Item 5 - Extension of Water to East Poway
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Mana~
INITIATED BYf"otiall Fritz, Director of Development Services as
DATE: June 7,2005
SUBJECT:
Extension of Water to East Poway
ABSTRACT
On February 22, 2005, at a Pre-Development Conference, the City Council received a report on a
request from Harlan Lowe, who is the owner of property located at 15438 Mina de Oro. The request
from Mr. Lowe was for the City Council to consider an amendment to the City's Master Water System
Facilities Update Report to make provisions for the extension of City water to East Poway along
SR 67 that is currently not in the City water service area, to study the costs of providing City water to
East Poway, and to potentially form an assessment district to cover the costs associated with
providing City water to East Poway.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to the City for the initial study to provide groundwater resource information is estimated at
$20,000, which requires an appropriation in this amount from the unappropriated General Fund
Balance (100-8912) to Land Development Special Studies (0305-1726).
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of this report was sent to the applicant. Additionally, notification was sent to 65 parties that
indicated interest in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction as deemed appropriate.
ACTION
M:\plannlng\05report\1 Agenda Formslsum,doc
1 of 25
7/1/03
June 7, 2005 Item # ~
CITY OF POWA Y
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man:i!f
INITIATED BY:~Niall Fritz, Director of Development Services
Javid Siminou, City Engineer
Kenneth Quon, Senior Civil Engineer
DATE:
June 7, 2005
SUBJECT:
Extension of Water to East Poway
BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2005, at a Pre-Development Conference, the City Council received
a report on a request from Harlan Lowe, who is the owner of property located at
15438 Mina de Oro. The request from Mr. Lowe was for the City Council to consider
an amendment to the City's Master Water System Facilities Update Report to make
provisions for the extension of City water to East Poway along SR 67 that is currently
not in the City water service area, to study the costs of providing City water to East Poway,
and to potentially form an assessment district to cover the costs associated with providing
City water to East Poway.
The general area in which the water system is proposed for expansion consists of the
areas south/southeast of High Valley, north/northeast of Blue Crystal Trail, and along
Highway 67. The area is approximately 1,800 acres in size and sparsely developed with
approximately 80 homes (Attachment 1).
At the conclusion of the Pre-Development Conference, and to further consider the issue,
the City Council requested staff to gather information on the following:
1.
Management of groundwater resources of the East Poway area.
2.
Determine the scope and costs of engineering studies that would explore the
facility requirements for extending the City's water system to East Poway.
3.
Available financing alternatives and a breakdown of the associated
responsibilities of the City and of the affected property owners.
2 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # .5
Agenda Report
June 7,2005
Page 2
FINDINGS
Manaaement Of Groundwater Resources
The hydrogeology consulting firm of Wiedlin & Associates, Inc., has prepared a scope of
work to provide groundwater resource information as the initial step in formulating a
Groundwater Management Plan for East Poway (Attachment 2). Because the subject
area covers thousands of acres, a generalized approach would be undertaken to
characterize groundwater resources and an assessment of water quantity and quality.
At this point, it is anticipated that the assessment will encompass a single basin, although
additional basins could be identified based on hydrogeological factors. Upon collecting
and compiling this information, which will be of a general nature, more focused
investigations could be conducted as specific objectives of the Groundwater Management
Plan are developed. Since the information collected from this study can be a resource for
land development decisions, with or without the proposed water system extension, it is
recommended that the City fund the costs to perform this initial study, which is estimated
at $20,000.
Facility Reauirements For Extendina The City's Water System To East Poway
The City's water engineering consultant, Boyle Engineering, has prepared a preliminary
scope of work to explore the facility requirements for extending the City's water system to
East Poway (Attachment 3).
The scope of work proposes two main components. One of the two main components
would develop a conceptual backbone system for the proposed easterly water system
extension. The conceptual backbone system would utilize the Blue Crystal pressure zone
as the primary source of water, with a looped connection to the High Valley pressure zone.
The second main component of the proposed study would analyze the capacities of the
existing water system to deliver water to the easterly water system extension. The analysis
would include an evaluation of the pumping and storage capacity of the Blue Crystal
pressure zone and determine facility upgrade requirements.
The tasks as described above, are solely related to the request from the interested parties
that wish to extend the City's water system to East Poway. It is therefore recommended
that a method be developed in which the interested parties provide the City with
compensation for these costs, which are estimated at $35,000.
Financina Alternatives
Staff consulted with the engineering firm of Harris & Associates to provide information and
a scope of work to perform a Funding Mechanism Feasibility Study, which would consider
in an in-depth manner the various financing mechanisms available. In a proposal prepared
3 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # '5'
Agenda Report
June 7, 2005
Page 3
by Harris & Associates (Attachment 4), three financing mechanisms have been identified
that are usually considered for this type of project, and are summarized as follows:
Assessment District - An Assessment District is a special district that is formed
by the City and includes property that receives a direct benefit from the proposed
water system extension. The City sells bonds to raise money to build the
improvements, and then levies a special assessment against each parcel of land
within the district, in proportion to its share of benefit from the improvement. The
owners of the land repay the bonds over a period of years through annual
assessments, which are included on the County's general property tax bill.
When an assessment district is formed and the bonds are issued, each property is
assessed a certain amount based on the percentage of benefit received by the
property. Factors, which determine the amount of benefit received, may include
the size of the lot or the proximity to the water system improvements. The special
assessment is payable through annual installments over the life of the bond issue,
which is typically 15 to 20 years, but can be longer.
A concept for this project would be to form an assessment district over the benefiting
parcels and each parcel is assessed at a minimum level of development, even
though the development potential might be higher. At the same time, an overlay
development fee would be required that should a parcel develop to a higher level, it
will then pay its fair share of the costs for the improvements and lower the cost
to base property owners.
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) - A CFD is a special taxing
district that authorizes the City and developers to sell tax-exempt bonds to fund
public improvements. Subsequently, property owners that participate in the CFDs
pay a special tax to repay the bonds. The amount of the special tax is not directly
based on the value of the property, but rather mathematical formulas are used that
take into account property characteristics such as square footage of a home and
parcel size. The special tax is typically included in the annual County tax bill.
However, it can also be paid off on a monthly basis.
A requirement for the CFD is that it be approved by two-thirds of qualified voters in
the district. An established CFD has all the legal privileges of a legally sanctioned
governmental body, and can adopt stringent penalties and foreclosure acts in the
event that the special tax payment is delinquent.
Reimbursement Agreement - A Reimbursement Agreement is an agreement that
reimburses property owners for extension of permanent improvements that benefit
other properties. In this case, the Reimbursement Agreement would be initiated by
a developer who is willing to front the cost of the water extension improvements.
The Poway Municipal Code allows a period of up to 15 years for the duration of a
4 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # .;::
Agenda Report
June 7,2005
Page 4
Reimbursement Agreement, which means there is a risk to a developer that the
total amount may never be recouped. A Reimbursement Agreement would also
require assigning future uses to various properties as part of the cost distribution.
