Loading...
1997-10-03Tina Cassidy Director Debra Hurlburt Asst. Planning Director City of Beverly Planning and Development Department Dawn Goodwin Community Development Mgr. DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1997 TO: HARBOR PLANNING GROUP FROM: DEBRA HURLBURT, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR JACK METTEE, APPLEDORE ENGINEERING, INC. AGENDA - MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1997 PRELIMINARY REQUEST FOR A SCOPE FOR HARBOR MANAGEMENT PLAN You should have already received the agenda for our next meeting. Please fred enclosed a revised prelimina~ draft for the remaining sections of the Request for a Scope. So that we can keep to the agenda schedule, please review the draft, especially the sections which We revised at our last meeting or that require Committee action. All of the changes have been underlined for quick review. During the meeting we will try to reach agreement on as much of the remaining draft Request for Scope as possible. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to prepare written comments or contact Debbie at City Hall 921-6000 ext. 173. Thank you for your participation. We feel that our first meeting went very well with a good deal of construction participation and a number of great ideas. We look forward to our second meeting on the 8th. City Hall · 191 Cabot Street · Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 · (508) 921-6000 · Fax (508) 922-0285 Planning: ext. 173 Community Development: ext. 293 Beverly Harbor Management Plan Request For A Scope Preliminary Draft August 15, 1997 Revised October 1, 1997 Prepared For Massachusetts Coastal Zone Managemere 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02202 Prepared By Beverly Harbor Planning Group Beve~y City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, Massachusetts 02045 With Assistance From Appledore Engineering, Inc. 600 State Street, Suite D Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Beverly Harbor Management Plan Request for A Scope Con~nB I. Introduction II. Proposed Harbor Plan Work Tasks Task 1. Organization of the Planning Process · Purpose · Role of the Harbor Planning Committee · Key Elements of Planning Process t. Public Information and Participation 2. Agency Coordination 3. Approach to Decision-Making 4. Schedule Task 2. Beverly Harbor Today · Purpose · Harbor Planning Area · Format for Data and Information 1. Review Existing Data and Information 2. Recent Planning Efforts 3. Issues facing Beverly Harbor Task 3. Beverly Harbor Tomorrow · Purpose · P!anninz Policy Context 1. Economic and Environmental Analysis 2. Assessment of Opportunities 3. Establish Goals and Evaluation Criteria Task 4. Harbor Plan Alternatives Purpose Format of Alternatives 1. Actions Common to all Alternatives 2. Specific Scenarios 3. Review and Narrowing Task 5. Feasibility Assessment of Alternative Scenarios * Purpose · Feasibility Analysis 1, Physical Compatibility 2. Land and Water Circulation 3. Development Feasibility 4. Cost and Feasibility of Public Improvements 5. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis 6. Compatibility with Regulatory Requirements · Decision on Preferred Approach · Public Workshop Task 6. The Final Plan · Purpose · Elements of the Plan 1. Vision 2. Projects, priorities, and actions 3. Resources 4. Responsibilities 5. Permitting-local, state, federal · Acceptance III. Compliance With Regulations for Review and Approval of Municipal Harbor Plans (301 CMR 23.03) D. E. F. Description of the Harbor Planning Group (310 CMR 23.03a) Map of Barbor Planning Area (301 CMR 23.03b) Historical/Existing Conditions Narrative (310 CMR 23.03c) Harbor Planning 'Efforts to Date (301 CMR 23.03d) Public Participation and Study Program for Phase H (301 CMR 23.03e) Massachusetts CZM Policies and Tideland Policy Objectives f301 CMR 23.03t) Task 1. Organization of the Planning Process Purpose This task is intended to provide the framework for conducting the planning process by a Harbor Planning Committee and for preparing a Harbor Management Plan that has the support of all groups affected by the plan. The planning process should be responsive to the vision as articulated by the Committee: To create a waterfront area and harbor that enhances the quality of the Ci.tv of Beverly. provides opportuni.tv for marine-related activities for all its citizens and recognizes Beverlv's rich historic maritime character. Role of the Harbor Planning Committee The Harbor Planning Committee is the principal body responsible for the City's overall harbor management planning process, including harbor policy decisions, coordination of groups involved in the process, recruitment and monitoring of consultants as well as maintaining the organizational framework for the planning process. The Committee will represent City agencies, boards and commissions, state agencies, waterfront neighborhoods, as well as business, environmental and tourism interests. Members of the Committee are listed in