Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandouts and Presentations (17)Newport Beach Harbor Commission Recommendations on Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Newport Harbor November 13, 2012 Issue: Should concerns over Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Newport Harbor and potential restrictions be considered by the Harbor Commission Approach: • Review concerns expressed by City leaders and stakeholders including boaters, paddle boarders, law enforcement, rental and sales operators • Review relevant ordinances /laws covering Newport Harbor • Review relevant ordinances in other harbors Existing Ordinances /Laws Governing Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Newport Harbor Newport Beach City Municipal Code: 11.12.170 - Crafts Prohibited in Harbor Entrance: It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any paddleboard, kayak, pedalo, life raft or similar type of craft used for the transportation of persons in any portion of the main channel or entrance channel of Newport Harbor as defined in Section 11.12.160. (1949 Code § 10723 as amended by Ord. 1090; August 24, 1964) The Harbor Entrance and Main Channel of Newport Harbor feat _ ( NW-:YI/ ,qa,/ `'6` ht F' 1 I n �/ t r ` 1`R41F § •11, '14���' , Y�,ry ., a � ._� -r uit + w✓��/7+n '� `�"�°6 p'4 yr � ��J Ir1� ` a \ Y ��t i f: ..r, N7 Mr •y,. Y , ' ..r � tL � /' / /'f/��1 ��'fff���� • (•' ,w �.a,�. � . ft t� 0 roil. r,./ Jam.f, �`.,y.�M Y1 •�~'... ,.l'.. 1.2 Y _. a 'Y i'va _ r �1"R•�'1 h: "S `°�y..A /I� t •, �Sr, ;I "�• 't� a�!' Y� t4 1 I7 r/• ,y4a k . '� PON 1 OX t ��ti, r „'rr3 eL t ' � t_�' ��� 4�~�rr m•y4 1 � .. ;.. • .e ms 4�" kh�P y, l� / Lp � , alytf,`` � ?i� • �+ r,� + .a.µ� • =w ,hyttat i`f[�•sF ly..� !s fit• � �^ }, r+.��yti�N.c •• �' _ ��� I' �I I 1.. t ��h�' ..//� I �a•a�.'4 -hJJ// �' I 1 .. *.ytA.'}4• �. , �%� 1 I I� �1 4 LJ� u1 _ yi • ,..v. -. _ —• v 1� �yeY1 ;W �.���'� I � ���, ib S14'� f +bH © CHANNEL Existing Ordinances /Laws Governing Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Newport Harbor U.S. Coast Guard (Title 1 U.S. Code, section 3), and California Harbors and Navigations Code 651.1 define a Stand Up Paddle Board as a vessel when it is outside a designated swim area or outside the surf line. Therefore, when outside a designated swim area or the surf line, operators of Stand Up Paddle Boards must obey the "Rules of the Road" for Inland Waterways applicable to all vessels including: • Life jackets must be carried for all people on board • Children under 13 must wear life jackets while on board • Navigational lights must be used between sunset and sunrise • A vessel under engine power must yield to vessels using wind or paddle power • Etc., etc., etc... Existing Ordinances /Laws Governing Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Newport Harbor California Penal Code Section 4: The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code. All its provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice. MEANING: The Harbor Patrol has the discretionary latitude to apply and enforce laws to promote justice and safety "Spirit and intent of the law" over "Letter of the law" Examples: • Crossing the Main Channel versus operating in the Main Channel • Hugging the coastline near the Entrance Channel Existing Ordinances /Laws Governing Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Other Harbors Orange County Codified Ordinance (OCCO) Section 2 -2 -204 established restrictions exclusively in Dana Point Harbor including: • Limited days and hours during summer months when human powered craft are permitted on the harbor • All human powered craft: "...shall not impede or otherwise interfere with vessel traffic" implying that human powered vessels must give way to all other vessels within the harbor Dana Point is further pursuing expansion of the 5 MPH zone outside the existing Harbor entrance to create a safer transition between the open ocean and the Harbor Rental Locations for Stand Up Paddle Boards Conclusions: • The existing Newport Beach City Municipal Code and Federal Inland Waterways Right of Way Rules provide sufficient clarity on where, when and how to safely operate a Stand Up Paddle Board in Newport Harbor • The Harbor Patrol has an approach to enforcement that is sound and reasonable • All stakeholders can benefit from additional education and outreach on the existing City Code and Federal Inland Waterways Rules of the Road • All stakeholders can benefit from following a "common sense" approach to boating and stand up paddle boarding in Newport Harbor A "common sense" approach to boating and stand up paddle boarding in Newport Harbor Give way to vessels with less visibility and maneuverability Be