Minutes of Jan. 17, 2002 Engineering Committe Meeting

Mr. Brannon circulated copies of a map showing the water system on Via Santa Rosa and Via Peregrino. His job is to plan development of water systems for new developments. Primary water facilities are paid for by the RCWD, funded through benefit fees collected through the property tax system. Secondary facilities are funded through two methods, zone of benefit funding on a per-acre development, and individual tract facilities are funded by each development. On Via Peregrino, Zone funding has been collected, at a rate of about $ 1,500 per acre. Three 20-acre parcels (the old Retlaw properties) had remote meters at Via Santa Rosa. RCWD is getting ready to build the main from Via Santa Rosa to just past Tract 24831 (Whisper Lane). The In-Tract portion of water system in Tract 24831 is estimated at $269,997, or between $ 26,000 and $ 28,000 for each parcel in Tract 24831. This is just for water, and does not include dry utilities. RCWD has talked to Mr. Mehas and Mr. Watson about forming an assessment district. RCWD has strict rules regarding assessment districts, and it would be very difficult in this area. They did complete a similar project in Tenaja. The main in Via Peregrino could be done by the middle of this calendar year. None of the other parcels along Peregrino have paid their Zone fees; if they did there should be sufficient funds to complete the main to the end of Via Peregrino.

Mr. Rogers asked if Tract 27935 could be built without linking back through Via Toronado; Mr. Peters indicated that their design showed adequate flows could be obtained without an offsite extension in Via Toronado to Via Santa Rosa.

Mr. Rogers pointed out the inconsistency in County development requirements for Schedule D tracts, in that utilities are not required to subdivide the land, but practical considerations (and SRCSD ordinances) dictate that the utilities be installed. Mr. Brannon agreed that they would not allow the water mains to go in unless they were in paved roads.

Mr. Brannon answered questions from the audience regarding water services, remote meters, fire protection and area charges in the area of the two tracts and along Via Peregrino.

E. John A. Friedrich, P.E.

Mr. Rogers introduced John Friedrich, who gave an overview of assessment districts, including the requirements for formation, the need for a lead agency to organize a district, additional voting requirements under Proposition 218. Any public improvements, including streets, storm drains, water, and a limited amount of public utilities (10%± of total assessment district) can be included in assessment districts. Non-contiguous areas can be included. Bigger districts can take advantage of economies of scale; small projects have a disadvantage in terms of higher proportionate fixed costs and the number of individual properties that may have assessment or tax delinquency problems. Problem districts can have difficulty selling bonds. A 4:1 value-to-lien ratio is the benchmark. Minimum bond life is usually 15 years.

A “start-up” fund is usually established to finance up-front costs. RCWD uses $10,000. If the District does not go forward, that money is spent and not recoverable. Typical incidental costs, including assessment engineering, bond counsel, underwriting and related costs would add 25% to 30% to the total project cost, assuming that the project engineering is of good quality. All public projects need to be built at prevailing wage, which may add up to 30% to the project cost. The “assessment engineer” writes a report that includes a project cost estimate and a consistent methodology to distribute those costs equitably to all of the affected properties, an assessment diagram and a boundary map. He also manages the hearings, assessment ballots and related functions.

Should the CSD or the Water District be the lead agency? It usually depends on who has the majority of the facilities to be built, roads or water. Does each property owner know what the cost will be before the bonds are sold? Yes, it will be in the ballot sent to each property owner.

Dennis Rieger asked how many owners in a proposed district are represented tonight? A show of hands indicated that eight owners out of about 27 were present.

The effect of the defaulted bond funds on deposit for Tract 24831 on the assessment district was discussed; the funds would go to offset the cost prior to sale of the bonds. Mr. Friedrich also clarified the difference between the performance guarantee bonds for a subdivision and the bonds sold to finance an assessment district. Danny Zendejas asked who is responsible if the performance bond is insufficient to complete the required work. Mr. Rogers said that there is a major discrepancy between the County-approved bond estimate and the latest construction cost estimate obtained by one of the developer, Mr. Mehas. Mr. Peters stated that they had obtained bids showing that the original bond estimate was sufficient to build the improvements required by the County, but not the utilities. Can the property owners advance the cost up front, then get reimbursed through an after-the-fact bond? Yes, through an acquisition bond procedure. It may save some time in the overall process.