A fourth potential financing mechanism is to evaluate the costs to establish and maintain
one or several private water companies within the subject area that would purchase water
from the City. From an operational standpoint, a reservoir would be established for
distribution to each service area for domestic purposes only, with each lot also containing
individual water tanks for fire protection. This option is not included in the Harris &
Associates proposal, though they have indicated that they could explore it further if so
desired by the City.
Harris & Associates estimates a cost of $25,000 to $40,000 to prepare the Funding
Mechanism Feasibility Study. They also recommended in their proposal that between
$100,000 to $150,000 will be needed for the purposes of implementing whichever financing
mechanism is selected.
Similar to the tasks to evaluate the City's water facilities, the tasks to consider financing
alternatives are directly associated with the request from the interested parties that wish
to extend the City's water system to East Poway. Again, it is recommended that a method
be developed in which the interested parties provide the City with compensation for the
costs to consider financing alternatives.
land Use Issues
At the prior City Council Pre-Development Conference, some East Poway residents
expressed concern regarding an increase in the amount of development that could occur if
City water were extended to the area. Some City Council members expressed the
concern as well. In response, staff refined the build out estimate for the area if water
were extended and additionally studied two alternative zoning scenarios
Updated Build Out Estimate - Staff has updated the estimate of projected dwelling unit
build out for East Poway initially presented in the prior report on this matter. The initial
number was 350 units. For this analysis, staff refined and updated the parcel information
used in the Poway Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The updated estimate of build out
for the East Poway study area with City water is now estimated at between 368 and 400
units. The total is the sum of the 80 existing units plus additional development potential,
which is between 288 and 320 units.
Currently, there are 80 existing dwelling units in the East Poway study area. The 80
existing dwelling units include built units, plus units that are in process or are expected to
be built by the end of the year. As part of this study, approximately 100 additional lots
were identified as having development potential. These are vacant lots or lots that
are developed with a single-family home, but are large enough that there is subdivision
5 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # '5
Agenda Report
June 7,2005
Page 5
potential. Based on the documented or estimated average natural slope and net acreage
of those lots, which is based on data collected on properties when the HCP was written
in 1994, an additional 288 units could be built if City water was extended to the area.
This estimate is the baseline of added units of the estimated range of total added units
(i.e., the bottom of the range).
The baseline estimates were based largely on estimates of slope and net lot acreages
that were included in a build out assessment done in 1994 in conjunction with the HCP.
Since the preparation of the assessment, staff has found in the processing of development
proposals that the slope provided for properties was often slightly overstated. Often when
comparing the slope calculation that is prepared by an applicant for their development
project to the slope in the HCP assessment, the actual slope of the site proved to be less.
A lower slope can sometimes bring the site into a different slope range category, thereby
allowing a greater development density. With this in mind, staff evaluated
certain lots, which are close (i.e., 2% above) to the slope range category and of a lot size
that matters, and determined that there is an extra 31 dwelling unit development potential.
These 31 units account for the additional units represented in the estimated ranges stated
in the table on the next page (i.e., the top of the range).
Alternative Zoning Build out Estimate - At the workshop it was indicated that the intent
of bringing water to East Poway was not to increase the number of homes that could be
built. In response to this, Staff developed two zoning alternatives to compare the unit yield
with the current RR-A zoning. The zoning alternatives are modified versions of the existing
zoning as shown in the following table:
Slope
Minimum Lot
Size
(in net acres)
Zoning
Alternative
Existing RR-A
Alternative 1
0-15
15-25
25-45
0-15
15-25
25-45
0-15
15-25
25-45
4
8
20
8
20
40
10
20
40
Alternative 2
Both Zoning Alternatives assume that water would be extended to the area. Zoning
Alternative 1 would allow a minimum lot size of 8, 20, or 40 net acres depending on the
average natural slope of the site. Zoning Alternative 2 would allow a minimum lot size
6 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # .5
Agenda Report
June 7,2005
Page 6
of 10, 20, or 40 net acres depending on the average natural slope of the site. Existing
zoning allows a minimum lot size of 4,8, or 20 net acres, depending on the average natural
slope of the site when City water is available.
Build out estimates for two alternative zoning scenarios were generated and are included
in the table below.
Dwelling Unit Build Out
With City Water
Without City Water
Existing RR-A Zoning
368 - 400 dwelling units' 208 - 233 dwelling units'
Alternative 1 Zoning
260 - 334 dwelling units' Not applicable
Alternative 2 Zoning
247 - 333 dwelling units' Not applicable
. Includes 80 existing units
Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency IHCP)
Prior to the extension of water to the area, consultation with the resource agencies will be
required. Many properties in East Poway have significant biological value. Currently in
the study area, approximately 110 acres are within recorded Biological Conservation
Easements (BCEs) and are zoned Open Space-Resource Management (OS-RM).
This acreage is part of a long range, habitat preserve design for the area, which is
considered under the HCP to be an important wildlife corridor. While the HCP included
the possibility of City water being extended throughout the preserve, with additional number
of homes as allowed by the General Plan, more development may affect the preserve
design through fragmentation and could adversely affect wildlife movement. These are
two major HCP implementation concerns that have been raised in recent years by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to the City for the initial study to provide groundwater resource information is
estimated at $20,000, which requires an appropriation in this amount from the
unappropriated General Fund Balance (100-8912) to Land Development Special Studies
(0305-1726).
7 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # .s
Agenda Report
June 7,2005
Page 7
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
A copy of this report was sent to the applicant. Additionally, notification was sent to 65
parties that indicated interest in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction as deemed appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Map of East Poway
2. Scope of Work from Wiedlin & Associates, Inc.
3. Scope of Work from Boyle Engineering
4. Scope of Work from Harris & Associates
JLB/NF/JS/KQ/ps
M:\engserv\05Reports\East Poway Water\agenda.doc
8 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # C;
~
(" ::!:
ex:
! \\ ~
,I ~ ~ ~ .
~.~\ "I ;8 //
:S{.~~. lW .
~
'0
~
ex:
,,;. -" ." '.,"\'
.~~
.V
I.;
~ ~
~g r-~
k~
! "
.1.1. .fi; ..
~K;J:tI
C .T.--C'L
-'r-r.\.,
~:.~
,
. ~
"
!l :: r~
o r---~ _ .
\ .~
"""10 . W
, "... ,
;)
I
I',
~ ~. -
eo ~ i' f- t-~ ,~
- '. \ ... f"..;/
~)\ I~~!f(. /' ~!b.
'> a f'"' "'~=. f;gl/
l .~~ \4 ~ . \ '-J ~!~ \
"K 8 I "\ \... o!,'
v,' \. , J ~ ~:u,l .~ ~~)i "'j .~'::=" ~.~ L2I
~- -I"<. ex: 1/ . 0.1 :.:
V \~.-~- .~ ex:.-I:,l ~("',;! .\:iT, .
/l- I I.~I",,\ ..~ --.(,. ! '.\ . ...
