HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/04/01 Item 1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~(~ CITY OF
~ (HULA VISTA
April 1, 2010, 1tem~
SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP/MEETING
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) 2010 Annual Report.
Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista
Accepting the 2010 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending
Acceptance by the City Council.
SUBMITTED BY:
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Accepting
the 2010 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.
Deputy City Mana~ector of Development Services
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager r '7?
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO I X I
BACKGROUND
Each year, the GlvlOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council
regarding compliance with threshold standards for the Gro\vth Management Program's eleven
quality of life indicators. This year's report is unique, however. It is abbreviated, focusing on the
1-1
April I, 2010, Item~
Page 2 of6
following five quality of life indicators, rather than all eleven: Fire, Fiscal, Libraries, Police and
Tratfic. Through discussion with the GMOC, they were chosen because they were either out of
compliance during the previous review cycle, or they have had recurring threshold compliance
issues. The remaining six areas that are not included in this year's annual report are: Air Quality,
Drainage, Parks & Recreation, Schools, Sewer and Water. Considering recommendations from
the GMOC, the City Council approved an ordinance' on December IS, 2009, allowing the
abbreviated review, due to budget and staffing circumstances.
This year's report covers the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009; identifies current
issues in the second half of 2009 and early 2010; and assesses threshold compliance concerns
looking forward over the next five years for five quality of life indicators mentioned above. 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 2010 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 2010 GMOC Annual Report, and recommending
acceptance by the City Council, and
2) That the City Council:
Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2010 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/COMl\-lISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission will provide comments and recommendations at the workshop.
DISCUSSION
The 2010 GMOC Annual Report addresses compliance with threshold standards for five of
Growth Management Program's eleven quality of life indicators, The effects from growth have
been minimal during recent GMOC review cycles, due to the low number of building permits
issued. For the current 2008/09 review cycle, 825 building permits were projected; 259 permits
were actually issued. For the 2009/10 review cycle, 961 permits are projected; thus far (between
2
1-2
April I, 2010, Item g
Page 3 01'6
January I and March 1, 2010), 23 units have been finaled, and permits for 43 new units have been
issued.
Presented below is a summary of findings regarding threshold compliance, and a summary of key
issues with respect to threshold compliance. The Annual Report (Attachment 2) provides
additional background infonnation and a more &tarled explanation of fIndings and
discussi on/recommendati 011S.
1. Summary of Findings
The following table summarizes the GMOC's threshold compliance findings for the 2010 GMOC
Annual Review, including the current (July 1,2008 - June 30, 2009) review period, and looking
forward at the potential for non compliance between 2010 and 2014.
Cnrrent and Anticipated Threshold Compliance
Not In Compliance
In Compliance
Potential Future Non-
Com Hance
Libraries
Police (PI! - Urgent)
Traffic
Libraries
PolIce (pn - Urgent)
Traffic
Fiscal
Fire/EMS
2. Summary of Key Issues
Thresholds Not in COUlpliance or 'With the Potential for Fnture Non-CoUlpliance
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 six consecutive years, the threshold
standard has not been met The City's current ratio is 437 GSF of library facilities per 1,000
population, a deficit of 63 GSF per l,OOO population.
The implementation measure for Libraries requires City Council to "fonnally adopt and fund
tactics to bring the library system into confonnance. Construction or other actual solution shall
be scheduled to COffill1ence 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 (PFDlF) prolp,am, 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.
The current building square footage deficit is approximately 15,000 square feet. The Library
Director indicated to the GlVI0C that she is investigating leasing storefronts and utilizing a
,
~
1-3
April I, 2010, Item~
Page 4 of6
bookmobile to provide additional library services. However, these facilities would not
signitlcantly close the square footage gap.
Tlie 2009 GMOC Annual Report recommended that the City Council designate delivery of
the Rancho del Rey library branch as the top priority of the five remaining PFDIF
projects. While Council has not formally adopt~d a prioritization list, the GMOC
requests that this occur when the PFDIF is reviewed later this year.
The 2010 GMOC Annual Report recommends that City Council formally identify and
adopt funding for an interim and/or pemlanent solution, based on recommendations from
the Library Director, to bring the library system closer to conformance before 2012.
Staff Response: The Library welcomes the continuing support of the GMOC to establish
library service in the Raucho del Rey area and other uuderserved parts of Chula Vista as
staff pursues multiple options for interim service.
Police
Priority II - Urgent Response Calls for Service - The Police threshold standard for Priority II -
Urgent Response Calls for Service states that police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II
urgent calls within 7 minutes, and shall maintain an average response time of 7 minutes and 30
seconds or less (measured annually). This year's average response time of 9 minutes and 16
seconds for 53.5% of the Priority II calls did not comply with the threshold standard. However,
for the third consecutive year, the response time has improved. The percentage of calls
responded to within seven minutes improved .4%; and the average response time improved two
seconds.
The 2009 GMOC Annual Report recommended 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. Despite having the lowest staffed police
department in San Diego County, the Chula Vista Police Department successfully followed
through with that recommendation. Yet, the threshold standard was still not met.
The 2010 GMOC Annual Report recommends that modification of the Priority II threshold
standard (which has been noncompliant for twelve consecutive years) may be appropriate, and
should be considered during the top-to-bottom review, focusing on the most important Priority II
calls.
Staff Respo1lse: The Police Department is currently reexamining Priority II calls for service
to determine the appropriate c1assitication and bifurcation of these calls, and will work with
the GMOC during top-to-bottom this calendar year to discuss potential moditications to the
Priority II threshold standard.
T rafflc
The threshold standard fo1' TratIic 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, only one segment, northbound Heritage Road, between
Telegraph Canyon Road and Olympic Parkway, did not comply with the threshold standard. It
registered five hours of "0".
4
1-4
. I
Apnll, 2010, Item~
Page 5 of6
In the 2009 Annual Report, this sesment was also out of compliance, and the GMOC
recoD11nended that City engineering staff continue to impruve signal hilling along Heritage Road,
which they have done.
The 2010 Annual Report recommends implementing recoriunended compliance solutions,
including eliminatmg the crosswalk on the west side of Telegraph Canyun Road and improving
the Heritage Road/Telegraph Canyon Road intersection, as needed.
Staff Respollse: Staff concurs with the GMOC recommendation and will implement
solntions to bring the northhound Heritage Road segmeut iuto compliance. Solutions to be
completed this calendar year iuclude eliminating the crosswalk across the west side of
Telegraph Canyon Road to allow additional traffic sigual timing adjustments.
Thresholds Currentlv in Compliance
GMOC recommendations, along with staff responses and proposed implementatiun actions for
the threshold standards currently in compliance (Fire and Fiscal), are outlined in Attachment 1.
Fire and Emergency Services
Fire and Emergency Services responded to 84% of its calls within seven minutes, well within the
threshold standard of 80% of the calls within seven minutes. However, comparative data before
and after using San Diego Dispatch l call volume, and average response, dispatch and travel time)
indicate that the numbers were better before using San Diego Dispatch. Therefore, the GMOC
recommends that the Fire Department continue to monitor the effectiveness of using San Diego
Dispatch in regards to meeting the threshold standard.
Fiscal
Fiscal was also in compliance with its threshold standard. However, the GMOC recommended
that the City Council direct the City Manager to develop a Public Facility Development Impact
Fees (PFDIF) facility prioritization policy by December 2010.
The GMOC also had a Fiscal Statement of Concern: 1) How timely delivery of public facilities
funded through PFDIFs could be affected by longer and higher debt service payments, which may
necessitate increases in D1F amounts; and 2) How the potential establishment of a PFDIF reserve
fund would potentially impact the schedule of planned capital expenditures necessary to achieve
compliance with threshold standards.
3. 2009 Council Referrals
On March 5, 2009 at the jomt City Council/Planning CommissionlGMOC meeting, Council
proposed one referral to the GMOC, as noted below:
OUTing top-to-bottom review, Study potential impacts related to establishing Energy as a
new quality-oIlife threshold, which would include the ability of energy resources to supply
the demand of new growth, and provide a report to the City Council that would include input
from the Conservution staJI Staff has begun this study.
5
1-5
April 1, 2010, Item-L
Page 6 of 6
4. Conclusions
To assist Council in evaluating amI 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. Staf~ recommends that Council direct statf to
undertake implementing actions, as outlined in the right-hand column of Attachment I. The
GMOC 2010 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
Stall has determined that since the GMOC Annual Report is not site specific, the SOO-foot
notificatlOn rule found in California Code Regulations Section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to
this action.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is currently no tiscal impact. However, as specified follow-up actions are brought forward
to the City Cmmcil, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided, as applicable.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
As follow-up implementing actions are brought forward to the City Council beyond June 30,
20 I 0, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided, as applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
1- 2010 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary
2 - 2010 GMOC Annual Report, including Chairperson's Cover Memo
3 - 20 I 0 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Prepared by Kimberly Vander Sie, Associate Planner, Development Sen1lces Department
H:\PLANNINGIGMOCI2009-/0 Review Cycle1Annua! Report\4 I 10 Joint Workshop\20JOJotnt Workshop Agenda Statement.doc
6
1-6
2010 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
RECOMMENDATIONS / IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUIVIMARY
~
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
1. Libraries 1. Libraries
3.1.1 That the City Council formally identify and adopt funding 3.1.1 The Library welcomes the continuing support of the
for an interim and/or permanent solution, based on GMOC to establish library service in the Rancho del
recommendations from the Library Director, to bring the Rey area and other underserved parts of Chula Vista as
library system closer to conformance before 2012. staff pursues multiple options for interim service.
3.1.2 That the Library Facilities Master Plan: 3.1.2 The Library will ensure that the Library Facilities Master
1) Consider changing trends to define adequacy of library Plan, which is scheduled to be updated in 2010,
facilities, equipment, adequate staffing and hours of addresses the points raised by the GMOC.
operation; and
2) Assess ultimate future library needs based upon the
increased population from the City's updated General
Plan.
2. Police 2. Police
3.2.1 Modification of the Priority II threshold standard, which has 3.2.1 The Police Department is currently . .
reexamining
been noncompliant for twelve consecutive years, may be Priority II calls for service to determine the appropriate
appropriate, and should be considered during the top-to- classification and bifurcation of these calls, and will
bottom review, focusing on the most important Priority II work with the GMOC during top-to-bottom this
calls. calendar year to discuss potential modifications to the
Priority II threshold standard.
3. Traffic 3. Traffic
3.3.1 Implement recommended compliance solutions, including 3.3.1 Staff concurs with the GMOC recommendation and will
eliminating the crosswalk on the west side of Telegraph implement solutions to bring the northbound Heritage
Canyon Road and improving the Heritage Road/Telegraph Road segment into compliance. Solutions to be
Canyon Road intersection, as needed. completed this calendar year include eliminating the
crosswalk across the west side of Telegraph Canyon
Road to allow additional traffic signal timing
adjustments.
I
.......
Page 1 of 2
2010 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
RECOMMENDATIONS / IMPLEMENTING ACTfONS SUMMARY
~
GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES &
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
4. Fiscal 4. Fiscal
3.4.1 That City Council direct the City Manager to develop a PFDIF 3.4.1 Staff plans to bring a comprehensive update of the
facility prioritization policy by December 2010, which PFDIF to Council for consideration by the end of the
includes an explanation for how priorities are determined, calendar year 2010. This update may reflect additional
how facilities would be funded, how they will be reported, development mitigating facilities identified in new
and impacts of the expenditures. The policy should be master plans, including pending master plans for Fire,
brought back to City Council for adoption, and the list Libraries, and Park & Recreation. Any changes to the
should be used as a basis for all decisions by the City 2005 General Plan authorized development would also
Council on any PFDIF funding proposals. be included in this update. Presentation of a project
prioritization list in conjunction with this update is
recommended.
5. Fire & Emerqency Services 5. Fire & Emerqency Services
3.5.1 That the Fire Department continues to monitor the 3.5.1 The Fire Department will continue to track data on call
effectiveness of using San Diego Dispatch in regards to volume and response times since the transition to San
meeting the threshold standard. Diego Dispatch, and report results to .the GMOC during
their next annual review cycle.
I
ex>
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Growth Managem~nt Oversight
Commission (GMOC)
~OIO Annual fZ.eporf
Threshold Review Period 7/1/08 to 6/30/09
April/., :2010
Accepted by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. PCM 09-24) and
City Council (Resolution No. 2010-_) on April 1, 2010
ATTACHMENT 2
1-9
2
GMOC Members
Carl Harry (Development)
Armida Torres (Business)
James Doud (Southwest)
Steven Lizarraga (Education)
Bryan Felber (Planning Commission Representative)
Duane Bazzel (Environmental)
Eric Sutton (Southeast)
Russ Hall, Vice Chair (Center City)
David W. Krogh, Chair (Sweetwater/Bonita)
City Staff
Rosemarie Rice - Management Assistant
Kimberly Vander Bie - Associate Planner/Growth Management Coordinator
Marilyn Ponseggi - Principal Planner
Ed Batchelder - Advance Planning Manager
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91 910
(619) 691-5101
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/
2010 Annual Report
1-10
April 2010
3
GMOC Chair Cover Memo
DATE:
April 1, 2010
"
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
FROM: DavidW. Krogh, Chair
Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC)
SUBJECT: 2010 GMOC Annual Report (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009, to the Current Time,
and Five-Year Forecast)
The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its 2010 annual
report for your consideration and action. We would like to thank the Planning Commission and
City Council for their actions in November and December 2009, accepting the GMOC's
recommendation that the GMOC perform a limited scope review this year, rather than none at
all.
We feel that it would have been a loss if the original proposal, initiated by the City to skip doing
an annual report this year, had been enacted. At our GMOC meeting on October 8, 2009 to
consider that proposal, several members of the community, including two prior GMOC
chairmen, expressed their disagreement, confirming the unanimous sentiment of our
commission that there is value to consistent, annual monitoring and reporting of key standards,
including review of follow-through on prior year GMOC recommendations. Some of the
comments received included observations that improvements sometimes required repeated
comment in successive years' reports, and that a hiatus of two years between reports might be
fatal to the continuity that has led to past progress, such as improvements in Fire and Police, in
recent years.
Although a limited scope review is unprecedented during my seven-year tenure on the GMOC,
and, indeed, perhaps in the history of GMOC, in recognition of the current economic
circumstances and financial challenges facing the City, the commission felt that identifying and
focusing on a limited number of key areas was an appropriate and adequate balancing of
benefit and cost considerations. In the future, we may also be willing to consider limited scope
or whatever other reasonable measures may be necessary to sustain year-to-year continuity of
review and reporting regarding key issues. Related to this, the GMOC has discussed with staff
our willingness and desire for economy in performing the traffic studies for future review cycles.
The timing of this year's report and recommendations should allow it to be factored into City
springtime budget deliberations. Upon completion of this report, the GMOC will continue
working with City staff on top-to-bottom review, and we solicit Council's support toward that end
during your upcoming budget considerations.
2010 Annual Report
Apri/2010
1-11
4
This year's report indicates that Libraries is non-compliant for the sixth successive year, and
expresses our support of creative suggestions for remedying that failure via inexpensive
expedient measures, even if "construction of a facility" may not become financially feasible until
a number of years hence.
Police Priority II call response time is non-compliant for the twelfth year in a row; however, this
year's report commends the Police Department for accomplishing significant improvements
during the past two review cycles, and considers the possibility of modifying the threshold
standard to focus on the most important Priority II calls.
Traffic performance, perhaps helped by current economic circumstances, demonstrated
improvements during the year under review; however, it continued to fall short regarding one
difficult key intersection. Engineering staff briefed the commission on the plans to bring that
intersection into compliance in the upcoming year, and we urge City Manager and Council
support of that continued effort.
To summarize, this year's limited scope GMOC review indicated that the City's performance
was out of compliance with the following standards: Libraries, Police--Priority II, and
Traffic. Performance against the Fire and Emergency Services threshold standard slipped
slightly but remained compliant. In the Fiscal area, we expressed a Statement of Concern,
which we hope that Council and staff will take under consideration during this year's budget
deliberations and when dealing with development impact fee studies and adjustments during the
upcoming year. The six other areas not reviewed this year were: Parks and Recreation,
Sewer, Drainage, Schools, Water, and Air Quality.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank staff members and City department managers in all
areas supporting our current year limited scope review, particularly our commission staff support
member Kim Vander Bie, for their time and efforts, without which this year's report would not
have been possible.
In conclusion, I share observations/commendations of current and prior city councils of Chula
Vista for creation of GMOC and good management of growth over the years:
. The year I first joined the GMOC (2003), I noted that a university research study mentioned
Chula Vista's GMOC as the reason for placing our city among ten top cities in America,
illustrating good growth management policies.
. The City's traffic engineer reported at our February 4, 2010 meeting that in a January 2010
municipal planning conference in Berkeley, California, Chula Vista was spontaneously
nominated from the floor by planners from other cities as an example of good, creative
planning efforts.
. When Chula Vista's Western Traffic Development Impact Fee (DIF) was instituted
approximately one year ago, it included support for regional transportation' infrastructure,
for example, the 1-5 corridor study. The DIF was set at an amount above the minimum
$2,000 requirement under Transnet "Prop A," as determined by a fact-based analysis and
calculation. These are examples of good public policy implementation by staff and council,
and above average, in that respect, among San Diego County municipalities.
These demonstrate our City's dedication to quality planning and growth management.
2010 Annua/ Report
Apri/2010
1-12
5
city of Chula Vista
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC)
2010 Annual Report
Table of Contents
GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... 5
REPORT PREFACE - QUALITY OF LIFE: A BROAD OVERViEW............................ 6
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................,..........................................................
1.1 Threshold Standards. ............. .................... ............
1.2 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) . ..... ... ...
1.3 GMOC 2010 Annual Review Process. ... ..... . .. ....... .. ........ . .........
1.4 Growth Forecast ........ .............. .................................................
1.5 ReportOrganization.. ......................................................
2.0
THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARy.................................................
3.0
THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ............................................
3.1 Libraries....................................................................................
3.1.1 Tactics for Bringing Libraries Closer to Conformance
3.1.2 Updating the Library Facilities Master Plan. ........ .... ............
3.2
Police
3.2.1
3.2.2
.......................................................................................
Priority I Threshold Standard Findings. ..... ....... .........
Non-Compliance of Priority II Threshold Standard ...................
3.3
Traffic ......................................................................................
3.3.1 Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard .. .... .........
3.4
Fiscal
3.4.1
.....................................................................................
Prioritization of Projects Funded by Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees (PFDIF) Program ............... ........... ......
Statement of Concern .... ...... .. ........ ... ...... ..... ......... .....
3.4.2
3.5
Fire/Emergency Medical Services ................................................
3.5.1 Threshold Standard Findings ........
3.5.2 Effects of Using San Diego Dispatch.. ............. .. .............
4.0
APPEN DICES .....................................................................................
4.1 Appendix A - Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B - Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
2010 Annual Report
1-13
3-4
7-8
7
7
7-8
8
8
9
10-20
10-11
10-11
11
12-15
12-13
14-15
16
16
17-18
17-18
18
19-20
19
20
20
April 2010
6
Report Preface - Qualffy of Life: A Broad Overview
The Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC's) principal task is to assess the
impacts of growth on the community's quality of life, and to recommend corrective actions in
areas where the City has the ability to act and/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. Deferred maintenance could also result in degradation of facilities,
leading to events such as broken water and sewer lines, ultimately interrupting services. 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 some of 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 the real estate market begins to stabilize.
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) were recently approved, and those for the
University Park and Research Center continue to progress. Western Chula Vista continues to
have many pleasant, stable neighborhoods, while redevelopment prospects there and at the
Bayfront 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. The Growth
Management Ordinance, Policy and Program are being revised as part of a top-to-bottom
review of the City's Growth Management Program. The revised documents are expected to
move forward to City Council for adoption later in 2010.
2010 Annual Report
1-14
April 2010
7
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: Air Quality, Drainage, Fire and Emergency Services, Fiscal,
Libraries, Parks & Recreation, Police, Schools, Sewer, Traffic and Water. The Policy
addresses each topic in terms of a goal, objective(s), threshold standard(s), and
implementation measures. Adherence to these citywide standards is intended to
preserve and enhance both the environment and the quality of life of residents 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.
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 2010 Annual
Report focuses on fiscal year July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009;
2. The second half of 2009 and beginning of 2010 - to identify and address
pertinent issues identified during this timeframe, and to assure that the
GMOC can and does respond to current events; and
3. A five-year forecast - The period from January 2010 through December
2014 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 threshold standard should be considered.
1.3 GMOC 2010 Annual Review Process
In December 2009, the City Council approved an ordinance that would allow the 2010
annual report to focus on five of the eleven quality of life indicators. Therefore, this
report analyzes the following topics: Fire, Fiscal, Libraries, Police and Traffic. The other
six topics (Air Quality, Drainage, Parks & Recreation, Schools, Sewer and Water) are not
included.
2010 Annual Report
April 2010
1-15
8
The GMOC held nine meetings between October 2009 and April 2010, which were open
to the public. Representatives from Fiscal, Fire, Libraries, Police and Traffic gave
presentations to the commission and discussed the questionnaires they completed at
the GMOC's request. (As noted in Section 1.2, above, the GMOC solicits input through
questionnaires distributed regarding quality of life indicators for public facility and service
topics. The completed questionnaires are attached in Appendix S.) 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 April 1 ,2010.
1.4 Growth Forecast
The Development Services Department annually prepares a Five-Year Growth Forecast.
The 2009 Forecast was issued December 15, 2009. It provides departments and
outside agencies with an estimate of the maximum amount of residentiai growth
anticipated over the next five years. Copies of the Forecast were distributed with the
GMOC questionnaires to help the five departments associated with the focused review
determine if their respective public facilities/services would be able to accommodate the
forecasted growth. The Growth Forecast from November 2009 through December 2014
indicated an additional 6,507 residential units could be permitted for construction in the
City over the next five years, (6,256 in the east and 251 units in the west), for an annual
average of 1,251 in the east and 50 units in the west, averaging 1,301 housing units
permitted per year on average, citywide.
The projected units permitted per year on average, citywide, is down 256 units from last
year's forecast of 1,557 units.
1.5 Report Organization
The 2010 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 2010 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
2010 Annua/ Report
1-16
April 2010
2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC's conclusions regarding threshold
standards for the 2010 annual review cycle. Two thresholds were met and three were not.
2010 THRESHOLD STANDARD -ANNUAL REVIEW SUMMARY
REVIEW PERIOD 7/1/08 THROUGH 6/30/09
Threshold
Threshold Met Threshold Not
Met Potential of
Future Non-
compliance Adopf/Fund
Tactics to Achieve
Compliance
1. Fire/EMS X
2. Fiscal X X
3. Libraries X X X
4. Police
Priority I X
Priority II X X X
5. Traffic X X X
2010 Annual Report /p /~ , ~ April 2010
10
3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS
3.1 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
3.1.1
Tactics for Bringing Libraries Closer to Conformance
LIBRARIES
Total Gross Gross Square Feet Need for
Population Square Footage of of Library Facilities Compliance
Librarv Facilities Per 1000 Population
Threshold X X 500 Sq. Ft.
