The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15 - 939 Via Lido Soud Residential Dock Reconfiguration — Appeal of Harbor Commission's Decision - PowerPoint (Conzelman)May 28, 2019 Item No. 15 Mark & Shana Conzelman Application to Reconstruct Dock 939 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach City Council May 28, 2019 Item 15 • New dock configuration meets Policy H-1 • No negative impact on navigation • No negative impact on existing harbor uses • No negative impact on adjacent property. Council Policy H-1 The Harbor Commission may permit a pier or float to extend beyond the pierhead line if the Harbor CoOmmission makes a determination that such extension will not negatively impact: 1) navijzation; (2) adiacent property owners; and (3) existing harbor uses. Conzelman Dock Project 8- 18" SQUARE PILES 3a'-0" T-0" 2T -O" T-0" 17'-7" PROJECT LINE _ a \ ^ I N \PIERHFAAb� NE �\ m \� EXISTING DOCK � iN, ta•-0• a'-0^ 4 NEW DOCK 1,201 S.F. _ _ § 0 4 a o N ar-0" Q F 28'-0" 4 EXISTING STAIR \ 4 N z NEV m BULKHEAD LINE 28'S" 1 F NEV The existing dock was oddly configured to avoid a fixed channel marker that has been removed. No negative impact on navigation 200 feet is the maximum needed navigation channel 125' 175' ILAa t yw YJ{V! Y e \l C NEG ■ 5 Disclaimer: x s w v OR I e s a c x Ever, reasonade effort has been made to assure me accuracy of me data provided, baaever. z Cly M O ewao r Nd Beach and d, employee, aM ailerds dlsdaim any and all responsieiliy from or relating to p 0 1,000 2,000 am/msuits obtained in its use. D Feet G4wn.'r Lt&20 200' Maximum channel width design is equal to 5 times the maximum beam of vessels passing the channel. No negative im act on adjacent roperties. Owners of all of the properties near 939 Via Lido Soud have approved the plan including: BillLyon - 929 Via Lido Soud —You have our support. Won't cause any negative impacts. Ira & Gayle Rosenstein - 933 Via Lido Soud -- We concur with your proposed dock reconfiguration Andrew Gabriel - 941 Via Lido Soud —Your dock configuration looks good to me. I support your plan. Lucky Palmer - 944 Via Lido Soud — I am definitely in support. Good luck with this. Mark Cantabrian Foure as Recension <iramarvgywl. om> Sere Monday, May 06, 2019822 PM Ta Mark &Shang Conidman Subject: Re 939 Via Litlo Soud Dock Plan WE CONCUR WITH YOUR PROPOSED DOCKRECONPIGURATION. IRA & GAIL ROSENSTEIN On Apr 30, 2019, at 9:09 PM, Mark Comemon amfiaj�acdwnori wide: Ira and Gail, first we are hoping we can set a dimmer date soon as w, have bom throwing the idea around for morvhs! Hope you are nil well anal past thee, flu bugs that we've all hal This email is to inform you ofthe dock Improvement plan wo are camently processing Paunch be, City. Please Rod attached a site plan that details our proposed dock wnfiguration that extends m d a'Tmject Lint' ald will Tic mom aligned with your dock We are available m meet and dicwas any yu.no. you might have. Atter reviewing the Lamination, please let me know ifyou are in support and if youhave any questions. Your Nmely response is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Mark Colonel. (714) 914-3558 cell C]144. 505-7090 x225 F:LIl4)505-70W 2151 Michdwn lm. Ste 140 S1zI�,SA 92512 m_arkus� Wevclapmyaa ct scdcvrlmma tel <anagCO0lpng> 'Conzelman Dock Packagc.pdf> S. from my iPad 1 Mark Coraceir an From: Andrew Gabriel androwioangalonel.com, Sme Thursday, May 02. 20198: 57 PM To: Mark Conzelman Cc zelman@OmaiLcom SYbjesen Re: 939 Via Litlo Sind Dock Plan Hi Mark, Your dock configuration looks goad to me. I support your plan. Looks like you might have to do a bit of dredging? Andrew From: Mark Conzelman <markCdscdevelooment iee> Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:01 PM To: Andrew Gabriel <andrevl& sgabrieLoom> Cc: "sconaelman Cdnn dI. nl rico zelman[o grog I co >, Mark Conzelman amarl,0 develoomentnet> Subject: 939 Via Lido Soud Dock Plan Andrew, Hope you have been doing well. This email is to inform you of the dock improvement plan we are currently processing through the City. Please find attached a site plan that details our proposed dock configuration that eztenes to the "Project Line and will be, mom aligned with your dock. We am ailable to meet and dol any puestioma You might have. After reviewing the information, please let me know if you are in support and 9 you have any questions. Your timely response is greatly appreciated. Trankvop, Mark Conzelman (714)914-3588 cell IJ141505-7090x228 F: 1]141505-]099 2151 Miehelsgn Dr Ste leo Irvine CA 92612 mark(dscde,O.Pareni.net sctleveloomentnet 'P Sent from an, load Mark Corizalman From: Bill H. Lyon < BTIH.Lyan@Lyonhomw,o m> Sent Wednesday, May 01, 20199:02 AM To. Mark Conzelman Cp sconzelman@gmailcom Subject RE: 939 Via Lido Soud Dock Plan HI Mark, You have our support. Won't cause us any negative impacts. Thanks, Bill H. Lyon EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN 8111H Lvon®Ivonh William Lyon Homes, Inc. Office: (949)476-9375 Fax: (949)252-2555 se--jvonlmmas corn From: Mark Conzelman< rkR d i Sent Tuesday, April 30, 2019 9:15 PM To: Bill H. Lyon <BiIIRL anfmLvo h Co go,elmanl�ema'Icam Mark Conzelman<mart@sedeveloomentne, Sublem 939 Via Lido Soud Dock Plan 8111, Hope you have been doing well. This email