08-06-19 Agenda PacketItem 1 . 1
Approval of Reading by Title Only and
Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances
on Agenda.
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
August 6, 2019, Item # 1.2
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
City of Poway
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
August 6, 2019
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Faviola Medina, City Clerk 'Vt\/\ (858)668-4535 or fmedina@poway.org \ \¥ \
Approval of Minutes
The City Council Meeting Minutes submitted hereto for approval are:
•June 18, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The Poway City Council sits as the Poway Planning Commission, the Poway Housing Authority,
the Public Financing Authority, and the Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Minutes as submitted.
Public Notification:
None.
Attachments:
A.June 18, 2019 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
Reviewed/Approved By:
Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
City Manager
1 of 7 August 6, 2019, Item #1.3
2 of 7 August 6, 2019, Item #1.3
3 of 7 August 6, 2019, Item #1.3
4 of 7 August 6, 2019, Item #1.3
5 of 7 August 6, 2019, Item #1.3
6 of 7 August 6, 2019, Item #1.3
7 of 7 August 6, 2019, Item #1.3
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.4
August 6, 2019, Item #1.5
August 6, 2019, Item #1.5
August 6, 2019, Item #1.5
August 6, 2019, Item #1.6
August 6, 2019, Item #1.6
August 6, 2019, Item #1.6
August 6, 2019, Item #1.6
August 6, 2019, Item #1.6
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.7
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
Fiscal Impact:
Sufficient funds are available in the adopted Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget ($50,000 for private
property abatement and $35,000 for City property abatement in account 301030-49180). All costs
incurred for the Vegetation Management Program on private properties are fully offset in the
Nuisance Abatement revenue account (301030-77600) by the property owners via their property
tax roll on a time-and-material basis, plus a City administrative fee of $175.00 per parcel. All
costs incurred for abatement of approximately 60 City properties will be at full cost to the City.
Public Notification:
None.
Attachments:
A.Standard Agreement for Services with DBI Services
Reviewed/Approved By:
Wendy aserman
Assistant City Manager
2 of 21
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
c�
City Manager
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
"Consultant" means an individual who, pursuant to a contract with a state or local
agency:
(A)Makes a governmental decision whether to:
1.Approve a rate, rule or regulation;
2.Adopt or enforce a law;
3.Issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license, application,
certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization or entitlement;
4.Authorize the City to enter into, modify, or renew a contract provided
it is the type of contract that requires City approval;
5.Grant City approval to a contract that requires City approval and to
which the City is a party, or to the specifications for such a contract;
6.Grant City approval to a plan, design, report, study, or similar item;
7.Adopt, or grant City approval of, policies, standards, or guidelines
for the City, or for any subdivision thereof; or
(B)Serves in a staff capacity with the City and in that capacity participates in making
a governmental decision as defined in the Political Reform Act and/or
implementing regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission,
or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the City that would
otherwise be performed by an individual holding a position specified in the City's
Conflict of Interest Code.
DISCLOSURE DETERMINATION:
1:8] 1. Consultant/Contractor will not be "making a government decision" or
"serving in a staff capacity" as defined in Sections A and B above.
No disclosure required.
D 2.Consultant/Contractor will be "making a government decision" or "serving
in a staff capacity" as defined in Sections A and B above. As a result,
Consultant/Contractor shall be required to file a Statement of Economic Interest
with the City Clerk of the City of Poway in a timely manner as required by law.
Robert J. Manis, Director of Development Services
10.No Assignments.
Neither any part nor all of this Agreement may be assigned or subcontracted,
except as otherwise specifically provided herein, or to which City, in its sole discretion, consents
to in advance thereof in writing. Any assignment or subcontracting in violation of this provision
shall be void.
11.Maintenance of Records.
Consultant shall maintain all books, documents, papers, employee time sheets,
accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred and shall make such
materials available at its office at all reasonable times during the contract period and for one (3)
years from the date of final payment under this Agreement, for inspection by City and copies
3 5 of 21 August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.8
August 6, 2019, Item #1.9
August 6, 2019, Item #1.9
August 6, 2019, Item #2.1
August 6, 2019, Item #2.1
August 6, 2019, Item #2.1
August 6, 2019, Item #2.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.1
August 6, 2019, Item #3.2
August 6, 2019, Item #3.2
August 6, 2019, Item #3.2
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #4.1
August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
August 6, 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.
7 of 51 ATTACHMENT A August 6, 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 LMD
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 LMD 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 LMD 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, LMD 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
LMD 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:
8 of 51 August 6, 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, LMD 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:
o Perceived poor City management of LMDs that resulted in loss of landscaped areas,
overgrown trees, and failure to anticipate future needs
o 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
9 of 51 August 6, 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.
o 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.
o 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
10 of 51 August 6, 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 LMDs have somewhat different maintenance needs:
o 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.
o 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.
11 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 83-1 that the LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 86-1, and to once a month for LMD 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 LMD property
owners will need to know not only what is planned, but also when it will occur the next time
12 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 83-1 and
approximately 11 entrances (20 corners) along Espola Road in LMD 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
13 of 51 August 6, 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.
14 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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:
o 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 LMD
Advisory Committee strongly supports the City’s grant application to address the tree
maintenance and safety needs of both the LMDs and broader City.
o 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 LMD 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 LMD 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
15 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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.
o Engineer’s Report – Preparation or updating of the Engineer’s Report as required by
Proposition 218.
o 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. LMD 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
16 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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.
17 of 51 August 6, 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:
o 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
o 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
18 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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 LMD 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.
19 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A LMD 83-1 and LMD 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
20 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment A
LMD 83-1 and LMD 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
21 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment B
Projected City Funding
Recommended, Do-Nothing, LMDs Dissolved
Scenarios
(LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 Combined)
22 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment C
Examples of Hidden Maintenance Areas
In LMD 83-1
(highlighted in yellow)
23 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
24 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
25 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment D
Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte
LMD Maintained Areas
LMD 83-1A: Ted Williams Parkway
26 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment E
LMD Advisory Committee
Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 83-1
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
A. Gateway/LaManda 1 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 15409 $0.11
2 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 3766 $0.11
3 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 9296 $0.11
4 x x Southside Camino del Norte/Manor thoroughfare to freeway (83-1B) 22055 $0.11
5 x Camino del Norte median/Major thoroughfare to freeway 26421 $0.28
B. Adobe Ridge 2 1 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 27937 $0.11
2 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 13187 $0.11
3 x In neighborhood $0.11
4 x Pomerado frontage $0.11
5 x Pomerado frontage $0.11
6 x Pomerado frontage / Open space corner $0.11
7 x Pomerado frontage $0.11
8 x x Along drainage ditch / 100% private property / Option: LOS D 2653 $0.11
C. Adobe Ridge 1 1 x x Southside Camino del Norte/Manor thoroughfare to freeway 91124 $0.11
D. Colonies 1 x Entrance to Colony Dr. neighborhood $0.11
2 x Entrance to Colony Dr. neighborhood $0.11
3 x Pomerado medians in front of Target Center (83-1B)6887 $0.28
E. Ted Williams Pkwy 1 x Major thoroughfare to freeway / No special benefit to LMD 38172 $0.11
2 x Major thoroughfare to freeway / No special benefit to LMD 41031 $0.28
3 x Major thoroughfare to freeway / No special benefit to LMD 20432 $0.11
F. Rancho Arbolitos 2 1 x Give to City parks department to maintain/Next to Arbolitos Park 36743 $0.11
2 x Give some or all to City parks department to maintain 12610 $0.11
G. Rancho Arbolitos 3 1 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
2 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
3 x Add "entrance" landscaping although not a neighborhood entrance $0.11
4 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
5 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
6 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
H. Rancho Arbolitos 1 1 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
2 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
3 x Median of major arterial (Twin Peaks)/In front of Target Center (83-1B) 3121 $0.28
I. Rancho Arbolitos 4 1 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
2 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
3 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
4 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
5 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
6 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
7 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
J. Rancho Arbolitos 5 1 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
2 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
3 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
4 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11
5 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
SQ FT
ESTIMATEComments
LMD ResponsibilityArea
No.Map Page
Return
to City
On Private
Property
Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 83-1
continued on page 2
Avg. Cost
/ SQ FT
27 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Page 2
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
K. Woodland Hills 1 x x Behind home / off street / Option: Remove from LMD or return to City 5000 $0.11
2 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11
3 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11
4 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11
5 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11
6 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11
L. Kent Hill 1 x Narrow path with trees on Twin Peaks Rd.$0.11
2 x Narrow path with trees on Twin Peaks Rd.$0.11
M. Country Creek 1 x Narrow path with trees on Twin Peaks Rd.$0.11
2 x x Drainage Ditch behind home fences; Option: Return to City 6889 $0.11
3 x Drainage Ditch behind home fences; Option: Return to City 943 $0.11
4 x x Hiking path behind home across from horse stables $0.11
5 x Narrow path with trees along Tierra Bonita Rd.$0.11
N. Rio Court 1 x Narrow path with trees along Twin Peaks Rd. $0.11
2 x Corner of Twin Peaks Rd. and Espola behind house fences $0.11
3 x Narrow path with trees along Espola $0.11
O. Poway 16 1 x Entrance / Small area along Community Rd. across from Hilleary Park $0.11
2 x Entrance / Small area along Community Rd. across from Hilleary Park $0.11
3 x On side street behind LMD properties; Properties benefiting not in LMD 1479 $0.11
P. Midland Estates 1 x Entrance / Small strip along Midland Rd. $0.11
Q. Diroma 1 x Entrance and small strip along Midland Rd.$0.11
2 x Entrance and small strip along Midland Rd.$0.11
R. Park Village 1 x Neighborhood area $0.11
2 x Neighborhood area $0.11
S. Arbolitos Parkside 1 x Neighborhood area $0.11
2 x Neighborhood area $0.11
3 x Neighborhood area $0.11
4 x Neighborhood area $0.11
Total 83-1A Only 353092
Total 83-1B Only 32063
Total Square Feet 385155
Frequency/Year Performed LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
Return to City
Irrigation Inspection/Operation & Maintenance 52 52 26 0****
52 24 12 2 ***
24 12 6 2 ***
12 6 3 2 ***
4 2 1 0 ***
4 2 1 *****
4 2 1 2 ***
24 12 6 0 ***
2 1 0 *****
3 1 1 0 ***
* Do not irrigate these areas.
**Only as needed
***LMD would no longer be responsible for maintenance of these areas. They would be either removed
from the LMD or the City would contribute funding to the LMD based on a "per square foot" cost.
****Tree pruning would be on a separate schedule
LOS A, B and C descriptions are from the August 21, 2018 Council Agenda Report. LOS D is proposed by the Advisory Committee
Tree Pruning****
Watering/Week
LOS Maintenance Descriptions
Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 83-1
Edging/Pruning
Fertilizing
Pest Control
Brow Ditch Cleaning
Sweep Paved Areas
SQ FT
ESTIMATE
Avg. Cost
/ SQ FT
Litter Control
Weed Control
CommentsMap Page
Area
No.
LMD Responsibility Return
to City
On Private
Property
28 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
LMD Advisory Committee
Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 86-1
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
1 St. James Dr. and St. Andrews Dr. Espola Rd.1 X* X*X ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY; *MTCE LEVEL D; IRRIGATION LEVEL C
2 X
2 Espola Rd (Westling Ct-Stoneridge SE Corner)1 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
2 X X APPEARS TO BE PARTIALLY WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY
3 X X APPEARS TO BE PARTIALLY WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY
3 Espola Rd (Green Valley Truck Trl to Bridelwood Rd) 1 X X APPEARS TO BE PARTIALLY WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY
2 X
3 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
4 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
4 Espola Rd ( Woodlawn Pkwy-Green Valley Truck Trl 1 X
2 X RECOMMEND OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS - DISCUSSION
3 X
4 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
5 X
6 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
7 X
5 MISSING THIS MAP PAGE IF ESPOLA RD., RECOMMEND LEVEL "B", CORNER CARVEOUTS AT LEVEL "A"
6 Espola Rd (Lake Poway Rd to Sand Hill Rd/Summer Sage Rd 1 X
2 X
3 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
4 X
5 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
6 X WITH 2 ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
7 Espola Rd (Eden Grove/Titan Way-Sand Hill Rd 1 X X WITH 2 ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
2 X WITH 2 ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
3 X X (PARTIAL) WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
8 Espola Rd (Willow Ranch Rd-Eden Grove/Titan Way) 1 X
2 X
3 X
4 X X
5 X X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
6 X X MAP PAGE 8 HAS SOME OVERLAP WITH MAP PAGE 12
7 X ? MAP PAGE 8 HAS SOME OVERLAP WITH MAP PAGE 12
9 13800-14050 Lake Poway Rd 1 X
2 X
3 X
10 Summer Sage Rd Rock Creek Rd 1 X 5185 $0.11
2 X RECOMMEND OUTREACH TO CUL DE SAC RESIDENTS FOR DISCUSSION
3 X RECOMMEND OUTREACH TO CUL DE SAC RESIDENTS FOR DISCUSSION
Avg. Cost
/ SQ FTMap Page
continued on page 2
Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 86-1
Comments
LMD ResponsibilityArea
No.
Return to
City
On Private
Property
SQ FT
ESTIMATE
29 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
page 2
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
11 Lake Poway Rd Summer Sage Rd 1 X PORTION WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
2 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A"
3 X
4 X
5 X
6 X
7 X
12 Titan Way Riparian Rd 1 X X See #6 on Map Page 8
2 X ? See #7 on Map Page 8
3 X SEE--> OWNED BY POWAY USD
13 Del Poniente Rd Huntington Gate Dr (1)1 X PORTION
2 X
3 X
4 X PORTION
5 X
14 Del Poniente Rd Huntington Gate Dr (2)1 X
15 Sunset Dr Wildgrove Rd 1 X ? EXTENT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, IF ANY, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED
16 Lake Poway Rd East of Espola Rd 1 PORTION APPEARS TO BE PRIVATE PROPERTY COORDINATE W. MAP PAGE 6
2 COORDINATE W. MAP PAGE 6
3 COORDINATE W. MAP PAGE 6
Total Square Feet 5185
LOS Maintenance Descriptions
Frequency/Year Performed LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
Irrigation Inspection/Operation & Maintenance 52 52 26 0*
Litter Control 52 24 12 2
Weed Control 24 12 6 2
Edging/Pruning 12 6 3 2
Fertilizing 4 2 1 0
Pest Control 4 2 1 **
Brow Ditch Cleaning 4 2 1 2
Sweep Paved Areas 24 12 6 0
Tree Pruning****2 1 0 **
Watering/Week 3 1 1 0
CommentsPage Name
Area
No.
LMD Responsibility Return to
City
On Private
Property
SQ FT
ESTIMATE
***
***
***
***LMD would no longer be responsible for maintenance of these areas. They would be either removed from the LMD or the City would contribute funding to the LMD based on a "per square foot" cost.
