The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007/08/02 Item 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT August2,2007,fiern~ SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOPIMEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: Report: Review and Consideration of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 2007 Annual Report. Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Accepting and Approving the 2007 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending Acceptance and Approval by the City Council. SUBMITTED BY: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Accepting and Approving the 2007 GMOC Annual Report; and Directing the City Manager to Undertake Actions Necessary to Implement Those Recommendations as Presented in the Staff Responses & Proposed Implementing Actions Summary Direct~ of PI"","", & Bill1"~ City Manager Acting Assistant City Manager 7~ REVIEWED BY: 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ BACKGROUND Each year the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with the City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold Standards. The 2007 Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, identifies current issues in the second half of 2006 and early 2007, and assesses any threshold compliance concerns 1-1 August 2, 2007, ItemL- Page 2 of6 looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. A summary table of the GMOC'S recommendations and staffs proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The GMOC Annual Report is exempt per Section 15061(b)3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION 1) That the Plarming Commission: Adopt the Resolution accepting and approving the 2007 GMOC Annual Report, and recommend acceptance and approval by the City Council; and 2) That the City Council: Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Accepting and Approving the 2007 GMOC Annual Report; and Directing the City Manager to Undertake Actions Necessary to Implement Those Recommendations as Presented in the Staff Responses & Proposed Implementing Actions. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Plarming Commission will provide comments and recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION The 2007 GMOC Annual Report addresses compliance with the eleven Quality of Life Thresholds covered in the City's Growth Management Program. Presented below is a summary of [mdings regarding threshold compliance, a summary of key issues with respect to threshold compliance, and information on the GMOC development forecast. On April 7, 2007 GMOC held its first workshop retreat. Section 4.1 of the GMOC report contains a summary of the GMOC'S workshop retreat. At this meeting, the GMOC conducted an informal discussion on the evaluation of existing and potential future thresholds, as well as general issues pertaining to the review by the GMOC. The Annual Report (Attachment 2) supplements these highlights with additional background information and a more detailed explanation of findings and discussion/recommendations from the retreat. 1. Summary of Findings The following table summarizes threshold compliance for the 2007 GMOC Annual Review, including the current July I, 2005 - June 30, 2006 review period, and looking forward at the potential for future non-compliance during the period of 2007 through the year 20 II. 2 1-2 August 2, 2007, Item~ Page 3 of6 Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance Not In Compliance In Compliance Potential Future Non-Com Iiance Libraries Police (P2 Urgent calls) Libraries Police (p2 Urgent calls)* Schools Traffic Parks & Recreation (Facilities) Fiscal Air Quality Sewer Drainage Water FirelEMS * Police (p2 Urgent calls) were out of compliance as of June 30, 2006. 2. Summary of Key Issues Thresholds Not in Compliance or with the Potential for Future Non-Compliance Libraries The growth management threshold for lihraries contains a provision that calls for construction of additional library space to be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet per 1,000 Population. With continued population growth prior to completion of a new branch library, the latest reported ratio is 457 square feet per 1,000 Population. According to the Growth Management Program, should the GMOC determine that the Library Threshold Standard Implementation Measure is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into compliance. The Library in the last 3 years of GMOC annual reporting periods has been out of compliance with threshold standards (since 2004). Based on the reporting periods, this will be in violation of threshold standards (that would equate to June 2007), if funding is not addressed and construction started. The City has a design/build agreement to complete a 31,200 square foot library in Rancho Del Rey, plans are complete and the City has a contractual commitment. Construction can begin once Council identifies and approves funding. It is estimated that construction of the facility will take approximately one year. The proposed library will be built on City-owned property located at East H Street and Paseo Ranchero. As stated above, with completion of construction of the Rancho del Rey library the threshold would be back in compliance with the City's established threshold. With regard to forward planning for libraries the GMOC recommends that ultimate future library needs be re-assessed based upon the increased capacity for future growth provided by the City's updated General Plan, and accordingly update the Library Facilities Master Plan. On the topic of adequate hours of operation, the GMOC was concerned whether the level of service was satisfactory due to the non-compliance for the past 3 years. After discussions with library staff, the GMOC recommends that the City continue to assess the optimum hours of 3 1-3 August 2,2007, Item I Page 4 of6 operation and minimum library staffing in terms of meeting the needs of service area patrons, and report to GMOC next year to establish a basis for defining what adequate hours of operation are. Police Priority 2/Urgent Calls - The threshold for responding to Priority 2/urgent calls (57% of call responses within 7 minutes, and average response time of 7.5 minutes) has not been met for several years. The most recent reporting period showed the longest response times (over II minutes average response time) for the last (FY2000-0l to FY 2005-06) several years reported. Urgent calls are: a misdemeanor in progress; possibility of injury; serious non-routine calls. While of less concern than Priority 1/emergency calls, the trend for Priority 2/urgent call responses not meeting threshold still concerns the GMOC. The GMOC recommends that the City Council direct the City Manager to have the Police Department prepare and implement an action plan addressing the decline in performance relative to meeting the GMOC threshold for Priority 2 urgent calls. Threshold in ComDliance GMOC recognizes that Parks and Recreation and Fire/EMS should be commended for their effort in achieving compliance. Parks and Recreation The l8-Month forecast calls for an eastem Chula Vista population of 112,502 (an increase of 7,129). The increase would necessitate an additional 21.29 acres of developed parkland. With an overage of 60.89 acres, current east inventories are adequate to accommodate the anticipated 18- month forecast. Additional park openings programmed in eastern Chula Vista will meet the projected need for the remainder of the 2007-2011 period. The GMOC looks forward to receiving updated studies and plans that address how future parkland and facility needs will be addressed in western Chula Vista, including the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Fire/EMS The Fire/EMS response time threshold was met during calendar year 2006 for the first time in several years, and the GMOC commends this improvement. The Fire Department has also re- established emergency response time reporting function by station as a management tool which has proved useful. The GMOC recommends that this reporting function is continued, and that a regular internal review process be put in place to address any identified issues and to take timely corrective actions. In addition, the GMOC recommends that the Fire Department return to fiscal year reporting basis used for all other threshold standards. GMOC recommend that the Chief and City Manager return to that basis for the next review cycle. Use of calendar year data for 2006 complicated the comparison with fiscal year data in prior years. The GMOC also recommends that the Fire Facility Master Plan update and other pending related studies be completed as soon as feasible. 3. GMOC Development Forecast The forecast for growth from 2007 through 2011 reflects an average of approximately 1962 dwelling unit completions per year, with minor fluctuations on an annual basis. 4 1-4 August 2, 2007, ItemL Page 5 of6 The ability for this amount of growth to be maintained over the 5-year period will be determined by the strength of the economy and housing market, but it will also be affected by the timing of major roadways and other infrastructure and facilities needed to support that growth. Completion of State Route 125 is particularly important in supporting this 5-year forecast. The number of dwelling units receiving building permits during 2006 (1180) was significantly less than in other recent years (2,618 to 3,525 since 2000). Next year's GMOC forecast will update assumptions about future growth based upon the most recent trends. The GMOC Forecast data/report reflects a more liberal or "worse-case" scenario so that city departments and outside agencies can determine potential impacts to the city's growth management threshold standards, to ensure compliance and appropriate recommendations for improvements. City staff on January 26, 2007 presented City Council with an information item regarding the Budget Forecast for 2007 (please see the Appendix C). 4. GMOC Workshop Retreat On April 7, 2007, the GMOC held its first workshop retreat. Section 4.1 of the GMOC report contains a summary of the GMOC'S workshop retreat. The workshop retreat's general direction was evaluation of existing and potential future thresholds, and to address other issues pertaining to the quality of life, such as health services. Although not within the purview of the GMOC, they concurred that Council should examine the possibility of creating a Health Services Commission that could coordinate health issues within the City of Chula Vista. S. 2006 Council Referrals On June 15, 2006 at the joint City Council/Planning Commission/GMOC meeting to consider the GMOC'S 2006 Annual Report Council proposed referrals to GMOC to review and respond to in its 2007 GMOC Annual Report. The referrals were reviewed by the GMOC and are included in the body (Section 4.2 Planning Commission/City Council Referrals) the 2007 GMOC Annual Report, along with their recommendations. 6. Conclusions To assist Council in evaluating and acting upon the GMOC'S recommendations, a concise summary of the GMOC'S recommendations and corresponding staff responses is presented in Attachment 1. City staff has reviewed each of the GMOC'S recommendations to determine if and how these could be implemented. In some cases, GMOC recommendations may require additional studies, evaluations or resources not contemplated in departmental work programs, and/or substantial budget commitments on the part of Council. As a result staff is recommending that Council's action or direction from Council concerning those recommendations be limited to the implementing actions as outlined in the right-hand column of Attachment I. It is understood by staff that implementation actions with budget implications with respect to these recommendations from GMOC should be based upon the City's cyclical budget review process. The GMOC 2007 Annual Report is included as Attachment 2. Additional appendices to the GMOC Report are presented in Attachment 3, and will contain the Growth Forecast, and Threshold Compliance Questionnaire/supplemental reports presented to the GMOC by the various City Departments and outside agencies. 5 1-5 August 2, 2007, Item I Page 6 of6 DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code Regulations section 18704.2(a)(l) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. As specified follow-up actions are brought forward to the City Council, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided as applicable. ATTACHMENTS I - 2007 GMOC RecommendationslProposed Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2007 GMOC Annual Report inclusive of Chairperson's Cover Memo 3 - 2007 GMOC Annual Report Appendices H:\PLANNING\GMOC\GMOC-06\council\Council_Agenda_Statemcnt_Rcv1scd_Draft_7.24.07 .doc 6 1-6 <C >< c z w a.. a.. <C ,-, u ~s '-'~ ~~ t;J00 0000 ....z ~o ~.... oE-< uU E-<< =c c~ ....E-< ~z ~~ >~ o~ E-<...:l z=- ~~ ~~ ~oo CZ <0 ~~ =z E-<~ ~~ o~ ~o CU f:;~ Q N U) z o i= (J oll< u)<.!) Wz 1/)- Zl- OZ ll..W U):!!; WW o::~ u-:!!; u-- <0 I-W I/)U) o ll.. o 0:: ll.. '" '" f;l;; .... ... " "" 8 ... .... " '" = "'" o 'il > '" ~ .... o '" ... " " " ~Ij" ., ii::2l ..-: .... ,..:;~ I/) Z o ~ o Z W :!!; :!!; o (J W 0:: (J o :!!; <.!) '" '" f;l;; .... ... " "'" = ... .... " '" 8 "'" .s '" > '" ~ .... o '" ... " " " ~Ij" ., ii::2l ......-: .... ..; fi:' ... a g e ~ '" '" " o " = g 'C o " o Z ~ 'C '" :,s ~ " ~ ~ '" .. > '" i:Il ~ " 'S: " i:Il . ~ " .;So OJ ;>, = OJ ~u '.0 ~;;s 5d "'" '" G a ""~ " ~ ""'~ .s " " = ..c:oo .... " .... '1:: o ;:> ;>,"'" ""'" o = o .9 c; ~ = ;:> ~ ~ ~:.a .g .... .....~ > ou 15.0 ::::;;S .~ d ~~ ,,- - 0 "'- ~ " '" " " " ii: .... " '" 'C " '" "" '" 'C " ... <'! .... ,.; ~ 'S: '" i:Il ';j .. ... " " " ii: .... " '" 'C " '" "" '" 'C " ... " o "1! 0_ .~ ~ ~ 5 c...;a Ei'C .- "'" ""'5 " 0 "..c: t;; '" ..c :';::: ;>'''' "OJ Ei<E ~u .20 "';;S ~d " " o..c: 0- '" = . " ~.;3 "" . ,,$J i:Il ~ " " ..c:~ - " .." OJ -B 'E '" " - "' " = eB 'a - - .- = o .. S S o U$l cc .- .... U~ . " .g t ..c: 0 - " "" ......c:" - - .... <'! .... ..; '" 'C ~ C U '" ... = 't = ... 1;; " ..: " ... .... o '" ... " " " '" - " .; :2l '" > ~ '" > '" ... ~ - - .~ 1 u ~ .a en o "' .E g "' 0 " .... <I:: "" = ~ .. " .... .. o ~ " .... g~ " 00 G"g ;:;.0 ..... c; " 0 E;.::: " 0 .::: ~ ;:; " ~.s " = .... .. """'" .... ~ <8 " "'" ~'fjj .. = "'" 0 " OJ ;:> " ><...0 "l .... ..; '" "Cl ~ ;>, - o '" ... = - ... = ... - ., " ..: " ... .... o '" ... = " " '" - " .. " :2l '" .e: - " '" > '" ... ~ .... o " o 1ii = " - = 'g " > .~ " 15. .... <8 "' 'C = ~ " ~ ::l 0- " "'" '" " "'" 'S: o .... "" "'" "3 ~ 0"", r~ " .. ooU -g " .0.8 ~ 0 ~~ ~<I:: <s ..., ...; ..; 1-7 - " '" 8 '" > o ... "" 8 ... ;>, .... .. ';j = 0' ... :< ... oS ., I. ~ -,.. '" 0 = ... ~ .!:.eo <0 .... .... Mf"i .... " '" = '" > o ... "'" = ... C := " = 0' ... :< ... oS ., 8 I. ~ - 0 " ... =~ .eo ... .. :<u .... .... N~ ~a~~gClj~gp~~o"' -- - 0 - "'0 1;1) 0'- .." ~ 't:i) s:: __..... u Q)..... rn_cnS::oS::~;::j~~ ~ S 'E c;o: 0'1 ~"E"'E 0'- en '.j:l !::..... 0'\ ~ i5 1-0 ~ ~ ~(,J~~""'o. .... .a -0:5 Q) Q) 0.::: Q) r.., >.~e,:l (.) I-Ie: tf.I-pv :; ~ :Ii "O.S "' <"l "' =:Ii J::_ClB tf.l:E U'l ~_Q)Cl t: N"-' C':S 0....... OJ) d) <S8 ~~~~.g[~<o 0-0 .S ("1'1 t3 u ....... ~ tI.I ~~~t:$~.s~~~ ;::l :< 0 o"'O..d Ollt.+:::.- ~.2 11 is' 1il "" .S'E ;>, 0 ..0 Cl iU 1-1 (lj :So..c 00..0 00 Q) Q) (J..... >. S::,';:::: >. t; 5b (lj CI.I ~ d' ';:l 0 v 10-0' s:: ~ Q) 0 0 s:: -e 1.0 .s ._ _ ~ .. <"l Q) (lj 0 s:: .c;I I:: ~ o U 0 II.) .$ +=l .- '::= >. Q) N> Q) s:: Q) ~- I-; ~ Q)'S >.g bJ)"'O 0 a en'-..c Q)..... s::._ ~ I1J (lj~..... -r:f.l~"'O.-!=: ,.Q 0 4-4~ ~ e,,; :>...s.. o E-'" ..c:"" '" 00 .s ~ u ~ 0 U u'- U.S mum v'- ~""I:;j .- = cd. 15 OJ .- >~.2 ~"..o"'1! ",,0> >. .... u 0 ""I:;j .~ 0 _ ~ cd'';:::~'-'~ l;::::: c;d"; ....... U = .- "':::S ;::s .E~';:; ~ . 5i,'" ="0 = U ,,",'" ".. 1::.. 0 = = = O:S:;.:;;1uP.mQJ)ddd .....: " .2 - o ::l "0 " .... .s .S t ,.E .... " "' ."" .~ g o C U " .;:; ~ .;:; "' ~~ !:I 0 ;>,U ~~ 00" ="0 o .. .):l ~ "' .. uO o g ~~ "U ~'o - '"' ... o - OJ OIl " Po. ...... 1:1 11) ] U o:l ...... ...... < <C ~ c z w c.. c.. <C ,-., U 0>- ~~ ~< '-'~ ~~ t;lrJ] rJ]rJ] ....z ~o ~.... oE-< UU E-<< =~ ~~ ....E-< rJ]z ~~ ~~ >~ o~ E-<~ z~ ~.... ~-- ~rJ] ~z <0 ~~ =~ E-<~ ~~ 00 ~U ~~ o N '"C 00 t/.I t/.I It) '"0 t=: ~ l: 8:";:::..0 s:: ~ ~;.Q._ t=:...... c."3 p:; "-g.~g..~~ ~ ago ~ ~ ~ t/.I 'S: UJ'"Bc; bhd)~.s S e z ';:j oo.~ aJ '.;:: l-o 0"'" gj'.oa- ;:l~...s - ";Q.~..o: '" oo 0: 1-~""suoo!3,,~ 0";:)08 0: "-80 ""<e8~ 8.!l.~:;! aN U)<.!)~~8s~g8l:l WZ]a ~oue~ U)j:: -..0: "'U g.o"" zz~u~ ~u~~ o w .S: ..!j.a "'a ,,~ 0 ll..:e~$gJ~t;..o: .0: (/) W 0.5..0 . d) : ..:!3: .- W .-....... t/.I;!3; ~ c.'l:S:-;::::: rx:...J 00 u . ~ .>.;; 0 " D.. t=: c."3 1: .... '"0 00 s:: u..:e;Q'o.grs",~o:g <eLL - 5 It) 'Vi 5 .s ..g .g u I-C~Uet/.ld)c."3gc w St 0:; ~ t""'"",.~ U)U) 0 tl'- "-,, e "U...; o t=: '&3 0 e t/.I e 1-0 0 S D.. .~ ~ '"d Sed"'" '.;:: O >- " ".g St o::r: 1l E! ,.,; ,~. oS'~ l:: 0.. a3 Cj 15 ~ ... u 6.. 0,) ;:s l-o 0 G)''''' c..iU...c:E-go'"O......~~ "c .';::: 0 0 r~ t=: 0 l-o 0 ~~(.)c."3vCljNP.u U) Z o < c z w :e :e o o w rx: o o :e <.!) ,..-::,aJ",o..c::o............Q)OO r""....d GJ""'''''' d iU,.Q t=: Z "0 .;'~ a .~~ :: ~ u..... tI.) .-'- rl-l'+:: ;:S "-" s::: !U >,,'1::: t=: ZV ","" ..... ......... '"C;:S "'0 ~""'~'"-gaU~O O~ll ~.s,S '" 080 c; 0 Cf.I""" OJ be-t=: tI) "00_ ~ o.g"E:g ~ ~ ~ .~ Z.S g ~ ~.~ g..s 5 "'" "'" "- "'" > ~5ee'S~.sa8 t/.I G)..... .~...... ........ 0 aJ..c It) 0.0 0 I:) t/.I l"'""' l-o on .- '= "'0 (lj 0.. It) "'O.s c::: ~ = ~ e > ::: aJ aJ > e.2 '"" l-o 01,.0,.0...... otS U tl"t/.IcE~gp~'"C 00.€>.!l ,,<Z;J;i" a .~.~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ 5 t/.I iU ~ > 1-0 (lj t/.I ~ "'0 2 "ii ...... 0 8'''' lU U o ~ (1.)""" d) >..~ ._ :.E "'0 ;rs oU <lJ -- ....+:0...... iUa~'+=lCZC;tJ-.g > ...... Q) on (lj 0.. aJ 5 ~ t .~ .s.,g t 00 ~ 00 '0 ~ 't:ii '0 ..... j:g.s d _I "'0 e.,...; ~ E S _" Go> ~.9 ~ oR3 ~O~rEOd~ ~ ..c e .s c; ~~ ~ 6b 1;) 00 N ""g.€i t;ju<z "'" oo "-..... . "'...... 0: " 0 "cll..i"f: oo- '" ...Si!~C,) u:-;::: t :a '" St " > 0 >"'- t)~.fi "" o:.~ dj ~"'" '" 0 " . - " .00", O-B]. " " .... .s +-; t1J _ 00.0 ~.s "'0 -g- oo"'" '" CU(1).,8 ~~tIl ;:l 0: >- >..9 (1) "So'S...s 0:- 00'"0 .l:2 p.. d) tI1 I .=: O-lJu.i :!a ~ ~"il "'~ "'" u~eo 0" '" 8 ~...s~= o ~ u.~ Q) ;:S:E g ..c Q.) l.E ~ .s > l1) N 1-8 ..; III ~ 00 ..; c .~ '" .. "- .. u - = .. 6 t;j .. .... ... 6 '" .. ... , I>Il = ., ... "; = .51 - .~ .., .., <: '" ..:: .., .. .. z .... ..; ..; .0 .~ '" .. "- .. u - = a "" .. '" ... a '" .. ... , : ., ... "; = .51 - .~ .., .., <: '" ..:: .., .. .. z .... ..; ..; ,..; o o N - :.s E "'" ..!j " @- o " " .0 o - "'" " :g Jj " oo -B ~ " .;!i .. .., = .. 6 .. ~ '" .. - .. ~ "'I.r ..- - .. .. .. ~~ -8 .a oo " ..0: ... .... ..; ~tf'i ,..... o o N :.s >- .0 "'" " - " @- o " " .0 -8 .a '" g .." '" ;:l '" :> .0 .~ " '" ~ u "'" " oo o g. il:: -5 t;j ..0: E-< '" .., = .. 6 .. ~ '" .. - .. ~ "'I: .. .~ - - .. .. ~~ .... ..; ..;..; ~ <Z .... " ~- - '" ~ g, oo tl:B ..s " oo > .~ " o:a l:l ~ t;j 0 ~; ~u - " 0';; ""'.;; a .~ .o~ .C 0 o St .;;"'" ~ a - [i E t;j a ~g. 3G3 St i:; ","", '" .... o '" " 00 ~ p., .... " '" J:::-d "",0 0:..0: '" oo " .5.El $- .5 .~ "'- a:g 0:-;:: - '" 2l ~ " ".6 E oo '" '6 St .... " ..!j..o: ",- St "" " .;; 8 2.9 ..0: " _ ;:l .~ 0: ~ ".;::l .... 0: .... 0 o " St.8 .s t "'" ~ Ei ;:l = .S ..... - - 0: e 8 a .og. ul " " ..0:"'" - " ]il E-<<Z ...... ...... J u o:l :jj < <( ~ c z W 0- 0- <( ,-, U 0>- :a~ e,:,< z~ o~ t;jCl:l CI:lCl:l ....z :ao :a.... o Eo< UU Eo< < =e,:, e,:,~ ....Eo< CI:lZ ~~ ~:a >~ 0....;1 Eo<i:l.; Z:a ~.... :a-- ~CI:l e,:,Z <0 ~~ =Z Eo<~ ~~ 00 ~U ~~ Q N Ul Z o i= o ollc:( UlC!) WZ Ul- Zl- OZ c..W Ul:E WW a::ii u..:E u..- <Co I-w UlUl o c.. o a:: c.. Ul Z o !;;( o Z W :E :E o o W a:: o o :E C!) ~ "" "" = CI:l ... .. .... .. ~ ... .. = .. .. ... .. 6 ~ l:l 0- ... -a 0- " ~ .... B " ~ ... .. " " ~ " a " " 'OJ .... " 'OJ a ... ~ <'i ,9 " ;::l " ,'" 2i o ~ .~ ~ .~ ""8 o ~ l:l ~~ ~t;; ... o " " OIl ~ " .... B ~ .... '" .,s .", a ~ .... o '.6 ~ Q .... ~ ~ ... - "" "" = CI:l ... .. .... .. ~ ... .- = .. .. ... .. 6 ~ .s 'g ~ o .... g " .~ o ... ~ <'i U o ::2i 0>. .... 0 " ,- ~~ '" .. .- ... = o CI:l ... .. 10 ~ .. = .- "Cl = .. "" .. ~ Ii 1;; ~ .", " ~ o " .... '- o .eJ ~ o o .", a & :E ';;; " <E .s ]' ~ .., ~ <'i - - '~ .... ~ ~ " " ~ '" - o g ;e ~ " <E .s '" .. .- ... = o CI:l ... .. 10 ~ .. = :s = .. a- ~ '" '" " -€l .", " o oj .... " ~; '': " ~ 'E ~ ~ .... ""' .~ ~-:S ~S ""s ~ '~ '" " '" '" ;::l ~E g " o ~ 0"" " " "0 ... U 0 o /: ::2i"" 0-1l " " " ~~ .., ~ <'i = .. Ii: .. = .- :5! .; ~i:Q .- :; t ... .. :S..E ~~ .. iii lIitf'i .... '" B"" ~o '-~ o~ " .~ ] '> ..c:: e .~ o-e " "s'<t V) .... <.E~ ....'" .... ,.9.", ~ a ~" '~ 5 "s > ~<: ...13 "N 1<i ~1<i ".... " " = ~ oS .. tr.l 0.. i5::: " .. "s,~ .:: "'.... "Cl ~~~ := Po;"= ';:i"' rIJ ,a p.. (lj s:: ~ l"""l ;::l i3 oS 'C ... 00 "'0 ~ = ",- U ... .. tI) s:: .Q r. O__o....c .-.... :.-:l'- ::2i..c::1< '0 a llJ s::.- ~ is ~ $lU:;S "'0.", .:: ~ .",.",.... E s:: a ~tE~ e-" ;::l o ,g 0 00" 5il"s " "'.... ,D s:: 6 " 0 '" > 0 " ",- .... ..c:: 0 0. '" " ... OIl 0 " " !3"s '~ 0 g " '" " ""' "'0'- .",,,.... <::: " 2i '''' a '.c G ~ 0.", il ,- jj '" ".... "..c:: .... o .... ~ . u co ... llJ " .- 0 "'.:0',: ~.oi'l~ ".", " 5 ""S.s . uos::~ ~~:E~ o en."t:: 0 .... ,- ~ ~ l:l~ " OIl .", '> " <=i ; " " 0"" .... Cd'';::: s::u ::2iO$lo ,€~~~ u"-v 0..8- 1::) 0 tn X e c eu ~ ~~.s~ -,Dd)'" 'u:'=...c:: >. " ....- is ~"s~ U ~'~ ~ .",_ 0- s:: Q).... "'0 ,,0 a " ""' ..... C':S o 0 p. .. .....c:: " " " g s a ::2iP2o,g d Q) ou "s.s 8 ,5 '" 0.... "'0 iU 0) iU s:: Q.o ~ u s:: v:I CI.I e Q) OJ C':S ~ ~.~ ~ ~ g ~ 5 l-o ....:1._ U"'O+-,d o ; cd 'E ::2i "s" os/: ~ ~"8~g. ~r.E5~ '" '" .. .- .- <: "Cl = .. = o .- .... .. ... .. "" o ... o '" ... = o == ... ... " ... ..Q ::l cd "'l::I r.t.l OJ - il) Q) U .2 ,I:: a '<;: U g.".c t ~ IlJ COO o I-< 0 >. .g~ti:g~ "r;;"" "'0 H 0.. .... .... " :> a ~ ilJ ~ ;>> ca "s.o'-o tU >. 0"0 -:5:::::::0000 s::'~ S ~ ~ .- lU 0 U:! C/}"'O::=..s::: !3 " OIl '<t -@, o (lj s:: N'- ..c::~'r:.",== u Q d) ... Q) oof;t::;~ .- 0 0 C':S c:...... tI] 1:11~ d) l-<'- [i tn 00 u ~ _ ~ c E; ~ 5 ~ E! tn 0 Q) ,.c "'l::I U !:1 ~ ;.: ~ 8.9 !:1 dJ B'-+=l 1a 0 -551ae~ . ,,-" 0 ~ 00._ '+:;l u a I: _ l-< l-< &~'-+=lu.o ol!;5:slJ;l ~- ~~ Cl;;::-d~tn ~ ~_ il,,) ~ I: ..8u~ ,e,~~.,s8 ~ >.;3.5 cl:: ... iii <'i '" '" .. .- .- <: "Cl = .. = o .- 10 ... .. "" o ... o '" ... = o == t .. ... ..Q ::l ... iii <'i '0] gf .... ,- '" '- <=I ~Ol.;::: o " " ..c::.","" ,- .... 8~<S ;::l " '" e u.;; .- u ~ a~.o o " " u..... ..c ..c:: '" '" -5:'= ~t:~ " ".... ~ 0.. ~ d ~ .s ,9 ; ; " " " " 0 ... .S 't ;< 1:j, il,,) 0 o '" " Qtiu 0",0 .....","" .",,,~ E~" '" " 0 "..c:: ~ g.- 1:: " OIl 0 l-< .s e- " i:: .... .0".", .... '" <=I '-,-Ol $l 0 " 00 I;/} t.i t:'E> e B d ~s:::"3 -'- ..s:::: " 2i U >. ..c::._ ~ ~ - 1a 0 ;::j ~U.cg- ~ g-o 11 '" '- o ..... " bO " ~ ...... 'S ] u o:l ..... ..... <: <( ~ c z W 11. 11. <( ,-, u 0... ~~ e,:,< '-'~ ~~ ::;jCll CIlcll ....Z ~O ~.... o Eo< UU Eo< < =e,:, e,:,~ ....Eo< cIlZ ~r"'I r"'I~ >r"'I 0....;1 Eo<~ Z~ r"'I.... ~-- r"'IcIl e,:,Z <0 Z.... ~~ =Z Eo<r"'I ~~ O~ ~O e,:,U f;~ Q N " = 8jg ",- '" ~B l;J '" (I) " ~ Z.~ OJ) o ~ s - '" 1-,..0 0....- ClI<Ce:o;,.>i (l)C)Sl @." wz-"~ (1)-'" Zl-~~~ OZ.E:'" 0. " WE+-' ~ "':!!:o"'~ (l)wCf.l.;l.,g w...J"O",... e::: a.. la !3 'if u..:Et;]~ lJ.-" <Co~el€ I-w.o:",o en ~ .E .~ CI) ........ 0 o +-4......~ ~ GE.~ e:::: Q.)"t::l.~ a..<9~gf .oQ.)~ <:i '" g ~ Ol) 0 05 S U.o", (I) Z o !;;c o Z w :!!: :!!: o o w e::: o o :!!: C) "11J...c: Q.) ~~.~.~ .- - .::a ~.;!3 ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ C':S c.'j :;1 tlii:.sc CI) ~ Cf.l ~ rJ) llJ It> ~ .~ 1i.i ;::S~ ~ C"'_ en .:::E] ~ g c; CI.l U 1IJ..c:: O"e.2l i: " 00___;::::$0 '. = '" .;: s~ S.Qt) Q.)~ 0)"3 Cf.l g,,!3E<9 t oS ~ c.S .~ 00 :::.. OJ en '- ;> S cO) 00...... C':S > en..c:: d J-o llJ '"'" """,.o_ S ~ ~;.::J S ,.s::~~U'.o Cf.l (,) ...c:: 0 '~CI.lbD--~ '" " = la" '" llJ "'0 0 ..... CJ:l e 1a d .. J:< ~ Cf.l .oE< 0 ~ .a -d 'b1 -: E! s::: Q.) Co) Cl:S ,.0 ..... t) ~ '"'" ..... '"'" .,b d ~~ t-rr.l ~ ~:E'E~i> E-< ~._ _ 0. = " is: ... " - '" " :?J t' " ... ,.Q ;:l " .0: - .. = .. - " "0 "'" ;;;; "0=.0: " '" 0 ~p..a .0 .... .... ",,,.0 Q.) t) >. Ol) '" " aS~ -t1 ~d) --e"'O 0.0 ~..... 0 -~.o: ~ Q.) 0 o -E a ':;sP:: " ,,'- 'ii ..... 0 "O-i'J= 0.0.0 o 0 ..0 " '" " ,.0 .- 0.. .sF:S '" 0 "0.0 " la " gi5.<9 ]""2~ o."~ .... = '" B ~"'O ~ ~ ~ t:: _ = egos e ~ e ,s,,8~ ~.see ~ s.~ @ M .,.; ..; = " is: ... " - '" " :?J .... ... " ... ,.Q ;:l " -= - .. = 'l:I " "0 "'" ;;;; .€ ~ o .... 8.~ "'....1 o " "0.0: ,,- ~~ e"'O t1.i o 0. 0 .5 :;1 5 " ........ .o:_~~ gf" s::: .- .... 0"0 '" o..s"E =' g ~ "0 '" = " "0 .s ~ J: Cf.l .0"'''0 {j la"] ,,~ '" ,,~ -8" =~ e: ~" " .s5-5 ._" "0 -;;"Ola !3 ~ d - "0 " c.8 c..~ o .... ~ Cf.l lU cd" t:: SO'" ;:EU~ :::s Q.) ~ Cf.l~'.;:i '" .- Q.) e ~ ~ 0 u <<;<l::~ M .,.; ..; ~ ~ 1-10 .0.:= c; ~ d ~:9tS~.;: ..0 ~ "0 I:,) c.."'O . Q.) C':S d = fa ~ Q.) d...... = b Cf.l...c:: P-l._ ..... II) +-> ..... 1-0 "'0 !3 l-< ~ ~ (l) :::s 0 ~ e E u ~ ctI'~ d c3 .s ] :?J ~ iJ s::: ell ..... . e d;,E ell e-. tl '.=, ..c ~..... d I1J N ..!:: +-,;"; '0' ...... ..E r9 '"'" "7 u.....~ 0..::: E;:J iU......;:2 0 -~....o l=l;SN '" "" ~ ~ 0 s.S <9 ,,'" la 0 Oll = ..0 l=l'- ;s 4-0 """ iU'~ "'0 4-0 0 ;::s..s= co iU o ..... iU ..... .9- U ~~::$.€]- sg.o~ 8.8 ~]~]i] "'O'"O..eEiU:9 "0 "S S 0 a.s.s8u~ c 00 ~ e.;:2 ~ o.~ ~ ~ ~ ,s iU1:a""""""..o...... ~-a~~~] ~ ~ .0: o ] .... " iJ U la ~ ~ '" '" ~ ~ " = '" .... ,.s Ol) = .~ '" i5. " o ~ 0. .... ] ~ ~ N I "" I "" 6 " - '" .... 00 " .. " = .OJ ... ~ .. = .. - '" .;l IiIiI '- Q " ... = " = " - = .. " :?J 0"- -.0 0 - - = = ~ 0 co :;>''':::: ,:::: 0 u ;::s= iU '" '" '" s 0 iU 0-= '" '" 0 .~ '"0 "0 = " B c co o " '" " 0. " dj iU '00 "'.0: '" "0-.0 = " = co .- 0 '" ..0 ~.g~ la.s{l '"0 ~~ " '" .... ~ Gf.l 0 l=l iU ~ .- u 0 E " .... ,,="0 ~Gf.l"3 .- l=l 0 "0 ..8 ~ l::: 0 co ~ ~ 1niU~ r----";S 0 0,- g \0 0 i:d o~ = >";~ ~ iU._ ..s~~ 0-, '- o ... " Oll '" ~ .... "" ..; 6 " - '" .... 00 " .. " = .. " ... ~ .. = .. - '" .;l IiIiI ... Q " ... = " = " -= .. " :?J = " 'a ;S ~'- CO o g - = E 5 ~E iU 'a '" S 'C ~ 0.0. 8 0 8:lS. '" " =<9 '" .... ",.s .... :E ~ o '8 - 5 _Ol) g,< "0 " o 0 .0 !3 " 0 .0: '" -~ ~ " 8<9 f5:SE ~~~ "E) $l ~ g.8 " o 5 ~ U 0. = .€~~ u ~..Vl iU8c F:gO - 15 ] ~ ..... < .... "" ..; <( ~ c z W D.. D.. <( ,-., U o~ I~ ~en en en ....Z ::go ::g.... OE-< UU E-<-< =t;.::I t;.::I2:::i ....E-< enz ~~ ~::g >~ O...;l E-<~ Z::g ~.... ::g-- ~en t;.::IZ -<0 Z.... ~~ =Z E-<~ ~::g O::g ~O t;.::IU ~~ Q N ";"" ::~ r;:::: l-o ~<E - g~ UJ's.E ~ a] - '" ~ I-Jj"' (.) 1-<"0 0/lc(<E0ll UJC)Oll"g W Z .S .0 UJ--o. Z!z~g Ow,,,';:: D..::!E..c::'" UJwt-<~ w...Ju;5 o::^- ... " '" LL::!E ~ ~ LL--o ;:!: fil.@>~ tJJtJ) ~.~ 0-0;0 ^ O;:l ...-~ OO..c:: et:: E'~ D...E~ U-o - " '" -0 . Et=,g; ~uoo l=:.5o UJ Z o < c Z w ::!E ::!E o (J W 0:: (J o ::!E C) s '" ... .. Q ... ~ '" f;I;l ~ ~ ... Q - '" Q U -0 " '" '" " ... U " .... ~ .... "<E .~ aJ .5 ~ d) t:: 'E 0.. 8. .s ~ R ~ p.,""-V " .... " ~.s..s o 0 S " 0 o"ar.t:: > .... 1:: cd ~ 0 " " 0. .= rJ') g. ;::l '" go oc:i .5 ....- '" ::::::' N 00 .~ ~ .s ~ .g ~ ~'Q;:-= ooS .5 g."'O '" .... " ....~ '" c:l -0 ""s .~ t:: .- .b .s ~ d) rJ') > v.i OJ 1IJ C'j d) .sg.;~ 00 cd Q.) ~ ~ "t:I.- 0 'U; ~ g.5 .- (.) .u Q.) ~ ~ ~~ .... v:l ..; - " S o - -0 " - '" ;::l '6' '" -0 lii -0 ~ " .;;: " .... " .0 s '" ... .. Q ... ~ '" f;I;l ~ ~ ... Q - '" Q U -0 " '" '" " ... " " .... '" " " ~ " 'e c:l E B 00....; "~ "s " - 0. .Boo ~ ~c:l ~~ sl! 8~ " 0 .... .... v:l ..; '" ut; 00 ::E ~ d"s .:ol ... Q ~ " '" - ~ ... " - '" '" ~ " .. '" " .~ '" ... ~ .. " i - ~ S Q U ,,- " ~.~ :0 .5 g.'~ '" u 0 ~ 0. 00 .... ,,0 " ~r::::.s.+-> o o.~ " - .- Q) ~ Q.) - o:S.- o:S ~ " .~.S'~ 0 E-t Q,.l ~ -0 .... U ",.. " cd..o Q)'S -o.Eaa 1Jg~...... =''''' ~ ~ '" - 0 ~ iU tI).~ .... .~ " " 0-0 l-o ~._ '"0 ~ y~ - " ..c::.:!l S~ .9 ~ cd ;:j oS I;b.o "000 .'C Jl::- '" 0 '" -'C " ~ ~ = ~ 'S ~ 5 l-o tn ~ 00 p.,.~ ~ OJ'- 0.::: llJ;':: l-o "'0 ~~!~ .., v:l ..; .:ol ... Q ~ " '" Ii: ... " - '" '" ~ " .. '" " .. '" ... ~ .. " .. II Q. S Q U g, '" " 'OJ .... c:l " "s " '" ;:l B -0 " " U [ 1:i i go c:l Oll " 'C " " " '6lJ &l .s ~od " '" - -08- 5-0 ~ ~ 8 lii ,,- ....~ u ~ 0- ::E ~ d::E .., v:l ..; 1-11 .... - .. ... '" .~ ... e::, '" - " " S " > Q ... 0. S .... " .. '" " .. '" ... ~ " .... ;::l '" " -0 '" " - .... [!l ~ ~ ...... .: = '" Q '" '" ~ .S ..,. v:l ..; " .. .0 .. ... '" S .. ... e::, '" - " " S " > co ... ~ S .... " .. '" " .. '" ... ~ " ~~ " '" ~~ ;l> " '" ....-= -= ~u ~ .." " ~ .. -= '" .... .~ = ~~ ..,. v:l ..; '* .... '" ;;: '" - " -= u tll Q.) rJ] 11) .1:: ~ cd.,c !::~...s:::_ .- 'a u r;:::: __ l-o ::3 ::.- .:!a '"0 tn .... ....:l OJ) ~ 2l a I:: 8 cd .t::~ ::J o " 5l .eI 'C r.8 g ~ gf's ~ fJ:l o:.a ~ 8;::l .~ -- I=l :Et)~.o~ '0 <l) 'C 0.0 cd g. ~ .S .5 ~ Q.).... '"'" "'0 Q.) l-o ~ 0.. ~ bIJ,.c 0.. l-o cE cd __ tn Cl) .~.~ ~ ~.s I-< C'j-t+-! 0;,:: 0 '""' 0 Q.) g Q) <.s cd ..c:: ;:l S 'C ...... 0 0 d) <l) o.oU tfJ::O'c .5 I:: ~ u V} 0 .-.- 1IJ ;:j'" 1-0" ~ ~ .a~~dl:: ... 0 1IJ 1IJ 0 "'';:: "..0-0 1IJ d ~ 1IJ s-g~ ~~ u" "..0 ",~u;"-o .- - Q) U '" ;::l tt:: o.~ C V} dUO d 5 Ci5e~bbo.. '" ... Q '" " OIl '" =- " " -:Sa .... U 8..5 '" '" '" "<J:: ',c I:: :.= .- .~ U " oS"s ,,- Oll'" "'- 1::'- . ._ u...... l:!soo "'Coer lIJUb -:S ~~ _..0"" "- " " ~ 0 e ~.,c ~e..E ~o.o ~ 0.. ~ ._ d ~ '" '" . .... d". .~ r- u-o ,~ 0 ".....'" "s 0"'" lO'C ::: .s.9 ~ ",Jl:::; -0 '" 0 " " Oll IlJ ',c I:: S .~ .~ s ~ 'S) o U " U '" S ,,~ .... " 0. U Oll] '" '" o .S... ::E '" .... d~~ - .... J u ~ .... .... -< <C ~ c z W D.. D.. <C --- u O~ ~= ~< '-'~ z~ O>;;l !;;joo 0000 ....z ~O ~.... OE-o UU E-o< =~ ~~ ....E-o ~z ~~ >~ O~ E-o.....l z~ ~~ ~~ ~oo ~z <0 z.... ~~ =z E-o~ ~~ O~ =0 ~U s~ Q M tf) z o i= (,) 0ll<C tf)C) Wz tf)- Zl- OZ ll..W tf):E WW c:::~ lJ..:E lJ..- <Co I-w tf)tf) o ll.. o c::: ll.. tf) Z o < o Z w :E :E o (,) w c::: (,) o :E C) = '" .5 ~ - = ~ ~ '" .~ ..- ... "" '" a i:li .. "ClU ="Cl ~- '" .. .:0:-= .. '" ~ '" =-.a E-< ..... r-: r--:fri = '" .. ... .~ = - " ~= .. "" ~ a ~ .. "ClU ="Cl ~- .. ~~ .. '" " .. =--= E-< ..... .r-: ..... . '" = .. '" - '" '" ~ = .~ '" .S:! - .~ - .~ ... ~ f;I;, = .. ~ '" .. ... '" ~ " " ~ "Cl = " .:0: .. " =- .. = .~ "Cl .~ .:! .. '" .. .~ =-> . " ....- . = .....-= ..;U " .5 - '" :s - ~ " 5 z " - '" ;; " - = -= U = .. '" - '" '" ~ .! '" '" .~ - := .~ ... " f;I;, = .. ~ '" .. ... '" i:li "Cl = " .:0: .. " =- .. = .~ "Cl .~ ~ .. .. =- .... r-: ..; '" '" '" " " '" 00 '" ;::l " --13 000 .S ~ " - '" '" -05 =- '" ~ ti ~> ::E~ "ll .S U ~ E .... " 0_ " '" i:li " oo~ a .S -E Coo ~ ~ d) =- ._ ..c: tl.) Qj U ..c:oo'" - 8 o ~ ~ - "'- " p, '" ~J::'"C ""8. 0 a -, .... '" ,..., ,,- ~ -" ~ g."'O o-fi~ " ~ ~ ~ tl.) U r" " " ] 5 - '" .!!l " " ~ 0000 ~ g, o ~"1j " > ".g 0...5 ~ en" ~oo " " 00 ::J ".0 .9 ;..::: ~'5 ~~ 000 ~ a -g] "'- ",0; ..>< " il .S =-., " "ta 0 .s ~ '" Oll t) .S gt) 8'5 .... .... U ~~ (t) ~';:j E5 ~O 1-12 = ~ i5:: .. '" ~ ~ ::E = .. .~ .... '" .. ... ~ "Cl = " ~ .. " =- '" r-: ..; .;!a .~ ,,- - " "'- "Rs- ~ 0 o a '" A: .-;:: .... .... ,,. . =-. rtio:;:::N' a!::\O e-~&l ~5e::.oC = ~ i5:: .. '" - '" " ~ = .. .~ .... '" .. ... ~ "Cl = " '" .:0: .. " =- '" r-: ..; " {i - '", > '" ~,....:.. "'~ a ~ " 0 ..c: ~ a .~ - > =- ~ ....- " '" - ;::l ~ S ::E '" ,,00 .9 g ~t!. " tl 1:: " 0 ~ e- 00 .... a ..gJ J:l'O ~ ~ =- p, 00 '" " '" :gu ",,0 ;::l::E jJd - " '005 ~~ ~I '" .;;: - " '" .... ..<:: .... ~r.S QQ "'0" ~ a ~ ~ " uO-d ....,,- -E'- ] ~ ~ ~ ." "" .E 4:l~....... OJ t:i'~ '" ..c: 8- ....... o..~~ ~ S .~ .... '" - " " 0 c.!:: a 'C ';:j.- o 0"- ~'C ~ S- == Pol...... 0 :a U1:-;::::: u =."".::: ~ !:: ~ 'O..c:".E "Cl Ei ~.s ]1] ~~ ~8~.s loooi e 0 tn -= ca ',p ..... ~ fr~ ~ ';,0 [~ .....- CI,) 0 cl:J 'C -:S 0.. S .~ -&, '"8-8 =-;::lg:g '1""10._ ca . -5 = "'C ~-os:::: "''':0''' ~ = :a = ~ "Cl - .. -= '" '" .. -= E-< ..... 5 .~ - '" .- 05 - '" " ~ .c .~ .. .. .~ .. =- ..... oC ..; 'll I.l :: " '- - ~ a , :: ~ "Cl -= -= '" '" .. -= E-< .... .c .~ .. .. .;: =- .... oC ..; - '" 0 " ,,- 00"'00 o '" " Ei..c: '" Oll- ~ " " ~"8o ~.s U) - '" '" '" 00''''' Clj s::::..c: ~ .- ~ "'t::l E .--0 .- eo Clj ~ "..9 ""..>< 00.......... ; .s 0 ~ '" ~ '" .... 00 " " a Clj~ "'...... " >> 0 'Eo 0_ - 0 ~.l:l " " '" '" " p, .... Sd)c.S '" - '" .- Clj- >'C 0; '" p, 0 "'3 2 s:::: ..c: "" 0 u g.,..:!a ~...t::~ o '" " c'-- ._:0 !:.' u~Ji ""...... ""of! E-<_", '" '- o '" " on '" =- " o a c E " <B ~ & fr .s o ~ :: ~ ~ a , :: ~ "Cl - .. -= '" " .. -= E-< .... .c .~ .. .. .~ .. =- .... oC ..; " dJ .S .~ 0 "0 " =- 00 " " -:S .;3 ~ OJ) ..c: .S '" o '" - " .... -13 " "0 ~ '" a a ::E -a. .0 " U .9 - .s g a - o " .... '6 - " ~ ~ s - 8 .~ .0"0 i:J a .s ~ ~ fr 15 !5. - ...... [3 ~ ~ ...... < <C ~ c z w a. a. <C ,-., U 0;;'- ~~ ~< '-'~ z~ 0;;;. t;:l~ ~~ .....z ~O ~..... OE-o UU E-o< =~ ~~ .....E-o ~z ~~ ~~ >~ O....:l E-o~ z~ ~~ ~~ ~z <0 z..... <E-o ~~ =z E-o~ ~~ O~ ~O ~U s~ Q N I --'-'"O-o.ou:il)~ .g~gl1)C;I=:(l)>~ o 0 ..c d ~ "S; ~ .~ e ddOll"O""'" J:i j;:;i ;:j'- .-;.., 0''''0 0.0 0] ~U=!: ~ "'.~ 0 _ '" " - bO~ .~'~ .- CI)~~.-t::C\S ~~ Z~!.+:: CI1 0 I-< '"0 C\S rJ:I'" o~~Efr~~ti~e - (l) ti 8 l-< ~ >--.~..c '.;:: ....,.c '" c:J.., ...._ () f-< O.....~ '" "E -" . \00"""" u::s i:lj;;:: 00= allc:(oo-S08t;~s~ UJC)'+==~ ~<.- o.g (l) 0..00 W Z e td CI) I-i OJ) tn.~ ~ CI:l tJ'J i= s::: Q) 0 .- 8.~ OJ C: "'" uf Z Z ..g ..c ...... 6 S 0 '3 ~ N S OW" f-< " " 0 '" C'.... 0'" 0... :E"3 .g e ..... J5 ~ c.S'C (l) (J)wo..~'"OC\S~ >.CI.lO~ ~...J 8.g ~ d ~ .S] ~ J: 8- .... c.. 0 N CI:S oS...... CI1'- _VJ rJ:l LL-=O""" 11)--(1) u...:; 0 ..g "'t:l QJ._.......s = l-< - .. = iU..c Co)...... (IJ...... c:( C ::.- 5 0 - 5'~ ~ E 0 t- W 11) oU = U] OJ) Q.) ~ ~ ._ en'A 0."".D "1! " " " 0. !5 VI l-o 4) CI1..c OJ)!:.... ou.- o ~ d .a :3 .s .S ~ ~ "0 ~ D..!+:: '"0 ;::::l tf.I I:) 0..'- _ 04-<0 g. S sa:; ;::: S >,J! ~ IV .- - 0 0 = ..... ~ ~~ ,,!:::rJ:l o..UCI:S C.j..j '" ..;:::: ...... ctI = (OJ ..... ti =---S"";N..c"0 >. .-!:: ~ E i>(j .9- 0" _ ~ of QJ 0 .::a.c ~ ~ t C\SCI.IA ...co 0..> a ~ .5 .s.s s J: < .5 al en z o < c z w :::E :::E o () w a: () o :::E C> g-gB " 1:: ::is Oll 0 c:J.6 e- o go_ F:"~ > '" rJ5~..V'J - - c; I: c:: (.).- QJ _, '" 6 ""'1:: " " oSho. .- 0 1IJ c:;..,Q '10: 0. " ~d~ I-<.p 0 . t) .D " U,,'S o '" .... ::is 0 " c:J"".D ,,15 ~ -:S en !: o.o:S ,..:g '" 0. .~ d ~ u o:S ...... S '" gp 0'"00,= U -<=1<=10 ~EE::iS .., ~.2 c:J ctI u 0.. <IJ dj u E..c l-o l-<._ ...... ., .. .. II II :a o .... II " .c f-< ... .. .. II '" .. .. II ~ " f-< " '" <=I o ~oo ,,- .... " ..c: ~ .~ a ~ .~ ~ ~ - .~ ,,- " g:, - " 0'" '10: gp o ._ 'C .=:: ~ iil 1:: " o .... @"~ o '" - " ,,- :::s- .6 ~ "8 ~ " '" - " ~~ = 's "0 ~~ 0.> " 0 Q '" J! E f-; ..;:: ..:a - " U .... >. .. .~ ... o .~ ... ~ ..., oC ,.; ., .. .. II II :a o .... II " .c f-< ... .. .. II o .. .. II ~ " f-< .s 4-< o ~ >. ~ a " ~ .... " " ~ 1:: " o .... 0." ",.c ~- - II g;; ~~ ~] .; ::is '" " c:J B .5 :::s_ .~.~ ~ -5 '" 'a:;: @. ~ a ~ .=!-511 " .... Oll .S ~ S -<=1- 5 0 I1J 8 ~-5 ~o.s 0. - " (!.) "E :::3 Q,.c"" - '" ~.!!a ~ .-...... :::3 "0 ~ ~ ~ .... - " .5 .€.f: .... lS <<s .2.- Ol) f-; ~ g ..:a - " u .-; o .~ ... '" 'C ~ '1 "'l ..., 1-13 - o '10: o J: o - ] Oll ~ -5 .~ " " '" " E 1:1 0 S ~ ~ .~ 0." " '" Q <=I " 0 .~ ~ "0 e ~-5 " .~ -5 ~ - '" ,,- ,.c- f-< ~ .6 '" " iil .;!l " '" " -5 ~ " 'S: ~ o - ., .. II .. ., .. ... .. -= .. o U o ~ .s -5 .~ ~ ~ . " ~~ -u I~ g.~ Q " " '" ..c: " f-<-5 ~ 00 ,.; '" " :::s '" .;!l .. .. II ., ., .. ... .. .c .. o ..; oC ,.; " '" " -5 "to ,s ",' " .5 - " '" s @o ~ ,,' " 't " '" " .Q "0 . 0." 4-<- o ~ 0" .~ U '"0 &::is "tOc:J -5~ '" " "" <=I ~~ S "to 0"" " " ~ ~ " U.s: 0" ::is .... c:J15 ., .. (J ';; ... .. 00 - " (J :a .. ~ ... II ! ? ... .. e ~ - .. ... Ii: a; ., .. ... 'E .. 00 - " (J :a .. ::is ~ II ~ ... .. S ~ - .. ... Ii: a; >. ... = .. .. ., ,~ ., II o U "" '" 'C .. ~ .. ,5 .. ... o 0. ~ t;j " >< '" " '" ~ .s <=I o 13 '" " .D " .D ~ -g '10: " 0. .. <=I .~ 0. ~ " -5 "" a '" s " S U '" .... o ..... " Oll " "" .... a; ,.; .... .s o ~ II .. .. ., ,~ ., II '" U "" '" .~ ... .. ~ .. II 'E '" 0. .. i:li '" .... . '" " '" <;:; .s o - ~ ~ "" "3 ~ 1:1 " ~. " .g- ~ <;:; "to F: - .... J u c<l ..... .... <: .... a; ,.; <C ~ c z W D.. D.. <C ,-. u> o~ ~< '-'~ ~~ ....00. 00. 00.00. ....z ~8 o~ u~ ~~ ~:5 ....~ ~z ~~ o~ ~~ ~~ ~--- ~oo. ~z <0 zE=: ~~ =z ~~ ~o ~u r--~ <= <= N I Ul Z o i= o 0ll<C UlC) Wz Ul- z~ offi 11.:i: UlW W..J 0::11. lL.:i: lL.- <Co ~W UlUl o 11. o 0:: 11. B Ul Z o !;;: o z W :i: :i: o o W 0:: o o :i: C) i l- t'" " " " ::E c i:J ] '"' " is " "s - " "s .", 5 " ~~ 8 ~ " " I- .;;: " " ~.:: . >< oo " "E " " " ~.;3 ;g !:i oo", oo oo .", .- - oo o " ~.o "1;; .J:"s .1.- ~ ~ .. " t; .. ::E o ~ 2 - .- .....= oo ._ ~ ~ ~ I- 0 oo ;:l " "" o " " tI.l >._ .",.", ",,<: s " <;:; .- .", .", " " ~ OJ,,s_ " >, oo'd"'O " .", .a :;;a 0. oo " ;:l oo " .- m!:,;; " >,- '"' -~o '" " u t) 0 I:: _._ ::i ~ ~ 0::E P. oo S .- tI.l 0 . " 0 U 5 ~ 6 ~ B g :3'C) ~ ~ . u fruoo.;3 O&;:;;!B " ~.", 1-<~~.s .- d) a: = ~p"p.,,~ " So." ".s::::o=~ '"'0'" ., .S:! ... .- - .~ r;.. " .. is N oi '" " .. ~ t ... ., .. ~ " oo .0 " - " ~ g " oo o oo .., " ,,~ -", 8"..... 8$ "1:: .;38- ~ g- oo'" t ><;!:l o ._ 0..... - " t ~ ""> ~~ ::E.", c[ij U ~ - " " "s"8. _ ;:l o " !:! " ~~ ~ t g~ ;:l " 8::E "'l') .~. '.p u:.::: .5 'g ~ ~:-9 ~ ~ ~ ~~<;!:l ., " .- ;:; == " .. r;.. " .. is N oi '" Q o "'" '= " ~ .. .. ~ ~ .. .S ... .. o =- ~ ... 0; '" - o ~ '= " ~ .. .. ~ ~ .. " .- ... .. o =- " ~ ... aI ...; 1-14 .", ~ ~ oo " " "s Oll " .~ " ~ ~ " g '.g 8 - - .~ - 5 ~ fir .", " . .!:: S ~~ ~ ~ <:; - I- ~ " [ij ::E c i:J " "s - o ~ '6 1;j~ "s .. ,,-= .Sl -g t; OJ ~ -' ;:l ",,0 .S E ~.a 0. ' ~~ ,,1;; oo 0. S .~ 0."" oo " e.;3 >,,,, o " "<;:; " .., eJ>" E~ ".", 1l ;j ~ " ;.:: 0 ~ '.;j -;g '" '" " '>, e..o "' >'''''Sl - 0 _ 'S '.;:j ca " ~ ., o '" " '" I- 0 " "'E 6 .s .- 0.. " '" s - " 0 s ~ u ''';:.- iU " E S o ;:::S._ u...._ - .~ o U c i:J " .,s ~ ~ - -g .. .", . ".", <.;::- .., 0 e~ :s!.J: - '" " ~.;3 '" "'- .- " '" " l') S -€lB .",.", " " .9-g " g o " " p." .S ~ '" I- .~ i 8 >, 0.- ~ ~ .~ ''::: > " e .S - '" E 6 u '.,= '" 0 .- " a .~ "t; I- " 1il l:: " 0 ~ 0 'i " .. .- 00 " 15 <.l .. E .. ca"'" .. 1-1;; '- o. ... '" '= .. El t; " .- ~ 'i " <.l .. 5:00 ca " "15 I- .. .. ... 0_ ... . = --: '" ..L 1l 5 go '" " .0 .,.., '" - ... " e t; " .- "Cl <: ~ '" ~ .~ - " ;:l - '0; o u:: g '" :,s " 1;; ;:l ] ~ - - .~ ~ " - '" " .,s 1;; "s '" .", 5 ~ o !:! I- " . .0.,.., ~~ '" , .",~ a~ 5 ~ - .- , " ~ 8- .0 0 '" " ]"s - I- " " .- <::: U .. ,,"" 02 .- " - ;:l 8".. '" &; i~ go] '" " U.g 0" ::E.a r:j '00 '" '- o 00 .. 00 '" ~ -- ..... [3 ~ ..... ..... < J <( ~ c z W D. D. <( ,-, U ~~ g~ .....00 00 00 ~ ::g o U E-< ::r: e,:, ..... 00 ~ ~ >- U " ~ > '0; e " 'ii " .... E! III '" ~ <El z 'is '- .. " 0 0 ... ... " ~ i= '" OIl 0 .e- " Q. .~ ollcC 0 - " " lilt!) '= S '" " Wz = " '" lIl- '" t ~ Zl- ~ '" offi ;:: '- '" " .. o..~ - 0 6'. o~ '" lIlW ~ '" . " e '" s -5 W....l ~ " " =- 0::0.. "... " ~ o '" ~ '" . ;::l .., <Zl - '" ~ - = "... ~ 0 -= C " -5 5 ... :!ll ... I- W " ... " '" ... " S ... .S '" U III III = .~ " '" '" 0 00 0 " >.0Il ... ... -= Z = - " .. " . ... ~ 0.. " 5 a ~ o '" '" -= " " " 0 0 'U I:::E '" :=>. E:: 0:: 0; ;::l i'1 I'Iio .~ " ,..; .... " 0.. ~ " " ~ .... 0" U .~ e "l .... 0 ~ .- ::1z <: .... .e-~ Q " > ,.; .... ... " e,:, ~ .~ " r<i <Zl .... u~ Z .., ~ E:: " " .;; " ~ a " .... e " - -5 " .... o~ .~ oS .., E-<S: '- " 0 '" z::g .e ;::l " ~~ '" .J:J ;::l -d' 'U ~~ .5 :i ~ III '" 'S: Z ... " " ~ " ~~ <:0 0 ::: ~ '" '" ~..... < ... " ~ '" i'1.e- p: >. " .- ... Su S ~ c 0 ,,- z OIl 0; '" ::r:z w ... '" .... 1 '" aoS E-<~ ~ = ~~ ~ '" ::E.., o~ ... " 0 ... " 1:l .. " i'1 '" ... s " " 0 := " ... ~o o~ " S :g w ~ .. e,:,U 0:: >~ ... e ~ '" Q. t--~ 0 ~ s " =- ~ '" !;:; - 0 '" .~ .. ] '" c .., -.., :c; '" c ~ ~ ,g a .. '" -5 N t!) -.., ... OIl <I .. '" " ... " '" ... l~ '" 'C '" U = " .c:l .. ... " ... ~ e 1l e .~~ '" -= o " ... Jl '" o~ ","" I'Iio .. " '" " " ,..; ~ .... " J .... " U'3 ~ -5 .... ,..; " 0'" ~ .... 0 .... 0 r<iZ ,.; ::El! or: '- 0 .... " 1;l .., L r<i 1 15 '" .... o '" ~ " 0.. - ..... J ro ~ <: CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2007 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT Threshold Review Period 7/1/05 to 6/30/06 Commission Members Kevin O'Neill, Chairman (Development) Joanne Clayton Vice Chair (Planning Commission Representative) David W. Krogh (Sweetwater/Bonita) Arthur M. Garcia (Education) Steve Palma (Southwest) Russ Hall (Center City) Theresa Acerro (Environmental) Tim P. Jones (Business) Joe Little (Eastern Territories) - (to 03-23-07) Matthew Waters (Development) - (to 12-08-06) Staff Mark Stephens, Growth Management Coordinator (to 10-13-06) Frank J. Herrera-A, Growth Management Coordinator Rabbia Phillip, Secretary City ofChula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 http://www.chulavistaca.gov/ August 2007 Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. xxxxxxx) and City Council (Resolution No. xxxxxx) on August 2, 2007 2007 GMOC Annual Repart August 2007 1-16 GMOC Chair Cover Memo DATE: June 21, 2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Chula Vista Kevin O'Neil, Chairman ~ Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) FROM: SUBJECT: 2007 GMOC Annual Report (July I, 2005 to June 30, 2006, to the Current Time and Five-Year Forecast) The GMOC is appreciative of the time and professional expertise given by the various City departments' staffas well as the school districts, water districts, and Air Pollution Control District in helping us complete this year's annual report. The comprehensive written and verbal reports presented to the GMOC illustrate the commitment of these dedicated professionals to serving the Chula Vista community. Special thanks to Rabbia Phillip, Frank J. Herrera-A, Stan Donn and Ed Batchelder, as well as former Growth Management Coordinator Mark Stephens, who provided direct staff support to the Commission. I would like to recognize the commissioners of the GMOC: Vice Chair Joanne Clayton-Eason, Art M. Garcia, Steve Palma, David Krogh, Theresa Acerro, Tim P. Jones, Russ Hall, and Joe Little. This dedicated and diverse team of citizens read numerous reports, listened to detailed presentations, and participated in hours of thoughtful discussion about the impact of development on the "quality of life" in Chula Vista. Over the last few years the GMOC has been in the lead identifying ways we can become more responsive to the community and effective in our message to Council. The most important aspects of those changes have been: . Holding (regular) public workshops; . Focusing greater attention on western Chula Vista; and, . Having greater future vision, by dealing with current issues and looking critically at the next five-year time period. In December, 2005 the new Growth Management Element of the General Plan was adopted and drafts of the updated Growth Management Ordinance and Program Guidelines Document are being completed and moved forward for City Council adoption sometime in 2007, and will be available for review by the GMOC in its next cycle. Chula Vista has been one of the fastest growing cities in the region and the state, and the City has done a remarkable job in providing the facilities and services necessary to accommodate this development. This is a testament to the current growth management program, and all the individual actions that have taken place. We sometimes hear the complaints about growth, but I know of no other jurisdiction that has handled this level of growth so well, and maintained a desirable city image. At the same time, the GMOC is dedicated to continuing to improve the City. Nine of the eleven quality of life thresholds were determined by the GMOC to be in compliance, these are: GMOC Annual Report June 2007 1-17 GMOC Chair Cover Memo August 2, 2007 . Fiscal . Air Quality . Sewer . Water . Drainage . Parks and Recreation . Fire/EMS - Strong improvement is noted for fIre this year. . TraffIc . Schools The two thresholds that were not in compliance are: . Libraries - the Rancho Del Rey proposed library is moving forward, but has not been funded as of this date. . Police, priority II The following report includes a more detailed presentation of the eleven threshold standards, identifIed issues, fmdings, and recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The GMOC held its fIrst workshop retreat at the nature Interpretive Center for the purpose of informally discussing existing GMOC thresholds and proposed, potential future thresholds. The GMOC is of the opinion that a comprehensive review of existing thresholds should be conducted, and that additional thresholds should be considered. The overall discussion is located in part four of this report (see page 36). City Council referrals from the 2006 review cycle were also considered and evaluated as part of this year's review. The GMOC concluded that the following thresholds should be revisited during the GMOC's next cycle for further review and discussion: Police, Traffic and perhaps include a mechanism to address a future Transportation Element. The GMOC's recommendations are further described in part four of this report (see page39). 2007 Annual Report ii June, 2007 1-18 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2007 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT Table of Contents GMOC Chair Cover Memo ..................................................................... i - ii Table of Contents ... ...... ........... .... ............... ............ .............................. 1 - 3 Report Preface - Quality of Life: A Broad Overview..................................... 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 5 1.1 Threshold Standards ............................................................ 5 1.2 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)............ 5 1.3 GMOC 2007 Annual Review Process ....................................... 6 1.4 Growth Forecast ................ .............. ........... ................ ........ 6 1.5 Report Organization ............................................................ 6 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARy............................. 7 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE ................................................ 8 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 FlS.CAL ........................... ................................................ 8 Maintenance of Development Impact Fee (DlF) ........................... 8 Independent Financial Review ........................ ........................ 9 Preventive Maintenance of Infrastructure City-Wide ...................... 9 AIR QUALITy............ .............................. ........................ 9 City Programs for Air Quality Improvement .............................. 10 SEWER .... ........... .................................................... ........ 11 Long Term Treatment Capacity............................................. 12 WATER .................................... ....................................... 13 Meeting Water Demands ........................ ........ ................... 14 Emergency Water Supply........................................ 15 Expanding Water Sources ................................................ 16 1 August 2007 2007 Annual Report 1-19 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.8.4 3.9 3.9.1 3.9.2 3.9.3 3.10 3.10.1 3.10.2 3.10.3 3.11 3.11.1 3.11.2 3.11.3 3.12 3.12.1 3.12.2 3.12.3 LIBRARIES ...... ............... ...... ................. .... ............ ......... 16 Library Building Plan ......... .......................... ............ ......... 17 Library Hours of Operation and Access ................................... 18 Updating the Library Master Plan ............... ........................... 18 DRAINAGE ........ .................. ....... ........................... ...... .... 19 Maintenance of Existing Drainage System ................................. 19 Increased Cost ofNPDES Program .......................................... 20 Complete Drainage Master Plan Work ...................................... 21 Missing or Inadequate Drainage Improvements ............................ 21 PARKS & RECREATION .................................................... 22 Threshold Compliance: Land/Facilities .................................... 23 Providing Parks and Recreation Facilities in Western Chula Vista....... 24 Parks and Recreation Master Plan ...... ......................... .............. 25 POLICE ..... ................................................................ ......... 25 Priority I Threshold .............................................................. 26 Priority 2 Threshold .............................................................. 27 Priority 1 Calls Taking Longer Than 10 Minutes ...... ...................... 27 Other Issues.......... ........................... ................................... 28 FIRE I EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ............................. 28 Reporting Period Consistency.................................................. 29 Fire Facilities Master Plan........ ..................... ................ ......... 29 Reporting Management Tool................................................... 30 TRAFFIC ........................... .......... ....................................... 30 Traffic Signal Adjustment ...... ............ ........... ............ .............. 31 Maintenance & Rehabilitation of Streets ...................................... 31 Format of Tables ............... ............ ........ ........................ ....... 32 SCHOOLS ....................................... .............. .......... ...... ...... 32 GMOC School Progress ......................................................... 33 School District Accomplishments ............................................. 33 City Assistance ............... .................................................... 35 OTHER TOPICS ........................ .......................................... 35 New Challenges in Western Chula Vista ..................................... 36 Comprehensive Listing of Facility Master Plans & Related Plans ........ 36 Public comments ............... ...................................... ....... ..... 36 4.0 POTENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROG. CHANGES.... 36 4.1 4.1.1 GMOC RETREAT & INFORMAL DISCUSSION SESSION ........... 36 Water I Drainage ................................................................. 37 2 August 2007 2007 Annual Report 1-20 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.6 Police Department Specifics .. ....... ............ ......... .......... ........ ... 37 Libraries . ......... ........ ......................................................... 38 Parks and Recreation ..................... ....................................... 38 Traffic ....... ............................................... .................. ..... 38 Possible New Thresholds .... ........ ........................................... 38 4.2 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL REFERRALS.... 39 5.0 APPENDICES .................................................................. 