respectful Avoid sudden, sharp maneuvers If you don't know the "rules of the road ", ask someone who does Recommendations: 1. The Harbor Commission should not address potential restrictions related to Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Newport Harbor at this time. 2. The Harbor Commission should address ongoing concerns related to Stand Up Paddle Boarding in Newport Harbor after further research and community input on suitable forums, formats and methods. Review of the City's Regional General Permit (RG P- 5 4) Harbor Commission November 14, 2012 Issue Discussion of the City's "Regional General Permit (RGP -54)" and options for the next version. Harbor Commission to form a subcommittee who will provide a recommended approach for the next version in 2014. RGP -54 History Residents have relied on RGP for over 25 years Along shoreline only (residential and commercial docks) Various iterations over the years Generally good for 5 years (because of testing) -T MLLW + V overdredge 1,000 cy maximum per address 20,000 cy harbor maximum for LA -3 disposal Frequency of Use vs. Cost 16 16 ➢ Total applicants ➢ Approximate cost for permit /testing ➢ Cost per permit: ($300,000/53) ➢ Current City charge for permit: ➢ Current subsidy: Possible reasons for fewer applicants: ➢ Eelgrass restrictions ➢ Economy (dredging is expensive) ➢ Lack of dredger to haul to sea 7 53 $300,000+ $5,660 $1,640 $4,020 4" 5 Is There a Better Way? Not sure, but we need to investigate Our current interim permit (to be approved this month) expires in Spring 2014 Need a plan ASAP - takes about 1.5 years to implement. Anchor QEA was hired by the City to develop irlPac nn nnccihlP alternatives Comparison of Feasible Options for RGP Implementation Option 1 — City Sediment Option 2 — User Sediment RGP 54 Maintain Existing RGP 54 Characterization Characterization Annual 20,000 cy 150,000 cy 150,000 cy Maximum Volume Individual 1,000 cy None Location specific —the harbor maybe Project Volume divided based on guidelines about Limit areas and depths Maximum Minimum of -9 feet MLLW plus 1 foot Minimum of -9 feet MLLW plus 1 Minimum of -9 feet MLLW plus 1 foot Dredge Depth overdredge; deeper if can be supported by foot overdredge; deeper if can be overdredge; deeper if can be supported historical design depth supported by historical design depth by historical design depth Sediment Periodic bay -wide characterization Rolling, focused characterization in Individual property owner responsibility Testing which the bay is divided into units. to conduct sediment characterization. Historical data would be used to City develops template sediment SAP guide sediment testing. for review and approval by the DMMT, which applicants could then follow. The SAP would take into account historical data from different parts of the bay. Individual property owners would be required to submit the results of their sediment sampling to the DMMT for review and approval. Eelgrass No impacts allowed Address impacts addressed through Address impacts addressed through City's bay -wide eelgrass program City's bay -wide eelgrass program Structures No maintenance allowed Potential for in -kind repair and In -kind repair and replacement of replacement of docks, bulkheads, docks, bulkheads, and piles. and piles Will be further evaluated on the need and reaction from the regulatory agencies to include this as part of a new RGP Comparison of Feasible Options for RGP Implementation Option 1,— City Sediment Option 2 — User Sediment RGP 54 Maintain Existing RGP 54 characterization characterization Application City submits files to agencies monthly and Tiered approach in which authority Tiered approach in which authority is Review waits for agency verification (varies from is delegated to the City to approve delegated to City to approve small 30 days to several months) small projects without agency projects without agency review; allows review; allows 30 -day review by 30 -day review by agencies for medium agencies for medium projects; projects; awaits approval from agencies awaits approval from agencies for for large projects. This assumes that large projects individual applicants would obtain DMMT approval for sediment disposal prior to submitting project information to the City. Shading Not applicable Develop bay -wide program to track Develop bay -wide program to track shading changes similar to eelgrass shading changes similar to eelgrass management program management program Water Quality Basic monitoring required by Regional Tiered approach to monitoring in Tiered approach to monitoring in which Monitoring Water Quality Control Board which monitoring is not required for monitoring is not required for small small projects