****Tree pruning would be on a separate schedule.
LOS A, B and C descriptions are from the August 21, 2018 Council Agenda Report. LOS D is proposed by the Advisory Committee.
Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area
LMD 86-1
***
***
* Do not irrigate these areas.
**Only as needed.
***
***
***
***
***
Avg. Cost
/ SQ FT
Return to City
30 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment F
LMD 83-1 Neighborhood Entrance Locations
North 31 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
LMD 86-1 Neighborhood Entrance Locations
32 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment G
Advisory Committee Strategy
Recommended City Funding Table
(LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1)
Current Year Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
FY18/19 FY19/20 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 FY24/25 FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29
Tree Removal (1)50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 25,000
Supplemental Water (2)113,873 119,567 125,545
Landscape Master Plan (3)100,000 25,000
Model Entrance Area Installation 25,000
LMD Committee Communications Funding 5,000
Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report 17,500
Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities (4)45,800 47,174 48,589 50,047 51,548 53,095 54,688 56,328
Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) (5)75,000 75,000 25,000
Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation (5)50,000 50,000 50,000
Loan for Capital Rehabilitation (6)(62,500) (62,500) (37,500)
Total Recommended City Funding $163,873 $319,567 $273,045 $233,300 $209,674 $111,089 $50,047 $51,548 $53,095 $54,688 $56,328
City General Benefit Contribution (7)$64,959 $66,908 $68,915 $63,658 $65,568 $67,535 $69,561 $71,648 $73,797 $76,011 $78,291
Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$228,832 $386,474 $341,960 $296,958 $275,242 $178,624 $119,608 $123,196 $126,892 $130,699 $134,620
LMD 83-1 Assessment Revenues (8)$201,640 $201,640 $201,640 $411,200 $423,536 $436,242 $449,329 $462,809 $476,693 $490,994 $505,724
Tree Removal (1)50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000
Supplemental Water (2)51,657 54,240 56,952
Landscape Master Plan (3)100,000 25,000
Model Entrance Area Installation 25,000
LMD Committee Communications Funding 5,000
Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report 17,500
Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities (4)600 618 637 656 675 696 716 738
Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) (5)100,000 100,000 50,000
Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation (5)50,000 50,000 50,000
Loan for Capital Rehabilitation (6)(75,000) (75,000) (50,000)
Total Recommended City Funding $101,657 $204,240 $154,452 $150,600 $200,618 $100,637 $656 $675 $696 $716 $738
City General Benefit Contribution (7)$46,767 $48,170 $49,615 $76,123 $78,407 $80,759 $83,182 $85,677 $88,247 $90,895 $93,622
Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$148,424 $252,410 $204,067 $226,723 $279,025 $181,395 $83,837 $86,352 $88,943 $91,611 $94,360
LMD 86-1 Assessment Revenues (8)$231,860 $231,860 $231,860 $512,000 $527,360 $543,181 $559,476 $576,261 $593,548 $611,355 $629,695
Tree Removal (1)100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 50,000
Supplemental Water (2)165,530 173,807 182,497
Landscape Master Plan (3)200,000 50,000
Model Entrance Area Installation 50,000
LMD Committee Communications Funding 10,000
Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report 35,000
Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities (4)46,400 47,792 49,226 50,703 52,224 53,790 55,404 57,066
Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) (5)175,000 175,000 75,000
Capital Rehabilitaiton for Non-Entrance Irrigation (5)100,000 100,000 100,000
Loan for Capital Rehabilitation (6)(137,500) (137,500) (87,500)
Total Recommended City Funding $265,530 $523,807 $427,497 $383,900 $235,292 $136,726 $50,703 $52,224 $53,790 $55,404 $57,066
City General Benefit Contribution (7)$111,726 $115,078 $118,530 $139,781 $143,974 $148,294 $152,742 $157,325 $162,044 $166,906 $171,913
Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$377,256 $638,884 $546,027 $523,681 $379,266 $285,019 $203,445 $209,548 $215,835 $222,310 $228,979
Total LMD Assessment Revenues (8)$433,500 $433,500 $433,500 $923,200 $950,896 $979,423 $1,008,806 $1,039,070 $1,070,242 $1,102,349 $1,135,420
February 25, 2019 -COMBINED
NOTES for LMD Advisory Committee Draft Funding Request for LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1:
(4) Post a successful ballot vote, assumes City would cover maintenance costs for areas identified by the Advisory Committee as having weak nexus to LMD special benefit. Average maintenance costs in the LMDs
differ for roadway median areas ($0.28/sq.ft) and other rights-of-way ($0.11/sq.ft.). In 83-1, the identified areas total approximately 353,100 square feet (312,000 at $0.11/sq.ft. maintenance cost and 41,000
sq.ft.@ $0.28/sq.ft. maintenance cost). For 86-1, there is one area of approximately 5,200 sq.ft. at $0.11/sq. ft. As LMD assessments escalate in out years, assumes costs for City maintenance area
responsibilities would escalate at same rate. Escalation rate assumed to be 3%. (These estimates do not include LMD 83-1B).
(5) For entrance rehabilitation, assumes approximately 19 entrances with 34 corners at $12,500 rehabilitation cost/corner over three years for a total of $425,000. For irrigation rehabilitation, assumes
$150,000/LMD.
(6) Assumes City would loan the LMDs half the costs for capital rehabilitation.
(8) Assumes LMD revenues equivalent to those projected in the failed 2018 ballot, escalated 3% annually.
(1) In the Current Year, City is contributing $50,000 for each LMD for emergency tree removal. Future year proposals would increase that amount to $150,000 ($100,000 to 83-1 and $50,000 to 86-1) until
tree maintenance is stabilized (projected to be Year 5). Some or all of these costs could be applied to the City's required local match should it be successful in the Hazard Mitigation grant application.
(7) In the Current Year, City's General Benefit contribution is $111,726 ($64,949 for LMD 83-1 + $46,767 for LMD 86-1). The City has been escalating its contribution annually by the CPI. Therefore, future years'
assumes a 3% annual escalation of the City's General Benefit contribution. The 2018 Engineer's Report recommended a City General Benefit Contribution of 10%, which was assumed to be $140,000 ($63,658
for LMD 83-1 + $76,123 for LMD 86-1) had the ballot passed and new assessments been in effect. Therefore, beginning in Year 3 (post successful ballot), the City's General Benefit contribution is assumed to
be in accordance with the 2018 Engineeer's Report.
(2) Funding provided by City in the Current Year to cover water costs = $165,530 ($113,873 for LMD 86-1 + $51,657 for LMD 86-1). Assumes escalation rate of 5%/year for water in Years 1 and 2 prior to
re-balloting. Assumes successful re-ballot would increase LMD assessments, eliminating the need for City supplemental water funding.
(3) Assumes a combined Landscape Master Plan would be prepred for both LMDs. Therefore, the total cost is split equally between LMDs.
