HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - Proposed Harbor & Bay Element (PA2001-050)Hearin¢ Date:
A¢enda Item No.:
Staff Person:
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Proposed Harbor and Bay Element (PA2001 -050)
June 12, 2001
25
Patrick J. Alford
(949) 644 -3235
SUMMARY: The Harbor and Bay Element is a new optional element of the General Plan
intended to address uses of the water and waterfront property in Newport Bay
and Harbor.
ACTION: 1. Conduct public hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2001 -_ approving the Negative Declaration
and adopting General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2000 -002 (C).
Back round
On January 11, 1999, the City Council established the 13- member Ad Hoc Harbor Committee to make
recommendations on matters pertaining to the Harbor.
On June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended initiation of General Plan Amendment GPA
2000 -1 (C) to adopt a Harbor and Bay Element and the City Council initiated the amendment on June
27, 2000.
On April 11, 2001, the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee held a public workshop to introduce the draft
Element and to receive questions and comments.
On May 16, 2001, the Economic Development Committee recommended to the Planning Commission
and City Council that the proposed Element be adopted.
On May 17, 2001, the Planning Commission voted (7 -0) to recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed Element.
On May 21, 2001, the proposed Element was presented to the Environmental Quality Affairs
Committee (EQAC). EQAC determined that the proposed Element was not within their scope of
responsibilities and voted not to forward recommendations to the City Council.
Analysis
The proposed Harbor and Bay Element would be an optional element of the General Plan. The
proposed Element focuses on issues and policies relating to the uses of the Harbor and Bay and the
surrounding shoreline, setting forth five major goals:
9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
p
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
>O
F
`
33 o NEWPORT BOULEVARD
u
ur
C�4FORNJ
NEWPORT BEACH, G 82658
(949) 644-32-, FAX (949) 644-325°
Hearin¢ Date:
A¢enda Item No.:
Staff Person:
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Proposed Harbor and Bay Element (PA2001 -050)
June 12, 2001
25
Patrick J. Alford
(949) 644 -3235
SUMMARY: The Harbor and Bay Element is a new optional element of the General Plan
intended to address uses of the water and waterfront property in Newport Bay
and Harbor.
ACTION: 1. Conduct public hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2001 -_ approving the Negative Declaration
and adopting General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2000 -002 (C).
Back round
On January 11, 1999, the City Council established the 13- member Ad Hoc Harbor Committee to make
recommendations on matters pertaining to the Harbor.
On June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended initiation of General Plan Amendment GPA
2000 -1 (C) to adopt a Harbor and Bay Element and the City Council initiated the amendment on June
27, 2000.
On April 11, 2001, the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee held a public workshop to introduce the draft
Element and to receive questions and comments.
On May 16, 2001, the Economic Development Committee recommended to the Planning Commission
and City Council that the proposed Element be adopted.
On May 17, 2001, the Planning Commission voted (7 -0) to recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed Element.
On May 21, 2001, the proposed Element was presented to the Environmental Quality Affairs
Committee (EQAC). EQAC determined that the proposed Element was not within their scope of
responsibilities and voted not to forward recommendations to the City Council.
Analysis
The proposed Harbor and Bay Element would be an optional element of the General Plan. The
proposed Element focuses on issues and policies relating to the uses of the Harbor and Bay and the
surrounding shoreline, setting forth five major goals:
9
■ Preserving the diverse uses of the Bay, Harbor, and shoreline.
■ Maintaining and enhancing public access to the Harbor water and waterfront areas.
■ Enhancing the water quality and protecting the marine environment in Newport Harbor
and Upper Newport Bay.
■ Preserving and enhancing the visual character and historical resources of the Harbor
and the Bay.
■ Providing for the ongoing administration and maintenance of the Harbor and Bay.
Each goal carries with it one or more objectives, which would serve as the means of measuring the
achievement of the goals. In turn, each objective has one or more policies, which would be used to
achieve those objectives. Finally, each policy has one or more implementing strategies, which
recommend actions and programs to implement these policies.
Planning Commission Action
On May 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Harbor and Bay
Element. Discussion at the Planning Commission focused on how the Element's policies might be
applied to future projects. The Planning Commission also had questions concerning some of the
comments received from State agencies, particularly those of the Coastal Commission. The Coastal
Commission did not identify any direct conflicts with the Coastal Act, but did suggest revisions that
clarify ambiguities and expand upon Coastal Act policies. However, the Planning Commission
concluded that the proposed Element was consistent with existing City policies and State law and
voted unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council with only a few minor wording
changes.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2000 -002 (C) with
the findings in the attached resolution.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Ga
Exhibits
Prepared by:
PATRICK J. ALFORD
Senior Planner
1. Draft resolution (with 04/17/01 draft of the Harbor and Bay Element).
2. 05/17/01 Planning Commission staff report.
3. Draft 05/17/01 Planning Commission minutes.
Harbor Element (PDA 2000 -041)
June 12, 2001
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH ADOPTING A HARBOR ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
[GPA 2000 -002 (C)]
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65303 of the California Government Code, allows the General
Plan to include any optional elements that relate to the physical development of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Harbor and Bay Element is necessary to control the content of Harbor
Regulations and Harbor Permit Policies and to assist in land use decisions related to properties adjacent
to Newport Bay, and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held
a duly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Harbor and Bay Element; and
WHERAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommended approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 2000 -002 (C); and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2001, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a duly
noticed public hearing regarding the proposed Harbor and Bay Element; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been
conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study
concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The General Plan shall be amended in include the Harbor and Bay Element
provided as "Exhibit A."
3
SECTION 2: Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received,
and all related documents, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
could have a significant effect on the environment and hereby approves a Negative Declaration. The
City Council finds that the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental
impacts of the project, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgement
of the City Council. The Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the
project.
This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held
on June 12, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
q
City of Newport Beach
General Plan
Harbor and Bay Element
INTRODUCTION
There have been visions for Newport Bay ever since the steamer Vaquero entered the bay
in 1870. Over the decades, public and private initiatives enhanced and improved the
natural resources of the Bay to create what is today a world class small craft harbor. The
natural and manmade resources of the Bay were once home to an economy that saw
commercial fishing, fish canning, and industrial shipbuilding coexist with the recreational
boaters, restaurants and waterfront homes. While the days of fish canning and
shipbuilding are gone, the recreational boating and visitor serving industry has flourished
alongside waterfront residences. Newport Bay has been blessed with a variety of uses
and industries that have given the harbor a special charm and character while providing
the services necessary to sustain one of the world's great small boat harbors. The
principal goal of the Harbor and Bay Element is to establish policies and programs that
will preserve this diversity and charm without unduly restricting the rights of the
waterfront property owner.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW
The Harbor and Bay Element is an optional element of the General Plan of the City of
Newport Beach. The State Zoning and Planning Act states: "the general plan may
include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the
legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city." (Section 65303
of the Government Code).
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The Harbor and Bay Element is one of the elements that comprise the City's General
Plan. The Harbor and Bay Element focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront
property in Newport Harbor and supplements provisions of the Land Use and the
Recreation and Open Space Elements.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
The 1976 California Coastal Act was enacted to protect the natural and scenic qualities of
the California coast and to promote public access. The Coastal Act requires that each
jurisdiction with land in the Coastal Zone prepare a local coastal program (LCP). The
LCP establishes land use policies and implementing ordinances that conserve and
enhance the coastal resources within a community. The City has adopted, and the
Coastal Commission has approved, the Land Use Plan component of the LCP but has not
yet adopted all of the implementing ordinances necessary to approval of a certified LCP.
The Harbor and Bay Element is intended to provide general policy guidance with respect
to a specific portion of the City within the Coastal Zone but is not intended to supplant or
5
1 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
modify the Land Use Plan of the City's LCP. Certain policies in the Land Use Plan of
the LCP are referenced in this element.
RELATIONSHIP TO CITY ORDINANCES AND POLICIES
The Harbor Element is intended to control the content of Harbor Regulations and Harbor
Permit Policies related to development of, and the activities conducted on, that portion of
the Harbor bayward of the bulkhead or the line of mean high tide. The Harbor Element
will be considered in land use decisions related to properties adjacent to Newport Bay.
Low
RIM
Exhibit A - 05/17/01
GOAL 1113-1: DIVERSITY OF USES
Preserve the diverse uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm
and character of Newport Bay, that provide needed support for recreational boaters,
visitors, and residents with regulations limited to those necessary to protect the interests
of all users. The following are some of the uses that contribute to the diversity and charm
of Newport Bay and should be preserved and enhanced where possible:
1. Water- dependent and water - related recreational activities such as
boating, sailing, wind surfing, fishing, kayaking, rowing, and
swimming.
2. Water- dependent and water - related commercial activities such as
passenger /sightseeing boats, passenger - fishing boats, boat rentals and
sales, entertainment boats, boat/ship repair and maintenance, and
harbor maintenance facilities.
3. Water - enhanced commercial uses such as, but not limited to,
restaurants and retail stores.
4. Waterfront public recreation and education areas and facilities such as
beaches, piers, view parks and nautical museums and related public
areas providing access to, and views of, Newport Harbor.
5. Waterfront residential communities.
Objective
HB -1.1: Ensure that water dependent and water related uses and recreational
activities remain a primary use of the Harbor.
Policies
HB- 1.1.1: Designate water- dependent uses /activities as the highest
priority, water - related uses /activities as the second priority,
and water - enhanced uses /activities as the third priority.
HB- 1.1.2: When reviewing proposals for land uses changes, the City
shall consider the impact on water - dependent and water -
related land uses and activities and the importance of
providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential
to the operation of the Harbor. This shall include not only
the proposed change on the subject property, but also the
potential to limit existing land uses, activities, facilities,
and services on adjacent properties. However, in no case,
q
3 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
shall the protection of such land uses, activities, facilities,
and services deny an owner viable economic use of the
property.
HB- 1.1.3: In considering the essential nature of land uses that support
the Harbor, the City shall consider whether or not the use
can be relocated elsewhere and/or technological advances
that may render the use obsolete within the foreseeable
future.
Implementation Strategies
1. Maintain and update when appropriate the Recreational and
Marine Commercial land use designation and zoning district as a
means of encouraging the continuation of water - dependent, water -
related, and visitor - serving uses while respecting the property
rights of waterfront owners/lessees.
2. Consider amendments to the Recreational Marine Commercial
land use designation and zoning district to provide incentives for
water dependent and water related uses such as floor area and
parking waivers, density transfers, density bonuses, transfer of
development rights and fee waivers.
3. Explore development of a program to upgrade public parking and
public access for all waterfront uses.
4. Utilize long term tideland leases as a mechanism for encouraging
the retention of water dependent and water related uses with
variable rent schedules depending on the nature and intensity of the
waterside facilities and uses.
5. Continue to offer City sponsored water dependent recreational and
educational programs and continue to sponsor and/or support the
various organized water recreational uses by the private
organizations that conduct events such as the Sea Scout Base,
collegiate rowing clubs and yacht clubs.
6. Continue to provide, and enhance when feasible, support facilities
for continued unstructured marine activities such as swimming,
kayaking and day - sailing, to ensure that participants can enjoy the
Harbor without joining organizations or participating in organized
events.
7. Continue to coordinate harbor event planning through appropriate
agencies, such as the Harbor Resources Division of the City
4 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
Managers office, the Community Services Department, the Harbor
Commission and the Harbor Patrol.
8. Provide a limited number of designated public recreational fishing
docks with limited hours, separate from public recreational docks
provided for exclusive use by boating and water transportation
activities.
9. Continue to sponsor and/or support all youth oriented water sports
programs and facilities and encourage participation in such events
and activities.
Objective
HB -1.2: Preserve existing commercial uses in the Harbor to the extent necessary to
maintain and enhance the charm and character of the Harbor and to
provide support services for visitors, recreational boaters and other water
dependent activities.
Policies
HB- 1.2.1: Support continued operation of passenger /sightseeing
boats, passenger fishing boats ( "day boats "), and long -term
boat rentals and sales.
HB- 1.2.2: Support continued short-term rental of small boats while
encouraging vendors to teach customers how to safely
operate the watercraft and encouraging the Harbor Patrol to
enforce laws designed to protect the public.
HB- 1.2.3: Support continued operation of entertainment boats subject
to reasonable regulations designed to ensure the operations
don't have an adverse impact, such as impaired water
quality, reduced visual quality, excessive noise, unsafe
traffic conditions, or parking shortages, on the environment
or on other uses available for other users.
HB -1.2.4 Ensure that land use regulations applicable to waterfront
property continue to allow a wide variety of water
dependent, water related and water enhanced uses.
HB -1.2.5 Encourage retention of facilities necessary to support
vessels berthed or moored in the Harbor, such as boat haul
out facilities, with due regard for changes in the boating
industry.and the rights of property owners /lessees.
5 Exhibit A - 05/17/01 q
Implementation Strategies
1. Develop strategies to preserve uses that provide essential
support for the vessels berthed or moored in the Harbor.
The strategies must be feasible, cost effective, and respect
the property rights of waterfront owners and lessees. The
strategies may include parking waivers, development
transfers, density bonuses and voluntary purchase of
conservation easements.
2. Continue to offer educational and recreational programs
that provide public awareness of, and access to, water
dependent recreational activities.
3. Continue to work with the various community and business
associations such as the Balboa Village Merchants &
Owners Association, Mariners Mile Business Owners
Association and the Newport Pier Association as well as
the vessel owners /operators to provide for the parking
needs of the patrons of sportfishing boats, passenger and
sightseeing vessels, and boat rentals.
4. Enforce existing ordinances and, if necessary, establish
new standards for the operation of entertainment,
sportfishing and work boats to ensure that the operations do
not adversely impact water quality or generate excessive
pollution, noise, traffic congestion or parking shortages.
5. Consider the use of long -term tideland leases, rather than
the current system of issuing annual harbor permits, as the
mechanism for authorizing the maintenance or construction
of piers, floats and structures on tidelands. Consider use of
leases as an additional mechanism for identifying and
enforcing Harbor Ordinances and Harbor Policies. .
6. Encourage programs that educate boaters and property
owners on safe boating and berthing practices integrated
with a permit/lease enforcement component that will
protect the public health and safety as well as the rights of
other users and owners /lessees.
7. Establish special operating conditions for special events
such as the Christmas Boat Parade and other activities that
are seasonal, recurring and unique to the Harbor, but which
may require special controls on access, parking, noise and
a
6 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
other factors to minimize impacts on residential areas and
other users.
Objective
HB -1.3: Provide a variety of vessel berthing and storage opportunities.
Policies
HB- 1.3.1: Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings
as an important source of low -cost public access to the
water and Harbor.
HB- 1.3.2: Preserve, and expand when feasible, marinas and dry boat
storage facilities.
HB- 1.3.3: Provide anchorages in designated areas, which minimize
interference with navigation and where shore access and
support facilities are available.
HB- 1.3.4: Adopt and enforce the ordinances that require moored and
docked vessels to be seaworthy and navigable and thereby
preserve the positive image of the Harbor and promote
public use of the water.
HB- 1.3.5: Maintain existing guest docks and encourage addition of
guest dock capacity at City facilities, yacht clubs and at
privately owned - marinas, restaurants and other appropriate
locations.
HB -1.3.6 Allow "live - aboards" subject to restrictions on the number
of "live - aboards" as well as restrictions to protect the
environment, the public and waterfront owners/lessees such
as regulations prohibiting excessive noise and illegal waste
disposal.
HB -1.3.7 Continue to authorize, pursuant to permit, license or lease,
existing piers and docks bayward of waterfront residential
properties subject to appropriate conditions that ensure
compatibility with residential uses.
Implementation Strategies
1. Consider a policy of authorizing waterside improvements such as
piers, docks and floats through long -term tideland leases that allow
7 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
waterfront owners /lessees to obtain financing for improvements to
and enhancements of commercial piers and floats.
2. Provide, and regularly update, standards for construction and
maintenance of marinas that represent industry standards.
3. Facilitate necessary periodic dredging for safe navigability and
access to marinas, for vessel berthing and beach nourishment by
working to obtain Harbor -wide maintenance dredging permits
from all agencies with jurisdiction over the Harbor.
4. Enforce the derelict boat ordinance by regular inspections and
strengthen or refine it periodically to accomplish its objectives.
Objective
HB -1.4: Preserve and encourage enhancement of existing commercial areas,
including the redevelopment of outdated or antiquated commercial
development, in a manner that maintains the charm and character of
the Harbor.
Policies
HB- 1.4.1: Preserve and/or enhance existing water - enhanced, water
related and water- dependent commercial uses and marine
oriented commercial areas through land use regulations and
programs that preserve the charm and character of the
Harbor while respecting the rights of other users.
HB- 1.4.2: Encourage redevelopment of outmoded or antiquated
Harbor commercial uses as part of an overall program to
revitalize the older commercial and marine oriented areas,
especially in those areas with adequate infrastructure and
parcels suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project.
Implementation Strategies
1. Identify and define the unique water - enhanced and water -
dependent characteristics and potential of Harbor commercial uses
and commercial -use districts in terms of special uses, architecture
and design guidelines.
2. Provide development incentives such as density bonuses, parking
waivers, transfer of development rights and fee waivers as well as
public facility support, such as shared parking, to existing and
8 Exhibit A - 05/17/01 1�
redeveloped uses/projects which best typify the nautical character
and charm of the Harbor and serve the users of the Harbor.
3. Existing and new commercial uses and commercial complexes
should be encouraged to provide, as a part of any proposal for new
development, when feasible and compatible with nearby uses,
waterfront pedestrian areas and guest or water taxi docking
between the bulkhead and pierhead lines.
Objective
HB -1.5: Maintain and enhance existing marine support uses and encourage and
provide incentives for retention and expansion of these uses.
Policies
HB- 1.5.1: Preserve, and enhance or expand when feasible, existing
marine support uses serving the needs of existing
waterfront uses, recreational boaters, the boating
community, and visiting vessels.
HB- 1.5.2: Encourage the development and operation of new marine
support uses.
HB- 1.5.3: Support private sector uses, such as vessel assistance, that
provide emergency, environmental enhancement and other
services that not are provided by the public sector and that
are essential to the operation of a working harbor.
HB- 1.5.4: Encourage development of waterfront facilities that
accommodate displaced water - dependent uses.
Imylementation Stratep-ies
Identify and define the unique water - dependent characteristics of
marine support uses and establish specific land use and design
standards and incentives for retention and enhancement of these
uses while respecting property rights. Land use incentives may
include a density bonus, waiver of parking requirements and
reduced rent for waterside facilities.