5-Year Projection 249,654 102,000 409 .
(2014)
12-Month Projection 237,537 102,000 430 .
(12/31/10)
FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437 -13%
FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441 -12%
FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448 -10%
FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457 -9%
FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464 -7%
FY 2003-04 211,800 102,000 482 -4%
FY 2002-03 203,000 102,000 502 Compliant
FY 2001-02 195,000 102,000 523 Compliant
FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 Compliant
FY 1999-00 178~645 102,000 571 Compliant
*See "Recommendation" below
2010 Annual Report
April 2010
1-17
11
Issue:
The Libraries threshold standard is out of compliance for the sixth year in
a row, and the City Council has not formally adopted and funded tactics to
bring the library system into conformance.
Discussion:
Based on the threshold standard to "construct" 500 gross square feet per
1,000 population, the City currenfiy has a deficit of approximately 15,000
square feet. The Libraries 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" (which was June 2007).
Since current estimates from the Finance Department indicate that
"construction" of a new library would not commence until at least 2015,
the Library Director should propose "another actual solution" to the City
Council that would bring the library system closer to conformance sooner
than 2015. Potential solutions, which the Library Director mentioned to
the GMOC, might include delivering library services by leasing storefront
property, utilizing a bookmobile, and identifying private grants solicitation.
Recommendation:That the City Council formally identify and adopt funding for an interim
and/or permanent solution, based on recommendations from the Library
Director, to bring the library system closer to conformance before 2012.
3.1.2
Updating the Library Facilities Master Plan
Issue:
The 1998 Library Facilities Master Plan should be updated to address
changing trends, and to account for updated data in the City's General
Plan Update (December 2005).
Discussion:
When updating the Library Facilities Master Plan, consideration should be
given to changing trends to define adequacy of library facilities and
equipment, and what constitutes adequate staffing and hours of
operation. Libraries are no longer book depositories; they provide a
variety of other services, such as computer usage, that can be provided in
smaller spaces.
Once an updated baseline is established, the Master Plan would
recommend how to most effectively and efficiently achieve the desired
results, both in relation to new facilities and in regards to updating existing
facilities. In addition, the updated Master Plan should reflect increased
library needs generated by projected build-out population from the 2005
General Plan Update.
Recommendation:That the Library Facilities Master Plan:
1) Consider changing trends to define adequacy of library facilities,
equipment, adequate staffing and hours of operation; and
2) Assess ultimate future library needs based upon the increased
population from the City's updated General Plan.
2010 Annual Report
1-18
April 2010
12
3.2. 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 1\ - 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 AveraqeTime
Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec.
(Prioritv 1).
Urgent Response 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec
(Priority 2)
Actual
Emergency Response 84.6% 7 minutes 4:26 min./sec.
(Priority 1)
Urgent Response 53.5% 7 minutes 9:16 min./sec.
(Priority 2)
2010 Annual Report
April 2010
1-19
13
3.2.1
Priority I Threshold Standard Findings
PRIORITY I CFS - Emergency Response, ,Calls For Service "
Cal(Volllme % bfCaWResponse wlin Average. ,.
'.
I . 7.MirlLites ,., RespOns'e Time
I 81.0% .
I Threshold .5:30,
FY 2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26
FY 2007-08 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19
FY 2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59
FY 2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51
FY 2004-05 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11
FY 2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52
FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55
FY 2001-02' 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07
FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13
FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21
CY 19992 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50
FY 1997-98 1,512 of 69,196 74.8% 5:47
FY 1996-97 1,968 of 69,904 I 83.8% 4:52
Note: Response times do not include dispatch time.
Issue:
None
Discussion:
During the period under review, the Police Department responded to
84.6% of Priority I Emergency Response calls within 7 minutes, dropping
3.3% after a 3% improvement the previous year. However, the
percentage still met the threshold of responding to 81 % of the calls within
7 minutes.
At 4 minutes and 26 seconds, the response time was 7 seconds off from
last year's mark of 4 minutes 19 seconds. Yet, it was securely within the
threshold of 5 minutes 30 seconds.
Recommendation: None
1
All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen-initiated call reporting
criteria. Prior to FY 01-02, citizen~initiated calls were determined according to call type; they are now determined according to
received source.
2 The FY98~99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid~1998.
2010 Annual Report
1-20
April 2010
3.2.2
,," "
Thnish6Id>.
FY 2008-09
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 1999
FY 1997 -98
FY 1996-97
FY 1995-96
14
Non-Compliance of Priority II Threshold Standard
PRI.<?:~fT,( II:.CFS
".'_, ',_,".T
22,686 of 70,051
23,955 of 74,192
24,407 of 74,277
24,876 of 73,075
24,923 of 74,106
24,741 of 71,000
22,871 of 71,268
22,199 of 71,859
25,234 of 73,977
23,898 of 76,738
20,405 of 74,405
22,342 of 69,196
22,140 of 69,904
21,743of71,197
53.5%
53.1%
43.3%
40.0%
40.5%
48.4%
50.2%
45.6%
47.9%
46.4%
45.8%
52.9%
62.2%
64.5%
9:16
9:18
11 :18
12:33
11 :40
9:50
9:24
10:04
9:38
9:37
9:35
8:13
6:50
6:38
Note: Response times do not include dispatch time.
* These figures do not include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03.
Issue:
Discussion:
The threshold standard for Priority II - Urgent Response calls has not
been met for the twelfth consecutive year.
The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes was 3.5% below
the threshold standard of 57%; and the average response time of 9
minutes 16 seconds was 1 minute 44 seconds over the 7-minute
threshold. However, the numbers have improved for the third year in a
row, and the GMOC would like to commend the Police Department for
significant improvements. Due to better education and communication
within the Police Department regarding the GMOC threshold standards,
as well as utilization of technological advances, the Department has
improved the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes by
another .4% from last year, and improved average response time by
another two seconds. Thus. in the past three years, the percentage of
calls improved 13.5%, and the average response time improved by three
minutes and seventeen seconds.
In reviewing the history of the Priority II threshold standard being out of
compliance for twelve consecutive years, the GMOC believes it may be
appropriate to modify the Priority II threshold during the top-to-bottom
review. This would be the second modification since its inception in 1991.
April 2010
2010 Annual Report
1-21
15
In 1991, the Priority I[ threshold standard was: Respond to 62% of calls
within 7 minutes, maintaining an average of 7 minutes or less. In 1999,
the City's Special Projects Division and the Police Department presented
the GMOC with a report titled "Report on Police Threshold Performance
1990-1999," which investigated response times and police threshold
performance based on analysis of CAD system data. The report
indicated that, prior to implementation of the CAD system, human error
occurred when measuring dispatch time. It also indicated that the Priority
II threshold should have been set at 57% of calls within 7 minutes, with an
average response time of 7.5 minutes. City Council approved the
proposed change to the threshold standard in 2002, which is the standard
currently in effect.
As a result of a 1999 police threshold performance report, the
methodology for reporting the threshold data changed in 2003. The
report pointed out that 42% of the Priority II calls were alarm calls, and
99.9% of the alarm calls were false alarms. Thus, false alarms were
taken out of the calculations. The Priority I[ threshold standard still could
not be met, however.
The Police Department believes that, "With appropriate staffing
levels... the current Priority II goals could be met." Currently, Chula
Vista's staffing, per capita, is the lowest of nine city police departments in
San Diego County. And with the current economic situation, increased
staffing levels are not likely in the near future.
Recommendation: Modification of the Priority I[ threshold standard, which has been
noncompliant for twelve consecutive years, may be appropriate, and
should be considered during the top-to-bottom review, focusing on the
most important Priority I[ calls.
3.3 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
2010 Annual Report
1-22
April 2010
16
3.3.1
Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard
Issue:
There was one non-compliant arterial segment during the period (2009)
under review.
Discussion:
Compared to the previous year (2008), there was significant improvement
during the most recent review cycle, with only one arterial segment failing
to meet the threshold standard. In 2008, there were three arterial
segments that failed.
In 2009, the one failing segment, northbound Heritage Road between
Olympic Parkway and Telegraph Canyon Road, did not meet the
threshold standard, due to excessive vehicular delay at the Heritage
Road/Telegraph Canyon Road signaled intersection. While it has been
out of compliance for the past several years, signal timing changes have
provided gradual improvement and increases in average travel speed.
However, after a signal change in August 2009, there were still more than
two hours of LOS D in the northbound direction.
SEGMENT (Limits) DIR LOS 2008 LOS 2009 CHANGE
(Hours) (Hours)
Heritage Road NB C(1) 0(4) E(1) C(1) 0(5) -1E. +10
(Telegraph Canyon Road --
Olympic Parkway)
Due to its proximity to Casillas Elementary School and Rancho del Rey
Middle School, a heavy volume of pedestrian traffic at Telegraph Canyon
Road significantly impacts this arterial and the traffic signal timing. Field
investigations have shown that most pedestrians cross Telegraph Canyon
Road on the east side of Heritage Road, rather than the west side, which
takes longer to cross, due to an extra lane (an eastbound right turn lane).
Since the traffic signal timing must allow for pedestrian crossing time, the
extra length of the infrequently used west side of the intersection
negatively impacts the ability to make further traffic signal timing changes.
Therefore, later this year, the City will remove the crosswalk on the west
side of Telegraph Canyon Road, with a current Capital Improvement
Project. This will improve traffic flow, and, potentially, bring this arterial
into compliance.
In addition, SANDAG is moving forward with the South Bay Bus Rapid
Transit in this area, and planned improvements recommended for the
Heritage Road/Telegraph Canyon Road intersection should have a
positive effect on the northbound Heritage Road arterial.
Recommendation: Implement recommended compliance solutions, including eliminating the
crosswalk on the west side of Telegraph Canyon Road and improving the
Heritage Road/Telegraph Canyon Road intersection, as needed.
2010 Annual Report
April 2010
1-23
17
3.4 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
3.4,1
Prioritization of Projects Funded By Public Facilities
Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) Program
Issue:
Despite GMOC's recommendation in last year's annual report,
prioritization of funding for facilities that are slated for construction within
the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) program has not
been officially adopted by City Council.
Discussion:
At the Joint Workshop with GMOC, Planning Commission and City Council
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.
In response to this, the GMOC, in its 2009 Annual Report, discussed this
issue and made the following 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 PFOIF funding proposals.
Despite this, the Finance Department reports that a prioritization program
for PFDIF-funded projects has not been developed. They had expected to
develop it by December 2009 in conjunction with the next comprehensive
update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program.
However, the PFDIF update has been postponed until December 2010.
2010 Annual Report
1-24
April 2010
18
The Finance Department also reports that there are currently five major
facilities planned for construction using PFDIF funds, which are listed in
order of construction priority, below:
1. Rancho del Rey Library
2. Eastern Urban Center Fire Station
3. Eastern Urban Center Library
4./5. Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatics Center & Recreation Facility.
The Finance Department notes that City Council has not officially adopted
the prioritization listed above.
Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to develop a PFDIF facility
prioritization policy by December 2010, which includes an explanation for
how priorities are determined, how facilities would be funded, how they
will be reported, and impacts of the expenditures. The policy should be
brought back to City Council for adoption, and the list should be used as a
basis for all decisions by the City Council on any PFDI F funding
proposals.
3.4.2
Statement of Concern
As discussed in previous GMOC annual reports, slower growth has compromised the City's
ability to timely deliver public facilities funded through Public Facility Development Impact Fees
(PFDIFs), affecting the City's ability to comply with certain threshold standards, such as
Libraries. Now, there appears to be another possible threat to timely construction of public
facilities: longer and, therefore, higher debt service payments, which may necessitate increases
in DIF amounts.
According to the City's Finance Department, the last comprehensive PFDIF assessment
occurred in November 2006, and a re-assessment is planned for later this year. Although it is
premature to speculate on the amount of any PFDIF increase at this time, the GMOC looks
forward to learning the results of the updated PFDIF calculations so that we can reconsider the
following concerns during GMOC's next review cycle:
1) Impact on the schedule of planned capital expenditures;
2) Amount of future DIF increase, if any, due to increased debt carrying costs; and
3) Impact of future DIF increase, if any, on future residents.
In addition, the GMOC became aware of the potential for establishing a PFDIF "reserve fund,"
and is concerned about the potential impact this would have on the schedule of planned capital
expenditures necessary to achieve compliance with threshold standards.
2010 Annual Report
April 2010
1-25
19
3.5 FIRE I EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Threshold Standard:
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed lire 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
3.5.1
Threshold Standard Findings
FIRE/EMS', Emergency Response
Times
% of All Call
Review Period Call Volume Response w/in
7:00 Minutes
THRESHOLD 80%
FY 2009 9,363 84.0%
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%
COMPARISON
Actual Response Time Average Travel Time
for 80% of Calls
4:46 3:01
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
performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and not statistically significant.
Issue:
None
Discussion:
Responding to 84% of calls within seven minutes, the Fire Department
firmly met the threshold standard of responding to 80% of calls within
seven minutes. Yet, this was 2.9% worse than last year's percentage of
86.9%, and there were 520 less calls received from the previous year.
The actual response time for 80% of the calls dramatically improved from
last year, going from 6 minutes 31 seconds to 4 minutes 46 seconds.
The average travel time also improved from 3 minutes 17 seconds to 3
minute_s 1 second.
Of all calls received, 2% were for fire, 87.5% were for medical, and 10%
were for other emergencies.
Recommendation: None
2010 Annual Report
1-26
April 2010
20
3.5.2
Effects of Using San Diego Dispatch
Issue:
Since outsourcing Chula Vista's emergency dispatch system to San
Diego, response times have been/ on a downward trend.
Discussion:
Since March 2008, Chula Vista has had a contract with San Diego
Dispatch to respond to fire and medical dispatch calls. During the
approximately 16 months since that arrangement was made, dispatch
and travel times, as well as percentage of calls within 7 minutes, got
worse.
As the table below indicates, the average response and dispatch times
between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 were slightly better than
between March and June 2008. The response time went from 5:29 to
5:23, and the dispatch time went from 35 to 32 seconds. The percentage
of calls responded to within 7 minutes got slightly better, going from
82.2% to 84%. Yet, these numbers are considerably longer than before
Chula Vista teamed up with San Diego Dispatch.
The average response time is 25 seconds longer; average dispatch time
is 21 seconds longer; average travel time is 14 seconds longer; and the
percentage of calls within 7 minutes is 3.4% less.
Dates
After
3/4108 - 6130108 711108 - 6/30109
Call Volume
Average Response Time
Average Dispatch Time (seconds)
Average Travel Time
% of Calls Within 7 Minutes
6,871
4:58
11
3:19
87.4%
3,012
5:29
35
3:14
82.2%
9,363
5:23
32
3:33
84%
Recommendation: That the Fire Department continues to monitor the effectiveness of using
San Diego Dispatch in regards to meeting the threshold standard.
4.0 Appendices
4.1 Appendix A - Growth Forecast
4.2 Appendix B - Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2009-10 Review Cycle\Annual Report\2010 Draft Report.4.doc
2010 Annual Report
April 2010
1-27
ATTACHMENT 3
Appendices A & B
1-28
1-29
,
APPENDIX A
Growth Forecast
December.14, 2009
City of Chula Vista
2009 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST
Years 2010 Through 2014
Five- Year Growth Forecast, December 2009
1-30
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
2009 through December 2010; and the five-year forec~st extends through calendar year 2014.
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. Air Quality
2. Drainage
3. Fire and Emergency Medical
4. Fiscal
5. Libraries
6. Parks and Recreation
7. Police
8. Schools
9. Sewer
10. Traffic
11. Water
The Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), by sending out
questionnaires, annually solicits input from City departments and service agencies regarding
past, current and projected compliance with the quality of life threshold standards for the facilities
and improvements listed above. This is a very important, supplemental component of the City's
annual growth management review process, and 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 ultimately decides 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
2
Five- Year GroV'rth Forecast, December 2009
1-31
. Represents a "worst-case" or more liberal estimate to assess maximum possible
effects to the City's threshold standards.
The housing market is influenced by a variety of factors outside the City's control. Therefore,
during this time of economic recovery, it was not surprising that, like last year, the City's
residential growth fell short of the 12- to 18-monthforecast (approximately 36% of 835 forecasted
building permits were issued). While a return to equilibrium in residential construction is
anticipated in the future, it is difficult to predict exactly how far out that will be, and it is quite
possible that growth may continue to fall short of projections for some time.
.Increased residential infill and redevelopment in western Chula Vista is currently limited, and
projections do not indicate larger development projects until 2014, when 162 multi-family units are
projected on Third Avenue (Creekside Vistas). Should other projects emerge, they will be
reflected in future forecasts.
3
Five- Year Growth Forecast, Oecember 2009
1-32
FORECAST SUMMARY
Over the next twelve months (January - December 2010), as many as 529 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 2010 through 2014), eastern Chula Vista
may have as many as 6,256 housing units permitted (averaging 1,251 annually), and westem
Chula Vista may have as many as 251 units (averaging 50 annually),. This totals 6,306 units
citywide, with an annual average of approximately 1,301 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
Projections are derived primarily from approved development plans, and estimated project
processing schedules for project plan reviews, subdivision maps, and building plans (see Table
1 ).
The forecast is predicated upon the following five assumptions:
1. That public policy regarding development remains otherwise unchanged;
2. That the Growth Management Program's threshold standards 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 is completed as anticipated; and
5. That projects follow a normal project regulatory processing schedule.
Eastern Chula Vista
The majority of the growth forecasted continues to be in eastern Chula Vista, where several
different owners, including various banks, have possession of property. Development of the
bank-owned properties is currently not forecasted in the near term; however, that is likely to
change when the properties are acquired by development interests.
4
Five- Year Growth Forecast, December 2009
1-33
In Otay Ranch Villages 2, 7 and 11, entitlements for the projected 529 single- and multi-family
developments have been secured by various developers, including Baldwin & Sons, JPB,
McMillin and Shea Beyond 2010, the various planned communities have a number of projects in
the processing "pipeline."
Between 2010 and 2011, the projected number of units increases by over 100%, mainly due to
development in Village 2 of Otay Ranch, which is projected to continue through 2014, and in
Eastlake Vistas, where a large multi-family project is projected to continue through 2012.
Also in 2012, development of the Eastem Urban Center (EUC) is projected to commence;
entitlements for this project were recently obtained.
Between 2012 and 2013, there is a 50% projected jump in number of units, mainly due to
development in Village 8 of Otay Ranch, where several hundred units are projected through
2014.
As of December 2009, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in
eastem Chula Vista is approximately 14,600, based on the General Plan Update, adopted in
December, 2005. If 6,256 units were permitted over the next five-year forecasted period, 8,344
units would remain. At that rate of growth, the capacity could potentially be built out around 2020.
However, General Plan amendments currently under consideration could result in additional units
added to the potential inventory of housing units, thereby extending the ultimate build-out date.
Western Chula Vista
Westem 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).
Reflective of development interest in westem Chula Vista, severalcprojects have been completed
there in recent years, particularly along Broadway. At this time, as shown on Table 2, 251 units
are projected over the next five years, including a 162-unit multi-family project and several
smaller projects of 25 units or less.
Last year's forecast included a projection of several hundred residential units, primarily due to the
Bayfront Master Plan. Construction of those units has been postponed until at least 2015.
History
As depicted on Table 3, the number of building permits issued for housing units in Chula Vista
has fluctuated from a few hundred units a year to over 3,000, with an average of approximately
1,282 units per year over the last 29 years. Several market cycles have occurred, with decline in
the number of units permitted since 2005 and recessions of the early 1980's (averaging 330
units) and 90's (averaging 693 units). A 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 building permits issued for housing units
steadily increased from about 1,000 units to the peak 3,525 units. A significant part of this is
5
Five- Year Growth Forecast, December 2009
1-34
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 strdggling economy.
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 an average of 3.059
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 256,941
persons by the end of 2014. This is based on the following:
. The California State Department of Finance (OOF) estimated Chula Vista's population on
January 1, 2009 as 234,139;
. An additional 337 units were occupied from January 1, 2009 to November 2009; and
. An additional 6,256 units may be permitted between November 2009 and December 2014.
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, Oeo'!mber 2009
1-35
Number of Units
200
150
100
Number of Units
2000
1500
1000
Western (hula Vista
167
50
47
5
5
o
20100 0 2011 0 0 20120 0 20130
2014 Year
Eastern (hula Vista
1,737
500
o
20100 0 20110 0 20120 0 20130 2:014
Year
( GMOC 2010 '\,
I Forecasted Residential Units Permitted By Area 2010 Through 2014 )1
\ , __~Ol~_l!1roug~ 20.12-______ _
Figure 1
lIGal>e Fi!e"IPrOlecls I>r Ro~u."Iai\i\im 'v1R~srrf"nt'a! Deveklpmont liprfal. iig",.s ~ lable"IFi"a! Figures 1.28. JrJ\Taole 1 Chura '",io Res Dev"lopmenl Fc,"cost,ar 01,28. to
2010 2011 2012 20'13 2014 Year
Number of Units
4000
Forecast
Actual
~
3500 3,525
, ! 3,300
3,143
,
3000 i
. 2,505 2,615
2500
" 2,250
2000 i
1,654
1500
"
, 1,180
~~
1000
. 576
500 t
~:
~l, ,
0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
',11
47,".-,
27 ";; 1 134 ';:-~' 1,191
1/" :1
l.\i
I
W
-.J
'.J
:;,:"!
~ Easlern Chl a V sta
1-.-.....<1 Weslern Chu a Vista
16/
5.___
'.'. 1665
r ~
t~ ~
,~J
.;:~
~';{
0'; 1,737
.~
m
~J
~
~\
.-----~-~
--~--------~------_._-----_.-
;'
I
I
I
l
\\.,-
GMOC 2010
Residential Units Receiving Building Permits
1999 to 2009 and 2010 Through 2014 Forecast
L;\Gabe Fileo\Piojecls b; RB~ueE;lotJ\inl V\R"sjd~~t!al D&lelopmenl Updal~ ~gtlre5 & tab'es\Tabl~ I Chula Vi,t~ Res Dev~J~pmellt Fer.cBst vs adua!-l.ai.D1.28.1D
_________.______.___n.__
Figm"e 2
t.
ell
I
.,
Residential Development Forecast Map
11/2009 -12/2014
Figure 3
l'"""F",~,~bY"'q"""""",vw._""jD>ri^",""'IIpJ"'""","''''''>IIl"r..""ID.''''''''~'-I<iIo,,,,a
~ \ ft-.