LMD 83-1
= Full or partial loan to LMD from City
LMD
Ballot
Vote
Year 2
FY20/21
LMD
Ballot
Vote
LMD 86-1
LMD
Ballot
Vote
LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1
33 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Attachment H
Do-Nothing Scenario
Projected Funding Required
(LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1)
Current Year Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
FY18/19 FY19/20 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 FY24/25 FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29
Emergency Tree Maintenance and Removal (1)50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50000 50000 50000
City General Benefit Contribution (2)64,959 66,908 68,915 70,982 73,112 75,305 77,564 79,891 82,288 84,757 87,299
Supplemental Water (3)113,873 119,567 125,545 131,822 138,413 145,334 152,601 160,231 168,242 176,654 185,487
Landscape Master Plan
Model Entrance Area Installation
LMD Committee Communications Funding
Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report
Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities
Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation)
Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation
Loan for Capital Rehabilitation
Total City Funding for LMD 83-1 $228,832 $236,474 $244,460 $252,805 $261,525 $270,639 $280,165 $290,122 $300,530 $311,411 $322,787
Tree Removal (1)50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50000 50000 50000
City General Benefit Contribution (2)46,767 48,170 49,615 51,104 52,637 54,216 55,842 57,518 59,243 61,020 62,851
Supplemental Water (3)51,657 54,240 56,952 59,799 62,789 65,929 69,225 72,687 76,321 80,137 84,144
Landscape Master Plan
Model Entrance Area Installation
LMD Committee Communications Funding
Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report
Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities
Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation)
Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation
Loan for Capital Rehabilitation
Total City Funding for LMD 86-1 $148,424 $152,410 $156,567 $160,903 $165,426 $170,145 $175,068 $180,204 $185,564 $191,157 $196,995
Tree Removal (1)100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
City General Benefit Contribution (2)111,726 115,078 118,530 122,086 125,749 129,521 133,407 137,409 141,531 145,777 150,150
Supplemental Water (3)165,530 173,807 182,497 191,622 201,203 211,263 221,826 232,917 244,563 256,791 269,631
Landscape Master Plan
Model Entrance Area Installation
LMD Committee Communications Funding
Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report
Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities
Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation)
Capital Rehabilitaiton for Non-Entrance Irrigation
Loan for Capital Rehabilitation
Total Projected Do-Nothing City Funding Required for LMDs $377,256 $388,884 $401,027 $413,708 $426,951 $440,784 $455,233 $470,326 $486,094 $502,568 $519,781
Total Recommended City Funding (From Advisory Committee)$265,530 $523,807 $427,497 $383,900 $235,292 $136,726 $50,703 $52,224 $53,790 $55,404 $57,066
City General Benefit Contribution (2)$111,726 $115,078 $118,530 $122,086 $125,749 $129,521 $133,407 $137,409 $141,531 $145,777 $150,150
Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$377,256 $638,884 $546,027 $505,986 $361,041 $266,247 $184,109 $189,632 $195,321 $201,181 $207,217
Net City Funding Total (Advisory Committee Recommendation + General Benefit)
(Difference between Total City Funding and Do-Nothing)$250,000 $145,000 $92,278 ($65,911) ($174,537) ($271,123)($280,694) ($290,773) ($301,387) ($312,565)
February 25, 2019 -Do-Nothing Scenario COMBINED
NOTES for LMD Advisory Committee Do-Nothing Scenario: Draft Proposed Funding Request for LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1:
(2) In the Current Year, City's General Benefit contribution is $111,726 ($64,949 for LMD 83-1 + $46,767 for LMD 86-1). The City has been escalating its contribution annually by the CPI. Therefore, future years assume a 3% annual escalation of the
City's General Benefit contribution under a Do Nothing scenario to $122,086 in Year 3 forward vs. a Year 3 increase to 10% of new assessments (or $140,000) as in the Recommended scenario.
(3) Funding provided by City in the Current Year to cover water costs = $165,530 ($113,873 for LMD 86-1 + $51,657 for LMD 86-1). Assumes escalation rate of 5%/year for water. Water costs would fail to become more manageable in the future
years in the absence of installation of drought tolerant landscaping and more efficient irrigations systems.
LMD 83-1
LMD 86-1
No
LMD
Ballot
Vote
LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1
Year 2
FY20/21
No
LMD
Ballot
Vote
(1) In the Current Year, City is contributing $50,000 for each LMD for tree removal. Assumes future years would require at least the same investment to address tree emergencies. Does not lead to stabilization of trees and tree maintenance.
No
LMD
Ballot
Vote
34 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
CITY OF POWAY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dave Grosch, Deputy Mayor
Caylin Frank, Councilmember
DATE: June 4, 2019
SUBJECT: Workshop Request for Landscape Maintenance District 83-1 and 86-1
The assessment revenue collected in Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs} 83-1 and 86-1
are no longer sufficient to fund their improvements and services. Reserve funds have been
gradually depleted as expenses have grown and revenues have not. Consequently, the level of
landscape maintenance service has gradually been reduced, based on the available funding,
causing a deterioration of landscape conditions.
Following a failed Prop 218 ballot process last year to increase assessment rates for these two
districts, the City Council authorized staff to establish a Volunteer Advisory Group and
appropriated one-time funding to the LMDs for water costs and emergency tree removal. The
Advisory Group presented the City Council with its recommendations at a workshop on March 19,
2019. While the workshop discussion acknowledged the dire conditions of the LMDs, including
the health and safety risks caused by dead and diseased trees along main arterials, the meeting
did not provide enough direction to staff for further action to be taken.
There are still many questions and options to consider in addressing the future of LMDs 83-1 and
86-1, lncluding:
•Creating a landscape master plan•Costs and funding options for recommendations•Strategy and costs for a re-balloting and/or reengineering•Capital improvements needed in each LMD
Per Council direction on May 7, 2019, another LMD Workshop will be held on July 16, 2019, to
elaborate on these options and come to a consensus on a clear plan of action for staff to execute.
35 of 51 ATTACHMENT B August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
ktua
July 2, 2019
City of Poway
Public Works Department
Poway, CA
Attention:
Regarding:
Project:
Dear Eric,
Mr. Eric Heideman
Project Manager
Proposal for Landscape Architecture Services
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
3916 Normal Street
San Diego, CA 92103
619.294.4477
www.ktua.com
PLA 2342 I 2386 I 2500 I 3734
We appreciate the opportunity to be considered your design team and to submit to you our landscape
architectural professional services and fees. This proposal is to correspond to the scope of work per our
initial meetings with you and the LMD Advisory Group along with the recent set of circumstances related
to the unsuccessful 2018 ballot measures for funding the City of Poway's LMD 83-1 and 86-1 districts.
As we understand the City has formed the LMD Advisory Group to assist the City in researching the
reasons for the unsuccessful ballot measures and providing some recommendations or ideas on possible
solutions for a successful attempt at another ballot measure. It is the shared opinion of this advisory
group that a well-designed landscape master plan (LMP) that effectively communicates how landscape
improvements and upgrades will add value to these LMD districts and thus provide a more trusted plan
for future LMD funding. The initial scope of work, as we understand it is as follows:
I.SCOPE OF SERVICES:
PHASE 1-SITE ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH
TASK 1.1 Kick-off Meeting
The initial project meetings will include a discussion between the partnership of KTUA (hereby known as
the consultant) the City of Poway (hereby known as the client), LMD Advisory Group and community
stakeholders. The goal of these meetings will be to discuss a clear and concise direction for this project,
refine and review project schedule, past issues and ideas for improvement and discuss each party's role
throughout the project. This 'partnership' of participants should be prepared to provide the consultant
with any additional preliminary programming requirements for the proposed two project site areas.
TASK 1.2 LMD Meeting w City Council
KTUA will attend a meeting facilitated by City staff and LMD Advisory Group presenting their studies and
recommendations for improvements to LMD 83-1 and 86-1 districts. KTUA will convene with City Staff and
36 of 51 ATTACHMENT C August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
7/2/2019
Page2
LMD to discuss any further program requirements necessary to develop an LMP.
TASK 1.3 Identify Project Issues
The consultant will identify issues related to existing conditions, design, construction and maintenance of
the proposed two project site areas.
