply. The reservoir will increase water storage capacity for delivery to the San
Diego area by over 400% to assure the availability of water in times of drought,
earthquakes and other emergencies. Construction is scheduled for completion in
1999, and several years beyond that will be needed to fill the reservoir.
On the local front, the districts continue to actively participate on the Interagency
Water Task Force (IAWTF) which has proven an excellent forum for the City and
both districts to develop strategies for immediate and long range water delivery to
the South Bay area. In addition to that effort, following are other significant
activities being undertaken by the districts (both individually and together with other
agencies) which the GMOC feels are worthy of note:
1) CWA's Pipeline NO.4 to serve the South Bay should become operational
during 1997. This second pipeline will increase the treated water delivery
capacity to Otay Water District and generally provide additional water
delivery reliability to both districts in the instance of planned or unplanned
shutdowns of the present single pipeline.
2) Otay Water is continuing to develop a sufficient storage and supply network
to meet the demands of new development and, in accordance with CWA
goals, to sustain a 10 day independence in the event that potable water
23 ~.::>
c2-J ~
deliveries by CWA to Otay are interrupted by planned or emergency
aqueduct shutdowns. Efforts in this regard include ongoing negotiations with
the City of San Diego, Sweetwater Authority and Helix Water District for
treatment plant capacity and lake storage. All have indicated a willingness
to execute agreements pending Board and Council approvals.
3) Otay is continuing with construe.ion of a 30 million gallon (MG) terminal
storage reservoir west of Eastlake Parkway, which should be completed by
late 1995. This includes the cell whose walls failed during initial filling eartier
this year.
Otay also has under design a project to link Roll Reservoir with the 30 MG
Eastlake Greens Reservoir, whereby up to an additional 20 million gallons
per day could be delivered in an emergency. Combined with the 30 MG
Eastlake Greens Reservoir, this will provide the area with more than a 10
day supply of emergency water through the year 2000.
Additionally, Otay Water has drilled an exploratory well approximately 900
foot deep at the Eastlake Greens reservoir site. This well may produce
about 40 gallons per minute, and Otay is presently evaluating the
benefit/cost of placing the well in service.
4) Otay has completed a draft update of its Water Resources Master Plan
utilizing current SANDAG Series 8 growth projections and input from local
developers. The update was prepared in close cooperation with the City,
and was employed during the City's Sphere-of-Influence update which
identifies Otay as the preferred water provider for developing areas in
eastern Chula Vista. The master plan will be reviewed each year with regard
to evaluating the best altematives for providing a reliable water supply, and
comprehensively updated every five years.
5) Both agencies continue to promote and develop water conservation
programs applied to both existing users and new development.
6) Otay continues to require installation of reclaimed water pipelines in new
development, and along with Sweetwater Authority, is supportive of local
efforts to construct an advanced wastewater treatment plant in the Otay
River Valley which would provide reclaimed water. The proposed Otay
Valley plant is a significant local facility in that it would provide reclaimed
water for these newly built distribution facilities. Otay has also been
evaluating capacity issues at their existing Ralph W. Chapman treatment
facility in cooperation the City, Sweetwater Authority, and City of San Diego.
7) Sweetwater Authority has completed preliminary design and environmental
review work for a brackish groundwater extraction and desalinization project
within the Lower Sweetwater Valley near the northwest quadrant of SR54
and Edgemere Ave. near the new Food-4-Less market. Although the same
24 cJ-sy
.
8)
9)
10)
11 )
.
- .
I
-
project, this is a different site than that which was outlined in last year's
report.
Sweetwater Authority has a feasibility study in progress to increase the
capacity of Sweetwater Reservoir by approximately 2000 acre feet, which
would roughly prov!de for the annual water needs of 4000 households. The
increased storage will lessen depe:1dance on imported water.
Sweetwater Authority continues to investigate the storage of surplus water
in groundwater aquifers by using injection/extraction wells in the San Diego
Formation.
Sweetwater Authority and Otay Water District are working through the CWA
to develop a region-wide "Highly Reliable Water Supply Rate" in response
to the request of the mayor of Chula Vista for a firm water supply for new
industry. This proposal has been merged with the City of San Diego's
SWAP program (San Diego Water Availability Plan) which proposes to collect
slightly higher rates to provide funds for water transfers.
Representatives of both Districts are continuing to meet with the City and
other interested parties to address issues of joint concem through the
IAWTF, including state-wide water matters which may impact development
within Chula Vista.
Notwithstanding these positive efforts, the GMOC remains concemed over long-term
water supply and importation, and therefore continues to recommend:
· That Council, through the Interagency Water Task Force, actively
wor/c with the CWA and other local WIIt.r agencies to further
develop local resources to reduce dependancy on imported
water,
While not a concern directed at supply or storage, the GMOC has previously noted
that the City needs to increase coordination with the Sweetwater Authority regarding
advance planning of water facility upgrades to support rezonings and infill
development, particularly in the northwestem quadrant of the City. In response, the
Sweetwater Authority notes greatly improved communication between project
proponents, the City and themselves. The Authority has provided the City with
information on those pipes needing upgrade or replacement, so that affected project
applicants can be aware as earty as possible in the development review process.
Ie
1-
o1--s-s
25
..
....
I
D SCHOOLS -'
THE GMOC FINDS. BASED ON THE CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AND SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS' RESPONSES TO THE
CITY'S 12-18 MONTH GROWTH FORECAST. THAT THE SCHOOLS
THRESHOLD STANDARD IS BEING MET.
For the second year in a row, both districts have reported that sufficient capacity
exists to accommodate student enrollment over the next 12-18 months as
forecasted from City development projections. This condition is due in part to the
reduced volume of development resulting from continued recession, but also from
the fact that much of the growth will occur in eastem Chula Vista where sufficient
new facilities are being provided through Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
(CFD's). This is not to say that capacity issues do not exist in schools, particularly
west of the 1-805 where the majority are operating above capacity, and where
students are being accommodated through a combination of relocatable classrooms,
classroom reconfiguration and busing.
The following are overviews of currently relevant school planning activities and
issues specific to each district.
a. Chula Vista Elementarv School District
Based upon the City's 12 to 18 month growth forecast, the Chula Vista
Elementary School District has estimated that it will need to accommodate
16 new students west of 1-805, given the 54 residential units forecast for
completion there from July, 1994 through December, 1995. Currently, most
of the schools west of 1-805 are at or over permanent capacity, although
some capacity does exist in certain schools at various grade levels. As of
April, 1995, a total of 584 children from around the District were being bused
to relieve this situation. This is up from 302 children previously reported for
January, 1994. The District, however, has indicated that it can
accommodate the projected new students within existing facilities through a
combination of the techniques previously noted.
With regard to longer-term planning for adding capacity west of 1-805, only
limited physical opportunities continue to exist for expanding existing schools.
Vista Square and Rice Elementary Schools could potentially be expanded,
and Feaster School has adjacent vacant land that could be acquired. In all
these instances, however, lack of funding continues to be an obstacle to
progress. The GMOC recognizes there is very limited prospect of additional
facilities being provided to alleviate this problem in the foreseeable future
due to land and funding constraints. We feel there is a possibility, however,
that this situation could be alleviated by district-wide multi-track programming
of students. Serious consideration should be given to the role of multi-track,
as it appears the most logicallworkable response to alleviate overcrowding
given the noted constraints to new construction. The GMOC understands
;2 - .J~
26
,-
.-.
..
I
.
the current degree of opposition on a variety of fronts, and feels it is
incumbent upon the school board to initiate a public education program and
study of the need for multi-track scheduling. Therefore the GMOC
recommends:
.
. That the City Council forward a communication to the
District Board suggesting establishment of a task force to
.tudy the efficacy and practicality of establishing muttl-
track programming In the elementary .chools.
East of 1-805, the District estimates it will need to accommodate
approximately 522 new students, given the 1741 new residential units
forecast for completion in the area from July, 1994 through December, 1995.
The vast majority of these units (92%) are in the Eastlake, Rancho Del Rey,
Salt Creek I and Telegraph Canyon Estates planned communities. The
District indicated that this estimated growth in school enrollments can be
accommodated by existing schools and schools which are being planned and
financed through currentMello-Roos CFD's. Eastlake School is currently
using relocatable classrooms to accommodate new students until
Olympicview Elementary School in the Eastlake Greens project opens in mid-
1995. The District continues to work with developers to establish additional
CFD's, or other forms of full mitigation to address schools provision for the
Salt Creek Ranch, Otay Ranch and Rancho San Miguel projects. Other
smaller projects continue to be annexed to generic CFD No.5.
The Chula Vista Elementary School District's report also noted a number of
activities and issues relevant to future schools planning and financing which
should be noted.
2)
1) The District continues to be interested in expanding Feaster School
through acquisition of the four acre parcel adjacent to the east which
is for sale. For the Feaster site, financing appears available only
through the imposition of mitigation on the proposed Baytront project.
The District is concemed that some form of mitigation agreement
involving the Feaster site has not been prepared or executed.
Passage of 581066 as discussed later in this section could have
negative impacts given the present situation. Whatever development
eventually occurs there, it must be required to fully mitigate all
impacts to school facilities.
The District continues a variety of activities to plan proactively for
growth and improvement of school facilities, Including: a) development
tracking and phasing monitoring: b) school growth planning: c)
boundary/attendance area adjustments; d) residency verification; e)
requests for City assistance in obtaining full mitigation; f) responses
to notices of proposed development projects with recommended
mitigation; and g) participation in the State Modemization Program.
.
~-s~
27
,-
-
.-.
3) Proposition 170, which would have reduced the required vote for
general obligation bonds to a simple majority failed in 1993. Similar
legislation was not introduced in 1994 as anticipated, and the eartiest
similar legislation could be introduced is 1996. As a result, the
District's ability to generate funds through a general obligation bond
continues to be severely constrained.
4) Under the State Building Program (modemiLation), the District
received Phase III (construction) approval in 1994 for modemizing 11
of their oldest schools. The State is effectively out of money for
building schools, however, and a .zero apportionment" was given.
Therefore, the projects remain ready to go, but are unfunded.
5) Senate Bill (SB)1066 threatens to remove consideration of school
impacts from the development planning and approval process, and
would also limit the amount districts could collect under state
mandated fees collected at the time of building permit issuance.
SB1066 has cleared the Senate Education Committee and is
proceeding through the Legislature. Combined with the fact that the
state is out of money for building/remode!ing schools. and that bond
measures appear unlikely for raising needed money, passage of
SB1066 could be disastrous for local schools construction. The
District stressed the need to oppose the legislation.
The GMOC would like to note that it is also extremely concemed with
581066, and due to the noted urgency to forward opposition to the state,
already advanced this matter to the City Council for action. It is our
understanding the Council considered the item in May, and through its
Legislative Committee has sent letters of opposition to appropriate parties in
Sacramento. This is relevant to the Sweetwater Union High School District
as well.
~ Sweetwater Union High School District
The Sweetwater Union High School District reported an enrollment of 28,945
students throughout the district, a 91 student (0.3%) increase over the 1993-
94 school year. Of these students, 15,000, or 52% of the total, attend the
five high schools, three middle schools and one junior high school in Chula
Vista. By comparison, enrollment in secondary schools in Chula Vista
schools grew by 548 students over 1993-94 levels, while the overall District
Increased by only 91 students.
Given the 12-18 month forecast provided by the Chula Vista Planning
Department. the District projects an increase of 522 students in Chula Vista
middle, junior high and high schools in the 1995-96 school year. This
increase is based on projected growth of 1795 dwelling units between July,
1994 and December, 1995. Of this enrollment growth, 97% will be absorbed
at Bonita Vista Middle, Bonita Vista High and Eastlake High Schools. Bonita
cfJ-,j%
28
-
...
..
I
.
Vista Middle School will continue to experience development pressure, and
to alleviate such, the District has started planning for the construction of a
new middle school within the Rancho Del Rey development which is
scheduled to open in the Fall of 1998. In addition, as Eastlake and Rancho
Del Rey build out, attendance boundary adjustments for Bonita Vista and
E!istlake High Schools will be made to balance enrollment increases. To
aJdress the limited enrollment growth in other areas, and at the noted
campuses on an interim basis, relocatable classrooms will be utilized as
needed subject to funding availability.
.
The District continues to work with other major development projects to
establish Mello-Roos CFD's or other forms of full mitigation. Projects for
which negotiations have not yet been completed are Rancho San Miguel,
Otay Ranch and Salt Creek Ranch. The District continues to draw attention
to Salt Creek Ranch which has already received Tentative Map Approval.
As planned, students from the nearly completed Salt Creek I project are to
attend Eastlake High School. Students from Salt Creek Ranch will also
attend Eastlake High School. The schools in Otay Ranch are to be
constructed large enough to accomodate the equivalent number of students
which will come from Salt Creek Ranch. In July, 1993, Community Facilities
District (CFD) proceedings were formally abandoned by the Baldwin
Company for the Salt Creek Ranch project, and negotiations have yet to be
resumed with the District. It takes some time to form a new CFD and to
generate adequate revenue to finance construction of a new school. If
mitigation is to be in the form of a CFD, it is essential that formation occur
well in advance (2-3 years) of development to assure facilities will be
available when children begin to arrive. In response, last year the GMOC
recommended that the City encourage negotiations to resume, and
understands that the City issued a letter to this effect to the Baldwin
Company. As the District indicates that discussions have not yet resumed,
the GMOC recommends:
.
. That the City again contact the Salt Creek Ranch
developer and stress the need to resume negotiations with
the District. As Incentive, the GMOC suggests the City
also consider withholding the acceptance of any final
maps for the project until such time as the school district
notifies the City that they have reached understanding
with that developer as to the method(s) and timing for the
provision of planned schools. This Is also relevant to the
elementary school district.
The report from the Sweetwater Union High School District also described
various activities and concems of the district in addressing school planning
and construction. In several instances, the high school district's comments
were synonymous with those previously listed with the elementary school
district discussions, and therefore have been abbreviated here.
<>< - ..r-9
29
,-
..
-
.
1) The failure of Proposition 170, which would have reduced the required
"vote for general obligation bonds to a simple majority.
