HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Underground AD Nos. 114 and 114b (Areas described within Newport Heights) and Approval of PSA - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:02 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Undergrounding in Newport Heights
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:02:13 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Undergrounding in Newport Heights
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeff [mailto:goibar@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 7:04 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Undergrounding in Newport Heights
First and foremost I strongly oppose undergrounding for my home located on Riverside Ave.
The thought that this subject is back on the calendar is quite disturbing. After being clearly reviewed and defeated, just
a short time ago, I was shocked to learn that a tiny group of residents are able to reignite the proposal.
The drain on time and the economics make no sense. If every two block area in Newport were to proceed in this
manner, the Council would be gridlocked for years to come. To consider the cost to the city of contracting for an
engineering review and bringing the proposal to ballot is not reasonable.
This idea has been thoroughly reviewed and determined to not be in the best interest of the residents of Newport
Heights.
Personally, I have been patiently waiting on the alley improvements that are planned. Let's not hijack those needed
improvements.
Lastly, I can't see any reason to change the current requirement of 60% support. Plain and simple.
Let's move on.
Jeff Levine
Newport Heights
Sent from my iPhone
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:02 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: No Undergrounding!
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:02:03 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: No Undergrounding!
From: Doug Rebard [mailto:dogreb(a)gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 9:42 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: No Undergrounding!
I feel forcing all residents to pay for something only a few want is unfair and a misuse of government power.
The petition process was flawed by deceptive language and signatures collected by someone who obviously has
a vested interest in the outcome. This is cronyism and an example of corrupt government. At a minimum the
process should be started over with a complete description of the types of costs homeowners will have to endure
including their own cost to bring the power lines to their meters and other possible upgrades.
Why a lawsuit hasn't been brought against the city is beyond me. I think it should be. We need to hold people in
public office accountable.
Regards,
Doug Rebard
2915 Beacon Street.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:59 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: AD114B
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:59:13 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: AD114B
From: James McCulloch[mailto:himimccullCabhotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 9:04 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: AD114B
Council members and city staff,
I am opposed to the under -grounding of utilities. We have been opposed to this type of utility since it was put
before us about a year ago. We are not willing to shell out $25,000
or more for this under -grounding that does not make the neighborhood any safer.
Sincerely,
James McCulloch
3012 Broad Street
Newport Beach
1
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:59 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer, Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Please send this to City Council and City clerk
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:58:41 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Please send this to City Council and City clerk
From: Harry Barton [mailto:harrybartonOme.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 11:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fwd: Please send this to City Council and City clerk
I agree with the enclosed. City council stated 60% last year.
Also RECIND anything I may have signed.
The post card was deceptive. I'm new to the Heights. August 2014.
Utilities above ground didn't have any impact on my decision to buy 434 Santa Ana Ave.
Utilities work fine and 90+% of Poles are in the allies.
Are we really going to blow $115,000 for a study to pin down the cost to beautify our alleys and tax the
residents $20-30k for unnecessary infrastructure?
-Harry Barton
Dear City Council,
God given American right to vote on the outcome of the District?
While watching the May 10 city council comments on undergrounding, my jaw dropped when I heard a
comment by the main AD 114 undergrounding proponent. Mr. Hefner stated: "we are just asking for the God
given American right to vote on the outcome of this district."
Unfortunately, God didn't set up the rules for an undergrounding petition in Newport Beach. The Newport
Beach City Council did, and the result of their vote was to create a guideline where 60% of property owners are
needed to go to ballot. God had nothing to do with it.
And in America we have the rule of law. There is nothing inherently American about disregarding agreed and
voted upon legal processes.
Do not lower the threshold to 50%.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:06 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Citizen Comments on Undergrounding for the May 24 City Council Meeting
From: Gerald Ostrowsky
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 11:05:48 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Citizen Comments on Undergrounding for the May 24 City Council Meeting
Dear Leilani,
We are sending you our comments to an undergrounding article published in the Daily Pilot written by
Hannah Fry on May 19. These comments were sent to the Daily Pilot for their'letter to the editor'
section. Our thoughts are a response to Councilman Petros' statements in the article and are - -
relevant to the undergrounding discussion in the upcoming May 24 City Council meeting. Please
include these comments in the appropriate part of the meeting agenda.
Thank you,
Susan and Gerald Ostrowsky
On May 20, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Gerald Ostrowsky <gostrowskygsbcglobal.net> wrote:
As Yogi Berra might have said about undergrounding assessment districts in Newport
Beach, "It's deja vu all over again!" Proposed districts continue to be fought over while
the city pretends to be impartial.
Undergrounding is being debated once again, this time for proposed Districts 114 and
114b. Councilman Tony Petros called for unity in the undergrounding district
communities. Here are some reasons why this probably will not happen:
• Utility poles are not necessarily attractive, but the poles were there when we
bought our houses. They are not an issue for most homeowners.
• Undergrounding disagreements can wreck neighborhood relationships; some are
never repaired. It is a lot for one neighbor to ask another to pay $25,000 plus
connection costs. Imagine the uproar if the state or federal government levied a
tax of that size on homeowners.
Those not in favor of undergrounding utility poles feel the city is working against
them because the process is veiled in secrecy. The city never officially informs
homeowners that a district is being formed - you often find out from
neighbors. Neighborhood gossip with big financial implications.
Proponents of undergrounding can collect petition signatures from homeowners
without explaining the whole process and with the help of city staff, tailor the
borders of the proposed district to favor an undergrounding decision. This is
precisely what happened to us during formation of District 117 last year. A large
swath of homes that objected to the district formation was eliminated from District
117 ... in secret.
For those against paying this $25,000 fee, having a few minutes to address a city
council meeting is not enough and is not fair.
Not all residents of Newport Beach have deep pockets. During our District 117
experience, many of our neighbors asked us questions like, "If I had that kind of
money to spare, don't you think I would fix up my house?"
If Councilman Petros wants unity, here are some actions the city can take to make
assessment districts slightly less contentious:
Inform all homeowners concerned that a potential district is being formed. These
homeowners should be told how to obtain details of the proposed district.
• Do as some cities have done - ask that all those who sign a petition to form a
district give a small amount of "earnest" money so that the signature gatherers
and the city know the signatories understand the assessment process and the
potential financial costs involved.
The city should follow its own rules for undergrounding. In District 117, it went
forward to a ballot with only 49% of the required petition signatures and we were
denied an outreach meeting. Quoting a city employee, "60% is only a guideline"
and "We do not want to face all those angry people at an outreach
meeting". This 'fast track' approach is again being proposed for Districts 114 and
114b.
It is possible to have a fair and peaceful undergrounding process. The cities of
Anaheim and San Diego are two examples. Newport Beach will continue to destroy the
goodwill in many neighborhoods unless it,decides to improve its assessment district
process.
Susan and Gerald Ostrowsky
Corona del Mar
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Portia Weiss <portiaweiss@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:43 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Letter for May 24 agenda packet
Dear City Council,
I have recently been asked repeatedly as to why I am still concerned about the undergrounding of the utilities
process even though I am not currently threatened: AD 114B was carved out of ADI 18 — neighbors with whom I
have vehemently fought (we thought successfully) against the AD 118 undergrounding petition at a cost of over
$10,000 and hundreds of volunteer hours.