44 5.1 Appendix A - Recommendations and Implementation Actions 5.2 Appendix B - Workshop Report (see Volume II) 5.3 Appendix C - Growth Forecast (see Volume II) 5.4 Appendix D - Threshold Questionnaires & Supplemental Data (see Vol. II) 2007 Annual Report 3 August 2007 1-21 Report Preface - Quality of Life: A Broad Overview The Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) principal task is to assess the impacts of growth on the community's quality oflife, and to recommend corrective actions in areas where the city has the ability to act and can make a difference. This is an important and vital service. No other city in the region has an independent citizen body, such as the GMOC, to provide this kind of report card to an elected body. The GMOC takes seriously its role monitoring the impacts of growth and reporting to the City Council. The GMOC membership also believes that it has a responsibility to express concerns over issues that may not be a part of the formal GMOC purview, but nonetheless maintenance and upkeep of necessary infrastructure for the city is important to all. This potentially impacts the quality of life for the current and future residents of the City in such instances that the increased costs of deferred maintenance may consume a significant amount of budget resources, thereby requiring cuts that may impact services, such as parks and libraries. We find it important, for this issue to be raised so that the City Council and the community have a full perspective regarding the City's quality of life. At the same time, the GMOC has tried to avoid duplication of effort, being mindful of the roles of other boards and commissions in taking the lead in addressing various types of issues, and to focus on its main priorities. The GMOC is pleased to say that overall the quality of life in the City of Chula Vista is being maintained and indeed, even improved. The master-planned communities of eastern Chula Vista are one of the most desirable and relatively affordable places to live in the county. The prospects for redevelopment in the west give rise to opportunities for physical improvements to be realized as they have in the east. Other exciting initiatives are progressing for the Chula Vista Bayfront and a new University Park and Research Center. Some attributes of physical development in western Chula Vista will be addressed as the redevelopment process proc<;eds. Depending upon the rate of this growth, some of the pre-existing need issues may linger for what many feel is too long. Providing parks, curbs-gutters and sidewalks for the southwestern area of the city is being done, and this is recognized and appreciated. So when the GMOC indicates that more is also desired, it is done with recognition for the significant achievements we have seen in recent years. The 2005 General Plan includes an updated Growth Management Element that provides a framework for continuing the evolution of the City's Growth Management Program. A revised Growth Management Ordinance and Growth Management Program Guidelines will also move forward for City Council adoption sometime in 2007. 1-22 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Threshold Standards In November 1987, the City Council adopted the original Threshold Standards Policy for Chula Vista establishing "quality-of-life" indicators for eleven public facility and service topics. These include: Fiscal, Air Quality, Sewer, Water, Libraries, Drainage, Parks & Recreation, Police, Fire I Emergency Services, Traffic, and Schools. The Policy addresses each topic in terms of a goal, objective(s), a "threshold" or standard, and implementation measures. Adherence to these citywide standards is intended to preserve and enhance both the environment and residents' quality of life as growth occurs. 1.2 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) To provide an independent, annual, City-wide Threshold Standards compliance review, the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) was created. It is composed of nine members representing each of the City's four major geographic areas, a member of the Planning Commission, and a cross section of interests including education, environment, business, and development. The GMOC's review is structured around three time frames: 1. A fiscal year cycle to accommodate City Council review of GMOC recommendations which may have budget implications. This report focuses on Fiscal year July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. 2. Pertinent issues identified during the second half of 2006 and early 2007 are also addressed. This is to assure that the GMOC can and does respond to current events. 3. A five-year forecast covering the period from January 2007 through December 2011 is assessed for potential threshold compliance concerns. This assures that the GMOC has a future orientation. During this process, the GMOC distributes questionnaires to each City Department and outside agency that has responsibility for reporting on the eleven thresholds, and each completes the questionnaire to provide the GMOC a status of development impacts to the city. The GMOC reviews the completed questionnaires and deliberates issues of compliance, and the appropriateness of the threshold and whether they should be amended, or whether any new thresholds or standards should be considered. 1-23 .1.3 GMOC 2007 Annual Review Process The GMOC held 12 meetings from October 2006 through June 2007, which were open to the public. GMOC Members also participated in a city field trip on January 27, 2007. City Departments and external agencies completed threshold compliance questionnaires. The completed questionnaires were provided to the GMOC. The GMOC Commissioners reviewed the questionnaires and where necessary, asked department or agency representatives to appear in person to make clarifications and answer questions regarding the submitted questionnaires. Staff and GMOC identified issues and conditions as represented in the report. The GMOC also held a public workshop on May 31, 2007. See appendix D for this year's threshold questionnaires and responses. The final GMOC annual report is required to be transmitted through the Planning Commission to the City Council, tentatively scheduled for August 2, 2007. 1.4 Growth Forecast The Planning and Building Department annually prepares a Five Year Growth Forecast, which was issued in early January 2007. The forecast provides departments and outside agencies with an estimate of the maximum amount of residential growth anticipated over the next five years. Each department and outside agency was then asked whether their respective public facility/service would be able to accommodate that growth or not. The forecast from January 2007 through December 2011 indicated an additional 9,811 residential units could be permitted for construction in the city, (7,471 in the east and 2,340 units in the west) for an annual average of 1,494 in the east and 468 units in the west, or just over 1,962 housing units permitted per year on average citywide. It should be noted that with rising interest rates and a general slowing of residential development on a regional basis over the past year, the number of residential units permitted in Chula Vista has declined from recent highs. 1.5 Report Organization The 2007 GMOC Annual Report is 'organized into five sections: Section 1 is the introduction, describing the role of the GMOC, brief update on the process, and outline of the 2007 report. Section 2 provides summary tables of the threshold findings for the most recent review period. Section 3 provides a threshold by threshold presentation, including discussion, issues, acknowledgments, statements of concern (if any), and recommendations. Section 4 is a summary of the GMOC'S workshop retreat evaluation of existing and potential future thresholds considerations, and also includes review of the Planning Commission and City Council referrals from the 2006 Annual Report. Section 5 Appendices. 2007 Annual Report 6 August 2007 1-24 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC's conclusions regarding thresholds for the 2007 annual review cycle. Nine thresholds were met and two were not. 2007 THRESHOLD STANDARD - ANNUAL REVIEW SUMMARY REVIEW PERIOD 7/1/05 THROUGH 6/30/06 Potential of Adopt/Fund Threshold Threshold Met Threshold Not Future Non- Tactics to Met compliance Achieve Compliance 1. Fiscal X 2. Air Quality X 3. Sewer X 4. Water X 5. Libraries X X X 6. Drainage X 7. Parks & Recreation Land X Facilities X 8. Police Priority I X Priority II X X 9. Fire/EMS X 10. Traffic 0, X II. Schools CV Elementary X School District Sweetwater Union X High School District 2007 Annual Report 7 August 2007 1-25 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS 3.1 FISCAL Threshold: The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12- to 18-month period, and 5-year period. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual Development Impact Fee (DIF) Report, which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. THRESHOLD FINDING: In Compliance The threshold reflects the modification of the DIF Ordinance which allows for indexed automatic fee updates: for Traffic Signal Fee, Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF), Park and Acquisition Fee (PAD), Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF), Otay Ranch Village II Pedestrian Bridge and will also address Otay Ranch Villages 1,5, & 6 Pedestrian Bridge. DIP fees are adequate, being collected and spent. 3.1.1 Maintenance of Development Impact Fees (DIF) Issue: No issue Discussion: GMOC is aware of the ordinance of which regular impact fee updates are a part, that contains ample flexibility to allow the City to adjust the amount of revenue generated by development impact fees to keep pace with growth impacts on city facilities. Careful cash flow modeling of impact fees ensures that sufficient funds will exist to meet future needs' despite unanticipated growth fluctuations. The GMOC appreciates the comprehensive information provided in this year's report. Recommendation: None at this time. 3.1.2 Independent Financial Review Issue: Outcome of the Independent Financial Review Report and relevance to GMOC. Discussion: The GMOC is aware that a financial review entitled "Chula Vista Independent Financial Review" was conducted by the city during early 2007. That review was completed at a point too late in this year's review cycle for GMOC to receive, discuss and have any comment. The GMOC would be interested in the outcome of the report 2007 Annual Report 8 August 2007 1-26 where such may address financial conditions that could have an effect on service levels. Recommendation: If the City Council feels that the Report's conclusions may have an implication on the ability to maintain service levels, then the GMOC feels it should discuss the report. 3.1.3 Preventive Maintenance of Infrastructure City Wide Issue: Planning and funding for road way and infrastructure maintenance Discussion: GMOC discussed how should the City address the issue of roadway and infrastructure deterioration and maintenance. The Commissioners were of the opinion that a Maintenance and Infrastructure Plan should be commissioned to address this issue and that funding should be identified and set aside for this purpose. Absent this escalating costs could become so significant that budget cuts in other areas could affect service levels and thresholds compliance. Recommendation: All future budgets should provide adequate funds for preventive maintenance of infrastructure Citywide. 3.2 AIR QUALITY Threshold: The GMOC Shall Be Provided With an Annual Report Which: I. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies, and procedures are consistent with current. applicable federal, state, and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shal1 provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overal1 regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related federal and state programs, and the affect of 2007 Annual Report 9 August 2007 1-27 those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. THRESHOLD FINDING: In Compliance As noted through the reports, the City continues to be a leader in implementing local measures and programs that contribute to pollution reduction and air quality improvement. As an additional note, although the State and Federal smog standards were exceeded for the San Diego region within the past 2 years, Chula Vista had "Zero" days over smog standards. 3.2.1 City Programs for Air Quality Improvement Issue: How to address air quality issues locally when air quality is affected by regional conditions. Discussion: While it is recognized that air quality is affected on a regional basis, the City of Chula Vista is moving forward in several areas to lower energy consumption and emissions through the Action Measures in the Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan adopted by Council in November 2000. The GMOC supports the efforts undertaken by the City of Chula Vista to improve local and regional air quality. The City continues to implement several measures contained in the Carbon Dioxide (CO,) Reduction Plan. Following is an explanation of the non-development related air quality programs identified as Action Measures in the Co, Reduction Plan that have been updated during the reporting period: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Proiect The City completed a two-year project funded by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection. Urban areas experience increased ambient. air temperatures compared to surrounding undeveloped areas. Shade trees help reduce energy usage and improve air quality by removing CO2, dust and other particulates. 460 new trees were planted along older residential streets with the help of over 420 community volunteers. Energy Conservation Program In partnership with San Diego Gas & Electric, the City began a new three- year program to promote energy conservation throughout the community. By saving energy, the program helps improve local air quality by reducing the energy demand on power plants. The program also provides funding for the City to retrofit its facilities with newer energy-efficient technologies. 2007 Annual Report 10 August 2007 1-28 Recommendations: 3.3 SEWER Threshold: 2007 Annual Report New Shade Tree Program Beyond the above noted Urban Heat Island project, the City recently received a new grant from the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection to expand its shade tree planting program over the next few years. The new project will plant over 1,200 shade trees along residential streets, canyon parkways, and within community parks and will increase the air quality benefits associated with urban forests. 1). The GMOC strongly urges that the City continue its effort in the reduction of Carbon Dioxide (CO,). 2). The GMOC also strongly urges that the City's fleet of vehicles be updated to use the latest -pollution reducing- technology now available. As City vehicles are retired they should be replaced with low- carbon, fuel- efficient models. 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Authority with a 12-18 month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. 11 August 2007 1-29 THRESHOLD FINDING: In Compliance Flows in the City sewer facilities are all currently within acceptable engineering standards. As shown in the following table, the City of Chula Vista's average flow in Million Gallons per Day (MGD) is within capacity allotted through the City contracts with the City of San Diego's Metro system (Point Lorna facility) for the next five years. ~~%.0~tf:: :SEW.,. n:>,"-:-:!i':"'7';-"',:,i:.?:,:f/i'j""'.ri,..'1'.it:f/i,, CJ 0:zJ03 Fiscal 03/04 Fiscal 04105 Fiscal 05/06 Fiscal Projection Projection Projection for Year Year Year Year for next 18 for next 5 Buildout" months ears FI~:er~g~D 116.34618888120.37911 26.2* I Capacity 1119.843 1120.875-1120.875**1120.875-1120.875**1120.875**11 20.875** .,. Buildout Projection based on the current General Plan mBuildout-. ** Increase in capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacity rights resulting from the construction of the Southbay Treatment Plant (allocation process still underway) 3.3.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity Issue: The City of Chula Vista needs to acquire additional treatment capacity in the Metro System within the next 5 years Discussion: Through the completion of the Wastewater Master Plan (2005), it was determined that to facilitate the City's build-out, we would need to acquire an additional 5MGD of treatment capacity rights. Additional capacity could be provided in either of two ways: I). The construction of a treatment facility (i.e. a reclamation plant) or, 2). The purchase of the required capacity rights from another participating agency in the Metro system that has excess capacity rights. Treatment Facility - The City is currently participating in a Joint Feasibility Study with Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority to explore the feasibility of constructing a Wastewater Reclamation Plant that would take a portion of the raw sewage from the sewer system, treat it and generate recycled water that would then be utilized by Otay and Sweetwater in meeting their customers' irrigation needs. It is anticipated that this study will be completed in fall 2007. 2007 Annual Report 12 August 2007 1-30 Purchase of Additional Treatment Capacity Rights - The City is also exploring the feasibility of acquiring the additional capacity through the purchase of treatment capacity rights from other agencies in the Metro system who may have excess capacity in the system. Prior to this acquisition the City needs to do "a proposed" Capacity Valuation Study". To facilitate fair negotiations amongst participating agencies, the Metro Commission/IP A retained the services of a consultant to prepare a Capacity Valuation study, which would determine the fair value of treatment capacity rights within the Metro system. It is anticipated that the study will be completed in the fall of 2007. The findings of that study will provide the framework for negotiations between member agencies. Recommendation: That the "Proposed Capacity Valuation Study" be completed by fall 2007. 3.4 WATER Threshold: I. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12-18 month development forecast and request evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new_ facilities. e. Other relevant information the Districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. THRESHOLD FINDING: In Compliance Both the Otay Water District (OWD) and Sweetwater Authority have indicated that they will be able to meet Chula Vista's water demand for the 12 - 18 month period, and for the next five years as reflected through the growth forecast as shown in the tables below. 2007 Annual Report 13 August 2007 1-31 Otay Water District Total Flow Supply Capacity 130.6 130.6 138.7 144.6 201.5 Potable Storage Capacity 190.7 190.7 196.1 196.1 234.1 Non-Potable Storage 31.7 31.7 31.7 43.7 43.7 Capacity Potable Supply Flow 129.5 129.5 137.5 137.5 191.5 Capacity Non-Potable Supply Flow 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 10.0 Capacity Sweetwater Authority Yearly Demand - (Purchased 8063 8081 7676 7934 8100 8350 by consumers, MG) Yearly Supply Capacity, MG 26,740 27,740 27,740 27240 27,740 27,740 (1,2) Storage Capacity, MG- Treated Water 42 42 42 42 42 45 Storage Capacity, MG - Raw 17,421 17,421 17,421 17421 17,421 17,421 Water Notes: (1) Maximum supply capacity includes 62 cfs(40 mgd) treated water connection, Robert Perdue Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds DesaI. plant (4mgd) and National City Wells (2 mgd). (2) Normai maximum supply capacity is from Robert Perdue Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds DesaI. plant (4mgd) and National City Wells (2 mgd). 3.4.1 Meeting Water Demands Issue: None Discussion: Both of the major water districts serving the City of Chula Vista, the Otay Water District and the Sweetwater Authority, report that they will be able to meet the water demands of anticipated growth over the next five years. Chula Vista has been a leader in water conservation and the recycled water distribution system has been expanded 2007 Annual Report 14 August 2007 1-32 in the master planned communities of eastern Chula Vista through efforts with the Otay Water District and the development community. The GMOC supports these efforts as a way to Jimit potable water demands and maximize efficient use of available water supplies. Otav Water District The Otay Water District (Otay WD) has anticipated growth, and effectively managed the addition of new facilities and water supply needs, and does not foresee any negative impacts to current or future service levels. In fact service levels have been enhanced with the addition of new major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix Water District Levy Water Treatment Plant, which came on line during FY 2003-2004 and the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant, which came on line during FY 2005-2006. The Otay WD assures that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. Also, the Otay WD has an agreement with the City of Diego for recycled water supplies from their South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The City of San Diego formally approved the agreement on October 20, 2003. The agreement provides for a least 6 MGD of . supply from the SBWRP. The supply link to receive the SBWRP recycled water supply is scheduled to be complete in the spring of 2007. Sweetwater Authority Growth observed within the Sweetwater Authority service area during the review period (above table) was approximately 0.5%, which is not significant. Based on projected future growth current facilities can meet projected demands. However, new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 5-7 year time frame. Recommendation: That the City continues to work with both water districts to maintain and track future development in order to continue to meet the water availability threshold. 3.4.2 Emergency Water Supply Issue: Provision of water supply during a catastrophic emergency. Discussion: Both of the major water districts serving the City of Chula Vista, the Otay Water District and the Sweetwater Authority, report that they will be able to meet the water demands in case of a catastrophic emergency. State law requires that an emergency supply of up two years be available for its clients. Recommendation: That GMOC continue to support the Water Districts and their water emergency Policy. 2007 Annual Report 15 August 2007 1-33 3.4.3 Expanding Water Sources Issue: To find other sources of water and to optimize the use recycled water. Discussion: The GMOC feels that the City should continue to work closely with the Water Districts to find alternative sources of water, in order to maximize the ability to meet future water demands, and to optimize the use of recycled water where feasible throughout the City, especially western Chula Vista. The GMOC would like to see other sources such as the possibility of desalination plants for future use as an alternative to imported and local water supply be explored. Recommendations: The GMOC encourages Sweetwater Authority to address the feasibility of expanded recycled water use within their service area. The GMOC supports the Sweetwater Authority effort for the provision of water through its desalination plant at 20d Avenue and SR 54 (Richard Reynolds Desalination Plant). 3.5 LIBRARIES Threshold: The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by build-out. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. THRESHOLD FINDING: Not in Compliance City's library system has not kept pace with growth such that the facilities ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population has not been met for last three years, beginning with FY 03-04 as shown in the table below. As shown for future forecasts, the threshold will not come back into compliance until RDR is built. 2007 Annual Report 16 August 2007 1-34 3.5.1 Library Building Plan -"*,~~,it.~~#;','i":~~';:(;i"r";,"c;,o:.:;:!,.""~'~ "$f"--'''~'Wu.~'1k; ~~qw'~'.'---'i(\%<<~1?fW""w'--c-<.. ~ ~lJ!.t~~fj91~i~~_~*:::~IWi\ :~I.~~~.~ ~~'~~t~.I-%~J);~;."". FY 1997-98 163,417 102,000 624 FY 1998-99 169,265 102,000 603 FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571 FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 FY 2001-02* 195,000 102,000 523 FY 2002-03* 203,000 102,000 502 FY 2003-04* 211,800 102,000 482 FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464 FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457 227,673 102,000 448 263,300 133,129 506 *Planning Division Estimate **S-year projections are based on GMOC Forecast. Assumes RDR library is built. ***Previously assumed that EastLake Branch would close with the opening of Rancho del Rey Branch but because of the high circulation at this location it has been decided to keep it open until the Eastern Urban Center Branch opens late in the decade. Issue: The gross square footage of 500 square feet per 1000 population has not been met. There is an urgency to begin construction of the Rancho Del Rey Library. Discussion: With the community's continued population growth prior to completion of a new branch library at Rancho Del Rey, the ratio of gross square feet of library space first fell below the threshold standard at the end of June 2004, and has remained so up to the current GMOC cycle as shown in the table above. The Library Threshold Standard Implementation Measure requires that the City Council adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into conformance, and that construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years. Based on this, that would equate to June 2007. Thus, the GMOC recognizes that construction of the Rancho Del Rey library needs to begin urgently. The Library Master Plan calls for the construction of a 30,000 square foot full-service, regional library in Rancho del Rey. The GMOC understands that the City has a design/build agreement to complete a 31,200 square foot library at this site, that plans are complete and that the City has a contractual 2007 Annual Report 17 August 2007 1-35 commitment. Construction can begin once Council approves funding. Construction ofthe facility will take approximately one year. As stated above, with completion of construction of the Rancho del Rey library the threshold would be back in compliance. Recommendation: The GMOC recommends that Mayor and Council direct City Manager to secure funding and commence the RDR library construction. This would ensure that Libraries become compliant with the threshold standard within the Implementation Measure time frame, and possibly the next GMOC review cycle. 3.5.2 Library Hours of Operation and Access Issue: The need to define what "adequate hours of operation and access measures" in order to establish a basis for conducting annual GMOC assessement. Discussion: The determination of "adequacy" for library hours of operation and access, and staffing are not clearly defined at this time. This makes it difficult for GMOC and Library to provide a fair and meaningful evaluation. At the request of the GMOC, library staff provided a comparison of the hours of operation and access between Chula Vista and other neighboring jurisdictions. The research presented revealed that Chula Vista's level of Library operation hours exceeded those of the nearby jurisdictions - for the two permanent facilities in western Chula Vista. Given that this is fairly complex, the GMOC needs to work with GMOC staff and Library staff to define what is adequacy and how it should be applied to both hours of operation, access, and staffing for libraries. This should be analyzed and evaluated for the next GMOC cycle in order to provide a better response and to define yardsticks to use for future evaluations. Recommendations: That the library staff be directed to continue to assess the optimum hours of operation in terms of serving the needs of service area patrons in the eastside of the City of Chula Vista and report to GMOC next year to establish a basis for defining adequacy. 3.5.3 Updating the Library Master Plan Issue: Library Master Plan needs to be updated to reflect December 2005 General Plan Update Discussion: The GMOC understands that the current threshold 60 k gross square feet (gst) is based on the 1989 General Plan build-out population. With the recently adopted 2007 Annual Report 18 August 2007 1-36 General Plan Update in December 2005, significant housing and population capacity were added, which would affect the 500 square feet per 1000 threshold standard. Recommendation: I) Assess ultimate future library needs based upon the increased capacity from the City's updated General Plan, and accordingly update the Library Facilities Master Plan, and the threshold standards reference. 2) Actively pursue planning for a new Eastern Urban Center branch library. 3.6 DRAINAGE Threshold: Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering standards. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet that goal. THRESHOLD FINDING: Threshold Met Storm water flows and volumes during the reporting period were within City engineering standards. 3.6.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage System Issue: Maintenance scheduling and repair of the city's drainage areas and working with the Environmental Resource Agencies and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the permitting of the scheduled maintenance. Discussion: Today, maintenance of Chula Vista's drainage system serves two key functions (I) flood control to prevent loss of life and property damage and (2) water quality management. The City's Public Works Operations Department explained to the GMOC that much of the City's storm drainage system is considered environmentally sensitive habitat and requires permitting by the resource agencies in order to perform routine maintenance. These agencies have diverse and sometimes conflicting requirements. For example, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board is concerned with water quality, whereas Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and State Fish and Game are more concerned with habitat and endangered species protection. Because conflicting permitting regulations and requirements are problematic throughout the region, the Copermittees hired a consultant, EDA W, Inc., to meet with the resource agencies and develop a permit application process acceptable to all of them. EDA W was expected to submit the first draft of a permitting guidelines 2007 Annual Report 19 August 2007 1-37 document for the Copermittee's review, anticipated to be completed n February 2007. However, at the conclusion of this year's 2007 GMOC cycle, these guidelines have not been completed A map entitled " Detention Basins and Natural Channel" was presented to the GMOC, which showed an initial list of eight critically impacted facilities that needed clearing to restore proper hydraulic capacities and flood control functions. These eight areas were identified, to be considered within the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) amongst the many other drainage channels needing maintenance. However, based on the conflicting permitting requirements mentioned above, it is difficult for City crews to conduct the necessary maintenance. Recommendation: The City Council approve the budget to hire an appropriate firm to obtain necessary permits from the Resource Agencies for the proper maintenance of the City's drainage system. 3.6.2 Increased Cost of NPDES Program Issue: Increased costs for implementation of NPDES permits. The City's Storm Drain Fee is insufficient to provide funding for the City's drainage infrastructure needs and the requirements of the new NPDES permit. Discussion: On January 24, 2007, the Regional Board adopted the newNPDES municipal permit for San Diego County as Order No. R9-2007-0001. The new permit imposes significant additional requirements on the copermittees, developers, and industriallcommercial businesses throughout the county. City staff estimates compliance with the new requirements will require additional funding for new staff, equipment, and programs in the amount of about $5.7 million in General Fund revenues over the permit's five-year life. This is above and beyond the amount of General Funds now being used to cover some of the NPDES program costs; existing Storm Drain Fee revenues are not sufficient to cover the existing program costs let alone address the new permit requirements. Recommendation: GMOC recommends that the Storm Drain Fees be reviewed and adjusted to meet the costs of the NPDES permit. 3.6.3 Completing Drainage Master Plan Work Issue: City's decision to use the Drainage Master Plan without waiting for the County of San Diego to implement its Hydrology Standards. 2007 Annual Report 20 August 2007 1-38 Discussion: The consultant, PBS&J, completed their work on the Drainage Facilities Master Plan. However, the City of Chula Vista was waiting on new Hydrology standards that are still under review by the County in order to proceed to implement the Drainage Facilities Master Plan. The County's Standards would result in changes to calculated flows. The County is revisiting the Standard at this time. Thus, it was decided to not utilize the County Standards until the County completed their revisions. The City should proceed with the completed Drainage Facilities Master Plan, and not wait any longer on the County's Hydrology Standards. The City can come back and review the Hydrology Standards once the County has formally adopted them. It is understood that the flows calculated for the storm drainage basins may be affected and thus impact recommendations for facilities that need to be upgraded. This issue will be addressed by the Engineering Department in its course of the review for the new standards that may be adopted by the County. Recommendation: GMOC recommends that the Engineering Department proceed to use the Drainage Master Plan as adopted. 3.6.4 Missing or Inadequate Drainage Improvements (Primarily in Southwest Chula Vista) Issue: How to acquire the necessary funding to upgrade and maintain the City's drainage system. Discussion: The primary area of concern in western Chula Vista is the Montgomery Area, located within the southwestern area of Chula Vista, generally bound by L Street to the north and Hilltop Drive to the east. Scattered throughout the Montgomery area are areas with missing street and drainage improvements, such as missing curb-and-gutter and sidewalks. As a result of the incomplete improvements, both drainage and pavement- related problems occur. The drainage and street improvements should ideally be constructed prior to any pavement rehabilitation in order to preserve pavement life. In addition, due to inadequate drainage facilities and in some cases, drainage between/within residential properties, problems occur in these areas during the rainy season. Some of these areas can be improved through the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program, but there are insufficient funds to provide all the identified deficient elements of the street and drainage systems. The drainage deficiencies have been ranked in order of importance based on the estimated risk to health, safety, and property creating a comprehensive listing of potential improvements. The above information was presented to the City Council in a report along with a resolution entitled "Drainage Facilities Priority List", at an infrastructure workshop. The City Council approved this list by Resolution #2007- 08 I on April 7, 2007. Maintenance of drainage facilities has been generally supported by the General Fund and to a lesser extent by Gas Tax and Storm Drain Fee funds. However, the cost of the City's NPDES program has expanded after the adoption of San Diego's municipal permit in February 2001 and the entire Storm Drain Fee is needed to fund this program. As a result of this action, the additional cost of administering the new 2007 Annual Report 21 August 2007 1-39 requirements of the January 2007 NPDES permit will require additional money from the General Fund. Other funds can be used to finance capital projects, such as corrugated metal pipe (CMP) rehabilitation. As previously discussed, the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program includes $3.0 million to rehabilitate! replace corroded CMP in western Chula Vista. City staff has also been investigating the feasibility of increasing the Storm Drain Fee to finance maintenance costs. The m~or projects have been related to CMP replacement and repair. The City also has a standard annual allocation of $300,000 for this work. Staff is also investigating other ways to raise funds for drainage projects, such as applying for grants and possibly enacting a property tax increase. The above information was presented to the City Council in a report along with a resolution entitled "Drainage Facilities Priority List", at an infrastructure workshop. The City Council approved this list by Resolution #2007-081 on April 7, 2007. Recommendation: GMOC recommends that the City implement the drainage facilities per the Drainage Facilities Priority List as approved by Council at the infrastructure workshop meeting of April 4, 2007." Resolution #2007-081. 3.7 PARKS & RECREATION Threshold: Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east ofl-80S. THRESHOLD FINDING: Threshold Met Land: Facilities: Actual: 3.58 acres per 1,000 residents east ofl-80S The threshold standard requires that the requisite parkland (3 acres per 1,000 residents east of 1-805) be outfitted "with appropriate facilities". During the reporting period the facilities sited within the requisite park acreage are consistent with the types of facilities identified in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. 3.7.1 Threshold Compliance Land Issue: None 2007 Annual Report 22 August 2007 1-40 Discussion: Recommendations: Facilities Issue Discussion Recommendation 2007 Annual Report Land threshold is in compliance for the reporting period. Current (6/30/06) eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory will provide adequate acreage to accommodate up to 125,670 persons. With a current east population of 105,373, there is a current developed parkland overage of60.89 acres. The 18-month forecast calls for an eastern Chula Vista population of 112,502 (an increase of7,129). The increase would necessitate an additional 21.39 acres of developed parkland. With a current overage of60.89 acres, current east inventories are adequate to accommodate the anticipated 18-month forecast. Approximately 41.3 park acres (Mount San Miguel Community Park, Village 7 neighborhood park (All Seasons Park) and two Village 2 neighborhood parks) are to be constructed between December 2006 and December 2011 time frame. This translates to an eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory of 430.73 acres, which is capable of accommodating a total of 143,577 persons (greater than the forecast of 136,415 persons). Therefore, the 5-year forecast is anticipated to be accommodated. None at this time None During the reporting period the facilities sited within the reqUIsite park acreage are consistent with the types of facilities identified in the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan and are therefore considered "appropriate" in the context of the threshold standard. The City's Park and Recreation Master Plan and the parkland dedication ordinance identify the formula for determining the quantity of facilities necessary to meet the recreational demand of the residents. However, the threshold standard does not identify a quantity of facilities necessary to be in compliance. However, based on those formulas certain types of facilities (e.g. practice softball fields, baseball fields, practice soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and swimming pools) are. currently experiencing shortages in terms of meeting current - demands. From a practical sense some of the demand for these fields and courts are being met at non-public park sites such as school sites. While future growth will result in the need and requirement for additional recreational facilities, there will continue to be demand placed on non-public recreation sites as well. The GMOC has expressed concern regarding the provision of needed recreational facilities at other types of sites beyond public parks. While fields and courts located at non-public recreation sites such as schools contribute to the overall inventory of facilities. Due to limited access by the general public, the GMOC does not consider school sites and the provision of the school site acreage as counting toward the GMOC threshold requirement. None at this time 23 August 2007 1-41 3.7.2 Providing Park and Recreation Facilities in Western Chula Vista Issue: Provision of recreational facilities for western Chula Vista Discussion: A challenge exists in western Chula Vista in terms of the delivery of and development of parkland and recreational facilities to meet the demands created by future residential development. Concern exists regarding the challenge of acquiring new parkland in developed areas of the City, particularly western Chula Vista. While future growth will result in the need and requirement for additional parkland and recreational facilities, there will be increased challenges in securing appropriate park and recreation sites in western Chula Vista, where land is primarily built out. Lack of vacant and under-utilized parcels of land and/or competing demands and uses for land in the west represent obstacles to expanding park and recreation facility inventory. Developing creative strategies for delivering park and recreation facilities is essential to implementing the citywide standard for new park development. The internal draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan document includes a focused discussion on park delivery in western Chula Vista. Strategies for future western Chula Vista parkland development include developing parks on public agency controlled lands, developing parks on underutilized and vacant lands suitable for parks, and developing parks of varying sizes and character (community, neighborhood, and urban parks) that demonstrably meet defined recreational needs. Future recreational needs in western Chula V ista can be addressed by individually and or collectively applying these strategies. Recommendations: The GMOC requests that Parks and Recreation develop new models and approaches for meeting recreational land and facility needs, in developed western Chula Vista. 3.7.3 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Issue: Adoption of the Update Parks and Recreation Master Plan Discussion: An internal draft of the update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan has been completed and is currently being reviewed by staff and city administration. The document maintains consistency with the established General Plan policy pertaining to providing 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons for new residential development citywide. The GMOC has expressed an interest on receiving and reviewing updated studies and plans that address how future parkland and facility needs will be 2007 Annual Report 24 August 2007 1-42 addressed in western Chula Vista, including the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Recommendations: That a draft of the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan be made available for review by the GMOC as part of its report (2008 annual review cycle). 3.8 POLICE Threshold: Priority I Emergency Responsel: Properly equipped and staffed police units shaB respond to 81 % of the Priority I emergency caBs throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I caBs of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). Priority II Urgent Respons/: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shaB maintain an average response time to all Priority II caBs of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). THRESHOLD FINDING: Emergency response within 7 min.: Emergency response average time: Threshold Met Threshold Met n!ent reSDonse averaf!e time: res 0 ot et Threshold Standard Percent Time Averal!"e Time Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. (Prioritv 1) Urgent Response 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec (Prioritv 2)' . Actual Emergency Response 82.3% 7 minutes 4:51 min./sec. (Priori tv I) Urgent Response 40.0% 7 minutes 12:33 min./sec. (Prioritv 2)' Urgent response within 7 minutes: U. Th Threshold Not Met h ld N< M I Priority I - Emergency Calls. Life-threatening calls; felony in progress; probability of injury (crime or accident); robbery or panic alanDs; urgent cover calls from officers. Response: Immediate response by two officers from any source or assignment, immediate response by paramedics/fIre if injuries are believed to have occurred. 2 Priority 2 - Urgent Calls. Misdemeanor in progress; possibility of severe injury; serious non-routine calls (domestic violence or other disturbances with potential for violence); burglary alanDs. Response: immediate response by one or two officers from clear units or those on interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.). 2007 Annual Report 25 August 2007 1-43 3.8.1 Priority 1 Threshold Findings FY 2005-06 FY 2004-05 FY 2003-04 FY 2002-03 FY 2001-02 FY 2000-01 1,068 of 73,075 1,289 of 74,106 1,322 of 71,000 1,424 of 71,268 1,539 of 71,859 1,734 of 73,977 82.3% 80.0% 82.1% 80.8% 80.0% 79.7% 4:51 5:11 4:52 4:55 5:07 5:13 Issue: None at this time. Discussion: As part of a trend of improved performance with respect to Priority I call responses in recent years, the Police Department is again back within compliance with the Priority I threshold for FY 2005-06 with 82.3% of calls responded to within 7.00 minutes. The average response time standard (5 minutes and 30 seconds) was also met; in fact the average response time was more than half a minute better than the GMOC standard. Recommendation: None at this time 3.8.2 Priority 2 Threshold Non-Compliance Issue: Continued Priority 2 call non-compliance Discussion: The Priority 2 Threshold has not been met for several years, as illustrated in the table below. Although there was a decline in performance relative to this threshold during FY 2006, over the period of July 2006 --through December 2006, the Priority 2 response performance improved slightly (to 40.1 % and 12 minutes, 5 seconds). Additional and substantial improvements have been seen during the first quarter of 2007 (to 45.8% and 10 minutes, 37 seconds). A Police Department analysis of Priority 2 calls indicates that the number of Priority 2 calls has increased 12% since FY 01-02; yet during this same period, the total number of citizen calls to the Department remained relatively unchanged. For several months during FY 05-06, the number of filled officer positions slightly exceeded the number of authorized positions; however, by the end of FY 05-06, the picture was reversed: By the end of FY 05-06 the picture was reversed as there were eight vacancies in the sworn ranks. IThese figures (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. Prior to FY 01-02, citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to received source. Using the old method of reporting calls for service to better compare change over time, total citizen-initiated calls actually increased 1.5% from FYOQ- 01 to FY01-02. 2007 Annual Report 26 August 2007 1-44 FY 2005-06 FY 2004-05 FY 2003-04 FY 2002-03 FY 2001-02 FY 2000-01 24,876 of 73,075 24,9230174,106 24,741 of 71,000 22,871 of 71,268 22,199 of 71,859 25,234 of 73,977 .,~:"o/ti:Cif.Ga'(~~$~9iis~'.w"il\~\t 'r#f?""~'<,f,:~"""~---""''''~~'''<;:i"'h~..:/'';\{'''''itJ!t,-_.-:,J,>." i,*i~ti'i:}fii~rhl\.Nhrl_lJt~~~~~,~~~f ~~~~5~~%5~lrAi*$$.~~;g~'~~~l ,.._,,,,,,t!:r,)~W..~,.~,,,..,~~~~r~L, ~~~~"_ 40.0% 40.5% 48.4% 50.2% 45.6% 47.9% 12:33 11:40 9:50 9:24 10:04 9:38 . Response times figures do not include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03. Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to have the Police Department prepare and implement an action plan addressing the decline in performance relative to meeting the GMOC threshold for Priority 2 calls. The GMOC recommends that this be done by 2008 so that progress in developing and implementing the plan can be reflected in the Police Department's next report to the GMOC. 3.8.3 Priority 1 Calls Taking Longer Than 10 Minutes Issue: City Council has asked that Priority 1 response times that are 10 minutes or longer be sent to the GMOC for Council review. Discussion: During the current reporting period, 5.9% of Priority 1 calls (50 of the 850 calls available for analysis) had response times greater than 10 minutes. The most frequent type of Priority 1 calls with response times over 10 minutes were robbery/duress alarms, all of which were false. Other common Priority 1 calls with response times over 10 minutes included attempted suicide and overdose calls. The most typical reason for Priority 1 response times over 10 minutes was that there were limited or no units available to respond. Recommendation: That the Police Department include with its GMOC Annual Report a review of the priority 1 calls thai'took longer than 10 minutes and whether there were any negative - results due to the longer response times. That the Police Department closely monitor performance with regard to Priority 1 calls with response times over 10 minutes. 3.8.4 Other Issues Discussion: While the GMOC agrees that there is more to the quality of police service than response times, response time is an established community norm that is expected to be met. 2007 Annual Report 27 August 2007 1-45 The Police Department has requested GMOC support for various upgrades/improvements. While the GMOC is not opposed to any of these, it would be beneficial to understand how implementation of any of these initiatives will specifically improve Priority 2 response times. One other item that needs to be taken into consideration is the differences between topography in the west side and that of the east side. The east side tends to have more canyons and topographical challenges than the west side. These are the types of issues that need to be addressed when staff reviews the threshold for police. Recommendation: GMOC recommends that these issues be reviewed at the next GMOC cycle. 3.9 FIRE / EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Threshold: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). THRESHOLD FINDING: Threshold Met Threshold Standard Percent Time Emergency Response 80.0 7 minutes Actual Emergency Response 85.2 7 minutes 3.9.1 Reporting Period Consistency FlRE/EMS - Emergency Response Times Since 1994 Years Call Volume % of All Call Response wlin 7:00 Minutes CY 2006 10,390 85.2% CY 2005 9,907 81.6% FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9% FY 2002-03 8,088 75.5% FY 2001-02 7,626 69.7% FY 2000-01 7,128 80.8% FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% CY 1999 6,344 77.2% CY 1998 4,119 81.9% CY 1997 6,275 82.4% CY 1996 6,103 79.4% CY 1995 5,885 80.0% CY 1994 5,701 81.7% 2007 Annual Report 28 August 2007 1-46 Also, the Fire/EMS response time threshold was met for calendar year 2006. (Data were presented for the calendar year, as had been the case prior to 2000, rather than a fiscal year period as used the last several annual reports.) Issue: None Discussion: The Fire response time threshold was met during calendar year 2006 for the second year in a row even with a substantial increase in the number of reported emergency calls. Dispatch time improved significantly with full operation of its dispatch center. The GMOC commends the Fire Department for this improvement. Recommendation: That fire department should return to the fiscal year basis used for all other thresholds standards. We recommend that the Chief and City Manager return to that basis for the next review cycle. 3.9.2 Fire Facilities Master Plan Issue: Complete review of the Fire Facilities Master Plan and consistency m reporting system. Discussion: The Fire Department has informed the GMOC that the Fire Facility Master Plan update is under review by City Manager's office and that the Advance Life Support (ALS) for delivery services for paramedics is to' be completed in the Fall (2007). The GMOC is of the opinion that a consistent reporting period be used in the future for reporting annual response time data. The enhanced tracking and reporting capabilities of the City's system should facilitate this effort. Recommendations: That the City Council direct the City Manager to oversee the completion of the Fire Facilities Master Plan update and Advance Life Support (ALS) as soon as feasible. 