2. Encourage new development or redevelopment to integrate
existing marine support uses into proposed development whenever
feasible by granting density bonuses, floor area waivers, fee
waivers, parking waivers and other incentives.
13
9 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
3. Where waterfront pedestrian accessways may exist or be
developed in portions of the Harbor adjacent to marine sales and
service uses, the City should work with these uses to provide
public access detours around cross - bulkhead equipment operations
which present security or public safety concerns.
4. When necessary to preserve water dependent marine support uses
that are essential to the ability of the Harbor to serve the needs of
recreational boaters or other users, such as boat haul -out facilities,
consider providing financial support to a waterfront owner or long
term lessee if, and only if
(a) financial support is expressly requested in writing by the owner
orlessee;
(b) in consideration of the financial support the City acquires a
conservation easement or similar property interest that would
preserve the use;
(c) in the event that a conservation easement or other restriction is
acquired from a lessee, the term of the easement or restriction
shall not exceed the term of the lessee's interest in the
property.
GOAL HB -2: PUBLIC ACCESS
Maintain and enhance public access to the Harbor water and waterfront areas.
Objective
HB -2.1: Improve and extend public pedestrian, vehicular, and boat access.
Policies
HB- 2.1.1: Encourage the expansion and improvement of
existing public waterfront access and water -uses
access which provide important links to waterfront
uses such as beaches, small vessel launching
facilities, public docks, and other similar public
water area uses.
HB- 2.1.2: Encourage the creation of a single waterfront public
pedestrian space, with adjacent water access and
J`
10 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
docking facilities, that serves as the identity and
activity "center" of Newport Harbor for special
events of community /regional interest.
HB- 2.1.3: Encourage the expanded development of waterfront
public pedestrian access systems and facilities such
as waterfront boardwalks and links between
commercial waterfronts and public sidewalks on
adjacent streets with due regard to protection of
property and property rights.
HB- 2.1.4: Encourage and provide incentives for the private
construction of elements of public waterfront
pedestrian connections and areas along the Harbor
perimeter, where practicable, as part of waterfront
access and use areas such as outdoor dining, etc.
HB- 2.1.5: New or improved public access facilities shall be
consistent with the infrastructure holding capacity
and compatible with existing land uses.
HB- 2.1.6: Encourage an increase in the capacity and
availability of day use and overnight dockage in
commercial areas with restroom facilities provided
within the Harbor by public and private entities
subject to appropriate restrictions to protect water
quality.
HB- 2.1.7: Encourage new and improved facilities and services
for visiting vessels, including public mooring and
docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club
guest docks, pump -out stations and other features,
through City, County, and private means.
Implementation Strategies
1. Prepare and adopt Harbor access guidelines describing
potential public and private (and joint public /private) elements
of a Harbor -wide waterfront access system, and links to
parking and public transportation systems.
2. Provide a comprehensive system of directional and
informational signage for the Harbor perimeter vehicular and
pedestrian access systems and related parking, land and water
transportation facilities serving the Harbor and its uses.
I�
11 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
3. Continue to provide, and encourage expansion of low -cost
public access to the Harbor for boaters via moorings, trailer
launch ramps and boat hoists, commercial landing facilities,
and organized recreational boating launch facilities.
4. Provide adequate landside and waterfront access to anchorages,
offshore and onshore moorings through dinghy launch, dinghy
storage, and public parking facilities throughout the Harbor.
Objective
HB -2.2: Maintain and enhance existing harbor public water transportation;
encourage and provide incentives for expansion of these uses and land
support facilities.
Policies
HB- 2.2.1: Maintain and enhance existing water transportation uses
and their support facilities that provide important public
transportation services linking the Harbor with other
resort and tourism destinations and providing cross -
Harbor service. Preference should be given to the
existing water - dependent uses of this type that are
located in the Harbor, and that cannot operate without
adequate and appropriate land parking areas, vehicular
and pedestrian access and docking and navigability
access.
HB- 2.2.2: Encourage the expanded development and improved
operation of existing and new public and private water
transportation systems and facilities (vessels, docks,
waiting areas, pedestrian access, parking, etc) that
provide a diversity of coastal and in- harbor water
transportation choices, (ferries, water taxis, etc.)
HB- 2.2.3: Encourage development of additional public and private
docks to serve only water transportation uses and
activities.
Implementation Strategies
1. Identify and define the unique water - dependent characteristics
and potentials of Harbor water transportation uses, and
establish guidelines and incentives for retention and
I�
12 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
enhancement of these uses and their necessary land and water
equipment and facilities.
2. Provide development incentives (water access, fee waivers,
parking waivers, density bonuses etc.) and public agency
support (parking, pedestrian walks, signage, etc.) to existing
and new water transportation uses that serve the local
community, visitors, and groups with special needs.
3. Establish land use and development controls and restrictions
limiting potential changes that would adversely affect
established Harbor water transportation uses.
4. Adopt land use and development incentives that will encourage
existing and new owners and operators of water transportation
uses to retain otherwise economically viable and essential
water - transportation uses in any redevelopment of existing
waterfront areas essential to the function of these uses.
5. In conjunction with existing and new waterfront access,
encourage the provision of links to public and private parking
and supplemental land and water transportation systems, such
as seasonal shuttles, water taxis, etc.
GOAL HB -3: WATER QUALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Enhance the water quality and protect the marine environment in Newport Harbor and
Upper Newport Bay.
Objective
HB -3.1: Protect, preserve and enhance the natural wildlife and plant -life in
and around Upper and Lower Newport Bay.
HB -3.2 Enhance the water quality in Upper Newport Bay and Newport
Harbor.
Policies
HB- 3.1.1: Protect and enhance the marine environment in the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and
Newport Harbor
11
13 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
HB- 3.1.2: Ensure that the water quality in Upper Newport Bay
and Newport Harbor meets Federal, State and local
standards for human body contact and will allow the
marine environment to survive and flourish.
HB -3.1.3 Participate in and support cooperative programs
with other cities, public agencies and resources
agencies within, or with jurisdiction over, the San
Diego Creek watershed to adopt and implement
programs, regulations and funding to
sustain/maintain /enhance the marine environment
and water quality in Upper Newport Bay and
Newport Harbor.
HB -3.1.4 Provide opportunities and facilities for visual
interaction and educational opportunities for
appreciation and protection of the wildlife and
plant -life of the Upper Bay and Newport Harbor
and the importance of water quality to the
protection of the marine environment.
Implementation Strate ies
1. Actively promote and pursue all legislative avenues needed for
protecting and funding of the resources of the Upper Newport
Bay and Newport Harbor.
2. Actively enforce Federal, State and local water quality
requirements including those that regulate discharges from
both point and non -point sources.
3. Actively participate in regional programs designed to insure
management of the watershed of Newport Bay consistent with
Best Management Practices (BMP's) by all stakeholders in the
San Diego Creek watershed.
4. Participate in the Newport Bay Watershed planning activities
to promote upstream management of pollutants to the Bay and
sedimentation.
5. In cooperation with other agencies, implement the Total
Maximum Daily Loads established for various pollutants by
order of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
6. Develop facilities to educate the public on the importance of
water quality to the preservation of the natural resources in
1�
14 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
Upper Newport Bay and Newport Harbor. The facilities should
include water quality testing labs and the curriculum should be
designed to educate adults and children of all ages on the
importance of water quality to the vitality of the ecosystems in
Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay.
GOAL HB -4: VISUAL CHARACTER
Preserve and enhance the visual character and historical resources of the Harbor and the
Bay.
Objective
HB -4.1: Maintain and enhance the diverse waterfront image of Newport
Harbor by preserving its variety of beach/bulkhead profiles which
have characterized its residential and commercial waterfronts.
Policies
HB- 4.1.1: Balance private property rights, natural harbor
hydraulic and coastal processes (such as erosion and
accretion) and harbor aesthetics with other policies
when considering designs for new or renovated
bulkhead permits.
HB- 4.1.2: Where not in conflict with natural harbor hydraulic
and other coastal processes, and safe navigation and
berthing of vessels within established areas for
same, bulkheads shall be allowed and designed to
protect the character of the existing beach profiles
found around the Harbor and island perimeters.
Objective
HB -4.2: Maintain unique historical resources of Newport Harbor.
Policy
HB- 4.2.1: Encourage the retention and enhancement of unique
buildings, building complexes, uses, and activity
centers that have served as recognized `landmarks"
and "icons" in the physical development/appearance
and cultural history of the Harbor.
Jq
15 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
Implementation Strateev
1. Identify areas and buildings representative of the history of
Newport Harbor, and encourage their preservation and reuse,
when feasible.
2. Consider adoption of ordinances that provide incentives to the
retention of historic structures, such as parking waivers, floor
area waivers and designations that can result in tax credits.
3. Consider adoption of a voluntary program pursuant to which
the City would acquire property rights such as architecture or .
facade easements when requested by the property owner and
funds are available.
GOAL HB -5: ADMINISTRATION
Provide for the ongoing administration and maintenance of the Harbor and Bay.
Objective
HB -5.1: Promote ongoing coordination between the City, County, and State
and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in-the Harbor and
Bay.
Policies
HB- 5.1.1: Prepare and distribute information to those who use,
work in, or own property around the Harbor that
promotes the goals and objectives of this Element.
HB- 5.1.2:
Coordinate and update all Harbor planning, design,
engineering, and environmental criteria, standards,
requirements and processes on a regular basis.
Implementation Strategies
1. Consider the formation of a Harbor Commission to serve as
an advisory and/or decision - making body for Harbor
Permits, Harbor related improvements, and other issues as
deemed appropriate by the City Council.
it
16 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
2. Prepare a reference document that provides a summary of
information (including a single point of contact) that will
help waterfront owners, marine contractors and others
involved in harbor construction and harbor activities
understand and comply with all Harbor and Bay regulatory
and permitting processes.
3. Prepare a document that provides vessel owners and
visitors with information (accessible by radio, telephone
and/or other electronic media) on temporary mooring and
guest dock availability /reservations, vessel services such as
the location of pump -out stations, contacts in the event of
an emergency (such as fuel or sewage spills) and harbor
attractions.
4. Encourage the Harbor Patrol, as part of its administration of
moorings, and in coordination with the Harbor Resources
Division, to provide visitor information as specified in
Implementation Strategy No. 3.
5. Establish and enforce standards and guidelines for various
harbor activities and uses (and related shore -based
activities, such as docking, boarding, and parking) that
generate noise, traffic congestion or parking shortages to
minimize the impact of those uses and activities on other
waterfront owners /lessees.
Objective
HB -5.2: Provide the capability within the Harbor to locate water- dependent
harbor maintenance equipment and facilities with harbor access.
Policies
HB- 5.2.1: Provide harbor access for harbor maintenance
equipment and facilities, including dredging, dock
demolition, repair and construction, mooring
services, debris and spill management equipment,
and general harbor construction, maintenance and
repair.
HB- 5.2.2: Work with other controlling agencies within the
Harbor, and/or the Bay, to define an area that can
support harbor maintenance facilities and
equipment.
�1
17 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
HB- 5.2.3: Utilize, or establish, and enforce consistently,
government and marine industry standards and
guidelines for the operation and environmental
controls of such uses and activities. Establish
procedures and public /private cooperation and
communication for the emergency use of these
facilities and equipment in advance of flood, storm,
pollution, dredging, vessel sinking, and other
events, and to implement these procedures from
these uses as "emergency bases of operations"
supplementing public agency safety and rescue
bases and equipment.
Objective
HB -5.3: Maintain and enhance navigation channels, public and private
vessel berthing areas and beaches.
Policies
HB- 5.3.1: Maintain public Bay beaches through beach
nourishment programs to the fullest extent possible
for the enjoyment and safety of the general public
and harbor residents, and for the protection of
existing structures.
HB- 5.3.2: Pursue means of sand retention (in addition to beach
nourishment) when possible and cost effective, with
minimum disruption to beach continuity and visual
aesthetics.
HB- 5.3.3: Maintain adequate dredged depths for safe boat
navigation and berthing throughout all areas of the
Harbor, with particular attention to safety and
rescue, residential and commercial dockage and
channel access areas of high use intensity and
safety.
Implementation Strategies
1. Establish a comprehensive program for the monitoring and
nourishing beaches, including the identification of cost -
effective sources of sand of sufficient quality to produce a
stable beach profile.
18 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
2. Analyze the need for groins on a case by case basis, with
consideration to cost - effectiveness, environmental and visual
impacts, and alternative methods of sand retention.
3. Prioritize and establish financial responsibility and appropriate
scheduling and oversight responsibilities for dredging projects.
4. Establish an efficient inter - agency system for the adequate and
timely funding and permitting of dredging projects.
Objective
HB -5.4: Balance harbor revenues, expenses, transfer between funds or
government entities and subsidies as related to each activity.
Policies
HB- 5.4.1: Receive a fair return from all tideland users to
recapture all related City investment, services and
management costs.
HB- 5.4.2: Provide alternative and supplemental Harbor
funding, including seeking and obtaining federal
and state grants and loans for boater safety,
education, maintenance, and capital improvements
of the Harbor from funds contributed by the City,
County, and citizens of Newport Beach, as well as
all harbor users.
HB -5.4.3 Encourage longer -term tidelands leases to
waterfront owners to assist in redevelopment,
maintenance, and financing of waterfront
developments.
Implementation Strateu
1. Provide periodic accounting of City costs and revenues
associated with operation of tidelands areas and facilities
by use category.
2. Actively seek and obtain supplemental funding sources for
needed Harbor maintenance and capital improvements from
existing and new federal, state and local sources.
J3
19 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
3. Implement a tideland leasing program pursuant to which
waterfront property owners /lessees enter into long term
tideland leases with rental rates that reflect the nature and
intensity of permitted uses and activities and security for
funding enhanced or expanded facilities.
GLOSSARY
Anchorage Area. A water area outside of navigation channels designated for the
temporary anchorage of vessels, using their own anchoring tackle.
Berth. A generic term defining any location, such as a floating dock, slip, mooring and
the related water area (berthing area) adjacent to or around it, intended for the storage of
a vessel in water.
Bulkhead. Vertical walls built into and along the Harbor shoreline preventing the erosion
of land into the water and to protect the land from wave, tide and current action by the
water, similar to a "retaining wall" on land. Bulkheads may be directly bordered by
water, or may have sloped stones (riprap) or sand beach between the bulkhead and the
water and land areas.
Bulkhead Line. Harbor land/water perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the
federal government, which define the permitted limit of filling or solid structures which
may be constructed in the Harbor.
Channel. A water area in Newport Harbor designated for vessel navigation, with
necessary width and depth requirements, and which may be marked or otherwise
designated on federal navigation charts, as well as in other sources.
Charter Vessel. A vessel used principally for charter purposes, a "charter" being a rental
agreement, generally for a period of one day or more.
Dock. A structure generally linked to the shoreline, to which a vessel may be secured. A
dock may be fixed to the shore, on pilings, or floating in the water.
Dry Storage. Dry storage of vessels includes all on -land storage of vessels- including
vessels normally stored in open or enclosed rack structures, on trailers, on cradles, on
boat stands, or by other means.
Entertainment/Excursion Vessels. Commercial vessels engaged in the carrying of
passengers for hire for hire for the purposes of fishing, whale watching, diving,
educational activities, harbor and coastal tours, dining/drinking, business or social special
events and entertainment.
�a
20 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
Groin. A structure that extends from a beach or bulkhead perpendicularly to the
shoreline into tidal waters, intended to trap and retain and/or reduce the erosion of sand
and retard the general erosion of the shoreline and undermining of shore protection
structures (bulkheads, riprap slopes, etc.)
Harbor Construction (Design Criteria and Standard Drawings). City of Newport Beach
publication governing all bulkheads, groins, pier, docks and other structures bayward of
the Bulkhead Line.
Harbor Maintenance Uses, Equipment, and Facilities. All uses, and their related
equipment, vessels, docking and land storage facilities and access which provide:
dredging and beach replenishment; demolition, repair and new construction of docks,
piers, bulkheads and other in -and- over -water structures; mooring maintenance and repair;
waterbome debris and pollution control, collection and removal. This category also
includes environmental, survey or scientific vessels and related equipment based, or on
assignment, in Newport Harbor. All vessels under this definition may also be referred to
as "work boats."
Harbor Lines. All established Bulkhead, Pierhead, and Project Lines as defined within
Newport Harbor by the federal, state, county and city governments.
Harbor Permit Policies. City of Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual Section H -1,
governing permits for structures bayward of the bulkhead line, and related parking,
sanitary, utility and related support requirements
Harbor Regulations. Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code governing structures,
uses and activities within the Harbor
Launching Facility. A generic term referring to any location, structures (ramps, docks)
and equipment (cranes, lifts, hoists, etc.) where vessels may be placed into, and retrieved
from the Harbor waters.
Live - aboard. Any person who uses a vessel as a domicile as that term is defined in
Section 200 of the Elections Code of the State of California, including permanently or on
a temporary basis for a period exceeding 3 days.
Marina. A berthing facility (other than moorings or anchorage) in which five or more
vessels are wet- stored (in water) and/ or dry- stored (on land/racks or on floating docks).
Marine Sales and Service Uses & Vessels. Uses and vessels, as well as related
equipment, which provide repair, maintenance, new construction, parts and supplies,
fueling, waste removal, cleaning, and related services to vessels berthed in, or visiting,
Newport Harbor. Typical service uses include, but are not limited to, all uses and vessels
described under Section 20.05.050 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code.
�S
21 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
Mooring. A device consisting of a floating ball, can or other object that is secured
permanently to the Harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel.
Mooring Area. An area designated for a group of moorings.
Newport Bay. The terms "Newport Bay" and "Newport Harbor" are often used
interchangeably. However, Newport Bay is an estuary consisting of the Lower Newport
Bay (south of Pacific Coast Highway) and the Upper Newport Bay (north of Pacific
Coast Highway). Newport Harbor generally refers to all the water area within Lower
Newport Bay and within the Upper Newport Bay, exclusive of the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve.
Pier. A fixed structure extending from the shore into a body of water.
Pier, Private. A pier used for private recreational purposes by the owner(s) or
occupant(s) of the abutting upland property without payment of a separate rental or lease
fee, except for permit fees to City.
Pier, Public. A pier used for public recreational purposes provided by a public agency
Pierhead Line. Harbor water area perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the
federal government which define the permitted limit of fixed pier, floating dock and
other in -water structures which may be constructed in the Harbor.
