Title
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION’S (GMOC’s) 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
A. RESOLUTION NO. MPA16-009 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-065 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE GMOC’s 2017 ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF RESPONSES AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS SUMMARY
Body
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommended Action
Planning Commission adopt resolution A and City 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 2017 Annual Report covering Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) 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 change in the capital investment program, changes to the City organization and management, engagement in inter-agency 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 2016, the number of residential building permits issued in Chula Vista averaged 811 units per calendar year. This rate of growth is projected to continue or increase over the next five years, according to Chula Vista’s 2016 Residential Growth Forecast (Attachment 3, Appendix A). With growth comes the demand for additional services and facilities.
Fiscal Year 2016 Compliance with Growth Management Threshold Standards
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report covers Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016). 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 2016 and early 2017 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 2017 Annual Report (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 2016 (July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016) and looking forward at any potential areas for non-compliance between 2017 and 2021.
|
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
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.
3.1.1 - Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
The Libraries threshold standard has not been met for the thirteenth consecutive year. The current square footage per capita is 26%, or approximately 40,000 square feet less than the standard requires.
The material and staffing budgets for Libraries were well below averages posted in the California State Library Statistics Portal for Fiscal Year 2015. The statewide staffing average was .47 Full-Time Employees (FTE) per 1,000 population and Chula Vista’s ratio was .15 FTE per 1,000 population. Although Chula Vista’s staffing ratio was in the bottom 16% of public libraries in California, Chula Vista exceeded the statewide average in workload indicators (visits per open hour and circulation transactions per open hour).
In Fiscal Year 2015, the statewide average annual materials expenditure for books, digital resources, magazines, etc. was $2.49 per person. Chula Vista’s Fiscal Year 2017 baseline materials budget was equal to $0.21 per person (excludes supplemental TUT funds received in fiscal years 2014-15 through 2016-17).
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ 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.
§ 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 2020.
Staff Response: The City will continue to seek funding for library services and will consider such options during the regular budget development process. Any future library facilities would be best sited in the eastern portion of the City. We appreciate the GMOC’s continued support.
3.2 POLICE
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).
3.2.1 - Non-Compliant Priority 1 Threshold Standard
In Fiscal Year 2016, the Priority 1 average response time missed the 6-minute threshold standard by 31 seconds. However, despite more calls for service in Fiscal Year 2016, an 18-second improvement was actually made. The percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes 30 seconds remained relatively stable at 10% below the 81% threshold. It appears that recent staffing increases, including officers on patrol and Community Service Officers, have positively impacted response times. Fully implementing a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in 2017 is also expected to improve response times and to provide more accurate data.
While the threshold standard was not met, Chula Vista has been identified by various reputable sources (Law Street Media, Niche) as a very safe community. To continue to improve response times from those shown on the table below and to keep the City safe as growth occurs, the Police Department reported that increasing staffing levels and purchasing new equipment will be imperative.
|
Priority 1 - Emergency Calls or Services |
|
Fiscal Year |
Total No. of Calls |
Priority 1 Calls |
% of Call Responses Within 7 Minutes 30 Seconds (Threshold = 81%) |
Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 6 Minutes) |
|
FY 2016 |
67,048 |
742 |
71.0% |
6:31 |
|
FY 2015 |
64,008 |
675 |
71.2% |
6:49 |
|
FY 2014 |
65,645 |
711 |
73.6% |
6:45 |
|
FY 2013 |
65,741 |
738 |
74.1% |
6:42 |
|
FY 2012 |
64,386 |
726 |
72.8% |
6:31 |
|
FY 2011 |
64,695 |
657 |
80.7% |
6:03 |
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ That the City Council direct the City Manager to support the Police Department in implementing their 2014 Strategic Plan to develop a long-term comprehensive staffing plan that will accommodate growth in the City.
Staff Response: The Police Department will continue to work with the City Manager to implement the 2014 Strategic Plan.
3.2.2. - Non-Compliant Priority 2 Threshold Standard
For the second year in a row, the Priority 2 Average Response Time missed the 12-minute threshold standard by 1:50 minutes. The Priority 2 threshold standard has not been met for 19 consecutive years.
The Police Department reported that increasing staffing levels and purchasing new equipment would help them improve Priority 2 response times, which are shown on the table below:
|
Priority 2 - Urgent Calls for Service |
|
Fiscal Year |
Call Volume (# of Priority 2 Calls out of Total Calls for Services) |
Average Response Time (Minutes) (Threshold = 12 Minutes) |
|
FY 2016 |
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 |
As with the Priority 1 threshold standard, the Police Department attributed non-compliance with the Priority 2 threshold standard to “staffing.” Performance should be improved with recent staff increases and the full implementation of new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) in 2017.
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ Same as for Priority 1 in Section 3.2.1, above.
Staff Response: Same as for Priority 1 in Section 3.2.1, above.