3.9.3 Reporting Management Tool Issue: Dispatch, turnout, and travel time components of the Fire Department/EMS of the city needs to establish a daily monitoring tool for trip response by each station. Discussion: For several years, the GMOC has recommended that the Fire Department establish a daily reporting function of trip response time by each station by trip as a management tool. During this year's review, the Fire Department provided an example of a monthly reporting format generally along these 2007 Annual Report 29 August 2007 1-47 lines. The Fire Chief reported to the GMOC that this has become a useful management tool and performance incentive. The GMOC is pleased to see that this capability has been re-established for the City dispatching system. Recommendations: That the City Council direct the City Manager to: 1) Continue the recently re-established emergency response reporting function that furnishes information by station and identifies the dispatch, turnout, and travel time components; and, 2) Ensure an internal review process is in place to address issues identified and take corrective actions in a timely manner when needed to meet the threshold. 3.10 TRAFFIC Threshold: City-wide: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "c" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments that do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current (year 1991) LOS, but shall not worsen. THRESHOLD FINDING: Threshold Met All City-wide signalized arterial segments are operating at level of service in compliance with threshold standards listed above, except north-bound on Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road. 3.10.1 Traffic Signal Adjustment Issue: An LOS E resulted on a segment of Heritage Road, between Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road. Discussion: For Traffic, the Heritage Road segment between Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway has a free flow speed reflecting a high level of service (LOS). However, a temporary LOS E on this segment has resulted during the PM and D during the AM and mid-day peak period. This problem of LOS E was attributed to signal timing favoring Telegraph Canyon Road combined with the shorter than typical segment length, and not to growth or traffic. The signal timing issue has not been resolved. Once Heritage Road is extended south from Olympic Parkway to Main Street, it is expected that the segment performance will improve. Traffic patterns are expected to shift which result in fewer trips and less signal time. 2007 Annual Report 30 August 2007 1-48 From the perspective of the GMOC, Traffic Engineering staff is left with the following options: a. Re-time the traffic signal to reduce the delay on northbound Heritage Road. b. Re-analyze the two roadways upon the opening of SR-125. c. Make no further modifications at this time, but continue to monitor the situation At this time, with the opening of SR-125 proposed for late 2007, all forecasted growth can be accommodated. Recommendation: GMOC supports Option C in the short-term and further recommends that the situation be re-evaluated after the opening of SR-125. 3.10.2 Maintenance and Rehabilitation of City Streets Issue: Street pavement and maintenance. Discussion: The standard sources of funding for pavement rehabilitation include the Gasoline Excise Tax, which is used by the City's crews to perform pavement spot repairs. Funding sources for major pavement rehabilitation include Transnet ($5.5 to $6.0 million per year) and Proposition 42 (Gasoline Sales Tax) funds. The City also anticipates receiving approximately $7.0 million from State Proposition IB, which was adopted in November 2006, but it isn't clear when these funds will be distributed. However, the determination on whether these funds will be sufficient depends on the City's goal in pavement management. The above funding sources would allow for a $6.0 million annual pavement rehabilitation program. This level of funding will result in an overall deterioration of the City's pavement over the long term and a backlog of streets that need overlays or reconstruction. Staff conducted a Council presentation this spring, wliich presented various pavement rehabilitation scenarios and the amount of funding required for each, along with additional funding options. Recommendation: GMOC recommends that a Pavement Management Plan inclusive of maintenance schedules be adopted and implemented for all City streets. 3.10.3 Format of Tables Issue: Readability of tables illustrating road segment for threshold compliance. 2007 Annual Report 31 August 2007 1-49 Discussion: The GMOC requested that a more "reader liiendlv" format be devised for the tables illustrating road segment threshold compliance. In response, the Engineering Department devised a series of colored maps to show the Level of Service (LOS) on identified segments at a.m., mid-day and p.m. peak traffic periods. The GMOC finds the maps prepared for this year's review to be a useful tool in making the findings easier to understand, commends the Engineering Department for this effort, and recommends that this be used in future TMP reviews. The GMOC finds the maps prepared for this year's review to be a useful tool in making the findings easier to understand, commends the Engineering Department for this effort, and recommends that this be used in future TMP reviews. Recommendation: That the Engineering traffic table segments map, as revised, be used for the review offuture TMP. 3.11 SCHOOLS Threshold: The City of Chula Vista shall annually provide the two local school districts Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union School District, with a 12-18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities. 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. 4. Other relevant information the Districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. THRESHOLD FINDING: CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT - Threshold Met SWEETWATER UNION IDGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - Threshold Met The Chula Vista Elementary School and the Sweetwater Union High School Districts have indicated that facilities are adequate to meet 12 -18 month and the 5 year capacities. 2007 Annual Report 32 August 2007 1-50 3.11.1 GMOC School Progress Issue: None for this cycle. Comment: Over the years the GMOe has not been hesitant to raise issues and concerns regarding schools. This year represents continued progress in moving forward in a pragmatic and comprehensive manner. The GMOe supports the proactive efforts of the Sweetwater Union High School District to extend the modernization program beyond completion of Proposition BB improvements by passing Proposition 0 in 2006. This $644 million bond program will allow the district to continue to aggressively improve facilities district-wide For the Sweetwater District, additional schools are planned in Otay Ranch Village Eleven and Eight. Recommendation: None. 3.11.2 School District Accomplishments Comment: The GMOe is impressed with the level of accomplishments that both school districts have achieved. The fmancing and construction of new elementary, middle and high schools are a testament to the functioning of well operated systems. Sweetwater Union Hil!h School District o The Sweetwater Union High School District has continued to make major progress in 2006, Olympian High School was opened. o In addition, plans for a combined middle schooVhigh school is designed and ready for submittal to the Division of State Architect. A unique design provides two schools on one campus, the 7/8 grade sty.dents have separate classroom and PE from 9/12 grades but the _ site shares administration, library and food services facilities. The three-story design is compatible for its location in Eue Village Eleven and is targeted for construction in the next two years as the demands of growth necessitate. o Implementation of the Sweetwater District's Long Range Facilities Master Plan is bringing older schools up to standard and accommodating continuing growth. the Proposition BB modernization program is to be completed in 2007, 11 years ahead of schedule. Following numerous "summer sprint" projects at eight. campuses across the district the will have leveraged the $187 million from Proposition BB into $327 million effort utilizing State funding. Work efforts associated with Proposition 0 have commenced and construction could begin as early as 2008. 2007 Annual Report 33 August 2007 1-51 o The district continues to be a good community partner in the City hosting dozens of youth leagues and other joint use projects. Chula Vista School Elementarv District The GMOC also supports the ongoing efforts of the Chula Vista Elementary School District to provide additional schools planned in Gtay Ranch Village Eleven, Village Seven and Village Two to accommodate continuing growth. o A new elementary school is being constructed in Otay Ranch Village 7 as this report is being prepared. It will be ready for occupancy in fall, 2007. o Elementary schools are planned in each of the new Otay Ranch Villages. Current plans have identified sites in Villages 7,11, and 2. The school in Otay Ranch Village 7 is under construction. o The process oflocating elementary schools adjacent to city parks will continue. The District is in the process of granting the City of Chula Vista an easement on its Otay School site to expand adjacent park facilities. o Two modular classrooms were installed at Arroyo Vista in January 2006, and six modular classrooms were installed at Salt Creek in September 2006. These efforts underscore the GMOC's emphasis that school capacity involves many interrelated factors that define an adequate physical environment. The GMOC is confident that we are moving in the right direction. 3.11.3 City Assistance The City has responded to the needs of the school districts by providing data on new growth and facilitating the planning and permit process for construction of new school facilities particularly regarding (Olympian High School which is now open), and currently Middle School 12 (The EIR for this school will be issued by the district in July 2007, positioning the district for construction on this campus in response to growth) High School 14 (grades 7-12 campus) in EVC, as well as planned elementary school facilities. The City has also worked with developers to insure that the necessary roads and utilities are in place when needed to support school construction activities. 2007 Annual Report 34 August 2007 1-52 The GMOC is pleased to see this level of interagency cooperation and how it is resulting in success. While the school districts and the city are separate governmental entities with different sets of responsibilities, we are in the end one community with the common goal of improving the quality of life for all our residents. The GMOC is hopeful that this positive relationship will continue and that all reasonable efforts at how we as a community can achieve our goals will be pursued. 3.12 OTHER TOPICS A new section has been added to this year's Annual Report to identify other topics that may not fit within a single prior section of the document, but warrant mentioning. 3.12.1 New Challenges in Western Chula Vista While the GMOC's focus has traditionally been on new growth in eastern Chula Vista, the GMOC in recent years has devoted increased attention to the prospects for changes in western Chula Vista, which is largely already developed. With adoption of the City's General Plan 2005, and recent adoption of the Urban Core Specific Plan, and formation of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, for instance, the GMOC is attempting to anticipate the growth related issues and challenges associated with a greater focus on this part of the City. 3.12.2 Comprehensive Listing of Facility Master Plans and Related Plans Master plans (and/or strategic plans or other related plans) exist or are being prepared or updated for many of the topical areas addressed in growth management thresholds. These topics include: . Wastewater (Sewer) . Water . Libraries . Drainage . Parks and Recreation . Police . Fire . Schools 2007 Annual Report 35 August 2007 1-53 The status and contents of the plans are noted in the completed questionnaires and in discussions regarding several of these threshold topics. Creating a comprehensive list of relevant plans and their status can assist the GMOC in reviewing and understanding progress in meeting growth management thresholds. 3.12.3 Public Comments In addition to the May 31, 2007 Community Workshop, public comments have been received during the course of the annual review process. Any formal comments received and associated responses are included in the Appendices. 4.0 POTENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CHANGES 4.1 GMOC retreat & Informal Discussion Session The GMOC convened on Saturday, April 7, 2007 to a retreat held at Nature Interpretive Center for the purpose of an informal discussion regarding existing and future thresholds that may be entertained during the next GMOC cycle. Discussion: One of the GMOC's primary responsibilities under the Growth Management Program is to identifY whether any threshold standard should be changed or added. Another focus is on achieving enforcement of the threshold standards through implementation measures. The discussion focused around the present thresholds and whether they should be considered for future modification, and whether any new thresholds should considered, e.g., Solid Waste and/or Recycling, Environmental, Housing/Homelessness, Hospitals/Health Care (that includes the provision of emergency services to the local Solid Waste and/or Recycling, Environmental, Housing/Homelessness, Hospitals/Health Care (that includes the provision of emergency services to the local community), Public Transportation and Public Facilities/Community Purpose Facilities. The Commissioners discussed existing thresholds and recommended that for the next GMOC cycle the following should under review: Water discharge quality, Flood controVmaintenance, Sedimentation/poor drainage, Costs, Naturally occurring vegetation, Infrastructure. GMOC may form a sub-committee before the next cycle to work with Police Department to research the levels of service and community perception/feedback (fear, inadequacy) and may also work with Fire Department as both work together as first responders. The following summarizes the outcome of the discussion on existing thresholds that should be revisited and addressed in order for these thresholds to become a more effective tool. 2007 Annual Report 36 August 2007 1-54 4.1.1 Water/Drainage - overall review of threshold, i.e., o Flood control I maintenance o Sedimentation and poor drainage (issue), costs, infrastructure should have a level and or standard for measuring (example given % of), naturally occurring vegetation (its impacts and costs to maintenance) o Water discharge quality o Maintenance access paths (possibly made of materials other than concrete) to reduce overall maintenance costs 4.1.2 Police Department - Specifics of why they are not meeting the threshold - should it be redefined, and revisit the benchmark. o What is actually being achieved compared to the type 2 calls o Are geographical locations affecting performance o Number of officers, deployments should be part of the police report, noted change of population and area of City, type and size increase new metrics need to be introduced in the report! questionnaire, o Areas should reviewed I broken down by service areas east and west o Housing Stock (o]der vs. newer). The GMOC proposes that a sub-committee be formed prior to the next GMOC review cycle to work with Police Department to research levels of service and community perception! feedback (fears, in-adequacies). May also review with Fire Department as both work together as first responders. The performance on each side of 1-805 needs to be reviewed in order to look at degradation of services. The performance numbers for the upcoming GMOC review cycles should be provided to the subcommittee to analyze before the actual questionnaire is submitted. 4.1.3 Libraries o Square footage vs. facilities and services o Should they expand their media services ]t was noted that this threshold should not be judged on numbers of facilities but to the services and availability to the public, how well is the community being served, and part of the benchmark should be services offered. 4.1.4 Park and Recreation o Hours of operation and access o Uses - passive vs. active o Types and numbers of programs o Realistic requirement of parkland east and west sides of the City 2007 Annual Report 37 August 2007 1-55 o Organized programs that preclude public usage from outside of local address o Joint use of School/Parks sites Joint use and cooperatives with SchoolslPark and Recreation should be entertained again and reviewed for inclusion into the next GMOC Annual Report. 4.1.5 Traffic o Consider monitoring and reporting on levels of service of key regional transportation, transecting Chula Vista such I-80S and 1-5 as is presently done for City arterials. o Should the city have a Traffic Plan, (such as those being done for other cities, e.g. Santee), defining the city's strategy toward sustaining and improving traffic conditions on local and key regional roadways, such as we have with master plans for parks, fire, and police? 4.1.6 Possible New Thresholds o Solid Waste and/or Recycling o Environmental o HousingIHomelessness o HospitalslHealth Care, which includes emergency service to the local community o Public Transportation o Public Facilities/Community Purpose Facilities 4.2 2006 Planning Commission/City Council Referrals The following are comments (Referrals) from the joint City Council/GMOClPlanning Commission meeting held on June 15, 2006. The referrals were reviewed by the GMOC and included in the 2007 Annual Report, along with GMOC recommendations. The following is a list ofthe topics associated with the referrals; which are explained and addressed on the following pages. o Air Quality o Fiscal o Libraries o Drainage o Parks & Recreation o Traffic o Sewer o Schools o Other Council Comments The referrals are listed below with discussion/comments. 2007 Annual Report 38 August 2007 1-56 Air Quality: o GMOC to review the Air Quality Threshold and consider inclusion of measurable standards with respect to pollution reduction targets or other metrics. The standard should address regional, cumulative, and local air quality conditions, and be able to effectively gauge our contributions to air pollution/air quality. Discussion GMOC staff communicated with Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff and convened a meeting with Community Development Staff, to determine how to address metrics for CO2 within the local community (specifically the western portion of the City), and to make a determination of how a program such as the Leadership Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) could be used for a possible foundation to address this issue. A meeting was conducted with members of Planning and Community Development departments to initiate discussion on how the following programs could fall within the basic foundation of LEED in order to establish metrics for CO2. o Green Star Program - addresses new development and incorporates appropriate materials for the building, to reduce CO2. The program provides incentives for the developer to take advantage of this program. o Conversion of Buses/City Vehicles to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) reduces CO2 and provides metrics for the reduction CO2, GMOC staff is of the opinion that further review should be conducted, resources identified, and further coordination with the City's Department of Conservation developed to establish the foundation for a viable program that appropriately addresses the CO2 reduction metrics as well as the concept that all relevant programs have CO2 targets. There is a need to assess how those might correlate to a CO2 metric for the GMOC AQ thresholds. GMOC concluded that it is premature to address this at now without further review and the correlation with existing programs. For the 2008 GMOC review cycle, staff could review and evaluate through the LEED or other program how this issue could best be served. Fiscal: o Review with the Department of Finance and Office of Budget Analysis to ensure that 8% of reserve capacity during future reviews is set aside for the fiscal health of the City. Discussion The Director of Finance presented the Fiscal Overview Report on how the city was doing financially and disclosed the position of the city regarding the 8% reserve. The city is meeting its obligation on the 8% reserve. Through cut backs in major equipment, acquisition of future equipment, and some deferred maintenance, the present fiscal year reserve is at 8.5%. A brief history of the City Council Policy on an 8% reserve and how it was established was presented. The report also briefed the GMOC on the fiscal review of expenditures/revenues for the present fiscal year 2007 Annual Report 39 August 2007 1-57 regarding Sales and Property Taxes, Other Revenues, Expenditures, Capital Improvements, Forecast (I 2 - I 8 months and 5-7 years) and the Long Term Financial Plan (IO Year Outlook). The Director of Finance went on to explain how the outlook for revenues was being anticipated through the above mechanisms for both forecast periods (see attached report for specifics). In order for the City to maintain an 8% reserve the Finance Director indicated that the Finance Department is in the process of generating the Long Term Financial Plan that will include a contingency plan to address fiscal challenges that the City may face due to unanticipated swings in the economy, further State funding cuts or other unforeseen events. Once this plan is completed and approved by the City Council, it will be updated by the Finance Department each year prior to the beginning of the budget cycle. The financial plan would serve during the required annual fiscal report presented to the GMOC as part of the annual review of thresholds. The GMOC will review and comment on an annual basis on the Long Term Financial Plan. There was also a referral that was made in 2006 as to the disposition of the unused Interim SR-I25 Development Impact Fee funds and the legal issues regarding their use. The City Attorney's office analyzed the issue, and found that the City's actions complied with state law, and this opinion was provide to the GMOC. At last year's joint CC/PC/GMOC workshop, Council requested that an update report regarding use of the fee be provided. Libraries: o Establish some level of minimum staffing for libraries in the threshold. Discussion: GMOC staff met with the Assistant Director of Libraries to discuss levels of minimum staffing for libraries as well as hours of operation and access. The Assistant Director provided background on the process libraries use to determine minimum level of staffing for library facilities, and provided the following statement prepared on behalf of the Library Director: Within the operating budget appropriated by City Council, the Library Director staffs the libraries to deliver the services called for in its multi-year strategic plan. The Library Director allocates the annual budget towards staffing to keep the full-service area libraries open and safe, provide free homework and formal learning support, continue children's programming, assist with and maintain public computers, and select and process new books and materials to enrich lives for all Chula Vista residents. Therefore, in view of the Strategic plan for the libraries an additional specific minimum staffing level for a threshold isn't practical or necessary . In the next review cycle the GMOC will address staffing and hours of operation as part of the expanded threshold. Drainage: o Review the Drainage Threshold for consideration of inclusion of a water quality oriented component. This should include aspects related to sedimentation, etc., and the maintenance of drainage facilities. The GMOC should determine what methodology to recommend for measuring impacts. 2007 Annual Report 40 August 2007 1-58 Discussion: The Director of Public Works Operations presented a report on drainage and water quality to the GMOC. As stated in the report, the issue pertaining to water quality and the incorporation into the Threshold was not necessary because extensive regulations and programs to maintain water quality are already in place through NPDES (National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System). To elaborate, under the storm water permit regulations, all new development and redevelopment projects are required to comply with all storm water management requirements, including the design and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and/or Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements, all of which are based upon dry and wet weather water quality pollutants of concern. Specific and prescriptive requirements and BMPs are specific to site conditions and pollutants of concern therefore one solution or approach would not work. The GMOC is studying what those standards might be and how they could be integrated into the present threshold standard. Parks & Recreation: o The GMOC review and comment on the geographic distinction between east and west side circumstances as regards park acreage and application of the Parks threshold standard. Discussion: GMOC has reviewed the implementation of citywide standard up as part of the top to bottom Growth Management review, previously directed by Council and has formulated proposed revision for the standard to apply citywide. This avoids particular east/west divides and simply indicates that all new development should proportionally contribute to the provision of park lands at the rate of 3 acres per 1000 population, consistent with the PD~ standard. The GMOC will continue to study the fees and the opportunities to create more parks and recreation facilities for the west side of the City will be brought forward in the next cycle. Police: o Examine Police Priority I (emergency) calls with responses greater that 10 minutes. Discussion: It was reported to the GMOC that during FY 05-06, 5.9% (50) of Priority Calls had response times greater than 10 minutes. The most common PI call type with a response time over 10 minutes was robbery/duress alarm. All robbery/duress alarm calls were false alarms. The most common reason PI response times were over 10 minutes was that there were limited or no units available, as well as the 3-7 PM false alarms that occur between these hours, which are the 4 busiest hours for PD. Average long PI CFS response time 13:36,46% of long PI CFS had response times between 10 and 11 2007 Annual Report 41 August 2007 1-59 minutes. The Police Department is conducting Beat 32 "surge" on several Friday swing shifts in order to determine how many officers are necessary to bring down response times. The GMOC understands what these calls relate to and notes that PI response has improved in this cycle, while P2 has not. In the next cycle the GMOC will be reviewing any actual negative outcomes or the potential for negative outcomes in PI and P2 calls. In response to this referral the GMOC was informed that the Public Safety Commission had reviewed the report from the Police Chief and the same report was presented to the GMOC. Sewer: o City staff should work with other agencies to put together a sewage treatment facility in the South County. Discussion: Staff from the Engineering Department is currently participating in a Joint Feasibility Study with Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority to explore constructing a wastewater reclamation plant (4th Avenue and Main Street) that would take a portion of raw sewage from the sewer system, and treat and generate recycled water that would then be utilized by Otay and Sweetwater irrigation needs. (Report due to Engineering Summer of 2007). Another avenue that is being explored is the expansion and acceleration of the planned South bay treatment plant (at the Tijuana River) - This option involves partnering with the City of San Diego to expand and accelerate the construction of the planned 21 Mgd Southbay treatment plant. Under this scenario the City would fund the incremental cost of expanding the facility to a 26 Mgd plant. The proposed study is to be completed within four months and a report presented to in the fall of2007. GMOC will review all studies prior to providing any further recommendations. Traffic: Roadway Maintenance o The GMOC should look at roadway' maintenance and repair along the same lines as the level of service analysis. Discussion: City Council at its meeting of April 5, 2007 had an opportunity to review the Infrastructure Report on road maintenance and improvements and the Pavement Management Program. These documents are under further review by the Engineering Department. GMOC will not have an opportunity t review the results and provide recommendation on the Infrastructure Report in this GMOC cycle. However, GMOC would acquire this document, when it is finalized and will review it during the next GMOC cycle. Schools: o To consider the inclusion of higher-education facilities as part ofthe Schools Threshold. 2007 Annual Report 42 August 2007 1-60 Discussion: GMOC staff met with a representative from Southwestern College to initiate and explore possibilities for the inclusion of higher-education facilities as part of the School Threshold; and plan to hold further discussions in the next review cycle. Transportation and Transit Tbresbold: o To consider creating a 12th threshold standard for a" Transportation Element" which would address transit and improving mobility, rather than just measuring the level oftraffic flow as occurs now under Traffic Threshold. Discussion: GMOC staff met with representatives from both Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and Chula Vista Transit (CVT) to discuss bus rapid transit system and the nuances of the provision of this service, what it would entail to develop a rapid transit system for the City of Chula Vista. The following is a synopsis of the discussion, background, how services are provided to the community at large, and what it would take to formulate a system like (BRT) for the City of Chula Vista. Those discussions focused on a number of practical considerations that would affect the ability to establish such a system and make it a viable project. A rapid transit system threshold would be difficult in light of the following facts. o One of two major obstacles is funding and the other is rider-ship. Most funding generated for (BRT) systems is through grants, which can sometimes last up to 2 years and then they go away. o Rider-ship stability and frequency o Frequency of service o Percentage improvement over a five year period (metrics) o Lane preference treatment o Priority treatment over other traffic o Routes and destination o Some of the challenges are financing, sustainability of service, providing priority to a rapid transit system to make it competitive and community acceptance of mass transit as an alternative. o One of the recommendations made by (MTS) staff was that a full Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) for Transit and Mobility should be conducted within the City of Chula Vista. The intricacies of this issue make it impractical for GMOC to consider as a 12th Threshold at this time. Healtbcare o To look into the adequacy of medical and health care service facilities for the community. Discussion: The GMOC at its informal workshop April 7,2007, discussed the issue of adequacy of medical and health care service facilities to the community. The intricacies of this issue make it impractical for the GMOC to address as a Threshold at this time. 2007 Annual Report 43 August 2007 1-61 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 Appendix A - Recommendations and Implementing Actions 5.2 Appendix B - Workshop Report (Included in Volume II) 5.3 Appendix C - Growth Forecast (Included in Volume II) 5.4.1 Appendix D - Threshold Questionnaires and Supplemental Data (Included in Volume II) H:\PLANNlNG\GMOCIGMOC _VoL I_DraftJI2.07 2007 Annual Report 44 August 2007 1-62 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY May 31, 2007 6:00 p.m. Employee Lounge John Uppitt Public Works Center 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista The Chairman of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), Kevin O'Neill, convened the workshop at 6:15 p.m. He asked the Secretary to conduct the roll call. Also in attendance were representatives from the Police, Library, Engineering, Parks & Recreation Departments to furnish any additional information if required. Jim Sandoval, Director of the Planning & Building Department was also present. He then commented that, there being no members of the public present, he would invite comments from the Commissioners for any item not on the agenda. There being none, he asked the staff liaison for GMOC, Frank Herrera-A, to proceeded with his presentation on the Annual Report. He narrated a PowerPoint presentation that explained the City's Growth Management Program and the role of the GMOC, the 11 threshold categories that the GMOC reviews on an annual basis, and the findings and recommendations from this year's review. He noted that a summary of this meeting would be included in an appendix to the final GMOC 2007 Annual Report to be presented to the City Council and Planning Commission for approval. The commissioners reviewed each slide of the presentation, suggesting changes, which will be incorporated into the presentation to Mayor and Council. There was input from the staff persons present, as well. That final 2007 GMOC Anri'u'al Report is scheduled to be presented at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the City Council on August 2, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road in the employee lounge. Commissioner O'Neill stated that in past years, there have been meetings with much greater attendance, but that was when the public had specific concerns about issues such as traffic congestion and schools. The level of participation tends to fluctuate based upon the level of community concern. The Chairman moved for the Commission to approve the Draft Annual Report and the presentation subject to the cumulative revisions. Commissioner Clayton seconded and all agreed. H:V'LANNING\GMOC\GMOC_06-07\06-07Annual Rellort\Flnill Draft\WSHOP JUmmill'Y_0531f11.doc Page 1 of 2 1-63 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SUMMARY May 31, 2007 6:00 p.m. Employee Lounge John Lippitt Public Works Center 1800 Maxwell Road, Chula Vista The Chairman and Mr. Sandoval suggested that the next scheduled meeting of June 7th, may not be necessary and should be cancelled with a representative 2- member subcommittee giving the final nod to the completed draft report. The issue will be clarified with the City Attorney's office and the secretary will communicate the outcome to the commissioners. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The final GMOC meeting will be on June 21 in the conference room of the Ken Lee Building, 430 F Street, Chula Vista. H:\pLANNING\GMOC\G~06-07\06-ll7AMlJal P.e;Jort\Flnal Dritt\WSHOP JumlTllry_OS3107.cloc Pave 2 of 2 1-64 COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 200ft TO: FROM: The Honorable Mayor and City counc/, Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager j1 Jim Sandoval, Director of Planning and Buildin~ Ed Van Eenoo, Director of Budget W - r VIA: SUBJECT: Growth Management Oversight Commission Forecast 2007 The Planning and Building Department has prepared the Annual GMOC Forecast 2007 (see Attached) that was introduced to the GMOC at its first scheduled meeting of January 25, 2007. This forecast supports the GMOC thresholds compliance review and it will be sent to various City departments and agencies as well as the public for their review and comments in coordination with GMOC staff, in the preparation of the annual GMOC report to the City Council in June 2007. The five year forecast (calendar year 2007-2011) projects 9811 units could be permitted within eastern and western Chula Vista over the next five years. The average annual rate anticipated within this 5-year period could be 1,962 units (see Table I of Forecast report, attached). This number is derived primarily from approved development plans, and estimated project-processing schedules for project plan reviews, subdivision maps, and building plans. The Forecast report also includes a graphic (Table 2) showing actual permits that were constructed between 1996 and 2006. There was significant rise in development activity between 1999 and 2004, largely attributable to construction within the master planned communities in eastern Chula Yista. The past two years (2005-06) there was a decline to a more normal rate of development, similar to years 1996-98. However, it is anticipated that development activity will continue to rise in the next five years - although not as dramatic as 1999-2004 period. The GMOC Forecast data/report reflects a more liberal or "worse-case" scenario so that city departments and outside agencies can determine potential impacts to the city's growth management threshold standards, to ensure compliance and appropriate recommendation for improvements. In conjunction with recent budget planning efforts, the Office of Budget & Analysis prepared a development forecast for Fiscal years 2007 through 2009. This forecast was referenced in the 'Quarterly Financial Status Report' for the first quarter of Fiscal year 2007 recently presented to Council. In addition, this forecast was considered in preparation of the Fiscal years 2008 and 2009 baseline budgets. 1-65 Preliminary GMOC Forecast 2007 Page 2 The development forecast prepared by the Office of Budget & Analysis considered the foHowing four significant factors / data sets: . Anticipated Development & Project Phasing; . Current Development Status; . Average Development Processing Times; and . Residential Housing Market Trends. The data collected is detailed in the matrix below. I DATA FACTOR/DATA COLLECTED SET DESCRIPTION i DATA SOURCE BY , , . Planned reSIdentIal dwelhng urnts were identified, along with planned project phasing (SPA plan through building permit . issuance). - .--.--.-...--...,........--.-... --' - -. ... Current status of development . project identified, including all activities from Tentative Map Current Development through Final Subdivision Map, Status as well as approval of Grading and Improvement / Construction Plans and building permit applications. Anticipated Development & Phasing Average Development Processing Times Residential Housing Market Trends Permits Plus Final Subdivision Map and Building Permit Activity; Interviews , with Planning & Building and Engineering Departments __ ___._ ..__.._...__...,.,.___.._.....,.._ _ _... . _.__.___m__....___"'. . Permits Plus Final Subdivision Map and Building Permit Activity; Interviews with Planning & Building and Engineering : Departments Historic development processing data was collected, including average time to move from development entitlement through building permit issuance. Interviewed real estate market expert to gain third party insight into residential market trends and forecast for the San Diego south bay region, including Chula . Vista. Development Community . Peter Dennehy, Real Estate Market Expert Planning & . Building / Office of Budget & . Analysis Office of Budget & Analysis . Office of Budget & Analysis. Office of Budget . & Analysis Variances between the development forecast prepared by the Office of Budget & Analysis and the GMOC Residential Growth Forecast for Years 2007 and 2011 do occur. For example, the GMOC report forecasts 2,530 new residential units will be permitted during calendar year 2008. In contrast, the Office of Budget & Analysis forecast only anticipates 1-66 Preliminary GMOC Forecast 2007 Page 3 1,873 units will be permitted during the same period. This incongruity is attributable to the purposes of each forecast. As described above, the GMOC report is tasked with identifYing the maximum anticipated impacts resulting from growth. As such, the most conservative approach is to assume the development of all units immediately following entitlement. In contrast, the Office of Budget & Analysis forecast was developed as a tool for revenue forecasting. The most conservative approach in this instance is to assume slower development of the City's remaining residential units, especially for those developments located in the City's western territories. As an example, this forecast assumes the issuance of permits in small groups, or phases. Developers have historically employed this phasing approach, and interviews with the development community suggest that they will continue to request permits in this same manner in the future. This is especially relevant given recent slowdowns in the residential real estate market. During the height of the residential construction market, developers would request permits for, and build, residential units far in advance of securing buyers. This was considered a reasonable risk, as the units would sell immediately upon going to market. With the softening of this market, a number of developers have found it challenging to sell off this stock. In an effort to limit their exposure to future market slowdowns, developers are likely to continue requesting permits in a phased manner. Variances between the two residential growth forecasts are shown in the chart below: 3,000 2,500 on 2,000 - '2 :J -a 1,500 ..., c 1,000 " "0 .;;; " 500 0:: 2007 II GMOC 1761 OOBA 1601 2008 2530 1873 2009 2095 1732 Calendar Year Staff has conferred internally to discuss the variances, and the causes of the variances, between these two forecasts. It is the opinion of staff that the differences are not substantive, are appropriate given the diverse purposes of the forecasts, and do not represent a conflict. J:\Planning\StanD\Memos & Routing Sheets\Councillnfo Memo - GMOC Forecast 2007 (2).doc 1-67 City of Chula Vista 2007 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2007 Through 2011 1-68 INTRODUCTION As a component of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program, the City's Planning Division provides annual growth forecasts for two time frames: 24 months and five years. This 24-month forecast covers calendar years 2007 and 2008, and the five-year forecast extends through calendar year 2011. Providing this information enables City departments and other service agencies to assess the probable impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with the City's eleven growth management quality-of-Iife Threshold Standards. The eleven thresholds standards encompass: Fire and Emergency Medical Service, Police, Traffic, Parks and Recreation, Drainage, Libraries, Air Quality Fiscal Schools Sewer, Water. With this data, these bodies will be able to report possible threshold impacts to the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) as part of their annual compliance questionnaire. Through the City's growth management review process, the GMOC will provide a set of recommendations to the City Council regarding maintenance each of the City's Threshold Standards. Those recommendations can include such actions as the addition or acceleration of capital projects, hiring personnel, changing management practices, slowing the pace of growth, or imposing a moratorium. The City Council will ultimately decide what course of action to take. Commonly referred to as the Growth Management or GMOC forecast, it is important to note that this forecast: . Does not represent a goal or desired growth rate; . Does not at this time reflect or recommend a building permit cap; . Is what may occur given a set of assumptions (presented on page 2). . Is produced by the city and not necessarily endorsed by home builders. . Represents a "worst-case" or more liberal estimate to assess maximum possible affects to the City's threshold standards and respond accordingly. Preparing a five-year forecast always incorporates a fair degree of uncertainty. The current forecast period offers an even greater challenge given the downward trends in the housing market that are influenced by a variety of factors outside the City's control. This forecast report highlights projected growth in both the eastern and western portions of the City. While the majority of the fore!=ast remains in the east, increased in-fill and redevelop me lit in western Chula Vista is starting to take place and will continue in the future. This forecast document is provided to the City Departments and outside agencies that are responsible for maintaining the thresholds. FORECAST SUMMARY Over the next two years (January 2007 - December 2008) it is projected that as many as 3,763 housing units may be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, and about 528 housing units permitted in western Chula Vista, for a citywide total of approximately 4,291 units (See Figure 1). In the five-year forecast period (calendar years from 2007 through 2011), eastern Chula Vista may have as many as 9,811 housing units permitted, and western Chula Vista 2,340. This combines for a citywide total of 12,151 units, with an annual average of 1,962 in the east and 468 Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 1 of 10 1-69 in the west, or approximately 2,430 housing units permitted per year on average citywide (See Figure 1). In order for the City of Chula Vista to accommodate this growth and maintain the quality of life there must be the concurrent development of public facilities and services. It is the role of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) to assess if the established quality of life standards are being met and to make recommendations to the City Council to ensure future compliance. The following discussions and figures describe the context, conditions and assumptions behind the forecast, and are provided to further qualify that this forecast is a fluid planning tool and not a prediction or guaranteed expectation. CONTEXT Backaround: As was widely reported in the media, in the year 2001, the City of Chula Vista was the 7'h fastest growing community of its size in the nation. As depicted on Figure 1, the year 2001 represented a peak of residential permits (3,500) rather than an average or a norm. While this forecast reflects the deceleration of construction activity not only in Chula Vista, as well as in the region, it represents a return to a more normal condition in relation to average construction activity since the 2000. Regardless, significant levels of construction are still anticipated. This is supported by the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) 2030 Regional Growth Forecast, which indicates that the South County sub-region will continue to host a substantial amount of the region's projected growth over the next 25 years. This stems from a few factors, including the following: . The limited General Plan housing capacity among some of the region's cities . The comparatively lower average price of housing in areas south of 1-8; are . The amount of vacant land and housing capacity within approved master planned projects in eastern Chula Vista. . Multiple Ownership of the Otay Ranch, Development Entitlements for eastern territories, 1805 @ H Street, 1805@ Telegraph Canyon Rd. and 1805 @ Orange Avenue Improvements by Caltrans. -. - SANDAG projects that the City will add nearly 27,800 housing units and over 93,000 new residents between the years 2006 and 2030. As shown on Table 3, historically the rate as reflected in Figure 2 housing construction in Chula Vista has fluctuated from a few hundred a year to thousands with an average of approximately 1400 over the last 26 years. In the years between 1996 and 2001 there was a steady increase from about 1000 units to a peak of over 3,500 housing units receiving building permits. A significant part of this is attributable to the onset of construction in the Otay Ranch project and other eastern Chula Vista master planned communities. Since 2001 the average annual number of units receiving permits for construction has been approximately 2,500. FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 2 of 10 1-70 The following forecast assumptions are predicated upon the following: 1. That construction of SR-125 proceeds on schedule with mid-2007 opening. 2. There are no additional building 'caps' imposed on development that would restrict the number of units below what is forecasted. 3. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged. 4. That Growth Management thresholds are not exceeded. 5. That the housing market in Chula Vista does not experience further significant decline. 6. That the General Plan Update deferral area in Otay Ranch is resolved in year 2007, and that proposed housing capacities are retained. 7. That projects follow a normal project regulatory processing schedule. FORECAST INFORMATION East The next two years' growth for eastern Chula Vista is reasonably predictable based upon the overall assumptions. The various planned communities have a number of projects in the processing "pipeline" with 3,763 units potentially ready for permitting over the next two years. It is anticipated that the next five years could produce as many as 9,811 additional housing units permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, for an average annual rate of approximately 1,962 units. This number is derived primarily from approved development plans, and estimated project-processing schedules for project plan reviews, subdivision maps, and building plans. (Table 1 Attachment). Based on the General Plan Update (adopted in December, 2005) there are approximately 16,100 residential units remaining to be permitted in eastern Chula Vista estimated as of January 2006. If the 9,811 units are permitted over the five-year forecast period there will be 6,289 units remaining. Given the current rate of growth, this capacity could be built out around 2015. However, additional plan amendments could occur, with additional units added to the potential inventory of housing units, thereby ~!<tending the ultimate build-out date. The past year has also seen increasing interest rates, a correspondent slowing of housing development within the region, and a decrease in the number of new dwelling units permitted for construction in Chula Vista. The extent to which these trends continue, to influence this forecast in a downward direction. Figure 2 reflects the dramatic changes that have occurred between 2005 and 2006. These changes are based on a number of factors: . Rising interest rates. . Rising housing and construction costs. . The ability of the pUblic to qualify for mortgage loans. Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 3 of 10 1-71 West Western Chula Vista has not shown significant increases in housing since the growth management program was instituted in the late 1980's. This situation is expected to change however, due to an increased interest in infill, redevelopment, and density increases through the General Plan Update adopted in December 2005, and the pending Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) and Bayfront Master Plan. In the short-term, there are several projects in the approval process that constitute up to an additional 97 units that could be permitted within calendar year 2007. In addition, there are also several projects with potential in the Northwest and additional infill and accessory units that may potentially be permitted (See Figure 1). Greater forecasting precision can be expected in coming years as the General Plan is implemented, Specific Plans such as the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) are completed, the infill/redevelopment process proceeds, and new housing markets are established. Over the next five years western Chula Vista could experience an increase of 2,068 multi-family residential units which would include the initial phases of Bayfront development commencing by the end of 2009, several other small to mid-size projects currently being processed are also reflected, including those of the current ENA projects (Third Ave. & E Street). A small addition of accessory units tracking at an average of 15 per year for 75 units, and some infill single family homes totaling about 272 units are also included in the five-year period. This provides a total of 2,340 residential units for an annual average of 468 units. (See table 2 Attached and Figure 3). PERMITS BY YEAR A year-to-year estimate of how many building permits will be issued has been developed for general planning purposes, but should not be relied upon for exactness. The total number of permits that will be issued over the next five years is reasonably certain, however, many variables may and will affect what the actual annual distribution will be over the next five years. Table 3 and (Figure 1) illustrate a possible growth path over the next five years. Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 4 of 10 1-72 Figure 1 Forecasted Residential Units Permitted by Area 2007 Through 2011 4000 1111 East rID West I 3500 825 3000 ~ s::: 2500 ::J ... 0 ... 2000 Q) .c E ::l 1500 z 1000 500 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 525 Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 5 of 10 1-73 Figure 2 Summary: Residential Units Receiving Building Permits 1996 to 2006 Actual and 2007 through 2011 Forecast 4,000 ( Actual ) ( Forecast ) 500 3,525 3,500 3,000 .l:l '2 2,500 ::l '0 .8 2,000 E ::l Z 1,500 1,000 o 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201 0 2011 Year FORECASTED POPULATION This report focuses on the forecasted residential units as the primary indicator to measure future population increase. Western Chula Vista (as evidenced by U.S. Census data) has been undergoing growth in the form of demographic change as average household size increases. Such growth is difficult to track on a year-to-year basis and is not reflected in this report's future population forecast. The California State Department of Finance estimates that Chula Vista has on average of 3.026 persons per household. Assuming that this factor remains valid over the next five years, and assuming a 3% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 263,300 persons by the end of 2011. Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 6 of 10 1-74 This is estimated as follows: . The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated a Chula Vista population as 1/1/2006 is 223,423. . That an additional 1 ,448 units were occupied in calendar year 2006. . That an additional 12, 151 units may be permitted between 2007 and 2011. Note, this is only a rough estimate for planning purposes, and the vacancy rate persons per unit factors, and the number of actual units completed may vary. Table 3 provides an overview of historic housing unit permit its levels and population growth within Chula Vista since 1980. Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 7 of 10 1-75 Table 3 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - 2006 No. No. No. %Change 1980 407 374 84,364 1981 195 496 86,597 2.6% 1982 232 129 88,023 1.6% 1983 479 279 89,370 1.5% 1984 1,200 521 91,166 2.0% 1985 1,048 1,552 116,325 27.6% 2) 1986 2,076 1,120 120,285 3.4% 1987 1,168 2,490 124,253 3.3% 1988 1,413 829 128,028 3.0% 1989 1,680 1,321 134,337 4.9% 1990 664 1,552 138,262 2.9% 1991 747 701 141,015 2.0% 1992 560 725 144,466 2.4% 1993 435 462 146,525 1.4% 1994 700 936 149,791 2.2% 1995 833 718 153,164 2.3% 1996 914 820 156,148 1.9% 1997 1,028 955 162,106 3.8% 1998 1,339 1,093 167,103 3.1% 1999 2,505 1,715 174,319 4.3% 2000 2,618 2,652 183,300 5.2% 2001 3,525 3,222 190,300 3.8% 2002 2,250 2,923 199,700 4.9% 2003 3,143 2,697 209,133 4.7% 2004 3,300 3,043 217,543 4.0% 2005 1,654 2,525 223,423 2.7% 1'1) 2006 1,180 1,448 227,673 1.9% 1'3) Annual Averaoe 1,381 1,381 5,307 3.06% 4) (1) Reflects Department of Finance (OOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year. (2) Montgomery Annexation (3) Population estimates assume 3% vacancy rate and assuming that there are 3.026 persons per unit. This population figure is an estimate prior to California Department of Finance (DOF) preliminary figures due by February 2007 and final estimates in May 2007. (4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation. Preliminary Five- Year Growth Forecast, January 2007 Page 8 of 10 1-76 M Q) 1.0 = tn .- LL. r--~, / ( r-- i I ;-J ,----' i =~ ::;;;~~ ~:::Si!l " U:J" J:~ UZ ~ ... ~ ~ - IU.lli i1!l~i!!i j1i _I~li IE - _a :!l:= ii= ----.:--- ! ! -= =ill . !ili .:!! "t- U U .......111 ......!! .iii_! .._ _ ;li!;;lit.I~_. _=-_"_0__ ...0..____-- ..., i - -.: ;; = -is ; ~ CD '1-!! '" '" E .!I=-i=1 N nlii ;; = '5 0 :':__c:t 0 . ~ - '" CD = '" N e =- 51.. = II=< " Q E CD 1M "' - 0 1:1 = 1:1 0 II: e = 2 - - a. ~ = E 1M .............--;: - Ji1iill! - 1:1 a " ..., N - ? - ~ I..;:;ns,..!l!!i . = en - e N Biiiil.1Iom.. -.; CD = - I_I: =_al. e 0 . - ~';.I_';.I.1- E '= U .... Q linni!! ] - CD 1:1 - _OCtD _0 en 1:1 1:1 ii u a- N = c. CD 0 - c " = - - 0 ... 1:1 - -..............-- 0 $- . 1-77 1-78 l~ . ~ ~ " ~I ~[ I - i . i [ ~ i- f l . ~ J . ! i i I . ~ ~ a . ~ ~ ~ ~.~ L ~ : ~ ~ % ~ ~. ~ ~ s s_ 8ig~;i"=2.!;-i' p~qn~p~ 5 · ~ g = E =. ~ ~ ~ P t ; i' l1li < ;II; 0 r'II ~ l5. ~ ; ~ n ~ ~ ; -- ~ ~ :: ! ;,y 0 :e iii [ i j: i ~ III ;r * 1CI ... ii" * /I m ~ m . . z ;' iii ~ liE S' * ~!. . ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ Q . w ~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 . . N ~ 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 000 8 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,- . N . goo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~ o@8 ~ 8: c; 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ g . N . ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 8 ~ c; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 000 . N . e 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 " w . g " goo 0 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 . ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 1-79 ~ ~ ~ . w . = ~ . .:( '" " " .... ~ ~ :;,: !;! ~ ~ '" .. IJ! 8 ~ ~ ... ~ t;i ... o ~ ~ ..., ~ .. Q '" ..., "" " cr ii" '" " . ~ ... . " '" " .. .. ~u~ :~~-~ ''''';;;::::-:C~~ ~~ -- CTJY OF CHUlA VlSfA FINANCE DEPARTMENT DATE: March 12, 2007 TO: Growth Management Oversight Commission /' VIA: Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager / / FROM: Maria Kachadoorian, Director of FinancU'K- SUBJECT: Fiscal Overview - Annual GMOC Review The purpose of this report is to update the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) regarding the economic and fiscal well being of the City of Chula Vista. It also provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City over the previous 12 months (7/1/2005 to 6/30/2006) and projected impacts over the next 12-18 month period, and 5- 7 years. Fiscal Overview The Council's General Fund minimum reserve level policy of 8%, which became effective in 1996, was established to prudently protect the fiscal solvency of the City. Reserves are important in order to mitigate the negative impact on revenues from economic fluctuations, to withstand State budget grabs and to. fund unforeseen expenditure requirements. As evidenced by the chart on the following page, the General Fund reserves were at an all time high of $31.2 million or 28.5% of the operating budget at the end of fiscal year 2001-02. At the end of fiscal year 2005-06, the General Fund available reserves were $14.9 million or 8.8% of the operating budget, just above the 8% policy level adopted by Council. The reduction in reserves, $16.3 million over a four-year period, occurred due to a combination of significant State revenue takeaways and mid-year appropriations as summarized below: . State Revenue Take Aways ($3.5 million Vehicle License Fee Gap and $1.8 ERAF III) - $5.3 million . Fire Department Staffing, Fire Station and Equipment enhancements - $3.8 million 1-80 GMOC 2005-06 Annual Fiscal Overview March 12, 2007 Page 2 of 6 . Purchase of Oxford Property for development of Harbor Side Park - $2.3 million . Unanticipated Litigation and Workers Compensation Costs - $2.1 million . Fire Department Computer Aided Dispatch Center - $1.8 million . Municipal Utility Study/Franchise Negotiations - $1.4 million . University Study - $1.0 million . Police Department Strategic Plan - First Phase $1.7 million The City's General Fund reserves placed the City in the enviable position of being able . to withstand the State's revenue cuts during fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and provided the City with the opportunity to reinvest back into the community. The following graph displays the year-end reserve balances compared to prior years. Over the past fiscal year, the City's reserves decreased from 9.7% to 8.8% of the General Fund budget. Projected General Fund Balance Reserve as of June 3D, 2007 (with 8% Reserve Trendllne) $35 $30 $25 $31.2 ~ $20 g :i $15 $10 $5 $0 June 01 June 02 June 03 June 04 June 05 June 06 June 07 (est.) Fiscal Year Sales Taxes Prior to fiscal year 2005, the City received 1 % in sales and use tax revenue from all taxable retail sales occurring within the City limits. Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the State reduced the local allocation by 0.25% and applied these funds as security for the State's Economic Recovery Bonds. The State committed to replacing the 0.25% sales tax revenues dollar-for-dollar with local property taxes from the County Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). For forecasting and comparison purposes, sales tax revenues are projected at the full 1 % rate. 1-81 GMOC 2005-06 Annual Fiscal Overview March 12, 2007 Page 3 016 Sales tax revenues are collected by the State at a rate of 7.75% for the San Diego County region. The Sales Tax revenues are then allocated based on the following rates: State State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Economic Recovery Bonds) Local Jurisdiction (City or County of place of sale/use) Local Transportation Fund (County of place of sale/use) Local San Diego County TransNet Funding 6.00% 0.25% 0.75% 0.25% 0.50% Sales Tax revenue is highly sensitive to economic conditions, and reflects the factors that drive taxable sales, including the levels of unemployment, consumer confidence, per-capita income, and business investment. In addition, the proximity to the Mexican border and the number of transactions related to cross border shopping also makes the City's sales tax revenues particularly susceptible to volatility if a downturn in the Mexican economy were to occur. Sales and use tax revenue is the City's single largest discretionary revenue source, accounting for 19% of total projected revenue for the General Fund in fiscal year 2006- 07. During fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06 sales tax revenues increased by 10.2% and 13.2% respectively primarily due to increased population and the opening of several new commercial centers in the eastern section of the City. Growth in sales tax revenue has averaged 7% per year over the past five years. Overall, approximately $14.2 million in new sales tax revenues are projected to be generated by fiscal year 2011-12, with an average annual increase of 7.9% over the next five years due to the recent opening of several commercial centers such as the Otay Ranch Town Center, Eastlake Design Center and the Crossings Commercial Center as well as the anticipated opening of the Eastlake Village Walk and Eastern Urban Center. The opening of these centers over the next five-years create a greater - potential to generate significant new sales tax revenues to the City. The sales tax projections assume that there will be no major downturns in the economy. Property Taxes. Under Proposition 13, which was enacted in 1979, property taxes for general government purposes are limited to 1 % of the property's assessed market value. Assessment of property, as well as collection and apportionment of tax revenues are all functions performed by the County of San Diego. Increases in assessed values to reflect current market values are only allowed when property changes hands or when the property is improved. Otherwise, annual assessment value increases are limited to 2% or the increase in the consumer price index, whichever is lower. 1-82 GMOC 2005-06 Annual Fiscal Overview March 12, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Based on recent projections provided by the County Assessors Office, assessed values in Chula Vista increased by 21% in fiscal year 2005-06 and 15.43% in fiscal year 2006- 07. Property taxes continue to grow Countywide but at much slower rates than in previous years. The pace of new and existing home sales slowed dramatically and is anticipated to continue the trend of slow growth into fiscal years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Property tax revenue projections will continue to be conservative pending the anticipated cooling down in the housing market. Other Revenues Other local taxes such as Franchise Fees, Utility Users, Transient Occupancy and Business License taxes decreased by $760,000 or 3% during fiscal year 2006 primarily due to a drop inboth Utility Users Tax and Franchise Fee revenues. Expenditures Total expenditures for the fiscal year ending 2005-06 amounted to $160.8 million, net of fund balance adjustments, which is $18.6 million or 13% greater than the previous fiscal year. The increase is primarily attributed to increased personnel costs related to increases in employer contributions for retirement costs, employee compensation costs and additional staff positions in Police and Fire. Capital Improvements The City's capital improvement needs that are related to growth are analyzed and determined when the various Development Impact Fees (DIF) are created. A capital improvement plan is devised for each DIF based on the capital improvement projects needed to provide the infrastructure necessary to retain services/facilities at the level set by the applicable threshold. The costs for the needed projects are then determined and spread over the amount of planned development to set the individual DIF fees. The operational impacts of growth on the City are analyzed by using a financial model to evaluate whether the projected revenue stream from the development (e.g., sales tax, property tax, etc.) is sufficient to meet estimated operating expenditures for the development. These fiscal impact analyses are required to be performed on all developments and are initially presented in the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). This model will continue to be employed to review future development at the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level. DIF Financial Reports that identify the revenue and expenditure activity of each DIF Fund and their respective fund balance for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 are induded in the attached GMOC 2005-06 questionnaire. 1-83 GMOC 2005-06 Annual Fiscal Overview March 12, 2007 Page 5 016 Forecast (12 - 18 months and 5 - 7 years) Based on current fiscal projections, operational expenditures, including debt service, is anticipated to increase by an average of 3.9% per year over the next 5 years (2007-08 to 2011-12). Revenues overall are anticipated to increase by approximately 4.1% over the same period; however, major discretionary revenues such as sales taxes, property taxes, franchise and TOT revenues are projected to increase by 6.1 % primarily due to continued growth in the eastern section of the City. These base revenues support City services such as police, fire, libraries and recreation. Financial Forecast to Fiscal Year 2012-13 Preliminary Projections Projected Deficit/Surplus Summary Revenues Expenditures Deficit/Surplus 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 (Actual) (Actual) (Est.) (Proj.) (Proj.) (Proj.) $137.8 $157.8 $166.6 $171.8 $180.0 $188.2 ($143.2) ($158.0) ($167.1) ($171.8) ($181.3) ($188.8) ($5.4) ($0.2) ($0.5) $0.0 ($1.3) ($0.6) 2010-11 (Proj.) $195.9 ($194.7) $1.2 2011-12 2012-13 (Proj.) (Proj.) $203.2 $209.5 ($202.0)($206.7) $1.2 $2.7 Reserves 9.7% .8.8% 8.5% 8.4% 7.2% 6.6% 7.1% 7.4% 8.5% As previously mentioned, the main purpose of a fiscal impact analysis performed for each new development is to measure the impact on the City's operating budget as a result of new development. This is done by calculating the amount of operating revenues generated to the City resulting from the development project compared to the cost to the City of providing municipal services to the development. All major proposed development projects are required to have a fiscal impact analysis as part of the review process. Long Term Financial Plan (10 YearOut/oak) Very few cities, if any, in the State have as much going on as we do here in Chula Vista. As part of the Department of Finance's 2005 Business Strategic Plan, staff set a goal to prepare a long-term financial plan with a 10-year outlook by the end of 2007. The first step in the financial planning process is to build the foundation, which consists of a five- year financial forecast. TIW initial five-year financial forecast was presented to City Council in May of 2006 and is currently being updated by the Finance Department to reflect changes in revenue assumptions particularly in relation to the decline in development related revenues. 1-84 GMOC 2005-06 Annual Fiscal Overview March 12, 2007 Page 6 of 6 As stated by the Government Finance Officers Association, "A long-term financial plan can be defined as a plan that identifies fiscal issues and opportunities, establishes fiscal policies and goals, examines fiscal trends, produces a financial forecast, and provides for feasible solutions." The long-term financial plan will include fiscal impact assumptions regarding several major projects currently under review such as the Bayfront Master Plan, General Plan Update, Fire Facilities Master Plan, Ambulance life Support Study and various departmental strategic planning documents. The plan will include projections using quantitative methodologies, anticipated events as well as historical data. The long-term financial plan will include a contingency plan to address fiscal challenges that the City may face due to unanticipated swings in the economy, further State funding cuts or other unforeseen events. It will also look ahead to the point when the City will become a mature stabilized community resulting in a decline of development related revenue and adjusting for a slower base revenue growth. Ultimately the goal of strategic planning, as stated in the Governmental Finance Officers Association Recommended Practices Guide, is to "influence the future rather than simply preparing or adapting to it". Once completed and approved by the City Council, the Long Term Financial Plan will be updated by the Finance Department each year prior to the beginning of the budget cycle. We anticipate that the financial plan will also serve as the required annual fiscal report presented to the GMOC as part of the annual review of thresholds. Fiscal Impact - Independent Financial Review As part of the Mayor's 10-point action plan she requested that an Independent Financial Review of the City's finances be performed in order to accomplish the many projects that lie ahead and achieve our goals for our community. The Scope of Work for the Independent Financial Review (Review) is intended to provide a baseline assessment of the current and medium term financial health of the City of Chula Vista and its Redevelopment Agency, particularly in assessing current implications of the past use of financial resources (e.g. MOUs, use of redevelopment funds), the current financial direction, and recommended course changes in light of debt, obligations, and expenditure levels relative to revenue sources that include but are not limited to fees, property and sales tax, tax increment, and developer impact fees. Once the independent financial review has been completed, further analysis will be provided to the GMOC to respond to the question regarding projected impacts over the next 12-18 month period, and 5-7 years. 1-85 THRESHOLD 1. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the city, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 5-7 year period. 2. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual development impact fee report, which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. QUESTIONS 1. Please attach a fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City in terms of impact on: . operations . capital improvements Please evaluate these two factors of the last fiscal year, the current fiscal year, and what is anticipated in five years time. Explicitly indicate how the City's fiscal health is being impacted by addressing the needs of growth. Please use the Growth Management 5 Year Residential Forecast in your analysis. (The report that was provided last year serves as an acceptable model for this years response, although you may provide another format that meets the growth management threshold objective if you wish.) 2. Please update the tabre below (Please chan e the dates accordin i TRANSPORTATION INTERIM PRE-SR 125 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TELEGRAPH CYN DRAINAGE TELE. CYN GRAVITY SEWER PUMPED SEWER SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN POGGI CYN SEWER BASIN $10,050/EDU O/EDU 26.65/tri 4,579/acre 216.50/EDU O/EDU 1,330/EDU 400/EDU 5267,016 o 2,013,030 145,793 63,371 48,711 1,132,962 513,200 1-86 Page 1 5,970,002 o 979,330 27,267 52,466 407 378,021 941,103 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES PUBLIC FACILITIES Administration Civic Center Ex ansion Police Facilit Co . Yard Reiocation Libraries Telecommunications Records M mnt. S s. Recreation Facilities PUBLIC FACILITIES TOTAL 783/EDU 47,466 595 1 746,247 Jan 2003 Feb 2007 1,808/EDU 592,720 4,199 1,407,375 Au 2005 Oct 2006 149/SFDU 506,746 962,781 1,926,303 .. .. 1,223/SFDU 6,829,046 4,461,915 19,685,815 .. .. 809/SFDU 3,769,546 120,007 3,272,633 .. .. 717/SFDU 2,632,844 587,627 5,692,811 .. .. 845/SFDU 2,655,438 909,812 12,146,995 .. .. 505/SFDU 1,191,407 1,864,516 12,070,959 .. .. 10/SFDU 25,320 57,980 236,149 .. .. 6/SFDU 17,115 0 74,028 .. .. 5/SFDU 23,457 18,064 240,653 .. .. 9/SFDU 22,283 863 177,803 .. .. 1,211/SFDU 3,903,367 9,795,606 " .. 5,489/SFDU 31,400,838 27,132,561 Oct 2005 Oct 2006 'Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown. Fee varies by type of residential unit, and for commercial and industrial development - see various fee schedules included in Attachment A. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 3. In relation to the last column on the Table above, were any DIF updates completed or are any DIF updates in progress during the reporting period? If yes, please explain. Yes x No a. If any DIFs are currently being updated, where are they in the process? b. How long it's been since each DIF has been updated? c. Is there a need to update any of the DIFs? d. Who is responsible for the update of each DIF? Explain: Transportation D1F In May of 2005, staff presented the City Council with a comprehensive update of the Transportation DIF (TDIF) program. This update included modifications to the land use categories, additions and deletions of program facilities, revised project cost estimates, and updated development forecasts (per the General Plan - Preferred Plan). In addition, the update included the consolidation of the Interim SR125 DIF funds with the TDIF fund. The update recommended increasing the fee by $1,225 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) (from $8,825 to $10,050). Application of the new fees was deferred, pending approval of the City's General Plan Update. 1-87 Page 2 Given the uncertainty of the timing of the General Plan Update, the TDIF fee was also updated in October of 2005 per the previously approved automatic inflationary increase. The October 2005 update increased the fee by $365 per EDU (from $8,825 to $9,190). This fee was then modified again, upon approval of the General Plan Update in December of 2005, increasing the fee per EDU by $860 per EDU (from $9,190 to $10,050). Staff anticipates increasing the fee by $405 per EDU (from $10,050 to $10,455) in October of 2006, per the previously approved automatic inflationary increase. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating this DIF. Traffic SiQnal In October of 2005, the Traffic Signal Participation fee was increased by $1.06 per average daily vehicle trip, per the adopted automatic annual fee update. This increase raised the fee per trip from $25.59 to $26.65. Staff anticipates increasing the fee to $27.70 (an increase of $1.05) in October of 2006, per the previously approved automatic inflationary increase. Staff is also in the early stages of a comprehensive update of the Traffic Signal Participation fee program. Timing of this update is not known at this time. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating this DIF. A. Pumped Sewer DIF Originally titled the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin Pumped Flows OlF, this DIF was established to fund improvements to the Telegraph Canyon sewer main due to out-of- basin flows. In October of 2002, the fee was amended to include Poggi Canyon out-of- basin flows, and renamed the Pumped Sewer DIF. With the Salt Creek sewer main constructed, there is no need to pump flows out of the Salt Creek basin, and therefore no need to continue collecting this DIF fee. As a result, the council approved the repeal of this fee in November of 2004. The available fund balance at the date of repeal was appropriated to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer Project CIP. This project was identified in the Willdan study, which formed the basis of the original Telegraph Canyon Pumped DIF. The funds were utilized for outstanding project expenses. The DIF has been repeale~.. No future updates are anticipated. Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF Staff presented Council with an update of the Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF in August of 2005. That action increased the fee from the original 1994 rate of $284 per EDU by $1,046, resulting in an updated fee of $1 ,330 per EDU. No future update is anticipated at this time. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating this DIF. Pedestrian Bridae DIFs OTAY RANCH VILLAGES 1, 5, & 6 This DIF was not updated during the subject fiscal year. Staff anticipates updating this DIF to include Otay Ranch Village 2 in February of 2007. This update is anticipated to increase the fee per EDU from $783 to $1,114 (an increase of $331 per EDU). This 1-88 Page 3 update will also include modifications to the DIF ordinance to authorize an automatic annual indexed fee increase. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating this DIF. OTA Y RANCH VILLAGE 11 In August of 2005, the Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF was updated to account for both increased project scope and construction costs. This update increased the fee by $981 per EDU (from $827 to $1,808). This same update included modifications to the DIF ordinance to authorize an automatic annual indexed fee increase. Staff anticipates increasing this fee by $57 per EDU (from $1,808 to $1,865) in October of 2006, per the previously approved automatic inflationary increase. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating this DIF. Park Acquisition & Development Fee This in-lieu fee is composed of two distinct fee items: parkland acquisition and parkland development. In July of 2004, an automatic annual indexed fee increase was approved for the development portion of this fee. In October of 2005, this automatic increase went into effect, increasing the development fee per single-family unit by $191 (from $3,777 to $3,968). In October of 2005, the acquisition portion of the fee was also updated. This update applied only to property located east of I-80S, and increased the acquisition fee per single-family unit by $7,682 (from $4,994 to $12,676). In total, for areas west of 1-805, the Park Acquisition & Development (PAD) fee was increased by $191 per single-family unit (from $8,771 to $8,962). For areas east of 1- 80S, the PAD fee was increased by $7,873 per single-family unit (from $8,771 to $16,644). Staff anticipates increasing the development portion of the PAD fee per single-family unit by $160 in October of 2006 (west of 1-805: increases total PAD fee from $8,962 to $9,122; east of 1-805: increases total PAD fee from $16,644 to $16,804). This increase is anticipated per the previously approved automatic inflationary increase. In addition,- staff also anticipates reviewing the acquisition component of the fee applicable west of 1- 805. Preliminary work on this review has begun; however, timing for completion of the review is not known at this time. The General Services Department is responsible for updating this fee. Public Facility DIF In June of 2005, City Council approved the modification of the Public Facilities DIF (PFDIF) ordinance to allow for an automatic annual indexed fee update. For construction related projects, the index assigned was the Engineering News Records Building Construction Cost Index (Los Angeles Index); and for the non-construction components, the index assigned was the Consumer Price Index for the San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area. The first such index based increase occurred in October of 2005, increasing the fee per single family unit by $9 (from $5,480 to $5,489). 1-89 Page 4 Staff anticipates completing a comprehensive update of the PFDIF program in October of 2006. This update is projected to result in an increase of $2,402 per single family unit (from $5,489 to $7,891). . The Office of Budget & Analysis is responsible for updating this DIF. Other Sewer DIFs The Engineering Department anticipates updating both the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer and Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin fees in July of 2007. Impacts of these updates on fees per EDU are not known at this time. There are no plans to update the Telegraph Canyon Drainage fee in the near future. The Engineering Department is responsible for updating these DIFs. 4. The City is anticipating the addition of up to 15,000 additional homes and nearly 45,000 new residents in the next 5 years. Of these as many as 4,400 units and more than 12,000 residents may locate in western Chula Vista. Are there any changes in the City's fiscal policy in regard to development that should be considered to best accommodate these additional units and population? Yes No x Please explain, why or why not: The City's fiscal policy with regard to new development is that new development shall pay for itself. This policy, of which regular impact fee updates are a part, contains ample flexibility to allow the City to adjust the amount of revenue generated by development impact fees to keep pace with growth impacts on city facilities. Careful cash flow modeling of impact fees ensures that sufficient funds will exist to meet future needs despite unanticipated growth fluctuations. No modification of the 'development pays for itself policy is recommended; however, staff has undertaken a number of tasks to ensure continued success of this policy, especially as new development occurs in western Chula Vista. In coordinated effort with the Urban Core Specific Plan and the Bayfront Master Plan, the City has completed various studies including a Public Facilitie.l? Implementation Analysis (PFIA) for the Urban Core. This. study assessed the infrastructure and facility needs in western Chula Vista, as well as funding sources available, including a combination of development impact fees and redevelopment tax increment, to ensure their implementation. The PFIA determined that the projected public facilities and infrastructure needs were sufficiently aligned with projected funding sources. The PFIA is included as an appendix to the Draft UCSP which will be considered for approval in early 2007. To ensure that sufficient capital funds are available to mitigate impacts of projected development in western Chula Vista, staff is pursuing the creation of a Transportation DIF applicable west of 1-805. In addition, staff is also in the early stages of reviewing the 1-90 Page 5 Parkland Acquisition and Development fees applicable west of 1-805. FOllOW-UP ON PREVIOUS YEAR'S GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS 5. In response to last years GMOC question "Has a standard procedure been adopted for an annual review of Development Impact Fees (DIFs)" it was reported that "DIF updates are now scheduled for October-January of each year. In many cases, this "annual update" will be accomplished through an automatic cost increase based upon the ENR Construction Cost Index rather than a full analysis. To date, annual automatic cost increase methodologies have been adopted for the Transportation DIF, and the Traffic Signal Participation Fee. Staff anticipates recommending such a methodology for the Park Acquisition and Development Fee during the next update." Please provide an update. The following Fee programs now include an automatic cost increase: 1. Traffic Signal Fee 2. Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) 3. Park Acquisition & Development Fee (PAD) 4. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) 5. Otay Ranch Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge Staff anticipates modifying the ordinance of the following DIF to allow for indexed automatic fee updates: 1. Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5, & 6 Pedestrian Bridge MANAGEMENT 6. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No x Explain: 7. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Ves No x Explain: 8. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Ves No x Explain: Prepared By: Evelyn Ong, Senior Accountant Tiffany Allen, Senior Management Analyst Date prepared: 1-91 Page 6 THRESHOLD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please proviqe brief narrative responses to the fof/owing: 1. Has the City submitted an annual report to the GMOC and the Air Quality Pollution Control District that covers points 1, 2, and 3 above? Yes x No 2. Have any major developments or Master Planned Communities been approved during the reporting period? Yes No X a. List any approved projects and indicate to what extent these projects implement measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant federal, state, regional and/or local policies and regulations? 3. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and procedures consistent with current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs? 1-92 Page 7 Yes x No a. With respect to any inconsistencies, please indicate actions needed to bring development regulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance. 4. Are there any non-development related air quality programs that the City is currently implementing or participating in? Yes x No Explain: a. Identify and provide a brief explanation of each. GHG REDUCTION PROGRAM Since 1996, the City has been implementing its Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan, which focuses on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from municipal operations and the broader Chula Vista community. The Plan outlines 20 measures which target energy conservation, transportation, and land use programs and policies. The following table describes each measure's current status. . Emissions Reduction Measure Focus # Description Status 1 Purchase of Alternative Fuel Vehicles Ongoing 2 Green Power Purchases Ended Municipal 3 Municipal Clean Fuel Demonstration Project Ongoing 5 Municipal Building Upgrades & Trip Reduction Ongoing 16 Traffic Signal & System Upgrades Ongoing 19 Municipal Life-Cycle Purchasing Standards Ongoing 4 Telecommutino & Telecenters Closed 6 Enhanced Pedestrian Connections to Transit Onooino 7 Increased Housinn Densilv Near Transit Onooino 8 Site Desion wi Transit Orientation Onooino 9 Increased Land Use Mix Onooino 10 Green Power Public Education ProQram Comoleted Community 11 Site Desinn wi PedestrianlBicvcle Orientation Onaoina 12 Bicvcle Inteoration wi Transit & Emolovment Onoolna 13 Bicvcle Lanes Paths & Routes Onaoina 14 Enemv Efficient LandscapinQ Onooino 15 Solar Pool Heatinn Not Implemented 17 Student Transit Subsidv Not Imolemented 18 GreenStar - Enemv Efficient Buildino Proaram Onooino 20 Increased Employment Density Near Transit On"oin" The City is now working to complete an emissions inventory for Calendar Year 2005. The inventory will allow the City to gauge its progress in reaching the emissions target of 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and to assess the need for additional GHG-reducing measures. 1-93 Page 8 URBAN HEAT ISLAND MITIGATION PROJECT The City has completed a two-year project funded by the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection to strategically plant shade trees to mitigate for Urban Heat Island Effects in which urban areas experience increased ambient air temperatures compared to surrounding undeveloped areas. Moreover, shade trees help reduce energy usage and improve air quality by removing CO2, dust and other particulates. Through the project, 460 new trees were planted along older residential streets with the help of over 420 community volunteers. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM In partnership with San Diego Gas & Electric, the City has begun a new three-year program to promote energy conservation throughout the community. By saving energy, the program helps improve local air quality by reducing the energy demand on power plants. Specifically, the program aims to increase energy-efficiency within residential and business sectors by exchanging FREE Compact Fluorescent Lights and Pre-Rinse Spray Valves (food service facilities only) for older, inefficient models. The program also provides funding for the City to retrofit its facilities with newer energy-efficient technologies. 5. Are there additional non-development related program efforts that the City needs to undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? Yes No X 6. Are any new air quality programs scheduled for implementation during the next year? Yes X No Explain: NEW SHADE TREE PROGRAM The City recently received a new grant from the California Department of Forestry &- Fire Protection to expand its shade tree planting program over the next few years. The new project will plant over 1,200 shade trees along residential streets, canyon parkways, and within community parks and will increase the air quality benefits associated with urban forests. MISCELLANEOUS 7. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No _X_ 1-94 Page 9 8. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes No X 9. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No X Explain: Prepared by: Brendan Reed (Dept. of Conservation & Environmental Services) Date: Page 10 1-95 THRESHOLD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development specific activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Please fill in the blanks on1his table, and update any prior years' figures if they have been revised. SMOG TRENDS - Number of days over standards STATE 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 STANDARDS San Dieaa Reaion 29 15 23 12 16 23 Chula Vista 2 1 0 1 0 0 FEDERAL STANDARDS San Dieao Reaion 17 13 6 8 5 14 Chula Vista 0 0 0 1 0 0 Page 11 1-96 2. Please provide a definition of the State and Federal Air Quality Standards State: 9 pphm 1-hour average ozone standard Federal: 8 pphm 8-hour average ozone standard 3. Please comment on the placement of the air quality sampling station(s) in Chula Vista and whether this/these stations accurately reflect the air quality of the city as a whole (east and west and "pockets") and if there may be areas with lower standards that go unreported. . Discussion: The placement of the air quality sampling station in Chula Vista accurately reflects the air quality of the city as a whole, for ozone. 4.. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during the reporting period. Please provide brief responses to the following: 5. Were there any changes in Federal or State programs during the reporting period? Yes No x Explain 6. Has the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) been updated or revised during the reporting period? Yes No X Explain what changes were made/adopted? 7. Will the above-noted changes (under questions 5 & 6), if any, affect Chula Vista's local planning and development activities and regulations? Yes No..1.. Explain: Page 12 1-97 MISCELLANEOUS 8. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No x If yes, explain: 9. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes x No Explain: Urban Design Guidelines: Should make Urban Design Guidelines applicable to developments in all areas of Chula Vista. These should require non-contiguous sidewalks (landscape buffer between curb and sidewalk), street trees, and pedestrian scale lighting. Street crossing opportunities should be provided every 300 feet, and building entrances should front the street. 10. Do you have any other relevant information that the APCD desires to communicate to the City and GMOC? Yes No x Explain: Prepared by: Title: Date: Page 13 1-98 THRESHOLD: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity). 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. 1. Please fill in the blanks and Drovide relevant uDdates on this table. Average 16.346 15.787 17.021 16.979 18.723 20.379 26.2* Flow (MGD) Capacity 19.843 20.875- 20.875- 20.875** 20.875** 20.875** 20.875** . *Buildout Projection based on the Adopted General Plan "Buildouf = 26.2 MGD ** Increase in capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacity rights resulting from the construction of the new Southbay Treatment Plant (allocation process still underway) Page 14 1-99 2. Have there been any sewage spills in Chula Vista over the last fiscal year up to the current time? Yes X No Explain: There were 15 private sewer spills and 1 public sewer spill during the last fiscal year. These were mostly small spills that were due to one or more of the following conditions: a. Root intrusion into a private sewer lateral. b. Heavy debris, weeds and mass amount of paper stuck in private sewer lateral. c. Extreme Grease buildup generated by adjacent uses (i.e. restaurants or other grease generating activities) compromised the pipe capacity. In every instance, City staff contained the spill and the triggering condition was adequately mitigated. Afterwards, the event was reported to the State Water Resources Control Board. So far, the City has not been found negligent and has not been fined for any of these events. Maintenance and operations staff has developed and implemented a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Prevention Plan. This plan was recently updated as part of the recent Wastewater Master Plan Update. 3. Please provide an update on efforts to increase the city's allocated amount of sewage treatment capacity in order to meet build-out sewage flow estimates. Discussion: Through the completion of the Wastewater Master Plan, it was determined that to facilitate the City's build-out, we would need to acquire an additional 5MGD of treatment capacity rights. Additional capacity could be provided in either of two ways: the construction of a treatment facility (I.e. a reclamation plant) or the purchase of the required capacity rights from another participating agency in the Metro system that has excess capacity rights. a. Treatment Facility - The Cjty is currently participating in a Joint Feasibility Study with Ot~y Water District and Sweetwater Authority to explore the feasibility of constructing a Wastewater Reclamation Plant that would take a portion of the raw sewage from the sewer system, treat it and generate recycled water' that would then be utilized by Otay and Sweetwater in meeting their customers' irrigation needs. The remaining sewage in the system will continue to be treated by the Point Loma Treatment Plant. By reducing the amount of flow conveyed to the Point Loma Treatment Plant, the City would not need to acquire additional treatment capacity at that plant. It is anticipated that this study would be completed within the next four months. b. Purchase of Additional Treatment Capacity Rights - The City is also exploring the feasibility of acquiring the additional capacity through the purchase of treatment capacity rights from other agencies in the Metro system who may have excess capacity in the system. To facilitate fair negotiations amongst participating agencies, the Metro Page 15 1-100 Commission/JPA retained the services of a consultant to prepare a Capacity Valuation study, which would determine the fair value of treatment capacity rights within the Metro system. It is anticipated that the study would be completed in the next three months. The findings of that study would provide the framework for negotiations between member agencies. Staff will continue to pursue and explore available options for the acquisition of additional treatment capacity. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 4. Have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at any time during this reporting period? Yes No X If yes: a. Where did this occur? N/ A b. Why did it occur? N/A c. What has been, or will be done to correct the situation? N/ A GROWTH IMPACTS 5. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes X No Explain: (a.)There has been 173 miles of sewer mains added to the system since 2000. An additional 20 miles is anticipated to be added for maintenance in FY09. That is approximately a 64% increase in additional sewer mains to maintain since 2000. Only an additional~two-person sewer main cleaning crew was added in 2001. The goal of the Public Works Operations (PWO) Strategic Business Plan (SBP) is to clean all 476 miles of the city's wastewater collection system each year. Currently, there are four sewer main flushing vehicles each cleaning an average of 100 miles of sewer main per year excluding monthly critical sewer main cleaning which totals 88 miles per year. This creates a deficit of 76 miles of sewer mains not cleaned yearly. (b.) The growth in development, has also led to a significant increase in utility mark outs and customer complaints. (c.) There has also been a marked Increase in repairs being done on the older portions of the collection system due to the increased sewage loading. Page 16 1-101 6. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes No x Explain: Current sewerage facilities should be able to handle anticipated growth during the 12 to 18 month period. However, due of the pace of development in the City, especially in the eastern portion, existing sewerage facilities within that part of the City may not be adequate to handle forecasted growth during the next 5-years. The completion of several planned facilities within this same period should adequately mitigate this condition. . 7. Last year it was indicated that part of the City sewerage facilities may not be adequate to handle forecasted growth during the next 5-years but that the completion of several planned facilities within this same period should adequately mitigate this condition. Please provide an update and itemize these planned facilities. Discussion: At the time the report was prepared last year, there were several facilities that had been identified as crucial for the development of the eastem territories; the following is a brief status of these planned facilities: a. Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer Improvement - Upgrade of Reach 205 - This involved the upsizing of the portion of this trunk line, which runs under the Interstate -805 Freeway. This project was completed in FY 2006. b. Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewers b.1 Rock Mountain Road Trunk Sewer - Due to recent changes in ownership of the adjacent properties along the alignment of this trunk line, the City is in discussions with the Land owners to have this pipeline constructed by the developers as part of their development. The project was initially contemplated as a CIP project. It is currently estimated that this pipeline will be built with the Rock Mountain Road project within the '- next 5 years. -. - - b.2 Heritage Road Trunk Sewer - This trunk line will be constructed by Otay Ranch Company as part of their Village 2 & 3 project, since the pipeline serves on that project and is a crucial element of their development. The development of the Village 2 project is currently underway. It is currently estimated that this pipeline will be built with the Heritage Road project within the next 5 years. 8. In addition to the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor what new facilities have been constructed to accommodate the forecasted growth? Describe: The upsizing of Reach 205, a portion of the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer line - (see response to Question NO.7 above). Page 17 1-102 Explain how the facilities have been funded? This improvement project was funded with Poggi Canyon Gravity Basin Development Impact Fees. 9. Has the City finalized an agreement with the City of San Diego regarding the provision of adequate treatment capacity to meet the buildout needs of the City's General Plan? Yes No x Explain: See response to Question No.3 MAINTENANCE 10. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No _ Explain: 11. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No_ Explain: "G" Street Pump Station Improvement- This project was originally contemplated as a complete reconstruction of the pump station at the BF Goodrich site. However, since the City is in the process of developing the Bayfront, it was decided that it was more prudent to make interim improvements to the existing pump station and continue to use it, until the Bayfront planning was beiter defined, at which time, the level of improvements required for this pump station would be better defined. The City has retained the services of a consultant to prepare the design plans for the construction of the required improvements. The plans are scheduled to be completed in the next few months. MISCELLANEOUS 12. Are there areas of western Chula Vista that have inadequate sewer collection capacity? Yes X No Explain: Page 18 1-103 a. Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn b. Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garrett and Fourth Avenue c. Main Street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno 13. Last year it was indicated that there were certain areas of the western Chula Vista collection system where the Wastewater Master Plan Update analysis showed that portions of the collection system needed to be upgraded to address near-term peak flow events. To mitigate these conditions, Council approved four CIP projects listed below to deal with these issues, namely: . a. Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn b. Colorado Avenue Sewer Improvement between" J" Street and "K" Street c. Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garrett and Fourth Avenue d. Main Street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno Please provide an update on each project and indicate: . If funding has been identified . When started or expected to start . When the project is expected to be completed. Project Status a. Moss Street Sewer Improvement between Broadway and Woodlawn - This project was funded with Trunk sewer Capital Reserve Funds. The Design Plans & specifications have been completed and construction is currently scheduled to begin within the first quarter of 2007 and be completed by the second quarter of 2007. b. Colorado Avenue Sewer Improvement between "J" Street and "K" Street - This project was funded with Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds. Preparation of the Design Plans & specifications and the construction of the required improvements were deferred beCfluse recent flow monitoring results indicate that the capacjty constraints identified earlier may have been impacted by the pipe maintenance condition. More frequent cleaning of the pipeline resulted in significant reductions in flow levels. The pipeline is still being monitored. c. Center Street Sewer Improvement between Garrett and Fourth Avenue - This project was funded with Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds. However the required improvements are being deferred for a while to allow for additional review of the line. This line, which is located behind the new Police Department building, serves a significant number of restaurants and is susceptible to grease buildup. This ultimately impacts the capacity of the line. However, since the situation is currently being contained by frequently cleaning the line, the proposed improvements are being deferred for a while, to address higher priority projects. Page 19 1-104 d. Main Street Sewer Improvement between Hilltop and Fresno- This project was funded with Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds. The Design Plans & specifications are being prepared at this time and construction is currently scheduled to begin within the first quarter of 2007 and be completed by the second quarter of 2007. 14. In addition to the projects above, are there other projects identified as needed over the next 5 years to maintain the integrity of the sewer system? Describe: Historically, the City has annually allocated funds to implement a Sewe'r Rehabilitation Program. This program facilitates the repair and/or replacement of sewer mains at various locations in the City. Another component of this program provides for the lining of deteriorating pipes. This program is funded through a sewer facilities replacement fee, which is billed on a monthly basis as part of the sewer service charge. 15. Does the current Sewer Threshold Standard need any modification? Yes No x Explain: 16. Are there any suggestions that you would like the GMOC to recommend to the City Council? Yes No x Explain: 17. Do you have any other relev.ant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No x Explain: Prepared by: Title: Date: Anthony Chukwudolue Senior Civil Engineer, Wastewater Engineering Section January 17, 2007 Page 20 1-105 THRESHOLD 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Otay Water District or Sweetwater Authority for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and requests an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or update the tables below. SDCWA 12,898 92.8% 12,400 92% 93% 93% 92.6% Helix WD 499 3.6% 500 5% 4% 4% 3.6% Ci of S.D. 102 0.7% 1,000 0% 0% 0% 0.7% RWCWRF 402 2.9% 400 3% 3% 3% 2.9% SBWRP 0 0% 1,100 0% 0% 0% 0% Total (MG) 13,901 100% 15,400 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 21 1-106 otal Flow Supply 130.6 130.6 138.7 144.6 201.5 Capacity Potable Storage Capacity 190.7 190.7 196.1 196.1 234.1 Non-Potable Storage 31.7 31.7 31.7 43.7 43.7 Capacity Potable Supply Flow 129.5 129.5 137.5 137.5 191.5 Capacity Non-Potable Supply Flow 1.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 10.0 Capacity GROWTH IMPACTS 2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the current ability to maintain service levels? Yes No X Explain: The Otay Water District (Otay WD) has anticipated 9rowth, effectively managed the addition of new facilities and water supply needs, and does not foresee any negative impacts to current or future service levels. In fact service levels have been enhanced with the addition of new major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix Water District Levy Water Treatment Plant, which came on line during FY 2003-2004 and the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant, which came on line during FY 2005- 2006. This is due to the extensive and excellent planning Otay WD has done over the years including the development of a Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) dated August 2002 and the annual process to haye the capital improvement program (CIP) projects funded aDd constructed in a timely manner corresponding with development construction activities and water demand growth that require new or upgraded facilities. The process of planning followed by the Otay WD is to use WRMP as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best altematives for providing a reliable water supply and system facilities. Growth projection data provided from SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community was used to develOp the WRMP. The WRMP incorporates the concepts of water storage and supply from neighboring water agencies to meet emergency and alternative water supply needs. The Otay WD works closely with City of Chula Vista staff to insure that the necessary planning information remains current considering changes in development activities and land use planning revisions within Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch. Page 22 1-107 3. Do current facilities have the ability to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5 year time frames? Yes X No Explain: The Otay WD plans, designs, and constructs water system facilities to meet projected ultimate demands to be placed upon the potable and recycled water systems. Also, the Otay WD forecasts needs and plans for water supply requirements to meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The water facilities are constructed when development activities require them for adequate cost effective water service. Potable water supply within San Diego County is typically planned for and acquired through the regional planning approach process. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) take the leadership role in these efforts. An excellent example of this is, on April 29, 1998, the SDCWA signed a historic agreement with Imperial Irrigation District (liD) for the long-term transfer of conserved Colorado River water to San Diego County. Under the Water Authority-liD Agreement, Colorado River water is conserved by Imperial Valley farmers, who voluntarily participate in the program, and then transferred to the SDCWA for use in San Diego County. The water to be conserved is part of liD's Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Imperial Valley farmers conserve the water by employing extra-ordinary conservation measures. The Otay WD assures that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. Also, the Otay WD has an agreement with the City of Diego for recycled water supplies from their South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The City of San Diego formally approved the agreement on October 20, 2003. The agreement provides for a least 6 MGD of supply from the SBWRP. The supply link to receive the SBWRP recycled water supply is scheduled to be complete in the spring of 2007. The Otay WD is actively pursuing development local water supply through the sharing of treatment plant capacity with agencies such as Helix Water District and the City of San Dies-o. An agreement with the City of San Diego for 10 MGD from their Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has been achieved. In addition 8 MGD from the Helix Water District's Levy Water Treatment Plant is currently available to Otay WD. The new connection with Helix WD known as Flow Control Facility No. 14 was placed into operation during FY 2003 - 2004. This connection made the increased capacity a reality. The Otay WD and SDCWA entered into a new agreement, known as the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP). When the ECRTWIP facilities are in operation, scheduled for March 2010, the total available alternative supply from the Helix WD Levy WTP will be 12 MGD on-peak and 16 MGD of off-peak capacity. The MWD, SDCWA, and Otay WD have addressed the availability of alternative water supply in emergency conditions. The Otay WD need for a ten-day water supply during a SDCWA Page 23 1-108 shutdown has been fully addressed in the WRMP and is actively being implemented. The Otay WD has the ability to meet and exceed this requirement within the City of Chula Vista service area through its own storage, conservation, and existing interconnections with other agencies. MWD, SDCWA, and Otay WD all have programs to continue to meet or exceed the emergency water supply needs of the region into the foreseeable future. As mentioned above the Otay WD executed a 50-year renewable agreement with the City of San Diego to provide 10 MGD of immediate capacity and an additional required capacity in the future from the Otay WTP. The Otay WD, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, continues to expand the use of recycled water. The City of San Diego has placed their SBWRP into operation and it has a rated capacity of approximately 15 MGD. Recycled water from this facility is available for distribution by the Otay WD per terms of the agreement with the City of San Diego. This supply source to Otay WD will occur once construction of a transmission main, storage facility, and a pump station are complete. The estimated schedule to begin operations is spring of 2007. Also, the Otay WD continues to encourage water conservation through a school education and water conservation incentive programs. 3. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 12-18 month time frame? Yes X No For the 5 year time frame? Yes X No Explain: a. Type of facility. b. Location of facility. c. Projected production, in gallons. d. Projected operational date. e. Are sites available for these facilities? f. How will these facilities be funded? g. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? The Otay WD WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay WO. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay WD CIP for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceeds through the City of Chula Vista approval processes, the Otay WO typically requires the developer to prepare a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project consistent with the WRMP. This SAMP document defines and describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. The SAMP also defines the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity fees funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. These fees were established to fund the CIP project Page 24 1-109 facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. The SAMP identifies the major water transmission main and distribution pipeline facilities which are typically located within the roadway alignments. A few examples of significant new CIP project facilities include the following listed projects. Funding for these projects is provided from water meter capacity fees. . At the City of San Diego's Otay Water Treatment Plant site a trailer amounted engine driven temporary pump system project has recently been installed and is in operation. This capital investment has the ability to pump the treated water produced at the Otay WTP into the Central Area-Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline system connected to the Central Area and Otay Mesa Systems. This facility nearly triples the flow capacity capabilities to a maximum of about 20 MGD. . The 980-2 Pump Station project is located adjacent to the existing 30 MG EastLake Greens Reservoir on existing Otay WD property. This significant capital investment was recently completed and is in operation. This pump station increased the pumping capacity within the 980 and 711 Pressure Zones to meet anticipated demand requirements. . The construction of the 3D-inch transmission main to transport recycled water from the SBWRP to the Otay WD is nearly complete from the plant to a location upon the existing Otay landfill property site and existing recycled water transmission system. . A 12 MG recycled water 450-1 Reservoir project is well under construction at the terminus of the 30-inch transmission main. This reservoir is required to balance relatively constant flow from the SBWRP with the widely variable recycled water demand conditions. . A 16.5 MGD recycled water 680-1 Pump Station project is under construction adjacent to the proposed 450-1 Reservoir. The pump station will provide the pressure and flow capacity necessary to meet demand requirements, met by supply from the SBWRP, of the existing and future recycled water markets within the City of Chula Vista. 5. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes No X Explain: An historic and very positive water supply event was transacted known as the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and other related agreements between all interested parties and agencies. With execution of the QSA and related agreements, delivery of 10,000 acre-feet into San Diego County from the transfer continues since 2003. The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 acre-feet by the year 2021 and remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement. The initial term of the agreement is for 45 years, with a provision to extend the agreement for an Page 25 1-110 additional 3D-year term under certain circumstances. This agreement assures the San Diego County region a reliable water supply. Also, the SDCWA Regional Water Facilities Master Plan addresses water supply needs through 2030 and the required systems for its delivery to Otay WD and their other member agencies. On September 25, 2003, the SDCWA Board voted to accept assignment of the MWD's water rights to 77,700 ac-flIyr from projects that will line the All American Canal (ACC) and Coachella Canal (CC). The projects will stop the loss of water that currently occurs through seepage, and that conserved water will go to the SDCWA. This will provide the San Diego region with an additional 8.5 million acre-feet of water over the 11 O-year life of the agreement The SDCWA Board of Directors approved the concept of the construction of a water treatment plant within the North County. The capacity of the planned facility is 100 MGD. The SDCWA has awarded a design-build-operate contract to implement the project and it is currently under construction. MAINTENANCE 6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No Explain: The Otay WD has an established renewal and replacement fund within the Operating Budget for all facilities. There is adequate funding secured and identified for maintenance and replacement of existing facilities, as they are required to be maintained and/or replaced. 7. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current year and 6-year CIP? Yes X No Explain: The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and upgrade projects within the current FY 2007 Otay WD Six-Year CIP project plan and Operating Budget for FY 2007. The Otay WD prepares each year a project list, which contains information on all of the proposed projects. Page 26 1-111 CIP Proi. #. CIP Project Title P1043 Cathodic Protection Svstems Installation and Maintenance P1077 Reservoir Maintenance Interior/Exterior CoatinQ/Paintina/Repair P1270 Facilities Pavement Installation, Maintenance, and Repair P2038 PL - 12-lnch, 978 Zone, Jamacha & Hidden Mesa Roads Uosize and ReDlacements R2053 RWCWRF - R.O. BuildinQ Remodel and Office Furniture R2086 RWCWRF Force Main AirNacuum Replacements and Road Imorovements P2172 PS - 1485-1 Pumo Station Replacement P2267 36-lnch Main PUrrloouts and AirNacuum Ventilation Installations P2295 624-1 Reservoir Disinfection, Inlet/Outlet/Bvpass and 613 Reservoir Demolition P2356 PL - 12-lnch, 803 Zone, Jamul Drive Permastran Pioeline Replacement P2359 Ooerations EOC and Meter Shop Remodels and EOC Maos P2366 APCD Ennine Reolacements and Retrofits P2382 Safety and Security Improvements P2387 PL - 12-lnch 832 Zone, Steele Canvon Road - Via Caliente/Camoo P2416 SR-125 UtiiiiV Relocations P2440 1-905 Utilitv Relocations P2441 NG/RAMAR Meter Replacements P2453 SR-11 Utilitv Relocations P2456 District-Wide AirNacuum Uparades P2458 AMRlManual Meter Reolacements P2459 General Utilitv Relocation - Olive Vista Drive S2015 Calavo Lift Station Reolacement RECYCLED WATER 8. Discussion: The Otay WD has an agreement with the City of Diego for recycled water supplies from their South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The City of San Diego formally approved the agreement on October 20, 2003. The agreement provides for at least 6 MGD of supply from the SBWRP with the ability to take more if the City of San Diego has capacity to provide additional supply to Otay WD.. . The City of San Diego has placed their SBWRP into operation and it has a rated capacity of approximately 15 MGD. Recycled water from this facility is available for distribution by the Otay WD per terms of the agreement with the City. This supply source for Otay WD will occur once construction of a transmission main, storage facility, and a pump station are complete. The estimated schedule to proceed with operations is spring of 2007. Otay WD was awarded a $4,000,000 Proposition 50 grant by the State Water Resources Control Board to go towards construction of the recycled water supply source link from the SBWRP to the Otay WD existing recycled water system. The following three facilities comprise the supply link. . The 30-inch transmission main to transport recycled water from the SBWRP to the Page 27 1-112 Otay WD is under construction from the plant to a location upon the existing Otay landfill property site. . A 12 MG recycled water 450-1 Reservoir project is under construction at the terminus of the 3~-inch transmission main. This reservoir is required to balance relatively constant flow from the SBWRP with the Widely variable recycled water demand conditions. . A 16.5 MGD recycled water 680-1 Pump Station project is under construction adjacent to the proposed 450-1 Reservoir. The pump station will provide the pressure and flow capacity necessary to meet demand requirements, met by supply from the SBWRP, of the existing and future recycled water markets within the City of Chula Vista. 9. Please update/fill in the table below. RECYCLED WATER DEMAND PER YEAR (Million Gallons (MG)) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL 541 738 905 1,147 1,136 1,419 USES Irrigation 541 738 905 1,147 1,136 1,419 Industry Recharge 10. How many gallons of recycled water can OWD currently deliver? The Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) produces nearly 1.2 MGD or 1,344 acre-feet per year of recycled water. When the recycled water demand exceed supply capabilities of the RWCWRF typically limited to about 438 million gallons per year the supply shortfall is met by supplementing the recycled water system with potable water. The recycled water system was planned and constructed to have the capability to deliver and meet of the current and future recycled water demands placed upon the recycled water system. The recycled water system will continue to be supplemented with potable water until the additional source of recycled water supply from the City of San Diego's SBWRP is available. The supply of recycled water from the SBWRP is expected to begin in the spring of 2007 with construction completion and operation of the transmission, storage, and pump station systems necessary to receive the SBWRP recycled water. The recycled water supply will then be about 7.2 MGD or 8,066 acre-feet per year. Page 28 1-113 11. Is OWD meeting demands per the table above? Yes, sufficient supplies to meet the entire demand for each of the years within the table have been achieved. 12. Please give a brief description of the impact the below items have on the District's current efforts to market recycled water. a Water quality b. Price of water c. Willing customers d. Distribution lines e. Other The total dissolved salt content of the recycled water supply, typically ranging between 800 and 900 TOS, is the primary factor potentially impacting the cost of recycled water production to meet regulatory requirements on limitations of salt loading within market areas. Currently, TOS levels are below regulatory level and do not impact water quality requirements, nor increase the cost for the production. The landscape planting materials need to be selected such that those that are highly sensitivity to salt levels are not integrated into the landscape- planting scheme. The Otay WD currently markets recycled water at 85% of the potable water rate. This pricing level has increased user willingness and acceptance of the Otay WO mandatory recycled water use ordinance. Customer acceptance of recycled water overall has been very positive. When resistance is encountered it is typically due to concerns of increased capital cost to install the necessary distribution pipelines to the irrigation areas. The Otay WO through collection of water meter capacity fees funds the recycled water transmission main, storage reservoir, and pump station capital facilities. MISCELLANEOUS 13. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: The current threshold standard addresses all the significant aspects of water service and the capability to accommodate the continuing growth within the City of Chula Vista served by the Otay WO. 14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Page 29 1-114 Yes X No Explain: That the Otay WD and the Growth Management Oversight Commission recommend that the City of Chula Vista continue to fully support and continue to require and encourage the use of recycled water and implementation of water conservation measures as well. 15. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the GMOC? Yes _X_ No Explain: Recvcled Water On the recycled waterfront, the Otay WD continues to actively require the development of recycled water facilities and related demand generation within new development projects within the City of Chula Vista, and support of the City of San Diego's South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The City of San Diego has identified Otay WD as their major market for recycled water produced at the SBWRP. Water Conservation The Otay WD continues to have a Water Conservation Program to reduce the quantity of water used by customers for the purpose of conserving water supplies. The program encourages irrigation efficiency of all customer accounts. A study suggested that if users could be encouraged to manage their landscape with a maximum annual amount of 48-inches of water, approximately 1,000 acre-feet of water would be saved annually. Conservation is also promoted by the education of the public. The SDCWA, in conjunction with the Otay WD, Helix WD, and Cuyamaca College operate the educational Water Conservation Garden. In summary, the water supply outlook is excellent and the City of Chula Vista's long-term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply. The historic and very positive event being the implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and other related agreements between all interested parties and agencies assures a long term water supply future. An additional assured water supply occurred with the SDCWA Board acceptance of the assignment of the MWD's water rights from the lining of the All American Canal and Coachella Canal. The potential for interruptions to the water supply have been addressed by Otay WD, SDCWA, and MWD through the development of long-term emergency water supply such as the Page 30 1-115 SDCWA Emergency Storage Project (90 days), the MWD Diamond Valley Reservoir (six months) and Otay WD ten-day storage and supply strategy. The continued close coordination efforts with the City of Chula Vista and other agencies have brought forth significant enhancements for the effective utilization of the region's water supply to the benefit of all citizens. Prepared by: Date: Page 31 1-116 THRESHOLD 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The District's replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in the tables below. Local 1m orted 15,465 8,884 63 37 16,000 8,500 18 82 18 82 46 54 Total 24,349 100 24,500 100 100 100 Notes: 1) Use of local vs. Imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and therefore unpredictable. 2) Table values are for portion of Chula Vista served by Sweetwater Authority only. Page 32 1-117 FY FY FY FY 12-18 Mo 5 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 Projection Proiection Yearly Demand - 8063 8081 7676 7934 (Purchased by consumers, 8100 8350 MG) Yearly Supply Capacity, MG 26,740 27,740 27,740 27240 27,740 27,740 '1,2) Storage Capacity, MG - Treated Water 42 42 42 42 42 45 Storage Capacity, MG - Raw 17,421 17,421 17,421 17421 17,421 17,421 Water Notes: (1) Maximum supply capacity includes 62 cfs(40 mgd) treated water connection, Robert Perdue Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds DesaI. plant (4mgd) and National City Wells (2 mgd). (2) Normal maximum supply capacity is from Robert Perdue Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds DesaI. plant (4mgd) and National City Wells (2 mgd). Please provide brief responses to the following questions. GROWTH IMPACTS 2. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No x -. . - Explain: Growth observed within the Sweetwater Authority service area during the review period was approximately 0.5% which is not significant. 3. Do current facilities have the ability to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month time frame? Yes x No Explain: Based on projected future growth current facilities can meet projected demands. Page 33 1-118 4. Will any new facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast growth for the 12- 18 month time frame? Yes No x for the 5-7 year time frame? Yes x No Explain: Infrastructure improvements are proposed in conjunction with our 2002 Water distribution System Master Plan a. Type of facility. Pipelines, tanks, etc. b. Location of facility. Multiple locations. c. Projected production, in gallons. 38.5 MGD maximum day demand. d. Projected operational date. 2030 e. Are sites available for these facilities? Yes f. How will these facilities be funded? Developer capacity charges and Rate payers. g. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes 5. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes x No Explain: The ability of the SD County water Authority to continue delivering water for current and projected demands, as we rely on this agency to supplement water supply. MAINTENANCE 6. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes x No Explain: Maintenance is -directly funded by our rate payers and we are not dependent.on state or federal funding. 7. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes x No Explain: Master Plan improvements within the City of Chula Vista are approximately $20 million. Page 34 1-119 8. Does the District have any plans to produce or distribute reclaimed water? Yes No x Discussion: No changes from last years comments. MISCELLANEOUS 9. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No x_ Explain: The threshold for water service appears to be working fine 10. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes x No Explain: Ensure that water supply is available at the state level to support local growth 11. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and the GMOC? Yes No x Explain: None at this time Prepared by: Title: Date: Hector Martinez Engineering Manager 2/15/07 Page 35 1-120 THRESHOLD STANDARD In the area east of 1-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030) 60,000 GSF of library space beyond the city-wide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the city-wide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. 1. Please fill in the blanks or update the information on this table. r FY 1997-98 163.417 102,000 624 FY 1998-99 169,265 102,000 603 FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571 FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 FY 2001-02* 195,000 102,000 523 FY 2002-03* 203,000 102,000 502 FY 2003-04 * 211,800 102,000 482 FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464 FY 2005-06 223.423 102,000 457 227,673 102,000 448 263,300 133,129 506 'Plannin9 Division EsUmate **S-year projections are based on GMOC Forecast. Page 36 1-121 "'-Previously assumed that EastLake Branch would close with the opening of Rancho del Rey Branch but because of the high circulation at this location it has been decided to keep it open until the Eastern Urban Center Branch opens late in the decade. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 2. The ratio of library square feet to the population has dropped below the 500 square foot threshold minimum. Please comment on this situation and what actions can be taken to mitigate the shortfall. Comment: With the opening of Rancho del Rey Branch Library in Summer of 2008, the Library expects to meet the 500 square foot threshold minimum based upon the '08 population growth projection in the current Residential Growth Forecast: Years 2007 Throuah 2011. 3. Are libraries "adequately equipped"? Yes x No Explain: The Library has purchased and received 27 new public access computers with money from the second round of grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Chula Vista Public Library now offers Chula Vista residents 130 publiC access computers with the free consultation services of digitally trained staff. 4. In 2010 the population may be 270,000, based on your report last year given expected materials expansion to 652,393 items for a ratio of 2.4 items per person. What is the significance of not maintaining a ratio of 3 items per person Discussion: Three books per capita is only one of a number of metrics the library uses to gage whether or not there are sufficient resources to meet the needs of the community. Other metrics include the percent of operating budget that goes to purchase library materials, the percentage of the collection that is less than five years old, as well as the results of our biannual materials availability survey. Since achieving the 3 books per capita ration is dependent upon adequate square footage, the system will not be able to meet this metric until both the Rancho del Rey Library and the Eastern Urban Center Library open. 5. Are libraries "adequately staffed"? Yes X No_ Page 37 1-122 Explain: At the end of FY06 the library had successfully Introduced the "marketplace" model at Civic Center Branch Library and South Chula Vista Branch Library. The essence of the model was a new staffing approach which allotted more staff to meet guests at their point of usage, be it usage of the collection or increased presence in the community. This staffing improvement was realized within the existing staffing level. 6. Please provide a staffing plan, which illustrates how the existing and planned library facilities for Chula Vista will be staffed and operated in light of measured community needs related to hours of operation and staffing. The Chula Vista Public Library staff is currently working on a staffing plan that will be equal and sustainable throughout all the branches, including Rancho del Rey, in the Chula Vista Public Library System. This year each of the two larger and more complex branches, South and Civic libraries, reinstated a branch manager and an assistant branch manager to better coordinate and maintain the library's high level of guest services. The goal is to provide "adequately staffed and equipped" branches that respond to current demands and usage of our facilities by the residents. Maintaining that goal is dynamic as we continually survey and measure our community's use of and satisfaction with library services. We reallocate staff to provide effective publiC service more efficiently. This effort has been assisted by technology during the past year. For example: " Library items may be easily renewed and reserved by our guests through the library website from the convenience of home or office " There is quick follow up on overdue materials through an interface between our integrated library system and Unique Management Systems, a service that specializes in the retum of library overdue materials and payment of fines. " 225 archival photos of Chula Vista history have been digitized through a state grant. These are now available through the library's website for viewing rather than staff intervention. " The library's events calendar is now composed using an online template and available on the website in interactive fomnat. " The labor intensive public debit card system used by our guests to print their compufer search or resume, has been replaced by a much easier coin-op system. The increase circulation at EastLake branch, 10% over the previous year, has been addressed with the transfer of a permanent library associate to EastLake from within the library system, and the addition of a self-check machine. The library's dynamic volunteer program contributed the equivalent of over 12 full-time staff members to the processing of books, the daily story times at each library, the daily reshelving of returned books, and numerous routine functions that maintain the integrity of Chula Vista library's many public services. Page 38 1-123 7. The GMOC is interested in library usage trends over the last few years. Please provide information over the last 3 years, or as your data permits, in total and by facility for such things as: . Number of patrons . Materials loaned . Other usage or performance indicators Discussion: Below is a chart that details library usage trends for the last three years: 02103 03/04 04/05 05/06 Attendance Combined 1,044,755 1,076,967 1,121,119 1,170,168 Civic 605,957 624,640 650,249 676,840 South 313,426 323,090 336,335 356,085 EastLake 125,372 129,237 134,535 137,243 Circulation Combined 1,302,774 1,308,918 1,414,295 1,467,799 Civic 667,053 658,153 747,535 758,927 South 510,467 524,567 505,079 530,858 EastLake 125,274 126,089 161,681 178,014 Guest Satisfaction Combined 86% 88% 91% 92% Civic 81% 84% 86% 92% South 89% 90% 90% 96% EastLake 91% 93% 95% 90% The guest satisfaction rate is determined during the Library's bi-annual user survey. GROWTH IMPACTS 8. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Yes No x Explain: During this reporting period, growth has not affected the ability of each branch to maintain service levels. The library has reallocated staff as changes in usage are demonstrated. Page 39 1-124 9. Are current facilities able to serve forecasted growth for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes No x Explain: No, the current library facilities (Civic Center, South Chula Vista, and EastLake) totaling 102,000 square feet will not meet the threshold of 500 square feet of library per 1000 population until summer 2008 when Rancho del Rey is opened. Once RDR opens the system will maintain the threshold through 2011. The McMillan Company and the city's Planning Department have been moving forward with a plan to incorporate the fourth and final branch library into the Eastern Urban Center. 2012 is the estimated time of completion for that facility 10. Will new facilities be required to accommodate the forecast growth? Yes X No Explain: In order to accommodate forecasted growth, the 1998 Library Master Plan calls for the construction of a full service regional library of approximately 30,000 square feet in the Rancho del Rey area and the construction of a second full service regional library of approximately equal size in the Eastern Urban Center in Otay Ranch. Public Facilities Development Impact Fees have been and are being collected to pay 100% of the costs of these facilities. 11. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the provision of library services? Yes No X Explain: MAINTENANCE/UPGRADE OF EQUIPMENT & COLLECTIONS 12. Has adequate funding been identified and/or secured for necessary maintenance and/or upgrade of equipment and collections? Yes No X Explain: The Civic Center branch library is in need of a major renovation with the next 2 years. A source of funding is being identified to upgrade the electrical system for the increasing number of public access computers, self-checkout machines and printers. Funding will also provide for the replacement of carpeting, banners, refinishing and/or replacement of furniture and furnishings, addition of Local History archive space, improvement of the energy efficiency of Page 40 1-125 the lighting system, and redesign of underutilized non-public areas of the library and overcrowded staff cubicles in the public staff work areas. One of the Civic Center branch HVAC system's two chillers also needs to be replaced. The recent city-wide Arts Master Plan also calls for a remodel of the Civic Center Library Auditorium to provide a much needed community performance venue on the city's west-side. Last year a refurbishment of the South Chula Vista Branch Library was completed. 13. How will the renovation process disrupt library operations and what effect will this have on patrons and if appropriate what mitigation measures are planned? Discussion: The scope and timing of the Civic Center renovation is still unclear. The library is writing a building program that will describe the specific needs. The building program will be analyzed by General Services, and a recommendation will be made for implementing the renovation. 14. Are there any major maintenance/upgrades to be undertaken over the 1-year and 5-year time frames? Yes x No Explain: This past year the library installed an online events calendar on our website, www.chulavistalibrarv.com. In spring 2007, the library will have inaugurated a new look to the online public access catalog. A single intuitive search will provide access to library books, magazine articles, subscription databases, and the internet. Besides the major renovation of the Civic Center branch library, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags on library materials and automated book sorting equipment will be the next efficiency to implement throughout the library system. RFID technology is ubiquitous in private industry for keeping track of shipments and warehouse inventories. In the library industry, books and other items tagged with RFID are checked out and in, and provide electronic inventory control with minimal human intervention. This allows the library to re-deploy valuable staff to the public floor rather than routine tasks behind the scenes. At the point of the automated book return (which looks like an ATM machine) the returned book is identified using the RFID tag and sorted onto book carts without the need of an employee interface. The Library has established a CIP for RFID and Automated Sorting. It is being funded with by the Califomia State Library Act. The Rancho del Rey project is programmed to include the automated sorting equipment to increase the efficiency materials availability for our guests. 15. Please provide an update on status ofthe Rancho Del Rey Library. Describe: Construction drawings have been completed. Staff is working with the design- build team to establish a Guaranteed Maximum Price- one that the design-build team may not exceed in constructing the building. The Council must agree to this figure in order to begin Page 41 1-126 construction. The staff is preparing to brief the Council and take forward an action item in late February. MISCELLANEOUS 16. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes No x Explain: 17. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No x Explain: Prepared by: Title: Date: Mariya G. Anton Senior Management Analyst February 2, 2007 Page 42 1-127 - -~ - - - --- -- 1}1~I;iLU~iil-:;: , . ~ d ~ _ _ _ ___ ~ - --- - - -- - - - - - THRESHOLD STANDARD: 1. Stonn water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the perfonnance of the City's stonn drain system to detennine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: 1. Have storm water flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at any time during this reporting period? Provide updates. Yes No X If yes: a. b. c. Where did this occur? Why did it occur? What has been, or is being done to correct the situation? 2. Please comment on the city's efforts to implement the NPDES program noting both successes and explaining any violations that may have occurred during the reporting period up to the current timE!: ' Discussion: During the reporting period, the City met all its responsibilities for compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit requirements. Significant activities included: a. Staff reviewed development project submittals for compliance with NPDES regulations, including Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMP) requirements for Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs). b. All inspections of construction sites and of municipal, commercial, industrial, and residential facilities and activities were conducted in accordance with the frequencies required by the NPDES Municipal Permit. c. Reported violations of the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance) were responded to in the shortest possible Page 43 1-128 time and follow-up inspections were conducted to ensure satisfactory resolution of each case. The City has not received a Notice of Violation under the NPDES Municipal Permit since July 2005, when all co-permittees received Notices of Violation for watershed management activities; the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board subsequently dismissed these Notices of Violation. d. During the reporting period, the City entered into an agreement with "I Love A Clean San Diego" for their services to develop a public education and outreach campaign plan and organize a stakeholder task force. The goal of the program is to increase public awareness on water quality and environmental issues among Chula Vista residents and, eventually achieve behavioral changes that will ensure sustainable beneficial uses of the City's water resources. . From the early stages, it became apparent that several City departments and divisions pursue similar environmental goals and objectives and, therefore, an intemal stakeholder group comprised of staff from the following departments and divisions was formed to consolidate efforts and achieve cumulative benefits: . The Nature Center . Environmental Services Division . Office of Conservation . Office of Communications . Storm Water Management Section Through the collaboration of I Love A Clean San Diego (ILACSD) and staff from the above referenced departments and divisions, a public education and outreach campaign is in its final stages of development, a stakeholder task force meeting is planned for March 2007, and several public education printed materials have been prepared and are being distributed. Several other education programs, including interpretive trail signs, school presentations, high school green teams expansion, and water quality presentations and field activities at City's recreational facilities are planned. e. A watershed protection public awareness survey was conducted to evaluate Chula Vista residents' general knowledge about water quality and watershed protection issues. Services of a consultant (D-Max Engineering, Inc.) were used to conduct a statistical analysis of the collected data, identify areas for improvement, and to provide recommendations. This survey will be used as a baseline to-assess program effectiveness in future years. Results will also be used to direct future public education programs and resources to areas that will provide the most benefit. f. During the summer of 2006, the City's consultants conducted dry weather field screening and analytical monitoring at 57 outfalls throughout the City. This is an increase of 7 outfalls to last year's total number of outfalls. The new outfalls were added this year to monitor the quality of runoff from San Miguel Ranch, Rolling Hills Ranch, and Otay Ranch Villages 7 and 11 developments. The results of this monitoring program indicated decreasing trends for the majority of tested pollutants. The most persistent pollutants observed during this year's dry weather monitoring program were bacterial indicators. Sources of bacterial indicators may include animal and bird waste, decomposing organics, sewage spills, human encampments, pet waste, illegal dumping into storm drains, aerial deposition, etc. Page 44 1-129 Through increased public education and storm drain maintenance, the City is addressing the problem. It must be noted that the presence of these bacterial indicators does not necessarily correspond to impairment of beneficial uses of receiving waters. g. During the winter of 2005-2006, the City participated in the Regional Wet Weather Monitoring Program. Analytical test results from samples taken during storm events at a Mass Loading Station located on the Sweetwater River near the Willow Street Bridge is used to evaluate the health of the Sweetwater Watershed. Results of this monitoring confirmed that bacterial indicators were the most persistent pollutants within the Sweetwater sub-watershed. The presence of these bacterial indicators does not necessarily correspond to impairment of beneficial uses of receiving waters. . h. During the reporting period, the City's CLEAN web page was developed. The CLEAN page can be accessed at www.chulavistaca.qov/clean.This page is a portal to access multiple City environmentally oriented web pages, including: . Environmental Services . Nature Center . Stormwater Pollution Prevention . Conservation The Stormwater Pollution Prevention page is still being developed and it is expected that when complete, it will provide an invaluable tool to reach the community and facilitate information retrieval by Chula Vista residents, business owners, and developers alike. i. On September 22, 2004, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board issued directives to the County of San Diego and municipalities of San Diego County (including the City of Chula Vista) informing them that channel maintenance activities may not be conducted without appropriate environmental permits. The Regional Board exempted channel cleaning by hand operations from these permit requirements. This directive has impeded proper maintenance of flood control channels in the City. During the reporting period, San Diego County Copermittees continued working together to develop a streamlined channel maintenance permit application process acceptable to all resource agencies, i.e., the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. These resource agencies have, in some cases, conflicting permitting requirements that effectively proh~it channel maintenance for flood control purposes. Because conflicting permitting regulations and requirements are problematic throughout the regions, the Copermittees hired a consultant, EDAW, Inc., to meet with the resource agencies and develop a permit application process acceptable to all of them. EDAW is expected to submit the first draft of a permitting guidelines document for the Copermittees' review in February 2007. j. The NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2001-01, went into effect on February 21,2001. The Municipal Permit is due for re-issuance every five years. On March 10, 2006, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board issued the first draft of a new municipal permit for San Diego County. Subsequent to public review and comment, and a hearing by the Regional Page 45 1-130 Water Quality Control Board, Regional Board staff revised the draft permit to accommodate changes deemed necessary. On January 24, 2007, the Regional Board adopted the new NPDES municipal permit for San Diego County as Order No. R9-2007-0001. The new permit imposes significant additional requirements on the Co-permittees, developers, and industrial/commercial businesses throughout the county. City staff estimates compliance with the new requirements will require additional funding for new staff, equipment, and programs in the amount of about $7.5 million in General fund revenues over the permit's five- year life. This is above and beyond the amount of General Funds now being used to cover some of the NPDES program costs; existing Storm Drain Fee revenues are not sufficient to cover existing program costs and will, therefore, only be used to fund continuing program requirements currently funded by Storm Drain Revenue funds. k. During the reporting period, the City of Chula Vista did not receive any Notices of Violation from the Regional Board. However, the City took several enforcement actions as follows: Residential: Commercialllndustrial: 2 Stop Work Notices, 11 Notices of Violation, and 22 Administrative Citations 9 Administrative Citations 6 Notices of Violation- 18 Administrative Citations Construction: GROWTH IMPACTS 3. Has the addition of over 2,600 new homes during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels? Provide updates. Yes No X Explain: As a condition of development, the additional new homes (development) have not negatively affected the ability to maintain service levels since the drainage facilities that require maintenance, such as detention basins and storm water filtration and containment devices (BMPs), have been j,ncorporated into maintenance districts that are funded by tile area of benefit. 4. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 24 -month and 5- year time frame, constituting over 5,000 and 15,000 new homes respectively? Provide updated information. Yes X No Explain: Developers are required per Section 3-200 of the Subdivision Manual to provide on- site detention facilities such that the post-development flow rate does not exceed the pre- development flow rate at the outlet of the subdivision. Page 46 1-131 5. Western Chula Vista may experience the addition of 4,500 housing units over the next 5 years, what are the issues, if any, that need to be monitored in regards to this level of growth and drainage? Provide updates. Last year this question was asked when there were 2,600 units anticipated with the response below. Given the increase in the forecast does this warrant any change? Describe: The items identified in last year's response are still valid. Additionally, the City's Floodplain Ordinance is currently being revised to conform with the latest requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Last Year's response 1. Storm water quality runoff requirements may inhibit the ability to be able to improve existing natural drainage channels. 2. More intense development will be placing additional needs to have covered drainage facilities instead of open channels so that parking or other passive uses can be provided on the surface. 3. All development/redevelopment projects are required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 4. Development along existing unimproved drainage facilities will be considerably more expensive to develop than for property not along natural drainage channels. 5. City requirements regarding development within the floodplain (included in Chapter 18.54 of the City's Municipal Code) are sufficient and should not be relaxed. The lowest floor elevation of residential structures shall be elevated to a minimum of one foot above the regulatory flood elevation. 6. Historically, property damage has been confined to areas developed within or adjacent to flood plains. 