~~
~~
~
CITY Of
CHUlA VI~TA
LIST OF CITYWIDE PROJECTS
0 Creekside Vistas
CD 248 Church Ave ENA
@ Otay Rancll Village 2
@ Otay Ranch Village 4
CD Olay Ranch V"llage 7
CD Otay Ronch Village 8
0) Otay Ranch Village 10
<IV Otay Rancll Vi loge .11
8 Eastlake Land Swap
CD ,
Emtlake Vistas
(ii) San Miguel Ranch
CD Rol ing Hils Raner
@ Eostloke Urban Center
_._ City ofChula V/5ta Boundar}'
--- Toll Road
~-
Table 1
GMOC 2010 - EASTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
November 2009 - December 2014
......
I
w
to
t~ffjv~W2!:~ittil
-~^"'P'" :~f~ jiOv. --- <<. .-.- . ~1\ii,1Il.'lPEcE~iili1fOl~, :.. DE,'iMjiji~ !fill'[Noillo09~i'4~!A
'.' """lr'- OlD a.
.-:'..>',' ~;;:u-:,,-,\:"~:"~.,;.;t:
-."r,i P.il.O)Ec:=r.B~ '~IDJffifiSs~~r:u3 ,,;;'<'ISSU~l~l,'~l'.ti ~~~!S~$:tT~~1
li~ '~~~.r~M
~;:'#.~.;:-.f;,,:'''1J!'-''~i4.''.;!l '.' 5 u_ ~ nfltT~ ~~~ .Ft:.fii ~,>-;rS~ IWJMim "-:n!5FT;~
DTAY RANCH
Village 2. lPB 50 35 89 297 0 185 0 135 0 0 139 652
Village 2 - Baldwin & SOilS 125 0 176 81 219 157 191 67 47 110 758 415
village 2 M Central Pacific Bank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 56
Village 7 - Mer-litHn 0 49 0 52 0 38 0 12 0 0 0 151
Village 7 - Shea 41 0 56 0 42 0 44 0 19 0 202 0
Village 7 - lPB 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
Village 7 - Baldwin & Sons 0 63 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
Village 8 West - Otay Land Co. 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 250 150 350 250
Village 8 East or Village 10 . JPB 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 125 300 250 550 375
Village 11 - Shea 42 28 16 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 78 47
Eastern Urban Center - McMillin 0 0 0 0 213 0 602 0 535 0 1,350 0
Otav Ranch Sub-Total 258 206 337 477 494 380 1,187 439 1,151 566 3,427 2,068
EASTlAKE
Greens (+Land Swap)(The Summit) 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 36
Vistas (+Wlndstar) 0 0 247 0 247 0 0 0 0 0 494 0
Sub-total 0 0 247 9 247 9 0 9 0 9 494 36
ROLLING HILLS RANCH 0 35 0 39 0 49 0 30 0 11 0 164
SAN MIGUEL RANCH 0 30 0 25 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 67
SUB~TOTAL 258 271 584 550 741 450 1,187 478 1,151 58G 3,921 2,335
TOTAL UNITS 529 1,134 1,191 1,665 1,737 6,256
Annual Average: 1,251
~IS5UE ~ Bulldirg Permit
~Assumes Adoption of 2006 GDPA
Table 2
GMOC 2010 - WESTERN CHULA VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
November 2009 - December 2014
~
5-Year Forecast
NOV. 09 - DEC. 2010 JAN. - DEC. 2011 JAN. - DEC. 2012 JAN. - DEC. 2013 JAN. - DEC. 2014 NOV. 09 - 14
PROJECT ISSUE* ISSUE* ISSUE* ISSUE* ISSUE* ISSUE*
MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF
248 Church Ave ENA project** 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0
Creekside Vistas - 912~944 Third Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 162 0
Second Accessory Units 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 25
Moss Street Condos 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 17 0
778 Broadway - MU 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
650 Chula Vista 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
258 Alvarado 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 3 0
1198 Trenton 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
SUB-TOTAL 0 5 22 5 42 5 0 5 162 5 226 25
TOTAL UNITS 5 27 47 5 167 251
Annual Average: 50
I
.j>.
o
'" ISSUE = Building Permit
** These projects are in conceptual discussion, and do not have specific project bUilding plans under review at this time.
Table 3
HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPl)lATIOI\! GROWTH
CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1980 - 2009
. -'--''"'"-l'~ , p7'_""fjjjiil1'"~j"'.1ie- . .. '-g.',I"
.. - .. T -~' ..."~ ,._, "';.;"
.. -~~........ ~"l'" I c' ,'." "4 "..~ "".:;r.' .,,'
?:..1ri /~;: 'ut''t-f. : :'':'';p!"'''lt.. :~. "':Wi;. '~1; '. :. ;~'- 9 ." ;{~:~..' 'iri f,r ';.j> if! ,
',", '~"I'c_:; 'i;"\.. :~~,l l:ii;lij~~'i'(n"'" "a~ .,,"~ IDi'"~~"€~"1 'I"t iiie~!E.1fflt~i2't;~i\fri
" 6AIiENDAR',\'li ~' nl s~ u ,onze : or.....,,-. <,. ~omR e e
*"l>""''''''l'''~;o!.f.l:~ ...~.~~.~'::;.t'.:;''''''''''' "ti!':.;;':'....,~ .....; ",'Pc';'\> f""Yt..
, ,1z;;..-,.t-~ . G9\l.strU'ill~jl~S~ ~Ii.al.~)iii~. State'O'0,F.'),(ili) -~
:~~~ ~l'l\"~~" "~iw. .. """"'"\1["'>,,' :1:, ~. ,.
~,-it.,~ l~ .~~.gg% 8j~L'-' .,,~" '~~
, ,~lK'.I:h. ." ," "i, -......,.., "..~~~~.<!"':\ .r.'.."""....'" ~,~. ~
No. No. No. % Change
1980 407 374 84,364 I
1981 195 496 86,597 2.6%
1982 232 I 129 88,023 16%
1983 479 279 89,370 1.5%
1984 1,200 521 91,166 2.0%
1985 1,048 1,552 116,325 276% 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 14%
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 2,652 181,619 4.2%
2001 3,525 3,222 191,236 5.3'%
2002 2,250 2,923 200,757 4.9%
2003 3,143 2,697 208,802 4.0%
2004 3,300 3,043 217,143 4.0%
2005 1,654 2,525 223,490 2.9%
2006 1,180 1,448 227,242 17%
2007 576 837 230,397 14%
2008 325 518 233,108 1.2%
2009 259 337 234,139 0.4% 3)
Annual Averaqe 1,282 1,300 4,992 2.9% 1(4)
(1) Reflects Department of Finance (DOF) comprehensively revised population figures for the end of the referenced year.
(2) Montgomery Annexation
(3) Population estimates assume 3% v8cancy rate and assuming that there are 3 059 per30ns per IJnit. This population figura is an
estimate prior to California Department nf Finance (DO F) preliminary figures due by February 2010 and final estimates in May 201 D.
(4) The annual average percentage is adjusted fur the anomaly of the Montgomery Annexation.
Five- Year Growth Forec3st. Oecember 2009
1-41
"
APPENDIX B
Threshold Compliance Questionnaires
1-42
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2010 QUESTIONNAIRE
(Review Period: 7/1/08 - 6/30/09 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 Population
Threshold X X 500 Sq. Ft.
5-Year Projection 249,654 102,000 409
(2014)
12-Month Projection 237,537 102,000 430
(12/31/10)
FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437
FY 2007-08 231 ,305 102,000 441
FY 2006-0r 227,723 102,000 448
FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457
FY 2004-05 220,000 102,000 464
FY 2003-04 211,800 102,000 482
FY 2002-03 203,000 102,000 502
FY 2001-02 195,000 102,000 523
FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544
FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571
Please provide brief responses to the following:
2. Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18
months? If not, please explain.
Yes
No x
1-43
Explanation. ChulaYista Public Library (CVPL) currently provides inadequate library
service east of 1-805. The square footage west of 1-805 is adequate, but the staffing and operational
budget is not. Budget considerations have led to a major reduction in staff and hours resulting in a
36% reduction in program attendance, and 8% decrease in circulation.
3. Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the 5-year
timeframe? If not, please explain.
Yes
No_x_
Current facilities and staff are not expected to catch up to the service deficit created
by the current slow or negative growth environment.
4. Will new facilities and staff be required to accommodate the forecasted growth?
Yes
x
No
5. Please complete the table below:
LIBRARY USAGETRENDS
Annual Attendance Annual Circulation Guest Satisfaction
FY 08/09 820,213 1,160,139 See note
FY 07/08 1,296,245 1,265,720 89%
FY 06/07 1,148,024 1,344,115 88%
FY 05/06 1,170,168 1,467,799 85%
FY04/05 1,121,119 1 ,414,295 91%
FY03/04 1,076,967 1,308,918 88%
Note - The Library Dept eliminated its mystery shopper program in 08-09 for budget reasons, so
no customer satisfaction survey was undertaken. The "mystery shopper" program sends field
representatives to the library as ordinary library users to observe and rate staff, service,
collection, facilities, etc, both in person and on the phone. The city's volunteer coordinator is in
the process of recruiting an intern to complete a customer satisfaction survey in 09/10.
6. What is the status of updating the Library Facilities Master Plan?
We plan to complete an update of the Library Facilities Master Plan this calendar year. We
envision a two step process encompassing an interim plan for transitional temporary service
for the east side with a follow-up long range plan.
7. What is the status of constructing the Rancho del Rey library?
Finance Department estimates that construction funds for the Rancho Del Rey (RDR)
Library will not be available until 2016 or 2017 at the earliest.
8. What is the status of constructing the EUC library?
City staff and the developer of the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) continue to plan the
development of the EUC. No date is settor construction of the proposed library at the EUC,
according to information provided by the Planning Dept and the developer in 11/09.
Page 2
1-44
9. Please describe any other potential options for providing library services, such as
leasing storefront space or setting up a mobile library.
The Library is currently considering two interim options for eastside library service.
"
The Library is pursuing the purchase of a used bookmobile from County of San Diego that
could be used in a fixed location or on a limited route to provide service to eastside
neighborhoods. The Friends of the Library organization and the CVPL Foundation have
agreed to support funding for this purchase. Pricing information should be available by the
end of January 2010. Minimal library staffing would be required and could be re-allocated
from existing staff. An opening collection could be culled from existing holdings,
supplemented with new purchases provided by Foundation and Friends. We've opened
discussions with Public Works about responsibility for maintaining the vehicle.
Another option is the possibility of a donated or low-cost storefront facility. Unused and
vacant retail space is available in many eastside locations. The Real Property Division of
Public Works in currently investigating options. The library's high volume of quality foot traffic
could be a selling point for a commercial interest that might be willing to offer a favorable
arrangement.
10. Please provide Chula Vista patron utilization numbers from County libraries,
particularly the Bonita-Sunnyside Branch.
Please refer to "Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements 2008-2009," attached.
11. Should the threshold standard be modified?
The threshold standard of 0.5 sq ft per capita is still reasonable, as long as it is considered
in an operational context. The American Library Association last promulgated this threshold
in "Minimum Standards for Public Libraries", published in 1966. Since that time, the library
profession has concentrated on output measures rather than minimum input measure. For
instance, a 1996 ALA publication, "Determining Your Public Library's Future Size", states
that the service assessment determines each library's space needs and does not provide a
formula rationale for determining space needs.
The 1987 Chula Vista Library Master Plan recommended a square foot per resident level of
0.8. Ten years later, the 1997 Chula Vista Library Master Plan based its needs assessment
on a recommended 0.6 per capita sq footage ratio. The drift downward of this measurement
over the last 25 years reflects the decreasing importance of the storage or warehouse
function of the public library, and the increasing importance of other aspects of library
service such as public access computing, cultural and educational programming, literacy,
and community gathering place.
An overview of current average sq foot per capita library space shows the following.
Com
Po ulation ran e
Avera
California cit libraries
All US libraries
To ranked US libraries
175,000 - 350,000
216,000 - 260,000
220,000 - 250,000
0.39
0.55
1.15
Page 3
1-45
The distribution of library space in the City of Chula Vista, rather than the total square
footage per capita, is currently the impediment to equitable and excellent service. The library
has 92,000 sq feet west of 1-805 with a regional population of 118,000. On the other hand,
the population is approximately 114,000 east of 805, and offers only 10,000 square feet in
an inadequate shared arrangement.
12. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that
you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
The square footage threshold should be considered a guideline and needs to be applied in an
operational context in order to plan library service in a responsible and realistic way. Additional
square footage for the library system means that corresponding additional staff are needed. The
larger the building, the more staff it takes. The planned size of the Rancho Del Rey Library seems
not to jibe with the economic outlook or staffing strategies of the City in the next 8 to 10 years. The
current plan for the Rancho Del Rey Branch calls for 42 FTE. That is more than the entire current
library staff, presently 40.25 FTE, a level only sufficient to provide 5-day-a week service at each
major location and only 15 hours per week at the Eastlake shared use facility.
Would downsizing the Rancho Del Rey Library enable the City of Chula Vista to build it sooner? The
current RDR plan includes space for STRETCH and DASH afterschool programs- we no longer
provide them. Additionally, space is included for an RFID sorting operation. CVPL could implement
RFID technology very well without the sorter. Removing those two functional areas and retooling
back room and administrative space could save considerable square feet without affecting public
service capabilities. 15,000 to 20,000 square feet is a typical contemporary full-service suburban
library footprint. A plan of this size might enable the City of Chula Vista to assemble construction
funding sooner than 2016 or 2017.
Thousands of Chula Vista residents seem to be satisfied with the type of service profile provided by
the Bonita Branch library, a building of only 10,000 sq feet. Even with the proposed reduction of
space, RDR would be 50% to 100% larger than that.
The plan for Rancho Del Rey is very well thought out and represents an investment of many
thousands of hours. The original plan was completed in 2002, based on a major needs assessment
performed in 2001, with extensive revision being performed in 2005. Nonetheless, it may be
necessary to revisit the design to ensure that it can be operated with the reduced staff level that the
City of Chula Vista expects to field in the next decade.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Betty Waznis
Title: Library Director
Date: 1/20/10
Page 4
1-46
Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements
2008-2009
CHULA VISTA LIBRARY CARD HOLDERS
CivIC Center (hOm8 library) 56,585
South Chula Vista (home library) 39,504
Eastlake (home library) 10,267
TOTAL ACTIVE CVPL CARDS 106,356
Bonita Library Usage by Chula Vista Residents
Bonit3 Library users wi Chula Vista Zip Codes~ 7,673
Bonita Library users wi other Zip Codes 22,558
TOTAL BONITA CARDHOLDERS 30,231
'based on 2009 circulation records
BONITA LIBRARY SQ. FEET
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 10,400
Hours open
CVPL USAGE TRENDS Attendance Circulation (annual) CCISOIEL hrs wk circ per hr people pr hour
FY 08/09 820,243 1,160,139 6,150 52,48,24 189 133
FY 07/08 1.296,245 1.265,720 6,700 52,48, 24 ~ 189 193
FY 06/07 1,148,024 1.344.115 7,200 64,58.24 187 159
FY 05/06 1,170,168 1,467,799 7,200 64,58,24 204 163
FY 04/05 1,121,119 1,414,295 7,200 64,58,24 196 156
FY 03/04 1,076.967 1,308.918 7,200 64,58.24 182 150
. FY 07/08 hours were reduced mid year.
Hours Open Days Open
CURRENT HOURS OPEN COMPARED (01/20/10) (01/20/10)
CVPL Civic Branch 42 5
CVPL South Branch 41 5
CVPL Eastlake 15 3
Natlon;:!1 City PL 60 7
San Diego County, Imperial Bch 53 6
San Diego County, Bonita 58 7
City of San Diego Malcolm X 52 7
City of San Diego Otay Mesa 45 7
COMPUTER SESSIONS"'" Annual % increase
2003/4 25,445
2007f8 147,987 482%
2008/9 214.520 45%
Gross sq ft per Adjusted
500 GSF PER 1000 POPULATION Population Facilities sq ft 1,000 Bonita sq ft inc. Gross sqft
1999-00 178,645 102,000 571 Not available
2000-01 187,444 102,000 544 Not available
2001 02 195,000 102,000 523 Not available
2002-03 203,000 102,000 502 Not available
2003-04 211,800 102,000 482 Not available
2004-05 220,000 102,000 464 Not available
2005-06 223,423 102,000 457 Not available
2006-2007 227,723 102,000 448 10,400 494
2007-08 231 ,305 102,000 441 10,400 486
2003-09 233,108 102,000 438 10,400 482
12 month Projection 237.537 102,000 429 10,400 473
5 year Projection 2.49.654 102,000 409 10,400 450
1-47
,_.~ -
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
2010 QUESTIONNAIRE
(Review Period: 7/1/08 - 6/30/09 through the Current time and Five Year Forecast)
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:
'. PRIOR'n:Y'IC~S::::El1ie~ eilty Re~~(j~~ei'cifi~'F 6'?s~~id~:;\;"::(;ri~j:L,:~,~:0,
..... C~IIV~luri\e . ';<(<~ "";.\;.,. ;'.., "\"""~,"':,;'i.:i:"i""" >;f,;;,"~"'/';~-:;~;;_~;;'_; ~J;~ffz~::,r~~~~r.~:~-~~l,;:;rrp~:~_?~i
"; y.,,,o~CalJges.POI)s.~,w!t[1Y;,,
".' '" : ".. : 'C' ,~.:;ti.Ei,Mllii:fte'~: JFt:e.!} ":::Response';fime'::
Thr~sh6ld " ,O'. . ". .".,> ::",',: '"l:n ,i:}'o/~::t:./. .>i' "::. .,'5'(3'0',',"0":.,.:,
FY 2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26
FY 2007-08 1 ,006 of 74,1 92 87.9% 4: 1 9
FY 2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59
FY 2005-06 1 ,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51
FY 2004-05 1 ,289 of 74,1 06 80.0% 5:1 1
FY 2003-04 1 ,322 of 71 ,000 82.1 % 4:52
FY 2002-03 1 ,424 of 71 ,268 80.8% 4:55
FY 2001 _02' 1 ,539 of 71 ,859 80.0% 5:07
FY 2000-01 1 ,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5: 1 3
FY 1 999-00 1 ,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21
CY 1 9992 1 ,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50
FY 1 997 -98 1 ,51 2 of 69,1 96 74.8% 5:47
FY 1 996-97 1 ,968 of 69,904 83.8% 4:52
FY 1 995-96 1 ,91 5 of 71 ,1 97 83.0% 4:46
1 AI! figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority II figures on the next page) reflect a change in citizen~injtjated 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~19g8.
Page 1
1-48
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_
/
Nb
3. Please update the Priority II table, below:
. .. ,,'-
Threshold
FY 2008-09 22,686 of 70,051 53.5% 9:16
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 24,876 of 73,075 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 of 71,859 45.6% 10:04
FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38
FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37
CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35
FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13
FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50
FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71 ,197 64.5% 6:38
. These figures do not include responses to false alarms beginning in FY 2002-03
Please provide brief responses to the following:
4. During the period under review, were 57% of the Priority II urgent response calls
citywide responded to within seven minutes (maintaining an average ofl.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 there was continued improvement in response time this year,
staff feels this is most likely the best that can be achieved without additional patrol officers.
Further discussion regarding staffing issues and priority response times are induded 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
1-49
~~._, .__';'.~ __.~'''''_'.r___~'_.
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? f
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. In FY 07/08 the
Department cut eleven sworn positions, four Police Dispatchers, and the remaining four
Community Service Officers from patrol due to budget constraints. During the 08/09 fiscal
year the Department cut 7 sworn positions, 8 civilian positions and eliminated the
Community Service Officers in Patrol. Reports that would have previously been taken by
Community Service Officers are now handled by Patrol Officers. 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
1.03 officers authorized per 1,000 residents.
Chula Vista Police Department:
Sworn Officers Per 1,000 Population
2.51
2]
I
I
151
1i
i
1.91
I G Chula Vista
B Carls bad
o Escondida
o La Mesa
. Oceanside
o B Cajon
II San Diego
o National City
I_ Coronado
0.5
1.16 1.19
i O~~
I
January 2010 (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
No
x
Page 3
1-50
If yes,' please explain and describe what factors contributed to not meeting the
threshold standard.
Although growth slowed during the reporting period the Department has been understaffed
based on growth in previous years. As noted earlier. our current staffing levels are below
those recommended in a 4-year-old staffing study. Chronic understaffing will inhibit the
Department's ability to meet thresholds.
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
x
No
If not, please explain.
Currently the facilities are able to accommodate growth over the next 12 to 18 months. The
Vehicle Replacement fund continues to be frozen. As a result the Department has utilized
limited traffic safety grant funds to purchase replacement vehicles. Limited funds will delay
the necessary replacement of vehicles.
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 continued 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 vehicle awaiting repairs.
10. Please update the table below:
NUMBER OFFALSE AUXRMS ..' ". , '. ....
..,
FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
8,262 8,312 8,077 8,257 7,861 5,924
11. Please provide an update on the Police Department's efforts to improve the Priority II
threshold standard.
The Department continues to reaffirm the Supervisor and Officer's knowledge of priority
response time goals. In addition, residents are encouraged to utilize the Department's
Online Crime Reporting system to report low-level crimes, which allows officers to respond
to higher priority CFS. Maintaining staffing levels in the patrol division continues to be a
priority for the Department. However, given the current budget crisis, we do not anticipate
the necessary resources being available to meet the threshold standard of Priority II CFS in
the foreseeable future.
Page 4
1-51
12. What is the status of School Resources Officers?
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, uncertainty of the state budget impacts on the districts may
jeopardize future funding. Any future cuts from the school district will result in reductions in
the SRO Program. Staff continues to monitor the situation and maintain communication with
the school districts regarding their budget situation.
13. Should the threshold standard 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
research3 on 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, the 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. As has been discussed in previous review periods, response times are
just one factor in the overall service provided by the Police Department. The current
thresholds do not account for quality of service, nor effectiveness of service provided. It is
also not clear whether the current response time threshold standards have any effect on the
perceived quality of service or whether there is a positive correlation to effectiveness of
policing in general.
14. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions
that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
Since FY 07/08, 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).
During FY 08/09 the Department cut an additional $3.6 million. There is a potential for
additional cuts depending on the fiscal health of city. 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 ofthe continued significant
budget cuts, police services will be impacted.
3p .
reventmg 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 Crimina! Justice, University of
Maryland, 1997
Page 5
1-52
In 2010 the Department will be moving forward in implementing a Geographic Policing
Model. The city will be divided into two Districts with the boundary running the east/west
distance of L Street - Telegraph Canyon Road - Otay Lakes Road (eastward extension).
The motivation for moving to the geographic policing model is improved service to the
community, more opportunities for staff, and more effectiveness in using our existing
resources. It is currently unknown how this change will impact response times.
PREPARED BY:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Melanie Culuko
Public Safety Analyst
January 11, 2010
Page 6
1-53
_~_....E
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2010 QUESTIONNAIRE
(Review Period: 7/1/08-6/30/09 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 signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours LOS "D" 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 fol/owing:
1. During the period under review, has the City maintained LOS "C" or better on all
signalized arterial segments? If not, please list segments involved and explain.