2) Although the District's concems over the need for full schools
mitigation for the Bayfront project have been heard by the Council,
they have yet to be solidified through a written agreement. This
remains of concem as it also does for the Elementary School D:~trict.
3) The District continues to establish Mello-Roos CFD's for new
development in the Eastem Territories, to participate in the state
lease-purchase program for new schools, to conduct ongoing review
and adjustment of attendance boundaries, and to perform residency
verification.
Regarding CFD's and other forms of full mitigation, the District again
highlighted that state-mandated (building permit) school fees only
provide for less than a third ofthe cost of needed school construction,
and indicated that it is imperative that the City continue to support
efforts to achieve full mitigation whenever possible.
4) The District is continuing its cooperation and preplanning review with
the City of all development proposals, General Plan amendments and
rezonings.
5) The high school district is also extremely concemed over the potential
passage of 581066 and its related negative impacts to in-process
schools planning efforts which have yet to be completed. Their report
highlighted the possible consequences to the Bayfront project, Salt
Creek Ranch, Otay Ranch and Rancho San Miguel.
Council's forwarding of letters of opposition to 581066, as discussed on
page 29, should satisfy the District's request to oppose.
6) The District noted the importance of the pending SourcePoint study
to comprehensively identifying longer-term school enrollment impacts
resulting from both residential and non-residential development. The
study will provide a direct basis for developing appropriate mitigation
mechanisms, and the District fully supports an expeditious completion
and adoption.
The mentioned SourcePoint joint enrollment impact mitigation study was discussed
in last year's GMOC report, and the GMOC understands that the City, school
districts and SourcePoint (the non-profit arm of the San Diego Association of
Govemments) are very near completion. The study's data should be extremely
useful to the districts and the City in identifying school facility needs based on
projected residential and non-residential development, and demographic changes.
Having identified these impacts, potential methods for mitigation will subsequently
30 / 0
.;;< _ (J7
-
.
.
.
,-
...
-
I
be analyzed and a proposal prepared for City CounciUschool board consideration.
Given continuing school enrollment growth, the presence of overcrowding in many
area schools (both elementary and secondary), and the stated importance of the
SourcePoint study in forming a common foundation from which to address these
situations, the GMOC recommends that the City:
. Promote prompt completion of the cooperative study underway
between the City, the Sweetwater Union High School District,
Chula Vista Elementary School District and SourcePolnt to
Identify the Impacts of new residential and non-resldentlal
development, and demography upon City schools.
Sased upon the study's results, the City Council should direct
that staff expedite development of proposed mitigation strategies
for consideration and adoption by the City Council and both
school boards. The .tudy, along with at lea.t a draft of the
resulting proposed mitigation .trategies, should be adopted not
later than the Fall of 1995 so that they can be available when the
GMOC commences Its next review In October, 1995.
In the spirit of continued cooperation, and in order to accomplish expeditious
completion and adoption of both the study and mitigation program(s), the GMOC
further recommends:
.
That the City Council invite the district boards to form a Joint
task force to discuss mitigation strategies subsequent to release
of the SourcePolnt .tudy.
D TRAFFIC.
THE GMOC FINDS THAT THE CITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFIC
THRESHOLD STANDARD ON BOTH A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS. AS
EVIDENCED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE 1994 TRAFFIC MONITORING
PROGRAM CTMPI REPORT.
The threshold for traffic requires that Level-of-Service (LOS) "C" or better as
measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments,
except that during peak hours, ~OS of "D" can occur for no more than any two
hours of the day. Those signalized intersections west of 1-805 which did not meet
the above standard when it was established in 1991, may continue to operate at
their 1991 LOS levels, but shall not worsen. The traffic threshold utilizes the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method which analyzes conditions over whole
roadway segments, and is intended as a more comprehensive measurement since
it considers the overall "driving experience" in terms of time delay.
c:I-/P1
31
.
1994 Traffic Monitorina Proaram
...
I
The 1994 Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) presented to the GMOC
summarizes the resuits of analysis performed through actual travel time and
speed surveys of all the arterial streets in Chula Vista during the Mid-day
peak hour period (11 :30 am to 1 :30 pm). As required by the threshold
standard, studies were also done during both the PM (4 pm to 6 pm) and AM
(7 am to 9 am) peak periods to re-evaluate performance on segments
studied under the 1992 and 1993 TMP's respectively, which operated at LOS
C or less in at least one direction during those periods. The travel studies
were conducted from January through July 1994.
The 1994 TMP results show that all arterial segments studied during the Mid-
day peak period were found to operate at LOS .C" or better. The following
ten (10) arterial segments were found to be operating at LOS "COO, in at least
one direction as indicated at the right:
Third Ave.
Fourth Ave.
Broadway
Broadway
ESt.
H St.
E. H St.
L St.
Otay Lakes
Palomar St.
(C St. - H St.)
(SR-54 EB ramps - H St.)
(C St. - H St.)
(L St. - Faivre St.)
(1-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.)
(1-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.)
(SW College - Rutgers Ave.)
(Industrial - Third Ave.)
(E. H St. - Tel. Cyn. Rd.)
(1-5 NB ramps - Broadway)
- NB & SB
- SB
- SB
- NB
-we
- EB & we
-we
- EB
- NB
- EB & we
For those five (5) 1993 TMP arterial segments found to be operating at LOS
C during the AM peak period, and which were re-studied by the 1994 TMP,
none presently operate at less than LOS C. Following are those re-studied
segments:
Third Ave.
H St.
E. H St.
Otay Lakes
Palomar St.
(C St. - H St.)
(1-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.)
(SW College - Rutgers Ave.)
(E. H St. - Tel. Cyn. Rd.)
(1-5 NB ramps - Broadway)
- NB
- EB
-we
- NB & SB
- EB
For those nine (9) 1992 TMP arterial segments found to be operating at LOS
C during the PM peak period, and which were re-studied by the 1994 TMP,
all are presently operating at LOS C or better, except those two which are
asterisked, and were found to be operating at LOS D. Following are those
re-studied segments:
Third Ave.
Third Ave.
Fourth Ave.
1-
(C St. - H St.)
(Naples St. - Main St.)
(SR-54 EB ramps - H St.)
32 d. _ t, d-
- NB & SB
- NB & SB
- SB
....
.
Broadway (C St. - H St.)
E St. (1-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.)
H St. (1-5 NB ramps - Third Ave.)
L St. (Industrial - Third Ave.)
.Otay Lakes (E. H St. - Tel. Cyn. Rd.)
.Palomar St. (1-5 NB ramps - Broadway)
- SB
- EB
- EB & WB
- EB
- NB
- EB
For those two LOS D segments (.), the GMOC notes that the Traffic
Engineering Division indicates that the recent completion of widening to
Palomar St. in conjunction with the Palomar Trolley Center construction,
should greatly improve LOS performance. With regard to Otay Lakes Rd.,
the GMOC understands that installation of dual left tum lanes in both
directions at the intersection with E. H St. is scheduled as part of the 1995-
96 CIP, and will remedy LOS performance problems for the short to mid-
term. Widening of the road segment to its full six lanes will need to occur at
some point in the future.
With regard to arterial segments involving interchanges with 1-5 and 1-805
(arterial interchange segments), the 1994 TMP continues to reflect marginal
levels-of-service performance with the standard. This is due primarily to the
close spacing of the signals, signal timing at the freeway ramps which is
controlled by CAL TRANS, and the high volume of vehicles entering and
exiting the freeway. This is especially true of the short segment of
westbound "H" Street between Woodlawn Ave. and Bay Blvd. A related
concern remains with the trolley crossing gates at "E", "H" and Palomar
Streets which interrupt flows every 5 to 7.5 minutes. The GMOC reiterates
the need to continue to urge the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB) to eventually construct grade separations or other solutions to
improve long-term traffic flow.
In summary, the 1994 TMP found all arterial interchange segments to be
operating at LOS C or better during the Mid-day period, except for the
eastbound direction of H St. at 1-5 which operates at LOS D. All arterial
interchange segments found to be operating a LOS C or less by the 1992
TMP (PM period) and 1993 TMP (AM period) were also restudied. The
results are as follows: .
LOS on E St.(EB & WB) at 1-5 remains at LOS D.
LOS on H St.(EB) at 1-5 decreased from LOS C to D.
LOS on H St.(WB) at 1-5 increased from LOS E to D.
LOS on J St.(WB) at 1-5 decreased from LOS C to D.
For the 1995 TMP, those arterial and arterial Interchange segments found to
operate at LOS C or less by the 1994 TMP will be restudied. In 1996, the TMP's
study cycle will begin again with City-wide travel time evaluations to establish new
comprehensive information for the PM peak period (4 pm to 6 pm). .
~-t3
33
.
-
I
During last year's review of the 1993 TMP, the GMOC noted its continuing concern
over traffic conditions for the following five areas, and asked for a comprehensive
evaluation with report back this year:
1. "H" St. east of 1-805.
2. "H" St. west of 1-805 to 1-5.
3. Otay Lakes Rd. between East "H" St. and Telegraph Canyon Rd.
4. Palomar St. between Broadway and 1-5, and
5. SR-125.
The GMOC received a separate report (included with Appendix J) and oral
presentation regarding present and projected traffic conditions for each of the five
areas. Based on that report and presentation:
. The GMOC commends the City's Traffic Engineering Division for
a thorough report In response to last year's concems, however,
we remain extremely concemed with the Imminent .ltuatlon on
'H' Street west of 1-805 as outlined on page 6 of that report. As
stated therein, In the future It may not be possible to meet
current Threshold standards without reclassifying -H" Street to
.ix-/anes and constructing such a facility. Due to the maior
ImDact such widenino would have on ex/stlno residential
DroDerties, the Citv may have to disreoard the Threshold
Standard. acceDt a lower Level of Service for this Dortion of the
roadway. or curtail develoDment to recoon/ze roadway
constraints.
Because of the noted likelihood of threshold failure on H St. west of 1-805,
depending on what range of potential remedial solutions are determined by the
Council to be feasible, the GMOC further recommends:
. That the City Council direct the Public Worlrs Department,
Engineering Division, to prepare and present a comprehensive
report on anticipated future threshold conditions on H St. west
of 1-805, along with the full renge of possible remedial actions
and their relative affect on maintaining threshold perlonnance.
Based on this report, the GMOC reque.ts that Council give
direction on which remedy(les) are to be Implemented, and
accordingly, whether a future lower lave/-of-servlce for this
.egment will be deemed accepteble,
With regard to SR125, and the proposed Interim SR125 plan (HNTB) consisting of
an enhanced network of existing and planned roadways in the general future
alignment of the full freeway facility, the GMOC has concems. It is our
understanding that the Interim SR125 plan outlined in the HNTB study is a
contingency plan, and is not designed to handle the long-term traffic needs of
34
c!)-ty
,-
.
.
t
-
..
already approved projects within the City's Planning Area. Per the HNTB study, this
includes portions of Eastlake, Salt Creek Ranch, Rancho San Miguel, and all but
Villages 1 & 5 of the Otay Ranch project. Therefore, should the CTV1CAL TRANS
venture not materialize, either on schedule or at all, then the City would move
forward with the Interim SR125 plan until such time as an adequate freeway facility
Is constructed. Given that no funding plan for a full SR125 is in place, other than
the present CTV joint venture, the GMOC ~resees a major potential transportation
planning problem in meeting the buildout I,eeds of approved projects. Therefore,
we recommend:
. That the City actively support plans for development of the full
SR125 freeway facility. The Interim SR125 plan (HNTB) Is viewed
with concern, since It Is Insufficient to meet the longer term
transportation needs of already approved development,
Notwithstanding the traffic issues presented in this section, the GMOC again notes
that monitoring improvements have resulted from the TMP and its associated
methods of measurement under the HCM threshold standard. The effort produces
very thorough results which enable potential issues to be identified in advance,
thereby allowing sufficient time to resolve them before they become problematic.
D
PARKS AND RECREATION -
THE GMOC FINDS, BASED ON THE PRESENT STANDARD. THAT THE CITY IS
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATiON THRESHOLD ON BOTH
A CUMULATIVE AND PROJECT BASIS.
The Parks and Recreation threshold is a population-based standard calling for 3.0
acres of neighborhood and community park land to be provided for every 1,000
residents east of 1-805. This standard has been met as of July 1, 1994, as
illustrated by the following table:
Acres of Acres/ Acre Shortfall
Area Pooulation Parks 1.2QQ or Excess
East of 1-805 41,319 203,40 4.92 +79.44
West of 1-805 108,933 129.45 1.19 -197.35
City-Wide 150,252 332.85 2.22 -117.91
Standard/Ideal 150,252 450.76 3.00 -117.91
35
/'
c2 - (P.J
A
-
While demonstrating compliance (based on the present standard applying east of
1-805 only), this table also reveals the continuing shortfall in park land both for
western Chula Vista and for the City as a whole.
Last year, a considerable amount of the Parks section of the GMOC report
addressed matters related to the adoption of a revised parks and recreation
threshold standard to apply City-wide. The GMOC's request for such a revision
dates back six years. In 1992, Council endorsed the concept ofsuch an amended
standard, but called for a study of a potential credit system (parks equivalency
factor) which could be employed toward addressing pre-existing deficient conditions
in westem Chula Vista. That study, under the title of the Parks Implementation Plan
(PIP), was initiated by staff two years ago, but has yet to be completed and
adopted. The GMOC notes that the majority of last year's recommendations are still
outstanding as they are contingent on completion of the PIP and related work
efforts. There is growing concern since the PIP has been promised for a number
of years, but has yet to materialize. Therefore:
. The GMOC recommends and stresses that Council ensure,
through staffing and funding allocations (the budget process),
that the PIP Is completed by Fall, 1995 as proposed, so that It will
be available for consideration during the next GMOC review cycle
commencing In October, 1995.
Given the significance ofthe GMOC's continuing concem on parks planning issues,
and until such time as the PIP is adopted and available for GMOC review, the
following outstanding recommendations from the 1993 GMOC Annual Report are
still relevant:
. That the City Council amend the Parles and Recreation Threshold
Standard to apply City-wide, both east and west of I-B05.