~ k-~ ,^\'~ N u:~ ,~] \ ~ \~~'7""7 f
\ = ~ ~
~ ; 1- ~h.- ~ 8' ,--' 1\ l> I !
i--' -t ~ ~ ;;:;; " '..
I ~ ~ ~~~oo, ;; ~~
'~ Jm -;:;~ \ I. ~ ---L "--
, \
~~r
!'\
,.!'
.
<f:'
. ex:
ex:
'-
r
f;:::=
\1\.
1
)
I
.
A
~~
0<(
0..>-
1-0
OO:J
<(I-
WOO
C!>C!>
ZZ
_ --l
I---lOO
OOWI-
xsz
wO:J
9 of 25
~ .
i
ATTACHMENT 1
June 7, 2005 Item # 5
Page I of 3
April 10, 2005
City of Poway
Development Services
Attention: Javid Siminou
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074-0789
Subject:
Preliminary Scope and Cost Estimate to Assess Groundwater Resources; East
Poway, CA
Dear Mr. Siminou:
This proposed preliminary scope and cost estimate has been developed at your request. The
objective of the proposed work is to provide groundwater resource information to support land
planning decisions regarding potential development of East Poway. The area of interest
encompasses approximate 5 to 6 square mites of tand that currently does not have imported water
service. Hence, land uses in the area are dependent on groundwater resources. The area of interest
is located within a watershed that slopes in a westward direction and is bounded on the east
topographically by a north-south trending ridge line that includes Iron Mountain (Figure I). Water
falling east of the ridge line flows outside the area of interest to San Vincente Reservoir. Water
falling west of the ridge line flows into the area of interest. The watershed is bounded on the north
and the south by secondary ridge lines that trend east-west and collect surface water flow into the
drainages within the area of interest. The watershed is dissected in to approximately five drainages
that trend approximately east to west.
This proposal provides an overview of the recommended methodology, specific tasks to implement
the methodology, and a discussion of possible additional tasks that may be appropriate pending the
fmdings of the initial work and further understanding of the City's objectives.
METHODOLOGY
Because the study area covers thousands of acres and potentially hundreds of residential lots, a
generalized approach to characterize groundwater resources are appropriate. It is recommended that
the approach include at a minimum assessment of water quantity. An optional assessment of water
quality is presented. Though water quality constraints are less likely to limit tand use planning,
characterization of groundwater quality is expected require more resources than the initial
characterization of groundwater quantity. Upon collecting and compiling this information, it may
be appropriate to conduct more focused investigations as specific objectives are developed.
10 of 25
ATTACHMENT 2
June 7, 2005 Item # 5
WledUn & Allociates, Inc.
.lpplloollouloOrnod...ro,Scfuc.
Page 2 of 3
The County of San Diego adopted Ordinance Number 9644, referred to as the San Diego County
Groundwater Ordinance, to protect, preserve, and maintain the groundwater resources of the County.
Application of selected portions of the Ordinance to East poway is suggested as a fIrst step in
assessing residential density and groundwater quantity. To assess groundwater quality, a fIeld
reconnaissance survey to collect and analyze groundwater samples for chemical constituents that
may have non-point source origins may be conducted.
SCOPE
Task 1:
Assess Groundwater Ordinance Controls on Residential Density
Review the County Groundwater Ordinance regarding residential density controls. The Ordinance
restricts residential density to rainfall magnitude in groundwater dependent areas. Compare
Ordinance criteria to rainfall distribution in East Poway to identify the range in residential density
that would apply. An appropriate base map shall be prepared for plotting rainfall data and current
planned residential density information. If possible, the City's resources will be used to prepare this
map. Meetings will be conducted with the City at the beginning and end of the task and a summary
memo shall be prepared for the City.
Task 2:
Collect and Analvze Groundwater Samples
hnpaired groundwater quality has the potential for limiting the usefulness of the groundwater
resource in East Poway. There are several chemical constituents with State and Federal drinking
water standards that are commonly found in San Diego County groundwaters. These constituents
may have non-point source origins and could potentially be geographically extensive. Chemicat
constituents recommended for analysis are:
Total Dissolved Solids
. Nitrate
. Gross Alpha (radio nuclide screening)
Iron
It is recommended that groundwater samples collected from three water wells from each drainage
in the area of interest be analyzed for the recommended constituents. Hence, 15 water wells will
need to be identifIed as candidates for water quality characterization. The number of wells and
constituents can be adjusted depending upon the City's requirements. Meetings will be conducted
with the City at the beginning and end of the task and a summary memo shaH be prepared for the
City.
In order to collect groundwater samples, permission to access individual water wells needs to be
obtained. The scope anc cost for identifying and accessing existing water wells will be developed
upon further consultation with the City.
P.O. Box 9]0462, San Diego, CA 92]91-0462 Ph 858 259-6732 Fax 858 259-6094
11 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # S
WledUD & AlSoeiatel, IDC.
Appll~.IIU""Gr.III1"""'.'3oj..<.
Page 3 of 3
COSTS
The following costs are developed on a time and materials basis. The City will be notified as Soon
as possible if costs estimate assumptions and project constraints are not consistent with each other
or if actuat costs exceed the estimates. Because the cost of characterizing groundwater quality is
relatively high and the likelihood thatthe findings will influence management decisions is lower than
the findings of Task I, the City may elect not authorize Task 2.
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COSTS
Task Estimated Cost
Task 1: Assess Groundwater Ordinance Controls on Residential Density $4,600
Task 2: Collect and Analyze Groundwater Samples (Optional) $14,500
Total $19,100
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to
discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Matthew P. Wiedlin
California Certified Hydrogeologist, No. 97
attached: Figure I, Physiographic Setting
P.O. Box 910462, San Diego, CA 92191-0462 Ph 858 259-6732 FIX 858 259-6094
12 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # S
FIGURE I: PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING FOR GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT AREA OF EAST POWAY
June 7, 2005 Item # .s
13 of 25
Section A - Scope of Work
Easterly Expansion of the Blue Crystal and
High Valley Service Areas
Project Description
The City of Poway (City) is interested in further investigating the water system facility requirements for
extending the existing service area, generally between Poway Road and High Valley Road, east to
Highway 67. This concept was previously visited in two reports, Water System Study for Easterly
Expansion of Blue Crystal Area (December 1998) and Potable Water Master Plan Update (June 2000),
and involves the existing 1124 (Blue Crystal) and 1460 (High Valley) Pressure Zones. Recently, City
staff held a workshop to review this concept with City Council and various interested parties, which has
prompted the need for a more detailed study.
Project Team
The project is for the City of Poway (City). All tasks will be performed by Boyle Engineering
Corporation (Consultant).
Scope of Work
The two main components of this study are to:
· Develop a conceptual backbone system for the easterly expansion.
· Analyze the capacities of the existing system to deliver water to the proposed expansion.
