Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) — Appeal of Harbor Commission's Decision - Appeal PaperworkAppeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 Clerk's Date & Time Stamp RECEIVED 2819 JAN 22 PM 5: 12 OFFICE OF Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time pOWfir6,ar1AOdopr,l ,or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the: ❑ Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1,637 ❑ Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1,637 ❑ Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1,637 ❑ Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1,637 ❑ Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1,637 ❑ Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $710 ❑ City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1,639 ❑ Harbor Resources Manager Action on a Lease/Permit to the Harbor Commission - $100 ❑ Harbor Resources Manager Action to the Harbor Commission - Hourly Cost ® Harbor Commission Action to the City Council - Hourly Cost ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee: Appellant Information: Name(s): Kevin Moriarty, Zachary Fischer, Glenn Walcott, Terry Morrison Address: Representitive for Appeallants - Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, 30900 Rancho Viejo Rd. #285 City/State/Zip: San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Phone: (949) 581-2888 Email: sschaffner@caaplanning.com Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant(s): Allyson and Ron Presta Date of Final Decision: January 9, 2019 Project No.: AIC 1502-2018 Application Activity No.: Site Address: 2888 Bayshore Description of application: Redevelopment of an existing marina including the demolition of 53 boat slips to be replaced with 50 boat slips of a generally larger size. Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): Inconsistency with original approval, incompatibility with surrounding residences, precedent, and deficient CEQA analysis. Signature of Appellant: Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: ' 1 DaAppeal filed and Administrative Fee received: o'd- 201. / 'd /% A6411-7 JAG ?Cler cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File Cashier Code: CDD004 (Harbor Appeals HBR001) F: IUserslClerklSharedTonnstAppeal Application Updated 12/14/2018 CAA PLANNING January 22, 2019 Ms. Leilani Brown City Clerk City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Appeal of Harbor Commission Decision of Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear Ms. Brown: On behalf of Kevin Moriarty, Glen Walcott, Zach Fischer, and Terry Morrison (identified herein as appellants), CAA Planning, Inc. (CAA) submits an appeal of the Harbor Commission decision of January 9, 2019, which upholds staff approval of Harbor Permit/Approval In Concept 1502- 2018 issued September 27, 2018. The City Council is authorized to hear the appeal of decisions made by the Harbor Commission resulting from the administration of the City's code under H.C. 17.65.010(B). Initiation of this appeal is made to the City Clerk in conformance with H.C. 17.65.030.A. Consistent with the requirements for an appeal, the appeal form and a deposit in the amount of $194.32 are included with this letter, and serve as an adequate initiation of the appeal process. The reasons for the appeal of Harbor Permit/AIC No. 1502-2018 are: 1) the new approval is inconsistent with the prior City approval in 2016; 2) the 2018 approved plan is incompatible with the surrounding residences; 3) the approval of the 2018 plan sets a precedent that would be detrimental to Newport Harbor and its residents; and 4) the City failed to comply with the mandates of CEQA. Supporting facts are provided below. AIC No. 1502-2018 Not Consistent with Approved Project In 2016, the City's Harbor Commission approved a plan for Newport Marina following an appeal initiated by Mr. Moriarty. The October 12, 2016 meeting minutes detailing the approval and the Harbor Resources Department summary of the approval are attached. The Harbor Commission provided a general envelope for development including identification of setbacks from the southerly property line and from the bulkhead. The approval also included a limit on the number of boat slips. The City's Harbor Design Criteria section I.A.2.a.(3) specifies that, "These Standards are to be considered minimum requirements for the cases represented and, at the City of Newport Beach 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 285 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 9 (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599 Ms. Leilani Brown January 22, 2019 Page 2 of 6 discretion, may not apply to the specific project submitted. The City of Newport Beach reserves the right to mandate deviation from the Standards, if particular project conditions require special consideration." Where the Harbor Commission approval included a 26 -foot setback from the southerly property line and a 24 -foot setback from the bulkhead with 46 boat slips, the 2018 plan locates the marina 6 inches from the southerly property line, and 5 feet from the