. That the City Council direct staff to expedite completion of the Parks
Implementation Plan {PIP}, and ensure that the PIP is a priority In the
work programs of the Planning and Parles and Recreation Departments
for the next year; end,
. That those sub-components of the PIP which will fonn a basis for a
revised standard be directed for placement up-front In the
aforementioned worle program to avoid continued delay In the adoption
of a revised standard.
. That a Greenbelt Master Plan be undertaken and closely coordinated
with the PIP to ensure optimum use of the Greenbelt for parle and
recreation purposes.
36
c:<-~t
-
.-.
..
.
That the City Council direct staff to fUliy consider Greenbelt Issues In
the course of reviewing current project proposals within and adjacent
to the SR54 corridor between I-B05 and 1-5.
.
. The City should create an Impact fee program which will require new
apartment construction In Western Chu/a VlF.la to pay parle fees. Parle
I4cqulsltlon & Development (PAD) fees are currently collected only for
subdivisions, Including condominium projects. It should be noted that
completion of the PIP Is also necessary In order to establish specific
proposed Improvements and areas of benefit, upon which equitable
Impact fees can be collected.
. New multi.famlly projects In western Chula Vista should be required to
provide a set amount of private recreation fecllitles within the
development. General provisions regarding such facIlities ara Included
In the proposed CIty Design Review Manual being drafted by the
Planning Department. However, those provisions amount to only broad
guIdelines, and more In-depth study Is necessary to develop a worleable
program. Preparation of the PIP provides an opportunity to address
such a study, and the PIP should determine a minimum reasonable
project size to which such a requirement should apply,
.
.
The Parks and Recreation Department should continue to assess the
appropriateness of "mini-paries" In western Chu/a Vista, While such
parks are more expensive In per-acre costs to develop and maintain,
they provide a more Intimate scale for local neighborhoods, and may
be the only method by which local park deficiencies In western Chu/a
Vista can be remedied without significant condemnation of exIsting
development. Again, this re-assessment Is part of the PIP's worle
program.
On a more positive note, the GMOC is pleased to state that based on to-date staff
work on the PIP, a preliminary draft revised threshold standard which would apply
City-wide has been created (please refer to Appendix L). The GMOC conceptually
endorses this draft, and, based on the relationship of information in the PIP to the
possible structure and content of a final standard, recommends:
. That the City Council direct staff to finalize the draft Paries and
Recreation Threshold Standard amendment, and return It for formal
public hearing adoption with the PIP In Fall, 1115,
In closing, the Parks and Recreation Department's report noted many positive
efforts during the last year which should be recognized. Key among those are:
.
37
c/-t'7
-
-
Funding approval for preparation of the Otay Park Master Plan.
.,Funding approval for renovation of the Parkway pool and gymnasium
complex. Construction is expected to commence in September, 1995.
Completion of Phase III of the Rohr Park improvements.
Completion of Hilltop Park improvements.
Funding approval for play equipment at Lauderbach Park.
The addition of $250,000 t(l the Parks Acquisition and Development
(PAD) fund, bringing the total to approximately $805,000.
The opening in June, 1994, of the 12.9 acre Chura Vista Community
Park adjacent to Eastlake High School.
ADDITIONAL PROPOSED ACTIONS
Outside of the normal threshold review and reporting process, staff of the Planning
Department also brought the following two topics to the GMOC for initial review and
reaction:
Succested Revisions to the Annual GMOC Review Process-
At the end of last year's review, both the GMOC and staff concurred that the annual
review process requires a substantial amount of effort on both our parts. While this
in no way implies that the effort is not well spent, it did raise discussion that we
should possibly review the process to determine how it might be streamlined to
achieve mutual benefit.
The prominent suggestion brought forward by staff this year was possible
conversion to a "checklist" process similar to that employed by SANDAG in the
conduct of compliance evaluations with the Regional Growth Management Strategy
(RGMS). The RGMS is similar in approach to the City's threshold standards, and
covers the majority of our topics, as well as others. Staff indicated that using a
similar "checklist" for the GMOC's annual review could result in the GMOC work
satisfying a majority of the reporting to SANDAG, thereby reducing the burden to
conduct two similar efforts. Obviously, staff would still need to supplement for those
SANDAG RGMS topics not covered by the City's thresholds. In addition to reducing
duplicative efforts, staff indicated that the "checklist" format is designed to give
lesser attention to those aspects for which compliance has been previously
demonstrated, and to focus on those aspects which are of material concem from
year-to-year.
In response, the GMOC generally concurs with moving in such a direction provided
that the depth, breadth, and material value of the GMOC's annual review is in no
way lessened or compromised. One concem of the GMOC Is that the checklist
process, through its intent to focus on outstanding issues, could result in a
weakening of the ability to monitor ongoing comprehensive conditions and changes
in non-focus threshold areas over time. Obviously, until such a revision to the
38
~ -J,J'
,-
..
4
4
4
ATTACHMENT D
d-'ll
-
fA.
I
-
THIS PAGE BLANK
;<-1:J-
o
0>-
::Ea::
C)<(
::E
Z::E
O::J
ii)(I)
~(I)
::EZ
::EQ
O~
00
~<(
::t:C)
C)z
ii)i=
a::Z
ww
>::E
Ow
~-I
Zt:l.
w::E
::E-
w(l)
C)z
<(0
Z-
<(~
::E<(
c
::t:Z
~~
O::E
a:: 0
C)O
'ltw
en a::
en
....
>-
In
(I)
Z
o
i=
o
<(
C)
Z
i=-I
Z-
wO
::EZ
w::J
-10
t:l.0
::E>-
~
~o
<(w
(I)::t:
(I)~
W
o
W
Z
-
C
W
(I)
o
t:l.
o
a::
t:l.
Z
o
i=
<(
c
Z
w
::E
::E
o
o
w
a::
o
o
::E
C)
,
..
GI
::E
..
o
Z
II)
'CI
'0
.r:.
II)
2!
.r:.
~
,
II>
Q) .-
Q) =-j5:
..: ,,~
... Q) 0 OJ .
o:5-'O'c..
.... en'" 0
.c Q) c...c
~i~Q)~
en 0= 0
60.'-_3:
a.O 0)0
U)..r::.c Q)
Q) (1)._ c:.r::.
...~UJo-
o CU._....
o~-a.Ecu
-0 c:=
i.f: -g Q) g
>C)m~::J
c: _ 0
~~ g> Q..O
.-~'6.f;E
.~E5=~
> -.--
~~==3t"C
U') 10 Q) -0 Q)
.- a."S; Q).2: ..-:..
-'OQ)Q)Q)--
C:._ .... 0 0 N
~~.8KeE
t:-CCi.i=5~
CO c: ::J 3t:Z::;'-
~ro_g==~.8
00..<1: "'.- II>
Q)LL _'OQ)
o a:: .~ en c: ==
:.= oc.
OE:'::"'" c..
a.Q)g~~m
Q) en :::J '0' en 0
.r.>-8"....m.!a
f- U) ~ c....c CD
~
.-:
w
(.)
::;
o
Q.
en
::;: iii
[l:t
Q) - 0
..:0==
-<l:Q)
to'O
8.Q).!!
0.= J!!
"- Q)
II> 0 ~
'Ccm
ffi.Q :5
_i)o
11>-
.- Q.-o
II> E c:
~ 8 '"
.8-5
0:.0:::;
Q) Q) g
"-
c: '"
E"CiQ
O<OC>
"O>c:
=m:c
g,.... c:
" -"
o C>-
, '\ .6': .c
~~C>
.c:- a. "
._ en 0
o~~
Q)"'C:5
":.!!E
- "
-Q)Q)
co .......-
.ce~
~ a. II>
..:1
~
~
.s
"E
Q)
"
CT
Q)
II>
LJ
"
II>
~
'"
Q)
>.
Q)
c:
o
'0
"0
..: E
II> Q)
1!1-
=~
Q) II>
..:en
-::;:
.!![l:
~o
-<I:
~o
CP Q)
~:5
.8'0
==c:
.!!! 0
(1):0::::;
_.!!!
~(ij
.!:::: 1i)
o.~
N
~
>.
_LJ'O
o -
~c:~5'iij
GoJ2o.3:"
0:0:::; c:
O<'tlc:(JC
c: .- 0 m
-c Q) II) -= ...
~~~,,~
C---==Q>-
ma..r::;:.cc:
U5 .~ ~ - .-
0>0 c: c
:2..c::<(~.Q
o-o_.~
~.8QJ.-:.6>
Q) ":'O~
............ Q)... .
~ 55 0>'5.e~
:::JC"'C CD
~ g'E ~"E"'"
=U')::Jom~
o,CU)cn-gw
a. ::J U} m D
Q, cn<(~_ 0
.r::.... ~f/}o
-&'JE~:!20
0.>.0) Q,)o 0)
Q)(;j.....cc:
cc>.a.cn._
.QOUJVI~Oc:
- "'..:
m>.(/)__~
~]!~~lIE
>CU!:t:m-o
CPEo~~"
~ 'x <( C)~ :it
.... e (J ,c: 'en Q)
m a. t: c:'-
~ g-:6~8 ~
N
~
c:2. - '1 :3
'0
Q)
II>
'"
LJ
:b
.c
"
E
E
8
'0
Q)
15 en
c: E
Q) ~
=C>
'02
c: a.
.2'0
O c:
- '"
~~
.E~
"EQ)
Oc>
" c:
-0 'u
"5=
00
..:0.
II> Q)
->
'u :u
c: '"
" 0
o ~
00.
M
~
~
o
- 'c
o Q)
~en
"
en -
_ E
011 &'J I!!
5-f-4)
.- ~ _ U
II> .. ~ iE
c:..: 8.0
[uQ.
>< :J :J Q)
Q) (I) (/) ~
C)(I)~:J
c: E._ 1iJ
'5 ~ ~ Q)
:E ~ g! 0::
C:"'''C~
8 0.<1: .-
'0 c:
t:c:~:J
8."'Q)E
a. II> .!::j E
:Jt:~o
II>~OO
:=Q)Q)"C
" ..: c:
'c: C)- cu
S.5..: -
o,g8e
.c:-8.iEm
.- 00..
~,g 8 Q;
..c::J....Q)
-E:J-
-EO!5
'" 11>-
..:8Q)0
~ [l:>
M
~
'0
c:
Q) CU.
1;) "C - U)
E~~=
E 5- 5
~ ~'2 E
-a>-U><
6"C ~'oo
:: ffi r::nx
'" c: Q)
U)8,:Oc:
8.0C:Q)
ou.2..c:
~II> -
a. 'C c:
(I) c: ._
E...cu..c:
~ ~ -:;;
r::n.--.(I) :>
o e c: c:
... Q.J!;! 0
Q. Q) Q. +:;
~ J::: C) ~
0- c: Q)
3: :G.e:2
cu c: +:; ~
~ 'fii -g 8
cu"Ccu_
~J::: C')'u
... .2 c: =
o.":iE-
03:",8
- -
:s::Q)(I)...
cumQ)J2
-'0..:
(I) Q._ ~
-::1ufE
~5cn.a
.- "'" 0 Q)
o Q. U ...
"':
~
,
....
,
i.~ 'C
_f/) (I) f/) c:::
~ Q)Q)~CU
.- > Q. C:..c:
Q) 0 _.!!1 Q)"
" ~- Q) E c:
:= Q) 2S Q).c: m
8.='00.0 - g.a:::
_f/)UC:Qi
o 0 &.0 Q) > Q)
~t: ::E.~Q)~
c:co'Ce"C)"C'-
.!2 Q. ffi 1ij (;::E
a. (I) Q).- - c:::
...CU-ct=~(/)('Q
.!!'O8 ~3:Q)en
II> Q) c: . Q) _
'" II> Q) ~ LJ'S; Q)oE~ELb"C~~
~f/)'CEo>c:c:::cn
.c:-'O 00> "'''''''
.-tUU---a..w
U >. Q) ... B ... en .
cu ;0.0 co._ cu co to
..:c: Q)C>_ 0>
- o>'2>'o2~..c: I
Q)(/)CO-enE"~
-~a:rJ'- ~O>
{Jo. II>Q)C> ~
g..Q)CpI.;"S.5:J9C)
oJ ... - C)'C - f/) c:::
co (/) c: Q) 0>'- .
.sz:.m.~..c:a..>~
t.\'!::;:.g~E.!!!'O
0": ~ 8"..:
:a::~.! _cu ..c:u
G>-C:"C..c:"'UC:::
c:::en,~~uJ2E'"
mCU.....,Q)::1 0::
.....~ua..(I)g>.!!>.
<<1'-'> E-.- f/) <<I
..: ~.- 8 ~.f; '" '"
~_U __Q)U
"':
~
~
I/)
z
o
~
o
<
C)
Z
~...I
z-
WO
:lEZ
w::)
...10
n.0
;!~
>--
0:::0
<w
1/):2:
1/)....
W
o
w
Z
-
o
w
I/)
o
n.
o
0:::
n.
Z
o
~
<
o
Z
w
:IE
:IE
o
o
W
0:::
o
o
:IE
C)
~
~
~
c
.9
1:>
10
U>
10
'"
E
10
~
~
N
II)
:IE
w
iii
II::
ii:
"'-
-10
=CtJuo
.- :J'-"'"
3:(ij~ (/)
-eJ::>mw
Q) u (1)..... C')
:5:Eo(/)C
"'C3:--~
~Ec~o
oQ)Q,)~>-
oo_E,-c
Q)~~a.m
~u>roa.O>Q;
- c
t::(I)Q)~=
o::;:Du'"
a. '" ~
a.f!:et:3:
:J 0'- 0 .
(/)<(u.oC')~
au Q) c:.~ "C
..... J::.- c: Q)
Q) .... .- co
~:5J!2~EC:
.E-76~J!:!~
'E 0 c: E Q) to
8c:cu,-"C-c
o 0 c '-
_;;"C't'-cu
'0 co 5. Q) "C "C
c: = .'" Q. c: c:
::::I.!!! . cu m m
o ~ m E -00
U._ 0.- U)
z. .2: - .~ :g
._ ~ '" '" u 0
UO')(/)~ffi~
IV ~ 0 US Q)
~ _ "'> a..- 10-
-~o(/)~.=
m'~a.~8
J:: c.. E .11 c: ~
f- C/) ._ ._ ._ .....
