Item 4.1 - Adoption of Resolution Confirming Ballot Results Landscape Maintenance District 18-1(F)
City of Poway
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
APPROVED IN
APPROVED AS AMENDED ❑
(SEE MINUTES)
DENIED ❑
REMOVED ❑
CONTINUED
RESOLUTION NO. `g�o23
DATE:
May 15, 2018
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Michael Obermiller, P.E., Director of Public Works
CONTACT:
Eric Heidemann, Assistant Directpr of Public Works for Maintenance
Weighted value of assessment ballots submitted, and not
Operations
eheidemann@poway.org
withdrawn, in favor of the proposed assessment
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Resolutions Confirming Ballot Results Landscape
the proposed assessment
Maintenance Districts 18-1
Summary:
On May 1, 2018, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing and property owner ballot protest
proceeding for the formation of the Proposed District, Landscape Maintenance Districts (LIVID)
18-1, in accordance with Assessment Law. Upon closure of the Public Hearing, the City collected
those ballots that were properly submitted, weighted by the proportional financial obligation of
each property for which a ballot was submitted and not withdrawn, and initiated the tabulation of
ballots in the Observation Room of the City Council Chambers. The tabulation of ballots was not
complete following the last item scheduled on the May 1, 2018 City Council agenda. Therefore,
the City Council directed the ballot tabulation to resume the following morning on May 2, 2018
at 8 a.m. in the Observation Room of the City Council Chambers.
The results of the ballots submitted, as certified by the City Clerk, are summarized below:
Total assessment ballots distributed
1,696
Total assessment ballots submitted and not withdrawn
935
Assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in favor of the
proposed assessment
314
Weighted value of assessment ballots submitted, and not
$81,857.24
withdrawn, in favor of the proposed assessment
Assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in opposition to
the proposed assessment
621
Weighted value of assessment ballots submitted, and not with-
$144,780.48
drawn, in opposition to the proposed assessment
The majority of the submitted ballots do not support the formation of the Proposed District. At a
subsequent City Council meeting, the City Council will consider a resolution approving an
Engineer's Report and declaring the intention to levy and collect annual assessments within the
Existing District LIVID 83-1. This means that the Existing District and current assessments will
remain in effect. Staff will return to the Council in August to discuss options for maintaining the
Existing District.
1 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Adoption of Resolutions Confirming Ballot Results LMD 18-1
May 15, 2018
Page 2
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution declaring the results of the
property owner protest ballot proceedings conducted for the levy of assessment related to the
formation of Proposed District LMD 18-1.
Environmental Review:
This item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review.
Fiscal Impact:
None
Public Notification:
None
Attachments:
A. Resolution Declaring the Results of the Protest Ballot Proceeding for LMD 18-1
B. Public Hearing Materials
Reviewed/Approved By: Reviewed By: Approved By:
Wendy Kaserman Alan Fenstermacher Tina M. White
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
2 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
RESOLUTION NO. 18-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER PROTEST BALLOT PROCEEDING CONDUCTED FOR
THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS RELATED TO THE FORMATION
OF THE CITY OF POWAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 18-1, FISCAL YEAR 2018-19, AND APPROVING
CERTAIN RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, the City Council of the City of Poway (the "City") adopted
Resolution No. 18-005 initiating proceedings to form Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1
("District") and directing the preparation and filing of an assessment engineer's report pursuant
to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 being Part 2, Division 15 of the
California Streets and Highways Code ("1972 Act"), and in compliance with the substantive and
procedural requirements of Article XIII D, section 4 of the California State Constitution (the
"California Constitution") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (the "Omnibus
Act"), being Government Code section 53750 et seq., (collectively, the "Assessment Law");
WHEREAS, the City Council did receive an Assessment Engineer's Report (hereafter
referred to as the "Engineer's Report") prepared by Willdan Financial Services in accordance
with the Assessment Law;
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-007
declaring its intention to form the District, preliminarily approving the Assessment Engineer's
Report, and calling for a property owner ballot protest proceeding to levy and collect
assessments within the District in accordance with the Assessment Law;
WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report has been made a part of the record of these
proceedings and is on file in the office of the City Clerk (the "City Clerk");
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 18-007, the City Council; (a) set the time and
place for conducting a public hearing for the purpose of hearing property owner protests to the
proposed formation of the District, maintenance and servicing of the improvements, and the
assessments proposed to.be levied on land within the District; and (b) ordered that the record
owner of each parcel proposed to be assessed have the right to submit an assessment ballot in
favor of or in opposition to the formation of the District and the assessment proposed to be
levied on such parcel;
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Assessment Law, the City Council duly held a
property owner ballot protest proceeding for the formation of the proposed District for the
purpose of presenting to the qualified property owners within the proposed District, the annual
levy of assessments for the improvements connected therewith. The annual levy of
assessments, as presented to the affected property owners of record in this ballot protest
proceeding, included and identified the initial maximum assessment rate for Fiscal Year
2018-19, the proportional assessment amount balloted for each benefiting property as well as
the annual inflationary adjustment applicable to future assessments and the total amount
balloted for the District. These assessments as presented are intended to fund in whole or in
part, the special benefit costs and expenses related to the ongoing maintenance, operation and
servicing of the local landscaping improvements, and appurtenant facilities related thereto and
as more fully described in the Engineer's Report; and
3 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Resolution No. 18-
Page 2
WHEREAS, the owners of record of identified parcels within the proposed District as of
the close of the Public Hearing held on May 1, 2018 did cast their ballots, weighted by the
proportional financial obligation of each property for which a ballot was submitted and not
withdrawn.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Poway as
follows:
Section 1: That the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2: The ballot protest proceedings for the proposed District were conducted
pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Law, with ballots presented to the affected
property owner(s) for receipt by the City Clerk prior to the conclusion of the Public Hearing on
May 1, 2018, with each ballot weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the
affected property.
Section 3: The tabulation and canvass of the property owner protest ballots was
conducted by the City Clerk or her designee, with all valid protest ballots returned by the
affected property owners being counted and confirmed. The City Clerk has prepared and
submitted to the City Council a Certificate of Tabulation Official and Statement of Assessment
Ballots Submitted (the "Certificate of the Tabulation Official"), a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which reflects the results of the
tabulation of the assessment ballots submitted and not withdrawn.
Section 4: The City Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Resolution into the minutes
of the City Council, which shall constitute the official declaration of the results of such property
owner ballot protest proceeding.
Section 5: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and
the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
California, at a regular meeting this 15th day of May 2018.
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Neufeld, CMC, City Clerk
4 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Resolution No. 18-
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Nancy Neufeld, City Clerk of the City of Poway, California, do hereby certify under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 18- was duly adopted by the City Council at a
meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of May 2018, and that it was so adopted by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
Nancy Neufeld, CMC, City Clerk
City of Poway
•
•
5 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Resolution No. 18-
Page 4
Exhibit A
Certificate of Tabulation Official and
Statement of Assessment Ballots Submitted for
City of Poway Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF POWAY
The undersigned, the duly authorized tabulation official appointed by the City Council of the City
of Poway, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII D of the
Constitution of the State of California and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act
(Government Code Section 53750 and following), I did tabulate the assessment ballots timely
submitted, and not withdrawn, in the assessment ballot proceedings pertaining to City of Poway
Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Assessment Ballots Received shows the
assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in favor of the proposed assessment and the
assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in opposition to the proposed assessment,
each total weighted according to the financial obligation of the affected properties for which the
assessment ballots were submitted.
Total assessment ballots distributed 1,696
Total assessment ballots submitted and not withdrawn 935
Assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in favor of 314
the proposed assessment
Weighted value of assessment ballots submitted, and not $91,857.24
withdrawn, in favor of the proposed assessment
Assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in 621
opposition to the proposed assessment
Weighted value of assessment ballots submitted, and not with- $144,780.48
drawn, in opposition to the proposed assessment
This certification is executed this _day of , 2018 in
California.
By:
Title:
6 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
or -� APPROVED ❑
City of Poway APPROVED AS AMENDED ❑
,°y�. (SEE MINUTES)
` COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DENIED ❑
yf
. n co`T•
_ REMOVED 0
Txc _
CONTINUED
RESOLUTION NO.
DATE: May 1, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Michael Obermiller, P.E., Director of Public Works
CONTACT: Eric Heidemann, Assistant Director of Public Works for Maintenance
Operations
eheidemann@poway.org
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Newly Formed Landscape Maintenance District
No. 18-1, Take Public Testimony and Tabulate Ballots
Summary:
Cities are authorized by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 to fund enhanced public
landscape improvements and maintenance services through the levy and collection of
assessments. Many assessment districts are formed at the time a developer builds a
development. As a community amenity, the developer will often install landscaping and other
improvements that are beyond a base level that a city would otherwise install if it were doing the
installation and maintenance. Because there are costs associated with installing and continuing
to maintain these enhanced improvements, a city will form an assessment district to fund
expenses associated with the enhancements. The City currently has five landscape maintenance
districts that were formed in this manner, including Landscape Maintenance District 83-1 (the
Existing District).
In 1983, the City formed the Existing District to fund enhanced landscape improvements and
services within certain developments located in the western portion of the City. The maximum
assessment rate for the Existing District has remained unchanged since 1998 after the passage
of Proposition 218. Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution by adding Articles XIII
C and XIII D. Among other things, Article XIII D established new procedural requirements for
levying any new or increasing any existing assessments, and placed substantive limitations on
the use of the revenues collected from assessments and on the amount of the assessment that
may be imposed on each parcel. Procedurally, Article XIII D requires that in order to impose a
new or increase an existing assessment on a property, a local agency must hold a public hearing,
mail advance notice of the public hearing to the record owner of each parcel proposed to be
assessed, and conduct a ballot protest proceeding. The assessment ballot protest proceeding is
not an election or a vote for purposes of California Constitution Article II, nor is it subject to the
limitations and requirements of the California Elections Code governing elections. The ballot
provides affected property owners with the opportunity to indicate their support for, or opposition
to, the proposed assessments. Prior to the passage of Proposition 218, it was within the City
Council's authority to increase assessments, as needed, without an affirmative approval of
affected property owners.
The assessments imposed in the Existing District are no longer sufficient to fund its enhanced
improvements and services. Reserve funds have gradually been depleted in the Existing District
as expenses have grown and assessment revenues have not. Since 2013, it has been necessary
to use a portion of the Existing District's reserves each year to pay for annual operations.
Consequently, the level of landscape maintenance service has also gradually been reduced
based on available funding.
7 of 70 ATTACHMENT B May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 8
Reducing the levels of maintenance has caused a significant deterioration of the condition of the
landscaping improvements. This, coupled with prolonged drought conditions and rising contract
labor and water costs, has further depleted fund reserves to a critical point. At this point, annual
expenses exceed annual revenues and the Existing District's reserves have been used to cover
essential but unanticipated expenses, like tree removal. In 2013, staff noted a downward trend
in the District's Capital Improvement Reserve balance. The balance began falling below 50% of
expenditures plus the Existing District's six-month operating reserve. As a result, the City began
a benefit and re-engineering analysis.
When increases in the maximum authorized assessments are necessary because maintenance
costs of a landscape maintenance district exceed the maximum allowable assessment revenue,
special balloting procedures may be implemented to give district participants the opportunity to
raise the maximum allowable assessment to cover the District's maintenance needs. At the
March 6, 2018, City Council meeting, the Council adopted (1) Resolution No. 18-005, initiating
proceedings for the formation of Landscape District No. 18-1 (Proposed District); and directing
the preparation and filing of an engineer's report; and (2) Resolution 18-007, declaring the City's
intention to form the Proposed District; and to levy and collect annual assessments that complies
with the requirements of Article XIII D. The following concerns were brought up at this meeting:
• What authority does the City have to add properties to the Existing District?
The California Constitution Article XIII D, section 4 provides guidance on the substantive
requirements of identifying properties included in the Proposed District. Before imposing an
assessment, a public agency must first identify all parcels that will receive a special benefit
from the proposed improvements or services for which the assessment is proposed to be
levied. The assessments must be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a
registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. Only"special benefits" are
assessable, and local governments may not impose assessments to pay for the cost of
providing a general benefit. The assessment engineer's report must quantify the proportionate
special benefits derived by each identified parcel subject to the proposed assessment in
relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the public improvements or services being
provided, and must calculate the amount of the assessment to be imposed on each identified
parcel. While certain properties were not included in the Existing District because they were
not part of the developments that created it, they do receive special benefits from the
improvements and services provided. Because the City must identify and include all
properties that are specially benefitted from the improvements and services to be provided
within the boundaries of the Proposed District, properties that were not in the Existing District
will be included in the Proposed District and assessed for the special benefits that they
receive.
• How are ballots weighted?
Ballots that are timely submitted to the City are weighted according to the proportional
assessment levied on the affected property. For example, if property owner "A" submits a
ballot in favor of the Proposed District and the assessment levied on his property is $50, and
property owner"B" submits a ballot in opposition to the Proposed District and the assessment
levied on her property is $150 assessment, then property owner B's ballot counts three times
more than property owner A's ballot.
• How is the City's general benefit contribution calculated?
The City's general benefit contribution accounts for a baseline level of service that the City
would otherwise provide in the community if a landscape maintenance district did not exist.
The baseline level of service is calculated to be approximately 1% of the overall landscape
8 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 9
maintenance costs within the Proposed District. In addition, it is recognized that the arterial
streets within this district are routinely traveled by the public and other property owners within
the City. While the landscape improvements along these arterial streets do not provide special
benefits to properties outside the District, they do provide some measure of indirect general
benefit to persons and properties that are not located in the Proposed District, and the public
at large. Therefore, the general benefit contribution for the Proposed District is assumed to
be an additional 10% of the maintenance expenditures associated with the arterial street
landscape improvements.
• What are special benefits?
Special benefits are benefits provided to assessed properties that affect the assessed
property in ways that are particular and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real
property in general and the public at large do not share. Assessed properties receive direct
advantages from the improvements and services provided. That portion of costs of the
improvements and services that are determined to be general benefit shall be funded by the
City's general benefit contribution and are excluded from the amount to be assessed on
properties as special benefits.
• Why were properties removed from the proposed Landscape Maintenance District 18-1?
It was determined these properties did not receive special benefits from landscaping
maintained by the Proposed District.
• Why were the properties south of Twin Peaks Road on Community Road not included within
the Proposed District?
Based on the proximity of the landscape improvements to the entryway, or location where
parcels are accessed in this area, the assessment Engineer concluded that these properties
do not receive special benefits that are distinct from the improvements effect on other parcels.
The Proposed District would include additional properties that previously were not assessed, and
establish different zones based on the nature and extent of the improvements and services
specially benefitting the properties proposed to be assessed. The Proposed District would result
in an increase in the assessments currently imposed on properties in the Existing District and the
levy of assessments on properties previously not included in the Existing District. The proposed
assessments and the boundaries of the Proposed District are supported by a detailed engineer's
report (Report) prepared by an independent, registered professional engineer(Engineer) certified
by the State of California. The Proposed District would include 1,660 assessed parcels, an
increase of 222 assessed parcels from the Existing District, which the Engineer has identified will
receive special benefits from the enhanced improvements and maintenance services.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing upon the proposed assessments, and consider all
objections, whether written or oral, if any;
2. After all members of the public that wish to speak on the Proposed District have had
an opportunity to speak, close the Public Hearing, direct the City Clerk to tabulate the
Proposition 218 Ballots for Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1, and trail the
consideration of the agenda item; and
3. If the City Clerk cannot complete the tabulation of the ballots by the time the City
9 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 10
Council completes the remainder of the agenda, continue the agenda item to the
May 15, 2018 City Council meeting to confirm the ballot results and approval of final
report and levy of assessments for Landscape Maintenance District 18-1, if successful.
If unsuccessful, confirm ballot results at the May 15, 2018 City Council meeting. In
such an event, staff will bring back landscape maintenance options for City Council's
consideration at a future meeting.
Discussion:
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (State of California Streets and Highways Section
22500 and following) is a tool used by local government agencies to form Landscaping and
Lighting Districts to finance the costs of operating and maintaining enhanced landscaping and
appurtenant improvements, and services beyond those generally provided by the City. The City
Council previously approved the formation of the Existing District pursuant to the provisions of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, referred to as LMD 83-1. The purpose of a landscape
maintenance district (LMD) assessment is to create a revenue mechanism to offset the
expenditures related to landscaping improvements and related services within the boundaries of
the district that provide special benefits to the properties in the district. Revenues generated within
an LMD may only be used to fund the services and improvements of the LMD for which they were
imposed. The costs are distributed by equitably assessing properties in accordance with the
proportional special benefits they receive from the improvements and services.
In 1983, the landscape improvements for the Existing District were initially constructed by the
developer of Rancho Arbolitos. At the time, the boundary of the district included Rancho Arbolitos
(975 lots), Poway Woods 1 and 2 (112 lots), and Casa Real (68 lots). A total of 1,155 lots were
originally assessed for the costs to maintain the landscaping improvements located within the
right-of-way adjacent to Camino del Norte, Pomerado Road, and future State Route 56.
Since its initial formation, the area of the Existing District increased in size as properties along
Twin Peaks Road, Community Road, and Midland Road developed. These properties were
added to the district by written consent from the property owner(s) at the time. Currently, the
Existing District contains 1,438 assessed properties within ten zones (A through J). Zones A and
D through J have a current annual assessment of$118.48 and include the residential properties
on the north and south side of Twin Peaks Road. Zone B has a current assessment of $235.75
and includes the commercial properties (Target Shopping Center) at the southwest corner of
Pomerado Road and Twin Peaks Road. Zone C has a current assessment rate of $496.00 and
includes the 28 residential properties on the southwest corner of Twin Peaks Road and Midland
Road.
The Existing District is comprised of approximately 1.26 million square feet of landscaping and
3,252 trees. In addition to the landscaping materials (trees and shrubs), the Existing District is
also responsible for maintaining irrigation infrastructure (controllers, timers, pipes and emitters).
The types of services that are contracted out include irrigation maintenance, litter and weed
control, tree trimming and general maintenance.
As expected, the cost to provide services has steadily increased over the years, increasing
Existing District expenditures. However, the assessment revenues have stayed the same. When
the Existing District was formed, it did not include an assessment escalation factor (e.g., cost of
living index) because it was within the City Council's authority to increase assessments when
costs increased. The passage of Proposition 218 removed that ability and instead made new or
increased assessments subject to a property owner ballot protest process. Additionally, the State
10 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
•
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 11
of California has approved prevailing wage changes for landscape maintenance job
classifications; therefore, a substantial increase in labor costs has and will continue to burden the
Existing District. Furthermore, due to combined drought and aging trees, staff has observed a
substantial number of dead and diseased trees, along with an increase in the number of
unexpected costs due to fallen trees. Finally, without an increase in revenues, staff has had to
make significant reductions to the service levels in the Existing District as costs for maintenance
contracts, utilities and repairs continued to rise. This, combined with the need to replace aging
infrastructure and perform expensive tree removals, has further accelerated the need for an
immediate increase in district revenues. It is essential that sufficient revenues are generated to
ensure the district is self-sustaining and offset the ongoing annual expenditures.
Currently, ordinary annual expenses of the Existing District exceed annual revenues. Without an
increase in the assessments, this gap between revenues and expenses will continue to grow,
services in the Existing District will be reduced to unsustainable levels, and watering will continue
to be restricted to once per week. Staff is concerned this will result in additional tree failures that
will only get worse over time and require removal of trees.
Recognizing the need to increase the revenues for the Existing District, and working within the
parameters of Proposition 218, it was necessary for the City to engage the services of an
assessment engineer to reevaluate the Existing District and identify every parcel upon which a
special benefit or benefits are conferred from the enhanced landscape improvements and
maintenance services. Because of the changes in the law governing assessments as a result of
Proposition 218, if the City wishes to increase the assessments to fund the improvements and
services, it cannot continue with the Existing District in its current form. Rather, the Existing
District and the proposed assessments must be evaluated for compliance with Article XIII D.
Analysis:
The City engaged the services of Willdan Financial Services (the Engineer)to perform an analysis
of the existing landscape improvements, services, and assessments, and develop a
recommendation to revise the assessments in line with landscape maintenance expenditures in
compliance with Proposition 218 and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Before imposing
an assessment, a public agency must first identify all parcels that will receive a special benefit
from the proposed improvements or services for which the assessment is proposed to be levied.
The Engineer reviewed the Existing District and determined the assessment zones should be re-
engineered and the assessments adjusted to cover the expenditures and identify all of the parcels
that are specially benefited. It is recommended the best approach to bring the Existing District
into Proposition 218 compliance is to form a new LMD No. 18-1 (i.e., the Proposed District) to
replace the Existing District.
The Proposed District would: appropriately assess all parcels that specially benefit from the
improvements and services; and provide sufficient assessment revenues to allow for annual
operation and maintenance of landscaping/trees and appurtenant facilities, including, but not
limited to: labor, electricity, water, materials and contracted services. Notably, the option of
assessing an annual inflationary adjustment is included along with the proposed assessments on
an annual basis to ensure that there are sufficient revenues to maintain the improvements on a
going forward basis. Accordingly, if approved, the maximum assessment rates established for
the improvements and services in the previous Fiscal Year for each Zone may be adjusted by the
lesser of three percent (3%) or the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The
11 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 12
CPI used for the inflationary adjustment shall be for the San Diego Area for All Items for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), as developed by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI used shall be as
determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a similar period of time. This should allow the
Proposed District revenue to keep pace with inflationary cost increases over time.
The effort to re-engineer the Existing District began in 2016 by evaluating the relationship of the
properties currently being assessed relative to the location, and nature and extent of the
landscape improvements. In order to accurately reflect the improvements that provide special
benefits to the properties proposed to be assessed, the Proposed District is divided into zones.
Based on the location of the improvements and proximity to parcels in the area, the Engineer
initially identified several parcels/developments located along Pomerado Road (north and south
of Ted Williams Parkway), north of Twin Peaks Road (east and west of Hillndale Way), and south
of Twin Peaks Road (on Budwin Lane) that are not part of the Existing District, but receive special
benefits from the Existing District's landscape improvements and maintenance services, and
should therefore be added to the Proposed LMD (Attachment C). These properties were not a
part of any of the developments for which the Existing District was formed and, under California
law existing at the time of formation, were not required to be included in the Existing District.
Additionally, the Engineer identified three properties that were determined not to receive special
benefits, which were removed from the District and documented in the Fiscal Year 2017/2018
Engineer's Report for the Proposed District.
A special benefit means a distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real
property. General enhancement of property values does not constitute a "special benefit". A
special benefit must affect the assessed property in a way that is particular and distinct from its
effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share. This
is the primary reason for establishing zones, which is a means of identifying and separating the
improvements that benefit various properties.
Using the Engineer's preliminary analysis, staff held a series of neighborhood meetings/open
houses in October and November 2017 to inform property owners of the financial condition of the
Existing District, the preliminary engineering analysis, and the proposed balloting process to re-
engineer the District and increase assessments. It is important to note that three adjustments
were made to the preliminary engineering analysis based on resident input during the open
houses. First, it was brought to staffs attention that the primary access for several residents
located north of Twin Peaks Road was made via Midland Road, where there are no landscape
improvements for the Existing District. Therefore, the Engineer reduced the number of parcels to
be added in that area by moving the Proposed District boundary west to follow the original
subdivision tract line and align the entrance to the neighborhoods relative to the landscape
improvements that are north of Twin Peaks Road. Second, the original proposed map did not
capture all of the parcels along the east side of Budwin Lane (south of Twin Peaks Road) that
receive special benefits from the landscape improvements and maintenance services at the
entrance of the neighborhood. As a result, those parcels were added to the Proposed District.
Lastly, the cap on the proposed annual inflationary adjustment was reduced from 5% to 3%.
Assessments are computed based on the number of equivalent benefit units (EBU) in the
Proposed District, The Existing District divides local special benefits into ten (10) zones and the
EBU has been calculated for commercial, vacant, single-family residential and multi-family
properties. These zones were formed based on the special benefits provided relative to the
12 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 13
proximity, and nature and extent of the landscape improvements and services, as well as the land
use classifications of the properties to be assessed.
The Proposed District assessment rates for an EBU range from $49 to $378 annually.
Additionally, a provision has been included to allow for appropriate adjustments in future
assessments, at the discretion of the City Council, in line with the San Diego Consumer Price
Index (capped annually at 3%). The table below depicts the changes in assessments (by zone)
for those properties that are within the Proposed District:
Zone Current Proposed
Assessment Assessment
A* $118.00 $227.00
B $235.75 $372.00
C $496.60 $378.00
D $118.00 $76.00
E' $118.00 $96.00
F $118.00 $263.00
G $118.00 $127.00
H $118.00 $49.00
1 $118.00 $141.00
$118.00 $124.00
'Zone includes parcels proposed to be added that have a current
assessment of $0 per year. Their maximum assessment will be the
same as all other parcels within their respective Zone.
General Benefit
The City provides limited (as needed) weed abatement, rodent control, and erosion control
services ("baseline level of service") for the landscape areas currently maintained within the
Proposed District and elsewhere in the City. This baseline level of service typically provides for
periodic maintenance of the improvement areas necessary to ensure public safety and essential
property protection. The primary purpose of baseline services is to avoid negative impacts on
adjacent roadways and potential property damage resulting from erosion or fire hazards, but
results in a far less visually pleasing environment than is created with the enhanced levels of
improvements and services associated with the regular landscape maintenance provided in the
Existing District and Proposed District.
For the purpose of the Proposed District, the City's general benefit contribution accounts for this
baseline level of service. However, it is recognized that the arterial streets within this district are
routinely traveled by the public and other property owners within the City. While the landscape
improvements along these arterial streets do not provide special benefits to properties outside
the District, they do provide some measure of indirect general benefit to properties in the City, the
district and the public at large. Therefore, the general benefit contribution for the Proposed District
is assumed to be an additional 10% of the overall maintenance cost to account for this indirect
general benefit. The proposed annual general benefit contribution for the Proposed District is
approximately $63,658.
Procedural Requirements:
13 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 14
As set forth by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Proposition 218, and the proposition
218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code section 53750 et seq.) local agencies are
required to follow these steps:
1. The City Clerk collects all ballots received prior to the close of the Public Hearing on
May 1, 2018, at 7 p.m. Upon closing of the Public Hearing, the ballots will be
tabulated, and the results will be presented to the City Council later in the City Council
meeting that evening, or at the May 15, 2018 City Council Meeting if the tabulation
cannot be completed before the City Council completes the remainder of items on the
May 1, 2018 City Council agenda.
2. Adopt resolutions confirming ballot results, approval of final report and levy of
assessments (May 15, 2018).
3. If a majority of the submitted ballots support the formation of the Proposed District,
the City Council may elect to adopt resolutions declaring the results of the ballot
protest, confirming the formation of Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1,
confirming the assessment diagram and engineer's report, overruling all protests, and
approving the levy and collection of the new assessments. If the Proposed District is
established, the Existing District will remain in existence with an assessment rate of
zero as long as the assessments for the Proposed District are imposed. Upon
approval, the new assessments will be collected through the San Diego County Office
of the Assessor along with annual property tax bills effective in Fiscal Year 2018/2019.
4. If a majority of the submitted ballots do not support the formation of the Proposed
District, the City Council will adopt a resolution declaring the results of the ballot
protest. At a subsequent City Council meeting the City Council would adopt a
resolution approving an Engineer's Report and declaring the intention to levy and
collect annual assessments within the Existing District (June 19, 2018). This means
that the Existing District, and current assessments (without a cost escalator) would
remain in effect.
5. If a majority of the submitted ballots do not support the formation of the Proposed
District, adopt a resolution ordering the annual levy of assessments within the Existing
District (July 17, 2018).
6. Submit levies to the County of San Diego (No later than August 10, 2018).
Notices of the public hearing and ballots were mailed to the affected property owners, listed on
the current County of San Diego Tax roll, pursuant to the regulations governing majority protest
proceedings. This Public Hearing is being held not less than 45 days after the mailing of the
requisite notices, as required by Proposition 218 and the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act. Property owners have until the close of the Public Hearing to submit a signed
and marked assessment ballot indicating their support for or opposition to the Proposed District
and assessments therein. Ballots that were received by the City Clerk by U.S. Mail, or otherwise
delivered to the City Clerk before the Public Hearing, or received during the Public Hearing itself,
shall be counted, if they were properly completed and executed. Tabulation of the ballots will be
conducted under the supervision and direction of the City Clerk.
14 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 15
During the Public Hearing, the City Council will consider all objections or protests, if any, to the
proposed assessments, whether oral or written. Upon the close of the Public Hearing, the agenda
item will be trailed, the assessment ballots received will be opened and tabulated, consistent with
all applicable procedures required by Proposition 218 and its implementing statutes, weighted by
the proposed assessment amount on each property, and the results announced. If the time to
tabulate the ballots exceeds the time for the City Council meeting, the City Council may continue
the tabulation to a different time and publicly accessible location, so long as such time and location
are announced during the meeting. This agenda item will then be continued to a subsequent
meeting at a specified date and time, so that results may thereafter be announced and any further
action taken.
All returned ballots will remain unopened and in the charge of the City Clerk until the close of the
Public Hearing and direction is given to staff to tabulate the ballots. For purposes of tabulation,
all the properly completed returned ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, will be tabulated and
weighted according to the financial obligation of each particular parcel. Article XIII D of the
California Constitution provides that a Majority Protest exists if the assessment ballots submitted,
and not withdrawn, in opposition to the proposed assessments exceed the assessment ballots
submitted, and not withdrawn, in favor of the proposed assessments,weighting those assessment
ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel for
which each assessment ballot was submitted.
If there is no Majority Protest as described above, the City Council may approve the formation of
the Proposed District No. 18-1 and the levy and collection of the assessments by adopting a
resolution at the May 1, 2018 meeting if the ballot tabulation is completed or the May 15, 2018
City Council meeting if it is not. Any property owner approved assessments will be submitted to
the San Diego County Tax Assessor to be included on the property tax roll for each parcel for
Fiscal Year 2018/2019. If a Majority Protest does exist, LMD No. 83-1 and the assessments will
remain in effect at the current maximum rates for Fiscal Year 2018/2019. As stated earlier in this
report, the Existing District assessments fall shod of covering expenses. Without an increase in
the assessments, service levels will continue to decline, and watering will be restricted to once
per week.
Environmental Review:
This item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review.
Fiscal Impact:
The Existing District establishes the funding mechanism to provide revenue covering the
operating and maintenance costs of landscape improvements and maintenance services in the
district boundaries. For Fiscal Year 2017/2018, the total estimated annual assessment and
general fund contribution revenues are approximately $232,208 and $63,073, respectively. It
should be noted that the City has increased its General Fund contribution to the Existing District,
to keep pace with inflation, notwithstanding the lack of a CPI cost escalator for the assessments
imposed on property owners in the District. Anticipated annual expenses of the Existing District
with the lowest level of service, as estimated at this time, are $285,824. Any further unanticipated
expenses, such as tree removals, will likely result in further use of reserves this Fiscal Year.
Current revenues generated by the Existing District are not adequate to fully fund landscape
15 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Public Hearing to Tabulate Proposition 218 Ballots
May 1, 2018
Page 16
maintenance at an acceptable service level. In order to generate additional revenues and ensure
compliance with Proposition 218, the City is proposing to form a new assessment district that will
replace the Existing District. The Proposed District, if approved, will generate estimated annual
assessment and general fund contribution revenues of approximately $411,196 and $63,658,
respectively, in the first year, to cover the operations and maintenance expenditures at a
sustainable service level and establish a rehabilitation reserve.
Public Notification:
Below is a summary of staff's efforts to communicate with affected property owners:
• Held four (4) Open Houses at City Hall (October 24, October 26, November 14 and
November 16);
• Posted an interactive map showing current and proposed assessments, a fact sheet,
questions and answers, and the previous year's Engineer's Report on a dedicated
page on the City's website;
• Met with property owners at their homes by request;
• Posted information on social media sites (Nextdoor, Twitter, and Facebook);
• Distributed informational door hangers on affected properties; and
• Mailed a notice of the public hearing and ballots on March 14, 2018, to affected
property owners.
Affected property owners were also made aware of the March 6, 2018, City Council meeting
by direct letter sent to all property owners within the Proposed District.
