Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0301 CC REG ITEM 11EI T L X35.. ( ;2 AGENDA REPORT C = TY O F MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: February 17, 1995 (CC Meeting 3 -1 -95) SUBJECT: Consider Report Pertaining to the Zones of Benefit within Assessment District 84 -2 OVERVIEW On January 4, 1995, the City Council. adopted a Resolution initiating the proceedings required to consider the levy of assessments for AD84 -2 for FY 1995/96. Included in the staff report accompanying that resolution was a discussion of a request to dissolve the Zones of Benefit within AD84 -2 and to transfer all Zone costs to the citywide landscaping assessment. This report has been prepared at the direction of the City Council to provide the Council with the information necessary to respond to that request. Included in this report is a discussion of the policy decisions which led to the formation of the two Assessment Districts, as well as an analysis of a number of alternative methods which could be used to transfer all or a portion of the Zone maintenance costs to the Citywide landscaping assessment. :s •�b The following is brief history of the steps which led to the formation of the two Assessment Districts and the formation of a number of Zones of Benefit within AD84 -2, 1. Prior to the incorporation of the City of Moorpark, the County of Ventura had created three (3) separate landscape maintenance assessment districts. These assessment districts were formed in order to comply with certain Conditions of Approval for three (3) residential subdivisions: • AD83 -1: Tract 3841 (Heatherglen -- Griffin); • AD84 -1: Tract 2851 (Park: Glen -- Griffin; and, • Tract 2865 (Pacifica). 2. In June 1985 the City Council approved Resolution No. 85 -207 merging these three assessment districts into two new - assessment Districts: AD85 -1 (parks maintenance) and AD 84 -2 (street lighting and landscaping) ad -aonel 00096 Zones of Benefit March 1995 Page 2 3. AD83 -1: The maintenance of Glenwood Park was removed from the 191 unit Tract 3941 (Heatherglen) and added to the Citywide parks maintenance assessment for all City parks which was to be levied by the newly created AD85 -1. The maintenance of the Tierra Rejada Road median and the parkway on the east side of Tierra Rejada Road along the frontage of Tract 3841, was added to the Citywide street landscaping assessment to be levied by the newly created AD84 -2. 4. AD84 -1: The City Council also approved the consolidation of AD84 -1 (Tract 2851: N/W Corner of Collins Drive & Campus Park Drive) with the new AD84 -2. The maintenance of the landscaping in the Campus Park Drive median in the vicinity of this Tract, as well as in the parkways on Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive along the perimeter of this tract, were added to the Citywide street landscaping assessment. The maintenance of the parkway landscaping on Pecan Avenue, Benwood Drive and Bambi Court in the interior of this Tract, was assumed by a new "Zone of Benefit" (Zone #1). 5. Tract 2865: The third assessment district was an unnumbered assessment district named the Tierra Rejada Road Landscape Maintenance District. Again, this assessment district was formed in response to conditions of approval for the Pacifica portion of Tract 2865. Although this assessment district was established by the County in 1979, it was not activated until 1984 when a specified number of dwelling unit occupancies had been granted. Activation of this Assessment District was accomplished through the establishment of a second Zone of Benefit (Zone 2) within AD84 -2,, encompassing all of the lots within Tract. 2865. a. The area initially included within Zone 2 consisted of only the easterly portion of Tract 2865 (Pacifica). Later the City Council added the westerly portion of Tract 2865 (Pardee) to this Zone of Benefit. b. When AD84 -2 was formed and 'Lone 2 was established in 1984, the Tierra Rejada Road median landscaping within Tract 2865 had not yet been constructed. Later, when these improvements were constructed with funds derived from an improvement assessment levied upon all of the lots within Tract 2865, the cost for the maintenance of those median improvements was added to the Citywide landscaping assessment for AD84 -2 and riot to the Zone 2 assessment. c. The landscaping to be maintained by the Zone 2 assessment initially only included the parkway slopes on the south side of Tierra Rejada Road a7.onq the frontage of Tract 2865. ad -zonal 00697 Zones of Benefit March 1995 Page 3 Later other parkway landscaping was