~
.,;1 N
09
'E
'"
'"
CT
'"
u>
.c
'"
u>
~
10
'"
>-
'"
c
o
'"
o.
~ E
u> '"
~-
~ u>
- >-
'" u>
:5(1)
",::;:
-~
~O
-<(
~O
'I' '"
e:5
0-
- 0
01:: c
190
U)+::
_.!1!
~ro
.: in
D.!:
N
N
","E .
~rot--
-",'"
>-c'"
~ .cmT"""
",'" -
Q) ~ c: Q) en ~
m (/).- (/) u Q)
a.... .- co::!2 ..0
....-0 -00
"C 0 '0 0 c: "'C D.J::. ....
o_;<lJCUffic"'oU
J:: c: c: "C'- Q)
U'J'EctlQ)0Cu)'-
e OJ U).o.~.f!'-= g'
.,c.:J:::=owEQ)'-
f-C'"_'-c w.r.u
Q) 3:w-__c
Q) (/). ... c: U) OJ
,-.cEI/J.~~:>':VE
u: :J J!:! ,9 r.n '- en "C E
rn f/) (;) C::J .-
Q) '- :>.._ 8 (.) en U'J 0
:5mcnmc:w:!So
_ ~ (/) 1i) .- = c:: 0 3:
o ..... - Q)
Q)::!(/'J c:-O "0'-
~c~::;:",o<("5iii
.!!!Ooc:::Ec:<.>o'-
a> :>.<( - ~ ,Q Q) ~ m
i-Qi f'\ 0<( :Jm..c:U:J
_- (/)i-- c:
wmQ)()CtJJ!:!e>>Oc:
.~ E..c:_ Ecum c::E m
~.)(=o >,'EC!).!:::
weOL...'EC::JQ)GJ
.c- a.. C\'I Q) co UJ .c: :5
Q) c..C CU 0_ 0_
c.. co.Q :>. Q)'- <( _.5:
Em Q) L... C) U')
t::_c:Q.c: .Q)C
8 ~ ~ 0 e>'c ~ ~ .Q
(0 -t:.-- en
CUt E en.:; ~ t:o':;
_Q)Q)tU_CCU Q)
m"C15.~omt::"C....
.r:. c E _ en Q) cu t:....
1-:J._m~"C~Q).E!
roc
;.-
'"
.c
N
N
.:;.-?y
'"
c
10
~
CI>
u; "C - u:i
comen~
Ero"'-
E '" c
CTO
~ t; 'c E
-Q)"5><
5"C m'(jj
- c
- 10 0>;<
10 c '"
u> "'.- c
o a.'"
a.ot:Q)
e~.2=
a. "'c
en t:.-
E....m~
~ ~ -:;:
0>.- u> ~
02 t:
.... a..!!! 5
a. Q) a.:;::;
~ ~ c:d~
o-t:Q)
~ i!J.E:!2
mt::;::;~
'" 0:: '" 8
~ '" c
m"CtU_
a. .-
Q)"5 e>g
.... .- t: ...
a.~ iE -
0~ro8
- -
:t:Q)en....
mmQ).E!
-"'~
I/) 0.- ~
ts::Juit:
Q)t:-....
....... en::J
.- ~ 0 QJ
o 0. 0 ....
'"
N
,
N
,
"" c
.c"'", 10 g
t:~t:c.. I
.!!!T""m,-CI)~
a.. ti;co.2:! mm
'- Q).~ en ~ T""
,!! >. 0> Em gen
CI) _ .Q ,ft t:
10 ~ .. .-
:! "~en tU :s
~ ",.S u; "C
t: - -.-
oc>"5~>..c
.- -00. 0
:E!"E Q) E.!!! fa
tI):J-Uo::JC:::
"CCI)o~
Q) _ .... t) >.
.=-omo m
LJ...!!..c-E5
Cl)Q)otnQ)
- -::J t:1i)"C
Z.~U>Eroc
t5 _._Q)m
010-
Q)o.s::.-.="5
..c >. - t: t:
-:CCl)~~tU
Q).- Q) Q) t: c:::
_ en >.... Q)
~~~o.Ea;
o.a.Q)Q)Q..:J
::J"C.c;.Q.~
o9ffiOc!1!::;:
t OQ)Q)t:
o .:E'~"C m
ta:~C)tn5t1)
Q) 0 10- -
t: ~~'o en~
roEI-O::~ro
mE .~.~~
.s::.OCDmi)m
~om.c....W
'"
N
>
ID
en
Z
o
~
o
c:(
C)
Z
~...I
Z-
wO
:EZ
W::J
...10
0..0
:E~
>-
a:: 0
c:(W
en:!:
en I-
W
o
W
Z
-
C
W
en
o
0..
o
a::
0..
~
,"",
::> c:
oR
.!:::: 0
<('"
'"
w
:5
<=-
'"
0",
- '"
'" w .
c:0li)
.Q OJ C')
r/)C:~
"S; ~ ~
~-:v
",.c:.c
Q)~O
rn==t)
8.Eo
0::>>-
a.a:;.c
~ '"
w", c:
-S c: ,Q
Q)<<I'5
.~ E (5
15 co (I)
c: "C ~
-= c:
os-g
-UJ",
II::
'" ", W
'U)og
_.c:",
o '" c:
~ ~ .-
.- .c. "E
o~o
~
'"
:5
'" .~
",
g~5
E 'ffi:i1i <=-",
E =s > co c:
oc-e!:gm
!r! .!: Q,) Q.I C)
it: (tJ .c ~ '2
(J-c-Cm
oQ)~Q)Q.J
~ .~ ~ :S ~
C)Q)c.c=
....\t::-.c
~ ~ B 'i 5-
~"'C ~ Em
6WJ!!2<:
Q..cU)~t:
0.-- .E
:]Q)u"C....
(/) ~ ~ c: 0 .
0,- ro .... In
",,,, C>
c:-g-oC)G.Jo>
mQ)c:<:g~
i= "'0",-
Q.)= -z c:....
.>g"E<"E~
~6.gCl)OE
16Uc::-g"C~
.c. ~s m c:
.....~. UJ ro c:
C:U",OC:'-
oaJoU.Qg
"'O"c..c:Q.!5;
cu.....U)<(-c.
en m!! Q) ~ 0
~.c...r::..c: Q)"C",
.....---....
",~
am
..c :0=
If) 'c
OJ .....
~
.c: c:
- W
", W
w.c
Z .~ UJ
> '"
0 W.c:
~
~ .s="5
c:( co.- .
~.c:o
C "'i=u
Z "'oc.
W W <(
'" x
:E 0-- Q)
a. ", .c:
:E oc:-
~w>-
0 0. o..c
0 a.
~<"O
W -c:w
a:: (1)'_ 't
t-oR
0 oWo.
0._ ::>
0 ~ g.~rn
:E "''''",
u ~ c
C) :i o a. '"
C(
:::I ~"E-g
a ""'i=
", w
II: Q) C:._
.c:"'>
< ~U)~
~
",I M
1::
'"
a.
~
.g~"'C
~ w
Q)~:2c
~(/)E;m
c: en.........
m~Q.",
:E:gwo:
cn(U.cg
ow32::>
Q)..c :] 0
"e- u ,g 0
c.'5."'~
e>>.E't(3
.5 .~ &.-0
C..c: Q) c:
ffi-'-ctJ
c.-w<(c:
:5 0
'"ffi ..... -' '00
'0 ~ ~.~
:!i -'0' E
CI) c a. E
,2 o.
~o~()2
-(1)-0)"'
o .!:::: c: c: "'C
... "'C 0 'c Q)
.....c. jt! c: ....
cu:t:::-cm..2
15==~a:.2
E.c: w w
u C)..c:.....
~ ffi.5 -.~
-0::&.85.
Q; >. CO -'" e
.....cu oc..
a::wO""'-mc.
o.c '"
~
'"
w
Q)n;....w
.c.~QJ.c.
-m=-
"0 > 0 I::
c: Q) 0 .-
mo--c
....-....jH
cu-orn
c..CD "'C .....
.Q 0 'E en
Q) ~ 0 >.
> ~ u;:;
~-.-=: ii
.c:'E~m
o co n:J ....
C:O.bD.
"'CD",,,,
II: .-
- '"
>ocm(/)
.!9Q)E~
o 5.-,,,.~
a>.Q'O..!.
.J::Q)Q).J::
..... >...,.. D:I
.c Q) ~ ==
~O c..o
~:t::'Q)-
~~:56 .
o ro _ -- c
;:.=om.5!
:=:c..
~c: 5.5.c:
()cu:.o::o-o
~cuQ)c
GJoc:ocu
:;c...2Jenct::
......e:fic>.
2Q)'OcuS
I-~~:;O
N
'"
,;(- ?J
.
-
CO
~
..
"
"0
.l:
..
e
~
,
",
c:
Cii '"
(;) 1:J _ uj
m.!!en.s::.
EE"'~"E
0"0
~ ~'2 E
-:: Q) ~.?S
.e-g.....en
- '" ","I<
'" c: w
~8.:cc
c.ocQ)
e~.2:5
a. ", c:
E '" c: .-
"'cu.c.
~ ~ ~~
",'-0 '"
o ~ c c:
~ c...5! 0
c.. GJ Q.:.;::::;
~.J:: OJ ~
o......cQJ
i= Xi 'e :!2
mc::.;::::;~
ft, 'S "C 00
~ ..... c:
m"Cco_
a. .-
Q)-UOJg
~ .- r:: ...
a..c:iE-
,g'=s8
:a::Q)U)~
mmGJ.E
-;nR:5~
......:J ~ C
(,)c.sg~
~ cu en :J
aa.8~
~
""
,
M
,
Iii
w
it:
~
ID
:i
Lh "C ffi _~ E
mca. OJ Q,)G.J
G.J--ro~en.s -;n=.
.c~1ijQ)ro~Q)cu_r::
c: m.y en .c (;) 5 Q) 5 ~
..!2 >. OJ mE gU5:J.E:5a..
Q..-.2 enc- ._~
~r!", owEi=.s
GJ en'- ~ S -en .c Q,) en
en It:: Q):.o::o.~.ti"""1ij~ ro
COOJ3~>GJ5>'ro~
:E'E-g c..,'" _ '" E <=-
<=-::>.c:Eg'5g'o<=-w",
ro'Co .c.._~~.c.s
~ en ()CE..c.......-
:9-cm 0 E ffi.-== g...J
...JGJ - - GJ 'C
enQ)-t5 OJ,S c..u:5:2,$
--::J.Een"C~ :Jro
~c..EU)E<<JC::Coo"C
() .......- GJ m ..c c..
Oca..... -JctlO)en~
Q)Of;~.5: .Q).~-c:
=~C/)Q)U)..c:>E~ca
Q>:9Q)~cgm:.;::::;.E_
......U)>~Q)ro.J::"Cwo
~1!JJ!io.EII:;:C:Ciiw
o.c..WGJc..>.3:ro.J::g
:J"C..c:;.2cuU)c:-cu
.sffit)c:~ouB-g:2
1:: O~w '!!!.r!"'5,
o-O-:E,-"'-g e 0 -
:t:Q>C!)OJscac..-.!!!"C
cv 0 - """ _ U) c:
c: Q) m GJ GJ cv-- cu
c: W.c:'u III -'" '" ~ >
cuEI--'::~('QO.aro~
roE .~.~~:5g"5~
.J::o<OQ)ijj:('[J~o.=.cGJ
~ (0)..0 ...w_ U)().c
~
..=1 ""
>-
en
II)
z
o
i=
U
<
C)
Z
i=...I
z-
wU
::EZ
w:J
...10
D.U
::E~
>--
o::U
<(w
II):I:
11)1-
W
U
W
z
a
w
II)
o
0.
o
0::
0.
z
o
i=
<(
c
z
w
::E
::E
o
U
W
EX:
()
o
::E
C)
'" .
_-t:
'" ::> 0
;;oa.
'0 ~-5j ~
-
"E ~ ~ 15
'" 0::>
o >-._ C
Q)c<nc
'" VJ '"
<=,,,,Bu
~.~.~ 0
:Q"E"C:;
-I m >-C!)
",<::
Q) Q) ro Q)
~ ~- .....
- 0::>
-gniw'5
E--
co ;; "5 ro
uQ,J(/)-
o~~o
:;!2wt::
CJ.2~~
'" '" VJ
=1ij-cit'D
~ --
~g.~Tj
'j ..... U) c:
a.",::>
~ c....... 0
on:l-SO
~~~B
0--"'0
::n;oOJ
_ -'"
!9uitnm
VJ '" <:: '"
...... Q) 0 C
~ U) :~ .E
.!::: 2 ~ fl)
0"-10-..0
N
.r
,;;
-
-c
o
E
II)
w
ii1
~
IIJ
::i
VJ
(/) m Q)
~.......... .!:2 ~ _VJ
mS cn.c en
>-...... Q) 0 Q)
_'ffi~o19 2.
U) ::..""" C CO 0....
m::-Oo.,C'C......a>Q}
-0"""0 .........
.E ..... Cf) ~.~ 6 u .a
-:0(1)......5:0:::::;02
Q)....c:n::::J....ro~.....
VJ '" ffi 0 13 E ,n 0
t:"'C .0(1)...........-
oc-5m-;;;,EQ)"O
c.m ....c Q)
(/) 1i.i Q) "'0 (/)._..c. IV
~ :c~roc>""'c
en ~.ti.i ~..c.~ c:o:..Q)
- ......(/)-o.c~.s::.
~_ O"'O::Ii ro-
~ 0 Q.-o If} cis Q)
,g~~ffi3i5'"'~.,;
-I ._ .9:! (1) ..c Q) en ....
Q)>>C:~o..com
..c Q) Q) ~ .-...... 0 "C
................ o~..c 0 Q) c:
c:oc:m~-....m
~ "5>"'" ~ .0 1n'g..8 en
~.8~.!!1,",~- '"
VJo~Q)Q)om~=
.... ..........c::l!