Attachments:
A. Sample Ballot
B. Preliminary Engineer's Report No. 18-1
C. Diagram of Proposed LMD No. 18-1
D. Public Comments
E. Resolution Declaring the Results of the Protest Ballot Proceeding for LMD 18-1
F. Resolution Approving the Formation, Confirming the Engineer's Report and Approving the
Levy and Collection of Assessments for LMD 18-1
Reviewed/Approved By: Reviewed By: Approved By:
Wendy Kaserman Alan Fenstermacher Tina M. White
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
16 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
OFFICIAL ASSESSMENT BALLOT
CITY OF POWAY
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT No. 18-1
This Ballot is for the owner of the property designated as Assessor's Parcel Number(s): «BALLOTAPN» within Zone
«BALLOTZONE» of the proposed City of Poway (City) Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1 (the District). This is your
official property owner assessment ballot regarding the formation of the District and the levy of annual assessments to fund
the ongoing expenses associated with the maintenance of landscape improvements within the District that confer special
benefits on your property as outlined in the accompanying Notice and described more fully in the Engineer's Report, which is
on file with the City.
«OWNER1»
«OWNER2>>
«MailAddress»
«MailCity», «MailState» «MailZip»
To complete your ballot,please mark below an(X)in the voting square next to the word "YES" to indicate your support
for or next to the word "NO" to indicate your opposition to the proposed assessment, sign and date the ballot, and
return the entire ballot to the City Clerk of Poway. If you wrongly mark,tear, or deface this ballot, return it to the City
Clerk to obtain a replacement ballot. To be counted, all ballots must be received by the City Clerk no later than the
close of public testimony at the public hearing scheduled for May 1, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): «BALLOTAPN»
Maximum Assessment Rate for Fiscal Year 2018/2019*: «BALLOT_RATE» per EBU
Your Parcel's Balloted Assessment Amount: «BALLOT AMT»
Total amount balloted for all properties within the District: $ 411,196.88
Your Parcel's Proposed Assessment for Fiscal Year 2018/2019: «FY18-19_AMT»
This is an annual assessment that will be collected as part of your County property tax bill.
*The Maximum Assessment Rate for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 shown above includes an inflationary
adjustment that allows this rate to be increased each fiscal year by the percentage change in the
Consumer Price Index(CPI) for the San Diego Area, not to exceed 3% commencing in Fiscal Year
2019/2020. However, the assessment rate applied each year shall be based on budgeted expenses
(which may be less), but in no case, shall the assessments exceed the allowable adjusted maximum
Oi assessment rate without the approval of the property owners.
.J"
I` ® YES -- IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSMENT proposed for
the District and the assessment for my property shown
above including the annual inflation adjustment applicable ((BarcodeYes'>
dna
to future assessments based on the percentage change in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not to exceed 3%.
® NO --OPPOSED TO THE ASSESSSMENT proposed for
the District and the assessment for my property shown
above including the annual inflation adjustment applicable «Barcode_No'>
to future assessments based on the percentage change in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not to exceed 3%.
I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that I am the record owner of the property(Assessor's Parcel
Number) identified on this ballot or I am the authorized representative of that record owner.
Signed
Date
Please see the back of this sheet for information about your assessment ballot and instructions for completion and delivery of
the assessment ballot. This ballot will be accepted and tabulated pursuant to California Government Code Section 53753.
17 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ASSESSMENT BALLOT AND
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION AND DELIVERY OF ASSESSMENT BALLOT
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 18-1
To Cast Your Ballot: Prior to the public hearing, completed ballots may be personally delivered to the City Clerk's Office
located at 13325 Civic Center Dive, Poway, California; or mailed to the City of Poway at the address indicated below. A return
envelope specifically for this ballot proceeding has been provided for your convenience that is addressed to the City of Poway.
You may also personally present completed ballots to the City Clerk at the public hearing on May 1, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. If you
return your ballot by mail, please be sure to allow time for mail delivery; the City Clerk must receive all ballots no later than the
end of the public testimony portion of the public hearing on May 1, 2018. If you damage or misplace your ballot, a replacement
ballot can be obtained from the City Clerk either by contacting the City Clerk's Office or by contacting the City's Public Works
Department as indicated below. Only ballots issued by the City are considered valid ballots (copies or facsimiles are not valid
ballots). Any Ballot returned unmarked or unsigned, or not received by the City Clerk before the end of the public
hearing, will be rejected and not counted. Only valid ballots received by the City Clerk before the end of the public
hearing shall be counted.
All submitted ballots must be clearly marked to indicate either"Yes -- In Favor of the Assessment" or"No--Opposed
to the Assessment" and signed; otherwise the ballot will be rejected and not counted. To ensure the privacy of your
ballot prior to the tabulation, please return your ballot in the envelope provided, or in a sealed envelope that indicates that a
ballot is enclosed by noting on the front of the envelope'Assessment Ballot—Do Not Open'.A ballot previously submitted may
be withdrawn at any time prior to the close of the public hearing by request to the City Clerk, by the person(s)that signed the
submitted ballot. An assessment ballot may be changed at any time prior to the close of the public hearing by requesting a
withdrawal of the previous ballot and requesting a replacement ballot. Only the person(s) signing the ballot may make such a
request. The replacement ballot must be received by the City Clerk prior to the deadline set forth herein.
If you have questions: Should you have any questions prior to the public hearing, you may contact the City's Public Works
Department at(858)668-4700.
City of Poway Completed ballots MUST be received by the City Clerk no later than
PO Box wthe close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing which is
C
PO ay
Bo, 789 92074-9926 scheduled to begin on Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
at City Hall located at 13325 Civic Center Dive, Poway, CA.
How to cast your ballot:
1. 2. Ale 3. Return to the City Clerk on or before the
Check Sign and Public Hearing on, May 1, 2018 in accordance with the
Yes or No date it instructions referenced above
18 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
ePott,l)
7111
CITY OF POWAY
Engineer's Report
Formation of
Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1
Fiscal Year 2018/2019
Intent Meeting: March 6, 2018
Public Hearing: May 1 , 2018
CITY OF POWAY
13325 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
POWAY, CA 92064
FEBRUARY 2018
PREPARED BY
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
•
*"WILLDAN
Financial Services
19 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
ENGINEER'S REPORT AFFIDAVIT
City of Poway
Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1
District Formation
Fiscal Year 2018/2019
Annual Levy of Assessments
Commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/2019
City of Poway,
County of San Diego, State of California
This Report and the enclosed descriptions, budgets, and diagrams outline the improvements,
zones, and assessments being proposed for the consideration of the Poway City Council
regarding the formation of Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1 for Fiscal Year 2018/2019.
Said District includes each lot, parcel, and subdivision of land identified as receiving a special
benefit from the improvements to be funded by the District annual assessments as identified on
the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Maps at the time this Report was prepared. Reference
is hereby made to the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Maps for a detailed description of the
lines and dimensions of each parcel within Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1, including
all subsequent subdivisions, lot-line adjustments, or parcel changes therein. The undersigned
respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council.
Dated this day of , 2018.
Willdan Financial Services
Assessment Engineer
On Behalf of the City of Poway
By:
Jim McGuire
Principal Consultant
By:
Richard Kopecky
R.C.E. # 16742
20 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Ballot Proceedings 2
Report Content 3
Part I — Plans and Specifications 5
Description of the District 5
Zones of Benefit and Improvements 6
Part II — Method of Apportionment 13
Legislative Authority and Provisions 13
Benefit Analysis 14
Assessment Methodology 17
Part III — Estimate of Costs 24
Calculation of Assessments 24
District Budgets and Assessments 25
Assessment Range Formula 29
Part IV — District Diagram 30
Part V — Assessment Roll 32
21 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Introduction
Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, being Part 2 of Division 15
of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing with Section 22500 (the "1972 Act"),
and in compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of Article XIII D, section 4 of
the California State Constitution (the "California Constitution") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act (the "Omnibus Act"), being Government Code section 53750 et seq., the City
Council of the City of Poway, County of San Diego, State of California (the "City"), propose to
form a special benefit assessment district to be designated as:
Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1
(the "District"), to provide and maintain various local landscaping improvements within the
boundaries of the District that provide special benefits to properties therein.
To adequately provide and fund the landscaping improvements, appurtenant facilities and related
expenses within the District, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate and in the
public's best interest to form the District, and to levy annual assessments on the County tax rolls
for the benefit of properties therein commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/2019 to fund the estimated
special benefit improvement costs that are considered necessary to maintain and service the
improvements. The detailed plans and specifications for the landscaping improvements to be
provided and funded in whole or in part by the District assessments are on file in the Office of
Public Works of the City of Poway and by reference these plans and specifications are made part
of this Report. The improvements to be provided by the District and the assessments described
herein are made pursuant to the 1972 Act, the provisions of the California Constitution, and the
Omnibus Act; and the District shall incorporate each parcel that will receive special benefits from
those improvements.
This Engineer's Report (the "Report") has been prepared pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 of the
1972 Act and the California Constitution, and presented to the City Council for its consideration
and approval of the improvements to be provided within the District and the levy and collection of
the assessments related thereto to fund the special benefit costs and expenses required to
service and maintain the designated improvements within the District commencing in Fiscal Year
2018/2019. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, portion, zone, or subzone of this
Report is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of the
Report and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, portion, zone, or
subzone thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, phrases, portions, zones, or subzones might subsequently be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
This Report outlines the District structure, the improvements, and the proposed assessments to
be levied in connection with the special benefits the properties within the District will receive from
the maintenance and servicing of the District improvements. In accordance with the 1972 Act, the
District utilizes benefit zones ("Zones") to address variations in the nature, location, and extent of
the improvements that provide special benefits to various developments and parcels within the
District. The annual assessments to be levied on properties within the District will provide a
funding source for the continued operation and maintenance of the landscaping improvements
and appurtenant facilities within the District and each Zone established herein. The net annual
cost to provide the improvements associated with each Zone are allocated to the benefiting
properties within that Zone using a weighted method of apportionment (refer to Assessment
Methodology in Part II, Method of Apportionment) that calculates the proportional special benefit
22 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
and assessment for each parcel as compared to other properties that benefit from the District
improvements and services.
The estimated cost of the improvements and the proposed annual assessments budgeted and
assessed against properties each fiscal year within the District and each respective Zone may
include, but are not limited to the estimated expenditures for regular annual maintenance and
repair of the landscaping and related facilities; incidental expenditures related to the operation
and administration of the District; the collection of funds for operational reserves; the collection of
funds to support periodic maintenance projects, rehabilitation projects and/or other capital
improvement projects; deficits or surpluses from prior fiscal years; and revenues from other
sources as authorized by the 1972 Act. Each parcel is to be assessed proportionately for only
those improvements, services and expenses for which the parcel will receive special benefits.
After formation of this District, in each subsequent fiscal year, the City shall establish the District's
assessments based on an estimate of the costs to maintain, operate and service the
improvements, including funding needed for capital improvement projects for that fiscal year and
available revenues including fund balances, general benefit contributions, any additional City
contributions, and the assessment limits established herein.
The word "parcel," for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property assigned its
own Assessor's Parcel Number ("APN") by the San Diego County Assessor's Office. The San
Diego County Auditor/Controller uses Assessor's Parcel Numbers and specific Fund Numbers to
identify properties to be assessed on the tax roll for the District assessments.
Ballot Proceedings
Pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution and the
Omnibus Act, the City shall conduct a property owner protest ballot proceeding ("Ballot
Proceeding") for the proposed levy of new assessments as described in this Report. In
conjunction with this Ballot Proceeding, the City Council will conduct a noticed public hearing to
consider public testimonies, comments, and written protests regarding the formation of the District
and the establishment of the proposed assessments. Upon conclusion of the public hearing,
property owner protest ballots received will be opened and tabulated to determine whether a
majority protest exists as defined in Article XIIID of the California Constitution and the Omnibus
Act.
"A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to
the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots,
the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected
property."
After completion of the ballot tabulation, the City Council will confirm the results of the balloting.
If a majority protest exists for the proposed assessments and the assessment range formula
presented and described herein, further proceedings to form the District and implement the new
assessments shall be abandoned at this time. However, the City Council may continue to levy
and collect annual assessments to support the landscaping improvements currently provided and
funded through Landscape Maintenance District 83-1 at the assessment rates and method of
apportionment previously approved and adopted by the City Council for that District.
If tabulation of the ballots indicate that a majority protest does not exist for the proposed
assessments and the assessment range formula presented and described herein, the City
Council may adopt this Report (as submitted or amended); approve the District Diagram
contained herein; and by resolution order the formation of the District; direct the improvements to
be made; and confirm and approve the levy and collection of the assessments as outlined in this
Report. Upon the successful formation of the District and levy of the Fiscal Year 2018/2019
23 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
•
assessments, the City Council will discontinue the levy of assessments for Landscape
Maintenance District 83-1.
The assessment rates and method of apportionment described in this Report, as approved or
modified by the City Council, establishes the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 maximum assessments for
each Zone which include an annual inflationary adjustment (referred to as an Assessment Range
Formula), and the assessments to be submitted to the San Diego County Auditor/Controller for
inclusion on the Fiscal Year 2018/2019 property tax roll.
Each subsequent fiscal year, an annual engineer's report for the District shall be prepared and
presented to the City Council to address any proposed changes to the District, Zones,
improvements, budgets, and assessments for that fiscal year.The City Council shall annually hold
a noticed public hearing regarding these matters prior to approving and ordering the levy of
assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The assessments as approved and ordered will be
submitted to the San Diego County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax roll for each
affected parcel for that fiscal year. Such assessments shall not exceed the annually adjusted
maximum assessments authorized herein unless the proposed new or increased assessments
are approved by the property owners in a ballot protest proceeding.
Report Content
This Report has been prepared in connection with the formation of Landscape Maintenance
District No. 18-1 and the levy of assessments commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/2019, pursuant to
a resolution of the City Council and consists of five (5) parts:
Part I — Plans and Specifications:
An overall description of the District, Zones, and the general nature, location, and extent of the
improvements for which parcels will be assessed. The assessments as outlined in this Report are
based on the local landscaping improvements and appurtenant facilities within the District that
provide special benefits to the properties within the various Zones, including incidental expenses
authorized pursuant to the 1972 Act. In conjunction with the descriptions of the improvements, a
visual depiction of the landscape improvement areas is provided on the District Diagram
contained in Part IV of this Report. More detailed information regarding the specific plans and
specifications associated with the District improvements are on file in the Public Works
Department and by reference are made part of this Report.
Part II — Method of Apportionment
Provides a discussion of the general and special benefits associated with the various
improvements to be provided within the District (Benefit Analysis), which includes a discussion of
the proportional costs of the special benefits and a separation of costs considered to be of general
benefit and therefore not assessed. This section of the Report also outlines the method of
calculating each property's proportional special benefit necessary to calculate the annual
assessments.
Part Ill — Estimate of Costs
An estimate of the total annual costs to install, operate, maintain, and service the local
landscaping improvements and appurtenant facilities within the District and Zones. The estimated
annual expenses (budget) for each Zone includes an estimate of the maintenance costs and
incidental expenses (as defined in the 1972 Act) including, but not limited to: labor, materials,
24 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
utilities, equipment, and administration expenses as well as the collection of other appropriate
funding authorized by the 1972 Act and deemed necessary to fully support the improvements.
Those improvements and/or costs determined to be of general benefit shall be funded by a City
contribution and are excluded from the amount to be assessed as special benefit. The resulting
proposed maximum assessment rate (the "Maximum Assessment Rate Per EBU") identified in
the budget for each Zone establishes the maximum assessment rate for each Zone as of Fiscal
Year 2018/2019 and these maximum assessment rates shall be adjusted annually by the
Assessment Range Formula also described in this section of the Report. The maximum
assessment amount to be balloted for each parcel is calculated based on the initial maximum
assessment rate established for each Zone and the Assessment Methodology described in "Part
II — Method of Apportionment" of this Report.
While not shown as a budgeted expenditure at this time, if the District assessments are approved,
the City Council at its discretion, may provide a temporary advance (loan) to the District to
expedite various capital improvement projects within the District (i.e., repair and rehabilitation of
the improvements). Such loans shall be limited to funding that complies with the provisions of
California State law and shall be paid back to the City through the annual assessments and
available funds collected for CIP and Rehabilitation Funding and/or Operational Reserves.
Ultimately, City staff shall make the determination of which improvements, and the extent of the
services and activities that shall be provided based on available revenues.
Part IV — District Diagram
This section of the Report contains a diagram showing the boundaries of the District and
applicable Zones within the District as of Fiscal Year 2018/2019 which incorporates each of the
parcels that receives special benefits from the various District improvements. This diagram also
provides a visual depiction of the location of the improvements to be maintained. The lines and
dimensions of each lot, parcel, and subdivision of land contained in this diagram are inclusive of
all parcels listed in "Part V – Assessment Roll" of this Report and the corresponding County
Assessor's Parcel Maps for said parcels as they existed at the time this Report was prepared and
shall include all subsequent subdivisions, lot-line adjustments, or parcel changes therein.