bulkhead. In addition, the number of boats increased from 46 slips to 50 boat slips. This new 2018 plan is in direct conflict with the approved plan. The City failed to provide any analysis between the approved plan and the 2018 plan, and issued the 2018 approval without notice to the prior appellant. Furthermore, the 2018 plan results in an intensification of the use related to the placement and number of the largest boat slips. The record is void of any analysis related to this intensification of use. Incompatible with Surroundings Risk to Safety and Liability The redeveloped marina will be located within 6 inches of the common water -side property line with 2782 Bayshore Drive where Mr. Moriarty has a boat side -tied. The side -tied boat is located completely within the prolongation of the 2782 Bayshore Drive property line. However, if the marina is built to within 6 inches of the property line, the property at 2782 Bayshore Drive including Mr. Moriarty's boats, dock, and the residence could easily be accessed by the public by simply stepping from the marina onto Mr. Moriarty's boat. An inherent risk to safety and liability to the homeowner exists, because a person would be able to access a residential property through access from Mr. Moriarty's dock or through the accessway located along either side of Ms. Morrison's property. This creates an attractive nuisance that could be avoided by increasing the setback between the southerly property line and the bulkhead. Risk to Privacy The interface between Newport Marina and its immediate residential neighbors is unique in Newport Harbor. Very few commercial marinas span across the waterfront of single-family residences. In the instances where a commercial marina does span the waterfront of single-family residences, the smaller boats are berthed in front of the residences and the larger boats are appropriately sited away from residences. This configuration can be seen in the Bayshore Marina, the Balboa Bay Club, and at the Lido Yacht Anchorage. Other marinas employ buffers to provide physical separation between boats and residences. Newport Marina would be the only commercial marina permitted to have 62 -foot boat slips that could accommodate boats up to 80 feet in length directly in front of the single-family residences. While private views are not a protected right, views should be considered as a part of the intensification of the marina and for compatibility with its surroundings. Neighboring residences impacted by the new marina's 62 -foot slips would lose their views of the harbor on their first floors and would have obstructed views on their second floors. More importantly, the residences Ms. Leilani Brown January 22, 2019 Page 3 of 6 that would be impacted by the redeveloped commercial marina would have boats looking directly into their homes, because boats would be berthed as close as 13 feet from their properties (5 -foot marina setback from bulkhead with an 8 -foot headwalk). In this area of Bayshores the homes are only set back a matter of feet from the back property line, which means the impacted residents would have owners of large boats and their staff little more than 13 feet away at any time of day or night. The appellants acknowledge that the marina has historically had boats in front of the appellants' homes and can continue to for as long as the marina exists. The issue at hand is the creation of larger boat slips than currently exist, and the purposeful placement of those slips away from the applicant's property. Where the 2016 plan had five 65 -foot slips located at the northern portion of the marina, the 2018 plan has nine 62 -foot slips at the southern portion of the marina. At no point during the marina's history have large boats been moored in front of the residences. All large slips should be sited at the northern portion of the marina in front of the marina owner's property. Incompatibility Between Residential and Commercial Generally speaking, Newport Harbor does a good job balancing compatibility between commercial marinas and adjacent residences. However, the proposed redevelopment of Newport Marina violates the balance. There are no instances of commercial marinas being located 6 inches from a shared residential property line, where that property has a dock. An appropriate setback should be based not on the City's minimum standards but rather should be assessed based on the existing setting and individual site characteristics. Vertical Clearance, Access and Fire Safety There are safety concerns related to the proposed pier and access to the rear of the marina. One- third of the boat slips are located at the rear of the marina, requiring navigation under the pier to exit and enter the marina. The pier would be located 14 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW), which leaves approximately 7 vertical feet of clearance for access under the pier during a larger high tide event. This limited vertical clearance will necessitate boaters lowering their rear light to fit under the pier. A design requiring modification to a boat during navigation is