C. Commit any act or in any easement dedicated, granted or reserved for flood-control or drainage purposes which will impair the use of such easement for such purposes; D. Within a floodplain where a Floodplain Designator or a Flood Channel Designator has under the zoning ordinance been applied by the Council or within a floodplain as delineated on approved maps issued by the Federal Insurance Administrator:
1. Construct new or substantial improvements of residential structures unless the lowest floor (including basement) is elevated to one foot or more above the level of the 100-year flood;
2. Construct new or substantial improvements of nonresidential structures unless the lowest floor (including basement) is elevated to one foot or more above the level of the 100-year flood or the structure, including attendant utility and sanitary facilities, is flood proofed up to the level of the 100-year flood. (Ord. 85 § 1 (d), 1983; Ord. 29 § 1, 1981; CC§ 88.102)
16.58.090 Review by the Director of Development Services.
Prior to the issuance of any watercourse permit for construction of any drainage or flood-control structure, the Director shall review the application and determine whether the proposed work is consistent with the City's general plan; provided, however, such application need not be reviewed if any of the following conditions are met:
A. A City board, commission, or officer having final authority for project approval has determined that the project, which included the proposed work, is consistent with the general plan; or
B. The proposed work is pursuant to a tentative map of subdivision which has been approved or conditionally approved. (Ord. 518, 1999; Ord. 29 § 1, 1981; CC § 88.109)
16.58.100 Determination that proposed drainage or flood-control structure is consistent with general plan.
If the Director determines that the proposed work is consistent with the City's general plan, he shall so inform the applicant. Upon notification of such determination the watercourse permit may be issued. (Ord. 518, 1999; Ord. 29 § 1, 1981; CC § 88.110)
16.58.110 Determination that proposed drainage or flood-control structure is not consistent with the general plan.
If the Director determines that the proposed work is not consistent with the general plan, he shall so inform the applicant and the Council. The watercourse permit shall not be issued unless and until the Council authorizes such issuance following a review of the permit application and making a finding that the proposed drainage or flood-control structure is consistent with the general plan. (Ord. 518, 1999; Ord. 29 § 1, 1981; CC§ 88.111)
16.60.030 Director.
"Director" means the Director of Development Services of the City. (Ord. 85 § 1 (a), 1983; Ord. 29 § 1, 1981; CC § 88.101 (b))
16.62.030 Filing fee and deposit.
4of6
February 15, 2022, Item #12
Ordinance No. ***
Before a permit is issued an applicant shall pay the Director the fee and deposit established by this section unless the plans have been prepared and/or approved by an agency of the Federal, State, County or City government, in which case the fee and deposit are waived if installation is supervised by an agency of the Federal, State, County or City government.
A. Filing Fee. A filing fee in the amount that shall be established by City Council resolution from time to time shall be paid at the time application is made for a permit.
B. Deposit. A deposit shall be made in addition to the filing fee to cover plan checking, environmental review, processing of easement documents, administration, and inspection of the work. This deposit is to cover the actual cost incurred by the City as estimated by the Director. If the actual cost of checking, review, processing, administration and inspection is less than the deposit, the unused balance of the deposit shall be refunded in the same manner as provided by law for the repayment of trust moneys. If any deposit is insufficient to pay all the actual costs of checking review, processing, administration and inspection, the permittee, upon demand of the Director, shall pay an amount deemed sufficient to complete the work in process. If the permittee fails or refuses to pay such amount upon demand, the Director may refuse issuance of a watercourse permit until the amount is paid in full, or, if a permit is already issued, the work shall be considered incomplete and the permit revoked in accordance with the procedures set forth in PMC 16.62.050. (Ord. 683 § 67, 2008; Ord. 29 § 1, 1981; CC§ 88.203) SECTION 5: Sections 16.82.220 and 16.82.400 of Title 16, Division V of the Poway Municipal Code are hereby deleted.
SECTION 6: Sections 16.82.220 and 16.82.400 are hereby added to Title 16, Division V of the Poway Municipal Code to read as follows:
16.82.220 Floodplain Administrator.
"Floodplain Administrator" is the City Engineer. (Ord. 599 § 2, 2004)
16.82.400 Mean sea level.
"Mean sea level" means, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1988 or others to which base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. (Ord. 599 § 2, 2004; Ord. 503, 1998; Ord. 174, 1985)
SECTION 7: This Ordinance shall be codified.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its adoption.
CERTIFICATION/PUBLICATION: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it or a summary of it, to be published with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the same in the Poway News Chieftain, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Poway within fifteen ( 15) days after its adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk in accordance with Government Code § 36933.
5 of6
February 15, 2022, Item #12
Ordinance No. ***
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, held the 15th day of February, 2022, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held the 1st day of March, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk
6 of6
February 15, 2022, Item #13
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
AG EN DA REPORT City of Poway
February 15, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Robert Manis, Director of Development Services ~
I
Austin Silva, Senior Planner '/6
(858) 668-4658 or [email protected]
CITY COUNCIL
Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) 21-004: a request to store two seatainers at Fire Station 2 located at 16912 Westling Court
The City is requesting approval of a MCUP to store two metal storage containers (seatainers) that are eight feet wide by 20 feet long for storage of disaster preparedness supplies (e.g., cots, blankets, care kits, etc.) in the parking lot of Fire Station 2 located at 16912 Westling Court within the Public Facility (PF) zone and the Planned Community (PC) 4 zone (Old Coach Golf Estate Specific Plan (OCGESP) area).
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council take public input, close the public hearing and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A).
Discussion:
Fire Station 2 is owned and operated by the City of Poway. The facility is located on the west side of Westling Court, north of Espola Road within the PF and PC-4 zone (OCGESP area) as shown in Attachment 8. Single-family residences are located to the west of the site and across Espola Road to the south. The Old Coach collection single-family subdivision is located to the northwest with an open space lot directly north across Butterfield Trail. A vacant lot is located to the east across Westling Court. The City Council approved a five-lot subdivision on the vacant lot east of Fire Station 2 on December 7, 2021.
The Fire Department is requesting approval of a MCUP to store two seatainers that are eight feet wide by 20 feet long at the north end of the Fire Station 2 parking lot as seen in the site map (Attachment C). Attachment D provides photographs of the two seatainers at Fire Station 2 as they currently exist.
The seatainers will be situated there on a permanent basis until it is requested to be relocated or other means of storage are found. Both seatainers store disaster preparedness supplies (e.g., cots, blankets, care kits, etc.) for evacuations during emergencies. The white seatainer and supplies contained inside were purchased by the City with grant money in 2009. In June 2010, MCUP 10-04 1 of 11
February 15, 2022, Item #13
was approved to allow for the storage of the seatainer at Community Church at 13501 Community Road. In 2021, the church asked that the seatainer be relocated and the Fire Department agreed to have it moved to Fire Station 2. It has been stored in the north parking lot since September 2021. The tan-colored seatiner is owned by Red Cross and was relocated to Fire Station 2 in 2014. In June 2010, MCUP 10-05 was also approved to allow for the storage of this seatainer at the Poway auto dealers' vehicle storage lot at 13875 Kirkham Way. Red Cross has control over this seatainer, which could be moved to another location outside of the City in an emergency to service another area.
Per City policy, a MCUP is required for extended use of seatainers. The City Council sets the length of time the seatainers may be kept as part of the conditions of a MCUP. The seatainers are only partially visible from a short section of Espola Road, east of Westling Court. It is otherwise screened by landscaping or the Fire Station's building from Espola Road and Westling Court. There is a block wall that obstructs views from Butterfield Trail Road and Ash Hollow Crossing Road (both private streets within the Old Coach Collection gated community). The white-colored and tan-colored seatainers are compatible with the colors of the Fire Station's building.
Environmental Review:
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 11 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the project involves the placement of accessory structures (storage containers) in an existing fire station parking lot.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Public Notification:
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Poway News Chieftain on February 3, 2022. A public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants located within 500 feet of the project site.
Attachments:
A. Resolution
B. Zoning and Location Map
C. MCUP 21-004 Site Map
D. Photographs of seatainers
Reviewed/ Approved By:
Wendy ~serman
Assistant City Manager
2 of 11
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
Ch~
City Manager
February 15, 2022, Item #13
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT (MCUP) 21-004 TO STORE TWO SEATAINERS AT
FIRE STATION 2 LOCATED AT 16912 WESTLING COURT;
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 277-171-03
WHEREAS, the Poway Fire Department submitted MCUP 21-004 to store two seatainers that are eight feet wide by 20 feet long for storage of disaster preparedness supplies in the parking lot of Fire Station 2 located at 16912 Westling Court within the Public Facility (PF) zone and the Planned Community (PC) 4 zone (Old Coach Golf Estates Specific Plan (OCGESP) area); WHEREAS, on June 1, 2010, the City Council approved MCUP 10-04 to allow a City owned seatainer containing emergency supplies to be stored at Community Church located at 13501 Community Road. Community Church agreed to store the seatainer as part of a five-year commitment to be an emergency care and shelter location. Community Church has requested to have the seatainer relocated elsewhere;
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2010, the City Council approved MCUP 10-05 to allow a Red Cross seatainer containing emergency supplies to be stored at the Poway auto dealers' vehicle storage lot located at 13875 Kirkham Way. The Red Cross seatainer was relocated to Fire Station 2 in 2014;
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing to solicit comments from the public, both for and against, relative to this application; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered the agenda report for the proposed project, including the attachments, and has considered all other evidence presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 11 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the project involves the placement of accessory structures (storage containers) in an existing fire station parking lot.
SECTION 3: The findings, pursuant to Section 17.48.070 of the Poway Municipal Code (PMC), to approve MCUP 21-004 to allow the storage of two seatainers, are made as follows:
A. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use are in accord with the title and purpose of Chapter 17.48 PMC (Conditional Use Permits Regulations), the General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City in that the seatainers are permitted with the approval of a MCUP, and they are located in the rear of the property, only partially visible from a small section of Espola Road just east of the intersection of Westling Court, and will otherwise comply with all of the relevant codes and standards of the City of Poway.
3 of 11 ATTACHMENT A
February 15, 2022, Item #13
Resolution No. 22-
8. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, people, buildings, structures, or natural resources in that the seatainers are placed in the rear of the property. The seatainers are only partially visible from a short section of Espola Road, east of Westling Court. They are otherwise screened by landscaping or the Fire Station's building.
C. The harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density of the project is consistent with adjacent uses in that the placement of the seatainers do not exceed lot coverage and the 20-foot long seatainers are in scale with surrounding residential development.
D. There are adequate public facilities, services, and utilities available at the subject site to serve the proposed use.
E. The storage containers have been sited to comply with the General Plan and PMC standards. Conditions of approval are required of the seatainers use which are intended to minimize the potential for negative impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Therefore, there will not be a harmful effect upon desirable neighborhood characteristics.
F. The storage of the seatainers will not adversely impact the capacity and physical character of the surrounding streets and/or the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
G. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed in that the seatainers are accessory structures placed in a parking lot that will contain emergency supplies for evacuations.
H. There will not be significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources in that the seatainers would be kept in an area that is currently paved.
I. There are no relevant negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated.
J. A seatainer is an allowable accessory use with the approval of a MCUP. The impacts, as described in subsections A through I of this Section, and the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, nor be contrary to the adopted General Plan.
K. The proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of PMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance).
SECTION 4: The City Council hereby approves MCUP 21-004 as shown on the approved site map stamped "Exhibit A" and dated February, 2022 on file in the Development Services Department, except as noted herein and subject to the following conditions:
A. This approval is based on the existing site conditions and proposed project details represented on the approved plans stamped as "Exhibit A" and dated January 18, 2022 on file in the Development Services Department. The seatainers will be situated there on a permanent basis until they are requested to be relocated or other means of storage are found. Any substantial changes to the approved plans must be approved by the Director of Development Services and may require approval of the City Council if the Director of 4 of 11
February 15, 2022, Item #13
Resolution No. 22-
Development Services finds that the proposed changes do not substantially conform to approved plans.
B. The conditions for the project shall remain in effect for the life of the subject property, shall run with the land and be binding upon future owners, successors, heirs, and transferees of the current property owner.
C. Prior to building permit issuance and continued use of the seatainers, unless other timing is indicated, the following conditions shall be complied with:
(Building)
1. The development shall comply with the current addition of the California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, California Residential Code, California Fire Code, California Energy Code and California Green Code at time of submittal to the Building Division. All development shall comply with state structural calculations and seismic safety requirements. (Planning)
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
D. Compliance with the following conditions is required prior to building permit final:
1. The site shall be developed, and the building elevations shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Development Services Department and the conditions contained herein. A final inspection from appropriate City departments will be required.
E. Upon establishment of use, the following conditions shall apply:
5 of 11
1. MCUP 21-004 may be subject to annual review, as determined by the Director of Development Services, for compliance with the conditions of approval and to address unresolved operational concerns that may have been raised during the prior year.
2. This MCUP authorizes the use of seatainers for storage purposes only. No other uses or occupancy, such as an office or other alternate use, would be allowed, unless permissible under the PMC and approved by a permit.
3. Seatainers being utilized for storage and approved under this MCUP application may not be structurally modified or altered unless approved by the City; no shade covers or utility connections are allowed unless in conformance with applicable building codes, the PMC, and/or an approved permit.
4. The applicant shall maintain the exterior areas in a clean and sanitary condition, free of litter, trash, food waste, and debris.
5. No exterior storage of materials, items, or stock may occur on the premises.
6. The use conditionally granted by this approval shall not be conducted in such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding uses.
February 15, 2022, Item #13
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
4 7.
All
facilities
and
related
equipment
shall
be
maintained
in
good
repair.
Any
damage
from
any
cause
shall
be
repaired
as
soon
as
reasonably
possible
so
as
to
minimize
occurrences
of
dangerous
conditions
or
visual
blight.
8. The
operator
of
the
facility
shall
routinely
and
regularly
inspect
the
site
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
standards
set
forth
in
this
approval.
9. All
lighting
fixtures
shall
be
maintained
such
that
they
reflect
light
downward,
away
from
any
road
or
street,
and
away
from
any
adjoining
residential
development.
10. All
landscaping,
including
areas
within
the
adjacent
public
right-of-way,
shall
be
adequately
irrigated,
and
permanently
and
fully
maintained
by
the
owner
at
all
times
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
City
of
Poway
Landscape
and
Irrigation
Design
Manual.
The
trees
shall
be
encouraged
and
allowed
to
retain
a
natural
form.
Pruning
should
be
restricted
to
maintain
the
health
of
the
trees and
to
protect
the
public
safety.
Trees
should
be
trimmed
or
pruned
as
needed
to
develop
strong
and
healthy
trunk
and
branch
systems.
Tree
maintenance
and
pruning
shall
be
in
accordance
with
"American
National
Standard
for
Tree
Care
Operations"
latest
edition
(ANSI
A300).
Trees
shall
not
be
topped,
and
pruning
shall
not
remove
more
than
25 percent
of
the
trees'
leaf
surface.
11. Upon
termination,
expiration
or
revocation
of
this
MCUP,
the
identified
seatainers
shall
be
removed
under
an
issued
demolition
building
permit
with
a
"pass"
result
for
all
necessary
inspections,
to
be
completed
no
less
than
thirty
(30)
days
from
the
MCUP
end
date.
SECTION
5:
The
approval
of
MCUP
21-004
will
expire
on
February
15,
2024
at
5:00
p.m.,
except
if prior
to
that
time,
appropriate
conditions
of
approval
herein
have
not
been
complied
with.
SECTION
6:
The
parties
are
hereby
informed
that
the
time
within
which
judicial
review
of
this
decision
must
be
sought
is
governed
by
Section
1094.6
of
the
California
Code
of
Civil
Procedure. 6
of
11 February 15, 2022, Item #13
Resolution No. 22-
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 15th day of February, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk
7 of 11
February 15, 2022, Item #13
RS-4
Cloudcroft Dr
Ash.80//0WCross ·- -· lnQ.Rd
-0
a:::
-0
------1 ~ i------1
l'.D
-0 r----.....Ji...
Sagewood Dr
8 of 11
(U
.c
()
0 ~
NORTH
Subject Location:
277-171-03
City of Poway
Zoning / Location Map
Item: MCUP21-004
0 125 250 500
---•Feet
ATTACHMENT B
RR-A
February 15, 2022, Item #13
9 of 11 ATTACHMENT C
February 15, 2022, Item #13
..a. ..a.
February 15, 2022, Item #13
February 15, 2022, Item #14
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
AG EN DA REPORT City of Poway
February 15, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Aaron Beanan, Director of Finance .
Nicole Roesler, Revenue and Operations Manager
Nicole Roesler, Revenue and Operations Manager vVl.J
(858) 668-4409 or [email protected]
CITY COUNCIL
Ambulance Rates Study and Resolution Amending and Establishing the Emergency Medical Services and Ambulance Transport Fees A fee study for ambulance transport services has not been conducted since 2007. Fees studies are important to ensure the City's cost recovery is in alignment with the cost to provide service. For ambulance transport services they are also important to ensure the City's fee categories align with insurance reimbursement categories. As such, this staff report is for the consideration of the Ambulance Rates Study of January 27, 2022 (Attachment A) and a Resolution (Attachment B) amending the Emergency Medical Services and Ambulance Transport Fees within the Fire Department section of the Master Fee Schedule.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council take public input, close the public hearing, receive the ambulance rates study report, and adopt the Resolution amending the emergency medical services and ambulance transport fees within the Fire Department section of the Master Fee Schedule.
