Title
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION’S (GMOC’s) FISCAL YEAR 2017 ANNUAL REPORT
A. RESOLUTION NO. MPA17-0009 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 GMOC ANNUAL REPORT, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-207 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 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
Body
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommended Action
Planning Commission adopt resolution A and Council adopt resolution B.
Body
SUMMARY
Chula Vista’s multi-faceted Growth Management Program continues to assure that as new development and revitalization occurs, public facilities, services and infrastructure will exist or be provided to match the needs created by growth. Each year, the City’s Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) submits its Annual Report to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding compliance with the established threshold standards for the “Growth Management” ordinance’s eleven public facility and service topics. The Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report covering July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) is presented for review and consideration of implementing actions to address growth-oriented concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Notice
Environmental Notice
The Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.
Body
Environmental Determination
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 2017 GMOC Annual Report will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA, prior to the commencement of any project.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission will provide comments and any recommendations at the workshop.
DISCUSSION
1. Introduction
The City’s General Plan establishes the policy framework for Chula Vista’s Growth Management Program and Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), also known as the “Growth Management Ordinance”, serves as a key component in implementing the Program. CVMC 19.09 codifies threshold standards for eleven public facility and service topics, including eight under the direct control of the City (Drainage, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Fiscal, Libraries, Parks and Recreation, Police, Sewer, and Traffic), two external to the City (Schools and Water), and one that is both city-controlled and external (Air Quality and Climate Protection). In addition, it establishes administration and implementation measures for the threshold standards.
In compliance with CVMC Section 19.09.030 (F), the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) shall annually prepare a report regarding the current and potential future compliance status of quality of life threshold standards set forth in the “Growth Management” ordinance. The report is intended to serve as a basis for recommending changes to the City’s capital improvement program, changes to the City organization and management, engagement in interagency cooperation, and implementation of actions to assure that the threshold standards and related quality of life in the City are sustained. Tonight, this Annual Report is being submitted for consideration to the Planning Commission for their input and recommendation and to the City Council for their review and action.
Growth in Chula Vista
Between 2012 and 2017, the number of residential building permits issued in Chula Vista averaged 849 units per calendar year. This rate of growth is projected to continue or increase over the next five years, according to Chula Vista’s 2017 Residential Growth Forecast (Attachment 3, Appendix A). With growth comes the demand for additional services and facilities.
Fiscal Year 2017 Compliance with Growth Management Threshold Standards
The GMOC’s Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 covers July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. The Report addresses compliance with delivery of services and facilities, based on threshold standards for the eleven service topics identified in the City’s “Growth Management” ordinance. Each threshold is discussed in terms of current compliance, issues, and corresponding recommendations. Additionally, the Report identifies current issues in the second half of 2017 and early 2018 and assesses threshold compliance concerns looking forward over the next five years.
Presented below is a summary of findings and key issues regarding threshold compliance. A summary table of the GMOC’s recommendations and staff's responses and proposed implementing actions is included as Attachment 1. The GMOC’s Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 (Attachment 2) provides additional background information and more detailed explanations of findings and discussion/recommendations.
2. Summary of Findings
The following table summarizes the GMOC’s threshold compliance findings for Fiscal Year 2017 (July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017) and looking forward at any potential areas for non-compliance between 2018 and 2022. Eight threshold topics were in compliance and three were not.
|
Facility & Service Topics |
CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE |
|
|
Not In Compliance |
In Compliance |
Potential Future Non-Compliance |
|
Libraries |
l |
|
l |
|
Police - Priority 1 |
l |
|
l |
|
Police - Priority 2 |
l |
|
l |
|
Traffic |
l |
|
l |
|
Fire/EMS |
|
l |
l |
|
Parks and Recreation |
|
l |
l |
|
Air Quality and Climate Protection |
|
l |
|
|
Drainage |
|
l |
|
|
Fiscal |
|
l |
|
|
Schools |
|
l |
|
|
Sewer |
|
l |
|
|
Water |
|
l |
|
3. Threshold Compliance Discussion
Below are threshold compliance summaries from the GMOC report, along with staff responses to those recommendations (as indicated in Attachment 1).
Non-Compliant Threshold Standards and/or Potential for Future Non-Compliance
3.1 LIBRARIES - Non-Compliant
Threshold Standard: The City shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) of library space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 residents.
The Libraries threshold standard has not been met for the fourteenth consecutive year. The current square footage is approximately 40,000 square feet (28 percent) less than the standard requires, and materials and staffing budgets per capita are some of the lowest in the state.
The statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. is $2.49 per person and Chula Vista’s baseline materials budget equals $0.21 per person. Median state public library expenditure per capita (reporting period FY 15/16) was $32.25 compared to Chula Vista’s expenditure of $13.23. This is 59 percent below the statewide average.
Staffing for Chula Vista’s libraries equals 0.15 full-time employees (FTE) per 1,000 residents, a per capita ratio that is at the bottom 6 percent of the statewide average of 0.46 FTE for public libraries. Despite low staffing per capita, Chula Vista’s libraries continue to exceed the statewide average in many workload indicators, such as population served, reference questions per hour, visits per open hour, etc.
Revenue from Measure P is being used to address deferred maintenance at existing libraries. However, current facilities will not be able to accommodate projected growth.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation 1: That City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize Libraries, right below public safety, and increase Libraries’ total operating budget, including materials and staffing, to meet the state average, based on the most recent data available.
Staff Response 1: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations and will continue to work with Library staff to identify ways to better serve the community in innovative programming and to identify funding to support materials and staffing.
Recommendation 2: That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure commencement of construction of a 40,000 square-foot library by the end of Fiscal Year 2023.
Staff Response 2: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation. The need remains for a full-service branch on the east side of Chula Vista.
3.2 POLICE - Non-Compliant
Threshold Standard:
1. Priority 1 - Emergency Calls¹. Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to at least 81% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes 30 seconds and shall maintain an average response time of 6 minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls (measured annually).
2. Priority 2 - Urgent Calls². Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to all Priority 2 calls within 12 minutes or less (measured annually).
Priority 1
The Priority 1 threshold standard was not met for the sixth consecutive year. With an average response time of 6 minutes 47 seconds, the threshold was missed by 47 seconds, and was 16 seconds longer than last year. At 72.2 percent, there was a 1.2 percent improvement in the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds from the previous year. However, the threshold of 81 percent was not met.
Specific units are properly staffed; however, the actual unit-per-beat count is below the necessary levels to meet the demands of the community. The Police Department emphasizes that any population growth that is not supported by the correct level of sworn staff will negatively impact the level of service a police force can offer.
Current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or 5 years.
|
Priority 1 - Emergency Calls or Services |
|
Fiscal Year |
Call Volume |
% of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes 30 Seconds (Threshold = 81%) |
Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 6 Minutes) |
|
FY 2017 |
765 of 65,672 |
72.2% |
6:47 |
|
FY 2016a |
742 of 67,048 |
71.0% |
6:31 |
|
FY 2015 |
675 of 64,008 |
71.2% |
6:49 |
|
FY 2014 |
711 of 65,645 |
73.6% |
6:45 |
|
FY 2013 |
738 of 65,741 |
74.1% |
6:42 |
|
FY 2012 |
726 of 64,386 |
72.8% |
6:31 |
|
FY 2011 |
657 of 64,695 |
80.7% |
6:03 |
|
FY 2002b |
1,539 of 71,859 |
80.0% |
5:07 |
|
FY1992c |
-- |
81.2% |
4:54 |
|
FY1990d |
-- |
87.6% |
4:08 |
|
Notes: a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to current standard. b. Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7:30 (Reso. No. 2002-159) c. Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes (Ord. No. 1991-2448). The 1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes. |
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation 1: That the City Council direct the City Manager to prioritize the City’s annual budget so that staffing levels per capita will be consistent with the state’s median staffing levels per capita.
Recommendation 2: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department by providing it with the proper tools, technology and resources to aid in the process of recruiting new police officers.
Staff Response 1 and 2: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendations and continues to work with the Police Department to identify funding to hire at the necessary staffing levels and provide equipment consistent with the Public Safety Report presented to City Council during the current Fiscal Year.
Priority 2
The Priority 2 threshold standard was not met for the twentieth consecutive year. With an average response time of 13 minutes, 53 seconds, the 12-minute threshold standard was missed, and was 3 seconds longer than last year.
