Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) — Appeal of Harbor Commission's DecisionTO: FROM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report February 12, 2019 Agenda Item No. 16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Kurt Borsting, Harbormaster - 949-270-8158, kborsting@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Chris Miller, Public Works Administrative Manager, cmiller@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3043 TITLE: 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) — Appeal of Harbor Commission's Decision ABSTRACT: The neighbors adjacent to 2888 Bayshore Drive ("Newport Marina") are appealing the Harbor Commission's approval of the proposed marina reconstruction project. For City Council's consideration is the decision whether to uphold, amend or reverse the Harbor Commission's decision to grant an Approval in Concept ("AIC") allowing the removal and replacement of the dock system at Newport Marina. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a public hearing; b) Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; c) The City Council may either uphold, amend or reverse the Harbor Commission's approval of the proposed marina reconfiguration at 2888 Bayshore Drive; and d) If the City Council upholds or amends the Harbor Commission's decision, adopt Resolution No. 2019-17, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California Upholding the Harbor Commission's Approval of an "Approval In Concept" (Project File No. 1502-2018) for the Removal and Replacement of a Dock System at the Property Located at 2888 Bayshore Drive. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 16-1 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) — Appeal of Harbor Commission's Decision February 12, 2019 Page 2 DISCUSSION: 2016 Project In 2016, the Harbor Resources Manager granted an AIC that would allow for the reconfiguration of the commercial marina at Newport Marina ("2016 Project"). Attachment A is the 2016 Harbor Commission Staff Report with Attachments. One of the components of the 2016 Project included ingress and egress to the back of the marina via the southern entrance immediately adjacent to 2782 Bayshore Drive. The Harbor Resources Manager's decision was appealed to the Harbor Commission by the property owner at 2782 Bayshore Drive due, in part, to concerns that the width of the southern access channel would cause boats to drive into the appellant's water space. After consideration of the appeal, the Harbor Commission upheld the Harbor Resources Manager's approval yet placed additional conditions on the 2016 Project impacting the ingress and egress from the southern entrance. The minutes of the October 16, 2016 Harbor Commission meeting noted that the applicant was not obligated to build to the requirements of the approved project, as conditioned, and that the applicant could submit a new and different application for proposal including the use of dolphin piles. Attachment B is the 2016 Harbor Commission Minutes and Notice of Harbor Commission's Decision. 2018 Project Due to challenges in developing the 2016 Project as approved by the Harbor Commission, the applicant submitted a revised plan to address concerns regarding ingress and egress for the smaller vessels. Instead of the ingress and egress via the southern side of the property as proposed in 2016, the applicant, in essence, flipped the marina's configuration so that the current proposal provides ingress and egress to the back channel via the north side of the marina adjacent to the Coast Highway Bridge ("2018 Project"). Staff determined that the 2018 Project was a new application due to the significant revisions from the 2016 Project previously approved by the Harbor Commission. In September 2018, the Harbor Resources Manager approved the 2018 Project, with special conditions including Special Conditions numbers 8 and 9 which prohibit vessels from encroaching into neighbor's property and limitations as to the use of side -ties and cleats. The Harbor Resources Manager's decision was then appealed by the property owners at 2782, 2800, 2812 and 2832 Bayshore Drive based, in pertinent part, on the following: (1) lack of due process/inadequate notice of the Harbor Resources Manager's decision; and (2) inadequate setbacks as required by the 2016 Project ("Initial Appeal"). Attachment C is the 2018 Appeal Letter to the Harbor Commission. On January 9, 2019, the Harbor Commission held a public hearing on the Initial Appeal and voted to uphold the Harbor Resources Manager's decision to approve the AIC. Attachment D is the draft Harbor Commission Minutes to be approved at the next Harbor Commission meeting on February 13, 2019. 16-2 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) — Appeal of Harbor Commission's Decision February 12, 2019 Page 3 On January 22, 2019, the appellants filed an appeal of the Harbor Commission's January 9, 2019 (Attachment E) decision to approve the proposed marina reconfiguration at 2888 Bayshore Drive to the City Council ("Appeal") based upon on the following: 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. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2) applies to the "replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced[.]" Section 15301 (Class 1) applies to the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." The proposed replacement marina is in the same location and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the marina it replaces. The overwater coverage of the new marina increased by 4.1 % from 12,787 square feet to 13,318 square feet. The number of slips decreased from 53 to 50 with the slip mix remaining balanced. The Environmental Information Form for the 2018 AIC was inadvertently omitted from the previous Harbor Commission staff report, and is attached herein. (Attachment F). NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — 2019 Harbor Commission Staff Report with Attachments Attachment B — 2016 Harbor Commission Minutes and Notice of Harbor Commission's Decision Attachment C — 2018 Appeal Letter to Harbor Commission Attachment D — 2019 Harbor Commission Minutes Attachment E — 2019 Appeal Letter to City Council Attachment F — Environmental Information Form Attachment G — Public Notice Attachment H — Resolution No. 2019-17 Attachment I — Public Comments 16-3 Attachment A ��WPoRT CITY OF z NEWPORT BEACH <,FoaN'P Harbor Commission Staff Repo TO: HARBOR COMMISSION rt January 9, 2019 Agenda Item No. 6.1 FROM: Chris Miller, Administrative Manager — 949-644-3043, cmiller(_)newportbeachca.gov TITLE: 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) — Appeal ABSTRACT: The Harbor Commission will consider an appeal of the City's approval of the proposed marina reconfiguration project at 2888 Bayshore Drive. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2) The Harbor Commission may either uphold, amend or reverse the Harbor Resources Manager's approval of the proposed marina reconfiguration at 2888 Bayshore Drive. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION BACKGROUND In 2016, the applicant at 2888 Bayshore Drive submitted a proposal to reconfigure their commercial marina. See Attachment B. One of the components of this proposal was the ingress and egress to the back of the marina via the southern entrance immediately adjacent to 2782 Bayshore Drive. At the time, the neighbor at 2782 Bayshore Drive appealed the Approval in Concept based on the width of this southern access channel because of the potential for the boats to drift into his water space. Over a series of meetings, the Harbor Commission amended the Harbor Resources Manager's decision and placed conditions upon the 2016 proposed project. The October 2016 Harbor Commission Minutes and resulting Notice of the Harbor Commission's Decision are attached for reference. See Attachments C and D. Please note that the Minutes state "the applicant was 16-4 Attachment A 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) - Appeal January 9, 2019 Page 2 under no obligation to build to the requirements of the motion. The applicant could submit a new and different application for proposal including dolphin piles." The applicant did not resubmit a revised proposal based on the Harbor Commission's conditions. Instead, the applicant spent the following two years searching for a solution for ingress and egress to a back channel via the north (opposite) side of the marina, adjacent to the Coast Highway Bridge. This new 2018 design addresses all of the concerns raised in 2016 by eliminating a back channel and corresponding access on the south side. The applicant has also proposed that the southernmost finger be an additional 6 inches from the property line as an extra buffer. See Attachment E and F. Staff determined that the 2018 proposal was completely different from the 2016 proposal, and warranted an independent, new review absent of any previous discussions or Harbor Commission motions. /_1,UW_1I The neighbors at 2782, 2800, 2812 and 2832 Bayshore Drive are collectively appealing (See Attachment G) the Harbor Resources Manager's decision to approve the 2018 proposed marina based on the following: 1. The proposal is contrary to Harbor Commission approval requiring 26 -foot setback from the Property Line and 24 -foot setback from bulkhead and 46 slips. 2. Failure to provide notice to known interested parties. 3. Inconsistent with health and safety standards. 4. Violates due process. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The 2018 proposed plan conforms to the City's Harbor Design Standards without any requests for variances. In addition, please note the following: 1. Commercial marinas: No setbacks required for piers, gangways, floats and vessels. See Attachment H. 2. Residential docks: Five-foot setback required for piers, gangways and floats. No setback required for vessels. See Attachment I. 3. The Approval in Concept is conditioned so that cleats are not permitted on the southern side of the southern finger adjacent to 2782 Bayshore Drive. 4. Private view corridors are not considered when evaluating harbor related projects. 5. The City is not required to provide notice to the surrounding community for routine projects. In this case, the commercial marina is being rebuilt in a manner consistent with the current configuration albeit with access to the backside of the marina from the north instead of the south. 16-5 Attachment A 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) - Appeal January 9, 2019 Page 3 6. The distance from the vessel at 2782 Bayshore Drive to the property line will be approximately 2.76 feet. See Attachment J. The 2018 proposed marina will be setback an additional 6 inches from the property line. 7. The vertical clearance under the pier for access to the backside of the marina from the north entrance has been reviewed by the Fire Department. Issues such as this will be reviewed during the plan check process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed replacement marina is in the same location and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the marina is replaces. The overwater coverage of the new marina increased by 4.1 % from 12,787 square feet to 13,319 square feet. The number of slips decreased from 53 to 50 with the slip mix remaining balanced. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the Harbor Commission considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A 2016 Aerial Attachment B Existing and 2016 Proposed Attachment C October 2016 Harbor Commission Minutes Attachment D October 2016 Notice of Harbor Commission Decision Attachment E 2018 Proposed Attachment F Approval in Concept for 2018 Proposal Attachment G Appeal Filed Against 2888 Bayshore Drive Attachment H Commercial Marina City Standard STD 607-L Attachment I Residential Pier City Standard STE 608-L and NBMC Attachment J Distance from Vessel at 2782 to Property Line Attachment K Public Notice 16-6 Attachment A 16-7 Attachment A F' IV �; NOW gW Pq �' N �� 0 40 $0 Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of Newport Beach and its v N E w P O RT BEACH Feet employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or r'4L/FOrelating to any results obtained in its use. 11/28/2018 16-8 Attachment A ��i. noon■ I ' ■non. J W TS —UMd,d Stl I-M.®S.M.DOSB P..IB dr, I... ND--d—DIDStl®®::tl, tl®1 a r�m� ®®OQC QI_S]IDtli o?mO�OS ®ID Bo®SIDD�B PCl BDID°]ICD 642 Baker St SITE: 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, CA A TB -- Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 B TB —1- °'"°B ` Phone: (949) 631-3121 TITLE: DEPL EC /16 Fax: (714) 509-0618 Existing vs Proposed EC Ps C 4/4/16 REV: ��® CRIPnON:oS®70❑ BY: 4DATE: DRAWN. CHECKED. REVISION. DATE. AMENDMENTS: 16-9 Attachment A /P r d Luu /Pr L u J W T d drd d r S B. D BP. rB d r,I N rdr �tlwmw�w4,d iI d r LL.I r., S.,,.i.S.i. D. T8 PIG Mll. 642 Baker St SITE: 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, CA A o-�3/ r® TB 2/''5 Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 B TB /23/15 " &"'eR81`""'B` Phone: (949) 631-3121 ._.. TITLE: !; D�ctl®®oEPL m1d®®10o EC 4/4/16 Fax: (714) 509-0618 Existing EC PS C 4/4/16 REV: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: DRAWN. CHECKED. REVISION. DATE. AMENDMENTS: 16-10 Attachment A 642 Baker St Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 °°`K&""RB"`DE°5 Phone: (949) 631-3121 Fax: (714) 509-0618 SITE: 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, CA III in Proposed ECI PS I C DRAWN. CHECKED. REVISION. d__dr d tlr Sa.S.D sP I dr,I. r r N r dr —1�o a: r a,a .iau s L6®0m]&P. BOIDo-]Im innadr® I TB 1 2113/15 (� ]OMMADJO = PL m1000]®100 4/4/16 REV: DESCRIPTION: DATE. I AMENDMENTS: 16-11 Attachment A 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. 16-12 Attachment A 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 16-13 Attachment A 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 3 16-14 Attachment A 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 16-15 Attachment A 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. 5 16-16 Attachment A 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. ON 16-17 Attachment A 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. 7 16-18 Attachment A 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. 0 16-19 October 18, 2016 Attachment A DELIVERED VIA FIRST CLASS REGULAR MAIL CAA Planning Attn: Shawna Schaffner 65 Enterprise, STE 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-4105 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3311 j 949 644-3308 FAX newportbeachca.gov/HarborResources 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 Z= if _.=r _, .. - �. -i.•. '-� �f :l'� r a;i'j jIY�1sF?An�ay'S, :xf ��,..�0.�f�ri�T�.$�,:,f s� +{ _ '�f . Attachment A MARINA LIM EXISTING DOCKS U� Z 16-21 16-21 SOUTHWEST DIVISION THIS DRAWING CONTAINS Bellin h PROJECT NUMBER: SCALE: 1 �� = 25' CA LICENSE #442499 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION �� 8810 SPARLING LANE WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF 1 NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT (Sheet Size 24" x 36") DIXON, CA 95620 BELLINGHAM MARINE 18-7-124 DRAWN BY: KG TEL: (707) 678-2385 INDUSTRIES, INC., AND SHALL FAX:( M A R I N E""""""I FAX:707 678-1760 NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED ) OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THIRD Newport Beach, CA DATE: 9-7-18 ENGINEER /DESIGNER: PARTIES WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM _ PROJECT MANAGER: THE WORLD'S R L D � S M O 5T BELLINGHAM MARINE The structural system shown on these drawings, including member sizes, layout, and connection has been designed by Bellingham Marine Engineering DRAWING: N E 1 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. UNIFLOAT®, UNIDECK®AND ©BELLINGHAM — EXISTING DOCK PLAN AND EXISTING VS NEW OVERLAY under my supervision. No other aspects of the design including suitability for use, safety,mechanical,electrical, quantities,cut and theringca CHECKED BY: REVISIONS MARINA BUILDER MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC. ineEngths not been included e this review. Bellingham Marine Engineering can not be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. SHEET NO.: 3 16-21 16-21 Attachment A PROPOSED SLIP MIX CHART LENGTH Total LF of berthing % 20 FT 2 40 4-00% 22 FT 17 374 34.00% 37 FT 6 222 12-00% 42 FT 16 672 32.00% 62 FT 9 558 18.00% 1 N DIXON, CA 95620 BELLINGHAM MARINE Q 18-7-124 TOTALS 50 1866 100.00% AVERAGE LENGTH = 37.32 GRAFHIC SCALE - 30' 0 20' 40' 60' 100' :m TIMBER FRAMED WALKWAY WITH WOOD )r j _� I I - 7 1[7 �_A (OR PLASTIC) PLANK DECKING (TYP.) TIMBER FRAMED WALKWAY WITH WOOD DUFFY/ SMALL BOAT. AVERAGE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION KAYAK RACKS, STAND UP PADDLE BOARDS (OR PLASTIC) PLANK DECKING (TYP.) FREEBOARD (HEIGHT ABOVE WATER) _ 5', BEAM WIDTH VARIES BETWEEN 6'-2" 244'-6 3/4" APARTMENT UILDING-A AND 9'-3". 6" (:I EAR BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE AND DOCK I---6-0 3/4" (TYP.) 20'-0" (TYP.) D BAW = 18'-6" 6-0 3/4" BERTHING OF VESSELS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THIS FINGER. CLEATS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON THIS SIDE OF THE FINGER. SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED. MARINA LIMITS PROJECT LINE Z 0 W O Z a 75 Q ry Q 0 Q TOP C 18'-0" (TYP.) 4'-2" (TYP.) SINGLE -CAST CONCRETE FINGER FLOATS - WITH WOOD (OR PLASTIC) PLANK DECKING (TYP. ALL FINGERS) 708'-2 1/4" !-%I CAr7)AKI!'%C nnnnIlCn Tr'1n r1C n=M Z 1 ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP (PRELIMINARY). FINAL DESIGN TO BE VERIFIED AFTER DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. �v rA �Q-r<tT Oy _ NOTES: THIS IS A GENERAL REPRESENTATION. (SCALE: 1/4" = 1') - 1 5'x 80'(4'CLEAR) ALUMINUM ADA GANGWAY PROJECT NUMBER: M,— =� SCALE: 1" = 25' LO 1 Al — �� 463'-7 1/2" CA LICENSE #442499 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 8810 SPARLING LANE WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF _ NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT - IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP......IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII......IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII __' I' ��illllilll +I 1 N DIXON, CA 95620 BELLINGHAM MARINE Q 18-7-124 III101 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII���������IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I. TEL: (707) 678-2385 INDUSTRIES, INC., AND SHALL FAX:( M A R I N E'M� FAX:707 678-1760 NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED ) OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THIRD Newport Beach, CA DATE: 9-7-18 o N Al e0 3 PARTIES WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM _ PROJECT MANAGER: THE WORLDS MOST BELLINGHAM MARINE The structural system shown on these drawings, including member sizes, layout, has been designed by Bellingham Marine Engineering DRAWING: O L 1 NO. CD _71 Al COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. UNIFLOAT®, — and connection under my supervision. No other aspects of the design including suitability for lengths REVISIONS UNIDECK®AND©BELLINGHAM CHECKED BY: OVERALL LAYOUT use,safety, mechanical, electrical, quantities, ineEringca not been included a this review. Bellingham Marine Engineering can not be SHEET NO. - MARINA BUILDER MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC. responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 5 � ~ 4 TYP. a 2 N C� C\I N CSI Al Al o LO LO LO LO LO o . 04 C� C� CSI C� C� CSI CSI CNI TYP. 0 6" (:I EAR BETWEEN PROPERTY LINE AND DOCK I---6-0 3/4" (TYP.) 20'-0" (TYP.) D BAW = 18'-6" 6-0 3/4" BERTHING OF VESSELS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THIS FINGER. CLEATS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON THIS SIDE OF THE FINGER. SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED. MARINA LIMITS PROJECT LINE Z 0 W O Z a 75 Q ry Q 0 Q TOP C 18'-0" (TYP.) 4'-2" (TYP.) SINGLE -CAST CONCRETE FINGER FLOATS - WITH WOOD (OR PLASTIC) PLANK DECKING (TYP. ALL FINGERS) 708'-2 1/4" !-%I CAr7)AKI!'%C nnnnIlCn Tr'1n r1C n=M Z 1 ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP (PRELIMINARY). FINAL DESIGN TO BE VERIFIED AFTER DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. �v rA �Q-r<tT Oy 16'-0" (TYP.) +15' MLLW (TOP OF PIER) +14' MLLW (BTM. OF PIER) +10' MLLW (TOP OF EXISTING SEAWALL) +1.5' MLLW (DESIGN FREEBOARD) 0.0' MLLW (DATUM) -10' MLLW 4'-2" (TYP.) 5-0 3/4" DUFFY/SMALL BOAT ACCESS FIXED PIER rA FIXED PIER SECTION/ ELEVATION _ NOTES: THIS IS A GENERAL REPRESENTATION. (SCALE: 1/4" = 1') 5'x 80'(4'CLEAR) ALUMINUM ADA GANGWAY PROJECT NUMBER: M,— =� SCALE: 1" = 25' — �� CA LICENSE #442499 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 8810 SPARLING LANE WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT - IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP......IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII......IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII __' I' ��illllilll DIXON, CA 95620 BELLINGHAM MARINE Q 18-7-124 III101 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII���������IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I. TEL: (707) 678-2385 INDUSTRIES, INC., AND SHALL FAX:( M A R I N E'M� FAX:707 678-1760 NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED ) OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THIRD Newport Beach, CA DATE: 9-7-18 ENGINEER /DESIGNER: PARTIES WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM 16'-0" (TYP.) +15' MLLW (TOP OF PIER) +14' MLLW (BTM. OF PIER) +10' MLLW (TOP OF EXISTING SEAWALL) +1.5' MLLW (DESIGN FREEBOARD) 0.0' MLLW (DATUM) -10' MLLW 4'-2" (TYP.) 5-0 3/4" DUFFY/SMALL BOAT ACCESS FIXED PIER rA FIXED PIER SECTION/ ELEVATION _ NOTES: THIS IS A GENERAL REPRESENTATION. (SCALE: 1/4" = 1') Bellingham SOUTHWEST DIVISION THIS DRAWING CONTAINS PROJECT NUMBER: SCALE: 1" = 25' CA LICENSE #442499 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 8810 SPARLING LANE WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT (Sheet Size 24" x 36") DIXON, CA 95620 BELLINGHAM MARINE Q 18-7-124 DRAWN BY: KG TEL: (707) 678-2385 INDUSTRIES, INC., AND SHALL FAX:( M A R I N E'M� FAX:707 678-1760 NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED ) OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THIRD Newport Beach, CA DATE: 9-7-18 ENGINEER /DESIGNER: PARTIES WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM _ PROJECT MANAGER: THE WORLDS MOST BELLINGHAM MARINE The structural system shown on these drawings, including member sizes, layout, has been designed by Bellingham Marine Engineering DRAWING: O L 1 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. UNIFLOAT®, — and connection under my supervision. No other aspects of the design including suitability for lengths REVISIONS UNIDECK®AND©BELLINGHAM CHECKED BY: OVERALL LAYOUT use,safety, mechanical, electrical, quantities, ineEringca not been included a this review. Bellingham Marine Engineering can not be SHEET NO. - MARINA BUILDER MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC. responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 5 16 -22 16-22 Attachment A rv, w P(1)RT N I - IF O Rt4N HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-3044 HARBOR PERMIT/APPROVAL IN CONCEPT HARBOR PERMIT/APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH as required for permit application to the South Coast Area Office of the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq.) and applicable implementing rarmInfinnc 11d f'f'R F, 1,inn1 at can 1 General Description of Proposed Development: Removal of old docks stem and replacement with a new docks stem. Address number must be stenciled on at least 1 ba and facing pile. vier conaitions must ne signed ny applicant prior to rinai approval. Propertv Address: 2888 Bayshore Dr. Legal Description: Harbor Permit Number: Plan Check Number: 1502-2018 Applicant: Newport Marina (Applicant's Mailinq Address: 27201 Puerta Real. Ste. 350, Mission Vieqo. CA 92691- Anchor QEA Phone Number: 949-334-9635 - Anchor QEA I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: 1. The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in the application. Page 1 of 4 16-23 Attachment A And find )o They comply with the current adopted Newport Beach General Plan, Municipal Code Title 17, and any applicable specific or precise plans or, ❑ That a variance or exception has been approved and final. A copy of any variance, exception, conditional use permit or other issued permit is attached hereto, together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept and said approval has been written upon said plans, signed and dated. Should Newport Beach adopt an ordinance deleting, amending or adding to the Municipal Code or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design of a project located thereon, this Approval In Concept shall become null and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and local guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: ci Has been determined not to be a "project" or not to cause the requisite impact on environment to trigger CEQA. A Has been determined to be subject to ministerial decision of City or to be statutorily or categorically exempt. ❑ Is subject to an adopted Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (copy attached). ❑ Is subject to a certified Environmental Impact Report (copy attached). All discretionary approvals legally required of the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a harbor permit and a building permit have been given and are final. The development is not subject to rejection in principal by Newport Beach unless a substantial change is proposed. This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable federal and state laws and any policies, ordinances, codes and regulations of the City of Newport Beach. See attached Special Conditions, which are incorporated herein this Approval in Concept. l� Lisa Walters, Harbor Resources September 27, 2018 Attachments: Worksheet for Building Permit Application Drawing Pier Conditions Page 2 of 4 16-24 Attachment A HARBOR RESOURCES 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Special Conditions September 27, 2018 2888 Bayshore Dr. With reference to the plans currently under consideration at the above referenced address to, Remove and replace existinq floating dock system; Will now be in effect: 1. The project proponent is aware of the Harbor Permit Policies (Council Policy H-1) and Title 17 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project proponent understands that the above referenced project and structure(s) are subject to all applicable federal, state, county and City of Newport Beach statutes, rules, ordinances, laws, and regulations, including but not limited to thPSP PnliniP-. and Co dps 2. Any future work on the above mentioned structure(s) beyond that which is expressly permitted herein may require permits from the City of Newport Beach and any other applicable agencies. Painting and work considered to be cosmetic in nature does not require a permit. This approval does not extend to any changes to the operational characteristics, structures, and project beyond those expressly included as part of this approval. 3. The conditions set forth in this document pertain to the proposed -Removal and replace of existing dock system- under consideration. Any future modifications or alterations may require additional and/or updated conditions which may override or change these conditions. These conditions supersede all past conditions associated with this property. 4. Only marine oriented uses are allowed on the pier, pier platform, gangway and float. Patio furniture, plants, etc. are not permitted. 5. In accordance with subsections A and B.3 of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 10.08.030, as amended from time to time or any successor statutes thereto, the project 6. The project shall be implemented in conformance with the current version of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Proqram - Coastal Land Use Plan. Page 1 of 2 16-25 Attachment A 7. The project proponent acknowledges that the noise regulations in Newport Beach Municipal Code section 10.28.040, as amended from time to time or any successor statute thereto, apply. Such section 10.28.040 reads, in pertinent part: "A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal 8. Your side property lines extend in the water along their same bearing. Vessels shall not encroach upon the neighbor's property on either side. 9. No Side -ties permitted on the southern most finger immediately adjacent to the southern property line. Cleats shall not be installed on this side of the finger. 12. All required insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the pendency of this approval in concept. 13. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County of Orange, its Board of Supervisors, the City, its City Council, its boards and L>D cx�-Ce / 011 W,7' Lisa Walters, Harbor Resources Date ,4L[.ysay P &-Sm- /0-3—/o Applicant Signature `'j Print Name Date Joint Pier Applicant Signature (if applicable) Print Name Date Page 2 of 2 16-26 F'pRr/I Attachment A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Public Works Department Harbor Resources Division APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER Pier Permit No. N/A Plan Check No. 1502-2018 Name of Appellant Kevin IMoriarty, Glen Walcott, Tach Fischer, and "ferry Morrison Constructive Notice Provided: November 15, 2018 Name of Applicant Ron an yso i . Description of Application filed with Harbor Resources Remove existing 11,729 s.f. marina. Redevelop with new 12,248 s.f. marina includin nine slitis that could accommodate un to 80 -foot boats in front of existing residences. Eliminate three slips to provide larger boat slips. Reasons for Appeal Contrary to Harbor Commission Approval requiring 26 foot setback from Property line, 24 foot setback from bulkhead and 46 boat slips. Failure to provide notice to known interested parties. Inconsistent with health and safety standards. Violates due process. /- - 1%-.21?" I F Signature of Appella ✓ Date ! o Received by Fee Received Date For Office Use Only Hearing Date- An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing date before the Harbor Commission within 30 days of the filing of the appeal unless both the appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date, NBMC Section 17.65.040. Appeal Fee Deposit funds with Cashier in Account 5060-5010 City Hall 100 Civic Center Drive Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 www.newportbeachca.gov (949) 644-3001 16-27 Att ment A ti CAA PLANNING November 28, 2018 Mr. Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Appeal of Harbor Permit Number 1502-2019 Dear Mr. Miller: On behal fof Kevin Moriarty- Glen Walcott, Tach Fischer. and Terry Morrison (identified herein as neighbors), CAA Planning, Inc. (CAA) submits this appeal of Harbor Permit Ntlliil7cr 1502- 2018 for an Approval In Concept (AIC) issued September 27, 2018 with constructive notice occurring on November 15. 2018. The Harbor Commission is authorized to heat- the appeal of decisions made by the Harbor Resources Manager resulting from the administration ofthe City's code under H.C. 17.65.010. Initiation of this appeal is trade to the i [arbor Resources Manager iii conformance with 1-I.C. 17.65.030.A. Consistent with the requirements for an appeal, the required forms and fees are enclosed with this letter and serve as an adequate initiation of the appeal process. Appeals or calls for review must be made within 14 days of approval as set forth by H.C. 17.65.020. Under ordinary circrunstances, the 14 -day period would rwi from the date of which action was taken upon at a public hearing or the date that pubic notice was provided by the approving body. However, in the instance of AIC No. 1502-201 S. approval was administered on a staff level with leo public hearing conducted. No public noticing was provided in spite of a written request for public notice and Mr. Mori arty 's legal standing as a successful appellant on this project (Appeal #130-2888). Mr. Moriarty and his neighbors, who are known interested parties, became aware ol' AIC No. 152-2018 on November 15, 2018 which is the date identified as receiving constructive notice, and therefore, this appeal is timely submitted consistent with H.C. 17.65.030.A. Tile reasons for the appeal of A1C No. 1502-2018 are lack of due process, and the plan is not consistent with (lie approved project and as such the A1C was issued 1n error. The rev ICNN` authority was incorrect; when the Harbor Commission resided over the original A1C. [lie Harbor Commission remained the review authority for a changed plan. Supporting facts are provided in detail below. Lack of Due Process The City Municipal Code typically provides for a process by which property owners and occupants can either participate in or at a minimum are notified of discretionary actions in their neighborhood. 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 285 ■ San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 ■ (949) 581-2888 • Fax (94.9) 581-3599 16-28 Att ment A Mr. Chris Miller November 28, 2018 Page 2 of G This process is incredibly important when a comnncreial busincss such as Newport Marina proposes a project that could adversely affect their residential neighbors. No Puhlic• Nol f ca lon Process Issuance of AICs for commercial marinas lack a public notification process which creates a situation whereby property owners and occupants aren't able find out about a commercial redevelopment until after an approval IS issued and (lie appeal period has expired. Other City discretionary actions for commercial businesses require sonpe type of public noticing. usually noticing inClLldCS owners and occupants in a miniizpum 300 -foot radius. CAA has been aware of this commercial marina noticing deficiency; and therefore, since the trope of the appeal in 2016. CAA not oil[), inquired several times with the Harbor Resources Manager but also requested notification as recent as December 2017 and regularly checked the City's permitting database for any applications related to the redesign and rebuild of Newport Marina. Mr. Moriarty resides at 2782 Bayshore Drive and shares a common water -side property line with the commercial marina at 2888 Bayshore Drive. You may recall, in 2016. the redevelopment of Newport Marina tinder AIC No. 130-2888 was heard by the 11 arbor Commission oil an appeal filed oil April 15, 2016 by Mr. Moriarty, This appeal was filed after only finding out about the project through the California Coastal Commission noticing process due to the fact that the aforementioned AIC was issued with no notification to adjoining neighbors that would be greatly affected.Just as the current redevelopment plan does. the previous redevelopment plan would have caused a situation where residents would lie adversely impacted without any notification. I'lpe City's AIC notification appears to be done with some amount of discretion. In locking at projects in 2018, public notice was provided for the dock replacement project at 700 W. Clay Ave. In this instance, public notification appears to have been provided to the surrounding property owners and. occupants both before and atter- issuance of the City"s AIC approval. Due to this notification, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (NHYC) was able to bring forth technical concerns regarding; the new dock proposed. As a result. the applicant and NHYC were able to reach a compromise. A171014 mi and Knoim Imer estedParties are Entitled to Notrficalion Unfortunately, even after multiple inquiries were made to the City in writing and via telephone calls. notification was not provided to CAA related to the A1C application for the current proposal to redevelop Newport Marina. As Mr. Moriarty's representative through out the appeal process for AiC No. 130-2888, we are shocked by the lack of notification. As previously mentio:red, the appeal }process lasted over six montlis with attendance at three Harbor Commission nncetings and several attempts to reach a compromise with the owners of the marina. The City was obligated to notice the appellant and known interested ]parties. Oblair7ir7g Prrrrrir Iglbrinalion is Alear li., lml)ossible 16-29 Att ment A Mr. Chris Miller November 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6 As discussed above, notification was not provided to the impacted residents or to Mr. Moriarty. and to further frustrate the now of information- the address for Newport Marina is entered into the City's permit database as "2888 Bay Shore Dr." when the address is commonly referred to as "2888 Bayshore Dr," In fact, the name of the street is identified as "Bayshore" on the street sign and the Newport Marina and Bayshore Apartments website. 'therefore. altliougli. CAA engaged in efforts to routinely monitor the City's permitting database, it wasn't until after we 1lcard a rtlmnr that an AIC was issued that we were able to locate the permitting for Newport Marina under the incorrect address. The lack of noticing and the mislabeled addresses for Newport Marina thereby creates a nearly impossible situation to obtain information. The incorrect address is grounds for appeal. AIC No. 1502-2018 Not Consistent with Approved Pro'ect The Harbor Commission approved a plan for Newport Marina at the October 1120 16 meeting. The meeting minutes are attached hereto- The Harbor Commission said that the marina must be setback 26' frorn the property line, 24' frorn the bulkhead and should have 46 boat slips. Linder the new plan, the marina would be located 6 inches from the property line, 5 feet from the bulkhead. and have 50 boat slips. This new plan is in direct conflict with the approved plan- The Ilarbor Commission directed that "the applicant could apply for approval of a different dock configuration while retaining a 26' setback," ']'here are four other references to the 26' setback. the Harbor Commission's intention was exceedingly clear. An approval issued in error is not a valid approval. anew plan rnL[st he consistent with the approve- d project or it should be reconsidered by the I -[arbor Con3iriission, While the new plans for Newport Marina may be in compliance with the City's Harbor Design Guidelines and Title 17 Harbor Resources Code, we have identified several practical and serious flaw~ 1n the marina design. The original AIC that was the basis of the Appeal 130-2888 was also incompliance with the City's Harbor Design Guidelines. Nevertheless, the plan was found to be incompatible with he surroundings - Risk to Sgjcly rind Licibility The redeveloped marina will be located within six inches of the common water -side property line with 2782 Bayshore Drive where Mr, Moriarty has a 70 -foot boat side -tied. The side -tied boat is located completely within the prolongation ofthe 2782 Bayshore Drivc property line- Hoy;ever. i1' the marina is built to within six inches of the property line, the property at 2782 Bayshore Drive including the 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. There is an inherent risk to safety and liability to the horneowner if the public is able to access a residential property. I.'ei-licul C7eai-unce, Ac•ce.v,s rind Fh-e .S Yr ,/y ]'herr are safety concerns regarding the proposed pier and access to the backside of the marina. it appeal's that there would be more than adequate access between the niarina and seawall: however. the pier is located only 14 feet above MLLW. There is no explanation about what happens during, 16-30 Att ment A Mr. Chris Miller November 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6 high tides like we are expecting on December 22 and 23, 2018 where the tide is expected to mise -to +6.9 feet. 'Phis leaves approximately 7 vertical feet for access under the pier and nothing leas been established to ensure that fire boats would be able to access the back of marina at these extreme high tides. Not to mention, that sea level is expected to rise quite a bit over the life expectancy of the marina. Risk ler frit -cry)} 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-lamily residences, the smaller boats are berthed in front of the homes while the larger- boats are appropriately sited adjacent to parking lots orcommunity buildings. This configuration call be seen in the Bayshc.ne Marina, Balboa Bay Club, and on Lido Peninsula, just to mention a few. Newport Marina would be the only commercial marina permitted to berth nine 80 -Foot boats directly in ti-ont of the adjacent homes. 80 -foot boats can easiiy be as tall as 30 feet. This means that the three neighboring residences impacted by the new marina would lose their views of the harbor on their first floors and woe:ld have obstructed views ori their second floors. More importantly. three rn- fain- residences that would be directly impacted by the redeveloped commercial marina, would have boats looking directly into their homes, as boats would be berthed as close as 13 feet from their properties (5 -foot marina setback firorn bulkhead with an 8 -foot headwalk). In this area of Bayshores the homes are only set back a matter of feet from the water -side property line, which means the impacted residents would be having breakfast with the boat owners and their staff 13 Feet away. All 80 root boats should be berthed at the northern portion of the property in front of the marina operators property. Incomj)utihilitjr Beti•i een Residen icrl 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 residential property lisle. Facts Salaiaor-ting Hea-boi- Commission cis the Permit A whol-i!}, After the Harbor Resource Department's April 6.2016 issuance of an AIC and the April 14.2016 issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) by the California Coastal Commission- Mr. Moriarty filed atimely appeal ofdecision to the Harbor Resources Manager. Mr. Moriarty's timely appeal was followed by more than six months of attempts to engage the applicant in mopes of developing a compromise plan to which was met with no avail. During this time period. CAA met with the marina owners` attorney Mike Flewitt oil one occasion and sent several emails to the marina owners and Mr. Hewitt. 16-31 Att ment A Mr, Chris Miller November 28.20 18 Page 5 of* 6 The appeal was postponed once ill July 2016 and subsequently Beard twice by the harbor Commission on August 10, 2016 and October 12, 2016. The marina owners did not participate in a compromise plan and at the October 12, 2018 I -[arbor Com€nission meeting Mr. HeN itt stated that the applicant engaged all engineering firm to evaluate a northern ingress/egress and [t]he firm determined a northern ingress/egress was not possible. He also commented on other challenges of the potential for a northern ingresslegress, "including an ADA ramp, high-pressure water lines in the pie -shaped area near the PCIi bridge, and no guarantee of receiving a dredging permit each time dredging was needed." Despite Mr. Moriarty's diligent efforts, no compromise was reached during the six-month long appeal process. The Harbor Commission ultimately voted to approve a plan that would provide Mr. Moriarty piece ofinind and allow the owners of Newport Marina to rebuild their coin mcrciat marina. The Harbor Commission noted that the Prestas could come back with an alternative plan. For this reason, we believe that [lie Harbor Commission should be the permit authority for the marina redevelopment. AIC No. 1502-2018 Sets a Bad Precedent Newport Harbor should be celebrated as a diverse mix of public slips and moorings. residential docks, and commercia] marinas. A precedent should not be set allowing commercial enterprises to encroach and infringe upon residences. Newport Marina currently has 53 slips and is proposing to reduce- the number of slips in its redeveloped marina to bring the total to 50 slips. The inarina owners have devised a plan to reduce the nu€nbcr of small boat sips but significantly increases numbe=r of large boat slips (i.e. revenue) and manages to not impact their landside apartment building. Larger boats are charged at a higher rate per foot than smaller boats: therefore, the marina owners are effectively increasing their revenue while avoiding impacts to their real estate, all at the expense of their neighbors. It is our express opinion that the marina owners should be able to redevelop their commercial marina; however, to do so at the e=xpense of safety, common sense, and .just plain being a good neighbor, would be a shame. Mr. Moriarty and the neighbors of Newport Marina remain willing to participate cooperatively in the marina redesign process. We appreciate Harbor Commission and Staffs consideration of the appeal of AIC 1502-2018, Please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 581-2888 with any questions. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. 16-32 At ment A f �-= Mr. Chris Miller November 28. 2018 PaL,t 6 of 6 Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer Attachments: October i 2, 20 ] 8 l larbor Commission Minutes c: Leilani Brown. City Clerk Kevin Moriarty, 2782 LLC. 16-33 Attachment A 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. 16-34 Attachment A 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. 16-35 Attachment A 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 16-36 Attachment A 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 Maicrano, 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 76 -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 configurations was too tight, and they did not want it reduced. Mr. Moriarty did not propose 16 feet. 4 16-37 Attachment A 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 andlor 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. 61 16-38 Attachment A 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. 16-39 Attachment A 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, 2015. 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 14. 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.newportbeachea.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 Miiier 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 ►[:Tir 16-40 Attachment A 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. 16-41 Attachment A GUIDEPILE. SEE DOCK LAYOUT CASE 9B P.L. PROLONGATION OF P.L. FOR ALLOWABLE PILE OUTER LIMIT FOR WHEN A "PROJECT LINE" APPLIES VARIABLE FLOAT OR SLIP 3' CLR MIN. PIER GANGWAY (ADA COMPLIANT) 8'-0" MIN. - 3' CLR MIN. VARIABLE I _ VARIABLE r MAIN ACCESS FLOAT RAILINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS TOP OF BULKHEAD ELEV. 10.0' M.L.L.W. MIN. VARIABLE ,[.1915 AREA OF PLATFORM SHALL NOT EXCEED 170 SQ. FT. ALL COMMERCIAL GANGWAYS SHALL MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, IN CONFORMANCE WITH FEDERAL ADAGG REQUIREMENTS WATER -5.0 PLAN PROFILE MIN. FINGER WIDTH VARIES WITH FINGER LENGTH. SEE TABLE NO. 1 OF HARBOR Lu z DESIGN CRITERIA. z CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. +12.00'M.L.L.W. CONCRETE PILE TYP. SAND LINE 1. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCTURAL D.F. TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT -DIP GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL. 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL. 6. COMMERCIAL PIERS, GANGWAYS, FLOATS AND PILES TO BE DESIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA LICENSED CIVIL OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY, SLIP & FLOATS IS OPTIONAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMERCIAL PIER & FLOAT INSTALLATION APPROVED: Drawn: R OKADA Date: JULY 2004 DRAWING NO. J 0 w Lu REV. 01/17 PUBLIC WORKS DMCTOR Scale: N.T.S. STD -607-L 16-42 1 Lu Lu z_ z_ a a _ Lu PLATFORM z z OPTIONAL x Y ice f J m 1 VARIABLE FLOAT OR SLIP 3' CLR MIN. PIER GANGWAY (ADA COMPLIANT) 8'-0" MIN. - 3' CLR MIN. VARIABLE I _ VARIABLE r MAIN ACCESS FLOAT RAILINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS TOP OF BULKHEAD ELEV. 10.0' M.L.L.W. MIN. VARIABLE ,[.1915 AREA OF PLATFORM SHALL NOT EXCEED 170 SQ. FT. ALL COMMERCIAL GANGWAYS SHALL MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, IN CONFORMANCE WITH FEDERAL ADAGG REQUIREMENTS WATER -5.0 PLAN PROFILE MIN. FINGER WIDTH VARIES WITH FINGER LENGTH. SEE TABLE NO. 1 OF HARBOR Lu z DESIGN CRITERIA. z CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. +12.00'M.L.L.W. CONCRETE PILE TYP. SAND LINE 1. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCTURAL D.F. TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT -DIP GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL. 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL. 6. COMMERCIAL PIERS, GANGWAYS, FLOATS AND PILES TO BE DESIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA LICENSED CIVIL OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY, SLIP & FLOATS IS OPTIONAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMERCIAL PIER & FLOAT INSTALLATION APPROVED: Drawn: R OKADA Date: JULY 2004 DRAWING NO. J 0 w Lu REV. 01/17 PUBLIC WORKS DMCTOR Scale: N.T.S. STD -607-L 16-42 Lu Z J r1� YLeu PIER j (STD -610-L) m tO �II VARIABLE L FOR RAILING CONSTRUCTION SEE STD -609-L. TOP OF BULKHEAD ELEV. 10.0' M.L.L.W. MIN. VARIABLE NOTES: Attachment A AREA OF PLATFORM SHALL NOT EXCEED 170 SQ. FT. z EE %n WATER PROLONGATION OF P.L. GUIDEPILE. SEE DOCK LAYOUT CASE 9B FOR ALLOWABLE PILE OUTER LIMIT FOR WHEN A "PROJECT LINE" APPLIES GANGWAY (STD -604-L) 4' MIN. FOR PILE GUIDE DETAIL SEE STD -614-L. 4'MIN.04' MIN.FLOAT OR SLIP -3.0 M.L.L. (MIN.) SEE NOTE 8 a BELOW Z f a Li VARIABLE IW Z LENGTH.PLAN z AIB EFINGER NO. 1 OF HA BOREE W I En CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. I GANGWAY (STD -604-L) 4' MIN. FOR PILE GUIDE DETAIL SEE STD -614-L. 4'MIN.04' MIN.FLOAT OR SLIP -3.0 M.L.L. (MIN.) SEE NOTE 8 a BELOW Z f a Li VARIABLE MIN. FINGER WIDTH VARIES IW Z LENGTH.PLAN I� AIB EFINGER NO. 1 OF HA BOREE W I 0- a CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. _ F- F- � z w (n LU W J �a a AS PER STD -604-L > vJi I MIN. FINGER WIDTH VARIES LENGTH.PLAN AIB EFINGER NO. 1 OF HA BOREE z DESIGN CRITERIA p CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. _ +12.00' M.L. L.W. w GANGWAY CONCRETE PILE TYP. a AS PER STD -604-L PROFILE FLOAT INSTALLATIONS PER DESIGN CRITERIA SAND LINE i I Z J Z o O —'Ow En u- Lu J CY . I LU 0 Lu 1. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCT. D.F. TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT DIP GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL. 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID -RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL. 6. SEE STD -604-L & HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GANGWAY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY, SLIP & FLOATS IS OPTIONAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. 8. UNDER EXTREME LOW WATER CONDITIONS, PONTOON MAY CONTACT MUDLINE. VERIFY IF PONTOONS AND DOCK SYSTEM CAN WITHSTAND THIS STRESS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SINGLE RESIDENTIAL USE FLOAT WITH PIER F4199-1190"11 REV. 01/17 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Drawn: ROKADA Scale: N.T.S. Date: JULY 2004 DRAWING NO. STD -608-L 16-43 Attachment A Newport Beach Municipal Code 17.25.020(C) - Berthing 1. Boats berthed at private or public piers shall not extend beyond the projection of the property lines of the property to which the pier is connected in accordance with Section 17.35.020. 17.35.020(B) - Setbacks 1. All piers and slips for residential properties shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the prolongation of the property line. 2. With the prior approval of the City, piers and slips for commercial properties may extend past the prolongation of the property line. 16-44 Eos Angeles isimrse^'" ME IIIA Order ID: 6046611 GROSS PRICE * : PACKAGE NAME: Legal -DP -Notices BJP $255.56 Product(s): Daily Pilot, dailypilot.com, CApublicnotice.com_DP AdSize(s): 2 Column Run Date(s): Saturday, December 22, 2018 Color Spec. B/W Preview CITY OF NEWPORT. REACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GWEN that on Wednesday, January 09, 2019, at 6.30 p.m. or soon thefeafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the Co-uncil Chambers at 100 CIVic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The Barbar Commission of the Cily of Newport Beach wall consider the following application: 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) - Appeal the City's Approval for Marina Reconstruction and Reconfiguration. The project is exempt from the California len,vironmental Ouality Act ("CECA") pursuaN to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, Califomia Code of Regulations. Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no poter4tial to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed replacement marina is in the same Focation and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the rrrahna it replaces. All interested partwes may appear and present testimony in regard to this appeal. If you challenge this project in court_ you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City. at, or prior to, the public hearing. Adrninistrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newporl Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65. The application may be continued to a specik future meeting date_ and if such an action occurs, addlLkxial public notice of the continuance will not Printed: 12/20/2018 8:34:34 AM Page 2 of 3 * Agency Commission not included 16-45 Eos Angeles isimv5e°t" ME EIA Order ID: 6046611 GROSS PRICE * : PACKAGE NAME: Legal -DP -Notices be provided. The agenda, staff report, and corresponding documents will be 2vailable by end of business day on the Fdday preceding the pt blic hearing - and may be reviewed at the Cly Manager's Office (Say F -2nd Floor), al. 100 Civic Center Drive. Newport Eeac:h. Califomia, CA 92660 or at the City of Newport Keach website at www-newportbeachca.gov/newportharbor Individuals not able to attend the meeling may contact the Harbor Deparime€ t or amass the City's website after the meeting to review tyre action on this application. All mail or written communications (including email) from the public. residents. or applicants regarding an agenda item must be submitted by 5 p -m. on the business day immediately prior to the meeting. This allows #ifne for the Harbor Commission to adequately consider the Submitted correspondence - For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Chris Miller, Administrative Manager- at cmiIle r a newportbeachca.gov . Project F1 I& No.: 1502-2018 P $255.56 Printed: 12/20/2018 8:34:34 AM Page 3 of 3 * Agency Commission not included 16-46 Attachment A BAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION A California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation CITY OF NEWPORT EACH Received by J.13. December 28, 2018 JAN 0 2 2019 Ms. Carol Jacobs Office of the City Manager Assistant City Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Approval In Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear Ms. Jacobs: The Bayshores Community Association ("Association") is a community association comprised of 249 residences and is collectively the immediate neighbor to the Newport Marina and Bayshore Apartments, which are privately owned. Neither the Newport Marina nor the Bayshore Apartments are part of the Bayshores Community Association. The Newport Marina and the Bayshore Apartments impact our community in that tenants use the same entrance from PCH that Bayshores residents use. The tenants then make a turn into the marina and apartments from just outside our gated entry. Additionally, the marina impacts several residences in the Bayshores community because its boat slips extend in front of their homes. It has come to our attention that the Newport Marina was recently issued an Approval In Concept (AIC) to redevelop the marina with a plan that is substantially different from what was approved by the Harbor Commission in 2016. While we acknowledge the marina owner's right to reconstruct the marina, the City's lack of notification to the Association is troubling. We are informed that the affected property owners in Bayshores also did not receive notice and are appealing the decision to grant the Approval in Concept. The Bayshores Community Association supports our residents appeal. Even though a small number of Bayshores homes are affected, the Association is strongly protective of its special character and privacy and it should have been informed of any development which might have an impact on our community. Any changes to the marina which impact our residents are important to the Association. We have two primary concerns related to the new marina plan. Our first concern relates to the potential risk to security. The new plan would allow for anyone to bypass our gate by driving into the marina and walking from the last slip finger onto a private boat, and then into the backyard of one of our members. Our second concern relates to the incompatibility of placing 80' boats in front of residences. The affected residents are rightly concerned about noise, privacy and view impacts. Bayshore Marina (which is owned by California Recreation Company) is located inside our gate and features 134 boat slips ranging from 20' to 83'. This marina is an excellent example of appropriately siting large boats. The largest boat slips are adjacent to the marina parking lot while the smaller slips are located in front of the existing residences on either side of the parking lot. There are no large boats looming immediately in front of residents' homes. • c/o BHE Management Corporation, P.O. Box 7736, Laguna Niguel, CA 92607 • (949) 363-1963• • www.bayshores.org •www.BHEManagement.com• 16-47 Attachment A VBAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION A California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation We respectfully request that the Harbor Commission view the Bayshore Marina as a template for the redesign of the Newport Marina. Proper planning will reduce security concerns and potential complaints in the future. We respectfully request notice related to this project so that we may keep our members apprised of the progress of Newport Marina, Sincerely, BAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Jack Teal, President, c: Harbor Commission Marshal "Duffy" Duffield, City Council District 3 BHE Management Corporation c/o BHE Management Corporation, P.O. Box 7736, Laguna Niguel, CA 92607 • (949) 363-1963• • www.bayshores.org owww.BHEManagement.com• 16-48 Attachment A Biddle, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Marina Attachments: Letter to Carol Jacobs re Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018.pdf; ATT00001.htm From: John Davenport <idavenport@davenportpartners.com> Date: January 3, 2019 at 3:29:16 PM PST To: <ciacobs@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Marina Carol, please see attached letter re the proposed reconfiguration of the marina at 2888 Bayshore Drive. It seems completely out of character to take away the water way/boat channel buffer between the houses and the existing docks and then place large boats directly in front of residences. When approving new houses, isn't it customary to observe current view lines for the neighboring existing houses? I regularly see story poles throughout Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. If are going to allow the big boats, which will block views, how about putting them closest to the bridge, where only a few apartments would be effected? Let the Apartment and Marina owner suffer the consequences of the lost view. This redesign of the marina seems an egregious (view) grab by the Apartment and Marina owner and insensitive to the high quality Bayshores residential neighborhood. I am surprised that City of Newport would have allowed the plan to get this far. Thank you, John Davenport (949) 631-5200 16-49 Attachment A December 31, 2018 Ms. Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Approval In Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear Ms. Jacobs: I live at 2600 Bayshore Drive in the City of Newport Beach. My home is located within the Bayshore community and I have recently had the opportunity to see the plan approved by the City for the replacement of Newport Marina located at 2888 Bayshore Drive. This correspondence is provided as record of my support for the appeal that was filed by four of my neighbors. I am concerned about the City's approval for the Newport Marina replacement. As I understand it, the marina will be built so close to the adjoining neighbor at 2782 Bayshore Drive that someone from the marina could easily step from the marina onto the neighbor's boat and easily gain access to the residential dock and property. In addition, the docking area for 9 very large (and tall) boats will be located 5 feet from the adjacent residences' properties creating a variety of privacy and noise issues. I am perplexed as to how this is acceptable or how this marina plan could be considered compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Please protect privacy and peace of mind and find that a compromise for a reasonable plan would be in the best interest of Bayshores residents and Newport Beach's harbor community. Sincerely, Ja Davenport l (949) 631-5200 cc: Harbor Commissioners Duffy Duffield, City Council District 3 16-50 Attachment A January 3, 2019 Ms. Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager David Girling, Chair Newport Beach Harbor Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Appeal of Approval In Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Girling: As a citizen of Newport Beach, I am concerned about the City's approval of the new marina at 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina). I am writing in support of the Bayshore residents' appeal of the Harbor Commission's approval in concept for Harbor Permit 1502-2018. Newport Harbor is an extraordinary asset unlike any other residential -recreational harbor in Southern California. It has successfully balanced beautiful waterfront vistas (public and private) and residential quality of life with active recreation and commercial marine enterprises. Losing that respectful balance threatens the very nature of our community, the reason people moved "to the beach" in 1938 and 2018. The new plan to place the Newport Marina closer to the homes in Bayshores will undermine the security, safety, privacy and quiet enjoyment of the exterior and interior of each residence. The existing marina configuration is not directly adjacent to the sea wall and the homes in Bayshores. The smaller vessels in the existing marina are not so massive that the captain and guests can look into the residences. Placing nine 80' yachts in slips five feet from the property line is disconcerting and undermines the fundamentally residential nature of this part of the harbor. Bayshores is a family community not a commercial resort such as the Balboa Bay Club, where the presence of crew, large numbers of cars and unknown guests is anticipated and encouraged. This dock configuration is not in harmony with historic and current neighborhood and I strongly encourage you to reconsider this plan. In addition, the placement of yacht tenants at the sea wall in front of other people's homes seems fundamentally unjust and a bad precedent. The owner/developer who will receive the economic benefit from the marina should also conserve to their property the deficits (loss of view, loss of privacy, decreased quiet enjoyment, safety concerns. I respectfully request the City through its Harbor Commission should require a new plan that will address these issues and will not negatively impact the Bayshores community. Sincerely, Mary Ann Soden cc: Duffy Dufffield, (District 3), Harbor Commissioners, Joy Brenner (District 6) 16-51 Attachment A Biddle, Jennifer Subject: FW: THE BAYSHORE MARINA From: Cameron Todd <ctodd2552@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 4:29 PM To: Jacobs, Carol <ciacobs@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Girling, David <dgirling@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: THE BAYSHORE MARINA January 7, 2019 Ms. Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92260 ciacobs@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Approval in Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear Ms. Jacobs, I live at 2552 Crestview Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92663. 1 have seen the plan approved by the City for the replacement of Newport Marina (2888 Bayshore Drive) and do not think it has been designed conscious of balancing the goals of the commercial marina with the privacy and safety of the surrounding community. This letter is submitted in support of the appeal to have Newport Marina reevaluated and designed consistent with the character of Newport Harbor and the neighboring residences. I am concerned that setting a precedent for commercial marinas to put very large boats in front of residences will create a detrimental domino effect. The Bayshores Marina is designed with larger boats located in front of the marina's parking area and the smaller boats in front of the residences. This is a good design but once the precedence is set, Bayshores Marina, along with the many other marinas in the harbor, could easily follow suit to put larger boats in front of private residences. I would respectfully ask that the City and the Harbor Commission to consider the precedent that will be set by Newport Marina and approve a plan that is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Respectfully, Cameron & Shelley Todd Cc. Duffy Duffield, City Council District dduffield@newportbeachca.gov dgirling@newportbeachca.gov 16-52 Attachment A January 2, 2019 Ms. Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Approval In Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear Ms. Jacobs: I live at 2588 Bayshore Drive in Newport Beach. I have seen the plan approved by the City for the replacement of Newport Marina (2888 Bayshore Drive) and do not think it has been designed conscious of balancing the goals of the commercial marina with the privacy and safety of the surrounding community. This letter is submitted in support of the appeal to have Newport Marina reevaluated and designed consistent with the character of Newport Harbor and the neighboring residences. I am concerned that setting a precedent for commercial marinas to put very large boats in front of residences will create a detrimental domino effect. The Bayshore Marina is designed with larger boats located in front of the marina's parking area and the smaller boats in front of the residences. This is a good design but once the precedence is set, Bayshore Marina, along with the many other marinas in the harbor, could easily follow suit to put large boats in front of private residences. I would respectfully ask that the City and the Harbor Commission to consider the precedent that will be set by Newport Marina and approve a plan that is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Alan & Alexandra Airth c: Harbor Commissioners Duffy Duffield, City Council District 16-53 Attachment A Biddle, Jennifer Subject: FW: Carol 2 neighbors dropped LTR's off & asked me to forward to u for tomorrows MTG Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin K Moriarty <kkmoriarty48kyahoo.com> Date: January 8, 2019 at 5:41:51 PM PST To: "ciacobsknewportbeachca.gov" <ciacobsknewportbeachca.gov> Subject: Carol 2 neighbors dropped LTR's off & asked me to forward to u for tomorrows MTG 16-54 Attachment A Proposed !Marina plans I'mm- Prtiorsurd"Knecn-TMA To: kkrr1pr1Jrtyanaa Cinrn VEie= SuncWy. Janaory 6, 2(114, $'01 PM PST 7o whom it may concern, We have been advised that there Is a marina plan for Newport Day that would restrict views for oceanfront property In Bayshore, and allow public access to the private community of Bayshore. We are opposed to both and would object to this proposed plan by the City of Newport Beach. We will work with our neighbors in Bayshore to galvanize an OppoSitien to this measure through public and legal means if necessary. Kind Ragardsf Paul & Elizabeth Nordlund 2781 BayshDrie Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 16-55 Attachment A Deoemhcr 31, 201 S W Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager City of Newport Bewh 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beaeh, CA 92660 Subject: Approval In C:ottcc giHal-bor Perrnit Number 1502-2018 Dew Ms. Jacobs: 1 live ea 2646 i3aysh,Ora L)rive in the OY of Newport Bcach and am writing in support of the appeal of APPnwal In Coneep#lHarbor Permit Number 1502-2018 fnr the replacement of Newport Marina While our $orae is located sorra distance. from 1Yewport ?I mina, it is located on the harbar Facing the other marina in our community, Baysherc Marina 'Che plans aprxxwvrA by the City rOT the replacement of Newport Marina are izonceraing as they raise issues of increased ;rehiel� traffic, parking, noise, and weakness to public ss.t&y far the Bayshores ommunity- I am not awara of any rAhcr marina in the harbor that has 6+ en allowcd to dick it row of nine inm4ihly tall fiats in front of existing single -Family residences and respect#fully ask that you ensure tliat the Harbor Commission doesn't open the door to this precedent with Nowport Marhta Larger bow should be appropriately sited in common ur public area& such as a par€ciN lot and not witl n fact of existing singe family residenom e; llatborCcmrnissioners Duffy Duffield City Council [)istrict 3 16-56 Attachment A Biddle, Jennifer Subject: FW: Letter for Commission Meeting Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin K Moriarty <kkmoriarty48&yahoo.com> Date: January 8, 2019 at 9:21:25 PM PST To: Carol Jacobs <ciacobs(2newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Letter for Commission Meeting I apologize for sending this LTR so late, neighbors keep showing up at my door dropping off letters & asking if they can attend tomorrows meeting . I appreciate your patience . 16-57 Kevin Attachment A >■►wterrr�.aor�ril u>*+w�a�x>'��,ar sr�t,rE�aaosrt:.aw r�nw� s...c ass 4. s s.rr raga >kp�aM nod, sd. sV +•# i t N E R S . wKmry 6- 201$ Harbor Commicsoners City of Newpon Beach Ilk? CWX Center Drive Newport Beach. rA 92%0 To Whom 11 Wy C.orK;ern; I elm a watertrwl resaClenl In the cornrnLnity of Bays1'aares, fV€3wwpart $eac#r..Jusx yest�n�ay it has ware to m+} atterer+on tt 1 MoHarbor J9tasourt�g5 Drrisi4n IS cxYRemptatutg appooving a &gnif cam cherQe to The existing dock&P Layout rn trent Of sr<vcraJ ea5l fmcing watertrunt lots in t3aysnorgs, I have reviewod the f8ry0.r1 ttrKL in fly ludlg&.nml, be ]Vva ttlal It sigMwantly negatively tmpac"s "adtao2nt SaYSfiorM resident, w wWS18, W-Ontralty the split@ 0orrL lurgy of Bayshores mfrs . FiFS1. reder gnrrrg tho eXiS9Mg fJOaTrn9 docks thea preSenfty are IWenly-five t25j I"t fraraj 1fie existing seawah of the adpount 821YStWe resdences and r y% this dLstance t4 approxirrralety five {Sf feel from the exrshng SM-NRll cS very Iroubkng especially from s secunty atandpo4nt The 00tT1mU11q of Bays„orss has a 24fiour-7-day,a-week security guard to protect the residents Rrerrm unwanted intruders. The system has b0en MY a .9div0. and the repden s pay 8igndreanT $UMS 10 enjoy IND 100 d Security, The Raysraore security 9uarufS have rip cortrut over who has e to this existing ff6Wrr:t as ppgesa3d to the galtport Manna, In wfri& all visitors rnusa paSS Through the Bay9yore gale guard for afmlttance. By redesigning the exesling tloalltng WO to be wilhwa five {JS} Roel oR Itie adtacerrl would uld alloy an ir7lruchej 10 easily Cron he oat �m iG+O# onT and enler the private properly of " reaKienl, But not Only oDulb aria intrtKJer anter the aCi}�c0al PrOPOrty. but realtsticalty tfaoy would have aaxoss 10 all of SayShores This wOL40 be a senous breach in the overall security System that Ba shwas cyrrerOy enp]ys and pays for. SeLbnizIlly. and V" ImportanlP , the redesign as fwd r4reases tho shp length from an exiwng 424 leoR 10 62+ lest, TNN will have a dlsamous r llwi on me adlact t h0m00wrtiers and VAN seriously, negalhmly irrrpacf their existing views koohrrtig oast and the fodrin va]ues as well. Provkkmg Ragp tshM by drghnMn, accommodates JarW bulkier and taller boats whlCh will block the fuss -floor v+ew$ of the adsxwlt residenls Boats t?Lat aro a=rum ted within 37-42-10o4 GhPs genwalty extent Q* ane 1e0 a atrove Me main deck. Boas that require fit -loot sips genen"y exteF$d t"O or risen levels above the Atari dock lhuxs eflocirvety blocking Tho $xettrrg WOWS from the rr~sldents. erre has 10 ask the Question wW- This req uest is lar tura Manm Qperatc>rs benelrt 10 charge mora money- They can get higher fees for Tamer , taut 1h18 comes at the Expense of ftre ascent 16-58 Attachment A howocwoops and rcahglbcnrly all of BayetFOr(ys au wvlq. TYra ex'Sift rMarina Is lull wrlh a wailing I161. h sc*mr3. In-appropnala for the Hadx)r COmrnissionOfg to grAnl this request Thal UoQeNs The nr13 Opgra!Ors at the e.rpensse of the 44jaconl oornmunity. I Mspoctivoly requcst ti,at lf,e Board reovnriCor lrw5 roquestand deny this seque6l born lho MAririd Operators. Sirponfoly. Carl MGlarand 16-59 Attachment A Biddle, Jennifer Subject: FW: Approval In Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Begin forwarded message: From: Gemma Robles <gemmap33khotmail.com> Date: January 8, 2019 at 8:45:08 PM PST To: "ciacobs&newportbeachca.gov" <ciacobsknewportbeachca.gov> Subject: Approval In Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 January 8, 2019 Ms. Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Approval In Concept/Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear Ms. Jacobs: I do not support the new plan for the Newport Marina, which is located at 2888 Bayshore Drive. As a future resident of the private Bayshores community, I think the new plan is contrary to good planning practices and needs to be revised. The new plan moves the marina much closer to homes and then puts 80' boats in those slips. This will create privacy, view and security issues for the homeowners. The marina should move the large boat slips away from the homes and the docks should not be so close to other boats or seawalls because it allows access into our private community. There are a lot of old marinas in Newport Harbor that will be redeveloped in the next few years. Allowing this plan to be built will lead to a lot of headaches for the City in the future. Plans should be carefully reviewed based on their surroundings to make sure they pass the test for good planning. What is appropriate in one area of the harbor is not appropriate in all areas of the harbor. Limiting inconsistencies before they are built will create a stronger and more robust harbor for everyone. Thank you in advance for really looking into this carefully. Sincerely, Gemma Robles c: Harbor Commissioners 16-60 Attachment A Duffy Duffield, City Council District 3 Gemma Robles 949-413-5634 16-61 Attachment A Biddle, Jennifer Subject: FW: Approval in Concept of Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 From: Jacobs, Carol Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:24 PM To: jbronsonl@aol.com Cc: Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: Approval in Concept of Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, thank you for your letter. I will make sure it gets into the record. Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach (949) 644-3313 cj acobsgnewportbeachca.gov On Jan 9, 2019, at 12:22 PM, "jbronsonlgaol.com" <jbronsonlgaol.com> wrote: Ms. Carol Jacobs Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach My wife and I have been blessed to live on the bay front at 2464 Bayshores Dr., Newport Beach since 1989 and, currently, keep a harbor -cruising Duffy in front of our house. We are concerned that the Approval in Concept of Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018, under consideration this evening and involving a portion of the marina space in our Bayshores neighborhood, will set a Newport Harbor precedent leading to the eventual removal of smaller -vessel marinas and their replacement with larger, ocean-going vessels. It has not been the city's practice to allow the docking of large vessels in front of people's homes, unless the home -owner owns the vessel in question. We are fearful that we may soon lose the beautiful view of the harbor that we have enjoyed for nearly 30 years. Please do not let an undesirable precedent be set in our beautiful Newport Harbor! Marge and Jeff Lewis 16-62 Attachment B 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. 16-63 Attachment B 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 16-64 Attachment B 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 3 16-65 Attachment B 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 16-66 Attachment B 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. 5 16-67 Attachment B 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. ON 16-68 Attachment B 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. 7 16-69 Attachment B 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. 0 16-70 October 18, 2016 Attachment B DELIVERED VIA FIRST CLASS REGULAR MAIL CAA Planning Attn: Shawna Schaffner 65 Enterprise, STE 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-4105 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3311 j 949 644-3308 FAX newportbeachca.gov/HarborResources 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 Z= if _.=r _, .. - �. -i.•. '-� �f :l'� r a;i'j jIY�1sF?An�ay'S, :xf ��,..�0.�f�ri�T�.$�,:,f s� +{ _ '�f . F'pRr/I Attachment C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Public Works Department Harbor Resources Division APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE HARBOR RESOURCES MANAGER Pier Permit No. N/A Plan Check No. 1502-2018 Name of Appellant Kevin IMoriarty, Glen Walcott, Tach Fischer, and "ferry Morrison Constructive Notice Provided: November 15, 2018 Name of Applicant Ron an yso i . Description of Application filed with Harbor Resources Remove existing 11,729 s.f. marina. Redevelop with new 12,248 s.f. marina includin nine slitis that could accommodate un to 80 -foot boats in front of existing residences. Eliminate three slips to provide larger boat slips. Reasons for Appeal Contrary to Harbor Commission Approval requiring 26 foot setback from Property line, 24 foot setback from bulkhead and 46 boat slips. Failure to provide notice to known interested parties. Inconsistent with health and safety standards. Violates due process. /- - 1%-.21?" I F Signature of Appella ✓ Date ! o Received by Fee Received Date For Office Use Only Hearing Date- An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing date before the Harbor Commission within 30 days of the filing of the appeal unless both the appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date, NBMC Section 17.65.040. Appeal Fee Deposit funds with Cashier in Account 5060-5010 City Hall 100 Civic Center Drive Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 www.newportbeachca.gov (949) 644-3001 16-72 Att ment C ti CAA PLANNING November 28, 2018 Mr. Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Appeal of Harbor Permit Number 1502-2019 Dear Mr. Miller: On behal fof Kevin Moriarty- Glen Walcott, Tach Fischer. and Terry Morrison (identified herein as neighbors), CAA Planning, Inc. (CAA) submits this appeal of Harbor Permit Ntlliil7cr 1502- 2018 for an Approval In Concept (AIC) issued September 27, 2018 with constructive notice occurring on November 15. 2018. The Harbor Commission is authorized to heat- the appeal of decisions made by the Harbor Resources Manager resulting from the administration ofthe City's code under H.C. 17.65.010. Initiation of this appeal is trade to the i [arbor Resources Manager iii conformance with 1-I.C. 17.65.030.A. Consistent with the requirements for an appeal, the required forms and fees are enclosed with this letter and serve as an adequate initiation of the appeal process. Appeals or calls for review must be made within 14 days of approval as set forth by H.C. 17.65.020. Under ordinary circrunstances, the 14 -day period would rwi from the date of which action was taken upon at a public hearing or the date that pubic notice was provided by the approving body. However, in the instance of AIC No. 1502-201 S. approval was administered on a staff level with leo public hearing conducted. No public noticing was provided in spite of a written request for public notice and Mr. Mori arty 's legal standing as a successful appellant on this project (Appeal #130-2888). Mr. Moriarty and his neighbors, who are known interested parties, became aware ol' AIC No. 152-2018 on November 15, 2018 which is the date identified as receiving constructive notice, and therefore, this appeal is timely submitted consistent with H.C. 17.65.030.A. Tile reasons for the appeal of A1C No. 1502-2018 are lack of due process, and the plan is not consistent with (lie approved project and as such the A1C was issued 1n error. The rev ICNN` authority was incorrect; when the Harbor Commission resided over the original A1C. [lie Harbor Commission remained the review authority for a changed plan. Supporting facts are provided in detail below. Lack of Due Process The City Municipal Code typically provides for a process by which property owners and occupants can either participate in or at a minimum are notified of discretionary actions in their neighborhood. 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 285 ■ San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 ■ (949) 581-2888 • Fax (94.9) 581-3599 16-73 Att ment C Mr. Chris Miller November 28, 2018 Page 2 of G This process is incredibly important when a comnncreial busincss such as Newport Marina proposes a project that could adversely affect their residential neighbors. No Puhlic• Nol f ca lon Process Issuance of AICs for commercial marinas lack a public notification process which creates a situation whereby property owners and occupants aren't able find out about a commercial redevelopment until after an approval IS issued and (lie appeal period has expired. Other City discretionary actions for commercial businesses require sonpe type of public noticing. usually noticing inClLldCS owners and occupants in a miniizpum 300 -foot radius. CAA has been aware of this commercial marina noticing deficiency; and therefore, since the trope of the appeal in 2016. CAA not oil[), inquired several times with the Harbor Resources Manager but also requested notification as recent as December 2017 and regularly checked the City's permitting database for any applications related to the redesign and rebuild of Newport Marina. Mr. Moriarty resides at 2782 Bayshore Drive and shares a common water -side property line with the commercial marina at 2888 Bayshore Drive. You may recall, in 2016. the redevelopment of Newport Marina tinder AIC No. 130-2888 was heard by the 11 arbor Commission oil an appeal filed oil April 15, 2016 by Mr. Moriarty, This appeal was filed after only finding out about the project through the California Coastal Commission noticing process due to the fact that the aforementioned AIC was issued with no notification to adjoining neighbors that would be greatly affected.Just as the current redevelopment plan does. the previous redevelopment plan would have caused a situation where residents would lie adversely impacted without any notification. I'lpe City's AIC notification appears to be done with some amount of discretion. In locking at projects in 2018, public notice was provided for the dock replacement project at 700 W. Clay Ave. In this instance, public notification appears to have been provided to the surrounding property owners and. occupants both before and atter- issuance of the City"s AIC approval. Due to this notification, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (NHYC) was able to bring forth technical concerns regarding; the new dock proposed. As a result. the applicant and NHYC were able to reach a compromise. A171014 mi and Knoim Imer estedParties are Entitled to Notrficalion Unfortunately, even after multiple inquiries were made to the City in writing and via telephone calls. notification was not provided to CAA related to the A1C application for the current proposal to redevelop Newport Marina. As Mr. Moriarty's representative through out the appeal process for AiC No. 130-2888, we are shocked by the lack of notification. As previously mentio:red, the appeal }process lasted over six montlis with attendance at three Harbor Commission nncetings and several attempts to reach a compromise with the owners of the marina. The City was obligated to notice the appellant and known interested ]parties. Oblair7ir7g Prrrrrir Iglbrinalion is Alear li., lml)ossible 16-74 Att ment C Mr. Chris Miller November 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6 As discussed above, notification was not provided to the impacted residents or to Mr. Moriarty. and to further frustrate the now of information- the address for Newport Marina is entered into the City's permit database as "2888 Bay Shore Dr." when the address is commonly referred to as "2888 Bayshore Dr," In fact, the name of the street is identified as "Bayshore" on the street sign and the Newport Marina and Bayshore Apartments website. 'therefore. altliougli. CAA engaged in efforts to routinely monitor the City's permitting database, it wasn't until after we 1lcard a rtlmnr that an AIC was issued that we were able to locate the permitting for Newport Marina under the incorrect address. The lack of noticing and the mislabeled addresses for Newport Marina thereby creates a nearly impossible situation to obtain information. The incorrect address is grounds for appeal. AIC No. 1502-2018 Not Consistent with Approved Pro'ect The Harbor Commission approved a plan for Newport Marina at the October 1120 16 meeting. The meeting minutes are attached hereto- The Harbor Commission said that the marina must be setback 26' frorn the property line, 24' frorn the bulkhead and should have 46 boat slips. Linder the new plan, the marina would be located 6 inches from the property line, 5 feet from the bulkhead. and have 50 boat slips. This new plan is in direct conflict with the approved plan- The Ilarbor Commission directed that "the applicant could apply for approval of a different dock configuration while retaining a 26' setback," ']'here are four other references to the 26' setback. the Harbor Commission's intention was exceedingly clear. An approval issued in error is not a valid approval. anew plan rnL[st he consistent with the approve- d project or it should be reconsidered by the I -[arbor Con3iriission, While the new plans for Newport Marina may be in compliance with the City's Harbor Design Guidelines and Title 17 Harbor Resources Code, we have identified several practical and serious flaw~ 1n the marina design. The original AIC that was the basis of the Appeal 130-2888 was also incompliance with the City's Harbor Design Guidelines. Nevertheless, the plan was found to be incompatible with he surroundings - Risk to Sgjcly rind Licibility The redeveloped marina will be located within six inches of the common water -side property line with 2782 Bayshore Drive where Mr, Moriarty has a 70 -foot boat side -tied. The side -tied boat is located completely within the prolongation ofthe 2782 Bayshore Drivc property line- Hoy;ever. i1' the marina is built to within six inches of the property line, the property at 2782 Bayshore Drive including the 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. There is an inherent risk to safety and liability to the horneowner if the public is able to access a residential property. I.'ei-licul C7eai-unce, Ac•ce.v,s rind Fh-e .S Yr ,/y ]'herr are safety concerns regarding the proposed pier and access to the backside of the marina. it appeal's that there would be more than adequate access between the niarina and seawall: however. the pier is located only 14 feet above MLLW. There is no explanation about what happens during, 16-75 Att ment C Mr. Chris Miller November 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6 high tides like we are expecting on December 22 and 23, 2018 where the tide is expected to mise -to +6.9 feet. 'Phis leaves approximately 7 vertical feet for access under the pier and nothing leas been established to ensure that fire boats would be able to access the back of marina at these extreme high tides. Not to mention, that sea level is expected to rise quite a bit over the life expectancy of the marina. Risk ler frit -cry)} 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-lamily residences, the smaller boats are berthed in front of the homes while the larger boats are appropriately sited adjacent to parking lots orcommunity buildings. This configuration call be seen in the Bayshc.ne Marina, Balboa Bay Club, and on Lido Peninsula, just to mention a few. Newport Marina would be the only commercial marina permitted to berth nine 80 -Foot boats directly in ti-ont of the adjacent homes. 80 -foot boats can easiiy be as tall as 30 feet. This means that the three neighboring residences impacted by the new marina would lose their views of the harbor on their first floors and woe:ld have obstructed views ori their second floors. More importantly. three rn- fain- residences that would be directly impacted by the redeveloped commercial marina, would have boats looking directly into their homes, as boats would be berthed as close as 13 feet from their properties (5 -foot marina setback firorn bulkhead with an 8 -foot headwalk). In this area of Bayshores the homes are only set back a matter of feet from the water -side property line, which means the impacted residents would be having breakfast with the boat owners and their staff 13 Feet away. All 80 root boats should be berthed at the northern portion of the property in front of the marina operators property. Incomj)utihilitjr Beti•i een Residen icrl 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 residential property lisle. Facts Salaiaor-ting Hea-boi- Commission cis the Permit A who] -i!}, After the Harbor Resource Department's April 6.2016 issuance of an AIC and the April 14.2016 issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) by the California Coastal Commission- Mr. Moriarty filed atimely appeal ofdecision to the Harbor Resources Manager. Mr. Moriarty's timely appeal was followed by more than six months of attempts to engage the applicant in mopes of developing a compromise plan to which was met with no avail. During this time period. CAA met with the marina owners` attorney Mike Flewitt ori one occasion and sent several emails to the marina owners and Mr. Hewitt. 16-76 Att ment C Mr, Chris Miller November 28.20 18 Page 5 of* 6 The appeal was postponed once ill July 2016 and subsequently Beard twice by the harbor Commission on August 10, 2016 and October 12, 2016. The marina owners did not participate in a compromise plan and at the October 12, 2018 I -[arbor Com€nission meeting Mr. HeN itt stated that the applicant engaged all engineering firm to evaluate a northern ingress/egress and [t]he firm determined a northern ingress/egress was not possible. He also commented on other challenges of the potential for a northern ingresslegress, "including an ADA ramp, high-pressure water lines in the pie -shaped area near the PCIi bridge, and no guarantee of receiving a dredging permit each time dredging was needed." Despite Mr. Moriarty's diligent efforts, no compromise was reached during the six-month long appeal process. The Harbor Commission ultimately voted to approve a plan that would provide Mr. Moriarty piece ofinind and allow the owners of Newport Marina to rebuild their coin mcrciat marina. The Harbor Commission noted that the Prestas could come back with an alternative plan. For this reason, we believe that [lie Harbor Commission should be the permit authority for the marina redevelopment. AIC No. 1502-2018 Sets a Bad Precedent Newport Harbor should be celebrated as a diverse mix of public slips and moorings. residential docks, and commercia] marinas. A precedent should not be set allowing commercial enterprises to encroach and infringe upon residences. Newport Marina currently has 53 slips and is proposing to reduce- the number of slips in its redeveloped marina to bring the total to 50 slips. The inarina owners have devised a plan to reduce the nu€nbcr of small boat sips but significantly increases numbe=r of large boat slips (i.e. revenue) and manages to not impact their landside apartment building. Larger boats are charged at a higher rate per foot than smaller boats: therefore, the marina owners are effectively increasing their revenue while avoiding impacts to their real estate, all at the expense of their neighbors. It is our express opinion that the marina owners should be able to redevelop their commercial marina; however, to do so at the e=xpense of safety, common sense, and .just plain being a good neighbor, would be a shame. Mr. Moriarty and the neighbors of Newport Marina remain willing to participate cooperatively in the marina redesign process. We appreciate Harbor Commission and Staffs consideration of the appeal of AIC 1502-2018, Please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 581-2888 with any questions. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. 16-77 Atif ment C Mr. Chris Miller November 28. 2018 PaL,t 6 of 6 Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer Attachments: October i 2, 20 ] 8 l larbor Commission Minutes c: Leilani Brown. City Clerk Kevin Moriarty, 2782 LLC. 16-78 Attachment C 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. 16-79 Attachment C 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. 16-80 Attachment C 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 16-81 Attachment C 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 Maicrano, 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 76 -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 configurations was too tight, and they did not want it reduced. Mr. Moriarty did not propose 16 feet. 4 16-82 Attachment C 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 andlor 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. 61 16-83 Attachment C 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. 16-84 Attachment C 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, 2015. 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 14. 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.newportbeachea.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 Miiier 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 ►[:Tir 16-85 Attachment C 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. 16-86 Attachment D NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers 100 Civic Center Drive Wednesday, January 9, 2019 6:30 p.m. 1) CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 2) ROLL CALL Commissioners: Dave Girling, Chair Scott Cunningham, Vice Chair John Drayton, Secretary (excused absence) Ira Beer, Commissioner Paul Blank, Commissioner Bill Kenney, Commissioner Don Yahn, Commissioner Staff Members: Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager Kurt Borsting, Harbormaster Chris Miller, Public Works Administrative Manager Armeen Komeili, Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Biddle, Administrative Support Specialist 3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Kenney 4) PUBLIC COMMENTS None 5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of December 12, 2018, Study Session and Regular Meeting Commissioner Blank requested a change be made to page 8 of the minutes under functional area 6. The minutes note he said, "two of eighteen community meetings are complete." When he in fact said, "two of somewhere around eighteen community meetings will be completed." Commissioner Kenney moved approval of the draft Minutes for the December 12, 2018, meeting as amended. Commissioner Blank seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Girling, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Beer, Commissioner Blank, Commissioner Kenney, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Absent: Commissioner Drayton 1) PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1. 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) - Appeal The Harbor Commission will consider an appeal of the City's approval of the proposed marina reconfiguration project at 2888 Bayshore Drive. 16-87 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 2 Recommendation: 1) Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2) The Harbor Commission may either uphold, amend or reverse the Harbor Resources Manager's approval of the proposed marina reconfiguration at 2888 Bayshore Drive. Public Works Manager Chris Miller presented a PowerPoint presentation in regard to the appeal for the Newport Marina located at 2888 Bayshore Drive. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the marina in response to concerns raised at the previous Harbor Commission meetings in 2016. The biggest change from the previous submittal is the new location of the back channel for the smaller boats — access is proposed on the north side of the marina adjacent to the Coast Highway Bridge as opposed to the current and previous proposal on the south side adjacent to 2782 Bayshore Drive. Staff approved the current proposed plans and issued an Approval in Concept because the plans comply with the Harbor Design Criteria as well as the Municipal Code. The proposed marina is being appealed by neighbors at 2782, 2800, 2812 and 2832 Bayshore Drive. They feel that the Approved in Concept plan does not comply with the Harbor Commission's 2016 recommendations for the proposed Newport Marina project. Chair Girling asked whether the current plans conformed to the current Design Standards for construction of slips and marinas. Mr. Miller indicated that the design standards were consulted and the proposed plans do conform to the standards. Commissioner Blank wanted to confirm that there had not been any material changes to the Design Standards from 2004 — 2017. Public Works Manager Miller did not think there had been, but was not certain. Commissioner Blank recalled that the most recent design standard revisions had taken place in mid -2017 and nothing in those revisions materially affected the proposed project. Mr. Miller agreed. Commissioner Kenney confirmed that setback conditions were made based on Municipal Code section 17.35.020.2. Public Works Manager Miller confirmed they had. Chair Girling inquired about safety and wanted to know if consideration had been given to Fireboats and if the applicant had meet with the Fire Department. Public Works Manager Miller confirmed that the plans had been viewed by Fire Department staff. Commissioner Kenney also inquired about Harbor Patrol, wanting to know if they had been consulted regarding any access issues. Public Works Manager Miller indicated that he did not think they had since it was not in their jurisdiction. Public Works Manager Miller had indicated he had an example of something similar. Commissioner Yahn asked to see the example. (The example project with a 1' setback of a commercial marina from a bulkhead adjacent to residential units is at the Vue Project at 2240 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92663) Shawna Schaffner with CAA Planning, representative for the appellants, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Schaffner clarified Mr. Miller's statement that the LCP should not be considered because this was a waterside project and stated that while the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction on the water, the standard review for the Coastal Commission is both City's Certified LCP and the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Ms. Schaffner discussed the history of the project and the 2016 Harbor Commission approval for the marina. Ms. Schaffner highlighted Harbor Design Criteria for waterside development and noted the standards are to be considered minimum requirements and the City may reserve the right to deviate from the standards. Ms. Schaffner noted the appeal considerations which include inconsistencies with provisions in the Local Coastal Plan (LCP), design incompatibility with landside residential, safety and privacy issues and that this would be a precedent - 2 16-88 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 3 setting action. Ms. Schaffner noted inconsistencies with sections 21.30C.050 Harbor Development Regulations and 21.30C.070 Dredging Permits of the LCP and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. —Ms. Schaffner summarized research from 20 marinas in Newport Harbor and concluded that no marinas in Newport Harbor have a 6 -inch setback from a shared residential property line, are 5 feet from the bulkhead, or place 80 foot boats in front of private residences. Ms. Schaffner indicated that the appellants had advanced several compromise plans to the applicant to demonstrate the desired slip mix and number of slips could be achieved without creating the land use incompatibility issue. Ms. Schaffner requested the Harbor Commission approve an AIC with the 62 foot slips repositioned away from the residences and maintaining setback of existing marina from the bulkhead and southerly property line. Theresa Gagney-Morrison, appellant respectfully requested that the Commission take into consideration the requests of the appellants and maintain the Harbor keeping the safety and privacy of Bayshore residents. Kevin Moriarty, appellant referred to the Harbor Commission's recommendations for the proposed Newport Marina project and noted the marina will not comply with the Commission's recommendations. He has been a good neighbor and is in favor or the Marina, just not the current plan and is hoping a compromise can be made. Glenn Walcott commented that the Newport Marina is moving large vessels in front of his home which will impact his view and privacy. He also noted safety concerns. Zach Fischer related that Newport Marina's plan will negatively impact property values and views. Doug Evertz, Attorney for the appellants raised issues related to CEQA compliance including the intensification of the use and requested that the Commission not recommend this plan without the proper CEQA review. Commissioner Blank asked to see the appellant's slide with Lido Yacht Anchorage Chair Girling asked for clarification on 21.30C of the LCP. He also wanted to confirm that NBMC Section 17.50.040(B)(3) is applicable in this situation. Deputy City Attorney Armeen Komeili confirmed that Section 17.50.040(B)(3) is applicable as portions of Title 17 have been adopted into the LCP and that 21.30C addresses aspects relevant for the analysis. Chair Girling wanted to address the safety concern and inquired as to whether the Commission could impose conditions on safety. Deputy City Attorney Komeili noted that it is not explicitly stated in the municipal code but if the Commission would like to address a safety concern as part of a condition, they must find that the condition is necessary to protect commerce, navigation or fishing, or the use, operation or development of Newport Harbor. Chair Girling inquired whether the proposed project is exempt from CEQA. In which Deputy City Attorney Komeili stated that he was not qualified to opine as to a possible CEQA exemption, as such analysis is primarily done by the Planning Department. Public Works Manager Miller, stated that Community Development would need to be consulted. Michael C. Hewitt, Attorney representing the Presta's, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Hewitt noted that this area is a commercial marina and is zoned as and MUW2 and allows for the zero lot line, has no private view rights, only public, provides intensification of use and meets ADA requirements. Mr. Hewitt called up Mr. Gegam Burnazyan, an engineer with Bellingham Marine to discuss the in concept plans. Mr. Burnazyan provided an overview of the plans. Mr. Hewitt requested that based on the information provided that the Commission approve the project as is, without conditions. Chair Girling brought it back to the Commission for discussion. 