HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Beach Fire Ring Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application — Discussion of AlternativesCITY OF
y NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
March 10, 2015
Agenda Item No. 15
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Dave Kiff, City Manager — (949) 644 -3002, dkiff @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Dave Kiff, City Manager
PHONE: (949) 644 -3001
TITLE: Beach Fire Ring Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application — Discussion of
Alternatives (to be discussed at about 7:10 p.m.)
ABSTRACT:
After conferring with the Mayor, I have proposed that the City Council consider comments from area
residents and other interested stakeholders regarding the various fire ring plans that the City has
submitted to the California Coastal Commission for a June 2015 hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider and discuss comments from the public, residents and other stakeholders about various
alternatives for beach fire ring layouts.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this specific decision item, but the fire rings issue itself has taken
significant expense as well as significant staff time since roughly 2012.
DISCUSSION:
On Tuesday, February 24th, 2014, Mayor Pro Tern Dixon asked that the City Council vote on whether to
place the various beach fire ring scenarios (also referred to here as the Permanent Plans) submitted as a
part of the City's Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application on the March 24th, 2015 City Council
agenda for public input and Council discussion.
If the City Manager deems it appropriate, Council Policy allows the City Manager to place items on the
agenda as a part of Council Policy A -6 (Part 3 -C -C), which reads:
"The City Manager may place an item on the agenda in the course of operating the City."
I conferred with Mayor Selich in this regard, and believe it appropriate in the course of operating the City to
follow Mayor Pro Dixon Dixon's lead and have an opportunity for the public to provide comments to the
City Council regarding the various permanent plans that would attempt to align the community's sixty (60)
15 -1
beach fire rings in compliance with both the California Coastal Act and Rule 444 as promulgated by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Background. The City has submitted a Council- preferred permanent plan to the Coastal Commission, as
well as six other possible permanent plans, under the general direction of the Council from its January 13,
2015 meeting. At that meeting, a majority of the Council directed staff to proceed with submitting a
compliant CDP application to the Coastal Commission staff. The Council also directed us to implement an
Interim Plan that would allow some wood - burning prior to the Coastal Commission's review and approval
of a Permanent Plan.
It is typical that the Coastal Commission staff asks for a preferred plan as well as alternatives that may be
acceptable to the applicant - as well as alternatives reviewed and deemed not acceptable. The Coastal
Commission, following a noticed public hearing, will frequently act on a submitted plan and modify it as
they deem appropriate, returning it to the applicant with conditions of approval and changes. In the case
of beach fire rings, we expect the Coastal Commission to review and possibly modify one specific plan -
then approve it - and that plan would return to the City Council for ratification or denial (with a local denial,
the process would likely start again).
Nine Plans. As brief background, we have placed nine (9) different beach fire ring layouts ( "Plans ") on the
City's website for public review and comment. Seven of these plans (Plans 1 -7) are part of the City's
CDP application to reconfigure the fire rings in accordance with the California Coastal Act and the
SCAQMD's Rule 444 relating to open fires (sections of this Rule are provided as Attachment D).
The Coastal Commission staff has informed us that: (1) any change in beach fire ring layouts or
density /intensity of use requires the Coastal Commission's review and approval; and (2) a beach fire ring
is an important low -cost visitor - serving amenity. This category of amenity is a very important one in the
Commission staffs eyes.
At the same time, SCAQMD's Rule 444 (adopted in July 2013) says that any community with wood -
burning beach fire rings within 700' of residences must space the rings out at least 100' from each other (if
the community has more than 15 rings in its jurisdiction).
As a result of these agencies' rules and actions, the City of Newport Beach generally must space out our
sixty rings at least 100' from each other. This necessarily impacts additional residential neighborhoods,
but it also complies with air quality rules that suggest that the additional spacing improves air quality to a
greater extent than if the rings were in their traditional layout (they were about 35' from each other).
The Plans include a Council- recommended plan (Plan 1), three other plans that staff sees as acceptable
alternatives (Plans 2 -4), three plans that staff analyzed but that did not meet the requirements listed below
(Plans 5 -7), and two plans submitted by area residents (Plans 8 and 9).
These are all located on the City's web page at this address:
httt :// www .newi)ortbeachca.gov /index.asi)x ?pane =2479
Additionally, Coastal staff asked the City to submit the current Interim Plan to Coastal staff for possible
permitting in arrears. The Interim Plan has:
• 18 charcoal burning rings at West Balboa.
• 13 wood- burning rings spaced 100' from each other at East Balboa, an area that is an expanded footprint
from the traditional layout. Rings now extend eastward to about C Street.
• 12 charcoal- burning rings at CdM State Beach.