Now my very same neighbors have been gerrymandered into so-called AD 114B, proving what we have said all
along — City staff is enabling a persistent and recurrent economic assault on the City's homeowners by allowing
another petition to go forward less than a year after it was defeated. All Newport Beach taxpayers should be
concerned about lowering the threshold because they will foot the bill out of the general fund if the ballot fails.
What did I take away from the meeting? Among other things, this burning question. Why is City Staff once
again so determined to push through a homeowner tax amounting to over $23,000 for aesthetic undergrounding
of telephone wires?
Let's look at the facts and just refer to the May 10 City Council meeting and agenda packet, and also to what
was said at the meeting. (Agenda packet and meeting video available on City website.) When reviewing the
evidence below, it seems that important decisions have already been made by someone.
For some reason, there is a strong bias on the part of City Staff in favor of undergrounding proponents and of
taxing property owners tens of thousands of dollars for aesthetic improvements. Here is the current evidence of
that bias.
When undergrounding opponents presented the signatures of well over the mandated 40% of property owners
necessary to block the pro-undergrounding petition in AD 118 as well as AD 114 to the Assistant City Engineer
Michael Sinacori and Deputy Public Works Director Mark Vukojevic last year, no action was taken to confirm
the signatures and halt the wasteful and time-consuming petition process.
However, on the other hand and for some unfathomable reason, despite the fact that the pro-undergrounding
faction continues to be unsuccessful in achieving the long -agreed upon 60% threshold, the item not only
magically appears on the Consent Calendar (allowing approval with no Council discussion or public comment)
but formal resolutions have already been drafted accepting the AD 114 and AD 114B petitions with
an already lowered 50% threshold in the wording of the formal resolution.
Not only that, but a Budget Amendment was already drafted on May 4, 2016 authorizing the expenditure of
$115,000, already signed by the Finance Director and the City Manager, just for the estimate. Further, a 24 -
page Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Harris and Associates for engineering services was produced
and already signed by City Attorney Aaron Harp on April 29, 2016. $68,780 (of the $115,000) is to be spent
before the ballot, just for the Consultant's rough estimate of the total cost of the project - rough estimate as
evidenced by Agreement wording on Page 8 that Harris & Associates "does not guarantee the accuracy of such
opinions."
Also in the PSA, it notes that Harris & Associates is in charge of not only preparing the ballots, but also
tabulating the results. Undergrounding opponents have requested to review the already `verified' signatures
(that had been verified despite reaching the threshold). They have been stonewalled by City staff - being told
that the list wasn't ready and would be presented at the May 24 meeting, thus denying any property owner the
opportunity to publicly confirm the accuracy of the list. By the way, these signatures were `verified' by Harris
& Associates. Isn't this like the fox guarding the henhouse?
In addition, Michael Sinacori produced a 5 -page staff report about the petition certification. In it, he states that
the undergrounding proponents failed to reach the agreed upon threshold. Why, then, have a staff report at all
until they have reached the threshold? At whose direction was this report produced? In any case, he also states
that Harris has `verified' 54.21 %, but in the meeting, Dennis Anderson representing Harris noted that there
were 18 valid rescinded signatures bringing the percentage down to 51.23%.
Do Mr. Sinacori and Mr. Vukojevic simply ignore City Council guidelines at will? In the report, staff is taking
it upon themselves to actually request approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Harris and
Associates before the threshold is even reached or lowering the threshold is even discussed by anyone in public.
However, there is much to agree upon, as expressed at the May 10, 2016 City Council meeting (check the video
on the City site.)
We agree with Mr.Petros that it is tearing the Heights apart and that the 60% threshold should stand.
We agree with Mr. Peotter that this is really a tax (see video at 4:18:11).
We agree with Mr. Vukojevic that the City Council guideline threshold is 60% and, as noted in his staff report
"The 60% guideline reduces the financial risk to the City and further assures the City Council that the
community favors the undergrounding and will vote positively in the future.
We agree with Harris & Associates that people commonly change their opinion in the ballot process [when they
see what they actually have to pay.] That's the main rationale for the 60% threshold, to make sure that the City
doesn't waste almost $70,000 in the feasibility process.
We agree with Mr. Duffy when he counted 20 (66%) undergrounding opponents and only 9 in favor of
undergrounding of those making comments at the meeting.
We agree with Mr. Hefner in all of his 5 postings to the City (as listed in the agenda packet on the City website
dating from 6/27/14) that the proponents and the City have repeatedly agreed to the 60% threshold.
We agree with the 17 (representing 44 property owners) online comments opposingundergrounding_In fact,
100% of the current online comments listed in the agenda packet were against undergrounding and against
lowering the 60% threshold.
And finally, let's not forget the additional financial burden to the property owner beyond the $23,000 tax. The
property owner is financially responsible for all contracting work done on their property to hook up their home
to the new system. This significant, variable, and unknown expense (for bringing their property up to code,
hardscaping, landscaping, painting and other contractors) is entirely borne by the property owner and is not
included in the the tax (the `Assessment').
City Council members who vote to lower the threshold are voting to gamble almost $70,000 of taxpayer money.
It is a bad bet - with barely more chance of winning than placing it all on one roll of the dice at the craps table.
And if the ballot passes, they will have voted to tax homeowners tens of thousand dollars and have their
properties ripped apart for something that is not safer (by Edison's own admission on the website) and has no
particular benefits beyond aesthetics.
What supreme arrogance of the City staff to presume to authorize the hundreds of staff hours spent so far and
the unmitigated gall to sneak it onto the Consent Calendar so that the lower threshold could be passed without
any discussion or public comment. Kudos to Mr. Petros for pulling the item and allowing discussion.
It is simply not fair to force others to pay significantly more than $23,000 (ironically, enough to pay for a
sustainable solar installation and almost eliminate our monthly Edison Electric bills) and have their homes
ripped up for the aesthetic whims of their neighbors.
The cumbersome and obviously unfair open-ended petition process needs to be changed. Detailed suggestions
for improvement to this unwieldy process can be found in the Documents section
at www.noundergrounding.com. Now that's something worthwhile for the City Council and staff to consider.
Sincerely,
Portia Weiss
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Mark Abrams <mabrams999@att.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 8:45 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Oppose this Under grounding process
If in fact these City Council and City Staff Issues are true:
1. May 10. Three of the council members were absent from the discussion of the undergrounding issue which
had been pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. One council member was absent for personal reasons
while two recused themselves from that part of the meeting. (Why on consent calendar in the first
place)
2. The three other council members. They voted to continue the discussion at a future date. What is there to
discuss? (Why are they changing the rules midstream?)
3. One of the council members said that the large group of people who had shown up to speak as opponents to
the underground of utilities represented bullies (If you speak out doesn't make you a Bully)
4. That was the gerrymandering of District 114B (mostly an alleyway) out of homes in part of AD 118 that had
already failed to achieve the amount of signatures necessary for the study and the ballot election, and thus
would not have underground utilities. The City simply gave the proponents a new name, AD 11413, and allowed
a petition to be passed around again to this "new" district where the majority of homeowners were against
undergrounding. (Quite Unbelievable)
5 Why is City Staff once again so determined to push through a homeowner tax amounting to over $23,000 for
aesthetic undergrounding of telephone wires? ( Why?)