E. Mr. John Peters and Mr. Larry A. Markham

Mr. Peters reiterated the history of the two tracts. Tract 24831 is almost ready to start construction. Tract 27567 has been dormant for quite a few years; plan check is not complete. The time extension application was filed to allow the entitlement process to continue. Plans have not been reviewed for about three years. The proposed internal road system and utility status was described. The project would correct the current road situation, connecting three cul-de-sacs that are unacceptably long according to today’s fire requirements. The original owners of many of the parcels were forced to give them up, and the fourteen parcels are currently owned by ten separate owners. The design took into account the Western Ridgeline requirements, and full geometric ridgeline studies were required at the time the tentative map was approved. The project will have to comply with current erosion requirements under NPDES, but there will be increased runoff from the project compared to natural conditions. Most of the project area is left undeveloped. Nancy Backstrand asked if there is any way to condition the project to require each 5-acre parcel to contain all its runoff on site. Mr. Peters said it would be difficult to change the design and conditions now that the tentative map is already approved. A new home owners association with stricter CC&R’s would have to deal with this issue. Marty Wright asked how many homes would be visible from the Valley; Mr. Markham stated that it would be only eight or nine homes.

Mr. Markham stated that the grading requirements imposed in the Conditions of Approval are extremely restrictive; he compared the requirements to those on the eleven lots along Via Horca and Camino Gatillo; complete detailed grading plans conforming to the tentative map and accompanying conditions must be reviewed and approved by the County Planning Department prior to issuance of a grading or building permit; none of the existing underlying 20-acre lots have any restrictions. Mr. Rogers stated that he was told by Deputy Planning Director Ron Goldman that all of the underlying lots must conform to all of the terms of the Southwest Area Plan; Mr. Markham and Mr. Peters disagreed with this position. Mr. Markham continued with his description of the very restrictive conditions that will be imposed upon this map. Marty Wright said she had read the conditions on the eleven lots, and agreed that they were highly restrictive and very desirable. Gregg Berge asked if County Fire was willing to work with these conditions, as far as vegetation disturbance. Mr. Peters and Mr. Markham said that they have indicated a willingness to do so. Director Roy asked if any provisions had been made to compensate the District for road damage resulting from the project. Mr. Peters said that the project is merely a build-out of the existing zoning density, for which the roads are supposed to be adequate; no special payment provisions have been made. The in-tract facilities are standard District roads, 22’ wide with 4’ shoulders on each side.

Mr. Rogers was asked if the District is trying to stop the map; Mr. Markham responded with an explanation of the Extension of Time process and gave a history of the process to date. The Board of Supervisors’ action on January 8 resulted in tonight’s meeting and an upcoming staff meeting with County Planning on January 24. The map will finally expire without recourse if it is not recorded by 2004. Even if the map expires, the underlying 5- and 10-acre zoning will remain in effect unless changed by further County action.

Mr. Peters was asked if there is secondary access to the project without using Rancho California Road; Mr. Peters stated that the project has three points of access, but Mr. Rogers pointed out that there is no secondary paved access down to Temecula except for Rancho California Road. Camino Estribo is not an acceptable all-weather access. Secondary access is a larger question, a major planning issue that has not been dealt with yet. Ms. Wright said that she felt Via Santa Rosa needed to be widened to handle more traffic, that it is already too narrow. Kerry Mayer said that widening the roads may not be a satisfactory solution, as it simply allows traffic to move at dangerously high speeds. Mr. Markham concurred; the wider and straighter you make a road, the faster traffic will travel.

Mr. Rogers raised the question of the SDG&E easement. Mr Markham replied that although this route is not their preferred route, the condition requires SDG&E’s written clearance or a quitclaim of the easement prior to recording of the map. The subdivider might have to phase the map to record portions not affected by the easement, and obtain permission to construct the roads through the easement. Mr. Rogers asked if it would be practical to record the map subject to the potential 500-KV power line; Mr. Markham said that was more of a marketing issue.

Mr. Rogers asked about the adverse grade situation at several places along Camino Gatillo; Mr. Peters responded that most of the steep grades within the project were corrected by the proposed improvements, including removing and replacing about 1,000’ of existing road and water main. The steep grades offsite have not been addressed. The cost of building the extensive offsite improvements were discussed, and Mr. Peters did not answer the question as to whether market values would cover the estimated expenses.

