Front Page  »  

Morro Bay needs to follow its own ordinances

March 1, 2015

morro bayOPINION By LINDA STEDJEE

Recently, the Morro Bay Harbor Department allowed berthing of two commercial fishing boats at a marina south of Tidelands Park. That is not permitted under the Morro Bay Local Coastal Program (LCP) and related municipal code.

The reasons why that type of boat cannot be berthed in that area were discussed at length at the Oct. 26, 2009 city council meeting, where the city attorney stated, “A commercial fishing facility certainly, in my legal opinion, is not allowed in this area.” Responding to a suggestion that the restrictions only applied to new uses; not existing ones, he stated, “… there is no use there that’s continued – and this is why I would consider anything new down there.”

There are good reasons for the restrictions. The boats are large and their working hours extend far into the night. The area is environmentally sensitive and adjacent to a quiet residential neighborhood. That part of the harbor is often crowded with residents and visitors in kayaks and other small boats.

Were those big commercial fishing boats berthed where they shouldn’t be because there was no other place for them? For years, berthing space for these boats has been shrinking.

If, over the years, the law had been followed, there would be plenty of room for commercial fishing boats in areas where they can legally be berthed. A Morro Bay ordinance, known as “Measure D”, reserves much of the harbor north of Beach Street specifically for fishing boats and related facilities. However, this ordinance has been repeatedly violated.

For example, in 2012, a harbor leaseholder was given permission to berth specific “party boats” at a new facility that legally should have been reserved for the fishing community. Had those boats been in the harbor prior to the passage of Measure D, this use would have been allowable under a “grandfather clause”, but they were not. Because this Measure D violation was allowed, berthing space for fishing boats was lost.

Other parts of the Harbor that once served working boats have been converted to different uses – allegedly to generate more income for the Harbor Department. For example, an Embarcadero site that once berthed tugboats, and could have provided berthing for fishing boats after the tugs left, now houses a hotel. The former boat yard on the Embarcadero was replaced by a shopping center, leaving the fishing community with only one very small yard with insufficient capacity to serve their needs. Two Harbor Department attempts to establish another facility failed.

I believe we all respect the fishermen and understand the importance of commercial fishing to our local economy. We know that their needs must be met. At the same time, damage to environmentally-sensitive habitat, disturbance of residential neighborhoods with lights, noise and diesel fumes, and putting the safety of small boat operators at risk cannot be allowed.

I hope that the current city council will step up to the plate, start righting the wrongs of the past, and take steps to ensure there is adequate berthing for commercial fishing boats in those parts of the harbor where that use is safe, appropriate and legal.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

While sitting through the Harbor Advisory Commission last night….guess what…No one came to address this issue where it MATTERS.

So type away all you want on the comment section of CCN, but that isn’t where City policy is determined, it’s at the public meetings.

So when I hear people complain but then not attend the meetings to address their concerns…well…quite frankly, I give them the attention they deserve….nada.


0

A transient boat is defined as a boat being in Morro Bay for less than 60 Days but the way, which was discussed last night.


If you want to protect the Fisherman and Morro Bay…which I do also….then what you need to be fighting against is the Crazy Proposal to make this area a National Nature Preserve!

We will lose ALL local control my friends to the bureaucrats in DC. Guess who’s behind it…the Sierra Club. Trying to shut down fishing and recreation.


0

I haven’t studied the sanctuary proposal so I can only quote things I found found when I looked for information on it.


I looked at the Web site at http://chumashsanctuary.com/area/area-6/ They list sanctuary benefits on the right side of the page, and one of them says, ” No regulation of harbors, or recreational or commercial fishing. They do say, “no acoustic testing” and “no offshore drilling”.


0

I think the reasons that nobody brought up the issue at the Harbor Advisory Board meeting are:


1. That’s just an advisory board. They don’t make the rules


2. The Mayor, Council and City Manager have already been contacted about the problem and asked to address it


0

Since posting my last message, I have discussed the issues with others who support Measure D and the fishing industry, and it seems pretty obvious to us what is really going on here. With the Council planning to look at Measure D in the near future, it doesn’t appear to be a coincidence that suddenly, two fishing boats are berthed in an area where such use is not legal.


It has long been clear that the group that formerly controlled Morro Bay wants to develop the part of the Harbor protected by Measure D – obviously for the financial gain of a small number of people. It appears quite likely that moving those two fishing boats into the southern part of the Harbor was a way of “testing the waters” to see if they could get away with gradually moving the fishing fleet out of the area they want to develop. Rich, a CCN poster, said he lives on the water, and there is generally an overabundance of slips where the fishing boats could be berthed. Yet, the Harbor Department sent them to an area where that use is illegal. Given that, and the timing, something looks very fishy here.


