Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/2003 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session December 9, 2003 - 4:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Heffernan reported that he plans to pull the following items on the agenda - 8, 18, 22, & 24. On #8 he requested information on what has been spent to date on the cable ordinance extension as far as consultant and attorney fees. On the Castaways Park contract he requested background on why another $50,000 is proposed to be spent. He said he has the same issue with Corona del Mar State beach and questioned why more is being spent on design if the money hasn't been found to complete it. He also requested a complete accounting on Newport Coast maintenance agreements and how the City will pay the money that was agreed upon. 2. DINGHY STORAGE FOR OFFSHORE MOORING PERMITTEES — PHASE I. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway recused himself since the dinghy storage at 15th Street is within 500 feet of his house, however stated that he plans to sit in the audience and testify as a citizen. Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Supervisor, used a PowerPoint presentation and reported that this issue is regarding dinghy storage for offshore mooring permittees. He explained that this issue has been raised because the permittees don't have proper accommodations for their dinghies which they rely on for transportation to and from their vessels in the harbor. He described the process currently used. The permittees have been exploring alternatives and over the past four years have developed a comprehensive plan that proposes dinghy storage and longer public pier time limits. He explained that this is a pilot project and includes new dinghy racks at various public beaches and increased time limits at various public piers. It will promote increased usage of the harbor by providing better access to the mooring community and was unanimously approved by the Harbor Commission on September 10, 2003. Staff is seeking approval from the City Council at a future date to authorize initial funding. The project will be re- evaluated 12 months after implementation and if successful, more phases may follow. The program will require a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission and the racks will be available to offshore mooring permittees only and possibly open to Balboa Yacht Basin tenants in the future. There will be one rack per mooring permittee, the cost will be $14 per Volume 56 - Page 536 INDEX Offshore Moorings/ Dinghy Storage (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 INDEX month, the dinghies will be limited to 11 feet, no restriction on hours of operation, no motors, oil or other accessories, proper signage will be displayed and may be constructed by General Services or more than likely an outside contractor. The permittees will use their rack at their own risk and common enforcement will be through the Harbor Patrol, city staff and the Newport Mooring Association. He noted that a few of the municipal codes will need to be changed if the plan is enacted (maintenance of public piers and regulations and boat launching & hauling of vessels). Mr. Miller reviewed the rack demand based on a survey that was conducted in November 2003 for the following locations: Fernando, 15th Street, 16th Street, 18th Street and the Balboa Yacht Basin. In response to Council Member Rosansky's question, Mr. Miller indicated that when the survey was mailed out some general details (cost, etc.) were included. He noted that there will be a total of 14 racks and 60 spaces, The monthly fee is $14, so the total revenue for year one is $10,080. Based on General Services constructing the racks, the total materials cost is approximately $725 per rack ($10,150), other costs ( signage, etc.) is estimated at $1,000, so the total direct cost is approximately $11,150 versus total revenue of $10,080. After one year the City would only have a loss of $1,070. If the work were to be done by an outside contractor their total cost would be approximately $22,000 which would translate into losses for years one and two. The labor cost was not included in the price with General Services doing the work, however they figured it would take approximately 320 man hours (approximately $10,000). In response to Council Member Adams concern about the cost, Mr. Miller explained the cost/revenue estimates and noted that the racks will last 8- 10 years. City Manager Bludau explained that General Services would probably provide some general oversight however the City would more than likely contract for this work to be done; therefore it would be paid for in 2 -112 years. He noted that the ongoing maintenance should not be very much. Mr. Miller explained the process used to solicit community feedback and explained the results obtained from the community outreach program. He noted that 16 agreed and 20 disagreed and explained how staff came up with those figures. As far as the design, Mr. Miller indicated that the design will be similar to that at the existing racks at 18th Street. The racks will be low profile and sensitive to the view corridor and will either be two spaces wide and two spaces high or two spaces wide and 3 spaces high. Part of the plan includes increased time limits for the public piers. The proposal is to have 72 hours on the landward side with limits on the bayward and pump out side kept at 20 minutes, with the opposite side kept at 2 hours. The other public piers without pump outs would be the same except both sides would be limited to two hours. As far as rack and pier locations the Fernando Street location will have two racks (8 total spaces) and increased pier time limits; at the 15th Street location there will be two racks (12 total spaces) and increased pier time limits; at the 16th Street location there will be three racks (12 total spaces); and at the 18th Street location there will be three racks (12 total spaces). Mr. Miller showed slides depicting the 18th Street view corridor from various vantage points and noted that staff feels the view will only be minimally impacted. At the 19th Street location there will be increased pier time limits only. In response to Council Member Webb regarding parking at 16th Street, Mr. Miller indicated that parking would be available on City streets. At the Balboa Yacht Basin there is a storage yard in the corner and the proposal is for four racks (16 spaces total) and they will wheel their boats on a dolly down the ramp and load and unload at the pump -out dock. There will be no time limits at the pump -out dock in order to keep the dock free for water Volume 56 - Page 537 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 quality reasons. Mr. Miller reported that the dollies will be constructed as well and the costs are very minimal. He reiterated that the pilot program is only available to offshore mooring permittees and in the future could be available to the Balboa Yacht Basin tenants. As far as future action, he indicated that if the Council likes this proposal at the study session level, staff will bring it back to a regular City Council meeting for formal approval with an $11,150 budget amendment to fund construction and installation, which may change based upon whether General Services or an outside contractor is used. Proposed changes to the municipal codes will also be brought back at that time. As far as alternatives, he noted that the Council could refuse to adopt the Phase I proposal, offer amendments to the Phase I proposal and adopt it with those amendments, or offer amendments to the Phase I proposal and return it to the Harbor Commission for additional review. Council Member Rosansky noted that this is called Phase I and questioned whether there has been any development of future phases. Mr. Miller indicated that there isn't anything concrete and reiterated that this is a Phase I pilot project. If it works, some other areas in the harbor may be looked at or the program may be implemented for other public piers. He said that the Harbor Commission is prepared to halt the idea depending on feedback and whether or not it works. He reported that the racks seen in the pictures are used by the Recreation Department for the summer sailing program (sabots). Council Member Rosansky noted that the $14 per month fee seems inexpensive. Mr. Miller reported that staff arrived at that figure by surveying some of the yacht clubs in the harbor and found $14 to be an average monthly rate for similar type racks. Council Member Rosansky noted, however that there are other fees involved in being a member of a yacht club so this is probably more like a service that is provided to their members. Council Member Webb noted that in the usage figures there are no time limits placed on the use of the dinghies and questioned whether problems could arise with late arrivals and nearby residences and the appropriateness of allowing their use all night long. Mr. Miller said they determined that they can't restrict people from using their boats late at night; therefore they can't be restricted from using the dinghy racks. One of the keys players is the Newport Mooring Association and they have pledged to self -police their members as well as the other mooring community members and if there are problems of this nature, then both City staff and the Newport Mooring Association will help police them. Council Member Webb voiced concerns, in particular with Fernando Street, 15h Street, 16th Street, and 18th Street, and their immediate adjacency to residences and said this needs to be taken into consideration. Mr. Miller noted that there are signs at 18th Street that indicate that boat launching is allowed from that location, however was uncertain about the other locations. Council Member Adams questioned whether the size of the racks will be the same as the racks for the sabots. Mr. Miller reported that they will generally be the same size as the sabot racks, however a little wider to accommodate the Avon's. They used an average beam width for the dinghies and believe they can accommodate most people with the depth and width. Mr. Miller noted that motors, oil or gas cans will not be allowed on the beach —just the boat and oars. If a motor is used it will have to be carried to the boat since the City does not want to risk having environmental concerns on the beach. He noted that oars Volume 56 -Page 538 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 INDEX must be neatly kept inside the boat and it will be the owners' responsibility to keep them secured so they're not stolen. He noted that there will be eye bolts on the racks for security purposes. In response to Council Member Adams question about the appearance of the boats, Mr. Miller reported that the Harbor Commission addressed that issue but felt there wasn't too much that could be done about that since the City can't govern what types or shape the boats are in. Wade White, Newport Mooring Association, noted that he's worked on this project for a long time. He said there are about 600 offshore moorings in the harbor and they judged that a significant number are already equipped with facilities and means to get back and forth from the shore, such as the yacht clubs that provide shoreboat service and dinghy storage in their facilities. There are a number of people who may have an offshore mooring and have their own dock next to their house. Many people have shore moorings as well as an offshore mooring, specifically to provide a means to get back and forth. This proposal addresses another group — approximately three - quarters of the 600 offshore moorings don't have such facilities available and today at all times of the day, whenever they want to get to their offshore mooring they have to go through the process of loading and unloading their dinghies from their vehicles. He noted that this process takes place now at all hours of the day and night. He said the aim of their proposal is to significantly improve the ability, convenience and the practical use for the people who have these offshore moorings. He said that he firmly believes that the idea that there will be a permit with rules and regulations signed by every permittee will give the City the opportunity to dramatically change the situation from today in a positive direction. If the permittees don't abide by the regulations they will have their permit taken away from them. He said they are aware that there are unsightly dinghies, too many dinghies on a given public pier and at any point in time they are overcrowded. Including dinghy racks on shore immediately reduces the demand for folks to park their dinghy at a public dock with or without permission. He said they believe a lot of dinghies will come off those docks and go onto racks which will reduce the dockside use that the City has today. The regulations give the expectation of responsibility to the users and the authority to the Harbor Department to insist on good behavior. Parking is basically not going to be any different than it is today and will not be changed in any material way. In response to Council Member Adams, Mr. White reported that the annual fee for a mooring is $20 per foot per year based on the length of the mooring, not the length of the boat residing on the mooring. Tod Ridgeway, speaking as a citizen, noted that he has worked on this issue indirectly or directly for almost five years — directly with the previous Harbor Committee and indirectly in providing access to everyone in the jurisdiction to the Local Coastal Plan and as the Chairman of the Water Quality Committee. He applauded both the Harbor Commission and the Harbor Resources Department for coming up with a plan, however noted that as pointed out by Council Member Webb, there is an inherent inconsistency between residential living on the Balboa Peninsula and these moorings. He said the concern is that the moorings are needed; however they also need parking and then other facilities — restrooms, showers, etc. He noted that restrooms, showers and parking would be perfect in a commercial area, but the City isn't recommending this for a commercial location. He noted that everything is on the peninsula (his District) and he doesn't like that and questioned why the racks aren't proposed Volume 56 - Page 539 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 110133.1 for Balboa Island or Bay Shores and noted that there are offshore moorings in those areas. He noted that he spoke to Tom Hyans who commented that this is instant housing for the poor and he agreed with that comment. At the 1801 Street moorings there have been problems with urination, etc. and noted that there are 3 -4 homeless people who live on the peninsula who go there. He noted that Mr. Hyans' home was broken into by a homeless person two hours before he suffered a stroke. He noted that this is a very real issue and voiced concern about the maintenance of the racks and the number of them. He pointed out that in the presentation staff only showed a view of the racks on 18th Street and he said that is because there is a fence and bushes to block it and noted that there isn't that type of mitigation of the viewscape in any of the other locations. He voiced concern about the fact that the other racks have to be out of the tidal basin and will be exposed. He said they are needed and he likes the concept, however noted that maybe more shore moorings should be added. As a suggestion, he said he likes 72 hours on the back of the docks and asked why we don't add to the docks and allow these people the use of the back side of the docks. He said his other concern is the liveaboard issue and noted that the demand for these racks should be limited to the liveaboards and a few people who come down every weekend. He noted that liveaboards are required to have a permit and questioned why he can't get the number of liveaboards in the harbor. He said the boats will be stored 9 months of every year. In addition to permits, every boat should have a CF number on it because there will be difficult times enforcing the violations. He questioned why the proposal doesn't include moorings at the 10th Street beach and said it is probably because there are homes across the street and the opposition would be very significant. One last consideration that needs to be dealt with is at 16th Street and 18th Street and the proposed hotel project for that location and questioned why the City would do something that is totally contrary to that project. He voiced concern about that and said that the timing is entirely inappropriate. He noted that he isn't suggesting that nothing be done, but reiterated the need for added shore moorings. He said he likes the 72 hour limit on the docks. City Manager Bludau reported that the City currently has 31 active liveaboard permits that have been issued out of a total of 51 available. In response to Mayor Bromberg, he explained that it is difficult to enforce and tell how many people are actually living on the vessels. In response to Council Member Adams, Mr. Miller reported that the current time limit is 20 minutes on all sides of the public piers. Mr. Adams questioned the need for increasing the time with the addition of dinghy racks. Mr. Miller noted that the public piers are overcrowded right now and people are using the 20 minute time limit. With this proposal they are hoping to open up those areas and take some of those boats and put them on the racks, therefore allowing more people to use the dinghy racks, therefore making them more accessible to access their vessels. Council Member Adams said he feels that this is contrary to the goal and questioned whether this would encourage people to use the docks rather than discourage them. Mr. Miller noted that the time limits were increased so people could better enjoy the shore amenities without being restricted to 20 minutes. Mr. Miller noted that the Harbor Department has signed off on the proposal and have pledged to enforce the time limit rules on the public docks. Volume 56 - Page 540 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 In response to Council Member Rosansky's question about why the dinghy needs to be there for 72 hours, Mr. Miller reported that they toyed around with several different scenarios anywhere from 6 -7 hours to one week and thought the 72 hour limit would be a compromise. If people were to go out of town for the weekend they could have their dinghy there without the fear of it being towed away. Mayor Bromberg suggested that when this returns to Council that there be some options. He noted that some form of identification will be critical (CF or other type of City ID #) to assist with enforcement issues. Council Member Adams suggested that staff provide a realistic cost for construction and maintenance of the racks. City Manager Bludau suggested that Council provide staff direction if there are any locations that they are adamantly opposed to. Council Member Adams suggested that photographs of every location be included when this returns. Council Member Webb voiced concern with the proximity and times of operation. He suggested that the City charge a one -time permit fee initially that will take care of at least half of the construction costs so the racks are paid for in one year rather than two years if the work is contracted out. He suggested a $200 initial permit fee and a monthly $14 fee. If all 60 were sold that would be approximately $10,000. In. response to Council Member Adams' question about whether this needs to go back to the Harbor Commission, Mayor Bromberg indicated that he doesn't see a need and it is now time for the Council to set the policy on this. Council Member Adams requested that this be brought back as separate agenda items so Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway can discuss and vote on the issues. City Manager Bludau indicated that it can be brought back as two separate items. Council Member Heffernan requested that the liveaboard issue be brought before the Harbor Commission. He noted the Avalon regulations regarding discharge in the harbor and questioned how many liveaboards there are in the harbor, how many inoperable boats there are and whether the dinghy racks will promote more liveaboards. He questioned whether a survey has ever been done to determine the number of liveaboards and noted that the permits don't count how many people are actually living aboard. He suggested that the Harbor Commission look at this issue and advise whether this is a water quality issue or not and make a recommendation to the Council. Council Member Adams said he would like to have the Harbor Commission review the fees the City charges for moorings and noted that he believes it is low. 3. FIRE PREVENTION IN BUCK GULLY (ORAL PRESENTATION). Chief Riley, assisted by Fire Marshal Dennis Lockard, provided his report using a PowerPoint presentation. He noted that generally when someone talks about fire prevention efforts dealing with areas adjacent to wildland it is called the Urban Wildland Interface. It is defined as areas where wildland vegetation is adjacent to structures and has the volume and combustibility to threaten those structures should a fire occur. In summary, he noted that his presentation will provide the history of this issue, fuel modification zones, the hazard reduction standard, problems not addressed in the existing standard, a proposed standard Volume 56 - Page 541 INDEX Fire Prevention in Buck Gully (41) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 X11 Dkl and other options that should be reviewed in the future. He noted that the original concept of brush clearance was a forestry issue that started as far back as 1939 and addressed clearing brush away from homes. It was designed as a clearance method, which stated that anything combustible must be kept at least 30 feet away from your home. He provided examples of combustible materials. Since 1939 there have been a lot of advancements and understanding about what should be done. In Newport Beach the issue of brush clearance and fuel modification started to be addressed, particularly in Buck Gully, in November of 1990. At that time a citizens committee provided a report to the Council and the Fire Chief presented a resolution declaring Buck Gully a danger to the community and wanted it declared a public nuisance by the Council so it could be ordered to be cleaned. There was a lot of opposition and a tremendous amount of negative response to this and the resolution was rescinded in July of 1991. He noted that the Oakland Hills fire was groundbreaking in California for standards related to urban wildland interface management because there was a lot of stuff that came out of the legislature and in the fire discipline about how to address these issues. In October 1993 there was the Laguna Canyon fire which was emotionally enlightening to the people in Newport Beach because of its close proximity. Immediately thereafter the Council adopted a very similar resolution that addressed the issue of urban wildland interface and what is being done in Newport Beach to try to keep what happened in Laguna Beach from happening here. At that time the City started on the path to start developing some standards in Newport Beach. In July of 1994 there was a tremendous amount of study, research and development and a report was produced called the Wildland /Urban Interface Task Force Report that really addressed the significant issues in Orange County that had to do with brush clearance standards, fuel modification programs and construction standards and building features that were hardened for buildings adjacent to wildland areas. The report went hand in hand with the standards the City was developing at the time, so based upon the report, staff made a recommendation to the Council to start moving forward with some new hazard reduction standards for Newport Beach. At approximately the same time staff started looking for opportunities to fund some of the work that needed to be done in Buck Gully since the only way to bring it into compliance would be to attack it vigorously. At that time staff also started meeting with community groups, particularly in Buck Gully, the Friends of Buck Gully and some of the environmentalists and there was significant concern about the issues of erosion, disturbance of animal habitat, whether it could be afforded, the human interaction, and the beauty of the canyon and the views. The most single pressing issue that came out of this was all of the existing mature trees that are in Buck Gully and whether the path the City was on should be continued or a compromise reached. After the community outreach was completed, staff presented the findings in a proposed ordinance to the Public Safety Committee after getting feedback from a couple of interested groups. The committee made a recommendation to adopt the ordinance with some changes dealing with the issue of how to handle the trees in Buck Gully. In 1997 the Council adopted the ordinance regarding hazardous vegetation and started performing mitigation work with funding from a federal grant. Approximately $300,000 was spent in Buck Gully at the time doing brush clearance as a shared program. The grant provided 75% of the costs and the homeowners who were responsible for the mitigation provided 25% of the costs. In July of 1999 the City started addressing the issue of Newport Coast and the annexation and particularly the wildland urban interface issues. Prior to the Volume 56 - Page 542 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 INDEX annexation the City adopted a fuel modification program that closely mirrored the one in place by the Orange County Fire Authority. When Newport Coast was annexed the standards that were in place were pretty much seamless with the programs that were engineered for hazard reduction and fire prevention for an Urban Wildland Interface area. The City started dealing with all of the Newport Coast property owners to bring the fuel modification zones into compliance with their established plans and the ordinance. At the tail end of getting that compliance in order, the October 2003 firestorms started. In November the City declared that all of the Newport Coast fuel modification zones were in compliance with their approved plans and the current ordinance. Chief Riley indicated that staff is before Council today because the devastating fires have punctuated the need for defensible space for the canyon homes and adjoining communities in proximity to Urban Wildland Interface areas. He said staff believes that the current standards do not meet the community and Fire Department needs for defensible space to adequately protect homes. Currently the City has two different programs in place: 1) the fuel modification program for all new homes and all new development in all the new areas in Newport Coast, which states that they must install and maintain a Fuel Modification Zone in all wildland areas; and 2) a hazard reduction standard which is for existing development areas not in Newport Coast that have an Urban Wildland Interface area. Chief Riley explained that a fuel modification zone is a wide strip of land where combustible vegetation has been removed and/or modified with drought - tolerant, fire resistant plants to reduce the risk of fires to homes and to create a defensible space. He provided a review of the current A, B, C & D zones. He noted that it was proven that fuel modification zones work during the Los Flores fire in May 2002 when 1100 acres burned, 200 homes were threatened and only one gazebo was lost. He showed pictures of the fire as it approached the homes and when the fire was out. Chief Riley noted that the current standard is for all homes that are located within 100 feet of an Urban Wildland Interface area and require brush clearance, which applies only to the sides of the structure facing the wildland area. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway, Chief Riley explained that the California State Legislature adopted the Bates Bill that states that contiguous wild areas that grow to a certain size have to be declared a high hazardous severity zone and based upon that must meet certain state standards. The second part of that are areas where wild vegetation occurs, called special fire zones, which are not state mandated but identified by the City. On the City's GIS maps, the areas are either identified as special fire zones or areas that meet the Bates bill requirement. Except for when the City first annexed Newport Coast, the City doesn't have any areas designated as high hazardous severity zones. He noted that with the existing standards existing trees are not required to have separation of tree canopies as they get close to the house. If a new tree is planted it must be from the City's approved plant list and has to be planted so the issue of tree canopies growing together doesn't occur. The trees are also required to be pruned so they have to be cleared at least five feet from a structure. Where shrubs are located a separation between shrubs and the trees is required in order to reduce fuel laddering. Shrubs don't have to be on a fire resistive plant list, however if they are on the list they don't have to be maintained like the shrubs not on the non - fire resistive plant list. Ground cover has to be properly maintained in height, type and clumping and if there isn't ground cover, there must be some type of a biomass over the ground to reduce erosion problems. Firewood has to be kept a Volume 56 - Page 543 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 INDEX minimum of 15 feet away from the house. The roof portions of any trees that extend within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney have to be removed and the roof must be kept free of debris from trees. He noted that currently the reduction zone is 100 foot, however the code actually says it is 30 foot plus 70 foot if the Fire Chief so designates. In Newport Beach the additional 70 foot has been designated in all areas. Right now he said the problems that have been created are too much fuel that is too close to the homes, too little access into the area to mitigate the problem, and too little space for firefighters to get in and protect homes in the wildland area. When it was adopted it sounded good but when you look at the actual application it has been determined that it .doesn't provide adequate protection. He noted that this isn't solely a Buck Gully home issue. He showed pictures of Buck Gully noting the mass of vegetation in the area and the adjacency to the homes, as well as pictures of the Old Fire and examples of the City's fire modification zones. He explained that staff is proposing to increase the modification distances from 100 feet to 170 feet. He further explained that they are recommending that the tree separation issue be addressed, try to separate the fire resistive vegetation and limit the amount of non -fire resistive vegetation in the area and look at some mandated building standards in that area that are similar to the ones required in Newport Coast. He showed an aerial photo of where this will apply in Buck Gully and noted that it will also apply to Morning and Evening Canyons. He indicated that staff would like to pattern the new standards after the fuel modification standards so there is some level of consistency. There would be four zones which would be identified as Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4. They would have a minimum total width of 170 feet and plant material would be maintained in accordance with the ordinance. He explained the four zones and the requirements for each zone. Chief Riley noted that eucalyptus trees are not on the required plant removal list however if there is no separation, they may have to removed. He explained that all the canyons are owned by private parties who would be held responsible for the expense of mitigation. He said staff plans to seek grant funds and they are anticipating significant funds available from the federal government. He said the grant funds would be used to offset those costs. Council Member Nichols noted that about five years ago the City abandoned the rights to roads in the bottom of these canyons and questioned why it was done. Chief Riley indicated that it had nothing to do with fire department access issues. Council Member Webb explained that the roads in the lower canyon are considered "paper" streets. When the subdivision was laid out in the 1920's or earlier they tried to lay out streets every place they possibly could and didn't look at slopes and it was an impossible to build type of thing. The City felt that they had no ability to utilize that, however there was a storm drain easement retained in the very bottom but it wasn't a road. Council Member Nichols noted that if there were roads in the bottom it would assist in clearance. He questioned the homeowners' responsibility for maintaining these canyons and said he believes the City has some responsibility because it is a big watershed. Chief Riley noted that past policy has stated that if it is a private property issue the private property owner is responsible for maintaining to the current standards. He said he is unsure whether the Council wants to address the issue of taking the responsibility of participating in mitigation costs. Mr. Heffernan pointed out that the City has a comparable model in Newport Coast to use. Chief Riley said that as the City looks at these new standards and if it goes in Volume 56 - Page 544 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 INDEX this direction, will have to determine what it will cost to bring the properties in compliance and what the ongoing maintenance costs will be for this new standard. He indicated that there is a need to do environmental studies in the area to determine the impact of fuel modification and hazard reduction programs on environmental concerns and a legal requirement to do so. He indicated there are also some geotechnical issues regarding watershed requirements and the impact on that. He said staff believes there is a need to look at grant funding to help the owners with the initial cost to bring the area into compliance with stricter standards. After that is all done, a new ordinance establishing a new hazard reduction program will have to be adopted. He said they recognize that this is a long term project, however there is a need to get started sooner rather than later. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the City needs to use some common sense and public relations with the residents. He said the City needs to be sensitive, however cognizant of the fire danger in that area and he believes there is a political will to support any action that staff is recommending. Mayor Bromberg emphasized the importance of public outreach. Council Member Adams concurred that public outreach should be added to the next step hat. Chief Riley indicated the need to look at the issues so they can answer the questions that will arise and to identify the whole scope of the problem before moving forward. He noted that there are other issues dealing with construction, including retrofitting of roof coverings sooner rather than later, fire resistant sidings, dual pane windows, etc. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway noted that the insurance companies may take care of some of these issues and will weigh in on some of the requirements. Council Member Nichols said he fully agrees that this needs to be done, however said he feels the City needs to work with the homeowners and take some responsibility for the area as well since it is a watershed area. He said this will take a lot of effort because of the environmental groups that have claimed special control of the bottom of the canyon, wildlife preserves, etc. He said he believes it is the City's job to clean up that part of the watershed. Mayor Bromberg indicated that this is a policy issue that the Council will have to deal with. Laura Dietz noted that she came to the meeting because she wanted to take this information back to the Corona del Mar Residents Association Board who will be meeting next week. She reminded Council that what could happen in Buck Gully impacts the entire community and said that she will do everything she can to assist, in cooperation with the various homeowners associations, the Corona del Mar Residents Association Board, and the Chamber. She asked how many properties on Buck Gully are impacted by this. Chief Riley indicated that there are 262 properties affected by this. Council Member Nichols addressed the issue of the waterfall and was advised that it was a separate issue that staff is working on with Public Works. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT - at 6:00 p.m. Volume 56 - Page 545 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2003 INDEX The agenda for the Study Session was posted on December 3, 2003, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Recording Secretary cJ Mayor i f� City Clerk Volume 56 - Page 546 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 9, 2005 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Volume 56 - Page 547