TASK 1.4 Review Previous Studies and Projects
All existing plans, policies, reports, and other available data will be reviewed to familiarize the consultant
and team with the previous planning and recommendation efforts. The consultant will obtain any
available maps from the client, utility companies and other agencies to identify what information is
missing or needs updating.
TASK 1.5 Base Map Preparation
Includes setting up a base map for each site (LMD 83-1 and 86-1 districts) with digital files (electronic
topographical base survey) prepared by City of Poway. Information gathered from existing as-builts and
plans regarding existing boundary, utilities and right-of-way's will be added to the base map. Also requires
performing a limited field ground survey for design purposes to confirm/determine general locations of
items such as existing driveways, curbs, walks, etc. where proposed improvements will join. If base is
insufficient, an optional service for providing topographical survey for base map development can be
provided.
TASK 1.6 Site Visit & Analysis
The KTUA team (including client, other subs and the project stakeholders deemed necessary) will visit
each of the two project site areas to ascertain relevant site issues as well as gather information on the
visible features of both sites. Visiting the sites with the entire partnership will enable us to observe the
specific elements of the site that may be of concern to each member of the partnership.
TASK 1.7 Opportunity and Constraint plans
KTUA will inventory each of the project site areas to gather information on the visible features of the site.
A site analysis/ Opportunity and Constraint plan will be prepared for each project area and be assembled
into a graphic plan denoting the various site conditions of the project site. All Color boards will be suitable
for presentation at the public meetings; and legible when reduced.
TASK 1.8 Meeting with City and LMD
KTUA will conduct meetings (1 max.) with the client to coordinate project progress or for dir ection during
review of the Opportunity and Constraint plans. Also, discuss the objectives of the first community
workshop. Possible dates for other meetings, workshops and deadlines will also be established with
client, City staff and necessary stakeholders.
TASK 1.9 Deliverables/ Project Management
KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and
key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and
administration.
•PHASE 1 Estimated time requirement: approximately 6-8 weeks
•Deliverables: Base Map Development, Site Analysis, Opportunity and Constraint plans
37 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
7/2/2019 Page 3
PHASE 2 -LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
TASK 2.1 Prepare Conceptual Development Plan Alternatives
With direction provided by the partnership, KTUA will prepare conce ptual design alternatives (2 max} for
each of the two (2) project site areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1). Alternatives will be prepared and shall be
based upon client's direction, stakehold er input, existing conditions, site analysis, anticipated costs and
any previous studies. Presentation boards will be prepared in color. The plans will illustrate the
composition of the site elements including all proposed and existing structures, access and projecting,
hardscape and plant massing. All color boards will be suitable for presentation at the public meetings; and
legible when reduced to 11"x17".
TASK 2.2 Community Character Imagery
KTUA will prepare character images for conceptual design alternatives for each of the two (2) project site
areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1}. for review and comment . Revisions and adjustments will be made as
requested.
TASK 2.3 Meet w/ City Staff (1)
KTUA will present the alternatives to the City staff (client} for review and comment prior to meeting with
the LMD Advisory Group. Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested.
TASK 2.4 Meeting w/ City Staff and LMD (1)
Alternatives will then be presented to the representatives of the partnership for review and comment
prior to Community Workshop. Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested.
TASK 2.5 Deliverables/Project Management
KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and
key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and
administration.
•PHASE 2 Estimated time requirement: approximately 5-6 weeks
•Deliverables: Landscape concepts for both project sites, community character imagery
PHASE 3 -COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
TASK 3.1 Client Meetings
KTUA will conduct meeting (1 max.} with the client to coordinate project progress and direction and
discuss the objectives of the community workshop for each LMD (83-1 and 86-1). Possib le dates for other
meetings, workshops and deadlines will also be discussed with City staff and necessary stakeholders.
TASK 3.2 Prepare Cost Estimates for Concepts
KTUA will provide general cost of construction items for discussion purposes related to the alternative
designs for both project site areas for review.
TASK 3.3 Community Survey/Questionnaire
KTUA will prepare survey/ questionnaire for gathering community input at workshop but are not
responsible for reproduction and mailing them out to public. KTUA can assist City's Public Information
officer with public outreach ideas via social media such as Survey Monkey, Face book or City website.
38 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
712/2019 Page4
TASK 3.4 Community Workshops
KTUA will prepare for each of the two Community workshops. The workshop will be conducted by KTUA
and the LMD Advisory Group with the community at large. The KTUA will review the issues of the project
site areas and share information obtained by others (City staff and LMD Advisory Group), Site Analysis &
Constraints Maps. KTUA will then guide the attendees through a presentation of the design concept
alternatives for both proposed project site areas. KTUA will listen to the pros and cons of both designs.
TASK 3.5 Summarize Workshop Input
KTUA will prepare a summary report of the information gathered from the workshop. The report will
prioritize the information to provide a clear picture of the data and comments obtained in response to
the presentation of the design concept alternatives for both proposed project site areas.
TASK 3.6 Meetings with City and LMD (2)
The representatives of the partnership (client first) will be given summary meeting notes of the workshop
findings. A meeting to discuss those findings will be conducted by KTUA (1 total). Revisions and
adjustments will be made as requested.
TASK 3. 7 Deliverables/Project Management
KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and
key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and
administration.
•PHASE 3 -Estimated time requirement: approximately 4-5 weeks
•Deliverables -Community survey/questionnaire, general cost information for discussion,
community workshop and input on designs of alternatives.
PHASE 4-FINAL MASTER LANDSCAPE PLANS
TASK 4.1 Prepare Final Master Landscape Plans
The designs of each alternative will be finalized on the final master landscape plans with the preferred
designs being provided based on the workshop findings and discussions with the City staff, the LMD
Advisory Group and community sta keholders. KTUA will refine and provide a final master landscape site
plan and character imagery for both Project site areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1), in conformance with the City
of Poway's landscape regulations and guidelines. The final plans will be illustrative master plans of the
proposed improvements, at appropriate scale, specifically showing the overall site and general features of
the project site areas, streetscapes, entries, paved areas, roadway, tree and shrub plantings (existing and
proposed) and designated landscape areas. Enlargements of some areas may be required as an example
of types of improvements desired. Other amenities may include walkways, trails and benches. All work
will be coordinated and prepared using the latest AutoCAD base as provided by the client (see client
responsibilities).
TASK 4.2 Plant Palettes
A plant palette will be developed based on the workshop results and stakehol der discussions. All plants
will be identified as to Botanical and Common names will propose sizes, approximate quantities and
locations for cost in formation.
39 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page 5
TASK 4.3 Prepare Cost Analysis of Final Master Landscape Plans
KTUA will provide a more detailed probable cost of construction of the approved alternative designs for
each project site area for review.
TASK 4.4 Phasing Plans
KTUA will provide phasing plan based on the workshop results and stakeholder discussions of each of the
approved alternative designs for each project site area.
TASK 4.5 Meetings with City and LMD (2)
The representatives of the partnership (client first) will be given summary meeting notes of the workshop
findings. A meeting to discuss those findings will be conducted by KTUA (1 total). The alternatives will
then be presented to the representatives of the partnership for their review and comment. Revisions and
adjustments will be made as requested.
TASK 4.6 Deliverables/Project Management
KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and
key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and
administration.
•PHASE 4 -Estimated time requirement: approximately 5-6 weeks
•Deliverable -Final landscape master plans, plant palettes, amenities for all available data, plans
and graphics produced for the project.
PHASE 5 -Additional/ Optional Tasks (if required)
TASK 5.1 Community Workshop
****
Additional community workshops can be conducted by KTUA as required for each of the project sites as
necessary. KTUA can present or provide additional design alternatives, ideas, cost estimates information
or whatever is requested, then guide the attendees through a discussion as required.
