HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2013 - Study SessionCity Council Minutes
City Council Study Session
February 12, 2013 - 4.00 pass.
rM Mall :.r
Volume 61 - Page 43
V 6110 ON DEVA13 � �; i, .
City Council Minutes
City Council Study Session
February 12, 2013 -- 4:00 p.m.
L ROLL CALL - 4 :00 p.m.
Present: Mayor Curry, Mayor Pro Tom Hill, Council Member Gardner, Council
Member Henn, Council Member Pettus, Council Member Selich
Absent: Council Member Daigle was not present due to an excused absence.
II. CURRENT BUS -LESS
1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Gardner referenced Item No. 6 and asked if the City is certain it will retain
rights to a full alley after the vacation of the street right -of -way.
City Attorney Harp responded all documentation has been completed and executed.
Public Works Director Webb noted 15 feet will be obtained from the subject property and
another five feet from the property oriented towards Balboa Boulevard when it is developed.
He indicated that staff is confident an alley will be eventually developed to a full 20 foot
width.
Council Member Gardner requested additional information regarding when adjacent
property owners must pay for City property vacated.
Council Member Gardner had additional questions relating to Item No's 7, 8 and 9 regarding
averages and potential underbidding.
Director Webb responded and said staff does not believe people are underbidding. The City is
receiving good prices and staff attempts to capitalize on that when possible by identifying
areas where additional work can be accomplished at a low cost.
Council Member Gardner referenced Item No. 15; the project has been delayed almost seven
years and questioned if this has caused problems.
Director Webb stated the delay has been due to economics and change of ownership, noting
the final map is usually not recorded until the first building permit is approved.
City Attorney Harp added the timeline was extended because of the economy
Volume 61 - Page 44
City of Newport Beach
City Council Study Session
February 12, 2013
2, REVIEW OF EAST OCEANFRONT ENCROACHMENTS AND POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS. [100 -20131
City Manager Kiff introduced the item and deferred to staff for a report.
Community Development Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski presented information about the
encroachments near Peninsula Point, noting that the landscaping and hardscape there has
existed for quite some time. She noted that the encroachments are improvements located on
a public beach and addressed the Notice of Violations (NOVs) issued by the California
Coastal Commission to 15 area property owners. The NOVs were sent on the basis that the
improvements did not comply with the Coastal Act nor to the City Council Policy and the
City's Coastal Land Use Plan. She reported that the Coastal Commission indicated that they
have delayed issuing other notices, but have identified approximately 58 other properties
that are potentially in violation. She presented examples of the types and extent of
encroachments, policies referenced by the Coastal Commission, efforts by the City to resolve
the dispute between residents and the Coastal Commission staff, and the solution proposed
by the area residents. The proposed solution would be an encroachment program that would
allow the City to identify the types of allowable improvements and areas where those
improvements could occur in exchange for a mitigation fee. She referenced the success of a
similar program in West Newport Beach along West Ocean Front.
Deputy Director Wisneski noted existing improvements within the 15 -foot Ocean Front Walk
right of way area and presented details of a rehabilitation program that would be required to
remove improvements which are not consistent with Council Policy L -12 or the Coastal Act.
She reported that the Coastal Commission seeks a comprehensive resolution and the City is
the appropriate party to conduct it. She added the Coastal Commission staff seems generally
supportive of the proposed approach. Deputy Director Wisneski presented a summary of the
potential solution.
Discussion followed regarding responsibility for the restoration. Deputy Director Wisneski
said the best -case scenario would be that the City would conduct the restoration effort in one
comprehensive approach. She added the Council would decide as to whether or not the
residents would reimburse the City for the restoration effort.
Deputy Director Wisneski addressed the potential actions to be taken including initiating
amendments to the Coastal Land Use Plan and City Council Policy L -12, receiving Coastal
Commission input and support, and coordinating with individual property owners on items
such as annual fees, updating permits and potentially modifying the improvements currently
in place.
In response to Council Member Petros' inquiry, Deputy Director Wisneski replied that if the
City does not step in, the Coastal Commission could potentially pursue issuing a Cease and
Desist Order (CDO) to the property owners. CDOs can involve fines and a mandated
restoration plan which would force the residents to take action. She presented an example
from West Newport where illegal modifications were made to sand dunes and the property
owners who participated in the illegal modifications were required to restore the dunes and
monitor the dunes' rehabilitation..
Brief discussion followed regarding possible related costs and fines and the 15 -foot, public
right of way area.
Volume 61 - Page 45
City of Newport Beach
City Council Study Session
February 12, 2013
Deputy Director Wisneski addressed the proposed encroachment program including fees and
mitigation program, the public hearing process, the restoration plan for areas beyond 15 feet
and possible costs.
In response to questions related to costs, City Manager Kiff stated staff would like to discuss
the issue of payment of fees with Council relative to who would pay for the necessary CEQA
review and staff time. He noted there is an existing Council policy in effect, but that the City
may not have been as diligent as it could have been as to correcting some of the
improvements made by residents. He felt the City should be part of the solution, both
financially and with staff time, and indicated staff would like to hear the Council's thoughts
on that.
In response to Council Member Sehch's question about the potential cost of the program,
City Manager Kiff estimated it could be in the range of $100,000 to $200,000. The
restoration could cost more than that if there is long -term monitoring associated with the
restoration, as is typical.
Deputy Director Wisneski addressed a requirement for environmental review and reported
the item would be brought back to Council for consideration.. The program would also
require Coastal Commission signoff. She said the program could be an improvement to the
area and could eliminate some impacts to coastal access as well as help gain funds to create
programs for that area.
In response to Council Member Petros' inquiry, City Manager Kiff addressed Council Policy
L -12. The policy, which dates back to the 1990s, acknowledged encroachments in the West
Newport area, but declared that ground cover and trees near The Wedge were not official
encroachments. He felt that ground cover and trees were loosely defined and noted that the
Coastal Commission staff may argue that the Commission never approved the policy.
Discussion followed regarding the number of square feet or acres needing rehabilitation.
City Manager Kiff stated staff would need to conduct a survey of the area to identify specific
areas needing rehabilitation. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the area is not designated
as dune habitat by the Coastal Commission.
Council Member Gardner referenced the successful program in West Newport Beach, but
indicated she is uncomfortable going forward with the item when the costs and responsibility
for payments are unknown.
Council Member Henn commented on the difficulty in determining the costs until the process
is started. He felt this situation is different than the West Newport dunes removal, situation
and said the only practical way to resolve the matter is for the City to take the lead. He
indicated wanting to move the matter forward to the point where additional clarity can be
determined as to what will be required and the related costs.
Council Member Selich felt discussions should be held with the Coastal Commission before
the initiation of amendments in order to get an idea as to the scope and costs of the project.
Council Member Henn noted there has been conversation with Coastal staff.
Volume 61 - Page 46
City of Newport Beach
City Council Study Session
February 12, 2013
City Manager Kiff reported one of the reasons that City staff wanted to bring this to the
Council today before going further was to ensure Council support for a specific direction that
would include encroachment zones like West Newport Beach.
Deputy Director Wisneski said based upon conversations with Coastal Commission staff to
date, the most time intensive and costly element will be the development of the restoration
plan.
Council Member Selich suggested engaging the Coastal Commission biologist to walk the
area and make an assessment of the areas needing restoration.
Council Member Petros stated it would be wise to investigate some of the issues and know
what the costs will be. He reported that Council Policy L -12 prohibits encroachments in the
area, with the exception of existing trees and ground cover and that ground cover is defined
as ice plants or indigenous planting requiring no irrigation. He indicated he doesn't know
how culpable the City was in this regard, but if the City will take the lead, the costs need to
be known and borne and shared by the responsible parties. In addition, he commented on
the mitigation plan for the West Ocean Front, noting it dealt primarily with improving
parking. He expressed interest in knowing the mitigation measures proposed by staff as well
as the offsets and nexus.
Interested parties were invited to address Council on this matter.
Jim McGee, representing many of the ocean front homeowners, referenced a letter to the
City outlining the issue. He noted some of the encroachments have been there since the
1950s and presented a brief history of the matter, including previous Council actions. Mr.
McGee acknowledged the existence of many variations, changes in property ownerships, and
the results of the City not taking the lead on this issue. He stated the possibility of
improving beach access, addressed enforcement, and City control of the property beyond 15
feet. He stressed the need to find a cooperative approach that would work for everyone.
Jim Mosher questioned why the City owns a right -of -way and suggested throwing out Policy
L -12 and extending the Newport Beach boardwalk from the Santa Ana River to the harbor
entrance. He expressed concern the item has not received consideration by the Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Commission (PB &R) and addressed the powers given to the
Commission through the City Charter.
There being no others wishing to address Council, Mayor Curry closed public comments for
this item.
Mayor Curry noted this is a difficult issue for the residents and most of the ground cover is
there to prevent sand from blowing into people's homes. He stated Council will have the
opportunity to vote on the issue and give specific direction to staff in the regular meeting.
City Manager Kiff reported staff does not necessarily envision an opportunity for additional
parking in the area and suggested possible ways to bring people into the area that could
accomplish public access without impacting the streets, such as a summer shuttle service.
Mayor Pro Tom Hill commented on opportunities for enhancing the street ends with trails
and benches.
Volume 61 - Page 47
City of Newport Beach
City Council Study Session
February 12, 2013
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Curry invited public comments on non - agenda items.
City Clerk Leilani Brown noted this is an opportunity for the public to comment on non-
agenda items as well as agenda items, study session items and closed session items.
Jim Mosher noted the Study Session agenda failed to mention items in which the public
could comment and expressed his appreciation to Ms. Brown for clarifying the item. He felt
the quality of Council's closed session decisions would be improved if staff were instructed to
list exactly what decisions are needed from Council in closed session, He referenced closed
session Item A, and reiterated his suggestion to list the decisions needed. He indicated he
was surprised to see the item on the agenda since he did not believe Council has made a
decision regarding its vision for public facilities in the area, nor was there a review by the
PB &R Commission. Regarding the last item under Item B, Mosher stated the County of
Orange u. Air California et. al. United States District Court Case No. CV 85 -1542 (TJH)
(MCx) is a code name for the Settlement Agreement between the City and County regarding
John Wayne Airport. He stated placing the item under closed session is a ruse to keep the
public in the dark.
There being no others wishing to address Council, Mayor Curry closed the Public Comments portion
of the meeting.
IV. ADJOt3RNMENT - 4:37 p.m
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 7, 2013, at 4;43 p.m. on
the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building.
path 4 l , "t�
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
1044G
Mayor
Volume 61 - Page 48