Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/04/07 Item 1CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~~~~~ CITY OF CHULAVISTA April 7, 2011, Item~_ 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) 2011 Annual Report. Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2011 GMOC Annual Report and Recommending Acceptance by the City Council. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista Accepting the 2011 GMOC Annual Report, and Directing the City Manager to Undertake Actions Necessary to Implement Report Recommendations as Presented in the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary. SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City M ager/Director of Development Servicesi~ ~/~' ' REVIEWED BY: City Manager C 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO BACKGROUND Each year, the GMOC submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with threshold standards for the Growth Management Program's eleven quality of life indicators. The 2011 Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 2009 through 1-1 Apri17, 2011, Item Page 2 of 6 June 30, 2010; identifies current issues in the second half of 2010 and early 2011; and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years. The report discusses each threshold in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. A summary table of the GMOC's recommendations and staffs proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services 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 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 2011 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 2011 GMOC Annual Report, and recommending acceptance by the City Council; and 2) That the City Council: Adopt the Resolution accepting the 2011 GMOC Annual Report and directing the CiTy Manager to undertake actions necessary to implement report recommendations as presented in the Staff Responses and Proposed Implementing Actions Summary (Attachment 1). BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission will provide comments and recommendations at the workshop. DISCUSSION The 2011 GMOC Annual Report addresses compliance with threshold standazds for eleven quality of life indicators covered in the City's Growth Management Program. The effects from growth have been minimal in recent years, due to the decline in the issuance of building permits. For the GMOC's 2009/10 review cycle, covered by the 2011 Annual Report, 534 building permits were projected; 518 permits were actually issued. For the GMOC's next review cycle (2010/11, which will be covered by the 2012 Annual Report), 1,121 permits are projected; 354 new permits have been issued since January 1, 2011 and 96 units have been finalized. 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 information and a more detailed explanation of findings and di scus sion/recommendation s. 1-2 Apri17, 2011, Item Page 3 of 6 1. Summary of Findings The following table summarizes the GMOC's threshold compliance findings for the 201 l GMOC Annual Review, including the current (July 1, 2009 -June 30, 2010 review period, and looking forward at the potential for non-compliance between 2011 and 2015. Current and Anticipated Threshold Compliance Not In Com fiance In Com Hance Potential Future Non- Com Hance Libraries Air Quali Libraries Police, Priori II Draina e Police, Priori II Traffic Fire/EMS Traffic Fiscal Schools Schools Sewer Water 2. Summary of Key Issues Below are excerpts from the GMOC report, along with staff responses, based on Attachment 1. Thresholds Not in Compliance or With the Potential for Future Non-Comuliance 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 seven consecutive years, the threshold standard has not been met. The city's current ratio is 430 GSF of library facilities per 1,000 population, a deficit of 70 GSF per 1,000 population. For the past several years, it has been anticipated that construction of a 30,000-square-foot library in Rancho del Rey would satisfy the Libraries threshold standard. In an effort to get construction of the Rancho del Rey library completed as soon as possible, the 2009 GMOC Annual Report recommended that "City Council designate construction of the Rancho del Rey library branch the top priority of the five remaining Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) projects:' To date, PFDIF projects have not been formally prioritized, and City staff estimates that construction funds for the library may not be available for ten more years. Recognizing the PFDIF funding shortage, the 2010 GMOC Annual Report recommended that 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." The Library Director has continued to seek interim alternatives to afull-service location on the east side of Interstate 805. The GMOC is supportive of a conceptual proposal from Otay Ranch Town Center to convert an empty retail space into a small branch library of approximately 3,400 square feet, and to allow the City to use the space, rent-free, for a period of 3 to 5 years. The 2011 GMOC Annual Report recommends that Council and Library staff continue to pursue interim and/or long-term solutions to bring the library system into conformance. 1-3 Apri17, 2011, Item Page 4 of 6 Staff Response: The Library is in the fanal stages of completing a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bringing the library system into conformance. The plan is expected to be brought to City Council in May 2011. 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 is the thirteenth consecutive yeaz that the threshold has not been met; the average response time of 9 minutes and 55 seconds for all of the Priority II calls was higher than the previous two years, and the percentage of calls responded to in 7 minutes (49.8%) was lower. The 2010 GMOC Annual Report recommended that modification of the Priority II threshold standazd may be appropriate, and should be considered during the top-to-bottom review, focusing on the most important Priority II calls. In anticipation of the top-to-bottom discussions, the Police Department began doing research on the origins of the city's Priority II threshold standazd and how it compares to standards in other police departrnents. They have indicated that further research needs to be conducted before they can determine any recommended changes to the Priority II threshold standard. The 2011 Annual Report recommends that the City Council direct the Police Department to gather and provide the GMOC with historical, statistical and any other necessary information regarding the PrioriTy II threshold standard in time to support the GMOC's review of the standard in its top-to-bottom review. Staff Response: The Police Department has been gathering the necessary historical and statistical information regarding both Priority I and Priority ZI threshold times, including survey data for the San Diego region as well as approximately 30 similar jurisdictions nation-wide, in anticipation of the GMOC's top-to-bottom review. The Police Department looks forward to continuing to work with the GMOC in assuring that there are appropriate quality of life standards for police responses to the community. Traffic The threshold standard for Traffic specifies that Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments, should be maintained, except that during peak hours a LOS "D" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. During the period under review, Heritage Road, southbound from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, did not meet the threshold standard, exceeding LOS "D" for four hours during peak hours. During the previous review period, it was in compliance, but the northbound segment was out of compliance. This year, the northbound segment came into compliance afrer some of the compliance solutions were implemented. City traffic engineers also identified some congestion on Olympic Parkway; specifically, westbound Olympic Parkway from east of Brandywine Avenue to Oleander Avenue near Interstate 805, which was registering at LOS "E" in the mornings. Staff attributes some of this condition to the low levels of usage of SR-125 because of toll aversion, which has caused motorists to use Olympic Parkway to a greater degree. To remedy the situation, engineers recommend, in the short-term, increasing the storage length of westbound Olympic Parkway to the southbound Brandywine Avenue left turn pocket so that the left turning traffic does not block 4 1-4 Apri17, 2011, Item Page 5 of 6 the left most westbound through lane. And long-term, Heritage Road needs to be extended from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. The 2011 Annual Report recommends that City Council: 1) Direct city engineers to implement proposed short-term solutions to the out-of-compliance southbound segment of Heritage Road approaching Olympic Parkway; 2) Direct city engineers to move in a timely fashion to establish development phasing scenarios indicating necessary construction timing for connecting Heritage Road to Main Street; and 3) [n cooperation with other agencies, implement strategies to increase usage of SR-125. Staff Response: 1) The Public Works Department concurs with the GMOC recommendation; recommendation is accepted. The department will continue to make signal-timing changes at Heritage Road/Olympic Parkway. In addition, adddtlonal short-term and long-term solutions are being pursued. First phase short-term solutions are underway while improvements will be included in FYIl/12 Capital Improvement Program. 2) The City has hired a traffic engineering consultant to conduct a traffic sensitivity assessment on current traffic conditions and will use this information for Environmental Impact Reports and Public Facilities Financing Plans being developed for pending projects in eastern Chula Vista. Other short-term improvements, including signal timing and roadway improvements, will be proposed in the FYI]/12 CIP program. Long-term solutions for the construction of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street are also being evaluated and will be implemented as quickly as possible. 3) In spite of the bankruptcy filing for the Stale Route 125 Toll Road, the City has been actively participating in all toll road matters and will continue to do so. Schools While the Chula Vista Elementary School District is currently in compliance, there is potential for non-compliance in the short-term (the next 12-18 months), as well as five yeazs from now. Sites have been identified for construction of schools in Otay Ranch Villages I1 and 2; however, state funding is unpredictable, at this time. The Sweetwater Union High School District is also in compliance; however they indicate that they will need both a new middle school and a new high school to keep pace with forecasted growth. Sweetwater Union High School District staff have indicated that construction will occur when funding becomes available. Thresholds Currently in Compliance Threshold standards were found to be in compliance for Fiscal, Fire and Emergency Services, Parks & Recreation, Sewer, Drainage, Air Quality, Water and Schools. However, the GMOC made one recommendation to Fiscal and one recommendation to Fire, as outlined below: Fiscal That, within 90 days of the date of this report, the City Council agendize for a Council meeting action to decide whether or not to adopt a PFDIF prioritization policy or other appropriate mechanism for construction or delivery of the remaining facilities in the PFD[F fund. 5 1-5 April 7, 2011, Item Page 6 of 6 Staff Response: Staff recommends that a new approval process for the construction of PFDIF facilities be implemented. This process would require that PFDIF capital projects be brought forward to Council for authorization to proceed prior to significant expenditure of project funds (project design, land acquisition, etc.). At that time, a list of other PFDIF eltgible projects would be presented to Council, along with Staff's justification for moving forward with the proposed project. Fire That City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue maintenance/replacement strategies for aging equipment that will ensure that the threshold standard will continue to be met. Staff Response: As part of the City's Fiscal Health Plan, staff is reviewing maintenance/ replacement criteria and funding strategies for aging equtpment for all City functions. An updated replacement policy and funding recommendations will be brought forward for Council consideration in FY2011-12. 3. Conclusions To assist Council in evaluating and acting upon the GMOC's recommendations, staff from departments associated with specific threshold standards reviewed the annual report's recommendations and provided responses and/or recommended implementing actions, as presented in Attachment 1. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has determined that since the GMOC Annual Report is not site specific, the 500-foot notification Wile found in California Code of Regulations Section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this action. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT As follow-up implementing actions are brought forward to the City Council beyond June 30, 2011, ongoing, fiscal analysis of these actions will be provided, as applicable. ATTACIiMENTS 1 - 201 l GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary 2 - 2011 GMOC Annual Report, including Chairperson's Cover Memo 3 - 2011 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B Prepared by Kimberly under Bie, Associate Planner, Development Services Department H~ IPLANNlNGIGMOCI20/0-20/1 Review Cyc/e44nnual Reportl4.7.11 Joint WorkshapLlgenda Statement120/ 1 Joint Workshop Agenda Statemerctdoc 1-6 2011 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY i v D n STAFF RESPONSES & GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 1. Libraries 1. Libraries 3.1.1 That City Council adopt a Library Facilities Master Plan that 3.1.1 The Library is in the final stages of completing a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and provides interim and long-term solutions to bringing the long-term solutions to bringing the library system into library system into conformance. conformance. The plan is expected to be brought to City Council in May 2011. 2. Police 2. Police 3.2.1 That City Council direct the Police Department to gather and 3.2.1 The Police Department has been gathering the provide the GMOC with historical, statistical and any other necessary historical and statistical information necessary information regarding the Priority II threshold regarding both Priority I and Priority II threshold times, standard in time to support the GMOC's review of the including survey data for the San Diego region as well standard in its top-to-bottom review. as approximately 30 similar jurisdictions nation-wide, in anticipation of the GMOC's top-to-bottom review. The Police Department looks forward to continuing to work with the GMOC in assuring that there are appropriate quality of life standards for police responses to the community. 3. Traffic 3. Traffic 3.3.1 That City Council direct city engineers to implement 3.3.1 The Public Works Department concurs with the GMOC proposed short-term solutions to the out-of-compliance recommendation; recommendation is accepted. The southbound segment of Heritage Road approaching department will continue to make signal-timing Olympic Parkway. changes at Heritage Road/Olympic Parkway. In addition, additional short-term and long-term solutions are being pursued. First phase short-term solutions are underway while improvements will be included in FY71/12 Capital Improvement Program. Page 1 of 3 2011 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY i GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF RESPONSES & PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS 3.3.2A. That City Council direct city engineers to move in a timely 3.3.2A. The City has hired a traffic engineering consultant to manner to establish development phasing scenarios conduct a traffic sensitivity assessment on current indicating necessary construction timing for connecting traffic conditions and will use this information for Heritage Road to Main Street. Environmental Impact Reports and Public Facilities Financing Plans being developed for pending projects in eastern Chula Vista. Other short-term improvements, including signal timing and roadway improvements, will be proposed in the FY11/12 CIP program. Long-term solutions for the construction of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street are also being evaluated and will be implemented as quickly as possible. B. That City Council, in cooperation with other agencies, B. In spite of the bankruptcy filing for the State Route implement strategies to increase usage of SR-125. 125 Toll Road, the City has been actively participating in all toll road matters and will continue to do so. 4. Fiscal 4. Fiscal 3.4.1 That, within 90 days of the date of this report, the City 3.4.1 Staff recommends that a new approval process for the Council agendize for a Council meeting action to decide construction of PFDIF facilities be implemented. This whether or not to adopt a PFDIF prioritization policy or process would require that PFDIF capital projects be other appropriate mechanism for construction or delivery brought forward to Council for authorization to proceed of the remaining facilities in the PFDIF fund. prior to significant expenditure of project funds (project design, land acquisition, etc.). At that time, a list of other PFDIF eligible projects would be presented to Council, along with Staffs justification for moving forward with the ro osed ro'ect. 5. Fire 8 Emeraencv Medical Services 5. Fire 8 Emeraencv Medical Services 3.5.1 That City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue 3.5.1 As part of the City's Fiscal Health Plan, staff is maintenance/replacement strategies for aging equipment reviewing maintenance/replacement criteria and that will ensure that the threshold standard will continue to funding strategies for aging equipment for all City be met. functions. An u dated re lacement olic and fundin Page 2 of 3 2011 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (GMOC) RECOMMENDATIONS /IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY STAFF RESPONSES & GMOC RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS recommendations will be brought forward for Council consideration in FY 2011-12. f Page 3 of 3 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 2011 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT Threshold Review Period 7/1/09 to 6/30/10 Apri17, 2011 Approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution No. PCM 10-20) and City Council (Resolution No. _) on April 7, 2011 Attachment 2 2011 GMOC Annual Report April 2011 1-10 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/Bonito) Ci Staff Rosemarie Rice -Management Assistant Kimberly Vander Bie -Associate Planner/Growth Management Coordinator Ed Batchelder-Advance Planning Manager City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 h ttp: llwww. ch ulavistaca. govl 1-11 GMOC Chair Cover Memo DATE: April 7, 2011 T0: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Chula Vista FROM: David Krogh, Chairman Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) SUBJECT: Executive Summary - 2011 GMOC Annual Report The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is pleased to submit its 2011 annual report for your consideration and action. This year's report constituted a full scope review, in comparison to the limited review conducted last year Upon completion of this report, the GMOC will continue working with city staff to complete the top-to-bottom review this year, and we solicit Council's support toward that end. This year's report indicates that Libraries is non-compliant for the 7`" successive year. Last year, we expressed our support for creative suggestions to remedy that through inexpensive, expedient measures, even if "construction of a facility' may not become financially feasible for a number of years. The Library Director informed us of the results of explorations that have been undertaken during the past year, and that an updated Master Plan is nearing completion. That is good; however, it is our duty to point out that we remain at 73% below compliance, with an indication of being 78-26% below by 2015. The GMOC has received news from the Library and Finance Directors that the best long-term plan may NOT include the planned Rancho Del Rey library. We encourage Council to adopt an updated Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bring the library system into conformance. The Police Priority II Threshold Standard is non-compliant for the 13'" year in a row. Last year's report commended the Police Department for accomplishing significant improvements during the previous two review cycles. There was some slight deterioration this year, and prospects for the future appear worse, due to budgetary factors. Moreover, we learned from Chief Bejarano, after his first full year on the job, that the Police Department's response times may be a poor reflection of the actual "real world time' that it takes for the police to respond, especially in the case of Priority II calls. In our top-to-bottom review, we will likely recommend adoption of more "industry standard" methods for measuring response times, which would then be comparable with most other communities. In addition, we will contemplate a more realistic and attainable threshold standard after the Police Department provides the GMOC with pertinent historical and statistical information to help us as we finish our top-to-bottom discussions regarding the Priority II threshold standard. Traffic improvements made in one problem area were offset by some deterioration in another, and a congested segment of Olympic Parkway is now requiring some attention. The GMOC supports timely city implementation of recommended short-term solutions, as well as planning a 2011 Annual Report 1 April 2011 1-12 schedule for construction of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street to help alleviate the problem. In addition, we would encourage City Council to actively work with SANDAG, which is exploring options for increasing usage of SR-125 in the wake of the owner's bankruptcy proceedings. Toll aversion seems to have more drivers opting to use Olympic Parkway, which is contributing to its congestion. We would appreciate the City Manager's and Council's support of continuing efforts to maintain performance on all the most challenging city roadway segments. In the Fiscal area, the GMOC has repeatedly made a recommendation regarding creation of a PFDIF prioritization policy, and that recommendation has not been acted upon by Council, the City Manager, or staff. This year, we are making the recommendation, once again, but this time it includes a 90-day timeframe to act. We strongly request that the City Council and City Manager carefully consider the recommendation in a timely manner. To summarize about the remaining quality of life topics: • Schools - Data indicates potential of future non-compliance for the Chula Vista Elementary School District • Fire and Emergency Services -Performance remained compliant against the threshold • Parks and Recreation, Sewer, Drainage, Water, and Air Quality, all of which were not reviewed last year, were found compliant this year I would like to thank staff members and city department managers for their time and effort, without which this year's report would not have been possible 2011 Annual Report April 2011 1-13 City of Chula Vista GMOC 2011 Annual Report Table of Contents GMOC CHAIR COVER MEMO ............................................................................ 1-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... 3 REPORT PREFACE -QUALITY OF LIFE: ABROAD OVERVIEW ............................ 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 5 1.1 Threshold Standards 5 1.2 The Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) 5 1.3 GMOC 2011 Annual Review Process 5-6 1.4 Growth Forecast 6 1.5 Report Organization 6 2.0 THRE SHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ................................................. 7 3.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE DISCUSSIONS ........................................... 8 3.1 Libraries ................................................................................... 8 3.1.1 Continued Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard 8-9 3.1.2 Library Facilities Master Plan Update 9-10 3.2 Police ............................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Priority I Threshold Findings 11-12 3.2.2 Non-Compliance of Priority II Threshold 12-13 3.3 Traffic ..................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard 14 3.3.2 Olympic Parkway Congestion 14-15 3.4 Fiscal ..................................................................................... 15 3.4.1 Prioritization of Projects Funded By Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) Program 15-16 3.5 Fire and Emergency Services ...................................................... 16 3.5.1 Reporting Period Consistency 16-17 3.5.2 Effects of Using San Diego Dispatch 17 3.5.3 Aging Engine Fleet 17 3.5.4 Fire Facilities Master Plan 17 3.6 Schools ................................................................................... 18 3.6.1 Potential Non-Compliance 18-19 3.7 Parks and Recreation ................................................................. 19 3.7.1 Threshold Compliance 19 3.7.2 Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan 19 3.8 Sewer ............................................................................ 20 3.8.1 Long-Term Treatment Capacity 21 3.9 Drainage .................................................................................. 21 3.9.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels 21 3.10 ................................................................. Air Quality 22 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance 22-23 3.11 Water ..................................................................................... 23 3.11.1 Meeting Water Demands 24 4.