::J- >-o-.c'5.!:-
oc:",EC:"'o'Eo
5.Q 25-'- c:5 00 c:
O-E;;tn.....- 0
CO c'E~~=;;
U~o::liQ)::::Jcno~
~ "'E!:2 E~"iO 5~
~ 00.0::::10'-
"E.8~~o~U~
Q) 0 11) Q) > ""0.2:...... 0
.c~C:.cQ)C:"C~~
t-.....O......"OCO.=_.....
..,1
N
.r
'"
.S vi
o E
~~
0",
VJ e
~a.
U'E
'" '"
.s::. E
- '"
t:0
8.-[
a.",
::> ~
VJQ;
",'"
<:: ~
"''''
",a.
<:: ::>
::>",
- <::
0'"
-
'" '"
::Ii .S:
.E 0
'E~
0<::
00
",E
"5 ~
,g ~
VJ VJ
'0 "ffi
<:: ::>
::> <::
0<::
U '"
~
ori
Iii
a::
~
II)
;>,
<::
"'''' '"
::><::",
:S CO '0 -m
6~i05
o ~ 0 CO
c: 0)- "5
Q) g-Ci>.J::
E "'u
t:: c> 0 c:
'" <:: ~
g.'c .E .!!
O~ui~
en 5~ OJ
~ Eu.E
o
~~"O+->
,~~ ~ ~
:crnQ)~
::> ~ 0
~Q)"OQ)
.!:::! I:: > to
-g~co-8cn
m ~ - ,-
a.VJE>
135~e~
1::......._ ='
5'" 8' VJ.s::.
t.)ffi~t5U
a.tO<::
~~+-> c......
.- to c: E '"
U1i)Q)'-1i)
'" . E '" '"
="C"'.~~
<::0_
+-> ::::J CO m I::
"'-c.g>o
~.E~I::g.
~
...1 ori
o<-?~
E",<::
m~.m
-<u
'Eo~
m O).E
"" '"
::3'- t/J
VJD '"
<:: .-
8<::""
m==
Q)(I)~
.s::."'<::
-.s::.o
",-a.
sa m
-",~
-g!5"g1::
m '5 m ,Q
1::-+->'0
'm ~ ,g 2
Q;+->1iicn
~ 0)'- I::
o.EO D 8
-",-
Q) ~ I:: t/J
::3 co Q) Q)
I:: 0) E:.;o
,- Q) Q) ,-
c ~ 0>13
8t:~J!!
0",
",:t::::;:E
"5Q) ~
o "C ~ 0>
.cQ)20
rn..... co ~
=.!!1~1l.
(,) Q) Q) ~
I:: ~..... Q)
::3"Ct/J.....
8ffi~~
N
ori
.....=="C
I:: (,) Q) I:: ...
Q) I:: t/J 0 w
E::3CO:.;o ....~
Q. o..c co .!! ctI
0'-'>.'5,0 co
Q'jQ)"U)x-3:ro-
>.c::::JQ)Q)2oo
Q)+->O ::3t/J
"C -:.;::;;uI::CO.&;
CD~=t;~E3:'5
+->:=Q)-ocoO
~~~a(,)~(I)
a._ Q) (,) "C 0 Q)
E -....."c
oau:V::len+->
(,):;:;co-.,gt::l::
o '" 0 '" VJO .-
-E-3: =-
Q),!!!"C.2!15Q)m
~ U CD en I:: - ,-
mQ)Q)<U::3I::";;:
- ~ I:: 3: 0 Q,);::-
;;:",,,,,,UE13
~1::"c.6 .Q.co
_CO+->Q)"C.Q-
,- .... Q)
Q)1:6~~>6
E Q) '" "'.-
:.;::;; E.!!! ~.... "0 m
_..... (1)'- U')"O E
om~-5~I::~
-~a."'-"'o
C - 0
::3~EQ.'=~~
O!"'a. ._'"
5!J!"''''~E<::
'V;;Ji'U_omCU
Q).!!,!!!rno~_
.c U') c..!!! N I::
-ca 1::t::Q)
<:: ~ :2 "'.- 8. E
Q) ::3.&;.n _
> ca 0-':::: a. co
t5o~5~~~
N
ori
~
.8
'"
VJ
'"
'"
E
'"
!!:.-
C')
ori
,
'<t
,
ui
-~cb
'" '" ~
:el::o
"'--
c.ffi"O
'" E m
em I::
Q) ~ Q)
VJ_.s::.
'" -
a.Q)m
'" "'",
.... ;.~
;>,,,,VJ
cU)~
o Q,) a......;
'" '" E Qj
"5mQ)3:
o 'i "0 U)
~ '" <:: '"
_I::CU_
I:: 0 .... U
m - v. m
~m~'::'
- 15 '2 6
I:: - C) (,)
~.VJ 8 0
.....bQ)~
m ,- ~ Q;
!!!u o~
"'Q)$l
"O.ccoQ)
",- .s::.
-ou-
0-0 Q,)
<::c: -
'" o::;:.!!!
,e:.;::;;C)C5
-;;.2Q)0>
<(gfi~
C')
ori
>-
m
II)
z
o
;::
o
oct
C)
Z
;::...1
z-
wO
:EZ
w;:)
...10
0.0
:E~
>--
0::0
octW
II)J:
II)~
W
o
w
Z
-
C
W
II)
o
a.
o
0::
a.
Z
o
;::
oct
C
Z
w
:E
:E
o
o
W
0::
o
o
:E
C)
11>
15 Q)aQ)
.2 -c-g
~'O.2t::11>
l1>$g8.E
- '" .- 11> E
:=:Q)'Clo,;..o
3: C> c: Q) U
. g co 0) 0
S UJ - ca.....
'en ~-~.~ ~
'>oQ)~o
.- - I "C:t::
Dr:::= G>
en ,Q 0 ~ 3:
c: -... 11>
._ 1I1~' C:._
~ u.-.- >
~ C.!: '" 11>
.....-0 "-
c: .- c:
.- co> 0 en
O):.o::::;..~:;c:
c: c: \II CO .-
ww=:JE
_acmo
1: c..'- > ~
Q) en Q)::]
E'OC:11>
c: 0 f/).=
~ CO:.;:::; 0 Q)
m _ m..c J::
0.- -.....-
Q)Ocn__
0(00)00
UJCcn"t
UJ OJ'-..... CO .
-t: c: 0"'5 c.~
o Q) == en V} (J')
~jg6~COT""
.!::'! a. E ~ () ...:
:ceQ)coo~
:] c. en.5 ~ 0
c..g.II1E(,?t>
C:._ 0
Q) Q) 'n; Qj Q)
~=-ca.=.S
~
<D
Iii
CI
<
Z
~
o
u u>-t:;
o ooc:
Q)::!; E ~.-
.c" Q)mVJ
c: .0 c:
o Q) m.Q
-.s::::. 'C...._
00..... -SctlCO
'S; VJ c..-",
._"'C co 0 Q)
OC:-3:,-O)
co UJ_Q.c
C)=c:to'i::
-2 0 ,2 0 ..... ~
II. C..... C. UJ;:;;:;
....:::1 co Q)'- c:
~01i)a:::c:o
'c, 0 0> _ .2 E
C:.9c:~roQ)
w~;::C:.2=
- L! . C m
c:~ <(~~
Q) - ....., .-
E"t: .:J) ..co 'E
~ c 'J) _ OJ
111 c:. - ~ E
0. 11> '"
Q) '- .t)_~
C-C ,; .;; 0 c..
c: "011> E
(/J ca "- (I) .-
~ "C:Eo....
o~~C!)e-.g
~ ~ UJ ~ 5.~
.2'iii8.-Q)O
:gij;e.=~"C
Q. 0 c.. c:
-mi .cu~
~-oQ)u~E:J
-!!.c:ffi;m:;
_o3:....ur-_
caw.JU(1)O>...
..c:1-.=c~==e....
"C 0 ~ Q) c.=
~
..;1 <ci
~
J2
c:
o
-0 'en 'P
Q) 'S; -
~ is ~
8:g>Q).EJd
m,t: E (I) co
cnO) 01:5 (I)
11111>011>8.
..c: .5 ~ '0' 0
0> ~~
-gc:>.c.a.
cow~"'ffi~
..;cu-C:U
~~~~Q)
b . en:S :s
'I: (I) Q)"C_
ot>~co.2
't: Q) :::I O>..c
c..'0' 0 .S: ==
Q) "- In 'Js 3:
..c:o.
-Q)g>>.c
"C .s::. :s "E>.Q
Q)-cc:'O
~o_::S:C2
O' L..._
"t:Jm~8UJ
c: L... ._ U c:
Q)~"Em8
>,Q)Q)-
-U)"'C="t:J
'" .- ~ c:
:::J L... 0 m
.2.E -"'C
> Q) c: e:
~g>:::Jm.2
c..- c: .TO
_ -g +:; J!:!.~
.- c: ..c c.
g.28.!!0
:::J .- L...
09::::~~
OO~lI1m
N
<ci
~
o
.nr ~ U)
'OE c:m
~o()~m'O
::s 0 :::J1i5.Q)
~t5~u5e-
Q)L...me>- Q..
O)Q)_.:::Jm ~
~>CDQ)..c"5Q)"E
.- m~~"t:J~ O)GJ
~~--Q)()mE
-u m ~ ~ ~ c: .5 1:
-1i5 ~GJL...~m
C:.-"t:J Q) c: Q) 0 C.
~> 11> ~ _ en 11>
Q)muooQ)-UO
L...~ 5"T'" 3: Q) '"
...,-.....Q) "t:J
o..c::2 E.5c:t:
O>ui::> .ag
Sc:Q).5o~C:>
"- L... U) m > c:::>
a:;.s!mL...Q)Q)_.2
c. '" . >-..c: E 0 :c
E Q) U) > _ Q) ::s
8 ~ E 111 _ > ~c..
c:~~::semQ)
_ .- .0 11 0. E ..c:
m(/)e"EmEE- .
..c:-o.~ '-::s>,C:
- ~ "'C Q) CI)..c.Q
'" 'o~ Q) Q) 0)= _ en
Q) C)L...Em .....-
"0 a. ~ C) GJ .5 ~ ~ 5
C:_.ffi.E g ~- ~
()ffi-6::S0"t:J5~g>
OE "00_ 0.'-
~ (/) .... 1:) L...
'"" 11> _ 0> '" 11> ... 11>
>..., c: 1:) -. CD
~ 0.2 .5.ffi c: '0 ~ c:
Q) a.~'8 E.2~ :B"g>
t=. .5 a.~ ~ 5 ~ z w
N
<ci
~-11
~O1:)
.- _ C
()~ra
~~!i(/)
- ~ .111 m
TO .0'> 5
~L...mo
- c.- (/)
"C >.E (/)
ffi ~ () m
EE .g E ~
o.l1>..c:
8 ll'> cn-
Q)"II"""" GJ L...
L... C. 3: .E
.E .E.5 CJ
(/) CD (/).5
Q)~_"C
j-CC
c: 11>::>
+:imE-
CL...Q)C)
80> c:
"Co+:;
c: ~ m
() G1 c..~
o Eo.
~ 'g.- e
011111>0.
_0>0.
Q) C. m ctI
:5 ~.5 "0
- 0 ~ ffi
~ m"C 3: .
o="CoJ!:!
'muQ)-:Q
:V5~t:~
..c:1-R.G1~0
~c:,"o.
'E
11>
'" E :5
- Q. LL.._
ffi~'s55
E > L... LL. Q.
1: Q) Q) a. L...
m"CsC)~
g-'O 8,.5 m
Oc:,SE-;
g>2t:8:5
.- m 0 Q.
c: .... 3: ::s CJ
ffiQ_Q).E
O::~~:5.g
"C c: C) Q)
c:.-'g.5o
n:s Q) m ::; C
"'.~ ."0 EI1>
":'::"Cen~
:1:5 a;.!! 0 E
-uctl::so
C:R"'o
.2S::s~.E
2S II) .~
::s 0 !:!: Q.. "'C
a.-oE.!!
.'0 "- 8m
~ ~ a. u .3-
C:C:Q)co+:;
~CD="Cffi
U::;;.5 ffi 1:
Q);; (/) oeD
..c: .- c: Q):t: 0>
-~omQ)1
- L....- C ll'>
o::s'O.-Q)o>
II:: 0 l1>'Eiiio>
mC:'S'8'O~
en.... 0.... c..>-
o c.. :::J LL.
'0
~
,..;
,
L{)
,
.:.;
<
(.)
II)
i:i:
11> 11>
..c:..c:
--
o ~
c:.E
.- 11>
'" c:
c: 0
0'0
:We:
~ 11>
'e- ~
0.",
_111
c:..c:
11> '"
Em
0.
0":
Q;G
> 0
~o
~ '"
111 11>
11>-
>-m
,'0
LOo.
-::>
0,,-
c:5
o
;",
11111>
~8t~
c:"-5
.-.2.....
m2S~
..c:::>_
I-c..o
~
...:1 ,..;
>-
m
I/)
z
o
i=
o
c(
C)
z
i=.J
z-
wO
:EZ
w~
.JO
a.. 0
:E
~
>--
IX: 0
c(w
1/):1:
1/)1-
W
o
W
Z
-
Q
W
I/)
o
a..
o
IX:
a..
z
o
i=
c(
Q
Z
w
:E
:E
o
o
w
IX:
o
o
:E
C)
,g
'"
Q)
Q) ::J
.<= '"
- .-
4) 01: .
.c-O'[:
_....00)
,g~U-~~
(/) CO cf
~ E <I: Qj
..... (1)- ~
5=(1)"0
"'~.<=
~.!!:~
::r::~n:I:J
co :5 0
cn-gm85
Q) (Q :s ....
16 - U) Q)
u ~ c.....
0.... Q) co
=oo~
10 U- -
"C~cnm
c: (/J ~ 0
CUn:lo.Q
t:f->-
0....:::> 0
c..~.~ .S:?
g.~ :is g.
t/);::>::I-
O c.. Q)
..... >--.r.
go_
m Q).... (J)
::I 0> 0 U)
:SmoG.)
cm~-o
01::---0
0_010
~
a;
,g
'"
. Q) '"
Q) '0 0
0",
~ Q) Q)
o m 0
~ co ffi
~Q;-g
....15(1)
~ ~ c.