3 16-89 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 4 Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Hewitt if the applicants were interested in considering any of the alternative configurations proposed by the appellants. Mr. Hewitt replied that the applicants did not wish to consider alternatives at this time. Commissioner Kenney made an inquiry about ADA accessibility and concern with King Tides. Mr. Hewitt addressed the inquiry about ADA accessibility that the new marina would be ADA compliant and Mr. Burnazyan responded to the King Tide concerns stating that only occasionally would the King Tide interfere with access to the marina Commissioner Kenney asked questions regarding the Newport VUE development public slip space and wanted to know if a GIS photo was available. Public Works Manager Miller replied that it was not at this time. Mr. Hewitt and Commissioner Kenney had continued discussion on the Newport VUE and Commissioner Blank clarified that the ground floor of the VUE was intended commercial development but there may be residential space at that level. Further that the Public Dock at the Vue is for the sole and exclusive use of customers of the retail and commercial tenants at the Vue. The Vue management posts security personnel to advise boaters using that public dock. That public dock is not the same as the City owned public docks with the blue finials which anyone can use. Commissioner Kenney also asked if the applicant would be in favor of a condition to require fobs and cameras for security purposes. Mr. Hewitt indicated agreement to this condition. Commissioner Yahn made inquiries into design concepts and beam width. Mr. Burnazyan said, they did not intend to accommodate larger vessels. Mr. Hewitt made some remarks that based on the 20 - foot width of the slips only 60 -foot boats could be accommodated. Chair Girling opened up public comment. Mike Boone, Newport Beach resident expressed concern regarding view rights. Mary Ann Soden longtime friend of Ms. Gagney-Morrison noted that this is a dramatically different plan compared to the plan depicted in the tidelands lease with the County of Orange, and would result in an equity transfer. She also expressed her concern about views, fire safety and eelgrass. Charles Caldwell, Bayshore resident asked about commercial uses like fishing, noting they would need a permit and feels these boats are too big. Jim Mosher, noted that the MUW2 zoning does not have anything to do with what you can do on the water. Len Bose, Huntington Beach resident expressed concern that boats would not be able to get out at low tide. Seeing no further comments, Chair Girling closed public comments and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Chair Kenney stated he believes the Commission does have discretionary approval. He also commented on condition #8 indicating there would be an encroachment with a big current and a northerly side shoal. Commissioner Blank clarified that there is no risk of encroachment from boats going in or out of the southern -most slips as the prolongation of the property lines stop at the pier head line. Commissioner Blank made a motion to uphold the approval of Public Works Manager Miller. Chair Girling seconded the motion with the condition to add security measures, including fob entry and security cameras and a fence along the southern finger adjacent to 2782 Bayshore Drive. Commissioner Blank was in agreement with that condition. Commissioner Kenney proposed an amended motion to require CEQA review in addition to the security measures. Commissioner Blank did not accept the amended motion. Commissioner Kenney proposed 4 16-90 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 5 a substitute motion upholding approval with required conditions for security measures and subject to a review of whether CEQA guidelines apply and whether they should be applied to the proposed project. Commissioner Beer seconded the substitute motion. The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Girling, Commissioner Beer, Commissioner Kenney, Commissioner Yahn Nays: Commissioner Blank, Commissioner Cunningham Absent: Commissioner Drayton 2) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. Presentation by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAH Fisheries) Regarding Sea Lion Deterrents (This item may be continued to a future meeting due to the Federal Government shutdown) As part of the City's Harbor Department, staff works closely with vessel and property owners regarding sea lion deterrents. Sea Lions have an active season within the harbor and NOAA will provide the Harbor Commission with options for sea lion deterrents. Recommendation: 1) Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 2) Receive and file and if appropriate provide direction to staff. Due to the Federal Government shutdown representatives from the NOAA Fisheries were unable to attend the meeting. This item will be moved to a future meeting pending the reopening of the Federal Government. 2. Harbor and Beaches Master Plan Projects: Review and Approve Staff requests the Harbor Commission review and approve the Harbor and Beaches Master Plan Projects, and recommend forwarding it to the City Council for approval. Recommendation: 1) Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 2) Approve the Harbor and Beaches Master Plan Projects and recommend staff forward to the City Council for review and approval. At the request of staff Item 6.3 was heard at this juncture and will be followed by Item 6.2. Public Works Manager Chris Miller presented an updated list of the Harbor and Beaches Master Plan projects to the Harbor Commission based on their comments from the December meeting and provided an updated project list. 5 16-91 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 6 Commissioner Blank was glad to see Land Acquisition for Launch Ramp was still in the plan as a place holder. He inquired about additional amenities for mooring permittees. He also inquired about the fixed/pile marker replacements which is still in the plan with a completion date of 2018. He asked who might take responsibility for this going forward and about further improvements at Lower Castaways like parking, a bike hub, a place to launch kayaks and boards and a small informal amphitheater. He suggested he would like to have the status at Lower Castaways added to a future agenda. Commissioner Cunningham provided comment on #19 (Dredging Equipment) and did not feel that there should be a strike through on this item, as next steps are still being discussed. Public Works Manager Miller reminded the Commission the list is a planning tool rather than a budget document. He also noted he would remove the strike out from #19 as well as the dollar amount. Commissioner Cunningham also commented on #20 (Dredging: Lower Bay), #21 (Dredging Newport Island Area — Channels) and #22 (Public Beaches — Lido Isle Bridge) Public Works Manager Miller provided response to Commissioner Cunningham's questions. Commissioner Yahn inquired about the Balboa Island Seawall and what was happening with that. Public Works Manager Miller responded that the project is completed. Chair Girling opened up public comment. Michael Lawler and John Fradkin provided public comment. Jim Mosher also provided comment on the spreadsheet and felt it should have a column showing today's unit costs. Chair Girling inquired about the CdM moorings and recycling center. Commissioner Blank inquired about an upland location for the recycling center. Public Works Manager Miller responded that the recycling center project was currently underway with a component completed at the Balboa Yacht Basin. The potential CDM mooring concept has not been formally considered by the Harbor Commission yet. A Commissioner noted that that might be something for the mooring ad hoc committee to consider at a later date. Commissioner Beer requested a placeholder be added for mooring permitees. Public Works Manager Miller indicated he would add one. Dan Gribble noted a sea lion sanctuary/resort should be added as well. Chair Girling moved approval of the Harbor and Beaches Master Plan Projects and recommend staff forward to the City Council for review and approval. Commissioner Blank seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Girling, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Beer, Commissioner Blank, Commissioner Kenney, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Absent: Commissioner Drayton 3. Navigational Aids Welcoming Boaters into Newport Harbor There is currently a navigational aid on the west end of the Newport Jetty to aid boaters as they enter into Newport Harbor. The current structure is functional, however may not be considered as welcoming as it could be to boaters. The United States Coast Guard is contemplating a replacement program and there may be an opportunity to enhance the look of the navigational aid. Recommendation: 1) Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title N. 16-92 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 7 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 2) Receive and file and provide direction to staff as appropriate. Keith Yonkers provided a PowerPoint presentation on Navigational Aids. Mr. Yonkers outlined the need for navigational aids is critical for safe entry and egress in the Harbor, as well as in the evening and during poor weather conditions. What is currently in place is old and needs refurbishing or to be replaced. Mr. Yonkers discussed potential solutions. Possibly a stone or granite structure or lighthouse. Mr. Yonkers indicated the cost to be estimated at approximately $350,000.00 and sees the project as a public/private partnership. He would begin with collecting public input and see where the Commission and Council would like to take the project. Commissioners Beer and Yahn concurred with the need for navigational aids. Commissioner Yahn inquired about cost and renderings. Mr. Yonkers talked about the project possibly being privately funded. There are no renderings at this time. Chair Girling asked staff what the next steps would be to get this project to move forward. Assistant City Manager Jacobs indicated that the Coast Guard is looking to replace what currently exists and now would be a good time to consider it, as they would possibly provide some of the funding. Chair Girling opened public comment. Michael Lawler, resident spoke in support of this project noting some thoughts he had about possibly adding statues as the navigational aids or even two lighthouses, one on the east side and one on the west side of the Harbor. He also volunteered to be part of an Ad Hoc Committee is one was formed. Mr. Lawler also felt that the Art Commission should be involved. Commissioner Kenney inquired what Mr. Yonkers thought of two lighthouses, one at the east end of the Harbor and one at the West end of the Harbor. Mr. Yonkers indicated that could be too confusing and noted that most Harbors typically have one lighthouse. Commissioner Kenney moved approval to forward this item to the City Council for further direction. Chair Girling seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Girling, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Beer, Commissioner Blank, Commissioner Kenney, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Absent: Commissioner Drayton 4. Proposed Language to Amend Title 17 to Allow for Offshore Mooring Extensions The Harbor Commission established their 2018 Goals and Objectives, Goal 3.2 is to "Establish policies for modifications to mooring sizes". As part of this objective, the Harbor Commission heard this item on October 10, 2018. The Harbor Commission subcommittee has drafted proposed language for the Harbor Commission to consider in order to allow for offshore mooring extensions. Recommendation: 1) Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 7 16-93 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 8 2) Approve the language as proposed or provide modifications. Direct staff to work with the City Attorney's office to update the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Commissioner Blank recused himself from this item, as he is a mooring holder. Assistant City Manager Carol Jacobs provided a presentation to the Commission outlining the changes recommended by the Harbor Subcommittee to the policies and procedures pertaining to the management of mooring extensions in Title 17. Assistant City Manager Jacobs noted the proposed language was available in the staff report and outlined the new procedure. Commissioner Beer noted a change he had made after the staff report had been posted. Commissioner Beer made some additional comments that were answered by Assistant City Manager Jacobs. Commissioner Kenney expressed concern with section K and felt the original language should be left. Commissioners Beer and Cunningham provided additional comments on section K. Chair Girling opened up public comments. Michael Lawler expressed his concern it section K as well as, Dan Gribble, John Fradkin and Len Bose. Jim Mosher and Chuck South also commented on this item. Chair Girling asked the Ad Hoc Committee if they would consider leaving the original language. Commissioner Beer noted that section K was problematic as written. Commissioner Beer moved to approve the language as modified and directed staff to work with the City Attorney's office to update the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Commissioner Kenney seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Girling, Commissioner Cunningham, Commissioner Beer, Commissioner Kenney, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Recused: Commissioner Blank Absent: Commissioner Drayton 5. Harbor Commission 2018 Objectives: Ad Hoc Committee Updates Each ad hoc committee studying their respective Functional Area within the Commission's 2018 Objectives will provide a progress update. Recommendation: 1) Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly orindirectly. 2) Receive and file. Due to the late hour the Commission agreed to postpone discussion on this item until next month's meeting. 6. Harbormaster Update — December, 2018 F:3 16-94 Harbor Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment D January 9, 2019 Page 9 The Harbormaster is responsible for on -water management of the City's moorings, the Marina Park Marina and code enforcement on the water. This report will update the Commission on the Harbor Department's activities for December, 2018. Recommendation: 1) Find this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. 2) Receive and file. Harbormaster Kurt Borsting provided a PowerPoint presentation highlight Harbor activities during the month of December. Noting significant events such as the boat parade, vessel auctions and notable statistics. Assistant City Manager Jacobs mentioned that a discussion of Harbor Fees would take place at the next Council meeting. She noted that this was a routine matter due to the formation of the Harbor Department. Commissioner Kenney asked for an update on Wild Wave as he noticed it is still moored. Assistant City Manager Jacobs indicated that the owner of Wild Wave is taking legal action against the City, so it will remain moored until legal matters have been resolved. Dan Gribble requested consideration be given to mooring holders in regard to number of nights a mooring holder can spend on their own boat versus the number of nights a sub permittee is permitted. Harbormaster Borsting indicated he would look into this and perhaps he and Mr. Gribble could meet to discuss. 3) COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NON -DISCUSSION ITEMS) None 4) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH STAFF ON HARBOR RELATED ISSUES None 5) MATTERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) Commissioner Blank requested he would like to have the boathouse and its status at Lower Castaways added to a future agenda. 6) DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 7) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Harbor Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. M 16-95 Attachment E Appeal 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 7019 JAN 22 Pik 5- 12 OFFICE OF Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time p0f6d -r6,n)1 t i;gl d00ripr 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: o< • Date: 1_.2,2 - / q FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DaAppeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 201. cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File Cashier Code: CDD004 (Harbor Appeals HBR001) F: IUserslClerklSharedlFonnst4ppeal Application Updated 12114/2018 16-96 Attachment E r f �-.= 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 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599 16-97 Attachment E 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 16-98 Attachment E r f�_= 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 16-99 Attachment E f ��-= 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 16-100 Attachment E r "'I— 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. eL 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 16-101 Attachment E 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. 16-102 Attachment E 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. 16-103 Attachment E 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 16-104 Attachment E 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. 16-105 Attachment E 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. 16-106 Attachment E 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. 0 16-107 Attachment E 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. VA 16-108 Attachment E 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. 16-109 October 18, 2016 Attachment E c,tr OF NEWPORT H(:ACH DELIVERED VIA FIRST CLASS REGULAR MAIL 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3311 1 949 644-3308 FAX newportbeachca.gov/Harbor Resources 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 17.65.040.1=, 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, �/7//,,"/�/, Chris Miller Harbor Manager 16-110 Attachment E 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 16-111 Attachment F Environmental Information Form Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 / Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3204 Telephone / (949)644-3229 Facsimile www.newportbeachca.gov Instructions The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basic information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basis for determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department, a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. If no significant environmental effects are anticipated, or if impacts can be mitigated or avoided by a change or specific requirement in the project's design or operation, a Negative Declaration will be prepared. If potential significant environmental effects are identified, an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared which focuses on the areas of concern identified by the Initial Study. After preliminary review of your application and the Environmental Information Form, you may be notified that additional information or technical studies will be required (e.g., traffic study, geotechnical survey, etc.) before an environmental determination can be made. Processing Schedule The time required to process the environmental analysis for your project will depend on the nature and complexity of the proposal and the location of the project. If possible, the Planning Department will set a target date for public hearing at the time your application is determined to be complete. If special studies are required (e.g., traffic study, biological assessment), the hearing date cannot be set until these studies are completed. If a Negative Declaration is prepared, a 30 -day public review period is normally required prior to the public hearing. Staff will notify you regarding the hearing schedule for your project as soon as possible. Filing Fee A $750 deposit is due at the time the form is submitted. Hourly charges will be accumulated for processing activities. The applicant shall pay all such costs prior to final action on the related project or as soon thereafter as such costs may be finally determined. If a Special Study, Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is required, the City will retain a consultant with the cost to be fully funded by the applicant. In addition, the applicant may be required to pay a California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) review fee. Planning Department staff will advise you regarding the applicability of DFG fees after the environmental review is completed. F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admin\Planning_Division\Applications\EIR\Info&App docx Updated 7/24113 16-112 Attachment F Environmental Information Form Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 / Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949)644-3204 Telephone / (949)644-3229 Facsimile ININ v.newportbeachca.gov A. General Information Applicant/Agent: Adam Gale, Anchor QEA, LLC Phone: (949) 334-9635 Address: 27201 Puerta Real, Suite 350, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Property Owner: Palmo Investments, G.P. Phone: (949) 759-1275 Address: 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663 B. Project Description Please attach the following materials for the project: • Vicinity map • Plans drawn to scale • Proposed revisions to zoning map and text using underline and str+keeet notation, if applicable • At least 3 different site photos mounted on 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: Newport Marina Replacement Project 2. 3. 5a. 5b. 5c. 6. 7. 8. 01 Project location: 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Assessor's parcel #: 049-191-33; 049-191-30 4 Proposed use: Maintain existing use as a private marina Permit application #: Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc): 13319 sf, 532 sf increase from existing marina Site size: 51,000 sf 5d. Building height: N/A Existing land use designations: General Plan: RMD, MU -W Specific Plan: RM -39 DU, MU -W2 Previous governmental approvals. None Other governmental approvals required. Federal: U.S Army Corps of Engineers Regional: OC Public Works Encroachment Begin Construction Date: Early 2019 Zoning: N/A LCP: RM, MU -W2 State: RWQCB Certification, CCC CDP Local: Approval in Concept, CEQA Estimated Occupancy Date: N/A F 1Users1CDDlSharedlAdminlPlanning_ DivisionlApplicalionslEIR\Info&App.doex Updated 7121x93113 Attachment F E. Certification 1 certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. ALL�lSptij r�i�G-A , PA`7uL-R p �,; - Print Name and Title Signature Date- DO ate Date Filed: Form of Payment: Remarks: DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE - OFFICE USE ONLY Fee Pd: Check # (if applicable): Receipt No: Rec'd by: F \UserslCDD\Shared\Admin\Planning_Division\Applications\EIR\Info&App.docx Updated 7/24113 16-114 Attachment F C. Environmental Setting 1. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe and existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Response: The Project is located at 2888 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, California (Attachment A, Sheet 1). The Marina is located within a non -gated residential community of Bayshore and is a marina operated for the benefit of the public since 1923, with 40 total boat slips. The marina is dilapidated and has reached the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced for improved ADA access. The current herringbone configuration is limiting to navigation, and replacement in-kind cannot be achieved to meet current design standards. The proposed project site is located on the water. There are no hills, mounds, or mountains located on the proposed project site. No native vegetation is found at the site. The Project is located within a general area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat. The California least tern (Sterna antillaru, browns) and California sea lion (Zalophus califomianus) harbor seal have the potential to occur in or adjacent to the coverage area. There are no known places of historic, cultural or scenic significance within the developed site. Photos of the project site are provided in Attachment B. 2. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -backs, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of vicinity. Response: Directly south of the Project are single-family residential units (Single -Unit Residential Coastal Zoning District). Directly north of the marina are the Lower Castaways Park (Commercial Recreational and Marine Coastal Zoning District). The surrounding properties are located within a general area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat. The California least tern, California sea lion, and harbor seal plover have the potential to occur in these areas. There are no known places of historic, cultural or scenic significance within the surrounding properties. Photographs of vicinity are provided in Attachment B. D. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate "Not applicable" or "None". I. AESTHETICS Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private views? Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. Response: The proposed project is a renovation of an existing marina operated for the benefit of the public. No existing public scenic vistas of the ocean or harbor will be blocked, and the current public scenic views will be maintained and open to residents and those who use the marina. Lighting will consist of the minimum required to maintain public safety and executed to be aesthetically pleasing. II. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES 16-115 Attachment F Describe any agricultural and/or forest land resources presently located at the project site. Describe any changes to this resource as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. Response: No agricultural and/or forest land resources are presently located at the project site. Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. Response: There will be minimal emissions during construction, and all equipment will comply with current emission standards. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabits the site. Response: There is no existing native vegetation at the site; previous development included minimal non-native landscaping that will not be affected. Based on the most recent eelgrass survey conducted by the City in July 2018, the project area supports eelgrass (Zosters marina). Results of the survey are presented in Attachment A, Sheet 4. An updated survey will be performed in late September 2018, and again prior to the commencement of construction and immediately following implementation of the proposed project. Any permanent impact to eelgrass will be mitigated in coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies, and in compliance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. The site is located within a general area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat. Potential impacts of the proposed project to EFH include short-term, temporary, minor increases in turbidity associated with pile placement. Turbidity impacts will be minimized through the use of silt curtains during pile placement. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no adverse effects to EFH. The California least tern (Sterna antillaru, browni), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) have the potential to occur in these areas. Any impacts to biological resources will be temporary and minimal, and limited to construction. Implementation of applicable construction best management practices (BMPs) will reduce any impacts to biological resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Please indicate whether any archaeological or paleontological surveys have been done on the site. Could the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? Response: There are no known places of historic significance within the permit area or on this previously developed site, and this project has no potential to affect historic 16-116 Attachment F properties. VI. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Describe any greenhouse gas emissions that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. Please include a description of energy and water conservation features or practices proposed (i.e, low- energy lighting, use of ENERGY STAR appliances/fixtures, LEED Certification, drought -tolerant landscaping). Response: The proposed project is consistent with applicable and feasible greenhouse gas reduction standards and measures recommended by the California Air Resources Board, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Coordinating Committee for Automotive Repair, Office of Planning and Research, and the Attorney General's Office. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. Response: The proposed project site is located on the water. There are no hills, mounds, or mountains located on the proposed project site. Furthermore, the surrounding area of the project site is topographically flat as well. The proposed project is not located in an area containing a major landslide; therefore, there would be no impacts, and no further analysis would be required. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations, or due to an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? Is the project located in a flood hazard zone? Response: No hazardous materials are proposed. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater or surface water. Response: The project will comply with state, regional, and local water quality regulations. With implementation BMPs during construction, there should be no impacts related to hydrology/water quality of the site. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING 16-117 Attachment F Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the project's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. Response: The proposed project is a renovation of an existing marina operated for the benefit of the public and will maintain the existing use as a residential marina operated for the benefit of the public- The proposed project is compatible with adjacent land use and local zoning designation. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Describe the effect on any adopted energy conservation plan, use of nonrenewable resources and whether the project will result in the loss of any known mineral resource of future value to the region and residents of the State. Response: Not applicable. XII. NOISE Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise -generating equipment that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? Response: The proposed project is a renovation of an existing marina operated for the benefit of the public and will maintain the existing use as a residential marina operated for the benefit of the public. Impacts related to noise will be temporary during construction and will abide by the City's construction noise ordinance. Construction -related noise would be minimized with implementation of applicable BMPs during construction. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING If the project is residential, please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Identify the number of bedrooms per unit and the expected average household size? What is the projected sales price or rent of the units? If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. Response: Not applicable. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Fire protection • Police protection • Schools • Maintenance of Public facilities, including roadways 16-118 Attachment F • Other Government Services Response: Adequate capacity for public services exists and the project will have a decrease in slips (for improved ADA access and code compliance) with no expansion of services needed. XV. RECREATION Describe the impact of the project on the demand for neighborhood regional parks or other recreational facilities and any affect on existing recreational opportunities. Response: The proposed project is a renovation of an existing marina operated for the benefit of the public since 1923 and will maintain the existing use as a residential marina operated for the benefit of the public, and will provide improved ADA access. No impacts to recreation would result from the proposed project. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Please identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project (including pedestrian and bicycle paths, and public transit). Response: Under the proposed project, there is a decrease of slips, so the existing traffic and transportation conditions should be less; therefore, no impacts would occur. XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Natural gas • Communications Systems • Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities • Sewer systems or septic tanks • Storm water drainage systems • Solid waste and disposal Police protection • Local or regional water supplies Response: Adequate capacity exists for all public utilities and services systems which are part of the existing facility. No changes are proposed or expansion is needed. 16-119 Attachment F NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT Newport Beach, CA Drawing Set VICINITY MAPUNIC/ ��/ A%T ABBREVIATIONS s ® a x : xuw PM anaxe PrectsIm Engtnesmd FlDlali Systems ACNOE uN. amy Coma pl Ery/`°" aaNnxpre.cwa POP�an E� as n.rsLN M P.oc P& Paxwcp, �ne� PNS IrM DfLme� vc PL . P PM— Pre CF. CWCGpwFex PW I41la Wxayr CIP. CW CeYNPNm CWw OTY. RE—UV D�®�By fta�Nye�d •'rii°rtm�eru _ M.FCM���:. v.a�.ti.���-Vw rarwMwww Mbr/tPrw� s _ _ .r... .. r.w �...+r CONC. CONI. CaweW CaYxue 5o SOW squae BaWp WeiW °'v D,v. :� sw s-- PROJECT DESCRIPTION Fas.w..w,xN pxxsvrEv rwH�.eLw=«nss�w D.F. DwD D—w Ft Dwc ss Bne.r ss.rr sleN .aHN.ff..a ra.Wa DL, Dean Lpaa Toa Twwcv - BeuwupF oET. a rar r.Ds. Ts,- °=asap. =Ee Steel [relappNlewers FrFc�gcrL eaevxFNrs. urvnlFs xnwarLw raWc EL ELEV.a EL E -e EWNm TW. Tydml wt� EXIST. a(�E) Errxnp F.apB IHK Vw.O IIMk UNWe gaerxYe Npatl eeeeLpwrtrE xgH xBvcwOai[awLrtxna waxes warts an*FnuuaWLnw wife F FB. Fae Freer- UHNW aH1gF Y°labW fx VnYrry M Fr Hr� WWF WtltlM wS<Fare CONTACT INFORMATION Gr. Gw Fos Gr wal.x w.wx r waur wlreNan rn ce. Dasa w. wsJa,wan woKciixe*bH _. w�a.Yr �w vua GN.V. HD. HD HDD GaNrinx H-LDrt Bean NwW Ony NN Db cew�e.B zL Waro Hgliwak. emeLw Wale SITE PLAN a.aaae.l HDPE ftDaexy PnBelliNxro war. =—AYI%— xzaPon. r.cH r. awa HW NN Hax net - we LBS.nxl n.ml Mira+l aNvgw ruawrr� LAN LW LG trrxNw LMaaird lag cncsrLmHrc �a uaN LL, LW UN Lpea l°q WW�a �t NLLW arAaL N�nlpwrLaval NxArxxn 1.@ FISNM BN raefeprN Um rIDIR araA Naufar Nllanerer MW. NJ.C. Mxxaxn NplNCaare°t .axpr..wl Nwber PROJECT INFORMATION Nis wl r°sms OA OC. OPP O.srd Cann Ooe Prb Bellingham <sa,x., NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT .&. 5zae Newport Reed , CA Yar TITLE SHEET REVISIONS) 16-120 INDEX RLV STATUS DRAWING SHEErNO. DRAWING DESCRIPTION Attachment F Bellingham NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT Newport Bench, CA REVISIONS INDEXSHEET 1%, - ., MaZax, -- 16-121 Attachment F 1 � �- �.• �� ,�• � •. r.r # b b lEGS(AL700' IBP 3 1 I J�.il V VI 1 �y. y c�. q�cr�.—, '_,ff 4 •'r 4_ . # --7 *'-'•asp •.'_:� -�,,,'q`.}'t�µ I lee... rrw r� � n�I01d VMM1i1M1 Lienin nam 15.7-124 NEWPORTMARINA REPLACEMENT fnl.TRiFr-— - arwan. NevN.BeaM. CA _` HENor�. �� wom 'pE�w yer EXISTING DOCK PLANANDEXISTINGVSNEWOVO&AY _�--�—•' 16-122 Attachment F GAARIICSG4LL k .I .im 11 IF ,F I - X11 n -I'Ifl lll4 �'Fl 7C78 V 1&7_724 NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT •• � a Newport Beach, CA REVISIONS f7 r' cxEcxeo er. EELGRASS SURVEY OVERLAY MAP 16-123 Attachment F a M.. /xlY✓I PwwEowwxw.ty xnx Wvao Iaxtt.tsnClPWrvcoEcuwGln'P.1 '. fYwtMwtllSp NlxLYar WNetpUb r e..# - Yw �oY ttvlr�✓r!w r 'p11.IMNprUtROta.04iM1 ivy'wc#.cc mrarWa✓rltvrrwY ' rwV {' " �IfriWlltlxxlrv'aVHa Ynrigr ii• 1 IIKIYC4 fYNaillpr � wvu Pwurs Si✓r01R PMalE9(1✓1p9 I IM.W #wn.y✓xttl lwt#r.Y `, I 1 � � • rr✓vrr 4u✓IdY V✓O4M.#tr Y � � r Irpl.Crte i�u-wuet •r.cc•rtvyea -—r.-rrrrr puYui nrlranh �:. �ipyi'lrn. ��:m_. Mx wloe cnn•Lec.n✓wtlaMa vM YM �II uw.arMet _ _.. ItYY Va rY+Yall •Y a'riw. t-�. fY.ta -_.._1 wu�rrr, vrc vTmv _ .- - .-rm� wloafiwa . fur_ _ �Ifwadwrranarwrntr. fo.vatwtrpmrr.tiaaa - aavu ntlNarce -raP OP P£R oxr..w✓t c...r<.0 -- na..raAixf.rat✓wetar � vuw stop or rvEni woor rwaaoewflwtrmi � .vfAaw af✓orint lV.u9l ttYik4 M n1PUE+q Iwa+cww,_. _ _ Irwvcicra v�rru - I � - '_. .•vww,lnvd l.crwuAYrtlu "v+ew---.I.reiaw roesixx FPEP90M01 _ 1e_7-124 1 r eo-wawyrwl . - nn'�`nri`R wAniceel foY lir.nrpt NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT ' ,_ _ __. •...•�••• ,... •rma.m _ Ixrxtsey✓r Ni PM Baxrll. CA E s REVISIONS CO. E E. _ OVERALL LAYOUT — 16-124 Attachment F p�j1���y qy i ib pff =,c. y J� uscE ruxm�nlm orrmse wu � m°. soTM s,oe rousFa Islzerorv°., rww osv�a�il' !`.WDWPRkWDWALKWAYfa=M �._AS.,iuc+rs z ,�,��°b„V°I .._ - .z - ,.•,�°gym,•, ti, I .�I,.� +w+e..bc�mrml,.om+w- 6zu.Iw[.orM'I vaceVwx�mnlT/°) + -[YSi ,M d C. coven eo�wo'mv"eE swssi- .eo�wnrnanTeo,�. sl" s+awau., ,S suo �rnanE I slmranl Tra:wr.ruu �souoA�wn,�re .—..-.I "�"Irnewenaws �"�m son sores, / 3 �TYP_ FINGERSECTION i NP.. SAVGER SEC1lON Al s u. ors Al Asx[. as.o Pee18-7-124 r NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT Newport Beach, CA on[ ar.in .. �'.. ` •a. M EO,*,P 2ENFr.>Iv `- uuno.00w.uw Mltsn h; DOCK ASSEMBLY DETAILS --•• �•� REVEV ISIONS e, llA . iii r..Exwn`rE+"�er 16-125 J z r z LL LL z Attachment F •{Y.p�ti�lq.l.tw .v» .anl. sr.t m! eaves. rvU.ak wt' e •rr srK. x!! aea.ranc.mxm ,.ee+d.snrlcew�.slr+wr ..war rrtrnsarrclanwuuwla cr.rcw.nw,w..! _�.w,r aass.�+x•vr.r�aw...wr++vlewllmr-....ruwal.wn.s...lwaArr.n.., Lft.APFllCSCALE 9 i1 o tS C Itl 1Qk NC' r. z� a 77 1 ar f _777 -j i 3 a 7r d tily f s k 6r3kf119 11e'H71 ..�, ro.G. �R 1.71.NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENTNow a, 1 lairuxlttvx.c Newyart Beach, CA _- ' I _._ .., x �1 hOA-Gr •xwx:r!—a`SYr�r. a� E F- w ci�Ewe.r: REVISIONS COMPONENTS LAYOUT � SHIN No 16-126 Attachment F :f t? wql — Ff Lb a a :11 "1 3 Ii 4 � *too^ V-7 wwt4 t4=- WTA& 5 ORAL 2 ovA OSTAL Bellingham NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT IB -7-124 MOM N—DoA B..acA, CA OUT REVISIONS CLEAT & DDCK BUMPER LAY 16-127 Attachment F -,e• soc.wE cwcaE,s �+wc,aF ».,� ca«a�,E PnE c..Ps ror. a s. —D wwassu,s-,swrEwsm.eaome 1- tl i, ip C C,« f ,V w t` r -L - - F 9.9.:117. iW-:m.�, NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT — j ea-ixa n Nexport Baxh CA - _.. i j.,pE.9 w•urtsw on _. ar-ti v5' wr.-....•.7,- M1 wu REVISIONS Cr<exra mr: PILE LAYOUT 16-128 z O 1— U !r H z Z O U Of O LL F Q Z } Q Z W x CL Attachment F P'nE S pt1LE --- PILE CAPACITIES PILE CAPACITIES b, RiY TYPE S PB MDS L(110YM ILPMTD4 ELEVpT10N NORTHING FASTING _ �j Ur.-Aiiemern_._ Gfr:Ezkrei -Dell zfl)R. —We TID LM Maneln -Uh.Laleral. f ✓<# n ill Int ) Pk TY M No.StranEs 1^ �Illrwl!1' a� � '� Na SlrerMa PST M ofrWL L I (05'LRS) M� /mPnl MDi fR MLLWI "Ll- (01LRS) ImM INI 11 lmP�kl Y )1 d!L� fl MLLWI 1°:_I J ta•S9!are . - r-�^' . 9 i02.1 40 - - �_ _.._.-�P._., 19•Sauere _I . ...'_ _l 5�O11R1E 5 — • 13 —I _• 16'Sauara - 10 1s s.. 7,4._ r _. __. „—i+l—~IE 16's— T. W. F. 6,000 pd. W4apkel, arM 2' 4. mouse mver. i 1J aiY� - '4 13— ! 1. My, Fc=fi,000 psi. W4apkel,aM2 '.. candela rover. 2.14 Tap point of laatl applkelloney ere lelmn Cilyantl City o! NewpM Beech Flerbar Oesgn CrReria 2014. Cafii ! PILE CAP Top of PYe- IAC ML!N �- s140 1!�cAD MLLW a r{ Daae ■ ` :r �i .ice Tapa I9 fl OI�E 9 i �{ t4 •• LVj 0 1�....._ PakY o1L� r ILy yLLW p} a j—• r Y3 A] APpl� T] 14 -c— 6 PIP ��i 4 —� '_ B + —••••--•—_ PNe � Pile Ler!glh U IF[I fTlll B :+ 93 YY Ouk7lti 6 Jr 13 .. � .�0.RQE— 10—.-�� 41 i. �� I 0.71d144Y@�A� - OJ7 nCLw L9n+�^9 �... 94 AdIIOE 10 to iv -sr 5T ^-{r Deaiyn eev ii ooLGt a "iti silk 3 Za ] —t MLLW �.0'MLLW H/ r$IJI�f 0 lY- Y] �••- ... ;.^. (Por Agri EnglneeAng "' (Der AOes EnglrieeMg 58 (Il dulD! • OU2012 Dredge Plan) 030&2012 Oretlge Pyo) To be -1111 by Gml*C ( r To be verllletl by Geotech i� GUIGE m r e to GuroE Yu-®--'� rr ti'mali ibI iti 694110)a. I 7J Embetlmenl BollomofP f _ eonpm ar PLe R4 . 13wPwccKTereaL ELEVATION OF TYPICAL CONCRETE MARINA PILE ELEVATION OF TYPICAL CONCRETE BEARING PILE LVO -- u a 18-7-124 NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT IJ+" •w .kbMo++ - a E r Newport Beach. CA anT[. ar4L r-0 Wte - dFi9li71Ye • TYE :^!OECD S!405T u4•^ ei •• rwnaC'I�viYJ%... .. '. — panwMG REVISIONS PILE LAYOUT 16-129 a� } r ;,� i� ate,, � �''� r ��'•.,�'' . � ,ia'.�r �' ' - •r 4 jr L ty� Aw40IN '411, Attachment F Photograph 3. Aerial view of the existing Marina's vicinity (looking north). 16-131 Attachment F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT FINANCE DEPARTMENT A, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 P.O. BOX 176$, Newport Beach, CA 92658 8915 Permit Number: 1502-2018 Plan Check Number: �t Today's Date :Jun 21, 2018 Receipt Number: R000088566 Job Address: 2888 BAY SHORE DR NB Oeschption: *HARBOR AIC* REPLACE DOCK Owner : PALMO INVESTMENTS GP Applicant: SUKIASIAN ROBERT Date Paid : Jun,21,2018 05:05 PM Total Paid: $523.00 Notation: Initial: CE CITY of W WILDIM �II 1W CIVIC amIfR I* 1 ttt"j ytµ;N. CA 92bw 949 1 11 .✓ 11 411 i tlei ilwnt if,; 44613 Store It: 0u31 Term It: 1 Ref IIS 0005 Sale xxxxxxxxxR9ox VISA Entry Method: Chic+ Total: $ 523.00 06�21�18 17:05:48 Inv R: 05 (fpr Code: 013095 Transaction ID: 468173003405687 Apprvd:Online Batcha:0006R VISA DEBIT AID: AW WI00031010 ISI: 68W IvR: 811WA.Utl11410 C—L—, Caav IlWtit YOU! Payment Type Check Number Card Type Tendered Credit Crd VISA $523.00 NLY: on to www.newportbeachca.pov/building, and select PLAN CHECK STATUS or CHECK EXPIRES 180 DAYS FROM DATE OF SUBMITTAL 16-132 Attachment G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: 2888 Bayshore Drive (Newport Marina) — Appeal the Harbor Commission's Approval for Marina Reconstruction and Reconfiguration. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed replacement marina is in the same location and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the marina it replaces. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this appeal. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs, additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. The agenda, staff report, and corresponding documents will be available by end of business day on the Friday preceding the public hearing, and may be reviewed at the City Manager's Office (Bay E -2nd Floor), at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, CA 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov/newportharbor Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Harbor Department or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. All mail or written communications (including email) from the public, residents, or applicants regarding an agenda item must be submitted by 5 p.m. on the business day immediately prior to the meeting. This allows time for the City Council to adequately consider the submitted correspondence. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Chris Miller, Administrative Manager, at cmiller(a_newportbeachca.gov . Project File No.: 1502-2018 � �gvUPp'Pr O � �4c,Fo�N`A /s/ Leilani I. Brown, MMC, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 16-133 Attachment H RESOLUTION NO. 2019-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING THE HARBOR COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN "APPROVAL IN CONCEPT" (PROJECT FILE NO. 1502-2018) FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A DOCK SYSTEM AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2888 BAYSHORE DRIVE WHEREAS, an application for an Approval in Concept ("AIC") was filed by Palmo Investments, G.P. (Ron and Allyson Presta), for the removal and replacement of the dock system ("Project") at the property located at 2888 Bayshore Drive, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California ("Property"); WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.030(B)(4) requires City of Newport Beach Public Works Director (formerly "Harbor Resources Manager") to issue an AIC for all development areas where the Coastal Commission retains coastal development permit authority; WHEREAS, the Property is located within the coastal zone; WHEREAS, on or about September 27, 2018, the Public Works Director issued an AIC, including special conditions, determining that the Project is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 17 entitled "Harbor Code" of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") and the "City of Newport Beach Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards Harbor Design Criteria Commercial and Residential Facilities" ("Harbor Design Guidelines"); WHEREAS, NBMC Section 17.65.010(A) authorizes appeal of the Public Works Director's decision to the City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission by any interested person; WHEREAS, on or about November 28, 2018, an interested person filed a timely appeal of the decision with the basis of the appeal, in pertinent part, being the following: lack of due process/inadequate notice of the Public Works Director's decision and inadequate setbacks as required by a prior approval for the Project; 16-134 Attachment H Resolution No. 2019 - Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, on or about January 9, 2019, the Newport Beach Harbor Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Harbor Commission at the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Harbor Commission voted to uphold the Public Works Director's decision to approve the AIC; WHEREAS, on or about January 22, 2019, an interested person filed a timely appeal of the AIC with the basis of the appeal, in pertinent part, being the following: approval is inconsistent with prior 2016 approval; approved plan is incompatible with surrounding residences; approval sets a precedent; and CEQA compliance; WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and NBMC Chapter 20.62. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by, the City Council at the public hearing; WHEREAS, Section 17.50.040(A) authorizes the City to issue Harbor Development Permits upon the determination that a new permit and/or a revision to existing permits conforms to the design criteria and all applicable standards and policies in conjunction with plan reviews by the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Section 17.50.040(6) provides for the denial of a Harbor Development Permit if 1) the application does not conform to the provisions of this Code, the design criteria approved by the City Council, 2) the proposed application is likely to create navigational congestion, or otherwise interfere with the rights of other harbor permittees within Newport Harbor, or other oceanfront property owners, or 3) the proposed application does not conform to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council finds that the Project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA for the following reasons: 16-135 Attachment H Resolution No. 2019 - Page 3 of 6 A. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1) applies to the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." The marina is an existing facility that has been in operation for several decades. The overwater coverage of the new marina increased by 4.1 % from 12,787 square feet to 13,318 square feet. The number of slips decreased from 53 to 50 with the slip mix remaining balanced. The Project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301. B. CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Class 2) applies to the "replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced[.]" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15302.) The proposed replacement marina is in the same location and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the marina it replaces. The overwater coverage of the new marina increased by 4.1 % from 12,787 square feet to 13,318 square feet. The number of slips decreased from 53 to 50 with the slip mix remaining balanced. The Project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15302. C. No substantial evidence exists demonstrating that any exception to the applicable categorical CEQA exemptions listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 applies. i. There are no circumstances triggering the unusual circumstances exception set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, subd. (b), and there is no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant impact on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. Newport Harbor includes a mix of public slips and moorings, residential docks and commercial marinas. Newport Marina is being rebuilt in a manner consistent with the current configuration. The Project is in conformity with the City's Harbor Design Guidelines and the Local Coastal Plan. ii. The exception under section 15300.2, subds. (d) and (e) are inapplicable because the Project is not on a "highway officially designated as a state scenic highway" or on a hazardous materials - related site "which is included on any list complied pursuant to section 65962.5 of the Government Code" because there is no "successive projects of the same type in the same place" occurring as this Project. 16-136 Attachment H Resolution No. 2019 - Page 4 of 6 iii. The exception in Section 15300.2, subd. (f) is also inapplicable since the Project does not affect any historical resources. D. Based on the whole of the administrative record the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15301 and 15302 and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that any exception to the categorical exemptions listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 applies. Section 2: The City Council does hereby uphold the Harbor Commission's approval of Project No. 1502-2018 subject to the special conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated by reference. The City Council's decision is made in accordance with NBMC Section 17.50.040 and is supported by the following findings and facts: A. Section 17.50.040(A) and (13)(1). The AIC conforms to the design criteria and all applicable standards and policies in conjunction with plan reviews by the City. Facts in Support of Finding. The Project conforms to the City's Harbor Design Guidelines without any requests for variances. In commercial marinas, no setbacks are required for piers, gangways, floats and vessels. B. Section 17.50.040(B)(2). The AIC is not likely to create navigational congestion, or otherwise interfere with the rights of other harbor permittees within Newport Harbor, or other oceanfront property owners. Facts in Support of Finding. The Project will not increase navigational congestion in the adjacent channel. The AIC is conditioned so that cleats are not permitted on the southern side of the southern finger adjacent to 2782 Bayshore Drive. Additionally, private view corridors are not considered when evaluating harbor related projects. C. Section 17.50.040(B)(3). The AIC conforms to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. Facts in Support of Finding. The Dock System is designed and sited so as not to obstruct public access and to minimize impacts to public coastal views and coastal resources. There is currently no public access or a public coastal view within or adjacent to the Property, therefore no public access or views will be impacted. The Project is in the same location and is 16-137 Attachment H Resolution No. 2019 - Page 5 of 6 substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the marina it replaces. ii. The Dock System is designed and sited to harmonize with the natural appearance of the surrounding area. The Project is a replacement of the existing marina, but in a different configuration. The Project will not be out of character with the surrounding area, and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the marina it replaces. iii. The Dock System is designed and sited and makes use of materials that will minimize and, where feasible, avoid impacts to eelgrass and marine habitat. The Project is sited to minimally impact eelgrass where it was surveyed in 2018. V. The Dock System will increase the overall water coverage by 4.1 % in part, to comply with the current dock design standards. V. The Dock System is designed and sited to the water's depth and accessibility. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 12th day of February, 2019. Diane B. Dixon Mayor 16-138 Attachment H Resolution No. 2019 - Page 6 of 6 ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Iz/--, arC. Harp City torney Attachments: Special Conditions for the Project 16-139 Attachment H HARBOR RESOURCES 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Special Conditions February 5, 2019 2888 Bayshore Dr. With reference to the plans currently under consideration at the above referenced address to, Remove and replace existinq floating dock system; Will now be in effect: 1. The project proponent is aware of the Harbor Permit Policies (Council Policy H-1) and Title 17 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project proponent understands that the above referenced project and structure(s) are subject to all applicable federal, state, county and City of Newport Beach statutes, rules, ordinances, laws, and regulations, including but not IimitQd to these Policies and Codes. 2. Any future work on the above mentioned structure(s) beyond that which is expressly permitted herein may require permits from the City of Newport Beach and any other applicable agencies. Painting and work considered to be cosmetic in nature does not require a permit. This approval does not extend to any changes to the operational characteristics, structures, and project beyond those expressly included as part of this approval. 3. The conditions set forth in this document pertain to the proposed -Removal and replace of existing dock system- under consideration. Any future modifications or alterations may require additional and/or updated conditions which may override or change these conditions. These conditions supersede all past conditions associated with this property. 4. Only marine oriented uses are allowed on the pier, pier platform, gangway and float. Patio furniture, plants, etc. are not permitted. 5. In accordance with subsections A and B.3 of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 10.08.030, as amended from time to time or any successor statutes thereto, the project 6. The project shall be implemented in conformance with the current version of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Proqram - Coastal Land Use Plan. Page 1 of 2 16-140 Attachment H 7. The project proponent acknowledges that the noise regulations in Newport Beach Municipal Code section 10.28.040, as amended from time to time or any successor statute thereto, apply. Such section 10.28.040 reads, in pertinent part: "A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal 8. Your side property lines extend in the water along their same bearing. Vessels shall not encroach upon the neighbor's property on either side. 9. No Side -ties permitted on the southern most finger immediately adjacent to the southern property line. Cleats shall not be installed on this side of the finger. 10. Per the Harbor Commission's January 9, 2019 motion to approve, the applicant shall provide added security measures including fob entry into the marina, security cameras and a fence along the southern finger adjacent to 2782 Bayshore Drive. 11. All required insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the pendency of this approval in concept. 12. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County of Orange, its Board of Supervisors, the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of this Approval in Concept, the applicant's exercise of this Approval in Concept, the activities of the applicant carried on under authority of this Approval in Concept, and/or any related California Environmental Quality Act determinations. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the County or the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, County or City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the County or City for all of County or City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which County or City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the County and/or City upon demand any amount owed to the County or City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Chris Miller, Public Works Date Applicant Signature Print Name Date Joint Pier Applicant Signature (if applicable) Print Name Date Page 2 of 2 16-141 ATTACHMENT I From: Miller, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:50 AM To: Miller, Chris Subject: FW: Approval in Concept/Harbor Permit #1502-2018 - Feb 12th meeting From: Jack Langson [mailto:JLangson@ibg-usa.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:47 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: glenn.waIcott@gmaiI.com Subject: Approval in Concept/Harbor Permit #1502-2018 - Feb 12th meeting Dear City Council Members, I am writing to support the appeal of the Approval in Concept of Harbor Permit #1502-2018 scheduled for the February 12th meeting. The current conceptual plan to rebuild the marina placing the walkway close to the seawall adjoining single family homes is a substantial change from the current waterway buffer which adversely impacts those homes' security. Since the marina adjoins Pacific Coast Highway with easy access therefrom, it is easy to see where someone would notice the ease of access and create mischief or worse! Further, the change from the current boat slip arrangement to park large boats in front of the single family homes is highly impactful. Does the marina owner also own the apartment building and not want to negatively impact his tenants? My own home faces the Bayshores Marina and am concerned about the precedent this might create. To close, it seems that the appellants have proposed an alternate slip plan that keeps the impact to the single family homes security and views within reason while allowing the marina owner to rebuild their property to achieve a good return on their investment. I request that the City Council direct the owner to revise his plan. Since I will be traveling on the date of your meeting, I request that this email be considered as part of the community input. Respectfully, Jack M.Langson 2616 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 16-142 ATTACHMENT I From: Miller, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:52 AM To: Miller, Chris Subject: FW: Newport Marina proposal -----Original Message ----- From: Laura Russell fmailto:laurabean411C@me.coml Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:32 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: glenn.waIcott@gmaiI.com Subject: Newport Marina proposal To all Newport Beach City Council Members: I am a resident of the Bayshores Community and I strongly oppose the proposed Newport Marina plan by Allyson and Ron Presta. The plan is invasive to my fellow residents, and dangerous to the safely of our community. Laura Russell 2871 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach 949-584-4784 16-143 ATTACHMENT I From: Miller, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:52 AM To: Miller, Chris Subject: FW: Appeal against Newport Marina at Bayshore Apartment redesign From: Daniel Good [mailto:good.dan@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:19 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com> Subject: Appeal against Newport Marina at Bayshore Apartment redesign We are residents of the Bayshores community and have been made aware of the recent approval for a redesign of the Newport Marina at the Bayshore (formerly Anchorage) Apartments, as well as the recent appeal by Bayshores homeowners who would be directly impacted by the redesign. This design is poorly planned, introduces security risks to our neighborhood and negatively impacts the quality of life and property values of the homeowners directly impacted. There are many better options available that do not put a hardship on either the marina operator or the neighbors. In fact, other smart and efficient marina designs have been presented that are beneficial for all parties. We support the appeal against the marina design proposed at the Newport Marina. The current plan would place large yachts directly in front of the Bayshores homeowners, while preserving the views from the Bayshore Apartments. Any approved plan should place the large yachts in front of the commercial entity that owns the marina or in front of a parking lot like other Newport Beach marinas. Approval of a new marina design that severely infringes upon the security of our neighborhood, homeowners rights of privacy and enjoyment of their home is incomprehensible and should be rejected in favor of other options. Thank you for your consideration, Dan and Sarah Good 16-144 ATTACHMENT I From: Susan Gaunt <smgauntl@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2019 1:34 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Brown, Leilani; Jacobs, Carol Subject: Appeal of Marina Project Dear Mayor Dixon and Members of the City Council, I am a Newport Beach resident and am quite concerned about numerous issues in our city. My latest concern is about the proposed Newport Beach Marina. Why on earth would you put 80 foot vessels in front of other peoples' homes??? I totally support the Bayshores neighbors who are appealing the Newport Marina Project. I support a different marina plan which would place the largest boats away from the homes and that is not so close to seawalls and adjacent residential docks. Put these yacht slips in front of the yacht owners' own homes!! Respectfully, Susan Gaunt 414 Villa Point Drive Newport Beach, CA. 92660 16-145 Newport Marina Appeal — February 2019 Briefing Book 16-146 Newport Marina Project Chronology Moriarty Dock Replacement 2014 February 26, 2014 CDP application submitted for Kevin's dock replacement — New dock is same configuration but increased in length and width of slip fingers and moved 2.3 feet closer to the Newport Marina property line. September 4, 2014 Presta opposition letter to Coastal Commission asking Coastal to deny CDP 5-14- 0522, dismantle Kevin's dock and allow Newport Marina to extend across Kevin's property line. November 14, 2014 CDP 5-15-0522 for dock replacement approved. Newport Marina Expansion 2016 September 10, 2015 Newport Marina AIC 130-2888 issued with a zero setback. March 29, 2016 CAA became aware of pending CDP approval. Contacts City re setback. April 6, 2016 Newport Marina AIC 130-2888 Amended to incorporate 10 -foot setback from Moriarty property line. April 14, 2016 Coastal Commission approved CDP 5-15-1521 for Newport Marina Expansion. April 15, 2016 CAA appealed the (amended) Newport Marina AIC 130-2888. July 13, 2016 Harbor Commission —After discussion, item was continued by Commissioners. August 10, 2016 Harbor Commission — Item continued in an effort for parties to propose a compromise. October 12, 2016 Harbor Commission — Marina plan approved with modifications (46 slips, 26' setback from southerly property line, 24' setback from bulkhead). Newport Marina Expansion 2018/2019 2016-2017 CAA emails and calls to Chris Miller asking for status during 2016 and 2017. Chris Miller responded that he was not aware of any plans. September 27, 2018 New AIC approved for Newport Marina Expansion AIC No. 1502-2018. November 15, 2018 Neighboring residents and CAA became aware of AIC 1502-2018. November 28, 2108 CAA filed an appeal of AIC 1502-2018 with the City on behalf of the neighbors. City accepted the appeal as within the 14 -day appeal period since there is no notification process and the neighbors found out about the AIC on November 15, 2018. January 9, 2019 Harbor Commission — Upheld AIC 1502-2018 with the condition that the project be subject to CEQA review. January 22, 2019 Appeal of Harbor Commission's decision filed. February 12, 2019 Date set for appeal to be heard by City Council. 16-147 16-148 Harbor Commission Meeting Appeal of Approval in Concept for Newport Marina January 9, Zosg 3 dot .. . . . . . . . . - Al. Rik 01iz Armroval in C -c Existing Proposed Dock 2888 Bayshore Dr. COASTAL. COMMISSION EXHIBIT # 0 PAGE O R 2C'! Alw) south Coast � ;On JAN 19 2GI6 COASTAI�C0 55JDN 16-152 iTii:�G�• • ff 0 ■ Proposed 642 goker5t SM 2888 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach. CA A vw� Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 es --- - Phone: (949) 631-3121 um- c .�.a .o..�.� a• ^ Fax: (714) 509-0618 Existing vs Proposed FC P5 C 4/4116 0 uu 16-153 ONt7 iM 9 HN Owe1 golam IWOto 9+P6K31ik aA bw3mr.+f[ Ei": � kFnlnb!¢mp.p i1Wb0�k[fOrS[� ��FPRp� Ober 18.2616 DaiMUD YM FIRST CLASS REGULAR MAIL CAA Pram" Attn! Shama Sdtalhter 65 Enterpise, STE 130 Aliso Vke D. CA 9265&4105 RE- 2688 Bay Shag Once - Notice of Harbor Qowmi softs Damoon on Apceai of Approvs m Concept Mr_ Hewitt Pursuant to Newport Beano 6hnicpal Code Setuark 17.85 OW -F, this is a r,%ce of the Harbor Commisaion'S dedsm on October 12, 2616 to amend the Approval in Con -W for the proposed ccmmer»1 rnarirra mwr� at 2888 Bay Shoe DMe, The Ha?aor C rwras%w amended the Appro+ral in Concept with mspect t3 the w stem portion of tike camnrerczal float oMy_ as follows: The soutliern side of the boating dock WiM be at least 26 Feet from :he property line Ocated at 2782 Bay Shone Dfpmo acrora c"w VeSs ingress and eVess to fie hack of the manna Tbwa shag bs no %ds ties permitted ars the soueKrn side of the Coat mrte"hW adjacerrt ro the property Ane boated at 2782 Bay Shote Arne. Tbre shaA be no cleats on the wut mn side of the float, 'vnmadiatety aTgKwA to- the property Gne iomtal at 2752 Bay Shors gine. 7frefa shall be no cleats on the western sde of the float facing the t>Lil3*W immedafely saut#h of the last Engen flaaE. Pursuant to NEMC 17.65. detisiws of the Harbor Commission may be appealed to the City Cowtdl within fourteen days of the Harbor Comrrlission's derision. Regards, Ghft "filer Harbor Manager [)U)r-C 16-154 STUr."Tererfre l NEWPORT MARrNA REPLACEMENT 167-1aM a:--- e�y� msa�e '+err. BexX:. G EXt$71'Y3 DOOC PI.LY }fl]F]fSTHfi. Y51fY'OM REYMNS 16-155 z 0 O z 0- ro moll"011imm 0 ZL Bellingham NEWPORT MAWNA REPLACEMENT 4-mp. B -dl CA ua REVRONS 16-156 t IV r t IV 16-158 �'TiTi0 3} See the attached Harbor Standard Drawings for plans. sections and details of typical conditions for vessel moorings and docks. gangways. platforms, seawalls. and beach profiles. IIlesc Standards are to be considered minimum requirements for the cases represented and. at the City of Newport Beach discretion. may not appl- to the specific project submitted. The Citi of Newport Beach resell- es the right to mandate deviation from the Standards. if particular project conditions require special consideration. 16-159 Appeal Considerations • Inconsistent with provisions the Local Coastal Program, Local Implementation Plan • Design incompatible with land -side development • Safety Risk • Land use compatibility related to intensification of use • Newport Marina approval is precedent -setting action 12 Inconsistent with Local Coastal Program, Implementation Plan 22- -30C-05o Harbor Development Regulations A. Protection of Coastal Access and Resources. All harbor structures, including remodels of, additions to, or replacement of existing structures, and new structures, shall be designed and sited so as not to obstruct public access and to minimize impacts to coastal views and coastal resources. 13 Inconsistent with Local Coastal Program, Implementation Plan 21.30C.07o Dredging Permits C. Limits on Development. Development involving the diking, filling, or dred'g of open coastal waters, wetlands, or estuaries shall only be permitted under the following circumstances: 1. Only if there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative. 14 Design Incompatible with Landside Residential • Safety • Provides unrestricted access to private residences • From headwalk onto private property • From last slip 6 inches from property line onto boat, dock and residence 1!; Design Incompatible with Landside Residential "4 ...� Nt F1.1 .- s- - 'ZIM Unrestricted Access' -..-- 7 17 Design Incompatible with Landside Residential • Land Use Compatibility 0 Noise • Privacy • Views • Odor Design Incompatible with Landside Residential • Land Use Compatibility Defined • A recognized factor and principle of good land use planning, whereby land uses which are known or expected to cause environmental problems for one another, when in proximity, are deemed incompatible and are protected from one another by separation and/or other means. (source: https://www.ontario.ca/page/d-s-3-land-use-com atibiIity-definitions) W, Design Incompatible with Landside Residential • Adverse Effect: Includes loss of enjoyment of normal use of property • Buffer: A method of control used to prevent or minimize the adverse effects of incompatible land uses and may be in the form of intervening space sufficient to provide the necessary distance separation Newport Harbor Marina Review • Review of zo marinas in Newport Harbor • 6 -inch setback from shared residential property line • 5 -foot setback from bulkhead • 8o -foot boats in front of private residences • No marinas similar to proposed Newport Marina 21 Newport Harbor Marina Review American Legion z5 -rel' Ardell 30-70'+ Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club 35-41-'+ Balboa Bay Club 20-90'+ Balboa Marina 20-58' Balboa Yacht Basin 30-75' Balboaacht Club 3o-88' Bayshore Marina :L5-83' Bayside Marina 1-5-4' Bayside Village Marina 12-46' Harbor Marina 20-6o' Lido Marina Village 3o -6o' Lida Park Place Marina 30-50'+ Lido Yacht Anchorage 6 -i -lo' Newport Marina (Yacht Club) 3a► Newport Dunes Resort 20-46' Newport Harboracht Club z0-40`+ Port Calypso 25-40' Newport Marina z4-45' Villa Cave Marina 22-45' 22 Newport Harbor Marina Review American Legion 25-41' Harbor Farina 20-6o' • Ardell3o-70'+ Lido Marina Village 3o -6o' Bahia CorinthianYacht Club Lido Park Place Marina 30-50'+ 35-41-'+ Lido Yacht Anchorage 6-i1o` � Newport• Balboa Ba Club 20-90'+ MarinaYa cht Club) 30f Balboa Marina 20-58' Newport Dunes Resort 2-o- 6' . p 4 • Balboa Yacht Basin 30-75 Newport HarborYacht Club • Balboa Yacht Club 3o-88' 20-40'+ • Bayshore Marina 15-83' Port Calypso 25-0' • Bayside Marina 15-74' Newport Marina 24-45' • Bayside Village Marina 12-46' Villa Cove Marina 22-45' 23 Newport Harbor Marina Review Adjacent to Residential? • Ardell 30-70'+ • Balboa Bay Club20-9O'+ • BalboaYacht Basin 30-75' • Balboa Yacht Club 30-88' • Bayshore Marina 15-83` • Bayside Marina 15-74' • Lido Yacht Anchorage 6-ilo' 24 Balboa Bay Club 5GG i A N Balboa Bay Club + �3 fJ 491 .. - .Sir d, z Z77 ^� 40.' k Largest slips located _. away from residential i apartments - r 3+J Ba I boa Yacht Club Goo gle Earth ❑a+9 JE'aLaS 110 I;p BalboaYacht Club Largest boats positioned away from residential Fr.] Bayshore Marina Legend.ti � � - - h._ _.{__..� f � { rte,.'• +� = 3 •ti !. Ie j' So -:.Ak A N mm. 29 oil, Bayshore Marina Largest away As positioned residences Setbackfrom bulkhead Setback from adjacent residential dock 6' Me Bayshore Marina r . s 31 Bayshore Marina f y A * { low �Air •1• r t �74:1�b _ Bayside Marina 33 Bayside Marina Setback Substantial bulkhead differential between residences slips 34 Bayside Marina 35 Lido Yacht Anchorage Ou C LidoYachtAnchorage NI 5o Largest slips positioned in front of parking lot and away A� from residential N'� 11% 37 Newport HarborYacht Club a'� L� Newport Harbor Marinas a'� Newport HarborYacht dp awl. vim • Adjacent to residential docr, • Setback greater than 1.5 from property line T2, J-6 I" Club IV, I 0� 39 Newport Harbor Marina Review • 6 inch setback from shared residential property line: • Newport HarborYacht Club closest comparison— approximately 15' • Bayshore Marina 31' from end tie • 5' setback from bulkhead: • Bayshore Marina 42', Bayside 31' • 8o' boats in front of private residences: • Bayshore and Lido Yacht Anchorage in front of parking lot • Balboa Yacht Club largest slips more than 15o' away • Bayside ,1' from residences and substantial grade differential 4a 0 LEE MEN re are several iations of slip mixes xW �:� a : .� Use existing access poipt " t could work here uding the existing3 22 ft - \ 12 - 22 ft angled slips - - 62 ft i �1 14 - 30 ft perpandicular slips SipS S - 42 ft slips 2 �42 ft slips ft side ties Shift Gang;i,a- 12 - 22 ft angled slips ,5--::. G - 42 ft slips 7 - b2 i=t slips f - 37 ft 17 - 42 ft angled slipsT` -2 - 20ft 2-62 G2 ft slips end ties Achieves same slip mix as proposed Plan Belkxjbam�`�' " '�` NEWPORT MAMNA REPLACEMEtUf mars M >b. rt1'6CM9 CB®K �AS'fNG �00S i•..1lI JLl[1 QEl►f Y5iEN'94ERAT �lP� W•J E 0 byy��_a -�_ �__� ' -tel .- _ �I ' _ _ • _ _ _. _.- _l - . 62 ft slips 11 - 22 ft angled slips W - 14 - 30 ft perpandicular slips 7 - 48 ft slips 62'slips N1ix of nmyleddins from X015 J*H— 2 - 48 ft slips 1 - 50 ft end tie s 1 - 40 ft4 A Lvu bu b . 10 - 48 ft slips ! - 48, ft slips 1 - 38 ft slips 61ft slips 1 - 24 ft slip Mix of angled slips at existing marina JEWUrmaham .. 2 - 48 ft slips NEYdKW MARk1A REPLACEMENT %FEM 6Ndk u ensn.G oam vw: wv Fzsn v%-EFawt end tie 16-190 z 0 L) 0 0 ff 0 L H C } Q Z_ LU Elf CL 79R] rem Poo T FIT ff ffim� M � 1*0 I has plan would lose 1 - 42 ft boat for a total of 15 - 42 ft boats �raV4.0 4 x 24' from bulkhead, 2b' from property line e_:�asJw'•-a - q�R.ilj),rr.erwr.wwr gwnr4wrasmrtrtxi q�yj�P0.Nv�-. 4T.N��4S.N.[" 10 - 22 ftfsidSties 7 - 22 ft side ties Y' 9 - 62 tt Sli s ' = = - " 2 - 20ft " 1-42ftslips P end ti f Rse.go.xwwRRrR�ww �aRAP�R�ilR fs��GR4F�i#4�la�K Rm�ypdairsgRRnRwq� Rw.rawar.ro..a 4 - 42 ft slips -- -� - 6 - 37 ft slips wewrtaw�se cavo�wt w. .wt -a .c..s� ••S1lk•r ROF 54F � •N]lffK P.le li FfA: rc�R.�aa .�.. - .n�wrivorvanRc sFw.� ne.�xwawru - x arrow rx�un s ' I• • Ruo.RR +� wemrascrunwu+on c.0 BOiFKjtmn NEVVPpRT IuMA UPJA REPLACEMENT REl'UC�4a ... PRC wr pYEW41 LAYCWS - -- __- a4�4. Requested Action — Approve Design with Modifications • Reorient marina with largest slips away from residences • Maintain current z4' setback from bulkhead to minimize land use conflicts and prevent access to private property • Maintain current 26' setback from southerly property line 44 16-193 NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT Newport Beach, CA V C;)Nrff UAP E�?ar4;i PWAT. Praeislon EngMreorai Fl bbm %%mems W rMFrOwarb'Iw.M 4wY•ars•.w�bw �r•'rr�riYl1 �yrrr� ice! w.r•f r•rmos�.a.��a..A•it4 RM'iaa•a�lw•0.wuP��••ri PROJECT AESMPTION Rr6.tr0006t3ff lFE I®1/®BlrCt TIE Ei.reGfLMTr6 C[i]E IDIBI'Y9111�aOfY 31S1B1 CRlL1O{Y®@Ir awYLEMFaLOr? t. rHE Fie:la.oma.msrrrai Owui.Eaii�rr,�.at.rreatua.nk,rm+aF Raba. aOts��xrr+uwn�OerLFxitar. oatorntat ro mcmrrmnn.mrxrmaLa amraoar.w.ra =�� � o�Poens+asa raervnn®.+ro„wialsr+a i nerrur[w wawx rwyrSnJrq wcrs*.aunw [F Mar[9o4 sR1ma rtes wm ew.i ra11Lf iu trnvras3na. aec�ecx atmerRFl: errtat,koowt®nc wnsine� K+e oaKs+sra1+a� E rso-r n.�,.n.ramoe<a Qaeir>4rtot s.0 r ar*tuuoows�xnxz INFORMATION xaratwatOar� rerPmrrvo4oi � .•..o rivtmns sp rre as r.ran ...x.sratroaa2 �a.arEre�a. � IMOF1MrGV1E 9Df Cit®1 16 T.AL6 caorim.:rrn.or -�,tarr.ra some eeuc.�r rrt.Otarn.a.c rutq Wr R—ir a.ne A aa�r.o eauowl � r� 16 ]ChitrR� 4C i¢151.te9 PROJECT INFORMATION awvwt• �ic:uE :rsv4n rvexzOs wm�ru.raa.tw �nr,am uz ourt�t rtg�+en.ese w+ msxnu u� xee �E �w-.ra � rrrr 'N� ScaE,�110 AaRREVIATIONS a trr A aurX&II�rCapedEAy.ra ►r.t� AR IN&M tar. c.. P Paw Cm clear CW C" 0r 0019– cx—ft CQLT. c1ltO bl. a.a ti. 7'.d �de DF. mm Rr Qm ELL DOW read Mr. D•w Oa Rl gases 6PY.a EL 6� E.=T,ESO 6l Ea.n F$ Rf%. FI MH w FT. Faol sw rmvr. t- Qk Csy. OILV. Cdiritratl GlA Lyr.i,w.*-ftd d - HA I..OiG, uxtq CiMr.c.d HOPE "Qrn.r P*.rV— m WPM P IRI I.rt PL Lr!(wl lBS aFpr�..rrl pa..(i) LAYranrrea umlA�ik>d rA U -M LL U. Loaf Lw raAWV WL W Yrn [�v Lor Wfnr W I WTY. BOL A" Y.tiff r YY wmm• aw Ylen rn OLM 0" h C~ r0. or i P�aa.MrF Mnthr m Her � C Of- sd. x o.0 oa+r� COW- Cspr� Drawing Set x Psora x PYtu nt Pub PCF Para Wr CY W Foos plola Pr d CdrrAm M R."par 3q—ft" P.T A— f—W Fm F.V"CH..* R roti PIT Anr 71hr.r ems. nr.ir�.a �.:iaR.ta.ae mm mftw l m Sm— 9m Soar+YI.Yw Sf. Sq. Fd IML $.. SrST. $Ileei $S ToW T.O. Atptl Cm nu TA.$ T.F d rit9. TAL Air a" Tm- Tv*a nw. TNA IlMQ UNr ce—" Inti Umm" UL ITIA Yelp Vfik" vmr. V.f.0 ww. mkwvft.FWre w.wAL wrwd wa M..% YL 11W.75� :JiWX Ettl—U.%W%Wr 1GLYL Eti... Lww.« HNSM PIESWRCES DMSION C7. OF NEWPORT BEACH NN .a . J q Alla Bialfingha �r NEWPORT MARkNA REPLACEMENT -- max aM.p ".�Yerr..r, S&T-12a a.4.11R: . nx �w;aa e ■ aaa t.im,se aA:t®I rim m rleryart saBat. CA ane ar+. ree�..ntrRot x10. 0"m R iNG Cf's MOST � � Pt�T ahtlab'�t e � � rw 010rIYeQ ry WNPRWENSIVE R£Vr�alOf 'L¢ PLP W?A SUM -DER nw i� i Por LRr l fflE SHEET T 10. 1 16-194 Z D Q VJ z (D 0 cr G LL Z x d _Z LU Of n Jj P— i EAC fl7�7M0 00[ltJf cwj Bellingham .a awn�wnw.. wu WOUS OST +�p� 112 RLH t4-•4PREriE NS!VE �e.einieaW'c'n 3kALtINA &UIEDER 0 +—• � �x•�n 1 �� Asa E000� Mao �elasR�or= C3 ME= I=aA ■c�t� Eoa©r�rnr �raooME=on �a =-EMERKEM Jj P— i EAC fl7�7M0 00[ltJf cwj 16-195 Bellingham .a awn�wnw.. wu WOUS OST +�p� 112 RLH t4-•4PREriE NS!VE �e.einieaW'c'n 3kALtINA &UIEDER Rb)JB= OM NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEINENT enw®L��aaec %..W Bead+, CA A�TWIYIaec o -®mer PLAN AND EXISTM VS NEW CVMAY E76S:1NG PQ47G +—• � �x•�n 1 nae Hse IIR CM1F n�ITM �' � 4E� RE4ISIOMS � 16-195 7 O C) D z O Q) of O LL H O z } ry Q z_ W (L TIHe7i �A�rEd will M��Y NT'N �W]0 NR PV3-RC1 PV.vf DE']d�G T'7 j . - - V r e aFAre Pw�an waw€ rn. r„ CAAM 5CAxc f R ` - # F 0 w 40 w tarEN 1� 2 I I Pr .j P M1 Ih9[ IEKu ZQR _T1�ViRl1©WJULWATYTI'N YIOCV pIfTT': 9WLBP��T. IYEi</�GE �p� -P1rf1 DESA" TO BEV73bFMAFTER BJELrR aL luorc%T - q{YN[RI46 SfFM IP PKRE eOr1144 IOA 1Lk4n(.i Pl1JR9CdW3 {i'fpj FPS »lpli •BOA xRT6il •. I"' - ' �IlID ]�iM>C 9IiYEY J s. ewe rzT>• xaEs e£r�r cr ? _ r Ff 1 } .,PART}.♦cl4I Jn.LLf1C:A un { w I —_ Aii �• f ylKlLbrJLSTCUII�EFilOH2 Rn4T8 - IPJ J S{i7TJ ego Lr� ^r�snc; aar�cocav�a Yultlwurfs 17Fj! [*'�. "u Prpo,si t/4{i1p W�'{71T NIOEFu! 11ERTIl16 N SOUM YSDE OF /1101'�dI SdJIIALY�E OF T16 Pt11e618GA]! e W rnrE rllsrxi� 0�1 T16>30E aFIiEFV== rer namArmwm6w CLEARLkNX %Wba ! r TDP OF PUi TDPOF5lEAkVAr -,—.. ---VrC0 eeTEanr +ts �w {DP! 'ERt of P ATA --W H1w y"..-. OF PERI �"", ITOa4PEUFnRO5EAWAU.) n -n -2-1i- n=u�-Ir-u=x r n--e-ril=u=o= P �I �I_I � II �� 3 If-11�-IF-n�I ■r Q-II=D=3 �I�ii a71R-Il �i�- L+ =n=n=o-n= il�=lr=nom-n= - =11=II�=1rll- -w IILW 'FG®Px9tf>ECn01lBEYATld1 •.� �imsnsesaw��Paex-+e `� "�'" `®` �goif0e Bellingham�, �� NEWPORT MARINA REPLACEMENT le _ q WCOQ1V4nt lP�16r® urec�.w+wem+r�r nrmea.+[.rt.r.oe NeApor Beall, U P4>C ar ie tatu�tl�ir®laerc �Ii;M wor f4 W1E YF7L7FIIQ1 � Tfr£ WORLDS HOST N14J&f H1ww! CO"PREHENSIVE OVERALL LAYOUT 6 ftWNA BUILDERTIIOL- 16-196 HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-3044 HARBOR PERMIT/APPROVAL IN CONCEPT HARBOR PERMITIAPPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH as required for permit application to the South Coast Area Office of the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seg.) and applicable implementing rlfinnc 11A C'P'P R 11MI M eon 1 General Description of Proposed Development: Removal of old docks stem and replacement with a new docks stem. Address number must be stenciled on at least 1 ba and facing pile. Pier conditions must be signed by applicant prior to final approval, IProoerty Address: 2888 Bayshore Dr. Legal Description: Harbor Permit Number: Plan Check Number: 1542-2018 Applicant: Newport Marina 1Anolicant's Mailing Address: 27201 Puerta Real, Ste. 350, Mission Viego, CA 92691- Anchor QEA Phone Number: 949-334-9635 - Anchor QEA _ I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: 1. The general site pian, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in the application. Page 1 of 4 16-197 And find )4 They comply with the current adopted Newport Beach General Plan, Municipal Code Title 17, and any applicable specific or precise plans or, ❑ That a variance or exception has been approved and final. A copy of any variance, exception, conditional use permit or other issued permit is attached hereto, together with all conditions of approval and all approved pians including approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept and said approval has been written upon said plans, signed and dated. Should Newport Beach. adopt an ordinance. deleting, amending..acaddingAG_the Municipal Code or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design of a project located thereon, this Approval In Concept shall become null and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and local guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: Has been determined not to be a "project" or not to cause the requisite impact on environment to trigger CEQA. A Has been determined to be subject to ministerial decision of City or to be statutorily or categorically exempt. ❑ Is subject to an adopted Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (copy attached). ❑ Is subject to a certified Environmental Impact Report (copy attached). All discretionary approvals legally required of the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a harbor permit and a building permit have been given and are final. The development is not subject to rejection in principal by Newport Beach unless a substantial change is proposed. This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable federal and state laws and any policies, ordinances, codes and regulations of the City of Newport Beach. See attached Special Conditions, which are incorporated herein this Approval in Concept. Lisa Walters, Harbor Resources September 27, 2018 Attachments: Worksheet for Building Permit Application Drawing Pier Conditions Page 2 of 4 16-198 HARBOR RESOURCES 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92880 Special Conditions September 27, 2018 2888 Bayshore Dr. With reference to the plans currently under consideration at the above referenced address to, Remove and replace existing floating dock system; Will now be in effect, 1. The project proponent is aware of the Harbor Permit Policies (Council Policy H-1) and Title 17 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project proponent understands that the above referenced project and structure(s) are subject to all applicable federal, state, county and City of Newport Beach statutes, rules, ordinances, laws, and regulations, including but not lirnitarl to thr?gp Pnlic:in-; anti C:ndps, 2. Any future work on the above mentioned structure(s) beyond that which is expressly permitted herein may require permits from the City of Newport Beach and any other applicable agencies. Painting and work considered to be cosmetic in nature does not require a permit. This approval does not extend to any changes to the operational characteristics, structures, and project beyond those expressly included as part of this approval. 3. The conditions set forth in this document pertain to the proposed -Removal and replace of existing dock system- under consideration. Any future modifications or alterations may require additional and/or updated conditions which may override or change these conditions. These conditions supersede all past conditions associated with this property. 4. Only marine oriented uses are allowed on the pier, pier platform, gangway and float. Patio furniture, plants, etc. are not permitted. 5. In accordance with subsections A and B.3 of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 10,08,030, as amended from time to time or any successor statutes thereto, the project 6. The project shall be implemented in conformance with the current version of the City of Newport Beach local Coastal Proqram - Coastal land Use Plan. Page 1 of 2 16-199 7. The project proponent acknowledges that the noise regulations in Newport Beach Municipal Code section 10.28.040, as amended from time to time or any successor statute thereto, apply. Such section 10.28.040 reads, in pertinent part: "A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal 8, Your side property lines extend in the water along their same bearing. Vessels shall not encroach upon the neighbor's property on either side. 9. No Side -ties permitted on the southern most finger immediately adjacent to the southern property line. Cleats shall not be installed on this side of the finger. 12. All required insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the pendency of this approval in concept. 13. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County of Orange, its Board of Supervisors, the City, its City Council, its boards and Lisa Walters, Harbor Resources Date Joint Pier Applicant Signature (if applicable) Print Name Date Page 2 of 2 16-200 16-201 z 0 U z 0 0 LL Z Q z w ry IL PROPOSED SLP MIX CHART "..•'m Td LF Aae x GRAn11C-4CA -E 20 FT 7 W 00% 22 KT ,r xr. >..W% 30' 0 til' 40' SO' TDP 4BIY u FT Ie en 9xmx 0 FT a 659 ,e.pp% Lr muLs 60 7680 ,mqa% rveBxae uRam. s7.aa TIMBER FRAMED WALKWAY WITH WOOD (OR PLASTIC) PLANK DECKING 9Y -P.) i, • Y, `I_. •� _ TIMBER FRAMED WALKWAY WITH WOOD -• -. DUFFYI SMALL BOAT. AVERAGE ��` ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP (PRELIMINAI GN TO BE VERIFIED AFTEI DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION KAYAK RACKS, STAND UP PADDLE BOARDS [OR PLASTIC) PLANK DECKING [TYP.] R FREEBOARD [HEIGHT ABOVE WATER) p� ,. ----- `y-- '2444-83W APARTMENT UILI)ING-A 8. BEAM WIDTH VARIES BETWEEN S' -Y AND93•. - 10 - `22 ft si ties - 7 - 22 ftlside:'�.-t i° ATs-.rt g ' – FIXED PIER I .tea 5' x 80'(4'CLEARIALUM! M ADA GANGWAY ..- - -� -- : -- -- - - -�7-77-:-17 ....:....:: e 4 'l TYP. - c• - - - x Al 1_ 4 � x - 9 2 t Alis f •I 7 �:) •1 1 4 f•I I !7s . €.. ; :a : f# C;-� R � �TYP•. T - _ a. F:•� _ --- • e ti ft 9' CLEAR,- BETWEEN � j SINGLE -CAST CONCRETE FINGER FLOATS 4 - 42 s1 p -L4-- '�., P�P UNEAND DOCK 5'-0 374 1t a2RshPe MAWNALIMITS 4--- — 4' 2' (YP.) WITH WOOD (OR PLASTIC) PLANK DECKING (TYP. ALL FINGERS) 78'-0` [TYP.} 3 7 ft 1 18'-p• (IYP-) s s I0'-� DRAW • 1B'-0' j V-0 3w PROJECT LINE 9'f1314' � 708'-2 V4' BERTHING OF VESSELS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON SOUTHERLY SIDE OF CLEARANCE MARKER i TOP OF PIER DUFFYISAIALL BOAT ACCESS – THIS FINGER. CLEAT, INSTALLED ON THIS! BIGNAGE SHALL BE +1S' MLLW (TOP OF PIER] +14' MLLW (BTM. OF PIER) +1 D' MLLW [TOP OF EXISTING SEAWALL] +1.5' MLLW (DESIGN FREEBOARD) 0.0' MLLW !DATUM] -f0' MLLW Compromise Plan 1 CAA Planning DRAFT 16-202 PROPOSED SLP MIX CHART I TUre are E � I 2 I � I � I ul MI so l RYEIW va mations of sH - th t could work here including the existing one. 12 -`2 ft ani 0 f 14 - 34 ft perpandi"cular slips ,,;', '- [is Pi�E E,� LINE ' A 42 ft slips OOR,.EQ EIOCK$ y - bl rt slips 8 - 42 It slips E!6' a I ST 7 Plan 2 16-203 Z 0 0 LL 0 z z 2 LU ry :. It S11it S1I S slx�s 6 : ft �7 - 42 ft angled slip _ - 1 2 - 20ft �Ro3�cr�.ir�e �usnHv�rowt�a MuatwA uMrrs � — 62 ft slis PROPOSEO MARINAVW.) p end ties CAA Planning Achieves same slip mix as proposed Plan Compromise Plan 3 16-204 z 0 D z 0 U 0 LL 0 z Q z J W r 1' a i. 5-2y EXISTMSLP MGLCWIRT Pre DFFEREHCE Oi PROPOSED SLP MD(CHART IEMg1H Tdw ViO Lef M T" LF! % 1Pnow Tow 20 Fs t Q n FT ,o m WaM yP-7P• Fi e n F7 17 37K 72 CA a R 1 a. 1.ea% 7P.gp FT ro`�d' FT al •1J N " 6 M NU Fi $1 eaa 0.19% a Fl ,a an U FT 1 3e 1 N% aver FT e a F 9 eae FT 1 Ka 1.aP% g Pt ,o �m 16.aFx m+A1s 4 IOTALs 60 1866 soo-boxu FT ,e ee. aaoevL AVEw10E LENOTH� 37-32 ee F7 m><Ms 6] ,486 ,ao.aex AVlM4E LPRp1R . 97-7 1' a i. 5-2y APARTMENT BUILDING -A P- I 1 2 ft angled slips` 7 - 48 ft slips 3p, ft perpandicular slips' k Z�: 'anile' d slivs from 2016 v1ai-t@Km CAA KCSCALL 4-F 2 36' 0 2D' 40' 8a' TOQ' 180' CAA Planning Compromiser) Plan 4 a - -- -- ------ - -2 - 62 ft slips 7 - 621 slips 2 - 48 ft slips 1 - 50 ft end tie 16-205 Exlfdft Pre eled Oi l R.d1 Arc.low? ]l20 ft Teek'Pae Afa.f �.7 a 4$-1 h' PK. 1]' 1a' t La' 72 CA ONI 11 fel 13319 h1 S11 ft' APARTMENT BUILDING -A P- I 1 2 ft angled slips` 7 - 48 ft slips 3p, ft perpandicular slips' k Z�: 'anile' d slivs from 2016 v1ai-t@Km CAA KCSCALL 4-F 2 36' 0 2D' 40' 8a' TOQ' 180' CAA Planning Compromiser) Plan 4 a - -- -- ------ - -2 - 62 ft slips 7 - 621 slips 2 - 48 ft slips 1 - 50 ft end tie 16-205 Z C L U. E G U W...N LL L0 r 0 z I z W Of a. APARTMENT BLJILFJIFJG A �- 1 �.<e i 3 - 40 ft sli ,.F- - ���. sidi�e.-per ..w ...: .: y. .....-.i: '.-.:...- 1 1 - 3 0. ft.n s4MR'd is •- 48 ft slips - �i,ftINslips MARINA UM ITS - 7-48 ftslxps EXISTING MARINA PROPOSED MARINA rl?,) 1 - 24 ft slip Mix of angled slips at existing marina .f 2 - 62 t. slips 1 - 50A end tie 2 - 48 ft slips CAA Planning Compromise Flan 5 16-206 16-207 8V BOAT T- ' W SOAT� FLOATIM WALKWAY BULKHEAD PROPOSED MARINA BOW IN ED -BOAT — HOUSE _ F UFC{ r – YW BOAT } FLOATING WALKWAY BULKHEAD PROPOSED MARINA BOW OUT f BO BOAT HOUSE DECK 6D SOAT DUF FLOATING WALKWAY BULKHEAD EXISTING CAL REC MARINA MAIN CHANNEL HOUSE DECK 6U BOAT ' DUF FLOATIN6 WALKWAY aMXHEAD EXISTING NEWPORT MARINA 16-208 16-209 Parking: 66 Uncovered spaces (including 10 that are double parked spots) — (yellow) 40 Covered spaces (yellow) NOTE: with the new RDA ramp, they will lose 5 uncovered spots or more 3 4-d 4-d _ -02-d 11.21 ., r 3 11 io • 'ter . ` _� tf���i. L5 R. 1■ 2 .. 2 ■ F. i s.. 16-210 Newport Marina Parkins Analysis City Zoning Code Section 20.40.040 Off Street Parking Requirements (Local Coastal Program — Implementation Plan 21.40.040) Marina 0.75 per slip (or 0.75 per 25 feet of mooring space) Residential 2 covered per unit plus 0.5 guest per unit Marina Parking: 53 slips x 0.75 = 39.75 (40) parking spaces Apartment 38 units: 2 covered spaces per unit + 0.5 uncovered spaces per unit for guest parking (76 covered + 19 uncovered = 95 total) 40+95= 135 Available Parking= 106 Shortfall= 29 16-211 16-212 O R A N G E C 0 l.1 N T Y c'ccommunity Resources Ot+r Co�rr±�T�+�arty. CJ[�r Car±tri�rl±t�errt. 5/3/2016 Tom Matthews tn7tltl][:11'S�Gi�,Cilil ]lallll�l11�71 RE: Public Records Act Request #16-4387 Dear Mr. Matthews, This letter is in response to the above -referenced Public Records Act request, which OC Community Resources received on 411412416. In your request, you requested records pertaining to the lease between the Count of orange and Swales Marina.. OC Community Resources conducted a search for records responsive to your request. At this time, we are prepared to produce responsive records. The attached records are the only responsive records OC Community Resources possesses with regard to your request. Sincerely, Teresa M. Romero, C.P.M., CPPB Compliance Manager c�ccommiunity Resources 16-213 1 HA55D-17M1 2 Newport Marina 3 2888 Bayshore Drive 4 Newport Beach, CA 92663 5 6 7 AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE 8 9 THIS LEASE ("Lease") is made , 2015, ("Effective Date") by and between County 10 of Orange, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and Palm Investments, a California general 1 l partnership, hereinafter referred to as "TENANT," without regard to number and gender. I2 13 RECITALS 14 15 WHEREAS, COUNTY is the owner of certain tidelands located in Lower Newport Bay in the City of 16 Newport Beach; and 17 18 WHEREAS, TENANT is the fee owner of the adjoining uplands, commonly known as 2888 Bayshore 19 Drive, Newport Beach; and 20 21 WHEREAS, on November 25, 2011, the COUNTY and TENANT entered into an Interim Tidelands 22 Lease ("Interim Tidelands Lease") for operation and maintenance of a commercial boat -berthing facility 23 containing forty-three (43) slips on the adjoining COUNTY tidelands, commonly known as Newport 24 Marina; and 25 26 WHEREAS, COUNTY and TENANT now desire to terminate and replace the Interim Tidelands Lease 27 and enter into a new Amended and Restated lease agreement for use of the COUNTY tidelands. 28 29 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the Parties hereto mutually agree to the following 34 terms and conditions: 31 32 1. DEFINITIONS (PMA2.1 S) 33 34 The following words in this Lease have the significance attached to them in this clause unless otherwise 35 apparent from context: 36 37 16-214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 "Auditor Controller" means the Auditor Controller, County of Orange, or designee, or upon written notice to TENANT, such other person or entity as shall be designated by the Board of Supervisors. "Board of Supervisors" means the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California. "Corporate Real Estate" means County Executive Office/Corporate Real Estate, County of Orange, or upon written notice to TENANT, such other entity as shall be designated by the County Executive Officer. "Director of OC Parks" means the Director, Orange County Parks, OC Community Resources, County of Orange, or designee, or upon written notice to TENANT, such other person or entity as shall be designated by the Board of Supervisors. "County Counsel" means the County Counsel, County of Orange, or designee, or upon written notice to TENANT, such other person or entity as shall be designated by the Board of Supervisors. "County Executive Officer" means the County Executive Officer, County Executive Office, County of Orange, or designee, or upon written notice to TENANT, such other person or entity as shall be designated by the Board of Supervisors. 12. PREMISES (PMA3.1 S) COUNTY leases to TENANT that certain property hereinafter referred to as "Premises," described in "Exhibit A" and shown on "Exhibit B," which exhibits are attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, 3. TERMINATION OF PRIOR AGREEMENTS (PMA4.1 S) It is mutually agreed that this Lease shall terminate and supersede any prior leases or agreements between the Parties hereto covering all or any portion of the Premises including that certain Interim Tidelands Lease dated November 25, 2411, including but not necessarily limited to Lease HA55-17M1. 4. LIMITATION OF THE LEASEHOLD (PMA5.1 S) This Lease and the rights and privileges granted TENANT in and to the Premises are subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions, and exceptions of record or apparent, including those which are set out in the Tidelands Grant by the State of California to the County of Orange (Chapter 526, Statues of z 0 4 16-215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1919, and Chapter 575, Statutes of 1929, State of California). Nothing contained in this Lease or in any document related hereto shall be construed to imply the conveyance to TENANT of rights in the Premises which exceed those owned by COUNTY, or any representation or warranty, either express or implied., relating to the nature or condition of the Premises or COUNTY'S interest therein. TENANT acknowledges that TENANT has conducted a complete and adequate investigation of the Premises and that TENANT has accepted the Premises in its "as is" condition. 5. USE (PMB1.1 S) TENANT'S use of the Premises shall be limited to ownership, operation, and maintenance of a commercial boat -berthing facility containing approximately forty-three (43) slips. TENANT agrees not to use the Premises for any other purpose, nor to engage in or permit any other activity within or from the Premises. TENANT agrees not to conduct or permit to be conducted any public or private nuisance in, on, or from. the Premises, or to commit or permit to be committed any waste within the Premises. 6. TERM (PMB2.1 N) The term (`Term") of this Lease shall be ten (10) years, commencing the first day of the first full calendar month following the date of execution of this Lease by COUNTY. TENANT has the option to extend the Term for three (3) ten (10) year terms ("Additional Term"). TENANT may exercise its option for an Additional Term by giving COUNTY written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the initial Term or any Additional Term that has been put into effect. This option shall be exercisable by TENANT on the express condition that at the time of exercise, and at all times prior to the commencement of such extension, TENANT shall not be in default under any of the provisions of this Lease. If TENANT is considered to be, or has been, in default under any of the provisions of this Lease, COUNTY may reject the TENANT's request to extend the Lease for any Additional Term.. 17. RENT (PMC1.3 N) TENANT agrees to pay as rent for the Premises the sum of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000) per month, payable monthly in advance on the first day of each month for the first thirty six (36) months. Said rent shall commence on the first day of the first full calendar month after the Board of Supervisors approves this Lease. In the event the obligation to pay rent commences on some date other than the first of the month or terminates on some date other than the last day of the month, the rent shall be prorated to reflect the Q4 i 16-216 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 actual period of tenancy and shall be paid on the first day of the following month. 8. REVISION OF RENT (PMC4.3 N) It is the intent of COUNTY and TENANT that rents payable under this Lease not be less than the fair market rental value of the Premises throughout the term of this Lease. Recognizing that annual rent provided in this Lease may be inadequate for this purpose, COUNTY and TENANT further agree that the monthly rent payable pursuant to Clause 7 (RENT) shall be subject to periodic adjustment as provided in this Clause. A. Revision of Rent. The rent shall be adjusted as follows: 1) Three Year Revision: Beginning the first month of the fourth year after the date this Lease commenced, and every three (3) years thereafter, the rent shall be automatically increased by three percent (31/4) of the previous monthly rent. For example, beginning the fourth year of the date this Lease commenced, rent shall be calculated as: $6,040 (prior monthly rent for years 1 through 3) x 103% = $6,180 per month for the remainder of that 3 year period. Should the Three Year Revision of Rent occur in the same year the Ten Year Revision of Rent is to occur, then, Tenant shall pay to County either the Three Year Revision of Rent or the Ten Year Revision of Rent, whichever is greater. Said adjusted revised rent shall remain fixed for three years, then, adjust according to Section 8, subparagraph A, item # 1 of this agreement. 2) Ten Year Revision: At the beginning of the tenth, twentieth, thirtieth and fortieth years, the rent shall be adjusted to the greater of 1) Fair market rent for the Premises; or 2) adjusted in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County, CA [All Urban Consumers -All Items, (Base Period 1982-84=100)] promulgated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The adjustment shall be calculated by means of the following formula: A=$ *xBIC A = Adjusted Rent B = CPI for the month prior to the month in which each rental rate adjustment is to become effective C = CPI for the month in which the lease becomes effective $ * is the previous month's rent paid to the County The adjustment under the ten year revision is capped at five (5) percent over the previous month's rent paid to the COUNTY. Should the Ten Year Revision occur prior to the end of a Three Year Revision period, then, the Ten Year Revision shall be implemented immediately. Ten Year Revisions of rent will set the rental rate for 4 j ? \,-Ww 16-217 1 36 months, following which a three year increase shall be implemented. 2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the rent be reduced by reason of any such adjustment. 3 4 In the event that the CPI is not issued or published for the period for which such rent is to be adjusted 5 and computed hereunder, or in the event that the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of 6 Labor should cease to publish said CPI figures, then any similar index published by any other branch or 7 department of the U.S. Government shall be used and if none is so published, then another index 8 generally recognized and authoritative shall be substituted by Director. 9 10 9. RENT PAYMENT PROCEDURE (PMC6.2 S) 11 Rent payments, and statements required by Clause 11 (RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS), shall be 12 delivered to and shall be filed with the Orange County Treasurer -Tax Collector, Revenue 13 Recovery/Accounts Receivable Unit, P. 0. Box 4005, Santa Ana, California 92702-4005. The 14 designated place of payment and filing may be changed at any time by Director upon (10) ten days' 15 written notice to TENANT. Rent payments may be made by check payable to the County of Orange. 16 TENANT assumes all risk of loss if payments are made by mail. 17 18 All sums due under this Lease shall be paid in lawful money of the United States of America, without 19 offset or deduction or prior notice or demand. No payment by TENANT or receipt by COUNTY of a 20 lesser amount than the payment due shall be deemed to be other than on account of the payment due, nor 21 shall any endorsement or statement on any check or any letter accompanying any check or payment be 22 deemed an accord and satisfaction, and COUNTY shall accept such check or payment without prejudice 23 to COUNTY's right to recover the balance of the amount due or pursue any other remedy in this Lease. 24 10, CHARGE FOR LATE PAYMENT (PMC7.1 S) 25 26 TENANT hereby acknowledges that the late payment of rent or any other sums due hereunder will 27 cause COUNTY to incur costs not contemplated by this Lease, the exact amount of which will be 28 extremely difficult to ascertain. Such costs include but are not limited to costs such as administrative 29 processing of delinquent notices, increased accounting costs, etc. 30 Accordingly, if any payment of rent as specified in Section 7 (RENT) or of any other sum due to 31 COUNTY is not received by COUNTY by the due date, a late charge of one and one half percent 32 (1.5%) of the payment due and unpaid plus $100 shall be added to the payment, and the total sum shall 33 become immediately due and payable to LESSOR. An additional charge of one and one half percent 34 (1.5%) of said payment, excluding late charges, shall be added for each additional month that said 35 payment remains unpaid. 36 37 TENANT and COUNTY hereby agree that such late charges represent a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs that COUNTY will incur by reason of TENANT'S late payment. Acceptance of such late 5 il 16-218 charges (and/or any portion of the overdue payment) by COUNTY shall in no event constitute a waiver 2 of TENANT'S default with respect to such overdue payment, or prevent COUNTY from exercising any 3 of the other rights and remedies granted hereunder. 4 5 11. RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS (PMC8.1 S) 6 7 A. Records. TENANT shall, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep or cause to be kept true and g complete books, records, and accounts of all financial transactions in the operation of all business 9 activities, of whatever nature, conducted in pursuance of the rights granted herein. All copies of 14 voided documents should be retained, along with the reasons for voiding and signature of person I 1 approving the void. 12 13 B. The Accounting Year. The accounting year shall be twelve (12) full calendar months commencing 14 on January 1 and ending on December 31 each year. The accounting year may be established by 15 TENANT, provided TENANT notifies Auditor-Controller in writing of the accounting year to be 16 used. Said accounting year shall be deemed to be approved by Auditor-Controller unless Auditor- 17 Controller has objected to TENANT'S selection in writing within sixty days of TENANT'S written 18 notification. 19 20 Any portion of a year that is not reconciled, should the accounting year and the anniversary year of 21 the lease commencement not be the same, shall be accounted for as if it were a complete accounting 22 year. 23 24 Once an accounting year is established, it shall be continued through the term of the lease unless 25 Auditor-Controller specifically approves in writing a different accounting year. Auditor-Controller 26 shall only approve a change in accounting years in the event of undue hardship being placed on 27 either the TENANT or LESSOR, and because of mere convenience or inconvenience. 28 29 C. Financial Statements. Within ninety (90) days after the end of each accounting year, TENANT 30 shall at his own expense submit to OC Parks/Real Estate a profit and loss statement reflecting 31 business transacted on or from the Premises during the preceding accounting year, prepared in 32 accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The TENANT must attest under penalty 33 of perjury that the profit and loss statement submitted is an accurate representation of TENANT's 34 records as reported to the United States of America for income tax purposes. 35 36 TENANT acknowledges its understanding that any and all of the Financial Statement submitted to 37 the COUNTY pursuant to this Lease become Public Records and are subject to public inspection pursuant to §§ 6250 et. seq. of the California Government Code. 6 v i 16-219 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 D. Failure ISubmit Financial Statements, In addition to any other remedies available to COUNTY at law or in equity under this Lease, in the event that TENANT fails to submit the required financial statements within thirty (30) business days following the due date listed in the Clause of this Lease entitled `Records and Accounts,' the Director of OC Parks may require TENANT to submit the greater of: 1) $500 fine; or 2) Any and all costs incurred by COUNTY for a Certified Public Accountant hired by the COUNTY to prepare the required financial statements, including an administrative fee equal to fifteen percent (15%) of those costs, 12. REPLACEMENT OF BERTHING FACILITIES BY TENANT (PMD2.1 N) TENANT is in the process of obtaining appropriate permits from the City of Newport Beach and California Coastal Commission regarding the replacement of the existing berthing facility in their entirety within the Premises. TENANT commits to replacing the berthing as better described in Exhibit C titled, `Project Proposal' at an estimated cost of $2,026,706. Exhibit C is only intended to provide an example of such improvements and the County has not reviewed or otherwise authorized the improvements as contained therein. TENANT must obtain an Access Permit from OC Parks/Permit Department in conjunction with the City and Coastal permits. a. COUNTY' Consent. TENANT is required to obtain the written consent of COUNTY by means of obtaining an Access Permit, prior to the TENANT's replacement of the berthing facilities in their entirety. b. Compliance with PIans and Construction Standards. The replacement of the berthing facilities in their entirety within the Premises shall be constructed in strict compliance with detailed plans and specifications approved by Director of OC Parks. All construction shall be conducted in a professional and competent manner and shall conform to applicable building codes, rules and regulations. All works shall be done in conformity with Director of OC Parks approved plans, valid building and other necessary permits and shall be acceptable to COUNTY and the appropriate governmental entity inspecting such work. W VID 16-220 1 13. TENANT'S ASSURANCE OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION (PMD3.2 S) 2 3 Prior to commencement of construction of approved facilities, or any phase thereof, within the Premises 4 by TENANT, TENANT shall furnish to COUNTY evidence that assures COUNTY that sufficient 5 monies will be available to complete the proposed construction. The amount of money available shall 6 be at least the total estimated construction cost. Such evidence may take one of the following forms: 7 A. Completion bond issued to COUNTY as obligee; or g B. Performance bond and labor and material bond or performance bond containing 9 the provisions of the labor and material bond, supplied by TENANT'S contractor 10 or contractors, provided said bonds are issued jointly to TENANT and COUNTY 11 as obliges; or 12 C. Cash; or 13 D. Any combination of the above. 14 15 All bonds must be issued by a company qualified to do business in the State of California and acceptable 16 to Director. All bonds shall be in a form acceptable to Director and shall insure faithful and full 17 observance and performance by TENANT of all terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements relating 18 to the construction of improvements within the Premises. 19 20 14. MECHANICS LIENS OR STOP NOTICES (PMD4.1 S) 21 22 TENANT shall at all times indemnify, defend with counsel approved in writing by COUNTY and save 23 COUNTY harmless from all claims, losses, demands, damages, cost, expenses, or liability costs for 24 labor or materials in connection with construction, repair, alteration, or installation of structures, 25 improvements, equipment, or facilities within the Premises, and from the cost of defending against such 26 claims, including attorney fees and costs. 27 28 In the event a lien or stop notice is imposed upon the Premises as a result of such construction, repair, 29 alteration, or installation, TENANT shall either: 30 31 A. Record a valid Release of Lien, or 32 33 B. Procure and record a bond in accordance with Section 3143 of the Civil Code, 34 which frees the Premises from the claim of the lien or stop notice and from any 35 action brought to foreclose the lien. 36 37 Should TENANT fail to accomplish either of the two optional actions above within 15 days after the filing of such a lien or stop notice, the Lease shall be in default and shall be subject to immediate 16-221 1 2` 3 4: Si G $> 9 10 1i 12 13 14 1:5 16 17° 3 19 20 21 22-- 23 24- 2:5 423 26 27 28 29 30 3.1 32 33 34 35 36 37 termination.. 15. "AS BUILT" PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS (PMD5.1 S) Within 60 days following completion of any substantial improvement within the Premises, TENANT shall furnish Director a complete set of reproducibles and two sets of prints of "As -Built" plans. In addition, TENANT shall furnish Director an itemized statement of the actual construction cost of such improvements. The statement of cost shall be sworn to and signed by TENANT or TENANT'S responsible agent under penalty of perjury. TENANT must obtain Director's approval of "As Built" plans, and the form and content of the itemized statement. 16. OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS (PMD6.1 S) All buildings, improvements, and facilities, exclusive of trade fixtures, constructed or placed within the Premises by TENANT must, upon completion, be free and clear all liens, claims, or liability for labor or material and at COUNTY'S option shall be the property of COUNTY at the expiration of this Lease or upon earlier termination hereof. COUNTY retains the right to require TENANT, at TENANT'S cost, to remove all TENANT improvements located on the Premises at the expiration or termination hereof. 17. UTILITIES (PME1.1 S) TENANT shall be responsible for and pay, prior to the delinquency date, all charges for utilities supplied to the Premises. 18. MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS OF TENANT (PME2.1 S) TENANT shall, to the satisfaction of Director, keep and maintain the Premises and all improvements of any kind which may be erected, installed, or made thereon in good condition and in substantial repair. It shall be TENANT'S responsibility to take all steps necessary or appropriate to maintain such a standard of condition and repair. TENANT expressly agrees to maintain the Premises in a safe, clean, wholesome, sanitary condition, to the complete satisfaction of Director, and in compliance with all applicable laws. TENANT further agrees to provide approved containers for trash and garbage and to keep the Premises free and clear of rubbish and litter. Director, shall have the right to enter upon and inspect the Premises at any time for cleanliness and safety. E I If TENANT fails to maintain or make repairs or replacements as required herein, Director shall notify 2 TENANT in writing of said failure. Should TENANT fail to correct the situation within ten (10) days 3 after receipt of written notice, Director may make the necessary correction or cause it to be made and 4 the cost thereof, including but not limited to the cost of labor, materials, equipment, and an 5 administrative fee equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the sum of such items, shall be paid by TENANT G within 10 days of receipt of a statement of said cost from Director. Director may, at his/her option, 7 choose other remedies available herein, or by law. 8 9 COUNTY shall have no obligation or responsibility to dredge, remove debris, or to maintain, repair, or 10 replace improvements constructed within the Premise. 11 12 19. OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF TENANT (PME3.1 S) 13 14 A. Quality and Service Standards. TENANT shall operate the marina in a manner 15 similar with those prevailing in Newport Harbor and other marina facilities is 16 Southern California. 17 18 H. Protection of Environment. TENANT shall take all reasonable measures to 19 prevent: 20 21 (1) Littering of land or water caused by or originating in, on, or about 22 the Premise. 23 24 (2) Excessive noise emanating from the Premise. 25 26 (3) Discharging of pollutants, including petroleum products and waste 27 from watercraft, into the waters within the Premise. 28 29 C. Availability of Slips. As provided in the Clause in the General Conditions of this Lease entitled 30 NONDISCRIMINATION, TENANT shall make boat slips available on fair and reasonable terms and 31 without discrimination, consistent with the law of the State of California and the United States. 32 33 TENANT shall make a reasonable effort to contact those persons registered and to allow them an 34 opportunity to rent boat slips of appropriate length as such slips become available for rent. TENANT 35 may require persons so registered to provide evidence of financial ability to occupy the slip requested. 36 TENANT may further require compliance with reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the use 37 of the Premise. TENANT may cancel any agreement for the rental of such boat slips for due cause or noncompliance with rules and regulations. TENANT may prohibit living aboard vessels within the 10 16-223 I Premise. I 2 3 COUNTY shall, through its duly authorized agents or representatives, have the right to examine said 4 waiting list at any and all reasonable times for the purpose of determining the accuracy thereof, Private 5 information of prospective slip tenants will not be made available to the public. 6 7 D, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Requirements, 8 g TENANT and all of TENANT's subtenants, agents, employees and contractors shall conduct operations 10 under this Lease so as to assure that pollutants do not enter the municipal storm drain system (including I l but not limited to curbs and gutters that are part of the street systems), or directly impact receiving 12 waters (including but not limited to rivers, creeks, streams, estuaries, lakes, harbors, bays and the 13 ocean). 14 15 The Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) have issued permits 16 which regulate stormwater and non-stormwater discharges (Stormwater permits) resulting from areas 17 owned and operated by the County of Orange and Orange County Flood Control District (collectively 18 referred to as the COUNTY) including activities conducted under this Lease. The COUNTY and cities 19 within Orange County have enacted water quality ordinances that prohibit activities that result in 20 pollutants being discharged into the Stormwater drainage system. 21 22 To assure compliance with Stormwater Permits and water quality ordinances, the COUNTY has 23 developed a Drainage Area Management Plan including a Local Implementation Plan (DAMP/LIP) that 24 contains Best Management Practices (BMPs) that parties using COUNTY owned properties must adhere 25 to. These BMPs are found within the DAMPILIP in Model Maintenance Procedures and BMP Fact 26 Sheets (the Model Maintenance Procedures and BMP Fact Sheets contained in the DAMPILIP shall be 27 referred to hereinafter collectively as "BMF Fact Sheets") and contain pollution prevention and source 28 control techniques to minimize the impact of those activities upon dry -weather urban runoff, stormwater 29 runoff, and receiving water quality, 34 31 TENANT shall review the applicable SMP Fact Sheets contained in the DAMPILIP which are located 32 at COUNTY's website at www.ocwatershed.com/documents/bmp. These BMP Fact Sheets may be 33 modified during the term of the Lease and COUNTY will update its website accordingly. TENANT, its 34 subtenants, agents, contractors, and employees and all persons authorized by TENANT to conduct 35 activities on Premises shall comply with these BMP Fact Sheets as they exist now or are modified 36 during the term of the lease, as well as all other requirements of the Stormwater Permits, the 37 DAMPILIP, and the BMP Fact Sheets, as they exist at the time this Lease commences and as Stormwater Permits, the DAMP/LIP, and/or the BMP Fact Sheets are modified throughout the term of 16-224 I this Lease. The BMPs applicable to uses authorized under this Lease must be performed as described 2 within all applicable BMP Fact Sheets. TENANT shall fully understand the BMP Fact Sheets 3: applicable to operations conducted on the Premises prior to conducting them and maintain copies of the 4 BMP Fact Sheets at the Premises throughout the term of the Lease. 5: 6- BMP Fact Sheets that apply to uses authorized under this Lease include the BMP Fact Sheets. These 7 BMP Fact Sheets may be modified during the term of the Lease; and COUNTY's representative* shall g:, provide TENANT with any such modified BMP Fact Sheets. TENANT, its subtenants, agents, +9 contractors, representatives and employees and all persons authorized by TENANT to conduct activities 10 on the Premises shall, throughout the term of this Lease, comply with the BMP Fact Sheets as they exist 11 now or are modified, and shall comply with all other requirements of the Stormwater Permits, as they 12' exist at the time this Lease commences or as the Stormwater Permits may be modified. TENANT ] 3 agrees to maintain current copies of the BMP Fact Sheets on the Premises throughout the term of this 14 Lease. The BMPs applicable to uses authorized under this Lease must be performed as described within 1:5 all applicable BMP Fact Sheets. 16 17 The TENANT may propose alternative BMPs that meet or exceed the pollution prevention performance g of the BMP Fact Sheets. Any such alternative BMPs shall be submitted to the COUNTY for its review l9 ` and approval prior to implementation. 20 21 The COUNTY may enter the Premises and/or review TENANT records at any time to assure that 22 activities conducted on the Premises comply with the requirements of this section. TENANT may also <23 be required to implement a self-evaluation program to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 24 this section. 25 26; TENANT's failure to comply with the provisions of this Clause shall constitute a material breach of this 27 Lease and may result in termination of this Lease by COUNTY. TENANT shall have thirty (30) days 2S` following written notice of Lease non-compliance to correct or cure to the satisfaction of the Director of 29 " OC Parks. 30 31 20. DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS (PME4.1 S) 32 33 In the event of damage to or destruction of TENANT -constructed buildings, facilities, or improvements 34 located within the Premises or in the event TENANT -constructed buildings, facilities, or improvements 35 located within the Premises are declared unsafe or unfit for use or occupancy by a public entity with the 36 authority to make and enforce such declaration, TENANT shall, within 30 days, commence and 37 diligently pursue to complete the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of improvements to the same size and floor area as they existed immediately prior to the event causing the damage or destruction, as 16-225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 necessary to permit full use and occupancy of the Premises for the purposes required by the Lease. Repair, replacement, or reconstruction of improvements within the Premises shall be accomplished in a t manner and according to plans approved by Director, OC Parks. Except as otherwise provided herein, termination of this Lease shall not reduce or nullify TENANT's obligation under this paragraph. With I respect to damage or destruction to be repaired by LESSOR or which LESSOR elects to repair, TENANT waives and releases its rights under California Civil Code Sections 1932 (2) and 1933 (4). 21. INSURANCE (PML10.1S) A. General Requirements TENANT agrees to purchase all required insurance at TENANT'S expense and to deposit with the COUNTY certificates of insurance, including all endorsements required herein, necessary to satisfy the COUNTY that the insurance provisions of this Lease have been complied with and to keep such insurance coverage and the certificates and endorsements therefor on deposit with the COUNTY during the entire term of this Lease. This Lease shall automatically terminate at the same time TENANT'S insurance coverage is terminated. If within ten (10) business days after termination under this Section, TENANT obtains and provides evidence of the required insurance coverage acceptable to Director, this Lease may be reinstated at the sole discretion of Director. TENANT shall pay COUNTY Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750.00) for processing the reinstatement of this Lease. TENANT agrees that TENANT shall not operate on the Premises at any time the required insurance is not in full force and effect as evidenced by a certificate of insurance and necessary endorsements or, in the interim, an official binder being in the possession of Director. In no cases shall assurances by TENANT, its employees, agents, including any insurance agent, be construed as adequate evidence of insurance. Director will only accept valid certificates of insurance and endorsements, or in the interim, an insurance binder as adequate evidence of insurance. TENANT also agrees that upon cancellation, termination, or expiration of TENANT'S insurance, COUNTY may take whatever steps are necessary to interrupt any operation from or on the Premises until such time as the Director reinstates the Lease. If TENANT fails to provide Director with a valid certificate of insurance and endorsements, or binder at any time during the term of the Lease, COUNTY and TENANT agree that this shall constitute a material breach of the Lease. Whether or not a notice of default has or has not been sent to TENANT, said material breach shall permit COUNTY to take whatever steps necessary to interrupt any operation from or on the Premises, and to prevent any persons, including, but not limited to, members of the general public, and TENANT'S employees and agents, from entering the Premises, until such time as Director is provided with adequate evidence of insurance required herein. TENANT further agrees to hold COUNTY harmless for any damages resulting from such interruption of business and possession, 16-226 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 including, but not limited to, damages resulting from any loss of income or business resulting from the COUNTY'S action. All contractors performing work on behalf of TENANT pursuant to this Lease shall obtain insurance subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth herein for TENANT. TENANT shall not allow contractors or subcontractors to work if contractors have less than the level of coverage required by the COUNTY from the TENANT under this Lease. It is the obligation of the TENANT to provide written notice of the insurance requirements to every contractor and to receive proof of insurance prior to allowing any contractor to begin work within the Premises. Such proof of insurance must be maintained by TENANT through the entirety of this Lease and be available for inspection by a COUNTY representative at any reasonable time. All self-insured retentions (SIRs) and deductibles shall be clearly stated on the Certificate of Insurance. If no SIRs or deductibles apply, indicate this on the Certificate of Insurance with a zero(0) by the appropriate line of coverage. Any self-insured retention (SIR) or deductible in excess of $25,000 ($5,000 for automobile liability), shall specifically be approved by the County Executive Office/Office of Risk Management, or designee ("Risk Manager") upon review of Tenant's current audited financial report. If the TENANT fails to maintain insurance acceptable to the COUNTY for the full term of this Lease, the COUNTY may terminate this Lease. B Qualified Insurer The policy or policies of insurance must be issued by an insurer with a minimum rating of A- (Secure A.M. Best's Rating) and VIII (Financial Size Category as determined by the most current edition of the Best's Ivey Rating Guide/Property-Casualty/United States or ambest.com). It is preferred, but not mandatory, that the insurer be licensed to do business in the state of California (California Admitted Carrier), If the insurance carrier does not have an A.M. Best Rating of A-IVIIi, the CEO/Office of Risk Management retains the right to approve or reject a carrier after a review of the company's performance and financial ratings. C. Minimum Limits 37 11 The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the TENANT shall provide the minimum limits and coverage as set forth below: 14 16-227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Coveraaes _T Minimum Limits Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,400 aggregate Automobile Liability including coverage of all owned, non -owned and hired vehicles. $1,000,400 combined single limit per occurrence. Marine Operators Legal Liability (applicable to TENANT only) $1,400,000 per occurrence Workers' Compensation (if applicable) Statutory Employer's Liabilit (if applicable) $1,000,000 per occurrence. Lon shore and Harbor Workers Statutory Compensation (if applicable) Commercial Proggay ln§urance on an "All 100% of the Replacement Cost Value and no coinsurance provision. Risk" or "S ecial Causes of Loss" basis covering all contents and any tenant improvements inc! dins Business Interruption/Loss of Rents with a 12 month limit. D. Coverage Forms The Commercial General Liability coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing liability coverage at least as broad. The Business Auto Liability coverage shall be written on ISO form CA 00 01, CA 00 05, CA 00 12, CA 00 20, or a substitute form providing liability coverage as broad. E. Endorsements i. The Commercial General Liability and Marina Operators Legal Liability policies shall contain the following endorsements, which shall accompany the Certificate of insurance: a. an Additional Insured endorsement using ISO form CG 2010 or CG 2033 ora form at least as broad naming the County of Orange, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents as Additional Insureds; b. a primary non-contributing endorsement evidencing that the TENANT'S insurance is primary and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the County of Orange shall 15 go 16-228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 be excess and non-contributing; and ii. All insurance policies required by this contract shall waive all rights of subrogation against the County of Orange, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees when acting within the scope of their appointment or employment. iii. The Workers' Compensation policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation endorsement waiving all rights of subrogation against the County of Orange, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees. iv. TENANT shall notify County in writing within thirty (iia) days of any policy cancellation and ten (10) days for non-payment of premium and provide a copy of the cancellation notice to County. Failure to provide written notice of cancellation may constitute a material breach of the Lease, upon which the County may suspend or terminate this Lease. F. Severability of Interest Clause - Commercial General Liability The Commercial General Liability policy shall contain a severability of interests clause, also known as a "separation of insureds" clause (standard in the ISO CG 001 policy), G. Delivery. Insurance certificates should be forwarded to the COUNTY address provided in Section 26 (Notices) below or to an address provided by the Director. TENANT has ten (10) business days to provide adequate evidence of insurance or this Lease may be cancelled. H. Insurance Requirement Changes COUNTY expressly retains the right to require TENANT to increase or decrease insurance of any of the above insurance types throughout the term of this Lease. Any increase or decrease in insurance will be as deemed by the Risk Manager as appropriate to adequately protect COUNTY, COUNTY shall notify TENANT in writing of changes in the insurance requirements. If TENANT does not deposit copies of acceptable certificates of insurance and endorsements with COUNTY incorporating such changes within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, this Lease may be in breach without further notice to TENANT, and COUNTY shall be entitled to all legal remedies. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit TENANT'S liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions and requirements of this 16-229 I Lease, nor in any way to reduce the policy coverage and limits available from the insurer, 2 3 22. ASSIGNING, SUBLETTING, AND ENCUMBERING BY TENANT PROHIBITED 4 (PME7.3 S) 5 6 Except for the rental, subletting or lease of berthing facilities as described herein, any mortgage, pledge, 7 hypothecation, encumbrance, transfer, lease, or assignment thereinafter in this clause referred to g collectively as "Encumbrance") of TENANT's interest in the Premises, or any part or portion thereof 9 without the prior written approval of COUNTY is prohibited. COUNTY may reasonably withhold such 10 approval. Any attempted Encumbrance, without such prior written approval, shall be null and void and 11 shall confer no right, title, or interest in or to this Lease. 12 13 TENANT may, with prior notice, engage the services of a professional management company and such 14 employment shall not be construed to be an assignment or transfer of the Lease. 15 16 23. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (PMF 9.1 S) 17 18 A. Definition of Haa_ardous Materials. For purposes of this Lease, the term "Hazardous Materials" 19 shall mean any hazardous or toxic substance, material, product, byproduct, or waste which is or shall 24 become regulated by any governmental entity, including, without limitation, COUNTY, acting in its 21 governmental capacity, the State of California or the United States government. 22 23 B. Use of Hazardous Materials. TENANT or TENANT'S employees, agents, independent contractors 24 or invitees (collectively "TENANT Parties") shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Materials to be 25 brought upon, stored, kept, used, generated, released into the environment or disposed of on, under, 26 from or about the Premises (which for purposes of this clause shall include the subsurface soil and 27 ground water). Notwithstanding the foregoing, TENANT may keep on or about the Premises small 28 quantities of Hazardous Materials that are used in the ordinary, customary, and lawful cleaning of and 29 business operations on the Premises. Said permitted Hazardous Materials shall be stored in a safe 30 location and shall be disposed of in a manner provided by law. 31 32 C. TENANT Obligation . If the presence of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Premises 33 caused or permitted by TENANT or TENANT Parties results in (i) injury to any person, (ii) injury to or 34 contamination of the Premises (or a portion thereof), or (iii) injury to or contamination or any real or 35 personal property wherever situated, TENANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall promptly take all 36 actions necessary or appropriate to return the Premises to the condition existing prior to the introduction 37 of such Hazardous Materials to the Premises and to remedy or repair any such injury or contamination. Without limiting any other rights or remedies of DISTRICT under this Lease, TENANT shall pay the „ 0 W 16-230 I cost of any cleanup or remedial work performed on, under, or about the Premises as required by this 2 Lease or by applicable laws in connection with the removal, disposal, neutralization or other treatment 3 of such Hazardous Materials caused or permitted by TENANT or TENANT Parties. Notwithstanding 4 the foregoing, TENANT shall not take any remedial action in response to the presence, discharge or 5 release, of any Hazardous Materials on, under or about the Premises caused or permitted by TENANT 6 or TENANT Parties, or enter into any settlement agreement, consent decree or other compromise with 7 any governmental or quasi ---governmental entity without first obtaining the prior written consent of the 8 Director. All work performed or caused to be performed by TENANT as provided for above shall be 9 done in good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with plans, specifications, permits and other 10 requirements for such work approved by Director. 11 12 D. Indemnification for Hazardous Materials. To the fullest extent permitted by law, TENANT hereby 13 agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, protect and defend (with attorneys acceptable to DISTRICT) 14 DISTRICT, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, independent contractors, and the Premises, 15 from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages (including, but not limited, damages for the loss 16 or restriction on use of rentable or usable space or any amenity of the Premises or damages arising from 17 any adverse impact on marketing and diminution in the value of the Premises), judgments, fines, 18 demands, claims, recoveries, deficiencies, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable 19 attorneys' fees, disbursements and court costs and all other professional or consultant's expenses), 20 whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, arising directly or indirectly out of the presence, use, generation, 21 storage, treatment, on or off-site disposal or transportation of Hazardous Materials on, into, from, under 22 or about the Premises by TENANT or TENANT agents, The foregoing indemnity shall also specifically 23 include the cost of any required or necessary repair, restoration, clean-up or detoxification of the 24 Premises and the preparation of any closure or other required plans. 25 26 24. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS (PMF6.12 S) 27 28 In order to comply with child support enforcement requirements of the County of Orange, TENANT 29 agrees to furnish Director of OC Parks, COUNTY's standard form District Attorney Child Support 30 Enforcement Certification Requirements, which includes the following information. 31 32 a) In the case where TENANT is doing business as an individual, TENANT's name, date of mirth, 33 Social Security Number, and residence address; 34 35 b) In the case where TENANTis doing business in a form other than as an individual, the naive, 36 date of birth, Social Security Number, and residence address of each individual who owns an 37 interest of ten percent (10%) or more in the contracting entity; 18 d 16-231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 c) A certification that the TENANT has fully complied with all applicable federal and state reporting requirements regarding its employees; and d) A certification that the TENANT has fully complied with all lawfully served Wage said Earnings Assignment Orders and Notices of Assignment and will continue to so comply. Failure of TENANT to timely submit data and/or certifications required above or to comply with all federal and state reporting requirements for child support enforcement or to comply with all lawfully served Wage and Earnings Assignment Orders and Notices of Assignment shall constitute a material a material breach of this Lease. Failure to cure such breach within sixty (60) days of notice from the Director of OC Parks shall constitute grounds for termination of this Lease. It is expressly understood that this data will be transmitted to governmental agencies charged with the establishment and enforcement of child support orders and will not be used for any other purpose. 25. NOTICES (PMF14.1 5) All notices pursuant to this Lease shall be addressed as set forth below or as either party may hereafter designate by written notice and shall be sent through the United States mail in the State of California, duly registered or certified, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid. If any notice is sent by registered or certified mail, as aforesaid, the same shall be deemed to have been served or delivered twenty four (24) hours after mailing thereof as above provided. Notwithstanding the above, COUNTY may also provide notices to TENANT by personal delivery or by regular mail and any such notice so given shall be deemed to have been given upon receipt, TO: TENANT TO: COUNTY Palmo Investments County of Orange A California General Partnership Orange County Parks P.O. Box 7099 13042 Old Myford Road Newport Beach, CA 92658 Irvine, CA 92602 Attn: Director 19 Ef 16-232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 26. ATTACHMENT TO LEASE (PMF11.1 S) This Lease includes the following, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof: 11 11 11 11 !1 11 11 11 11 11 11 If 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1! 11 11 11 11 11 I. GENERAL CONDITIONS II. Exhibit A — Legal Description III. Exhibit S —Map IV. Exhibit C --Project Proposal 20 16-233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL By - Deputy County Counsel Date 15 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: 16 OC Parks/Real Estate 17 18 By 19 Ronal In 20 A d 1 ' tisIr i e Manager I 21 .I Date: 22 23 24 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY 25 OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS B EEN 26 DELIVERED TO THE CLERK OF THE 27 28 BOARD PER G.C. SEC. 25103, RESOLUTION 79-1535 29 30 Attest: 31 32 33 34 35 ohin Stieler Cleric of the Board of Supervisors 36 37 Orange County, California TENANT Paimo Investments A California General Partnership ` ....MAN, Date: -//- d COUNTY 21 169 r, 16-234 I. GENERAL CONDITIONS 2 3 4 1. TIME (PMG1.3 S) 5 6 Time is of the essence of this Lease. 7 8 9 2. SIGNS (PMG2.3 S) 10 1 I TENANT agrees not to construct, maintain, or allow any signs, banners, flags, etc., in addition to those 12 signs, banners, flags ordinarily and customarily used in the operation of the Premises, upon the Premises 13 except as approved by the Director of HBP. Unapproved signs, banners, flags, etc., may be removed by 14 15 Director of HBP without prior notice to TENANT. 16 17 3. PERMITS AND LICENSES (PMG3.3 S) 18 19 TENANT shall be required to obtain any and all approvals, permits and/or licenses which may be 24 21 required in connection with the operation of the Premises as set out herein. No permit, approval, or 22 consent given hereunder by COUNTY, in its governmental capacity, shall affect or limit TENANT's 23 obligations hereunder, nor shall any approvals or consents given by COUNTY, as a party to this Lease, 24 be deemed approval as to compliance or conformance with applicable governmental codes, laws, rules, 25 or regulations. 26 27 4. CONTROL OF HOURS AND PROCEDURES (PMG4.2 S) 28 29 30 TENANT shall at all times maintain a written schedule delineating the operating hours and operating 31 procedures for each business operation on or from the Premises. A schedule of prices charged for all 32 goods and/or services supplied to the public on or from the Premises shall also be maintained. 33 34 Upon written request, TENANT shall furnish Director of OC Parks a copy of said schedules and 35 36 procedures. Should Director of OC Paries, upon review and conference with TENANT, decide any part 37 of said schedules or procedures is not justified with regard to fairly satisfying the needs of the public, 16-235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 01 37 TENANT, upon written notice from Director of OC Parks, shall modify said schedules or procedures to the satisfaction of the Director of OC Parks. Primary consideration shall be given to the public's benefit in implementing this clause. All prices charged for goods and/or services supplied to the public on or from the Premises shall be fair and reasonable, based upon the market prices charged by other competing and/or comparable businesses, TENANT agrees that it will operate and manage the services and facilities offered in a competent and efficient manner at least comparable to other well-managed operations of a similar type. TENANT shall retain at all times active, qualified, competent, and experienced personnel to supervise TENANT's operation and to represent and act for TENANT. TENANT shall require its attendants and employees to be properly dressed, clean, courteous, efficient, and neat in appearance at all times, TENANT shall not employ any person(s) in or about Premises who shall use offensive language or act in a loud, boisterous, or otherwise improper manner. TENANT shall maintain a close check over attendants and employees to ensure the maintenance of a high standard of service to the public. TENANT shall replace any employee whose conduct is detrimental to the best interests of the public. 5. LEASE ORGANIZATION (PMG5.3 S) The various headings and numbers herein, the grouping of provisions of this Lease into separate clauses and paragraphs, and the organization hereof, are for the purpose of convenience only and shall not be considered otherwise. 1 1 6. AMENDMENTS (PMG6.3 S) This Lease is the sole and only agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof, other agreements, either oral or written, are void. Any changes to this Lease shall be in writing and shall be properly executed by both parties. 16-236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 7. UNLAWFUL USE (PMG7.3 S) TENANT agrees no improvements shall be erected, placed upon, operated, not maintained within the Premises, nor any business conducted or carried on therein or there from, in violation of the terms of this Lease, or of any regulation, order of law, statute, bylaw, or ordinance of a governmental agency having jurisdiction. 8. NONDISCRIMINATION (PMG8.3 S) TENANT agrees not to discriminate against any person or class of persons by reason of sex, age, race, color, creed, disability, or national origin in employment practices and in the activities conducted pursuant to this Lease. TENANT shall make its accommodations and services available to the public on fair and reasonable terms. 9. INSPECTION (PMG9.3 S) COUNTY or its authorized representative shall have the right at all reasonable times to inspect the Premises to determine if the provisions of this Lease are being complied with. 10. HOLD HARMLESS (PMG10.2 S) TENANT hereby waives all claims and recourse against COUNTY including the right of contribution for loss or damage of persons or property arising from, growing out of or in any way connected with or related to this agreement except claims arising from the active or sole negligence of COUNTY, its officers, agents, and employees. TENANT hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend COUNTY, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, loss, demands, damages, cost, expenses or liability arising out of the operation or maintenance of the property described herein, and/or TENANT's exercise of the rights under this Lease, except for liability arising out of the active or sole negligence of COUNTY, its officers, agents, or employees, including the cost of defense of any lawsuit arising therefrom. In the event COUNTY is named as co defendant, TENANT shall notify COUNTY of I such fact and shall represent COUNTY in such legal action unless COUNTY undertakes to represent itself as co defendant in such legal action, in which event TENANT shall pay to COUNTY its reasonable 91 16-237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 litigation costs, expenses and attorney's fees. In the event judgment is entered against COUNTY and TENANT because of the active negligence of COUNTY and TENANT, their officers, agents, or employees, an apportionment of liability to pay such judgment shall be made by a court of competent jurisdiction, Neither party shall request a jury apportionment. 11. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS (PMG 11.2 S) This Lease may create a possessory interest that is subject to the payment of taxes levied on such interest. It is understood and agreed that all taxes and assessments (including but not limited to said possessory interest tax) which become due and payable upon the Premises or upon fixtures, equipment, or other property installed or constructed thereon, shall be the full responsibility of TENANT, and TENANT shall cause said taxes and assessments to be paid promptly. 12. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (PMG12.3 S) Unless otherwise provided in this Lease, the terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns of all the parties hereto, all of whom shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder. 13. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXCUSE PERFORMANCE (PMG13.3 S) If either party hereto shall be delayed or prevented from the performance of any act required hereunder by reason of Acts of God, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, or other cause without fault and beyond the control of the party obligated (financial inability excepted), performance of such act shall be excused for the period of the delay and the period for the performance of any such act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of such delay. 14. PARTIAL INVALIDITY (PMG14.3 S) If any term, covenant, condition, or provision of this Lease is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby. 4 16-238 1 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 15. WAIVER OF RIGHTS (PMG15.3 5) The failure of COUNTY or TENANT to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy that COUNTY or TENANT may have, and shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to require strict performance of all the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Lease thereafter, nor a waiver of any remedy for the subsequent breach or default of any term, covenant, or condition of the Lease, Any waiver, in order to be effective, must be signed by the party whose right or remedy is being waived. 16. DEFAULT IN TERMS OF THE LEASE BY TENANT (PMG16.2 S) The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a default hereunder by TENANT: A. The abandonment or vacation of the Premises by TENANT. B. The failure by TENANT to make any payment of rent or any other sum payable hereunder by TENANT, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from COUNTY to TENANT; provided, however, that any such notice shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, any notice required under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 et seq. C. The failure or inability by TENANT to observe or perforin any of the provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by TENANT, other than specified in A or B above, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from COUNTY to TENANT; provided, however, that any such notice shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, any notice required under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 et seq.; provided, further, that if the nature of such failure is such that it can be cured by TENANT but that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure (for any reason other than financial inability), then TENANT shall not be deemed to be in default if TENANT shall commence such cure within said thirty (30) days, and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. 16-239 I D. In case of or in anticipation of bankruptcy, insolvency or financial difficulties; 2 3 (1) The making by TENANT of any general assignment for the benefit of creditors; 4 5 (2) A case is commenced by or against TENANT under Chapters 7, 11 or 13 of the Bankruptcy 6 7 Code, Title 1 I of the United States Code as now in farce or hereafter amended and if so 8 commenced against TENANT, the same is not dismissed within sixty (60) days; 9 10 (3) The appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of TENANT's 11 assets located at the Premises or of TENANT's interest in this Lease, where such seizure is 12 not discharged within thirty (30) days; or 13 14 15 (4) TENANT"s convening of a meeting of its creditors or any class thereof for the purpose of 16 affecting a moratorium upon or composition of its debts. In the event of any such default, 17 neither this Lease nor any interests of TENANT in and to the Premises shall become an asset 18 in any of such proceedings, or any assignment pursuant to such proceedings, and, in any such 19 event and in addition to any and all rights or remedies of the COUNTY hereunder or by law; 20 provided, it shall be lawful for the COUNTY to declare the term of this Lease ended and to re 21 22 enter the Premises and take possession thereof and remove all persons therefrom, and 23 TENANT and its creditors (other than COUNTY) shall have no further claim thereon or 24 hereunder. 25 26 In the event of any default by TENANT, then, in addition to any other remedies available to COUNTY at 27 law or in equity, COUNTY may exercise the following remedies: 28 29 30 A. COUNTY may terminate this Lease and all rights of TENANT hereunder by giving written 31 notice of such termination to TENANT. In the event that COUNTY shall so elect to terminate 32 this Lease, then COUNTY may recover from TENANT; 33 34 (1) The worth at the time of termination of the unpaid rent and other charges, which had been 35 36 earned as of the date of the termination hereof; 37 6 16-240 1 (2) The worth at the time of termination of the amount by which the unpaid rent and other charges 2 which would have been earned after the date of the termination hereof until the time of award 3 exceeds the amount of such rental loss that TENANT proves could have been reasonably 4 avoided; 5 6 7 (3) The worth at the time of termination of the amount by which the unpaid rent and other charges 8 for the balance of the term hereof after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental 9 loss that TENANT proves could be reasonably avoided; 14 11 (4) Any other amount necessary to compensate COUNTY for all the detriment proximately caused 12 by TENANT's failure to perform its obligations under this Lease or which in the ordinary 13 course of things would be likely to result therefrom, including, but not limited to, the cost of 14 15 recovering possession of the Premises, expenses of re -letting, including necessary repair, 16 renovation and alteration of the Premises, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness costs, and 17 any other reasonable costs; and 18 19 (5) Any other amount that COUNTY may by law hereafter be permitted to recover from TENANT 20 to compensate COUNTY for the detriment caused by TENANT's default. 21 22 23 The term "rent" as used herein shall be deemed to be and to mean the monthly rent and all other sums 24 required to be paid by TENANT pursuant to the terms of this Lease. All such sums, other than the 25 monthly rent, shall be computed on the basis of the average monthly amount thereof accruing during the 26 24 month period immediately prior to default, except that if it becomes necessary to compute such rental 27 before such 24 month period has occurred, then such sums shall be computed on the basis of the average 28 29 monthly amount during such shorter period. As used in subparagraphs (1) and (2) above, the "worth at 30 the time of termination" shall be computed by allowing interest at the maximum rate permitted by law, 31 but not in excess of ten percent (10%) per annum. As used in subparagraph (3) above, the "worth at the 32 time of award" shall be computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve 33 Bank of San Francisco at the time of award plus one percent (I%), but not in excess of ten percent (10%) 34 per annum. 35 36 37 7 16-241 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 B. Continue this Lease in effect without terminating TENANT"s right to possession even though TENANT has breached this Lease and abandoned the Premises and to enforce all of COUNTY's rights and remedies under this Lease, at law or in equity, including the right to recover the rent as it becomes due under this Lease; provided, however, that COUNTY may at any time thereafter elect to terminate this Lease for such previous breach by notifying TENANT in writing that TENANT's right to possession of the Premises has been terminated, C. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to affect TENANT's indemnity of COUNTY liability or liabilities based upon occurrences prior to the termination of this Lease for personal injuries or property damage under the indemnification clause or clauses contained in this Lease. No delay or omission of COUNTY to exercise any right or remedy shall be construed as a waiver of such right or remedy or any default by TENANT hereunder. The acceptance of COUNTY of rent or any other sums hereunder shall not be: A. A waiver of any preceding breach or default by TENANT of any provision thereof, other than the failure of TENANT to pay the particular rent or sum accepted, regardless of COUNTY's knowledge of such preceding breach or default at the time of acceptance of such rent or sum, or B. Waiver of COUNTY's right to exercise any remedy available to COUNTY by virtue of such breach or default. No act or thing done by COUNTY or COUNTY's agents during the term of this Lease shall be deemed an acceptance of a surrender of the Premises, and no agreement to accept a surrender shall be valid unless in writing and signed by COUNTY. Any installment or rent due under this Lease or any other sums not paid to COUNTY when due (other than interest) shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, not to exceed ten percent (10%) per annum, from the date such payment is due until paid, provided, however, that the payment of such interest shall not excuse or cure the default. All covenants and agreements to be performed by TENANT under any of the terms of this Lease shall be performed by TENANT at TENANT's sole cost and expenses and without any abatement of rent. If TENANT shall fail to pay any sum of money, other than rent required to be paid by it 8 ad � 16-242 1 hereunder or shall fail to perform any other act on its part to be performed hereunder, or to provide 2 any insurance or evidence of insurance to be provided by TENANT, then in addition to any other 3 remedies provided herein, COUNTY may, but shall not be obligated to do so, and without waiving 4 or releasing TENANT from any obligations of TENANT, make any such payment or perform any 5 such act on TENANT's part to be made or performed as provided in this Lease or to provide such 6 7 insurance, Any payment or performance of any act or the provision of any such insurance by 8 COUNTY on TENANT's behalf shall not give rise to any responsibility of COUNTY to continue g making the same or similar payments or performing the same or similar acts. All costs, expenses, 10 and other sums incurred or paid by COUNTY in connection therewith, together with interest at the I I maximum rate permitted by law, not to exceed ten percent (101/6) per annum, from the date incurred 12 or paid by COUNTY shall be deemed to be additional rent hereunder and shall be paid by TENANT 13 with and at the same time as the next monthly installment of rent hereunder, and any default therein 14 15 shall constitute a breach of the covenants and conditions of this Lease. 16 I7 17. RESERVATIONS TO COUNTY (PMG17.3 S) 18 19 The Premises are accepted as is and where is by TENANT subject to any and all existing easements and 20 Encumbrances. COUNTY reserves the right to install, lay, construct, maintain, repair, and operate such 21 22 sanitary sewers, drains, storm water sewers, pipelines, manholes, and connections; water, oil, and gas 23 pipelines; telephone and telegraph power lines; and the appliances and appurtenances necessary or 24 convenient in connection therewith, in, over, upon, through, across, and along the Premises or any part 25 thereof, and to enter the Premises for any and all such purposes. COUNTY also reserves the right to 26 grant franchises, easements, rights of way, and permits in, over, upon, through, across, and along any and 27 all portions of the Premises. No right reserved by COUNTY in this clause shall be so exercised as to 28 29 interfere unreasonably with TENANT's operations hereunder or to impair the security of any secured 30 creditor of TENANT. 31 32 COUNTY agrees that rights granted to third parties by reason of this clause shall contain provisions that 33 the surface of the land shall be restored as nearly as practicable to its original condition upon the 34 completion of any construction. COUNTY further agrees that should the exercise of these rights 35 35 potentially interfere with the use of any or all of the Premises by TENANT, that TENANT will receive 37 �qd 9 16-243 I thirty (30) days written notice prior to any such interference, and the rental shall be reduced in proportion M 2 to the interference with TENANT's use of the Premises. 3 4 18. HOLDING OVER (PMG18.3 S) S 6 7 In the event TENANT shall continue in possession of the Premises after the term of this Lease, such 8 possession shall not be considered a renewal of this Lease but a tenancy from month to month and shall 9 be governed by the conditions and covenants contained in this Lease. 10 11 19. CONDITION OF PREMISES UPON TERMINATION (PMG19.3 S) 12 13 Except as otherwise agreed to herein, upon termination of this Lease, TENANT shall re deliver 14 15 possession of said Premises to COUNTY in substantially the same condition that existed immediately 16 prior to TENANT's entry thereon, reasonable wear and tear, flood, earthquakes, war, and any act of war, 17 excepted. References to the "Termination of the Lease" in this Lease shall include termination by reason 18 of the expiration of the Lease term. 19 20 24. DISPOSITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY (PMG20.3 S) 21 22 23 If TENANT abandons or quits the Premises or is dispossessed thereof by process of law or otherwise, 24 title to any personal property belonging to and left on the Premises thirty (30) days after such event shall, 25 at COUNTY's option, be deemed to have been transferred to COUNTY. COUNTY shall have the right 26 to remove and to dispose of such property without liability therefore to TENANT or to any person 27 claiming under TENANT, and shall have no need to account therefor. 28 29 30 21. QUITCLAIM OF TENANT'S INTEREST UPON TERMINATION (PMG21.3 S) 31 32 Upon termination of this Lease for any reason, including but not limited to termination because of default 33 by TENANT, TENANT shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver to COUNTY, within thirty (30) days 34 after receipt of written demand therefore, a good and sufficient instrument relinquishing and quitclaiming 35 TENANT's leasehold interest in the Premise to COUNTY. Should TENANT fail or refuse to deliver the 36 37 required instrument to COUNTY, COUNTY may prepare and record a notice reciting the failure of R1 4 10 16-244 I TENANT to execute, acknowledge, and deliver such instrument and said notice shall be conclusive 2 evidence of the termination of this Lease and of all rights of TENANT or those claiming under TENANT 3 in and to the Premises. 