Discussion:
The Poway Fire Department is committed to providing outstanding emergency medical services, fire protection services and fire prevention services to the community and is ready to respond to emergencies and disasters 24-hours a day, 365 days a year at three stations strategically located throughout the City. Resources dedicated to respond to emergency medical service type incidents are staffed by firefighters trained as paramedics. Automatic and mutual aid is also provided to adjoining agencies upon request.
Of the many services provided by the Poway Fire Department, emergency medical services and ambulance transports (ambulance services) are the most frequently used by Poway residents and non-residents. Nearly 82% of all 911-calls received from a three-year period of FY17-18, FY18-19, and 1 of 29
February 15, 2022, Item #14
FY19-20
involved
medical
related
emergencies.
As
reflected
in
the
adopted
budget
for
FY21-22,
funding
support
for
the
fire
department
includes
revenue
from
ambulance
related
fees
($1,268,525),
fire
protection
special
tax
($636,000),
mutual
aid
($44,000),
various
fees
associated
with
inspection,
plan
check
and
other
safety
fees
($344,552),
and
miscellaneous
fees
($4,
1 SO)
with
the
remaining
department
costs
funded
by
the
General
Fund
($11,371,347).
Staff
completed
the fee
study
for
ambulance
services
to
ensure
that
fees
do
not
exceed
the
costs
of
providing
services
and
recommend
setting
fees
consistent
with
City
financial
policies.
It
is
a
best
practice
to
complete
a
rates
study
to
address
changes
to
service
deliver
and
costs
fee
study
every
five
years.
Under
the
terms
of
California
propositions
218
and
26,
which
set
restrictions
on
local
government
finance,
user
fees
charged
by
the
City
are
limited
to
recovering
the
cost
of
providing
the
related
service.
The
last
cost
study
that
included
ambulance
services
was
performed
in
2007
and
fees
were
last
updated
in
2010.
Operational
costs
for
ambulance
services
have
increased
over
the
last
fifteen
years.
For
example,
the
cost
of
two
ambulance
vehicle
replacements
in
2007
was
$350,240
compared
to
$509,722
in
2021,
or
45.5%
greater.
The
total
operating
budget
for
the
Fire
Department,
excluding
law
enforcement,
in
FY06-07
was
$7,850,260
compared
to
$13,658,574
in
FY21-22,
or
a
73.9%
increase.
Additionally,
there
has
been
significant
changes
to
the
healthcare
system
. National
healthcare
reform
with
the
Patient
Protection
and
Affordable
Care
Act
became
law
in
2010.
Modifications
to
reimbursement
policies
and
procedures
for
Medicare,
Med-Cal,
and
private
insurances
make
it
necessary
to
update
and
modernize
the
fee
schedule
to
increase
the
City's
share
of
reimbursement
for
services.
Fee
Study:
NBS
Government
Finance
Group
(NBS),
the
consultant
hired
to
conduct
the
comprehensive
cost
of
service
study,
was
formed
in
1996
and
specializes
in
financial
consulting
for
local
governments
in
California.
NBS
prepared
an
Ambulance
Rates
Study
Report
with
input
from
staff
from
the
Finance
Department
and
Fire
Department.
The
fee
study
was
conducted
to
update
the
City's
costs
to
provide
ambulance
services
to
the
community
for
which
fees
are
assessed.
Details
of
the
methodology
and
analysis
can
be
found
in
Attachment
A,
Final
Ambulance
Rates
Study,
summarizing
the
key
findings
and
recommendations.
Analysis-
There
were
three
phases
of
analysis
completed
in
the
fee
study:
1. Cost
of
service
analysis
- A
comprehensive
effort
to
capture
all
associated
staff
time
and
labor
costs
in
the
Fire
Department.
2. Fee
establishment
-This
includes
not
only
establishing
the
names
and
categories
for
fees
but
also
recalibrating
them
to
simplify
the
overall
fee
structure
and
to
either
increase
the
likelihood
of
cost
recovery
or
make
the
fee
structure
more
equitable
for
the
community.
3. Cost
recovery
evaluation
-
Comparing
the
current
fee
for
each
activity
to
the
total
cost
of
service
for
that
service
or
activity.
Setting
Fees-
While
there
is
no
set
standard
to
setting
fees,
the
City
has
historically
adjusted
ambulance
fees
comparable
to
the
average
of
other
agencies
in
the
region
providing
similar
services.
When
comparing
fees
with
other
local
comparable
agencies,
it
is
useful
to
consider
the
following:
•
They
reflect
the
"market"
cost
of
such
fees
and
can
assist
in
assessing
the
reasonableness
of
City's
fees
but
does
not
reflect
the
cost
of
service
incurred
by
Poway.
•
Fee
surveys
should
not
be
used
as
the
primary
criteria
in
setting
fees
because
there
are
many
factors
that
affect
how
and
why
other
communities
have
set
their
fees
at
their
levels
including
2 of29
February 15, 2022, Item #14
differing cost recovery policies and procedures, basis of fees and frequency of review, and level and cost of services provided.
Currently, Poway's ambulance fees are the lowest or among the lowest in the region for ambulance transports according to a calendar year 2019 survey of fees and charges of comparable agencies in San Diego County. The chart below shows the current and proposed fee for the Advanced Life Support 2 (ALS2) Resident category and where it sits in relation to the other city and special district providers in the County. As shown, Poway's ALS2 Resident fee is currently the lowest in the County.
Current and Proposed Poway Fee for Advanced Life Support 2-Resident Ambulance Transport Bill Comparison ALS2 Re.sident Catecory $5,000
S--4,SOO $4,359 $4,452
$3,883
53,:00
Average= $2,461 *
51,500
$2,100 52,161
.$2,0CO
Sl,535 Sl,558 51,697
_;',i~ ~/' i-,: i/'" :tf'1:,, t''' 1,i'"' b, ..... :,/'"' :,•/' t-,,,'' ,.."•.:;,, d'i_..,~ t-J"" "i' 1 · 1/'"' .:,:''0 b''" ,i,l' //·._ ,/-"' ~"c' ~·/•'" ,;/' ~,,o'" ,;,t>i' __ ,1,c:·' ,,~ ,o.,./" .,,er ~•-"'' ,,'5' ~,<r O d •'"
4 ,/' <i'o' •-'$" •··"' ,,. ~ """' q,d' qe' ••d' q,o-~•o ~' ,, q,o ~-q' ~••"". 0,, ,,, ~ ~
*Ave,-..ge exclufts City of Pow.ty propo ,a,d fees As of 2019 S.ain Otego County Ambul..iince R.ate Survey As previously mentioned, fees have not been adjusted since 2010. As a result, cost recovery levels for the City have dropped to an average of 20%-31 %. The Poway Fire Department operates a high level of service staffing model for emergency medical services with all firefighters dually trained as paramedics and responsible for emergency response, treatment, and transport of patients. Poway is one of four cities in the county that continue to operate using this model, while other service areas are utilizing contracted transport providers or other staffing models that include single-role paramedics or emergency medical technicians with their firefighter/paramedic staff. As such, staff recommends the approval of an updated cost recovery methodology and to consider a 100% full cost recovery level. The figures in the Proposed Fees Table are based on FY 21-22 adopted budget and exclusive of the recently executed 6-year Poway Firefighters Association (PFA) contract approved after the budget was adopted.
Ambulance fees were reviewed individually, compared to current market rates, and reviewed to determine the proposed adjustment to cost recovery levels. The increase in revenue will be used to partially offset annual operating expenses within the Fire Department to continue to maintain the desired service levels to the community. The Fire Department is and will continue to participate in all existing and upcoming supplemental governmental programs that provide reimbursement for ambulance transport, with the goal of helping offset the cost of providing these services. 3 of29
February 15, 2022, Item #14
The table below shows the proposed fees as well as information on their cost recovery.
Proposed Fees Table
Fee Description Fee Proposed Proposed Current Current
Unit/Type Fee Cost Fee Cost
Recovery Recovery
% %
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES and
AMBULANCE TRANSPORT
Base Charge-Advanced Life Support 1
Resident Flat $4,369 100% $1,029 24%
Non-Resident Flat $4,369 100% $1,366 31%
Base Charge-Advanced Life Support 2
Resident Flat $4,369 100% $1,029 24%
Non-Resident Flat $4,369 100% $1,366 31%
Base Charge-Basic Life Support
Resident Flat $4,369 100% $866 20%
Non-Resident Flat $4,369 100% $1,196 27%
Treatment and Release Flat $2,550 100% $150 6%
ADD-ON CHARGES
Per-Mile Charge Per Mile $16 $16
Oxygen Flat $66 $66
Medications Flat Cost Plus Cost Plus
50% 50%
Supplies Flat $49 $49
EKG Flat $46 $46
Night Charge (7pm to 7am) Flat $50 $50
CPR Non-Transport Flat $100 $100
Extra Attendant Flat $50 $50
Cost Recovery Limitations -Most bills for ambulance services do not result in full payment. In setting fees and cost recovery, the level of use fee cost recovery should consider the public versus private benefit of the program or activity. However, there are fee collection limitations imposed by the healthcare industry that have an impact the total amount the City is able to collect from ambulance users when services are rendered. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sets limits or caps on how much a provider can be reimbursed for administering ambulance services and private insurances pay a percentage of the costs billed which varies. While these fee limits do not preclude a provider from setting fees higher than what will be reimbursed, it does make full cost recovery infeasible. If fees are increased, the patient co-pays or deductibles remain the same, but the City will be able to bill insurance carriers for a higher percentage of the cost of service. Additionally, patients are not balance billed, a practice where a provider bills a patient for the difference between the fees charged and any amounts paid by the patient's insurer.
Indexing for Inflation -Similar to other fee adjustments approved by City Council, an annual fee adjustment utilizing published industry economic factors is recommended to assist with maintaining cost recovery objectives as operational costs increase. Ambulance Service Fees set forth in Exhibit 1 will increase each July commencing July 1, 2022 by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) -All Urban Customers, San Diego-Carlsbad (2020 = 303.932), as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statics, subject to rounding to the nearest whole dollar. 4 of 29
February 15, 2022, Item #14
Resources -An update to the City's fees will not change the way ambulance services are provided. No one is denied emergency services due to their type of healthcare coverage or ability to pay. The City offers payment plans with modest monthly payments and no interest or penalties. Additionally, there are resources for eligible uninsured individuals with Emergency Medi-Cal, California's state-funded health insurance benefits program, which may provide medical care in serious and sudden medical emergencies. In addition to these resources, staff are recommending the creation of a financial hardship assistance policy to allow the City Manager or designee authority to approve a reduction in fees for patients who are uninsured and are unable to pay for all or part of their bill due to limited income. The framework for this is included in the resolution.
Environmental Review:
This action is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Fiscal Impact:
Utilizing the proposed fee schedule, the City could increase annual billing amounts and associated cost recovery from approximately $2,700,000 to $9,800,000 and result in additional estimated receipts of $1,800,000-$3,000,000 annually in FY22-23 compared to $1,193,957 million collected in FY20-21. A smaller revenue adjustment in the current fiscal year of $300,000 is estimated due to the timeframe to receive reimbursements from insurance providers. However, because the revenue estimates are gross averages and reimbursement is dependent upon the payer mix, number of transports, etc., the actual revenue could vary significantly changing the amount of cost recovery the City realizes. The amount of cost recovery to the City realizes will be better understood over time. Revenue is reflected in the Paramedics Division budget (503050). In order amend the fee schedule, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a Resolution authorizing this action.
Public Notification:
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Poway News Chieftain on Thursday, January 27, 2022 and February 3, 2022.
Attachments:
A. Ambulance Rates Study January 27, 2022
B. Resolution Amending Existing and Establishing New Fees for Emergency Medical Services and Ambulance Transport Within the Fire Department Section of the Master Fee Schedule.
Reviewed/ Approved By:
Wend serman
Assistant City Manager
5 of29
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
e
City Manager
February 15, 2022, Item #14
Prepared
by
:
~
NBS helping
communiti
fund
tomorrow
nbsgov.com 6
of29
ATTACHMENT
A
Co
rporat
e
Hea
dqu
art
ers
32605
Temecula
Parkwa
y, Suite
100
Temecula,
CA
92592
Toll
free:
800.676.7516
February 15, 2022, Item #14
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1. Executive
Summary
........................................................................................................ 5 2.
Project
Approach
............................................................................................................ 7 2.1
Legal
Foundation
....................................................................................................... 7 2.2
Project
Approach
............
...
....
...
................................................................................. 8 3.
Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.1
Cost
of
Service
Analysis
........................................................................................... 12 3.2
Fee
Establishment
................................................................................................... 17 3.3
Cost
Recovery
Evaluation
........................................................................................ 18 4.
Conclusion
.................................................................................................................... 22 7
of29
February 15, 2022, Item #14
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Poway wished to perform a study of its fees for ambulance services. The City's primary purposes in conducting this Study were to ensure that fees do not exceed the costs of providing services and to provide an opportunity for the City Council to set fee amounts according to local cost recovery policies.
The body of this report illustrates calculation of the maximum fee amounts that reflect the City's full costs of providing services, as well as the policy options for considering implementation of fee amounts at or below that ceiling.
This Study identified approximately $14.9 million in total annual City costs of providing Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The City bills $2.7 million, per year, on average, for ambulance services at current fee amounts. If the City were to collect 100% of their billings, revenue received would recover approximately 18% of the total annual costs of providing EMS services.
However, review of historical EMS calls for service data showed that not all calls result in an ambulance transport and/or treatment without transport service. Of those calls that do result in an ambulance transport and/or treatment without transport service, there are instances when no bill for service occurs, such as mutual aid response where the City does not provide transport service. Additionally, most bills for ambulance services do not result in full payment. Depending on whether the recipient of a bill is a private or public insurance company, or individual, significant write downs, write offs, and payment delays typically occur. Based on an analysis of billing and revenue receipts data, the City's receives, on average, approximately 43% of the annually billed amount for services.
As shown in Table 1 on the next page, at current annual billing activity levels, the City could increase "Average Annual Billings at Current Fees" from $2.7 million to the "100% Full Cost Recovery Fee Levels" of $9.8 million per year. The "Collected" row of the table considers that the average revenue received is 43% of annual billings due to write offs, etc. Therefore, the net increase in revenue received by increasing current fees to full cost recovery fee amounts is an estimated $3 million.
As discussed in Section 2.2.3 of this report, there may be local policy considerations for adopting fees at less than the calculated full cost recovery amount. Also, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sets limits, or "caps", for how much a provider can be reimbursed for administering ambulance services. CMS, however, does not regulate how much can be charged to individual patients or private insurance companies. All these considerations and nuances will impact the amount of revenue ultimately collected from any increase in ambulance fees for services.
Per City staff's request, Section 3.3.1 of this report presents three cost recovery options for consideration:
• Option 1: Transport fees established at 100% full cost recovery; Add-on charges assumed at no change from current fee amounts
ONBS
8 of29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 5
February 15, 2022, Item #14
• Option 2: Transport fees and Add-on charges established at the average of the regional comparison
• Option 3: Transport fees and Add-on charges at the 66th percentile of the regional comparison Table 1 shows a summary of annual estimated revenue projections for each of the policy options described.
Billed
Collected
Net Col I ected
Revenue Increase
TABLE 1. REPORT SUMMARY
Estimated Annual Billings per Policy Option
100% Full Cost Regional Fee Levels Regional Fee Levels
Average Annual
Billings at Current
Fees
Recovery Fee Levels -Average -66th Percentile
$ 2,731,204 $ 9,754,207 $ 5,206,073 $ 6,771,947
$ 1,184,550 $ 4,169,923 $ 2,225,596 $ 2,895,007
$ 2,985,373 $ 1,041,046 $ 1,710,457
As shown, the potential net increase in revenue from increasing current fees to one of the presented policy options in this report is estimated at between $1 million and $3 million. However, predicting the amount to which adopted fee increases will truly affect City revenues is difficult, given that reimbursement rates for different types of fee payers ultimately drives what percentage of any bill for ambulance services is actually paid.
ONBS
9 of29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 6
February 15, 2022, Item #14
2. PROJECT
APPROACH
In
approaching
any
fee
study,
we
at
NBS
assess
the
unique
conditions
of
the
agency
with
which
we
work,
apply
a
core
philosophy,
and
select
methodologies
that
best
fit
the
requirements
of
the
individual
agency.
Given
the
diversity
and
nuances
present
in
many
aspects
of
city
finance
and
policy,
this
is
a
necessary
strategy
since
one-size-fits-all
methods
are
not
sustainable
once
they
become
owned
by
the
agency
served. There
is
a
legal
foundation
in
place
that
provides
the
City
with
the
authority
to
impose fees
for
the
services
it
provides.
The
cost
of
providing
these
services
and
activities
can
be
reasonably
calculated
and
fees
can
be
structured
in
a
manner
that
allows
the
City
to
recover
up
to
100%
of
service
costs.
The
calculation
of
the
cost
of
providing
services
is
an
analytical
effort
that
involves
adopted
and
expected
cost
information
and
estimates
of
time
(or
time
tracking
information)
required
to
perform
a service
or
activity.
Determining
the
targeted
level
of
cost
recovery
from
a
new
or
increased
fee
is
not
an
analytical
exercise.
It
involves
agency-specific
judgments
linked
to
a variety
of
factors,
such
as
existing
City
policies,
agency
wide
or
departmental
revenue
objectives,
economic
goals,
community
values,
market
conditions,
level
of
demand,
and
others.
Further,
the
Centers
for
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Services
(CMS)
sets
limits,
or
"caps",
for
how
much
a
provider
can
be
reimbursed
for
administering
ambulance
services.
CMS,
however,
does
not
regulate
how
much
can
be
charged
to
patients
or
private
insurance
companies.
If
the
adopted
fee
is
set
at
an
amount
that
does
not
exceed
the
estimated
and
reasonable
full
cost
of
providing
the
service
or
activity
requested,
the
City
is
in
compliance
with
the
legal
framework
currently
in
place.
2.1 Legal
Foundation
In
California,
there
is
great
variability
amongst
fees
charged
to
individuals
for
receiving
ambulance
transport
and/or
treatment.
There
is
no
set
standard
in
California
locally
or
statewide
for
how
ambulance
fees
and
rates
should
be
calculated
or
administered.
Therefore,
in
our
opinion,
the
foundation
for
justification
of
ambulance
fees
for
services
needs
to
rely
on
a
combination
of
federal
guidelines
and
requirements
as
well
as
California
state
authorities
for
charging
fees.
CMS
is
a federal
agency
within
the
United
States
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
(HHS)
that
administers
the
Medicare
program
and
works
in
partnership
with
state
governments
to
administer
Medicaid.
CMS
develops
a
national
Ambulance
Fee
Schedule
for
services
eligible
for
partial
reimbursement
to
providers.
CMS
sets
limits,
or
"caps",
for
how
much
a
provider
can
be
reimbursed
for
administering
ambulance
services.
CMS,
however,
does
not
regulate
how
much
can
be
charged
to
patients
or
private
insurance
companies.
For
the
ambulance
transport
benefit
under
Medicare
Part
B,
an
annual
update
is
applied
to
the
payment
limits
for
ambulance
transports
that
is
equal
to
the
percentage
increase
in
the
Consumer
Price
Index
for
All
Urban
Consumers
(CPI-U)
for
the
12-month
period
ending
with
June
of
the
previous
year.
This
study
relies
on
several
of
the
CMS
guidelines
to
structure
which
types
of
fees
are
charged
for
Medicare
and
Medicaid
billing
purposes.
O
NBS
10 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
7 February 15, 2022, Item #14
It
is
generally
accepted
in
California
that
cities
are
granted
the
authority
to
impose
user
and
regulatory
fees
for
services
and
activities
they
provide
through
provisions
of
the
State
Constitution.
More
specifically,
the
type
of
fees
the
City
of
Poway
seeks
to
establish
for
ambulance
services
fall
under
the
California
Constitution
Article
XIII
C.
Section
l(e),
which
provides
seven
stated
exceptions
to
the
State's
definition
of
a
"tax".
The
City's
ambulance
fees
represent
cost
recovery
opportunities
entirely
within
the
City's
control.
These
are
revenues
which
the
City
Council
may,
at
its
sole
discretion
upon
public
hearing,
implement
and/or
modify
without
further
public
process
or
approval.
The
only
legal
limitation
on
the
establishment
of
these
fees
is
that
they
may
not
exceed
the
estimated
and
reasonable
costs
incurred
to
provide
the
service
or
perform
the
function
for
which
the
fee
is
charged.
2.2 Project
Approach
The
fee
study
is
a
quantitative
effort
which
compiles
the
full
cost
of
providing
governmental
services
and
activities
and
translates
those
costs
into
proposed
fee
amounts
best
aligned
with
how
services
are
provided.
There
were
three
phases
of
analysis
completed
during
this
study:
1. Cost
of
Service
Analysis
2. Fee
Establishment
3. Cost
Recovery
Evaluation
2.2.1 COST
OF
SERVICE
ANALYSIS
A
Cost
of
Service
Analysis
is
a
quantitative
effort
that
compiles
the
full
cost
of
providing
governmental
services
and
activities.
There
are
two
primary
types
of
costs
considered:
direct
and
indirect
costs
. Direct
costs
are
those
that
specifically
relate
to
an
activity
or
service,
including
the
real-time
provision
of
the
service.
Indirect
costs
are
those
that
support
provision
of
services
in
general
but
cannot
be
directly
or
easily
assigned
to
a
singular
activity
or
service.
The
following
are
different
types
of
direct
and
indirect
costs
that
are
considered
in
the
Cost
of
Service
Analysis:
Direct
Costs: •
Direct
personnel
costs
-
Salary,
wages
and
benefits
expenses
for
personnel
specifically
involved
in
the
provision
of
services
and
activities
to
the
public.
•
Direct
non-personnel
costs
-
Discrete
expenses
incurred
by
the
City
due
to
a
specific
service
or
activity
performed,
such
as
contractor
costs,
third-party
charges,
and
very
specific
materials
used
in
the
service
or
activity.
Indirect
Costs: •
Indirect
personnel
costs
-
Personnel
expenses
supporting
the
provision
of
services
and
activities.
This
can
include
line
supervision
and
departmental
management,
administrative
support
within
a
department,
and
staff
involved
in
technical
support
activities
related
to
the
direct
services
provided
to
the
public.
•
Indirect
non-personnel
costs
-
Expenses
other
than
labor
involved
in
the
provision
of
services.
O
NBS
11 of
29 In
most
cases,
these
costs
are
allocated
across
all
services
provided
by
a
department,
rather
than
directly
assigned
to
individual
fee
categories.
CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
8 February 15, 2022, Item #14
,, Overhead costs -These are expenses, both labor and non-labor, related to City-wide support services. Support services include general administrative services such as City Manager, Finance, Human Resources, etc. The amount of costs attributable to the City included in this Study were sourced from the City's Cost Allocation Plan prepared by the Finance Department.
All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of expenses incurred by the City in the provision of services. Once the total estimated annual costs of providing services are known, further analysis is completed to identify service costs that may not be eligible for recovery in the fees subject to study.
To translate the annual costs of providing fee-related services into full cost-recovery individual fee amounts, we applied estimated or tracked time data and estimated or tracked activity data as an indicator of the level of service provided by type of service provided.
2.2.2 FEE ESTABLISHMENT
The Study's process provided the opportunity to propose additions and deletions to the fee schedule, as well as to rename, reorganize, and clarify fees imposed. Many such revisions better conform fees to current practices, as well as improve the calculation offees owed by an individual, the application of said fees, and the collection of revenues.
In most cases, the current structure of fees did not change; the focus is to recalibrate the fee amount to match the costs of services. In several cases, however, fee categories and fee names were simplified or re structured to increase the likelihood of full cost recovery, or to enhance the fairness of how the fee applies to various types of fee payers.
2.2.3 COST RECOVERY EVALUATION
The fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average total cost of service quantified through this analysis. A cost recovery rate of 0% identifies no current recovery of costs from fee revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation). A rate of 100% means that the fee currently recovers the full cost of service. A rate between 0% and 100% indicates partial recovery of the full cost of service through fees. A rate greater than 100% means that the fee exceeded the full cost of service.
Fees examined in this Study should not exceed the full cost of service. In other words, the cost recovery rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. We assist with modeling the "recommended" or "targeted" level of cost recovery for each fee, always established at 100%, or less, than the calculated ful I cost of service.
As covered in section 2.1 Legal Foundation, while CMS sets limits, or "caps", for how much a provider can be reimbursed for administering ambulance services, the agency does not regulate how much can be charged to patients or private insurance companies. As such, targets and recommendations always reflect agency-specific judgments linked to a variety of factors, such as existing City policies, revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of demand, and others. Because this element ONBS
12 of 29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 9
February 15, 2022, Item #14
of
the
Study
is
subjective,
the
results
of
this
study
provide
the
cost
of
service
calculation
based
on
100%
full
cost
recovery
as
well
as
the
framework
for
the
City
to
adjust
in
accordance
with
the
City's
goals
as
pertains
to
code
compliance,
cost
recovery,
economic
development,
and
social
values.
2.2.4 COMPARATIVE
FEE
SURVEY
Often
policy
makers
request
a comparison
of
their
jurisdiction's
fees
to
surrounding
or
similar
communities
. City
staff
provided
NBS
with
a
2019
survey
of
similar
fees
and
charges
in
comparable
agencies.
The
names
of
San
Diego
agencies
surveyed
have
been
marked
as
"Provider"
for
confidentiality.
As
illustrated
in
the
comparison
survey,
the
City's
current
Ambulance
Transport
fees
are
lower
than
most
of
the
comparison
agencies.
The
Treatment
and
Release
fee
is
around
the
average
of
agencies
that
charge
fees
for
assessment
at
the
scene
. The
remaining
fees
such
as
EKG,
Medications,
Mileage,
Night
Charge,
Supplies,
and
Oxygen
fall
in
the
middle
of
the
other
comparison
agencies
surveyed.
While
a
comparison
can
provide
a sense
of
the
local
market
pricing
for
services
and
be
useful
in
gauging
the
impact
of
recommendations
for
fee
adjustments,
the
following
should
be
noted
about
the
general
use
of
comparative
survey
data:
•
Comparative
surveys
typically
do
not
provide
information
about
the
cost
recovery
policies
or
procedures
inherent
in
each
comparison
agency.
•
A
"market
based"
decision
to
price
services
below
the
full
cost
of
service
calculation,
is
the
same
as
deciding
to
subsidize
that
service.
•
Comparative
agencies
may
or
may
not
base
their
fee
amounts
on
the
estimated
and
reasonable
cost
of
providing
services.
•
Comparative
fee
survey
efforts
are
often
non-conclusive
for
many
fee
categories.
Comparison
agencies
typically
use
varied
terminology
for
provision
of
similar
services.
The
results
of
the
Comparative
Fee
Survey
for
the
City's
Ambulance
fees
are
shown
on
the
following
page.
O
NBS
-
13 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
10 February 15, 2022, Item #14
~
ALS2 BLS Treat and Release
-.i:a,. Units
0 .... Resident Non -Resident Resident Non -Resident Resident Non -Resident Resident Non -Resident N !Provider 1 \Q
Provider 2 $4,451.94 $4,451 .94 $3,967.94 $3,967 .94 $1,613.83 $1,613.83 Provlder3 $3,883.21 $3,883.21 $3,425 .37 $3,425 .37 $1,487.05 $1,487.05 Provider4 $3,287 .00 $3,287.00 $3,026.00 $3,026.00 $2,452.00 $2,452.00 Provider 5 $3,287 .00 $3,287.00 $3,026.00 $3,026 .00 $2,452 .00 $2,452 .00 Provlder6 $3,166 .00 $3,166.00 $2,900 .00 $2,900 .00 $2,228.00 $2,228.00 id $3,166 .00 $3,166.00 $2,900 .00 $2,900.00 $2,228.00 $2,228.00 Providers $3,166 .00 $3,166 .00 $2,900 .00 $2,900 .00 $2,228.00 $2,228.00 Provider9 4 I $3,147 .57 $3,147 .57 $2,967.48 $2,967.48 $1,076.11 $1,076.11 $165 .00 $165 .00 rovider 10 $3,086.43 $3,086.43 $2,660 .93 $2,660.93 $857 .65 $857 .65 rovider 11 2,787.00 $2,787.00 $2,526 .00 $2,526 .00 $2,207.00 $2,207.00 Provider 12 $2,671.34 $2,671.34 $2,396.98 $2,396.98 $2,022 .71 $2,022.71 $202 .74 $202 .74 Provider13 $2,600.52 $2,600.52 $2,343.43 $2,343.43 $1,319.81 $1,319.81 Provlder14 $2,590.42 $2,590.42 $2,392.33 $2,392.33 $1,076 .11 $1,076.11 $165.00 $165.00 Provider 15 $2,161.07 $2,161 .07 $1,962 .98 $1,962 .98 $1,076 .11 $1,076.11 Provider 16 $2,100 .00 $2,100 .00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $865 .00 $865 .00 Provider 17 $1,697 .00 $1,829.00 $1,580 .00 $1,709 .00 $1,000.00 $1,117 .00 $154 .00 $204 .00 Provider 18 $1,668.00 $1,668.00 $1,668.00 $1,668 .00 $1,668.00 $1,668.00 $150 .00 $150 .00 Provider 19 $1,635.00 $1,824 .00 $1,523.00 $1,712.00 $1,479 .00 $1,668.00 $138.00 $200.00 Provider 20 $1,458 .61 $1,458. 61 $1,458.61 $1,558.61 $1,458 .61 $1,458 .61 $182.34 Provider 21 $1,330 .11 $1,569 .89 $1,308 .41 $1,504 .78 $475.41 $589.10 Provider 22 $1,320.00 $1,840 .00 $1,180.00 $1,680.00 $980.00 $1,480.00 $100 .00 $150 .00 $1,268 .75 $1,370 .25 $1,167 .25 $1,268 .75 $952.33 $952 .33 $203.00 $1,255 .00 $1,255 .00 $1,255 .00 $1,255.00 $915 .00 $915.00 $150.00 $150 .00 Provider 25 $1,141.00 $1,141.00 $1,141.00 $1,141.00 $1,016 .00 $1,016 .00 Footnote 1' 1: Provider 26 is City of Poway Ambulance
Mileage 02 Meds
3.77 $317 .49
$63.87 $241 .94
$60.39 $228 .91
$48.00 $118.00
$48.00 $118 .00
$48.00 $127.00
$48.00 $127 .00
$48 .00 $127 .
$43.33 $156 .54
I I
$39.90 $127 .39
$48.00 $118 .
$41.32 $33.65
$46.18 $203 .17
$43.33 $156 .54
$43.33 $156.54
$21.50 $100.00 $15.00
$27.00 $65.00 Cost+ 55%
$18.50 $80.00 Variable
$19.00 $94.00
$24.32 $91.18 Cost
$24.00 $73.38 $664.54
$34.80 $50.00 Cost+l00%
$23.25 $76.13
$24.00 $65.00 cost+
$25.00 $93.00 Variable
Add om
•
EKG
I I
$50.00 $85.00
Varies $20.00
$28.00
Res-Cost+ $50.00
90%Non- R
Cost plus
137%
Varies $33.96
I
$128 .15 $36.17
I
Varies $20.00 I
Varies
I I
Varies I $20.00 I
Varies
Night Charge
$155 .09
$155.09
$30.00
$43.00
$43.41
$50.00
I
I
I
I
I
CPR Non
Trans
$2,100.00
$621.13
$150 .00
I
I
I
:r:t:too
-
I $253 .66
$125 .00
$154 .00
I $154 .00
$100 .00
$30.
$100.00
February 15, 2022, Item #14
2.2.5 DATA
SOURCES
The
following
data
sources
were
provided
by
the
City
and
used
to
support
the
cost
of
service
analysis
and
fee
establishment
phases
of
this
Study:
•
Adopted
Budget
for
Fiscal
Year
(FY)
2021-22
•
A
complete
list
of
the
Fire
Department's
personnel,
salary/wage
rates,
paid
benefits,
etc.
•
Prevailing
fee
schedules
•
Annual
ambulance
activity
and
billing
data
Calls
for
service
data
The
City's
adopted
budget
is
the
most
significant
source
of
information
affecting
cost
of
service
results.
We
did
not
audit
or
validate
the
City's
financial
management
and
budget
practices,
nor
was
cost
information
adjusted
to
reflect
different
levels
of
service
or
any
specific,
targeted
performance
benchmarks.
This
Study
has
accepted
the
City's
budget
as
a
legislatively
adopted
directive
describing
the
most appropriate
and
reasonable
level
of
City
spending.
O
NBS
15 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
11 February 15, 2022, Item #14
3. ANALYSIS
The focus of this Study is on fees charged for ambulance services provided by the City. The following is a summarized list of fees studied:
• ALS -Advanced Life Support includes emergency medical care performed for sustaining life, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), defibrillation, airway management, and the administration of drugs and medications. Additional medical procedures may include cardiac monitoring, I.V.'s, and the use of diagnostic devices.
• BLS -Basic Life Support generally does not include the administration of drugs or invasive skills.
• Treatment and Release -Flat fee for services applied when the City responds to an emergency call for service, administers care at the scene, and does not transport the patient to hospital.
• Related Add-Ons -Itemized charges allowed by CMS for EKG services, Oxygen, Fuel, Medications, and Night services.
The fees examined in this Study excluded other fire related fees for services, development impact fees, utility rates, and any special tax assessments, all of which fall under distinct legal, analytical, and procedural requirements different from the body of user fees analyzed in this effort. Additionally, this Study fines and penalties imposed by the City for violations to its requirements or codes.
3.1 Cost of Service Analysis
A full range of fire and paramedic services are provided by the City's Fire Department. These services can be summarized into three main service delivery programs for purposes of this analysis:
• Fire Operations and Suppression Response -Emergency response related to fire incidents and other types of emergencies.
• Emergency Medical Services (EMS) -Ambulance response services that typically result in a transport to a hospital or treatment on-scene without transport. • Fire Prevention -Annual inspections of commercial buildings, development review, Fire Code permits, investigative and code enforcement activities, etc.
Personnel respond from three (3) strategically located fire stations to provide quick and effective response.
3.1.1 ANNUAL COST OF EMS SERVICES
The focus of this cost of service analysis was to reasonably estimate the total annual costs of providing ambulance services that can be recovered through fees for services. Table 2 presents the total cost of service analysis for the City's Fire Department, segregated into the main service delivery programs:
ONBS-
16 of 29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 12
February 15, 2022, Item #14
TABLE
2. TOTAL
FIRE
DEPARTMENT
SERVICE
COSTS
PER
PROGRAM
I
E
I
General
I
I
mergency
Cost
Element
d"
15 .
Operations/
Fire
Prevention
TOTAL
Me
1ca
erv1ces
Labor Recurring
Non-Labor
Citywide
Overhead
Department
Admi
n
$
5,263,409
$
334,438
7,988,282 1,276,295
Suppression
2,719,107
$
1,188,132 3,898,360
733,266
503,856
$
8,486,372
153,182
1,675,752
620,554
12,507,197
120,018
2,129,579
As
shown,
the
total
cost
of
providing
all
Department
services
is
approximately
$24.8
million.
EMS
services
are
approximately
$14.9
million,
which
is
60%
of
total
Department
costs.
EMS
DIRECT
LABOR
COSTS
The
amount
of
"Labor"
costs
shown
in
Table
2 above
was
established
as
follows.
Firefighters
and
paramedics
are
divided
into
3 shifts
working
on
a
rotational
schedule.
Utilizing
a constant
staffing
philosophy,
each
shift
consists
of
17 personnel
ready
to
respond
and
provide
emergency
and
non
emergency
services
any
time
of
day.
According
to
the
calls
for
service
report,
most
calls
for
service
responded
to
by
the
Department
are
EMS
rather
than
suppression
related.
As
to
how
resources
are
deployed
for
EMS
response,
there are
two
(2)
ambulances
currently
in
service,
seven
(7)
days
per
week,
twenty-four
(24)
hours
per
day.
Two
(2)
additional ambulances
are
kept
ready
in
reserve
to
ensure
adequate
coverage
for
the
community's
needs.
The
two
(2)
ambulances
in
service
are
supported
by
three
(3)
paramedic
fire
engines
and
one
(1)
truck.
Each
time
an
ambulance
responds
to
a
call
for
service,
a
paramedic
engine
accompanies
that
ambulance
to
provide
medically
necessary
support
to
the
ambulance
and
personnel
inside
it.
The
City
is
dedicated
to
ensuring
a
paramedic
is
on
scene
within
eight
(8)
minutes
of
a
dispatched
call,
so
an
engine
is
always
dispatched
to
a
medical
call
along
with
ambulance.
Each
ambulance
is
staffed
with
two
people,
both
are
paramedic
firefighters.
Each
paramedic
engine
is
staffed
with
three
people:
a captain,
an
engineer,
and
a
firefighter.
All
personnel
on
engines
are
paramedics.
An
analysis
of
calls
for
service
for
FY
2017
/18,
FY
2018/19,
and
FY
2019/20
shows
the
breakdown
of
incidents
and
minutes
for
EMS
calls
versus
other
types
of
calls.
C
NBS
17 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
13 February 15, 2022, Item #14
TABLE 3. TIME ON TASK
. k ( 1 • 11 ) b f . Percentage of Time on Tas Tota Time on Ca s Num er o Minutes .
Minutes
Emergency Medical Response 559,007 82%
Other Response Type 120,961 18%
Table 3 shows the City's response time for Emergency Medical Services is approximately 82% of all calls for service. Because the City accounts for salaries and benefit expenses for all paramedic personnel in one central accounting/budgetary unit {Fire Suppression), a method for allocating direct labor costs between the Department's main service delivery programs is needed. To estimate the amount of salaries and benefit costs dedicated to EMS, the time on task split of 82% for personnel costs for Fire Captain/Paramedic and Firefighter/Paramedic positions are allocated to EMS, as are 18% of Fire Engineer/Paramedics position costs.
OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS
Review of the City's adopted expenditure budget for FY 2021/22 identified several on-going operating costs that are directly attributable the provision of EMS services. Unlike labor expenses, the City accounts for EMS related operating costs in a singular and separate accounting unit from Fire Suppression. These are shown in Table 2 as "recurring non-labor", and further detailed in Table 4, below:
TABLE 4. EMS OPERATING COSTS
Operating Cost Item FY 21/22 Budget
Professional Develop & Recogn $ 250
Other Professional Fees 50,600
Utilities-Other 9,050
Hazardous Waste Removal 1,500
Vehicle Operations & Maintenance 57,330
Essential Training 8,900
Other Contractual Services 19,913
Equipment Repair & Maint. 19,700
Office & Stationery Supplies 700
Medical Supplies 37,345
Safety Supplies 5,500
Operating Supplies 4,500
Printing 1,650
Publication & Dues 50
Capital Outlay Rental-Vehicle 81,450
Cap Outlay Rental-Other Equip. 36,000
-~ En,\f,'£f:1 l-ll.'~l lt•J.ir:.11
Approximately $334,000 are operating costs directly dedicated to providing Emergency Medical Services.
Operating costs include services and supplies needed to support operations, as well as the amortized cost of replacing vehicles and equipment needed for service delivery which are shown as the "capital outlay" expenditures at the bottom of the list.
ONBS-
1s of 29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 14
February 15, 2022, Item #14
OVERHEAD COSTS
There are two types of overhead costs considered in this analysis: Citywide overhead and Fire Department overhead.
Citywide Overhead costs include administrative services that support the Fire Department such as Finance, Human Resources, City Manager, Information Technology, etc. The City's Finance Department completes an overhead cost allocation plan analysis, which for FY 21-22 identifies $13.5 million in overhead costs attributable to the Fire Department.
TABLES. OVERHEAD COSTS
I
2021-22
Allocated Indirect/Support Services Ad d 8 d opte u get Citywide Overhead
Safety Services -Fi re Suppression $ 12,317,738
Safety Services -Fire Prevention
Safety Services -Paramedics
667,905
475,918
The total share of these costs attributable to EMS services, is shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6. EMS OVERHEAD COSTS
I
Emergency
Allocated Indirect/Support Services Medical
Citywide Overhead
Safety Services -Fire Suppression
Safety Services -Fi re Pr even ti on
Safety.Services -Paramedics
Services
7,546,105
442,177
The portion of overhead costs allocated to EMS, is based on the overall share of Department staff time spent on EMS, resulting in approximately $8 million of overhead costs.
Fire Department Administration Costs were also allocated to all main service areas, with EMS receiving approximately $1.3 million, as shown in Table 2.
ONBS
19 of 29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 15
February 15, 2022, Item #14
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY
Based on the analysis competed for each attributable cost component described above, Table 7 summarizes the City's total estimated annual cost of providing EMS services at $14.9 million. As described above, the total estimated cost of providing services includes all identifiable direct and indirect costs.
TABLE 7. TOTAL ANNUAL EMS COSTS
I
Emergency
Cost Element d. 1 S . Me 1ca erv1ces
Labor
Recurring Non-Labor
Citywide Overhead
Department Ad min
3.1.2 INDIVIDUAL FEE FOR SERVICE COSTS
$ 5,263,409
334,438
7,988,282
1,276,295
To translate the total annual EMS costs established in Table 7 into individual costs per type of ambulance service, EMS costs were allocated to individual fee for service categories based on the average number of calls by type and the average amount of time required to service each type of call. Both calls by type and average time per call were sourced from the Fire Department's dispatch records Utilizing calls for service data provided by the City's dispatch system, a weighted distribution factor was derived by call volume and call time between Transports, Non-Transports, and Other Calls. Each time an ambulance responds to a call for service, a paramedic engine accompanies that ambulance to provide medically necessary support to the ambulance and personnel inside it. Therefore, service time must reflect the total number of personnel responding to each call, on average:
• Two person ambulance -Paramedic/Firefighters
• Three person paramedic Engine -Captain, Engineer and Firefighter. Each of these people are also Paramedics.
• Transports are defined as calls that consisted of a patient being transported to the hospital by ambulance. Transports last an average of approximately 60 minutes per call. • Non-Transports are defined as calls where treatment was administered on the scene, but the ambulance did not transport the patient to a hospital, also known as "Dry Run". Based on conversations with City staff, if the medic unit is on the scene for more than 25 minutes, it would be indicative that an assessment with some form of treatment or advanced evaluation was performed.
ONBS-
20 of 29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 16
February 15, 2022, Item #14
•
Other
Calls
are
defined
as
calls
that
last
less
than
the
10-minute
"on-scene
time"
threshold,
which
would
be
indicative
of
no
treatment
was
administered
on-scene
and
no
transport
was
provided
by
ambulance.
These
calls
have
no
potential
for
recovery
of
costs
through
fees
for
ambulance
services.
The
cost
of
service
analysis
for
individual
ambulance
services
is
shown
in
Table
8 below.
TABLE
8. AVERAGE
TOTAL
COST
PER
TYPE
OF
AMBULANCE
SERVICE
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Service Service
Average
Type
of
Ambulance
Service
Time
Service
%
Annual
Time Time
Cost
per
Service
(hrs)-
time(hrs)
-
Distribution
Calls
Ambulance
(hrs)
-
(hrs)-
Annual
Service
Engine
Total
Transport
2,851
1.98 2.97
2.47 7,049
86%
$
4,369
Non-Transports
684
0.58 0.87
1.44 988
12%
$
2,550
Other
Calls
260
0.20 0.30
0.49 128
2%
$
870
Total
3,795
2.75 4.13
4.41 8,165
100%
$
3,801
Per
the
dispatch
data,
Table
8 shows
the
average
annual
distribution
of
effort
required
to
service
various
types
of
Emergency
Medical
Services
calls
as
86%
Transports,
12%
Treatment
Non-Transports,
and
2%
Other
Calls.
Applying
the
$14.9
million
of
costs
shown
in
Table
7,
the
average
cost
of
service
per
ambulance
call
is
$3,801,
and
for
each
type
of
ambulance
service
is
$4,369
for
Transport,
$2,550
for
Treatment
Non-Transports,
and
$870
for
Other
Calls.
3.2 Fee
Establishment
The
City's
current
fee
structure
and
fee
amounts
are
shown
in
Table
9 on
the
following
page.
As
discussed
in
Section
2.2.2 of
this
report,
the
Study's
process
provided
the
opportunity
to
propose
additions
and
deletions
to
the
fee
schedule,
as
well
as
to
rename,
reorganize,
and
clarify
fees
imposed.
In
general,
ambulance fee
schedules
tend
to
be
standardized
across
local
governments.
Fee
schedules
typically
contain
the
following
types
of
fees
for
services:
•
Transport
Fees,
which
are
typically
delineated
between
ALS
versus
BLS
transport
services,
and
treatment
without
transport
services.
Fees
for
transport
services
also
sometimes
indicate
different
fee
amounts
for
residents
versus
non-residents.
•
Add-on
Charges,
for
services
provided
during
transport
that
vary
per
incident,
such
as
mileage,
oxygen,
medications,
supplies,
EKG,
etc.
Poway's
transport
fees
are
structured
within
the
same
standards
seen
in
other
agencies.
However,
the
City's
official
Master
Fee
Schedule
adopted
by
Resolution
08-083
lists
only
two
Add-on
charges
for
Mileage
and
Oxygen.
As
shown
in
Table
9,
and
in
the
regional
comparison
of
fees,
the
Study
identified
other
active
Add-on
charges
in
the
City's
billing
data.
NBS
recommends
the
City
publish
all
standard
Add
on
charges
that
it
intends
to
bill
for
on
a
routine
basis
in
the
Master
Fee
Schedule.
O
NBS
21 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
17 February 15, 2022, Item #14
3.3 Cost
Recovery
Evaluation
Table
9 shows
the
Total
Cost
of
Service
Per
Activity
calculated
by
the
Study
(full
cost
recovery
fee
amounts}
as
compared
to
the
current
fees
charged
by
the
City.
TABLE
9. CURRENT
FEE
EVALUATION
AND
PERFORMANCE
Fee
Description
EMERGENCY
MEDICAL
SERVICES
and
AMBULANCE
TRANSPORT
Base
Charge-Advanced
Life
Support
1 Poway
Resident
Non-Resident
Base
Charge
-Advanced
Life
Support
2 Poway
Resident
Non-Resident
Base
Charge-Basic
Life
Support
Poway
Resident
Non-Resident
Treatment
and
Release
ADD-ON
CHARGES
Per-Mi
I e
Charge
Oxygen Medications Sup
lies
EKG
Fee
Unit
/
Total
Cost
of
Type
Service
Per
Poway
Current
Fee
Activity
flat
$
4,369
$
1,029
fl at
$
4,369
$
1,366
flat
$
4,369
$
1,029
fl at
$
4,369
$
1,366
flat
$
4,369
$
866
flat
$
4,369
$
1,196
flat
$
2,550
$
150
per
mile
$
16 fl at
$
66 flat
Cost
lus
50%
flat
$
49 flat
Existing Cost
Recovery
% 24% 31% 24% 31% 20% 27% 6%
$
46 -
-
-
---
-.. ························
········· ············
···················+~---~
~·....;...---
-+
--
..
Night
Charge
(7pm
to
7am)
flat
$ --···················?..9.
..........
--
--
CP
_R_N_o_n_-T
_ra_~~
.............
.....
................................
.................. ....__
fl_a t-
-+-------1-'
$'--
---
+--
-----4
Extra
Attendant
__
f_l a_t_-1-··
········
·······
·····················+-'-
$ ___
__..
_
_
_
-1
As
shown,
the
Poway's
current
transport
fees
recover
between
6%
and
31%
of
the
total
cost
of
providing
each
service.
Add-on
charges
were
not
evaluated
on
a
cost-per-service
basis;
however,
by
excluding the
anticipated
billings
associated
with
these
charges
from
the
calculation
of
the
transport
rates,
the
risk
of
overcharging
a
recipient
for
transport
service
is
mitigated.
3.3.1 RECOMMENDED
FEES
-POLICY
APPROACH
The
following
table
shows
three
options
for
establishing
ALS
Transport,
BLS
Transport,
and
Treatment
and
Release
(Non-Transport}
fees
either
at
or
below
the
100%
full
cost
of
service
fee
amounts
calculated
through
this
Study.
•
Option
1:
Transport
fees
established
at
100%
full
cost
recovery;
Add-on
charges
assumed
at
no
change
from
current
fee
amounts
O
NBS
-
22 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
18 February 15, 2022, Item #14
•
Option
2:
Transport
fees
and
Add-on
charges
established
at
the
average
of
the
regional
comparison
•
Option
3:
Transport
fees
and
Add-on
charges
at
the
66 th
percentile
of
the
regional
comparison
TABLE
10. POLICY
OPTIONS
OPTION
1 OPTION
2 OPTION
3 CURRENT
Total
Cost
of
Cost
Cost
Regional
Fee
Cost
Existing
Fee
Fee
Description
Fee
Unit/
Service
Per
Recovery
Regional
Fee
-
Recovery
-66th
Recovery
Poway
Cost
No
.
Type
Activity
%
Average
%
Percentile
%
Current
Fee
Recovery
%
EMERGENCY
MEDICAL
SERVICES
and
1 AMBULANCE
TRANSPORT
Base
Charge-Advanced
Life
Support
1 Poway
Re
sident
flat
$
4,369
100%
$
2,267
52%
$
2,900
66%
$
1,029
24%
Non-Res
ident
flat
$
4,369
100%
$
2,327
53%
$
2,900
66%
$
1,366
31%
Base
Cha
rge-Adva
need
Life
Support
2 Powa
Resident
flat
$
4,369
100%
$
2,461
56%
$
3,166
72%
$
1,029
24%
Non-Resident
flat
$
4,369
100%
$
2,520
58%
$
3,166
72 %
$
1,366
31%
Base
Charge-Basic
Life
Support
Powa
Res
ident
flat
$
4,369
100%
$
1,464
34%
$
2,228
51%
$
866
20%
Non-Res
ident
flat
$
4,369
100
%
$
1,512
35%
$
2,228
51%
$
1,196
27%
Treatment
and
Release
flat
$
2,550
100
%
$
153
6%
$
172
7%
$
150
6%
2 ADD-ON
CHARGES
Per-Mile
Char
e
pe
r mile
$
39 $
48 $
16 Oxygen
flat
$
123
$
127
$
66 Medications
flat
Cost
pl
us
50%
Cost
pl
us
50%
Cost
plus
50%
Su
lies
flat
$
69 $
69 $
49 EKG
flat
$
39 $
68 $
46 Night
Char
e (7pm
to
7am)
flat
$
75 $
155
$
50 CPR
Non-Trans
flat
-·-----·-·
__ $ ___ , ......
957
---·
···· ... $
2,100
$
100
Extra
Attendant
flat
$
102
$
140
$
50 Using
this
approach
to
establish
recommended fees
for
the
Council's
consideration,
the
annual
estimated
billings
for
each
policy
option
are
illustrated
in
Table
11. Billed Collected Net
Col
I ected
Revenue
Increase
TABLE
11. BILLED
VS
COLLECTED
Estimated
Annual
Billings
per
Policy
Option
Average
Annual
Billings
at
Current
Recovery
Fee
Levels
100%
Full
Cost
Fees
Regional
Fee
levels
Regional
Fee
Levels
-Average
-66th
Percentile
$
2,731,204
$
9,754
,207
$
5,206,073
$
6,771,947
$
1,184,550
$
4,169,923
$
2,225,596
$
2,895,007
$
2,985,373
$
1,041,046
$
1,710,457
At
current
billing
activity
levels,
the
City
could
increase
annual
billing
amounts
from
approximately
$2.7
million
at
current
fees,
to
up
to
$9.8
million
at
full
cost
recovery
fee
amounts.
Once
the
collections
rate
of
43%
is
applied,
the
net
increase
in
revenue
collected
ranges
from
an
estimated
$1
million
to
$3
million,
O
NBS
-
23 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
19 February 15, 2022, Item #14
depending on the policy option chosen. However, as discussed further in Section 3.3.2, predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect City revenues is difficult to quantify.
3.3.2 PAYER MIX
Understanding the City's payer mix is an important consideration when setting final fee amounts because most bills for ambulance services do not result in full payment. For example, as discussed throughout this report, CMS sets limits, or "caps", for how much a provider can be reimbursed for ambulance services.
CMS, however, does not regulate how much can be charged to private paying patients or commercial insurance companies. Individuals may have issues with their ability to pay the full fee amount, and commercial insurance companies may have their own limits and reimbursement policies. Actual reimbursements are based upon billing the patient for the medical service provided and dependent on whether the recipient of a bill has private or public insurance, or no insurance. There are four basic categories of reimbursements.
• Medicare -Primary health care coverage for people over the age of 65 • Medi-Cal -Component of the federal Medicaid program that is provided for qualified individuals and families
• Commercial Insurance -Benefits purchased independently, or provided by employers to employees
• Private Pay-For those without any form of medical insurance The data in the following tables shows the City's current payer mix based on financial class data and revenues reported by the City's third-party biller, Wittman Enterprises LLC. This information may be useful in understanding the impact on actual reimbursements received after recommended fees are adopted.
TABLE 12. PAYER MIX -NUMBER OF TRANSPORTS
Number of Percentage of Category Transports Transports
Medicare 793 45.06%
Medi-Cal 167 9.49%
Commercial Insurance 192 10.91%
Private Pay 608 34.55%
Totals 1,760 100.00°/4
In Table 12, out of a total of 1,760 transports for FY 2019-20, Medicare is the largest category, representing 793 transports and 45.06% of the transports mix. Private Pay is the second largest, and Commercial Insurance and Medi-Cal categories are third and fourth largest.
Table 13 shows the City's total revenues received by reimbursement category (payer mix) in FY 2019-20.
As shown, Commercial Insurance payers have the highest reimbursement rate, followed by Medi-Cal, Medicare, and Private Pay.
ONBS
24 of 29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 20
February 15, 2022, Item #14
TABLE 13. PAYER MIX -TOTAL REVENUE
Number of Collection Percentage of Category Revenue Transports Rate Revenue Medicare 793 $ 525 $ 416,685 33.01%
Medi-Cal 167 $ 893 $ 149,104 11.81%
Commercial Insurance 192 $ 2,832 $ 543,817 43.08%
Private Pay 608 $ 251 $ 152,838 12.11%
Totals 1,760 $ 1,262,444
It is important to note that increasing ambulance transport fees and add-on charges does not necessarily translate to a total increase in revenues at the reimbursement/payor level. For example, due to the fee limits set by CMS, one should not expect the Collection Rate per transport to increase significantly from what is shown in Table 13. The same is likely true for Medi-Cal and Private Pay. Out of all four payer categories, Commercial Insurance is the most likely to pay the highest reimbursement rate and the most likely to exhibit flexibility in its Collection Rate as compared to the other categories.
ONBS-
2s of 29
CITY OF POWAY
Ambulance Rates Study 21
February 15, 2022, Item #14
4. CONCLUSION
Based
on
the
Cost
of
Service
Analysis,
Fee
Establishment,
and
Cost
Recovery
Evaluation
outcomes
presented
in
this
Study,
the
proposed
schedule
of
fees
for
City
Council's
consideration
has
been
included
in
the
City's
accompanying
Staff
Report.
As
discussed
throughout
this
report,
the
proposed
fee
schedule
intends
to
improve
the
City
's recovery
of
costs
incurred
to
provide
individual
services,
as
well
as
to
adjust
fees
downward
where
fees
charged
exceed
the
average
costs
incurred.
Predicting
the
amount
to
which
any
adopted
fee
increases
will
affect
City
revenues
is
difficult
to
quantify.
For
the
near-term,
the
City
should
not
count
on
increased
revenues
to
meet
any
specific
expenditure
plan.
Experience
with
the
revised
fee
amounts
should
be
gained
first
before
revenue
projections
are
revised.
However,
unless
there
is
some
significant,
long-term
change
in
activity
levels
at
the
City,
proposed
fee
amendments
should
enhance
the
City's
cost
recovery
performance,
over
time,
providing
it
the
ability
to
stretch
other
resources
further
for
the
benefit
of
the
public
at
large.
Disclaimer
: In
preparing
this
report
and
the
opinions
and
recommendations
included
herein,
we
relied
on
several
principal
assumptions
and
considerations
regarding
financial
matters,
conditions
and
events
that
may
occur
in
the
future.
This
information
and
assumptions,
including
the
City's
budgets,
time
estimate
data,
and
workload
information
from
City
staff,
were
provided
by
sources
we
believe
to
be
reliable;
however,
we
did
not
independently
verify
such
information
and
assumptions
. While
we
believe
our
use
of
such
information
and
assumptions
is
reasonable
for
the
purpose
of
this
report, some
assumptions
will
invariably
not
materialize
as
stated
herein
and
may
vary
significantly
due
to
unanticipated
events
and
circumstances
. Therefore,
the
actual
results
can
be
expected
to
vary
from
those
projected
to
the
extent
that
actual
future
conditions
differ
from
those
assumed
by
us
or
provided
to
us
by
others
.
O
NBS
-
26 of
29 CITY
OF
POWAY
Ambulance
Rates
Study
22 February 15, 2022, Item #14
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND ESTABLISHING
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND AMBULANCE
TRANSPORT FEES WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SECTION
OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66016 et seq. establishes procedures for the adoption of fees for services by local government; WHEREAS, the City of Poway provides emergency medical services and ambulance transport as part of the operation of the fire department to residents and non-residents of Poway; WHEREAS, on May 4, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-017, adopting a Master Schedule of Fees;
WHEREAS, a cost study and analysis of the current fee schedule indicates that an increase in the existing fees and establishing certain new fees is warranted; WHEREAS, the proposed fees do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the services for which the fees are imposed;
WHEREAS, the proposed fees will supersede any previously established fee for the City emergency medical services and ambulance transport; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Poway held a duly noticed public hearing on January 18, 2022, allowing for the public to comment on the establishment of said fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows:
Section 1: The City Council finds that this amendment to the Master Fee Schedule is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15273 (a) (1 ).
Section 2: The City's Master Fee Schedule is hereby updated to amend and establish fees for Emergency Medical Services and Ambulance Transport Fees of the Fire Department set forth in Attachment attached hereto this Resolution and are hereby approved and effective March 1, 2022.
Section 3: Emergency Medical Services and Ambulance Transport Fees set forth in Attachment A will increase each July by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) -All Urban Customers, San Diego-Carlsbad (2021 = 319.761), as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statics, subject to rounding to the nearest whole dollar commencing July 1, 2022.
Section 4: The proposed fees set forth in Exhibit 1 are based on costs incurred by the City in providing services, which the City Council finds to be reasonable. 27 of 29 ATTACHMENT B
February 15, 2022, Item #14
Resolution
No.
22-
Page
2 Section
5:
The
City
Manager,
Fire
Chief
or
staff
designee
may
authorize
a
reduction
in
fees
for
individuals
transported
that
do
not
have
health
insurance
and
a
financial
hardship
is
demonstrated
or
other
extenuating
circumstances.
The
determination
of
a financial
hardship
shall
be
based
on
80%
of
Area
Median
Income
(AMI)
as
determined
for
San
Diego
County
published
each
year
by
the
County
of
San
Diego,
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
Services.
Section
6:
This
Resolution
shall
become
effective
immediately.
PASSED,
ADOPTED
AND
APPROVED
at
a
Regular
Meeting
of
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Poway,
California
at
a
regular
meeting
this
15th
day
of
February,
2022,
by
the
following
vote,
to
wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED:
Steve
Vaus,
Mayor
ATTEST: Carrie
Gallagher,
City
Clerk
28 of
29 February 15, 2022, Item #14
Exhibit
1 Resolution
No.
22-
Page
3 Emergency
and
Medical
Services
and
Ambulance
Transport
Fees
to
be
Amended
and
Established
in
the
Fire
Department
Section
of
the
Master
Fee
Schedule
City
of
Poway
Master
Fee
Schedule
Fire
Department
Service
Description
Fee
Fees
subject
to
CPI
adjustment
annually
July
1 each
year.
*Medications
updated
no
less
than
annually
based
on
costs.
Emergency
Medical
Services
and
Ambulance
Transport
Base
Cha
rge-Ad
vanced
Life
Sup
port
1 $4,369
Res
ide
nt/Non-Resident
Base
Cha
rge-Ad
vanced
Life
Sup
port
2 $4,369
Res
ide
nt/
Non-Res
ident
Base
Cha
rge-Bas
ic
Life
Suppo
rt
$4,369
Res
ident
/Non-Res
ident
Treatme
nt an
d
Release
$2,550
Res
iden
t/Non-Res
ident
IAdd-Ons
Per
-M
ile
Charge
$
16 Oxy
gen
$
66 M
ed
ications
*
Cos
t
Pl us
50%
Supp
lies
$
49 EKG
$
46 Nigh
t Cha
rge
(7p
m t
o
7am
)
$
50 CPR
Non-T
ranspo
rt
$
10 0
Ext
ra
Attendant
$
50 29
of
29 February 15, 2022, Item #15
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
AGENDA RE PO RT City of Poway
February 15, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Robert Manis, Director of Development Services fv'\
Austin Silva, Senior Planner A~
858-668-4658/[email protected]
CITY COUNCIL
Pre-Development Conference 21-004/22-001; a request for review of a proposal to modify a Conditional Use Permit and Reclamation Plan for the mining site operated by Granite Construction to provide for a Battery Energy Storage System facility and an amendment to the South Poway Specific Plan to allow transmission poles in the Natural Open Space area at 10975 Beeler Canyon Road.
Granite Construction is proposing to modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-009 and its Reclamation Plan to revise future industrial building pad locations (Pads) to provide for a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility at the northerly portion of the mining site and to amend the South Poway Specific Plan (SPSP) to allow transmission poles and lines up to 80-feet tall in the Natural Open Space (Natural 05) area on three parcels at 10975 Beeler Canyon Road designated as Mineral Resource Extraction (MRE) in the SPSP area.
The review of Pre-Development Conference (PDC) 21-004/22-001 is advisory only. Two PDC applications are being discussed as one agenda item because they are interrelated. The City Council will not render any decision. If the Applicant wishes to proceed with an application, it is with the understanding that the City Council has made no representation upon which the Applicant may rely.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council provide input and direction regarding the request.
Discussion:
Nighthawk Energy Storage, LLC (BESS Facility) and Eric Matz (property owner representative) are the applicants. There are three parcels associated with this PDC request. The two westerly parcels, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 320-031-06 and 320-031-03 (Clerco Parcels) are owned by Clerco, Inc.
The easterly parcel, APN 320-031-04 (Calmat Parcel), is owned by Calmat Co. The three parcels (collectively Mining Site) are located south of Kirkham Way and north of Beeler Canyon Road on 1 of 18
February 15, 2022, Item #15
properties
designated
as
MRE
in
the
South
Poway
Specific
Plan
(Attachment
A).
Surrounding
land
uses
include
industrial
development
and
open
space
to
the
west,
industrial
development
to
the
north,
an
apprenticeship
training
center
and
open
space
to
the
east,
and
single-family
residences
and
open
space
in
the
City
of
San
Diego
to
the
south
across
Beeler
Canyon
Road.
Aggregate
extraction
and
processing
activity
was
conducted
by
Padre
Transit
Mix
at
the
Mining
Site
starting
in
1975
under
a
permit
issued
by
the
County
of
San
Diego
prior
to
the
City
of
Poway's
incorporation.
Padre
Transit
Mix
was
acquired
by
CalMat
Co.
in
1989.
The
City
took
responsibility
of
administering
the
mining
extraction
permit
after
incorporation.
The
original
mining
operation
was
located
on
the
central
parcel
which
is
in
the
easterly
property
of
the
Clerco
Parcels
(82.93-acre
parcel)
.
In
1986,
CalMat
purchased
the
Calmat
Parcel
(65.92-acre
property),
which
was
included
in
the
current
CUP
for
the
mining
operation.
In
1987,
Clerco
purchased
the
westerly
approximate
17-acre
property
(APN
320-031-06)
of
the
Clerco
Parcels
to
allow
for
a
private
access
road
from
the
Mining
Site
to
Kirkham
Way.
Granite
Construction
took
over
operation
of
the
Mining
Site
in
February
2020
with
approval
of
CUP19-009.
CUP19-009
was
approved
administratively
as
a
minor
modification
to
CUP89-
05 to
memorialize
the
change
in
the
mine
operator.
Rather
than
mining,
Granite
Construction
primarily
uses
the
site
to
recycle
broken
concrete
and
asphalt
into
useful
construction
materials.
The
SPSP,
adopted
in
1985,
identified
the
mining
operation
as
ongoing
and
allowed
it
to
continue
by
renewing
the
County's
permit
as
a
CUP
from
the
City
of
Poway
and
approval
of
a
Reclamation
Plan.
The
Reclamation
Plan
is
required
by
California's
Surface
Mining
and
Reclamation
Act
of
1975
to
assure
that
"adverse
environmental
effects
are
prevented
or
minimized
and
that
mined
lands
are reclaimed
to
a
usable
condition
which
is
readily
adaptable
for
alternative
land
uses."
Chapter
16.54.080(8)
of
the
Poway
Municipal
Code
(PMC)
also
states
that
the
Reclamation
Plan
and
potential
use
of
reclaimed
land
pursuant
to
the
plan
are
to
be
consistent
with
the
General
Plan
and
any
applicable
specific
plans,
resource
plan,
or
element.
The
PMC
also
requires
that
reclamation
activities
begin
as
early
as
possible
on
those
portions
of
the
mined
lands
that
will
not
be
subject
to
further
disturbance.
Reclamation
at
this
Mining
Site
may
be
done
on
an
annual
basis,
in
stages
with
continuing
operations,
or
upon
completion
of
all
excavation,
removal,
or
fill,
as
approved by
the
City.
Final
slopes
and
grade
elevations
will
be
in
accordance
with
the
1991
Reclamation
Plan
Sheets
R-1
through
R-5
(Attachment
B).
The
Reclamation
Plan
indicates
that
two
industrial
pads
will
be
constructed
totaling
approximately
15 acres
over
the
easterly
Clerco
Parcel
and
the
Calmat
Parcel
along
the
south
side
of
Kirkham
Way
at
the
northerly
portion
of
the
Mining
Site
(Attachment
C).
After
reclamation
of
the
Mining
Site,
154
acres
will
be
redesignated
from
MRE
to
Natural
OS.
A
biological
conservation
easement
(BCE)
with
appropriate
signage
will
also
be
required
over
the
Natural
OS
areas
. The
remaining
15 acres
where
the
industrial
pads
will
be
located
will
be
redesignated
to
Light
Industrial
(LI).
In
2022,
Granite
Construction
expects
to
commence
reclamation
activities
at
the
Mining
Site
by
beginning
restoration
of
the
Central
Reach
of
Beeler
Creek,
which
includes
894
linear
feet
that have
been
impacted
by
mining
activities
.
Granite
Construction
has
obtained
the
appropriate
permits
from
the
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
California
Fish
and
Wildlife,
and
United
States
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
to
move
forward
with
the
creek
restoration.
The
applicant
is
requesting
to
modify
CUP19-009
and
the
Reclamation
Plan
to
reconfigure
the
two
industrial
building
pads
to
be
entirely
on
the
Clerco
Parcels
as
conceptually
shown
in
the
conceptual
industrial
pad
reconfiguration
exhibit
(Attachment
D).
This
would
require
a
modification
to
the
CUP
and
minor
modifications
to
the
Reclamation
Plan
along
with
a
Development
Review
to
be
approved
by
the
City
Council.
This
would
result
in
no
industrial
pad
being
constructed
on
the
Cal
Mat
parcel
and
the
CalMat
parcel
would
remain
undisturbed
. CalMat
has
indicated
that
they
do
not
desire
to
construct
a
portion
of
the
industrial
pad
on
their
property
(Attachment
E),
and
this
will
be
reflected
in
2 of
18 February 15, 2022, Item #15
the CUP. The CUP modification would also allow for use of the industrial pad while mining operations continue on the site.
If the reconfiguration of the industrial pads is approved, Clerco, Inc. desires to lease an approximate 10-acre pad to Nighthawk Energy Storage, LLC to construct and operate an approximate 300- megawatt BESS facility. The BESS facility would receive energy (charging) from the SDG&E electric transmission system, store energy on-site, and then deliver energy (discharging) back to the grid during blackouts. A BESS facility operates similarly to a wireless telecommunications facility in that there are no employees on-site and the facility will be maintained routinely. A BESS facility is a permitted use on a LI-designated property with approval of a Development Review application.
The BESS facility will consist of lithium-ion batteries installed in containers, power inverters, a collector substation with switchgear and a transformer, a generation transmission line, and transmission poles.
The batteries and collector substation will be located on the industrial pad portion of the Mining Site that will be redesignated to LI as shown on the site plan for the BESS facility (Attachment F). The generation tie line will be constructed to transfer power between the BESS facility and the SDG&E Sycamore Canyon Substation to the south in the City of San Diego. The· generation tie line would be supported by steel transmission poles that are anticipated to be between 60 to 80 feet high (Attachment G). The transmission poles are proposed to be located in the future reclaimed areas of the Mining Site that would be redesignated as Natural OS. This conflicts with the provisions of the zone as structures such as transmission poles associated with private facilities are currently not allowed in areas designated as Natural OS. Therefore, an amendment to the SPSP would be required to allow privately-owned transmission poles in the Natural OS designated areas. Currently, on~y structures associated with wireless communication facilities may exceed 45 feet in height in the SPSP area and are not permitted within Natural OS areas. The SPSP amendment would also need to include a request to allow transmission poles and lines supporting a BESS substation to exceed 45 feet in height in the Natural OS areas, and to redesignate the land uses of the Mining Site to Natural OS and LI.
Beeler Canyon is identified as an east-west wildlife movement linkage corridor (Biological Core Linkage Area or BCLA) in the Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Beeler Canyon is identified as both a regional and local corridor in the HCP (Figure 2-1 ). The environmental impact report (El R) for the SPSP states that south facing slopes should be preserved for habitat. The transmission poles and lines would also impact hillside ridgeline views. In addition, adopted slope regulations restrict development such as this on steep slopes. Approval would be required by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife with a recommendation from City staff to support the project. View and biological impact studies would also be required. Staff asked if the tie line could instead be undergrounded or tie into the existing transmission lines to the east. The applicant expressed concern of costs that could potentially make the project financially infeasible.
The review of PDC 21-004/22-001 is advisory only. The City Council will not render any decision. If the Applicant desires to proceed with an application, it is with the understanding that the City Council has made no representation upon which the Applicant may rely. The Agreements of Understanding is included as Attachment H.
Environmental Review:
Because no action can be taken, this item is not a "Project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore not subject to CEQA review. 3 of 18
February 15, 2022, Item #15
Fiscal Impact:
Construction of new buildings may trigger a reassessment of value ("basis") for property taxes depending on the County of San Diego's Assessor's and Treasurer-Tax Collector's interpretation of land use. If assessable, the reassessment would increase property tax revenues to the City. Based on the information available, the magnitude of the increase cannot be estimated at this time.
Public Notification:
None.
Attachments:
A. Zoning and Location Map
B. 1991 Reclamation Plan Final Slope and Grade Elevations C. Current Industrial Pad Configuration
D. Proposed Conceptual Industrial Pad Reconfiguration
E. Notice of Calmat's Election to Not Construct Commercial Pad F. Preliminary BESS Site Plan
G. Transmission Pole Drawing and Photograph Example
H. Agreements of Understanding
Reviewed/ Approved By:
J~, L-----
Wend~aserman
Assistant City Manager
4 of 18
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
c~
City Manager
February 15, 2022, Item #15
OS-1DU
5 of 18
.. --------
t Location:
-031-03
c}~i
0 _~--~~lt-:1 ~ City of Poway
I :!---
1 ci5
Kirkham WayJ
ubject
32 San Diego
r -Zoning/ Location Map
-~=--Item: PDC21-004/PDC22-001
..
NORTH
012~50 500
P--iFeet
ATTACHMENT A
February 15, 2022, Item #15
TO
~.lr~(r-1O BERNARDO
../'
TO
SAN DIEGO
CALMAT-POWAY
RECLAMATION PLAN
TO
z
<(
_j
a..
<r
ID
a: 0
~ ~~
~01/')<t
oxu
l-1-: 0 •
ffi; GI~
~5~~
I
~
~~ •.• "'
I w .•-=
;,:r B ,,. z <(
~
"'o
~~~
~>O
111IAJN
.JOI
06.q gmu SrATE ROuTE 67
JL// v_ .. ~ L~=--=-----r OS
3: .J •
~g*
BA
FUTURE
ALIGNMENT TO
INTERSTATE 15
--(
~~~rRr,~~AY B
INDUSTRIAL PARK 0
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL w
~-i1€,1QU1tiAL As . . .-, ... ...,
6Jlt I MATION . . . . . ' .. · ' .· ...
--" . . ,· SIT£ ··M 1(111
LAND USE MAP .
SOUTH POWAY-PLANNED
COMMUNITY
C
Figure IOa
z
0 ti
~
_J
w 0::::
rz
<(
_J'
a..
-~
I
<i)"
a.
000:
1--WC>
ZILZ
wa10 ::EI/') ::E wmw
(/).CD ID .J
0::
w
-w ~1-· e>::e z ct wz
a N
l7l
<(
~
a,~
a,O
cS 0 ,_,.,,d
. 1-,: >< 13 405
•1 g.;~
1 -111
l .--,.0_··. ___ . r,: . '
i.
;vulcan-Poway Reclamation Plan -Sheet R-t 1:
19 \D.,
February 15, 2022, Item #15
~-'\~~!!(, ~
~>,J~~
r -----
---
I
-i
~ ~ ~ ~
I
----
··-·--1
!
'-II
~ ~ ~ ~
<
•
.,
\
' /
!
I
·,~,M'fJl
1 \
'//
~>, -,; ,
1 \
•
1 , ·-
~
:,i~%)1ll))
l_,i·
, :
!
:
j////
!
'""---...,..--~
,,
,
,,,,,.;
!
.
-
///,
l(f---
.
w;.;_~!';.~~~
,_
'\L
I
I//
/"""
\
--
-
1 I
,
-·~\
\
"
·
:
_
::::_
~
1~lt>~
~
\.
·<---~-"'~
.
)
l'/,q;~~~'fl.lUI
,....~.,....,_,
,
,
\~~-
:
"~
'
/
·:
:·
/
~
"'
--~
~llf~~~,
1 ~
==-=
...:..:c:::::::
=
~:}i
-~!'
I
--
-
-
____ ----:-:--_,-----~--
--------------!Iii
-~
-
-~
·7
(
Q(_q·-:
:&
-
''
•
::'--_
_, •• --
~
(J
.
:~~t>},
,:
!
_:.---=-
-=====--
~-
-
--=
--
-1
----:-,,
--
~-
/.
-~:~--:~?~:
=
ij
, ~MW
N
~~
I (/ft
i:;,··
_ :,-/
,-,
c-..::,:.::
>-:::
I,. :
.,, .,:·~p;;,,-
11~11111
~J
~
i
j"
••a
g• ~
!
~
'
-
-----:
=-
SC
UW
K
l I I
p OWA
Y P
LANT
RECLAMAllON
PLAN
PROPERTY
LINES
a
EASEMENTS
~r ~
-.·CAtLMAT
CO
.
ENGINEERS
' · M>OAESs:
-P.
0. l!IOX
309
8 NAME
:
BEMENT
DAINWOOD
STURGEON
6859
FEDERAL
BOULEVARD
LEMON
GROVE
,
CA
920~5
. 7
Of
18 1
SAN
DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA
92103
._
. .,..
.
_--·~ NA'NIE
:
ROBERT
IMLER
CALMAT
CO
.
Att)RESS
:
P.O
.
BOX
579
POWAY,
CA
.
92064
February 15, 2022, Item #15
/
/
~ < C ~ i' "t1 0 j '< a
"11
D>
!"
N
g
-
g·
~
:E ! I I en [ ~ l.u
q a --
§ • t
POWAY
PLANT
RECLAN1ATION
PLAN
EXISTING
AND
PROPOSED
GRADES
'
~A.NT
·..
~
.'
. ·
: CALMAT
CO.
:.-SS:
P,O.BOX
3098
SAN
· DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA
92103
ENGINEERS NAME
:
BEMENT
OAINWOOO
STURGEON
6859
FEDERAL
BOULEVARD
LEMON
GROVE,
CA
92045
AGENT
.
NAME
:
ROBERT
IMLER
CALMAT
CO
.
ADDRESS
:
P.O
.
BOX
579
POWAY,
CA
.
92064
February 15, 2022, Item #15
9 of
18 POWAY
PLANT
RECLAMATION
PLAN
FINAL
LAND
FORM
.•
ANT
. ~
.
CALMAT
CO
.
A001'1£SS;
P.O
. BOX
3098
SAN
OIEGO,
CALIFORNIA
92103
ENGINEERS NAME
:
BEMENT
DAINWOOD
STURGEON
6859
FEDERAL
BOULEVARD
LEMON
GROVE,
CA
920'45
IUYIG,,NS:
CATE
:
'CT/ON
S/JIIILS
¥4TE
• -:jj
AyENT NAME
:
ROBERT
IMLER
CALMAT
CO.
ADDRESS
:
P.O
.
BOX
579
P(J,NAY,
CA.
92064
February 15, 2022, Item #15
0)
-J
Cl)
I.D
8 8
g
g
I I I I I I I I I I \ I
\
\
~
/
~
I
~
I
,,
\
,,
::u
~
i I
::u
0 ~
0 'Tl
~
\
~
?
I
~
r
I'll
I
I'll
a
l
I
.
i
'Tl
I
"'
.
I
a
I
POWAY
0)
-J
Cl)
I.D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I
.PLANT
0)
-J
Cl)
ID
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I
I
(.Jl
0)
-J
Cl)
(.Jl
(.Jl
(.J1
(.Jl
0 0 0 0 I I I I I i ' WEST
'I.OT
Ll#E
.
RECLArv1AllON
PLAN
PROFILES
(See
drawing
R-3
for
location)
:•~•™r
·
' ·W
: .
CALMAT
co.
0 Of
1 0
ADOl!Ess
:
P.O
. BOX
3098
·
O
SAN
OIEGO,
CALIFORNIA
92103
ENGINEERS NAME
:
BEMENT
DAINWOOD
STURGEON
6859
FEDERAL
BOULEVARD
LEMON
GROVE,
CA
92045
(.Jl
0)
-J
Cl)
(JI
(JI
(JI
(.Jl
0 0 0 0 I I I I I I
I
wrs-r
~O!
LIVE
I i
'
I
\ I' i\ \
.
\
: ', '.\ ;
; i
I
; i
;ti
'./
~
I
~
;1
~
i\
~
l\ I :
I I
'
I I I
'.
I
I
I I
: ' I/ ," ,.
I
,
/
:
\
'
\i ~ i\ !
I
•
\
I
I
:
I: I, I I'
':
: /~
i I
;i
~'
: I
/
.~
/;
;~
/
:
'§
/
'i
I
•~
:/ [ ., I I I
•
J
; 1
,!!I
I
I
I
:
:
l
I
I
'
EAIT
. ,
I
IDT
11.Jt-
lT
0)
-J
Cl)
I.D
u,
u,
(.J1
(JI
0 0 0 0 I I I
.I
I ! I
,,J
--,--,-r
ROBERT
IMLER
CALMAT
CO
.
AOORESS
:
~O
.
BOX
579
PON/:tf,
CA.
92064
February 15, 2022, Item #15
LOCATION OF INDUSTRIAL PADS
11 of 18 ATTACHMENT C
February 15, 2022, Item #15
L w-r
r
' -~·• ·~< .,,/
-------"'>:-:-
~-<_.)
12 of 18
LOCATION OF FUTURE INDUSTRIAL PADS
.. -_-· __ ../
y
/
/
-~~.£/---•~<---~
ATTACHMENT D
February 15, 2022, Item #15
G
ESH
S
V.
GE
If
C
:
13 of
18 ATTACHMENT
E
February 15, 2022, Item #15
z
:3
0..
w I-
vi
> c::
<(
z
:E
::i w c::
0..
14 of 18 ATTACHMENT F
February 15, 2022, Item #15
-'
15 of 18 ATTACHMENT G
February 15, 2022, Item #15
AGREEMENT
OF
UNDERSTANDING
City
Council
for the
City
of
Poway,
hereinafter
referred
to
as
· City
" and
____
C_le_r_c_o_,
_ln_c_.
_________
, hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Proponent
"
enter
into
this
Agreement
of
Understanding
based
upon
the
following
facts:
Proponent
owns
or
has
an
equitable
interest
in
land
described
by
tax
Assessor's
320-031-03
Parcel
Number(s)-
-
-
-
-------
.
Proponent
desires
to
develop
this
property
in
accordance
with
the
will
of
the
City
and
without
the
expense
of
a
protracted
development.
City
is
concerned
that
Proponent
will
create
development
plans
unsatisfactory
to
City
and
consume
time
and
effort
of
City
employees
needlessly
on
unsatisfactory
development
plans
unless
City
assists
in
directing
Proponent.
Based
upon
the
above~
mentioned
facts,
City
will
grant
Proponent
a
hearing
prior
to
filing
any
application
for
development
upon
the
following
understanding:
a.
City
will
render
no
decision
with
regards
to
any
development
proposal
or
part
thereof
.
b.
City
will
receive
no
evidence,
specific
in
nature
1 in
support
of
a
particular
development
plan.
c.
City
will
make
no
representations
that
will
obligate
the
City
to
render
a
decision
in
favor
of
or
against
any
development
proposal
or
part
thereof
Proponent
may
subsequently
submit.
d.
If
any
development
proposal
is
subsequently
submitted
, Proponent
will
proceed
at
its
sole
and
ex.elusive
risk
with
the understanding
that
City
has
made
no
representations
upon
which
Proponent
may
rely.
Dated:
Proponent:
16 of
18 ATTACHMENT
H
February 15, 2022, Item #15
AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
City Council for the City of Poway, hereinafter referred to as "City" and __ N_ig_h_t_h_aw_k_E_n_e_r_g_y_S_t_o_ra_g_e_,_L_L_C __ , he rei natter referred to as "Proponent" enter into this Agreement of Understanding based upon the following facts:
Proponent owns or has an equitable interest in land described by tax Assessor's 320-031-03 Parcel Number(s) ___________ . Proponent desires to develop this property in accordance with the will of the City and without the expense of a protracted development.
City is concerned that Proponent will create development plans unsatisfactory to City and consume time and effort of City employees needlessly on unsatisfactory development plans unless City assists in directing Proponent. Based upon the above mentioned facts, City will grant Proponent a hearing prior to filing any application for development upon the following understanding:
a. City will render no decision with regards to any development proposal or part thereof.
b. City will receive no evidence, specific in nature, in support of a particular development plan.
c. City will make no representations that will obligate the City to render a decision in favor of or against any development proposal or part thereof Proponent may subsequently submit.
d. If any development proposal is subsequently submitted, Proponent will proceed at its sole and exclusive risk with the understanding that City has made no representations upon which Proponent may rely.
Dated: 12/6/21 Proponent:
Signature
17 of 18
February 15, 2022, Item #15
001 _Ag reement_of_U nderstand i ng
Final Audit Report 2021-12-13
Created: 2021-12-13
By: Jacob Montgomery [email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAa7n8qderBt-vXLuY6WbFaw9b0X4d1 QKz "001 _Agreement_of_U nderstanding" History
t:l Document created by Jacob Montgomery [email protected]) 2021-12-13-6:34:28 PM GMT-IP address: 184.177.8.190
C: Document emailed to Aron Branam ([email protected]) for signature 2021-12-13 -6:34:54 PM GMT
Email viewed by Aron Branam ([email protected])
2021-12-13-9:07:21 PM GMT-IP address: 97.124.58.66
0'"0 Document e-signed by Aron Branam ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2021-12-13-9:07:33 PM GMT-Time Source: server-IP address: 97.124.58.66 ~ Agreement completed.
2021-12-13 - 9:07:33 PM GMT
Adobe Sign
18 of 18
February 15, 2022, Item #16
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway
February 15, 2022
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Robert Manis, Director of Development Services~
Scott Nespor, Associate Planner S trtJ
858-668-4656/[email protected]
CITY COUNCIL
Adobe Ridge, Silver Ridge, and Ted Williams Parkway Groves Workshop In 1993, the City Council approved landscaping several City-owned parcels into citrus-producing groves. The intent was to utilize vacant City property to implement a public landscaping scheme that would match Poway's rural identity and generate revenue. After 25 years following the planting of the first grove, a review of the City's costs associated with these groves shows they are not offset by the revenues generated by their harvest. The purpose of this workshop is to consider potential options to reduce City's costs associated with these groves by adapting the sites for other purposes.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the City Council provide input and direction for the adaptive repurposing of the three citrus groves owned by the City.
Discussion:
Currently, the City manages three citrus-producing groves (Groves). The properties currently known as the Adobe Ridge Grove (Attachment A), Silver Ridge Grove (Attachment B), and Ted Williams Grove (Attachment C), are comprised of a total of approximately 12 acres of land containing nearly 1,331 trees.
Since the inception of the Groves, the City has contra_cted for both grove management and grove maintenance services. Services provided by the contractor include: 1) All equipment, labor, and materials to keep the Groves in a healthy condition weekly; 2) Inspect, maintain, and repair the irrigation weekly; 3) Provide weed control four times a year, and; 4) Provide pruning and tree skirting annually. The Contractor is responsible for applying the appropriate remedy at the recommended amounts by a licensed operator on an as-needed basis for pests. The contractor is to harvest the fruit annually and provide weekly sales receipts per grove of the quantity of fruit harvested. In turn, the City receives fifty percent (50%) of the net proceeds generated from the sale of the citrus products.
The most recent contract was awarded to Sage View, Inc. for the period of October 31, 2016 through 1 of 17
February 15, 2022, Item #16
June
30,
2018.
The
contract
allowed
for
extensions
in
one
(1)
year
increments
for
a total
of
three
(3)
separate
one-year
extensions.
Thus,
the
maximum
length
of
the
contract
was
for
four
years
and
eight
months.
A
four-year
average
of
costs
and
revenues
are
shown
here:
4-YEAR
AVERAGE
4-YEAR
AVERAGE
MAINTENANCE
REVENUE
COST
$99,817.44
$1,365.75
Note
that
all
three
groves
have
been
on
a
month-to-month
management
and
maintenance
contract
since
July
2021,
when
the
contract
expired.
The
groves
use
drip
emitters
or
bubblers
for
the
irrigation
system
that
activates
seven
days
a
week
for
two
to
2.5 hours
for
each
tree,
each
day.
The
annual
average
for
the
last
five
years
is
5,639,920
gallons
per
year.
Irrigation
is
turned
off
during
measurable
rainy
days
to
help
conserve
water.
Using
the
last
five years
as
an
average,
the
estimated
current
and
future
cost
of
water
by
each
of
the
groves
on
an
annual
basis
is
listed
below:
Estimated
Annual
Water
Charges
Location
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Adobe
Ridge
$3,516
$3,854
$4,176
$4,483
$4,811
Silver
Ridge
$15,621
$17,083
$18,470
$19,778
$21,173
Ted
Williams
Parkway
$35,589 $38,902 $42,038
$44,993
$48,139
TOTAL
$54,726
$59,839
$64,684
$69,254
$74,123
Given
the
on-going
maintenance
costs,
lack
of
appreciable
revenue,
and
current
drought
conditions,
the
following
options
are
presented
for
each
site:
Adobe
Ridge
The
110-lot
Adobe
Ridge
subdivision
was
approved
by
the
County
on
June
23,
1978.
Sixteen
of
these
lots
are
entirely
encumbered
by
a San
Diego
County
Gas
and
Electric
(SDGE)
easement.
These
sixteen
lots
are
on
the
south
side
of
Adobe
Ridge
Road
west
of
Pomerado
Road
(Adobe
Ridge
was
originally
named
Jamay
Drive
on
the
subdivision
map).
The
developer
created
these
lots
in
the
hopes
that
the
easement
could
be
removed
so
houses
could
be
developed
on
them.
Barratt
American,
the
builder
of
the
homes
within
Adobe
Ridge
subdivision,
granted
title
of
these
16 parcels
to
the
City
when
it
became
apparent
that
SDGE
would
not
vacate
their
easement.
The
final
subdivision
map
is
included
as
Attachment
D.
The
lots
were
granted
to
the
City
and
Barrett
American's
payment
of
park
land
dedication
fees
was
returned
to
them.
On
November
15,
1994,
the
City
Council
approved
Conditional
Use
Permit
94-16
for
the
Adobe
Ridge
Neighborhood
Minipark.
The
amenities
for
the
minipark
covered
1.5 acres
of
the
3.4-acre
park
site.
A
citrus
grove
was
envisioned
for
the
remaining
acreage.
Four
years
later,
a
103-tree
Eureka
Lemon
grove
was
planted
on
approximately
one
acre
west
of
the
minipark
consisting
of
five
of
the
16 lots.
An
aerial
image
showing
the
Adobe
Ridge
grove
from
the
City's
Geographic
Information
System
(GIS)
is
included
as
Attachment
E.
The
following
options
for
readapting
the
Adobe
Ridge
Eureka
Lemon
Grove
site
may
be
considered.
As
noted
in
the fiscal
impact
section
at
the
end
of
the
report,
depending
upon
City
Council
direction
on
which
option/s
they
would
like
to
pursue,
additional
staff
work
will
be
needed
to
identify
costs
and
funding. 2
of
17 February 15, 2022, Item #16
Any reuse of the properties would need to conform with underlying zoning and approval of SDGE.
Re-landscape: Re-landscaping would lead to a significant reduction of maintenance and water costs associated with this grove. Removing all of the trees and re-landscaping with a native plant seed mix would result in a one-time cost of approximately $29,980. Stump grinding to remove the stumps at Adobe Ridge would result in an additional cost of $4,000. The City anticipates that a native seed mix would not require the need for permanent irrigation/watering.
A variation of the re-landscaping option would keep a row of trees along the public right-of way of each site to provide a tree canopy and visual interest along the property's street-facing boundary.
Transfer Ownership or Lease Property: The City could evaluate transferring or leasing the site with the existing grove to another entity so there is no longer a maintenance obligation for the City. Any reuse of the property would need to conform with underlying zoning and open space requirements.
Expand Adobe Ridge Neighborhood Minipark: Removing the trees and adding amenities to the Adobe Ridge Neighborhood would remove the need for the grove management and grove maintenance contractor at this site. The existing minipark consists of playground equipment, a reduced size hardcourt, a picnic table, and a shade structure. Expansion of the minipark may include additional picnic tables, additional turf area, additional hardcourts, play equipment, walking paths, dirt ramps for BMX bicyclists, community gardens, and/or skateboard ramps.
Residential Development: Currently, the Adobe Ridge grove is growing on five lots that are zoned Residential Single Family-4 (RS-4). If the SDGE easement was to be vacated, these five lots could be used to construct five single family dwellings. This option would require further research into the current status of the easement and approval from SDGE. As mentioned, in the past SDGE was not willing to remove the easement on these parcels.
Status Quo: This option involves maintaining the current condition of the grove, resulting in no projected maintenance or water savings. It entails continued routine maintenance and watering of the grove, without incurring expenses associated with tree removal and re landscaping. If retained, the grove management and maintenance contract would be re solicited, resulting in annual grove management and maintenance expenses and $3,500 for water, with annual increases projected due to consumer price index and approved water rates. Projected revenues are not known.
Hybrid option: The options above can be combined to achieve the best outcome for the City.
Silver Ridge
The Silver Ridge Subdivision is split-zoned and was approved with 28 residential lots within the portion of the property zoned Residential Single Family-4 (RS-4). The remaining property is zoned Rural Residential-A (RR-A) and consists of two lots that are designated as Open Space. The tentative map for the Silver Ridge Subdivision was approved by the City Council in 1990 and it was the third map that was brought to the City Council for consideration. The two open space lots consist of a prominent ridgeline with a section that was previously graded and used as a borrow site for nearby 3 of 17
February 15, 2022, Item #16
developments. The approved subdivision map is included as Attachment F. A park was initially envisioned within the open space lots. However due to public input, passive open space was approved instead as it was the preference of the residents in the surrounding area. An aerial image showing the Silver Ridge grove from the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) is included as Attachment G.
In 1992, the City Council approved a landscape plan to plant the southern open space lot and a small portion of the northern open space lot with a grove containing 548 Lisbon Lemon Trees totaling 5.5 acres.
The following options for readapting the Silver Ridge Lisbon Lemon Grove site may be considered. As noted in the fiscal impact section at the end of the report, depending upon City Council direction on which option/s they would like to pursue, additional staff work will be needed to identify costs and funding.
4 of 17
Re-landscape: Re-landscaping would lead to a significant reduction of maintenance and water costs associated with this grove. Removing all of the trees and re-landscaping with a native plant seed mix would result in a one-time cost of approximately $157,200. Stump grinding to remove the stumps at Silver Ridge would result in an additional cost of $26,000. The City anticipates that a native seed mix would not require the need for permanent irrigation/watering.
A variation of the re-landscaping option would keep a row of trees along the public right-of way of each site to provide a tree canopy and visual interest along the property's street-facing boundary. Another variation would be to leave the trees on the northern parcel.
Transfer Ownership or Lease Property: The City would evaluate transferring or leasing this site with the existing grove to another entity so that there is no longer a maintenance obligation for the City. Any reuse of the property would need to conform with underlying zoning and open space requirements.
Create a Neighborhood Minipark: The service area for a minipark is one-quarter mile and should be located within a confined neighborhood, such as the Silver Ridge neighborhood. A minipark could be designed to serve people within the immediate area. A limited variety of amenities could include a small turf area, playground equipment, picnic tables, barbeques, drinking fountains, community gardens, a shade structure, and possibly a half or reduced size hardcourt.
Residential Development: In order to convert this open space lot into residential purposes, the City Council will need to relinquish its open space designation. If the open space is relinquished, the two lots can be developed with a single-family residence development on each lot. Due to the current zoning, no further subdivision of the lots would be allowed.
Rezoning of the property to allow a subdivision would be subject to Proposition FF and would require a Citywide vote. Additionally, the Poway Municipal Code requires that an area of open space being relinquished should be exchanged for another property of equal size and quality of open space.
Status Quo: This option involves maintaining the current condition of the grove, resulting in no projected maintenance or water savings. It entails continued routine maintenance and watering of the grove, without incurring expenses associated with tree removal and re- February 15, 2022, Item #16
landscaping.
If
retained,
the
grove
management
and
maintenance
contract
would
be
re
solicited,
resulting
in
annual
grove
management
and
maintenance
expenses
and
$15,600
for
water,
with
annual
increases
projected
due
to
consumer
price
index
and
approved
water
rates.
Projected
revenues
are
not
known.
Hybrid
option:
The
options
above
can
be
combined
to
achieve
the
best
outcome
for
the
City.
Ted
Williams
Parkway
The
cut
slopes
that
were
created
with
the
grading
for
Ted
Williams
Parkway
were
planted
with
680
Star
Ruby
Grapefruit
trees
in
1993,
following
completion
of
the
roadway.
They
are
located
on
both
the
north
and
south
side
of
Ted
Williams
Parkway.
Due
to
the
steep
topography
of
these
slopes,
any
adaptive
reuse
of
the
5.5-acre
grove-site
is
limited.
This
grove
is
adjacent
to
one
of
five
western
entrances
into
Poway
and
contribute
to
a
distinctive
approach
into
the
City.
An
aerial
image
showing
the
Ted
Williams
grove
from
the
City's
Geographic
Information
System
(GIS)
is
included
as
Attachment
H.
Re-landscape:
Re-landscaping
would
lead
to
a
significant reduction
of
maintenance
and
water
costs
associated
with
this
grove.
Removing
all
of
the
trees
and
re-landscaping
with
a
native
plant
seed
mix
would
result
in
a
one-time
cost
of
approximately
$156,920.
Stump
grinding
to
remove
the
stumps
at
Ted
Williams
is
not
possible
due
to
the
steepness
of
the
slopes.
The
City
anticipates
that
a
native
seed
mix
would
not
require
the
need
for
permanent
irrigation/watering. A
variation
of
the
re-landscaping
option
would
keep
a
row
of
trees
along
the
public
right-of
way
of
each
site
to
provide
a tree
canopy
and
visual
interest
along
the
property's
street-facing
boundary. Status
Quo:
This
option
involves
maintaining
the
current
condition
of
the
grove,
resulting
in
no
projected
maintenance
or
water
savings.
It
entails
continued
routine
maintenance
and
watering
of
the
grove,
without
incurring
expenses
associated
with
tree
removal
and
re
landscaping.
If
retained,
the
groves
management
and
maintenance
contract
would
be
re
solicited,
resulting
in
annual
grove management
and
maintenance
expenses
and
$35,600
for
water,
with
annual
increases
projected
due
to
consumer
price
index
and
approved
water
rates.
Projected
revenues
are
not
known.
A
table
outlining
the
costs
of
removing
the
trees
and
hydroseeding
for
the
tree
sites
is
attached
as
Attachment
I.
Environmental
Review:
Because
no
action
will
be
taken,
this
item
is
not
a
"Project"
pursuant
to
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
CEQA
review.
Fiscal
Impact:
During
Fiscal
Year
2020-21
the
groves
cost
the
City
approximately
$155,000
while
producing
approximately
$1,400
in
revenue.
Staff
anticipates
the
annual
cost
will
continue
to
grow
as
contract
pricing and
water
continue
to
increase.
5 of
17 February 15, 2022, Item #16
As
shown
in
the
table
below,
staff
can
only
estimate the
cost
of
re-landscaping
the
groves
as
each
of
the
other
options
would
require
further
analysis.
Option
Grove
Area
Residential
Re-Landscape
Mini-Park
Transfer/Lease
Hybrid
Adobe
Ridge
$ TBD
$33,980
$ TBD
$ TBD
$ TBD
Silver
Ridge
$ TBD
183,200
$ TBD
$ TBD
$ TBD
Ted
Williams
N/A
156,920
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
$374,100
Staff
estimates
the
one-time
cost
of
re-landscaping
the
groves
to
be
approximately
$374,000.
Based
on
the
current
annual
cost
to
the
City
of
$155,000,
the
payback
of
this
option
is
2.4 years.
Should
the
City
maintain
the
status
quo,
the
annual
cost
to
the
City
will
continue
to
grow.
If
Council
elects
to
pursue
one
of
the
other
options,
staff
would
return
to
Council
with
cost
estimates
applicable
to
that
option. Public
Notification:
A
notification
of
this
workshop
item
was
mailed
to
property
owners
within
500-feet
of
the
boundaries
of
the
grove
properties.
Attachments: A.
Adobe
Ridge
Grove
Location/Zoning
Map
B.
Silver
Ridge
Grove
Location/Zoning
Map
C.
Ted
Williams
Location/Zoning
Map
D.
Adobe
Ridge
Subdivision
Map
E.
GIS
Exhibit
of
Adobe
Ridge
F.
Silver
Ridge
Subdivision
Map
G.
GIS
Exhibit
of
Silver
Ridge
H.
GIS
Exhibit
of
Ted
Williams
Parkway
I.
Tree
Removal
and
Hydroseeding
Costs
by
Site
Reviewed/
Approved
By:
Wen
d
aserman
Assistant
City
Manager
6 of
17 Reviewed
By:
Alan
Fenstermacher
City
Attorney
Approved
By:
ell~
City
Manager
February 15, 2022, Item #16
0 110 220
--
440
Feet
---
7 of 17
CITY OF POWAY
Zoning I Location Map
Item: Workshop on Citrus Groves
Adobe Ridge
ATTACHMENT A
February 15, 2022, Item #16
0 170 340
- -
680
Feet
---
8 of 17
RR-A
OS-R
ject Location:
.. idge Road
CITY OF POWAY
Zoning/ Location Map
Item: Workshop on Citrus Groves
Silver Ridge
ATTACHMENT B
February 15, 2022, Item #16
0 200 400
- -
800
Feet
---
9 of 17
CITY OF POWAY
Zoning / Location Map
Item: Workshop on Citrus Groves
Ted Williams Pkwy
ATTACHMENT C
February 15, 2022, Item #16
-- ..... ,. ... ~-.
-' MAP NO. 9255
0 I ' .,
~ COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT 3503 · 1
-..J I I' ~-
.. _ SHEET 4 OF 5 SHEETS
~;~::::>~·-'.<' l ;I:.q _,., .:· ,,_. . /41tl
ALE: ,•.5a·
)>
--f --f )>
n :c V)
~ t-m Lal
z UI
--f :t
C U'I
bJ
&Al
WI
,r:>,).RTION Lot ii. rl<'ACT ·..-f, POVVA\"' /V':/':d? ,53(,;, / SUOOiv'l!.~Ol.J ,~ "tzo~li:o ,_ . •-'- . -...c:.qrb<J
~•"
·;~>-:_·,t-$'->•::·, _.,,F,: _·,_··; ,,,,·, ,S•.v Ui-, ~ .,</)~-;;,, /_.g,, I • .••.•• ,;,. t,.;, ()' • I..,~ J
- / .P,1 ,/' I ~., ,.-
• ,.:; 5 / ..t?..P<-4-~# 9//"'
~~ \
e"t~TIIJ4 IDIO ~"'r · \ i; \
~n;o 'lt:>&DIJMn/ OF .~~ • \
6AfJ o,e.:,o "5:'l F/,,.7&·~. ·t~ --~•·.
lt ■-:dtO&•JijW JI, _ :;;: /9{,~
~
~CJ
~""'
L(JT /.3, TFAC.T
52 ,~ _r,,?