Proiect Lines. Harbor water area channel lines of the improvements constructed by the
federal government in 1935 -1936, and as shown on navigation charts of Newport Harbor.
Also referred to as the "Federal Channel ". (see Newport Beach City Design Criteria and
Standard Drawings for Harbor Construction)
Shore Mooring. A mooring for small boats which is located in the nearshore perimeter of
the Harbor and its islands, perpendicular to the shoreline. One end of the mooring line is
attached to a point on or adjacent to the perimeter bulkhead, and the other end is attached
to a mooring buoy located in the water, inside the pierhead line.
Turning Basin. An area, often designated on nautical charts, connected to a channel that
is large enough to allow vessels to maneuver or turn around.
Vessel. Watercraft, such as boats, ships, small craft, barges, etc. whether motorized, sail -
powered or hand - powered, which are used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation, recreation, safety /rescue, service or commerce on water. This includes all
vessels of any size (other than models) homeported, launched/retrieved, or visiting in
Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and registered or unregistered under state or
federal requirements.
Water Dependent Use. Those uses that are tied to and require water, including fishing
and other vessel rental and charter, water transportation, water public safety and
22 Exhibit A - 05/17/01 ab
enforcement, marinas, boatyards, yacht/sailing/boating/fishing clubs, watersports
instructional and educational facilities, public and guest docking facilities and landside
support uses, dredging, marine construction and harbor service and maintenance uses and
related equipment.
Water - Enhanced Use. Those waterfront or waterfront- adjacent land uses and activities,
including restaurants and residential uses that derive economic, aesthetic and other
amenity benefits from proximity to and views of water and water -based activities, but
which do not need direct access and proximity to the water in order to accomplish their
basic functional and economic operation.
Water Related Use. Those uses that relate to but do not require water, including nautical
museums, bait and tackle shops, boat charter, rental, sales, storage, construction and/or
repair, marine- related retail sales, and marine- related industry.
Water Transportation Use. This group of uses includes in- harbor and coastal/offshore
ferry services, in- harbor water taxi services, docking, parking, offices and other water and
land support facilities.
y�
23 Exhibit A - 05/17/01
a+e"rDpRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
S3oo NEWPORT BOULEVARD
.1,
c�4FpaY`t NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644-5°° FAX (949) 644-55°
PROJECT:
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Background
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item:
Staff Person:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Proposed Harbor and Bay Element (PA2001 -050)
May 17, 2001
Patrick J. Alford
(949) 644 -3235
The Harbor and Bay Element is a new optional element of the General Plan
intended to address uses of the water and waterfront property in Newport
Bay and Harbor.
Approve the Negative Declaration making the findings contained in
Exhibit 1; and
Adopt Resolution No. 2001 -_ recommending approval to the City
Council of GPA 2000 -002 (C) subject to the findings for approval
stated in the resolution.
On January 11, 1999, the City Council established the 13- member Ad Hoc Harbor Committee to
make recommendations on matters pertaining to the Harbor.
On June 8, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended initiation of General Plan Amendment
GPA 2000 -1 (C) to adopt a Harbor and Bay Element and the City Council initiated the amendment
on June 27, 2000.
On April 11, 2001, the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee held a public workshop[ to introduce the draft
Harbor and Bay Element and to receive questions and comments.
Anal sis
The Proposed Element
The proposed Harbor and Bay Element (Exhibit 1) would be an optional element of the General
Plan. Under State law, a City may include in its general plan any element that relates to its physical
development. The proposed Element would focus on the issues and policies relating to the uses of
the Harbor and Bay and the surrounding shoreline.
Notices were mailed to every bayfront property owner, harbor permit holder, and mooring permit holder in the City.
In addition, notices will be sent to every bayfront community association and a one - eighth -page display ad was
published in the Daily Pilot. ^
d��
Each goal carves with it one or more objectives, which would serve as the means of measuring the
achievement of the goals. In turn, each objective has one or more policies, which would be used to
achieve those objectives. Finally, each policy has one or more implementing strategies, which
recommend actions and programs to implement these policies.
The proposed Element sets forth five major goals:
• Preserving the diverse uses of the Bay, Harbor, and shoreline.
■ Maintaining and enhancing public access to the Harbor water and waterfront areas.
• Enhancing the water quality and protecting the marine environment in Newport
Harbor and Upper Newport Bay.
• Preserving and enhancing the visual character and historical resources of the Harbor
and the Bay.
• Providing for the ongoing administration and maintenance of the Harbor and Bay.
The proposed Element calls for water - dependent and water - related uses and recreational activities
to be the primary use of the Harbor. However, the proposed Element also calls for preserving and
enhancing waterfront commercial areas and waterfront residential communities.
The proposed Element also calls for maintaining and enhancing all forms of access to the water and
waterfront areas. In addition to pedestrian access, the proposed Element addresses access in the
form of parking, launching ramps, boat hoists, docks, moorings, and similar facilities. One of the
more visionary policies encourages the creation of a waterfront public pedestrian space to serve as
public focal point of the harbor and serve as the activity center for special events. .
While the proposed Element focuses on harbor- related activities, issues of water quality and
protection of the environment in both the Lower and Upper Newport Bay are also addressed. _ The
policies and implementation strategies emphasize participation and cooperation with other cities,
public agencies and resources agencies that have jurisdiction over the Bay and its watershed.
The proposed Element calls for consideration of harbor aesthetics in the design of bulkheads. The
proposed Element also calls for bulkheads to be allowed and designed to protect the character of the
existing beach profiles found around the Harbor and island perimeters, where possible. The
proposed Element also encourages the preservation and reuse of areas and buildings that are
representative of the history of Newport Harbor, when feasible.
The proposed Element emphasizes the need for coordination among the City, County, and State and
Federal agencies for the ongoing administration and maintenance of the Harbor and Bay. The
proposed Element also recognizes the need to provide access for harbor maintenance equipment
and facilities and to maintain and enhance navigation channels, public and private vessel berthing
Harbor & Bay Element (PA2001 -050)
May 17, 2001
Page 2 D
areas and beaches. Finally, the proposed Element recognizes the need to secure appropriate
funding for the administration and maintenance of the Harbor and Bay.
Comments from the Coastal Commission
The California Coastal Commission submitted comments on the proposed Element (Exhibit 4).
Most significant of these is the recommendation that the proposed Element be processed as an
amendment to the City's certified Loral Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan. The Coastal
Commission correctly states the proposed Element contains policies that directly affect activities
and development in areas that are within their jurisdiction and that the LCP Land Use Plan and the
Coastal Act will take precedence over the policies of the proposed Element. The Coastal
Commission therefore believes that a concurrent amendment to the LCP Land Use Plan is
necessary to insure consistency.
On March 27, 2001, the City Council directed staff to establish a process to submit a completed
LCP to the Coastal Commission for certification. This process will likely involve revisions to the
LCP Land Use Plan as well as the adoption of a number of implementing ordinances. Staff
believes that this is the appropriate process to address the Coastal Commission's apparent goal of
integrating Harbor and Bay Element polices into the LCP.
The Coastal Commission also submitted recommendations concerning policies relating to
residential land uses, parking waivers, tideland leases, vessel berthing and storage, dredging, public
access, water quality, bulkheads, administration, and natural resources. However, the Coastal
Commission did not identify any direct conflicts with the Coastal Act and only suggested revisions
that clarify ambiguities and expand upon Coastal Act policies. If so directed, staff could add
appropriate language to address the Coastal Commission's concerns. Otherwise, these issues will
be addressed through the LCP certification process.
Comments from Other Public Agencies
The Planning Department also received comments from the Department of Toxic Substances
Control, the California State Lands Commission, the County of Orange, and the State Department
of Transportation (CalTrans). For the most part, the comments from these agencies were limited to
recitals of each agency's responsibilities in the review of this and future projects. However, both
the State Lands Commission and the County of Orange sought additional acknowledgement in the
proposed Element of their respective roles in the administration of tidelands.
The State Lands Commission also expressed concern that the inclusion of "Waterfront residential
communities" in the list of land uses to be protected and enhanced (Goal HB -1) could be construed
as the City support for an inappropriate use of public tidelands. The State Lands Commission also
requested additional information regarding proposed policies and programs relating to tidelands
leases and live - aboards.
Staff has reviewed the comments by these agencies and has determined that the proposed Element
does not contain any conflicts or inconsistencies with State law. However, if so directed, staff
Harbor & Bay Element (PA2001 -050)
May 17.2001
Page 3
could add appropriate language to clarify the intent of the goals, objectives, and policies of the
proposed Element to address the concerns raised by these agencies.
Environmental Review
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines
and City Council Policy K -3, an initial study was prepared for the proposed project. Based on the
information contained in the initial study, staff has determined that the project does not have the
potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a draft Negative Declaration
has been prepared (Exhibit 3).
The public review period for the draft Negative Declaration was from March 19, 2001 to April 18,
2001. Comments on the draft Negative Declaration were received from the following agencies:
1. Department of Toxic Substances Control.
2. California Coastal Commission.
3. California State Lands Commission.
4. County of Orange.
5. Department of Transportation.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control commented that the Negative Declaration identify
hazardous wastes/substances sources, contaminated sites, remediation mechanisms, potential
threats associated with the release of hazardous materials, and regulatory oversight mechanisms.
These comments are more indicative of those for a project involving physical development of a
specific site. As stated in the initial study, while the proposed Element contains policies and
programs that call for construction of harbor- related facilities, no specific sites or designs are
identified. The proposed Element also contains policies that allow for the continued use of
Newport Harbor by residential, commercial, recreational, and maintenance activities could involve
hazardous materials. However, these policies do not provide for an increase or decrease in the level
of activity. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
The Coastal Commission comments focused on the proposed Element rather than on the adequacy
of the draft Negative Declaration. However, the Coastal Commission did recommend that an
amendment to the LCP Land Use Plan be processed concurrently with the amendment for the
proposed Element. This could be interpreted as identifying a potential land use conflict.
The proposed Element is intended to provide general policy guidance with respect to a specific
portion of the City within the Coastal Zone, but is not intended to supplant or modify the LCP Land
Use Plan. Also, the Coastal Commission did not identify any specific conflicts with the LCP Land
Use Plan and only suggested revisions that clarify ambiguities and expand upon Coastal Act
policies. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed Element would not result in any significant
land use impacts.
The comments of the State Lands Commission and the County. of Orange also focus on the
proposed Element rather than on the adequacy of the draft Negative Declaration. Since these
comments do not identify any conflicts or inconsistencies with an applicable land use plan, policy,
Harbor & Bay Element (PA2001 -050)
May 17, 2001
Page 4
3�
Ae "
or regulation, staff believes that the proposed Element would not result in any significant land use
impacts.
The comments from the Department of Transportation comments were merely statements of that
agency's role and responsibility in the review of this and future projects.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that
the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2000 -002 (C).
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
-
Exhibits
Prepared by:
PATRICK I ALFORD
Senior Planner
1. 04/17/01 draft of the Harbor and Bay Element.
2. Resolution recommending approval to the City Council.
3. Draft Negative Declaration.
4. Correspondence.
Harbor & Bay Element (PA200"50)
May 17.2001
Page 5
. 3
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank
39
IlfzInire"11W
City of Newport Beach
General Plan
Harbor and Bay Element
There have been visions for Newport Bay ever since the steamer Vaquero entered the bay
in 1870. Over the decades, public and private initiatives enhanced and improved the
natural resources of the Bay to create what is today a world class small craft harbor. The
natural and manmade resources of the Bay were once home to an economy that saw
commercial fishing, fish canning, and industrial shipbuilding coexist with the recreational
boaters, restaurants and waterfront homes. While the days of fish canning and
shipbuilding are gone, the recreational boating and visitor serving industry has flourished
alongside waterfront residences. Newport Bay has been blessed with a variety of uses
and industries that have given the harbor a special charm and character while providing
the services necessary to sustain one of the world's great small boat harbors. The
principal goal of the Harbor and Bay Element is to establish policies and programs that
will preserve this diversity and charm without unduly restricting the rights of the
waterfront property owner.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW
The Harbor and Bay Element is an optional element of the General Plan of the City of
Newport Beach. The State Zoning and Planning Act states: "the general plan may
include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the
legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city." (Section 65303
of the Government Code).
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The Harbor and Bay Element is one of the elements that comprise the City's General
Plan. The Harbor and Bay Element focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront
property in Newport Harbor and supplements provisions of the Land Use and the
Recreation and Open Space Elements.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
The 1976 California Coastal Act was enacted to protect the natural and scenic qualities of
the California coast and to promote public access. The Coastal Act requires that each
jurisdiction with land in the Coastal Zone prepare a local coastal program (LCP). The
LCP establishes land use policies and implementing ordinances that conserve and
enhance the coastal resources within a community. The City has adopted, and the
Coastal Commission has approved, the Land Use Plan component of the LCP but has not
yet adopted all of the implementing ordinances necessary to approval of a certified LCP.
The Harbor and Bay Element is intended to provide general policy guidance with respect
to a specific portion of the City within the Coastal Zone but is not intended to supplant or
04/17/01
i
3�
modify the Land Use Plan of the City's LCP. Certain policies in the Land Use Plan of
the LCP are referenced in this element.
RELATIONSHIP TO CITY ORDINANCES AND POLICIES
The Harbor Element is intended to control the content of Harbor Regulations and Harbor
Permit Policies related to development of, and the activities conducted on, that portion of
the Harbor bayward of the bulkhead or the line of mean high tide. The Harbor Element
will be considered in land use decisions related to properties adjacent to Newport Bay.
Low
04/17/01
3 6
GOAL 1113-1: DIVERSITY OF USES
Preserve the diverse uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm
and character of Newport Bay, that provide needed support for recreational boaters,
visitors, and residents with regulations limited to those necessary to protect the interests
of all users. The following are some of the uses that contribute to the diversity and charm
of Newport Bay and should be preserved and enhanced where possible:
1. Water - dependent and water - related recreational activities such as
boating, sailing, wind surfing, fishing, kavaking, rowing, and
swimming.
2. Water - dependent and water - related commercial activities such as
passenger /sightseeing boats, passenger - fishing boats, boat rentals and
sales, entertainment boats, boat/ship repair and maintenance, and
harbor maintenance facilities.
3. Water - enhanced commercial uses such as restaurants and retail stores.
4. Waterfront public recreation and education areas and facilities such as
beaches, piers, view parks and nautical museums and related public
areas providing access to, and views of, Newport Harbor.
5. Waterfront residential communities.
Objective
HB -1.1: Ensure that water dependent and water related uses and recreational
activities remain a primary use of the Harbor.
Policies
HB- 1.1.1: Designate water- dependent uses /activities as the highest
priority, water - related uses /activities as the second priority,
and water - enhanced uses /activities as the third priority.
HB- 1.1.2: When reviewing proposals for land uses changes, the City
shall consider the impact on water - dependent and water -
related land uses and activities and the importance of
providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential
to the operation of the Harbor. This shall include not only
the proposed change on the subject property, but also the
potential to limit existing land uses, activities, facilities,
and services on adjacent properties. However, in no case,
shall the protection of such land uses, activities, facilities,
7
04/17/01
and services deny an owner viable economic use of the
property.
HB- 1.1.3: In considering the essential nature of land uses that support
the Harbor, the City shall consider whether or not the use
can be relocated elsewhere and/or technological advances
that may render the use obsolete within the foreseeable
future.
Implementation Strategies
1. Maintain and update when appropriate the Recreational and
Marine Commercial land use designation and zoning district as a
means of encouraging the continuation of water- dependent, water -
related, and visitor - serving uses while respecting the property
rights of waterfront owners/lessees.
2. Consider amendments to the Recreational Marine Commercial
land use designation and zoning district to provide incentives for
water dependent and water related uses such as floor area and
parking waivers, density transfers, density bonuses, transfer of
development rights and fee waivers.
3. Explore development of a program to upgrade public parking and
public access for all waterfront uses.
4. Utilize long term tideland leases as a mechanism for encouraging
the retention of water dependent and water related uses with
variable rent schedules depending on the nature and intensity of the
waterside facilities and uses.
5. Continue to offer City sponsored water dependent recreational and
educational programs and continue to sponsor and/or support the
various organized water recreational uses by the private
organizations that conduct events such as the Sea Scout Base,
collegiate rowing clubs and yacht clubs.
6. Continue to provide, and enhance when feasible, support facilities
for continued unstructured marine activities such as swimming,
kayaking and day - sailing, to ensure that participants can enjoy the
Harbor without joining organizations or participating in organized
events.
7. Continue to coordinate harbor event planning through appropriate
agencies, such as the Harbor Resources Division of the City
J
04/17/01
38'
Managers office, the Community Services Department, the Harbor
Commission and the Harbor Patrol.
8. Provide a limited number of designated public recreational fishing
docks with limited hours, separate from public recreational docks
provided for exclusive use by boating and water transportation
activities.
9. Continue to sponsor and/or support all youth oriented water sports
programs and facilities and encourage participation in such events
and activities.
Objective
HB -1.2: Preserve existing commercial uses in the Harbor to the extent necessary to
maintain and enhance the charm and character of the Harbor and to
provide support services for visitors, recreational boaters and other water
dependent activities.
Policies
HB- 1.2.1: Support continued operation of passenger /sightseeing
boats, passenger fishing boats ( "day boats'), and long -term
boat rentals and sales.
HB- 1.2.2: Support continued short-term rental of small boats while
encouraging vendors to teach customers how to safely
operate the watercraft and encouraging the Harbor Patrol to
enforce laws designed to protect the public.
HB- 1.23: Support continued operation of entertainment boats subject
to reasonable regulations designed to ensure the operations
don't have an adverse impact, such as impaired water
quality, reduced visual quality, excessive noise, unsafe
traffic conditions, or parking shortages, on the environment
or on other uses available for other users.
HB -1.2.4 Ensure that land use regulations applicable to waterfront
property continue to allow a wide variety of water
dependent, water related and water enhanced uses.
HB -1.2.5 Encourage retention of facilities necessary to support
vessels berthed or moored in the Harbor, such as boat haul
out facilities, with due regard for changes in the boating
industry and the rights of property owners /lessees.
5 04/17/01
.3q
Implementation Strategies
1. Develop strategies to preserve uses that provide essential
support for the vessels berthed or moored in the Harbor.
The strategies must be feasible, cost effective, and respect
the property rights of waterfront owners and lessees. The
strategies may include parking waivers, development
transfers, density bonuses and voluntary purchase of
conservation easements.
