The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20 - Ordinance Related to Encroaching Piers - Public CommentsAugust 13, 2013 Hon. Mayor and Councilmember Keith D. Curry Hon. Mayor Pro Tern 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 Zo Pq b li c e 6Yr►rJ1Pn-fS � -13 -I3 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 ofAdjacent Property and Commercial Indemnity, Respectively Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers: My name is Susan Riddle and I am the owner of 510 S. Bayfront on Balboa Island and I'd like to express my opposition to the Ordinances Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code Sections 17.35.020(F) and 17.60.060. Since this issue relates to pier encroachments I wanted to review some of the other properties that have similar encroachments. Between 500 and 510 S. Bayfront there are two large dock encroachments. Mr. Teller at 504 S. Bayfrot has a dock encroaching across the entirety of 502 S. Bayfront, just as Mr. Vallely's property encroaches mine. Mr. Teller provides 12 -14 off street parking spaces. I spoke to his representative and she explained that Mr. Teller has an airtight, legal, side agreement that lasts into perpetuity with the owners of 502 S. Bayfront. He provides for their parking and it is a legal, binding agreement between the two owners. In the 1930's when the senior Vallelys built the dock in front of their house and extended it in front of my property, there was no issue with parking. When Mr. Teller built his property — probably in the 1990's — he was required to provide adequate parking to accommodate his commercial enterprise and boat slip business (12 -14 mentioned above.) The only other encroachment on our block is the Beek Ferry boat and public restrooms that encroach in front of the Island Grill. Chris Miller can speak to that situation. Along Bayside Drive the Irvine Co. maintains commercial marinas in front of the condominiums. 1 assume that land belonged to the Irvine Co. Their encroachments and parking are not an issue as it is on Balboa Island. By the current municipal code, the sections that these ordinances seek to amend, upon change of ownership, Mr. Vallely is required to obtain a new permit for his commercial dock. Because the dock is illegal in its configuration and does not provide the necessary 5 off street parking spaces, that would be impossible. When I purchased this property in 1993 I knew about this encroachment across my water frontage. I was advised that this would likely not be resolved until there was a change of ownership of 508 S. Bayfront. At that point Newport Beach Municipal Code section 17.35.020 would require the next owner to obtain a new permit and bring the pier into compliance which includes providing off street parking and removing the encroaching pier. Parking has become a significant problem in all of Newport Beach, but especially on Balboa Island. The City is known for their vigilance in not wavering nor providing variances when it comes to parking requirements. I believe that this situation should be viewed no differently. Earlier this year the owner of 508 S. Bayfront attempted to transfer the dock permit into his name (upon the death of his mother) and not applying for a new permit which would bring the dock into current code compliance. Harbor Resources determined that a new application for a permit would be required. The owner challenged their decision and a retired judge was brought in to decide if he had to obtain a new permit or was allowed to transfer the property without bringing the dock into the compliance. The judge ruled, in agreement with Harbor Resources and the City Attorney's office that a new permit would be required. I thought the matter was settled with the judge's ruling and then I discovered that the owner had obtained a new business for "Vallely Boat Rentals" for Misc. Amusement and Recreation Service operating from 508 S. Bayfront. This logically could include hourly rentals of small boats and any variety water recreational vehicles. Imagine the parking nightmare that would cause with an hourly rental business operating on South Bayfront. Imagine my confusion when I found that the City Council was now considering making an extreme exception and allowing for the expanded use of the property and the expanded ability to transfer the property without any oversight or review by the Harbor Commission. They also insulate themselves from any lawsuits that might arise. I am left with the only conclusion that the City is willing to make these changes, impacting an entire neighborhood forever, based on their fear of legal action. One of my biggest concerns is that the city is rushing to judgment by passing these ordinances on an issue that really requires further study. Not even yet considered is the impact to the use of public pier at Opal Avenue .The encroachment of the 508 S. Bayfront pier often limits the access to one side of the float by small boats, therefore denying citizens full use and enjoyment of the public pier. In addition to this, Opal Avenue has the greatest number of parking issues due to the fact that the street is most often used by people taking the ferry over to Balboa Peninsula and those fishing from the public pier. So I urge you, along with 17 of the residents, who could not attend but feel that they are directly are impacted by these changes and asked me to deliver their signatures, to not adopt either of these ordinances and keep in place the current Municipal Code. I thank you for your patience and consideration. Respectfully, Susan Riddle 8 -13 -13 1. My residence is at 115 Opal. � Z l C<JYhM_oi q � "o �13 2. 1 reviewed the two change proposals, which are the subject of these discussions. I will direct my attention to 17.35.020(F) since it is the one important to me. 3. Opal Avenue is a residential street. We are already heavily impacted with parking because of the Public Pier at the end of Opal. Pier fisherman use it because it is most convenient. That is understandable. 