Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 - Dredging Disposal Alternatives Analysis by a Private Party: Harbor Commission RecommendationQ SEW Pp�T CITY OF z NEWPORT BEACH c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report January 25, 2022 Agenda Item No. 8 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, dawebb@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Chris Miller, Public Works Administrative Manager, cmiller@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3043 TITLE: Dredging Disposal Alternatives Analysis by a Private Party: Harbor Commission Recommendation ABSTRACT: At its May 25, 2021 meeting, the City Council approved the construction of a Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility in Lower Newport Harbor that will support the upcoming dredging effort of the Federal Navigational Channels. After this approval, and at the request of a private party, the City Council directed the Harbor Commission to continue on a parallel path to explore any privately funded disposal alternatives for unsuitable dredged material within a 90 -day timeframe, and for the Harbor Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding these alternatives. At its October meeting, the Harbor Commission reviewed the alternatives analysis presented by the private party, Team Palmer, which is led by a concerned Newport Beach resident and his team of consultants. After comprehensive review and consideration, the Harbor Commission voted 7-0 that the proposed alternatives are not viable, and the Harbor Commission recommends that the City Council does not consider the alternatives analysis for dredged material placement any further. The Harbor Commission also voted to disband the subcommittee. RECOMMENDATION: a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Receive and file the Harbor Commission's recommendations to City Council that the Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility for dredged materials in Newport Harbor is the most viable and cost-effective solution with the most sufficient timeline for completing the project and not to consider the alternatives presented by Team Palmer any further. RX Dredging Disposal Alternatives Analysis by a Private Party: Harbor Commission Recommendation January 25, 2022 Page 2 DISCUSSION: On May 25, 2021, the City Council: 1) adopted Resolution No. 2021-46, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-001, 2) adopted the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, 3) made Facts and Findings, and 4) approved the construction of a Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility (CAD) and Dredging Outside the Federal Channels in Lower Newport Harbor. After approving the motion, the City Council requested that the Harbor Commission review any forthcoming dredge disposal alternative analyses submitted by Team Palmer within the ensuing 90 -days. The 90 -day timeline expired on August 24, and the City Council informally allowed 60 additional days for Team Palmer to submit concept(s). The Harbor Commission subcommittee led the effort and worked directly with Team Palmer as it finalized its alternative analysis for disposing material that is unsuitable for ocean disposal. At the October 13, 2021 meeting, Team Palmer presented its concepts to the Harbor Commission. In summary, the alternatives analysis presented by Team Palmer consisted of three potential disposal areas with one preferred alternative. Potential Area 1: Jamboree and Bayview Way parcel adjacent to Fletcher Jones. This potential option was deemed as the least desirable. Potential Area 2: Within the footprint of the future hotel site at the Newport Dunes, County owned property. Preferred Alternative: Lower Castaways. This concept proposes adding unsuitable material onto the existing Upper Castaways bluff and extending that bluff south toward the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge using approximately half of the Lower Castaways property. In addition, the remaining unsuitable material from the residential docks would be placed along the shoreline of the Upper Castaways bluff, within the Marine Protected Area. After reviewing the alternatives analysis and considering the testimony from Team Palmer, staff and the public, the Harbor Commission (7-0 vote) recommends to the City Council that the CAD is the most viable and cost-effective solution with the most sufficient timeline of completing the Lower Bay dredging project. The Harbor Commission also recommends that the City Council no longer consider the alternatives analysis as proposed by Team Palmer. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to this agenda item. FIN Dredging Disposal Alternatives Analysis by a Private Party: Harbor Commission Recommendation ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action i Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect phy; and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, potential for resulting in physical change to the environrr NOTICING: January 25, 2022 Page 3 ; not subject to the California 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not ical change in the environment) in Section 15378) of the CEQA chapter 3, because it has no ant, directly or indirectly. The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENT: Attachment A — Harbor Commission Minutes (October 13, 2021) iz Attachment A Harbor Commission Minutes (October 13, 2021) 1) NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA Wednesday, October 13, 2021 5 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. 