Bob Teffenhart, representing Debra Wong, the owner of “Phase 1” of the map, asked if the recording of the map would affect the Wong’s property. Mr. Markham and Mr. Peters both stated that Phase 1 didn’t have to record, and it would not have any affect on the Wong’s property unless the map recorded. None of the map conditions would apply.

Would the phasing be done consistent with the current ownership? Mr. Peters said that it was not tied to ownership, and they would have to go back to the County with an additional phasing plan if that was a consideration. Mr. Markham added that any phasing program would have to provide adequate secondary access, as well as meet potential utility/fire flow requirements. The final map, and any phasing maps resulting therefrom, would need to be signed by the owners of record at the time prior to recording.

Mr. Rogers pointed out that there are five additional properties along Via Peregrino that were not part of either tract, and they should be included in any Assessment District to extend utilities to Tract 27567. Mr. Markham stated that RCWD might collect reimbursements from any of the owners who were not in the tract, but only for the water system, not for the road improvements or dry utilities.

Gregg Berge asked how properties that had paid zone of benefit fees could not be entitled to water service. Mr. Peters that only the three 20-acre parcels on the North side of Via Peregrino had paid benefit fees; none of the other lots are entitled.

Are the utility extensions to be underground? Mr. Markham said that county requires underground utilities. Mr. Rogers stated that the District does not have any ordinance to require underground utilities, but that the District would strongly discourage any overhead line extensions.

Mr. Berge asked for the cost of extending dry utilities and water the full length of Via Peregrino. Mr. Markham and Mr. Rogers agreed that the cost would be about $300,000.

F. Security Issues

Mr. Rogers described the security gate, the reasons for installing it, and the conditions under which it would be removed (construction of one or more residences). He also asked if the property owners within Tract 27567 would be willing to gate off the end of Via Toronado. Mr. Berge claimed that proper notice was not given to all of the owners when the gate was installed, and he objected to his lack of access, in that SRCSD was restraining his right to free trade. His client wants to have free access to Via Peregrino and a 4’ x 8’ sign at the end of Camino Gatillo to advertise his property. The closure was improperly done without action, and Mr. Rogers is acting outside of his authority. The Committee did not respond.

G. Public Comment

Cliff Hewlett, representing the Citizen’s Group, De Luz 2000, stated that the map has had numerous time extensions but the property owners have made no progress in completing the requirements. The next public hearing is scheduled for February 5, and the developers were required to meet with the community to agree on possible changes to allow the map to proceed. There will be monumental costs in developing the map, and the developer has not shown any willingness to modify the current proposal. De Luz 2000 would like to help the County find a way to keep the entire ridgeline as open space in some way or another. Barring that, they would prefer that it stay in the underlying 20-acre parcels as the lesser of two evils.

Total cost of the improvements for Tract 27567 was discussed. Mr. Markham said that the total cost of improvements through an assessment district would be about $ 5,000,000, so each individual 5-acre lot would need to be worth about $ 400,000 for it to be credit-worthy. They would need to be very cautious about obtaining 100% participation of the property owners to avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation. He said that he would be very surprised if this project could meet the financial qualifications for a special assessment district.

H. Engineering Committee Position

Mr. Rogers stated that the underlying purpose of tonight’s meeting was to establish a position of the Engineering Committee and the SRCSD Board towards the approval or denial of the time extension. Director Buescher stated that from the testimony by the various experts, it did not appear that the project had any reasonable chance of being financially feasible. Mr. Peters agreed that as individual owners, it was probably not feasible, but a master developer could buy the whole project and create a custom home community. Some of the original purchasers bought their 20-acre parcels at the peak of the market, lost their properties back to the lenders, and new owners picked the properties up at distressed properties. Those owners might be able to justify the $65,000 per 5-acre lot development cost. Mr. Zendejas stated that the District should not destroy the hopes of the people who have put years into this project. Mr. Rouse stated that the property should remain in 20-acre parcels.

The Engineering Committee agreed that the District should not oppose the time extension per se, but asked Mr. Rogers to call to the Board of Supervisors’ attention the several issues raised at this evening’s meeting regarding the impracticality of meeting the map’s conditions of approval.

I. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM .

________________________________

John B. Rogers. P.E., General Manager

ATTEST:

_______________________________

Bob Roy, Chairman
Engineering Committee

A. Call to Order and Roll Call