As discussed above regarding Priority 1, current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate forecasted growth in the next 12-18 months or 5 years. Therefore, the GMOC has the same recommendations for Priority 2 as for Priority 1.
|
Priority 2 - Urgent Calls for Service |
|
Fiscal Year |
Call Volume |
Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 12 Minutes) |
|
FY 2017 |
19,309 of 65,672 |
13:53 |
|
FY 2016a |
19,288 of 67,048 |
13:50 |
|
FY 2015 |
17,976 of 64,008 |
13:50 |
|
FY 2014 |
17,817 of 65,645 |
13:36 |
|
FY 2013 |
18,505 of 65,741 |
13:44 |
|
FY 2012 |
22,121 of 64,386 |
14:20 |
|
FY 2011 |
21,500 of 64,695 |
12:52 |
|
FY 2002b |
22,199 of 71,859 |
10:04 |
|
FY1992c |
-- |
6:30 |
|
FY1990d |
-- |
6:15 |
|
Notes: a. Threshold standard was amended by Ordinance No. 2015-3339 to current standard. b. Priority 1: 81% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 5:30; Priority 2: 57% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7:30 (Reso. No. 2002-159) c. Priority 1: 85% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes (Ord. No. 1991-2448). d. The 1990 GMOC Report stated threshold standard: Priority 1: 84% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 4.5 minutes; Priority 2: 62% within 7 minutes, maximum average of 7 minutes. |
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation: Same as for Priority 1, above.
3.3 TRAFFIC - Non-Compliant
Threshold Standard:
1. Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) for Non-Urban Streets: Those Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) roadway segments classified as other than Urban Streets in the “Land Use and Transportation Element” of the City’s General Plan shall maintain LOS “C” or better as measured by observed average travel speed on those segments; except, that during peak hours, LOS “D” can occur for no more than two hours of the day.
2. Urban Street Level of Service (ULOS): Those TMP roadway segments classified as Urban Streets in the “Land Use and Transportation Element” of the City’s General Plan shall maintain LOS “D” or better, as measured by observed or predicted average travel speed, except that during peak hours, LOS “E” can occur for no more than two hours per day.
Traffic Level of Service (LOS) during Fiscal Year 2017 was compliant for all urban streets and for all arterial segments, with one exception: Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway, in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The same situation occurred in Fiscal Year 2016.
|
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENTS |
|
Non-Urban Streets |
Direction |
Level of Service (LOS) |
|
Palomar Street (Between Industrial Blvd. & Broadway) |
EB WB |
D(5 hours) D(5 hours) E(1 hour) |
The primary cause of this trend is the rail crossing at Palomar Street, which interrupts traffic flow when trolleys pass. Separating the tracks from the road crossing would allow road traffic to be unaffected by passing trains (increasing service frequency on blue line, making it worse). SANDAG’s top priority is improving rail crossings where grade separations are needed in the County.
City staff anticipates completing the grade separation environmental document by the end of 2018 and is seeking approval by February 2019. Thereafter, staff will request that the SANDAG Board of Directors recommend approval for design or design/build funding for the project beginning in Fiscal Year 2020. To continue moving forward with the grade separation, the GMOC is repeating the recommendation made in last year’s GMOC Annual Report.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation: That City Council direct the City Manager to support City engineers in their efforts to work with SANDAG on securing funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing.
Staff Response: The City Manager concurs with the recommendation.
Threshold Standards Compliant in FY 2017 but Non-Compliant in FY 2016
3.4 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Threshold Standard: Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in at least 80% of the cases (measured annually).
For the first time in five years, Fire and EMS complied with the growth management threshold standard of responding to calls within 7 minutes, 80 percent of the time. They responded within 7 minutes, 80.6 percent of the time.
The percentage of all Fire Department calls responded to increased 4.5 percent from last year. Emergency medical response calls accounted for 68.4 percent, fire calls accounted for 2.1 percent, and all other calls accounted for 29.6 percent. Examples of “all other calls” include: child lock-in/out; hazardous situation; animal issues; electrical wires down; lift assist; medical evaluation with no transport; and welfare check.
Even with increased call volume, response times improved City wide, and the Fire Department credits equipment replacement, changes to dispatch, and monthly Battalion reports for helping this occur. However, improving response times in eastern Chula Vista will always be more challenging than in western Chula Vista due to the layout of streets, fire station locations, facility designs and traffic in the east.
|
FIRE and EMS Response Times |
|
Fiscal Year |
All Calls for Service |
% of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) |
Average Response Time For All Calls |
Average Travel Time |
Average Dispatch Time |
Average Turn-out Time |
|
2017 |
13,665 |
80.6 |
5:50 |
4:07 |
0:53 |
0:50 |
|
2016 |
13,481 |
74.8 |
6:15 |
4:25 |
0:55 |
0:56 |
|
2015 |
12,561 |
78.3 |
6:14 |
3:51 |
1:12 |
1:10 |
|
2014 |
11,721 |
76.5 |
6:02 |
3:34 |
1:07 |
1:21 |
|
2013 |
12,316 |
75.7 |
6:02 |
3:48 |
1:05 |
1:08 |
Although response times have improved in eastern Chula Vista, current facilities, equipment and staff will not be able to accommodate projected growth by December 2018 or June 2022, according to the Fire Department. To improve outcomes, such as EMS critical task completion and attacking a fire upon the arrival of the first engine on scene, the Fire Department requested additional staff. Their first 4.0 unit was approved for Engine 51 last July. It is anticipated that the 4.0 staffing will result in improved reliability and availability of the engine.