Q)-~
- 10 ~
~OQ)
:::>.20
>>....-5
o Q) Q)
"'.<= ~
(1)00
m _
10"
~ '" '"
2 co ~
'=<(~
Q):S: 0
:sum
~
a:
w
I-
~
.<= Q)
~="ffi
e=~
:::"j: c.."':
_~ O.!!!
~o~~
'" ~ Q)
5:>"0"0
u~....Q)
Q)Q)t:
co.2:.J::. 8-
.cot:e
.... C'O .2 ._
...1
~
a;
Q)'<=
-g=:g
10 m.<=
c.5 ~
o"E ~
:.;::; m
10 m'"
.2 a>.Q
m~-
>U)~
Q) t: ~.
I.- ~ _
SQ)8
c:~0>
Q) 0 '"
E .'"
t:~m
10- Q)
c."''''
Q)Q)>-
0"'''
!!! ::J
1:>>0.--:
'" '" '"
'r:: E '0'0
"'~mCl.
10 Q. Q)
5:C:Et!
.2'- :J
Q)""'..... 0
..cOCCI)
-5Q)
.9 'c ~ -g
.... 015 co
Q) 0 ~
:::cc:~
co .- Q) (,)
E ~_'C:
00-
w m 0 .~
=..o"5~
....tcno
~o_o
Q) a..!: "5
0::: ~ .Q. (I)
~
m
Iii
....
o
o
:z:
u
II)
-
.g cu
-.<=
"'-
0>-
"
Q) ::J
:51;)
_00-",
-0
'" Q) 10
of2-=
:.;::; c..!.
m-~
o ::J
'c ~ E .
::J 10 '"
E ..... 0>0
E co .5 0
o-i"5
(,) 0:.= UJ
_.0
m"'mc=-
" G).en m
....EQ)-
10.<= '"
~ ~o ~
.e.o~Q)
J!! .- 1)
'0 ifl~ Q)
c: :;J::
50>u-
(J~~.5
",c.
~~"C ~
U 0> C:.-
::J 10 E
~ en >- E
_-cum
......... ~....
10 ~ IE ~
~CDQ)C.
.,;1
~
oj
~- "JY
ro .~ "E
c:- CD co
u:.g:5~ifl
~~OS~
10 '0 Q) co.~ c:
.> m ffi ~ Q)~
-B .~E~~
tp'E :=:S'Cn
~Q)~3t-:;::;
>-Q.E5j",~~
- Cb 0.-
c:..Q~m"'O~
Q) Q) ::!: Q) 0
u > ~ a;:: 't:
Q) Q) m-'-"'"
.... -0 ~ 'O.g2
U) _::r::._ c"'O
mO.!9L1. _
.r:Q)UJomg
....cn....cQ)..c
~~ 5j".o 0
OQ.E"'''''''
4i_t:::mcoQ)
> I!? 10 -.<=.<=
Q) ~ a. Q).2:--
'CO)Q)~.-.s
'5=CI'~';'C
c: '- C'I UJ..c: m
~.E'~8;ID
~~ffi-fic-6
Q) .jjj ii '" ::J"
~UJ _ct'I
O~-gg>~",
~om:cem
co.... c:o.
CJ'J Q.. UJ co c...c
0) 0.. ~ 1;) m g?
J::mg:;....ct'I
~::!>0.gJ::
N
oj
>-
...._ -0)
0) 0 0 J::
C. t: 0) - 0) u:i
0- .... '0'- .r;-
Q).~O)....co_g
> CI ~ 0..= O..c:
Q) (/) 0) - 0
'C~co.r;l:-UJ(/)
;; _'- co
J::.r;o,-U "D
g~oJ2Q)Q)~
m~.!!!UJ=g.c
OCf/}coc.UJQ).!2
~6~~~&;~
Q):.o:oU_:g"DO
C3.~Q)mc:-c:
_o=~_~.Q
m ~ UJ >-.g -.!!
CJ'JCCi)C:1;)E~
~ EO) &~:c ~ 5-
_ C)o- Q)
_:J:J Q) 8~.r;
(.) UJ (/) O.r; ---
19!!()co~O
"'800SUJJg-
-::Eg.~~~
.51!c>g;~E
('G c: CD ('G m c: .-
m.r; :::J-
COQ)_~Q) 'C
l:-.r; ~_E~C
._- Q) :.o:o.r; co
U~~~.r;o-
Q) Q) C:'- 0 co.!!!..
J::,-Q)32:JQ)-c
_-00(/)....0
_ en c.J::. Q).t::.
co-o'-=:3>-
.r= '" "'.- '" 10 Q)E
t-m<l:~::J'<=
N
oj
iii
-'"
0""
.~ cb"E
o ~ 10
5. c. .8
-Q)
",.<=-
.0 - 8
_-.c .r;
Q) 0 0
~J!!'"
",,,
Q) '"
c' E 10
gE=
OJ 0 g
c..O:J
E~o1ii
o .~U ~
0> '- ::J
C)~.E<
'~B~iV
COl.C)21O
~O) en::
en 0> Q) 0
._ T"'" s:;-
>-~='C
-gT""'0~
_ >- Q) m
(/) '3 (/) .9-
- 100
C -, Q):.o:o
'0 c: - c:
'-' 0 ~ CO
-g Q) " .!!!
-E"'",
o 10 ~
~ E =.!!!
s:;com>
~J!!-6~
'"
m
,
CO
,
>-
10 -
"'1:1
c:: ~ 0
Q)Ci)--
"._ _10
CClc..
:J .- c:
- 0 Q)
>-8c.."
" ~.-
::J.r; UJ-
-o,-Q).!!!
enU'):J78
Q) 0'"
>.r;cno.c
"'~'CC:~
~ J: c: "D
~",m!ij~
8.2 u_ 0
0.E; E.~ c:
-(/)-0
CD .- c: 0..
.cQ)CI~:J
::0 -!co 15 'w >-
OQ)'<=
.<=~Q.
6 ~ 0 ~ ~
;:;~cnQ)C)
.9! en c=- '" 0
c..Q)cooE
E.<=- Q)
O_c(/)'C
o . Q)E U"
_~ me:
c...- Q) c.. m
EO [j E .
o Q) .--
5.= ~ ~ ij
Q)c:5-E
'0 Q) .c=- g-
E Q) 10.--
"'-- Q)
e&.Effi6;
Cl.1:0:!2"
'"
oj
>-
In
I/)
Z
o
~
U
c(
C!)
Z
~...I
z-
wU
~z
w::l
...10
D..U
~~
>--
a::U
c(w
I/):t:
1/)1-
W
U
W
Z
-
C
W
I/)
o
D..
o
a::
D..
z
o
~
c(
c
z
w
~
~
o
U
w
a::
U
o
~
C!)
~
ro ,.,
"(;)"cc..Q Q)
~o .r::
..o~:::~ .....cu
cn..oC'tlIi: Cs"c,
cn .Q>:::(ij~-Ll')
--(5:=':C:+=Q)C:0')
U;oE~~mO~
~-5-'--"Cc:""
c>en.!!1en8. .QQ)
;:':::::::'Ec: wt).o
<( "0 CD 0 - U) CO 0
....c_:.;::;om '0
Q):::Jo:.cQ)~Q)O
-oQ.c:cnQ)~
l2U'Qoc:....S>.
0....(0 oeU:i"O.c
c: - ::>- en
--oc:n:JO):::JO,)
"C 0 .- Q) ::J 0 .-
$ c: !:J E ~<:: ~ ~
m ,2 B =a 'E c: = m
Q.(ij 00"" cu('Q 0.....
'uE'-C:"C c1i)
.- "C Q)'- c: ::J
c5Q) ocoe:
m_.c~J!l"CU.Q
>.J!:! ..... - ra ~ m m
"C.c2 E= (Q..r:..2>
.2 'ii) ~ e :t CD ...... ~
f/J(/)=_ cnE
0'- >'. Q)
~ c.~ ~-g ~(ij"O
..... Q) .- ......- c.. Q)
_ ..r:. 0 E U) 0)'0 II)
o--EQJJ!!..R
Q)C)~Q)E~5e
{/} c: "".....,..-.....'W
ctI'~ ~ (/J U):t::: c..
~~E(/J>.c:19"C
Q).- E.~ "C 0 en c:
....U) en:J+= co
6g8J!!(;j~>.>.
o.o.Qt!!QJ;e"g"g
::> .~ ~ U; :; E 1;) (;)
ro
(")
m
::
-c
o
.!:!
II)
..J
o
o
:z:
(.)
II)
-u =
~
~ '0 "0
is S(tlQ)~
"C 8.......0 c:.E
:;C....,(/J m~
og~m~o.~
.c co .- - 0 >. >
U).2>uro.c~~
'(:5''!;;:: Q)..c: en.....
c: E:;.-=: (1)-15 X
5"C>.:t.~.c~
um.cc>g>-;;~
~oc:g-U)
.- c...Q"'ffi ~ 1.0 '"
u2o.. cnCJ)Q)
Q)Cl.O>. cng
..c_"O"CC'II""""Q)
-oco.a:B-E
~..... "C (/J co 0
2 c: c: en= E
-Q)mQ):.;::;mO
::J E ..r:.'- u.. 0
~a.5I-EQ)U
o .- 'C .r:: 0
U)ii~criQ)-~
~ > ~ "C en ..:=
~Q)Q)moffi(!)
:J"C:2oQ...c:
u;Q,)u>..ce-m
Q):=':6-Q.Qj=
,c"Coocn-c: .
-~....~c:J2Q)1l)
c><,EoE-..c::m
8.Q) en::>g~~
:t::: U)..c: U'J
:::J CD'~ .... ~ "0 ~ ~
"0....0>0 Q)..Qm
mU)m..Qm15..m..Q
oomm"O=o~.9
~..c';C:_"O>Ou
~....CfJmomm
.,;1
ro
(")
m
0""
-ro
E;
::>-
~o
_c:
~o
;>+:1
~ro
S E
en$!
:>;C>
'CC:
E~
CIJ ro
;t::C>
~~
'Cc:
n;~
c: u
"" Q)
~ 1?15
- u
o!E
u
c: Q)
.2 ~
~c:
0..-
E.!!J
o.c
u 0
C>.9
c:_
.j'g .
0::> Q)
:SR~
LL.~_
...
m
,
I'-
,
"E
:12,
ro.9
E"E
..Q ~
o C'
-~
en.c
'C ::>
ffi en
o en
.cQ)
.....8>
.2 m
~ -
t) ~
:.at):>.
Q)C:'C
..caE
.....- 00
mm....
~~.E
.5'E ~
.- en ~
U en ~
c:::> ::>
::> U 0
8.!!1CIJ
'CQ)
~o.r::
0-;;=
Q) U 0
.r::~Q)
.....goo
_""ro
ro en Q)
'=j9~
...
m
':<-1'1
>-
ID
I/)
Z
o
i=
o
<
C)
Z
i=...I
Z-
wO
::i1!Z
w;:)
...10
0.0
1!~
>-0
~w
<:J:
~~
w
o
w
Z
-
C
W
I/)
o
0.
o
~
0.
Z
o
i=
<
c
Z
w
::i1!
::i1!
o
o
w
~
o
o
::i1!
C)
co
~
c:i
~
.9
~
J!?
~
~
c:i
~
()
u:
u.
~
~
" .,
c 0" N
O - _0 .... ~ "- 'C
._ c: H' Q) m 0 C')
f/) Q) <D J::. > 0')- 0
'S; ui.5 ..., OJ 0 ~ ~ Q) 0
;::;c:E.....c:::J oW
.......... C') CJ)"'C.~.- ....
cnCD.eC'Oo"'5 -"'C~o
c:U Q..cog>50Q)-
';:: 5 Q.) c: >-.&:. .- ~ ..... en .....
Q) 0= 0 m~o;> m- 5
., E:>:Jc>>o~
.5:_(/)=" ~c:m_E
C> m's ~ :=: f/) en'c ~ Q) C.
c: Q) ;>._ "E c: Q) >- > 0
UJ ,.,'O:S ~ C'O 8-0 m~Q)
:J '0 .- E >
2U;o>o-c"'C:t L-Q)
==mE(I).2J9C:J::.",,~"'C
m-Q)ctI (/)[0(.)--:>-
'=.9 gLt>~"'C (/) ::JU.Q'co
co-_cvcnQ)...t:
_U)QJoCOc:Oc:_.r:.....::Ii
Z;-U> ...!.,.-J::.mO__O
._1::>-_ ~V),m a.....
U 8. Q) 0.5 ~ .~ ~ u) 8 0
Q) UJ Et) ~~ (/).-:€ ~ ~
=~~Q)~ .91...(1) m
en eX 3:_c:......Q.o."ti3=
"C'- Q)...."'C Q) Q) co 0 .... "C
~t:c::E~~~Ec..~~u>
E &.'m~S oU5~16 ~....c
E e Ecn "'-: -:.;:;~~'ffi
Q) - en Q)::I: 0 c: VI..... ....
O..c"":I:<tQ):.....Q) -1n
U C') Q) - E "'C:!2 0 c
" ::Ii :::0. c: en Q) '(j) 0 0
0...... 0;> Ot.9.5.~ Q).s:: c: (.)
o ~ 0 :;::........... (/).Q
:! J:: Q) c: a. ~ 'ii) . en ~ 1:: fO
c:> - > .Q Q) .c U) :>. c: .s::. 0 ~
co Q) 11] L... '(f.i ctI ~-:.;:; ~ a. ::>
Q) ~::Ii-U)-:=f/) (1)""0
J::. I... 0 ..... co 0 0 (.) 'x OJ ._ co
~.EJ::.'jj)= o.~~ m=:; e
gl
~
c:i
~
- If) J:
o J: c>'O
Q).:c _ E c: c: C
....C)"'C C> Q)Q) G>Q)Q..'c::m
co.- Q) c: == .c .s:; ...I:: CL 0
3=EgaJ ';::mm3: 15::::-~:=:-o
co_ .c-oo.cc. c::)o - cGJ
CI.Im'2 c::!:-o"Coc ~"CO!E
.- ~ ~ "C m c: 15 u::: c: .- C Q) ~ c: E c
~-~:; o_lom.~m16_m Q)
5 ~ ,., 8 ~ E '0 .:- "= '3 C>"t:J ~a. 'E :2
'U)c1li ~'t:Jo f1)~ :sg.0:E'!!:!Q)
.:; m ::) of CI.I a.&: g> 0 C).!Q ~..... u .0
is E .2 :E ~ :fi:;> ~." x.!.! . c> IE -
_'tO~~Q)~~j~~GJIf)~~.5a~
"". ~ c.-_.....-Q) 'ca..-
.C GJ 0. ~ _ -g G,) m.5 C ::= GJ ..... .!Q ~ CI.I
~o.CI.IO._~.&:CI.I't:J.~.&:o.-~CI.I~E.