6. Despite the fact that the pro-undergrounding faction continues to be unsuccessful in achieving the long -
agreed upon 60 percent threshold, the item not only magically appears on the Consent Calendar (allowing
approval with no Council discussion or public comment) but formal resolutions have already been drafted
accepting the AD 114 and AD 114B petitions with an already lowered 50 percent threshold in the wording of the
formal resolution. (Why is the City Staff putting on the consent Calendar with NO PUBLIC COMMENT
&RESOLUTIONS DRAFTED)
7. Not only that, but a Budget Amendment was already drafted on May 4, 2016 authorizing the expenditure of
$115,000, already signed by the Finance Director and the City Manager, just for the estimate. ( Why is the
Staff doing this? Is the City Council Directing the Staff)
8. A 24 -page Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates for engineering services was
produced and already signed by City Attorney Aaron Harp on April 29, 2016. $68,780 (of the $115,000) is to be
spent before the ballot, just for the Consultant's rough estimate of the total cost of the project — rough estimate
as evidenced by Agreement wording on page 8 that Harris & Associates "does not guarantee the accuracy of
such opinions." (How can this be done without public comment and council Vote)
9.In addition, Michael Sinacori produced a five-page staff report about the petition certification. In it, he states
that the undergrounding proponents failed to reach the agreed upon threshold. Why, then, have a staff report at
all until they have reached the threshold? At whose direction was this report produced? (How can this be done
without Council Vote and Public Comment)
10. Is staff is taking it upon themselves to actually request approval of a Professional Services Agreement with
Harris and Associates before the threshold is even reached or lowering the threshold is even discussed by
anyone in public.
Than, isn't there some violation of the Brown Act with the City Council acting without the public
comment and a public disclosure process? And is the Staff acting on its own to implement these changes
from 60 to 50 and moving forward without the council's direction?
Mark and Melissa Abrams
254 Catalina Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From:
Jerry Grant <hag jwg@pacbell.net>
Sent:
Sunday, May 22, 2016 6:16 PM
To:
Dept - City Council
Cc:
Brown, Leilani
Subject:
Undergrounding
1. Please follow your own guidelines and written instructions for the petition
gathering process for undergrounding. Maintain the 60 percent in favor of
undergrounding before moving forward. Here is how two of our
neighboring cities approach the
subject. Rancho Palos Verdes
Petitions
Before construction occurs, engineered plans must be prepared. The City Council
will consider advancing funds for the engineering services to prepare the plans
only if signed petitions are submitted by two- thirds, (66.6%) of property owners
within the project boundary. When the neighborhood has fully circulated petitions
in the neighborhood they are submitted to the Public Works Department for
verification. Staff will verify that the names on the petitions match the current
assessment roles.
1. Property owners interested in the project should sign the petition and attach
to the petition a check, payable to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in the
amount of $100 as a deposit towards the project. The deposit will be
refundable up to the time that the City begins to spend funds for engineering
services to design the project.
Laguna Beach Petition
Formal petitioning begins after the boundaries are confirmed. Staff will provide the official petition for
circulation. Every property owner within the district boundary should be given the opportunity to sign the
petition. In addition to signing the petition, each property owner who signs will be required to deposit a non-
refundable initial fee of $500 that will cover a portion of assessment engineering and utility design costs. The
City will act as the collection agent after signatures from at least 60% of the property owners have been
submitted. Upon final approval of the assessment district, the fees collected will be credited against the
assessments of those who paid the initial fee. If the assessment district fails due to a majority protest through the
balloting process, then the fees will not be returned to the property owners.
Thank you and please consider a tougher requirement for the petition gathering process. Many of us do not want
to pay for undergrounding when we already have safe, reliable electric service. Jerry Grant
Sent from my iPod
1
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Diane Nelson <themadre4@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:02 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Utilities Undergrounding
Please remove my signature from the Petition for formation of Underground Utility District 114 immediately
and before Tuesday May 24th. I do not support undergrounding the utilities to be paid by the property owner or
through any measures( ie bonds) to be assessed to the property owners. When I signed the petition it was to
explore not to agree.
Diane Nelson
515 Aliso Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Doug Rebard <dogreb@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 9:43 AM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: No Undergrounding
I feel forcing all residents to pay for something only a few want is unfair and a misuse of government power.
The petition process was flawed by deceptive language and signatures collected by someone who obviously has
a vested interest in the outcome. This is cronyism and an example of corrupt government. At a minimum the
process should be started over with a complete description of the types of costs homeowners will have to endure
including their own cost to bring the power lines to their meters and other possible upgrades.
Why a lawsuit hasn't been brought against the city is beyond me. I think it should be. We need to hold people in
public office accountable.
Regards,
Doug Rebard
2915 Beacon Street.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
- Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:00 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Undergrounding
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 12:50:57 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Undergrounding
For the record.
-----Original Message -----
From: Lynn Lorenz [mailto:lynnierlo@icloud.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Undergrounding
To all City Council Members and City Staff:
I would like to appeal to your sense of integrity and fair play. What kind of message are you sending out to your
constituents and other communities in Orange County- that it is okay to change the rules when you don't like the results
of the rules that you set in play? Many eyes are on your decision now and I hope that you demonstrate your integrity
and strength by making the right choice.
Sent from my iPad
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:08 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Under grounding MUST be 60%
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:07:37 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Under grounding MUST be 60%
-----Original Message -----
From: harrybarton@me.com [mailto:harrybarton@me.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:05 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Under grounding MUST be 60%
Please consider my views enclosed. Why are we still talking about Undergrounding when the people have spoken. 60%
is required for a $115,000 study to move forward. Last year the Petitions were submitted and the Proponents came up
9% short. This number will continue to fall below 50% when an accurate accounting takes place. Must I Petition the
courts so that I can view the documents for Pro and No, who counted and verified the results? How many home owners
no longer live in District 118, 114 and your new 114A. Many.
The same City Council who mandated 60% 1 year ago, lowering the requirement from 60% to 50% one year later is the
same as giving into a 3 year old who jumps and and down screaming because they didn't get their way. When a Petition
fails which this one has it's standard procedure to let it go away for 5 years.
Whenever a deliberative body takes up a matter that could impact the minority, 60% in required. This is how the US
congress, Senate, State Legislature and all municipalities of 25,000+ operate and handle the Petition process.
I'm curious if the families who have bought a home in the last 10 years were unaware of the Utility Poles in the Alleys. I
will not be needing a new electric feed as I'm going 100% Solar. A very good friend of mine who's family of four used to
have an average $200.00 Electric bill now haven't paid one dime to Edison for over 2 years. All done with one state of art
panel. This is the way forward.
If the City wants to underground Utilities after 60% of the citizens in a District have voted Yes they should pay for it with
our tax dollars already paid and/or have the Utilities pay for the cost. All of our Utilities with the exception of Water are
provided by Public Companies traded on the stock exchanges. I have no interest in enhancing their bottom lines as I am
not a share holder.
Do the right thing and honor your words and documentation requiring 60%. The courts will side with 60%. Is the city
prepared for extended litigation which will cost our City far more than the $115,000 in unnecessary Study costs.
Finish the Alleys that is a long overdue project and allow the pro under grounding group to organize for the next 5 years
and see if they can get to the 60% requirement. I am tired of people knocking on my door pitching me to Go Under
Ground.
Rescind the misleading document I may have signed.
I am NO under grounding.
-Harry Barton
434 Santa Ana Avenue
Newport Heights residents feuding over a plan to underground utility lines in the neighborhood will have to wait until
Tuesday to find out if the Newport Beach City Council will allow it to move forward.
This debate turns on whether to establish two underground utility assessment districts that would place a special tax on
300 parcel owners' property tax bills to pay for the removal of utility poles.
The first district is bound by 15th Street, Irvine Avenue, Cliff Drive, and Tustin Avenue. The other is bound by 15th Street,
Tustin Avenue, Cliff Drive and Riverside Avenue.
The city council voted 3-1 to continue this discussion at its next meeting. Councilman Tony Petros voted against the
motion, Mayor Diane Dixon was absent, Councilmen Keith Curry recused himself because he owns stock in AT&T, and
Kevin Muldoon recused himself because he works for a telecommunications company.
A group of homeowners circulated a petition for the city to spend $115,000 on an engineer's report that would
determine the amount to be paid by each parcel. That engineering firm would also be responsible for scheduling public
hearings and prepare assessment ballots.
But before the city goes through this expense, Petitioners must obtain 60 percent approval from property owners,
according to the city's guidelines.
At the May 10 council meeting, proponents had 51.23 percent after 18 voters rescinded their ballots.
As the district representative for Newport Heights, Petros said the decision to not support under grounding was a tough
one."This is, as someone said, tearing the heart of the heights out," he commented.
Petros said that he supports undergrounding utility lines, noting that it's included in every new community. But he also
pointed out that the proponents of the two districts have not met the city's standard of reaching 60 percent support for
their petition to have the city pay for an engineer's report hammering out the costs and hold a vote.
"There has been some talk here, and I'm sure when this is all done I will be an anti -vote guy, but this is not a question of
the ability to cast your vote or cast your ballot," he said. "It's following the rules. We have a set of rules that we would
follow and if you can pass that set of rules then you can exercise right to vote."
Sara D'Elia supported the city moving forward on the engineer's report. She highlighted that her neighbors have
difficulty backing out of their garages because of the utility poles.
"I think all this would do going forward is getting information so we could make an educated decision," D'Elia said.
Councilman Scott Peotter said he likes undergrounding utilities because it provides a cleaner and safer neighborhood. In
his Corona Del Mar neighborhood he's always taking an extra three-point turn because he has a utility pole next to his
house.
He also noted that the guideline for 60 percent approval on an assessment district petition is not a hard number and was
slated to come back to the city council for review.
"It sounds to me like there is a lot of misinformation out there and one of things that bringing it to an election is going to
do is we're going to have an engineer's report that's going to say this is the maximum amount of tax your parcel is going
to have and this is what your share is going to be," Peotter said.
Richard Weiss, a 25 -year resident of Newport Heights, said that he is discouraged that the council would consider
reducing the threshold for approval of the petition from 60 to 50 percent.
"If you put it to the voters that they're going to get a $20,000 tax and rip up their homes, they're not going to go for it,"
Weiss said.
Council Confuses Issue of Undergrounding Letter to Editor published in print and online - 20 May 2016 - By : Lynn Lorenz
I recently attended a Newport Beach City Council Meeting for the first time, and was I in for an education.
My reasons for being there were to speak on an item that was on the evening's agenda- the undergrounding of utilities.
It certainly seemed, if one were to follow this issue, that the discussion as it pertained to the Newport Heights area
should have long been over.
However, it ended up being a very controversial and confusing issue because it involved a two-step process.
The rule was that the petition process had to be initiated by a resident and that 60 percent of the residents in favor of
undergrounding in a specific area had to sign a petition in order for the second step to kick in: a cost analysis involving
tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars followed by an election that would take place whereby 50 percent of the residents
would have to vote in favor of undergrounding for it to carry.
Simple enough ... well, maybe not. It wasn't so simple after all. Somewhere along the way, communication between the
different resident groups got heated, and communication between the city and the residents broke down; or perhaps
that depended on what side of the issue you were on.
Several questionable things happened during that City Council Meeting on May 10. Three of the council members were
absent from the discussion of the undergrounding issue which had been pulled from the consent calendar for discussion.
One council member was absent for personal reasons while two recused themselves from that part of the meeting.
At the Council Meeting last Tuesday, this numerical goal of 60 percent of residents signing a petition was reiterated by
the four City Council members present. District 114, which was up for discussion that evening, was only able to get 51.8
percent. Clear enough, or so it would seem. No undergrounding for AD114!
One council member, the representative of the Heights area, followed the rules set in motion and voted in line with
those rules.
But wait! That is not what went down with the three other council members. They
voted to continue the discussion at a future date. What is there to discuss? Are they changing the rules midstream?
If that wasn't disappointing enough, one of the council members said that the large group of people who had shown up
to speak as opponents to the undergrounding of utilities represented bullies. It was unclear if he meant the speakers or
their constituents, or both. I am not sure of the logic involved in this conclusion other than the fact that there were 18
speakers who were opponents of undergrounding at that meeting and only nine who spoke in favor. Were they bullies
because they outnumbered the proponents?
A majority of the speakers who were opponents were over 50, and several like myself, over 65. Bullies, we are not. In
fact, there was other evidence that some of the opponents had shared at the meeting to make a good case for the
opposite being true.
Another action that opponents of undergrounding found unbelievable actually took place before the meeting. That was
the gerrymandering of District 114B (mostly an alleyway) out of homes in part of AD118 that had already failed to
achieve the amount of signatures necessary for the study and the ballot election, and thus would not have underground
utilities. The City simply gave the proponents a new name, AD 1148, and allowed a petition to be passed around again to
this "new" district where the majority of homeowners were against undergrounding.
If you believe in fairness and following the rules, you just might like to show up at the next City Council Meeting where
these issues should be discussed again. You might even want to stand up and tell the City why you believe that the rules
should be followed.
Lynn Lorenz / Newport Beach
Still Concerned About Undergrounding
Letter to Editor published in print and online - 20 May 2016 - By : Portia Weiss
I have recently been asked (repeatedly) as to why I am still concerned about the undergrounding of the utilities process
even though I am not currently threatened: AD114B was carved out of AD118 — neighbors with whom I have vehemently
fought (we thought successfully) against the AD118 undergrounding petition at a cost of over $10,000 and hundreds of
volunteer hours.
Now my very same neighbors have been gerrymandered into so-called AD11413, proving what we have said all along: city
staff is enabling a persistent and recurrent economic assault on the city's homeowners by allowing another petition to
go forward less than a year after it was defeated.
All Newport Beach taxpayers should be concerned about lowering the threshold because they will foot the bill out of the
general fund if the ballot fails.
Why is City Staff once again so determined to push through a homeowner tax amounting to over $23,000 for aesthetic
undergrounding of telephone wires?
Let's look at the facts and just refer to the May 10 City Council meeting and agenda packet, and also to what was said at
the meeting. (Agenda packet and meeting video available on City website.) When reviewing the evidence, it seems that
important decisions have already been made by someone.