impractical. In addition, this would be the only commercial marina where one-third of the boats would have to navigate under a pier for access. In addition, the pier configuration makes fire safety a substantial concern related to access for Harbor Patrol boats, which has not been analyzed. AIC No. 1502-2018 Sets a Bad Precedent Newport Harbor prides itself as a diverse mix of public slips and moorings, residential docks, and commercial marinas. A precedent should not be set allowing commercial enterprises to increase financial gains by transferring impacts from their properties onto their neighbor's properties. CAA conducted extensive research of more than 20 marinas in Newport Harbor and Ms. Leilani Brown January 22, 2019 Page 4of6 could not find a single commercial marina that located docks 6 inches from a shared residential property line, that are setback 5 feet from private residences, or that place the largest slips directly in front of private residences. Examples of properties like VUE and the Lido Yacht Anchorage redevelopment were raised at the Harbor Commission meeting and are not comparable with the 2018 plan for Newport Marina. VUE is not located in front of private residential; rather, it contains ground floor commercial with residential beginning on the second floor. In addition, VUE is a comprehensive development including the marina and the landside development. At Lido Peninsula Resort, the pending redeveloped marina is set back more than 45 feet from the residences, which are subject to a ground lease; the residences are not privately owned. The applicants have devised a plan to reduce the number of small boat slips and significantly increase the number of large boat slips, and they have done so to the detriment of the appellants. By moving the largest slips away from the applicant's apartment complex, the landside development will enjoy better views and less noise and odor, and will not suffer from privacy concerns. In addition, larger boats are charged at a higher rate per foot compared to smaller boats, and the marina owners are effectively increasing their revenue while avoiding impacts to their landside property. This is a bad precedent that will unnecessarily create land use conflicts. California Environmental Quality Act The motion approved by the Harbor Commission on January 9, 2019 substantively and procedurally failed to comply with the mandates of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City may not approve a project prior to undertaking CEQA review. Conclusion As identified above, the Harbor Design Criteria establishes the minimum standards by which residential and commercial docks should be designed and that the City reserves the right to mandate deviation from the Standards. The only information in support of the 2018 plan approval was that it is consistent with the minimum standards. Given the 2016 Harbor Commission approval, the intensification of the marina, and the incompatibility with the private residences, the City has the obligation to mandate a more compatible design. In an effort to generate dialogue with the applicants and reach a mutually agreeable compromise, the appellants advanced five separate marina concept plans that would provide generally the same number of slips and slip mix identified on the 2018 plan. No response was received related to the compromise plans. The appellants maintain their support for the redevelopment of the commercial marina. However, they believe that the plan ultimately approved by the City should balance the applicants' desire to expand and intensify the marina with common sense standards to protect the appellants' right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. Increasing the setbacks from the southerly property line and the bulkhead, and relocating the largest boats away from the Ms. Leilani Brown January 22, 2019 Page 5 of 6 private residences should be a requirement of the City. We appreciate City Council's consideration of the appeal of the Harbor Commission's decision upholding AIC 1502-2018. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. e� • j� Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer Attachments: Harbor Commission Meeting Minutes, October 12, 2016 Harbor Commission Decision on Appeal, October 18, 2016 c: Leilani Brown, City Clerk Kevin Moriarty Terry Morrison Zach Fischer Glenn Walcott Doug Evertz, Murphy & Evertz NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers Wednesday, October 12, 2016 6:30 PM 1) CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 2) ROLL CALL Commissioners: Paul Blank, Chair Dave Girling Bill Kenney Duncan McIntosh (absent) Joe Stapleton Brad Avery Doug West Staff Members: Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager Shannon Levin, Harbor Resources Supervisor City Council Liaison: Duffy Duffield 3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Harbor Resources Manager Miller 4) PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher noted the Harbor Design Standards entered a 30 -day public review period at the September Commission meeting. The first item of business referred to diagrams contained in the existing Harbor Design Standards. The interpretation of those diagrams appeared to be open to question. He requested the Commission to provide the status of the updated Harbor Design Standards as they were not on the agenda. Chair Blank advised there were no qualified Commissioners available to review the Harbor Design Standards within the 30 -day timeframe. A subcommittee was convened to address the issue. The Harbor Resources Manager would provide an update. 