TASK 5.2 Irrigation Site Review and Report.
KTUA will conduct a site walk through the two site project areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1) with a site
maintenance representative from the City of Poway. The current problems and issues will be discussed
along with any observed by the KTUA team. The KTUA team will provide site water savings
recommendations for specific irrigation improvements of the common landscape areas.
TASK 5.3 3D Model
KTUA will provide a 3D model for each of the project site area (LMD 83-1 and 86-1) displaying the
alternative designs for City staff (client) review and comment prior to meeting with the LMD Advisory
Group and stakehol ders. Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested.
TASK 5.4 Funding Resources
KTUA can research and provide ideas and sources for additional funding measures for the City regarding
the project site design areas.
40 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
7/2/2019
Page6
•PHASE 5 -Estimated time requirement: unknown
•Deliverable -Additional workshop findings and decisions, irrigation analysis and reports, 3D
models of designs and Funding Resources recomme ndations.
II.PROFESSIONAL FEES:
Our proposed fees shall be per the attached fee matrix 'Exhibit A' dated 7/02/19
i)All hourly rates for services required and/or performed for this project after July of
each year are subject to a maximum increase of five percent (5%) per annum for cost
of doing business increase.
ii)Fee payment request for time and material work, additional services, and other
reimbursable costs will be due and payable at the first of each month for items
furnished and work completed.
iii)It is hereby agreed that failure by the Client to pay promptly all amounts due
he reunder this Agreement to the Landscape Architect, as and when the same
becomes due, will excuse further performance by the Landscape Architect until all
such payments have been made; and under such circumstances the Landscape
Architect may, at his option, add interest to accounts thirty (30) days past due at the
rate of one percent (1%) per month on the unpaid balance of the account due and
assessed until such overdue balance has been paid in full. The Client shall pay for all
legal costs and Attorney's fees resulting from any legal action required collecting
those fees, which remain unpaid for a period in excess on ninety (90) days; the firm
may also terminate the performance of the service at this time.
iv)Additional requirements and services listed in other agreements with the Client are
specifically excluded from this proposal unless specifically agreed to in writing.
Ill. REIMBURSABLES:
All reimbursables or additional work costs will be billed on an as-used or hourly basis up to $750.
All items over maximum will be considered additional services and require written client approval
prior to commencing additional work.
A.It is understood that majority of our files shall be emailed or digitally transferred to
architect. Review/print sets, Mylars, and Bid sets with deliveries are not included in this
fee. Architect can provide print vendor if required.
B.Blueprint or plotting costs (no bid sets or mylars) -at cost plus 10%.
C.Special Delivery Costs -at cost plus 10%.
D.All meetings are listed, additional meetings shall be on an hourly basis or negotiated
lump sum fee; all out of town travel and/or lodging expenses (out of San Diego
County), are at cost. Via air-travel or car rental at current rates, or private automobile
at $.58 cents/mile.
E.Major site plan revisions to drawings or modifications to the plans after approvals -
Hourly plus expenses.
F.All outside/consultant services, BIM software & Modeling, at cost plus 10%
G.All plan-processing fees are to be paid by client before plan submittal.
41 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
7/1/1019
Page 7
IV.ADDITIONAL SERVICES:
Additional Services -The Client will provide change orders, change order drawings, and related
services upon specific written request. However, all services beyond those specified in this
Agreement will be provided under an hourly arrangement. The following shall be considered as
additional services:
A.All changes and revisions to the program or site plan as requested by the Client, reviewing
public agencies, or other authorized parties, after the plans have been approved at each
phase.
B.Additional meetings with architect, client and/or county agency due to unforeseen
requirements.
C.Preparing studies, reports and/or additional drawings required because of all revisions in the
criteria or project program; revising drawings, specifications or other documents when such
revisions are inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously given; or performing
services required to prepare alternate schemes for Client consideration beyond those
prepared under the normal pursuit of a project of this nature.
D.Preparing additional presentations, studies, reports or drawings and/or making modifications
to the existing documents due to changes of laws or codes by any governmental agency
having jurisdiction over the project.
E.Providing special analysis of Client needs not covered by this contract.
F.Providing professional consultation concerning replacement of any work damaged by fire or
other cause during construction and furnished professional services of the type set forth in
Scope of Services as may be required about the replacement of such work.
G.Providing professional services made necessary by the default of the contract or major
defects in the work of the contractor in performance of the construction contract.
H.Providing assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system, or consultation during
operation.
I.Providing clerical services beyond those required by the scope of services.
J.Preparing demolition plans, separate public improvement drawings, grading/drainage plans,
storm water management, park plans, ADA conformance, leak analysis and any other plans
not specifically stated in Scope of Services.
K.All plan-processing fees are to be paid by clie nt before plan submittal.
KTUA Additional Service Hourly Rates:
Cle rica I/ Administrative
Designer/Planner
Senior Designer
Associate
Senior Associate
Principal
V.CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES:
$85.00/hour
$105.00/hour
$115.00/hour
$125.00/hour
$145.00/hour
$175.00/hour
The Client shall be responsible and agree to provide or cause to be provided to the Landscape
Architect, at no cost to the Landscape Architect, (if available) the following:
42 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019
Page 8
A.Any existing electronic base plans available in Auto Cad format version 2018 min., DXF, DWG
or EXE. CAD files shall be accompanied by file per settings, names of files, reference files,
named views, (indicate if in paper space or model space). Descripti on of CAD file layers (name
& indicate on, off, frozen, etc.); showing exact locations, elevati ons, and sizes of proposed
structures and improvements. Certified land survey of the site, giving grades and lines of
streets, pavements and adjoining properties, rights-of-ways, restrictions, easements, zoning,
deed restrictions and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and complete data
pertaining to existing improvements, plantings, and available services and utilities both public
and private. Prints denoting accurate to scale plans and drawings (and on disk).
B.Any existing site grading plans of proposed topography of project site; locations and
elevations proposed utility lines and facilities, including source(s) of water and static water
pressure(s), and locations for 110v electrical connections available for irrigation system(s).
C.Providing promptly full information regarding the requirements for the project.
VI.TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A.Access to Site -Unless otherwise stated, the firm will have access to the site for activities
necessary for the performance of services. The firm will take the precautions to minimize
damage due to these activities but has not included in the fee the cost of restoration of any
resulting damage.
B.Applicable Law -The agreement will be governed by the laws of the principal place of the
firms' place of business.
c.Betterment -If, due to the Consultant's negligence, a required item or component of the
Project is omitted from the Consultant's documents, the Consultant shall not be responsible
for paying the cost required to add such item or component to the extent that such item or
component would have been required and included in the original construction documents.
In no event, will the Consultant be responsible for any cost or exp ense that provides
betterm ent or upgrades or enhances the value of the Project.
D.Consequential Damages -Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and fully
permitted by law, neither the Client nor the Consultant, their respective officers, directors,
pa rtners, employees, contractors or sub consultants shall be liable to the other or shall make
any claim for any incidental, indirect or consequential damages arising out of or co nnected in
any way to the Project or to this Agreement. This mutual waiver of consequential damages
shall include, but is not limited to, loss of use, loss of profit, loss of business, loss of income,
loss of reputation and any other consequential damages that either party may have incurred
from any cause of action including negligence, strict liability, breach of contract and breach of
strict or implied warranty. Both the Client and the Consultant shall require similar waivers of
consequential damages protecting all the entities or persons named herein in all contracts
and subcontracts with others involved in this project.
