HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 - Request for Petition Certification and Funding for Proposed Underground Assessment District No. 124 (Central Balboa Island) - CorrespondenceMulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, March 01, 202110:45 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: I apologize
Attachments: MISINFORMATION ON COST.docx; THUMB ON SCALE.pdf
From: Jamshed Dastur
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 10:44:49 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill,
William
Subject: I apologize
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe
Mayor Avery and Council Members:
The trailing email was sent to you on February 22 based on the data available to me from the City's
web site at that moment in time. The attachment "Thumb on Scale" reflected the information available
to me, at that time. After the meeting on February 23, 1 was able to access the City's spread sheet
showing the "yes" and "no" votes. I learned then, that calculations for determining the percentage of
"yes" votes did not include the Fire Station, which is a City owned property. I apologize for having
alleged otherwise. I had no intention of misleading anyone. My assertion was based on incomplete
information and I stand corrected.
Sincerely,
Jamshed Dastur
Balboa Island
949-673-4078
-----Original Message -----
From: Jamshed Dastur <jhdastur@aol.com>
To: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov <cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: ddixon@newportbeachca.gov <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; bavery@newportbeachca.gov
<bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; dduffield@newportbeachca.gov <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>;
kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; nblom@newportbeachca.gov
<nblom@newportbeachca.gov>; joy@newportbeachca.gov <joy@newportbeachca.gov>; woneill@newportbeachca.gov
<woneil I@newportbeachca. gov>
Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2021 1:27 pm
Subject: Item 6, Council Meeting on Feb 23 at 5:30 PM
Mayor Avery and City Council Members:
I am addressing this to you in my personal capacity and not as an active participant in the
Underground Opposing Group. My issue is with the City staff, who have taken upon themselves the
role of "Aggressive Advocates to Underground Utilities" by putting their thumb on the scale to make it
happen. Although I oppose the formation of District AD -124, I am willing to live with an outcome
based on a fair and honest process. The process used to date is far from that and I will give you a few
of examples to support that contention.
1. The process requires the City to provide its best estimate of cost - lump sum or monthly bond
payment. The City has provided an average cost of $29,900 per property, but has not provided its
estimate of bond cost. However, the City gives support to the proponents estimate of $150 a month,
which is based on an interest rate of 2%. Please review attachment titled "Misinformation on Cost"
which would add thousands of additional dollars in interest cost for a rate higher than 2%. The City's
position is that it is difficult to project future bond costs and so it has not done so. I leave it to your
judgement as to whether 2% is an honest estimate of bond rate - today or in the future. I am unable to
find out what input has been given by the City's Bond Counsel on this issue.
2. Please refer to attachment titled "Thumb on the Scale". In the past, it has been the City's position
to stay neutral on issues of Assessment Districts. However, staff has gone out of its way to change
this past practice to aid and abet in the formation of AD -124.
3. City staff has supported the proponent's notion that a support for AD -124 is akin to a "straw vote"
with no downstream financial impact whatsoever for property owners. There have been instances of
older property owners being intimidated/shamed into signing on the basis that they can vote no in the
second round of voting, since this is only a "straw vote".
There are numerous other ways in which City staff has become an extension of proponents of AD -
124 rather than honest arbiters who should be working with and assisting both parties to this issue. I
understand that the goal of the process is to assure the City that there is a reasonable certainty that a
majority of the property owners of a proposed District are in favor of going ahead before the City
commits to spending taxpayer money (in this case $135,000). This goal is thwarted by drumming up
votes through high pressure sales pitches, sugar-coating the down side, misinformation and
intimidation.
entreat you to press the pause button and take time to assure yourself that the proposed
expenditure of $135,000 is based on an honest assessment of the wishes of 60% of the property
owners. Otherwise, $135,000 of taxpayer money will be wasted again - as happened in 2009.
Respectfully'
Jamshed H. Dastur
Balboa Island
949-673-4078
z
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, February 22, 20211:28 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Item 6, Council Meeting on Feb 23 at 5:30 PM
Attachments: MISINFORMATION ON COST.docx; THUMB ON SCALE.pdf
From: Jamshed Dastur
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 1:27:49 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov; Blom, Noah; Brenner,
Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Item 6, Council Meeting on Feb 23 at 5:30 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Avery and City Council Members:
I am addressing this to you in my personal capacity and not as an active participant in the
Underground Opposing Group. My issue is with the City staff, who have taken upon themselves the
role of "Aggressive Advocates to Underground Utilities" by putting their thumb on the scale to make it
happen. Although I oppose the formation of District AD -124, 1 am willing to live with an outcome
based on a fair and honest process. The process used to date is far from that and I will give you a few
of examples to support that contention.
1. The process requires the City to provide its best estimate of cost - lump sum or monthly bond
payment. The City has provided an average cost of $29,900 per property, but has not provided its
estimate of bond cost. However, the City gives support to the proponents estimate of $150 a month,
which is based on an interest rate of 2%. Please review attachment titled "Misinformation on Cost"
which would add thousands of additional dollars in interest cost for a rate higher than 2%. The City's
position is that it is difficult to project future bond costs and so it has not done so. I leave it to your
judgement as to whether 2% is an honest estimate of bond rate - today or in the future. I am unable to
find out what input has been given by the City's Bond Counsel on this issue.
2. Please refer to attachment titled "Thumb on the Scale". In the past, it has been the City's position
to stay neutral on issues of Assessment Districts. However, staff has gone out of its way to change
this past practice to aid and abet in the formation of AD -124.
3. City staff has supported the proponent's notion that a support for AD -124 is akin to a "straw vote"
with no downstream financial impact whatsoever for property owners. There have been instances of
older property owners being intimidated/shamed into signing on the basis that they can vote no in the
second round of voting, since this is only a "straw vote".
There are numerous other ways in which City staff has become an extension of proponents of AD -
124 rather than honest arbiters who should be working with and assisting both parties to this issue. I
understand that the goal of the process is to assure the City that there is a reasonable certainty that a
majority of the property owners of a proposed District are in favor of going ahead before the City
commits to spending taxpayer money (in this case $135,000). This goal is thwarted by drumming up
votes through high pressure sales pitches, sugar-coating the down side, misinformation and
intimidation.
I entreat you to press the pause button and take time to assure yourself that the proposed
expenditure of $135,000 is based on an honest assessment of the wishes of 60% of the property
owners. Otherwise, $135,000 of taxpayer money will be wasted again - as happened in 2009.