Reference is hereby made to the San Diego County Assessor's maps for a detailed description
of the lines and dimensions of each lot and parcel of land within the District.
Part V — Assessment Roll
A listing of all Assessor Parcel Numbers of the properties within the District and each parcel's
corresponding Fiscal Year 2018-2019 maximum assessment amount ("Balloted Maximum
Assessment") and assessment amount to be levied and collected for Fiscal Year 2018/2019
("Assessment FY 2018/2019"). The proposed assessment amounts balloted and to be levied and
collected for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 for each parcel is based on the parcel's calculated
proportional special benefit as outlined in the Method of Apportionment(Part II of this Report) and
the annual assessment rate established by the estimated budget for each Zone (Part III of this
Report). Due to the number of parcels within the District, the Assessment Roll shall be filed
electronically with the City Clerk rather than displayed in this Report and by reference the listing
of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers and the corresponding assessment amounts contained in that
electronic file are made part of this Report.
25 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Part I — Plans and Specifications
Description of the District
The District is located within the City of Poway in the south central region of the City, generally
east of the City limits, west of Espola Road and north of Poway Road. The territory within the
District consists of the lots or parcels of land shown on the Assessment Diagram contained herein
in "Part IV — District Diagram" of this Report which is inclusive of all parcels listed in "Part V –
Assessment Roll" of this Report and the corresponding County Assessor's Parcel Maps for said
parcels as they existed at the time this Report was prepared. The parcels within the District include
all or a portion of the parcels identified on the following San Diego County Assessor's Parcel
Maps:
Book 314 Pages 04, 05, 16, 19, 24, 34, 35, 37, 38, 56, 60, 63, 66 thru 83, and 86;
Book 317 Page 11; and
Book 321 Pages 30 and 39
As authorized by the 1972 Act, the improvements to be provided by the District and associated
with each Zone therein incorporate local landscaping improvements and appurtenant facilities
that are maintained and serviced for the benefit of real property within the District. The various
improvements to be maintained by the District have been installed in connection with the
development of properties for the benefit of those properties and/or nearby adjacent
developments, or were otherwise considered necessary or required for the development of
properties within the District to their full and best use. The work to be performed within the District
may include, but is not limited to (as applicable), the personnel; materials; equipment; electricity;
water; contract services; maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of the improvements; and
incidental expenses required to operate the District and provide the improvements and services.
The annual assessments to be levied on properties within the District provide a source of funding
to support the continued operation and maintenance of these improvements that provide a
particular and distinct benefit (special benefit) to those properties. Each parcel shall be assessed
proportionately for only those improvements, services, and expenses for which the parcel
receives special benefits.
The landscape improvements to be funded by the District assessments may include, but are not
limited to: turf; ground cover; shrubs and plants; areas of natural vegetation; trees; irrigation
systems; specific masonry walls, including sound walls and retaining walls; monuments;
hardscapes; trails; and other related appurtenant facilities within the District that have been
dedicated to the City for maintenance including but are not limited to:
median island landscaping and hardscape improvements within the District;
designated streetscape side-panel landscaping adjacent to the streets and properties within
the District, including parkways, slopes and entryways; and
designated non-street landscaping and/or vegetation management areas, including, but not
limited to, open space areas, greenbelts, and landscaping on the perimeter of basins or
channel ways within the District that are located adjacent to the properties or within the
developments of the District.
The improvement plans and specifications for the District are on file in the Office of Public Works
of the City of Poway and by reference these plans and specifications are made part of this Report.
26 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Zones of Benefit and Improvements
California Constitution article XIII D, section 4(a) requires that an "agency which proposes to levy
an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and
upon which an assessment will be imposed." The 1972 Act further permits the establishment of
assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing various landscaping and lighting
improvements, including the acquisition, construction, installation, maintenance, and servicing of
those improvements and related facilities. In addition, to ensure an appropriate allocation of the
estimated costs to provide various improvements based on proportional special benefits,
landscaping and lighting districts often times include benefit zones ("Zones") as authorized
pursuant to Chapter 1 Article 4, Section 22574 of the 1972 Act:
"The diagram and assessment may classify various areas within an assessment district into
different zones where, by mason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the
improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements.
A zone shall consist of all territory which will receive substantially the same degree of benefit from
the improvements."
While the California Constitution requires that the "proportionate special benefit derived by each
identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public
improvement or the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement..."; it is
reasonable to conclude that certain landscaping improvements may benefit most, if not all,
properties within a district, while other improvements may only provide special benefits to specific
parcels, developments or portions of the district (particularly in larger districts). In addition, some
improvements within a district and/or a portion of the costs associated with various public
improvements are identified as providing some measure of general benefit and these general
benefit costs are separated, quantified, and not assessed to properties within the district.
This Report has identified all parcels which will have special benefits conferred upon them by the
improvements in the proposed District. In accordance with the 1972 Act, it has been determined
that it is necessary to establish benefit zones (Zones and/or Sub-Zones, hereafter referred to
collectively as"Zones")within this District to appropriately: (1)determine the proportionate special
benefits derived by each identified parcel in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the
public improvements, and the maintenance and operation expenses of the public improvements;
and (2) allocate the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefits conferred on each parcel.
The boundaries of each Zone are established based on the location, extent and types of
improvements being maintained through the District as well as the particular and distinct benefits
the various developments and properties derive from those improvements based on proximity to
those specific improvements. While some improvements may be specifically associated with
specific development areas or parcels within the District, many improvements may reasonably be
considered shared improvements because the overall development of the properties in the area
required or facilitated the installation of those improvements. In such cases, the special benefits
and cost of providing such shared improvements are proportionately allocated to parcels in each
Zone.
The net annual cost to provide the improvements for each Zone are allocated to the benefiting
properties within that Zone using a weighted method of apportionment (refer to Assessment
Methodology in Part III - Method of Apportionment)that calculates the proportional special benefit
and assessment for each parcel as compared to other properties that benefit from the District
improvements and services. The following is a brief description and summary of the Zones and
improvements associated within each Zone. A visual depiction of the location and extent of the
improvements and Zone boundaries are provided on the District Diagram provided in Part IV of
this Report.
27 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Zone A Parcels and Improvements
Zone A Parcels: Zone A is comprised of that portion of the parcels within the District located
north and south of Twin Peaks Road between the City limits (western boundary of the District and
Zone A) and Community Road that are within developments adjacent or directly accessed from
the streets where the District improvements are located, including Twin Peaks Road, Camino Del
Norte, Ted Williams Parkway, and Pomerado Road. The properties in Zone A are primarily
identified as residential properties, but the Zone also incorporates a high school, a private
recreational facility, and public recreational areas. Zone A incorporates parcels within the
developments identified as Parcel Maps 05716, 11344, 16262, 16786, 16904, & 18833; Tracts
00536, 07523, 07795, 07801, 07818, 08000, 08885, 09243, 09255, 09256, 09981, 11065, 11350,
11507, 11508, 11641, 11695, 11744, 11745, 11958, 11981, 12043, 12082, 12270, 12356, 12447,
12463, 12557, 12660, 12753, & 12880; and various other surrounding parcels. The parcels in
Zone A include all or a portion of the parcels identified on the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel
Maps Book 314 Pages 04, 05, 16, 34, 35, 37, 38, 56, 60, 63, 66, 67, 68, and 70 through 82.
Zone A Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
in the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular and
distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at large
do not share. The parcels within Zone A are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part, for the
special benefits they receive from the improvements. The improvements include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Zone Specific Improvements (proportionately benefiting parcels in Zone A only)
The following improvements provide special benefits to properties in Zone A only, including
approximately:
• 112,980 square feet of non-streetscape landscaping, including improvement areas on or near
Malabar Drive, Levita Court, Pomerado Road, La Manda Drive, Amso Street, and Twin Circle
Way at Twin Circle Court;
• 97,110 square feet of non-arterial streetscape landscaping improvements within the Zone,
including improvement areas on Deerwood Street, Carriage Road, Saddlewood Drive,
Beachwood Street, and Pomerado Road north of Twin Peaks Road;
• 123,830 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on both sides of
Camino Del Norte, northwest of Pomerado Road. This landscape area incorporates the small
landscape segment between Camino Del Norte and the intersection of Morningside Drive and
Morningside Court, which is all part of the same parcel that comprises the landscape
improvements along the southwest side of Camino Del Norte;
• 14,000 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on Pomerado Road at
Colony Drive;
• 36,740 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements (slope area) on Ted
Williams Parkway between Twin Peaks Road and Pomerado Road;
415,560 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the north side of
Twin Peaks Road between Pomerado Road and Hillndale Way; and
> 154,060 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the south side of
Twin Peaks Road from Ted Williams Parkway to approximately 400 feet southeast of
Woodcreek Road.
28 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Shared Improvements (proportionately shared by parcels in Zone A and Zone B)
The following improvements provide special benefits to properties in Zone A, but because of their
proximity to properties in Zone B, these improvements also proportionately benefit properties in
Zone B. The entirety of the cost of these shared improvements are allocated to Zone A and Zone
B and parcels therein based on each parcel's proportional special benefits (calculated Equivalent
Benefit Unit, "EBU") as outlined in the Method of Apportionment (Part II of this Report), in
relationship to the total (collective) EBU of all parcels in Zone A and Zone B that receive special
benefits from those improvements. These shared improvements include, but are not limited to,
the following:
30,370 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Camino Del Norte between the
City Limits (Western Boundary of the District) and Pomerado Road;
• 11,040 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Twin Peaks Road between
Pomerado Road and Ted Williams Pkwy;
• 21,190 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Pomerado Road between
Camino Del Norte/Twin Peaks Road and Ted Williams Parkway;
• 55,950 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Ted Williams Parkway between
Twin Peaks Road and the City Limits (Western Boundary of the District); and
• 71,210 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on both sides of Ted
Williams Parkway between Twin Peaks Road and the City Limits (Western Boundary of the
District).
Zone B Parcels and Improvements
Zone B Parcels: Zone B is comprised of that portion of the parcels within the District located
south of Twin Peaks Road between the City boundary and Ted Williams Parkway that primarily
comprise the Twin Peaks Plaza. The properties in this Zone are identified as non-residential
properties. Zone B incorporates parcels within the developments identified as Parcel Maps 15808
& 16904; and Tract 08885. The parcels in Zone B include a portion of the parcels identified on
the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Maps Book 314 Pages 63, 67, and 71.
Zone B Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone B are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the improvements. The improvements include, but are
not limited to, the following:
Zone Specific Improvements (proportionately benefiting parcels in Zone B only)
The following improvements provide special benefits to properties in Zone B only, including
approximately:
14,810 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the southwest corner
of Camino Del Norte (Twin Peaks Road) and Pomerado Road.
29 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Shared Improvements (proportionately shared by parcels in Zone A and Zone B)
The following improvements provide a special benefit to properties in Zone B, but because of their
proximity to properties in Zone A, these improvements also proportionately benefit properties in
Zone A. The entirety of the cost of these shared improvements are allocated to Zone A and Zone
B and parcels therein based on each parcel's proportional special benefits (calculated Equivalent
Benefit Unit, "EBU") as outlined in the Method of Apportionment (Part II of this Report), in
relationship to the total (collective) EBU of all parcels in Zone A and Zone B that receive special
benefits from those improvements. These shared improvements include, but are not limited to,
the following:
> 30,370 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Camino Del Norte between the
City Limits (Western Boundary of the District) and Pomerado Road;
• 11,040 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Twin Peaks Road between
Pomerado Road and Ted Williams Pkwy;
• 21,190 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Pomerado Road between
Camino Del Norte/Twin Peaks Road and Ted Williams Parkway;
• 55,950 square feet of arterial median island improvements on Ted Williams Parkway between
Twin Peaks Road and the City Limits (Western Boundary of the District); and
• 71,210 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on both sides of Ted
Williams Parkway between Twin Peaks Road and the City Limits (Western Boundary of the
District).
Zone C Parcels and Improvements
Zone C Parcels: This Zone is comprised of the twenty-six (26) single-family residential parcels
within Tract 13872 located on the south side of Twin Peaks Road, generally east of Community
Road and west of Midland Road. This Zone includes all the parcels identified on the San Diego
County Assessor's Parcel Maps Book 314 Page 83.
Zone C Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone C, are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone C only
improvements). The Zone C only improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
• 8,750 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the southeast side of
Twin Peaks Road adjacent to Tract 13872;
• The sound wall adjacent to the landscaping improvements on the southeast side of Twin
Peaks Road adjacent to Tract 13872; and,
> 7,860 square feet of non-arterial streetscape landscaping improvements along the west of
Midland Road adjacent to Tract 13872 between Twin Peaks Road and Kentfield Drive.
Zone D Parcels and Improvements
Zone D Parcels: This Zone is comprised of fourteen (14) residential properties identified as Tract
14360 located on the east side of Midland Road, generally south of Twin Peaks Road and north
of Norwalk Street.The benefiting parcels in this Zone include thirteen (13)developed single-family
residential parcels and one subdivided residential lot. This development includes all the residential
parcels identified on the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Maps Book 314 Page 86.
30 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Zone D Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone D, are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone D only
improvements). The Zone D only improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
4,330 square feet of non-arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the east side of
Midland Road adjacent to Tract 14360.
Zone E Parcels and Improvements
Zone E Parcels: This Zone is comprised of the twenty-nine (29) single-family residential parcels
within Tract 09431(15 residential parcels), Tract 14767 (12 residential parcels), and two adjacent
residential parcels, each located on the south side of Twin Peaks Road, generally east of Midland
Road and west of Tierra Bonita Road. This Zone includes all the parcels identified on the San
Diego County Assessor's Parcel Map Book 314 Page 69 and two parcels within Book 314 Page
19.
Zone E Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone E are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone E only
improvements). The Zone E only improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
• 8,080 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the south side of Twin
Peaks Road adjacent to the Zone.
Zone F Parcels and Improvements
Zone F Parcels: This Zone is comprised of the fifty-one (51) single-family residential parcels
within Tract 11603 located on the south side of Twin Peaks Road and the west side of Tierra
Bonita Road. This Zone includes all the parcels identified on the San Diego County Assessor's
Parcel Maps Book 321 Page 39.
Zone F Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone F are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone F only
improvements). The Zone F improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
• 14,520 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the south side of
Twin Peaks Road adjacent to Tract 11603;
• 5,280 square feet of non-arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the west side of
Tierra Bonita Road adjacent to Tract 11603; and,
• 28,270 square feet of non-streetscape landscaping improvements within Tract 11603 located
along the southern and western boundary of the Tract.
31 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Zone G Parcels and Improvements
Zone G Parcels: This Zone is comprised of the twelve(12) single-family residential parcels within
Tract 11852 located on the north side of Twin Peaks Road and the west side of Espola Road.
This Zone includes a portion of the parcels identified on the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel
Maps Book 321 Page 30.
Zone G Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone G are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone G only
improvements). The Zone G only improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
4,300 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the west side of Espola
Road adjacent to Tract 11852.
3,320 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the south side of
Espola Road adjacent to Tract 11852, extending from Espola Road to approximately 450 feet
west of Espola Road (A point which is approximately 160 feet east of Roberto Rio Road).
Zone H Parcels and Improvements
Zone H Parcels: This Zone is comprised of the eighteen (18) condominiums of Tract 12352
located on Peachtree Lane, on the north side of Adrian Street just east of Midland Road. These
eighteen condominiums are all part of a single San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Number
(314-193-38-18).
Zone H Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone H are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone H only
improvements). The Zone H only improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
1,770 square feet of non-arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the north side of
Adrian Street adjacent to Tract 12352.
Zone I Parcels and Improvements
Zone I Parcels: This Zone is comprised of the ten (10) single-family residential parcels within
Tract 12711 located on the east side of Midland Road between Somerset Road and Janette Lane.
This Zone includes a portion of the parcels identified on the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel
Maps Book 314 Page 24.
Zone I Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefit) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone I are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone I only
improvements). that the Zone I only improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
3,220 square feet of non-arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the east side of
Midland Road adjacent to Tract 12711 between Somerset Road and Janette Lane.
32 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Zone J Parcels and Improvements
Zone J Parcels: This Zone is comprised of the sixteen (16)single-family residential parcels within
Tract 12031 located on Little Dawn Lane, on the east side of Community Road south of Ketron
Avenue and north of Hilleary Park Drive. This Zone includes a portion of the parcels identified on
the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Maps Book 317 Page 11.
