HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2004/10/13 (2)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
d--
Item No.:
Meeting Date: 10/13/04
ITEM TITLE:
Report: PCM-04-02, Review and Consideration of the Schools Element
of the Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) 2003-04
Annual Report.
Resolution: PCM-04-02C that the Planning Commission Accepts the
Schools Element of the 2003-04 Element of the GMOC's Annual Report
and Recommends that the City Council Accepts the 2003-04 Schools
Element of the GMOC Annual Report and the Recommendations
Contained Therein.
BACKGROUND:
On June 23, 2004 the GMOC presented its 2003 Annual Report to the Planning Commission
regarding compliance with the City's eleven Quality-of-Life Threshold Standards. At the
presentation, the GMOC Chair with the concurrence of the Mayor and City Manager, decided to
recomrnend continuance of the presentation of the Schools element until a later time. The
GMOC had decided to broaden the traditional definition of the schools threshold. The delay was
al10wed based on assurances by the Sweetwater Union High School District that their Long
Range Facilities Master Plan (LRFMP), would be made available to the GMOC after approval
by their board, expected in July 2004. The GMOC has received the LRFMP with the findings
presented by the SUHSD staff. After considering this information the GMOC has finaled their
schools findings and recommendations and are reporting back to the Planning Commission.
The report covers the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, identifies current issues in
the second half of 2003 and early 2004, and final1y assesses threshold compliance concerns over
the next 5 years. The report discusses current compliance, issues, and corresponding
recommendations. A Surnnlary of the GMOC's recommendations for Schools and staffs
proposed implementation actions is included as Attachment 1.
Once approved by the City Council the schools element will be integrated into the remainder of
the GMOC report as was approved by Council on June 23, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission:
a) Adopt a resolution accepting and approving the schools element of the 2003-04
GMOC Annual Report as presented herein and recommends approval by the City
Council.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/04
DISCUSSION
1. Summary of Findings
Threshold Compliance
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Threshold met
Threshold likely met over the next five years
Sweetwater Union High Scull District
Threshold met
Threshold likely met over the next five years
2. Summary of Key Issues
School Threshold
The measures of whether schools have met the growth management threshold has been the
"Capacity to accommodate students used now or committed." Evaluation of this criteria is
based on a self-assessment by the districts, of their ability to house students. To house students
has been traditionally interpreted by the GMOC to mean to provide a desk. The GMOC is
continuing to use this definition.
Using this definition the CVESD and the SUHSD have met the threshold and are expected to do
so over the next five years.
Looking to the future the GMOC has stated that the definition of "accommodate" should be
expanded to include a broader definition of the physical needs of students necessary for the
education process and for parity of school facilities across the district. The GMOC has indicated
their intent to work through the "Top to Bottom" review of the growth management program
and in consultation with the school districts, to accomplish this end.
Financing for West Side Schools
Over the long term there is the potential for significant residential growth on the west side of the
City. These demands, while several years away, may exceed the school districts current capacity
to accommodate students. The remedy to build additional capacity is hampered due to the lack
of identified financing.
The GMOC recognizes that being proactive in identifying a strategy for financing construction
of new school capacity in the City's established western neighborhoods is a timely action. The
GMOC believes that the respective school districts should take the lead role once the broad
growth parameters are identified in the General Plan Update and Urban Core Specific Plan. The
GMOC is recommending that the City provide assistance to the school districts as appropriate in
the identification of viable financing options.
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 10/13/04
Extraordinary Delay
Last year the GMOC issued a Statement of Concern regarding the timing for high school (HS)
13, which the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) has indicated, will be needed by
July or September of2006.
As then, it is recognized that efforts are fully underway between the school district, the City and
the major developers in eastern Chula Vista to meet this schedule. To date the schedule for HS
13 is on track to meet the deadline.