2. Continue to offer educational and recreational programs
that provide public awareness of, and access to, water
dependent recreational activities.
3. Continue to work with the various community and business
associations such as the Balboa Village Merchants &
Owners Association, Mariners Mile Business Owners
Association and the Newport Pier Association as well as
the vessel owners /operators to provide for the parking
needs of the patrons of sportfishing boats, passenger and
sightseeing vessels, and boat rentals.
4. Enforce existing ordinances and, if necessary, establish
new standards for the operation of entertainment,
sportfishing and work boats to ensure that the operations do
not adversely impact water quality or generate excessive
pollution, noise, traffic congestion or parking shortages.
5. Consider the use of long -term tideland leases, rather than
the current system of issuing annual harbor permits, as the
mechanism for authorizing the maintenance or construction
of piers, floats and structures on tidelands. Consider use of
leases as an additional mechanism for identifying and
enforcing Harbor Ordinances and Harbor Policies.
6. Encourage programs that educate boaters and property
owners on safe boating and berthing practices integrated
with a permit/lease enforcement component that will
protect the public health and safety as well as the rights of
other users and owners/lessees.
7. Establish special operating conditions for special events
such as the Christmas Boat Parade and other activities that
are seasonal, recurring and unique to the Harbor, but which
may require special controls on access, parking, noise and
6 04/17/01
q
other factors to minimize impacts on residential areas and
other users.
Objective
HB -1.3: Provide a variety of vessel berthing and storage opportunities.
Policies
HB- 1.3.1: Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings
as an important source of low -cost public access to the
water and Harbor.
HB- 1.3.2: Preserve, and expand when feasible, marinas and dry boat
storage facilities.
HB- 1.3.3: Provide anchorages in designated areas, which minimize
interference with navigation and where shore access and
support facilities are available.
HB- 1.3.4: Adopt and enforce the ordinances that require moored and
docked vessels to be seaworthy and navigable and thereby
preserve the positive image of the Harbor and promote
public use of the water.
HB- 1.3.5: Maintain existing guest docks and encourage addition of
guest dock capacity at City facilities, yacht clubs and at
privately owned - marinas, restaurants and other appropriate
locations.
HB -1.3.6 Allow "live - aboards" subject to restrictions on the number
of "live - aboards" as well as restrictions to protect the
environment, the public and waterfront owners/lessees such
as regulations prohibiting excessive noise and illegal waste
disposal.
HB -1.3.7 Continue to authorize, pursuant to permit, license or lease,
existing piers and docks bayward of waterfront residential
properties subject to appropriate conditions that ensure
compatibility with residential uses.
Implementation Strategies
1. Consider a policy of authorizing waterside improvements such as
piers, docks and floats through long -term tideland leases that allow
7
04/17/01
waterfront owners/lessees to obtain financing for improvements to
and enhancements of commercial piers and floats.
2. Provide, and regularly update, standards for construction and
maintenance of marinas that represent industry standards.
3. Facilitate necessary periodic dredging for safe navigability and
access to marinas, for vessel berthing and beach nourishment by
working to obtain Harbor -wide maintenance dredging permits
from all agencies with jurisdiction over the Harbor.
4. Enforce the derelict boat ordinance by regular inspections and
strengthen or refine it periodically to accomplish its objectives.
Objective
HB -1.4: Preserve and encourage enhancement of existing commercial areas,
while encouraging and supporting redevelopment of outdated or
antiquated commercial development, all to the extent necessary to
maintain the charm and character of the Harbor.
Policies
HB- 1.4.1: Preserve and/or enhance existing water - enhanced, water
related and water- dependent commercial uses and marine
oriented commercial areas through land use regulations and
programs that preserve the charm and character of the
Harbor while respecting the rights of other users.
HB- 1.4.2: Encourage redevelopment of outmoded or antiquated
Harbor commercial uses "as part of an overall program to
revitalize the older commercial and marine oriented areas,
especially in those areas with adequate infrastructure and
parcels suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project.
Implementation Strategies
I. Identify and define the unique water - enhanced and water -
dependent characteristics and potential of Harbor commercial uses
and commercial -use districts in terms of special uses, architecture
and design guidelines.
2. Provide development incentives such as density bonuses, parking
waivers, transfer of development rights and fee waivers as well as
public facility support, such as shared parking, to existing and
8 04/17/01
14 2
redeveloped uses /projects which best typify the nautical character
and charm of the Harbor and serve the users of the Harbor.
3. Existing and new commercial uses and commercial complexes
should be encouraged to provide, as a part of any proposal for new
development, when feasible and compatible with nearby uses,
waterfront pedestrian areas and guest or water taxi docking
between the bulkhead and pierhead lines.
Objective
HB -1.5: Maintain and enhance existing marine support uses and encourage and
provide incentives for retention and expansion of these uses.
Policies
HB- 1.5.1: Preserve, and enhance or expand when feasible, existing
marine support uses serving the needs of existing
waterfront uses, recreational boaters, the boating
community, and visiting vessels.
HB- 1.5.2: Encourage the development and operation of new marine
support uses.
HB- 1.5.3: Support private sector uses, such as vessel assistance, that
provide emergency, environmental enhancement and other
services that not are provided by the public sector and that
are essential to the operation of a working harbor.
HB- 1.5.4: Encourage development of waterfront facilities that
accommodate displaced water - dependent uses.
Implementation Strategies
I. Identify and define the unique water- dependent characteristics of
marine support uses and establish specific land use and design
standards and incentives for retention and enhancement of these
uses while respecting property rights. Land use incentives may
include a density bonus, waiver of parking requirements and
reduced rent for waterside facilities.
2. Encourage new development or redevelopment to integrate
existing marine support uses into proposed development whenever
feasible by granting density bonuses, floor area waivers, fee
waivers, parking waivers and other incentives.
9 04/17/01
q3
3. Where waterfront pedestrian accessways may exist or be
developed in portions of the Harbor adjacent to marine sales and
service uses, the City should work with these uses to provide
public access detours around cross - bulkhead equipment operations
which present security or public safety concerns.
4. When necessary to preserve water dependent marine support uses
that are essential to the ability of the Harbor to serve the needs of
recreational boaters or other users, such as boat haul -out facilities,
consider providing financial support to a waterfront owner or long
term lessee if, and only if
(a) financial support is expressly requested in writing by the owner
orlessee;
(b) in consideration of the financial support the City acquires a
conservation easement or similar property interest that would
preserve the use;
(c) in the event that a conservation easement or other restriction is
acquired from a lessee, the term of the easement or restriction
shall not exceed the term of the lessee's interest in the
property.
GOAL HB -2: PUBLIC ACCESS
Maintain and enhance public access to the Harbor water and waterfront areas.
Objective
HB -2.1: Improve and extend public pedestrian, vehicular, and boat access.
Policies
HB- 2.1.1: Encourage the expansion and improvement of
existing public waterfront access and water -uses
access which provide important links to waterfront
uses such as beaches, small vessel launching
facilities, public docks, and other similar public
water area uses.
HB- 2.1.2: Encourage the creation of a single waterfront public
pedestrian space, with adjacent water access and
10 04/17/01 '
`i 1
docking facilities, that serves as the identity and
activity "center" of Newport Harbor for special
events of community /regional interest.
HB- 2.1.3: Encourage the expanded development of waterfront
public pedestrian access systems and facilities such
as waterfront boardwalks and links between
commercial waterfronts and public sidewalks on
adjacent streets with due regard to protection of
property and property rights.
HB- 2.1.4: Encourage and provide incentives for the private
construction of elements of public waterfront
pedestrian connections and areas along the Harbor
perimeter, where practicable, as part of waterfront
access and use areas such as outdoor dining, etc.
HB- 2.1.5: New or improved public access facilities shall be
consistent with the infrastructure holding capacity
and compatible with existing land uses.
HB- 2.1.6: Encourage an increase in the capacity and
availability of day use and overnight dockage in
commercial areas with restroom facilities provided
within the Harbor by public and private entities
subject to appropriate restrictions to protect water
quality.
HB- 2.1.7: Encourage new and improved facilities and services
for visiting vessels, including public mooring and
docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club
guest docks, pump -out stations and other features,
through City, County, and private means.
Implementation Strateeies
1. Prepare and adopt Harbor access guidelines describing
potential public and private (and joint public /private) elements
of a Harbor -wide waterfront access system, and links to
parking and public transportation systems.
2. Provide a comprehensive system of directional and
informational signage for the Harbor perimeter vehicular and
pedestrian access systems and related parking, land and water
transportation facilities serving the Harbor and its uses.
11 04/17/01
�5
3. Continue to provide, and encourage expansion of low -cost
public access to the Harbor for boaters via moorings, trailer
launch ramps and boat hoists, commercial landing facilities,
and organized recreational boating launch facilities.
4. Provide adequate landside and waterfront access to anchorages,
offshore and onshore moorings through dinghy launch, dinghy
storage, and public parking facilities throughout the Harbor.
Objective
HB -2.2: Maintain and enhance existing harbor public water transportation;
encourage and provide incentives for expansion of these uses and land
support facilities.
Policies
H13-2.2. 1: Maintain and enhance existing water transportation uses
and their support facilities that provide important public
transportation services linking the Harbor with other
resort and tourism destinations and providing cross -
Harbor service. Preference should be given to the
existing water- dependent uses of this type that are
located in the Harbor, and that cannot operate without
adequate and appropriate land parking areas, vehicular
and pedestrian access and docking and navigability
access.
HB- 2.2.2: Encourage the expanded development and improved
operation of existing and new public and private water
transportation systems and facilities (vessels, docks,
waiting areas, pedestrian access, parking, etc) that
provide a diversity of coastal and in- harbor water
transportation choices, (ferries, water taxis, etc.)
HB- 2.2.3: Encourage development of additional public and private
docks to serve only water transportation uses and
activities.
Implementation Strategies
1. Identify and define the unique water - dependent characteristics
and potentials of Harbor water transportation uses, and
establish guidelines and incentives for retention and
12
04/17/01
enhancement of these uses and their necessary land and water
equipment and facilities.
2. Provide development incentives (water access, fee waivers,
parking waivers, density bonuses etc.) and public agency
support (parking, pedestrian walks, signage, etc.) to existing
and new water transportation uses that serve the local
community, visitors, and groups with special needs.
3. Establish land use and development controls and restrictions
limiting potential changes that would adversely affect
established Harbor water transportation uses.
4. Adopt land use and development incentives that will encourage
existing and new owners and operators of water transportation
uses to retain otherwise economically viable and essential
water - transportation uses in any redevelopment of existing
waterfront areas essential to the function of these uses.
5. In conjunction with existing and new waterfront access,
encourage the provision of links to public and private parking
and supplemental land and water transportation systems, such
as seasonal shuttles, water taxis, etc.
GOAL HB -3: WATER QUALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Enhance the water quality and protect the marine environment in Newport Harbor and
Upper Newport Bay.
Objective
HB -3.1: Protect, preserve and enhance the natural wildlife and plant -life in
and around Upper and Lower Newport Bay.
HB -3.2 Enhance the water quality in Upper Newport Bay and Newport
Harbor.
Policies
HB- 3.1.1: Protect and enhance the marine environment in the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and
Newport Harbor
13 04/17/01
N�
HB- 3.1.2: Ensure that the water quality in Upper Newport Bay
and Newport Harbor meets Federal, State and local
standards for human body contact and will allow the
marine environment to survive and flourish.
HB -3.1.3 Participate in and support cooperative programs
with other cities, public agencies and resources
agencies within, or with jurisdiction over, the San
Diego Creek watershed to adopt and implement
programs, regulations and funding to
sustain/maintain/enhance the marine environment
and water quality in Upper Newport Bay and
Newport Harbor.
HB -3.1.4 Provide opportunities and facilities for visual
interaction and educational opportunities for
appreciation and protection of the wildlife and
plant -life of the Upper Bay and Newport Harbor
and the importance of water quality to the
protection of the marine environment.
Implementation Strategies
1. Actively promote and pursue all legislative avenues needed for
protecting and funding of the resources of the Upper Newport
Bay and Newport Harbor.
2. Actively enforce Federal, State and local water quality
requirements including those that regulate discharges from
both point and non -point sources.
3. Actively participate in regional programs designed to insure
management of the watershed of Newport Bay consistent with
Best Management Practices (BMP's) by all stakeholders in the
San Diego Creek watershed.
4. Participate in the Newport Bay Watershed planning activities
to promote upstream management of pollutants to the Bay and
sedimentation.
5. In cooperation with other agencies, implement the Total
Maximum Daily Loads established for various pollutants by
order of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
6. Develop facilities to educate the public on the importance of
water quality to the preservation of the natural resources in
14 04/17/01
tf
Upper Newport Bay and Newport Harbor. The facilities should
include water quality testing labs and the curriculum should be
designed to educate adults and children of all ages on the
importance of water quality to the vitality of the ecosystems in
Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay.
GOAL HE-4: VISUAL CHARACTER
Preserve and enhance the visual character and historical resources of the Harbor and the
Bay.
Objective
HB -4.1: Maintain and enhance the diverse waterfront image of Newport
Harbor by preserving its variety of beach/bulkhead profiles which
have characterized its residential and commercial waterfronts.
Policies
HB- 4.1.1: Balance private property rights, natural harbor
hydraulic and coastal processes (such as erosion and
accretion) and harbor aesthetics with other policies
when considering designs for new or renovated
bulkhead permits.
HB- 4.1.2: Where not in conflict with natural harbor hydraulic
and other coastal processes, and safe navigation and
berthing of vessels within established areas for
same, bulkheads shall be allowed and designed to
protect the character of the existing beach profiles
found around the Harbor and island perimeters.
Objective
HB -4.2: Maintain unique historical resources of Newport Harbor.
Policy
HB- 4.2.1: Encourage the retention and enhancement of unique
buildings, building complexes, uses, and activity
centers that have served as recognized "landmarks"
and "icons" in the physical development/appearance
and cultural history of the Harbor.
15 04/17/01
Implementation Strategy
1. Identify areas and buildings representative of the history of
Newport Harbor, and encourage their preservation and reuse,
when feasible.
2. Consider adoption of ordinances that provide incentives to the
retention of historic structures, such as parking waivers, floor
area waivers and designations that can result in tax credits.
3. Consider adoption of a voluntary program pursuant to which
the City would acquire property rights such as architecture or
fagade easements when requested by the property owner and
funds are available.
GOAL HB -5: ADMINISTRATION
Provide for the ongoing administration and maintenance of the Harbor and Bay.
Objective
HB -5.1: Promote ongoing coordination between the City, County, and State
and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in the Harbor and
Bay.
Policies
HB- 5.1.1: Prepare and distribute information to those who use,
work in, or own property around the Harbor that
promotes the goals and objectives of this Element.
HB- 5.1.2:
Coordinate and update all Harbor planning, design,
engineering, and environmental criteria, standards,
requirements and processes on a regular basis.
Implementation Strategies
1. Consider the formation of a Harbor Commission to serve as
an advisory and/or decision - making body for Harbor
Permits, Harbor related improvements, and other issues as
deemed appropriate by the City Council.
16
04/17/01
Sa
2. Prepare a reference document that provides a summary of
information (including a single point of contact) that will
help waterfront owners, marine contractors and others
involved in harbor construction and harbor activities
understand and comply with all Harbor and Bay regulatory
and permitting processes.
3. Prepare a document that provides vessel owners and
visitors with information (accessible by radio, telephone
and/or other electronic media) on temporary mooring and
guest dock availability /reservations, vessel services such as
the location of pump -out stations, contacts in the event of
an emergency (such as fuel or sewage spills) and harbor
attractions.
4. Encourage the Harbor Patrol, as part of its administration of
moorings, and in coordination with the Harbor Resources
Division, to provide visitor information as specified in
Implementation Strategy No. 3.
5. Establish and enforce standards and guidelines for various
harbor activities and uses (and related shore -based
activities, such as docking, boarding, and parking) that
generate noise, traffic congestion or parking shortages to
minimize the impact of those uses and activities on other
waterfront owners /lessees.
Objective
HB -5.2: Provide the capability within the Harbor to locate water- dependent
harbor maintenance equipment and facilities with harbor access.
Policies
HB- 5.2.1: Provide harbor access for harbor maintenance
equipment and facilities, including dredging, dock
demolition, repair and construction, mooring
services, debris and spill management equipment,
and general harbor construction, maintenance and
repair.
HB- 5.2.2: Work with other controlling agencies within the
Harbor, and/or the Bay, to define an area that can
support harbor maintenance facilities and
equipment.
17
04/17/01
HB- 5.2.3: Utilize, or establish, and enforce consistently,
government and marine industry standards and
guidelines for the operation and environmental
controls of such uses and activities. Establish
procedures and public /private cooperation and
communication for the emergency use of these
facilities and equipment in advance of flood, storm,
pollution, dredging, vessel sinking, and other
events, and to implement these procedures from
these uses as "emergency bases of operations"
supplementing public agency safety and rescue
bases and equipment.
Objective
HB -5.3: Maintain and enhance navigation channels, public and private
vessel berthing areas and beaches.
Policies
HB- 5.3.1: Maintain public Bay beaches through beach
nourishment programs to the fullest extent possible
for the enjoyment and safety of the general public
and harbor residents, and for the protection of
existing structures.
HB- 5.3.2: Pursue means of sand retention (in addition to beach
nourishment) when possible and cost effective, with
minimum disruption to beach continuity and visual
aesthetics.
HB- 5.333: Maintain adequate dredged depths for safe boat
navigation and berthing throughout all areas of the
Harbor, with particular attention to safety and
rescue, residential and commercial dockage and
channel access areas of high use intensity and
safety.
Implementation Strategies
1. Establish a comprehensive program for the monitoring and
nourishing beaches, including the identification of cost -
effective sources of sand of sufficient quality to °produce a
stable beach profile.
18 04/17/01
Sz
2. Analyze the need for groins on a case by case basis, with
consideration to cost - effectiveness, environmental and visual
impacts, and alternative methods of sand retention.
3. Prioritize and establish financial responsibility and appropriate
scheduling and oversight responsibilities for dredging projects.
4. Establish an efficient inter - agency system for the adequate and
timely funding and permitting of dredging projects.
Objective
HB -5.4: Balance harbor revenues, expenses, transfer between funds or
government entities and subsidies as related to each activity.
Policies
HB- 5.4.1: Receive a fair return from all tideland users to
recapture all related City investment, services and
management costs.