2) ROLL CALL Commissioners: William Kenney, Jr., Chair Ira Beer, Vice Chair Steve Scully, Secretary Scott Cunningham, Commissioner Marie Marston, Commissioner Gary Williams, Commissioner Don Yahn, Commissioner Staff Members: Paul Blank, Harbormaster Chris Miller, Public Works Administrative Manager Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director Dave Webb, Public Works Director Jennifer Biddle, Administrative Support Specialist 3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Williams 4) PUBLIC COMMENTS Drew Lawler requested that the Commission consider extending the period of replacing the chain on a mooring to every 3 years. He shared that there is a chain shortage and it has become very expensive. He also requested that the Commission consider the amplified horns that the regattas use and suggested that the regattas use hand-held air horns to help mitigate noise. 5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft Minutes of the September 8, 2021 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Chair Kenney announced that he submitted written comments to staff along with Vice Chair Beer and Secretary Scully regarding the minutes. Vice Chair Beer moved to approve the draft minutes of the September 8, 2021 meeting with the comments submitted by Vice Chair Beer, Secretary Scully and Chair Kenney. Secretary Scully seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Vice Chair Beer, Secretary Scully, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Marston, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Abstaining: None. Absent: None 6) CURRENT BUSINESS Lower Bay Dredging - Subcommittee Update on Private Party Dredging Disposal Concepts The Harbor Commission subcommittee will provide an update to the Commission on the private party dredging disposal concept(s) as prepared by Team Palmer. Upon receiving 8-5 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 2 said report, the Harbor Commission can provide further direction as to whether said concept(s) require further review and discussion or should be dropped from further consideration. Recommendation: 1) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and 2) Decide if the alternative dredging disposal concept(s) submitted by Team Palmer require further review and discussion or should be dropped from further consideration. Public Works Administrative Manager Chris Miller reported that on May 25, 2021, City Council adopted the resolution that certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as well as the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility (CAD). They also approved the construction of the CAD and dredging outside of the Federal Channels in lower Newport Harbor. After the motion was approved, Council recommended that the Harbor Commission review any forthcoming dredging disposal concepts if submitted by private residents. Team Palmer expressed interest in supplying a different disposal concept but could not meet the 90 -day deadline. Council informally granted Team Palmer an additional 60 - days to prepare their alternative proposal presentation. The Harbor Commission assembled a subcommittee to work with Team Palmer. Staff requested that the Harbor Commission consider Team Palmer's presentation and decide if the concepts are viable and should be recommended to Council for further review, discussion and consideration. Vice Chair Beer appreciated the work and efforts of Team Palmer. He reported that at the April 14, 2021, Harbor Commission meeting, after hearing from Mr. Luckey that he was interested in providing an alternative to the CAD, the Harbor Commission voted 6-0, with one Commissioner abstaining, to recommend the current CAD draft EIR be approved and certified by Council. Council later ruled to allow Team Palmer to explore an alternative to the CAD as long as the initiative is done in parallel to moving the current CAD permitting and construction process forward. Also, the initiative was not allowed to cause a delay to the current CAD plan from moving forward as the City is partnering with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Team Palmer and the subcommittee consisting of Commissioner Yahn and Vice Chair Beer have met several times. The subcommittee has provided feedback on the alternatives to Team Palmer and has engaged in discussions with City staff regarding the alternatives. The subcommittee suggested that Team Palmer meet with City staff and outside engineers to discuss the alternatives but no meeting took place. In September 2021, Team Palmer identified three alternate Confined Disposal Facilities (CDF) locations. These locations are at Jamboree Road and Bayview Way, at the Dunes site that is controlled by the County of Orange and at Lower Castaways. All three locations are within a marine protected area (MPA). After reviewing the proposals, staff identified significant concerns to the proposed sites. In September 2021, Team Palmer and the subcommittee discussed the Lower Castaways proposal. The subcommittee raised three primary concerns regarding the location and requested that Team Palmer demonstrate, with supporting documentation, the likelihood of permitting a CDF adjacent to the Harbor in an MPA, provide detailed drawing(s) that clearly show the size, dimensions, and appearance of the