The GMOC was satisfied that the schedule although tight is obtainable and that time for
unanticipated delay is factored into the program. However, should an extraordinary delay occur
that creates a situation where HS 13 will not open by September 2006, the GMOC is
recommending that the City, staying within their jurisdictional domain, provide assistance to the
SUHSD in developing options so as to avoid school crowding.
3. Conclusions
A concise summary of the GMOC's recommendations and corresponding staff responses is
presented in Attachment 1 (labeled as Appendix A in the GMOC Report).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time. As specified follow-up actions are brought forward to the City Council, fiscal
analysis of these actions will be provided.
Attachments:
1 - Schools Element 2003-04 GMOC Report
2 - 2003-04 GMOC Schools Recommendations/Proposed Implementing Actions Summary
(Will be included as Appendix A, in the 2003-04 GMOC Annual Report).
RESOLUTION NO. PCM 04-02C
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING'
THE SCHOOLS ELEMENT OF THE 2003-04 GMOC ANNUAL
REPORT
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is
responsible for monitoring the City's eleven growth management quality of life threshold
standards and reporting their findings and recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, the GMOC finalized its 2003-04 Schools
Element of their Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003, identifies current issues in the second half of 2003 and early 2004, and finally
assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next 5 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula Vista accepts the 2003-04 GMOC Schools Element of the GMOC Annual
Report and approves the recommendations contained therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council accepts the Schools Element of the
2003-04 GMOC Annual Report and the recommendations contained therein.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13 day of October 2004 by the following vote to-
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Marco Polo Cortes, Chairman
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
3.11 SCHOOLS
Threshold:
The City of Chula Vista sha1l annua1ly provide the two local School
Districts with a 12-18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their
ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing !,'fowth. The
Districts' replies should address the following:
I. Amount of current capacity now used or committed.
2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities.
3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new
facilities.
4. Other relevant information the Districts desire to communicate to the
City and GMOC.
THRESHOLD FINDING:
CURRENT: Capacity to accommodate students used now or committed.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT -
Threshold Met
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT-
Threshold Met
FORECAST: Ability to accommodate forecasted growth - Funding and
site availability for projected new facilities.
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT -
Threshold Likely Met
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT-
Threshold Likely Met
3.11.1
Threshold Compliance
Discussion:
The scho01 threshold issue is undoubtedly the most complex topic the
GMOC has to consider. Schools are among the most important
community resources but since the schools are governed by a politica1
body separate from the City, the GMOC has no direct means to affect
change. Moreover, because of Senate Bill 50, which was enacted to
obtain support from the Building Industry Association (ElA) for school
bond issues, 10ca1 governments cannot require extra fees or require the
establishment of a Mello Roos from new deve10pment to finance
schools. So, although the City can levy fees for road, sewer, and park
improvements, the city cannot do the same for schools. Also, based on
the same law cities are not allowed to regulate the rate of growth of
residential development based on scho01 impacts.
Even though there is little recourse for action, the GMOC believes that it
must take a strong position if a school threshold compliance is in
question.
In this context the GMOC must make a judgment call on whether the
schools are accommodating the existing student population and whether
there will be adequate capacity to accommodate future students in the
next 5 years. If the GMOC believes that students are not being
accommodated now, then the threshold fails. If the GMOC believes that
accommodation may not be made in the future, a "Statement of
Concern" is issued.
The definition of the term "accommodate" is key. Since the threshold
has been monitored the term "accommodate" has been narrowly
interpreted by the City/GMOC to mean the physicaUy housing of
students, specifically that each student has a chair/desk. The term
"accommodate" can also be used in a broader context that includes more
qualitative topics such as adequate non-classroom facilities as restrooms,
proper lighting, having comparable facilities across the district, or
setting a standard for being technologically equipped.
Statement:
After a significant amount of discussion, the GMOC has concluded that
"accommodate" as referenced in the Schools quality of life threshold
language, should mean more than just to house students. The GMOC has
decided that in the spirit of creating a quality of life threshold, it is a
reasonab1e interpretation that a quality of life threshold cannot be only
students being housed, but must instead be inclusive of those aspects that
give it quality.
