HomeMy WebLinkAboutMorning Canyon and Buck Gullyi
i
i
i
*NEW FILE*
i
i
i
NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS_
BUCK GULLY
r
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:
l� 1
r1
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
County Clerk, County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 838
Santa Ana, CA. 92702
From:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
Date received for filing at OPR:
The review period will close on: December 10, 1990
Name of Project:
Morning Canyon, Buck Gully Fuel Modification
ProjectLocation: Morning Canyon and Buck Gully, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Ca.
Project Description:
Removal of dead vegetation and trimming of existing
vegetation so as to reduce fuel loads on slopes in canyons
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City 'Council Policy K 3 pertaining to procedures and
guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs
Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Ground cover will remain undisturbed within three inches of the ground.
2. All roots will remain; no roots -of living vegetation will be removed. •
3. Power tools will be limited to small, hand held tools, and no heavy equipment
will be used.
4. Residents will be offered information on replanting with native, fire rebistant
vegetation.
Initial Study Prepared By: Sandra L. Genis, City of Newport Beach
and is available for review at: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA '
Signature
Title: l r i t1 G4N RAnt2mz, Date: NOV . /990
• •
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed November 8. 1990
General Information
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor:
City of Newport Beach
2. Address of project: Morning Canyon and Buck Gully, Corona del Mar. CA.
Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 459-123-1 to 36.459-131-13 to 21. 459-131-33 to 36,
459-161-3 to 14. 052-182-5 to 41, 052-191-1 to 21, 052-203-1 tp 29. 052,211-22 to 25.
475-011-8 to 15. 475-021-1 to 12. 475-031-1 to 22.
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this
project: Ray Brown. Newport Beach Fire Department, Newport Beach. Ca.: Phone:
(714) 644-3109.
4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains:
Morning Canyon/Buck Gully Fuel Modification Program.
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for
this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: _
California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement No. 5-488-
90 previously issued.
6. Existing zoning district: R-1. R-2. MFR
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): _
Open Space. fuel modification.
Project Description
8. Site size. NA
9. Square Footage. NA
10. Number of floors of construction. NA
11. Amount of off-street parking provided. NA
12. Attach plans. Description attached.
- 1 -
13. Proposed scheduling. Commence as soon as possible.
14. Associated project: Residents have been encouraged to independently reduce fuel
loads on their properties.
15. Anticipated incremental development. None
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices
or rents, and type of household size expected.
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented,
square footage of sales area, and loading facilities.
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities.
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project.
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items
checked yes (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, x
beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground
contours.
22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residen-
tial areas or public lands or roads.
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area
of the project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in
vicinity.
26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
-2-
x
x
x
x
x
• •
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration x
levels in the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. x
29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, x
such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services x
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption x
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
x
Environmental Setting
33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on
topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic
aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures.
Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted.
The subject property consists of brush covered slopes which constitute the back
yards of residential development.
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals
and any cultural historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use
(residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses,
shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-
back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid
photos will be accepted.
Surrounding property is developed in primarily in single family homes, with a few
duplexes and multifamily residential development present.
- 3 -
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
V779s
Date Signature
For
C\WP\EIR-INFO.FRM
a-/ W.rda
-4-
• •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
MEMORANDUM
August 14, 1990
A
TO: Pat Temple, Principal Planner
FROM: J. M. Reed, Fire Chief
SUBJ: Morning Canyon/Buck Gully
Fuel Load Modification Program
Weed Abatement
The Newport Beach Fire Department is concerned about the fuel
loads present in dry brush and vegetation in Morning Canyon and
Buck Gully. We have notified residents of the fire danger and
asked them to take corrective action as outlined below. In the
event homeowners do not take appropriate corrective action, we
intend to ask the City Council to declare the fuel load a public
nuisance with the understanding the City will clear the vegetation
pursuant to the procedure outlined in Chapter 10.48 (Weed
Abatement).
The proposed fuel load modification program will involve
approximately 200 parcels and result in clearance of brush from
approximately 20 acres of sloping canyon area. Brush and
vegetation will be removed in accordance with the following
guidelines:
1. Grass, weeds, leaves and other cover will be trimmed
or removed to within three inches of ground level.
2. Root systems for all vegetation will not be
disturbed.
3. All dry or dead vegetation will be hand trimmed from
trees and shrubs and removed.
4. Trees will be trimmed within five feet of ground
level.
5. Vegetation beneath decks or overhanging -structures
will be trimmed or removed depending upon the nature of the
vegetation and the threat imposed to the structure.
- 2 -
6. Growth on bushes and shrubs shall be removed from
ground level to a point equal to one-third of their height
(lollipop trimming).
7. Tree limbs or vegetation within ten feet of any
chimney will be removed.
The City's Grading Engineer believes the fuel modification
program we have proposed will result in no measurable increase in
slope erosion nor cause any slope instability if the work is
performed in accordance with the seven criteria specified in this
memo. The thinning will alter the habitat of animals that live in
the Canyons but we do not believe the impacts will be significant
nor are we aware of any endangered species present in the area.
The material will be handcarried from the point of trimming to
closest City street. We do not anticipate any use of vehicles in,
nor alteration of, the stream bed or Canyon slopes.
The program will take 60 to 90 days. We are working on ways
to reduce the number of truck trips necessary to transport material
to landfills - such as establishing a "transfer station" on Irvine
Company property, "chipping" branches to reduce the volume or
material, and possibly using recycled material on City landscape
projects. However, you should assume approximately 300 truck trips
will be required to remove trimmings. Some noise will be generated
by gas powered equipment such as chain saws, "weed eaters" and
chippers.
J. M. Reed, Fire hief
JR:jg
cc: Robert L. Wyni; City Manager
Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney
Ray Brown, Fire Department
Raimar Schuller, Building Director
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent City of Newport Beach
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, Ca.: Phone (714) 644-3225
3. Date Checklist Submitted November 8, 1990
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Newport Beach
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Morning Canyon, Buck Gully Fuel
Modification Program
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe". answers are required on attached
sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
Yes Maybe No
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
Soils, either on or off the site? — x
- 1 -
x
x
x
x
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Yes Maybe No
x
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? — — x
b. The creation of objectionable odors? — — x
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? — — x
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
x
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? — x
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
-2-
x
x
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground water?
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
ber of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
Yes Maybe No
x
x
x
x
x
x
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life.' Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms or insects)?
x
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
-3-
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migra-
tion or movement of animals?
Yes Maybe No
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? — x
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? — x
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? — x
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? — —
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? — —
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? — —
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
-4-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
• •
Yes Maybe No
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. : Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? — — x
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
x
e
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic ha7..ards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? •x — —
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
- 5 -
Yes Maybe No
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? — — x
b. Communications systems? — x
c. Water? — — x
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in?
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
x
x
• •
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses with the potential impact
area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
7
Yes Maybe No
x
x
x
x
x
• •
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on
the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No
x
x
DI. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
le, f. The removal of flammable vegetation has the potential to leave barren slopes,
subject to erosion. However, ground cover will be left undisturbed within three
inches of ground level, and root systems for all vegetation will not be disturbed.
Heavy equipment could potentially lead to erosion and slope failure during the fuel
removal phase of the proposed project. However, heavy equipment will not be
permitted in the canyon, and power tools will be limited to those which may be hand
held, such as portable chain saws.
3e. An increase in erosion would Lead to an increase in solid material and turbidity of
surface water in the drainage areas of Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. However,
the preservation of ground cover and root systems for all plants as described above
will reduce increases in erosion and associated turbidity to an insignificant level.
4a. Wholesale removal of fuel loads could result in removal of numerous plant species.
However, under the proposed program, root systems will be left intact, thus reducing
the potential for loss of significant numbers of any plant species to an insignificant
level.
4c. As an alternative to City removal of fuel loads, residents adjacent to the canyon are
encouraged to reduce fuel loads on their properties on their own. Residents will be
furnished a list of fire resistant native vegetation should they wish to replant, thus
resulting in increases in the number or re -introduction of native species to areas
previously planted in flammable landscape species.
5a,d. A temporary loss of ground, cover will result in increased exposure of small mammals
to predation. However, this impact is temporary in nature, is not considered
-8-
significant, and is balanced by increased advantages gained by raptor species.
Displaced fauna would be anticipated to temporarily relocate into upper Buck Gully.
6a,b. Temporary noise impacts will result from equipment utilized to clear the brush.
However, power tools will be limited to the small hand held type, reducing the
potential for extreme noise levels.
14a. The proposed project will reduce the fire hazards in the area, thereby resulting in a
positive impact on fire protection services.
21a. Although the project has the potential to result in significant impacts, those impacts
have been reduced due to the incorporation of specific mitigation measures as
discussed above.
21c. The proposed fuel modification program will be pursued concurrent with the
construction of a golf course northeasterly of Morning Canyon, thereby resulting in
a disruption of wildlife corridors in that area as well. However, the preservation of
some degree of ground cover and of all root systems will reduce the significance of
the temporary disruption due to fuel modification to a level which is not considered
significant.
IV. Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signif-
icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the following mitigation measures
have been added to the project.
1. Ground cover will remain undisturbed within three inches
of the ground, in order to reduce the potential for erosion.
2. Root systems for all vegetation will not be disturbed.
3. Power tools will be limited to small, hand held tools,
and no heavy equipment will be used.
4. Residents will be offered information on replanting with native,
fire resistant vegetation.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
-9-
• •
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
AltY- ri (990 Zdc-Th
Date Si a e ER-DOGS\EIRUST.FRM For / D� /%/Y�.
- 10 -
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACIP
CO I CIL MEMOS
ROLL Al5
Motion
All Ayes
x
MINUTES
March 11, 1991
2. Report from the Fire Chief concerning FUEL
MODIFICATION PROGRAM REVIEW (RESOLUTION NO.
90-116).
Council was advised that after the agenda
was printed a letter was received from
Robert J. Cooper, who was concerned that
clearing would denude the gully to a
dangerous state, resulting in complete
devastation of Little Corona and adjacent
tide pools.
Council was advised by the City Manager
that the decision be postponed for another
90 - 120 days to give additional time for
staff to work with the adjacent property
owners of Buck Canyon. At the hearing on
December 10, 1990 a number of people did
testify, but the hearing was not closed.
The decision was postponed for 90 days;
therefore, as this evening is close to that
time, this is why it is on tonight's
agenda. At that time, the City requested
additional information concerning the
liability for cleaning, geologists,
companies or departments that had a similar
situation, and all of this information has
now been received, and a number of meetings
have been held with the residents
surrounding the Canyon. As a result, the
City is getting a much better understanding
of the problem and how to deal with it.
With the continuance of another 90 - 120
days, hopefully the problem will be
amicably resolved without forcing an
assessment upon the public..
Motion was made to postpone the decision
for 90 to 120 days to give residents time
to review new material.
3. Report from the Public Works Department
Concerning UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES ALONG
EAST BAY AVENUE AND EAST BAY FRONT FROM "J"
STREET TO "M" STREET (PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT NO. 61, AND PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES DISTRICT NO. 12).
The Public Works Director advised that the
property owners on the Peninsula Say Front
between "J and M" Streets have requested
the formation of an assessment district to
underground utilities in the alley behind
their homes. 74-1/2% of the property
owners have petitioned in favor of forming
the district. The cost has been estimated
at $229 per front foot, and that the
petitioners are aware of the estimated
cost. The item before the Council tonight
Volume 45 - Page 84
IN➢EX
Fire Dpt,
Buck Gui:
(41)
Undergr
Utilitic
Dist 12,
(89)
46P
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI
COUNCIL MEMBERS
*1) nX91;
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
PLACE: Council Chambers
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
DATE: December 10, 1990
MINUTES
IN➢EX
'resent
Lbsent
Motion
All Ayes
A11
All
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A.
B.
ROLL CALL.
Reading of Minutes of Adjourned Meet ng and
Regular Meeting of November 26, 19.0, was
waived, approved as written and ordered
filed.
Lotion
Ayes
X
C.
Reading of all ordinances and resolutions
under consideration was wai :d, and the
City Clerk was directed to -ad by titles
only.
D.
HEARINGS:
1.
Mayor Sansone opened . e public hearing
regarding Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90-43,
being,
AN ORDINANCE •F THE CITY COUNCIL OF
Ord 90-43
Zoning
(94)
THE CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH ADDING
SECTION 20 02.025 TO THE NEWPORT
BEACH MUN IPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A
. POLICY W H REGARD TO HEIGHT LIMITS
IN THOS AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE
IN POT IAL DANGER OF FLOOD HAZARD
[P NG COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO.
PCA 717
717)
Report f •m the Planning Department.
The Ci Manager advised that the proposed
amend.-nt would allow for areas, that are
in t e Flood Hazard Areas and have the
nat al grade below the required pad
el: ation, to retain the useful height of
s uctures. Currently, the areas of
.oncern are at a disadvantage regarding
allowable building height, due to flood
hazard regulations.
Hearing no one wishing to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
lotion
x
Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 90-
Ayes
43.
2.
Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing
declaring that WEEDS AND BRUSH EXIST AND
ARE A NUISANCE UPON PROPERTY IN BUCK GULLY
Fire Dept/
Weed Abate
ment/Buck
AND MORNING CANYON, and to consider
protest(s) from persons objecting to
abatement by the City.
Gully/Morr
ing Canyor
(41)
Report from Fire Chief.
Copy of letter dated November 27, 1990 sent
to affected property owners.
Volume 44 - Page 411
COUNCIL MEMBERS
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACiii
MINUTES
December 10, 1990
INDEX
MULL I.nLL \
`
\
X
\
\
\
Letters from Kenneth R. Ingman, 409 Cortes
Weed Abate -
Circle, James B. Schindler, 409 Cabrillo
went
Terrrace, and Ronald and Shirley Centre,
405 Columbus'Circle with objections to what
is being required of the residents in Buck
Gully.
The City Clerk advieed that after the
agenda was printed, the following letters
were received concerning the City's
adoption of Resolution 90-116 on
November 12, 1990, declaring the public
nuisance:
Barbara Ross Martin, 548 Seaward Rd.
Matthew A. Frinzi, 409 Columbus Cr.
Gordon Fraser, 1616 Poppy Peak Dr.
Haskell Shapiro, 3500 E. Coast
Highway
Evelyn E. Berg, 532 Hazel 'Dr.
Fire chief Reed reviewed the background of
the subject proposal, scope of work,
estimated cost, and the proposed schedule
of activities. A map was also displayed
depicting the two canyon areas involved.
Fire Chief Reed stated it is felt that the
homes near the canyon are at a significant
risk for a fire due to dead and dry
vegetation; and therefore, said vegetation
should be cleared. He pointed out that:
ground cover will remain undisturbed within
three inches of ground level; no roots of
living vegetation will be removed; all
trees will be trimmed five feet from ground
level; and bushes and shrubs will be
trimmed one-third from height. He advised
that if a private contractor is hired to
perform the work, it is estimated the cost
could be between $2,000 and $8,000 (the
average being $4,000), depending on the
type of material to be removed and the
elope of the lot, and in addition, there
would be an administrative cost to oversee
the project.
,
Discussion ensued wherein the Fire Chief,
Environmental Coordinator, and City
Attorney responded to questions raised by
Various Council Members. ,
Olume 44 - Page
4
0.•
•
CITY OF NEWPOAT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
December 10, 1990
MINUTES
INDEX
RVLL MILL \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
The following persons addressed the Council
in protest to the proposed abatement: •
Weed Abate -
ment
Jim Schindler, 409 Cabrillo Terrace
(referenced his letter dated
December 2, 1990) •
Ron Centra, 405 Columbus cr. (also
owner of 430 Hazel Drive; submitted
photographs showing elope of canyon)
Robert W. Scholler, 265 Evening
Canyon Rd. (displayed aerial
photograph of canyon)
Ronald Kennedy, 550 Hazel Drive •
Evelyn Berg, 532 Hazel Dr.
(referenced her letter of
December 7, 1990)
Lonnie Hood, 242 Hazel Dr.
Haskell Shapiro, 287 Evening Canyon
Rd. (referenced his letter of.
December 6, 1990)
Ken Licorish, 226 Morning Canyon Rd.
Larry McSparren, 536 Hazel Dr.
It was indicated by the above speakers
that:• a fire hazard does not exist; the
ground is not easily ignited; it would be
very difficult as well as dangerous for the
property owners to clean the brush
themselves; many of the plants would be
destroyed as a result of the clearing; the
cost of having the •work done is too
expensive; and that once the work is done,
there could be increased *crime as the.area
would be more accessible.'
Lynn Lightcap, 422 Hazel Drive, addressed
the Council in support of the proposed
abatement. She stated she has had her lot
cleared, as well as the• lot on the ether
side of her property at a cost of $1100.
She also commented it was somewhat
difficult to obtain fire insurance until
her property had been cleaned.
•
Hearing no others addressing the Council,
the public hearing was closed.
In response to question•raised regarding
City liability, the City Attorney advised
that there could be potential 'City
liability if the City removes the brush,
and as a result, erosion can be traced to
that removal. .
•
lotion
x
Council Member Hart indicated she had
viewed the site; was. supportive of
proceeding forward with the project, and
therefore, moved to adopt proposed
resolution ordering staff to proceed with
the project.
Volume 44 - Page 413
40 CITY OF NE FORT BEACfl)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
December 10, 1990
MINUTES
INDEX
• RVLL btas \
\
\
\
`
\
\
Reference was made to the possibility of
otion
11 Ayes
x
"hardship cases," wherein it was indicated
that such cases will be considered by the
city council at the time the cost report is
filed and hearing held, based upon
verification from the City Attorney.
Council Member Hedges indicated he felt
more information was needed from staff
prior to moving ahead with the project; and
therefore, substitute motion was made to
continue the decision on this matter for 90
days for further report relating to soil
erosion, liability, and geological issues,
which motion carried.
Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing
concerning IMPROVEMENT OF OCEAN FRONT
PW/Ocean
Front St
STREET ENDS OF ORANGE AND PROSPECT STREETS.
Ends/Orange
& Prospect
Report from the Public Works Department.
was noted that on April 24, 1989, the
(74)
•
Ci y Council directed the staff to use the
Pro.edure of Chapter 27 of the Improvement
Act •f 1911 to improve the ocean front
stree' ends of Orange and Prospect Streets.
Becaus= Orange and Prospect Streets, being
located at a signalized intersection of
Coast Hi. way are major entrances to the
public be. h in West Newport, the Public
Works Deparent recommends that each owner
of abutting .roperty pay for full width
street improv ente from the alley that is
parallel to he Ocean Front to the
southerly end o his/her driveway; and that
the City pay for .11 other improvements in
each street end f•om the southerly end of
each driveway appr•=ch to Ocean Front.
•
A map was displayed de•icting the locations
and the improvements onstructed in the
street ends. It was po• ted out that four
parcels are being,impact.d.
Kemal A. Batniji, 6800 W Ocean Front,
addressed the Council -garding the
planters installed in front •f his home.
•
'
He stated that originally the planters were
supposed to be five feet wide •• keep the
sand from blowing into the entra ce of his
home. However, the planters have wo foot
wide ledges which are being u:ed as
benches. Consequently, people are : tting
on the benches and blocking his ront
entrance, not to mention the trash and
debris that is left behind. He urged he
•
Council to modify the planter (removing t e
bench) in order that it be a "real" plants&
as previously discussed.
Volume 44 - Page 414