HB- 5.4.2: Provide alternative and supplemental Harbor
funding, including seeking and obtaining federal
and state grants and loans for boater safety,
education, maintenance, and capital improvements
of the Harbor from funds contributed by the City,
County, and citizens of Newport Beach, as well as
all harbor users.
HB -5.4.3 Encourage longer -term tidelands leases to
waterfront owners to assist in redevelopment,
maintenance, and financing of waterfront
developments.
Implementation Strategy
1. Provide periodic accounting of City costs and revenues
associated with operation of tidelands areas and facilities
by use category.
2. Actively seek and obtain supplemental funding sources for
needed Harbor maintenance and capital improvements from
existing and new federal, state and local sources.
19 04/17/01 ,3
5
3. Implement a tideland leasing program pursuant to which
waterfront property ownerstlessees enter into long term
tideland leases with rental rates that reflect the nature and
intensity of permitted uses and activities and security for
funding enhanced or expanded facilities.
GLOSSARY
Anchorage Area. A water area outside of navigation channels designated for the
temporary anchorage of vessels, using their own anchoring tackle.
Berth. A generic term defining any location, such as a floating dock, slip, mooring and
the related water area (berthing area) adjacent to or around it, intended for the storage of
a vessel in water.
Bulkhead. Vertical walls built into and along the Harbor shoreline preventing the erosion
of land into the water and to protect the land from wave, tide and current action by the
water, similar to a "retaining wall" on land. Bulkheads may be directly bordered by
water, or may have sloped stones (riprap) or sand beach between the bulkhead and the
water and land areas.
Bulkhead Line. Harbor land/water perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the
federal government, which define the permitted limit of filling or solid structures which
may be constructed in the Harbor.
Channel. A water area in Newport Harbor designated for vessel navigation, with
necessary width and depth requirements, and which may be marked or otherwise
designated on federal navigation charts, as well as in other sources.
Charter Vessel. A vessel used principally for charter purposes, a "charter" being a rental
agreement, generally for a period of one day or more.
Dock. A structure generally linked to the shoreline, to which a vessel may be secured. A
dock may be fixed to the shore, on pilings, or floating in the water.
Dry Storage. Dry storage of vessels includes all on -land storage of vessels including
vessels normally stored in open or enclosed rack structures, on trailers, on cradles, on
boat stands, or by other means.
Entertainment/Excursion Vessels. Commercial vessels engaged in the carrying of
passengers for hire for hire for the purposes of fishing, whale watching, diving,
educational activities, harbor and coastal tours, dining/drinking, business or social special
events and entertainment.
20 04/17/01 0
Groin. A structure that extends from a beach or bulkhead perpendicularly to the
shoreline into tidal waters, intended to trap and retain and/or reduce the erosion of sand
and retard the general erosion of the shoreline and undermining of shore protection
structures (bulkheads, riprap slopes, etc.)
Harbor Construction (Design Criteria and Standard Drawings). City of Newport Beach
publication governing all bulkheads, groins, pier, docks and other structures bayward of
the Bulkhead Line.
Harbor Maintenance Uses, Equipment, and Facilities. All uses, and their related
equipment, vessels, docking and land storage facilities and access which provide:
dredging and beach replenishment; demolition, repair and new construction of docks,
piers, bulkheads and other in -and- over -water structures; mooring maintenance and repair;
waterbome debris and pollution control, collection and removal. This category also
includes environmental, survey or scientific vessels and related equipment based, or on
assignment, in Newport Harbor. All vessels under this definition may also be referred to
as "work boats."
Harbor Lines. All established Bulkhead, Pierhead, and Project Lines as defined within
Newport Harbor by the federal, state, county and city govemments.
Harbor Permit Policies. City of Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual Section H -1,
governing permits for structures bayward of the bulkhead line, and related parking,
sanitary, utility and related support requirements
Harbor Regulations. Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code governing structures,
uses and activities within the Harbor
Launching Facility_. A generic term referring to any location, structures (ramps, docks)
and equipment (cranes, lifts, hoists, etc.) where vessels may be placed into, and retrieved
from the Harbor waters.
Live - aboard. Any person who uses a vessel as a domicile as that term is defined in
Section 200 of the Elections Code of the State of California, including permanently or on
a temporary basis for a period exceeding 3 days.
Marina. A berthing facility (other than moorings or anchorage) in which five or more
vessels are wet- stored (in water) and/ or dry- stored (on land/racks or on floating docks).
Marine Sales and Service Uses & Vessels. Uses and vessels, as well as related
equipment, which provide repair, maintenance, new construction, parts and supplies,
fueling, waste removal, cleaning, and related services to vessels berthed in, or visiting,
Newport Harbor. Typical service uses include, but are not limited to, all uses and vessels
described under Section 20.05.050 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code.
21 04/17/01 r,
76
M
Moorinn. A device consisting of a floating ball, can or other object that is secured
permanently to the Harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel.
Mooring Area. An area designated for a group of moorings.
Newport Bay. The terms "Newport Bay" and "Newport Harbor" are often used
interchangeably. However, Newport Bay is an estuary consisting of the Lower Newport
Bay (south of Pacific Coast Highway) and the Upper Newport Bay (north of Pacific
Coast Highway). Newport Harbor generally refers to all the water area within Lower
Newport Bay and within the Upper Newport Bay, exclusive of the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve.
Pier. A fixed structure extending from the shore into a body of water.
Pier Private. A pier used for private recreational purposes by the owner(s) or
occupant(s) of the abutting upland property without payment of a separate rental or lease
fee, except for permit fees to City.
Pier, Public. A pier used for public recreational purposes provided by a public agency.
Pierhead Line. Harbor water area perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the
federal government which define the permitted limit of fixed pier, floating dock and
other in -water structures which may be constructed in the Harbor.
Proiect Lines. Harbor water area channel lines of the improvements constructed by the
federal government in 1935 -1936, and as shown on navigation charts of Newport Harbor.
Also referred to as the "Federal Channel ". (see Newport Beach City Design Criteria and
Standard Drawings for Harbor Construction)
Shore Mooring. A mooring for small boats which is located in the nearshore perimeter of
the Harbor and its islands, perpendicular to the shoreline. One end of the mooring line is
attached to a point on or adjacent to the perimeter bulkhead, and the other end is attached
to a mooring buoy located in the water, inside the pierhead line.
Turning Basin. An area, often designated on nautical charts, connected to a channel that
is large enough to allow vessels to maneuver or turn around.
Vessel. Watercraft, such as boats, ships, small craft, barges, etc. whether motorized, sail -
powered or hand - powered, which are used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation, recreation, safety /rescue, service or commerce on water. This includes all
vessels of any size (other than models) homeported, launched/retrieved, or visiting in
Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and registered or unregistered under state or
federal requirements.
Water Dependent Use. Those uses that are tied to and require water; including fishing
and other vessel rental and charter, water transportation, water public safety and
22 04/17/01 �'r
enforcement, marinas, boatyards, yacht/sailing/boating/fishing clubs, watersports
instructional and educational facilities, public and guest docking facilities and landside
support uses, dredging, marine construction and harbor service and maintenance uses and
related equipment.
Water - Enhanced Use. Those waterfront or waterfront - adjacent land uses and activities,
including restaurants and residential uses that derive economic, aesthetic and other
amenity benefits from proximity to and views of water and water -based activities, but
which do not need direct access and proximity to the water in order to accomplish their
basic functional and economic operation.
Water Related Use. Those uses that relate to but do not require water, including nautical
museums, bait and tackle shops, boat charter, rental, sales, storage, construction and/or
repair, marine- related retail sales, and marine- related industry.
Water Transportation Use. This group of uses includes in- harbor and coastal/offshore
ferry services, in- harbor water taxi services, docking, parking, offices and other water and
land support facilities.
23 04/17/01 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE ADOPTION OF A HARBOR ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 2000-
002 (C)]
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65303 of the California Government Code, allows the
General Plan to include any optional elements that relate to the physical development of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Harbor and Bay Element is necessary to control the content of Harbor
Regulations and Harbor Permit Policies and to assist in land use decisions related to properties adjacent
to Newport Bay; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held
a public hearing regarding the proposed Harbor and Bay Element; and
WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been
conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study
concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a
Negative Declaration has been prepared.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of
Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve
General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2000 -002 (C) to comprehensively update the Recreation and
Open Space Element of the General Plan, as provided in Exhibit "A."
5�
J
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the Planning Commission finds that there
is no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore
a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, satisfies all the
requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. The
Negative Declaration was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project.
ADOPTED this 17th day of May 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
Edward Selich, Chairman
BY
Steven Kiser, Secretary
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
2
51
.0�
Cc:: Y OF NEWPORT BEACH
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
and Environmental Document Form
To:
State Clearinghouse
From: City Of Newport Beach
1400 Tenth St., Rm. 121
Planning Department
Sacramento, CA 95814
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(Tel. No.: 916/445 -0613)
(Orange County)
Contact Person: Patrick J. Alford
SCH #
Senior Planner
Tel No.: (949) 6443200
Project Location: Citywide
Cross Streets SR I and SR 55
Total Acres 1 568 160
A.P.No.
Numerous
Section 26 Twp.
7S
Range 10W Base San Bernardino
Within 2 Miles: State
Hwy #. SR 1. SR 55, SR 73
Waterways: Newport Bay
Airports:_John Wayne Railways:
None Schools: See attached.
Present
Land Use /Zoning/General Plan Use: Various
Project
Description: An amendment to add a Harbor Element to the
General Plan.
Document Type
,
CEQA:
NEPA OTHER
NOP
Supplement/Subsequent
0 NOT O Joint Document
Early Cons
EIR (Prior SCE No.)
0 EA O Final Document
Neg Dec
O Draft EIS O Other
Dmft/EIR 0
Other
O FONSI
Local Action Type
General Plan Update
0 Specific Plan
0
Rezone Annexation
General Plan Amendment
0 Master Plan
0
Prezone Redevelopment
General Plan Element
0 Planned Unit Dev.
0
Use Permit Coastal Permit
Community Plan
0 Site Plan
0
Land Division (Sub - division Parcel Map, Tract map, ect.)
0
Other
Development Type
0
Residential: Units
Acres
Water Facilities: Type MGD
0
Office: Sq.ft.
Acres Employees_
0
Transportation: Type
0
Commercial:Sq.ft.
Acres_ Employees_
0
Mining: Mineral
.0
Industrial: Sq.ft.
Acres_ Employees_
0
Power. Type Wars
0
Educational:
Waste Treatment: Type
0
Recreational
Hazardous Waste: Type
Other.
Proiect Issues Discussed in Docu t
0
0
AestheticfVisual
Flood Plain/Flooding
Schools/Universities Water Quality
❑/
Agricultural Land
Forest Land/Fire hazard
0/
Septic Systems Water Supply /Groundwater
Air Quality PG
GeologictSeismic
(ij
Sewer Capacity L7 Wetland/Riparian
Archeologic/Historic ❑/
Minerals
Wildlife 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
0
L`l
Coastal Zone
Noise
❑/
Solid Waste Growth Inducing
0
Drainage/Absorption 0
Population/liousing/Balance
Toxic/Hazardous 0 Land Use
0
EconomictJobs 0
Public Service/Facilities
0
Traffic/Circulation 0 Cumulative Effects
0
Fiscal 0
Recreation/Parks
0
Vegetation 0 Other
F: \USERS\PLM I FORMS\NEG•DEC\03NOCOPR. DOC.
C
Harbor and Bay Element
Notice of Completion
Schools located within 2 miles of the oroiect site
Anderson Elementary School
Cardon Hall
Childtime Pre - School
Corona del Mar High School
Harbor Day School
Harbor View Elementary School
Horace Ensign Junior High School
Lincoln Elementary School
Mariners Elementary School
Newport Elementary School
Newport Harbor High School
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church School
Newport Heights Elementary School
Our Lady Queen of Angels School
c
Cfi`Y OF NEWPORT BELH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:
Office of Planning and Research
Fx-'� P.O. BOX 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
County Clerk. County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Public review period:
Name of Project: Harbor and Bay Element
From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(Orange County)
Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk:
March 19, 2001 to April 18, 2001
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment to adopt a new optional element of the General Plan.
The proposed Harbor and Bay Element addressing uses of the water and waterfront
property in Newport Bay and Harbor and supplements provisions of the Land Use
and the Recreation and ODen Soace Elements.
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the
California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined
that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is ® attached ❑ on file at the Planning
Department The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts.
This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will
be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached.
Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you
would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing
prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you
believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be
adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also
invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document.
If you have any questions o would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200.
Date March 16, 2001
Patrick J. Alford
F:\USERS\PLMSHARED\IFORMS\NEG-DEC\03NEGDEC.DOC
6�
C.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I . Project Title: Harbor and Bay Element
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patrick J. Alford, Senior
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
(949) 644 -3235
4. Project Location:
City-wide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
6. General Plan Designation: N/A
7. Zoning: N/A
8. Description of Project: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to
adopt a new optional element of'the General Plan. The
proposed Harbor and Bay Element addressing uses of
the water and waterfront property in Newport Bay and
Harbor and supplements provisions of the Land Use
and the Recreation and Open Space Elements.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
Current
Development:
City-wide
To the north:
Cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine
To the east:
Newport Coast annexation area and City of Laguna Beach
To the south:
Pacific Ocean
To the west:
Cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.): None.
Harbor & Bay Element
Page t �3
C
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
❑ Land Use Planning
❑ Population & Housing
❑ Geological Problems
❑ Water
❑ Air Quality
❑ Transportation/
Circulation
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Energy & Mineral
Resources
❑ Hazards
❑ Noise
❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities & Service
Systems
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Recreation
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El
I find.that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact"
or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed. ❑
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 2 /p�
M
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Submitted by:'PatriceJ. Alford, Senior Planner
Planning Department
Prepared by: `
rW
Signature Date
Alford Signature Date
F:\USERSTLN\SHARED\IFORMS\NEG-DEC\OOCKLIST.DOC
i
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 3
• C
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1.
AESTHETICS.
❑
Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect
❑
on a scenic vista?
b)
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state ,.
scenic highway?
C)
Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
c)
Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
Would the project
a)
'Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b)
Conflictwith existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c)
Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
otentially Potentially Less than No
gniBcant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
El
❑
❑
❑
El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑
El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
(P
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 4
' 1 `.�� �.!.:
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
otentiaily, Potentially Less than no
gnificant Significant Significant Impact
Impact unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
(A
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 5
El
❑
❑
❑
El
❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
(A
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 5
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
C) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Potentially
Less than No
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
Unless
impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
'
❑
❑
0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
,a
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 6
'ten -
0
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 7
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VI.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to
❑
❑
❑
Q
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
❑
❑
❑
Q
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground
❑
❑
[p
❑
shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
❑
❑
0
❑
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
Q
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or
❑
❑
❑
Q
the loss of topsoil?
C)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil
❑
❑
Q
❑
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project and. potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as
❑
❑
❑
defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately
❑
❑
❑
0
supporting the use septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
0
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 7
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 8
FLT
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the
❑
❑
El
❑
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the
❑
❑
El
❑
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
C)
Emit hazardous emissions or
❑
❑
El
❑
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is
❑
❑
❑
El
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites which complied
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?
e)
For a project within an airport land
❑
❑
❑
El
use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f)
For a.project within the vicinity of a
❑
❑
❑
El
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g)
Impair implementation of or
❑
❑
❑
El
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 8
FLT
C 0
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
rocennaey
rotenoauy
Less man
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Unless
Impact
Violate any water quality standards
Mitigation
or waste discharge requirements?
Incorporated
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater
❑ ❑ ❑
VIII.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards
❑ ❑ ❑
or waste discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater
❑ ❑ ❑
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre - existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
C)
Substantially alter the existing
❑ ❑ ❑
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which.would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing
❑ ❑ ❑
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of a
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on or off -site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water
p ❑ ❑
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
No
Impact
J
H
J
J
J
J
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 9
--Z
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 10
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
.
Mitigation
Incorporated
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade
❑
❑
El
❑
water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year
❑
❑
[j
❑
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood
❑
❑
p
❑
hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a
❑
❑
[j
❑
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
J)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
❑
❑
[j
❑
mudflow?
IX.
LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the proposal:
a)
Physically divide an established
❑
❑
❑
Q
community?
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use
❑
❑
❑
Q
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or midgafing an
environmental effect?
C)
Conflict with any applicable habitat
❑
❑
❑
[j
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X.
MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
Q
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
--Z
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 10
t;�;
XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substanfial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑
El ❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
�3
Harbor & Bay Element
Page I I
Potentially
Potentially
Lessthan
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
'
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
El
locally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
C) Displace substantial numbers of
❑
❑
❑
El
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substanfial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑
El ❑
❑ ❑ El ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
�3
Harbor & Bay Element
Page I I
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, eitherdirectly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need
for new or physically altered
government facilities. the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Other public facilities?
y
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 12
r
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ H
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b)
Exceed either individually or
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
cumulatively, a level of service
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
standard established by the county
Impact
Unless
Impact
congestion management agency for
Mitigation
designated roads or highways?
Incorporated
XIV.
RECREATION
❑
❑
❑
H
a)
Would the project increase the use
❑
❑
❑
H
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
d)
physical deterioration of the facility
❑
❑
❑
H
would occur or be accelerated?
b)
Does the project include
❑
❑
❑
H
recreational facilities or require the
construction of or expansion of
e)
recreational facilities which might
❑
❑
❑
H
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? opportunities?
XV.
TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ H
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b)
Exceed either individually or
❑
❑
❑
B
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C)
Result in a change in air traffic
❑
❑
❑
H
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due
❑
❑
❑
H
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency
❑
❑
❑
H
access?
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 13
-�-f,
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 14
Potentially
Potentially
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
'
f)
Result in inadequate parking
❑
❑
❑
Q
capacity?
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
❑
❑
❑
Q
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI.
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would
the project
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment
❑
❑
[J
❑
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction
❑
❑
Q
❑
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
C)
Require or result in the construction
❑
❑
Q
❑
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause.significant
environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies
❑
❑
[J
❑
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the
❑
❑
[J
❑
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers
existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
❑
❑
❑
Q
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
-�-f,
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 14
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulation related to
solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
C:
Potentially
Potentially
Less than No
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑ El
A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ El
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major period of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ Ej
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
C) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ El
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 15�
C1
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site - specific conditions for the project.
--;i-D
Harbor & Bay Element
Page 16
Y! �
i-k.�.
