HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Underground AD Nos. 114 and 114b (Areas described within Newport Heights) and Approval of PSAP- CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
FoP City Council Staff Report
May 24, 2016
Agenda Item No. 14
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311,
dawebb@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Michael J. Sinacori, Assistant City Engineer,
Msinacori(c)_Newportbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3342
TITLE: Petition Certification for Proposed Underground Assessment District
Nos. 114 and 114b (Areas described within Newport Heights) and
Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Harris and
Associates, Inc. (continued from May 10, 2016)
Please refer to the City Council Staff Report from May 10, 2016.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council continued this item on May 10, 2016. Since that time, additional
signatures, signature rescissions and retractions to signature rescissions have been
received, and staff expects this activity to continue up until the Council meeting on
May 24, 2016. Staff will provide the status of the two Petitions at approximately
3:00 p.m. on May 24, 2016, in a supplemental memo to the City Council.
NOTICING:
This agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
May 10, 2016 City Council Staff Report, related attachments, Insider's Guide, and
Correspondence
14-1
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 10, 2016 P 04V
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of City Council
r)
z
From: David A. Webb, Public Works Director—s
Subject. Regular Meeting May 10, 2016, Agenda Item 5 — Public Works
Petition Certification for Proposed Assessment District Department
No. 114 and 114b.
Since the posting of the agenda, the Public Works Department has received correspondences
from the public regarding the certification of the petition. Specifically, several property owners in
Assessment Area 114 have changed their position regarding the petition to request
underg rounding. There are no changes to Assessment Area 114b.
The contract Assessment Engineer (Harris and Associates) has reviewed all requests as of 3100
p.m, today and has prepared a new updated Certification of Petition Sufficiency (Attachment to
the Resolution) based on their review of all correspondence. Said petition now represents
51.23% of the assessable area of property within the proposed 114 boundary.
Submitted by:
David A. Webb
Public Works Director
Attachment: Revised Certification of Petition Sufficiency dated May 10, 2016
14-2
CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The undersigned hereby CERTIFIES as follows:
That I am the duly appointed ASSESSMENT ENGINEER of the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA.
That on the I Oth day of May, 2416, 1 reviewed a Petition for the formation of an Assessment District
for certain public works of improvement, together with appurtenances, appurtenant work and
acquisition, where necessary, in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 114 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), a copy of
which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
The undersigned hereby further specifically certifies as fellows:
That I caused said Petition to be examined and my examination revealed that said Petition was
signed by not less than five (5) owners of assessable land in the proposed Assessment District as
shown by the last equalized assessment roll used by the City, owning lands constituting more
than fifty percent (50%) of the area of all assessable lands within the proposed Assessment
District, all as prescribed by Section 5896.6 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California.
2. Said Petition did represent fifty one and twenty three hundredths of a percent (51.23%) of the
assessable area of property within the proposed boundaries of the Assessment District.
Executed this 14th day of May, 2416 at Irvine, California.
jo� A�� — -
ALISON BOULEY, P.E.
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES
ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACII
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14-3
��WPaRT CITY OF
O �
_ z NEWPORT BEACH
Cq</ Fp P
City Council Staff Report
May 10, 2016
Agenda Item No. 5
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311,
dawebb@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Michael J. Sinacori, Assistant City Engineer
PHONE: 949-644-3342
TITLE: Petition Certification for Proposed Underground Assessment District
Nos. 114 and 114b (Areas described within Newport Heights) and
Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Harris and
Associates, Inc.
ABSTRACT:
Property owners within two (2) adjoining areas of Newport Heights, are requesting City
Council certification consideration for their submitted petitions because of the City's
upcoming alley construction. The petitions submitted to the City request formation of
Assessment Districts (AD) Nos. 114 and 114b in order to underground overhead
utilities. Current City guidelines require a minimum of 60% of property owner's
signatures in favor of the District's in order to proceed with the District formation
process. To date, the City's contract Assessment Engineer (Harris) has reviewed and
certified that the proponents of AD 114 have obtained 54.21% of owner's signatures
required, and that the proponents of AD 114b have obtained 59.71% of owner's
signatures required. Both proposed Assessment Districts meet the minimum 50%
petition threshold established under State law and can legally move forward to balloting
if City Council so directs. If the boundaries of AD 114 and AD 114b were combined, the
petition percentage would be 55.16%.
The proponents of both AD 114 and 114b are also requesting City Council
consideration for combining the two districts boundaries into one area, and that a
property owner balloting be held using a conservative cost estimate to confirm the
property owners desire to underground the utilities prior to undertaking the proposed
alley reconstruction project. Official balloting would take place later this summer and if
the Districts are formed, staff would also recommend that the City construction of
impacted alleys within the Districts be postponed as described in the report as this
would provide potential cost savings to both the property owners and the City. In
addition, staff is requesting approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Harris
and Associates, Inc.
5-1
Petition Certification for Proposed Underground Assessment District Nos. 114 and 114b
(Areas described within Newport Heights) and Approval of Professional Services
Agreement with Harris and Associates, Inc.
May 10, 2016
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Should City Council waive current petition percentage guidelines and undertake a ballot
vote as requested by the proponents of Assessment District Nos. 114 and 114b, then:
a) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-56, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Accepting Petition of Assessment District No. 114;
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2016-57, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Accepting Petition of Assessment District No. 114b;
c) Approve Budget Amendment 16BA-040 appropriating the amount of $65,000,
apportioned to Assessment District No. 114 in Account No. 66402-941006 and
$50,000, apportioned to Assessment District No. 114b in Account No. 66502-941006
for assessment engineering services. Should these Assessment District(s) fail to
form, these expenditures will be covered by the General Fund; and
d) Approve a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for engineering services for
Assessment Districts Nos. 114 and 114b with Harris and Associates, Inc., at a not -
to -exceed price of $115,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Agreement on a form approved by the City Attorney.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
If the petitions are certified, a Professional Services Agreement with Harris and
Associates, Inc (Harris). will be needed to complete the Engineer's Reports, prepare
assessment ballots and attend the public hearings to consider these two (2)
undergrounding districts. Approximately $115,000 in Funds will be needed to complete
the Engineer's Reports, prepare assessment ballots, and schedule the public hearings
for these districts. Apportioning to each district will be prepared as part of the
Assessment Engineering Report.
If the districts are not successful in formation, the Funds utilized for the preparation of
the Engineer's Reports would not be recovered from the proposed district property
owners and will be covered by the General Fund.
14-5
Petition Certification for Proposed Underground Assessment District Nos. 114 and 114b
(Areas described within Newport Heights) and Approval of Professional Services
Agreement with Harris and Associates, Inc.
May 10, 2016
Page 4
DISCUSSION:
Owners of property located in Proposed 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) have
submitted petitions to the City requesting a Special Assessment District be formed,
pending approval of a district wide property owner balloting, to finance the
undergrounding of overhead utilities within the proposed district. The boundaries of the
proposed districts are shown on Attachment A and B respectively.
One of the initial steps in the District formation process is the circulation of the Petitions
for Special Assessment Proceedings. Proponents for AD 114 and AD 114b circulated
the Petitions to property owners within the proposed districts and have now submitted
the petition signatures to the City. The submitted Petitions signatures represent over
fifty percent (50%) of the assessable property within AD 114 and AD 114b in support of
undergrounding overhead utilities. The City's current guidelines require a minimum of
60% of property owner's signatures in favor of the districts in order to proceed with the
district formation process. 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. State law requires a minimum of 50%.
Proponent organizers within both AD 114 and 114b through their efforts have reached
greater than 50% but have not yet reached the 60% threshold. Harris has reviewed and
certified that the proponents of AD 114 have obtained 54.21% of owner's signatures
required. Proponents of AD 114b have obtained 59.71% of owner's signatures
required. Both proposed Assessment Districts meet the minimum 50% petition
threshold established under State law and can legally move forward to a Proposition
218 balloting if City Council so directs. If the AD 114 and AD 114b were combined, the
petition percentage would be 55.16%. Proponents for 114 and 114b are requesting City
Council consideration due to the upcoming City investments planned for alleys as
described below.
Alley sewer rehabilitation and the concrete reconstruction of alleys are planned for this
area and other areas in Newport Heights. The City is preparing to invest nearly $4
million in alley rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts in the Heights. The proposed
Assessment Districts constitute approximately '/4 of the entire Newport Heights area.
The Proponents within these areas are requesting that their petition be certified prior to
the construction and afford them a "vote" (a public hearing balloting process) prior to the
planned construction efforts within their alleys.
14-6
Petition Certification for Proposed Underground Assessment District Nos. 114 and 114b
(Areas described within Newport Heights) and Approval of Professional Services
Agreement with Harris and Associates, Inc.
May 10, 2016
Page 5
If the petitions are certified, Assessment Engineering efforts would begin prior to the
Edison design work and would be brought back to City Council. This method is similar
to the four recently approved districts. If certified, balloting efforts would take place in
late summer. Hypothetically, if the proposed districts fail during the balloting, alley
reconstruction efforts could be delayed by a few months. If the proposed Districts are
formed, the alley reconstruction is these areas should be delayed until the utilities have
been undergrounded to prevent unnecessary impacts to the new alley improvements.
The property owners and City will also realize cost savings if the undergrounding is
done prior to completing the alley improvements. The City would in the meantime make
patching and slurry sealing efforts to improve alley during this period because the sewer
rehabilitation would still proceed regardless.
If petitions are certified by the City Council, staff will request that the City advance funds
to hire an assessment engineer to begin the district formation process.
PROJECT HISTORY:
May 6, 2013 — City receives written request from property owner to initiate
proceedings to form Underground Utility Assessment District No. 114
July, 2013 — City requests Rough Order of Magnitude construction cost estimate
from the utility companies
June 27, 2014 — City provides Instructions and Petition for Special Assessments
Proceedings to property owner (Boundary discussions delayed Petition
preparation efforts).
November 19, 2014 - Community Meeting held to discuss AD 114 and AD 118,
which are adjacent to one another. 29 property owners from AD 114 and 46
property owners' from AD 118 attended.
January 28, 2015 - Community Meeting held for AD 118 to discuss utility
undergrounding process, property owners from AD 114 attend also. There is
active property owner opposition to the formation of AD 118.
February 10, 2015 — City Council Study Session held to discuss possible
changes to the Underground District formation process. The City Council
indicated a general support for the status quo, including maintaining a 60%
signature requirement for the petition.
June, 2015 — Property owner proponents in AD 118 withdraw request for utility
undergrounding.
March 2016 — AD 114 petitions are submitted to City for certification.
If the City Council certifies the Petitions, staff recommends that the City enter into a
Professional Services Agreement with our contract Assessment Engineer (Harris) to
prepare the Engineer's Report and provide related assessment engineering services.
Harris is a recognized expert in the field of assessment engineering with over 20 years
14-7
Petition Certification for Proposed Underground Assessment District Nos. 114 and 114b
(Areas described within Newport Heights) and Approval of Professional Services
Agreement with Harris and Associates, Inc.
May 10, 2016
Page 6
of experience and is one of two firms competitively selected and serving on-call to
currently assist staff with the numerous assessment districts City wide. Harris recently
completed the Engineer's Reports and ballot process for the City's AD Nos. 111, 116
and 116b, which are adjacent to the planned Rule 20A project along Balboa Boulevard.
Utilizing the on-call agreement, Harris has also completed all the preliminary efforts to
prepare the Petition package for both 114 and 114b and has all the necessary data to
move forward with the Engineer's Report and balloting process. To date, Harris has
expended approximately $19,000 in the assessment engineering efforts related to AD -
114 and AD -114b. Rather than amending the on-call agreement used for the
preliminary efforts, City Staff recommends approval of a single source separate and
specific agreement for these two Districts.
Lastly, if both of these Petitions are certified, Staff would recommend consideration for
combining the two districts into one and voting the entire area with a single engineers
report. This would be done in an effort to save the property owners cost for assessment
engineering, formation and bond financing. Both AD -114 and AD -114b Proponents
support combining the districts into a single district.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project has been found to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302 (replacement of existing facilities involving negligible
expansion of capacity) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment.
NOTICING:
This agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A
— Resolution Certifying the Petition for AD 114
Attachment B
— Proposed Boundary Map of AD 114
Attachment C
— Resolution Certifying the Petition for AD 114b
Attachment D
— Proposed Boundary Map of AD 114b
Attachment E
— Budget Amendment
Attachment F —
Professional Services Agreement with Harris and Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ACCEPTING PETITION OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 114
WHEREAS, the owners of certain real property situated in the City of Newport Beach
("City") have filed with the City Clerk several signed counterparts of a petition, requesting the
implementation of a project for the undergrounding of certain existing, overhead utility facilities,
together with appurtenant work and improvements, as described therein, the cost of which is to be
specifically assessed against each parcel of land benefiting from such improvements as shown on
an exhibit map attached to the petition; and
WHEREAS, the petition satisfies the requirements for instituting proceedings for the
conversion of existing overhead electric and communication facilities to underground locations in
accordance with Section 5896.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has also received a certificate to the effect that the petition has
been signed by persons owning lands constituting more than fifty percent (50%) in area of the
land subject to assessment within the proposed assessment district.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:
Section 1: PETITION ACCEPTED. The petition, as filed with the City Clerk, is hereby
found to be legally sufficient and is accepted.