Yes
No
x
Heritage Road northbound from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon Road did not
meet the City's GMOC threshold standard during this period.
2. During the period under review, were there arterial segments operating at LOS "D" for
more than two hours during peak hours? If yes, please list segments involved and
explain.
Yes
x
No
Citywide, only at Heritage Road northbound from Olympic Parkway to Telegraph Canyon
Road did the arterial segment exceed LOS "0" for more than two hours during peak hours.
During the six-hour peak period review, the segment is operating at 5-hours of LOS "0" and
1-hour of LOS "E" One year ago, it was operating at 3-hours of "0" and 3-hours of "E".
3. 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?
These facilities will be funded with development impact fees such as the TDIF, for east
1-54
of 1-805, the WTDIF, for west of 1-805 and/or a combination of other local, state and
federal funds.
b. Is there an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this
funding?
Yes, there are appropriate funding mechanisms in place to provide funding for needed
roadway improvements. Development is required to pay their fair share in mitigating any
project impacts. The City of Chula Vista has transportation development impact fees
that will collect sufficient funds for needed transportation improvements. The
development impact fees pay only for the proportionate share of the project that is
impacted by development. Existing deficiencies are the responsibility of the City to fund
with other sources such as local TransNet, State and Federal funds. The transportation
development impact fee program is periodically updated so that program identified
project costs and scopes are updated as well as adding or deleting projects. The city
does have in the current Capital Improvement Program a project identified to update
both the TDIF and the WTDIF programs.
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.
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?
a. The needed facilities will be funded with developer exactions if they have created a
direct project impact or a combination of local development impact fees, TransNet,
State and Federal funds.
b. Yes, for growth related impacts, there is an appropriate funding mechanism in
place.
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?
The State Route 125 Toll Road was opened to the public on November 19, 2007. In early
2008, City staff conducted a traffic study on the impacts due to the toll road and presented
the findings to the City Council on June 17, 2008. In addition, the findings were presented to
the GMOC on November 20, 2008. The City Council report is attached for your reference as
Attachment # 1.
In summary, prior to the opening of the SR-125 toll road, there were three major east/west
roadways approaching 1-805 that were considered the most critical locations for approaching
the GMOC threshold standard. With the opening of SR-125, the traffic volumes decreased
near the 1-805 interchanges. The locations were: East H Street 75,500 Average Daily Traffic
1-55
~'.-
:"r,~,. "-. '''. ."!!,_"~_~~i;~-
(ADT) reduced to 71,100 ADT (-6%), Telegraph Canyon Road 64,300 ADT reduced to
61,900 ADT (-4%) and at Olympic Parkway 51 ,900 ADT reduced to 47,000 ADT (-9%). The
combined reduction of vehicles at just these three locations totaled 11,700 vehicles that had
been diverted from these three 1-805 interchanges. Each of these three arterial segments is
currently operating within the GMOC threshold standard.
,
6. Should the threshold standard be modified?
Yes, the threshold standard needs to be modified so that Citywide the level of service does
not exceed two hours of 0 except for the area identified as the Urban Core area. Per the
General Plan Update, (Attachment # 2) there should be a different level of service threshold
standard within the City's Urban Core area as identified in the General Plan Update.
7. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that
you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
Listed as Attachments 3 & 4, are the cLirrent year traffic monitoring results for the arterial
segments summarized and in foldout maps for each of the three peak periods.
Listed as Attachments 5 & 6, are the current year traffic monitoring results for the arterial
interchange segments summarized and in fold out maps for each of the three peak periods.
PREPARED BY:
Name: FRANCISCO X. RIVERA P.E., T.E.
Title: PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
Date: JANUARY 27,2010
ATTACHMENTS:
1 - Council Information Item dated June 17,2008.
2 - General Plan Update - Chapter 5 Transportation (excerpt)
3 - Arterial Segments Level of Service Summary Results
4 - Arterial Segments Level of Service (3-foldout maps) A.M./Mid-day/P.M.
5 - Arterial Interchanges Levels of Service Summary.Results
6 - Arterial Interchanges Levels of Service (3-foldout maps) A.M./Mid-day/P.M.
J:IEngineerlGMOCIQuestionnaire AC386 Year 201 OITraffic 2010 Questionnaire.doc
1-56
2009 TMP ARTERIAL SEGlvrENT LOS
-
ALL TIME PERIODS
~ I I I 1
--~-
AM PERIOD AM PERIOD JVIlD-DAY MID-DAY PM PERIOD PM PERIOD
-
7-8AM 8-9AM 11:30 -12:30 12:30 - 1:30 4-5PM 5-6PM
1 ----
SEGMENT (CLASS) Dm. LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEJW
..
Third Ave.
I C St. - Naples St. NB n 22.5 ('09) C 18.3 ('08) C 16.7 ('08)
(3RD1 - HCM 4) SB B 19.5 ('09) C 16.4 ('08) C 18.9 ('08)
2 Naples St. - S. CVCl NB B 20.2 ('05) B 20.3 ('05) C 19.0 ('08)
(3RD2 - HCM 41 SB B 20.8 ('05) B 19.3 ('05) C 18.2 ('081
-
Fourth Ave. .-.
llrisbane St. - H S1. NB B 21.8 ('09) B 21.6 ('09) B 21.6 ('u91
.---
(4TH1-HCM4) SB B 19.1 ('09) B 19.3 ('09) C 18.5 ('09)
4 1.1 St. - Naples St. NB - B 23.4 ('08) B 19.8 ('08) C 18.7 ('08)
(4TH2 - HCM 4) SB B 22.7 ('08) B 23.8 ('08) B 21.7 ('08)
.-
1-'- .J'I'tl>les Sl. - Main St. NI3 13 23.8 ('07) 13 23.8 ('07) B 23.3 ('07)
(4TH3 - HCM 4) SB B 21.9 ('07) B 20.9 ('07) B 20.3 ('07) _
I_ f--"':"
1- ....I ----
I Il\lnita Rd.
i-;- -
l~lza Bonita - East CVCl EB B 29.2 ('07) A 31.9 ('07) A 32.2 ('07)
(BR1-HCM 3) WB A 30.8 ('07) A 31.8 ('07) B 28.0 ('07)
..-
'.
---
17 Broadway -
C St.-HSt. NB G 22.0 ('06) B 21.3 ('08) B 20.0 ('OS)
I (BR01 - HCM 4) SB B 22.6 ('06) C 17.3 ('08) C 16.8 ('OS)
Is H St. - l St. NB B 21.4 ('07) G 20.0 ('OS) C 1 S.S ('08)
, (13R02 - HCM 4) SB B '23.8 ('07) B 20.5 ('OS) C 1S.1 ('08)
9 L S1. - S CVCL N13 B 22.6 ('07) B 20.3 ('07) C 17.7 ('08)
-..
I13RD3 - HCI,! 4) SB A 25.7 ('07) B 20.6 ('07) C 18.7 ('08)
10 C St. Main St NB A 26.6 ('09) B 21.1 ('09) B 21.2 ('09)
(I3RDTF350 - HCM4) SI3 B 21.9 ('09) C 18.2 ('09) B 19.1 ('09)
E Sl. ---..-
II Woodlawn Ave. - Third Ave. 1013 A 27.1 ('08) B 19.4 ('05) C 16.6 ('08)
(EST! - HC],! 4 ) WB A 25.3 ('08) G 19.5 ('05) 13 20.1 ('OS 1
-
12 Third A "e. - Bonita Glen EB A 25.2 ('09) A 25.1 ('08) B 20.3 ('08)
(EST2 - HCM 4 ) WB A 25.3 ('09) B 23.5 ('08) B 20.7 1'08)
--
Lower l-lalf of LOS C --
LOS 0 IQil~ ~,;:g
03/09/2010
09TMP Summary Results-2
I-~"
I SEGMENT (CLASS)
FSt.
Ii. Broadway. Hilltop Dc
_" (FST!. HCM 4 )
HSt.
14 Woodlawn Ave". Third Ave"
(HST! - HCM 4 )
15 Third Ave" - Hilltop Dc
(HST2 . HCM 4 )
East H St.
~ Hgden Vista - Ps Ranchero
_~EHSl - HCM 2)
U1
EastHSt.
~
\7 Ps Ranchero - Eastlake Dr.
(EHS2 - HCM 3)
Heritage Rd.
I' Tel Cyn Rd" - Ol~ic Pkwy
(I-IR - HCM 2)
Hillton Dr.
19 FSL-LSt.
(HILl - HCM 4)
:20 L St. - Orange Ave.
(HIL2 - ]-]CM 4)
Industrial Blvd.
--
21 L St. - Main St.
--
(fNDt - HCM 4)
2009 TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS
ALL TiME PERIODS
I I I --------
------
AM PERIOD AM PERIOD MID-DAY MID-DAY PM PERIOD PM PERIOD
7-8AM 8-9AM 11:30 - 12:30 12:30.1:30 4-5PM 5-6PM
Dill. LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS LOS I -
SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED SPEED
--
EB B 19"7 ('09) C 18.0 ('08) C 182 ('08)
WB C 18.3 ('09) B 19.2 ('08) C 17.8 ('08)
----
=- il1\3fOV.ID~l\ f- ---e-----
EB C 18.9 ('09) C 13.1 ('09) C 14.6 ('09)
_____I___~_m
WB B 20.0 ('09) C 15.6 ('09)f- C 15.5 ('09) C 16.3 ('09)._
EB B 20.1 ('09) B 21.1 ('08) C 16.7 ('08)
--
\VB B 20.2 ('09) B 21.3 ('08) C 18.2 ('08)
--
I----- -
--
EB B 32.0 ('08) A 36.5 ('08) B 32.3 ('08)
WB B 33.6 ('08) B 32.4 ('08) B 31.8 ('08)
-----
EB B 25.9 ('08) B 28.6 ('08) C 23.7 ('08)
WB A 30.2 ('08) A 30.4 ('08) B , 24.3 ('08)
NB 1:rill~I~lfIi}5rr~b9 i 'f.~IDli! ...~ _~ ~1ii\j[;1'.i:..~;r..~ ~,!l!JJj)1i'i!~r?~lT81~.-_-w~1
~'.'\ ~ "r~jj'G':_ '.':"JI~',_,'_ ~_ ,-. .,,~l:'. l .;:,'
SB C 24.7 ('09) C 26.3 B 28.8 C 26.6 * C 28.0 * C 23 0
---..
*LC-60 %
NB
SB
NB
SB
C 17.7 ('08) B 19.4 ('08) C 18.5 ('08)
B 19.1 ('08) B 20.7 ('08) B 20.3 ('08)
-.
C 18.4 ('08) B 23.3 ('09) A 766 ('04)
B 20.0 ('08) B 21.2 ('09) B 23.4 ('04)
B 21.8 ('08) B 22.1 ('07) B 21.8 ('07)
u.
B 24.3 ('08) B 22.2 ('07) B 19.9 ('07)
--
-
2 03/09/20 I 0
NB
SB
Lower Half of LOS C ''''''II'' .
LOS D Il~l~'
LOS E Iii( '",1
09TMP Summary Results-2
2009 TMl' ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS
ALL TIME PERIODS
I I I
AM PERIOD AM PERIOD I\fID-DA Y MID-DAY PMPERlOD PM PERIOD
7-8AM 8-9AM 11:30 -12:30 12:30 - 1:30 4-SPM S-6PM
SEGMENT (CLASS) Dill. LOS SPEED LOS I SPEED LOS SPEED LOS I SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED
.ISt.
.-,----
:;'2 O~klaWll Ave. - 3rd Ave. EB C 17.8 ('09) C 17.0 ('08) C 15.3 ('08)
(JSTl - HCM 4) WB B 19.6 ('09) C 18.2 ('08) C 17.4 ('08t_
-
.-..-----
LS!.
- --~-_._._.-_..,-
,- Industrial Blvd. - 3rd Ave. EB C 18.4 ('09) C 17.0 ('08) C 14.4 _-.-i'O-'!L..
--
-...-- ---
(LSTl - HCM 4) WB B 19.4 ('09) C 16.5 ('08) C 15.7 ('08)
-
CiA 3rd Ave. - Tel. Cyn Rd.fNacion EB B 23.8 ('07) A 25.9 ('07) B 22.S ('07)
(LST2 - HCM 4) WB B 24.8 ('07) A 26.2 ('07) A 25.2 ('07)
-
-------
La Media Rd --- -_..-.-
-.--
24 Tel. Cyn Rd. - Olympic Pkwy NB C 22.8 ('08) C 24.3 ('08) C 25.3 ('09) C 0" 7 ___CQ2L.
....L..._
Af8li\f,i08n' ---
~Ml-HCM2) SB ~~im:r. C 26.8 ('08) C 27.4 ('09) C 23.6 ('O'J)
- .----
I
- +-~inSt.
<E> . EB B 24.6 ('08) 20.5 ('08)
25 Industnal Blvd. - 3rd Ave. B B 21.4 ('08)
(MAl - HCM 4) \VB B 31.4 ('08) B 24.0 ('08) B 24.0 ('08)
26 3 I'd Ave. - t.."lelrose Ave. EB B 300 ('09) B 29.3 ('09) B" 28.4 ('04)
-
(1\1A2 - j-jCM 3) 'NB B 28.5 ('09) B 25.9 ('092_ 1---. B 23.1 ('04)
MainS!. -
'17 Oleander-Entertainment eir. S. EB A 37.5 ('06) A 40.8 ('06) A "0 I C06'I
-
(MA3 - HCM 2) WB 13 -32.8 ('061 B 33.1 ('06) B 32.2 (06)
-- ..- --
Olympic Parkway '--'-~--
" Oleander Ave. - Heritage Rd. EB B "0.6 (08) B 41.8 (06) B 34.9 ('08)
(HCM 1 - Future HCM 2) \VB B 35.0 ('08) A 42.2 ('06) C 30.4 ('08)
- ..-
'-----
Oranl!e Ave./E. Orange Ave.
29 Palomar SI. - Hilltop Dr. EB A 257 ('05) A 26.1 ('05) B 2'.1 ('05)
(ORl - HCM 4) \VB B 24.6 ('05) A 26.7 ('0)) A 25.2 ('05)
30 ~E Dr.- Melrose Ave. EB A 27.2 ('08) A 29.4 ('08) A 25.7 ('08)
(ORl - HCM 4) WB A 26.9 ('08) A 29.4 ('08) B 22.9 ('08)
,-
Lower Half of LOS C -
~i~
LOS ]) ::..:...;.J&~;' ~.~
09Tl\.tP Summary Kesulls-2
3
03/09/2010
-- 2009 TMP ARTERIAL SEGMENT LOS
ALL TIME PERIODS
I I I I
AM I'ERIOD AM PERIOD MID-DAY MIU-DA Y PM PEIUOD PM PEIUOD
7-8AM 8-9AM I1:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:30 4-SPM S-6PM
SEGMENT (CLASS) DlR. LOS SPEED LOS I SPEED LOS SPEED LOS SPEED LOS I SPEED LOS SPEED
.-.
Otav Lakes Rd. ~-
:;1 Bonita Rd. - East H St. NB B 30.4 ('08) B 34.5 ('07) B 32.0 ('08)
.. -
(OLR1 . HCM 2) SB C 26.8 ('08) B 33.2 ('07) B 29.7 . ___tIJ8L_
12 E. H St.- Telegraph Cyn Rd. NB -~lll)f:<,ll I~' C 19.9 ('09) C 20.7 ('09) C 21.1 ('09) C 20.0 ('09) C .J.8.c4. ('Q'!.)
f--
(OLR2. HCM 3) SB C 21.6 ('09) C 20.8 ('09) C 22.1 ('09) C 21.9 ('09) C 22.2 ('09) C 18.2 ('09)
Palomar Sf. i- i-.
. . - .
33 Industrial Bl. - BroadwaL..... EB C 16.6 ('09) C 13.4 ('09) C 15..0_ __('09L
-- ---- --
(PAL1-HCM4) WE C ]8.0 ('09) C 13.9 ('09) C 15.4 ('09)
34 Broadway - Hilltop Dr. EB B 21.4 ('07) B 20.9 ('07) B 19.9 ('08)
.--
(PAL2. HCM 4) WB B 22.5 ('07) B 19.6 ('07) C 18.6 ('08)
V.-seo Ranchero .---
35 [~t H St. - Tel. Cyn Rd. NB C 20.0 ('09) B 26.2 ('09) C 25.4 ('08)
--
PR1 - T-TCM 3) SB C 21.6 ('09) B 24.9 ('09) C 23.9 ('08)
-
~raph Canyon Rd./ Otay Lakes Rd. ,
-
36 Cyn Plaza d/w - Ps Ranchero EB B 34.9 ('07) A 36.5 ('06) A 35.2 ('07)
(TC1 - HCM 2) WE B 31.5 ('07) A 35.1 ('06) A 35.4 _J'07) _
-
37 Ps Ranchero - St. Claire Dr. EB B 34.0 ('07) A 40.2 ('07) A 37.2 ('08)
(TC2 - HCM 2) WB B 30.2 ('07) A 38.1 ('07) B 33.2 ('08)
_n
--
Lower Half of LOS C
LOS D ""f:~\;;'
'"... g~ C'~.
~ - "'-l..:l -,,'I .-.-
.'iI~'-"1
LOS E 'I .
09TJ\.1P SUnlmary Results-2
4
03/09/20 I 0
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2010 QUESTIONNAIRE
Reporting Period: 711108 - 6130109 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(07-01-08 to.06-30-09);
b. the current fiscal year, 2009/2010; and
c. what is anticipated in five year's time.
The Finance Department is in the process of updating the City's 'Five Year Financial
Outlook' document. The updated document will be presented to the City Council in
February of this year. The report will be furnished to the GMOC after it has been
presented to the Council.
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?
The City's 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 and 2009-10 operating budgets. Staff continues
to monitor revenues and expenditures in the current fiscal year (fiscal year 2009-10). Any
anticipated shortfalls in the current year will be addressed with the goal of mitigating any
additional impacts to General Fund reserves.
At this time, as a result of the significant slowdown in 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 overall
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 development market, we do not anticipate
pagG 1
any fiscal issues resulting from new development. On the contrary, lack of growth coupled
with an overall economic slowdown continues to challenge the City's ability to maintain
service levels. Service impacts resulting from budget reductions in the two previous
budget cycles are discussed in the relevant budget documents (see Attachment 1).
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 negatively impacted the City's finances over the last three years.
As development has slowed the City has made significant reductions in the General Fund
and Development Services Fund operating budgets. To the extent possible, the City has
attempted to limit service level impacts resulting from these cuts.
The City adopted balanced operating budgets for both the General Fund and the
Development Services Fund in fiscal year 2009-10. Unfortunately, the housing crisis and
national recession continue to drag down revenues. Staff is in the process of developing
the baseline budget for fiscal year 2010-11. This budget will identify any anticipated
shortfalls in the coming fiscal year. The City will then identify cuts necessary to close the
budget gap. These cuts may result in additional service level impacts; however, we are
too early in the process to fully understand what these impacts may be at this time.
5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below for the period under
review.
;\~:,~ 'X.lii+ == If ~A..,..",,,c.. i.~~);5;':;'; {i.
, eEl i!~ 0 ;;;:i;fi;,i'5 ,'rJ;;c.
,;;'<". ',,!
~ 'F.5. glEt I ~m~~~~f[hif : ~
- ~~~\~'~J.:,~{
);n' 'i.,iii.."t Collected EXpended"
EASTERN TDIF 11,317/EDU 909,330 766,406 24,391,651 Dec 2005 Oct.2008 Oct 2009
WESTERN TDIF 3,243/EDU 34,367 54,858 159,509 March 2008 Oct 2009
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 29.75/trip 377,160 717,903 3,905,785 Oct 2002 Oct 2008 Oct 2009
TEL CANYON DRAINAGE 4,579/acre 191,735 60,947 5,918,308 Aoril1998 N/A Unscheduled
TEL CANYON
GRAVITY SEWER 216.50/EDU 34,183 60,103 3,283,344 Sept 1998 N/A Unscheduled
SALT CREEK SEWER 1,3301EDU 391,256 315,194 1,598,289 Aug 2004 N/A Unscheduled
POGGI CANYON SEWER 400/EDU 94,784 75,362 1,959,636 Dec 1997 N/A Aug 2009
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Otay Ranch Villages 1 ,
2,5 & 6 1,114/SFDU (8,727) 919 197 Feb 2007 N/A Unscheduled
Otay Ranch Village 11 2,033/SFDU 117,821 1,251 2,217,227 Nav 2005 Oct 2008 Oct 2009
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Administration 563/SFDU 60,452 220,205 2,655,487 Nav 2006 Oct 2008 Dec 2010
Civic Center Expansion 2,458/SFDU 1,763,014 482,357 10,352,154 " " "
Police Facility 1,565/SFDU 117,838 7,452 (805,063) " " "
COrD, Yard Relocation 421/SFDU 168,031 1,684 3,172,910 " " "
Libraries 1,413/SFDU 365,598 6,122 8,127,644 " " "
Fire Suppression
Systems 1,243/SFDU (506,609) 4,470 {17,882,327} " " "
Recreation Facilities 1,072/SFDU (130,331) 4,647 (6,494,319) " " "
PUBLIC FACILITIES
TOTAL 8,735/SFDU 1,837,993 726,937 (873,514) Nav 2006 Oct 2008 Dec 2010
p~2
~Equiv3lent Dwelling Unit (EDU) shown. Fee varies by type of residential unit, and for commercial and industrial development - see
various fee schedules included in Attachment A.
HOn a separate sheet of paper list the projects to be funded and/or completed over the next twelve months.
For each of the DIF 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?
Adequacv of Funds
Under normal circumstances, 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 repaying these debt
obligations. This means of project financing has the smallest short term impact on
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. The recent slowdown in development has significantly
reduced the fees collected by the program, impacting the City's ability to meet
these debt obligations. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the 'Ability to
Borrrow Funds' section of this response.
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 Eastern Transportation
Development Impact Fee (TDIF) projects are constructed in this manner. For
these projects, the Eastern TDIF's fund balance has a negligible impact on the
timing of project construction.
A new factor impacting the timing relationship between development and the
construction of facilities is the City's 'Development Processing and Impact Fee
Payment Program' (Attachment 3). Approved in December 2008, the program
allows developers to defer the payment of impact fees from building permit
~3
issuance to occupancy (maximum two year deferral). With the exception of the
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) project, the fee deferral program will expire
December 31,2010. The EUC will be eligible to defer impact fees to occupancy
through the term of the project with no set expiration date. Deferral of impact fees
reduces revenues in the short term, impacting the ability of the PFDIF to meet debt
service obligations or to construct new facilities.
For each of the funds, the available fund"balance as of June 30, 2009 is listed on
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 debt service, capital acquisitions, and program
administration costs.