6. How is the City protecting natural drainage channels in the west relative to the anticipated increase in development? Provide updates. Discussion: The continued. implementation of the City's NPDES Program will protect the natural channels by minimizing the discharge of sediment, oil and grease, and other pollutants to storm drainage systems. Trash and debris are removed from natural drainage channels on a regular basis. New High Priority Developments are required to implement site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices to minimize discharge of pollutants to storm drainage systems. Additionally, the construction of detention facilities in the eastern developments should minimize the erosion in certain channels located in the west by reducing the speed of storm flow discharge of pollutants to storm drainage systems. 7. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate this forecasted growth (differentiate between east and west)? Provide updates. Yes X No Page 47 1-132 1. East: Land development projects will be required to provide all necessary facilities and their respective share of maintenance costs to accommodate their impacts. 2. West: It is anticipated that some facilities will be required as parcels encroach onto natural drainage areas due to redevelopment at a higher density. Since the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin has been impacted by development in the east prior to the implementation of the City's drainage detention requirement, additional improvements will be required, particularly in the unimproved channel. Redevelopment may also require that some existing facilities be modified or reconstructed so that more of the parcel can be redeveloped. Development in eastern Chula Vista constructed prior to the detention requirement within the Poggi Canyon Basin (generally including Otay Ranch south of East Palomar Street) may be contributing toward storm drainage in the Woodlawn Park area of western Chula Vista. The downstream facility includes a natural channel that flows into the Otay River. Since the area around this channel is largely undeveloped and the impact of storm drainage is minimal, the construction of additional drainage improvements in this area has not been a priority. Drainage improvements would likely be a condition of development in this area. a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? East: Land development projects will be required to provide all necessary facilities and their respective share of maintenance costs to accommodate their impacts. West: It is anticipated that some facilities will be required as parcels encroach onto natural drainage areas due to redevelopment at a higher density. Additional improvements will be required in the Poggi Canyon and Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basins, particularly in the unimproved channels. Redevelopment may also require that some existing facilities be modified or reconstructed so that more of the parcel can be redeveloped. b. How will these facilities be funded? Improvements to the Telegraph Canyon Channel can be partially financed through the Telegraph Canyon Dr!j!nage DIF. Since the areas adjacent to most new developm~nt are generally privately owned, the property owner will fund these improvements as a condition of development. However, general impacts on developed areas may need to be funded by the City. c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? As previously mentioned, the Telegraph Canyon DIF can be used to fund improvements in the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin. The most common sources of funding for drainage projects have been the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the Residential Construction Tax (RCT). Council adopted the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program for Fiscal Year 2003-04 in order to improve the condition of City infrastructure in this area. The financing will need to be repaid through the City's annual CDBG entitlement funds Page 48 1-133 generated through the Residential Construction Tax (RCT). Drainage projects that will be! have been funded from these sources include $3.0 million for Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) replacement! rehabilitation, $0.74 million for drainage improvements on Emerson Street, and $0.62 million for other drainage improvements. However, this means that these funding sources will not be available for future projects, particularly because the RCT is collected on the building permits, and the rate of issuance of building permits has decreased over the past year. Current legislation is being considered at the State level which would improve the funding of drainage projects. ACA 13 would amend Article XIII of the State Constitution to allow municipalities to impose a levy for capital or operation and maintenance costs for flood control purposes without the need to conduct a ballot process or election. This would allow the City to increase the storm drain fee to pay for both the NPDES program and construction! maintenance of drainage facilities. If this bill is passed by the legislature, it will need to be placed on the ballot. However, there has not been much activity on this bill over the past year. Staff will also be investigating other ways to raise funds for drainage projects, such as applying for grants and enacting a property tax increase. 8. Are there, or do you foresee any growth related issues affecting the maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? The population is growing at about 7,800 persons per year. Provide update. Yes No X Explain: Due to the requirement for storm drainage detention for new development and the provisions in the new NPDES permit, the additional growth should not affect the City's level of service for drainage. 9. What is the status of the "Master Maintenance Agreement", provide updates. Discussion: As discussed under Item #21., The City of Chula Vista, in conjunction with other local agencies, has hired a consultant (EDAW, Inc.) to meet with the resource agencies and develop a streamlined permit application process which could make it easier for the City to obtain a permit to maintain _oatural channels. We anticipate receiving the first update jn February 2007. However, the negotiation of a Master Maintenance Agreement, which would allow each City to obtain a Master Permit to maintain channels within its jurisdiction, could be several years in the future. In the meanwhile, the City is in the process of hiring a consultant to perform biological assessments on the highest priority and one segment of the Telegraph Canyon Channel west of Paseo Ladera. This work must be done in order for the City to obtain permits to clean these areas. PREVIOUS GMOC RECOMMENDATION 10. Please provide an update on the status of the Drainage Master Facilities Plan, that will identify high priority drainage projects and applicable federal funding. Page 49 1-134 Description: The consultant PBS&J has completed their work on the Drainage Facilities Master Plan. However, the Master Plan could not be completed because the City had been waiting on the resolution of an issue regarding the use of new hydrology standards recently adopted by the County. This issue will affect the flows calculated for the storm drainage basins and thus recommendations for facilities which need to be upgraded. We do not yet have a list of existing major storm drains that are potentially hydraulically undersized for 50-year and 100-year storms. City staff with investigate hiring a consultant to complete this work. The City has been in the process of preparing its own Drainage Report which has reviewed drainage deficiencies identified by staff and included in the 1993 GMOC report and the 2004 Master Plan, determine priorities and identify potential funding sources. This report is nearing completion and staff plans to present it to Council in the Infrastructure Deficiencies Workshop planned for spring 2007. It has identified eight Priority 1 projects which are estimated to cost a total of $27.9 million. MAINTENANCE 11. Please provide an update on the adequacy of secured funding identified for maintenance of existing facilities. Explain: Maintenance of drainage facilities has been generally supported by the General Fund and to a lesser extent by Gas Tax and Storm Drain Fee funds. However, the cost of the City's NPDES program has expanded after the adoption of San Diego's municipal permit in February 2001 and the entire Storm Drain Fee is needed to fund this program. As discussed under Item #2, the additional cost of administering the new requirements of the January 2007 NPDES permit will require additional money from the General Fund. Other funds can be used to finance capital projects, such as corrugated metal pipe (CMP) rehabilitation. As previously discussed, the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program includes $3.0 million to rehabilitatel replace corroded CMP in western Chula Vista. City staff has also been inv.E1stigating the feasibility of increasing the Storm Drain Fee to finance maintenance costs. 12. Are there any major maintenance projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1- year and 5-year CIP? If yes, please provide a list of projects in order of importance. Yes X No The major projects have been related to CMP replacement and repair. Current projects are described in more detail under Item #17. The City also has a standard annual allocation of $300,000 for this work. Page 50 1-135 13. Describe the key drainage maintenance issues facing western Chula Vista now, and what corrective work need to be undertaken, the cost of this work, and what is currently not funded. Provide a list of unfunded drainage projects. Description: The primary area of concern in western Chula Vista is the Montgomery Area, located within the southwestern area of Chula Vista, generally bound by L Street to the north and Hilltop Drive to the east. Scattered throughout the Montgomery area are areas with missing street and drainage improvements, such as missing curb-and-gutter and sidewalks. As a result of the incomplete improvements, both drainage and pavement-related problems occur. The drainage and street improvements should ideally be constructed prior to any pavement rehabilitation in order to preserve pavement life. In addition, due to inadequate drainage facilities and in some cases, drainage between/within residential properties, problems occur in these areas during the rainy season. Some of these areas can be improved through the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program, but there are insufficient funds to construct all missing street and drainage improvements. An additional concern is the maintenance of natural drainage courses. The accumulation of silt and debris in these channels impedes their ability to carry the required storm water flow, but the City has frequently been required to obtain environmental permits from the State and/ or Federal government before performing the maintenance, which is very time consuming. Progress on streamlining the permitting process in discussed under Item #9. The preliminary list of Priority 1 drainage projects prepared by staff is attached. Sufficient funding has been identified for Projects 1 C and 1 H (1 C is currently in construction). 14. During the recent rains in 2005 and 2006, were there any drainage failures or localized flooding? Indicate which instances may be attributable to growth and comment on other issues of which the GMOC should be aware. Yes X No There were no incidents of flooding or drainage failures during Fiscal Year 2005-06. However, during Fiscal Year 2004-05, there were two areas of local flooding around the intersection of Third Avenue and L Street and the drainage channel east of Emerson Street and Third Avenue. Both of these problems were largely due to debris blockages, and the problems were eliminated after the debris was cleared away. 15. Last year you reported that "The Drainage Master Plan identified 94,158 linear feet of CMP, which would cost an estimated $20.24 million to replace. Since the City does not have sufficient funds to replace or rehabilitate all these pipes at the same time, we will propose a CIP project to first televise the CMP. After this has been done, staff will establish priorities and take care of the immediate needs first We will propose to begin this process during Fiscal Year 2005-06." Please provide an update. The City's consultant has inspected approximately 62,000 linear feet of storm drain pipe and has identified 31 pipe segments in need of urgent repair due to pipe failure or blockage with Page 51 1-136 debris. City staff has developed CIP projects to initiate work at these locations (see Item #17). Based upon the consultant's recommendations, there is also approximately $14 million of rehabilitationl replacement work recommended to be done within one year. The City does not have sufficient funding to complete all this work within the recommended time. 16. Last year you reported that "The Drainage Master Plan has enabled us to identify the locations of the CMP within the City and has assisted us in setting priorities for televising all the CMP within the City's storm drain system. Once it is complete, we also anticipate that the drainage Master Plan will enable us to identify potential drainage deficiencies and correct them." Please provide an update. The work on the Drainage Master Plan has resulted in a more accurate inventory of the City's drainage facilities. In turn, this has enabled staff to televise the CMP and set priorities for CMP replacement (see Item #15). Additionally, it has established maximum flows that can be used for designing new storm drains throughout the City. City staff has also identified drainage priorities throughout the City based on observed deficiencies. We do not yet have a list of existing major storm drains that are potentially hydraulically undersized for 50-year and 100-year storms. City staff will investigate hiring a consultant to complete this work. 17. Please indicate the CMP replacement budget for the last and the current fiscal year and indicated the sites that have been Improved. What is the anticipated budget for fiscal year 2006-20077 Discussion: During Fiscal Year 2005-2006 we spent approximately $1.2 million and replaced the CMP in the following locations: Cuyamaca Avenue to East Olympia Court 84 Minot Avenue First Avenue and H Street Fig and Guava Avenue 1345 Monserate Avenue Woodlawn Avenue and F Street Second Avenue and Chula Vista Street The budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is approximately $700,000 for removal and Replacement of CMP in the following locations: 163 & 169 Glenhaven Way 602 & 608 Carla Avenue 92 Rivera Place 1561 Ocala Avenue 46 Minot Avenue Calle Mesita Page 52 1-137 The budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is approximately $170,000 for cure in place lining of CMP in the following locations: Third Avenue and Moss Street North East Corner of Fourth Avenue & Naples Street Third Avenue and Emerson Street Fourth Avenue, between Oxford Street and Naples Street MISCELLANEOUS 18. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No X Explain: 19. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: The main issue is the lack of a dedicated funding source for drainage projects. Additionally, the cost of the NPDES program is exceeding the revenue obtained from the existing storm drain fee, the City has several high cost! high priority projects that do not have sufficient funding and a large quantity of the City's CMP needs to be rehabilitated! replaced. City staff is currently investigating several financing mechanisms which may need voter approval, such as a sales tax increase. Staff would like the Commission's support on this issue. 20. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No X Explain: Prepared by (NamelTitle): Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer Date: January 31,2007 Page 53 1-138 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2007 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/05. 6/30/06 to Current Period and Five Year Forecast) PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD STANDARD 1. Population Ratio: three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. The following table compares City of Chula Vista population estimates from previous years with current and forecasted population estimates. Park acreage provided or anticipated to be provided is also identified. Additionally, the table identifies the threshold standard, (acres of parkland provided per 1,000 persons), for the respective reporting periods. CITY OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons 18 Month Prior Year Comparisons Threshold Area of City Current Forecast" Standard (6/30/06) (12/31/07) June 2003 June 2004 June 2005 3 Acres per East 1-805 3.58 3.46 1,000 AC/1 ,000 persons 3.14 3.01 2.94 Population East West 1-805 1.15 1.15 011-805 AC/1,OOO persons 1.03 1.03 1.10 Citywide 2.28 2.27 1.91 1.89 1.94 AC/1,OOO persons Acres 01 East 1-805 377.01 389.43++ 266.35 278.85 299.38 Parkland West 1-805 -.137.56 138.76+ 122.33 122.33 131.12 Citywide 514.57 528.19 388.68 401.18 430.50 Population" East 1-805 105,373 112,502 84,755 92,500 101,800 West 1-805 119,999 120,339 119,089 119,300 119,587 Citywide 225,372 232,841 203,844 211,800 221,387 Acre Shortfail East 1-805 60.89 51.92 12.08 1.35 -6.02 or Excess West 1-805 -222.44 -222.26 -234.94 -235.57 -227.84 Citywide -161.55 -170.33 -222.85 -234.22 -233.66 Page 54 1-139 ., Population forecasts are for preliminary planning purposes and assume 3% vacancy with 3.026 persons per occupied unit. ~ + Includes the completed Plaza de Nadon Urban Park. ++ Includes the completed Horizon and Windingwalk Parks. General Planning Estimates Chula Vista East versus West Population ArealY ear" 2000 2006"" 2011""" East of 1-805 64,827 107,618 136,415 West of 1-805 118,473 120,055 126923 Total 183,300 227,673 263,338 "Vear end population unless otherwise indicated. .. Assumes that 97% of growth takes place in eastern Chula Vista, with no major residential projects in the west. ... Assumes that there is a 2,340 unit increase in western Chula Vista between 2007 and 2011. Please provide a brief narrative response to the following: 2. Pursuant to the Parkland Development Ordinance (PDO), has the eastern Chula Vista parks system had the required parkland acreage (3 acres/1,OOO persons) during the reporting period? Yes...x....- No Explain: As identified in the page 1 table, the eastern Chula Vista park system did meet the parkland requirements for the reporting period with a ratio of 3.58 acres per one thousand persons. a. What actions are beirig taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland shortages? Provide update. No actions are necessary since the parkland acreage requirement for eastern Chula Vista was met during the reported period. 3. Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO), has the City's park system provided the required facilities during the reporting period? Yes No .lL Page 55 1-140 Explain: The following table identifies facilities required under the PD~, and shows the shortfall or overage based only on the City's park system. Please note, however, that, per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the provision of needed recreation facilities on non-public park sites, such as schools and recreation based community purpose facility sites, is necessary to help meet this demand. 4. Eastern Chula Vista Recreational Facility Needs 2006 Recreation Facility PRMP Need I Comments I Ratio ++ (Less Supply) Softball Organized Adu~ 1/7,900 1 Many softball, baseball, and soccer facilities are provided at Organized Youth 1/12.700 -3 school sites. Practice/Informal 1/2.850 23 Baseball Many softball, baseball. and soccer facilities are provided at Organized Adult 1/12,200 9 school sites. Organized Youth 1 / 4,400 17 Practice/lnfonnaJ 1/3,300 25 Football facility means any flat turf area suitable for informal Football 1/21,400 -18 play, not an official football field. Soccer Many softball, baseball, and soccer facilities are provided at Organized Games 1 / 5,400 -6 school sites. Practice/Informal 1/2,450 10 This number is so high because it includes the 85 picnic Picnic Tables 1/600 -245 tables found in Rohr Park, which is east of 1-805, but is really more of a regional serving park. Nearly all of the parks east of 1-805 contain tot lots and Tot Lots/Playgrounds 1/2,650 3 playgrounds. The City's two public pools are west of 1-805 and are Swimming Pool 1 /45,800 2 therefore not counted. The quasi-public pools of the YMCA and Southwestern College are also not counted. Not induded in the count are the 14 Southwestern College, Tennis 1/3.200 14 6 Bonita Vista High, 10 Eastlake High, and 4 Rancho del Rey Middle School courts, which are all listed in the " Recreation Department's quarterly Recreation Brochure listing classes, programs, and events. No outdoor school basketball courts are counted. Basketball 1/2,150 23 Although overages exist. accessibility to facilities is Skateboarding 1 / 56,950 -2 maximized to benefit public. Although overages exist, accessibility to facilities is Roller Blading 1/59,100 -2 maximized to benefit public. Does not include the quasi-public South Bay YMCA facility Interior Assembly Space 1/3,900 4.6* nor the Chula Vista Boys and Girls Club facility. "1""1" Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan based needs ratio November 12 2002. Negative Value indicates overage. * Represents approximately13,OOO square feet. Page 56 1-141 a. What actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any shortages of facilities? The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan (approved in November 2002) identifies future park sites and identifies future facility locations. In response to identified shortages, the Master Plan includes a park programming matrix which clearly defines where needed facilities will be located in conjunction with the development of new park sites as well as upgrades to existing park sites. This plan of action will serve to remedy facility shortages. The Master Plan contains an action plan that identifies timing of planned facilities, and funding sources. The plan also recognizes that the acreage required to accommodate desired recreation facilities exceeds the total amount of parkland obligation associated with future development. The assignment of needed recreation facilities to non-public park sites, such as future school sites, is necessary to accommodate future demand since the total developer obligated future park acreage is less than total acres required by demanded facilities. Facilities being targeted for future parks include swim complexes with 50-meter swimming pools and multi-purpose community center. 5. Please describe your current efforts at upgrading and renovating parks in western Chula Vista and those anticipated over the next 2 years. Describe: The City will bid out the rehabilitation of Otay Park in the winter of 2007 (February). Construction should commence in the late winter/early spring of 2007 and continue through the summer. The project involves new playground equipment, site lighting, renovation of the multi-purpose field area, a new amphitheater/stage area, new park furnishings and other improvements. The cost of the project is estimated at $1.75 million and is being funded through the Western Chula Vista Infrastructure Financing Program. GROWTH IMPACTS 6. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to achieve the threshold standard? Yes No X Explain: 7. Are any additional parklands necessary to accommodate forecasted growth by December 2007 and 2011? Yes X No Explain: a. What is the amount of needed parkland? Page 57 1-142 Current (6/30106) eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory will provide adequate acreage to accommodate up to 125,670 persons. With a current (6/30106) east population of 105,373, there is a current developed parkland overage of 60.89 acres. The 18-month forecast calls for an eastern Chula Vista population of 112,502 (an increase of 7,129). The increase would necessitate an additional 21.39 acres of developed parkland. With a current overage of 60.89 acres, current east inventories are adequate to accommodate the anticipated 18-month forecast. Approximately 41.3 park acres (Mount San Miguel Community Park, Village 7 neighborhood park (All Seasons Park) and two Village 2 neighborhood parks) are to be constructed between December 2006 and December 2011 time frame. This translates to an eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory of 430.73 acres, which is capable of accommodating a total of 143,577 persons (greater than the forecast of 136,415 persons). b. Are there sites available for the needed parklands? Park sites are available and have been identified on SPA plans and Tentative Maps for major projects within the eastern territory such as Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. The table contained in item 16 below identifies available park sites currently being designed or developed. The General Plan Update identifies future additional park sites through build-out. c. Is funding available for needed parklands? Funding for needed parklands in eastern Chula Vista is available through the dedication of park facilities andlor payment of Parkland Dedication Ordinance Fees (PAD Fees). 8. Are any additional facilities necessary to accommodate forecasted growth by December 2007 and 2011? Yes X No Explain: a. What facilities are needed? The following facilities will be needed in eastern Chula Vista to accommodate a population increase of 31, 042 (Year 2011) and taking into consideration existing (2006) inventory. Page 58 1-143 Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan-Based Needs Ratio - 2006 and 2011 Recreation Facility PRMP 12/2006 12/2011 Ratio ++ Need Need (Less 2006 Supply) (Less 2011 Supply) Softball Organized Adult 1/7,900 1 1 Organized Youth 1/12,700 -4 -4 Practice/Informal 1/2,850 22 27 Baseball Organized Adult 1/12,200 9 11 Organized Youth 1 /4,400 17 24 Practice/I nfonmal 1/3,300 26 34 Football 1/21,400 -18 -17 Soccer Organized Games 1/5,400 9 13 Practice/lnfonmal 1 / 2,450 9 18 Picnic Tables 1/600 -265 -275 Tot Lots/Playgrounds 1/2,650 2 8 Swimming Pool 1/45,800 2 3 Tennis 1/ 3,200 14 18 Basketball 1/2,150 22 31 Skateboarding 1/56,950 -3 -5 Roller Blading 1/59,100 -2 -4 Interior Assembly Space 1/3,900 5 13 Notes: 1. Negative Value indicates overage. 2. Number of facilities needed has been round up when one~half or greater. "'nterior Assembly Space" refers to an Increment of building facility utilized for recreation purposes. Each increment represents appro~ln}ately 2,800 square feel Community Centers and Gymnasiums are exampl~ of "Interior Assembly Space". . b. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Yes, sites become available and are reserved as part of the land development process (Tentative Map, SPA Plan, and Final Map). c. Is funding available for needed parklands? Yes, funding of needed parklands will be available at Final Map recordation or at building permit for those projects not requiring Final Maps. 9. Are there any other growth related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold standard as Chula Vista's population increases? Page 59 1-144 Yes -L.. No Explain: If not properly phased, growth has the potential to affect the ability to provide necessary parkland and facilities in a timely fashion. Future park sites need to be developed early in the development phasing sequence. Furthermore, depending on facility type needed, it may be necessary to develop community park sites prior to neighborhood park sites in a given development. The Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan includes goals, policies, and action items that address sequencing of park development in conjunction with population increases. PARKLAND AND FACiliTIES MAINTENANCE 10. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing parklands and facilities? Yes X No Explain: The maintenance of all parklands and facilities is a budget issue. As new parks come online, additional maintenance staff and equipment will be needed to maintain parks that are added to the park system. 11. Is there adequate staff for park maintenance? Yes ---X- No Explain: The City Council has approved a staffing ratio of .087 per acre to ensure that staffing levels are commensurate with parkland maintenance standards. 12. Were any major parkland or facilities maintenance/upgrade projects completed during the reporting period? If yes, please list Yes X No Explain: Rohr park: New Exercise Equipment Lauderbach Park: New 5-12 Playground SDG&E West: Security Lights Eucalyptus Park: New Shelter PARK PLANNING 13. last year you reported that a staffing standard based on facility size and program elements was being developed to provide staffing that is adequate to meet both current Page 60 1-145 and forecasted demand. Please indicate the results of this effort. Revise comment to reflect any change. Comment: The Recreation Department has implemented a staffing strategy to insure that both full-time and part-time staffing levels are commensurate with community demand and Department needs overall. The Department has adopted a staffing plan of a minimum of two full time staff per facility with sufficient part time staff to provide adequate coverage for programs and facility operating hours. The Recreation Department relies more heavily on staff in the field, who directly interact with the public, and have given them more responsibility. Recreation Supervisor Ills have taken on more day-to-day responsibilities, and are responsible for operating a facility or program and also overseeing a nearby facility or park or like program. For example, the Supervisor III at Veterans Park Center is also responsible for overseeing the nearby Heritage Center; Lorna Verde's Supervisor III is responsible for Lorna Verde and also nearby Otay Center; and Parkway's Supervisor III is responsible for Parkway Center, Memorial Bowl, Woman's Club, and the Community Youth Center. Giving more supervisory responsibility to the Ills has allowed the two Senior Recreation Supervisors, who oversee the eight Supervisor Ills and all "field" operations, to remain effective liaisons between the field staff and the administrative staff. 14. You further reported that the provision of staff for planned facilities, pursuant to this proposed plan, is contingent upon City management and budget approval by Council, FY2005-06. Please provide an update. Comment: The City Council approved all of the Recreation Supervisor III positions requested, along with having a Recreation Supervisor III and Recreation Supervisor I at each of the three new recreation centers, Veterans, Montevalle, and Salt Creek. The Council also approved the requested operating budgets for each of these new facilities. 15. In addition to Harborside Park, please indicate speciflc opportunities for acquiring parkland for western Chula Vista and the means for financing these acquisitions. Describe: The General Plan Update includes additional provisions for future park sites and park classifications in western Chula Vista. The future system of parks in west Chula Vista will be comprised of community, neighborhood, and urban parks. Financing of future parks will include the current mechanisms identified in the Municipal Code such as PAD Fees and REC DIF (Development Impact Fees). Additional opportunities are described in the screen draft update to the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The screen check draft Master Plan contains a chapter titled "Western Chula Vista Park Delivery". The chapter proposes a strategy for delivery of parks in western Chula Vista that includes developing some of the west's future parks on public agency controlled lands. 16 Please update the parkland-phasing program for eastern Chula Vista as presented in last year's response to the GMOC. Page 61 1-146 Refer to table below. Park Phasing 0 Park Anticipated Estimated Estimated Park Name Acreage Status Construction Construction Acceptance Start Date Completion Date Date NeiQhborhood Parks Opened 1 Horizon 5.30 August 2006 - - - 2 Mountain Hawk Opened 12.0 June 2006 - - - Opened 3 Windingwalk 7.13 October 2006 - - - 4 All Seasons Third Quarter of Second Third Quarter (Village 7) 7.6 Master Plan 2007 Quarter of 2008 of 2008 Second Quarter First Quarter Second 5 Village 2A 6.9 Final Map of 2008 of 2009 Quarter of 2009 Second Quarter First Quarter Second 6 Village 2 B 7.1 Final Map of 2008 of 2009 Quarter of 2009 Community Parks 7 Veterans Opened - - - 10.5 May 2006 Montevalle Community Opened - - - 8 Park 29.0 June 2006 Saitcreek Community Opened - Park - - 19.8 June 2006 Mount San Miguel Construction Third Quarter Second Third Quarter 10 Community Park Document Quarter 19.7 of 2007 of 2008 Preparation of 2008 17. Last year you reported that you were moving forward on the design and/or construction coordination of ten parks. Please provide a progress report on this construction. Describe: Item 16 above identifies six recently opened parks (rows 1, 2, 3, 7,8, and 9) and the current status/progress of four parks from last years list. 18. Please update the list of joint use park and recreational resources with the school districts, highlight any changes. Update last year's description, below, as needed. Describe: 1) At the two City pools, various high school swim and water polo Joint use of Page 62 1-147 Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista Elementary School District field facilities is available for use by Youth Sports Council members. 2) In addition, the Recreation Department provides middle school after school programming at Rancho Del Rey Middle School, Castle Park Middle School, Chula Vista Middle School, Bonita Vista Middle School, Eastlake Middle School, and Hilltop Middle School. 3) Additionally, the Library Department has after school programs at 32 elementary school sites. 4) Chula Vista Community Youth Center, which is located in western Chula Vista, is a model of successful joint use that offers a mix of school, recreation and community uses in class offerings that sometimes blur between the Chula Vista High School and the Recreation Department. 5) The City and High School District have a joint use agreement for Rancho del Rey Middle School and Voyager Park, whereby the middle school and the City have access to each other's facilities, including soccer fields, softball fields, basketball and tennis courts, and parking. 6) The City and High School District have a joint use agreement for Eastlake High School and Chula Vista Community Park, whereby the high school and the City have access to each other's facilities, including softball fields, basketball, volleyball, and tennis courts, a track complex, and parking teams pay fees for pool time and City lifeguard service for their practices. The Recreation Department offers elementary school learn-to-swim programs to elementary schools for a fee. Aquatics staff also goes to first grade classes at various elementary schools to teach an Aquatic Safety Awareness Program. THRESHOLDS AND COMMUNICATIONS 19. The GMOC is recommending that the 3 acre per 1,000 standard be applied citywide for new construction or an in lieu fee paid for facilities as defined in the parks master plan. What issues, if any, do you foresee in implementihg such a threshold? Describe: In western Chula Vista issues pertain to the cost of land acquisition, availability of suitable land, the phasing of new parkland with new development, and formulation of a specific mechanism for acquiring and aggregating parcels suitable for park and recreation facilities development. 20. Are there any suggestions you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: Staff recommends GMOC recommend to the City Council that in planning the future development of a major city park, the city take into consideration the City's centennial anniversary in 2011. The park or parks could reflect a theme related to the City's history through the integration of public art and/or park design. 21. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC. Yes Explain: No X Page 63 1-148 Recommendations from last year's GMOC report 22. As a first step in the updated of the Parks Master Plan you reported last year that the City was in the processes of retaining a consultant to conduct a survey and prepare an update to the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. The Assessment is the first step in developing a Western Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Implementation Plan. The Needs Assessment task was anticipated to be completed January 2006. Comment on the status and results of this effort: As reported last year, the City retained a consultant to conduct a survey and prepare an update to the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. The initial task of preparing survey questions and conducting a telephone survey, to ascertain current recreation participation rates of residents, has been completed. The survey was conducted in May/June 2005. I nformation pertaining to current need (2005) for parks and recreation facilities for both east and west has been incorporated into a final report. Furthermore, 2030 needs (based on the approved General Plan Update December 2005 population projections) have also been prepared and incorporated into the Final Recreation Needs Assessment report (March 2006). The Assessment has been utilized to update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to be consistent with the General Plan Update and Urban Core Specific Plan. A screen draft of the update to The Parks and Recreation Master Plan has been completed and is currently being reviewed by City departments prior to release of a public draft document. The update now includes a chapter titled " Western Chula Vista Park Delivery" that expands upon the General Plan's description of future park development within western Chula Vista. 23. Please indicate recent efforts and issues toward achieving joint use for parks with the school districts. Comment: No new efforts other than existing agreements. 24. Please update the GMOC on the status of the "70 Acre" park. Comment: Since last year's GMOC report the General Plan Update has been approved aloog with the land use map diagram that includes the "70-Acre" park. The Village 2 project (Montecito) SPA plan, tentative map, and first final map, which contain the first 40 acres of the "70-acre" community park, have all been approved since last year's GMOC report. The City is now in a position to proceed with preliminary design of a site-specific master plan for a portion of the park site. Prepared by: Joe Gamble Title: Landscape Planner II Last Update: February 7, 2007 Contributing Editors: Shauna Stokes, Dave Byers, Jack Griffin, and Larry Eliason. Page 64 1-149 THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81% of the Priority I emergency calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority I calls of five minutes and thirty seconds (5.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). Urgent response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II, urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). 1. Threshold Standard - Please u date tables 'i;o,~' ..' FY 2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 FY 2004-05 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 FY 2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 FY 2001-02 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07 FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738-' . 75.9% 5:21 CY 1999' 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 FY 1997-98 1,512 of 69,196 74.8% 5:47 FY 1996-97 1,968 of 69,904 83.8% 4:52 FY 1995-96 1,9150f71,197 83.0% 4:46 FY 1994-95 2,453 of 73,485 84.9% 4:37 IThese figures (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting criteria. Prior to FY 01 ~02, citizen-initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to received source. Using the old method of reporting calls for service to better compare change over time, total citizen-initiated calls actually increased 1.5% from FYOO-01 to FY01-Q2. 2 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-19gB. Page 65 1-150 ,(i~~~Q,(ci~~%),~Jtl,~.. FY 2005-06 FY 2004-05 FY 2003-04 FY 2002-03 FY 2001-02 FY 2000-01 FY 1999-00 CY 1999 FY 1997-98 FY 1996-97 FY 1995-96 FY 1994-95 nning in FY 2002-03. . 24,876 of 73,075 24,923 of 74,106 24,741 of 71,000 22,871 of 71,268 22,1990f71,859 25,234 of 73,977 23,898 of 76,738 20,405 of 74,405 22,342 of 69,196 22,140 of 69,904 21,743 of 71,197 21,900 of 73,485 40.0% 40.5% 48.4% 50.2% 45.6% 47.9% 46.4% 45.8% 52.9% 62.2% 64.5% 63.4% 12:33 11:40 9:50 9:24 10:04 9:38 9:37 9:35 8:13 6:50 6:38 6:49 The se figur es do not inclu de resp ons. es to fals e alar ms begi Please provide brief narrative responses to the fof/owing: 2. During the current reporting period, please indicate (1) the number and percent of priority 1 calls that have a 10-minute or greater response time, (2) characterize the nature of the calls, and (3) characterize the typical reasons for the lengthy response times. Discussion: During FY 05-06, 5.9% (50) of priority 1 calls had response times greater than 10 minutes. The most common P1 call type with a response time over 10 minutes was robbery/duress alarm. All of the robbery/duress alarm calls were false. Other common P1 call types with response times over 10 minutes included suicide attempt/overdose calls. The most typical reason P1 response times were over 10 minutes was that there were limited or no units available to respond. Please update/correct the following table. Priority 1 Calls Exceeding A 10-Minute Response Time By Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Priority 1 Calls. Calls over 10 Percent min 05-06 850 50 5.9 04-05 1,023 65 6.4 03-04 1,106 63 5.7 02-03 1,216 62 5.1 01-02 1,305 69 5.0 * includes only those calls that had arrive times or were not canceled prior to officer arrival (in these cases no response time can be calculated), and those calls with original priorities of 1. Page 66 1-151 3. Was the Police Department properly equipped to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the reporting period? Provide explanation. Yes X No Explain: The department was properly equipped with patrol vehicles, motorcycles, officer safety equipment, and communication equipment to deliver services. 4. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II Threshold Standard compliance during the reporting period? Provide explanation. Yes No X Explain: The Department is staffed to meet Priority one thresholds, however in previous years, the number of actual on-duty staff was substantially lower than the number of authorized and/or employed patrol officers; it appeared that priority II thresholds were not met as a result of the low actual on-duty staffing levels. The Department has recently reached full authorized staffing and expects a full complement of trained patrol officers to be working in the field in April 2007. 5. If the answer to questions 3 and 4 is yes, any of the thresholds have not been met, please explain the reason for not meeting the threshold. N/A: Explain: GROWTH IMPACTS 6. Has growth during the last year negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes X No Explain: Although the overall number of calls for service, as well as the number of priority II calls have not increased during the past reporting period, P2 CFS to our largest geographical beat - beat 32 - increased 9% since the iast reporting period. Page 67 1-152 7. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth from January 2006 through December 2010? Yes No x Explain: The Police building, which opened in 2004, is designed to handle growth through build-out. Current staff levels are not sufficient to absorb forecasted growth through 2010. 8. Last year you reported that to accommodate forecasted growth while improving public safety, there is a need for a staff person who can help coordinate efforts among the Police Department, Planning & Building, and Community Development to incorporate crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) into the planning process for new and redeveloped areas. Has any action occurred in this regard? Describe: In our 5-year strategic plan (finalized in mid-2005), we identified the need to address, on a citywide basis, environmental design issues that facilitate crime and disorder. We also recommended a study to determine the feasibility and benefits of a formal CPTED program and CPTED manager position with the potential for subsequent year adjustments. Due to City budget constraints, we have not been able to implement this aspect of our strategic plan. 9. Are other new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes x No Additional staff are necessary to add at least one additional beat in the Eastern part of the City. If the bay front is developed, additional staff will be necessary to prevent problems and respond to an anticipated increase in activity and calls to this area. If yes: a. Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities, equipment and/or staff? City budget constraints, as well as a reduction in many of the previously available law enforcement grants, may limit our ability to obtain resources for additional staff and equipment. b. How will these be funded? In the past, these needs were funded from a variety of sources, including DIF, grant funds and the General Fund. Future staffing and equipment needs will most likely be more reliant upon the General Fund as a majority of the grants for law enforcement have been transitioned to Homeland Security grants. Homeland Security grants do not provide money for personnel at this time. Some equipment funds are available through Homeland Security grants, however the funding for equipment is usually tailored for specific items (i.e. radiation pagers, chemical Page 68 1-153 suits, hazlmat training, etc) which do not address the regular equipment needs of the Police Department. c. Are there appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes. FALSE ALARMS 10 Last year you indicated that a growth-related issue affecting the provIsion of police services is in regard to the number of new homes that are equipped with security systems and that that results in an increase of false alarms. Please indicate any action being taken to address this issue. Discuss: The raw number of false alarms decreased 16% since the last reporting period, and the false alarm rate per residential system decreased 30% since 2002.' We will continue to monitor the situation closely. 11. Please update the tables below. Calendar Year Totals for False Alarms Per Svstem Per Year (available only for calendar year, but fiscal year totals should be similar) 20025 2003 2004 2005 2006 (annualized) (annualized) (annualized) Commercial 1.58 1.37 1.09 1.36 1.61 Residential 0.57 0.37 0.28 0.50 .30 Total (Com & Res) 0.844 0.64 0.49 0.79 .59 3 Beginning in 2005, false alarm rates were calculated by including all alarm calls that were dispatched, even if they were canceled en route. (In prior years, only false alarms that resulted in a completed officer response were used to calculate the rates.) As a result, the 2005 false alarm rate appears to have significantly increased since 2004, but it has not. 4 These figures reflect a change in reporting of alarm calls to include those that are dispatched, but canceled en route. Using the old method of reporting alarm calls to better compare change over time, the total number of false alarms actually responded to decreased 5% from FYOO-01 to FY01-02. 5 These figures reflect a change in reporting of alarm calls to include those that are dispatched, but canceled en route. Using the old method of reporting alarm calls to better compare change over time, the total false alarm rate actually decreased 1.3% from FYOO-01 to FY01-02 (0.79 to 0.77). Page 69 1-154 12. Please specify any other action being undertaken to address the issue of false alarms. Discussion: When residents contact the Police Department with questions regarding alarm permit requirements or false alarm penalty assessments, Alarm Program staff provide information on false alarm prevention methods and alarm ordinance specifications. School Resource Officers also proactively contact school locations identified as having excessive false alarms and corrective action measures are discussed. OTHER GROWTH-RELATED ITEMS 13. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the provision of police services? Yes No x Explain: 14. Please assess the City's advance hire program relative to keeping pace with growth as presented in the 5 Year forecast During the reporting period, the Police Department was not able to fill all of the budgeted staff positions, and was not operating in an overhire capacity. However, as of October 2006, the Department was operating at five sworn positions over our authorized staffing levels. The advance hire program will significantly shorten the turn-around time between an officer leaving the organization and one being able to fill the vacant position as a fully functional officer. MAINTENANCE 15. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities and equipment? Yes No x Explain: Building - The Department has submitted a budget request for the 2007-2008 fiscal year for building maintenance. All previous maintenance/warranties have expired. Vehicles - Currently, there is adequate funding for vehicle maintenance. Other equipment - Currently, there is adequate funding for maintenance. Page 70 1-155 16. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes x No Explain: . Police technology enhancements - Install of Panasonic Toughbooks, install of Records Management Software (server hardware), Automatic Vehicle Locator system (GPS), and New Computer Aided Dispatch. . Dispatch additions/upgrades - New dispatch stations need to be brought on line as the dispatch unit grows. MISCELLANEOUS 17. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council, including additional threshold indicators? Yes x No Explain: Suggested Recommendations Comments That the GMOC support complete funding for Projected growth-related needs and strategic the Police Department's 5-year strategic plan. goals were identified under the strategic plan. Without full funding, the plan cannot be implemented. That the GMOC support the CPTED Manager The study will determine the feasibility and position study. benefits of a formal CPTED program and -. . CPTED manaqer oosition. That the GMOC continue to support the The model assists in meeting response time dispatch staffing model and the Dispatch thresholds for priority calls for service. Manaqer Conceot. That the GMOC support continued use of the Both assist the department in responding to patrol staffing model and the advance-hiring calls for service, and maintaining a 1: 1 ratio program. of officer time spent responding to citizen- initiated calls for service to officer-initiated activities, as well as a zero vacancy factor in patrol. Page 71 1-156 That the GMOC continue to support planned It is imperative that the Department continue upgrades of police technologies, such as to build a solid technology infrastructure in MDCs, wireless data transmission to patrol order to service a growing community. vehicles. and alobal oositionina svstems. That the GMOC continue to support research Research staff have looked at several of and evaluation of Intemet crime reporting; these ideas over the past year and expect to alternative deployment tactics; such as continue to research various options over the revised beat configurations, bike patrol; and next 18 months, with the aim of maximizing an aerial platform. both the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department. 