Section 2: DETERMINATION TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS. The special
-1-
14-9
assessment proceedings shall be undertaken by the terms of the petition, pursuant to the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and
Majority Protest Act of 1931 commencing with Section 2960 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Section 3: PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE SERVED. This City Council
hereby finds and determines that the public interest and convenience will be served by the taking
of such proceedings.
Section 4: This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3 because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 and has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Section 5: ACTION IS FINAL. This action is " final' within the meaning of Streets and
Highways Code Section 3012.
14-10
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City
Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown,
City Clerk
day of
, 2016.
In
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
Attachment: Assessment Engineer Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition
14-11
CERTIFICATE OF :SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION
NATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The undersigned hereby CERTIFIES as follows:
That I am the duly appointed ASSESSMENT ENGINEER of the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA.
That on the 25th day of April, 2016,1 reviewed a Petition for the formation of an Assessment District
for certain public works of improvement, together with appurtenances, appurtenant work and
acquisition, where necessary, in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 114 (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"). a copy of
which is on file in the Office of"the City Clerk.
The undersigned hereby further specifically certifies as follows;
That I caused said Petition to be examined and my examination revealed that said Petition was
signed by not less than five (5) owners of assessable land in the proposed Assessment. District as
shown by the last equalized assessment roll used by the City, owning lands constituting more
than fifty percent (50%) of the area of all assessable lands within the proposed Assessment
District, at] as prescribed by Section 5896.6 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California.
2. Said Petition did represent fifty four and twenty one hundredths of a percent (54.21%) of the
assessable area of property within the proposed boundaries of the Assessment District.
Executed this 25th day of April, 2016 at Irvine, California.
ALISON BOULEY, A.E.
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES
ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14-12
ATTACHMENT B
BOUNDARY OF
PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT I
DISTRICT r _�I-��_ I � I -� -F-1
546 547
II4.9
C538
543
537
534
1
5
1 5
531
-.
1.524
525
520
521
1
519
1 512 J515
511
15101
w
505
501
500
514
510
500
CLA'
418 419 418
414 415 414
410 411 410
406 405 406
40 250 400
I
I
r
I
i� � 251 323
h�'ry%K 319
• ryryry320
Pryy�p ry 315
`�� {l• ryh�p� a
f% • t `ry�,�O�pp
al
442
�V
441
Q
TTV
442
328
Iz1
438
439
Q
438
4372
434
435
w
430
435
jP:'
430
43111
D
426
1
426
4272—
0432
431
422
423
1
422
418 419 418
414 415 414
410 411 410
406 405 406
40 250 400
I
I
r
I
i� � 251 323
h�'ry%K 319
• ryryry320
Pryy�p ry 315
`�� {l• ryh�p� a
f% • t `ry�,�O�pp
I
LJV 1
LLV
328
324
316
1
Q
442
547
543
539
II 5311
2301
543
539
535
531
519 518 5191 518
515 514 515 512
511 510 511 510
507 506 505 504
501 2320 501 500
G`FV I
I
LJV 1
LLV
441
Q
440
443
Q
442
4372
438
439
Z
438
435
432
435
0432
431
430
431
30
425
426
427
426
423
422
423
LL
422
417
416
419
418
415
414
415
412
411
410
411
410
407
406
407
404
401
400
401
400
ST
329
328
327
328
325
324
325
324
321
320
321
320
317
31
317
312
CUFF DR
549
5451 539
533 I
531 1
527 1 5211 HAVEN
5191
51
511
5051
2001
,I
.201 Iw
443 1 Q
439 jw
4351
431 1RE
4271 CORAL
01
319
317
313
z W
WA
wW0
UaaomC=
o�
0-
3:
�04 N 10 C-4 1 -------
r
�
--� r
Im Int
100 1
I C11 04 N I
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 114
AREA BOUNDARY BY 115TH ST, IRVINE AVE, CUFF DFS AND TUSTIN AVE
LEGEND
POLES TO BE REMOVED DISTANCE 9,750 LF
POLES TO BE REMAIN PARCELS 249
OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED
- - - - OVERHEAD LINES TO REMAIN
�- GUY WIRE
N.T.S.
05/16/14
14-13
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ACCEPTING PETITION OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 114b
WHEREAS, the owners of certain real property situated in the City of Newport Beach
("City") have filed with the City Clerk several signed counterparts of a petition, requesting the
implementation of a project for the undergrounding of certain existing, overhead utility facilities,
together with appurtenant work and improvements, as described therein, the cost of which is to be
specifically assessed against each parcel of land benefiting from such improvements as shown on
an exhibit map attached to the petition; and
WHEREAS, the petition satisfies the requirements for instituting proceedings for the
conversion of existing overhead electric and communication facilities to underground locations in
accordance with Section 5896.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has also received a certificate to the effect that the petition has
been signed by persons owning lands constituting more than fifty percent (50%) in area of the
land subject to assessment within the proposed assessment district.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:
Section 1: PETITION ACCEPTED. The petition, as filed with the City Clerk, is hereby
found to be legally sufficient and is accepted.
Section 2: DETERMINATION TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS. The special
-1-
14-14
assessment proceedings shall be undertaken by the terms of the petition, pursuant to the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and
Majority Protest Act of 1931 commencing with Section 2960 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Section 3: PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE SERVED. This City Council
hereby finds and determines that the public interest and convenience will be served by the taking
of such proceedings.
Section 4: This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3 because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 and has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Section 5: ACTION IS FINAL. This action is " final' within the meaning of Streets and
Highways Code Section 3012.
14-15
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City
Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown,
City Clerk
day of
, 2016.
In
Diane B. Dixon, Mayor
Attachment: Assessment Engineer Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition
14-16
CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The undersigned hereby CERTIFIES as follows:
That I am the duly appointed ASSESSMENT ENGINEER of the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
CALIFORNIA.
That on the 25th day of April, 2015, I reviewed a Petition for the formation of an Assessment District
for certain public works of improvement, together with appurtenances, appurtenant work and
acquisition, where necessary, in a special assessment district known and designated as
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1141b (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), a copy
of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
The undersigned hereby further specifically certifies as follows:
I. That I caused said Petition to be examined and my examination revealed that said Petition was
signed by not less than five (5) owners of assessable land in the proposed Assessment District as
shown by the last equalized assessment roll used by the City, owning lands constituting more
than fifty percent (50%) of the area of all assessable lands within the proposed Assessment
District, all as prescribed by Section 5896.6 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California.
2. Said Petition did represent fifty nine and seventy one hundredths of a percent (59.71%) of the
assessable area of property within the proposed boundaries of the Assessment District.
Executed this 25th day of April, 2016 at Irvine, California.
. Q� �
ALISON BOULE"Y, P.E. -
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES
ASSESSMENT ENGINEER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14-17
ATTACHMENT D
LVVVit
A A A N c";
s LI1 0D C71 � 0"7 s L71 s
REDLANDS AVE
2700 44- 44� 44� 40- -lb- 4b, A U
0i� N LN71 CND W 0W71
O co
W 0071 W W j V - 0M ti W
c71
cn
cm ca
cm
w M
cn
CA
W
�
O
i i
N N
W
i
O
co N
0
0 �
CNO
w
O
077
U3
Lo
H
W
;61 RIVERSIDE AVE
#. ■ . r ■ . WEEMS .. r .. r ■ . r . ■ r . ■ s .. MMMMl ■ .
2fi2a j Cn c o
0) O � C7) INV 0 O co N O N Co � CO AN7 M O DWD N O7
co ■
- -4 2616 '
� ? N
I■ '•. C7
O A A C>t Cil O Cil 071 071 C71 C71 {M Ln ■
4 s i N N N co 0+7 L71 O s i s N N W W W A
i -4 s Cil W CO V — 0 CD V i V i Ln co W 11 s (71 C4 w
gaEEEMM WOMEN MMMEMME MMEMEME ME MEMEN am MIMMMEMM WEEMS EMIMMJ
TUSTIN AVE
EL MODENA AVE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 114B
ARCH HEIGHTS
v POLES TO BE REMOVED (t 12)
. NEW POLE
OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED
OVERHEAD LINES TO REMAIN
POLES TO REMAIN
101
PAGE 1 OF 1
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY
FIGURE 1A fw�
DISTANCE: t 1,500 L.F. N
PARCELS: t 51 SCALE 1%-2 '
REVISED 3-3-15
14-18
O [71
i71
Cil
W
�
O
i i
N N
W
i
U3
Lo
H
W
;61 RIVERSIDE AVE
#. ■ . r ■ . WEEMS .. r .. r ■ . r . ■ r . ■ s .. MMMMl ■ .
2fi2a j Cn c o
0) O � C7) INV 0 O co N O N Co � CO AN7 M O DWD N O7
co ■
- -4 2616 '
� ? N
I■ '•. C7
O A A C>t Cil O Cil 071 071 C71 C71 {M Ln ■
4 s i N N N co 0+7 L71 O s i s N N W W W A
i -4 s Cil W CO V — 0 CD V i V i Ln co W 11 s (71 C4 w
gaEEEMM WOMEN MMMEMME MMEMEME ME MEMEN am MIMMMEMM WEEMS EMIMMJ
TUSTIN AVE
EL MODENA AVE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 114B
ARCH HEIGHTS
v POLES TO BE REMOVED (t 12)
. NEW POLE
OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED
OVERHEAD LINES TO REMAIN
POLES TO REMAIN
101
PAGE 1 OF 1
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY
FIGURE 1A fw�
DISTANCE: t 1,500 L.F. N
PARCELS: t 51 SCALE 1%-2 '
REVISED 3-3-15
14-18
ATTACHMENT E
City of Newport Beach NO. BA- 16BA-040
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2015-16 AMOUNT: 1 $115,000.00
EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
X from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
ANDX Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
To authorize and appropriate the amount of $115,000 to initiate the work associated with Assessment Districts #114
and 114b. If the Districts are not successful in formation, funds advanced to this district cannot be recovered from the
proposed district property owners and would therefore be covered by the General Fund.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE
Fund Object Description
664 300000 Assessment District #114 - Fund Balance
665 300000 Assessment District #114b - Fund Balance
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund/Division Account Description
EXPENDITURE A PPR OPRIA TIONS (3603)
Org Number
Object Number
Org Number
Object Number
Signed
Signed:
Signed:
Description
66402 Assessment District #114
941006 AD Engineering Services
66502 Assessment District #114b
941006 AD Engineering Services
1 Finance I_ oroval: Finance
Administ ive Approval: City Manger
City Council Approval: City Clerk
Amount
Debit C red it
$65,000.00
$50,000.00
Automatic
$65,000.00
$50,000.00
Date
Sl l �
Date
Date
14-19
ATTACHMENT F
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS 114 AND 114B
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and
entered into as of this 10th day of May, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and charter city
("City"), and HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation ("Consultant"),
whose address is 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 500, Concord, California 94520, and is
made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being
conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. City desires to engage Consultant to provide professional engineering services
for Assessment Districts 114 and 114b ("Project").
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the professional services described in this Agreement.
D. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned
parties as follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall
terminate on June 30, 2019, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference ("Services"
or "Work"). City may elect to delete certain Services within the Scope of Services at its
sole discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
3.1 Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this
Agreement and Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with the schedule
included in Exhibit A. In the absence of a specific schedule, the Services shall be
14-20
performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to
strictly adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A, if any, or perform the Services in a
diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by City.
3.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for
delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of
any such delay in the Services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees
to provide notice within two (2) calendar days of the occurrence causing the delay to the
other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.3 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance
in writing to the Project Administrator as defined herein not later than ten (10) calendar
days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project
Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions
for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control.
3.4 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by
hand -delivery or mail.
�=1LIRUA I CO1►j tOZ9191►b-ilJ IFIMI1
4.1 City shall pay Consultant for the Services on a time and expense not -to -
exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all Work performed in accordance with this Agreement,
including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred
Fifteen Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($115,000.00), without prior written
authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this
Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the Work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person
who performed the Work, a brief description of the Services performed and/or the
specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the Services were
performed, the number of hours spent on all Work billed on an hourly basis, and a
description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than
thirty (30) calendar days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
4.3 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically identified in Exhibit B to this Agreement or specifically approved in writing in
advance by City.
4.4 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed
without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any
Work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the
Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did
not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement.
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 2
14-21
Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the
Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
5.1 Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all
phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable
times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Dennis A. Anderson to be
its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or
any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the
Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel.
5.2 Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project
any of its personnel assigned to the performance of Services upon written request of
City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to
complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement.
5.3 If Consultant is performing inspection services for City, the Project
Manager and any other assigned staff shall be equipped with a cellular phone to
communicate with City staff. The Project Manager's cellular phone number shall be
provided to City.
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. City's
Public Works Director or designee shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the
authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator shall represent
City in all matters pertaining to the Services to be'rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
To assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement,
City agrees to provide access to and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a
timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's Work schedule.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the Services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical
personnel required to perform the Services required by this Agreement, and that it will
perform all Services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards
and with the ordinary degree of skill and care that would be used by other reasonably
competent practitioners of the same discipline under similar circumstances. All
Services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not
employed by City. By delivery of completed Work, Consultant certifies that the Work
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 3
14-22
conforms to the requirements of this Agreement, all applicable federal, state and local
laws, and legally recognized professional standards.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and
shall keep in full force and effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is
legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City
of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement.
8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be
responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes,
lockouts, accidents, acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to
approve or disapprove Consultant's Work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by
City, contractors, or governmental agencies.
