Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-02-08 Approved Minutes NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Marina Park - Collins Island Banquet Room – 1600 W. Balboa Blvd. Wednesday, February 8, 2017 7:00 PM 1) CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2) ROLL CALL Commissioners: Paul Blank, Chair Dave Girling Bill Kenney Duncan McIntosh Joe Stapleton Doug West Staff Members: Chris Miller, Harbor Manager Shannon Levin, Harbor Supervisor City Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Duffield (absent) 3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner McIntosh 4) PUBLIC COMMENTS Richard Dorn commented that some boaters are keeping boats long term at the public docks and he would like to see increased enforcement of time limits. George Hylkema added that the Fernando Street public dock has a lot of boats abusing the time limits. 5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 11, 2017 6) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards – Harbor Design Criteria, Commercial & Residential Facilities: Approval The Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards – Harbor Design Criteria, Commercial & Residential Facilities (“Harbor Design Criteria”) have been updated to correct various errors as well as to make overall improvements to the current 2008 version. Upon the Harbor Commission’s recommendation, the City Council will adopt these standards at an upcoming meeting. Recommendation: 1) Review and approve the Harbor Design Standards, and recommend that they be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Chris Miller presented the Waterfront Guidelines and Design Criteria. The proposed changes were determined by input by city staff, contracted engineering experts and local marine contractors. Significant changes to the criteria include raising the seawall heights from +9MLLW to +10MLLW, flexibility in materials, and design alternatives in parts of the harbor according to site specific conditions. Commissioner Girling added that the Balboa Island seawalls are an exception to the seawall height increase. Public comment from Jim Mosher included questions regarding language referring to Building and Fire Board of Appeals, pile height reduction and seawall height increases. Pete Swift, Swift Slip, added that the proposed changes are fair and he was pleased to be a part of the revisions. Paul Gerst, Permadock, appreciated being involved in changing the criteria especially allowing for technological and safety improvements. 2 The Commission voted to approve the Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards and forward to City Council for approval. 2. Mooring Permits and Other Provisions: Final Harbor Commission Review to Title 17 Revisions At a special meeting on June 16, 2015, the City Council directed staff to return with a Resolution setting the fair market value rent for onshore and offshore moorings (completed in January 2016), and also return with various Municipal Code amendments and administrative changes as recommended by the Harbor Commission. Staff has completed these administrative changes for final Harbor Commission review before they are forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Recommendation: 1) Review the administrative changes to the Municipal Code as previously directed by the City Council and Harbor Commission, and recommend they be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Because of conflicts of interest Commissioners Blank, Kenney, Girling and West recused themselves. In order to establish a quorum cards were drawn to establish those commissioners who would remain and vote on the topic. Commissioners West and Kenney pulled the two red cards to remain in the voting body. Chris Miller presented a summary of the regulations up for consideration. 1. Annual Mooring Permit Rent. Finalized by City Council January 2015. 2. Mooring Transfers. Allow Transfers between private parties. Unlimited transfers allowed within a maximum of one transfer per year. 3. Mooring Transfer Fee. The current fee is 50% of the annual mooring permit rent. Discussion ensued over charging a percentage of the sale price, which could be ambiguous, or a percentage of the fixed rent. The Commission moved to charge 75% of the annual mooring permit rent. 4. Up to Two Names on a Mooring Permit. Maintain the current practice of requiring one name per mooring permit. 5. Centralized Location for Posting Sold Moorings. On a City-maintained site, either through the City or possibly the Newport Mooring Association (“NMA”) sale dates and prices of individual moorings will be recorded and made available to the public. 6. Mooring Transfer Between Family or Trust. No change to the current practice of allowing transfers within families, trusts, etc. with no transfer fee. 7. Maximum Number of Mooring Permits Allowed. Any individual may have two mooring permits, and those that currently hold more can keep those until they are divested. 8. City Practice of Renting Moorings. No change to the practice of the City renting vacant moorings and returning all revenue to the tidelands to be used toward harbor operations or projects. 9. Rental Fees. No change to the rental fees which can be determined at a later date. 10. Frequency of Billing Annual Mooring Permits. Staff will develop a procedure to increase billing frequency in lieu of a lump sum payment. Commissioners added discussion about late fees for failure to pay. 11. Wait List. Abolish the wait list that has never proven to work successfully. 12. Mooring Revocation. If a mooring permit is revoked for non-payment or other reasons, then the City may public auction the mooring. 13. Insurance Required. Permittees are required to provide insurance for any vessel on a mooring, whether a rental or permanent vessel. Small craft such as row boats or kayaks will not be required to provide insurance. Public comment commenced with Dan Gribble saying that having a central list of sold moorings is excessive and the transfer fee should be based on a fixed number. Mark Sites added that a transfer fee based on the percentage of a sale price is unclear. Patricia Newton commented that 10% of a sale price is unprecedented and she supports the transfer fee based on a percentage of the annual permit. Bill Moses, NMA board member, supported the transfer fee based on a percentage of the annual permit. Chuck South commented that sale prices will change and it will be difficult to keep up on the percentage of sales. A 3 speaker added that it will cost the City to run the web site to track the transfers and it is a waste of money. Jim Mosher commented on clarifying some language and opposes the private transfer of public property. Scott Karlin commented that the fair market value language limits future “fair market” prices. Carter Ford added that posting provides transparency and the transfer fee should be based on a percentage of the annual permit rent. Transfer Fee. Commissioner Stapleton proposed charging 100% of the annual permit fee. Commissioners Kenney and West agreed that the transfer fee should be based on a percentage of the annual permit fee but were undecided between 50% and 100%. Commissioner McIntosh suggested a fee less than 100%. Commissioner West moved the transfer fee be set at 75% of the annual permit fee. All the other topics for consideration were moved as proposed. Motion carried with 3 ayes and Commissioner Stapleton registering a “no” vote. 3. Proposed Tidelands Capital Plan and Capital Improvement Program (FY 2017-18): Review Staff will review the proposed Tidelands Capital Plan and the Capital Improvement Program (FY 2017-18) as it relates to harbor projects. Recommendation: 1) Receive and file. Chair Blank questioned whether review of the Tidelands Capital Plan and Improvement Program could be continued to the March meeting. A Commissioner noted preparation of the annual budget was underway. Chair Blank opened discussion of the item so that projects could be included in the budget. Harbor Manager Miller reported the Tidelands Management Committee developed most of the Tidelands Capital Plan (Plan). The Harbor Commission would focus on harbor-related Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. The Plan covered long-range planning for major infrastructure projects and would dictate the amount of funds to be saved and allocated to various projects. Public Works Director Webb advised that Items 4, 6, 15, 16, 18, and 20 were included in the current year's capital program. Of the shaded projects shown on page 2, some were complete and some would be carried over. Projects below the shaded area were proposed new projects for the 2017-2018 fiscal year. In reply to Commissioner Girling's questions, Public Works Director Webb indicated the $500,000 amount for Grand Canal dredging was an addition to the budgeted amount of approximately $361,000. No federal money was available currently, but staff would attempt to get the Corps of Engineers to develop a project. Designing and permitting a project would be covered by the $500,000 amount. In response to Chair Blank's inquiry, Public Works Director Webb concurred with including a placeholder for developing a “Port Plan” and its funding. A Commissioner noted the project estimate column contained project costs in current year dollars and a separate column contained project costs estimated in dollars for the anticipated year of implementation. Jim Mosher referred to the staff report, which stated Tidelands Capital Plan, but Attachment A stated Harbor Capital Project Plan. He questioned which body was reviewing projects for tidelands located outside the Harbor. Chair Blank understood the Harbor Commission took on items related to the Harbor and the Council retained all other aspects of the Plan. In reply to Commissioner West's question, Chair Blank advised that the Harbor Commission was asked to acknowledge its responsibility for review of and advisement on the projects as priorities. The Harbor Commission would provide its feedback on these and other projects in the future. 4 In response to Commissioner West's inquiry, Senior Accountant Trevor Power reported funding for the proposed projects came from incremental tidelands revenue and from a $5 million transfer from the General Fund to help cover some of the costs. The City had speculative financing for four years for projects. He agreed to provide revenue information at a later time. In reply to Commissioner West's questions, Public Works Director Webb indicated the projects shown in the shaded portion of the list were funded in the budget. Staff recommended the Harbor Commission recommend adding the projects to the coming year CIP. The recommendation would be given to the Finance Committee, who would solve the funding question. In order to provide project information for CIP planning in December, the Harbor Commission could discuss projects and costs over the summer. In response to Commissioner West's inquiries, Public Works Director Webb explained that staff had not developed a plan for harbor-wide dredging. Item 20 was a Lower Bay dredging placeholder in the amount of $4.5 million. Depending on the number of yards calculated for removal, the amount could be $10 million, so the Plan would need adjusting. The Finance Committee would determine funding. Harbor Manager Miller added that dredging was a broad category that could be used for other activities related to dredging and permitting. The Harbor Commission could discuss on a broader scale what the Harbor needed and how to achieve it. Staff was discussing dredging the entire lower harbor down to the federal design limit. Chair Blank noted the Commission did not need to take action on the item and questioned whether Commissioners felt comfortable with acknowledging the Commission's responsibility for review and analysis of harbor-related tidelands projects. He reiterated the Commission's input regarding a Port Plan. 4. United States Coast Guard Marker Buoy Repair/Replacement The U.S. Coast Guard maintains six pile markers in Newport Harbor. However, several of the markers are dilapidated and have become navigational and safety hazards to boaters. In October 2016 City staff toured the harbor with USCG representatives to inspect the existing pile markers and to discuss repair or replacement options that could either be administered by the City, the USCG, or as part of a joint program. Harbor staff solicited bids to implement the program and conduct routine maintenance. In an effort to improve safety and navigation, staff requests the Harbor Commission’s input and recommendation on the following: 1) Review the proposed repair/improvement options; and 2) Evaluate funding and maintenance programs to manage the replacement/repair and long-term maintenance of the pile markers. Recommendation: 1) Provide input to staff. Receive and file. Harbor Supervisor Levin reported boaters and sailing clubs had expressed interest in having navigational markers rather than pilings. The Coast Guard's repair of markers had been slow. After a boating mishap, the City paid to have Marker 11 removed, which turned into a lengthy undertaking. Staff met with the Coast Guard and discussed placement of pile markers and the concept of the City transitioning markers to buoys. Generally, the Coast Guard was receptive to transitioning some markers to buoys and suggested the City take responsibility for navigational markers, partner to replace them with buoys, and assume maintenance. Markers 8 and 11 had been transitioned to buoys. Staff recommended transitioning markers 12, 5, and 10 to buoys and marker 6 to a pile because of its location near the entrance channel. Staff wished to proceed with a proposal to the Coast Guard to transition those markers and assume responsibility for them. The markers would remain federal navigation markers, but the City would assume all responsibility for maintenance. In response to a Commissioner's question, Harbor Supervisor Levin advised that the cost for removal of pilings and installation of buoys for the proposed markers would be approximately $35,000 with the maintenance cost in the range of a couple of thousand dollars annually. In reply to Commissioner Girling's inquiries, Harbor Supervisor Levin indicated staff would have buoys marked with GPS location and maintain them. Buoys would be easier to maintain than pilings. Staff was not proposing the City pay all upfront costs; they wanted to approach the Coast Guard with cost sharing. 5 In response to Commissioner West's question, Chair Blank stated the markers mentioned, not race markers, were the only markers for which the City would assume responsibility. In reply to a Commissioner's question, Chair Blank remarked that buoys would have to be hit hard and fast to tip them over and expose the chain to a boat prop. Chair Blank noted the marker structures indicated at the ends of the two jetties were reversed. He also noted general Commission support for proceeding with the program and approaching the Coast Guard for cooperation. In reply to Len Bose's question, Harbor Supervisor Levin explained that Marker 6 needed to be higher because of the line of sight coming into the Harbor. It was a noticeable marker exiting the Harbor. Mr. Bose, as a boater, preferred removal of all big posts and suggested removing that marker if the Coast Guard would allow it. Billy Whitford indicated a range marker was located on the roof of the garage or the roof of the Harbor Patrol building, but it was not illuminated. 5. Prohibition of Water Propelled Vessels Above the Water Surface in Newport Harbor Water-propelled vessel activity in Newport Beach (City) peaked in 2014 with multiple commercial operators in Newport Harbor. Only one operator was officially permitted, Jetpack America, which operated from 2009 through 2016. In 2016, Jetpack America closed its Newport Beach business. Now that there are no commercial or private recreational operators in Newport Harbor, staff and the Harbor Commission recommend prohibiting all water-propelled vessels that operate above the water surface in Newport Harbor. Recommendation: 1) Recommend City Council approve ordinance prohibiting water-propelled vessels in Newport Harbor. Commissioner Stapleton recused himself from the item. Harbor Supervisor Levin advised that currently there was no operator of water-propelled vessels in Newport Harbor. Staff proposed submitting the Harbor Commission's previous recommendation to prohibit all water- propelled vessels in Newport Harbor, both recreational and commercial, to the City Council. In reply to Commissioner Girling's inquiry, Chair Blank explained that the Commission was recommending a change to the ordinance. The City Council would have to ratify modification of the ordinance. Harbor Supervisor Levin added that the item was scheduled before the Council on February 14th. If the Harbor Commission chose not to make the recommendation, staff would pull it from the Council agenda. Commissioner Kenney commented that the Harbor Commission previously recommended complete prohibition of water-propelled vessels off the surface of the water. The Council elected to prohibit privately operated craft and to allow one commercial operator. Commissioner Kenney moved to recommend to the City Council to prohibit water-propelled vessels from Newport Harbor. Commissioner Girling seconded the motion. Jim Mosher questioned the staff report's reference to the Harbor Commission's disappointment with the ordinance in 2016. Other than the current meeting, he did not recall the issue having formally been on an agenda. Commissioner West clarified that the Harbor Commission's several discussions of the temporary anchorage at the turning basin included the Commission's opinion that jetpack operations in that area were incompatible. Chair Blank concurred. 6 In reply to a question from a Commissioner, Commissioner Kenney remarked that the City Council allowed water-propelled vessels because it felt they would be a tourist attraction and draw people to the City. The motion carried with 5 ayes, 0 no and 0 abstaining votes. 6. Marina Park Update Staff will provide an update on Marina Park. Recommendation: 1) Receive and file. Harbor Supervisor Levin shared the many amenities offered at Marina Park. Over the last 12 months, peak occupancy occurred in July, August, and September with high occupancy in December. A significant drop in occupancy occurred in January because of storms. Marina Park made over $100,000 in its first year. She expected Marina Park to be extremely busy in the summer and generate possibly 50 percent higher revenue over the previous summer. In the summer of 2016, occupancy was 50 percent or higher and 100 percent on holiday weekends. Rates were the same year-round. She did not know if seasonal rates would affect occupancy. Staff had sent brochures to yacht clubs on the west coast, had advertised in boating magazines, and was attempting to be placed on the program for Baja Ha-Ha. Priorities for year 2 were maintaining high customer service, marketing to cruising clubs, getting articles in papers and magazines, improving online exposure, and sending a customer survey. Chair Blank advised that he had had some difficulty making an online reservation for a slip and suggested reviewing the online reservation system and possibly obtaining a better provider. In response to Commissioner Girling's inquiry, Harbor Supervisor Levin indicated the $100,000 amount was comprised solely of rental sales. Carter Ford wanted use of the facility to continue to grow. He suggested allowing slips to be used for light maintenance or for dinghies. He hoped the Commission would consider exploring other opportunities to double the occupancy. Chair Blank referred to off-season rates of buy 2 nights get 7 nights. Harbor Supervisor Levin did not believe the new and state-of-the-art facility was appropriate for maintenance. Jim Mosher noted the chart contained monthly averages and inquired about the number of nights at 100 percent occupancy. 7. Stand Up Paddle Boarding Update Stand up paddling is a popular activity in Newport Harbor. Many companies offer rentals to the public, and the sport is equally as popular as a personal watersport. The growing population of paddlers on the water has garnered concern for safety. Recommendation: 1) Receive and file. Commissioner Kenney reported the subcommittee identified companies renting stand-up paddleboards (SUP) and other human-powered vessels in the Harbor; interviewed the operators to determine what safety instruction they provided; collected anecdotal information with respect to whether restrictions were being observed; and obtained expert opinions on SUP safety. The Harbor Commission studied SUP safety in 2013 and created a pamphlet. The subcommittee contacted the American Canoe Association, which appeared to be the best association representing the interests of paddle boarders and those who operate other human-powered vessels, and industry experts Rob Casey and Ken Williams to obtain their views on SUP safety. The subcommittee conducted an interested parties meeting the prior week. Findings from the survey of rental operators were: most operators did not provide basic instruction for first-time renters; most 7 offered only basic operational and safety tips; and only one presented renters with a single sheet of written safety tips. The American Canoe Association published a pamphlet that contained basic information for vessel operators. Only one operator had this pamphlet available; however, it was not required reading. One operator had an instruction and safety program that all prospective renters must complete, including a video and an on-water proficiency test. Rental company operators were not doing an adequate job of instructing prospective renters on basic operation and safety of SUP and other human-powered vessels. The subcommittee proposed updating, printing, and distributing the safety pamphlet prepared by the Harbor Commission in 2013; making that pamphlet available on the City of Newport Beach website and social media platforms; preparing an SUP safety video and making it available to rental company operators and on the City's website and social media platforms; preparing a safety operations sticker that could be affixed to SUPs and making them available to rental company operators and the general public; obtaining on-land SUP simulators and having them available at Marina Park; creating and conducting on a regular basis an SUP safety class at Marina Park; creating a safety certification program that could be recognized by rental operators; and hosting an annual meeting for rental company operators only at the beginning of each season to discuss safety tips and issues. There was a suggestion to draft, train, and deploy a population of volunteers to act as harbor (inaudible) at points of congestion on busy days. Commissioner Stapleton concurred with convening rental operators to assess what did and did not work. He was hesitant to spend City money to create a video until they knew it would be viewed. Billy Whitford felt the presentation implied rental operators were not doing a good job of safety. He asked if there was any record of incidents involving SUPs. It could be a small vessel operator problem. He was present to learn what action might be taken and offered to help in any way. Kelly Carlson liked the proposals; however, some customers thoroughly read written information; some viewed videos; and some were not interested in any information. She and her coworkers verbally provided customers with safety information and tips. One fix would not apply to all customers. Commissioner Girling stated the Harbor Commission had a responsibility to do something when safety concerns were brought to its attention. Also, the Harbor Commission wanted to understand what operators were doing to educate and provide safety guidelines. He agreed that one solution would not fit everyone. The Harbor Commission was attempting to provide methods to improve safety in the Harbor. There was a perception by some people that there could be better education. Another Commissioner remarked that the Harbor Commission was suggesting some ways that it might assist rental operators. The burden would be more on the City to provide classes and pamphlets and such. A certification process might go part of the way to increasing safety in the Harbor. In reply to Chair Blank's question, Commissioner Girling did not favor a major directive to staff. He preferred the dialog continue to determine whether operators improved with use of the subcommittee's recommendations. He suggested disseminating information to and receiving feedback from all operators. Harbor Supervisor Levin suggested the Chamber of Commerce Marine Committee could reach out to businesses and help staff make contact. After discussion of hosting a meeting of rental company operators, Commissioner Kenney agreed to provide his presentation with recommendations to the Chamber of Commerce Marine Committee as the next step. Commissioner West suggested the Harbor Commission retain ownership of the issue and attempt to engage the Marine Committee in helping implement some of the ideas. Commissioner Girling recommended an agenda item in six months for further assessment. 7) COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) Commissioner Stapleton advised an article reported sewage was spilled in the Harbor. Harbor Supervisor Levin would obtain information and provide it to the Commission. 8 Chair Blank attended the third Mariners' Mile revitalization effort where he learned they would concentrate on the Harbor front element in revitalization efforts. At the Coastal Commission meeting, he planned to provide public comment in support of a Coastal Development Permit for Balboa Marina. The Harbor Commission's presentation to the Planning Commission on marine-related businesses had been rescheduled to February 23, 2017. 8) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH COUNCIL LIAISON ON HARBOR RELATED ISSUES None. 9) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH HARBOR MANAGER ON HARBOR RELATED ISSUES None. 10) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS OR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH COUNCIL LIAISON OR HARBOR MANAGER Billy Whitford advised that 20 tons of debris was sitting on the beach. 11) MATTERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) Chair Blank noted stand-up paddleboard safety would be agendized in six months. Commissioner West requested an agenda item regarding the Tidelands Capital Plan in March and a future item for a presentation by the Ocean Defenders Alliance. 12) DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 13) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Harbor Commission, the meeting was adjourned in memory of Chip Donnelly and Ralph Rodheim.