The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11 - 944 Via Lido Nord Residential Dock Reconfiguration — Call for Review of Harbor Commission's DecisionQ SEW Pp�T CITY OF z NEWPORT BEACH c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report January 12, 2021 Agenda Item No. 11 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director - 949-644-3311, dawebb@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Chris Miller, Administrative Manager, cmiller@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3043 TITLE: Resolution No. 2021-4: 944 Via Lido Nord Residential Dock Reconfiguration — Call for Review of Harbor Commission's Decision ABSTRACT: The applicant at 944 Via Lido Nord, at the eastern tip of Lido Isle, is proposing to reconfigure the residential dock system by replacing the pier, pier platform, gangway and U-shaped float with a new system comprised of a gangway and single -finger float. The proposed float extends beyond the pierhead line by 7 -feet, which matches the existing float's extension beyond the pierhead line of 7 -feet. However, the existing float, when constructed in 1989, was permitted to extend to the pierhead line and not beyond. Therefore, the existing float is non-compliant. City Council Policy H-1 provides that the Harbor Commission shall consider for approval, conditional approval or denial of an application based on certain requirements. On November 9, 2020, the Harbor Commission approved the dock reconfiguration at public hearing. On November 23, 2020, then Councilmember Herdman called the Harbor Commission's decision up for review to the City Council. 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; and c) The City Council may either affirm, modify or reverse the Harbor Commission's approval of the proposed dock reconfiguration at 944 Via Lido Nord. If either affirming or modifying the Harbor Commission's decision, the City Council authorizes staff to issue an Approval in Concept for the project; and then d) Adopt Resolution No. 2021-4, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Upholding the Harbor Commission's Approval of an "Approval In Concept" For a Residential Dock Reconstruction Project at the Property Located at 944 Via Lido Nord (File No. 1901-2020). 944 Via Lido Nord Residential Dock Reconfiguration — Call for Review of Harbor Commission's Decision January 12, 2021 Page 2 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Beyond the related staff time required to administer and process this item, there is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: City Council Policy H-1 (Attachment A) states that it is the City Council's general policy not to approve piers and floats beyond the pierhead line. However, the Harbor Commission may make exceptions to this general policy if specific findings are made at a public hearing. The applicant's dock is located at 944 Via Lido Nord on the eastern tip of Lido Isle. As depicted on the aerials (Attachment B), there is a mix of dock structures along this section of Lido Isle that either extend to or beyond the pierhead line. City Council Policy H-1 provides that the Harbor Commission shall consider for approval, conditional approval or denial of an application based on certain requirements. A public hearing is required, and staff shall include a recommendation with supporting materials for the Harbor Commission. When considering the application for approval, the Harbor Commission must make specific factual findings in each category of exceptions listed below. City Council Policy H-1 Required Findings 1) The existing pier or float is currently encroaching bayward beyond the pierhead line; 2) The existing pier or float was previously permitted to encroach bayward beyond the pierhead line; 3) The pier or float will not encroach any further bayward beyond the pierhead line than the existing encroachment beyond the pierhead line; 4) Any vessel utilizing the pier or float will not extend bayward beyond the project line or line at which the vessel would currently be allowed, whichever is greater; and 5) The pier or float will: a. Preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Harbor; b. Maintain or enhance public access to the harbor waterways and waterfront areas; c. Preserve or enhance the visual character of the harbor; and 11-2 944 Via Lido Nord Residential Dock Reconfiguration — Call for Review of Harbor Commission's Decision January 12, 2021 Page 3 d. Not negatively impact adjacent property owners, navigation and future harbor dredging. EXISTING DOCK CONFIGURATION Attachment C shows the most current plans on file for this particular dock. This 1987 approved plan depicts the U-shaped float extending to the pierhead line, and not beyond. Conversely, the as -built, existing configuration on the aerials shows the float extending 7 - feet beyond the pierhead line. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Project (Attachment D) maintains the same 7 -foot extension beyond the pierhead line as the existing configuration maintains. The Project proposes to remove the pier, pier platform, gangway and float, and install a gangway and single -finger float. A pier or pier platform is not proposed because the gangway will be directly attached to the bulkhead. The proposal conforms to the City's Harbor Design Criteria. : /_1:7 119]:Z919]lvi I►Yi 16'%9 lei ►111 x81 &I Eel I City Council Policy H-1 allows the Harbor Commission to approve a permit for a pier or float if specific factual findings are made. Specifically, the Harbor Commission is directed to use the general policy that piers or floats may not extend beyond the pierhead line. Exceptions can be made by making specific factual findings as to each category of exceptions noted in City Council Policy H-1. As previously noted, the existing float was permitted to extend to the pierhead line, and not beyond. However, the as -built configuration of the existing float shows the float extending 7 -feet beyond the pierhead line. Therefore, the proposed project does not comply with finding No. 2 within City Council Policy H-1(above) which states that in order for piers and floats to be considered for approval, the existing pier or float had to have been previously permitted. In this case, it was not previously permitted. At the November 9, 2020 meeting, the Harbor Commission considered the application during a public hearing, and after deliberation and public input, approved the proposed dock configuration. The Harbor Commission also restricted a vessel extension beyond the end of the finger float by 20 -feet maximum. The Commission included a finding that the existing dock has been in existence since 1987, and it was approved by the City upon completion of that project at that time, and was therefore found to be in conformance. Please see Attachment E (Harbor Commission Minutes) and Attachment F (Harbor Commission staff report). The City Council may consider a resolution to either uphold the Harbor Commission's approval of an Approval in Concept for the Project (Attachment G) or deny the project. 11-3 944 Via Lido Nord Residential Dock Reconfiguration — Call for Review of Harbor Commission's Decision January 12, 2021 Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this 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, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. 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." 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[.]" The replacement residential dock system is in the same location and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the dock system it replaces. The overwater coverage of the new dock system decreased from 943 square feet to 696 square feet. NOTICING: This 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). The prior public hearing held by the Harbor Commission was also noticed to all residents within a 300' radius per NBMC 21.62.020(B)(2)(c) and published in the newspaper. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A —City Council Policy H-1 Attachment B —Aerial Photos Attachment C — Existing 1987 Approved Plans and Configuration Attachment D — Proposed Dock Configuration Attachment E — Harbor Commission Minutes (November 9, 2020) Attachment F — Harbor Commission Staff Report (November 9, 2020) Attachment G — Resolution No. 2021-4 (Upholding the Harbor Commission's Decision) 11-4 ATTACHMENT A HARBOR PERMIT POLICY Background H-1 Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.35.030(A) provides that piers and floats may not extend beyond the pierhead line unless approved by Council policy. Policy Consistent with Title 17's purposes described in Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.05.020, the City Council's general policy is not to approve piers and floats beyond the pierhead line. Limited exceptions exist as described in this Policy, but the Harbor Commission is directed to use this general policy and the underlying purposes of Title 17 as a default rule that can only be excepted by making specific findings concerning such exceptions. The proper procedure for determining whether such exceptions exist is to hold a public hearing in front of the Harbor Commission with a staff report that includes a staff recommendation and accompanying materials that shall include, but are not limited to, the application and materials supporting the staff recommendation. The Harbor Commission shall consider the City's general policy as articulated herein and shall make specific factual findings as to each of the categories of exceptions. The applicant, or any interested person, shall have the right to appeal the Harbor Commission's decision to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.65 of the Municipal Code. Any individual City Council Member shall also have the right to call for review the Harbor Commission's decision to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.65. The Harbor Commission, or the City Council considering an appeal or call for review, may approve or conditionally approve a permit for a pier or float to extend bayward beyond the pierhead line if it is determined that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The existing pier or float is currently encroaching bayward beyond the pierhead line; 2. The existing pier or float was previously permitted to encroach bayward beyond the pierhead line; 3. The pier or float will not encroach any further bayward beyond the pierhead line than the existing encroachment beyond the pierhead line; 11-5 H-1 4. Any vessel utilizing the pier or float will not extend bayward beyond the project line or line at which the vessel would currently be allowed, whichever is greater; and 5. The pier or float will: a. Preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Harbor; b. Maintain or enhance public access to the harbor waterways and waterfront areas; c. Preserve or enhance the visual character of the harbor; and d. Not negatively impact adjacent property owners, navigation and future harbor dredging. Any permit issued by the City of Newport Beach before June 26, 2019, which allows an existing pier or float to extend bayward beyond the pierhead line, is ratified by the City Council and may continue as valid until such time as a new permit for a pier or float is approved and the pier or float is constructed pursuant to the new permit. For those piers and floats in areas where pierhead lines do not exist or in areas not otherwise clearly defined by the criteria within this Policy, staff may consider approving those pier and float projects if the reconstruction is like -for -like, including any upgrades required to meet current code and building standards, and if the existing pier or float configuration was previously permitted. History Adopted H-1 - 6-1-1964 Amended H-1 -10-19-1964 Amended H-1 -10-26-1964 Amended H-1 - 4-27-65 Reaffirmed H-1- 8-30-1966 Amended H-1 -1-9-1967 Amended H-1 - 7-24-1967 Amended H-1 - 6-24-1968 Amended H-1 - 8-19-1968 Amended H-1 -12-23-1968 Amended H-1 -1-26-1970 Reaffirmed H-1- 3-9-1970 2 11-6 Reaffirmed H-1 - 2-14-1972 Amended H-1 - 8-14-1972 Amended H-1 - 6-25-1973 Reaffirmed H-1-12-10-1973 Amended H-1 -12-17-1973 Amended H-1 - 6-10-1974 Reaffirmed H-1-11-11-1974 Amended H-1 - 3-10-1975 Amended H-1 - 4-28-1975 Amended H-1 - 5-27-1975 Amended H-1 -10-28-1975 Amended H-1 -12-8-1975 Amended H-1 - 5-10-1976 Amended H-1 -10-26-1976 Amended H-1 -11-22-1976 Reaffirmed H-1 -1-24-1977 Amended H-1 - 5-23-1977 Amended H-1 - 5-22-1978 Amended H-1 -12-11-1978 Amended H-1 - 3-12-1979 Amended H-1 - 6-25-1979 Amended H-1 - 6-9-1980 Amended H-1 - 6-23-1980 Amended H-1 -11-23-1981 Amended H-1 - 6-28-1982 Amended H-1 -10-12-1982 Amended H-1 -10-25-1982 Amended H-1 - 6-27-1983 Amended H-1 -1-14-1985 Amended H-1 - 3-25-1985 Amended H-1 - 6-24-1985 Amended H-1 - 6-22-1987 Amended H-1 - 6-13-1988 Amended H-1 -11-28-1988 Amended H-1 - 6-26-1989 Amended H-1 - 9-25-1989 Amended H-1 -11-27-1989 Amended H-1 - 5-14-1990 Amended H-1 - 6-25-1990 Amended H-1 - 4-8-1991 3 H-1 11-7 Amended H-1 - 6-24-1991 Amended H-1 -10-28-1991 Reaffirmed H-1-1-24-1994 Amended H-1 - 6-27-1994 Amended H-1 - 6-26-1995 Amended H-1 - 3-25-1996 Amended H-1 - 06-8,1998 Amended H-1 -12-14-1998 Amended H-1 - 5-8-2001 Amended H-1 - 9-10-2002 Amended H-1 -10-28-2003 Amended H-1 - 4-13-2004 Amended H-1-1-8-2008 Amended H-1 - 5-22-2018 Amended H-1- 6-25-2019 Amended H-1 -11-5-2019 4 H-1 11-8 ATTACHMENT B 11-9 11-10 J y) 14 - Ilk to r � X/ ji Q ATTACHMENT C .v E w &mew c Was �J-D B � 5j7� Oce -v wec VICINITY SKETCH post jam I1I�WtORT DA r %ALIiORN/A irrrr S09�nys o s •ZA6-*Zs.s AM diet and civ ofry 0640 , bt�fo�v .Near Lorwr Low I+Sv1hw►•. Alkoxiwtw rarer os t:a1r arofs►oxie.�raf5e/y Jo fret. Abrbai lii�rs sacfia17 0,00',$fLpV,a2rt ,Boy. `/4 L /r, O T AUG CARIE EPA T ENT .�J CALiFORMA FORN1Aa c/o CITY 1"ALL COASTAL COMIv SSiO9`l 3aW WZW�ORT OLW- J g©i9m COAST DISTRICT NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92563 L L A Al sou Office P a� gP A/K c.c ••- 5C ' E°� s' < APPROVED- $ 7 r_ _. r r ve Permit N'o. V Q. •� NFA EFFECTIVE EXAM; - EX� `-- _�+ (R _ II 1' �Y.FLOAT V� t+ i cg' . 1 FI --�: , U EX -41 StJP AO Uill —��O.T T F%. NEIW/opArT A5A y '. P>20I �O S6'0 /2 4 N,e'r7V,=V,0C-r 0Ay � in Jc : �ic,yArQD 944 .V A p o Gj/2 S�S' Aokw w 11-12 D'M& P1LRBUILDl'1!5 SWIFT SLIP DOCK & PIER BUILDERS, INC 6351 Industry Way, Westminster 92683 Phone: (949) 631-3121 Fax: (714) 509-0618 CLIENT: LUCKEY, PALMER RO -- 1.0 10/01/20 DRAWN I Checked REVISION I DATE: SITE: 944 VIA LIDO NORD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOCK AREA: TOTAL AREA 682 FT GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 20' 60 FT TOTAL 60 FT PIER AREA: 10'X 14' 140 FT 4'X 13' 52 FT TOTAL 192 FT TOTAL AREA: 943 FT EXISTING 16" SQ PILE TO BE RELOCATED, TOTAL (3) EXISTING TX 20' GANGWAY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PIER TO BE REMOVED BULKHEAD LINE EXISTING SEAWALL 13' �4' 20' I I AMENDMENTS: DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LINE EXISTING EXISTING 16" SQ PILE TO REMAIN RHEAD LINE EXISTING FLOATING DOCK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 16" SQ PILE TO REMAIN DATE: ATTACHMENT D ❑t](:H& P1 LIKRUILDl'1!5 SWIFT SLIP DOCK & PIER BUILDERS, INC 6351 Industry Way, Westminster 92683 Phone: (949) 631-3121 Fax: (714) 509-0618 CLIENT: LUCKEY, PALMER RO -- 1.0 10/01/20 DRAWN I Checked REVISION I DATE: SITE: 944 VIA LIDO NORD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOCK AREA: 10'X 60' 600 FT2 TOTAL 600 FT2 GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 32' 96 FT2 TOTAL 96 FT2 TOTAL AREA: 696 FV IME 00 BULKHEAD LINE I — 31' 10' . 5' AMENDMENTS: DESCRIPTION: BY: PROJECT LINE EXISTING 16" SQ. PILE PROPOSED -IEAD LINE (N) 10' X 60' FLOATING DOCK DATE: (3) RELOCATED 16" SQ. PILE EXISTING 16" SQ. PILE (N) 3'X 32' GANGWAY (E) SEAWALL ❑'M& P1L BUIL171'1!5 SWIFT SLIP DOCK & PIER BUILDERS, INC 6351 Industry Way, Westminster 92683 Phone: (949) 631-3121 Fax: (714) 509-0618 CLIENT: LUCKEY, PALMER RO -- 1.0 10/01/20 DRAWN: I Checked REVISION I DATE: SITE: 944 VIA LIDO NORD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LEGEND EXISTING DOCK AREA: TOTAL AREA 682 FT2 GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 20' 60 FT2 TOTAL 60 FT2 PIER AREA: 10'X 14' 140 FT2 4'X 13' 52 FT2 TOTAL 192 FT2 TOTAL AREA: 943 FT2 PROPOSED DOCK AREA: 10' X 60' 600 FT2 TOTAL 600 FT2 GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 32' 96 FT2 TOTAL 96 FT2 TOTAL AREA: 696 FT2 (E) FLOATING DOCK (E) 4' X 20' GANGWAY (E) PILE SUPPORTED PIER BULKHEAD LINE 31' 10' , 5' AMENDMENTS: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: PROJECT LINE .1 .1 EXISTING/PROPOSED (E) 16" SQ PILE AHEAD LINE (N) 10' X 60' FLOATING DOCK RELOCATED 16" SQ PILE TOTAL (3) (E) 16" SQ PILE (N) 3'X 32' GANGWAY 1) ATTACHMENT E NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers -100 Civic Center Drive Monday, November 9, 2020 5 PM CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:01 p.m. 2) ROLL CALL Commissioners: William Kenney, Jr., Chair Scott Cunningham, Vice Chair Ira Beer, Secretary (Remote via Zoom) Marie Marston, Commissioner Steve Scully, Commissioner Gary Williams, Commissioner Don Yahn, Commissioner Staff Members: Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager Kurt Borsting, Harbormaster Jennifer Biddle, Administrative Support Specialist 3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Yahn 4) PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Kenney congratulated the Commission on the passage of Measure Z. 5) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of October 14, 2020 Regular Meeting Commissioner Scully suggested on page 8, after his question to add "on boats extending out into the bay from their slips more than their beam". On page 10, he advised after docks to add, public docks. On page 11, at the end of the second sentence where it says working radio, he wanted to include the word VHF before radio. Lastly, on page 12 under Functional Area 4, Harbor Tenant Study needs to be changed to Harbor Attendance Study. Commissioner Marston, Page 9, clarified that for Section C-7 discussing gangways, she did not mean in the document. She meant in response to the comments that she had provided. Chair Kenney referred directly to the minute pages and advised that on page 2, second paragraph of Item 6, Community Developer Department should be changed to Real Property Administrator Community Development Department. On page 4, the first full paragraph line 4, pier headline should be changed to pierhead line. On page 6 line 2 at the top, administration citation needs to be changed to Administrative Citation Penalties. Also, on page 6 paragraph 6, existing business vessels needs to be changed to commercial vessels. Page 8, last paragraph second line, forced needs to be changed to focused. Lastly on page 9, the last paragraph before Item 9, under Harbormaster Borsting's comments, boat needs to change to slip. Commissioner Scully moved to approve the draft Minutes of the October 14, 2020 meeting with corrections. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Vice Chair Cunningham, Commissioner Beer, Commissioner Marston, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None 11-16 Abstaining: None Absent: None 6) PUBLIC HEARING 1. Residential Dock Reconfiguration at 944 Via Lido Nord The applicant at 944 Via Lido Nord at the eastern tip of Lido Isle is proposing to reconfigure the residential dock system by replacing the pier, pier platform, gangway, and U-shaped float with a new system comprised of a gangway and single -finger float. The proposed float extends beyond the pierhead line by 7 -feet which matches the existing float's extension beyond the pierhead line of 7 -feet. However, the existing float, when constructed in 1989, was permitted to extend to the pierhead line and not beyond. Therefore, the existing float is non-compliant. Because the applicant is proposing to extend the float beyond the previously approved limit, staff is recommending the Harbor Commission deny the project per the direction of Council Policy H-1. The applicant, however, requests the Harbor Commission to approve the proposed dock configuration. Recommendation: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review; and 3) Deny the Project at 944 Via Lido Nord and make specific findings to support the decision. Public Works Administrative Manager Chris Miller provided aerial photos disclosing where the project is located within the harbor. Currently, the project is a U-shaped float and is proposed to change to a single finger float. The pierhead line is 80 -feet from the bulkhead line. The existing current float was previously granted permission to extend to the pierhead line, but the float currently extends past the pierhead line by 7 -feet. The proposal requests that the proposed single finger float extend the same distance past the pierhead line as it currently does. Council Policy H-1 does not allow staff to approve projects to go beyond the pierhead line. Staff's recommendation is to deny the project. If the Commission approves the project, staff needs to memorialize the Commission's ruling regarding the Findings. In regards to Commissioner Scully's question, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller did not know if the neighboring docks were allowed to extend past the pier or not. In reply to Commissioner Yahn's inquiry, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller explained that after the neighboring dock project was considered by the Harbor Commission and the City Council in 2019, Policy H-1 was refined to clarify existing conditions and ambiguity within the policy. In answer to Commissioner Marston's observation regarding conflicting language in terms of if the dock was permitted or not, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller noted that the Staff's recommended Finding Number 3 is written to reflect Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Marston pointed out a typo in the staff report that indicates the dock was approved in 1989 but the document says 1987. Public Works Administrative Manager Miller confirmed it is a typo. In reply to Commissioner Marston's question, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller explained that the project is exempted from CEQA because eelgrass is generally not considered in this perspective, but all dock projects that reconfigure have to do an eelgrass survey which is passed along to other agencies for their evaluation. In answer to Secretary Beer's question, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller reported that the width of the interior of the existing float is 20 -feet, and per the City's Municipal Code, this allows a vessel to extend beyond the float by the length of the vessel's beam. Palmer Luckey, the applicant, bought the property in 2014 and explained that he does not want the replacement dock to go any further out than where the existing dock is. The existing dock is too narrow, 11-17 wobbly, and unsafe. The surrounding neighbors are in support of the project and the neighbors have expressed that the dock has been there before any of the existing residents. Pete Swift, the applicant's representative, explained that the dock was built in 1987 and there is no space between the existing pier and dock. The adjacent anchorage area, roughly 200 -feet away, would not be impacted by the proposed dock. In 1993, 933 Via Lido Soud was approved by City Council to extend past the pierhead line. 939 Via Lido Soud also extends past the pierhead line. All other options of reconfiguring the dock have been exhausted and deemed not feasible. In answer to Commissioner Scully's question, Mr. Swift indicated that he was not sure if the dock at 940 Via Lido Nord was permitted to extend past the pierhead line. The issue with pulling the dock landward to the pierhead line is that the neighbor to the right has a poured in place seawall for dredging purposes. In reply to Commissioner Marston's inquiry, Mr. Swift replied that the applicant does not wish to put a boat on the other side of the float. Commissioner Williams noted that precedent is set by the other residents who have extended past the pierhead line. In response to Commissioner Yahn's question, Mr. Swift stated that the existing dock is 943 -square feet and the proposed is 696 -square feet. In answer to Secretary Beer's request, Mr. Swift declared that the applicant is willing to comply with a restriction of how far a boat can be extended past the project line. Jim Mosher did not believe the Commission had the latitude to approve the project. Under the H-1 Policy, he believed that Condition Number 2 could not be met and therefore the project could not be approved. In regard to Secretary Beer's inquiry regarding vessel length, Condition Number Four requires a Finding that a new vessel using the float cannot extend beyond the project line; or the line at which the vessel would currently be allowed. That Condition would have to be included if the Commission approves the project. Shana Conzelman, the owner of 939 Via Lido Soud, supported the applicant's proposal. The extension of the dock would not negatively impact the navigation of the harbor, harbor uses, the neighbors, or dredging. She concluded that not having all the docks in alignment it would cause a safety issue for non -educated boaters. She did not support the process by which her husband and herself had to go through to straighten their dock which extends beyond the pierhead line. Mark Conzelman, the owner of 939 Via Lido Soud, reiterated that the existing dock does not negatively impact neighbors or harbor uses. He urged the Commission to support the project. He expressed that the concept that the H-1 Policy establishes is out of line when docks are required to be flush or behind the pierhead line. In answer to Commissioner Scully's question, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller noted 939 Via Lido Soud has been approved to extend past the pierhead line. He predicted the other docks were built that way, and therefore exist. In reply to Secretary Beer's query, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller disclosed that there are docks on Via Lido Soud that were previously approved to extend beyond the pierhead line by 20 -feet via the old Council H-1 Policy. In answer to Chair Kenney's inquiry, Public Works Administrative Manager Miller noted there is a 20 -foot difference between the pierhead line and the project line. Chair Kenney noted that there are many docks along the east and south side of Lido that appear to encroach across the pierhead line. In reply to his question, Carol Jacobs, Assistant City Manager, answered that the Commission would not be violating Policy H-1 because the Commission is finding that what is existing is what was approved by the City. 11-18 Commissioner Yahn disclosed that he believed that the H-1 Policy is meant to be a guideline and he supported the project. Chair Kenney concurred with Commissioner Yahn and he supported Secretary Beer's recommendation of approval with a restriction on how far a vessel can encroach beyond the end of the dock. Secretary Beer concurred. In response to Chair Kenney's query, Ms. Jacobs answered yes, the applicant would be restricted to the project line because of Policy H-1 Item 4. Secretary Beer restated that per Municipal Code, a vessel is allowed to extend the length of its beam and Public Works Administrative Manager Miller confirmed that is correct. Secretary Beer advised that a condition be added to restrict a vessel from not extending past the project line regardless of its beam. Public Works Administrative Manager Miller noted that if a vessel goes beyond the project line, it is not a big deal from a dredging perspective. Chair Kenney noted that the existing dock has been there for many years and was approved by the Building Department when it was completed which deemed the dock in conformance. Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Marston, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Yahn, Secretary Beer, and Vice Chair Cunningham supported the project with a 20 -foot restriction. Commissioner Yahn moved to approve the dock configuration project with the restriction of a vessel extending no further out than 20 -feet from the end of the dock as well as include the Finding that the existing dock has been in existence since 1987 and it was approved by the City upon completion and therefore found in conformance. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Vice Chair Cunningham, Secretary Beer, Commissioner Marston, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Abstaining: None Absent: None 7) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. Harbor Commission 2020 Objectives Each ad hoc committee studying the irrespective Functional Area within the Commission's 2020 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 or indirectly; and 2) Receive and file. Functional Area 1: Chair Kenney reported that regarding Objective 1.1, the Council approved the Harbor Commission's proposed liveaboard language. The Harbor Commission's proposed update to the last piece of Title 17, 17.10, will be brought forward to the Council in January of 2021. The Ad Hoc Committee's recommended changes to the Marine Activities Permit (MAP) was approved by the Commission and a list of all operators that require a MAP is being compiled. Objective 1.3 has been eliminated and the Ad Hoc Committee responsible for Objective 1.4 continues to study mooring issues. 11-19 Functional Area 2: Secretary Beer announced that the permanent west anchorage approval has been submitted to the US Coast Guard and public outreach has been initiated. A link is on the City's website. Work continues regarding Policy H-3. Functional Area 3: Vice Chair Cunningham announced that there is no report. Functional Area 4: Commissioner Scully disclosed that regarding Objective 4.1, the MAPs have been approved by the Commission and are in the process of being rolled out. No report for Objective 4.2 and 4.3. In terms of Objective 4.4, the Harbor Attendance Study continues to develop and it is roughly 85 percent complete. Functional Area 5: There was no report. 2. Proposed Harbor Commission 2021 Objectives The Harbor Commission held a Study Session on September 9, 2020, to review their existing objectives and to provide input to update the Objectives for the 2021 calendaryear. 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; and 2) Approve the proposed Harbor Commission Objectives for 2021 and request staff to present the objectives to the City Council at a future date. In reply to Commissioner Scully's question, Chair Kenney agreed to leave the first sentence in Objective 1.2 and suggested that the second sentence from Objective 1.2 be moved into Objective 4.2. Secretary Beer agreed with Chair Kenney's suggestions. In regards to combining Objective 2.1 and Objective 4.2, Chair Kenney disagreed and did not want them to be combined. Secretary Beer clarified that Objective 2.3 as revised does not suggest to shrink the mooring field footprints or the boundary lines of the mooring fields, but rather to better organize the rows and fairways allowing for more space within the fields for additional moorings and safer navigation. Scott Carlin, a member of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA), expressed that when a goal or objective is set, folks feel that is a requirement and some of the wording in the objectives is concerning. He requested that Functional Area 1 Number 4 and Number 5, Functional Area 2 Number 4 and Number 6, be postponed so that more dialog regarding the wording can take place between the Commission and the NMA. Don Patengo asked what the safety issues are that warrant a reduction in the mooring size by 120 moorings. Sarah Abraham did not agree with reducing the mooring size after it is transferred. Charles Brewer understood that half the width of his boat could stick out past his dock. Chair Kenney stated that it is true that a vessel can stick out the full length of its beam assuming it is a traditional dock. He requested schematics to see if his dock is affected by the new change. Also, he was having trouble obtaining a Dredging Permit. Jessie, a liveaboard, explained that her neighbor has a 50 -foot mooring and that the objectives suggest that moorings should be limited to a 45 -feet. Due to the change, the resident would not be able to sell her mooring. 11-20 Dave Morris, the owner of mooring H-53, explained that he has his 42 -foot sailboat on the mooring but the mooring was purchased and expanded to 55 -feet. He noticed that his row may get reduced to 50 - feet which would not allow him to place his 55 -foot boat on his mooring. Hein Austin requested that the Commission consider reimbursing mooring owners who fall subject to a reduction in their mooring size. Chair Kenney stated that the goal is to work with all stakeholders and hold meetings on all issues that are listed in the objectives. City Council will review and approve the objectives once they are completed. Secretary Beer concurred with Chair Kenney and emphasized that nothing has been changed yet. Vice Chair Cunningham commented that there is a mistake in Functional Area 2 and that Objective 2.4 was removed and was replaced with Objective 2.6. Secretary Beer concurred. Commissioner Scully suggested that in Functional Area 4, the Harbor Attendance Study should be removed because it is almost complete. There was consensus from the Commission to remove Objective 4.4. Chair Kenney declared that the comment stating that mooring sizes would be reduced upon transfer is not correct. In terms of Dredging Permits, Chair Kenney suggested that the member of the public who raised the issue should discuss it with Public Works Administrative Manager Miller. Secretary Beer clarified that the draft language in Policy H-3 does state that if a mooring houses a vessel that exceeds the intended length of that row, upon transfer, the new vessel would revert to the intended length of that row. Discussion is still ongoing regarding that language and that language has not been adopted yet. Secretary Beer moved to approve the Draft 2021 Objectives with the deletion of Item 2.4 and 4.4 and relocating the second sentence of 1.2 to 4.2. Commissioner Scully seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Kenney, Vice Chair Cunningham, Secretary Beer, Commissioner Marston, Commissioner Scully, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Yahn Nays: None Abstaining: None Absent: None 3. Harbormaster Update — October 2020 The Harbormaster is responsible for the management of the City's mooring fields, the Marina Park Guest Marina and Harbor on -water code enforcement activities. This report will update the Commission on the Harbor Department's activities for October 2020. 