E.Certificate of Merit -In case of a civil suit, the Client agrees that prior to filing suit against the
Landscape Architect; the Client will engage another Landscape Architect to verify and certify
(after reviewing this Agreement) the contract documents, project files and site conditions,
that there is justifiable cause for the suit.
F.Certifications - Guarantees and Warrantees: The firm shall not be required to execute any
document that would result in its certifying, guaranteeing or warranting the existence of
conditions whose existence the firm cannot ascertain.
43 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page9
G.Code Compliance -The firm shall put forth reasonable professional efforts to comply with
applicable laws, codes, and regulations in effect at the time of the execution of this
agreement. Design changes made necessary by newly enacted laws, codes and regulations
put into effect after the date of this agreement shall entitle the firm to a reasonable
adjustment in the schedule and additional compensation in accordance with the additional
services agreement provision of this agreement.
H.Corporate Protection -It is intended by the parties to this Agreement that the Consultant's
services about the Project shall not subject the Consultant's individual employees, officers or
directors to any personal legal exposure for the risks associated with this Project. Therefore,
and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Client agrees that as the
Client's sole and exclusive remedy, any claim, demand or suit shall be directed and/or
asserted only against the Consultant, a California State corporation, and not against any of
the Consultant's individual employees, officers or directors.
I.Delays -The client agrees that the firm is not responsible for damages arising or indirectly
from the delays for causes beyond the firm's control. For purposes of this agreement, such
causes include, but are not limited to weather disruptions or other natural disasters, fires, or
other acts of god, failure of any governmental agency to act in a timely manner, or discovery
of any hazardous substances or differing site conditions.
J.Dispute Resolution -Any claims or disputes made during design, construction or post
construction between the client and firm shall be submitted to non-binding mediation. Client
and firm agree that mediation will serve as the prim ary method for dispute resolution and
each party agrees to bear their own costs for mediation.
K.Indemnification -The Consultant agrees, fully permitted by law, to indemnify and hold
harmless the Client, its officers, directors and employees (collectively, Client) against all
damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, to the
extent caused by the Consultant's negligent performance of professional services under this
Agreement and that of its subconsul tants or anyone for whom the Consultant is legally liable.
The Client agrees, fully permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant, its
officers, directors, employees and subconsultants (collectively, Consultant) against all
damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, to the
extent caused by the Client's negligent acts about the Project and the acts of its contractors,
subcontractors or consultants or anyone for whom the Client is legally liable. Neither the
Client nor the Consultant shall be obligated to indemnify the other party in any manner
whatsoever for the other party's own negligence.
L. Information Provided by Others -The client shall furnish all information, requirements,
reports, data, survey and instructions required by this agreement. The firm may use such
information, requirements, reports, data surveys and instructions in performing its services
and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof.
M.Jobsite Safety -Neither the professional activities of the Consultant, nor the presence of the
Consultant or its employees and sub consultants at a construction/project site, shall relieve
the General Contractor of its obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited
to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for
performing, superintending and coordinating the Work in accordance with the contract
documents and any health or safety precautions required by any regulatory agencies. The
Consultant and its personnel have no authority to exercise any contr ol over any construction
contractor or its employees about their work or any health or safety programs or procedures.
44 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espo1a Community Master Plan
7/2/2019
Page 10
The Client agrees that the General Contractor shall be solely responsible for jobsite safety
and warrants that this intent shall be carried out in the Client's contract with the General
Contractor. The Client also agrees that the Client, the Consultant and the Consultant's sub
consultants shall be indemnified by the General Contractor and shall be made additional
insured under the General Contractor's policies of general liability insurance.
N.Limitation of Liability-Such claims and causes include, but are not limited to negligence,
professional errors or omissions, strict liability, breach of contract or warranty. In recognition
of the relative risks and benefits of the Project to both the client and the Consultant, the risks
have been allocated such as the client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to limit
the liability of the Consultant (including the Consultant's Sub consultants) to the Client for
any and all claims, losses, costs , damages of any nature whatsoever or claims expenses from
any cause or causes, including attorneys' fees and costs and expert-witness fees and costs, so
that the total aggregate liability of the Consultant to the Client shall not exceed $50,000.00,
or the Consultant's total fee for services rendered on this Project, whichever is greater.
Insurance coverage is limited to that coverage available at time of settlement or judgment. It
is intended that this limitation apply to all liability or cause of action however alleged or
arising, unless otherwise prohibited by law.
0.Maintenance -Owner and Consultant agree that inspection, maintenance, and normal repair
are the exclusive obligation of the owner for the (structure/ project). Consultant shall have
no responsibility for the inspection, maintenance, and normal repair of any portion of the
Project, and shall have no financial or other responsibility for damages arising out of the
failure to inspect, maintain, or repair the Project.
P.Other Agreements -Additional requirements and services listed in other agreements with the
client are specifically excluded from this proposal unless specifically agreed to in writing.
Q.Ownership of Documents -All documents produced by the firm under this agreement shall
remain the property of the firm and may not be used by the client for any other endeavor
without the written consent of the firm. Any use or reuse of altered files by the Client or
others, without written verification or CADD adaptations by the consultant for the specific
purpose intended, will be at the Client's risk and full legal responsibility.
R.Standard of Care -In providing services under this Agreement, the Consultant will endeavor
to perform in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances.
s. Survivability -The provisions of this agreement shall survive the completion of services and
the scope of services.
T.Termination of Services -This agreement may be terminated by the client or the firm for
convenience and without cause upon giving the other party not less than ten (10) calendar
days' written notice. In the event of termination, the client shall pay the firm for all services
rendered to the date of termination, all reimbursable expenses, and reimbursable
termination expenses.
u.Value Engineering -If the Client retains the services of a Value Engineer (VE) to review the
plans prepared by the Consultant, these services shall be at the Client's sole expense and
shall be performed in a timely manner so as not to delay the orderly progress of the
Consultant's services. The Client shall promptly notify the Consultant of the identity of the VE
and shall define the VE's scope of services. All recommendations of the VE shall be given to
the Consultant for review, and adequate time will be provided for the Consultant to respond
to these recommendations. If the Consultant objects to any recommendations made by the
45 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
7/2/2019
Page 11
VE, it shall so state in writing to the Client, along with the reasons for objecting. If the Client,
despite the Consultant's objections, requires the incorporation of changes in the
Construction Documents, the Client agrees, fully permitted by law, to waive all claims against
the Consultant and to indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant from any damages,
liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense, which arise
about or because of the incor poration of such design changes required by the Client. In
addition, the Consultant shall be compensated for services necessary to incorporate
recommended value engineering changes into reports, drawings, specifications, bidding or
other documents. The Consultant shall be compensated as Additional Service for all time
spent to prepare for, review and respond to the recommendations of the VE. The
Consultant's time for performance of its services shall be equitably adjusted.
V.Contractor Insurance and Indemnity Requirements· The Client agrees, in any construction
contracts about this Project, to require all contractors of any tier to carry statutory Workers
Compensation, Employers Liability Insurance and appropriate limits of Commercial General
Liability Insurance (CGL). The Client further agrees to require all contractors to have their CGL
policies endorsed to name the Client, the Consultant and its subconsultants as Additional
lnsured's and to provide Contractual Liability coverage enough to insure the hold harmless
and indemnity obligations assumed by the contractors. The Client shall require all contractors
to furnish to the Client and the Consultant certificates of insurance as evidence of the
required insurance prior to commencing work and upon renewal of each policy during the
entire period of construction. In addition, the Client shall require that all contractors will, fully
permitted by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Client, the Consultant and its
subconsultants from and against any damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and defense costs, arising out of or in any way connected with the Project,
including all claims by employees of the contractors.