• 9 wood - burning rings spaced 100' from each other at CdM State Beach, an area that is expanded about
100' to the east from the traditional layout.
• 4 more wood - burning rings at CdM State Beach that are only 33' from each other, as these are beyond
700' from residences.
Total beach fire rings in the Interim Plan = 56 rings. 15 -2
As to the proposed permanent plan(s), we note that staff viewed the acceptability of each plan through this
lens:
1. Does it meet the Council's and Commission staffs goal of having 60 wood- burning rings citywide
when demand exists? Does the plan also comply with Rule 444?
2. For the comfort of the fire -ring users, are the rings located near public restrooms and parking?
3. Is the beach wide enough so that other uses can occur near the fire rings, and so that the rings are
not routinely inundated during high tide?
4. Would the fire rings' placement conflict with other organized activities, like recreational programs and
camps, volleyball, flag football or Junior Lifeguards?
5. Does the fire rings' placement allow for public safety vehicle access in and around the rings? Are the
rings clear of existing lifeguard towers?
6. Does the rings' placement present a supervision or maintenance problem?
Community Input to Date. We have had our Connect Newport site activated for the fire rings discussion,
and have had 221 interactions and 204 submissions as of the date of this report. A summary of votes,
comments, and solicited emails is shown as Attachments A and B. I would note that this is not a scientific
survey (as persons can comment or vote more than once if they create additional user profiles). The
survey is not limited to Newport Beach residents. We sent out about 1,200 postcards notifying people of
the ability to weigh in (as well as how to find Connect Newport) generally to persons along the Peninsula
and at CdM (generally closer to the beaches).
Briefly, Plan #7 (charcoal -only) has 69 votes as of the date of this report, Plan #2 (the plan that keeps 60
rings in generally the same locations as today, but encompassing a larger footprint) has 61 votes, and
Plan #1 (the Council- recommended plan) has 58 votes. These are the top three.
Enforcement and Maintenance Summary. During the same February 24th meeting, Council Member
Curry asked for an update on enforcement and maintenance issues associated with the Interim Plan. Our
anecdotal maintenance and enforcement experience to date is:
1. We have found several instances where people have burned wood in the Charcoal -Only rings.
2. We have found instances over one specific weekend where persons made wood fires outside of the
rings, in sand. As a result, hot coals were in the sand outside of rings the following morning (a Sunday
morning) at Corona del Mar State Beach. This was previously rare, but not unheard of when the rings are
busy and when 60 rings are not enough to satisfy demand.
3. Trash has been left in and near the rings, including empty bottles that contained alcohol, and persons
have burned some objects that are not appropriate for beach fire rings, such as a table and other
furniture. None of these actions (leaving trash, consuming alcohol, burning the wrong things) is unusual
for the fire rings. We believe that, because of the movement of some of the rings further east on the
Peninsula, residents who had not previously seen the trash or the improper materials are noticing it, where
they did not before.
4. As we do not think that it is appropriate to have recreation staff working into the evenings supervising
fire rings, we have recently brought on a new monitoring company that will soon (possibly by March 15)
assist in supervision of the rings into the evenings, especially Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. We hope
that this will improve ring users' compliance with existing rules. We expect this to cost between $60,000
and $85,000 annually - only if the Interim Plan lasts a full year or more. The cost will vary depending on
weather and other factors.
5. We did not enforce a complete ban on any burning during No Burn Days (see below). 15 -3
6. Our overall enforcement approach is one of education well before any warning or citation would be
issued, as we still find that many ring users are unaware of any regulations relating to beach fire rings.
Other Issues. Rule 444 contains a section (Section 7 - see Attachment D) that suggests that any wood -
burning beach fire ring made available to persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) need not be spaced 1 00' from other wood rings. The ADA rings still "count" for the purposes of
determining whether a community has more than 15 rings within its jurisdiction.
On Thursday, March 5, 1 spoke with AQMD's Executive Officer (Dr. Barry Wallerstein) about the District's
thinking behind this section, and he reported that it was intended to address an issue at Doheny State
Beach. I discussed with him how AQMD might view a plan alternative that made significantly more rings
ADA - compliant here in Newport Beach. He noted a concern that any action like that genuinely be made to
provide access to persons with disabilities versus attempting to circumvent Rule 444's distancing
requirements.
I also discussed with Dr. Wallerstein what Rule 444 requires with regard to "No Burn Days" (days during
which particulate matter greater than 2.5 micrometers has reached a level of over 100 via the Air Quality
Index in the local region). No Burn Days are designated between November 1 and February 28/29 each
year. Our community had several of these days (about a dozen or more) in Winter 2014 -15. Dr.