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 25 4.1 Appendix A - Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B - Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2011 Annual Report 3 April 2011 1-14 Report Preface -Quality of Life: A Broad Overview The Growth Management Oversight Commission's (GMOC) principal task is to assess the impacts of growth on the community's quality of life and to recommend corrective actions in areas where the city has the ability to act and/or can make a difference. This is an important and vital service. No other city in the region has an independent citizen body such as the GMOC to provide this kind of report card to an elected body. The GMOC takes seriously its role of monitoring the impacts of growth and reporting to the City Council. Our membership also believes that it has a responsibility to express concerns over issues that may not be part of the formal GMOC purview 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. With the city's ongoing budget challenges, the GMOC recognizes that the overall quality of life in Chula Vista has been affected. Reduced hours of operation at our libraries and recreational facilities are two glaring examples of the sacrifices the community is making. As the city strives to creatively maintain a good quality of life with reduced resources, the GMOC is encouraged by positive signs that a healthy level of growth seems to be germinating in the city, once again. 2011 Annual Report 4 April 2011 1-15 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, consisting of: 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) The Threshold Standards Policy also established the creation of the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC), a body to provide an independent, annual, citywide threshold standards compliance review. The GMOC is composed of nine council-appointed members, representing each of the city's four major geographic areas; across-section of interests, including education, environment, business, and development; and a member of the Planning Commission. 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 2011 Annual Report focuses on fiscal year July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010; 2. The second half of 2010 and beginning of 2011: 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 2011 through December 2015 is assessed for potential threshold compliance concerns. This assures that the GMOC has a future orientation. The GMOC annually distributes questionnaires to the relevant city departments and public facility and service agencies to monitor the status of threshold standards compliance. 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 standards should be considered. 1.3 GMOC 2011 Annual Review Process The GMOC held eleven meetings between October 2010 and March 2011, which were open to the public. Representatives from the city departments and public agencies associated with the threshold compliance questionnaires gave presentations to the Commission and discussed the questionnaires they had completed (attached in 2011 Annual Report April 2011 1-16 Appendix B). 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 7, 2011. 1.4 Growth Forecast The Development Services Department annually prepares aFive-Year Growth Forecast; the latest of which was issued in October 2010. The Forecast provides departments and outside agencies with an estimate of the maximum amount of residential growth anticipated over the next five years. Copies of the Forecast were distributed with the GMOC questionnaires to help the departments and agencies determine if their respective public facilities/services would be able to accommodate the forecasted growth. The Growth Forecast from November 2010 through December 2015 indicated an additional 7,056 residential units could be permitted for construction in the City over the next five years, (6,618 in the east and 438 units in the west), for an annual average of 1,324 in the east and 88 units in the west, or just over 1,411 housing units permitted per year on average, citywide. The projected units permitted per year on average, citywide, is up 110 units from last year's forecast of 1,301 units. 1.5 Report Organization The 2011 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 2011 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 2011 Annual Report 6 April 2011 1-17 2.0 THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE SUMMARY The following table indicates a summary of the GMOC's conclusions regarding threshold standards for the 2011 annual review cycle. Eight thresholds were met and three were not. 2011 THRESHOLD STAN REVIEW PERI DARD-ANNUAL REVIEW SUMMARY OD 7/1/09 THROUGH 6/30/10 Threshold Threshold Met Thres^hAe~d Not Potential of Future Non- compliance Adopt/Fund Tactics to Achieve Com liance 1. Libraries X X X 2. Police Priority I X Priority II X X X 3. Traffic X X X 4. Fiscal X 5. Fire/EMS X 6. Schools CV Elementary School District X X Sweetwater Union High School District X 7. Parks Recreation Land X Facilities X S. Sewer X 9. Drainage X 10. Air Quality X 11. Water X 2011 Annual Report April 2011 1-18 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 Continued Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard LIBRARIES Population Total Gross Square Footage of Library Facilities Gross Square Feet of Library Facilities Per 1000 Po ulation Threshold X X 500 S . Ft. 5-Year Projection (2015) 249,435 95,400 z 102,000' 382 409 12-Month Projection (12/31 /11) 237,329 102,000 430 FY 2009-10 233,692 102,000 436 FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437 FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441 FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448 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 1. If Eastlake shared use library closes 2. If Eastlake closes and Otay Ranch storefront alternative opens 3. If Eastlake remains open 2011 Annual Report 8 April 2011 1-19 Issue: For the seventh consecutive year, the city has not complied with the threshold standard of providing 500 gross square feet of library facilities per 1,000 people. Discussion: For the past several years, it has been anticipated that construction of a 30,000-square-foot library on vacant, city-owned property in Rancho del Rey would satisfy the Libraries threshold standard, and that construction of a 30,000-square-foot library in the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) would keep the threshold standard in compliance, as the city's population increases. In an effort to get construction of the Rancho del Rey library completed as soon as possible, thereby ending Libraries' non-compliance status, the 2009 GMOC Annual Report recommended that "City Council designate construction of the Rancho del Rey library branch the top priority of the five remaining PFDIF projects." To date, Council has not formally prioritized the PFDIF projects, and city management estimates that construction funds for the library may not be available for ten more years. With such dire financial predictions in regards to construction of the Rancho del Rey branch, and with new information emerging from a draft updated Libraries Facilities Master Plan (see Section 3.1.2, below), the GMOC is supportive of continued efforts to find the best solution and is open to considering any proposals for meeting the threshold standard. The 2010 GMOC Annual Report recommended that 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." Such formal action has not occurred. However, the Library Director has continued to seek interim alternatives to a full-service location on the east side of Interstate 805. Currently, there is a conceptual proposal from Otay Ranch Town Center to convert an empty retail space into a small branch library of approximately 3,400 square feet, and to allow the city to use the space, rent-free, for a period of 3 to 5 years. The GMOC supports this proposal. Recommendation:That City Council adopt a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and long-term solutions to bringing the library system into conformance. 3.1.2 Library Facilities Master Plan Update Issue: None Discussion: During this review cycle, great strides were made in updating the Library Facilities Master Plan. A draft is currently being presented to the community through various groups and meetings, and it is expected to go to Council in spring 2011. 2011 Annual Report April 2011 1-20 The main goals of the Facilities Master Plan update were to validate the existing threshold standard requiring 500 square feet of libraries per 1,000 people, to evaluate the viability of the Rancho del Rey library site, and to analyze possible interim alternatives to a full-size library on the east side of Interstate 805. According to the Master Plan, the existing threshold standard is valid. But the viability of the Rancho del Rey library site is questioned. The Master Plan recommends developing a larger library further east. "In the long term, a single new 'destination' library in east Chula Vista will be more cost-effective to build and operate than multiple smaller library branches." And, it should be located "convenient to SR-125, preferably on the east side, in order to best serve residents of this underserved area." Currently, a 30,000-square-foot library is planned for the Rancho del Rey site, and another 30,000-square-foot library is planned for a site in the Eastern Urban Center (EUC). If the draft Library Facilities Master Plan is adopted by Council, then combining the Rancho del Rey square footage with the library branch planned in the EUC may be more fiscally feasible for the city, and the threshold standard may be met sooner, since city management estimates that construction funds for the Rancho del Rey library may not be available for ten more years. 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 II Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of the Priority II urgent calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority II calls of seven minutes and thirty seconds (7.5 minutes) or less (measured annually). Threshold Finding Priority I: Compliance Priority II: Non-Compliance 2011 Annual Report 10 April 2011 1-21 Threshold Standard Percent Time Avera eTime Emergency Response 81.0% 7 minutes 5:30 min./sec. Priorit 1 Urgent Response 57.0% 7 minutes 7:30 min./sec Priorit 2 Actual Emergency Response 85.1% 7 minutes 4:28 min./sec. Priorit 1 Urgent Response 49.8% 7 minutes 9:55 min./sec. Priorit 2) 3.2.1 Priority I Threshold Findings z ' PRIORITY I CES ` Emer'~'enc' Res 'orise,a:allsFo~ Service'° ~ ~~,„? ~ t } 1` ~ ~ CallVolume ~' ~ '~ %ofCallResponses ~,Wrthm7Minutes Fa' ~~~' , ~ ~ "~„ Average ;Response ~T1me~,~ ~ 'Avera e ~ ,~,,,;_, 9 ,y, w~Daspatchr ~ 1°. Times .Threshold ; 81.0% _ v., s :5.30,.. ~.~`~ . , ., ~N/A. FY 2009-10 673 of 68,145 85.1% 4:28 N/A FY 2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26 N/A FY 2007-08 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19 N/A FY 2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59 N/A FY 2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 N/A FY 2004-05 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 N/A FY 2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 N/A FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 N/A FY 2001-02 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07 N/A FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 N/A FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 N/A CY 19993 1,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 N/A FY 1997-98 1,512 of 69,196 74.8% 5:47 N/A FY 1996-97 1,968 of 69,904 83.8% 4:52 N/A FY 1995-96 1,915 of 71,197 83.0% 4:46 NIA Issue: None 1 Officers are dispatched while in the field on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched. z All figures after FY 2000-2001 (as well as Priority II figures on the neM 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. 3 The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. 2011 Annual Report 11 April 2011 1-22 Discussion: During the period under review, the Police Department responded to 85.1% of Priority I Emergency Response calls within 7 minutes, a half percent better than last year, and 5.1 % better than the threshold standard requires. With an average response time of 4 minutes and 28 seconds, the response time was two seconds longer than last year, and is one minute and two seconds better than the threshold standard requires. 3.2.2 Non-Compliance of Priority II Threshold calls for Service ~ ~ PRIORITY II CFS Urgent Response , y ~.- ,u ~. ~~~L.4 ;...nA .... .:- .R'1~...,,~°~iry}~,_.,.^~.,'S'hl4f"'.v,.iii~a ter. d. 44!.pi. ... .4 .Ytls'~ !. t Call Volume ~ % of Ca1F Responses A~ver~age ~ "~~, Average s ~'` ` ~'~""~`"°~~ ~ * ' ~f~~ Wrthm 7 Mmutes~ ~~ }Response ~~ Dispatch ' ~~ , fi ~- , V ~;~.~ ~* .~_. ,~~ '"f vN ~ ~.~~,Time~~: Time _ ,, . " ,r,_ ,, ,:~ s,;: nYr,t~ hold Th ~. _ ~*;~,~~ ° 57 0% ~ ~" - ~ ~,,-~, r 730 = ~~ a ;`.NIA ~~ res . _,:~; „ _~-~ . : ~ ~~ ~- FY 2009-10 22,240 of 68,145 49.8% 9:55 N/A FY 2008-09 22,688 of 70,051 53.5% 9:16 N/A FY 2007-OS 23,955 of 74,192 53.1% 9:18 N/A FY 2006-07 24,407 of 74,277 43.3% 11:18 NIA FY 2005-06 24,876 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33 N/A FY 2004-05 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 N/A FY 2003-04 24,741 of 71,000 48.4% 9:50 N/A FY 2002-03 22,871 of 71,288 50.2% 9:24 N/A FY 2001-02 22,199 of 71,859 45.8% 10:04 NIA FY 2000-01 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 N/A FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 N/A CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 N/A FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 N/A FY 1996-97 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50 N/A FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38 N/A Issue: Priority II calls continue to fall short of complying with the threshold standard. Discussion: For the 13t" consecutive year, the threshold standard for Priority II - Urgent Response has not been met. After two years of significant improvements, the average response time took 39 seconds longer than last year, and the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes fell by 3.7%. The Police Department attributes the decline in performance during this review period to the fact that the patrol division experienced higher than normal on-duty injuries to sworn personnel, resulting in lower staffing levels. t Officers are dispatched while in the field on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched. z These fgures do not include responses to false alarms, beginning in FY 2002-03. 2011 Annual Report 12 April 2011 1-23 The Police Department asserts that adequate staffing levels are crucial to meeting the existing Priority II threshold standard; additional staff is needed, and the department does not anticipate having the necessary resources available for more staff in the near future, due to the city's "current budget crisis." They believe that, despite the modernization, extra training and other intermediary steps that were taken over the past 13 years to try and meet the Priority II threshold standard, "achieving the Priority II threshold was just not possible." And, "without a large increase in the number of officers in the patrol division, the department will never be able to meet the Priority II threshold, as currently stated," they report. The GMOC's 2010 Annual Report acknowledged that modification of the Priority II threshold standard might be appropriate, and recommended that this be considered during the top-to-bottom review. In anticipation of top- to-bottom discussions, the Police Department began doing research on the origins of the city's Priority II threshold standard and how it compares to the standard in other police departments. In that process, they discovered that a comparison was not possible, due to the way that other agencies calculate their response time averages. Chula Vista's Police Department currently calculates and reports its response times to the GMOC each year based upon "Route to Arrive' times, which is the time from when the call is routed from the call-taker to the dispatcher (for dispatch of an officer to the call), until the time an officer arrives on scene. Although the city of San Diego's Police Department also uses this method, all other cities in San Diego County use the "industry standard" "Received to Arrive' times, which is the time from when the call is initially received in the dispatch center to when the officer arrives on scene. Consequently, those response times are longer, and average between 12 and 13 minutes. The Police Department indicated that they have further research to conduct before they can determine what their recommended change to the Priority II threshold standard will be. Recommendation: That City Council direct the Police Department to gather and provide the GMOC with historical, statistical and any other necessary information regarding the Priority II threshold standard in time to support the GMOC's review of the standard in its top-to-bottom review. 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 "D" can occur for no more than two hours of the day. West of I-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. 2011 Annual Report 13 April 2011 1-24 Threshold Finding: Non-Compliance 3.3.1 Non-Compliance of Threshold Standard Issue: One arterial segment was non-compliant. Discussion: During the period under review, Heritage Road, southbound from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, did not meet the threshold standard, exceeding LOS "D" for more than two hours during peak hours. During the previous review period, it was in compliance, but the northbound segment was out of compliance. This year, the northbound segment complied (see table below). SEGMENT (Limits) DIR LOS 2009 LOS 2010 CHANGE Hours Hours Heritage Road NB (Telegraph Canyon Road -- D(5) E(1) C(5) D(1) -4D, -1E OI m is Parkwa Non-Compliance In Compliance Heritage Road (Telegraph Canyon Road -- SB B(1) C(5) C(2) D(4) -3C, +4D OI m is Parkwa In Compliance Non-Compliance The GMOC is pleased with the improvements that have occurred over the past several years and encourages traffic engineering to keep monitoring and finding solutions for the problem segments. Recommendation: That City Council direct city engineers to implement proposed short-term solutions to the out-of-compliance southbound segment of Heritage Road approaching Olympic Parkway. 3.3.2 Olympic Parkway Congestion Issue: LOS "E" registered on a segment of Olympic Parkway. Discussion: Traffic monitoring runs conducted after the conclusion of the reporting period (June 30, 2010) showed that westbound Olympic Parkway from east of Brandywine Avenue to Oleander Avenue near Interstate 805 was registering at Level of Service (LOS) "E" in the a.m. City engineers attribute this primarily to two conditions: 1) low levels of usage of SR-125 because of toll aversion, which has caused people to use Olympic Parkway to a greater degree; and 2) the growing need to complete the planned connection of Heritage Road south from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. City engineers report that the short-term solution to remedy the problem during the a.m. period would be to increase the storage length of westbound Olympic Parkway to the southbound Brandywine Avenue left 2011 Annual Report 14 April 2011 1-25 turn pocket so that the left turning traffic does not block the westbound through lane. The loss of one westbound through lane increases delay to the through movement. Also, additional signal loop detectors should be added at the I-805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway signals, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Improvement plans have been prepared and city engineers are currently awaiting final approval to commence the work. This work will allow Caltrans the ability to make even further traffic signal timing changes to help reduce vehicular delays approaching the interchange. While the GMOC is supportive of these short-term solutions, we emphasize the need to address the long-term solutions, which are to extend Heritage Road southbound from Olympic Parkway to Main Street, and to increase use of SR-125. Recommendation:That City Council direct city engineers to move in a timely manner to establish development phasing scenarios indicating necessary construction timing for connecting Heritage Road to Main Street. ReCOmmendation:That City Council, in cooperation with other agencies, implement strategies to increase usage of SR-125. 3.4 FISCAL Threshold Standards: 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 the GMOC's repeated recommendations that the City Council, the City Manager and Finance Department staff work together to develop a Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) prioritization policy, it appears that no action has been taken to complete the policy. 2011 Annual Report 15 April 2011 1-26 Discussion: At the Joint Workshop on June 5, 2008, some Council members commented that they would like to see a priority policy of PFDIF projects on a regular basis, and made the following suggestion 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 he funded, how they would be reported, and impacts of the expenditures." The GMOC made similar recommendations in their 2009 and 2010 annual reports, specifying "That the City Council direct the City Manager" to develop such a priority policy. Finance Department staff indicated that they intended to bring a policy to Council by the end of 2009 or 2010, but that has not occurred. Recommendation: That, within 90 days of the date of this report, the City Council agendize for a Council meeting action to decide whether or not to adopt a PFDIF prioritization policy or other appropriate mechanism for construction or delivery of the remaining facilities in the PFDIF fund. 3.5 FIRE /EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Threshold Standard: Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the city within seven (7) minutes in 80% (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.5.1 Reporting Period Consistency FIRE/EMS -Emergency Response Times Review Period Call Volume of All Call Responses W/in 7 Minutes THRESHOLD 80% FY 2010 10,296 85.0% 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-O1 7128 80.8% COMPARISON Average Response Time for 80% of Calls Average Travel Time 5:09 3:40 4:46 3:33 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 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 signifcant. 2011 Annual Report 16 April 2011 1-27 Issue: None Discussion: The Fire response time threshold standard was met during fiscal year 2010, beating it by five percent (a 1 % improvement from 2009). 3.5.2 Effects of Using San Diego Dispatch Issue: None Discussion: Since outsourcing Chula Vista's emergency dispatch system in March 2008, the percentage of calls responded to within seven minutes is approximately what it was prior to outsourcing, and at 85% is well within the 80% threshold standard. DISPATCH COMPARATIVE DATA Before and After Transition to San Diego Dispatch Average Average Average % of Calls Dates Call Response Dispatch Travel Responded Volume Time Time Time to w/in 7 Minutes FY 2009/10 10,296 6:11 20 seconds 3:40 85.0 FY 2008/09 9,363 5:23 32 seconds 3:33 84.0 3-4-08 thru 6-30-08 3,012 5:29 35 seconds 3:14 82.2 7-1-07 thru 3-3-08* 6,871 4:58 11 seconds 3:19 87.4 *Prior to transfer of dispatching services to San Diego Dispatcn on s-a-utl. 3.5.3 Aging Engine Fleet Issue: Not replacing aging fire equipment may result in longer response times. Discussion: The Fire Department reports that its aging reserve engine fleet is beginning to hinder its performance capabilities. The older reserve fleet has smaller engines, older suspension and smaller brakes, all of which may reduce their ability to respond adequately. Recommendation: That City Council direct the Fire Department to pursue maintenance/ replacement strategies for aging equipment that will ensure that the threshold standard will continue to be met. 3.5.4 Fire Facilities Master Plan Issue: None. Discussion: A draft Fire Facilities Master Plan has been completed and is currently in public review. It is expected to go to City Council for consideration by May 2011. 2011 Annual Report 17 April 2011 1-28 3.6 SCHOOLS Threshold Standard: The City of Chula Vista shall annually provide the two local school districts Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and Sweetwater Union School District (SUHSD), with a 12- 18 month forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities. 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. 4. Other relevant information the Districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. Threshold Finding: CVESD - In Compliance SUHSD - In Compliance 3.6.1 Potential Non-Compliance Issue: There is potential for the Chula Vista Elementary School District to be non-compliant in the short-term (12-18 months), as well as five years from now. Discussion: Both the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District indicate that additional facilities will be required to accommodate growth in the next five years, and that they will be constructed when funding is available. Chula Vista Elementary School District Sites have been identified for construction of schools in Otay Ranch Villages 11 and 2; however, state funding is unpredictable, at this time. In addition to the condition of the state's budget, one reason state funding has been challenging to get is because the state looks at the district as a whole when it comes to reporting capacity versus enrollment. With empty seats in schools west of I-805, it is not apparent to the state that Chula Vista needs more elementary schools in the more densely populated east side. However, State Bill SB5056 was recently passed, which will allow districts to report by the high school attendance area. Changing school boundaries has been considered by the district, as well as moving some of its portable classrooms from the west side of the city to the east. 2011 Annual Report 18 April 2011 1-29 Sweetwater Union Huth School District If forecasted population occurs according to projections, the district anticipates needing to construct both a new middle school and new high school in eastern Chula Vista within the next five years. The GMOC noted that there are some bad segments of traffic circulation patterns concentrated among school areas. In anticipation of the construction of new schools, the GMOC recommended that the district, the developer and traffic engineering work together very early on in the planning stages, before a Sectional Planning Area Plan goes through the entitlement process, to discuss where a school will be located. 3.7 PARKS 8~ RECREATION Threshold Standard: Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.7.1 Threshold Compliance Issue: None Discussion: The parkland threshold standard is in compliance, and currently exceeds the requirement for three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in eastern Chula Vista. With the opening of Mount San Miguel Community Park and All Seasons Neighborhood Park, the park supply ratio of 3.45 acres per 1,000 residents should remain for the next 12-18 months. The projected construction of parks in Otay Ranch Village Two will provide a ratio of 3.08 acres per 1,000 residents through the projected five-year growth forecast. 