18. Do you have any other relevant information the department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No x Explain: Prepared for: Prepared by: Date: Chief Rick Emerson Karin Schmerler 1/24/07 Page 72 1-157 CURRENT THRESHOLD STANDARD: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Please fill in the blanks in the following tables using normalized data: CY 2006 10,390 85.2% 6:43 3:36 CY 2005 9907 81.6% 7:05 3:31 FY 2004 8420 72.9% 7:38 3:32 FY 2002-03 8088 75.5% 7:35 3:43 FY 2001-02 7626 69.7% 7:53 3:39 FY 2000-01 7128 80.8% 7.02 3:18 FY 1999-00 6654 79.7% 3:29 CY 1999 6344 77.2% 3:41 CY 1998 4119 81.9% 3:40 CY 1997 6275 82.4% 3:32 CY 1996 6103 79.4% 3:44 CY 1995 5885 80.0% 3:45 CY 1994 5701 81.7% 3:35 Note: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1, 2002 to September 30,2003. The difference in 2004 performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Did the Fire Department have properly equipped fire and medical units as necessary to maintain threshold standard service levels during the reporting period? Yes x No Page 73 1-158 Explain: The Department is currently operating with relatively new equipment as most front line apparatus have recently been purchased or replaced. The Fire Department fleet has 5 engines in reserve and also has two frontline aerial ladder trucks, and one reserve aerial ladder truck to be able to better serve the community in the event of a fire. Council approved full staffing 3 Captains and 6 Firefighters for the Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck in November 2005 allowing the department to maximize the service delivery capability of this vehicle. This vehicle was put into service May 2006 when the Fire Department re-opened interim station 9. In an effort to continue to maintain levels of service, the Fire Department will be bringing forward its Fire Facility Master Plan. This document will contain specific recommendations regarding the useful life and timely replacement of equipment necessary to maintain service levels. 3. Did the Fire Department have proper staffing for fire and medical units as necessary to maintain threshold standard service levels during the reporting period? Yes X No Explain: Yes, Council approved 9 new firefighting positions 3 Captains and 6 Firefighters to achieve full staffing for the Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck in November 2005. These additional nine positions were approved as result of the department receiving $900k from a Federal SAFER grant. The department applied for these grant funds in an effort to achieve full staffing for the Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck. The department hired these positions, trained them and was able to re-open interim station 9. The Light and Air Heavy Rescue Truck was placed into service in May of 2006; two years ahead of schedule as a result of the SAFER grant. GROWTH IMPACTS AND FOllOW-UP QUESTIONS 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Department's ability to meet the response time threshold or to maintain service levels? Yes No X Explain: The department's improvement to meet the threshold standard is best explained by analyzing the changes in various response time components for CY 2006 and comparing them to the previous year. Briefly, this comparison is as follows: . Dispatch Time: The average dispatch time remained relatively unchanged as it improved from 12 seconds in 2005 to 11 seconds for the 2006 reporting period. This indicates that the department has been successful in stabilizing and maintaining the improvements in dispatch times as result of achieving full operability of its dispatch center. . Turnout Time - The average turnout time improved from 1 minute and 56 seconds in 2005 to 1 minute and 33 seconds in 2006. This accounted for a 23 second improvement from 2005. The department has fully implemented a data monitoring and Page 74 1-159 reporting system for turnout time that is reviewed on a monthly basis by all fire crews in order to identify areas were improvements can be made. The gain in turnout time performance for this year was the main contributing factor to the overall improvement in achieving the threshold performance standard. . Travel Time - The average travel time for 2006 was 3 minutes and 36 seconds. The average travel time increased by 5 seconds over 2005 where the average travel time was 3 minutes and 31 seconds. Overall, average travel time remained relatively unchanged from the previous reporting period. The average travel time in the east improved by 7 seconds over the previous year. However, this was offset by a 12 second increase in the average travel time for calls in the West. The average travel time in the eastern territories is 4 minutes and 3 seconds versus 3 minutes and 25 seconds for the west. Achievement of stable travel times in the eastern territories will be a major factor in the department's ability to meet the overall threshold standard in the future as the travel time in the east is greater than the travel time in the west. This difference in travel time may impact the threshold as the call volume in the east begins to approximate the call volume in the west. In 2006 the stations in the west responded to 7,351 or 70.3% of the priority 1 emergency response calls vs. 3,039 calls or 29.7% the priority 1 calls that were responded to by stations in the eastern territories. In total, the department responded to 10,390 priority 1 calls in this reporting period. 5. Please indicate what specifics have been done in regards to turnout time improvement Comment: The department has been developing reporting resources to better monitor turnout time data. With respect to these efforts, the department currently reviews turnout time on a monthly basis as part of its performance measurement program. This program has been developed as part of the department's strategic plan implementation. The turnout time performance is monitored as part of this program in order to determine where improvements can be made. The department was able to improve turnout time by an average of 23 seconds during this reporting period. As a result, the department was able to meet the threshold standard without the need to normalize the initial response performance measurements. The department will continue to use this reporting capability to refine its operations for better service delivery. 6. In GMOC 's approved recommendation to Council in 2003 it was recommended that the Fire Department work with Heartland Dispatch to set up the methodology and implement a daily reporting regime so that response times can be monitored and analyzed in house. The response by the Fire Department was that you would "work with Heartland communications to improve response time reporting capabilities as well as develop a daily report of response time activity to enhance monitoring capabilities of the department." Since that time dispatch is now run by the Fire Department. Last year the GMOC recommended that the Fire Department "establish a daily report function that provides a written summary of each Emergency Response trip by station and identifies the dispatch, turnout, and travel time components." Please advise if it is the Fire Department's intent to implement such a function and if so what specific steps have you taken in that regard. Page 75 1-160 Comment: The department has successfully integrated the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) data for the purpose of monitoring response time performance after it opened the Fire Communications Center and ended the Heartland Communications Dispatch contract. As a result, the department has the capacity to analyze dispatch, turnout and travel times. The department will continue to develop its performance measures for the rest of its lines of business and continue the implementation of its strategic plan. 7. In last year's survey response you indicated that the costs and benefits of housing paramedics/ambulance service within the Fire Department would be the subject of a study by a consultant pursuant to Council's approval on March 8, 2005. That project was to take 16 weeks to complete. Please comment on the results of that study. This study is currently being completed by the consultant and is due for completion by April 2007. 8. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to absorb forecasted growth for both the 12 to 18 month and 5-year time frame (to December 2010)? Yes No _Unknown_X_ Explain: Current facilities, equipment and staff as they are currently allocated are able to absorb forecasted growth within the next 12 to 18 months. The department will be bringing forward the Fire Facility Master Plan Study. This study contains the recommendations for the adequate level of facilities and staffing that will be required by the department to deliver future fire and emergency medical response services to the community. The recommendations contained in this study have been developed in conjunction with the forecasted growth and land use assumptions in the City's General Plan Update. The department will be bringing forward this plan for adoption by the City Council. 10. Are new facilities, equipment and/or staff needed to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes No _Unknown If yes: Are there sites/resources available for the needed facilities? a. New Fire Station 8 in eastern Chula Vista opened on January 9, 2007 and is currently serving the eastern territories. Fire Station 9 is projected to be placed within the Eastern Urban Center (EUC). Fire Station 1 may be rebuilt adjacent to the current site and Fire Station 5 will be addressed in the Fire Facility Master Plan. The final location of these and other recommended additional facilities are addressed in the Fire Facility Master Plan Study that will be brought forward in the first half of 2007. How will these be funded? Page 76 1-161 b. Most of the Fire Stations are projected to be funded from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fund (PFDIF). Construction of existing Fire Station 5 may require some General Fund resources. 11. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the provision of fire services? Yes No _X_ Explain: The pace of growth and the transition of the community to a suburban designation with an urban core are issues that are being addressed through the department's strategic business plan. The department will be bringing forward its Fire Facility Master Plan that will recommend the number and types of fire facilities required for future service delivery as the City transforms. The recommendations contained in this study will be in conjunction with the forecasted growth and land used assumptions in the City's General Plan update. In addition, the department continues the process of implementing its strategic business plan and performance measures. The growth related issues will continue to be identified and be managed through the department's strategic business plan. MAINTENANCE 12. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities and equipment? Yes No Explain: Uncertain, facility and equipment maintenance and replacement schedules are in existence however funding will have to be identified given current fiscal conditions. 13. Are there any major maintenance/upgrade projects are to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes x No Explain: Additional interface and enhancements are in the process of being made to the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to improve dispatching and data reporting capabilities. Specifically, the department completed the implementation and outfitting of its - mobile data computers. MISCELLANEOUS 14. Are there any suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes X No Explain: The City Council has been very supportive of the Fire Department. The department welcomes future City Council support as it moves forward with the implementation of the Strategic Business Plan and the Fire Facility Master Plan. Page 77 1-162 15. Do you have any other relevant information the Department desires to communicate to the GMOC? Yes No _X_ Explain: Prepared by: Doug Perry Title: Fire Chief Date: 01/24/06 Page 78 1-163 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) 2007 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/05-6130/06) TRAFFIC (Please note, in addition to the questionnaire the GMOC will be requesting a briefing by engineering staff on how the traffic threshold is interpreted and how it is measured.) THRESHOLD City-wide: Maintain LOS "CO or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours LOS "0" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments that do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Note: it is the request of the GMOC that the tables illustrating road segment threshold compliance be revised to a more "reader friendly" format These more technical tables may be retained but as an attachment to the report It is the intent to be able to view whether the segment has or has not met the threshold. If you wish to submit samples of possible formats the GMOC will provide comments. - Traffic Engineering Staff has revised the tables, as requested, to what we believe is a more reader friendly format, quickly summarizing those segments that have not met the threshold standards. We have attached additional tables to the report which include a complete listing of all segments and their respective levels of service, again, in what we believe is a more reader friendly format. Please provide comments as necessary on the new format and Traffic Engineering Staff will make the appropriate modifications. 1. Arterial Segments that have not met the Threshold Standards in the current Threshold Compliance Review: SEGMENT DIR. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Heritage Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) N8 E (4 Hrs) & D (2 Hrs) 2. Arterial Segments that are operating at LOS OJ in compliance with the Threshold Standards in the current Threshold Compliance Review: SEGMENT DIR. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Heritage Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) S8 0(1 Hr) La Media Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy) N8 0(2 Hrs) S8 0(1 Hr) Page 79 1-164 Olympic Pkwy (Oleander Ave. - Heritage Rd.) WB 0(1 Hr) Otay Lakes Rd. (E. H 51. - Tel. Canyon Rd.) 5B 0(2 Hrs) Palomar 51. (Industrial Blvd. - Broadway) EB 0(2 Hrs) WB 012 Hrs\ Note: See the attachment to this report for current LOS values for all arterial segments. Arterial Interchange Segments . Are not subject to the Threshold Standards . LOS values are provided for information only . See the attachment to this report for current LOS values for the arterial interchange segments Please provide brief narrative responses to the following: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 3. Please list any major streets, or other traffic improvements constructed during the reporting period (05/06) fiscal year? Yes X No Explain: Comoleted between Julv 05 and Julv 06 (These answers assume that the road must be open for public access for construction to be deemed complete): . Improvements to the 1-805 interchanges at Main Street (northbound), Olympic Parkway, and H Street were opened . Eastlake Parkway from Miller Drive to Eastshore Terrace (Le the bridge over SR-125) was opened 4. Please list any major streets, or other traffic improvements that have been completed or are planned for construction during the 06/07 fiscal year? Yes X No Explain: Completed after July 06 (These answers assume that the road must be open for public access for construction to be deemed complete): . Dual left turns from westbound Main Street to southbound 1-805 (includes ramp widening) . La Media Road extension from Olympic Parkway to Birch Road . Eastlake Parkway from Olympic Parkway to Birch Road . Hunte Parkway from Olympic Parkway to Exploration Falls Drive Planned to be completed prior to July 07 (These answers assume that the road must be open for public access for construction to be deemed complete): Page 80 1-165 . SR-125 is currently scheduled to open in the summer of 07 including all ramps and connections to local streets . San Miguel Ranch Road from Calle La Marina to Proctor Valley Road (scheduled to open when the SR-125 opens). . Birch Road from La Media Road to Eastlake Parkway . Hunte Parkway from Exploration Falls Drive to Eastlake Parkway FREEWAY ENTRANCES I EXITS 5. Use the following two tables to report the status of freeway entrance/exit studies and/or improvement projects. . E Street H Street J Street L Stllndustrial Blvd. Palomar Street Main Street Northbound ram meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ram meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ram meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Bonita Road East H Street Telegraph Canyon Road Main Street Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ram meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 Northbound ramp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 NorthboundJi!mp meter is scheduled for activation in 2009 GROWTH IMPACTS 6. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the ability to maintain LOS levels? Yes No X Explain: As shown in the answers to questions 1 and 2, only one roadway segment currently does not meet threshold standards (Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road). It is staffs opinion that this failure is not due to growth, but Page 81 1-166 signal timing constraints. Please see our response to question 13 regarding this subject. 7. Are current facilities able to absorb forecasted growth (without exceeding the LOS threshold) for both the 18-month and 5 year time frame? Yes _ No _X_ Although regional transportation improvements such as the SR-125 have been delayed, the Public Facility Financing Plan for the Otay Ranch Communities (the last remaining communities to be developed) have allowed arterial roadways to keep pace with residential growth and maintain levels of service threshold standards on TMP arterial segments. However, the following improvements must occur as described below: a. Please indicate those new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth consistent with maintaining the Threshold Standards. 18-month timeframe: - SR-125 needs to open Those items listed in question 4 to be completed prior to summer of 07 need to be opened 5-vear timeframe: . At this time, with the opening of SR-125, all forecasted growth can be accommodated. TMP arterial improvements will continue to be constructed and funded by individual Otay Ranch Communities as they develop. However, at this time, land uses for Villages 8, 9, and the University site, have not been determined. In addition, the timing of these developments is unknown. These two facts make predictions difficult. Please refer to the answer to question 12 for CIP projects currently planned for this timeframe. b. How will these facilities be funded? Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) Regional funding sources through Sandag and/or Caltrans Federal funding sources through grant applications City funds appropriated through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Program c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes 8. What is the Status of SR-125? The SR-125 is scheduled to open summer of 2007. 9. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting maintenance of the current level of service as Chula Vista's transportation demand increases? Page 82 1-167 Yes No _X_ Explain: MAINTENANCE 10. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes X No C. Explain: The standard sources of funding for pavement rehabilitation include the Gasoline Excise Tax, which is used by the City's crews to perform pavement spot repairs. Funding sources for major pavement rehabilitation include Transnet ($5.5 to $6.0 million per year) and Proposition 42 (Gasoline Sales Tax) funds. The City also anticipates receiving approximately $7.0 million from State Proposition 1 S, which was adopted in November 2006, but it isn't clear when these funds will be distributed. However, the determination on whether these funds will be sufficient depends on the City's goal in pavement management. The above funding sources would allow for a $6.0 million annual pavement rehabiiitation program. This level of funding could still result in an overall deterioration of the City's pavement over the long term and a backlog of streets that need overlays. Staff plans to conduct a Council presentation this spring which will present various pavement rehabilitation scenarios and the amount of funding required for each, along with additional funding options. 11. Has the Engineering Department developed an annual list of priority streets with deteriorated pavement? Yes X No D. Explain, if yes please attach fist: During 2005 City staff put together a list of streets that needed a seal based on field inspection. Most of the streets on this list were included in the City's pavement rehabilitation contract for Fiscal Year 2005-06 (attached). During 2006 the City hired a consulting firm to inspect and rate all the public streets in the City. City staff now has information and computer software which will enable us to determine the most cost effective pavement rehabilitation program based on the funding available. The goal is to rehabilitate the pavement before a more expensive treatment method, such as overlays or reconstruction, is required. City staff will present a five-year plan for pavement rehabilitation to Council as part of our infrastructure presentation to Council this spring. 12. Are any major roadway construction/upgrade or maintenance projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current 1-year and 5-year CIP? Yes X No Page 83 1-168 Explain: Major projects currently in design which should be advertised by the end of the fiscal year include the construction of sidewalk improvements and pavement rehabilitation on Otay Lakes Road south of Bonita Road to Surrey Drive (STL-286) and the reconstruction of Maxwell Road north of Main Street (STL-330). Two expensive reconstruction projects that are currently included in the City's five year plan are north Broadway (north of F Street) (STM354) and Fourth Avenue between Davidson SI. and SR-54 (STL-309). However, the construction of these projects will result in a significant reduction in the funds available for the City's general pavement rehabilitation program. The postponement of these projects will be offered as an option to Council during our infrastructure presentation. FOllOW-UP ON PREVIOUS YEAR'S QUESTIONNAIRE 13. last year it was indicated that road segment "Heritage Rd. (Telegraph Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy)" did not meet the threshold. At that time the problem was attributed to signal timing and not to growth or traffic. Has the signal timing issue been resolved, and if not please explain. Yes No _X_ Discussion: The signal timing issue has not been resolved. As discussed last year, the cycle length for the traffic signal at this intersection (the time it takes for the signal to rotate through all of the programmed phases and return to the first phase) is long. Since 2002, the cycle length has been increased by over 10% in order to maintain acceptable levels of service on Telegraph Canyon Road as traffic volumes increased. Because Telegraph Canyon Road carries the majority of the vehicles traveling through the intersection, it received the majority .of the additional cycle time. This resulted in longer delays for motorists traveling on Heritage Road trying to proceed through the intersection and thus, lower levels of service. Since last year's presentation to the GMOC, Traffic Engineering staff has made minor modifications to the signal timing. The changes made were designed to improve levels -of service along Heritage Road without decreasing the level of service along Telegraph Canyon, and without making any significant changes to the overall layout of the intersection. None of the changes made thus far have successfully brought the level of service along Heritage Road into compliance with the threshold standards. At this time, Traffic Engineering staff is left with four options. These options are discussed below: a) Re-time the traffic siqnal allowinq the level of service alonq TeleqraDh Canvon Road to deqrade. While City staff has made modifications to the signal timing plan, the changes have been designed not to alter the level of service experienced along Telegraph Canyon Road. Staff could implement a new timing plan that would bring the level of Page 84 1-169 service along Heritage Road into compliance with City thresholds at the expense of the level of service along Telegraph Canyon Road. The degree to which the level of service along Telegraph Canyon Road would be effected is unknown at this time. City staff could temporarily modify the timing plan and monitor the results for approximately one week to determine what the effect would be to Telegraph Canyon Road. b) Eliminate the existina. western-most crosswalk across Telearaph Canvon Road and re- time the siana!. A significant number of pedestrians cross Telegraph Canyon Road and, because Telegraph Canyon Road is so wide, the minimum amount of time required for pedestrians to cross is substantial, and increases the signal cycle length. The crosswalk on the west side of the intersection is longer than the crosswalk on the east side of the intersection and thus dictates the minimum amount of time allotted to pedestrians crossing Telegraph Canyon. Removing the western-most crosswalk will reduce the minimum amount of pedestrian time required and may allow additional flexibility in designing a new signal timing plan. City staff could temporarily stop pedestrians from utilizing the western-most crosswalk, re-time the signal, and monitor the resulting level of service for approximately one week to see if any improvement was made. City staff is currently developing a procedure to complete this study and should be prepared to discuss the SUbject with the GMOC during the 2007 oversight process. c) Wait for SR-125 to open and re-analvze the two roadways. According to the SR-125 traffic study, a 10% reduction in the number of vehicles on local arterials is expected. If there was a significant change in the number of vehicles traveling along either road as a result of the SR-125 opening, staff may be able to make additional signal timing adjustments to bring the levels of service within City threshold requirements without a significant impact to the level of service for Telegraph Canyon Road. d) Make no further modifications at this time. but continue to monitor the situation. While the level of service along Heritage Road does not meet City threshold standards, speed data collected along Heritage indicates vehicles are driving at, or close to, the posted speed limit. In addition, City staff has not received any complaints from Chula Vista citizens regarding the cycle length of this particular intersection. These two facts seem to indicate that the segment itself is operating at acceptable levels, that the problem is entirely related to motorists waiting for the signal to change in their favor, and that at this point, the wait is acceptable to the citizens of Chula Vista. City staff sees no need to increase the overall cycle length of the signal at this time, so the wait currently experienced by citizens driving along Heritage Road should not change for the foreseeable future. Traffic Engineer staff recommend moving forward with the study described as Option B. Should the study determine that removal of the crosswalk does not provide any improvement along Heritage Road, or decreases the level of service along Telegraph Canyon Road to unacceptable levels, staff recommends waiting for SR-125 to open (Option C) before making any other attempts to improve the situation. OTHER RELATED QUESTIONS 14. What is the schedule for Cal-Trans to install traffic sensors on freeways in Chula Vista to enable real-time Internet monitoring of conditions? Page 85 1-170 Discussion: There are currently 11 traffic sensors on freeways in the Chula Vista area. They are located in the following locations: Orange Avenue I Olympic Parkway southbound ramps to 1-805 Orange Avenue I Olympic Parkway northbound ramps to 1-805 On 1-5 bi-directional sensors .7 miles north of SR-75 bi-directional sensors .3 miles north of Palomar Avenue bi-directional sensors .2 miles north of J Street bi-directional sensors .2 miles north of E Street On 1-805 northbound sensors just south of Orange Avenue I Olympic Parkway southbound sensors just north of Orange Avenue I Olympic Parkway bi-directional sensors .5 miles north of Bonita Road bi-directional sensors .4 miles south of H Street bi-directional sensors .5 miles south of Telegraph Canyon Road Real time speed data from these sensors can be viewed on an Internet site located at www.traffic.com.This web site indicates and locates incidents, advisories, alerts, and events, on a city map as well providing personalized services including user-defined drives and reports. 15. What is the schedule to install the ability for transit buses to be able to control traffic lights? Discussion: This ability for buses to control traffic lights is an on-going project with SANDAG. The first project that may be able to utilize this technology is the proposed Bus Rapid Transit project lead by SANDAG. For a more complete description of the project please see the answer to question 16 below. 16. When is it anticipated that there will be dedicated transit lanes on H Street? Discussion: Priorities for transit studies have changed in the past year for the City of Chula Vista. Although not entirely on hold, the H Street study and the potential of having dedicated transit lanes on H Street is now more remote for the foreseeable future. Instead, focus has shifted to the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit project as briefly described by the following: The South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project will provide high-speed transit connections between downtown San Diego and the Otay Mesa Border Crossing, along the future 1-805 Managed Lanes and a dedicated transitway through eastern Chula Vista. Use of the managed lanes and transitway will provide travel priority for the service allowing it to bypass traffic congestion. Page 86 1-171 This new BRT will provide access to regional employment centers in downtown San Diego, the Otay Mesa Business Park, and the future Eastern Urban Center, as well as serving residential communities in Chula Vista and National City. In the long-term, the BRT will operate on HOV lanes on SR 94 and along the 1-805 Managed Lanes with Direct Access Ramps connecting freeway stations/park and ride lots. As the route exits 1-805 at Palomar Street in Chula Vista, it will travel in a dedicated right-of-way with stations in the Otay Ranch transit-oriented villages of Heritage, Lomas Verdes, and Santa Venetia. From there, the BRT will continue southbound with stations at the new Otay Ranch Town Center, the Eastern Urban Center and a future university station. The BRT will use SR 125 to directly serve the Otay Mesa Border crossing. Prior to construction of the Managed Lanes on 1-805, the service is planned to operate in converted freeway shoulder lanes dedicated to transit on both SR 94 and 1-805. Between 2002 and 2005, planning and engineering studies on the alignment, station locations, and transit priority treatments, as well as development of preliminary capital and operating cost estimates have been completed. In early 2006, work focused on integration of the BRT project (stations and direct access ramps) into the 1-805 Managed Lanes environmental document. The next phase of work will include environmental analyses and preliminary engineering. This project will receive funding from the TransNet 1/2-cent sales tax extension that was approved by voters in November 2004. Additional federal funding may be sought for the project. The first phase of the project, between downtown San Diego and the Eastern Urban Center, is scheduled to be completed by 2010. Phase Two, to the Otay Mesa Border crossing, is scheduled to be completed by 2015. MANAGEMENT 17. Does the current threshold standard need any modification? Yes No x Explain: As discussed in last year's report, City staff has modified the classifications used to descritJe arterial roadway segments so that they are in conformance with the year 2000 version of the Highway Capacity Manual. As a result, no other modifications are required at this time. 18. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the GMOC? Yes X No It should be noted that the current vision for Chula Vista's Urban Core, currently in the planning stages of the development process, will propose a modification in level of service threshold standards. While the current City standard is level of service "C" with up to two hours of "0" throughout the day, the GMOC Top-to-Bottom review is proposing an acceptable level of service as "0" with up to two hours of "E" throughout the day on Urban Core arterials. Page 87 1-172 This modification is being proposed with the understanding that the Urban Core would allow for dense residential and commercial developments resulting in an increase in pedestrian activities and amenities in the area. Such an area would benefit from slower vehicle speeds and be able to provide a more pedestrian friendly experience. Should the Urban Core plan be adopted as currently envisioned, GMOC traffic threshold standards would need to be modified to reflect the increased intensities of land uses and the shift in understanding that the automobile is just one of several modes of travel that can move people in urbanized environments and that more intensive developments in built up areas should not be constrained by policies that focus exclusively on moving vehicular traffic. Chapter 5.4 of the city's General Plan states, "The Urban Core Circulation Element recognizes that in certain corridors and centers served by transit, it is acceptable to reduce the vehicle level of service standards that are applied to suburban areas of the City under certain circumstances. These circumstances would include ensuring that the area's transportation system is able to move people effectively by a combination of modes and providing a sound analytical approach for evaluating traffic LOS. The Urban Core Circulation Element promotes the use of revised level of service standards, alternative ways of measuring level of service for vehicles, and possibly establishing level of service criteria and performance measures for other modes of travel." 19. Are there any other suggestions that you would like the Growth Management Oversight Commission to recommend to the City Council? Yes_ No x Explain: Prepared By: Date prepared: . Page 88 1-173 i~l~ ... ~ "II "II:!! :an N Oil 0 1:)00 ~z en i:~ o :a Z I:) Z -1 m ::0 n ,-,.:c l>l> 3:z "lJGl mm l>cn ;:>;m "lJGl m3: ::om -z 0-1 8cn +. , - - / ~~:..~.~-=:::%~'-~ - ~;o"8~- ~ --./ .~/' <----'"'::-./ /::=> /)..'4 ,'. / '~:~f~-,~~,~.:.~.:,~._'~. ~-- ----~ --'--::--: . _ ..._-_/ _.~ _..- "'"' ~ - -:--.: ~;-~_ct:~.i.~._,:~~_-}' "'--: ..' "l.~(\oi\ ~: -- -- -- ./~p . ~ ~~-- . _~T ,ti;~~=:=~'- /' .~- ----- ~"~' ~:~~; .:j ~ ~ r-~~_~-'- [!l I -c ! l> ::0 -1 m ::0 l> r ..~, - :;..__--_J-.---; .- -,..=.--- .:-."--.o-~-- 1,:;=-=/-11: ~~~] ;~::~_. ~~..~- L'--"'./ .,~. /,::~- -'~-- --~. ---' /,..:-;-: ." 'i~"7"-iO ...---.>-' ',' I~'/"-" ili.lLZ ":; . ~ ~~~::::.~.- -, =-~ p- --~......... --...--' , ' -- ..- - /. -- .~-- .~---- ..--..' ;.,. ,-,. r o cn o "...- - N---.'-.' : " ,,-"-" .-.-".. " ...... -" . ...--.-' ..... ~ ~ /_\,~~~t.~::~-, .,' = o ::0 rfi ""'",- ~--=-=. .'- --'- ~, _ _a-: I =-~- - I I .- a" I"" . m . Q I'" I'" I'" I'" I'" m 0 0 0 0 0 fIl fIl fIl fIl fIl Z rn 0 n III > 1:1 '-" 1-174 -- -~~:- .' ;:a6~j?\:-~- " ~~I __ .' -- t. -.'~-:.'." " ..;-'.' ~-.::. ~.. \ .:~ \ --- -~ \ ,n__~\ ()~ --'.-'-',- ,;-'"'::,: o'j~S r-,'<f o~/ '. ~~$~~:~: !;o'-:: ':';:':;-;;- ..-.-~_. --,,:.:...-. ~.,,- . --;.-;,:;.,.:!-:.~:::.:!-:>- --~--~--....... '_....~. :.~~~~'\Q ~-,-::~ I''l~ ..' .. 7;--. ~ f.,. :J:" ' j ~. ~. .,' :0 ,:-0 ~, , \ \ ....- -'- ~ --:;:ji7''''/:~~ -' .,---' \ \c;:.-~ - \ .\..-" .' ~ .,.~- -::.'--"~_. .~-::-;"'''3- .--- ~-~~: <:.~.:.~.::- --~..,_.. -,'- . .~_. _.- .--" ./ .-.._>:'~:~~- "~'~~::::~~:-;:: --- --~ ~ @I -- m ,:Z; en --l -- --- -- ~ " ,I ~.=..-'--- -- , -I = "II "D2! i!n N ,,!l: Q ;10 Q ~Z a'l J:::::j o ;I i " Z -1 m ---. ;:0 3:0 oI 'J> Oz J>G) -<m -oUJ mm J>G) ;:><:3: -om mz ;:0-1 oUJ 0---' '-" r o UJ o +z - --"-.: ~ ~>~ -~-,....~-.:-~':,\._. - __ . __~~?~;-""/:;--T \ -~C;~;:;_ -;.::--\ - ~"..-----'-' ..c> ,c' . /- .:~"- '~-(~iii:-' -, ' ._..:--."-~-- '~'-:-~::~~;~:~ ....-...- _/ , -- ..--.---':': --' .:.;;_:;,-,,-"C~I'-;;::'--' :~ _~~__c:-. / ' ,~~_.-:~; .. ~ E!ll'" .-c ;,~.~~ / .~. ;~; /.~;~:,::::=&:///' ~. - / ;",~",,{cC:: ~...... <ii; .-.-.-.,. J> ;:0 -1 m ;:0 J> r B, y-"---" ,;;. .~~,_--('~~5_-" ,--~ ~ ~,~-=~~:ft)----- ltr "':--.. '?: ~;,~ ~:::-:: --~::-:.: -- -~ /.:~_..' -:::::::-~~- .--.-..- _ _ e_____- -,--- - ------ .-----.--------- ....--- ..---- .-.-..- ","'\i..(J":)~S 1\" '" -:, , ;..i? ..:::->-" c '~---' c-.-~ : 0 .- T""~"'< ;im~-;: L_->-:>---- ,. -5..- '-~-' -/. ..I -_..- .----~--- --~- , - ~/ /.__... ~?-o'O""?i:--- 1\" " /' --'-' I -- ...-_....... -,,--_.- , ,~--:;_.-~ ':J:~.;r:~::- .:--~~/.?:.;;;:."::;:;:.:-__:., ......' I -;..--- -:--'-~:-. -',,---' ';:'---:,- m :r ~ --f '0.. ..-,/._c" ,_.- -_....- :...- ;:;,:.;---' > .....",,\0 ,_co 'i4~~a~~ -~- "S---- .' f" /--t!--' <':: ,";'.- ~ ~---.> - .:t' - - i ~- ~ ,& '..--' --------- -::.~.::.. --~:;-:~;;::-"'--"..:~~- ~~-. -'- .."" = =--' o ;:0 rri ,-C -, _.---=.'- -L , I ,I ;.1 , ., _.--l- o _a- :::-?- - I 3" I I . ... . m ... b a 0 ... b ... en en 0 0 m en en en Z m ~ " III )0 Cl - ._--," .'- ~_.' ,c ---------' 1 175 , \ \ -..", ~ ~~I $! ... ~ "lI "lI:!! :anN o~ Cl GlOCl ~zQ'l ~::j o :a Z Gl l> ;:0 -1 m ;:0 l> r Z -1 m ;:0 n ---I -0)> 3:z -oGl mm l>(f) :;>;m -oGl m3: ;:Om oZ 0-1 '-" (f) +. ,,--- ,---' ~.:.:.-.~.~. _ ,,<:~;;\/~,~::fc \'~~' ' .' ", ,"_ '_'d_ -~r-::_..-,-_:,5i' 0,,-:-,. -- <>-' " ,,-::::}'//, :-;,po,:3c'OC. ~',.:=='P: ..::,/ . .... ',:"" -':':o__<__:::::,-~ . ~'';''',:;; :;::-?';~7/- . - -' ~ l..Ll--:.:~~ .-.- ,$- ,~ , . ,':"'o-a<a-, f.'" tl<\>-y- ':": ;Il",;i -:~- '(Jl, ;..\. ...... ~' ~. t'" ,'. ~-' , ^o,.::A- , d'~". . >'1\"'-..... '," - .~- .-~~<- :i.--- J.'- -:? ~f:~~~--"',',/ ~'~~rl F,~---'. _~,.- ~" '-", ",,/ 'E. ~...r: . ':'P ,./~~-- ,~_.- = 1\'" o~o~~s ...;./ --- C="O - ~-' I~I!,'I~-:/ .- , - -=r:~ ~ --~;::./-.~ I""""' ~.-- ~ '- ,~../ '~~- ,,'~:'i'\~' -CO~,- " -- ---'~- ~._.,. '- --.... -- ~ ~~so'!'3: " :::-t~.. .' /-' --........... / --- r o (f) d ,..... "", " I ....,.::"- :!:-:::",;~,:~:;::';~':"--~:'::~~'" '-;:::,...'- --..., --N'-------' ' ' . .._,,: ~ _..." .._'c." ---" ---.-- .-.--.- ~ - -'-~: '\~:._-::.:~~~';;~~'~.~~~'- UI ...:,. , ....-.-~--~= ~-:_.-~.... ';'A'\9 ~-c' -a~O'l\'" ' '__ {!t-_.-' "" / Ql-- / f,--- :/:. .' " J; I ' ~ d a- -~ = o ;:0 m ,i -.' c ...-+-- I I ,+ :-;~ :: ,= .~~ I ~ r-r-r-r-r-Q ooooom III III III III III Z mClnllllloCJ~ -- '-" . . 1-176 , \ \ ,.~~:-~~ -'/ -, _J.......... ::'> , ~~~ /' --.-' ~:-~----- " >_-'ff~::, / -- _....'. .-,.-;::..--,.-.:---.- ~~'--' .~ ,./ ""-"t... f _ ~-TW) / 1..1 41 ~ m ~ rn ,--j ~_. , ::.. . -'~-...-.' '-1 /." , ~;/_-\ ~~ \ -'1-t., \ - ''Q> \ - .7> \ '-?,. <>.1, '1L- -- ...........! 0 ... Al !!! m .. . '-' I I r- m a l"" l"" l"" l"" m 0 0 0 0 Z III III III III Cl +.. m l:l n III ~~I~ :> -f ~ "II "II:!! ::anN gi: g ~~ al i:-f o ::a - z G) :t> Al ---l m Al :t> r (/) .........m :t>G) 3:3: "lJm mZ :t>---l :;:s;:(/) "lJ......... mr AlO -(/) 0= on '-' = ,< ~-'-::~. .I,::",~,"<...?;~?~~t:..'" ,. .." ~,""p' -".;;.-", ~. '.'- --~-., .._~ ~,.,- - .~~~~~iZ;;::,,~:f;~:~:~'~;~~!g?;:~::\ _~~'- ..... . . .. '-." ,'. . -' .~.- " lll.... n : - ~:f~ .~;fj,.. ~:~g;j~~~t -"-!:~7~.t{; <. " i':.:.:Ailb?'S:~,' -..,:'':'" /~-"<j.t:'> / {~b- "'''','e" .i!.>"lQ. _"" ..~ ~ . ::! -:i:: ,CE1 z._~~/-----' _- _. _ '" " '. ~~" t?y;;;~/...",..~/~ ... ':: II: (1-:': ~S.:..---:- ___.~::~,~ _:-'~..'.. ':":;-"':" _ ;_-=> :::....llll ~~;,. .~; .~ " .~' . -rill -' - - -." ," "c\I: ~_ "'c"1~ C,;:--:o /:. . / .'- '0 . . -co ,_ <'~~... , ~.'J : ~>(~ I'~~''''' ~\ .~- -- __-:~~,>i?::--"-_, ~~~~~.:: - .:it-:' "'~;:-1r .",.., . .I:l f': .. ~. .C ,~ ---'"< Ij ~. ,I:> --- , ".-' -,.:-" ..--_...._-.._~ -i--; __ -~,:.~ ..\ .....:-~_..~_ ~ ____ ..J._ ._."_ '__ '_.._~-:.-- , =-, :~-~,~~ , ,'I --:~ --.-.,. m -' \&.. -- ,en ", ..,.-,-t -- ... ~ ... 1., \\ ",~1 ~-.: -..-, '" i " 0: 0- ~~. -r' = --0 .17., '\"- ,t' .- ,;}" <o~" 0+, ,Ci o '" ... "-" /. .~. ..- '-~~ . -~..".,;. ii>>~''''''~?" : -~ 1-177 0 .. ;0 !!! m ii' . '--" I I r- m G) I'" I'" I'" I'" m 0 0 0 0 z CIl CIl CIl CIl ~ -t.. m CI n III Sil Co 'I" S;o 'C ~~ '{':' ;> -t ~ "II "I~ linN o !II: = "0= ~! Q) !II:-t o II i " l> ;0 -I m ;0 l> ,--..' 3:Cf) -m ?G) 03: l>m -<z -0-1 mCf) l>,--.. ;>:::, o -oU) m ;0= _0 o. = 0_ '--"cj , --'-- - l: _,_ ,-"j-~? .. ~-"" 'o?~\. .~-:: -- -<.-.;::' ,- ..;.. .. - -- (-: '/~' "Y\' ~>:~':'~'l1(iO .~. .'"\', -:;j~~._-~~-"~ .~.;. ~;co .' . -) "'*>: .' ~"II.~~ ".-. ;-::-'"'"c- . '/l)~i\S /-~:/ /\ _ -:: ~-t,.~,,:..~\:__~,_, '" _:&(~,_.~: @j "' 0""'" ::--- . :.., :::~ :-;- .7-'~0'::'~::)~,:t?:. ~ . ~::>. '..' .,- -- " " cc:~ :;-\1~:,;:::- ,.~o~ / -_,141 .' ':,:<l'~ " ~ ~,' . '.- =-:.c' 'V'''''''-." ;z . - \ ~ ~'h' " \ \ 1(1) \.:..-< \., 1 ,"" , > "> \ - - / I -..~t r -'- .GI'- Tc~7i~.,I_-;.;...~'7~~~>"~- B- 'to ~ ..-- ,Co' Ollll ).."",0,", -- -~,==-,=:_~,...-_. I _~~+~ . '~" ,;:,-,..- ,i~ :~=:-~::~.: '0 --=:..;.:. --r'" .. .---:-~ - ',:: ...:;::: ~'_ ,/ _~. -I .-,' ,-- =---- ....._---. __ r.. I::~ f<-. .0 ;0.,. -'i. 1, :CI -~ ,m ""<(.'." IO,<C', 1II ~ .->".,-1 ;0 -' ,., ......1" ~~--,._ ..-- -'--'-=~_7:~~ --':'.-. ".- "'---.-- .--:-.L~":',c_'..!.::. ./ ....~-. . -.r---, _ .'-:-:'.:(), ~/-. ,.f..- r ,~\ . ',~ \ ;IIi ~ '::.t)S, , ~ " . ~ \ J ~t (/ I:i'" I' , =. _ Q~ ~,(I~)!J.":._. " _ I ."..'5 !~l\~.. ' '", , ,,~~: :~:~ ,O-~ ~-= -r;',".J'...:,~':~r - . -- - ---, -, -:=. ..tt~. ;;~c:: -,.,~~-:~\~... --_..~;~"...~.~~... - '~- }';<:'~~~:;'~"~"~~.E~_..~,.';. .;;. ,,- -I't:!!,;,..o;r.'~p;,c"'vm~..~'.2s~o/tl...~~._~._.J~.w _ .:.~~-......' ...~. ....~~.. T~'(.,r,-._, :.; ~,_. ,. ~. .... . '..;-::t ::; .,,:, ~.~ , -- "It- --c- ill ,.. .. : ""- \.-.- .'" 'II! .~::~ 4~: ~.." ...: o. -~!- ~ ~ \ 1> ~ \\:-._~1. ....;--.--:,., , '-~T~ 0:>' c = -0 "Y" '\" ~ 'F..-- 'ft.... ' ".;00 - I:i . ,', -, .L:',",-.::L~ --::-:.:'. _::?'~-~=- :......-:-:-: 1-178 --,?=-.-. ~... ~~I~ ,. -t ~ 'II ..:! ::In '" OilCl G'lo Cl ~z Ol iI:j o ::I i G'l .~L, , ;:.e ':'i~<.r~~ . ~c ~. / ...;...~ '\ ~ \ ~ :. ~'~? ,~,;~:., ~~ "f"~O:l L" o,,,O?~s.\;:~ ; 0J"""" --/.... .,~ . ,.., iU'~:'~F~Vi;~'--- -J -z~..'<-. 00\ m . .co""'::::: _/ :;0 J.:-?1:C =' l> I CJ? "'"'m -0(7) 3:3: -om mZ l>-J :;:>:;CJ? -0"'"' ml :;00 _CJ? 0- 0- '-'~ ~-_._--- 'So ~ ~~'~"/k ' /- ~r; -5 / . } ! Ii' ~_.~~;;,~ -: - ..----.. .,...-.:.]- .'.f"-~' .' " ,.-';""' . @J / -"-":'- .:::.--- >. ;~~~~~;~~ .,::: '- :.1'<,." r l" 1 ..c . ~ ,m -'~7 :':~~~" m :z: 'co .-1 ..' .J;l c' ~ -,~ ,~ '. - ~ .- ~ , .~ '." -.~. v"--'. _.:::~~.- \ .:.... 'c,:>"" , .{.;.. c"" " X. / 'c . \. -. -' '-.,.. -.",,,:-. .' 41. -. ~"--.- --.-- .-~.--:~~2~::. - :~~:-~;-. _. . .~":::-L).;;:::-_. I ;--:: -:r-' ---~.~.:.-.. 1:- ~. ,,' 4 . ~. \ ~ ...,!, .,.' '~~ , ," .'0 '.'--,.:-:-.-=,;! --- '(' :,,~ , '?Jr --;. :. ,~~~., -.:..' :..~ -'\ ,- ./- :~~ ? r f " L.------ " .....-. ! .r -=~'.. .: _1.J co in---' , '-., .0 ;!Ii ~;t: '0'" \ ,~~:.( I ~~~~:~-- . , ~;,,!C~ ~' 'c_ i .' ". 'C'~\ .,:~~~/. __ c-;.-i $a . .{;,T- c,5....;""'~:~,~..:,,;:.f';~>~~.,., =~c, ':_,f~ ~,,~.:.;.:.::~~,: ' .....~\... ..~ _...~~.su;t",'U~,_,_ fi;i{.:;;;;'J.~~.....". ~.r:" - ('" f" Y.: ~..,..r" '; --~--' -- .. "-',::J_ .. ._,_--J co co ..\ 0 .. = 0 IL :;0 ! m ;; . = '-' I I r- m G'l I'" I'" I'" I'" m 0 0 0 0 +., III III III III Z m 1:1 n III CII 1-179 THRESHOLD The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts= replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or "Update" the information in the table below to indicate the existing enrollment conditions and capacity for current conditions. The most recent information available is requested, please indicate reference date. EXISTING CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2006 Schools Current Capacity Amount Overflowed Type of Comments Enrollment Under/Over Out School 10/06/2006 Permanent Portables Capacity" Calendar NORTHWEST Cook 522 506 93 77 Trad Feaster-Edison 1071 400 793' - 122 Ext. Trad Charter, TIIG Hilltop Drive 550 506 77 33 15 Trad 1 NSH class Mueller 939 466 505 32 Ext. Trad Charter, TIIG, 2 - 7''' 9rd classes Rosebank 713 466 310 63 3 Trad Vista Square 650 476 319 145 1 YRS 2 Sp. Ed., 5 DHH, TIIG/NClB SOUTHWEST learnin9 Comm. 581 600 19 Ex!. Trad Charter, NClB Castle Park 524 459 139 74 4 Trad Harborside 653 410 403 160 Trad 2 Sp. Ed., TIIG/NClB Kell09g 430 430 232 232 9 Trad 2 Sp. Ed. classes lauderbach 807 528 445 166 15 YRS 2 Sp. Ed., TIIG/NClB Page 89 1-180 EXISTING CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2006 Schools Current Capacity Amount Overftowed Type of Comments Enrollment Under/Over Out School 10/0612006 P t p rtabl Capacity. Calendar ermanen 0 es NORTHWEST Loma Verde 503 344 250 91 5 YRS 1 Sp. Ed. class Montgomery 392 412 91 111 Trad 1 NSH class Otay 590 395 193 -2 35 Trad TIIG/NCLB Palomar 405 467 62 2 Trad 1 NSH & 1 SH class Rice 671 554 295 178 7 Trad 3 NSH & 2 SH classes Rohr 424 476 31 83 YRS 2 NSH classes SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 829 710 142 28 13 YRS Charter Olvmpic View 821 484 368 31 45 YRS Parkview 467 499 162 194 Trad 2 NSH & 2 SH classes R0gers 530 491 61 -4 2 YRS Valle Lindo 556 413 267 124 3 YRS 2 NSH classes Hedenkamp 1018 1033 15 36 YRS 2 SH classes Heritage 902 803 120 21 22 YRS Veterans 542 736 194 YRS 1 NSH class McMillin 860 787 80 7 36 YRS 1 SH class ," "_.'jr'.,,;.~ J 'A. o. . I 1, I -! ... '..1 :L\l?JX1 ~l..~",~:t ~J - J~ ~.; J ~ 1 , 1 Allen/Ann Daly Casillas Chula Vista Hills Clear View Discovery Eastlake Halecrest Liberty Marshall Salt Creek Tiffany .:j" - ,~- ~ ~, . 411 672 558 513 760 690 490 698 738 878 613 446 594 554 503 612 528 494 790 632 777 463 35 142 64 80 76 120 110 326 178 270- 108 80 84 92 133 27 186 85 217 67 .- Trad YRS 8 19 18 Trad Ext. Trad YRS YRS Trad YRS YRS YRS Trad "TUG - Targeted Improvement Grant "NCLB - No child left behind "PI - Program improvement school . NSH - Non-severely handicap . SH - Severely Handicap Page 90 1-181 ~^ - - ~ 3 NSH classes 1 NSH class .. 0 1 NSH class Charter, 1 NSH class Charter, 1 SH class 1 NSH class 1 NSH class 3 NSH & 1 SH classes 1 NSH class 2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for December 2007 (a) and 2011 (b) based on the City's forecast. 2a FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2007 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Type of Comments Enrollment Permanent Portables Over/Under Out School 12/31/07 Capacity" Calendar NORTHWEST Cook 514 506 93 85 Feaster-Edison 1020 400 793 173 Charter, TIIG Hilltop Drive 537 506 77 46 1 NSH class Mueller 1025 466 505 -54 Charter, TIIG Rosebank 686 466 310 90 Vista Square 2 Sp. Ed. class, 5 DHH 625 476 319 170 classes, TIIG & PI SOUTHWEST Leamin9 Comm. 584 600 16 Charter, PI Castle Park 509 459 139 89 2 NSH classes Harborside 674 410 403 139 2 NSH classes, TIIG & PI Kello99 396 430 232 266 2 NSH classes Lauderbach 797 528 445 176 15 2 NSH classes, TIIG & PI Loma Verde 492 344 250 102 1 NSH class, NCLB Montgomery 408 412 91 95 1 NSH class Otay 568 395 193 20 35 PI Palomar 411 467 56 1 NSH class and 1 SH class, PI Rice 546 554 _.295 203 2 SH classes; 3 NSH- classes Rohr 419 476 31 31 2 NSH class SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 818 710 142 34 Charter Olympic View 815 484 368 37 45 Parkview 445 499 162 216 2 NSH classes, 2 SH classes R0gers 532 491 61 20 Valle Lindo 560 413 267 120 2 NSH classes Hedenkamp 1045 1033 -12 60 2 SH classes Page 91 1-182 FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2007 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Type of Comments Enrollment Pennanent Portables Over/Under Out School 12131/07 Capacity. Calendar NORTHWEST Heritage 891 803 120 32 20 Veterans 631 736 105 McMillin 860 787 80 87 40 1 SH class Village 7 332 800 468 1 SH class, 2 NSH classes NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 415 446 31 3 NSH classes Casillas 626 594 142 110 1 NSH classes Chula Vista Hills 1 NSH class 542 554 80 92 Ciear View 520 503 120 103 Charter, 1 Sp. Ed. Class Discovery 756 612 326 182 Charter; 2 SH classes Eastlake 648 528 270 150 1 NSH class Halecrest 478 494 80 96 1 NSH class 586 790 204 2 NSH classes, 1 SH class Liberty Marshall 769 632 133 -4 30 1 Sp. Ed. Class Salt Creek 938 777 186 109 Tiffany 571 463 217 2 NSH classes .(-j denotes amount over capacity 2.b FIVE YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2011 - Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Type of Comments Enrollment Pennanen! Portables Over/Under Out School 12131/11 Capacity. Calendar NORTHWEST Cook Feaster-Edison Hilltop Drive Mueller Rosebank Vista Square Page 92 1-183 FIVE YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2011 Projected Capacity I SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. Castle Park Harborside Kellog lauderbach Lama Verde Montgomery Otay Palomar Rice Rohr SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista Olympic View Parkview Rogers Valle Lindo Hedenkamp Heritage Veterans McMillin NORTHEAST Alieni Ann Daly Casillas Chula Vista Hills .. . - Clear View Discovery Eastlake Halecrest Liberty Marshall Salt Creek Tiffany '(-) denotes amount over capacity Page 93 1-184 3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2005-2006 2004-05 2003-04 2002-03 2001-02 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,445 4,409 4,567 4,587 4,591 % of Change Over 1% 0% 0% 1% the Previous Year 0% % of Enrollment 99% 97% from Chula Vista 97% 97% SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,979 6,089 6,333 6,481 6,647 % of Change Over -2% -4% the Previous Year -2% -3% 1% % of Enrollment 99% 97% 97% from Chula Vista SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6,525 6,369 5,854 4,825 4,715 % of Change Over 2% 8% 17% 2% 20% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 99% from Chula Vista 97% 97% 97% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,021 6,601 6,266 5,562 5,395 % of Change Over 6% 5% 3% 0% the Previous Year .11% % of Enrollment 99% 97% 97% 97% from Chula Vista DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 23,970 _, . 23,020 21 ,455 21,348 ~ % of Change Over 4% 7% 1% 4% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 98% 97% 97% 97% from Chula Vista 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the Districts ability to accommodate student enrollment? Yes x No Explain: Page 94 1-185 5. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2007? Yes x No Explain: 6. Are existing facilities able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-vear (December 2010) time frame? Yes No x Explain: A new school is being constructed in Otay Ranch Village 7 as this report is being prepared. It will be ready for occupancy in fall, 2007. Additional schools will be constructed in the Otay Ranch Villages 11 and 2 as needed to serve students moving into the Otay Ranch area. 7. Will new facilities/schools be required to accommodate forecasted growth over the next 5 years? Yes X No Schools are planned in each of the new Otay Ranch Villages. Current plans have identified sites in Villages 7, 11, and 2. The school in Otay Ranch Village 7 is under construction. If yes, please indicate when the facility/school is needed and identify the major milestone points (indicated below) and timing that each facility/school should normally be expected to meet. Please indicate if the particular milestone is not relevant or if others should be noted: E. Site Selection - A site for the school in Otay Ranch Village 11 is currently under review by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control. A proposed site has been identified for Otay Ranch Villages 2. As stated above, construction is under way on the Otay Ranch Village 7 School. Staff is working with Califomia Department of Education for preliminary site approval for the Otay Ranch Village 2 school. ~ F. Architectural Review -Fun"ding identification for land and construction - Funds are already in hand for the construction of the school in Otay Ranch Village 7. District schools are funded by a combination of Community Facilities District (CFD) funds and state school construction funds. As homes are occupied in CFD neighborhoods, the District bonds against the Mello Roos taxes paid for these properties to obtain construction financing. As growth occurs, the tax base rises, and more funds are available for construction of new schools. With November 2006 voter approval of Proposition 1D, state school construction funds are also available for the next few years. G. Commencement of site preparation - Construction is under way in Otay Ranch Village 7. With reconfiguration of the buildings on the Otay Ranch Village 11 site, environmental review should complete within the next few months. The District is beginning the approval process for the Otay Ranch Village 2 site. Page 95 1-186 H. Service by utilities and road - Services and roads are in place for Otay Ranch Villages 7 and 11. I. Commencement of construction - Construction is progressing on schedule at the Otay Ranch Village 7 site. 8. Is the school district considering alternative site and facility design and configuration standards in response to the scarcity and cost of land particularly in western Chula Vista? Yes x No Explain: To assist in serving students that will be generated by high density housing in western Chula Vista, the District requires the assistance of the City of Chula Vista in identifying affordable school sites adjacent to new housing development. The school in Otay Ranch Village 11 is currently being redesigned with two-story buildings that can be constructed on small land parcel. the District also is evaluatina existina sites reaardina exoansion or reolacement of current school facilities. 9. Please list current joint use activities/facilities between the City of Chula Vista and the CVESD. The District has joint use of play fields (soccer, baseball, and basketball) Rogers and Harborside with the City of Chula Vista. All recent school sites have been constructed adjacent to city parks to facilitate recreational use. 10. Please comment on the potential for expanding joint use arrangements, please be specific where possible. The process of locating elementary schools adjacent to city parks will continue. The District is in the process of granting the City of Chula Vista an easement on its Otay School site to expand adjacent park facilities. 11. Are there any growth-related issues affecting the maintenance of the level of service.as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes No x Explain: 12. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes x No Page 96 1-187 Explain: Per State law, 3% of the District's annual budget is reserved for facilities maintenance funds. In 2006-07, the District is estimated to receive $791,364 in deferred maintenance funds. These funds were matched with a District contribution. 13. Are there any major upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the School District's current i-year and 5-year CIP that will add capacity? Yes x No Explain: Two modular classrooms were installed at Arroyo Vista in January 2006, and six modular classrooms were installed at Salt Creek in September 2006. 14. Please comment on the Districts deferred maintenance plan in regard to maintaining schedules, ongoing or upcoming major projects, and funding availability. Comment The current five-year deferred maintenance plan was approved by the Board of Educaion on April 18, 2006, for fiscal years 2005-06 through 2009-2010. MISCELLANEOUS 15. Please identify ways that the GMOC can assist the CVESD in keeping pace with growth by making recommendations to City Departments and the City Council. Describe: Continue frequent communication between the City and CVESD. Identify affordable school locations in western Chula Vista that will accommodate the increased student enrollment resulting from western Chula Vista redevelopment and bayfront development plans. 16. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and GMOC. Yes x No Explain: The District continues to work with the Office of Public School Construction to increase its unhoused student eligibility. If eligibility is not increased the District may not qualify for state school construction funding. Without continued state funding, school construction will not keep pace with growth. Prepared by: Susan Fahle Title: Assistant Superintendent for Business Services and Support Date: February 15, 2007 Page 97 1-188 THRESHOLD The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts= replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please fill in or "Update" the information in the table below to indicate the existing enrollment conditions and capacity for current conditions. The most recent information available is requested, please indicate reference date. CURRENT CONDITIONS (2005/06 SCHOOL YEAR)) Current Building Capacity Adjusted Physical Within Overflowed Schools Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity Out Comments 11/06 (Note 1) Capacity" Capacity NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,173 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,345 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista Hioh 2,656 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop High 2,192 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,188 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 1,910 1,350 570 1,920 220 X - Palomar Hioh 484 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,164 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST NONE - - --- --- - - --- NORTHEAST Bonita Vista Hi9h 2,334 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,154 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Eastlake Hi9h 2,376 2,460 480 2,940 220 X Rancho Del Rey Middle 1,509 1,380 60 1,440 220 X EastLake Middle 1,392 1,665 0 1,665 220 X Page 98 1-189 Otay Ranch High 2,740 2,600 300 2,900 220 X Olympian High 510 2,460 0 2,460 220 X 'Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning centers. Note 1: Capacity figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) - September 2003. 2. Please fill in the tables below (insert new schools into the table as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for December 2005 (a) and 2009 (b) based on the City;s forecast 2.a FORECASTED CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2007 Projected Schools Enrollment Building Capacity Adjusted Physical Within Overflowed Comments (With Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity Out Boundary Capacity Capacity Adjustments) 12/31/07 NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,144 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,254 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,736 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop Hich 2,240 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,246 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 1,930 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 484 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,164 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST I I I I I ~ NONE - -- - .- - - -- NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,226 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,127 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Eastlake Hioh 2,344 2,460 480 2,940 220 X Rancho del Rey 1,342 1,380 60 1,440 220 X Middle Eastlake Middle 1,360 1,665 0 1,665 220 X Otay Ranch High 2,531 2,600 300 2,900 220 X Olympian High 719 2,460 0 2,460 220 X Page 99 1-190 2.b FIVE YEAR FORECAST CONDITIONS DECEMBER 2011 Projected Adjusted Schools Enrollment Building Capacity Building Physical Within Overflowed Comments 12/31/11 Permanent/Portables Capacity Education Capacity Out (Note 1) (Note 5) Capacity NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,432 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,209 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 3,065 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop Hiah 2,044 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,884 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 2,457 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 484 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adu~ 3,164 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST NONE I -- I -- I --- I --- -- - -- NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,083 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,011 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Eastlake High 3,753 2,460 480 2,940 220 -- (Note 2) Rancho del Rey 2,059 1,380 60 1,440 220 Middle (Note 2) - Eastlake Middle 2,037 1,665 0 1,665 220 (Note 2) - Otay Ranch High 2,754 2,600 300 2,900 220 (Note 2) -- Olympian H.S. 2,939 2,460 _, . 0 2,460 220 ~ (Note 2) - MS#12 (Note 2) - 1,000 0 1,000 200 -- HS#14 (Note 2) - 2,000 0 2,000 200 - Note 1: Please note that these projections, prepared by Davis Demographics and Planning (DDP) on April 20, 2006, on beha~ of the Sweetwater Union High School District, reflect projected enrollments based upon the students dwelling within the actual attendance boundary of the respective school. It should be further noted that the school district supports specialized programs at various schools, which allow students throughout the district to chose to attend schools other then their assigned school. This transfer phenomenon is impossible to project beyond a one year limeline. Therefore, the 2011 projections provided herein, are merely a projection by DDP of students residing in the respective school boundary. This projection is in the process of being updated in January 2007, and was not available in time for this report. Page 100 1-191 Note 2: The district staff currently projects Middle School 121High School 14 for 2009 or 2010. The school will relieve Eastlake and Rancho del Rey Middle Schools and Eastiake and Olympian High Schools. Since no boundary exists, no enrollment projections can be made nor can we project exactly how the affected school's enrollment will be reduced. 3. Please fill in the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2005.06 2004-05 2003.04 2002-03 2001-02 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,366 7,325 7,429 7,215 7,157 % of Change 0.6% .1.4% 2.9% .8% -.3% Over the Previous Year % of Enrollment 87% 88% 86% 87% 91% from Chula Vista SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 3,582 3,926 4,041 4,129 4,004 % of Change .9.6% .2.8% .2.1% 3.3% -3% Over the Previous Year % of Enrollment 91% 84% 81% 90% 91% from Chula Vista NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 12,015 11,281 10,343 9,261 8,441 % of Change 6.1% 9.1% 11.7% 8.9% 5.3% Over the Previous Year % of Enrollment 96% 97% 97% 96% 94% from Chula Vista DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 41,680 41,853 40,967 39,290 37,878 . % of Change .0.4% 2.2% 4.2% 3.6% 1.6% Over the Previous Year % of Enrollment 52% 49% 48% 48% 49% from Chula Vista 4. Has growth during the reporting period negatively affected the District's ability to accommodate student enrollment? Yes No x N/A Page 1 01 1-192 Explain: In 2006, we have accommodated growth through new classroom construction at Chula Vista High School and Hilltop High School. A new multipurpose building and classrooms were completed at Chula Vista Middle School and Olympian High School opened. 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to absorb forecasted growth through December 2006? Yes X No N/A Explain: Enrollment is very stable at the present (in fact, it is declining at many schools) and expansion efforts at Chula Vista High School (19 classrooms) and Hilltop High School (18 classrooms) have made great improvements. 6. Are existing facilities/schools able to absorb forecasted growth for the 5-year (December 2010) time frame? Yes X No Explain: Proposition 0 passage will allow the District to continue modernization and limited new construction efforts on the west side. Capacity exists currently on the east side with the 2006 opening at Olympian High School. A campus for grades 7-12 is well in the design phase now for a 2009 opening if needed. In addition, the site has been identified and all relative studies have been or are nearly complete. 7. Will new facilities/schools be required to accommodate forecasted growth over the next 5 years? Yes X No See number 6. If yes, please indicate when the facility/school is needed and identify the major milestone pOints (indicated below) and timing that each facility/school should normally De expected to meet Please indicate if the particular milestone is not relevant or if others should be noted: J. Site Selection - Completed K. Architectural Review - Completed L. Funding identification for land and construction - Completed M. Commencement of site preparation - Completed N. Service by utilities and road - By developer in 2008 O. Commencement of construction - Projected for 2008 or 2009 Page 102 1-193 8. Is the school district considering alternative site and facility design and configuration standards in response to the scarcity and cost of land particularly in western Chula Vista? Yes X No Explain: We have a three-story campus in design with grades 7-8 on a portion of the campus and a 9-12 campus adjacent with shared service facilities (Middle School #12/High School #14). 9. Are there any other growth-related issues affecting the maintenance of the level of service as Chula Vista's population increases? Yes X No Explain: The District maintenance department needs to expand and become more efficient in its works paces and buying power. This can be accomplished partiallyihrough new, properly sized workspaces and the ability to store bulk purchases. The need for modernized district corporate facilities is discussed further in response to question 15. 10. Please list current joint use activitieslfacilities between the City of Chula Vista and the SUHSD. Page 103 1-194 SCHOOL Bonita Vista High Bonita Vista Middle Castle Park High Castle Park Middle Chula Vista Adult Chula Vista High ORGANIZATION JOINT USE WITH CITY OF CHULA VISTA American Red Cross Registrar of Voters New Hope Community Church AYSO SDSU City of Chula Vista SD Adult Baseball Gloria World Mission Black Belt American Red Cross Registrar of Voters AYSO Bonita Valley ASA Girl Scouts of America Marian High School American Red Cross Registrar of Voters YMCA CV Youth Football CV Youth Soccer CV Sundevils Softball Castle Park Elementary Parkview Elementary UCSD Starlings Volleyball Make-A-Wish Foundation S.D. Adult Baseball League Bowl Games of America CV Youth Soccer South Bay Little League CV Rangers Soccer American Red Cross Regislrar of Voters C.v. Community Church Norman Park Center Fredericka Convaiescent Hospital Salvation Army American Red Cross Registrar of Voters CV Childrens Choir CV Pony North CV Youth Football SD Sun Harbor Chorus Hot Spurs, USA A YSO Region 290 CV Badgers Wrestling SD Flyers Huff 'n P4itll.QGI'&r Starlings lI'o'ffey5all YMCA City of CV, Recreation Dept 1-195 AREA OF USE Gym/Auditoriums for Emg's Gym/Auditoriums for Voting Gym/Cafeteria/Classroom Athletic Fieids Classrooms Gym/Classroom Athletic Fields Gym Gym/Auditoriums for Emg's Gym/Auditoriums for Voting Athletic Fields Athletic Fields Auditorium Athletic Fields Gym/Auditoriums for Emg's Gym/Auditoriums for Voting Roller Hockey, Gym Stadium, Press Box Athletic Fields Athletic Fields Auditorium Auditorium Cafeteria Gym Athletic Fields Athletic Fields F-ball Stadium, Auditorium, Classes Athletic Fields Athletic Fields Atihletic Fields Gym/Auditoriums for Emg's Gym/Auditoriums for Voting Adult Classes Adult/Senior Classes Classroom Classroom Gym/Auditoriums for Emg's Gym/Auditoriums for Voting Classroom Athletic Fields Stadium Classroom Athletic Fields Athletic Fields Weight Rooms Athletic Fields Athietic Fields Gym Athletic Fields F-ball Stadium, Athletic Fields 11. Please comment on the potential for expanding joint use arrangements, please be specific where possible. As new campuses are constructed, new opportunities for joint-use can be considered by both the district and the City. 12. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? Yes No X Explain: The State has not fully funded deferred maintenance accounts. 13. Are there any major upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the School Districfs current 1-year and 5-year CIP that will add capacity? Yes X No Explain: See No.6 14. Please indicate what the district considers to be as the major milestones in implementing the Long Range Facilities Master Plan, and the status of those milestones? With passage of Proposition 0, the implementation of the LRFMP can move forward. The speed of implementing this will be directly tied to the growth of local assessed value and the associated bonding capacity. The Board of Trustees took action in January 2007, to commence the final projects associated with Proposition BB. By December 2007, Proposition BB funds of 187 million, along with State and other funds totaling $326 million, will be 100% expended. In addition, the Board directed staff to commence the selection of design teams and other professionals needed to commence efforts on Proposition 0 projects in 2007. MISCELLANEOUS 15. Please identify ways that the GMOC can assist the SUHSD in keeping pace with growth by making recommendations to City Departments and the City Council. Describe: We request that the GMOC support the concept of the district's new office and corporate yard. In 1953, when the district's administrative office and corporate yard complex at 1130 5th Avenue was originally constructed, it was designed to house a staff responsible for administering the educational programs at six schools, serving approximately 6,500 students. Additionally, in 1953, the Fifth Avenue property housed approximately 20 buses. Today, SUHSD serves over 42,000 students in grades seven through twelve, and 28,000 adult Page 105 1-196 learners, served through 24 middle/junior and high schools and four adult schools, with 85 buses operating out of our Fifth Avenue property. Years ago, the Fifth Avenue facility became inadequate to house the staff equipment, buses and programs required by the district. Consequently, the district began expanding its administrative operations to other areas of the district, and to offices leased from the private sector. Over time, this situation has grown to the point where the district's administrative and support operations are no longer as economicaily and operationaily effective as they could be when housed in proper facilities on one campus. Since 2002, the district's Asset Utilization Team, consisting of staff and support consultants, have been working to plan, design, negotiate and direct the process of obtaining or developing a new district administrative office/headquarters (consisting of offices housed at Fifth Avenue, on other district properties and on properties leased from private owners) and corporate yard (consisting of garages, shops, warehouses, fleets and offices of support services housed at Fifth Avenue and on other district properties). After more than two years of searching for land, a 23-acre parcel of land on L Street near Industrial Blvd. was acquired and is now intended to house the district office and a new adult school, as weil as residential units. The property on Fifth Avenue will be converted to a strictly corporate yard location and the property on Third Avenue will become a mixed use project. The remaining properties on Moss Avenue are currently being considered for use as public parkland. Revenues resulting from the development of residential and mixed use projects along with tax increment doilars wiil primarily fund the project. The district is working diligently with City of Chula Vista staff to accomplish these goals. It is our belief that the project will benefit not only the district, but the City and every entity involved. We believe that these benefits include: For Sweetwater: . New district office . New Chula Vista Adult School . New Corporate Yard . New 7'h_12'h grade student capacity in Western Chula Vista . Increased RDA pass-tbrough payments . New tax increment from the RDA . No expenditure of district resources or bond funds . No displacement of current residents For the City of Chula Vista/Redevelopment Agency . New tax increment . New low-and-moderate income housing set-aside funds to the RDA . Increased RDA pass-through payments to the City of Chula Vista . New workforce housing for police, fire and life/safety/emergency staff - a recruiting and retention attraction . Improvement of blighted conditions . Creation of economic engine in Western Chula Vista Page 106 1-197 . New park space in Western Chula Vista . No displacement of current residents For Chula Vista Elementary School District . Increased RDA pass-through payments For the Community: . Modern housing in a region previously blighted . New park space in Western Chula Vista . No displacement of current residents . Thousands of new construction-related jobs for local residents. Discussions are currently underway with City staff and City leadership regarding these important projects. We believe that the successful conclusion of these discussions will be a "win-win" for all participants and a clear display of public sector partnering to achieve benefit for the community that we all serve. The support of the GMOC to this end would be most welcome. 16. Do you have any other relevant information to communicate to the City and GMOC. Yes No X Explain: Prepared by: Katy Wright Title: Director of Planning & Construction Date: February 5, 2007 Page 107 1-198 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 2007 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold standards and reporting their annual findings and recommendations to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to section l506l(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2007, the GMOC finalized its 2007 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, identifies current issues in the second half of 2006 and early 2007, and assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next 5 years; and, WHEREAS, on August 2, 2007 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the City Council to consider the 2007 GMOC Annual Report, and to make recommendations to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby accept and approve the 2007 GMOC Annual Report, and recommendations contained therein, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept and approve the Report and the recommendations contained therein. Presented by: Approved as to form by: James Sandoval Director of Planning and Building Ann Mo -:f~ City Attorney 1-199 PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 2 day of August 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Bill Tripp, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission 1-200 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE 2007 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECCESARY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold standards and reporting their annual findings and recommendations to the City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to section 15061 (b )(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2007, the GMOC finalized its 2007 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July I, 2005 through June 30, 2006, identifies current issues in the second half of 2006 and early 2007, and finally assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next 5 years; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the Planning Commission to consider the 2007 GMOC Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the planning Commission upon considering the Report, recommended that the City Council accept and approve the Report; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista accepts and approves the 2007 GMOC Annual Report; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to carry out the implementing actions as presented in Staff Responses & Proposed Implementing Actions Summary in Exhibit A. Presented by: Approved as to form by: James Sandoval Director of Planning and Building fr.)\nn Mo ..J. U'\lcity Attorney 1-201 <( >< c z W Il. Il. <( ,-., u o~ ~~ z~ Op t;JCZl CZlCZl ~z ~9 oE-< UU E-<< =0 o~ ....E-< CZlZ ~~ ~~ >~ O~ E-<~ Z~ ~.... ~--. ~CZl OZ <0 ~E= ~< =~ E-<~ ~~ O~ ~O OU ~~ C N tIl Z o i= (J 0/1<( tile) WZ tIl- Zl- OZ D..W tIl:!: WW D::~ lJ..:!: lJ..- <(0 I-W tIltll o D.. = O-~ D:: 111.8 D.. '" .. ~~ .-: .... ~M tIl Z o ~ o Z W :!: :!: o (J W D:: (J o :!: e) ., ., Iio< - '" .. "" 8 .... - = ., 8 "" Q - ., ... ., ~ '- Q ., '" = .. = -I.g ~ .- '" .. ~~ ........ ....; ....; 6' e ., ., Iio< - '" .. "" 8 .... - = ., 8 "" Q <l ... ., ~ '- Q ., '" = .. G; .... e ~ '" '" " " " '" '" .9 - " .. o Z .~ - '" :s '" " '" ~ ~ ., .;: ., ~ ~ " .;;: " ~ . - " ..- '0 ~ a " ",u .~ 0 :;~ 5c;J "'" '" fi ~ - " fr;... ""'-;< ..s " " '" .;3 ~ 'cq ;..."'" ""'" o '" o .9 c; ~ '" ;::l l.:l ~ \'j~ " .... ~~ ... eu 0.0 :::::::s .~ c;J ~~ .. - mE! - .. .~ '" = .. = ~ - = ., "'" = ., "" ., "'" = .... <'! .... ....; ~ .~ ... ., ~ '" o g,s .~ gs ~ 5 c...~ Ei"'" .~ "'" "'- .. 6 ".<:: [;; '" ...s= .-;::: ;...'" "" Ei~ ~u .90 "':::s ~c;J '" " 0'<:: ,,- '" '" 'i::lJ 0- fr~" ~ ~ " " ..=- - " ~.~ ..= ... - .... $ ~ " '" c.S 'Cd - - 'o.S S S o us 00 u~+-" Q)..g Cl -5llJo. "-'..=" - - .... - .. '" = .. = ,~ Iio< - = ., "'" = ., "" ., "'" = .... "! .... ....; - - .~ "" "'" ~ ,., - o "" .. ;::l tl ;::l .. - '" .. -= = .... '- Q ., '" = .. = "" - = 'OJ ~ 1 G ~ 00 " i:l ~ e .. 0. </:1 .S ~ '- .;;: o " " .... g t) .. bD ","", " ;::l 1::.0 .,..... Cd S .~ - " " .e; [;' 1:: " ~.s " '" .. .~ 0."", .... ~ oS " "'" gf'r;; .~ '" "'" 0 '" " ;::l " .....0 "" ... ,~ - = "" ... "" .. ~ "l .... ....; "" "'" ~ o o ., .. = - '" = .. - '" .. -= = .... '- Q "" '" = .. = "" - = .~ .. ~ '- o " ~ '" " - '" 'il Ei .~ - '" ~ " ~ .... oS '" "'" ~ ~ g. " "'" .. " "'" .;;: o .... 0. "'" "3 ~ 0"", ;1 " .~ bDU ""2 " .0.2 " " .2E <E ~ -</:1 < .S I'-;':U;': "" .e; - = "" ... "" .. ~ "l .... '" - = "" 8 "" ... Q .. "" 8 .... E - .. = 0' .. :;;: .. .s '" 1<;:: ~ -.. .. Q ;::l .. ~ .= >. <~ U .... M Mrt'l - = "" 8 "" ... Q .. "" 8 .... o := .. ;::l 0' .. :;;: .. .s '" 8 1,- ~ .. E ;::l~ .... - ~O .... M N~ ~a;goggClj~~~~ +-' ~.,..... S "0 ~ .9'0 u.8 ~ 8'~ c!j 5; 5.~.g ~.~ ~ ._ i:< 0\ a3 S ~ ~ S ~Q~~""'~O,)J::_u '- .g ;;:;,.s u ~;::...... ~ (j ,..!::;"uV 0 OCl.l+:l "il ~:r:"",.s '" N '" ",:r: ~.-d~U]:.aVl~~CI c: N'-" c!j ;;:R ......... bJ) """ ~ 0 CI.l.~ 0 do) Co 8 ~ 4-l U Clj "0 VI .........,..... p.. Q) 0 o ,-"Cl .S ('f') :E U .....,.0 CI.l -"" ;...~""'~'" !:~~t::,.o -5f1~.s 5b >< 0 O"",..d bD~- " .9 11 fr ~ '" .S'E ;... 0 ..c 0 ~ I-; roo::>"'= OD,.o 00 """ 0,) u'- "'...."'....6h..'""'0 ..Qoc;J....g ""go t= -€ V) .s .;:;l........ ""' ~ ...... N u c!j 0 ~ c!j = c!j CI.l tl u ~ ~ ~ '.g'~ S .~ ~ I-; .;9 o.S > ~ bO'"C 0,) a r.n'-..c ..2 'r;; 5;.a cd 1IJ t'04-l-u 1IJ=: .~Q ..=o'-,t:c;J......oO' S ~ ~ ~ =:c 0 '"5 U ~ .s ~Q)~ .d-_ I-;"'l::::l ;:. 5..!l C " ..Q g; lJ g,'2 >. > QJ 0 "'O"g 0 ... ....- ..- ~.+:: ~....- t+:: c;; cd c;; " ~.s 5 ~ 'E "il- S S ..c tt::.,...; ;> .f""c .~ 0 ;::: "0 ;::: UCl)~..sc..>p.r.l.loo~a~ ,...; '" o '.p " ;::l "'" " .... " -5 .S 1:: .s '- " '" .<;:: g '" '.g o " o U " -5 '" .s '" ~~ !30 ;...U -~ bD" "'"'" o .~ j:l t3 '" .~ uCl o '" :::s..8 c;J ~ lJu f-;'o ,...; a- .... o " 00 '" "" <: H >-; ~ '"' "" >< '" <C ~ c z W ll. ll. <C ~ u 0;;" ~~ ~< "'~ ~~ t;j\IJ \IJ\IJ ....z ~s oE-< uU E-<< =~ ~~ ....E-< ~z J;o1J;o1 >~ oJ;o1 E-<....:l z~ J;o1~ ~::: J;o1\IJ ~z <0 ~~ =~ E-<J;o1 ~~ 00 ~u ~~ c:> M '"00.0 CI.l IZI Q.) ""0 E a ,S 8'~,.o ~ ~" "':':::''''; !:=...... CI:I ~ ~ "E.. 'Cd ~ ~ " go go". 0 ;:: ~ "!l o 0 0;;> f.+-! C\S CI.l > UJ ''';:::: rl;:. \-1_ .~ 0 0 1::0 !" Z u v OJ) ""'...... +-'._ .... ~ Ol.l V) GJ ...... ~ O"Cl g('o;j;'::: =.g,s - ~:.g''''''...c:= cd ~ ~ ~ HSUo.o;::3Ub .....?O S "o.So oll<O~ SE".g;:g SN U)C)8~o8~g8t wZQ.)au;.::::uu~"E en~.,s..<:: ",u is 0"" zz~u~ ~u~2 o "~"" ""-< '" ^ w >..........."c: cd 11)!:-I1--l a.~"" "'f-<tl.,s " enw w ~.5.E . u ...... ~ ..... ......_ en CI.l cd!;'ij- 0:::...J Oll U "~";;:.,s 0 "" 0.. ~ (OJ 1:: .- ""0 0.0 S tl: :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L~ 8 ..., c :> Q.) CI.l U .-...... 1-...... p'u~CI.lI1.l~go W ~;j ~ i::"Cl"Cl"~ UJUJ otjc..-.o..tU5uU...; o !::"U; 0 e CI.l s 1-0 0 0 fill u:l r.I.l ::::::: d c:J ........... ........... C\S '"0 u..... ~ 0:: ""0 ~ o 0 !l 5l"" ~ 8,~ E l> 0::: "~";:l"': " 0." v ,,"Cl U Q.) ;:j 1-00 Q.)'- a.. Q)..c a~ 0'"0'- ~ rg ~ ."";::: 0 U rl;::, C 0 I-< 0 r'~uC\Svi;ljNp..U en z o < c z w ~ ~ o (,) W 0::: (,) o ~ C) ~ll.)'"O..co-"""Q.)OO c:J .;3 ~ '"E ~ .&~ .;3 ~ z 0 ~ ~ 0 U Q.) <l.) 81:: e >,:€ 'S dZ ~ ..E ..... ...... '"O;::l '"0 ~"Cl ~,"-g Su~" "~ll~.!i,g"sz ........1-< cd ...... aU e ~ la tIE ~ u...... .a ~" 0 '"0 OJ.g (OJ ~ c C\S 0 ',p Q.) '"0 o:S bh .~ Z g u ia 0..... p. 0 c "~ = ~ S ~ = ~ " "Cl "Cl 0. "Cl > <l.) c e Q.) 1:: CI.l 0 1-0 g ~ ~ ...... I-< .~ ...E ....... ~ U 1lJ..c u ..." u.~ CI.l l""'""' I-< Oll ~"""<::"Cl " p.. IlJ '"O.s 4-i U C CI.l S>="">oZ~1-< o ~,.o,.c...... 0 c.S u~ "~,,. >. t" en ~ g ~;;> "0 co .i::;' > ~ <l.) ~:.Q u c .S (.) ~.~ 1-0 U Q.);': cd "'".8"..<::o>"..os ;::3 u 0 Q.) S'- CI.l ;::3 Q.) tI.l Q.)::C: > 1-0 ~ CI.l ~ '"0 ..2"ii ..... 0 s.- 0 u :E "0 "E H"ii ~ ~.;i ~ "a!;:<!;:<oZ"i:..J~..g > _ Obi) ~p.. ,,~~J-<>QOJ-< It) 0 0.. It) ..:::J .......s::: 0 bi) .... bi).- ~ ~ .... .... tf.I!::: ' " 0 t.l "' ,,0 ""~" '"I "0 ~ ,- ~ I-< e ...."' 0 ~ ,9 Q,) 0"'09 OolJ)~o",,~ ~ p" ".=: 1-<.2"~ I-<~.s .. r _ $:i ..... ~ 0.._"0 OJ) tf.I rJJ N "'Oo....!.. .8.- IJ) ~ u ~ "Cl '" 0. __ " =""" " " 0 ..oo.ill ~:o u ~ " .~:-;:::: I ..<:: ~ ~ ~ ~..9 ~~-5 d) !::: 'S: " " !;:< @"Cl '" 0 " . ~ t.l 00" .- .E -a u t.l" 11) 2 lo-< ..<:: , " ~ Oll..o '" S o:S.u :s!. '" ;:l = ,,"Cl 0 ~~~ = " >-..9 G Oh:5.,s ,,~ go"O tf.I ~.~ ~ ~ 1) ui --;~lo-<'ii) u..:so"g o " a s :s.;i~1:l '-' ~ u.~ iU ;:3.=.~ ..<:: ~- ~.s~'t N 1 -203 ,.; ill ~ 00 ,.; o '<:; .. 0. .. U ~ <= .. 6 1< .. I-< ... S I-< .. ... , OIl " " .... ~ " " .S: .... :a "Cl <: I-< ..:: "Cl .. .. z .... ,.; ,.; >> .... '<:; .. lOlo .. u 1:1 .. 6 10 .. '" f-< 6 '" .. ... dJJ " " .... ~ .. " " ,~ ~ ,~ "Cl "Cl <: I-< ..:: "Cl .. .. z .... ,.; ,.; r-- o o N ::a >-. ,c "Cl " ~ " ]- o t.l " ..0 o ~ "Cl " :g " ..<:: t.l '" .Q ~ " ~ t.l "~ '" "Cl <= .. 6 .. Q I-< .. 10 ~ '"I'S ...... ~ ~ ~~ >-. "Cl B '" ,g f-< .... --. ,c "Cl " ~ " ]- o t.l " ..0 .s B 00 " "9 '" = '" :> o "u " ;j< U "Cl " '" o 0. o P:: " .,s ~ " p '" "Cl " .. Ei .. Q '" .. 10 ~ '"I ~ .. .~ ~"t ~~ .... -<i ..;,.; ~ B oZ "'" t.l .1j ~ ~ " :-;::: 0 ~ Oll '" oJ:; ".8 -;:; .~ ~ Q:..a [) ~ '" 0 ~~ ~u ~ " o.,s "Cl.,s ;j~ o~ ".: 0 ..8 ~ ~"Cl ~ ;j ~ I-< " " " '" s ~g. ,,~ " ~ ~ " 00"Cl 0, ... o N " OJ) " '" "'" t.l " tJ"1:i "ClO ;j~ " "S .s t~ ,,~ s:g 0:-;::: ~ " ~ ~ .9 I-< tJE '" " 'E ~ I-< " ~.;i ~., " .,s s o 0 ..o~ oS ~ "~ " ~ ..:::J "'" " I-< 0 o t.l ~ .9 o I-< ~.g ~ 15 = " " "~ .~ ~ <:i " 8 S 08 uv > " " ..<::"Cl ~ " '"3 ..<:: f-<oZ <11 H H '" H ~ ;<: r<1 <C >< c z w a. a. <C .-, u o~ ~< SE,~ z~ 0;;:. ijj"-l "-l"-l '""'Z ~o ~'""' oE-< UU E-<< =c.:l c.:l~ '""'E-< "-lz ~~ ~~ >~ o~ E-<~ z~ ~'""' ~-- ~"-l c.:lZ <0 z'""' ~~ =z E-<~ ~~ o~ ~o c.:lU ~~ Q N en z o i= () 0/1<( enC) Wz en- Zl- OZ ll..W en::i!i WW a::~ 1I..::i!i 11..- <(0 I-W en en o ll.. o a:: ll.. en Z o < o Z W ::i!i ::i!i o () W a:: () o ::i!i C) .... - Po. Po. = en ... <II 10 ~ .... ... " <II OIl ... <II Ei "" .... ~ ,.; .... - Po. Po. = en ... <II ... .. ~ .... ... = <II OIl ... <II Ei "" M <II 0. ;>, P. 0. ::l '" .... " - '" ~ .... " 0:: " blJ .... " 5 " '~ 'OJ Ei .... ~ ,.; B " " 0:: '.p " o " '" 1:) I1i ]:; ~ "''0 i:5 a M Ei " ~~ :::t> ;>, " 0:: " blJ II Ei " t .... 'il -B '0 a '" - " E '" i:5 II ~ Jj - 1:: o 0. g- '" B " a 'p 0:: o " U o ;:s 0;>, _ u .a;::: c--& '" <II U ... = o en ... <II ... .. ~ OIl " :;; " .. ~ "" ri ~ ~ ." 0) U ;>, " 0) M "-' o '" - '" o " ." a & :E 'u; '" <B 0) -B .s B '" '" ~ ,.; ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ 0) 0) ~ en - o g ~ '" '" <B .B '" <II U ... = o en ... <II ~ ~ OIl " :;; = .. Po. " "" '" '" 0) .tJ ." '" E ci " .ca 'I': 0) o .~ ~ ~ ... I-; 'd) 0),0 ~-;; ~:s 0) ,- ~ ~ CI) 0) '" '" ::l 0) M blJE '" '" i3 ~ 0." " 0) 50 .... g ~ ~:g " " oj ~~ '" ~ ,.; = .. ~ OIl .S ." - W} os ,,~ 'C ~ oj .. .E ... .- '" .. .- .. ... iii tt'if'fi M '" E'" ;0 "-'~ o~ 0:: 0." 'r;; a "S: ~ 8 ..... 0.E5, .B"<t '" .... o.S~ 1::CI) ~." 1j ~ .cO) 'c g i~ ....11 EN ~~ " ~ ~ ~ U'.l P. ~ 1J0:: OIl "" 0 = rn ".;::J :a - oj - i5 ,0:: C .- 0.."::::: ...... rI.I.s 0. oj a <II.... ~~-'C>' I;.() "'0 ~ ~ ;; UU':l~.E- 0...... o....,.Q .......... ~..-l ;:S,o~ .. o blJ,E OJ ;:j"';j ~ ~ 0 I;.() . c--.,501li:Q 1-204 - o~ - '" "'~ " 0:: " ,- ~'5 " " " 1t1 0 .au CI) 0 - Ei S '~ ;:s ." 0) . '" 0) .".,,- 0) " " aJ ~ clj -tH8 S- 0:: " o .9 0 u t) 11) 5E-B 0) ",- ,.0 ~ 5 0) 0 '" > " 0) oj "-' M ,0 0 0. '" 0) ;>, blJ" 0) ,S i3-B ~ 0 0) oj '" Ei .{j "'g '.p !::~ (!) o 'p Ei ',p 5 ~ "." E ,- Jj '" 0)_ 0:: -" - o ~ ~ . c..> bJ) "v 0:: r-- " "'I': 0'1': ~.o~P-< "'00) i3 ,,-B . ~o~~ en ~:E ~ o rJ) -- U :: ~'~ ~ ~ '"0 '>~ oj 'a a 0::." ~ .8au ;:S"_o .cE"';:S ....... Cf.I '"0 rl-1 uao~ ...... u..c:: II< " '" 0) .~ ~] ~ "'t::l ro...... IU M -B ~~~ >. 0:: ""- ;5 s.s~ u ~.~ ~ ." _ 0. ~ v...... "'0 ~ Q,~ a 00$5.." ~ii Ei E .,. a 0 oj ""~"<l:1 ~ 0) E E -B-B 0._ '" ,,- '"0 IU 4.) Q.) !:: u,.c ~ v ;::: U) U':l ~ Eg ~ o S M;:S 2 8 ~ 8 I-; ..J..... u"'O......~ oa.5'" ;:s blJ E O.S ~ lU 11) '"0 ::s 0- ,0 0:: ~ S c--<EO)_ '" '" <II U U <: "" = .. " o .- 10 ... <II Po. o ..... o '" ... = o == .... ... .. ... '" ::l Clj '"0 CI.) lU ...... d) (l) U " .... S ,- ,ou 'S ,- ~ 0" - " ~ Il) cu:l o I-; 0 >. .g]ti:sa~ '00 ...... '"d ~ 0- tiaJ~~~ ~ d) 1l4-l U ll)s>,oo i3ag~..8 " ~ M _ " ..... IJ) 0 rJ) V1.......";::: ..c:: 1-;"""...... ..c:: ::l 0:: blJ"<t blJ o C;:S = N....... ..c:: ~ 'C '"d = Q.) 0 ~ ~ v .~ g cs ro ~ i>...... U] ~ ~ t) 1-;'- 11) rJ] CI.l~~1::ro Q 0 oj ,,~ ~ ti U (l) ,.!:l 1$ Q.) !:: 'fi ;..:::::: Gf.l S.9 !:: Q) ~.+:: ~ 0 .st)~~-5 C/J~.S >:S ~ a ~ - I-< I-< .,5S~ .... iii ,.; '" '" <II U ... <: "Cl " .. = o .- ~ ... <II Q, o .... o '" ... = o == .... ... oj ... '" ::l 'O]gf - .- '" "-' 0:: ~ 0 ~ o " 0) ,0'0'" .~ .... St;~ S ~.~ .- :S~~ gsgil 0) oj- ~ p. ~ CI;1 ~ .s .s a a :S t::: gono 1-.. l=l p.. <u'S: ~ ..ca1"'O .... '" 0:: 'H,,-,oj ~ 0 ro '" ~ t> QE> ~ B CI;1 :-9!::'"S -'- ..0 0) 0:: U ;>, ..o.s ~ ~ -+-' "'cd 0 ::j "'cdbc8" ~ g.G ~ .... iii ,.; 0\ '- o '" " on " p.. < H H '" H :I: ~ r4 <( ~ c z w a. a. <( ,-, U 0>- ~~ e,;,< '-'~ ~~ t;joo 0000 ~z ~8 oE-< UU E-<< =:e,;, e,;,~ ""E-< ooz ~~ ~~ ~~ o~ E-<~ z~ ~"" ~-- ~oo e,;,z <0 z"" ~~ =:z E-<~ ~~ o~ ~o e,;,U ~~ Q N " ,:: a~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ III " " Z .8 Sb ObiS I- ~ U eB O/I<(~Oj,.;.i 1IlC)i! g.lJ Wz~"~ (I) ~ a3 Q) l-; zz~;,8. ow,s ~ ,,~ I-< c..::E 011 " Cl)wVJ_] ~~]~~ tl::!:~.8~ ~~~jl o~-~ ft :> ;>, ~ (5 u..o'~ 0::: Q) "0 '--, c..,stgf ..QQ);.ei ~ ~ ,:: 5 00 ~ " ,:: 0 :3" S U..o~ III Z o ~ Cl Z w ::E ::E o u w e::: u o ::E C) " ",s " ]..o.~ .8 ""S~Z; .~ ~.~ fl:l Oll ~- ~] ~ ~ ~ A. 0 '" 00 ~.... (/.l ~ rJ:l e .~tjg~ !::: I:':l 0"'_ ui ;;;::E] ~ g c;_r./)~Q)~..c o >. _ " Oll..... " ;::i e fi VJ 'E o~ S..Qv Q)~ uC;; I;f.l .g " s ,::,s i:...c ~ t::.", ~ ...... a'3 tS :s: <<-< ~ 5 c~ o 0........ c:I:1 > CI.l ~ ~ I-; <lJ S 1-<..0_ oj~~8 ..J:::'I:: ~ <1J '.0 VJ u ,J::l u .~ CI) 0.0- c.S en llJ ~ ... Vol ill "'t:l 0 ~..... r.f.l 8 ~ ...... 1l S..:: li: ill ., ,,0 C .. "1::i 's, :; e c::: Q) Q) cj .D..... "0 ~ I-; ..... I-< l:l I:':l ...."fJ 8<00 ~ ]:EElUli) f-- ~.5,s p, = eo is::: I-< " .... '" eo ~ ;>, I-< eo ... ..c ::l " ..cl .... .. = .~ .... eo "Cl p, ;;l 'O"..c " OJ " ~"'S..a .0 I-< I-< ~ "..0 (I.) 1i.i >-. Oll eo " ~ 5 P:: 'fJ C" uE-o "..0 1:;:j:'=::.8 " " " I-<..c ,:: 0- oj -oP:: '0_ ",,<<-< 1ii 1d 0 '0'0':: p,p,o ;::1 ;:j '..p ].;!a .2 B ~ S' ~ 0 '0 ." Q) a Q) ~P..-5 ~ OJ I-< o..liJ~ I-< " '" B ~"'t:l ~] ~ l::.... ,:: cP," ",.g g I-< '" " ~ Q) 8 ~ -A Il)..", Q)""" I-< l-< ~ s.;!3 ~ .., iii <'i = oj is::: ... " .... '" eo ~ ;>, ... eo ... ..c ::l " ..cl ... .. .S! .... eo "Cl P, ;;l ,€~ ~J:j p,.- 1j.... " 'O..c ,,- ~ ~ Q) I:':l I1.i t)]..u .5 ;::1 5 " ;>, I-< -.d......~ ~ ~Q) C:::'- I-; o"E.{g p, 0 I-< ;:j 8 ~ '0 oj " 1;l 'O~ .is oj ~ ..0 '0 .{g la"] H p:; Q'3 '::OJ.El ~t: I-< lJ,s :SO'O - " ,,'0 oj B ~ g .,'0_ "" g."" " ~ !:l ~~t.i Eu~ ;:j Q) Q'3 VJ..Q ..... ~-- d.>s:5 ~ 0 g -<<t:~ .., iii <'i ~ - 1-205 ..Q.~ c;; ] 1ti ~:c~~..s ..... ;::S '"Cj t) ~"'t:l . Q) I:':l ~ a a ~ " - 5 ;; a'J..c ""'';:: i>-g~i)~Q)E' _~tSt)Vl_ c::: -- cd'- '" (5 .S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;E:; ctdj ,.p E----.- cd Q) I-; ...... l-;'SN ~ .~~ I-o~ U...... ~ 0........... 5;:J Q).....'~ 8 t)~c>e-:SN ~ Jj ~ S5.s -- Cd U Ol) ~ II) ..0 ~..... .;3 rc; 1-1 CJ',c "0 ~ ;:J.;3 ~ v o ~ v .9< t) ~-'" ;>'''- !:ls;:..o'€S' g.P,oo"O~o ...... CJ-u ~tit::]~v v > ~ v.......o "0 ..g...c: S 5:9 '0 "E t: ;::l ra.s.;383~ .....UCl1>.. .,Q Ol) ~ ~..... ~. uS c c ~ ] lIJ~ee~~ ...c:........o..o..... IIJ ~ A~;':::~...c: ~ '" I-< S ..c " la I-< ..0 !:l 1:1 " u a ..0 ::l E " - ~ '" >.LI ~ " " '" I-< ..s Oll " .~ p. " ;::l ~ I-< ;::l P, ;>, 'i) .:::; tJ -< ~ '" I "" I "" El " t; ;>, en " .. eo = ".. ... ~ .. = o~ - '" 0;; "" .... '" " .- = eo = " ";l o~ eo ~ o ,,~ _ -'" 0 -""" a ",.,g .:t::: 0 u ;:j:::: IIJ ~ ~ CI1 00" ,,~ ,:: ~ -E3 0 '0 'S '0 ~ E a " " ~ ~ p. ~ " .~ Ul ~ ~ '0-..0 " ,:: " ~..... 0 p.., ~ ',c ~..o,:: o " tJ c::.8"O '" ~oo '0 a " E CI1 '"" oj ~ 0 ~ II) ti:i ..... U IIJ E " I-< " ,:: '0 ~ ~- .~ ~ ;:j '0 .9 ~ ~tl ~ ~ ~ t)vo:S r-" -:S tU 0<<-<" '0 0 la 0-" ........C;v ,..., 1:1 ~ v..... ,,"" '" "" .is E - "" <'i El " t; ;>, 00 " .. eo = o~ eo ... ~ .. oS ... '" 0;; "" .... '" " .- = .. = " .... = o~ eo ~ ,:: " 'a o:S $<<-< o 0 o " - " ~ E lJ ~"E .~ ~ S .~& I-< 8 g;P, '" " ,::,s oj .... "..s I-< :E ~ o '0 - lJ _Oll 1;'.,-< '0 " ;::l " ..0 S " 0 ..c ~ -~ ~ " 2.;3 p, E . go 0 S <t:1l - ~ '0 -E3 ~ " .~ g E ~ u 8. ~ .,Q~~ u gs /~ "1J 0 ~~u ,..., "" <'i a, ... o ... " :;,0 "" < H H '" H ~ <C >< c z W 0.. 0.. <C ,-. U 0;;'- ~~ IJ< '-'~ ~~ ~CZ1 CZICZ1 ....Z ~9 oE-< UU E-<< =IJ IJ~ ....E-< CZIZ ~~ ~~ >~ 0...;1 E-<~ Z~ ~.... ~--- ~CZ1 IJZ <0 ~~ =Z E-<~ ~~ ~o IJU ~6l o N ,,;>< ~~ .- ~ ~<8 - <..>- eng, fJ Z 2 's o 10..0 ~~~ U 1-< t) 0/1<(<800 '" enCl 00" w z ,S .0 en-"'. Z1-5~ OZ~O w 11) '.c 1l..:2~!: enw " w...l,,6 "Q.~1;I.l u..:2~~ LL--o <( C @,~ I- W .- VJVJ ~.~ 0"':0 ll.. 0 " -"" 0<>..0 g: l~ <..>'" - " e-go\ .a_a rogCiO <= ,_ 0 en z o !;;; c z w :2 :2 o (.) w 0:: (.) o :2 Cl 8 .. .... 00 '" .... "" '" f;o;1 ~ ~ .... '" - '" '" U '" " '" .. " .... " = .... ~ .... "<8 .~ Q.J .~ E e - " 0 g- 0....... d) 8 g 10. <> " ~ " ~.Bil o 0 S " 0 o~~ > t) 1::: .. > 0 " " 10. .= GI) g. " '" goo 0 1-1_ '(; ;:::;: N 00 .~ 0 .s '" 0 '" lI.J '.;j 11) ~'r;j~ o,.;s .6 15-"0 !: .... g 0"".", <= il .!l t:: ....... -l:i .s ~ d) r/J > ~ CI) lU cd I!) ...=u..s::~ ..... ~ tf.l <l.) 00 C':l ou I-< 0"'1::1'- u '1j; Ei g.S 'C; 8 ~ tU ~roCl:l~ '" v;; <<i 6 .. .... 00 o .... =- '" f;o;1 ~ =- z .... o - '" '" u '" " ~ " .... " = .... - " " S o - .", " - '" " '6' " '" g .", " ~ " ':;: ~ " .0 '" " " ~ <= '@ ~ o g - r/l..,: .B '~ - " " 10. ilr/l "'~ .",0 i~ oil <..>4-< " 0 .... '" ut> 00 ::E ~ Oil '" ~ .., .>l .... o ~ = .. ~ .... " - '" .. ::;;: " 00 .. = .. .. .... ~ 00 = +:l " - Q, 6 o u ~"'a ~ ttI:-;: ..0 .5 g.'~ e u 0 o 10. 00 .... OJO" ~f::::.;3 oo~ !: ...,,;.:= .- 11) \.,J.J.j 11) ....... cS.6...= ~ - ai I:=.~ 5 ~.- [') ~ "'1::1 ""' ~ ~.g d) '0' .",.Elila Ou!+-l........ ~.J::!..H ro g-.ss I-i QJ U] ._ I-i .";::: " " c'" I-f ~._ "0 ~ .. u ~ - " ..o.:a E~ .~ ~ C':l :::l .<: So.D ~coo . 'C It - '" 0 '" tj~~~ .~ Q);::J 2 en S ~ o...~ ~ 00 d);:E 8.6 OJ..... 0.."'1::1 ~~.E~ .., v;; <l .... '" ~ = .. ~ .... " - '" .. ::;;: " 00 .. = .; .... ~ gf .. - " Q.. 8 o u ~ " <= '@ ~ o " il OJ '" " .s '" " OJ <..> o ~ 10. - " " ~ 10. " o 00 <= 'C " " <= 'Q, Jj .B ] . -1l '" - .",10. 5.g ~ ~ 8 g ,,- ~"" U t 0- ::E ~ 0::E .., v;; < o .... S' .... " 00 .. = .. .. .... ~ " - .. = '" " '" .. = - .... ~ :; ~ 00_ = = .. 0 ::l '" ~ .5 .... v;; <> == .... .. 6 .. .... e:, '" - = " 6 " > o .... Q, 8 .... " 00 .. = .. .. .... ~ " - "A = .. ~~ ~> = .. ....;; ..0 ....u 0_ '" OIl" = il: .. ..c '" - .~ = ::;;:~ .... v;; <<i '* - '" ~ .. - = ..c U CIl 1IJ 00 11.) .~ ~ d..c .5 c..c..- 'C; u;,::: ....... 1-0 ::I ~ "''''' '" ''1 r.I.l '"d I--l bJ) ilJ 1=: c<=B" 'J: ~ ::s U) o = 55 ..... .~ ~ ~ ~ gf'O' cU CIl .s..... 1-0 U .~ "'2 p. !3 ;:Et)~.c@ '(3 g, u C on ~ ~ ~ .g .s 1-0 '8 0.. "'0 ~-5 ~ U ~ ,S'~ " ~ 1J ro (f.l 0..... 1-0 ca......~ Cl;;: (.) i-I 0 llJg~tS~ ..0 ::l a .- ...... 0 0 QJ t bOU tI):O 'c .S ~ ~ u 00 0'-,_ QJ ;j...... \..0" ~.;3 >. '" "> " <= +: S t1) 11) 0 5,.;:: ~.D"" 13] ~ ~ ~ <..> OJ " .0 008001=4'"0 .- S 1:) 00 ~ ~ o.~ --S rn ~ 0 0 ~ ~ Ci5~a5ho.. ~ '<-< o "' " 00 '" 0.. " OJ .;3 ~ - ~ <..> g.,g '" ~~ 'p I::l ;.= .- '0 ~ ~~ ~~ "'- ,S '{) ~ '" <= 00 43gS' QJUb >:S >-~ ~.D"" E '"0 c S ",9 ., > -" .:=:0_ IO.~O S 8: '" .- ~ ~ c ~, CJ......~ "'0 QJ~N ..0 . - c"" ~ 'C :c -" 0 10. ':;:l'c -< "'''''4-< .", '" 0 <= " 01l e''+:: C s ~.~ o ~ 11) i:l ~ a ~ OJ 10. U ~i 0<='" ",,'- ~ ~ ~ 0 oo~ ...; E-< H '" H ;>; >< ~l <( ~ c z w a. a. <( ,-, u o~ ~~ o~ t;j"-l "-l"-l ....z :ao :a.... oE-< UU E-<-< =\.:) \.:)~ ....E-< ~z ~~ >:a o~ E-<....;j z~ ~:a :a:: ~"-l \.:)z -<0 ~~ =~ E-<~ ~:a ~o \.:)U ......~ 0.... o N m z o i= U o/l<C me> wz m- zl- OZ a.w m~ Ww o:::~ u.~ ll..- ~c m~ o lJ.. o 0::: lJ.. m z o !< c z w ~ ~ o u w 0::: U o ~ e> = '" o '" ~ ~ "':= .. Q., ~ e ~ 0 ""U ="" ..- ~1l .. '" .. '" =-..a '"' ,...; ,..: r...:f"'i = '" o '" .~ = - .. iJ= .. Q., ~ e ~ 0 ""u ="" "'0 ~~ .. '" .. .. =-~ ,...; r--:r--: ..; = .. '" - '" '" ~ = .~ '" .!! ;::: - .~ '" .. "" = o "~ .... '" .. '" '" ~ "" = .. .>l .. .. =- .., = ~ OIl = .~ "" 'S: S o '" .. .~ =-:> . .. ~= t-..Cl ..;U .~ - '" i3 ~ '" .., = o Z .. - '" ;; .. '3 ..Cl U = .. '" - '" '" ~ = "~ '" '" E - '0 .. "" = o .~ - .. '" .. '" '" ~ "" = .. .>l .. .. =- OIl = :a "~ >- o .. =- M ,..: ..; '" '" .., ~ '" "0 ~ .8.{:j u"o .S ~ = ~ "'..<: s:~ ... - .., '" ~> ::S.s =il ."U ~ = ~ OJ u _ .., '" ~ .., "O~ a .E ~ ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~.....,.s:::: (!) d) U "<:"0'" - 8 0-'" 0. - ta 0. .., 0. '" ~J::'"C "Roa ;:JU..:!3 --.., ~ g.-o .....<: 0 o u 8 ] ~ ~ '"' ~ ~ ] 5 - '" .$ .., .., ~ "0"0 o .., 8 go ~o:; .., >- =.g o...S ..9. u)" ~"" .., .., "0 1J =.0 o .~ .~ - - .~ '" u ~c$3 u"" ~ a "0"0 aB ~ p.. '" = o '.g .., ~ b .;3 ~ '" bD t).S .., ~ ::l ~ 8"S ... ... o U""..; O '" '" .., - ::S..<: .:!l ou:> ~~ ~ (5..s '"' ltu 1-207 = .. ~ .. '" 1;; .. :; = o .~ .... '" .. '" '" ~ "" = .. '" .>l .. .. =- '" ,..: ..; ,~ J:: " ..,- - .., "'- "Rs- ;:J 0 u iil '" E: .~ ... ts~ - '" '" .., ",,- ~~ .~ '" = " - '" .., '" t> .... .., bD ~ = "O~ ~ 3 "" ll"" ta a p.. .., ~ .,s ~ "" .., ~] ~I '..p >-.,..-:..,- ctI";1N a t::= \0 fr~~ ~~coO = .. ~ .. '" - '" .. :; = o .~ .... '" .. '" '" ~ "" = .. '" .>l .. .. =- '" ,..: ..; .., ~ .@ ~ ..,'"" -g .., 8~ .., u ..0 ~ B .~ p.. ~ ... - .., '" - ::l gj @ :; '" =00 .9 g ~t:.. .., ... u .., ~ "0 iil ~ '" p.. "" .., :au 0.0 ::l:; ]0 - .., ~.s q:; ;>, ",..0 .tJ ~ cd "> - .., '" ... ..= ... 1-<8 15 0. ~ '" - .~ "" o ~ 0. '" '" 'tf~ "0 '" ..= i:l ~tJrd 1:.S "0 - ..= .., bD '" 8 = .., '.p I:E .5 d).5 IZl U) v.l ...... J::....... .;3 8.~.s en !::._ .., = ~ ~ cd d) .c~g 'C '5.;S o 0-- "'.- .., 0.8 OIl... ... .9 ~::::: 0 "'000..... Q =.1::: ~ J:: S t),.q '.g ",,8~8 - __ 0 cd 1l5so8 ~ 6 J:: B .a tg .9 $ ~ fr!9 ~ ....0::>..0 C d) g.~ 'C oS 0.. S '~fo"E~ =- ::l 2 "" ~ 0..... ctI . .;3 1: "'0 ~-O!:: ",<:u", '" OIl = :a = r;;:: "" '0 ..Cl '" '" .. ..Cl '"' ,...; .., s - '" :s - '" .., = ~ ~I t- ";:: o ";:: =- ,...; oci ..; oci " u .. .'" .:: ~ a , .. ~ "" - 1l '" '" .. ..Cl '"' '" t- .~ .. o .~ .. =- '" oci ..; "ii ~ :3 2l~'O E.D ~ gfv g ~"8 g ~ e rn - '" '" '" ClI'- .s =~.a .~ oil-g ~ = 0 ""i+::;;l a ~ ::; ~ in ~ '" ... "" = .., = '" u '" u:l tS d) ;>'0 o.~ -->- 0.8 g &3 '" '" .., Q.,'" '" <8 - .., '" - '" ..... cd........ > 'C~ '" 0. u "3 8 I:: ..<: 0. 0 U g.,$ 4-<..c ~ o '" .., 0..... ........ .~::O ~ U.5 J:: d) enS ..= .., '" f-;.8t:i " u .. '" .~ - ~ a , .. ~ "" - o ..Cl '" '" .. ..Cl '"' '" .e- .;:: o "~ .. =- '" oci ..; - = i 0. .., o .., .~ "0 p.. .., .,s ~ '" ..<: o - ... .., bD '" a ::s .0 (5 .., .,s - u ~ 'B .., u iil E <8 II 0. .= .., = .~ u .g .., .,s OIl .= '" '" .., ;g '" a -a g ..p " '" - = " E " ~ - .~ " !3 o u .0"" u a .., ..<: - ~ ~ .., ta fr ... 0. '" 4-< o '0 " 00 '" "" a < ., H "., H :u >< "" <( >< c z W Il. Il. <( ,-.. u 0... ~~ S2,~ ~~ t;jrJ"l rJ"lrJ"l .....z ~O ~E= Ou u< E-<~ ~~ .....E-< ~z ~~ >~ O~ E-<~ z~ ~e ~rJ"l ~z <0 z..... ~~ =~ E-<~ g~ ~o ~u ~r:a o N oo"S~~gfcti~~ '0 "'C 0 +-> ..... ~ '.p: E o o..s= ~ 4-1 ~ C'j (lj E S gp..... 0 ..... e ~"'O CD o1!o"5g~,:: I=:l blJ..t=.......... cd..... (lj CI)~,::-"t~'"C~cd Z ~~ V) 0 ""' cd VJ^ Oti~Efr,::at]~e i= ~ t5 g ~ .~ 0] ..c: '.p: .... ~ \0;3 <:'0 S ;:: '= 1;l:::: ~ cio......~o8~~a~ tJJ (.!)..... 0 cd -- ,.J:J 0..;;> 1ij N ~ 0 ;::l ~ U) CIl W Z 1-0 t::: \J) 1U 00 Ul .~ 4) cd (f) -I- c:::: Q,~ 11) ~ 1-0 V'J" Z 0 ] .s 15: ~ Cl .!= V N d) offi:Ef-< g 2"0" &~.c~ a.:5;::l "'l::I l-; ti Cd ~ r.E 'C <l) ~ w g.~ '"C (lj 4) UJ ~~.@ ~ _...Jo. "'-g ~ '" ~ .51 <> OU -== 0 ............ 4)............._ 1=: 1-0 LL _ " .I,J 11) ~ t)...... ll) ...... <( c -.51 " b" ".~ '" E t-wn H,::UJ~ ~t:.€ en en 0..'"0..0 Q.) E cd ~ ~ a c: 1-0 d) UJ..c blJ J::: 1-0 d)'- o 8 ~ .a :s ;9 .S ~ g"O ~ c.. ~ '"C ;:I VJ C) 0..'- +-> 0"-<0 5' S ,. ~ ;:::: S >,l! ~ _ .~ -..... 0 0 " ~ '" w.. +-> VJ 0.. Cd '+-i c..;>' cd....... (lj () !:l cd ati15:-""3CdNA'O~ '" '" " :>....:: p. - - .-...... s ..... u ..... .c g - ~ .e 11) u .~ 't:1 VJ g [) cd u:J -a d) ~ s.9: r.n 0.. > a ~ .s .,s.,s s >I:: <: .S ] (f) z o !;t c z w :2: :2: o () w e::: () o :2: C) u"'C,S oat:: ::E Oll 0 o.s ~ p..... ~..9~ ~ ~ ~ _ui..g VJ ... c; = ,:: u.- 11) _, '" 51 "~'5 .c5hP. ..... 0 11) c: l-<Q 'J: p. " ~~] .......:: 0 o-~ <H 0 " '"d"'.,s '000= ..c: 0._ "'O'"d ]N~ - >, " .n " u,,~ 0" .... ::E 0 " o'"d.n " " ll)..o ~ .:f3 r.f.l = 00:.2 ~ " - p. ',C ~ (1) H o:S -S S '" gp 0'"0 '.0: U -E=o ~ S S::E .", g..!l 0 cd 0 0.. 11) <> " 51-" 1-01-0._ ~ '" " ... = = ~ <:> ,..., " " -= f-< ... '" OJ) " o ... OJ) " ;;;I " f-< '" = " u ,..., " '" " o ~v:i ,,- .... g :€ s- ~ .~ ~ ~ c;;'~ " Oll - " .c" .~ OJ) .... " .9 '.p .... -= ~ '" t:: " o .... p.>, ~ a o '" - '" ,,- @03 '.J:l ~ " '" o '" " '" -~ .~ " 5 's ~~ '" l:S p.> " 0 0", " " ...:: S f-< '.0 c .~ ... o .~ ... ~ ..., oci ,..; '" '" ... = = ~ <:> ,..., " " -= f-< ... '" OJ) = o ... OJ) = ;;;I " f-< '" - - " u ,..., >> ... .;:: o .~ ... ~ ..., oci ,..; -B "-< o ~ ~ .;;: '" " " .... .... " " ~ t:: " o .... !~ .... - " ~.s ~~ U'"d o a ::E o .,; B S u:l S '.J:l .~.- (l) S ~ .,s ~ '~::2 ~ " a " '"d-".... ,.2+:1[3 .5 ~ ~ ........~.9 = 0 " 8:;:;-5 t:: 0 0 '" 0_ p. ~ " ,,- " Q.s"'O d) U).J!3 .~ :::::: :; "0 ~ ~ ~- .... " " -5,€'E ~ ~ ro ,...C.- 00 ~ l:i ~ 1-208 ,..., .c .J: o 'J: ~ o ~ '"d .... '" Oll " .... .,s .~ " " ~ ,S <>0 "'- ..9 .... " " ~ > " 0 " '" t~ ~" o ~ " 0 .~ ~ "0 e ~...:: d) .~ .,s ~ 1;j~ ...::- f-< ~ 51 '" " Ol ,~ " '" " .,s ~ " .;;: ~ o ~ '" " = '" '" >-< ... '" -= ... o u o ::E o " -P .,s .~ ~ ~ oj -- ;;:: ~ ~ " i::u "0 ~~ fr~ o 1J " " ~.,s ..; oci ,..; '" g '" .~ " '" " .,s '" '" = '" '" >-< ... '" -= ... o ..; oci ,..; - '" .,s "' " 51 .", " '" 0: o g. ~ OJ' " E " '" " .;,a '0 . p." "-<- o ~ .c" .~ u '"0 &::E ",0 -Bt< ~ ~ = " S-P S '" O'"d " " ~ ~ u .~ o f;; ::E .... o.,g '" " " .;;: ... '" '" - >, " " '" ... '" .~ '" = o U "" o .~ ... '" ~ OJ) = .~ - ... o p. '" ~ <i " '" fi: -B = o '"d " '" '" .n " .n '" 4-0 o r- " "" oj '" ,..., -=i ..., - - .~ '"d .,. .... " p. Oll = '-E o ~0.... -B '"d a "' !:l " S u .... -B o ~ " " ... '" .~ '" = o U "" o .~ ... '" ~ OJ) .S ... ... o p. " ~ - < c z W 0. 0. <C ,-, u O~ ~~ z~ O;:J .....1J). 1J). 1J).1J). .....z ~O ~~ Ou u< E-<e,:I =z sa~ ~~ >~ O....:l E-<~ z~ ~:: ~1J).z e,:I <0 z~ ~~ =z ~~ ~O ~~ Q Q M I CI) z o t; oll<( (1)(!) wz (1)- Zl- offi D..:ii: (1)w w...J e:::D.. 11.:ii: 11.- <(0 I-w CI)CI) o D.. o e::: D.. o - CI) z o !;;: o z w :ii: :ii: o () w e::: () o :ii: (!) ~ ... h "" oj a ::E C U ] '+.; '" d '" 05 - oj 05 '" " '" "'g - ~ " ;3 ~ '" '" ... .;;: '" '" E;:: ... - 'K '" '" "E " oj '" ]05 - ... "'<Si '" '" '" .~ - '" o oj {iJ.o "'~ ilo5 I' " eo is:: ... " .... '" eo ::;: O~] - .~ t/.l~S 8 G) ~ !3 " '" o a 00 Ul >.S "'''' g,o< .E .~ '" "'!:;j!::~ :3 oj_ "" . '" >. oo1ti'"g " '" .p ;;;l "" '" " 0 '" u ~ ~ oj >.- '+.; -P-o <: " tU U 0 ~ 1ii '.p o oj '" "::E -a '" 8 .- ell 0 . '" "U 15:-E ~o o ~ 8.2: 8oj::JO ~ ~ . 0 0..000.;3 ~.=.... 0 >-<~<- ~'" eEt::E rz~o5 """"", (l) E g. e ..r:: 0 r" 0. f-< " ~" '" .S! .... == ~ f;o;; " ... fi: M ci '" ;; is:: ... " .... '" eo ::;: ] ~ - " ~ g " '" o '" '.p clj "'~ -", s-~ ;3~ ]1:: - 8.. ~ g. ~'" ~~ o .~ 0"" - '" ... " '" a ""> oj", a< ::E", ca U GJ 10 "'", 05 "" _ 0 ~ a ~~ - ... " '" " 1;; o oj 8::E '" .q]:l U;.=: lIJ'O 0 -5~:o .~ ~ e ~ ..r::...... Q) f-<~<H '" " .~ ;<::: ::l " eo f;o;; " ... fi: M '" ....; Q o f-< i s " "" oj " oj ::;: OIl " t: '" "" " ~ "l ~ '" - '" '" f-< .... " " Ei " OIl oj " oj ::;: OIl " 'l:l ... '" p.. " ~ '" ci '" ~ E5 1-209 '" '" 3 ;g 1;; <I) '" 05 "" " '"@ s <I) ! ~ .~ " - - .~ '5 ~ if '" '" . .= ~ ~5h <I) 0 ~~ o - h "" oj a ::E c U '" 05 ]~ -~ " 0", .., " " oj " . tS"S ""0 .8 ~ <g- p.. . e~ - '" oj '" p.. !:l .~ 8.'" '" '" ~o5 >.'" " '" "(;:1 ~'.c t) 5 S:S "'", 11 a {iJ " :E ..2 oj oj -- '" '" '" '>. e..c .. >''';2 +:l 0 H J::: '.p ctl lU ctl ... " " '" 0,) t:: 15 ... 0 '" OJ d ;::: o5~ 8. '" '" 8 ~ '" 0 S.-ffi u '.p.- iU " E ;:l o ;:3.S u""_ - " <I) .= '" - '5 :3 o u c U '" 05 '" ~ - ] "'. "'''' (;:1- '.p ~ " '" '" '" :Sil ",- gJj '" - "'- .~ '" gs E '" .as iiJ", '" 0'" - '" '" '" " " oj " P.] .8 ~ '" h .~ " i2 a 8 s [ob '" ~ s '" .~ ";> ; ~ " c; .~ E 0 E '.;:Z " " .~ oj a ~ ~ .~ '" t:: " 0 ~ " -; " OIl .~ 00 " = ... CJ eo .- ... :;f-< ... I-~ <:> .- o. ... '" -; " CJ OIl lEoo I'G " ~I~ ... ,... 0_ ... . <:> ~ '" ii 5 "" o '" oj ..c: on '" - ... " " s .... '" " .- "'" -< ~ 00 h <::: oj 5 .~ - oj B '" " ~ ~ '" :s '" ~ .= ~ '" ~ ~ ~ oj - '" ;:: " Ei t; " .- '"<:l -< '" 05 ~ ..c: - '" is ~ o " '" ... ... '" . ~~ "'~ a~ a ;;, ~ .~ 'g 8- ..c: 0 '" '" "'05 05 " h ......~ u oj 8] ',c ~ ""- o oj '" > 1:: or o ~ 8;", 0.0 '" = u .9 010 ::Ez (j'UJ I '" ... o 00 ~ '" '" - < E-< H '" ~ '" <( ~ c z W Il. Il. <( ,-, u.,. o~ ~~ ~~ ....00. 00. 00.00. ~~ ~E:: u~ ~~ ....E-- ~Z ~~ 6~ E--~ ~~ ~~ 0Z <0 zE:: ~< =~ ~~ ~O 0U t;~ Q N en z o i= (.) o!l< enC) Wz en- Zl- offi a.::!!: enw W..J lk:a. u..::!!: u.. - <0 I-w en en o a. o lk: a. en z o < o z w ::!!: ::!!: o (.) W lk: (.) o ::!!: C) '" ... '" "', ... ... rn >> ... [) .... ., = ., .. .... ... is ~ .= '" i:li 2l " '" ... = " = '" == '.. ~ " ,:'; '" = " "iJ ... ~ u " "" ,S ... " ~ j "! Q ~ ...., '- o ~ E! 82 o '" a>> rn " ... oS 5 " a '. " >,"" - " 1:1 f;J ~~ u 5 .~ s o!;' '. " u~ '" ~ '" ... - rn >, ... [) .... ., = ., .. ... " - := ~ ~ i:li "Cl ;; '" u = ~ '" ... = .. " ~ " g " " B " '@ a '- o " ,:'; '" ;::l 'U .S r.n "t; ~~ ~ '" 1:10 .., '. au ~~ " ... aca ::E"Cl ... .., " ... .., 5 ~] " 0- ~ a " ,- -"Cl " f;J -B"O ~B " 0- ~~ o .., u.o .., '" ... .., u:g ~JJ CJ i;l "! Q .... l"i u o ::E CJ .., ~ "" '- ., ~ 0- " "' " '" '" :i5 " Eo< .... ., .... 5 ... ., r-. "' 0- S .., "' .., -B .., '" ;::l B .., ;::l ,S ... S en u,2 u ->, ~ ~ :~H ... .., rn ... "1 Q ~ ...., ~ .., ';:: .., ... '" -B ... <8 "Cl .., "' ;::l .., .0 "'" .., '" ';:: ~ "' " g: a '" '" ~ Eo< .... ., .... a ... ., r-. "' I .., "' .., ::g ... u w:: 'jd J:l on " '': .., .., }~ .., e -B2 rtjt8 ..c:,- Eo< 0 "l o ..-; C') 1 210 '" .... o '" ~ '" "" '" Q ., -= ... rn '" '" '" 6'. ., ... ~ Q ., .= ... rn U o ~ .... .... ~ '" .... S ~Z - '" '" " 6'. ., ... ~ '" - ., ., .= ... rn - ., ., .= ... rn U ~ < H H "" H t:d >< '" .... .... ~ .., .... " .... 0 l"iZ