4. But because it is a public pier, we also have multiple vehicles being parked there by those living on boats anchored in the harbor. More impact. 5. And on top of that, we have those who park there for overnight Catalina trips. So parking is impacted almost all the time. 6. And now it appears that there is going to come about, a need for more parking for customers of the proposed new business venture of water craft renting at 508 SBF, which may be allowed to open without any relief to our already critical parking problems on Opal. Unless, of course, adequate off - street parking for the new business is required as it is elsewhere in the City. 7. 1 believe it has been at least 25 years since the piers in question at 508 SBF have been used for commercial purposes. So this is a significant change in the type of use of the abutting upland property. A situation that is rightfully addressed in Subsection 2 of 17.35.020(F). I doubt that a continuing business license for the commercial use of these piers was maintained for those 25+ years by the previous owner. The City should be aware of that and it should be taken into account. 8. It because of this, I would hope that off - street parking will be required of this new business at the site. The Tellers next door have off street parking. The Island Market next door to the Tellers has off - street parking. The BI Ferry and JDs Tackle Store have off - street parking, as do the businesses on Agate. 9. 1 would strongly encourage the Council to retain rather than repeal 17.35.020(F), along with the amended Subsection 5 proposed, thereby retaining some codified control and direction over situations such as this. Do not repeal it and make it a one person decision- maker in complete control. 10. It is my understanding that the current new owner of the property, does not really have a desire to open such a business, but is interested in selling it to someone else if the 17.35.020(F) is repealed, thereby having the restriction of a change of existing ownership requirement in Subsection 3 , no longer an encumbrance because of repealing of the ordinance . 11. Lastly, I am not against a business venture being there with the proper constituted off - street parking regulations requirements in place. But please do not further impact our parking problem on Opal and the adjoining streets, by repealing 17.35.020 F. Thank You. V)- (v August 13, 2013 j�dBL(GmE � -/3 Hon. Mayor and Councilmember Keith D. Curry Hon. Mayor Pro Tern 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 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: Attached are several forms that neighboring residents signed after reading the issues regarding these ordinances and are in agreement with my comments and position to oppose the adoption of the two amendments and keep the current Municpal Code in effect. Thank you, Susan Riddle t THINK PARKIN, 4 THE ISLAN i BAD NOW? D _ _)ULD GET A LOT WORSE. CONSIDER THESE FACTS: * The commercial pier located at 508 S. Bayfront, in its current configuration, violates numerous provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The pier had been grandfathered in for many years, but was recently challenged based on the transfer of ownership to a new owner. * An independentjudge, working on behalf of the Newport Beach Harbor Commission and the Harbor Resources Manager, ruled that the current owner of 5o8 S. Bayfront cannot transfer the permit, but instead a NEW permit for the commercial pier located at the property must be obtained. This would require the owner to bring the pier up to current code requirements including Setbacks and Parking (providing up to 5 off street parking spaces.) * The commercial pier has 6 slips that are rented out on a regular basis without any off street parking. The owner of the pier recently received a business license to operate "Vallely Boat Pental" at 508 S. Bayfront - described as a Miscellaneous Amusement & Recreational Service which could include hourly boat rentals. This has the potential to increase traffic and parking needs for dozens of cars on a daily basis - primarily on Opal, Topaz and Agate. * The city of Newport Beach is currently considering an ordinance that would essentially negate the judges ruling and allow transfer of the commercial pier to operate with its extended use without having to obtain a new permit. Your help is needed NOW - the City Council wants to hear from all interested parties - that is YOU! It is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm Newport Beach City Hall loo Civic Center Drive (at Avocado Ave) All concerned parties may make comments up to 3 minutes. If you cannot attend please use the attached form to have your voice heard. Please return completed letters to Susan Riddle at 510 S. Bayfront by Tuesday 12:oo noon. THANK YOU! This is what the ordinance says: 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. a -1) Introduce Ordinance No. 2013- 15, An Ordinance of the City Council of City of Newport Beach Amending Sections 17.35.020(F) and 17.60.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Allow Certain Administrative Transfers of Tidelands Permits and to Require Commercial Tidelands Users to Defend and Indemnify the City of Newport Beach, and pass to second reading on September 10, 2013; OR a -2) introduce Ordinance No. 2013 -15, An Ordinance of the City Council of City of Newport Beach Repealing Subsection 17.35.020(F) and Amending 17.60.