Wallerstein noted that no burning at all is allowed in the fire rings (or in fireplaces) during these days. The
City did not effectively enforce this in Winter 2014 -15, but will have to do so starting in November 2015.
In Closing. We note that there is no perfect plan for the layout of these rings. We need to provide
alternatives to a single plan, and can continue to supplement, remove, or modify those alternatives as the
Coastal Commission staff interacts with our staff to deem our application complete. Any additional public
input is appreciated, whether at this meeting or via phone call, e-mail, or letter.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action (to take additional public input) is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in
Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at
which the City Council considers the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment A - Connect Newport Information
Attachment B - E -Mails Associated with Postcard
Attachment C - Correspondence
Attachment D - Selected Sections of Rule 444
15 -4
ATTACHMENT A
Duestion 1
What plans do you like or dislike - and why?
Plan 1, the City Council- approved plan, places 18 rings at
Big Corona, 26 near the Balboa Pier. 9 north of the Newport
Pier, and 7 at the western side of the Newport Dunes lagoon.
Plan 2, generally places the 60 rings in the same locations as
today, but realigns them to meet the 100' distancing
requirement (spaced 100' apart).
Plan 3, places some rings at CdM State Beach, some at the
Balboa Pier, and then has smaller clusters of 4.10 rings
between the Santa Ana River and roughly 15th Street.
Plan 4, is like Plan 2, but would require Coastal Commission
approval for the seasonal removal of half of the wood -
burning rings (30) from October 16 to March 14. leaving 30
wood- burning rings available during the winter months.
Plan 5, places some fire rings at CdM State Beach (14) and
some near the Balboa Pier (14), and then places 32 rings in a
single line - spaced about 525' apart - from the Balboa Pier to
the Santa Ana River.
Plan 6, attempts to keep the general current footprint, but
intersperses charcoal -only rings with wood - burning rings
(roughly 30 of each).
Plan 7 is the current, charcoal -only approach.
Plan 8, places 18 charcoal only on the western side & 12
wood only on the eastern side of Balboa Pier and at CdM
State Beach 14 charcoal only close to the East Jetty & 11
wood only spaced 100' apart.
Plan 9, places 33 wood - burning rings citywide with 18 at the
Balboa Pier (12 on the east and 6 on the west) and 15 at CdM
State Beach.
15 -5
Engagement
Survey
40 Open
Participants
206
20%, 25% 1p.5Ya 20%
O-1 2-5% 24
14-17 � 29 5+
221
204
'.'uErnisir�rs
62%
rAsie
13
miner
14
38%
6erroagraphric mfam0w may not be provideu an 100% of partickards
29.6%
15 -6
3t"'625
20A%
3266@
16.5%
92661
- 14.6%
92657
2.4%
9225
1.9%
92627
1.5%
92&62
1.5%
992648
1%
92658
1%
is�wAll Farr i Cady
6erroagraphric mfam0w may not be provideu an 100% of partickards
29.6%
15 -6
Frank P.
Our air quality isn't getting any better.
This winter we've had many No Burn Days when air quality was rated
UNHEALTHY. The AQMD can't meet minimum standards for clean air. Public
health across the region suffers.
Then a strike at the Port strands ships pumping diesel exhaust into our air.
The drought compounds our problems. Meanwhile we debate how to pollute
the only clean air that comes ashore. We're kidding ourselves.
Look to the long effort to eliminate smoking in public — its taken 50 years, but
today you cannot smoke in public, or on the beach. This issue won't go away.
Sticking it to those residents who already live near the pits is one approach,
but the ethical choice is to remove wood burning altogether.
Daniel H.
I was a Lifeguard for the City of HB for 13 years, in reflecting over my 13
summers on the beach I can not recall one incident where the fire pits
provided a positive addition to the beach, its visitors, local residents or the
lifeguards on duty.
The fire rings brought added debris, care less users, unsafe conditions and
confrontations among visitors arguing or fighting over the limited number of
rings.
The majority of beach patrons do not understand that sand, while can
extinguish a fire, it is an insulator. Most of the first aid calls we received frorrr
the fire rings were in the morning after the patrons from the night before
extinguished their fire by covering it in sand. 100% agree that no one should
ever walk through a fire Ong, but as parents or guardians are unloading for the
day at the beach I witnessed more children (in the excitement of a beach day)
burn their feet stepping into a ring with 9 having the appearance of a freshly
cleaned pit.
The medical aids, "policing" of the rings and breaking up confrontations are all
situations that distract (and can be prevented by not placing fire rings) the
Lifeguards from their main mission of watching the water.