When undergrounding opponents presented the signatures of well over the mandated 40 percent of property owners
necessary to block the pro-undergrounding petition in AD118 as well as AD114 to the Assistant City Engineer Michael
Sinacori and Deputy Public Works Director Mark Vukojevic last year, no action was taken to confirm the signatures and
halt the wasteful and time-consuming petition process.
However, on the other hand and for some unfathomable reason, despite the fact that the pro-undergrounding faction
continues to be unsuccessful in achieving the long -agreed upon 60 percent threshold, the item not only magically
appears on the Consent Calendar (allowing approval with no Council discussion or public comment) but formal
resolutions have already been drafted accepting the AD114 and AD114B petitions with an already lowered 50 percent
threshold in the wording of the formal resolution.
Not only that, but a Budget Amendment was already drafted on May 4, 2016 authorizing the expenditure of $115,000,
already signed by the Finance Director and the City Manager, just for the estimate.
Further, a 24 -page Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates for engineering services was produced
and already signed by City Attorney Aaron Harp on April 29, 2016. $68,780 (of the $115,000) is to be spent before the
ballot, just for the Consultant's rough estimate of the total cost of the project — rough estimate as evidenced by
Agreement wording on page 8 that Harris & Associates "does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions."
Also in the PSA, it notes that Harris & Associates is in charge of not only preparing the ballots, but also tabulating the
results. Undergrounding opponents have requested to review the already 'verified' signatures (that had been verified
despite reaching the threshold).
They have been stonewalled by city staff, and told that the list wasn't ready and would be presented at the May 24
meeting, thus denying any property owner the opportunity to publicly confirm the accuracy of the list.
By the way, these signatures were 'verified' by Harris & Associates. Isn't this like the fox guarding the henhouse?
In addition, Michael Sinacori produced a five-page staff report about the petition certification. In it, he states that the
undergrounding proponents failed to reach the agreed upon threshold. Why, then, have a staff report at all until they
have reached the threshold? At whose direction was this report produced?
In any case, he also states that Harris has 'verified' 54.21 percent, but in the meeting, Dennis Anderson representing
Harris noted that there were 18 valid rescinded signatures bringing the percentage down to 51.23 percent.
Do Mr. Sinacori and Mr. Vukojevic simply ignore City Council guidelines at will? In the report, staff is taking it upon
themselves to actually request approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates before the
threshold is even reached or lowering the threshold is even discussed by anyone in public.
However, there is much to agree upon, as expressed at the May 10, 2016 City Council meeting (check the video on the
City site.)
We agree with Mr.Petros that it is tearing the Heights apart and that the 60 percent threshold should stand.
We agree with Mr. Peotter that this is really a tax.
We agree with Mr. Vukojevic that the City Council guideline threshold is 60 percent and, as noted in his staff report "The
60 percent guideline reduces the financial risk to the City and further assures the City Council that the community favors
the undergrounding and will vote positively in the future."
We agree Harris & Associates that people commonly change their opinion in the ballot process (when they see what
they actually have to pay). That's the main rationale for the 60 percent threshold, to make sure that the City doesn't
waste almost $70,000 in the feasibility process.
We agree with Mr. Duffy when he counted 20 (66 percent) undergrounding opponents and only nine in favor of
undergrounding of those making comments at the meeting.
We agree with Mr. Hefner in all of his postings to the City (as listed in the agenda packet on the City website dating from
6/27/14) that the proponents and the City have repeatedly agreed to the 60 percent threshold.
We agree with the 17 (representing 44 property owners) online comments opposing undergrounding. In fact, 100
percent of the current online comments listed in the agenda packet were against undergrounding and against lowering
the 60 perent threshold.
And finally, let's not forget the additional financial burden to the property owner beyond the $23,000 tax. The property
owner is financially responsible for all contracting work done on their property to hook up their home to the new
system.
This significant, variable, and unknown expense (for bring their property up to code, hardscaping, landscaping, painting
and other contractors) is entirely borne by the property owner and is not included in the tax (the "Assessment").
City Council members who vote to lower the threshold are voting to gamble almost $70,000 of taxpayer money. It is a
bad bet, with barely more chance of winning than placing it all on one roll of the dice at the craps table. And if the ballot
passes, they will have voted to tax homeowners tens of thousand dollars and have their properties ripped apart for
something that is not safer (by Edison's own admission on the website) and has no particular benefits beyond aesthetics.
It is simply not fair to force others to pay significantly more than $23,000 (ironically, enough to pay for a sustainable
solar installation and almost eliminate our monthly Edison Electric bills) and have their homes ripped up for the
aesthetic whims of their neighbors.
The cumbersome and obviously unfair open-ended petition process needs to be changed. Detailed suggestions for
improvement to this unwieldy process can be found in the Documents section at noundergrounding.com. Now that's
something worthwhile for the City Council and staff to consider.
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:53 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Undergrounding
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:53:01 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Undergrounding
From: lorawena [mailto:lorawena@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:10 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Undergrounding
Dear Representatives,
I have owned the property at 250-252 Catalina Dr. NPB for over 50 years. It is a major source of rental income for me. I am 87
years old and live on an extremely limited income. It is impossible for me to absorb the costs of undergrounding utilities.
Yours truly,
Lorelie Bailey Miller
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: uttsmith@roadrunner.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Why Was Undergrounding put on the May 10,2016 Consent Calendar?
For inclusion in City Council agenda packet.
Why was undergrounding put on the May 10, 2016 Consent Calendar?
What supreme arrogance of the City staff to presume to authorize the hundreds of staff hours spent so far and the
unmitigated gall to sneak it onto the Consent Calendar so that the lower threshold could be passed without any
discussion or public comment. Kudos to Mr. Petros for pulling the item and allowing discussion.
I want to have the freedom to purchase a solar installation and not be forced into paying for being tied to an outdated
technology.
Please don't lower the threshold.
Douglas Smith
AD 114
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Jeanne Fobes <jeannefobes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:27 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani
Subject: AD114 Undergrounding
City Council Members,
I am unable to attend the City Council meeting on May 24. However, it is important that you know that I
oppose certification of the petition for undergrounding in AD 114 below the 60% threshold.
Please post this email to the agenda item as correspondence. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen and Jeanne Fobes
328 Aliso Ave., Newport Beach
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Brown, Leilani
Monday, May 23, 2016 2:59 PM
Mulvey, Jennifer
Fwd: For inclusion in City Council agenda packet.
-------- Original message --------
From: "Stephen B. Wheeler" <stevewheelerkearthlink.net>
Date: 5/23/2016 2:42 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncilknewportbeachca. oovv>
Cc: "Brown, Leilani" <LBrown ,newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: For inclusion in City Council agenda packet.
For inclusion in City Council agenda packet.
think we should RAISE the threshold higher than 60%!
The current process does not represent anything like a natural groundswell of community feeling. Why should
proponents be given years to badger their neighbors and still be unsuccessful at getting the agreed upon 60%? If
this process were really representative of the neighbors, proponents shouldn't need years to get their signatures.
