Item 15 - Public Meeting to Allow Public Testimony LMD 87-1
AGEND~PORTSL~ARY -,
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
- FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~
~
"
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~'''' &
James R. Williams, Director of Public Services
Patricia S. Nelson, Management Aide ~
DATE: June 27, 1995
SUBJECT: A Public Meeting to Allow Public Testimony for Increased Assessments to be
Collected for Landscape Maintenance District 87-1 During Fiscal Year 1995/96
ABSTRACT - SB 1977, Section 54954.6(a)(1) requires that City Council conduct at least one public
meeting to allow public testimony regarding proposed new or increased assessments. The District has
proposed its intent to include within its scope of maintenance approximately 57 acres along the major
roadways currently maintained by the Land Development Area Association [CF Poway, Phase 1] and CF
Poway, Phase n.
Parkway Business Center and Poway Corporate Center assessments are proposed to increase from
$750.84 per net acre to $790.00 per net acre. Pomerado Business Park. Phases I and n, and the
McMillin [Rolling Hills Estates] commercial assessments will increase from $750.84 to $1.246.21 per net
- acre. The McMillin residential assessments will be established at $311.58 per unit.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - Environmental review is not required for this agenda item according to
CEQA guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT - The combined LDA and LMD assessments would decrease by 7.34 percent;
combined CF Poway costs and LMD assessments would increase by 5.75 percent; Parkway Business
Centre and Poway Corporate Center LMD assessments would increase by 5.2 percent; and, the McMillin
development assessments would increase an equivalent 66 percent. Funding for the maintenance of
landscape improvements will be shared by the levying of assessments on property owners ($440,790), the
City's Incurred Expenses ($44,860), and by using district's reserves ($70,075).
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRKl;PONDENCE - Pursuant to SB 1977,
Section 50078.6: 1) Notice of Public Hearing has been posted at three public places within the Agency;
2) A one-eighth page display advertisement has been placed in the POWl\)' News Chieftain (a newspaper of
general circulation); and 3) Notice of Public Hearing has been mailed to property owners within LMD
87 -1 and those interested parties who have filed a written request with the local agency. As of the date of
writing this report, one letter from Samuel Craig [CF Poway, Ltd.] has been received (see Attachment I).
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that City Council accept public testimony and continue
consideration of the proposed increase and new assessments until the August 1, 1995 public hearing.
- ACTION
1 of 5 JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 15
~-~-- . --- ----. ------~
~ AGENDA REPOR
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~'~ t?
James R. Williams, Director of Public Services
Patricia S. Nelson. Management Aide r
DATE: June 27, 1995
SUBJECT: A Public Meetin~ to Allow Public Testimonv for Increased
Assessments to be Collected for Landscape Maintenance District 87-1
Durine Fiscal Year 1995/96
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 1995 City Council approved the Engineer's Report for Landscape Maintenance
District 87-1 and adopted Resolution No. 95-041 declaring the intention to levy and collect
assessments within Poway Landscape Maintenance District 87-1 for Fiscal Year 1995/96. The
Engineer's Report for Landscape Maintenance District 87-1 is on file in the Offices of the City
Clerk and Department of Public Services.
As of January I, 1993, SB 1977 required that the public be properly noticed for any new or
increased assessments, and for the public to have the right to protest and defeat any assessment
increases.
FINDINGS
Facilities currently maintained by LMD 87-1 are defmed as the landscape and hardscape
improvements within the rights-of-way, including roadway medians along portions of
Pomerado Road, Scripps Poway Parkway, and Community Road, detention basins. and staging
area consisting of approximately 60 acres.
ACTION: -l
j
2 of 5 JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 15
- -,
- Agenda Report - LMD 87-1 Public Testimony
June 27, 1995
Page 2
The Landscape Maintenance District [LMD 87-1] proposes to include those LDA, CF Poway,
Ltd., and Parkway Business Centre irrigated landscape improvements totaling approximately
57 acres within the scope of maintenance of the Landscape Maintenance District. This
increase in acreage [to 117 acres] would cause the need to increase assessments to
accommodate the added areas of responsibility.
Revenues needed for the maintenance of landscape improvements within the proposed District
for FY 95/96 are $485,650 v. $309,475 during FY 94/95. The amount of increase varies
from approximately five to six percent for areas currently paying pro rata assessments, to 66
percent for the McMillin properties that are not currently assessed, to a decrease of
approximately seven percent, pro rata, for the LOA.
Proposed assessments for the 448.172 net acres currently being assessed are noted on the
Engineer's Report which is on file in the Offices of the City Clerk and Department of Public
Services.
