Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/03/05 Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista In the OffIce of the City Clerk and that I posted thl8 \ { , ocument on the bulletin board according to ~ f ~ I ts ~ e u r,men. .' ",.' ",' i"" '" 'fl ~ ~- - -...0 ,'dfglGNED (yr CH~~~~A Cheryl Cox, Mayor Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember James D, Sandoval, City Manager John McCann, Councilmember Bart Miesfeld, City Attorney Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Donna Norris, City Clerk Steve Castaneda, Councilmember JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE CITY COUNCIL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 2009 6:00 P.M. Chula Vista Police Headquarters Community Meeting Room 315 Fourth Avenue CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: Bensoussan, Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, and Mayor Cox Growth Management Oversight Commissioners: Bazzel, Felber, Krogh, Lizarraga, Sutton, and Vice Chair Hall Planning Commissioners: Clayton, Felber, Moctezuma, Spethman, Thompson, Vinson, and Chair Tripp PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE PUBLIC HEARING - City Council, GMOC, Planning Commission The following item has been advertised as a public hearing as required by law, If you wish to speak on the item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 1. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION'S 2009 Al'JNUAL REPORT Each year, the Growth Management Oversight Commission submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with Threshold Standards for eleven quality-of-life indicators. The 2009 Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008; identifies current issues in the second half of 2008 and early 2009; and assesses any threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. (Deputy City Manager/Director of Development Services) Page 1 - CC/GMOC/PC Agenda http://www.chulavistaca.~ov March 5, 2009 Staff recommendation: The Planning Commission adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2009 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2009 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND DlRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY PUBLIC COMMENTS - Council, GMOC, Planning Commission Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the CouncillGMOCIPlanning Commission on any subject matter within the CouncillGMOCIPlanning Commission '.I' jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the CouncillGMOCIPlanning Commission from discussing or taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the CouncillGMOCIPlanning Commission may schedule the topic for jitture discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. CLOSED SESSION Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7). 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54957.6 · Agency designated representatives: Jim Sandoval, Scott Tulloch, Marcia Raskin, Bart Miesfeld, Rod Betts, Maria Kachadoorian, Leah Browder · Employee organizations: CVEA, IAFF, POA, WCE, Mid-Management, ProFessional and Unrepresented Groups ADJOURNMENT The Growth Management Oversight Commission and the Planning Commission adjourn to their respective Regular Meetings and the City Council to a Regular Meeting for the State of the City Address on March 10,2009 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building 100, during normal business hours. III compliallce with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk '.I' Office at (619) 691-5041 at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. Page 2 - CC/GMOC/PC Agenda httD://www.chulavistaca.gov March 5, 2009 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~{'f=. CITY OF · GlULA VISTA March 5, 2009, Item-1- 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) 2009 Annual Report. Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2009 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending Acceptance by the City CounciL Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2009 GMOC Annual Report, and Directing the City Manager to Undertake Actions Necessary to Implement Report Recommendations as Presented in the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary. SUBMITTED BY: . Deputy City Ma:nagerIDirector of Development service~ REVIEWED BY: City M,",g~ 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0 BACKGROUND Each year, the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with threshold standards for eleven quality of life indicators. The 2009 Annual Report covers the period from July I, 2007 through June 30, 2008; identifies current 1"-1 March 5, 2009, Item~ Page 2 of 6 issues in the second half of 2008 and early 2009; and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. A summary table of the GMOC's recommendations and staffs proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment because it involves only acceptance of the GMOC Annual Report and does not involve approvals of any specific projects; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, specific projects defined in the future as a result of the recommendations in the 2009 GMOC Annual Report will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA prior to the commencement of any project. RECOMMENDATION 1) That the Planning Commission: Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2009 GMOC Annual Report, and recommending acceptance by the City Council; and 2) That the City Council: Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2009 GMOC Annual Report and' directing the City Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement report recommendations as presented in the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Attachment 1). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission will provide comments and recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION The 2009 GMOC Annual Report addresses compliance with threshold standards for eleven quality of life indicators covered in the City's Growth Management Program. The affects from growth have been minimal during recent GMOC review cycles, due to the decline in the issuance of building permits. For the 2007/08 review cycle, 1,440 building permits were projected; 269 permits were actually issued. For the 2008/09 review cycle, 830 permits are projected; 27 units have been finalized, and two new permits have been issued since January 1, 2009. Presented below is a summary offmdings regarding threshold compliance, and a summary of key issues with respect to threshold compliance. The Annual Report (Attachment 2) provides additional background information and a more detailed explanation of findings and discussion/recommendations. 2 1-2 March 5, 2009, Item-1- Page 3 of6 1. Summary of Findings The following table summarizes the GMOC's threshold compliance fmdings for the 2009 GMOC Annual Review, including the current (July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008) review period, and looking forward at the potential for future non-compliance during the period of 2009 through the year 2013. Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance Not In Compliance In Compliance Potential Future Non- Com liance Libraries Police (pH - Urgent) Traffic Libraries . Police (pH - Urgent) Traffic Fiscal Schools Parks & Recreation Air Quality Drainage Water Fire/EMS Sewer 2. Summary of Key Issues Thresholds Not in Compliance or With the Potential for Future Non-Compliance Libraries The Libraries threshold standard states that library facilities shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) per 1,000 population, and for five consecutive years, the threshold standard has not been met. The City's current ratio is 441 GSF of library facilities per 1,000 population, a deficit of 59 GSF per 1,000 population. The implementation measure for Libraries requires City Council to "formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into conformance. Construction or other actual solution shall be scheduled to commence within three years." In response to this implementation measure, the City had been moving forward with plans to construct a 31,200 square-foot library in Rancho del Rey, per the 1998 Library Master Plan, which calls for a 30,000 square-foot full service regional library in Rancho del Rey. However, due to inter-fund reallocations in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program, the Libraries component has been left with insufficient funds to construct the Rancho del Rey facility. Current estimates from the Finance Department indicate that construction of a new library would not commence until 2015, at the earliest, depending on economic conditions. In response to a referral from the 2008 Annual Report Joint Workshop (see Sectio"n 3, Council Referrals, below), Chula Vista's Library staff provided the GMOC with statistics on the number of Chula Vista citizens who patronize the County's 12,000-square-foot Bonita-Sunnyside Library, located on Chula Vista property. The survey indicated that 15,900 Chula Vista residents called the Bonita-Sunnyside Library their home library. If the square footage of that library were added to Chula Vista's 102,000 square feet oflibraries (Civic Center, South Chula Vista, and EastLake) the threshold of 500 square feet of library space per 1,000 population would still not be met. The GMOC recommends that the City Council designate construction of the Rancho del Rey library branch the top priority of the five remaining PFDIF projects. 3 1-3 March 5, 2009, Item~ Page 4 of6 Staff Response: Library staff look forward to the GMOC partIcIpating in the dialogue to prioritize remaining PFDIF projects, and wi)1 continue to look for opportunities to advance the construction of the Rancho del Rey library, as well as seek other opportunities to provide library services to the eastern side ofChula Vista. Police Prioritv II - Urgent Response Calls for Service - The Police threshold standard for Priority II - Urgent Response Calls for Service states that police units shal\ respond to 57% of the Priority II urgent calls within 7 minutes, and shal\ maintain an average response time of 7 minutes and 30 seconds or less (measured annual\y). This year's average response time of 9 minutes and 18 seconds for 53.1 % of the Priority II calls did not comply with the threshold standard. However, the response time was a full two-minute improvement from the previous review cycle of 11 minutes and 18 seconds, and the percentage improved a substantial 9.8%. These were the best numbers achieved by the Police Department in a decade. The 2008 GMOC Annual Report recommended that the Police Department be directed to implement an action plan addressing the general decline in performance since 1995 relative to meeting the GMOC threshold for Priority II calls. The Police Department attributes the dramatic improvements during this review cycle to implementation of an action plan, as wel\ as to improved technology, such as a new system in the patrol cars that al\owed officers to see pending calls, including the priority level,_ on their computer screens. The GMOC recommends that the Police Department continue to implement its successful action plan and utilize the highest technology available to improve response times and reach threshold standards. Staff Response: To the extent that resources are available, the Police Department will continue to employ strategies of the action plan and continue utilizing technology to improve response times. Traffic The threshold standard for Traffic specifies that Level of Service (LOS) "c" or better, as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, should be maintained, except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. During the period under review, three segments did not comply with the threshold standard. However one segment found non-compliant last year, northbound La Media Road (Telegraph Canyon to Olympic Parkway) improved, and is now compliant. The three current non-compliant segments are: Heritage Road (Telegraph - Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway); Otay Lakes Road (East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road); and Palomar Street (Industrial Boulevard to Broadway). While Heritage Road and Otay Lakes Road were non-compliant during the previous review cycle, this is the first time that Palomar Street was non- compliant. Despite being non-compliant again, both the Heritage Road and Otay Lakes Road segments improved considerably during the period under review. For northbound Heritage Road, there was a two-hour reduction of LOS E, and a one-hour reduction of LOS D, southbound. Northbound 4 1-4 March 5, 2009, Item--L Page 5 of6 Otay Lakes Road reduced three hours of LOS D and one hour of LOS E, southbound. The improvements are partially attributable to the opening of SR-125 in November 2007; signal timing changes also played an important role. During the next review cycle, signal timing improvements are planned for Heritage Road, and more significant performance improvements are expected on Otay Lakes Road, due to installation of new "adaptive traffic signal" hardware and software in November 2008. Subsequent to that, the widening of Otay Lakes Road (to be completed in fiscal year 2009/10) and East H Street should return the segment to compliance. Palomar Street should also show significant improvement with the implementation of the Traffic Light (Signal) Synchronization Program (TLSP). The City is currently working with a TLSP state grant through SANDAG; the grant will also provide for new signal timing and communication equipment, as. well as a consultant for developing new signal plans for Palomar Street. Work should be complete in fiscal year 2009/10. The GMOC recommends that City engineering staff: I) Continue to work with SANDAG on the TLSP grant for Palomar Street, to complete improvements in fiscal year 2009/10; 2) Report back to GMOC on the effects to overall vehicular delays at Otay Lakes Road since installation of upgrades to hardware and software; and 3) Continue to improve signal timing along Heritage Road. Staff Response: Traffic Engineering staff is currently working on the following to address the GMOC recommendations: I) The TLSP study is underway and will be completed in FY09/10; 2) TJ\fP data collection is underway on Otay Lakes Road near Telegraph Canyon Road. Results due by end of FY08/09; 3) City and consultant working on signal timing on Heritage Road corridor; results due in summer 2009. Thresholds Currentlv in Compliance GMOC recommendations, along with staff responses and proposed implementation actions for the threshold standards currently in compliance (Fiscal, Air Quality, Water, Drainage, Parks & Recreation, Fire, Schools and Sewer), are outlined in Attachment I. 3. 2008 Council Referrals On June 5, 2008 at the joint City CounciVPlanning Commission/GMOC meeting, Council proposed six referrals, outlined in the table below, to the GMOC to review and respond to in its 2009 GMOC Annual Report. 5 1-5 March 5, 2009, Item--1- Page 6 of6 Threshold Referral Response 1. Fiscal Develop a priority list of projects in the PFDIF Addressed in Section 3.1.1 - Prioritization of program. Projects Funded By Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) Program 4. Water Include demand tables for Otay Water District. Demand tables were not provided by Otay Water District. 5. Libraries Determine if the County library in Bonita would Addressed in Section 3.5.1 - Library Building bring the threshold closer to compliance; work Plan. Statistics attached to Libraries with the County library to secure the percentage questionnaire (Appendix B). . of Chula Vista patrons to the facility. 6. Drainage Where conveyance system needs improvement, Addressed in Section 3.6.1 - Maintenance of add improvements into DIFs to ensure an Existing Drainage Channels accurate assessment of fees for those who create more drainage flow. 7. Parks & There should be a matrix for parks with a deflnite Response to question 6 of the Parks & Recreation radius for accessibility by the residents. Recreation questionnaire (Appendix B) indicates that the Parks Master Plan includes a park programming matrix. 10. Traffic Bring non-compliant segments back to the Addressed in Section 3.10.1 - Non-Compliance GMOC with measures that could be of Threshold Standard implemented in order to bring the segments into better compliance. 4. 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 and proposed implementing actions is presented in Attachment 1. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to undertake implementing actions, as outlined in the right-hand column of Attachment 1. The GMOC 2009 Annual Report is included as Attachment 2. Attachment 3 consists of Appendices to the GMOC Report, including: The Growth Forecast (Appendix A) and Threshold Compliance Questionnaires (Appendix B). DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has determined that since the GMOC Annual Report is not site specific, the 500-foot notification rule found in California Code Regulations Section 1 8704.2(a)(l) is not applicable to this action. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. As specified follow-up actions are brought forward to the City Council, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided as applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1 - 2008 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2008 GMOC Annual Report, including Chairperson's Cover Memo 3 - 2008 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B 6 1-6 2009 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS / IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Fiscal 3.1.1 That the City Council direct the City Manager to develop a facility prioritization policy that includes an explanation for how priorities are determined, how facilities would be funded, how they will be reported, and impacts of the expenditures. This policy should be used as a basis for all decisions by the City Council on any PFDIF funding proposals. ..... I -.l 2. Air Qualitv 1. STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS Fiscal 3.1.1 Staff plans to bring a comprehensive update of the PFDIF to Council for consideration before the end of the calendar year. This update may reflect additional development-mitigating facilities identified in new master plans, including the pending Fire Master Plan and Park & Recreation Master Plan. Any changes to the 2005 General Plan authorized development would also be included in this update. Presentation of a project prioritization list in conjunction with this update is recommended. If the update is not presented to Council by the end of the calendar year, a stand-alone project prioritization list could be presented. 2. Air Qualitv Staff can provide technical assistance to the GMOC in creating the incremental quantitative thresholds for per capita carbon emissions and other criteria air pollutants. 3.2.1 During the Top-to-Bottom review, the threshold standard 3.2.1 should be revised to include incremental, quantitative benchmarks, such as including a benchmark to attain a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, per capita, compared to the Climate Protection Program's 1990 emission's inventory. :&> . -i -i :&> n :c 3: (TJ z -i ..... The City continues to implement the implementation plans for the seven Council-approved climate protection measures. Staff will be presenting the 6- month progress report to City Council in March to provide implementation updates for the measures and their financing strategy. Generally, most measures are being partially implemented based on current available funding levels and are meeting the milestones outlined in their original implementation Page 10f 4 2009 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS / IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY -' I (Xl GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS plans. Full, sustained. funding of the measures will help to ensure their long-term successful implementation and future greenhouse gas emissions reductions. 3. Sewer 3. Sewer 3.3.1 Continue to pursue the options of obtaining additional 3.3.1 Discussions with Metro. on purchasing additional treatment capacity, or of constructing a wastewater capacity rights are ongoing. In addition, wastewater reclamation plant in Chula Vista so that City Council can engineering staff is currently working on an RFP to adopt a plan to bring additional capacity on-line by the time . obtain a consultant to analyze the feasibility of the existing capacity will be exhausted (perhaps by 2017). constructing an MBR plant in the City of Chula Vista. Staff anticipates awarding a contract to a consultant by June 2009. A final report with recommendations will be completed and presented to the City Council in FY09/10. 4. Water 4. Water 3.4.1 That the City continue to work with Otay Water District and 3.4.1 Sweetwater Authority and Otay Water District will track Sweetwater Authority to maintain and track future future development in coordination with the City and development in order to continue to meet the water work with the City to achieve this goal. availability threshold. 5. Libraries 5. Libraries 3.5.1 That the City Council designate construction of the Rancho 3.5.1 Library staff look forward to the GMOC participating in del Rey library branch the top priority of the five remaining the dialogue to prioritize remaining PFDIF projects, and PFDIF projects. will continue to look for opportunities to advance the construction of the Rancho del Rey library, as well as seek other opportunities to provide library services to the eastern side of Chula Vista. Page 2 of 4 2009 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT C,OMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS I IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY ..... GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 6. Drainaae 6. Drainaae 3.6.1 That the City continues to explore funding options to cover 3.6.1 Staff will continue to seek funding, engaging local, the cost of maintaining drainage channels, including state and federal sources, while trying to obtain the obtaining necessary environmental permits. necessary environmental permits to perform channel maintenance. 7. Parks and Recreation 7. Parks and Recreation 3.7.2 1) As part of the Top-to-Bottom review, the Parks & 3.7.2 1) Staff concurs with the proposed amended Recreation threshold standard should be amended to read: language. Staff will look into developing new citywide "Three acres of parkland, with appropriate facilities, shall monitoring methods for new development. be provided per 1,000 residents for new development, citywide." 2) Staff will look into the feasibility & practicality of being able to do this. 2) A City policy should be adopted that requires that all new parks developed with funding from new residential growth west of Interstate 805 be developed within this area. 8. Police 8. Police 3.8.2 That the Police Department continue to implement its 3.8.2 To the extent that resources are available, the Police successful action plan and utilize the highest technology Department will continue to employ strategies of the available to reach threshold standards~ action plan and continue utilizing technology to improve response times. 9. Fire I Emeraencv Medical Services 9. Fire I Emeraencv Medical Services 3.9.2 That the Fire Chief continue to furnish the GMOC with data 3.9.2 The Fire Department will continue to track data on call on call volume and response times since the transition to volume and response times since the transition to San San Diego Dispatch. Diego Dispatch, and report results to the GMOC during their next annual review cycle. I (0 Page 3 of 4 2009 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS I IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 10. Traffic 10. Traffic 3.10.1 That the Engineering Department: 3.10.1 Traffic Engineering staff is currently working on the following to address GMOC recommendations: 1) Continue to work with SANDAG on the TLSP grant for Palomar Street, to complete. improvements in fiscal 1) The TLSP study is underway and will be year 2009/10. completed in FY09/10. 2) Report back to GMOC on the effects to overall 2) TMP data collection is underway on Otay Lakes vehicular delays at Otay Lakes Road since installation of Road near Telegraph Canyon Road. Results due by upgrades to hardware and software. end of FYOB/O. 3) Continue to improve signal timing changes at 3) City & consultant working signal timing on Heritage Road. Heritage Road corridor; results due in summer 2009. --" I --" .0 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT Threshold Review Period 7/1/07 to 6/30/08 Commission Members Steve Palma, Chairman (Southwest) Russ Hall, Vice Chair (Center City) Bryan Felber, (Planning Commission Representative) . David W. Krogh (Sweetwater/Bonita) Duane Bazzel (Environmental) Eric Sutton (Southeast) Staff Kim Vander Bie, Growth Management Coordinator Rabbia Phillip, Management Assistant City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 http://www.chulavistaca.gov/ March 5, 2009 Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. PCM 09-08) and City Council (Resolution No. 2009--> on March 5, 2009 2009 GMOC Annual Report ATTACHMENT 2 March 2009 1-11 GMOC Chair Cover Memo DATE: March 5, 2009 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Chula Vista FROM: Steve Palma, Chairman Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 2009 GMOC Annual Report (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, to the Current Time and Five-Year Forecast) SUBJECT: The GMOC is appreciative of the time and professional expertise given by the staff of various City departments, as well as the school districts and water districts 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 and Kim Vander Bie, who provided direct staff support to the Commission. I would like to recognize the commissioners of the GMOC: Vice-Chair Russ Hall, Duane Bazzel, Bryan Felber, David Krogh, Eric Sutton, and past member, Tim P. Jones. This dedicated and diverse team of citizens read numerous reports, listened to detailed. presentations, and participated in hours of thoughtful and lively discussion about the impact of development on the "quality of life" in Chula Vista. This year's report has been completed three months earlier than last year's. The reason for this is twofold: 1) So that City Council can consider any recommendations in time for budget considerations; and 2) So that the remaining GMOC meetings during this review cycle can be devoted to completing Top-to-Bottom revisions to the Growth Management Ordinance and Program Guidelines Document. Because growth has slowed down so dramatically over the past few years, the Commission views this as an opportunity to accelerate completion of this report, primarily focusing on threshold standards out of compliance, and to complete the Top-to- Bottom task. As noted in years past, Chula Vista had been one of the fastest growing cities in the region and state, and, overall, the City has a good track record of providing the facilities and services necessary to accommodate the development. This is a testament to the current growth management program, and all the individual actions that have taken place. Presently, however, we continue to be in the midst of a global economic downturn that has put the brakes on growth. Thus, in most respects, growth is not threatening the quality of life in Chula Vista today. To the contrary, lack of growth is threatening our ability to provide infrastructure and facilities because development impact fees (DIF's) have waned. 2009 Annual Report 1 1-12 March 2009 GMOC Chair Cover Memo March 5, 2009 The Libraries threshold standard continues to be noncompliant, and the Finance Department projects that the proposed Rancho del Rey library branch, which would bring the threshold standard into compliance, will not be constructed until 2015. Police, Priority II-Urgent Response Calls, also continues to be out of compliance. Nevertheless, the Police Department reported their best numbers in ten years. With potential staff reductions a possibility, however, the numbers may drop off again. The impacts of staff reductions could be far-reaching, impacting quality of life standards not measured by the threshold standards. This is a possibility for some of GMOC's other quality of life indicators, as well. The Traffic threshold standard was non-compliant again this year; however, Engineering staff is strategically addressing the situation. To summarize, three quality of life indicator threshold standards were determined by the GMOC to be out of compliance: . Libraries · Police · Traffic Eight were determined to be in compliance: . Fiscal . Air Quality . Water . Drainage . Parks and Recreation . Fire/EMS . Schools . Sewer The following report includes a more detailed presentation of the eleven threshold standards, and identifies issues, findings, and recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. 2009 Annual Report 2 1-13 March 2009 City of Chula Vista GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 Annual Report Table of Contents GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO ......... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ......... ...... ............ ............ ....... 1-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................... ........................... .................................... 3 REPORT PREFACE - QUALITY OF LIFE: A BROAD OVERViEW............................ 4 1.0 2.0 3.0 INTRODUCTION ... ... ... .., ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ..... 1.1 Threshold Standards 1.2 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 1.3 GMOC 2009 Annual Review Process 1.4 Growth Forecast 1.5 Report Organization THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ............ ......... ...................... 3.1 Fiscal...... ...... ......... ...... .................. ..................... ............... ..... 3.1.1 Prioritization of Projects Funded by PFDIF Program 3.2 Air Quality ... ... ...... ...... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ...... .... 3.2.1 Revision of Threshold Standard 3.3 Sewer ... ... ... .,. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... 3.3.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity 3.4 Water ......... ... ......... ...... ... ... '" ... .., ... ...... ... ...... .................. ....... 3.4.1 Meeting Water Demands 3.5 Libraries ... ... ... ... ... ... ... '" .,. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .., .., ... ... ... ... ... 3.5.1 Library Building Plan 3.6 Drainage... .................. ............ ............ ...... ........................ ..... 3.6.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channel 3.7 Parks and Recreation ............................................................... 3.7.1 Threshold Compliance 3.7.2 Threshold Standard Change 3.8 Police... ......... ......... ......... ........: .............................................. 3.8.1 Priority I Threshold Findings 3.8.2 Non-Compliance of Priority II Threshold 3.9 Fire and Emergency Medical Services ........................................ 3.9.1 Reporting Period Consistency 3.9.2 Outsourcing Dispatch System to San Diego 3.10 Traffic ... '" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... 3.10.1 Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard 3.11 Schools..................... ...... .............................. .................. ....... 3.11.1 School District Accomplishments 4.0 APPENDICES ......... ............ .................. .................. ............... ............. 4.1 Appendix A - Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B - Threshold Compliance 9uestionnaires 2009 Annual Report 3 1-14 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 8 8 8-9 9 9-10 10 11 12-13 13-14 14 15-16 16 16-17 17 17-18 18 19 20 21-22 22 22-23 23-24 24 24-25 26 26 27 March 2009 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 of life, and to recommend corrective actions in areas where the City has the ability to act and/or 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 of 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 part of the formal GMOC purview. For instance, maintenance and upkeep of necessary infrastructure for the City potentially impacts the quality of life for both current and future residents; increased costs of deferred maintenance could consume a significant amount of budget resources, thereby requiring . cuts that may impact services, such as parks and libraries. The GMOC finds 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. Despite the City's recent budget challenges, the GMOC believes the overall quality of life in Chula Vista remains good. However, it will be a test to maintain and improve the quality of life in the coming years as the City's limited resources will be needed to prevent degradation of City roads and facilities, and to construct needed new facilities, such as libraries and fire stations. The master-planned communities of eastern Chula Vista continue to be desirable and relatively affordable places to live, as home values have decreased significantly and foreclosed properties have escalated in recent months. The Otay Ranch Town Center is bringing in tax revenue and providing both residents and visitors from neighboring communities a pleasant venue for shopping, dining and entertainment. Initiatives for the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) and University Park and Research Center also continue to progress. In western Chula Vista and the Bayfront, the prospects for redevelopment give rise to opportunities for physical improvements to be realized, as they have in the east. 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 Growth Management Ordinance and Growth Management Program Guidelines are being revised and will move forward for City Council adoption in late 2009. 2009 Annual Report 4 1-15 March 2009 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/ 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, citywide 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. During the past year, the education seat was vacant until February 3, 2009, when Steven Lizarraga joined the commission. Also, the developer seat became vacant when Kevin O'Neill resigned from the commission on November 20, 2009, after nearly eight years of service, and the business seat became vacant when Tim P. Jones resigned in January 2009, after two years of service. The GMOC's review is structured around three timeframes: 1. A fiscal year cycle -- to accommodate City Council review of GMOC recommendations that may have budget implications. This 2009 Annual Report focuses on fiscal year July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008; 2. The second half of 2008 and beginning of 2009 - to identify and address pertinent issues identified during this timeframe. This is to assure that the GMOC can and does respond to current events; and 3. A five-year forecast - The period from January 2009 through December 2013 is assessed for potential threshold compliance concerns. This assures that the GMOC has a future orientation. To gather a status of development impacts to the city, the GMOC distributes questionnaires to city departments and outside agencies that have the responsibility of reporting on their respective threshold standards. When the questionnaires are completed, the GMOC reviews them and deliberates issues of compliance. They also evaluate the appropriateness of the threshold standards, whether they should be amended, and whether any new thresholds or standards should be considered. 2009 Annual Report 5 1-16 March 2009 1.3 GMOC 2009 Annual Review Process The GMOC held nine meetings between October 2008 and March 2009, which were open to the public. In order to provide the commissioners with updates on threshold standards that were non-compliant during the previous review cycle, representatives from Libraries, Police and Engineering were guest speakers at some of the earlier meetings. In addition, they, along with representatives from other city departments and public agencies, attended meetings to discuss the questionnaires they had completed in response to the GMOC's request. (As noted in Section 1.2, above, the GMOC solicits input through questionnaires distributed regarding "quality of life" indicators for eleven public facility and service topics. The completed questionnaires are attached in Appendix C.) Through this process, city staff and the GMOC identified issues" and conditions, and they are discussed in this report. The final" GMOC annual report is required to be transmitted through the Planning Commission to the City Council at a joint meeting, scheduled for March 5, 2009. 1.4 Growth Forecast The Planning and Building Department annually prepares a Five-Year Growth Forecast, which was issued in October 2008. The Forecast provides departments and outside agencies with an estimate of the maximum amount of residential growth anticipated over the next five years. Copies of the Forecast were distributed with the GMOC questionnaires to help the departments and agencies determine if their respective public facilities/services would be able to accommodate the forecasted growth. The Growth" Forecast from November 2008 through December 2013 indicated an additional 7,785 residential units could be permitted for construction in the City over the next five years, (7,065 in the east and 720 units in the west), for an annual average of 1,413 in the east and 144 units in the west, or just over 1,557 housing units permitted per year on average, citywide. " The projected units permitted per year on average, citywide, is down by 72 units from last year's forecast of 1,629 units. 