This is how I see what happened at the May 10, 2016 City Council meeting. Despite the fact that 20 out of 29
(69%) homeowners at the meeting and 100% of all current correspondents listed on the City website (17 emails
and letters representing 44 homeowners), as of the last meeting were opposed to lowering the 60% threshold for
a ballot, and that proponents have not produced the required 60% and signatures mandated for the ballot, it was
voted to continue the discussion at the next City Council meeting. A ridiculous waste of money.
I totally agree with the above commentary.
Sincerely,
Stephen B. Wheeler
527 San Bernardino Ave.
Newport Beach, 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Brown, Leilani
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:59 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: Fwd: For inclusion in City Council agenda packet.
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
-------- Original message --------
From: Nova Wheeler <novawheelerkearthlink.net>
Date: 5/23/2016 2:56 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: "Brown, Leilani" <LBrownknewportbeachca.gov>
Subject: For inclusion in City Council agenda packet.
The current process does not represent anything like a natural groundswell of community feeling. Why should proponents be given
years to badger their neighbors and still be unsuccessful at getting the agreed upon 60%? If this process were really representative of
the neighbors, proponents shouldn't need years to get their signatures!
I watched the May 10, 2016 City Council meeting. Despite the fact that 69% (20 out of 29) homeowners at the meeting and 100% of
all current correspondents listed on the City website (17 emails and letters representing 44 homeowners), as of the last meeting were
OPPOSED to lowering the 60% threshold for a ballot, and that proponents have not produced the required 60% of signatures
mandated for the ballot, it was voted to continue the discussion at the next City Council meeting.
I feel that you are wasting tax payer money in an effort to make me pay for an undergrounding I have no interest in, and obviously the
required number of homeowners agree with me! Enough already! ! !
Nova Wheeler
527 San Bernardino Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
May 2-4-2016
Item No. 14
From: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:04 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani
Subject: NO REDUCTION FROM 60% for Undergrounding Districts
Currently, Petitioners must obtain 60 percent approval from property owners, according to the city's standard. I
strongly oppose a reduction to the 60 percent approval.
I agree with Councilmember Petros who pointed out that the proponents of two districts have not met the city's
standard of reaching 60 percent support for their petition to have the city pay for an engineer's report hammering out
the costs and hold a vote. This was reported May 20, 2016 in the Newport Beach Independent newspaper.
It is respectfully asked that you follow the City's own standards and written instructions for the petition gathering
process for undergrounding and maintain the 60 percent requirement.
Sincerely,
Lu Anne Baker
Newport Heights
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 7:18 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Undergrounding in Newport Heights
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 7:17:39 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Undergrounding in Newport Heights
From: Lynn Lorenz [mailto:lynnierlo@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 6:36 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Undergrounding in Newport Heights
I recently attended a Newport Beach City Council Meeting for the first time and was I in for an
education. I wanted to speak on an item that was on the evening's agenda- the undergrounding of
utilities. It certainly seemed that this issue, as it pertained to the Newport Heights area, should have
long been over. However, somewhere along the way, communication between the resident groups
got heated and communication between the city and the residents broke down.
Several questionable things happened during that City Council Meeting on May 10th. First of all,
only four Council Members were present for that important discussion; one was absent for personal
reasons while two chose to recuse themselves.
Secondly, the rules had been set up in the very beginning of the process for the adoption of
underground utilities at the initial meetings that the city officials had with the
homeowners. Rule one was that 60% of the residents had to sign the petition in favor of
undergrounding to initiate an expensive cost study. Finally, an election would be held,
decided by majority rule. At the Council Meeting last Tuesday this numerical goal of 60%
was reiterated by the City Council Members present. The petitioners of AD114 whose fate
was up for discussion that evening were only able to get 51.2%. Clear enough, it would
seem. No undergrounding for AD114!
An easy decision for the City Council, AD114 would not qualify for the cost study and subsequent
election. The representative of the Heights area voted according to the rules in play. But
the three other Council Members voted to continue the discussion at a later date. What
discussion? Were you changing the rules in midstream?
Another action that was contentious took place before the meeting. That was the gerrymandering of
AD 114b (mostly an alleyway) out of homes in part of AD118 that had already failed to achieve
the amount of signatures necessary during the petition process. The City simply gave the
proponents a new name, AD 114b (even though it was previously part of 118), and allowed a petition
1
to be passed around again to this "new" District where the majority of homeowners were
against undergrounding as recently as July 1, 2015.
Lynn Lorenz,
Newport Heights
949 646 2054
Lynn Lorenz
lynnierlo _aol.com
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Valerie Carson <valcarson@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:52 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani
Cc: Portia Weiss
Subject: No Undergrounding
Mr. Peotter's distinction between a guideline and a hard number.
Mr. Peotter agrees that the 60% guideline was agreed and voted upon by City Council. But then he goes on to say
that it is not a "hard number." I disagree.
If it rises to the level of importance so as to require a City Council vote after extended discussion with public
comment, I would say that this is a pretty 'hard' number. Otherwise, what is the point of having the Council vote and
having the public input?
It certainly is a 'hard' number. It should be 'hard' to impose a tax of over $23,000 on an unsuspecting property
owner who neither needs nor wants it!
Keep the threshold at 60%
I agree with this message and would like the city council to have consideration for the majority of
people in Newport Beach who do not believe undergrounding is effectively better in any way. The
poles are easy to access, safer than having lines buried in yards, much more cost effective. None of
us need the expense of undergrounding!
Thank you for your representation of the majority,
Val & Tom Carson
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From:
THOMAS BAKER <tomlubaker@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Monday, May 23, 2016 6:49 PM
To:
Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani
Cc:
Tomlubaker@sbcglobal.net
Subject:
Continuous maintaining the 60 % Requirement
Currently, Petitioners must obtain 60 percent approval from property owners, according to the city's standards.
strongly oppose a reduction to the 60 percent approval.
Councilmember Petros (May 20, 2016 in the Newport Beach Independent newspaper) pointed out that the proponents
of two districts have not met the city's standard of reaching 60 percent support for their petition to have the city pay for
an engineer's report hammering out the costs and hold a vote. I completely agree with Councilmember Petros.
Additionally, I respectfully asked that the Council follow the City's own standards and written instructions for the
petition gathering process for undergrounding and maintain the 60 percent requirement.
Sincerely,
Thomas Baker
Newport Heights
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: michael neufeld <gaslampmike@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 9:51 AM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Undergrounding at my residence
Hi Ms. Brown -- I received your email address as the point of contact for the undergrounding matter in
Newport Heights. I own a house and reside at 539 Tustin Ave in Newport Heights.
I am staunchly opposed to the undergrounding initiative, and all related studies, etc involving such initiative. I
am opposed to any costs or increase in property taxes, etc required to fund this initiative.
I have owned my home since 2002. It is my position that it is wrong to impose such costs on us as
homeowners. I simply cannot afford to pay such costs. I feel that this is an unnecessary initiative and
certainly don't feel like we as homeowners should pay for it. We never wanted it to begin with based on the
neighbors I've spoken with.