and basic frameworks projects and basic frameworks are are developed for medium and large developed for medium and large projects projects Applicable Users Anyone within the permit area Anyone within the permit area Anyone within the permit area Disposal Beach nourishment, ocean disposal, upland Beach nourishment, ocean disposal, Beach nourishment, ocean disposal, disposal or confined disposal facility upland disposal upland disposal SLC Dredging Valid through 2015 A new lease will be required for A new lease will be required for work Lease work within submerged tidelands within submerged tidelands granted to granted to the County of Orange the County of Orange For More Information Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager cmiiierCcbnewportbeachca.gov (949) 644 -3043 Council Task Force on Committees Discussion of Proposed Approaches for Reorganizing the Harbor Commission Harbor Commission November 14, 2012 Council Task Force on Committees ® Formed on September z5, zo1z • Purpose: Review Committees and suggest changes Review "housekeeping" issues, including: i. Committee terms 2. Committee member terms 3. Chairperson appointments 4. Regularity of meeting schedules 5. Meeting locations 6. Public input process 7. And more... ■ Proposed Changes for Harbor Commission • Change Harbor Commission to "Harbor Tidelands Management Committee" • Mission: Advise Council on matters affecting the tidelands of Newport Harbor Membership: Seven members appointed by Council , with two Council Members Term: 4 years, z consecutive terms max. Subject to Brown Act. Harbor Tidelands Management Committee Purpose and Responsibility Advise Council on Tidelands Capital Plan. Advise Council on all matters pertaining to use, control, operation etc... of vessels. Approve, conditionally approve or disapprove harbor application permits. Advise Planning Commission and Council on land use development applications. Recommend adoption of regulations and programs. Serve as a appellate and reviewing body. For More Information Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager (949) 644 -3043 �nriierccunew rtbeachca.�,rov John C. Corrough 1004 South Bayfront, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California, 92662 USA(949) 673 -8077 office (949) 673 -8927 home (949) 466 -2909 cell icorrough @aol.com November 14, 2012 TO: HARBOR COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN CORROUGH SUBJECT: PROPOSED HARBOR COMMISSION RECONFIGURATION / RE- MISSIONING At yesterday's City Council Study Session I spoke extemporaneously on the subjects in this Memorandum prior to Chris's presentation of the proposed new configurations of the Harbor Committee /Comm.ission /Tidelands Management and Water Quality Committee. After the presentation and some more organized structuring of my thoughts, I have developed this position paper and some recommendations to the Commission, Council and City Senior Staff in. response to what.[ .feel is a well -meant but partially flawed approach to the proposed restructuring of the Harbor Commission. I was pleased to discover, in casual discussions with former Harbor Commissioners after the Study Session and later Council meeting, that we shared similar concerns and ideas as to the proposed changes. I think that our service on the Commission entitles us to speak to its future. The Commission needs to evolve to meet changing needs and directions, but that evolution needs to reflect hard - gained experience and prior decisions, substantial accomplishments, and a successful "proof of concept" and trust in those who accomplished it over the past decade, and which remain a valid basis into the future. Combining Harbor and Tidelands Improvements within a single entity paralleling a Water Quality /Beach Tidelands entity makes sense. Demoting the Commission to a Committee is a strange way of acknowledging an increased workload and responsibility and is unwise and not needed for a number of reasons cited in my discussion below. If our Parks warrant a Commission for their management, should the Harbor, our largest and most complex public /private asset, previously deserving of a Commission, now be demoted to Committee status? That should look strange both within and from outside our community. Additionally, the suggestion of a replacement of the existing single Council Liaison role with highly intensified oversight role involving two cou.n.clpersons who may or may not vote, with one serving as chair, is clearly overkill. Either the Commission are responsible, competent adults who can be trusted to do the right thing or something is missing :in the City's unexpressed intent behind this proposed move.] find it rnildty insulting and I strongly support Mayor Pro Tern Curry's observation and position that the proposal "...looks like a solution in search of a problem ". Please consider the following comments on refinements and simplification in that context. 1. Harbor "Commission" vs "Committee" ? iargest and most identibable asset the Harbor. Some historic perspective on its origins is provided below: The precursor to current Harbor Commission was a group of harbor uses/ activities oriented attendees and contributors to Harbor Water Quality Committee meetings in the late 90's with comprehensive knowledge and experience of both water quality issues and related maritime uses and activities on water and land. This group was identified by then councilwoman Norma Glover (council rep at HWQC) as being both in tune with water quality issues but also having specific harbor uses/ activities knowledge and expertise, and she/ others suggested an ad hoc "Harbor Committee" be formed to separately discuss and deal with these issues. At this time, the City was also gearing up to update the General Plan, the LCP Land Use Plan and other studies. The 20- person ad hoc Harbor Committee met regularly with City Staff and Council and produced a list of prioritized harbor issues and recommendations needing policies and action, and developed a planning document which, in cooperation with the Planning Department, became the "Harbor and Bay Plan ", later integrated into the updated General Plan as the "GP Harbor and Bay Element ". As the ad hoc Harbor Committee sunset date approached, it and the City discussed whether to continue it as a Committee or reconstitute it as a Commission, extensive discussions resulted in the following general observations and recommendations: a. A continuing Harbor Commission was more appropriate to the longer -range implementation of harbor use/ activity policies, plans and continuing decision - making than an ad hoc or fixed -term Committee; b. Harbor Commissions (23) , or Harbor/Port Authorities/Districts (Ventura, Oceanside) are the long- established entity for ongoing issues and actions of CA harbors; (some variations in names, but primary focus was small-craft harbors c. An informal survey of other government agencies dealing with coastal and harbor issues indicated that they perceived and reacted more positively to dealing with a Commission than a Committee, ( continuity, power, checks & balances, etc.) d. Precendent of an existing Parks Commission for a simpler policy/ asset base. Recommendations supporting a "Harbor Tidelands Management Commission ": i. Continuing validity of original reasons for a "Commission" as stated above; ii. Acknowledgement of broadened/deepened "Tidelands Management" role; iii. Commissioner (current/ former) overlap with TMC /CAP process, plans, iv. Avoidance of negative image "change" or "downgrade" after 10 -year success. VA 2. Harbor Commission / City Council Representatives /Roles The initial Harbor Commissions received solid support and advice /counsel, from City manual for commissions / committees and more importantly the in-meeting, non - intrusive presence of then - Assistant City Manager Dave Kiff on responsibilities, procedures, avoidance of conflicts, and numerous questions. Those who benefitted grew into roles, others followed. This was a learning experience for all as the initial group of Commissioners and the (now- City Manager )Kiff as well the new Harbor Resources Staff benefitted from the technical contributions, contacts and experience of ex -OC Harbor Chief Engineer Tom Rossmiller in an interim consulting role. Harbor Commission members have also provided continuing extension -of -staff roles in the identification and provision of technical resources, preparation and review of key guidelines, plans and policy documents. This role has been praised publicly by prior mayors and council members over the duration of the Harbor Commission to date, and is consistent with the expected role of Newport Beach citizens selected for volunteer roles on commissions and committees to actively engage issues. Since his promotion to City Manager, .M r.:T<iff's role has been replaced by a City Council Liaison role, with Council. Member /Mayor Nancy Gardner serving as the current link to the Council..Harbor Resources Staff and other CNB Staff are present as always/ necessary. In-general. this arrangement has been mutually beneficial. as Mayor Gardner has absorbed a wealth of harbor - specific information and issue knowledge and the Comuussion Members have benefitted from-her interests in water quality, the environment and harbor water activities. Differing opinions and approaches, as in all public endeavors are present, resolved. Despite this continuing arrangement, the