1.5 Report Organization The 2009 GMOC Annual Report is organized into four sections: Section 1: Introduction; description of GMOC's role and review process; an explanation of the Residential Growth Forecast; and an outline of the 2009"report Section 2: A threshold compliance summary in table format Section 3: A threshold by threshold discussion of issues, acknowledgments, statements of concern (if any), and recommendations Section 4: Appendices 2009 Annual Report 6 1-17 March 2009 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following table indicates a summary of-the GMOC's conclusions regarding threshold standards for the 2009 annual review cycle. Eight thresholds were met and three were not. 2009 THRESHOLD STANDARD- ANNUAL REVIEW SUMMARY REVIEW PERIOD 7/1/07 THROUGH 6/30/08 Potential of Adopt/Fund Threshold Threshold Met Threshold Not Future Non- . Tactics to Met compliance Achieve Compliance 1. Fiscal X X 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 X 9. FirelEMS X 10. Traffic X X X 11. Schools CV Elementary X School District Sweetwater Union X High School District 2009 Annual Report' 7 1-18 March 2009 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS 3.1 FISCAL Threshold Standards: 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~ to 18-month period, and 5-year period. 2. 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 3.1.1 Prioritization of Projects Funded By Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDfF) Program Issue: Within the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) program, there is no apparent prioritization of funding for facilities that are slated for construction. Discussion: There are currently five large capital projects to be financed by the PFDIF program, including: 1) Rancho del Rey library; 2) EUC library; 3) EUC fire station; 4) Otay Ranch Village 4 recreation facility (70-acre park); and 5) Otay Ranch Village 4 aquatics facility (70-acre park). In addition, the program will finance the remaining debt obligation for the facilities previously constructed, various capital purchases (vehicles for fire stations, public works maintenance vehicles, etc.), and program administration. In the past, decisions have been made by the City Council to accelerate the timing of the construction of certain public facilities funded through the PFDIF program, and in some instances, this has impacted the ability to meet Growth Management thresholds, such as the Libraries threshold, as discussed in last year's Annual Report. The City Council must be made aware of all of the impacts that public facility project timing changes could have before making these decisions. The Finance Department expects to update the PFDIF program by December 2009, and will look to include additional facilities necessitated by the increased densities authorized by the 2005 General Plan and any subsequent amendments. The areas most likely to see additional 2009 Annual Report 8 1-19 March 2009 facilities added are Fire, Parks & Recreation, and Libraries. Once Master Plans are adopted for these systems, they will be added to the PFDIF program. Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to develop a facility prioritization policy that includes an explanation for how priorities are determined, how facilities would be funded, how they will be reported, and impacts of the expenditures. This policy should be used as a basis for all decisions by the City Council on any PFDIF funding proposals. 3.2 AIR QUALITY Threshold Standard: 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 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 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. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.2.1 Revision of Threshold Standard Issue: The existing threshold standard does not include quantifiable benchmarks, making it difficult to determine whether acceptable air quality levels are being maintained. Discussion: Currently, the threshold standard is more qualitative, making it difficult to determine whether or not compliance is maintained. Because carbon 2009 Annua/ Report 9 1-20 March 2009 emissions are influenced by a variety of environmental issues, such as water use, energy consumption, transportation levels and solid waste disposal, a more specific greenhouse gas emissions standard could be especially useful for assessing cumulative growth impacts. A new quantitative standard would also allow City staff to more effectively identify actions and resources to address air quality compliance concerns. Recommendation: During the Top-to-Bottom review, the threshold standard should be revised to include incremental, quantitative 'benchmarks, such as including a benchmark to attain a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, compared to the Climate Protection Program's 1990 emissions inventory, 3.3 SEWER Threshold Standards: 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 Wastewater 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 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 growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 2009 Annual Report 10 1-21 March 2009 3.3.1. Long-Term Treatment Capacity Average Flow Capacity 17.062 16.765 17.894 19.516 26.2 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 'Suildout Projection based on Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005) utilizing the "Preferred Alternative" model as adopted in the 2005 General Plan Issue: The City of Chula Vista's entitlement for treatment capacity will need to increase by 5 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) before build-out. Discussion: While the 5-year forecast for Chula Vista's average daily sewage flow in Million Gallons per Day (MGD) does not exceed the City's treatment capacity allotted through City contracts with the City of San Diego's Metro System, the 2005 Wastewater Master Plan indicated that Chula Vista would need to acquire an additional 5 MGDs of treatment capacity to facilitate the City's build-out. A study completed in 2007 analyzed potential Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Wastewater Reclamation Plants at two locations within the City, each with a capacity to treat up to four million gallons per day (MGD). While the study concluded that it was feasible to' construct the plant, questions remained regarding the infrastructure required to serve the project, emergency backup plans in case of power failure, and the use/disposal of recycled water generated by the plant throughout the year: Therefore, a scope of work for an additional study regarding a Chula Vista MBR plant is currently being finalized in a coordinated effort between City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District staff. While this option is being considered, the City is still investigating other options for increasing sewer capacity, including the possibility of purchasing additional treatment capacity rights from the San Diego Metro System. Recommendation: Continue to pursue the options of obtaining additional treatment capacity, or of constructing a wastewater reclamation plant in Chula Vista so that City Council can adopt a plan to bring additional capacity on-line by the time the existing capacity will be exhausted (perhaps by 2017). 2009 Annua/ Report 11 1-22 March 2009 3.4 WATER Threshold Standards: 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 12-18 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 Total Flow Supply 138.7 144.7 144.7 144.7 152.7 Capacity Potable Storage Capacity 196.1 196.1 216.1 220.3 220.8 Non-Potable Storage 31.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 47.7 Capacity Potable Supply Flow 137.5 137.5 137.5 137.5 143.5 Capacity Non.Potable Supply Flow 1.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 9.2 Capacity 2009 Annual-Report 12 1-23 March 2009 Sweetwater Authority Yearly Demand (Purchased by Consumers) (a,b) 7,868 (24,147 acre/feet) 12-18 Month Production Projection (ending 12131/09 8,017 (24,604 acre/feet) 5 -Year Production Projection (ending 12/31/09) FY2007 Consumption 8,635 (26,503 acre/feet) Yearly Supply Capacity - LOCAL (c) Yearly Supply Capacity -IMPORTED (d) Yearly Supply Capacity -- TOTAL (e) Storage Capacity --Treated Water Storage Capacity - Raw Water (g) Notes: a. Yearly demand is obtained from Water Usage Table, page 43, of the Sweetwater Authority (SW A) Financial Statement and converted to MG's. b. 12-18 month projection and 5 year projection from SWA Master Plan Update 2007. . c. Local supply components include the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination PI.ant (4 mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd), for a total of36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year. Tbe Reynolds Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringing the local supply capacity to 40 mgd or 14,600 MG per year. d. Imported supply includes 30 mgd, or 10,950 MG per year of imported raw water treated at the Perdue Plant SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. e. Total yearly supply capacity of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year, includes the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Plant (4mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd). The Reynolds Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increase to 3 mgd in 2012 bringing the total supply capacity to 40 mgd, or 14,600 MG per year. SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. f. SW A Master Plan Update 2007 lists existing and recommended treated water storage. g. Raw water storage capacity equals 28,079 ac-ft at Sweetwater Reservoir, and 25,387 ac-ft at Loveland Reservoir for. total of53,466.c-ft. 13,140 13,140 14,600 10,950 10,950 10,950 13,140 13,140 14,600 43.35 43.35 44.55 17,421 17,421 17,421 3.4.1 Meeting Water Demands Issue: None Discussion: Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority serve the City of Chula Vista, and both report that they will be able to meet the water demands of anticipated growth over the next five years, even when the region is in a "drought watch." Both agencies promote water conservation and have drought response conservation programs, 2009 Annual Report 13 1-24 March 2009 Otav Water District To ensure that it always has ample water supply, Otay Water District actively works to diversify its water resources. This includes negotiating agreements with' neighboring water agencies, investigating local groundwater aquifers, supporting efforts to develop ocean water desalination, supporting agricultural to urban water transfers, and promoting the use of recycled water. Otay Water District indicates that capital improvement program (CIP) facilities are built as needed, and are currently in various stages of development to meet water demands. Their six-year CIP documentation can be found, viewed, and downloaded from the Otay Water District web site at http://www.otavwater.qov/owd/index.aspx Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater Authority has a diverse water supply portfolio, including local wells (San Diego Formation) and reservoirs (Sweetwater and Loveland), and is not heavily dependent on imported water supplies. The Authority is monitoring future development activities within the City of Chula Vista, which may require major infrastructure coordination. Recommendation: That the City continue to work with Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority to maintain and track future development in order to continue to meet the water availability threshold. 3.5 LIBRARIES Threshold Standard: 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: Non-Compliance 2009 Annual Report 14 1-25 March 2009 3.5.1 Library Building Plan LIBRARIES Total Gross Square Gross Square Feet of Population Footage of Library Library Facilities Per 1000 Facilities Population Threshold X X 500 Sq. Ft. 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 FY 2006-07* 227,723 102,000 448 FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441 12-Month Projection -12/31/09) 232,307 102,000 439 5-Year Projection - (2013) 255,400 102,000 399 Issue: For the fifth consecutive year, the city has not complied with the threshold standard of providing 500 gross square feet of library facilities per 1000 people, Of the five remaining Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) projects, construction of the Rancho del Rey library branch should be top priority. Discussion: The Library Threshold Standard Implementation Measure requires that the City Council formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into conformance, and that construction, or another actual solution, shall be scheduled to commence within three years of the threshold not being satisfied (June 2007). The County's 12,000 square-foot Bonita-Sunnyside Library is located on Chula Vista property, and is regularly patronized by 15,900 Chula Vista residents. If the square footage of that library were added to Chula Vista's 102,000 square feet of libraries (Civic Center, South Chula Vista, and EastLake) the threshold of 500 square feet of library space per 1,000 population would still not be met. There would be a slight (roughly 10%) improvement, however. Factoring in the Bonita-Sunnyside Library since it opened during the 2006/07 review cycle would bring the adjusted gross square feet to 500 in 2006/07 and to 492 during the 2007/08 review cycle. The 12-month projection brings it down to 490, and the 5-year projection brings it to 446 without the addition of the 30,000 square-foot Rancho del Rey library branch, or the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) library. 2009 Annual Report 15 1-26 March 2009 Current estimates from the Finance Department indicate that construction of a new library would not commence until 2015, at the earliest, depending on economic conditions. Staffing the new library will be another issue. Due to budget cuts, the City's existing libraries have reduced their hours of operation by approximately 15% per annum. Prior to this reduction, Chula Vista had the best hours in south county; they~re now amongst the worst, however. Recommendation:That the City Council designate construction of the Rancho del Rey library branch the top priority of the five remaining PFDIF projects. 3.6 DRAINAGE Threshold Standards: 1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet that goal. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.6.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels Issue: There is a lack of funding to maintain some existing drainage channels. Discussion: Throughout the City, there is development that occurred, involving some drainage channels, before Development Impact Fees were levied. Therefore, funding maintenance of these channels, including obtaining necessary, but costly, environmental permits, has become challenging. The City's Public Works Operations staff is very familiar with the channels that require the most attention, and they monitor and remove large debris (furniture, transmissions, etc.) from them on a regular basis. Without required environmental, permits, however, they are not allowed to remove plant material and silt. Seeking a less expensive, streamlined process for obtaining required permits, the City participated in a Regional Channel Maintenance Workgroup for three-and-a-half years, which produced a document in August 2008 titled Channel Maintenance Programmatic Permitting Guide. The Guide provides useful guidance and tools for obtaining environmental permits from resource agencies, such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of individual jurisdictions to apply for 2009 Annual Report 16 1-27 March 2009 necessary permits before any non-exempt maintenance activities can be conducted within open channels. Recommendation: Continue to explore funding options to cover the cost of maintaining drainage channels, including obtaining necessary environmental permits. 3.7 PARKS & RECREATION Threshold Standard: Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.7.1 Threshold Compliance Issue: None Discussion: The parkland threshold standard is in compliance for the period under review. Current (6/30/08) eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory will provide adequate acreage to accommodate up to 129,813 persons. With a current population of 111,507 persons in the east, there is a current developed parkland overage of 54.91 acres. The 18-month forecast projects an eastern Chula Vista population of 113,953 (an increase of 2,446). The increase would necessitate an additional 7.34 acres of developed parkland. With a current overage of 54.91 acres, east inventories are adequate to accommodate the anticipated 18-month population forecast. It is anticipated that the 5-year population forecast of 132,920 for eastern Chula Vista (an increase of 21,413) will also be accommodated by required parkland acreage. With Mount San Miguel Community Park under construction, and All Seasons Park slated for construction in the near future, as well as Park P-3 in Village 2, Phase 1 of the Otay Ranch Community Park, there will be 44.58 acres of additional parkland, bringing . the eastern Chula Vista parkland inventory to 434.02 acres, which can accommodate a population 144,673. This would result in a projected overage of 35.26 acres. Discussion: During the period under review, 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, which does not identify a quantity of facilities necessary to be in compliance. The City's 2009 Annua/ Report 17 1-28 March 2009 Park and Recreation Master Plan and the parkland dedication ordinance has a formula, however, to determine the quantity of facilities necessary to meet the recreational demand of the residents. Based on the formula, 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, although some of the demand for these fields and courts is being met at non-public park sites, such as school sites. Recommendation: None 3.7.2 Threshold Standard Change Issue: The Parks & Recreation threshold standard should be changed to address new growth, citywide. Discussion: The existing threshold standard for Parks & Recreation specifies that three acres of neighborhood and community park land with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. The ratio is currently being satisfied, and the threshold standard monitors that. However, in western Chula Vista, it is anticipated that there will be new population growth with requisite park and recreation needs, thereby necessitating a citywide threshold standard. Therefore, it is recommended that a citywide standard be used that can ensure that parks and recreation facilities keep pace with new growth. Additionally, it should be ensured that all parks developed with funding from new residential growth west of 1-805 be developed within this area. The current ratio of parks west of Interstate 805 is approximately 1.15 acres per 1,000 residents (.91 acres per 1,000 between Interstates 5 and 805). It will take an additional 157 acres of park land to achieve a citywide ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 residents; however, new development cannot be made legally responsible for increasing park land above 3 acres per 1,000 new residents resulting from new development. Beyond the responsibilities of new development, creative new strategies for increasing developed park land west of Interstate 805 are needed to build upon pre-existing park acreage levels. Recommendation: 1) As part of the Top-to-Bottom review, the Parks & Recreation threshold standard should be amended to read: "Three acres of park land, with appropriate facilities, shall be provided per 1,000 residents for new development, citywide." 2) A City policy should be adopted that requires that all new parks developed with funding from new residential growth west of Interstate 805 be developed within this area. 2009 Annual Report 18 1-29 March 2009 3.8 POLICE Threshold Standard: Priority I 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). Priority II 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). Threshold Finding: Priority I: Priority II: Compliance Non-Compliance Threshold Standard Percent Time AverageTime Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min.lsec. (Priority 1) Urgent Response 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min.lsec (Prioritv 2) Actual Emergency Response 84.5% 7 minutes 4:59 min.lsec. (Prioritv 1) Urgent Response 43.3% 7 minutes 11: 18 min.lsec. (Priority 2) 2009 Annual Report 19 1-30 March 2009 3.8.1 Priority I Threshold Findings FY 2007-08 FY 2006-07 FY 2005-06 FY 2004-05 FY 2003-04 FY 2002-03 FY 2001-02 FY 2000-01 FY 1999-00 CY 19992 FY 1997-98 FY 1996-97 FY 1995-96 Issue: Discussion: 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 1,512 of 69,196 74.8% 5:47 1,968 of 69,904 83.8% 4:52 1,9150f71,197 83.0% 4:46 None During the period under review, the Police Department responded to 87.9% of Priority I Emergency Response calls within 7 minutes, a significant three percent better than last year, and 6.9% better than the threshold standard requires. With an average response time of 4 minutes and 19 seconds, the response time improved by 40 seconds from last year, and is 1 minute and 11 seconds better than the threshold standard requires. Recommendation: None 1 All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority \I 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. 2 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. 2009 Annual Report 20 1-31 March 2009 3.8.2 Non-Compliance of Priority II Threshold FY 2007-08 23,955 of 74,192 53.1% 9:18 FY 2006-07 24,407 of 74,277 43.3% 11 :18 FY 2005-06 24,8760f73,075 40.0% 12:33 FY 2004-05 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 FY 2003-04 24,741 of 71,000 48.4% 9:50 . FY 2002-03 22,871 of 71,268 50.2% 9:24 FY 2001-02 22,199 of71,859 45.6% 10:04 FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50 FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38 . These figures do not include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03. Issue: Priority II calls continue to fall short of complying with the threshold standard. Discussion: For the 11 th consecutive year, the threshold standard for Priority II - Urgent Response has not been met; however, the GMOC is very encouraged by significant improvements in response times. During the period under review, the percentage of call responses within 7 minutes improved a substantial 9.8%, the best percentage in ten years. At 53.1 %, it falls 3.9 percentage points short of meeting the threshold standard. The average response time during the period under review also improved significantly. At 9 minutes 18 seconds, there was a full two-minute improvement from the previous review cycle. Nearly two minutes short of the threshold standard, it is also the best average response time reported in ten years. Police Department staff attributes these improvements to concentrating on the GMOC's recommendation to implement an action plan addressing the decline in performance relative to meeting the GMOC threshold standard for Priority II calls. The action plan included seeking suggestions from sergeants involved in a promotional process. All suggestions were reviewed and discussed by lieutenants and the patrol captain. Officers were also surveyed to determine their awareness of response time thresholds, and training on the thresholds was conducted. 2009 Annual Report 21 1-32 March 2009 Other factors contributing to the improved numbers included a new system in the patrol cars that allowed officers to see pending calls, including the priority level, on their computer screens. Additionally, during this review cycle, staffing levels in the patrol division were at the highest levels in recent years. Police Department staff is confident that future technological advances will continue to help them get closer to the threshold standard. However, proposed budget cuts may result in a reduction of staff, which could negatively affect their ability to reach the threshold standard. In addition, the loss of officers could affect other quality of life issues not measured by the threshold standard. Areas potentially affected include the street team, judge unit and narcotics enforcements, which are proactive responses not directly affecting response times. Also, investigative services and community service officers, which are not part of the Department's core services or first responders Recommendation: That the Police Department continue to implement its successful action plan and utilize the highest technology available to reach threshold standards. 3.9 FIRE J EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 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). Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.9.1 Reporting Period Consistency FIRE/EMS - Emergency Response Times . '.. ..... % of All Call Review Period . Call Volume Response wnn 7:00 Minutes THRESHOLD 80% FY 2008 9,883 86.9% FY 2007 10,020 88.1% CY 2006 10,390 85.2% CY 2005 9907 81.6% FY 2003-04 8420 . 72.9% FY 2002-03 8088 75.5% 2009 Annual Report 22 1-33 , COMPARISON .' . Actual Response Time Average Travel Time for ,!O% of Calls 6:31 3:17 6:24 3:30 6:43 3:36 7:05 3:31 7:38 3:32 7:35 3:43 March 2009 FY 2001-02 7626 69.7% FY 2000-01 7128 80.8% FY 1999-00 6654 79.7% 7:53 7:02 3:39 3:18 3:29 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 Issue: Discussion: None The Fire response time threshold standard was met during fiscal year 2008. While the number of calls from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2008 decreased by 137, the 86.9 percent of calls responded to within 7 minutes was not an improvement. In fact, the percentage was slightly less (1.2%) than in fiscal year 2008. However, the 86.9 percentage was well within the threshold standard of 80% in 7 minutes. . Recommendation: None 3.9.2 Issue: Discussion: 2009 Annual Report Outsourcing Dispatch System to San Diego Since outsourcing Chula Vista's emergency dispatch system, response times have gotten worse. Since March 2008, fire and medical dispatch calls for Chula Vista have been handled by dispatchers in San Diego, an arrangement that is supposed to save money and improve response times to emergency calls. As the table below indicates, however, response, dispatch and travel times all got worse between March 4 and June 30, 2008. At 82.2%, the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes decreased by 5.2 percent, edging close to the 80% threshold. The system allows San Diego and Chula Vista to communicate instantly, rather than having to pass information through multiple dispatch centers. Both cities are supposed to benefit by sharing resources, including fire engines, ladder trucks, brush engines and personnel. Despite the initial worsening of response times, the Fire Department is pleased with the transition to San Diego Dispatch and believes that the method of reporting may be a key factor in explaining the poorer times. Call Volume Average Response Time Average Dispatch Time Average Travel Time % of Calls Within 7 Minutes Before 7/1/07 - 3/3/08 6,871 4:58 11 seconds 3:19 87.4% After 3/4/08 - 6/30/08 3,012 5:29 35 seconds 3:14 82.2% 23 1-34 March 2009 Recommendation: That the Fire Chief continue to furnish the GMOC with data on call volume and response times since the transition to San Diego Dispatch. 3.10 TRAFFIC Threshold Standard: Citywide: 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 "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 (year 1991) LOS, but shall not worsen. Threshold Finding: Non-Compliance 3.10.1 Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard Issue: There were three non-compliant arterial segments during the period under review. Discussion: There were six signalized arterial segments that failed to maintain Level of Service (LOS) "C" and three of the six operated at LOS "0", or less, for more than two hours a day. The three arterial segments, noted in the table below, do not comply with the threshold standard. One is located west of Interstate 805; the other two are located in eastern Chula Vista. SEGMENT (Limits) DIR LOS 2008 LOS 2007 CHANGE (Hours) (Hours) Heritage Road N8 C(1) 0(4) E(l) 0(3) E(3) +10, -2E (Telegraph Canyon Road - S8 8(1) C(5) C(5) 0(1) -10 Olympic Parkway) Otay Lakes Road N8 C(5) 0(1) C(2) 0(4) -30 (East H Street- S8 C(2) 0(4) C(2) 0(3) E(1) +10, -1 E Telegraph Canyon Road) Palomar Street E8 8(2) C(1) 0(3) C(4) 0(2) +10 (I ndustrial 80ulevard - WB C(3) 0(3) C(5) 0(1) +20 Broadway Last review cycle, the Palomar Street (Industrial Boulevard I Broadway) segment, in western Chura Vista, was in compliance with the threshold standard. During this review cycle, however, the LOS got worse for both eastbound and westbound traffic. Fortunately, the problem is being remedied. In 2008, a state grant from the Traffic light (Signal) 2009 Annual Report 24 1-35 March 2009 Synchronization Program (TLSP) was awarded, through SANDAG, to reduce vehicular delay by improving traffic signal synchronization along arterial roadways. Work has already commenced, and signal equipment improvements and corridor timing plan changes for the peak periods of the day will be completed in fiscal year 2009/10. The grant provides for new signal timing and communication equipment and consultant time for developing new signal plans. The Otay Lakes Road (East H Street I Telegraph Canyon Road) segment, which did not meet the threshold standard last review cycle, showed considerable improvement during this review cycle. Northbound, there was a reduction of three hours of LOS D, and southbound, there was a one hour reduction in LOS E. Further improvements are expected during the next review cycle, due to the installation of new "adaptive traffic signal" hardware and software in November 2008. This system allows signals to adapt to varying vehicular peak period demands caused by. Southwestern College. The City is currently in negotiations with Southwestern College for ultimate right-of-way needs for the college, frontage along East H Street and Otay Lakes Road. Widening for Otay Lakes Road is proposed for fiscal year 2009/10, and widening East H Street subsequently. Heritage Road (Telegraph Canyon Road I Olympic Parkway) also continues to be non-compliant, but had considerable improvements, attributable to signal timing changes. Northbound, there was a reduction of two hours of LOS E, and one of LOS D, southbound. Staff will need to continue to make signal changes at this location in an attempt to bring it into compliance with the threshold standard. There was optimism that the opening of SR-125 in 2007 would help correct the problem on the Heritage Road segment. However, studies indicate that the improvements have been minor. SR-125 opened in November 2007, after which City engineering staff monitored the impacts of the toll road on major east/west roadways in eastern Chula Vista. Their findings, which were presented in a report to City Council on June 17, 2008 and to the GMOC on November 20,2008, showed that at the three most critical interchanges just east of Interstate 805 (East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway), there was a combined net reduction in vehicular traffic from 191,700 vehicles per day to 180,600, a reduction of about 11,100, or 5.8%, In the last review cycle, northbound La Media Road (Telegraph Canyon I Olympic Parkway) was non-compliant. This review cycle, however, the northbound segment got no worse than LOS C. Recommendation: 1) Continue to work with SANDAG on the TLSP grant for Palomar Street, to complete improvements in fiscal year 2009/10; 2) Report back to GMOC on the effects to overall vehicular delays at Otay Lakes Road since installation of upgrades to hardware and software; 3) Continue to improve signal timing changes at Heritage Road. 2009 Annual Report 25 1-36 March 2009 3.11 SCHOOLS Threshold Standard: The City of Chula Vista shall annually provide the two local school districts Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and Sweetwater Union School District (SUHSD), 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: CVESD -In Compliance SUHSD - In Compliance 3.11.1 School District Accomplishments. Comment: Both school districts indicate that additional facilities will be required to accommodate growth in the next five years, and that they will be constructed when funding is available. Sweetwater Union HiQh School District o The District has a three-story, shared facilities campus design for future schools in Otay Ranch Village 11, including: Middle School No. 12 (grades 7-8) and High School No. 14 (grades 9-12). The Middle School is scheduled to commence construction in 2010 and be open by 2011. Construction of the high school should commence in 2011, and be open by 2013. Chula Vis/ta School Elementary District o The District has a two-story design planned for its school in Village 11, which should commence construction in 2010. A similar design will be used in Village 2, which may commence construction in 2011. Due to the passing of SB1556, the districts are anticipating funding from the state because it allows them to report the number of seats per high school attendance area, rather than the number of seats in the whole district. 2009 Annual Report 26 1-37 March 2009 4.0 Appendices 4.1 Appendix A - Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix 8 - Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2009 Annual Report 27 1-38 March 2009 ATTACHMENT 3 . Appendices A & B 1-39 APPENDiX A Growth Forecast 1-40 Friday, October 31, 2008 City of Chula Vista 2008 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 2009 Through 2013 Five- Year Growth Forecast. October 2008 1-41 INTRODUCTION As a component of the City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program, the City's Planning Division provides annual residential growth forecasts for two time frames: 12 to 18 months and five years. In the short-term, this year's growth forecast covers the 14 months from November 2008 through December 2009; and the five-year forecast extends through calendar year 2013. As part of the City's annual growth management review process, the growth forecast is annually provided to assist City departments and other service agencies in assessing potential impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with quality of life threshold standards associated with each facility or improvement listed below: 1. Police 2. Fire and Emergency Medical 3. Schools 4. Libraries 5. Parks and Recreation 6. Water 7. Sewer 8. Drainage 9. Traffic 10. Air Quality 11 . Fiscal As a supplemental component of the City's annual growth management review process, conclusions of City departments and service agencies assessments are annually solicited by the Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) through compliance questionnaires. The responses to the questionnaires form a basis for the GMOC's annual report, which includes a set of recommendations to the City Council regarding maintenance and/or revisions to each of the City's threshold standards. Recommendations may include such actions as adding or accelerating capital projects; hiring personnel; changing management practices; slowing the pace of growth; or considering a moratorium. The City Council will ultimately decide what course of action to take. . The City heavily relies. on projections from developers and builders to prepare the growth forecast, which is a disclosure of residential projects that have been or are undergoing the entitlement process, and could potentially be approved and permitted for construction within the next five years. These projects are under' the City's control with respect to the standard entitlement process time frames. As such, these numbers do not reflect market conditions outside the City's control. 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; · Is what may occur given a set of assumptions listed on page 5; · Is produced by the City and not necessarily endorsed by home builders; and · Represents a "worst-case" or more liberal estimate to assess maximum possible effects to the City's threshold standards. 