~
"'\"
... . . ., ....
Q ..
~
z:~o.719
5J
~
'!\_, · ... -;t ~
.. "' ~ ..
~
o,,,_ ~A~
·•A'UtoEl'Wi.o ,-o
UU'.a.1'UliT . <a•1t
AIL •4•,,wlE!iT 5-.
-· .. '
.>.z... ~'S-.-<,_.· '
~
... , _ -..;,~~
" ,:
, i
·~·~~, .
~JI
I
~~
o&:r.>1CA~D .,.,cz
1 li,<J!,Tlo.i6rW~ ;
~..,.. ... r.,,u,
"5afJOIE.i
a:,.4f'Ru
ll.£c.oft0
7'11J?•1~'E
JA':,!~-k D~!~E (
)1 ", PD vVA Y , Jv'\A.D 53~-
~•T•u4 Ul'lLIN l!'AS«>CIJT
<1rCAl>JT501"'1M'tJDl ■ QO~
◄ &UU:nt,CCIOM""U<i ... rl.
,.,,,,..,.._ 140044 .
UU>ll.O&OAr•rw • .-•. t'IT'1 .
i! I
-~ ~i 'o-lA .. ., ... .,
I ~,J
V f
;~~3,:i
/(),
111~;, ...,.
~ /f / <r ";- ::' ,
Tlli ,;,,.__~p ,"' J.
:{J
·~--~ :::;z__
·\:~'):::>
.!J,1'!•·..P-!'.,,}.['!)
-/.JJ~~~
i't FJc.&Tl<Jc; S'"'°~ U<JE . . .. !/
..,."..,~::::_1':t~<;.~,c. S . i~ . :··1,
~:~~;.tJ·
~~~~~ i;i. :} \~~ ~o.,.,._._~,l't7a
!f?1.E.:_"{__~.
::-:.,: =~174'1<><> COUNTY TM 3503- J
\.
,. •
February 15, 2022, Item #16
.T
--s. MAP No:----,9255
()
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO TRACT 3503-1
SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS
-......
cQLE 1•.,c,·
P.O.~.
:::1
C, I cS
8 :<
cS J .. ~ <'. 0
~ /
~
,,
" ~
8 ~
·:-:-_r:_.:7·L·:·· ·,: ·r· -~?/,_( T >~ ·. :: :~:\:,/.._' '! '· ·':;\ / > 29 28
, {, lf?.~
• \? ~
ri"\ -,'l?'
27 ~'-+'l 'lS14-), &y.lNQ4,
"" 06
31 ·,
-!' '. ~
P :~ ~ "'~\B 32
,~ H;)~ .
oz.·Jj
:,fl l•
A • .~--- ": '(')·
·"1,,,f ;r ~'i~'f~~
/\ -~~
~~,' -~ : ~ ~~
: ~ ; " ., 2"
~ '
,-Vd7 '.: , ,./
25 ~
t\; " ' >
24 '-i :~o~z 12,a · 11z z n )5 7"''
\,_ IC. -, 5i. 7100 70 00 - - --
"-
·<3 1~ > ... /8
,,
ti!; --~"'
~ °'
·"' /9 • 0 ~- ~
' ~ -
~ ' ~ - ~u -~,_,
Lots~2-16 Are Cur nt Locat&,n of Citrus i
•1') ... :;; "I"'-... ' "'
- . , . -,,I•~ • "'f"i•. ..:. ~ .. :.. ~ I 1 !
"'o 9, ~:./"'"" ?'l"-,,1._,>-t,.,.:_~
~ <B4:-t- "d' ,:,~ t · j<>~ 7000 70.00
"'
~ , ~ 22
7000 7 .:i.. [, ~,·tr .o"'-,
· ,- u ,,;A~ '--1} ;~•41'Ji?' ,ve?•-. ·w 219•2 -"' ,.
· ~5.- ~ t:..:H~, JAHAv l d b "d
I
~~- . ~,,,,_•a:io-- NBr'/5 ... -.; A o ~ R1
rD 1''4' IP w/D1SC MA:D
"I. .S 134"1 .. ~ A' OFS:S &.o5'-'.3,
5(,,0(,, • 4133 # MAP.VO ~24J
,l?ES£T Pt:.e i. E:C-.END
~~ N~ I
~~ ~ ~ !
...
1 ... . ~, 12 , II
oJTEO TO 6ALl D~E.C-0 Ci!A~ e E LE CTr2 1C: c£J u <J PEQ l'IP EA6E~E.••.ff u..lA QUiTC~IMI.D Bl.I 4"'tAL.1T£.l,; ~lit F/P7'6--? 70 00 70 00 C.700 ,7 50
74~~-
kJ~f.,"'1~•~·
1 1.A.J 1,2:'lli.74'
<.8.00
t.t: r / _'3 , /~? {:\:::·.. . .. : .,.:.\·~: / \ /_.'.:\ y· , /·.·':.:.\,C; r;_·:1{:. \t-~•,5;~:·--:..-
.. -.)'
4c. - -- - ~ "\ \ ·c2. \_
J
ss
j
I
{,
\,
r. -
~(,/ ~~J~\i:~l111f.~}ih
"/1~ -
/~--~~; ;:>,:'ittr.~~;;.;_~ .. ,
J:°lc.i....lfiC1f l: Q€.£ ,_..,£ ll 1.
(:Vf f{_ A rortT! O-.J C•F
LOf o1 4•oc.r.J·C.A TEt)Llf.,ZE.oN
£:t!::: i ·"t:rr::--<;::.: T -'1:-.,
/ -(._'l;,.f("';u '•~-'~.?";. ~ I>.
1/
,!~ ~;;,.
:{Y __ ./ ~'~ . -
; I/ ' -~- '-1; .:;t., . //
v,).K;l.:::--
./ ~·
i
t·-
0 Jt c._,r
. /I ,~ / (J'1u ---- . .,1g l:", /
Iv 'l J.~! J " !____!/ dJ f,
' oo', . ..,R· ,f/,,
DETAIL'A\(; '!r .:J / ,"'-,;
V ti ' j ~ f!l '~• •. / I
I ( 0 0 "-. - . .., <..,_v I
--AU. I . ;; JJ /
SEE s~i;1cr 4 'f ,
ClftADIG PUH L-_85_93 __ _
CALF CX>aO.NO r~-.4-17~ (x) COU~TY TM 3503-1
February 15, 2022, Item #16
GIS Exhibit of Adobe Ridge
12 of 17 ATTACHMENT E
February 15, 2022, Item #16
...a.
w
0 ....
...a.
-.J
)>
-I
-I
)>
n
:I:
s: m
z
-I
"T1
MAP NO lt:'i, 4
61"-=l=c==- C 60 l20 l__\)O
"'~'!tr·,/ ST/.\ TE ClF Cfj_ 8,o'R 8 9- 0 3 SHEET 3
.o, ' " ' s, I, ./ .. N I A "" ' ·\ ' ./ ' ( ,V, . >' 1 -: · • · ~;,-J, LA f1•\ 1 . .
SCALE IN fEf.T CITY
f
U:..)
SEE SHEET N0.4
?7
·;?(;
OF COUNTY POWAY
C.)F' SAN
TRACT
DIEGO,
OF 4 SHEE TS
~ ~
- J'j Jet, \ 'ii- , .. I 'or\,' 6 i) (X Ur-II / N0. 7
"-- --- ," "' , "'- ·" ~ J70
1 0 -,P<'k~ - - .. .·
CO ~ \ S. • - · •· EASES
• • . i1 ' . .. ' . "'" .. 0 \i" • ' r .,, t\} G) c,,.,;,/Tt!},I'""'' ~~--z-:- li'i ,, · . ..-~-, 1 ·· · · ··- (ii)m:0,~ --- -"'" ·'""' ~ j ' ,\ . · '' "' -Hm~·' W•M<N> . . t * ,, t1 ;,1 1 / "'''"'@/ . . "'=''°
r··------J 1·-~,,_J
<( _(\] ,; s . . .. 7""-- ' . ' t'./~ ~~~~~f<E'..fJ:ir._l !-?o;:;~,::-:-1-- > ci I'] • .. I ~,,;C"'• .• ,
<( Z o ~- ,m~·-. ,
:,, . .:::.. - 'Ii' 0 '-,
0~ 8
Ct. <( _ · , 30 ,r O I ,-· 1 ,,.
u, 2' - · o/f;,/:f °"'"' ' 0 ' R>< ,PE 'P jlEREON ~ -~ Pvnm,}••"'' •1:: _ > O .,.--- \!_! [" - ll A"'!Jll'O~•,, 5 .!"Yi'." ~,,_r,,_ ,; ; : '" " I
?~ "' ~
ll.,~ !-'
~1~;
,, 20 • ~ •
1 ,, og•~o ·o 2·,
.i . ,, , ·a , ,,. ,, ,
2 r-----
~· &' • . 8 !:I '°' lli --".f . ,._ . Silver Ridge i%i.i l ~ 3 "' ., ' T
1 I
South Parcel
81 ' r,•¾°'~~-">" _/'rf~- ·"'"'/j,[Jo) . 3,. "'\~ ifF. •~ H.LQ. -·-· ·- • ~~ ii~'f "' N:)£ff,;,>KJ/ 1.J u,;,{~}_s· k
-~()
-~¥ .,f'<'
lO
--}.7.M,f Pr;g:.1,- / : /.,_r,:P/vo ,2
9 ~
Prepared )n the off i ce of
Church Engineering, Inc.
con:;;ul ti ng Erig ineer-u Pl onners
225 SROADWA.Y f700 SAN DIEGO, CA 92 1C1
s:;4c1
13 Surv eyor s
(619} 237·•0722
$KG
FAXf {619} 237-07 57
G',
!(:
3t.:
P/"'F~!-: P<..1V/AY
°4'A'17,'/C,fT 4' i!l,r Ca,,,,,Ac<tt:T/b#
Ci)
c()
·~ I'·
~ - 0 --z
31., (D 1
~-- -.-~ ~ 1 (/)
i "1-:i !
---- ~~- l<c'l_.
--~-~:~~-LL.
<(
2::
F.t;JECTEO CN'ER OF0'-7'0/C/IT/ON c,p LOTIO
·--AND LOT // 1'NESERi1ED FOl?FLJTURE S7Rf-:-ET"
O!✓ Milf'NO,G058 /fl/S//:JIVBEEN/iCCEf'lED
8)' 1/CT/()N 01" 7'/fE Cll'Y OF FO/W/) ·' 0/✓
_,!Jli . '( -~S-';?l.~1=99=?. __ _
_ N_O TE::.
SEE Sf!L"ET ND. 2 /'OR 81/S/S Or 8EARING!3,
J'ROCEOUIIE Of' SUP.VEY //NO /.EG!."NO
DATA
O[ l.l A/OEMUNG llAlllllS LEN . /Ol5T.
:rn· oo· 0(1" 20 .00 3l.41 2
3 ~ ... 4!! ' :36 '' 4lL OO 3 0 .0 0
1e 4s •3o~ i 4 !l .OO 6 4 . 30
j/9 03' 02- 48 , OG ~ I\ . 2£3
... ,2• 20' 33" 90 .OG GG,5j
01 • !57 ' 06~ 470 .0 0 l6 . Ol
o·:·)1 • :,2 " I j5!'j_ oG {?.32
I
T,\NG[NT
20 .00
~5 . 5 1
~➔ B ,()2""~-
7 . 20
'.3~.B6
8 .0l
1 . Hi
2G~34 •s2 ~ I ~55 .oo I 71_91 3G .f) 1
l ·-~--1 38'40'5:;" I ,1800 32.41 16.$4
6,1•04·33 • 48 , 00 53.68 ,Jo. 04
222 · 20' ~13 ~ 48 . 00 186.27 -·123.94
"' sg• 5H' 02Mri lll .00
11•31'!:i7" ?.!:JO.CC 50.32 25.25
2•· ss•o<r• 24~.oo '15. ZG
February 15, 2022, Item #16
-' .i:i,.
0 ......
-'
-.J
6~E,=I=E;o 60 120 1qo
t:O
CT)
-,:;r
~
c5 z
il.
<(
2:
~
j'--,
t:O
d
Sr.t:.\.E IN Ft.El
t:O
ti~ j'--. -"' _,
- ~
28 CITY OF ~OWAY TRACT
COUNTY OF ~~AN DIEGO, STATE~ OF
~?.
CJTY OF POWAY TRACT NO, -4185 J'v!J-\P NO, 11?95
NB9°s1' a11·w ;_:•,20a.1G'
e::>?.19'
29 $.770 ACRE5
DED/CliTED lfE(?EON
rOl? Of'EN SPACE
FURfV9ES.
Silver Ridge
North Parcel
z §
-r-,.., -----····
~- ¥/ , :,;---~~==err'suNs~!.'.'!.S~Hi_'._~_s):±co-4;::::- I N B9'05' 1!' W 149 35 ~'/..:z:t.O'< I ~7 VIEW ROAD 1:~. "' 'o/,'<?-or- ',f,.oo l 18.ll'05 ' 1G ' W 2'3 . 0l ~i ..... , ~-a~. 'I°{!( .<>,;,r, STREErLtM/T.$ ~ oo. 10 u <C E .{;9
;
>-::( ~
t -ti----·- -
l.1., ~t I
27 N ag• 05 · 11 ·w
/✓ 72"4o' 14't:C0) __
11 09• os · u · w
?f5
!;i .~.~ ~ :n
... ., 12 '.'.! ~ 11 ',;:~~ta--:;!i
•t12''.0~ .-)(.t : o \ U!P._:.;- ;' N&9"~02'W\ (f f!.C) 01 7#F __ _ ____ -Ji)lil ---,~ . . z : ~:, j
~ I ~ o, " \t,)
~J l;ltJ ::;
_rg 1R ,..__
~ QL
130.00 rns.oo
lC
MA~ NU ll\/!:>4
NO , 89-0 3sHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS
CAUFOl~NIA
.i"--,
' , j'-,
" ··'"'-,
:sl>,
<.Cl t:0 ' ' I::::: (.Q ',,
C)
. -···----~-
Lt
f?1
~2
. ----~-FR
<L. g dC\l --1,e::., (.0.-·-·
§§~-
I.I -=i LI.._., ,<SN<f'--·
w :::,
z w
> <!
(/)
0 >
::::::i
0 .'X)' I 3:1'
I
(/)
0 _j
f!OTE:
0 lO
,~
~~j
I --
SEE Sf/EE T NO.!. FOR NIS/5 Of' 8Elifi'ING9,
fi'?OCEDilfi'E iilJ/?Vfl' /1..\r) t.EGbVD.
DATA
f···"" ! DEL T A/BEAIUNG 11AD11JS I L~"'·;·~~~~:r:. I TANGENT Ii 02 ° St;' 44 •r::
10· 5;,: · 54 " 105 .0 G 2H . 44 1 •~. "JG
05• 32 ' ,1:1 ~ :1 ~j'_j. oc, 15.01) 7 .51
N 0" Oi '5B " E fi() . t.17
90• (JO' 00" 2-:i. 00 31. 42 2c,.oo
c· !;1 ·32· 1!:i!'j.OO 2.32 1.H3
215• 34 · !:ic~ ~ :)5. 00 7l .91 :J6. 6 !
N 56° lit\' 12"W l7.B3
24•00 •42• 15:).00 64.Hb 3~~. DG
155 . 00 70.00 35.61
_Q_
>}--
r ~:~r.;.
ln\ ·:,< •8~-r-i\ , '1 1is==- ~~Jf°"&H~EET
l t
-?~
'CJ
~
Pr-epared in the office of
C~1u rch Eng in eeri ng, Inc.
Con~rnlti r1 g CnginctH'!j Pltmn er!i
2:'.I~ Bf'lOl..01-iAY f7("J0 SAN DIEGO , CA 9210l
Siwveyors
((; 1!!) ?.37-072.:!
SEE SHEET NO 3
1:e ce-A>r1nc;1rc O/' c"-"•cvo-v
FAXf (€ S2) 237 -·0nn
February 15, 2022, Item #16
GIS
Exhibit
of
Silver
Ridge
15 of
17 ATTACHMENT
G
February 15, 2022, Item #16
GIS Exhibit of Ted Williams Parkway
16 of 17 ATTACHMENT H
February 15, 2022, Item #16
...a.
-...i
0 ...,
...a.
-...i
~ --t )>
n :::c
~ m
z --t
Location
All three locations
Adobe Ridge
Silver Ridge
Ted Williams
Adobe Ridge
Silver Ridge
Ted Williams
Adobe Ridge
Silver Ridge
Ted Williams
Tree Removal and Hydroseeding Costs By Site
Scope Cost
Tree Removal Only (hauling and removal of debris) $271,200 Tree Removal Only (hauling and removal of debris) $24,480 Tree Removal Only (hauling and removal of debris) $133,200 Tree Removal Only (hauling and removal of debris) difficult access, heavy slope $122,420
Tree and stump removal $28,560
Tree and stump removal - additional time needed for difficult access for stump grinder $159,850
No stump removal option, too steep for equipment and not reccommended for erosion control N/A
Hydroseeding $5,500
Hydroseeding $24,000
Hyd roseed i ng $34,500