added to the Zone 2 assessment, including the following: • the entry statement at the intersection of Christian Barrett Drive and Spring Road; • the south side of Christian Barrett Drive just west of Spring Road; • the west side of Spring Road north and south of Christian Barrett Drive; • the east side of Peach Hill Road between Tierra Rejada Road and Christian Barrett Drive; and, • the north side of Tierra Rejada Road east of Peach Hill Road (Pardee). d. The Pardee portion of Tract 2865 was added to Zone 2 of AD84 -2 in order to comply with a Condition of Approval which the City Council added to later phases of Tract 2865. This Condition of Approval required the properties within the affected Tracts to be included within an Assessment District Zone of Benefit and to receive an additional assessment to fund the maintenance of certain landscaping improvements deemed to be of benefit to said properties. The rationale behind this decision was that the specified landscaping improvements were both an amenity to the development and a required mitigation measure of that development. As such the cost for maintaining these improvements was to be paid by the future residents of that Tract. 6. A similar Condition of Approvai was included in the approval of Tracts 3019 & 3525 (Warmington) located immediately west of Tract 2865. These tracts were eventually added to AD84 -2 as Zone 5. 7. In 1986 Tract 3963 (Campus Hills / Griffin) and Tract 4037 (Design Editions / CalProp) were approved without the need for the creation of any new Zones of Benefit. The then City Council determined that the parkway landscaping along major arterial streets would be the responsibility of the Home Owners' Associations (HOA) for the properties within the adjacent Tracts. In essence, this approach achieves the same end as the establishment of a new Zone of Benefit, with the exception that the City does not have direct control over the level or quality of landscape maintenance provided. 8. In 1992 Zone 7 was established, consisting of the industrial area located northeast of the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and Gabbert Road, to fund the cost of maintaining the parkway landscaping on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue east of Gabbert Road. The area maintained by this Zone was later extended easterly to a paint just east of Shasta Avenue. a8 -zonel 0009 -R Zones of Benefit March 1995 Page 4 9. In 1993 Zone 8 was established, consisting of the West Ranch portion of PC -3 and Home Acres, to fund the construction and maintenance of the Buffer Area at the west end of West Ranch. 10. In 1994 Zone 9 was established, consisting of all of the industrial properties on Condor Drive, to fund the construction and maintenance of parkway entry improvements at the intersection of Los Angeles Avenue and South Condor Drive near Virginia Colony Park. 11. Per City Council direction the Engineer's Report for AD84 -2 for FY 1995/96 will include provisions to allow the establishment of a new Zone 10, consisting of all of the properties within the Mountain Meadows Planned Community (PC -3), to fund the cost of maintaining the parkways on Tierra Rejada Road within PC -3. DISCUSSION A. Request to Dissolve the Zones of Benefit In July of 1994 the City received a letter from a Mr. Frangos (Exhibit 'A') requesting that all of the assessments levied against specific Zones of Benefit within AD84 -2 be eliminated and that the costs previously assumed by said Zones of Benefit be spread Citywide. Of particular interest to Mr. Frangos is the Zone 5 assessment for the Warmington Tract in which he resides. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient background. information to respond to that request. B. Projected FY 1995/96 Zone Assessments 1. Zone Costs /Assessments: Attached as Exhibit 'B' is a summary of the projected costs and assessment amounts for each Zone of Benefit for FY 1995/96. Please note that only direct contract maintenance costs and water and electrical utility costs are charged to each Zone of Benefit. All other Maintenance & Operations costs and Personnel costs are charged to the Citywide landscape maintenance assessment. 2. Description & Maps: Also included in Exhibit 'B' is a description of the landscaping maintenance funded by each zone (Exhibits B -2 thru B -4), and maps (Exhibits B -5 thru B -15) showing the boundaries of each zone and the location of the landscaping improvements maintained. ad-zonel 0009 Zones of Benefit March 1995 Page 5 3. Carryover Adjustments: Please note that the assessment amounts set forth in Exhibits 'B' and 'C' of this report are based on total projected costs. The actual assessment amounts for FY 1995/96, for both the Citywide landscape assessment and each Zone of Benefit, which will be presented to the City Council in the near future, will be adjusted to include positive and negative carryovers from prior years. 