Eric, we look forward to this opportunity to work with you. Please review the agreement and call me if
you have any questions.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Kurt W. Carlson, ASLA
Senior Principal
CA PLA 2342, AZ PLA 54111
KWC: ms
46 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
Scope and Fee Matrix
7/2/2019 'EXHIBIT A'
Phase 1 I Site Analysis and Research
1.1 Kick-off Meeting
1.2 LMD Meeting w City Council (1)
1.3 Identify Project Issues / Concerns
1.4 Review previous studies, reports, etc.
1.5 Base Maps Preparation
1.6a Site Visit & Analysis/ Twin Peaks
1.6b Site Visit & Analysis/ Espola
1.7a Opportunity and Constraints Plan for
Twin Peaks Road
1.7b Opportunity and Constraints Plan for
Espola Road
1.8 Meeting with City and LMD (1)
1.9 Deliverables/Project Management
Hours Summary
KTUA Subtotal
Phase 2 I Landscape Concept Development
2.la Develop Twin Peaks Road Concept plans
2.lb Develop Espola Road Concept plans
2.2 Community Character Imagery
2.3 Meet w/ City Staff (1 )/ Revisions/
Respond to comments
2.4 Meeting w/ City Staff and LMD (1 )/
Revisions/ Respond to comments
2.5 Deliverables/Project Management
Hours Summary
KTUA Subtotal
Phase 3 I Comm unity Workshop
3.1 Meeting with City and LMD (1)
3.2 Prepare Cost Estimates for Concepts
3.3 Prepare Community Survey for input
3.4a Twin Peaks-Workshop Prep/ Boards
Community Workshop/Present Plans
Senior Senior Associate
Principal Associate I II
$175.00 $145.00 $135.00
2 2
2 2
2
2 2
2 4
5 5
5 5
5
5
2 2 2
3 3
7 26 33
$1,225 $3,770 $4,455
8 12
8 12
4
2 3 4
2 3 6
2 4 4
6 27 42
$1,050 $3,915 $5,670
2 2
4 8
2 6
3 6 8
Senior KTU+A
Designer II Clerical TOTAL
$115.00 $80.00
$640
$640
4 $875
$560
10 $1,980
5 $1,975
5 $1,975
9 $1,855
9 $1,855
$910
3 $1,440
45 1
$5,175 $80 $14,705
check $14,705
24 $5,540
24 $5,540
9 $1,720
4 $1,785
8 $2,515
4 $2,010
73 1
$8,395 $80 $19,110
check $19,110
$560
$1,660
$1,100
8 $3,395
47 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan ktu ,. Scope and Fee Matrix
7/2/2019 'EXHIBIT A'
3.4b Espola -Workshop Prep/ Boards
Community Workshop/Present Plans
3.5 Summarize Both Workshops
3.6 Meetings with City and LMD (2)
3.7 Deliverables/Project Management
Hours Summary
KTUA Subtotal
Phase 4 I Final Master Landscape Plans
4.1a Finalize Twin Peaks Road Concept plans
4.lb Finalize Espo1a Road Concept plans
4.2 Plant Palette Recommendations
4.3 Prepare Cost Estimates for Both LMPs
4.4 Phasing Plans
4.5 Meetings with City and LMD (2)
4.6 Deliverables/Project Management
Hours Summary
KTUA Subtotal
Labor Summary
Total Hours
Total Labor
Reimbursable Summary
Phase 1 I Site Analysis and Research
Phase 2 I Landscape Concept Development
Phase 3 I Community Workshop
Phase 4 I Final Master Landscape Plans
PROJECT SUMMARY
Phase 5 I Additional/ Optional Tasks (if required)
Senior Senior
Principal Associate I
$175.00 $145.00
3 6
2
2 4
3
9 29
$1,575 $4,205
2 6
2 6
2 4
2
2 6
3
9 28
$1,575 $4,060
Associate
II
$135.00
8
2
4
4
42
$5,670
6
6
8
10
4
12
4
50
$6,750
Senior KTU+A
Designer II Clerical TOTAL
$115.00 $80.00
8 $3,395
2 $790
$1,470
2 $1,460
20 1
$2,300 $80 $13,830
check $13,830
8 $2,950
8 $2,950
8 $2,930
2 $1,725
2 $1,060
8 $3,760
4 2 $1,770
40 2
$4,600 $160 $17,145
check $17,145
$64,790
check $64,790
Urnt Quantity Total
250
250
250
1 250
$250
$250
$250
$250
Total Reimbursable Cost $1,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
48 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan
Scope and Fee Matrix
7/2/2019 'EXHIBIT A'
5.1 Prep and Community Workshop (Cost
er each workshop)
5.2a Irrigation Site Analysis -Twin Peaks Rd
5.2b Irrigation Site Analysis -Espola Rd
5.2c Irrigation Recommendation Reports and
Dia rams/Both Sites
5.3a Prepare 3D Models for Concepts (2 total)
5.3b Finalize 30 Models after
Comments/Revisions
5.4 Provide Funding Resource Ideas
Hours Summary
KTUA Subtotal
Senior
Principal
$175.00
4
10
$1,750
Senior
Associate I
$145.00
6
8
8
3
8
2
4
39
$5,655
Note: Optional topographical survey for base maps not priced
Associate
II
$135.00
10
6
8
4
6
34
$4,590
Senior KTU+A
Designer II Clerical TOTAL
$115.00 $80.00
8 $3,840
8 $2,255
8 $2,255
8 $2,340
32 $6,095
12 $2,385
$1,565
76 0
$8,740 $0 $20,735
check $20,735
49 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
50 of 51 ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO. 19-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TASK ORDER TO THE
AS-NEEDED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KTUA FOR LANDSCAPE
MASTER PLAN SERVICES IN THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT
OF $86,525, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
WHEREAS, the City of Poway (City) manages five landscape maintenance districts
(LMDs) throughout the City pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;
WHEREAS, the City’s LMDs require various services to ensure well-maintained
landscaped areas;
WHEREAS, landscape architectural services are vital and essential for the operation of
the City and the various projects needed for the City to operate efficiently;
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2019, the City Council approved an Agreement with KTUA to
provide as-needed landscape architectural design services for a maximum term of five years
ending May 31, 2024, with the understanding that any task orders in excess of $50,000 be
presented to the City Council for approval;
WHEREAS, the City seeks to complete a landscape master plan for the Twin Peaks and
Espola community areas to ensure the long-term viability of these LMD areas;
WHEREAS, the Agreement between the City and KTUA allows KTUA to undertake
projects on a task order basis;
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2019, KTUA outlined a scope of work, schedule, and cost estimate
(“Proposal”) for assistance with the completion of the Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master
Plan task order;
WHEREAS, KTUA will perform no services until the City Manager or designee has
approved the proposed specific task order and a written Notice to Proceed (NTP) is prepared and
sent to KTUA prior to commencement of services;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the operating budget for the respective LMD’s
contract services fund; and
WHEREAS, KTUA’s Proposal is attached to the City Council Agenda Report as
Attachment 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan Task Order in
the amount of $86,525.00, is hereby approved.
August 6, 2019, Item #5.1
Resolution No. 19-
Page 2
51 of 51
SECTION 2: The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any necessary
documents.
SECTION 3: That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage and shall
continue in full force and effect until modified, revoked or replaced.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the
City of Poway, California on the 6th day of August, 2019 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
______________________________
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Faviola Medina, CMC, City Clerk
August 6, 2019, Item #5.1