Regarding the last item, the primary source of water for the proposed expansion can potentially come
from either the Blue Crystal or High Valley Pressure Zone via a new pump station located at the Blue
Crystal or the Skyridge Reservoir, respectively. Given the existing road network and proximity of the
Blue Crystal Reservoir to Poway Road, which extends east to Highway 67, it is proposed that the
primary source of water for this expansion feed from the Blue Crystal Zone. A looped connection and
pump station from the Skyridge Reservoir will provide pump redundancy and an emergency backup
source.
The proposed scope of work for this project is as follows.
Task 1 - Collect and Review Data
1. I Collect available data from the City for:
· WoodcliffPump Station (as-built plans, pump curves)
· Blue Crystal Reservoir (as-built plans)
14 of 25
ATTACHMENT 3
June 7, 2005 Item # l:i
· High Valley Pump Station (pump curves)
1.2 Collect data from the City as supplied by interested parties, including parcel locations, proposed
subdivisions, digital files. Meet with City staff to review project locations of interested parties and
receive input.
1.3 Review data provided by others. Identify additional data as necessary.
1.4 Review existing reports, defined expansion service area, and projected demands.
Task 2 - Develop Backbone System
2.1 Develop a conceptual layout of looped pipeline facilities to serve the general area east of the 1124
and 1460 Zones. (Task completed, memorandum and 24" x 36" map dated 12/23/04.)
2.2 Field visit expansion area including Woodcliff Pump Station and Blue Crystal Reservoir.
2.3 Revise conceptual layout based on City staff comments, input and information from interested
parties, review of topographic and aerial mapping, field visit, and looping requirements.
2.4 Estimate and distribute demands based on Master Plan land-use factors.
2.5 Perform maximum day plus fire and peak hour demand analysis, establish pipe sizing
requirements and pressure zone boundaries.
2.6 Revise the City's preliminary cost estimate for backbone piping.
2.7 Provide a brief facility plan and cost estimate for new pump stations at the Blue Crystal and
Skyridge Reservoirs.
Task 3 - Evaluate Capacity of the Existing System and Blue Crystal Zone
3.1 Evaluate the existing Blue Crystal Zone's pumping and storage capacity. Perform analysis with
WoodcliffPump Station's pump curves and compare capacity with ultimate demands and
planning requirements. Determine additional capacity necessary to feed a new pump station at the
Blue Crystal Reservoir.
3.2 Evaluate the capacity of the existing Blue Crystal Zone piping for an expanded Woodcliff Pump
Station, sized as the primary feed for the easterly expansion. Determine facility upgrade
requirements.
15 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item #.s
3.3 Investigate capacity of the 865 Zone to deliver additional capacity to an expanded Woodcliff
Pump Station. Determine pipeline facility upgrade requirements. Determine if the buildout of the
easterly expansion would trigger an expansion of the Berglund Water Treatment Plant.
3.4 Develop cost estimate for pump station, storage, and pipeline facilities.
Task 4 - Evaluate Capacity of the Existing High Valley Zone
4.1 Evaluate the existing High Valley Zone's pumping and storage capacity. Perform analysis with
High Valley Pump Station's pump curves and compare capacity with existing demands in the
zone's current configuration. Estimate excess capacity to feed a new backup pump station
supplied by the Skyridge Reservoir.
4.2 Evaluate the capacity of the existing High Valley Zone piping for an expanded High Valley
Station, sized as an emergency backup feed for the easterly expansion. Determine facility upgrade
requirements.
4.3 Investigate capacity of the 865 Zone to deliver additional capacity to an expanded High Valley
Pump Station. Determine pipeline facility upgrade requirements.
4.4 Develop cost estimate for pump station, storage, and pipeline facilities.
Task 5 - Report
5.1 Prepare and submit draft report (5 copies) to the City for review.
5.2 Review and discuss comments on the draft report.
5.3 Prepare and submit final report (10 copies) to the City.
Task 6 - Project Management and Quality Control
6.1 Communicate project progress at specified intervals.
6.2 Complete quality reviews prior to submittal of work product.
Schedule
It is estimated that the tasks, as presented in this Scope of Services, will be completed in the following
time frame after receipt of a Notice to Proceed (NTP) and all necessary materials.
16 of 25
June 7,2005 Item # 5
· Draft Report - 8 weeks from NTP.
· Final Report - 10 working days from receipt of comments on the Draft Report.
Terms and Conditions
The terms and conditions for this work will be in accordance with City-Consultant Agreement for water
system consulting services dated July 8, 2003.
Fee
The Consultant will complete the services outlined in this Scope of Work and attached project budget
spreadsheet for a fee of approximately $30,000, with a proposed added contingency budget of $5,000 for
a total of $35,000. Services will be performed on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the
attached rate schedule.
The Consultant will invoice the City monthly on the basis of hours and costs to date. The City will pay
the Consultant within 30 days of receipt of Consultant's invoice.
This estimated fee will not be exceeded without additional written authorization from the City. The
actual level of effort estimated for these services may increase or decrease due to unforeseen factors or
scope changes. The City will be informed of any significant changes, and work on additional scope
items will not proceed unless there is mutual written agreement.
Notes
The following assumptions were made in preparing this Scope of Work;
L The City will provide all necessary data to the Consultant at no cost and in a timely fashion. This
data includes those items identified in Task L
2. Projected demands for the easterly expansion will be based on those identified in the City's 2000
Water Master Plan.
3. Any opinion of construction cost prepared by the Consultant represents its judgment as a design
professional and is supplied for the general guidance of the City. Since the Consultant has no control
over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, the Consultant
does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual costs.
17 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # S
"
4. Facility plans developed for this project will be done at a concept level of effort. Pump station plans
will be limited to a listing of capacity, number of pumps, and will not include any evaluation of a
preliminary site plan and yard-piping layout.
5. The Consultant will attend up to two (2) project coordination meetings. Additional meeting
attendance will be on a time and materials basis.
6. The Consultant will not be responsible for coordination with interested parties/land
owners/developers. The Consultant can assist the City as requested/required on a time and materials
basis.
18 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # ~
c
~ 8"''''' ~ OO-OOI,f')_r-._o ~oooo~ ~ ;>;"" J
<= ....on ... &jo~~OO~~to ~
~ t"lNv-, ~ ~-::I(") ~"'"'":.
- .... 0f~N ~ro1O - -
~ 1810.1 ~
.... 'C
0 ~
~ V1~V1~ V"J.V1V1Uo'}V1V1fAV:r fAfAfAVj-o(,oI} ....... .g.
... w
.- l"')"Oft'--f""l "70\000r-............ :g ~!;;~~ ~ 00 l"- I
u on .... l""'l0\--.:t_-.;t "'''
... ... ~
jl
"CI ISO;) Joq8'}-uON
=
=
fAfAfAV:r V1VtfAvtVtfAfA0 fAVtVtVtil'7 .........