The information above states that the proposed plans are in place due to
"demand" does the city really feel that beach attendance will drop if fire rings
are not available to the public?
15 -7
Kevin W.
Keep up the great work) So glad you're keeping the fire rings!
Denise F.
Although we prefer to see the fire rings disappear completely we are willing to
compromise for the sake of "tradition" that many refer to & we are voting for
Plan 8 (Plan 4 as an alternate) in order to attempt to maintain our air & water
quality at a Grade A+ level. We have progressed too far in our society to allow
open burning of wood. trash or otherwise & owe it to our health to refrain from
any type of smoke in the air, including on our "No Smoking" beaches. Instal ling
fire rings near the Newport Pier will greatly impact the busiest beach in the city
where people are already vying for space in a very small, crowded area.
Additionally, for swimmers & surfers who are regulars at the Newport Pier. it is
really difficult to conceive how fire rings would not pollute this world - famous
surf beach as the tide often reaches the sea wall & would inundate the ash -
filled ring. Please do NOT allow installation of fire rings near the Newport Pier
and be mindful of the type of fire rings allowed!
Ken R.
As a peninsula resident I feel any expansion of the fire rings footprint is not in
the best interest of those that live adjacent to the boardwalk/oceanfront. Plans
1, 2. 3, 4 and 5 all have this as an issue ... so that makes them no starters.
Furthermore I believe plan 1's placement of nine new fire rings North of
Newport Pier will be a problem during the high summer traffic months. Our
lifeguards will validate that this stretch of beach is wall -to -wall popups during
this time. Adding fire rings to this area will actually reduce the number of
persons able to safely use this already congested limited space. if the
requirement is to have 60 fire rings then I believe plan 8 is the best
compromise with wood /charcoal sections. If we must get to 60: then add 5
wood burning fire rings at Newport Dunes as suggested in plan 1. Note: Of the
more than two dozen peninsula neighbors I have talked to about this hot topic
not one thinks it is right to expand the fire ring footprint (even if they want the
wood burning ability back). in their words-.."it's not right to put a wood buming
fire ring in front of someone's house where there was not one before"
15 -8
todd m.
Honestly, I'm not sure what this survey is meant to accomplish. The plan was
already submitted, so all of our comments are really a mute point, and
anything at the city council meeting against them was ignored anyways. Plan 1
(submitted) puts pits in front of the parking lot at the newport pier. I live right
there. The last thing we need Is more people in that parking lot, more trash in
that area and in the parking lot, and hot ashes in those rings where everyone
takes their kids. I frequent the rings north of river jetties in HB, and
unfortunately the rings attract people that bum their trash, cans, etc, leave the
beach a mess, and generally (but not all of them) have little respect for the
beach. Plan 5 just spreads the problem out across the whole length of the
peninsula- If the city has the funds, staff, and time to go ahead and police the
rings, keep the noise down after dark, keep kids out of the rings the next
morning when they are still hot, then good job, but we know that isn't the case.
Considering they don't even police people smoking on the beach, see the
thousands of cigarette butts in the sand on any given day, there is too much
that they will not be able to enforce. Putting rings where there aren't currently
rings is a bad idea. The beach is already trashed during the summer months,
this adds to the problem. Putting rings in front of peoples houses who bought
those houses without rings in front of them isn't right. People will be making
noise, getting drunk, and leave trash all over the beach. exactly like north of
river jetties is now. (but there are no houses there, and they kick you off at
night) Saying those will not be issues is being naive. I'm not a fun hater. just
feeling for people who spend 5+ million on a house and will have to deal with
fire rings in front of their house, and all of us residents who are going to have
to deal with the mess this is going to make.
joy S.
Placing all of the bonfire pits in one or two areas is not a good idea as d will
cause overcrowding in areas that are already crowded (the pier).
Bonfire rings are a burden on the residents that live in the area and the
lifeguards who have to deal with bum patients. They may also contribute to
more people trashing the beach. Why is there not a plan to eradicate all of
them?
15 -9
Joe V.
What a bad and costly idea to go back to wood - buming fire nags, and to even
consider adding more anywhere in Newport. The current Plan 7 (charcoal-
only) is the best and safest solution, and made a huge difference this past
summer after years of beach smoke in Corona del Mar, where people visit,
exercise and live. Wasn't a ruling by the AQMD (Air Quality Management
District) that identified wand- buming smoke as a KNOWN carcinigen and
health hazard enough to stop the proposed changes that the previous City
Council worked so hard to implement? People with asthma and other lung
conditions can't enjoy our beaches because of this, and who wants to get lung
cancer from breathing smoke at the beach when smoking has been banned in
restaurants and public places? Crazy, it's 2015 people- As citizens we look to
our Government to protect public health, and we all deserve clean air. Plan 7
(charcoal -only) does that and still allows for recreational use of the beach fire
rings.