3.7.2 Parks 8~ Recreation Facilities Master Plan Issue: None. Discussion: A draft Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan has been completed and is currently in public review. It is expected to go to City Council for consideration in spring 2011. 2011 Annual Report 19 April 2011 1-30 3.8 SEWER Threshold Standards: 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity). 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Authority with a 12 to 18-month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecasted and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.8.1. Long-Term Treatment Capacity it SEWAGE Flowand7reatmentCapaciCy -! ~ , 4 _~, F.q £.~v ..: ...m S.Vt " s_.. , ~. zrY~aA.2t~ A,~ th.=-"~ S. r , Million Gallons per Day; 08/08 Fiscal 09N0 Ftscal Projection for Projection for 'Projection for ~ .' (MGD) ~ ~ ~'' ~' Year " ~ ,Years next 78 m~onths next 5 yeanc ! Build out ' '• ~: ~T .J.. .y „ ~.~ ~tiJ r41~3X..n er $ 5. ~.~Si 1` ti..k.=° Average 18.517 16.219 16.916** 18.542 26.2 Flow Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 'Buildout Projection based on Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005) utilizing the "Preferred Alternative" model as was adopted in the last General Plan Update. "Assumes a total of 1752 EDU's per year Issue: None. Discussion: The 5-year forecast for Chula Vista's average daily sewage flow in Million Gallons per Day (MGD) does not exceed the city's treatment capacity allotted through city contracts with the City of San Diego's Metro System. However, as reported in GMOC's 2009 Annual Report, the city has been looking at various options as possible methods for the city to meet our projected build-out sewage flow estimates. (The 2005 Wastewater 2011 Annual Report 20 April 2011 1-31 Master Plan indicated that Chula Vista would need to acquire an additional 5 MGDs of treatment capacity to facilitate the city's build-out.) A 2007 study concluded that it was feasible to construct two Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Wastewater Reclamation Plants in Chula Vista, each with a capacity to treat up to four MGD. However, with questions remaining regarding the infrastructure required to serve the project, emergency backup plans in case of power failure, and the use/disposal of recycled water generated by the plant throughout the year, city staff had further research to conduct. At this time, an additional study regarding a Chula Vista MBR plant is currently being finalized in a coordinated effort between City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District staff. The study is evaluating larger plant sizes than previous studies did, and it includes a more detailed understanding of specific plant design requirements, construction costs, recycled water demands for the region, and permitting requirements. The study results are forthcoming. While the MBR option is being considered, the city is still investigating other options for increasing sewer capacity, including the possibility of purchasing additional treatment capacity rights from the San Diego Metro System. In 2009, the California Coastal Commission issued afive-year environmental waiver to San Diego's Point Loma Treatment Plant, which does not comply with the federal Clean Water Act requirement to add secondary treatment to sewage before it is discharged into the ocean. As part of the negotiations to obtain the waiver, a major regional recycled water study was required; it is currently under way and is expected to be completed in June 2011. The city of San Diego Public Utilities Department will use the results of the recycled water study to propose what direction the Point Loma Treatment Plant should take. 3.9 DRAINAGE Threshold Standards: Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed city engineering standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the city's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet that goal. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.9.1 Maintenance of Existing Drainage Channels Issue: None. Discussion: Despite limited funding, the city has done a good job of maintaining drainage channels, concurrently staying within the confines of 2011 Annual Report 21 April 2011 1-32 environmental agencies, and once again, complying with growth management's threshold standard. 3.10 AIR QUALITY Threshold Standard: The GMOC shall be provided with an Annual Report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies, and procedures are consistent with current applicable federal, state, and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related federal and state programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.10.1 Threshold Compliance Issue: None. Discussion: The city is doing a good job of meeting environmental objectives of Chula Vista's General Plan, specifically Objective E6: "Improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants." The city's Climate Change Working Group, comprised of residents, businesses, and community representatives, is one force that is helping the city meet the objective above. Since City Council adopted the Group's recommended implementation plans for seven carbon-reducing measures in 2008, Council reconvened the Group to develop Climate Adaptation Strategies. Such strategies will help the city reduce its risks and costs from future climate change impacts, such as sea level rise, prolonged heat waves, greater local energy/water demand, and more 2011 Annual Report 22 April 2011 1-33 frequent wildfires. Based on the Climate Change Working Group's recommendations, city staff is now developing implementation plans for 11 strategies that would help "adapt" to climate change impacts, as well as reduce energy/water use and improve local air quality. The implementation plans are scheduled to be presented to City Council in April 2011 for final review and consideration. City staff has also been actively implementing and/or participating in several programs that will improve air quality, including: • South Bay Power Plant Decommissioning • Regional Electric Vehicle Project • Bike Chula Vista Project & New Bikeway Master Plan • Home Upgrade, Carbon Downgrade • Free Resource & Business Energy Evaluations (FREBE) Details on these programs are available in the Air Quality questionnaire, located in Appendix B of this report. An important component of the Growth Management Program is the requirement for larger development projects to create Air Quality Improvement Plans (AOIPs). In the past year, the City's AQIP thresholds were updated to further emphasize lower greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions through passive solar design, energy-saving landscaping strategies, and public transit/pedestrian-focused transportation networks. 3.11 WATER Threshold Standards: Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water District with a 12-18 month development forecast and request evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 2011 Annual Report 23 April 2011 1-34 Threshold Finding: In Compliance 3.11.1 Meeting Water Demands Issue: None Discussion: Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority serve the City of Chula Vista, and both report that they will be able to meet the water demands of anticipated growth over the next five years. Specific data is available in the Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority questionnaires, located in Appendix B of this report. Otay Water District The Otay Water District (OWD) has developed, and annually reviews, its Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP), which relies on growth projection data provided by SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community; it serves as a guide to reevaluate the best alternatives for providing reliable water system facilities. Integral to the annual review process is ensuring that capital improvement program projects are funded and constructed in a timely manner, and verifying that they correspond with development construction activities and water demand growth that require new or upgraded facilities. OWD's need for aten-day water supply during a San Diego County Water Authority shutdown is actively being implemented, and has been fully addressed in the WRMP and the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP), which incorporates the concepts of water storage and supply from neighboring water agencies to meet emergency and alternative water supply needs. OWD works closely with City of Chula Vista staff to ensure that the necessary planning information remains current. OWD assures that there is a reliable water supply for the City of Chula Vista's long-term growth, including from a Baja desalination plant. It intends to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands, despite inevitable challenges, such as climatological, environmental, and legal. Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater Authority has several maintenance and upgrade programs where pipelines, valves and other facilities are constantly being renewed. This allows the Authority to continue to provide service in the near- and long-term. The 2007 Water Facilities Master Plan lists almost all proposed projects and estimated costs. In addition, the Reynolds Desalination Plant expansion should be in operation by 2012-13, and the Perdue Treatment plant is being upgraded to meet new treatment standards. 2011 Annual Report 24 April 2011 1-35 4.0 Appendices 4.1 Appendix A -Growth Forecast 4.2 Appendix B -Threshold Compliance Questionnaires 2011 Annual Report 25 April 2011 1-36 October 15, 2010 City ofChu/a Vista 2010 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle ~~~~ V~rA RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST Years 201 1 Through 2015 Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 Appendix A 1-37 As a component of the city of Chula Vista's Growth Management Program, the city's Development Services Department provides annual residential growth forecasts for up to five years in the future. This year's growth forecast covers the period from November 2010 through December 2015. As part of the city's annual growth management review process, the growth forecast is 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) annually sends out the growth forecast and compliance questionnaires to city departments and service agencies, soliciting information regarding past, current and projected compliance with the quality of life threshold standards for the facilities and improvements listed above. 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. To prepare the growth forecast, the city solicits projections from developers and builders, which encompasses 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 the housing market is influenced by a variety of factors outside the city's control, and this forecast: Does not represent a goal or desired growth rate; Is what may occur given a set of assumptions listed on page 4; Is produced by the city and not necessarily endorsed by home builders; and Represents a "worst-case" or more liberal estimate to assess maximum possible effects to the city's threshold standards. Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-38 Last year's growth forecast estimated that 276 building permits would be pulled for single-family units in 2010. As of October 15, 2010, 226 permits have been pulled. For multi-family, 258 units were forecasted, and 185 have been pulled. Nearly all of the building activity continues to be in the master planned communities in eastern Chula Vista. Increased residential infill and redevelopment in western Chula Vista is currently limited, and projections do not indicate larger development projects until 2014, when 162 multi- family units are projected on Third Avenue (Creekside Vistas), and 2015, when 200 multi-family units are projected on the Bayfront. Should other projects emerge, they will be reflected in future forecasts. FORECAST SUMMARY Over the next twelve months (January -December 2011), as many as 1,107 housing units could potentially be permitted for construction in eastern Chula Vista, with 14 projected in western Chula Vista (see Figure 1). In the five-year forecast period (calendar years from 2011 through 2015), eastern Chula Vista may have as many as 6,618 housing units permitted (averaging 1,324 annually), and western Chula Vista may have as many as 438 units (averaging 88 annually). This totals 7,056 units citywide, with an annual average of approximately 1,411 housing units permitted per year (see Figure 1, Tables 1 and 2). Using more aggressive development figures in this forecast allows the city of Chula Vista to evaluate the maximum likely effect this growth will have on maintaining the quality of life, and the ability to provide concurrent development of necessary public facilities and services. 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 specific 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. 3 Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-39 Eastern Chula Vista As noted earlier, most of the growth forecasted continues to be in eastern Chula Vista, where several different companies, particularly in Otay Ranch Village 2, own property. In Otay Ranch Villages 2, 7 and 11, entitlements for the 2011 projected single- and multi-family developments have been secured by various developers, including Baldwin & Sons, JPB, KB Homes, Rosina Genpar, McMillin and Shea. Entitlements are also in place for Eastlake's Summit, Bella Lago, Rolling Hills Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. A density reduction amendment for Eastlake's Olympic Pointe (formerly Windstar) is scheduled to go to City Council in December 2010. Beyond 2011, the various planned communities have a number of projects in the processing "pipeline." Until 2013, the majority of building activity is projected to occur in Eastlake and in Otay Ranch Village 2. In 2012, permitting for McMillin's Millenia project in the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) is projected to commence, and in 2013, or possibly the beginning of 2014, building activity is projected to commence and continue for several years in Villages 8 and 10. As of December 2010, the remaining capacity for residential units that could be permitted in eastern Chula Vsta is approximately 21,660, based on the city's 2005 General Plan and Land Offer Agreement (LOA). If 6,618 units were permitted over the next five-year forecasted period, 15,042 units would remain. At that rate of growth, the capacity could potentially be built out around 2030. However, potential General Plan amendments in the future could result in additional units added to the inventory of housing units, thereby extending the build-out timeframe. Western Chula Vista Western Chula Vista has not shown significant increases in housing since the city's growth management program was instituted in the late 1980's. This situation is slowly changing, with growing interest in infill and redevelopment, and density increases through the General Plan Update and Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). Reflective of development interest in western Chula Vista, several projects have been completed there in recent years, particularly along Broadway. At this time, as shown on Table 2, 438 units are projected over the next five years, including 200 of 1,500 multi-family units that are part of the Bayfront Master Plan; a 162-unit multi-family project on Third Avenue, and several smaller projects of 25 units or less. HiStOrV 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 30 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 steadily increased from about 1,000 units to the peak 3,525 units. attributable to the onset of construction in Eastlake, Otay Ranch and issued for housing units A significant part of this is other eastern Chula Vista Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-40 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 struggling 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 3.103 persons per household. Assuming that this estimate remains valid over the next five years, and assuming a 3.01% vacancy rate, Chula Vista can expect a total population of approximately 259,812 persons by the end of 2015. This is based on the following: The California State Department of Finance (DOF) estimated Chula Vista's population on January 1, 2010 as 237,595; An additional 326 units were occupied from January 1, 2010 to November 2010; and An additional 7,056 units may be permitted between November 2010 and December 2015. 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. Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-41 Figure 1 Numtier of Untts 250 200 150 100 50 0 2011 Number of Uni[s 2000 1500 1000 500 WeStem Easte m Chula Vsta Residential Development Forecast 2011 - 2015 6 Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-42 2012 2Q13 2014 2015 Year ~ 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Yeer Figure 2 Numher ofllnae 4000 AcWal Forecast - 3,525 3500 Sam 3,id3 3000 2,fi18 ~~~~ 2250 :2000 1,656 5 7 58216] 205 ~.SQp 4,036 1,3W 1,1W id 1,iW A i,lla ~~DD 57fi S00 3z5 411 ns 2000 .2001 2002 2003 .2004 2005 2006 x007 2000 ?009 2010 2071 2072 2013 201d 2015 Year ~ Ea9em ChWa N4a ®YVeriernChula49sW Residential Units Receiving Building Permits. Issued. 20DD - 2010, and Forecast 2011 - 2025 J Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-43 Figure 3 Residential Development Forecast Map wri ~~ c~ln wsra L67 Of CIIYWIOE PAOIECR OQ creebba m:m: Qi Moss 51 CanCa © Olw Rencn ~1Aa9e2 © Miienia © olw ean<nwmei 0 aw eanan veooee ~o ornv Rnn=n v~wge la orw sancn v~wRen Qi emlbxe sommn Qi °aslbke ONmti~c Pdnte San Migusl Ranch Oi Rding VIIB RwcY ~.~ qy W tM1Ub 4HN kowtl^H - I9Y Raatl Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 1-44 Residential Development Forecast Map ioizoto -1z/zots h ti N 4 Fp. O ~€ ~x a OM N ° M ~ ~ ~ 3 ffi a~ R~ o 3 ~ Rom o:~ ~ ej ~!'r° ~ F~m ~ ~ j i ~~ P~ d~ c~ N h e n R b r E 9 a 2 P 8 'a B F d~ m v i r O O N L m 0 U H U O LL t 3 O N LL Tab/e 3 HISTORIC HOUSING AND POPULATION GROWTH CITY OP CHULA VISTA 1980 -NOVEMBER 2010 Five-Year Growth Forecast, October 2010 10 1-46 (3) Population estimates are subject to change and refinement. They assume a 3.01% vacancy rate and 3.103 persons per unit, and era estimated prior to California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, available in 207 t. (4) The annual average percentage is adjusted for the anomaly of the Mmtgomery Mnexation. Members Jim Janney, Chair Mayor, Imperial Beach - (Representing South County) SgNDA Carl Hilliard, Vice Chair - ~ DeputyMayor Del Mar - Representing North County Coastal) Jerry Jones Mayor Pro Tem, Lemon Grove (Representing Easi County) REGIONAL Sam Abed Mayor, Escondido - (Representing North County Inland) ~~~~,~~ Bill Horn Chairman, County of San Diego COMM/7TEE Jerry Sanders Mayor, City of San Diego , Alternates Alejandro SOtelo~Solis Frlday, April 1, 2011 Vice Mayor National City (Representing South County) 12 noon to 2 p.m. Le=a Heebner SANDAG Board Room Mayor, Solana Beach (Representing North County Coastal) - 4U1 B Street, 7th Floor George Gastil San DIegO Councilmember Lemon Grove (Representing East County) John Aguilera Mayor Pro Tem, Vista (Representing North County Inlantl) Pam Slater-Price Supervisor, County of San Diego ! /yGEND~1 HIGHLIGHTS Sherri Lightner Councilmember City of San Diego Advisory Members ~ • REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION Steve cnung OPTIONS U.S. Department of Defense AI Ovrom /Mary Englantl Metropolitan Transit system - • T~ansNetSMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND Mark Hlanc / Ed Gallo TDA/TiansNet BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN AND North County Transit District NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY GRANT PROGRAM PROGRESS Howard wiuiams/Dsa saxod San Diego county water Authority REPORT Louis Smith /Vacant , San Diego UniTied Port District HEALTHY WORKS PROGRAM STATUS REPORT • Laurie Berman /Bill Figge District 17 Caltrans Bill Anderson /Bill Chopyk , Regional Planning Technical working Group PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING LaVOnne Peck/Allen Lawson _ Southern California Tribal chairmen's Association y0U CAN LISTEN TO THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE Environmental Mitigation Program MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG Advisory Members Vacant/Susan Wynn U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Steve Juarez / Davitl Mayer California Department of Fish & Game MISSION STATEMENT Therese eratlford /Michelle Matson The Regional Planning Committee provides oversight far the preparation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implementation of the Regional Comprehensive P/an that is based on the local general Dave Means plans and regional plans and addresses interregional issues with surrounding counties Wildlife Conservation Board and Mexico. The components of the plan include: transportation, housing, environment Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG (shoreline, air quality, water quality, habitat), economy, borders, regional infrastructure needs and financing, and land use and design. ', San Diego Association of Governments ~ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92107-4231 (619) 699-1900 ~ Fax (619) 699-1905 ~ wwwsandag.org 1-47 ~S,AND~~ Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Regional Planning Committee on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker's Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. The Regional Planning Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda. This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under meetings on the SANDAG Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the a-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon, two working days prior to the Regional Planning Committee meeting. Any handouts, presentations, or other materia/s from the pub/ic intended for distribution at the Regiona/ P/arming Committee meeting shou/d be received by the C/erk of the Board no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905. SANDAG offices are accessib/e by pub/ic transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information. FRONT AND SECOND AVE EXIT DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO .. E3 • ~4~ C { 5 ~i ..,.1Y .~~ ~~, ~ ~---___ o SANDAG 401 8 9iAEET J SDRE B00 I - ,~ B ~REET ~.. y -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S" i . ~ M.,,. I ~ . ~.. pi m . _ i E.. CbuW ~ T/IVUEY STOP C E ~ EY ~ C~IC CHENiER/ v ROUTE 992 ells FROM.AISPABT ~'~ ~ © 6 ST. EXIT ~,,,. L -~ -~ ~ ~ r ~~~ ~ 1 B~ AD AY -- ~ _. 1-4 8 Rev osoE~ t REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE Friday, April 1, 2011 ITEM # +1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES The Regional Planning Committee is requested to review and approve the minutes from the March 4, 2011, meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a "Request to Speak" form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk if they have a handout for distribution to Committee members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item. CONSENT (3 - 4) APPROVE 3. REGIONAL HOUSING WORKING GROUP CO-CHAIR APPOINTMENT APPROVE (Susan Baldwin) The purpose of this item is to appoint a new co-chair of the Regional Housing Working Group (RHWG) to replace former Lemon Grove Councilmember Jerry Selby. Per the RHWG Charter, replacement of the co- chair is the responsibility of the RPC. Lemon Grove Councilmember Jerry Jones has agreed to serve as co-chair of the Working Group. Staff requests the RPC's approval of Councilmember Jones' appointment as co-chair of the RHWG. TION +4. FOLLOW-UP FROM LAST MEETING: SANDAG AND MILITARY INFORMATION ACRONYMS (Carolina Gregor) At its March meeting, the RPC requested a list of the acronyms the presenters used during both the SANDAG and military presentations. The lists of acronyms are attached, as requested. REPORTS (S - 7) +5. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION OPTIONS DISCUSSION (Susan Baldwin) A report on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation options forwarded by the Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG) and Regional Housing Working Group (RHWG) will be presented. The RPC will discuss the RHNA allocation options, and at its May meeting will be asked to make a recommendation to the SANDAG Board of Directors. 3 1-49 ITEM # RECOMMENDATION +6. TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND INFORMATION TDA/TransNet BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY GRANT PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT (Christine Eary) SANDAG approved the first round of Smart Growth Incentive Program projects under TransNet in May 2009, and the first round of Active Transportation Program grants in June 2009. This report provides an overview of the progress made to date by the grant recipients. +7. HEALTHY WORKS PROGRAM STATUS REPORT (Stephan Vance and INFORMATION Dr. Tracy Delaney, County Health and Human Services Agency) A status report will be provided on the Healthy Works program that SANDAG is undertaking with the County Health and Human Services Agency under its Communities Putting Prevention to Work grant. The report will focus on the pass-through grants, Active Commuter campaign, and healthy communities modeling tools. 8. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION The next meeting of the RPC is scheduled for Friday, May 6, 2011. + next to an agenda item indicates an attachment 1-50 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/09 - 6/30/10, to the Current Time, and Five Year Forecast) LIBRARIES THRESHOLD STANDARD In the area east of I-805, the City shall construct, by buildout (approximately year2030) 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. Please update the table below: LIBRARIES Population Total Gross Square Footage of Library Facilities Gross Square Feet of Library Facilities Per 1000 Po ulation Threshold X X 500 S . Ft. 5-Year Projection (2015) 249,435 95,400 z 102.000 a 382 409 12-Month Projection 12131/11 237,329 102,000 430 FY 2009-10 233,692 102,000 436 FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437 FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441 FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448 FY 2005-06 223,423 102,000 457 FY 2004-OS 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 1. If Eastlake shared use library closes 2. If Eastlake closes and Otay Ranch storefront alternative opens 3. If Eastlake remains open Appendix B 1-51 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 Current facilities and staff are not able to serve current population levels, or any projected short term growth, especially considering the reduction of staff and funding expected in January 2011. 