2 Five- Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-42 The housing market is influenced by a variety of factors outside the City's control. The City's residential growth fell grossly short of last year's 12- to 18-month forecast; however, given the unprecedented year of economical events at the local and national levels, this was not surprising. While the economy is in recovery mode, it is quite possible that growth may continue to fall short of projections for some time. A return to equilibrium in residential construction is anticipated in the future, but it is difficult to predict exactly how far out. Current estimates are for at least two years. The majority of the growth forecasted remains in eastern Chula Vista. Increased residential infill and redevelopment in western Chula Vista is currently limited, and projections do not indicate larger development projects until 2012, when 260 multi-family units are projected as part of the Bayfront Master Plan. Should other projects emerge, they will be reflected in future forecasts. Information in this document is categorized under the following headings: ~ Forecast Summary ~ Forecast Information ~ Background ~ Eastern Chula Vista ~ Western Chula Vista ~ Forecasted Population The following figures and tables are also within this document: ~ Figure 1 - Forecasted Residential Units Permitted By Area 2009 Through 2013 ~ Figure 2 - Summary: Residential Units Receiving Building Permits 1996 to 2008 and 2009 through 2013 Forecast ~ Figure 3 -Resjdential Development Forecast Map ~ Table 1 - Eastern Chula Vista Residential Development Forecast ~ Table 2 - Western Chula Vista Residential Development Forecast ~ Table 3 - Historic Housing and Population Growth 3 Five-Year Growth Forecast. October 2008 1-43 FORECAST SUMMARY Over the next fourteen months (November 2008 - December 2009) as many as 825 housing units could potentially be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, with five projected in western Chula Vista (see Figure 1). In the five-year forecast period (calendar years from 2009 through 2013), eastern Chula Vista may have as many as 7,065 housing units permitted, and western Chula Vista may have as many as 720. This totals 7,785 units citywide, with an annual average of 1,413 units in the east and 144 in the west, or approximately 1,557 housing units permitted per year, on average citywide (see Figure 1, Table 1, and Table 2). Using more aggressive development figures in this forecast allows the City of Chula Vista to evaluate the maximum likely affect this growth will have on maintaining the quality of life, and the ability to provide concurrent development of necessary 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 "worst case" planning tool and not a prediction or guaranteed expectation. FORECAST INFORMATION BackQround As depicted on Table 3, the number of houses constructed in Chula Vista has fluctuated from a few hundred units a year to over 3,000 (as in 2001), with an average of approximately 1,300 units per year over the last 26 years. Several market cycles have occurred, with decline in the number of units permitted in the early 1980's (average 330 units) and 90's (average 693 units) recessions, and since 2005. The record 3,525 unit permits issued in 2001 represents a peak of residential permits that is not likely to return. Between the years 1996 and 2001 the number of housing units issued building permits steadily increased from about 1,000 units to a peak of over 3,500 units. A significant part of this is attributable to the onset of construction in Otay Ranch and other eastern Chula Vista master planned communities. During the construction boom years from 2001-2006, the average annual number of units receiving permits for construction was approximately 2,200. While this forecast reflects the current deceleration of construction activity in Chula Vista, it is representative of the region, and a reflection of the current fiscal and lending crisis. Figure 2 reflects the dramatic decline in growth since 2006. The drop can be attributed to a number of factors, including rising interest rates; rising housing and construction costs; and the ability of the public to qualify for mortgage loans. Most recently, within the past year, the sub-prime loan breakdown resulted in a record number of home foreclosures in Chula Vista. On a positive note, 4 Five- Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-44 interest fates fluctuated throughout the year, and are currently moving slightly downward, below where they were at this time last year. In summary, the forecast is predicated upon the following six assumptions: 1. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged. 2. That Growth Management thresholds are not exceeded. 3. That the housing market corrects within two years. 4. That entitlement processing for the Otay Ranch Villages areas subject to recent Land Offer Agreements commences in 2009 and is completed within 24 months. 5. That the Bayfront Master Plan Update receives approvals in 2009. 6. That projects follow a normal project regulatory processing schedule. Eastern Chula Vista Growth for the next fourteen months in eastern Chula Vista is based upon the overall assumptions. The various planned communities have a number of projects in the processing "pipeline" with 825 units potentially ready for permitting over the next fourteen months. Otay Ranch Villages 2, 6, 7 and 1.1 have all their entitlements; but construction is nearly nonexistent at the present time. It is anticipated that the next five years could produce as many as 7,065 additional housing units permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, for an average annual rate of approximately 1.413 units. This number is derived primarily from approved development plans, and estimated project processing schedules for project plan reviews, subdivision maps, and building plans (see Table 1). As of November 2008, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in eastern Chula Vista is approximately 14,900, based on the General Plan Update, adopted in December, 2005. If 7,065 units could be permitted over the next five-year forecasted period, there would be 7,835 units remaining. Given the current rate of growth, this capacity could potentially be built out around 2020. However, additional General Plan amendments could occur, resulting in additional units added to the potential inventory of housing units, thereby extending the ultimate build-out date. Western Chula Vista 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 changing, due to growing interest in infill and redevelopment, and density increases through the General Plan Update, and the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). Several projects have been completed in recent years, particularly along Broadway, reflective of development interest in western Chula Vista. At this time, as shown on Table 2, there are only three projects that are projected to produce any residential units within the next five years, and nothing significant until 2012. The Bayfront Master Plan and the 248 Church Avenue ENA Project have both been applied for by developers and are under City review for entitlements. 5 Five- Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-45 Over the next five years western Chula Vista could potentially experience an increase of 695 multi-family residential units, primarily due to the Bayfront Master Plan. A small addition of accessory units tracking at an average of five per year for 25 units are also included in the five- year period. This provides a total of 720 residential units, for an annual average of 144 units (see Table 2 and Figure 3). FORECASTED POPULATION This report focuses on the forecasted residential units as the primary indicator to measure future population increases. Western Chula Vista (as evidenced by U.S. Census data) has been undergoing growth in the form of demographic changes as the average household size increases; however, 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 3.036 persons per household. Assuming that this estimate remains valid over the next five years, and assuming a 3% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 255,400 persons by the end of 2013. This is based on the following: m The California State Department of Finance (OaF) estimated a Chula Vista's population on January 1, 2008 as 231,305; · An additional 338 units were occupied from January 1, 2008 to November 2008; and · An additional 7,785 units may be permitted between November 2008 and 2013. This is only a rough estimate for planning purposes, as the vacancy rate, persons per unit factors, and the number of actual units completed may vary. 6 Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-46 Figure 1 forecasted Residential Units Permitted By Area 2009 Through 2013 4000 I III East rm westl 3500 3000 ." ~ c 2500 ;:) - 0 , ... 2000 ~ ..c E ::J 1500 z 1000 500 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year 7 Five- Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-47 Figure 2 Summary: R.esidential Units Receiving Building Permits 1996 to 2008 and 2009 through 2013 Forecast v, - '2 :::J .... o ... Q.l ..c E :::s z 4,000 ~ ~ ~ Forecast ~ Actual 3,500. 3,000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200820092010 2011 2012 2013 Year 8 Five- Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-48 Figure 3 Residential Development Forecast Map 11/2008 -12/2013 d! \ . . "-', I _---')" ", ; !_--..,;, ! ~.J j L_......! ~ ,-' I. 1 ," ~ I '+--..---- ,; \. ~_' 6 , [:, ,/ \ ,~ 1-' ','1'"- " I, 13\,/ 5 , - '\, 4 y"" 2\, ,// \ -( \ "j~ ,-- --, ..-~orI _,--r;-"," I _-oIc;r.- ,II--""Ci~ L \ ..--\ ~ ......- \..-,."..-- '.. '--- .. _..- LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS A Bayfront Master Plan 1 OtiIy Ranch VUlage 2 7 Easttake Land Swap ~(f? . 248 Chun:h AVfl ENA 2 otay Ranch VlDage 4 . l!asttake Vlstas -1Sf'i"W C Creekside Vistas 3 Otay Ranch Village 6 . Eastlak. WOods 4 Otay Ranch Vlllage 7 10 San Mlguet R.ZInch 01Y Of 5 otay ~nch VfJlage 10 11 BclIaLago 0ilJ1A VISTA . Qtay Ranch VIllage 11 12 Rallint Hills Ranch U I!astam Urban Center PlANNING DEPARTMENT 9 Five- Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-49 Table 1 GMOC 2009. EASTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST November 2008 . December 2013 -" iqfR',~.oa -.~. -, OlAY RAN01 Village 2 310 117 325 237 203 170 220 160 366 362 310 117 1,<12<1 1,0<16 Village. 4 0 0 0 0 100 200 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 300 Village 6 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 126 0 Village 1 ., 65 56 71 71 136 53 80 25 " ., 65 2<7 386 ViJlage 10 0 0 0 0 20 4 300 75 400 125 0 0 720 204 Village 11 42 33 57 25 25 25 12 8 0 0 42 33 136 91 EiL5tem Urban Center 0 0 0 0 213 0 602 0 535 0 0 0 1,350 0 otaW' Ranch Sub-Total 520 215 438 333 632 535 1,187 323 1,326 621 520 215 4,103 2,027 EA5TLAKE Green~ (+Land Swap) 12 21 52 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 12 21 111 21 Vistas (+Windslilr) 0 0 494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 494 0 Woods 0 4 0 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 27 Sub-tola.l 12 25 546 11 47 12 0 0 0 0 12 25 605 48 ROLLING HILLS RANOi 0 12 0 18 0 48 0 " 0 41 0 12 0 161 SAN MIGUEL RAIllot 0 23 0 43 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 9a BELLA LAGO 0 18 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 23 SUB-TOTAL 532 293 ... 410 67' 627 1,187 365 1,326 682 532 2.3 4,108 2,357 TOTAL UNITS 825 1.394 1,306 1,552 1,988 825 7,065 Monthly Average: 5. Annual Average: 1,413 I C11 o -ISSUE.. OuUding Pamll .Awlmei Adoptlon ut 2006 GOf>A I-' o Table 2 GMOC 2009 - WESTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST ..... I CJ1 ..... Dayfront Master Plan** 248 Church Avo ENA Project.. Creekside Vistas - 912-944 Third Ave Second Accessory Units o 5 5 o o o o SUB-TOTAL TOTAL UNITS 5 November 2008 - December 2013 'JAri;'~.DfC.',:i(ifii JAN;"DEdii01~ < .,_.; :~ ,;A',",-._ ,,'L -",'",,0'; .>... .....:.,...~.. _: -". 'n ," ;~~_i~;;A:~-S~U_~.~2i\~,.~-f~i }.~;;U iSSUE~i:fi'fiq~ L>MFi~(Y '}~;'~~;~f }:i~MF.~::." \~/!iF,:~~i-: o 0 260 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 ~~(-~Mf?6 ., o 13 0 o 0 o 5 13 5 1B . ISSUE"" Bulldlng Permit ... These proJe~ts iire In conceptual discussion, and do not have specific project buJldlllg plans under review at this time. ..... ..... o o 5 5 5 o 260 5 265 260 0 0 0 520 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 162 0 0 0 162 0 0 5 0 5 0 25 422 5 0 5 695 25 427 5 720 Monthly Average: 1 Annual Average: 144 Table 3 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - 2008 No. No. No. % ChanQe 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% 2006 1,180 1.448 227,863 1.9% 2007 576 837 231,305 0.8% 2008 269 338 232,307 0.4% 3) Annual Averaae 1,315 1,327 5,101 2.8% (4) (1) Refiects Department of Finance (DO F) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year. (2) Montgomery Annexation (3) Population estimates assume ~% vacancy rate and assuming that there are 3.036 persons per unit This population figure Is an estimate prior to California Department of Finance (DOF) preliminary figures due by February 2009 and final estimates in May 2009. (4) The annual average percentage Is adjusted for the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation. 12 Five- Year Growth Forecast, October 2008 1-52 APPENDIX B. Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 1-53 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE Reporting Period: 7/1/07 - 6/30/08 to Current Time and Five-Year Forecast FISCAL THRESHOLD STANDARDS: 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. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Please provide an updated Fiscal Impact Report showing an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City's Operations and Capital. The evaluation should include the following three timeframes: a. the last fiscal year(07-01-07 to 06-30-08); b. the current fiscal year, 2008/2009; and c. what is anticipated in five year's time. Please refer to the attached memo to Mayor and Council from Interim City Manager, Scott Tulloch, dated December 1, 2008 (Attachment 1). 2. According to the updated Fiscal Impact Report, how is the City's current fiscal health, and what are the primary growth-related fiscal issues facing the City? As described in the memo, the long-term financial outlook continues to identify structural challenges to the City's General Fund and Development .Services Fund. Significant budgetary reductions were approved in the Fiscal Year 2008-09 operating budget. Additional budget reductions in the Development Services fund were adopted in September 2008, and additional reductions in both funds are recommended (as described in Attachment 1). At this time, as a result of the significant slowdown in housing development, we do not anticipate fiscal issues resulting from new development. The fiscal challenges the City faces are due to the significant issues around the housing market and the slowdown in the economy. 3. Given the City's budget constraints, will you be able to continue to maintain current and projected level of service consistent with the threshold standards? As a result of the significant slow down in the housing market, we do not anticipate any fiscal issues resulting from new development. On the contrary, lack of grow1h coupled with an overall economic slowdown continues to challenge the City's ability to maintain service Page 1 1-54 levels. Interim City Manager Scott Tulloch presented Council with a budget balancing plan ,in December of 2008. Service level impacts resulting from the proposed budget balancing plan are summarized in the attached memo to Council (Attachment 1). Service level impacts are also addressed in the individual threshold reports. 4. What are the potential implications of a sustained building decline to the City's fiscal health and the ability to maintain threshold standards? The building decline has had a negative impact on the City's General Fund over the past three years. As development has slowed down, the City has made significant reductions in the General fund operating budget. With the combination of the housing crisis and the slowdown in the economy, service level impacts are likely. A summary of anticipated service impacts is included ,in Attachment 1. 5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below for the period under review. TRANSPORTATION 10,777/EDU 1,643,259 3,205,218 24,251,004 Dee 2005 Oct 2007 Oct 2008 INTERIM PRE-SR 125 O/EDU 0 0 0 Tolled N/A N/A TRAFFIC SIGNAL 28.55/trip 935,592 521,290 4,246,866 Feb 2001 Oct 2007 Oct 2008 TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE 4,579/acre 278,120 28,590 5,787,520 April 1998 N/A Unscheduled TELE. CANYON GRAVITY SewER 216.50/EDU 58,457 60,074 1,029,264 Se t1998 N1A Dee 2009 PUMPED SEWER O/EDU 0 0 0 Repealed N/A N/A SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN 1,330/EDU 779,683 166,527 1,522,227 Au 2004 N/A Unscheduled POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN 400/EDU 166,129 39,828 2,410,770 Dee 1997 N1A March 2009 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES Otay Ranch Villages 1, 2,5 & 6 1,114/SFDU 57,761 1,233,609 9,843 Feb 2007 Oct 2007 N/A Ota Ranch Villa e 11 1,930/SFDU 351,959 0 2,100,657 Aug 2005 Oct 2007 Oct 2008 PUBLIC FACILITIES Administration 538/SFDU 113,019 214,957 (2,384,483) Aug 2006 Oct 2007 Oct 2008 2,264/SFDU 3,168,156 9,131,517 9,856,259 " Police Facili 1,497/SFDU 377,132 6,92 251,889 " Co . Yard Relocation 403/SFDU 332,683 8,160 3,968,773 " " Libraries 1,302lSFDU 608,302 49,822 7,768,168 Fire Suppression S stems 1,1441SFDU 411,999) 50,665 (17,371,065) " Recreation Facilities 988/SFDU 43,432 46,705 (6,359,341 ) PUBLIC FACILITIES TOTAL 8,136/SFDU 4,208,863 9,508,750 4,269,800) TOTAL CITY DIF PROGRAMS 37,088,351 'Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown. Fee varies by t)pe of residential unit and for commercial and industrial development - see various fee schedules inciuded in Attachment A. Page 2 1-55 -Provide list of projects to be funded and/or completed over the next twelve months. . For each of the funds: a. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next 12 to 18 months? If the funds are inadequate, is the City able to borrow necessary funds to complete the projects? b. Are the available funds adequate to complete projects needed in the next five years? If the funds are inadequate, is the City able to borrow necessary funds to complete the projects? By their nature, additional revenues are received by DIF funds in times of development. These funds are then available to mitigate the impacts of the development paying the fees. This timeline is impacted by the need to construct large facilities, such as the civic center complex, police facility, and fire stations in advance of development. DIF projects are constructed via three financing scenarios: . cash-on-hand; . external debt financing; and . developer construction. If a facility is constructed or acquired using cash-on-hand, the fund provides direct financing using developer fees. This means of project financing has the greatest short term impact upon fund balance and avoids financing costs. If the project is constructed via external debt financing the fund does not directly finance the project, but instead makes debt service payments over a given period of time. As development occurs, their DIF fees go to paying these debt obligations. This means of project financing has the smallest impact upon fund balance. The financing costs incurred in securing external financing increase overall project costs, and thereby increase the fees .charged to developers. As DIF funds are unable to guarantee debt, all DIF debt obligations are secured by the City's General fund. In the instance of developer construction, the required facilities are constructed by the developer in exchange for a credit against their fee obligation. In this scenario, no fees are received by the City. The majority of Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) projects are constructed in this manner. For these projects, the TDIF's fund balance has a negligible impact on the timing of project construction. For each of the funds, the available fund balance as of June 30, 2008 is listed in the Development Impact Fee Overview table on the previous page. The adequacy of these funds to complete projects necessitated by either the 12- to 18-month or the 5 year forecasted growth will be determined by a number of factors including the actual rate of development (likely to fall significantly below the rate of development projected in the GMOC Forecast Report); and other fund obligations. These other obligations include existing debt service obligations, capital acquisitions, and program administration costs. As detailed in the previous table, the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFIDIF) fund ended fiscal year 2007 with a negative fund balance. The fund's outstanding debt obligations are guaranteed by the City's General fund. In order to mitigate potential impacts to the General fund resulting from this shortfall in the PFDIF, the City's Finance Director will work with a financing team to identify restructuring and/or refunding options for the outstanding debt. The goal of any such restructuring/refunding is improved short term cash flow, ensuring the City's ability to meet its debt obligations for the next four years. Page 3 1-56 Such a restructuring would likely result in increased financing costs, leading to increased developer fees. A short term loan from the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) to the PFDIF to meet debt obligations in fiscal year 2009 was approved by Council in December 2008. A copy of the staff report and resolution approving the interfund loan is provided as Attachment 3. In addition to these obligations, the City will also be working to create a debt service reserve in the PFDIF fund, which has a significant future debt service obligation. This reserve will mitigate the impacts of future swings in the development market on the fund's ability to meet its debt service obligations. The creation of this debt service reserve Will further reduce the funds available for project expenditures in the near future. Based upon the PFDIF cash flow analysis (Attachment 2), it is unlikely that the City will seek financing for the Rancho del Rey Library in the near future. The PFDIF currently has annual debt service payments of approximately $6.0 million which will utilize most of the cash flow coming into the fund. Once cash flows improve and reserves are replenished, financing options, including issuing debt or proposing a pay-as-you-go plan will be reviewed for financial feasibility. Should the City issue debt to construct this facility, the PFDIF fee charged to developers would increase significantly. To seek financing today would require the General Fund to assume the debt service payments which would add to the existing financial challenges. c. Is the fee adequate or does it need to be revised? TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE TELE. CANYON GRAVITY SEWER SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES Ota Ranch Villa es 1, 5 & 6 Ota Ranch Villa e 11 PUBLIC FACILITIES '-'''''~e:' s REVISE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE REVISE ADEQUATE REVISE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE ADEQUATE d. In the "Expended" column, provide a list of the projects or facilities for which funds were expended. On a separate sheet of paper, provide a table that lists the amounts. Please see Attachment 4. Page 4 1-57 6. At the Joint Workshop on June 5, 2008, the following suggestion was made in regards to ensuring adequate funding for all facility projects slated for construction: Implement a policy on the construction of facilities. Include language for dealing with priorities, how facilities would be funded, how they would be reported, and impacts of the expenditures. What is the status of implementing the policy on construction of facilities? A facility prioritization policy has not been developed. It is anticipated this plan will be presented to the GMOC 1;lnd City Council in conjunction with the next comprehensive update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program. 7. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the. City Council? In March 2008, the. City Council adopted an Ordinance creating the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF). This fee program will finance and coordinate the construction of new transportation facilities on the Westside of the City as well as spread the costs associated with the construction of the facilities equita.bly among the developing properties within the benefit area. This fee is applicable to all new development west of Interstate 805. There was no reportable activity for this fund in the subject fiscal year. PREPARED BY: Maria Kachadoorian Finance Director Karim Galeana Senior Accountant Tiffany Allen Fiscal and Management Analyst Date: January 9, 2009 Page 5 1-58 MEMO ATTACI;lr<4El'lT 1 ~"?- -.- lJ'~ _..,!~ .........~- ~ ~~.-.- Office of the City Manager ellY OF (HUlA VISTA DATE: December 1, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM:. Scott Tulloch, Interim City Manager S --r SUBJECT: Budget Reduction Plan The following report provides a summary of the City's worsening financial. condition and my plan for addressing budget shortfalls projected at $3.9 million in the current fiscal year and $20.0 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2009-10. The five-year revenue and expenditure forecast indicates that the projected budget gap is an ongoing structural issue that requires permanent solutions. One-time revenues and short- term expenditure cuts will not solve this problem. For this reason the proposed budget-balancing plan seeks to make reductions that are ongoing. Unfortunately! given that nearly 80% of the City's budget is allocated to personnel costs, balancing the budget will require a significant reduction in force. The proposed budget- balancing plan described herein includes the elimination of 165 positions and may result in as many as 130 layoffs. The recommended personnel reductions impact all departments and bargaining groups and will result in significantly lower levels of service being provided to the community. Fiscal Status As discussed in detail at the November 17 Budget Workshop, the City is projecting budget gaps of $3.9 million and $20.0 million in fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively (see below). These large gaps are primarily the result of significant decreases in most major revenues coupled with rapidly rising personnel costs as determined by neg~tiated memorandums of understanding with the City's four collective bargaining units. Projected General Fund Budget Gap In Thousands (000) Revenues Expenditures Projected Gap 137,308 141,200 (3,892) 1-59 134,249 154,217 (19,968) December 4 Council Workshop Page 2 of 29 General Fund Revenues The table below compares fiscal year 2008-09 budgeted revenues, updated fiscal year 2008-09 revenue projections and fiscal year 2009-10 projections. Revenues are currently projected to come in $5.5 million dollars below budget (3:9%) in fiscal year 2008-09 and are projected to drop another $3.1 million (2.3%) in fiscal year 2009-10. General Fund Revenue Projections In Thousands (000) Property 30,232 29,932 28,795 -3.9% Sales 29,678 26,890 26,352 -2.0% MVLF 20,216 20,134 19,372 -3.9% Franchise Fee 8,732 9,663 9,759 1.0% Other Local Taxes 12,039 . 12,023 12,048 0.2% Charges for Services 7,963 7,280 7,585 4.0% Transfer In 12,272 11,048 11,272 2.0% Other Revenue 11,617 10,809 10,063 -7.4% Use of Money & Prop 2,421 2,053 1,876 -9.5% Fines,Forfeitures & Penalties 1,494 1,722 1,693 -1.7% Rev from Other Agencies 5,397 5,036. 4,541 -10.9% licenses & Permits . 801 740 893 17.1% , Total General Fund 142,863 137,329 134,249 -2.30/0 Property Taxes In developing the budget for the current fiscal year, property tax revenues were projected to increase 3.9%, however, due to declining assessed property values and the slow down in new home construction, the actual growth is only 2.2%. Through January 2008 the City's aggregate property values have dropped $1.1 billion as a result of reassessments. In the current year the impact of the decline in assessed values was partially mitigated by the addition of the SR 125 with an assessed valuation of $600 million. Based on the most current information provided by the County Assessor's Office, property tax revenue is projected to decrease by 3.9% in fiscal year 2009-10 as a result of the continued decline in housing values and additional requests for reassessments of residential properties. 1-60 December 4 Council Workshop Page 3 of 29 Assessed Value 1990 to 2010 (projected) Annual Percentage Change 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07. 08 09 -10% ==-Chula Vista -e-County Overall Motor Vehicle License Fees Motor Vehicle License Fees are based on the ownership of a registered vehicle and are administered through the State of California. In 1998, the State Legislature reduced the fee from 2% to 0.65%, resulting in a negative impact to local governments. The State replaced these funds with offsetting property tax revenues. As a result of this change, MVLF is susceptible to changes in assessed value - combined with property taxes .36% of the City's total revenues are now susceptible to fluctuations in property assessed values. Sales Taxes Decreases in sales tax revenue reflect historical lows being reported for consumer confidence. The ongoing housing and credit crisis combined with continued job loss do not point to a quick recovery in this revenue source. The fiscal year 2008-09 budget assumed a moderate 2% increase for sales tax revenue. However, due to the worsening economic condition coupled with poorer than expected sales tax numbers in. the most recent quarter, sales tax revenue is now projected to decrease by 5% in the current fiscal year and an additional 2% decrease next fiscal year. As can'be seen on the chart on the following page, most jurisdictions in the County are experiencing even worse declines in sales tax revenues than Chula Vista. 1-61 December 4 Coundl Workshop Page 4 of 29 Sales Tax Comparison Second Quarter Calendar Year (April - June) 20% 15% 5% 10% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% Source: MuniServices z r- 0 " CIl m r- CIl !!! m CIl (') (') CIl < (j) 3" 0 (') 9!. Cll ~ 0 '" en '" 0 '" '" ~ ::T '" or '" l6 0 3 :!; '" " s: iii" (') " '" c: '" ijj '" "0 0 0' 0 s: '" s: 0 '" $, ~: CD (j) iii" ~ '" '" '" Cll c- o 0 '" '" 9!. '" ~ '< '" 0. en '" 0 ijj Cll '" < m' m' ~ en '" G1 a: '" '" 0. n OJ en 0. 0;' ee ee OJ a: 0 Q 0 0 Cll 0 0 Cll 0 '" ijj Cll .:<: < en " (') '" Cll ::T 0 " c: ::T '" .:<: Fiscal Year 2009-10 Base Budget The General Fund budget for fiscal year 2009-10 is projected at $154,2 million, an 8% increase over fiscal year 2008-09. The table below summarizes the budget changes by category. General Fund Expenditure Summary by Category In Thousands (000) Personnel Services $ 113,663 $ 121,812 $ 8,149 7% Supplies and Services $ 15,539 $ 16,983 $ 1,444 9% Other Expenses $ 1,523 $ 948 $ (576) -38% Operating Capital $ 388 $ 388 $ 0% Debt ServicejTransfers Out $ 6,654 $ 8,745 $ 2,092 31% Utilities $ 5,084 $ 5,341 $ 257 5% Total Operating Budget $ 142,852 $ 154,217 $ 11,366 80/0 The fiscal year 2009-2010 base budget reflects: . Full funding for all Council approved positions · All scheduled step increases and cost of living adjustments 1-62 December 4 Council Workshop Page 5 of 29 · No budgeted salary savings (providing for a more conservative base budget) · Higher flex/insurance costs · Increased equipment replacement costs and higher fleet maintenance and fuel costs · Higher public liability and shifts these expenditures from the Other Expenses budget category to the Transfers Out budget category . Higher attorney services costs Departmental Net Cost Net cost is defined as program expenditures less program revenues. This difference shows the portion of program costs that are supported by General Fund discretionary revenues (i.e. sales tax, property tax, MVLF). Currently, discretionary revenues represent $105 million or 74% of total General Fund revenues. As can be seen in the following chart, 75% of total General Fund discretionary revenues are allocated to public safety and public works services, making it very difficult to absorb major reductions in discretionary revenues without impacting these service areas. General Fund Net Cost by Department Recreation S3.7M 3 % Library S6.0M 6% Support Depts $16.3M 15% Planning & Building SO.8M 1% Engineering .SOAM 0% 1-63 December 4 Council Workshop Page 6 of 29 Summary of Proposed Budget Reductions Over the past two years the City has made significant adjustments in an effort to bring expenditures in line with projected revenues. The Council adopted fiscal year 2007-08 budget incorporated a budget reduction plan that reduced net cost expenditures by approximately $10.1 million. The expenditure reductions included such measures as the elimination of 34.25 vacant positions, extending the mandatory furlough program to all management staff, confidential staff, and members of the Western Council of Engineers, and increasing salary savings by actively managing vacancies. During the last fiscal year, the City went through two budget reduction processes as the City's financial outlook continued to worsen. In total, these two processes resulted in a net cost reduction of $26.1 million and the elimination of 145 permanent benefited positions. These reductions impacted the City's General Fund, Fleet Management Fund, and Development Services Fund as well as the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority . Most recently, Council approved the elimination of 10.5 positions in the Development Services Fund in order to reduce expenditures to mitigate revenue shortfalls resulting from the slowdown in development. The elimination of these positions has resulted in 12 employee layoffs to date. The number of layoffs would have been much larger if not for an ongoing hiring freeze, the elimination of most vacant positions and two early retirement incentive programs. As the fiscal situation has worsened, City management has worked with department directors to develop a plan that addresses the projected budget deficits in both the current fiscal year and in fiscal year 2009-10. The process began with labor and employee briefings in late October. These briefings were followed by an employee focus group that developed cost saving ideas that were forwarded to department directors; department directors then considered the feasibility of incorporating these measures into the overall budget reduction plan for the department.' Finally, as with previous processes, employee suggestions were encouraged and sought at all levels of the organization. The resulting proposed budget reduction plan brings into balance the General Fund, Development Services Fund, and the Redevelopment Agency/Housing Authority. The tables on the following page summarize the personnel reductions that have been approved by City Council to date and the further staffing reductions that are now being proposed. 1-64 December 4 Council Workshop Page 7 of 29 Summary of Previous and Proposed Personnel Reductions by Department Ubrary 68.75 -18.00 -17.50 -52% Recreation & Nature Center 43.25 -4.75 -15.50 -47% Planning & Building 91.50 -33.00 -5.50 -42% Administration 28.00 -2.00 -10.00 -43% Human Resources 25.50 -5.00 -5.50 -41% Engineering 74.00 -21.50 -6.50 -38% Finance 33.50 -8.00 -3.00 -33% ITS 28.00 -4.00 -5.00 -32% Redevelopment Agency/Housing 18.00 -1.00 -6.00 -39% Oty Clerk 8.50 -1.00 -1.50 -29% City Attorney 14.00 -2.00 -2.00 -29% Public Works 260.00 -18.50 -44.00 -24% Fire 152.00 -17.00 -9.00 -17% Police 364.50 -25.00 -34.00 -16% Animal Shelter 22.25 -2.00 0.00 -9% City Council 15.00 -1.00 0.00 -7% CBAG 17.00 3.00 0.00 18% Total 1263.75 -160.75 -165.00 -26% Notes: Staffing totals for FY 2006-07 have been adjusted to reflect current program structures. Staffing figures for Public Works include positions budgeted in the General Fund, Development Services Fund, Fleet, Environmental Services, Transit, and Sewer funds. Staffing figures for Engineering include positions budgeted in the General Fund, Development Services Fund, and Sewer funds. Staffing figures for Planning and Building include positions budgeted in the General Fund and Development Services Fund. Summary of Previous and Proposed Personnel Reductions by Bargaining Unit Professional 81.50 -10.00 -20.50 -37% Management 146.00 -32.00 -18.00 -34% WeE 37.00 -7.00 -5.00 -32% OJEA 609.25 -98.75 -87.50 -31% Confidential 31.00 -5.00 -2.00 -23% POA 247.00 -7.00 -23.00 -12% IAFF 112.00 -1.00 -9.00 -9% Total 1263.75 -160.75 -165.00 -26% The last table in this section summarizes the net cost reductions by department being proposed for fiscal year 2009-10. 