5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES —September 14, 2016 Minutes In response to Commissioner comments, Harbor Resources Manager Miller advised that under Item 5, Mooring Revocations, the "notice sent in late winter" statement should be "notice sent in late spring." Under Item 7, Sewage Pumpout Service, "to which Commission responded no" should be "a Commissioner" or "the Commission" or "Commissioners" responded no. Commissioner West moved approval of the Minutes as corrected. Commissioner Girling seconded the motion. The motion carried with 6 ayes, 0 no and 0 abstaining votes. 6) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. Continued Item: Appeal — 2888 Bay Shore Drive (Newport Marina Reconstruction) This item was continued from the August 10, 2016 Harbor Commission meeting in an effort for both parties to propose a compromise towards a solution. Recommendation: 1) Uphold, amend or reverse the Harbor Manager's issuance of the Approval in Concept. Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported the Commission heard the appeal in July 2016 and determined the matter was a "setback issue", but did not determine the amount of the setback. The Commission asked both parties to develop a mutually agreeable plan. In August 2016, the parties still had not reached agreement on a plan and requested 60 additional days. The 60 -day time period had expired. Chair Blank asked if the parties had reached agreement to which parties declined. Commissioner Kenney had met with the applicant and his attorney subsequent to the July 2016 meeting at the applicant's request. Chair Blank related the procedure for the hearing. Mike Hewitt, counsel for the applicant, commented on the challenges of a northern ingress/egress, including an ADA ramp, high-pressure water lines in the pie -shaped area near the PCH bridge, and no guarantee of receiving a dredging permit each time dredging was needed. He cited an email stating no party would transgress onto the other party's waters when navigating. A suggestion was made for installation of dolphin pilings along the property line to prevent boats from hitting Mr. Moriarty's boat. He was willing to submit a plan for those pilings, placed every 15 feet, to the Coastal Commission for approval; however, he was unsure whether the Coastal Commission would approve it. A second proposal was to install just two pilings with a rigid barrier in between, such as a buoyed line. A third proposal was to use an angled corner on the backside of the marina. He preferred to shorten the existing dock by 5 feet to give more passage. His second preference was two dolphin pilings. A 15 -foot passage for a Duffy sized boat was possible. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, provided distances between slips, property lines and seawalls. The area shown in green was important because it allowed all boats to navigate into and out of the marina with adequate water space. The plan for Newport Marina would remove the green area and leave less than 10 feet on the westerly side and 10 feet at the front. At the July meeting, a Commissioner suggested retaining the existing 26 feet of setback from the property line to the edge of the dock and not allowing side -ties to be placed at the end of the dock. Also, a Commissioner had indicated any distance less than 26 feet would result in more collisions. The applicant proposed 48 slips and a 10 -foot setback, which was later increased to 15 feet and again to 17 feet, but never advanced any plans for review. Mr. Moriarty proposed a plan on July 28 for 46 slips and maintaining the existing 26 -foot setback, but received no substantive response. She requested the Commission maintain the 26 -foot setback, restrict boats on the west side of the marina to 21 feet in length, and prohibit cleats and/or side ties on the south and west sides to allow for navigation. The 26 -foot setback was critical in this instance. In response to Commissioner Girling, Ms. Schaffner advised that she had not seen Mr. Hewitt's proposal that included dolphin pilings. She had emailed Mr. Hewitt inquiring about a proposed plan and discussed with City staff a deadline for submission of plans to allow for review prior to the hearing. She could not opine regarding Mr. Hewitt's proposal at the current time. In response to Commissioner West, Ms. Schaffner indicated she was not familiar with the historical diagram submitted by Mr. Moriarty and did not believe it was relevant. Mr. Moriarty's exhibits maintained the 26 -foot setback and had not been updated or changed since they were presented to the Coastal Commission. 2 In response to Chair Blank, Ms. Schaffner reported she would need to confer with her client regarding visual or structural objections to dolphin pilings and a buoy line between them. Pete Swift, Swift Slip Pier and Dock Builders, hoped the Commission would consider a more reasonable setback than 26 feet. He shared five slides of similar docks in Newport harbor. In each instance, the setback was less than 26 feet. The 26- foot setback could be excessive when considering 20 -foot boats. He expressed concern that the Harbor Commission was setting a precedent for the Harbor Commission to settle disputes between neighbors. A 15 -foot setback was feasible and fair. Chair Blank noted most of Mr. Swift's examples were commercial properties next to commercial properties. In response to Chair Blank's question, Mr. Swift stated the distance between the closest piece of float and the property line in the Newport Harbor Yacht Club/residential property slide was 21 feet. After discussion, Commissioners determined one of the boats in one of Mr. Swift's slides was 36 feet in length rather than 45 feet. Mr. Hewitt reported that immediately following the August meeting, the applicant engaged an engineering firm to evaluate a northern ingress/egress. The firm determined a northern ingress/egress was not possible. He emailed proposals for a 12 -foot, 15 -foot, and 17 -foot setback. Bellingham Marine prepared the historical document/diagram, which could be found in the Coastal Commission's file. The diagram showed a 25 -foot powerboat moving through a space of 16.08 feet. The existing dock configuration was not 43 feet or 26 feet. The applicant agreed to no side -ties on the end and to 16.08 feet and wished to install dolphin pilings. The Harbor Commission should allow the applicant to submit a proposal for dolphin pilings to the Coastal Commission. Ms. Schaffner advised that Mr. Moriarty's boat had been hit several times in the existing configuration. Mr. Moriarty did not agree to a 16.08 -foot or 22 -foot setback. The applicant's plan was dramatically different because it changed the orientation of the marina and eliminated the navigable area. Mr. Swift's examples were not truly comparable situations. Forty-six slips were viable compared to the existing 40 slips. Mr. Moriarty asked the Commission to consider his plan as a compromise, because it proposed 46 slips and more area for navigation without impeding the design too much. Mr. Moriarty felt Mr. Swift's examples were not good, because boats had gotten bigger over the prior 40 years and would likely continue to get larger over the next 40 years. The 25 -foot boat caused damage of $1,000 to his boat, while other collisions were just bumps and scuffs. The 26 -foot setback was a considerable compromise, given that boats would likely be larger in the coming years. He proposed 46 slips rather than 48; the reduction of two slips should not impact the marina financially. The distance from boat to property line was 22 feet, not 16 feet. Jason Grayshock stated small boats of 15-20 feet in length could navigate the marinas shown in Mr. Swift's slides; however, the boats were hand -walked, not driven, into and out of the marinas. Experienced boaters could do that. The Commission should remember that not all boaters were experienced. Since the last meeting, four more collisions had occurred with one injury. Dolphin pilings were a great idea for protection, but they were not aesthetically appealing. Not transgressing into another boater's water was not possible, realistically. Twenty-six feet was necessary to accommodate the loss of radius. Mr. Hewitt noted Mr. Moriarty's drawing showed a 25 -foot powerboat in a 16 -foot setback. He did not push to make the property lines non -navigable water. Ms. Schaffner presented that concept at the first hearing and requested a rigid boundary. His client agreed to it. If the applicant had to keep the existing dock, then he would need dolphin pilings for safety. Chair Blank reiterated the Commission's possible action. In response to Commissioner Girling, Deputy City Attorney Andrew Maiorano reported the Commission had the ability to amend anything within the purview of the Harbor Resources Manager. The package the Harbor Resources Manager approved was before the Commission. He suggested the motion be clear as to the Harbor Commission's final decision. Chair Blank added that the Commission could develop any compromise it thought suitable and could overlay elements from both proposed plans. Harbor Resources Manager Miller explained that Harbor Resources staff typically did not consider boats on drawings when approving docks. The Building Department considered boats when reviewing dock construction. Commissioner Girling commented that the Commission, as an appellant body, did act as referees. He wanted to study and understand the five docks referenced by Mr. Swift before concluding a smaller setback was acceptable. Even at 26 feet, accidents had occurred. A smaller distance would result in more accidents. He questioned whether the 13 boaters on the back side could navigate the current setback or a smaller setback. A precedent for 31 feet could be found in a nearby marina. Eliminating two proposed slips was a reasonable compromise. Commissioner Kenney concurred with Commissioner Girling's comments. Trying to navigate around the last finger on the bulkhead side was unsafe. Commissioner West moved that the Harbor Commission adopt Mr. Moriarty's compromised plan presented on July 28th. Commissioner Girling seconded the motion. Chair Blank clarified the motion as including 46 slips and a 26 -foot setback as shown in the Bellingham drawing submitted by the appellant. In response to Deputy City Attorney Maiorano, Chair Blank indicated the motion included no side -ties or cleats along the yellow line shown in the drawing. In response to Commissioner Stapleton, Commissioners reviewed changes that would be made to the existing dock under the motion including the elimination of two proposed slips. In response to Commissioner Stapleton, Chair Blank advised that the appellant's compromise included the 26 -foot setback. The applicant could apply for approval of a different dock configuration while retaining a 26 -foot setback. Commissioner Avery believed the applicant's boat would be hit occasionally even with 26 feet of water. Dolphin piles were a real solution to prevent collisions. He did not oppose the motion, but dolphin piles were the best way to solve the problem of collisions. Commissioner Kenney suggested amending the motion to allow exploration of dolphin piles. If the parties could reach an agreement on dolphin piles, the Commission would approve it. Absent an agreement between the parties, the 26 -foot compromise plan would be the default. Commissioner West did not accept the amendment. Chair Blank stated there was not a precedent for dolphin piles and no guaranty that the Coastal Commission would approve them. He liked the idea of a buoy line, but it would unduly restrict both parties. Mr. Hewitt proposed a dolphin piling, removing the last finger and using a 16 -foot width. Dolphin pilings would solve all issues. He was willing to ask the Coastal Commission what could be done to solve the problem. Width wouldn't matter if dolphin pilings were installed. Twenty-five feet from dock to bulkhead was plenty of room to navigate a Duffy sized boat. Mr. Moriarty proposed 16 feet for a 25 -foot boat to the Coastal Commission and showed his 70 -foot boat in the slip. Ms. Schaffner advised that she had asked Harbor Resources Manager Miller to set a deadline for submitting proposals so that they could be reviewed. It was unfair to ask Mr. Moriarty to respond to the proposal without reviewing it. She didn't feel it was an adequate solution. In Coastal Commission proceedings several years ago, the Prestas complained that the existing configuration was too tight, and they did not want it reduced. Mr. Moriarty did not propose 16 feet. 4 In response to a Commissioner, Ms. Schaffner indicated this was the first mention of a dolphin pile, and she had not seen any of these plans. Mr. Swift did not feel the motion was a compromise. The motion seemed a little over the top. Harbor Resources Manager Miller remarked that the motion on the table referred to the exact plan, but he could envision a variation. He suggested the Commission consider an optional motion not specific to the drawing, but specific to the concept of the drawing. Commissioner West accepted an amendment to the motion requiring the applicant to maintain a 26 -foot setback but allowing him to draw the slip configuration to his choosing. Chair Blank clarified the amendment to include a 26 -foot setback and prohibition of side -ties and cleats on the southernmost face of whatever structure was 26 feet from the property line. Commissioner Girling concurred with the amendment. Deputy City Attorney Maiorano inquired whether the motion included 24 feet from the seawall. After discussion, the amendment was clarified to include the setback from the bulkhead to the nearest structure being built would be the distance previously approved by the Harbor Resources Manager. In response to Commissioner Kenney, Chair Blank indicated the motion prohibited side -ties on the 15 -feet at the bulkhead side. Chair Blank explained that the applicant was under no obligation to build to the requirements of the motion. The applicant could submit a new and different application for a proposal including dolphin piles. In response to Harbor Resources Manager Miller, Chair Blank advised that no cleats would be allowed on the bulkhead side of the main gangway, south of the last diagonal finger wherever it was positioned. Another finger could be constructed, but cleats would not be allowed on the southern side of it and it could not encroach more than 26 feet. The motion carried with 6 ayes, 0 no and 0 abstaining votes. Harbor Resources Supervisor Levin introduced Mooring Deputy Josh Baugh. Former Mooring Deputy Webster was promoted to Sergeant. Chair Blank welcomed Deputy Baugh. 2. Newport Beach Draft Sustainability Plan - Comments At the September meeting, the Harbor Commission was asked to review the Newport Beach Draft Sustainability Plan and to provide comments to staff by the October meeting. Recommendation: 1) Review and discuss the Sustainability Plan; and 2) Direct staff to report and to provide comments and/or recommendations to the City Council. Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported that the attachment to the staff report represented comments submitted to staff. Commissioner West advised he did not have an opportunity to read comments submitted by others. Chair Blank believed the comments were beneficial, furthered the plan and were comprehensive in relation to the harbor. Commissioner West requested the Commission review comments. Commissioner Girling had reviewed comments. Chair Blank chose not to review comments in the interest of time. Comments were well written and well received. Nancy Gardner thanked Commissioners for their comments, which would be incorporated into the plan. She felt the next item on the agenda was also a part of sustainability. Sustainability should not be construed narrowly. Commissioner Stapleton moved to approve comments as provided. Commissioner Girling seconded the motion. The motion carried with 6 ayes, 0 no and 0 abstaining votes. 3. Preservation of Marine Related Activities and Businesses in Newport Harbor The Harbor Commission Ad Hoc Committee will present their report and recommend it be forwarded to the Community Development Department. Recommendation: 1) Review the attached report titled "Preservation of Marine Related Activities and Businesses in Newport Harbor", and forward to the Community Development Department. Commissioner Stapleton thanked former Council Member Gardner for her support. He believed the harbor was the City's greatest asset. It was important for the Commission to be forward -facing and help with the preservation of marine -related activities and businesses in Newport Harbor. He read the objective of the project. Chair Blank, Commissioner Girling, Co -Chairs of the Chamber of Commerce Marine Committee and he met numerous times to discuss important and relevant issues regarding sustainability of the harbor related to marine businesses and activities. He shared a list of critical waterfront services and businesses that were underserved or that should be monitored closely, and a list of elements that would make a successful harbor. He wanted to see the report approved and forwarded to the appropriate body. Commissioners discussed whether the Harbor Commission was the appropriate body to monitor harbor activities and how a community voice could be part of the land use and development process. In response to Commissioner Kenney, Harbor Resources Manager Miller recalled at the last meeting the Commission suggested the report be given to the Community Planning Department or presented to the Planning Commission. Council Member Duffield indicated he planned to use the Harbor Commission as a mechanism to support harbor businesses and to keep pressure on the Council. Commissioners and Council Member Duffield discussed opportunities for preserving marine -related businesses in development; collaboration with the Planning Commission through a joint meeting or reciprocal presentations; and the role of the Community Development Department. Chair Blank pledged to liaise with the Planning Commission; to attend one Planning Commission by the end of the year; and to represent the list at every meeting of the Mariner's Mile Revitalization Plan effort. Approval of development applications could include a requirement that a portion of a commercial development include marine -serving uses from the list contained in the report. Council Member Duffield suggested there could be ways to subsidize some businesses so that it was good for everybody. Commissioner Girling moved to accept the report and forward it to the Community Development Department. The motion was seconded by Commissioner West. Jim Mosher remarked that some elements of the report could be incorporated into the Sustainability Plan. Planning in Newport Beach was supposed to be directed by the General Plan. The Harbor and Bay Element contained a subchapter called Diversity of Land Uses. The Harbor Commission should review that to determine if it strongly reflected the report. The Planning Division needed to focus on policies and programs regarding the harbor. N The motion carried with 6 ayes, 0 no and 0 abstaining votes. 7) COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM Chair Blank announced the Huntington Beach Air Show was scheduled for October 21-23, 2016. Staging and flyovers would occur in Newport Beach. Commissioner West noted the Balboa Yacht Club would have a presentation regarding the history of the entrance channel and its construction. The presentation will be on Thursday night, November 10. 8) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH COUNCIL LIAISON ON HARBOR RELATED ISSUES None. 9) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER ON HARBOR RELATED ISSUES Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported staff was working on copper regulations proposed by the Water Board. A summary snapshot of the proposal was available on the Harbor Resources website at www.newportbeachca.gov/copperTMDL The City would issue its comment letter to the Water Board, and he would post it to the website. Others could use points from the City's comment letter in their submissions to the Water Board. The deadline for submissions was Monday, October 17. A hearing was scheduled for October 28 at Irvine Ranch Water District. The temporary anchorage was removed on Tuesday because its time had expired. The Council directed the Harbor Resources Manager to extend it another month which he did. A recap of the anchorage might be available in November. Invictus will keep its buoy deployed until approximately the end of November. It had six days remaining on the permit. Harbor Resources Manager Miller had issued a draft permit for the vessel Leightstar to use the turning basin as anchorage. He was working on finalizing the Harbor Design Standards and hoped to have an open forum meeting/workshop in the next few weeks. The Standards would return to the Commission in January and be presented to the Council shortly thereafter. The Newport Mooring Association was reviewing a redline version of the revised Mooring Code and would provide comments. The proposed mooring rules would likely be presented to the Commission in January and to the Council in January or February. Jetpack America's marine activities permit would expire November 22, 2016. Jetpack America recently sent an email indicating it was pulling out of Newport harbor in early November. Chair Blank reported Jetpack America was the successful bidder for a permit to be the sole provider for a period of five years. He questioned whether the permit would go to the next highest bidder as Jetpack American would not fulfill the permit. Harbor Resources Manager Miller advised the City was not compelled to reopen bids. Commissioner Kenney indicated the potential liability for copper issues could extend to boat owners. He encouraged people to attend the hearing. Commissioner Stapleton noted the Leightstar had a helicopter crash in San Diego in 2010 and wondered whether a helicopter would be flying into the turning basin. Harbor Resources Manager Miller reported that would not be allowed. In response to Commissioner Stapleton, Harbor Resources Manager Miller stated he would work with the Harbormaster to provide a report regarding the temporary anchorage prior to the Commission meeting. 10) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS OR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH COUNCIL LIAISON OR HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER None. 11) MATTERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) Chair Blank suggested a report on stand-up paddle board safety. 12) DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 13) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Harbor Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. October 18, 2016 DELIVERED VIA FIRST CLASS REGULAR MAIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3311 1 949 644-3308 FAX newportbeachca.gov/HarborResources CAA Planning Attn: Shawna Schaffner 65 Enterprise, STE 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-4105 RE: 2888 Bay Shore Drive — Notice of Harbor Commission's Decision on Appeal of Approval in Concept. Mr. Hewitt, Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.65.040.F, this is a notice of the Harbor Commission's decision on October 12, 2016 to amend the Approval in Concept for the proposed commercial marina reconstruction at 2888 Bay Shore Drive. The Harbor Commission amended the Approval in Concept with respect to the western portion of the commercial float only, as follows: • The southern side of the floating dock shall be at least 26 feet from the property line located at 2782 Bay Shore Drive to accommodate vessel ingress and egress to the back of the marina. • There shall be no side ties permitted on the southern side of the float, immediately adjacent to the property line located at 2782 Bay Shore Drive. • There shall be no cleats on the southern side of the float, immediately adjacent to the property line located at 2782 Bay Shore Drive. • There shall be no cleats on the western side of the float facing the bulkhead, immediately south of the last finger float. Pursuant to NBMC 17.65, decisions of the Harbor Commission may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen days of the Harbor Commission's decision. Regards, ^� Chris Miller Harbor Manager City of Newport Beach Revenue 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-3141 Welcome 005022-0007 Andrew S. 01/22/2019 05:17PM MISCELLANEOUS Description: CDD004 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES (CDD004) CDD004 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES (CDD004 2019 Item: CDD004 1 @ 194.32 CDD004 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES (CDD004) 194.32 Subtotal Total -------------- 194.32 194.32 194.32 CHECK 194.32 -------------- Change due 0.00 Thank you for your payment CUSTOMER COPY