3. Are current facilities and staff able to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No _x_ Current facilities and staff will not be able to serve the city's projected long term growth, especially considering the city's 5-year budget forecast. 4. Will new facilities and staff be required to accommodate the forecasted growth? Yes x No 5. Please complete the table below: LIBRARY USAGE TRENDS Annual Attendance Annual Circulation Guest Satisfaction FY 09/10 605,979 985,157 90%** FY 08/09 820,213 1,160,139 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% `The Library Dept eliminated its mystery shopper program in OS-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. "An in-house survey using intern labor was performed in May-August 2010. Rating factors are not identical to previous years. 6. What is the status of updating the Library Facilities Master Plan? The Library Facilities Master Plan update is in process. Contract was signed in August 2010. Two community focus group meetings were held later that month. Online and in-person user and non-user surveys have been completed and analyzed. Estimated date of completion is December 15, 2010. Main goals of the Facilities Master Plan update is to validate the .5 per capita threshold, to evaluate the viability of the Rancho del Rey library site, and to analyze possible interim alternatives to a full-size library on the east side. Page 2 1-52 7. What is the status of constructing the Rancho del Rey library? Part of the scope of the Library Facilities Master Plan is to reevaluate the viability and suitability of the Rancho Del Rey (RDR) site. City Management estimates that construction funds for the RDR library may not be available for 10 years. 8. What is the status of constructing the EUC library? Based on communication with EUC management, a public library branch remains as part of the EUC plan. The property has recently been sold to an out-of-state investment group. There currently is no time frame for commencement of construction. 9. Please provide an update on potential options for providing library services, such as leasing storefront space or setting up a mobile library. As we discussed with the GMOC last year, the library has continued to seek interim alternatives to afull-service location on the east side. In fact, just such a proposal has come into play, a conceptual proposal from Otay Ranch Town Center. They have indicated that they are willing to make a sizable infrastructure investment, between $300,000 and $400,000, to convert an empty retail space into a small branch library, of approximately 3400 square feet.. They would then offer it to us rent-free for a period of 3 to 5 years. We think this a tremendously promising option. 10. On a separate page, please provide Chula Vista Public Library Usage Measurements for 2009/2010, and include any available data for the County's Bonita-Sunnyside Branch. 11. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Please see the attached striking data concerning library use in America. study-100325.aspx Chula Vista Public Library can post equally impressing usage in these areas. • Over 155,000 people have library cards. • Our 8 meeting rooms host over 32,000 people. • Over 175,000 Internet sessions were used. • More that 75,000 people received computer instruction or one-on-one help. • We estimate that 24,000 times every year Chula Vista business owners and employees use library resources to support their small businesses. • Free wi-fi at the library was used over 23,000 times. • Over 750 people visit a Chula Vista Public Library branch every day • More than 75 get job seeking help every day. Page 3 1-53 So there is no lack of use of or need for library services. On the contrary, more people have library cards, check our materials and visit the library now than at any time during America's history. This is why we are so excited about and committed to the idea of a storefront facility in Otay Ranch Town Center, even in the face of a very uncertain city budget. Although replacing the Eastlake facility with a proposed Otay Ranch leased storefront reduces per capita square footage, the improvements in convenience, visibility, user friendliness and community interface and outreach outweigh loss of square footage. 12. What are the libraries' current and projected hours of operation? Current hours of operation are: Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Da s Hours Civic 11-8 11-8 11-8 10-6 10-6 10-2 1-5 7 51 South 11-8 11-8 11-8 10-6 10-6 10-2 Closed 6 47 Eastlake 3:30-8 Closed 3:30- 8 Closed Closed 10-4 Closed 3 15 Totals 16 113 Projected hours: Due to the fluid city budget situation, changes to projected hours are unknown at this time. PREPARED BY: Name: Betty Waznis Title: Library Director Date: 11 /10/10 Page 4 1-54 Checkouts Her Hour by Branch 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Jul Au ust Se (ember October N ovember December H fsO en Av CkOt of hf Hrs Open Av CkOt er hr HfsO en Av CkOt er hr HfsO en Av CkOt er hr HfsO en Av CkOt er hr Hours Open Av CkOt er hr Civic 186 202 187 195 177 186 135 198 165 187 135 176 South 179 160 171 154 182 169 187 166 132 150 146 131 Eastlake 59 142 71 170 60 757 71 139 54 172 51 124 424 504 429 521 419 512 393 503 351 509 332 430 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Jul Au ust Se (ember October N ovember December Hrs Open Av CkOt er hr Hrs Open Av CkOt er hr HrsO en Av CkOt er hr Hfs Open Av CkOt er hr Hfs Open Av CkOt er hr HoursO en Av CkOt er hr Civic 22a 214 22a 184 z1s 181 z3z 167 1aa 185 180 140 south zos 155 2oa 142 200 138 21s 132 1ss 148 1sa 78 Eastlake 110 122 102 109 101 119 104 118 93 100 86 120 Totals 542 491 538 435 517 438 552 416 aas 433 434 336 _..__ ,._ __ .,. ,.. _ _ ._ _ ~ ....__ .,_,.., i.. r•~.~,...,,. a ~,., ,... n..e.. i n., run. ..e. r,a u... ~r~ n,.o., i v„ ro-nt nar nrr Hni vc nncn I Av f :k( It nP.f of HOIIfS UDeI' ivic ~i...a~.. .a~ 159 .-.. .. ~ ... ... ... 206 .........~.,.. 168 .. _.._. _.. 185 ..__.__ _.. 186 _______-_- 205 171 197 168 186 186 South 164 157 164 155 173 151 180 141 164 138 182 Eastlake 61 147 60 140 70 126 52 179 66 143 65 384 510 392 480 429 481 403 517 398 467 433 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Janua Februa March A ril Ma June Hours 0 en Av CkOt per hr Hours O en v CkOt er Hours O en Av CKQt er ^ hours u en AV cKUt er n Hours ~ en r+v ~.nvi er m uwa ~. pc. Civic 216 178 200 168 228 165 224 185 220 169 224 South 200 148 184 135 208 127 '? 208 144 200 146 208 Eastlake 98 103 92 96 105 97 105 106 98 104 105 Totals 514 427 476 398 541 389 537 436 518 419 537 2009-10 Computer Use, Gate Count, New Cards & Circulation Statistics _ - - • ~ - ~~: ~~• CIVO i° . n .: ~ ~+ Sesslohs". 7,163 9,629 34.4 9 729 9,359 -3.8 9,020 8,983 -0.4 9,575 6,416 -33.0 9,052 7,261 -19.8 South Sesslons7 4,500 6 9306 7,418 -20.3 9347 8,023 -14.2 9212 811 7411 4878 4 ~U ~ -~~ 9 ~ OIVIC 39,476 28,670 -27.4 39,077 31,209 -20.1 36,554 28,142 -23.0 41,391 21,812 -47.3 30,693 24,486 -20.2 n« ou h 23,620 22,879 -3.1 24,537 21,660 -11.7 24,fi54 22,492 -8.8 27,751 23,702 -14.6 21,016 15,660 -25.5 to e' 8,647 4,304 -50.2 11,158 1,534 -86.3 9,fi08 6,387 -33.5 11,576 5,116 -55.8 10,373 4,093 -60.5 Ys em ;. 01a .. 71,743 55,853 -22.1 74,772 54,403 -27.2 70,816 57,021 -19.5 80,718 50,630 -37.3 62,082 44,239 -28.7 ~.76,~ ~.< <- .Sr` "}Y4I: G Wr'z 1*l!r + wM~'yl.'` ~,'k'^fl b5di•}14X ,&`fl4" Yd}w~. ~I Pt ^-x"~:~.'lsru},I rvtP..~~..!'-. .-.-kffi~i~$~ ?§'u"JS'~ r..n.rt V -. ~ -I I ' 965 835 -I5.2 900 818 -9.1 909 887 -2.4 999 623 -37.6 749 633 -15.5 y . ~~y `w So ~ 585 609 4.1 672 584 -13.1 705 667 -5.4 728 594 -18.4 519 388 -25.2 ~. S La Bp 872 108 -87.6 156 651 445.5 157 109 -30.6 123 92 -25.2 103 64 -37.9 „U' System ' ~d o I 2,442 1552 364 1728 2,253 30.4 1771 1,663 -b.i 1,850 1309 29.2 1371 1065 -20.9 spZ, -,. ,..~. --:.::.rte..,-d- .5.. x>>..fi;'9 ~.cs9Ri%i189fi ' , K; .....yam wiC4°4~ 74#2f~lht x&ri5'^`hl A3R..T•:Y- _-, ~.,,Je. _ 't:~ K. ..,:~.,;.. ~ at 'IVIC 60,255 44,610 -26.0 52,671 43 638 -17.1 49,179 39,024 -20.6 49,647 33,457 -32.9 44,746 36,426 -18.6 7~ South 39,626 33,312 -I5.9 35,515 30 968 -12.8 35,066 34,604 -1.3 36,038 35,117 -2.6 31,854 24,843 -22.0 ~~ e$ 17,973 12,242 -31.9 17,973 14 668 -18.4 17,294 12,543 -27.5 17,147 13,867 -19.1 14,689 12,342 -I6.0 u i";~ S sfe . 0 1 117,854 90,164 -23.5 106,159 89,274 -15.9 101 ,53 9 86,171 -IS.I 103,032 82,441 -20.0 91,289 73,611 -19.4 ~,. . `:'':E. : iteL` _- ~ ~ p 9•~1" r~F:`BlA' ~ d'.;ywa' 3yo.14a~rsN sFf+3§~3 4flt?" •rr "~~+.^4 ;r-' Aunust Artua l total 19fi0 fo r EL but 149 were regu lar patrons, 7 02 were new incoming students and 1098 were re-enter students from the last 2 years. September South Door Count eslimatetl * Octoher Civic closed for asbestos testing 10/9-10/17 ~ - ~ c - ~ - 11: 11' II' r I I1: 11 II' 11 11' I I 11' 1 1 1,• I I 8,082 6,775 -16.2 11,151 7,ifi5 -35.7 10,273 7,403 -27.9 11,823 8,584 -27.4 10,749 7fi16 -29.1 10,967 7,474 -31.9 9,589 8,106 -15.5 6,612 ?~y~ 4954 y -25.1 8513 6211 -270 7,820 5,721 -26.8 7,982 - 5,825 .. 27.0 8,461 . 6,225 .. - -26.4 8 198 5,802 ~__ -29.2 9 364 ~~~' -.Y. 6,446 -31.2 y,,, 26,983 19,420 -28.0 34,223 16,422 -52.0 37,940 2Q 112 -31.2 37,269 23,894 -35.9 36,323 29,052 -20.0 32,111 26,417 -17.7 33,007 27,843 -I5.6 13.Y66 14,696 -18.2 23,462 16,877 -28.1 21,632 19,259 -1I.0 25,350 21,382 -15.7 25,100 22,482 -I0.4 22,275 19,444 -12.7 24,950 21 fi05 -13.4 61197 3,006 -50.7 9,464 3,491 -63.1 10,027 3,728 -62.8 10,027 4,499 -55.1 11,199 4,343 -61.2 7,969 4,673 -41.4 6,738 3,583 -46.8 J 51,046 ~,r'fr 37,122 -27.3 "~'. ~' 67,149 ..... _.. ~ 36,790 W'c -45.2 :M„iT+fl 69,599 ..... 49,099 .,. -29.5 ,~. 72,646 -...,.. 49,775 -31.5 72,622 '"''' 55,877 .. ~ -23.1 ~ 62,355 50,534 -19.0 ~f$.+°m'1 64,695 ~ 53,031 H.~+~: lF -18.0 3 -,?3 575 510 -11.3 910 698 -23.3 826 693 -Ib.l 912 742 -18.6 944 742 -21.4 722 699 -3.2 879 746 -15.I 361 344 -4.7 608 567 -6.7 567 489 -13.8 578 599 3.6 623 581 -6.7 574 506 -1I.8 648 513 -20.8 38 31 -18.4 104 93 -10.6 104 80 -23.1 106 75 -30.6 88 68 -22.7 118 91 -22.9 109 83 -23.9 974 ~T'.f 865 kS~d F.Y. -9.1 1'. . «'~it 1,622 fit? '~.d4i~,~ 1,358 . ,.4 -16.3 ~ati~`NdT1P,k' 1,497 ..tl:: 1,262 -I5.7 ,^_:." 1,598 ",.AIM 7,416 .i~9 -1I.4 .,"~b1941 1,655 1,391 Y ~k31!1^.' -16.0 ~ 1,414 'iS.CF11K 1,296 *v:,4eiCi'X:. ^414~N'd.'~'Aw ,sh~..R~i^. .~-.yg4Ak' 0 d„~e'.:n'z. 33,058 28,375 -14.2 48,044 38,200 -20.5 42,986 35,783 -16.8 48,129 43,128 -10.4 48 793 39,752 -18.5 46,340 37,789 -18.5 48,013 44,637 -7.0 25,606 21,795 -14.9 36,762 30,231 -17.8 31,765 29,656 -6.6 33,888 31,290 -7.7 35,522 30,496 -14.1 31,302 2fi,997 -13.8 35,679 32,549 -8.8 9,768 8,739 -10.5 13,860 11,968 -13.7 12,504 11227 -10.2 14,918 12,654 -15.2 14,715 12,046 -I8.1 14,089 12,264 -13.0 14,525 13,336 -8.2 ''168,432 yy~.~[~~{~t 58,909 1~~.~` -13.9 YvNgf'.~+~^A 98,6~6~6 1`'~91R 80,399 :1f~t.~_, -I8.5 ~~'-. ~~ :.~- 87,92,5.5 ~~f~'v+sF..I 76,666 i~i I2sd1r ~'ri75 96,935 •.. ~.. 87,072 Wl.. 10.2 ~. 99,030 A~1 8~2.,y2y9/4 ~'r.:lID'pR® -I6.9 ~i p.9;1e~,7"31 i'.9i TVil ~7~y7,y0,5~0 Y.htt'3'eA -16.0 98,217 .F";'nMF,_ 90,552u2. .1w'~~fC,s -7.8 ~CYRF1!'~„ 2009-10 Cummulative Computer Use, Gate Count, New Cards & Circulation Statistics i+^' ,,: Civc ;: Sessions 7,163 9,629 34.4 16,892 18,988 12.4 25,972 27,971 7.9 35,487 34,387 -3.1 44,539 41,648 -6.5 52,621 48,423 -8.0 a m South o ~ Sessions 4,500 6,907 53.5 13,806 14,325 3.6 23,153 22,348 -3.5 32,365 30,467 -5.9 39,776 35,345 -11.1 46,388 40,299 -13.1 Civic 39,476 28,670 -27.4 78,553 59,879 -23.8 715,107 88,021 -23.5 156,498 109,833 -29.8 187,191 134,379 -28.2 214,174 153,739 -28.2 ~ SOUth 23,620 24,370 3.2 48,157 46,030 3.4 72,811 68,522 -5.9 100,562 92,224 -8.3 121,578 107,884 -11.3 139,544 122,580 -12.2 ~.+ EastLake 8,647 10,040 16.1 79,805 11,574 -41.6 29,413 17,961 -38.9 40,989 23,077 -43.7 57,362 27,170 37.1 57,459 30,17fi -47.5 °+~ System Total 71,743 63,080 -12.1 146,515 117,463 -19.8 217,331 174,504 -19.7 298,049 225,134 -24.5 360,131 269,373 -25.2 411,177 306,495 -25.5 °1 Civic 985 835 -15.2 1,885 7,653 -12.3 2,794 2,540 -9.1 3,793 3,163 -16.6 4,542 3,796 -16.4 5,117 4,306 -15.8 N w . South 585 609 4.1 1,257 1,193 -5.1 1,962 1,860 -5.2 2,690 2,454 •8.8 3,209 2,842 -11.4 3,570 3,186 -10.8 ~ EastLake 872 108 -87.6 1,028 959 4i.7 1,185 1,068 -9.9 1,308 1,160 -11.3 1,417 1,224 -13.3 1,449 1,255 -13.4 ~j System Total 2,442 1,552 -36.4 4,170 3,805 -8.8 5,941 5,468 -8.0 7,791 6,777 -13.0 9,162 7,862 -14.2 10,136 8,747 -13.7 m Z 0 CiVlo 60,255 48,013 -20.3 112,926 91,651 -18.8 162,705 130,675 -19.4 211,952 164,132 -22.6 256,698 200,558 -21.9 2as,75s 228,933 -21.0 o South 39,626 35,636 -10.1 75,141 66,604 -11.4 170,207 101,208 -8.2 146,245 136,325 4i.8 178,099 161,168 -9.5 203,705 182,963 -10.2 rv EastLake 17,973 14,524 -19.2 35,946 29,192 -16.8 53,240 41,735 -21.6 70,387 55,602 -21.0 85,076 67,944 -20.1 94,844 76,683 -19.1 System U Total 117,854 98,173 -16.7 224,013 187,447 -16.3 325,552 273,618 -16.0 428,584 356,059 -16.9 519,873 429,670 -17.4 588,305 488,579 -17.0 248,397 170,161 .91.5 286337 196,273 -31.5 323,fi06 220,167 -32.0 359,929 249,219 -30.8 392,040 275,63fi -29.7 425 047 303,479 -28 .6 163,OOfi 139,457 -14.4 184,638 158,716 -14.0 209,988 180,098 •14.2 235,088 202 580 -13.8 257,363 222,024 -13.7 282,313 243,629 -13 .7 ,923 33,667 -49.7 76,950 37,395 -51.4 8Q 977 41,894 -51.8 96,776 46,237 -52.9 106,145 50,910 -52.0 112,883 54,493 -51 .7 4326 343,285 -28.2 547,925 392,384 -28.4 620,571 442,159 -28.7 693,193 498,036 -28.2 755,548 548,570 -27.4 820,243 601,601 -26 .7 Bonita branch Library _ Use Statistics Fy 0~~10 _ card S€puare ft Population Circulation holders Hours open wee6cly Bonita Branch 10,000 13,544 294,010 34,413 57.0 How libraries stack up: 2010 In America, we go to libraries to find jobs, create new careers and help grow our small businesses. We borrow books, journals, music and movies. We learn to use the latest technology. We get the tools and information needed to reenter the workforce. We get our questions answered, engage in civic activities, meet with friends and co-workers and improve our skills at one of the 16,600 U.S. public libraries. Every day, our public libraries ~~ `'\ SJJ,fe ~~L<.~„o.,~ma~, r~eln::h: ALA, 2f190. "A PeRect Sturm 3renicy." Hot spots eir free cks, delivermillions ofdollars inresources and support that meet the critical needs of our communities. Here are a few of the ways that our public libraries stack up. et job-seeking help at their public library. U.S.public Most public libraries provide free libraries ~ , ~ wirelesslnternet access Forth with users. Nearly 12,000 now offer free ~ Wi-Fi.ThaPsmorethanStarbu Wi-Fi Barnes & Noble or Borders. 1 i i StarbucYs Borders and , ~ Barnes & Noble Sources: aLFl, z009.'JJraries CorceU Commuoitles 3: PaJll[ii0rary Furdlny & Technology Access SNAy, 2003-0A9"; Su:JU~ wrYOrate mmmunlca4ons; ~e,wc OONers.mm; nww:aam=s~ntl rnb[el a r,.oon1. It's in our wallets Library cards are about as prevalent as credit cards. Two-thirds ofAmericans have a library card. For many young people, [he first card in theirwallet is a library card. U.S. public libraries Taking care of business Getting technical chnalo ~ ~' ~ Businesses gY r classes offering computer training More libraries-5,400-offer technology training classes than there are computer training businesses in the U.S. Every day, 14,700 people attend free library computer ctasses~--a retail value of $2.2 million. That's $629 million worth of computer classes annually (based on 286 business days per year). s~ u.vaLa zoe;. L. -col,r~PLlr 1 :='PJm ~ y Ilomr~,~,- noloyy A:cesYStJdY, J.OOtl-]OaS,R Icel1'n5..fl Y_f .rcI RSSJ fl )'...'Jrv; UC'"20i0. pn Y s_:.Irnn.n 5 ,. .I m1e. 1-60 Soc.ces: ALA .F. SL.Ie of Ar,. -.a ~'CGrar es lOC9';JS. Cens~s3 e .oF'-Eton ?5:111`3!Psf..1.FU'aGE; 2! d04 C.: JIO!~SfIC 1165 :CC?hRV X15 ^S, lU1U. souR~~ oac, zof o, prtreuy Ieseame. How libraries stack up: 2010 Libraries are at the heart of our communities-a resource for people of any age to find what we need to help improve our quality of fife. Let's meet Every day, Americans borrow 2.1 million DVDs from libraries, and we spend over$22 million forDVD rentals at outlets like NetFlixand RedBoxvending machines. soorzer. nctC. 2411 a, primary aseatth; www.netplx.mrnfHOwltworkr; Aross, ftantlall. "YVhen IM1e Prta is VIgM1t, the Fuwre 4ee wLil,"New Ya; k l%mes, f Uly 1[, Lao9: McBride, sorah, "Cinema Surpassatl oVn Sales Ir, 2009,"Wall Sheetlownol onllre, lanaary 4, ]OID. Career assistance when we need it most U.S. public libraries offering career assistance 13,000 U.S. Department of Labor One-stop Career Centers 3,000 Americans turn to libraries when searching for new jobs. Both public libraries and One-stop Career Centers provide career counseling resources, resume assistance and help in filling out online applications. source: ntn, solo. "R aerreu smrm erewmg~~, os. oeparcmencaf rotor, wwwse~dremcator-ar¢i- On the move More public libraries offer free meeting rooms than there are conference centers, convention facilities and auditoriums combined. Every day, 225,000 people use library meeting rooms at a re[ailvalue of $11 million. That's $3.2 billion annually (based on 286 business days peryear). Conference and other meeting ~~~4~~r U.S. public libraries with free meeting sam:es: oat, taro, pnma;y arcs; HelFCrl<FL>R NUSinuSy cE;a eesicemmt nirect,~;,. No ticket required U.S. public library visits 1.4 billion U.S, sporting U.S.rnovie event attendance attendance 1.3 billion 218 million cr~eu.. i. ~~~ ~ Everyyear, Americans visit the library more often than we go to the movies and six times more often than we attend live sporting events (includes professional and NCAA football, baseball, basketball and hockey). 5 vIM?S.20a] i o tb.rr!esin lh e .. =s: Nisi IY IOr)ylar6tioel AG' . '( rn!F Sh es, lOiU www ~ rg esemc+Stl t"s.as;o. U.S. public libraries circulate as many materials every day as FedExships packages worldwide. We enjoy $82 million of value every day from the materials we check out at libraries. 5 .>SJMLS, ]0o] Nhl -b vles In lh GRnurtisr Y "OW;?etlP,x anv iatls t K J/itver-2tlx tl -3• t cmn/ou - ~Y'.~m~aa:ry f nationitetlex - porabn OCLC is a nonprofit Ubrary cooperative. For more information see: www.odcorg/reportsJstackup J. ®Q~'LC Numbers rmm OGC s~nma.ry rese rrh are estlmates OClC conducted primaryresearch inlanuary2mobymvlei;:gli6r<rlansviaa posr..nvarions a malt lists to answer a q=aestionnai a ga uging the use of their p'.Ibhc libraries for job-seeking, small busiress support, meeting room usagt and other aCivities. 719 lib; Arians From 23 slates participated. 1-61 Movie night March 25, 2010 First-Ever National Study: Millions of People Rely on Library Computers for Employment, Health, and Education ~~ million people used library computers and Internet access in past year University of Washington Information School David Shepard Phone: +1.206.221.6182 Institute of Museum and Library Services Mamie Bittner Phone: +1.202.653.4632 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Phone:+1.206.709.3400 Email: media@gatesfoundation.org PORTLAND, Ore. --Nearly one-third of Americans age 14 or older (roughly 77 million people) used a public library computer or wireless network to access the Internet in the past year, according to a national report released today. In 2009, as the nation struggled through a recession, people relied on library technology to find work, apply for college, secure government benefits, learn about critical medical treatments, and connect with their communities. The report, Opportunity forAll: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U. S. Libraries, is based on the first, large-scale study of who uses public computers and Internet access in public libraries, the ways library patrons use this free technology service, why they use it, and how it affects their lives. It was conducted by the University of Washington Information School and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Low-income adults are more likely to rely on the public library as their sole access to computers and the Internet than any other income group. Overall, 44 percent of people living below the federal poverty line used computers and the Internet at their public libraries. Americans across all age groups reported they used library computers and Internet access. Teenagers are the most active users. Half of the nation's 14- to 18-year-olds reported that they used a library computer during the past year, typically to do school homework. "People from all walks of life use library computers to perform routine and life-changing tasks, from emailing friends to fnding jobs," said Michael Crandall, senior lecturer and chair of the Master of Science in Information Management at the University of Washington Information School. "More than three-quarters of those who used the library Internet connections had access at home, work, or elsewhere. Oftentimes, they needed a faster connection, assistance from a librarian, or temporary access in an emergency." The use of library technology had significant impact in four critical areas: employment, education, health, and making community connections. In the last 12 months: 40 percent of library computer users (an estimated 30 million people) received help with career needs. Among these users, 75 percent reported they searched for a job online. Half of these users filled out an online application or submitted a resume. 1-62 37 percent focused on health issues. The vast majority of these users (82 percent) logged on to learn about a disease, illness, or medical condition. One-third of these users sought out doctors or health care providers. Of these, about half followed up by making appointments for care. 42 percent received help with educational needs. Among these users, 37 percent (an estimated 12 million students) used their local library computer to do homework for a class. Library computers linked patrons to their government, communities, and civic organizations. Sixty-percent of users (43.3 million people) used a library's computer resources to connect with others. "There is no ambiguity in these numbers. Millions of people see libraries as an essential tool to connect them to information, knowledge, and opportunities," said Marsha Semmel, acting director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. "Policy makers must fully recognize and support the role libraries are playing in workforce development, education, health and wellness, and the delivery of government services." The library's role as a technology resource has exploded since 1996, when only 28 percent of libraries offered Internet access. Today, almost all public libraries offer visitors free access to computers and the Internet. Unfortunately, up to a third of all libraries say they lack even minimally adequate Internet connections to meet demand. More report that they cannot provide the access their patrons truly need. "Library technology services have created opportunity for millions of Americans, but public libraries struggle to replace aging computer workstations and increase the speed of their Internet connections," said Allan Colston, president of the United States Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. "This study highlights what is at risk, particularly for low- income individuals who heavily rely on the public library for their technology, if future public and private investment in public libraries doesn't keep pace with demand." The report's findings are based on nearly 50,000 surveys (including 3,176 from a national telephone survey and 44,881 web survey responses) from patrons of more than 400 public librades across the country. The full report is available at h ttp:(; to scha.was h i ngto n.ed u!u s i m pact. About the University of Washington Information School The University of Washington Information School believes in the power of information to change lives. Through instruction, research and practice, the UW Information School, or "iSchool," is shaping the ways people create, store, find, manipulate and share information. Our work helps people address information challenges more ethically, effectively and with a heightened sense of possibility. The UW iSchool offers a Bachelor of Science in Informatics degree, and three graduate degrees: Master of Library and Information Science, Master of Science in Information Management, and Ph.D. in Information Science. About the Institute of Museum and Library Services The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's 123,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. The Institute's mission is to create strong libraries and museums that connect people to information and ideas. The Institute works at the national level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. ### Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving peoples€T""s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all peoples€"especially those with the fewest resourcess€"have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Jeff Raikes and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. 1-63 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/09 - 6/30/10, 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 throughoutthe Citywithin 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). Please update the Priority I table, below: t Officers are dispatched while in the feld on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched. 2 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. s The FY98-99 GMOC report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. Pag9 x-64 Please provide brief responses fo the following: 2. During the period under review, were 81% of Priority I emergency calls citywide responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes (maintaining an average of 5.5 minutes)? If not, please explain and describe what is necessary to meet the threshold standard for Priority I emergency calls citywide. Yes _X_ No 3. Please update the Priority II table, below: 4. During the period under review, were 57% of the Priority II urgent response calls citywide responded to within seven minutes (maintaining an average of 7.5 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 significantly increased in the Community Patrol Division in order to meet the priority two response time goals. W ithout adding additional staff this is most likely the best that can be achieved without additional patrol personnel. Further discussion regarding staffing issues and priority response times are included below. 4 Officers are dispatched while in the field on patrol, therefore there is no time delay when a call is dispatched. 