2
Finding:
Special Comment:
3.11.2
Issue:
The GMOC' recognizes that both school districts currently meet the
threshold standard.
At the same time, as indicated above, the GMOC has concluded that the
traditional threshold definition of "accommodate" being a desk per each
student does not adequately address the intent of the threshold. The
GMOC will work through the "Top to Bottom" update of the City's
Growth Management program, and with school district participation, to
recommend to Council the appropriate threshold change so that the term
accommodation is explicitly defined along with additional relevant
threshold language.
The GMOC appreciates and acknowledges the support and voluntary
participation that the school districts provide to the City's Growth
Management Program and the GMOC. Both school districts have
completed questionnaires and assigned staff to brief the GMOC on
vanous Issues.
Managing a school district of the size and with the growth dynamics
being faced in the South County is a monumental challenge. While
improvements are being made and plans for further work are in place the
GMOC continues to recognize problems, a principle concern being the
disparity of facilities among middle and high schools.
While these disparities are an important issue, the GMOC recognizes and
commends the SUHSD for their recently completed Long Range Facility
Master Plan (LRFMP). It is the LRFMP that is designed, in part, to
specifically address issues of basic parity among all schools. The
LRFMP establishes facility quality standards, assessment of those
standards by school, and a program for correcting deficiencies with a
financing plan over a multi-year period. This is precisely the kind of
program which is necessary to help assure future compliance.
The GMOC seeks to support the SUHSD in whatever way possible to
improve the physical condition of our schools so as to provide a quality
leaming environment and will be requesting annual updates on the
progress of the LRFMP.
Growth and School Financing
School financing in new growth areas has been accomplished through the
wil1ingness of developers to add Mello Roos fees to their homes. While
not required to do so, developers understand that without schools the
marketability and therefore value of their homes will suffer. While this
is a product of enlightened self-interest, many suburban developers in
other areas are still not willing to add these fees to their homes. Chula
Vista is fortunate to have the willingness of the developers who are
3
building in our eastern areas. This financing stream is then used to
match state funds, and school construction goes foreword.
In urban areas experiencing infill and demographic change financing is
not so easy. When a new home is built or added on to, the owner must
pay a set per foot fee with the maximum set by the state to offset school
impacts. In Chula Vista that per foot fee is about $3.00 and covers both
elementary and secondary schools. According to the school districts this
amount is far short of what it takes to reach the match level to attract
state funds for new construction. The other way to finance schools is for
the impacted area to establish a community finance district (CFD) and
then assess themselves a Mello Roos fee to pay for the school. This
requires a 2/3 vote of approval trom residents to pass. Most believe that
such self-assessment is unlikely to receive the necessary votes,
particularly in the lower income parts of the city and where there is a
predominance of rental property by non-resident owners.
There are three growth dynamics in play in the City's older urban areas.
The first is thus far anecdotal, due to the steadily rising cost of housing it
is believed that household sizes are increasing and the occurrence of
more than one family per home/apartment is also increasing. Both of
these actions produce more children per home/apartment. The second is
the recently enacted right to build an accessory unit of 850 square feet on
single-family lots. An 850 square foot unit is suitable to support a small
2 bedroom home/apartment. Depending upon the market, this could
contribute an additional source of new students. And third, there is the
possibility for residential intensification with increased densities across
the range from town-home style, to low-mid and high-rise (8 to 14
stories) development.
The acceptability of paying increased fees to pay for schools in western
Chu1a Vista is unknown. As referenced earlier, areas experiencing
demographic change and increased accessory units may not agree to a
self-assessment. Residential intensification may be more agreeable to
accept the fee but a school impact fee cannot be mandated. If the builder
does not see the marketing advantage of having school availability they
may not agree.
The school districts and the City are aware of the impending demands
that may be made on the districts older established schools. These
demands may exceed the school districts capacity to house the students.
The remedy to build additional capacity is hampered due to the lack of
local financing.
The GMOC believes that finding reasonable options for financing
construction of new school capacity in the City's established
neighborhoods is a timely consideration given the potential for growth in
the next 5 years..
4
Recommendation:
Although it is the school districts responsibility to take the lead role in
identifying financing, this issue will likely require multi-jurisdictional
cooperation.. Schools are a key community resource that recognizes no
jurisdictional boundary. In that regard, the GMOC recommends that the
City Council direct the City Manager to assemble a team of staff from
the City, to assist school district statT in a review of financing options
that are both feasible and politically acceptable, and report to the GMOC,
on their findings.
3.11.3 School Construction
Discussion: Both school districts serving Chula Vista, Chula Vista Elementary
School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High School
District (SUHSD) have engaged in significant building and expansion
programs to match the areas rapid growth. The school district's efforts
are commendable. At the same time the pressure to provide more
classrooms and more schools to satisfy demand shows no sign of a
slowdown. In response to this challenge each district is continuing to
expand.
3.11.3 A School Construction - Elementary Schools
Issue: In last year's GMOC report, it was recognized that the CVESD had
maintained a pace of building a new elementary school a year not to
mention the addition of relocatable classrooms on existing school sites.
As one of last year's recommendations the GMOC recommended that
over the next 2 years that 3 schools be built as compared to the usual 2.
It has been reported that over the last year construction of 2 schools has
been completed, one located in Rolling Hills Ranch and the other in
EastLake. The next school is targeted to be in Otay Ranch Village 6.
Construction will begin in November 2004 with completion planned for
September 2005.
Recommendation:
That the City continues to work with the CVESD in identifying areas
approved for residential development that will require the construction of
elementary schools with the schools in Otay Ranch Village 6 and then
Village II being on the critical path of development.
3.11.3 B
School Construction - Middle and High Schools
Issue:
The SUHSD has completed the construction of 2 high schools and I
middle school in the last two years. The only thing more remarkable
5
Recommendation:
3.11.4
Joint Use
Issue:
than this achievement is that this added capacity at the high school level
will be consumed in the next 2 years. It was reported last year by the
SUHSD that another high school, starting with a 9th grade class, IS
needed for the school year beginning in July or September of 2006.
The SUHSD, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community
are working in close coordination to meet this timeframe. Currently a
new high school site has been identified with a purchases agreement in
process, Construction funding is anticipated to be available, and plans
used for the Otay Ranch High School can be reused so as to fast track the
approval process. Timing will be contingent upon receiving the
necessary environmental approvals and the ability to provide
infrastructure to the location in a timely fashion so that construction can
begin on schedule. City assistance has been requested and given to
facilitate this effort. Rain delays have been included in the schedule.
The GMOC commends the SUHSD and the City of Chula Vista for
pursuing and staying on-track with an aggressive construction schedule.
That should there be an extraordinary delay in the construction of high
school 13 that will put completion of phase one past the September 2006
date, the City Council shall direct the City Manager to alert the GMOC
and offer continued assistance within the ability of the City to the
SUHSD in developing student accommodation options so that over
crowding does not occur.
Schools belong to the community. Naturally their priority is for
education. But schools are also a community resource and should be
potentially available for broader usage. In fact this philosophy is in
practice with a joint use library, some joint use recreational resources,
and joint use of facilities. The GMOC holds public workshops in school
facilities and recognizes this as a form of joint use.
The overall success of joint use activities depends upon the mutual
benefit that can be derived between the City and the school districts.
While some successes can be pointed to, there are also examples of
failure. These failures have been attributed to organizational culture and
the individual principal being able to act unilaterally in restricting such
activities. Ultimately, the joint use agreement fails when the two parties
do not see an overriding benefit.
