California Coastal Commission – SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Coastal Commission staff‘s reasons for recommending approval of the City of Newport Beach
Item 17a – Application No. 5-21-0640
Commission staff recommends that the Commission APPROVE Coastal Development Permit application 5-21-0640 as conditioned (Staff Report page 6).
Reason for Approval
The proposed Newport Beach disposal site for the clean sand is the least damaging feasible alternative and the proposed CAD facility is the least damaging feasible alternative for disposal of contaminated sediments (Staff Report page 3).
Reason for Approval
The project is consistent with the allowable use, alternatives, and mitigation tests contained in Coastal Act Section 30233 (Staff Report page 3).
Reason for Approval
The contaminated sediments proposed for dredging and disposal in the proposed CAD facility would remain permanently isolated in the CAD facility and the project would not adversely affect water quality and marine resources of Newport Harbor and the adjacent waters of the coastal zone. The project, as conditioned, would be consistent with the marine resources and water quality policies of the California Coastal Act Sections 30230, 30231, 30232 (Staff Report page 3).
Reason for Approval
The project would also significantly improve public access and recreational opportunities due to the placement of approximately 282,400 cy of clean and grain-size compatible sand along a stretch of eroding beach immediately upcoast of the Newport Harbor entrance. The project is consistent with the public access, recreation, and sand supply policies of the California Coastal Act (Staff Report page 3).
Reason for Approval
The City’s Sediment Management Plan, which was developed to manage all of the different types of sediment within the harbor was fully vetted through the DMMT process, and it provides details on unsuitable material quantities, and therefore, Commission staff believes that it adequately supports the design of the proposed project (Staff Report page 4).
Reason for Approval
The long-term water quality improvement of sequestering contaminated sediment will result in a net reduction in contaminated sediment that is currently located at various depths within the harbor (Staff Report page 5).
Reason for Approval
The project construction would actually result in an increase of the available area for boats to pass through compared to existing conditions with an occupied anchorage in place (Staff Report page 6).
Reason for Approval
This project is an allowable use pursuant to Section 30233(a)(2), -(4), and -(6), as components of the project achieve numerous goals for the overall functionality of Newport Harbor (Staff Report page 22).
Reason for Approval
The Commission finds that the proposed dredging and fill associated with the proposed project is associated with allowable uses and is the least environmentally-damaging feasible alternative for disposal of Lower Newport Harbor contaminated sediments, which includes feasible mitigation measures. Environmental and human health risk assessment of the CAD cell alternative has shown that it can provide one of the lowest risk options compared with other alternatives because relative to upland disposal, there is less rehandling of the material and fewer contaminant transfer pathways because upland disposal can result in greater dermal contact, volatile emissions (Greenhouse gas emissions from truck or train trips) and groundwater pathways (Staff Report page 24).
Reason for Approval
The proposed project includes the following characteristics which supported the Navy, USACE, and Oxnard Harbor District’s consideration of CAD technology to remedy the current sediment contamination problems in Lower Newport Harbor:
-
- Moderate levels of contaminants in harbor sediments
- CAD design provides a low risk of failure either by fluid migration or physical exposure
- Sediments primarily contain contaminants from past practices that are not expected to re-contaminate the harbor
- CAD developers (USACE and the City of Newport Beach) are committed to a maintenance and monitoring plan that would ensure that the contaminants remain isolated in the CAD facility
- CAD location ensures that it can be adequately maintained by the CAD developers (Staff Report page 26).
Reason for Approval
Construction of the CAD in lower Newport Harbor and deposition of beach quality sand in nearshore waters just west of the Newport Harbor mouth is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts to non-listed or sensitive bird species that nest, roost, and forage in the area (Staff Report page 34).
Reason for Approval
Eelgrass impacts are not anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project (Staff Report page 34).
Reason for Approval
The project is not expected to cause a significant adverse impact to populations of these marine invertebrate species (Staff Report page 34).
Reason for Approval
Therefore, as conditioned for revised plans limiting the locations for sand disposal to avoid contiguous sand dollar beds as shown in Exhibit 5, in addition to avoiding nighttime sand deposition to avoid potential negative impacts to grunion, Commission staff finds the project consistent with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act (Staff Report page 36).
Reason for Approval
In other words, the existing water quality of Newport Bay is already negatively affected by the presence of DDx compounds and is not predicted to appreciably change as a result of the proposed placement of DDx containing sediments into the CAD. Further, by collecting, concentrating and burying contaminant laden sediments below a clean cap within the proposed CAD that are currently dispersed across Newport Bay, the proposed project may result in water quality improvements (Staff Report page 38).
Reason for Approval
As conditioned, Commission staff has determined that the removal, placement, and permanent containment of DDT-contaminated Lower Newport Bay sediments at the proposed CAD facility would not adversely affect water quality over the short term and may ultimately help enhance water quality within the Bay (Staff Report page 38).