Attachment XX of this Request for a Scope. Key Elements of Planning Process This task will consist of four (4) subtasks: Public Information and Partidpation; Agency Coordination; Approach to Decision-Making; and Schedule Task 1.1 Public Information and Participation The Committee with the assistance of the consultant and the City Planning Office will develop a means for outreach to the community interest groups and the general public to promote an understanding for the need to prepare a harbor plan, its values to the community, the key issues involved and how the public can participate in the process. This community outreach may involve various media as well as public meetings. Constituencies that should be represented in the public participation process include: harbor-related businesses. such as marina operators: cultural and historical interest groups (i.e., Beverly Historical Society): neighborhood residents: tourism advocates: environmental interests: general business representative (i. e.. Chamber of Commerce): yacht clubs: the City Council and City staff from the planning, Community Services and Parks and Recreation Departments. Request for a Scope I City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan The consultant will assist the Committee to develop a schedule and format for public meetings involving these groups and a procedure for review and comment of written materials and graphics. Public involvement wilt be particularly important during the plan development stages-Tasks 3-6. The consultant will also work with the Committee to establish a means to coordinate with Salem, as appropriate, relative to specific harbor activities that may be proposed. Task 1.2 Agency Coordination The Committee, with the assistance of the consultant and the City Planning Office, will involve key state and federal officials in the planning process. These officials will provide technical and administrative guidance to the Committee and ensure that them is a full understanding of federal and state laws, regulations and policies. In particular these agencies will include: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (MCZM)- to ensure consistency with the Municipal Harbor P13nning Regulations and Coastal Policies and determination of the future of the Designated Port Area.. · Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protectioa, Waterways Program- involving resolution of issues concernin, g Chapter 91 licenses. · __ Massachusetts Executive Office of XtliaSportation and Construction (EOTC) - Coordination with the state's efforts to develop ferry services snd a.qs0ciated landside tran.Sportation. · US Army Corps of Engineers- involving the potential for structures or fill in navigable waters as well as the encroachment of piers into the Federal Project. · US Coast Guard- relative to enforcement of navigational and environmental regulatiom. Task 1.3 Approach to Decision-Making The Harbor Committee with the advice of the consultant will develop an orderly, predictable approach to decision making during the planning process. This approach will give thorough consideration to the points of view of the various harbor interests while providing a means to narrow plan options and to agree on a preferred Harbor Plan_ The Committee would like to develop a plan through consensus among all stakeholders and public agencies to the greatest exte~t possible without coinpromising the quality of the Harbor Plan or its acceptability by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Request for a Scope 2 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan Task 1.4 Schedule The Harbor Committee with the assistance of the consultant will prepare a milestone sched~e at the beginning of Phase 2 of the harbor planning process that will identify target dates for the completion of particular tasks and targe~ dates for key decisions including completion of technical and policy documents and review periods by appropriate agencies. The planning group would like to have the Plan completed within one year of the project start date. Request for a Scope 3 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan Task 2. Beverly Harbor Today Purpose This task will ensure that all available data is incorporated into the planning process. This data will be analyzed and refined into a set e. fkey issues that need to be addressed, providing a baseline for planning efforts. In addition this data will form the basis of a Harbor Information System that will organize existing and future data relevant to the Harbor in order to make more informed policy decisions about the Harbor. Harbor Planning Area The boundary of the harbor planning area is identified on Map 1, Harbor Planning Boundary. It encompasses the shoreline and adjacent land-side area. of the Beverly waterfxont extending from the Danvers municipal boundary eastward to the Manchester municipal boundary including the tidal portion of the Bass River. The landward boundary follows the closest public roadway to the waterfront