is to inform you of the dock improvement plan we are currently processing through the Cry. Please find attached a site plan that details aur proposed dock configmaUan that extends to the "Prefect Vine and will be more aligned with your dock. We are available to meet and discuss any questions you might have. After reviewing the information, please let me know dyed are in support and Two have any questions. Your timely response is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Mark Conzelman (714) 914-3588 cell (7141505-0090x228 F: 1714)505-7099 2151 Michelson Dr. Ste 140 Irvine CA 92612 markL@Scdevelopment.net voya.ecdevelorinsaincrot i Mark Conzelman Frain: Palmer Luckey <palme tech@9mat.com> Saint Tuesday, April 30, 2019946 PM To: Mark Conzelman Cc sconzelman@gmaiLcom SubjeR: Re: 939 Via Lido Soud Deck Plan I am definitely in support. Good luck with this' On Toe, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:12 PM Mm'k Conzelman <cnark@scdevelo tmentnev wrote: Palmer, Hope you have been doing well. This email is to inform you of the dock improvement plan we are currently processing through the City. Please find attached a site plan that details our proposed dock configuration that extends to the `Project Line" and will be more aligned with your dock. We are available to meet and discuss erry questions you might have. After reviewing the information, please let me know if you are in support and - if you have my questions. Your timely response is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Mark C.I. (714) 914-3588 dell (7 1 41 5 05-7090 x228 F:(714)505-7099 2151 Michelson IX, Ste 140 Irvine, CA 92612 mark(a A,develomneur.net www. sedeveloproentnet Sent from my iPad r No negative impact on existing harbor uses. • No negative impact on sailboat racing. "After reviewing the proposed configuration believe it will have no impact on sailing and sailboat racing in the area of Newport Harbor East of Lido Isle." Gary Thorne, Harbor 20 fleet captain, 2017-2018. • No negative impact on harbor dredging. The closest piling to the federal project line is set back by five feet. Harbor Commission procedures need change. Council Policy H-1 contemplates that the Harbor Commission will make the initial determination of whether or not to approve docks between the Pierhead Line and the Project Line. "In other words, individual approval to build piers and floats beyond the pierhead line will no longer be made by staff. Instead, those applications will come before the Harbor Commission for approval any time an application proposes to builds beyond the pierhead line regardless of where the dock/float is located in the harbor." Staff Report to City Council on H-1 Harbor Permit Policy, May 22, 2018. The Harbor Commission treated the application as an appeal from a Public Works Denial, not as an application for Harbor Commission consideration. The matter came to the Harbor Commission labeled as an appeal from the "Public Works Director's denial of the proposed residential dock reconfiguration". The Harbor Commission was advised it could "either uphold, amend, or reverse the Public Works Director's denial ..:' Minutes, Harbor Commission, February 13, 2019. Under Policy H-1, the Public Works Director had no authority to approve or deny. Describing the application as an appeal was the practice prior to Policy H-1 and needs to be changed. Describing that the Public Works Diredctor had "denied" The dock reconfiguration placed an improper burden on the property owner as it was made to appear that Public Works had considered and denied the application. In fact, no denial had taken place and it should have been before the Harbor Commission for its consideration without having to "reverse" Public Works. The Procedure was unfairly prejudicial to Conzelman. Council Policy H-1 was not intended to restrict all residential piers to the Pierhead Line. Prior to Council Policy H-1, 30 different areas in the harbor were not limited to the pierhead line and in other areas, exceptions could be and were made. For example, Conzelman's neighbor at 933 Via Lido Soud was approved on October 24, 2003 to extend to exactly where Conzelman has requested. The Coastal Commission approved 933 Via Lido Soud as well on January 29, 2004 in its Permit CDP 5-03-480. I, id t','Y OF NEWPORT BERCH CITY OF / NE3IPORT PERCH �t 13RN PIER Icsr 'rICINITY hRP a.u, m, svwan � 7 T II nT F _n. i„i I IIE%IS 10 -Pei - PROFILE 1' = Q JET'r S)LMDC5 IX- S�F9 IN iEE7 R1 7j- FLNRTIONS F4i3➢ ON MAI LC<<R LDH VO L EEL GRASS INSPECTION NO EEL GRASS WITHIN 15' OP PROD 0 EEL GRASS IN THE PROJECTAREA .. cil, S 1`IIIIe/ SIGNATURE a� 171�g33 /u ic PERMIT# -DATE r 1 I I COASTAL COMMISSION fT 03-�8o I EXHIBIT # HARBOR RESOURCES PAGE_OF_I CITY OF NEWPORT BE C n., < M�IE. ndsl IuS PLpN 'JIcF 1 --- --- PROJECT ADDRES,.'.. 9j,; V/,4 L !�O OrirvER NAME: ,/�4 ,f meq@ KOSGN�TCEN '_�E[1-ONt �,p- --- - • Policy H-1 was intended to simplify the rules and make the Harbor Commission responsible to determining if docks beyond the Pierhead Line should be permitted based on 3 criteria: (1) navigation; (2) impact on adjacent property; and (3) impact on existing harbor uses. • Policy H-1 was not intended to make dock construction more restrictive than it had been in the past.