I can be reached here by email, or anytime by cell phone (714)420-4699. Please kindly acknowledge receipt of
this email. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Neufeld, Homeowner
539 Tustin Ave
Newport Beach, CA 90803
1
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Susan Kopicki <sckopicki@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:49 AM
To: Dept - City Council; Kiff, Dave; Sinacori, Mike; Vukojevic, Mark; Brown, Leilani
Cc: Buzby, Lisa
Subject: May 13, 2016 Mailing by AD114 Petitioners
Attachments: 114.coverletterjpg
Council Members, City Staff, City Clerk with Copy to City Attorney:
We have identified issues with a mailing conducted by the petitioners in AD114 on May 13, following
the continuance of Item 5 by the City Council on May 10. As a result, we reserve the right to
challenge signatures submitted in response to that mailing.
Inaccurate information regarding payment options.
The mailing cover letter includes the following statement:
"The cost of the project can be added to your annual property tax bill and repaid semiannually with
your property taxes or paid in a lump sum at the completion of construction. Even if the project is
approved, the project is still two to three years away from completion."
Please note that the "City of Newport Beach Utility Underground Utility Assessment District No. 114
Instructions" includes the following in its "Petition Signatures" section:
d. THAT, assuming assessments are levied and recorded as requested by this petition, we will have
30 days following the recording of assessments to pay our cash, at a discount and without interest;
that, upon expiration of the 30 -day cash payment period, you will take the required steps to authorize
and sell limited obligation improvement bonds under the Improvement Bond At of 1915 (Section 8500
and following, Streets and Highways Code) in the amount of the unpaid assessments; that if we do no
pre -pay our assessment in cahs it will become payable over a period of years, with interest and
annual administrative costs added; and that the determination respecting the period of years and the
interest rate or rates to be established by the bond sale.
It is apparent that the letter of May 13 included inaccurate information that would lead recipients to
conclude that their cash payment would not be due until "completion of construction."
Signature Verification
The mailing includes a "Certificate of Petition Circulation in Lieu of Notarized Signatures. "
We do not know why this was included. Such a document is normally required of signature gatherers
who gather signatures in person, not by mail. The mailing included the following instructions:
"If you support a vote on District 114, please sign the enclosed petition which is enclosed and scan
and return to mhefner _voitco.com or mail to my home address at 422 Fullerton Ave., Newport Beach
CA 92663."
According to petition requirements, reference City's letter of June 27, 2014, the petitioner is required
to collect petitions in person. If the petition is not collected in person, it must be accompanied by a
signed notary statement.
The petition instructions from the City to the petitioner dated June 27, 2014 specifically describe how
signatures are to be collected:
"All property owners should either sign in your presence or the presence of a notary public officer. In
addition, each person collecting signatures for this petition must sign the enclosed "Certificate of
Petition in Lieu of Notarized Signatures."
The mailing of May 13 did not include any instruction that a notarized signature was required.
Wrong Map
The mailing also included the original map of the proposed 114 district. It did not include the map as
submitted to the city for consideration at the May 10 meeting, with two additional properties added.
We assume this was an oversight since it would probably not affect a resident's decision to sign the
signature page.
Attached is a photo of the cover letter.
Sincerely,
Susan Kopicki, 511 EI Modena Avenue, Newport Beach 92663
Lynda Adams, 444 Aliso Avenue, Newport Beach 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Vicki Ronaldson <v.ronaldson@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:03 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: undergrounding
respected city councilpeople:
when we tired of electrical wires draped from the alley across the
backyard to our home, we paid out of our own pocket to have them
positioned underground. i encourage anyone in newport heights,
esthetically offended by power wires on their property to do the
same, as i have no interest in reaching into my family's savings to
improve the views of others.
also, with technology changes ahead, electrical wires are unlikely to
be even necessary in five years, and we would still be making
payments? let's think progressively. no undergrounding.
vicki ronaldson
506 san Bernardino ave
newport beach 92663
vicki
949-933-2332c
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: Richard Weiss M.D. <rickweissmd@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:30 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Undergrounding comment for May 24 meeting packet
First of all, don't lower the threshold from 60%. If anything, it should be increased to more fairly reflect an
overwhelming level of community support and not gamble with the City's money on an uncertain ballot outcome.
There has been a lot of talk lately about the signature gathering process and the threshold to go forward with a ballot. I
think we are losing sight of the fact that there is actually no public benefit to undergrounding. In fact, there is evidence
to show that there is may be public harm. What do the utility companies really think?
According to giant utility company Entergy (entergy.com): (quoted verbatim)
• "Underground costs more to install and maintain, resulting in increased electric rates
• Several studies have shown that installing lines underground is expensive for customers and taxpayers, costing
10 times more than overhead distribution or transmission lines.
• Underground lines are much more difficult and expensive to work on when problems arise. They require
earth -moving equipment and specialized technicians.
• Installing underground is best done as an area is being developed. This is less expensive than converting later
from overhead to underground.
• Overhead systems are easier, thus less expensive, to upgrade, such as when a community grows and needs
additional electricity capacity.
• Several state regulatory agencies have found that the cost of burying power lines is much more than the
benefit provided. Underground lines are not necessarily more reliable than overhead lines
This information is corroborated by Southern California Edison. According to Edison Electric (Oct 24, 2014,
www.sce.com), "The information we have, while inconclusive, seems to indicate that outages tend to be longer with
underground facilities, simply because it is more difficult to find problems and replace equipment underground."
Edison even has an Above -Ground Equipment Initiative. In it, they explain the reasons for their strong above -ground
preference in the following wording taken directly from the Edison website (http://on.sce.com/lAznooO): "SCE's three
main goals are (1) to increase worker and public safety, (2) to increase system reliability and (3) to enhance our
stewardship of the environment... Because it takes less time to find and repair a failed piece of equipment when it is
located above ground than when it is located underground, reliability will improve... Above ground equipment will be
easier, faster and safer to switch ... This initiative can help constrain upward pressure on utility rates.
We should not be taxed against our wills to install a system that is more expensive to maintain, could lead to higher
utility rates, and that will definitely be harder to repair and result in much longer outages in the event of an earthquake,
when these services will be so sorely needed.
Undergrounding proponents won't be so pro-undergrounding when, after a major earthquake, they are without
electricity for days, weeks or months while their over -ground neighbors are sitting in their well -lit homes and getting
emergency information from their still functioning TVs and computers and food from their refrigerators.
Richard Weiss
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:04 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani
Subject: NO REDUCTION FROM 60% for Undergrounding Districts
Currently, Petitioners must obtain 60 percent approval from property owners, according to the city's standard.
strongly oppose a reduction to the 60 percent approval.
I agree with Councilmember Petros who pointed out that the proponents of two districts have not met the city's
standard of reaching 60 percent support for their petition to have the city pay for an engineer's report hammering out
the costs and hold a vote. This was reported May 20, 2016 in the Newport Beach Independent newspaper.
It is respectfully asked that you follow the City's own standards and written instructions for the petition gathering
process for undergrounding and maintain the 60 percent requirement.
Sincerely,
Lu Anne Baker
Newport Heights
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:05 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Opposed to undergrounding
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:05:22 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Opposed to undergrounding
-----Original Message -----
From: Netzero [mailto:carouselpress@netzero.net]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:33 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Opposed to undergrounding
I am definitely opposed to the undergrounding efforts in Newport Heights. How many times does it take to squelch this
movement?