material and how it will affect the usable area at Lower Castaways. The subcommittee also requested that Team Palmer outline the cost, timing and funding associated with permits and construction for a CDF at Lower Castaways. On October 5, 2021 Team Palmer submitted a draft presentation that was discussed by the subcommittee and forwarded to staff for review. Brent Mardian commented that the subcommittee members have been very helpful with the process. He summarized that the goal that Team Palmer is trying to achieve is to explore options for a land-based CDF that protects the marine environment and recreational users of lower Newport Harbor. He agreed that non - contaminated sand is good from a disposal and dredging standpoint. But fine-grained material requires more testing for contaminants and can be expensive to dispose of. He mentioned that the CAD and CDF roughly cost the same amount, but a CDF removes the contaminants from the water and mitigates any contaminants from reentering the Harbor. The EIR states that the preferred method for sediment that is unsuitable for ocean disposal is to place the material in a nearshore CDF. The current CAD plan is to contain 156,000 cubic yards of material and the cost for the CAD is estimated to be $8 to $10 million. The current CAD proposal has shown substantial evidence that a clean layer of sand will eliminate vertical 2 :. Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 3 migration of contaminants in the water, but there is evidence that plumes may surface that exceed water quality criteria. Those facts are outlined in the models and documents in the appendix of the CAD EIR. Once the contaminated materials are placed in the CAD, that portion of the Harbor cannot be dredged. A CDF has a reduced long-term cost, reduces residual contamination, and provides a long-term sediment management approach that protects the health of the Harbor. Brian Hitchens clarified that all three areas in the proposal are adjacent to an MPA, but not actually in it. The Jamboree Road and Bayview Way location would require hydraulic dredging to transport the sediment to the location. Team Palmer acknowledges that the Jamboree Road and Bayview Way location is a long- term option, but the existing Upper Bay catch -basins can hold the amount of sediment that will be coming out of the current dredging project. In terms of the Dunes location, the location can accommodate a lot of contaminated material but would have a longer permitting timeline. He emphasized that the Dunes and the Jamboree Road and Bayview Way locations are more long-term solutions. In terms of Lower Castaways, the City would meet its existing timeline and the location can hold the 106,000 cubic yards of contaminated material that is going to be dredged during the Federal Dredging Project. Mr. Mardian restated that the goal of Team Palmer was to identify an alternative location for contaminated materials that is land-based and Lower Castaways is that alternative location. Mr. Hitchens agreed and shared that the elevation model that shows how much material can be placed at Lower Castaways and not hinder the functional use of the area. He mentioned that the seawall at Lower Castaways is crumbling and Team Palmer is not the only group that has acknowledged that there is a need to make improvements at Lower Castaways. Mr. Hitchens announced that through discussions with the various regulatory agencies for Lower Castaways, they have indicated general support for the CDF and did not see an inconsistency with the ability to permit the project. Lower Castaways land is under the jurisdiction of the Local Coastal Program for the City of Newport Beach so the City can take charge of doing the Coastal Permit for the project. Mr. Mardian mentioned that there is a break in the permitting process that allows Lower Castaways to house the 106,000 cubic yards of materials that is to be dredged by the Federal Dredging Project. Then there is time to go through the permitting process for the Dunes and Jamboree Road and Bayview Way to hold the additional 50,000 cubic yards of contaminated materials located in the Regional General Permit (RGP) 54 area. Team Palmer requested to move the project forward for Lower Castaways and complete 30 percent of the design. They also requested that City Council not fund the current CAD project while the team is engaged in the 30 percent design process. Mr. Mardian emphasized that Team Palmer is providing a Plan B to the CAD that can be inserted into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process as an alternative if there needs to be additional alternatives investigated. Chair Kenney invited staff to comment on Team Palmer's presentation. Public Works Administrative Manager Miller thanked Team Palmer for their energy and efforts in evaluation of the concepts presented tonight. He then said that staff believes that the concepts presented by Team Palmer are infeasible. The concepts do not fully and adequately address the 150,000 cubic yards of material that is located in the Federal Channels and in the RGP 54 area. He clarified that Federal Channels are not within commercial channels. There are areas within the Federal Channels that Team Palmer has labeled as "not maintained" and "outside of the Federal Channel boundaries" which is false. The reason why the City is not dredging these areas is that the areas are at current authorized depths. He clarified that the