Ed V.
Limiting air pollution is a good idea and keeping the footprint generally as it is
seems fairer than subjecting more residences to a new source of pollution
after their owners have committed themselves to a location that did not have it
when they made their purchase decision.
James N.
The addition of fire rings to the Newport Pier area could only increase the
negative impacts these beaches already suffer from heavy use. Fire rings
added to this stretch of sand would interfere with current activities and greatly
reduce the appeal of one of Newport s most iconic beaches- Hopefully this
plan can be eliminated and instead, if we must have fire rings, restrict them to
those areas where they currently exist.
15 -10
- Ryan S.
The new location of the fire rings is terrible. I watched yesterday as tractors
plowed under natural dunes and natural beach vegetation to create a parking
lot flat section of beach for these ugly cement blocks strewn down the beach.
Haven't we destroyed enough of our natural resources?
This is a terrible plan that damages the environment and destroys one of the
few more natural condition beaches we have in Newport Beach. What. left of
the natural dunes is now going to be trampled by people using the fire pits and
strewn with trash. And the new spacing is not even beneficial to the people
using the pits! I used the in the old location and the old location is fine! It is a
total lose lose move for everyone. This is a real shame whoever it was that
caused this to happen and should be undone. It is environmentally destructive -
It destroys the natural beauty of our area. It has no benefit. Terrible decision
making city officials! Plan 6 and 7 both maintain the current number of fire pits
without destroying our natural beach so seem like the best solution of those
presented.
buzz t.
there is not enough people to monitor the increasing quantiy of illegal
moroized bicycles on our beach sidewalks - who is going to monitor all of the
fire rings proposed in plan 5? who came up with the idea to add firepits to our
entire beach front ?F
Lei"
Wood burning fire pits are an unnecessary source of harmful air pollution. The
current charcoal -only plan (Plan 7) would seem to be the best solution for
everyone at this time- The wood smoke -free fire pits would allow the beaches
to be more accessible and enjoyable for more people, including children and
others who must avoid both tobacco and wood smoke for health reasons, and
for people who simply prefer breathing fresher, cleaner air. Aiming to protect
cleaner, healthier air for better public health is a goal that should remain a top
priority for all levels of government, including municipal govemments.
15 -11
ATTACHMENT B
Fire Rings Community Comments
Date Address
zip Comments
1/26/15 Beach Visitor, no address given
My husband and I were planning on visiting the beach there, when we heard
that it was wood smoke free, but we won't be visiting it now, because of the
new wood smoke allowed rules. Too bad about the'return of wood'. I'll avoid
that area for sure.
1/27/15 1806 -B W. Oceanfront
92663 Wrote a letter. Proposes reducing the number of fire rings to 30 and keep the
present locations. Supports proposals submitted by the community
associations on the peninsula.
1/29/15 1109 E. Balboa Blvd
92663 These fire rings that were just moved and strewn across the beach are terrible.
All the residents along E Balboa here affected by this feel this way. Even people
walking the board walk are already commenting on how ugly they are spoiling
the natural beach. It is destroying one of the great natural resources this
community has the great fortune to enjoy. And for what so a small number of
people can roast hot dogs further down the beach? It doesn't even benefit this
group as its farther to trudge your wood into the beach. I have used the old fire
ring locations it was a great fun area. This seems like a total lose lose for
everyone! Huge destruction of a rare natural resource for really no benefit for
anyone! I sat there and watched yesterday as tractors plowed over natural
dunes and vegetation to create a developed area. This is also going to cause
people to trample the dunes that are around the fire pits now. Its a real shame
and seems totally careless and totally disregards the natural beach resource and
the people that enjoy the natural beauty of this section of the beach. There are
plenty of areas of the beach that have been developed and paved and
trampled. This is one of the few natural areas left in Newport Beach and it is
being destroyed! Other areas where the fire pits were move might not be as
sensitive but this area of Newport Beach is relatively undisturbed natural beach
as opposed to the totally developed beach north of Balboa Pier all the way up
to Newport Pier. This is a huge disservice to the community. Everyone that
walks the boardwalk and beach and that lives along this boardwalk would prefer
the fire rings be put back in their previous location. They are far enough from
the houses there that the added smoke from using wood does not affect the
houses or mix wood and coal use and keep them in the old footprint. Thank you
Ryan -- a very concerned citizen that watched city officials cause the destruction
of a true treasure of our community. PS there was a beautiful sunset tonight
that was totally marginalized by the skyline of ugly fire pits. One of the best
views anywhere is a sunset over Balboa Pier from south of the pier. That
amazing view that is in so many photos is now trashed up with ugly fire pits.
