HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - Underground Utilities in West Newport (Proposed Underground Assessment District No. 69)March 8, 1999
Study Session Agenda Item No. ?
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN WEST NEWPORT (PROPOSED
UNDERGROUND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 69)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Direct staff to move forward with Assessment District No. 69 between the Santa Ana
River and 29th Street and obtain design costs from the utility companies and bring
back to the City Council for consideration of funding options to advance these costs.
2. Review the status of the other assessment districts.
DISCUSSION:
The property owners in West Newport are anxious to move forward with proposed
Underground Assessment District No. 69. The district was initiated in 1992 and the
process of obtaining required petitions has been ongoing and the first petitions were
submitted in 1994. The district was originally divided into 7 zones, A through G, with a
proponent in each zone responsible for collecting the necessary petitions (see attached
exhibits).
To date they have been able to obtain petition signatures from approximately 51% of
the property owners. (That figure assumes that the City is considered as submitting a
favorable petition for its park parcels). Berryman and Henigar Associates submitted an
updated percentage of petition signatures in May 1998. The percentage of petitions in
each zone, including the City Park parcels, are as follows:
ZONES
% OF PETITION SUBMITTED
MAY 1998
A
62.06%
B
55.81%
C
73.57%
D
47.76%
E
53.79%
F
49.92%
G
26.80%
OVERALL %
50.61%
SUBJECT: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN NEWPORT SHORES IN WEST NEWPORT (PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 69)
March 8, 1999
Page 2
The City has typically established 60% as a minimum number of petitions required to
proceed with the formation of a district, not including City parcels, since the City has been
neutral in the past. Since 1994 the City has advanced $55,000 for assessment
engineering for this district.
To proceed with the district, the next step is to obtain design estimates from Edison and
Pacific Bell. A City advance of approximately $200,000 for the Edison and Pacific Bell
designs will be needed. A loan from CDBG Funds for all or part of the $200,000 may be
possible. The Ad -Hoc Committee, Promote Revitalization of our Peninsula, agreed with
the concept of using CDBG Funds for this purpose.
The timeline chart below shows the steps that remain to complete the undergrounding
process:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 69 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE
MONTHS
PROCESSING ITEM
Start
City Council awards funds for the design
6 -12
Edison prepares plans which will later be used by Pacific Bell
Plan review
2
6 -8
Pacific Bell and Comcast prepare plans
Plan review
2
2 -3
Edison and Pacific Bell submit formal estimates and Engineer's Report is prepared
Property owner information meeting is held
Set and hold Public Hearing to vote on district
30 -day cash payment period
Bond sale
Construction bids obtained
1
1 -2
1
1
1 -2
23 -34
jUntil construction begins
When engineering is completed and the assessment engineer has determined the
assessment for each parcel, a public hearing must be held to allow the members of the
district to respond.
With the passage of Proposition No. 218, the City must send ballots to each property
owner with the public hearing notices. If the City receives a majority of yes votes, the
district will be formed and the City will recover the funds that it advanced to the district.
If the City receives a majority of no votes by the close of the public hearing, the district
will fail and the City will not be reimbursed for the money advanced to the district,
approximately $255,000.
The percentage of petitions can be increased slightly by reducing the scope of the
project to include only zones A through F, or by including all zones except the portion of
\ \MI5 1 \SY 5 \Users \PB W \Shared \COU NCI L \FY98.99\Mar- 8\AD- 69.doc
SUSJECT. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN NEWPORT SHORES IN WEST NEWPORT (PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 69)
March 8. 1999
Page 3
Zone G, easterly of 291h Street. The attached table (Exhibit "C ") explains both options.
It is recommended that the area easterly of 29'" Street be deleted from the district.
Attached are pictures that show the West Newport area as it exists today with overhead
lines and a computer modified picture with overhead lines removed. There is no doubt
that undergrounding would improve the appearance of the area. In addition to
improving the visual appearance of the neighborhood, the undergrounding would
remove poles from sidewalk areas. These poles reduce the width for pedestrian
passage to less than 2 feet (see the 2 pictures of poles that are on Seashore Drive). If
the City Council wishes to move forward with this district, it will take a minimum of 2
years before construction would begin. Edison's design could take 6 months to 1 year.