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.
Abilitv to Borrow Funds
As detailed in the previous table, the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
(PFDIF) fund ended fiscal year 2009 with a negative fund balance. The current
annual debt service obligation of the fund is approximately $5.2 million. Interfund
loans from the Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) have
bridged the shortfall for the previous and current fiscal year; however, the fund is
still not collecting sufficient fees from development to meet the annual debt
obligation. The City's Finance Director is in the process of working with a financing
team to restructure the fund's outstanding debt obligation. The goal of this
restructuring is improved short term cash flow, ensuring the City's ability to meet its
debt obligations for the next four years without impacting the General Fund.
In November 2009, the Finance Director presented the Council with a
recommended two-part debt restructuring plan (Attachment 3). This restructuring
is anticipated to provide sufficient short term cash flow relief to meet the PFDIF's
debt obligations through fiscai year 2012-13. At that time, the fund will be reviewed
to determine if any additional cash flow relief is necessary. The restructuring plan
components are as follows:
1. Issuance of new COPs (Certificates of Participation) to reimburse the
PFDIF $9 million for expenses previously incurred in the construction of
the third phase of the Civic Center; and
2. Restructuring of the 2000 COPs (Corporation Yard).
The proposed' restructuring will result in increased financing costs in the future of
approximately $1.6 million annually. In addition, the PFDIF fund must begin
repayment of the Eastern TDIF interfund loan as soon as practical in order to avoid
impacts to TDIF project timing. In total, these obligations are anticipated to add
approximately $3 million to the current annual debt obligation of $5.2 million (total
annual debt obligation of $8.2 million).
Based upon the existing debt obligations and the anticipated additional debt
~4-
obligations to result from the debt restructuring, it is unlikely that the City will seek
financing to construct additional facilities in the near future. It is also important to
note that the General Fund guarantees all PFDIF debt. If the PFDIF is unable to
meet its debt obligations, the obligation shifts to the General Fund. In light of the
recent challenges in the General Fund, this additional risk is not advisable at this
time. In the future, as economic conditions continue to change, the
appropriateness of financing additional facilities will be reviewed.
c. In the table below, please indicate whether the existing DIF fund is adequate
or needs to be revised.
=5.... ",'",.,:':,;:::.L'i"";'" ""\:"'~:. X" :.ADEQUATE)&!
:H::";:;, . :,., 1It.'?,,,.'l,x,,...,(,,.,t'1': .r~;;;REVISE';;'2"
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION REVISE
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION ADEQUATE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL ADEQUATE
TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE ADEQUATE
TELE. CANYON GRAVITY SEWER ADEQUATE
SALT CREEK SEWER BASIN ADEQUATE
POGGI CANYON SEWER BASIN REVISE
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5 & 6 ADEQUATE
Otay Ranch Village 11 ADEQUATE
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Administration ADEQUATE
Civic Center Expansion ADEQUATE
Police Facilitv ADEQUATE
Corp. Yard Relocation ADEQUATE
Libraries ADEQUATE
Fire Suppression Svstems ADEQUATE
Recreation Facilities ADEQUATE
6. Please provide a comprehensive list, through build-out, of the PFDlF-funded
facilities that remain to be constructed and the estimated date of delivery.
There are five (5) major facilities planned for construction using PFDIF funds. These
projects are as follows (listed in order of construction priority):
1. Rancho del Rey Library
2. EUC Fire Station
3. EUC Library
4.15. Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatics Center & Recreation Facility
Construction timing will be a function of PFDIF cash flows. Estimated delivery dates are
shown in the cash flow (Attachment 4).
1'~5
7. The 2GD9 GN10C Annual Report included the following recommendation: That City
Council direct the City rl/anager to dev910p a foemty prioritiz.ation policy that includes an
~xpJan:;tion {Dr how prloritjes are rjgtf1rmined, hew faciJJties would be funded, how they wi!!
be reported) :and imp'"'1cts of the expendIturos. This policy should be llsed as a basis for af!
decisions l:;y the City Council on any PFD1F funding propcsALs. What is the status of
cornpleting this recommendation?
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 plan has not been developed. It is anticipated that this plan will be
presented to the GMOC and City Council in conjunction with the next comprehensive
update of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program.
8. Please state the City's debt service payment policy and indicate how future DIF
amounts would be affected by interest paid on debt service in excess of the original
DIF planned amounts.
The City does not have a debt service payment policy. Bond covenants for the individual
debt issuances detail the terms of the obligation.
Via the comprehensive fee update process, unanticipated financing costs are included in
the calculation of the various DIF fees. These additional costs result in higher DIF fees.
9. Are PAD fees adequate to construct necessary parks?
All residential (including hotels/motels) development in the City pays a PAD fee to fund
acquisition and development of parklands. The development portion of the PAD fee is tied
to an inflationary index with annual adjustments occurring each October. The index
ensures that the development fees collected keep pace with the cost of constructing
facilities. Both the development and acquisition components of the fee will be reviewed in
a comprehensive update of the PAD program planned for calendar year 2010.
10. Should the threshold standard be modified?
No threshold standard modification recommended.
11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions
that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council.
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Budget Reduction Summaries from FY2009 and FY2010 Budgets
2. Development Processing and Impact Fee Payment Program
3. PFDIF Debt Restructuring Staff Report
4. PFDIF Cash Flow Analysis
1'''!I66
PREPARED BY:
Name: Maria Kachadoorian
Title: Finance DirectorlTreasurer
Name: Karim Galeana
Title: Senior Accountant
Name: Tiffany Allen
Title: Fiscal & Management Analyst
Date: January 20, 2009
1'''!;o7
ATTACHMENT 1
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09
,
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT BUDGET
REDUCTIONS
"'"he City has gone through two major budget reduction processes in order to keep expenditures in
i line with projected revenues On December 4,2007 the City Council approved on a 4-1 vote, a
mid-year budget reduction plan that reduced the City's annual net cost by $15.5 million and resulted in
the elimination of over one hundred positions. These reductions were taken out of the fiscal year 2008-
09 base budget. As the fiscal year 2008-09 base budget was being developed, the City's economic
condition worsened and revenue projections were adjusted downward. Included as part of the fiscal
year 2008-09 budget is an additional $10.6 million in net cost reductions and the elimination of 34.0
positions The City Council considered the City Manager's proposed budget reduction plan in a series
of workshops in April, 2008.
The December and April budget reduction processes resulted in a net cost reduction of $26.1 million
and the elimination of 145.0 permanent benefited positions. These reductions are reflected in the
General Fund, Fleet Management fund, Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority funds, and the
newly established Development Services fund.
The following table summarizes the $26.1 million in net cost reductions by fund and department
resulting from both the December and April processes.
1~8
General Fund
Planning & Building (includes DSF) $ (2,377,757) -30% (16,50)
Finance $ (79;3,582) -22% (600)
Administration $ (1,135,394) -22% (1,00)
City Clerk $ (249,429) -20% (100)
City Attorney $ (558,712) -20% (2,00)
Human Resources $ (1,085,652) -19% (4,50)
ITS $ (868,401 ) -18% (500)
Library $ (1,810,367) -18% (12,50)
Recreation $ (1,051,800) -16% (400)
Eng & Gen Svcs (includes DSF and Fleet) $ (3,165,481 ) -16% (22,00)
Nature Center $ (192,454) -15% (100)
City Council $ (216,861) -14%
Fire $ (3,392,917) -14% (18,00)
Public Works (includes DSF) $ (2,340,699) -11% (20,50)
Police $ (4,508,903) -9% (30,00)
Redevelopment Agency (Fund 651) $ (394,311) -8% (1,00)
Other Reductions $ (1,944,348)
TOTAL REDUCTIONS CITYWIDE $ (26,089,068) (145.00)
Note: The fiscal year 2008-09 proposed budget refiects the establishment of the Development Services Fund (DSF), which
includes sections from Engineering, Public Works, and Planning and Building departments. The table above reflects the
budget for the different sections of the Developm~nt Services Fund within their respective department budgets.
The table above shows that the largest percentage reduction was made in the Planning and Building
Department (30%) - this reduction largely reflects the slowdown in development activity. The next
largest reductions were made in the administrative and legislative departments - Finance (22%),
Administration (22%), City Clerk (20%), City Attorney (20%), Human Resources (19%) and ITS (18%).
The smallest budget reductions were made in Fire (14%), Public Works (11 %), Police (9%), and in the
Redevelopment Agency's Merged Project Area fund (8%),
The table below summarizes the staffing reductions by bargaining unit or employee group. The three
management groups experienced the largest percentage staffing reduction at 16 7%; the next highest
percentage reduction of 14.9% is in Chula Vista Employees' Association (CVEA), CVEA, the largest of
the City's four collective bargaining units, experienced the largest reduction in the number of positions
at 89,5, The smallest percent reductions are in public safety, The Chula Vista Police Officers'
Association (POA) is being reduced by 11 positions or 4.4% and the International Association of
Firefighters Local 2180 (IAFF) is being reduced by one position or 0.9%
1~69
MANAGEMENT 219.00 -26.00 -10.50 -36.50 -16.7%
CVEA 601.50 -69.00 -20.50 -89.50 -14.9%
WCE 32.00 -3.00 , -1.00 -4.00 -12.5%
CONF 31.00 -2.00 -100 -3.00 -9.7%
POA 248.00 -10.00 -1.00 -1100 -4.4%
IAFF 112.00 -1 00 0.00 -1.00 -0.9%
OTHER 500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0%
CITYWIDE TOTAL 1248.50 -111.00 -34.00 -145.00 -11.6%
The development and implementation of the budget reduction plan was a major undertaking that will
have many impacts on services to the community and City operations. To follow is a summary of some
of the more significant budget reductions reflected .In the fiscal year 2008-09 proposed budget. This list
is not all inclusive but is meant to highlight some of the reductions that were necessary in order to
balance the budget. These reductions are presented in two sections - the reductions Council approved
in December 2007 on a 4-1 vote and the additional reductions needed to balance the fiscal year 2008-
09 budget.
BUDGET REDUCTIONS ApPROVED DECEMBER 2007
As mentioned previously, a budget reduction plan was developed and implemented mid-year to
address revenue shortfalls that the City experienced during fiscal year 2007 -08. All departments were
asked to propose budget reductions equal to 10% of their fiscal year 2007 -2008 budgets and replace
anyone-time savings in their current budget allocations with permanent savings. During budget
workshops held in November and December 2007, the City Council deliberated over the proposed
budget reductions and approved a plan that reduced the City's net cost by $15.5 million. To follow is a
summary of some of the more significant budget reductions, with a focus on those budget reductions
that will have the most noticeable impacts on service delivery.
1-1170
. Reduce hours of operation at Recreation Centers - The hours of operation were reduced for
various recreation facilities in order to achieve cost savings In adjusting the hours of operation the
department attempted to close facilities when the recreation facilities had the lowest attendance.
These reductions include modified hours of operation for the fitness center at Norman Park, Otay
and Salt Creek, Salt Creek gymnasium, the Life Options and Information and Referral programs at
Norman Park Center, and Norman Park Center. The annual savings from these reductions total
$89,000.
. Contract Fire Communications Services - Contracting fire communication services from the City
of San Diego reduced expenditures by $740,000 on an annual basis. The City of San Diego
employs a true fire based computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems with capabilities that the City's
CAD was not capable of delivering The enhanced capabilities include - CAD integrated mapping,
CAD driven mobile data computer mapping, multi-fire agency operability, end user fiexibility,
resource move-up, and software enhancement capability. These enhanced capabilities will allow
the fire department to better manage existing resources. The department continues to work with
the City of San Diego to mitigate any potential loss in dispatch performance resulting from the
transition.
. Eliminate four Police Dispatchers - The elimination of these vacant positions will result in an
annual savings of approximately $363,000. Elimination of four police dispatch positions will
negatively impact efficiency at the Communications Center, increase wait times for citizens calling
for emergencies or business reasons, and may potentially result in increased overtime usage to
cover busy periods.
. Eliminate Fourth of Julyfireworks on the Bayfront- The elimination of the funding for this event
reduced expenditures in the Recreation department by $41,000. The elimination of this event will
also save staff costs in the Police Department and Public Works Department.
. Eliminate Graffiti Removal Contract - The elimination of this contract will reduce expenditures in
the Public Works Department by $51,500 on annual basis but will eliminate an important aspect of
the City's overall graffiti abatement efforts
. Reduce Park Maintenance staffing - the elimination of three Gardener positions from Park
Maintenance will save approximately $217,000 on annual basis. Service impacts include reducing
sport field renovations from 20% to 10% annually, turf mowed frequency reduced from weekly to
biweekly, turf weeded, edged and sprayed reduced from weekly to biweekly, and litter and trash
pickup reduced from 7 to 6 days a week.
PLJ1
"_..~...-
.
Eliminate Deputy Fire Chief - The Deputy Fire Chief position is a senior management position
responsible for providing direction and leadership of the Fire Department's support activities. This
position can act as a first responder in the event of a major emergency event to perform command
and control functions The elimination of this positio)l will leave the department with one Deputy
Fire Chief and will result in the loss of oversight and span of control over the following key
departmental support functions. Fire Communications, fire apparatus equipment readiness,
equipment and supply, emergency services/disaster preparedness, and public information services.
The annual savings from the elimination of this position is $230,000.
.
Eliminate the Police Agent from the Financial Crimes Task Force - This task force is comprised
of Federal, State, and local agencies and is coordinated by Immigration Customs Enforcement
(ICE). This task force investigates various financial crimes and narcotics based money-laundering
investigations. Removal from this task force may severely impact the department's ability to
address significant financial crimes in Chula Vista. The annual savings from the elimination of this
position is $135,000.
.
Reduce Street Maintenance staffing - the elimination of a Public Works Supervisor and a Senior
Maintenance Worker saves $198,000 on an annual basis. The elimination of one supervisor does
not affect the production level of any maintenance tasks. The elimination of a Senior Maintenance
Worker will result in the loss of one position on a work crew; sidewalk work assigned to this crew
will be reduced.
.
Eliminate the Community Relations Police Sergeant- This position has direct supervision of the
Community Relations Unit. This unit is responsible for a number of tasks that enhance the
relationship with the community, including oversight of the Senior Volunteer Patrol, coordination of
various community volunteer activities, interacting with citizens at neighborhood meetings. The
annual savings from the elimination of this position is $155,000.
.
Eliminate four Community Service Officers - The elimination of these four vacant positions will
result in an annual savings of approximately $269,000. Community Service Officers (CSO's) are
the civilian auxiliary of Community Patrol. CSO's take low level crime reports, handle vehicle
abatement, traffic control and other duties that would otherwise be directed to Peace Officers.
Reducing the number of CSO's will adversely impact the department's ability to meet GMOC
thresholds and delay routine reports to the public.
.
Reduce staffing assigned to K-9 unit - The K-9 unit is an essential component of the Community
Patrol function. This unit provides a less lethal option for officers and is essential to officer safety in
1-'72
a variety of situations. The staffing in this unit was reduced from 6 officers to 5 officers. Reducing
the number of officers in this unit will reduce the number of hours K-9 officers are available for
Community Patrol. The annual savings from this reduction is approximately $122,000.
. Eliminate One Storm Drain Crew - The elimination of a storm drain crew (Senior Maintenance
Worker and Maintenance Worker 1/11) saves $138,000 on annual basis. Staff will continue to place
an emphasis on complying with the new NPDES permit by providing regular maintenance and
cleaning of trash and debris from the City's storm drainage systems however given staffing levels
work will be prioritized.
. Eliminate Hourly Custodial Budget - The elimination of the hourly budget results in annual
savings of $226,000. This reduction significantly lowers the level of custodial and general
maintenance services in facilities citywide and impairs the department's ability to assist in the setup
and takedown of special events.
. Eliminate one Police Agent from Property Crimes Unit - A reduction in staffing in the Property
Crimes Unit will have a negative service impact to the community and solvability of property crimes.
At full staff, there are 10 detectives in this unit who handled 5,177 cases in fiscal year 2006-2007.
The annual savings from the elimination of this position is $135,000.
. Reduce Fleet Maintenance Staffing - the elimination of the Fleet Manager and two Equipment
Mechanics from Fleet Maintenance will result in annual savings of $276,000. The elimination of
these positions will result in slower turnaround times for maintenance and repair of City vehicles.
. Eliminate one Peace Officer and one Police Agent from Professional Standards Unit - The
Peace Officer assigned to the regional police academy provides oversight of Chula Vista police
recruits and ensures that organizational standards are maintained by recruits The Police Agent is
primarily responsible for recruiting qualified candidates for all positions within the police department.
The department does not anticipate placing a large number of recruits in the academy in the near
future The annual savings from the elimination of these positions is $257,000.
. Reduce Fire Prevention Unit staffing - Two vacant positions were eliminated from the Fire
Prevention Unit, a Public Education Specialist and a Fire Prevention Engineer. The savings from
the elimination of these positions totals approximately $193,000.
. Reduce Building Services staffing - Due to the slowdown in development, three Building
Inspectors and two Plans Examiners were eliminated. The elimination of these positions will save
approximately $613,000 on annual basis. The remaining staff in this unit is sufficient to address the
current workload.
HB
.
Eliminate the Police Agent from the Joint Terrorism Task Force - The Joint Terrorism Task
Force is comprised of a variety of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that share
and investigate information regarding terrorism activity in the San Diego region. With the
elimination of this position, the department will no 10l)ger have a representative on this task force.
The annual savings from the elimination of this position is $130,000.
.
Reduce Swim Program -In order to reduce expenditures the Rec Swim program will be offered on
a limited basis The program will no longer operate in Fall, Winter, and Spring and on Saturdays.
Morning and weekend lap programs will also be scaled back to reflect reduced hours of operation at
both pools. As part of these reductions the 8:00 am weekday swim lessons were eliminated due to
low attendance. The annual savings from this reduction total $31,000.
Eliminate Mail Distribution of Spotlight-The City has transitioned to an on-line news source, CV
Connect, which provides residents with the latest City news, feature stories, information on
upcoming events, conservation tips, and important links Eliminating the mail distribution of
Spotlight will result in $80,000 in annual savings.
.
.
Reduce Inspection Services staffing - As a result in the slow down of development a Public
Works Inspector, an Associate Engineer, and an hourly intern were eliminated from Inspections
Services. The elimination of these positions and their associated equipment saves $249,000 on
annual basis.
.
Eliminate Disaster Preparedness Manager - The duties assigned to this position included
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) planning and activities necessary for the management of
major emergency events, citywide and inter-agency disaster" response plans, emergency
interagency coordination and planning, community emergency response teams (CERT) recruitment
and training. The duties assigned to this position will be absorbed by existing City staff. The
annual savings from the elimination of this position is $127,000.
.
Eliminate a Sign Crew -the elimination of a two-person sign crew will save $182,000 on annual
basis. Regulatory signs will continue to be ranked highest in priority for installation and
maintenance. STOP and speed limit signs or regulatory signs mounted in or on a center median
rank number one on the sign replacement list when knock-downs occur. Given the remaining
staffing in this group, sign repairs and maintenance will be prioritized
.
Reduce Development Services Counter staffing - Due to the reduced application workload 1.5
Development Services Technician positions were eliminated from the development services
counter. An additional Development Services Technician was also eliminated as a result of closing
1....'1'4
the Eastern Permit Center. The elimination of these positions saves approximately $193,000
annually
. Reduce Animal Care Facility staffing - This reduction includes the elimination of one Animal
Control Officer and hourly staffing. These reductions yvill significantly reduce animal control patrols,
citations, investigation of animal cruelty and disturbances of peace complaints, increase response
times for urgent animal control calls for service and cause non-urgent calls for service to be
deferred or not responded to within the City of Chula Vista. Annual savings total $82,000.
. Reduce Economic Development Support Services - The elimination of funding for outside
agencies including Chula Vista Convention Visitor Center, South County Economic Development
Council, and the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation will result in savings of
approximately $109,000
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 BUDGET REDUCTIONS
In developing the fiscal year 2008-09 budget, budgetary gaps were identified in the General Fund,
development services fund, and Redevelopment Agency. In order to address the projected gaps and
develop a balanced budget, a second budget reduction process was implemented All departments
were again asked to propose budget reductions equal to 10% of their fiscal year 2008-09 base budgets.
The City Council considered the City Manager's recommendation to address the budget gap during
budget workshops held in March and April 2008. The City Council provided feedback and accepted the
City Manager's budget reduction plan on April 15th; the budget reduction plan resulted in the elimination
of 34 0 positions and reduced the budget on an ongoing basis by $10.6 million.
. Eliminate Cultural Arts Coordinator- The elimination of this position along with a reduction in the
services and supplies budget will result in annual savings of $172,000. The reduction in funding for
this program will result in the cancellation of the annual Taste of the Arts festival and a reduction in
the 2009 Music in the Parks series to six concerts offered every other week rather than 12 weekly
events. Council approved the reduction of this position to part-time as part of the December budget
reduction; this proposal reflects the complete elimination of the position.
. Eliminate the January 1,2009 salary increase for all management employees -Management
employees were scheduled to receive 4% cost of living adjustments in January 2008 and an
additional 4% in January 2009. Due to budgetary constraints both cost of living adjustments were
eliminated. The combined savings realized in fiscal year 2008-09 from eliminating these two
increases is approximately $1.4 million. This savings is equivalent to approximately 14 full-time
1..J'?5
benefited employees and has significantly helped the City avoid employee layoffs. The City Council
has authorized the City Manager to restore all or part of the January 2009 cost of living adjustment
should funding become available.
. Eliminate salary increases for unclassified hourJy employees - The preliminary fiscal year
2008-09 budget included a 4% salary increase in July (delayed from January 2008) and a 4%
salary increase in January 2009, scheduled to coincide with the CVEA salary increases. The
elimination of these salary increases will result in approximately $99,000 in savings that will help
avoid employee layoffs.
.
Eliminate operation of Chula Vista Community Youth Center- Eliminating the operation of the
Chula Vista Community Youth Center will generate approximately $84,422 on an annual basis. The
programs displaced by the implementation of this reduction may be accommodated at Parkway
Center, Lama Verde Center, or Otay Center all of which are located within a 2.5-mile radius of the
Youth Center.
.
Reduce Materials and Book Budget - The reduction of the books and materials budget in the
Library department will save $93,000 on an annual basis. Collection acquisition will be based on a
prioritized reduction plan for the ordering of materials and online databases.
.
Reduce Landscape and Construction Inspection staffing - Due to the slowdown in
development, the elimination of two Landscape Inspectors from Landscape Inspection and the
elimination of a Public Works Inspector from Construction Inspection will have little or no service
level reductions. The elimination of the Senior Civil Engineer from Construction Inspection will
require work to be reassigned to other staff in this unit. The elimination of these positions will save
approximately $490,000 on an annual basis.
.