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, Title14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and 2) Receive and file. Harbormaster Kurt Borsting shared that the Harbor Office was updated with plexiglass at the customer service counter during October which resulted in, in-person counter services resuming. In-person outdoor service will continue. On October 18, 2020 President Trump visited which resulted in more security within the harbor. On October 26, 2020 high winds were recorded and City lifeguard Staff helped with extra patrols of the water and looking for any issues the high winds were causing. In the future, Harbor staff plans to 11-21 send out an email to residents to check their equipment before the winds hit. All five of the derelict vessels have been removed from the harbor. Rising issues that surfaced during the last quarter were safety concerns regarding kids jumping off bridges and speeding in the harbor. There was a reduction in daily checks on vacancies as well as a reduction in safety conversations with paddle boarders and kayaks. Harbor Staff will be discussing these reductions to see if they are because of hard work that was done in prior years or because Staff getting comfortable. Trash pickup has dramatically decreased as well. 8) COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM Secretary Beer restated that the west anchorage proposal is available on the Harbor Commission's City website. 9) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH STAFF ON HARBOR -RELATED ISSUES In response to Chair Kenney's inquiry, Harbormaster Borsting reported that not much progress has been made regarding the day use of offshore moorings. 10) MATTERS WHICH COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM) Commissioner Scully requested that the Attendance Study be put on the agenda for the December meeting. In response to Chair Kenney's inquiry regarding an application that was filed with the Building Department, Ms. Jacobs answered that an Ad Hoc Committee can work with staff to explore the issue. Commissioner Williams expressed that he would work with Chair Kenney and staff. 11) DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. 12) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Harbor Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 11-22 ATTACHMENT F `t SEW PART CITY OF s NEWPORT BEACH Harbor Commission Staff Report November 9, 2020 Agenda Item No. 6_1 TO: HARBOR COMMISSION FROM: Kurt Borsting, Harbormaster — 949-270-8158, kborsting@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Chris Miller, Public Works Administrative Manager — 949-644-3043, cmiller@newportbeachca.gov TITLE: Residential Dock Reconfiguration at 944 Via Lido Nord ABSTRACT: The applicant at 944 Via Lido Nord at the eastern tip of Lido Isle is proposing to reconfigure the residential dock system by replacing the pier, pier platform, gangway and U-shaped float with a new system comprised of a gangway and single -finger float. The proposed float extends beyond the pierhead line by 7 -feet which matches the existing float's extension beyond the pierhead line of 7 -feet. However, the existing float, when constructed in 1989, was permitted to extend to the pierhead line and not beyond. Therefore, the existing float is non-compliant. Because the applicant is proposing to extend the float beyond the previously approved limit, staff is recommending the Harbor Commission deny the project per the direction of Council Policy H-1. The applicant, however, requests the Harbor Commission to approve the proposed dock configuration (Project). RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review; and 3) Deny the Project at 944 Via Lido Nord and make specific findings to support the decision. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Council Policy H-1 (Attachment A) states that it is the City Council's general policy not to approve piers and floats beyond the pierhead line, but that the Harbor Commission may make exceptions to this general policy if specific findings are made at a public hearing. 18 11-23 The applicant's dock is located at 944 Via Lido Nord on the eastern tip of Lido Isle. As depicted on the aerials (Attachment B), there is a mix of dock structures along this section of Lido Isle that either extend to or beyond the pierhead line. Council Policy H-1 provides that the Harbor Commission shall consider for approval, conditional approval or denial of an application based on certain requirements. A public hearing is required, and staff shall include a recommendation with supporting materials for the Harbor Commission. When considering the application for approval, the Harbor Commission must make specific factual findings in each category of exceptions listed below. When denying a project, it is recommended that the Harbor Commission make factual findings to support that decision. Council Policy H-1 Required Findings 1) The existing pier or float is currently encroaching bayward beyond the pierhead line; 2) The existing pier or float was previously permitted to encroach bayward beyond the pierhead line; 3) The pier or float will not encroach any further bayward beyond the pierhead line than the existing encroachment beyond the pierhead line; 4) Any vessel utilizing the pier or float will not extend bayward beyond the project line or line at which the vessel would currently be allowed, whichever is greater; and 5) The pier or float will: a) Preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Harbor; b) Maintain or enhance public access to the harbor waterways and waterfront areas; c) Preserve or enhance the visual character of the harbor; and d) Not negatively impact adjacent property owners, navigation and future harbor dredging. EXISTING DOCK CONFIGURATION Attachment C shows the most current plans on file with the City for this particular dock. This 1987 plan depicts the U-shaped float extending to the pierhead line, and not beyond. Conversely, the as -built, existing configuration shows the float extending 7 -feet beyond the pierhead line. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Project maintains the same 7 -foot extension beyond the pierhead line as the existing configuration maintains. The Project proposes to remove the pier, pier platform, gangway and float, and install a gangway and single -finger float. A pier or pier platform is not proposed 16 11-24 because the gangway will be directly attached to the bulkhead. The proposal conforms to the City's Harbor Design Criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS Council Policy H-1 allows the Harbor Commission to approve a permit for a pier or float if specific factual findings are made. Specifically, the Harbor Commission is directed to use the general policy that piers or floats may not extend beyond the pierhead line. Exceptions can be made by making specific factual findings as to each category of exceptions noted in Council Policy H-1. As previously noted, the existing float was permitted to extend to the pierhead line, and not beyond. However, the as -built configuration of the existing float shows the float extending 7 -feet beyond the pierhead line. Therefore, the proposed project does not comply with finding No. 2 within Council Policy H-1 which states that in order for piers or floats to be considered for approval, the existing pier or float had to have been previously permitted. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Harbor Commission deny the project. Staff also recommends that the Harbor Commission make findings to support the denial as recommended below. Finding No. 1: Section 17.50.030. The Project conforms to the provisions of the Harbor Design Criteria and applicable standards in conjunction with plan reviews by the Public Works Department. Facts in Support of Findings: The Project conforms to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards Harbor Design Criteria Commercial and Residential Facilities. Finding No. 2: Council Policy H-1. The existing pier or float is currently encroaching bayward beyond the pierhead line. Facts in Support of Findings: The existing float currently encroaches bayward beyond the pierhead line. Finding No. 3: Council Policy H-1. The existing pier or float was not previously permitted to encroach bayward beyond the pierhead line. Facts in Support of Findings: The existing dock configuration was approved by the City in 1989 to extend to the pierhead line, and not beyond, as evidenced by Attachment C. Therefore, the proposed project does not conform to Council Policy H-1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. If the applicant's request is approved, the Harbor Commission finds this 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, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1) applies to the "operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public 17 11-25 or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." 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[.]" The replacement residential dock system is in the same location and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the dock system it replaces. The overwater coverage of the new dock system (696 square feet) is less than the existing overwater coverage (943 square feet). 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). This public hearing was noticed to all residents within a 300' radius per NBMC 21.62.020(B)(2)(c). The notice was also published in the newspaper on Saturday, October 24, 2020 (Attachment E). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Council Policy H-1 Attachment B - Aerial Photos Attachment C - Existing Approved Plans and Configuration Attachment D - Proposed Configuration Attachment E - Public Outreach 18 11-26 HARBOR PERMIT POLICY Background H-1 Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.35.030(A) provides that piers and floats may not extend beyond the pierhead line unless approved by Council policy. Policy Consistent with Title 17's purposes described in Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.05.020, the City Council's general policy is not to approve piers and floats beyond the pierhead line. Limited exceptions exist as described in this Policy, but the Harbor Commission is directed to use this general policy and the underlying purposes of Title 17 as a default rule that can only be excepted by making specific findings concerning such exceptions. The proper procedure for determining whether such exceptions exist is to hold a public hearing in front of the Harbor Commission with a staff report that includes a staff recommendation and accompanying materials that shall include, but are not limited to, the application and materials supporting the staff recommendation. The Harbor Commission shall consider the City's general policy as articulated herein and shall make specific factual findings as to each of the categories of exceptions. The applicant, or any interested person, shall have the right to appeal the Harbor Commission's decision to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.65 of the Municipal Code. Any individual City Council Member shall also have the right to call for review the Harbor Commission's decision to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.65. The Harbor Commission, or the City Council considering an appeal or call for review, may approve or conditionally approve a permit for a pier or float to extend bayward beyond the pierhead line if it is determined that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The existing pier or float is currently encroaching bayward beyond the pierhead line; 2. The existing pier or float was previously permitted to encroach bayward beyond the pierhead line; 3. The pier or float will not encroach any further bayward beyond the pierhead line than the existing encroachment beyond the pierhead line; 19 11-27 H-1 4. Any vessel utilizing the pier or float will not extend bayward beyond the project line or line at which the vessel would currently be allowed, whichever is greater; and 5. The pier or float will: a. Preserve the diverse uses of the harbor and the waterfront that contribute to the charm and character of Newport Harbor; b. Maintain or enhance public access to the harbor waterways and waterfront areas; c. Preserve or enhance the visual character of the harbor; and d. Not negatively impact adjacent property owners, navigation and future harbor dredging. Any permit issued by the City of Newport Beach before June 26, 2019, which allows an existing pier or float to extend bayward beyond the pierhead line, is ratified by the City Council and may continue as valid until such time as a new permit for a pier or float is approved and the pier or float is constructed pursuant to the new permit. For those piers and floats in areas where pierhead lines do not exist or in areas not otherwise clearly defined by the criteria within this Policy, staff may consider approving those pier and float projects if the reconstruction is like -for -like, including any upgrades required to meet current code and building standards, and if the existing pier or float configuration was previously permitted. History Adopted H-1 - 6-1-1964 Amended H-1 -10-19-1964 Amended H-1 -10-26-1964 Amended H-1 - 4-27-65 Reaffirmed H-1- 8-30-1966 Amended H-1 -1-9-1967 Amended H-1 - 7-24-1967 Amended H-1 - 6-24-1968 Amended H-1 - 8-19-1968 Amended H-1 -12-23-1968 Amended H-1 -1-26-1970 Reaffirmed H-1- 3-9-1970 2 20 11-28 Reaffirmed H-1 - 2-14-1972 Amended H-1 - 8-14-1972 Amended H-1 - 6-25-1973 Reaffirmed H-1-12-10-1973 Amended H-1 -12-17-1973 Amended H-1 - 6-10-1974 Reaffirmed H-1-11-11-1974 Amended H-1 - 3-10-1975 Amended H-1 - 4-28-1975 Amended H-1 - 5-27-1975 Amended H-1 -10-28-1975 Amended H-1 -12-8-1975 Amended H-1 - 5-10-1976 Amended H-1 -10-26-1976 Amended H-1 -11-22-1976 Reaffirmed H-1 -1-24-1977 Amended H-1 - 5-23-1977 Amended H-1 - 5-22-1978 Amended H-1 -12-11-1978 Amended H-1 - 3-12-1979 Amended H-1 - 6-25-1979 Amended H-1 - 6-9-1980 Amended H-1 - 6-23-1980 Amended H-1 -11-23-1981 Amended H-1 - 6-28-1982 Amended H-1 -10-12-1982 Amended H-1 -10-25-1982 Amended H-1 - 6-27-1983 Amended H-1 -1-14-1985 Amended H-1 - 3-25-1985 Amended H-1 - 6-24-1985 Amended H-1 - 6-22-1987 Amended H-1 - 6-13-1988 Amended H-1 -11-28-1988 Amended H-1 - 6-26-1989 Amended H-1 - 9-25-1989 Amended H-1 -11-27-1989 Amended H-1 - 5-14-1990 Amended H-1 - 6-25-1990 Amended H-1 - 4-8-1991 3 H-1 21 11-29 Amended H-1 - 6-24-1991 Amended H-1 -10-28-1991 Reaffirmed H-1-1-24-1994 Amended H-1 - 6-27-1994 Amended H-1 - 6-26-1995 Amended H-1 - 3-25-1996 Amended H-1 - 06-8,1998 Amended H-1 -12-14-1998 Amended H-1 - 5-8-2001 Amended H-1 - 9-10-2002 Amended H-1 -10-28-2003 Amended H-1 - 4-13-2004 Amended H-1-1-8-2008 Amended H-1 - 5-22-2018 Amended H-1- 6-25-2019 Amended H-1 -11-5-2019 4 H-1 22 11-30 23 11-31 24 11-32 25 11-33 -4 -j !2 L L—: - SCALE — i7i 40, e, -*--. e own z I -70 8 1p, IF 5"1"57 VICINITY SKETCH Naww"Wr &^'S C^LlF40ftMA Iftep in" I I��\ W=A.. I - 1 6, dR&AVWZ&APa AM AWJP O"cpf ahwpaft cmw� dllbW AWWM7 ZVM"O- 4edPW WaA&-. Af*X.-AW&W ",a"3w dre ,,Ftv* Ma"dv- b'"s ary dpopa,6/0*40'a 0�v 7WO A*.,vatv-y' AF47y. 0011- n ori n E � yD AUGI 0 1987 U DEPA21TMENT -14 CAUFORNIA -MAR'l' �f, c/o CITY NAIL COASTAL3300 W[WORT Mill COMMISSiON RICT SOUTI-I COAST DIS -5 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 9266$ 4 z A AI b0u��njpE.Fs2t=:lFj:p.:zTy ,Office °`Fy -A :D- -5 81 V, Permit APPROVE Irb. ,_'r6 SEXY_1 v2A NO 4?,ejF04;JA,0a OLAW i---9 , AT EJr, FL 0 " L - - U, j�� Lo /* ICA 4. 0 A::"Oy Z7 '= vArw,=vm-r Aw:Ay J:A N,dr WXle.0 7- e,4 y K14 M6-- Al 461Z.' AeAvoa v�� C - 26 11-34 D'M& P1LRBUILDl'1!5 SWIFT SLIP DOCK & PIER BUILDERS, INC 6351 Industry Way, Westminster 92683 Phone: (949) 631-3121 Fax: (714) 509-0618 CLIENT: LUCKEY, PALMER RO -- 1.0 10/01/20 DRAWN I Checked REVISION I DATE: SITE: 944 VIA LIDO NORD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOCK AREA: TOTAL AREA 682 FT GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 20' 60 FT TOTAL 60 FT PIER AREA: 10'X 14' 140 FT 4'X 13' 52 FT TOTAL 192 FT TOTAL AREA: 943 FT EXISTING 16" SQ PILE TO BE RELOCATED, TOTAL (3) EXISTING TX 20' GANGWAY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PIER TO BE REMOVED BULKHEAD LINE EXISTING SEAWALL 13' �4' 20' I I AMENDMENTS: DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LINE EXISTING EXISTING 16" SQ PILE TO REMAIN RHEAD LINE EXISTING FLOATING DOCK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 16" SQ PILE TO REMAIN DATE: 27 11-35 D'M& P1L BUILDl'1!5 SWIFT SLIP DOCK & PIER BUILDERS, INC 6351 Industry Way, Westminster 92683 Phone: (949) 631-3121 Fax: (714) 509-0618 CLIENT: LUCKEY, PALMER RO -- 1.0 10/01/20 DRAWN I Checked REVISION I DATE: SITE: 944 VIA LIDO NORD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOCK AREA: 10'X 60' 600 FT2 TOTAL 600 FT2 GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 32' 96 FT2 TOTAL 96 FT2 TOTAL AREA: 696 FV IME 00 BULKHEAD LINE I — 31' 10' . 5' AMENDMENTS: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: PROJECT LINE EXISTING 16" SQ. PILE PROPOSED -IEAD LINE (N) 10' X 60' FLOATING DOCK (3) RELOCATED 16" SQ. PILE EXISTING 16" SQ. PILE (N) 3'X 32' GANGWAY (E) SEAWALL 28 11-36 ❑'M& P1L BUIL171'1!5 SWIFT SLIP DOCK & PIER BUILDERS, INC 6351 Industry Way, Westminster 92683 Phone: (949) 631-3121 Fax: (714) 509-0618 CLIENT: LUCKEY, PALMER RO -- 1.0 10/01/20 DRAWN: I Checked REVISION I DATE: SITE: 944 VIA LIDO NORD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LEGEND EXISTING DOCK AREA: TOTAL AREA 682 FT2 GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 20' 60 FT2 TOTAL 60 FT2 PIER AREA: 10'X 14' 140 FT2 4'X 13' 52 FT2 TOTAL 192 FT2 TOTAL AREA: 943 FT2 PROPOSED DOCK AREA: 10' X 60' 600 FT2 TOTAL 600 FT2 GANGWAY AREA: 3'X 32' 96 FT2 TOTAL 96 FT2 TOTAL AREA: 696 FT2 (E) FLOATING DOCK (E) 4' X 20' GANGWAY (E) PILE SUPPORTED PIER BULKHEAD LINE 31' 10' , 5' AMENDMENTS: DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: PROJECT LINE .1 .1 EXISTING/PROPOSED (E) 16" SQ PILE AHEAD LINE (N) 10' X 60' FLOATING DOCK RELOCATED 16" SQ PILE TOTAL (3) (E) 16" SQ PILE (N) 3'X 32' GANGWAY 29 11-37 � d�W SRT o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r� i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING C9CIFpRNP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, November 09, 2020, at 5:00 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 Harbor Commission of the City of Newport Beach will consider approval of the following application: Residential dock reconfiguration located at 944 Via Lido Nord The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 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 project will be located on the same site and location as the structure it replaced and will have substantially the same purpose, capacity and size as the structure replaced. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this proposal. 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 Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Public Works 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 Harbor Commission to adequately consider the submitted correspondence. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Chris Miller, Administrative Manager, at cmiller newportbeachca.gov . Project File No.: 1901-2020 30 11-38 148 m �o / ? •' S 1q 14_&D8\2\8j> o �o.ry. \.. 27 y� S 13> 740 \ Q 138 00 o r ?2 q�e s 2s3 �Q7313e ��730 1Q� 735�441A.... 5 00o p O 1 i 0 178 \ h 28 X7,7 3q 1AQ 25 7 QQ � I��— ♦ � 1p6 14 1'1(" 19 '23p \ 136 (�/ o ♦♦ 11z 172\QQ\ 17> 710\ Qom.. 773 .124 2g G i. `9 ♦♦ 108 10g\ y \ 171 �20 7125 m �5t6 ♦♦� 106 \ 109 776' 23 m `' Q 925 10> 712' 178 �e� 990 ♦♦♦ g0g ,�OS 108 17> 932 ♦♦ ro o 81g 103 104 7 81 ' szs 936 ♦♦♦♦ y 828 940 10 w w w gag 5 _qAa ♦♦ l h ^ X77 ` ♦♦♦ °� '`3� a7 ' ��q l/DO SOV ,� ��$9 ♦ �\��\ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ``� `�� 70 ♦♦ `� 73 8 I ♦♦♦♦ `` 74 8 ♦♦ 7S 23 > 76 7,1 I s ♦♦♦♦ 7g> 5 I ♦♦ 7.0 A / ♦ � 27 3 '` �l Almi h e SSd Q 0 150 300 3 C� ! 36 Z 330 Feet 4'?32j 328 3 2 3 35 326 325 H 3.2_B / ----- Prolongation of Lot Lines L___Buffer 3001 QNEGM N E W V O R T BEA [ H 944 Via Lido Nord 944 Via Lido Nord City of Newport Beach GIS Division Notified Properties September 01, 2020 944 Via Lido Nord.mxd 31 11-39 ATTACHMENT G RESOLUTION NO. 2021-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE HARBOR COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN "APPROVAL IN CONCEPT" FOR A RESIDENTIAL DOCK RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 944 VIA LIDO NORD (FILE NO. 1901-2020) WHEREAS, Palmer Luckey ("Applicant") filed an application for an Approval in Concept ("AIC") to remove the existing pier, pier platform, gangway and U-shaped float and replace it with a new gangway and single -finger float ("Project") at the property located at 944 Via Lido Nord, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California ("Property"); WHEREAS, the existing pier was permitted to extend up to the pierhead line as it existed in 1987 but the pier as constructed extends past the pierhead line by 7 feet, and the Project's proposed single -finger float will extend past the pierhead line by the same length; WHEREAS, the Property is located within the coastal zone; therefore, compliance with the Local Coastal Program is required; WHEREAS, Section 17.50.030(B)(1) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") requires the City to issue an AIC for all development areas where the Coastal Commission retains coastal development permit authority; WHEREAS, Section 17.35.030(A) of the NBMC does not allow piers and floats to extend beyond the pierhead line unless approved in compliance with City Council Policy H-1 (Harbor Permit Policy) ("Policy H-1 "); WHEREAS, Policy H-1 provides that a pier or float may not extend beyond the pierhead line unless, among other conditions, the existing pier or float was previously permitted to encroach bayward beyond the pierhead line; 11-40 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission reviewed the Project for conformance with Policy H-1 at a telephonic public hearing held on November 9, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Section 17.05.140 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Harbor Commission at the public hearing; WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission voted (7 ayes, 0 nays) to approve the Project with the condition that vessels are prohibited from extending more than 20 feet beyond the end of the finger float; WHEREAS, on November 23, 2020, pursuant to Section 17.65.010(D) of the NBMC, former Council Member Herdman called the Harbor Commission's decision up for review to the City Council; WHEREAS, a telephonic public hearing was held by the City Council on January 12, 2021, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Sections 17.05.140 (Public Hearings) and 17.65.040 (Procedures) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at the public hearing; WHEREAS, Section 17.05.140(D)(1) of the NBMC requires the reviewing body to make all of the findings prescribed therein or state why it cannot make the findings when affirming, modifying or reversing the original decision; and WHEREAS, Section 17.50.030(A) of the NBMC provides that the City shall determine whether the proposed development conforms to Title 17 of the NBMC, the design criteria and all applicable standards and policies adopted by the City Council or required by State or Federal regulatory agencies for such development. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council finds the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the following reasons: 11-41 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 3 of 6 A. Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations ("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 Project involves a minor alteration to a dock system that has existed for several decades in various configurations, and will result in the overwater coverage of the dock system decreasing from 943 square feet to 696 square feet. 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[.]" The Project is in the same location and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the dock system it replaces, with the overwater coverage of the Project decreasing from 943 square feet to 696 square feet. C. No substantial evidence exists demonstrating that any exception to the applicable categorical CEQA exemptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies. Section 2: The City Council does hereby uphold the Harbor Commission's approval of the Approval in Concept for the Project, subject to the Special Conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference, including the condition that any vessel berthed at the float shall not extend past the end of the finger float by more than 20 feet. The City Council's decision is made in accordance with Section 17.05.140(D)(1) of the NBMC and is supported by the following findings and facts: A. The use complies with Title 17, the Local Coastal Program, General Plan, design criteria, and any applicable standards and policies approved by the City Council (NBMC 17.05.140(D)(1)(a)). Facts in Support of Finding A. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans for the Project in conjunction with Title 17, the Local Coastal Program, the City's General Plan, and the City's Harbor Design Criteria and determined that the Project is in conformance thereto. The Project conforms to the provisions of the NBMC and applicable policies as delineated in findings (B) through (G), below. With respect to the Local Coastal Program, the Project will not obstruct public access and will have minimal impacts to public coastal views and coastal resources. As explained in greater detail below, the Project will not obstruct public access because the navigable channel between the Property and the anchorage is 256 feet wide and, therefore, is adequate for navigation. There are no impacts to public coastal views because there are no adjacent public view corridors and the Project is designed and sited to be harmonious with the natural appearance of the surrounding area. The Project is a replacement of the existing dock situated between private residential docks on either side. The Project will not be out of 11-42 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 4 of 6 character with the surrounding area, and is substantially the same size, purpose and capacity as the dock it replaces. Additionally, the Project conforms to the "City of Newport Beach Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards Harbor Design Criteria Commercial and Residential Facilities." B. Section 17.35.030(A). Piers and floats may not extend beyond the pierhead line unless approved by Council Policy H-1 which authorizes such extension provided. 