Item 5.1 - Workshop to Discuss Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Advisory Group RecommendationsDATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT
SUBJECT:
Summary:
City of Poway
COUNCIL AGENDA
March 19, 2019
REPORT
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Michael Obermiller, P.E., Director of Public Works
APPROVED
APPROVED AS AMENDED
(SEE MINUTES)
DENIED
REMOVED
CONTINUED
RESOLUTION NO.
Eric Heidemann, Assistant Director of Public Works for Maintenance
Operations
eheidemann@poway.org 7
Workshop to Discuss Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Advisory
Group Recommendations
On August 21, 2018, the City Council directed staff to form a volunteer advisory group to solicit
community ideas and recommendations about LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1. Staff's goal was to
support the group in a collaborative way by being a resource and providing background
information on the LMDs. The goal was to report back to the City Council in March 2019; timing
extremely critical because of the districts' funding status. The LMD Advisory Group, comprised
of property owners within LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1, has completed its analysis and is providing
recommendations for funding and maintenance strategies for these two LMDs. The Advisory
Group presents its analysis and recommendations in the attached report (Attachment A). The
purpose of this workshop is to discuss the LMD Advisory Group's recommendations for improving
and maintaining the landscaping in LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 and solicit City Council feedback
and direction on next steps.
Backaround:
In light of the failed ballot proceedings last year for LMD 83-1 (18-1) and LMD 86-1 (18-2), the
City Council was presented with difficult choices at the August 21, 2018 City Council meeting.
At that time, staff reported that assessment revenue collected in LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 was no
longer sufficient to fund their improvements and services. Reserve funds had gradually been
depleted as expenses grew and assessment revenue did not. In both Districts, it was (and still
is) necessary to use a portion of the reserves each year to pay for annual operations.
Consequently, the level of landscape maintenance service has gradually been reduced based on
available funding. Reducing the levels of maintenance has caused significant deterioration to the
condition of the landscaping improvements. This, coupled with years of drought conditions and
rising labor and water costs, further depleted fund reserves to a critical point.
On August 21, 2018, staff outlined three options for the City Council to consider, with staff
recommending Option 2:
Option 1: Continue to reduce service levels, including watering schedules and tree
maintenance, to align with projected assessment revenue. Staff pointed out that there was
inherent risk with this option in that many of the trees within these LMDs were located along major
1 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1
J
■
I■
Workshop to Discuss LMD Advisory Group Recommendations
March 19. 2019
Page 2
arterial streets with travel speeds up to 45 mph Staff did not recommend this option
Option 2 Provide a one-time appropriation to restore watering frequency to three times per
week and allow for as -needed removal of dead/diseased/fallen trees while the City develops long-
term options with assistance from an LMD Advisory Group
Option 3: Provide funding to conduct a multi-year. phased removal of trees in high-risk areas,
such as major arterials The intent would be to clear-cut large areas of landscape material, which
would reduce the size and amount of improvements to further minimize water and tree
maintenance costs This option would also reduce (and eventually remove) risks associated with
falling trees and limbs, as trees would be removed without being replaced If this option were
selected, staff would return with maps and locations for recommendations of specific areas. as
well as cost estimates for removal
As an interim measure. the City Council chose Option 2 and.
appropriated $165.530 from the General Fund Reserves to restore watering to three
days per week [from once a week for LMD 83-1 ($113.870) and twice a week for LMD
86-1 ($51.660)] only for the remainder of the fiscal year.
appropriated $100.000 from the General Fund Reserves for emergency removal of
dead/diseased/fallen trees in LMD 83-1 ($50.000) and LMD 86-1 ($50.000) only for
the remainder of the fiscal year and
directed staff to form a volunteer advisory group that would report back to Council in
March 2019
LMD Advisory Group:
The LMD Advisory Group, appointed by the City Manager consists of 13 residents living within
the two LMDs Members of the Advisory Group represent a broad range of professional skills
and disciplines such as accountants. engineers planners and prominent business people To be
appointed to the LMD Advisory Group. each resident formally requested to be selected to
volunteer their time and expertise to solve this challenging issue It cannot be overstated how
committed and invested this group is to this issue, and how diligently they worked through
complex information
Beginning on October 11. 2018, and concluding on March 7. 2019. the Advisory Group held a
total of 11 meetings During these meetings a chair (Ms Toni Bates) and co -chairperson
(Mr John McCormick) were selected to facilitate discussions and steer the committee The group
spent considerable time discussing topics such as finances, grant funding, funding for landscape
rehabilitation, master planning, surveying of residents. failure of the former ballot measure,
watering schedules. irrigation systems. and landscape and tree maintenance strategies
Staff's objective was to assist the group with full disclosure of available information and make
every resource available Staff provided the complete financial history of the districts (assessment
revenue city general benefit contributions and administrative costs), current landscape
maintenance contracts. engineer's reports, water consumption data, traffic counts and landscape
service levels In addition. a series of speakers were invited to present a better understanding of
specific subject areas relative to the LMD s The speakers included
1 Certified Arborist Addressed trees and their benefits how they are maintained.
causes of stress, removal. thinning and frequent trimming. benefits of mulch. efficient
2 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1
Workshop to Discuss LMD Advisory Group Recommendations
March 19, 2019
Page 3
irrigation systems. deep watering pitfalls of a monoculture (single type) of trees and
prevailing wages.
2 Special Districts Assessment Engineer Addressed the benefits and short comings of
a Special District. Mello Roos District and a citywide tax Suggested creating a 10 -
year plan to plant more sustainable plants rehabilitating areas and potentially enlisting
an (Homeowner's Association) HOA to implement improvements.
3 Deputy Fire Chief (Fire Marshal) from the City of Poway Gave a history of his
experience with fire management and responding to fires. reducing fire hazards of tree
fires by clearing ground debris and consistent maintenance raising limbs and thinning
canopies.
4 City Landscape Inspector Toured members of the Advisory Group through
LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 Provided members with maps and explained the contracted
services.
5 Landscape Architect Discussed the concept of a landscape master plan, the process
involved to develop a plan and a general idea on the costs to prepare a plan.
6 Attorney (Specializing in Special Districts Assessment Law) Discussed the
substantive and procedural requirements of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972.
Article XIII of the California Constitution and Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation
Due to the heft and breadth of the LMD Advisory Group report, staff will summarize its
recommendations here Chair Toni Bates will present the Group's report in more detail to Council
at the Workshop
Beginning on page 8 of the Advisory Group's report it is recommended that the City partner with
the LMDs to fund a strategy that will support efforts to successfully re -ballot for increased LMD
assessments These recommendations assume that the City would re -ballot the LMDs for an
increased assessment in about two years (FY 2020-21). and are generally divided between
activities that would precede re -balloting (the next 18-24 months) and those that would follow the
re -balloting
Pre -ballot funding (Year 1 = $525.000. Year 2 = $425.000)
Landscape Master Plan
Model entrances
LMD Advisory Group re -ballot activities
Tree removal / maintenance
Supplemental water
Post -ballot funding (Year 3 - $384.000, Year 4 = $235.000, Year 5 = $137,000)
• Detailed landscape design (entrances & arterials)
Ongoing tree removal (1-2 years)
Capital funding for rehabilitation (partial loan)
• Specific areas shifted to City responsibility
The Advisory Group commits to an ongoing
undertaking an outreach and communication
recommendations were adopted by Council
role in this effort, including developing and
program prior to re -balloting, if the above
Because this report is being presented in a Workshop setting. the City Council will not be taking
a formal vote However. staff is looking for direction from Council as to next steps If Council is
interested in having staff evaluate the feasibility and cost of the Advisory Group's
recommendations staff could return with an analysis
3 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1
Workshop to Discuss LIVID Advisory Group Recommendations
March 19, 2019
Page 4
Financial Outlook
The LMDs cannot pay for current service levels This has been accelerated by increased costs
for contracted labor (prevailing wage). multi-year drought. cost of water and poor health and
stress of trees The gap between revenue and expenditures continues to widen and reserve
balances are unsustainable
To date. staffs only option had been to cut service levels to reduce expenditures. While this has
resulted in temporary relief, it will inevitably lead to increased clean up and repair costs Further.
the lack of adequate assessment revenue and depletion of reserves has resulted in deferred
maintenance and improvements to each districts irrigation systems
The table below represents the estimated
revenue.