The Fire Department’s first responder units are planning to defer Level 3 calls for service to American Medical Response (AMR) for transport. Level 3 calls for service are considered urgent for both first responders and transport units. Out of the approximately 1,800 Level 3 calls for service analyzed by the Fire Department, less than 0.12 percent involved patients suffering from acute conditions. Therefore, for nearly all Level 3 calls for service calls, response by AMR for transport is appropriate. By eliminating first responder units from Level 3 calls for service, it is anticipated that availability/reliability of Fire Department first responder units will improve.
Chula Vista’s Public Safety Committee recommended this change so that fire personnel would be freed up to respond to calls that require their specialized resources. Despite this, the GMOC has some concerns regarding Level 3 calls not being addressed by first responder units, and recommends that this change continue to be analyzed and should be tried as a pilot program.
The GMOC’s Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report recommends:
Recommendation: That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Fire Department in monitoring the proposed pilot program, whereby the Fire Department will no longer respond to Level 3 calls. The program should include goals for AMR and statistics to analyze and evaluate response time improvements that may result from this change.
Staff Response: The City Manager concurs with the GMOC recommendation. If the Fire Department moves forward with the pilot program, they will implement the recommended action to include a response time goal for the transport provider. The new response to level 3 calls would include a transport unit dispatched as non-emergency (no lights/siren), with a response time criterion of less than 15 minutes equal to or greater than 90 percent measured and reported on a monthly basis.
3.5 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 threshold standard was not met in last year’s report, with only 2.83 acres per 1,000 residents in Chula Vista. It was forecasted to be nearly compliant by 2021 with 2.99 acres per 1,000 residents. However, after a thorough review of the existing park inventory in Chula Vista, done in conjunction with the comprehensive update of the City Wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP), it was determined that there are currently 3.99 park acres per 1,000 residents in eastern Chula Vista, exceeding the threshold standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The City forecasts it will have 3.92 acres per 1,000 residents by 2018 and 3.94 acres per 1,000 residents by 2022 in eastern Chula Vista.
Several categories of parkland not previously included were added to the inventory, including acreages of extra credit allocated to parks with additional amenities, acres within HOA maintained public parks that were given park credit at the time of construction, the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course, City open spaces that function as parks, and special purpose parks.
Montecito Park in Otay Ranch Village 2 should be open to the public in April 2018, and a new park at D Street and Woodlawn could potentially be open to the public by fall 2019.
Revenue from Measure P will help fund deferred maintenance projects in various parks, while Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) have been set up to partially or wholly fund maintenance in newer parks.
Other Threshold Standards Compliant in FY 2017
The other threshold standards found to be compliant were for Air Quality and Climate Protection, Drainage, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, and Water.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(11) is not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code section 87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council Member or Planning Commission Member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The Growth Management Program’s Fiscal threshold standard supports the Economic Vitality goal, “encouraging policies, planning, infrastructure, and services that are fundamental to an economically strong, vibrant city.” The Air Quality and Climate Protection, Libraries, and Parks and Recreation threshold standards support the Healthy Communities goal, promoting “an environment that fosters health and wellness and providing parks, open spaces, outdoor experiences, libraries and recreational opportunities that residents can enjoy.” The Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Traffic, Sewer and Drainage threshold standards support the Strong and Secure Neighborhoods goal, ensuring “a sustainable and well-maintained infrastructure to provide safe and appealing communities to live, work and play” and maintaining “a responsive Emergency Management Program.”
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Staff costs associated with the preparation of the annual GMOC report are included in the adopted budget. Additional costs related to implementation of recommended actions may be brought forward for Council consideration during the annual budget development process.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Staff costs associated with the preparation of future annual GMOC reports will be included in future budgets. Additional costs related to implementation of recommended actions may be brought forward for Council consideration during future budget development processes.
ATTACHMENTS
1 - Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary
2 - Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo
3 - Fiscal Year 2017 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Staff Contact: Kimberly Vander Bie - Associate Planner