4. Revisions to the Benefit Spread Formula: In past years, the Citywide Landscape Maintenance costs were spread equally to all lots in the City. Per direction of the City Council, the Assessment Engineer will be including in his Engineer's Report for AD84 -2 for FY 1995/96, a revision to the Benefit spread formula which will spread these costs on the basis of land use or other such weighted factors, in a manner similar to the way in which street lighting costs and parks maintenance (AD85 -1) costs are distributed. It is anticipated that this change will reduce the anticipated FY 1995/96 Citywide Landscape Maintenance assessment for a single family residential lot from the present amount of approximately $15.00 +. Although the amount of the reduction is not yet known, it is anticipated to be approximately $1.00 to $3.00. C. Home Acres Buffer Area Please note that any transfer of Zone 8 maintenance cost to the Citywide landscape maintenance assessment would be restricted to those costs (one -half the total assessment) charged to properties within the City (the lots within the West Ranch portion of PC -3). The remaining one -half of the total Zone 8 assessment would continue to be charge to the lots within Home Acres, in accordance with the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City and the County of Ventura pertaining to this matter. D. Reduced Zone Assessments Attached as Exhibit 'C' are a number of charts which illustrate the affect upon each zone assessment of transferring all or a portion of the zone assessments (except Home Acres) to the Citywide Landscape assessment. Also shown at the bottom of each chart is the impact of that transfer upon the Citywide Landscape Assessment. A description of the cost transfer assumptions and the resulting increase in the citywide ad -zones A i ( Zones of Benefit March 1995 Page 6 landscape maintenance assessment for each of these alternatives, is as follows: Exhibit Scope of Cost Transfer C -1 Transfer all zone costs to the Transfer citywide landscape maintenance $14.58 assessment. C -2 Transfer all zone costs to the $13.79 citywide landscape maintenance $123,823 assessment, except Zones 7 and 9 (see $10.08 Sections E below). C -3 Transfer all zone costs (except Zones $5.04 7 & 9) for parkway landscaping on $45,250 arterial streets only (entry FY 1995/96 statements excluded). C -4 Transfer 50% of all zone costs (except Citywide Zn 7 & 9) for arterial streets parkway US Assmnt landscaping (entry statements US Assint excluded). C -5 No zones costs transferred to Citywide Per Lot: $15.27 Landscape Assessment. E. Street Lighting Assessment FY 1995/96 US Assiont Per Lot. $15.27 'Dotal $137,166 Per Lot: $15.27 Totals $137,166 Per Lot: $15.27 Total: $137,166 Per Lot: $15.27 Total: $137,166 Increase the landscape maintenance Due to Revised Transfer US Assmnt $14.58 $29.85 $130,973 $268,139 $13.79 $29.06 $123,823 $260,989 $10.08 $25.35 $90,500 $227,666 $5.04 $20.31 $45,250 $182,416 Per Lot: $15.27 I 0 I $15.27 Total.: $137,166 0 $137,166 Listed below is the adjustments to the landscape maintenance cost described above, plus the street lighting assessment to show the total AD84 -2 Citywide assessment resulting from the transfers described in Exhibit C. Increase Plus Street Revised FY 1995/96 Due to Revised Lighting Citywide Exhibit US Assmnt Transfer_ US Assint Assessment Assessment C -1 Per Lot: $15.27 $14.58 $29.85 $20.71 $50.56 Total: $137,166 $i30,97� 5268,139 $186,000 $454,139 C -2 Per Lot: $15.27 513.711 $29.06 $20.71 $49.77 Total: $137,166 $ ":23,82: $260,989 $186,000 $446,989 C -3 Per Lot: $15.27 510.08 $25.35 $20.71 $46.06 Total: $137,166 x90,500 $227,666 $186,000 $413,666 C -4 Per Lot: $15.27 55.01 $20.31 $20.71 $41.02 Total: $137,166 X45,25(1 $182,416 $186,000 $368,416 C -5 Per Lot: $15.27 Total: $137,166 ad -zonal $15.27 $20.71 $35.98 5137,166 $186,000 $323,166 00101 Zones of Benefit March 1995 Page 7 F. Industrial Park POAs Zones 7 and 9 consist of the properties with two industrial parks. These Zones of Benefit provide the funding mechanism for parkway landscaping which would normally be provided by an industrial park Property Owner Association (POA). Except for Exhibit C -1, all of the Charts in Exhibit 'C' assume that these two Zones