Q) "C m ;; ~ - C C c: 0)'t:J E 0 If)
"-o,&:o::)ucomw::)oC: Q)_0GJ
.- "Cm-~.-'- mm.&: .--
0).&:c_2m;::=~GJ~ ~-G,)'t:J.o
cCl.lmm ~'~"CE~-~o-.~-e
WG,) .-m->c - ^ ~mCl.loC.
~ _'t:J o::=; -0)"- ~Q)~
~;~Q);~co~Ec:E~-'t:JCl.lm
c: 0 E c .5 .2 >- G,) m .C..... ~ CI.I GJ
G,).5~m.-~-c:>-_0-CGJ~~C)
E -~-_u-o~-E->"-"
CI.I ... X c'''' Oc CI.Im"-'.-
~co~EQ)::)EQ)~omm=O>-E
mo ,,- - c> E~~~-"8
0.'- - .- - c 0 CI.I c m ~~ .0"::: m
GJU~~G,)o-~m me ~-Q)
o::)3::mE"C't:J ~'E::::JCl..ccQ)m.o
CI.Ii gOQ)G,)~oGJC .2.2.&:50
~~~~CI.ICI.IC~=CI.I::=;~~.!Q- -
~ ... _mo~'~GJC:c:_>_~~
oQ)~Cl.lmoo'--~~o'c~'-Q)oo
~~-1: .a~c.uoRD":J~
_(I)o"C.~ o-o::=CI.I_ECl.lo.
u::::J 0. Q) Q) .... GJ.- ~ _ c "". -
=-X~'E~GJ~~.~ O~~5Q)"C
~~C:_G,)'c.!Qm.&:Em~~~~~~
Cl..;OmE~_Q)~_CI.Iu Q)0WCI.I
cQ)~QJeG,)CI.I G,)&.!E0.St: ~
Q)~CI.I>~o.~Q)"C~om~C)o~"C
t5. 8.'fi5 ~.~ g-w.Q ffiw 5..=utTI~oa1
co
~
c:i
~
~ ~ CI.I UcP
._ Q} C
_~:t~~.~-g.!Q
'E~-'~Ec>m;
QJ Q) (I) ~
E 5.:I:ro'tozj'tio
1:E'- c:Q)-
m c~8.::I'EQ}
C.80E o.,u
., '0 U E .-
Om~~o_Q}~
_0 ~co-Q)
~c:;~rn~o.E'?
~ Q}'-..a Q} - -
~o en "C .- ~ CI.I .- 0
Q}CCI.I~_Q)....!..
~OCI.I-U)..aQ)
uc.uRc>~ >
=1:J"C c::::Jo!!.
-e coo'c g:: ~JY
... m~ 'ffi -. I::: Q)..a
Cl..Q}CI.IGJ_um3::m
Q} ~ ~ g>.5 0 _.Q a.
~m~mm CI.I Q)
-o.-~E~Q)mo
_ GJ in'- ~ U
O~G,)=_"-,,,::::,::J....
Q) 0. ~ ::::J.... .......-....
~ ::::J_OQ)"C2_
.- 0 - ~ Q) ""
"C-.2~--EmGJ
=,,"t:J-~.....,~E
u 0 ... ~:t= ~ ~ GJ Q)
c._.:::_mo_~G,)
::I CI.I (tI.- o..---c
o'>c.;:.,~.!.!.,.,
u.;:::;: '0 O).~ ~ ~ ~ .0
"-I::=; c:~.!Q 3:: 3::_
~C'lC:OQ)~C -=
UcCOn;~-o~3::
'C C -. c: en
~Q)oari'G305.5c
-~t:o~-c:;:::;~Q)
_'-oco-"uoE
men o.....!. "C CI.I Q} U en
E UJc Q) - c: ~.= 0 GJ
r- -.0 m...,-cmCI.I
co
~
c:i
~
d- ! (;
- "
~~ .!2~
1ti~.aoCl..~
~ocn- c.
I.t) GJ -. "C m.'-
~5ia.C'lGJm~
a:::(!)o..="Ccc:
en mOCQ)m
_~~ ffi-EC!) Q)
'3;'0:: C:.- ...~
-"-'cniJ-..c-
mQ)- -0-=
~=Cl..L()C:c"E
o ON CI.I'-::J
.... c: (!)..- m -= >-
"Co~rr.3::'j:'!::
~:g""cn:?:-If):6
"o~E=-o.
.- .- c: m
Q) t5 C 'C 0 Q) 0
=m.2.!.!E_~
~ucEa.C:::::J
i C)c:-._.Q.!!:! 0
N ::J ::::J Q) IV GJ 0 0
'c e 'c; 1: ii) ~ 0
c:n~8 .--c::lz:.
~ _ c:nQ)_ CI.I._
....c.E~oQ}=
-. :$"'- Q.. - :c ~
'->-0-0>-
>-CJ;:;-ct'tI-C0-
-J!!cm~Q)~3
I/) GJ - GJ 0._
5"t:Ju,,'O"0"
._m~-GJ__.&;
i; e . N ::::J -.-
~_GJ.J:'coQ)_
c.oOU~32.&;O
CI.I- E ffi .5 ~ c:
ca~ 0:::: ..a~o
.r;.0"C ~ -;;
c: >- Q)::::J 0
15 lU'mj915z..a 2
S~c:-054)m~
0~J!!-.o4J~6
UJ::Cl...5!uE<(u
CO!
c:i
~
-~
:aj
"'0
:5 .,
-3:: -'
o ~ E "
_'S; CD Q)
CCI.I-E
Q) .- a.
E_Q;o
a.CJ 0')-
.Q.....c:~
~ z51 .,
>:I: Q) "C
GJ_.&;"C
't:Jc:-Q>
~ca->
2-GJO
c..,~
~LOE8:
J!!~om
0.0:: - >-
5cn5j~
Q. E'o ~
c.." IE 'iii
::::J's::I_
CI.I c: CI.I 0
~-.5 en
GJQ)en"C
>.&;.- Q)
:.w....._GJ
o .- C
CO . ~
:?:-~g5
U'o'en ;;
CO m
Q)_ -t::
~I.t)Eo
-NQ)o.
___oCI.I
mo::cc:
(3.en8~
CO!
c:i
~
>-
m
t/)
z
o
i=
o
c(
(!)
z
i=....
z-
wO
:=EZ
w:;)
....0
Q..O
:=E~
>--
0::0
c(w
t/)J:
t/)I-
W
o
W
z
C
w
t/)
o
Q..
o
0::
Q..
z
o
i=
c(
o
z
w
:=E
:=E
o
o
W
0::
o
o
:=E
CI
~C) i:
"c.5.... .!!!
:J t: c:: >
"'OC:Q,)Q)~
cu",.o
6a:~"CU
~ Q) 0..30
~.<:<:!;!::<
0.- 0 ,. (!)
Fe
r) ~9:C)
..JClJcnc..c:
.'" E~ a>'E
a..~""'..co
- C) ..... 0
c.. e en '0 Q.
m 0..- ::J
...I:: c= Q)
-~E~=
"'OOt"'C
~~mmg>
o Q) g._ 't:
c....c -. CO::J
Q.-~.c"'C
<: -
co .- c: t/) c:
>'13.Q Q).Q
~Q)romro
Q) '0' ~ .Q- Q;
..=: .... ().~ "'0
cc Q. Q,) 'E '(i)
en CO a::: m c:
~~-g158
=c.o cuii) 0
u(J)tJ) 't"-
~J,i:cnQ)",.
Oo>mcn-
U(J)c..~~~
a>~~"'O ~ro ~
..c: c:.... > _
t- ma.mc.
~
~
~
z
o
i=
<(
W
Q:
U
W
Q:
C
Z
<(
II)
~
Q:
<(
a..
-
gjui'ro
....~:5
::JuoU
~~(/)o
a> 0. .::<
_ "C '"
'u Q) Q) v
c: 0> en_
::J "'00 X
o::JQ.m
U..cec
- Q) c. Q) tri
~=1/):50)
_ - m 0>0>
tn(l)1.Oc:T"""
IV 5 CJ) 'i:: ..:
(/)._ (J) ::J Q,)
ClJ1i5'1"""""C.c
Eo=-c:.9
U)..Q ca 000
"Crol.L.~
ffi O>~ Q;.5
.5 "'0
en "C "'0 'in ~
"'0 c: G) c: ._
c::J15oo
Q,)- - 0 c:
E-g~o~
g cu 8 - E
o en Q) 0
Q) c: (I) _.0 0
....~.-..!2 Q)
ucuc..._-
o(;)[:~~
~..cQ)mo
CD g=~ ~
~em='>
t-=='i~
~I
~
~
~
.<: .
. U):'!:::D:'
t:~~- ~
ocuc:e:.. .E
'" o.n 0 .
.- CD ..... ._ c: Q) 'E :t::
"'Ca:::~oJ2=m-gc:
.... -CQ. "'Ocu~
com-::. Oc: .a
"'0 ::J C) '2' c: - m (/) Q)
ffi 2.5 8.Q~0t:....
-<.~ (6c.._co-c
en > c: _ ....a.. c:
v Q)'- c: Q) Q) co
32 (J).... Q)..c.~:::
oo>-Q)E->m-r .
..c:,... 0:2... c: ~~ 5:;9:
'" ~_._~-
WcnQ..I Q.c:--a>EQ.
.so ~~E:.2 ~:5-g.2!
Q)OC:Ucnm~Q,)Q)-
..c: ~ 8 >-i: E co.~ E :5
~C>Q)Q.moo16m'i
-m..cg-a..'t:.....5"'0
_J:."'" 0)'- c: 'i=.... c:
C:-"O o.c.- Q) o~.Q
Q)ow-_o_-c:-
E-II)"O- cU=C'tI8-
"C-J500~8.!9U5''O
C:x"O.c.C:oo"O(/) n:J
~:c~~g5C:03:!fj)
n:J ffi .E ~ :;:; n:J ~ ,g .2
"Oa.~""'n:JJ!!~:C(/)n:J
....0. a.W::l Q)W
....<(::JcQ)...._'C.....c.
II) OO....wu_.s::
8.c:':;:;:; a..s:: 2::J..... U
o .- ~ C'tI en - - ~ c: :5
c."Oa.~ccll)(/)O::l
S _ u'N 0 Q) _ :;:; a.
ot:: c '0 Q) 'C "0 ::s '0 C'tI_
n:J Q) c ~ 0 Q) .- C ~ C'tI
-c~::I"o;;(/)~::IuE
.... 0 C - n:J 0 00)....
<( c.U m rom a.u~.E
N
~
~
-
o
-
'"
a>
<: ~
O"C
:;:;c
cu cu
!!!-
0'"
a> cu
Q:a>
"C:5
<: 0
cu.o
'" .
""a>
~"C
cu .-
c.. ~
a>Z;o
.<: .-
-u
"C>-
<:-
a> 0.
E g-
cu 0
--
'0 "0
<: ~
:I cu
O"C
u<:
cu
Z;o-
._ (f)
U"C
a>-
.<:,g
- '" .
-a>LO
cu~o
.<=.<:<X>
I-........!..
N
~
~
c:?~?1
~
~
~
~
B
~
.s!
~
'"
~
~
a> cu
-=.!e "0
-c..<:
0_ cu
<:c.. '"
.2 a> ~
-.<:cu
J!:!-Q.
0.-
Ecu"C
0= C -
o cu "C
a> <:
Q) .... C) n:J
_:1<:
=c ~'c L..:-
a> a> <: cu
0. cua>
X"o - >.
a><:c.."
o C'tI Q) Q)
- _J:. C
~a:-=Q)
C'tI- O.s::
1ne:..tI)-
- E~
uC: .E
!!!.!!![!!
'-Q.cn(/)
"0 ~ 'E
:= c a. Q)
g.2 E
:::Jm~t::
o-OC'tl
U~~5r
Z;oEa>o
._ Q).s::.
u-.....c
0.<:0
CD E.-:;:;
.<:- cu
-II)~Q)
m~'g (j
.s::. n:J'i:: Q)
f-c.. o.!r
'"
~
~
~
.s!
'" !!!
cu a>
.<= '"
"C cu
<:~
cue,..
~.
oU
~O
c..::<
a:(!)
a>.2!
.<: -
-0
'0-
'" 5
13'0
8. 'S:
"'!!!
cu
a>"C
'" a>
0'"
.<: 0
-g.
"C ~
a> 0.
-=
~cu
o.~
E"C
8cu
"'~ .
cu_~
.<:<:N
:t::5!"':
cua>~
-~o
(f) 0._
~
~
~
'" a>
._.r:. Q)
"'-.<:
cu<:-
.c .- c
to 'E ';'
~,g.!!!
I: , a>
.e g."O
=..."0
~ <: a>
a> :I
.<: E .S;
o -
.- Q) C
'<:00
~ cu 0
Q. 0."0
a: .e 'g
a> "C cu
=Q).9
o1je"E
en .!:: ~ cu
..... "0 C) "0
<: a> 0 ffi
Q).o.........
<: 0. '"
8.~~"C
E {'J 0 5!
~ <: ~.-
cu >
....."o~
:I '" a>
UJ"Ocm
a>0-
Q) (I):;:; 0
tI)._ c
0> Q) c:
=~Eg
.....C'tI~a.
cu 0
,t=.....e"o
l-J2cucu
~
~
~
en~
<: a>
.- 1;) Q) m
a>cu.o wE
.oE"C cu
- [!!