expenditures and fund
balance from the
Fiscal Year 2017-18 adopted budget
Reserve
LMD
Expenses
Revenue
Difference
Fund
Balance
83-1 $322,917
$277,230
$45,687
$170,464
86-1 $282,928
$283,970
$1,042
$152,920
As noted previously the City Council appropriated additional funds this year for water and
emergency tree removals For several reasons, including the unusually wet year, staff does not
expect to spend the total balance of those funds Below is a simple reconciliation of the
appropriated funds
83-1
One-time additional appropriations
Water $113.870 with $77.265 remaining
Trees $50,000. with $13.251 remaining
86-1
One-time additional appropriations
Water $51.660. with $51.660 remaining
Trees $50.000. with $23.043 remaining
Although staff's recommendation last year was to have any unused funds returned to the General
Fund Reserves. staff recommends that the remaining funds be carried over to next year for the
same intended purpose
Environmental Review:
This item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review
Fiscal Impact:
None
4 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1
Workshop to Discuss LIVID Advisory Group Recommendations
March 19, 2019
Page 5
Attachment:
A. LIVID Advisory Group Report
Reviewed/Approved By:
Wendy Kaserman
Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved
,By: d
Tina M. White
City Manager
5 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1
Date: March 19, 2019
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD) 83-1 and 86-1 Advisory Committee
Subject: LMD Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations
This memo presents the report from the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Advisory Committee for
LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 related to the status and future of these two LMDs and associated landscape
maintenance areas. The report includes our observations, findings, proposals and recommendations
from our six month review and analysis of the LMDs, including:
• Goals
• History
• Financial Status and Budgets
• Maintenance Status
• Maintenance Areas
• Failed 2018 Ballot
• Engineer's Report
• Opportunities and Risks
INTRODUCTION
The LMD Advisory Committee appreciates the opportunity to propose a strategy and recommendations
for improving and maintaining the landscaped areas within the two districts following the failed
assessment increase ballot in May 2018. Our Committee of 13 members (Attachment A), all property
owners within LMD 83-1 and 86-1, has met eleven times since October 2018. City of Poway staff has
been extremely helpful in providing us with information, data, tours and feedback as we evaluated the
issues and developed our proposals and recommendations.
GOALS
The LMD Advisory Committee established several key goals:
• rehabilitate the landscaping in the two LMDs to a level that improves aesthetics for the
residents and businesses within the LMDs, and ensures that these public spaces reflect the
appearance and general welfare that ALL residents desire and have come to expect of Poway
• address fire and life safety issues not just for the LMDs but for the entire city, related to the
overgrown trees and ground debris, particularly along Twin Peaks and Espola roads
• reduce/stabilize ongoing costs to maintain the LMD landscaping to bring them in line with
recurring revenues so that maintenance is sustainable over the long term
• establish a cost sharing formula that makes sense and is fair to both the property owners and
City
• ensure success of a second ballot to generate the revenues necessary to preserve the
landscaping and sustain the LMDs into the future.
1
6 of 33 ATTACHMENT A March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
RISKS OF DOING NOTHING
This report will present in some detail the basis for the planning, implementation and funding strategy
developed by the Advisory Committee to achieve the established goals. The Advisory Committee
realizes that its proposals and recommendations resulting from this strategy are no small undertaking
and will require a significant short term financial commitment from the City for success. Therefore, we
also assessed the potential outcomes and risks associated with not pursuing the proposed strategy — the
risks of doing nothing. These potential risks warrant consideration when reviewing the Advisory
Committee proposals and recommendations as they could lead to undesirable consequences for the City
as well as the LMDs. Briefly, the scenarios that could result should we not take action now (or should
the re -ballot fail) include:
• Increased Fire and Life Safety Risks: The LMDs would continue to deteriorate (particularly the
trees) exacerbating fire and life safety issues. Should this occur, the City would likely be forced
into a position to address the tree issue independent of the LMDs, since the LMDs are not in a
financial position to do so themselves.
• Loss of "Special Benefit": The ongoing deterioration of landscaping and trees could result in the
loss of any "special benefits" to the LMDs. Without special benefits, the LMDs would likely be
able to make the case that they should be dissolved, which would result in loss of existing LIVID
assessment revenues. The City could find itself in a position in which it must increase funding
over the long term to address landscape maintenance and safety issues without LIVID revenues.
• Confused and Concerned Constituency: Should the aesthetics and safety of the major
thoroughfares within the LMDs deteriorate further, residents and property owners could look to
the City to "make the situation right". Powegians are proud of their City and expect the City to
provide the services necessary to justify that pride. Residents and property owners outside the
LMDs don't differentiate between who is funding maintenance, and will look to the City for
solutions.
• City Ends Up Paying More: A goal of the Advisory Committee is to get the LMDs to a state that
is manageable over the long term with LIVID assessments and lower, predictable City funding. If
we don't pursue a new approach to try to achieve a successful re -ballot, the issues associated
with the LMDs will continue to exist. Meanwhile, LIVID assessment revenues will not increase
and maintenance costs will continue to rise. Ultimately, the increasing cost of tree
maintenance, irrigation system maintenance, general maintenance, water, clean-up, and
emergency issues will transfer to the City's General Fund.
Attachment B graphically displays the projected 10 -year trajectory of costs to the City for the Advisory
Committee's recommended strategy, a do-nothing scenario, and a do-nothing scenario with the loss of
LIVID revenue. Details of the basis for these projections are discussed and presented later in this report.
HISTORICAL FACTORS: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The current status of the landscaping in the LMDs is less than desirable. Original landscaped areas have
died, trees are overgrown and diseased, and ground debris and trash has accumulated. Over the last 20
years, factors both beyond and within the City's control have resulted in the deterioration and loss of
landscaped areas and the overgrowth and escalating safety hazard of the trees. These factors include:
7 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
• Severe drought that has put a strain on both landscaping and trees, resulting in loss and disease
• Higher costs for water that resulted in reduced watering frequency in the LMDs
• Higher costs for wages (contracted maintenance services) as required by California prevailing
wage law, leading to reductions in maintenance service frequencies
• Aging irrigation infrastructure that results in inefficiencies (i.e., sprinklers vs. drip, inability to
remotely control watering schedules), increased maintenance, and challenging and costly
modernization
• Escalating tree maintenance, particularly on Twin Peaks Road, as a result of tree growth, the
increased numbers of trees (from volunteers or offshoots of older trees), and weakened and
diseased trees exacerbated by the drought
• No LMD assessment increase since 1998 when Proposition 218 passed which required that any
increases in LMD assessments, including escalation factors, be balloted and approved by 50%
plus one of those assessed. At the time Proposition 218 passed, LIVID revenues were sufficient
to fund required maintenance. But as costs increased, and it became apparent that costs would
exceed revenues in the years ahead, the City neglected to take timely action to ballot the LMDs
to seek incorporation of escalation factors and/or modest assessment increases to avert a crisis.
Instead, as expenses exceeded revenue, the City chose to curtail maintenance and neglect
necessary capital investment, resulting in deteriorated and unsalvageable landscaping, and
considerable fire, safety and maintenance issues associated with the trees. The delayed action
has also compelled the City to shift $265,000 in general fund monies to the LMDs in the current
fiscal year to address emergency tree maintenance and water needs to try to forestall further
deterioration.
• The failed 2018 LMD ballot was intended to increase assessments to support increased
maintenance and landscape rehabilitation within the LMDs. The Advisory Committee tried to
parse the reasons the ballot failed through analysis of issues as well as informal surveys of our
neighbors to better understand the lack of support for an assessment increase. A number of
reasons clearly presented themselves:
Perceived poor City management of LMDs that resulted in loss of landscaped areas,
overgrown trees, and failure to anticipate future needs
Lack of a well-defined plan or clear proposal for what would be done to improve the
aesthetics and safety of the landscape maintenance areas within the LMDs. Would
trees be trimmed more often? Would previously landscaped areas be renewed? Would
debris and trash be removed? Or would increased assessments simply go toward
covering increased costs for the status quo? Property owners were unable to grasp
what an increased assessment would or could produce.
o Lack of specific commitments as to when any vaguely identified improvements would
occur. While photos of beautifully landscaped examples were shown to the property
owners at open houses, the City was unable to commit to any specific rehabilitation
plan or schedule because improvements were wholly dependent on building enough
funding reserves in the LMDs to pay for them - a timeframe left undefined. Likewise,
for those concerned about the safety of the trees, the City could not commit to a
8 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
program for removal and thinning of trees because the LMDs were unlikely to be able to
fund the undertaking completely on their own.
o Required years for rehabilitation improvements to be implemented due to the large
one-time capital expenditures required. Even with the undefined timeframe cited
above, it was apparent that any capital rehabilitation would not occur in the short term
as most of the increased assessment revenues would have been directed toward the
increased costs of ongoing maintenance first. As a result, many property owners were
either skeptical or saw no short term benefit from an increased assessment.
