Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/2000 - Study Session9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session March 28, 2000 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL INDEX Present: Thomson, Glover (arrived at 4:25 p.m.), Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, Mayor Noyes Absent: O'Neil (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item No. 5 (Construction Site Fencing and Screening Requirements), Mayor Pro Tem Adams reported that Council received a letter from Bob Yant that indicates that the cost of fencing a 60 ft. x 120 ft. lot for one year is $2,000; however the staff report states that it would cost $800. He requested feedback on the discrepancy by 7:00 p.m. Regarding Item No. 6 (Bayside Drive Parkway Improvements), Mayor Pro • Tem Adams asked if Council will be seeing what the project is all about and what it is going to look like. Public Works Director Webb indicated that a set of plans can be provided before the study session is over. Regarding Item No. 7 (Design of the Corona del Mar Water Transmission Main), Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what other firms submitted bids and the price ranges of their bids. Mr. Webb stated that they normally negotiate for these types of designs. Regarding Item No. 14 (Santiago Drive Speed Reduction Program), Mayor Pro Tem Adams reported that the staff report was not sent to the residents. He suggested that this item be continued to the April 11 meeting to give them a chance to review the material. City Manager Bludau concurred with the recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Adams requested to see the speed profiles and how it has been affected by the physical improvements and enforcement, explaining that he is hoping that the reduction in the 85 percentile is fairly modest at 3 mph and that some of the higher speeds have been cut down. In response to Council Member Debay's questions regarding Item No. 17 (Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative - Assumptions and Methodology), Mr. Bludau confirmed that this is part of the report that John Douglas of The Planning Center is conducting and that these are just the issues that require an interpretation or an assumption since there will be some impacts that will be concluded based on the study. He clarified that • the study will only look at the 49 statistical areas, determine their capacities, and then the City will move forward based on the impacts to the individual statistical areas. Volume 53 - Page 257 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 • 2. NEWPORT BAY UPDATE - DREDGING, WATER QUALITY, MORE. Deputy City Manager Kiff indicated that the good news is that Propositions 12 and 13 passed. He reported that Proposition 12 included a $13 million local match to conduct a Federally- funded State dredging project in Upper Newport Bay. He noted that the City completed a 900,000 cubic yard dredging project in the Bay about a year ago. However, he utilized maps to show that the Bay was not fully dredged and was not left in a perfect condition. He pointed out that the light brown area in the maps is a mud flat, not open water; that a channel was cut through the middle; and that Unit I, II, and III Basins were cleared out. He reported that, since then, the Bay has undergone a two -year U.S. Army Corp of Engineers study that is near completion that discusses what the optimal ecosystem of the Bay should look like and provides recommendations. He stated that the Corp recommends more extensive dredging in Unit I and II Basins, that they left the mud flat because it is important to the wildlife, and that they propose to dredge additional channels to increase the flow of the Bay. This project will cost $28 million, take about two years to complete, and is about three times larger than the last dredging project. He reported that the Federal government will pay 65 percent and reiterated that the State, County, and City share (35 percent) is completely covered by Proposition 12. Mr. Kiff added that this project has a 20 -year life, assuming that rainfalls are normal. He indicated that the Corp's recommendation will be in the news within the next month as it is released for public review and comment, and • that they will be holding a public hearing in the Chambers. Council Member Ridgeway reported that the 900,000 cubic yards that went offsite was basically silt and dirt, and will play into tonight's discussion. Mr. Kiff indicated that similar dredging will occur. He emphasized that the dumpsite the City uses off of the pier (LA -3) is very important to the project and that, if it is taken away, the City will end up paying a transport cost to take the material to a site off of Long Beach. This would double the cost of the project. He stated that they have been working hard to ensure that they can continue to use LA -3 even though it is a "temporary site." Council Member Debay reported that Congressman Cox indicated that it is a good time to make these types of requests. Mr. Kiff confirmed that the dumpsite is high on Congressman Cox's list and that the City has submitted three requests (completion of the Federal dredging project; continuation of LA -3 as a permanent dumpsite; and a comprehensive study of the watershed to keep sediment from coming down). He reported that the assurance that the City has today is that, if the project can be completed on time, they can still stay within the temporary designation window; however, it closes shortly after the project is done. He emphasized that LA -3 will need to be made permanent and referenced the projects in Attachment A. Regarding the TMDL, Mr. Kiff stated that this is going to be an important issue for Newport Beach. He clarified that the fecal coliform TMDL basically means that water that enters the Bay from any of the storm drains has to be clean enough for swimming. He noted that the Bay is the only area in Southern California that has a TMDL requirement, that it will be difficult for the City to meet the contaminate limit, and that it will be expensive. He reported that there are a few areas in the east coast and very few areas in Volume 53 - Page 258 INDEX Issues (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX • the west coast that have TMDL requirements. Regarding lower bay general permits, Mr. Kiff reported that the City routinely receives a ten -year permit from the Coastal Commission, supported by the Corp of Engineers, that allows the City to authorize everyone who owns a residential pier in the harbor to dredge their pier. He indicated that the renewal has been challenging this time, explaining that the City submitted the application for the new permit in October, knowing it was going to expire in December, but the Coastal Commission staff did not set the matter for hearing until this month. He stated that, when they set the hearing, they imposed conditions that are difficult for the City and the pier permittees to meet (page 3 of the staff report). This may mean that everyone will have to individually request permits from the Commission to conduct dredging projects. Regarding the eelgrass condition, Council Member Glover indicated that she and City Attorney Burnham have been looking at this issue for three years. She reported that, since eelgrass is unique to its area, no mitigation can take place. She expressed the opinion that the City should not go forward with the program to plant eelgrass offsite and use it to replant in the Bay at a later date. Mr. Kiff reported that only plans and specifications have been looked at, but agreed that the City should not participate in the program if no credit will be received. • Regarding the onshore sand content condition, Public Works Director Webb reported that, once the dredging is laid on the beach, the water solution takes a lot of the silts to the bottom. If sand was dredged onto the beach, a dark sand material will be formed that contains a lot of fine silts that are bleached out rapidly. He concluded by emphasizing that such a precise gradation of the material cannot be made until after two or three months. Council Member Ridgeway explained that there are basically two types of dredging (large clam shells dropped down by a hoist and using a pump method) and that the permit generally utilizes the pump action for dredging. Mr. Kiff reported that the City used clam shells for the Upper Newport Bay project because it was the most feasible method for the area. Regarding providing additional surveys, Mr. Kiff reported that it takes a long time to do a good bio -assay study and that the City may end up incurring the $75,000 cost for the study. Council Member Ridgeway pointed out that the proposed areas make up over 50 percent of the Bay. Mr. Kiff reported that the issue was heard by the Commission about ten days ago at the Monterey meeting that Deputy Fire and Marine Chief Melum attended. He made the arguments that the conditions are too onerous and requested a continuance to their April meeting so that the City could have more time to talk with the Commission. Deputy Fire and Marine Chief Melum stated that the City basically has two permits awaiting approval when normally there is one permit. He reported that one permit is the Federal consistency application in which the State's staff says that the • City's Federal request matches State law; and the other is the specific dredging permit. The consistency application will be heard at the April meeting; however, the dredging permit will be placed on a future agenda. Volume 53 - Page 259 r 1 �J City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Council Member Glover asked if the City would be better off continuing this for awhile until it can work with Commission staff to not impose these conditions. Mr. Melum stated that they are strategizing the best way to bring some pressure on Coastal Commission staff and work towards the hierarchy. He indicated that his impression with dealing with their staff is that they are very reluctant to issue a general permit even though this is the third time the City has applied for it. They believe a general permit gives the City too much latitude, which accounts for their conservative requirements. He reported that there are 1,200 residential/commercial permittees that could be affected by the conditions and that they have not been officially notified of the situation. He indicated that he has been keeping the contractors apprised of the situation and informed them that there is a time consuming and very costly mechanism for which the 1,200 permittees can get their own permit. He noted that the City issues between 45 to 60 permits a year and only about one of them applies for their permit as an individual. Council Member Glover believed that the City should notice the affected permittees because this could be a big policy change. Mr. Bludau emphasized that time is of the essence for the dock owners so that they could use their property. He indicated that the conditions seem to suggest that the Commission wants to force the City to have individual permit applications rather than a master permit. Council Member Debay stated that she would love to see the Council at the Commission's meeting to testify on the issue. Council Member Ridgeway • reported that he went out at low tide to do an inspection of the harbor and noticed a lot of expensive damage to piers and boats. He emphasized that property values are decreased if the owners' ability to dredge the private docks is taken away, and that the industry is useless if the docks are useless. He stated that he, the City Manager, and the Deputy Fire and Marine Chief met with Dave Neish of DB Neish, Incorporated, who reported that the Commission consists of 12 members (four are appointed by the Governor; four by the Speaker of the Assembly; and four by the Senate Pro Tem) and that six of them must be elected officials from the coastal communities. With the election of Governor Davis, there is a newly- constituted Commission that is very environmentally sensitive but not sensitive to the City's issues. Regarding Commission staff, Council Member Ridgeway indicated that they are the same staff members that have been there for years; however, he believed that the City has not done an effective job of communicating the problems and, therefore, this has reached a critical timeframe. He reported that Mr. Melum did prepare a list of problems with regard to the Commission's ocean and beach disposal conditions, and added that the Commission did not release their report until just a few days before the hearing. He concluded that $12,000 to $20,000 of studies will need to be conducted if everyone needed individual permits from the Commission for a process that only takes six to twelve months. Mayor Noyes asked what is entailed and the timeframe involved for a private citizen to obtain a permit. Mr. Melum stated that the best case scenario would only entail grain size and chemical analyses ($2,000 to • $6,000). However, if the chemical analysis shows that there are heavy metals, a bio -assay study will need to be conducted. He reported that the City conducted chemical analyses in 12 areas within the harbor and that the Volume 53 - Page 260 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX • data suggests that only grain size and chemical analyses will need to be done since four of the areas were excluded from having heavy metals and eight areas were considered clean. This would still cost each permittee about $6,000 for a job that really only costs about $1,500. He emphasized how the cost of the permit and the timing is out of proportion to the nature of the job. Tod Johnson, 121 North Bayfront, stated that he and his wife recently moved into their house and purchased a boat. He indicated that Mark Sikes of Intercoastal Dredging has been keeping them apprised of the proposed policy and procedures, and pointed out that they now have to pay for dock space elsewhere because they cannot store their boat at their own property. He urged Council to take a very proactive stand to reach a reasonable solution as this will severely affect real estate values. He pointed out that dredging is only a maintenance issue since the property owners are not displacing tremendous amounts of soil, dredging reinforces the City's bulkheads, and the area is a non -beach area. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the fine is $50,000 if someone took the matter into their own hands. Lisa Miller, dredging contractor and President of Shellmaker Incorporated, reported that there are currently docks that are broken -up, boats that are unable to go into their slips, and fingers of docks that are about ready to break off. She also emphasized the issue of bulkhead reinforcement since it • is one of the ways that property owners protect their waterfront structures and homes. She agreed that it would be helpful for the homeowners to receive something from the City that explains what is happening because they are understandably frustrated and irate. Ms. Miller stated that, even though she has consulted for the Coastal Commission, she cannot state that they are a rational organization to work with or that they respond in a timely manner. She reported that, when she sat on the County Oversight Committee for the Bay dredging, the County received a permit for emergency dredging from the Commission and the Corp in record time, and that she asked Supervisor Wilson if there was any possibility that County Coastal Engineer Tom Rossmiller could provide guidance and walk them through the technical issues. She indicated that Supervisor Wilson believes it would not be a problem if Chief of Staff Holly Vail was contacted. Ms. Miller requested that Council look into this. Council Member Ridgeway commented that the County Coastal Coalition may not be a forum that is receptive to the City's cause. Barry O'Neil, 221 East Bayfront, stated that he has owned property on Balboa Island since 1976 and in 1993 moved to the bayfront because it allowed him to purchase a property with a slip so he could maintain his vessel. Since moving there, he has dredged his dock every 18 months at his expense. He noted that dredging also benefits his neighbors both on and off the island because he creates a 30 ft. long x 12 ft. deep beach area for people to sit on and visit during the summer. He reported that he was not granted . a permit when he applied for it in September because he was told that the permit already expired. Mr. O'Neil expressed concern that a first class harbor is deteriorating and added that his boat has sustained substantial Volume 53 - Page 261 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX • damage as a result of being beached twice in the past few months. He stated that he is ready to take his boat permanently out of the harbor and out of the country because it cannot be maintained, and believed that a lot of people will be having the same problem in a few months. He noted that the assessed value of his property will decrease and that the property owners do not have six months to wait. He stated that the City needs to solicit help from County officials, the Governor, Senators, and Congressmen. He added that East Bayfront does not have a shortage of eelgrass because there is plenty growing near the Little Balboa Island bridge. Council Member Debay hoped that everyone also speaks on this issue during the regular meeting because the meeting is televised and press will be in attendance. She apologized that this is the first time she has heard about this issue. Mr. Melum clarified that the application was submitted to the Commission in July because their staff wanted to make sure that the City had all issues resolved with the Corp and the EPA. He reported that the two permits were previously granted within 60 days and that they were fairly certain, based on past history, that this would be the case this time. He indicated that they began working with the Corp two years prior to the permit expiring but the Corp felt it was too soon. The City tried again 13 months prior to the permit expiring and it took until July to resolve all the issues. He stated that the City's permit expired August 31, 1999; however, he indicated that the • application that was sent in July was not going to be official for 60 days after that because the Commission requested additional information that they had never requested in the past. In response to Mayor Noyes' question regarding emergency dredging, Mr. Melum stated that this is used only if there is potential eminent damage to the property. This would not be very helpful in these cases, otherwise the City would have already applied for it. Ms. Miller indicated that she submitted an emergency request for one of her clients which did not involve dredging. With an emergency permit, she reported that the owner can only do work that is going to tie them over until the real job can be performed. The emergency permit was granted in 20 days, but it took about 18 months to turn the temporary permit into a permanent permit. Council Member Ridgeway noted that no action can be taken on study session items but reminded Council that Item No. 15 will allow Council to take action on these issues. He agreed with Council Member Debay that it would help if someone from the audience spoke at the regular meeting. John Corrough, 1004 South Bayfront and Harbor Committee Member, stated that his family has owned property and boats since the 1930s. He indicated that the net differential between the cost of the dredging and the cost of all the other exercises that receiving an individual permit entails is about 16 times the cost of the dredging, even when a number of people contribute their expertise to the process. He noted that he has been a planner and • designer of waterfront facilities for 40 years and has worked with the Commission and other agencies as part of his job. He stated that he is stunned by the amount of difficulty they are now having. Volume 53 - Page 262 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX • Mr. Corrough noted that safety issues were discussed in a meeting last week with the Chamber of Commerce Marine Committee. He reported that the local Coast Guard Commander commented that the Coast Guard cutter, which services the City's harbor and the outer area, is currently going aground at low tide and that this may require him to do something on an emergency basis through the Federal level. Further, they are limited in their ability to respond to calls because the County rescue boats and harbor patrol boats go aground regularly due to conditions that normally have not occurred. He added that visiting vessels and home ported vessels have also gone aground, causing injury and damage. Mr. Corrough reported that there is a major component of the harbor and the City's economy that is derived from waterfront uses that require docking vessels that carry the general public. This situation is beginning to affect many operators who are now only able to operate in certain tide conditions. He stated that the City needs to seize a proactive, aggressive, focused effort. Patty Pemper, representing the De Anza Bayside Village and Marina, expressed concern that they have been left out of the process because they are located north of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. She stated that the area has historically been dredged near the mouth of the marina by using the general permit and that they are basically being told that they will be forced to spend a great deal of money to do very small dredging jobs. She expressed hope that the City is successful in its efforts with the Commission. • Mr. Melum indicated that the City has the only maintenance permit for residential harbors and has one of the only general permits in the State. Mayor Noyes suggested finding out if there are other cities whose permits will be expiring soon so that the City can possibly have an ally to work with in this fight. Mr. Melum indicated that the Commission considers dredging spoils almost as toxic waste and that it has to be proven to them that it is not, regardless if there are 20 cubic yards or 3 million cubic yards of material. Referencing the large amount of waste that was hauled to sea after the Bay dredging project, Ms. Miller indicated that if she did the same job she would have to fill her dump barge everyday (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) and take it out to sea for 11.63 years to meet the same amount of material. Additionally, since the City has the estuary, she indicated that there is a special problem in Newport Harbor that other harbors do not have because sand also drains into the Bay on a constant basis. In response to Mayor Noyes' question, Ms. Miller indicated that she stopped taking dredging applications and stopped sending personnel out to take the soundings because it is costing her money. She stated that she is only keeping a running list and maintaining her equipment. Mr. Bludau stated that Mr. Neish admitted that working with the Commission is laborious and the rules have completely changed. Further, that the City would need to work with Commission staff to get them on the City's side and then work through the State even before reaching the • Commission. This means that the City will need to spend some time and make this a high priority. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the City has engaged the legislators (Attachment B). He added that Assemblywoman Volume 53 - Page 263 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 • Brewer's husband even contacted him to complain that his boat was hung up on some shoals and that he cannot park his vessel in his dock. He expressed the opinion that the City needs to move forward on two fronts: staff to staff and from a political point. He emphasized that the Commission bureaucratically stopping the Bay dredging is unacceptable and will actually deteriorate the Bay. He noted that this problem arose because of the Federal and State Clean Water Act, but reported that the City's water and sand are cleaner today then they have ever been. He assured everyone that any discussion about economic impacts has no value to the Commission. Mayor Noyes stated that the City will have staff make this a high priority and do everything it can to resolve the issue. He agreed that the owners need to receive an update on where the City is on this so that they can be kept aware and possibly enlist their aid in the fight. Council Member Glover agreed and suggested sending them the staff report. She stated that Mr. Kiff and Mr. Melum should continue to work together and possibly have City Attorney Burnham assist them with negotiations. Council Member Debay asked if there was a legal way to challenge this. City Attorney Burnham indicated that he was not aware of the seriousness but has made notes so that he can check on existing Coastal Commission regulations. He stated that he will talk with Mr. Bludau, Mr. Kiff, and Mr. Melum on some ways to approach the Commission's staff. • Council Member Thomson stated that he also spoke with Mr. Brewer, who won last year's Ensenada race for being the first Newport Beach sailor to cross the finish line. He emphasized that his point was not necessarily about his dock but that he cannot sail his boat anymore because of the threat of being hung up inside the Bay. Council Member Thomson believed this is a serious problem as the Bay could eventually turn into "Newport Meadow ". Council Member Ridgeway noted that dredgers Plazi Miller and Mark Sikes did not speak tonight but are in attendance. He indicated that they have been an invaluable source of information and help, and have written numerous letters on this issue. 3. LOW POWER FM RADIO SYSTEM. General Services Director Niederhaus reported that the Low Power FM (LPFM) Radio System is undergoing rapid Federal regulation changes. He indicated that, during the Boat Parade, the City erects special 6 ft. x 4 ft. signs at all City entrances to tell visitors to tune to 95.7 for local boating and parking information. He reported that this staff report deals with a dedicated City service that can only be owned and operated by a non - profit organization. He stated that the special regulations will be ready next month and that they began preparing a list of possible uses and items for broadcast. Referencing a coverage map, he noted that these types of stations have a maximum range of 3.5 miles at 100 watts, which would at best only cover 80 to 85 percent of the City even from the proposed sites (Police • Department, Balboa Island Fire Station, and either pier). Volume 53 - Page 264 INDEX Low Power FM Radio System (44) J • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 Council Member Thomson stated that this is new and that there is a limit to the number of systems that will be available. He believed that visitor services and public safety can be enhanced by using LPFM since it will only deal with Newport Beach. He indicated that LPFM could be an advantage for the City if it does not cost too much. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that only one eight -year permit will be allowed per entity during the first two -year period. However, more LPFMs can be garnered after that time. He believed that other entities, like the Chamber of Commerce or Visitor's Bureau, may want to use this for specialized purposes rather than the City undertaking this entirely on its own. He stated that they have not explored all the possibilities but can provide Council with an update in about 90 -days. PUBLIC COMMENTS —None. ADJOURNMENT — 5:35 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on March 22, 2000, at 3:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk r Volume 53 - Page 265 INDEX