Respectfully'
Jamshed H. Dastur
Balboa Island
949-673-4078
TRUTH IN LENDING
BIIA and those pushing for Special Assessment District 124 to underground
utilities on Balboa Island state that the average cost for a standard 85' x 30'
property is estimated to be $29,900 not including the cost of connecting each
individual property to the underground utilities. Furthermore, they state that the
amount of $29,900 could be financed through a 20 year bond that would cost
approximately $150 a month to those choosing that option.
We have been able to confirm that the $29,900 number is an "estimate" that has
been provided to the proponents by the City of Newport Beach. We have also
been able to confirm that the $150 a month figure has not been provided by the
City of Newport Beach or their Bond Counsel. It appears to be the best guess of
BIIA and the proponents of AD -124, based on their crystal ball regarding bond
rates in the coming months and years. For your information, the monthly cost of
amortizing a principal sum of $29,900 over 20 years at various interest rates is as
follows.
5% interest rate $197.33 per month Total Interest payed $17,458
4% interest rate $181.19 per month Total interest payed $13,585
3% interest rate $165.82 per month Total interest payed $9,898
2% interest rate $151.26 per month Total interest payed $6,402
BIIA and the proponents of AD -124 are betting on a 2% interest rate with a wink a
nod from City staff.
This is one more misinformation used by the proponents of AD -124 in their drive
to collect signatures.
CITY'S THUMB ON THE SCALE IN AD -124
The City of Newport Beach has posted on its web site a step-by-step guide to
assist in the formation of Underground Utilities Assessment Districts. A recent
change was made in this posting, to help proponents of AD -124 reach their goal
of 60%. Here is how.
The old posting (copy attached) stated at the end of paragraph 3
The City is neutral on City lands that benefit within the District and are not
included in the percentage calculation.
The new posting (copy attached) deletes this statement from paragraph 3.
The staff report regarding Resolution No. 2021-12 (Agenda Item No. 6 on the
February 23, 2021 meeting) on page 6-3 (copy attached) states that City's Balboa
Island Fire Station No. 4 is part of the 60% petition calculation for the purposes of
the Petition Certification.
It appears that the change in the City's step-by-step guide was made specifically
to assist the proponents of AD -124 reach their goal.
n
u
a
Underground Utilities Assessment Districts
A Step -by -Step Guide
Most underground utility assessment districts are formed at the request of the local property
owners. The multi -step, multi-year process is explained below.
1. The process is initiated by an interested property owner {proponent} who acts as a
liaison between the City, utility companies, and neighbors. The proponent and other
neighbors in support of undergrounding, submit a letter to the City's Public Works
Department expressing their interest in forming an Underground Utility Assessment
District. The letter must include the proposed boundaries of the area for
undergrounding.
2. Based upon the interest letter, City staff prepares a boundary map and submits it to
the appropriate utility companies who review and evaluate the map to ensure the
boundaries are logical and feasible. Once the district boundaries are accepted by all
parties, the utility companies provide the City with a preliminary cost estimate for the
design and construction of the district.
3. Bond counsel is then retained to prepare a petition to be circulated by the proponents
to all affected property owners within the proposed district boundaries. The petition
states the approximate costs each property owner would be responsible for should the
property owners vote in favor of forming the district and proceeding with the utility
undergrounding project. In order for the process to continue, at least 60 percent of the
property owners by area must sign / express interest. This petition is a "show of
interest" and does not bind the property owner to the district. The City is neutral on d z">
City lands that benefit within the District and are not included in the percentage f
calculation. -
4. Once the petition is certified by the retained Assessment Engineer, City Staff prepares
a staff report for City Council approval to initiate proceedings. With City Council
approval and direction, the Assessment Engineer will prepare an Engineer's Report.
This report will document the assessment amount each property owner within the
district would be responsible for, should the district be approved. This report uses the
preliminary estimated construction costs provided by the various utility companies as
per the petition process. If the district is formed, the funds will be recovered during
the assessment process. If the district fails, the funds will be lost.
5. The Engineer's Report and Resolution of Intention are submitted to the City Council
for approval and a public hearing is scheduled.
6. Ballots are prepared with the assessment amount and sent to each property owner
within the proposed district boundaries. Each property owner then votes for or
against the formation district. Each vote is weighted or valued based upon each
property owner's proposed assessment.
7. All votes must be submitted to the City by the end of the scheduled public hearing.
The district passes if the City received more yes votes than no
votes by the close of the public hearing session. If the district passes, all
property owners within the district will be responsible for the assessment amounts
regardless of the property owner's personal vote.
Underground Utilities Assessment Districts
What is... A Step -by -Step Guide
Utility Most underground utility assessment districts are formed at the request of the local propern-
UndergroundiW. owners. The multi -step, multi-year process is explained below.
Utility Undergrounding is
the process of placing all 1. The process is initiated by an interested property owner (proponent) who acts as a
overhead utilities (electric, liaison between the City, utility companies, and neighbors. The proponent and other
telephone, and cable TV neighbors in support of undergrounding, submit a letter to the City's Public Works
wires) and electrical Department expressing their interest in forming an Underground Utility Assessment
facilities such as District. The letter must include the proposed boundaries of the area for
trans€ormers underground. p p
undergrounding.
2. Based upon the interest letter, City staff prepares a boundary map and submits it to
the appropriate utility companies who review and evaluate the map to ensure the
boundaries are logical and feasible. Once the district boundaries are accepted by all
parties, the utility companies provide the City with a preliminary cost estimate for the
design and construction of the district.
3. Bond counsel is then retained to prepare a petition to be circulated by the proponents
to all affected property owners within the proposed district boundaries. The petition
states the approximate costs each property owner would be responsible for should the
property owners vote in favor of forming the district and proceeding with the utility
undergrounding project. In order for the process to continue, at least 60 percent of
the property owners must sign / express interest. This petition is a "show of interest"
and does not bind the property owner to the district. — r��' Sf/�►'�
4. Once the petition is certified by the retained Assessment Engineer, City staff prepares /
a report to the City Council requesting advanced funds for the underground utility
design. The funds are advanced from the City's General Fund. If the district is
formed, the funds will be recovered during the assessment process. If the district
fails, the funds will be lost.