Weak nexus to "special" benefits resulted in a strong feeling of inequity among
property owners. The vast majority of the areas being maintained by the LMD are on
major City thoroughfares (Espola Road, Pomerado Road, Twin Peaks Road, Ted Williams
Parkway and Camino del Norte). While these areas were placed in the LMDs in the
1980s when the neighborhoods were new, the character of the LMD areas and
particularly these arterial streets has changed significantly over the last three decades.
Both Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte have become primary access roads to
freeways for a large subregion of northeast Poway and beyond. Ted Williams Parkway
was not even open when the LMDs were established. In 2015, Twin Peaks Road carried
46,900 vehicle trips a day (more recent data is not available), a 20% increase over 2000.
By comparison, that is well above Poway Road's 33,100 daily trips in 2015, and daily
traffic on Poway Road has actually declined since 2000 (possibly shifting to Twin Peaks
Road). As a result, many homeowners in the LMDs don't perceive these arterials as
"belonging" to their neighborhoods and feel that all those who make use of these major
roadways benefit from maintained landscaping, and therefore, the City should be a
larger landscape maintenance funding partner with the LMDs.
Significant increases in assessments and new assessed areas added led to both the
resentment over the definition and concept of "fair share" for difficult to understand
special benefits, and opposition to paying for something for the first time that is
perceived to have been a City responsibility in the past. In LMD 83-1, 94% of
homeowners were asked to increase their assessments by 92% or more, or pay for the
first time (more than 76% were asked to increase assessments by 92%; another 4% were
asked to increase by 123%; almost 14% were asked to pay the assessment for the first
time). In 86-1, property owners were asked to increase their assessments by between
59% and 106% and close to one hundred were asked to pay for the first time. Although
many homeowners stated that it wasn't about the money, coupled with the other issues
discussed above, the extent of proposed assessment increases soured homeowners on
the concept that these very public areas were primarily their financial responsibility to
maintain.
o Complicated ballot wording led many homeowners to either vote no or not vote at all.
Although the city held several Open Houses to provide information to property owners,
most property owners received their information via door hangers and the mailed
ballot. The bureaucratic and legal language on both made it difficult to easily
understand. It also appears that many property owners within the LMD do not realize
9 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
they are currently paying an LMD assessment and therefore, ignored notices they
thought were irrelevant. The Committee believes that the lack of user friendly
information led to apathy or an "I'll get back to that later" attitude that resulted in
almost 45% of homeowners in LMD 83-1 to not cast a ballot.
OTHER DISCOVERIES
During the course of the Advisory Committee's work, we discovered a number of unexpected factors
that influenced our proposals and recommendations:
• The two I have somewhat different maintenance needs:
In LMD 83-1, the eucalyptus trees along Twin Peaks Road are the largest maintenance
issue. Since the original trees were planted over 30 years ago, they have grown to
significant heights and sprouted hundreds of offshoots, many of which are now reaching
mid-size. The sheer number of trees that now exists along the roadway, combined with
drought -prompted disease has overwhelmed the ability of both the LMD and City to
manage tree maintenance for both aesthetics and to reduce fire and safety (falling trees
and branches) threats within the current LMD funding structure.
c In LMD 86-1, the largest maintenance expense is water (40% of LMD 86-1 costs are for
water) as there are more and larger areas that contain shrubbery, groundcover, tree
varieties and other landscaping than in LMD 83-1. However, LMD 86-1 has many
eucalyptus trees as well, and while most seem to be in better health than those in LMD
83-1, they also require ongoing maintenance to improve aesthetics and reduce fire and
life safety hazards.
• The way the trees were planted impacts maintenance in the long-term and the failure to plant
properly 30 years ago has contributed to the problem we face today. The Committee learned
that monocultures (planting only one type of tree in an area) are much more susceptible to
disease because pests (in the case of the trees on Twin Peaks, beetles) can easily move from one
tree to another of the same species. Mixing tree species makes it harder for eucalyptus loving
beetles, for example, to jump to the next group of eucalyptus if another kind of tree is in the
way. The eucalyptus monoculture on Twin Peaks Road has made it challenging to control tree
disease and death. Another factor contributing to the tree maintenance challenge is that the
trees in both LMDs have always been watered using sprinklers. This has required the trees to
seek surface water (vs. deep water) which has exacerbated the proliferation of new sprouts.
• The basis of the Engineer's Report for defining "special benefits' is challenging to understand
and justify. While the Committee understands that Proposition 218 requires an analysis of
special benefit by a qualified professional to determine LMD assessments, the inability to fully
explain the basis and logic for conclusions in the Engineer's Report related to what constitutes a
special benefit and how allocation of special vs. general benefit is derived has led the
Committee to conclude that there is subjectivity in the engineer's analysis and results. The
engineer's task was made more difficult by the fact that there are many disjointed areas being
maintained by the LMDs (as discussed in the following two bullets), but that fact should have
alerted the engineer to question the special benefit logic, particularly as it relates to these areas.
10 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
• There are many "hidden" areas that are being maintained within both LMDs. It was eye
opening for the Committee to discover during our tour that the LMDs are maintaining isolated
areas along easements, in culverts, on private property, and/or surrounded by non-LMD open
space. Many of these areas are not visible from streets, are somewhat inaccessible, appear to
be remnant sites from development, and/or seem to have been included solely to benefit an
immediately adjacent property. As a result, they provide little special benefit to the broader
LMDs. The logic of including these areas for maintenance is lost to history, but there is now an
opportunity to redefine maintenance priorities and responsibility going forward, as discussed in
the Maintenance Priorities section below. Some examples of these hidden areas are shown in
Attachment C.
• The LMD is maintaining landscaping on major travel arteries to the freeway. There are two
locations in LIVID 83-1 that the LIVID assessments are maintaining that truly stretch the concept
and legitimacy of special benefit. These areas are along Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del
Norte from Pomerado Road west to the City of Poway border (Attachment D). Both of these
major roadway segments collect and distribute traffic from all directions and have no unique
connection or relationship to LIVID 83-1. Given the large subregional catchment area for traffic
on these segments (traffic generated largely by neighborhoods outside the LMDs, Target Center
shoppers, and hospital/medical office visitors), it's likely that LIVID property owners account for
a very small percentage of users. The Committee feels strongly that inclusion of these roadway
segments in the LMDs, along with some of the hidden areas discussed above, suggests that
there be some reconsideration of what constitutes fair share funding between the LMDs and the
City.
• Making the LIVID landscape areas sustainable will require a capital infusion as the current path
is not sustainable. In the current fiscal year, the City has allocated $100,000 to the two LMDs for
emergency tree removal and $165,530 in supplemental water from the general fund over and
above its annual general benefit funding because the LMDs lack sufficient funding to cover
expenses. Meanwhile maintenance levels have been reduced from weekly to every other week
for LIVID 86-1, and to once a month for LIVID 83-1, the tree problem continues to get worse,
water costs continue to go up, irrigation systems continue to age, debris clutters the ground,
and fire and safety risks are left unaddressed. For the LMDs to become sustainable in the long-
term, most of the maintained areas will need to be restored to a status that is manageable.
Such a restoration will require the infusion of significant amounts of capital funding.
• The LMDs will require City financial support to achieve stability. There is not enough funding
through current assessments to address deferred maintenance, let alone rehabilitate and
restore lost landscaping. As was evident during the past failed ballot, even with significantly
increased assessments, most of the funding would need to go toward clean-up and maintenance
of the existing degraded landscaping, and it would be an undetermined number of years before
the LMDs could build up enough capital to even begin to address rehabilitation and restoration.
Without the promise of rehabilitation in the short-term, the Committee firmly believes that a
second ballot attempt would be fruitless. The last experience taught us that LIVID property
owners will need to know not only what is planned, but also when it will occur the next time
11 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
they are asked to increase their assessments. For these reasons, the LMDs will require City
financial support to reach a state of maintenance, cost and funding stability for both the LMDs
and the City in the future.