Zone J Improvements: The improvements within this Zone provide direct advantages to parcels
within the Zone (i.e., special benefits) that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular
and distinct from their effect on other parcels and that real property in general and the public at
large do not share. The parcels within Zone J are proportionately assessed, in whole or in part,
for the special benefits they receive from the Zone-Specific Improvements (Zone J only
improvements). The Zone J only improvements include, but are not limited to, approximately:
". 5,220 square feet of arterial streetscape landscaping improvements on the east side of
Community Road adjacent to Tract 12031. This landscape square footage includes the narrow
landscape area along the south side of Tract 1203, extending east approximately 250 feet
from the landscaping along Community Road.
33 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Part II — Method of Apportionment
Legislative Authority and Provisions
1972 Act
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of
providing certain public improvements, including the acquisition, construction, installation and
servicing of landscaping and lighting improvements and related facilities. The 1972 Act requires
that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit rather than assessed value:
Section 22573 defines the net amount to be assessed as follows:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by
any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels
in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the
improvements."
Section 22574 provides for zones as follows:
"The diagram and assessment may classify various areas within an assessment district into
different zones where, by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the
improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements.
A zone shall consist of all territory which will receive substantially the same degree of benefit from
the improvements."
The formulas used for calculating assessments and the designation of Zones as established
herein reflect the composition of parcels within the District and the improvements and activities to
be provided, and have been designed to fairly apportion the cost of providing those improvements
based on a determination of the proportional special benefits to each parcel, consistent with the
requirements of the 1972 Act and the provisions of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
California Constitution
The costs to operate and maintain the District improvements are identified and allocated to
properties within each Zone of the District based on the special benefits conferred. The
improvements provided and for which properties are to be assessed are identified as local
landscaping improvements and related amenities that were installed in connection with the
development of the properties and/or would otherwise be required for the development of
properties within each respective Zone. The District assessments and method of apportionment
are based on the premise that these improvements would otherwise not have been installed and
maintained by the City. The improvements were installed as part of the development or planned
development of the parcels within the District. The types of improvements and level of
maintenance of the improvements are greater than what the City otherwise installs, maintains,
and funds elsewhere in the City.
Article XIII D Section 2(d) defines District as follows:
"District means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special
benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service";
Article XIII D Section 2(i) defines Special Benefit as follows:
"Special benefit"means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred
on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property
value does not constitute "special benefit."
34 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Article XIII D Section 4(a) defines proportional special benefit assessments as follows:
"An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a
special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The
proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship
to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation
expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No
assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the
proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel."
Benefit Analysis
The improvements provided by this District and for which properties will be assessed have been
identified as necessary, desired and/or required for the orderly development of the properties
within the District to their full potential, consistent with the development plans and applicable
portions of the City's General Plan.
Special Benefits
The ongoing maintenance of landscaped areas within the District will provide aesthetic benefits
to the properties within the District and each respective Zone therein, and are intended to provide
a more pleasant environment to walk, drive, live, and work. The primary function of these
improvements and related amenities is to serve as an aesthetically pleasing enhancement and
green space for the benefit of the immediate surrounding properties and developments for which
the improvements were constructed and installed, and/or were facilitated by the development or
potential development of properties within the District. These improvements are an integral part
of the physical environment associated with the parcels in the District and while some of these
improvements may in part be visible to properties outside the District and/or the respective Zones,
collectively, if these improvements are not properly maintained, it is the parcels within the District
and/or the respective Zones that would be aesthetically burdened. Additionally, these landscape
improvements provide visually pleasing open space areas and green spaces that serve as an
extension of the physical attributes of the parcels assessed, such as their front or rear yards and
may also provide a greater opportunity for recreation as well as serving as a physical buffer and/or
sound reduction buffer between the roadways and the properties in the District. Thus, the
maintenance of these landscaped improvements provides advantages to the assessed properties
that affect the assessed parcels in a way that is particular and distinct from their effect on other
parcels and that real property in general and the public at large do not share.
Collectively these landscaping improvements and related amenities which are funded by the
special benefit assessments, enhance the overall use, presentation, enjoyment, recreational
access, and marketability of the properties, and ensure the long-term cost-efficiency of services
that are obtained through the City provided maintenance (economy of scale).
General Benefit
Calculated(Direct) General Benefit
In reviewing the location and extent of the specific landscaped areas and improvements to be
funded by District assessments and the proximity and relationship to properties to be assessed,
it is evident these improvements have been installed as part of the development of properties
within the District or are improvements that would otherwise be shared by and/or required for
development of those properties. Although the District improvements are located on public streets
or public areas that are typically visible and/or accessible to the general public, it is evident that
35 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
the ongoing maintenance of these improvements are only necessary for the appearance and
advantage of the properties within the District that are directly associated with those
improvements and these improvements (particularly the level of maintenance and servicing) are
not required nor associated with any properties outside the District and/or the respective Zones.
It is also evident that: (1) the maintenance of these improvements and the level of maintenance
provided, has a direct and particular advantage (i.e., special benefit) only on those properties in
close proximity to those improvements including those developments and properties that are
directly accessed from the streets where the improvements are located; and (2) such
maintenance beyond that which is required to ensure the safety and protection of the general
public and property in general, limits any indirect or incidental benefit that the public at large or
properties outside each respective Zone receive from the improvements.
In the absence of a special funding Zone, these types of improvements would not have been
installed by the City and the City's maintenance of these improvements would for the most part,
be limited to tree management services necessary to ensure public safety and protection of
property, weed abatement, rodent control, and erosion control services for the various landscape
areas that are provided elsewhere in the City. This basic or baseline level of service would
typically provide for periodic servicing of these areas on an as-needed basis. This baseline level
of service, which is provided elsewhere in the City, would provide for public safety and essential
property protection to avoid negative impacts on adjacent roadways and vehicles traveling on
those roadways and potential property damage. However, this baseline level of service results in
a far less visually pleasing environment than is created with the enhanced levels of services
associated with the regular landscape maintenance that can be provided through the District
assessments.
On average, the cost to provide this baseline level of service for the District's streetscape
landscape areas is estimated to be approximately $1,120 per acre (approximately $0.0257 per
square foot) and approximately $670 per acre (approximately $0.0154 per square foot) for non-
streetscape landscape areas, including a five percent (5%) cost factor for City overhead and
administration.
Indirect(Incidental) General Benefits
In addition to the general benefit identified above, it is recognized that there are indirect or
incidental general benefits to properties within the District as well as the general public that are
associated with regular landscape maintenance services, including:
Minimization of dust and debris; and
Decreased potential water runoff from both properties and the landscaped areas.
Although these types of benefits might best be characterized as indirect consequences of the
special benefits of the landscape maintenance provided to assessed parcels, for the purposes of
calculating proportional benefits, we assume these types of benefits to be general benefits. It is
apparent that trees, shrubs, plants, and other vegetation and groundcover reduce dust, debris,
and potential water runoff that might otherwise occur if such landscape improvements did not
exist. However, it is also recognized that with the regular maintenance of the landscape
improvements, the effort and cost to monitor and address these issues are reduced to isolated
areas and/or less frequent servicing, and these activities, generally represent less than one
percent(1%) of the overall landscape maintenance costs. Therefore, conservatively, we estimate
that the costs associated with these indirect and incidental benefits do not exceed one percent
(1%) of the annual maintenance expenditures for the landscaping improvements.
36 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Likewise, it is recognized that the arterial streets within the District are routinely traveled by the
general public and other property owners within the City. While the landscape improvements
along these arterial streets do not provide a special benefit to properties outside the District, these
particular improvements inherently reflect the overall aesthetic appearance of that region of the
City and thus provide some measure of indirect general benefit to properties in the City. It is
estimated that the arterial landscape improvements in this District represent approximately fifteen
percent (15%) of the overall landscaping maintained by the City on its arterial streets and main
thoroughfares. However, it is also recognized that traffic on these arterials and main
thoroughfares tend to be regional in nature, largely serving the properties that directly access
those streets (such as the properties within the District), and to a lesser extent, properties in the
various regions of the City where the arterial streets are located (i.e., persons from outside of the
District that might regularly drive by the District improvements on Twin Peaks Road, Pomerado
Road, and Ted Williams Parkway and persons whose property is located in the south central
portion of the City not the northern portion of the City or outside of the City). Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that less than fifty percent (50%) of the persons who own properties in or
outside of the City would routinely drive past the District improvements and derive some measure
of indirect general benefit from the District improvements. Based on these facts, we have
determined that approximately seven and a half percent (15% x 50%= 7.5%) of the cost to
maintain the arterial landscape improvements within the District would be considered an indirect
and incidental benefit (i.e. general benefit). However, for purposes of quantifying the proportional
general benefit costs,ten percent(10%)of the annual maintenance expenditures for these arterial
landscape improvements shall be applied as general benefit costs and not assessed to properties
in the District. Therefore, in addition to the one percent indirect or incidental general benefit costs
identified above, the City will contribute an additional ten percent (10%) of the annual
maintenance expenditures associated with the arterial landscape improvements.
The baseline general benefit costs and the indirect/incidental general benefit costs identified
above shall be excluded from the special benefit assessment funding and not assessed to the
parcels within the District. The total calculated general benefit cost for the landscaping
improvements associated with each Zone is summarized in the following table and is also
identified in the budgets contained in Part III of this Report.
37 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Estimated General Benefit Costs (Not Assessed)
Total Annual Calculated Indirect Total General Benefit
Zone Expenses (Direct) General (Incidental) Cost
Benefit General Benefit
Zone A $395.481 ($25.739) ($28,435) ($54,174)
Zone B $42,911 ($2,733) ($3,507) ($6,240)
Zone C 510.465 ($346) ($301) ($647)
Zone D $1.094 ($67) ($8) ($75)
Zone E $3.231 ($208) (5264) ($472)
Zone F $14,868 ($946) ($540) ($1.486)
Zone G 51,769 ($110) ($146) ($256)
Zone H $744 ($46) ($5) ($51)
Zone I $1.515 ($96) ($11) ($107)
Zone J $2,131 ($134) ($16) ($150)
Total $474,209 ($30,425) ($33,233) ($63,658)
As with many maintenance costs, the General Benefit Costs shown above may be impacted by inflation
in subsequent fiscal years, and the General Benefit Cost contributions may be adjusted for inflation
accordingly
Assessment Methodology
Upon the successful formation of this District. the City proposes to annually levy and collect
special benefit assessments commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/2019 to fund the operation,
maintenance and servicing of the improvements that provide special benefits to parcels within the
District. The estimated annual cost to operate. maintain, and service each of the District
improvements for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 are identified in the budget section of this Report (Part
III of this Report).
To calculate and identify the proportional special benefit received by each parcel and ultimately
each parcel's proportionate share of the improvement costs it is necessary to consider not only
the improvements and services to be provided. but the relationship each parcel has to those
improvements as compared to other parcels in the District
Article XIIID Section 4(a) reads in part:
.The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in
relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement or the maintenance and
operation expenses of a public improvement or for the cost of the property related service being
provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of
the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel."
Landscaping improvements like most public improvements. provide varying degrees of benefit
(whether they be general or special) based largely on the nature and extent of such
improvements, and the location of the improvements in relationship to properties associated with
those improvements. To establish the proportional special benefit and ultimately the assessment
obligation for each parcel. these factors need to be addressed and formulated in the method of
38 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
apportionment bythe use of benefit zones that reflect the extent and locationof theimprovements
n improvements
in relationship to the properties, as well as the specific use of the property and characteristics that
reflects each parcel's proportional special benefit as compared to other properties that benefit
from those same improvements.
The method of apportionment (method of assessment) developed for this District is based on the
premise that each property to be assessed receives a particular and distinct benefit (special
benefit) from the improvements, services and facilities to be financed by the District assessments
and to proportionately assess benefits it is necessary to calculate each property's relative share
of the special benefits conferred by the funded improvements and services. The Equivalent
Benefit Unit(EBU) method of assessment apportionment is utilized in this District and establishes
a basic unit of benefit (base value) and then calculates the benefit derived by each assessed
parcel as a multiple (or a fraction) of that basic unit. This EBU method of apportioning special
benefits is typically seen as the most appropriate and equitable assessment methodology for
districts formed under the 1972 Act, as the benefit to each parcel from the improvements are '
apportioned as a function of comparable property characteristics. The base value and
assessment formula utilized in each Zone may be different, but is established for each Zone to
reflect the improvements and properties that benefit from those improvements utilizing property
characteristics that may include, but is not limited to, the type of development (property land use),
property's development status, the proximity of the property to the improvements, and size of the
property (acreage or units).
For the purposes of this Engineer's Report, an EBU is the quantum of benefit derived from the
various Zone improvements by a single family residential parcel. The single family residential
parcel has been selected as the basic value for calculation of assessments since this land use
represents over 97% of the benefiting parcels in the District. Thus, the "benchmark" property(the
single family residential parcel) derives one EBU of benefit and is assigned 1.00 EBU.
The following outlines the land use classifications that are associated with or may be associated
with the parcels in the District and the proportional EBUs established for those land use
classifications.
Land Use Classifications
Residential Single-Family -- This land use classification is defined as a fully subdivided
developed residential property assigned an Assessor's Parcel Number with a single residential
unit on the property. As previously noted, the single family residential parcel has been selected
as the basic value for calculation of assessments and each is assigned 1.00 EBU.
Multi-Family Residential -- This land use classification is defined as properties that are
residential, but contain more than a single residential unit on the parcel (parcels with more than
one dwelling), including apartments, duplexes, or other multi-unit structures. Due in part to the
development and population densities associated with these types of dwelling units (reduced unit
size compared to the typical density and size of single-family properties), studies have
consistently shown that the average multi-unit development (apartments) impacts infrastructure
approximately 75% as much as a single-family residence. (Sources: Institute of Transportation
Engineers Informational Report Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, 1991; Metcalf and Eddy,
Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, Third Edition, 1991). Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that the proportional special benefits these properties receive from the
public improvements funded by the District assessments has a similar proportionality and these
parcels shall be assigned a weighted proportional special benefit of 0.75 EBU per unit.
39 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Residential Condominium -- This land use classification includes a fully subdivided
condominium residential unit assigned its own Assessor's Parcel Number by the County, and
multiple residential units on a single parcel that the County has identified as condominium
development rather than as multi-family residential, presumably because each residential unit has
a separate owner. Similar to multi-family residential parcels, Residential Condominium parcels
and developments typically have a greater unit density and/or reduced unit size compared to the
typical residential single-family property, but the unit density and/or unit size, and impact on public
infrastructure is different than that associated with multi-family residential parcels. Therefore,
Residential Condominium parcels are assigned a weighted proportional special benefit of 0.80
EBU per unit which is less than a Residential Single-Family property, but more than a Multi-Family
Residential property.
Non-Residential Developed -- This land use is defined as a parcel and/or development (group
of parcels) that has been developed primarily with a non-residential use including, but not limited
to, both publicly owned and privately owned commercial retail or service, office or professional
service, hotel or motel, manufacturing, warehousing, parking lot, and/or institutional facilities
including hospitals or other medical facilities, private schools or education centers, churches or
other non-profit organizations. Based on the overall residential development within this District, it
has been determined that on average single-family residential developments yield approximately
four dwelling units per acre of land. Therefore, since the single family residential parcel (the base
value for calculation of assessments) is assigned 1.0 Equivalent Benefit Unit it is reasonable and
appropriate to assign the developed non-residential properties a weighted special benefit that
reflects a similar and proportional development density. Therefore, the EBU assigned to each
developed non-residential property is established by multiplying the parcel's applied acreage by
4.0 EBU per acre(e.g., a developed non-residential parcel of 4.25-acres would be assigned 17.00
EBU, 4.25 acres x 4.0 EBU/acre = 17.00 EBU).
Public Schools -- This land use classification is defined as properties identified specifically as
public-school sites. On average, approximately 1/4t0 (25%) of a school site's total acreage is
developed with structures, which is similar to what is associated with non-residential
developments.The remaining parcel acreage(approximately 75%)is generally playground areas,
sports fields and/or undeveloped or minimally developed area which is similar to park
improvements. Recognizing the overall development of this parcel as compared to other
properties in the District, it reasonable to conclude that proportional special benefit EBU
calculated for such parcels is accurately reflected by treating that portion of the parcel with
structures similar to the EBU calculated for Non-Residential Developed properties (25% of
acreage x 4.0 EBU/acre), with the remaining portion of the parcel's acreage being excluded
(treated similar to the public areas and landscaping in the District, although this area is not part
of the improvements being maintained by the District). In this District, there is currently one Public
School property (Abraxas High School). This 9.70-acre school site parcel shall be assigned 9.70
EBU to reflect its proportional special benefit ([9.70 acres x 25% = 2.425 applied acre]; x 4.00
EBU/acre = 9.70 EBU).