4 5 22. COUNTY'S RIGHT TO RE ENTER (PMG22.3 S) 6 7 8 TENANT agrees to yield and peaceably deliver possession of the Premises to COUNTY on the date of 9 termination of this Lease, whatsoever the reason for such termination, 10 11 The COUNTY shall give written notice of termination or expiration of the Lease to TENANT at least ten 12 (10) days prior to such termination, during which the TENANT shall have the right to cure any default 13 causing such termination. COUNTY shall then have the right to re enter and take possession of the 14 15 Premises on the date such termination becomes effective (or ten days after the receipt of the written 16 notice of the termination) without further notice of any kind and without institution of summary or 17 regular legal proceedings. Termination of the Lease and re entry of the Premises by COUNTY shall in 18 no way alter or diminish any obligation of TENANT under the Lease terms for periods prior to re-entry 19 by the COUNTY. 20 21 22 23. AUTHORITY OF TENANT (PMG23.3 S) 23 24 If TENANT is a corporation, each individual executing this Lease on behalf of said corporation 25 represents and warrants that he is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Lease on behalf of said 26 corporation, in accordance with the by laws of said corporation, and that this Lease is binding upon said 27 corporation, 28 29 30 24. PUBLIC RECORDS (PMG24.3 S) 31 32 With the exception of any information which would violate the TENANT's or slip lessee's right to 33 privacy as protected by law, any and all written information submitted to and/or obtained by COUNTY 34 from TENANT or any other person or entity having to do with or related to this Lease and/or the 35 36 Premises, either pursuant to this Lease or otherwise, at the option of COUNTY, may be treated as a 37 public record open to inspection by the public pursuant to the California Records Act (Government Code ll �q � 16-245 1 Section 6250, et sect.) as now in force or hereafter amended, or any Act in substitution thereof, or I otherwise made available to the public and TENANT hereby waives, for itself, its agents, employees, 3 sublessees, and any person claiming by, through or under TENANT, any right or claim that any such 4 information is not a public record or that the same is a trade secret or confidential information and hereby 5 agrees to indemnify and hold COUNTY harmless from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, and/or G 7 obligations arising out of or resulting from a claim by TENANT or any third party that such information 8 is a trade secret, or confidential, or not subject to inspection by the public, including without limitation g reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 10 11 25. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES (PMG25.3 S) 12 ]3 The relationship of the parties hereto is that of lessor and lessee, and it is expressly understood and 14 15 agreed that COUNTY does not in any way or for any purpose become a partner of TENANT in the 16 conduct of TENANT's business or otherwise, or a joint venture with TENANT, and the provisions of ] 7 this Lease and the agreements relating to rent payable hereunder are included solely for the purpose of 18 providing a method by which rental payments are to be measured and ascertained. 14 20 26. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL (PMG26.3 S) 21 22 23 Each party acknowledges that it is aware of and has had the advice of Counsel of its choice with respect 24 to its rights to trial by jury, and each party, for itself and its successors and assigns, does hereby expressly 25 and knowingly waive and release all such rights to trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim 26 brought by any party hereto against the other (and/or against its officers, directors, employees, agents, or 27 subsidiary or affiliated entities) on or with regard to any matters whatsoever arising out of or in any way 28 29 connected with this agreement and/or any claim of injury or damage. 30 31 27. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE PMG27.3 S) 32 33 This agreement has been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and 34 construed under the laws of the State of California. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret 35 35 this agreement, the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange 37 12 16-246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 324 23- 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 County, California, and the parties hereto agree and do hereby submit to the jurisdiction of such court, notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure Section 394. 128. RIGHT TO WORK AND MINIMUM WAGE LAWS (PMG28.1 S) In accordance with the United States Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, TENANT shall require its employees that directly or indirectly service the Premises, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Lease, in any manner whatsoever, to verify their identity and eligibility for employment in the United States. TENANT shall also require and verify that its contractors or any other persons servicing the Premises, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Lease, in any manner whatsoever, verify the identity of their employees and their eligibility for employment in the United States. Pursuant to the United States of America Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938, as amended, and State of California Labor Code, Section 1178.5, TENANT shall pay no less than the greater of the Federal or California Minimum Wage to all its employees that directly or indirectly service the Premises, in any manner whatsoever. TENANT shall require that all of its contractors servicing the Premises on behalf of the TENANT also pay their employees no less than the greater of the Federal or California Minimum Wage. TENANT shall comply with all other Federal and State of California laws for minimum wage, overtime pay, record keeping, and child labor standards pursuant to the servicing of the Premises or terms and conditions of this Lease. 13 Rill 16-247 EXHIBIT A LEGAL IMSCRIPTION LOWER NEWPORT BAY — NEWPORT MARINA Facility No.: HA55D Parcel No.: 17 That portion of Orange County Tidelands in Lower Newport Hay Channel, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, granted to the County of Orange by the State of California in Statutes of 1919, Chapter 526, Page 1138, included within a strip of land 75.00 fed wide, the northwesterly line of said strip described as follows: Beginning at Station No. 131, in the U.S. Bulkhead line as shown on Tract No. 3277 per map recorded in book 141, page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county; thence along said Bulkhead line S. 14052'07" W., 669.00 feet. Containing 1.15 Acres, more or fess. See EXHIBIT B attached and by reference made a part. APPROVED Date: ('L7 , n D. Pavlik L.S. 5168 xp tion Date: June 30, 2011 N0.5tM 9 E*Vaii S 16-248 EXHIBIT B C) < rn CONS, STATION No. 131 T.P.O.S. LOWER CRESMEW OR 17 NEWPORT wAVERLY OR BAY ORANGE COUNTY OC PUBLIC WORKS - RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY MAP - COMPILED FROM PUBLIC RECORDS PROJECT- ER NEWPORT BAY - NEWPORT MARINA w SCALE :1' 1001 1 ID 2011-m PREP. BY; AA CHKO. BY: DATE: 06074011 1 EST,: Ffk-EC.DATE - 16-249 EXHIBIT C PROJECT PROPOSAL Prepared for: Ron & Allyson Presto Prepared by: Swift Slip Dock and Pier Builders, Inc, Date: February 2T, 2015 Proposal: Based an Dock Proposal 3 Dated; 2113/2015 - — Project Number:13899 16-250 5caLe of work: 1. Demo existing dock. 2. Shorten existing pier 10'. !! 3. Design and build new dock system based on Dock Proposal 3, 4, Install now gangway system to include; 1- VOW gangway, 1- 5'x 45' gangway, and a floating intemmdlrate A.DA gangway platform. 03 5. Insert new 14" (53) and 18" (11) aquare pilings. 1 03 6. Inatali new Electrical System. �9 7. Install now Fire System. Q S S � � f 16-251 5w, ca U) 0 CL 0 L- CL �C L3 0 0 0 s m OD co co cli 16-252 Total Cost Breakdown New Docks: $ 709,909.00 Engineering $ 10,500.00 Install Floating Docks $ 57,888.00 Dema $ 82,103.00 Pilings $ 96,692.00 Pile Instillation $ 256,000.00 ADA Gangway System: 1-5'x45', 1-5'x35' $ 55,055.00 Gangway Instiillation $ 5,500.00 Fire System: Copper Piping $ 36,105.00 Fire Hose Cabinet (10) $ 9,770.00 Hoses & Fittings $ 4,125.00 Standpipes (10) $ 16,500.00 Labor $ 27,700.00 Electrical: Dock Boxes $ 19,340.00 5" x 530 Amp (17) $ 4,080.00 NP Harbor Mate 30 (15) $ 15,714.00 NP Harbor Mate 30150 (17) $ 19,356.00 DSP Electrical Bid $ 20,790 00 Conduits & PVC $ 3,245.00 (2) NEMA4 Panels $ 9,504.00 Wiring $ 19,363.00 Labor $ 30,000.00 Domestic Water: Parts $ 4,840.04 Labor $ 4,563.00 SCE Estimate $ 30,000.00 Waterworks Estimate $ 50,000.00 Sewer Estimate $ 20,000,00 Other: SCE Transformer $ 30,000.00 Permits $ 4,000.00 Civil Engineer $ 5,000.00 Electrical Contractor $ 3,000.00 Sub Total $ 1,660,642.00 Add: Contingency @ 10% $ 166,064.20 Dredge Area -Docks $ 200,000.00 Total $ 2,026,706.20 16-253 16-254 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WATERFRONT PROJECT GUIDELINES AND STANDARD S HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES NLICIPoP— ., 2017 EDITION 16-255 City of Newport Beach Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards Harbor Design Criteria Commercial and Residential Facilities March 14, 2017 16-256 TABLE OF CONTENTS HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA General.......................... ............. -.. ................................... o ........... ....... -.7 ................. e ...... :4 1. Waterside Development...... ... ......................................................................5 A. Docks ................................ ..................................... I ....... . .....................5 1 ............... 5- I Alternative Berthing Geometries ....... I ................. ...... _-S 2. Layout and Design (Commercial & Residential) ......... .................................. Slip and Boat Overhang Into Adjacent Fairways. ........:.................6 Finger and Walkway Widths ...........................................................6 Table No. 1: Minimum Finger Widths..................... ........... -7 Single and .Double -Wide Slips` ......... ....... ; .......................................... 7 Vessel "Rafting" .................... ........ LongDocks....i..i .. ........................ i ......... LoadingCriteria....... ... 4- ...... i ...................................... Graph No. 1; Wind Load, Vessel Profile Heights For "S.40 Area" (Recreational &c Commercial Vessels}.,...,.,,..,,..10 FlotatiQn,ond Freeboards, ....... ............ ............... �-ve, ....... Static Floating Tolerances .................. .............. [2 Torsional Resistance Requirements... ......... 4- ........... 13 GuidePiles ................ ........................ i .......................... i- ... io,,- 13 3. Dock Materials of Construction .................................................... t5 General............ ....................... .... .................... ....... I ......... 15 Timber.,.,... ................. ...... ........ I--, ...... ......... 11 ... 16, Metal.... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . p . . . . . . ve . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T;- 17 Concreteand Reinforcing ......................:......................:.......::......1$ Pilings and Anchorage ....... .............................................. .... 19 Alternative and/or 4. Appurtenances ....... ................................. ........ LockerBoxes ................... ....... ***'i* .............. 21, Cleats.............. i ............. ............................................... ... i ..... 21 Bumpers................................................................ ............... ........ 21 BoardingSteps-...,-,-, ........................................... P .... : .......... t ...... 21 Life.................. ................................... I ..................... 22 DockLadders.i .......................................................................... #-. 212 5. Access/Gangways/Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Compliance., .................................................................................. 22 General.. 4 .............................................. ............. Commercial Docks ................. o ............. i ..................................... 23 ResidentialDocks ................. 6 .................................... i- ............. 24 16-257 6. Special Harbor Facilities.............................................................25 FuelFloats..................................................................................25 Sewage Pump Out Facilities.......................................................26 FloatingBuildings .................................................................26 Vessel Launching Facilities.................................................26 Special Mooring Devices........................................................27 Piers, Platforms and,Wharves......................................................27 Seawalls (Bulkheads)., .............:......................:............................27 7. Dredging ................................................................................29 8. Utilities........................................................................................29 Electrical Power and Lighting....................................................29 Plumbing.................................................................................... 3 FireProtection.........................................:...:...............................32 9. Environmental................................................................ .........33 Commercial Facilities.............:...............................:.........,:..;...;..33 Residential Facilities............ ........., . ................:..:.................33 10. Permitting ...............................,....,...,.......................:.....,:..:...33 MaintenanceProjects :................... ....... ................................... .*—.34 Alteration and New Construction Projects .., .......................:.....34 IL Landside Developments (Commercial Only).....................................................35 3 16-258 HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA GENERAL The construction of harbor facilities shall accommodate the need for safety and durability as well as convenience and appearance. Structural elements of the docks, floats, gangways, piles, etc., shall be adequate to safeguard human life, boats, and boating equipment. Boat berthing facilities shall be designed to adequately handle anticipated loads with reasonable factor of safety as deemed appropriate by the City of Newport. Materials of construction shall resist the corrosion of saltwater in order to assure low maintenance requirements and long life of the facility. Floats shall be designed to assure stability and buoyancy for safe operations. Adequate utilities meeting all requirements of the current, applicable codes, shall be provided for the convenience and safety of boaters and maintenance workers. Harbor Permits. and Plan Check shall be as per the Title' 17 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy H -I. Dock systems shall be designed by a civil or structural' engineer, licensed by the State of California, who is experienced in the design of marine structures: Repairs and non-structural modifications to existing residential docks can be designed by a contractor experienced in dock facilities, at the discretion of the City of Newport Beach. in accordance to California Building Code [A] 104.10 Modifications. "Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases; upon application of the owner or owner's representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The . details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety" in accordance to California Building Code [A] 104.11 Alternative materials; design and methods of construction and equipment. '-The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety. 4 16-259 1. WATERSIDE DEVELOPMENT The limits and constraints of construction in the harbor are defined by a series of Fines that have been established over time by the Federal Government, as well as the City of Newport Beach. These lines have been defined in Chapter 17.01 of the Municipal Code. Prior to the preparation of documents to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for review of a proposed project, the applicant should obtain a full understanding of these lines and have a qualified engineer, surveyor or contractor define these lines on any plans submitted for a proposed project. These lines include the existing or current edge of construction along the waterfront with respect to the Federal Bulkhead, Pierhead and Project Lines, Channel Tines, Property lines (and their projections), Anchorage Area, and Turning Basins. A. DOCKS I. ALTERNATIVE BERTHING GEOIVIETRIES Various berthing geometries are available and acceptable for the berthing of boats for a docking facility. The following figures present the generalized arrangements that are considered acceptable to the City of Newport Beach for the safe mooring of boats. The attached figures and "Case" geometries can be utilized as shown, or in combination with one another, in an overall marina dock scheme. 2. LAYOUT AND DESIGN (Commercial & Residential) a. General (1) Layout and design of harbor facilities shall be based upon the use of the facility defined as follows; (a) Single or joint residential (b) Multi -residential (c) Commercial 1) Passenger 2) Recreational boat marina (2) "Layout & Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities", (2005 edition) published by the State of California Department of Boating and Waterways, except as modified by the City's harbor standard drawings within the Design Criteria may be used as a guide to design harbor structures. 16-260 (3) See the attached Harbor Standard Dra►vings for plans. sections and details of typical conditions for vessel moorings and docks. gangways, platforms, seawalls, and beach profiles. These '{,,,►� Standards are to be considered minimum requirements for the cases represented and, at the City of Newport Beach 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. b. Slip and Boat Overhang into Adjacent Fairways: (1) Berths shall not be occupied by vessels more than 3 feet longer than the berth or slip, or in the case of fairways with a 1.75 x Lb width, not more than 10% of the length of the ringer. (2) For berths either parallel or perpendicular to a main channel, vessels can extend beyond the limits of the slip by as much as the beam of the boat. C. Finger and Walkway Widths: (1) Minimum Finger widths for recreational commercial and residential docks shall be per Table No. #. (2) Fillets at the connection of walkways to fingers shall not have less than a 4 -Foot side. (3) Outer end (end tie) and side -tie ringers shall be a minimum of one foot wider than the minimal widths for all other adjacent finger docks. toy Residential Headwalks and Mainwalks: (a) Minimum residential headwalk widths shall be no less than 6 feet For dock lengths up to 120 feet in total length. and 8 feet wide for dock lengths of more than 124 feet. (5) Commercial Headwalks and Mainwalks: (a) Minimum widths shall be no less than 6 feet for dock lengths up to 120 feet in total length, and 8 feet wide for dock lengths of more than 120 Feet. If use of a walk►vay is for staging the public while waiting to board a vessel, the minimum dock width shall be 12 feet. E 16-261 (b) At gangways, a minimum of 6 feet of walking surface shall be maintained in front of the furthermost gangway projection (including toe plate) at high tide, and have a minimum of 4 feet of clear space to walk along the side of any gangway for access to berthed vessels. Table No. 1 Minimum Finger Widths 111, _Widths of more than Mat shown in this Figure may be necessan, for speed site conditions andior uses ofJiAgers over 70Jeec 12) Minimum S -0 " widths are required for the entire path of travel for ADS! access, including paths along main- and headwalks. Single and. Double -Wide Slips: (1) Single -wide slips are those slips that have a finger on each side of the boat. Double -wide slips have only one finger adjacent to any given boat. e. Vessel "Rafting": (1) Vessel "rafting" is the practice of connecting multiple vessels together, with only one of the vessels being tied/berthed to a walkway or finger. Rafting of vessels is not allowed, unless specifically approved by the Harbor Resources Division and/or the Fire Department for special facilities and/or events. f. Long Docks: (1) Long docks are defined as side -tie docks with more than one boat berthed. Unless specifically identified otherwise, and for the purpose of establishing the number of boats that may utilize a long dock per State of California Department of Boating and Waterways Guidelines, it will be assumed that one boat is berthed alongside a long dock every 40 feet of long dock length. "Chis would relate to a 30-11 berthed boat, with 5 feet of clearance 16-262 F = 5.0' All ADA Accessible Finger floats F=3.0' Up to 35' F=4.0' 36'to59' F = 5.0' 60' to 79' F=6.0..' 80' to 119' F =1.0 120' and over 111, _Widths of more than Mat shown in this Figure may be necessan, for speed site conditions andior uses ofJiAgers over 70Jeec 12) Minimum S -0 " widths are required for the entire path of travel for ADS! access, including paths along main- and headwalks. Single and. Double -Wide Slips: (1) Single -wide slips are those slips that have a finger on each side of the boat. Double -wide slips have only one finger adjacent to any given boat. e. Vessel "Rafting": (1) Vessel "rafting" is the practice of connecting multiple vessels together, with only one of the vessels being tied/berthed to a walkway or finger. Rafting of vessels is not allowed, unless specifically approved by the Harbor Resources Division and/or the Fire Department for special facilities and/or events. f. Long Docks: (1) Long docks are defined as side -tie docks with more than one boat berthed. Unless specifically identified otherwise, and for the purpose of establishing the number of boats that may utilize a long dock per State of California Department of Boating and Waterways Guidelines, it will be assumed that one boat is berthed alongside a long dock every 40 feet of long dock length. "Chis would relate to a 30-11 berthed boat, with 5 feet of clearance 16-262 on either end. Distance between two adjacent boats shall be minimum 10 feet. g. Loading Criteria: (1) The design of the dock system shall incorporate all anticipated dead and live loads. (a) Dead Loads: Dead loads shall include the weight of the dock system components (walers, bracing, bracket, etc.) which are permanently incorporated into the dock system, and non -dock system components (transformers, gangways, dinghy racks, trash containers, buildings, etc.) which are permanently affixed to the dock system. (b) Live Loads: Live loads are temporary, transient loads imposed in the ordinary use of the dock system, such as people, carts, mobile equipment, wave - loadings, wind loads, impact loads, etc. The dock system shall be capable of supporting Five loads and freeboards per "Flotation and Freeboards". The structure shall also be capable of supporting a 400 -pound moving point load anywhere on the deck surface, but no closer than 12" from any dock edge, while maintaining the level tolerances cited in this guideline. (c) Wildlife Loads.: Refer to "Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities". (2) Wind loads shalt be calculated both parallel to and perpendicular to maximum length of vessels and structures in accordance to current California Building Code. (a) Wind load on the lateral area of vessels or structures shall not be less than 15 pounds per square foot acting. on the projected area of the docks as well as the profile area - "sail area" of the berthed vessels above water level. (b) Lateral area of vessels for wind load calculations acting on the "sail area" of the vessel shall be as per Craph No. 1, or the actual sail area of the anticipated vessel, whichever is greater. (c) Ten percent (10%) of the full wind load for an unshielded vessel shall be applied to each vessel in the leeward side of the unshielded vessel. 16-263 (3) Current Loading: Floating docks in areas of the harbor may be subject to current loads. Dock shall be designed for minimum current velocity of I feet/sec. (4) Impact Loading. Impact Load from design vessel ("maximum boat size that may be moored on the dock) striking dock at 10 degree angle (from parallel to dock) with approach speed of minimum I feet/sec. (5) Wave Loading: A simple wave analysis was conducted to provide general guidance of a 100 -year return period wind waves and ocean swells at Newport Harbor. In general, the majority of Newport Harbor is dominated by wind waves except for the areas near the harbor entrance which are dominated by Ocean Swells. Contact the City of Newport Beach. Harbor Resources for details of reference study. A qualified civil engineer, licensed in the State of California, shall conduct site-specific engineering analysis to evaluate the appropriate design wave loading for the project. (6) Load Combinations: (a) Combined load cases for design of docks shall include the following: I ) Dead load plus uniform live load 2) Dead load plus concentrated 400 -Ib live load. 3) Dead load plus wind load plus current & wave loads. 4) Dead load plus impact load. (b) Fabrication, handling and liffting loads shall also be checked in the calculation of the dock system. (c) A 1/3 increase in allowable stresses can be used when in combination with either wind, current, wave or impact loads. For all wood stresses, the allowable stress shall be reduced in accordance with the California Building Code for wet conditions, and then the 1/3 increase in allowable stress applied. (d) Calculations shall include the transfer of forces from the dock system into the piles. All components within this transfer mechanism shall be substantiated. 16-264 1 I •� mom ME SESSION M No 0 on INN M IINO OEM MmEmmilmol No MENSON" m m Moll MEN ME No ■ ■ ■ off G. oft -1 r 16-265 h. Flotation and Freeboards: (I) Sufficient flotation shall be provided to support dead load plus live load with freeboards as noted below. Higher live load requirements may be required by the City of Newport Beach, under special circumstances as may be deemed appropriate. Dock freeboard shall be minimum 14 inches and maximum 24 inches, under dead load. Dock freeboard shall not be less than 9 inches and there shall be minimum t inch of pontoon freeboard remaining, under dead plus live load. See Figure No. 13 for typical concrete dock system (where dock system itself is the pontoon) and Fig 14 for typical timber, aluminum, steel, and composite framing dock system (where framing is supported by pontoons). a) Residential docks shall be designed for a live load of 25 pounds per square foot. b) Marinas, Public Pier (also known as Public Docks) and Commercial Docks (Docks subject high volumes of pedestrian traffic and the movement of goods, material, supplies, cargo, etc, such as docks used for ferries, charter boats, fishing boats, boat shows, shuttles, water taxis, etc.) shall be designed for a live load of 4.0 pounds per square foot. Commercial Docks, as described above, which are also used for the staging of passengers, or heavy loads, shall be designed for live load of 65 pounds per square foot. Signage indicating maximum number of people (using occupant load factor 200 pounds/person) that may be staged (Dock Staging Capacity) shall be posted at a prominent location at staging area. Exception 1: Docks whose functionality requires dead load freeboard less than 14 inches (docks used for kayaks, rowboat, etc.) shall be designed for 25 pounds per square foot Live load, These special docks shall be exempt from the freeboard requirement on '`Floatation and Freeboard Section h.l". Signage indicating maximum number of people (using occupant load factor = 200 pounds/person) that may use the dock (Dock Capacity) shall be posted at a prominent location. 16-266 Exception 2: Repair or Modification to less than 50% of an Existing Dock is exempt from the freeboard requirement on. '`Floatation and Freeboard Section h.l ". However, Engineer of Record shall perform freeboard calculation, to provide sufficient floatation under repaired or modified portion of dock section, to match freeboard of existing dock and support minimum live load of 25 pounds per square foot. C) Weight of seawater, for the. purposes of flotation calculations, shall be 64 pounds per cubic foot. (2) The flotation shall use a r&id block of expanded polystyrene (EPS) cores or equivalent. The use of hollow pontoons shall not be allowed. (3) Docks shall have pontoons composed of outer shells of either concrete (I" minimum thickness) or an ultra -violet stable plastic such as fiberglass or cross-linked polyethylene (1/8" minimum thickness). Other alterrnative materials must be submitted to the City for review and approval, per the "Request for Alternate Material or Method of Construction" appeals process. Exposed: foam flotation is, not allowed. (4) Residential Docks: In addition to the pontoon encapsulation types noted above, residential docks may also use spray -on elastomeric encapsulation systems for pontoons. Spray -on products must demonstrate resistance to ultra -violet rays, solvents that may be present on the water surface, and environmental conditions imposed by saltwater contact. Minimum spray -on product thickness shall be 1.00 mils: Static Floating Tolerances: (1) The dock surface of the in-place dock system, which includes finger floats and walkways; under various loading conditions, shall be level within the following tolerances: Under Dead Load Only, & ''/a" per foot, 1" maximum Under Dead and Live Loads: (transverse) 1/8" per foot, 1" in 10 feet maximum (longitudinal) Under Dead and Point Live Loads: '/." per foot (4%), • 2" maximum (transverse) 12 16-267 1/4" per foot, 2" in 10 feet maximum (longitudinal) On Accessible Routes, for ALL Shall not exceed 1:50 or Loading Conditions: 2% maximum (transverse) (2) Under Dead Load Only conditions, the free ends of finger tloats shall always float level or higher than the finger float ends connected to the head or mainwalk, within the limits noted above. j, Torsional Resistance Requirements: (1) General: Fingers, connected walkways, and free-standing headwalks unattached to other dock elements must be designed to provide dock stability and resistance to torsional loads, Torsion bars installed in fingers, and/or dock framing construction that provides for calculated and verifiable twist resistance, is required. Free-standing headwalks need not provide independent means of torsional resistance if the width ofheadwalk is 8 feet or more. Alternative means of providing torsional resistance to fingers and main- or headwalks may be considered by the City of Newport Beach. Methods such as twist -controlling guide roller assemblies may be considered, if acceptable twist resistance can be proved. k. Guide Piles: (1) Dock system pilings shall be designed by an Engineer, licensed by the State of California, who shall have demonstrated expertise in the design of marine structures. Pile loading calculations shall be provided based on a soils investigation by a licensed geotechnical engineer, or based on minimum code values for soil properties. Alternatively, a pile test may be conducted by a licensed engineer after piles have been driven, to confirm that the piles can withstand the design loads anticipated. Testing procedures must be approved by the City prior to commencement. (2) Soil conditions in Newport Harbor can vary depending on the existence of rock strata near historic bluffs along the coastline. The Applicant is advised to research the soils conditions of the subject site in order to properly assess the conditions for pile stability and installation. 13 16-268 (3) Loading Conditions & Criteria: (a) Applied lateral windand impact loads shall be calculated for not lower than a +7.5 foot MLLW water surface, and a load height acting upon the piles at no lower than +8.5 foot MLLW. (b) Loads imposed on the dock framing system as previously noted in this loading criteria, shall be imposed in -like - kind to the piles providing the lateral load resistance for the docks. (c) Pile penetration shall not be less than 15 feet. (d) Pile cutoff elevation shall not be lower than +12.0 feet, MLLW in protected areas of the Harbor. Applicant shall consider pile top elevation of +13.0 or higher for facilities in or near the Harbor Entrance, due to more severe environmental conditions. (e) Guide pile caps shall be provided to discourage birds from perching on piles. (4) Special Geological Conditions: (a) There are locations within the Newport Harbor area that contain rock -like geological conditions, exhibiting different soil resistance characteristics than standard bay mud. The applicant is encouraged to observe the type of guide piles used in the existing surrounding installations to. assess the type of piles that may be required for any new project. A geotechnical consultant could be retained to provide this information and pile design and installation recommendations, as well. 14 16-269 3. DOCK MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION a. General: Materials used in dock systems shall have a demonstrated history of use in salt water environments of at least 10 years, or otherwise be approved by a licensed engineer practicing in waterfront engineering. Materials used in dock systems are to be new and in good condition. (1) Flotation: (a) Flotation systems shall be the products of manufacturers and contractors regularly engaged in the production of such items for marine construction. (b) Flotation units shall consist of: I) Concrete cast around a solid, closed cell foam core, or 2) Fiberglass, polyethylene or plastic shell with a fitting; solid, closed cell foam core. (2) Plastics: All plastics used in the dock systems shall be ultra -violet light t stabilized or protected. Plastics proposed for use must have a { demonstrable performance history in salt water environments of at least ten years, or be the recommendation of a California licensed Engineer. Design strengths and thickness shall be appropriate for the intended purpose. (3) Foam core for floats shall be a rigid block of closed cell expanded polystyrene with a unit weight of between 0.95 to 1.2 pounds per cubic foot. Properties of foam shall conform to ASTM C578, with maximum water absorption of 3.0 percent or less as determined by ASTM C 272, Method C. The foam core shall not have more than 10 percent reground material. and reground foam pieces shall not exceed 3/8 -inch diameter. X 16-270 b. Timber: (l) All wood -construction fingers shall have framing that includes cross -members that provide rigid connection to the full-length stringers. All connections shall be made using thru-bolts. Commercial Dock Framing.: For independent long docks that float freely and <do not have docks and/or fingers attached for stability, all primary Load carrying framing members shall be fabricated from glued -laminated beam construction, to prevent warpage of the major members, contributing to dock instability. (2) Allowable Stresses: Allowable stresses for harbor structures shall not exceed those stated in the "California Building Code". (3) Timber used for walking decks shall have a minimum net thickness of I''!2 inches. (4) Timber for walking surfaces shall be Douglas Fir, Select Structural. Sawn timber for other framing members shall be Douglas Fir, No.. 1, minimum. (5) Glued -laminated timber shall be Douglas Fir 24F -V8, industrial grade for application in wet environments. Fabrication shall comply with Product Standard. PS 56-73, "Structural Glued Laminated Timber". (6) Walking surfaces shall have a non-skid finish and be maintained periodically or when worn and unsafe. Treated timber decking requires no further non-skid finish. (7) Dimensional lumber is not required to be painted. However, if the applicant chooses to paint, such paint shall be maintained to good condition and appearance. (8) Plywood utilized within dock framing systems shall be exterior grade material. Plywood shall not be used as the walking surface for a dock system, unless the product can be demonstrated that it is provided with a factory -applied protective, non-skid walking surface that will be durable and has a proven process for patching and touch-up. Internal plywood members shall be provided in such a manner that water can be easily conveyed off the top surface of plywood and not pond or get trapped, leading to early deterioration and dry rot. 16 16-271 (9) Weight of treated Douglas Fir shall be assumed to be 35 pounds per cubic foot. (10) All timber used for dock construction shall be marked with the appropriate grade of material and preservative treatment. or may be subject to rejection by the City Inspector. (11) Wood Preservative for Timber: (a) All timber products shall be coated with preservative treatment to retention limits recommended by the American Wood Preservers Association Standard M4 "Standard for the Care of Preservative -Treated Wood Products" and AWPA Standard C2 "Lumber, Timber, Bridge Ties & Mine Ties — Preservative Treatment by Pressure Processes". (b) Current State and Federal environmental requirements and guidelines for the type and application of preservative treatments will be strictly enforced. (c) All lumber must bear a stamp approved by the American Lumber Standards Committee for conformance to the American Preservers Association Standards. (d) Field cuts and bored holes shall receive field -applied preservative treatment in accordance with Best Management Practices. Preservative treatment chemicals shall not be allowed to enter harbor waters. C. Metal: (1) Any steel components used in the marine environment shall be hot -dip galvanized with a minimum of 3 mils of zinc, or epoxy coated per ASTM A 931 and manufacturers recommendations, or shall be stainless steel. (2) Structural steel shall conform to Standard Specifications for Structural Steel for Bridges and Buildings. Stainless Steel shall conform to 316 material specifications. Aluminum shall be marine grade. 17 16-272 (3) Fabtles ioo sled -erection shall. comply with the latest applicable codes. as noted; W AI$C, .Latest Editions- (b). Aluminum Structural Welding Code, Latest Edition (c) Aluminum Design Manual, Latest Edition (d) 12011 Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel, Latest Edition (4) All bolts securing primary structural members shall be °a minimum of V2 inch diameter thru bolts; Bolts shall be minimum A307 and. include washers where direct contact with timber members occurs. Carriage bolts are also allowed. (5) No connecting device shall protrude beyond the fascia or waler into the berthed area, 'which may contact any part of the berthed vessel, or extend up into any walking surface creating a tripping hazard. d. Concrete and Reinforcing; (1) Concrete shall be designed for permeability, strength, chemical stability and abrasion resistance, appropriate for its application. Minimum compressive strength for concrete, subject to salt water splash; immersion and/or brackish water is 5;000 psi and a OA water -to -cement ratio. (2) Portland cement shall conform to ASTM C 150 Type I or Type 11 modified, and low alkali. Chemical admixtures shall conform to ASTM C 494. Chemicals designed to limit corrosion of internal reinforcing may be used. ;Air .entrainment admixtures Shall conform to ASTM C 260. Coarse and fine aggregate shall conform to ASTM C 33, and ASTM C 330 where lightweight aggregates are used. Lightweight aggregate, if used, shall consist of expanded and coated shale or equivalent material of sufficient strength and durability to provide concrete of the required strength, (3) Concrete structures shall be designed to provide sufficient coverage of reinforcing steel, so as to prevent corrosion. per code requirements. For structures exposed to salt water splash or immersion, bar reinforcement shall conform to ASTM A 706, and shall be epoxy coated per ASTM A 931, after bending of the 18 16-273 bars. Welded wire mesh shall conform to ASTM A 185 and shall be epoxy coated conforming to ASTM A 884, with all visible defects and cut ends repair coated. Wires used to tie reinforcing_ steel shall be either epoxy -coated steel, or 316 stainless steel. e. Pilings and Anchorage: (1) Piles shall be the products of manufacturers and contractors regularly engaged in the production of such items for marine construction. Typical materials approved for pile materials include: 1. Pre -stressed concrete, 2. Steel, or 3. High-strength composite materials. Timber piles are not allowed. (2) Unless subsurface soil materials prevent their use, pilings shall be pre -stressed concrete. Portland cement shall be ASTNI C150 Type 2. Water for mixing and curing shall be fresh, clean and potable. Aggregates shall conform to ASTM C33, Size Number 67, and be free from any substance that is deleteriously reactive with the alkalis in the cement. Admixtures, if used, shall conform to the requirements of ASTM C494 and not contain chlorides. Corrosion inhibiting concrete admixtures are encouraged. Pre -stressing steel shall be uncoated, seven -wire stress relieved strand with a minimum ultimate stress of 270,000 psi confonning to ASTM A416. Ties and spirals shall conform to ASTM A82, cold drawn. Piles shall cure and reach a strength of not less than 4,000psi before de -tensioning and cutoff of the strands. (3) Guide rollers shall be fabricated from polyethylene, UHMW, polyolefin or polyurethane roller or plate material. As an option to the use of rollers, UHMW rub blocks may be used. Minimum thickness of a rub block shall be 2 inches, with attachment bolts countersunk into the UHMW material. (4) Any structural steel components used in the marine environment shall be hot -dip galvanized or epoxy coated per manufacturers recommendations, or 316 stainless steel. (5) Steel piles must be coated with a non-toxic coating that prevents or inhibits the corrosion of the pile base material. Design of steel piles shall include a 1/8 -inch additional corrosion allowance. Coatings must be maintained to prevent growth and wear from the guide roller assemblies. Rollers should be cleaned periodically to prevent shell fragment build-up from further deteriorating the coatings protecting the steel piles. For added steel pile protection. sacrificial anodes may also he designed and Z 16-274 installed to limit corrosion, and UHMW plastic pile wraps can be installed to limit wear of the steel surface from guide roller friction. (6) Installation Criteria: (a) Piling shall be installed by a licensed contractor regularly engaged in the business of pile driving. Care shall be taken in the handling and driving of piling, to prevent spalling, cracking or other damage. Contractor shall install piles per approved local, state and federal requirements. Jetting may be permitted with Local approval. (b) Tolerances: I) The elevation of the head of piles shall be within one inch of designer top of pile elevation. Minimum pile top elevation for dock systems shall be +•12.0 MLLW. 2) Piling shall be installed vertically plumb within tolerances defined in the construction documents, but in no cases more than 2.5% out of vertical plumb,. and d inches out of horizontal location. (c) Records, Certifications, and Inspection: 1) Records. of pile driving operations shall be maintained under the supervision of the Engineer of Record, and made available to the City upon request. 2) Contractor shall make the pilings_ available for City inspection prior to installation; 3) Upon completion of the pile driving operation, subject to the requirements of the permit, the engineer may certify that the pilings were installed in accordance with the design and these guidelines. Such certification shall be on the Engineer's letterhead and bear the Engineer's stamp, and shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 20 16-275 1: Alternative and/or Hybrid Materials r Alternative materials such as recycled plastic. PVC, composite and others, which can show a demonstrated experience and useful lifespan in the marine environment and usage, can be proposed to the City of Newport Beach for consideration. The decision of the City of Newport. Beach regarding the use of alternative or hybrid materials will be final. 4. APPURTENANCES a. Locker Boxes: Individual locker "dock" boxes may be provided for slips, and may provide housing for electrical and mechanical services. Locker boxes shall be securely attached to the dock surface. All dock boxes should be located on finger fillets; i.e., the intersection of the Finger and the main or headwalk, on the triangular dock surface. Locations other -than on a finger fillet require the approval of the City. Locker boxes installed in the path of travel that limits safe pedestrian access will not be allowed.. Minimum clearances for safe pathways are as follows: 2 feet clear on fingers, 3 feet clear path on main and headwalks. Lockers boxes shall be made of 1/8 inch minimum thick fiberglass or cross-linked polyethylene. Flammable materials shall not be kept in locker boxes. b. Cleats: Cleats shall be designed to accommodate boats and loads appropriate for their 'loeation. A minimum of two cleats on each side of a finger is required. Cleats shall be attached to the dock system by means of through -bolts of adequate size to transmit loads between boats and the dock system.. C. Bumpers: Bumpers shall be installed on dock surfaces that will come into contact with boats. Outer corners of fingers should be protected with corner bumpers or dock wheels. Bumper material shall be vinyl products, or those that have been approved by an Engineer, licensed to practice in the State of California. Water retentive material such as rugs, or salvage materials such as tires, shall not be used. Install bumpers with aluminum or stainless steel nails or screws. d. Boarding Steps: Boarding steps shall not be kept on main walks. Boarding steps may be kept on, or attached to, finger floats, but in no case shall boarding steps on finger floats occupy more than one-half of the width of the finger float. Boarding steps shall be light -weight and not used for storage, unless the supporting dock section has been specifically designed for the additional dead and live load. Boarding 21 16-276 steps shall not be permanently attached to the outermost 5 feet of any finger float. e. Life Rings: Life rings shall be installed in strategic locations on commercial docks. Life rings for residential docks are encouraged, but not required. f. Dock Ladders: Dock ladders shall be installed in strategic locations on commercial docks for safety purposes. Ladders shall extend into the water by at least 3 feet, and be constructed of materials that resist corrosion and prolong ladder life. Ladders may be provided with the ability to swing out of the water in order to allow for special recreational uses of the docks. ladders for residential docks are encouraged, but not required. 5. ACCESS/GANGWAYS/AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES (ADA) CONIPLIANCE a. General (I) ' Landside facilities of commercial docks and of docks serving new multi -family developments shall meet all ADA requirements for the path of travel from the street and parking lot, to the gangway and down to the docks. (2) Walking surfaces of :gangways shall have a non-skid finish, such as punched metal, unpainted timber, or grit impregnated metal, painted non-skid coatings. etc. (3) Gangway Support: Connections between gangways and the adjacent bulkheads or platforms shall be designed by a licensed engineer, and comply with the following minimum requirements: (a) Gangways shall be supported: by the bulkhead or platform through a mechanical connection system, such as face - mounted plates or clip angle hangers with saddles, shackles or pins, attached to the bulkhead or platform with poured -in-place anchor bolts or epoxy -anchored threaded studs. Minimum diameter of bolts shall be 5/8 inch, and material for bolts in contact with concrete or treated lumber shall be Type 304 or 316 stainless steel. (b) The hinge and supports shall be capable of transferring full dead and live loads generated by the gangway to the mechanical connection system. 