Reason for Approval
The Commission finds that the proposed project as conditioned would transfer sands currently isolated in Newport Harbor back into the littoral system off Newport Beach via nearshore placement, and is therefore consistent with the Section 30233(b) sand supply policy of the Coastal Act (Staff Report page 42).
Reason for Approval
The additional sand that would be placed as part of the project is expected to contribute to efforts to minimize the hazards of flooding from high tides and waves experienced on the ocean beaches of Newport Beach (Staff Report page 44).
Reason for Approval
The proposed project conforms with the Coastal Act policies which protect and encourage public access and recreational use of coastal areas. The proposed project would mitigate beach erosion and provide for the continuing and increased recreational use of the City beach by the public by increasing the size of the ocean beaches and would provide a larger area for recreational use. In addition, the proposed dredging components of the project would allow for continued use of coastal waters for recreational boating because the existing anchorage in the proposed CAD project area will be temporarily relocated to the Turning Basin (Staff Report pages 45-46).
Reason for Approval
The proposed beach replenishment would maintain and improve recreational use of State Tidelands. Sand replenishment around public beaches is consistent with the City’s Tidelands grant (Staff Report pages 46).
Reason for Approval
As conditioned, the Commission finds that with these measures, the proposed project would not adversely affect visual resources of the coastal zone, and therefore, the project is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act (Staff Report pages 47).
Reason for Approval
The majority of communities adjacent to the proposed CAD site (except for downtown Costa Mesa), on the other hand have low overall CalEnviroScreen scores. Additionally, areas nearby with higher pollution burden scores that are above 60% in the northern part of Newport Beach would not be affected by the proposed project or any of the alternatives. Therefore, the proposed project of keeping the contaminated sediment in the harbor near the source(s) of contamination does not result in environmental justice impacts compared to the project alternatives, which would relocate contaminated sediments to communities of concern in other regions and require transport of sediments through additional communities of concern. In addition, as conditioned, the project would minimize adverse environmental impacts that may occur locally (Staff Report pages 50).
Reason for Approval
The Commission finds that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with Coastal Act requirements and will not cause new adverse impacts to the environment. Feasible mitigation measures which will minimize all adverse environmental impacts have been required. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the applicable requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA (Staff Report pages 51).
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The California Coastal Commission is meeting on the final approval of this project October 14, 2022.
Email correspondence will be distributed to the Commission before the hearing on this item if it is received by 5 pm on Friday, October 7, 2022 before the hearing. If it is received after that time, then it will not be distributed to the Commission.
Please send your support in email to:
Subject Line: I support the CAD & Dredging Project in Newport Beach
Item 17a – Application No. 5-21-0640
The Coastal Commission website is www.coastal.ca.gov.
Application No. 5-21-0640.
Thank you for your support!
Read the entire conclusions “SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION”
Download or Print the PDF
By Laylan Connelly – Orange County Register
Officials have secured $8.3 million to dredge Newport Harbor in the $14 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but sand replenishment projects for two stretches of Orange County coastline were not included.
U.S. Rep. Michelle Steel said dredging of Newport Beach’s harbor is long overdue in her announcement Wednesday, Jan. 19, about the federal funding, but also stressed the need for added sand along the coastline. Funding for the Surfside-Sunset Replenishment Project, which would seed beaches through Huntington Beach south to Newport Beach will have to hope for final approval from another Congressional appropriations bill, the timeline of which has been unclear.
So is the San Clemente Shoreline Project, which would replenish beaches in the southern city, including improving the buffer of shoreline along a key coastal rail line.
Both projects have been stalled for years, awaiting funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do the replenishments that help create a beach buffer that would protect roads, homes and infrastructure from ocean flooding, as well as keep beaches – one of the region’s major tourism draws – from disappearing.
In 1962, Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors Act, which required the Army Corps of Engineers to address the impacts of the constructed flood control structures on the sand deposits that should be happening naturally along shorelines.
The $23 million Surfside-Sunset project – $15.5 million in federal money and $7.63 from local agencies – would add 1.75 million cubic yards of sand to Surfside, which would then be pushed down the coast by ocean currents and waves, spreading it 12 miles south to Newport Beach.
The last time sand was added was 2010 – previously the replenishment happened every five to seven years.
“There is more work to do, and I will continue to demand action from the administration and the Army Corps to fully fund the Surfside-Sunset Replenishment Project because we are one natural disaster away from devastation,” Steel said in a statement.
San Clemente has been waiting about two decades for its big replenishment project. The city two years ago received a boost in the amount of $500,000 in federal funding for the design phase.
With no beach left, a wave crashes against the rocks and stairs just below the railroad tracks at North Beach in San Clemente on Wednesday, October 20, 2021.(Photo by Mark Rightmire, Orange County Register/SCNG)
The project would add 251,000 cubic yards of sand from Linda Lane beach to T-Street beach south of the pier. The sand has shrunk so much there in recent years, city leaders have discussed the possibly of moving San Clemente’s Marine Safety Headquarters off the beach. When big surf hits, the surf laps onto the railroad tracks.
About $9.3 million was requested in the bipartisan infrastructure bill by U.S. Rep. Mike Levin for the San Clemente Shoreline Project.
Levin helped secure $30.5 million in federal funding for the Encinitas-Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project and $1.8 million for the Oceanside Special Shoreline Study, his office announced Wednesday.
The Encinitas-Solana Beach project involves placing 700,000 cubic yards of sand along 7,200 feet of beach in Solana Beach and 340,000 cubic yards of sand along 7,800 feet of beach in Encinitas.
The Oceanside shoreline study will create a plan to mitigate erosion and other effects from the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor and will restore beach conditions along the affected shores to the conditions that existed before its development.
Levin’s office said he is also “continuing to fight to finalize federal funding for the San Clemente Shoreline Project.”
Paul BlankBy Amy Senk
Corona del Mar resident Paul Blank was named Newport Beach Harbormaster last spring, a grand achievement to cap off an on-the-water lifestyle that began at age 10 with a two-week sailing class offered through the city’s recreation department. The harbormaster’s job is typically described as being a lead ambassador for Newport Harbor, one of the largest recreational harbors in the country, and includes overseeing a dozen or so employees and an annual budget of $1 million-plus. But like most things in the past year or so, the first several months have been filled with surprises. I caught up with him to learn more.
Q: What role did you play as harbormaster in the days after the oil spill, and what stands out in your mind now as the most notable thing that happened?
A: The response to the Amplify Energy Oil spill in early October was swift and multifaceted. My specific roles included surveying the harbor beaches for oil contamination, monitoring the harbor entrance for potential intrusion or contamination and participation in the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Center, which integrated with the Unified Command Response managed by the U.S. Coast Guard. A huge amount of my time was spent communicating my findings to others in the EOC and the UCR as well as with Harbor constituents and my patrol team in the Harbor Department. When the decision was made to close the harbor entrance, I was there to witness it and then established a patrol presence to advise mariners in a firm but friendly way of the closure and alternatives while they were unable to get in or out of the harbor. As the situation evolved, my role shifted into advising mariners, local businesses and residents where they could go for support or to file claims for loss or damage sustained as a result of the spill. I also spent considerable time and effort supporting the vessel decontamination site that was established at Marina Park. I am thankful that through the duration of the crisis, we were not forced to close or curtail activities on the harbor. Sailing classes, races, rowing, paddle boarding and casual harbor cruising all continued even though the entrance was closed. While not everyone could engage in all the activities they may have wished to while the entrance was closed, the harbor remained clean, safe and well enjoyed.
Q: We keep seeing mega yachts off the coast of Newport Beach. Have they caused any problems?
A: Newport Harbor has become a more popular port of call for mega yachts this year. Some vessels choose to enjoy anchorage off Big Corona Beach for their visits. Others have stopped there while waiting for a favorable tide to enter and transit the harbor. I am pleased to have made the process of reserving and making use of the Large Vessel Anchorage easier for the yacht managers. I am also pleased with the tenor and tone of the dialogue that continues with nearby residents and businesses. Concerns remain about traffic and congestion in that part of the harbor, but no negative impacts have been observed or reported to me. Newport Harbor is a “no-discharge harbor,” meaning no waste or refuse may go overboard. All vessels mooring or anchoring in Newport Harbor, including these mega yachts with dozens of paid, professional crews, are subject to dye-tab testing of their marine sanitation systems. This is the method we use to test the integrity of the vessel’s plumbing and waste holding tank. One vessel was tested upon arrival recently and didn’t pass. We allowed the crew an opportunity to check the settings on all their pumps and valves. A little less than an hour later we returned to re-test and the vessel passed. No pollution or waste was discharged into the bay in that first test, so no citation was issued, and the vessel was welcome to stay in the harbor. If any vessel is subsequently witnessed discharging into the bay, citations are written which come with a financial penalty and the vessel may be asked to leave the harbor. Thankfully it doesn’t happen very often.
Q: What is the Take Back Our Harbor movement, and what are your thoughts about it?
A: Take Back Our Harbor is the tagline for the newly formed Newport Harbor Foundation. The Foundation is a nonprofit group with a mission similar to the Newport Bay Conservancy. While the Newport Bay Conservancy is focused exclusively on improving Upper Newport Bay –essentially everything north of the PCH Bridge – the Newport Harbor Foundation is focused on preserving and improving the lower Newport Harbor. While I am not directly involved with the group, I am supportive of their mission. The group’s efforts align nicely with the Harbor Department’s goal of keeping the harbor clean, safe and well enjoyed.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!