6
N
~
~
~
()
<t
t-
'4
<t
~
o
z
UJ
0.-
ca
-------
--- 0
---- I-< <( ........
oD~ ~ ~ g
.S .2 ~ E: ~
>' U 0 .~
c;1 ........!'!.I ~
-;;::t:.ci~o
~~<Ot-o
~ 't) ~ .;:::
? 1]) a '\G'~
- ~ d.~ ~
~ \-- B~ ~
~ 0 (}......~
t:. 4- 'U ~ U
.- ,- ... 4-\ 0)
"'4.uo~
.,.-< i;,.L.. ._ ~
~;~~~
OL 0,... '''';
.S r~ a,) V JB '0
~C)~..s~4-'
.:0 S..... 0 'p'_
~ r./I '+-< <J) G)
0) (/) 0 ~o'~ '"
% " oQ.~
cJ)~co,--B
if1 Q ~ 0
o <. ~ T; 0 .S
(.) b[).~ ~ -B if!.
~ .S ~ ~ 'fJ ~
V u .P ,.-': V "11-<
.,i:;O;::-<.-'~~"t}
-- ~ <J) <:.) ~.......
~ .S rA.s p-o
.-+;::~ rn r./I~O
'i?=- (/) e, tQ 0 0
rJJ.~.-o.--< ~.-5
~ ~ ~ ~.~ 1JJ
~ .~ .J:: ~ ~ ~
o r,~ 0 If) 'a: ........
(,) _.~ tQ tV
u..c. if> '(2 ?
;:::=.,...... ~.--< "'--<
c;$'--< 0..... 0
~-g~0~>
C~ ,~-5 p.,8
'~"tQ './" if]
u
~
-- ,..... ~.,...... 'ca
~........ ........ ........
....... ~'3 ~ 'tQ
~~~gg
>:..- ~ .~~ "
U;7;;>~'5~
v..gu e-o~
~ ~ v t.8 0;::""">
- "1 P " "'u'
4-'~........._
o v' " ~ Ij)
cfj;-'--o <f1_::::..
~ ~ ..-' t1 ==: ~
o 0 ~ ~.f'" -,;.-.
~ ~ Il) ~,.!)
iUt::P-<OtIJ"'O
~ "~ .s ~ ~ ~
......... '0 .-0 ,_ v
~ogg~g..
'" {; ." '" " "
~if>~~~~
.~ ........ 0.-0 {:: 11)
~oBU.--<Od
'.... '"
o(/}~? .-g
........ ......? 0 'OJ) ~
oQ~oV"""
I),) 0 "'0 g:~ ~
~ 0 g co g.~
......... 0.. 4-< t:
~ " 'iJ ~ " "
.......co~~~o..
W \-'.. ___ ...... rfJ
(\) OJJ "" tQ (/)..
NO.... ~ :;;.-,
-~ p,.U ~ Z;.~
8 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~
11)..- ~ ~ ."-'-5
,... '" "
'-~ .'?O~
,....... ? ..- ..- ..-' .;:
~,..o,-~"'d"P
(/} ...... v._
~"'dc!J}~
""" " " "
;~ ~ tQ'-
u-
<'1
~
'"
~
8
%
q
"
,...
"
-B
-B
.~
iJ1
~
~
~"
~~
~i
~~
~~
....~
~...
i:"'~
iJ1iJ1
o
g ~~
~g
~
iJ1
G
o
~~
~<
~~
~';;J
~Vl
'-<Vl
~~
~~
u~
~'"
8~
~r-<
~~
6~
~
~~
~~
t5Vl
<8
~~
~:.1,
~A
~~
r-<~
~~
o~
~8
~a
1'<1
o
o
M
'"
~
...
~
~
~
%
u
~
u
o
~
-
-
------;;;-" ~
~ ----- ~b~
,- a; ;::.
.- ----,_4-\---0 ~O'-D
--- If) 0 0 ~ ? a;
--"'oQ on;;""
~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ 1JJ ~
.~ " .~ 0) ~ " _ .~ g ;:::
v 9. ~ ~ tJJ'r'p ~ 0 ,.....