That is a priceless asset of this community that is being materially damaged by
2/5/15 3024 Breakers Drive
Charcoal only.
2/6/15 Corona del Mar
'Plan 2' sounds closest to the original fire rings, so that gets my vote. The fire
rings were there long before those people bought the houses near the beach.
15 -12
Only e-mail address provided.
I recently moved back to Newport Beach and received your mailer on the fire
rings. Upon accessing the web address, I noticed that I had only the option of
choosing from 9 bad choices. So I am sending this memo with a dissenting
opinion. I was shocked to see that these fire rings had been approved. They are
a nuisance, hazard and a major source of air pollution which everyone
downwind has to inhale. This includes the elderly and small children. What are
you thinking ?! Why ?! With all the overwhelming regulations against smoking,
environmental protection, specially formulated gasoline, smog et cetera that
California has in place, Newport Beach approves what? Fire rings. And for
charcoal? And no one is naive enough to think that only wood or charcoal are
burned. The plastic and garbage that is thrown into them while burning during
the event is voluminous. And toxic. And pay no attention to the embers! We
regulate corporations about polluting the air, but because someone who can
"afford" the wood wants to burn it, we say OK on public property without
regard to other people's health or the environment. And it's not like wood in
Southern California is plentiful. Newport Beach might also pay more attention
to the illegal fire rings that many beach houses have up close to their house on
public property. They are in abundance. The concept of fire rings on public
property in Newport Beach is beyond its time; inappropriate, and unnecessary.
They should be banned. In fact, they are rude and toxic. "Smoke- free" should
apply to our pristine beaches as well as our workplaces, restaurants and homes.
Only e-mail address provided.
As a Newport beach resident, I would like to let you know that I disagree with
both, charcoal and wood burning due to the contamination it brings not just to
the air we breathe but the the beach itself. Also, I want to make sure you know
that some people are building fires occasionally on Pirate's Cove, which is even
worse and the city has sent the police, but it is still happening. I understand is
difficult to make everybody content with respect to public decisions, but from
all of the years (more than 60) 1 have been a resident of this area, I consider
appropriate to speak out my perspective and firm conviction, which will be for
the best of the city and community. Think about all the things we will avoid by
restricting those fire rings? Contamination, garbage, misconducts, public
disturbance, insecurity, and so on.... Please consider this message and help us
to solve that issue on Pirate's Cove. Moreover, contemplate the idea of putting
some safety signs around Pirate's Cove because we have seen repeatedly
people falling from the rocks causing serious injures to themselves and others.
Thank you very much and have a great weekend!
Only e-mail address provided.
I live at 4107 Seashore Drive (since 1974). Last summer a tenant started a wood
burning fire only 1 block down the beach and 30 feet from his property line.
With the wind blowing directly towards my house I had to close all windows and
lock myself in for the night. IS THIS WHAT'S IN STORE FOR US ALL ? ?? You can't
turn off the wind but you should stop expanding the fire rings in front of
residences...
Only e-mail address provided.
i ne survey is unclear. wnen you say "same as toaay" it neaps to Know exactly
what that is. All rings should be wood. It smells good and its warm, unlike
charcoal. People could still put a mini charcoal grill in the ring for food, then
after dinner make a fire. For you people who dont like fires, dont move to the
beach or near fire pits. Plenty of beach homes that dont have fire pits in this
area....
Only e-mail address provided.
I was disappointed in the survey. You said we would be able to state how we
felt but all I was given is 9 posible solutions, none of which I agreed with. I think
the entire thing was silly in the first place. Just leave them alone like they have
been for many many years. The idea that 40 firepits is a problem when there
are thousands of fireplaces and back yard firepits, is beyond me and stupid..... in
my opinion.
15 -13
ATTACHMENT C
February 8, 2015
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO CITY COUNCIL AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD
I V= 9 1 V:@ V 1►[escaffKeI►k& I►Ll1J►111- 11•lyrr13•01.
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach CA
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council:
We have engaged with many residents and frequent visitors , and also multiple
community associations, to discuss the issue of fire rings, in order to determine a clear,
unified Community voice.
We appreciate that the City is anxious to complete disposition of this matter; and, that it
is likely in the best interests of all to minimize unnecessary plan iterations , and
protracted litigation . It is also the Community's desire to participate through a
transparent, clear public process and accomplish a satisfactory solution through the
administrative process, if feasible .
After extensive outreach, we are providing a clear statement of the Balboa Penninsula
and West Newport residents' position as follows.