5. The design process begins once the utility companies receive the design fee.
It usually involves the following steps:
a) Basemapping
b) Southern California Edison electrical design
How is the... c) Telephone and cable company design
assessment The duration of each step varies greatly depending on the number of other
calculated? underground districts in queue, the size of the proposed district, and complexity of
the design.
Ater final design the utility 6. Once the design is complete and accepted by the City and utility companies, the
companies provide a cost utility companies provide a "guaranteed cost" or "cost of construction". The
of construction, which the
Assessment Engineer uses Assessment Engineer will use the guarantee cost and all other costs incurred in the
to prepare the Engineer's past, or anticipated in the future, to generate an Engineer's Report. This report will
Report that documents the document the assessment amount each property owner within the district would be
"assessment" amount for responsible for, should the district pass.
each property owner.
Resolution No. 2021-12: Request for Petition Certification and Funding for
Proposed Underground Assessment District No. 124 (Central Balboa Island) and
Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Assessment Engineering
February 23, 2021
Page 3
If the vote for AD 124 is successful, with formation completed, the City will then direct
final utility design. It is estimated to take approximately two years after a successful early
vote to complete the design and bid the work. If the vote for AD 124 is unsuccessful, the
City will stop all further work and not incur additional design costs.
As shown on the AD 124 boundary map, the City's Balboa Island Fire Station No. 4 is
within the proposed district's boundaries. For the purposes of the Petition certification,
the fire station parcel is a part of the 60 percent petition calculation. City Council Policy
L-28 discusses the assessment and voting process for City -owned land. Per the policy,
the City Council has the discretion on a district case-by-case basis to either vote for an
assessment, against an assessment, or not to vote. The City Council will determine how
to vote for the City -owned land at a future date, when staff brings forward the assessment
district proceedings, which include the approval of the assessment engineer's report and
setting of the protest hearing. At that time, City costs to underground the fire station will
be presented for consideration. Regardless of a City vote, if the assessment district is
approved through a majority vote, the City would be required to financially participate for
its share of the undergrounding associated with Fire Station No. 4. ---'_}
NV5, Inc. was the Assessment Engineer for AD 117 in Corona del Mar and also provided
recent assessment engineering services on West Balboa Island AD 113. The firm has
also been the on-call assessment engineer through the petition work for the subject
AD 124 and has become very familiar with the property ownerships, which is key
information that will be necessary for the assessment engineering work. Staff is
recommending approval of a professional services agreement with NV5 to accomplish
the assessment engineering and balloting for AD 124.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302(d) (conversion of overhead
electric utility distribution system facilities to underground including connection to existing
overhead electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition
existing prior to the undergrounding).
NOTICING:
The 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 — Proposed Assessment District Boundary Map
Attachment B — Resolution No. 2021-12
Attachment C — Budget Amendment No. 21-031
Attachment D — Professional Services Aqreement with NV5, Inc.
6-3
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, February 22, 20213:59 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: OPPONENT OF AD -124 -DESERVE TO BE HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL
From: Robert McCaffrey
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 3:58:47 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeachca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: OPPONENT OF AD -124 -DESERVE TO BE HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Avery and City Council Members:
On Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2021 you are scheduled to consider a matter (Resolution No.
2021-12 / Item # 6 on the Council Agenda) relating to the establishment of proposed
Assessment District No. 124 on Balboa Island. If such matter is approved by Council
on Tuesday night, the City will be authorized to enter into a professional services
agreement with an outside consultant (NV5, Inc.) to among other things prepare a
formal estimate of the costs associated with undergrounding utilities within an area
comprised of approximately 965 parcels. We understand that for this matter to be
properly presented and voted on by Council, the City must first receive a petition
signed by a 60% majority of property owners (579 or more) indicating that they are in
favor of establishing the proposed assessment district. According to the Notice for
the Feb. 23 City Council Meeting, the City believes it has received a petition meeting
such criteria.
As you know, property owners on Balboa Island have mixed views on the proposed
undergrounding, with a relatively large number of property owners strongly against a
project that is preliminarily estimated to cost each lot owner $30,000 or more through
a tax assessment (not including the additional costs they would incur individually if
such project proceeds). While the proponents of the undergrounding have been out
actively soliciting property owners to sign a petition in favor of establishing the
proposed assessment district, another group of residents have been soliciting
signatures from property owners who are opposed to forming the assessment district.
We are writing to you now to inform you that the signed petition recently submitted by
proponents is defective in several respects. First, the petition submitted to the City
fails to take into account the signatures of property owners who have signed a
petition against the proposed assessment district. More importantly, the proponents'
petition fails to take into account the many revocations signed by property owners
who subsequently changed their mind and chose to revoke their earlier dated
signatures on proponent's petition. Before voting on Resolution No.
2021-12, it will be necessary for the City to consider and
compare the petition signatures collected and submitted by
proponents with those signatures collected and submitted by
opponents. Opponents of Assessment District No. 124 have
collected signatures of more than 100 property owners who
have affirmatively indicated that they are opposed to the
proposed assessment district and to the extent they had
previously signed proponents' petition, such property owners
have revoked their earlier dated signatures in favor of the
assessment district.
Accordingly, we hereby request that you postpone any vote on Resolution No. 2021-
12 until such time as the list of signatures on the petition submitted by proponents
can be verified and compared with those signatures of property owners who signed a
petition against the assessment district. We believe a cross-check of signatures in
both petitions is necessary and appropriate at this time. To do otherwise, and ignore
the signatures of those property owners who are against the assessment district, and
who have revoked their earlier -dated signatures, would present certain financial risks
to the City. For example, if the City chose to proceed with the current petition with
Council voting to authorize the engagement of NV5, Inc. at a cost of $135,000, it
could be later determined later that the petition submitted by proponents was
inaccurate, lacked the required signatures by at least 579 property owners in favor of
proceeding with the assessment district formation. thereby rendering the
authorization invalid and leaving the City on the hook for the cost of engaging the
consultant without adequate basis. We urge you to do the right thing, take the time to
consider those property owners who have signed petitions against the assessment
district and revoked prior signatures in favor, before proceeding with a vote on
Resolution No. 2021-12.
Sincerely
Bob McCaffrey
949-675-8835
rtmccaffrey(a)-yahoo.com
ra
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:02 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Under grounding on Balboa Island
From: Barbara Selby
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20217:59:52 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Under grounding on Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please vote no on the electric pole undergrounding. The trash cans left out in the alleyway are much more bothersome
and unsightly. According to the Bylaws they should be out of sight.