1-65 December 4 Council Workshop Page 8 of 29 Summary of Proposed Net Cost Reductions by Department Administration $ 4,506,648 $ (1,449,000) -32% City Attorney $ 2,758,467 $ (644,000) -23% Recreation & Nature Center $ 6,567,246 $ (1,475,000) -22% Library $ 8,289,824 $ (1,682,000) -20% ITS $ 4,128,335 $ (805,000) -19% Public Works $ 23,948,671 $ (4,114,000) -17% City Clerk $ 1,282,467 $ (209,000) -16% Human Resources $ 4,309,655 $ (633,000) -15% Planning & Building $ 3,651,709 $ (464,000) -13% Finance $ 3,025,143 $ (341,000) -11% Police $ 50,064,782 $ (5,372,000) -11% Fire $ 23,582,251 $ (2,300,000) -10% Engineering $ 4,994,273 $ (469,000) -9% City Council $ 1,522,730 $ 0% Non Departmental $ 9,457,930 $ 0% Animal Shelter $ 2,112,614 $ 0% Boards and Commissions $ 14,736 $ 0% Total General Fund $ 154,217,481 $ (19,957,000) -13% other Funds: Redevelopment Agency/Housing $ 8,875,694 $ (725,000) -8% Development Services Fund. $ 8,801,768 $ (1,010,000) -11% 1-66 December 4 Council Workshop Page 9 of 29 Summary of Service Impacts by Department To follow is a brief summary of the anticipated service impacts resulting from the recommended budget reductions organized by department. City Clerk Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 209,000 209,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents(FTEs) Authorized FrE Staffing Proposed FrE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 7.50 (1.50) -20.0% Service Impacts: In 2007, the City Clerk's office was staffed with 8.5 full time equivalent positions. Due to recent budget reductions, one half-time position became dedicated to passport services, one full time, mid-management position was cut, and one full time executive position frozen. These cuts have resulted in delays in meeting state mandates, such as campaign statement review, fulfillment of requests for records and information; and in preparing City Council. minutes. The proposed elimination of the Assistant City Clerk will cause continued delays in providing these services. With the exception of passport services, all functions of the City Clerk's office are essential to the City's operations and to meeting state mandates, and therefore should not be eliminated. Elimination of the Senior Office Specialist will result in cessation of the City's passport application services, as well as delays in customer service, provision of certain City records, and the preparation of resolutions and ordinances. While passport services are not core to the City's operations, the service is well received by the public, and the revenue generated exceeds the costs. The Clerk's office used existing personnel to provide the service, which has generated over $60,000 in new revenue. The cost to process one passport application is approximately $8.00, using the salary of a Senior Office Specialist, resulting in net revenue of $17.00 to $32.00, depending on whether or not the customer requests photo service. Rave reviews consistently come in 1-67 ---.. December 4 Council Workshop Page 10 of 29 from a grateful public. This service has provided an open door to City Hall to many residents and visitors, and has left an excellent impression on over 2,000 people. City Attorney Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net CoSt Reduction- $ $ $ $ 644,000 644,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 12.00 (2.00) -16.7% Service Impacts: The City Attorney's Office authorized staffing level was reduced from 14 positions to 12 positions as part of the fiscal year 2008-09 budget. This proposal would eliminate another 2 positions from the City Attorney's Office for a combined staffing reduction of 4 positions, or 29%, over the past two fiscal years. The elimination of 2 additional positions would eliminate specialized legal expertise in certain areas including redevelopment, employment, ADA, conflicts and labor law. The elimination of attorney and support staff positions will result in extended legal project completion time and will necessitate the inability to perform non-essential projects. The proposed downgrading of two currently vacant positions will reduce the experience and expertise level of attorneys providing advice and support. Potential increase in the use of outside counsel may be required for projects requiring specialized legal knowledge or projects constrained by time sensitive requirements. Administration Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 1,245,000 204,000 1,449,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 26.00 (10.00) -38.5% 1-68 December 4 Council Workshop Page 11 of 29 Service Impacts: The Administration Department is comprised of five divisions - City Manager's Office, Economic Development, Communications, Budget and Analysis, and Conservation and Environmental Services. While the Administration Department is a single department the role of these five divisions is separate and distinct and for that reason the impact of the budget reductions are presented by division. City Manaoer's Office - The elimination of two management positions in the City Manager's Office will result in the elimination of the City's legislative analysis and governmental relations program and will necessitate shifting additional duties related to coordinating the agenda process to the City Clerk's Office. Economic Develooment - As part of the budget-balancing plan, the City will be eliminating support to outside economic development organizations at the local, regional and state level. These include the South County . . Economic Development Council, San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, San Diego Connect and Team California. Eliminating the support to these non-profits will reduce or eliminate each organization's ability and incentive to promote Chula Vista, represent the City's interests and refer business development leads to the City. In some cases, the City may lose a seat on the organization's Board of Directors and the ability to influence the organization's priorities and positiofls. In addition, all funding for economic analysis of potential projects including the Regional Technology Park, promotions, printing and binding, and travel will be eliminated. This will severely limit the City's ability to compete with other cities for economic development opportunities related to jobs and tax revenue growth and diversification. With the elimination of the Principal Economic Development Specialist position the City will shut down economic development activity related to clean-tech corporate recruitment, auto park expansion and the potential development of an eco-industrial business park. In addition, support of the activities of the National Energy Center for Sustainable Communities will be discontinued and end faculty and research relationships with San Diego State University, the University of San Diego, the California Energy Commission and corporations including IBM, CAT/Solar, CAT/Hawthorne and BP. The City will also lose the resource responsible for the expansion of the Regional Enterprise Zone into areas in southwestern and eastern Chula Vista. These potential expansion areas include the Eastlake Business Park, Regional Technology Park, Eastern Urban Center and University. Expanding the Enterprise Zone would have provided significant tax incentives to businesses considering expansion or relocation into those developments. 1-69 December 4 Council Workshop Page 12 of 29 Budqet and Analvsis - The elimination of the vacant Special Projects Manager position (formerly Grants Manager position) will negatively impact the number of grant proposals written and received as well as the City's ability to pursue potential new sources of revenues including impact fees and user fees. The elimination of two of the Budget Office's six analyst positions will negatively impact the quality of budget services provided to' departments, the City Manager, and the City Council. These services include budget development, budget analysis (e.g. overtime analysis), monthly budget monitoring and reporting, quarterly revenue and expenditure projections, performance measurement, and monthly budget and performance reviews between City Manager and departments. Communications - The loss of four positions will impact media relations and public information efforts including publications and web content. The City will lose its photography, video production and virtual tour capability. Other departmentS will be required to directly work with outside agencies and residents to manage the permitting process for special events, block parties and film requests. Fewer news releases will be distributed; published and broadcast news reports will no longer be pulled and archived; City Counc;:i1 meetings will not be archived; the Intranet and Internet will not be updated regularly; Chambers and conference room reservations and logistics will be assigned to another department; and the production and broadcasting of the rotating bulletin board will end. Information Technology Services Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 555,000 250,000 805,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 24.00 (5.00) -20.8% Service Impacts: The annual computer replacement fund has been reduced or eliminated for the past several years. The City has computers that are as slow as 1 GHZ single core processors and more than 6 years old still in use. These computers will not be replaced unless they completely fail to operate or are so slow that they become unusable. This will impact many of the staff that are doing more with less. 1-70 December 4 Council Workshop Page 13 of 29 ITS will be eliminating two microcomputer/network support professionals. These staff members handle all of the network-related calls for service from the users and are on call seven days per week 24 hours per day to assist with support calls for Police dispatch, Fire related calls and for the Library. At the same time, service calls are anticipated to increase because the computers that City staff are using are becoming old and need more support. In addition, these staff members handle many special projects during the course of the year, many of which require multiple staff to assist and the projects can span many months. ITS is currently working on installing a records management system for the Police Department. This project requires 3 new servers and 38 new computers. The microcomputer support staff handles these installations. The resolution times for non-critical support issues are anticipated to go from 1-2 days to 2-3 days on average. ITS will be eliminating one of our four application support professionals. This will result in programming delays, mostly in the area of Permits Plus, Business License processing, and custom applications for the Police Department. ITS will be eliminating one of two webmaster positions. The position that is being eliminated is filled by the person who wrote and implemented the online brochure for the Recreation Department as well as the citizen scheduling applications for finger print appointments in Police and passport applications in the Clerk's Office. Roll-out of additional e-government applications will be negatively impacted. Human Resources Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements . Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 587,000 46,000 633,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FrE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 20.50 (5.50) -26.8% 1-71 December 4 Coundl Workshop Page 14 of 29 Service Impacts: The budget balancing plan includes the elimination of 5.5 full time equivalent positions from the Human Resources Department: two in Operations; two in Risk Management; one in Benefits; and 0.50 in department wide support. These reductions, coupled with prior staff reductions represent a 42% decrease in staff without a commensurate decrease in workload. To follow is a brief summary of the anticipated service impacts by program. Operations - Staff in this division has already absorbed the workload of four positions previously cut from the Operations and Benefits programs. The further reductions now proposed will result in delays inthe delivery of services such as the recruitment and testing of safety and civilian positions and an inability to provide benefit and payroll support for the remaining workforce in a timely manner. Testing and selection processes must result in a valid and reliable test that meets the EEOC Uniform Guideline (4/5ths rule) to avoid disparate impact that would risk violating Title VII. With less staff, this will become more and more difficult to accomplish. Additionally, the City has spent a significant amount of time and resources over the past eight years to align the classification and compensation structure. The citywide reorganization and reassignment of duties as a result of the proposed budget and program reductions will require the city to spend the same amount of time and effort to ensure the "new" city structure meets FLSA guidelines and is fair and equitable in order to avoid a wide array of employment liability issues. Risk Manaqement - The loss of a Senior Risk Management Specialist (Safety) will have city and community wide impact. The City's ability to address safety issues on a proactive preventative basis will be severely limited. The City can expect to see an increase in the number of preventable work related injuries/illnesses that in addition to affecting the lives and well being of employees and their families may result in city-Wide loss of productivity and increased workers' compensation claim and insurance costs. Staff at public facilities will be relied upon to identify and mitigate safety issues. The loss of a Senior Risk Management Specialist (Loss Control) will result in the City's inability to pursue financial restitution from parties who have damaged city property or who have tied up police and fire resources as a result of alcohol related accidents. We have successfully collected $1.8M since the program's inception in 2001. Collection efforts will be limited to insured parties only. 1-72 December 4 Council Workshop Page 15 of 29 Emolovee Benefits - This operational section has already sustained a 50% reduction in staff. The further reductions in this division will result in delays in processing bi-weekly payroll transactions, including benefits and MOU related matters, and will increase the potential for over or under payments to employees and benefit providers: Additionally, staff will not be able to identify and implement benefit options that may save the City money in the long run. Finance Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Totai Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 341,000 341,000 Personnel Full Time EqUivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 2S.50 (3.00) -11.8% Service Impacts: The last rounds of cuts in the Finance Department have resulted in an overall 22 percent decrease in staffing for the Department. The previous cuts have occurred in the Administrative, Operations and Treasury divisions. At this time, further reducing staffing levels in these areas would inhibit our ability to meet our annual reporting deadlines and continue to be in compliance with Federal, State, Local financial reporting deadlines. Therefore, the next round of major cuts will occur in the Purchasing division, specifically, the Purchasing Agent and Procurement Specialist positions. The impacts will be felt in the timeliness in reviewing and approving contracts, issuing formal bids, processing requisitions, and processing of payments to vendors. In addition to those cuts a vacant Accounting Assistant position within Accounts Payable will also be cut but the workload will have to be allocated to existing staff. This will be accomplished by a reorganization of the remaining staff within the Purchasing division. In effect, this round of cuts will reduce purchasing staff by 60 percent or to 2 positions. With the overall reduction of the 3 positions, the Finance Department will be down to 22 positions, which represents a 33 percent reduction in staffing levels from fiscal year 2006-07 and reflective of the staffing levels of 1987. 1-73 December 4 Council Workshop Page 16 of 29 Planning and Building Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 693,000 73,000 175,000 941,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 58.50 (5.50) -9.4% Service Impacts: As part of the budget reduction plan the Planning and Building Department is eliminating two positions in the Advance Planning program. The loss of these positions will negatively impact the department's level of effort in: · Seeking financial resources for implementation of Otay Valley Regional Park . Adoption and implementation of the Historic Preservation program · Timely review of development projects for General Plan consi,stency and for sites with historic resources · Timely processing of applications for historic designations · Loss of clerical support for Advance Planning and GMOC The budget reduction plan also includes the transfer of one Code Enforcement Officer from the Mobile Home Inspection Program to the Residential Abandoned Property Program. The transfer of this position would result in the responsibility of the inspection program being returned to the State Office of Housing and Community Development and would reduce the City's ability to address complaints within mobile home parks. The budget reduction plan also includes expenditure reductions in the Development Services Fund, including the elimination of 3.5 positions from the Building section. The loss of these positions will negatively impact the department's level of effort in: · Timely research and retrieval of building records and response to Public Records Act requests · Meeting established performance goals for next day inspections 1-74 ~ December 4 Council Workshop Page 17 of 29 · Providing expeditious resolution to conflicts arising in the building plan check and inspection process · Providing policy and code recommendations to City Council on building construction matters (e.g. Green Building standards, accessibility) One position is recommended for elimination in the Planning section. The elimination of this position will significantly impact the department's work efforts on the preparation of implementing zoning documents including Zoning Ordinance updates, zoning actions to address inconsistencies with the General Plan, and periodic review and monitoring of General Plan implementation. Engineering Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 753,000 753,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 52.50 (6.50) -12.4% Service Impacts: In the Engineering Department most of the positions are revenue offset. Only the services within two of the lines of business are significantly impacted by this proposed budget. The first is the Traffic Division that traditionally covers about 47% of its work from various dedicated accounts. The remaining General Fund work that will be eliminated includes: Speed surveys (which support tickets issued by police that are challenged in court), accident investigations, and support for the traffic safety commission. In addition, there is no funding anticipated for traffic' related publiC inquiries and council referrals - including:' Traffic calming, signing and striping, parking, sight distance, etc. The second line of business proposed for budget reductions is Building and Parks construction unit as workload has already decreased and is projected to decrease further. 1-75 December 4 Coundl Workshop Page 18 of 29 Public Works Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 4,212,000 152,000 4,364,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 241.50 (44.00) -18.2% Service Impacts: Provided below is a summary of our Budget Reduction Proposals by Program. It is important to note that these proposed reductions primarily represent cuts that will impact "core" services. Traffic Siqnal and Street Liqht Proqram - Eliminating a position will impact preventative maintenance (PM) for traffic signals citywide. PM's benefit the City in the long-term by reducing maintenance costs. This cut will result in potentially increasing malfunctions of traffic signals, thereby causing traffic congestion and delays. Street Maintenance Proqram - In fiscal year 2000-01, six positions were added to the Street Maintenance Program to catch up with providing street maintenance services citywide. Since that time, the city's streets (lanes) have increased by 224 miles or 25%. In December of 2007, two positions were eliminated due to budget reductions. With this cut of three positions, five of the six staff added in fiscal year 2000-01 would be eliminated. Overall, street reconstruction will be reduced by 50%. Backlogs for litter and trash pickup will increase resulting in a negative appearance of the City. Stripinq and Siqninq Proqram - Eliminating one of two 2-person legend crews will potentially reduce safety and the effectiveness of parking and traffic controls throughout the city. The elimination of one crew will impact the remaining striping crew as street striping and legend painting go hand in hand. In order to maintain a viable street painting program, remaining staff from other sections may be utilized as a legend crew, thereby impacting the delivery of services from other units. 1-76 December 4 Council Workshop Page 19 of 29 Eliminating one position from a 2-person Sign Crew will result in a backlog for deferred maintenance associated with traffic sign repairs and maintenance. Graffiti Proqram - Eliminating one of two 2-person Graffiti Crews will result in the City no longer being able to meet the 48-hour removal requirement. Therefore, the City's graffiti ordinance will need to be revised to reflect a 120-hour or five-day removal requirement. When graffiti is not promptly removed, it invites even more markings and criminal activity, creating an atmosphere that deteriorates the City's quality of life. Research consistently demonstrates that prompt graffiti removal plays a key role in reducing graffiti levels. Urban Forestry Proqram - Eliminating three positions will increase delays in clearing right-of-way obstructions or tree and trip concerns. Some of these impacts are summarized below: · Roadway clearance requests for line of Sight will be delayed from 30-45 days to 60-120 days. · Trimming of young trees will be eliminated (only complaints trims will be addressed). · Response to other complaints will be delayed from 3-6 weeks to 10-12 weeks. Storm Drain Proqram - These five positions were approved in fiscal year 2007-08 to help the City comply with the new NPDES permit. The increased requirements with regard to NPDES were imposed by the State without providing the necessary funding. The new NPDES Permit requires inspection and cleaning of trash and debris from the City's storm drainage systems, including catch basins, storm drain inlets, open channels, culverts, detention basins, etc. Non-compliance could potentially result in notices of violation and fines. NPDES Proqram - These three positions are needed to help the City comply with the new NPDES permit. The Municipal Permit requires the City to implement various program components to minimize the discharge of pollutants from construction, residential, commercial,industrial, and municipal activities to the receiving waters of the State. These program components include: · Public education and outreach to increase awareness of water quality and watershed protection issues; · Inspection of industrial, commercial, construction, and municipal facilities and activities. in order to ensure compliance with water quality regulations and requirements; · Enforcement of the above facilities and activities as necessary; · Responding to reported violations of the City's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 1-77 December 4 Council Workshop Page 20 of 29 . Review of development project submittals to ensure compliance with current development and re- development storm water laws and regulations; . Annual reporting of water quality and watershed protection activities to the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and . Participating in regional and watershed activities as required by the NPDES Municipal Permit. Park Maintenance Prooram - In fiscal year 2007-08, the Parks Division had 7 gardener positions eliminated due to budget reductions. The current budget cuts include eliminating two additional gardener positions, raising the total number of gardener positions cut to 9. This means that 9 of 10 gardeners added since fiscal year 2000-01 to maintain the new parks will have been cut. At the same time, the City has moved forward with the development of a new community park in San Miguel Ranch. Upon its completion, service levels at other parks will further degrade as we account for this increased workload. Park Ranoer Prooram - The Park Ranger Program will be eliminated with these cuts; thereby reducing weekend services, eliminating park and ball field monitoring, and eliminating oversight of the Park Reservation Program, which ensures those individuals, groups, etc. who make park shelter reservations get their reserved space. Construction and Reoair Prooram - Eliminating five positions will eliminate painting and stucco and drywall repairs for City buildings and would mean potentially delayed responses to complaints, electrical repairs (notably those associated with exposed wiring or copper wire thefts throughout the City) and lack of repairs to wood structures. One of these positions was added when the Department agreed to take on the installation, removal, transport and storage of City holiday lighting. The City had previously contracted this activity out to a private entity. The Construction and Repair Program nas undertaken that effort despite the position never being filled. Two years ago, staff advised that the City was significantly under-funding its building maintenance activities baseq on recognized national standards. These reductions further exacerbate that problem. Custodial Services Prooram - The Custodial Program lost 8.12 full time equivalents in fiscal year 2007-08 due to budget reductions. With these additional cuts, seven additional staff would be eliminated; thereby impacting services citywide at the recreation centers, libraries, Police and Fire facilities, and other public 1-78 December 4 Council Workshop Page 21 of 29 buildings. In addition, special or dynamic tasks that occur randomly such as floor refinishing, completing setup, delivering tables and chairs for various events, etc. would be reduced due to the availability of staff. Buildinq Services Communications Proqram - This position primarily outfits Police and Fire vehicles. Therefore, eliminating this position will require staff to contract for this service as one of two positions was cut in fiscal year 2007-08 due to budget reductions. Contracting may impact Police and Fire services. Administration Proqram - Eliminating a position will impact fiscal support for Public Works, which will result in delays in processing purchase orders and payments for vendors. Develooment Services Fund - Due to the slowdown in development, this proposal will result in little or no service level reduction unless development and capital improvement projects pick up. Police Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 4,084,000 1,108,000 180,00"0 5,372,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 339.50 (34.00) -10.0% Service Impacts: Although the Police Department has made every effort to minimize the service level impacts to the citizens of Chula Vista, the impact of the proposed cuts will mean moderate to significant reductions in many areas of service including: Direct Service; Proactive Patrol; Investigative Services and Community Relations/Outreach. Direct Service - Direct service impacts include the elimination of the patrol Community Service Officer Program. This will result in reductions in priority response times, especially at the priority one and two response thresholds. With the elimination of the CSO program in Patrol, approximately 4,000 or more reports will be redirected to sworn officers which will divert them to low priority report calls thus delaying response times to other higher priority calls. Additionally, elimination of the K-9 program will result in increased risk for 1-79 December 4 Council Workshop Page 22 of 29 regular patrol officers and lengthened on-scene times, which will also result in response time delays. K-9's are utilized in situations where suspects are hiding or have barricaded themselves in a building. The K-9 is brought in to seek out the suspect and contain them. It should be noted that the core uniformed patrol (sworn officers) has been left intact. Proactive Patrol - Proactive patrol will essentially be eliminated as a course of regular business with the demise of the Street Team and JUDGE unit. These proactive teams. address specific crime issues and assist patrol. The Street Team provides focused proactive enforcement to deal with issues like robberies, assaults and other crime and disorder issues that require specialized response. The JUDGE unit deals with gangs and drug enforcement issues. Under a cooperative agreement with the Department of Probation, the JUDGE unit provides enhanced enforcement resources to address drug and gang crimes. Any specialized enforcement efforts to deal with the issues that were previously covered by the Street Team or JUDGE will now have to be handled either via special overtime or via specialized grants. Both are .problematic due to restricted overtime funds and minimal grant opportunities to tackle these issues. The JUDGE unit currently receives approximately $126,000 in revenue to offset their costs. Investiqative Services - Investigative Services will be impacted significantly. Specialized detectives will be eliminated including the Computer Forensic Agent, Financial Crimes Agent, Auto Theft Agent and the elimination of the Narcotics Enforcement Team. The Computer Forensic Agent handles very technical investigations involving the use of computers. Often times, detectives find computers at a crime scene which may contain evidence and the Computer Forensic Agent is called in to secure any data on the disk, or to remove data from damaged or unreadable media. With the loss of this position, the City could incur substantial costs to send out to a third party computer forensic lab. Financial crimes are the fastest growing crime in the United States. Due to the nature of the investigations and the complexity of the cases, specialized training is required to work the cases. Auto theft represents 50% of the City's Part I crime totals. A trained auto theft detective is imperative to work the over 2,400 cases received each year. Any cases involving financial crimes or auto theft will now be reviewed by general detectives. The Narcotics Enforcement Team has already lost two detectives through previous budget reductions, and with the elimination of the remaining two detectives and one sergeant, street level narcotics investigations will be significantly reduced and only investigated under special circumstances. 1-80 December 4 Council Workshop Page 23 of 29 Community Relations/Outreach - Community Relations includes not only professional staff that normally handles citizen inquiries, attending community meetings and events, and facilitating communication between the citizens and the Police Department, but also media relations and responses to "Freedom of Information Act" requests. The Community Relations Unit and Public Information Officer positions were created in response to concerns from the community, City Council and City Manager that the Police Department was not meeting expectations for quality community interaction. Any community outreach will now be handled by officers of various units as time permits. Additionally, then; is potentially an increase in overtime expenditures in order to provide even a basic level of community interaction, as field officers will be utilized to attend meetings. Relations with the media will also be strained as the PIO was created to provide a consistent, identifiable source for information. Now media information will be primarily handled by Lieutenants on the various patrol shifts, which is the' primary reason why thePIO position was created in the first place. There will no longer be any proactive media contact from the Police Department. Support - Included in the decrement list are several support positions that playa critical part in the day-to-day operations of the police Department. The Community Service Officer in the Family Protection Unit registers and tracks sex offenders in Chula Vista. There are over 300 documented sex offenders in Chula Vista and this position tracks their location and liaisons with various law enforcement and court related agencies to ensure these offenders are registered and their location in our city is known. This function will now be handled by a detective, which will reduce the. amount of time that detective can spend dealing with sex crimes, domestic/elder abuse and other family crimes. The Public Safety Analyst position provides critical support to the entire enforcement component of the Police Department. Through a research based strategic analysis of . . crime and disorder issues, the Public Safety Analysts are able to focus our limited enforcement contingent on significant issues throughout the community. In addition, the Public Safety Analysts are also a key component to the Department being able to secure much needed grant funding. Over the last several years, Public Safety Analysts have been able to secure nearly $1.SM in enforcement grants for the City. The Training and Development Manager provides coordination of the Departments training program. With 244 officers, a well coordinated and targeted training program is essential to reduce liability to the City and increase. safety to the Officers. There are also two juvenile programs that are contracted through South Bay Community Services which help identify troubled youth and put them back on track to be contributing members of the community. With an over 98% success rate (based upon recidivism), these programs are essential in reducing crimes involving youth. 1-81 December 4 Council Workshop Page 24 of 29 Frozen/Vacant Positions - There are currently several frozen and vacant positions in the Police Department that must be maintained (Communications Manager, Jail Manager, Senior Fiscal Office Specialist, Police Dispatcher, Facilities and Supplies Specialist and K-9 Officer). First, the Communications Manager manages the Police Dispatch Center. In fiscal year 2007-08, the department cut the Lieutenant who managed both the technology unit and the dispatch center and civilianized the dispatch function. In fiscal year 2008-09, the position was frozen and Lieutenants from Patrol currently divide up supervision of the dispatch center along patrol shift hours. This is problematic as there is no sole supervisory source to handle personnel issues and consistency in supervision is an issue. Additionally, the department is getting ready for a major technology upgrade to the entire dispatch center and needs a dedicated professional who understands the complexities and intricacies of a dispatch center. Cutting this position would have far reaching effects including adding additional risk to officers and citizens. The Jail Manager position has been temporarily filled with a Lieutenant from Patrol. Because of the high liability of the operation and the need for a supervisor who is specifically experienced and knowledgeable in jail operations, the department strongly recommends filling the Jail Manager position. The Senior Fiscal Office Specialist for the department is currently filled with an hourly employee. Since the elimination of both the full time Facilities and Supplies Specialist and the Senior Management Analyst, this position has become even more critical to the fiscal operations of the department. Currently this position handles all of the purchase orders, direct payments, billings, inventory control, petty cash, and the equipment and supplies (receiving) two days a week. The Facilities and Supplies Specialist is also currently filled with an hourly employee. This position handles the centralized equipment and supplies intake for the department, including tracking all of the specialized equipment for the department, maintaining a stock of frequently needed items, and coordinating building maintenance issues. This position was reduced to a half-time position and the Senior Fiscal Office Specialist is able to provide limited coverage on days when the Facilities and Supplies Specialist isn't working. The Police Dispatcher position is critical as the dispatch center is currently below the recommended number of dispatchers based upon the Dispatch Staffing Model.. Currently the Dispatch center handles well over 450,000 incoming calls (both emergency and non-emergency) to the dispatch center every year. Since FY 2004, there 1-82 December 4 Council Workshop Page 25 of 29 has been a 13% increase in the number of calls into the dispatch center. With each opening left vacant, overtime increases in order to cover the empty shift. There is one K-9 position currently vacant and the program is among the departmental reductions. Impacts are discussed under "Direct Service" impacts above. Fire Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 2,300,000 2,300,000 Personnel Full lime Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnei FTEs 135.00 (9.00) -6.7% Service Impacts: Cross Staffinq of Urban Search and Rescue - This proposal would designate the four positions per day that currently staff the urban search and rescue vehicle (USAR 53) at Fire Station Three as supplemental staffing by eliminating USAR 53 from continuous service and placing it at Station Seven to be "cross staffed" with personnel from Truck 57. These four positions would be used to backfill daily vacancies that occur at other fire stations within the department. This will result in at least $1.4 million in savings that would occur from not haVing to pay overtime to backfill for vacancies due to leave. Currently, Fire Station Seven provides service delivery through a three-person engine company (E57) and a four-person truck company (T57). Each resource is capable of responding to calls for service independently or simultaneously, as dictated by call volume or the call for service type (Structure Fire/Multi-casualty Incident/Rescue). In addition, USAR 53 is currently staffed with four personnel and responds as a primary resource in its district. USAR 53 also responds to all structure fires in addition to assigned Truck Companies. Station Seven would continue to operate with a "cross staffing" model that would staff either the truck or USAR 53 assigned to Station Seven's coverage. Engine 57 would move to Station Three and provide first in coverage of to that district. 1-83 December 4 Council Workshop Page 26 of 29 The elimination of USAR 53 from continuous service will result in decreased specialized rescue capabilities and coverage. The Station Seven district will not have an apparatus with fire attack capabilities and therefore initiating an attack on fires will be delayed. Residents may be affected with potential increased response times, because an extra unit will be required on structure fires. However, the residents of the eastern territories will be impacted to a larger extent because the proposed staffing decrease will affect Station Seven that is located in the eastern section of the city. Response times may also increase, as second and third calls for service will take longer to respond to due to one less unit being available for coverage. Cross Staffinq of Truck 51 - After cross staffing has occurred between Truck 57 and USAR 53, the only apparatus that can be used in order to further reduce costs while aVOiding the closure of a fire station is Truck 51. The following is the most likely scenario to be recommended by the Fire Department: . Layoff 9 personnel in the suppression division of the Fire Department by eliminating the Engine 52 crew. . Move Truck 51 from Station 1 to Station 2 and cross staff the Truck and Engine. . Truck 51 crews will service calls in Station 2 with either the Truck or Engine as needed. . Engine 52 responds to 1,626 calls for service annually (4.45 daily). . Brush 52 would need to be relocated to another station. A substantial impact to this proposal will also be the default of the SAFER grant, which will require repayment of $790,000. In order to fully realize the cost savings of this proposal it will require the immediate elimination of the 9 FTE's to compensate for the SAFER grant repayment. Beginning in fiscal year 2010 a savings of 1.1 million dollars will be realized. The following are the impacts of eliminating E52's crew and moving Truck 51 to Fire Station 2. . Increase in GMOC response times due to lack of coverage for secondary calls for service in Station 1 and 2. . Increase in Truck response times on the west due to Truck 51 being committed on a call for service in Station 2. . Will affect monthly training scheduling due to lack of resoiJrces in the west. . Impact to automatic aid resources (use of resources from other cities). . Possible ineligibility for future Federal Grants as result of default on SAFER grant. · Increase wear and tear on Truck 51 as it will become a primary response vehicle and deliver upwards of 2,000 calls for service annually. 