~~~ ~ '<:tNOOr--"d'\O~lf) ~;:J;~to ~ ~~
~t--O\\Orr._l'f"lCl ~
rtNlrl ~O\o;.lrl N-:1Tl.. "l ",:on V'J. -~
.... '" - - - .. - '"
Joq8'}
fAfAVtV:; fAfAfAfAfAfAfAV:r fAVtfA.f00'7V:r ........
"''''''' ... OOOOOlrlONO<<"l :!~OV'l ~ :>;0
~ '" - - .... ...
SJnon 1810J
r; AJ81.Ja.~ , , ,
=
- ~ aov;) ,
Ql Ol
Cl =
"C = oo"<t~-.:t 00 '" '" ~ ~oooo'V ~ ~oo
:::l <:> Joou!llU3 Ol8pOSSV ,
[C r;
., N
- j:l.., "''''''' ~ N'<tM_M '" ::l NNN_ .... "'N <;
(.) I J.ou!llU3 JO!UOS ~
Ql 1l.
.- m
E "-
'" ...
Q. JOou!llU3 18dpU!Jd ,
~
"CI
=
..
[rJ
=
o
.-
tll
=
ell
Q.
~
~
...
'i:
Q.l
...
tll
ell
~
I:
o
.-
...
Q.
'I:
(J
~
Q
~
tll
ell
E--
19 of 25
'll
""
!l
.f: ~
u_
E g
.g .'"
....:.0
'" ~ ~
... " -
'" .- II
C .~,g
~ VIiS
.!! ~ ~ ~
> VJ...."C
fU.~ U c
tt ~ n
'C .;; "" ."
C " "''''
'" - 01 "
- ~"O lJ
o ~ (ij '=
CD ceO
=.- 0 Is..
8r~t"
, ~ ~ 8-
,"; "" .~ ;
1= .... ;> c
:l ~ ~.'"
e = "O.~
,,8fa~'i
yO_~o
_...~4,)..,
= il :a'~ .D
I- ;:;: u'" cil
5
'"
~
~
E ~
Gl_
... .-
re g s
en 8 '3
Gl .>: ~
c .~ c.
o U E
.c ~
Jl:" 0-
C,) ~ ~
'" ~ "
III Ol "
E " ~
fI"'I 0 'it! ~
o t: E.g
Qi ': ''::; ~
> .E: rs.5
Q).... '5 ~ ~
c;a ~ ~ I~ ~
N = c; ~ i11.5 y
g ~ ~ !I~r~ ~
28 g"O<.~fij
CJ S .~ 8 B .~ .~' a 'i
u'>vi:"3u~o
Jl:.. ~'"ell.-...
en .... "0 'S: .... "C 'S::: "g
~ ~ ~ ~ al~ & ~ c1J
j
o
Gl
:l
ijj
'0
~ CIl
C,) 0..
5' 'll
"'I> ."
~I"~~~I ~
... "
'" '" '"
:l <J _
~ ~1'~II..f:I_
wi.;:
'I~I~
('f)lr~1 e t)
g ~.~ ~ "
E!:;; :g", 01
Cj-_ooE-
Jo: .!l M M'~ ~
cn~::l::l :a
~~~~~.il
11
~
.c
:5.
J:
'0
~ g;
'"
g ~
ol.f< ~
~I ~ ~
:l' 5 .s
- o'~
~I~I.~
~ ~I~
E> <J
:l :2!'~
E! iIil:~
Cj,,;;
~~~
Ill....
~&&
l
June 7, 2005 Item # "
c
~ -'" .... "'~:;; ~ '" 00 <: ~ ~
= OO~ ~ '" '" 00
~ -:'" ':tMOO\C q -: "1 ~
... <<i ~ .. r: - -.... ~ 8
Q 111)0.1
=- co
c
.... ~
m
Q c
t> """ '" ..,"'.., '" ..,'" '" '" Jj 'g.
w
.. r--oo 8: 00,",0 .... 0... :g ~ ~ 1
u ...'" oo-o~ ~ '" .,., ~
.... .... ....
'1l c
... ~
"CI ISO;) Joqll']-uOII 0
.c
:I ~
~ ~
'"
..,.., '" ~~(t3. {,II} "'.., '" '" 1]
E
...r-- ... v \0 r-- ~ ~~~ ~ <(
'"' -0 <: "''''0
-:'" ... N~ No. oq.
~ ... V.....-...... - -.... ~ ~~~~~~
Joqlll
~;;;V;Y:tvt
..,"" "" V'7 vt ~ iI7 ..,"" '" '"
0'" ~ !;f00r-- (g 0-0 ~ ~ O~':ti~~
SJnOH 111)0.1 V '&. ~ 's. < ~
1;l C '6'otli U II
<J.l = '"
-~tzJu,)
... '" '" -0 '" ... go..... t;;j
~ AJlI)aJJa~ ... 5 T~ .g 'g
e 'I: v III
:I ~o...tt:l<
Q
== '" ... '" '"
Q) aav;) - ... , ....
Ql
en :I
't:l :I 00", ... :!: 00 ~ 1ll
~ Q Jaau!l'fu3 a)lIpOSSV '"
~ , ....
ID
'" N
- ~ '" r-- -0"'''' .... ... ... G '0
U I Jaau!l'fu:!I JO!uaS .... N
Gl 11,
.-
~ .
Q.
"'...- r-- '" '" r--
0.. Jaau!l'fu:!I IBdpu!.ld , ...
It) j!J
~ Ii
:; E
e 1:' ~ 1:'
ell 8 " &. 'ii
~I!:!: e 0
VI ~ .~ "iij ]5
ft:I E G:S c::: :J
I-Clc:ii:Ul
()
o
"
l:
..
....
l:
Gl
E
~
l:
..
:;
1j
.~
e
Q.
';'il ~
g
o ~
..Iii _
ell: ~
~ll ]5
~1!gJl
~
I-
i
~
't:I
.a
"-'
:I
Q
..
III
:I
<=
Q.
~
~
1:
~
....
III
<=
~
:I
Q
,-
....
Q.
'I:
C,I
<IJ
~
~
.li:
<IJ
O':l
....
