Laserfiche WebLink
AB 1196 (Harper) and Contract with Don Schmitz and Associates <br />April 24, 2018 <br />Page 3 <br />possibility of permitting routine dock work harbor -wide through a "master CDP. " This option would <br />have provided the city with permitting authority similar to what it now seeks through this bill. <br />However, the city ultimately elected not to pursue a master CDP given relatively low demand... <br />Given the Coastal Act mandate to maximize public access and recreational opportunities <br />(PRC Section 30001.5), protect lower-cost visitor -serving opportunities (PRC Section 30213), <br />and maintain the health of marine ecosystems (PRC Section 30230), it is essential for public <br />agencies to carefully balance private and public interests whenever planning new waterfront <br />development. Coastal Commission oversight of waterfront areas is particularly critical, due to <br />the heightened implications for public access, coastal recreation and lower-cost visitor -serving <br />facilities, protection of important biological resources, placement of fill in state waters, and <br />disposal of vital dredge spoils. These are all matters of significant statewide public interest, and <br />should not be wholly delegated to local governments. This was part of the state/local balance <br />struck by the Legislature in 1976, and which remains the fulcrum for California's entire coastal <br />management program. Hence, PMPs are not the appropriate vehicle for cities and counties <br />undertaking development activities in their municipal harbors... <br />The City already has the authority to conduct ongoing dredging activities within a defined area <br />of the harbor under a Commission -issued CDP. The City has the option to amend that permit to <br />address additional needs as necessary, or pursue a Public Works Plan to cover additional <br />activities if they choose to seek additional streamlining measures. <br />At the Council's March 27, 2018 meeting, I said that I would suggest ending the AB 1196 <br />effort and concluding the Schmitz advocacy contract should the Commission oppose the <br />bill, because the Commission's position is taken seriously in various policy committees in <br />the Legislature. However, I rethought that in recent days and believe that it may be <br />appropriate for the Council to at least hear out what the alternatives might be to stopping <br />the process entirely. I still believe that the bill has a tough road ahead with Commission <br />opposition, even with amendments. <br />Options beyond ending the contract and notifying Assembly Member Harper of the City's <br />intention to shelve AB 1196 include - <br />1 — Push ahead at least to the first policy committee (likely to be Senate Natural <br />Resources in June 2018). This would allow Mr. Henschel to organize possible support <br />from entities like chambers of commerce and more, as well as to secure additional co- <br />authors for the bill. At the same time, Senate Natural Resources is a place where policy <br />opposition by the Coastal Commission is likely to be weighed most heavily. <br />2 — Amending the bill to attempt to address Commission concerns, as well as seeking <br />additional supporters. Amendments could include: <br />a) Assuring the Legislature and Commission that this bill's intent is not intended to set a <br />precedent with other municipal harbors; <br />b) Allow the Coastal Commission to directly appeal decisions by the City following an <br />adopted PMP. <br />c) Set a defined frequency for review of the PMP by the Commission, such as every five <br />years. Under today's law, once a PMP is adopted, there is no requirement that the <br />CCC has periodic reviews. <br />10-3 <br />