of Benefit will remain unchanged and that the landscape maintenance assessments on these industrial properties will not be transferred to the Citywide assessment. G. Dissolution of All Zones Exhibit C -1 shows the cost impact of dissolving all of the Zones of Benefit and transferring all of the zone costs to the citywide landscape maintenance assessment. This alternative is shown for reference only. As discussed above, it is recommended that Zones 7 & 9 remain unchanged. Exhibit C -2 shows the cost impact of transferring all Zone Costs except Zones 7 & 9 to the Citywide landscape maintenance assessment. H. Parkways on Arterial Streets One method to reduce Zone assessments would be to transfer all or a portion of the cost of maintaining the parkways on arterial streets to the Citywide landscape assessment. This approach would affect the following zones: • Zone 2: Tract 2865; • Zone 5: Tracts 3019 & 3025 (Warmington); and, • Zone 10: PC -3. Exhibit C -3 shows the impact of transferring all zone costs for the maintenance of arterial street parkway landscaping to the Citywide landscape maintenance assessment. Exhibit C -4 shows the impact of transferring only fifty percent (50 %) of the zone costs for the maintenance of arterial street parkway landscaping to the Citywide landscape maintenance assessment. I. No Transfer of Zone Costs Exhibit C -5 shows the anticipated Zone assessments and Citywide landscape maintenance assessment for FY 1995/96 with no transfer of any of the Zone costs to the Citywide landscape maintenance assessment. ad -zonel 001 02 1 Zones of Benefit March 1995 Page 8 J. Residential Area HOAs As mentioned in the Background of this report, many of the Zones of Benefit were established to serve the same function as a Home Owners' Association which levies HOA fees to fund the cost of maintaining common areas owned by the HOA and which provides benefit to the properties within that HOA. In a like manner, the landscaping maintained by certain Zones of Benefit provides benefit to the properties within that zone. K. Conditions of Approval Also, as described in the Background of this report, many of the Zones of Benefit were established pursuant to certain conditions of approval for those residential developments. A dissolution of those Zones of Benefit could be seen as being contrary to the rationale used by the City Council in approving those developments. Those developments described certain specified landscaping improvements as an amenity to that development, as well as a mitigation measure required by that development. The future maintenance of those landscape improvements was to be assumed by the property owners within that development. An action to relieve those property owners of those obligations would place the burden of those costs on all of the resident of the Cit.v. L. Conclusion Subsequent to the review and consideration of the alternatives set forth in this report, should the City Council wish to reduce the Zone Maintenance costs by transferring any portion of same to the Citywide Landscape Assessment, it would be appropriate for the City Council to direct the Assessment Engineer to define the scope and amount of that cost transfer in the Engineer's Report for AD84 -2 for FY 1995/96. RECOMMENDATIONS It is the recommendation of staff that the City Council not transfer any of the zone assessments to the Citywide Landscape Maintenance Assessment. ad -zonal 00103 To: Mayor Paul Lawrason City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Citywide Maintenance and Zones of Benefit Dear Sir, 29 July 94 Per our conversation on 21 July 94, I am requesting that the city council add the following item for discussion on the 23 August 94 council session agenda. "proposal to eliminate special assessments created by the `zones of benefit' and distribute their associated maintenance costs city wide" Early introduction of this issue in the' 94 -'95 fiscal year will allow council and staff time to discuss and analyze all aspects of this proposal and may insure a council vote /decision on this issue prior to finalizing the `95 -'96 fiscal budget. I have attached copies of a previously circulated petition for your record 41 1 look forward to s peakin g to durin g council session s� l qqi 4. pec , \ Chris Frangos t 13145 Thomasville Court Moorpark, CA 93021 ,2,d tc W4 90S- S72 — 702-Z, r 4 �y L7 d 7 , — RECEIVED AUG 2 3 1904 City of Moorpark K-4 o(D O� D 0 �D -' n< < Z Z nm W N n n �x �x �y �z C e r H d C; o � 1 a 0 A 0r"O 11 4' I am opposed to the Zones of Benefit outlined in AD 84-2, Section B I want the