Slope upkeep could be slippery

June Casagrande

NEWPORT BEACH--A promise to maintain Newport Coast’s slopes could

prove slippery for the city. And some fear that Newport Beach could

be exposed to millions of dollars in liability risk if officials

aren’t careful.

As part of its pre-annexation agreement with Newport Coast

residents, the city is committed to maintaining “natural slopes” and

“fuel modification zones,” which are open spaces of weeds and grass

that pose a fire hazard if not maintained. Though maintenance of both

is relatively simple, the question of who takes the heat in case of a

fire gets complicated.

Until now, homeowners associations have been responsible for

maintaining the slopes. But the city has committed to taking over the

job now that Newport Coast is part of the city. The question remains,

though, what the city’s new role should be. If Newport Beach just

pays for the cost of the work contracted by the homeowners

associations, then liability may not be a problem. If, however, the

city is responsible for managing slope maintenance, too -- hiring the

workers and setting the schedule -- it could mean that the city is

responsible in case a fire damages homes.

“I don’t want to get into what could be a $100-million liability

situation for the sake of pleasing some homeowners,” said City

Councilman John Heffernan, whose district includes Newport Coast.

Heffernan has asked for a study session on the matter to allow

council members, Newport Coast resident representatives and fire and

maintenance staff to look at what, exactly, should be done.

“Nobody envisioned how complex this would be,” Asst. City Manager

Dave Kiff said.

Even the maintenance costs are unknown at this point. And wording

in the pre-annexation agreement leaves open the real possibility that

the city would not be able to make good on its promise.

According to the agreement, the city must be fully indemnified in

its liability for slope maintenance, Kiff said. But even if the

homeowners associations can’t sue, it may prevent individuals from

suing in case of a fire. “Maybe we can’t do this at all,” Kiff said.

“Maybe we couldn’t get to a point where we meet the test of the

pre-annexation agreement.