The conditioned landscape improvements along Scripps Poway Parkway west of Pomerado
~- Road, adjacent to the McMillin project were completed in 1994. Until this project has been
finaled, a map filed with the County of San Diego, and assessments are collected, the City
proposes to maintain these improvements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review is not required for this agenda item according to CEQA guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
The combined LOA and LMD assessments would decrease by 7.34 percent; combined CF
Poway costs and LMD assessments would increase by 5.75 percent; Parkway Business Centre
and Poway Corporate Center LMD assessments would increase by 5.2 percent; and, the
McMillin development assessments would increase an equivalent 66 percent. Funding for the
maintenance of landscape improvements will be shared by the levying of assessments on
property owners ($440,790), the City's Incurred Expenses ($44,860), and by using district's
reserves ($70,075).
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Pursuant to S8 1977, Section 50078.6: 1) Notice of Public Hearing has been posted at three
public places within the Agency; 2) A one-eighth page display advertisement has been placed
- in the Poway News Chieftain (a newspaper of general circulation); and 3) Notice of Public
JUN 27 1995 ITEM 15
3 of 5
Agenda Report - LMD 87-1 Public Testimony
June 27, 1995
Page 3
Hearing has been mailed to property owners within LMD 87-1, and those interested parties
who have filed a written request with the local agency. As of the date of writing this report,
one letter from Samuel Craig [CF Poway, Ltd.] has been received (see Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept public testimony and continue consideration of
the proposed increase and new assessments until the August 1, 1995 public hearing.
JLB:JDF:JRW:PSN
Attachment:
Letter from Samuel A. Craig, President CF Poway, Ltd. dated June 6, 1995
JUN 27 1995 ITEM 15
4 of 5
06 116 9~; U:l.1 '6'619 ~j\ U3~;
- crn- UF P1)W~-\Y - --- PlBLIC SERVICES 4; lJlJ 1
- 0'
HAND DELIVERED
June 6, 1995
Mr. James Bowersox
City Manager = D];'VEFlEO _
City of Poway
P.O. Box 789 . &-:; 'r~
Poway, CA 92074
Re: A~enda Report. June 6. 1995. T"MD 87-1
Dear Jim:
As you know, the Agenda Report Summary for the LMD 87-1 as regards assessments for
- FY 95/96 has just become available.
We, Linda and I, discussed a number of minor points with Randy Williams yesterday
aftemoon. As to the major issue, he suggested that we contact you.
Our concem. of course, is money. More specifically, the additional amount which it is
proposed we will be assessed in our Phase n lands. We have an analogous situation to
Parkway's Phase 1, i.e., "having no association maintenance fees. (page 14, last paragraph,
5th line) and yet it is proposed that we pay almost $1,250 per acre and Parkway's land would
be levied only to the extent of $790 per acre. Obviously, this puts our property at an
economic disadvantage in the market place. Conversely, the $456.21 per acre lIJlIlual
benefit, capitalized at, say, 8%, multiplied by 130 acres indicates a windfall of almost three
quarters of a million dollars to the owners of Parkway Business Centre!
We know you will agree, rim, that this paring oversight, which erroneously gives the false
impression of preferential treatment, must be corrected prior to tonight's presentation.
Should you wish to discuss our position prior to the Council Meeting, we are at your
disposal.
- ~
, cZ\
.
---
Samuel A. Craig
President
-
5 of 5 C.F. Pome",do.lnc. JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 15
IlOoo Gn:u SL-m. Po~"1J'. CallIor". 9l00i
:!"'It'I"IMMe :6IQ1486.2032 FAX ,6[91486.)0,1
-------
- lfJ~~.2~/fh
0 ~
June 21, 1995 i: i.: ;''''';c'' C; ,
,;.&
',' ". ("0 #....,-,...
0,,/ .."1,: t:. l) I.:".>:,
Mayor and Councilmembers Ci~-' ,.,~ .~ ~
';.1' '.
f:'TV ' ' ,
City of Poway II" ,"__
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074
Re: Proposed LMD 87-01 Assessments
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
We'd like to take this opportunity to address several issues regarding the proposed increase
in the assessments for LMD 87-01. Apparently, at the first reading of this item it was stated
that "it had been requested that the City take over maintenance of some areas of the
business park". This request was not made by the Owners Association or C.F. Pomerado.
The only "request" that we are aware of came from one of your employees suggesting that
perhaps the City should look into taking over the maintenance responsibilities of certain
areas within the business park. We, C.F. Pomerado & an Association board member, have
met with Randy Williams to discuss the possibilities and agreed that if the City could show
that there would be a substantial savings to us, we would be delighted to participate. On
that note, there are several issues we'd like to take issue with as regards the Agenda Report.