9. HOLD HARMLESS
9.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents,
volunteers, employees and any person or entity owning or otherwise in legal control of
the property upon which Consultant performs the Project and/or Services contemplated
by this Agreement (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties), from and against any and all
claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to
property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses,
judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation,
attorneys' fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever
(individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims"), which may arise under this Agreement or in
any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the negligence, recklessness, or willful
misconduct of the Consultant or its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors,
suppliers, subconsultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any
of them or for whose acts they may be liable, or any or all of them.
9.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to
require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the
sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties.
Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorneys' fees
in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to
all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The
policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided
by the Consultant.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis
and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of
conducting the Work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are
limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. No
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 4
14-23
civil service status or other right of employment shall accrue to Consultant or its
employees. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for
Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees
of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of
performing the Work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct
Consultant as to the details of the performance of the Work or to exercise a measure of
control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City
with respect to the results of the Services.
11. COOPERATION
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated
Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the
Work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project
direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in
order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and
policies.
13. PROGRESS
Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator informed on a
regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and
planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired.
14. INSURANCE
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement
of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the
term of this Agreement or for other periods as specified in this Agreement, policies of
insurance of the type, amounts, terms and conditions described in the Insurance
Requirements attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated herein by reference.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the Services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or
subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall
be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of
any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any
general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a
partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or co -tenancy, which shall result in changing
the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 5
14-24
power or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership
or joint -venture.
16. SUBCONTRACTING
The subcontractors authorized by City, if any, to perform Work on this Project are
identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and
omissions of any subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual
relationship between City and any subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the
part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such
subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. City is an intended beneficiary
of any Work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care
between the subcontractor and City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the
Services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned,
transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City.
17. PREVAILING WAGES
If any of the Work contemplated under the Agreement is considered a "public
work", pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California,
including but not limited to Section 1720 et seq., not less than the general prevailing
rate of per diem wages including legal holidays and overtime Work for each craft or type
of workman shall be paid to all workmen employed on such. In accordance with the
California Labor Code (Sections 1770 et seq.), the Director of Industrial Relations has
ascertained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages in the locality in which the
Work is to be performed for each craft, classification, or type of workman or mechanic
needed to execute the Agreement. A copy of said determination is available by calling
the prevailing wage hotline number (415) 703-4774, and requesting one from the
Department of Industrial Relations. The Contractor is required to obtain the wage
determinations from the Department of Industrial Relations and post at the job site the
prevailing rate or per diem wages. It shall be the obligation of the Contractor or any
subcontractor under him/her to comply with all State of California labor laws, rules and
regulations and the parties agree that the City shall not be liable for any violation
thereof.
18. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
18.1 Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other
writing produced, including but not limited to, websites, blogs, social media accounts
and applications (hereinafter "Documents"), prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of
implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City
shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Additionally, all material posted in
cyberspace by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the
course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City,
and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 6
14-25
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's
expense, provide such Documents, including all logins and password information to City
upon prior written request.
18.2 Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable
for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for
other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written
authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to
Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's
deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived
against Consultant, and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City
has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for
such changes.
18.3 CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the
engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the Work. City agrees that
Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected
with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data;
(b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage
conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD
data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any
other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By
acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify Consultant for damages and liability
resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall
be submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by the City in .dwg file format, on a
CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission requirements for improvement
plans available from the City's Public Works Department. The City will provide
Consultant with City title sheets as AutoCAD file(s) in .dwg file format. All written
documents shall be transmitted to City in formats compatible with Microsoft Office
and/or viewable with Adobe Acrobat.
18.4 All improvement and/or construction plans shall be prepared with indelible
waterproof ink or electrostatically plotted on standard twenty-four inch (24") by thirty-six
inch (36") Mylar with a minimum thickness of three (3) mils. Consultant shall provide to
City `As -Built' drawings and a copy of digital Computer Aided Design and Drafting
("CADD") and Tagged Image File Format (.tiff) files of all final sheets within ninety (90)
days after finalization of the Project. For more detailed requirements, a copy of the City
of Newport Beach Standard Design Requirements is available from the City's Public
Works Department.
19. OPINION OF COST
Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents the
Consultant's judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance
of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 7
14-26
competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy
of such opinions as compared to Consultant or contractor bids or actual cost to City.
20. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the Services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City expressly authorizes in writing the release of information.
21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives
and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement or alleged
infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright, including
costs, contained in Consultant's Documents provided under this Agreement.
22. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the Services to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate
records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any Services,
expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3)
years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to
Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly
identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make
transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours.
Consultant shall allow inspection of all Work, data, Documents, proceedings and
activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final
payment to Consultant under this Agreement.
23. WITHHOLDINGS
City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction
of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to
constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall
not discontinue Work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an
immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or designee with respect to such disputed
sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of
return that City earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of
withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld.
24. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional
inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would
have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the Work accomplished by
Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or restoration expense shall be
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 8
14-27
borne by Consultant. Nothing in this Section is intended to limit City's rights under the
law or any other sections of this Agreement.
25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
26.1 Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to
disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the Work
performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or
participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest.
26.2 If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the
Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless
City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this
Section.
27. NOTICES
27.1 All notices, demands, requests or approvals, including any change in
mailing address, to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing,
and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-
class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided.
27.2 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall
be addressed to City at:
Attn: David A. Webb, Public Works Director
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
27.3 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall
be addressed to Consultant at:
Attn: Dennis A. Anderson
Harris & Associates, Inc.
22 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Harris & Associates, Inc.
Page 9
14-28
28. CLAIMS
Unless a shorter time is specified elsewhere in this Agreement, before making its
final request for payment under this Agreement, Consultant shall submit to City, in
writing, all claims for compensation under or arising out of this Agreement.
Consultant's acceptance of the final payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims for
compensation under or arising out of this Agreement except those previously made in
writing and identified by Consultant in writing as unsettled at the time of its final request
for payment. Consultant and City expressly agree that in addition to any claims filing
requirements set forth in the Agreement, Consultant shall be required to file any claim
Consultant may have against City in strict conformance with the Government Claims Act
(Government Code sections 900 et seq.).
29. TERMINATION
29.1 In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the
provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured
within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are
reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate
assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written
notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure
such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non -defaulting
party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written
notice thereof.
29.2 Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole
and absolute discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by
giving no less than seven (7) calendar days' prior written notice to Consultant. In the
event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for Services
satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for
which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination,
Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed
or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form.
30. STANDARD PROVISIONS
30.1 Recitals. City and Consultant acknowledge that the above Recitals are
true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
30.2 Compliance with all Laws. Consultant shall, at its own cost and expense,
comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental
entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter
enacted. In addition, all Work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City,
county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be
subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City.
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 10
14-29
30.3 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent
breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether
of the same or a different character.
30.4 Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete
understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all
preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged
herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions
herein.
30.5 Conflicts or Inconsistencies. In the event there are any conflicts or
inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other
attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.
30.6 Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or
against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of
construction which might otherwise apply.
30.7 Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a
written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the
City Attorney.
30.8 Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid,
illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
30.9 Controlling Law and Venue. The laws of the State of California shall
govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to
this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of
Orange, State of California.
30.10 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal
opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee
or applicant for employment because race, religious creed, color, national origin,
ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation,
age or any other impermissible basis under law.
30.11 No Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute or legal action arising
under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall not be entitled to attorneys' fees.
30.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall
constitute one (1) and the same instrument.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Harris & Associates, Inc.
Page 11
14-30
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Date:
By:
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney���
ATTEST:
Date:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
Date:
By:
Diane B. Dixon
Mayor
CONSULTANT: Harris & Associates, Inc.,
a California corporation
Date:
By:
Dennis A. Anderson
Director, Financial Engineering
[END OF SIGNATURES]
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
Exhibit C — Insurance Requirements
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page 12
14-31
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page A-1
14-32
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
There are approximately 300 parcels within Assessment District 114 and Assessment District 1148.
Phase 1— Engineer's Report and Formation Proceedings
1. Attend assessment district coordination meetings on an as -needed basis. Coordinate between
City and property owners as required. Up to three (3) meetings estimated.
2. Prepare the Boundary Map and the Assessment Diagram for the Assessment District from an
electronic base map supplied by the City.
3. Prepare the draft Preliminary Engineer's Report in accordance with the 1913 Act, the 1931 Act
and Proposition 218, to include the following:
• 1931 Act information and tables
• Plans and specifications (by reference)
• Description of works of improvements
• Preliminary estimate of costs
• Assessment Diagram
• Method of assessment apportionment
• Assessment roll with preliminary assessments
• Right -of -Way Certificate (executed by Superintendent of Streets)
• Certificate of Completion (executed by Director of Public Works)
4. Finalize the Preliminary Engineer's Report, including apportionment and method of assessment
distribution, resolution and staff report based on comments received.
5. Attend property owner information meetings to discuss preliminary assessments. Up to two (2)
meetings estimated.
6. Attend the City Council meeting at which Resolution of Intention and Preliminary Engineer's
Report are considered and Public Hearing is set.
7. Prepare Boundary Map for recordation and record.
8. Prepare the Notices of Public Hearing and Assessment Ballots, including the property owner's
name and mailing address, Assessor's parcel number and preliminary assessment amount, for
mailing to all assessed property owners of record within the proposed district. Work will be
performed in accordance with the 1913 Act and Proposition 218. This scope assumes Special
Council and the City will review and approve the contents of the Notice and that the City will
14-33
provide the envelopes and postage for mailing. Prepare a written declaration that this task has
been completed. Handle all property owner inquiries regarding the Assessment District and
coordinate issuance of replacement ballots, as requested by property owners.
9. Attend the City Council meeting at which the Public Hearing is conducted to provide technical
support and answer questions. Tabulate the assessment ballots after the close of the public
hearing and present the results to the City Council.
10. Make revisions to the Engineer's Report as ordered by the City Council.
11. Coordinate with City and property owners as necessary during the formation proceedings. Up to
three (3) meetings estimated.
Phase 2 - Assessment Confirmation and Bond Sale
12. Prepare the Notice of Assessment Lien, List of Assessed Property Owner Names and Assessment
Diagram for recordation and record.
13. 1st Notice: Prepare the Notice of Assessment, including the confirmed assessment amount as
well as cash payoff amount, for mailing to all assessed property owners of record within the
confirmed district. This scope item assumes the City Attorney and/or Bond Counsel reviews the
contents of the Notice and that the City will provide the envelopes for the mailing. Prepare a
written declaration that this task has been completed.
14. Handle all property owner inquiries regarding the Assessment District payoff process and
coordinate issuance of replacement notices, as requested by property owners.
15. Prepare the List of Paid and Unpaid Assessments for use by the City.
16. Prepare Notice of Lien Release for all parcels that paid off the assessment in full for execution by
the City Clerk and recordation.
17. 2nd Notice: Prepare the 2nd Notice of Assessment, including the confirmed assessment amount
as well as cash payoff amount, for mailing to all assessed property owners of record within the
confirmed district. This scope item assumes the City Attorney and/or Bond Counsel reviews the
contents of the Notice and that the City will provide the envelopes for the mailing. Prepare a
written declaration that this task has been completed.
18. Handle all property owner inquiries regarding the Assessment District payoff process and
coordinate issuance of replacement notices, as requested by property owners.
19. Prepare the Final List of Paid and Unpaid Assessments for use by the City.
14-34
20. Prepare (Notice of Lien Release for all parcels that paid off the assessment in full for execution by
the City Clerk and recordation.
21. Assist the City and project team with review of the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Official Statement, and provide basic assessment engineering, as necessary, to bring the project
to the point of initial bond sale.
22. Participate in meetings with City staff, project administration and coordination with City staff,
property owners, bond counsel, financial advisor, bond underwriter, appraiser, and other
project consultants. Up to three (3) meetings estimated ;per district.
ONXIIIIIIIWepnn14t1FRA
Phase 1 - Engineer's Re ort and Formation Proceedings Pefation
Ca 4e ndar Weeks
1 2 3 e 5 9 1 6 9 10 1 13 11 14 15 16 17 19 7L -C 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 29
1 Utility Coordination Meetings and Owner Coord. (3 mtg5 est.)
As needed
12 Prepare Notice of Assessment Lien, List of Owers, Diagram j Re
1week
2 Prepare Boundary Map and Assessment Diagram
12 Week:
13 Mail 1st Notice of Assessment
s weeks
3 Prepared raft Preliminary Engineer's Report
!a weeks
l
14 Property Owner Inquiries - 1st cash collection period
4 Finalize Preliminary Engineer's Report
1 Week
o
5 Property Owner Information Meetings (5 mtgs est.)
w needed
l
"
T
6 Attend ROI Council Mtg (1 mtg)
1 day
I1 Week
7 Prepare Boundary Map for Recordation and Record
1 week
17 Mail 2nd Notice of Assessment
�5 weeks
8 Prepare Notices of Formation and Ballots
a weeks
Cases Collect I 1
t
9 Attend Public Hearing & Tabulate Assessment Ballots (1 mtg)
11 day
c
10 Make revisions to Engineer's Report as directed
p1 wank
•_t-
11 Project Team Meetings and Coordination (3 mtgs est.)
lAsneeded
I1 week
Weeks
Phase 2 - Assessment Confirmation and Band Sae
6umban
4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
i 2 3�4 5 8 7 8 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 Z7 28
12 Prepare Notice of Assessment Lien, List of Owers, Diagram j Re
1week
13 Mail 1st Notice of Assessment
s weeks
cash Coitecr
l
14 Property Owner Inquiries - 1st cash collection period
1 week
�
o
15 Prepare 1st Paid/l}npaid List
1 week
"
T
�.