COMMITTEE MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES
The Committee's long term goal is to reduce (or at least control increases in) ongoing maintenance costs
to the extent possible. Each LIVID contains a number of maintained areas. By identifying maintenance
priorities by area, the level of maintenance effort (i.e. costs) can be tailored to each area based on
factors such as visibility, degree of special benefit, type of landscaping, etc. Most maintained areas are
linear areas adjacent to the major arterials while many others are smaller, independent sites scattered
throughout the LMDs. Given that many the areas being maintained by the LMDs are disjointed, hidden,
and/or provide limited special benefit to the broader LMDs, the Committee evaluated each maintained
area and developed recommendations for an appropriate maintenance level of service and/or
maintenance funding responsibility. Based on our tour of the LMDs, the Committee assigned one of the
following categories to each maintained area:
• Level of Service A = Generally once a week maintenance / 3 times a week watering
• Level of Service B = Generally twice a month maintenance / 1 time a week watering
• level of Service C = Generally once a month maintenance / 1 time a week watering
• Level of Service D = Generally once or twice a year maintenance / 0-1 time a week watering
• Shift to City = Shift the cost of maintaining the area to City funded responsibility with City
determining the level of maintenance required
NOTE: Currently, LMD 86-1 receives Level of Service B while LIVID 83-1 receives Level of Service C, both
reductions from LOS A in past years. Level of Service D is a newly defined service category. "Shift to
City" would shift the cost to maintain areas with very focused (i.e., individual property) or no special
benefits to City funding responsibility to help address the fair share funding issue.
Attachment E details the Committee's maintenance level of service and financial responsibility
recommendations. In general, the Committee proposes that Level of Service (LOS) A and B be applied to
the highest visibility areas along Twin Peaks Road and Espola Road. We recommend that the linear
areas along these primary roadways be maintained at LOS B except at entrances to the neighborhoods
where our proposal is to rehabilitate entrance landscaping and maintain it at LOS A, if financially
feasible. There are 7 neighborhood entrances (14 corners) along Twin Peaks Road in LIVID 83-1 and
approximately 11 entrances (20 corners) along Espola Road in LIVID 86-1 that are candidates for
entrance landscape rehabilitation as shown in Attachment F. These entrances provide a solid nexus to
special benefit in the LMDs and the Committee believes their rehabilitation will provide the strongest
incentive for property owners to support a new assessment ballot. These linear and entrance areas
would continue to be the long term maintenance responsibility of the LMDs. Other maintained areas
were evaluated individually for proposed LOS based on location, degree of special vs. general benefit,
and physical characteristics. The Committee's conclusions are that there are approximately 353,000
12 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
square feet (out of 1.2 million total square feet) in LMD 83-1A, and 5,200 square feet (out of 1.1 million
square feet) in LMD 86-1 that the Committee recommends be "shifted" to the City for fair share
maintenance funding responsibility.
The Committee believes that increasing the City's ongoing financial participation in line with the costs to
maintain secondary areas within the LMDs will help address the inequity concerns expressed by
property owners and be a positive factor in a future re -balloting campaign.
COMMITTEE PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The LMD Advisory Committee recommends that the City partner with the LMDs to fund a strategy that
will support efforts to secure a successful ballot for increased LMD assessments. While the strategy
assumes higher investments by the City in the early years, it is geared toward reducing and stabilizing
City funding in the long term. The Committee believes that a strategy for a successful ballot will be
dependent on commitments to property owners to the following:
• Rehabilitating neighborhood entrances where the nexus to special benefit is strongest within
the first 2-3 years after a successful re -ballot. The rehabilitation would be based on specific
drought tolerant design plans prepared for up to 18 neighborhood entrances within the LMDs.
• Ongoing removal and maintenance of trees along Twin Peaks Road and Espola Road to improve
aesthetics and fire and life safety, and to reduce and stabilize ongoing maintenance costs for
both the City and the LMDs in the long term.
• Rehabilitating the aging irrigation system throughout the LMDs to improve watering efficiency
and reduce/stabilize long term maintenance costs.
• Establishing maintenance priorities for maintained areas to reduce ongoing maintenance costs
and create sustainable LMD maintenance in the future.
• Preparing a Landscape Master Plan (conceptual and design drawings) for the LMDs reflecting
the above four points to provide property owners with the vision for the future.
• Increasing the City's financial contribution to address the real and perceived inequity between
special benefit and general benefit, including shifting the costs to maintain some areas within
the LMDs identified as having little or no nexus to special benefit to the LMDs to City funding
responsibility.
• Capital Funding from the City to jump-start the entrance and irrigation system rehabilitation
after a successful ballot. The Committee proposes that this capital funding be a combination of
direct funding and City loans to the LMDs.
• LMD Advisory Committee Campaign to actively develop and undertake an outreach and
communication program prior to re -balloting to provide information, address questions, and
promote the benefits of an assessment increase to property owners in each LMD.
The specific recommendations to implement the strategy are generally divided between pre-LMD
re -ballot (short term or next 18-24 months) and post-LMD re -ballot (longer term or years 3+ assuming a
successful re -ballot) as presented below.
13 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
Pre -Ballot Short Term Proposals and Recommendations
The short term proposals and recommendations would occur before an assessment re -balloting in 2021.
These recommendations will require City funding in Years 1 and 2.
• Tree Removal: The Advisory Committee recommends that the City provide funding for a more
aggressive tree removal and maintenance program along Twin Peaks Road and Espola Road.
The Committee's goal for Twin Peaks Road is to remove dead trees and smaller sprouts by the
end of Year 1 and at least 25% of the trees (primarily the mid-size off -shoots and diseased trees)
by the end of Year 2. The goal for Espola Road is to thin and remove the overgrown and unsafe
trees over the next two years. Removing trees will improve aesthetics, begin to address fire and
life safety issues, and demonstrate to LIVID property owners a sense of shared responsibility by
the City along these major arterials to bring the trees back to a state that will be manageable for
the LMDs over the long term. The LMD Advisory Committee will help the City identify priorities
for tree removal (using criteria such as tree density, proximity to roadways, sidewalks and
property lines, tree heights and diameters, etc.). There are several potential opportunities to
offset the costs of a City funding investment in tree removal and maintenance in the LMDs:
City grant application - City staff has applied for a $2 million Hazard Mitigation Grant
from the California Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management
Agency for Fuel Load Modification. If the grant application is successful, it will require a
$500,000 City match. While the grant application is for City-wide purposes, the
application justification includes the issues and needs of the LMDs. There is a possibility
that City funding committed to tree removal and maintenance in the LMDs over the
next several years could apply fully or partially to the required local match. The LIVID
Advisory Committee strongly supports the City's grant application to address the tree
maintenance and safety needs of both the LMDs and broader City.
Honor camp employment - Another opportunity involves the City's ability to employ
honor camps for approximately $200 a day to begin removal of smaller tree off -shoots
and debris and underbrush. The use of honor camps for this purpose could help jump-
start the effort at a very reasonable cost.
• Supplemental Water: The City contributed $165,500 from the General Fund toward the cost of
water for the two LMDs in the current fiscal year - a period during which watering frequency
was significantly reduced. The Committee recommends that the City continue to provide
supplemental funding for LIVID water costs, at a 5% annual escalation to reflect increases in
water rates, to help stem further deterioration and loss of landscaping and healthy trees in the
short term. The overarching strategy to rehabilitate both landscaping and irrigation systems
(thereby reducing water needs) is anticipated to ultimately reduce future demands on water in
the long term.
• Landscape Master Plan: The Committee believes that a landscape plan is critical to the success
of a future LIVID re -ballot as it would demonstrate to property owners the benefits resulting
from an increased assessment. The Committee recommends that a conceptual Landscape
Master Plan be prepared over the next year so that it is available to the Advisory Committee
leading up to a re -ballot information campaign. The conceptual plan would define the
14 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
landscape rehabilitation pallets for the entrances as well as appropriate landscaping strategies
for the arterial areas between entrances. (More detailed implementation design plans would be
prepared after a successful ballot). The plan would also take into account identified
maintenance area priorities. The Landscape Master Plan would be the basis for estimating the
capital rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance costs, which would then be used to identify the
increased assessment levels for a re -ballot.
