Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Ordinance Related to Encroaching Piers - CorrespondenceLAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER BARNETTE August 12, 2013 VIA EMAIL Hon. Mayor and Councilmember Keith D. Curry Hon. Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Rush N. Hill, II Hon. Councilmember Michael F. Henn Hon. Councilmember Tony Petros Hon. Councilmember Leslie Daigle Hon. Councilmember Edward D. Selich Hon. Councilmember Nancy Gardner City of Newport Beach 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Received After Agenda Printed: Agenda Item No. 20 August 13, 2013 Re: Consideration of Ordinances Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code Sections 17.35.020(F) and 17.60.060 Relating to Piers that Encroach in Front of Adjacent Property and Commercial Indemnity, Respectively Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers: I represent the owners of the property at 510 S. Bayfrom, Newport Beach, California. I am writing on their behalf to oppose adoption of the ordinances relating to Code section 17.35.020(F), which governs encroaching piers. The proposed ordinances, quite frankly, are solutions in search of a problem; they would allow illegal structures to exist and be expanded without any check or balance. Under City law, piers are not allowed to extend in front of a neighboring property: - Section 17.3 5.020.13. 1 of the NMBC provides: "All piers and slips for residential properties shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the prolongation of the property line." -NMBC Sec. 17.35.020.B.2 provides: Piers associated with commercial properties: " .. . may extend to, but not past, the prolongation of the property line." The rationale for this rule is simple: a property owner who has the privilege of using a pier should not be able to interfere and take advantage of the harbor area of neighboring property owner. 600 West Broadway, Ste. 700, San Diego, California 92101 Direct Dial: 619.940.5175; Fax: 888.413.9775 Email: chris @barnettelaw.com Hon. City Councilmembers City of Newport Beach August 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 At present, there are a handful of piers in the Newport Harbor that are in violation of this law. These are generally piers that were built at a time before the City enacted the above setback requirements, and out of a sense of fairness they have been allowed to stand. Current City law, however, quite sensibly requires that a new permit be obtained if there is change of ownership or a change of use in these non - conforming piers. In other words, although the City has allowed these illegal structures to remain for the time being, if the holder of the permit sells the property or expands the pier's use, the new owner must obtain a permit which, presumably, would require to the pier to brought up to code. The proposals before the Council to amend Section 17.35.020(F), quite frankly, subvert this process. The will allow a transfer of the permit that allows the illegal use, or an expansion of that illegal use, without any review by the Harbor Commission or otherwise. The question we ask the Council to consider is why: why should an illegal pier be allowed to continue or, indeed, be expanded, and why should Harbor Commission and the City Council be removed from having any say in whether the illegal pier should continue or be expanded? An example involving my clients' property is worth considering. My clients own the residence at 510 S. Bayfront on Balboa Island. The owner of the neighboring property at the 508 S. Bayfront has a pier that extends well in front of my clients' property. Currently, that pier is being used for slip rentals. The owner of 508 has recently applied for and obtained a business license to operate a boat rental business on his pier. Accordingly, it appears he intends to operate an hourly boat rental business from the pier that will significantly increase traffic in the area and create even more parking challenges in an area that is already significantly challenged. The owner does not provide any off - street parking for his business, nor does he provide any bathroom facilities. Under Section 17.35.020(F) as it now stands, the 508 owner, if he intends to expand his use, will be required to obtain a new pier permit, which in turn will require that he comply with the law in providing off -street parking, bathroom facilities, and setbacks for the pier. The ordinances before the Council currently would eliminate this requirement, however: the owner would be free to expand his use, significantly harming the neighborhood without any review by the Harbor Commission or the City Council. The rules adopted by the City Council governing the use of piers make perfect sense: they regulate the use of piers in Newport Harbor which benefit the public as a whole rather than specific individuals. The question before the Council, ultimately, is in what circumstances should an individual pier owner be allowed to violate those rules. We urge the Council to require that exceptions to the rules, as presented in this context, require Harbor Commission Hon. City Councilmembers City of Newport Beach August 12, 2013 Page 3 of 3 and/or City Council review. There admittedly are only a handful of these illegal piers and, accordingly, there is no significant burden for the Harbor Commission to consider whether an illegal use should be allowed to stand or be expanded. As such, we respectfully urge the Council not to adopt any changes to Section 17.35.020(F) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Thank you. Sincerely, Christopher Barnette cc: Susan Riddle (via email) Leonard Bidart (via email)