We are interested in achieving a solution which is responsive both to those who
desire to retain wood- burning fire rings, and those who wish to live in and visit a
beach environment free of smoke.
• Environmental health and safety, including clean air and water, are non -
negotiables. The health impact and risks associated with persistent exposure to
smoke , as well as contaminated water(which would be caused by a number of
the alternatives in the 7 scenarios proposed by the City), are universally
recognized and supported by both legislative and court bodies.
We are prepared to further a compromise and accept a position which retains fire
rings within the physically — existing footprint and mix, as was approved by the Air
Quality Management District as of January 30,2015. This scenario while
providing wood fire rings, also achieves some reduction in adverse Air Quality
impact. Specifics of our position follow:
1. At Balboa Pier: 12 Wood- burning and 18 Charcoal burning rings, located at
East and West sides of the Pier, respectively(more unacceptable)
2. At CDM: 11 Wood- burning and 14 Charcoal- burning rings
3. Total: 55 fire rings
15 -14
Page 2- Community Position Fire Rings 2 -8 -15
Alternatively, we are prepared to accept Wood- burning rings in the physical
footprint boundary of Fire rings as previously existed at these locations prior to
establishing some Charcoal rings , subject to spacing of 1 00' to be compliant with
AQMD /Air Quality regulations and without advancing proximity and concentration
into residential neighborhoods. Specifically, this would be:
1. 18 at Balboa Pier, of which 12 would be on the East and 6 on the West side
of the Pier
2. 15 -16 at Corona del Mar
3. Total: 33 -34 fire rings
Both of these scenarios accomplish the following:
1. The physical footprint (boundary parameters) are consistent with the original
historical locational footprint where the public has grown accustomed to
finding and using fire rings
2. They do not expand adverse impacts further into the residential
neighborhoods
3. They do not expand into other areas where there is regular, frequent resident
and visitors use of the beach and water, or also where recreational, food and
other key activities are in close proximity. Such areas where we object to fire
rings being located include
a)at the Balboa Penninsula, including 15th Street and Newport Pier
b) continuing along the Balboa Penninsula beach from the Balboa Pier past
B street to the east, and from the current Balboa Pier area along the beach
up to the Santa Ana River jetty
c)at CDM, where there are volleyball courts, marine center and fire station
4. They are compliant with established Air Quality regulatory standards
5. They support the mission of the Coastal Commission, which is (officially) to
protect and preserve the integrity of the environmental quality in the coastal
zones, and provide public access.
We ask that the Council immediately move and complete approval of a Motion to:
1. Modify or cease and desist the current City survey instrument that includes
options other than those above, which are not consistent with the will of the
people, the health and safety of the both residents /frequent users;
2. Actively support a legitimate, thoughtful public process which includes the
accurate staking of original and currently proposed fire rings in any City
presentation, and associated with any properly noticed or reviewed scenario
15 -15
Page 3- Community Position re. Fire Rings 2 -8 -15
3. Advocate on the community's behalf, the resolution of the fire rings type and
their placement in a manner consistent with the scenarios,above - -- which is also
consistent with the environmental health and safety objectives of the residents
and the public.
The position,above, is actively supported by thousands of residents and regular
visitors using these beaches, as well as community associations and other stakeholder
groups whose members' health and welfare is impacted.
We realize that time is of the essence, and therefore request the Council's
prompt, consideration, public discussion and response.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Denys Oberman- Resident, Balboa Penninsula
Cynthia Koller- Resident, Penninsula/West Newport
Kathryn Branman- Resident, Lido
Linda Klein- Resident Lido
Laura Curran- Resident Corona del Mar
cc: Concerned Citizens Coallition; Central Penninsula Community Association;
West Newport Community Association; Balboa Penninsula Point Community
Association; Newport Shores Community /homeowners Association; Corona del
Mar Residents Association; Surfriders Foundation; SPON; Citizens for NO on Y
15 -16
Brown, Leilani
From: Denys Oberman <dho @obermanassociates.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 3:05 PM
To: Kiff, Dave; Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Cc: Scott Robinson; sharonaboles @gmail.com; dho @obermanassociates.com; Drew Wetherholt;
jreiss0 @gmail.com; Cindy McNeish
Subject: Fire rings- representation and request for Public Process and environmental review -FOR THE
PUBLIC RECORD
Dave,
It has been suggested by Scott Peotter that "the City has identified a solution" to the Fire rings problem.