I.~
I~
~
~
~
:H
00 E -
lftl ~
= 2 II
~ 8 Jl
t::
g
a:
20 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item # .5
EXHIBIT C
STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Effective January 1,2004
Professional Staff Description
EneineeTS. PlanneTS. and Architects:
Assistant Engineer I
Assistant Engineer II
Associate Engineer (Registered)
Senior Planner I
Senior Engineer I (Registered)
Senior Engineer II (Registered)
Principal Engineer (Registered)
Construction Administration Personnel:
Inspector (Prevailing Wage Rates)
Resident Project Representative
Senior Inspector
Senior Resident Project Representative
Resident Engineer
Senior Resident Engineer (Registered)
Technica. Support StalT:
Drafter/Assistant CADD Operator
CADD Operator
DesignerlDesign CADD Operator
Sr Designer/Sr Design CADD Operator
Design CADD Supervisor
Designer Supervisor
SUrYevine StalT (lncJudine Euuipment):
Survey Technician/Assistant Surveyor I
Survey Technician/Assistant Surveyor II
Associate Land Surveyor (Registered)
Senior Land Surveyor (Registered)
Hourly
Rate
$ 85.00
$ 95.00
$ 108.00
$ ] 10.00
$ 135.00
$ ]49.00
$ ] 79.00
$ 105.00
$ 108.00
$ 1]5.00
$ ] 20.00
$ ] 28.00
$ J 40.00
$ 60.00
$72.00
$ 85.00
$ 100.00
$ ]25.00
$ ] 44.00
$ 75.00
$ 95.00
$ 110.00
$ ]35.00
Professional Staff Description
Administrative Support StalT:
General Clerical
Staff Accountant
Senior Secretary I
Senior Secretary II
Technical TypistIWord Processor
Administrative Specialist
Graphics Designer
Information Technology Specialist
Direct Project Expenses
Subconsultants:
Services provided by subconsultants
Resource Charees for PCs':
Billed as $ 3.40 per direct labor hour
Other:
Long Distance Telephone
All Reproduction
Travel - AutomobilelTruck
Travel - Other Than Automobile
Other Direct Charges (Vendors, cell
phones for field staff, submittal binders,
courier, etc.)
Hourly
Rate
$ 55.00
$ 65.00
$ 65.00
$ 77.00
$ 68.00
$ 83.00
$ 72.00
$ 90.00
Rate
Cost + 10%
$ 3.401hr.
Cost + ]0%
Cost + ]0%
$ 0.53/mile
Cost + ]0%
Cost + 10%
Resource charges for PCs are in addition fo the standard hourly rate schedule and cover the use of all programs,
including special purpose software and extra equipment such as pen plotters and high resolution monitors.
If authorized by the client, an overtime premium multiplier of 1.5 will be applied to the billing rate of hourly personnel who work
overtime in order to meet a deadline which cannot be met during normal hours. Rates are for San Diego based personnel.
Special rates will be negotiated for non-San Diego based staff. Corporate officers, Managing Engineers, and Consulting
Engineers will be billed at 1.2 times the stated rate for Principal. Applicable saies taxes, If any, will be added to these rates.
Invoices will be rendered monthly. Payment is due upon presentation. A late payment finance charge of 1.5% per month (but
not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law) will be applied to any unpaid balance commencing 30 days after the date
of the original invoice.
Rates are subject to general revision on January 01, 2005.
21 of 25
June 7, 2005 Item #.5
May 3, 2005
..
..
Harrls & Associates
Mr. Javid Siminou, PE
City Engineer
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Program Managers
Construction Managers
Civil Engineers RECEIVED
MAY 0 6 2005 (-rJ
CITY Of' POWA Y
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Re: East Poway Water Improvements Finandng Feasibility Estimate of Costs
Dear Javid,
Per your request, we are providing a preliminary estimate of costs for performing a Financing Feasibility
Study and subsequent establishment of a mechanism to fund the City's East Poway Water Improvements.
It is our understanding, based on the infonnation provided by the City, that a funding mechanism is being
sought to finance the expansion of the existing Blue Crystal Water System to provide backbone water line
infrastructure to serve the "No Service" area in the City. There are approximately 270 existing Assessor's
parcels within this area, and it is anticipated that with the expanded water system in place, additional
development will be able to occur. The estimated cost for these backbone water improvements is over $20
million.
There are three (3) types of funding mechanisms usually considered for this type of project:
A. An Assessment District with an overlaid Development Fee to provide equity as properties develop.
B. A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District.
C. A Reimbursement Agreement with a developer who is willing to "go first" and front the cost of the
improvements.
Following are the general steps required for the establishment of the three funding mechanisms shown above.
A. An Assessment District (AD) with an overlaid Development Fee to provide equity as properties develop.
This concept is the same as the Old Coach Waterline Project Assessment District. An AD is formed over
the benefiting parcels and each parcel is assessed at a minimum level of development, even though the
development potential might be higher. At the same time, an overlay development fee is instated such
that, should a parcel develop to a higher level. it will then pay its fair share of the costs for the
improvements.
Step I - Prepare the Engineer's Report, which defines the areas of benefit, identifies any general benefits
that would be paid for by the City, and apportions the costs of the improvements to the specially
benefiting properties. The Overlay Development Fee report would be prepared concurrently.
Step 2 - City Council adopts the Resolution of Intention, preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report
and setting the date for a public hearing.
Step 3 - Notices and Assessment Ballots are mailed out to all benefiting properties a minimum of 45 days
prior to the Public Hearing.
Q:\Proposals\poway\east poway water feasibility.doc
750 B Street, Suite 1BOO San Diego, California 92101 619.236.177B FAX 619.236.1179 sandiego@harris-assoc.com
22 of 25
ATTACHMENT 4
June 7, 2005 Item # oS
Mr. Javid Siminou, PE
City of Poway
May 3, 2005
Page 2 of 4
Step 4 - City Council conducts the public hearing. Ballots are tabulated after the close of the Public
Hearing.
. 50% required to form the district
. Based on number of ballots received
. Weighted by the proposed assessment amount.
The Development Fee would be approved at the same time as the Assessment District.
The assessment process requires only a 50% property owner vote, weighted by assessment amount, and
the assessments must be based on benefit. The down side is that. if any general benefit components are
found, a contribution would be needed (assumedly from City funds) to compensate for it. Also, any public
property, such as a fire station or school, would also be assessed for its fair share of the benefit.
Using the overlaid Development Fee, the initial assessments would be based on existing use conditions
and future development could "pay down" the outstanding bonds as development occurred and relieve
some of the burden from the properties. Unfortunately, that would mean that, until development occurred,
existing uses would bear the brunt of the full assessment amounts.
The time line for the legal process, from Resolution of Intention to the Public Hearing is approximately 2
months. Prior to the start of proceedings, the Engineer's Report would need to be prepared and
community outreach initiated. It is estimated that a minimum of 6 months would be required.
B. A Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD).
A CFD is a special taxing district, which can be formed over a large area or over individual
developments.
Step I - Prepare the Rate and Method of Tax (RMA), which defines how the tax will be collected on an
annual basis. (This is different from an assessment, in that it sets an annual tax rate as opposed to
a fixed lien per parcel.)
Step 2 - City Council adopts the Resolution of Intention, including the RMA and Proposed Boundary
Map, and sets the date for a public hearing at least 30 days in the future.
Step 3 - Notices are mailed out to all affected properties a minimum of 15 days prior to the Public
Hearing.
Step 4 - City Council conducts the public hearing, forms the CFD if less than a majority protest, and sets
the election date between 90 and 180 days from the date of the Public Hearing.
Step 5 - City Council conducts the election
. 2/3 required to establish the district
. Based on ballots cast
. Registered Voter election
. If less than 12 registered voters, than a Property Owner election would be conducted based on
acres of land.