or a line 250 feet from the waterfront whichever is closer. The water area extends to the Salem town line as identified on Map 1 and includes the federal navigation channel. Sub-areas within the Harbor are aim identified on Map 1. These sub-areas include interrelated activities and uses that should be treated as individual planning units in the harbor planning process. A - This sub-area includes the Designated Port Area and extends from Tuck Point to the end of Commercial Street. In addition to several marine-related businesses this sub-area includes City-owned watet fi ont pwperty. the commercial ~shermen's pier, the former Ventron property and the historic site of Washington's naval base. B - This sub-area encompasses the Bans River and it associated waterfiront. It extends from the end of Commemial Street and Salters Point up the Bass River including both shorelines past the Bri(Lge Street Bridge to Ellloft Street. This sub-area is mixed use including wat~z fi ont residential. two (2) commnnity parks. a marina and commercial activities on the es.qtern shoreline of the river and waterfront residential on the western shoreline. C - This sub-area encompasses the rest of Beverly's waterfront and includes two seg/nents: 1) the shoreline and water area from Salters Point to the Danvers boundary and 2) the shoreline and water area from Tuck Point to the Manchester town line. On the land side it includes waterfront residential uses a.q well as a nnmber of public beaches and other points of access including Lynch. Qbear and Independence Parks and the Dane Street and Woodbury Beaches. The second se_mnent includes the water area to the Salem mnnicipal boundary inclusive of the areas around Great and Little Misery Islands as well as Bakers Island. Request for a Scope 4 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan / / / / ,5/~LEM SALEM SOUND The Historic Commercial Inner Harbor (Sub .~xea A) will be the primary focus of the harbor planning process. This area is the most likely to see redevelopment activity in the short term and has the most potential for increasing public access to the waterfront. Given the concentration of marine-related activities as well as the high number of slips and moorings, this area appears to be the core of Beverly's harbor. It is also the area with the most potential for conflicting demands and activities. To a lesser extent the Bass River area will be studied. Although there are a number of marine-related uses and some vessel activity. it does not have the same degree of harbor issues and concerns that have been identified in the historic harbor area. The remainder of the Harbor planning area have very few issues of concern except for the need for additional public access and appropriate control of moorings and vessel traffic. Format for Data and Information New or revised developed through the harbor planning process will be incorporated into the Harbor Data Base and made a part of the Harbor Plan inventory as appropriate. The following sub-tasks will be undertaken: review of existing information; incorporation of previous and on- going plans; and confirmation of key harbor issues. Task 2.1 Review Existing Dam and Information The consultant will review all existing data and information relevant to the harbor and identify gaps in the information base. The consultant will collect and analyze any additional data that is essential to the planning process. At a minimum the following information should be reviewed: Status of existing marine-dependent and me-related uses, including type and scale of activity, waterfront stimctures and site use, marine-related services; public access; and types, number, and location of vessels; · Waterfront and land-side infrastructure capacity and improvements needed, including roadway and pedestrian access, parking availability and utilities; Existing waterside conditions including infrastructure capacity and improvements such as mooring and bertling capacity: navigation constraints: harbor bathymetry: wave and current characteristics: and water quality. Existing and potential economic value of waterfront uses--such as marine commercial, watetfi'ont businesses, and tourism--including employment, secondary impacts and fiscal impacts; · Status of harbor administration and how effectivejt is for achieving mission of the Harbor Plan; and Request for a Scope 5 City of B~-verly Harbor Management Plan Critical marine or natural resource phenomena that either enhance or constrain the future use of the Harbor, such as wetlands. intertidal areas mid shellfish Dnring the scopitl$ process a number of information gaps were identified including data on the potential for tonrism and the contribution of some of the wat~fiont enterprises to the local eeonorrty. The was al~ little data on the natural and marine resoumes of the harbor area. Recent Planning Efforts Over the past 20 years there have five (5) major planning studies that involve the area to be addressed in the Harbor Plan. The major recommendations if each of these plan is discussed in more detail in the Beverly Harbor Preliminary Inventory prepared as a enmpanion study to this Request for a Scope. The five planning studies are listed below: 1970's: Beverly Harbor Redevelopment Plan - This plan emphasized the necessity to construct a public pier, provide a pedestrian walkway along the waterfront, extend public access wherever possible, create adequate parking and provide a waterfront attraction based upon Bcverly's history as the birthplace of the United States Navy. May, 1981 Beverly Waterfront Revitalization - This plan also stressed the need for more pedestrian access to the water~nt and harbor area as well as marine-related business and additional parking. August, 1985 Beverly Waterfront Public Improvement Study - This s/udy recommended a variety of physical and regulatory changes to improve the waterfront area between the Essex Bridge and Sandy Beach. This study also calls for pedestrian aeeeas and public facilities as well as enhancing historic waterfront structures and providing additional parking. 1986 Beverly Master Plan Update - Completed in 1986 the Master Plan Update recommended the preparation of a comprehensive harbor management plan to address specifically waterfront and water-side activities such as marinas, dockage, moorings, etc. The plan also called for improved transportation circulation in the waterfront area as well as recommendations to changes in the zoning ordinance to encourage greater public ms to the wat~x fiont. May, 1995 City of Beverly, Open Space and Recreation Plan Update - This plan includes a five-year action plan that recommends acquiring waterfront parcels adjacent to the public pier, developing water-related recreational an~enities on publicly- owned waterfront land, and implemenftng a Sea~Path program. Other relevant recent regional studies that have been recen~y completed include: Request for a Scope 6 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan * Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Ferry Study; · Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Year 2000 Regional Plan Issues facing Beverly Harbor Based upon the review of existing data, in particular the Beverly Harbor Preliminary Inventory, the consultant will confirm the key issues facing the Beverly Harbor. The Plan should document how these issues will be addressed and resolved in the harbor planning process. The Harbor Committee and the consultant should prioritize the issues in an effort to focus the discussion of alternative scenarios for the harbor in Task 4. Issues to be considered should include, but not be limited to, the following, which have been identified by the Harbor Planning Group. Waterfront and Landside Issues · How can the harbor and waterfxont provide greater oppommity for public use, including recreation and tourism? How can the City ensure that the harbor plan reco~tmlzes its maritime history? How can visitors be allnoted to the harbor through development of tourist attractions and associated educational programs oriented to the history of Beverly Harbor? What should be the plan for the City's waterfront parcel adjaceni to the Essex Bridge and the former Ventron property? What will the effect of greater public use of the Harbor be on existing community resources and adjacent residential neighborhoods? How can the impacts of greater pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic as well as demand for additional parking be managed and/or mitigated? Are there other opportunities to diversift/wat~tfiont businesses to capture increased use of the harbor while minimizing conflict8 among competing uses? How can the City ensure that these uses enhance the value of the City's harbor area and also meet requirements of Chapter 917 Waterside Issues · How can the capacity of Beverly's Harbor be increased to accommodate additional berths and moorings for commercial and recreational vessels? How can the City provide additional opportunities for commercial fisherman? · What should the City's position be with regard to the encroachment of piers into the federal navigation channel? · Should the City continue to pursue re-consideration of the Designated Port Area (DPA) boundary? If so, should the DPA be reduced? eliminated? Request for a Scope 7 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan · Should the City investigate and pursue the provision of facilities to support a tour-boat business? Harbor Administration and Community Concerns Does the City' s current harbor management system have the capacity to guide the growth and development in the harbor and waterfront area for the long term? Or should the current system be modified? How will the management system be funded? · How much additional planning is required for the non-core segments of the Harbor Planning Area? Is the current harbor planning area defined appropriately? * Are the current zoning districts along the harbor waterfront suitable for ensuring that the long term goals of the harbor planning process will be achieved? · What sources of funds should the City pursue to help implement the harbor management plan? Request for a Scope 8 City of Beverly I-hrbor Management Plan Task 3. Beverly Harbor Tomorrow Purpose During this task the Harbor Committee with assistance from the consultant will consider the potential for various activities in the harbor area, establish long range goals for harbor management and development and identify a program of actions and projects that may be pursued to achieve the desired goals. The proposed program should respond to the issues identified in Task 2 that reflect the local desire to increase the opportunity for public access while maintaining a waterfront the provides for marine-related business. P!anni Policy Context This task should build upon and be consistent with prior planning efforts and the goals and policies already established including the previous 1995 Request for A Scope, previous waterfront studies (Beverly Waterfront Revitalization, 1981; Waterfront Public Improvements, 1985) that encourage marine-related activities and greater public access, the 1995 City of Beverly Open Space and Recreation Plan and the City of Beverly Master Plan, 1986. Task 3.1 Economic and Environmental Analysis · The Harbor Committee with the assistance of the consultant will assess the market as well as economic and in.~titutional factors affecting waterfront/harbor use and dev.elopment and the relationship of the watcafiont to the overall economy and environmental quality of Beverly. This assessment should be cognizant of current waterfront businesses and provide a process for including them in the assessment process. It should also l'lX:O~t2rniTe the desire of Beverly's citizens to gain greater access to the wat~t fiont and harbor area, More specifically this process should: Assess the current and future role of the harbor area in the economy of Beverly including its effect and influence on office development, retail sales, and employment in the downto~vn area adjacent to the harbor as well us the potential expenditures for cultural and historic attaractions. Investigate the demand for new or expanded maritime business, recreational, and identify those that are most promi.qing. Analyze potential economic initiatives needed to overcome baniers to private and public development activities on the waterfront. Analyze the effect of the City' s tax streettire on waterfront activity. Analyze the quality of Beverly's shom!ine and marine environment to determine the potential for expansion of public access and m,arine-relate~l recreational activities. - · Consider the regulatory enviroment and its impact on existing and proposed waterfront uses that might be consdiered in the harbor plan. Request for a Scope 9 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan Task 3.2 Task 33 Assessment of Opportunities Based upon the economic and environmental assessment of the previous section the Committee with the assistance of the consultant will identify key opportunities for revitalizing and managing the watc~fiont and harbor area. These opportunities should include existing resources and ongoing projects, such as the re-use of City- owned land ht the inner harbor. This assessment will provide a set of initiatives to address the Harbor issues identified in Task 2. These initiatives will be used as the basis for generating alternatives in Task 4. Opportunities should be considered for: · Harbor Conservation Resources, uses, facilities or activities within the planning area that should be retained, protected and/or expanded. Identify key sites, projects or strategies that may be implemented to achieve the City' s objectives for harbor conservation. · Harbor Development Will include new projects, programs, and activities to enhance the value of the waterfront and harbor area and maximize its potential for pubhc use and economic ~etivi~. Opportunities for enhancing the visual and physical environment, expanding activities and events, accommodating new types of vessels and ensoring greater public access to the shoreline should be considered. Establish Goals and Evaluation Criteria The consultant in cooperation with the Harbor Committee will prepare a set of goals for the harbor based upon the issues from Task 2, the analysis of Task 3, and the input fi'om public participation process. The consultant will also define a set of caiteria to assist the Committee to evaluate the effectiveness of planning alternatives in meeting each of the goals. Such criteria might include environmental impact economic benefit, impact on existing harbor management practices and regulatory requirements. Request for a Scope 10 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan Task 4. Harbor Plan Alternatives Purpose This task is intended to identify and generate alternative scenarios that achieve the goals established for Beverly Harbor. This task will culminate in a small number of future harbor scenarios that will be further analyzed in a detailed feasibility analysis. At present, it is clear to the Harbor Planning Group that there should be: 1) greater opportunity for public use of the harbor and waterfi'ont including tourism; 2) increased harbor capacity to accommodate more berths and moorings and 3) appropriate use of one or two key waterfront parcels in the Inner Harbor. Specific projects that might be explored as part of this alternatives analysis include: · Re-use of the Ventton property and the City-owned parcel at the foot of the Essex Bridge, Expanded public access in the inner harbor area · Creation of a educational/recreation/tourist center using Beverly' s maritime history as a major theme. · COMMITTEE TO DECIDE ON OTHER POSSIBILITIES Format of Alternatives Altematives should be developed that provide clear options for specific actions including potential investment They should be presented as scenarios of the harbor' s future that combine concepts for physical improvements with complementary policy or program strategies for plan implementation based upon the ideas generated in Task 3 and the above discussion. In addition, the scenarios should be, presented using the same elements in order to facilitate comparative assessment and evaluation. Task 4.1 Actions Common to all Alternatives These actions should be defined and should represent the minimum set of public programs and actions that are necessary to achieve any of the proposed scenarios. They might include proposals for public access and recreation, traffic and parking improvements, pedestrian circulation, conservation of key natural or marine resources, or other actio,-ls. Task 4.2 Request for a Scope Harbor Management Plan Specific Scenarios A minimum of three;to-five scenarios of the harbor's future should be evaluated. These scenarios should be presented as graphic and written programs including the following elements: 11 City of Beverly Waterfront Use - existing uses/activities to remain, development strategy with proposed new activities/uses by location, type, and scale. Identify key projects and implementation approach. Water Use and Navigation - maintenance of existing vessel locations and current water uses; proposed new vessel locations, of channel and fairways, hazards to navigation, turning basins. Improvement and Management of Harbor and Waterfront Infrastructure - type and level of public improvements required to make a given scenario work beyond the baseline condition. Transportation, parking, berthing, pedestrian ways and other improvements including order of magnitude costs, potential funding sources and institutional responsibility. Harbor Management and Administration - Identify responsibilities for long term management of harbor and waterfront including implementation of harbor plan and day-to-day decision making relative to harbor activities. Task 4.3 Review and Narrowing Prepare a qualitative a surranary of each of the scenarios in terms of long term coast and benefits and the potential tradeoffs required in terms of meeting the goals and criteria established in Task 3. With the assistance of the consultant the Planning Group will narrow the number of aitematives to undergo a more rigorous feasibility analysis as identified in Task 5. iequest for a Scope 12 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan Task 5. Feasibility Assessment of Alternative Scenarios Purpose This task will analyze the feasibility of each of the 2-3 alternative scenarios brought forward fi'om Task 4. As necessary particular elements of a given alternative may be developed in greater detail in order to better facilitate the assessment. The task will conclude with the selection of a Preferred Alternative to be fully documented in Task 6, The Final Plan. Task 5.1 Feasibility Analysis This subtask will involve analysis of each alternative using the following parameters: COMMITTEE TO DECIDE Physical compatibility - Identify the compatibility of proposed activities and their relationship to existing uses. The analysis should illustrate the scale and potential configuration of anticipated development on adjacent sites to determine if desired activities can be appropriately accommodated. Effects on adjacent housing, historic m~d natural resources and the overall maritime quality of Beverly should be assessed. It should also consider the impact of proposed relationships between the harbor/waterfront and downtown Beverly. Where maritime uses (including public access, marinas, etc.) may be diminished, means for minimizing or mitigating this impact should be undertaken. Land and water circulation - This assessment should illustrate the proposed waterfront and harbor circulation patterns for traffic, vessels, and pedestrians. Along the water~'ont effects on pedestrian circulation, vehicular traffic (including capacity of adjacont existing streets) and on parking availability should be assessed. The capacity of the harbor to accommodate additional vessels associated with proposed uses should be assessed, including provision for adequate bertbAng, mooring and vessel movement within the Harbor. Development feasibility - Should any alternative involve significant waterfront real estate investment, an analysis should be undertaken to determine if it can properly be developed and what value it ultimately generate. The former Ventron property would be an example. Cost and feasibility of public improvements - FDr each alternative assess infrastructure and utility requirements and whethe~ current systems can accommodate future demands. Should improvements be necessary identify likely Request for a Scope 13 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan availability and source of funds and limetable for improvements. Consider additional parking, transportation upgrades, pier improvements EconOmic and fiscal impact analysis - Assess impacts of alternative on job creation, per capita income and direct and secondary purchasing. Assess impact on Beverly' s existing economic base-will proposed alternative add to or subtract from demand for existing activities. Net fiscal impacts should be assessed, including estimated tax revenues relative to costs of increased municipal service requi~ments (police, fire, public works, etc.)and capital imprevernPnts that may be required. Compatibility with regulatory requirements - Determine the extent to which each alternative is consistent with the rules and regulations of relevant local, state, and federal agencies in particular Massachusetts Chapter 9 1 and DPA requirements. Where there are conflicts determine how the alternative could be modified to be consistent with appropriate regulation or where local land use laws could be revised to accommodate the alternative. Document that the alternative is consistent with vision and goals of Mtmieipal Harbor Plan. Task 5.2 Decision on Preferred Approach From among the alternatives studied, the Harbor Committee shall select the Preferred Alternative that may be a single alternative or a blend of appropriate elements from all the alternatives considered. Task 5.3 Public Workshop The Committee will present its findings in at least one public workshop and receive comments on its approach. Any revisions will be carried forward into Task 6, The Final Plan. Request for a Scope 14 City of Beverly Ha~aor Management Plan Task 6. The Final Plan Purpose This task will synthesize the findings and results of all previous tasks to prepare a final harbor plan. Specific plan elements may be developed in more detail as required or desired. Task 6.1 Prepare Final Plan In cooperation with the Harbor Planning Group the consultant will prepare the Final Draft Harbor Plan including the following elements: Vision - State the plan's vision and summarize the goals and future role of Beverly Harbor in the area. This element should present the Preferred Alternative, but recogniTe that more than one scenario may be appropriate for the harbor allowing for flexibility in responding to future circumstances. Projects, priorities, and actions - Present planning end development programs that are to be undertaken to achieve the Plan's vision end goals. Identify priority programs and provide timetable for implementation. · Resources - Identify any resources, including financial, that may be required to implement the programs and projects proposed in the Plan. · Responsibilities - Specify group or agency (public or private) responsible for implementing the various Plan program.q and projects. Permitting-local, state, federal - Identi~ any local, state or federal permits that may required to implement various features of the Plan. Specify applicable guidance to be adhered to by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in issuing Chapter 91 licenses. Task 6.2 Plan Acceptance Upon completion of Final DraR Plan the Harbor Planning Group will solicit public comment and review by appropriate local and state agencies including the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. The Planning Group will review all comments and make revisions as needed to produce the Final Harbor Plan. Request for a Scope 15 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan Ill. Compliance With Regulations for Review and Approval of Municipal Harbor Plans (301 CMR 23.03) A. Description of the Harbor Planning Group (310 CMR 23.03a) (TO BE COMPLETED) B. Map of Harbor Planning Area (301 CMR 23.03b) Harbor Planning Area The boundary of the harbor planning area is identified on Map 1, Harbor Planning Boundary. It encompasses the shoreline and adjacent land-side area of the Beverly waterfront extending ~'om the Danvers municipal boundary eastward to the Manchester municipal boundary including the tidal potion of the Bass River. The landward boundary follows the closest public madway to the waterfront or a line 250 feet ~'om the waterfxont whichever is closer. The water area extends to the Salem town line as identified on Map 1 and includes the federal navigation channel. Sub-areas within the Harbor are also identified on Map 1. These sub-awE include interrelated activities and uses that should be treated as individual planning units in the harbor planning process. A - This sub-area includes the Designated Port Area and extends from Tuck Point to the end of Commercial Street. In addition to several marine-related businesses this sub-area includes City-owhed waterfxont property, the commercial fishermen' s pier, the former Ventron property and the historic site of Washington's naval base. B - This sub-area encompasses the Bass River and it associated wateLrtont. It extends from the end of Commercial Street and Saltas Point up the Bass River including both shorelines past the Bridge Street Bridge to Elliott Street. This sub-area is mixed use including waterfront residential, two (2) community parks, a marina and commercial activities on the eastern shcn'eline of the river and waterfront residential on the western shoreline. C - This sub-area encompasses the rest ofBeverly's waterfront and includes two segments: 1 ) the shoreline and water area from Saltas PoLnt to the Danvers boundary, and 2) the shoreline and water area from Tuck Point to the Manchester town line. On the land side it includes waterfxont residential uses aS,well as a number of public beaches and other points of access including Lynch, Obear and Independence Parks and the Dane Street and Woodbury Beaches. The second segment includes the water Request for a Scope 16 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan area to the Salem municipal boundary inclusive of the areas around Greta and Little Misery Islands as well as Bakers Island. The Historic Commercial Inner Harbor (Sub area A) will be the primary focus of the harbor planning process. This area is the most likely to see redevelopment activity in the short teml and has .the most potential for increasing public access to the waterfront. Given the concentration of mannerelated activities as well as the high number of slips and moorings, this area appears to be the core of Beverly's harbor. It is also the area with the most potential for conflicting demands and activities. To a lesser extent the Bass River area will be studied. Although there are a number of marine-related uses and some vessel activity, it does not have the same degree of harbor issues and concerns that have been identified in the historic harbor area. The remainder of the Harbor planning area have very few issues of enncern except for the need for additional public access and appropriate control of moorings and vessel traffic. (TO BE COMPLETED) C. Historical/Existing Conditions Narrative (310 CMR 23.03c) (TO BE COMPLETED) D. Harbor Planning Efforts to Date (301 Ch!R 23.03d) Recent Planning Efforts Over the past 20 years there have five (5) major planning studies that involve the area to be addressed in the Harbor Plan. The major recommendations if each of these plan' is discussed in more detail in the Beverly Harbor Preliminary Inventory prepared as a companion study to this Request for a Scope. The five planning studies are listed below: 1970's: Beverly Harbor Redevelopment P/an - This plan emphasized the necessity to coustmct a public pier, pwvide a pedestrian walkway along the waterfront, extend public access wherever possible, create adequate parking and provide a waterfront attraction based upon Beverly' s history as the birthplace of the United States Navy. May, 1981 Beverly Waterfront Revitali~aaon - This plan also stressed the need for more pedestrian access to the watexfiont and harbor area as well us marine-related business and additional parking. August~ 1985 Beverly Waterfront Public Improvement Study -.This study recommended a variety of physical and regulatory changes to improve the water~'ont area between the Essex Bridge and Sandy Beach. This study also calls for Request for a Scope 17 City of Beverly Harbor Management Plan 1986 May, 1995 pedestrian access and public facilities as well as enhancing historic water~-ont structures and providing additional parking. Beverly Master Plan Update - Completed in 1986 the Master Plan Update recommended the px~paration of a comprehensive harbor management plan to address specifically waterfront and water-side activities such as marinas, dockage, moorings, etc. The plan also called for improved transportation circulation in the waterfront area as well as recommendations to changes in the zoning ordinance to encourage greater public access to the waterfront. City of Beverly, Open 8pace and Recreation Plan Update - This plan includes a five-year action plan that recommends acquiring waterfront parcels adjacent to the public pier, developing water-related recreational amenities on publicly- owned waterfront land, and implementing a Sea Path program. (TO BE COMPLETED) E. Public Participation and Study Program for Phase II (301 CMR 23.03e) (TO BE COMPLETED) F. Massachusetts CZM Policies and Tideland Policy Objectives (301 CMR 23.030 (TO BE COMPLETED) Request for a Scope 18 Harbor Management Plan City of Beverly