3.3 TRAFFIC
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.
3.3.1 - Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
All Urban Streets Level of Service (ULOS) roadway segments complied with the Traffic threshold standard, and only one Arterial Level of Service (ALOS) Non-Urban segment, Palomar Street, did not. The LOS on Palomar Street, between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway, exceeded the threshold in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
|
NON-COMPLIANT ROADWAY SEGMENT |
|
Non-Urban Streets |
Direction |
Level of Service (LOS) |
|
Palomar Street (Between Industrial Blvd. and Broadway) |
EB WB |
D (6 hours) D (4 hours) and E (2 hours) |
|
Urban Streets |
Direction |
Level of Service (LOS) |
|
-N/A |
|
-N/A |
City engineers attributed the failure to the rail crossing at Palomar Street, where slow vehicular traffic, due to the trolley at the Palomar Trolley Station, causes back-ups onto Palomar Street. The crossing is the busiest in San Diego County. City staff is currently working with SANDAG on preliminary engineering and environmental documents for grade-separating the Palomar Street rail crossing from vehicular and pedestrian traffic. With a grade separation, the level of service is expected to improve and bring the street closer to threshold compliance. The environmental document is anticipated to be completed in calendar year 2017.
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ 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 will continue its efforts with SANDAG to secure funding for grade separation of the Palomar Street rail crossing.
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).
3.4.1 - Non-Compliant Threshold Standard
The threshold has been non-compliant for six consecutive years. Fiscal Year 2016 had 920 more calls than Fiscal Year 2015. With 74.8 percent of calls responded to within 7 minutes, the response times dipped 3.5 percent below the previous year’s percentage. The 80 percent threshold mark was missed by 5.2 percent. The average response time of 6 minutes 15 seconds was just one second longer than last year. Average dispatch and turn-out times improved, but the average travel time was 34 seconds slower, as outlined on the table below.
|
FIRE and EMS Response Times |
|
Fiscal Year |
Calls for Service |
% of All Calls Responded to Within 7 Minutes (Threshold = 80%) |
Average Response Time |
Average Travel Time |
Average Dispatch Time |
Average Turn-out Time |
|
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 |
Fire Stations 6, 7 and 8, all located within eastern Chula Vista, continue to struggle to meet the threshold standard; however, there were some modest improvements from last year. Station locations, geography, number of homes, and software deficiencies have all contributed to challenges. The GMOC believes that identifying traffic patterns could help provide solutions.
In order to comply with the threshold standard requiring “properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units,” the Fire Department reported that the City’s new “accepted years of service” standard for fire apparatus is 17 years, rather than 25. This should result in less major mechanical breakdowns. The City’s Fire Facility Master Plan includes moving from the current “3 employee” staffing model to the “4 employee” staffing model, which would put four people on each engine. By following the Master Plan, it is anticipated that there should be increased efficiency on medical calls and a reduction in fire company on-scene times. This would allow units to be more readily available for calls for service.
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ That City Council direct the City Manager and the Fire Department to focus on improving response times at stations 6, 7, and 8, and that fire trucks be equipped with moderately priced video capabilities to identify traffic patterns.
Staff Response: The City’s Traffic Division in Public Works has access to data information related to traffic patterns and conditions. The Fire Department can inquire as to whether the compiled information can assist with optimizing Fire Department response routes throughout the City.
§ That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that any future analytical software purchases made for the Fire Department be compatible and/or align with the City’s master plan to participate in the countywide Regional Communications System.
Staff Response: The City is endeavoring to use Smart City technology and it is understood that future Fire Department analytical software acquisition must be compatible with citywide improvements that may assist in becoming a Smart City. The Fire Department will coordinate these efforts with the consultant hired to assist the City in its pursuit of becoming a Smart City.
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.
3.5.1 - Threshold Compliance
On June 30, 2016, the threshold standard was non-compliant at 2.83 acres per 1,000 persons. By the end of 2017, the projected acreage falls further below the standard with only 2.78 acres per 1,000 persons. As shown in the table below, within five years, park acreage is expected to increase to 2.99 acres per 1,000 persons within the threshold standard for Parks and Recreation.