Vacant Single-Family -- This land use classification is defined as a fully subdivided residential
lot within a tract or residential subdivision which does not have a residential structure. While such
properties clearly receive substantially similar special benefits from the improvements as adjacent
developed Residential Single-Family parcels, it is also recognized that in part the aesthetic
benefits of the District improvements to properties in the District is related to the use of those
properties (people related) and Vacant Single-Family parcels have less immediate utilization of
those improvements. Therefore, parcels identified as Vacant Single-Family parcels shall be
assigned a proportional EBU that is 50%of that assigned to developed Residential Single-Family
parcels, which is 0.5 EBU per parcel.
40 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Vacant Undeveloped Property -- This land use classification includes undeveloped properties
that are identified as parcels with no development, including non-residential properties and
residential properties that have not been fully subdivided with the potential to be developed with
more than one residential unit. Although it is recognized that most of the improvements within the
District and various Zones have been constructed and accepted for maintenance in large part as
a direct result of the development of the properties within the District and these developments
clearly receive particular and distinct benefits (direct special benefits) from those improvements,
it is also recognized that the various improvements within the District are considered
improvements shared by multiple developments or parcels within a specific development rather
than being specifically associated with an individual parcel. Collectively the various improvements
were installed and constructed as part of the overall development of properties within the District
and Zones to their full and best use, including vacant undeveloped properties in the vicinity of
those improvements. However, it is also recognized that in part the aesthetic benefits of the
District improvements to properties in the District is related to the use of those properties (people
related) and undeveloped properties have less immediate utilization of those improvements and
because the near future development of such properties is less than that of a fully subdivided
residential lot within a tract or residential subdivision the proportional special benefit to such
properties is considered to be less than that of subdivided lot. Therefore, parcels identified as
Vacant Undeveloped Property shall be assigned a proportional EBU that is 25% of that assigned
to developed properties, which is 1.0 EBU per acre (25% of the 4.0 EBU per acre assigned to
Developed Non-Residential properties).
Exempt Properties --Within most districts, there are lots or parcels of land that because of their
size, the nature of their use, and/or the types of improvements being maintained by a district, do
not receive a special benefit from the improvements (i.e., exempt from assessment). These
parcels may include, but are not limited to, public streets and other roadways (typically not
assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, public rights-of-way, or utility
rights-of-way; common areas, bifurcated lots; sliver parcels or any other parcel that has little or
no assessed value and cannot be developed independently; parcels that are part of the
improvements being maintained by the District and/or public property that provides substantially
similar landscape improvements for the benefit of parcels in the district or the public at large such
as parks and dedicated open space areas. These types of parcels are considered to receive no
special benefit from the improvements and are therefore exempted from assessment and are
assigned 0.00 EBU.
Special Case Parcels -- In many landscaping and lighting districts (particularly districts that have
a wide range of land uses, multiple developments, and/or diversity in the location and type of
improvements) there may be one or more parcels to be assessed that the standard land use
classifications and proportionality identified above do not accurately identify the use and special
benefits received from the improvements. Properties that are typically classified as Special Case
Parcels usually involve partial or mixed use development of the property or development
restrictions whether those restrictions are temporary or permanent and affect the properties
proportional special benefit. Examples of such restrictions may include situations where only a
portion of the parcel's total acreage is or can be developed. In such a case, the net acreage of
the parcel that is utilized rather than the gross acreage of the parcel may be applied to calculate
the parcel's proportional special benefit similar to how the Public School parcels are treated, Each
such parcel shall be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the Assessment Engineer. The EBU
assigned to such parcels shall be based on the specific issues related to that parcel and its
proportional special benefit compared to other properties that receive special benefits from the
improvements.
41 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
At the time this Report was prepared. no parcels within the District are designated as Special
Case Parcels. However, this Special Case designation may be applicable to one or more parcels
in subsequent fiscal years due to parcel changes. property development. and/or annexation of
territory to the District.
A summary of the applied Equivalent Benefit Units (EBUs) described above for the various land
use classifications within the District is shown in the following table:
Assessment Land Use Equivalent Benefit Unit Calculation
Residential Single-Family 1 00 EBU per Parcel
Residential Multi-Family 0.75 EBU per Unit
Residential Condominium 0 80 EBU per Unit
Non-Residential Developed 4.00 EBU per Acre
Public School 4 00 EBU per Adjusted Acre
Vacant Single-Family 0.50 EBU per Parcel
Vacant Undeveloped 1 00 EBU per Acre
Special Case Varied EBU per Parcel
Exempt 0.00 EBU per Acre
Equivalent Benefit Unit Summary
The following is a summary of the Equivalent Benefit Units applicable to the various land use
classifications identified in each District Zone:
Zone A
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Perak Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Single-Family 1 464 - 1,464 1,464.00
Residential Multi-Family 2 - 4 3.00
, Non-Residential Developed 1 7.130 - 28.52
7-Public School 1 2.425 9.70
Vacant Single-Family 1 - 1 0.50
Exempt 34 • 84296
Totals 1.503 93.851 1.469 1,505.72
Zone B
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Parcels Acreage • Units/Parcels (EBU)
Non-Residential Developed 15 24.680 - 98.72
Totals 15 24.680 - 98.72
42 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Zone C
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use � Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels I (EBU)
1
Residential Single-Family 26 - 26 26.00
Totals 26 - 26 26.00
Zone D
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Single-Family 13 - 13 13.00
Vacant Single-Family 1 - 1 0.50
Exempt 2 0 750 - -
Totals 16 0.750 14 13.50
Zone E
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use , Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Single-Family 29 - 29 29.00
Totals 29 - 29 29.00
Zone F
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Single-Family 51 - 51 51 00
Totals 51 - 51 51.00
Zone G
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Single-Family 1 12 - 12 12.00
Totals 12 - 12 12.00
Zone H
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Condominium 18 1 - 18 14.40
Totals 18 - 18 14.40
43 of 70 May 15. 2018, Item #4.1
Zone 1
•
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Single-Family 10 ' - 10 10.00
Totals 10 - 10 10.00
Zone J
Equivalent
Total Applied Applied Benefit Units
Assessment Land Use Parcels Acreage Units/Parcels (EBU)
Residential Single-Family 16 - 16 16.00
Totals 16 - 16 16.00
44 of 70 May 15. 2018, Item # 4.1
Part III — Estimate of Costs
Calculation of Assessments
An assessment amount per Equivalent Benefit Unit (Assessment per EBU) is calculated by:
Taking the "Total Annual Expenses" (Total budgeted costs) and subtracting the "Total General
Benefit Expenses" (Landscaping General Benefit Expenses), to establish the "Total Special
Benefit Expenses";
Total Annual Expenses— General Benefit Expenses = Special Benefit Expenses
To the resulting "Special Benefit Expenses", various "Funding Adjustments" may be applied that
may include, but are not limited to:
"Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction", represents an amount of available existing funds from
the"Operational Reserve Fund Balances" being applied to pay a portion of the Special Benefit
Expenses for the fiscal year.
> "Additional City Funding", represents an adjustment that is typically used to address any
funding gap between the amount budgeted to provide the improvements and services
("Special Benefit Expenses"); and the amount that will be collected through the assessments.
This funding may be addressed by an additional City contribution or loan from the City which
is intended to be recovered in future fiscal years.
These adjustments to the Special Benefit Expenses result in the net special benefit amount to be
assessed "Balance to Levy";
Special Benefit Expenses - Funding Adjustments = Balance to Levy
The amount identified as the "Balance to Levy" is divided by the total number of EBUs of parcels
that receive special benefits to establish the Assessment Rate ("Assessment Per EBU"). This
Assessment Rate is then applied back to each parcel's individual EBU to calculate the parcel's
proportionate special benefits and assessment amount for the improvements.
Balance to Levy!Total EBU = Assessment Per EBU (Assessment Rate)
Assessment Per EBU x Parcel EBU = Parcel Assessment Amount
Note: The maximum assessments outlined in this Report are intended to fully support the
expenses identified as "Special Benefit Expenses". Consequently, there are no "Funding
Adjustments"reflected in the budgets establishing the maximum assessment rates, and therefore,
the "Balance to Levy" is equal to the total "Special Benefit Expenses".
45 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
District Budgets and Assessments
The budgets and assessments for each Zone outlined on the following pages are based on the
City's estimate of the expenses and related funding necessary for the operation, maintenance
and servicing of the District improvements as identified for each Zone in Part I of this Report.
The budgets provided herein establish the initial Maximum Assessment per EBU (Maximum
Assessment Rates) for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 which shall be presented to the property owners
of record within the District as part of the Ballot Proceeding. This Maximum Assessment Rate is
identified in the budgets for each Zone as the "Balloted Maximum Assessment Rate Per EBU". In
addition, the proposed assessment rate to be applied for the calculation of the parcel
assessments to be levied and collected for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 are identified in the budgets
as the "Assessment Per EBU". Reference is hereby made to the assessment roll included herein
as Part V for the individual maximum assessment amounts balloted for each parcel and the
proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2018/2019.
46 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Budgets Establishing Maximum Assessments (Zones A through D)
Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D
Canonise xes Fieri Parer Mem/dMN a Tact 13472 Tract talc'
Msec.21 Tents.and Ies04.and Lets 731 a 335
.awe aer ewe. al 1,8031111
ANNUAL OPERATION&MANTENANCE EXPENSES
Landscape Maintenance $ NORM $ 17,010 4 3.10 8 411
• Tree Maintenance 16,711 2,033 174 -
j Landscape In-paten(Water,Electricity Maintenance d Repaid 114,111 11,037 1,706 342
Granit,Abatement 1,126 30 39 7
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION&MAINTENANCE EXPENSES $ 295,027 $ 31,883 S 4,048 $ 810
RENABt1TATIONIRENOVATION FUNDING&CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Landscape Improvement Rehabilitation/Renovation Funding 68,790 7,627 6,607 190
' Planned Capital Expenditures(For Current Fiscal Year) ' $ - $ - $ • $
TOTAL REHABILIT ATODN/RE NOVA TION FUNDING&CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 68,790 $ 7,627 $ 8,507 $ 190
BICmENTAL EXPEN E5
Operational Reserves(Collection) $ 15.482 $ 1,663 S 446 6 46
Dstnct Administration Expenses $ rs 340 $ 1.662 $ 443 $ 46
County Administration Fee _ 802 66 23 2
Annual Administration Expenses 16,182 1,73$ 466 44
TOTAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES $ 31.664 $ 3,401 $ 910 $ 94
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES $ 395,481 $ 42,911 , $ 10,465 $ 1,094
Landscaping General Benefit-City Funded S (54,174) $ (6.240) $ (647) $ (75)
TOTAL GENERAL BENEFIT EXPENSES $ (54,174) $ (6,240) $ (647) $ (75)
1
TOTAL SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES $ 341,307 $ 36,671 f 9,818 $ 1,019
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction $ - $ - $ • S •
Additional City Funding and/or Service Reductions' - - -
TOTAL FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS $ - $ • $ • $ -
BALANCE TO LEVY $ 341,307 $ 38,671 $ 9,818 $ 1,019
DISTRCT STATISTICS
•
Total Parcels 1,503 16 26 16
Assessed Parcels 1,469 15 26 14
Equivalent Benefit Units(EBU) 1,505.72 98.72 26.00 13.50
Assessment Per EBU ' 5226.681 $371.47 $377.62 575 49
Balloted Maximum Assessment Rate Per EBU $227.00: $372.00 $378.00 $76.00
Balloted Amount $ 341,798.44.$ 36,723.84 S 9,828.00 $ 1,026.00
FUND BALANCE
Esteneted Begnnng Fund Balance $ - $ • $ - $ -
Operational Reserve 6 Rebab,Watan Funding Collected _ 84,272 0,311 6,062 236
Estrnated Ending Fund Balance $ 84,272 $ 0,240 6 5,062 5 236,
111 The "Assessment Per EBU"shown above for Zones A. B. C. and D represent the proposed Zone assessment rate
to be applied for the levy and collection of assessments for Zone Fiscal Year 2018/2019
47 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Budgets Establishing Maximum Assessments (Zones E through H)
Zone E Zone F Zone G Zone N
. Tracts 01431 a 11747.area Tract 1133 Tr:t 11452 Tract 1215:
rereads oder pantos
ANNUAL OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
Landscape Mamenanu S 1.282 1 0.346 a 763 1 lea
Tree Maintenance 161 416 tit 3e
Landscape Irrigation(Water,Etactncrty.Maintenance&Rpaai 936 4684 522 225
Graffiti Abatement 7 31 3 7
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION&MAINTENANCE EXPENSES $ 2,406 S 10,993 S 1,319 $ 554
RENABIJTATXNURENOVATION FUNDING&CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Landscape Improvement Rehabilitation/Renovation Funding 670 2,634 309 126
Planned Capital Expenditures(For Current Fiscal Year) f • f • f • f -
TOTAL REMABIJTATK)N/RENOVATION FUNDING&CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 570 S 2,634 S 309 $ 126
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Operational Reserves(Collection) f 126 $ 607 $ 69 S 31
District Administration Expenses f 124 1 403 4 el a 31
County Admn,stranon Fee 8 31 4 2
Annual Administration Expenses 130 534 72 33
TOTAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES $ 255 $ 1,241 S 141 $ 64
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES , $ 3,231 S 14,868 $ 1,769 S 744
GENERAL BENEFIT EXPENSES
Landscaping General Benefit—City Funded f (472) $ (1,496)$ (266) $ (61)
TOTAL GENERAL BENEFIT EXPENSES $ (472) S (1.486) S (256) S (51)
TOTAL SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES S 2,759 S 13,382 S 1,513 $ 693
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction $ - $ • S - $ •
Additional City Funding and/or Service Reductions' - -
TOTAL FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS CONTRIBUTIONSf - S • f • f •
BALANCE TO LEVY $ 2,759 $ 13,382 $ 1,513 $ 693
DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 29 i 61 12 18
Assessed Parcels 29 61 12 16
Equivalent Benefit Units(EBU) 29.00 51.00 12.00 14.40
Assessment Per EBU . $95 14' $262.40 $126.09 $48.13;
i
Balloted Maximum Assessment Rate Per EBU $96.00' $263.00 5127.00 549.001
Balloted Amount $ 2,784.00 $ 13,413.00 $ 1,524.00 $ 705.60
FUND BALANCE
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - 6 -
Operational Reserve&Rehabedation Funding Coit ctea 146 3,241 378 _ 157
Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ 665 6 3.241 S 376 S 161
(1) The "Assessment Per EBU" shown above for Zones E. F. G. and H represent the proposed Zone assessment rate
to be applied for the levy and collection of assessments for Zone Fiscal Year 2018/2019
48 of 70 May 15. 2018. Item # 4.1
Budgets Establishing Maximum Assessments (Zones I, J, and District Totals)
Zone I Zone J TOTAL BUDGET
Establishing Maximum
ago t•:res Assessments
Tract 12711 Tract 12031
laneecape esrtlamr,'..
Otslrct No.IL I
Foal Yew 2011320,4
ANNUAL OPERATION&MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
Landscape Maintenance $ 596 $ 836 $ 190.407
Tree Maintenance 73 117 21,630
landscape Irrigation(Water Electricity,Maintenance&Repair) 445 616 136.252
Graffiti Abatement I a 1,249
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATION&MAINTENANCE EXPENSES $ 1,123 $ 1,575 $ 349,738
REHABLITATIONIRENOVATION FUNDING&CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Landscape Improvement Rehabilitation/Renovation Funding 262 372 86,387
Planned Capital Expenditures(For Current Fiscal Year) $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL REHABLITATION/RENOVATION FUNDING&CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 262 $ 372 $ 86,387
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Operational Reserves(Collection) $ 64 $ 90 $ 18.622
District Administration Expenses $ 43 $ 59 $ 16.496
County Administration Fee 3 5 964
Annual Administration Expenses 88 94 19,462
TOTAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES $ 130 $ 184 $ 38,084
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES $ 1,515 $ 2,131 $ 474,209
GENERAL BENEFIT EXPENSES
Landscaping General Benefit—City Funded $ (107) $ (160) $ (63,658)
TOTAL GENERAL BENEFIT EXPENSES $ (107) $ (150) $ (63,658)
TOTAL SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPENSES $ 1,408 $ 1,981 $ 410,551
FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS
Reserve Fund Transfer/Deduction $ - $ - $ -
Additional City Funding and/or Service Reductions- - - •
TOTAL FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS/CONTRIBUTIONS $ • $ • $ -
BALANCE TO LEVY $ 1,408 $ 1,981 $ 410,551
DISTRICT STATISTICS
Total Parcels 10 16 1,696
Assessed Parcels 10 16 1,660
Equivalent Benefit Units(EBU) 10.00 16.00 1,776.34
Assessment Per EBU 1 $140.80 $123.82
Balloted Maximum Assessment Rate Per EBU $141.00 $124.00
Balloted Amount $ 1,410.00 $ 1,984.00 $ 411,196.88
FUND BALANCE
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ S -
Operational Reserve 5 Rehabilitation Funding Collected 326 462 _ 106,009
Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ 326 f 162 S 106.009
(1) The "Assessment Per EBU' shown above for Zones I and J represent the proposed Zone assessment rate to be
applied for the levy and collection of assessments for Zone Fiscal Year 2018/2019
49 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
Assessment Range Formula
Any new or increased assessment requires certain noticing and meeting requirements by law.