creation of a separate Council -based Tidelands Management Sub - Committee (including Mayor. Gardner.) and Citizen's Advisory .Panel (including two former Harbor Commissioners and the current.HC Chair) has raised community questions and concerns as to the possible reduction of a Harbor Commission role. This is particularly heightened by the proposed reversion of the Commission's title and role to that of a Committee, despite the early- established and continuing value of a Commission. The recent Council- proposed change to a Harbor Tidelands Management "Committee" combining the HC and TMC /CAP scope /role with two Council Members, one serving as Chair, and possible CC member voting roles appears to be an excessive and unneeded expansion of Council oversight and control and reduction in role of an otherwise well - established and legally - conforming Harbor Commission. The proposed expansion of the Commission's role to manage all of the Harbor Tidelands is both consistent with its mission and within the capabilities of its current membership. Recommendations supporting an evolved Harbor Tidelands Management Commission- i. Retention of the title and role of Commission as essential to increased role, ii. Commission performs in broadened " Harbor Tidelands Management" role; iii. Council oversight role continues as one non-chair, non -voting member; iv. Strengthened Commission, NB positive images building on 10 -year success 3. Balancing Harbor Expertise and Experience With Unspecified "Conflict" Issues One of the key elements of a Harbor Com.m:ission- knowledgeable and. proactive involvement with Harbor issues and solutions is the unique personal and professional /operational expertise and local, operational and historic knowledge Of the unique characteristics of a specificharbor. Entitlement and regulatory agencies, consultants, visitors and the general 'public involved with these harbors expect and depend upon a high degree of ".local lnowledge" to be able to successfully coordinate their activities and responsibilities with any maritime community and its harbor. Similarly, both water - adjacent and water -using community residents and those residents who merely look at or are benefitted from a distance by a harbor have reason to expect that their fellow citizens who represent them on cotninittees and commissions know what they are doing. This local knowledge is not easily or rapidly "acquired" skill which at a minimum level, is adequate enough. to respond to the complex and changing mix of markets, seasons, natural forces, vessels, watersports, safety, navigation, and other issues and needs. A non - waterfront illustrative analogy would be to assume or hope that a transplanted, inexperienced urban or suburban - experienced group of "gentlemen /gentlewomen farmer individuals, no matter.how intelligent, wealthy, and rapid- learning, could credibly comprise and discharge the responsibilities of a local :Farm. Bureau. in the middle of lows, except as curious and marginal observers. That's not good enough, either in Newton or Newport. Thus by definition, this Newport Harbor expertise and experience, gained through past and current roles as waterfront residents and business operators, service providers, yacht club and watersports activity center user and recreational users is an absolutely essential element of past, current and potential harbor commissioners. Not surprisingly, possession of this experience and expertise, particularly in a position of responsibility where one rrmight self- benefit (legally or illegally) is a. concern of others, including the general public, elected public officials and professional staff. It is important to note that, to my knowledge, throughout the history of the Harbor Commission, no members have had a CNB or other agency- declared actual individual or group conflict of interest with regard to their roles and actions on the Commission, as defined by City, State or Federal laws. One hopes that this record will continue indefinitely. During the initial ten years of the Commission's existence, Commissioners have either in advance, or meeting- self- .recused, or upon seeking CNB Staff advice, have responded to City Attorney/ other staff recusal recommendations in a wide range of areas including yacht clubs, moorings, waterfront properties or businesses, dock reviews and appeals, etc. Recommendations For Future Harbor Commissioner Vetting, Possible Conflict Oversight i. Continue to define field of qualified candidates on basis of harbor experience /expertise; ii Continue present candidate interview, vetting procedures ( "trust, but verify.... ") iii Continue present level of HC Commissioner conflict training, oversight, performance M