1) the existing pier is currently encroaching bayward beyond the pierhead line; 2) the existing pier was previously permitted to encroach bayward beyond the pierhead line; 3) the pier will not encroach any further bayward beyond the pierhead line than the existing encroachment; 4) any vessel utilizing the pier will not extend beyond the project line; and 5) the pier will preserve the diverse uses of the harbor, maintain public access, preserve or enhance the visual character of the harbor, and not negatively impact adjacent property owners, navigation and future harbor dredging. Facts in Support of Finding B. The Project meets the criteria set forth in Policy H- 1. The existing pier as constructed extends past the pierhead line by 7 feet and the Project's proposed single -finger float will extend past the pierhead line by the same length. The special condition prohibiting any vessel docked at the pier to extend more than 20 feet beyond the end of the finger float ensures that any vessel utilizing the pier will not extend beyond the project line. Although the existing pier extends past the previously permitted length by 7 feet, the pier has existed in its current configuration for over 30 years and, if approved, will decrease the footprint of the pier by approximately 25%. The Project will not negatively impact (1) navigation, (2) adjacent property owners or (3) existing harbor uses. The Project is located on a curve on the easterly tip of Lido Isle, opposite Bay Island, across from the designated short-term anchorage area and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club mooring field near the convergence of two navigable channels. With respect to (1), the navigable channel in front of the Property to the anchorage is approximately 256 feet wide and provides adequate space to navigate the channel. With respect to (2), the Project will not interfere with adjacent property owners as evidenced by verbal testimony from adjacent property owners in support of the Project. With respect to (3), the Applicant provided evidence that the Project would have no impact on harbor dredging as the closest piling to the federal project line is set back 13 -feet from the project line. No other evidence was submitted that the Project would have a negative impact on existing harbor uses. Moreover, if the City Council makes the determination that Policy H-1 criteria cannot be met, it is within the City Council's discretion to waive the Policy. C. The design, location, size and/or operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity (NEMC 17.05.140(D)(1)(b)). 11-43 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 5 of 6 Facts in Support of Finding C. The Project's design, location and operation characteristics are consistent with the allowed uses in the vicinity. The Project is located on a curve on the easterly tip of Lido Isle, opposite Bay Island, and set amongst other residential docks and piers. The Project consists of removal of the existing pier, pier platform, gangway and U-shaped float and replacement with a new gangway and single - finger float. The Project is in the same location with substantially the same purpose and capacity as the dock system it replaces except that it would result in a 25% reduction in overwater coverage with the size of the pier decreasing from 943 square feet to 696 square feet. D. For any structures, the site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size and operating characteristics, and the provision of the public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities (NEMC 17.05.140 (D) (1) (c)). Facts in Support of Finding D. See finding B, above. In addition, the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities will not be detrimentally impacted by the Project. The navigable channel in front of the Property to the anchorage is approximately 256 feet wide and provides adequate space to navigate the channel. The existing pier extends 7 feet beyond the pierhead line and the City has not received any evidence that it has impacted public and emergency vehicle access over the past 30 years. Therefore, the proposed pier of the same length would indicate no impacts to public and emergency vehicle access. E. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare (NBMC 17.05.140(D)(1)(d)). Facts in Support of Finding E. See finding B, above. F. Any new development is designed or sited so as to not obstruct public access to coastal resources or, in the case of the alteration, extension, enlargement, expansion, reconstruction, replacement or addition of any structures, would not, in comparison to the existing structure or structures, further restrict or impair the public's use of the bay or beach in the vicinity of the existing structure of structures (NBMC 17.05.140(D)(1)(e)); and Facts in Support of Finding F. See finding B, above. In addition, the Project will result in the overwater coverage of the Project decreasing from 943 square feet to 696 square feet and the float's extension past the pierhead line will remain the same as that of the current pier, 7 -feet. G. Any specific findings set forth in this title (NBMC 17.05.140(D)(1)(0). Facts in Support of Finding G. The Project conforms with Policy H-1 for the reasons stated in finding A and B, above. 11-44 Resolution No. 2021 - Page 6 of 6 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 January, 2021. Brad Avery Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1"" �1 C- Aa6ri C. Harp City Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A - Approval in Concept with Special Conditions 11-45 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 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 regulations (14 CCR § 13001 et seq.) General Description of Proposed Development: Remove existing pier, pier pile, gangway and floating dock. Install new gangway and floating dock. Reuse existing pile. Address number must be stenciled on at least 1 bayward-most pile, bayward face. Pier conditions must be signed by applicant prior to final approval. Property Address: 944 Via Lido Nord Legal Description: NIA Harbor Permit Number: NIA Plan Check Number: 1901-2020 Applicant: Palmer Luckey Applicant's Mailing Address: 6351 Industry Way, Westminster, CA 92683 (Swift Slip) Phone Number: 949-631-3121 (Swift Slip) 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. And find 11-46 ❑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: ❑ Has been determined not to be a "project" or not to cause the requisite impact on environment to trigger CEQA. ® 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, / /20 Attachments: Worksheet for Building Application Drawing Pier Conditions 11-47 HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Special Conditions Date: December 14, 2020 Address: 944 Via Lido Nord With reference to the plans currently under consideration at the above referenced address to remove existing pier, pier pile, gangway and floating dock, and to install a new gangway and floating dock, and to reuse existing pile, the following conditions will now be in effect: 1. The project applicant is aware of the Harbor Permit Policies (Council Policy H-1) and Title 17 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project applicant 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 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 currently proposed project as described above and 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. 11-48 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 applicant shall obtain the proper permits for equipment and materials storage. Such subsections read "A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall use any public street, sidewalk, alley or parkway or other public property for the purpose of storing or displaying any equipment, materials or merchandise, or any other commercial purpose. B. Public streets, sidewalks, alleys, or parkways may be used for the purpose of selling, storing, or displaying any equipment, material, merchandise or for other commercial purposes in the following cases:... 3. For the temporary storage of construction equipment or material provided a permit is issued pursuant to Chapter 12.62 of this Code and the storage is consistent with provisions of the Uniform Building Code." 6. The project shall be implemented in conformance with the current version of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program - Coastal Land Use Plan. 7. The project applicant 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 holiday." 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. Vessels may not extend beyond the end of the finger by more than twenty (20) feet per Resolution 2021-_ of the Newport Beach City Council. 10. The maximum beam of a vessel that is permitted to side -tie to the north side of the float is 31 -feet. 11. The maximum beam of a vessel that is permitted to side -tie to the south side of the float is 5 -feet. 12. All required insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect during the pendency of this approval in concept. 11-49 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 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. Lisa Walters, Public Works Date Applicant Signature Print Name Date Joint Pier Applicant Signature (if applicable) Print Name Date 11-50