The Omnibus Act defines the terms "new or increased assessment"to exclude certain conditions.
These certain conditions included "any assessment that does not exceed an assessment formula
or range of assessments previously adopted by the agency or approved by the voters in the area
where the assessment is imposed."
Recognizing that the cost of maintaining the improvements will increase over time due to inflation,
the maximum assessments (initial maximum assessment amounts and maximum assessment
rates established herein for fiscal year 2018/2019), shall include an annual inflationary adjustment
(Assessment Range Formula).
The Assessment Range Formula for this District is defined by the following:
Commencing in fiscal year 2019/2020 and each fiscal year thereafter, the maximum assessment
rates established for the improvements in the previous fiscal year for each Zone may be adjusted
by the lesser of three percent(3%) or the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index(CPI).
The Consumer Price Index used for the inflationary adjustment shall be for the San Diego Area
for All Items for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), as developed by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The CPI used shall be as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a similar period of time.
Each fiscal year the City shall identify the percentage change in the CPI, using the difference over
a 12-month period between the current year and of the previous year (Annual Average). This
annual percentage change is generally established based on the average percentage change
from the prior year, but a similar 12-month time period may be used if the data for the annual
average is not available. This percentage difference shall then establish the range of increase to
the maximum assessment rates allowed, but the adjustment applied to the maximum assessment
rates shall not exceed 3%. If the percentage change in the CPI-U is negative, the maximum
assessment rates may not be adjusted from the previous fiscal year (unchanged). If the
percentage change in the CPI-U is greater than 3% then the maximum assessment rates may be
adjusted by 3%. Should the Bureau of Labor Statistics revise such index or discontinue the
preparation of such index, the City may use the revised index or comparable system as approved
by the City Council for determining fluctuations in the cost of living.
This annual adjustment to the authorized maximum assessment rates (adjusted maximum
assessment rates) will provide for an appropriate and reasonable increase to the maximum
assessment rates to address normal cost increases anticipated over the years as a result of
inflation. This Assessment Range Formula shall be identified in the assessment ballots being
presented to the property owners as part of the protest ballot proceeding conducted for the
formation of the District.
In subsequent fiscal years, any proposed annual assessment (rate per EBU) less than or equal
to the calculated (adjusted) Maximum Assessment Rate for that fiscal year is not considered an
increased assessment, even if the proposed assessment is significantly greater than the
assessment applied in the prior fiscal year. Changes in land use or size of an individual property
resulting in an assessment increase, is not considered an increased assessment. To impose a
new or increased assessment other than the annual inflationary adjustment provided by the
preceding Assessment Range Formula or as a result in change in land use or size of an individual
property, the City must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID
Section 4, that requires the preparation of an assessment engineer's report, a public hearing and
certain protest procedures, including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner
protest balloting. Property owners, through the balloting process, must approve a proposed new
or increased assessment before such an assessment may be imposed.
50 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
Part IV — District Diagram
The District Diagram provided on the following page provides a visual depiction of the boundaries
of the District and the applicable Zones established therein for Fiscal Year 2018/2019. This
diagram also provides a visual depiction of the location and approximate extent of the
improvements to be maintained as part of the District improvements. The combination of this
Diagram and the Assessment Roll referenced in Part V of this Report constitutes the Assessment
Diagram for this District and encompasses all the lots, parcels and subdivisions of land that
receive or will receive a special benefit from the improvements to be provided in the District at the
time this Report was prepared.
Reference is hereby made to the San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Maps for a detailed
description of the lines and dimensions of each parcel within Landscape Maintenance District No.
18-1 including all subsequent subdivisions, lot-line adjustments, or parcel changes therein.
51 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
♦ 0.
W^
'
i .,/ g Y..',Iiijr•...
I
cu
i • f— '' 31 i /••• '
04
•
1 Irk—ll f
ro
it\ it
., a ! I
P`
/....... ,K �+o ..r + i
♦ d S j
�a0
_ __ + :I�
re
.) iniiiIiiiiiiii,
0 .' 14.7
r'. „a ft, all/aaji a1, .�.. �...� . .�...
G bAlm is dry ♦1P::: .— �. .'_ !
.1:
aulrpuma a —h •
uaalaa■auu __ ,11.. {
ft
• ..411011164
4" std" ♦
CL •
t' _ ••ai•4011 I/nt a'/ r-•
thrit‘ Upo
X i .-. . -t 1
>, a ..,2# ,,, ‘Aliiii .....
(..) Ai,: ...%- --,
pP :! i ,
-.• .. �-`r 11111//\., . ,.,,ti,
ft.41 211.
.. / purblirlyt, --, i
fir= - it -,II •�•••-_, . :----.- ' lip, :1! . _.
�� CO i It
I " Jew " ..., ...„• "—
CO ,,,, ,
_ „
, , _
..,
CO
o o1
6
4..
cS`
V < m V O W IL U• 2 O
DPI —01—n--111F
•
75
6.
4-9
U)
ul
Part V — Assessment Roll
Due to the number of parcels within Landscape Maintenance District No. 18-1, the Assessment
Roll containing the maximum assessment amounts to be balloted and the proposed new
assessment amount to be levied and collected for fiscal year 2017/2018 has been filed with the
City Clerk in an electronic format and is, by reference, made part of this Report. The proposed
Assessment Roll shall be available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office during normal
office hours.
Each parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is currently shown and illustrated on the San Diego
County Assessor's Roll and reflective of the Assessor's Parcel Maps at the time this Report was
prepared and shall incorporate all subsequent parcel changes, lot-line adjustments, and
subdivisions of land identified by the San Diego County Assessor's Office. These records are, by
reference, made part of this Report and shall govern for all details concerning the description of
the lots or parcels. All assessments presented on the assessment roll are subject to change
pending the outcome of the Ballot Proceedings and/or as a result of parcel changes made by the
County including parcel splits, parcel merges or development changes that occur prior to the
County generating tax bills for the fiscal year.
53 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
i i / 1•
! Y.+..
i
1 } / •�•
r-
i i • ' -- ♦`
! i ' :i • ' 7 CI
1 { t
} :_
! ; In
ia :All j .t
1 WS", • ,—.s�- ,; I -_
v T +^ r 1 f i
�•f.�,. .....e.......e.. r';1: }}1 N i
�s
e
CC) ..—..t
a , 9.414�Ior
aw.■r --"*""--"'—••••• i
lur,
. 1'$.: " - I. --- I
��li 1511111156 } .t -+-- ,% -., t
flHVI unra 1I •` _.^ : t
s a�rB�■nau 1 in vvvvvv ViIiiiia, ---
et .��Vltuq. r '
X111 111111 ____,
.....:E—• ii41%."6°P.A.
..,,, 40.„.41.4...,,,,
4-Oils mine Mil" -"in
ill
>ti '
tI1111illli�_: �_ U ♦• . � •=
ir '� / mo,'// 111t111n• A ;:
--- ; =,..1-1 To.-11 .., : : --,..... ' : 1 ,
'..' # i I 4.4„,51.eij
.""" •
.'^• % ter, vi r
1�,�� s,
41
��I !jL .
co
I 1
ri____ r>1 ,4..1
t -1. —.) ,,,':, . _j fi .'1::::=1;111-1 i \*Ir ......" 1
21
CI i
4.1
V• .! < m 0 O W 1,.. 0 S _ , gi 0tl
�, ' 01 _0®_ __�1_
RECEIVED
FEB 13 2018
CITY OF POWAY
PETITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKSUSTOMER SERVICES DEPT
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LMD 834) and rename it
(LMD 18-1).
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Steve Vaus, City Council members Jim
Cunningham, John Mullin, Dave Groscb, Barry Leonard and City Manager Tina White.
Whereas: LMD 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built.The
assessment hasn't changed since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately 10 years before Rancho Arbolitos,and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 speaks of `re-engineering'the LMD by
arbitrarily changing the boundaries of LMD 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-1. This is
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners are included in the new
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of `benefit analysis' for only a select
group of residents(again discrimination) and not all users of Twin Peaks Road; ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, church congregations, workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district.
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LMD does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LMD 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegal. The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000. The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem_ It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my (our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LMD 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent'solut pn to tie problem of landscape maintenance.
Signed:. `�" Address: /`/75-5` /9, ,,,cy l 4 54,
/J
, r t
(Printed) C- - J, C t Poway, CA Date/ ///��2
Signed Address:1L/?S Penchi /{lel& U✓
(Printed) )JC(Y��k Ce rr<t/-,t Poway, CA Date Z/i i/i19
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
55 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
{Continued from page 1)
Subj: PE1111ON to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKS LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT(LMD 83-1) and rename it(LMD 18&1)
Signed: Address: 1 L 74.9 eo as t /^n tad-. �Jr I Vey
(Printed)Lnn o.�cl 0.S+nnc.c,r p Y.er Poway, CA Date a../////8
Signed:Al . • • • : 1• s ddress: I4T 49 iJo .rn esl yew
(Printed) T . Poway, CA Date oz.,/, r//8
SignethP IS" Address: /V?41 ,CMAy /I<SA z7K
(Printed)9-) ST.4oz•le A'r • Poway, CA Date vz/i7,71"
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway,'CA Date
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
(Additional signatures by write in):
•
(page 2 of 2- over for page 1)
56 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
RECEIVED
PE ITIION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKS FEB 13 2018
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LIVID 83-1) and
nzwor FWOWgy
(LIVID 18-1). sERwces DEPT
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Steve Vaus, City Council members Jim
Cunningham, John Mullin, Dave Grosch, Barry Leonard and City Manager Tina White.
Whereas: LMD 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built. The
assessment hasn't changed since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately 10 years before Rancho Arbolitos, and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 speaks of `re-engineering'the LIVID by
arbitrarily changing the boundaries of LMD 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-1. This is
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners are included in the new
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of `benefit analysis' for only a select
group of residents (again discrimination) and not all users of Twin Peaks Road; ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, church congregations, workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LIVID does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LMD 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegaL The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000.The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem. It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my (our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LIVID 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent solution to the problem of landscape maintenance.
Signed: De bbid0PGlev ori Address: �3 vof Pow q y /S/8-
(Printed) 1cMie-- G- Darden Poway, CA Date /b/l V 72a/ y
Signed: Address:
(Primed) Poway, CA Date
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
57 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
{Continued from page 1)
. Subj: PEIITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKS LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT(LMD 83-1) and rename it(LMD 18&1)
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
Signed: Address
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
(Additional signatures by write in):
•
(page 2 of 2- over for page 1)
58 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
f 3 /l„Uc-4J u-P ro S79E-rK 134r v.s orf .0 ar
Cm.wlrD -nil s -19 'PS/ t r1lo r tr4, rc7
ro f4-11 fl IA- y(-t)vEn 4- WAY r> Goo L
TALKING POINTS For City Council meeting Tuesday 23 Jan 2018 7pm
1. The procedures outlined in City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 to expand LMD 83-1 and
rename it LMD 18-1 are arbitrary, capricious, autocratic, discriminatory, in violation of
the intent of Prop 13, and it is noted not signed by the Mayor, the City Council Members
or the city manager. Nothing in the letter identifies what legal (or illegal) theory was
used to include Upper Windmill, Victoria Estates and Treasure Homes in LMD 83-1 or
LMD 18-1. These three sub-divisions were here 10 years or more before Rancho
Arbolitos and other newer sub-divisions were built, and they have never been part of an
LIVID. Considering any of these three sub-divisions part of LMD 83-1 or attempting to
include them in proposed LMD 18-1 appears to be a mistake that needs to be corrected
now.
2. The new arbitrarily drawn boundaries of LMD 18-1 originally included Victoria
Estates, Treasure Homes and Upper Windmill sub-divisions. Victoria Estates has been
removed from the arbitrary boundaries by someone for some reason. We were told that
after a verbal complaint from an owner at the OPEN HOUSE 11/16/17 the Treasure
Homes sub-division was removed from the arbitrarily drawn boundaries of proposed
LMD 18-1. If all it takes is a complaint to get removed from the arbitrarily drawn
boundaries of proposed LMD 18-1, then you may consider this a complaint for that
purpose and remove Upper Windmill as well.
3. The proposed prop 218 and proposed LMD 18-1 perpetuate the current high
maintenance costs in LMD 83-1. They do not identify or solve the problem ... they
merely 'kick the can down the road'.
4. Eucalyptus trees appear to be the basic problem in LMD 83-1 and costs can only
increase as the trees get older, require more water and get more unstable in high winds
causing traffic jams, property damage and personal injury.
5. With proper drought resistant replacement landscape in LMD 83-1 the current
assessment may create excess funds, and could possibly be reduced (we were told other
LMD's in the city have excess funds).
6. Therefore, we respectfully request that Upper Windmill receive the same treatment
offered to Victoria Estates and Treasure Homes, specifically, removal from within the
proposed arbitrarily redrawn LMD 18-1 boundaries. We request immediate
implementation of this change, prior to the March election.
Thanks for your attention. Donald Stampfli (Upper Windmill).
59 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
PETITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKS •
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LMD 83-1) and rename it
(LMD 18-1).
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Sieve Vaus, City Council members Jim
Cunningham, John Mullin, Dave Grosch, Barry Leonard and City Manager Tina White.
Whereas: LMD 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built. The
assessment hasn't changed since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the'landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately.10 years before Rancho Arbolitos, and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 speaks of `re-engineering' the LMD by
arbitrarily changing the boundaries of LMD 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-1. This is •
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners are included in the new •
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of `benefit analy'sis' for only a select
group of residents (again discrimination) and not all users of Twin Peaks Road;,ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, church congregations, workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district.
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LMD does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LMD 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegal. The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000. The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem. It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my (our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LMD 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent solution to the problem of landscape maintenance.
Signed: 7 ‘t- . ,a. Address: 13329 Can on L��e
(Printed) -16,10, 7t. Tpnndl J Poway, CA Date of 131201g
Signed: 41/12-L- Address: 1332-61 eau
(Printed) e✓t. " • . evt 4
Poway, CA Date ' I'
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
60 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
(Continued from page 1)
. Subj: PETITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKS LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT(LMD 83-1) and rename it (LMD 18=1)
Signed: Address: ( )7 2 Z C1(ivy),Jfl&jc Loi we
(Printed) / f -fonNso,cl Poway, CA Date a -1 - /d
''� -' Address:/-?9° /L..
(printed 3-6 tip fin,.; ot- `
Poway, CA L lldte i / g
Signed: V Address: ( 33��{ rhAVOV1 M
(Printed) Vq I Si [,j LLP t Poway, CA Date ,- U f S
Signed: \Sa ) .� Address: )33 al J eftio jc •8& K Liidc
(Printed _l Poway, CA Date //i4/g
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
(Additional signatures by write in):
(page 2 of 2- over for page 1)
61 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
PETITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAK
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LIVID 83-1) and$eilame t m
(LMD 18-1). m
r " <
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Steve Vaus, City Council members .me; o
CO
Cunningham, John Mullin, Dave Grosch, Barry Leonard and City Manageitina White.
Whereas: LMD 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built. The
assessment hasn't changed since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately 10 years before Rancho Arbolitos, and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 speaks of `re-engineering'the LMD by
arbitrarily changing the boundaries of LIVID 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-1. This is
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners are included in the new
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of `benefit analysis' for only a select
group of residents (again discrimination) and not all users of Twin Peaks Road; ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, church congregations, workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district.
