HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Ordinance Related to the Harbor Department Staffing Structure of Two Positions - HandoutReceived After Agenda Printed
October 9, 2018
Item No. 3
Q y Council Meeting 10_9_18
Given that you are in the process of amending the Harbor Code, now is
the appropriate time to address a serious issue.
I am requesting that the City Council revert back to the original
language of Harbor Code 17.35.020 as well as 17.60.060 (E) as it
existed prior to the Dec. 2013 amendments. Changes to the Harbor
Code need to be made carefully, and not as SpsgijaWgislation for the
benefit of one person to the detriment of another.
It is patently unfair and against the values of this City to favor one
citizen of over another. The City Council amended the Harbor Code to
benefit John Vallely. This was confirmed in a letter dated Aug. 15, 2013
from Henry Carmack, Vallely's attorney, to the City Council. I just
provided a copy of the letter to you.
The Carmack letter affirmatively states:
"It is my understanding, these proposed amendments come from
the City Attorney's office, and have been under discussion for some
time. However, it is probably fair to say the Vallely dock situation may
have prompted the City Attorney's office to propose the amendments at
this time."
Mr. Carmack, is admitting that the Harbor Code is being changed solely
for Mr. Vallely!!
I am here to ask you to go back to the Harbor Municipal Codes, prior to
the Dec. 2013 revision, regarding pier encroachments, keeping in mind
how it effects the surrounding homeowners. The current code
17.35.020, regarding setbacks, states "with prior approval of the City,
piers and slips for commercial property may extend pgaLthe
prolongation of the property line."
h7el
W 17.60.060(E) also eliminated notice to abutting upland property
involvement. Why would you secret an action that would be to the
detriment of an abutting upland owner? Did you understand that this
change would substantially affect me and my property interest? Was
this done so that you could enter into the secret settlement agreement
without notifying me??
Prior to Dec. 2013, while being sued by John Vallely, the code required
notice to abutting upland property owners and also said, "All piers and
slips for commercial properties may extend to, but not per, the
prolongation of the property line. This ordinance, changing the ability to
encroach, was introduced on the Consent Calendar in Nov. 2013. The
council accepted the Ordinance without public presentation or any
discussion. According to the Staff Report, the changes to Ordinance
2013-27 were put into place under the direction of the Council during
the November 12th Study Session.
However, it appears the Nov. 12th discussion was exclusively about the
computation of the dock fee, the characterization of docks owned by
Homeowner Associations, and transfers of residential permits. The
proposed Ordinance, which allowed encroachment for one person only
(John Vallely), had appeared out of the blue.
In 2008, the entire Municipal Code was thoroughly vetted. On May 14,
2013, Ordinance 2013-11 was introduced. It was an Omnibus Bill
resulting from the City Attorney's careful review of the entire Municipal
Code. It made mostly clerical changes to 200 passages. It made minor
changes to 17.35.020. It recommended no changes to subsection
17.35.020 (F) regarding transfer of pier permits.
The Municipal Code changes were initiated when Vallely, the owner ofd�
508 S. Bayfront, filed a lawsuit against the City. After Mr. Valleb} in°ihe
trial court, he filed an appeal. It was during the Appeals process, that the
City entered into a secret settlement agreement and settled the lawsuit
with Mr. Vallely, giving him a 50 -year unrestricted lease, that was not
substantially similar to the Model Lease. Even though the City was
winning in the Appeals Court, in an effort to appease Mr. Vallely, the
City folded and gave away my property interest rights in order to resolve
litigation with John Vallely.
On the August 13, 2013 agenda, John Vallely told the City Council he
wanted only to transfer his encroaching docks to family members as a
property rights issue. I knew differently as he had already sold his home
to a non -family owner. It fell out of escrow because of the pier situation
in front of my home.
How many years does the Vallely family get to control the public
harbor? The trial court judge in the July 18, 2014 lawsuit even
commented about this issue. Judge Gastelum said:
`Petitioner, Vallely, has not established how his father's expenditure of
work and money on a project extends to him 80 years later, under the
concept of vested rights. That his family gave him the pier does not
establish Vallely's own vested right in the pier. Accordingly, the concept
of vested rights does not work in Vallely's favor.'
He has already had 80 years, and now has 50 more years, with the
possibility it being extended again!
Also, I have been told that you were advised by the City Attorney NOT
TO READ documents submitted to you by me or on my behalf—is that
true? Why are you prohibited from reading the information and being
informed? Did you know that the City entered into a secret settlment
agreement with Vallely—why was this hidden from you. The judge at
the last court hearing even stated that the Vallely lease appeared to be a
settlement agreement between the City and Vallely. Where is the
transparency???
I also am attaching a letter I sent to the community development
department about the current use of the Vallely docks.
Are you aware that during this past summer, Groupon sold for East
Meets West Whale watching tours the following tickets for tours that
leave out of Vallely docks:
70 single tickets;
300 whale watching tickets for two—(600 people)
50 private charter tours for up to 6 people each (300 people)! ! ! ! !