1) It is proposed that the City take over 57 acres of landscaping along Scripps-Poway
Parkway, Community Road and Stowe Drive and, in exchange, there would be a
$75/month/acre ($600/year/acre) decrease in the overall landscaping costs. This in
fact is not true, the actual savings is somewhere closer to $17/month/acre or
$200/year.
2) It is proposed that there be a different assessment for Pomerado Business Park
owners as compared to Parkway Business Centre and Poway Tech Center owners.
The logic behind this proposal is that the owners in Parkway and Poway Tech do not
have Owners Association's dues so raising their assessments by 32% would be
onerous. So instead, they get a $39 (5%) increase in their assessments and
Pomerado Business Park owners get a $500 (40%) increase! Where is the equity
here? Pomerado Business Park should not have to bear the extra burden simply
because Parkway and Poway Tech do not have Owners Associations. They benefit
from the landscaped medians along the major thoroughfares equally as much as
owners in Pomerado Business Park.
CF. Pomerado, loe.
13000 Gltgg Stltet, Po"~)', C>lifomi, 92064
Telephone (619) 486.2032 FAX (619) 486.3021
.tUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 15
Mayor and Councilmembers 2
June 21, 1995
3) Effectively as of August 1995, Phase II of Pomerado Business Park was de-annexed
from the Owners Association to relieve the Association of the burden of maintenance
of the property in Phase II of the Park. That maintenance has been sustained by
C.F. Pomerado, Inc. Using the logic in Item 2, Phase II of Pomerado Business Park
should be assessed at the $790/acre figure rather than $I,246.211acre. That would
then increase the assessment paid by Phase I owners in Pomerado Business Park to
$1,771.18/acre. Not exactly an equitable situation. If the City is to take over
maintenance of some of the areas along the main thoroughfares within the business
park, the same assessment should be applied across the board to all owners within
the district boundaries, namely $1,097.60/acre/year.
4) Additionally, an area of concern is the landscaping to be installed in the median and
the IS-foot street frontage on Scripps Poway Parkway, in both phases of Parkway
Business Centre, that was a requirement of the developers of Parkway Business
Centre. Who is going to pay for the installation? Who is going to pay for the
maintenance costs of the Phase II portion of this median? These costs should be
borne by owners within Parkway Business Centre and not shared by other owners
within LMD 87-01.
5) Lastly, the increased LMD assessment as proposed puts C.F. Pomerado, Inc. at a
marketing disadvantage over our competitors within the business park.
We also find it a little disconcerting that the notice sent out to all owners announcing the
two public hearings contains the verbiage: "Tuesday, August 1, 1995: at which time the
legislative body proposes to aoorove the increase and enactment of landscape maintenance
district assessments." What is the point of Public Testimony if the legislative body is already
proposing to approve the enactment of the assessments?
We appreciate the City's concern, however, we have a tremendous investment in our
landscaping and have no intention of allowing it to deteriorate to a point where we have
plant loss. We are, and have been, doing all that is necessary to maintain our investment.
Very trul yours, /.
J. .,
..A~ r
,./~ - \
~uel A. Craig
President
c.F. Pomerado, loe.
1)000 (jrt'gg ~trtt'1. Puway. California 9206.- JUN 2? 1995
Tt'll:'phonr {619l -1~6-20~2 FAX (619) -186.~O21 ITEM 15
I
- ~r27/~'
FROM: KONICA FAX TO: 519 748 1455 .JUN 25. 1935 12:39PM P.1<l2
VEL MILETICH
- Tne TrDpics CDmpany
20:;01 Earl Street. Suite One
P.O. BOX III
TORRANCE. CA 90S08
(310) 370~811 ..yV'
@J\J.I . ;~
June 26, 1995 p~f~"
Mayor and Councilmembcrs
city of Poway
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074
RE: Proposed LMD 87-01 Assessments
Dear Mayor and councilmembers,
I am a concerned property owner in the Phase I pomerado Business
Park and I am responding to your notice received June 19, 1995
- regarding the above referenced assessments.
My position on this matter parallels most other property owners
&ffected by your proposal. I for one lun happy with the existing
arrangement whereby I am assessed a reasonable maintenance fee by
the owners association. It has been brought to my I'.tt~ention by
other property owners that the City's projectedpropert..y owner's
savings are very minimal and not as stated in your meetiny~ with
our association representatives.
Further, I find your system of assessing the costs to the different
pa:-:};s is inequitable and make my costs rise over 46% peT ye3r!
Personally I feel if somethings' not broke don't fix it, our
situation is fine just like it is therefore I unequivocally oppose
your position and proposal.
Sincerely,
~ Z~4"~~.c..._-?:
Velko letich -
"'UN 2 7 1995 ITEM 15 ,