16 Prepare Notices of Lien Release and Record
I1 Week
17 Mail 2nd Notice of Assessment
�5 weeks
W
Cases Collect I 1
18 Property Owner Inquiries - 2nd cash collection period
I1 week
Tj
c
19 Prepare Final Pa id/Unpaid List
�I Week
20 Prepare Nottces of Lien Release and Record
I1 week
21 Review POS and Os
14 Weeks
I
22 Proiect Team Meetlnes and Coordination
irs needed
I
i 1
14-35
BOUNDARY OF
PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT e �^
DISTRICT I �. �
�H ST � —
546 547 546 547 X44— 2301 54 5491]
_ �5�3 42 543 54 543 542 5
$—� 0 33 536 539 51 3 539 538 539 I
I5 53 535 534 535 532 5331
I
531 530 531 530 � 531 30 5 1 1
�¢ 525 526 525 526 525 526 527 I
II520 521 522 523 522 521 22 5211 HAVEN
6 519 518 519 518 519 518 5191
1 512-1515 514 515 514 515 512 51
1 510 511 510 511 510 511 510 5111
15_505 504 507 506 505 504 i 5051
1 500 501 500 I 501 2320 501 500 12200] 1
CLAY ST I
44444 445 w 446 2401 444 I 23012207 2201 ILI
�I I 4421 ! 441 Q 442 441 Q 440 443 Q 442 443
Ql 438 439 Q 438 4372 438 439 Z 438 439 w
434 435 w 430 435— 432 435 0 432 43 1
430, 4310 431 :� 430 431 430 431 1�
426 427J 2 426 425 426 427 426 427 1 CORAL
1' 422 423-1 422 423 422 423 U422 423;
I 418,1 419 w 418 417 416 I
45 418 419 1
414 415 414 415 414 415 412 415 1
I� 410 411410 411 410 411 410 411;1
1 ! 406 405! 406 407 406 407 404 4051, Z w
Ii 400, 250Q 4001 401', 400 401 400 1 NQ
i BEAC ST J
- wWO
i � 251s 323 328 2 328 327' 28 329 I wM=
J/ ry��` p 319 324 325 324 325 324 3251 QwN
ry�aj`1',��0 315 320 321 320 321 320 3191 p
pQ� z
316 317' 2
�1. 317 316 317
31 .. 315 310_ 313 312 313
I_�-
c0 YC4
00 O foli;IC13
N 00 d O O cpl N OO1, t� O
1000 �OO!O' 000
r7 P*)�,►7N!N.NN N N
N N N N
CUFF DR
iNINi
IN,NI
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 114
AREA BOUNDARY BY 15TH ST, IRVINE AVE CUFF DR, AND TUSTIN AVE
Q
LEGEND
POLES TO BE REMOVED DISTANCE: 9,750 LF N.T.S.
POLES TO BE REMAIN PARCELS: 249
OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED
- — — - OVERHEAD LINES TO REMAIN 05h6/14
GUY WIRE
14-36
Cl)
LO
g
�
IS Hl9 4 1SV3
cn
. „
. �
545
546
547
F[5
2601 0
543
540
543
542
543
Q
537
539
538
539
535
538
535
534
a
535 °
Z
p
531
528
531
i 530
531
m
U
527
524
527
526
527
a
°
521
520
521
522
523 '
O
519
516
519
518
519
z
515
512
515
514
515 a
2
Q
505
508
511
510
511 °
w
w
w
503
504
50750
a
co
507
7
u)
Q
(D
-
LO
LL
+I
+I
501
500
501
N
501 a
1S AV -10
°
I
01
442
435
e
1 2617
457
1
u.i
z
451
438
431
w
Q
CQ
'
Li
v
�
445
w
434
429
M
a 446
449 }
>
I
Cl)
o
a
a
d
430
425
o 442
445
Q
41
424
421
w 438
441 s h
Q
0
z
a422
415
a 434
437
2
cr
418
41
430
433
W
w
3
ip
41
1426
a
429 e
CO
c:,
2
z
o
' 422
425
+�
LU
0C
g
1�, N
416
421
F-
w
m
1
w
425
1414
z
O
00
400
��
417 ■
W
2
419
e 410
411
ry
��z
z_
w
G��F4
LU
415
407 °
Cn
�
J
o
J
0
W
1406
0
2600
W
O
0-j
ww0
411
a
�
w
a
w
—'
S
w�
w
w
-i
p`�
❑
a-
z
O
O
0-
W ►�-
o
uaU`
�O�
y
U) �
z
CLOCE
/
0�
�- Q
LL
O
w
QD
Cl)
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page B-1
14-38
EXHIBIT B
FEE SCHEDULE
Phase 1— Engineer's Report and Formation Proceedings
Tasks 1 through 11.................................................................................Time & Materials, NTE $68,790
Phase 2 - Assessment Confirmation and Bond Sale
Tasks 12 through 22...............................................................................Time & Materials, NTE $46,210
Total All Services.....................................................................Time & Materials, NTE $115,000
The following tables provide the estimated hours of work allocated for each of the project tasks for
Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Phase 1— Engineer's Report and Formation Proceedings
Project
Assessment
Proj.
Senior CAD
Admin
40
8 600
Manager
Engineer
Analyst
Technician
Asst
Total
Total
$230/hr
$200/hr
$120/hr
$130/hr
$70/hr
Estimated
Estimated
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Fee
1 Utility Coordination Meetings and Owner Coordination
20
20
Senior CAD
Admin
40
8 600
2 Prepare BoundarMap and Assessment Diagram
4
4
6 46
Asst
60
8420
3 Pre aredraftPreliminar Engineer's Reort
8
32
80
4
124
18120
4 Finalize Preliminary Engineer's Report
8
12
8
4
32
5480
5 Property Owner Information Meetings
8
8
8
4
28
4 680
6 Attend ROI Council Meeting
3
3
13
1dOO
6
1 290
7 Prepare Boundary Map for Recordation and Record
2
2 1
8
30
12
1,820
8 Prepare Notices of Formation and Ballots
5
8
34
16
63
7,950
9 Attend Public Hearing & Tabulate Assessment Ballots
6
6
6
18
3,300
10 Makerevisions to Engineer's Re ortas directed
2
2
8
4
16
2,100
11 ProjectTeam Meetings and Coordination
16
16
32
6,880
Reimbursables - Estimated Posta efor Ballots
150
Total Phase 1 Services: 82 113 158 46 32 431 $68,790
Phase 2 - Assessment Confirmation and Bond Sale
Project
Assessment
Proj.
Senior CAD
Admin
13 Mail 1st Notice ofAssessment
3
Manager
Engineer
Analyst
Technician
Asst
Total
Total
$230/hr
$200/hr
$120/hr
$130/hr
$70/hr
Estimated
Estimated
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Hours
Fee
12 Prepa reNoticeofAssessmentUen, UstofOwners, Dia gram Recor
3
14
17
2,370
13 Mail 1st Notice ofAssessment
3
20
18 41
4,350
14 Property Owner Inquiries - 1st cash collection period
3
60
63
7 890
15 Prepare 1st Paid/Unpaid List
3
30
13
1 890
16 Pre are Notices of LienReleaseandRecord
3
10
13
1890
17 Mail 2nd Notice of Assessment
3
20
18 41
4350
18 Property Owner Inquiries - 2nd cash collection period
3
1 60
1 63
7,890
19 Prepare Final Paid/Unpaid List
3
10
13
1dOO
20 Prepare Notices of Lien Release and Record
3
10
13
1
21 Review POS and OS
30
30
6
22 Pro'ectTeam Meetings and Coordination
20
20
4
Reimbursables -Estimated Posta efor Mailed Notices
Total Phase 2 Services: 77 214 36 327 $46,210
14-39
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS — PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1. Provision of Insurance. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and
prior to commencement of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at
its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the
type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. Consultant
agrees to provide insurance in accordance with requirements set forth here. If
Consultant uses existing coverage to comply and that coverage does not meet
these requirements, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the
existing coverage.
2. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact
business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders'
Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in
accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise
approved by the City's Risk Manager.
3. Coverage Requirements.
A. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers'
Compensation Insurance, statutory limits, and Employer's Liability
Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) each
accident for bodily injury by accident and each employee for bodily injury
by disease in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section
3700 of the Labor Code.
Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a
Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its City Council,
boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, employees and any
person or entity owning or otherwise in legal control of the property upon
which Consultant performs the Project and/or Services contemplated by
this Agreement.
B. General Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance, and if necessary umbrella liability insurance, with
coverage at least as broad as provided by Insurance Services Office form
CG 00 01, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per
occurrence, two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. The
policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, personal and
advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract
(including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract).
C. Automobile Liability Insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01
covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of Consultant
arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page C-1
14-40
Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented
vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit each accident.
D. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions) Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be
performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of
one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and two million dollars
($2,000,000) in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date,
or retroactive date must be before the Effective Date of this Agreement
and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period
no less than three years after completion of the Services required by this
Agreement.
4. Other Insurance Requirements. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to
contain, the following provisions:
A. Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this Agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation
against City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents,
volunteers, employees and any person or entity owning or otherwise in
legal control of the property upon which Consultant performs the Project
and/or Services contemplated by this Agreement or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with
these requirements to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss.
Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall
require similar written express waivers from each of its subconsultants.
B. Additional Insured Status. All liability policies including general liability,
excess liability, pollution liability, and automobile liability, if required, but
not including professional liability, shall provide or be endorsed to provide
that City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents,
volunteers, employees and any person or entity owning or otherwise in
legal control of the property upon which Consultant performs the Project
and/or Services contemplated by this Agreement shall be included as
insureds under such policies.
C. Primary and Non Contributory. All liability coverage shall apply on a
primary basis and shall not require contribution from any insurance or self-
insurance maintained by City.
D. Notice of Cancellation. All policies shall provide City with thirty (30)
calendar days notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which ten
(10) calendar days notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
5. Additional Agreements Between the Parties. The parties hereby agree to the
following:
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page C-2
14-41
A. Evidence of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance
to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with
a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers' compensation and other
endorsements as specified herein for each coverage. Insurance
certificates and endorsement must be approved by City's Risk Manager
prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance
shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this
Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of
all required insurance policies, at any time.
B. City's Right to Revise Requirements. City reserves the right at any time
during the term of the Agreement to change the amounts and types of
insurance required by giving Consultant sixty (60) calendar days advance
written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial
additional cost to Consultant, City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant's compensation.
C. Enforcement of Agreement Provisions. Consultant acknowledges and
agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional
obligations on City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
D. Requirements not Limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features
or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on
coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage
normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given
coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a
given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive,
or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the
Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the
City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for higher limits maintained
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the
specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to
the City.
E. Self-insured Retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured
retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-
insurance will not be considered to comply with these requirements unless
approved by City.
F. City Remedies for Non -Compliance. If Consultant or any subconsultant
fails to provide and maintain insurance as required herein, then City shall
have the right but not the obligation, to purchase such insurance, to
terminate this Agreement, or to suspend Consultant's right to proceed until
proper evidence of insurance is provided. Any amounts paid by City shall,
at City's sole option, be deducted from amounts payable to Consultant or
reimbursed by Consultant upon demand.
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page C-3
14-42
G. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from
Contractor's performance under this Contract, and that involve or may
involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. City assumes
no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty)
to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to
involve City.
H. Consultant's Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the Work.
Harris & Associates, Inc. Page C-4
14-43
ATTACHMENT
May 10,2016
Insider's Guide
From: Obomy,Shirley,
Sent: Friday, May 06,20l66:27PK4
Subject: FW: Insider's Guide for Tuesday, May 10, 2016
From: KKtOove
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:59 PM
Subject: Insider's Guide for Tuesday, May 1U,IU16
A pleasant (and somewhat damp) Friday to you.
Here's what's on the schedule for the Newport Beach City Council meeting of Tuesday, May 10, 2016.
Some up -front notes before |get too wordy: 0Get helpful advanced notice of upcoming traffic advisories here. It
helps you plan your cursing in advance!; and (2) with no appropriate segue from cursing, the City's proposed FY 16-17
Budget isnow online here.
k4onedetai|edCound|meetn8infnrmadonisat1heendofthise'noai[andhereis a link to the full Council agenda
don't summarize every item onthe agenda.
The Study Session starts at4:00 p.m. with three hems:
� Anupdate onarts and cultural activities. The City Arts Commission has worked onaplan moving more arts
programming toprivately-funded efforts. This came atthe direction ofthe City Council about ayear ago, when
Council members expressed a hope that more activities, like the next phases of the Civic Center sculpture garden,
have less taxpayer support.
Our Public Works staff will roll out the proposed infrastructure program for the coming fiscal year, asking the
Council and community ifit's nntarget. Before you hit the snooze button here, this isNOT aboring subject. It's not,
it's not (minor temper tantrum there}. It's vital toour success asacommunity — from repairing Harbor sea walls to
keeping our streets and alleys well -paved to upgrading older water and sewer lines. VVeare anold city — over 1OO
years. And our infrastructure must beregularly upgraded. P|easeperusetheC|Portuneintothepresentation—iys
agood way toknow what may becoming toaneighborhood near you.