6 These figures do not include responses to false alarms, beginning in FY 2002-03. Pag9 X65 Please provide brief responses to the following: 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? Yes X No If not, please explain. 6. Was the Police Department properly staffed to deliver services at the level necessary to maintain Priority 1 and II threshold standard compliance during the period under review? Yes No _X_ If not, please explain. The Police Department is currently not staffed at levels recommended by the staffing model last completed in 2005. This staffing model recommended adding a total of 10 new officers (three to meet current CFS requirements and seven to staff a new beat in the eastern territory), as well as three additional Community Service Officers. 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. Reports that would have previously been taken by Community Service Officers are now handled by Patrol Officers. During the 08/09 fiscal year the Department cut 7 sworn positions, and 8 civilian positions. During FY 09/10 the patrol division experienced higher than normal on-duty injuries to sworn personnel, which resulted in lower staffing levels. Since FY 07/08, the Police Department budget has been cut by over $10.1 million, which includes 18 sworn and 26 civilian position eliminations. As of July 2010, police staffing has decreased by 10% when compared to its 2007 staffing levels. The City has identified an additional $18.5 million deficit in the FY 11/12 budget, and the Police Department may potentially cut an additional $4.3 million, which includes 34 sworn and 1 civilian position eliminations. These additional cuts and layoffs will be implemented in January 2011. If all 35 positions are eliminated, police staffing will have decreased by 20% since 2007. The Chula Vista Police Department has chronically been the lowest staffed agency in San Diego County. With the proposed budget reduction plan, which includes eliminating 34 sworn positions, the staffing levels would drop to 0.87 officers authorized per 1,000 residents (see chart below). Pagel3 6 6 Chula Vista Police Department: Sworn Officers Per 1,000 Population t.sa z 1.57 ®Chula Vista 1.45 ^ CaAShad 1.5 #,. 1.17 1.19 1.20~~~~~ " C Escondido 1.11 ~~~ u 1.08 ~ ^ La Mesa 0.8 ~ t ~~~t ~ ^ Oceanside ~ ®9 Cajon ^ San Diego ~' - ^ National City. 0.5 :~~ ^ Coronado 0 Has growth during the last year negatively affected the Department's ability to maintain service levels consistent with the threshold standard? Yes No _X_ 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 five-year old staffing study. Chronic understaffing will inhibit the Department's ability to meet the 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 No _X_ If not, please explain. Currently the facilities are able to accommodate growth over the next 12 to 18 months. However, the elimination of the vehicle replacement fund has started to impact the department's ability to fund other police programs as grant and other programmatic funds have been diverted to purchase vehicles. In addition, the proposed elimination of 34 sworn positions, (including a majority of the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program) will dramatically impact the Police Department's ability to meet the threshold standard. Calls for service that were once handled by the SRO's, will now be directed to patrol. This will add at least 2,000 calls-for-service, most of which are priority two or priority three calls. Pa9~ 4' 6 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 for the next five years, but staffing, equipment and maintenance are not. The elimination of the Vehicle Replacementfund 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 and equipment awaiting repairs. In addition, the Building Maintenance fund has been eliminated, which will hinder maintenance needs being resolved. The Police Department is approaching the time to upgrade our Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD), however there are currently no funds available forsuch an upgrade to occur. Currently the Police Department is seeking other funding to maintain the equipment needs of the department, which will prevent using the funds for other police services and programs. 10. Please update the table below: NUMBER OF FALSE'ALARMS PER YEAR FY 2003-04 fY 2005-06 FY2006-07 ' FY 2007-OS FY 2008-09 fY 2009-10 8,312 8,077 8,257 7,861 7,117 6,694 11. Please provide an update on the Police Department's efforts to improve the Priority II threshold standard. Maintaining staffing levels in the patrol division continues to be a priority for the Department. The Department has used light-duty officers to take low-level crime reports over the phone, which allows officers in the Feld to respond to higher priority level calls for service. The use of light-duty officers is sporadic however and there may not always be a light-duty officer available for reports. Residents are still encouraged to utilize the Department's Online Crime Reporting System to report low-level crimes, including vehicle burglaries, thefts and vandalisms. However, given the current budget crisis, along with the cuts that have already been made in the Department, we do not anticipate the necessary resources being available to meet the threshold standard for priority two CFS. The Police Department has exhausted all resources with the goal of improving priority two response time, but without funding for additional staff the priority two CFS threshold will remain unmet in the foreseeable future. 12. What is the status of School Resources Officers? During the current GMOC review period the School Resource Officer Unit remained fully staffed. However, due to budget reductions with the Police Department, as well as Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District as of July 1, 2010 five positions within the School Resource Officer Unit have been eliminated. The pending budget reductions would completely eliminate the SRO program altogether. However, the Police Department is currently working with the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District to examine funding Pa99 ~- 6 8 sources to maintain some level of service to the schools. As of this writing, it appears that seven SRO positions will be saved via agreements with the School Districts, including a SRO Sergeant which will be funded via grant funds and one additional officer via a State grant to address juvenile delinquency issues. 13. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The financial crisis facing the City has required deep cuts within the Department. The budget remains fluid and changes weekly. What the Department knows as fact right now is that the City has identified an $18.5 million deficit in the FY 11 /12 budget. The fiscal impact on the Police Department may require an additional $4.3 million in cuts, which includes 34 swom and 1 civilian position being eliminated. In previous years, the department has been able to maintain swom officer strength in the patrol division. However, this will become more challenging if the proposed layoffs take place. As the majority of the cuts are directly tied to pension reforms and elimination of pay-raises, the number of cuts could change depending upon whether agreements can be negotiated with the various bargaining units. The Police Department has been working on recommending a change to the priority two threshold times. Despite all efforts to improve on performance times, it is apparent that without a large increase in the number of officers in the Patrol Division, the Department will never be able to meet the priority two thresholds as currently stated. As staff has mentioned over the years, there are various reasons why the priority two response threshold can not be met. First, when the threshold was originally set in 1986, the geography of the city was much different. Growth hadn't substantially taken place in the eastern territories and travel times were mostly confined to the western portion of the city, which has an easily traveled grid like system of roads. Secondly, the requirements for primary investigation of many of the calls for service (e.g. domestic violence calls) were much less stringent, requiring much less of an officers time. Thirdly, we now believe that the original dispatch time data which was used to calculate the original priority response thresholds may have had some inaccuracies or inability to provide exacting response times. After the installation of our new CAD software in 1998, it was apparent that although there was a minor increase in the numbers of calls for service for priority two calls, it shouldn't have resulted in the dramatic increase in the response times over the next two years. It will be impossible to reconstruct what exactly happened as the original data used to calculate the threshold, and the people who calculated it are no longer available. Prior to the installation of the CAD in 1998, dispatchers tracked the various response times via hand using a paper card and a time stamp. This undoubtedly led to errors due to the manual nature of the time tracking. It is obvious that for the last 13 years, achieving the priority two threshold was just not possible despite all of the modernization, extra training and other intermediary steps that were taken to try and achieve these goals. Therefore, the department has been conducting a survey of local police agencies to determine whether our can-ent priority two thresholds are in relative line with other cities. As we were conducting the survey, it became apparent that a comparison of our priority two threshold response times and the priority two response times from other police agencies was not possible. This is due to the way that other agencies calculate their response time averages. You will recall that the priority two response times reported each year to the GMOC are based upon "Route to Arrive" times; meaning, the time calculation starts when the call is routed from the call-taker to the dispatcher (for dispatch of an officer to the call) up until the time at which an officer arrives on scene. The industry standard among police agencies is to track response times based upon "Received to Arrive' times, or from when the call is initially received in the dispatch center to when the officer arrives on scene. As staff discussed ways to incorporate the survey data into a recommendation about a change in the priority two response time threshold, it became apparent that there are many other Pa99 ~ 6 9 factors which need to be taken into account and which would be policy choices that the GMOC would need to weigh in on. There have been changes made by GMOC to the priority two threshold calculations over the years for a variety of reasons and a holistic approach to any changes going forward should be thoroughly examined in order to ensure that the intent of the GMOC thresholds is maintained. Staff will make a preliminary report to the GMOC at the February 3rd workshop to begin the complicated discussion on how to best ensure that the response thresholds meet the GMOC needs, as well as portray an accurate measure of the effects of growth on police response times. PREPARED BY: Name: Melanie Culuko/Edward Chew Title: Public Safety Analyst/Administrative Services Manager Date: January 25, 2011 Pag9 L~ THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Citywide: Maintain LOS "C" orbetter 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 following: 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 During the period under review Heritage Road southbound from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway did not meet the City's GMOC threshold standards during this period. Since last year, delays have generally been reduced in the northbound direction approaching Telegraph Canyon Road but delays have increased in the southbound direction approaching Olympic Parkway. 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 in the southbound direction, from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, did the arterial segments exceed LOS "D" for more than two hours during peak hours. During the six-hour peak period under review, the segment is operating at one hour of LOS "C" and five hours of LOS "D". One year ago, this segment had five hours of "D" and one hour of LOS "E". Two years ago, the corridor was operating with four hours of "D" and one hour of "E". Recently, a contract was approved for the signal modifications and westerly crosswalk removal work across Telegraph Canyon Road at Heritage Road. The work should be completed by early next year. 1-71 In summary: Heritage Road from Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway FY09/10 LOS "C" 1-hour & LOS "D" 5-hours FY08/09 LOS "D" 5-hours & LOS "E" 1-hour FY07/08 LOS "C" 1-hour, LOS "D" 4-hours & LOS "E" 1-hour 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 No _~_ Recent traffic monitoring runs conducted after this reporting period (FY10/11) show that westbound Olympic Parkway from east of Brandywine Avenue to Oleander Avenue near 1- 805 is experiencing varying degrees of traffic congestion. During the a.m. period, there is a need to increase the storage length of the westbound Olympic Parkway to southbound Brandywine Avenue left turn pocket so that the left turning traffic does not block the westbound through lane that consequently blocks one of three westbound lanes. The loss of one westbound through lane increases delay to the through movement. The a.m. Level of Service is at "E". Throughout the rest of the day, the roadway segment is operating at Level of Service "B" for mid-day and level of Service "C" for the p.m. peak period. A similar project was completed for westbound Telegraph Canyon Road and Medical Center Drive before Paseo Ladera was extended south from Telegraph Canyon Road to East Palomar Street. Ultimate improvements needed are the southerly extension of Heritage Road from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. In the interim, additional signal loop detectors will also be added this fiscal year at the 1- 805/East Orange Avenue/Olympic Parkway signals in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Improvement plans have been prepared and we are currently awaiting final approval to commence the work. This work will allow Caltrans the ability to make even further traffic signal timing changes to help reduce vehicular delays approaching the interchange. How will these facilities be funded? These facilities will be funded by developers as project mitigation measures or with development impact fees such as the TDIF, for east of I-805, the WTDIF, for west of I-805 and/or a combination of other local, state and federal funds. 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. 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 No X 1-72 Olympic Parkway traffic levels will increase as development occurs to the east. With continued traffic monitoring, the schedule for constructing the southerly extension of Heritage Road will be determined. Caltrans is currently working on the I-805 Managed Lanes project which will provide for carpool and bus access to and from the north. The project may also include avalue-pricing program allowing toll-paying single occupant vehicles access onto and off of I-805 at East Palomar Street. The project is currently under environmental review and construction is expected to commence in Year 2012 with the East Palomar Street northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp completed by Year 2014. Subsequent phases of work will continue north to State Route 94 and those phases will be completed by year 2020. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is also working on the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (SBBRT) project that will also utilize this East Palomar Street corridor from the Otay Ranch Mall to downtown San Diego in Year 2014. When completed, the Caltrans Managed Lane project and the SANDAG SBBRT project will help reduce traffic congestion at Olympic Parkway, Telegraph Canyon Road and at East H Street. a. How will these facilities be funded; and b. Is there an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide this funding? 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. Both the Caltrans and SANDAG projects have a combination of regional, state and federal funds for all of the phases of work such as preliminary engineering, planning, environmental, design and construction. As each of these projects completes a phase of work, the region approves funding for the subsequent phases. City of Chula Vista funds are being used for City staff time only. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The City of Chula Vista is wrapping up a regional study with Caltrans and SANDAG for the Interstate-5 Multi-modal corridor study. This study makes recommendations for transportation and goods movement projects along the Interstate-5 corridor. Recommendations include improvements for bicyclists, the freeway, light rail trolley projects, local-street improvements, pedestrian facilities, and transit improvements. Top priority for the Interstate-5 freeway is the Palomar Street interchange as well as other freeway improvements such as ultimately constructing carpool lanes through Chula Vista. Top 1-73 priority for the light rail trolley is to grade separate the Palomar Street at-grade crossing followed in priority by the H Street crossing then followed bythe E Street crossing. SANDAG will incorporate these regional improvements into their 2050 Regional Transportation Plan that is currently out for draft public review and will be finalized in 2011. Due to the current economic downturn, staffing impacts to the Traffic Engineering group will make conducting the traffic-monitoring program more difficult in the near term. Staff will work with the GMOC to make necessary changes during the "Top to Bottom" review. PREPARED BY: Name: Francisco X. Rivera P.E., T.E, Title: Principal Civil Engineer Date: December 7, 2010 ATTACHMENTS: 1 -Arterial Segments Level of Service Summary Results (A.M. period) 2 -Arterial Segments Level of Service Summary Results (Mid-day period) 3-Arterial Segments Level of Service Summary Results (P.M. period) 4 -Arterial Segments Level of Service (3-foldout maps) A.M./Mid-day/P.M 5 -Arterial Interchange Segments Level of Service Summary Results (Interstate-5 2009 versus 2010 A.M/Mid-day/P.M. periods) 6 -Interstate-5 Arterial Interchange Level of Service (3-foldout maps) A.M./Mid- day/ P.M. 1-74 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE Reporting Period: 7/1/09 -: 6/30/1Q,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(07-01-09 to 06-30-10); b. The current fiscal year, 2010-2011; and c. What is anticipated in five year's time. The Finance Department presented the City Council with an updated 'Five-Year Financial Forecast' report (fiscal years 2010-11 through 2014-15) on June 8, 2010. The goal of the Five-Year Financial Forecast is to assess the City's ability over the next five years to continue current service levels based on projected growth, preserve our long-term fiscal health by aligning operating revenues and costs, and rebuild reserves. The Forecast serves as a tool to identify financial trends, shortfalls, and issues so the City can proactively address them. Over the last few years the City of Chula Vista has experienced a precipitous decline in revenues due to the slumping economy, the housing crisis, and the slowdown in development activity. In response, the City has made significant program and personnel reductions, bringing expenditures in line with a lower revenue base. Revenues have continued to decline in fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10, creating additional structural imbalances. In order to avoid additional service impacts or further erosion of General Fund reserve levels, the City's operating budget for fiscal year 2010-11 assumes the application of $9.6 million in one-time revenues. The Financial Forecast recognizes the use of one- time revenues as a short term solution and projects continued revenue shortfalls resulting in an ongoing structural imbalance in the General Fund in fiscal years 2011-12 through 2014-15. Also of note is that this version of the Financial Forecast marks the first time the City has brought in an outside consultant (Public Financial Management Group [PFMG]) to review the assumptions and conclusions in the forecast developed by staff. As presented to the City Council on October 5, 2010, the consultant found the City's projected fiscal results to Page 1 1-75 be reasonable. Furthermore, the consultant found that any variances in revenues or expenditures from the Forecast were not likely to be significant. The Five-Year Financial Forecast document presented to Council and reviewed by PFMG is included as Attachment 1. 2. According to the updated Fiscal Impact Report, how is the city's current fiscal health, and what are the primary growth-related fiscal issues facing the city? 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. On October 5, 2010, the City Council was presented with the City Manager's Budget Balancing Plan. This plan was developed to address the ongoing structural General Fund shortfalls identified in the Five-Year Financial Forecast. The staff report describing the projected budget shortfalls and recommended budget balancing actions is included as Attachment 2 of this report. On November 2, 2010, the Chula Vista electorate rejected Proposition H, an ordinance to modernize the City's Telecommunications Users' Tax (TUT) to secure existing revenues. As a result of the failure of Proposition H, permanent reductions in TUT revenues are projected to begin in the current fiscal year. This reduction in revenues will increase as the City's telecommunications carriers permanently phase out their land line services. 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, the slowdown in the overall economy, and the loss of TUT revenues as a result of the November 2, 2010 election. 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 slowdown in the development market, we do not anticipate any fiscal issues resulting from new development. On the contrary, lack of growth coupled with an overall economic slowdown and the loss of TUT revenues 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 3). As described in the City Manager's Budget Balancing Plan (Attachment 2), the City is in the process of negotiating with the City's five bargaining groups in an effort to minimize the service impacts resulting from balancing the fiscal year 2011-12 General Fund budget. The largest key to reducing the service impacts generated by the Budget Balancing Plan is pension reform. The City currently pays both the employer and employee contributions for the City's pension system (CaIPERS). The City Manager is proposing that all City employees pick up the employee contribution (9% for public safety, 8% for all others). In addition, the public safety unions (International Association of Fire Fighters and Chula Vista Police Officers Association) have a number of cost of living adjustments (COLAs) beginning in January 2011, under the current Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). The current Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) MOU also includes the possibility of COLAs, to be determined by a salary range analysis. The City Manager is proposing that all COLAs included in the current MOUs be eliminated. Page 2 -76 Those employees not represented through collective bargaining have already voluntarily agreed to pay their employee share of CaIPERS pension costs. This includes the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, executives, senior managers, confidential employees, mid-managers (confidential and unclassified), and professionals (confidential and unclassified). In addition, Chula Vista Mid-Managers and Professionals Association (CVMM/PROFA), Western Conference of Engineers (WCE) and the CVEA have all agreed to pick up their employee pension contribution. As a result of these agreements the City is able to reduce the number of layoffs (thereby reducing the service impacts anticipated to result from the layoffs). If the remaining bargaining groups (IAFF and POA) come forward and agree to pick up their pension contribution and eliminate their COLAs the City will be able to avoid more layoffs and service impacts. The final impact to services resulting from balancing the General Fund budget for fiscal year 2011-12 will not be known until the bargaining group negotiations are completed. If the City is successful in these negotiations, the City will likely still have significant service impacts as a result of the failure of Prop H. In the negotiations are unsuccessful, the service impacts will be severe and will impact all service areas (library, recreation, public works maintenance, development services, administration, and public safety). 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 aver the last three years. As development has slowed, the City has experienced a significant reduction in development processing/review revenues. In order to offset these revenue shortfalls, 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 2010-11, applying $g.6 million in one-time revenues. Unfortunately, the housing crisis and national recession continue to drag down revenues. As described in staffs response to #3 above, the City has secured pension reform with unrepresented employees, CVMM/PROFA, WCE, and CVEA. The City continues to negotiate with its two remaining bargaining groups regarding pension reform and COLAs. Staff will not be able to finalize the baseline budget for fiscal year 2011-12 until these negotiations are completed. The City Managers Budget Balancing Plan will serve as the basis for any additional budget cuts necessary to bring the General Fund in balance in fiscal year 2011-12. 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. In addition to impacts to the City's fiscal health resulting from reduced development processing and review, a sustained building decline may result in additional service impacts in all General Fund service areas. The City's Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) program has significant external debt service obligations. The General Fund is the guarantor of the PFDIF debt, and if the PFDIF is unable to meet its obligations, the General Fund must provide the funding. There are not sufficient General Fund revenues to absorb any such cost, and additional budget cuts (with associated service impacts) would be necessary. In an effort to protect the General Fund from this risk, the City successfully restructured a portion of the existing PFDIF debt. As a result of this proactive action, the PFDIF is projected to have sufficient funds to meet its debt Page 3 -77 service obligations through fiscal year 2012-13. If the building decline extends beyond fiscal year 2012-13, the General Fund will once again be in danger of impact by the PFDIF's debt obligation. This matter is further complicated by the City's recently approved DIF deferral program. Any DIF fees deferred by the City reduce the funds available to the PFDIF to meet its debt obligation, potentially resulting in service impacts in the General Fund. The DIF deferral program is discussed in greater detail in staffs response to #5 a/b of this report. 