1-84 December 4 Counal Workshop Page 27 of 29 Recreation Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 1,459,000 16,000 1,475,000 Personnel Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 38.50 (15.50) -40.3% Service Impacts: The budget reduction plan includes significant reductions to the Recreation Department; the service impacts of those reductions are summarized below by program. Public Services · The Parkway Gymnasium would be closed. Numerous programs and activities would be displaced with no proximate alternative location. Prooram Services · The Parkway Pool. would be closed. Safety-related programs and activities that cannot be accommodated at Loma Verde Pool would be eliminated. The cost to re-open the pool at later date is estimated at $175,000. · Diversionary programs and activities for middle school at-risk youth would be eliminated, potentially resulting in increased contacts with law enforcement. · Significant reduction in publiC service levels at Norman Park Center. Some seniors and low income programs such as blood pressure screenings would be eliminated. · Developmentally and physically disabled clients may be unable to participate in certain programs due to transportation issues; these individuals require highly specialized programming that may not be available elsewhere locally. 1-85 December 4 Council Workshop Page 28 of 29 Nature Center . The Nature Center would be closed. Potentially could impact future Bayfront projects, as the Nature Center was part of the mitigation plan for future development. Unknown ramifications and liabilities regarding grants, contractual agreements and donor agreements. Animals would need to be relocated or transferred in order to avoid euthanasia, as no animals are suitable for release into the wild. Significant expense would be required to prepare infrastructure and equipment for long-term inactivity and potential future re-opening. Administration . Administrative and supervisory responsibilities would need to be absorbed in other areas, non-core functions would be deferred, and departmental representation in numerous community collaborative efforts would be eliminated. Deoartment Wide . Reduction of hourly budget will result in reduction or elimination of some drop-in and fee-free activities at recreation centers, decreased supervision in and around facilities, potential reduction in operating hours, potential reduction in swimming classes, recreational swimming, and adult lap swimming. Library Summary of Budget Reductions: Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 1,611,000 71,000 1,682,000 Personnel Full lime Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 50.75 (17.50) -34.5% Service Impacts: The proposed cuts to the Chula Vista Public Library will result in the closure of the Eastlake Library; two-day a week closures and holiday weekend closures of Civic and South Librariesi transfer of the STRETCH and DASH program to another vendori elimination of all programs (e.g., story times, Foreclosure Workshops, arts 1-86 December 4 Counel Workshop Page 29 of 29 exhibits, classical guitar performances, film festivals, etc.) and public outreach (community events, fliers, posters, news releases, calendars); suspending operations of the Heritage Museum; minimal local history support; minimal support for both the library's public computers and internal computer systems for cataloging, billing, materials management, etc.; and downgrading of department website to static, unchanging information. Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority Summary of Budget Reductions: . Personnel Services Reduction Summary Other Expenditure Reduction Summary Revenue Enhancements Total Net Cost Reduction $ $ $ $ 725,000 725,000 Personnel Full lime Equivalents (FTEs) Authorized FTE Staffing Proposed FTE Reduction Summary % Reduction in Personnel FTEs 17.00 (6.00) -35.3% Service Impacts: The State of California, in fiscal years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2008-09 required the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency to shift tax increment revenues to the State Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). For fiscal year 2004-05 and fiscal year 2005-06, the Agency borrowed funds from the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to make its ERAF payments. Financing the fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06 ERAF shifts was necessary to maintain funding for ongoing redevelopment projects. To make its fiscal year 2008-09 ERAF payment, the Agency proposes to maintain existing vacancies as well as delay redevelopment and capital improvement projects. The Agency understands the State of California's ongoing and worsening budget problems and their continued reliance on tax increment takeaways. The Agency therefore assumes the State will ask for additional ERAF payments in the future.. To be prepared for these additional requests the Agency proposes to make structural changes to the organization and eliminate five full time positions. The elimination of these five positions allows the Agency to handle additional ERAF shifts or fund redevelopment projects and programs. The budget reductions for fiscal year 2009-10 may impact the Agency's ability to continue redevelopment programs like "Southwest United in Action". Attachments: Proposed Personnel Reductions by Department 1-87 1-88 PFDIF Cash Flow - FY 2007 - Buildout ~mlllli~mc.i[~Jf!l1'W_11IJlIlJ!lIJ.illUl~I~~_1E~~mr~M,]Nffir2Bli\f;mIJlmmljill<lillr!jl!\'llIl!.~ Beginning Cash Balance $ 22,658,364 $ 6,960,735 $ (3,066,278) $ (1,866,224) $ (4,687,384) $ 2,826,163 $ 7,180,169 $ 11,766,515 $ 17,634,461 REVENUES DIF Fee Revenues $ 2,130,561 $ 2,861,465 $ 1,704,665 $ 2,390,547 $ 19,878,569 $ 24,614,263 $ 24,694,418 $ 24,775,776 $ 25,324,698 Investment Earnings $ 932,792 $ (23,059) $ (51,331) $ (31,242) $ (78,470) $ 47,312 $ 120,200 $ 196,979 $ 295,212 Misc I Other Revenues $ 906,384 $ 1,392,348 $ 6,728,969 ~~I~.OJt;6~Ra\1eNUsSili$1II:l1l!~l!!q,:l'li!ili$~t4r2:fQf75Jljlf$jJ!lIlG!J2f\lO:3!m'$t~~:3li!lT3Q5!J~$~'lt111!QOgTQl;lIiJJii$l'mi21Jffili1Jli7511l::$lilg21l11!Ililrij1,1l1l$iif:24;1l12f'l5I1i\1'$~2lirl!:1l!'f1l1Q~ EXPENDITURES Debt Service Payments $ 4,785,799 $ 4,749,018 $ 5,280,306 $ 5,180,465 $ 10,368,885 $ 10,346,175 $ 10,266,879 $ 10,041,228 $ 8,344,690 CIP Projects $ 13,699,381 $ 9,251,575 $ 1,901,942 $ 8,043,727 $ 8,043,727 $ 7,145,913 $ 22,199,922 Non CIP Expenditures $ 1,182,187 $ 257,174 $ 1,917,667 $ 1,917,667 $ 1,917,667 $ 1,917,667 $ '1,917,667 -" ~im'~l\lTA!1J;XfigN);lItl'URl;lalf$lfll;flliZr:l67;mnSll1lilr2li'm:ij7!l!i.\$~'kmIl2}2A8.~$;i'!,ilfji~I!Orilfili~'$'&'fd]!;21!~l'li52~_Q;~Q'M5ljlllll$1l\i2prg2!lTgZ311!i~111[1QItI!l'g!lll!f$"llilI32r4'1l2121!l1 I 00 <.D1:fil'flfW"l.tf.'P1i1:f.1~mb_.:t~:A:I:i)~~l;mf;m"J(I[:f:it'.fl:tm.fiR:[:f:w..t'~tJ~CiK:j:t#I:[n..:tr..~-I:t'-!:JIi~~laIJliI*I8f;&(fIt"I:f;J{;jI~:mai".<<*r:JU:jm_[I~l=.t.R.I~}o'..ft Anticipated Development SFU 559 163 114 116 646 590 590 590 759 MFU 284 269 140 308 1,901 2,581 2,581 2,581 2,586 Commercial 13 11 14 13 111 55 55 55 55 Industrial 10 2 2 86 86 86 86 86 Residential Subtotal (Annual) 843 432 254 424 1,274 1,586 1,586 1,586 1,673 )> :j )> o I s:: m z -t IV ATTACHMENT 3 CITY COUNCIL. AGENDA STATEM.ENT ~(~. CfTYOF ~ (HULA VISTA DECEfv'IBER 16, 2008 Item-lD- ITEM TiTLE: RESOLUTION OF tHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA. APPRO:vING A.J.~ IN1ERFuND LOAN. FROM THE TRAl."l'SPORTATION DEVELOP~1ENT Th1PACT FEE FUND TO THE PtJBLIC FACILITIES [iYJPACT FEE FUND NW APPROPRIA 1JNO FUNDS THEREFOR CITY COUNCIL AUTHORlZE THE FfNANCE DIRECTORfTRE.-\SURER' TO PURSUE DEBT REFur.TDlNGIRESTRUCTURIr-fG OPTIONS FOR CITY OF CHULA VISTA'S OUTSTANDING DEBT OBLIGATIONS' SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF FINA1~CE/TREASURER~ RE\i1EWED BY: fNTERlM CITYMA1"l'AGER c;;- DEPUTY CITY MA1'iAGER <Lv SUMMARY 4/STHS VOTE: YES 0 NO D The downturn in housing development activity for the past several years has led to cash flow issues in the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Funds (pFDIF). In order to avoid significant. impacts to the General Fund reserves, it is necessary at this time to request an interfund loan from the Transportation Development Impact Fee FWld (TUrF) for t.he purpose of funding. the annual debt service obligations of the PFDIF. . Ero."VIROl'iMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that an interfund loan from the Transportation DlF to the Public Facilities DIP is not a "Project" as defmed under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change to the' environment; therefore, pursuant to Section lS060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the actions proposed are not subject to CEQA. 10-1 1-90 . Item_ Page 2 of 6 RECO!.\'IMENDATION That the City Council approve the resolution and the necessary appropriations for an interfund loan from the Transportation Development Impact Fee Fund to the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund to fund the outstanding debt obligations for fiscal year 2008-09. That the City Council request that the Director of FinancelTreasurer pursue refunding/restructuring options for City debt with 'the objective of creatirig cash flow savings in order to meet debt service obligations over the next few years. BOARDS/COMlVIISSION RECOMiYIENDATION Not applicable. , . DISCUSSION BeginniIlg in 1990, the City began an extensive capital outlay program for public facilities which' was to be funded fully or partially from Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF). The fees to fund these projects were initially established by Ordinance 2320 in August of 1989. The objective of the development impact fees.are to fund public facilities and related capital needs that are projected to be impacted by future growth. Various updates to the fees have occurred over the last 20 years. The PFDIF has expended :580 million constructing public facilities on a pay-as-you-go basis using available cash in the PFDIF fund. Tnese expenditures funded several major projects including five rue stations and three recreation facilities, In addition, the PFDIF partially funded renovation of the Civic Center complex, South Chula Vista Library, and the new Police Facility USiilg cash on hand. . Three projects, the Corporation Yard, Police Facility and Civic Center, were partially finarlced through l\-je issuance of Certificates of Participation (COP) for a total of $128.7 million (prill.cipal only) over a long-term period using a combination of funding from the PFDIF and General Fund. However because these debt obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the General Fund, the General Fund is ultimately responsible for the payment of all debt obligations even though, as a practical matter, a certain percentage of the payments are dependent on the fees co[jected by the PFDIF fund. . . Due to the significant housing meltdown and number of foreclosures experienced Within the City of Chula Vista, the development of new housing has essentially come to a halt. This has created a cash deficit in the PFDIF fund of $4.2 million as of the end of5scal year 2007-08. Due to the severity of the housing crisis, it is clear that the PFDIF fund will be unable to meet its annual debt obligations for the next few years. In order to avoid an impact to the General Fund, we are recommending an interfund loan from the TDfF to the .PFDIFfund for $5.2 million to make the debt service payments scheduled for the current fiscal year 2008-09. This will provide the City an opportunity to work through a restructurillg of the PFDIF. debt obligations with the objective of creating cash flow savings to meet debt obligations over the next few years. . PFDIF Overview Folla'Wing the adoption of development impaCt fees to fund major street improvements in its e~tem territories, tl;J.e City undertook an in-house study of other public facilities and related capital needs that were projected to be impacted by future growth. The result of that study was 10-2 1-91 Item Page 3 of6 the adoption of Ordinance 2320 in August 1989 that established a series of "supplemental" impact fees. Over the next 20 years, the fee would be updated to include additional facilities' such as fire stations and recreation facilities. PFDIF Financed Facilities Begihning in 2000, the City embarked on an unprece~ented capital facilities construction program. During thi,s time the City funded $67 million 4I public facilities on a paY-aS-you-go- basis using available cash in the PFDIF fund. During that same time, the City issued $128,7 , million in Certificates of,Participation (COP) to fund projects such as the Corporation Yard, cons~ction of a new Police Facility and the remodel and expansion of the Civic Center Complex. . Facillities Financed on a L'ong- Term Basis Public Works Yd Police Facility Civic Center I Civic Center II Total 23,730; 000 60,145,000 26,692; 417 18.155:,000 $128,722,417 16,710,000 55,420,000 24,992,417 17,255.000 5114,387,417 v 1,863;484 3,~12,578 1.715,506 1,106,345 58,597.913 Public Works Yard 2000 Certificates of ParriciDation $23.7 million The City acquired the Corporation Yard from San Diego Gas & Electric Compai1Y in 1998. The ftnanCing was approved to fund the improvements to the' site' and encompassed an aggregate 128,554 sq. ft. of space. It consisted of buildillgs and spaces essential to many City operations such as a new 42,100 sq. ft. maintenance facility building, a 11,400 sq. ft. warehouse building, a 42,300 sq ft admiristration building, 9,070 sq. ft. of bus washing/fueling buildings and 31,000 sq. ft. of space in an enlarged shops building. ' The annual debt obligations are split 'between the PFDIF fund (59%) and the General Fund (41o/q). The General Fund share of the project costs are for the proportionate share of the. costs which have 0.0 nexus to growth. The final payment is due in 2020-21 (12 years remaining). Police Facility 2002 Certificates of ParticiDation $60.1 million The construction of the new.Police Facility involved the acquisition of the commercial site at the corner of Fourth Avenue and F Street, rel.ocation of the commercial tenants, demolition of the site, and construction and furnishing of a mLllti-story 150,000 sq. ft. Police Headquarters with an adjoining multi-story p~king Structure, The project also included lar."ldscaping and some off-site improvemems to the adjacent property. Funding this project involved General Fund, PFDIF and RDA sources. The annual debt obligations are split between the PfDIP fund (44%) and the General Fund (56%). The Genera! Fund share of the project costs are for the proportionate share'of the costs which nave no nexus to grovvth. The final payment is due in 2032-33 (24 years remairiing). 10-3 1-92 Item Page 4 of6 Civic Center - 2004 Certificates of Particloation Phase I $26.7 million. 2006 Certificates of Particioarion Phase [J $18.2 million On 7/10/2001, the City Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan recognizing that the existing Civic Center Complex could no longer accommodate the city staff required to service the current population or future population growch. It was determined that modernization and retrofitting of all of the Civic Center Complex buildings were going to be required in order to meet current building code requirements and to accommodate current and emerging technology needs. . The Civic Center project had three construction phases, which included the demolition and reconstruction of the City Hall building (18,300 sq. ft.), the renovation of the Public Services building (30,562 sq. fL) and finally the renovation of.the former Police Facility (52,160 sq. ft.). Once the three phases were complete, two other buildings, the Community Development Building and the Legislative Building were demolished for additional off street parking. The allllual debt obligations are split between the PFDlF fund and the General Fund (Phase 1.- 82%/18%, Phase II - 89%/11 % respectively). The General Fund share of the project costs are for . the proportionate share of the costs which have no nexus to growth. The final payment is due in . . 2035-36 (27 years remaining). . Debt RestructuringlRefunding Proposal The total annual debt obligations are split between the General Fund ($3.4 million) and the PFDIF fund ($5.2 million). In order for the PFDIF to meet its share of the debt obligations, a total of 59Tbuilding permits are needed based on a residentiaL'single family fee of $8,735. Due to the halt in new development and the current deficit in the PFDIF fund, the annual debt obligations must be met by the General Fund which would add $5.2 million to both the current year gap of$4.0 million and next fiscal year's estimated gap.of$20 million. To avoid additional impacts to the General Fund, staff is recommending an interrund loan from the TDIF fund to the PFDIF fund of $5.2 million to cover the current year debt obligations. The terms of the loan are for a period of 13 years. The fIrst 3 years of payments would be deferred with the loan being fully amortized over the final 10 years. The interest rat~ applied would be based on the City's pooled interest rate (currently 3.80%). A I3-year amortization schedule is included in the Fiscal Impact Section of Reporr. Additionally, the Fina..TJ.ce Department is currently preparing a Request for Proposal to select a financing Team that wiU include a Financial Advisor and Underwriting finn. The fmancing team under the direction of the Finance Director will look at restructuring and/or refunding options for the $114.4 million in outstanding COP debt (as of June 30, 2008) with the primary goal of improving short term cash flow needs in order to'meet debt obligations for the next four years. This assumes that new development will not pick 1.'P until 2012-13. The reii.J.nding and/or restructuring of the debt would provide the City with the time to formulate a funding plan in order to continue meeting the PFDIF share of the' debt obligations on a long-term basis. This time frame also coincides with the final General Fund payment of the 1994 Pension Obligation Bonds ($2.6 million annual payments), which would provide some additional alternatives. 10-4 1-93 Item' Page 5 of 6 After 2012-13, if development does not return to the levels necessary to service the debt then the General Fund would need to begin making the annual debt payments to the TDrF fund of all or part of the approximate $710,000 of the scheduled PFDIF payment. Any payments made from the General Fund would be recorded as a loan to the PFDLF fund ill anticipation that the General Fund would be repaid at some point in the ti.lture with interest. Due to the current inter~st rate environment,and the uncertainty surrounding the mu..'1icipal credit market, the refunding and/or restructuring "vill likely be costly in ihe .long run resulting in additional costs of issuance, higher interest rates and increased PFDIF fees. Approving the interfund loan from the TOIF woUld provide funding for the current year debt payments due from the PFDfF fund and would also provide the Finance Department an opportunity to work througl;! the' various financing options. 'Pending the uncertainty in the market, we anticipate , . bringing a refunding proposal back ,to the City Council by'the end of the current fiscal year. TDIF Cash Flows , ' The City's Transportation Development Impact Fee (mrF) program was established on January 12, 1988 by Ordinance 2251. Since its inception, the program has been updated several times to ,reflect new land use.approvals, proposed changes to the General Plan, and updated project cost estimate:. New development placed demands on the existing transportation infrastructure, which can be mitigated by upgradi..."'1g existing and/or constructing new transportation facilities. Chula Vista's TDIF progra."'I1 functions as a system to distribute the cost' 'of constructing infrastructure facilities in an equitable manner among new development in Eastern Chula Vista. The proceeds from the fee are used to const.-uct new transportation improvements or expand existing facilities. The cash flow forecast based on cash on hand and a."'1ticipated ex:penditures .and fee revenues are included as Attachment A. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reVIewed the property. holdings of the City Council and the Public Financing Authority members "and has found a: conflict exists wit.~ Council and Authority member Castaneda who has holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property, which is the subject oftrus action. FISCAL I~IPACT General Fund Approving an interfund loan would alleviate the General Fund of having to step in and pay t..1e PFDIF debt obligation of $5.2 million and avoid a significant impact to the General Fund reserves in the current fiscai year. In the event that the PFDIF fund is unable to repay the TDIF over the 13-year payment schedule beginning in fiscal year 2012-13, the General Fund would be obligated to step in and make all or part of the annual payment of approxima\ely $710,000. Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) The interfund loaiJ. of $5.2 inillion would reduce the cash balance tn the mrF fw1.d by the same amount. The funds would be paid back from the PFDIF over 13 years beginning in fiscal year 2012-13 at an interest rate of 3.80% (based on the pooled fund rate). Based on the schedule of 10-5 1-94 Item Page 60f6 projects and anticipated timefrailles for completion, the interfund loan should not delay or prevent aD.y TDIF projects from being constructed as planned (See Cash Flow Attachment A). If the PFDIF fund is unable to pay the interfund loan back to the TDIF fund in a timely manner, . then the General Fund would be obligated to pay the outsta....,ding balance. 01/0112010 01/0112011 01/0112012 01/0112013 437,145.77 3.80% 220,994.48 51,755.04 709,895.29 01/0112014 453,757.31 3.80% 202,416.24 53,721.73 709,895.2.8 01/0112015 471,000.08 3.80% 183,132.04 55,763.16 709,895.28 . 01/0112016 488,898.09 3.80% 163,115.04 57,882.16 709,895.29 01/0112017 507 ;476.22 3.80% 142.337.39 60,081.68 709,395.29 01/0112018 526,760.32 3.80% 12.0.770.19 62,364.78 709,895.29 01/0112019 546,777.21 3.80% 98,383.43 64,734.64 709,895.28 01/0112020 567,554.74 3.80% 75,145.98 67,194.56 709,895.28 01/01/2021 . 589,121.82 3.80% 51,025.51 69,747.95 709,895.28 01/01/2022 611,508.44 3.80% 25,988.46 72,398.38 709,895.28 S 5,200,000.00 S 1,283,308.76 :5 515,644.08 :5 7,098,952.84 Compounded Interest reflects cost of deferred interest payments in first three years Public Facilities Develo1;Jment Impact Fee (PFmF~ Based on a IJ-year interfund loan schedule, the anticipated costs to the PFDIF fund is $1.9 million in interest. The additional costs would be incorporated into the next PFDlF fee update. The Finance Department will review the refunding and restructuring options of the outstanding COPs with the objective of providing long-term cash flow relief. Staff will return in the near future with a staff report outlining the various options and costs for City Council consideration. A TT ACHMEl'iTS Attachment A - TDIF Cash Flows Prepared by: Maria Kachadoorian, Director of FjnanceIT~ea.surer 10-6 1-95 TOIF Cash Flow estimates AtUchm.nt A F.!~cal~Y~'1l!:~;i~!!~~';,'(~ar~F.i'caiW'~3.~ 2QO~20Q9 ,- Q051.2011J~";i:z.O,1Q'2atlrn'l2.IJ',1.:z.0;12 :!0.1'2'2013 glnrdnll Cull a.lane.. July 1 Note 24,Ooil1,!Jsa 11,314,224 9,i75,~9? T,292,as5. :5,285,04.53 NENUES;(.!ii.::<~.!q~~iii'II~~.&J liJ,llJ2 'It''lmllntEarrJnqs 240,420 9S,rs4 72,929 SU5S 43,~a 19,1B2 J2,755 ~,Z51 3>.'02 27.175 v,nll 21J,3H :18,713 imthlncmcntl , 1,.00,1l00 III' Fllel 70,OCO' , , Z:n,545 2+0,000 2"':1.&511 244,749 Z5UIl~ 254,860 %59,952 :z6J,GOiS 2U,oe<t 288,0154 2Ga,lJ8-4 1111 A IIp1o'fmenls from PFOIFIGF , , , , 710,000. 710,000 710,acO no,oGO 710,000 710,000 710,000 710,aoo 710.000 710,000 TOTAl. EST. REVE,NUES J10,420 1,533,U2 99.7SlI 310,47:1 1,OOJ,U5 !Ja7,562 '::197,1):30. 994.55g 911t!,111 1.1)03,134 1,OOO,liS3 1,003,790 1,004,3711 1,O12,l147 :P,ENClTUR=5: L~~~lr.i,.~'_.~ Iltl'aUng 1!1ll1CnuS 1102.022 4t11,011 400,00il :3S0,DOQ 3OQ,OOO 100,000 '300,000 JOO,OOa 300,000 100,000 ]00,000 300,000 15.0,000 150,000 anlfarOul!l:l WTOlf' laO,COO ,an lQ PFOIF 5,200,000 P S;o.plInclllures: lilS-OlUIopllQtogra~ny/TClpagraph , 10,~Q C1P Mnoml ! Equipmo.nl ?utdlasa 30,000 , , 1.5,000 InleflmSR12.!i=OlCiIItyPh 1 704,"14 ~Q,OCQ ~O,QOO SCU1l1 C1rcu1adon NlItwanc 1USS Otllyl..aklls Rei Wlit1g (6. H To Canyon) 17,57Q 1,100,000 OIay LAkes R~ad W1dcminQ (e H SIlO l,SOO,oon l,~OO,aoo 2,000,000 l,~OO,OQO Tlleg.C"vn) Ramp WldIUlInQ EH 51 & N 11305 100,000 ~adl M1n Rei Herita;o - LI. Media , 2211,78$ Ol.R & E H 5t P'i:tltm l Trllf Stud , -1!luila<11 Floiild BriG;. RotCIll'LSltuc 10C,COO 1110,000 100,000 100,000 407,92) 500,ooa soo,OOO d9/C1raga AveM05 lnlltf , , 19S ellSl OJanv. Ave ElItenliofl . " 1,25(1,000 , ", -wJI1ow Sl Br'dOe Wld8ITltlQ "OO,DOC 1,000,000 , , TratTIc Count Sllldonl 95,1171 tOO,OOO rranaportadan PlannlnQ Proqnun_ 100,000 100,000. 100,~ 100,000 tOO,OOO l00JIOO too.COO 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Trame t.tan~amll"t Cental' 11 1,!I75. 5eO,Ooo SOO,GOO ISOSCorrdr Irnpl'OY N Menl Op.!l 50,000 SR12SCorrldrilrTdMerialOl1J 99,134' TJ'lIAS an lmpad FW'!d Updata 12 -7(1,000 5'5,000 14%,500 1112,0450 185,113 east H 51. E1iuena VIsta. (Q Olay Lahs Rd 500.aoa SOO,OOO ',000,000 rr~lnlpcrUJlon O,mand Mat 1,IJOO,OQQ ~IJ,OOO SOD,uOO TOTAL EST. eXpeNDITUReS lD,SOll,lIS 4,~43,526 2,8SD,OOIJ Z,207,SOO 1,tJ1l7,923 1,400,000 1,5.62,45(1 gOe, 000- 900,000 1,5.aS,U3 900,000 900,000 1S0,COQ 1'0,000 COtltingendu ,,%) " SZS,-'JB Z3l,1S1 132,500 110,J15 9O,19d 10,000 75,123 45,000 H,OOO 79,240 -'S.OOQ 4$,000 7,500 7,500 TOTAL EST. eXPENDITURes $t1,ln4,t5.4 $4,315,807 $.2,782,500 $2,311,1:115 S1,a9S,J19 $1,470,000 $t"HO,57::1 $\145,0:00 $945,000 $1,aa4,453 $94',000 $945,000 '151,5110 $1!7,!OO ~=AR!ENOI~ST~..CASH;3"'liANC~ 113,315.224 59,91','99 :17.292,55' SS,:ZlH.4S3 $4,3!3Q,U'l S3,911l.,151 SJ,ZTS,SOll S3,J2~,08a SJ,3n,17!!l n,7t7,4S0 H,772,642 $2,331,433 S3,!78,]t1 H,.!In,5S7 Notn: t. ,~.mClJlumllni ~!JI1I TOlF furocJ ffl)lTl ather Transportation Prowams (ra: STMJ51132!!1) Z. Auwmll' 2% Indal! Inc.-alii .ucn year, .....IUl ,very lMiId 'tur an adaltklnal 2% fot 1'" TCIF upc1.aI.. CIlculltltcllt 100 ~Ilcllna pll/TTIlts Ue~l\I\ing ~ F'f 12 (low Denslly to 1 Re;ianlll Cmmarctal. Assumes that 91% 01 plOlll~ bultlJrd.valopat II1d J~ will be ~lcl by TOIP cult.. 1.1nt"fun4la.an from TOIO: 10 PFOIF to l)Q pafr1 aver 13 )'tIllIllWm WlUllntlll1llL 4 .TOlF sl1i1l'Q 31% (bllscsd an ani;linallPpropMlionl S. TOIF SllllrllilpprOIl. U%Qflolal !!I.P~iolnepproprialion$90a,aQa 7. "'llIannQ l;:ompl.lIon, patllnllal far addltiClnal uvingl in FYllJ is- Am<Ntlllhooon is only for lJortion of prllliminaty Ingin..m!3 (p1lf201lS. TOtF ~1',i:Qst IItlimlta a1 S2!!M lo ber.yi-.d in tn. nut TDIF Fall wpdate)' ~. Am~lIllt\awn I~ anty foe ~rallmin~ Q:llUinlUrinq llMr 2005 U!)dlll!, QJst ullmat. al $8,2M to be revi_ec1 In JWlIC TCIF updatal 1D _Ne!llring cornplellon, pcItltnlial fOf acldiUlJnlli savlnQlI In FY10 11 ,Co Mt 1l111cip.ate OIillJIMir,q; any 101M llnti 2020 (per 200! TOIF upc:all, I:OtI !llIt~nat.Q II S3.5M) 12- ?togram updall aCClJn IlIvef} IhrIM 111141" n .c.O"~"Il,nde, 'l1proximalely 5% Ofl:1l:l1llCpendltu~1 1-96 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- RESOLUTioN OF THE CITY COuNCIL OF THE crrr OF CHULA VISTA APPROVmG Al~ INTERFUN"TI LOAl~ FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT INIPACT FEE FUNTI TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES :Q\;lJ' ACT FEE FUND AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR V-t1IEREAS, beginning in 1990, the City began an extensive capital outlay program for public facinties that was to be funded fully or partially from Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF); and; WHEREAS, the fees to fund these projects' were initially established by Ordinance No. 2320 in August 1989; and WHEREAS, the objective of the development impact fees are to fund public facilities and related capital needs that are projected to be impacted by future growth; and . 'NHEREAS, the PFDIF has expended $80 million constructing public facilities on a pay- as-you-go basis using available cash in the PFDIF fund; and Vv'HEREAS, these expenditures ftuided several major projects, including five fire stations and three recreation facilities; and WHEREAS, in addition, the PFDIF partially funded renovation of the Civic Center complex, South Chula Vista Library, and th~ new Police Facility using cash on hand; and WHEREAS, three projects (the Corporation Yard, Police Fadlity and Civic Center) were partially financed through the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COP) for a total of 5 128. 7 million (principal only)' 'over a long-term period using a combination of PFDIF funds and General fund; and WHEREAS, because these debt obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the General Fund, the General Fund is ultimately responsible for the paYment of an debt obligations, even though, as a practical matter, a certain percentage of the payments are dependent on the fees collected by the PFDIF fund; and "WHEREAS, due to the significant. housing meltdown and number of foreclosures experienced within' the City of Chula Vista, the development of new housing has essentially come to a halt; and WHEREAS, this has created a' cash deficit in the PFDIF fund of 54.2 million as of the end of Fiscal Year 2007/2008; and J:\AnQ-m~~.llESOLLTtONS\fiSA~C~pl"Q."in&int~ kJ4l'I rr'l)ttl TOU: fuftd. to ?F'IF fund 12.16-a3.doc '. 10'-8 . 1-97 Resolution No. 2008- Page 2 \VHEREAS, due to the severity of the housing crisis, it is clear that the PFDIF fund will be unable to meet its annual debt obligations for the next few years; and VlHEREAS, in order to avoid ~ impact to the General Fund., we are recommending an interfund loan from the TDIF to the PFDIF fund for $5.2 million to make the debt service payments scheduled for the current Fiscal Year 2008/2009; and \VHEREAS, this will provide the City an opportunity to work through a restructuring of the PFDIF debt obligations with the objective of creating cash flow savings to meet debt obligations over the next few years; and WHEREAS, approving an interfUnd l~an would alleviate the General fund of having to step in and pay the PFDIF debt 'obligation of $5.2 million and avoid a significant impact to the General Fund reserves in the current fiscal year; and. WHEREAS, in the event that the PFID fund is unable to repay the TDIF over the thirteen-year payroe'nt schedule beginning in Fiscal Year 2012/2013, the General Fund would 'be obligated to step in and. make the annual payment of appr?ximately 5710,000; and WHEREAS the interfund loan of 55.2 million would reduce the cash balance in' the , , TDIF fund by the same amount; and WHEREAS, the funds would be paid back from the PFDIF over thirteen years beginning in Fiscal Year 201212013 at an interest rate of 3 .80% (based on the pooled fund rate); and WHEREAS, based on the schedule of projects and anticipated time frames for completion, the interfund loan should not delay or prevent any TDIF projects from being constructed as planned; and WHEREAS, if the PFDIF fund is unable to pay the interfund loan back to the TDIF fund in a timely man'ner, then the General Fund would be obligated to pay the outstanding balance; and WHEREAS, based on a thirteen-year interfund loan schedule, the anticipated costs to the PFDIF fund is :s 1.9 million in interest; and . WHEREAS, the additional ~osts would be incorporated into the next PFDIF fee update; and WHEREAS, the Finance Department will review the refundmg and restructuring options of the outstanding COPs with the objective of providing long-term cash how relief; and WHEREAS, staff will return in the near future with a staff report outlining the various options and costs for City Council consideration. J:.....llomc~Ol.UT1?NS\FINA.~C5\A~ro'"n!l inter'!\and 19an f'rQm TOW fund 10 E'FtF lbnd_l:l-l i-OS.doc 10-9 1-98 Presented by Maria. Kachadoorian Director of Finance Approved as to form by J:\A(t,gl'n'ty\RESOL~OrG'..F[NA)lCiVIptW..;1Il1. iD.tmbnd ',011I1 r:ucn iOIF fund to P'Fi fuoO":: 1'0'''::0.: 1-99 J. SCHEDULE 1 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: To finance the construction of traffic and transportation improvements in support of future development. Amount of the Fee: $ 10,777 8,622 6.466 172,432 86,218 per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached (med density) per multi-family equivalent dwelting unit per general commercial gross acre per industrial gross acre FY 07/08 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: ..... FUND 591 TRANSPORTATION DIF ..... o o Beginning Balance, 07/01/07 $ 25,817,119 TDIF Fees Collected Transportation State Share Interest Earned Miscellaneous Revenues Forgiveness of debt Transfer-In Expenditures: Supplies & Services City Staff Services SR-125 DIF Refunds (2007-182) Debt Payment - Calease Fiscal Sys Transfer-Out - 2003 Refunding COP CIP Project Expenditures 471.713 1,171,546 (47,142) (619,673) (1,800,000) (4,156) (738,403) )> ~ o I s: m Z -j .... Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/08 $ 24,251,004 SCHEDULE 1.1 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 07/08 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT Total Appropriation Future % Of Project Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURES as of 6/30/08 Appropriations Funded by TDIF Scheduled GG183 GIS-OrthophotographylTopograph . 17,870 60,370 25.37% 2003 STL261 Willow St Bridge Widening 74,051 1,087,740 48.94% 1999 STM328 99 Orange Ave 1-805 Inter 86,923 4,953,678 16.88% 1999 ..... STM331 98 E. Orange Extension 39,194 4,459,904 99.47% 1999 ..... STM350 South Circulation Network 212 155,000 100.00% 2003 C> STM351 Main St Dual Left Turn Ln-180' 19,778 2,214,117 100.00% 2002 ..... STM355 Otay Lakes Road Widening, East H to Canyon 395,205 900,000 100.00% 2003 STM356 Ramp Widening on E. H St and 1-805 Northbound 71 3,333,240 98.74% 2004 STM357 Rock Mtn Rd - Heritage to La Media 70 232,000 91.23% 2004 STM364 Heritage Road Bridge Reconstrc 6,145 1,820,000 52.00% 2007 TF274 Traffic Count Stations 11,372 210,000 100.00% 2002 TF312 Transportation Planning Program 87,272 400,000 100.00% 2003 TF329 Traffic Management Center 81 200,000 100.00% 2007 TF357 SR 125 Corridor and Arterial Ops 159 100,000 100.00% 2007 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 738,403 SCHEDULE 2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: For City's traffic signal needs resulting from increased traffic volume caused by new development. Amount of the Fee: $ 28.55 per trip FY 07/08 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 225 TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND Beginning Balance, 07/01/07 $ 3,837,641 -' -' Traffic Signal Fees Collected Federal Grant Interest Earned Miscellaneous Revenues Transfer-In Expenditures: City Staff Services Reimbursement Other than Staff Services (2007-215) Transfer-Out - 2003 Refunding COP CIP Project Expenditures 499,457 238,500 197,635 o N (726) (49,904) (5,077) (470,660) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/08 $ 4,246,866 SCHEDULE 2.1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 07/08 CIP EXPENDITURES: FY 07/08 Total Appropriation Future %OfPr~ectFunded Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURE as of 6/30108 Appropriations by Traffic Signal DIF Scheduled TF263 Traffic Signal Interconnect 3,525 '399,741 100.00% 2002 TF279 Install Illuminated Street Signs 271 155,500 45.70% 1999 ...... TF295 Traffic Signal Detection Replacement 21,179 217,500 79.00% 2002 ...... TF300 Traffic Signallnstl Hilltop / Oxford 3,036 449,401 100.00% 2003 0 TF310 Emergency Preemption-16 Intersection 4,765 450,000 100.00% 2003 w TF316 Signal Installation-2nd & Quintard 361 200,000 100.00% 2003 TF317 Inters Impvt-Bonita Rd & Allen School Lane 299 181,351 100.00% 2004 TF319 Signal Modification Anita / Industrial 509 204,536 100.00% 2005 TF320 Signallnstl Greensgate /Greenvw 837 160,000 100.00% 2005 TF328 Audible Pedestrian Signal Modifications 3,378 200,000 66.67% 2006 TF330 Traffic Modification 4th / Main & 4th / Beyer 73,254 627,000 100.00% 2006 TF331 Traffic Modification 3rd / Montgomery 74,418 370,000 100.00% 2006 TF333 Un interruptible Power Supply Replacement 45,241 120,000 100.00% 2005 TF335 Traffic Signal Installation Brandywine & Sequoia 66,113 342,000 100.00% 2007 TF337 Traffic Left Turn Modification Program 138 176,649 100.00% 2006 TF341 HES Improvements @ 4th Ave&k SI. 1,494 313,500 100.00% 2005 TF347 School Crosswalk Enhancement Colorado/Naples 23,881 40,000 100.00% 2008 TF348 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Facilities Upgrade 46,420 64,508 100.00% 2008 TF349 Traffic Signal Modification 1 st Ave. E SI. Intersection 13,520 670,000 100.00% 2008 TF351 Traffic Signal Device Replacement 78,040 100,000 100.00% 2008 TF354 Traffic Congestion Relief Program 6,481 50,000 300,000 13.00% 2008 TF355 1805 Corridor Improvement Arterial Ops 3,500 50,000 33.33% 2008 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 470,660 ...... I ...... o .J>. SCHEDULE 3 TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DIF (Te DRAINAGE DIF) FY 07/0B REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: For construction of Telegraph Canyon channel between Paseo Ladera and the Eastlake Business Center and for a portion of the channel west of 1-805. Amount of the Fee: $ 4,579 per acre FY 07/08 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Beginning Balance, 07/01/07 TC Drainage Fees Collected Interest Earned Transfer-In Expenditures: Debt Service Payment to 03 Refunding COP CIP Project Expenditures Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/08 FY 07/08 CIP EXPENDITURES: PROJECT DESCRIPTION FY 07/08 EXPENDITURE FUND 542 TC DRAINAGE DIF $ 5,539,017 $ 278,120 (1,027) (28,590) 5,787,520 Total Appropriation as of 6/30/08 Future Appropriations % Of Project Funded by DIF Initially Scheduled DR118 DR131 DR167 94 Telegraph Canyon Channellmpvts 97/Strm Flow-TelCynlPoggi Telegraph Canyon Drainage Study Third & L 14,872 6,500 7,218 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 28,590 3,919,026 75,000 1,251,000 100.00% . 75.56% 100.00% 1994 1997 2006 SCHEDULE 4 SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer DIF (TC Gravity Sewer DIF) Fund 431 Pumped Sewer DIF (Pumped Sewer DIF) Fund 543 Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF (PC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 432 Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF (SC Sewer Basin DIF) Fund 433 Description of Fee: Telegraph Canyon Gravity Se",!er DIF: Pumped Sewer DIF: Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF: Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF: For the expansion of trunk sewer within the basin for tributary properties. For construction of facilities necessary to provide sewer service to developments within the pumped flow basin. For the planning, design, construction and/or financing of the facilities. For the construction of a trunk sewer in the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin from a proposed regional trunk sewer west of 1-805 along Olympic Parkway to the boundary of EasUake. -' I -' C) (J1 Amount of the fee: Fund 431 Fund 543 Fund 432 Fund 433 TC Gravity Pumped PC Sewer SC Sewer Sewer DIF Sewer DIF Basin DIF Basin DIF per single family equivalent dwelling unit detached $ 216.50 $ $ 400.00 $ 1,330.00 per single family equivalent dwelling unit attached 216.50 400.00 1,330.00 per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit 162.38 300.00 997.50 Commercial land use $216.50/edu $400/edu $1330/edu Industrial land use $216.50/edu $400/edu $1330/edu SCHEDULE 4.1 SEWER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 07/08 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: Fund 431 Fund 543 Fund 432 Fund 433 TC Gravity Pumped PC Sewer SC Sewer Sewer DIF Sewer DIF Basin DIF Basin DIF Restated Beginning Balance, 07/01/07 $ 1,030,661 $ 2,660. $ 2,264.469 $ 1,909,154 DIF Fees Collected 9,093 46,966 461,057 Interest Earned 49,364 117,143 296,626 Transfer-In Expenditures: City Staff Services (74) (21,697) Depreciation Expense - Infrastructure (60,000) tnterest Paid (62,927) ..... Transfer Out to Fund 413 (2,660) (1,000,063) ..... CIP Project Expenditures (16,131) (103,600) C> C1l Unaudited Ending Balance, 06130106 $ 1,029,264 $ $ 2,410,770 $ 1,522,227 FY 07/08 CIP EXPENDITURES: FY 07106 Total Appropriation Future % Of Project Funded Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURE as of 6130106 Appropriations by DIF Scheduled Fund 432- POlllli Canyon Sewer Basin D1F STM331 OO/East Orange Avenue Extension 23,640 0.50% 1999 SVV226 Upgrade-Reach 205 of P099i Cyn Tnk Sew 16,131 562,291 29.10% 2002 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 16,131 Fund 433 . Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF SVV225 Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer Const 943,700 21.20% 2001 SVV219 99 Sit Crk Trunk Sew Construction 103,566 12,765,096 39.60% 2000 SVV245 Sail Creek Sewer T rnk Maintenance 14 275,000 100.00% 2000 TOTAL CIP EXPENDITURES $ 103,600 SCHEDULE 5 OTAY RANCH PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Otay Ranch Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 Pedestrian Bridge DIF (OR Vii 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF), Fund 587 Otay Ranch Viiiage -11 Pede sirjan Bridge DIF (OR Vii 11 Pedestrian Bridge D!F), Fund 588 Description of Fee: OR Village 1 & 5 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement between Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5 & 6. OR Village 11 Pedestrian Bridge DIF: To finance the construction of pedestrian bridge improvement in Otay Ranch Village 11. Amount of the fee: ..... .Fund 587 OR Village 1, 2, 5 & 6 Ped Bridge DIF Fund 588 OR Village 11 Ped Bridge DIF I ..... C) -.J per single family equivalent dwelling unit detache $ per multi-family equivalent dwelling unit $ 1,114.00 $ 826.00 $ 1,930.00 1,433.00 FY 07/08 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 587 FUND 588 OTAY RANCH DIF OTAY RANCH DIF Beginning Balance, 07/01/07 $ 1,185,691 $ 14,760 43,001 (1,228,169) (5,440) 9,843 $ 1,748,698 DIF Fees Collected Interest Earned Otay Parkway Ped. Bridge (2008-102) City Staff Services 256,532 95,427 Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/08 $ 2,100,657 SCHEDULE 6 PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PFDlF) FY 07/08 STATEMENT OF FUND BALANCE Description of Fee and amount Admistration ($538) - Administration of the Public facilities DIF program, overseeing of expenditures and revenues colleded. preparation Of updates, calculation of costs, ele. Civic Center Expansion ($2,264) - Expansion of the 1989 Civic Center per the Civic Cenler Masler Plan to provide sufficient building space and parKing due 10 growth and development The Civic Canter Master Plan was updated in July 2001 to induda the Olay Ranch impacts. . Police Facility ($1,497) - Accommodation of the building space needs per the Civic Center Master Plan, which induded the newly constructed police facility, upgrading of the communications center and instaUation of new communication consoles. AJso induded is the purchase and installation of a computer aided dispatch system (CAD), police Records Management System, and Mobile Data Terminals. Corporation Yard Relocation ($403) - Relocation of the City's Public Works Center from the bay front area to the more centrally located sUe on Maxwell Road. Libraries ($1,302) -Improvements indude construction of the South Chula Visla library and Eastern Territories libraries, and installation of a new automated library 5'islem. This component is basad on the updated Library Masler Plan. Fire Suppression Syslem ($1,144) - Projects indude the relocation of Fire Stations #3 & #4, construction of a fire training lower and classroom, purchase of a brush rig, installation of a radio communications tower and construction ot various fire stations in the Eastern section of the Cit'i. This fee also reflects the updated Fire Station Master Plan, which includes needs associated with the Otay Ranch development. -' -' Major Recreation Facilities ($9BS) - New component adopled in November 2002 to build major recreation facilities created by new development such as community centers, 9~mnasiums, 5wimming pools, and seniorlteen centers. o CO Pallc# Carp Yard firtlSupp. Roc. Gen,Admill. CivlcCenler(t) Facility R,localian libraries Sy:ileffl faciliUell '" 567/572 57J 574 575 ". 582 TOTAL $ (2,276,369) $ 17,751,076 $ 1,653.476 $ 4,663,101 $ 7,209,666 $(16,905,643) $ (6,356,066) $ 5,757,243 224.411 1,163,535 316,600 127,664 251,600 406,950 346,505 2,661,465 (111,392) 647,590 56,532 205,019 356,502 (616,949) (305,073) 32,229 1,337,031 1,337,031 Bl,tginniog Balance, 07/01/07 Revenues: DIF Revenues Investment Earnings Other Revenue Reimbuftiemenl - Olh Agencies Transfer In ExpenditUfes; Personnel Services Total Supplie5 & Services City Staff Services Capital ExpendilUI6s CIP Project Expenditures Transfer Oul (266) (26,924) (27,210) (214,671) (214,671) (209) (6,924) (6,160) (15,293) (9,131,306) (49,622) (23,741) (46,705) (9,251,576) (4,156) (1,931,456) (1,771,797) (1,036,651) (2,756) (4,749,016) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06130/01 $ (2,364,463) $ 9,656,259 $ 251,869 $ 3,966,773 $ 7,766,166 $(17,371,065) $(6,359,341) $(4,269,600) NOTE: (1) This fund includes the amount set aside for the acquisition of the Adamo property in Fund 567. FY 07/08 PFDIF CIP EXPENDITURES: Project CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION. Fund 567/572 Description SCHEDULE 6.1 PUBLIC FACILITIES DIF (PFDIF) FY 07/08 SCHEDULE OF DETAilED EXPENDITURES FY 07/08 Expenditure Initially Scheduled 9.131,308 $ 9,131.308 o w LB124 LIBRARIES. Fund 575 TOTAL EXPENDITURES-CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION Civic Center Expansion Project Civic Center Expansion Project Phase II Civic Center Expansion Project Phase III East Side Library FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM - Fund 576 TOTAL EXPENDITURES - LIBRARIES GG189 PS128 Emergency Operations Centers Fire Station #8 49,822 $ 49.822 GG139 GG200 GG300 ...... I ...... TOTAL EXPENDITURES-FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM 3.546 20,195 $ 23.741 5.368 1.361 20,562 19,414 $ 46,705 REC FACILITIES. Fund 582 PR238 Veterans Park PR262 Parks Master Plan Update PR265 Rec Facililies-FixluresJEquipt PR270 Montevalle Recreation Facility PR271 Sail Creek Recreation Facility LOANS: TOTAL EXPENDITURES-REC FACILITIES Loan Amount Description of Loan Corporation Yard DIF loan to General Fund approved by Council Resolution 2000-077 for CIP project #GG158 Animal Shelter 865.217 Total Appropriation Future as of 6/30/08 Appropriations %ofPr~ectFunded by PFDIF 7,505,616 1.931.676 11.581,476 10.265,902 31.340 6,965.757 5,398,517 152.840 654,095 6,235.889 6.121.573 Interest Rate 6.56% 30.23% 11.17% 100.00% 100.00% 20.59% 100.00% 59.30% 100.00% 95.71% 100.00% 100.00% 1995 2006 2006 2001 2005 2002 2002 2005 2005 2005 2005 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: In lieu fee for providing neighborhood community park and recreational facilities. Areas East of 1-805 Amount of the Fee: Areas West of 1-805 Amount of the Fee: -" -" -" C> $ 16,931 per single family dwelling unit 12,565 per multi-family dwelling unit 7,924 per mobile home dwelling unit 7,244 per motel/hotel dwelling unit $ 9,249 per single family dwelling unit 6,864 per multi-family dwelling unit 4,329 per mobile home dwelling unit 3,957 per motel/hotel dwelling unit FY 07/08 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 715 PAD FUND Beginning Balance, 07/01/07 $ 36,886,825 Revenues: Park Dedication Fees Interest Earned Transfer In from CIP fund. Expenditures: Supplies and Services Other Expenses CIP Project Expenditures 1,468,781 1,919,280 (7,500) (685,802) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/08 $ 39,581,584 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD FEES) . FY 07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 07108 C!P EXPEND!TURE!':: FY 07/08 Total Appropriation Future oloOfPr~ectFunded Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURE at 6/30/08 Appropriations by PAD Fees Scheduled PR179 Gayle McCandliss Park 18,720 51,558 100.00% 2000 PR238 Veterans Park 2,127 3,653,760 79.79% 2001 PR250 Montevalle (RH) Community Park 57,292 8,495,629 94.60% 2003 PR251 Salt Creek (EL) Community Park 72,850 8,293,229 98.80% 2003 .... PR260 San Miguel Ranch Community Park 342,225 840,386 100.00% 2007 .... PR262 Parks Master Plan Update 6,341 50,000 24.60% 2005 .... PR279 All Seasons park 186,247 449,459 100.00% 2007 .... TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 685,802 Note: The ending balance includes fees paid by specific developers for specific parks within those development. These parks include Salt Creek Park, Montevalle Park, MI. Miguel Park, Mountain Hawk, and the Otay Ranch Community Park. TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Fee: For the enlargement of sewer facilities of the City so as to enhance efficiency of utilization and/or adequacy of capacity and for planning and/or evaluating any future proposals for area wide sewage treatment and or water reclamation systems or facilities. ..... Amount of the Fee: $ 45 Administrative fee per connection 6,990 plus $174.73/ft of chargeable length in excess of 35 ft for construction of a 4" diameter lateral 7,107.95 plus $178.1 Olft of chargeable length in excess of 35 ft for construction of a 6" diameter lateral 528 for 4" diameter tap-ins 607 for 6" diameter tap-ins 1,350 for chargeable length in excess of 35 ft for connections made at a depth in excess of nine feet 3,478 per equivalent dwelling unit of flow when developing or modifying use of any residential property ..... ..... N FY 07/08 FUND BALANCE INFORMATION: FUND 413 TRUNK SEWER (TS) Restated Beginning Balance, 07/01/07 $ 35,223,874 Interest Earned Sewerage Facility Participant Fees Transfer In from 543 Expenditures: Depreciation Expense - Infrastructure CIP Project Expenditures 1,909,408 1,841,387 2,880 (4,812,247) (1,664,191) Unaudited Ending Balance, 06/30/08 $ 32,501,111 TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY07J08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 07/08 EXPENDITURES: FY 07/08 Total Approp. Future o/DOfPr~ectFunded Initially PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURE at 6/30/08 Appropriations by TRUNK SEWER Scheduled GG171 PW Info System Modern Expansion . 6,335 11,085 0.90% 1999 OP200 Survey Monument Study/Replacement 10,000 10,000 7.60% 1999 SW205 Metro Sewer System Upgrade 3,579 468,010 100.00% 1992 ....... SW219 Salt Creek Trunk Sewer 94,219 19,332,324 59.80% 1999 SW223 Wastewater Master Plan 47,547 685,000 100.00% 2001 ....... SW232 Poggi Canyon Ext-Eastlake Pkwy 1,099,862 1,230,000 ....... 100.00% 2004 w SW233 Moss Street Woodlawn to Broadway 229,993 408,650 25.70% 2007 SW234 Sewer Improvement Colorado J & K 367 349,600 100.00% 2004 SW235 Main SI. Sewer Hilltop - Fresno 1,286 102,000 100.00% 2004 SW236 Center SI. Imp Garret & Fourth 91,546 210,848 100.00% 2005 SW242 Inflow and infiltration Study 38,597 75,000 43.00% 2006 SW243 Tel. Cyn Trunk Swr Imp. Bay Blvd & J : 73 306,000 100.00% 2006 SW249 Joint Feas Stud for Wastewater Reclml 40,787 70,000 100.00% 2007 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,664,191 -' I -' -' .j>. LOANS: TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Description of Loan Loan Amount Loan to Oxford SI. AD97-1lmprovement Fund, approved by Council Resolution #18795 on October 28, 1997 13,680 Loan to Twin Oaks Ave AD96-1, approved by Council Resolution #18873 on January 20, 1998 9,854 Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #18996 on May 19, 1998 565,277 Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19078 on July 16, 1999 for project DR140 (Storm Drain Repair-Orange) 54,781 Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19607 on Nov. 24,1999 for project DR 147 (CMP Storm Drain Replacement) 212,125 Loan to Storm Drain Fund, approved by Council Resolution #19682 on Jan. 19, 2000 75,595 Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2001-203 on June 19,2001 9,927,985 Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2002-222 on June 18,2002 1,755,785 Interest Rate 7.00% 7.00% 6.07% 5.90% 5.88% 5.88% 5.88% 5.34% LOANS: --> I --> --> C1l TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FY07/08 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2002-297 on August 13, 2002 2,786,051 Advance to Salt Creek Sewer DIF approved by Council Resolution #2003-278 on June 17,2003 1,064,611 Total $ 16,465,744 " 1.90% 1.50% GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2008 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/07. 6/30/08 to Current Time and Five Year Forecast) AIR QUALITY - City of Chula Vista THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please proVide brief responses to the following: 1. Regarding development that occurred during the period under review, please provide an overview of how measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies were implemented. Development within Chula Vista is guided by a number of policies and planning documents to help improve local air quality. TheChula Vista General Plan, which provides a blueprint for future development, highlights the City's goal to "improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants (Objective E6)." Through the Plan, the design and siting of new projects are evaluated and modified to promote multi-use, compact development which favors pedestrians, biking and public transit over owner-occupied vehicles. New development projects are required to create Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIPs). The city's current threshold for AQIPs is outdated and in the process of being revised. Energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities within new development projects are pursued through the City's Sustainable Communities program which works to integrate Air Quality 1-116 PaQe 1 energy efficiency into the permitting and inspection process. The program has allowed City staff to educate permit applicants, contractors and developers on energy efficiency opportunities and to train permit counter technicians and building inspectors on advanced energy technologies. The program has also developed ordinance proposals to promote renewable energy and green building design principles in new construction and major renovation projects. 2. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and procedures consistent with current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs? If not, please explain any inconsistencies, and indicate actions needed to bring development I'egulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance, Yes x No 1. Last year, a comprehensive list was provided that outlined any non-development- related air quality programs/actions that the city implements or participates in. Have any programs,Jactions been added since then? If so, please list and provide an explanation oj' each. The City's Climate Change Program (CCP) is a multi-department effort to reduce the community's greenhouse gas (GHG) or "Carbon" emissions. Although the Program focuses on greenhousE! gases such as carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20), it also helps reduce criteria air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) which are detrimental to public health and are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. On July 10,2008 City Council adopted implementation plans for seven new carbon-reducing measures, which were originally recommended by the City's Climate Change Working Group - comprised of residents, businesses and community representatives. The implementation plans outline the City's detailed strategy for initiating, funding and tracking the individual measures. Although partial implementation began immediately, the City is currently pursuing a variety of funding sources over the next 6 months to ensure the measures' full and long- term implementation. A summary of each measure, as approved by City Council, is outlined below: Clean Vehicle Replacement Policy for City Fleet When City fleet vehicles are retired, they will be replaced through the purchase or lease of alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes. In addition, the City fleet will begin to pursue installing new fuel tanks to allow heavy-duty vehicles to convert to biodiesel fuel immediately. Clean Vehicle Replacement Policy for City-Contracted Fleets As contracts for City-contracted fleet services (such as transit buses, trash haulers and street sweeper trucks) are renewed, the City will encourage contractors to replace their vehicles with alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes through the contract bid process. In addition, the City will pursue implementing two hydrogen vehicle demonstration projects. Business Energy Assessments Although not mandatory, businesses will be encouraged to participate in a no cost energy assessment of their facilities to help identify opportunities for them to reduce monthly energy costs. The business assessment will be integrated into the existing business licensing process and codified through a new municipal ordinance. Air Quality 1-117 Page 2 Green Building Standard Chula Vista will implement a citywide, mandatory green building standard for new construction and major renovations. The new standard will have 3 main components: (1) a minimum energy efficiency (carbon equivalent) requirement of 15% above Title 24- 2005, (2) the early adoption of the new California Green Building Codes for all residential and commercial projects and (3) a Carbon Offset Fee available for projects not meeting the 15% above Title 24 threshold. The City will re-evaluate its Green Building Standard in summer 2009 when the revised Title 24 becomes effective. Solar & Energy Efficiency Conversion Program The City will create a community program to provide residents and businesses a streamlined, cost-effective opportunity to implement energy efficiency improvements and to install solarlrenewable energy systems on their properties. The City will develop a funding mechanism to allow program participants to voluntarily choose to place the improvement costs on their property's tax rolls, thereby avoiding large upfront capital costs. In addition, the program will promote vocational training, local manufacturing, and retail sales opportunities for environmental products and services. To help stimulate the private-sector renewable market and lower the cost for installing renewable energy systems on new homes, the City will require all new residential buildings to include pre- wiring and pre-plumbing for solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems, respectively. Smart Growth Around Trolley Stations The City will continue to implement the "Smart Growth" design principles, which promote mixed-use, walkable and transit-friendly development, particularly in and around the E, H and Palomar trolley stations. These principles were emphasized in the revised Chula Vista General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan. In particular, the City will initiate site planning, design studies and Specific Area Plan development to further support "Smart Growth" development that complements greenhouse gas reductions. Turf Lawn Conversion Program The City will create a community program to provide residents and businesses a streamlined, cost-effective opportunity to replace their turf lawns with water-saving landscaping and irrigation systems. Some municipal turf lawn areas (such as medians, fire stations and non-recreational park areas) will also be converted to act as public demonstration sites and to reduce monthly water costs. The City will establish the model for water-wise landscaping for new development through an update of its Municipal Landscape Ordinance and Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. 4 Other than what was listed last year, are there additional non-development-related program efforts that the City needs to undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? If so, please list and provide a brief explanation of each. Yes X No California's Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) directs the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board has subsequently drafted a Scoping Plan outlining its strategy to reach this emissions goal. The Plan, which covers a variety of sectors, appeals to local governments to reduce their operational and community-wide emissions by approximately 15% from current levels by 2020. This target parallels the City's past Council-approved policy to reduce Chula Vista's emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. As a result of AB32, the City will need to continue to implement its carbon-reducing measures and track its emission levels through Air Quaiitv 1-118 Page 3 annual inventClries in the future. If emission reductions fail to occur, the City will need to reassess its approach and determine appropriate next steps. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. AB32 will directly influence the City's future growth from new development. AB32's Scoping Plan includes an emphasis on regional transportation-related emissions reduction targets which have been more formally codified through Senate Bill 375. The new law requires the state to work with metropolitan planning organizations such as SANDAG to develop specific regional targets and to "focus on fostering efficient land use patterns that not only reduce vehicle travel but also accommodate an adequate supply of housing, reduce impacts to valuable habitat and productive farmland, increase resource use efficiency, and promote a prosperous re~lional economy." Chula Vista will need to work with SANDAG to ensure that the City's development plans meet the regional target and comply with AB32/SB375. In addition, the City needs to formally update its criteria for assessing the impact of new development projects on the environment through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. Because new projects typically result in increased vehicle traffic, energy use and water consumption, the City's CEQA process must consider the greenhouse gas emissions impacts from potential projects. These guidelines should outline acceptable methods for quantifying GHG levels, determining the impacts' "significance" and selecting appropriate mitigation measures. These new criteria components should be designed to complement the City's existing carbon-reducing measures and ultimately assist in reaching Chula Vista's and the broader San Diego region's emissions reduction goals. PREPARED BY: Name: Brendan Reed Title: Environmental Resource Manager Date: 1212/08 Air (')ll::llitv 1-119 Paae 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/07.. 6/30/08, to the Current Time and Five Year Forecast) SewER THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity for pipes 12" and greater in diameter, 50% for pipes less than 12" in diameter). 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority with a 12- to 18-month development forecast to facilitate their evaluation of the Metro System's ability to accommodate the forecasted growth. The City's Engineering 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 shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Please update the table below: .. , .." - --- .... .. ... '. .. ,.. .. ~ ." ..' .. ....... .. SEWAGE .. Flow and Treatirient Capacity::" <<<<\:,:".;' .. .. .. .. .... . '" .' . .. , Million Gallons per Day 06107 Fiscal 07/08 Fiscal.; Projection for. Projection for Projection for: (MGD) Year ... ; ...- Year next 18 months ... . next 5 years "Buildout'''' .. ..... ..... .. Average 17.062 16.765 17.896 19.516 26.2 Flow Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 'Suildout Projedion based on Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005) utilizing the 'Preferred Alternative" model as adopted in the 2006 General Plan Update Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Last year, it was reported that sewage flows or volumes from an Industrial Boulevard sewer line exceeded City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity). Was that problem remedied during the period under review? Yes No x Last year's action plan for the Industrial Boulevard sewer line included additional monitoring of the line to re-confirm the flow volumes reported. Staff was un-able to re-confirm last J:\Engineer\GMOClSewer 09 GMOC.doc Page 1 1-120 /jf year's results. According to flow volume measurements obtained as recently as August 2008, sewer lines in the subject area are experiencing flows Jess than 60% of their design capacity. Capacity constraints appear to be limited to one particular manhole near the intersection of Main Street and Industrial Boulevard where several pipes meet. City sewer maintenance crews continue to monitor the location on a regular basis and anecdotal information regarding the overall cleanliness and routine maintenance of the manhole suggests the manhole may only experience significantly high flows two to three times a year. Therefore, City Staff will continue to monitor the manhole and surrounding sewer lines for high flows and high volume discharges. Should meter results show consistent violations of capacity thresholds, City staff will propose a capital improvement project to rectify the constraint. 2. Have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity) at ;any time during the period under review? If yes, please indicate where, when and why this occurred, and what has been, or will be done, to correct the situation. Yes No x 3. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 12- to 18-month forecasted growth? If not, what facilities need to be added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site availability? Yes X (see attachment 1) No 4. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 5-year forecasted growth? If not, what facilitiE!s need to be added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site availability? Yes X (see attachment 11 No 5. Is adequate funding secured andlor identified for maintenance of existing facilities? If not, please E!xplain. Yes x No It should also be noted that the region is anticipating the approval of a Federal economic stimulus pacl<age in early 2009 aimed at funding public works infrastructure projects. The City of Chula Vista is coordinating with other agencies in the region and preparing a significant nLlmber of projects that could be ready for construction in a short timeframe should the economic stimulus package be approved. These projects include sewer pipe replacement and rehabilitation projects, as well.as pump station improvements, currently identified as requiring maintenance in our on-going sewer monitoring program. 6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Last year, City staff reported on research regarding the construction of a sewer treatment facility in the City of Chula Vista, as well as the purchasing of additional treatment capacity rights from other agencies within the Metro system, as possible methods in which the City could meet our projected "build out" sewage flow estimates. While two studies have been completed rE~garding the potential construction of a wastewater treatment facility in Chula Vista, further analysis is required before a decision can be made. J:\Engineer\GMOC\Sewer 09 GMOC.doc Page 2 1-121 The first treatment facility study, completed in 2005, analyzed the feasibility of a treatment plant that, through the treatment process, would supply a proposed power plant along Chula Vista's bayfront with recycled water for power plant cooling purposes. Since this study was completed, the idea of a water-cooled power plant on the City's bayfront has gone away. The second study, completed in 2007, analyzed potential Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Wastewater Reclamation Plants at two locations within the City, each with a capacity to treat up t6 four million gallons per day (MGD). While the study concluded that it was feasible to construct the plaDt, questions remained regarding the infrastructure required to serve the project, emergency backup plans in case of power failure, and the use/disposal of recycled water generated by the plant throughout the year. Therefore, a scope of work for an additional study regarding a Chula Vista MBR plant is currently being finalized in a coordinated effort between City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District staff. The scope of work for this third study, as currently envisioned, would examine larger plant sizes than previOUS studies (up to six MGD) and would include a more detailed understanding of specific plant design requirements, construction costs, recycled water demands for the region, and permitting requirements. While staff is interested in learning more about the feasibility of a Chula Vista treatment plant, the idea of purchasing capacity from another agency has not been abandoned. However, until construction costs of the treatment plant are fully understood, and the Point Lorna treatment plant environmental waiver status is still unknown, negotiations on the price of purchasing capacity are not proceeding. Attachments: 1) Population and Sewage Flow Projections dated November 19, 2008 PREPARED BY: Name: Jim Newton Title: Senior Civil Engineer Date: 11/18/08 J:\~ngin~e:\GHOC\Sewe: 09 GHOC.doc J:\EngineerlGMOClSewer 09 GMOC.doc Page 3 1-122 CITY OF SAN DIEGO i\IETROPOLITAN SEWERAGE SYSTEM POPULATlO,'1 AND SEWAGE FLOW PROJECTIONS Agency: CrTY OF CHUl.A VISTA Contact Person: Jim Newton, ScniorCivil Engineer Telephone: (619) 691.5034 Fiscal Reporting Projected Total Projected Population Average Year Period Population Served by Metro Daily Flow (MGD) 2009 7/08 - 6/09 234,827 234,327 17.574516 20rO 7/09 - 6/10 239,114 238,614 17.896028 2011 mO-6/11 243,094 242,594 18.194543 2012 7/11 - 6/12 248,610 248,110 18.608274 2013 7/12 - 6/13 255,942 255,442 19.158170 2014 7/13 .6/14 260,709 260,209 19.515659 2015 7114-6/15 265,475 264,975 19.873148 2016 7/15 - 6/16 270,242 269,742 20.230637 2017 7/16 - 6/17 275,008 274,508 20.588126 2018 7/17-6/18 279,775 279,275 20.945615 2019 7/t 8 - 6/19 284,541 284,041 21.303104 2020 7/t 9 - 6/20 289,304 288,804 21.660300 2025 7/24 - 6/25 302,875 302,375 22.678088 2030 7/29 - 6/30 316,445 315,945 23.695875 2035 7/34 - 6/35 330,624 330,124 24.759265 2040 7/39 - 6/40 345,437 344,937 25.87030 , 2050 7/49 - 6/50 360,915 360,415 27.031118 2009 - 2013 data based on City ofChula Vista Development Projections Year 2020 Population and beyond based on SANDAG'S 2030 Cities/County Forecast Note: Population Forecasts for year 20 14-20 19 and 2035, 2040, 2050 were based on straight line projections Senior Civil Engineer Title Jim Newton Print Name November 19,'2008 Date Please Mail or Fax to: Martin J. Kane Supervising Management Analyst, Agency Contracts 9192 Topaz Way San Diego, CA 92123 Fa.... Number:(858) 292-6310 J:lSng;neer\SEWER\METROIPOPUlATlON-FLOW.PROJECTIONS-CV ~N~ 1~~G-200a'09 REVISED 11-15-08. SS . ---- THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annuaily provide the San Diego CountyWater 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 sited district's desire to communicate to the City and GMOC; e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please complete the tables below. CUf~RE:NT YE:AR QEivtANp.(ProdiJct)q~ F~(,ojl~if;Millio~ ;G~i~8h~(NiG . ..12.:rriofit6;~;:oji~. (0.11: .. )~e~j.~;i~~~gii~ '~9?'~ 3400 Local 1m orted Total 4538 7660 59 100 4100 7500 Notes: a. The use of local vs. imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and is. therefore. unpredictable. b. Table values are for portions of Chula Vista served by Sweetwater Authority only. c. Current year production demand is taken from the Sweetwater Authority 200S Fact Sheet. d. 12-month production demand projection is taken from FYOS-Q9 Budget Projection (actual values from Jut 'OS to Oct 'OS and projected out from Nov'OS to June '09. 1-124 WATER DEMAND and CAPACITY FY2007 12-18 Month 5 -Year Consumption Production Production (ending June Projection Projection 30, 2007) (ending (ending DecemlJer 31, December 31, 2009) 2013\ Yearly Demand -- Purchased by 7868 8,017 8,635 consumers, MG (a,b) (24,147 ac-ft) (24,604 ac-ft) (26,503 ac-ft) Yearly Supply Capacity, MG - LOCAL (cl 13,140 13,140 14,600 Yearly Supply Capacity, MG -IMPORTE:D (d) 10,950 10,950 10,950 Yearly Supply Capacity, MG - TOTAL (e) 13,140 13,140 14,600 Storage Capacity, MG -Treated 43.35 43.35 44.55 Water (f) Storage Capaci~/, MG - Raw 17,421 17,421 17,421 Water (g) (53,466 ac-ft) (53,466 ac-ft) (53,466 ac-ft) Notes: a. Yearly demond is obtained from Water Usage Table. page 43, of the Sweetwater Authority (SWA) Financial Statement and converted to MG's. b. 12c18 month projection arid 5 year projection from SWA Master Plan Update 2007. c. Local supply components include the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), ReynOlds Desalination Plant (4 mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd), for a total of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year. The Reynolds Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringing the local supply capacity to 40 mgd or 14,600 MG per year. d. Imported supply includes 30 mgd, or 10,950 MG per year of imported raw water treated at the Perdue Plant. SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. e. Total yearly supply capacity of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year, includes the Perdue Water Treatment F'lant [30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Plant (4mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd). The ReynoldS Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringing the total supply capacity to 40 mgd, or 14,600 MG per year. SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. f. SWA Master Plan Update 2007 lists existing and recommended treated water storage. g. Raw water storage capacity equals 28,079 ac-ft at Sweetwater Reservoir, and 25,387 ac-ft at Loveland Reservoir for a total of 53.466 ac-ft. 1-125 Please provide brief responses to the following questions: 2. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes x No 3. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please list any additional facilities needed, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes x No 4. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current year and 6-year capital improvement program projects that are needed to serve the City of Chula Vista? If yes, please explain. Yes x No Sweetwater Authority has several maintenance and upgrade programs where pipelines, valves and other facilities are constantly being renewed. This allows the Authority to continue to provide excellent service in the near and long term. The 2007 Water Facilities Master Plan lists almost all proposed projects and estimated costs. In addition, The Desalination Facility capacity is being increased and the Perdue Treatment plant is being upgraded to meet new treatment standards. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Sweetwater Authority is monitoring development activities within the City of Chula Vista to including the Bay front and Urban Core which will require major infrastructure coordination. Please continue to keep Sweetwater Authority informed and involved in all development and capital improvement projects to reduce the potential for unexpected water infrastructure requirements. PREPARED BY: Name: Title: Date: Hector Martinez Engineering Manager 17Nov08 1-126 THRESHOLD STANDARDS: 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 request 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. Amoul1lt of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted 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 compl,ete the following tables. ,C ".., ,'~ ,c,. \., ;;;,'y;,.. SDCWA Helix WD Ci of S.D. RWCWRF SBWRP ,jcut,rl~nt.,.: :'qJtt~rit:; . . .::Y~~lr'.. .... 'y 'Y~at'~;'h, .' . ,;(Mt;).", "'.%'ofT9~1 10,362 74.0% 624 4.5% 1,441 10.3% 403 2.8% 1,1i'2 8.4% :~:~l' 93% 93% 83.2% 4% 4% 3.6% 4.3% 0% 0% 0.7% 8.1% 3% 3% 2.9% 2.9% 0% 0% 0% 1.5% otal (MG) 14,002 100% 14,200 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 1 1-127 ,".~. >&=Y2005/06 ':" --';; i.-'-:~",;" ':;':;" ..,..., .', '-:<<.>, y,-,,' :;:./ ::,.~ wI.. TER~SUPpNcAPj.CITY(MiWi~'riG~it~ntP~rb~~';(Md6 ."'.< Total Flow Supply Capacity Potable Storage Capacity Non-Potable Storage Capacity Potable Supply Flow' Capacity Non-Potable Supply Flow Capacity 138.7 196.1 144.7 196.1 144.7 144.7 152.7 216.1 220.3 220.8 31.7 43.7 43.7 43.7 47.7 137.5 137.5 137.5 137.5 143.5 1.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 9.2 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. Do current facilities have the ability to serve forecasted growth for the 12 to 18 month? If no, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes No _X_ The following is a list of the Otay WD capital improvement program (CIP) facilities anticipated to be needed to serve projected growth within the City ofChula Vista over the next 12 to 18 month time frame. These CIP projects are in various stages of development from planning through construction completion including some with pending developer reimbursement expenditure release. The CIP project details such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are provided within the current Otay WD Fiscal Year 2009 through 2014 CIP documents. The Otay WD six-year CIP documentation can be found, viewed, and downloaded from the Otay WD web site at http://www . otavwater. qov/owd/index. aspx. CIP CIP Proiect Title Proiect No. P2134 PL - 16-lnch, 711 Zone, Birch Road - SR 125/EastLake P2473 PS - 711-1 Pump Station Improvement R2033 RecPL - 12-lnch, 944 Zone, Birch Road - La Media/EastLake R2081 RecPL - 20-lnch, 944 Zone, Lane Avenue - Proctor Valley/Pond NO.1 R2091 RecPS - 944-1 Pump Station Upqrade R2092 Dis - 450-1 Reservoir Disinfection Facility 3. Do current facilities have the ability to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If no, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes No _X_ Page 2 1-128 The following is a list of the Otay WD capital improvement program (CIP) facilities anticipated to be needed to serve projected growth within the City of Chula Vista over the next five year time frame that are not already listed in the above table. These CIP projects are in various stages of development. The CIP project details such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are provided within the current Otay WD Fiscal Year 2009 through 2014 CIP documents. The Otay WD six-year CIP documentation can be found, viewed, and downloaded from the Otay WD web site at http://www . ota~water. oov/owd/i ndex. aspx. CIP CIP Proiect Title Proiect No. P2104 PL - 12-lnch, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain. P2107 PL - 12-lnch, 711 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La Media/SR 125 P2325 PL - 10" to 12" Oversize, 1296 Zone, PB Road - Rollino Hills Hvdro PS/PB Bndv P2367 PL -16-lnch, 980 Zone, Olvmpic Parkwav - East Palomar/EastLake P2402 PL - 12-lnch, 624 Zone, La Media Road - Villaae 7/0tav Vallev P2403 PL - 12-lnch, 624 Zone, Heritaae Road - Olvmpic/Otav Vallev R2028 RecPL - 8-lnch, 680 Zone, Heritaae Road - Santa Victoria/Otav Vallev R2042 RecPL - 8-lnch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR-125/EastLake R2047 RecPL - 12-lnch, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain R2082 RecPL - 24-lnch, 680 Zone, Olvmpic Parkwav - Villaae 2/Heritaae R2083 RecPL - 20-lnch, 680 Zone, Heritaae Road - Villaae 2/0lvmpic R2084 RecPL - 20-lnch, 680 Zone, Villaqe 2 - Heritaae/La Media R2085 RecPL - 20-lnch, 680 Zone, La Media - State/Olvmpic 4. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current year and 6-year capital improvement program projects that are needed to serve the City of Chula Vista? If yes, please explain. Yes_X_ No The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects within the FY 2009 Otay WD capital improvement program (CIP) that are planned and anticipated to be needed to serve the City of Chula Vista. The CIP project details such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are provided within the current Otay WD Fiscal Year 2009 through 2014 CIP documents. The Otay WD six-year CIP documentation can be found, viewed, and downloaded from the Otay WD web site at http://www. otavwater. oov/owd/i ndex. aspx. CIP CIP Proiect Title Proiect No. P2366 APeD Enqine Replacements and Retrofits P2382 Safety and Security Improvements P2416 SR-'125 Utilitv Relocations P2441 NGII~AMAR Meter Replacements P2456 Air and Vacuum Valve Upqrades P2458 AMR Manual Meter Replacement Page 3 1-129 P2475 PumfJ Station Fire Safety Improvements P2477 Res - 624-1 Reservoir Cover Replacement P2478 Administration Building Engine/Generator Set R2053 RWCWRF - R.O. Buildina Remodel and Office Furniture R2086 RWCWRF Force Main Air and Vacuum Replacements and Road Imorovements 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Otay Water District (Otay WD) has anticipated growth, effectively managed the addition of new facilities and documented water supply needs. Service reliability levels have been enhanced with the addition of major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix Water District Levy Water Treatment Plant, the City of San Diego South Bay Water Treatment Plant, and the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant. This is due to the extensive and excellent planning Otay WD has done over the years including the Water Resources Master Plan and the annual process to have the capital improvement program projects funded and constructed in a timely manner corresponding with development construction activities and water demand growth that require new or upgraded facilities. The process of planning followed by the Otay WD is to use WRMP as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best alternatives for providing reliable water system facilities. Growth projection data provided from SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community was used to develop the WRMP. The Otay WD need for a ten- day water supply during a SDCWA shutdown is actively being implemented and has been fully addressed in the WRMP and the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The IRP incorporate 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. The Otay WD WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay WD. These facilities are incorporated into the annual 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 WD typically requires the. developer to prepare a Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project consistent with the WRMP. This SAMP document defines and describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. The SAMP also defines the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity fees funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. These fees were established to fund the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. The SAMP identifies the major water transmission main and distribution pipeline facilities which are typically located within the roadway alignments. 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. The Otay WD assures Page 4 1-130 that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. The Otay WD, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, continues to expand the use of recycled water. 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. The City of Chula Vista, Sweetwater Authority, and Otay WD completed a study last year of the feasibility to provide the City with projected needed sewer disposal capacity and production of recycled water. The near term water supply outlook remains unsettled while the City of Chula Vista's long-term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the recent court ruling regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues. Challenges such as these essentially always wili be present. The regional water supply agencies, the SDCWA and MWD, along with Otay WD nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. 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: Name: James F. Peasley, P.E. Title: Engineering Manager Date: 11/20/2008 Page 5 1. -1 31 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/07 - 6/30/08 to the Current Time and Five Year Forecast) LIBRARIES 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 update the table below: LIBRARIES Total Gross Square Gross Square Feet of Population Footage of Library Library Facilities Per 1000 Facilities PODulation Threshold X X 500 Sq. Ft. 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 FY 2006-07* 227,723 102,000 448 FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441 12-Month Projection 232,307 102,000 439 (12/31/09) 5-Year Projection 255,400 102,000 399 (2013) Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. Are current facilities able to serve forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes No X 1-132 Explain: No, 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 space per 1,000 population until the opening of Rancho del Rey and/or EUC libraries. The latest estimates that Library staff has received from the Finance Department indicate that construction of a new library will not occur until 2015 at the earliest depending on economic conditions. However, the City has identified construction of the Rancho del Rey Library as a priority should an economic stimulus package including construction of public buildings be forthcoming. 3. Are current facilities able to serve forecasted growth for the 5-year timeframe? If not, please explain. Yes No x Explain: Given the estimate of 2015 before construction of a new library will be possible, the library system will not meet threshold standard until that time. 4. Will new facilities be required to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes x No 5. Please complete the table below: LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS " . . Annual Attendance Annual Circulation Guest Satisfaction FY 07/08 1296245 1265720 89% FY 06/07 1148024 1344115 88% FY 05/06 1170168 1467799 85% FY04/05 1121119 1414295 91% FY03/04 1076967 1308918 88% 6. What is the status of updating the Library Facilities Master Plan? Current budget constraints have caused postponement of the Library Facilities Master Plan update. 7. What is the status of constructing the Rancho del Rey library? It is not known at this time when sufficient funds will become available for the construction of the Rancho del Rey Branch Library. Preconstruction planning and design have been completed. Eventual construction of the Rancho del Rey Branch Library will depend on an upturn in new housing construction in areas subject to the Development Impact Fee program. 8. What is the status of constructing the EUC library? City staff and the developer of the Eastern Urban center are actively planning the development of the EUC. EUC planning includes an approximately 30,000 sq. ft. public library at the heart of the urban core that is the fourth and final library recommended by the current Library Master Plan. Library staff is currently participating in the planning of this project. The EUC branch library is not anticipated until 2015 at the earliest. H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2008-09 Review Cycle\Returned Questionnaires\Libraries.doc Page 2 1-133 9. Please provide Chula Vista patron utilization numbers from County libraries, particularly the Bonita-Sunnyside Branch. The County will be providing us with some numbers before the January 15, 2009 GMOC meeting. Library staff will be able to provide the County's data at that time. 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Mariya Anton Title: Library Admin Services Manager Date: January 7,2009 H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2008-09 Review Cycle\Retumed QuestionnaireslLibraries.doc Page 3 1-134 Page 1 of 1 Kim Vander Bie From: Stephanie Loney Sent: Wednesday, January 21,20092:58 PM To: Kim Vander Bie Subject: Library Data for GMOC Kim, Here is the data I promised you for the GMOC annual report. I have included all the data we brought (word of mouth) regarding Bonita library card holders, Chula Vista active card holders, Bonita Library's square footage. In addition, I have provided you the data conceming the drop in open hours and its relation to book circulation. At that point in the GMOC discussion, there was a request for some sort of comparison of opening hours between us and nearby libraries. I have added the findings and these are up to date as of today (1/21/09). I was also asked to clarify the 652% increase on computer use - I have done so - it was between 2003/4 and 2008/9 . Lastly, to my own chagrin, I must correct the figures i mentioned concerning the incorporation of Bonita square footage to our benchmark of 500 square feet per 1000. When I looked at these again they didn't seem quite right and so when I ran them again, voila! a different set of figures. My apologies. However, the overall impact on the measurement is much the same as I mentioned - incorporating the Bonita square footage put us around the benchmark set in 2006/7 bLlt by the time the 5 year projection has arrived (2013) we will be below it again. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Stephanie 1-135 LIBRARY CARD HOLDERS Civic Center (home library) South Chula Vista (home library Eastlake (home library) Unknown home library TOTAL ACTIVE CVPL CARDS BONITA (HOME LIBRARY) Bonita Residents Chula Vista Residents Others TOTAL BONITA CARDHOLDERS BONITA LIBRARY SQ, FEET Library space Community room TOTAL SQUARE FEET CVPL USAGE TRENDS FY07lO8 FY 06/07 FY 05/06 FY 04/05 FY 03/05 .50% of FY at reduced hours HOURS OPEN COMPARED (09)* CVPL Civic Branch CVPL South branch CVPL Eastlake National City San Diego County, Imperial Bch San Diego County, Bonita City of San Diego Malcolm X City of San Diego Otay Mesa COMPUTER SESSIONS - 2003/4 2008/9 500 GSF PER 1000 POPULATION 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-2007 2007-08 12 month Projection 5 year Projection 37,355 25,514 5,843 1,266 69,978 8,600 15,900 500 25,000 8,000 4,000 12,000 Attendance Circulation Hours open (annual) CC/SO/EL hrs wk 1,296,245 1265720 6,700 52,48,24. 1,148,024 .1344115 7,20064,58,24 1,170,168 1467799 7,200 64, 58, 24 1,121,119 1414295 7,20064,58,24 1,076,967 1308918 7,200 64,58,24 52 hours 48 hours 24 hours 60 hours 53 hours 57 hours 52 hours 41 hours Days open 7 days 6 days 5 days 7 days 7 days 7 days 7 days 6 days Annual % increase 25,445 191,426 652.3% inc Population Facilities sq It Gross sq It per 1000 Bonita sq It inc. Adj. Gross sq It 178,645 102,000 571 Not available 187,444 102,000 544 Not available 195,000 102,000 523 Not available 203,000 102,000 502 Not available 211,800 102,000 482 Not available 220,000 102,000 464 Not available 223,423 102,000 457 Not available 227,723 102,000 448 12,000 500 231,305 102,000 441 12,000 492 232,307 102,000 439 12,000 490 255,400 102,000 399 12,000 446 1-136 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/07 - 6/30/08 to current time and Five Year Forecast) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD STANDARDS: 1. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine it; ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Have storm water flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards atanytime during the period under review? Yes No X If yes: a. Where did this occur? b. Why did this occur? c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation? 2. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the 12- to 18-month growth forecast? If'so, please explain. Yes No X Developers of a proposed subdivision are required by Section 3-201 of the Subdivision Manual to provide on-site detention facilities such that the post- deve1lopment flow rate for a given design storm does not exceed the pre- development flow rate at the outlet of the subdivision. Although new drainage facilities may be required to serve the development, they will be provided and financed by the developer. There should not be any significant impact on existing downstream facilities. . Most of the development in the short-term forecast is in eastern Chula Vista. There is sufficient room to accommodate the drainage improvements needed for these areas, as well as the smaller developments in western Chula Vista. 3. Last year, ilt was indicated that new facilities would be required to accommodate the 5-year growth forecast, and a detailed explanation was provided. Has anything changed? If so, please elaborate. 1-137 Yes X No Development over the past year and in the immediate future is projected to be lower than previously anticipated. The only significant development projected for westem Chula Vista within the next five years that could affect existing drainage facilities is the Creekside Vistas, located at 912-944 Third Avenue. A portion of this area is located within the 100-year floodplain and contains the Telegraph Canyon Channel, which is a natural channel in this area. There has been periodic flooding of this area and the nearby intersection at L Street and Third Avenue. Construction in the area will be subject to the City's Floodplain Ordinance. Although some funding may be available to construct improvements through the Telegraph Canyon Drainage DIF, some improvements will be required to be funded by the developer. As specified by Section 3-201 of the Subdivision Manual, the developer will be required to provide on-site detention facilities so that the post-development flow rate for a given design storm does not exceed the predevelopment flow rate. 4. Last year, it was indicated that the city was participating in a regional work group that had been established to develop channel maintenance procedures acceptable to resource agencies, and to facilitate obtaining environmental permits for channel maintenance from resource agencies. Please provide an update. Three-and-a-half years of efforts by the Regional Channel Maintenance Workgroup members, EDAW, Inc. (Workgroup's consultant), and several coordination meetings with representatives from various resource agencies have culminated in a document titled Channel Maintenance Programmatic Permitting Guide (Guide), August 2008. The Guide concludes that since channel maintenance activities are similar in nature, are on an on-going long-term basis, and at several locations throughout each jurisdiction, programmatic permitting provides significant advantages lacking in case-by-case permit applications. An example of such programmatic permitting is the County of San Diego's Regional General Permit No. RGP 53 issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Companion approvals from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and where applicable, the California Coastal Commission (GCG) are required. The Guide includes forms, instructions, and where relevant, standardized information to streamline many of the submittal requirements, e.g. mitigation, operational protocols, and annual reporting. In developing the Guide, input from the above referenced resource agencies was sought and considered. Other information provided in the Guide include: · Discussions of the federal and state statutes that regulate routine maintenance work o Descriptions of typical storm water facilities · Descriptions of typical maintenance activities o Definitions of jurisdictional limits · Discussions of notifications required after permits are issued " Alternative mitigation approaches · Key issues important to all municipalities that were discussed with the regulatory agencies Although the Guide provides useful guidance and tools forresource.agency permit 1-138 ~ applications, it is ultimately the responsibility of individual jurisdictions to apply for necessary permits before any non-exempt maintenance activities can be conducted within open channels. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC andlor the City Council. Funding for the maintenance and repair of current drainage facilities, such as replacement of deteriorated corrugated metal pipe (CMP), has continued to decrease. There has been a decrease in revenue from portion of the storm drain fee that is collected on the building permit, along with the Residential Construction Tax, since these revenues are dependent on development. Additionally, it appears that the storm drain fee included on the sewer service bill cannot bel increased without triggering Proposition 218 voting and balloting requirements. PREPARED BY: Name: Title: Date: Elizabeth Chopp Senior Civil Engineer November 19,2008 J:\Engineer\ADVPLAN\GMOC\Drainage 08 GMOC.emc.doc 1-139 11-24-08 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/07 - 6/30/08 to Current Period and Five Year Forecast) PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD STANDARD 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 park acres to population ratio, (acres of parkland provided per 1,000 persons) for the respective review periods. (When the GMOC process began the inherited situation was that the western part of the City was already built with less than 3 acres per one thousand persons park provision. As a result of this legacy, Western Chula Vista projections are not able to meet the same standard as Eastern Chula Vista. The information given on Western Chula Vista is included for information purposes but is not mandated by the GMOC Municipal Code chapter.) CITY OWNED PARK ACREAGE ' . . '. Threshold, Forecas~andC()rnparillons ..' .J.' , " "'"'' " ,. ", .,', , 18-Mth ,.. 5-Year .,' Prior Year Comp\ilrisons: ' , .,' Current ".; Threshold Area of City I F/callt* . , '" Standard (6/30/08) 12.31.09 .F Icast** June Jurie, ',' June .. ' 2005 2006 2007.,. 3 Acres per East of 1-805 3,49 3,59 3.27 2.94 3.58 3.59 1,000 ACt1 ,000 persons Population East West of 1-805 1.15 1.13 1.10 1.15 of (-805 ACt1 ,000 persons 1.15 1.15 Citywide 227 2.34 I 2.24 1.94 2.28 2,31 AC/1 ,000 persons Acres of I Parkland East of 1-805 389,44 409,49 434.02 299,38 377.01 389,44 West of 1-805 138,76 138,76 138,76'" 131,12 137.56 138,76 Citywide 528,2 548,25 572,78 430,50 514.57 528,20 Population East of 1-805 111,507 113,953 132,920 101,800 105,373 108,524 West of 1-805 120.346 120,471 122,480 119,587 119,999 120,195 Citywide 231,853 234,424 255,400 221.387 225,372 228,719 Acre Shortfall East of 1-805 54,91 67.64 35.26 -6.02 60.89 63.87 or Excess West of i-805 -227.64 -222.44 -222.28 -222.65 -222.68 -221,83 Citywide -167.35 -155,01 -193,42 -233.66 -161.55 I -157.96 H:\PLANNINGIGMOC\2008-09 Review CyclelRetumed QueSljoll!1filfoParks & Recreation.doc Page 1 11-24-08 Notes below apply to table on previous page. 'Assumes completion of Mount San Miguel Community Pari< (20.05 acres). - Assumes completion of All Season's Pari< (7.6 acres), Pari< P-3 in Viii age 2 (6.93 acres) & Phase1 of the Otay Ranch Community Pari< (10 acres in phase 1). Population estimates and rates of development projected are per the Planning Department's document 'Residential Growth Forecast Years 2009 thru 2013'. ,- The 'Residential Growth Forecast Years 2009 thru 2013' shows Bayfront building permit activity generating 4 acres of new pari<land however based upon recent events is now subject to change and has not been included in the calcuiations. GENERAL PLANNING ESTIMATES Chula Vista Population -- East versus West ArealYear* 2000 2008** 2013 East of 1-805 64,827 111,929 132,920 West of 1-805 118,473 120,378 122,480 Total 183,300 232,307 255,400 *Year end populatIon ""This population figure is an estimate prior to Oepartment of Finance (DOF) preliminary figures. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold, did the eastern Chula Vista Darks svstem have the required parkland acreage (3 acres/1 ,000 persons) during the period under review? If no, what actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland shortages? Yes x No 2. Are there ade'quate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 12- to 18- months? Yes x No The projected construction of San Miguel Community Park will maintain a park supply in Eastern Chula Vista that complies with the City of Chula Vista Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold through the next 12 -18 months with a ratio of 3.59 acres per one thousand persons. This ratio is achieved even with the completion of All Season's Park anticipated beyond the eighteen-month period and therefore not included. All Season's Park requires further PAD fees receipts in order to commence which may be possible within eighteen months but is not certain. Hence it's inclusion in the five year forecast instead. See response to question 6 for information on the citywide situation. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? H:\PLANNINGIGMOCI2008-09 Review CyclelRetumed QuesliO.!l"l'~IPari<s & Recreation.doc Page 2 11-24-08 c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? 3. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next five years? Yes X No The projected construction of All Seasons Park, Park P-3 in Village Two and Phase 1 of the Otay Ranch Community Park will maintain a park supply in Eastern Chula Vista that complies with the City of Chula Vista Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold through the projected five years of this GMOC forecast period with a ratio of 3.27 acres per one thousand persons. See response to question 6 for information on the citywide situation. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? a. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? 4. Are there other growth-related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold standard as Chula Vista's population increases? If yes, please explain. Yes No X 5. What is the status of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan? The City Wide Parks and Recreation Plan is nearing completion. It is anticipated that it will be presented to City Council for approval in late Spring 2009. 6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. It should be noted that, when the GMOC process began, the inherited situation was that the western part of the City was already built with less than 3 acres per one thousand persons park provision. As a result of this legacy in Western Chula Vista projections are not able to meet the standard of 3 acres per one thousand persons that applies to new development. Since the inception of GMOC the City has exacted park obligations from developers, per the PD~, in the both the eastern and western portion of the City concurrent with development. The Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Master Plan (approved in November 2002 and currently being updated) identifies future park sites and the locations of future facilities Citywide. In addition to defining development of new park sites and upgrades to existing parks the Master Plan includes a park programming matrix which clearly defines where needed facilities will be located. The Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Master Plan 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 obligations 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 H:\PLANNINGIGMOC\2008-09 Review CycleIRetumed QuesliO..!l"f'!.f2\Parks & Recreation.doc Pal1e 3 11-24-08 developer obligated future park acreage is less than the total acres required by demanded facilities. PREPARED BY: Name: Title: Date: Mary Radley Landsc.ape Architect 11-24-08 H:\PLANNINGIGMOC\2008-Cl9 Review CycleIReturned Ques~o..!2"f'iIfS\Par1<S & Recreation.doc Page 4 . GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/07 - 6/30/08 through the Current time and Five Year Forecast) I POLICE 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. Please update the Priority I table, below: Thresh61d FY 2007-08 FY 2006-07 FY 2005-06 FY 2004-05 FY 2003-04 FY 2002-03 FY 2001-021 FY 2000-01 FY 1999-00 CY 19992 FY 1997-98 FY 1996-97 FY 1995-96 i;,;:_:~:iA'~:{i~; ~~f'.:? 1,0060f74,192 976 of 74,277 1,068 of 73,075 1,2890f74,106 1,322 of 71,000 1,424 of 71,268 1,539 of 71 ,859 1,734 of 73,977 1,750 of 76,738 1,890 of 74,405 1,512 of 69,196 1,968 of 69,904 1,915 of 71,197 87.9% 84.5% 82.3% 80.0% 82.1% 80.8% 80.0% 79.7% 75.9% 70.9% 74.8% 83.8% 83.0% 4:19 4:59 4:51 5:11 4:52 4:55 5:07 5:13 5:21 5:50 5:47 4:52 4:46 1 All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) refiect 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. 2 The FY9B-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-199B. Page 1 1-144 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. During the period under review, were 81 % of Priority I emergency calls citywide responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes (maintaining an average of 5.5 minutes)? If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority I emergency calls citywide. Yes _X_ No 3. Please update the Priority II table, below: FY 2007-08 23,~155 of74,192 53.1% 9:18 FY 2006-07 24,407 of 74,277 43.3% 11 :18 FY 2005-06 24,fl76 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33 FY 2004-05 24, ~123 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 FY 2003-04 24,jr410f71,000 48.4% 9~50 FY 2002-03 22,fl71 of 71 ,268 50.2% 9:24 FY 2001-02 22, '199 of 71,859 45.6% 10:04 FY 2000-01 25,:!34 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 FY 1999-00 23,11980f76,738 46.4% 9:37 CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 FY 1997-98 22,:142 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 FY 1996-97 22,'140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50 FY 1995-96 21,~r43 of71,197 64.5% 6:38 . These figures do not include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03. Please provide brief responses to the following: 4. During the pel'iodunder review, were 57% of the Priority II urgent response calls citywide responded to within seven. minutes (maintaining an average of7.5 minutes)? If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority II urgent response calls citywide. Yes No _X_ Staffing must be increased in the Community Patrol Division in order to meet the Priority II response time goals. Although a significant decrease in response times was recorded this year, staff feels that this is most likely the best that can be achieved without additiclnal patrol officers. Further discussion regarding staffing issues and priority response times are included below. 5. Was the Police Department properly equipped to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the period under review? Page 2 1-145 Yes x No If not, please explain. 6. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority I and II threshold standard compliance during the period under review? Yes No _X_ If not, please explain. The Police Department is currently not staffed at levels recommended by the staffing model last completed in 2005. This staffing model recommended adding a total of 10 new officers (three to meet current CFS requirements and seven to staff a new beat in the eastern territory), as well as three additional Community Service Officers. Since then, the Department has had to cut 11 sworn positions, four Police Dispatchers and four Community Service Officers from Patrol due to budget constraints. To meet the Priority II response time threshold, staffing would need to be significantly increased. The Chula Vista Police Department is the lowest staffed agency in San Diego County (see chart below), with 1.07 officers authorized per 1,000 residents. Chula Vista Police Department: Sworn Officers Per 1 ,000 Population 2 1.9Z 1 . Chula Vista II!I Carlsbad i!!l Oceanside "" Escondido I!II La Mesa o EI Cajon g National City i'll San Diego IIil Coronado 1.5 0.5 o February 2008 Source: Municipal Agencies; SANDAG 7. Has growth during the last year negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes x No If yes, please explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the Page 3 1-146 threshold standard. Growth associated with chronic understaffing will inhibit the Department's ability to meet thresholds. As noted earlier, our current staffing levels are below those recommended in a 3- year-old staffing study. 8. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate citywide growth forecasted, and meet the threshold standard, for the next 12 to 18 months? Yes No _X_ If not, please explain. Currently the facilities are able to accommodate growth over the next 12 to 18 months. However, the Vehicle Replacement fund has recently been frozen, which will delay the necessary replacement of vehicles. Staffing will not be able to accommodate growth over the next 12 to 18 months. Altogether, the Department has already lost 31 staff positions (11 sworn and 20 civilian) since FY 2008 and faces an additional elimination of 34 positions (23 sworn and 11 civilian) in FY 2010. 9. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate citywide growth forecasted, and meet the threshold standard, for the next five years? Yes No _X_ If not, please explain. Current facilities are able to accommodate growth over the next five years, but staffing and equipment is not. The recent freezing of the Vehicle Replacement fund will have a negative impact on the readiness of patrol vehicles for service. As patrol vehicles reach higher mileage, there may be increased down time due to service needs. Additionally, staffing cuts in the Public Works Department to the mechanics will mean longer out-of-service times for vehicles awaiting repairs. 10. Please update the tables below: "'Y' c. "".""";;""':":_,:. .-..i.....:,;:;:~ ';_,;...:\-_,'.'....,.-"h',..:,:.t'J',.,... >';'..'C ".;;"- ))'M::"' ,,';", ,::,~,y..". " .' '.::' ,', "....;'I':...,,;:~>,"_.,;..,.,.,',.~,"!'"., ;2(l05LOo'c?\ ,;#E:Y;)2006:;07;'Cf ,01;IIT:Y;2()07~8r,~\;r "'J "''-,....'~~-'.~(:"~~~.~ioa;l ,J.:c..-,.:...,~-;_~. '"'.'"."",:-..~ :<'-',S ,"'fi: ,..,L""_~ '. ':.!..f......,b~._:.~,,~;'!t,>"'l~"i,..d';~.,~i~= 8,077 8,257 7,861 :i'EY,' '{2"'O'O"1LO"'2~,':;<'FY.. ',' ,2'0' 0'2:'03,' :"i:!;V'e"":;;'2""O"'O'''3''''''0'''''4'\' ~"".. ,;: C(-,. _,,, ".,.',:: .' ':'",,'''',c.,- ':"" .~;,,__.", __ " ',_ _" i '. '. ':":"" ,';"' ',.i,l,,' -, ',", i-. ::I"{:,,,'.j,;'i,\..I,-,!:21';;{,.:~.:or~,..__,:,;;",,:,.i~_'.,_; ,;.~:~,~ '\~~'J!'-'"2., ,<,..S(!<:,-j; 1: -" ; 'It:w- ',:',~-:":-c:.:::,.:,,,~,.~c"".y.::..":;'"""". 8,013 8,262 8,312 " CALENDAR YEARTOTALSF6In~ALSEALARMS .. Per System Per Year " ',-; Commercial 2004 i', ,'2005. .. 2006. . (annualized}: ' (annualized) " (annualized) 1.09 , 1.36 1.61 2007 2008 1.02 0.85 3 These figures reflect a change in reporting of alarm calls to include those that are dispatched. but canceled en route, Page 4 1-147 Residential 0.28 0.50 0.30 0.23 0.19 Total (Com & Res) 0.49 0.79 0.59 0.43 0.35 11. In the GMOC's last annual report, the GMOC recommended that, by fall 2008, the Police Department complete and implement an action plan that addresses the decline in performance relative to meeting the GMOC threshold for Priority II calls. What is the status of the action plan? The Police Department sought suggestions on reducing Priority II response times from sergeants involved in a promotional process. All suggestions were reviewed and discussed by lieutenants and the patrol captain. Officers were also surveyed to determine their awareness of response time thresholds, and training on the thresholds was conducted. In addition, the Department implemented a new system in the patrol cars that allows officers to see calls that'are pending on their computer screens, including the priority level. During FY 07/08 the staffing levels in the patrol division were at the highest levels in recent years. However, given the current budget crisis, we do not anticipate the necessary resources being available to meet the threshold standard for Priority II CFS in the foreseeable future. Sworn Staffing 2002-2008 190 Fastest P2 Response Time 290 270 ~ 250 Q) (,) 230 E o 210 170 ,.... ,.... Sl ~ M M M 9 9 ;g '" '" '" co ~ co ,.... ,.... Q] 9 0 "i' 0 "i' "i' 0 "i' 0 0 9 0 "i' 0 > .:. > > ~ > .:. > , "3 "3 ~ "3 ~ "3 ~ "3 "3 ~ "3 U 0 '" 0 '" 0 0 '" 0 -, z ~ -, z ~ -, z ~ -, z ~ -, z ~ -, z ~ -, 0 1- Authorized - Actual - On-Duty I 12. What is the status of SRO? The Police Department, Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District reached an agreement to maintain current staffing levels for the School Resource Officer Unit. However, the uncertainty of the state budget may Page 5 1-148 jeopardize future funding. Any future cuts from the school districts will result in reductions in the SRO program. 