12 - AB 2464 (Harper) - Correspondence
12 - AB 2464 (Harper) - Correspondence
3/27/2018 3:16:18 PM
3/27/2018 3:15:19 PM
AB 2464 (Harper) - Correspondence
12 - AB 2464 (Harper)
\Packets/Minutes, Ordinances, Resolutions & Council Videos\City Council\Council Meetings\2018\03/27/2018\Agenda Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
Received After Agenda Printed <br />March 27, 2018 <br />Item No. 12 <br />March 27, 2018, City Council Item 12 Comments <br />The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: <br />Jim Mosher ( jimmosher6d.yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) <br />Item 12. AB 2464 (Harper), Professional Services Agreement with <br />Schmitz and Associates, Budget Amendment <br />This is a supplement to the written comments I submitted regarding the similar Item 16 on the <br />Council's March 13, 2018. <br />As a general comment, it is disturbing this item continues to be discussed at supposedly "open" <br />and "transparent" public meetings with no indication on the agenda that a proposal for a "Port <br />Master Plan" is going to be discussed. Without obtaining and reading the staff report, nothing <br />in the Item 12 caption copied above, or in the verbiage that appears under it on the agenda, <br />would lead anyone other than an insider to know that, or to even think the item had anything to <br />do with the harbor. <br />However that may be, staff's recommendation has five parts, and I would like to comment on <br />three of those: <br />b) Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Assembly Member Matthew <br />Harper in support of AB 2464 or a similar Harper bill; <br />1. Assuming Newport Beach has no intention of actually becoming a commercial seaport, <br />this legislation is poorly conceived. <br />2. To correct my previous comment, the phrase in Pubic Resources Code Section 30700 <br />saying Port Master Plans are inapplicable to "any wetland, estuary, or existing recreation <br />area indicated in Part IV of the coastal plan" is not the show stopper I thought it was. <br />The reference is to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan presented to the <br />legislature in 1975 by the temporary California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions <br />created by 1972's Proposition 20. It turns out none of Newport Harbor south of the Bay <br />Bridge was mapped in any of these ways in the "coastal plan." More specifically, <br />although the water area north of the bridge is mapped as "wetland/estuary," the lower <br />part oceanward of the bridge is shown simply as an extension of the Pacific Ocean. <br />3. Despite this, adding "Newport Beach" to the list of ports in PRC 30700 does not, of itself, <br />create a "Port of Newport Beach." That is normally done pursuant to one of the <br />mechanisms found in Division 8 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, or by extensive <br />special legislation, as was done in the case of the San Diego Unified Port District or <br />even the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District (note: the latter <br />may have a Port Master Plan, as does Port San Luis, but as explained in Section 7.1.1 <br />of the Introduction to the Humboldt Bay Management Plan, it does not give them Coastal <br />Development Permitting authority). All of these mechanisms require drawing a boundary <br />and obtaining the consent of the voters who would reside in the new district, which would <br />likely have its own governance independent of the City Council. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.