federal government has authorized three depths for Newport Harbor. In terms of the RGP 54 area, staff identified areas of concern that require more study of the sediment. The current depth of the Harbor in the currently proposed CAD location is minus 12 -feet and the current authorized depth is minus 15 -feet plus 2 feet of over dredge. The USACE is responsible for dredging all of the material from the current depth to the current authorized depth. Anything below the current authorized depth is the City's responsibility as well as the final cap. Team Palmer has indicated that it will take 107 -days to dredge the current CAD proposal which is false. Staff predicts that it will take 60 -days, plus or minus, to dredge the designated areas. He addressed the comment that the currently proposed CAD site will never be able to be dredged again. The 3 8-7 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 4 proposal is to have the CAD at a depth of minus 20 -feet plus 2 -feet to accommodate for future channel dredging. With respect to cost, when using $12 per cubic yard, the current CAD proposal will cost $5.8 million. Not the $8 to $10 million range that Team Palmer has stated. Staff stated that the cost for mobilization and the cost of $12 per cubic yard is based on the current 2021 dredge project. With respect to the timeframe for permitting and design work for the alternative concept at Lower Castaways, the USACE is in the final design stage for the current CAD project and the USACE will be seeking Request for Proposals (bids) in early to mid -year of 2022. Staff predicted that the permitting process for the Lower Castaways site will not be able to match the current timeframe. In summary, by taking advantage of the USACE's project, the City is able to use the USACE's mobilization efforts that they are paying for and their project management. This results in significant cost savings to the City. If the deadline is not met, the City will miss the opportunity and will have to fund its own dredge project. The USACE's dredge project will take place in 2022 regardless if the City is involved or not. With respect to the Jamboree Road and Bayview Way site, the site is located 6 -miles from the contaminated sediment and transportation by truck was ruled as a significant environmental impact in the EIR. Hydraulic dredging has not been approved by the regulatory agencies in southern California in over 20 -years. Also, the concept would require a lengthy permitting process. If the material was placed above the high tide line, the site would likely be classified as a landfill. For these reasons, staff did not support this concept. With respect to the Dunes site, he commented that Team Palmer has suggested housing contaminated material from the Rhine Channel at the site. He reported that the City dredged the Rhine Channel 10 -years ago and removed the contaminated sediments from the area. Staff confirmed that the site has already been approved for a hotel project and believes that there is a low likelihood that the County of Orange will approve the site to be used for unsuitable dredged material. This site also would likely receive the title of a landfill. With respect to the Lower Castaways site, the site is the last City -owned property on the water in the Harbor. Staff finds the site to be un-permittable because the fine grain material would require a hardener. This hardener would result in a barren landscape because no plants would be able to grow. After reviewing the cost analysis that was provided by Team Palmer, staff found the calculations to be inaccurate and predicted that the cost estimate is off by an increase of roughly $4 million. Team Palmer suggests building a 10 -foot -high retaining wall at Lower Castaways to accommodate the contaminated material and staff has determined that the project would require the rebuilding of the bulkhead and the cost to rebuild a bulkhead is substantially more than a retaining wall. Staff feels that it is unreasonable to assume that the City will keep the bulkhead in the future and that Team Palmer's cost analysis should include the cost of installing a new bulkhead. He expressed that the project must include disposal for the entire 150,000 cubic yards of contaminated material to meet United Stated Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) requirements. The idea that the area along the bottom of the bluff of Upper Castaways is scalable is false. Also, the bluff area would not be suitable to handle the contaminated material that is contained in the RGP 54 area. The material is not suitable for the beach, and new fill is not permitted in the MPA. Staff requested that the Commission consider the loss of value and economic costs for the Lower Castaway concept. Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell agreed that the three concepts that Team Palmer has presented will be extremely difficult for the City to move forward. With respect to the Jamboree Road and Bayview Way site, the site is a wetland and falls under the Coastal Act, the proposed use would most likely not be permitted and would require Coastal Commission approval. With respect to the Dunes site, staff predicted that if the City were to introduce contaminated fill at the site, that would negatively impact the hotel project that is proposed to be constructed there by the County of Orange. With respect to the Lower Castaway's site, staff agrees that the City can permit a CDF and that property is under the City's permit jurisdiction. Staff shared that the site is also within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and predicted that there would be appeals. The grading that would be required for the Lower Castaways site would violate the City's Local Coastal Program and violate the Coastal Act. In conclusion, staff does not believe that any of the alternatives would meet the current timeline and would be burdensome to the City if they are moved forward. Steve Cappellino, with Anchor QEA, clarified that a CDF is not the proper term that should be used. A CDF is permitted under the Clean Water Act by the USACE and the Regional Water Quality Board. It is permitted because it maintains water convection within navigable waterways. He commented that what Team Palmer is proposing is a landfill because the material is being proposed to be removed, dried and then placed above the high tide line. This procedure falls under the purview of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. He emphasized that if the material in the RGP 54 area is not included in the project, 4 :: Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 5 the EPA will withdraw from the project and that will increase the amount of federal material that the City must dispose of. He recalled that the Council agreed to allow Team Palmer to explore areas outside of the community for the contaminated material. Team Palmer has presented locations that are around the Harbor. The CEQA documents have already evaluated the process and impacts of using a landfill disposal site. He noted that the comment that the material in the RGP 54 area is not suitable material to be placed in a CAD is not true. He concluded that the other CAD sites located in California have short-term monitoring programs or minimal ongoing costs. Based on that information, he predicted that the City's CAD would follow those similar steps and have an annual cost between $250,000 and $500,000 to maintain the CAD site. Public Works Administrative Manager Miller concluded that the current CAD has a minimal construction duration, is located in open area, is accessible to boating during construction, is environmentally the best way to manage the material, will result in 282,000 cubic yards of beach quality material and provides a cost - benefit of reusing the material. In answer to Secretary Scully's inquiry regarding the City's cost if they were to dredge without the Corps' assistance, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller explained that the City's current sediment characterization expires in the fall of 2022. Once that expires, the City will have to test the sediment again which will cost between $400,000 to $500,000. The current cost to mobilize a dredge is $650,000. There are also project management and other various costs. Commissioner Marston appreciated the presentations. She agreed that the permitting process is going to be exceptionally difficult and lengthy for any of Team Palmer's alternatives. She appreciated the comment that the initial idea was to allow Team Palmer to haul the material upland and use it for a project. With that said, she found it surprising that the three proposed alternatives are harbor landfills. With respect to Lower Castaways, she noted that the area is actively used by the local clubs and the public. She acknowledged that the grading that Team Palmer has proposed at Lower Castaways would not accommodate 100,000 cubic yards per her rough calculations and so the site is not an adequate site to dispose of the material. Commissioner Williams summarized that staff has emphasized that all three sites that have been proposed by Team Palmer are highly unlikely to be permitted. Public Works Administrative Manager Miller agreed that is correct. In reply to Vice Chair Beer's question regarding if any of the other existing CADs have demonstrated adverse impacts to the environment, Mr. Cappellino confirmed that there have been no adverse impacts indicated through testing of the sites over the years. In response to Vice Chair Beer's inquiry regarding CAD material moving vertically, Mr. Cappellino confirmed that there has been no evidence to date that vertical movement has taken place. Vice Chair Beer commented that the Harbor has been in place for over 80 -years and with little to no sediment management throughout that period. The total accumulation over that 80 -years has been 3 -feet. With that said, the current CAD is going to be 5 -feet lower than the authorized depth and based upon historic sediment accumulation, that will eliminate the need to dredge the area where the CAD is located for the next 150 -years. Additionally, Vice Chair Beer asked if there ever was accumulation of sediment above the CAD cap, could the area be subsequently dredged down to a level above the CAD. Mr. Cappellino confirmed that the CAD site must be below the authorized depth by 2- to 4 - feet to allow for future dredging. This requirement is to mitigate the CAD site from being disturbed and will allow dredging to take place over the top of the site. In answer to Commissioner Yahn's query regarding placing materials in the CAD, Mr. Cappellino explained that water quality monitoring and modeling has been conducted to figure out where the material is going to drop in the CAD. Also, contractors are given very specific windows of time of when to dump material into the CAD to minimize spreading. Dumping is also closely monitored and if there is turbidity, it is an indication of migration of the material. The contractor is required to install silt curtains and possibly do beam dragging to clean up the material around the outside of the hole. In response to Commissioner Yahn's inquiry regarding possible erosion of the cap, Mr. Cappellino explained that the cap layer is designed to be protected from anchor and propeller scour. 