Pacific Bell and Comcast's designs would take an additional 6 months.
Currently the City has 8 undergrounding districts waiting for designs to be completed by
Edison and /or Pacific Bell. There are 10 districts that are currently collecting signatures
trying to qualify for a district formation. An oral report will be given.
Respectfully submitted,
ri
r
Don Webb
4 P lic Works Director
Richard L. HOffstad , .E.
Development Engineer
Attachments:
Exhibit "A ", Boundary Maps of Proposed District
Exhibit "B ", Pictures showing West Newport with and without overhead lines
Exhibit "C ", Letter from Berryman and Henigar dated September 10, 1998
\ \MIS-1 NSYS\Users\PBW\Shared\COUNCILNFY98-99\Mar-8VAD-69.doc
U W
wz
m�
�CL
oq
W Y
zo
O 3
U
t1.
W
=0
U)
u
W
J
J
cX: En
... B11
to CD
Lai
06
En
cn
CS W
Lai
LL)
CZ 133
W
o
-z
z°
C
Exhibit '
0
w
,a o
w w H
C3
C, H 07 (Y
H a d w
Lq p p Z co
CD
J
o o
3 3
u�i
� U)
Li
p 0 Lo
a Q
i
i
i
C
Exhibit '
V�
e
0
�
W
rm
a
Ln t i
0
I--
Ln
en
ED
i
w�
(=�W
W
Ln
c9
Lj
p��
DO
N
=D cn
cz
�U ^U
U U
aQ
(n
CM U
ry W
(Z) Q
Ln
.C)
® = .
WY
0
W
u
Z O
LLd
C[:
®LvLn
L' 3
M
Op
Foe
co =
ck: Led
�U
d
cn
LAJ LLJ
LLD
H W
U 0
m
m
w
St�
7
I
S
14
W
J
Q
V
Ln
O
H
Z
�P
Exhibit "A"
0
W
0
O
i
W
W
>
Q
O
H
w
Z
W
V
W
N
m
w
co
z
m
O
O
W
H
H
Z
Z
0
O
N
N
_j
J
z
W
W
Z
Ili
�
O
O
m
Z
n
o
z
U')
W
z
°o
o°
w
w
>
cn
W
m
3
3
O
m
J
I
i
i
•
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
Exhibit "A"
0
F-
= Z
W
c
LLJ
�cl:
�0-
D:fW
oQ
��
3
W Y
Z (D
3
O U
J
H �
v�
w
J
U
U)
I-
O
Z
W
U7 LD
U7
W
L Oo
Ln z
F--
do
L Iml
LSLOO I-
n- Ll7
1,
O
Exhibit "A"
Q
w
>
0
Q
w
w
0
z
w
K
co
U
O
O
O
zJ
J
W
W
Z
¢
a
a
w
cn
w
°
o
o
00
>
M
0
0
=
3
3
O
¢
O
Exhibit "A"
f
I
U)
w
L8J
r.a M
J Z
.� LLJ
cr
0— >
m t_1 M
°' LaJ
Z�
L,
cz jX oZ
Co
CZ J
Lj -J
M
II
W
J
CC
�- V
N
- Z O
I-
I-
O
0
c
dLID
LUJn
o
(�P4�R1
V
�.--
R=
lJ L
luuilJ
Z
0
W
W
�?J
�
ry W
Q
O O
�
3U
Y
W
Z o
Ld
L
c�
oL
3
0
��
O u
^^m
L L
U
e�
H
U
�Q
LS
cm
0-
d
c
f
I
U)
w
L8J
r.a M
J Z
.� LLJ
cr
0— >
m t_1 M
°' LaJ
Z�
L,
cz jX oZ
Co
CZ J
Lj -J
M
II
W
J
CC
�- V
N
- Z O
I-
Exhibit "A"
/
/
I-
O
0
Exhibit "A"
/
/
i
0
w
0
o
f
w
w
0
U
z
w
V
W
W
c
m
H
cr
!Y
f
O
!Y
H
W
W
H
W
cn
m
m
H
(JJ
L
O
0
U
_j
J
z
uj
>-
J
J
O
W
m
d
d
U
Z
U)
W
z
O
O
Y
W
C7
O
O
O
>
(N
laJ
m
3
3
O
!Z
J
i
Ito
Ln ED
U w
Lj~ En
R7 c
F- IL
O Ca
qF 0 u
LLJY JL1j c�
Z O ole
H
e y
F-Jw rol�
U 0- d
sT
la.l
W 3 LAJ
;:p-
�Lj Ck:
w
—^ L&j
LO
LO
G) CMO�
_. Z: / a/
ul co
Cn MOB s
LD
OCf1LAJ
C9 W(.n
�
S
Ln
e-/
fyI`9j I' / BI''2
I I I
I /
12
W
J
Q
�- U
U)
_ Z O
F-
F-
O
Z
C3
w
M
W
Q
W
>
O
F-- f Z
U W
Q S cr
() m �
O O O
0
Y
K
CC
z
O
N
M
>
O
W
0'
W
W
O
H
Ul
W
z
W W J
J J O
O O Li
IL d L.1
cm M
O O W
O O >
3 3 O
* O
j
z
H
Z
41
f
un
m
U7
N
Ut
Q
0
Exhibit 'W!
•
i
•
t
,G+ JJJ
1. Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "A"
cn �' y V •gyp c��,
•
NJ
ON
w
.�G�9g fi�1a�
., G %rte •
Exhibit "B"
BEFORE
APThK v"--
SFIASHOPX DRNE AT 4f" STREET
i�
i�
Exhibit "B"
C7
z
A
z
a
0
a
c�
a
w
A
z
a
a
w
H
x
F
N
H
A
z x
A
o �
a
a
w
A
z
a
0
Elk.` t
:7777777�-
ZA44111STREE
i I I
m
Oil.
rA
a
I
rq
t.
IWANO
...........
..........
.. .... . .. . ....
I
rq
Fxhibit "C'
PETITION PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS
1. Summary of petition area to date, by original zone.
2. Summary of petition area to date, Zones A - F.
All
Petition % excluding
Petition % excluding
Zone
Petition %
questionable petitions*
Utility Agrmts••
A
62.06%
58.13%
61.34%
B
55.81%
54.96%
55.81%
C
73.57%
73.57%
73.57%
D
47.76%
44.98%
46.88%
E
53.79%
51.58%
51-01%
F
49.92%
48.03%
49.10%
G
26.80%
24.15%
25.47%
50.61%
48.36%
49.68%
2. Summary of petition area to date, Zones A - F.
3. Summary of petition area to date, zones A - G (only through 29" Street),
All
Petition %excluding
Petition %excluding
Zone
Petition %
questionable petitions'
Utility Agrmts"
A
62.06%
58.13%
61.34%
B
55.81%
54.96%
55.81%
C
73.57%
7157%
73.57%
D
47.76%
44.98%
46.88%
E
53.79%
51.58%
51.01%
F
49.92%
48.03%
49.10%
G
55.03%
52.85%
54.17%
3. Summary of petition area to date, zones A - G (only through 29" Street),
• Questionable petitions are those signed by a person with the same last name
as the owner of record.
Parcels with Utility Agreements are required to vote in favor of the District but
do not necessarily have petitions filed.
All
Petition %excluding
Petition %excluding
Zone
Petition %
questionable petitions*
Utility Agrmts"
A
62.06%
58.13%
61.34%
B
55.81%
54.96%
55-81%
C
73.57%
73.57%
73.57%
D
47.76%
44.98%
46.88%
E
53.79%
51.58%
51.01%
F
49.92%
48.03%
49.10%
G
34.16%
29.35%
3133%
53.10%
50.67%
5Z09%
• Questionable petitions are those signed by a person with the same last name
as the owner of record.
Parcels with Utility Agreements are required to vote in favor of the District but
do not necessarily have petitions filed.