Q:\Proposals\poway\east poway water feasibility.doc
8' Harris & Associates
June 7, 2005 Item # S
23 of 25
Mr. Javid Siminou, PE
City of Poway
May 3, 2005
Page 3 of 4
A CFD special tax is probably the most flexible funding mechanism, as it does not require a benefit
analysis to establish the tax. However, it does require a 2/3 registered-voter approval.
A CFD can also be established over one or more potential developments within the area, even if they are
noncontiguous. This allows a few developments to fund the improvements through the selling of bonds, if
they are willing. As future development occurs, they can be annexed into the CPO.
The time line for the legal process, from Resolution of Intention to the election is approximately 4 to 7
months. Prior to the start of proceedings, the RMA would need to be prepared and community outreach
initiated. It is estimated that a minimum of II months would be required. (Note: the timeline can be
reduced by 3 to 6 months if 100% of the property owners waive the election period, which would only
occur if the CFD was established over developing property.)
C. A Reimbursement Agreement with a developer who is willing to "go first" and front the cost of the
improvements.
Step I - Define the boundaries of all benefiting parcels and prepare a Cost Distribution Analysis
apportioning costs of the improvements to the benefiting properties, based on preliminary cost
estimates. These will be in the fonn of exhibits to the Reimbursement Agreement between the
City and the Developer.
Step 2 - Notices are mailed out to all affected properties a minimum of 10 days prior to the Public
Hearing (which is administratively set).
Step 3 - City Council conducts the public hearing.
. There is no protest threshold to stop the process.
Step 4 - Record the Reimbursement Agreement with the County Recorder.
The obvious downside to this mechanism is that the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 13.24) allows only
15 years for the duration of the Reimbursement Agreement. There is significant risk to the Developer that
he or she may never recoup the total amount "fronted" for the improvements.
Also, there would be difficulty in assigning future use to various properties, which would need to be done
for the Cost Distribution Analysis.
The timeline for the legal process, through the Public Hearing, is approximately I month. Prior to the start
of proceedings, the Cost Distribution Analysis would need to be prepared and community outreach
initiated. It is estimated that a minimum of 5 months would be required.
Each of the above mechanisms requires various analyses of cost apportion'llent based on future development,
mailed noticing to affected property owners, and community outreach efforts; therefore, the implementation
costs would be somewhat similar. For budgeting purposes, we would recommend using between $100,000
and $150,000. It should be noted that each of these funding mechanisms would require some preliminary
design engineering so that the projected improvement cost estimates are viable.
We would also recommend the preparation a Funding Mechanism Feasibility Study looking at the various
mechanisms in a more in-depth manner, identifying the pros and cons of each mechanism, and the possibility
of using various mechanisms in tandem. This would include very preliminary cost analyses to assist in giving
the City enough infonnation to make informed decisions.
Q:\Proposals\poway\east poway water feasibility.doc
III Harris & Associates
June 7, 2005 Item # 5
24 of 25
Mr. Javid Siminou, PE
City of Poway
May 3, 2005
Page 4 of 4
We would recommend the City budget $25,000 to $40,000 for the performance of the Feasibility Study.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please let us know. We can be reached at 800-827-4901 ext.
337 (Joan Cox) or ext. 333 (Jeff Cooper).
Sincerely,
Harris & Associates
~
Associate I Project Manager
cc: Jeff Cooper, Harris & Associates
Brad Kutzner, Poway
Q:\Proposals\poway\east poway water feasibility.doc
III Harris & Associates
June 7, 2005 Item #.s
25 of 25
June 7, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Poway City Council
Subj: Extension of Water to East Poway
We are opposed to extending water to Eastern Poway. and want to be excluded!
We are living on Social Security and cannot afford the cost of the studies and water
extension.
We do not want to lose our home because we cannot pay the assessments. You
said, at the Council meeting we went to, that you wouldn't let this happen. Are you
going to keep your word?
We've lived in Poway for 50 years, and at our present address for nearly 40 years.
It's been hard, but also rewarding. We've learned to live with the water situation,
and it was adequate. We had water all year, even if we forgot to turn the faucets
off, and the troughs would overflow. Our 115 ft. deep well would always recover
within 6 hours. We also had for many years, horses, goats, assortment of livestock,
a large garden, plus we had 4 growing children. Our neighbors had water flowing
out of their ground level well. We had wetlands. After other homes were permitted
and built around us, it was a different story. Our wells went dry, and the wetlands
were destroyed, but we compensated, and still felt lucky to be here.
One of the last water proposals had the option in it for property owners to be
excluded if they did not want to join the assessment district. Why isn't that included
in this one? Didn't property owners in the Blue Crystal area have that option?
Why will the large property owners have more say-so than the old timers and small
property owners? The large property oWners are the developers, and do not live
here. They and others will benefit at our expense.
Again, we do NOT WANT WATER BROUGHT UP HERE. We want to continue
our rural "City in the Country" life style. Leave this beautiful area open. Leave
something in Poway to be proud of, instead of a continuous mass of homes and
businesses.
Thank you or read~ ~~ letter.
Dennis,J _an~RWon_,
15355 Running Deer Trail, Poway, CA 92064
5u~ ~d J'wle7, ~
~tr) 11:-6'
I
'S' ::;:
0::
,
(/J
0 ;I
0::
I
~ .. \ -L~J,
'1\ ~~r ~I -;- .
'\. ,.~ Y, ~.. i~ //
:.. ", 'II ,', ~'?;~ .' .."'..
-
',' ..j ~~. t .~
t ,..HI
~V'" '.\ ,;
.. ti:,",.:,- -
~"-~ '
.. .
-
..... j .
> a
I' Ie- .
~~I" ~,
~.;, .
~''''
! l'~~
~- J E ~
o '-/
I ~ .:.j. '1 '\.
~ A(
. J
. ..I
---{
1
~'
val
\. ll'--- t-'
~ \ ~ . I
V "~
/ ~ _ m
~
-
/,-
,
---1
I
I ..
~r
\.J
t~~
.y
I ~
l~r
"-'1 I I"-
1
~
\ I ~
.--
EI-
!iftl-
:f
>-<( V\
<(w ..()
sa: (!)C> ~
0<( ZZ .I
~
0->- _...J
f-O f-...JCJ)
Wf-
CJ):J CJ) _ ~
<(f- XSZ d
WCJ) WO:J .JJ
~
I .
iT
- . -- ^TTAr~M~NT 1
i-
0::0
a::-
0.
. --".-
-J..r~ .
~~,;
Q .j- ";,..J
~
-l
'--
'c, ,\
.:
~a .
1~"i1(
~. . \". ',~"' .
. ....., 1-
0::
rJ 0::
~ ~i!
II>.. .ii
-L !L.-
l'i-
,.u
:>
C
~
()l
'jj
c!
\/I
?
.\J
Q;
'0
G
<:)
J\w
I'ISvtvt yS
.. \ f4'\Cf/J
.......::
~
:t
~'
=
,
~~
^
~
1-
'"
.:c
c)
..c.
'"
Icl
~ ;-
Id
til :r:
'.. '">
'&
<.Il
~
:<
June 7. 2005 Item # .5
su.bri\~ by S~ t<'asni~1
-:C~ ~S ...TLWe 7. ~~
- ,-
Sheila and Bill Cockerell
15395 Running Deer Trail
Poway, CA 92064
8587483298
June 7, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Po way
Poway, California 92064
Re' Agenda Report Summary, Extension of Water to East Poway
Gentlemen:
We live in the East Poway area for which the extension of the city water system is being
considered. We have reviewed the agenda report, and have questions and concerns
regarding the costs of the water and possible changes to our neighborhood.
When the proposed studies are completed, there will still be serious gaps in the
information required in order to make an intelligent vote. We still won't have even a
rough estimate of the cost for easements, labor and materials to bring water from the end
of the city line to a parcel. Is it necessary to complete the studies called for in the agenda
report before the infrastructure study can be started? The original estimate of $59 million
just for the main line could easily be less than half the total cost when the infrastructure
required to distribute water is added, The total cost for each owner will have to be
determined with some accuracy before the project can be put to a vote.
It is still unclear how the costs would be distributed with any of the three tinancing
alternatives. We can't tell whether the cost to an owner will be based on present
occupancy, or the number of possible future parcels When do payments begin? As soon
as the project starts, or after it is complete? Will payments increase as money is spent?
The purpose of the study for the Management of Groundwater Resources is not clear. If
city water is being considered, why is groundwater a consideration? Have there been
changes since the last hydrology studies that warrant a new study? How will this be paid
for?
We are confused by the alternative zoning. The agenda report suggests that the number
of possible dwelling units in the area is a surprise, even though the zoning has been
unchanged for years. You can be assured that there will be substantial resistance to the
zoning changes by those who are behind bringing up city water with the intent of
building out their property.
What will the cost per unit of water be after the system is installed? Will it be the same
as in the city, or higher? Will we pay more to pump the water up to 1700 or 1800 feet
and to maintain the system?
6u.bm;Wo JUtre7..:xYJ6
:I-fa'l~5
June 7, 2005 Bill and Sheila Cockerell
The estimated costs for bringing water to the end of Poway Road have tripled since the
last attempt in the mid 1990's, what protection is there to an owner from unforeseen
construction costs? We lived in Ramona during the Lake Ramona fiasco The cost of
that project overran the original estimate by a factor of 10.
Once we do have water, what, if any, mechanisms are available to protect homeowners
from attempts to use proposition FF for approval of soccer parks and other uses that are
incompatible with the area?
While a reliable source of water is very desirable to us. we feel that the known costs are
prohibitive, let alone the costs that are not even being considered at this point. We feel
that it is totally impractical to bring city water to this area without a substantial increase
in population density, Nearly everyone who lives in this part of Po way is willing to put
up with inconveniences in order to enjoy the solitude, beauty and lifestyle the area offers.
We don't want to see our neighbors without water. but on the other hand, city water
doesn't seem to be a viable solution.
We're concerned that some of our neighbors will be forced to sell homes that they have
lived in for years, We may be forced to sell our house or split and sell a parcel in order to
be able to pay for our share of the water fees. We built our house in 1987, and would not
be happy paying more in water fees than the original cost of the property and the
construction of our home combined.
We are also fearful that the City of Poway will be unable to protect us from land use
changes brought about via proposition FF. The first attempt was soundly defeated, but
you may rest assured it won't be the last attempt to change zoning - especially if water is
made available in the area.
SlJa- f !J2
Sheila and Bill Cockerell
George Meyer
15455 Running Deer Trail
Poway, California 92064
619-417-6617
June 07, 2005
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Poway
Poway, California 92064
Regarding: Pre-Development Conference (PD) 04-06: Harlan Lowe,
Applicant. City Council Agenda Item 1- February 22,2005. Continued June
7,2005
Dear Mayor Cafagna and Members of the City Council,
I am a current resident of the East Poway area that you are considering in
the pre-development conference for the water service extension. I read and
understood the zoning in my area as I single family residence for every 20
acres maximum density as City water is not and will not be provided. It also
falls within the Poway Sub area HCP plan which is considered to have
significant biological value. This area is vital to our wildlife population and
is a very important wildlife corridor. These concerns have been raised in the
past by the residents of Po way, the USFWS and the CDFG. The current
zoning is exactly why I chose to live here. I read and understood The City of
Poway's Resolution No. 01-081 and that insures that City water services will
not be extended into this habitat area.
If water service is extended into this area, what prevents large parcel owners
from rezoning their property into a higher density using Proposition FF. I
believe we saw this attempt last year with Proposition E and it was soundly
defeated.
How many long time Poway residents would have to move if we are forced
into joining an assessment district? The estimated $59,000,000.00 divided
into the number of potential parcels of land makes this a very costly
proposal. With all the unknowns in the estimate, it could easily go even
higher.
.:::5JJhmi ~d SU~ 7,,jlt6
~m#-5
As with Proposition E, who will pay for the extension of City services
including Sheriff and Fire sub-stations.
We are the "City in the country". I would enjoy a permanent source of water
as I believe most of my neighbors would. But the extension of water service
to this area would be extremely costly and ruin our City's natural setting
with the increased density. I am not anti-development, but this area is and
has been zoned RR-A for single family homes along with Biological
Conservation Easements and Open Space Resource Management areas as
well, and that is what I understood and accepted when I bought here. I
believe every property owner has the right to build a home on his parcel
using the density guidelines that are already in place. Water conservation has
been and will continue to be a fact oflife up here.
I have helped with the rebuilding after the Cedar Fire. Some of my
neighbors lost their homes. I grew up in the back country of San Diego
County. My father and many of his friends were firemen. This was not my
first firestorm. I believe increased defensible space (Allowing additional
clearing around our homes), would have helped us here. As we saw in
Scripps Ranch, City water, and a large number of fire fighters and
equipment, could not stop the fire storm.
I would hope that we could have the following questions answered before
anyone could make an intelligent decision regarding this issue.
1. What is the total cost of bringing water to the residents of East Poway?
Not just the backbone infrastructure and loop system, but the water services
provided to each individual parcel.
2. If you have a parcel that you do not intend to split, how will you be
accessed? Will you be charged for your potential lots that you could
develop, even though you may like your parcel to remain undeveloped?
3. What if you do not want to be included in the water district. Would you
be forced to pay the assessment?
4. Has there been a study to include securing the easements needed to get
the water to each parcel?
5. It is not unusual for underground utilities to cost much more than
originally estimated. Things like rock clauses can double and triple costs.
6. At the last meeting in February, many of the speakers said that this was
not about development, it was about water. I found that interesting when one
ofthe Council Members asked "If that is true, then let's keep the 20 acre
minimums in place and bring up the water". The look on their faces said it
all!
Thank you for taking my views into consideration, and taking the time to
read my concerns.
Sincerely,
George Meyer