Eliminate one Associate Planner from Advanced Planning - The elimination of this position will
result in $99,000 in annual savings. Service impacts from the elimination of this position may
include delays in the preparation and adoption of interim zoning provisions in those areas where
zoning inconsistencies were created when the General Plan Update was adopted and delays in the
completion of the comprehensive General Plan Update Implementation program.
.
Reduce ~taffing assigned to K-9 unit - The proposed reduction is to freeze a vacant peace
officer assigned to this unjt. This will further impact the number of hours K-9 officers are available
for Community Patrol. The savings from this reduction total $132,000 for fiscal year 2008-09.
.
Reduce Fire Prevention Unit staffing - The elimination of a Fire Inspector II from this unit will
result in annual savings of $42,000. The Fire Inspector II has been vacant since late October 2007
1...116
but the permanent elimination of this position may result in negative impacts to customer service,
technical quality, and timeliness of service delivery.
. Eliminate financial support for CONVIS - The City's contribution of $74,000 to CONVIS largely
funds the operation of the visitor's center at the E Street Trolley Station.
. Reorganizations - As part of the development of the budget reduction proposals departments
were asked to focus on areas of the organization that could be reorganized to create efficiencies
and eliminate management positions There are a number of reductions that fall into this category.
o Downgrade one Assistant City Manager (ACM) to Executive Assistant to the City
Manager - This reduction together with the elimination of an Assistant City Manager
approved as part of the December process will reduce the number of Assistant City
Managers positions in the City from four in fiscal year 2006-2007 to one in fiscal year 2008-
09. The City has operated with only 1 Assistant City Manager since January 2008. This
level of executive oversight seems to be working given the numerous reorganizations that
have been implemented to date. One area that has suffered is the agenda process, in
which the Assistant City Managers playa key role. For this reason, the vacant Assistant
City Manager position is being downgraded to an Executive Assistant to the City Manager.
This newly created position will be responsible for coordinating the agenda process for both
the City Council and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation. This proposal will save the
City approximately $148,000 annually.
o Police Traffic Enforcement Unit Reorganization - The implementation of this proposal
will eliminate a Traffic Safety Officer, reclassify the Special Events Agent to a Police
Sergeant, and add an hourly Special Events Specialist. The duties of the Traffic Safety
Officer will be reassigned to other traffic officers. This proposal will save $80,000 annually.
o Consolidate Budget/Grant Analysts - The fiscal year 2007 -08 budget included 11 budget
analyst and 2 grants management positions spread throughout the City's various
departments. This proposal reduces the number of positions from 13 to 10 and
consolidates these positions into two areas: 7 positions in the Office of Budget and Analysis
and 3 positions in Engineering. The analyst positions in Engineering will continue to
coordinate and administer the City's Capital Improvement Budget as well as administration
of the City's various community facility districts and infrastructure related development
impact fees The analysts moved to the Office of Budget and Analysis will provide budget
development, monitoring, and reporting services to departments on the City's operating
budget. In addition, special studies including fee analysis, cost recovery, revenue
1..1n
projections, fiscal impact modeling, staffing models, and management reviews will be
coordinated out of the Budget Office. In addition to improving the quality and consistency of
analysis across departments, this proposal will result in an annual savings of approximately
$330,000.
,
o Reorganization of Library Branch Operations - This proposal increases efficiency and
eliminates a layer of management from branch operations. The new organizational
structure will restore public hours at the Civic Center Branch from 52 to 64 hours per week,
expand Saturday hours at the Eastlake Branch by 2 hours, and restore the formal Literacy
Program. Combining service points and implementing centralized scheduling will generate
additional personnel services savings. Implementation of this proposal will result in annual
savings of approximately $370,000.
o Reorganization of the Finance Department - The reorganization of the Finance
department will result in $162,000 in savings in fiscal year 2008-09. The reorganization of
the department eliminates one position from the department and reclassifies various
positions to lower level positions. In addition to these reductions, the department eliminated
three positions as part of the December budget reductions. The elimination of staff in
Finance may result in some service impacts including - increased waiting times at the
Finance Counter and vendors experiencing longer delays in receiving payments.
.
Eliminate funding for the Third Avenue Property Based Business Improvement District
(PBID) - The City contributes $80,000 on an annual basis to the PBID, which encompasses an 8-
block area. Major property owners in this area include the City and the County of San Diego. The
Third Avenue Village Association, through the PBID, produces community events such as the Cinco
de Mayo festival and the Starlight Parade. These events may be impacted by a reduction in the
PBID's funding.
.
Increase workers compensation deductible from $500,000 to $1,000,000 - By increasing the
City's Workers' Compensation insurance deductible from $500,000 to $1M, the City will save
$140,000 in premium costs in fiscal year 2008-09. The likelihood that a claim will exceed our
current $500k deductible is slim (there have only been three claims in 30 years that have exceeded
our current $500k deductible, with only one of those exceeding the $1 M). It would only take 3 years
of premium savings to fund the additional deductible cost of a single workers compensation claim in
excess of $500,000
.
Reduce Storm Drain Staffing - The elimination of a Maintenance Worker 1/11 saves $70,000 on
1.J'f8
annual basis. This position assisted in removing trash, debris, and other pollutants from lined and
unlined storm channels and inlets and outlets that cannot be reached by equipment.
. Reduce Fleet Maintenance Staffing - the elimination of a Senior Equipment Mechanic will result
in annual savings of $99,000 in annual savings. The "limination of this position will result in slower
turnaround times for maintenance and repair of City vehicles.
. Delay the hiring of the City Clerk until January 2009 - The Assistant City Clerk is currently
serving in the capacity of Interim City Clerk and the Assistant City Clerk position has not been
backfilled. Implementation of this proposal will result in one-time salary savings of $105,800 in
fiscal year 2008-09.
1-"179
ATTACHMENT 1
FISCAL YEAR 2009-10
/
SUMMARY OF BUDGET REDUCTIONS
"""" ince 2007 the City has 90ne through several budget reduction processes in an effort to keep
,) expenditures in line with rapidly declining revenues. As discussed previously in this document, City
revenues have been severely impacted by the slowdown in development, plummeting home values, a
dramatic increase in foreclosures, and the national recession. In November 2008, staff informed the
City Council of a projected $4.0 million budget deficit for fiscal year 2008-09 that was anticipated to
grow to $20.0 million in fiscal year 2009-1 O. After a series of public meetings where Council considered
the budget reduction plan, the City Counc:il approved a mid-year budget reduction plan on January 13,
2009. The budget reduction plan reduced the City's annual net cost by $20.0 million and resulted in the
elimination of over one hundred positions. These reductions are reflected in the fiscal year 2009-10
proposed budget and impact all General Fund departments as well as the Redevelopment Agency and
Development Services Fund.
The budget reduction plan that was originally presented to Council included the elimination of 166.5
positions, however 49.0 positions were reinstated due to the elimination or deferral of the cost of living
adjustments scheduled for January 2009 and January 201 0 for the Chula Vista Employees Association,
Police Officers Association, Western Council of Engineers, International Association of Firefighters,
confidential and management employees. The plan was further amended as alternative sources of
funding, such as economic stimulus and grant funds, became available and positions were restored. In
total 1 00.5 positions were eliminated from the fiscal year 2009-1 0 proposed budget. The following table
summarizes the staffing reductions that are reflected in the fiscal year 2009-1 0 budget as well as the
staffing reductions that have been made since fiscal year 2006-07 through other budget reduction
processes by fund and department.
1'-'18-0
0-1 Staffing Ch.anges by Depai'tment/Fund
Redevelopment 14.00 (4.00) (5.00) (900) -64%
Recreation & Nature Center 43.25 (4.75) (13.50) (18.25) -42%
Planning & Building 91.50 (33.00) (5.50) (38.50) -42%
Library 68.75 (18.00) (10.50) (2850) -41%
Administration 28.00 (2.00) (9.00) (1100) -39%
Human Resources 25.50 (5.00) (450) (9.50) -37%
Engineering 74.00 (21.50) (4.00) (25.50) -34%
Finance 33.50 (8.00) (300) (11.00) -33%
ITS 2800 (4.00) (5.00) (9.00) -32%
City Attorney 14.00 (2.00) (2.00) (4.00) -29%
City Clerk 8.50 (1.00) (100) (2.00) -24%
Public Works 260.00 (18.50) (23.50) (42.00) -16%
City Council 15.00 (1.00) (1.00) (2.00) -13%
Fire 152.00 (1700) (17.00) -11%
Police 364.50 (25.00) (13.00) (38.00) -10%
Animal Shelter 22.25 (2.00) (2.00) -9%
CBAG 17.00 3.00 3.00 18%
Housing 4.00 3.00 3.00 75%
CITYWIDE TOTAL 1,263.75 (160.75) (100,50) (261.25) -21%
Notes: Staffing totals for FY 2006-07 have been adjusted to reflect current program structures. Staffing figures for Public
Works incfude 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.
The table above shows that the largest percentage reduction was made in the Redevelopment Agency
(64%). The next largest staffing reductions were made in the Recreation Department (42%), which
refiects the elimination of the Nature Center, followed by the Planning and Building/Development
Services Fund (42%) and the Library Department (41 %). The smallest staffing reductions were made
in the Animal Shelter (9%), Police (10%), and Fire (11%) departments. The Fire Department reductions
include the elimination of 11 Fire Dispatch positions. Fire dispatch services are now contracted from
the City of San Diego. Excluding the transition of Fire Dispatch, Fire Department staffing has been
reduced by 4%. The City of Chula Vista serves as a fiscal agent for the California Border Alliance
Group (CBAG), which is fully revenue offset. The increase in staffing in the Chula Vista Housing
Authority reflects the transfer of staff from the former Community Development Department.
1-J8-1
The following table summarizes the staffing reductions by bargaining unit or employee group. The
management and professional group experienced the largest percentage reduction in staffing - Senior
Managers decreased by 40%, Executive Managers decreased by 36%, Professional employees
decreased by 33%, and Middle Managers decreased by 31%. The next highest percentage reduction
was in the Chula Vista Employees' Association (CVEAl, which was reduced by 25%. CVEA is the
largest of the City's six collective bargaining units and experienced the largest reduction in the number
of positions at 154.75. The smallest percent reductions are in public safety. The Chula Vista Police
Officers' Association (POA) has been reduced by 14 positions or 6% and the International Association
of Firefighters Local 2180 (IAFF) has been reduced by one position or 1 %.
Summary of Staffing Changes by Bargaining Unit
SENIOR MANAGERS 48.00 (8.00) (11.00) (1900) -40%
EXECUTIVES 25.00 (4.00) (5.00) (9.00) -36%
PROFESSIONALS 85.50 (15.00) (13.50) (28.50) -33%
MID MANAGERS 64.00 (15.00) (5.00) (20.00) -31%
CVEA 609.25 (99.75) (55.00) ( 154.75) -25%
WCE 37.00 (7.00) (2.00) (9.00) -24%
CONF 31.00 (4.00) (2.00) (6.00) -19%
POA 247.00 (7.00) (7.00) (14.00) -6%
IAFF 112.00 (1.00) (1.00) -1%
MA YOR & COUNCIL 5.00 0%
CITYWIDE TOTAL 1,263.75 (160.75) (100.50) (261.25) -21%
A list of the 100.5 positions eliminated through this budget reduction process can be found in the
Summary of Staffing Changes section.
SUMMARY OF SERVICE IMPACTS
The development and implementation of the budget reduction plan was a major undertaking that will
have many impacts on services to the community and City operations. To follow is a summary of some
of the more significant budget reductions reflected in the fiscal year 2009-10 proposed budget. The
City's net cost were reduced by $20.0 million through the implementation of the budget reduction plan
and the deferral or elimination of the cost of living adjustments scheduled for January 2009 and January
2010 This list is not all-inclusive but is meant to highlight some of the reductions that were necessary
to balance the budget.
1....18-2
. Reduced staffing and other expenses in City Council Department - During the Council
deliberations of the budget reduction plan, City Council identified a series of changes that resulted
in a net reduction in the City Council budget - these changes included the elimination of the
Coastal and Environmental Policy Consultant and the Chief of Staff positions, the addition of a
Senior Council Assistant, and a reduction to the, dep,artment's services and supplies budget.
. Reduced Recreation Services - The budget reduction plan includes the elimination of 13.5
positions from the Recreation Department. To follow is a summary of the service impacts of these
reductions by program:
o Program Services - Eliminated diversionary programs and activities for middle school at-
risk youth, potentially resulting in increased contacts with law enforcement. Significant
reduction in public service levels at Norman Park Center; eliminated some senior and low-
income programs such as blood pressure screenings. Eliminated the Information and
Referral services at Norman Park Center, a diversified program that helped hundreds of
seniors find assistance for housing, nutritional, financial, and other issues, as well as crisis
intervention. Reduced funding in the Recreation Department also resulted in the elimination
of the Therapeutics program. 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.
Recreation centers will be closed on Sunday, with the exception of Parkway Gym, there has
also been a reduction or elimination of some drop-in and fee-free activities at recreation
centers
o Nature Center - Staff continues to work with the Friends of the Nature Center to transition
the operation of the Nature Center to a non-profit organization. The fiscal year 2009-10
budget includes limited funding to maintain operations at the Nature Center until it
transitions to a non-profit in January 2010.
o Administration - Administrative and supervisory responsibilities are being transferred to
other areas, non-core functions will be deferred, and departmental representation in
numerous community collaborative efforts will be eliminated.
1--1B'3
. Reduced Library Services - The budget reduction plan includes the elimination of 10.5 full time
benefited positions from the Library Department as well as a significant reduction in hourly
employees. These staffing reductions impact Library Operations and the STRETCH and DASH
programs, the service impacts are described below:
o Branch Operations - The reduction in staffing in Library Operations will result in reduced
hours of operation at all three branch libraries - in total, the hours of operation will be
reduced by 26 hours per week. Due to the staffing changes this service model requires, the
new hours of operation will be implemented in July 2009. In addition to reduced hours of
operation, there has also been a reduction in funding for library resources and materials.
Reduced funding also results in a significant reduction in programming, such as story times,
foreclosure workshops, arts exhibits, classical guitar performances, and film festivals. Public
outreach (community events, fliers, posters, news releases, calendars) will be limited.
o Transfer of STRETCH and DASH programs -As a result of the transfer of the STRETCH
and DASH programs to the YMCA the City will no longer operate the 7 STRETCH and 22
DASH sites. This eliminates 5.0 permanent positions and over 150 part-time hourly
employees.
i
,
I
I
I
I
.I
II
il
1\
"
!i
. Reduced Public Works Services - As part of the reorganizations put in place during fiscal year
2008-09, the Engineering Department was dissolved with most sections being merged with the
Public Works Department. This reorganization resulted in the elimination of the Director of
Engineering, an executive management position. In total, the Public Works Department (including
Engineering) staffing has been reduced by 24.5 positions. Reductions in this department include
the following:
o Construction and Repair Program - Eliminating five positions eliminates painting, stucco
and drywall repairs for City buildings. It will also delay responses to complaints and
electrical repairs (most notably those associated with exposed wiring or copper wire thefts
throughout the City).
o Traffic Signal and Street Light Program - The elimination of a position in this program
impacts preventative maintenance (PM) for traffic signals citywide. PM's benefit the City in
the long-term by reducing maintenance costs. This cut may result in a potential increase in
malfunctions of traffic signals, thereby causing traffic congestion and delays.
l....iS-4
o Street Maintenance Program - In fiscal year 2001, 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 the most current
"
reduction of three positions, five of the six staff added in fiscal year 2001 has been
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.
o Urban Forestry Program - Eliminating one position increases delays in clearing right-of-
way obstructions and other tree related concerns. Some of these impacts include
reductions in trimming, planting and root pruning of trees. Furthermore, the trimming of
young trees will be eliminated.
o Storm Drain Program - The five positions designated for elimination 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.
o NPDES Program - The eliminated Stormwater Compliance Inspector helped 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.
o Park Maintenance Program - In fiscal year 2007-08, the Parks Division had 7 gardener
positions eliminated due to budget reductions. The current budget cuts include eliminating
2 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.
o Traffic Division - This division traditionally covers about 47% of its work from various
l...:lB-5
dedicated accounts. With the most current staffing, the service impacts include a reduction
of speed surveys, 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, and sight distance.
. Reduced Police Staffing - The Police Department has made every effort to minimize the service
level impacts to the citizens of Chula Vista. Through the use of grant funds or moving officers into
task force positions that receive funding from non-general fund sources, the department has been
able to mitigate significant service impacts over the last couple of fiscal years. While these funding
sources will provide a temporary solution to the low staffing issues, long-term solutions need to be
identified to prevent further erosion to staffing levels throughout one of the City's most core
functions. In total 13.0 positions have been eliminated from the Police Department in the fiscal year
2009-10 proposed budget, with an additional 4.0 positions being frozen. Although these frozen
positions have not been eliminated from the department, the service impacts will remain since there
will be four fewer officers in the field.
The impact of the budget cuts result in moderate to significant reductions in many areas of service
including: Direct Services, Investigative Services, Police Support Services, and Community
Relations/Outreach. The Police Department is actively pursuing several grant funding opportunities
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act program from the Federal Government.
Most of these grant funds are competitive in nature and there are no assurances that Chula Vista
will receive the amount of money required to help reduce the service level impacts of the current
proposed cuts, or those that were taken in previous years.
o Direct Service - Direct service impacts include the elimination of the patrol Community
Service Officer Program. This will delay response to priority calls, 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.
By holding one of the K-9 positions vacant, the total elimination of the patrol K-9 program
has been avoided at this time. The salary savings gained as a result of freezing one of the
vacant K-9 positions will allow the Police Department to continue with a minimally staffed K-
9 presence, although there will be significant gaps in coverage which will still likely cause
increased response times and additional liability concerns. K-9's are instrumental in
resolving many situations quickly and safely because of the training of the police dog.
1.....28'6
The elimination of the Commercial Enforcement Officer will impact the department's ability
to ensure that the commercial vehicles/trucks that traverse the City are safe and abide by
motor vehicle laws. Additionally, three peace officer positions in the Patrol Division will be
frozen instead of eliminated. The effect of having three frozen positions will still impact
response times. These reductions in actual sworn staff in the field will mean longer
.. .""
response times and potentially higher overtime usage to cover minimum staffing
requirements should any increases in retirements or injuries occur in patrol.
o Investigative Services -Investigative Services will be impacted significantly. SpeCialized
detectives will be eliminated including the Computer Forensic Agent, Financial Crimes
Agent, and Auto Theft Agent. The Computer Forensic Agent handled 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 was 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 these 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.
General detectives will now review any cases involving financial crimes or auto theft.
Overall, staffing in the Investigative Services Division will be the same as it was back in the
1980's when the City's population was around 100,000 citizens. Most cases without any
suspect information will unfortunately go un investigated unless any reliable leads are found.
o Support - The fiscal year 2009-10 budget includes the elimination of 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.
There are also two juvenile programs that are contracted through South Bay Community
Services that 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 rates),
1-'8-7
these programs are essential in reducing crimes involving youth.
The Police Training Manager was originally included in the budget reduction plan but the
elimination of this position jeopardizes the departments' ability to maintain the high levels of
training that significantly reduce liability and improve officer skill levels. The department will
utilize one-time grant funds to retain this position, although these grant funds will only be
able to maintain this position for FY 2010. This position has been eliminated from the
General Fund and added to the Police Grants Fund.
The additional elimination of the Police Agent in the Backgrounds unit will result in slower
recruitment times for new officers, which could result in understaffing conditions in the Patrol
unit. This becomes critical as the officer per thousand ratio for the department continues to
drop to almost one officer per thousand residents (the lowest in San Diego County). It is
anticipated that the department will see increased response times much as it did back in
2005 when there were significant gaps between the authorized number of sworn officers
and the actual number of sworn officers in the field.
Finally, a Latent Print Examiner position has also been eliminated which will cause
significant delays in the processing of fingerprints from crime scenes. This potentially could
cause suspects to go free or s'ignificantly delay prosecution because of the long delay in the
examination of fingerprint evidence.
o Community Relations - The entire Community Relations Unit, including the supervisor
(from previous cuts in FY2008, Sergeant), Peace Officer and two civilian positions have
been eliminated from the General Fund. The Community" Relations Unit is the vital link
between the Police Department and the community. This will significantly impact the
department's ability to respond to community concerns in a timely manner. Programs such
as Neighborhood Watch, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Crime Free
Multi-family Housing Certification, and attendance at neighborhood/civic meetings will be
eliminated. Additionally, responses to inquiries regarding police services will be significantly
delayed as well as a reduction of timely information available to the news media. The use of
the Community Meeting Room will be restricted to normal operating hours as there will be
no staff available for after hours meetings. The Department is reinstating the Pia and one
Police Community Relations Specialist in the Police Grant Fund through new grant funding
from the Federal Government as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
program. This funding will only carry these positions for two years, and then the department
will need to find additionally funding or eliminate the program entirely. Despite being able to
1-.2Bi3
save these two positions, service to the community will be greatly reduced.
. Reduced Development Services - As part of the reorganizations put in place during fiscal year
2008-09, the Planning and Building Department, Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority,
Economic Development and the Development Services Fund were all put under the direction of the
Deputy City Manager/Development Services. The staffing' reductions for this group include the
elimination of 6.5 positions from the Development Services Fund, 5.0 positions from the
Redevelopment Agency, and 2.0 positions from Planning & Building. Reductions in this section
include the following:
o Redevelopment Agency - The State of California, in fiscal years 2004-2005, 2005-2006
and 2008-2009 required the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency to shift tax increment
revenues to the State Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). For fiscal year
2004-2005 and fiscal year 2005-2006, the Agency borrowed funds from the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority to make its ERAF payments. Financing the
fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 ERAF shifts was necessary to maintain funding for
ongoing redevelopment projects. To make its fiscal year 2008-2009 ERAF payment, the
Agency eliminated existing vacancies as well as delayed redevelopment and capital
improvement projects. The elimination of five positions from the Redevelopment Agency
makes a structural change that allows the Agency to handle additional ERAF shifts or
increase the loan repayment to the General Fund.
o Development Services Fund - The elimination of 6.5 positions from the Development
Services Fund negatively impacts 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 project reviews and next day inspections, providing
expeditious resolution to conflicts arising in the building plan check and inspection process,
and providing policy and code recommendations to City Council on building construction
matters (e.g Green Building standards, accessibility).
o Advanced Planning - Two positions were eliminated from the Advanced Planning division.
The loss of these positions negatively impacts 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 consistency and for sites with historic resources, timely processing of
applications for historic designations, and loss of clerical support for Advance Planning and
1-.28"9
GMOC.
o Code Enforcement - The budget reduction plan includes the transfer of one Code
Enforcement Officer from the Sign. Enforcement Program to the Residential Abandoned
Property Program resulting in the elimination of the Sign Enforcement Program.
o Reduced Economic Development funding - As part of the budget-balancing plan, the
City eliminated support to outside economic development organizations at the local,
regional and state level; including the San Diego Regional Economic Development
Corporation, San Diego Connect, and Team California. The fiscal year 2009-10 budget also
reflects a reduction in funding for the South County Economic Development Council.