16-277 (c) Steel angles, plates and other sections utilized in these connections shall be minimum A36 grade and have a minimum thickness of 3/8 inches,. Any exposed edges of plates that may potentially be in the path of travel or in contact with foot traffic shall have beveled or rounded smooth edges. (d) Dissimilar material shall not be in direct contact to prevent galvanic corrosion. (e) All steel members and hardware shall be galvanized, or coated with a formulated non-toxic coating system designed specifically for the marine environment. (f) The gangway shall be restrained from lifting out of the support saddle during extreme high tide elevations, without interfering with rotation at the gangway hinge. (4) Gangways shall be braced in the horizontal plane to prevent lateral deformation. The bracing system can consist of diagonal supports within or under the gangway framing system, plywood sheathing, or by decking designed to act as a :shear transfer membrane. b. Commercial Docks: Commercial docks servicing the public will be required to meet all applicable requirements relating to Federal ADA Compliance requirements. (l) Design live loads for gangways shall be a minimum of 50 pounds per square foot for gangways functioning strictly for access to the dock system, and a minimum of 100 pounds per square foot for gangways that can be used as a staging area for passengers boarding vessels. The maximum allowable deflection of a gangway or bridge at mid span is L/240, with L/360 suggested for walking comfort. (2) Gangway slopes shall meet current state and Federal requirements for safety and ADA compliance, where applicable. (3) All commercial gangways shall be ADA compliant. (d) All walking surfaces shall be provided with a commercial grade non-skid surface. Worn or slick non-skid surfaces shall be repaired immediately upon notice. Non-skid walking surfaces shall be maintained and/or re-applied at a minimum of every six 23 16-278 (6) months. The maximum allowable gap in adjacent walking planks or surfaces shall be %z", and the maximum vertical height differential between adjacent planks or surfaces shall be 1/4". (5) All gangways shall be equipped with transition plates at the bottom of the gangway, and if fabrication details include gaps in the hinge transition of more than '/a inch. at the top of gangway as well. These: transition plates shall be of non-skid surface material and. provide the transition from the gangway platform and/or dock, onto the gangways. All transition plates shall have a slope no steeper than 1:8 for non -ADA -compliant gangways, and 1:12 for ADA -compliant gangways. Transition plate's shall have rounded edges along the path of travel and a height or thickness at the end of the plate of no greater than 3/8 inch. (6) Minimum clearance on the dock system around a gangway landing shall be 5'-0". (7) For additional discretionary gangways, other than the required ADA gangway, gangway slopes for commercial docks shall not exceed 1 foot vertically for each 3,0 feet of length, when the tide is at —1.0 feet MLLW. The minimum length of commercial gangway shall be 30'-0". (8) Guard, mid and hand railings shall meet the requirements of the latest State of California Title 24 requirements. (9) Railings shall be designed to resist a load of 50 pounds per foot applied horizontally to the rail or a 200 -pound point load applied vertically at any point along the length of all horizontal rails. C. Residential Docks: (1) Design live loads for residential gangways shall be a minimum of 25 pounds per square foot for gangways functioning strictly for access to the dock system. The maximum allowable deflection of a gangway or bridge at mid span is U240, with L/360 suggested for walking comfort. (2) Gangway slopes for residential docks shall not exceed I foot vertically for each 2.5 feet of length, during the full range of tidal swing elevations. The minimum length of residential gangway shall he 24'-0". (3) Minimum gangway clearance (within handrails) shall be 2'-6" wide. 24 16-279 (4) A 3 -foot long toe plate, at the base of a gangway, is encouraged for ease of use and safety and to provide a continuous sloping path of travel, from the surface of the gangway to the surface of the dock. A gangway bottom "step-oW , if the toe plate is not utilized, shall not exceed 7 inches in vertical height. (5) Worn or slick non-skid surfaces shall be repaired immediately upon notice. Non-skid walking surfaces shall be inspected and maintained periodically for safety purposes. (6) Gangway handrail heights shall be 34 to 38 inches above the gangway walking surface. Openings in rails of residential gangways shall not permit a sphere 12 inches in diameter to pass through. The gangway rail shall be designed to resist a load of 20 pounds per foot of horizontal force applied to the top of the rail. (7) if a residential dock system has 25 or more slips, an ADA - compliant gangway system must be, designed with a minimum design load of 50 pounds per square foot, and a maximum deflection of 1.1240, with a deflection of Ll360 suggested. See Federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines, 6. SPECIAL HARBOR FACILITIES a. Fuel Floats; (1) Locate boat -fueling docks near the entrance of the harbor, in an area that is protected from waves and rough water environmental conditions, (2) Fuel floats used for dispensing petroleum products shall be adequately designed and placed to provide maximum service to the boater. Adequate guide piles or dolphins shall be required to provide permanence, safety, and stability to the floating docks, and shall be designed by a California Licensed Engineer with waterfront experience. Fuel floats must be designed to support the dead loads imposed by the dispensers, hose reels, storage. pipe chase ways, etc. (3) Fuel facilities shall be in conformance with County, State and Federal codes, ordinances and law. Equipment, such as 25 16-280 containment booms and absorbent pads, shall be kept on the fuel dock to contain spills. (4) Fuel Floats shall contain all necessary firefighting equipment and systems, as deemed appropriate by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. b. Sewage. Pump Out Facilities: (1) Marinas with more than 50 boats are required to have at least one (1) sewage pump out facility. Sewage pump out facilities shall connect to the nearest City of 'Newport Beach sewage line system. Refer to City of Newport Beach Standard Drawings for Public Works Construction for details of these connections, (2) Sewage pump out equipment shall be products that have been designed, tested and installed for the specific purpose of vessel sewage pump out. All sewage pump -out facilities shall be inspected regularly and maintained in operable condition. C, Floating Buildings: (1) To obtain approval fmim the City of Newport, Beach Harbor Resources Division for the installation of a floating building, the applicant must provide compelling reasons that such a facility is necessary and is precluded from location on land. (2) Only commercial facilities are allowed to consider floating buildings. Residential facilities are not allowed to have floating buildings, Potential .floating building uses include restrooms, the dock master's office, enclosures on a floating fuel dock, and boat rental office. Other uses may be considered, at the discretion of the City of Newport Beach. (3) Floating buildings are subject to the latest edition of all local, State and Federal building codes. d. Vessel Launching Facilities: (1) Vessel launching facilities may include vehicle launch ramps for trailered boats, concrete launch ramps with rails and/or tracks for special vessel carriers, elevated travel lift launches, swing hoists on davits, and forklift launching. (2) All launch facilities shall be designed considering the launching and vehicle loads imposed on existing and/or planned structures. trol rte. 16-281 (3) Vessel launching facilities shall be designed in accordance with California Department of Boating and Waterways, Boating Facilities Division, "Layout, Design and Construction Handbook for Small Craft Boat Launching Facilities". C. Special Mooring Devices: (1) Special vessel mooring devices may be required or desired for specific berthing conditions. Large vessels may require mooring and/or breasting dolphins (pile groupings designed to resist large impact and berthing loads), berthing walls, or other devices that facilitate vessel docking. (2) Special mooring devices shall be designed by a licensed engineer and geotechnical consultant, with experience in waterfront engineering. Special mooring devices shall be designed to resist berthing loads, wind, wave, and. Current loading for the localized area. Piers, Platforms, and Wharves (1) Piers, platforms, and wharves shall be designed by a California licensed Engineer experienced in waterfront structures. A geotechnical report, for pile design and installation, shall be provided that addresses special .issues such as liquefaction potential, and the gravity and seismic support of the waterfront structure. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a California -licensed Geotechnical Consultant. Refer to the Harbor Standard Drawings for the various geometries allowed for piers and platforms that serve and provide access to residential floating docks. (2) Commercial: Structures shall be designed for an assembly area live load of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) as well as vehicle loads that may be imposed on the structure for maintenance purposes. (3) Residential: Structures shall be designed for a minimum live load of 50 psf. g. Seawalls (Bulkheads): (1) General: Several types of seawalls are common to support soils and construction on the landside of the wall. Seawall material can 27 16-282 be composed of various types of materials, including concrete, steel and other manufactured materials. Typical wall types include freestanding or "cantilevered" seawalls and "tied -back' seawalls. Cantilevered seawalls are limited by the height of the wall above the waterside mudline and are generally effective for exposed heights of not more than 8 feet.. For structural steel type seawalls, higher exposed heights are possible. Tied -back seawalls can be effective for exposed heights over 8 feet and may require continuous caps, waters (beams), steel tie rods and a foundation anchors (Deadman), or earth anchors. Tie -back anchor systems shall require protection against corrosion. Galvanic anode cathodic protection system is recommended. Tie -back anchor system shall be designed to last the life of seawall. (2) Generally, seawall sheets constructed of reinforced, prestressed concrete are desirable, although for special conditions, structural steel interlocking sheets may be necessary. Steel products in the marine environment require special non-toxic coating protection and cathodic protection, in order to provide extended life spans. (3) Seawalls shall have a top elevation of not less than 10.0 MLLW. Seawall elevations of greater than 10.0 MCL:W may be required by City of Newport Beach, depending on location within the bay and potential for wave or wake over -topping. (4) The distance between seawalls and all floating dock components shall be a minimum of one foot horizontal distance. (5) Seawalls shall bedesigned to resist all applicable vertical and horizontal loads. (6) A minimum safety factor of 1.5 shall apply to gravity loads, and a minimum safety factor of 1.1 shall apply to seismic loading cases for the stability of seawalls. (7) Decking may butt to the seawall cap, or cantilever over the top of the seawall, if approved. (8) Wing Walls: Wing walls are retaining walls that project landward and are perpendicular to the seawall Wing walls may be necessary to isolate the seawall protection system of one property to the adjacent property. Special care must be taken to assure that the construction of a seawall for the subject property does not adversely impact the seawalls of the adjoining properties, either during construction or over the life of the structures. 28 16-283 (9) Seawall design requires a soils report from a California -licensed geotechnical consultant experienced with the design of waterfront structures. Any sloping surface on the water or landside of the seawall must. be accounted for in the calculations for the seawall. (10) All concrete, sheets used for seawall construction shall be designed as prt-cast, pre.. -stressed concrete elements. Sheet design shall provide for symmetrical distribution and sizing of strands; to prevent curvature of the wall. See "Pilings & Anchorage" for concrete and reinforcing requirements. (1 1) All seawalls or seawall alterations shall be designed by a California -licensed Civil or Structural Engineer. 7. DREDGING a. All projects that require dredging must follow current local, State and Federal permitting requirements. b. For maintenance dredging projects involving small quantities, the City of Newport Beach, in conjunction with the. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS), has a program allowing for a. simplified permitting process, as long as the amount of dredging and disposal quantities are small and meet quality requirements. The applicant is encouraged to inquire about this simplified process with the Harbor Resources Division, to verify qualifications. S. UTILITIES. a. All utility lines in a floatingdock system may maintain clearances as outlined in "Layout & Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities". b. Electrical Power and Lighting: (1) All electrical design shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the National Electric Code (NEC) Article 555 — "Marinas and Boatyards", California State Building Standards "Article E555 Title 24, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) code, NFPA 303 and NFPA 70. 29 16-284 (2) Electrical systems shall be designed by an Electrical Engineer, licensed by the State of California, and shall be in accordance with the latest requirements of the City of Newport Beach. (3) An electric service connection shall be located at a minimum of every other slip. Electrical receptacles shall be waterproof and approved for marine waterfront exposure. The; following are suggested minimum receptacle requirements based on boat size: one (1) 120v, 30 amp outlet at -each boat slip under 35ft, two (2) 120v,- 30 amp outlets at each boat slip between the sizes of 36 to 45ft, one (t) 1;20v, 30amp and one (1) 120x, 50 amp receptacle at each boat slip between 46 to 55ft, and two (2) 120v, 50 amp receptacles for boats between 56 to 6511t. For vessels larger than 6511, special power requirements may be required and the applicant should consult the vessel manufacturer. Some large vessels may require 220v or 480x, 100amp services. Sub metering of each boat slip is recommended and has proven to reduce power usage in marinas where meters have been installed. (4) Lighting shall be provided on all floating structures for pedestrian safety. All lighting shall be ,so designed as to provide sufficient __ . light: -for. -safe: pedestrian usage! --_All fighting., on landside and - - waterside structures and buildings shall be designed to provide a minimum reflection/glare on the adjacent water areas with consideration for lighting reductions in evening hours. (5) Electrical cables and conduits shall be fastened securely to the dock system and gangways such that the system is protected from damage by boats. All electrical equipment shall be located above the harbor water level per NEC requirements at all times. If distribution cabling will be subject to water contact, cabling shall be rated for submersible use. All strapping supports for conduit shall be stainless steel. All electrical conduit and cables must be concealed within the dock system. (6) Transformers and panels located on the docks shall meet all requirements of the National Electrical Code (NEC). Several maintenance receptacles should be placed throughout the marina system to allow dock maintenance crews to use small electric tools without using metered power dedicated to slip renters. (7) Commercial Facilities: (a) Commercial facilities shall provide minimum lighting levels for public safety along the path of travel from land to the berthed vessel. 30 16-285 (b) Lighting fixtures with a capacity of 9 watts mounted at heights between 1.5 to 3 feet above the floating deck surface in dock boxes or on individual pedestals along the path of travel will generally meet this requirement. Fixtures should be located such that lighting levels on the walking surface are as uniform as possible. (c) In addition, pole -mounted lighting shall be provided to illuminate vertical access systems such a gangways, steps, and lifts, providing a higher level of illumination at vertical transitions in the path of travel. (d) Lighting systems shall be designed to provide light for the floating walking and access surfaces and not project Fight into neighboring properties, skyward and/or water space. Special lens and/or shields may be required to ensure that stray light is blocked and/or managed. (e) All lighting shall be controlled by photo cells and/or timers, to assure that their operation is automatic and energy conserving. C. Plumbing (1) Plumbing systems shall be designed by a Civil or Mechanical Engineer, licensed by the State of California, and shall be in accordance with the latest National Mechanical Code, State Plumbing Code, and National Fire Protection Association Code. (2) One hose bib shall be provided for every two (2) boats, as a minimum. Hose bibs for every boat slip are recommended for boater convenience and the reduction of clutter on the docks. (3) Backflow preventers shall be provided for all water supply systems into the site. Pressure reducers or booster pumps may be required to meet pressure and flow requirements. (44) Refer to Section "Sewage Pump Out Facilities" for criteria for sewage system installations. (5) Supply water and sewage piping shall accommodate the fill range of tidal movement, via the installation of flexible hoses and/or mechanical swivel pipe fittings. All materials shall be suited for the salt -water marine environment and be rated as "Food Grade" materials. 31 16-286 d. Fire Protection: (1) General: (a) All fire protection systems for marinas, wharves and piers shall be in accordance with NFPA Chapters 14 and 303, latest edition, and the California Fire Code Appendix H- C, Latest edition. See the attached Newport Reach Fire Department '`Fire Protection for Marinas, Wharves, and Piers" for system requirements. (2) Code Requirements: (a) Retroactivity of code provisions: At the option of the Newport Reach Fire Department, the authority can make the conditions and provisions of applicable current codes retroactive, if deemed necessary for public safety. Otherwise, the provisions of applicable codes that existed or were approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of the standard shall apply. (3) Fire Department. connections (FDC's), backflow preventers and pressure reducing assemblies or booster pumps if required, firehose cabinets, fire standpipes and portable fire extinguishers shall be provided on the docks, as required by Code. Meet City of Newport Beach Fire Department requirements for periodic hose testing and replacement. (4) Commercial Facilities: (a) All commercial dock installations shall be provided with a fire fighting system, approved by the City of Newport Reach Fire Department. If the City water pressure is not adequate to produce pressures necessary to meet special City and Code requirements, an auxiliary booster pump system maybe required. (b) All new and existing marinas and boating facilities shall meet the requirements described in "Cases" as made part of this Design Criteria. The purpose of these requirements is to facilitate safe boating navigation, as well as provide fire -fighting capability. 32 16-287 (5) Residential Facilities: (a) Fire protection systems for single-family residential docks are optional, although highly recommended. The residential owner should contact their insurance carrier for any policy requirements associated with providing a Fire protection system. (b) Fire protection for multi -family or condominium residential docks, piers and floats are required to have a Fire protection system meeting City and Code requirements. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL a. Commercial Facilities: (l) All commercial facilities: shall prepare a Best Management Practices plan to document environmental practices to be applied to daily operations. Plans shah address in -water maintenance Limitations, storage and handling of hazardous and/or waste products common to the boating community, and emergency response to, chemical spills. (2) Commercial facilities shall provide a means for vessels to pump out their bilge tanks and the wastewater products taken to an approved treatment and disposal facility. b. Residential Facilities: Not applicable W. PEMLITTINC Project Types and City Classifications: The purpose of project types and City classifications noted below is to establish the permit fee structure and process for submitted projects. Percentage replacement is based on the valuation of total dock system. Values of various types of construction are based on City records for average construction, and are not necessarily based on the construction cost estimates provided to the City by the Applicant. 33 a. Maintenance Projects: (Do not require State and Federal permit processing) (1) Re -decking an existing float, gangway, or pier, like for like (not more than 20% of total replacement cost). (Z) Fixing dry rot or damage (not more than 20%. of total replacement cost),. (3) Replacing piles, like for like, in the same hole (maximum 7 piles). (4) Replacing a gangway to City standards. (5) Raising a bulkhead to City standards. (6) Replacing deteriorated tie rods with earth anchors. (7) Repairing seawall cap beams and deadman. (8) Emergency repair of structures deemed by the City to jeopardize public safety. (Follow-up permitting may be required with the Coastal Commission.) (9) Partial demolition of structures; i.e., elimination of half of a "U" shaped dock and/or respective piles, (10) New water at sea side of an existing bulkhead, minimum of 2 feet above mudline (without encroaching property line) b. Alteration and New Construction Projects: (Requires State and Federal permit processing) (l) Re -decking an existing float, gangway, or pier, like for like (more than 20% of total replacement cost). (2) Fixing dry rot or damage (not more than 20% of total replacement cost). (3) Relocating one (I) or more piles (4) Replace float, pier and/or gangway, like for like. (5) Change in orientation or configuration of an existing dock, including pile relocation. (6) Any increase in dock footprint (7) Total reconstruction of a float, gangway. and/or pier (8) New configuration of a float, gangway, and/or pier (9) . Replace seawall panels (10) New bulkhead system 34 16-289 I1. LANDSIDC DEVELOPMENTS (Commercial Only) A. Landside developments of waterfront projects are subject to City of Newport Beach - Community Development Department, Building Division and Planning Division requirements. B. See State of California Department of Boating and Waterways "Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities". for minimum requirements for landside facilities, in support of waterfront developments. C. Landside requirements for marina projects include location and design of restroom facilities, minimum parking requirements and ADA compliance. 35 16-290 Bow Sprit Wo v Fig. No. 1 LEGEND: Ww = WIDTH @ WATER LINE L • LENGTH W/0 EXTENSIONS Lo = LENGTH OVERALL, WITH BOW SPRIT, SWIM STEP OR OTHER PROTRUSIONS Wo = WIDTH OVERALL Lb = LENGTH OF BERTH (FINGERFLOAT OR SLIP) (DRAW) Wb = WIDTH OF BERTH (DRAW) VESSEL SIZE ILLUSTRATION 16-291 Fig. NO. 2 er thon Lba Z/ LU, is yreucer than Lot DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE I 16-292 5 MARGINAL WALKWAY I I 1 I I 1.5 x Lo; FAIRWAY Where Lo, represents the longest vessel within the Bolin. For Foirwoy sizing, minimum boot size (L02) olong side tie to be considered os 40 ft. Lo, r F' j! O Lb, " z BASIN i DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 2 Fig. No. 3 J P 16-293 MARGINAL WALKWAY I I l I i 1 I 1 ► 1.50 x Lo, _I I FAIRWAY i I ► Where Lo; represents i I I I the longest vessel within the Basin. For 1 Fairway sizing, i I minimum boat size (Lo j along side tie I I to be considered as I w I 40 ft. ► o i I I I I I � I I i I I I I J I I I I I i I I I DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 3 Fig. No. 4 SEE CASE 2 TYP 16-294 Fig. No. 5 DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 4 16-295 Fig. No. 6 MARGINAL WALKWAY NOTE: THE BERTHING OF BOATS CAN NOT BLOCK THE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO OTHER BOATS OR THEIR EMERGENCY EGRESS. DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 5 16-296 NOTE: FOR VESSELS 40'-0 OR LARGER, SUPPORT PILES, MOORING SYSTEM, & ACCESS BRIDGES/GANGWAYS TO BE DESIGNED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER, REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITH FLOATING DOCK PILE (TY SHARED MOORINC BALL (T) MOTHER CHAIN ON BOTTOM Fig. No. 7 15" (MIN.) CLEAT ON WALKWAY (TYP) BOAT GANGWAY SINGLE MOORING BALL \- OPTIONAL PILE FOR VESSEL SEPARATION AND MANAGEMENT (TYP) MEDITERRANEAN -STYLE MOORING DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 6 16-297 Lo +• O Q k N Ln co Qp m N C _Q Lo - -' DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 7 i Fig. No. 8 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 16-298 DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE S 3 Fig. No. 9 16-299 2 Fig. No. 10 See Cose 98 DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 9A 16-300 a� QQ *` b U CL ca 0 to 2 -Q See Cose 98 DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 9A 16-300 .. - ��+4`t XR�s. ry 'r�;h;.¢�`✓,f1.6W:S1wi �r�.i:•xf� u,..,w.ui �..:ui#�;na,,,in,Fa�Fa� .. Outside limit of --�j r----- Pierhead Line (1)(4) guidepile l Stringers (Typ) No piles within zone between Pierhead and I Project lines (4) Fig. No. 10A Project Line('� -I Dock Fingers i3) I I i Federal Dredging Limit (z) (1) Pierhead and Project lines are established and managed by the federal government. (2) Portions of floating docks that extend into Federal Dredging Limit must be removed by the dock owner at dock owners cost, when the federal goverment conducts periodic dredging operations. (3) Dock fingers must be designed and constructed in such a way that provides structural integrity of the fingers to resist lateral impact and mooring line loads without guide piles at the finger ends. Continuous structural stringers andjor special moment and shear -carrying splices must be engineered and submitted to the Building Department for approval. (4) The City council has allowed exceptions for dock constrcution beyond the Pierheod Lines as noted in Council Policy H-1. DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 9B 16-301 County Recorded agreement between adjacent property owners is req'd for the shoring of a common dock. CASE 10 Note 1: Installation of a floating CASE 11 walkway con not adversely impact the existing berthing & navigation of adjacent property C GASE I Z PROPERTY LINE CONDITIONS t /f 1 C Fig. No. 11 o k � a� � J W 4 Q k v C ti O Q o W w 1 z z �? � � 3 N � 3y Ln C GASE I Z PROPERTY LINE CONDITIONS t /f 16-302 1 C c •- k � a� LnCL C ti O Q k (U Q �? � � 3 N � 3y 16-302 Grand Conal , Balboa Island Vicinity Map BOW U; 0 MOGRIN BUOY PLAN Nigh Tide SECTION A -A Fig. No. 12 4WALL STERN LINES ANCHOR DOCK ARRANGEMENT CASE 13 (Grand Canal Only) i 16-303 Fig. No. 13 NO DOCK FRAMING ABOVE PONTOON m� CONCRETE * CONCRETE • • • CONCRETE • • *PONTOON• • • PONTOON • • . PONTOON • DEAD LOAD FREEBOARD (DL FB) = 14 MIN, 24" MAX FLOATATION TYPICALLY VARIES FROM 907 TO 957 DOCK CROSS SECTION DOCK LONGITUDINAL SECTION DEAD LOAD FREEBOARD 25 PSF LIVE LOAD (RESIDENTIAL DOCKS) 40 PSF LIVE LOAD (MARINAS, PUBLIC PIER AND COMMERCIAL DOCK) 65 PSF LIVE LOAD (COMMERCIAL DOCK W/ STAGING) r * CONCRETE- • • • CONCRETE ��L * CONCRETE ,• ** •PONT00% �. PONTOON PONTOON 4,F• • • 0 • DOCK CROSS SECTION DOCK LONGITUDINAL SECTION DEAD + LIVE LOAD FREEBOARD (DL+LL FB) = 9" MIN. NOTE: 1. MIN DL+LL FB MAY BE DICTATED BY UTILITY LOCATION TO MEET ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING CODES 2. UNDER DL+LL, STRUCTURAL WALERS SHALL NOT BE SUBMERGED r Jr •r •-r :r -r DOCK WITH NO FRAMING SUPPORTED ON PONTOONS (TYPICAL CONCRETE DOCK SYSTEM) 16-304 Fig. No. 14 DOCK FRAMING SUPPORTED BY PON Qs PONTOON PONTOON PONTOON DEAD LOAD FREEBOARD (DL FB) = 14" MIN. 24" MAX FLOATATION TYPICALLY VARIES FROM 60X TO 95% DOCK CROSS SECTION DOCK LONGITUDINAL ELEVATION 25 PSF LIVE LOAD (RESIDENTIAL DOCKS) 40 PSF LIVE LOAD (MARINAS, PUBLIC PIER AND COMMERCIAL DOCK) 65 PSF LIVE LOAD (COMMERCIAL DOCK W/ STAGING) 11 1 11, 11, 1- I 111111111iII111111111 DOCK FRAMING SUPPORTED BY PONTOON PONTOON PONTOON IF 7 PONTOON j ao I DOCK CROSS SECTION DOCK LONGITUDINAL ELEVATION J DEAD +LIVE LOAD FREEBOARD (DL+LL FB) = I" MIN. PONTOON FREEBOARD z� ' NOTE: q' L MIN DL+LL FB MAY BE DICTATED BY UTILITY LOCATION TO MEET ELECTRICAL AND aPLUMBING CODES SZ 2. UNDER QL+LL, STRUCTURAL WALERS/ DOCK FRAMING SHALL NOT BE SUBMERGED t t i n i DEAD LOAD + LIVE LOAD FREEBOARD DEAD + LIVE LOAD FREEBOARD FOR DOCKS WITH FRAMING SUPPORTED ON PONTOONS (TYPICAL TIMBER, ALUMINUM, STEEL, FIBERGLASS FRAMING DOCK SYSTEM) 16-305 TOP OF BULKHEAD +10.00 M.L.L.W. OR +7.27 M.S.L. 7 (2) +7. ntf.H.W." NATURAL SAND PROFILE +5.3mM.H.H.W. +4.0=M.H.W. +2.0 7 ► - 0.00=M.L.L.W. 5 VARIES pa 10, 10, 18.2' 201 PROFILE NOTES: 1. USE 8 TO I FOR TRAVELED BEACH AREAS. 2. USE 4 TO I AROUND NEWPORT ISLAND DUE TO HIGH SILT CONTENT. DATUM: M.L.L.W. (DATUM IS NGVD 29; FOR NAVD 88 DATUM, ADD 2.34') REV. 01"17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROM: PUBL IC W(-)RkS WRECTOR NATURAL SAND PROFILES IN n: R. OKAD� Data:JULY 2(X)4 Scale: N.T.S. NEWPORT HARBOR DMWING NO. STD -598-L - - ----------- 16-306 i Tide Planes and Tidal Datum Relationships t (U.S. Survey Foot) i Highest High Water 7.86' Limit gfRaneho �- _— or pueblo under Mexican Law Higher High Water 5.40` Mean High Water 4.65' _ _ Limit U.S. Public Lands Mean Neap High Tides Limit Pueblo or Rancho after patent Mean Sea Level 2.76' c��'` Limit State patent of public lands -(WV D29j _ 2.72'- - - - - - - - - - -"- - p ; (Civil Code $30) Mean Neap Low Tides _7711— Limit U.S. patent to individual N (Civil Code 83U) Mean Low Water 0.93' i Limit U.S. patent to, individual per state (NAV D88) 0.38' (b'orax Consn✓ldate+r/ v. Crty of _ - Los Angeles (1933)196 US 10) Rein Lower Low Water-0.00T �, y�11delands Theory #1 Tidelands Lowest Low Water -2:14' , Theory #2 Submerged Lands !_ Theory #1 Submerged Lands Theory #2 Theory #1- Tidelands lie between mean high and mean of low neap tides, Theory #2 - Tidelands lie between mean of all high and mean of all low tides. Information was taken from National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Ocean and Earth Science (OES), Tidal Datum sheet - Publication Date 07/17/89 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TIDE PLANES & TIDAL DATUM RELATIONSHIPS E (U.S. SURVEY FOOT) REV. 01,171 _- APPROVED: MJBLIC WORKSDIREC7nR Drawn: R OKADA - - Date: JULY 3004 -� Scale: N.T.S. �._...: DRAWING NO. STD -599-L 16-307 I CONTINUOUS ! I IR----� PROVIDE °u" CHAMFER 20` MIN. aEBAR BAR FOR TYPICAL LIFTING -- it ELEV.10.0 R.1 .0 /,� 6-MIN. t t 6" MIN. 4" MIN:ENGINEER TIES PER 1- - POURED IN PLACE t { t CONCRETE r COPING i 11/2* or 2' PVC ! j i i I OPTIONAL _ r_ —1 ' JET PIPES —; ! ! i (VARIES] €E L I \V r t SANDU� ! t ! c j— S �` C _ - i � 1/z' 1•a" PER PER 21/2"'; 1.. ENGINEER ENGINEER 2 'y �2x . GROUT FILL _._ `- - MIN. CLASS W J" MORTAR SECTION A-A ` CONCRETE' f — —8; SHEET TYP. TYPICAL PANEL JOINT NOTlSs L PANELS TO HAVE A SMOOTH FINISH ON BOTH SIDES 2. REXWORCING STEEL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COVER OF r AND BE EPDXY-COATED PER ASTM A-934. GRADE 60 BARS SHALL BE USED. 3. AS AN OPTION, APPLICANT MAY USE PRESTRESSED CONCRETE SHEETS PER STD. 611-L 4. USE OF JETTING TECHNIQUES MAY REQl1IRE SPECIAL PERMITS AND MITIGATION MEASURES BY LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES. S. CONCRETEi Fe - 9,000 PSI (MIN.) AND WIC RATIO = 0.40 (MAX.) S. PANEL MUST BE DESIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA LICENSED CML OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. REV. 01/ 17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PRECAST - ---_-----____-----------____-- i PRECAST REINFORCED PUHLI( Wc)RI(S UIRLL'T'LiR CONCRETE GROIN PANEL '`-- dawn: R.O ---` - - oale: luLY zoo,20W , -- Scale: N.T.S. (NOT FOR BULKHEAD USE) DRAWING NO. STD-600-.L 16-308 2-#4 CONT. EPDXY-COATED -- .- PROPERTY, BULKHEAD PER ASTM A934 8 OR OTHER BAYWARD LIMIT 8" CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ADDED -------_ ELEVATION TO TOP OF EXISTING BULKHEAD - I + 10.0 M.L.L.W. #5 0 24" O.C. DRILL AND EPDXY BARS PER ------ � MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS INTO •j�— EXISTING COPING _ 2" t j1 iv TOP OF IMPROVEMENTS ,— `�--�, ! > _ , — ROUGHEN FOR BOND 6" AND APPLY EPDXY MIN.—, EXISTING TIE ROD — ; EXISTING COPING ' '> — EXISTING BULKHEAD ALTERNATE "A" (CONCRETE BLOCK) PROPERTY, BULKHEAD 11/2" CHAMFER (TYPICAL) ----- OR OTHER BAYWARD LIMIT #4 CONT. EPDXY COATED A934 -- — B" , ".--- ELEVATION + 10.0 M.L.L,W CONCRETE; Pc = 5,000 PSI (MIN.) W/C RATIO = 0.40 (MAX.) #5 0 24" O.C. DRILL AND EPDXY BARS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ! s INTO EXISTING COPING 6" TOP OF IMPROVEMENTS MIN. --1---------__ 1 — ROUGHEN FOR BOND AND APPLY EPDXY EXISTING TIE ROD—>' BONDING AGENT PER ' MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. f ALTERNATE "B" -- EXISTING COPING (POURED -IN-PLACE CONCRETE) . --- EXISTING BULKHEAD i > , i NOTE• EPDXY SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C881 STANDARD AND BE USED IN STRICT ACCORD WITH THE MANUFACTURERS PRINTED INSTRUCTIONS. REV. 01:17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKSDIRFCTUR DETAIL FOR RAISING ra_... Date: U ol2 Scale: N.T.S. BULKHEADS r-- —--— DRAWING NO. STD -601 —L 16-309 2x4 RAILINGS W/ (3) 16d AT EACH POST HANDRAIL-- EL. 9.00 M.L.L.W. (MIN.)i c L2' MAX TYP, y TOP OF COPING — DECK D ENDS !"`--• CROSS:BRACING BRACING i CLEATS i {! !! BELOW r— ! TREADS EXISTING — f� TYP EXISTING SANDLINE SANDLINE 21x8" 1 r 1 i I? ELEVATION SECTION A—A r NOTES 1. OVERALL PLATFORM SIZE (NOT INCLUDING STEPS) SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN 27 SQ. FT. 2. ALL STRUCTURAL PLATFORM SUPPORTING MEMBERS BELOW ELEV 7.5 MLLW SHALL BE SUITABLE FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENT SUBMERSION INTO HARBOR WATERS AS WELL AS SUBTERRANEAN EMBEDMENT INTO THE MUDFLATS. TREATED LUMBER IS NOT ALLOWED FOR THIS SERVICE, UNLESS ENCAPSULATED IN AN IMPERVIOUS MEMBRANE. ALTERNATIVE OR COMPOSITE MATERIALS OR CONSTRUCTION CAN BE SWMITTED FOR CITY APPROVAL 3. PLATFORM SHALL NOT BE ANCHORED TO COPING. 4. PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT FOR ALL LUMBER USED ABOVE ELEV 7.5 MLLW SHALL MEET STATE OF CALIFORNIA REQUIREMENTS. S. ALL METAL CONNECTION PLATES SHALL BE GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STEEL ALL FASTENERS (LAG BOLTS, SCREWS AND/OR NAILS) SHALL BE GALVANIZED STEEL„ STAINLESS STEEL OR A PRODUCT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO RESIST CORROSION IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT, AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. B. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL. - — -- --- - - - - -- -- ---- -- -- REV. U 1171 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: -__---..____ __. __— PUBLICWORKSDIRE-CTOR '• GRAND CANAL ----- wn:------- - -- -- -- _ - - Drawn: R. OK.�DA PLATFORM &STEPS--oa<<:,u�Y,Ol14— Scale_N_T.S__� DRAWING NO. STD -603-L 16-311 i i1 J EXISTING CONCRETE COPING .o 3 zj 3 ! t TYP >' ._. ` 2"40" TREADS W! W a ' - s _i v� - MNL RISE SUPPORTED t BY rxrX9 u2" CLEATS (¢ ! 'j? ; L-3_ 4x8 TYP. 1 REQ)1N4{ j in • \ ' W/(3) 14x3r SCREWS F) 1 EA. BRACKET 4M.B i PLAN A 4'-0" MINX -0" MAX. ' PLATFORM LENGTH 2x4 RAILINGS W/ (3) 16d AT EACH POST HANDRAIL-- EL. 9.00 M.L.L.W. (MIN.)i c L2' MAX TYP, y TOP OF COPING — DECK D ENDS !"`--• CROSS:BRACING BRACING i CLEATS i {! !! BELOW r— ! TREADS EXISTING — f� TYP EXISTING SANDLINE SANDLINE 21x8" 1 r 1 i I? ELEVATION SECTION A—A r NOTES 1. OVERALL PLATFORM SIZE (NOT INCLUDING STEPS) SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN 27 SQ. FT. 2. ALL STRUCTURAL PLATFORM SUPPORTING MEMBERS BELOW ELEV 7.5 MLLW SHALL BE SUITABLE FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENT SUBMERSION INTO HARBOR WATERS AS WELL AS SUBTERRANEAN EMBEDMENT INTO THE MUDFLATS. TREATED LUMBER IS NOT ALLOWED FOR THIS SERVICE, UNLESS ENCAPSULATED IN AN IMPERVIOUS MEMBRANE. ALTERNATIVE OR COMPOSITE MATERIALS OR CONSTRUCTION CAN BE SWMITTED FOR CITY APPROVAL 3. PLATFORM SHALL NOT BE ANCHORED TO COPING. 4. PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT FOR ALL LUMBER USED ABOVE ELEV 7.5 MLLW SHALL MEET STATE OF CALIFORNIA REQUIREMENTS. S. ALL METAL CONNECTION PLATES SHALL BE GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STEEL ALL FASTENERS (LAG BOLTS, SCREWS AND/OR NAILS) SHALL BE GALVANIZED STEEL„ STAINLESS STEEL OR A PRODUCT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO RESIST CORROSION IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT, AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. B. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL. - — -- --- - - - - -- -- ---- -- -- REV. U 1171 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: -__---..____ __. __— PUBLICWORKSDIRE-CTOR '• GRAND CANAL ----- wn:------- - -- -- -- _ - - Drawn: R. OK.�DA PLATFORM &STEPS--oa<<:,u�Y,Ol14— Scale_N_T.S__� DRAWING NO. STD -603-L 16-311 A 24'-()" MINIMUM SPAN TO 26'-0" MAXIMUM SPAN (7) 6'-O"_MAX 2"X4" S4S ROUNDED RAIL 4x4 S4S POSTS IX4 MIN. @ 6'O.C. MID-RAILSMAX. P 5' MIN. MAX. 0 L STE-OFF (4) 240 (MAY BE CUT TO 5" AT ENDS) 71P ROLLER ---- SEE STD -613-L.1 AND — A TIE ROD LOCATIONS L.2 FOR GANGWAY (ADJACENT TO EA. POST) SUPPORT DETAIL GANGWAY (USING STANDARD SAWN LUMBER STRINGERS) SIDE ELEVATION (MAX. SLOPE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE = 1:2.5) 30" MIN. _2X4 SHAPED AS SHOWN CLEARANCE W/ 3-3" S.S. DECK SCREWS TO POST TYP, T_ r —POST 36' MIN. MAX. DECKING SHALL BE NON-SKID TYPE, TYP. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE: 4NOM, 1/2" HALF ROUND STRIPS 12"C -C; " 3/4' PLYWOOD WITH GRITTED DECKING 1/2"0 MACHINE BOLTS TYP. TIE ROD @ 6'-0'— SPACING MAX. BLOCKING (2xIO BRIDGING AT EA. POST) SECTION A -A NOTES: 1. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCTURAL D.F. WITH A STATE OF CALIFORNIA -APPROVED PRESERVATIVE. (ALLOWABLE BENDING STRESS, Fb = 1500 p.s.1.). 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A FIELD -APPLIED COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT, PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT -DIP GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID -RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL 6. OPTIONAL GANGWAY TYPES: ALUMINUM GANGWAYS WITH NON-SKID WALKING PLANKS ARE RECOMMENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DETAILS NOTED IN THIS STANDARD. ALUMINUM GANGWAYS ARE NORMALLY PROVIDED By QUALIFIED DESIGN/BUILD ALUMINUM FABRICATORS. 7. FOR LENGTHS OVER 26', APPLICANT TO PROVIDE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS. REV. 01/17_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SINGLE OR JOINT F--D-r-a-w-n-:-R--. D -A-- ---- ---- DATE: JULY 2004 Scale: N.T.S. RESIDENTIAL USE GANGWAY DRi%WING NO. ST _ D-604- . L 16-312 1/ARIABLE P.L,_ _ T PROLONGATION OF P.L. -- j 1.0' MIN.--! —I f CLEAR li GUIDEPILE E a f i 4'-0" MIN. MIN. FINGER WIDTH — -- ! VARIES WITH FINGER ` m ! LENGTH. SEE TABLE NO. 1 ! O OF HARBOR DESIGN 5� FLOAT OR SLIP - • CRITERIA co Z, 8` z I Z T-6" MIN. ol y' ALTERNATE- =* - ' GANGWAY i LOCATION (REQUIRES 4' z PLATFORM AT BULKHEAD GUIDEPILE, SEE DOCK LAYOUT — j a FOR SUPPORT) ' CASE 9B FOR ALLOWABLE PILE udl OUTER LIMIT FOR WHEN A i' ` ' -GANGWAY (STD-aWL)-,` °PROJECT LINE" APPLIES A_ I + n PLAN PILECAP -- TOP OF BULKHEAD ELEV. ^--~ -- CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV.' 10.0' M.L.L.W..j —` -+12.00' M.L.L.W.------. ---_-- _.— .�� MIN. -- CONCRETE --GANGWAY PILE TYP. AS PER STD -604-L ------- _------- -3.0 MLLW SAND LINE MIN. OR .1_ LOWER r --- i CONCRETE PILE DESIGN— 'z 'w AND PENETRATION BY A � CALIFORNIA LICENSED PROFILE OR STRUCTURAL _ CIVIL tu , _ ENGINEER'n! w NOTES: _ .-�� a _ .. a 1. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCTURAL D.F. TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNEAL 2. FIELD MS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FERAL GUIDELINES. 3. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOTDIP GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATEO,STEEL. 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID4RESlSTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER; OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NONSTRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL. 6. SEE STD -604•L & HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GANGWAY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY, SLIP & FLOATS IS OPTIONAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. �- ----- REV. 01417 APPROVED - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SINGLE RESIDENTIAL USE --� - -------__�---- --- OlC�Da ' I Drawn R — Scale: N.T.S. Date: JULY 2004_ FLOAT WITHOUT PIER DRAWING NO. STD -605-L 16-313 30' MAXIMUM - ------------ VARIES P.L. PROLONGAION OF P.L. PILE GUIDE TYP. FOR DETAIL SEE STD -614-L GANGWAY (STD -604L) FLOAT z PLAN TOP OF BULKHEAD ELEV. 10.0'M1.L.W. MIN. ­� PROFILE NOTES: /1 -CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. +12 00' M.L.L.W. CONCRETE PILE TYP. AS PER STD -604-L FLOAT FREEBOARD PER DESIGN CRITERIA -- - -6.0' 1. TIMBER SMALL BE SELECT STRUCTURAL D.F. TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 1 FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SML RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT -DIP GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID -RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. S. NON-STRLKTL41AL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. suemrr PRODUCE SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL, 6. SEESTD-W-L 8, HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GANGWAY osiGN.REWmEmENTs. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY, SLIPA FLOATS IS OPTIONAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. R_EV_ 0 1; 17: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SINGLE RESIDENTIAL USE FLOAT Scale: N.T.S. Date: JULY 2004 WEST NEWPORT CHANNELS DRAWING NO. STD -606-L 16-314 GUIDEPILE. SEE DOCK LAYOUT CASE 9B- P.L.- PROLONGATION OF P,L;-- , FOR ALLOWABLE PILE OUTER LIMIT FOR WHEN A PROJECT LINE APPLIES RAILINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS- ----- TOP OF BULKHEAD ELEV. 10.0' M.L.L.W. MIN. 170 SQ. FT. ALL COMMERCIAL GANGWAYS -- SHALL MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, IN CONFORMANCE WITH FEDERAL ADAGE REQUIREMENTS MIN...FINGER WIDTH VARIES PLAN WITH FINGER LENGTH.. SEE TABLE N0. 1 OF HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA. Lu r -- CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. �- f f o CONCRETE --- -! M I n --VARIABLE W z il ce PLATFORM z ! FLOAT OR SLIP OPTIONAL R — 3' CLR i MIN. PIER GANGWAY (ADA COMPUANT) r �D, — —I— - — 8'-0" MIN. k 3' CLR MIN: -= VARIABLE r VARIABLE _ —MAIN ACCESS FLOAT -- AREA OF PLATFORM } SHALL NOT EXCEED RAILINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS- ----- TOP OF BULKHEAD ELEV. 10.0' M.L.L.W. MIN. 170 SQ. FT. ALL COMMERCIAL GANGWAYS -- SHALL MEET CURRENT ADA STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, IN CONFORMANCE WITH FEDERAL ADAGE REQUIREMENTS MIN...FINGER WIDTH VARIES PLAN WITH FINGER LENGTH.. SEE TABLE N0. 1 OF HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA. Lu r -- CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV. �- ,g +12.00' M.L.L.W. CONCRETE --- -! ---��- WATER`S? PILE TYP. ++i SURFACE -SAND LINE Ii M l NM.L.L i W € VARWrZBLE Z ' LLLL/I 0 PROFILEtu ' NOTES: i "TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCTURAL D.F. TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOES SHALL RECEIVE A BRASH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES, 3. FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT -DIP GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL. 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NQN-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER, SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL - 6. COMMERCIAL PIERS, GANGWAYS, FLOATS AND PILES TO BE DESIGNED BY A CALIFORNIA LICENSED CIVIL.OR STRUCTURAL ENGMR. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY, SLIP & FLOATS IS OPTIONAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMERCIAL PIER & FLOAT INSTALLATION REV. 01; 171 i APPROVED; i - Pl!BIJC �40RKS DIRECTOR Drawn. R OKADA Date JULY 1001 - Scale: N.T.S. �.._ ............... _ DRAWING N.O. -STD-607-L 16-315 r - AREA OF PLATFORM SHALL NOT GUIDEPILE. SEE DOCK LAYOUT -- TOP OF WITH FINGER LENGTH. SEE EXCEED 170 SQ. FT. CASE 98 FOR ALLOWABLE PILE PLAN ' z 10.0' M.LLW. OUTER LIMIT FOR WHEN A DESIGN CRITERIA MIN. PROLONGATION OF P.L. - .. "PROJECT LINE" APPLIES '- - ___. _----._----__ -, -----Zr Lu ' f �... G� in, Lnj --- in ____ -' - -" - -FL�r PIER --- i ` �,�IIN --- -- GANGWAY (STD -604 -Li SEE NOTE 8 j BELOW Wit FOR PILE— I _ - t7 0 _�j GUIDE DETAIL t VARIABLE SEE STD -614-L. 1 �-" 4, MIN";w I FLOAT OR SLIP f FOR RAILING j CONSTRUCTION SEE STD -609-L NOTES: I. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCT. DA TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3, FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT DW GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID -RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL 6. SEE STD -604-L & HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GANGWAY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY. SLIP & FLOATS IS OPTIMAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. 8. UNDER EXTREME LOW WATER CONDITIONS, PONTOON MAY CONTACT MUDLINE. VERIFY IF PONTOONS AND DOCK SYSTEM CAN WITHSTAND THIS STRESS. REV 01 ( 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: SINGLE RESIDENTIAL USE Drawn: ROKADA PR![iLIf-Nt)RK5DKRLLTOR FLOAT WITH PIER ; ___-DaTc, JULY 2tH)4 _ Scale: N.T.S. DItAWINGNO. STD -608-L 16-316 MIN, FINGER WIDTH VARIES -- TOP OF WITH FINGER LENGTH. SEE BULKHEAD ELEV. PLAN TABLE NO. 10F HARBOR z 10.0' M.LLW. DESIGN CRITERIA MIN. ^• �-,.:--v CUT OFF PILE AT ELEV.. '- - +12:00' M.L.L.W: LL! ! r - ---_ •-- GANGWAY �... WATER AS PER STD -604-L CONCRETE PILE TYP. SURFACE.. , c� - _._ - - ____ -' - -" - -FL�r � INSTALLATIONS~ PER DESIGN CRITERIA --+! —SAND LINE SEE NOTE 8 j BELOW Wit - t7 0 vARuRet� t PROFILE NOTES: I. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCT. DA TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3, FASTENERS SHALL BE STAINLESS, HOT DW GALVANIZED OR EPDXY-COATED STEEL 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID -RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAY BE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL 6. SEE STD -604-L & HARBOR DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GANGWAY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. 7. LOCATION OF PLATFORM, GANGWAY. SLIP & FLOATS IS OPTIMAL PROVIDING PROPER SETBACKS ARE MAINTAINED. 8. UNDER EXTREME LOW WATER CONDITIONS, PONTOON MAY CONTACT MUDLINE. VERIFY IF PONTOONS AND DOCK SYSTEM CAN WITHSTAND THIS STRESS. REV 01 ( 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: SINGLE RESIDENTIAL USE Drawn: ROKADA PR![iLIf-Nt)RK5DKRLLTOR FLOAT WITH PIER ; ___-DaTc, JULY 2tH)4 _ Scale: N.T.S. DItAWINGNO. STD -608-L 16-316 i VARIABLE. DEPENDENT ON N ---- - - --------------- TOTAL AREA 0 PLATFORM E i TOP RAIL (ROUNDED) - 3X4 S4S POSTS @ T O.C. MAX. TYP. t , - MID -RAILS i i r --3 1/2" F -- JOISTS M` __ 1/2" 0 MIN. BOLTS WITH F / I I I 2" DIA. WASHERS, TYP. ► ' ,..— 12" MAX. - DECKING ' OPENING TYP. , HIGH WATER . r y 3/4" DIA. X PILECAP -' - — - ___ (NTS) + 'I 24" A.B. MIN. PRECAST CONCRETE -- 6" CLR PILE TYP. L-- LOW WATER - -- _ (NTS) TYPICAL PLATFORM SECTION NOTES: 1.. TIMBER SHALL BE SELECT STRUCT. D.F. TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVE APPROVED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. FIELD CUTS AND BORED HOLES SHALL RECEIVE A BRUSH COAT OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT PER STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. 3. FASTENERS SHAL1_6 ST7CI LESS, -HOT DIP GALVARMI) oklPbXV-COATED 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID -RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER, GRIT ON TIMBER, OR OTHER SURFACING DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED SERVICE, BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 5. NON-STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MAYBE ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTIC DIMENSIONAL LUMBER. SUBMIT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR APPROVAL. 6. JOIST SPLICES ARE NOT PERMITTED BETWEEN PILES. 7. DESIGN TO BE BY CALIFORNIA LICENSED CIVIL OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. REV. UI 17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: E Pl'DLIC WORKSbIRGCTOR SINGLE OR JOINT RESIDENTIALDra,vn�R.OKADA N.T.S. r Date: JULY 2004 Scale:1 �.._., USE PLATFORM SECTION ------ DRAWING NO. STD -609-L 16-317 A M+. WELDED CLOSURE PLATE TYP. 6'-0" MAX. I I – — + RS DF NAILER PIER FRAMING, DECKING GUARDRAILS TO BE NIP z f DESIGNED BY ENGINEER S3F' -� (SEE NOTE S) B 4.!.* THREADED STEEL CAP PLATE TSIZK6xh PILE CAP ASSUMED d B t � STEEL PIPE PILE (WALL THICKNESS - 'T' MIN.) i I (MAX. 2V -O* PILE SPACING, MIN. IT -V EMBED. BELOW MUOLINE ASSUMED) - SHOP COAT I OUTSIDE SURFACE OF PIPE W/ AN EPDXY COATING w/ SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 1/4 = PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS (AMERLOCK 400 OR EQUAL), SEE NOTE 7. - --CLOSURE PLATE AT ENDS 3u RS NAILER PILE BELOW --- r— PILE CAP =� ! —TOP PL -' PILE �_.� �_ TOP PLATE --` SECTION A -A SECTION B-8 NOTES' 1. ALL STEEL COMPONENTS SHALL BE MINIMUM ASTM A36 (MIN. Py a 36 KSI). ALL STEEL PIPE PILES SHALLBEASTM AS3, GR 8 MATERIAL (MIN. Py a 35 KSI), t E. 2. ALL TIMBER SHALL BE TREATED PER ACCEPTED STATE OF CALIFORNIA REQUIREMENTS, h 3. BRAOCETS AND FASTENERS FOR TIMBER FRAMING SHALL BE HOTDIP GALVANIZED, EPDXY-CbATEDOR STAINLESS i. STEEL. CONNECTORS TO BE 4e MIN. THICKNESS. 4. WALKING SURFACES SHALL HAVE A SKID -RESISTANT FINISH, SUCH AS UNPAINTED TIMBER. j S. ALL TIMBER PLATFORM FRAMING AND RAILINGS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER AND ARE NOT DETAILED IN THIS STANDARD. {i 6. TIMBER STRINGER SPLICES ARE NOT PERMITTED BETWEEN PR.ES. 7. NO COATING ON STEELWORK 4' FROM WELDED PARTS (PILE AND CAP) TO ALLOW FOR FIELD WELDING. TOUCH-UP THIS UNCOATED AREA AFTER. FABRICATION PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING SURFACE PREPARA I mm. t, IF PILES REQUIRE CUT-OFF DUE TO SUFFICIENT BLOW COUNTS PRIOR TO OBTAINING TIP ELEVATION, REMOVE COATING''; IN UPPER 4" OF PILE TO ALLOW FIELD WELDING. S. FOR ADDITIONAL CORROSION RESISTANCE, THE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO CONSIDER INSTALLING A PASSIVE OR ACTIVE CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM. 9. AN ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHALL VERIFY PILE SIZE AND TYPE, AS WELL AS EMBEDMENT, i TYPICAL PIER SECTION (OPTION AT LOCATIONS OF SHALE AND/OR HARD SUBSURFACE MATERIALS NOT SUITABLE FOR CONCRETE PILES) SCALE: N.T.S. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: TYPICAL. PIER SECTION (ALTERNATE) i REV. U1. 17 k181A WORKS DIRECTOR Dmwn_R.OIfADA Seale: N.T.S. Date: AUG 2004 MIMING NO. STD -610-L.2 16-318 4 — NEW PILE 1 I CAP.. --.....t--- NEWPRECAST CONCRETE PANEL''�j yu J< WEEP HOLE --"" I I' MUDLINE + i ELEVATION 7 i E 1 89TC0M OF f NEW PANEL i f, PANEL REINF. (EPDXY- 1' A" 14" COATED) — f— — -yl 4 CLR. R _h � SECTION AT BULKHEAD .' i -- SCALE- NOT TO SCALE is ii REINFORCING BY DESIGN ENGINEER PRECAST (PRESTRESSED) PANEL:SECTION'" SCALE: N.T.S. NOTE: 1. DIMENSIONS AND SIZES NOTED TO BE CONFIRMED OR AMENDED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 PRECAST (PRESTRESSED) PANEL ELEVATION"' (WATER SIDE) j SCALE: N.T.S — i RFV. 01,17 APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR i BULKHEAD & PRECAST PANEL ------ --- -- --- 4 Drawn: Date: AUG UG 2(M 'x'� Scale: As Noted �.. . SECTIONS & ELEVATION DRAWING NO. STD -611-L.1 16-319 2--y MIN. i i ., r -- BOTTOM �—lcx AS r—STRANDS EQUALLY i CLA.CAIS, f,�ARTN SIDE SPACED TYP. %" CHAMFER AS INSTALLED TYP.-- TIES, SEE ELEV. ..�:•._ GROUT— y j/�" � ----=`-- — �. �. r tiJ TER --RE1Nf.— SIDE - < f/ — —GROUT Ii=„ — C�R. SLOT $ Y RAO. Q PANEL PRECAST (PRESTRESSED) PANEL:SECTION'" SCALE: N.T.S. NOTE: 1. DIMENSIONS AND SIZES NOTED TO BE CONFIRMED OR AMENDED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 PRECAST (PRESTRESSED) PANEL ELEVATION"' (WATER SIDE) j SCALE: N.T.S — i RFV. 01,17 APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR i BULKHEAD & PRECAST PANEL ------ --- -- --- 4 Drawn: Date: AUG UG 2(M 'x'� Scale: As Noted �.. . SECTIONS & ELEVATION DRAWING NO. STD -611-L.1 16-319 2'-0' MIN. - ANCHOR PL -- - HOOK i —•REINF. �CMATCHRhMFER TO (�EXISTING ° ,COATED) FINISH SURFACE FILL POCXET ' FINISH SURFACE A � GROUT Tl1BE, CUT --- f AWITH FTER TRUSSING OFF FLUSH AND r — w PATCH AFTER PROPER INSTALLATION VARIES �' — PVC PIPE FILL SOLD (3 0' MIN.) _---� ` WCTH GROUT AF ER MIN. iy JL 'q, ' STRESSING ' REINP, BARS -rte ! • VERT SPACED' r — THREADBAR, GRADE 150, -- �- �+- 4 .. =: t ASTM A722 IN EQUALLY BETWEEN i v! f CORRUGATED PVC r SHEATHING.. SHOP GROUT, ANCHOR ROD EACH FAQ F — i 3" � ` ROD SHALL BE (EPDXY-COATED)�`� ROUGHEN FACE (FOUR SIDES) CLR; ( POST -TENSIONED PER • �' RECORDM i TYP. NEEOR D ROF C TIES (EPDXY COATED) ——REINF. ' (EPDXY-COATED) 3 PRECAST SHEET PANEL 1 • N AND DOWELS 1 _ (EPDXY-COATED). SEE DETAILS 2 9 3—' [ WAT p EARTH SIDE _ P THE 2'-0' CAP WIDTH 15 A MINIMUM DIMENSION AND DOES NOT ALLOW POR MISALIGNMENT OF CONCRETE PANEL. CONTRACTOR SMALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY AD3USTMENTS TO THE CAP WIDTH TO MAINTAIN WIDTH , y `ttom • ` INDICATED CLEARANCES. OF CAP SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE ENTU(E LENGTH OF NEW IAP. . . f GENERAL.NC)TE �� s°, ; REINFORCEMENT, WALL DIMENSIONS AND THICXNESSES TO BE DESIGNED FOR THE SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS AND LOADS. SECTION AT BULKHEAD CAP (STRESSING END)`" a <f ` SCALE. 3/4' - V- f ^ f r / � I ANCHOR PL. - k f � ' PVC PIPE, SOLID L GROUTED AFTER STRESSINf, 1 " CONCRETE DEADMAN SECTION +,°�� (FIXED END) �5 �1o SCALE: N.T.S. 1J ` THREAD BAR, GRADE--' 'i�' 1 �' _• j �, I5% ASTM AW �• L �'. , f 1. DIMENSIONS AND SIZES NOTED TO BE CONFIRMED - - OR AMENDED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. - —9 - SIM. 2. DETAILS OF THREADBAR, ENCASEMENT, ANCHOR PLATES, NUTS, WASHERS AND POCKETS MAY DIFFER FROM MANUFACTURER TO MANUFACTURER. DETAIL (FIXED END)i11 6 SCALE: N.T.S. �- REV. 01 i 17' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: BULKHEAD CAP & DEADMAN 1'I UL ICWORKS DIkF.cli)k Drawn: R.OKADA AUG 'Scale. As Noted E N S CTIO S & DETAIL _ Date: AM r DRAWING NO. STD -611-L.2 16-320 WEEP HOLE SECTION 'T- $CALJE: AS SHOWN MECHANICALLY ATTACH 2-4r MIN. FAMC TO WALL AT Too & WATER. SI - BOT7, ALLOWING FOR NEW COW. CAP -- LONG-TERM MOVEMENT AGO ONCRETE FILTER FABRIC ALLOWING WATER FLOW WLI FIQUI EGAT TRANSMITTING FINE WEEP MOL EARTHEN MATERIALS WEEP F�r# M — 0 12'-(r 0, SC" Soo! w! Zi CAP TO +10 03 CONCRETE PREVENT LOSS'OF AGGREGATE FINE-GRAINED. MATERIAL #4 CONCRETE AGGREGATE #4 CONCRETE — AGGREGATE AROUND REM. 2'-3- VERIFY HOLE OIAIVETER WATER SIDE WITH EPDXY GROUT ELEVATION SCALE: 3/4"-1 -(r WEEP HOLE SECTION 'T- $CALJE: AS SHOWN SECTION AT BULKHEAD DOWELS -8" SCALE: 1/2" - I-(Wr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BULKHEAD SECTIONS & DETAILS PLAN SCALE: NOT TO SCALE STEEL PIPE PK PIPE ANCHOR PLATE POLYETHYLENE TAPE NOTE. NATE DETAIL AT STRESSING 00 (CAP) "WN, PLATE DETAIL, SIMILAR AT FIXED END (DEADMAN) DETAIL SCALE. 1 112* - I' -(r REV. 01. 17 APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKSDIRIECTOR 0'-K-A'DA__ Date; AUG Scale: As Noted DRAWING NO. 5TD-611 -L. 3 16-321 2-4r MIN. NEW COW. CAP -- REFER TO DETAIL 4 DOWELS WITH HOOKS (EPDXY COATED) EPDXY GROUT. ANNULAR SPACE AROUND REM. VERIFY HOLE OIAIVETER WITH EPDXY GROUT MANUFACTURER: EXIST, CONC. PANEL SECTION AT BULKHEAD DOWELS -8" SCALE: 1/2" - I-(Wr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BULKHEAD SECTIONS & DETAILS PLAN SCALE: NOT TO SCALE STEEL PIPE PK PIPE ANCHOR PLATE POLYETHYLENE TAPE NOTE. NATE DETAIL AT STRESSING 00 (CAP) "WN, PLATE DETAIL, SIMILAR AT FIXED END (DEADMAN) DETAIL SCALE. 1 112* - I' -(r REV. 01. 