5 :• Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 6 Commissioner Cunningham thanked Public Works Administrative Manager Miller for the comment that the CAD is providing 250,000 cubic yards of clean material to the beaches. He reminded the other Commissioners and public that the contaminated material is currently sitting at the bottom of the Harbor and has been there for decades. He restated that if the City chose not to construct the CAD which includes the EPA requirement for sediment management plan, the City would have an additional 50,000 cubic yards to dispose that alternative proposal cannot accommodate. In answer to his question regarding how much will it cost to truck out the 50,000 cubic yards in the RGP 54 area, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller answered that landfill disposal costs roughly $200 a cubic yard. Commissioner Cunningham calculated it would cost another $10 million to dispose of the RGP 54 material, plus another $10 million if the City does not fill the requirements put forth by the EPA negotiated agreement for increased mercury levels that would be allowed in LA -3. Chair Kenney thanked Team Palmer and staff for their presentations. In response to his query regarding what the likelihood is of receiving approval from the County of Orange to use the Newport Dunes site, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell predicted that the County of Orange would not approve the permit, and placement of contaminated materials at the site could jeopardize the ability to construct the hotel. A local resident found the presentations to be very informative. He commented that there are new ways to bioremediate mercury and that process should be reviewed as part of the strategy. He believed that using these new bioremediation techniques may alleviate the public's concerns regarding recontamination. Roger Lockhart commented that the funds have been allocated for the USACE dredged project, but there has been no discussion with them about delaying the project for another year. He remarked that if the project was delayed by a year, that would give the City a chance to dredge the Balboa Yacht Basin which would result in a $600,000 benefit to the City. He requested to see Commissioner Marston's calculation because his calculations mirror Team Palmer's calculations as to how much material Lower Castaways can hold. Shana Conzelman, a resident of Lido Island, stated that she supports dredging, but expressed frustration that the terminology "toxic" and "unsuitable" has been used interchangeably. This has confused the public. She was frustrated that the clean material will be placed on the beaches which will then be washed away. She raised concerns about anchorage being dragged across the CAD site and disturbing the cap. She summarized that the residents are not supportive of taking the now clean Harbor and making it unsafe and unclean. Chuck Brewer, a resident of Lido Island, wanted to see a 20 -year plan and emphasized that the Harbor is dirty now and something must be done now. He suggested that the City explore sites where the contaminated materials can be placed outside of the Harbor for future dredge projects. Mike Hewitt, representing Newport Marina, stated that if the dredging project is delayed, all of the proposed alternative sites will require Coastal Commission approval. He strongly encouraged the Commission to move forward with the current CAD. He commented that it cost $84 per cubic yard to dredge Newport Marina and that the cost to dredge the Harbor is going to be much higher than what is presented on the cost analysis. He concluded that there have been no water current or sedimentation studies to understand what will happen if there is a 10 -foot bulkhead along the shoreline at Lower Castaways. George Posey, a resident of Newport Beach, requested that the Commission consider opening the anchorage in front of the Rusty Pelican since the anchorage in front of Lido Island will be closed. Justin Sufflefice represented the two Outrigger Canoe Clubs that use Lower Castaways. He confirmed that usage at Lower Castaways has increased dramatically. The clubs have facilitated a cleanup of the property and have made it safer for law enforcement. Allyson Presta commented that the effort for the CAD and Harbor management has been transparent, but the approach to explore alternative sites has not been transparent. There has been no public outreach and nothing was placed on the City's website indicating that the City is exploring other options. N. 8-10 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 7 Dennis Lockard, former Deputy Fire Marshal, shared that his concern is that the Commission is considering approving a hazardous material dumpsite within the Harbor. The alternatives allow the material to be stored outside of the Harbor. He commented that Team Palmer has proved that there are alternatives that weren't evaluated in the original CEQA documents or in the EIR. Commissioner