• Model Entrances: To help overcome past resistance to assessment increases, the Committee
recommends that the City fund a "model" entrance in each LIVID to demonstrate to property
owners what they will get for an increase in their assessments. The ability to point to an in -the -
ground example will help both the Committee and City communicate benefits through sites that
have clear special benefit links to the neighborhoods. The model entrance would be defined in
the Landscape Master Plan and would include drought tolerant landscaping to control both
water and maintenance costs.
• Re -Balloting: As the re -balloting approaches at the end of Year 2, there are activities that will
need to occur that will require financial support from the City, including:
o Communications Activities -Advisory Committee funding to prepare informational
materials (i.e., fact sheets, flyers, signage, notices, adverts) to enable the Committee to
take on the role of advocates.
Engineer's Report - Preparation or updating of the Engineer's Report as required by
Proposition 218.
Re -balloting - Balloting activities, including preparation and printing of the ballots,
ballot mailing, and staff time associated with the distribution, collection and tallying of
the ballots.
In addition, the City is required to provide general benefit funding to the LMDs per Proposition 218. In
the current year, that contribution is $111,700 for both LMDs. The Committee recommends that the
City continue its practice of increasing its general benefit contribution annually in accordance with the
CPI for Years 1 and 2. LIVID assessment revenues would continue at the flat amount of $433,500 per
year.
The Year 1 and 2 short term recommendations described above support activities that the Committee
believes will contribute to a successful re -ballot in 2021 (proposed to be conducted toward the end of
Year 2). The Advisory Committee has estimated the level of funding necessary to undertake the Year 1
and 2 activities as shown in Attachment G. The recommended City funding to support these activities is
approximately $525,000 in Year 1 and $425,000 in Year 2 (totaling $950,000 in addition to the City's
general benefit contribution).
Post -Ballot Longer -Term Proposals and Recommendations
While some City funded activities will likely need to continue after a re -ballot regardless of the ballot
outcome, other proposals and recommendations would be dependent on, and implemented after, a
successful re -balloting in 2021. The Advisory Committee believes that City commitments to financially
support these post ballot recommendations will be critical to bolstering support for increased
10
15 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
assessments during the campaign leading up to a re -ballot. Such commitments will ensure assessed
property owners that the benefits associated with an increased assessment will, in fact, be realized:
• Tree Removal: To achieve the goal to remove 50% of the trees along Twin Peaks Road, tree
removal will likely need to continue through at least Years 3 and 4. (To address fire and life
safety issues, the Committee recommends that the City continue to provide tree removal
funding to the LMDs regardless of the outcome of the re -ballot.) Again, funding for this activity
may be able to be applied as local match for the hazard mitigation grant discussed above.
• Supplemental Water: Assuming the re -ballot is successful, new LMD assessments should be
sufficient to cover the cost of water, particularly as water -saving landscaping and more efficient
irrigation systems are implemented. However, should the re -ballot fail, the Committee
recommends that the City continue to provide supplemental water funding to the LMDs to fend
off any further deterioration of the remaining vegetation.
• Landscape Maintenance Plan Design Drawings: Assuming a successful re -ballot, specific design
plans will need to be prepared for the rehabilitation of neighborhood entrances, arterial areas,
and irrigation systems. These drawings will be based on the conceptual Landscape Master Plan
prepared in Year 1, prior to the re -ballot. The Committee recommends that the City fund the
design drawings to support implementation of the rehabilitation projects.
• Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities: As discussed previously, the Committee has
identified a number of maintained areas within the LMDs that have weak nexus to broader LMD
special benefit. These areas are candidates to shift to City maintenance responsibility. If it's not
feasible to remove these areas from the LMDs, the Committee recommends that the City
increase its financial contribution to the LMDs by an amount equivalent to the cost of
maintaining these sites.
• Capital Funding to Rehabilitate Entrances, Arterials, and Irrigation Systems: The Committee
recommends that the City establish a mechanism, prior to a re -ballot, that ensures some level of
one-time capital funding to help rehabilitate the neighborhood entrances, arterials, and
irrigation systems in Years 3-5 should the re -ballot be successful. The Committee views this
commitment as critical to the success of the re -ballot because our findings, as discussed
previously, indicate that lack of commitment, uncertainty, and distrust about when actual
benefits of re -landscaping would be realized played a significant role in the defeat of the
previous ballot. The cost for capital rehabilitation would be an outcome of the Landscape
Master Plan but is anticipated to be in the range of $725,000 over 3-4 years. The Committee
proposes that a portion of this funding could be provided to the LMDs as a loan to be repaid
over an extended period. Proposed LIVID assessment increases would then be calculated to
ensure sufficient revenues for ongoing maintenance, capital reserves and loan repayment.
Lastly, the City's required general benefit contribution will continue regardless of the re -ballot outcome.
The Engineer's Report prepared for the failed ballot recommended an increase in the City's general
benefit contribution for the two LMDs to 10% or $140,000 a year (escalated annually). The Committee
recommends that the City provide a general benefit contribution of at least $140,000 beginning in Year
3, regardless of ballot outcome, and continue its practice of escalating its general benefit contribution.
11
16 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
The Advisory Committee has estimated the level of funding necessary to undertake the Years 3, 4 and 5
activities as shown in Attachment G. The estimated City funding to support these activities is
approximately $384,000 in Year 3, $235,000 in Year 4 and $137,000 in Year 5 (totaling $756,000 in
addition to the City's general benefit contribution). All of the long term line item funding estimates will
need to be revisited after a successful re -ballot. The intent of both the short and long term
recommendations is that by Year 6, ongoing annual City funding to support the LMDs would consist
solely of the City's general benefit contribution and funding support for those maintained areas shifted
to City maintenance responsibility, the combination of which would be well below City funding provided
in the current fiscal year.
LMD ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITMENT TO CITY
Based on funded recommendations in the Years 1 and 2 and a commitment from the City to financially
support the activities recommended in Years 3-6, the Advisory Committee is committed to work toward
a successful LMD re -ballot that includes increased assessments to support long term maintenance.
Future activities for the Advisory Committee include:
• Creating Advisory Committee subcommittees to continue to support the City and staff with:
o Identifying trees for removal
o Refining maintenance priorities
o Preparation of the Landscape Master Plan
o Implementing "Model" entrances
o Preparation of a new or updated Engineer's Report
o Developing new LMD budgets, including projected costs (both one-time capital and
ongoing maintenance costs) and required revenues (assessment levels and City funding)
• Actively campaigning for new (increased) LMD assessments leading up to the re -balloting,
including:
1J Creating an outreach and communications plan
o Preparing fact sheets in plain language
o Hosting Open Houses
o Canvassing neighborhoods
o Responding to property owner questions/concerns
Growing a base of supporters to help with outreach and communications
• Establishing a volunteer LMD patrol to monitor landscape maintenance/contractor
performance and to alert the City to maintenance issues to ensure that maintenance doesn't
return to a state that it is unsustainable for the LMDs.
THE RISKS OF DOING NOTHING - PART 2
As discussed toward the beginning of this report, there are potential risks to the City of inaction.
Because the Advisory Committee understands that the proposed costs of "doing something" are
significant, the Committee tried to estimate the financial impact to the City should we not move forward
with a strategy to try to achieve a successful re -ballot. The Advisory Committee assumed that unless the
12
17 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1
City decides to completely withdraw financial support for emergency tree maintenance (which has its
own risks), at least current levels of City funding for emergency tree maintenance would likely continue
for the foreseeable future. In addition, to prevent both the trees and remaining landscaped areas from
deteriorating further, City funding for supplemental water would likely need to continue. The City's
general benefit contribution would also continue, increasing at least by current escalation rates. The
risk of doing nothing along could also trigger the additional risk that the LMDs dissolve completely
because there would no longer be any special benefit received from deteriorated, non-existent
landscaping. Dissolution of the LMDs would result in loss of current levels of LIVID assessments.
As the Advisory Committee sees it, the three scenarios for the LMDs currently before the City are:
• Pursue a strategy (preferably the Advisory Committee's recommended strategy) to rehabilitate
and stabilize the LMDs and bolster the chance of a successful re -ballot (Attachment G)
• Do -Nothing and continue to indefinitely provide reduced maintenance levels, and emergency
tree and supplemental water funding, at an annual escalating rate, in addition to the City's
general benefit contribution (Attachment H). This scenario results in heightened fire and safety
risks, and may lead to further deterioration of existing landscaping due to low levels of
maintenance.