"0''0 0 " - :;; 13 ';j 0);;> _
,....~ " 0 '" ,... !7 5 ;::: p 5
"g]\','d~",~ :S:'~8
~ ':5 ;; ,... ~ " '" " .", .3 g-
(\.) .'!' .P U ~._ ?-> ...... ~ ~ .-
~ .~ -<-' 0 ~ '- ;:: A g' ~ ~
- - 0) ~ rf1 '........ d ,," 1-' ro ?"
Ij) ;:j; u d ~ u V'...... a;
~ d ,... ,., t;, ';j '"' ;::: 0 oQ
'" " ",-, o.~ '-o..~ '....
-1'1)0 ............0 ...--u~~o
o ,... '" " ,... 0 p< _ .~ ;:::
-" \', -B 'g,jfj oQ " '" ;!!. ;;
i:'<:1",."""" -B-Bop<
""\',<;::"2.'ii~'" p,,~","
J" '" "~"" ",,, <;:: " 0 0
';n" 2 ,,--'"0:0 on '3 " '" ';j
" -'" " ,... , o.~ ,.. p< " .;::
o '..= 8 ...... C',..d ~ .:::: ~ 0 ~ 0
ti\"- 0.%0 ~~~ 13,,:: ~
"~"-,,-;;j ~"-t'-t'
,... '> ..> d ;::: .';'. oS .", 0 .g os: "
\Ci"~""_,,,o,, _ "0
0,,_ -"'.Dp "'"'""'on
.>:: '" oj . 0 '" " - " ';j '0 "
~.'" " \:' ~ 0 );! g ~ " 0'0)
'0 ," =: ~ 'oQ - - .~ ~ ;::: .D
';:::. w ...... ~ co U" ~'';:: u
'O";::{fJR~i:?.s::. o.W(/},-
o . '0 g 'iS~ -;;, 0 0 \', \:'_
{;~'~.D"U,,~ "13"'<g"
'" 'G ,,- ,~ " .S 0 ;;:: ,.... " ~
"""'i'iup;s.." uoQO):;:::
-S i'i .S ~ - 0 -B " ~ B;;>
"';;j . - .~ " on 0 -B 0 _ "
.~ g ''; u 0 " ~ _ ,... " "
.';0 ~;j"'5\ ";;jG t: .% '6>'0 oS
..c:. ...... ('j -...... ,..t:: ~ 0 r-< d
cDJ:'t) 3 ~~ ~ p. c'
? ..;:. po.,-, ~ ro: ~ ~
.B58g-sv;
<~u
-:
- -----
-
r-\
-
-
-----
------
'"
':5
o
g
o
~
'"
<;;;
~
o
'"'
-
-
,...
" "
..g,~'6-B ~
...... 0 ~ 0 ~
;:: N .r, -+-' ~
4--< ~d ~6
0..0. .u _
g%~.ug
"B 0.. b Il) if>
~t)~-Bg
J:j r./'l '-'......
'G~$og.
8~b~
1) ~ ~6 g
-:S p.. ~...o.;=
~ I1J (Ii ro d
~"~""'6
~ ~ ~~ g
.-" if]...... ~
.g~u'~Q
~P-<u+-'3
i:t:I '- -B.~ ro
p, 0 ...- ..... +-'
-..a p. U a; 0;::.
..... 0 0) () iU
O..;j.~ '-.-0
t"J v rQ ;a ;j
.e.'C.~-+if,~ .
f"o d i:<$...... .....
rU E,.t:; ~ ~?
~ u if! ro S. ~
~ ~ ~...-o.p.. 0
1) .-' t} 0) 0 ->-'
,DP.~?'V,9
0) - .-J t: ? ......
.... ~ q"zj. 1) en
~~U~-og
"""~~~81='"O
"'"d .P .~ ._ cD
~..... v..... ~
2~1)~p:..E
,n......-Bo~;;;
...... '0. 0
~~~~~t
~ ~.-o ~
"':
-
~
------