Cunningham stated that the City has reviewed all possible options, including the landfill options, in detail from the beginning. He stated that the item is to evaluate if there are viable alternatives to the CAD and based on the presentations, he could not support any of the alternatives provided by Team Palmer. Chair Kenney commented that his big concern is the potential of losing time, effort and potential federal resources if the Commission agrees to explore the alternatives further. Commissioner Cunningham put forward a motion. Vice Chair Beer requested that the motion be amended to include that the Harbor Commission specifically not recommend that the City Council commit to stop funding the CAD if in the event the Team Palmer moves forward in the design. Chair Kenney moved to disband the subcommittee exploring the CAD alternatives and recommend to City Council that the Harbor Commission believes that the CAD is the most viable and cost-effective solution with the most sufficient timeline of getting the project done, and that the Harbor Commission recommends that the City Council not consider the alternatives analysis that includes to stop the funding for the CAD. Commissioner Marston seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Vice Chair Beer, Secretary Scully, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Marston, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Abstaining: None. Absent: None Ad Hoc Committee Updates Several ad hoc committees have been established to address short term projects outside of the 2021 Harbor Commission objectives. The ad hoc committees will provide an update on their projects. 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; and 2) Receive and File. Chair Kenney requested that the Chairs of each Ad Hoc Committee provide a brief update on their work. Commissioner Marston provided a report from the Ad Hoc Committee that is tasked with the exploration of floats that are attached to piers and docks. The Ad Hoc Committee has provided recommendations to Harbormaster Blank for review and is waiting for a list to be drafted for future work. Chair Kenney suggested that the Ad Hoc Committee meet with Harbormaster Blank and staff within the next 30 -days. Chair Kenney reported that with respect to Council Policy H-1, Harbormaster Blank and he attended the City Council meeting on September 14, 2021 where Council Policy H-1 was presented on the Consent Calendar. The Council approved the Consent Calendar without discussion. He recommended that the Ad Hoc Committee be disbanded. 7 8-11 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 8 Commissioner Cunningham shared that the Ad Hoc Committee tasked with exploring affordable boat storage access will have a presentation ready for the November 2021 meeting. Secretary Scully reported that with respect to the 2022 Objectives, the Ad Hoc Committee has received comments from the Commissioners. There are a number of 2021 Objectives that will carry over to 2022, but they will be better defined to provide clarity for the Commissioners working on them. The Ad Hoc Committee will be working on areas of the Harbor that are not currently contained in the 2021 Objectives. He requested that each Commissioner and Harbormaster Blank think about new items that should be incorporated into the 2022 Objectives. The Ad Hoc Committee will have a final presentation ready by the December 2021 meeting. Harbor Commission 2020 Objectives Each ad hoc committee studying their respective Functional Area, within the Commission's 2020 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; and 2) Receive and file. Functional Area 1: Chair Kenney reported that with respect to Objective 1. 1, proposed changes to Title 17 will be presented to the Commission at the November 2021 meeting. With respect to Objective 1.2, Harbormaster Blank, Commissioners Williams and Yahn will meet to discuss whether there needs to be any updates made to the Marine Activities Permits (MAP). With respect to Objective 1.3, he inquired if the Harbor Department has received enough input from mooring permittees to conduct the annual review. Harbormaster Paul Blank recommended that the Commission review the language on the permits. With respect to Objective 1.4, Commissioner Cunningham continues to work with officials of other harbors to understand how they handle permit transfers. With respect to Objective 1.5, the appraisal for market -rate on and offshore mooring permits has been delayed. Functional Area 2: Vice Chair Beer commented that there are not a lot of updates regarding the Objectives under Functional Area 2. With respect to Objective 2.3, he mentioned that staff has provided an accurate count of every mooring within the Harbor. The data will be used to draft a plan to show to stakeholders and the Commission. Functional Area 3: Commissioner Cunningham commented that he will have a report available at the next meeting. Functional Area 4: Secretary Scully remarked that there is nothing new to report with respect to Objective 4.1 and Objective 4.2. He noted that Objective 4.2 will not be carried over to the 2022 Objectives. With respect to Objective 4.3, Commissioner Williams will continue to reach out to operators in the Harbor. He proposed that for the 2022 Objectives, that Objective 4.3 evolve towards working with operators within the Harbor to promote a set of best practices on safety, operational support, speed, noise and