Eliminating the support to these non-profits reduces or eliminates each organization's ability
and incentive to promote Chula Vista, represent the City's interests and refer business
development leads to the City.
. Reduced Administration staffing - As part of the cost cutting efforts put in place during fiscal year
2008-09 the Administration department was reorganized. The Office of Budget and Analysis and
Economic Development were transferred to the Finance and Planning and Building departments
respectively. The Administration department was further reorganized to combine Communications
into the City Manager's Office. The reorganization of the Administration Department resulted in the
elimination of two executive management positions. Excluding the transfers, 9.0 positions have
been eliminated from Administration; these reductions included the following:
o City Manager's Office - The elimination of two management positions in the City
Manager's Office resulted in the elimination of the City's legislative analysis and
governmental relations program and shifted the duties related to coordinating the agenda
process to the City Clerk's Office. One administrative support position was also eliminated
from the City Manager's Office.
o Office of Communications - As mentioned above, the Office of Communications has been
merged with the City Manager's Office. This transition allowed for the elimination of one
executive management position. The Graphic Designer was also eliminated from
Communications The reduction in staffing severely limits the City's public information and
media relations efforts, eliminates its photography, video production and virtual tour
capability. The CV Connect will be discontinued from publication and the City's website will
be updated less frequently.
1-290
.
Reduced Information Technology Services - Reduced funding for the Information Technology
Department results in the elimination of 5.0 positions and reduces the funding available for
computer replacement.
o Reduced ITS staffing - The elimination of two microcomputer/network support
professionals increases the resolution times for non-critical support issues from 1-2 days to
2-3 days on average. These positions also handled all of the network-related calls for
service from the users and responded to support calls for Police dispatch, Fire related calls
and for the Library. The elimination of one of four application support positions r'esults in
programming delays - mostly in the area of Permits Plus, Business License processing, and
custom applications for the Police Department. One of two Webmaster positions was also
eliminated; the elimination of this position delays the rollout of additional e-government
applications. The ITS department also lost its clerical support position.
o Reduced Comp.uter Replacement Funding - 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.
. Reduced Human Resources Services - The elimination of 4.5 positions in the Human Resources
department impacts the Operations, Risk Management, and Benefits divisions.
o Operations - Staff in this division has absorbed the workload of four positions cut through
previous budget reduction processes. The further reduction in staffing results in delays in
the delivery of services such as the recruitment and testing of safety and civilian positions
and delays in providing benefit and payroll support to the remaining workforce. Over the
past eight years the City has spent a significant amount of time and resources to align the
classification and compensation structure - the citywide reorganization and reassignment of
duties as a result of the 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.
o Risk Managemenf - The loss of a Senior Risk Management Specialist (Safety) results in city
and community wide impacts as it limits the City's ability to address safety issues on a
proactive preventative basis. The loss of a Senior Risk Management Specialist (Loss
Control) limits the City's ability to pursue financial restitution from parties who have
P9'1
damaged city property or who have tied up police and fire resources as a result of alcohol
related accidents. Collection efforts will be limited to insured parties only.
o Employee Benefits -The staffing reductions in this division result in delays in processing bi-
weekly payroll transactions, including benefits and MOU related matters; it also limits the
City's ability to identify and implement benefit options that could result in cost savings.
. Reduced Finance Services - Staffing reductions in the Finance Department have resulted in an
overall 33% decrease in staffing in this department. Previous reductions have impacted the
Administrative, Operations and Treasury divisions; further staffing reductions in these areas would
inhibit the City's ability to meet annual reporting deadlines and continue to be in compliance with
Federal, State, and Local financial reporting deadlines. The current reduction of 3.0 positions
impacts the Purchasing division and Accounts Payable.
o Purchasing - The elimination of the Purchasing Agent and Procurement Specialist
increases the time to review and approve contracts, issue formal bids, process requisitions,
and process payments to vendors.
o Accou nts Payable - A vacant Accounting Assistant position has also been eliminated from
the Operations division, which required the reallocation of workload to existing staff. This
shift in workload results in delays in processing vendor payments in a timely manner.
o Budget and Analysis - During fiscal year 2008-09 the Office of Budget & Analysis was
consolidated with the Finance Department, resulting in the elimination of the Director of
Budget and Analysis, an executive management position. Other staffing reductions in this
division included the elimination of the Special Projects Manager position (formerly Grants
Manager position), which negatively impacts 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 a budget analyst position negatively impacts
the quality of budget services provided to departments, the City Manager, the City Council
and Citizens.
.
Reduced City Clerk staffing - Past budget reductions 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 elimination of the Assistant City Clerk will cause
continued delays in providing these services.
1.....9-2
. Reduced City Attorney staffing - The elimination of two positions eliminates 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 eliminate the department's ability to perform non-essential projects. The downgrading
of two positions reduces the experience and exper:tise 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.
1..29~
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
,"rI!.ii
,\{{/
:$. ~ CITY OF
~ (HULA VISTA
12/16/08, Item =f-
REVIEWED BY:
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING
THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING AND IMPACT FEE
PAYW~NTPLANPROGK~~
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING' , . d
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING UILDINce:ih'
DIRECTOR OF FINANCEL(~ '
INTERIM CITY ivIANAGER ""'7-r-
4/5THS VOTE: YES 0 NO ~
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUMMARY
The City of Chula Vista requires the payment of various processing, development impact, capacity,
and in-lieu fees to ensure new development mitIgates its impact on publIc facilities. The payment of
these fees is a substantial cOIrunitment for many projects, and spreading the payment of the fees
over an extended period may assist in the development of projects. Members of the development
community have contacted the City and requested an extended payment schedule program be
considered. The proposed Ordinance represents the City's response to this request
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Cltv's Environmental Review Coordmator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
therefore, pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not
subject to CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Council approve the Ordinance establishing a Development Processing and Impact Fee Payment
Plan Program (first readmg), to t:L'<:e effect and be in full force 30 days after the second reading
and adoptlOn.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not appl1cable.
DISCUSSION
The City collects processing, development impact, capacity, and m-lieu fees from developers as
a condition of project approvaL These fimds are used to offset the City's cost of providing
V-94
12/16/08, Item~
Page 2 of 3
development review services and to finance the construction of public improvements necessary
to mitigate the subject project's impact on the City's public facilities.
The payment of processing and development fees is a substantial commitment for most
development proj ects. As a result of the current downtyrn in development and the continued
tightenmg of the credit market, the burden created by the payment of fees at building permit
issuance has increased. Local developers and the Building Industry Association (BIA) have
approached the City requesting consideration of an extended payment plan program.
In response to this request, staff has surveyed other California jurisdictions and found that
several fee deferral programs are being offered. These programs include deferral of fees to
vanOLlS project milestones, including celiitlcate of occupancy and close of escrow.
In order to help stImulate economic development and to be responsive to the needs of our
customers, staff recommends the creation of an extended payment plan program for certain
processing and development impact fees. The Ordinance provides a framework for individual
projects to enter into payment plan agreements with the City.
The program is intended as a temporary response to the current housing market slump, and as
such, will expire on December 30,2010.
General Program guidelines included in the Ordinance are described below.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING Al'lD IMPACT FEE
PAYMENT PLAN PROGRAM
The Development Processing and Impact Fee Payment Plan program allows the extended
payment of certain processing and development impact fees. Participation in the Program
requires the developer enter into an agreement with the City identifying the fees to be paid, total
fee amount due, and establishing a payment schedule for the fees (insluding initial deposit and
amount due per month and/or milestone).
The fees due are as detennined by the fee schedule in effect at the time the agreement is
executed. If the applicant fails to comply with all provisions and requirements of the Ordinance
or individual payment plan agreement, the City will adjust the development processing and
impact fees due to reflect the then current fee rates.
The maximum payment schedule is 12 months, with an optional 12 month extension at the
discretion of the City Manager or his designee. Any additional extension of the payment
schedule requires Councll approval. In no event will the fee payment schedule extend beyond
either' 1) the City's approval and signature on the final inspection card for residential
development: or 2) the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a non-residentIal
development.
All developers with projects currently submitted to the City for review and permlttmg are
eligible for the extended payment program. including residential, commercial, and industrial
projects. Those developers with current outstandmg debts with the City are not eligible for the
program until their CIty accounts are brought current, to the satisfaction ofthe Finance Director.
1-!5
12/16/08, Item~
Page 3 of 3
Applicants will not be required to submit an administrative fee to cover the cost of administering
the payment plan agreements. In addition, no interest will be charged on the fees included in the
individual payment plans. The order in which payment plan funds are applied to the various fee
programs shall be at the sole discretion of the Finance Director.
The payment schedule agreement required by the Program is non-transferrable and must be
recorded as a lien on the subject property, with the applicant responsible for all recording costs.
Upon receipt of payment in full, the City will file a release of lien.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
StatI has reviewed the decision contemplated by this actIOn and has determined that it is not site
specific and consequently the 500 foot mle found in California Code of Regulations section
18704 2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the Ordinance creates a framework for a payment program only, and therefore has
no General fund impact.
F or future payment plan agreements as authorized by the Ordinance, applicants will reimburse
the City for all costs mcurred in the preparation, execution, and recordation of the individual
project agreements, resulting m no net General fimd impact Staff costs incurred in administering
indIVidual payment plan agreements will not be recovered via a stand-alone administrative fee.
It LS antiCipated that these costs will not exceed staff tune generally spent administeling fee
programs.
Approval of individual project payment plan agreements will result m extended payment of
processll1g and development fees. Delayed receipt of fees will result in decreased interest
eammgs and may impact project constmction phasing.
A TT ACHI\IENTS
None.
Prepared b.1.'. IrLlcsema Qui/anton, ASSIstant Director ofEngll1eering. EnginN!ring Department
Ar IEngtneer'i,4 GENOA I CAS2 008 ,,/ 2~16~08\Fee Deferral Program Staff Report Rev doc
f-G6
ORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ESTABLISHING THE DEVELOPMENT ANTI PROCESSING
IMP ACT FEE PAYMENT PLAN PROGRr~I
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista (City) requires the payment of various types of
development Impact fees to help address the impacts of new development; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 1990, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2384, the City Council
established the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2384 requires that the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee be
paid before the approval by the City of the development project, or if not paid at the tIme of
approval of the final map or parcel map, the fee must be paid before the issuance of the first
budding penult for the development; and.
WHEREAS, on December 9, 1997, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2716, the City Council
establish the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2716 requires that the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin
Development Impact Fee be paid in cash upon the issuance of a building permit; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2767, the City Council
established the Otay Ranch Village I and 5 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2767 requires that the Otay Ranch Village I and 5 Pedestrian
Bndge Development Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for residential
development projects; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2003, pursuant to Ordmance No. 2898, the City Council
established the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for Otay Ranch Village 11;
and
WHEREAS, Ordll1ance No. 2898 reqLlires that the Pedestrian Bridge Development
[mpact Fee for Otay Ranch Village 11 be paid in cash upon the issLlance of a residential building
pen11lt; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 332 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the Residential
Construction Tax; and
WHEREAS, the Residential Construction Tax reqLlires that the tax be paId Llpon the
application l~)r a building permit; and
1-97
Ordinance No
Page 2
WHEREAS, Chapter 3.50 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the
Development Impact Fees to Pay for Various Public Facilities (PFDIF); and
WHEREAS, the PFDIF reqUIres that the fee be paid upon the lssuance of a building
pennit; ann
WHEREAS, Chapter 354 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the
Transportation Development Impact Fee for the Eastern Temtones of the City (TDIF) and
Chapter 3.55 of the Municipal Code establishes the Western Transportation Development Impact
Fee (WTDIF); and
WHEREAS, both the TDIF and the WTDIF tequire that the fee be paid upon the issuance
of a building penmt; and
WHEREAS, Section 13.[4090 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes the
Sewage Capacity Charge; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the payment of fees represents a substantial
financial commitment for many projects; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that establishing a payment plan for certain fees may
assist in the development of projects; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance establishes a payment plan for certain development
processing and impact tees for a specified period of time.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does ordain as follows:
SectIon 1. Environmental ReVIew
The City's EnVironmental Review Coordmator has reviewed the proposed activity for
compliance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has detennined that the
actIvity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
therefore, pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not
subject to CEQA.
Sectloll 2. Purpose
The CIty Council of the City of Chula Vista desires to encourage the constnlction of
residential and nonresidential development projects within the City. The City Council finds that
the early pavment of certain impact fees for new development creates such a barrier to such
de\ elopment and deSires, by the adoption of this Chapter, to ease such barrier by establishing a
payment plan for certain development impact fees.
2
1-98
Ordinance No.
Page J
Section 3. Definitions
"Applicant" means the owner of the real property or the developer with an approved
development project who seeks a development impact fee payment plan pursuant to this
Ordinance.
"Approved Residential Development Project" means a market rate residential development
consisting of single-family or multifamily residential units sold or rented at prevailing market
rates and free of any afford ability restrictions which has received final discretionary action by the
City and which is ll1 compliance with all environmental requirements due prior to issuance of a
building per1111t.
.'Approved Development Project" means a nonresidential development which has received
final discretIOnary action by the City and which is in compliance with all environmental
requirements due prior to issuance of a building permit.
Section 4. Development Impact Fees Subject to the Payment Plan Program
Notwithstandll1g the provisions of Chapters 3.32,3.54 and 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code and the Ordinances listed below, the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only to the
followll1g development impact fees:
(a) the Sewer Capacity Fee codified m Section 13.14.090 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code;
(b) the Residential Construction Tax codified in Chapter 3.32 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code;
(c) [he Development Impact Fees to Pay for Vanous Public Facilities codified 111 Chapter
3.50 of the Chula Vista MuniCipal Code;
(d) the Eastem Area Transportation Development Impact Fee codified in Chapter 3.54 of
the Chllla Vista Municipal Code;
(e) the West em Transportation Development Impact Fee codified in Chapter 3.55 of the
Chula Vista MuniCipal Code;
(t) the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Fee established on August 7, 1990 pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2384;
(g) the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin Development Impact Fee established on December 9,
1997, pursuant to Ord1l1ance No. 2716;
(h) the Otay Ranch Village 1 and 5 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee established
on January 5, 1999, pursuant to Ord1l1ance No. 2767; and
3
V-!lli9
OrUlOrrnce No.
P::tge 4
(l) and the Pedestnan Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for Otay Ranch Vlllage 11
establlshed on February \8,2003, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2898.
Section 5 Establishment of the De"elopment Impact Fee Payment Plan Program
la) The Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program is establtshed for those
development impact fees listed in Section 4.
(b) The Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program shall apply only to Approved
ResIdential Development Projects and Approveu Development Projects as de tined in
thls Ordinance.
(c) An Applicant may file an application with the City to request a payment plan for any or
all of those development impact fees Itsted in Section 4
(d) The Applicant shall deposit with the CIty an amount to be determmed by the City
Manager for an Approved Residential Development Project or an Approved
Development Project at the time the builuing pelmits are issued. No building pem1it
shall be issueu for an Approved Residential Development Project or an Approved
Developmem Project subject to this Ordinance unless the Applicant has paid this
deposit.
Ie) The AppLicant, and the owner of the property, If different, shall be required to enter into
an agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to the
payment plan.
I f) The maxlmum period for any payment plan pursuant to this Chapter is twelve (12)
months from the date of lssuance of building permlts. This period may be extended once
for twelve t (2) months at the discretion of the City J\;ianager. .Any additional extensions
shall be at the chscretlOn oftlte Clty Council.
(g) All fees subject to the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program shall be paid in
ti..lll the earlier of: (I) the City's approval and sIgnature on the final inspection card by
the Director of Planning and Building, or designee, for an Approved Residential
Development Project; or (2) the issuance of the certlficate of occupancy for an Approved
Development Project; or (3) the end of the maximum period described in subsection (f)
of this Section S.
Section 6. Agreement Shall Constitute a Llen
The Appllcant and the owner of the property, if different, shall execute a Development
Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement with the City. The Agreement shall be recorded
by the Clty and shall constitute a hen against the property for the payment of the fees. The City
ManQger shall execute the Agreement on behalf of the City.
Once the obligatlon is paId in full, the City shall record a Release of the Lien.
4
11-'1''00
OrJlllance No.
Page 5
Section 7. Detennination of the Amount of Development Impact Fees
The amount of development impact fees owed by the Applicant shall be determined by the
City pursuant to the provisions outlined in the lvlunicipat Code or in the ordinances establishing
the fees. These amounts shall be llxed as of the date of the execution of the Development Impact
Fee Payment Plan Agreement by the City. The amounts of these fees shall not change as long as
the Applicant is in tLill compliance with all provisions and requirements of this Ordinance and
the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement. If, however, the Applicant fails
to comply with all the provisions and reqlllrements of this Ordmance or the Agreement, the City
may ad) ust the development impact fees to reflect the CUtTent rates for the fees.
Sectton 8. Not Transferable
The Citis approval of a Development Impact Fee Payment Plan is not transferable to any
other project, even if the Applicant is the same and the other project would qualify for the
Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program.
Section 9 Recordation Costs
The Applicant shall pay all costs of recordation of documents required pursuant to this
Ordlllance and the Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement at the execution
ofthe Development Impact Fee Payment Plan Program Agreement by the City.
Sectton 10. Expiratton of this Ordinance
Thts Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after iinal passage and shall expIre on
December 31,2010, and as of that date, is repealed.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Richard A. Hopkins
DIrector of Engineering
~-! ~ tL ~~ in-
Bart C. Miesfeld L
City Attorney
5
11-18:l1
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
cr._-.,~''ii:"~\''~-_";
~\'f:.. CITY OF
. ~) (HULA VISTA
NOVEMBER 5, 2009, ItemL
ITEM TITLE:
UPDATE OF THE CITY'S FISCAL HEALTH PLAN
RELATED TO DEBT RESTRUCTURING OPTIONS
SUBMITTED BY:
DIRECTOR OF FlNANCE/TREASURER--fll(
CITY MANAGER-?--
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO 0
REVIEWED BY:
SUMMARY
On January 20, 2009, the City Council endorsed the City Manager's "Fiscal Health Plan" which
included the review of the outstanding debt obligations to ensure that the City will continue to
meet its debt obligations and minimize the impacts to City services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that contemplating the
restructuring ofthe City's debt service is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State
CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change to the environment; therefore,
pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the actions proposed are not subject
to CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider the debt restructuring options as recommended under the Fiscal
Health Plan.
BOARDS/COMiVlISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable
f-=11 0 2
NOVEMBER 5,2009
Page 2 of9
DISCUSSION
Background
Fiscal Health Plan
In January 2009, the City Council endorsed the City Manager's "Chula Vista Fiscal Health Plan"
which provided an outline to preserve City services, mitigate the current budget issues, and
provide long-term financial stability for the City of Chula Vista. The Fiscal Health Plan is
comprised of the following major components:
1. Reduce Operating Expenditures
2. Increase Revenues
3. Economic Development and Job Creation
4. Budget Reforms
Since the development of the Fiscal Health Plan, the City has taken steps in implementing the
plan and begins to put the City back on strong financial standing. As noted above, one of the
components of the fiscal health plan was to implement budget reforms. Some of the specific
actions recommended in the short term included implementation of a zero-based budget process,
establishing cross departmental analyst support, updating the existing General Fund reserve
policy, and restructuring current debt obligations.
Evaluating the feasibility of restructuring the debt obligations is being recommended at this time
because the significant slow down in development has created a cash flow issue in the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) fund. If the restructuring of the PFDIF debt is not
pursued the General Fund would need to assume the PFDIFs debt obligation. Over the last few
years, Council has taken decisive actions to address the changing economic picture and the
impact it has on the General Fund and the services the City is able to deliver to the community.
Adding the PFDIF debt service to the General Fund would likely trigger additional program and
service reductions. For this reason, staff is recommending pursuing other alternatives.
PFDIF Program
In 1991, the City Council approved the creation of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
("PFDIF") program which would generate funds paid by new development to fund the construction
and acquisition of public facilities and equipment, using cash on hand, long-term debt fmancing, or
a combination thereof. A total of $99 million has been spent from the PFDIF program funding fire
stations, recreation centers, a library and related equipment on a cash basis. The City financed the
construction of the new Corporation Yard and the Police Facility with the debt service payments
split between the PFDIF program and the General Fund. As a result of the significant reduction in
development-related fees currently being collected, the City is anticipating restructuring a portion of
the debt related to its PFDIF obligations. The City anticipates that this modification will provide
necessary cash flow relief to the PFDIF fund during this severe downturn in development as well as
spare the General Fund from paying the PFDIF share of the debt. Additional information on the
City's PFDlF program is included under Attachment A.
1:t-:l1l3
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Page 3 of9
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) fund's armual debt service requirement is
approximately $5.2 million. The PFDIF fund met its debt service conunitment in fiscal year 2008-
09 & 2009-10 through an interfund loan from the Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDlF)
hmd. Without the inter-fund loan the General Fund would be required to make the debt service
payments on behalf of the PFDlF fund, which would have a significant impact on the City's
General Fund. The interfund loans from the TDIF approved to date are not anticipated to impact
capital project constnrction tinting. A debt restructuring was not proposed at the time of the
approval of the inter-fund loans due to the severe challenges surrounding the financial markets.
Additional interfund loans are not recommended due to the potential to impact scheduled
transportation projects.
Due to the economic downturn over the past two years the General Fund budget has been reduced
by more than $37 million. Any added costs would have a severe impact on the City's ability to
maintain services. At this time, a moditication of the PFDlF's debt is recommended with the
objective of generating cash flow relieffor approximately three years as well as reduced armual debt
payments through 11scal year 2012-13 at which time the City's Pension Obligation Bonds (POB)
debt is paid off and the 2002 COPs are eligible for refunding.
Staff has worked with the City's Financial Advisor to review all outstanding PFDIF debt obligations
and identifY the bond issuances most appropriate for restructuring and/or refunding. Following this
review, the debt related to the Corporation Yard (2000 COP), the Police Facility (2002 COP) and
the potential to issue COPs to reimburse the PFDIF fund for expenses incurred related to the Civic
Center have been identified as viable options to provide cash flow relief to the PFDIF fund.
It should be emphasized that the intent of the restructuring is to provide the PFDIF fund with
cash flow relief for the ncxt three years, not a reduction in the total debt. This modification of
existing debt is expected to increase the PFDIF's total debt service payments by approximately
$27.6 million that includes $17.6 million in financing costs over the next 22 years. The net present
value of the financing costs is $1.6 million. The debt will be structured to allow the City the
opportunity to call bonds (payoff early) as development returns to minimize the overall debt to the
PFDIF program through build out.
Debt Restructuring Proposal
Staff is working with the City's Financial Advisor to develop a financing plan that provides the
desired cash flow reliefto the PFDIF over the next three years (FY 2011 to FY 2013).