You must all recall that Vallely represented that he was not expanding or
changing the use of his dock. In fact, page 3 of the Aug. 15, 2013,
Carmack letter stated the same.
How is having a potential of increase of 900 cars in the Balboa Island
during two months of the summer months, not a change in use? What
environmental review has taken place to address the parking, pollution,
traffic that this "change in use" has and will generate??
Something needs to be done.
I urge you to change back Harbor Code 17.35.020 to what it stated
before the amendment in Dec. 2013.
I urge you to review the use that Vallely is now utilizing for his dock and
either place restrictions or do an environmental study to address the
impact his Whale Watching business is causing to the surrounding
community.
gS� ;49.1 p.
CRY S. CARMACK.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
474 E. 17th Street, Suits 201
Costa Mesa, California 52627
Tel, 945-642-5648
Fax: 949-642-1588
E-mail: hoarmackapacbell,nat
August 15, 2013
Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re; Newport Beach City Council Regular Meeting of August 13, 2013
Current Business Agenda Item No, 20
Honorable Council Members:
I represent John Vallely, owner of the property at 508 South Bay Front, Balboa
Island. I have also been a resident of Newport Beach for almost 40 years. Mr. Vallely's
property is one of the properties identified by City staff as affected by the proposed
amendments to NBMC Sections 17.3 5.020(F) and 17.60.060 —Item No. 20 on the
Agenda for August 13, 2013.
It is my understanding these proposed amendments come from. the City
Attorney's office, and have been under discussion: for some time. However, it is
probably fair to say the Vallely dock situation may have prompted the City Attorney's
office to propose the amendments at this time. My understanding is that the Vallely dock
presents a situation not encountered previously by the City's current Harbor Resource
Department, but one that will be encountered for other properties in the future.
Initially; it is important to understand what Mr. Vallely asked the Harbor
Resources Department to do. Mr. Vallely- s patents owned and resided at 508 South Bay
Front for over 75 years. Following his mother's death in 2012, and the administration of
his mother's trust that held title to 508 South Bay Front, Mr, Vallely's trust became the
owner of the property. Mr, Vallely subsequently applied for a transfer of the commercial
pier permit, held in the name of his parents' trust, to his trust. There is nothing more to
the application — it is simply a request to change the name on the commercial pier permit
following the parent/child transfer.
Citing current NDMC Section 17.35.0200(3), the Harbor Resource Manager
took the position that Mr. Vallely must go through the process of applying for a new
commercial pier permit. Mr, Vallely disputes this interpretation and is prepared to file a
writ in Superior Court to compel the transfer. Among other reasons, Mr. Vallely disputes
the decision because Section 17.60.060(E) exempts a mmercial piers from the provisions
of Section 17.35.020(F)(3).
Susan Riddle
Expansion of use of docks in front of 508/510
(South Bayfront
Feb 21f 2018 at 2:09:01 PM
Seimone Jurjis
skapik@skapikiaw.com,
Duffy Duffield
Susan Riddle
Leonard Bidart
Scott Peotter
dianebdixon@gmail.com,
1lnfllIFTu
O'Neill
sarandirect@gmail.com, Kevin Muldoon
ki rstenmauidean@yahoo.com,
sharonwegisdesigns@gmaii.com
Seimone
In reference to our call today, I would like your help in getting a letter
from a City official explaining why a Marine Activities Permit is not
required for the expansion of use of the docks for East Meets West
Whale Watching and Charter Tour business that is run off of
Vallely's encroaching docks in front of my home.
The January 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, Item 5,
reports John Vallely explaining that he has managed the property
since 1975 and there has never been any reason for a tenant to visit
the house. At the time, he reported that he had 6 boat tenants, 5 of
which live on Balboa Island and walk to their boats, and one is out of
the City. However, many people are buying Groupon tickets for East
Meets West and after parking and taking a boat ride, continue to
leave their cars while dining or shopping on the Island or Peninsula.
The following has been recently sold on Groupon for East Meets
West:
70 whale watching tickets (70 people)
300 whale watching tickets for two (600 people)
50 private charter tours for up to 6 people each (300 people)
This is a potential increase of 900 cars parking in this area!
These tickets are only available for a limited number of days, then
others are purchased!! Unacceptable increase in expansion of use!
This is a far different scenario than Vallely's description of the non-
existent impact on the parking situation... for which he was given a
waiver.
In the NBMC 17.35.020f #1,2,3 we are told that an expansion or
change of use of piers and floats requires a new commercial permit.
My understanding is that this expansion will require off-street
parking, bathroom facilities and setbacks for the pier.
I am hoping that this is ONLY a gross oversight that will be
immediately dealt with, and not yet another case of the City
catering to John Vallely and allowing him to have special privileges,
not afforded to others in the Harbor.
John promised the Planning Commission that all of his people
accessing his docks came "by foot or by ferry."
They obviously don't.
He has drastically expanded the use of these encroaching docks.
Please explain to me how the City will rectify this and abide by the
NEMC.
Sincerely,