• Do Nothing to the point where the LMDs dissolve due to loss of any special benefit to the
assessed properties from deteriorated landscaping. If the LMDs dissolve, it would result in loss
of LIVID assessments and the transfer of full maintenance responsibility and costs to the City.
Attachment B again graphically displays the projected costs to the City for each of the above scenarios.
It shows that City financial support in the first 3-4 years leads to significantly lower ongoing costs to the
City over the long term. Doing nothing results in gradually escalating costs for tree maintenance, water
and general benefit contribution. If the LMDs dissolve as a result of loss of special benefit, the cost to
the City spikes as it is forced to assume the $433,000 in funding each year that the LMDs currently
provide.
As the City Council considers the costs to the City of the recommended strategy over the next several
years, it should be pointed out that the net costs to the City would be significantly less than the Advisory
Committee's recommended funding. Net costs reflect the recommended strategy costs offset by the
cost of doing nothing that would occur anyway. The estimated net funding associated with the Advisory
Committee recommendations is shown in Attachment H. It shows that total net City funding
recommended to support the Advisory Committee strategy (including the City's general benefit
contribution) is approximately $550,000 over four years, and that by Year 5, the annual funding
obligation of the City is projected to be less under the recommended strategy than under a do nothing
scenario.
13
18 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A LIVID 83-1 and LIVID 86-1 Advisory Committee Members
Attachment B: Projected City Funding for Recommended, Do -Nothing, LMDs Dissolved Scenarios
Attachment C: Examples of Hidden Maintenance Areas
Attachment D: Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte Maintained Areas
Attachment E: Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
Attachment F: LMD Neighborhood Entrance Locations
Attachment G: Advisory Committee Strategy Recommended City Funding Table
Attachment H: Do -Nothing Scenario Projected Funding Required
14
19 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1
Attachment A
LIVID 83-1 and LIVID 86-1 Advisory Committee Members
Toni Bates, Chair
Dennis Christian
H. Speer Ezzard
Terry Heck
Robert Hinzman
Timothy Jara
Phillip Kissling
Dan Mathson
John McCormick, Vice Chair
Steve Meyer
David Narevsky
Rob Weber
Alan Wilson
15
20 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
$121nA0D
i
1.000.000
\ir!{f l,iNyl
City
Funding
Amount
$400000
$mQ000
Attachment B
Projected City Funding
Recommended, Do -Nothing, LMDs Dissolved
Scenarios
(LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 Combined(
So 1 IT -
0 1 2 3 I S 6 7 8 9 10
Faur IM
16
City LMD Funding
Contribution
Do Nothing'. City Funding No
Rehabgitation
—Advi o yComm,""
Recommendation City
Funding with Rehabilitation
LMDMwKed. City Funding
No RehabJrtaton
Nrn,. The Con, s general benefit
io u,.d n ..r luded rn the
taurrs aLwve
21 Of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment C
Examples of Hidden Maintenance Areas
In LIVID 83-1
17
22 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
LMD 83-1 A: Adobe Ridge 2
c
i � r VUI
y �
► s` 7,
.,,. 't
.t
r �
o
cP
'1
Irrigation Controller ^'
0 75 150 300 Feel I V
I i I i I
18
23 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item *5.1
LMD 83-1A: Country Creek
IM
r' ]f •. _TWIN PEAKS RD
* Irrigation Controller
0 100 200 400 Feet
I I I J
R
7i.
N
k -
24 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment D
Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte
LIVID Maintained Areas
M
SAN
D4 1 Q \ i
i a
A
y� •
3 e
r
w
e , '
u
+�a
Qo
�J
25 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment E
LIVID Advisory Committee
Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 83-1
contra d On pop 2
11
26 of 33 March 19, 2019. Item #5.1
Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 83-1
Arw
Mn
LMA
LW
LOSE I
RNvn
LOSC I LOSo MCM,
Cin hrrvee
hoerq
Son
EPWMTE
A,* Celt
ISQFr
A CrRwa Aa Martla
1
Ope,,spacer D. I -I Deedwrierof
lsao9
$011
7
• ce/ lbetnt need weer or much mwrcerurr
3766
Soil
3
• ce/ Doesnt need *error much mwneume
9296
$0.11
4
• Seutbree Camro del None w. t arc to fn, way 6316
72955
$0.1
S
Cawno eel Norte rrcdun/IAa r tnonuedam to fnrerwir,
26Q1
50.7
9. Adertre R91, 2
1
z
• Op,, e/ Demn.1 need weer or myth marRenarce
17937
50.1
2
•
•OW N,,ce I Deesan need wale w much murterurce
17167
$01
3
•
In wdww
50.1
4
•
fymeam}
still.
S
•
Plornarado
50.1
6
•
Pow da caner
$0.1
7
•
pcnwaftfftntw
$0.1
6
•
Ailed " M I 1008 to prowtv I optrc,n'. to$0
7653
$0.11
C. AdDW RdS, 1
1
•
a Southp& C ft NwWWw fhpnxaR to f,,enW
91124
So.1
o. Celonw
1
•
Etta Ke to d lwobohocel
50.1
7
•
Enbaree to orNe0bodw o0
$0.11
3
•
Pp ft rRd4R n hent of TaqW C~ 101
6017
50.2
E. T•d W rrs Pkft
1
•
Ma ttnro fare to lrwwa No IPKWI belfd to LNO
0172
50.11
2
•
Ma ttromumPlam to hwt No VeCQI beneM M LMD
41031
Wa
3
•
NO o' WNefd to LNO
20412
50.11
F. Rwcho ArbDkft 2
1
II
-M1jW1hDMuO18MtOfrftw•
Give to car t$ejmrtment to m ntar,,VNen to Arbo&l Rah
36743
$0.1
2
II
GR some or all to Crty pe ft depantment ro mtnnm
22610
$0.11
G.RKb Albo9ba3
1
a
N@Wftdwod mmme•
$0.11
2
a
wV4Ke
50.11
3
a
AM'wrb•ray' Iwr6c • rota nwrod erArnce
So.l l
4
•
• byUsto Teter kab Rdtmmt 4r94 nepr Y 1
$0.11
S
•
• OW460d Tway Rab Rdtwarw ImaWwrtenel
50.11
6
•
entnree
50.1
N. R No ArbMtof 1
1 I
• Tcb f>rde Rd tw, arca m. r anerul
$0.1
2
entrerce
50.1
3
MNun of na r anceul IT rnn halo n from of Teepee C~ 16116
3121
$0.
Rarcltu Artohoc4
1
a
fteqrtrorfood emrarce
$0.1
2
a Twn R•b Rd tree, am& wjorMeru'
SD.1
3
Twm Veatr Rd tree, aM vejor inert•'
Sol
4
a
Mf ,hood en[nrce
50.1
S
keqwtromope entrance
50.1
6
•
ero.m.
$D.i
7
•
ennnce
1
$0.1
f. Rarche ArbWrtos S
I
a
Tt•n Raka Rd tree arta / ma r arteria'
50.1
2
a
Twn Rab Re --------
50.1
3 1
N etrarcr
SDA
4
t
N etnrce
SDI
5
Twn Rab W tree arta / ma r anenal
50.1
contra d On pop 2
11
26 of 33 March 19, 2019. Item #5.1
R. wrOeYM H,
•n•
1771
51
Proposed Landscape Maintenance PriorWes by Maintained Area
LMD 83-1
Or.Intwr
jEk-
Be Sdhomf/off onn/ OPoon Remove from LW or return to
SOOD
Sall
u
!
12
emance
w••d CYrtgl
Sell
u
6•
2
• f Ne�fEorhood erVwc•
iwn Peaks Rd bRe•rR• f• 9t
u
5011
.1S
1
6•
N .hood erRrNce
N mood •nnr[w
2
5011
5011
L RM H•
1Nmow
1
pith wnn frees on Twin hats Rd
1
$0.11
brew D q!
d
1
NN.ow Path wnn lren on l wn teaks Rd
2
5011
Y GNR
1Nanow
6
NIS w,th .net on l wnn Peaks Rd
I.
$011
!
• Dfw Ortch N.nd Mme fenn.0 bn RRurn lO fl
6001
so ll
1
7Drarnare
d
' Ql rtOt W Wft iNtle inM
"Oolv." edea
••'lW wdrddroton6nyrnwgpefor mNnaeryrtce of three Mega Tley waW yeRlw rerrraved
Iqm N L W or [he f dr wood connwn ruS&SR IO the L W Wsed an •'pr sponte foot' cost
"7M pMlr� 111WId Ce On i MP•nte YM4Ie
LOS 6MdC enc ..Rant fgmtne 0021. 1036 CouYn ee n ICKOn o sed [M adsm Commmee
Onch hehnd Mme fenn. Ogwn Rnum to C
• • M th EehiM Mme across from Sone I. ,
"I
50.11
.11
S
• Nawow IS eh trees sir Tara Randa Rd
$0.11
N. Rio Cor
I
• Nanow th wdh tuna iww Peaks Rd
$all
1
• Comer of twin Peaks R d and EWo4t senna roue fer[es
sail
S
[ Nanow th wAh tree a E
11
0. hw• 16
1
•
Emnme/Snug ana aro C Rd. ugss farts) Par!
.11
!
[
Entnne SmM ana ab C Rd •cess lrern KRea IM
]1
1
• On NOe ftnetR Scl LW qes. Pq M W*Mlg rot MLW
1179
50.11
P Mldl"E W
limearto, urip a mdwn Rd.
it
O. Dwdrn•
I
•
DRnrce ant lnkee my owl MWaro Rd
Sall
1
•
"Mme ands 11 wy • M0 Rd
50.11
R ftftvww
I
It
Deana
soil
2
•
mooa•n•
5011
S RrOoMea/wUIY
1
•
Deana
5011
1
•
N od•rt•
sail
1
•
N rModirta
5011
6
•
N mood ana
$0.11
toW 43- JA OtN
toW 61.16 OnIV
tow FIwj
111091
11065
mim
LOS 66e11WOO s
1 6Wr11•nroR
S1
51
toss
26
I Lose
0•
uerr Caf•rol
u
21
12
2
w••d CYrtgl
26
u
6
2
u
6
1
7
6
2
1
0
aRN cdr
1
2
1
brew D q!
d
1
1
2
hscfd RSm
N
u
6
0
I.
21
0
w eeY
3
1
1
0
' Ql rtOt W Wft iNtle inM
"Oolv." edea
••'lW wdrddroton6nyrnwgpefor mNnaeryrtce of three Mega Tley waW yeRlw rerrraved
Iqm N L W or [he f dr wood connwn ruS&SR IO the L W Wsed an •'pr sponte foot' cost
"7M pMlr� 111WId Ce On i MP•nte YM4Ie
LOS 6MdC enc ..Rant fgmtne 0021. 1036 CouYn ee n ICKOn o sed [M adsm Commmee
2)
27 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
LMD Advisory Committee
Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 86-1
Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
L MO B6-1
iMWMPYI
23
28 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1
1
[
a
----
10YMInWIT MINM MrWR ADMIIT
a
[
a
10 IYIYIUT MIKN MIWR MOtRIT
l Y lylTabYWwof
1
a
a
M■pYIT WTM11IM1R
l
[
[
MMlwl■wQ(OM(f CYFFWiIDY YYII All 'r
•
a
Ifi1X ■fI■ItWTTOY tl •r _
• I Y IYa•rNX iM Tx
1
[
l
a
YCOIYtNDDURIad iO MOMa1v OW1Etl YKUSSIW
)
a
•
1
YIINIMTMIK[CDIIX[IICMtFWTIpY WHRYMOtlIMI'r _
f
1
f
a
MTN INMMK[<OM111<MYEWLIOY MNMTNN[D•TIMI'r
1
Y
S Y YV
/ ap YCM1HWtMl I'CPW[f W`�tONt•i •r
f F Y Yb YAM•
Y I
a
)
i
•
1M1x111gNKC COY1F11 GY1NWilOY MNXTYMFD.allM1'r
•
1
■
f
•
MTM IMiWKt (DIYM 4MWTTOY YYM\YNIOaT IIYFI'r
f
•
MiM]INIaNRECWM(AnFWRTOY YNNIYXCDaiIMI'r
1[ Ip re Y yM1YY
I
a
t
xtIMTMK([yI1NlIICMHOURIp Y_MMMINNfO•TIMI'•'
■
MTxt[M1MNCt (plXe RT YYNMINN[D•i l'r
1
a
a
MTxIIRMXCt COMIII CNM1IWIiOY MNNTYYO.1lM 'r
t I�eYY •NNXIILF� anw
I
1
I
[
1
■
•
a
■
1
•
MMlN1WKICpl1(tCMNWIiOY YYMIYMIp•l1M 'r
f
[
a
WI!•YfxY 1D1l ONCW MTM IIW MCaU
a
I
Ylia laYfMNYIAf[OMYNMTM yV )Ip(Il
S IYDD ION UYI 4
a
!
a
lD f.wxr Y■wwY
I
•
sm Nil
I
[
YCOIYYYIpIMfACx 10CO, YLL 11f9YNRtOaDSYdP1
I
1
YCOYtM)pUM!•Cx TOCuI Y f•C al9YNRXI.Ora[
iMWMPYI
23
28 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1
eel
t01 MM4mm• b..ryrem
Mv
,... a e......,,...
v
v
n
r.cmem
v
a
v
e
1
v
a
e
I
i
1
0
MrCeMm�
a
I
1
_
bm. lrrn cy.
a
I
1
1
4wap rywE 4.er
II
Il
a
O
1
1
0
•'
)
1
0
• Lb M �rlY tlwa4r.
••6NntiNal
••. en +eJl m bTr Y np,K bww4Vme i 11�e�e�.
ILIV�W YaYYrwr�iewrYY WDerr W �e�Y#AMe 1�\Y dtr 4YDle�are l� IMeA Y1• o!.
r..�e.erA w,ilYOsa Y�ftlreY
t•e.aC Ona .. em. w. it IDu[�wa
W60•
we
faewre
Inc
in
t01 MM4mm• b..ryrem
71
29 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
Mv
,... a e......,,...
v
v
n
r.cmem
v
a
v
e
1
v
a
e
I
i
1
0
MrCeMm�
a
I
1
_
bm. lrrn cy.
a
I
1
1
4wap rywE 4.er
II
Il
a
O
1
1
0
•'
)
1
0
• Lb M �rlY tlwa4r.
••6NntiNal
••. en +eJl m bTr Y np,K bww4Vme i 11�e�e�.
ILIV�W YaYYrwr�iewrYY WDerr W �e�Y#AMe 1�\Y dtr 4YDle�are l� IMeA Y1• o!.
r..�e.erA w,ilYOsa Y�ftlreY
t•e.aC Ona .. em. w. it IDu[�wa
W60•
we
faewre
71
29 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment F
LIVID 83-1 Neighborhood Entrance Locations
o
o�
z
Espola Rd*Oct
I
I
1..
I
vY P.M,"
pY A,unwwoD
s
0
5 ¢
S
2 e'
� Q
9
ca opc,ou,oa
i
z
a
r
25
30 of 33 March 19. 2019, Item #5.1
E
3
I
li . W ■ _ j
44
II
r
Elul
.4
-
s >
J ^ /
4
1�
i
Attachment G
Advisory Committee Strategy
Recommended City Funding Table
(LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1)
LVID 83-1
nem )ei
M.11,
.�$
m9/M
waR
r9mm
leas
Faun
1{a.
yrs
"nn.
Y..6
R Z./IS
yw)
RY2s/8
12
VVUM
9.9
R
Ift,"
Tree Pemwal ill
100,000
1m Am
IMO"
25,000
SuppW.t,WW.,2
1)d,n)
119567
115345
Mndwpe M»ter wn.l,
IOAM
25000
Mog1 m[ma 4" lmuexYn
u.o mmmetee [pnm�naa[lax fuadb
ISAO
SAO
Re Oalblin lNeaa frtrcer'a PeprE
4a44rcd Ma�memnre NU Pe MN
UpW RMad3ubm for fnbangflYd.l 1151
[.mal Renaa.alwn b,lvmEnm,o,nbxbn l[I
17,500
EPO
"Pot 15,800 47,174 . m 54"7 5 53 N
56 D
N•E• 000 ?SAM
SMOMI $4000
laanb,Cp *ReN kart n,b
JUSOMI
162.50M37,500
saftm
0400dYGeneM
BmeM Cawromxn'
59
!W-92!5686715
563658
%S.SM
567.535
569.%1
5)1¢.8$73797
S]6 11
SID 91
)ax tp EmdnE l4aommenaee •eeneol8erc6p
$228.833
$3.67.