I do not think the person who has been in charge of the Undergrounding interest should be the one sending out and
receiving the vote count. We should have had an independent person who had no interest in this matter. I mailed my
"no" response ( line drawn through 1 to 6 with my initials) back and then later received another letter of encouragement
to vote "yes" saying he had not received a response from me. What happened to my "no" response that I mailed at the
Post Office. Please recommend the Council vote "no".
Barbara Koch
305 Amethyst Avenue
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20217:47 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island underground assessment
From: Dawna Carlisle
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20217:47:08 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Cc: Dawna Carlisle
Subject: Balboa Island underground assessment
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Morning,
This email is in regards to the Balboa Island underground assessment in the voting and planning stage.
I am in strong OPPOSITION to this assessment and would like my voice and vote to be heard. I am unable to attend the
council meeting tonight, as I was just informed of the meeting this morning and am out of town.
This beatification action couldn't come at a worse time for our Island. In light of what is happening in our country/world
right now with Covid-19, this has put undue and unnecessary stress on the Island residents to comply with a financial
hardship.
We all know well and good that $40,000.00 is a low estimate of what the final assessment will be, as well as the
individual out of pocket expenses for hook up to the utility once completed.
Please do not pass the action to move forward with this unnecessary beautification.
Thank you,
Dawna Carlisle
225 Ruby Avenue
Sent from my iPhone
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20217:11 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Balboa Island Underground Utilities
From: James Kelly <jameskelly757@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 20217:57 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Balboa Island Underground Utilities
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As a resident of Balboa Island, I happily agreed to serve as one of the signatories to the petition to determine the
interest of our property owners in undergrounding electric and telecommunication utilities on our Island.
For me, this an easy choice. I retired from Southern California Edison after 38 years, having served as Senior Vice
President of Transmission & Distribution - the corporate officer responsible for the design, engineering,
construction, operation and maintenance of SCE's 50,000 square mile electrical grid. Before that, I was SCE's Vice
President of Engineering. Edison's grid includes some 186,000 miles of distribution circuits; almost 13,000 miles of
transmission lines; nearly 900 substations; about 1.4 million poles; and roughly 422,000 underground structures. I
have been directly involved in the undergrounding of countless miles of electric distribution lines. As you know,
new communities in Orange County, including those along our 42 mile scenic coastline, are required to be served
by underground utilities.
As a factual matter, underground electric service is more reliable than overhead service. This is partly because the
lines are out of the weather, and partly because they are protected from human intervention such as car -hit poles
and mylar balloons. The downside is that underground utilities cost significantly more to install.
It is also true that underground electric service is safer. Wires can't fall and start fires or damage property.
Removing utility poles on Balboa Island will open up our alleys and make is easier and safer for residents, visitors
and emergency personnel to navigate the tight spaces on the Island.
Finally, I don't think there can be any doubt that the aesthetic benefits of underground utilities are significant. The
feel on the Little Island is dramatically different because of the absence of visual clutter imposed by wires and poles
- and I am a person that has happily worked around electric infrastructure for 40 years!
Those who oppose undergrounding have brought up a red herring argument: What if water gets into the
underground vaults and conduits? Utilities around the world have been placing electric facilities below ground in
coastal communities for decades. The equipment the utilities employ is designed to operate safely in the event of
water intrusion (fresh water or salt water). The old expression among utility engineers is, "Underground is
underwater, because it will be some of the time." This refers to the fact that underground vaults often contain
water because of sprinklers, unusually heavy rainstorms, snow runoff, etc. They continue to operate year after year
because they are designed properly.
Make no mistake, undergrounding utilities isn't easy, and it isn't cheap. Never has been. But it results in a
community that is safer, has more reliable electric and telecommunication service, and is much more attractive. It
seems to me that spending an amount that is probably less than 1% of the average price of an Island home to gain
those benefits is a good deal for the Island and for our extraordinary City.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jim Kelly
224 Opal Ave.
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: Rieff, Kim
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20217:11 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Balboa Island Underground Utilities
From: Ryan Gunderson <ryan@abramscoastal.com>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 20217:42 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Balboa Island Underground Utilities
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members:
I am writing this to you regarding the underground utilities proposal for the large portion of Balboa Island. I
am a real estate agent at Abrams Coastal Properties on the Island. Last year, my team and I were fortunate
enough to sell almost 60% of the homes on the Island. My parents live on the Island, my grandparents live on
the Island, my brother and his wife live there, and my wife and I lived there for eight years as well. I was also
able to serve on the Board of Directors of the BIIA for six years. We know this place inside and out and have
been able to discuss this issue with potential Buyers and Sellers often.
In my view there is no doubt at all that this is a positive proposal for the Island in many ways, particularly for
our home values. When we are showing properties there are many Buyers who like the look and aesthetics of
the Little Island, and now, when we tell them that undergrounding has been passed on the West End, they are
intrigued by that as well. We have had Buyers ask us how this is even a discussion anymore given the home
prices in our market. While I can't give you a scientific number of how much more a home would be worth if
this passes given the amount of variables involved (i.e locations, lot sizes, type of house etc), but there are
numerous reasons this should move forward in my view.
- Now that the West End effort has passed and the Little Island already has undergrounding, the rest of the
Island will now be at a clear disadvantage compared to other parts of the same market. In the time since the
West End has passed we have shown many prospective Buyers homes there and we have to disclose that they
will have to pay an assessment for the utilities. We have literally not had one single person object to it, and in
fact, most of them are happy that it is going to happen there.
- Buyers looking on the Island are also often looking at other area around Newport. The three primary
competitors we often see are Peninsula Point, the Village in CDM, and Lido. They are all in similar price points
and types of communities. Peninsula Point now has underground utilities. Lido has underground utilities, and I
believe parts of the Village do now too. We have heard feedback from Buyers about how nice some of these
other areas look compared the the poles and wires they see when looking at parts of the Big Island.
- We have seen many Buyers who specifically want homes on the Little Island and have seen higher prices
there than for a similar property on the Main Island and one of the reasons is that they already have the
utilities undergrounded.
We love where we get to work and love this community. This is a much needed step to continue to keep up
the Island's infrastructure with that of other local neighborhoods. The Island is an incredibly special place and
we need to continue to improve it. We are talking with people looking at buying properties here almost
everyday and the opinions we get from them on this issue are overwhelmingly one-sided: they almost all favor
undergounding.
Thank you your time.
Sincerely,
Ryan
RYAN GUNDERSON
REALTOR® i3rr-(
C 949.873.3841 O 949.675.4822
www.ryanm2underson.com
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20216:58 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Tonight's meeting regarding the$40000 special assessment Balboa Island
properties
From: fgommi@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20216:57:38 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Tonight's meeting regarding the$40000 special assessment Balboa Island properties
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I Do not approve of the above assessment
Kind regards
Farrokh G Ghomi
The property at 220 Apolena Blboa Islnd 92662
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20214:12 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island Underground Utility Initiative
From: Sim Pace
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20214:12:03 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Balboa Island Underground Utility Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members -
We are the property owners of 208 Collins Av. on Balboa Island and are writing to oppose the underground
utility initiative which you will be addressing tonight. Please oppose this measure as a $40,000 assessment
would be devastating to us.
Sincerely,
Simone J. Pace
Mary S. Pace
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:52 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Underground utilities Opposed
From: Kellie McGlaughlin
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:52:05 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Fwd: Underground utilities Opposed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have received several letters regarding the underground utilities. We disapprove and disagree with the
proposal, especially at this time of pandemic. The timing and cost of this project is outlandish. The
argument for this egregious expense is cosmetic and superficial. I own two properties on the island, one
home Coral and one on Apolena, and you can expect a "NO" vote for both. I urge the city to
acknowledge the property owners opposed to this proposal.
Sincerely, Marcelle McGlaughlin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kellie McGlaughlin <kelliemcglaughlin@gmail.com>
Date: February 23, 2021 at 9:43:59 AM MST
To: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov, ddixon@newportbeachca.gov, bavery@newportbeacgca.gov,
dduffield@newportbeachca.gov, kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov, nblom@newportbeachca.gov,
joy@newportbeachca.gov, woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Underground utilities Opposed
I have received several letters regarding the underground utilities. We disapprove and disagree with the
proposal, especially at this time of pandemic. The timing and cost of this project is outlandish. The
argument for this egregious expense is cosmetic and superficial. I own two properties on the island, one
home Coral and one on Apolena, and you can expect a "NO" vote for both. I urge the city to
acknowledge the property owners opposed to this proposal.
Sincerely, Marcelle McGlaughlin
Sent from my iPad
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:51 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Opposition to undergrounding
From: richard t lobl
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:50:59 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Opposition to undergrounding
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I oppose a special assessment for undergroundini of utilities on Balbia Island
R lobl 114 Amethyst Ave., Newport Beach, CA 92662
Sent from my Whone
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:51 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Underground utilities on Balboa Island
From: sharmanflash@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:50:51 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Underground utilities on Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We are owners of property on Balboa Island and our concerned about the project to have the utilities
put underground.
We have not seen any impartial analysis of the pro's and con's of the project. There are high
emotions on both sides and it would be helpful to understanding the costs and benefits if we had an
impartial analysis.
Please do not vote prior to providing us with this analysis.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
David and Sharman Demler
800 S Bay Front
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:48 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: NO on Balboa Island Underground Utility Assessment!
From: Suzy McLaughlin
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:47:47 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: NO on Balboa Island Underground Utility Assessment!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing you to please hear those of us who do NOT want to pay for this $40,000 assessment to
be put on our homes. When this assessment was voted down over 10 years ago we were told that it
would not be brought up again. Here it is, again, potentially being forced on those of us who don't
want or cannot afford it.
My family has owned our home on B.I. for 55 years. We don't even notice the power lines. If we had
an extra $40k, we would spend it for something we NEED, not something that others are deciding we
should want. Let them fundraise for this project or have SCE pay for it.
Please hear those of us that do not want this. It has nothing to do with property values - our homes
keep going up in value and people flock to live on our beloved island, regardless of power lines above
ground. It's ridiculous to force a cosmetic project on everyone. Many of us are on fixed incomes.
Thank you for hearing those of us who do not want this.
Sincerely,
Suzanne McLaughlin
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:45 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Underground Utilities
From: Brian Gentner
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:44:43 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Blom, Noah; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Underground Utilities
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Noah, and congratulations on your election to the Council. I am writing to voice opposition to the
undergrounding of utilities via AD 124. 1 submitted a vote in opposition and am concerned about the
verification of the 60% threshold needed to move this unfortunate measure forward. I trust the City Clerk has
indeed verified all signatures prior to tonight's meeting. I am frustrated that we may be forced to expend a lot
of money for something we do not want - tyranny by the majority. We have been on the Island for nearly 60
years and have lived just fine with the alley telephone poles - I don't even notice them. But then again, our
beach cottage (circa 1932) does not have a third story where the lines may be visible. And living in such an old
place, I am sure we will be in for significant additional costs to accommodate new utility connections. In
retirement, I have many other preferences on how to spend $30,000 to $40,000! As an old-time Island
resident, I urge you to oppose AD 124. Thank you for your consideration.
Brian Gentner
215 Coral Avenue
Balboa Island, CA 92662
(949) 922-3575 Phone
9
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20218:44 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Underground utilities Opposed
From: Kellie McGlaughlin
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 8:43:58 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Underground utilities Opposed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have received several letters regarding the underground utilities. We disapprove and disagree with the proposal,
especially at this time of pandemic. The timing and cost of this project is outlandish. The argument for this egregious
expense is cosmetic and superficial. I own two properties on the island, one home Coral and one on Apolena, and you
can expect a "NO" vote for both. I urge the city to acknowledge the property owners opposed to this proposal.
Sincerely, Marcelle McGlaughlin
Sent from my iPad
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Ir Item No. 6
BALBOA ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
February 22, 2021
Mayor and City Council:
I represent the Balboa Island Improvement Association and am a thirty plus year property owner. The
Board of Directors of the Association unanimously supports AD 124 and we urge you to pass the
resolution before you at the February 23`d City Council Meeting.
Based on the number of positive petitions and comments from Island owners, we believe there is an
excellent probability that the effort will pass by a substantial margin when it comes to a vote, unlike the
last underground utilities effort in 2009. Since then, there have been over 500 homes sold and based on
the fact that the vote at that time was about 50/50 the new owners are very likely to vote positive.
This endeavor is clearly an "IMPROVEMENT".... improving the safety, electrical reliability and beauty of
the Island. As you know the West End of Balboa Island will most likely begin construction of their
underground utilities in September of this year. The addition of AD 124 will complete all utilities
underground for both the Big and Little Balboa Islands.
We very much appreciate your positive support.
Sincerely,
Terry Janssen
President
Balboa Island Improvement Association
Please confirm receipt via reply email
P.O. BOX 64, BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662 + WEBSITE: WWW.BALBOAISLANDNB.ORG
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20219:48 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island Assessment for Underground Wiring
From: Lynn Stewart
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20219:47:47 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Balboa Island Assessment for Underground Wiring
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk and City Council:
I am heartily opposed to the $40,000 assessment on each parcel on Balboa Island for underground wiring in the alley
on the grounds that it is INCREDIBLY TOO EXPENSIVE.
Please relay my opinion for the meeting Tuesday night, February 23, 2021.
Sincerely,
Lynn Stewart
Trustee and Owner
McComas Stewart Family Trust
201 Amethyst Avenue
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20219:51 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island special assessment - NO UNDERGROUND
From: Chris Hart
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20219:48:31 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Balboa Island special assessment - NO UNDERGROUND
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a Balboa Island property owner I am not in favor of the special assessment to place overhead utilities underground. I
ask that you vote NO on this item.
61?"- 1--:1
15711ew
116 Collins Ave
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202110:04 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: AD -124
From: George Harwood
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:02:53 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: AD -124
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am writing this email to express my whole hearted support for the underground utility program currently under
consideration for Balboa Island. I feel this project will improve the living experience of Balboa Island and will finally
remove the eyesore power lines. I am aware of the projected cost and the inconvenience that will be incurred by the
residents. I urge you to vote for APPROVAL of AD -124 on February 23rd so this project can move forward.
George Harwood
907 N Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202110:05 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island
From: Edward Tannenbaum
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:05:01 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I want to voice my concerns about putting the wiresi underground on Balboa Island,l AM AGAINST ANY SUCH MOVE. I
cannot afford to pay $35,000 just to move wires! Sincerely Patricia Tannenbaum
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202110:58 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Stop the Newport Beach city approval of $40,000 Balboa Island special assessment
- NO UNDERGROUND UTILITY
From: Sara Greer
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:57:17 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Cc: Sara Greer
Subject: Stop the Newport Beach city approval of $40,000 Balboa Island special assessment - NO UNDERGROUND
UTILITY
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Unfortunately, due to health issue, I am unable to attend the Tuesday night City Council meeting. However, I cannot
voice my opposition any more strongly. I do not approve the assessment and oppose the special assessment.
Jan L. Kleinman
602-252-4861
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:57 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Underground Balboa
From: Barbara Broyles
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:56:24 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Underground Balboa
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As absentee residents of Balboa we are in NO WAY interested
in the large expenditure for underground utilities. We in NO
WAY are interested in dealing with the construction involved in
the short time that we are able to spend there. The sewage
replacement was enough to show us how bad a project can be on
the Island.
Our vote and opinion is that we DO NOT and CANNOT deal
with the mess and expense of undergrounding.
Barbara and Doug Broyles
322 Diamond ST
ra
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202110:37 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Underground Utility Assessment
From: crtrlvr2@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:37:08 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Fwd: Underground Utility Assessment
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
-----Original Message -----
From: crtrlvr2@aol.com
To: ddixon@newportbeachca.gov <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; bavery@newportbeach.gov
<bavery@newportbeach.gov>; dduffield@ewportbeach.gov <dduffield@ewportbeach.gov>;
kmuldoon@newportbeach.gov <kmuldoon@newportbeach.gov>; nblom@newportbeachca.gov
<nblom@newportbeachca.gov>; joy@newportbeachca.gov <joy@newportbeachca.gov>; woneill@newportbeach.gov
<woneill@newportbeach.gov>
Cc: rtmccafrey@ahoo.com <rtmccafrey@ahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 23, 2021 10:29 am
Subject: Underground Utility Assessment
To Whom It May Concern!
I'M WRITING THIS TO DECLARE MY OPPOSITION TO ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENTS ON MY
PROPERTY.
I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2021, DUE TO PANDEMIC
RESTRICTIONS AND CONCERN FOR MY HEALTH.
DO NOT MOVE FORWARD ON VOTING ON AD124 UNTIL THE SIGNATURES CAN BE VERIFIED.
REGARDS,
CHRISTINE MCLANE
PROPERTY OWNER OF
213 ONYX AVE.
BALBOA ISLAND, CA. 92662
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202110:08 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island
From: Edward Tannenbaum
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202110:08:20 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am against putting wires underground on Balboa Island !
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20219:34 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: 302 Marine Ave - Opposition vote to Utility Underground Assessment
From: Tor McCann
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20219:33:24 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Cc: rtmccafrey@yahoo.com
Subject: 302 Marine Ave - Opposition vote to Utility Underground Assessment
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I would like to make it know that the owners of
302 Marine Ave are very strongly opposed to the Utility Underground Assessment and will be
voting at every opportunity against this proposal.
No matter how excellent the materials used to house the wires underground are, they will
eventually, over the years fail and need to be replaced because of the exposure to water.
How long have the existing wires on the poles been there with minimal maintenance and
expense required over the years.
Thanks for your help.
Tor McCann,
Manager -Coast Line Resources, LLC
(702)768-4867-iPhone
CoastLineResources@hotmail.com
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:50 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting Today at 5:30 PM
From: Jamshed Dastur
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:50:17 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: City Council Meeting Today at 5:30 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have a question to be addressed to the City Manager, in reference to Item 6 on the agenda today.
Isn't there a clear conflict of interest issue regarding NV5 Inc. being the party that issues
the "Certificate of Sufficiency of Petition" and in turn is rewarded with a contract for
$135,000 from the City? What motivation does NV5 Inc. have to dig up any irregularities
or mischief by the Petitioners? There is a distinct ganging up by the City, the Balboa
Island Improvement Association (BIIA), NV5 Inc. and the Proponents of AD -124 in their
drive to impose a huge financial burden (I call it a TAX) on the property owners of Balboa
Island with a rigged process.
Jamshed Dastur
Balboa Island
949-673-4078
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202111:24 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island
From: Anita Roman
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202111:24:06 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please note I am a home owner on Balboa Island 126 Opal I am opposed to the underground utilities. Anita Roman
Sent from my Wad
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202111:24 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: (1) ALERT!!! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD - Underground Utilities is a $40,000
COSMETIC DESIRE, not a need!!!
From: beverlyawossdds@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 11:23:29 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Fwd: (1) ALERT !!! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD - Underground Utilities is a $40,000 COSMETIC DESIRE, not a
need!!!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
My name is Dr. Beverly Woss, and I own a small second home on Balboa Island, at 511 Park Ave. This was an
investment I made, and I love my little cottage, but I truly cannot afford the underground utilities that are being proposed. I
am a 60 year old single mother whose daughter will be starting college this fall. That money will pay for a whole year of
college for my daughter. I plan on retiring to my house on Balboa in the future, and while it seems as if underground
utilities would be "nice", they are definitely not a necessity, and will add nothing to the value of my home. In fact, I'm sure
that no one has ever decided not to buy a house on Balboa because there weren't underground utilities. I bought my
house in 2008, and I never even gave a slight thought about the exposed wires. They do not bother me at all, and it is
unfair to impose those fees on people who can't afford the work, or don't want it. There are many senior citizens on
Balboa Island. We can't be expected to use our savings to pay for something that we can't afford, and that isn't a viable
investment. If under grounding is so important, then the utilities companies should pay for the work. They can afford it, we
can't!
I ask you to please consider my plea. This whole endeavor has not been presented in a fair fashion, and without any
transparency. I would like to see the names and addresses of all who voted for this very expensive proposition. I wonder
who these people are that can easily afford such extravagant work.
I vote no!!
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Beverly Woss
511 Park Ave
NB 92662
310-722-7744
-----Original Message -----
From: Robert McCaffrey <rtmccafrey@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 23, 2021 2:49 am
Subject: (1) ALERT!!! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD - Underground Utilities is a $40,000 COSMETIC DESIRE, not a
need!!!
The Bullies has cajoled you, the Balboa Island property owners, into signing a petition to underground
utilities with soothing words that mask the true legal significance of your consent;
"show of interest" and "does not bind" - Misleading and far from the truth
Stop this unfair action now before the 40-43% of the property owners will dictate the financial fate of the
100% of the property owners in the district.
Received After Agenda Printed
You must attend the city council meeting to protect your prop Fe�r ry 23A jj01000
assessment.
Underground Utilities is a $40,000 cosmetic desire, not a need!!!
The Newport Beach City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday night, February 23 at 5:30 PM will be
voting to certify the petition and authorize the engagement of an outside consultant (NV5, Inc.) at a cost of
$135,000.
Newport Beach City Hall - 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport beach, Ca 92660
Time to Speak up - Your opinions will make a difference!!!
You must attend the meeting Tuesday night in person to voice your disapproval of a $40,000
assessment.
• If you absolutely can not attend, you must email and call the City Council to make your opposition and
concerns heard.
For your convenience, e-mail addresses are presented in one string suitable for copy and paste
cit,, c�(d),newportbeachca.gov, ddixon(a newportbeachca. og_v, bavery( ,newportbeacgca.gov,
dduffieldknewportbeachca.gov, kmuldoonknewportbeacgca.gov, nblomknewportbeachca.gov,
ioynnewportbeachca.goy, woneill(d),newportbeachca.goy
Newport Beach City Council
District 1 - 949-287-9211 / Diane B. Dixon / ddixon(d),newportbeachca.goy
District 2 - Mayor - 949-644-3004 / Brad Avery / bavery�ic newportbeachca.gov
District 3 - 949-644-3004 / Duffy Duffield / dduffield(a-),newportbeachca.gov
District 4 - Mayor Pro Tem - 949-438-6042 / Kevin Muldoon / kmuldoon(knewportbeachca.gov
District 5 - 415-609-3656 / Noah Blom / nblom(anewportbeachca.gov
District 6 - 949-644-3004 / Joy Brenner / joynnewportbeachca.goy
District 7 - 949-644-3004 / Will O'Neill / woneill(anewportbeachca.gov
Regards,
RT McCaffrey
rtmccafrey(q-)_yahoo.com
949-675-8835
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20211:37 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: 2-23-21 City Council Meeting: Item 6 undergrounding power Balboa Island
From: Brian H Ouzounian
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:34:54 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Leung, Grace
Subject: 2-23-21 City Council Meeting: Item 6 undergrounding power Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members:
I am writing to ask you to postpone the vote on this issue. I am a 45 year
property owner on Balboa Island and I am in opposition to the readiness of
the 60% petition qualifications. I am also a veteran of this issue as I
was fully involved on the past Balboa Island under -grounding project,
which was narrowly defeated. None of you were sitting on the City Council
at that time. It was an awful event pitching neighbor against neighbor.
History is now repeating itself and the proponents continue on a path of
untruthfulness and deception. Please DO NOT BE DECEIVED!
without getting too deep, let me say that in this stage, the visibility
and accuracy of this 60% petition is called into question. It needs
scrutiny prior to you voting to spend $135,000 on the consultant. It needs
scrutiny with bi-partisan observers. This is what occurred the last time
we had a vote count. verification that is bipartisan by both proponents
and opponents is necessary and I trust that you can allow that, move that,
to happen without a vote tonight. The opponents have many "NO" vote
petitions that have yet to be considered. I plead with you to delay this
vote and direct staff to verify the petition with the opposition present
before moving ahead.
Best Regards,
Brian Ouzounian
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 202112:16 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: power lines
From: Gaylord Leeper
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:15:21 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: power lines
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am 97 years old. I can not afford the power lines being moved underground.
Thank you,
Patricia Leeper
217 Amethyst Ave
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20212:48 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Undergrounding on the Big Island
From: Donald Abrams
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20212:47:33 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Dixon, Diane; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Duffield, Duffy; kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov;
Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Subject: Undergrounding on the Big Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members:
I urge you to pass the Resolution on tonight's calendar to advance the under -grounding of utilities on the Big Island.
Balboa Island's overhead utilities are not only unsightly, but I believe they are a serious potential health and safety
hazard. Should we ever have a major fire, the utility poles could be an unfortunate conduit for spreading flames
throughout the Island.
As an Island Real Estate Broker, I believe the overhead utilities have been a negative factor influencing home values and
it is a criticism I hear frequently from prospective buyers. When I show homes on the Little Island where we have had
underground utilities for many years, the positive reaction of buyers has lead to higher comparative values.
Since there has been an overwhelming positive response to the ballots favoring under -grounding NOW, I hope you will
proceed forward with this project.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald L. Abrams, Broker
Abrams Coastal Properties
714.325.9055
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20212:50 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Under -grounding of Utilities on Balboa Island
From: Donald Abrams
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20212:50:08 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Blom, Noah; bavery@newportbeacgca.gov; Dixon, Diane; Duffield, Duffy; City Clerk's Office;
kmuldoon@newportbeacgca.gov; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William
Cc: Terry Jansen; Lee Pearl; Ryan Gunderson
Subject: Under -grounding of Utilities on Balboa Island
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members:
I urge you to pass the Resolution on tonight's calendar to advance the under -grounding of utilities on the Big Island.
Balboa Island's overhead utilities are not only unsightly, but I believe they are a serious potential health and safety
hazard. Should we ever have a major fire, the utility poles could be an unfortunate conduit for spreading flames
throughout the Island.
As an Island Real Estate Broker, I believe the overhead utilities have been a negative factor influencing home values and
it is a criticism I hear frequently from prospective buyers. When I show homes on the Little Island where we have had
underground utilities for many years, the positive reaction of buyers has lead to higher comparative values.
Since there has been an overwhelming positive response to the ballots favoring under -grounding NOW, I hope you will
proceed forward with this project.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald L. Abrams, Broker
Abrams Coastal Properties
714.325.9055
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20213:23 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island underground utility
From: THOMAS BERRY
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20213:23:02 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office; Blom, Noah; Brenner, Joy; wonell@newportbeachca.gov
Cc: bavert@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Balboa Island underground utility
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I oppose the underground utility assessment. Simply can't afford it.
225 Onyx
Thomas Berry
Sent from my Whone
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20213:49 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island underground electric utilities
From: Benjamin Heyer /
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20213:48:43 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Balboa Island underground electric utilities
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Sir;
Hereby I am letting you know that I, Benjamin Heyer, 307 Amethyst Ave, Balboa Island, Ca 92662 am against the
construction of the underground electrical utilities because of its high cost. At my current age it will cost me more than
15 times its construction than 10 years ago. And by the time the project has been finished 5 to 7 years hence I would be
too old to enjoy the underground utility and would not be able to pay for its cost since I live on a fixed budget.
I would like to have my comment and vote against the proposed underground electrical registered as such in all your
registrations and archives.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Heyer
Sent from my Wad Ben
Received After Agenda Printed
February 23, 2021
Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 6
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20214:15 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Balboa Island Undergrounding
From: Mike Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 20214:14:36 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Balboa Island Undergrounding
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE PASS THIS TO THE COUNCIL AS WE ARE UNABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE MEETING TONIGHT.
We understand that many of us don't have the excess cash to pay for undergrounding. We are trying to rent
our home at 552 S Bay Front but the pandemic has stopped that source of income.
PLEASE FORGET THIS PROJECT UNTIL ALL OF US OLD TIMERS DIE OFF.
WE FEEL LIKE IT IS BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS.
Michael C Smith and Hal W Smith Jr, owners
To: The City of New Port Beach
RE: Petition to Oppose Undergrounding on Balboa Island
Council Meeting: 2-23-2021
This underground issue is not a level playing field !! The Proponents sent out petitions
without any deadlines. They spent 6 months petitioning for undergrounding without a
deadline, so why is there a deadline now.
The Opposition Group is requesting the council to postpone any decision on this
matter for 6 months , to allow more incoming Opposition petitions to be presented to
the city.
The BIIA is not a home owners association, anyone can join - tenants, homeowners,
merchants, tourist... anyone. They do not directly represent all of the lot owners, while
presenting themselves to do so through their Bridge Periodical.
This issue failed the last time around in 2009, it pitted neighbors against neighbors.
This time the same thing could take place. It was very bitter at the time.
The BIIA has been cajoling and pressuring many owners who subsequently have now
changed their mind and signed the Opposing Petition.
The BIIA has no business in pursuing this issue, they do not represent every single lot
owners. It should be pursued by interested individual lot owners not the BIIA.
The Opposition Group has submitted petitions Opposing the issue to the city clerk.
We are continuing to receive Opposing petitions and we deserve the right to present it
to the city. We request the council delay any decision for 6 months to allow enough
time for all the lot owners to justly heard.
After the 60% is reached, the next step would be 50%+1 votes of those who voted,
NOT 50% +1 of all lot owners. This allows the smaller minority to force the cost on the
whole, 1000 lot owners.
When lot owners are more educated to this fact , we feel the votes will be more
honest.
Another question is, has the Proponents actually reach the 60% level (fire.Station)
Obviously we think they have not! Nor has the city had time to consider the Opposition
Petitions delivered to the city clerk yesterday.
In 2009 was the last time the BIIA pushed for this issue, the city spent over $700,000
before the final vote and it failed . Therefore $700,000 was down the drain H
This $700,000 did not come from the BIIA but it came from all tax payers of the city of
Newport beach, that is not fair. That was a permanent stain on the way the city
operated then. That was foolish of the city , don't let it happened again.
The Opponents of this issue are requesting the city to Postpone any decisions on this
matter for 6 months , to allow the city to come to a clear and transparent counting of
the 60%.
The Opposition group has had many discussion with many Balboa Island property
owners. Many are retired and do not want to spent $35,000 to $40,000 on this issue or
an increase in taxes. Many prefer to give their equities to their children or grand-
children or their favorite charities.
Also this will put a burden on many retired pensioners on limited income, not everyone
on Balboa Island is wealthy.
This is a want not a need, the differences between those two are vast.
The poles in the alley are unsightly - no doubt, but they are in the alley and not in the
front yards. People seldom dine in their garages and notice the poles.
I urge the council to do the fair thing, do not spend another $135,000 before you
officially counting all of the Proponents and Opposition votes in a transparent counting
by a neutral party.
Please delay your decision and allow all Opposition Petitions to be turn in.
Why should there be a deadline for the Opposition group, there was no deadline for the
Proponents .
I respectfully remind you this is a $40,000 cosmetic want not need
There are people in this country that are in need of a job and food .
Bob McCaffrey
949-675-8835
RtMcCaffrey@yahoo.com