17 APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKSDIRIECTOR 0'-K-A'DA__ Date; AUG Scale: As Noted DRAWING NO. 5TD-611 -L. 3 16-321 cle! o tA EPDXY TANGENT TO O.D. Z; uj aoi 7 EXISTING COPING 13/4" O.D. MIN.— 6" SHANK LENGTH i P I.D. MIN.— EYE BOLT (SHORE MOORING) DOCK CLEAT (TYPICAL DOCK MOORING CLEAT) NOTES 1. EYE BOLT SHALL BE FABRICATED OF STAINLESS OR GALVANIZED STEEL. 2. EPDXY SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C881 STANDARD, OR SHALL BE AN EPDXY FORTIFIED GROUT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR PERMANENT ANCHORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, AND SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS. 3. DOCK CLEATS SHALL BE GALVANIZED CAST METAL WITH HEX-HEAD THRU-BOLTS CONNECTED INTO THE TIMBER FRAMING WITH WASHER AND NUT, ALL GALVANIZED. 4. DIAMETER OF THRU-BOLT PER CLEAT MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. S. CLEAT AND BOLT SIZES BY DESIGN ENGINEER. —REV. 0111.7, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: i0lkl& WORKS DfRECTOR -'-6r a'w _n _R_. -0- k A- - D_ EYE BOLT OR CLEAT Date: JULY 20W Scale: N.T.S. FOR BOAT ANCHORAGE DRAWING NO. STD-612 "L 16-322 11/2"0 STD PIPE A ppp- FACE OF 13" CONCRETE Off HANGER BULKHEAD SEE STD -613-L.2 HANGER SEE STD -613-L.2 BRACKET A TYPI NOTE: 1 1/2-0 PIPE AND 2x GANGWAY "KEEPER" PLATE NOT STRINGERS TYP, SHOWN FOR CLARITY. PARTIAL PLAN AT GANGWAY 11/2-0— STD PIPE /-11/2" 4 1/2" NOTES: 1. ALL STEEL SHALL BE 11/16"0 HOLES GALVANIZED. —low FOR 5/8-0 M.B. 6" 3/16 2. PROVIDE ONE BRACKET PER GANGWAY STRINGER, 3/16- BENT PL------- 4' GANGWAY STRINGER 3/16" PL DETAIL A GANGWAY BRACKET REV. OL 17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: RESIDENTIAL GANGWAY 7004 Date: JUScale: N.T.S. LY BRACKET - TYPICAL (CONCEPT) DRAWING NO. STD -613-L.1 16-323 --- ---- •---+ 2! 3 e 7 w } 1/2"0 EPDXY ANCHORS (4 PER HANGER ASSEMBLY) INTO EXISTING BULKHEAD, 5" MIN. EMBEDMENT TYP. SEE NOTE 3. - — 3/16" PL — 3/8"x 2 CURVED PLATE NOTE: _ 1 1/2"0 PIPE AND %� 1/4" PL "KEEPER" PLATE NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. FACE OF EXISTING CONCRETE BULKHEAD PLAN DETAIL - GANGWAY HANGER TOP OF EXISTING CONCRETE BULKHEAD ` l ------------ µ -- _ - - - - - - - - - 1 1/2"0 STD PIPE 1/4" "KEEPER" a' �. COVER PLATE a -- 3/8"x 2" CURVED PL — 3/16" PL Z; E y, 1/4" PL NOTES: - --- 1/2"0 EPDXY ANCHORS (4 1. ALL STEEL SHALL BE GALVANIZED. PER HANGER ASSEMBLY) INTO EXISTING BULKHEAD, 2. ONE HANGER SHOWN; TWO REQUIRED. S" MIN. EMBEDMENT TYP. 3. FOR EXISTING BULKHEADS THAT ARE NOT SEE NOTE 3: CONCRETE, CONNECTION SHALL BE -- FACE OF EXISTING DETERMINED BY A LICENSED ENGINEER. CONCRETE BULKHEAD DETAIL A - GANGWAY HANGER PLEV. , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PUBLICWORKS DIRE(1 OR RESIDENTIAL GANGWAY ____--------_.__-__-- _-- _ _ Drawn: R.OKADA Scale: N.T S. HANGER - TYPICAL CONCEPT °a`e-,uLv'a>1 ---- --�- - -- DRAWING NO. STD -613-L.2 16-324 - — ------------ 11/16"0 HOLES FOR UHMW RUB— 13/4" 5/$`0 BOLTS, TYP. BLOCK TYP. 2 1/4" TYP.— (0-5/8110 LAG TYP:. BOLT (5" MIN. EMBED) TYP. L3x3xl/4 TYP. TYP. 6x3x1/4" PL W1 BEVELED. EDGES TYP. THP v --- 5/8"0 ,U- -G -i BOLT TYP, A A PILE 1" CLR MAX. TYP. --- ---------- : L5x3K1/4 o L3x3xl/4 TYR NOTES: TYP. 3/16 1 1/2 1. ALL STEEL ANGLES, PLATE$ AND TYP. CONNECTIONS SHALL BE"GALVANIZED. PLAN FACE OF BEAM 2. ALL WELDING TO BE 3/16" FILLET WELDS ALL AROUND BETWEEN EDGE OF DOCK CONNECTED PARTS, UNLESS PACE OF PILE OTHERWISE: NOTED, 3. ALL PLATES'TO BE 3/8" 3" THICKNESS, UNLESS f. -Its I n PL & LAG BOLT OTHERWISE NOTED. V RECESS BEYOND. LAG INTO 7-7-7... BOTH DECKING AND FRAMING MEMBERS, WHERE POSSIBLE. N z DECKING A I UHMW RUB DOCK FRAMING BLOCK SITE PLAN OVERVIEW L5x3 THRU-BOLTS KEY PLAN SECTION A -A PILE GUIDE RUB BLOCK TYPICAL DETAIL (CONDITION W/ GUIDE FRAME SUPPORTED ON ONE SIDE ONLY) i REV. 01, 17' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PILE GUIDE RUB BLOCK' TYPICAL DETAIL (CASE I) APPROVED — -PIj B L I C —WO R KS 0 ik-E C —TOR Drawn; R. OKADA Scale: N.T.S. Date; JULY2W4 DRAWING NO. STD -614-L 16-325 2 1/4" UHMW RUB — TYP. j BLOCK TYP. 13/4" L3X3X1/4 TYP. TYP. GALV. TYP. 1 CLR _ MAX. TYP. PILE - uj >- =z -V fe 11/16"0 HOLES FOR 5/8"0—" r BOLTS, TYP. ,� NOTES: KLAN 3/16 !, TYP. 1. ALL STEEL ANGLES, PLATES AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GALVANIZED. 2. ALL WELDING TO BE 3/16" FILLET WELDS ALL AROUND BETWEEN CONNECTED PARTS, UNLESS - FACE OF PILE OTHERWISE NOTED. 3" 3. ALL PLATES TO BE 3/8" --' 2" 1� " THICKNESS, UNLESS 1" RECESS— OTHERWISE NOTED. j 0000 N KEY PLAN UHMW RUB BLOCK L3x3 - -- -- — TOP OF WOOD DECK — DOCK FRAMING — THROUGH BOLT 'i SECTION A -A PILE GUIDE RUB BLOCK TYPICAL DETAIL (CONDITION W/ SUPPORT ALL AROUND GUIDE FRAME) RF V. 01,17: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .APPROVED: P1101..1C tVORKS DIM -1-0i PILE GUIDE RUB BLOCK r - Drawn:FtKDA___ -- --__ _ Dac�:;R.oA � Scale: N.T.S. TYPICAL DETAIL (CASE II)—__ DRAWING NO. STD -615—L 16-326 16-327 2013-26 [re -adopted] GP2011.003 PA2011-024 03112!2013 2011.79 06128/2011 (I 111512012)* 2010.105 GP2010-005 PA2010.052 09114/2010 0 500 i,00o Feel LU6_Cannery.mxd 03/10/2016 Change RM 20 dulac to MU -V for the property located at 3363 Via Lido. Change MU -W2 to CV 0.5 For the properties located at 2102 W. Ocean Front and 2306 W. Ocean Front; Change Lido Peninsula to RM and CM, establishing Anomaly's and CM 0.5 from MU -W3 Change RM 20 dulac to MU -W2 for the property located at 3366 Via Lido. LOIrA 114 2 I CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU6 STATISTICAL AREA B3, B4, B5 Residential Neighborhoods Rs.o Single -Unit Residential Detached RS -A Single -Unit Residential Attached R7 Two -Unit Residential - Multiple Unit Residential - Muhiple-Unil Residential Detached Commercial Districts and Corridors crr Neighborhood Commercial cc Corridor Commercial - General Commercial _ Visitor Serving Commercial - Visitor Serving Commercial Lido Village - Recreational and Marine Commercial I- Regional Commercial Commercial Office Districts coil General Commercial Office i co -W Medical Commercial Office coA Regional Commercial Office Industrial Districts = Industrial Airport Supporting Districts Ao Airport Office and Supporling Uses Mixed -Use Districts MO -v. Mixed Use Vertical Mu.H: Mixed Use Horizontal Mu•91 Mixed Use Water Related Public. Semi -Public and Institutional PF Public Facilities - Private Institutions - Parks and Recreation 03 :Open Space TS Tidelands and Submerged Lands 111111i City of Newport Beach Boundary Statistical Area Boundary B4 r ,L! Land Use Delineator Line Refer to anomaly table Ell, 16-328 *California Coastal Commission Appi 2016-29 GP2012-002 PA2o12.031 02/09/2016 Change PF to newly established designation of CV -LV and (0311012o i o) establishment of Anomaly 85 for the property located at 330D Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Steet. 2013.77 GP2012.005 PA2012.146 1111212013 Change PI 0.75 FAR to RM 20 dulac for the property [03112120141] located at 3303 Via Lido 2010-105 GP2011.010 PA2011.209 03/27/2012 Change RT to CV 0.5 FAR or the property ( 1 111512013'") located at 200 30th Street 2013-26 [re -adopted] GP2011.003 PA2011-024 03112!2013 2011.79 06128/2011 (I 111512012)* 2010.105 GP2010-005 PA2010.052 09114/2010 0 500 i,00o Feel LU6_Cannery.mxd 03/10/2016 Change RM 20 dulac to MU -V for the property located at 3363 Via Lido. Change MU -W2 to CV 0.5 For the properties located at 2102 W. Ocean Front and 2306 W. Ocean Front; Change Lido Peninsula to RM and CM, establishing Anomaly's and CM 0.5 from MU -W3 Change RM 20 dulac to MU -W2 for the property located at 3366 Via Lido. LOIrA 114 2 I CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU6 STATISTICAL AREA B3, B4, B5 Residential Neighborhoods Rs.o Single -Unit Residential Detached RS -A Single -Unit Residential Attached R7 Two -Unit Residential - Multiple Unit Residential - Muhiple-Unil Residential Detached Commercial Districts and Corridors crr Neighborhood Commercial cc Corridor Commercial - General Commercial _ Visitor Serving Commercial - Visitor Serving Commercial Lido Village - Recreational and Marine Commercial I- Regional Commercial Commercial Office Districts coil General Commercial Office i co -W Medical Commercial Office coA Regional Commercial Office Industrial Districts = Industrial Airport Supporting Districts Ao Airport Office and Supporling Uses Mixed -Use Districts MO -v. Mixed Use Vertical Mu.H: Mixed Use Horizontal Mu•91 Mixed Use Water Related Public. Semi -Public and Institutional PF Public Facilities - Private Institutions - Parks and Recreation 03 :Open Space TS Tidelands and Submerged Lands 111111i City of Newport Beach Boundary Statistical Area Boundary B4 r ,L! Land Use Delineator Line Refer to anomaly table Ell, 16-328 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 Subject: FW: Newport Marine proposal -----Original Message ----- From: Nancy Lewis [mailto:lew5@roadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 5:11 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Newport Marine proposal It's hard for me to believe that the NB City Council and Harbor Commission would think it was a profitable decision to create new dock spaces in our bay which would block the view of these home owners in Bayshores. But what is worse is your total lack of concern for these home owners - families' security, privacy, & peaceful lives. Since you are to have the citizens of our beautiful city best interest at heart, I would think you would veto this plan immediately. Sincerely, Nancy Lewis Sent from my Whone Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 Subject: FW: rezoning Newport Marina adjacent to Bayshore Apartments From: Del Chase fmailto:delchase@icloud.coml Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 9:37 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Zak & Ashley Fischer <zfischer@CROSSEPARTNERS.COM>; Bonnie <bndchase@vahoo.com>; Del Chase <delchase@me.com> Subject: rezoning Newport Marina adjacent to Bayshore Apartments We are very upset with the idea that there is a possibility that the city of Newport Beach might approve a rezoning of the Newport Marina adjacent to the Bayshore Apartments next Tuesday. It simply isn't fair to allow the Marina to build new docks five feet away from the sea walls of private residential homes plus boat slips of up to 80 feet. There has to be some kind of protection from such developments by our City Council now and in the future. I live across the channel from this proposal and have personally experienced the outrageous noise and disruption from parties on the boats, including later in the night. I understand that the residential owners that are impacted by this proposal have tried to work with the staff to come up with a mutual plan. Surely, we residents, still have rights to live in reasonable privacy. We plan to be at the Tuesday meeting and hope to hear of a fair resolution to this situation. Bonnie and Del Chase, owners of 712 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 Subject: FW: Bay Shores Marina proposed development From: Jon McClintockfmailto:ionmcclintock7@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 8:26 AM To: Dept -City Council<CitVCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Bay Shores Marina proposed development To whom it may concern: I support the appellant and would like to see a less impactful plan approved. I believe there are alternatives that would benefit both the Bayshores Marina and the Bayshores neighborhood. Jon McClintock 949-290-2451 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 Subject: FW: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design From: Eric Stoop fmailto:estoop@icloud.coml Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 6:05 PM To: Dept -City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design As a Newport Beach resident since 1983, we support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed. It reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We hope the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. Respectfully, Eric, David & Janice Stoop 3057 Corte Marin, Newport Beach, Ca 949-599-5801 I Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Wes Iseley <Wes.Iseley@carringtonms.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 4:56 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: kathy@kathyiseley.com Subject: Appeal Newport Marina I currently lease a slip for my boat in Newport Marina and I am a home owner on Balboa Island (125 Apolena). I urge you to move forward to gain approval from the Harbor Commission. The Preston's have done the best they could but the Marina needs to be updated as outlined in their plan that that the city has already approved. Newport Marina is home to avid boaters that spend money in local Newport business. I find it appalling that certain residents can use their money to stall a plan that has already been approved. Newport Beach needs marinas like Newport Marina, please move forward with the approval. Regards, Wes G. Iseley Carrington Holding Company Senior Managing Director 25 Enterprise, 5th Floor Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 949-517-6066 (Direct) Wes.Iseley@carringtonms.com Confidentiality Notice: This message, including any attachment(s), may contain confidential information protected by law. The information contained herein is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender at the e-mail address listed above and destroy all copies of the original message, including any attachments. Thank you. Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Thad Martin <tmartin@hbhca.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 3:58 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Glenn Walcott (glen n.walcott@gmai l.com); Zachary Fischer Subject: I support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design City Council Members - I am a Newport Beach home and boat owner and I find this action to approve a marina that will adversely affect water front homes appalling. Especially when there are alternative ways to build this marina that will have far less impact on residences. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. I'd ask the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. Allowing a marina like this is a slippery slope for Newport Beach by giving right to commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Furthermore, it is clearly stated in the city's General Plan for a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this current design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. I strongly urge you to reconsider this action, for the best interest of the entire Newport Beach community. Sincerely, Thad Martin 1211 Portside Way Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: David Hinman <davidconradhinman@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 2:51 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: glenn.walcott@gmail.com Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design The design is too commercial and will reduce quality of life for residents. Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Ron Merickel <ronmerickel@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 2:40 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: zfishher@crossepartners.com; Marilyn Flint Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur for these homeowners on the Bay. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. Having large yachts 5 feet from a residential bulkhead is very poor planning. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. There are other designs to select from that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator, yet accomplish their revenue goals. Some of these goals have been offered up by the appellants. Moving the large boat slips to the north near the Back Bay Bridge would be an easy solution. The 2016 Approval in Concept allows the residents to keep their views and enjoy a quality of life. Ron & Kris Merickel 18 Bay island Newport Beach, CA 92661 ronmerickel@yahoo.com Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 From: Mimi Samluk <mimi.samluk@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 11:19 AM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Glenn Walcott Subject: I support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design To City Council, I support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. I implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. Sincerely, Mimi Samluk Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Eran Goren <goren_eran@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 9:52 AM To: Dept - City Council Cc: glenn.walcott@gmail.com Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. The General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. We understand the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% deficient in the number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. Having 9 new large vessels will bring large crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate. The current marina does not place the biggest burdens on homeowners which is consistent with other marinas in Newport Harbor including new marinas. The current marina has a 24' setback from the bulkhead. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. 2 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Joe Samluk <joe.samluk@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 9:20 AM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Glenn Walcott Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design, recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. I am a long standing resident of Newport Beach and, like all others residing in the community, I will be greatly affected if the Council approves the Bayshores Marina design. This is a very dangerous precedent that will have an extremely detrimental and irreversible impact on OUR community. What is the purpose of the city council and why have we elected those representing us? "We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life" "The goal of development is to complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability." "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies... " "Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adioininq residents." "... meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life." "These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressin_g such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents' and neighbors' quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enioyment of homes and yards and a significant loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgment and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. Why? - to ensure the quality of life of OUR residents. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgment. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This highly intrusive marina design does not make OUR city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents, it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. z Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Peter Spasov <pspasov@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 9:16 AM To: Dept - City Council Cc: glenn.walcott@gmail.com Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Gouvion, Michelle (RGP - RSC) <Michelle.Gouvion@rgp.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 9:07 AM To: Dept - City Council Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design My family and I, as Newport Beach residents, support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport Beach where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. Additionally, the plan provides for dangerous access point for the small boats. At normal high tides, the marina walkway will cause electric boat owners to hit their anchor lights and numerous other types of boats will no longer be able to access the small slips due to this unique and flawed design. It would be negligent for the City Council to move forward with this plan. MICHELLE GOLIVION I Associate General Counsel & Corporate Secretary Resources Global Professionals W: 714.430.65751 M: 714.234.3402 1 VoIP:112.6575 0#RGP' Consulting. From the inside out. ADVISORY I PROJECT I INTERIM RGP.com NASDAQ:RECN This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notes us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. This message and any attached documents contain information from the professional services firm of RGP, or its affiliates, that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Please visit http://www.rgp.com/contact-us for general inquiries. To view our privacy policy: http://www.rgp.com/privacy-policy Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Mike Murphy <captainmurf@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 9:05 AM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Ashley Fisher, Zachary & Ashley Fischer Subject: I Support the Appeal of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design How could you have APPROVED a plan to park 80 foot boats in front of private homes? You don't allow trees in the City to grow and block a neighbor's view! I find it unconscionable that you would approve this plan that would obliterate the existing sky vault vista and devalue the existing properties. It would appear that an 80 foot extension, plus the dockage, would encroach into the narrow channel and create a navigational hazard. Please reconsider you vote and disapprove this design. Respectfully, Michael Murphy 8 Bay Island Newport Beach, CA, 92661 949-554-5228 Sent from my Wad Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Sindy Lin Murray [mailto:sinyinlin@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 8:28 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com> Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. The current marina design significantly reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgment and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. Furthermore, the plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single-family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on the first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners' property lines exists. Sincerely, Sindy Murray Concerned Newport Beach Resident Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Marilyn Flint <Marilyn@Marilyn Flint.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 8:43 AM To: Dept - City Council; Zach Fischer, Ashley Fisher Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design Dear Council Members, This Marina design is flawed in many respects - it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality is life due to an invasion of privacy, security, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. I object Most importantly to the loss of views and air space for the homes and apartments adjacent. I thought this has been what Newport Beach has long protected for it residents. Security is another important issue! The huge yachts seem like an unnecessary addition to the existing Marina. Please reconsider your approval. Sincerely, Marilyn Flint. 8 Bay Island, Newport Beach. Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Carsten Hoffmann <carstenypo@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 8:17 AM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Glenn Walcott; Biljana Longman Subject: appeal the bayshore marina approved design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. OTHER POINTS: As a boat owner, it would be negligent for the City to approve a plan that has an inherently dangerous access point for the small boats. At normal high tides, the marina walkway will cause electric boat owners to hit their anchor lights and numerous other types of boats will no longer be able to access the small slips due to this unique and flawed design. We understand the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% deficient in the number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. Having 9 new large vessels will bring large crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate. The current marina does not place the biggest burdens on homeowners which is consistent with other marinas in Newport Harbor including new marinas. The current marina has a 24' setback from the bulkhead. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. Quotes from the Newport Beach General Plan "We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life" "The goal of development is to complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability." "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies..." "Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents." "... meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life." "These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking." Quality of life is mentioned 8 times in the Newport Beach General Plan z Needs of residents is mentioned 4 times. Privacy is discussed at least 5 times. Placing marina operators needs over that of residents has never been a goal of Newport Beach. Thank you!!!!! The folks living there have the right to be heard and since there are other design options, a path that makes more sense is the only correct outcome on this issue. best, Carsten Carsten 3 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Chris St. Hilaire <csthilaire@mfour.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 7:11 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Glenn Walcott Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design Dear Council, Please support the appeal of Bayshore Marina Design. First, our 15 year old son, Gabriel is on the rowing team of NAC and I think that the design further jeopardizes the safety of the kids in the program as that is their main thorough fair 6 days per week. Having 9 new large vessels there will bring large boat traffic. In the city's General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This is a bad design and doesn't complement safety, character or livability. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents, it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs should be met with other designs. Please, do not allow this plan to go through. Chris St. Hilaire Founder & Chief MFour Mobile Research (714)754-1234 MFour Blog 1 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: skylar neubauer <scneubauer@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 8:09 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Zach Fischer Subject: Reject the Newport Marina Dear City Council Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. I support the appellant and would like to see a less impactful plan approved. Signed, Miss Skylar Neubauer [Bayshore Resident] Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Dylan Long <dylanlong230@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 8:45 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Commercial Marina Parking To Whom It May Concern, We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. As a second -generation resident of Newport Beach, I believe I speak on behalf of many residents here when I say that I don't wont my home obstructed. Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: August Neubauer <kaugustneubauer@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 8:50 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Protect Bayshores Dear City Council, Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. We support the appellant and would like to see a less impactful plan approved Sincerely, August Neubauer, Bayshore Resident Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: John William King <19KINGJI@sagehillschool.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 8:59 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: We support the Appeal of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design Hello, We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgment. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. am a boat owner and have a house with a bay view. I would hate for that view to be obstructed by many more boats, and I would strongly dislike other people's boats being a few feet away from my house. For people with a backyard, it is a major violation of privacy and safety because they have direct access to anyones' houses. Boat maintenance is very common, and I would hate to have people constantly working in front of my house obstructing my view. The parking would be a major issue. As someone who goes to Bay shores a lot, I can agree that their neighborhood has difficulty parking. With a lack of space there and the apartments next to it, there would be much less room available for parking for the people working there. Overall, the increase in boat docks would increase the number of people there and which will add a significant amount of boat and street traffic as well as lower the quality of safety and living in the houses that will be infested with boats around them. I, along with my entire family, strongly supports the appellant and would like to see a less impactful plan approved. Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Debashis Chowdhury <DC@CanterburyConsulting.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 9:23 PM To: O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council Cc: Zach Fischer Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design Dear Will O'Neill and fellow members of the Newport Beach City Council, We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poorjudgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" —this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. Respectfully, Debashis Chowdhury Debashis Chowdhury, CFA President CanterburyConsulting 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 500 Newport Beach, California 92660 949 718-2215 direct 1 949 721-9580 main canterburyconsultinFi.com Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Ron Sarabi <ron.sarabi@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 10:09 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Newport Marina Dear Council Members: Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Ron Sarabi Newport Marina Tenant RON SARABI Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Ken Alston <ksa2114@caa.columbia.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 3:57 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. OTHER POINTS: As a boat owner, it would be negligent for the City to approve a plan that has an inherently dangerous access point for the small boats. At normal high tides, the marina walkway will cause electric boat owners to hit their anchor lights and numerous other types of boats will no longer be able to access the small slips due to this unique and flawed design. We understand the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% deficient in the number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. Having 9 new large vessels will bring large crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate. The current marina does not place the biggest burdens on homeowners which is consistent with other marinas in Newport Harbor including new marinas. The current marina has a 24' setback from the bulkhead. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. Ken Alston Bayshores Resident 2592 Circle Drive Newport Beach, CA Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Joelle Hamontree [mailto:Joelle@hamontree.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 11:04 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ashley Fischer (amffischer@gmail.com) <amffischer@gmail.com> Subject: Newport Marina To the City Counsel of Newport Beach, I will be out of town during your next meeting on Feb. 12th, however I would like my voice to be heard. I strongly support the appellant to rebuild the marina by the Bayshores apartments and I sincerely hope you find a less impactful solution! Joelle Hamontree Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Timothy J. Ballard <tballard@buchananstreet.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 12:46 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: zfischer@crossepartners.com Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. To allow for 20'+ tall boats to essentially sit in the backyards of these homes will result in the city incurring significant liability and potential costs for the taking of long enjoyed views of the residents. I can't imagine the emotional distress this project is inflicting on the affected parties. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. OTHER POINTS: We understand the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% deficient in the number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. Having 9 new large vessels will bring large crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate. The current marina does not place the biggest burdens on homeowners which is consistent with other marinas in Newport Harbor including new marinas. The current marina has a 24' setback from the bulkhead. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. Respectfully, Timothy J. Ballard President BUCHANAN STREET Direct: 949.219.1584 P A It T N B N S BUCHANAN STREET PARTNERS www.buchananstreet.com 3501 Jamboree, Suite 4200 1 Newport Beach, CA 192660 tballard0buchananstreet.com Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Aaron Bartz <abartz@ssbfirm.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:04 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Glenn Walcott Subject: Support of Appeal of the Bayshores Marina Approved Design Dear Councilmembers, I have lived in the Bayshores community for many years, and I understand there is a recently approved new marina design in front of the Bayshores Apartments and several Bayshores residences. The plan to place large slips accommodating boats up to 80' in length immediately in front of residential homes, with a 5' setback and in certain places less than 6" from residential property lines is improper and should be reconsidered immediately. Adopting this new design is contrary to the City of Newport Beach's General Plan, which is supposed to support residents' privacy and property rights. This plan will directly impact numerous homes, and other alternative plans should be considered to mitigate the impact on the families occupying those homes. Frankly, it is disappointing the design has advanced this far, and smacks of nothing more than a money grab for the City and the marina operator. Please vote against this ill- conceived plan. Best regards, Aaron A. Bartz 2541 Circle Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 293-3448 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Lesly Knight <leslyknight@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:08 PM To: Dept - City Council; glenn.walcott@gmail.com Subject: Newport Marina Plan Privacy Issues Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Subject: Newport Marina Plan Privacy Issues Harbor Permit Number 1502-2018 Dear City Council Members, My home is located at 2480 Arbor Drive, Newport Beach within the Bayshores Community and I understand that there is a plan which was erroneously approved by the city for the replacement of Newport Marina located at 2888 Bayshores Drive. It is unthinkable that 60-80 foot boats could back up against the Bayshores sea wall infringing on the privacy of property owners. This is a safety issue for these residents as well as all of the residents of the Bayshores Community. Privacy, safety and noise issues will not doubt be problematic. Please protect the privacy and safety of the residents of Bayshores and reconsider this plan. These large boats shouldn't be placed in front of a private community and private homes. Sincerely, Lesly Knight 2480 Arbor Drive Newport Beach CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Michelle Dallape <mdallape@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 2:44 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: glenn.walcott@gmail.com Subject: I support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design I support the appeal of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City of Newport Beach. As I have read, the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% below current code requirements for number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. The addition of nine large vessels will bring crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate, as well as disrupting the homes they will be docked in front of. During peak times such as holidays and the boat parade, stacking for our entrance to Bayshores backs up into PCH creating a hazardous and grid locked condition, making it time consuming, dangerous, and difficult for residents to access their community and homes. The addition of more boats, noise, and cars will not improve this situation. This project is proposed so an apartment and marina owner can simply generate more rent money from their facility to line their pockets with no solution or contribution to solve the current problem for the existing community. At a minimum it should require significant intersection and parking improvements on their property and relocation of the large boats in front of their rental units. Please deny the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Thank you, Michelle Dallape Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 From: Elena Zaretsky [mailto:elena.zaretsky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 11:41 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com> Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. Sincerely, Elena Zaretsky 1 Concerned Newport Beach Resident Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Larry Gates [mailto:lgates@dre-eng.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 7:34 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com> Subject: I support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design Dear Council Members I am a resident in the Bayshores Community and am amazed that the council has given approval for this marina expansion. None of you would be approving this expansion if you lived in one of the 3 single family homes on the waterfront. This loss of privacy and views of the water is atrocious. The expansion/modernization should be in-line with the existing use. I plan on attending the council meeting next Tuesday. Lawrence M. Gates, P.E. 1;- DRC Engineering, Inc. _i`.-i'-1_)!nl e nJ i -it' -1 loates@dre-eno.com Please considei the environment before printing this email 1 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Brandon Schmitt [mailto:bnsdesignbrandon@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:56 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com> Subject: Bayshore Marina Approved Design - Council members, It has come to my attention that a new marina design has been approved to be constructed in front of the Bayshore Apartments and adjacent homes on Bayshore Dr. I ask that you please reconsider and stop the progression of this faulty plan. The new approved design will greatly impact the security of the current residents on Bayshore Dr, eliminate their privacy, obstruct their beautiful views, and negatively impact the investments of good people in one of the most prestigious neighborhoods in Newport Beach. The general plan uses and emphasizes phrases such as "quality of life", "livability", "enhancement of the quality of life", and "protection of the interests of adjoining residents". The current plan does not adhere to the definitions and intentions of these powerful words. I am confidant that our intelligent and rational council members must understand and identify the terrible impact this design will have on the homeowners. Eighteen years ago I achieved my goal of becoming a Newport Beach homeowner. It took hard work and dedication to achieve the financial success needed to live in one of the greatest coastal cities in the world. I have witnessed talented, smart, driven individuals from all over the world achieve their dream of Newport Beach residency. I am confidant that if this plan was instituted in your own backyard you would clearly recognize the great detriment it would have to your life, your family, your home, and your dream. Please listen to your residents and work on a plan together that satisfies everyones wants, needs, and concerns. I support the appeal of the Bayshore Marina approved design. Thank you Brandon Schmitt Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: SCOTT SILVA [mailto:scottwsilva@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February OS, 2019 11:07 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com> Subject: I support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this oversight occur. The Bayshores Marina design is flawed in many aspects: 1) The Bayshores Marina design substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy. 2) The Bayshores Marina design causes loss of quiet enjoyment of private residential homes and their respective yards and living environments. 3) The Bayshores Marina design will cause substantial loss of market value to private residences due to these undesirable and hostile infringements. There are numerous alternate marina design plans. These alternate design plans are synergistic in nature. These alternate plans allow the marina owners to fully build the marina and maximize revenue while preserving the sanctity of private residences. I implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on private residences. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. The Bayshores Marina design is not a win/win scenario. The Bayshores Marina design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Sincerely, Scott W. Silva Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 -----Original Message ----- From: pattiodesky@gmail.com [mailto:pattiodesky@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:55 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Bayshore Marina To whom it may concern The yachting spirit of our Harbor is in great need of slip space in a good location. Also the marina has a history of being very local and supporting the neighbors. We wholeheartedly support this effort and hope that the Presta's will be successful in adding to our Newport Harbor spirit of supporting the boating life! Warm regards Patti and Billy O'Desky Patti O'Desky 949-400-4932 Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed From: Kim Forsyth [mailto:kimtforsyth@yahoo.com] FeDruary 12, 20-19 Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:40 PM Item No. 16 To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design To Whom it May Concern, We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/ appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents, it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. OTHER POINTS: As a boat owner, it would be negligent for the City to approve a plan that has an inherently dangerous access point for the small boats. At normal high tides, the marina walkway will cause electric boat owners to hit their anchor lights and numerous other types of boats will no longer be able to access the small slips due to this unique and flawed design. 1 We understand the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% deficient in the number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. Having 9 new large vessels will bring large crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate. The current marina does not place the biggest burdens on homeowners which is consistent with other marinas in Newport Harbor including new marinas. The current marina has a 24' setback from the bulkhead. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. Quotes from the Newport Beach General Plan "We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life" "The goal of development is to complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability." "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies..." "Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents." "... meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life." "These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking." Quality of life is mentioned 8 times in the Newport Beach General Plan Needs of residents is mentioned 4 times. Privacy is discussed at least 5 times. Placing marina operators needs over that of residents has never been a goal of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kim and Jason Forsyth z Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Philip Bettencourt [mailto:philip@bettencourtplans.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 7:27 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: phlip@bettencourtplans.com Subject: City Council Goals Session: One of the best ever! Mayor Dixon and staff, I was so honored to attend Saturday's goals session, one of the best ever. You had an attentive audience, great presenters and presentations, and interesting surprises from the audience with the herbicides -pesticide concerned citizens. (The treats were the best ever). Just a few thoughts about Old Newport Boulevard that was sort of dammed with faint praise. • There are a number of Renaissance buildings now in place including the Orange Coast Association of Realtors building by former mayor Rush Hill and his team. There are some great new medical arts buildings as well, as noted by your guest speakers. ;lease Secondly, Newport Beach "foodies" sing the praises of the Chicken Coop so check out this very unique gathering space. ;roperty Finally, as Dave Webb noted, the lack of a formal and cohesive community owners -tenants association makes consensus building and infrastructure planning more difficult. Have a great week. See you Thursday night, for sure. Philip F. & Meredith Bettencourt Real Estate Development Planning & Stewardship 14 Corporate Plaza, S. 120 1 Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 1949-720-0970 Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 From: Mackenzie Alston [mailto:kenziekent@me.comj Sent: Tuesday, February OS, 2019 7:02 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com> Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs ofresidents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. OTHER POINTS: As a boat owner, it would be negligent for the City to approve a plan that has an inherently dangerous access point for the small boats. At normal high tides, the marina walkway will cause electric boat owners to hit their anchor lights and numerous other types of boats will no longer be able to access the small slips due to this unique and flawed design. We understand the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% deficient in the number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. Having 9 new large vessels will bring large crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate. The current marina does not place the biggest burdens on homeowners which is consistent with other marinas in Newport Harbor including new marinas. The current marina has a 24' setback from the bulkhead. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. Quotes from the Newport Beach General Plan "We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life" "The goal of development is to complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability." "Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies..." "Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents." "...meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life." "These uses shall be designed toassure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking." Quality of life is mentioned 8 times in the Newport Beach General Plan Needs of residents is mentioned 4 times. Privacy is discussed at least 5 times. Placing marina operators needs over that of residents has never been a goal of Newport Beach. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Respectfully, Ken and Mackenzie Alston 949-413-9328 949-244-5174 Please excuse typos Sent via iPhone. Received After Agenda Printed February 12, 2019 Item No. 16 From: Wainwright, Shep [mailto:swainwright@kbs.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 6:34 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Glenn Walcott <glenn.walcott@gmail.com>; T Wainwright <tinawainwright@gmail.com> Subject: We support the APPEAL of the Bayshore Marina Approved Design Dear City Council Members, We support the APPEAL of the Bayshores Marina design recently approved by the City. Please do not let this injustice occur. This marina design is flawed in many respects — it substantially reduces residents and neighbors quality of life due to an invasion of privacy, loss of quiet enjoyment of homes and yards and a substantial loss of market value due to these substantial infringements. There are numerous other marina design plans, including those submitted by the homeowners/appellants, which do not cause a hardship on the Marina owners. We implore the City Council to use good judgement and deny the proposed marina and have them resubmit plans that do not place undue burden on the residents. The plan submitted by the marina operators would be the ONLY marina in Newport where the commercial marina has its large boats in front of single family homes. All other marinas put big yachts in front of either parking lots, commercial/retail on first floor, or much further away from shore. This marina plan sets a terrible precedent for Newport Beach of allowing commercial marina operators to push the burden of large invasive vessels in front of residential instead of their own property and parking lots first. Having large yachts and a dock 5 feet of a private residential bulkhead is a major loss of privacy, quality of life, increased noise, close proximity to diesel fumes from boats, loss of sunlight increased safety risk and very poor judgement. There are other smart designs to select that do not cause a hardship to the marina operator yet accomplish their revenue goals, some of which have been offered up by the appellants. In the Newport Beach General Plan, the stated goal of development is to "Complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability". This bad marina design does not make this city more livable for the neighbors or our neighborhood. Also in the General Plan is discussion of a "growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies" — this design does not enhance quality of life nor does it balance the needs of residents; it is only considerate of the needs of the marina operator whose needs CAN be met with other designs. Please do not allow this plan to go through. OTHER POINTS: As a boat owner, it would be negligent for the City to approve a plan that has an inherently dangerous access point for the small boats. At normal high tides, the marina walkway will cause electric boat owners to hit their anchor lights and numerous other types of boats will no longer be able to access the small slips due to this unique and flawed design. We understand the Marina and Apartment parking is 25% deficient in the number of spots required for a newly constructed marina. Having 9 new large vessels will bring large crews and maintenance workers to these boats which will clog up the already overburdened traffic entrance on Bayshore Drive in front of the neighborhood gate. The current marina does not place the biggest burdens on homeowners which is consistent with other marinas in Newport Harbor including new marinas. The current marina has a 24' setback from the bulkhead. Please DENY the Approval in Concept to build this marina. Send this matter back to the City staff with the envelope that a new marina design can be submitted and approved so long as a 24' setback from the homeowners property lines exists. Quotes from the Newport Beach General Plan "We have a conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' qualh)7 of life" "The goal of development is to complement and enhance Newport Beach character and livability,." "Implement a conservative growth strategy that entrances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies..." "Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Beach and provide needed support for recreational and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with appropriate regulations necessary to protect the interests of all users as well as adjoining residents." "...meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life." "These uses shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking." Quality of life is mentioned 8 times in the Newport Beach General Plan Needs of residents is mentioned 4 times. Privacy is discussed at least 5 times. Placing marina operators needs over that of residents has never been a goal of Newport Beach. Thank you!!!! Shep and Tina Wainwright Sent from my iPhone KBS Shep Wainwright I Sr. Vice President 800 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office: (949) 797-0372 1 Website: www.kbs.com