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Require Commercial Tidelands Users to Defend and Indemnify the City of Newport Beach, and pass to second reading on September 10, 2013; OR a -3) select neither Option a -1 or a -2 and maintain the current process. This is what it means: If passed, these ordinances may remove restrictions on the operation of the pier at 508 S. Bayfront, even though in its current configuration it does not comply with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. On transfer of a permit the owner would not need to obtain a new permit and bring the pier into compliance, which includes providing adequate off street parking. •: Given the new business license to operate "Vallely Boat Rentals ", it appears that the owner of the pier at 508 S. Bayfront will offer boats and other recreational water vehicles to rent on an hourly basis. �o We believe the impact on parking will be substantial, especially on Topaz, Agate and Opal, which is already at capacity. These ordinances will also require pier owners to indemnify the city against any legal action relating to the pier. •:• We believe it is apparent that these ordinances are being proposed because with the ruling that a permit for the pier at 508 S. Bayfront cannot be transferred, the City fears legal action. TAKE ACTION NOW! Tell the City Council that you are concerned about the parking situation on the Island and the impact this might have on your street. Additionally, there could be increased congestion along the boardwalk on South Bayfront. Come to the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 100 Civic Center Drive or write your comments on the attached form and return to Susan Riddle at 510 S. Bayfront by Tuesday, 12:00 noon. Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. Print Name Signature Address Susan, I don't know anything about the NB Yacht Club encroachment. The city and/ or the Harbor Commission would have all of the information and it should be public and accessible. I know this - there are building encroachments all over the island, many that were legal at the time of construction. The city does not generally require removal or correction until one of the parties (encroacher or encroached) apply for some kind a building permit. When you view the aerial photo of the 4 Bayfront parcels it is interesting to see the perpendicular bulkhead (often underwater at high tide) between #504 So. Bay front (Teller residence and businesses) and # 508 S.B.F. (Vallely residence). It lines up precisely with the upland property line. The Teller property is not that old (built 20 +/- years ago) so building codes are pretty much the same today - setbacks, parking, etc. I'm guessing that the permit for the Teller commercial anchorage was a "big deal" at the time that the building permits and dock permits were issued. I'm sure that the Harbor Commission has quite a file on that. As far as the proposed ordinance, the Notice provision is still in the revised amendment so the Harbor Commission has to notify you or the successor owner of your property in the event of a new permit application. You could verify that with your attorney. Parking impact on the residential streets of Balboa Island is the important issue here. Thirty years ago, I could build a duplex on the island with a two car garage - no problem. Today and for some time now the City of Newport requires a two car garage plus a two car carport to redevelop a duplex on the island, There is one being built on the 100 block of Topaz Av. at this time. Parking impact is important to the City of Newport Beach as it should be. Why does the Harbor Commission not address this? The CNB Planning Dept. required Bob Teller to have four or five off - street parking places (can't recall exactly) when he developed his residential /commercial /boat marina at 504 S.B.F. Is there a disconnect here somewhere? Sorry I cannot attend the hearing tomorrow - Dodger game with my boys. Rich Kredel Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. ✓ j %l Print Name Address � C Signatu L� Date. To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. KeYN --e� Print Name Signatur ll5 g4vn4,-k ��c3nue F3Q lboa =s \rnrr3 Address Date: 06:211 To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY. RESPECTIVELY. �- Print Name Address ig ature Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY. RESPECTIVELY. vJ >Foy J 40 �-i c yj l �a� Cs��Uk� -rn��Sr �h� jJcaC'�+►� �Y� 40 'T��Q � tl +w k11 e, �ca5/ Q� �1L �11 � Ate, &fc, T`4Igh Address — Print Signatuec -r�- Ate, &fc, T`4Igh Address Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. Print Name �Srgn'ature 1ZS Ae�>e Address Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. ,Jax.n ne Print Name 0& % �kL) tE Address Signature Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. - Signature Address (J. Date: // 0//-) To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. k-Ae�i 610'e "� L- L Print Name ()Sign`at , Address Date: To Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. Print NameSig ature Address <� �;;a Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY. RESPECTIVELY. /)o/c Print Name T� I i Signature Address Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. Print Name &Cloy YLt- -P�(& - Iq Address ,A A" &J, , ignature Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. Print Name Address Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. �zq A�GT� -F0(- y0 1 ea'r�� I / Ile par,- I "') S e ��-c u 1V r-O_rj MS tJ � r� �� v ✓��5e. Mee N%Cv �CI C a Ad (t Ucc( '5C>1ti h G Ycrx tiu t �1(dw�� P6[r�, ") WoNe,. Jahn 1 c -rc r>atA Print Name z� A c\a-f6- Address G c f0 Q Signature gve,J N0. M kL Date: Y// / � 13 To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. r Print Name /7 Address Signature Date: To: Newport Beach City Council 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 PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY, RESPECTIVELY. 'Tl�ii7 l�'T .rya -� � �^'T- vve `Orc_ a ✓.� YlPwl OF 74-1 7n `t"�Qvi� 9 V�G� fio n/ 7Z A QvJi.�C TI '0'r- ! "� 'voce a,,- �3l%r /ICJ J 7ZJ /�FJ7Z/ �i� CG�.��2L r� /��l/O�,� -"�.�� vQZ1�G✓ O!` �c��1 fe- Print Name Signature /7.7-7 W. OCrn7C[o /M Address �m i°��/hi�. Gam.✓ 'Pro 4FC'