W
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Harbor and Bay Element
General Plan Amendment No. 2000 -1 (C)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to adopt a new optional element of the
General Plan. The proposed Harbor and Bay Element addressing uses of the water and
waterfront property in Newport Bay and Harbor and supplements provisions of the Land Use and
the Recreation and Open Space Elements.
ANALYSIS
I. AESTHETICS
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies and programs intended to preserve and
enhance the visual character of Newport Harbor and Newport Bay.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No agricultural lands or resources are affected by the policies and programs contained in
the Harbor and Bay Element.
M. AIR QUALITY
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that allow for the continued use of
Newport Harbor by motorized watercraft, including recreational boats,
passenger /sightseeing boats, passenger - fishing boats, and entertainment boats, which
impact air quality. However, these policies do provide for an increase or decrease in the
level of activity. Therefore, no significant impacts to air quality are anticipated.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies and programs intended to protect,
preserve and enhance the natural wildlife and plant -life in and around Upper and Lower
Newport Bay. This includes the protection of the marine environment in the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
The Harbor and Bay Element contains polices and programs recognizing the necessary
periodic dredging for safe navigability and access to marinas, for vessel berthing and
beach nourishment. However, such activities will continue to be conducted through
Harbor -wide maintenance dredging permits, which are reviewed and approved by all
agencies with jurisdiction over the Harbor.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies and programs that call for construction of
harbor- related facilities, although no specific sites or designs are identified. Such
facilities could be constructed in areas where archaeological or paleontological resources
are expected to exist on the site; the necessary investigations and precautions will be
instituted to ensure preservation of such resources.
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies and programs- intended to encourage the
retention and enhancement of unique buildings, building complexes, uses, and activity
centers that have served as recognized "landmarks" and "icons" in the physical
development/appearance and cultural history of the Harbor.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies and programs call for construction of
harbor- related facilities, although no specific sites or designs, are identified. The area in
and around Newport Bay is subject to strong seismic ground shaking and has a historic
occurrence of liquefaction; Local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions
also indicate potential for permanent ground displacements. However, all new
development will be required to incorporate measures to reduce risks to acceptable levels.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that allow for the continued use of
Newport Harbor by residential, commercial, recreational, and maintenance activities
could. involve hazardous materials: However,,: these - policies.. do not provide for an .
increase or decrease- in the level of activity:: Therefore;. no significant impacts: are
anticipated.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that allow for the continued use of
Newport Harbor by residential, commercial, recreational, and maintenance activities,
which could impact water quality. However, these policies do not provide for an increase
or decrease in the level of activity. Furthermore, the Harbor and Bay Element contains
policies and programs intended to ensure that the water quality in Newport Bay Harbor
meets Federal, State and local standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated.
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that allow for the continued use of
Newport Harbor by residential, commercial, recreational, and maintenance land uses and
activities, which are in areas subject to flooding and potentially to seiche, and tsunami
hazards. However, these policies do not provide for an increase or decrease in the level
Ba
0'a
.......of activity. and individual projects will be required to incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures.. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The Harbor and Bay Element is one of the elements that comprise the City's General
Plan. The Harbor and Bay Element focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront
property in Newport Harbor and supplements provisions of the Land Use and the
Recreation and Open Space Elements. The Harbor and Bay Element is also intended to
provide general policy guidance with respect to a specific portion of the City within the
Coastal Zone but is not intended to supplant or modify the Land Use Plan of the City's
Local Coastal Program.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
No mineral resources are known to exist in Newport Bay or the surrounding area.
Therefore, there is no impact.
XI. NOISE
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that allow for the continued use of
Newport Harbor by commercial, recreational, and maintenance activities, which could
impact adjacent residential areas. However, these policies do not provide for an increase
or decrease in the level of activity. Furthermore, the Harbor and Bay Element contains
policies and programs intended to control and mitigate noise - related land use conflicts.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
X11.. 'POPULATION AND HOUSING.
The Harbor- and Bay Element contains no policies that would result in any. growth or
reduction in the area's population. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated
)M. PUBLIC SERVICES
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that intended to ensure the adequate
provisions of services for the various uses of Newport Bay. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
XIV. RECREATION
The Harbor and Bay Element contains polices and programs that will maintain or
increase recreational facilities and opportunities in and around Newport Bay. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated.
INI
:4'>t
XV. TRANSPORTATION/IRAFFIC
The Harbor and Bay Element contains polices intended to minimize traffic and parking
impacts associated with the various uses of Newport Bay. Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
The Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that allow for the continued use of
Newport Harbor by uses that could impact water and wastewater systems. However,
these policies do not provide for an increase of decrease in the level of activity.
Furthermore, the Harbor and Bay Element contains policies that intended to ensure the
adequate provisions of services for the various uses of Newport Bay. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Harbor and Bay Element is also intended to provide general policy guidance for uses
of the water and waterfront property in Newport Bay. This includes polices intended to
enhance the water quality and protect the marine environment in Newport Harbor and
Upper Newport Bay. Therefore, it does not have the potential to substantially impact fish,
wildlife, or plant species.
No significant cumulative impacts are associated with the adoption of the Harbor and
Bay Element.
There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by
;the adoption of the Harbor.and Bay Element_
•
ARDELL INVESTMENT COMPANY
2077 WEST COAST HIGHWAY
POST OFFICE BOX 1715
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659
(90) 6d2 -1626
March 20, 2001
Mr. Tony Melum, Director
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: General P!an Harbor and Bav Element
Dear Mr. Melum:
Thank you for the opportunity to reply to your letter of March 6, 2001 which included a
copy of the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element.
Ardell Investment Company is the owner of a property with 700 feet of lineal frontage on
Newport Bay. Our principal concern after reviewing the Harbor and Bay Element is the
economic viability of properties which are not developed to their highest and best use at
this time. It appears that many of the existing water - related commercial uses in the
Harbor which are advocated in the document do not generate sufficient revenues to justify
such uses on valuable bayfront parcels. We would hope that land use regulations
applicable to waterfront property will continue to allow uses that can generate sufficient
income to justify development. The current limited zoning along Mariners' Mile is a
deterent to quality development. Land uses should be expanded beyond the narrow
water- dependent and water- related uses included in the Harbor and Bay Element.
Property Owners must be allowed viable economic use of their property if quality
development is to occur on the bay, especially in the Mariners' Mile area. Maintaining.
and enhancing the charm and character of the Harbor as suggested are laudable goals;
however, quality development on the bay will not occur if there is undue emphasis on
water dependant and water related uses.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
��i4�
D.T. Daniels
Vice President
83
From: Campbell, James
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 4:34 PM
To: Alford, Patrick
Subject: FW: Mariner's Waterfront /Harbor 6 Bay Element
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Keenan Smith ( mailto :keenan @citylightsdesign.com)
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:31 PM
To: Norma Glover; Sharon Wood
Cc: Jim Campbell; Lee Anne Kirby; Tat Jackson
Subject: Mariner's Waterfront /Harbor 5 Bay Element
Norma, Sharon, et a1...
I spent a few moments in the last couple of days reviewing the proposed "Harbor
and Bay Element" which Mark Murrell distributed at our last Mariner' s Mile
Business Owner's Association meeting on March 14.
My reaction is that it is a good piece of comprehensive planning work, focusing
on policies which preserve, enhance and promote efficient operations on one of
Newport's most obvious assets.
In thinking about the goals, policies and implementation suggestions of the
Harbor and Bay Element vis -a -vis our work on Mariner's Mile, the following
co.:nections, thoughts and recommendations come to mind:
1. Support Passage and Approval.
---- -- ------- -------------- - - - - --
The approval of the Harbor and Bay Element allows it to "take the lead" in
establishing, strengthening and supporting policies co- comminant with our
strategic objective of promoting a vibrant public waterfront on Mariner's Mile.
It makes it a little easier for us.
2. Coordinate Efforts.
We should look for areas of policy co- alignment and implementation strategies
which can mutally reinforce the Mariner's Mile Waterfront and Harbor /Bay Element
objectives. I think there are many of these, such as:
pedestrian walkways and connections, incentives to protect water- dependent,
water - related and water - enhanced uses, establishing guidelines to preserve the
marine character of the waterfront, etc.
3. Re -visit the Waterfront Strategies of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision.
-------------------------------------------- ---------- ---- -------- --- - - - - --
If the Harbor and Bay Element is successfully initiated, we may wish to re -visit
our concepts and ideas in appropriate sections of the the Strategic Vision and
Design Framework with an eye to coordinating and cross - referencing the two
documents, and reinforcing strategies for the waterfront along Mariner's Mile.
4. Mariner's Waterfront: Demonstration Project.
---------------------------------- -------- - - - ---
Taking one step further, would it make sense at some point to build on the
potential momentum created by the Harbor and Bay Element by perhaps initiating a
"Mariner's Waterfront Concept Plan" which proposes implementation of some the
key concepts and applicable ideas? We have said all along that the waterfront
on Mariner's Mile is it's most important but best hidden asset. Maybe the time
has come (or is close at hand) for moving some of our ideas forward,
g��
underwritten, propelled and reinforced by the policies of the impending Harbor
and Bay Element.
5. A Larger Vision.
-------- ------ - - - ---
In summary, I think the proposed Harbor and Bay Element is worthy both for its
motives and content, and holds obvious implications and perhaps even promise for
the overall strategic objectives we've been working on for the waterfront on
Mariner's Mile. After "The Village," I'm thinking "The Waterfront" may be "the
next piece" we work on implementing.
"The Waterfront" would connect to (and reinforce) the sense of place we are
trying to create in "The Village." Taken together, a comprehensive and
coordinated plan for both the "Village" and "Waterfront" would create a backbone
for positive redevelopment and set the stage for a potentially incredible
tranformation of Mariner's Mile.
Comments invited.
thanks,
Keenan
--------------------- - - - - --
City Lights Design Alliance
P.O. Box 1166
Dripping Springs, Texas 78620
tel /fax 512- 264 -3031
5
Weber Plywood & Lumber Co., Inc.
March 21, 2001
Tony Melum, Director
Harbor Resources Division
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 926588 -8915
Dear Mr. Melum:
I am in receipt of your letter of March 6, 2001 regarding the General Plan Harbor
and Bay Element I have read it thoroughly and all I can say is that it all sounds
good until we get to the bottom line.
My concern here is you can't do all these things without hiring a lot of people and
having to pay for them. So, my question becomes how are you going to
implement the revenue and in what areas, from whom, why, when and how many
people are you going to hav mploy to do all these things— that's the
bottom line.
I certainly would `like ply to these questions. I am an owner and have a boat
slip in front of my ho a but I'm not just concerned with that, I'm concerned with
the whole area. 1 w uld appreciate hearing.from you.
Best
Park Dr.
Beach, CA 92663
8(
4 crnl #A..ni...• C1r...d . - r "-+;.. n # nn9on . ice. A, "_ " __ r - I a I- 1 .1.... 1^1.
v
Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency
March 28, 2001
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630 Gray Davis
Governor
Mr. Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RECEIVED or
PLANNING DE-PARTMENT
CITY O--
Ah1 PN1
718191191111121112131 =1516
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HARBOR
AND BAY ELEMENT - 2001031075
Dear Mr. Alford:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative
Declaration (ND) for the above - mentioned Project.
Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows:
1) The ND needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
Project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes /substances at the
Project area.
2) The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether
conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment.
3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and /or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which
government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
4) An environmental assessment should be conducted at the project area to
evaluate whether the site is contaminated with hazardous substances from the
potential past and current uses including storage, transport, generation and
disposal of toxic and hazardous waste /materials.
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.
For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web -site at ~v dtsc.ca.gov.
9 Printed on Recycled Paper
M
Mr. Patrick J. Alford
March 28, 2001
Page Two
5) The ND indicates the presence of 14 schools within 2 miles of the project area.
Even though less than significant impact is expected from the proposed project,
a study should be conducted to provide basic information for determining if there
is a potential threat of the release of any hazardous materials at the site that may
pose a health risk to students and faculty members attending the schools.
6) If during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, stop
construction in the area and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be
implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil exists, the ND should
identify how any required investigation and /or remediation will be conducted, and
which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight.
DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA)
preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For
additional information on the VCP or to meet/discuss this matter further; please contact
Ms. Rania A. Zabaneh, Project Manager at (714) 484 -5479.
Sincerely,
Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E.
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
Cypress Office
cc: Govemor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812 -0806
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office _
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 RECEIVED BY
Long Beach, CA 90802 -4302 PLANNING D E PART M E N T
(562)590 -5071
CITY OF NEWPORT S- rPHI13, 2001
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner AM AN 1 b 2001 FNS
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department 718191101111�21�12131�1516
3300 Newport Boulevard —P.O. Box 1768.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: Harbor and Bay Element
City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment
SCH # 2001031075
Dear Mr. Alford
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration for the proposed Harbor
and Bay Element of the City's General Plan (GP). The comments provided below identify
preliminary concerns which Coastal Commission staff believes should be addressed in the
proposed General Plan Amendment. Of primary importance is the way in which the amendment
will affect the City's certified Land Use Plan (LUP). Based on our review of t`te proposed Harbor
and Bay Element, we recommend that the City process the document as an amendment to the
City's certified LUP (as will be discussed below). A more detailed analysis by Commission staff will
be conducted at the time an LUP amendment request is submitted. Please be aware that
additional information not addressed by this letter may be requested at the time of a subsequent
Commission review.
Certified Land Use Plan (LUP)
The Harbor and Bay Element states that the document is "not intended to supplant or modify the
Land Use Plan of the City's Local Coastal Program." In addition, the Initial Study checklist
identifies "no significant impact" in response to question IX (b) (Land Use and Planning). However,
the document provides policy guidance that directly affects activities and development within the
Commission's jurisdiction in the Newport Harbor area. Not only does the document discuss land
use issues on sites adjacent to the harbor, but it also discusses activities within the Commission's
original jurisdiction area (tidelands, submerged lands, etc.) that would be retained even if the City
were to achieve LCP certification in the future. As such, we recommend that the proposed GP
element also amend the certified LUP pursuant to Article 15 of Title 14, California Code of
.Regulations. If not structured to be consistent with the certified LUP and the policies of the Coastal
Act, implementation of the proposed Harbor and Bay Element could be jeopardized, as the policies
of the LUP and Coastal Act will take precedence during review of a project in the Newport Harbor
by the Coastal Commission.
Additionally, there is no discussion in the document that informs users that subsequent Coastal
Commission review is required. Therefore, it is feasible that an applicant may believe that since
their project meets the policy intent of the City's Harbor and Bay Element, that Commission
approval is a "given." To avoid confusion, it is important to develop policies consistent with the
Coastal Act and to inform potential applicants of the entire review process for projects with the
harbor area. We recommend that language be incorporated into the document that outlines the
Coastal Commission's coastal development permit (CDP) process for applicants.
Land Uses
When discussing the diversity of land uses (page 3), the Harbor and Bay Element identifies "water
dependent" uses as the highest priority, "water related" uses as the second priority and "water
enhanced" uses and the third priority. However, it is unclear what level of priority is placed on
"waterfront residential communities."
g�
1�
Page 2 of 4
As defined in Section 30101, "coastal- dependent development oruse "means "any development or
use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all" and "coastal -
related development" means any use that is "dependent on a coastal - dependent development or
use." The Commission considers residential development a low priority use, as it is neither
coastal- dependent nor coastal - related.
Parking Waivers and Other Incentives
The document repeatedly refers to the use of "parking waivers." Section 30252 of the Coastal Act
supports the provision of adequate parking facilities or the provision of substitute means of serving
the development with public transportation. The Commission requires new development to provide
sufficient parking to serve the demand it creates. By waiving parking requirements, a deficiency
may be created which would adversely affect public access to the Harbor. Please describe how
the parking waiver program would be implemented and discuss how the potential deficiency would
be addressed (i.e. through in lieu fees to construct a shared parking garage).
The proposed document also refers to density bonuses, transfer of development rights and floor
area waivers. These incentives may have direct impacts on parking requirements and the
provision of adequate visitor - serving uses within the Harbor area. These incentives may also result
in an intensification of current land use patterns. Pursuant to Section 13253 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations, any change in intensity of use requires a coastal development
permit. Consequently, the Harbor and Bay Element should acknowledge that the implementation
of the aforementioned incentives would trigger the need for Commission review.
Long Term Tideland Leases
The Harbor and Bay Element addresses the "use of long term tideland leases rather than the
current system of annual harbor permits as the mechanism for authorizing the maintenance or
construction of piers, floats and structures on tidelands." Please describe the, current system for
issuance of harbor permits and where these types of permits are required. How would the
proposed "long -term" tideland leases differ from the current system? Would the use of a long -term
program be consistent with the City's tidelands grant statutes (Assembly Bill No. 1422, 1978)?
Vessel Berthing and Storage
The proposed document discusses the encouragement of guest dock capacity throughout the City
(page 7). It appears that some of these are private facilities (ex. yacht clubs) and some public (ex.
City facilities). Commission staff would encourage the expansion of public facilities wherever
possible.
The allowance of "live - aboards" is also discussed in this section of the document. What type of off -
street parking requirement would be applied for this type of use? Are these currently allowed
under City ordinances and how is the use regulated?
The section also discusses the continued authorization of 'piers and docks bayward of waterfront
residential properties subject to appropriate conditions that ensure compatibility with residential
uses." This policy (and others throughout the Harbor and Bay Element) allows an inordinate
amount of deference to protection of private property rights and waterfront residential uses at the
sake of public uses. The proposed GP amendment should include policies that require private
residential development and associated docks to be designed so as not to adversely affect public
access or recreation. For example, private docks crossing public land (seaward of the MHTL)
obstruct lateral access. Existing obstructions should be removed as opportunities arise and new
docks should, be sited to preserve and enhance public access wherever possible. -Specifically, the
pier and dock policy referenced above should also include conditions that enhance water quality,
maintain and/or enhance public access where feasible, and minimize adverse impacts to marine
resources (including the minimization of fill of coastal waters, etc.)
�0
le�
Page 3 of 4
Dredging
Page 8 of the proposed GP element states that the City would facilitate necessary periodic
dredging by 'working to obtain Harbor -wide maintenance dredging permits from all agencies with
jurisdiction over the Harbor." The document should acknowledge and reference State and Federal
laws and standards regarding dredging and beach nourishment activities. For nourishment
activities, this would include grain size analysis, color testing and chemical testing.
Commercial Development
The proposed Harbor and Bay Element addresses the redevelopment of existing commercial
areas. The provision of low cost, visitor - serving commercial development should be encouraged
wherever possible as redevelopment occurs.