city to eliminate the additional assessments created by the Zones of Benefit and distribute the associated maintenance costs city —wide. The city has effectively annexed the parkways and slopes identified in the Zones of Benefit through landscape easements and by controlling the water to these specified areas. These areas provide a greenbelt buffer and benefit all Moorpark residents who use the city streets, bikepaths, and walkways. NAME: ADDRESS: SIGNATURE: I am opposed to the Zones of Benefit t outlined in AD 84-2, Section B. I want the city to eliminate the additional assessments created by the Zones of Benefit and distribute the associated maintenance costs city —wide. The city has effectively annexed the parkways and slopes identified in the Zones of Benefit through landscape easements and by controlling the water to these specified areas. These areas provide a greenbelt buffer and benefit all Moorpark residents who use the city streets, bikepaths, and walkways. NAME: ADDRESS: SIGNATURE: :. ,. Exhibit 'B" (1 of 15) AD84 -2 Zones of Benefit Maintenance Cost Analysis FY 1995/96 02/20/95 Total Maintenance PLUS Total Assessment Per Lot Assessment Per Lot Improvement Per Lot ( ** per ac) Assessment ( ** per ac.) 48.64 0.00 48.64 74.63 10.00 84.63 6.79 0.00 6.79 30.31 0.00 30.31 115.46 0.00 115.46 23.64 0.00 23.64 68.42 ** 0.00 68.42 ** 5.59 14.69 Amount of 19.38 50.91 70.29 13.27 ** 0.00 13.27 ** Landscaping Contract Utility Costs f$) Total Total Total Maintained Maint. ----------- - - - - -- Maint. Zone Lots Acres [Sq. Ft.] Cost ($) Water Electric Other Cost ($) 1 77 - -- 6,000 3,245.00 350 `;0 ) 3,745 2 622 - -- 970,000 23,919.00 22,350 0 0 46,419 3 265 - -- 3,000 1,557.48 243 i 0 1,800 4 129 - -- 5,640 3,089.64 700 .10 0 3,910 5 217 - -- 91,920 19,094.40 5,600 '0 f7 25,054 6 22 i --- 500 270.00 250 0 520 7 - -- 95 10,000 4,800.00 1,500 I)0 0 6,500 j 8 65,340 City 693 - -- 1,800.00 2,000 ! 0 3,875 Home Acres 200 - -- 1,800.00 2,000 5 0 3,875 9 - -- 49 300.00 25000 0 650 10 2500 - -- 528,000 21,600.00 16,500 100 0 38,500 51,743 + 1, io Total 81,475.52 5�,.'> 134,849 Utii rot. 02/20/95 Total Maintenance PLUS Total Assessment Per Lot Assessment Per Lot Improvement Per Lot ( ** per ac) Assessment ( ** per ac.) 48.64 0.00 48.64 74.63 10.00 84.63 6.79 0.00 6.79 30.31 0.00 30.31 115.46 0.00 115.46 23.64 0.00 23.64 68.42 ** 0.00 68.42 ** 5.59 14.69 20.28 19.38 50.91 70.29 13.27 ** 0.00 13.27 ** 15.40 0.00 15.40 * Paid by Adjacent Nursury per Agreement 00105 Description of Zones of Benefit [AD84 -2] Location & Description Zone (See Map Exhibit 1) 1 Seventy -three (73) residential lots within Tract 2851. Four additional lots within Tract 2851 (which were previouly omitted in error) are proposed to be added this year: 1) two vacant lots located on the east side of Pecan Avenue [Lots 74 & 75] and 2) the two church propeerties located on east and west sides of Collins Dr. [Lots 76 and 77] 2 Six hundred twenty -two (622) residential lots located within Tract 2865 January 17, 1995 Present Method of Spreading Description of Maintenance and Improvements Maintenance and Improvement Costs • Parkway on the east side of Pecan Avenue between Campus Park Drive and Bambi Court • Parkway on the north side of Bambi Court between Pecan Avenue and Benwood Drive • Parkway on the east side of Benwood Drive north of Bambi Court • Landscaping on the east side of the flood control channel along the westIrly boundary of Tract 2851 • Parkway on the east side of Peach Hill Rd between Christian Barrett Dr. and Tierra Rejada Rd • Parkway on the north side of Tierra Rejada Road from Peach Hill Road easterly to a point approximately 2,200' east of Peach Hill Road • Parkway and slope landscaping on the south side of Tierra Rejada Road within Tract 2865 • Parkway planter on the north side of Tierra Rejada Road east of Southampton Road • Parkway on the west side of Spring Road between Monte Vista Park and Christian Barrett Drive • Parkway on the west side of Spring Road south of Christian Barrett Drive • Parkway on the south side of Christian Barrett Drive between Spring Road and Willow Creek Lane Plus a $10 / lot improvement assessment for 4 years commencing FY 1994/95, to fund the construction of parkway landscaping on the north side of Tierra Rejada east and west of Southampton Road Costs spread to each lot on an equal basis. [Note: This year costs were distributed between 73 lots. Next year it is proposd that cost be spread between 77 lots.l Maintenance Costs are spread on an equal basis between 622 residential lots. An additional $10 / lot improvement assessment was levied upon each lot in FY 1994/95 and is proposed to be levied each of the next three years. O V* o N 0 v� aa. ftrau. Chart A: Description of Zones of Benefit [AD84 -2] Location & Description Zone (See Map Exhibit 1) 3 Two hundred sixty -five (265) residential lots located within Tract 3032 O O O Description of Maintenance and Improvements • Parkway on the south side of Peppermill Street (see map) • Landscaping in the Entry Planters on each side of Butter Creek Road at the intersection of Butter Creek Road and Los Angeles Avenue January 17, 1995 Present Method of Spreading Maintenance and Improvement Costs Costs are spread on an equal basis between 265 residential lots. 4 One hundred twenty -nine (129) residential lots • Parkway on the south side of Williams Ranch Road Costs are spread on an equal basis between located within Tracts 3274 -1 & 3274-4 adjacent to the Peach Mill box culvert the 129 residential lots within Tracts 3274- • Parkway on the north side of Williams Ranch Road 1 and 3274 -4. between Peach Hill Slope Rd and Granadilla Dr • Landscaped barrier on Williams Ranch Road located east of Granadilla Drive 5 Two hundred seventeen (217) residential lots I ocated within Tracts 3019 & 3525 6 Twenty -two (22) residential lots located within Tract 3306 7 Ninety -two (92) industrial lots located within the Industrial Park at the northeast corner of Los Angeles Ave. and Gabbert Rd • Parkway on the west side of Peach Hill Rd between Williams Ranch Road and Tierra Rejada Rd Parkway on the north side of Tierra Rejada Road between Peach Hill Road and the Edison Easement • Entry planters at the northwest and the northeast corners of Pheasant Run St and Tierra Rejada Rd • Parkway and slope landscaping on the south side of Tierra Rejada Road between Peach Hill Road and the Edison Easement • Parkway at the west end of Inglewood Street • Parkway on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue between Gabbert Road and Shasta Avenue Costs are spread on an equal basis between the 217 residential lots within. Tracts 3019 & 35225. Costs are spread on an equal basis between the 22 residential lots within Tracts 3306. A per acre assessment is levied upon each of the 92 industrial parcels within the Zone. OK) L~� Description of Zones of Benefit [AD84 -2] January 17, 1995 Location & Description Present Method of Spreading Zone See Map Exhibit lj Description of Maintenance and Improvements Maintenance and Improvement Costs The West Ranch portion of PC -3 (Tracts 4340, 4341 & 4342) plus the unincorporated neghborhood of Home Acres Eleven (11) lots located within the Industrial Park located on Condor Drive 10 This proposed new zone would consist of all of the properties within the Mountain Meadows Planned Community (PC -3) The landscaped Buffer Area at the west end of Shaddyridge Drive. [Mote: For the past three Years assessments totally aDDroximately $20,445 have been levied for the design and construction of the Buffer Area. Any Mlus improvement assessments will be AWlied to future maintenance costs. Future assessments will be an amount sufficient to fund maintenance costs.] Parkway planter on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue at Condor Drive [Note: Commencing FY 1994195. a per acre imMement assessment was levied upon each lot. FY 1994 195 assessments total aRRroximately $6,000. Future improvement assessments are anticiated to be for a like amount. improvement assessments will be levied to fund the design and construction of the pukway planter. Any malus jjWzwmt assessments will be applied to future maintenance costs. Future assessments will be an amount sufficient to fund maintenance cos s. Parkway on the north side of Tierra Rejada Rd from the Edison Easement westerly to Mountain Trail Street • Parkway on north side of Mountain Trail Street and the east side of Tierra Rejada Road along the frontage of Moorpark High School • Parkway on the west side of Tierra Rejada Road between the Arroyo Simi bridge and the future Commercial property at the southwest corner of Tierra Rejada Road and Mountain Trail Street • Parkway on the south side of Tierra Rejada Rd from the Edison Easement westerly to Mountain Meadow Drive Costs are divided equally between the City and Home Acres. Costs allocated to Home Acres are spread equally between 200 lots. Costs allocated to the City are spread to each of the 693 multi - family and single - family residential lots on an equal basis. The future commercial site receives no assessment. A per acre assessment is levied upon each of the 11 industrial parcels within the Zone. It is proposed that costs be spread on an equal basis between all of the residential lots within PC -3. Like Zone 8, it is proposed that the future commercial site receives no assessment. ~S t 4_' h t � r 1 ' � I —, _,w« a.'., r:rAe• .r.�, u S i I Ar I •t ' .1. 1 � I r �"Oi � li I .\ -- -- --^i-� - --- - -- = t--- - - -J11y --- ^ - - -- -- +- 1 -- -- - - - -- ------ a1d.�`=.�. = ----- +- - -�1 -- - - + - -- ' ��----------- - + - - -- I1 Pp 1 ' Saa attached pages for Zones 1 -9 as I ` = shown on map. I. M 0 0 R PA R K pR ^P K MOORPJ�RK , Is- �y.r.l', i.w ,y. •.r• •.. 1 I ��' SIA� VA��.ir �+ �r �'+- - -_ - -_ �t -_ __�.� - - ------ -' M Poo JP - + -- -t --- - -- - - I --- - - - - -- - --- - - - -t- -- - --- -T + - - - - - - -- - - - +\ -- �} I ■ V I df ! r 21, wwo I � per II 1 ® ' • ObRPARK Boundary Map, City of Moorpark Lighting and Maintenance Assessment District No. AD -84 -2 _ ' _ OOR 1 (P M, 1 Boundary 1 3 1 C ' O �p O �, - Zp�� 1 - TRACT ZBSI N Q ' BAMBf i : COL42T. ~ II. 2 ICZ J3 W JS X 37 n 276Ac .0 ti W if si K I.OIAt. 40 76 ' 1 -17Ct. Y' f39 132 f4222 ! =? Q c 0,16 30 3' O b F6 O @ , r3r ag gO s f7 D © ® ® 7F 72 �Q — 7 16 63 64 4S 46 i7 a a 70 ® ® O ®� • a -I ® ® © ® ® ® r� it 20 6O /f zs O ® f9 O jia � v, m f0 !! 1f A 16 0 St ss Q ' BAMBf i : COL42T. ~ II. 2 ICZ 2� 8 . - PARK 8 QRIW Parkway Maintained by Zone Assessment 001.1(1 J3 34 JS X 37 38 40 .0 Q if si K 47 40 Y' f39 f4222 2� 8 . - PARK 8 QRIW Parkway Maintained by Zone Assessment 001.1(1 - W-1 � t ZOWL 2 -T z zto 5 1 N Parkway Maintained by Zone ASsess"mt 001.11 h . I ZONE -T 3032 Parkway maintained by Zone Assessment 1-1 00 112 32-74 -a r ., ®®N® Parkway Maintained by Zone Assessment 1L -- � -9 00113 Ex�,.b;+ R i� 1041i Parkway Maintained by Zone Assessment 00115 rn ND a bAsc%Q%*,l L 7. :_.,, :.. L qL 4 ms's ® ®ti� � t @ to I ? t 11, .4. -w4fl 4J 0 to fA • • 4-) 3; 0 w P4 04 C, I. i voo 404 �A, Exhibit 'C -1' 3,875 3,875 ) TRANSFER ALL MAINTENANCE COSTS TO CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT AD84 -2 Zones of Benefit Acres 200 - -- 3,875 ( 3,875 0.06 19.38 50.91 70.29 FY1995/96 Annual Cost Analysis 0.00 * *! 0.00 ** 10 2,500 - -- 528,000 38,500 38,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Net Amount of Cost Impact Maintenance Assessment ($) - - -- - - - --- Amount of Total Amount -------------------------------- Estimated FY1995/96 Citywide Landscape Cost /Assessment ---- - - - - -- 137,166 Landscaping Zone Transferred Per SF of 14.58 Total Total Maintained Maint. to Citywide Total Area per lot Zone - - - -- Lots - - - - -- Acres [Sq. Ft.] - - - -- ----- - - - - -- Cost ($) --- - - - - -- Assessment. ----- - - - - -- 90tal Maintained _ _ .. - - - - - -- ( ** per ac) ---- - - - - -- 1 77 - -- 6,000 3,745 3,745 ) 0.00 0.00 2 622 - -- 970,000 46,419 46,419 ) 0.00 0.00 3 265 - -- 31000 I f 1,800 1,80( ) 0.00 0.00 4 129 - -- 5,600 i 3,910 3,910 ) 0.00 0.00 5 217 - -- 91,920 25,054 25,054 ) 0.00 0.00 6 22 - -- 500 I 520 520 0.00 0.00 7 - -- 95 10,000 6,500 6,500 0.00 0.00 k 8 65,340 22- Feb -95 PLUS Total Per Lot Assessment Improvement Per Lot Assessment ( ** per ac) ---- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ** City 693 - -- 3,875 3,875 ) 0.00 0.00 14.69 14.69 Home Acres 200 - -- 3,875 ( 3,875 0.06 19.38 50.91 70.29 9 --- 49 650 65C 0.00 * *! 0.00 ** 10 2,500 - -- 528,000 38,500 38,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 134,848 130,973 x,875 Cost Impact SF Res - - -- - - - --- Total ($) Assessment ($) Estimated FY1995/96 Citywide Landscape Cost /Assessment ---- - - - - -- 137,166 --------------- 15.27 Total Zone Cost Transferred to Citywide Assessment 130,973 ---- - - - - 14.58 Sub -Total -- 268,139 ------ - - - - -- 29.85 Estimated FY1995/96 Citywide Street Lighting Cost /Assessment 186,000 ---- - - - - -- 20.71 !'OTAL 454,139 ------ - - - - -- 50.56 00120 Exhibit `C -2' TRANSFER ALL MAINTENANCE COSTS TO CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT 22- Feb -95 AD84 -2 Zones of Benefit EXCEPT ZONES 7 & 9 ( *) FY1995/96 Annual Cost Analysis 00'21 Net Amount of Maintenance Assessment ($) Amount of Total Amount -------------------------- - - - - -- PLUS Total Landscaping Zone Transferred Per SF of Per Lot Assessment Total Total Maintained Maint. to Citywide Total Area per lot Improvement Per Lot Zone - - - -- Lots Acres - - - - -- - - - -- [Sq. Ft.] ----- - - - - -- Cost ($) --- - - - - -- Assessment ----- - - - - -- Total _ ___. Maintained - - - - - -- ( ** per ac) ---- - - - - -- Assessment ---- - - - - -- ( ** per ac) ------ - - - - -- 1 77 - -- 6,000 i 3,745 3,745 