Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - AB 2464 (Harper) - Written CommentRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED MARCH 13, 2018 March 13, 2018, City Council Item 16 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher6d.yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 16. AB 2464 (Harper), Professional Services Agreement with Schmitz and Associates, Budget Amendment In my eight or nine years following Newport Beach City Council agendas, this is one of the most opaquely noticed regular agenda items I can recall (to be sure, Study Session agenda items were once very opaquely noticed, but that has since been corrected). Based on a reading of the staff report, the item and action are clearly related to a push to create a "Port Master Plan" for Newport Harbor, which is a novel matter of significant public interest. Yet since the words "Port Master Plan" -- or even "harbor" -- appear nowhere in it, nothing in the agenda notice would give even a well-informed citizen the slightest hint of what the subject is. Considerable independent research would be required to discover that among the bills introduced by Assemblyman Matthew Harper, "AB 2464 (Harper)" would add an as -yet imaginary "Port of Newport Beach" to the Coastal Act, and "Schmitz and Associates" is a lobbying firm specializing in coastal land use issues. Even if there is no intentional effort to hide the fact that the Council is being asked to make a decision to select a legislative advocate for a Port Master Plan, the fact remains that the subject is completely hidden, in apparent violation of the Brown Act. The proposed Professional Services Agreement is also unusual in that it contains no schedule of billing rates. Although technically a "not to exceed" contract (due to the uncertain number of months), the contractor is apparently entitled to $16,000 each month, independent of whether any hours are spent on the effort, or not. Without knowing more about this, I am strongly opposed to both the underlying proposal to pursue a Port Master Plan and the choice of consultant. I completely fail to see what the City is trying to accomplish by what seems to me a quixotic, and likely undesirable, quest to have Newport Harbor be declared a commercial "port" under the Coastal Act. The third paragraph of the "Discussion" on page 16-2 of the staff report creates the misimpression that Assembly Bill 2464 "would create the Port Master Plan concept in state law." As is apparent from the following paragraph, the concept already exists and is applied to the deepwater commercial ports of California — San Diego, Long Beach, Los Angles and Port Hueneme (San Francisco Bay being under a different jurisdiction pre -dating the Coastal Act). As indicated in California Pubic Resources Code Section 30700, an "existing recreation area" (which I assume is all of Newport Harbor), as well as any estuary or wetland, is automatically excluded, and Section 1 of AB 2464, as presented in Attachment A, does nothing to change that: March 13, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 SECTION 1. Section 30700 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read: 30700. 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, Newport Beach, 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. The existing concept of "Ports" under the Coastal Act, which AB 2464 is not proposing to change, therefore seems fundamentally inconsistent with Newport Harbor's vision of itself as a recreational harbor, not an existing hub of maritime commerce. Even if that were not a problem, it would seem to me someone would have to define the geographic limits of the "Port of Newport Beach" before creating a Master Plan for it — something AB 2464 fails to address. And while despite the exclusion of existing recreational areas, several existing Port Master Plans appear to include provisions for local permitting of recreational uses, the stated purpose of the plans in the Public Resources Code is to confine the inevitable environmental impacts of commercial shipping and fishing activity to a limited set of already -impacted areas: Section 30701 Legislative finding and declaration The Legislature finds and declares that: (b) 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. In pursuing a Harbor Master Plan, is the Council knowing asking that Newport Harbor be added to the list of "established commercial" ports available for landing oil tankers and container ships? Or, is it recklessly throwing taxpayer money after a pipe dream of local recreational autonomy, without understanding the consequences of what it is asking? The myth of Newport Beach as the obvious shipping port for Orange County dates from the earliest developers imagining a "New Port" to rival Wilmington and Anaheim Landing (near Seal Beach), and a myth rekindled as shown in the following part of a plan from 1917 for redirecting the Santa Ana River out of the harbor and establishing County wharfs at the foot of what is now Newport Boulevard — culminating in a successful countywide 1919 bond measure campaign to fund the improvements: March 13, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 WHARF, WAREHOO RASLRQAP CONN£[TOI + 1 E57INATWCo T54ki D M AT B7rrSR,POINT _THAT" CO3T162000 �1'1EW OVT4ET fOR Ri0t1[ - ,N4aWa - 94- CONSTEI/[r1ONOrJErnc; R£v£rrrD _ LEv£r5, 51NclE TkFSTLt. UZ111 INC ET✓:,. �`- CSrIKATED CDST S13SOoo C ORANGE COUNTY5 HARBOR L 7 DREDGING CHANNEL E]TIMArLO Corr! 7Q h ()CEA" (images from the Special Collections of the UCI Library as reproduced in Ellen K. Lee's Newport Bay: a pioneer history, pages 82 and 83) t Handbill circulated in igig, at the time of the first Orange County vote on a harbor bond issue. The measure passed, but "commerce" failed to materialize. March 13, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 That today's Council appears to be promoting once again the tried and failed vision of Newport Harbor promoted in the handbill from 99 years ago -- totally at odds with how both users and visitors see the harbor today -- strikes me as amusing. But assuming the Council does wish to embark on this re -visioning of the Harbor as a commercial seaport, I have additional trouble with the recommendation for consultant. Given both his manner and his involvement with Coastal Commission lobbying scandals, when Mr. Schmitz stands up speaking for Newport Beach, I am personally embarrassed for my city.