Public Access
The proposed document discusses the provision of public access detours" through areas
developed with marine sales and service uses. The City should encourage future relocation or
reconfiguration (i.e. siting new development or substantial redevelopment further inland) of these
activities in order to allow unobstructed public access, thereby minimizing or avoiding conflicts
entirely.
In addition, this section of the proposed document includes a policy that encourages the "expanded
development of public pedestrian access systems." However, the policy focuses primarily on
commercial areas. Public access systems should be encouraged throughout all parts of the City,
including residential areas. Also, where bulkhead replacements are proposed seaward of their
current location, the City should address the feasibility of obtaining some form of dedicated public
access to mitigate the loss of open coastal waters.
The document references the private construction of public waterfront elements. Outdoor dining is
referred to as a public use area. Please note that outdoor dining should in no way interfere with
public pedestrian access and should not be allowed within a public right -of -way.
Water Quality
While we recognize that a water quality section has been included in this document, the policies
provided are somewhat general in nature. A more detailed guidance document may be of greater
use to applicants.
Visual Character /Bulkheads
The section beginning on page 15 addresses the waterfront image of Newport Harbor and
_discusses the consideration of "new or renovated bulkhead permits." The language in the GP
amendment does not address the minimization of fill of coastal waters or the need to protect
existing structures. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits fill to eight enumerated uses and
requires implementation of the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Section 30235
of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part:
Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other
such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required
to serve coastal - dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in
danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local
shoreline sand supply...
The document should incorporate the requirements of the Coastal Act regarding the construction
or replacement of protective devices such as bulkheads. Structural methods for sand retention
should be avoided where feasible. However, if the placement of a bulkhead within the Harbor is
deemed allowable, appropriate mitigation should be required to regain public land lost through the
construction of a protective device in open coastal waters (as discussed in the Public Access
comments above).
q
Page 4of4
Administration
The proposed GP amendment discusses the creation of a "reference document "that would assist
applicants understand and comply with "all Harbor and Bay regulatory and permitting processes."
Until the City obtains a certified LCP, coastal development permits will be required from the
Coastal Commission. Consequently, it is important to outline the Commission's CDP process as
part of any reference document.
Sensitive Natural Resources
Beach nourishment and dredging are discussed on page 18. However, there is no discussion
regarding potential effects on sensitive resources such as eel grass or aquatic species. The
document should include policies (perhaps an entire section) regarding the protection and
enhancement natural habitat and species when developing any type of 'comprehensive program
for monitoring and nourishing beaches."
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the development of the City's Harbor and Bay
Element. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (562) 590 -5071.
Sincerely,
Anne L. Kramer
Coastal Program Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
File
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 -South
Sacramento, CA 95825 -8202
Ms. Nadell Gayou
The Resources Agency
1020 9th Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
April 16, 2001
Mr. Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach — P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Ms. Gayou and Mr. Alford:
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer
(916) 574 -1800 FAX (916) 574 -1810
Califomia Relay Service From TDD Phone 1- 800 - 735 -2922
from Voice Phone 1-800- 735 -2929
Contact Phone: (916) 574 -0234
Contact FAX: (916) 574 -1955
File Ref: G09 -02
RECEIVED EY
PLANNING DEP,ARTb1EN T
C 17 0 W0 -P7 Fc: '.H
AM APR 9 b 2661 PM
7;5;9;10111;1 �;1,c;3i415;6
Staff of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has reviewed the
Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed General Plan Amendment to adopt a new
optional element of the General Plan, SCH #2001031075. According to the information
provided, the proposed Harbor and Bay Element addresses uses of the water and
waterfront property in Newport Bay and Harbor and supplements provisions of the Lanc
Use and the Recreation and Open Space Elements. Based on our review of the
materials provided, we offer the following comments.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newport
Beach is the Lead Agency and the CSLC is a Responsible and /or Trustee Agency for
any and all projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands. their
accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable
waters.
The Proposed Harbor and Bay Element area includes:
Sovereign lands legislatively granted to the City of Newport Beach and
managed by the City according to with the legislative grant of tidelands
(Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978), as amended;
Sovereign lands legislatively granted to the County of Orange pursuant to
Chapter 526, Statutes of 1919, and amended by Chapter 415, Statutes of
q3
�s�
Ms. Nadel] Gayou
Mr. Patrick J. Alford
April 16, 2001
Page 2
1975. Pursuant to Chapter 415, a portion of the sovereign lands were
granted back to the CSLC and leased (PRC 5091) to the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for management as part of the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
In reference to Goal HB -1 #5 "Waterfront residential communities ", the CSLC,
along with the Attorney General's Office, has taken the position that residential uses are
not an appropriate public trust use for tidelands legislatively granted to a local
municipality. We understand that residential communities do contribute to diversity,
however, our concern is where these residential communities are /or will be located.
Inasmuch as the Harbor and Bay Element by definition are limited to areas waterward of
the bulkhead and /or mean high tide line, nearly all of those lands involved are likely to
be subject to the Public Trust Doctrine and the granting statutes.
Objective HB -1.2, Implementation Strategies, #5, states "Consider the use of
long -term tideland leases, rather than the current system of issuing annual harbor
permits, as the mechanism for authorizing the maintenance or construction of piers,
floats, and structures on tidelands." The granting statutes (referenced above) state that
the City may grant leases on tidelands not exceeding 50 years. General practice of the
CSLC is to grant leases not exceeding 10 years. What is the City's intent to the
proposed long -term tideland lease? What does an annual harbor permit consist of?
How do these two differ?
Objective HB -1.3, Policy HB- 1.3.6, would "Allow 'live - aboards' subject to
restrictions on the number of'live- aboards' as well as restrictions to protect the
environment, the public and waterfront owners /lessees such as regulations prohibiting
excessive noise and illegal waste disposal." What are the details of such restrictions?
How many live- aboards are there now? Residential use of Public Trust lands is allowed
only to provide security or a necessarily incidental benefit to the trust property, such as
a marina caretaker/ security guard.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or
comments concerning the CSLC's jurisdiction, please contact Jennifer Reischman,
Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574 -0234.
Sincerely,
Dwight E. Sanders, Chief
Divisil n o Environmental Planning
And Mhfr6qement
cc: Curtis Fossum, Senior Legal Counsel
Jennifer Reischman
cl `�
1�'
County of Orange
Planning & Development Services Department
P tiP
q�lFOA�
April 17, 2001
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for the Harbor and Bay Element
Dear Mr. Alford:
THOMAS B. MATHEWS
DIRECTOR
300 N. FLOWER ST.
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 3043
SANTA ANA. CA 927024043
NCL 01 -24
PLANNING D'EP -R T MENT
CITY OF N- \NPCPT
AM Pal
718191101111R11, -2 131 1516
i
The above refere_iced item is a Negative Declaration (ND) for the City of Newport Beach. The
proposed citywide project is a General Plan Amendment to adopt a new optional element of the
General Plan. The proposed Harbor and Bay Element addressing uses of the water and
waterfront property in Newport Bay and Harbor and supplements provisions of the Land Use and
the Recreation and Open Space Elements.
The County of Orange has reviewed the ND and offers the following comments regarding open
space and recreation.
A. The proposed element should acknowledge provision and operation of County Harbor
Patrol service which includes, but is not limited to, boating assistance and emergency
assistance both in Newport Harbor and the high seas.
B. The County of Orange owns significant tidelands in Newport Harbor. Examples consist
of both water and land including Harbor Patrol headquarters, Bayside Drive Beach and
Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, and most of the outer perimeter of Harbor Island. The
proposed element should also acknowledge this information within the proposed element.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the ND. If you have any questions, please contact
me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at (714) 834 -2522.
Ve truly yours,
N, -
George Bh1ton, Manager
Environmental and Project
Project Planning Services Division
N0
GS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Gove,,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
3347 Michelson Drive Suite 100
Irvine. CA. 92612 -0661
.April 18th, 2001
Patrick J. Alford
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach , CA 92685 -9815
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH #: 2001031075
Log #: 881
Subject: An Amendment to add a Harbor and Bay Element to the General Plan
Dear Mr. Alford,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration
for an amendment to add a Harbor and Bay Element to the City of Newport
Beach General Plan. The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to adopt a
new optional element of the General Plan. The proposed Harbor and Bay Element
focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront property in Newport Harbor and
supplements provisions of the Land Use and the Recreation and Open Space
Elements.
Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and would like to work
in active partnership with the local jurisdictions and the private sector to ensure that:
• All of the elements of a General Plan, whether mandatory or optional, must be
consistent with one another.
• The General Plan states policies stressing Caltrans Coordination and early
involvement in project and program development.
• The General Plan addresses the fact that Caltrans has regulatory authority over
certain developments that directly or indirectly impact State Transportation
facilities.
• The General Plan, specifically the Transportation/ Circulation element takes the
regional overview of the transportation issues, problems, and solutions in to
consideration. Including language requiring the City to develop policies stressing
coordination between the City and Caltrans early in the land use and transportation
planning process.
T�
qb
1.Ic-
April 18, 2001
Page 2
• Adequate mobility and choice for the Transportation of people and goods.
• Caltrans right of way and possible need for encroachment permits are identified,
and that any activity in Caltrans right of way will require an encroachment permit.
Applicants need to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include
engineering and environmental studies and documentation.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which
could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to
contact us please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267.
S' iinncwere y
7vG ��i
Robert F. Jose h, hief
Advanced Planning Branch
cc: Terry Roberts, OPR
Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning
Roger Kao, Hydraulics
Q-1'
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY Q= r=r ACH
APR 2 7 ZGGt
Dear Mr. Alford, AM PM
71819 110 ill 112 111213141516
I have two concerns about the Harbor and Bay Element of thb
proposed General Plan. The first is noise. At your meeting it was
inferred that there is already an element in the general plan that
controls noise. It is not working! In our area there are two major
offenders. The first is the Balboa Bay Club. On Friday and Saturday
nights, especially in the summer they have outdoor parties with
bands that play so loud that outdoor living at any home on Via Lido
Nord is impossible. I have complained verbally and in writing to the
Bay Club and to the police. Nothing changes.
The second is the increasing number of large party boats on the
bay, especially the Hornblower group. I understand the need for
public access to the bay and know that there is a ten o'clock
curfew, but there are more of these boats every year and the noise
level before ten would be unacceptable on any residential street in
Newport. Why is it tolerated for those of us who live on or near the
bay?
My other concern is water pollution. At your meeting I suggested
dye tablets as occurs in Avalon. The inference from those who
responded was that it was impractical and unenforceable. I
disagree. How about a trial run? First a large publicity campaign
stating that the tablets would be placed.at random, that violators
would receive large fines and be banished from the bay for twelve
months. A phone number could be included for the public to call
and report violators. Then put two to three hundred tablets in boats
at random and see what happens. Incidentally, the legality of fines
and banishment has been successfully tested in court by the city of
Avalon.
I will look, forward to your future meetings and will hope that your
efforts will enable us to avoid destroying the bay in the name of
publiiio
SincFritz
662 Via Lido Nord
Newport Beach, Ca.
949 - 673 -0926
JAMES E. MUNROE
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Attention: Mr. Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Subject: Harbor and Bay Element
RECEIVED By
ITANM NE DEPARTMENT PEACH
CITY 0
MAY 10 2061 PM
May 5, 2001 ggg101112123456
11 1 1 1 I I I I I I
Please consider the following additions to the 11/15/00 text discussed at the open hearing on 4/11/01. The
suggested changes would bring consideration to the residential requirements of the water- related uses.
Page 3 Goal HB -1 paragraphs 5. Waterfront residential communities (add) "including water - dependent and
water - related and water - enhanced uses of beaches and piers."
Page 8 Objective paragraph 3 Facilitate necessary periodic dredging for safe navigability and access to marinas,
(add) "facilities and residences,"
Page 22 definitions Water Dependent Use boatyards, yacht /sailing/boating /fishing clubs, (add) "residences ".
Adding this terminology would give consideration to residential uses equivalent to that given the commercial
uses
Sincerely,
James E. Munroe
1810 SOUTH BAY FRONT BALBOA ISLAND • 92662
PHONE: 949 673 -6497 FAX: 949 6763 -4021
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 2001
DRAFT I!
Nslowly developing new budget nodules and line items to transfer these
st Ses into the operational budgets of the various departments as opposed to
the ital Improvement Program, which really should be for infrastructure and
Commission Gifford asked about the Storm Drain Improvement Program on
page 9 notin at most of the funding is going to Balboa Boulevard from
Medina tot n St t\thisbud Are there future years in which Balboa Boulevard storm
drain improvemennded?
Mr. Edmonston anere are on -going projects. The next one is from
121h to 161h Streehere on up. There is a series of matching
improvements anitem will be used to do the drainage w ork
associated with each phase.
Commissioner Gifford then asked if th e is any overlap with the improvements
here for storm drains and the improvem is to Balboa Village?
Mr. Edmonston answered that the Balboa V1 ge project has 'that complex
series of fundings associated with it. There is d i age work in that project, but
if it shows up here, it is my understanding tha the Balboa Village item is
separate and not in this item.
Motion was made by Chairperson Selich that the Plan ' g Commission finds
that the Capital Improvement Program FY 2001 -02 is nsistent with the
General Plan, Zoning Code and other planning policy docu ents and direct
staff to present this recommendation to the City Council.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Kranzley
SUBJECT. Proposed Harbor and Bay Element
• (PA2001 -050)
The Harbor and Bay Element is a new optional element of the General Plan
intended to address uses of the water and waterfront property in Newport Bay
and Harbor.
Senior Planner Patrick Alford noted the following excerpts from the staff report:
Add a new element to the General Plan.
The new element would provide for five major goals:
➢ Diverse use of the harbor by setting priorities of land use established
by current Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act.
➢ Public access to the Harbor, provision of parking, launch ramps,
moorings and other forms of access.
INDEX
Item No. 5
PA2001 -050
Recommei ded for
Approval
/Of
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
Mav 17. 2001
DRAFT
• Environmental protection with the emphasis on water quality and
cooperation with the various resource agencies that have
jurisdiction over the Harbor and Bay, particularly the Upper Newport
Bay
• Visual character with the emphasis on the aesthetics of harbor
structures and the protection of harbor landmarks.
• Administration with emphasis on coordination with the County, State
and Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over the waters of the
harbor and the provision for the facilities necessary for the on -going
administration and maintenance of the harbor
• The Economic Development Committee reviewed this proposed
element and has unanimously recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend approval to the City Council.
• This item is to be reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs
Committee on May 2111
Commissioner Tucker questioned at what point does the Planning Commission
jurisdiction start and what is to be done when an application is received. The
Element seems to deal with what starts as the project line into the Bay, but
there are references to what happens on the land that is next to the Bay or
adjacent to the Bay and, in one or two cases, it is not clear how for from the
Bay one gets before a policy comes into effect.
Mr. Alford explained that it is not the intent to establish exact lines of
demarcation, particularly on review authority. This will be an Element of the
General Plan so the City will review projects against this and other policies of
the General Plan. It is a matter of which policies are applicable. If there is a
land use issue, for example, that could affect harbor operations, there are
several policies here that could come into play and the project would have to
be analyzed for consistency with those policies.
Commissioner Tucker noted that if the Planning Commission gets an
application for a Use Permit for a use that is within the project line next to the
Bay, that application is consistent with the zoning of the property but do we
then look at what the policies are in this Element to decide whether to grant
the Use Permit even though it may be a use that is consistent with the zoning?
Does it go that far?
Mr. Alford answered that if there is discretion involved, most likely there is a
finding that it has to be consistent with the General Plan. The application
would have to be reviewed against the applicable policies of this Element.
Consistency with zoning would not be the only issue. The hope is that the
zoning is implemented in such a way that it is always consistent, however, there
are always some uses that need additional review.
Commissioner Tucker then asked about Objective HB- 1.1.2: 'When reviewing
proposals for,land uses changes, the City shall consider the impact on water
dependent and water - related land uses and activities and the importance of
5
INDEX
jav
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 2001
'[CRAFT
providing adequate sites for facilities and services essential to the operation of
the Harbor.... How for from right on the bulkhead, does that extend? If we
have a boat yard that is 100 yards off the water and not on the street do we
look at that?
Mr. Alford answered that the Planning Commission will have to use its best
judgement on how for to extend. The intent is to deal mainly with the uses
within the immediate vicinity of the Bay. If, for example, there was a land use
that might introduce residential land uses in an area that has been
predominately commercial, particularly our marine /recreational commercial
uses, then it is possible that future residences there might produce a land use
conflict with those uses and could endanger future operations. That would be
one factor to be taken into consideration, if you are looking at a potential land
use change. If it is not a zoning or land use amendment, like a mixed use
project similar to the one in Cannery Village /McFadden Square area that the
Commission heard recently, this was introducing land uses into an area that
was primarily commercial and there was a question of compatibility.
Commissioner Tucker then asked about, '.... However, in no case, shall the
protection of such land uses, activities, facilities, and services deny an owner
viable economic use of the property: Viable and highest use, or even close to
highest use, are not necessarily the same. Certainly a property could have
many potential uses, some viable but perhaps not the highest and best use, or
the use desired by that ownership. How do we deal with something like that?
Mr. Alford answered that it would be addressed as a land use issue. You have
to provide viable economic use of the property. He then added that this was
one of the major issues the Harbor Committee had to deal with and that is how
do you protect certain uses that are considered essential to the operation of
the harbor but still protect property rights. You do have to maintain the viable
economic use of the property so you are not involved in a taking. At the some
time, you have to provide a number of incentives or other mechanisms to try
and encourage those uses to continue. Looking at that in combination with
the other policies and that major goal, the overall intent is clear that it is meant
to achieve that balance between the protection of private property rights and
the protection of those uses that are necessary for the continued operation of
the Harbor.
At Commissidn`inquiry, Mr. Alford noted:
In 197 the City Council appointed a thirte8n member Harbor
Committee.
They were given the broad charge of making recommendations
concerning the activities of the Harbor to the City Council.
A major project has been the proposed Harbor Element that has taken
two years to draft.
The Committee is made up of a number of residents, commercial
business owners and general users of the Harbor.
INDEX
10 3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 2001
f DRAFT
-_. INDEX
Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 3 of the proposed Element, diversity of
uses and objectives. You have the five uses, are they prioritized?
Mr. Alford answered that the order of the diversity of uses is not indicative of
priority. The Local Coastal Plan and Coastal Act do recognize that the highest
priority be given to water dependent uses. The ones that we have identified as
water enhanced or other uses are of a lower priority.
Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 4, asked about public parking and
public access for all waterfront uses. What does that mean, more or the some
amount only better? I certainly do not want more parking on the Peninsula,
because there is never enough. I agree with improving existing parking, but I
do not agree with providing more parking. Referencing page 7, he asked if the
docks at the Balboa Bay Club were for member use or public use? The land is
city owned and leased to the club.
Ms. Clauson noted that the marina and dock are all part of the ground lease
that the City entered into with the Balboa Bay Club. There was provision of
lease payments to the City, but I don't know if we negotiated, as part of that, a
certain percentage of the docks to be available for public use.
Continuing, Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 16, '..identifying areas and
buildings representative of the history of Newport Harbor, and encourage their
preservation and reuse'...how are we going to do that? Will it be based on
date built? For instance, the Cannery Restaurant was built in the 70's, yet there
are people in Newport who feel that is a landmark. How will this be
determined, as there will be some restrictions placed on those buildings? I think
that owners of those buildings may have concerns about what this means to
their properties.
Ms. Clauson answered that this is a policy document, so the implementation of
that will be part of the next step in the process. It is an interesting concept, as
there is a difference between what is considered a landmark and something
that has historical architecture. Making determinations will be part of this
policy that we will look at on something, whether it is a landmark versus
whether architecturally it's an.historic building. Originally, the Cannery was
there. The architecture was new and rebuilt to reflect the historical landmark
of the fact that there was a cannery there.
Commissioner McDaniel noted he shares some of the concerns expressed. It
needs to be somewhat general, although we are used to something more
specific. I understand that CalTrans has questions as well as the Department of
Toxic Substance Control and of course the Coastal Commission. If we send this
forward, does the document need to be tighter?
Mr. Alford answered that these agencies were asked to comment on the
Negative Declaration that was prepared. As stated in the report, none of them
identified major environmental issues and I think that some of what they said
7 f 0�
5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 2001
DRAFT
could be taken out of context as boiler plate responses to projects that are
more specific. In the case of the Coastal Commission, they did have a number
of comments, and I think that again the case is where they have identified
certain issues and have more or less pointed out things that they are interested
in as they review documents submitted to them for approval. This is relevant
because we are beginning the process of starting with the certification of our
Local Coastal Program (LCP) and integration of the Harbor Element into that
program and there will be major issues. I think the Coastal Commission just
basically wanted their issues known up front. They did not identify any
inconsistencies with the Coastal Act, or our LCP, so I don't think that it
necessarily leads to any significant revisions. However, if you feel that it is
appropriate that we address their comments directly, we can go back and
work on the document and try to re -word the language so that it addresses
their concerns. Basically, we feel the document is fine in its current form.
Ms. Temple added that she was in a meeting today with the Coastal
Commission staff and this question did come up. They did not indicate any
serious problem with what was done with this proposed Element. Their primary
issue was maintaining internal consistency between this Element and our
existing Land Use Plan and how they see the certification process moving
forward. They just gave us a heads up, but did not express to us that they felt
the Harbor Element in and of itself was going in the wrong direction.
Commissioner Agajanian brought up public access (HB -2) and visual character
(1-113-4) stating that neither of these make a statement about accessing view or
that the visual character of the view of the harbor is of value. There are no
policies related to the view shed of the harbor. Is this covered in other
documents, or is it excluded in this one for a particular reason?
Ms. Temple answered that significant public views have been identified for
preservation as we consider land use decisions in our Local Coastal Plan
currently.
Commissioner Kiser, referring to page 3 of the staff report, noted that, '.. the
Coastal Commission did not identify any direct conflicts with the Coastal Act
and only suggested revisions that .......and expand upon Coastal Act policies.'
Would this proposed Harbor Element expand upon Coastal Act policies?
Mr. Alford explained that the paragraph states that the Coastal Commission
didn't identify any conflicts, however, they did feel that there were certain
things that needed additional attention. For example, because we allow
waterfront residential communities, they point out to us that those are very low
priority in the coastal zone. They suggested that perhaps there should be more
discussion or clearer language in the Element to make that point known.
Similarly, there was a comment dealing with protection of sensitive marine
biology like the eelgrass. The wanted additional language addressing that. In
short, they had certain things that were very important to the Coastal
Commission and they wanted more emphasis in the document, however, they
8
INDEX
/0-<
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
May 17, 2001
DRAFT
did not go so for to say that the Harbor Element was lacking or somehow
inconsistent with Coastal policies. They just wanted to elaborate on the issues
they felt were important.
At Commission inquiry. Mr. Alford stated that this document does not enhance
the authority or expand the authority of the Coastal Commission in approving
projects in Newport Beach. Adding issues expressed by the Coastal
Commission would also not give them more power. it would only place a
greater emphasis on the parts they consider important.
Commissioner Agajanian asked if the encouragement of the creation of a
single waterfront public pedestrian space was an urban design decision at this
point. or is there an interest on multiple points on the waterfront as a target for
our development?
Mr. Alford answered that the committee felt that something like this was
necessary to serve as a focal point for Harbor activities. One of the things they
want to do is to make sure the Harbor is user friendly and that those facilities are
identifiable and there would be an area on the waterfront that would be
recognizable enough as the center of the Harbor. The policy calls for
encouraging a focal point. Other policies in the document indicate that there
should be some connection between the various activity areas in the Harbor.
Water taxis and other types of access are considered in the document.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Seymour Beek. 528 So Bay Front. spoke as Chairman of the Harbor
Committee noting that the discussion brought up several good points about
this document. These are also the some points that the Committee spent
considerable time on. particularly the point of balancing private property rights
and the interest of diversity in the Harbor. These are difficult issues and we
came out with a lot of compromises in the document. I think it is one that all of
the Committee members will stand behind and are quite happy with.
Continuing. he noted the diversity of the membership of the Committee:
bayside businesses were represented. the homeowners were amply
represented particularly the Bayside residents. mooring owners were
represented and the document reflects this diverse representation.
Commissioner Kranzley commended Mr. Beek for the work done on the
document. He asked the speaker for comments on parking and impacts on
the Peninsula caused by parking.
Mr. Beek noted his agreement about the parking on the Peninsula. However.
the committee did not come up with specific issues of parking. but in working
on the document. the committee realized that there is certainly an interaction
between the things we talk about here and roads and parking. However. we
did not feel it appropriate to go into them within this document. although there
clearly is a relationship.
INDEX
/0�
DRAFT
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes - - - - -- —_.__. .
May 17, 2001
Commissioner McDaniel asked about the CalTrans and Coastal Commission
interface. Did you meet with them while drafting this document?
Mr. Beek answered that there was no meeting with CalTrans or Coastal
Commission representatives. There was no involvement in the draft of the
document. The city staff sent copies to the Coastal Commission staff and
various other agencies as a courtesy to get their reaction and comments.
Burt Ohlig, 305 Morning Star Lane noted his appreciation of the protection
being afforded the bay. He noted the following:
Protecting - equal balance for families, retirees for the limited access
that exists on the bay.
Activities on the water are disruptive to the neighborhood, as water
tends to carry sound. In certain bay areas, elevations create a 'bowl'.
The enforcement occurring now is inadequate. I question whether an
activity center should be in this Element, or a more suitable site for
activities where there is a better opportunity for sound attenuation.
Waivers and incentives are mentioned in the document. What is the
trigger and what are the benefits?
In conclusion, he noted that the rest of his comments are contained in his letter
that was sent to the Commission May 14 +h.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Tucker then asked:
Page 3, Goal HB -1 #3 - add, 'including to but not limited to'. Staff
answered yes this could be done, as this item refers to any commercial
uses that are water enhanced.
Page 5, HB -1.2 - does that refer to water dependent, water related and
water enhanced commercial uses or are you referring to uses that are
actually in the harbor as defined in the glossary? Staff answered that it
is referring to those commercial uses that actually occur within the
harbor and also any support facilities that might occur on land. These
uses are not completely dependent on water services.
Page 8, HB -1.4 - If you have something that has nothing to do with the
charm or character of the harbor are you then not encouraging the
redevelopment of outdated and antiquated development? Would it
be proper to say something to the effect that, 'to encourage the
maintenance of the charm and character of the harbor'? Staff
answered that is not the intent. Basically the emphasis is on the
protection of the commercial areas that are around the harbor that
exist and should be protected. Following a brief discussion, it was
decided that this paragraph could be re- worded, as the intent is to
state that when you do have an antiquated commercial development,
that it should be redeveloped and to emphasize that we would like to
see it occur in such a way that it would maintain the charm and
10 10?
INDEX
DRAFTS
City of Newport Beach _
Planning Commission Minutes
Mav 17, 2001
character of the Harbor.
Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve the Negative Declaration
making the findings contained in Exhibit 1; and adapt Resolution No. 1529
recommending approval to the City Council of GPA 2000 -002 (C) subject to the
findings for approval stated in the resolution with the changes suggested by
Commissioner Tucker.
Continuing, he added that unless we find something overly objectionable that
we disagree with, that we should not change this proposed document. The
committee has worked an it for two years and a lot of work has gone into it. I
would be reluctant to change the warding.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonion, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
New Subdivision Code
INDEX
Item 6
Subdivision Code
City-inlTkE d amendment to revise the City's Subdivision Cade (Title 19 of the Discussion only
Municipa de) and to make related changes to Title 20 (Zoning Cade), Title
13 (Streets, Si walks and Public Property), and other Titles.
Ms. Temple noted at approximately 2 years ago, we had a few problematic
requests for minor sub " isions and we discovered a number of problems with our
existing Subdivision Ca which is Title 19 in the Municipal Cade. We also
discovered that there are number of areas within that chapter that had not
been regularly applied in a ber of years and are essentially outdated with
the subdivision practices of the and Public Works Department. As a result of
that, the City Council initiated amprehensive update to Title 19, which
unfortunately did not came an as fas s we had hoped because the Planning
Department was shifting staff resource a ations having to deal with several of
the large development projects that you sidered in the earlier part of last
year. However, we have now completed the ark, and this is the first look that
you will have of the new Subdivision Cade as dra d by staff with the assistance
of an outside consultant. The organization of the C Chapter has been totally
reworked and put into what we consider a logical fro ark, which will allow for
its use and ease of understanding and application. Th current Public Works
Standards have been highlighted in the Cade based a the City's current
subdivision practices. From the Planning Department paint a iew one of the
most important and key features of the updated Cade is the revis findings that
the Planning Commission or staff would need to make when d " n criteria
contained within the chapter are granted exceptions. One of the stru es with
the existing Title 19 is that in order to grant a waiver or exception from ase
design standards in the Cade, the findings that need to be made were essen y
variance findings, a very high bar. In addition, the Subdivision standar �/
II '0D
Mr. Jim Grand Ca
120 The Grand Canal
Newport Beach, CA 92662
6 June 2001
Re: Residential Pier RP801- 00011 /MRS01590
Mr. Dennis D. O'Neil
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. O'Neil:
Please be advised that I have taken the issue of the "City- installed Ladder"
and public safety to the streets.
I have enclosed two pictures showing my entry into this years Balboa Island
Sprit Parade, "Balboa Island Daze ".
I hope the structure (arrow "3" shows this in picture "A ") which the City il-
legally removed on 16 December 1999 will be replaced very soon.
The "City- installed Ladder" should be removed. It was never approved by the
Coastal Commission and does not comply to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
Will this and future inadequate and unsafe City - installed structures be ad-
dressed in the "Public Access" section of the "Harbor and Bay Element "?
I hope a representative from the Coastal Commission will be attending the City
Council Meeting, on 12 June 2001, when the "Harbor and Bay Element" will be
considered for adoption.
Very truly yours,
. im i reth
Note in picture "A" the float ( "Slipping
Into A Daze ")
that I am pulling down
Marine Avenue is mainly: a boat
named "Pier Pressure ",
a replica of the
"City- installed Ladder ", and a mannequin (representing
a person whom had
slipped -off the "City-installed
Ladder ") having the thought,
"This is SAFE ? ".
•
Please note in picture "B" that
arrow number "1" points
to the "City- installed
Ladder" not designed for use in
The Grand Canal and arrow
number "2" points to
a structure (Standard Drawing 603
- Platform and Steps)
that is designed for
use in The Grand Canal.
I hope the structure (arrow "3" shows this in picture "A ") which the City il-
legally removed on 16 December 1999 will be replaced very soon.
The "City- installed Ladder" should be removed. It was never approved by the
Coastal Commission and does not comply to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
Will this and future inadequate and unsafe City - installed structures be ad-
dressed in the "Public Access" section of the "Harbor and Bay Element "?
I hope a representative from the Coastal Commission will be attending the City
Council Meeting, on 12 June 2001, when the "Harbor and Bay Element" will be
considered for adoption.
Very truly yours,
. im i reth
,s
r p
r
l
L1
ARDELL INVESTMENT COMPANY
2077 WEST COAST HIGHWAY
POST OFFICE BOX 1715
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659
(949) 642.1626
June 12, 2001
Mayor Garold B. Adams and Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 North Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884
P- 5
Re: Item No. k, Agenda for June 12, 2001
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the Harbor and Bay Element and have the following concerns:
On page 2 of the document under the heading "Relationship to City Ordinances and
Policies" it seems contradictory to us that the Harbor Element is intended to control
activities conducted on that portion of the Harbor bayward of the bulkhead while that
statement is followed by a sentence: "The Harbor Element will be considered in land use
decisions related to properties adjacent to Newport Bay."
• Goal HB -1: Items 3, 4 and 5 under this Goal all relate to land uses on the land side of the
bulkhead versus the bayward side of the bulkhead
• Under Objective HB- 1.1.2: This policy concerns land use changes and provides that there
will be the potential to limit existing land uses as long as the owner is not denied viable
economic use of the property.
• The implementation strategies on page 4 discuss maintaining and updating land use
designations for property inside of the bulkhead.
• Objective HB -1.2.4 references land use regulations for waterfront property.
Mayor Garold B. Adams and Council Members
Page Two June 12, 2001
Objective HB- 1.4.1: This policy states that land use regulations and programs will be
used to preserve the charm and character of the harbor. This may not be fair to the
property owners and could result in infringement on their property rights.
Thank you for considering our views regarding this Agenda item.
Sincerely,
D.T. Daniels
PRRRDISE Ib :805- 995 -0118 JUN 12'U1 14 :4b No.UUS F'.U2
fux 'Firktr RECEIVED
1415 vaquero
Palm Spiuibs, CA 92262 '01 JM 12 P4 55
(760) 320 -4723 • l;'AX: (700) 318 -2643
June 12, 2001
The Honorable Mayor, Garold B. Adams
And Members of the City Council: Tod W, Ridgeway,
Steven Tromberg, John Hefferman, Gary Proctor,
Norma G. Glower, Dennis O'Neil
RE: The document addressing the Harbor and Bay elements of the General Plan
i must deplore this plan because it has avoided THE MAJOR ISSUE OF ITS CONCERN, the
necessity for a mandate emanating from this Council to FIRST OF ALL - "CLEAN UP THE
BAY POLLUTION!"
My lifelong association with Newport Bay and the fact that I conducted, as a private citizen, the
first independent study, and analysis of the Bays' pollution - I feel, qualifies me to state: THERE
SHOULD BE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION of this document - as it relates to welcoming the
public and utilization of the Bay as a catalyst for even greater purposes of
exploitation and the "THE GOOD LIFE" until this council issues a mandate for a Bay
clean -up of consequential proportions. I identified and presented a multitude of bay
pollution sources to a council session in 1971.
IN 30 YEARS - SEEMINGLY, NOTHINGS CHANGED! The same sources continue to add
even greater pollution to the Bay due to greatly expanded development - so I think I'm justified
in saying, "All my chickens have come home to roost!" Isn't it perhaps time you decided to
clean out the henhouse?
It is incumbent upon this Council to rectify the sins of the past and embark upon a "pollution
solution" program (heretofore ignored by past councils) so that the Bay may become a safer,
more acceptable element of enjoyment for all those recreational purposes categorized in the
studies contained in this massive, but senseless document.
Only then will you serve the highest and best purposes of the offices you hold and do justice not
only to your Newport Beach constituents, but also to all those visitors who come to share this
"Pocket Paradise."
Most certainly - at this juncture any thought of approving a "Negative Declaration" and /or a
Harbor Committee should be immediately "deep- sixecil"
PRRRDISE ID :805- 995 -0118 JUN 12'01 14:41 No.003 P.03
Many sources of intelligence contributed to my knowledge of the factors responsible for Bay
pollution, -- to name a few, Orange Coast College, UCI - Dr. Peter Dixon, world - renowned
expert on algae, and Marine Biologist who said that fish in Newport Bay were contaminated and
unsuitable eating — Fish & Wildlife, U.S. Attomey General's Office, etc., etc. Also Ed Gilchrist a
professional photographer who assisted me in photographing the greater mass of Bay pollution
emanating from development. MOST OF ALL THESE SOURCES OF ASSISTANCE ARE
STILL AVAILABLE; you would do well to avail yourself of their abilities, and SAVE OUR BAY
("S.0,13,11
Entities with proven records of success and continuing concern FOR THE FUTURE of Newport
Bay such as SPON, Friends of the Bay, Central N.B Community Association, to name but a few,
should be consulted in an advisory capacity.
In closing, one must ask - with the exaggerated interest in expanded commercialization of the
Bay — JUST HOW MUCH LONGER CAN THE SURVIVAL OF THE "GOLDEN GOOSE" BE
ASSURED?
Most sincerely,
Suzv Ficker
Swain's Data Service
June 12, 2001
ff 949- 675 -5206 06/12/2001 U 14:20 1/1
PRINTED:" -Ea6 LJILVA �
John S. and Mona L. Swain
308 Apolena Avenue
Balboa Island, CA 92662
(949)675 -5206
Mayor Gary Adams and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
A harbor and bay element should be part of the city's general plan as our bay is a vital
and unique aspect of living in Newport Beach.
It has come to our attention that a nearby homeowner, Lodwrick M. Cook at 1106 and
1108 South Bayfront, is proposing to re -align his dock to accommodate a 57 foot yacht.
By this relocation, public access in this area would be severly restricted for both the two
on shore mooring owners and users of that beach.
With proper city restrictions in the harbor and bay element of the general plan as to size
and location of piers adjacent to areas of pubic beaches, this problem could be averted in
the fiiture.
We feel that the harbor and bay element should be established and made part of the
general plan prior to issuing any variances to pier permits.
Sincerely,
John and Mona Swain