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 622 - -- 970,000 i k 46,419 46,419 i 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 3 265 - -- 3,000 1,800 E 1,800 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 129 - -- 5,600 f 3,910 3,910 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 217 - -- 91,920 I 25,054 25,054 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 22 - -- 500 520 520 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 - -- 95 10,000 I 6,500 C * 6,5011 0.65 68.42 ** 68.42 ** 8 65,340 City 693 - -- 3,875 3,875 1 0.00 0.00 14.69 14.69 Nome Acres 200 - -- 3,875 0 3,876> 0.06 19.38 50.91 70.29 9 - -- 49 650 0 * 650 13.27 ** 13.27 ** 10 2,500 - -- 528,000 38,500 --- - - - - -- 38,500 ----- - - - - -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 134,848 123,823 1,024) I Cost Impact SF Res --- -- - - -- -- Total ($) Assessment ($) Estimated FY1995/96 Citywide Landscape Cost /Assessment ---- - - - - -- 137,166 --------------- 15.27 Total Zone Cost Transferred to Citywide Assessment 123,823 ---- - - - - 13.79 Sub -Total -- 260,989 ------ - - - - -- 29.06 Estimated FY1995/96 Citywide Street Lighting Cost /Assessment 186,000 ---- - - - - 20.71 1�OTAL -- 446,989 ------ - - - - -- 49.77 00'21 Exhibit 'C -31 TRANSFER TO CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT (* Zones 7 & 9 excluded) 22- Feb -95 AD84 -2 Zones of Benefit ALL MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PARKWAYS ON ARTERIAL STREETS FY1995/96 Annual Cost Analysis (ENTRY STATEMENTS EXCLUDED) Amount of PLUS Total Per Lot Assessment Improvement Per Lot Assessment ( ** per ac) 48.64 10.00 36.40 6.79 30.31 14.07 23.64 68.42 ** City 693 - -- Landscaping Net Amount Total Total Maintained Zone - - - -- Lots - - - - -- Acres [Sq. Ft.] - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 1 77 - -- 6,000 2 622 - -- 970,000 3 265 - -- 3,000 4 129 - -- 5,600 5 217 - -- 91,920 6 22 - -- 500 7 - -- 95 10,000 8 3,745 65,340 PLUS Total Per Lot Assessment Improvement Per Lot Assessment ( ** per ac) 48.64 10.00 36.40 6.79 30.31 14.07 23.64 68.42 ** City 693 - -- Net Amount of 0.06 5.59 Maintenance Assessment ($) Total Amount -------------------------------- 3,875 0.06 19.38 Zone Transferred 9 Per SF of Maint. to Citywide 13.27 ** Total Area per lot Cost ($) Assessment. total Maintained ( ** per ac 3,745 ( 3,745 0.62 48.64 46,419 30,000 16,419 0.02 26.40 1,800 0 1,800 0.60 6.79 3,910 (1 3,910 0.70 30.31 25,054 22,000 3,054 0.03 14.07 520 0 520 1.04 23.64 6,500 ( * 6,500 0.65 68.42 PLUS Total Per Lot Assessment Improvement Per Lot Assessment ( ** per ac) 48.64 10.00 36.40 6.79 30.31 14.07 23.64 68.42 ** City 693 - -- 3,875 (1 3,875 0.06 5.59 14.69 20.28 Home Acres 200 - -- 3,875 ( 3,875 0.06 19.38 50.91 70.29 9 - -- 49 i 650 C * 650 13.27 ** 13.27 ** 10 2,500 - -- 528,000 38,500 38,500 --- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 0 - - -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 134,848 90,500 14,348 Cost Impact SF Res ----- - - - --- Total ($) Assessment ($) Estimated FY1995/96 Citywide Landscape Cost /Assessment ---- - - - - -- 137,166 --------------- 15.27 Total Zone Cost Transferred to Citywide Assessment 90,500 10.08 Sub -Total ---- - - - - -- 227,666 ------ - - - - -- 25.35 Estimated FY1995/96 Citywide Street Lighting Cost /Assessment 186,000 20.71 POTAL ---- - - - - -- 413,666 ------ - - - - -- 46.06 0012? To: The Honorable City Council Re: AD84 -2 Zones of Benefit Exhibit C- -3 TRANSFER TO CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT (Zones 7 &9 excluded) ALL MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR PARKWAYS ON ARTERIAL STREETS (ENTRY STATEMENTS EXCLUDED) Dear Council Members, I have reviewed the information packet provided to Mr. Frangos from Mr. Gilbert dated 22 February 1995 and discussed the subject matter with Mr. Frangos on 27 February 3995 by telephone. I feel compelled to urge counc3.1 {.o reduce the zones of benefit maintenance costs as outlined in Exhibi t C 3 contained in the above mentioned packet It is my position that the beauty of the arterial streets within the city limits of Moorpark are a benefit to all residents, from Campus Park to Mountain Meadow,.. I hope that all future developments within city limits provide greenbelts to help maintain the natural beauty of ':he area. I feel it is unfair to assess the entiie burden of maintaining greenbelts that boarder arterial streets on an isolated group of homeowners, when these greenbelt: area,(., the essence of the community we all live n. Respectfully, Dan Wallman 4210 Laurelhurst Moorpark, CA 93021