I also have an item on there about John Wayne Airport, following up on a request by the Aviation Committee to
have the Council consider whether to embark on additional air or water quality studies regarding aircraft emissions
(we had study done in2U09'1U). |amonthe fence about this. | think more data isusually good, but also under
consideration must be what can be done — if anything — with the data. And localities have no success record at all in
using emission data tochange airport operations oraircraft standards. The 2UU9study was interesting, but
concluded inpart that our area always met Federal air quality standards.
The nighttime Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. has some interesting subjects (but most are not nearly as much fun as two
weeks ago), and I'll highlight the neighborhoods that might have a special interest:
�
If you live in Newport Heights and you're part of the rather vociferous utility undergrounding or assessment district
(AD) discussion, the Council will consider whether to move to a ballot vote for proposed AD 114 (bounded by Tustin,
15 m Street, Irvine Ave and Cliff Drive) and AD114b(bounded byRivmerside,15 Street, Tustin, and C|iff). This comes
atthe request not ofour staff but ofthe undergroundingproponents. Here's what's not under debate: Bylaw, all
assessment district formations (and levies) require property owners who control over 50% of the proposed
assessment to OK the district's formation in a formal ballot proceeding before an AD can be formed. 5d|| with
me? Good. The mild controversy isthis: Our past rule ofthumb has been that inorder toinvest City funds up -front
in moving to a formal ballot question, property owners representing at least 60% of the proposed assessment sign
petitions saying generally "indeed,we'll vote yes ifasked." The petitioners inAD114and AD114(b) appear tohave
signatures representing 54.21% and 59.71% of the proposed assessment respectively (though even this can change
between now and Tuesday as different sides work the neighborhood). So if Council wants to move to a ballot
(again, the balloting requires only >50% approval), doing it without 60% petition support would be a change to past
practice. If you're a supporter of this district, you want the rule of thumb set-aside here and believe that each
petitioner will come through with yes votes when formally asked. If you're not a supporter, you'll suggest that
moving forward with less than 60% on the petitions puts City dollars at risk as the actual ballot measure might be
defeated. Hopefully I put that equitably enough so that I will not get trolled O by either side. Please. No
trolling. Just trying to do my job. if you're curious about the AD process overall, click here.
• A minor one, but our contractors have just re -done circuits and transitioned another 214 streetlights to LEDs — at a
cost of about $972K (mostly in the Westcliff and Irvine Avenue areas). This project also involved major rehabilitation
to the lights' infrastructure, thus the higher per -light standard cost. Another item later in the agenda (this time
$1.06M) will "just" replace 3,113 light fixtures to LED. This is funded in large part by Edison incentives and "on -bill"
financing (also by Edison) due to the significant reductions in energy costs — and regular maintenance costs - that
LEDs bring.
• Balboa Village will soon get its new "entry arch" at Balboa Boulevard and Adams. This is a $260K project and looks
like this. Will entry arches become a "thing" in other villages? I could see this in Newport Shores, for instance
(kidding! 1).
• Council Member Duffield "called for review" of the Planning Commission's recent OK of a conditional use permit
(CUP) for the Newport Dunes, more specifically its special events. We'd been issuing the Dunes regular special
event permits event -by -event, each with its own fee and conditions, and both the Dunes and the City staff thought
that wasn't the best way of going about this. A master permit system that applied to all events might work
better. So the Planning Commission approved a process like that, and most folks thought it was pretty good. With a
few minor adjustments, i get the sense that all involved (Dunes, Dover Shores, more) are OK with it —thus the Gall-
up to make the adjustments at the Council level. But as I'm often told, what do I know?
Some notes for your calendars...
• 1 do have some current news here for those following the Banning Ranch Project's review by the California Coastal
Commission. The item was to be heard on Thursday, May 12th, here at the Newport Beach Civic Center as the
Commission comes to town for its 3 -day May meeting session. But this afternoon, the project proponents sent out
an e-mail asking the Commission for more time to review and respond to Commission staff's
comments. Proponents have the right and ability to ask for a postponement, so I would assume that this will be
granted. As such, it is unlikely that Banning Ranch will be discussed at all during this visit of the Commission. Which
makes for a very short day on Thursday for them. Their next meetings are in Santa Barbara (June) and San Diego
(July). Typically, the Commission's goal is to meet in a geographic area close to any controversial project's location,
so that interested parties can attend fairly easily.
• You've seen the signs. On Saturday, May 14, 2016 the community's nationally -recognized and award-winning
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Volunteers will conduct their 3`d annual multi -neighborhood
Emergency Preparedness Drill as part of FEMA's "America PrepareAthon" Event. Participating neighborhoods from
all over Newport Beach will set-up Neighborhood CERT Command Posts in accordance with FEMA/City of Newport
Beach activation procedures and protocols. CERT volunteers will display more signs around their respective
neighborhoods to indicate a simulated disaster incident. As they survey their neighborhoods and discover these
"incidents" they will respond according to their training and protocols, using search and rescue techniques, first
aid/CPR, HAM radio and telephonic communications, as well as utilizing their organizational skills to manage their
command post personnel and incoming information. CERT encourages you to visit any of the clearly marked CERT
Neighborhood Command Posts, and observe these dedicated volunteers in action. This is all very timely given the
recent news about The Big One on the San Andreas fault just waiting to happen. Gosh.
• Don't forget Mom. Sunday.
As always, thanks for reading. Feel free to forward this e-mail to family, friends and members of your HOA if you
represent one. I always like hearing from you, too, so please don't hesitate to ask a question or offer a comment.
Sincerely,
F]
14-45
Dave Kiff
City Manager
dkiff@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3001
City Council Meeting Information: The Newport Beach City Council meets on the 2nd and 4t" Tuesdays of most months
(the exceptions are August and December). Typically, there is a Study Session that starts at 4:00 p.m. Study sessions
are times for the Council to take a deeper look at a specific issue, or hear a presentation, that might eventually lead to a
specific and more formal action. A closed session often follows the Study Session. Closed sessions are typically to
address legal, personnel, and other matters where additional confidentiality is important. The Regular (evening)
Session typically starts at 7:00 p.m., and often has a specific listing of 20-40 different items ready for formal
votes. Items on the "Consent Calendar" are heard all at once, unless a Council member has removed (aka "pulled") an
item from the Consent Calendar for specific discussion and separate vote. If an item on the agenda is recommended to
be "continued", it means that the item won't be heard nor voted on that evening, but will be pushed forward to another
noticed meeting.
Public Comment is welcomed at both the Study Session and the Regular Session. The public can comment on any item
on the agenda. If you want to comment on a Consent Calendar item that was not pulled from the Consent Calendar by a
Council Member, you will want to do so at the time listed on the agenda — right before the Council votes on the entire
Consent Calendar (it's Roman Numeral XIII on the posted agenda). If an item is pulled, the Mayor will offer that
members of the public can comment as that specific item is heard separately. Additionally, there is a specific section of
Public Comment for items not on the agenda, but on a subject of some relationship to the city government. If you
cannot attend a meeting and/or want to communicate with the City Council directly, this e-mail gets to all of
them: CitVCouncil@newportbeachca.gov. Please know that I get a copy of that e-mail, too, because in almost all cases
it's something that the City Manager follows -up on. It's my head -start.
The Council meets in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, off of Avocado between San Miguel and East Coast
Highway. There is plenty of parking in the parking structure behind City Hall. You are always welcome to attend in
person, but you can also watch on TV (Channels 3/31) or on your computer.
This Insider's Guide is not an attempt to summarize every item on the Agenda —just the ones that seem of specific
interest to Dave. I encourage you to read the full agenda if you wish.
14-46
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item. No. 5
From: Copeland, Jamie
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 9:22 AM
To: Sinacori, Mike
Cc: Vukojevic, Mark; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW:
From: Stanton W. Davies, II [mailto:drdissoCcbpacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:33 AM
To: PW Info
Subject:
I am against the undergrounding!!!!!!!! Please use 60%requirement as in the past ...... thanx stan davies, II
14-47
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
afer Item No. 5
From: Webb, Dave (Public Works)
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 9:29 PM
To: Sinacori, Mike; Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fwd: May 10th City Council Agenda Item #5
FYI
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Mel Tubbs <surfwatchret c&gmail.com>
Date: 05/09/2016 7:36 PM (GMT -08:00)
To: "Webb, Dave (Public Works)" <DAWebb(cr�,newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: May 10th City Council Agenda Item #5
As a homeowner in our Newport Heights community for over 37 years, I am concerned that the rules
have changed for the petition support from 6o % to 54.21 % for the under grounding utilities
campaign. This change of strategy is not ethical and the homeowners that do not want under ground
utilities have not been given a fair account of what was initially expected. I respectfully request the
agenda item be removed off the Consent Calendar.
Mel & Sheila Tubbs
547 El Modena Ave.
Newport Beach
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Susan Kopicki <sckopicki@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:48 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Request: Remove Item #5 from Consent Calendar
Attachments: 114.lettermayl0.pdf
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Due By: Monday, May 09, 2016 9:20 PM
Flag Status: Flagged
City of Newport Beach Council Members:
This is to request that the City Council remove the Newport Heights district 114 Undergrounding assessment
issue from the Consent Calendar for the May 10, 2016 City Council meeting and consider it as a separate
agenda item. This is not a "routine" matter for two reasons. First, undergrounding has been a subject of
controversy in AD 114 for over a year and faces opposition by a large number of homeowners. Second, the City
Council is considering abandoning the established city policy requirement of 60% support for the petition.
Background
Over the past year and a half opponents have been in discussion with City staff about this issue. Most recently a
meeting at the Civic Center on May 3 included several opponents of undergrounding, Council Member Tony
Petros, Public Works Director Dave Webb, Deputy Director/City Engineer Mark Vukojevic and Assistant City
Engineer Michael Sinacori. The day before the meeting, we were notified by City staff that the AD 114 petition
had been received and certified by the City. At the meeting, opponents requested a copy of the petition which
had not yet been made public.
We asked Misters Webb, Vukojevic and Sinacori if opponents who may have been erroneously verified on the
petition could rescind their support prior to the City Council meeting on May 10. They all answered "yes," and
Mr. Sinacori instructed the opponents present to have the rescind requests be sent to City Clerk Leilani Brown.
When we received the proponents' petition later that day, we discovered 18 verified addresses that are
opponents who had been erroneously included in the petition. Some are homeowners who had originally
rescinded their signatures last summer, and received confirmations, ended up on the petition! Over the next two
days, we attempted to contact the 18 homeowners to inform them that they appeared on the petition as verified
supporters. We told them that Mr. Sinacori said that if they wanted to take their names off the petition, all they
needed to do was send an email to the city clerk, Leilani Brown. As of this writing we know that 15 of the 18
have sent or delivered emails/letters to the city clerk, and there may be more.
On Thursday, May 5, Ms. Adams telephoned the City Clerk's office for a list of rescission requests that had
been received. This information was not provided, and instead, Ms. Adams was referred to Mr. Sinacori. The
same day, Ms. Adams talked to Misters Sinacori and Vukojevic in separate phone calls and was told that any
rescission requests that have been received would now have to be examined by the Assessment Engineer and
that the results of that analysis would not be available until May 9 or possibly on Tuesday, May 10, as late as
14-49
only two hours before the council meeting. On May 6, the City St-aff-repor-t,for4he-meeti-g agenda was -
available online and the opponents discovered that the matter had been put on the Consent Calendar. The report
currently recommends that the City Council certify the petition at 54.21 % instead of its stated policy of more
than 60% support. Plus, the petition's percentage does not reflect the rescind requests received by the City since
May 3. These rescind requests will reduce support to below the state -mandated 50% threshold.
Then, Ms. Wilson contacted Mr. Webb to ask if the City staff planned to include the rescind requests in an
amended petition report. This is vital information because the rescind requests move support to below 50%.
City Council members must have complete information prior to the meeting. Mr. Webb said the petition was a
"snapshot in time" which the city could use as basis for its decision without recognizing any rescission requests.
He added that city staff might attach an amendment document reflecting rescissions that they decided to accept.
He would not guarantee this would happen.
Summary
Our goal is to make sure that all AD 114 homeowners' positions are fairly and accurately reflected in the
petition document that is given to the City Council. We have made a good -faith effort to represent information
provided to us by City staff accurately. We have, since our first meeting with City Staff, received and
distributed accurately the information provided for rescinding signatures from the petition. This is an important
issue and it deserves consideration on the merits of actual homeowner support rather than being waived through
with all the other consent items.
Susan Kopicki, 511 El Modena Ave.
Lynda Adams, 444 Aliso Ave.
Simone Wilson, 427 El Modena Ave.
14-50
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From:
Geri Ferguson <gferguson444@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 09, 2016 7:57 PM
To:
Webb, Dave (Public Works); Vukojevic, Mark; Sinacori, Mike; Brown, Leilani
Subject:
May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5
Follow Up Flag:
FollowUp
Due By:
Monday, May 09, 2016 9:20 PM
Flag Status:
Flagged
I request that my email is added to the correspondence about item #5 on May 10 city council agenda. I want the council
move item 5 off the consent calendar and give me an opportunity to speak to this matter at the May 10 meeting. Submit
the the rescind requests gathered in the past year. Those that rescinded were mislead by the proponents with your
consent. You've showed gross favoritism to the proponents by changing the rules and moving the bar to disadvantage
one side over the other without admitting your bias. You've made mistakes, miss statements and, in some cases,
outright lied to further your objective. I suspect someone is profiting from this path.
geri's phone is listening
1
14-51
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:30 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer, Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Undergrounding
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:30:05 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Undergrounding
For the record.
