File #: REPORT 20-0662    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Action Item Status: Public Hearing
File created: 10/6/2020 In control: City Council
On agenda: 10/13/2020 Final action:
Title: HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING, TABULATE THE BALLOTS AND IF SUFFICIENT BALLOTS ARE RECEIVED, CONSIDER APPROVING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CREATING THE GREENWICH VILLAGE NORTH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (Public Works Director Marnell Gibson)
Attachments: 1. 1. Final Assessors Diagram_Portrait-Boundary Map, 2. 2. Utilities Assessment Districts Guide Alternatives.REVISED 7.9.19, 3. 3. Final Engineer's Report - Greenwich Village_10.13.20, 4. 4. Greenwich Village North UUD Webpage, 5. 5. Greenwich Village North UUAD - FAQ FINAL DRAFT, 6. 6. Supplemental Certificate of Sufficiency Greenwich Assessment District, 7. 7. Resolution Confirming Assessment, 8. 8. SUPPLEMENTAL attachment Greenwich Village Undergrounding Presentation (Submitted 10-12-20 at 5.48 p.m.), 9. 9. SUPPLEMENTAL Email from Linda Biche (Submitted 10-6-20 at 1.31 p.m.), 10. 10. SUPPLEMENTAL Email from Peter Biche (Submitted 10-6-20 at 10.40 a.m.), 11. 11. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Simon Mani (Submitted 10-12-20 at 11.41 a.m.), 12. 12. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Kristy Natter (Submitted 10-12-20 at 1.12 p.m.), 13. 13. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Mori Biener (Submitted 10-12-20 at 1.15 p.m.), 14. 14. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Jim Hamilton (Submitted 10-12-20 at 1.35 p.m.), 15. 15. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Joey Rivera (Submitted 10-12-20 at 2.31 p.m.), 16. 16. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Jonathan Hirshberg (Submitted 10-12-20 at 2.50 p.m.), 17. 17. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Nancy Schwappach (Submitted at 2.52 p.m.), 18. 18. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Zachary Warren (Submitted 10-12-20 at 2.58 p.m.), 19. 19. SUPPLEMENTAL Email from Kelly Kahl (Submitted 10-12-20 at 3.31 p.m.), 20. 20. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Val Schnabl (Submitted 10-12-20 at 5.01 p.m.), 21. 21. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecommet from Kimberly West (Submitted 10-12-20 at 6.13 p.m.), 22. 22. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Glena Carroll (Submitted 10-12-20 at 7.08 p.m.), 23. 23. SUPPLEMENTAL Email from Stephan Goldberg (Submitted 10-9-20 at 1.08 p.m.), 24. 24. SUPPLEMENTAL Attachment Email Response to Stephan Goldberg (Submitted 10-12-20 at 5.58 p.m.), 25. 25. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from John Morrisette (Submitted 10-12-20 at 9.06 p.m.), 26. 26. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Anastasia Brien (Submitted 10-12-20 at 10.42 p.m.), 27. 27. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Alex Mack (Submitted 10-13-20 at 7.28 a.m.), 28. 28. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from William Woods (Submitted 10-13-20 at 7.32 a.m.), 29. 29. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Scott King (Submitted 10-13-20 at 9.52 a.m.), 30. 30. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Jonathan Seiffer (Submitted 10-13-20 at 10.20 a.m.), 31. 31. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Matt Morris (Submitted 10-13-20 at 10.44 a.m.), 32. 32. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Roberta Newman (Submitted 12-13-20 at 11.51 a.m.), 33. 33. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Nicolas Brien (Submitted 10-13-20 at 11.56 a.m.), 34. 34. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Joshua Fein (Submitted 10-13-20 at 11.58 a.m.), 35. 35. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Ron Newman (Submitted 10-13-20 at 12.07 p.m.), 36. 36. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Elizabeth Lopez (Submitted 10-13-20 at 12.48 p.m.), 37. 37. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Shannon Kenney (Submitted 10-13-20 at 12.51 p.m.), 38. 38. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Shauna Valenzuela (Submitted 10-13-20 at 1.08 p.m.), 39. 39. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from David McGovern (Submitted 10-13-20 at 1.16 p.m.), 40. 40. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Robert Courtney (Submitted 10-13-20 at 1.21 p.m.), 41. 41. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Brad Scott (Submitted 10-13-20 at 1.33 p.m.), 42. 42. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Steve Riboli (Submitted 10-13-20 at 1.45 p.m.), 43. 43. SUPPLEMENTAL Ecomment from Bryan Johnson (Submitted 10-13-20 at 1.55 p.m.), 44. 44. SUPPLEMENTAL Letter from Peter Biche (Submitted 10-13-20 at 2.51 p.m.), 45. 45. SUPPLEMENTAL Letter from Gary S. Burdick (Submitted 10-13-20 at 3.19 p.m.), 46. 46. SUPPLEMENTAL Email from Salli Harris (Submitted at 3.53 p.m.)

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council                                                                         Regular Meeting of October 13, 2020

Title

HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING, TABULATE THE BALLOTS

AND IF SUFFICIENT BALLOTS ARE RECEIVED, CONSIDER

APPROVING THE FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT AND

CREATING THE GREENWICH VILLAGE NORTH

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

 (Public Works Director Marnell Gibson)

 

Body

Recommended Action:

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following:

1.                      Hold public hearing to take testimony from interested persons, as well as parcel owners in the Greenwich Village North Underground Utilities Assessment District (“Assessment District”);

2.                     Tabulate ballots for the formation of the Assessment District;

3.                      If sufficient ballots are received, Adopt Resolution No. 20-7260 approving the Final Engineer’s report, forming the Assessment District, and ordering the undergrounding improvements; and

4.                      Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the property owners within the Assessment District for the deposit of funds to pay design costs, should the Assessment District be formed.

 

Body

Executive Summary:

The proposed City of Hermosa Beach Greenwich Village North Underground Utilities Assessment District (Assessment District or District) is intended to finance the undergrounding of overhead utility lines and poles along Hermosa Avenue from 27th Street to north of 34th Street. The undergrounding project and establishment of the Assessment District were initiated at the request of residents along Hermosa Avenue within the proposed Assessment District boundaries. Under the California Public Utilities Commission’s guidelines, District applicants (parcel owners) for this class of project are responsible for the costs of the undergrounding. The public hearing and tabulation of the ballots would continue the effort to form the assessment district.

 

Background: 

On May 4, 2017, the Public Works Department received a formal request from property owners within the proposed Assessment District boundaries asking the City to proceed with the formation of the Assessment District. The proposed Assessment District contains 99 parcels and includes Hermosa Avenue from the one power pole north of 34th Street to 27th Street as shown on the Boundary Map (Attachment 1). The power poles along Palm Drive and parcels on the east side of Palm Drive are not included in the Assessment District.

 

In April 2017, the City updated the “Underground Utilities Assessment Districts Guide (Initiated by Property Owners)” (Guidelines) (Attachment 2) to guide the formation of assessment districts for utility undergrounding projects. The guidelines are a roadmap to help property owners within the City who wish to initiate an undergrounding assessment district. It is an informational tool to guide the process and helps ensure that there is sufficient support from the neighborhood to move forward through the steps of forming an assessment district. The Guidelines were updated again in July 2019, to add clarity and better reflect the process set out under state law.

 

On November 27, 2018, the City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement to NV5 for assessment engineer services. At the meeting, it was also reported that the Municipal Advisor NHA Advisors and Bond Counsel Jones Hall submitted proposals that were within the City Manager’s signature authority. These service agreements were executed in January 2019. The deposit from the property owners for the assessment engineer services was received on November 29, 2018. Fees for the financial advisor and bond counsel are contingent on the sale of the bonds and would be paid from bond proceeds.

 

On August 11, 2020, the City Council adopted the resolution preliminarily approving the engineer’s report, set the date for the public hearing, authorized the filing of the Boundary Map with the County Recorder, authorized and directed the mailing of combined public hearing notices/assessment ballots and authorized the City Clerk to receive and tabulate the assessment ballots at the public hearing. This resolution set the public hearing for tonight’s Council meeting.

 

On September 10, 2020, the City hosted a virtual informational meeting for the District’s parcel owners during which Public Works and City staff, the assessment engineer, the bond counsel, and the financial advisor presented information and answered questions from the residents regarding district formation, the engineer’s report, ballots and the assessment calculation process.

 

The Assessment District is intended to be formed following Alternative 2 of the Guidelines, which provides that the assessments will be calculated based on an engineer’s estimate of the maximum possible project cost, and the design and construction would begin after the district is formed. Actual project construction bidding would occur after the District is formed and bonds are sold. To date, steps 1 through 10 of the Guidelines, summarized as follows, have been completed:

 

1.                     Process Initiation-the property owner serving as the neighborhood liaison and project proponent submitted a letter expressing interest in forming the district and showing the proposed district boundaries, which was supported by 60% of the property owners in the proposed district boundaries.

2.                     Boundary Map-City staff prepared the boundary map that was submitted to the utility companies, who in turn prepared a feasibility analysis and preliminary cost estimate for the design and construction of the utility undergrounding project. These preliminary costs, which totaled $1,986,259.14, were provided to the property owners in a City letter dated November 20, 2017.

3.                     Letter of Continued Commitment-a letter of continued commitment signed by at least 60% of property owners in the proposed district boundaries was submitted to the City via email dated February 13, 2018.

4.                     Consultant Services-the City retained the following consultants needed for the assessment district formation: NV5 as the Assessment Engineer, NHA as the Municipal Advisor, and Jones Hall as the Bond Counsel.

5.                     Formal Petition-the property owners submitted a petition to the City with at least 60% of the property owners in the undergrounding district supporting the petition. The Assessment Engineer certified the petition.

6.                     Resolution of Intention-City Council adopted the resolution of intention on July 23, 2019 to formally initiate the formation of the district and to direct NV5 to prepare the preliminary engineer’s report.

7.                     Preliminary Engineer’s Report-the Assessment Engineer prepared the preliminary Engineer’s Report identifying the special benefits of the district and the scope of the project which was approved by the City Council on August 11, 2020.

8.                     Preliminary Engineer’s Report-utilizing the cost estimates for design and construction and utilizing and industry standard methodology, the Assessment Engineer determined the assessment amount that each parcel should be responsible for, should the district pass.

9.                     Resolution-on August 11, 2020, City Council adopted a resolution preliminarily approving the engineer’s report, authorizing the mailing of the ballots to all of the assessed parcels in the district, and setting the public hearing date for October 13, 2020 to open and tally the ballots.

10.                     Assessment Ballots-the assessment ballots specifying the assessment amount for each parcel in the district were mailed to each parcel owner on August 14, 2020. An informational meeting was virtually held on September 10, 2020 for the property owners in the district to explain the details of the proposed district and allow for questions regarding the process.

 

Analysis:

The Assessment Engineer prepared the Final Engineer’s Report (Attachment 3) which identifies the scope of the utility undergrounding project, estimates the total project cost ($4,031,600), specifies the method by which the project cost would be apportioned to each parcel in the Assessment District and specifies the total assessment amount to be levied on each parcel based on the special benefits each parcel would receive from the undergrounding project. The Final Report has added information to further clarify how the assessment roll was determined, which according to the Assessment Engineer, reflects an industry standard for determining special benefit to the parcels that has been used in numerous districts throughout Southern California.

 

The ballots, along with the public notice as well as information letters, were mailed to each of the assessed parcels in the District. This public hearing is the deadline for property owners in the District to submit their signed assessment ballots to the City Clerk. The public hearing takes place during the regularly scheduled City Council of October 13, 2020, which is at least 45 days after approval of the resolution. Each ballot specifies the assessment amount for each parcel in the District. All ballots must be marked, signed and submitted to the City Clerk before the close of the scheduled public hearing. Each submitted ballot would represent the vote of each property owner as either for or against the forming of the District. If more than 50% of the parcel owners’ weighted ballots cast vote YES, then the City Council may choose to proceed with the formation of the District. If a majority of the weighted ballots cast vote NO, then the City Council may take no further action on the formation of the District. Should the District formation fail, the funds advanced by the property owners to date would not be reimbursed. If the City Council determines to establish the District, all property owners within the District would be responsible for the assessment amount regardless of a property owner’s individual vote. Assessment liens would be recorded with the County Recorder against all parcels in the district.

 

The cost of project design and bidding specifications would be paid by the property owners after the Assessment District is formed, and once construction bids are received, bonds will be issued to fund the construction costs and reimburse the property owners for their deposit of the costs of project design.

 

The Assessment Engineer is required to use a conservative estimate of the total project cost, including a contingency, with the intent that the assessments are sufficient to cover the entire cost of the project. If the design and construction costs are lower than the estimates and total assessment amount contained in the engineer’s report, those actual costs will be used as the basis for the annual assessment levies. If actual design costs and construction bids are higher than these estimates and the final approved assessment amount, the property owners would be responsible for paying those additional costs, which may require either a cash contribution from the property owners or a supplemental assessment that would need to be approved by the property owners through a second assessment ballot process. The contingency is intended to avoid this result.

 

The companies involved with the undergrounding effort include Southern California Edison (SCE), Frontier, and Crown Castle, with SCE as the lead company. All three companies require up-front payment for estimated design costs in order to begin the design phase, estimated to be $185,000. The City is preparing a draft deposit agreement with the property owners to collect funds needed to pay these up-front costs. If the district is formed, the City Manager would enter into the agreement with the residents. Utility companies typically complete design (estimated 18-24 months) and provide construction cost estimates. While design is underway, property owners are able to prepay any portion of their assessment. In concurrence with the completion of design, notice will be given that the cash collection period is ending. Assessment amounts are updated to reflect cash pre-payments.

 

In addition to the virtual informational meeting hosted by the City on September 10, 2020, the City has responded to numerous requests for further information via in writing, Zoom meetings and phone calls. The City has set up a webpage specifically to provide the public information for this project (Attachment 4). Recently, a list of Frequently Asked Questions was generated by the team that is specific to the Greenwich Village North proposed district (Attachment 5) and has also been posted on the City website.

 

Some residents have expressed concerns that when the City Council adopted the Resolution of Intention in July 2019, that the level of resident support presented to the City Council in the form of a petition did not meet the minimum 60% set out in the City’s Guidelines. While there was adequate support presented to the City at that time to warrant moving forward to the next step in the process, staff has gone back and reviewed the files in response to concerns raised by the residents. Accordingly, even if all questionable petitions are removed from the calculation, the attached supplemental certificate of sufficiency demonstrates that the City had received the appropriate level of support needed at that time (Attachment 6). The attached FAQ or attachment 4 also responds to various questions raised by residents and explains the basis for the assessment in more detail. The Final Engineer’s Report or attachment 3 also includes clarifications on the basis for the assessment amount.

 

Tonight’s Actions

 

1.                     Hold public hearing to take testimony from interested persons, as well as parcel owners in the Assessment District (“Assessment District”).

2.                     Tabulation of ballots for the formation of the Assessment District. Tabulation will be carried out by the City Clerk, with the assistance of representatives from the Assessment Engineer, NV5.

3.                     If sufficient ballots are received, adopt Resolution No.20-7260 (Attachment 6). This resolution adopts the final Engineer’s Report, orders that the undergrounding improvements will be carried out, confirms the special benefit findings contained in the final Engineer’s Report, formally declares the Assessment District to be formed and levies the assessments, and directs mailing, publishing and recording assessment notices.

4.                     Authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the property owners within the Assessment District for the deposit of funds to pay design costs, should the Assessment District be formed.

 

General Plan Consistency:

This report and associated recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant policies are listed below:

 

Governance Element:

2.6 Responsive to community needs. Continue to be responsive to community inquiries, providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions.

2.7 Major planning efforts. Require major planning efforts, policies, or projects to include a public engagement effort.

5.8 Public private partnerships. Pursue the use of public-private partnerships to implement projects and efforts that maintain character and benefit the community.

 

Parks + Open Space Element:

5.6 Signage and infrastructure. Encourage signage, infrastructure, and utilities that do not block or detract from views of scenic vistas.

Infrastructure Element:

6.2 Below ground utilities. Encourage the phase out and replace overhead electric lines with subsurface lines to reduce visual obstructions and the need for utility poles which can impede sidewalk accessibility.

This project falls within the Walk Street and Sand Section Neighborhoods of the City, where key priorities are maintaining the high-quality pedestrian connections through the walk streets, enhancing multimodal connectivity and retaining the form, scale, and orientation of buildings in this area. 

 

Fiscal Impacts:

Property owners are responsible for all costs associated with this project. Funds have been deposited for payment of the Assessment District Engineer; upon approval of the District, property owners will deposit funds for the design. Upon issuance of the bonds, advanced funds are reimbursed from bond funds and all other costs of forming the District and construction of the project are paid from the proceeds of the assessment bonds. None of these costs is the responsibility of the City. Should the District fail, funds advanced by the property owners are not reimbursed.

 

Attachments:

1.                     Boundary Map

2.                     Undergrounding District guidelines

3.                     Final Engineer’s Report

4.                     Greenwich Village North Utilities Undergrounding District Webpage

5.                     Greenwich Village North Utilities Undergrounding District - Frequently Asked Questions

6.                     Supplemental Certification of Sufficiency for Petitions

7.                     Resolution No. 20-7260

 

 

Respectfully Submitted by: Reed Salan, Associate Engineer

Concur: Lucho Rodriguez, Deputy City Engineer

Concur: Marnell Gibson, Public Works Director

Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director

Noted for Legal Review: Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney

Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager