(Nov. 2, 2015, 6:08 a.m.) -- On Saturday Oct. 31, Mayor Robert Garcia and Councilwoman Suzie Price held a press photo op, arriving by gondola at the Naples Rivo Alto Canal for what a City Hall advisory called completion of the first sixth of Naples seawall repairs. However, the first fraction of work really isn't completed; an item appears on this Tuesday's (Nov. 3) City Council agenda seeking an additional $300,000 for work remaining on the first section of the canals.

And a bigger issue looms: although the Council has set aside Tidelands funds to fix the second of six sections of seawall work (dubbed "phases" by city management), the City hasn't publicly identified funding to repair the remaining 2/3 of the seawalls.

LBREPORT.com opens our Amnesia File below to revisit the issue, including a repair option that management offered the Council in 2010 that could presumably fix all of the remaining seawalls for five to ten years for a fraction of the cost of a sixty-year repair option that the Council chose (8-0, Lowenthal absent) for the first 1/5 of the seawalls in 2010. At that time, the price of oil (revenue feeding the Tidelands) was above $90 a barrel and there was no Belmont Pool rebuild vying for and tying up Tidelands funds.

In view of significantly changed circumstances, and with no funding alternatives now visible, should the Council now re-examine the less costly repair option for the remaining seawall sections?

[Scroll down for further.]

On April 6, 2010, then-Public Works Director Mike Conway conducted a Council study session on the condition of the seawalls, which don't face the sea but bolster multi-million dollar properties and an adjacent public right of way against daily tidal flows. Originally built by the properties' developer between 1905-1923, the original seawalls were made of wood, sustained damage in the 1933 earthquake and were repaired by a 1938 Roosevelt-era WPA project. In the 1960s, in response to subsidence, the city strengthened the seawalls by adding a 1.5 foot cap. The seawalls are now deteriorating at lower levels, Public Works Director Conway said.

Naples Island seawall areas. 2010 image source: City of LB

City management has now split the seawall repairs into six sections (which it calls "phases"). Text on a Jan. 6, 2014 City of LB notice to residents/owners accompanying the map below states in pertinent part: "The California Coastal Commission recently [Oct. 2013] approved and permitted the Naples Island Permanent Seawall Repair Project Phase One (Permit No. 5-11-085). Phase One covers both sides of the Rivo Alto Canal between the Ravenna and The Toledo bridges; it includes 1,000 linear feet of seawall. Subsequent phases will cover another 11,000 linear feet of seawalls. There is a total of six project phases, completion of future phases has not yet been determined as they depend on a variety of factors,including funding, and approvals from regulatory agencies."

Image showing six seawall repair areas ("phases"). Source: Jan. 6, 2014 City of LB letter to residents/owners re public meeting on seawall design.

Advertisement

Advertisement

At the April 2010 study session, Mr. Conway told Councilmembers they could choose one of two options to repair the seawalls. One option would fix roughly a fifth of the seawalls (the area he said most needed repairs) in a way that would last about 5-10 years for about $2 million. [From this, LBREPORT.com extrapolates all five seawall sections could have been fixed for up to a decade for about $10 million in FY10 dollars.] The City Council could also choose to spend $9.5 million to repair the first fifth of the seawalls using a method that Mr. Conway said would last about 60 years for about $58 million in FY10 dollars. [No Councilmember publicly questioned Mr. Conway's math.]

Mr. Conway said city staff recommended the costlier long-term fix, calling the less costly option a "short term solution" or "interim" measure that would be a "sunk cost" and ultimately require a longer term fix. He acknowledged that there was no funding then available for the costlier fix for the remaining seawall sections but said the work could be done later if funding became "available." [Mr. Conway subsequently became management's primary public advocate for a controversial Civic Center tear down/rebuild transaction recommended by management without seeking marketplace bids for a less costly City Hall seismic retrofit.]

Third district Councilman Gary DeLong swiftly endorsed the longer-term, costlier seawall repair method for the first fifth of the work, calling the less costly method "throwing good money after bad." To hear salient portions of the study session, click here.

Scroll down for further

Advertisement

Advertisement

On June 15, 2010, Councilmembers Gary DeLong, Vice Mayor Val Lerch, Councilmembers Suja Lowenthal and Gerrie Schipske, agendized a Council item that recommended allocating $9.5 million in Tidelands funds for one-fifth the seawall repairs, with no funding source identified for the remainder of the seawall work.

At the start of the item, Vice Mayor Val Lerch announced that Mayor Foster "has had to recuse himself from this item because his house is in Naples next to the Seaw--, by the Seawall so he's had to leave the room."

Councilwoman Rae Gabelich argued that adjacent property owners repairs ought to pay some portion of the cost, possibly a 50-50 "fair share" amount, noting that the City faced other funding needs from the Tidelands Fund -- which management acknowledged was being depleted and could run out of cash in 2012-2013.

Councilwoman Gabelich offered a 50-50 split (used for some sidewalk repairs) as a substitute motion. Councilman DeLong responded by saying the Seawalls are a citywide asset and that he'd be open to discussing having Naples residents pay for Seawall repairs if/when City requires residents in other parts of the City to pay for sidewalk repairs, trimming trees and street repairs. During Council discussion, Councilmembers Robert Garcia, Dee Andrews and Gerrie Schipske indicated they supported DeLong's motion and not Gabelich's substitute.

In city management's presentation, Public Works Director Mike Conway didn't mention that the City could legally require residents to pay for repairs (under state law treating the Seawalls as sidewalks) and didn't offer funding alternatives (assessment districts and the like.) When asked directly by Councilwoman Gabelich if it was true [as stated in an LBReport.com opinion piece by retired Deputy City Attorney Jim McCabe] that state law treats the Seawalls as sidewalks, enabling the City to charge for repairs, then-City Attorney Bob Shannon said that is true.

In public testimony, several residents called the Seawalls a citywide asset and said they bring tourists and visitors from all parts of the city and beyond, the latter point echoed by Councilman Robert Garcia in supporting Councilman DeLong's motion.

Retired Deputy City Att'y Jim McCabe supported Councilwoman Gabelich's position, noting that the Seawalls provide benefits that go beyond sidewalks in providing increased property values for adjacent property owners.

Faced with a Council majority supporting DeLong's motion, Councilwoman Gabelich withdrew her substitute and asked DeLong verbally if he'd support some type of cost-sharing; DeLong replied "probably not" and an awkward pause ensued.

Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga (who exited the Council in mid-July 2010) offered a different substitute motion that incorporated DeLong's motion to spend $9.5 million from the Tidelands now but included a request that city staff draft an item for future Council consideration including possible cost-sharing or increased slip fees by area residents.

The Uranga substitute carried 8-0 (Lowenthal absent for the entire meeting).

Part of a subsequently issued Coastal Commission permit for the first portion of seawalls repair work required the City to adopt a uniform measure on slip fees for canal property owners, and the Council did so, adopting a fee structure that set the fees about where they had been at a relatively modest level.

Advertisement

Advertisement

At that time of the June 2010 Council vote on the first fraction of seawall repairs, oil revenue feeding LB's Tidelands fund was about $90/barrel [our source here.] Since then, the price of oil has fallen to roughly half of what it was, and rebuilding the seismically demolished Belmont Plaza Pool in the manner the Council has currently directed is currently estimated to cost over $100 million, effectively leaving the pool rebuild as unfunded as 2/3 of the seawall repair work.

On May 6, 2014, the City Council approved a contract for the first phase of the work: $9,928,380 with a 15% contingency for a total contract amount not to exceed $11,417,637. Part of the delay resulted from the City facing Coastal Commission issues [seemingly unforeseen by city staff] that would ensure public access along the seawalls plus a Habitat Mitigation Program to offset seawall repair impacts on eelgrass and soft-bottom habitat. (The mitigation, which takes place at Colorado Lagoon, required $5 million, separately budgeted.)

Under "Fiscal Impact," management's May 6, 2014 memo stated:

The estimated cost of the Phase 1 Project is $13,500,000 and includes engineering design, technical studies, regulatory permits, construction, construction management and inspections. On June 15, 2010, the City Council allocated $9,500,000 for seawall repairs from the FY 2011 Harbor Department revenue transfer to the Tidelands Operations Fund, and that amount was subsequently appropriated by the City Council as part of the FY 2011 Adopted Budget. The remaining $4,000,000 needed for the Phase 1 Project is requested as part of the recommended action.

To our knowledge, management didn't mention a $13.5 million cost in its April 2010 study session; it cited a $9.5 million cost for the first fifth fraction of seawalls repairs. If the Council approves a $300,000 cost increase sought by city management on November 3, 2015, the cost of phase one (1/6 fraction) of seawalls repairs will now be $13.8 million.

By our math: the $13.8 million exceeds the $9.5 million represented by management to the Council and the public by $4.3 million. That's 45% more than the public and the Council were told the first fraction of seawall repairs would cost under the costlier repair option.

Without further Council direction, city staff has thus far applied the costlier repair option to the remainder of the seawalls needing repairs...but with the price of oil now half of what it was, and the Belmont Pool rebuild now a major tap on Tidelands funds, and the need for seawall repair presumably as compelling now as it was five years ago, should a Council majority re-examine the less costly funding option for the remaining seawall sections needing repair?

That would require a Council majority vote...in which 3rd Council district Council representative Suzie Price has one vote among nine. The 2nd Council district also has beachfront and tidelands areas that could use tidelands funds to upgrade and improve their infrastructure. Its incumbent, Suja Lowenthal, will be exiting by mid-July 2016..and three candidates have surfaced to date to succeed her. Do they favor examining a less costly funding option that could help free up Tidelands funds for 2nd district shoreline work?

And what of LB's seven other Council incumbents, who have co-equal voters on the matter? Three of those incumbents will also face voters in 2016.

Developing.