5. Please update the Development Impact Fee (DIF) table below for the period under review. Page 4 -78 various fee schedules included in Attachment 6. "On a separate sheet of paper list the projects to be funded and/or wmpletetl over the next twelve months. "'Transportation DIF fund balance does not reflect unavailability of funds loaned to other funds. Outstanding loans from the TDIF fund total $10,680,000, resulting in an available fund balance of $15,036,731. 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? Adeouacv 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 4). Approved in December 2008, the program allows developers to defer the payment of impact fees from building permit 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 Page 5 1-79 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, 2010 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. Ability to Borrow Funds As detailed in the table on page 4, the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) fund ended fiscal year 2009-10 with a $1.1 million fund balance. As a result of the debt restructuring plan implemented by the Finance Director last year, the PFDIF is anticipated to meet its debt obligations without impacting the General Fund through fiscal year 2012-13. At that time, the fund will be reviewed to determine if any additional cash flow relief is necessary. Prior to the debt restructuring, the PFDIF had an annual debt service obligation of approximately $5.2 million annually. The restructuring is projected to result in increased debt payments in the future of approximately $1.6 million annually, for a total annual debt payment of $6.8 million. In addition to its external debt obligations, the PFDIF fund must begin repayment of two interfund loans from the Eastern TDIF as soon as practical in order to avoid impacts to TDIF project timing. The TDIF loaned the PFDIF $5.2 million in fiscal year 2008-09 and an additional $5.3 million in fiscal year 2009-10, for a total of $10.5 million in interfund loans. These loans were necessary for the PFDIF to meet its external debt obligation while the City pursued restructuring the PFDIF's debt. The annual payment for this internal debt obligation is projected to range from $1.4 million to $1.0 million annually, with an average payment of $1.3 million over a 10 year repayment period. The actual annual debt payment will vary depending on the repayment period (may be greater than 10 years if available funds are insufficient) and the City's pooled interest rate. When combined with the annual external debt obligation of $6.8 million, a $1.4 million annual internal debt obligation results in a total annual debt obligation of $8.2 million. Based upon the existing debt obligations and the additional debt obligations resulting 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 Page 6 -8~ 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. 6. Please provide a comprehensive list, through buildout, of the PFDIF-funded facilities that remain to be constructed, and 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./5. Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatics Center & Recreation Facility In light of current budgetary constraints resulting from the economic downturn, the City's ability to staff and operate these facilities is very limited in the short term. Prior to staffing any new facilities, the City will likely seek to restore services at existing facilities. Once the staffing/operational budgetary issues are addressed, the wnstruction of the facilities themselves will be a function of the PFDIF's available fund balance (taking into account existing debt obligations and the need to create a debt service reserve). The 2010 GMOC Annual Report included the following 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 PFDIF funding proposals. What is the status of completing this recommendation? Page 7 -8~ Staff is unable to comment on recommendations of actions to be taken by the City Council. 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 tees. 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. Bath the development and acquisition components of the fee will be reviewed in a comprehensive update of the PAD program planned for calendar year 2011. While adequate mechanisms are in place to ensure the City collects sufficient fees to acquire and develop parkland, there are some issues related to the availability of these funds that should be noted. As mentioned in stafFs response to #1 on this questionnaire, the City applied one-time revenues to balance the General Fund budget for fiscal year 2009-10. The majority of these one-time revenues ($9.6 million) were the result of the Redevelopment Agency repaying an outstanding debt owed to the General Fund. The Agency generated the $9.6 million used to repay the City by selling park land to the PAD fund. At a March 2, 2010 joint meeting, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency approved the purchase of a 14.41 acre site from the Agency using PAD funds totaling $9.6 million. The City has worked to identify potential suitable park sites in western Chula Vista, generally identified in the 2005 General Plan Update and the 2007 Draft Park and Recreation Master Plan. The properly sold by the Agency to the PAD fund is one of the locations identified as being a suitable park site, and is a large step toward meeting the City's goal of providing 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents citywide. The properly is now referred to as Lower Sweetwater Community Park. The resolution adopted that evening also authorized a $9.6 million inter-fund loan between the Eastern PAD fund and the Western PAD fund. The Lower Sweetwater Community Park will serve and be funded by future western Chula Vista residents, including residents of the Urban Core Specific Planning Area. As a result, the PAD fund has not yet collected sufficient funds from development in western Chula Vista to finance the purchase of the park site. It was therefore necessary to internally borrow the funds from the eastern PAD fund (monies collected for the 60 Acre Otay Ranch Community Park). The internal loan will be repaid as funds become available, either as a result of credit acquisitions by the Agency or the payment of PAD fees by developers in western Chula Vista. The Agency will ensure that PAD funds are repaid to fully fund the development of the park for which they were originally collected. The staff report and resolution approving the site purchase and interfund loan are included Page 8 ~-82 as Attachment 5. 10. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC andlor the City Council. As described throughout the response to this questionnaire, the City is facing serious service impacts in fiscal year 2011-12. The degree of these impacts has been significantly lessened through concessions from bargaining groups; however, with the failure of the ordinance to modernize the City's Telecommunications Users' Tax (November 2, 2010 election) the City will not be able to avoid impacting service levels. While the implementation of the Budget Balancing Plan continues to evolve as the City negotiates for pension reform and elimination of COLAs for public safety, it is likely that the City will be significantly reducing services and/or hours of operation at several facilities financed with PFDIF funds. Potential PFIDF funded facilities to be impacted include the South Chula Vista Library Branch, the Veterans' Park Recreation Facility, the Montevalle Community Center, and the Salt Creek Community Center. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Five-Year Financial Forecast Report: Fiscal Years 2010-11 through 2014-15 2. October 5, 2010 Report on the City Manager's Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget Balancing Plan 3. Budget Reduction Summaries from Fiscal Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 Budgets 4. Development Processing and Impact Fee Payment Program 5. March 2, 2010 Report and Resolution on Purchase of Lower Sweetwater Community Park Site and Interfund PAD Loan 6. Fiscal Year 2009-10 Financial Schedules for all DIFs PREPARED BY: Name: Maria Kachadoorian Title: Finance DirectorlTreasurer Name: Karim Galeana Title: Senior Accountant Name: Tiffany Allen Title: Fiscal & Management Analyst Date: January 4, 2011 Page 9 1-83 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011'QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1!09 -6/30/10, to tBe Current Time, and Five-Year Forecast) FIRE'/ 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 Review Period Call Volume d Response win . 7:00 Minutes - ` '.THRESHOLD ~ 60.0% FY 2010 10,296 85.0 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 .. for80% of Calls, ; :Average Travet Time '. 5:09 3:40 4:46 3:33 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 wmpared to 2003 is within the 2.5 % range of expected yeany variation and not statistically significant. Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. During the period under review, were 80%of calls responded to within the threshold standard of seven minutes? If not, what is required to meet the threshold standard? Yes X No Our aging Reserve Engine fleet is beginning to hinder our performance capabilities. The older reserve fleet has smaller engines, older suspension and smaller brakes. All of these aspects reduce our ability to respond quicker and more efficiently resulting in longer response times. 2. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have sufficient properly equipped fire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. Page i 1-84 Yes X * No 'The City of Chula Vista currently has a fire apparatus replacement policy that exceeds the recognized National Fire Protection Associations (NFPA) standard. The city's policy calls for keeping our primary emergency response vehicles in front line service for 20 years and in reserve status for 5 years. This policy exceeds the national standard for front line service by 5 years. Our current reserve apparatus fleet consists of five open cab engines which do not meet the 1992 NFPA standard for enclosed cab fire engines. The fire department is working with the city leaders to change this policy and to align it with the national standard. 3. During the period under review, did the Fire Department have adequate staffing citywide forfire and medical units to maintain threshold standard service levels? If not, please explain. Yes X No 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 5. Are current facilities, equipment and staff able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No X Current facilities, staffing, and equipment would not be sufficient to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years if major projects such as the Bay Front, Eastern Urban Center and Village 8 & 9 projects move forward. Projects of these magnitudes would require additional fire infrastructure. In addition, Fire Station 5, located at Fourth Ave. and Oxford Street, was built in 1960 and is in need of major renovation. In 2009 the fire department applied for a grant through President Obama's Stimulus Package to build a new Station 5. The station was to be located south of the existing site adjacent to the South Chula Vista Library, however we did not receive the grant. 6. Please report any significant progress in the adoption of the Fire Facility Master Plan. A consultant was hired to update the Fire Facility Master Plan. One scope of the project focuses on implementing a plan to incorporate NFPA 1710 as the baseline standard for response. The draft has been completed and we are awaiting the final document which is due in January 2011. The Fire Facility Master Plan will then go to Council for adoption in February of 2011. Page 2 1-85 7 On the table below, please provide comparative data on response and calls for service before and after the transition to San Diego Dispatch. Percentage Average Average Average of Calls Dates Call Volume Response Time.. Dispatch Time TraveLTime Within 7 Minutes FY 2009/10 10,296 6:11 20 seconds 3:40 85.0 FY 2008/09 9,363 5:23 32 seconds 3:33 84.0 3-4-08 thru 82.2 3-3-08*hru I 6,871 4:58 11 seconds I 3:19 I 87.4 on 8. 9. What percentage of calls received were for fire services, and what percentage were for medical emergency services? Fire 4.3% Medical 85.8% Other Emergencies 9.9% Other Emergencies include Overpressure Ruptures or Explosions, Hazardous Conditions (gasoline/chemical/radioactive leak/spill), and smoke checks. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Fire Department is adopting the principles and response criteria from NFPA 1710. In February, we will present the updated Fire Facility Master Plan to council for adoption. Implementing this threshold and developing a plan to improve compliance with these standards will improve our capacity to meet not only national standards for Fire and EMS response, but our GMOC standards as well. PREPARED BY: Name: Dave Hanneman Title: Fire Chief Date: January 18, 2011 and Name: Stefanie Balchak Title: Public Safety Analyst Date: January 18, 2011 Page 3 -$6 is x# z r f:. 'n ~i~`~,~"~~r~~, ~'~ ' 3~aa~ i~i ~, MS~~s;i ~"tt; r+'e~~"~`"~~r~"~ a~.~ ~~3L ~~ii"dl~i,~z~# ~'*fi 31~;;~f t ~r2 GC~C~W~i'H~MA~NAGE~VIEN7'~O~~EF2SIG¢1T~CQMM~ISS~ON`2Q~'K~'QUESrT~O~1~~CAIRE'k ~ RAP „_ '1 a ;~` '~~~r, ; ~ ~`,~e~fevd Penrod 7/1109,~~G1~?O!'f~,„fa"ffie ,CuEren~.Time,'antl Ftc+~fiXe~ ~~oFecas~T ,, 'r ;~f~`~~e~~~'u ~ ~~.;~$CHOOLS - CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY. SCHOOL DISTRIGTrta ~ rt~ ~~ ~k£;, .e~`l f.. ~"~n.~ . , x 3 THRESHOLD STANDARD: The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12-to 18-month forecast and request an evaluation of their abilities to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities; 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; and 4. Other relevant information the districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS -NOVEMBER 2010 Schools Current Enrollment Building Capacity Amount Under(n) Overflow Overflow Comments Permanent Portables (Over Capacity(-n)' Out In NORTHWEST Ccok 544 488 93 37 26 Feaster-Edison 1,098 425 684 11 1 Hilltop Drive 547 435 95 -17 Mueller 862 411 348 -103 2 Rosebank 643 426 263 46 3 Vista Square 610 321 304 15 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 634 638 0 4 Castle Park 403 319 126 42 Harborside 674 413 398 137 Kellogg 371 250 155 34 Lauderbach 871 516 386 31 25 Loma Verde 521 577 0 56 1 Montgomery 375 277 124 26 5 Otay 601 417 264 80 5 Palomar 380 419 0 39 Rice 720 492 213 -15 4 Rohr 412 432 13 33 1 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 833 579 164 -90 Olympic View 1,017 1025 0 8 9 Parkview 892 763 120 -9 1-87 Pape 1 Rogers 867 772 80 -15 Valle Lindo 797 444 328 -25 Hedenkamp 421 366 77 22 17 Heritage 497 514 13 30 17 Veterans 567 382 225 40 McMillin 791 664 124 -3 3 Wolf Canyon ftOR, , Allen/Ann Daly 839 427 786 t 504 0 g:.; 0 -53 77 g 1~~. Casillas 619 401 142 -76 1 Chula Vista Hills 540 512 80 52 Clear View 530 349 186 5 Discovery 786 532 253 -1 Eastlake 560 406 250 96 27 Halecrest 451 423 80 52 4 Liberty 722 727 0 5 3 Marshall 726 517 133 -76 3 Salt Creek ggg 808 186 5 Tiffany 555 368 206 19 - i u~ - i arge[ea ~mprovemem gran[ `NCLB - No child left behind `PI -Program improvement school 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 201 and (b) December 2015, based on the City s forecast. 2 a. 13-MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2011 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Overflow Comments Enrollment 12/31/11 Permanent Portables Over/Under Capacity* Out 'In NORTHWEST Cook 551 488 93 30 Feaster- Edison 1,079 425 684 30 Hilltop Drive 555 435 95 -25 Mueller 882 411 348 -123 Rosebank 665 426 263 24 Vista Square 599 321 304 26 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 552 638 0 86 Castle Park 387 319 126 58 Harborside 690 413 398 121 Kellogg 347 250 155 58 Lauderbach 780 516 386 122 Loma Verde 515 577 0 62 Montgomery 534 277 124 ,;a33 i-oa Page 2 Otay 612 417 264 69 Palomar 378 419 0 41 Rice 730 492 213 -25 Rohr 423 432 13 22 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 838 579 164 -95 Olympic View 1,032 1025 0 -7 Parkview 894 763 120 -11 Rogers 865 772 80 -13 Valle Lindo 786 444 328 -14 Hedenkamp 398 366 77 45 Heritage 493 514 13 34 Veterans 560 382 225 47 McMillin 847 664 124 -59 Wolf Canyon 991 786 0 -205 Allen/Ann Daly 413 504 0 91 Casillas 602 401 142 -59 CV Hills 518 512 80 74 Clear View 528 349 186 7 Discovery 803 532 253 -18 Eastlake 547 406 250 109 Halecrest 420 423 80 83 Liberty 703 727 0 24 Marshall 729 517 133 -79 Salt Creek g76 808 186 18 Tiffany 573 368 206 1 *(-) denotes amount over capacity 2.b ` FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2015 Schools Projected Projected Capacity Amount Overflow Overflow Comments Enrollment 12/31N5 Permanent Portables Over/Under Capacity` Out In NORTHWEST Cook 542 488 93 39 Feaster-Edison 1,114 425 684 -5 Hilltop Drive 600 435 95 -70 Mueller 861 411 348 -102 Rosebank 683 426 263 6 Vista Square 600 321 304 25 SOUTHWEST Learning Comm. 579 638 0 59 Castle Park 371 319 126 74 Harborside 690 413 398 121 711 250 155 306 - 9 Page 3 Kellogg Lauderbach 809 516 386 93 Loma Verde 560 577 0 17 Montgomery 343 277 124 58 Otay 620 417 264 61 Palomar 406 419 0 13 Rice 734 492 213 -29 Rohr 404 432 13 41 SOUTHEAST Arroyo Vista 831 579 164 -88 Olympic View 1,162 1025 0 -137 Parkview 918 763 120 -35 Rogers 857 772 80 -5 Valle Lindo 778 444 328 -6 Hedenkamp 374 366 77 69 Heritage 449 514 13 78 Veterans 526 382 225 81 McMillin 995 664 124 -207 Wolf Canyon 1,483 786 0 -697 NORTHEAST Allen/Ann Daly 380 504 0 124 Casillas(move SE) 545 401 142 -2 Chula Vista Hills 455 512 80 137 Clear View 533 349 186 2 Discovery 819 532 253 -34 Eastlake 576 406 250 80 Halecrest 377 423 80 126 Liberty 647 727 0 80 Marshall 666 517 133 -16 Salt Creek 947 808 186 47 Tiffany 672 368 206 -98 *(-) denotes amount over capacity Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,414 4,537 4,447 4,445 4,409 %ofChangeOver the Previous Year -3% 2% 1% 1% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 5,955 6,208 5,892 5,979 6,089 of Change Over the Previous Year -`t% 5% -1 % -2% ~-9~ Page 4 of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,243 7,328 6,923 6,525 6,359 of Change Over the Previous Year _1 % 6% 6% 2% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,021 7,252 7,105 7,021 6,601 of Change Over the Previous Year 3% 2% 1% 6% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 27,521 28,224 27,251 26,919 26,472 of Change Over the Previous Year -2% 3% 2% 4% of Enrollment from Chula Vista 90% 98% Please provide brief responses to the following: 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next t2 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes No _X_ Additional schools will be constructed in the Otay Ranch Villages 11 and 2 as needed to serve students moving into the Otay Ranch area and as State funding becomes available. 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No _X_ Schools are planned in each of the new Otay Ranch Villages. Current plans have identified sites in Villages 11 and 2. 6. Please complete the new schools status table, below. t v; ~ 'tE ~y7„ ' ' ~$~~P { ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ $ ~ x' ~ ~ i .l .it, .re :- v 3~. l# S d 3.' ~ G1lM. Ck, +~; CJ x M.7 N ? .? u.+: ifxA . ~,v , School Site Architectural Commencement Service Commencement Time Selection Review/Funding of Site by of Construction Needed By ID for Land and Preparation Utilities Construction and Road Village X Land has been X X Unknown Market ,I ~ purchased Dependent School 1-91 Page 5 Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of new and existing facilities? If not, please explain. Yes _X_ No 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Continue frequent communication between the Cify and CVESD. Identify options that will accommodate the increased student enrollment resulting from western Chula Vista redevelopment and Bayfront development plans. The District continues to work with the Office of Public School Construction to increase its unhoused student eligibility. If eligibilityis not increased, the District may not qualify forstate school construction funding. Without continued state funding, school construction will not keep pace with growth. PREPARED BY: Name: Carolyn Scholl Title: Facilities Planning Manager Date: January 2011 1-92 Page 6 DRAFT FOR CONSIDERATION BY SUHSD BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON FEBRUARY 14, 2011 "' GROWTH`.MANAGEMENT OVERSIGH GO MISSCf)Nta~10?"I~QFJ~S~I~ONNi41RE { ,- (Reurew,Pei~oa! 7f1(09 6/30/10 to fh~Cii `"imea~`~afF-`v~ ea,'F_o~e~asv~ ,'~ti~~, ~• .... fix:. ti t...i „v2`, .. .^,,, {~'.,i#+ at~s~i~~."s!'"i'.#._-~.'fi.asa~Sfi''.."~n.'t"w~,"k x . a,.t~..~'f<{ "... :. a ° F 4°~! R iti t i ~ia.~' . `S t"' '~ ~ : ~~~~ ~s'.H l ~'4 ~,~J t ~ f i -. ~,SCHOOLS,~SWEETWATERUNIONHIGIi;SCttOOI.DISTRIG'C ,t'~~"~'~,?~,`=~ rte., ~ e -,~;.: q.:r,'i. * 1a~+.v.~..t ~> .. THRESHOLD STANDARD: The City shall annually provide the two local school districts with a 12- to 18-month forecast and request evaluations of their abilities to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed; 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities; 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities; and 4. Other relevant information the districts desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please complete the table below, indicating the current enrollment and capacity conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS -NOVEMBER 2010 Current Building Capacity Adjusted Physical Within Overflowed Schools Enrollment Permanent/Portables Building Education Capacity .Out Comments 11/10 (Note 1) Capacity" Capacity NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,191 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 1,107 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,636 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop High 2,133 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 1,041 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 1,534 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 402 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,014 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,466 2,460 480 2,940 220 X Eastlake Middle 1,605 1,665 0 1,665 220 X Otay Ranch High 2,679 2,600 300 2,900 220 X Olympian High (HS#13) 1,696 2,460 0 2,460 220 X NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,213 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,112 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Rancho Del Rey Middle 1,613 1,380 60 1,440 220 Note 2 Note 1: Capacity figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) -September 2003. 'Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning centers. Note 2: OverFlow capacity is accommodated on-site through creative master scheduling and increases in class size. 1-93 2. Please complete the tables below (insert new schools into the tables, as appropriate) to indicate the projected conditions for (a) December 2011 and (b) December 2015, based on the City• s forecast. 2.a 13-MONTH FORECASTED CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2011 Schools Projected Enrollment 12/31111 - BuildingCapacity PermanenUPortables ..,.(Note 1) Adjusted Building Capacity' Physical Education .:`Capacity. Within -. Capacity OverFlowed Out Comments NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,065 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 997 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,792 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop High 2,077 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 994 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 1,510 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 402 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,014 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 2,563 2,460 480 2,940 220 X Eastlake Middle 1,626 1,665 0 1,665 220 X Otay Ranch High 2,604 2,600 300 2,900 220 X Olympian High 1,817 2,460 0 2,460 220 X NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,127 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 1,113 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Rancho del Rey Middle 1,576 1,380 60 1,440 220 Note 2 Note 1: Capacity figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) -September 2003. `Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning centers. Note 2: Overflow capacity is accommodated on-site through creative master scheduling and increases in class size. -94 Page 2 2.b FIVE-YEAR FORECASTED CONDITIONS --DECEMBER 2015' Schools Projected Enrollment ".12131/15: ... (Note 1) Building Capacity - PermanenUPortables (Note 3) Adjusted Building Capacity'., Physical. Education Capacity'. Within ;Capacity Overflowed -0ut Comments NORTHWEST Chula Vista Middle 1,091 1,140 270 1,410 220 X Hilltop Middle 991 1,200 210 1,410 220 X Chula Vista High 2,677 1,860 990 2,850 220 X Hilltop High 1,894 2,040 510 2,550 220 X SOUTHWEST Castle Park Middle 954 1,380 150 1,530 220 X Castle Park High 1,223 1,350 570 1,920 220 X Palomar High 402 360 240 600 100 X Chula Vista Adult 3,014 N/A N/A N/A N/A X SOUTHEAST Eastlake High 3,403 2,460 480 2,940 220 Note 2 Eastlake Middle 2,006 1,665 0 1,665 220 Note 2 Otay Ranch High 2,475 2,600 300 2,900 220 X Olympian (HS#13) 2,856 2,460 0 2,460 220 Note 2 MS #12 Note 2 1,000 0 1,000 200 Note 2 HS #14 Note 2 2,000 0 2,000 200 Note 2 NORTHEAST Bonita Vista High 2,024 1,770 780 2,550 220 X Bonita Vista Middle 924 1,110 420 1,530 220 X Rancho del Rey Middle 1,686 1,380 60 1,440 220 Note 2 Note 1: Please note thatthese projections, prepared by Davis Demographics and Planning (DDP) in October2008, on behalf of the Sweetwater Union High School District, reflect projected enrollments based upon the students dwelling within the actual attendance boundary of the respective school. It should be further noted that the school district supports specialized programs at various schools, which allow students throughout the district to choose to attend schools other than their assigned school. The impact of this transfer policy is impossible to project beyond aone-year timeline. Therefore, the 2015 projections provided herein, are merely a projection by DDP of students residing in the respective school boundary. Note 2: District staff currently projects the need for Middle School No. 12 no earlier than 2014. The school will relieve Eastlake and Rancho Del Rey Middle Schools. District staff currently projects the need far High School No. 14 no earlier than 2014. The school will relieve Eastlake and Olympian High Schools. Since attendance boundaries have not been established, enrollment projections cannot be made nor can we project exactly how the affected schools' enrollment will be reduced. Note 3: Capacity figures taken from Long Range Facility Master Plan (loaded at 30 students per classroom) -September 2003. `Capacity is the adjusted building capacity plus physical education capacity. It excludes students and capacity assigned to special abilities clusters and learning centers. -.9 rJ Page 3 3. Please complete the table below to indicate enrollment history. ENROLLMENT HISTORY 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 NORTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 7,067 7,242 7,446 7,434 7,366 of Change Over the Previous -2.4% -2.7% 0.2% ° 0.9 /° ° 0.6/0 Year of Enrollment from Chula 88% 88% 89% 88% 87% Vista SOUTHWEST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 2,977 3,064 3,281 3,423 3,582 of Change Over the Previous -2.8% -6.6% -4.2% -4.6% -9.6% Year of Enrollment from Chula gq% 94% 94% 95% 91 Vista SOUTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 8,446 8,242 7,857 7,512 7,108 of Change Over the Previous 2 5% 4.9% 4.6% 5.4 % 8.7% Year of Enrollment from Chula g5% 94% 96% 87% 86% Vista (Note 1) NORTHEAST SCHOOLS Total Enrollment 4,938 5,088 5,133 5,003 4,997 of Change Over the Previous _1 4% -2.4% 2.6% 0.1% 2.5% Year of Enrollment from Chula 72 /° 71% 94% 95% 96% Vista DISTRICT WIDE Total Enrollment 41,580 42,420 42,839 42,408 41,680 of Change Over the Previous _1.98% -0.98% 1.0% 1.7% ° -0 4 /0 Year . of Enrollment from Chula 49% 48% ° 57 /a ° 55 /° 52 /o ° Vista 4. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth through the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please explain. Yes X No 5. Are existing facilities/schools able to accommodate forecasted growth forthe next five years? If not, please explain. Yes No X District will need construct Middle School No. 12 and may need to construct High School No. 14 within the next 5 years. '_^c Pa4e 4 6. Please complete the new schools status table, below. NEW'SCHOOLSiSTATUS School Site Architectural Commence- Service Commencement Time Selection Review/Funding ment of Site by of Construction Needed ID for Land and Preparation Utilities By Construction and Road MS #12 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 2014 Est. 2016 HS #14 Complete Complete Complete Complete Est. 20114 Est. 2016 7. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities/schools? If not, please explain. Yes X No 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations orsuggestionsthat you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The unstable economy and high foreclosure rate make the 5-year projections for east Chula Vista very tentative. The timing of Middle School 12 and High School 14 may change significantly as the economy recovers. PREPARED BY: Name: Planning Department Date: January 21, 2011 Draft for consideration by the Sweetwater Union High School District Board of Trustees at its February 2011 Meeting. 1-97 Page 5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMiNISS10N 20011 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/09 - 6/30/10 to Current Period and Five Yeac Forecast) PARKS AND RECREATION THRESHOLD STANDARD Population Ratio: three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided per 1,000 residents east of I-805. The following table compares City of Chula Vista population estimates from previous years with current and forecasted population estimates. Park acreage provided or anticipated to be provided is also identified. Additionally, the table identifies the park acres to population ratio, (acres of parkland provided per 1,000 persons) for the respective review periods. CITY OWNED PdRI<'ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons 18-Mth Prior Year Comparisons Threshold Area of City Current F/cast: 5-Year Standard (6/30110) .12.31.11 'F/cast June June'June' * .. 2015`*` ~ 2007 '2008 ' 2009 3 Acres per Eastl-805 1,000 AC/1,000 persons 3.32 3.45 3.08 3.58 3.50 3.42 Population ~, East YVest I-805 of I-805 AC/1.OOp persons 1.15 1.14 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.15 Clt}/4Vifie AC/1,000 persons 222 2.30 2.'18 2.31 2.28 225 Acres of East I-805 390.44 418.01 424.91 Parkland 389.44 389.44 389.44 West 1-805 138.76 138.76 142."06 138 76 138.7n" 138.76 Cityovide 529.20' 556.77" 567.57"" 528.20 5'28.20 528.20 Population East I-805 117,528 121,054 137,640 108,672 111,365 113,870 1iVest I-805 120.546 120,89"0 122,172 120,195 120,346 120,445 Citytivide 238,074 241,950 259:512 228,867 231.711 234,315 Acre Shortfall East I-805 37.66 ! 54.85 11.99 63.42 55.35 47.83 or Excess 'd`/es I-SG5 1222.88) (223.9:1) {223.8f>') (221.83) (22228) (222.44) City1n!ide {185.0?'.) ,169.08) {21L87) 1158.40) (166.93) (161.55) ' Town Square Park, Winding Walk added (1 acres HOA but with park credit) "" Mount San Miguel Community Park and All Seasons Neighborhood Park open. "*'Assumes completion of Otay Ranch Village 2 Neighborhood Park P-3 (6.93 acres) and the SDG&E/Library Park (3.9) C:\Documents and Settings\KimV\Local SettingslTemporary I~g$Iles\OLK1 B\Parks and Recreatlon.2011 final dec2.2010.doc Pag 1 GENERAL PLANNING ESTIMATES Chula Vista Po ulation -- East versus West Area/Year 2000 2010 2015 East of I-805 64,827 117,528 137,640 West of I-805 118,473 120,546 122,172 Total 183,300 238,074 259,812 Please provide brief responses to the following: Pursuant to the Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold, did the eastern Chula Vista parks system have the required parkland acreage (3 acres/1,000 persons) during the period under review? If no, what actions are being taken, or need to be taken, to correct any parkland shortages? Yes X No 2. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next 12- to 18- months? Yes X No The opening of both Mount San Miguel Community Park and All Seasons Neighborhood Park will maintain a park supply in Eastern Chula Vista that complies with the City of Chula Vista Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold through the next 12 - 18 months with a ratio of 3.45 acres per one thousand persons. See response to question 8 for information on the citywide situation. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? 3. Are there adequate parks and facilities to accommodate citywide growth forecasted for the next five years? Yes X No The projected construction of Parks in Village Two' will maintain a park supply in Eastern Chula Vista that complies with the City of Chula Vista Parks Development Ordinance (PDO) and Parks and Recreation threshold through the projected five years of this GMOC forecast period with a ratio of 3.08 acres per one thousand persons. (* Otay Ranch Village Two P-3 is able to proceed to construction. Staff will also be working to construct a first phase of the Village 2 Community Park However it is not certain that it will be open by June 2015 so the ~-99 Page 2 acreage is not included in the total projected parkland acreage. The ratio of 3.08 acres per one thousand persons will be achieved but will be higher if the first phase of the community park is complete.) See response to question 8 for information on the citywide situation. If not: a. How many acres of parks and facilities are needed? b. Are there sites available for the needed parks and facilities? c. Is funding available for the needed parks and facilities? 4. Are there other growth-related issues you see affecting the ability to maintain the threshold standard as Chula Vista's population increases? If yes, please explain. Yes No x 5. Regarding recreation facilities, how do current hours of service compare to previous years? How have they been affected by budget cuts over the past two years? And what is projected in the future? Budget reductions have resulted in the closure of a recreation facility (Community Youth Center) and a 27% decrease in hours of operation at Recreation Centers. Reductions have also resulted in a 43% decrease in available recreational swimming hours at City aquatic facilities. Additional proposed budget reductions would result in the closure of 5 additional Centers (Norman Park, Parkway, Loma Verde, Otay, and Salt Creek), and the closure of Parkway Swimming Pool. 6. Are parks and recreation facilities, such as gazebos, being leased to the maximum? Yes, from the start of April to the end of October reservations run close to capacity. Approximately 4,900 reservations were made in 2009 and a similar amount has already been made in 2010. 7. What is the status of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan? The Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan update document is nearing completion and is expected to be released to the public in the first quarter of 2011. 8. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. It should be noted that, when the GMOC process began, the inherited situation was that the western part of the City was already built with less than 3 acres per one thousand persons park provision. As a result of this legacy in Western Chula Vista projections are not able to meet the standard of 3 acres per one thousand persons that applies to new development. Since the inception of GMOC the City has exacted park obligations from developers, per the PDO, in the both the eastern and western portion of the City concurrent with development. The Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Master Plan (approved in November 2002 and currently being updated) identifies future park sites and the locations of future facilities Citywide. In addition to defining development of new park sites and upgrades to existing parks the Master Plan includes a park programming matrix which clearly defines where needed facilities will be located. 1-100 Page 3 The Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Master Plan identifies timing of planned facilities and funding sources. The plan also recognizes that the acreage required to accommodate desired recreation facilities exceeds the total amount of parkland obligations associated with future development. The assignment of needed recreation facilities tonon-public park sites, such as future school sites, is necessary to accommodate future demand since the total developer obligated future park acreage is less than the total acres required by demanded facilities. PREPARED BY: Name: Mary Radley Title: Landscape Architect Date: 11/12/10 1-101 Page 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE "(Review Period: 7/1/09 - 6/30/10, to the Current Time and Five Year Forecast) SEWER THRESHOLD STANDARDS 1. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards (75% of design capacity). 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego Metropolitan SewerAuthoritywith a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City•s purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth, or the City Public Works Services Department staff shall gather the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC shall include the following: a. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. b. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. c. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. d. Other relevant information. The growth forecast and Authority response letters shall be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. Please update the table below: yet } 3 fixF H .. ~"N~~ X~ f ~tE"Y1 ~.~ `~~~. ~ < " ~~jh~~ 1 1 ~G~E~ E 'F)o~nd~ ci " ~rt ~ L ~e(k(ts x 3~a1 ~ GCl §Oy F ca! ea ~ '~ to~E ~~ ~ o a ea a ~ 'a B'` 3~ fit ~ r ~. , }' ~, ~~i ;~ a ~ t .. Average 16.517 16.219 16.916** 18.542** 26.2 Flow Capacity 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 20.864 'Buildout Projection based on Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan (2005) utilizing the "Preferred Alternative'"model as was adopted in the last General Plan Update. "Assumes a total of 1752 EDU's per year Please provide brief responses to the following: 1. Have sewage flows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards (75%of design capacity) at any time during the period under review? If yes, please indicate where, when and why this occurred, and what has been, or will be done, to correct the situation. H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2010-2011 Review Cycle\Questionnaires\Completed Questionnaires\Sewer.2011.doc Page 1 1-102 Yes No X . 2. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 12- to 18-month forecasted growth? If not, what facilities need to be added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site availability? Yes X No 3. Are current facilities adequate to accommodate the 5-year forecasted growth? If not, what facilities need to be added, and is there adequate funding for future facilities, including site availability? Yes X No 4. Is adequate funding secured and/or identified for maintenance of existing facilities? If not, please explain. Yes X No 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. In 2008, City staff reported on research regarding the construction of a sewer treatment facility in the City of Chula Vista, as well as the purchasing of additional treatment capacity rights from other agencies within the Metro system, as possible methods in which the City could meet our projected "buildout" sewage flow estimates. While a study has been completed regarding the potential construction of a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Wastewater Reclamation Plant, and the study concluded that itwas feasible to construct the plant, City staff still has further research to conduct. An additional study regarding a Chula Vista MBR plant is currently being finalized in a coordinated effort between City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District staff. The study is evaluating larger plant sizes than previous studies and it includes a more detailed understanding of specific plant design requirements, construction costs, recycled water demands for the region, and permitting requirements. The study results will be available by the third quarter of FY10-11. While staff is interested in learning more about the feasibility of a Chula Vista treatment plant, the idea of purchasing capacity from another agency has not been abandoned. However, until construction costs of the treatment plant are fully understood, negotiations on the price of purchasing capacity are not proceeding. The Point Loma Treatment Plant environmental waiverwas re-issued in 2010 for five years. As a part of the negotiations to obtain said waiver, a major regional recycled water study is underway and is anticipated to be completed in June 2011. The City of San Diego Public Utilities Department will use the results of the recycled water study to propose the ultimate solution for the Point Loma Treatment Plant. PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto Yano Title: Senior Civil Engineer Date: 10/13/10 H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2010-2011 Review Cycle\Questionnaires\Completed Questionnaires\Sewer.2011.doc Page 2 1-103 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE ` (Review Period: 7/1/09 - fi/30/10 to current time and Five Year Forecast) DRAINAGE THRESHOLD STANDARDS: Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the goals and objectives above. Please provide brief responses to the following: Have storm waterflows or volumes exceeded City Engineering Standards at anytime during the period under review? Yes No X If yes: a. Where did this occur? b. Why did this occur? c. What has been, or is being done to correct the situation? Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the 12- to 18-month growth forecast? If so, please explain. Yes No X 3. Will any new facilities be required to accommodate the 5-year growth forecast? If so, please explain. Yes X No Poggi Canvon Basin: Development in eastern Chula Vista constructed prior to the detention requirement within the Poggi Canyon Basin (generally including Otay Ranch south of East Palomar Street) may be contributing toward storm drainage in the Woodlawn Park area of western Chula Vista. The downstream facility includes a natural channel that flows into the Otay River. The area around this channel is largely undeveloped and the impact of storm drainage is minimal. The construction of additional drainage improvements in this area is not Priority 1 or Priority 2 projects. Drainage improvements would likely be a condition of in-fill development in this area. Telegragh Canvon Basin: The unimproved portion of the channel downstream (southwest) of Sierra Way and associated drainage facilities near the intersection of Third Avenue and L Street plus new culverts at Country Club Drive and First Avenue. 1-104 a. Are there sites available for the needed facilities? Developers in eastern Chula Vista will be required to provide all necessary facilities and their respective share of maintenance costs to accommodate their impact. Additional facilities or the reconstruction of existing facilities may be needed in order to accommodate new development in western Chula Vista where the parcels are redeveloped at a higher density or where development encroaches onto natural drainage areas. This will be reviewed with respect to the new Hydro-modification Plan. b. How will these facilities be funded? Improvements to the Telegraph Canyon Channel can be partially funded through the Telegraph Canyon Drainage DIF. However, there may not be sufficientfunds in the DIF to finance all the improvements needed in this basin. Since the areas adjacent to most new development are generally privately owned, the propertyownerwill fund their proportionate share of these improvements as a condition of development. However, general impacts on developed areas may need to be funded by the City. c. Is an appropriate/adequate mechanism(s) in place to provide funding? As previously mentioned, the Telegraph Canyon DIF can be used to finance improvements in the Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin. 4. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Insufficient facilities and/or funds may result in an increased potential for flooding, particularly in western Chula Vista, for collapse of corroded CMP and for erosion, particularly in natural channels and canyons. Forthe City's NPDES program, it could result in impairment of water quality within receiving waters and create a condition of non-compliance with the Municipal Permit, exposing the City to penalties. PREPARED BY: Name: Roberto Yano Title: Sr. Civil Engineer Date: 11 /12/2010 1-105 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE i (Review Period:?/1/09 - 6/30/10, to Current Time, and Five Year Forecast) II AIR QUALITY -City of Chula Vista II THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development related activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Quality Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. Please provide brief responses to the following: Regarding development that occurred during the period under review, please provide an overview of how measures designed to foster air quality improvement, pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies, were implemented. Development within Chula Vista is guided by a number of policies and planning documents to help improve local air quality. The Chula Vista General Plan, which provides a blueprint for future development, highlights the City's goal to "improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants (Objective E6)." Through the Plan, the design and siting of new projects are evaluated and modified to promote multi-use, compact development which favors pedestrians, biking and public transit over owner-occupied vehicles. New larger development projects are also required to create Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIPs). In the last year, the City's AQIP thresholds were updated to further emphasize lower greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions through passive solar design, energy-saving landscaping strategies, and public transit/pedestrian-focused transportation networks. 1-106 Page 1 Energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities within new development projects are pursued through the City's Sustainable Communities program which works to integrate "clean energy' into the permitting and inspection process. Since January 2010, program staff provided technical support to over 1,100 permit applicants, contractors, and other public agencies on energy efficiency building measures. In addition, over 50 staff training sessions have been organized to educate permit counter technicians, plans examiners, and building inspectors on advanced energy technologies. Finally, the program facilitated approximately 400 new/remodeled buildings meeting the City's new green building standard (includes water efficiency, indoor air quality, and storm water management) and 260 buildings meeting the new enhanced energy efficiency standard. Are Chula Vista's development regulations, policies and procedures consistentwith current applicable federal, state and regional air quality regulations and programs? If not, please explain any inconsistencies, and indicate actions needed to bring development regulations, policies and/or procedures into compliance. Yes X No In 2000, the City of Chula Vista formally established a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target of 20% below 1990 levels through its original Carbon Dioxide (COZ) Reduction Plan. With the assistance of the City's Climate Change Working Group comprised of residents, businesses, and community representatives, this climate action plan was revised in 2008 to further promote alternative fuel use, expand the installation of solar and energy efficient retrofits, reduce outdoor water use, establish green building requirements, and develop transit and pedestrian-oriented communities. The revised climate action plan serves as the City's main policy document for addressing greenhouse gas and associated criteria air pollutant emissions throughout the community. The Chula Vista 2009 GHG Emissions Inventory determined that annual citywide emissions levels have increased by 28% compared to 1990, but decreased 2% since 2008. Furthermore, per capita emission levels in Chula Vista decreased since 2008 and are approximately 27% below 1990 levels. In addition to revised Air Quality Improvement Plan thresholds (described underquestion 1), Chula Vista has integrated greenhouse gas emissions into its project review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All new development projects which trigger CEQA review must analyze the greenhouse gas emission impacts generated by the construction and operation of their project and incorporate mitigation measures to lower emission to a "non-significant" level. Staff is also currently working to revise the City's Design Standards which small infill development projects must integrate. The new standards will further emphasize efficient and sustainable design concepts which will contribute to improving local air quality. California Senate Bill 375 required Metropolitan Planning Organizations (such as the San Diego Association of Governments) to begin to develop plans to reduce transportation- related greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable land use practices. These practices would be integrated into a regional "Sustainable Communities Strategy" which would ultimately lower emissions by 7% by 2020 and 13% by 2035. When the SANDAG Sustainable Communities Strategy is finalized, the City will have to reassess its current land use policies to ensure compliance with emission reduction targets. Finally, City staff in coordination with community stakeholders has been working to develop policies and regulations for evaluating the siting of future Electrical Generating Facilities (EGFs) within the City to protect the public health and safety. The resulting policy provides guidelines for making decisions regarding local EGF sitings that are consistent with the intent and spirit of an open, transparent and inclusive public process. The policy also 1-107 Page 2 recognizes the City's commitment to transitioning to a less dependent fossil fuel burning (carbon-based) future in an economicallyand environmentally sustainable manner. General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance provisions will also be updated, as appropriate, in order to provide clear regulations under the new EGF siting policy. 3. Please provide a copy of the document City Council adopted which includes implementation plans for seven new carbon-reducing measures recommended by the city's Climate Change Working Group in July 2008. Also, are there any new non- development-related air quality programs/actions that the city is implementing or participating in? If so, please list and provide an explanation of each. A copy of the requested document is attached South Bay Power Plant Decommissioning City elected officials and staff have been working with state regulators and the community to decommission the South Bay Power Plant for more than 5 years. Although the 702 megawatt plant has only been operating two of its four gas turbines overthe previous year, it still represents a major point source for greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutants in Chula Vista. In October 2010, the California Independent System Operator officially removed "reliability must run" status from the power plant which will now allow the plant to be shut down. Plant operations are expected to end by December 31, 2010 with demolition occurring over the following two years. Regional Electric Vehicle Project As part of a $100 million grant from the Department of Energy, the City of Chula Vista is participating in amulti-agency project to deploy new electric vehicle charging stations throughout the region. In anticipation of the release of models such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt in 2011, the project is the largest deployment of electric vehicles and charging stations in history. The City of Chula Vista is helping to site new electric charging stations within its jurisdiction and to recruit residents and businesses who may be interested in taking advantage of federal and state incentives for the vehicles and receiving free charging stations. Bike Chula Vista Project & New Bikeway Master Plan In collaboration with the Pacific Association of Realtors, staff launched a new outreach campaign designed to promote bicycling as a healthy, safe, and economical commute alternative to the community. The outreach efforts, which include the production and distribution of a Chula Vista-specific bike map and presentations to major employers and realtor groups, complement the current revision process of the Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan. The updated plan outlines a framework for integrating bicycle infrastructure into new public and private development. Both the new plan and outreach efforts will support the City's pursuit of "Bicycle-Friendly Community" certification through the League ofAmerican Bicyclists. Home Upgrade, Carbon Downgrade With funding through federal Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grants, Chula Vista launched its Home Upgrade, Carbon Downgrade program which provides financial support to community members interested in installing energy-saving retrofits at their properties. Specific components include point-of sale rebates for energy-efficient appliances (in partnership with Home Depot, Sears, Best Buy, and K-Mart), matching incentives for community members participating in San Diego Gas & Electric's whole-building retrofit program, and low interest loans for Chula Vista property-owners to install energy efficiency or solar energy systems. 1-108 Page 3 Free Resource & Business Energy Evaluations (FREBE) The City integrated no-cost energy and water evaluations (called the Free Resource & Energy Business Evaluation program) as part of the business licensing process. The on-site evaluations are designed to help businesses identify ways to reduce energy/waster use and lower monthly utility costs. A survey of past participants noted that approximately 95% of businesses integrated a no or low-cost efficiency improvement as a result of their evaluations. Approximately 1,000 businesses with storefronts or offices are annually required to participate in the program per the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Climate Adaptation Strategies Per City Council's direction, staff reconvened a Climate Change Working Group to develop strategies to help the City reduce its risks and costs from future climate change impacts such as sea level rise, prolonged heat waves, greater local energy/water demand, and more frequent wildfires. Based on the Climate Change Working Group's recommendations, staff is now developing implementation plans for 11 strategies which would help "adapt" to climate change impacts as well as reduce energy/water use and improve local air quality. The implementation plans are scheduled to be presented to City Council in April 2011 for final review and consideration. Above-Ground Biodiesel Tank The City of Chula Vista recently installed a 12,000 gallon biodiesel tank at the Public Works Corp Yard. The new fueling infrastructure will allow over 125 heavy-duty fleet vehicles (such as dump trucks, excavators, and fire engines) to convert to the low carbon, low polluting fuel source. The biodiesel fuel is derived from recycled cooking oil collected from Chula Vista and other area restaurants. Staff is also working with the City's contracted fleets (for trash hauling, street sweeping, and towing) to convert their fleets to a 100% alternative fuel source. Are there any new non-development-related program efforts that the city needs to undertake pursuant to federal, state or regional air quality regulations? If so, please list and provide a brief explanation of each. Yes X No The City of Chula Vista continues to track the initial rollout of California's Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) which directed the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The AB32 Scoping Plan which outlines numerous new policies, programs, and requirements designed to meet the emissions reduction target appeals to local governments to reduce their operational and community-wide emissions by approximately 15% from current levels by 2020. This target parallels the City's past Council- approved policy to reduce Chula Vista's emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. As a result of AB32, the City will need to continue to implement its carbon-reducing measures and track its emission levels through annual inventories in the future. If emission reductions fail to occur, the City will need to reassess its approach and determine appropriate next steps. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. Similar to last years questionnaire response, the GMOC's air quality threshold standards could be strengthened by the addition of more formal quantifiable benchmarks (ex. days of poor air quality, emission levels per capita). Currently, the standards are more qualitative and may make it difficult for Commissioners and the general public to determine whether compliance is maintained. Because carbon emissions are influenced by a variety of environmental issues such as water use, energy consumption, transportation levels and 1-109 Page 4 solid waste disposal, a more specific greenhouse gas emissions standard could be especially useful for assessing cumulative growth impacts. Another option is to track the health risk index score generated by Chula Vista "hot spots' as reported in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's annual report. Either new quantitative standard would also allow City staff to more effectively identify actions and resources to address air quality compliance concerns. PREPARED BY: Name: Brendan Reed Title: Environmental Resource Manager Date: 11/16/10 1-110 Page 5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Period: 7/1/09 - li/30/10, to CurrenfTime, and Five-Year Forecast)'... II AIR QUALITY,-AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRIGT II THRESHOLD STANDARD The GMOC shall be provided with an annual report which: 1. Provides an overview and evaluation of local development projects approved during the prior year to determine to what extent they implemented measures designed to foster air quality improvement pursuant to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. 2. Identifies whether the City's development regulations, policies and procedures relate to, and/or are consistent with current applicable Federal, State and regional air quality regulations and programs. 3. Identifies non-development specific activities being undertaken by the City toward compliance with relevant Federal, State and local regulations regarding air quality, and whether the City has achieved compliance. The City shall provide a copy of said report to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for review and comment. In addition, the APCD shall report on overall regional and local air quality conditions, the status of regional air quality improvement implementation efforts under the Regional Air Quality Strategy and related Federal and State programs, and the affect of those efforts/programs on the City of Chula Vista and local planning and development activities. 1. Please update the table below: SMOG TRENDS - Number of Days Over Standards 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 u San Die o Re ion 16 23 21 18 8 7 Chula Vista 0 0 2 1 1 1 San Die o Re ion 5 14 8 11 4 1 Chula Vista 0 0 1 0 0 0 Please provide brief responses to the following: 2. How does air quality in areas that surround Chula Vista affect Chula Vista's air quality? Monitoring data show that ozone levels in Chula Vista are generally lower than in many other areas of the region. Therefore, it H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2010-2011 Review Cycle\Questionnaires\Completed QuestionnairesWir Quality\P.PCD.2011.doc Page 1 ~-~~~ appears that Chula Vista is not disproportionately impacted by ozone-precursor emissions from surrounding areas. 3. Please note any additional information relevant to regional and local air quality conditions during the period under review. 2010 was the cleanest year since monitoring began. 4. Were there any changes in federal or state programs, during the period under review, that could affect Chula Vista? Yes No X If yes, please explain: 5. Please provide a copy of the latest Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) report, revised in 2009, and summarize changes made from the previous version. The 2009 RAQS is available at http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/2009- ItAQS.pdf The 2009 I2AQS identifies the status of scheduled control measures and incorporates new control measures that were determined feasible based on updated information on technology availability, emission reduction potential, and cost-effectiveness. 6. Are there existing or future RAQS programs that Chula Vista needs to be aware of? Yes No X If yes, please explain: 7. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. PREPARED BY: Name: Carl Selnick Title: Air Quality Specialist Date: November 2, 2010 H:\PLANNING\GMOC\2010-2011 Review Cycle\Questionnaires\Completed QuestionnairesWir QualityWPCD.2011.doc Page 2 1-112 THRESHOLD STANDARDS: Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Otay Water District or Sweetwater Authority for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request an evaluation of their abilityto accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Otay WD planning area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. Please complete the tables below. ~,€I~Ifater=Demand and`Supply.;Capacity ~~ 3 ~ ~~ ~~ ` ... a ;:'i p : t 'v, ~' ~ 3 r N N i v i '~7„ a,, i~ {4Mliltiort Gallons Per Da MGD °~~ ? 'a ' ~ x~ , , , .,, y y , ,., . ,_ ,; Potable Water Rec cled Water Average Average Supply Storage Su I pp y Stora a g Demand Demand Capacity Capacity Timeframe Capacity (MGD) Capacity (MG) MGD MGD MGD MG Local Imported Treated Raw 5 -Year (2015) 28 4 25 0 143.5 224.6 0 0 3 93 7 2 43.7 Projection . . . . 12 - 18 Month j 27 3 0.0 143.5 219.6 0.0 3.39 7.2 43.7 Pro ection FY 2010 - 2011 27 3 0.0 143.5 219.6 0.0 3.39 7.2 43.7 Projection FY 2009 - 2010 30.9 0.0 137.5 219.6 0.0 3.48 7.2 43.7 FY 2008 - 2009 37.1 0.0 137.5 215.4 0.0 4.02 7.2 43.7 Page 1 1-113 ~' ~ FY ~ Sources of WateF ; 1r` ' ~ °~ ~ ~ s.~~ -~< ~-~~~~, ' , ~'~ ;; r .. a ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ 2009 -2010 ~"a~~~~ ~ ' , ~ ~ , , ~ } i tb t t k~s hip a7t$P ~ ~,t _. r t ,- ` ' ;q°1Vlilliiin Gallons er pa MGD ~ '`"s ` ~. f; ~^ 'i"``, ~ ., ,,. .. . M r , ,.~ ~ < ; . , .,.,. Water Source Amount (MGD) Percentage of Total 12-Month Projection- MGD SDCWA 121.5 83.96% 121.5 Helix WD 6.0 4.15% 12.0 Cit of San Die o 10.0 6.91 % 10.0 RWCWRF 1.2 0.83% 1.2 SBWRP 6.0 4.15% 6.0 Total 144.7 100.00% 150.7 Please provide brief responses to the following: Do current facilities have the ability to serve forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes _X_ No The existing potable and recycled water systems have the ability to serve forecasted growth within the City of Chula Vista over the next 12 to 18 month time frame. 3. Do current facilities have the ability to serve forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes No _X_ The existing potable and recycled water systems with inclusion of the following near term list of Otay WD capital improvement program (CIP) project facilities, together they are anticipated to be needed to serve forecasted growth within the City of Chula Vista over the next five year time frame. The listed CIP projects are in various stages of development from planning through construction completion including some with pending developer reimbursement expenditure release. The CIP project details such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are provided within the current Otay WD Fiscal Year 2011 through 2016 CIP documents. CIP Proiect CIP Proiect Title No. P2104 PL - 12-Inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road -Birch/Rock Mountain P2107 PL - 12-Inch, 711 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La Media/SR 125 P2325 PL - 10" to 12" Oversize, 1296 Zone, PB Road -Rollin Hills H dro PS/PB Bnd Page 2 1-114 P2399 PL - 30-Inch, 980 Zone, 980 Reservoirs to Hunte Parkwa P2402 PL - 12-Inch, 624 Zone, La Media Road -Villa e 7/Ota Valle P2403 PL - 12-Inch, 624 Zone, Herita a Road - OI m is/Ota Valle P2431 Res - 980-4 Reservoir 5 MG R2028 RecPL - 8-Inch, 680 Zone, Herita a Road -Santa Victoria/Ota Valle R2042 RecPL - 8-Inch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR-125/EastLake R2047 RecPL - 12-Inch, 680 Zone, La Media Road -Birch/Rock Mountain R2082 RecPL - 24-Inch, 680 Zone, OI m is Parkwa -Villa e 2/Herita e R2083 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Herita eRoad -Villa e 2/OI m is R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Villa e 2 -Herita a/La Media R2085 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, La Media -State/OI m is 4. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuant to the current year and 6-year capital improvement program projects that are needed to serve the City of Chula Vista? If yes, please explain. Yes _X_ No The following is a list of the maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects within the FY 2011 six-year Otay WD capital improvement program (CIP) that are planned and anticipated to be needed to serve the City of Chula Vista. The CIP project details such as total project budget, project description, justification, funding source, projected expenditures by year, project mapping, etc. are provided within the current Otay WD Fiscal Year 2011 through 2016 CIP documents. CIP Project CIP Project Title No. P2366 APCD En ine Re lacements and Retrofits P2382 Safet and Securit Im rovements P2456 Air and Vacuum Valve U rades P2458 AMR Manual Meter Re lacement P2473 PS - 711-1 Pum Station Im rovement P2475 Pum Station Fire H dram Installations P2477 Res - 624-1 Reservoir Cover Re lacement P2484 Lar a Water Meter Re lacement Pro ram P2485 SCADA Communication S stem and Software Re lacement P2493 624-2 Reservoir Interior Coatin and U rades P2496 Ota Lakes Road Utili Relocations P2507 East Palomar Street Utilit Relocation R2091 RecPS - 927-1 Pum Station U rade 10,000 GPM and S stem Enhancements R2092 Dis - 450-1 Reservoir Disinfection Facilit R2096 RWCWRF - U rades and Modifications 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Otay Water District (Otay WD) has anticipated growth, effectively managed the addition of new facilities and documented water supply needs. Service reliability levels have been enhanced with the addition of major facilities that provide access to existing storage reservoirs and increase supply capacity from the Helix Water District Levy Water Treatment Plant, the City of San Diego South Bay Water Treatment Plant, and the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant. This is due to the extensive and excellent planning Otay WD has done over the years including the Water Resources Master Plan Page 3 1-115 and the annual process to have the capital improvement program projects funded and constructed in a timely manner corresponding with development construction activities and water demand growth that require new or upgraded facilities. The process of planning followed by the Otay WD is to use WRMP as a guide and to reevaluate each year the best alternatives for providing reliable water system facilities. Growth projection data provided by SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and the development community was used to develop the WRMP. The Otay WD need for aten- daywater supply during a SDCWA shutdown is actively being implemented and has been fully addressed in the WRMP and the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The IRP incorporate the concepts of water storage and supply from neighboring water agencies to meet emergency and alternative water supply needs. The Otay WD works closely with City of Chula Vista staff to insure that the necessary planning information remains current considering changes in development activities and land use planning revisions within Chula Vista such as the Otay Ranch. The Otay WD WRMP defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay WD. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay WD six-year CIP for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceeds through the City of Chula Vista approval processes, the Otay WD typically requires the developer to prepare aSub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for the specific development project consistent with the WRMP. This SAMP document defines and describes all the water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. The SAMP also defines the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay WD through collection of water meter capacity fees, water rates, and other sources of revenue funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. These funds were established to pay for the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. The SAMP identifies the major water transmission main and distribution pipeline facilities which are typically located within the roadway alignments. The Otay WD plans, designs, and constructs water system facilities to meet projected ultimate demands to be placed upon the potable and recycled water systems. Also, the Otay WD forecasts needs and plans for water supply requirements to meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The water facilities are constructed when development activities require them for adequate cost effective water service. The Otay WD assures that facilities are in place to receive and deliver the water supply for all existing and future customers. The Otay WD, in concert with the City of Chula Vista, continues to expand the use of recycled water. The Otay WD continues to actively require the development of recycled water facilities and related demand generation within new development projects within the City of Chula Vista. The City of Chula Vista and Otay WD are nearing completion of a feasibility study to provide the City with projected needed sewer disposal capacity and production of recycled water. The near term water supply outlook remains unsettled while the City of Chula Vista's long-term growth should be assured of a reliable water supply. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court ruling regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues. Challenges such as these essentially always Page 4 ~-~~6 will be present. The regional water supply agencies, the SDCWA and MWD, along with Otay WD nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. The continued close coordination efforts with the City of Chula Vista and other agencies have brought forth significant enhancements for the effective utilization of the region's water supply to the benefit of all citizens. PREPARED BY: Name: James F. Peasley, P.E. Title: Engineering Manager Date: January 5, 2011 Page 5 -~~7 GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION 2011 QUESTIONNAIRE (Review Periotl: 7/1/09 - 6/30/10, to Current Time, and Five-Year Forecast) WATER - SWEETWATER AUTHORITY - THRESHOLD STANDARDS Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project. 2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County WaterAuthority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Municipal Water Districtwith a 12-to 18-month development forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The district's replies should address the following: a. Water availability to the City and Planning Area, considering both short and long term perspectives. b. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. c. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. d. Evaluation of funding and sited district's desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. e. Other relevant information the agencies desire to communicate to the City and GMOC. 1. Please complete the table below. 1L1r~r.CFC ~C11n,1A~A.e ~IYQ`4M ~ s i.. 2 t V t f e 4£+ M1 ? k~n ` l ~KY~~f Y!1 ~ ~c~z°~ ~ €$",3~~&~. .. , r I t P S9.fi . ., ~ y. i Sri{En T Y ifrk} c $e* ~G~I u~ : ~ : Mrtlion Gal>E nS PeF~~ ~ a ~ f5,{~F: D ' '1 '~ I ii ' ~ ; - . ~ O a ~ ~ / c. aka ,~;nat~~ ~~ ~_,. Potable Water. Non-Potable Water Supply .Storage Supply Storage Timeframe Demand Ca acit Ca aci MG Demand Ca acit Ca aci Local imported Treated Raw 5 -Year 23.8 40 30 44.55 17,421 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending 6/30/15 12-18 Month 20.7 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a Projection (ending 6/30/12) FY 2010/11 n/a 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/11 FY 2009/10 18.6 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6130110 FY 2008/09 20.3 36 30 43.35 17,421 n/a n/a n/a (ending 6/30/09 1-118 Notes: a. The use of local vs. imported water sources is highly dependent on weather conditions and is, therefore, unpredictable. Based on a 20 year average, 55 percent of water demand has been imported. b. Table values are for all of Sweetwater Authority which only serves a portion of Chula Vista. c. Production demand is taken from the Sweetwater Authority Fact Sheet. d. 12-18 month, and 5 year potable water production demand projection taken from Table 4-1 of the SWA Master Plan Update 2007. e. Local supply components include the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Plant (4 mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd), for a total of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year. The Reynolds Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringing the local supply capacity to 40 mgd or 14,600 MG per year. f. Imported supply includes 30 mgd, or 10,950 MG per year of imported raw water treated at the Perdue Plant. SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is I invited by conveyance capacity and imported water availabil ity. g. Total yearly supply capacity of 36 mgd, or 13,140 MG per year, includes the Perdue Water Treatment Plant (30 mgd), Reynolds Desalination Plant (4mgd), and National City Wells (2 mgd). The Reynolds Desalination Plant production is scheduled to increase to 8 mgd in 2012 bringing the total supply capacity to 40 mgd, or 14,600 MG per year. SWA can substitute, or supplement this with imported treated water through its 40 mgd treated water connection. Total supply capacity, however is limited by conveyance capacity and imported water availability. h. SWA Master Plan Update 2007 lists existing and recommended treated water storage. The 1.2 MG Central- Wheelertank is scheduled to be built next. i. Raw water storage capacity equals 28,079 ac-k at Sweetwater Reservoir, and 25,387 ac-ft at Loveland Reservoir for a total of 53,466 ac-ft, or 17,421 MG. Please provide brief responses to the following questions: 2. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next 12 to 18 months? If not, please list any additional facilities needed to serve the projected forecast, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes _X_ No 3. Do current facilities have the ability to accommodate forecasted growth for the next five years? If not, please list any additional facilities needed, and when and where they would be constructed. Yes _X_ No 4. Are there any new major maintenance/upgrade projects to be undertaken pursuantto the current year and 6-year capital improvement program projects that are needed to serve the City of Chula Vista? If yes, please explain. Yes _X_ No Sweetwater Authority has several maintenance and upgrade programs where pipelines, valves and other facilities are constantly being renewed. This allows the Authority to continue to provide excellent service in the near and long term. The 2007 Water Facilities Master Plan lists almost all proposed projects and estimated costs. In addition, The Desalination Facility capacity is being increased and the Perdue Treatment plant is being upgraded to meet new treatment standards. 5. Please provide any other relevant information, recommendations or suggestions that 1-119 you would like to relay to the GMOC and/or the City Council. The Sweetwater Authority is mon itoring development activities within the City of Chula Vista including the bay front and the urban core which will require major infrastructure coordination. Please continue to keep Sweetwater Authority informed and involved in all development and capital improvement projects to reduce the potential for unexpected water infrastructure requirements. PREPARED BY: Name: Hector Martinez Title: Engineering Manager Date: 28Dec10 1-120 RESOLUTION NO. PCM-10-20 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2011 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) is responsible for monitoring threshold standazds for eleven quality of life indicators associated with the City's Growth Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has 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, no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, on Mazch 17, 2011, the GMOC finalized its 2011 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2009 through June 3Q 2010, identifies current issues in the second half of 2010 and eazly 2011, and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forwazd over the next five yeazs; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the City Council to consider the 2011 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 2011 GMOC Annual Report and recommendations contained therein to the City Council for consideration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept the 2011 GMOC Annual Report. Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Assistant City Manager/ 0l1 Development Services Director 1-121 Approved as to form by: RESOLUTION NO. 2011- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE 2011 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 threshold standards for eleven quality of life indicators associated with the City's Growth Management Program, and for submitting their annual report to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) o,f the State CEQA Guidelines, no environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2011, the GMOC finalized its 2011 Annual Report; and WHEREAS, the report covers the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, identifies current issues in the second half of 2010 and early 2011, and assesses threshold compliance concerns over the next five years; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed joint public hearing with the Planning Commission to consider the 201 I 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 2011 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). Presented by: Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director 1-122 Approved as to form by: