HomeMy WebLinkAboutHarbor Commission Agenda - April 11, 2018CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HARBOR COMMISSION AGENDA
City Council Chambers - 100 Civic Center Dr
Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - 6:30 PM
Harbor Commission Members:
William Kenney, Jr., Chair
David Girling, Vice Chair
Scott Cunningham, Secretary
Ira Beer, Commissioner
Paul Blank, Commissioner
John Drayton, Commissioner
Duncan McIntosh, Commissioner
Staff Members:
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager
Dennis Durgan, Harbormaster
Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager
Ann Ewing, Deputy City Attorney
Raymund Reyes, Administrative Analyst
The Harbor Commission meeting is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that
the Harbor Commission agenda be posted at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of each regular meeting and that
the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the Commission and items not on the agenda but are within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the Harbor Commission. The Chair may limit public comments to a reasonable amount
of time, generally three (3) minutes per person.
The City of Newport Beach’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an
attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, we will
attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, at
least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation
is feasible at (949) 644-3034 or cmiller@newportbeachca.gov.
NOTICE REGARDING PRESENTATIONS REQUIRING USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT
Any presentation requiring the use of the City of Newport Beach’s equipment must be submitted to the Harbor
Resources Division 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
1)CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2)ROLL CALL
3)PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4)PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments are invited on agenda and non-agenda items generally considered to be
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Speakers must limit comments to
three (3) minutes. Before speaking, we invite, but do not require, you to state your name for the
record. The Commission has the discretion to extend or shorten the speakers’ time limit on
agenda or non-agenda items, provided the time limit adjustment is applied equally to all
speakers. As a courtesy, please turn cell phones off or set them in the silent mode.
5)APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 14, 2018
Minutes of March 14, 2018
6)CURRENT BUSINESS
April 11, 2018
Page 2
Harbor Commission Meeting
1.City Harbormaster Report on Harbor Operations and On-Water Code Enforcement
City Harbormaster Dennis Durgan will provide an update on Harbor Operations and
on-water code enforcement activities.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the
activity is not a projet as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2. Receive and file.
2.City Water Quality Program Review
City Senior Engineer John Kappeler will present an overview of the City's Water
Quality Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the
activity is not a projet as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2. Receive and file.
3.Council Policy Manual Update: H-1 Harbor Permit Policy
The Harbor Commission will review Council Policy H-1 and recommend that it be
forwarded to the City Council for Approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)
(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2. Review and approve updates to Council Policy H-1, and recommend that it be
forwarded to the City Council for final approval.
April 11, 2018
Page 3
Harbor Commission Meeting
4.Proposed Harbor Speed Limit Exceptions
The Harbor Commission will review the proposed harbor speed limit exceptions for
human or wind powered vessels for events such as races and practices, as well as
exceptions to support vessels to those human or wind powered vessels during those
events.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the
activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2. Review and approve the proposed harbor speed limit changes to the Municipal
Code, and recommend they be forwarded to the City Council and the State for
review and approval.
5.Harbor Commission 2018 Objectives: Ad Hoc Committee Updates
Each ad hoc committee studying their respective Functional Area within the
Commission's 2018 Objectives will provide a progress update.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the
activity is not a project as degined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2. Receive and file.
7)COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM)
8)QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER ON
HARBOR RELATED ISSUES
9)PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS OR QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS WITH HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER
10)MATTERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM)
11)DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, May 09, 2018
April 11, 2018
Page 4
Harbor Commission Meeting
12)ADJOURNMENT
NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Council Chambers – 100 Civic Center Drive
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 6:30 PM
1)CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
2)ROLL CALL
Commissioners: William Kenney, Jr., Chair David Girling, Vice Chair
Scott Cunningham, Secretary Ira Beer, Commissioner
Paul Blank, Commissioner John Drayton, Commissioner (absent)
Duncan McIntosh, Commissioner (absent)
Staff Members: Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager Dennis Durgan, Harbormaster
Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager Ann Ewing, Deputy City Attorney
Raymund Reyes, Administrative Analyst
3)PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Cunningham
4)PUBLIC COMMENTS
Lieutenant Mark Alsobrook announced the end of his tenure as County Harbormaster effective March 16, 2018, and introduced Lieutenant Chris Corn as his successor.
Lieutenant Chris Corn shared his employment history.
Tom LeBeau did not appreciate the Orange County Sheriff Department using Newport Harbor as an
impound yard. The City should address this with the County.
Bill Peterson requested the Harbor Commission look into the two boats tied at commercial docks in Rhine Channel. The boats exceed the length of the dock and are navigation hazards. The new public dock
facilities are incredible and have a positive impact on the economy in the Harbor.
5)APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Minutes of February 14, 2018
Commissioner Blank moved approval of the draft Minutes for the February 14, 2018, meeting as presented. Commissioner Girling seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Commissioner Girling, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Beer, Commissioner Blank Abstaining: none Absent: Commissioner Drayton, Commissioner McIntosh
6)CURRENT BUSINESS
1.New Dock Proposed at 2223 Bayside Drive
The applicant at 2223 Bayside Drive is proposing to build a brand new dock system which wouldbe the first dock ever built at this property. Council Policy H-1 requires a special permit be approved
by the Harbor Commission for dock projects in this area of the harbor.
2
Recommendation:
1)Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant toSections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a projectas defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to theenvironment, directly or indirectly.
2)Review the proposed dock project and approve.
Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported Council Policy H-1 requires Commission approval of a special permit for dock projects in the Bayside Drive area of the Harbor. The applicant is not requesting a variance.
The proposed dock is compatible with other docks in the area. In response to staff outreach, an adjacent neighbor, who supports the project, asked questions about eelgrass. The applicant will need to work with
regulatory agencies regarding permits for construction and eelgrass.
In response to Commissioners' questions, Harbor Resources Manager Miller advised that docks are considered permanent impacts to eelgrass and, therefore, are not covered by the eelgrass mitigation
program.
Pete Swift, Swift Slip Dock and Pier Builders, described the proposed dock and shared the history of dock proposals for this location.
In response to inquiries from Commissioners, Mr. Swift explained that the property owner is responsible for
moving his dock out of the way to provide access for repair equipment. The distance between the outside edges of the docks for 2223 and 2215 is 12 feet. Legally, the property owner at 2215 cannot side tie a boat
on the outside of the southeasterly side of the dock. The applicant does not intend to side tie boats to the outside of either finger of the dock. The applicant would prefer not to relinquish the right to side tie a boat
to the southwesterly finger of the dock but would agree to a condition of approval not to side tie boats to the northeasterly finger of the dock.
Harbor Resources Manager Miller remarked that no one in the Harbor should rely on someone else's water
space for ingress and egress to his own dock.
Chair Kenney opened and closed the public hearing without public comment.
Commissioner Blank moved to approve the dock project as proposed with no restrictions for side ties on either side of the dock. Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion. The motion carried by the
following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Commissioner Girling, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Beer,
Commissioner Blank Abstaining: none
Absent: Commissioner Drayton, Commissioner McIntosh
2. City Harbormaster Report on Harbor Operations and On-Water Code EnforcementCity Harbormaster Dennis Durgan will provide an update on Harbor Operations including a
presentation by the City's Code Enforcement Division about their assistance with on-water codeenforcement.
Recommendation:
1)Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant toSections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a projectas defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to theenvironment, directly or indirectly.
2)Receive and file.
3
Matt Cosylion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the Harbor Enforcement Program and activities
for each stage of the program. After receiving a complaint, staff investigates the situation, issues a Notice of Violation (NOV) as warranted, and provides a reasonable timeframe for the permittee to achieve
compliance. If compliance is not achieved, then staff issues a citation. If the situation remains noncompliant, staff issues a Notice of Revocation. Staff has not needed to issue a Notice of Revocation
thus far. Since late August 2017, staff has opened 150 enforcement cases resulting in 128 warning notices, 46 administrative citations, 8 Notices of Intent to Revoke, 4 impounded vessels, and 1 public auction.
In reply to questions, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cosylion indicated the $100 fee accompanies the
citation. He was unaware of the number of $100 fees paid. If fees are not paid, the account is moved into the collection process.
In response to Commissioners' inquiries, Assistant City Manager Carol Jacobs advised that the Sheriff's
Department had been utilizing 11 moorings in A Field, C Field, and adjacent to Harbor Patrol to hold impounded vessels. The City has an informal agreement with the Sheriff's Department for its continued
use of these moorings in exchange for the City's use of three slips for lifeguard boats at Harbor Patrol and a garage. The City is working with the Sheriff's Department to ensure impounded boats comply with City
standards. The City could probably take action against the Sheriff Department's impounded boats if the City deems them derelict; however, the City has not considered that yet. The City has not specified a time
period in which an impounded vessel must be removed from the Harbor. Lieutenant Alsobrook clarified that the Sheriff's Department impounded the vessels as an agent of the City, i.e., the vessels were originally
found in City tidelands. The Sheriff's Department has brought impounded vessels from Dana Point or Sunset Harbor into Newport Harbor in preparation for auction but not for long-term storage. Deputy City
Attorney Ann Ewing concurred with statements that the City has responsibility for vessels impounded on its behalf. The City is working to dispose of the vessels and has communicated with the Coast Guard regarding
impounded vessels registered by the Coast Guard. Staff's priority is disposing of the vessels in the worst condition first.
3.Central Avenue Public Pier—Vessel Sizes and State Grant Funding
The Central Avenue public pier and plaza project is complete and has been in use since December2017. However, as part of the last step in receiving the state's grant funding for this project, the
state is requiring that a designated portion of the float be specifically reserved for vessels over 26feet long, thereby limiting access to the intended vessel size class along the outside face of the
dock. Staff is looking for direction from the Harbor Commission as to whether the requirements ofthe grant are worth pursuing.
Recommendation:
1)Find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a projectas defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to theenvironment, directly or indirectly.
2)Provide direction to staff as to the vessel size limits for the Central Avenue public dock.
Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported that the City applied for a State grant to partially fund the Central Avenue public pier and plaza project. To receive grant funds of approximately $86,000, the State requires
the City to designate an area of the public pier for vessels 26 feet and longer. In October, the Harbor Commission designated the entire side tie area of the pier for vessels 30 feet and less. The State has
determined the City's designation does not comply with the grant requirements. Evidence of the designated area must be provided to the State on March 15.
In answer to questions, Harbor Resources Manager Miller calculated the number of dinghies and Duffy-
sized boats that could utilize the dock as currently configured. The Harbormaster's Office could enforce the size designation in a gentle manner. Funding is designated for the Central Avenue pier and cannot be
utilized for other public piers. The total cost of the project was in the $200,000 range and was funded
4
entirely through outside sources. If the space is not designated, funds could be redirected between the public pier and plaza improvements. Commissioner Blank estimated the City's cost for plaza improvements
at roughly $1 million. Harbor Resources Manager Miller suspected any designation would be required for 7-10 years. The dock could be striped to reserve an area for vessels 26-30 feet in length, and the remainder
of the dock would be limited to vessels 30 feet and less.
Commissioner Beer moved to designate an area of the Central Avenue public pier for vessels of 26-30 feet. Commissioner Girling seconded the motion. The motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Commissioner Girling, Commissioner Beer Noes: Chair Kenney, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Blank Abstaining: none Absent: Commissioner Drayton, Commissioner McIntosh
Chair Kenney moved to decline the State grant and retain the size limitations implemented in October 2017.
Commissioner Blank seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Blank
Noes: Commissioner Girling, Commissioner Beer Abstaining: none
Absent: Commissioner Drayton, Commissioner McIntosh
7)COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS)
Commissioner Cunningham reported the main goal of the Functional Area 1 committee is to convince the Army Corps of Engineers to fund a design dredge plan for deep-water dredging in fiscal year 2019. Once
a design plan is developed, the committee's goal is to convince the Corps to fund dredging construction in fiscal year 2020 or 2021. The committee is looking to modify or expand the RGP-54 permit limits and the
areas where dredging is needed. Meetings with local agencies have begun. The objective for harbor beaches is to carve out a blanket permit that allows the City to replenish harbor beaches as required. The
committee is studying various hydraulic methods for dredging, short-term and long-term storage locations, and various distribution methods.
Commissioner Blank advised that the Functional Area 6 committee has drafted an approach document for
soliciting feedback regarding a long-term Harbor plan. He related the City Council's action with respect to proposed legislation to designate the Harbor as a port. The Harbor needs to be designated as a port in
order for the City to develop and approve a port plan.
Commissioner Blank indicated the City's map of racing mark positions has been updated to include new racing mark positions from the Association of Orange Coast Yacht Clubs. Harbor Resources Manager
Miller reviewed marker changes.
8)QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER ON HARBOR-RELATEDISSUES
Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported Public Works Director Dave Webb presented the City's Capital
Improvement Program, which includes Newport Harbor projects, to the City Council. Staff met with senior officials of the Coast Guard to review converting federal markers from stationary piles to floating buoys.
Under the proposal, the Coast Guard will pay for the buoys, and the City will pay for removal of the piles and installation and maintenance of the buoys. The Coast Guard also asked to be involved in the next trial
of the West Anchorage before an application for a permanent anchorage is submitted. In April, he will approach the City Council for approval of a temporary anchorage in 2018. With respect to the email from
the captain of Scout II, the City currently does not have a designated anchorage. The temporary anchorage will include an area designated for larger vessels.
Harbormaster Durgan advised the Commission that the Scout II is 140 feet. The captain requested
permission to anchor in the anchorage located at the east end of Lido Island during the week of the Baldwin Cup regatta. Legally, the Scout II has the right to anchor in the anchorage area; however, a vessel that
size will fill the entire anchorage.
5
9)PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS OR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH
HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER
None
10)MATTERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FORDISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM)
Commissioner Blank requested an agenda item for speed limits provided staff is ready.
Chair Kenney requested an agenda item in April regarding typical timelines for disposition of impounded
vessels.
Chair Kenney noted the lack of tie-up bars in areas of piers designated for tenders and dinghies limits the use of those areas.
11)DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, April 11, 2018
12)ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Harbor Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
8:21 p.m.
NEWPORT BEACH
Harbor Commission Staff Report
CITY OF
April 11, 2018
Agenda Item No. _1_
TO: HARBOR COMMISSION
FROM: Dennis Durgan, Harbormaster - 949-270-8158, ddurgan@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Chris Miller, Harbor Manager – 949-644-3043,
cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE: City Harbormaster Report on Harbor Operations and On-Water Code
Enforcement ______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT:
City Harbormaster Dennis Durgan will provide an update on Harbor Operations and on-water
code enforcement activities.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant toSections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project
as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly.
2.Receive and file.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3)
(the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code
of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the
meeting at which the Harbor Commission considers the item).
City Harbormaster Update
Harbor Commission
04/11/2018
Additional Materials Presented at
Meeting Harbor Commission
04-11-2018
Code Enforcement
Mooring Rentals
Mooring App Stats
Auction/Boat Removal
Code Enforcement
•Impounds: 11 current
•12 since last meeting
(6 of those released for
payment/repossession)
Since 3/13/18
•Cases opened: 17
•Notice of Violation: 8
•Citations: 0
Stats
•On Average we have ~29
mooring rentals per night
•6 Raft-ups approved already
beginning in April
•4 Letters of Permission with
more expected with NHYC
event
Mooring App Update
Goal: Get all accounts up to date by April 20 or take action with Code
Enforcement processes for compliance/revocation
•~1000 letters were sent to Mooring Permittees to get updated vessel
information on 4/2/2018
OVERHAUL (Mooring Maintenance-60 days for compliance)
•42 Letters sent April 5 (Last Serviced 2012-2014)
•33 Letters scheduled to go out June 1 (Last Serviced 2015)
•37 Letters scheduled to go out Aug 1 (Last Serviced 2015/2016)
Auction/Boat Removal
State Grant was executed this
month
•5 vessels being processed for
VTIP
•4 USCG ready to begin process for
disposal
•4 ready for destruction
•12 ready to auction
NEWPORT BEACH
Harbor Commission Staff Report
CITY OF
April 11, 2018
Agenda Item No. _2_
TO: HARBOR COMMISSION
FROM: Chris Miller, Harbor Manager – 949-644-3043, cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE: City Water Quality Program Review ______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT:
City Senior Engineer, John Kappeler, will present an overview of the City’s Water Quality
Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant toSections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project
as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly.
2.Receive and file.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3)
(the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the Harbor Commission considers the item).
1
Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Harbor Commission 04-11-2018
Agenda
2
Water Quality Monitoring
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Program/Policy Development and Oversight
Water Quality Coastal Tidelands Committee –Current Goals
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL’s )
Other Constituents of Concern
Projects
3
4
Newport Beach WQ Monitoring Results
5
The Good News is:
Newport Beach WQ is Very Good
6
Newport Beach WQ Monitoring Results
NPDES Permit History
7
Clean Water Act Amendment in 1987
(called the Water Quality Act)
Regulates Discharge of Urban Runoff & Storm Water
Orange County is Lead Permittee with Cities as Co-Permittees
Working on 5th Term Permit (Next Draft Anticipated Summer 2018)
NPDES Permit Requirements Today
8
•Implement Storm Water Management Programs
•Require Construction Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
•Perform Inspections
•Construction Sites
•Municipal Facilities
•Commercial, Industrial and Restaurants
•Perform Enforcement
•Participation in General Permittee and
Sub-Committee Meetings
•Conduct Public Outreach and Education
•Submit Annual Progress Report to Regional Board & EPA
Program and Policy Oversight
City Council
Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee and
Staff Working Committees
City Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee
NPDES Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
NPDES Working Group
9
Newport Bay Watershed Executive
Committee
Cooperative Partnership to Solve TMDL and Water Quality
Issues within Newport Bay Watershed
Mayor Duffield Represents City on the Executive Committee
Partners
County of Orange
City of Newport Beach
City of Irvine
City of Tustin
City of Santa Ana
10
City of Lake Forest
City of Costa Mesa
Irvine Ranch Water District
The Irvine Company
CA Dept. Fish & Wildlife
Newport Bay Watershed
11
City Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands
Committee
Current Committee Members:
Councilmember Avery
Councilmember Herdman
Dennis Baker
Tom Houston
Vacant
12
Louis Denger
George Robertson
Fred Galluccio
Carl Cassidy
2017/18 Water
Quality/Coastal
Tidelands Committee
Goals:
13
A.Reduce the amount of trash
entering/accumulating in Upper Bay,
Lower Bay, and Ocean Beaches.
[7 objectives]
B.Reduce marine-activity wastes from
entering Harbor waters. [2]
C.Reduce pollutant loading into
Newport Bay and City Creek. [7]
D.Foster collaborative efforts with the
community, resource agencies and
other watershed partners. [4]
Sediment Deposition into Bay
Original Issue: Unchecked Sediments being Deposited into Upper & Lower Bay
Sediment Control Practices Began in 1983
Sediment TMDL was Established in 1999 (set numerical limits)
14
Sediment TMDL
Contributions to the City’s Water Quality,
Dredging & Habitat Restoration Programs
15
•2002 -2017 Grant Awards: $19 million
•Rhine Channel Contributions: $4 million
•Upper Bay Dredging Contributions: $50 million
•Lower Bay Dredging Contributions: $5 million
Fecal Coliform Indicator Bacteria (FIB) TMDL
FIB TMDL Adopted in 1999
Originally Four Permanent Water Quality Postings in the Bay
TMDL is for Fecal Coliform Only
TMDL Currently Does Not Exclude Natural Sources* of Indicator
Bacteria
16
*Natural Sources of FIB are defined as:
FIB that are released into the environments from
wildlife or plant species, or through growth and
replication
17
Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) TMDL
Long Term Water Quality Advisory Posting Removed
Long Term Water Quality Advisory Posting Remaining
Fecal Coliform Indicator Bacteria (FIB) TMDL
•The “Arches Drain” Watershed
•Arches Storm Drain Sewer Diversion Project
Construction Fall 2018
18
Diversion #1
Location
Diversion #2
Location
Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) TMDL
Copper ?
Trash ?
19
Other Constituents of Concern
Copper
Main Sources
Legacy Material in Sediments
Anti-Fouling Boat Paints
Issues/Concerns
Copper-Based Paints are Legal in California/US and are a Proven
Product
Boaters have Serious Concerns about Switching from Copper-Based
Paint to Non-Copper Paints
Non-Copper Paints are More Expensive and Require More Frequent
Cleaning.
Currently switching to new lower Cu Paints (Jan 2018)20
Capture and Collection Devices
•Install 435 Screens on Catch Basins in the Dry
Season.
•Approximately 40 Continuous Deflective
Separation (CDS) Units Installed Citywide.
(public and private)
•Annually Clean 3.2 Miles of Drainage Channels
and 3,234 Catch Basins.
•Street Sweep over 36,000 Curb Miles per year.
21
Trash and Debris
Capture and Collection Devices
•City Maintained Upper Bay Log Boom (Upgrade Planned)
(More than 75 Tons of Debris Removed this Storm Season)
•City Installed and Maintains 6 Trash Skimmers
•City Coordinates/Participates in Various Clean-Up Events
22
Trash and Debris
23
Santa Ana-Delhi Channel
Trash Collection & Low Flow Diversion Project
Project Partners
•City of Santa Ana
•County of Orange
•City of Newport Beach
•City of Costa Mesa
Project Goals
•Trash Collection
•Dry Weather Flow Diversion
•Selenium Reduction
Currently Under Construction
Est. Completion: Fall 2018
Trash and Debris
24
Polaris Drive Trash Collection Project
Project Goal
•Trash Collection
Project Schedule
•Submitted Grant Proposal
Trash and Debris
Water Wheel:
52’ long x 24’ wide x 14’ high
San Diego Creek Water Wheel
Capture and Collection Device
Trash and DebrisPotential Project
Project Location
2nd Newport Harbor Underwater Cleanup
Balboa Bay Club
June 2, 2018
Event Totals:
221 Volunteers
12 Duffy Boats
Estimated 1,100 pounds of trash
14 Environmental Exhibitors
1st Newport Harbor Underwater Cleanup
28
Harbor Recycling Centers
29
Vessel Sewage Pumpouts
“Pumpout Nav” App
We are seeing the
best water quality
observed in the
Bay since the
1960’s.
30
Significant Water Quality Accomplishments
Questions
31
Public Works Department
Protecting and Providing
Quality Public Improvements and Services
NEWPORT BEACH
Harbor Commission Staff Report
CITY OF
April 11, 2018 Agenda Item No. _3_
TO: HARBOR COMMISSION
FROM: Chris Miller, Harbor Manager - 949-644-3043, cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE: Council Policy Manual Update: H-1 Harbor Permit Policy
______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT:
The Harbor Commission will review Council Policy H-1 and recommend that it be
forwarded to the City Council for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and
15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQAGuidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has nopotential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2.Review and approve updates to Council Policy H-1, and recommend that it be
forwarded to the City Council for final approval.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
DISCUSSION:
At the January 10, 2018 meeting, the Harbor Commission approved a previous version
of Council Policy H-1 and recommended that it be forwarded to the City Council for final
approval. However, upon review by the City Attorney’s Office prior to the Council meeting, H-1 was pulled from the Council agenda so it could be further refined.
Attached is an updated version of H-1 which reflects a much simpler version than
previously considered. Instead of setting forth prescribed length limits that could
ultimately be disregarded upon appeal to and findings by the Harbor Commission, the revised policy requires the Harbor Commission to consider all applications that propose to build docks beyond the pierhead line. In other words, individual approval to build
beyond the pierhead line will no longer be made by staff, but will come before the Harbor
Council Policy Manual Update: H-1 Harbor Permit Policy April 11, 2018
Page 2
Commission for approval any time an application is submitted to build beyond the pierhead line, regardless of where the dock/float is located in the harbor.
This process could add time to the permitting process while the applicant waits until the
next Harbor Commission meeting. However, it is also possible, based on staff workload at the time the application is made, that the process could be truncated. (The local dock construction industry was notified about this agenda item after it was posted.)
To help expedite the process, pier applications which appear to staff to be
noncontroversial with respect to the Harbor Commission’s required findings, could be added to a Consent Calendar for routine approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment)
and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the Harbor Commission considers the item). ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Council Policy H-1 (redline strikeout)
Attachment B – Council Policy H-1 (clean)
H-1
1
HARBOR PERMIT POLICY
Background
Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.35.030 provides that piers and floats
may not extend beyond the pierhead line unless approved by Council policy.
Policy
The Harbor Commission may permit a pier or float to extend beyond the pierhead
line if the Harbor Commission makes a determination that such extension will not negatively impact: (1) navigation; (2) adjacent property owners; and (3) existing
harbor uses.
Any permit issued by the City of Newport Beach before April __, 2018, which allows
a pier or float to extend beyond the pierhead line, is ratified by the City Council and may continue as valid unless and until such pier or float is extended or enlarged.
Reaffirmed - January 24, 1994
Amended - June 27, 1994 Amended - June 26, 1995
Amended - March 25, 1996
Amended - June 8, 1998 (effective July 22, 1998)
Amended - December 14, 1998
Amended - May 8, 2001 Amended - September 10, 2002
Amended - October 28, 2003
Amended - January 22, 2008
Amended - April __, 2018
1
HARBOR PERMIT POLICY
The following section offers exceptions to the distance that piers can extend in
certain parts of the harbor.
BAYWARD LOCATION OF PIERS AND FLOATS*
A. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 107 to No. 109. Piers will be permitted to extend
out to the U.S. Pierhead Line.
B. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 109 to No. 110. Piers may be permitted to extend
16 feet channelward of the U.S. Pierhead Line.
C. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 110 to No. 112. Piers will be permitted to extend
out to the U.S. Pierhead Line.
D. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 112 to No. 113. Piers will be permitted to extend
out to the U.S. Pierhead Line. Commercial piers between "A" Street and
Adams Street will be subject to special permits approved by the Harbor
Commission.
E. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 113 to No. 114. Piers shall be subject to a special
permit approved by the Harbor Resources Division.
F. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 114 to No. 119. Piers will be permitted to extend to
the U.S. Pierhead Line.
G. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 119 to No. 120. Piers may be permitted to extend
20 feet beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line.
H. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 120 to No. 221. Piers may be permitted to extend
20 feet beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line.
I. The Rhine. Special permits approved by the Harbor Resources Division
shall be required for construction of piers in the Rhine, extending
northerly from U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 120.
J. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 122 to No. 125. Piers or boat slips may be
permitted to extend 20 feet channelward of the U.S. Pierhead Line.
K. West Newport Channels. Piers may be permitted in the Rivo Alto, the
Rialto, and the channel lying westerly of Newport Boulevard. Piers, slips,
and floats will be permitted to extend channelward a distance of 30 feet
2
maximum from the channel lines in the Rivo Alto, the Rialto, and the
channel lying westerly of Newport Boulevard. Property extending to the
ordinary high tide line, with a frontage exceeding thirty (30) feet will be
allowed 1-foot increase in float width parallel to the Pierhead Line, for
each additional 2 feet frontage.
The piers, slips and floats in Balboa Coves shall not extend into the
channel a distance greater than 30 feet from the north line of the channel
shown on Tract 1011. Floats up to 20 feet in length may extend into the
bay 30 feet from said line of waterway; however, for floats over 20 feet in
length, the 30 foot distance shall be reduced 1 foot for each 2 feet added to
the length of the float. The maximum permissible length of float shall be
30 feet. (Second paragraph of Section K added by Resolution No. 6139.)
L. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 226 to No. 227. Piers or boat slips will be permitted
to extend to the U.S. Pierhead line.
M. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 227 to No. 128. Special permits approved by the
Harbor Resources Division shall be required for construction of piers,
slips and floats.
N. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 128 to No. 130. Piers or boat slips will be permitted
to extend to the U.S. Pierhead line.
O. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 130 to No. 131. Piers or boat slips may be
permitted to extend 20 feet channelward of the U.S. Pierhead Line.
P. Upper Bay. Piers or boat slips may be permitted to extend to the pierhead
lines as shown on Harbor Lines Map approved by City Council and on file
in the Harbor Resources Division.
Q. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 132 to No. 137. Piers or boat slips will be permitted
to extend to the U.S. Pierhead Line.
R. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 137 to east property line of Beacon Bay
Subdivision. Piers shall be granted under special permits approved by the
Harbor Resources Division to extend 16 feet beyond the U.S. Pierhead
Line.
S. East Property Line of Beacon Bay Subdivision to U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No.
104. Piers may be permitted to extend 20 feet channelward of the U.S.
Pierhead Line.
3
T. U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 104 to No. 106. Piers shall be subject to special
permits approved by the Harbor Commission.
U. Bay Island. Piers will be permitted to extend to the U.S. Pierhead Line on
the west, northerly and easterly sides of the Island. Piers will not be
permitted on the north side of the channel south of Bay Island.
V. Balboa Island. All new piers and revision to existing permits shall be
subject to special permits approved by the Harbor Commission. Revisions
to existing piers will be permitted providing they do not lessen the use of
either the immediate water or land areas.
1. South Bay Front East of U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 256. Piers may be
permitted to extend 16 feet channelward of the U.S. Pierhead Line.
Dredging around floats shall not exceed a depth of minus 4 feet at
mean lower low water along a line 85 feet channelward of and
parallel to the bulkhead line.
2. South Bay Front between U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 256 and No. 259.
Piers may be permitted to extend 10 feet channelward of the U.S.
Pierhead Line. Dredging around floats shall not exceed a depth of
minus 2 feet at mean lower low water along a line 60 feet
channelward of and parallel to the bulkhead line.
3. South Bay Front from Emerald Avenue northwesterly to the
westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 5, Block 1,
Resubdivision of Section 1, and Balboa Island. Piers will be
permitted to extend to the City pierhead line. Dredging around
floats shall not exceed a depth of minus 2 feet at mean lower low
water along a line 45 feet channelward of and parallel to the
existing concrete bulkhead.
4. North Bay Front. Piers may be permitted to extend 10 feet
channelward of the U.S. Pierhead Line, except where a pier line has
been established by the City. Dredging around floats shall not
exceed a depth of minus 2 feet at mean lower low water along a
line 60 feet channelward of a line parallel to the U.S. Bulkhead Line
or the existing concrete bulkhead.
5. East Bay Front. Piers may be permitted to extend 10 feet
channelward of the U.S. Pierhead Line northerly of the northerly
line of Park Avenue and 16 feet channelward of the U.S. Pierhead
Line southerly of the northerly line of Park Avenue. Dredging
4
around floats shall not exceed a depth of minus 2 feet at mean
lower low water along a line 60 feet channelward of and parallel to
the bulkhead line.
W. Collins Isle. Piers will be permitted to extend to the U.S. Pierhead Line on
the southwest and west side of Collins Isle. No piers will be permitted on
the north or east side of Collins Isle.
X. Harbor Island. Piers will be permitted to extend to the U.S. Pierhead Line.
Special permits approved by the Harbor Commission will be required for
piers northeasterly of Lots 14, 15, 16 and 36.
Y. Lido Isle. Piers may be permitted to extend out to the U.S. Pierhead Line,
except on the westerly side between U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 172 and No.
174. Piers may be permitted to extend 20 feet beyond the U.S. Pierhead
Line between U.S. Bulkhead Sta. No. 172 and No. 174.
1. Piers and floats will not be permitted in the beach area along the
northerly side of Lido Isle between the easterly line of Lot 849 and
the westerly line of Lot 493.
2. Piers and floats will not be permitted in the beach area along the
southerly side of Lido Isle between the easterly line of Lot 919 and
the westerly line of Lot 457.
Z. Linda Isle. Piers or boat slips will be permitted to extend to the pierhead
lines as shown on Harbor Lines Map on file with the Harbor Resources
Division.
*Based on Harbor Regulations adopted by the City Council on December
15,1941.
Reaffirmed - January 24, 1994
Amended - June 27, 1994
Amended - June 26, 1995
Amended - March 25, 1996
Amended - June 8, 1998 (effective July 22, 1998)
Amended - December 14, 1998
Amended - May 8, 2001
Amended - September 10, 2002
Amended - October 28, 2003
Amended – January 22, 2008
NEWPORT BEACH
Harbor Commission Staff Report
CITY OF
April 11, 2018 Agenda Item No. _4_
TO: HARBOR COMMISSION
FROM: Chris Miller, Harbor Manager - 949-644-3043, cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE: Proposed Harbor Speed Limit Exceptions
______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT: The Harbor Commission will review the proposed harbor speed limit exceptions for
human or wind powered vessels for events such as races and practices, as well as
exceptions to support vessels to those human or wind powered vessels during those
events. RECOMMENDATION:
1. Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2. Review and approve the proposed harbor speed limit changes to the Municipal Code, and recommend they be forwarded to the City Council and the State for
review and approval.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
DISCUSSION:
Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code to allow exceptions to the speed limit for certain events has been a goal of the Harbor Commission since 2008. At the time,
significant public input was received in support of such a change, and the Harbor
Commission has subsequently kept this as one of their Objectives for the past several
years. The intent of the exceptions are to allow human powered craft or wind powered vessels
to travel at speeds above five nautical miles per hour over City tidelands under certain
Proposed Harbor Speed Limit Exceptions April 11, 2018
Page 2
conditions such as races and practices via a City issued permit. In addition, support vessels during these events would also be permitted to travel in excess of the speed limit.
However, all vessels must not operate in an uncontrolled, un-seamanlike manner or at a
speed that endangers the safety of persons or property.
Please see Attachment A & B for proposed changes to the various sections within Title 17 where updating is required.
The County of Orange was consulted during the process, and they conceptually agreed
that the City could change the speed limit over City tidelands. However, the County would retain their speed limit rules (five miles per hour) over County tidelands.
Next Steps
Upon a Harbor Commission recommendation, the City Council will review and consider approving the proposed changes to the Municipal Code. Concurrently, the State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways would also be notified in order to provide comments,
if any.
The process described above will take some time before fully approved, but it is staff’s goal to have a program in place by the end of 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment)
and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the Harbor Commission considers the item). ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Newport Beach Municipal Code (various sections – redline)
Attachment B – Newport Beach Municipal Code (various sections – clean) Attachment C – Map of City and County Tidelands
TITLE 17 REVISIONS
10/27/17
17.01.030 Definition of Terms.
H. Definitions: H.
4. Harbormaster. The term “Harbormaster” shall mean the Commander of the Orange
County Sheriff’s Harbor Patrol/Marine Operations Bureau Harbormaster of the City of
Newport Beach, or his or her designee, or successor entity.
R. Definitions: V.
1. Vessel. The term “vessel” shall mean and include every description of watercraft used
or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. This includes all vessels of
any size home-ported, launched/retrieved, or visiting in Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and registered or unregistered under State or Federal requirements, except a
seaplane on the water.
a. Human Powered Vessel. The term “human powered vessel” shall mean a vessel
that is being propelled by the human body through the use of oars, paddles, or the like and without the use of wind, a motor, or other machinery.
b. Wind Powered Vessel. The term “wind powered vessel” shall mean a vessel that
is being propelled by the wind through the use of sails and without the use of a
motor or other machinery.
17.20.020 Vessel Operation.
A. Speed Limit. No owner, operator or person in command of any vessel, except a public
officer or employee in the performance of his or her duty, shall operate the same or permit the same to be operated in any portion of Newport Harbor or the water in the present or prior
channel of the Santa Ana River within the City at a rate of speed in excess of five nautical
miles per hour, or at any speed which creates a wake that may cause damage to moorings
of vessels or floating structures, except as hereinafter provided. 17.20.070 Vessel Races.
A. The Harbormaster may issue a permit to a person, as defined in Code Chapter 17.01,
or any successor chapter, that would allow individuals operating a human powered vessel,
wind powered vessel, or vessel providing support services to a human or wind powered vessel as part of the person’s special event (e.g., race) or organized practice to exceed the
speed limit provided in Code Subsection 17.20.020(A), or any successor subsection.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no person shall operate any vessel in an unsafe,
uncontrolled, or un-seamanlike manner, and in no event at a speed that endangers the
safety of persons or property.
B. The Harbormaster has discretion to determine if a permit shall be associated with a
single event or multiple events; however, no permit shall be valid for more than six (6)
months from the date of issuance.
TITLE 17 REVISIONS
10/27/17
C. Permits issued under this section are non-transferrable and shall be in addition to
any license, permit or fee required under this Code or any other provision of law.
D. The Harbormaster may impose conditions on a permit to protect persons and
property and to assure that the activity allowed under the permit will not create a nuisance
or interfere with the reasonable use of Newport Harbor by other vessels or persons. At a
minimum, every permit issued under this section shall be conditioned to require permittees to: (1) obtain, provide, and maintain at their own expense, for the full period of time for which
the permit is granted, policies of insurance with such limits and coverage as established by
the City Risk Manager that clearly identify the activity and vessel(s) covered; (2) indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the City, County of Orange, and the State of California for all
liability, injury or damage that relates to or arises from permittee’s event/activity; and (3) comply with this Code, California Harbors and Navigation Code, and the Federal Inland
Navigation Rules.
E. Any permit issued under this section may be immediately revoked at any time,
without notice, by the Harbormaster, if: (1) the permittee fails to comply with the conditions contained within the permit; (2) an individual participating in the permittee’s special event or
organized practice operates a vessel in an unsafe, uncontrolled, or un-seamanlike manner
or at a speed that endangers persons or property; or (3) an individual participating in the
permittee’s special event or organized practice fails to comply with the lawful instructions of
the Harbormaster, or any other person authorized by the City to enforce rules and regulations within Newport Harbor.
F. Any decision of the Harbormaster under this section may be appealed pursuant to
Code Chapter 17.65, or any successor chapter.
17.65.010 Authorization.
A. Decisions of the Harbor Resources Manager resulting from the Manager’shis or her
administration of this Code may be appealed to the Harbor Commission by any interested
person.
B. Decisions of the Harbormaster resulting from his or her administration of this Code may
be appealed to the Harbor Commission by any interested person.
BC. Decisions of the Harbor Commission may be appealed to the City Council by any interested person.
CD. A member of the Harbor Commission, acting in their official capacity, may call for
review, to the Harbor Commission, decisions of the Harbor Resources Manager resulting
from the Harbor Resources Manager or Harbormaster’s administration of this Code. The purpose of the call for review is to bring the matter in front of the entire body for review.
TITLE 17 REVISIONS
10/27/17
DE. A member of the City Council, acting in their official capacity, may call for review, to
the City Council, decisions of the Harbor Commission. The purpose of the call for review is
to bring the matter in front of the entire body for review.
TITLE 17 REVISIONS
03/23/18
17.01.030 Definition of Terms.
H. Definitions: H.
4. Harbormaster. The term “Harbormaster” shall mean the Harbormaster of the City of
Newport Beach, or his or her designee.
R. Definitions: V.
1. Vessel. The term “vessel” shall mean and include every description of watercraft used
or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. This includes all vessels of
any size home-ported, launched/retrieved, or visiting in Newport Harbor, arriving by water
or land, and registered or unregistered under State or Federal requirements, except a seaplane on the water.
a. Human Powered Vessel. The term “human powered vessel” shall mean a vessel
that is being propelled by the human body through the use of oars, paddles, or
the like and without the use of wind, a motor, or other machinery.
b. Wind Powered Vessel. The term “wind powered vessel” shall mean a vessel that
is being propelled by the wind through the use of sails and without the use of a
motor or other machinery. 17.20.020 Vessel Operation.
A. Speed Limit. No owner, operator or person in command of any vessel, except a public
officer or employee in the performance of his or her duty, shall operate the same or permit
the same to be operated in any portion of Newport Harbor or the water in the present or prior channel of the Santa Ana River within the City at a rate of speed in excess of five nautical
miles per hour, or at any speed which creates a wake that may cause damage to moorings
of vessels or floating structures, except as hereinafter provided.
17.20.070 Vessel Races.
A. The Harbormaster may issue a permit to a person, as defined in Code Chapter 17.01,
or any successor chapter, that would allow individuals operating a human powered vessel,
wind powered vessel, or vessel providing support services to a human or wind powered vessel as part of the person’s special event (e.g., race) or organized practice to exceed the
speed limit provided in Code Subsection 17.20.020(A), or any successor subsection.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no person shall operate any vessel in an unsafe,
uncontrolled, or un-seamanlike manner, and in no event at a speed that endangers the
safety of persons or property.
B. The Harbormaster has discretion to determine if a permit shall be associated with a
single event or multiple events; however, no permit shall be valid for more than six (6)
months from the date of issuance.
TITLE 17 REVISIONS
03/23/18
C. Permits issued under this section are non-transferrable and shall be in addition to
any license, permit or fee required under this Code or any other provision of law.
D. The Harbormaster may impose conditions on a permit to protect persons and
property and to assure that the activity allowed under the permit will not create a nuisance
or interfere with the reasonable use of Newport Harbor by other vessels or persons. At a
minimum, every permit issued under this section shall be conditioned to require permittees
to: (1) obtain, provide, and maintain at their own expense, for the full period of time for which the permit is granted, policies of insurance with such limits and coverage as established by
the City Risk Manager that clearly identify the activity and vessel(s) covered; (2) indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the City, County of Orange, and the State of California for all
liability, injury or damage that relates to or arises from permittee’s event/activity; and (3)
comply with this Code, California Harbors and Navigation Code, and the Federal Inland Navigation Rules.
E. Any permit issued under this section may be immediately revoked at any time,
without notice, by the Harbormaster, if: (1) the permittee fails to comply with the conditions
contained within the permit; (2) an individual participating in the permittee’s special event or organized practice operates a vessel in an unsafe, uncontrolled, or un-seamanlike manner
or at a speed that endangers persons or property; or (3) an individual participating in the
permittee’s special event or organized practice fails to comply with the lawful instructions of
the Harbormaster, or any other person authorized by the City to enforce rules and
regulations within Newport Harbor.
F. Any decision of the Harbormaster under this section may be appealed pursuant to
Code Chapter 17.65, or any successor chapter.
17.65.010 Authorization.
A. Decisions of the Harbor Resources Manager resulting from his or her administration of
this Code may be appealed to the Harbor Commission by any interested person.
B. Decisions of the Harbormaster resulting from his or her administration of this Code may be appealed to the Harbor Commission by any interested person.
C. Decisions of the Harbor Commission may be appealed to the City Council by any
interested person.
D. A member of the Harbor Commission, acting in their official capacity, may call for
review, to the Harbor Commission, decisions of the Harbor Resources Manager resulting
from the Harbor Resources Manager or Harbormaster’s administration of this Code. The
purpose of the call for review is to bring the matter in front of the entire body for review.
E. A member of the City Council, acting in their official capacity, may call for review, to the
City Council, decisions of the Harbor Commission. The purpose of the call for review is to
bring the matter in front of the entire body for review.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((HOSPITALRDORANGE ST15TH ST WWESTAVEBLVDFBALBO
A
38TH STRIVERSIDEAVE
28TH STEAST23RD ST15TH ST8TH STBLVD BALBOABLVD32ND STNEWPORTDRVIAL ID OMARINERSDR
HIGHWAYPROSPECT STHIGHWAY
DOVERDRGALAXYDRCLIFF16THST17THSTSTIRVINESANTACOASTRDVISTAEAFORDCARNATIONAVECENTERDRSANB ARBARA DR EAST NEWPORTWESTJAMBOREESANTA
MAIN STAGATE AVEBAYSID E DRAVOCADOAVEGOLDENROD AVEWESTCOASTSUPERIORAVEMARGUERITEBLV DMARIGOLDOCEAN
MARINE AVEPARK AVEPLACENTIA AVEWESTCLIFFDRPOLARISDR51ST STANTA ANAIVER JETTYNEWPORTPIERLIDOPENINSULALIDOISLEBAYISLANDHARBORISLANDLINDAISLENEWPORTSHORESCOLLINSISLANDBALBOAPIERFASHIONTHEWEDGEWEST JETTYEAST JETTYBIGCORONALITTLE CORONANEWPORTDUNESNORTHSTARBEACHBALBOA ISLANDISLANDBBigCanyon HARBO R ENTRANCE
CHANNELBALBOAISLANDC H A N N E L
LIDOCHANNELNEWPORTWES T L ID O CHAN
NE L
TURNINGBASINPACIFIC OCEAN(3)(2)(1)Boundaries1919 Boundary1919 Conflicting Boundary1919 Conflicting BoundaryOcean Shore LineOrdinary High Tide LineOrdinary High Tide LineCounty Tideland BoundaryFinley Meander Line2012 Revised Boundary LineWildlife Preserve BoundaryBulkheadPierhead(Statutes of 1919, Ch 494 pg 1011 & Statutes of 1927, Ch 70 pg 125)(Statutes of 1929, Ch 813 pg 1704)(SB 573, 1997)(Statutes of 1919, pg 1133)(Per Patterson Map - July 9, 1968)(Per Annexation Documents/SCC 59376)(Per Record Maps)(1958)(1889).(1950 USACE Harbor Survey)(1950 USACE Harbor Survey)00.50.25MilesDate: 11/25/2014 Name: TidelandsSurvey_11X17_2014Managing AgencyCity of Newport BeachTidelands & Submerged Lands in Newport BayTidelands, Submerged Lands & Filled Lands bordering upon, in and under the Pacific OceanFilled TidelandsFee Title to Upland PropertyWaterways Dedicated or Reserved for same1998 Trust AdditionsCounty of OrangeTidelands & Submerged Lands in Newport BayFilled TidelandsFee Title to Upland PropertyState of CaliforniaState Park BeachesState HighwaysFederally OwnedProperty Conveyed by City to US GovernmentConflicting Title/Designation(1) Tidelands in area of unclear 1919 Boundary definition(2) Harbor Island Tidelands(3) Bay Island WaterwayTidelands SurveyCity of Newport BeachNewport Harbor(Marina Park)
NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION
Proposed Harbor Speed Exceptions
April 11, 2018
Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
Harbor Commission 04-11-2018
OBJECTIVES
Secure California Department of State Parks & Recreation, Division of Boating &
Waterways approval for an amendment to the Harbor Code granting an
exception to the harbor speed limit for permitted sail racing and human powered
racing events and practices. With such authorization, recommend a Harbor Code
amendment to the City Council.
APPROACH
•Review history and origin of the objective
•Review prior efforts/progress in support of the objective
•Review existing Harbor Code for all references to speed limit
•Recommend revision to Harbor Code as part of the current effort to
update the Code to reflect new City Harbormaster arrangements
•Relate recommendations to Harbor and Bay Element section of the
General Plan and the Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP)
STEPS TAKEN
•Collected information on prior efforts supporting this objective
•Conducted interviews with harbor stakeholders who are involved or who have observed these activities
•Met with law enforcement officials familiar with the existing conditions
•Researched other harbors with such exemptions (New South Wales YC, SWA,
New York YC)
•Developed recommendations in support of the objective
•Reviewed, referenced and ensured concurrence between recommendations
and relevant sections of guiding documents:
•Harbor and Bay Element of General Plan (Diversity of Uses, Goal HB1 and HB2)
•Harbor Area Management Plan –not referenced
HISTORY OF THE MATTER
1.November/December 2007 -conflict arises between boating community and law enforcement
leadership resulting in heated meetings
2.June 2009 -Law enforcement leadership changed and a summit took place resulting in an
understanding on both sides of how to operate safely and successfully
6.August 2012 –Harbor Commission adopts formal objective to update code to accommodate
sanctioned sail and manual powered craft racing activities
7.April 2018 –Harbor Commission considers revisions to Harbor Code
3.August 2011 –Harbor Resources drafts proposed revisions to Harbor Code and expects
Council review/adoption in January 2012
4.November 2011 –Harbor Harbor Resources sends proposed revisions to CA Department of
Boating and Waterways for comment
5.January 2012 –DBW responds with several suggestions including a 200’ buffer for some
areas of the harbor
HISTORY OF THE MATTER
FINDING
There is code at the County level which allows for participants in permitted
“special events” to exceed the speed limit…
FINDING
There are scheduled activities which take place in the harbor during which
participants regularly and routinely exceed the speed limit.
FINDING
There are scheduled activities which take place in the harbor during which
participants regularly and routinely exceed the speed limit.
CONCLUSIONS
1.There is an opportunity presently to improve the code to recognize these activities and
provide for their safe continuation
2.If these activities cannot be recognized and provided for in the code, they should be moved
elsewhere
EXISTING CODE RELATED TO SPEED LIMIT
17.20.020 Vessel Operation
A. Speed Limit. No owner, operator or person in command of any vessel, except a public officer in the
performance of his or her duty, shall operate the same or permit the same to be operated in any portion of
Newport Harbor or the water in the present or prior channel of the Santa Ana River within the City at a rate of
speed in excess of five nautical miles per hour, or at any speed which creates a wake that may cause
damage to moorings of vessels or floating structures, except as hereinafter provided.
B. Designation of Closed Areas. Whenever…
17.01.030 Definition of Terms
…
R. Definitions: V.
1.Vessel. The term “vessel” shall mean and include every description of watercraft used or capable of
being used as a means of transportation on water. This includes all vessels of any size home-ported,
launched/retrieved, or visiting in Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and registered or
unregistered under State or Federal requirements, except a seaplane on the water.
PROPOSED CODE REVISIONS (summary)
17.01.030 Definition of Terms
•Human Powered Vessel defined
•Wind Powered Vessel defined
17.20.020 Vessel Operation
•Harbormaster may issue a permit for human, wind and support crafts (coach chase boats).
•Vessel shall not be operated in an unsafe, uncontrolled or un-seamanlike manner, nor endangering safety
of persons and property.
•Permit may be for single (1 day) or multiple (up to 6 months) events.
•Harbormaster may impose conditions.
•Permit maybe revoked at any time without notice.
•Permit may be appealed.
NEWPORT BEACH
Harbor Commission Staff Report
CITY OF
April 11, 2018
Agenda Item No. _5_
TO: HARBOR COMMISSION
FROM: Chris Miller, Harbor Manager - 949-644-3043,
cmiller@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE: Harbor Commission 2018 Objectives: Ad Hoc Committee Updates ______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT:
Each ad hoc committee studying their respective Functional Area within the
Commission’s 2018 Objectives will provide a progress update.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and
15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
2. Receive and file.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment)
and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Harbor Commission 2018 Objectives: Ad Hoc Committee Updates
April 11, 2018
Page 2
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the Harbor Commission considers the item). ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Harbor Commission 2018 Objectives
City of Newport Beach
Harbor Commission Purpose & Charter
Newport Harbor supports numerous recreational and commercial activities, waterfront residential
communities and scenic and biological resources. The purpose of the Harbor Commission is to
provide the City of Newport Beach with an advisory body representing these diverse uses of Newport
Harbor and its waterfront.
1. Advise the City Council in all matters pertaining to the use, control, operation, promotion and regulation of all vessels and watercraft within Newport Harbor. 2. Approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove applications on all harbor permits where the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code assigns the authority for the decision to the Harbor Commission. 3. Serve as an appellate and reviewing body for decisions of the City Manager on harbor permits,
leases, and other harbor-related administrative matters where the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code assigns such authority to the Harbor Commission.
4. Advise the City Council on proposed harbor-related improvements.
5. Advise the Planning Commission and City Council on land use and property development
applications referred to the Harbor Commission by the City Council, Planning Commission, or
the City Manager.
6. Make recommendations to the City Council for the adoption of regulations and programs necessary for the ongoing implementation of the goals, objectives, policies of the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan, the Harbor Area Management Plan, and the Tidelands Capital Plan. 7. Advise the City Council on the implementation of assigned parts of the Tidelands Capital Plan such as:
• Dredging priorities
• In-bay beach sand replenishment priorities
• Harbor amenities such as mooring support service areas and public docks
Harbor Commission - 2018 Objectives
The following objectives are intended to support the mission of the Harbor Area Management Plan and the two most essential responsibilities of the Harbor Commission: (1) Ensuring the long‐
term welfare of Newport Harbor for all residential, recreational, and commercial users; (2) Promoting Newport Harbor as a preferred and welcoming destination for visitors and residents
alike.
These calendar year 2018 Objectives are subject to the review and approval of the Commission, and final approval by the Newport Beach City Council. Harbor Commission ad hoc committees,
as established by the Commission, bear principal responsibility for coordinating the Commission’s
efforts, along with staff support, in achieving these Objectives.
City of Newport Beach - Harbor Commission
2018 Objectives
Updated February 15, 2018
2018 Objectives Functional Area
1.1 Identify sustainable low-cost solutions to dredge the deep-water channels throughout the harbor.
1.2 Identify opportunities to streamline the RGP54 permit process.
1.3 Evaluate options for near shore dredging. Establish a sustainable program that consistently nourishes harbor
beaches on a yearly basis.
1.0 Harbor Dredging (Cunningham, Drayton)
Advise the City Council on:
o Dredging methodologies o Dredging priorities
o Eelgrass protection o Beach re-nourishment
2.1 Evaluate current enforcement of applicable City codes
throughout the harbor. Report back to Commission by July.
Future Priorities
A. Work with Harbormaster’s office to evaluate mooring management and oversight.
B. Identify and address derelict vessels in the harbor.
2.0 Harbor Operations and
Management (Drayton, Beer)
o Matters pertaining to use,
control, operation, promotion, regulation of all vessels and
watercraft.
3.1 Evaluate potential enhancements to city amenities
provided to mooring permittees, residents and visitors.
3.2 Establish policies for modifications to mooring size.
Future Priorities A. Complete evaluation for establishing day moorings
off Big Corona beach. B. Evaluate options to consolidate and reduce the
footprint of current mooring fields.
3.0 Harbor Amenities and Capital
Improvements (Mooring Fields, Shore Facilities, Docks)
(Beer, Drayton)
o Advise the City Council on proposed harbor-related
improvements.
o Advise the City Council on harbor amenities such as
mooring support service areas and public docks.
4.1 Review and update City Municipal Codes, Title 17, Harbor Policies 1-5 and Marine Activities Permits.
4.2 Secure California Department of Recreation approval for
an amendment to the Harbor Code granting an exception to the harbor speed limit for sanctioned sail
racing and human powered racing events. With such authorization, recommend a Harbor Code amendment to
the City Council.
4.0 Harbor Policies, Codes, Regulations
(McIntosh, Kenney, Blank)
o Approve, conditionally
approve, or disapprove applications on all harbor
permits.
o Serve as an appellate and reviewing body for decisions
on harbor permits, leases, and other harbor-related
administrative matters.
City of Newport Beach - Harbor Commission
2018 Objectives
Updated February 14, 2018
2018 Objectives Functional Area
5.1 Establish a dialogue with representatives of the Harbor
Charter Fleet industry, other commercial vessel operators and rental concessionaires to promote best
practices for charter and commercial boat operations in Newport Harbor with particular attention to vessel
specifications, noise and pollution control/compliance and long-range plans for berthing.
5.2 Review current rental concessionaires for safety and
regulatory compliance (e.g. unpermitted rental operations for SUP’s).
5.0 Commercial, Recreational and
Educational Activities
(Girling, Kenney) o Matters pertaining to use,
control, operation, promotion, regulation of all vessels and
watercraft.
o Serve as an appellate and reviewing body for decisions
of the City Manager on harbor permits, leases, and
other harbor-related administrative matters.
6.1 Obtain California Coastal Commission approval for a
Port Plan for Newport Harbor.
6.2 Draft a Harbor Plan that can be used independently or in conjunction with an update to the General Plan and/or
Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP). Specific attention should be paid to state requirements including
conservation for harbors, MLPA/MPAs and fisheries and work previously done by the Harbor Commission
related to preservation of marine related activities and businesses in Newport Harbor and the Harbor Financial
Master Plan.
Future Priorities
A. Create a Vision Statement for the Harbor describing
the purposes, uses and characteristics in the year 2050. Reference how that Vision aligns with the current two most essential responsibilities of the
Harbor Commission: (1) Ensuring the long-term welfare of Newport Harbor for all residential, recreational, and commercial users; (2) Promoting
Newport Harbor as a preferred and welcoming destination for visitors and residents alike.
6.0 Long Term Vision for Harbor
(Harbor Strategic Planning) (Blank, Cunningham)
o Advise the City Council on
the City General Plan.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
W6c
DATE: April 11, 2018
TO: Coastal Commission and Interested Persons
FROM: John Ainsworth, Executive Director Sarah Christie, Legislative Director
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORT FOR APRIL, 2018
CONTENTS: This report provides summaries and status of bills affecting the Coastal Commission and California’s Coastal Program, and coastal-related legislation identified by staff.
Note: Information contained in this report is accurate as of 04/04/2018. Recent amendments are summarized in italics. Bill text, votes, committee analyses and current status of any bill may be viewed on the
California Legislature’s Homepage at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/. This report can also be accessed
through the Commission’s Homepage at www.coastal.ca.gov
2018 Legislative Calendar Jan 1 Statutes take effect.
Jan 3 Legislature reconvenes.
Jan 10 Budget Bill must be submitted by Governor. Jan 12 Last day for committees to hear and report 2017 bills introduced in their house.
Jan 15 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Jan 19 Last day to submit bill requests to Office of Legislative Counsel. Last day for committees to hear and report 2017 Floor bills introduced in their house.
Jan 31 Last day for each house to pass 2017 bills introduced in that house. Feb 16 Last day for bills to be introduced. March 22 Spring Recess begins upon adjournment.
March 30 Cesar Chavez Day observed. April 2 Legislature reconvenes from Spring Recess. April 27 Last day for policy committees to hear and report fiscal bills.
May 11 Last day for policy committees to hear and report non-fiscal bills introduced in their house. May 18 Last day for policy committees to meet prior to June 4.
May 25 Last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the Floor bills introduced in their house.
May 29-June 1 Floor session only June 1 Last day for each house to pass bills introduced in that house.
June 4 Committee meetings may resume.
June 15 Budget Bill must be passed by midnight. June 29 Last day for policy committees to hear and report fiscal bills.
July 6 Last day for policy committees to meet. Summer Recess begins upon adjournment.
Aug 6 Legislature reconvenes from Summer Recess. Aug 17 Last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills.
Aug 20-31 Floor session only Aug 24 Last day to amend bills on the Floor. Aug 31 Last day for Legislature to pass bills. Interim Recess begins upon adjournment.
Sept 30 Last day for Governor to sign or veto bill.
RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTINGHARBOR COMMISSION 04-11-2018
Legislative Report for April 2018
Page 6
AB 1196 (Harper) California Coastal Act: Port of Newport Beach
Amendments of 03/22 would designate the City of Newport Beach city harbor as a port, and authorize
the preparation of a Port Master Plan. This bill is identical to AB 2464 (Harper) as introduce 2/14/18.
Introduced 02/14/18
Last Amended 03/22/18
Status Senate Rules Committee
Commission Position Recommend Oppose, analysis attached AB 1594 (Bloom) Ocean protection: plastic pollution
This bill would require the Ocean Protection Council on or before March 1, 2018, to complete existing
data on the primary sources of plastics pollution in the ocean, as determined by an analysis of coastal
cleanup efforts in the state. The report would include recommendations to the Legislature regarding possible legislative actions or other measures to reduce plastics pollution in coastal beaches and ocean
waters. The bill would also require the Council to report to the Legislature on the status of the OPC’s
13-point plan to prevent and reduce marine debris, as outlined by the Council’s 2007 resolution.
Amendments of 06/26 strike the previous provisions and state that it is the intent of the Legislature to increase the diversion of single-use food packaging in order to reduce a primary source of litter and marine debris.
Introduced 02/17/17
Last Amended 06/26/17 Status Senate Environmental Quality Committee. AB 1642 (Caballero) California Coastal Commission: ex parte communications: disclosure
This bill would require the Director of the Coastal Commission to post all written ex parte
communication disclosures on the Commission’s internet website.
Introduced 02/17/17
Status Assembly Rules Committee.
AB 1775 (Limon/Muratsuchi) State lands: leasing: oil and gas This bill would prohibit the State Lands Commission and local trustees of state tidelands from entering
into any new leases for offshore oil and/or gas production. The probation would also extend to any
lease renewal, extension or modification of an existing lease that would authorize the exploration,
development or production of oil or natural gas seaward of the mean high tide line. Amendments of 3/22 would extend the prohibition to local trustees of granted tidelands, and make other technical clarifications.
Introduced 01/04/18
Last Amended 03/22/18 Status Assembly Natural Resources Committee (04/09)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1196 (Harper) As Amended 03/22/18
SUMMARY
This bill would amend Section 30700 of the Public Resources Code to add the City of Newport
Beach’s municipal harbor to the list of industrial deep water ports (Los Angles, Long Beach, San Diego and Port Hueneme) that are currently eligible to prepare and implement a Port Master Plan (PMP). This bill would effectively create the “Port of Newport Beach” for the purpose of
establishing eligibility for the City to create a PMP. Once certified, a PMP for the Port/City of
Newport Beach would eliminate the need for the City to obtain a coastal development permit
(CDP) from the Commission for development activities within the boundaries of the harbor. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The author’s stated reason for the bill is to increase the City’s control over harbor development
projects and activities seaward of the mean high tide line, such as piers, docks, and dredging.
Ceding the Commission’s CDP authority to the City would allow the City to authorize and undertake its own development activities seaward of the mean high tide line, as well as permit the activity of private applicants in state waters. It would also allow the city to collect permit fees
for a new class of activities.
EXISTING LAW Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act, Articles 1-3, contains the general provisions and findings, policies, and Port Master Plan implementation procedures for the four coastal ports and the Humboldt Bay
Harbor.
Coastal Act Section 30700 states: “For purposes of this division, notwithstanding any other provisions of this division except as specifically stated in this chapter, this chapter shall govern those portions of the Ports of
Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Diego Unified Port District located within the
coastal zone, but excluding any wetland, estuary, or existing recreation area indicated in Part
IV of the coastal plan.” Coastal Act Section 30701 (b) states:
“The location of the commercial port districts within the State of California, including the
Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District, are well established, and for
many years such areas have been devoted to transportation and commercial, industrial, and manufacturing uses consistent with federal, state and local regulations. Coastal planning requires no change in the number or location of the established commercial port districts.
Existing ports, including the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District,
shall be encouraged to modernize and construct necessary facilities within their boundaries in
order to minimize or eliminate the necessity for future dredging and filling to create new ports in new areas of the state.”
AB 1196 (Harper) Bill Analysis Memo
Page 2
Coastal Act Section 30708 (c) states:
“All port-related developments shall be located, designed, and constructed so as to… Give
highest priority to the use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes, including, but not limited to, navigational facilities, shipping industries, and necessary support and
access facilities.”
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
The Coastal Act provides the authority for Ports to prepare Port Master Plans, just as it authorizes University campuses to prepare Long Range Development Plans (LRDPs) and
requires all local governments to prepare Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). Each type of plan is
specific to the type of entity that implements it. Once a local government has a certified LCP, or
a Port has a certified PMP, it assumes permitting authority from the Coastal Commission for
coastal development within their geographic jurisdiction.
In January of 2017, the Coastal Commission certified the City of Newport Beach’s LCP. This
was a major accomplishment for the city and the Commission after working together for several
years, and the City is now issuing coastal development permits for local applicants.
Under an LCP, the local government’s jurisdiction ends at the mean high tide line, where the
Coastal Commission’s retained jurisdiction begins. State tidelands and state waters are public
trust resources, held in trust for the public by the state. It is therefore appropriate for the state to
retain oversight and jurisdiction over these state resources. Even after an LCP is certified, local
governments and private entities must still obtain a coastal development permit from the Commission to dredge channels and harbors, dispose of dredge materials, modify piers or docks,
or conduct any type of fill. Individuals with private docks may also need to get a lease from the
State Lands Commission, for any extension or construction of a dock. This is the case for every
city and harbor in the coastal zone from Imperial Beach to Crescent City. Newport Beach is not
unique in this respect.
In 2016, prior to the certification of Newport’s LCP, the Commission worked with the city to
streamline the permitting process for small dredging projects in the harbor that impact eelgrass,
an important marine habitat. This was a major efficiency improvement for both the City and the
Commission that is working well. At that time, the Commission and the City also discussed the possibility of permitting routine dock work harbor-wide through a “master CDP.” This option
would have provided the city with permitting authority similar to what it now seeks through this
bill. However, the city ultimately elected not to pursue a master CDP given relatively low
demand.
ANALYSIS This bill would allow the City to prepare a Port Master Plan under which they could undertake
future development activities in state waters and on state tidelands without the need for a coastal
development permit from the Commission. This would remove Newport Harbor from the
Coastal Commission’s original permit jurisdiction, and set a precedent for other coastal municipalities to seek similar authority, thereby diminishing the State’s oversight of activities
directly affecting the State’s public trust resources.
AB 1196 (Harper) Bill Analysis Memo
Page 3
The Coastal Act authorizes the governing bodies of the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San
Diego and Port Hueneme to prepare PMPs under which they issue their own coastal development
permits and undertake their own development activities, consistent with the approved PMP. The governing bodies of all four ports have prepared and are implementing approved Port Master
Plans.
Unlike local governments, Port Governing Bodies are public entities that control all of the land
owned or leased by the port. Most of the land under the jurisdiction of the ports is public tidelands, granted in trust to the port governing bodies. Under a PMP, ports issue CDPs for their
own projects, as well as permits for third party lessors. Ports also issue “exclusions” which are
analogous to Coastal Act exemptions. Permits for specified developments and exemptions are
appealable to the Commission, but the regulations governing PMPs are more permissive than the
regulations governing local governments. For instance, under an LCP, all development between the first public road and the sea is appealable to the Commission, whereas only certain classes of
activities are appealable under a PMP, regardless of their geographic location.
While both ports and harbors include significant waterfront infrastructure, they serve very
different needs. Ports primarily undertake intensely industrial development necessary for the provision of port-related activities and services necessary for the loading, unloading, transport
and processing of commercial goods, and to facilitate their efficient transport by seagoing vessel
and rail. Port Master must give these types of activities the highest priority.
Municipal harbors, by contrast, typically consist of a patchwork of public and private interests, including recreational opportunities such as boat launches, docks, piers, boat slips, offshore
moorings and a variety of visitor-serving commercial services. Port facilities primarily serve
heavy industrial uses, while municipal harbors are hubs for public recreational and commercial
activities. The exception is the Port of San Diego, which also includes some lands designated for
visitor-serving and hotel development. However, this has led to conflicts and in some cases, protracted litigation between the Port and the Commission, over Coastal Act policies prioritizing
lower-cost opportunities, scenic views and public access.
Given the Coastal Act mandate to maximize public access and recreational opportunities (PRC
Section 30001.5), protect lower-cost visitor-serving opportunities (PRC Section 30213), and maintain the health of marine ecosystems (PRC Section 30230), it is essential for public agencies
to carefully balance private and public interests whenever planning new waterfront development.
Coastal Commission oversight of waterfront areas is particularly critical, due to the heightened
implications for public access, coastal recreation and lower-cost visitor-serving facilities,
protection of important biological resources, placement of fill in state waters, and disposal of vital dredge spoils. These are all matters of significant statewide public interest, and should not
be wholly delegated to local governments. This was part of the state/local balance struck by the
Legislature in 1976, and which remains the fulcrum for California’s entire coastal management
program. Hence, PMPs are not the appropriate vehicle for cities and counties undertaking
development activities in their municipal harbors.
AB 1196 (Harper) Bill Analysis Memo
Page 4
The City already has the authority to conduct ongoing dredging activities within a defined area
of the harbor under a Commission-issued CDP. The City has the option to amend that permit to
address additional needs as necessary, or pursue a Public Works Plan to cover additional activities if they choose to seek additional streamlining measures.
SUPPORT
City of Newport Beach
OPPOSITION None on file
RECOMMENDED POSITION
Staff recommends the Commission Oppose AB 1196.
Item XVI Comment: The Case Against the Port Master Plan
These comments to the Newport Beach City Council for its April 10, 2018, meeting are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item XVI. Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items: THE PORT
MASTER PLAN
This is a supplement to the comments I submitted in advance of the March 13 (Item 16) and
March 27 (Item 12) meetings (which unfortunately now have all the links disabled).
Since submitting those, I have twice heard the City’s lobbyist, Mr. Don Schmitz of Schmitz and
Associates, speak about the proposal for a Port Master Plan for Newport Beach: first as part of
Item 12 at the Council’s March 27, 2018, meeting, and then again at the April 3 meeting of the NB
Chamber of Commerce’s Marine Committee.
I agree with the remarks of Council member Avery on March 27, that the cost effectiveness of
pursuing such a plan is highly questionable (it seems a great deal of time and effort for almost no
tangible return), and with Council member Herdman that an attempt to unilaterally amend the
state’s Coastal Act for the sole benefit of Newport Beach, without prior consultation or indications
of support from the Coastal Commission, is likely to damage the City’s always delicate
relationship with that body.
In view of what I’ve heard, it is, to me, deeply disturbing that the City would have chosen to
launch itself on this path, apparently on the basis of Mr. Schmitz’ advice, alone, without preceding
that action with a thoughtful discussion before the Harbor Commission of whether there is a
problem with harbor permitting, and if so, what the best solutions to that problem would be.
I feel it is more important now, than ever, to make the Council aware of the abundance of
information casting doubt on the wisdom of the City pursuing a Coastal Act amendment – which,
to me, is one of the most poorly thought out and off-the-wall proposals I’ve encountered in my
nine years of paying attention to City activities.
What are We Trying to Solve with a Port Master Plan?
Point: Mr. Schmitz says he will be promoting AB-1196, the bill that will amend the Coastal Act to
allow (and, in fact, require) Newport Beach to prepare a Port Master Plan, as a “win-win” “good
government” bill that will relieve the Coastal Commission of a “fire hose” of administrative
busywork, and both the City and its residents of great expense and long delays.
Best of all, he says it is one and only way to remove even the possibility of appeals of local
decisions to the Coastal Commission.
In particular, he told the Council that the Coastal Commission processes 80 or 90 Coastal
Development Permits per year for private dock repairs. At the Marine Committee, I believe he
upped that to 100 to 150 and suggested they take as long as a year to get approved. And, he
RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTING
HARBOR COMMISSION 04-11-2018
April 10, 2018, Comments on Port Master Plan - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6
said, with a Port Master Plan, the City will no longer have to go to the Coastal Commission to get
permission to dredge the harbor channels, or private residents to dredge around their docks.
Counterpoints:
There is no fire hose of harbor-related permit applications going to the Coastal
Commission.
o In quoting his numbers, Mr. Schmitz appears to be conflating harbor-related permits
with the many Coastal Development Permits the CCC had to approve for landside
construction prior to certification of the City’s Local Coastal Program in January 2017.
o That fire hose has already been shut off with the LCP, which allows nearly all landside
CDP’s to be approved by the City (sometimes with a possibility of appeal to the CCC)
o The CCC’s Long Beach office is swamped with roughly 300 CDP applications to
process each year, but they are no longer from Newport Beach. They are primarily the
result of the 33 segments that remain without certified LCP’s.
o In 2014 through 2017, the number of dock-related CDP’s appearing on CCC agendas
has ranged from just 12 to 18 per year, with most of those simply reported as
“approved” on the administrative calendar without any need for further action by the
Commission.
o And to the best of my knowledge, dock repairs (of which there are presumably many)
do not require CCC approval, only dock reconfigurations.
o The CCC sees far more dock-related CDP applications from Long Beach than from
Newport Beach, although, ironically, Long Beach has a Port Master Plan for its
commercial port, but not for the areas, such as Naples, outside the port distrtic.
The process is not as slow as Mr. Schmitz suggests
o The CDP process can be a bit expensive, but it is not unusually slow.
o The City’s own application for the new Central Avenue Pier was filed on July 5, 2017,
and approved on November 4.
o That is not at all unlike the time it takes landside CDP’s to get to the City’s Zoning
Administrator under the City’s LCP.
To the best of my knowledge, dredging around docks and piers is already covered by the
City’s RGP-54 program and its Eelgrass Mitigation Program (both of which Mr. Schmitz
claims to have been instrumental in getting approved). See the explanations of these in
Appendix G and B of our Harbor Area Management Plan. As far as I know they do not
require a separate CDP and aside from those master programs, I have seen no dredging
requests from Newport Beach on CCC agendas.
Maintenance dredging of navigation channels as permitted by the Army Corps of
Engineers is already exempted from Coastal Act permitting requirements per Pub. Res.
Code Section 30610(c).
April 10, 2018, Comments on Port Master Plan - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6
There is no history of burdensome frivolous appeals in Newport Beach.
o Of the roughly 90 CDP’s for landside development approved by the City since it
obtained that authority in January 2017 (see the Zoning Administrator agendas and
resolutions), and an unknown, but presumably very large number of notices to the
CCC of categorical exclusions for other residential development, there has been
exactly one appeal, and Coastal staff did not find that appeal frivolous. Instead, they
recommended the Commission find that one appeal raised substantial issues
regarding compliance with the LCP on several fronts (see Item 11a on the March 7,
2018, CCC agenda).
o Even if frivolous appeals were submitted to the CCC, I believe their staff has the
authority to reject them when it is obvious the matters being questioned are not
Coastal Act issues.
A Port Master Plan does not prevent appeals
o At the end of each of the Precise Plans for the ten Planning Districts listed in the PMP
for the San Diego Unified Port Authority there is a table categorizing the past and
future projects as appealable to the CCC, or not. The great bulk of Newport Beach-
like projects are listed as appealable.
o The only possible exception is port-related infrastructure work, such as seawall
construction and repair in the commercial areas. But based on Mr. Schmitz’
description of the existing Newport Beach LCP as governing everything to the water’s
edge, and the proposed PMP covering only the water beyond, it is not clear his
imagined PMP would change that. And the City already approves the CDP’s for its
own seawall projects. As an example, the Balboa Island seawall cap was approved
as Item 2 on the Zoning Administrator’s July 27, 2017, agenda (and although it was
appealable, it was not appealed).
o The idea that private dock approvals by the City would not be appealable when PRC
30715 says that “recreational small craft marina related facilities” and “residential
buildings not principally devoted to the administration of activities within the port” are,
seems a bit fanciful. I think the only reason private individual residential docks are not
explicitly listed is there were none in the four commercial port districts Chapter 8 of the
Coastal Act addresses.
Since it is not at all clear that the City faces any great problem or expense at present in getting its
harbor projects approved by the CCC, it is very uncertain exactly what a PMP for Newport Beach
would be expected to accomplish. Yet we are told that if AB-1196 passes, the City will have a
long and expensive process of developing a PMP.
Is This the Right Approach to the Purported Problem?
The idea that adding Newport Beach to the list of commercial seaports would fix perceived
problems with the administration of recreational harbors under the Coastal Act is like suggesting
to fix a watch with a sledgehammer. Or to drive a square peg in a round hole. It simply doesn’t
fit.
April 10, 2018, Comments on Port Master Plan - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6
Point: Mr. Schmitz claims AB-1196 is in keeping with the former Coastal Commission Director’s
Strategic Plan and the current Director’s call for closer cooperation with local governments.
Counterpoint: I am unaware of any such call for the creation of more Port Master Plans.
Indeed, the definitive 1979 book about the genesis of the Coastal Act, Can Regulation Work? by
Sabatier and Mazmanian, suggests the limited carve-out for four commercial seaports in Chapter
8 was a concession to the longshoremen’s unions.
Even Humboldt Bay, which is recognized as a significant port in the Act, was not given any
special privileges. [For clarity, Caltrans recognizes 12 seaports in California. The seven not
mentioned in the Coastal Act are in San Francisco Bay and fall under the jurisdiction of the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, an organization that predates and is
separate from the Coastal Commission.]
The idea that Newport Beach deserves local control privileges not afforded to Humboldt Bay
would be a difficult sell, the idea that adding two words (or in the case of AB-1196, four) to the
Coastal Act could affect that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act and a lack of
thought in its drafting.
Point: Mr. Schmitz claimed on April 3 that Newport Harbor is already widely recognized as a
“port” because it has federal channels, generates (he says) $1 billion in economic activity, is
home port for Orange County to the Sheriff’s Department and Coast Guard and sends 2 million
passengers to Catalina each year.
Counterpoints: Regarding the latter, the maximum capacity of the Catalina Flyer is 500
passengers. If we counted them both departing and arriving back, that would be at most 1,000
passengers per year. So if the ship was full each of the year’s 365 days, we would have at most
365,000 passengers in a year, and they would give Avalon as much or more claim to being a
“port” deserving special privileges as Newport.
As to why Newport Beach (and other recreational harbors, and Humboldt Bay for that matter) are
not in the list, the limitation of special privileges to four ports in the Coastal Act quite consciously
reflects the conclusions of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan whose preparation was
mandated by 1972’s Proposition 20 and which the Coastal Act was intended to implement. That
conclusion, codified in the legislative findings of PRC Sec. 30701(b) was that the four named
ports were sufficient to meet the state’s maritime commercial needs for the foreseeable future.
In addition, as noted in my March 27 comments, the four ports listed in the Coastal Act were all
state-mandated port districts with clear boundaries and independent governing bodies long
before the Coastal Act (Los Angeles dating back to 1907 and Long Beach to 1911).
Newport Beach and Newport Harbor have never had that status or structure.
April 10, 2018, Comments on Port Master Plan - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6
Among the many indications that AB-1196 has not been well vetted:
As noted in my March 27 comments, the list of four ports appears not only in the place
where AB-1196 proposes to add to the list, but also in PRC Sec. 30112 , which would
have to be amended to define a governing body for the new “Port of Newport Beach.”
The list also occurs in PRC Sec. 30114, which gives special status to public works
projects in the four ports. Does Newport want to be added to that list as well?
PRC Sec. 30710 requires the Coastal Commission to define within the first three months
of 1977 the boundaries, for purposes of the Coastal Act, and protected features within the
listed ports. That section would have to be modified to define how the boundary and
content of the “Port of Newport Beach” would be defined.
o Mr. Schmitz’ concept of a water-only “port” would be entirely new, and seemingly
incompatible with the normal understanding of a port as place where people or
goods are transferred between land and water, and which therefore needs to have
a land component devoted to port uses.
As previously noted, PRC Sec. 30701 would need to be amended to explain why the
legislature is reversing its previous commitment to limiting seaport development to the four
Chapter 8 coastal ports plus Humboldt Bay.
Newport Beach is so unlike the other ports, that the list of non-appealable projects in PRC
Sec. 30715 would presumably need to be reviewed and amended to ensure the Coastal
Act continues to protect the state’s interest in the state’s waters.
Beyond these, the Council may wish to know that Chapter 8 not only allows the
submission of a Port Master Plan for the named ports, but requires it (PRC Sec. 30711).
And that plan must do such things as:
o Prioritize land areas around the harbor for shipping and rail access (PRC Sec.
30708)
o Provide for commercial fishing uses, keeping recreational ones subservient to
them (PRC Sec. 30703)
Newport Beach does not seem like a good, or easily explained fit to any of these.
Could This Damage the City’s Relationship with the Coastal Commission?
Point: Mr. Schmitz claims Coastal Commission staff has a very high opinion of Newport Beach,
that they are very proud of the recent certification of the City’s LCP Implementation Plan and that
the current Executive Director, in his recent reports to the Commission, cited that as the crowning
achievement of his tenure.
Counterpoint: The final certification of the Newport Beach LCP, some 40 years behind
schedule, was mentioned, very briefly, in Director Ainsworth’s February 2018 oral annual report to
the Commission (Feb. 7, Item 6a). It was listed as the one example of a new LCP that went into
effect in 2017. That was cited as an accomplishment, but primarily as an example of his staff’s
April 10, 2018, Comments on Port Master Plan - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6
slow but continuing progress toward reducing the backlog of uncertified segments, reducing the
number from 34 to 33. It was not mentioned at all in his March oral report.
Subsequent to certification, Newport Beach has submitted a number of requests for modifications
and amendments to the rather hastily approved IP, none of which CCC staff has yet signed on to.
Point: Mr. Schmitz notes as an example of the Commission’s likely receptiveness to a Port
Master Plan that at one of its meetings in Newport Beach, CCC Chair Steve Kinsey heaped
praise on Newport Beach for its proactive approach to public access in creating Sunset Ridge
Park and Marina Park (two prior projects for whose approval Mr. Schmitz claimed a large share of
the credit).
Counterpoint: Setting aside the observation that an exchange of mutual compliments between
the Commission and the host city is a fairly expected thing, Mr. Kinsey is no longer with the
Commission. In fact, five of the twelve Commissioners were appointed in 2017. They have never
seen a “fire hose” of applications from Newport Beach and their impression of the City’s attitude
toward the Coastal Act may well be shaped by hearing about the City’s rather bizarre effort to
gain special privileges for itself by having itself added to the list of commercial port authorities
when it is not recognized as such and has no intention of becoming one. The seven longer-
serving Commissioners are likely, in addition, to remember the Banning Ranch debacle.
Summary
Newport Beach already has:
A Harbor and Bay Element in its General Plan (Chapter 4)
A Harbor Area Management Plan further extending that document
(Like all other coastal waters) a statutory exemption from CCC permitting for
maintenance dredging of navigation channel approved by the Army Corps of Engineers
per PRC Sec. 30610(c)
An RGP-54 (including an eelgrass mitigation program) for remaining maintenance
dredging done in the harbor without additional CCC permits
Certified harbor development standards in Chapter 21.30C of the LCP for physical
development, which serve as guidance for the CCC
A very small number of dock construction projects requiring administrative approval by
the CCC pursuant to that guidance and the Coastal Act
What Newport Beach does not have is blanket CCC pre-approval for the occasional large project
that might come along. Getting pre-approval for the water-only portion of those rare and
unexpected projects by defining them in advance in a Port Master Plan for a “port” that we have
to admit is not a port seems to me a strange, time consuming and wastefully expensive
enterprise.