pollution control. Commissioner Marston reported that with respect to Objective 2.7, the Outrigger Canoe Club has facilitated cleanup and built a new ramp at the launch closest to the bridge at Lower Castaways. They are now building a new launch more inland and cleaning up the area. 4. Harbormaster Update — July 2020 Activities The Harbormaster is responsible for the management of the City's mooring fields, the Marina Park Guest Marina, a variety of Harbor activities and Harbor on -the -water City code 11 8-12 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 9 enforcement. This report will update the Commission on the Harbor Department's activities for September 2021. Recommendation: 1) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and 2) Receive and file. Harbormaster Blank shared that the Harbor Department has hired and trained two new Harbor Services workers. With respect to Labor Day activities, the Harbor Department received support from the Newport Beach Police Department during the revocation of two Rafted -Up Permits. With respect to the V -tip and Save Program, at the end of September, the Harbor Department has used $161,278 of the $170,000 grant funds. The program has destroyed 46 vessels. With respect to department statistics, he commented that the Harbor Department has been increasing the number of MAPs issued year over year. The Harbormaster report for November 2021 will share how the City has responded to the oil spill that happened in the Harbor. Secretary Scully and Vice Chair Beer thanked Harbormaster Blank for his efforts regarding the oil spill. In answer to Commissioner Yahn's question regarding the mooring shuttle, Harbormaster Blank confirmed that the shuttle program within the Newport Mooring Association is in operation. Any mooring permittee located in the H, J, and K mooring fields can use the shuttle program. He noted that the shuttle program has not been heavily used at this time. Commissioner Cunningham remarked that a member of the public sent him a photo showing a large mass of what appeared to be oil floating in the upper back Bay. He noted that he forwarded the photo to Harbormaster Blank for review. 7) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Vice Chair Beer announced that he would like to make a motion for reconsideration regarding the multi- vessel mooring system (MVMS) for single -point systems in the yacht club's mooring fields. The motion that was passed at a previous meeting allowed a single -point mooring to have a float of either 20- or 40 -feet in length. The original intent of the single -point MVMS is to help with small craft storage. Subsequently, the discussion led to large vessel(s) side tying to the floats and increasing the beam width. After processing the presentation more, he expressed that tying a large vessel to a single -point float is not safe. Through personal research, he could not find examples of where this type of activity is allowed. He requested that the Commission reconsider the item and discuss the original intent. Also, to explore if an 8 -foot wide float is needed. Keith Duarte, Port Capitan of the Balboa Yacht Club, confirmed that the Yacht Club supports the direction that the Commission is heading in and the Club has ideas on how to improve the systems. Vice Chair Beer moved to bring the matter back to the Harbor Commission in November and reopen the discussion. Chair Kenney seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Vice Chair Beer, Secretary Scully, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Marston, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Abstaining: None. Absent: None Absent: None 8) COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) None. M 8-13 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 10 8) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH STAFF ON HARBOR -RELATED ISSUES In answer to Commissioner Marston's query regarding the public notice for Item 1, Harbormaster Blank confirmed that proper notice was given that Team Palmer would be giving a presentation. The availability of Team Palmer's presentation was held until the meeting. Chair Kenney added that the presentation was made from the private sector and the Harbor Commissioners did not have access to the presentation until the meeting. Vice Chair Beer requested an update on the MAP permit data at the November 2021 meeting and requested a discussion on how to balance the plan. In answer to Chair Kenney's question regarding the study session with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding total maximum daily loads (TMDL), Public Works Administrative Manager Miller confirmed that staff did provide testimony and the Regional Water Quality Board will discuss the item at their December 2021 meeting. 9) MATTERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) Commissioner Marston requested a presentation on the water quality within the Harbor and historical trends. Commissioner Cunningham restated that the Ad Hoc Committee working on affordable access to boating will be making a presentation to the Commission. Chair Kenney recommended to agendize a presentation from the Ad Hoc Committee regarding proposed changes to Title 17. Also, agendize a discussion regarding MVMS. 10) DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 5 p.m. 11) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Harbor Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. 10 8-14