-----Original Message -----
From: Paulette Diamant [mailto:phenndi@roadrunner.com)
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: tomlubaker@hotmail.com
Subject: Undergrounding
This is Dr Thomas Diamant and Barbara Paulette Diamant on el Modena and we are insensed that Hefner and his band
of bandits have managed to try and move the 60% threshold to 54 % that was promised. This issue was already met with
NOs for Undergrounding. I crossed swords with Hefner some time ago that their bids were ridiculous and unfounded
and the people here don't want it. Pacific sands was assessed 8000 per household. What gives???
This is the heights and many of our residents are elderly and can ill afford any assessment. We own a very beautiful
home here and most properties have lines in alley. We won and now you moved the threshold again after we voted and
many people's names ended up on the yes list that voted no. I know Hefner had much to do with it taking advantage of
all the new building in recent year so the richer people would see his vision. The 60% threshold was the mark and must
stand or the city lawyer man Hefner will be looking at another lawsuit. The council needs to keep their promise to the
people and stand by the 60%.
We will not pay for aesthetics for others that are not the majority and why would we?? If those minority
Undergrounding proponents want it, then let them pay for it. This issue was voted on so please adhere to the majority
rules and the threshold needs to be adhered to as promised = 60%.
Thank You for listening to reason.
Barbara Paulette Diamant
Sent from my iPhone
1
14-52
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5 - Don't change the rules!
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:30:33 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Webb, Dave (Public Works); Vukojevic, Mark
Subject: FW: May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5 - Don't change the rules!
From: tnewman@restoremed.com [mailto:tnewman@restoremed.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:01 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5 - Don't change the rules!
Newport Beach City Council,
It is disturbing that requests from the public in which you serve to rescind their signature my go un
recognized by the city council. To my knowledge we still have procedures and processes that must
recognized by our public servants. As such I expect that you will be accepting all signatures that were
gathered under false information regarding the under grounding of our electrical wires.
In addition it is equally important to not change the rules for petitions lowering the required percentage
below 60%for AD114.
It is most important for our city leaders to watch out for petition process and the accuracy and type of
information that is being distributed regarding any effort to change policy or regulations.
This process has been flawed from the beginning and many of my neighbors who live month to month
would have to move rather than pay the additional costs associated with this change. They were here first
and have a right to live the rest of their days in the homes they built long before most wanted to make
this our home too. Let's have respect.
Thank you,
Tom Newman
400 EI Modena Ave.
Newport Beach
714.743.6663
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the
person or organization it is addressed to. All information should be considered / treated as confidential
and privileged unless you are notified in writing to the contrary from the sender. This confidential
14-53
information may not be shared by any means with another third party without written permission from the
sender. If this message was received in error, please notify the originator immediately and destroy all
copies. The sender accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from its use, including damage
from a virus.
14-54
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Rachelle Pryber-Tolmie <prybertolmie@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Brown, Leilani; citycouncil@newportbeacgca.gov
Subject: May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting.
My message to the City Council is:
1. Respect the rescind requests submitted to the City since April of last year through May 10th.
2. Require that the petition for AD114 meets the 60% threshold.
3. Take more responsibility for distributing accurate information and ensuring full disclosure throughout the petition
process to insure accurate results and fairness.
Gary Tolmie, 536 EI Modena Ave.
14-55
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Debbie Knost <debbieknost@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Against. Underground
We would love to have attended tonights meeting but like other important things to vote or have a say about regarding
Newport Beach. We the" Residents" are the last or not at all to be informed of major discussions or votes on our city .
Regarding the under grounding project the city did a very poor and misleading not very accurate accountability to all
of its residents that have a say in the matter.
Most residents are not even aware of the underground program I know we learned about it through word of mouth.
It seems now one more time our city is trying to pull another one over on us Changing the needed 60%to only 54.21%
Shame on all you that we voted to do the best for all of us not just some!
The underground is wrong !
To assume that even the poor can afford the cost no matter at what cost it is , is so so wrong. Even a small $ amount per
monthly or extra fee on property tax can be the difference for some homeowners Not everybody has funds to spurge
on cosmetic fixes for something that works just fine the way it is . If our wealthy residents or our city employees want
this so bad then they should step up to the plate and foot the bill for it We are very much against this project Stop it!!!!!
Jim and Debbie Knost
Sent from my Pad,
1
14-56
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Mary Beth Saucerman <mbsaucerman@roadrunner.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:23 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani
Subject: UNDERGROUND UTILTIES
Newport Beach City Council,
The city should maintain the required percentage for the petition for underground utilities to remain at 60%. My family
and I do not want underground utilites. My family has lived in the same home for 63 years. We would like this issue
resolved and progress to be made in refurbishing the neighborhood alleys as was originally planned.
Mary Beth Saucerman
416 Riverside Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949 546-1758
14-57
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: maxf1000@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:32 PM
To: Brown, Leilani; Dept - City Council
Subject: May 10 city council agenda item # 5
If underground utility measure passes, what's going to happen to all the people that are on fixed incomes? This will be a
huge financial burden to a lot of us in the Heights. Lived in Newport Beach since 1975 and have been in the same home
for 32 years. What's going to happen to the people that can't afford the additional expense in their property taxes? Will
we have to sell our houses? It's not fair! No underground utilities.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my Phone
14-58
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Jimmy Thomas <jtx12@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:45 PM
To: Brown, Leilani; Dept - City Council
Subject: May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5
own 407 Fullerton, and I am against the City certifying the petition with less than 60% approval, which is the
guideline.
Thanks.
14-59
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Mary Beth Saucerman <mbsaucerman@roadrunner.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:43 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Underground Utilities
Dear City Council,
We are writing to inform the current City Council members of the very contentious history of Newport Heights homeowners fight against
mandatory undergrounding of utilities and why the City Council must act to stop the indiscriminate and unending financial assault on our
residents.
Despite a prolonged and successful battle against undergrounding proponents culminating in withdrawal of the District 118 petition, the
City has allowed a single homeowner to initiate yet another pro-undergrounding petition by targeting a subset of us and calling it
AD114B. Not only is it a travesty that the very same homeowners are being targeted AGAIN after successfully defending themselves,
the pro-undergrounding petition has been allowed an additional 10 months to get to the 60% threshold required to proceed with a
formal ballot. And this despite District 114 having more than the 43% of signatures needed since July 2015!
It should be noted that when brought up publicly at a Council meeting within the last 15 months, the full Council voted to keep the
threshold at 60% - in an attempt to not waste City funds with expensive studies and ballots that have been defeated in the past.
First of all, the accounting. To defend ourselves in District 118, it cost $8268 in expenses (printing, signs, ads, mailings, etc.), $2570 in
donated services and materials, and hundreds of hours of many homeowners. There were 82 donors, with donations ranging from $1 to
$400. The result was — the petition for ADI 18 was withdrawn by its proponents. We saved ourselves collectively well over 10 million
dollars and much time and expense for the City. Why must we defend ourselves yet again, perhaps on an annual basis?
As suspected, the antiquated laws have enabled another assault on homeowners as evidenced by yet another (new) official petition
asking residents to pay for undergrounding in the alley between Riverside and Tustin, between Cliff and 15th St. This new petition is
targeting some of the exact same homeowners who have already shown that they are against paying for something that they neither
need nor want.
The 'new' district, ADI 1413, is a part of AD118 where we already gathered signatures of 45% of residents who were opposed as
recently as 10 months ago (by coincidence, 45% of this new subset is also opposed.) They have been tacked on to AD114, which has
been continually assaulted despite already having presented to the City more than the required 40% signatures against.
This is of concern to ALL Newport Heights homeowners because of the constant gerrymandering (sub 'District 11413% for example) and
hidden redistributing of boundaries without public awareness or discussion. And as before, undergrounding proponents are asking for
signatures without the complete disclosure of information required by law and without a neighborhood announcement or informational
meeting. Meanwhile, the promised alley improvements have failed to materialize despite the City's promise to absolutely begin this
renovation on July 1, 2015.
This travesty will unfortunately continue until we change the outdated laws (dating from 1913) by convincing our City Council to make
the needed changes (suggestions for an updated and more equitable process can be found on noundergrounding.com.)
What should be done by City Council? Update and clarify the antiquated undergrounding petition process.The 1913 law under which we
decide undergrounding issues is over 100 years old and predated widespread electrical, telephone, television, nuclear or solar power,
and Internet services. Specific suggestions for updating the process are available on nounderground ina.com .
It is nonsense to force homeowners to pay thousands of dollars (and it doesn't matter if it's $15,000 or $35,000) in addition to having
their lives disrupted, their homes torn apart, having to deal with hundreds of contractors to actually rewire their homes, paint, landscape
and perhaps have trenches dug on their property (at their own additional expense) and enforced by the threat of "foreclosure with no
notice of delinquency or grace period" (official petition wording) simply for someone else's idea of aesthetics.
It is unconscionable that the City is allowing this unending intrusive attack on its homeowners. Not only is the City Council blindly
following an outdated law, but they are even corrupting that antique process by not allowing names to be easily rescinded and
considering lowering their own agreed upon 60% threshold for a ballot.
Nothing even compares with the government intrusion that the continuation of this petition process represents. Even the largest bond
issue or the controversial 'dock tax' pales in comparison to the financial magnitude of this utility petition process simply for aesthetics.
Why are the'Less Government is More' Councilpersons permitting this to happen?
14-60
It's time for City Council to be proactive and stop allowing a few aesthetic activists to have unlimited time to continually assault
uninterested homeowners, who only want to be left in peace.
It is simply not fair to force others pay more than $20,000 (ironically, enough to pay for a sustainable solar installation and almost
eliminate our monthly Edison Electric bills) for the aesthetic whims of their neighbors.
Sincerely,
Luanne and Tom Baker
Harry Barton
Dennis Bean
Patricia Dawn Bush
Val and Tom Carson
Vance Collins
Betty Gail Demmer
Jeanne Hobbs
Patricia Jorgensen
Bonnie and Tony Lange
Lynn Lorenz
Melody and James McCullough
Lorelei Miller
Joan Rinas
Sally Roberts
Vicki and Don Ronaldson
Mary Beth Saucerman
Carolyn Slayback
Joan Smith
William Stephen Smith
John and Joanne Snelgrove
Charles and Corinne Spence
Portia and Richard Weiss
Nova and Stephen Wheeler
James E. Young
14-61
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Robert Edmonston <redmonston@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani
Subject: May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5
Dear City of Newport Beach and the City Council,
We respectfully ask that you adhere to the 60% threshold that you set for the under -
grounding petition in our area of Newport Heights. We were previously told that 60% must sign the
petition or it would not be considered. To change the rules to benefit the proponents is very
inappropriate and not fair to the citizens.
Much of the information that has been sent out regarding the Under -grounding project by the city and
proponents as well as the door to door solicitation in favor has been very misleading and has led to
much confusion... most clearly, some residents because of the lack of clarity and who are opposed to
the under -grounding mistakenly signed the petition. You have been asked to remove these
signatures. Why has this not been done prior to today?
Many of us have lived in Newport Heights for over 30 years as well as most of our lives. We bought
homes here knowing that the lines were above ground. Had that bothered us we would have never
purchased a home in this neighborhood. 30 years ago most of the homes were within a reasonable
size. any of us have had the large 5,000 sq. ft. plus homes built next door or behind us and have
lost most of our privacy with these homes looking down into our backyards and windows. We have
already given up a lot without a choice. To now be pressured into this expensive proposition where it
will adversely affect so many financially is not good for the morale of the neighborhood, the city or the
person who is just trying to survive on a fixed or limited income. Our neighborhood is unique and very
special. It was never intended to be like many of the other neighborhoods in Newport each. any
will be forced to sell their homes as they will not be able to afford this expense. Many of us are still
trying to get out of the recession in addition to recovering from the expense of sending our children to
college, trying to help parents financially, planning for retirement without being a financial burden on
our children. Needless to say this under -grounding proposition is coming at a very difficult time for
many financially. Is this really what the city wants to do to many of its citizens - create more hardship
and burdens???? Is this what you want your legacy to be .... causing families to be uprooted??? Is
that really worth it?
Today we were made aware that years ago when potential buyers purchased in this neighborhood
that if under -grounding were ever to happen the City would pay for it. So once again more misleading
information.
Please carefully consider how you handle this situation.
We are asking the City to:
1 ) Respect the rescind requests submitted to the City since April of last year through May 10.
2) Require that the petition for AD1 14 meets the 60% threshold.
14-62
3) Take more responsibility for distributing accurate information and ensuring full disclosure
throughout 'the petition process to ensure accurate results and fairness.
Thank you for your consideration, integrity and loyalty.
�** I•1Wllllzrq
Mfflffff•�M
14-63
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10.2016
Item No. 5
From: Jeffrey Simonds ^p/monds@naicaoita|znm>
Sent: Tuesday, May I0'20I64:28PM
To: Bruwn, Lei|ani; Dept City Council
Subject: May 10 City Council Agenda Item #5
Ladies and Gentlemen: please be sure that my name, Jeffrey Simonds, owner of 440 Aliso Ave. is entered as against the
bonding for undergrounding of utilities in our Heights alleys.
|naddition, please City Council see that you:
1> Respect the rescind requests submitted huthe City since April nflast year through May 10.