The restructuring plan involves three steps:
1. Issue COPs to reimburse the PFDIF fund for cost incurred in completing the Civic Center
Expansion.
2. Refund the 2000 COPs (Corporation Yard) which are currently callable and may generate
armual debt service savings (cash flow savings) by extending the term of the debt out an
additional 10 years.
12-'1:tJ 4
NOVEMBER 5,2009
Page 4 of9
3. Review refinancing options related to the 2002 COPs (police Facility) before call date of
August 1,2012.
Staff is suggesting that the City implement a three-step process with the first two steps taking place
in the current tlscal year. The final step will involve the reftmding of the 2002 COP which the City
may restructure after August of 2012, when the 2002 COPs can be called (i.e. reftmded). This
three-step process should both minimize the cost of restructuring and provide a clearer outlook as to
how much the PFDlF ftmd will be able to afford in annual debt payments once the real estate
market has recovered.
Thesefinancing options are currently being reviewed by Bond Counsel to determine if they are in
compliance with federal ta.x laws. Final recommendations will be presented for Council
consideration and approval at a future City Council meeting along with final bond documents
and legal opinions.
Restructuring Summary
The City is considering issuing two series of bonds: PFDIF Reimbursement COPs and
Refunding COP Corporation Yard, which should provide the PFDlF fund with cash flow relief
through FY 2012-2013. The cash flow analysis included under Attachment B provides an
analysis of the cash flows for existing debt service obligations and the projected cash flows with
the proposed restructuring. If the City is unable to issue the Reimbursement COPs, the 2002
COPs will be included as part of the restructuring proposal which will be more expensive as
discussed below.
Step 1.
Civic Center COPs Reimbursement
Under this option the City would "reimburse" the PFDlF fund for approximately $10 million in
Phase III City Hall Improvements previously paid from PFDlF ftmds. The proceeds from the
new money issue would be available to the PFDIF fund to enable it to make debt service
payments. This option is the least costly since it allows the City to issue traditional current
interest bonds with capitalized interest on a ta'(- exempt basis. The preliminary estimated
additional debt service obligations to the PFDIF fund will be approximately $22.0 million that
includes $12.0 million in financing costs. The net present value of the financing costs is $1.8
million.
Step 2.
2000 Certificates of Participation - Corporation Yard
In October 2000, the Chula Vista Public Financing Authority (Authority) issued $25,255,000 in
2000 Certificates of Participation Series A ("2000 COPs"), to provide ftmds to improve the City's
800 Megahertz emergency communications system, improve the City's Corporation Yard, finance a
reserve account for the certificates, and pay the costs of issuance incurred in connection with the
execution and delivery of the certificates. The 2000 COPs are backed by a pledge of the City's
General Fund.
1z-j415
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Page 5 of9
The certificates mature in amounts ranging from $855,000 in 2001 to $1,790,000 in 2020. Interest
is payable semi-annually on March I and September 1, at interest rates ranging from 4.25% to
5.25%. The certificates maturing after September 1,2010, are subject to redemption at premiums
ranging from zero to 2%. The outstanding balance at October 30, 2009 is approximately $15.64
million.
Since the City needs to significantly reduce the PFDIF debt service payments over the next few
years, the term of the bonds are proposed to be extended out an additional 10 years to provide the
cash flow savings necessary to meet debt obligations. The preliminary estimated additional debt
service obligations to the PFDIF fund of approximately $5.6 million at a net present value
savings of $200,000.
Step 3.
Review Restructuring Option for 2002 Certificates of Participation - Police
Facility
In June 2002, the Chula Vista Public Financing Authority issued $60,145,000 in 2002 Certificates
of Participation ("2002 COPs") to finance the construction of the City's Police Headquarters and an
adjoining parking structure. The 2002 COPs are backed by a pledge of the City's General Fund.
The certificates mature in amounts ranging from $1,125,000 in 2005 to $3,870,000 in 2032. Interest
is payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1, at interest rates ranging from 4.50% to 5.0%.
As of October 30, 2009 the outstanding balance is approximately $54.1 million.
The 2002 COPs are not callable until 2012, but if the City is unable to issue a COP to reimburse
for the Civic Center Phase III project the City may have to look at restructuring a series of 2002
COPs prior to the call date. The restructuring would include a "window" of time to include the
principal and interest for the period 2/112010 to 8/112012. In order to create the required
"window", the City will need to fund $10.9 million in scheduled payments over the next 6 debt
service payments dates. In a new money bond issue, this is typically accomplished through the
use of capitalized interest. However, the IRS effectively prohibits the usc of capitalized interest
on refunding bonds. Therefore, the City will have to issue ta.xable COPs with capitalized interest
to pay debt service.
The additional debt service obligations to the PFDIF fund under this option would be
approximately $ 19.0 million at a net present value cost of $12.0 million. This option is more
costlv than seeking a reimbursement issuance for the Civic Center Phase III and should onlv be
considered if absolutelv necessarv.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict exists, in
that Council Member Casta.neda has property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the
property, which is the subject of this action.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMP ACT
124S16
~""'.' -'....",~......__~,"'. .<._""....."'.~.~.-'m<m".....;~.."-"~.
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Page 60f9
If the City successfully restructures the 2000 COPs by February 2010, the PFDIF fund can
realize $384,000 in cash flow savings in the current fiscal year. All costs associated with the
Financial Advisor, Bond Council, and Underwriter will be paid out of the bond issuance and not
existing reserves.
>
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of restructuring the debt will largely depend on the market conditions, interest rates,
credit rating, market demand, insurance coverage and actual structure achieved at the time the
bonds are sold.
At this time, based on assumptions regarding the market, the restructuring of the 2000 COPs will
result in a net cost of $5.6 million over the term of the debt or a net present value savings of
$200,000. The cost of issuing a COP to reimburse the PFDIF fund for the Civic Center Phase III
project would result in a net cost of $12.0 million or a net present value of $1.8 million. The
additional financing cost would also impact the PFDIF fee by approximately $375 per EDU.
The actual impacts to the fee will be determined during the next fee update which will take into
account other expenditure adjustments and changes to the planned development.
Approval of this item authorizes the Finance Director to develop restructuring options as
discussed in the report. Staff anticipates returning with financing documents requesting final
City Council consideration seeking the restructuring of the debt by the end of the calendar year.
Future restructurings may likely be necessary in order to level out the debt.
If the City does not pursue the restructuring options or is unable to successfully restructure the
debt, the General Fund will be obligated to begin making the debt service payments on behalf of
the PFDIF fund beginning in fiscal year 2010-1 1 of approximately $5.2 million annually.
Attachments
A - PFDIF Program
B - PFD1F Cash Flow Projections
Prepared by: lv/aria Kachadoorian , Director of Finance, Finance Department
lHS7
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Page 7 of9
Attachment A - PFDIF Program
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program was established in 1991. The fee
program is a cost spreading mechanism, ensuring that development mitigates its impacts on public
facilities, All development projects in the City thaf generate additional demand for services are
required to pay a PFDlF fee in conjunction with thc building pelmit process. The PFDIF program
then uses these fees to fmance the construction and acquisition of public facilities and equipment,
using cash on hand, long-term debt tinancing, or a combination thereof.
The fee program was last comprehensively updated in 2006. At that time, future program
expenditures were estimated at $250.8 million. The future cost assumed in the 2006 PFDlF Update
was a combination of debt service payments, direct project expenditures (cash on hand), capital
equipment acquisitions, and program administration. The table below swnmarizes the future PFDlF
expenditures included in the 2006 PFOIF Update by type.
PFDIF Program Future Expenditures per 2006 Update
(Millions)
Debt Service Expenditures
CIP Proj ects
Non-CIP Expenditures
Total PFDIF Expenditures
$ 132.6
$ 95.5
$ 22.7
S 250.8
The future program cost was spread over future anticipated development, including 27,320
residential units and 1,400 commercial and industrial acres. Over a 25 year period (fiscal year
2005-06 through buildout in fiscal year 2029-30) this equates to an average of over 1,000 residential
units annually.
Of the total $250 million in future expenditures included in the 2006 PFDIF Update, $132.6 million
in costs were associated with debt repayments. At that time, the residential permits paying fees
annually required to meet the PFOIF's debt obligation was estimated at approximately 600 units. In
light of the historic levels of development in the City and the signiticant number of future units to be
built in the City by fiscal year 2029-30, it was reasonable to consider this level of development
would continue in the future. The City's historic residential permit activity is illustrated in the chart
below.
Annual Residential Permits Issued*
4.000
3,500
3,000
2.500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
.....Avg 1991-2005:
._1_.I1Q_JL~!~ __....__.__.____ _ . ~
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
* 1991 through 1997 data is per calendar year; 1998 through 2009 data is per fiscal year.
12-f'O 8
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Page 8 of9
For those projects which had already been constructed, the program reflects the actual cash
expenditures or debt service obligations. For facilities not yet constructed in 2006, construction and
financing costs were estimated.
Overall, the PFDlF's funding priorities are to first meet external debt obligations, then internal debt
obligations, and finally to construct new facilities and acquire additional capital equipment.
In total, the PFDIF program reflects tax exempt financing (debt issuance) for the construction and/or
acquisition of eight facilities:
I. Corporation Yard - 2000 COP A
2. Police Facility - 2002 COP
3. 800 Megahertz Radio System - 2003 Refunding COP
4. CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) System - 2003 Refunding COP
5. Fiscal System - 2003 Refunding COP
6. Civic Center - Adamo Property Acquisition
7. Ci vie Center - Phase I
8. Civic Center - Phase II
9. Civic Center - Phase III (actually funded on a cash basis)
All other projects (either previously constructed or planned for construction) have been financed
using cash on hand. The future major facilities to be constructed were prioritized in the 2006
Update in the following order:
I. Rancho del Rey Library
2. EUC Fire Station
3. EUC Library
4. Otay Ranch Village 4 Recreation Facility
5. Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatic Facility
In order to meet its current debt obligation, the PFDlF must collect fees from approximately 700
residential units annually. As a result of the recent downturn in the development market, the City
has not issued sufficient permits to meet this annual debt obligation since fiscal year 2006-07.
Development is not anticipated to return to the levels necessary to meet the debt obligation for
possibly several years. It is therefore necessary to restructure existing PFDIF debt to reduce the
annual external debt payments in the short term, allowing time for development to recover. An
analysis showing projected cash flow for the PFDIF with and without the proposed restructuring is
included as Attachment B.
12....'UD 9
NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Page 9 of9
Attachment B - PFDIF Cash Flows
CASH FLOW - NO DEBT RESTRUCTURING
~~;,j.~~;i\W~ll!tl~~~
Beginning Cash Balance (2,280,529) (1,559,692) (5,742,751) (11,148,577)
Revenues
Loan from TD[F
Projected DIF Fee Revenue.
Total Revenues
Expenditures
External Debt Service
Repay TDIF Loan'
CIP & Non-CIP Exp.
Total Expenditures
Ending Cash Balance
5,300,581
695,794
5,996,375
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
L250,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
(5,275,538)
(5,183,059)
(5,185,826)
(1,470,000)
(5,186,023)
( 1,428,000)
(5,275,538)
(1,559,692)
(5,183,059)
(5,742,751)
(6,655,826)
(11,148,577)
(6,614,023)
( 16,262,600)
CASH FLOW - RECOMMENDED DEBT RESTRUCTURING
~~~~;r~~
Beginning Cash Balance $ (2,280,529) $ (1,175,201) $ $
Revenues
Loan from TDIF $ 5,300,581 $ $ $
Projected DIF Fee Revenue* $ 695,794 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,500,000
Civic Center Phase III Reimb2 S $ 4,268,555 $ 4,321,973 S 1,409,472
Total Revenues S 5,996,375 S 5.268,555 $ 5,571,973 S 2,909,472
Er:penditures
External Debt SerJice $ (4,891,047) $ (4,093,354) S (4,101,973) $ (4,101,443)
Repay TDIF Loanl $ $ $ (1,470,000) $ (1,428,000)
CIP & Non-CIP Exp. $ $ $ $
Total Expenditures S (4,891,047) $ (4,093,354) S (5,571,973) S (5,529,443)
Ending Cash Balance $ (1,175,201) $ $ $ (2,619,971)
*Projectedfee paying multi~famiiy units 85 120 150 180
1. Annual inter-fund loan repayments from the PFDlF fund to TDIF fund are projected at $1.4 million mlliually
beginning in fiscal year 2011-12.
2. Projected Civic Center Phase III reimbursements total $10 million. The actual reimbursement amount per year may
vary from the above estimate. All reimbursement monies will be applied to existing debt service payments through
fiscal year 20 12-13
NOTES:
Cash flow relief of approximately $13.6 million (represents 3 years of bonded debt payments) is projected to result from
the restructuring.
Cash flo\vs reflect the City's Fee Deferral Program which is expected to expire in December 31, 2010. The exception is
the EVe which is eligible to defer their DIF obligations for their entire project but payable upon occupancy.
The fmal debt payment for the City's Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) will occur in fiscal year 2011-12. After this
period, approximately 52.6 million may be available to pay the PFD[f's share of debt pa)1TIents without impacting the
City's General Fund. This option will be evaluated at the time of the bond restructuring anticipated in fiscal year 2012-
13.
12-190
I'FDIF Cash Flow - FY 2009 thru FY 2020
Beginning Available Balance
t;f~' ]~lt: rlN.G ~_sM ~tiT~~ ~,?d:~t;~~l ~~~~ci;.~~j:M~r~~;;\i_;:J.~~;':.:i:_;~f;~i'i:r:~~~~jji~2~ ~ C R~rYi,~N!;'? ~~[:~'.. Jf~t;~~~J~~,~' ;'~:;~~~';~.;~iJ~:..:c:.,~!:. .:: ;;t.;~j2:jhi!!i9~~E~ ~~!':~ ..!
I' __
$ (4,269,774) $ (873,515) $ 1,143,399 $ 727,408 $ 7,014,588 $ 2,892,510 $ 13,540,070 $ 10,615,139
REVENUES
DIF Fee Revenues $ 695,794 $ 2,004,310 $ 13,337,697 $ 21,377,419 $ 31,487,187 $ 34,761,314 $ 37,430,364 $ 26,085,410
Investment Earnings $ (168,923)
Misc I Other Revenues $ 8,040,092 $ 5,300,000
,h!}i~1ii\t: id~TO.TAG\R EVEN U ESi!\$li!'8 ;566;963r"'$~7:304;31 0~t!$11l:!,13,33 7';697<!r1$i;Jt\'2113 77;419:, 1$''';:431;487;1 8T:'!$~'4,i;.:34}7 61f31,4;'.;$ .;",,37,430,364..., hl;j:\t;;26;0 85;41 0 :
EXPENDITUHES
CIP Projects
Rancho del Rey Library
EUC Fire Station
EUC Library
OR V4 Rec Facility
OR,V4 Aquatic Facility
:: Other
~ CIP Projects Total
$
20,750,758
$
9,633,021
$ 18,795,775
$ 8,823,537
$ 10,128,202
9,633,021 $ 27,619,312 $ 10,128,202
~
$
$
472,048 $
472,048 $
11,858
11,858
$
20,750,758 $
Debt Service Payments $ 4,443,768 $ 5,275,538 $
Non CIP Expenditures $ 254,888 $
. ':i;"'lJ:~.EUOT AL 'EXPEN DITU RES1"$r,)i5i170,704i1~$1";ii5: 287 i396~jjf $W'
11,838,885 $ 13,160,175 $ 12,912,879 $ 12,519,228 $ 10,758,284 $ 9,250,777
1,914,803 $ 1,930,063 $ 1,945,628 $ 1,961,505 $ 1,977,699 $ 1,994,217
13:753 ,688;8'1$-:ii/:;15, 090;2381,,$ ,):;,,3 5:609;265},I, $ :,','):24;113,'7 54'.,[$:(',(40(-355 ;295':!i$:~;V,;~121; 3 73;196:,.
~.mi',mfili.
Anticipated Development
SFU
MFU
Commercial
Industrial
120
132
68 338 634 814 843 320
184 973 1,622 2,516 2,735 3,492
60 60 60 60 60 }>
6 86 86 86 86 86 -i
-i
}>
252 656 1,128 1,665 1,789 1,906 0
I
s::
m
z
-i
-t>
Residential Subtotal (Annual)
252
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2010 QUESTIONNAIRE
(Review Period: 7/1/08 - 6/30/09 to the Current Time and Five-Year Forecast)
FIRE I 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).
Please complete the following tables:
FIRE/EMS - Emergency Response Times
% of'AII Call
Review Period Call Volume Response wlin
7:00 Minutes
THRESHOLD 80%
FY 2009 9,363 84.0%
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%
COMPARISON
Actual Res'ponse Time Average Travel Time
for 80% of Calls,
4:46 3:01
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
performance when compared to 2003 is within the 2.5% range of expected yearly variation and. not statistically significant.
Please provide brief responses to the following:
1. During the period under review, were 80% of calls responded to within the threshold
standard of seven minutes?
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?
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:\PLANNING\GMOC\2009-1D Review Cycle\Completed Questionnaires\Fire 2010 Questionnaire.doc Page 1
1-112
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
Our current staffing has been reduced due to budget constraints and will continue to be an
issue this upcoming year; however we do not anticipate any growth that would necessitate
additional staffing. -
5. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth
for the next five years?
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 bay front, Eastern Urban Center
and University fire stations move forward.
6. Please report any significant progress in the adoption of the Fire Facility Master Plan.
A consultant has been identified and a contract is currently being written to develop a new
Fire Facility Master Plan. This work should begin in February of 201 O. One of the scopes of
the project will be to develop a plan that incorporates NFPA 1710 as the baseline standard
for response. (See attached). The new Fire Facility Master Plan should be ready for Council
to adopt by late spring of 2010.
7. Please provide comparative data on response and calls for service before and after
the transition to San Diego Dispatch.
The following information was provided on last year's GMOC questionnaire:
7/1/07 throuqh 3/3/08 (Prior to transfer of dispatching services to San Diego Dispatch):
. 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%
3/4/08 throuqh 6/30/08 (After 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\2009-10 Review Cycle\Completed Questionnaires\Fire 2010 Questionnaire.doc Page 2
1-113
The following information is for the most recent GMOC review period:
7/1/08 throuqh 6/30/09:
. Call Volume: 9363
. Average Response Time: 5:23
. Average Dispatch Time: 32 seconds
. Average Travel Time: 3:33
. % of Calls within 7.0 min.: 84%
8. What percentage of calls received were for fire services, and what percentage were
for medical emergency services?
Fire 2.0%
Medical 87.5%
Other Emergencies 10%
Other Emergencies include Overpressure Ruptures or Explosions, Hazardous Conditions
(gasoline/chemical/radioactive leak/spill), and smoke scare.
9. Should the threshold standard be modified?
Yes, the standard should be modified to match the NFPA 1710 requirements. This would
be a one (1) minute decrease in the units' response time (1minute dispatch, 1 minute
turnout, 4 minute travel). Striving to meet this national requirement will improve services to
the community and allows for better comparison to other fire departments.
The proposed new Threshold Standard: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical
units shall respond to calls throughout the City within six (6) minutes in 90% (current service
to be verified) of the cases (measured annually).
Another threshold that should be measured is the "Effective Fire Force" on all structure
fires. Currently the GMOC standard only applies to the first in response. NFPA 1710 also
measures what is called the "Effective Fire Force", which is responding 14 Firefighters
within 10 minutes (1 min dispatch, 1 min turnout, 8 min response). This EFF is based upon
the tasks needed at a working structure fire and is the National Standard as set forth by the
National Fire Protection Association.
A future threshold to evaluate would be the NFPA 1710 standard on EMS response.
Currently we measure our first in response to the standard of 7 minutes (GMOC). The
standard for the first in medical response of Basic Life Support (BLS) according to NFPA
1710 is 6 minutes. We currently only achieve this standard 62% of the time. Currently, the
City contracts our Advanced Life Support services including transport to American Medical
Response (AMR) and requires a response standard of 10 minutes 90% of the time.
According to NFPA 1710 the standard for ALS (Paramedic) is 8 minutes. Whether the Fire
Department provides the ALS service or it is contracted out the 8 minute standard should
be met.
H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2009-10 Review Cycle\Completed Questionnaires\Fire 2010 Questionnaire.doc Page 3
1-114
_'. _ _._. "'._"""O',,!!,,",...'i"\";.',~, "'~,!"~,, 3......;:;..,~>"..
10. 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 would like the principles and response criteria from NFPA 1710 to be
adopted as our GMOC threshold. Adopting the response times and developing a plan to
improve compliance with these standards would improve our capacity to meet national
standards for Fire and EMS response.
PREPARED BY:
Name: Dave Hanneman
Title: Fire Chief
Date: January 14, 2010
and
Name: Stefanie Balchak
Title: Public Safety Analyst
Date: January 14, 2010
H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2009-10 Review Cycle\Completed Questionnaires\Fire 2010 Questionnaire,doc
Page 4
1-115
RESOLUTION NO. PCM-09-24
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2010 GMOC
ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECO?v!NIENDING ACCEPTANCE BY
THE CITY COUNCIL /
WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible
for monitoring the City's threshold standards for the Growth Management Program's eleven quality
oflife indicators, and submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council;
and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2009, the City Council approved Ordinance 3148, allowing
the GMOC's 2010 Annual Report to be abbreviated, focusing on five of the Growth Management
Program's eleven quality oflife indicators, including: Fire, Fiscal, Libraries, Police and Traftic; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a
signiticant 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 March 4, 2010, the GMOC finalized its 2010 Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1,2008 through June 30, 2009, identifies
current issues in the second half of2009 and early 2010, and assesses threshold compliance concerns
looking forward over the next five years; and
WHEREAS, on April I, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public
hearing with the City Council to consider the 2010 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 20 I 0 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations
contained therein to the City Couneil for consideration;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council accept the 2010 GMOC Annual Report.
Presented by:
Gary Halbert, P.E., AlCP
Deputy City Manager!
Development Services Director
1-116
Resolution No. PCM 09-24
PASSED A.1'fD APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 1st day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NA YES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Scott Vinson, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary to the Planning Commission
1-117
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2010 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
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, on December 15,2009, the City Council approved Ordinance 3148,
allowing the GMOC's 2010 Annual Report to be abbreviated, focusing on tive of the
Growth Management Program's eleven quality of life indicators, including: Fire, Fiscal,
Libraries, Police and Traffic; 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 March 4, 20 I 0, the GMOC finalized its 2010 Annual Report; and
WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July I, 2008 through June 30,
2009, identities current issues in the second half of 2009 and early 2010, and assesses
threshold compliance concerns over the next tive years; and
WHEREAS, on April 1,2010, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public
hearing with the Planning Commission to consider the 2010 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 20 I 0 GMOC Annual Report.
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).
1-118
Presented by:
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
II
\1
Gary Halbert, AICP, PE
Deputy City Manager/
Director of Development Services
Approved as to form by:
1-119