HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 - Underground AD Nos. 114 and 114b (Areas described within Newport Heights) and Approval of PSA - CorrespondenceReceived 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
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 c9gmail.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
only two hours before the council meeting. On May 6, the City Staff-report,for4he-rneeti-ng 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.
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
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(a@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
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
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.
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.
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,
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Mary Beth Saucerman <mbsaucerman@road runner.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
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 Phone
Sent from my Phone
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.
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
AD11413. 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 AD118 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, AD11413, 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?
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
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
T!e 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 tht
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. Many 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 Beach. Many
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.
III III 11��!Iippg � 111gyJ � Mil 11111 1 M�211111111 11111,
1010 0 a 1 -03 -TV ff =_ 1"M
3) Take more responsibility for distributing accurate information and ensuring full disclosure
throughout the petition process to ensure accurate results and fairness.
•
EMMIll•
115-37 3
•
Received After Agenda Printed
May 10.2016
Item No. 5
From: Jeffrey Simonds ^p/monds@nakaoita|zom^
Sent: Tuesday, May I0'20l64:28PK4
To: Brown, Lei|eni;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 to the City since April of last year through May 10.
2\ Require that the petition for AD114meets the 00Y6threshold.
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, CA92014
nmioapda|.omn
(948)4O8-2392Direct
(840)854-060OMain
(949)054-7378Fax
�� �
�� � �����
�����������������
�-
cA DRE #00806&40
Bel Southern California
� �'� '
*�����~*m����� m�|�m�nN�����a
ALL PARTIES UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BROKER mNOT QUALIFIED nuPROVIDE, AND HAS NOT BEEN CONTRACTED roPROVIDE, LEGAL,
FINANCIAL oRTAX ADVICE, AmoTHAT ANySu��-l ADVtEMVST,," E 08"ANNED FROM,., PARTES'ATTORNEY,ACCOVNT ANT ORTAX
P����S�|�M��� n�isema|| inwim�ma�smuuann�uon.mmmnauvnand/or opinions expressed herein have been provided uvaprincipal orprincipals mthe
transaction, their representative o,representatives oromorm/rdparty»vurces. No the accuracy o,completeness mthe information and/or opinions or
capability mthe individual providing such information and/or opinions /uintended. Such information and/or opinions should be independently investigated and evaluated and
may not uoabasis for liability mNAI Capital, Inc. o,its agents.
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
May 11, 2016
Dear Newport Beach City Council Members,
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. I returned that card only to find out that in doing so, I
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
To: Riverside, Tustin Homeowners
From: Carriou e Slayback, Riverside Ave.
Perhaps yhave spoken to Mr. rNiall 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 $35,000 in an
estimate he received from a contractor.
underground utilities are voted in, EVERY HOMEOWNER is
OBLIGATED to pay an as yet undetermined amount.
Homeowners, pay for the undergrounding, and if not already existent on your
property,an aleDlrja�-�between home and alley and possibly a new ri
-010=iGal bQx
No : Homeowners can finance the cost of the undergrounding, added t
property tax at 6-6% over 20 years.
Cost ;of ftok-up/box is due to contractor upon Installation.
3, The vote for underground utilities, needonly,'Q be. 50% of wte5
counted.
That rneans homeowners who do not monitor the voting process
carefully, will miss the vote, Look for envelope with city seal.
Pr000nenjLs simDIv need to make sure homeownersinlavor-cast the
ast thel
4. ]f you do not want underground utilities, it's best not to sign a
petition or card. It is my understanding that signing the petition/card
puts in, action a bidding/voting proce$s, after which under grounding
momentum is hard to stop.
-vo,.u- have an
call the c-ity-blerk's Qffice aad, 3 t�n�- �f i
NOTE: Statements above discussed with Mark Vukojevic, Deputy Public Works
Director, City of Newport'Beach, Contact made with Councilman "irony Petros.
r^ ,'
November 13, 2014
Ace Thayer
426 Tustin Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92663-4819
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 19th,
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) 227-3760 (323) 791-0038 (949) 263-0004 (949) 933-6977
mhefner@voitco.com dfults@voitco.com salbrecht@sgsattorneys.com mmC@marshallllc.com
Michael A. Hefner
422 Fullerton Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
December 5, 2014
RE: Underground Utilities — Special Assessment District #114
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Thank you for your support of the proposed Assessment District #114. The response
from the community outreach meeting on November 191h 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 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 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 enclosed, 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 mhefner9voitco.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.
Sincerely,
Michael A. H ner
mhefner@voitco.com
714-227-3760
cc: Scott Albrecht 949-263-004 salbrechtPsgsattorneys.com
David Fults 323-791-0038 dfults9voitco.com
Matt Montgomery 949-933-6977 mmnmarshailllc.com
February 5, 2015
RE: 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 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 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 19th, 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
mhefner@yoitco.com dfults@voitco.com salbrecht@sgsattorneys.com rnm@marshaillic.com
Michael Hefner
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Michael Hefner
Friday, December 5, 2014 10:59 AM
'bibbetson@unionpg.com'; 'david.clark@warmingtongroup.com';
'frank.pappano@gmail.com'; 'mark@the-carver-group.com'; 'chipstassel@gmail.com';
'nini.rezai@gmail.com'; 'robert.koury@verizon.net'; 'dfriedman@wundernet.com';
jfcarison@road runner.com'; 'Jacookson@roadrunner.com'; 'kathykenya@yahoo.com';
'sowerssandra@aol.com'; 'dalelenk@sbcglobal.net'; 'gordondjones@aol.com';
'causemarketing@yahoo.com'; 'parvizmd@hotmail.com'; 'phenndi@roadrunner.com';
'oldnewport@gmail.com'; 'claude@soliste.com'; 'david.bahnsen@ms.com'; 'dhogle1
@pacbell.net'; 'dean@deanhayward.com'; 'gpharden @gmail.com';
jerry@jerrydwallace.com'; 'salshea555@gmail.com'; 'ttaillon@ajfaithproperties.com';
Janet@33nb.com'; jpirro777@gmail.com'; 'danielletokarz@icloud.com';
'Ibubb@yahoo.com'; 'david.ballardelectric@gmail.com'; 'sharonray9@road run ner.com';
'gordondjones@aol.com'; 'sknight232@hotmail.com'; 'sammello@gmail.com';
'shelly@bickett.net'; 'fagenlawyers@aol.com'
David Fults; Matt Montgomery; Scott Albrecht (salbrecht@sgsattorneys.com)
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 19th 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 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 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.
Michael A. Hefner, SIOR I 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) 227-3760
mhefner@voitco.com I www.HefnerTeam.com
Real Estate Broker, CA Bur of Real Estate, License #00857352
www.voitco.com
Click Here for V-Card
F�§
z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
k`�L1FOR��P I)ati=id .N. Webb, Pt.zhlic Wc. iln- Director
June 27, 2014
Michael Hefner
422 Fullerton Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject; Proposed Underground Utility Assessment District No. 114
Dear Mr. Hefner,
Thank you for your inquiry in forming an Underground Utility Assessment District 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 Petition 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 Roll). 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 petition. All property
owners should either sign in your presence or the presence of a notary public officer. In
addition, each person collecting signatures for this petition must sign the enclosed "Certificate of
Petition 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. Exhibit 1 shows the general boundaries for the proposed district which are 15`"
St., Irvine Ave., Cliff Dr., and Tustin Ave. The estimated cost per parcel 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 via phone at 949-644-3342 or email
msinacon a newportbeachca.gov.
Sincerely,
Michael J. SirYacori, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
Enclosures
100 Civic Ge: -ter Drive • Past Office Box 1768 Ne,vpur Beach, Ca[.ltcrnia 92660; (P.O. Sox 92658-8915)
1elegy?lane: ;949; 644-3330 • Lax: (949; 644-K108 • wwv.newporibeach ca.gov
C:tUsersiabou€aylAppCatatLo �u�fierasoftlt�dindewsETemperaryInternet Fi€estConte„LiE5\QPZBOQP9,,AD-"14 Letter cg Response
2014-Q627Aocx
Utility Underground Assessment District No. 114
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
UTILITY UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1.14
INSTRUCTIONS
PETITIQN 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 assessment district, the petition should also
be signed by Gil% of the owners based on the amount of their assessments. The signatures shall be by
owners of assessable acres "Owner" means only:
a person who, at the time the petition is :f"iled ..., appears to be the owner upon the
assessor's roll or, in the case of transfers of land, or parts thereof, subsequent to the
date upon which the last assessor's roll was prepared, appear[s] to be the owner on the
records in the county assessor's office which the county assessor will use to prepare
the next assessors Toll. If any person signing the petition appears ... as a joint tenant
or tenant-in-common, or as a husband and wife, flat property shall be counted as if
those persons had signed the petition.
If the parson signing the Petition does not appear to be the owner as shown on the records of the
County Assessor, evidence should be submitted to support the ownership. If the person is signing on
behalf of a corporation, etc., documentation should be presented to show that the person signing the
Petition has the authority to do so.
Please note that the Petition should include the following information:
1. Property owners name printed;
2. Signature of property owner;
3. Address;
4. Legal description or County Assess&s parcel number;
5. Date of signature.
Utility Underground Assessment District No. 114
FILED Its THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
THIS DAY OF , 201_
LEILANI BROWN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 114
UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PR60CEEDXNGS
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH:
1. 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 Exhibit 1, all of which
property is situated within the City of Newport Beach (the "City").
2. This petition is submitted to you pursuant to Sections 2804, 5896.5 and 5896,5 of
the California Streets and Highways Code to request that you initiate and conduct special
assessment proceedings pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Sections 14000
and following, Streets and Highways Code) (the "1913 Aet'D to establish an assessment district,
to be known as the "Assessment District No, 114" (the "Assessment District' }, for the purpose of
financing a project for the uzdergrounding of existing overhead utility facilities within the
Assessment District (the `Trcject"), as follows:
a. relocation of existing electricity, telephone and ca'aie television %ciliues
from their present above -ground locations to locations underground, 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 $28,000. We are aware that this amount is subject to
modification (increase or decrease) during the course of the legal proceedings. We are also
aware that these costs do NOT include the costs of connecting the structs res on our property to
the newly undergrounded facilities, which costs will vary from parcel to parcel and will be an
additional cost to each property owner.
4, We acknowledge each of the following:
a. THAT the cost of the Project will be charged to the parcels in the
Assessment District in proportion to benefit, as determined by you following a public
hearing;
Utility Underground Assessment District No. 114
b. THAT a report will be prepared and filed on the Project and the
Assessment District, including a detailed cost estimate and a proposed allocation among
the benefited parcels of the portion of the costs representing special benefit on the basis
of proportionality to the estimated special benefit to each parcel, and that you will
conduct a public hearing on the report and will conduct the assessment ballot procedure
required by Article XIIID of the California Constitution;
C, THAT the cost of engineering, legal and other incidental and financing
costs will be included in the amounts being assessed against the property in the
Assessment District, and that the cost of connecting our structure to the newly
undergrounded facilities will not be included in the assessment;
d. THAT, assuming assessments are levied and recorded as requested by this
petition, we will have 30 days following the recording of assessments to pay our
assessment in cash, at a discount and without interest; that, upon expiration of the 30 -day
cash payment period, you will take the required steps to authorize and sell limited
obligation improvement bonds under the Improvement Band Act of 1915 (Section 8500
and following, Streets and Highways Code) in the amount of the unpaid assessments; that
if we do not pre -pay our assessment in cash, it will become payable over a period of
years, with interest and annual administrative costs added; and that the determination
respecting the period of years and the interest rate or rates to be established by the bond
sale;
e. THAT, if we do not pre -pay our assessments, annual installments of
principal, interest and administrative costs will be collected on the property tax roll; that
suchinstallments 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 10 and April 10
deadlines; and that our parcel is subject to foreclosure (no notice of delinquency or grace
period) if we do not pay by said annual deadlines; and
£ THAT, pursuant to provisions of Article MED of the California
Constitution, protests to the proceedings will be counted solely upon the amount
proposed to be assessed to the property for which a protest assessment ballot is
submitted, as said proposed assessment amount is set forth in the engineer's report
(which will NOT include the cost of undergrounding our individual service connection
work on our parcel).
5. We waive investigation proceedings and all other provisions of Division 4, Streets
and Highways Code, as provided in Section 2804 of that Code.
BOUNDARY OF
54
_
PROPOSED
533•k i
ASSESSMENT
- -
519.1
DISTRICT
-545
_47
1546 _
547,
544
2301
546
_ 542 _
543
542
943
542
5431
X42-
_
538 __
537
5.35
539
538 _
: 539'
538
.534_
535 _
534-
535
;534
535:
532
1 530
531
550
531
530
531
530
_ ; 1 524
525.,
525
525
524 _
525
526
z-
520
521
522523.
313,1
522__
1p 521
522
_.
. 5.16_
519
518 -
_519 _ 519
:518 _
_ 519
518
512_
515--
514_`
_ 51.5.
'514-
_ 515.
512__
1 510
511
510.._.
511
510
511
510
504. .
805_
504
_507
505
504
1 540
501
500
501
2320,
5Q1
500
_ 1
CLAY
4445
2444 _
23(}1 22tJ7
_
44
441
4 '442 ,
441;.
440
4+13 .�
442
— 4381
4391438
437 438
439'
438 .
4_3x4.'
435,
430 ,
435, 432
435.
432
_430.
431
431
430
431;
4317
1 426
_ 427
42fi --
425 425'
426
427'
426
423,Cd 422;
423,
-
42-2--'l
L 423
w42-2 _.
41 &
419
418 __
417'
416 _
419.
418
f�
414,
415
414
415
414
415
412__
t 410'
411,
410
411;
410
411
410
406;
405,
4D6
407
4{}6
_407:
-_
404
400 _
40'1
400
� 401
-
- -- -
y_
8T
�/
323
328
329
32327
328319
3324
324 2Q
325'
3325
324�1.;.
4a
315321
3.232].
j
320
131631?
3__317315
31313312
\�
N(0�o�o
1 .r
tt •�
Qm':=�ad8
M n tt+�, ro
_
a,!0,
I Cy N
. N N N
rY
N N! N
c t n
— — _ CLIFF DR
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT KQ, 114
AREA BOUNDARY BY 15TH ST, IRVINE AVE, CUFF DR, AND TU871N AVE
LWEND
® POLES TO BE REMOVED DISTANCE: %750 LF KT.S.
POLES TO BE REMAIN PARCELS: 249
OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED
---- OVERREAD LINES TO REMAIN
GUY VIVRE (15/96/14
54
_
533•k i
527
519.1
515.'
511
_
905' 1
22W'
2201i tau
`
443 ta
439_--
_-
435
431 t_
42.71 j
CORAL
42
419',
_ 415;►
_411
405
441 t
2
3291yN
325' 1
3191
z-
317
l
313,1
— — _ CLIFF DR
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT KQ, 114
AREA BOUNDARY BY 15TH ST, IRVINE AVE, CUFF DR, AND TU871N AVE
LWEND
® POLES TO BE REMOVED DISTANCE: %750 LF KT.S.
POLES TO BE REMAIN PARCELS: 249
OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED
---- OVERREAD LINES TO REMAIN
GUY VIVRE (15/96/14
Utility 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:
OWNER'S SIGNATURE:
OWNERS NAME (PRINTED);
DATE:
OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT):
Utility Underground Assessment District No. 1.14
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. 114.
The persons whose signatures appear on said petition are, to the best of my
knowledge, owners of property within the boundary of the distriut 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 , 201_, at Newport Beach, California.
Print Name: