Loading...
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