I have also taken note of the screen names of all those claiming that putting the boats in the southern part of the Harbor is legal. Interestingly, if you compare them to the screen names of those constantly attacking the current Mayor, Council and City Manager, and to the screen names of those who pushed for a recall, you have a perfect match. It’s the same group. In other words, it appears that the group that formerly controlled the City, along with their supporters, are the only ones who want us to believe that putting commercial fishing boats south of Tidelands Park is legal.


This group has presented some pretty convoluted arguments in an effort to support their case, including claims that it’s OK to berth the boats south of Tidelands “temporarily”. The law does not make any exceptions for temporary uses and, by the way, I have been told that the so-called “temporary” period is estimated to be 6 months. Further, this group ignores the fact that such use has already been determined to be incompatible with recreational uses and the environmentally-sensitive habitat in the area; hence the LCP policies that forbid it.


So, the way we see it, on one side, you have the fishermen and the rest of us who support Measure D, want the fishing industry to thrive, and want our traditions as a fishing village to continue. On the other, you have a group that CLAIMS to support the fishermen and the fishing industry, but has already allowed, through their group members in the old City Council and staff, significant Measure D violations . Again, we believe this group wants to ease the fishermen out of the Harbor north of Beach Street in order to develop the area to suit their own purposes.


I ask CCN readers to remember what was said at that Harbor Advisory Board meeting I mentioned before. Here, again, is a quote from the minutes, describing comments by Jeremiah O’Brien, president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization: “He recognizes that businesses need to improve, but the idea of expansion has now morphed into unreasonable proportions including talk of building hotels and restaurants in the Measure D designated area. He said the MBCFO cannot support that type of expansion. Mr. O’Brien urged the Board not to make any changes to Measure D.”


0

Here we go again – more diversionary tactics and personal attacks in an attempt to fool the reader. Niles Q said, “This is just another attempt by a small faction of people in Morro Bay to run fishermen out of the harbor because they see them as “Taking” from the resource and therefore destructive and no longer desireable, even as they eat fish under the government’s health advice.”


This is not just false, it’s ridiculous. The reason so many of us fight to keep Measure D is because we want a small group of people to stop TAKING the section of the harbor that the people voted to reserve for the fishing industry.


Niles said, “Tying up fishing boats at an existing pier temporarily doesn’t violate anything, outside this writer’s twisted interpretation of laws she obviously doesn’t understand, and selectively quotes to match her argument..”


Again, this is not true. Another poster was asked to provide specific references to support his/her claim that the law distinguishes between temporary and permanent uses, and was evidently unable to provide any, because there was never any response, probablly because The law says NOTHING about temporary or permanent uses. Once again, neither the Coastal Act nor the LCP has any reference to “temporary” versus permanent uses.


Referring to the subject area, the former City Attorney told the City Council that “… there is no use there that’s continued – and this is why I would consider anything new down there.” He referred to the “CUP” process. “CUP” stands for “Conditional USE Permit”.


Here is the law supporting his statements. Permitting is covered by of the Muni Code, which includes rules for expiration of uses if they cease for a prescribed period of time.


Muni Code Chapter 17.60 – USE PERMITS, PROCEDURES NOTICES AND VARIANCES, section 17.60.140 – Expiration of permits and time extensions. ” … Also, any USE that was inaugurated but is subsequently vacated or abandoned in whole or in part shall be deemed expired for that portion of USE if abandoned for over twelve consecutive months.” No commercial fishing boats were tied up there, temporarily or otherwise, for a period that exceeded 12 months. Thus, for them to tie up there now is a “new” use and forbidden by the law.


Local Coastal Program Policy 7.01 and Program LU-63. “New commercial fishing facilities shall be located in the northern portion of the Bay north of Beach Street.” A marina is a facility. A berth is a facility.


The subject area is a PD area called “Mixed Use Area B”. Page 24 of LCP Chapter II, Land Use Plan Map and General Land Use Policies: “Mixed Use Area B: Existing coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses shall be protected, maintained and provided where feasible in new development. Mixed Harbor USES shall be for recreational boating and fishing rather than commercial fishing. Visitor-serving commercial/recreational uses shall have priority over other land uses consistent with traffic, circulation and parking constraints in the Embarcadero.” (This same wording is contained in General Plan Policy LU-70.)


The Muni Code says that in a PD area, all applicable LCP policies must be followed.


0

There is a Morro Bay Harbor Advisory Board Meeting tonight….I’ll be there…anyone else?


6PM tonight

209 Surf Street

Morro Bay, CA 93442


Link to Agenda:

http://ca-morrobay.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2346


If we you don’t get involved…well don’t bitch!


0

Linda you state or imply that hotels and restaurants are being built in “an area that legally is supposed to be devoted to fishing”. Can you please cite the hotels and restaurant that has been built in the Measure D area?


0

This is much ado about nothing, me thinks. The two boats in question are from out of town, here to fish crabs, which are really good this year.


They are tied up at the old Beacon Fuel Dock which was built by a consortium of commercial fishermen and had numerous fishing boats berthed there for decades.


The fishermen sold it all after the March 10, 1995 landslide that took out a large chunk of the bluff after the fire hydrant water line broke, exposed the diesel and gasoline tanks that were buried on top of the bluff behind that tiny house, and took out a large part of the road down to the marina. It really was quite a sight and a significant disaster during a day filled with them.


Tying up fishing boats at an existing pier temporarily doesn’t violate anything, outside this writer’s twisted interpretation of laws she obviously doesn’t understand, and selectively quotes to match her argument.


This is just another attempt by a small faction of people in Morro Bay to run fishermen out of the harbor because they see them as “Taking” from the resource and therefore destructive and no longer desireable, even as they eat fish under the government’s health advice.


In a month or two, the crab run will peter out and these boats will go back to their home ports. And then the CAVE people will have to find another non-issue to expoit.


As for Measure D, it is perhaps time to revisit the ordinance and possibly make changes. I would advocate reserving the M-D area to “commercial” vessels, instead of just Commercial Fishers.


Preserve ALL of the City’s docks, T-piers, down there and elsewhere for CF’s but private docks could have non-fishing boats IF the vessel is a “Business,” that is to say the boat whether a dinner cruiser – Papagallo and Chablis; harbor tours-Capt. Stew; sport fishers–Black Pearl; or even small 6-pack charter boats- like the BBQ, can berth down on that end. No personal, recreational boats, period.


A boat owner would have to have a City business license, State tax numbers, etc… to be considered a “Commercial” boat.


I say this because these boats take passengers out for hours or even overnight, AND that’s where the most parking is located.


It would of course have to be approved by the voters. But with more than 25 years since the passage of Measure D, times have changed and the harbor department needs to be able to accomodate these other boats/businesses and the numerous vehicles their passengers leave parked for hours.


Anything that gets people out of their cars and onto the bay or ocean should be welcomed, because the sea is our biggest tourist attraction and people are losing connections to it.


AND, changing the law would clean up the violations that this article points out, like Capt.Stew loading passengers at the new marina but berthing his boat down on the other end.


As for the Estero Inn, that site was formerly Sylvester’s tug service, which operated out of that site for about 60 years servicing the oil tankers that came in. In 1999, when the oil tankering stopped, Sylvester’s moved it’s two tugs, the Clive and Richard, to the Mississippi Delta where I think they are still working the river.


So the site was vacated for years and Ken Scott rebuilt it into that high priced, yet nice little boutique motel (4 rooms) and a couple of retail spaces. He also rebuilt the docks there, investiung a significant amount of money into the waterfront. That should be welcomed, not criticized.


0

In violation of the LCP

Morro Bay City government should be fined by the CCC for being in violation.

Don’t we all have to abide by the law?


0

Exactly! Eleven years does not an expert make. I’ve forgotten more about Morro Bay’s history than she will ever hope to know.

It’s sad


0

I believe that when CCN readers see people who don’t like the message in an article personally attack the writer, instead of countering the article content with logical arguments and verifiable, documented facts, they know what those people are up to.


It’s s the old, “Don’t listen to that person, (s)he’s crazy.” approach – often tried, but seldom successful. Those who want to be taken seriously stick with verifiable facts and figures. Personal insults imply that the ones doing the insulting don’t have any of those.


0

Yes we all have to abide by the law. The law of Jeremy Irons and his incestuous comrades on the council.


0

Guys….do you really think Mayor Irons has anything to do with where the boats are?

That’s the daily job of the Harbor Office/Patrol to assign berthing locations.

So trying to tie the Mayor to this is a stretch!


0

A stretch? Last time I checked, the mayor and council comprise the Harbor District board.


0

What is really odd is that LS rigorously badmouth the former City Attorney and even sent Council numerous requests that he be disciplined and fired. Now she wants to use the Former City Attorney’s legal opinion to validate her story. His opinion was in regard to permanent uses not tempaorty uses. But I know you don’t care about the details. Why don’t you go get the $350 hour attorney that is now MB City Attorney to help you. He probably hasn’t even read our LCP or Zoning Code.


0

Like a lot of people, I definitely took exception to some of the former City Attorney’s actions and statements. At other times, I felt his actions and statements were fine. As to sending numerous requests that he be fired, not true, although I, along with others, sent in complaints about specific issues.


In this case, his statements were easy to verify by reviewing the cited policies and ordinances and looking up a couple of other references. Those who are interested in checking for themselves can listen to the audio online, and then cross-check to the policies and ordinances I cited in a previous comment. By the way, none of the statements I heard said anything about “temporary” use, and I do not believe the LCP or the Muni Code do either. Either a use is legal or it’s not. You don’t tell the police officer that it’s OK for you to park in the red zone because you’re there only temporarily.


Here is the online address for SLO Span where the Council meeting audio is available: http://www.slo-span.org/media.php?slo=3 The list of Morro Bay Council meetings begins about half-way down the page. As you know, when you listen to the audio, you can see a timer on the screen showing the hours, minutes, and seconds from the start of the meeting. The timer readings for the quoted statements (maybe not exact, but within a couple of seconds) are provided in the following:


At 1:14:49 into the meeting, and again at 1:17:14, the City Attorney states he believes commercial fishing is not allowed in the area, and references the specific LCP policies on which he bases this conclusion.


2:04:21 The City Attorney says, “A commercial fishing facility certainly, in my legal opinion, is not allowed in this area.”


2:05:24 The City Attorney responds to the Harbor Director’s comment that he believes the LCP policies apply to “new” commercial fishing uses, City Attorney says, “And there is no use there that’s continued – and this is why I would consider anything new down there. The boatyard is conforming, but if it ceased to exist for 6 months, anything then is considered a new facility under our CUP process.”


2:20:30 The Council is engaged in discussion of whether the motion to allow commercial uses on a case-by-case basis can cover commercial fishing. The City Attorney indicates his opinion that it should not. The Council accepts this legal opinion and incorporates it into their motion to allow commercial facilities and uses in the area on a case-by-case basis by specifically excluding commercial fishing uses. The approved motion is recorded in the meeting minutes as follows:


MOTION: Mayor Peters moved the City Council interpret the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan to allow for commercial uses in the Bay Tidelands area of the City west of Main Street between Acacia and Barlow, subject to a project-by-project review and environmental analysis, and that does not include commercial fishing. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Borchard.


0

The legal analysis of the Temporary berthing of two commercial fishing boats is not the same analysis that the former City Attorney gave regarding permanent fishing facilities. Facilities and berthing are competely different. Once again like the WWTP, the tidelands trust leases, the water permits, the desal permit, ( I could go on and on) your analysis is half baked.


0

Again, there was no mention of “temporary” or “permanent” in the City Attorney’s analysis, and there is no mention of those terms in the LCP or the Muni Code. Regarding the apparent confusion with “facilities” and “berthing”, please see the California State Government Division of Boating and Waterways Web site: Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities: http://www.dbw.ca.gov/TechDocs/MarinaGuide.aspx


Note the term “marina berthing facilities”. If you look at the section on berthing, you will see detailed information on the construction of the kind of facility mentioned in the article. I trust most readers consider the California State Government Division of Boating and Waterways a credible source.


If you do a search on the Web for the term “berthing facilities” you get a whole lot of hits. For example, the Association of Marina Industries offers a publication called “Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities”.


0

Why didn’t you call the former City Attorney before using his quote so you could understand the differences and nuances? Or better yet call him now so you can correct all of incorrect and inconsistences in your opinion article? Because clearly you don’t know the difference between a temporary berthing use and a permanent berthing facility. They both have completely different processes and permitting requirements under the LCP andCoastal Act.


0

Hmm, funny how he never told the Council there were “differences” or “nuances” and all of a sudden those term are coming up.


I searched the California Coastal Act for the term “temporary berthing” and found no references. I also fully reviewed LCP Chapter IX, Commercial Fishing and Recreational Boating, and found no reference to “temporary berthing”, What specific references did I miss? Please provide the numerical references to LCP policies and Coastal Act sections that address “temporary berthing”..


You refer to “temporary berthing USE”. The former City Attorney told the City Council that “… there is no USE there that’s continued – and this is why I would consider anything new down there.” He referred to the “CUP” process. “CUP” stands for “Conditional USE Permit”. Permitting is covered by of the Muni Code.


Muni Code Chapter 17.60 – USE PERMITS, PROCEDURES NOTICES AND VARIANCES, section 17.60.140 – Expiration of permits and time extensions. ” … Also, any USE that was inaugurated but is subsequently vacated or abandoned in whole or in part shall be deemed expired for that portion of USE if abandoned for over twelve consecutive months.” No commercial fishing boats were berthed there, temporarily or otherwise, for a period longer than 12 months.


Local Coastal Program Policy 7.01 and Program LU-63. “New commercial fishing facilities shall be located in the northern portion of the Bay north of Beach Street.


The subject area is a PD area called “Mixed Use Area B”. Page 24 of LCP Chapter II, Land Use Plan Map and General Land Use Policies: “Mixed Use Area B: Existing coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses shall be protected, maintained and provided where feasible in new development. Mixed Harbor USES shall be for recreational boating and fishing rather than commercial fishing. Visitor-serving commercial/recreational uses shall have priority over other land uses consistent with traffic, circulation and parking constraints in the Embarcadero.” (This same wording is contained in General Plan Policy LU-70.)


The Muni Code says that in a PD area, all applicable LCP policies must be followed.


0

After writing the response below, I found another reference that may be helpful as it addresses commercial fishing facilities at another California location. The document, published by Sonoma County, can be downloaded at http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/lcp/lcp_1-6.pdf


Here is a quote from the document; please note the references to BERTHING FACILITIES for commercial fishing.


“DOCK AND BERTHING AND RELATED FACILITIES

Bodega Harbor is the home of a major commercial fishing fleet with more than 250 commercial vessels. Existing fishing industry facilities include two berthing installations, three boat launching ramps, commercial fish receiving piers, and a federally maintained navigation channel (See Table VI-I).


Public recreational facilities are provided at Doran Spit State Park, Westside County Park and the Dunes State Beach. A portion of the harbor on the west side is the marine-preserve under authority of the

University of California.


In 1976, a small craft harbor feasibility study concluded additional berthing facilities for commercial fishing is needed.”


It appears that the people who run the Harbor at Bodega Bay would not agree that “Facilities and berthing are competely different”, and I don’t think most people here would agree either.


0

Apples and Oranges comparison to what your article opinion is trying to establish. .


0

Apples and oranges? Really? You said that “facilities and berthing are completely different.”


I gave you some references to “berthing facilities” including a one from the Sonoma County Web site regarding Bodega Harbor, which serves a large commercial fishing fleet . That reference says, in part, “Existing fishing industry facilities include two berthing installations, three boat launching ramps,…”


I also gave you a reference from the Web site of the California State Government Division of Boating and Waterways Web site – “Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities”


The people who run the Bodega Harbor seem to think that berths are facilities, and so do the people who run the California State Government Division of Boating and Waterways.


0

You’d think that after the brutal financial consequences of shutting down the main source of revenue in Morro Bay, the power plant, that these people would realize that jobs = money = survival for the city. Morro Bay should put NIMBY on their city signage.


0

At 03/01/2015 at 1:41 pm, CCN commenter Rich said, “In fact, there is usually an overabundance of commercial fishing slips these days, so pleasure craft are often able to rent the slips”.


I believe him, since I have noticed in the past that Rich tends to have his facts straight. So, even with the failure by the City to ignore Measure D, there seems to be plenty of room for our fishermen to tie up their boats.


This, of course, makes it even more interesting that the Harbor Department sent those boats where they don’t belong.


0

Ooops, sorry. Meant to say “even with the failure by the City to enforce Measure D” Ignoring it has been the problem.


0

Well, lets see, I doubt that Franklin Riley ever envisioned a fishing port selling knock off Hawaiian aloha shirts, or tee shirts and hats depicting sea gull $hit splattered on them as item representative of an important commercial west coast fishing port. Nor was the residential growth, or the influx of those who would lobby to ruin a once thriving fishing village. turn


0

No, he probably did not, and steps were taken to protect the fishing port, steps that I personally support, including, Measure D. Again, I will quote from Harbor Advisory Board minutes. The commenter is identified as Jeremiah O’Brien, president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization :


“He recognizes that businesses need to improve, but the idea of expansion has now morphed into unreasonable proportions including talk of building hotels and restaurants in the Measure D designated area. He said the MBCFO cannot support that type of expansion.”


There you have a REAL threat to the fishing port- a small number of people who want to make money for themselves by building hotels and restaurants in an area that legally is supposed to be devoted to fishing.


The crafters of Measure D and of the Local Coastal Program were looking out for the fishing industry when they established means for orderly management of the Harbor – by ensuring that there are areas to serve all its users, while avoiding the mixing of uses that are incompatible.


This is no different than neighborhood zoning. Cities manage the various land uses so that they all have a place, so that you don’t get in trouble for allowing harm to environmentally-sensitive habitat, and don’t create dangerous situations – like a use that generates a lot of traffic in an area where kids are walking to school.


0
1 2