The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 5 - Resolution Establishing Assessments LMD 87-1 - - AGEND, ~PORT SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - James L, Bowersox, City Man~ " FROM: INITIATED BY: John D, Fitch, Assistant City Manager ~ James R. Williams, Director of Public S 'cesB Patricia S, Nelson, Management Aide ,r DATE: August 1, 1995 SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Assessments for Poway Landscape Maintenance District 87-1 to be Collected on the Property Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 1995/96 ABSTRACT - On June 6, 1995, the City Council approved the Engineer's Report by adopting Resolution No, 95-041, declaring the intention to levy and collect assessments within City of Poway Landscape Maintenance District 87-1 and set two public hearings for June 27 and August 1, 1995, These meetings were set for the purpose of receiving public testimony, Tonight's meeting is also to the purpose of approving the resolution to enact the collection of LMD 87-1 assessments on the San Diego County property tax roll. Assessments are proposed to increase from $750.84 to $790.00 per net acre for Parkway Business Centre and Poway Corporate Center. Pomerado Business Park, Phases I and n, and the Rolling Hills Estates - commercial assessments are proposed to increase from $750.84 to $1,246,21 per net acre, The Rolling Hills Estates residential assessments are proposed to be $311.58 per unit. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - This action is not subject to CEQA review, FISCAL IMPACT - The proposed combined LDA [pomerado Business Park, Phase I] and LMD assessments would decrease by 7.34 percent; combined CF Poway costs and LMD assessments are proposed to increase by 5,75 percent; Parkway Business Centre and Poway Corporate Center proposed assessments would increase by 5.2 percent; and Rollings Hills proposed assessments would increase an equivalent 66 percent. It is anticipated that insufficient revenues will be collected due to some property foreclosures and bankruptcies, Therefore, all, or a portion of, the payment of water bills will be deferred until properties have been sold and assessment liens recouped. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE - Pursuant to SB 1977, Section 50078,6: 1) notice of Public Hearings has been posted at three public places within the Agency; 2) a one-eight page display advertisement has been placed in the Poway News Chieftain (a newspaper of general circulation); and 3) notices of public hearings have been mailed to property owners within LMD 87-1 and those interested parties who have filed a written request with the Agency. As of the date of writing this report, 11 letters of protest have been received (see Attachment 2,). RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution '- establishing assessments for Poway Landscape Maintenance District 87-1 to be collected on the Property Tax Roll for fiscal year 1995/96, ACTION 1 of 23 I'IUU 1 II ~m 01 --------- ~---- a___.~_."________.._.~___ AGENDA REPORT CITY OF POW A Y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~ . INITIATED BY: ,.on D. Flkb, ......... City"""'" "b'~ d James R. Williams, Director of Public Services Patricia S, Nelson, Management Aide r DATE: August 1, 1995 SUBJECT: Resolution Establishin~ Assessment~ for POWllY LandSCllpe Maintenance District 87-1 to be Collected on the Proper;y Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 1995/96 BACKGROUND LMD 87-1 was formed on January 27, 1987 to maintain landscape improvements installed in conjunction with new subdivisions within the boundaries of the District. On June 6, 1995, the Poway City Council approved the Engineer's Report for LMD 87-1 and set two public hearings for June 27 and August I, 1995, District 87-1 includes the following developments: Map Nos. Development Net Acres TTM 85-04 Pomerado Business Park, Phase I 117,601 Pomerado Business Park, Phase IT 135,315 TTM 87-13 Parkway Business Centre, Phase I 129,227 TTM 86-02R Poway Corporate Center, Phase I 29,709 ------- ------- Total Units Assessed 411.902 ACTION: I J 2 of 23 1 1995 - Agenda Report - LMD 87-1 Levy and Collect Assessments August I, 1995 Page 2 Ahhoogh dre follow"" proporty ;, _><<d ;"'" .., d_'. dre r.... ~p ,till "" 00' l' recorded by the County of San Diego, Therefore, these parcels will continue to show a z ro assessment for FY 1995/96, M~p No. Development Net Acres TTM 87-13 Parkway Business Centre, Phase II 136.400 Pending property annexation: M~p No. Development Net Acres TTM 88-04R Rolling Hills Estates [Commercial] 6,000 l!Dits Rolling Hills Estates [Residential] 30,000 - FINDINGS The City Council-approved Engineer's Report is on file with the offices of the Poway City Clerk, 13325 Civic Center Drive, and the Department of Public Services, 14644 Lake Poway Road, Poway, California, Due to staff [mdings and an analysis of the South Poway Business Park landscape maintenance areas, the District proposes to add to its responsibilities approximately 57 acres currently maintained by Pomerado Business Park, Phases I and II, and Parkway Business Centre. These improvements, installed as a requirement of development, lie along the major roadways and have been found to have benefit to all properties located within the District, The areas designated to be maintained by the District are noted on maps which are on file with the City Clerk's Office. Assessments are proposed to increase from $750,84 to $790.00 per net acre for Parkway Business Centre and Poway Corporate Center, Pomerado Business Park, Phases I and II, and the Rolling Hills Esta.tes commercial assessments are proposed to increase from $750,84 to $1,246.21 per net acre. The Rolling Hills Estates residential assessments are proposed to be $311.58 per unit. Although, the increase for the Pomerado Business Park seems substantial, the Land Development Area [LDA] assessment fees could conceivably be decreased according to the maintenance costs associated with the balance of acreage. AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 3 of 23 --- .----.--- Agenda Report - LMD 87-1 Levy and Collect Assessments August 1, 1995 Page 3 It has been noted that previous estimated savings for the LDA did not consider $33,000 in reserves collected by the Association each year. Taking this into account, the anticipated savings to the LDA is calculated to be $271.28 per net acre per year if the LMD takes the proposed acreage from the LDA (see Attachment 4, "Analysis of LDA/LMD Maintenance Assessment," complied by Neville Bothwell and Barry Burzo, To date, 11 letters of protest have been received from property owners within LMD 87-1, These letters represent 70 parcels for a total of 190,077 net acres. Based on 411.902 net acres currently being assessed, these parcels equal 46.15 percent protest. According to SB 1977, the proposed increase in assessments can only be ratified by Council on August I, 1995 if less than a majority protest the increase in assessments. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This action is not subject to CEQA review, FISCAL IMPACT The proposed combined LDA [pomerado Business Park, Phase I] and LMD assessments would decrease by 7,34 percent; combined CF Poway costs and LMD assessments are proposed to increase by 5,75 percent; Parkway Business Centre and Poway Corporate Center proposed assessments would increase by 5,2 percent; and Rollings Hills proposed assessments would increase an equivalent 66 percent. It is anticipated that insufficient revenues will be collected due to some property foreclosures and bankruptcies, Therefore, all, or a portion of, the payment of water bills will be deferred until properties have been sold and assessment liens recouped. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Pursuant to SB 1977, Section 50078,6: 1) notice of Public Hearings has been posted at three public places within the Agency; 2) a one-eight page display advertisement has been placed in the Powa.y News Chieftain (a newspaper of general circulation); and 3) notices of public hearings have been mailed to property owners within LMD 87-1 and those interested parties who have filed a written request with the Agency, As of the date of writing this report, 11 letters of protest have been received (see Attachment 2), 4 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 - Agenda Report - LMD 87-1 Levy and Collect Assessments August 1, 1995 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing assessments for Poway Landscape Maintenance District 87-1 to be collected on the Property Tax Roll for fiscal year 1995/96, JLB:JDF:JRW:PSN Attachments: 1. Resolution 2, Letters of Protest 3, FY 1995/96 Protest Listing by Net Acreage/Parcel Owner 4, Analysis of LDAlLMD Maintenance Assessment 5 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 ~---_. RESOLUTION NO, 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 87-1 TO BE COLLECTED ON THE PROPERTY ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway desires to have Landscape Maintenance District assessments collected on the property tax roll; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 1995, at a regular meeting of the Poway City Council, the amounts to be collected have been set forth in a public report; and WHEREAS, on June 27 and August 1, 1995, public testimony was allowed on the proposed increase in assessments; and WHEREAS, the public has been allowed to comment on these amounts and this action has been duly advertised as required by law; and WHEREAS, this action is authorized by the laws of the State of California, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Poway hereby fmds, resolves, and determines, and orders as follows: Section 1: The sum of assessments to be collected on the 1995/96 San Diego County Tax Roll to provide for the maintenance of landscape and hardscape improvements within the Landscape Maintenance District are as follows: $485,650,00 PASSED, ADOPTED, and APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Po way, California, at a regular meeting thereof this 1 st day of August, 1995, Don Higginson, Mayor ATTEST: Marjorie K, Wahlsten, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 6 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 - ~~.~~ v , - ~ <..k ~ ~~ June 28, 1995 ~'~.~ =-~~'~J Mayor and Councilmembers City of Poway P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Re: PROTEST of Proposed LMD 87-01 Assessments Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: With reference to our letter dated June 21, 1995, this is to confirm our PROTEST to the increased assessments proposed for LMD 87-01. We feel this increase unfairly penalizes Pomerado Business Park and, in particular, Phase II of Pomerado Business Park. 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. It is our belief that Phase II of Pomerado Business Park should be assessed at the $790/acre figure rather than $1,246,21/acre. - - If the assessments, as proposed, are adopted it would mean a 26% increase to our overall landscape costs, which in these economic times, is a SUBSTANTIAL and unsubstantiated burden. Very truly yours, /C2? . ..-.. ""'-" \ . Samuel A. Craig President - ATTACHMENT 2 c.F. Pomel'2do, Inc. 13000 Gl'tgg SIfUt, Po",..,.. D!ifomi2 92064 T,kphon, (619)486'2032 FAX (619)486, 3021 ITEM 5 7 of 23 lUG 1 1995 :) J~3 ~. ( / 1 ~ // "" ~ VA._, RECEIVED L '" - -~" t'- ~':-- ~ '" .