$3.1960
R%.958
$275,242
$IM674
$119.608
S123,196
SMA92
$110,699
$134
WD 13.1 NrearmeM Reeenq, x.
$XI1.N
5]01b"
5301,6.0
NII.}00
Ni3.5%
54%24}
N".3}9
$"3A1Y9
NM,693
$.0991
$505.7}.
LMD 86-1
Tree Pemwal __
meow w»er _
Ia,iope M»u�PYn 1 _
Rb`IFnOance Nea lnxMx�m
wowl
%240
300.000
WAW
56$51
ISAO
WO
Wbt
9qe
%00
35,000
}5000
IIr10 Gmm.tee comm,n.xbM fax SAO
IY { E4w F.t,rce/f PepurE 17.500
Pl Mbme"na Nea R.q "*.,111
600 616 63) 6% 675 696 716
RMaWatlm b�fnnanq,lm w xbn1151
CaeYx Relu9aYtla, b�Nm-Fnnanae lr,9x.or1 sl
I 000 I
wp 50000 S0
Ipnb4pE/PeNtibxm ..
71 S.00fII 250.000
$101
GsrY GneM1 Cgnrbgbn pl S.e,]6) 5",VO N9b15
$76.123 $78,.0]' 580.759 583.181 A 588 47 $% 95
"I'll
Tqb C.y rlxdr9lGcgn,naaaea•Gra[aI GIaM) $118.12♦ $IS}A10 $2016767
5226.)13 $2]9,0]5 $181.395 583,07 52
WD L34fe»m.M P»r.,arff l8) $]336760 $131)0 Sn1e60
$512.000 55]7.360 SN3.1R1 $559.1)6 SSM261 S59]j N33255
$629b95
LMD 83-1 and LMD 861
TMP»noeel l
Iso
150
EMD
GIbE
V.
Iw,Mo
50,00
Ym Wb»121 wLwd Iwo) 167,.9]
Mndu Mater pM 131 $006700
50,000
_ _
MOCeI Fnnmae Mea Inrtlxm 50.000
IMD Ummkue ConmulkaabnEW»r 20670(2
Pe BYbmv { Ner E,�I,�ei a Deport SSAW
ft.4 4MMmerwrt Nea Pepma1WY1141
4pnalRMwrudm brfnpam[Ibd.l bn (5
_
.6,.W 4],79} 49.226 SQA3 S21U 53 SS $7
1 00 175670
fyblPMebllaxm br GmFnpely In 251
ICK06M =PC I
1pu,b faplW R.XVaf (61
1137,500) U7 .500
a��r
53R3
SM,9]. $IYM $15})41 $157 25 S16I $:Iw 6 $171913
0 GKfel PenOt CgbMPbn 17S111R6 $2156778 5118530
Tadt i GagIO.MM aGbxaal Gale" $3)]256 563BA" $N6A]7
5179]66 $285,019 $203,"Sj 52M.SUI SWAM 5222320 $IM3]9
7gdwo4 ...R..18) 1 N33 N3330 $133300
- '.n>9423 $267"6706 $1.039PM SIA7D 1.1 5 10}3" SI.Il5Al0
+•Amon IS .1 C...'.
Btl}ES fa SMD RdNary [dmmlWe Oa4 RtlWY19 R{gba fwlRW tL1 aW IMDil:
LJ . Eull p pMIY bI, m LMp Rpm Gry
I111n axe Wrrtnt Yab,Orywcmblpulillf$S0A00Iw acn IMDb.mnb.ma[rae r»„w» EutweMr prpp»aw v W,mmetMa Mto S15DA0 (SIM" to 83�1.M 5$0.110010WI)uM,1
t. mFgmarce,f ft .Iw "WF[oBe"tSI.%megY1gtX»!abft[muYYapplldtptNGry's rmure6 batmxa 1n0V1enMs,CGfsM,ntMNuaM MnifallMfraM pqk»1pn
Q) fuM1„P aw+dM bl Gry in VM CuneM lev to [w(• wlv mNs = SI65.5301511I,B]3lpr LMp 861 • $51,65] be 1M01611 4funb eso W,pn rab d SWYear ba Ygtn,n Yeah 1 an6 2 pr,q m
mW Ib[v,6. 4tum» [ugnElul reylb[ wauY 1,1[re»e lMpnuffinen[L xmYn»Iry IM neM Ia G[Y wppMnmtal pl» lundry
P) Nwm». mmpir,M MrMf»p. Mat» »an p,b 6e preprld Iq pMX LMDa, Tb.rebe, IM tqx mN 1f f V I quaXY 6eE,aRen lMp
M)pglafucmiNl yRq Me,wum»Gry vwY[pnr meMerungmftE br a,w WmI11N DEtMMrlagy(nmq,nw»n»ryleaeL was tp LM0 Mepal6enMh 4»rafe mrn[anYRe MU,n melMG
6AYr b rwM» melon area ISQie/sPAI aM o[ner rl(ImaM�gy I5a-11/70 R.1. In 6l-1, iXe xxnd.e ace» roW apprm�mrtbY 353.100 quxeka1131IA00 M O.1 Vw P minlmage coil aM 41670
pl[l S0IVap1l m,n Me[m113q 861.[neMkpne arMdappmmatby S,riMNR.a50.11/p.R. 4lM0afnimmu»auu In EX,t y4rs.wuma rmb br Cn3'mYMmVKe b"
raponubltla wuid euaua»samerae. F3alana nu awmtd to fa 3%. Qxw wlmbb dp nq lMlWeLMD83161
DI Eq MraMe rb,wnrtaron, »...nef apgmm».N 19 mbanm P,m L comes b $13,500 maadlwabn mNegn» oar m1w awn br. taal d Nl$,DDp Fq nrptam,Maeuuam, »wmb
$ISOAOAMO
bl Pawnn Dry wpuW loan 1X1 LMM .11 1" cab for aow r.X.Mlnrtron
QI M tti oarlmt Yw. pry's Genera BmeM mntMMlm 1s $111.R615N.9" br 3"08;.1 •146,]67 b 1MD86p TXe Gry M Man waYpq ns cmnleutbn mn WRy M M OL 11,eraloq Mw yMti
w�nba3%emalbalbbndme CM1yl Gar,1rb 11r,1P1 wntnWtan iM 3038 Erynaw�sPapwi rammmerWd atiry GmnalBmMt (mm6uomd10%.vbM �awmad rolse $206702%3,651
b VPD83�1 • $]6,2}3 M lMD M�11 X1d tlx blbt IOsad and nese avbimmu Gam ,n eRaq. TI,erlfon.6ap1nXlr nYear 31ww same" W1b[I. m. CXv � GrrM BmMt cmtwbutbn X w,mN io
b In 6mpma Mtn 1X1 iD1a frylMYfs 8apyt.
PI 4sum» lM0 mumu» q,va4q ro IMae prp»gad 1n tNe M1IIM 3016 MM, bunted i%mnuYM
27
32 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment H
Do -Nothing Scenario
Projected Funding Required
(LVID 83-1 and LVID 86-1)
Nb,sY J9 ]019 Lb YINq LMfq @9��Y0
ve r Iro.r`9.9[..brr Yw9�Y7 Nw.r. o.rl rwws.r I.ry r9�rru9nul.b uw9r1
n Iw w �.......� rw.Iwrbb f9om9 N �* u.oN... •..w........ Nw. w+..r ww..w..w Iww.....wl.w. b.r....,....9..., ov.-w ... �, ....bsr.�r.�ww..e
a�w b.c.w.. •�. w.a.�rr w�rw.911L9» nkM9N wou 1.w Jsr N ulo �I� *ww+w r,.....r.. ww....,.+www. m n..w.. Yw.I�.brw.lcnwi rrww rr
[h.W.:9wI1�w� br,.0 W.sb b IIl]A9 n.N 1 dam. w ..� I.ww� b 10.r ww w�..M. iw f1.9.mJ, n... �w IMw+W vwwb
OIIwYrwwbYM 04w Y.[wwIMMOY.tiIs11•f965YM111>Ib bOil•S91i9)N IYDN II Y.iww w.n •/.ItV..w \•.� w'ww.bb.w.lNYbw,.w. ww,�Yww. M..
28
33 of 33 March 19, 2019. Item #5.1