~-:la>"Cen
c~~.oQ)~
mctl),g~a.
~Q)UJQ)ii~
a.~~:O:20
~(!) w cu' ~
c..cu'!!!a>~",
uo-"Oc....
~.....l9_Q)c
..::: ._~ tI) Q)
-o.g:::J~E
<:(!!.<:,go.t:
,!'g::lQ.U)f/)m
Q.a:uc';;5r
c c.(I),!'g cu C
o ::< 0.0. en
:;:; ~ ..... c:
ct'Ict'IQ)QiQ).-
~tI):;.c=2
Q) en c_ m
tl)w......Q)O_
CUct'lQ) Q..
o Q) O),'n C Q)
(Jc>'v.Q.s::
tl)n:Jxm~"'"
.!! en Q).s:: m c:
U'-C:oa.:E
a>o.~ Q)::I Q)."!::::
m .c f/) .... ~
(1)1;)....."00.......
Q) >. C C ~
o..o:E cu "c:i._
~a;~-g~K
::<ffi >Ea>
Q)g-co~:;
.c:.....!2men:;
I- a.Q..... m_
LO
,
0>
,
~
~
>-
Qia>
~=
'0'0
"Ca>
<: '"
cu ::>
~ E iii
""::>a>
~.!; ~
a> 0. I?-
-g 0 ::I
:I a> 0.
a> ~ <:
.0 ~.Q
cC10
cu a> a>
-o~
c.._o
.... 0.. ~
a>_
1;)0..-g
cu a> cu
::<:5~
~.s::.m
~ "" 0.
<: ~ ~
$"CJ2
~a>_
C)(ijCi)
to.5.g
~ a>
~8!!!
I-o(!)
LO
~
~
>-
In
C/)
Z
o
i=
o
<(
C)
Z
i=..I
z-
wO
~z
w::l
..10
0..0
~~
>--
0::0
<(w
C/):I:
C/)...
W
(.)
W
Z
-
o
w
C/)
o
0..
o
0::
0..
z
o
i=
<(
o
z
w
~
~
o
(.)
W
0::
(.)
o
::E
C)
.;
t
cuR
.5 ~
I/):a::
a> '"
",-
I/) I/)
.~ C)
C
- .-
- >0
jg C
C '"
a> a.
a> E
~8
U
~ '"
a> '0
~ C
:g '"
'" I/)
~5
:2~
0.2
- '"
a> >
'" a>
c-
:z;~
g,O'
U ~
00.
- a>
::=::0
3: '"
:a::J!1
J92:
VJ '"
'"
~
~
-"-
;.:
...
-c
o
E
z
o
~
<
W
It:
U
w
It:
C
Z
<
II)
~
It:
<
D.
_ -0
-I/)c
~rottl
CI/)",
a>oo
a> a. co
t5e...!.
o.c
(ij_ID
-oua>
._ a> ~
~ 'e- QJ
o 0..0
u_~
>oco
=0>1:1
.2 t: 'i::
'" ~
.9u8
:t: ~~
CO._ 1.0
in3:CI:
1:5 .~ (J)
Q.) ~ <1J
~~.s:::
~O~
1;5m:
C I!! C
is 8'" ~
u '"
bQ)~
6=-c
Q).E ffi
.s:::
... m .5
m::s.c.
..r=.cn~
I- .!!1 3: .,.;
::1
'"
~
~
a:
c::
a>
.s:::
-
-
o
t
'"
a.
I/)
'"
-0
Q)
I/)
I/)
~
'0
-0
'"
Q)
.0
'j
a>
'"
I/)
.!!1
I/)
:c
I-
I'--
~
~
o
-
'"
-in
~5
.s:::.!!1
u '"
.- .s:::
"iu
E E
'" Q)
&1;)
o Q)
5,3:
Q) .5
~c
'0:.8
'" u
a.'"
E-=
._ I/)
c:
c: 0
'" u
Jg'E
'" a>
~ E
Ut
:!2~.
'" '" I/)
2:t:E
I/)Q)_
~c:-!:
.- Q) co
<..> ,!:::.: c.
Q)"'>o
.s::: C" '"
.....~a.
I'--
~.
~
a:
c::
Q)
:5
-
o
t
'"
a.
I/)
'"
-0
Q)
I/)
I/)
~
-0
-0
'"
jg
'j
Q)
'"
I/)
.!!1
I/)
:c
I-
IX)
~
~
VJ .~ -5 Q)
Q) "'-
Q)~.J:: ~ cn~
.Q1jgL..-O .mC
"Cmcn~EEcno
'"5--Q)"C('Q~~ .
oCc'!:c&'CQ)~
..r=. 0.- 0 co 0 "'C 10... a.
'--0 Io...CO c..
UJ16(ij..l::u)D.oEm
!! ~ 0)-- Q,) IV - ::J"C
UJ (,) ~ ~ .5 15 ~.E "S
5 ~ r:: Q) co .- c 0
Q)~~:gt:5'Eiii
.!!!-o..::::sot::
:lro._ C)~om-
.s:=. > (/) c: 0. C
o 'i:: ':;: c)"C to a. Q) Q)
c. 0'- ro c E
C 10-(1)00.0.-
'- '0 c..cQ) .... 0 c: E ~
Jg__ .J:JQ;cuQ)'s
(/)C:~~>'>(/)""'CT
~ ::J Q).- c: Q) Q) -8 Q)
--- 0 c: () 0 "C "0 .....
c: E Q) Q) 0 0 'S;"'C co
'-coC>.c.--o'"5.s::
CI.I_ -_">>"o.~Ou
- Q) . c:: c: L,." ..c:::J
~1/)'E'-"'rna.1/)1/)
.00ctJa>-co(/)-a...s::.
~ EQ)EQ)a.-u
c..~ 0.. -g m ~ Q) CL :E
>- 'S; .Q '0 f/} c: :; Q) !:
=OQ)c:C: .s:::
E 10... >._ o.!:Q'O"'" 0
coQ.Q).- -0-
... 0 "C ~ ,!Q >. c: C Q)
.-..... ro>"'COmN
~ IV 0:3; .-
::J1:I J:: en 10... - m _ rn
Em-Q)c.en.....>-_
.!:::.: c::.o:::: Q).s::. co "C ()
:c ::1:2= (/)- c..,a.9L
Q)C'"_oog-~cno
Z ~'i~="Ca. ro a.
IX)
~
~
p::- 8 ;,
a.
c::
Q)
:5
-
o
t
'"
a.
I/)
'"
-0
Q)
I/)
I/)
Q)
~
-0
-0
'"
jg
'j
a>
'"
I/)
.!!1
I/)
:c
I-
m
~
~
~ "5~
m~Q):E:s
o:;uo; 3: a>
......c3cvo>.E...
Q) ....UJ'O~ffi
::SC:~.!!"CGJE
.~Q)~mo.oc.
c(;jQ)E= .Q
o Q) 0.:;:; Q) C Q)
u 3: .!:; .!:; E r5 ~
::2CQ)Q>>.CO"C
::S.- > 0 ~ en _
,g'I/)'iij E 05 1:"
(/)-t:~mQ)m~
_m~ .r:._._
c 0. Q) ..... ::s ><
Q) , )( "C Q) ..c: Q)
E"c 4).-.ou_
t'E~i5>OEo
m:: 0..... m c:
a. Eo.Ea>o
IV 15 :>. en ~
oU)~~-gQ)~
c: I/) '" - '" 3: E
.Q~fI)c:: _.EO>
16 Q)~'- (/) "C
a>-m!!"C(/)s
o'~ a..E 8.~ 0
& 8"-5 ~-E ~'E
~ '" 0 ._ '"
"C~CIJ"C~.go
ffi m Q) ffi.~ Q)!E
Q)= Q)"O C;
t/) ..c: s:. 0. c: ..::.::: .Q)
~-s:O .....UJ
~~ .~~~'5
Q)coevo-o
Q)U)t)"C-~.c
..c: UJ.- 0 0 o:!:::
t-m>___:t
m
~
~
.9
~
~
~
o
I/)
0;
Q)
I/)
'"
Q)
c::
;::
'"
in
.9
c:
o
U
~
'is
I/)
;S
Q)
-0
.:;
o
~
a.
'0
:;
o
.s:::
UJ
'u
5N
o .
u;:
o
~
,
o
.....
,
~
~
-0
c: ~
"'s
1/)_
-!:'- .,.;
"'Em
a.",m
4::'Q)--
co.....:
~ '0 '"
-oc:u.
Q) '" c:
.s::: ._
- -
a>'Ea.
Q)-
!:lEa.
"'-0 Q)
.5 c:.c.
-CD":
oE.s:::
-m~
:a:: 3:
S"Ec:
I/) '" 0
'0'-
'tScC'L
~ !! 0
:O(l)~
= "0 C)
U(5 c:
c .c 'S::
'" I/) '"
o Q) Q)
u~.s:::
~(3..!,1
i:3c:D
0'"
Q):; a.
.s::: '"
-(1)15
-~I=
'" u t:
,c:Q)0
I-Cl:_
o
~
~
~
>-
m
tIJ
z
o
f=
o
<
C)
Z
f=...I
z-
wO
:liz
w::l
...10
a.. 0
:Ii~
>--
a:0
<w
tIJ:I:
tIJ~
W
()
W
Z
-
o
W
tIJ
o
a..
o
a:
a..
z
o
f=
<
o
z
w
:Ii
:Ii
o
o
w
a:
()
o
:Ii
C)
(,)
o
:Ii
C)
..J
<
:I
Z
Z
<
w
:z:
I-
o
l-
I/)
Z
o
in ..
>gj
Ww
11:(.)
cO
wll:
I-IL.
f3~
C)!!!
0>
:lW
1/)11:
~I
g >- .
.-..c It')
~ '"
.,,,,,,
>o~
c;
OCO~
o ~ .,
~.c
"'C._ 0
.,,,,-
'" " 0
000
g.~ .~
Q..E en
Q).r. .!:
oC 0 0
-::0 "
oC '" .,
:!:::-cE
~ ~ E
'" 0
~ ~ (,) C
::0 0 0
o _ ~._
c=QJO
o .- .- CO
u :t a; .:
....."'C...."C
c: c: U) (I)
IV ........_
E 'U .- oC
.- -
't::-moQ)
'" E 1:: >
c.. ... ._
m.... .... r:n
DOC.
- ."
"'-
C> (;) en :J
c .- 0
'r:: ~ ().s::
&:: 00 U)
!2~~~
CLo(9g
Q.) m Q) 6
~.9=u
~
N
~
Q)"CQ)_
~"5~o
-0 1::
o......2~Ec,o
-ro_ co.
-z01i)m(/)
c: ......_ U 1ft
IV 0 032 '...
E-:JoUQ)
t="'CQ)OUJ
m~c:.c:<IIII::::J
.- 8 0 "'"
it .!:; == <.? %!
.oU)~~Q)c>>
r:n~""'"C -5 c:
c:.~ c: Q)_iS
.~~~.=~ ~~
m Q) Q) ..... Q) Q)
ii"5~0~""g
Q) = Q) ~ - (/) .....
= m .c .~ ~ 5 Q.
.....:J 0 >0);;1:
oc:_~......mQ)
Q) c: "C'-
.=COOO"CL..""C6)
"'''::;:oE''~
="'C)oCoEm
goa::~u~~
s=cv;OCi)c
um:: >.....(0
':>.-c....uo.co'"
.... 0 .,"""
6~:;;::E:C'~'E
OJ mC)12o.0
oC ., >0 _ .- '" 0
_....oco('o c.
m_:J>Q):J
C5 a.c.c co....
oc~E".,O.,
~c.Q)m.oE=
~
'"
~
C)
z
ii2
o
I-
Z
o
:E
o
z
C
o
z
in
<
:z:
IL.
I-
Z
w
:E
IL.
o
-'
w
>
W..
01/)
W
t:i3
~~
OIL.
::!I
m
::0
","'"
,," "
'E: c( co
.9-.;tGJ
€ .~~ ~
s E "
~"C_f/):S
C)cUo
.,"'0
.s:: O)::E ~
-c:{!);
0'- 0.
-~Q)O
(I).s::J::"C
c. - '"
g 0
:~ffi~ ~
Q) E >< ~
.... 0.'- Q)
"C o"C U
Q) Q) ~ Q) .
U) > 0. c: U')
&.~ <Co ~ m
o _~
~ '" "
c. "E .- .s::. ~
~Q)
.~ ~ ~ ;: .g
16 ~.!: E t5
c:....CO:JO
-=:Q..C'Q)
o 0....>-
""'"Eu'"CJ:I!
== Q) (/) C en
'" E '" '" "
Ci) Q) t/) ~.Q
t>>Q)t::-=::
t5 co.- 0 .=.
Q)C.~a.O
.=~15Q)~
0..:: a.a:: ....
~
<"i
~
0"0 "'C....
-c::t:c:,2
'" '" '" '"
- U")
c: C) f/) - CJ)
.Q c:_~m
en '00 u ~......
'>m~~_
Q).c.'- u 0
~ a. "C "C ~
~-.".,.,
t/) ffi ffi'~ E
o E .., E
8"a.z"C :J
~o Q)en
a.Q3,~.c.Q)
Q)>"C......c.
.c.wc:w.....
....."CCD>c:
4= t/) 2:.!!:! ':
~~E<i3.e!
et/)<U~
.s:C)m,S:=c:
_0." 00
c.~w~c:+=
Q)D...c. m:J a.
8_0",00
<uc:mt/)U~
Q,)=::CDO
=E~U.,_",
0., "
c: en t/) c: E 'C::
:J m Q) en Q) m
o C:'(3 m.s:. CD
Um:: ......c.
~~ 8.~ ~g
U€ 0);1i).g
CD :SO.S: Q).... a.
..&:: e ~o " ,,-
.....(!):!:::~Q)CO
..... c: Q,).c. E
CD Q) 0 ~..... ....
oCoCEoOO
~..... ..........-
~
<"i
~
~- t3
,
....
....
,
~
~
~
i
ATTACHMENT E
~-?.)