- --=- - ..~- - -- ._.._... ~ --_. .. Whitaker Investment Corporation JUL - 7 1995 CITY OF POWAY July 5. 1995 CITY MANAGERS OFAce I I Mayor and C01.IDciltrerrbers ci ty of poway . Post Office Box 789 Poway, ca 92074 Re: PROTEST to ~~~p-d LMD 87-01 ~~~essmP-nt Tn~rease Honorable Mayor and C01l.'lcilmembers: I I As the Owner or APN 317-223-32 in LMD 87-01, I stron~ly PROTEST t."e assessments proposed for L'1D 87-01 as described J.Il the Agenda Report SUTitla-"Y dated 6/27/95. I fail to see the equity in assessbg Pcmerado Business Park at a rate different fran Parkway I Business Centre and Poway Tech Center, Each Park has a number of oc::::,~ied build.i.'lgs along with vacant land; each accessing their , I part~cular section of South Poway Business Park along the sane , t;"oroughfares, thereby benefitting equally fran those landscaped I areas . I I , , A much rrcre eqJ..itable solution would be to spread the assessments i evenly across the entire district, inCluding Phase II of Parkway I I E1..:siness Centre. '!he City has already set a precedent for I assessing property without a final map, narne1r the Mc.1I.1illin property_ As the City has done with the McMi. 1inlroperty, the City could pick up the assessme.."lts for Phase II 0 Parkway EUSUless Centre and rec~ those costs whe."1 the property ~s sold a'ld t.'1e final ~ recorde, under this scenario, the assessment per net acre wo d be S831.16/year versus the $1,246.21 prooosed for Panerado Eusiness Park. - I I [ I hone: (619) :38-1832 P.Q, Box 12440 San Diego, CA 92112-3440 Fax: (619) 531.1783 8 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 - .-. - - _..- . - - - .. . ~ ..- . ____. ~_~. . ._.J """"" '.'.J ,- .- -CC (}j:;t.WI//{ - . .Jte, '" /' rm ECONOMIC LIGHTING RECEIVEC TeCHNOLOGY, INC. JUL .. 7 IJ9S luly 6, 1995 CITY OF POWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICE Mayor and Councilmembers City of Poway P,O, Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Re: PROTEST of PrODO~ LMD 87'{)1 As~sment In........... Honorable Mayor and Counci1membcrs: As the owner of APN 317-225-15 in LMD 87'{)1, I stron&ly PRarFST the assessments proposed for LMD 87-01 as described in the Agenda Report Summary dated 6/27/95. I faUto see the equity in assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from Parkway Business Centre and Poway Tech Center. Each Park has a number of occupied buildings along with vacant land; uch accessini their particular section of South Poway Business Park along the same thoroughfares, th=reby benefitting equally from those !anti_perl amIS. A much more equitable solution would be to spread the assessments evenly across the ~ district, including Phase II of Parkway Business Centre. The City has al%ady set a precedent for assessini property without a final map, namely the McMillin Plu~Y. As the City has done with the McMillin property, the City could pick up the u,....sments for Phase II of Parkway Business Centre and recoup those costs when the property is sold and the final map recorded. Under this scenario, the assessment per net acre would be $831.16lyear venus the $1,246.21 proposed for Pomerado Business Park. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. -, Sincerely, ./ ,/ '- /~ ~me A, Blake President -- AUG 1 1995 ITEM I:; .. 9 of 23 12580 S/o... Drive Powey, Coil 92064 (619) 679-4100 (FAX) 679-4111 , ") ~, . J .l..j .l.) -Q'l)l~l " ~'} 1-/'.).) {.In. !.IF PI_III_",]' --- TRE"DIDT PUST ::.. lq , lt4 nOiJ .Rose ~/ / ' ' area dececccr systems carper acion ~A~ ,,-'"....~'!J JUL - 6 1995 July 5, 1995 Mayor and Counci1members CITYOFPOWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICE City of Poway P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Re: PROTEST to PrO,posed LMD 87-01 Assessment Increase Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: As the owner of APN 317-225-14 in LMD 87-01, I strongly PROTEST the assessments proposed for LMD 87-01 as described in the Agenda Report Summary dated 6/27/95. I fail to see the equity in assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from Parkway Business Centre and Poway Tech Center. Each Park has a number of occupied buildings along with vacant land; each accessing their particular section of South Poway Business Park along the same thoroughfares, thereby benefitting equally from those landscaped areas, A much more equitable solution would be to spread the assessments evenly across the ~ district, including Phase IT of Parkway Business Centre. The City has already set a precedent for assessing property without a fina1 map, namely the McMillin property. As the City has done with the McMillin property, the City could pick up the assessments for Phase II of Parkway Business Centre and recoup those costs when the property is sold and the final map recorded. Under this scenario, the assessment per net acre would be S831.16/year versus the $1,246.21 proposed for Pomerado Business Park. Sincerely ~G~' Ronald C. Hamlin President AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 10 of 23 12550 Stowe Drive Poway. CA 92064 U,$,A, (619) 486-0444 FAX (619) 486-0722 'j'j ,1._, ..L., ..::- O'v.l.~j < -t ') 1...,;;.) (_In. UF pl)\\.-\l --- TRL'T'IDT PL.,.'T ~ I:I.~ .