2> Require that the petition for AD114meets the 0096threshold.
3> Take more responsibility for distributing accurate information and ensuring full disclosure to property owners
throughout the petition process toensure accurate results and fairness.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeffrey Simonds
Senior Vice President
BRE License 00426710
NAI Capital
1020Main Street, Suite 10O
Irvine, CA82014
naioopitaionm
(949)4O8-2392Direct
(948)854-660OMain
(948)054-7378Fax
PoAlcapital
GA DRE #00806&40
----~~
0���0�0�� ���0 Q���� Southern California
'
sk"Ma�m����� 0���������J��| �L��Q *�����~*m����� °�|�m�m������a
ALL PARTIES UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BROKER IS NOT QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE, AND HAS NOT BEEN] CONTRACTED TO PROVIDE, LEGAL,
nwxwomL ORTAX ADVICE, wmmTHArANY SLR, wAovCsMVST,?" E' EoFmJIN',.1pxnrES' ATI-OnwEY, ACCOVmT -ANT
p�OpESS|OwAL. ifthis email i»with regards matransaction, information and/or opinions expressed herein have been provided uvaprincipal orprincipals mthe
transaction, their representative orenmsentauveno,omerm*unartynoums. No the accuracy o,completeness mthe information and/or opinions o,
capability mthe individual providing such information and/or opinions /nintended. Such information and/or opinions should be independently investigated and evaluated and
may not uuabasis for liability mNAI Capital, Inc. o,its agents.
Y4-64
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: harrybarton@me.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 6:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani
Subject: Enough with the under grounding in the Heights. We have spoken.
Do you think it wise for the council to waste precious time and resources over and over ? We all voted last year and the
required 60% was not met. Now you want to wave a wand and make it 50%. 1 don't think so.
procedure requires that any action of a deliberative assembly that may alter the rights of a minority has a supermajority
requirement, such as a two-thirds vote.
absence or an abstention from voting is equivalent to a "no" vote
Harry Barton
HarryBarton@me.com
949.290.9596 M
949.200.9636 H
434 Santa Ana Avenue
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
1
14-65
May 11, 2016
Dear Newport Beach City Council Members,
RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED
ITEM NO.
IRATE
We would like to go on record as being not in favor of the undergrounding proposal
as put forth recently. Our first objection is the way the proponents presented the
initial proposal as fact finding. 1 returned that card only to find out that in doing so,1
was included in the "for undergrounding" group. That was never my intention.
Second, I find it disturbing that there wasn't any clear communication by the city as
to the scope of the proposals, in a non -biased manner. It was only after we met with
Mr. Petros and the city staff, on May 3, did we have a clearer understanding of how
the process was to unfold. Clearly this was too late to educate those that didn't
understand the proposal and gain their support. Finally, again late in the process, to
find out that any property owner could create his own assessment district as was
created with 114B.
We do hope that the city council does not approve the proposal tonight.
Sincerely
Diane & Steve Byers
535 Tustin Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
14-66
To: Riverside, Tustin Homeowners
From: Carrie Slayback, Riverside Ave,
Perhaps you have spoken to Mr. Niall Barrett, circulating a petition
regarding underground utilities in the Riverside/Tustin alley between
15th St. and Cliff,
1. The ultimate price is not determined.
In a conversation at my door, Mr. Barrett first quoted approximately
$23,000, but later gave me a range of $23,000 to $35,000 in an
estimate he received from a contractor,
2. If underground utilities are voted in, EVERY HOMEOWNER is
OBLIGAT ED to pay an as yet undetermined amount.
Homeowners pay for the undergrounding, and if not already existent on your
property, an P ecfric hook-ue between home and alley and possibly a now
ele-ctdo alb
Note: Homeowners can finance the cost of the undercgrounding, added to
property tax at 5-6% over 20 years.
Cost of hook-up/box is due to contractor upon installation.
3. The vote for underground utilities, needonly to be 50% of rates
counted.
That means homeowners who do not monitor the voting process
carefully, will miss the Date. Look for envelope with city seat..
Prgponents simply need to make su e_ homaeowners in favor cgst their
voles,
4. If you do not want underground utilities, it's best not to sign a
petition or card. It is my understanding that signing the petition/card
puts in action a bidding/voting process, after which under grounding
momentum is hard to stop.
If rou have silted it and wi hhtta res -bind fur signat,uregaJiMotly or
callth�dert office an int upon a confianat'�t�.
NOTE: Statements above discussed with Mark `v'ukojevic, Deputy Public Works
Director, city of Newport Beach. Contact made with Councllman Tony Petros.
14-67
November 13, 2014
Ace Thayer
426 Tustin Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92563-4819
RE: Proposed Underground Utility Assessment District No. 114
426 Tustin Ave. Newport Beach
Dear Ace Thayer:
The city of Newport Beach is planning to replace the asphalt alleys in Newport Heights with
concrete and we now have the opportunity for our utilities service be relocated underground. We
have created a website www.voitco.com/ftp/Underground Utility Assessment.pdf which includes
the proposal from the city of !Newport Beach to create a special assessment district (District #114)
for the cost of installing underground utilities in the area bordering 15th Street and Cliff Drive, and
Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue in Newport Heights.
Similar assessment districts have been approved by the residents on the Balboa Peninsula, West
Newport Beach, Newport Shores and Bayshores. Those utilities were relocated underground prior
to the installation of concrete alley ways. The end result is a much more aesthetically pleasing
community without the unsightly obstructions of above ground utility poles and power lines.
Per the attached letter from to the city of Newport Beach, the relocation of these utilities will cost
an estimated $23,000 for each parcel which can be paid as a lump sum or as added to your annual
property tax bill and repaid over time, This cost does not include modifying or replacing your
existing meter service, if necessary, to accommodate an underground utility feed or providing
electrical conduit to the alleyway in order to accommodate the underground utilities.
According to Michael Sinacori, assistant city engineer for the city of Newport Beach, the cost of
upgrading meter services typically range between $3,000 - $5,000.00 per home. Although costly,
these improvements will significantly enhance the appearance to our community and ultimately
increase our property values.
The city of Newport Beach will be hosting a community outreach Wednesday, November 191,
2014 at 6:30 p.m. in the multipurpose room at Newport Heights Elementary, which will provide an
excellent opportunity to ask questions about the project.
This may be our only opportunity to underground our utilities for many years to come and we
need support from 60% of the property owners in order to move forward with this proposal. If
you support the project, you can also print the petition form from the website and return a signed,
notarized copy to 422 Fullerton Avenue, Newport Beach. Alternatively, you may contact any of us
to make other arrangements.
We are all Newport Heights residents and strongly support this project. Please feel free to contact
any of us at the phone numbers provided below with any questions,
Sincerely,
Michael A, Hefner
David Fults
Scott Albrecht
Matt Montgomery
(714) 227-3750
(32.3) 791-0038
(949) 263-0004
(949) 933-6977
mhefnerRvoitco.com
dfults[dvoitco.com
salbrecht@sgsattorneys,com
mmt)marshalillc.com
Michael A. Hefner
422 Fullerton Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92653
December 5, 2014
RE: Underground Utilities - Special Assessment District #114
Gear Friends and Neighbors,
Thank you for your support of the proposed Assessment District #114. The response
from the community outreach meeting on November 19"1 was very positive and we
collected a significant number of signed petitions at that time. There is still a lot of work
ahead of us and we need your assistance. We need to provide signatures from at least
60% of the residents in the proposed assessment area for the city to initiate the process
for designing the project with Southern California Edison and determine the final cost of
the p roject.
The preliminary estimates from the city approximates the cost $23,000 per parcel.
Based on the information discussed in Wednesday night's meeting, $3,000 of this cost
will be absorbed by the city as the city has already budgeted for the cost of rep#acing
our alleys with concrete. Each owner can elect to further discount this cost by a single
lump sum payment which can result in as much as a 20% discount.
By signing the petition enclosed, you are simply expressing your interest in further
evaluating the cost of project. Upon receipt of signed petitions from 6011/0 of the property
owners, the city council will authorize expenditure of the monies required to engineer
and bid the scope of work for the proposed district. Once final costs are determined,
each resident will have the opportunity to vote in favor or against the project. A majority
vote will determine the outcome of the proposed assessment district.
If you have already signed the petition, we still need your support and ask that you
consider assisting as a "block captain" and solicit the signature of your neighbors. if you
have returned the response card but not signed the petition, please sign the attached
petition and deliver via e-mail to rnhefner00voitco.com or mail to my home address at
42.2 Fullerton Avenue, Newport Beach, to 92663.
Again, your support is appreciated and greatly needed as this is a resident driven
process. This is ars exciting opportunity for us to significantly enhance the aesthetics our
neighborhood and property value.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Michael A. H ner
mhefnerr-dvoitco.co -n
714-227-3760
cc: Scott Albrecht 949-263-004 sal brechtC-snsgUgrneys.ccm
David Fults 323-791-0038 dfults�voitco.com
Matt Montgomery 949-933-6977 MM0i marshy Illc,com
14-69
February 5, 2015
Rt Proposed Underground Utility Assessment District No. 114
426 Tustin Ave, Newport Beach
Dear Neighbor:
As you may know, the city of Newport Beach is planning to replace the asphalt alleys in Newport
Heights with concrete and we now have the unique opportunity for our utilities service be relocated
underground in conjunction. Enclosed for your review is the proposal from the city of Newport
Beach to create a special assessment district (District #114) for the cost of installing underground
utilities in the area bordering 15t� Street and Cliff Drive, and Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue in
Newport Heights.
Similar assessment districts have been approved by the residents on the Balboa Peninsula, West
Newport Beach, Newport Shores and Bayshores. Those utilities were relocated underground along
with the installation of concrete alleyways. The end result is a much more aesthetically pleasing
community without the unsightly obstructions of above ground utility poles and power lines.
Per the attached letter from to the city of Newport Beach, the relocation of these utilities is
estimated at $23,000 for each parcel and this cost can be paid as a lump sum or as added to your
annual property tax bill and repaid over time. This cost does not include modifying or replacing
your existing meter service, if necessary, to accommodate an underground utility feed or providing
electrical conduit to the alleyway in order to accommodate the underground utilities.
According to Michael Sinacori, assistant city engineer for the city of Newport Beach, the cost of
upgrading meter services typically range between $3,000 - $5,000.00 per home. Although costly,
these improvements will significantly enhance the appearance to our community and ultimately
increase our property values.
The city of Newport Beach hosted a community outreach on Wednesday, November 19,11, 2014
and the response from our community was overwhelmingly positive. Thus far we have collected a
significant number of signed petitions, but need additional support to advance the project.
By signing the enclosed petition, you are expressing your interest in further evaluating the cost of
the project. Upon receipt of signed petitions from 60% of the property owners, the city council
will authorize expenditure of the monies required to engineer and bid the scope of work for the
proposed district. Once final costs are determined, each resident will have the opportunity to vote
in favor or against the project. The majority vote will determine the outcome of the proposal
assessment district. If you support, further evaluation of the proposed assessment is enclosed.
Please sign the enclosed petition and mail and/or deliver to my home address at 422 Fullerton
Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663.
We are all Newport Heights residents and strongly support this project, Please feel free to contact
any of us at the phone numbers provided below with any questions.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Hefner David Fults Scott Albrecht Matt Montgomery
(714) 227-3760 (323) 791-0038 (949) 263-0004 (949) 933-6977
mhefnerCJ voitca.com dfults�*avoitco.cvm lbrecht sgsattorneys.com mm rararshallllc.com
14-70
Michael Hefner
From
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Michael Hefner
Friday, December 5, 2014 10:59 AM
'bibbetson @unionpg.corn'; 'david.clark@warrningtongroup.com';
Irank_pappano@gmail.coin'; 'mark@the- carver-group.com'; 'chipstassef@gmail.com';
'nini.rezai@ gmail.com'; 'robe rt.koury@verizon.net'; 'dfriedman rzwundernet.com';
"jfcarlson@road runner.com; 'lacookson@roadrunner_com'; 'kathykenya@yahoo.com';
'sowerssandra@aol.com'; 'dalelenk@sbcglobal.net'; 'gordondjones@aol.com
'causemarketing@yahoo.com'; 'parvizmd@hotmail.com'; `phenndi@roadrunner.com';
Ioldnewport@gmail_com'; 'claudegsoliste.com'; 'david.bahnsen@ms.com'; 'dhoglel
@pacbell.net'; 'dean@deanhayward.com'; 'gpliarden@gmail.com';
ferry@jerrydwallace.coin'; 'salshea55S@gmail.com'; 'ttaillon@ajfaithproperties.corn';
'janet@33nb.com'; 'lpirro777@gmail.com'; 'danielletokarz@icloud.com';
'Ibubb@yahoo.com'; 'david.ballardelectric@gmail.com; 'sharonray9@roadrunner.com';
'gordondjones@aol.com'; 'sknight232@hotmail.com'; 'sainmello@grnail.cam';
'shelly@bickett.net', 'fagenlawyers@aol.com'
David Fults; Matt Montgomery; Scott Albrecht (salbrecht@sgsattorneys.corn)
Underground Utilities Special Assessment district #114
Underground Utility Assessment.pdf
Thank you for your support of the proposed Assessment District #114. The response from the community outreach
meeting on November 19''' was very positive and we collected a significant number of signed petitions at that time. There
is still a lot of work ahead of us and we need your assistance. We need to provide signatures from at least 60% of the
residents in the proposed assessment area for the city to initiate the process for designing the project with Southern
California Edison and determine the final cost of the project.
The preliminary estimates from the city approximates the cost $23,000 per parcel. Based an the information discussed in
Wednesday night's meeting, $3,000 of this cost will be absorbed by the city as the city has already budgeted for the cost
of replacing our alleys with concrete. Each owner can elect to further discount this cost by a single lump sum payment
which can result in as much as a 20% discount.
By signing the petition attached, you are simply expressing your interest in further evaluating the cost of project. Upon
receipt of signed petitions from 60% of the property owners, the city council will authorize expenditure of the monies
required to engineer and bid the scope of work for the proposed district. Once final costs are determined, each resident
will have the opportunity to vote in favor or against the project. A majority vote will determine the outcome of the
proposed assessment district.
If you have already signed the petition, we still need your support and ask that you consider assisting as a "block captain"
and solicit the signature of your neighbors. If you have returned the response card but not signed the petition, please sign
the attached petition and deliver via e-mail to mhefner@voitco.com or mail to my home address at 422 Fullerton Avenue,
Newport Beach, CA 92663.
Again, your support is appreciated and greatly needed as this is a resident driven process. This is an exciting opportunity
for us to significantly enhance the aesthetics our neighborhood and property value..
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
14-71
Michael A. Hefner, SiOR y Executive Vice President
Voit Real Estate Services
2400 E. Katella Ave., Ste. 750 1 Anaheim, CA 92806
T (714) 935.231 1 F (714) 978,8328 1 C (714) 227-3750
mhefner4voitco.corn F www.HefnerTeam.com
Real Estate Broker, CA Bur of Real Estate License #00857352
www.yoitco.com
Click Here tot V -Card
14-72
June 27, 2014
Micf7aef Hefner
422 Fullerton Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Da-vid — Wc--bb_ Public 1l',- .1�5 f)irecte
Subject: Proposed Underground Utility Assessment District No. 114
Clear Mr. Hefner,
Thank you for your inquiry in farming an Underground Utility Assessment Distnct in your
neighborhood. This is in response to your May 06, 2013 initiation of Proceedings letter.
Enclosed is a petition package for the proposed Underground Utility Assessment District
Number 114. Included with the package are the instructions. Petition for Special Assessments
Proceedings with three sets of petitions, a Certificate of Pet r, Circulation, and 'Exhibit 1.
The petitions need to be circulated in accordance to the enclosed instructions and must be
executed by the legal owner of the property (his or her name should appear on the Assessor's
Tax Roil). If in doubt, please have the property owner provide proof of ownership, If the
property is under a trust, ,please have the trustee write 'Trustee` on the pefton. Afl 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 Circulation In Lieu of Notarized Signatures". The petitions may be duplicated as
needed.
Please note that in order to advance the proposed undergrounding district, the petitions must be
signed by property owners representing more than 60 percent in area of the property subject to
assessment, Exhibil 1 shows the general boundaries for ft proposed district which are 15`r'
St., Irvine Ave., Cliff Dr., and Tustin Ave. The estimated cost per parr:€ to underground existing
overhead utilities is $23,000 per parcel.
After the petitions have been signed by property Owners representing more than 60% of the
assessable area of land, please return the petitions to my attention. If you have any questions
or concerns, I can be reached vla phone at 949-64-4-3342 or email
msinaconignewportbeac:hca.cov
Sincerely,
r� x A
Michael 3. Siri`acori. P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
Enclosures
t0C Civic Center Drive * Fo3t Office Be); t068 * Nevv Beach, California 925C0 ;f'.iJ flex 92E58 8st:;
I elephcm- i9049 544-1-330 * F7aN.- (949;,644-2308 a wvvw-neww ort@e chtia_gpv`
C:J.ds�asiabc*�1ey1,A�p�faraV.acs:�,A�crasa"[tltrlErcicrvS;Tamperary Entar�er FikaalC�snteri.iE5E4�r'ig9'ifi,'�-"7C t_atse+ rt Resa�ns�
24 t G-Qn:T7.dciek
14-73
Otility Underground Assessmem District No. 114
L�tLli�•���i��Lil
l fTIUTY UNDERGROT ND UTILITY ASSESSN E1, -r DISMCT NU. 114
INSTRUCT ONS
PE'3TI ON SIGNATURES
The petition must be signed by property owners representing more than 60% in area of the property
subject to assessment. To assure support for the proposed a rssnent district, the petition should also
be signed by 60% of the owners based on the amount of their assessments. The signarares shall be by
owners of assessable acreage. "Owner" means only:
a person who, at the time the petition is filed ..., appears to be the owner upon the
assessors roll or, in the case of ttansfers of land, or puts thereof, subsequent to the
date upon which the last assessor's roll was prepared, appearf sj to be the owner on the
records in the county assessor's office which the county assessor will use to prepare
the next assessoz's roll. If any person signing the petition appears ... as a joint tenant
or truant-in-cornnaon, or as a husband and wife, that property shall be counted as if
those persons .had signed the petition.
If the parson sign ag, the Petitiondoes not appear to be the owner as shown on the records of the
Cournty Assessor, evidence should be subadtted to support the ownership. If the person, is signing on
behalf of a corporation, etc., docuraenta6o' n should be presented to show that the person sign i=& the..
Petition Inas the authority to do so.
Please note that the Petition shosid inciude the following information:
I. Property owner'!; name printed;
Z. Signature of property owner-,
3. Address;
4 Legal deseription or County Assessoes parcel number;
Lute of signature.
14-74
Utility underground AssessmPrrt District No. 114
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
THIS DAYOF 201
LE1LA`-I BROWN, CITY CLERK
CI'T'Y OF NEWPORT REACH
PROPOSED AS5ESSM-E, DISTRICT NO. 114
UTILITY I.iNDERCROUN ING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PETITION FOR SPECL-iL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING'S
TO TRB CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVVP0RT BEACH:
I. We, the undersigned, are the owners of one or more of the parcels of property
located within the boundary shown on the exhibit map attached hereto as Exh bit i� all ofwtuch
property is situated within the City of Newport Beach (the "City").
2. 'Ms petition is submitted to you pursuant to Sections 28G4. 5896.5 and 5896,6 of
the California Streets and Highways Cade to request that you initiate and conduct special
assessment proceedings pursuant to the Mi ucicipaI improvement Act of 1913 (Sections 1GG00
and fa owing, Streets and Highways Code) (the "1913 Act"j to establish arca assessment disrrict,
to be knuwn as the "Assessment District No. 114" {the "Assessment District 1, for the purpose of
financing a project for the vnderg;ounding of existing overhead utility fac+Mies wt.hin the
Assessmeen: District (the "Traject"), as follows:
a. relocation of existing electricity, telephone and able television iao lities
from their present above -ground lucation.s to locations undergrotmd, including the
removal of existing utility poles and overhead wires;
3. We have been advised that the present best estimate of the cost and expense of the
Project and bond financing and therefore the total amount to be assessed to the parcels in this
Assessment District is approximately $23,400. We are aware that this amount is subject to
modification (increase or decrease) dluing, the course of the legal proceedings. We are also
aware that these costa do NOT include tate costs of connecting the structures on our property to
the newly undergrounded facilities, which costs will vary from parcel to parcel and will be an
additional cast to each property owner.
4, We acknowledge each of the following:
& THAT the cost of the Project will be charged to the parcels in the
.Assessment District to proportion to benefit, as determined by you following a public
Bearing;
14-75
tlt llty Underground Asssessmem District No. 114
b. THAT a report will be prepared and filed on the Prgject and the
Assessment District, including a detailed cost estimate and a proposed allocation among
the benefited parceis of the portion of the costs representing special benefit on the basis
of proportionality to the estimated special benefit z each parcel, and that you will
conduct a public hearing on the report and will conduct the assessment ballot procedure
required by Article XI111) of'the 0dif6mia Constitution;
C, THAT the cost of engineering, legal and other incidental and financing
ws'fs will be included in the amounts beim; assessed against the property in the
Assessment District., and that the cast of connecting our structure to the newly
-6andergrounded facilities will not be included in the assessment;
d< TliAT, assuan ng assessments are levied and recorded as requested by this
petition, we wild .have 30 days following the recording of assessments to pay our
assessment in cash, at a discount and without interest; that, apon expiration of the 30 -day
cash payment period, you will take the required steps to authorize and sell limited
obligation improvement bonds udder the Improvement Band Act of 1915 (Section 8500
and following, Streets and Highways Code) in the amount of the unpaid assc-ssments; dMt
if we do not pre -pay our assessment in cash., at will bezome payable over a period of
years, with interest and armua.l admiriisttrative Costs added; amd that the deteranination
respecting the period of years and the interest nate or rates to be established by the bond
sale;
C. THAT, if we do not pre -pay our assessments, annual installments of
principal, interest and administrative costs will be colected on the propt7ty tax roll; that
such installments will be subject to the same late charges and penalties as for property
taxes if we do not pay such installments by the annual December 1p and April eta
deadlines; and that, our parcel is subject to foreclosure (nen notice of delinquency or grace
period) if we do not pay by said annual deadlines; and
£ THAT, pursuant to provisions of Article ?UE D of the C-difomia
Constitution, protests to the proceedings will be counted solely upon the amount
proposed to be assessed to the property for which a protest assessm"t ballot is
submitted, as said proposed assessaneri amount is set forth in the engineer's report
(which will NOT include the cos-, of underg7rounding our individual service connection
work, on our parcel).
5. We waive investigation proceedings and all aider provisions of Division Q, Streets
and HighNvays Cade, as provided in Section 2804 of that Code.
14-76
BOLMDARY OF.
4-45 446
441l!-1-42-
24MLU 444
441 -440
2301 -2207
443 .442
2201
443
438
439
4,37 48
-42-
PROPOSED
43R
—
i3i 41
4,35- _430
0-6
4s� 432
435
430'
ASSESSIKENT
431 4,30
431; 43Q
1
431
426
427 426
425 426
427' 426
DISTRICT
540
P47
50 j 1
__.547_
5"
2301�'
546
549
1542-
543
542
543-
'542
5431
"2
5451
538 - i
537
536
530
:5W
5319,
538
i
-"Sl�
514-
535
534-
535
:534
!po;
532
533,
1530
931
5.30
531
530
531
530
11
524 4152-5
520
525
525
525
526
527
520
521
522
523,
-522
521
442
521'1
.51-6 ,
51q
518
519
,518
519
.518—
519 I
512 -4,515
514515
-.51
515,
.512
5151
510
511
510
511
510
511
510
511
504- .505
504
507
5m
554
5051
500
50i
SC10
501
2320
.505
501-
500
2200'
CLAY
ST
4+4
442
_A_
4-45 446
441l!-1-42-
24MLU 444
441 -440
2301 -2207
443 .442
2201
443
438
439
4,37 48
-42-
4-39 4M
—
43R
—
i3i 41
4,35- _430
0-6
4s� 432
435
430'
11438
431
431 4,30
431; 43Q
1
431
426
427 426
425 426
427' 426
427
4:a
4. 4�n
!�23 422
23 422
423
417
-415
4`18
419
418
414
415
414
il 0_
41}
.410
410
—407
icA
487_
-40.4
401
.
.400
417
-415
416
419
418
414
415
412.
--41.11
410-1,
411
410
—407
406 -
487_
-40.4
401
.
_ 400
401
I -
_—'
400-
ST
251 323 328 329 328 327
319 3 3
315 U-0 24 25 324 325
321 320 32J
316 347
316 .317
ti
31 1310
- -4 3
C3 nti qq- cq CA N 14 CINQ N C11
CUFF DR
328
324
320
312
PROPOSED ABSUSMM WSTRICT NO, 114
AREA BOUNDARY BY 15TH ST, IRVINE AYE, CUFF DR AND TUSTIN AVE
0 POLES TO BE R€ MOVED
Cl POLES TO BE REMAIN
OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED
OVERHEAD LINES TO REMAIN
GUY WIRE
419,
411.
4q!i Ilei
4011 -
329
325
3191
:517
313,
7 --
04 N 04
OF
DISTANCE-, 9,750 Lr- N.T.S.
PARCELS: 249
05/18114
14-77
Ut'llty Underground Assessment District No. 114
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT
THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AS IDENTIFIED BELOW.
LEGAL 'DESCRIPTION OR ASSESSOR'S NO.:
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY.
OWNER'S SIGNATURE:
OWNERS NAME (PRINTED
DATE -
OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR ASSESSOR'S NO.
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
OWNER'S SIGNATURE:
OWNERS NAME (PRINTED):
DATE:
OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT):
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR ASSESSOR'S NO.:
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
OWNERS SIG,NIA'
OWNERS NAME (PRINTED):
DA
OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT):
14-78
Utility Underground Assessment 0�stdct No. 114
CERTIFICATE OF PETITION CIRCULATION
IN LIEU OF NOTARIZED SIGNATURES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
I circulated the petition accompanying this affidavit within the territory shown on the
attached petition for UTILITY UNDERGROUND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 914.
The persons whose signatures appear on said petition are, to the best of my
knowledge, owners of property within the boundary of the district proposed to be
formed. Each and all of said persons signed said petition in my presence.
I HEREBY DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE
AND CORRECT.
Executed this day of , 2t]9�, at Newport Beach, Caf;for;�ia.
Print Name:
14-79