|
CITY-OWNED PARK ACREAGE Threshold, Forecast, and Comparisons |
|
Threshold Standard |
Area of City |
Current (6/30/16) |
Forecasts |
Prior Year Comparisons |
|
|
|
|
18-Month (12/31/17) |
5-Year (2021) |
June 2013 |
June 2014 |
June 2015 |
|
3 acres per 1,000 Population¹ East of I-805 |
East I-805 AC/1,000 persons |
2.83 |
2.78 |
2.99 |
3.05 |
2.96 |
2.94 |
|
|
West I-805 AC/1,000 persons |
1.21 |
1.20 |
1.20 |
1.20 |
1.20 |
1.20 |
|
|
Citywide AC/1,000 persons |
2.11 |
2.08 |
2.22 |
2.21 |
2.17 |
2.16 |
|
Acres of parkland |
East I-805 |
421.04* |
421.04 |
470.62** |
418.44 |
418.44 |
418.44 |
|
|
West I-805 |
142.66 |
142.66 |
143.36 |
138.76 |
138.76 |
138.76 |
|
|
Citywide |
563.70 |
563.70 |
613.98 |
557.20 |
557.20 |
557.20 |
|
Population¹ |
East I-805 |
148,714 |
151,250 |
157,169 |
137,313 |
141,436 |
142,547 |
|
|
West I-805 |
118,291 |
118,740 |
119,786 |
115,300 |
115,788 |
115,801 |
|
|
Citywide |
267,005 |
269,990 |
276,955 |
252,643 |
257,224 |
258,348 |
|
Acreage shortfall or (excess) |
East I-805 |
25.10 |
32.71 |
0.89 |
6.50 |
5.87 |
9.20 |
|
|
West I-805 |
212.21 |
213.56 |
216.00 |
207.23 |
208.61 |
208.64 |
|
|
Citywide |
237.32 |
246.27 |
219.89 |
200.73 |
214.46 |
217.84 |
* Assumes completion of Stylus Park 2.6 acres, including equivalency acres. (Actually opened in August 2016.)
** Assumes completion of V2 P-3 (Ph1) 3.9 acres, V2 P-2 7.10 acres, Millenia Orion Park 2.01 acres, Millenia Strata Park P-5 2.57 acres, Millenia Park P-3 3.03 acres, Millenia Park P-6 4.79 acres, Millenia Park P-2 2.16 acres, Village 3 P-1 6.7 acres, Village 8 West P-1 7.5 acres, Village 8 West Town Square 3 acres, and V8 East Neighborhood Park 6.8 acres. Millenia Park Acreages include park equivalency acreage per the EUC Parks Agreement.
¤ Assumes completion of Orange Park 3.9 acres (Actually opened in August 2016.)
¹ Population figures were adjusted from 2016 Residential Growth Forecast projections.
The GMOC noted that, while an increase in park acreage may not be readily attainable, additional utilization of existing park acreage may be attained by improving lighting so the public can use parks for a longer period of time each day.
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure financing for new park acreage to keep up with the pace of development, and to implement sustainable funding sources for maintenance of the parks.
Staff Response: The City will continue to collect appropriate impact fees to fund acquisition and development of park acreage for new development, and continue to develop maintenance funding opportunities.
3.5.2 - Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan
In February 2016, a Recreation Needs Assessment was completed by CityPlace Planning, Inc. on behalf of the Recreation Department. The findings of this assessment were consistent with and confirmed the results of a 2006 report by Research Network Ltd. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is currently being revised, with plans to present a final draft to the Parks and Recreation Commission this spring.
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ That City Council approve an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan by fall 2017, and resolve any outstanding issues through future amendments to the document.
Staff Response: Staff will work to bring the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update to City Council for their consideration by fall of 2017.
Threshold Standards
Currently in Compliance
Threshold standards were found to be compliant for Air Quality and Climate Protection, Drainage, Fiscal, Schools, Sewer, and Water. However, the GMOC had comments and or recommendations for Air Quality and Climate Protection, as outlined below:
3.10 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE PROTECTION
Threshold Standard: The City shall pursue a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target consistent with appropriate City climate change and energy efficiency regulations in effect at the time of project application for SPA plans or for the following, subject to the discretion of the Development Services Director:
a. Residential projects of 50 or more residential dwelling units;
b. Commercial projects of 12 or more acres (or equivalent square footage);
c. Industrial projects of 24 or more acres (or equivalent square footage); or
d. Mixed use projects of 50 equivalent dwelling units or greater.
3.10.1- Threshold Compliance
A report completed by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) indicated that Chula Vista continues to comply with smog standards 365 days per year.
A separate questionnaire was completed by staff from the City’s Environmental Services and Sustainability Division of the Economic Development Department, and the Development Services Department. Department representatives were not in attendance at the GMOC meeting to present the questionnaire responses and there was not an opportunity for questions or clarification of the information provided.
The GMOC’s 2017 Annual Report recommends:
§ That City Council direct the City Manager to ensure that a department representative(s) presents a completed Air Quality and Climate Protection questionnaire to the GMOC for next year’s review.
Staff Response: Staff from Development Services Department and the Office of Sustainability will make themselves available to address the questions that pertain to their departments.
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 - 2017 GMOC Staff Responses and Implementing Actions Summary
2 - 2017 GMOC Annual Report, including the Chair Cover Memo
3 - 2017 GMOC Annual Report Appendices A and B
Staff Contact: Kimberly Vander Bie - Associate Planner