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LIVID does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LIVID 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegal.The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000.The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem. It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my (our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LMD 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent solution to the problem of landscape maintenance.
Signed: =:- .• ;i , ddress: 7`'711 hncw (-1-147'
(Printed) j. v AA, Pitt Poway, CA Date i eA
Signed: t/D �/ l_) Address: /&K1 g ' Attuac
(Printed) yN E i-, SMITH Poway, CA Date itqlt
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
62 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
PETITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAK
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LMD 83-1) and%et'Eameit
(LMD 18-1). mFm
r
n <
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Steve Vaus, City Council members B"' o • m
Cunningham, John Mullin, Dave Grosch, Barry Leonard and City Mana ei5na White.
c
Whereas: LIVID 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built. The
assessment hasn't changed since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately 10 years before Rancho Arbolitos, and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 speaks of 're-engineering'the LMD by
arbitrarily changing the boundaries of LMD 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-1. This is
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners are included in the new
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of 'benefit analysis'for only a select
group of residents (again discrimination) and not all users of Twin Peaks Road; ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, church congregations, workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district.
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LMD does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LMD 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegal.The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000. The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem. It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my (our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LIVID 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent solution to the problem of landscape maintenance.
Signed:F, --,/,(1a/.42/ Address: 147.31r V45 M tel
(Print _ - ' z-/ Poway, CA Date 1—Co— 15T
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date '
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
63 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
v
PETITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAK
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LIVID 83-1) and te me
(LMD 184). m m
c
m
r co
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Steve Vaus, City Council members Jour
Mullin, � � O
Cunningham, John Dave Grosch, Barry Leonard and City Manager Dna White.
x
Cl)
Whereas: LMD 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built. The
assessment hasn't changed since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately 10 years before Rancho Arbolitos, and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 speaks of `re-engineering'the LMD by
arbitrarily changing the boundaries of LMD 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-1.This is
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners are included in the new
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of `benefit analysis' for only a select
group of residents (again discrimination) and not all users of Turin Peaks Road; ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, church congregations, workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district.
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LMD does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LMD 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegal.The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000. The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem. It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my (our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LMD 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent solution to the problem of landscape maintenance.
Signed: i- Address: /1/730 PlPS� 64)(547"Gc�l
(Printed) e ,4?( C//.eieAi? Poway, CA Date/7472.0"
Signed: Address:
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
64 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
PE1MON to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKSD
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT(LMD 83- )and. me ii m
(LMD 18-1).
° " J . m
Jl�
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Sieve Daus; City Counril members*lig p
Cunningham, John Mullin, Dave Grosch, Barry Leonard and City Manager Tna White. •
N
Whereas: LMD 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built The
assessment hasn't rhanged since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately 10 years before Rancho Arbolitos,and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 1117/17 speaks of 're-engineering'the LMD by
arbitrarily rhanging the boundaries of LMD 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-L This is
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners am included in the new
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of`benefit analysis' for only a select
group of residents(again discrimination) and not all users of Twin Peaks Roadk ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, chinch congregations,workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LMD does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LMD 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegaL The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000. The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem. It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my(our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LMD 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent solution to;. • problem of landscape maintenance.
Sign lr AddressV—e z Ale , �� • `-O�
(Printed) c•=, �2/fes Poway, CA Date,L LS •
Signed: Address: /
(Printed) Poway, CA Date
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
65 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
PETITION to Cancel any and all efforts to expand TWIN PEAKS tg
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (LMD 83-1) and rena 2
(LMD 18-1). o
I0
CL
To the attention of: POWAY Mayor Steve Vaus, City Council members Jim
Cunningham, John Mullin,,Dave Grosch, Barry Leonard and City Manager Tina White.
Whereas: LMD 83-1 was formed 34 years ago when Rancho Arbolitos was built. The
assessment hasn't changed since 1998, and now the City Maintenance Department says
it does not have sufficient funds to maintain the landscape.
Whereas: Homes in Upper Windmill and east to the school district headquarters were
built approximately 10 years before Rancho Arbolitos, and have never been part of that
sub-division or LMD 83-1.
Whereas: The City of Poway letter of 11/7/17 speaks of 're-engineering' the LIVID by
arbitrarily changing the boundaries of LMD 83-1 and renaming it LMD 18-1. This is
discrimination by another name unless all Poway homeowners are included in the new
boundaries.
Whereas: The same letter cited above also speaks of `benefit analysis' for only a select
group of residents (again discrimination) and not all users of Twin Peaks Road; ie,
obviously left out were: school buses and teachers, church congregations, workers going
to and from the Poway Industrial Park, and homeowners east of the school district.
Whereas: Throwing more money at Twin Peaks LIVID does not solve the basic landscape
maintenance problem. The proposed first year assessment amount of$235 for the newly
created LMD 18-1 exceeds the limitations of PROP 13 for many of us making it
therefore illegal. The City recently announced a surplus of$4,000,000. The City does
not have a shortage of funds problem. It has a shortage of management problem.
Therefore: I (we) petition you as my (our) elected representatives to stop/cancel the ill
conceived plans for Proposed Prop 218 and Proposed LMD 18-1, and seek a better,
more permanent solution to the problem of landscape maintenance. ,,vD��
Signed: ^Z,/d//�� P Address: /y 9'6 /Ash' I% , 1070 y,6 72069
(PrinN /� O[ -1 . A E Poway, CA Date //I�O/K
Signed: gale Address: 117"/C, On W ,
(Printed) J.t-( Seo rt e Poway, CA Date //6/ ?0(
(page 1 of 2-over for page 2)
66 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
SIEVE VATS,Mto � ; �• ,> CITY OF POWAY of-._:
BARRY LEONARD,Deputy Mayor0 , '91 •
JIM CUNNINGHAM,Councilmember (
DAVE GROSCH,Councilmember '
JOHN MULLIN,Councilmember '�rF t•�r ei
'r 1N THE C&
•
November 7, 2017
Dear Poway Resident: .
The City'"of Poway would like 'to invite you to join us for an informational Open'House ori Thursday, •
November 16, 2017, where we will share important details on a proposal to include your property in a newly
re-engineered Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) 18-1. The proposed LMD 18-I will allow the'Cit ' td .
provide.the funding necessary to,maintain the landscape improvements within your community generally
located along Twin Peaks Road and at the entrance to your neighborhood. There-engineered LMD 18-1 would
require you to pay an estimated annual assessment of approximately$235.00 that would be collected annually '
on your property tax bill. At'the Open House we will be sharing information regarding LMD.18-1, what the,
assessments are proposed to fund,and the ballot process the City will use to allow you to indicate your support
for or opposition to the proposed assessment on your property, including the timeline for the ballot that will be ,
mailed to you in March 2018.
There is currently an LMD, initially established in 1983,.that pays the cost for water,electricity,and contracted
labor for tree trimming,gardening and upkeep along Twin Peaks•Road and neighborhood entryways in your
community and neighborhood. The LMD is known as LMD 83-f and'is funded by an assessment collected oh
your neighbors' property tax,bills.: Unfortunately, there are no longer sufficient funds being collected to
adequately maintain the landscape improvements within 83-1 LMDarea.
The City has evalu ted the current LMD 83-1, m uding a_ "benefit analysis" and has determined that your
shares in the oth
property saydirecty ea en from Qh' ®land>�cape i prrgveme �s Eh/surrounding!
. , th surrounng�
Ji
properties that currently assessedeitY dl foreIdetermi ed tFaPR ? 'ate fo7our r PertY4
to be included in tilt new e-eftgi e ed osMD18-I andydsh in�ta cRts of\these
.,,ze
f
important community amenities. e 'to 4/4,1 if
—<.
•Please attend the Open House any time between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Thursday,November 16, in the
Poway City Council Chambers at 13325 Civic Center Drive, where we will share informational materials
about the proposed LMD 18-I. City staff will be there to answer questions, receive input, and provide details
about next steps.
We look forward to seeing you at this important meeting. if you are not able to attend and would like to learn
more about the proposed LMD 18-1, please feel free to call (858) 668-4705 or visit
http://poway.org/206/Landscape-Maintenance-Districts. Information provided at the Open House is also
available on this website.
� e
Sincerely 7 hotsvitsaiazgasmaansa,0
Eri . Heidemann,
Assistant Director of Public Works for Maintenance Operations
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074.0789
www.poway.org
67 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
1 y - ® d
��r � ,
� t�
Coy t Z`35 P n.. YeeiWx EtovsE 11-1,51-1- s-rz , p
op r LJL ,J PEntcs St-tour,0 Be L-INeco Lu (Tht 2dL LL
fjrs CovLO 41 "C PrZ -rii `,' LAO I CS KAN'0 tNCo corn
pYLL 5r \R13oc,tc5 CdFA-E �Vty2;' non", t Nc1
The IRoAD o' Kt L.pcslic p(j; aF -rowN Ppb OFF
TO Wa42K "RD Poi Prone cr2AZ`zi Tcxe-S
LtvE l'-' A --) \ r loc7 SQuA , Fob 1Q73
'TRACT- 1-toosa ON Har-i`i PSK-
1-t,ovTl-tE 'Btco 13cc_I -s lcoPue IN t12toL t-roS
Pv-, C 'flrcC. ;7:At.}6.5pOE5 2e rat vc
t= Went To P1/4T7EVNJO Litv►2 t-tent N 3L t,.oUt-r3
136 -TvtE GUT1 (A til N lG SlQd' en-VT
No Nevy TAXE3
a
Ulnae
5
LLk,,-yZ,,,,--cY t
5-TE--,v EA-vetG -1
1 iCrtC Oc,iNf2
t •
68 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1
April 26,2018
CITY OF POWAY—PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
REGARDING CHANGES TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 83-1
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am a resident of Landscape Maintenance District 83-1 and served on both the Landscape Maintenance District
Committee and the Redevelopment Committee for the City of Poway,so and am quite familiar with both. What you are
presenting for a vote to residents in the Landscape Maintenance District (83-1&83-2) is riddled with inaccurate
information. I cannot speak to other housing communities you have graciously lumped into the old 83-1 District and will
leave that to residents of those communities. What I can speak to are specifics of District 83-1.
1. At some point the City determined to put the Twin Peaks Plaza into LMD 83-1. Not sure how or why this
happened but when the Committee was formed, it was part of the IMO though it had not been built. Besides
the shopping center itself,83-2 was formed when the Committee pointed out the new medians (Ted Williams to
Pomerado(56 did not go thru yet), Pomerado to Camino Del Norte city limits&Ted Williams/Twin Peaks)could
NOT be added to the 83-1 because NO NEW HOUSING was added(a requirement of the LMD documents we all
signed as new residents). The understanding of this requirement is to safeguard residents in the LMD from
abuses by Cities when not adding new residents to help defer costs of maintenance). The City concurred and
83-2 was born. THIS WAS STILL INVIOLATION OF THE LMD DOCUMENTS.Again,when the City added new
medians to the 56/Ted Williams Pkwy(Pomerado to city limits)the EXACT same Issue arose. The City attempted
to add the cost to 83-1 but the Committee pointed out there were NO NEW HOMES ADDED and therefore could
not be included which was still In violation. The City added the maintenance to LMD 83-2. This is when the City,
in their infinite wisdom,decided to add fruit trees on the slopes thinking they could defer some of the cost by
selling the fruit.
NOTE: At NO point did the City discuss any median plans with the LMD Committee,they just constructed the
medians and added to the LMD. Obviously,there was NO REGARD to incurring additional expense to ONLY A FEW
RESIDENTS OF POWAY. Additionally,violating the LMD documents was also NOT considered.
QUESTION: What other shopping centers are Included in L/S Districts? I don't see any others on maps provided
online. Since 1983 when 1/S Districts were formed,we have added Wal-Mart,Creekside, Lowes,Stein Mart and
others. Do they pay for L/S Maintenance? How about all the medians along Poway Road,who pays for them? Do
the adjacent businesses?
MAY I ALSO POINT OUT: When the City added medians along Poway Road and within the first year everything was
dead as they apparently dug the medians too deep and overwatered everything. When it was decided to add the
medians described above,the City learned from their mistake and this time put in grass(some areas) but overfilled
the medians causing the grass to look un-watered/brown all the time(also requiring extra cost to mow)and causing
tremendous run-off down both Ted Williams and Twin Peaks. Committee had NO INPUT.
2. I see on the map available online(would have been nice to include with ballot)that the new LMD 18-1 has
added other areas NOT originally part of 83-1. I cannot speak to all the residential communities you added and
will defer to those residents to ask why. Again, not in the original 83-1 but now included is Arbolitos Park,
Abraxas and the soccer field added way after the fact and again with NO NEW HOUSING ADDED. Doesn't the
PUSD pay for their schools and shouldn't the City pay for any added soccer fields(other sports)and parks. What
about the soccer field on Community, the softball field on Aubrey/Midland and any others I may have omitted?
Are we also paying the costs to maintain Silverset Park&Carriage Park? I see on 18-2 you are also rolling Poway
Lake and Park into their LMD. ARE YOU KIDDING ME???
69 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item # 4.1
3. Besides the 2 new LMD's and the Business Park,what other LMD's are out there? I know new housing has also
occurred since 1983. How about Sycamore Canyon homes and the new homes going in along Pomerado Road?
Does all new construction go into a LMD? What about all the low-income housing added by the City? Many of
those communities were added since 1983. Who pays for them?
4. What EXACTLY are the improvements the City is planning for district 18-1? You Indicate on the map
improvements along Twin Peaks,Ted Williams/56,Camino Del Norte, Pomerado Road. How can you be making
improvements along Pomerado Road where Redevelopment funds were used to build slump stone block walls
and then landscaped those areas?
DO YOU REALIZE that all the block walls built along streets(Pomerado,Community and others)were installed because
the City felt the areas needed sprucing up because the homes were older, and the areas were unsightly/blighted? Guess
what? Our homes(Arbolitos)are now about the same age as the homes considered as BLIGHTED by the City when they
put in the walls.
I MUST SAY, given the record of the City for arbitrarily making Improvements and passing on the expenses to only a
select few of the residents of POWAY is very unnerving. AND you are asking us to PAY YOU MORE MONEY to let you
decide what improvements you are going to make IS LUDICROUS given the track record of the City.
From my observations of the state of the landscape in 83-1, most of the DEAD AREAS were caused by cutting off the
water during the drought (though they did not look great before that due to poor maintenance, I won't even comment
on the state of the eucalyptus trees and how they are maintained) . THE CITY HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVER WHAT
GOT WATERED AND WHAT DID NOT. I did not notice any areas IMPORTANT to the City looking as bad as our landscape
did. City Hall, parks, L/S along roads maintained by the City all looked MUCH BETTER than our LMD. From my viewpoint,
I believe the City conserved the water they did by cutting off water to our Districts to make areas they maintained look
better. So not only as homeowners who lost their yards and plants by conserving water, but also having now to pay for
L/S that was killed by the City shutting off the water is unbelievable.
I DO NOT TRUST THE CITY TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR L/S DISTRICT. Are you going to put in rocks, DG,drought
tolerant trees/plants? Probably not and water is still at a premium. ANY IMPROVEMENTS WE MAKE NEED TO BE
APPROPRIATE TO A DESERT ENVIRONMENT. Go to Arizona and see how they do things.
The City needs to establish a Landscape Maintenance Committee AGAIN. We were only disbanded because the City
decided they had a handle on the matter and would/could manage it themselves. OBVIOUSLY,THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
LASTLY, I would like to point out that as a resident of Rancho Arbolitos,we not only have HORRIBLE looking landscape,
but the City is expecting us to pay more to make the area look better for OTHER RESIDENTS AND/OR PEOPLE WHO USE
OUR STREETS for commuting. Because the City has diverted ALL THRU-TRAFFIC along Twin Peaks our neighborhood
might as well be in the center of NEW YORK CITY. The noise is horrible!!] Not only that, but as a resident you cannot get
INTO OR OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT WAITING FOREVER FOR LIGHTS TO CHANGE. Something needs to
be done to allow ACCESS IN/OUT to improve. Do you know that if you wait at the light at Twin Peaks/Ted
Williams/Deerwood to get access out of the community and head to the I-15, when the light changes,YOU HAVE TO
STOP AT EVERY SINGLE LIGHT BEFORE GETTING TO THE 1-15? That is because all lights have been sequenced for
commuter traffic starting atTwinPeaks. Once again,we seem to be getting screwed no matter what.
ay06 C o ti v 0--0--e_ vo
Joyce Eiswald
14640 Brookstone Dr.
Poway, CA 92064
70 of 70 May 15, 2018, Item #4.1