13. Does the current threshold standard need to be modified? The Department does not have a position on whether the threshold standard should be modified. However, we think response times should be viewed with some caution. National research40n response times has shown the following: o Victims of robbery, rape, assault and other "victim-involvement" crimes waited an average of 41 minutes before calling police o If victims wait 9 minutes or more before calling police, the likelihood of arrest is not related to police travel time o Reducing response times is unlikely to reduce crime levels o Community satisfaction with police response times is very dependent on incident- specific expectations. That is, if a dispatcher indicates a patrol car will arrive quickly and it doesn't arrive as fast as the caller expected, it's more likely the caller will be dissatisfied. If a dispatcher's response time prediction is accurate - even if they indicate the response will be delayed - it's more likely the caller will be satisfied. Regardless, thl3 Police Department continues to strive to meet the response time thresholds. With appropriate staffing levels, the Police Department is confident that the current Priority II goals could be met. While it's difficult to compare across jurisdictions due to definitional differences in call priorities and types, and data available for comparison varies (there was some variation in 12-month data periods available), it appears that our FY 07-08 P2 response times are lower than 4 of the San Diego county agencies we polled and higher than 1. 14. Please providl3 any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Since FY 07/0a, the Police Department budget has been cut by over $4.6 million (this figure includes the $2.9 million cut reported in the February 2008 GMOC report on FY 06/07 data). Based on currently projected city shortfalls, the Department will face additional budget cuts in FY 08/09 and FY 09/10. In previous years, the department has been able to maintain sworn officer strength in the patrol division. But recent reductions in the number of Community Service Officers, who handle low priority crime reports for patrol officers, could potentially begin to impact priority response times. As a result of the continued significant budget cuts, police services will be impacted. PREPARED BY: Name: Title: Date: Melanie Culuko Public Safety Analyst 11/21/08 4 Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't. What's Promising: A Report to the United States Congress, prepared for the National Institute of Justice by Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie. John Eck. Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway in collaboration with members of the Graduate Program, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland,1997. Page 6 1-149 ,'.. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIO~NA'RE (Review Period: 7/1/07. 6/30/08 to the Curren.t Time an.d Five- Year Forecast) FIRE I EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. . THRESHOLD STANDARD: I 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 complete the following tables: FIRE/EMS - Emergency Response Times % of All Call Review Period Call Volume Response wlin . 7:00 Minutes THRESHOLD 80.0/; FY 2008 9,883 86.9% FY 2007 10,020 88.1% CY 2006 10,390 85.2% CY 2005 9907 81.6% FY 2003-04 8420 72.9% FY 2002-03 8088 75.5% FY 2001-02 7626 69.7% FY 2000-01 7128 80.8% FY 1999-00 6654 79.7% I COMPARISON Actual Response Time Average Travel Time for 80% of Calls. 6:31 3:17 6:24 3:30 6:43 3:36 7:05 3:31 7:38 3:32 7:35 3:43 7:53 3:39 7:02 3:18 3:29 Note: Reporting period for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 is for October 1,2002 to September 30,2003. The difference in 2004 perfomnance 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. During the period under review, were 80% of calls responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes? If not, what is required to meet the threshold standard? Yes X No 2. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have sufficient properly equipped fire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. Yes X No 3. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have adequate staffing citywide for fire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. Yes X No H:IPLANNINGIGMOC\2008-09 Review CyclelReturned QuestionnaireslFire.doc 1-150 Page 1 4. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes X No Ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the 12 to 18 month is based on the assumption that no significant budgetary reductions are made to current resource levels. 5. Are current fac;ilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No _X_ Current facilities staffing and equipment may not be sufficient to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years if major projects such as the Bayfront Master Plan, Urban Core Specific Plan and the University move forward. Providing services to the community may require mClre Fire resources if these projects progress as planned. The impact of this development is addressed in the Fire Facility Master Plan. 6. Please report any significant progress in developing, with the City Manager, an implementaticiIn strategy for the Fire Facility Master Plan. Newly appointed Fire Chief Dave Hanneman will be working with the City Manager to develop an opportune timeframe for presentation of the Fire Facility Master Plan. 7. Please providle comparative data on response and calls for service before and after the transition to San Diego Dispatch. The com parative data for the period 7/1/08 through 3/3/08 marking the time period prior to the transfer of dispatching services to San Diego Dispatch is as follows: . Call Volume: 6,871 . Average Response Time: 4:58 . Average Dispatch Time 11 sec. . Average Travel Time: 3:19 . % of Calls within 7.0 min.: 87.4% The comparati,ve data for the period 3/4/08 through 6/30/08 marking the time period including the transition to San Diego Dispatch. . Call Volume: 3,012 . Average Response Time: 5:29 . Average Dispatch Time: 35 sec. . Average Travel Time: 3:14 .. % of Calls within 7.0 min. 82.2% H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2008-09 Review Cycle\Retumed Questionnaires\Fire.doc Page 2 1-151 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Fire Department will be working the City Manager towards bringing forward the Fire Facility Master Plan Study and the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Study for Council consideration. The Fire Department would appreciate the GMOC's support of the recommendations that will be presented to Council with respect to these two studies. Council adoption of these recommendations will have far-reaching impact to future fire service and emergency medical response service delivery to the City. PREPARED BY: Name: Pablo Quilantan Title: Administrative Services Manager Date: 11/21/08 H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2008-09 Review CyclelReturned QuestionnaireslFire.doc Page 3 1-152 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2009 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review P,eriod: 7/'1/07-6/30/08 to the Current Time and Five- Year Forecast) TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Citywide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalizEld arterial segments, except that during peak hours LOS "0" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. 2. West of Interstate 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. With' appropriate maps and tables, please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Last year, it was reported that five arterial segments were operating at less than LOS "C." During the period under review, has the City maintained LOS "C" or better on all signalized artl~rial segments? If not, please list segments involved and explain. Yes No x Direction EB WB, NB SB NB SB NB SB EB WB NB 2. Last year, it was reported that three arterial segments were operating at LOS "0" for more than two hours a day, or operating at less than LOS "D." During the period under review, were there arterial segments operating at LOS "0" for more than two hours during peak hours? If yes, please list segments involved and explain. Yes X No 1-153 Per the table below, there are still three segments that operate at more than two hours of LOS "0" per day. Although improvements have been made, there are still locations that exceed the threshold standard. A comparison of last year to this year is as follows: Oir LOS 2007 NB o (3) E (3) SB C (5) 0 (1) NB C(5)0(1) C (2) 0 (4) -3D SB C (2) 0 (4) C (2) 0 (3) E (1) +10, -1E EB B (2) C (1) 0 (3) C (4) 0 (2) +10 WB C (3) 0 (3) C(5)0(1) +20 See Attachment 1; 2008 Traffic Monitoring Program Peak Period (6) 3. Last year, it was reported that four roadways were not able to accommodate the 12. to 18-month growth forecasted without exceeding the threshold standards. Are current facilities able to accommodate growth for the next 12 to 18 months without exceeding the threshold standards? If not, please list new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth for the 12- to 18-month timeframe. Yes x No a. How will these facilities be funded? b. Is there an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? Yes, at this time, the City's Engineering Department is confident that all transportation facilities will be able to accommodate "growth" in Chula Vista for the next 12 to 18 months. This is due in no small part to the down turn in the local, state and national economies as revealed by a variety of local and regional experts recently. A leading economist from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANOAG), as well as others, in a briefing to the City Council on Monday, November 17, 2008, had the following slides shown. The slides show a variety of issues showcasing housing starts and building permit issues. The following graphics also indicate that the economic vitality of the local area is tapering off and with that the Engineering Department feels, traffic demand will slow greatly. See Attachment 2; Supplemental Figures (4). 4. Are current facilities able to accommodate growth for the next five years without exceeding the threshold standards? If not, please list new roadways and/or improvements necessary to accommodate forecasted growth for the 5-year timeframe. 1-154 Yes X No a. How will these facilities be funded; and b. Is there an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? It appears at this time, that existing facilities are capable of accommodating expected growth in the city in the next five years. Keep in mind though, that it is extremely difficult, in thl~se uncertain times, to forecast what type of traffic demand the city will encounter in the next five years, with the collapse of the Gaylord negotiations, the overall slow down in the issuance of building permits throughout the city and the national economy in general as discussed above. The timing and location of new projectS and their land use mixture and intensity are impossible to determine at this time. All generally accepted rules and principles that we used in the past ten years to monitor and gauge traffic demand are now generally suspect. The city still operates its Eastern and Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) programs whereby individual developers must pay as they go to mitigate cumulative traffic demands, bUlt it stands to reason that without additional future growth, there will be no additional future demand. At this point in time, we must stand by vigilantly and wait for the next project. 5. Please provide a brief summary of post-SR-125 traffic studies in regards to arterial segments that were operating at LOS D. Are mitigation measures necessary to bring those segments into compliance with the threshold standard? If so, what recommendations are proposed? Attached is the Council Information Item dated June 17,2008 that reportS on the State Route 125 Traffic Impacts to the local street network in Chula Vista (See Attachment 3). In summary, the traffic data was collected just before SR-125 opened on November 19, 2007 and again in April and May of 2008 when tolls were required. City staff studied 19 locations in eastern Chula Vista as well as regional data for SR-54, 1-5 and 1-805. Of importance to this study were the three major arterials of East H Street, Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway, located just to the east of 1-805, since they have the highest volumes in the City. Results show that the cumulative volume reduction at the three local arterial street critical locations were lower overall by approximately 11,100 vehicles per day, a reduction of about 6.1% overall. The cumulative daily volumes just to the east of the 1"805 interchange are as follows: 2007 Count 75,500 64,300 51,900' 191,700 2008 Count 71,100 61,900 47,000 180,000 % Chan e -5.83% -3.73% -9.44% - 6.10% Of the 19 study locations, there were 9 locations where the volumes decreased, 8 where they_ increased and 2 where the change was nominal. The increases were 1-155 generally located around the newer areas where we have Olympian High School, the Otay Ranch Shopping Center and on Olympic Parkway. On Otay Lakes Road in front of Southwestern College, traffic volumes increased the most and were up by approximately 26% from 30,300 in Year 2007 to 38,200 in Year 2008, an increase of 7,900 vehicles per day. This is a location where the City has an improvement project to widen Otay Lakes Road along the frontage of Southwestern College. City staff is coordinating with the College regarding this project 6. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Traffic Engineering staff has been continuously working on improving the three corridors that do not meet the City's threshold standards. Generally, the locations do not meet the threshold criteria due to excessive vehicle delay at the signalized intersections located at either the beginning or end of the study corridor. Usually, the issue is the intersection has considerably higher turning volumes and pedestrian volumes that extend the signal cycle length, the time for the signal to go through all vehicular phases. The work plan for these corridors is as follows: · Heritage Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway had a northbound failure at Telegraph Canyon Road and a southbound failure at Olympic Parkway. Over the past year, signal timing changes have been made at both locations. Signal timing improvements made at Olympic Parkway have eliminated the southbound traffic threshold failure. The signal at Telegraph Canyon Road has been changed and reductions in delays have been made but the changes have not yet been sufficient to make this location meet the City's threshold standards. During the 6-hour peak periods in a day that are evaluated, this location used to have 3-hours of LOS "0" and 3-hours of LOS "E". Recently it has 1-hour of LOS C", 4-hours of LOS "0" and 1-hour of LOS "E", a reduction of 1.hour of LOS "0" and 2-hours less of LOS "E". Signal staff will continue to make additional signal changes at this location. · Otay Lakes Road from East H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road had a northbound failure at East H Street and a southbound failure at Telegraph Canyon Road. Over the past year, signal timing changes have been made at both locations. Signal timing improvements made at East H Street have eliminated the northbound traffic threshold failure and the 4-hours of LOS "0" are now down to 1-hour of LOS "0". The signal at Telegraph Canyon Road has been changed and reductions in delays have been made and reduced the 1-hour of LOS "E" to LOS "0", but the changes have not yet been sufficient to make this location meet the CitY's threshold standards. Therefore, in late summer, City staff contracted with a traffic signal engineering consultant to upgrade the hardware and software at this location. The traffic signals in the vicinity of Southwestern College are operating on an "adaptive traffic signal" system as opposed to the "traffic signal timing plan" based system used elsewhere. Due to the varying vehicular peak period demands caused by Southwestern College, the adaptive signal system changes signal timing plans as needed throughout the day. This adaptive system has different hardware and software and City staff has upgraded all of it to the most recent commercially available components. Due to the installation not being completed until early November 2008, this was at the end ofthe data-gathering period. Thus, staff was not-able to conduct traffic monitoring runs at 1-156 this location and will do so again in early 2009. To date, the signal timing 'and equipment is operating with the new equipment upgrades and staff will be able to continue to make additional signal changes at this location as needed. The longer solution at this location is todo the street-widening project on Otay lakes Road at least from Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street in order to reduce the delays caused by the vehicles to/from the college. There is a project in the current Capital Improvement Program for the segment that starts. along the Bonita High School frontage at Ridgeback Road/Canyon Drive then south to Telegraph Canyon Road. · Palomar Street from Industrial Blvd to Broadway was awarded a State Grant in Year 2008 to SANDAG from the Traffic light (Signal) Synchronization Program (TlSP) that is funded through Proposition 1 B. This work has already commenced and will make signal equipment improvements and corridor timing plan changes for the peak periods of the day. This work will be completed in FY09/10. PREPARED BY: Name: Francisco X. Rivera P.E., T.E. Title: Principal Civil Engineer Date: November 19,2008 Attachment 1: level of Service Plats (6). . Attachment 2: Supplemental Figures (4) for Question 3. Attachment 3: Council Information Item dated June 17, 2008 J:IEngineerlGMOCITraffic 09 GMOC 1211 08.dek - !xr.doc 1-157 ATTACHMENT 2 1-158 In addition, the number of housing starts in the region are down. 1-159 As well national home sales. 1.400 1.200 t,ooD 80D GllIO 400. :roD 2005 = "1,236,000 Peak 2003 = 464,OCQ (Annual Pace) 1-160 From City Budget hearings. In the last 5 years: · Residential permits annually · Total permits annually · Total inspections annually · Annual billable hours · Development related staffing" 'refle-~s F'{20D2-'J9 micr/~ar staffiJ'lg reduciion5. 1-161 -880/0 -59% -630/0 -400/0 -40~~ -' I -' 0> '" 0.5 ~10- W1i CIIYOf GIUIA VI!;fA r ;::r,. 2008 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM ARTERIAL SEGMENTS (LOS "C", "0", OR "E") (AM PEAK PERIOD) TITLE: 1 Miles , f.lIIU.'/.iil! LOS B ;';,'.'."F'" LOS C . LOSD I!!!iiii:!D . LO S E + ,......, W 0::: o = o U) o -1 '-' U) ,......, 1-0 ZO Wo::: -1 <( 0::: w I- 0::: <( C) z ii:l e=: CX)~~ o ~C) o 2 NU... U:0, II. = ... 1 163 " z ii2 e:= co z= Q 0" Q :EO N CJ a=. ii:A. II. ~ ... \..--- ;-- ~ ~Il~>. ~Mm 5~ o 1-164 ~~ !! V \--, \) <1: at U Q .W en (I) (I) (I) (I) 00000 ...t ..l ..I ..l ..I z+ III .!! .--.. w 0::: o - o (/) o ...J ,.,..... '--' 0 (/)0 1-0::: 2W w a... L~ ~.<1: Ww (/)a... W>- ~<1: 20 <1:1 :1:0 u- 0:::6 w I- 2 ...J <1: 0::: W \ \ \ ----- t') ::Iii: DE o "'i;E co i~ oOt') o:iO N U~. ii:A. y. = I- \ ~ ~ ~ljll 0>. ~MI~ a~ o 1-165 \\ 0.5 1 Miles I IIll!I'!.iliII LOS B LOS C LOSD IIliX!lilmlI LOSE -' I -" CTl CTl ~I~ ~ OlYOf CtlULA VISfA 2008 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM TITLE. ARTERIAL SEGMENTS (LOS "C", "0", OR "E") (PM PEAK PERIOD) + \ \ ~ 1 167 r-" w 0:: o o U) o .....J "--/ U) r-" ~o ZO Wo:: :Lw (90.... w~ U)<l: WW (90.... Z:L <l:o.... I"--/ U 0:: W ~ Z .....J <l: 0:: W ~ 0:: <l: w ... l- i: C) Z ; e~ co ~= Q "" Cl) Q&;;O N U!1l: Y:D. u. ~ ~ ~ ~!llll ~~ ~illll o~ u THRESHOLD STANDARD: The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12- to 18-month forecast and request an evaluation of their abilities 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; and 4. Other relevant information the di.stricts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS - NOVEMBER 2008 Current Building Capacity Amount' Type of Schools Enrollment UnderlOver Overflowed . . Schoof Comments Permanent Portables Capacity" Out Calendar NORTHWEST Cook 532 475 100 43 Traditional Feaster-Edison 1148 450 .726 28 24 Ext Year Hilltop Drive 519 500 63 44 Traditional Mueller 987 500 450 -37 23 Ext. Year Charter Rosebank 681 450 313 82 2 Traditional Vista Square 670 426 300 56 4 Year-Round SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 599 722 0 123 Ex!. Year Charter Castle Park 486 488 163 165 7 Traditional Harborside 643 525 351 233 4 Traditional Kellogg 499 426 225 152 5 Traditional Lauderbach 809 500 526 217 8 Year-Round Loma Verde 575 450 234 109 5 Year-Round Montgomery 432 438 100 106 2 Traditional Otay 642 500 275 133 4 Traditional Palomar 394 472 0 78 4 Traditional Rice 695 526 265 96 39 Traditional Rohr 434 476 25 67 17 Year-Round SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 881 725 150 -6 29 Year-Round Charter Olympic View 832 500 325 -7 18 Year-Round Parkview 424 518 101 195 Traditional 1-168 H:IPLANNING\GMOC\2008-09 Review CvclelReturned QuestionnaireslChula Vista Elementarv School District.doc Paae 1 Rogers 544 663 25 119 11 Year-Round Valle Lindo 542 :iOO 226 184 10 Traditional Hedenkamp 1016 984 0 -32 80 Year-Round Heritage 906 725 150 -31 1 Year-Round Veterans 719 702 0 -17 20 Year-Round McMillin 858 725 100 -33 19 Year-Round Wolf Canyon 606 i'14 0 108 3 Year-Round ~Q[Tl.~.~$;~a1 ~{~~W~ ~~Ji~t~~ il~~~ ~it'-"''''~"i.!1'j,~ ~Itt~~ii~~ wt~~I~~~~ ~~I.{~~~~J~~ifi~~1 ; ~ '~~~l!tt . ~~4t H.~",;(,t';",;f.,'ii.t;;i!;i",,:t:>~ Allen/Ann Daly 433 540 25 132 TradlYr. Rnd Casillas 712 488 150 -74 Year-Round Chula Vista Hills 549 488 100 39 Traditional Clear View 521 434 175 88 Ext Year Discovery 798 475 384 61 Year-Round Eastlake 754 500 263 9 Year-Round Halecrest 510 1513 100 103 Traditional Liberty 687 748 0 61 Year-Round Marshall 742 484 125 -133 28 Year-Round Salt Creek 958 800 150 8 3 Year-Round Tiffany 588 526 125 63 Traditional 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2009 and (b) December 2013, based on the City's forecast. 2 a. . 13- MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2009 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Type of Comments Enrollment Permanent Portables Over/Under Out School 12/31/09 Capacity' . Calendar NORTHWEST Cook 525 475 100 50 Traditional Feaster- 1134 450 276 42 Ext. Year Edison Hilltop Drive 501 500 63 62 Traditional Mueller 1061 500 450 -111 Ext. Year Charter Rosebank 652 450 313 111 Traditional Vista Square 653 426 300 73 Year-Round . SOUTHWEST - Learning 590 722 0 132 Ext. Year Charter Comm. Castle Park 471 488 163 180 Traditional Harborside 651 525 351 225 Traditional Kellogo 471 426 225 152 Traditional Lauderbach 845 500 526 181 Year-Round Loma Verde 618 450 234 66 Year:Round MontGomery 421 438 100 117 Traditional Otay 615 500 275 160 Traditional Palomar 377 472 0 95 Traditional I 1-169 ~.\PI ANNINmr,M()r.\?OOR-O~ Review Cvcle\Returned Questionnaires\Chula Vista Elementary School Districtdoc Page 2 Rice 683 526 265 108 Traditional Rohr 1443 I 476 25 I 58 I IYearcRoundl SOUTHEAST , Arroyo Vista 870 725 150 5 Year-Round Charter Olympic View 795 500 325 30 Year-Round Parkview 417 518 101 202 Traditional Rogers 544 663 25 119 Year-Round Valle Lindo 544 500 226 182 Traditional Hedenkamp 1015 984 0 -31 Year-Round Heritage 912 725 150 -37 Year-Round Veterans 717 702 0 -15 Year-Round McMillin 855 725 100 -30 Year-Round WOlf I,.,anyon 627 714 0 87 Year-Round ~ORTfi~ST 425 540 25 140 TradlYr. Allen/Ann Daly Rnd Casillas 715 488 150 -77 Year-Round CV Hills 540 488 100 48 Traditional Clear View 526 434 175 83 Ext. Year Discovery 676 475 384 183 Year-Round Eastlake 698 500 263 65 Year-Round Halecrest 533 513 100 80 Traditional Liberty 721 748 0 27 Year-Round Marshall 712 484 125 103 Year-Round Salt Creek 130 800 150 -4 Year-Round Tiffany 561 526 125 140 Traditional "(-J denotes amount over capacity 2.b FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2013 Schools Projected Projected Capacity . Amount Overflow Type of Comments Enrollment Permanent Portables Over/Under Out School 12/31/13 Capacity" Calendar . NORTHWEST . Cook Feaster-Edison Hilltop Drive Mueller Rosebank Vista Square SOUTHWEST - - Learning Cornm. Castle Park Harborside Kell09g Lauderbach Loma Verde 1-170 H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2008-09 Review Cycle\Retumed Questionnafres\Chula Vista Elementary School District.doc Page 3 Montgomery Otay Palomar [Rice Rohr SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista Olympic View Parkview Rocers Valle Lindo Hedenkamp Heritage Veterans McMillin Wolf Canyon NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly Casillas(move SE) Chula Vista Hills Clear View Discovery Eastlake Halecrest Liberty Marshall Salt Creek Tiffany '(-J denotes amount over capacity 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment historY. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2007 -2008 2006-2007 2005-06 2004-05 2003-04 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment -- 4,537 4,447 -- 4,445- 4,409 4,567 % of Change Over 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 90% 99% 97% from Chula Vista SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 6208 5,892 5,979 6,089 6,333 % of Change Over 5% -1% -2% 4% -2% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 90% 99% from Chula Vista 1-171 I..HPI ANNINr.lr.Mnr.l?n08-09 Rp-view Cvcle\Returned Questionnaires\Chula Vista Elementarv School District.doc PaQe 4 SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,328 6,923 6,525 6.369 5,854 % of Change Over 6% 6% 2% 8% 17% the Previous Year % of Enrollment 90% 99% from Chula Vista 97% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,252 7,105 7,021 6,601 6,266 % of Change Over 2% 1% 6% 5% the Previous Year 11% % of Enrollment 90% 99% from Chula Vista 97% DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 25,325 24,397 23,970 23,020 21 ,455 % of Change Over 4% 2% 4% 7% the Previous Year 1% % of Enrollment 90% 98% 97% 97% from Chula Vista Please provide brief responses to the fol/owing: 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes _X_ No 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes . No_X_ Additional schools will be constructed in th Otay Ranch Villages 11 and 2 as needed to serve students moving into the Otay Ranch area and as state funding becomes available. 6. Please complete the new schools status table, below. Village 11 ;.:NEW,SCHootSSTATUS> .. Architectural Commencement Service Review/Funding, of Site by 10 for land and Preparation Utilities Construction and Road X Commencement of Construction Time Needed By x Plans approved by the Division of the State Architect and the California Department of Education Village 2 x Staff continuing prep for CDE a roval X 7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? If no, please explain. 1-172 H.\PI ANNIN(.;\(';MnO\::>nnR_nQ RpviAW OVdA\RAtllrnArl OIlA"tinnn"irA"\Ohlll,, Vi"t" EIAmAnt"rv ~chool Di"trict,rlnc P"oAF; Yes __X_ No 8. Please 'provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carolyn Scholl Title: Facilities Planning Manager Date: November 18, 2008 1-173 , ~'\PI ANNINr,\r,MOf:\?OOR-09 Reiview Cvcle\Returned Questionnaires\Chula Vista Elementarv School District.doc Paoe 6 APPROVED BY SUHSD BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON DECEMBER 15, 2008 RO\/\ltH MANA.~~iVt~~t'OVE'~~ldiHT " ~ (Re;';;ewli~10d: 7/ i7,~:i~JjM'" " ,.;...:......,,'c,",... -.' THRESHOLD STANDARD: The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12- to 18-month forecast and request evaluations of their abilities 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; and 4. Other relevant information the districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions. I I Building Capacity , Adjusted Physical Within Overflowed Current Schools Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity Out Comments 11/08 (Note 1) Capacity" Capacity , EXISTING CONDITIONS - NOVEMBER 2008 NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,167 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,223 1,200 210 1.410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,716 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop High 2.340 2.040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle' Park Middle 1,151 1,380 150 1.530 220 X Castle Park High 1.656 1.350 570 1.920 220 X Palomar High 474 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3.881 N/A N/A N/A N/A X IIS0UTHEAST I Eastlake High 2,337 2,460 480 2.940 220 X Eastlake Middle 1.556 1.665 0 1.665 220 X Otay Ranch High 2.642 2,600 300 2.900 220 X Olympian High (HS#13) 1,322 2,460 0 2,460 220 X NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2.340 1.770 780 2.550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,130 1,110 420 1.530 220 X Rancho Del Rey Middle 1.663 1,380 60 1,440 220 X Note 1: CapacIty figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per ciassroom) _ September 2003. "Capacity is the adjusted building. capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special education and learning centers. 1-174 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2009 and (b) December 2013, based on the City's forecast. 2.a I " 13-MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS ~- DECEMBER 2009 Schools Projected Building Capacity , Adjusted Phxsical Within Overflowed Comments Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity Out 12131/09 (Note 2) Capacity~ Capacity (Note 1) NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 974 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,117 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,366 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop High 2,101 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,336 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 2,362 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 474 360 240 600 100 X Chuia Vista Adult 3,881 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,883 2,460 480 2,940 220 X Eastlake Middle 1,707 1,665 0 1,665 220 X , , Otay Ranch High 2,694 2,600 300 2,900 220 X Olympian High 1,562 2,460 0 2,460 220 X NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,238 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 951 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Rancho del Rey 1,391 1,380 60 1 ,440 220 X Middle Note 1: Please note that these projections, prepared by Davis Demographics and Planning (DDP) in July 2008, on behaif 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. The impact of this transfer policy is impossible to project beyond a one-yeartimeline. Therefore, the 2013 projections provided herein, are merely a projection by DDP of students rE!siding in the respective school boundary. Note 2: Capacity figures taken fl'om Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) - September 2003. 'Capacity is the adjusted buildinl~ capacity pius physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning cE~nters. Page 2 1-175 2.b FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS -- DECEMBER 2013 ' Projected Adjusted Physical " ' Schools Enrollment Building Capacity Buildirig Education Within Overflowed Comments 12131/13 PermanentlPortables Capacity' Capacity Capacity Out (Note 1) (Note 3) NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,103 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,130 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista HiQh 2,408 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop High 2,123 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,325 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 2,022 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 474 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,881 NIA NIA NIA NIA X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 3,327 2,460 480 2,940 220 Note 2 Eastlake Middle 2,100 1,665 0 1,665 220 Note 2 Otay Ranch High 2,480 2,600 300 2,900 220 , Note 2 Olympian (HS#13) 2,876 2,460 0 2,460 220 Note 2 MS#12 Note 2 1,000 0 1,000 200 Note 2 HS #14 Note 2 2,000 0 2,000 200 Note 2 NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 1,941 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 852 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Rancho del Rey 1,812 1,380 60 1,440 220 Note 2 Middle Note 1: Please note that these projections, prepared by Davis Demographics and Planning (DDP) in July 2008, on behalf 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. The impact of this transfer policy is impossible to project beyond a one-year timeline. Therefore, the 2013 projections provided herein, are merely a projection by DDP of students residing in the respective school boundary. Note 2: District staff currently projects the need for Middle School No. 12 no earlier than 2011. The school will relieve EastLake and Rancho Del Rey Middle Schools. District staff currently projects the need for High School No. 14 no earlier than 2013. The school will relieve Eastlake and Olympian High Schools., Since attendance boundaries have not been established, enrollment projections cannot be made nor can we project exactly how the affected schools enrollment will be reduced. Note 3: Capacity figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) - September 2003. 'Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning centers. 1-176 I?age 3 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2007 -08 2006-07 2005-06 2004-05 2003-04 NORTHWEST SCHOOL.S Total Enrollment 7,446 7,434 7,366 7,325 7,429 % qf Change Over the Previous 0.2% 0.9% 0.6% -1.4% 2.9% Year % of Enrollment from Chula 89% 88% 87% 88% Vista 86% SOUTHWEST SCHOOL.S Total Enrollment 3,281 3,423 3,582 3,926 4,041 % of Change Over the Previous -4.2% ' -4.6% -9.6% -2.8% -2.1% Year % of Enrollment from Chula 94% 95% 91% 84% 81% Vista SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,857 7,512 7,108 6,408 5,498 % of Change Over the Previous 4.6% 5.4% 8.7% 14.2% 27.4% Year % of Enrollment from Chula 96% 87% 86% 87%" 88% Vista (Note 1) NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,133 5,003 4,997 4,873 4,845 % of Change Over the Previous 2.6% 0.1% 2.5% 0.6% -8.8% Year % of Enrollment from Chula 94% 95% 96% 97% Vista 97% DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 42,839 42,408 41,680 41,853 40,967 % of Change Over the Previous 1.0% 1.7% -0.4% 2.2% 4.2% Year % of Enrollment from Chula 570/0 55% 52% 49% 48% Vista 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth through the next 12 to 18 months? If nol~ please explain. Yes X No 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No X District will need construct Middle School No. 12 and may need to construct High School No. 14 within the next 5 years. Page 4 1-177 6. Please complete the new schools status table, below. '.' NEW SCHOOLS STATUS ..' . ...... .' c. . .'. School Site Architectural Commence- Service Commencement Time Selection Review/Funding ment of Site by of Construction Needed 10 for Land and Preparation Utilities By Construction and Road MS #12 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 2010 Est. 2011 HS #14 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 2011 Est. 2013 7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities/schools? If not, please explain. Yes X No 8. . Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Date: Planning Department November 19, 2008 Report approved by the Sweetwater Union High School District Board of Trustees at its December 2008 Meeting. 1-178 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-09-08 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2009 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPT Al"J"CE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, th<: City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring the City's threshold standards for the City's eleven growth management quality oflife indicators, and submitting their annual report to the Planning Cominission and 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 February 5, 2009, the GMOC finalized its 2009 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, th~~ report covers the period from July 1,2007 through June 30, 2008, identifies current issues in the second half of2008 and early 2009, and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the City Council to consider the 2009 GMOC Annual Report, and to make recommendations to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept and forward the 2009 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein to the City Council for consideration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept the 2009 GMOC Annual Report. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AIep Deputy City Manager! Development Services Director Bart . ~Oity Attorney 1-17 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2009 GMOC AN1'WAL REPORT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring the threshold standards for the City's eleven growth management quality of life indicators, and reporting their 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. l506l(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2009, the GMOC finalized its 2009 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, identifies current issues in the second half of 2008 and early 2009, and assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the Planning Commission to consider the 2009 GMOC Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon considering the Report, recommended that the City Council accept the Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista accepts the 2009 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 the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Exhibit A). 1-180 Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Deputy City Manager! Development Services Director Approved as to form by: 1-181 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City CoUncil of the City of Chula Vista, California this 5th day of March 2009, by the following vote: AYES: . NA YES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cheryl Cox, Mayor ATTEST: Donna Norris, City Clerk ST ATE OF CALIFOR1'\1IA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Donna Norris, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2009-_ was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 5th of March, 2009. Executed this 5th day of March, 2009 Donna Norris, City Clerk 1-182 '.~