Having received directly from you a map of the proposed approach and allocation of rings ADA /regular
spacing, and having reviewed the AQMD regulation, I feel that the concept may have merit lending to getting
closer to the number of rings desired by Friends of Fire rings on a completely wood - burning basis. However,
there can be no assurance at this time that the agency will find the proposal acceptable in its current
allocation,given its allocation of the majority of rings to ADA status rather than a more approporiate
proportion, which the agency could well see to be outside of the spirit'and intent of the law as an effort to
dodge spacing requirements for wood rings.) have previously expressed this concern to you and a couple of
the Council members.
Additionally, the proposal places Fire rings OUTSIDE of the historical Footprint boundary, so it is a NEW plan
which needs to be subject to public process and environmental review.
The City has already submitted its "Preferred Plan" to the Coastal Commission along with various general
summaries of other "Alternatives', none of which have been subject to an adequate public process or
Environmental review, and a number of which are not even clearly depicted in City website survey
information.
The City needs to schedule a Public Hearing to set forth Alternatives and engage in discussion concerning
Environmental and other impacts as soon as possible.
Such a process will facilitate rather than slow down the approval process, and is one to which the Public is
entitled.
As you know, an informal "town hall" type meeting does not carry with it the same requirements and
accountability to satisfy due process and testimony /evidence entered into the Public Record as does a Public
Hearing - -- therefore, the community desires a Public Hearing. Mr Peotter and others who suggest that these
types of forums are interchangeable are mistaken, and should be counselled accordingly by the City.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Denys Oberman
Cc: Residents, community members and associations who have expressed position vav Fire rings
15 -17
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
it a », ► � �
q
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476 -0790
Cell (949) 230 -5868
Fax(949)752 -8935
Email: dhoCa)obermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476 -0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange
for the return of the document(s) to us.
15 -18
Brown, Lejlani
From:
Kiff, Dave
Sent:
Thursday, March 05, 2015 9:21 AM
To:
City Clerk's Office
Subject:
FW: "Why" fire ring placement comment
For the record.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Gary [mailto:gary -town n.sbcglobal.netl
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:23 PM
To: Kiff, Dave
Cc: Webb, Dave (Public Works); Detweiler, Laura
Subject: "Why" fire ring placement comment
Dear City staff,
I submitted plan 5 as my first choice, and 3 and my second.
I did not see a field where I could comment on why I chose the fire ring placement plans that I did. I
wish to submit this comment regarding my decision why I chose the 2 options.
The use of the entire stretch of beach is enjoyed by those that either travel to or live in the City.
Residents and visitors get the ability to use a fire ring closer to their residence or vacation home
(rental) respectively. Use of the beach is widespread for most uses other than fire rings. Spreading
the fire rings out so that they can be used at various locations along the beach fits what the public
uses the beach for all other recreational /leisure activities. It is common for the public to play at the
beach during the day and then enjoy the fire rings in the evening. Spacing them throughout the
beach gives people the ability to do this.
This does not focus the placement regarding the "lens" of parking, supervision and restroom being
close, but the other wide range of other recreational public use of the beach and where they choose
to use the beach suffer because of short walks to restrooms or parking. Difficulty for supervision
should weigh in, but not be so focused to make it easy. The right thing is not usually the easiest.
Supervising fire rings spread along the full stretch of beach allows the supervisors, typically police,
the collateral ability to patrol the beach to supervise other things. This can be done relatively quickly
and easily via patrol vehicles.
Sincerely,
Gary Matthews
Newport Beach Resident
15 -19
Attachment D — Selected Sections of AQMD Rule 444
(d)(3) A person is prohibited from open burning for:
(G) Effective March 1, 2014, beach burning, unless:
(i) PM2.5 AQI of 100 or less has been forecast for the coastal source
receptor area; and
(ii) beach burning occurs in devices that are:
(1) at least 700 feet from the nearest residence;. or
(11) at least 100 feet apart from one another; or
(III) at least 50 feet apart from one another, if there are no more
than 15 devices per contiguous beach area within the city's
boundaries.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (d)(3)(G), if a city or
county has declared, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30005(b)
or Health and Safety Code section 41509(a), that designated beach
burning devices within its boundaries cause a nuisance, as defined in Civil
Code section 3479 or Health and Safety Code section 41700(a), due to
wood smoke exposure, then those devices may not be made available by a
state or local authority.
(7) The distance and spacing provisions of clause (d)(3)(G)(ii) shall not
apply to beach burning devices that are made available to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act by making the beach burning device
accessible via a continuous unobstructed concrete, asphalt or other
permanent pathway that crosses the surface of the beach. This paragraph
does not exempt the beach burning devices that are made available for the
Americans with Disabilities Act compliance from the total device count
specified in sub - clause (d)(3)(G)(ii)(III).
15 -20