- -'. I ~:::C'I / ! ~/l tJ l!J...... ,- Date JULl ~ I ~';;L>. RECEIVED JUl - b 1995 CITY OF POWAY Mayor and Councilmembers CITY MANAGERS OFFICE City of poway P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Re: PROTEST to Proposed LMD 87-01 Assessment Increase Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: As the owner of APN -0 \"1 - .2.Z-4-- \ Ie:> in LMD 87-01, I strongly PROTE$T the assessments proposed for LMD 87-01 as descnoed in the Agenda Report Summalj' dated 6/27/95, I fail to see the equity in assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from Parkway Business Centre and Poway Tech Center. Each Park has a number of occupied buildings along with vacant land; each accessini their particular section of South Poway Business Park along the same thoroughfares, thereby benefitting equally from those landscaped areas. . A much more equitable solution would be to spread the assessments evenly across the entire district, including Phase II of Parkway Business Centre. The City has already set a precedent for assessing property without a final map, namely the Mc~fillin property. As the City has done with the McMillin property, the City could pick up the assessments for Phase II of Parkway Business Centre and recoup those costs when the property is sold 8Dd the filial map recorded. Under this scenario, the assessment per net acre would be $831.16/year versus the $1,246.21 proposed for Pomerado Business Park. v......( 'leNA-NT !Ou,.,.s...;...~ "E>'I~c.:.u i.'o CoO, "'1=1'" :ru~\ 17C!C....Ol-Q..::;l> "r:,~""~\J?lc'7', J:."N: ,-eo;:, iN;T~ MOll.l....A-<=et'nyMEN7~ ~"'l> ~e,CQO' - IN i>..<.o,.ER.r-j"iAkli"S w'i ~OT ?I.I. il-J Fl- L-E'S<;' L-i'l-l?>o....,:;...i::>- w""iaR. ;NTEl-< ~;"'E LR....i:l 5c;.f'!'l>iNt:. FH..b l'l.eJ)vc;-.. Ou~ 'Tfl>< 'aU~"l>EN . ,- 1~~-t: -, ...'. .-- 4. .._. ......_. O. IRMGARD B. VAlENTA P,O. BOX ll48 LA JOLLA. CA Q2038 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 11 of 23 -.- .._.- -.--" - ~ ~... .'. ,H --- ~l'.~.;'.i..'~"::'.\J. t'L.1...\l ';;"1111';: " jt ~,j , ,-, '53 /' johnson storagE;; _ moving company i,& RECEIVED July 3, 1995 JUL - 6 1995 CITY OF POWAY Mayor and Council Members CITY MANAGERS OFFICE City of poway PO Box 789 poway, CA. 92074 RE: PROTEST to proposed LMD 87-01 Assessment Increase Honorable Mayor and Council Members: As the owner of APN 317-223-13 in LMD 67-01, I strongly PROTEST the assessments proposed for LMD 67-01 as described in the Agenda Report Summary dated 6/27/95. I fail to see the equity in assessing pomerado Business Park at a rat. different from Parkway Business Centre and poway Tech Center. Each Park has a number of occupied buildings along with vacant land; each ac- cessing their particular section of South poway Business Park along the same thoroughfares, thereby benefitting equally from those landscaped areas. A much more equitable solution would be to spread aSsessments evenly across the entire district, including Phase II of Parkway Business Center. The City has already set a precedent for assessing property withOut a final map, namely the McMillin property. As the City has done with the McMillin property, the City could piCk up the assessments for Phase II of Parkway Business Centre and recoup these costs when the property is sold and the final map recorded. Under this scenario, the assessment per net acre would be $831.16/year versus the $1246.21 propsed for pomerado Business Park. To Volle General Manager TV:kj:1 C 12225 K:;o;t<HAM ;:lOAD. S:';~E 400. ?aWAY, ~"'UFORN'A 92064 !/I1Ili AGENT, UNITED VAN LINES ;:~ ;'486-9292 . 5~ ;.;"22.9292 COASTAL. 819.234.9292 SAN DIEGO, 400.234.1515 . s~ 94S'';'1~! FAX: -- ITEM 5 AUG 1 1995 12 of 23 '\::='\;~ 3::::,\' M:\ii~Jc; i=:=A2~~ES Si;\C= ~9C~" -,- -> '. ~ J... '.'. r '_'" :1 ~ --- -:\J:..:'\..'lt..'\ 1 t"'i-.--I..\ 1 '::'1111:.\ fL VJ , :i-q ./ I' -..J I ' t"f?/ Date 7/s/~5 RECEIVED JUL - 6 1S95 CITY OF POWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICE Mayor and Councilmembers City of Poway P.O, Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Re: PROTEST to Proposed LMD 87-01 Assessment Increase Honorable Mayor and Counci1members: As the owner of MN 31; .zz2. _ 'f in LMD 87-01, I strongly PROTEST the assessments proposed for LMD 87-01 as described in the Agenda Report SummaI)' dated 6(27/95, I fail to see the equity in assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from Parkway Busmess Centre and Poway Tech Center. Each Park has a number of occupied buildings along with vacant land; each accessing their particular section of South Poway Business Park alonl: the same thoroughfares, thereby benefitting equally from those landscaped areas. . A much more equitable solution would be to spread the assessments evenly across the entire district, including Phase II of Parkway Business Centre. The City has already set a precedent for assessing property without a final map, namely the McMillin property. As the City has done with the McMillin property, the City could pick up the assessments for Phase II of Park""ay Business Centre and recoup those costs when the property is sold and the final map recorded. Under this scenario, the assessment per net acre would be $831,16/year versus the $1,246,21 proposed for Pomerado Business Park. /~ -~ l c-- I ^ a<-t,b Y!A~ ~-u,-'{i U..c.c -- ~~ 1'1,P'.# ~/7 - Z-2 "3 -/g 989 SCOTT ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 13 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 -- --------- (.'