Lincoln Chew
Homeowner at 320 Holmwood Drive
Sent from my Wad
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
MILES LAW GROUP
www.mileslawgroup.com
2301 Dupont Drive Suite 530 • Irvine, CA 92612 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Phone: 714.393.3389 • Fax: 858.836.5729 L A N D U S E • E N V I R O N M E N T • E N T I T L E M E N T
smiles@mileslawgroup.com
May 24, 2016
VIA PERSONAL DELIVERYAND EMAIL [DDixon@newportbeachca.govj
Honorable Mayor Dixon and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Agenda Item 14: Petition Certification for Proposed Underground
Assessment District Nos. 114 (Area Bounded by: Tustin Avenue / 15th
Street / Irvine Avenue and Cliff Drive) and 114b (Area Bounded by:
Riverside Avenue / 15th Street / Tustin Avenue and Cliff Drive) and
Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates,
Inc. (continued from May 10, 2016)
Honorable Mayor:
On behalf of Campus Outreach for Environmental Disclosure Stewards ("COEDS"), a defined
class of students and faculty from the University of California, Irvine, and neighborhoods and
property owners within the City of Newport Beach affected by current utility assessment district
efforts, Miles Law Group, P.C., submits the following commentary pursuant to California
Assessment District Law and the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000, et seq.).
Our review of the City's recent assessment district efforts brought into question several
irregularities leading to an overall due process concern stemming from the City's assessment
district boundary designation efforts and equivocation over City policy thresholds for
considering support and opposition for formation of an assessment district. The Staff Report, in
an attempt to describe a suitable level of support, merely illustrates a highly divisive community.
There appears to be an insufficient level of support to proceed with the formation of an
assessment district to tax property owners for utility undergrounding — an effort that will result in
speculative added benefits and likely added liability.
Honorable Mayor Dixon
May 24, 2016
Page 2
In Town of Tiburon v. Bonander ("Bonander IT'), the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that
an underground utility assessment merely conferred a general benefit to the public. The Tiburon
Court then went on to defeat the utility assessment by rejecting the manner of cost apportionment
for the benefited properties. Reflecting upon the division of the community that has surfaced
from the utility assessment effort, there does not appear to be any special benefit that will be
conferred upon the property owners assessed. To the extent that any legitimate special benefit
can be established, the apportionment of the costs to any benefitted property will result in an
onerous exaction. When the support and opposition to an assessment is relatively equal, the City
should consider maintaining the status quo rather than gaming the system to justify a healthy
public expenditure to a private consulting firm.
On a final note, the City of Newport Beach is relying on a Class 2 categorical exemption for the
"project" at hand. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15302.) While the undergrounding of utilities is
often the proper subject matter of a Class 2 Exemption, a categorical exemption shall not be used
for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 (c);
Banker's Hill v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.AppAth 249.) The "unusual circumstances"
of the current project is that the proposed undergrounding of utilities fails to confer any special
benefit to property while successfully creating public controversy and dividing the
neighborhoods impacted by the proposal. Without an established benefit to the project, the
undergrounding will result in short term and cumulative construction related impacts including
air quality, noise, and traffic impacts, along with increased public health and safety impacts
stemming from future maintenance of failed underground utilities.
Further, if the City were to properly assess all the utility undergrounding projects on a
cumulative basis, the unusual circumstances of the current assessment effort would be evident.
CEQA prohibits segmentation or "piecemealing" of a project to ensure "that environmental
considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each
with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have disastrous
consequences." (Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler, (1991); 233 Cal.
App. 3d 577, 592 see also Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission, (1975) 13 Cal. 3d
263, 283-284.) The public controversy and division of neighborhoods over the City's current
and ongoing assessment efforts for underground utilities should not be ignored or understated.
That outcry is evidence of negligible benefit coupled with increased liability and likely physical
environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed by the City.
Honorable Mayor Dixon
May 24, 2016
Page 3
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can assist in any capacity.
Very truly yours,
MILES • LAW GROUP, P.C.
By: Stephen M. Miles
Via Electronic Mail
cc: Honorable Members of the City Council [citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov]
Mr. David A. Webb, Public Works Director [dawebb@newportbeachca.gov]
Received After Agenda Printec
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:02 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Council Meeting tonight 5/24/16 Re: Undergrounding Utilities Item #14
From: Campbell, James
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:02:01 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Webb, Dave (Public Works); Vukojevic, Mark; Sinacori, Mike; City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Council Meeting tonight 5/24/16 Re: Undergrounding Utilities Item #14
FYI
Jim
From: Bonnie Jeannette [mailto:b1nbj20yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 2:35 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Selich, Edward; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith
Cc: Brandt, Kim; Campbell, James
Subject: Council Meeting tonight 5/24/16 Re: Undergrounding Utilities Item #14
Dear Mayor Dixon, Mr. Petros and Newport Beach Council,
Unfortunately, we are not able to attend the meeting tonight. However, we hope our voice through
this letter will be heard.
Undergrounding of utilities is essential to our communities. It not only cleans up the visual pollution of
overhead wires but eliminates dangers associated with those overhead wires in the event of
earthquake, wind or severe storms. It's time the prestigious communities in Newport Beach keep
pace with technology and other coastal communities.
There seems to be tremendous fear among a few very outspoken individuals who have spread false
information about cost and process. Change is generally met with some opposition but without
change we'd still be using outhouses, dial phones and tube TVs. All new communities in California
are built with underground utilities. Is Newport Beach going to be the last to modernize our utilities?
We support underground utilities because it's good for the community.
Sincerely,
Bonnie & Brion Jeannette
I
Residents of Newport Heights for 45 years
Received After Agenda Printed
May 24, 2016
Item No. 14
Dear Newport Beach Council Members,
My name is Dr. Jenniffer Manavi and I live and work in the city of Newport Beach. I
would like to submit to you my request that agenda to lower the percentage rate
necessary to explore placing our powerlines underground be rejected.
As you know, this topic has divided our community and will continue to do so unless
the council stays firm in their initial decision to have a vast majority interested in this
project before funds are allocated to research the costs involved. Currently, less than
half of our residents desire to have the powerlines moved underground. Due to the
extreme cost most likely involved in this project, it is understandable why many
residents do not feel the need outweighs the overall cost. We have lived in our home
for twelve years and do not believe that this project will improve our way of living in
a substantial way.
It is unfair to ask every resident, some of whom are living on fixed incomes to agree
to this additional cost. Even if the city agreed to pay for all of the project (given that
the powerlines are in the easement area which does not belong to the residents), the
mess and inconvenience this project would cause makes it an unnecessary burden for
those of us that use our alleys daily to access our garages. I live on Irvine Avenue,
which already has a parking condition, so we can only park on each side of the street
during certain hours. This work would create a parking nightmare for us.
I believe that eventually this issue may need to be addressed due to the increased
need for updated internet and cable lines, but there again, it should be the provider's
responsibility to take on these costs since we are already paying for their monthly
services. We do not own the powerlines, alley roads, or electricity—it makes no sense
why we would be responsible to pay for their upgrades.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact me with any questions you
may have.
Thanks again,
C,
I -
Dr. Jenniffer Manavi
411 Irvine Avenue 92663