~~ . VEL MILETICH The Tropics Company /~~ 20501 Earl Str..et. Suite One P.O. BOX W RECEIVED TORRANCE. CA 90508 [310] 370~811 JUt.l1/f{;'[J PUBLIC SERVICES Om July 06, 1995 RECEIVEr: . JUL I u 1995 C C/TYOFPOWAY Mayor and Councilmembers 1TY MANAGERS OFFICE City of poway P.O, Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 RE: Protest to proposed LMD 87-01 assessment increase Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, As per my previous letter dated June 26, 1995 to you addressing the subject matter referenced above I would like to reiterate my position. As I stated previously, I oppose the methodology by which you arrived at your assessment for each portion of the area being reassessed. I own the property at 12250 Kirkham Road (APN 317-223-01) in the Pomerado Business Park. I don't think its fair for us in pomerado Business Park to pay more than owners of property in the Parkway Business Centre or poway Tech Center, especially in light of the fact that they benefit from our landscaped areas as much or more than us in Pomerado Business Park. A fairer method in my opinion would be to evenly spread the assessments over the entire district, which would also include Phase II of Parkway Business Centre. In sum, please regard this as my official PROTEST of the assessments you propose for LMD 87-01 as described in the agenda report summary dated June 27, 1995. Sincerely, v~~1~ VM/mkc 14 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 I' I .- J . SPOONER'S WOODWORKS / i'- ST. L1C. #672108 12525 KIRKHAM COURT POWAY. CALIFORNIA 92064 (619) 679.9086 FAX (619) 748.9690 Date 7/10/95 RECEIVED JUl 1:1 1995 Mayor and Councilmembers CITYOFPOWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICE City of Poway P.O. Box 789 Poway, Ca 92074 Re:PROTEST to Proposed LMD 87-01 Assessment Increase --- Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: As the owner of APN 317-225-10, 317-225-11 in LMD 87-01, I strongly PROTEST the asssessments proposed for LMD 87-01 as described in the Agenda Report Summary dated 6/27/95. I fail to see the equity in assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from Parkway Business Centre and Poway Tech Center, Each Park has a number of occupied buildings along with vacant land;each accessing their particular section of South Poway Business Park along the same thoroughfares, there- by beneIittting equally from those landscaped areas, A much more equitable solution would be to spread the assess- ments evenly across the entire district, including Phase II od Parkway Business Centre. The Cit y has already set a precedent for assessing property without a final map. namely the McMillin property.As the City has done with the McMillin property, the City could pick up the assessments for Phase II of Parkway Business Centre and recoup those costs when the property is sold and the final map recorded. Under this scenario the assessments per net acre would be $831,16/year versus the $1,246,21 proposed for Pomerado Business Park. ~'C'b teve Sp'i':, ner Spooner's Woodworks 15 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 ____n_____m.__ - --------,.. jf ' l1l1 ~c:V / Py D AND B PARTNERS V 12460 Kirkham Coun Poway, CA 92064 RECEIVED July 12, 1995 JUt '3 1995 CITYOFPOWAY Mayor and Councilmembers CITY MANAGERS OFFICE City of poway P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Re: PROTEST to Prooosed LMD 87-01 Assessment Increase Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: As the owner of APN 317-225-01 and APN 317-225-16 in LMD 87-01, I strongly PROTEST the assessments proposed for LMD 87-01 as described in the Agenda Report Summary dated June 27, 1995. I fail to see the equity in assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from Parkway Business Centre and poway Tech Center. Each Park has a number of occupied buildings along with vacant land; each accessing their particular section of South poway Business Park along the same thoroughfares, thereby benefitting equally from those landscaped areas. A much more equitable solution would be to spread the assessments evenly across the entire district, including Phase II of Parkway Business Centre. The City has already set a precedent for assessing property without a final map, namely the McMillin property. As the City has done with the McMillin property, the City could pick up the assessments for Phase II of Parkway Business Centre and recoup those costs when the property is sold and the final map recorded. Under this scenario, the assessment per net acre would be $831.16/year versus the $1,246.21 proposed for Pomerado Business Park. Sincerely, D AND B PARTNERS By:rkWAQ(~ MICHAEL A. CLARK MAC: smb 16 of 23 AUG 1 ITEM 5 1995 U i 1-1 'j,) J..1: -1;': .Q~ljl~ i -1,') 1-10,) U J\ UI- ~U"_-\l --- ~ltiLjl 5~H\JCES 41 OU 1 - ~~AUS.-. ;.fi! - o ~'/!J~8i1/;"J~ 1:/ n460 KIRM,'M COllRT PO WAY, CALlFOf(NIA 92064 (6191 486-0761 RECEIVED JUl 1 If 1995 July 12, 1995 CITY OF POWA Y - - CITY MANAGERSOFFfCE Mayor and Councilmemben City of Poway P.O, Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Rc: PROTEST to Proposed LMD 87-01 Aueument Increase BOBorable Mayor aod CouBcilmemben: As the owner of APN # 317.2~1' io LMD 87-01,1 stroOelY PROTEST tbe _menU proposed for LMD 87-01 as described iD the AICJlda Report SumDUU'y dated 6127/fJS. I fail to tee the equity io lWCUiDl Pomenclo BusiBesS Park at a rate differeat from Parkway BuliBes, Cutre ud Poway Tech Ceater. Each Park IIaJ a aumber of occupied buildings along with vacant Iud; each acceuinl their partieular section of South Poway Busioess Park alOOl: tbe same tborougbfare.t, tbereby beoefittiDg equally from tbose laodscaped areas. A much more equitable solutioo would be to spread the as_eots eveoly across the eatire district, iDdudiog Phase II of Parkway Bosioess CClltre. The City has already set a precedent for assaaing property without a nul map, aamely the McMillin property. As the City ha.s done with the McMllllil property, the Caty could pick up tbe _meat for Phase n of Parkway Business Centre and recoUp those cost! when the property is sold and the final map recorded. Uudertbls KUariO, tbe assesllDUt per Det acre would be 5831.16/year venus thc 51,246.21 proposed for Pomerado Business Park. SiDeerely, ~ au DOD Olhauseo ParlDer, D&B Pll11Ders Post-it" Fax Note 7671 0... I - To From Co, PhOne II 17 of 23 :~x " <..;;h-, - tJ i=0l.l # --- lUG 1 1995 nEII 15 - -.-.. FY 95/96 PROTESTS Development AEN Net Acres Parcel Owner Pom. Bus, Pk, I 3172221100 3.505 poway Industrial Park 3172221200 3.210 Poway Industrial Park 3172230100 3,140 Miletich Velko 3172230200 2.914 Squire Trust 3172230300 3.126 Panosprey Inc 3172230400 3.602 CF Poway Lid 3172230500 5.532 CF Poway Lid 3172230600 6.359 CF:;.Poway Lid 3172230700 4.175 Schmitz Family Partnership 3172231000 NIA NIA 3172231100 3,222 LBC Poway fnc, 3172231200 3,300 LBC poway Inc. 3172231300 1,753 JOlipson Properties Ltd 3172231400 1.558 CFPoway Ltd 3172231500 1.064 Ellis + Associates 3172231800 1.379 LaUb Family Trust 3172231900 7.241 CFPl)Way Lid 3172232000 2.461 CF poway Lid 3172232100 3.670 . CF poway Ltd 3172232700 1.056 Pomerado Properties 3172232800 0,796 Pomerado Properties 3172233000 0,313 DWCG Jnc 3172233100 5,865 GM Partnership 3172233200 4,140 DWCG Inc 3172233300 3.954 CF Poway Ltd 3172233700 1.280 Polis Youhanan & Kirgiya Living Trust 3172233800 1,000 Cates & Garberich 3172240100 2.435 Kirkham Stowe Inc 3172240200 0,558 Pomerado Properties 3172240300 0.623 Pomerado Properties 3172240400 0.667 Pomerado Properties 3172240600 0,697 Pomerado Properties 3172240700 0.644 Carlson Richard & Mary Trust 3172241500 0.313 CF Poway Ltd 3172241600 1,307 Valenta Irmgard B 3172241800 0.510 Pomerado Properties 3172241900 0.510 Pomerado Properties 3172242000 0.770 Pomerado Properties 3172242100 1,310 Pomerado Properties 3172242200 0.830 Pomerado Properties 3172242300 0.740 Pomerado Properties 3172250100 2,040 o & B Partners 3172250400 5,680 Kirkham Stowe Inc 3172250500 2,180 Kirkham Stowe Inc 3172250600 0.510 Main Bill & Kim, & Main Kay 3172250700 0.490 Ahern Don F 3172251000 0,366 Spooner Stephen W, Spponer Thomas 3172251100 0.344 Spooner Management 3172251200 6.339 Hunter Douglas Real Property 3172251300 2.133 Cf Paway Lid 3172251400 0,700 Area Detector Systems Inc 3172251500 0.690 BF&M Ltd 3172251600 3.280 o & B Partners 18 of 23 3172251700 0,712 Neuman Lee, McCann Martin ATTACHMENT 3 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 3172251800 0.608 PR Ridge II LId Pkwy Bus Ctr I 3172805600 14,500 Burnham Pacific Properties 3172805700 7,300 South poway Associates LId 3172804600 N/A N/A 3172804700 3,700 Cobb Heather, Cobb William 3172804800 7,000 TMM Realty Services 3172805800 3,080 South Poway Associates LId 3172805000 5.430 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172802100 3.200 poway Ventures LId 3172802200 2,600 White Thomas, White Kenneth, et al 3172802300 2.400 White Thomas, White Kenneth, et al 3172806000 3,620 Burnham Foundation 3172806100 0,000 Fumham Foundation 3172802800 3,000 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172802900 3.200 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172805100 4.700 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172805200 1,800 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172805300 3,100 White Thomas, White Kenneth, et al 3172805400 2.100 Security First National Corp 3172803400 3,200 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172803500 3.900 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172803600 3,200 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172803700 3,300 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172803800 3,400 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3172803900 3,100 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3178100400 1,300 Security First National 3178100500 0.900 Security First National 3178100600 N/A N/A 3178100700 N/A N/A 3178100800 N/A N/A 3178100900 1,000 MTG Properties Inc 3178101200 0.900 Brookwood Landscape Inc 3178101300 0,890 Security First National 3178101400 0,800 Poway Ventures LId 3178101500 0,900 Poway Ventures LId 3178101600 0,889 Poway Ventures LId 3178101700 0.900 Security First National Corp 3178101800 0,858 Poway Ventures LId 3178101900 0,780 poway Ventures LId 3178102000 1,100 Black Mountain Foundation 3178103400 0,570 Black Mountain Foundation 3178103500 0,630 Parkway Business Centre Partners Ltd 3178102200 1.500 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3178102300 1,200 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3178102400 1.400 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3178102500 1,000 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3178102600 0,900 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3178102700 1,200 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3178102800 1,120 Security First National Corp 3178102900 1.110 Securtiy First National Corp 3178103000 1,000 Security First National Corp 3178103100 1.200 JMP Advisors (Burlich) -- 3178103200 1,300 South Poway Associates 3230906200 5.900 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3230906300 3,700 JMP Advisors (Burlich) 3230906400 3.500 Codling Family Trust 19 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 - Porn, Bus, Pk, II 3172700700 2,610 CF Poway Ltd 3172700800 1.992 CF poway Ltd 3172700900 1.816 CF Poway Ltd 3172701000 1,906 CF Poway Ltd 3172701100 1,944 CF Poway Ltd 3172701200 3.352 CF Poway Ltd 3172701300 2.389 CF Poway Ltd 3172701400 1.882 CF Poway Ltd 3172701500 1.316 CF Poway Ltd 3172701600 0.991 CF Poway Ltd 3172701800 2.240 CF Poway Ltd 3172701900 1.831 61U'oway Ltd 3172702000 0.996 CJ;;I=>oway Ltd 3172702100 0.653 CP'.ROWayL1d 3172702200 1.477 CF Roway t'1d 3172702300 0,753 CE.:Poway Ltd 3172702400 0.807 eF"Jroway Ltd 317270250(1 ;0.640 CFPoway Ltd 3172702600 4;998 CF Poway Ltd 3172702700 '4;6'T4 CFipOWay Ltd 3172702800 3,8,94'.:C~J'i-bwayLtd 31'72~ . 4;1'02GF~ay Ltd 3172703000 . :1'.118 CFPoway Ltd 3172703100 1.626 CF Poway Ltd 3172703200 1.200 Cooke-Kerper Family Trust 3172708500 3;469 CFPoway Ltd 31727i13400, 4.977' CFPoway Ltd 31727Q3500 6;297", CFPoway Ltd 31727Q3600 6;315:, CF Poway Ltd 317271)3700, . 2.626, .CF PowayLtd 3172703800 .2.765 CF Poway Ltd 3172703900 ".a;998 CFPoway Ltd 31727Cl4OOO", . . ~.024 > CFPOWayt,tc:I 3172704100 ;2,618 CFPoway Ltd 3172704200 2.344 CF Poway Ltd 3172704300 2.150 CFPoway Ltd 3172704400 2.988 CF Poway Ltd 3172704500 0.442 CF poway Ltd 3172704600 0.608 CF Poway Ltd 3172704700 0,313 CF poway Ltd 3172810700 3,116 CF'Poway Ltd 3172811)800 3.276 CF Poway Ltd 3172810900 .3.024 Cf:poway Ltd 3172811000 2.796 CFPoway Ltd 3172811100 3.440 CFPoway Ltd 3172811200 4.411 CF poway Ltd 3172811300 4.280 CF Poway Ltd 3172811400 3,154 CF Poway Ltd 3172811500 5,971 CF Poway Ltd 3172811600 7.246 CF Poway Ltd Poway Corporate Ctr 3172710100 0.836 Tech Business Center 3172710200 0,723 Tech Business Center 3172710300 0,756 Tech Business Center 3172710400 0.520 Tech Business Center 3172710600 0,648 Tech Business Center 3172710700 0.670 Tech Business Center 3172710900 0.520 Tech Business Center 20 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 3172711000 0.520 Tech Business Center 3172711200 0,719 Tech Business Center 3172711300 0,699 Tech Business Center 3172711500 0,519 Tech Business Center 3172711600 .0,500 Tech Business Center 3172711800 0.681 Tech Business Center 3172711900 0,583 Tech Business Center 3172712000 0.543 Tech Business Center 3172712100 0.576 Tech Business Center 3172712200 0,764 Tech Business Center 3172712300 0.545 Tech Business Center 3172712400 0.514 Tech Business Center 3172712500 0.521 Tech Business Center 3172712600 0.533 Tech Business Center 3172712700 0.594 Tech Business Center 3172712800 0,673 Tech Business Center 3172713000 0,603 Tech Business Center 3172713300 0,608 Tech Business Center 3172713400 0,608 Tech Business Center 3172713500 0,619 Tech Business Center 3172713600 0,769 Tech Business Center 3172713700 0,591 Tech Business Center 3172714000 0,606 Tech Business Center 3172714100 0,606 Tech Business Center 3172714200 0,657 Tech Business Center 3172714300 0.536 Tech Business Center 3172714400 0,512 Tech Business Center 3172714500 0.492 Tech Business Center 3172714600 0.495 Tech Business Center 3172714700 0,512 Tech Business Center 3172714800 0.545 Tech Business Center 3172714900 0,679 Tech Business Center 3172715000 0,343 Tech Business Center 3172715100 0.343 Tech Business Center 3172715200 0,343 Tech Business Center 3172715300 0.343 Tech Business Center 3172715400 0.343 Tech Business Center 3172715500 0.343 Tech Business Center 3172715600 0,343 Tech Business Center 3172715700 0.343 Tech Business Center 3172715800 0,343 Tech Business Center 3172715900 0,343 Ickier Kurt & Lauri 3172716000 0.330 Tech Business Center 3172716100 0.330 Tech Business Center 3172716200 0,338 Tech Business Center 3172716300 0,338 Tech Business Center 3172716400 0,337 Tech Business Center 3172716500 0,337 Tech Business Center 3172716600 0,337 Tech Business Center 3172716700 0.337 Tech Business Center Pkwy Bus. Ctr II 3230901700 27.600 JMP Advisors Inc (Burlich) 3230904300 4.300 JMP Advisors Inc (Burlich) 3230906500 37,700 poway Venture LId 3230906600 13.900 JMP Advisors Inc (Burlich) 3230910200 4.700 JMP Advisors Inc (Burlich) 21 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 --------- 3230910300 48.200 Poway Venture LId Rolling Hills Estates 3200112300 0.840 Trident Homes of California 3200112400 35.160 Trident Homes of California TOTAL PROTEST AS OF 7/17/95 190.077 OF 411,902 NET ACRES PERCENTAGE OF PROTEST 46.15% 22 of 23 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 - ANALYSIS OF LDAlLMD MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT JUNE 19. 1995 1995 PHASE I LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BUDGET Electricity $ 3,600,00 Water 46,202.00 Landscaper 39,600.00 Landscape Supply 240.00 Landscape Sprinkler $ 3.300.00 92,942.00 Reserves 33,000.00 TOTAL .$125,942.00 $125,942,00 divided by 117,60 net acres = $1,070,93 per net acre per year PROPOSED LMD TAKEOVER 1995/1996 LMD proposed assessment = $1,246,21 per net acre per year LMD is proposing to take a total of 56.6 irrigated acres from Phase I (42.85) and Phase II (13,7), Current LDA irrigated acres = 56.45. This will leave 13,6 acres or 24,1 % of the current LDA acreage. Anticipated LDA assessment = $35,745.00 divided by 117.60 net acres = $303,95 per net acre per year ($219,03 per acre per month), Total proposed assessment per year per net acre = $1,246.21 + $303.95 = $1,550.16 per net acre per year, SUMMARY Current LDA assessment for year 1995 per net acre per year $1,070,93 Current LMD assessment for year 1994/1995 per net acre per year $ 7509,00 TOTAL $1,821.44 Anticipated LDA assessment for year 1996 per net acre per year $ 303.95 Proposed LMD assessment for year 1995/1996 per net acre per year $1.246,21 TOTAL $1,550,16 Anticipated savings of $271 ,28 per net acre per year if the LMD takes the proposed acreage from the LDA, 23 of 23 ATTACHMENT 4 AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 -- c1J~ 7- ,;Lfr-r.5" C~ ~,~ ~ (' Oe C/i:-- 989 SCOTT STREET ick SAN DIEGO. CA 92106 (619) 226-1333 - aub Company RECEIVE~ JlJl 2" 1995 ]UL Y 22, 1995 CITYOFPOWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICE CITY OF POW A Y COUNCIL PO BOX 789 POWA Y, CA 92074 RE: POMERADO BUS. PARK ASSOC.-LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE GENTLEMEN: PLEASE DISREGARD OUR RECENT PROTEST LEITER ABOUT THE INCREASE ASSESSMENT TO OUR . . LOT 28 OF THE CITY OF POWA Y TRACT NO. ~ UNIT 1 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 11742 FILED MARCH 9,1987 I AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 I -~_.~- -~-- +519477757~--~CMILLIN COMPRNIES I/~ 7Jli~~ 03:21 POt.I-I' ~rJ~1 Fax Transmittal Memo 7672 ~ t.lo~lP).gt! ;1":D3/_ 9/5 TII116 ( ij~l~ JZ J- ~ ~ Fro.. $~ cJ~ . jtJff'fJ rd 'r.}3J IJ~ iD~rft~ -'''"I ~ L,x..!Icn ] FCI' , ""..~l-aN. ~E?- 61/;,- ':..,<111 'ljm~ b7{,-2,J,J./ 1'i'?" 1"-155 ~~IT.mcr.:J OllpcSlbon 0 roy :JActLrr' Oc,I,I\lrplo;hp _ ,,'1-28-1995 il4:52F'M ~ROM TO 10194777573 P.1!J2 A- I TluDENr HOMES OF CAlJFOR-'lIA. INC. I I Recelveo JUt 3 I 1995 I I July 27. 1995 , CfTYOF POWAY I City of Poway CfTY MANAGERS OFFICE I 13325 Civic Center Drive i Poway, Ca 92064 , ! Subject: Protest of Proposed LMD 87-01 Assessment Incr~ase I Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I I As the owner of Rolling Hills Estates (APN 320-011-23 and 320- 011- I 24) we respectfully protest the increased assessments proposed for LHD 87-01 as described in the Agenda Report Summary dat~d June 27, 1995, After reading the report, it appears that the proposed assessments should be re-evaluated. With respect to our property. there i!: not ; enour;;ih project specific information contained in the report to 1 properly determine an equitable assessment. Respectfully. 1 I TRIDENT HOMES OF CALIFORIUA i I , ~ - I Sean Chung \ Vice ,President I I cc: E. Chau I Jim Ondler C. Eldred, Esq. ! i ; i I , 1 "G 1 1995 ITEM .5 , I , Z15SS Ync:z R'O.." 51:ilc 2Ol5. Tcnacgd... CalilOrD.iJl 92S91 I Tel, l'lItl676-ml Fox: ~) 676-49U I fJ~ >---1-7'$ ttLJl.-e.1-95 TUE 13:26 PLU.tLIC SER'".'ICES 486232":" F' . tl] D AND B PARTNERS 12460 Kirkham COUrl Poway, CA 92064 RECE\VED JUl 2" RE~'U July 26, 1995 puauc, SERVICES otPl James R. Williams, P.E. Director of Public Services CITY OF POWAY P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074-0789 Re; Prooosed LMD 87-01 Assessment Increases T~lr . Williams: On reflection, I rescind my July 12, 1995 letter of protestation with cespect to the above-referenced matter. This decision is based upon the contents of your letter of July 19, 199'), PleaSE; note your records accordingly. Thank you. Sincerely, Poat-it" Fax Note 7671 D AND B PARTNERS To D%M A. QLOLl By; !.lICHAEL A. CLARK HAC: smb Posl-II' Fax Nole 7671 Ddl13 ce; Mr. William F. Olhausen To Fram Mr. Donald Olhausen CO,/D.pt Co Phone # F... Ftl~ if. - , -- AUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 -I I - 1.~IJ;i kJ I ''::is $74: SZPM PLA'iEI ?ORT I', I PANOSPREY INC. 1995 ~~,~ : 3'\M ~IN ".. AUKust 1 , E::. \~s..0.; Mayor and Couneilmembers Ci ty or Poway P.O. Box 789 Poway, CA 92074 Re: PROTEST to Proposot.d LMD 87-01 Asse~s.!D~nt Incre1!J!..g Honorable Mayoe- and Councilmembers: As the owner of APN 317-223-03 in LMD 87-01, I stroell;~!Y p~Q.Tr;:ir thf' assessments proposed for LMD 87-01 as described in the A~:end~" Report Summary dated 6/27/95. I rai I to see the eql~ i I Y ll, assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from PG\rkwu;. Business Centre and Poway Tech Center. Each Park has i1 Ilumbpr $1' occupied bui ldings along wi th vacant land; each acr.l.ssin~ the I'. particular section of South Poway Business Park .:..1 u ..~. lJ.e ~~ ~uH~ thoroughfares, thereby benefitting equally from thost", li1.hd~;'aped d.ieas.. A much more equitable solution would be to spe-ead the a::,:;eSSlncrlt~; "venly across the entire district, including Phase Il of Parkw,,-.1 B~lS iness Centre. The City has already set a pr eCf:od€:l. t for a.ssessing property without a final map, namely the McMi II ie. Property. As the Ci ty has done with the McMillin prop..e ly. 1 h" City could pick up the assessments for Phase II or Parkway UU~lne!S Cente-e and recoup those costs when the property is s.) Ii! an,j the final map recorded. Under this scenario.. the assessmt~nt pf"r Itt.l acre would be $831.16/ycar versus the $1,2~6.21 p[G}Jo~~<1 r or Pomerado Business Park, S y"'~ rei y , A,--,--- ~><-.-Ja-~~ 0&\8 un Pe-esident ..--.... .-.-----,.,. - 122S4lavel/i Way. Paway. California. 92064. USA. Tel, (619) 679-6595. Fox (619) 679-67ift1G 1 1995 ITEM 5 I -, ._---- .- 1:,IJ'j Idl ':is 04: 52PM PLAYE., ';;PORT 1',1 - PArtOSPREY INC. ~\'-\;~ ~ 3'\M ~~ c:..;>o... AUK"ust 1 . 1995 E:.\~&~/'; Mayor and Councillllembers Ci ty of Poway P.O. Box 189 Poway, CA 92014 Re: PR()TEST to ProDo'Led LMD 87-01 As '!_~~$.!D~!:' t Incs~~~ Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: As the owner of APN 311-223-03 in LMD 81-01, I stronr>;Jy PRQ.Tr;~r thE' assessments pe-oposed for LMD 87-01 as described In the AI1:end~'\ Report SUDlmary dated 6/27/95, I fail to see the ~qt.i I Y 111 assessing Pomerado Business Park at a rate different from l'...rkwa) Business Centre and Poway Tech Center. Each Park has i1 )lumber \)1' occupied buildings alon!>; wi th vacant land; each acr.l"SS 1 ng the 1'- particular section of South Poway Business Park a.1 u..~ It..: ~:; :-tule thoroughfares, thereby benefitting equally frolll thas.-- I ru~d~ ;'aped d.reas~ A much lDore equitable solution would be to spread the a::.:::-:eSSU1cllt~.: "venly across the entire diste-ict, including Phase 11 of Pa r kw...,; BllS iness: Centre. The Ci ty has already set a preC~dE':l.l for assessing property without a (i na I map, namely the ~lc~ i J I i r, Property. As the Ci ty has done with the McMi I J in pn>per ty. lilt- Ci ty could pick up the assessments for Phase II of Parkwa~ yu:,ness Cente-e and recoup those costs when the property is S>) it! an...1 t lIe, final lIIap recorded. Under this scenario, the assessmt"nt l-"~r Ill:. I acre would be S831.t6/year versus the $1,2~6.21 p[c.}Ju~t:(! for Pomee-ado Business Park. S y:,~relY, A~ ~t-'-~-"& 01"1& un President ..---. --..----..- - 122S4lavelli Way. Paway. California. 92064. U.SA. Tel, (619) 679-6595. Fox (619) 679-679CUG 1 1995 ITEM 5 t