HomeMy WebLinkAboutM2006-0098ey -WZ-e, / —
77
too
7o t-ps7 6,ocA,
%
6�'IWP6er
AP
00 c'k
C, Z
IF C,
pez At
—4-
Acrrr
VIC) AJ I TY SKETCH
'OR ej Naw.-asqr 13 -Ay, C.AL ijrcaNi.A k
5,01-1,r3ollngs c7re /,7 reel a,)ce cn,�" 0
0'&p ?'A .5 6CIOW 11'IcTOe7 LOrv&.-- ZOO/ 1110yed"�-
io6k7'18A.) Z- 0 7- 6 are eziable'shrd 7//7 5 e c C7r.
F697-1,00 L -b 7
ce L --r 45 Aeewr
17S _NH py,
/V --"j I At 2 '-A, AA
4.
6�j A Acep
73
H CAP
ts -t-
25
X1 57 7 _541RS
Tif�'
Z36,e, 7,-z,4 c 7
32
May 12, 2010
R. C. Bessire
Bessire and Casenhiser, Inc.
430 South San Dimas Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY MANAGEWS OFFICE
Harbor Resources Division
RE: Cannery Village, Commercial Pier Fees, Permit # CP22100811
Dear R. C. Bessire,
Per your request in your letter dated April 28, 2010, attached is an exhibit that
documents the area charged for your commercial pier. As you can see, the calculations
are clearly noted in the legend in the lower right corner.
Also, these fees are for calendar year 2010. You will receive an invoice for 2011 in
January.
Please feel free to call me directly if you need additional information.
Thank you,
01 d
r
Chris Miller
Harbor Resources Manager
(949) 644-3043
829 Harbor Island Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
PH: (949) 644-3034 FX (949) 723-0589 e www.newportbeachca.gov/harborresources
BESSIRE AND CASENHISER, INC.
manufactured housing management, investments and sales
April 28, 2010
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
City Harbori'lesOurces Departrn e n- t
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92662
RE: Cannery Village — Newport Beach Pier Fees #CP2210084, Acct. #6003694
Dear Mr. Miller:
We would like to first of all thank you for your review of our request and for the refund
check dated April 15, 2010 in the amount of $4,744.50.
What we would now request is how the current fee was calculated and what period our
current payment now covers.
Thanking you again for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
R. C. Bessire
President
dbO42810pr
RCB/pr
cc: Dori Funk, Manager
UK
RIA ali. 10.01 -
IN 0 E
Cannery Village LLC
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach
Harbor Resources Division
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Cannery Village LLC — "AN APPEAL" — Commercial Pier Permit
#CP22100811 &Account #6003694.
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you for taking the time last week to discuss charges associated with
the new "Determination" of pier pen -nit fees.
I am still with the understanding that the fee should cover that area of water
between the pier head line and the U.S. Bulkhead Line which is 11 feet by
225 feet for a total of 2475 square feet = $891 fee.
We contend that the area from the U.S. Bulkhead Line land wards is private
property and not subject to such a fee.
This appeal is based on this contention.
q I
ulr-�
Don Funk
Cannery Village Management
Bessire & Casenhiser, Inc.
Marina File
(949) 254-5013 cell
(949) 673-9189 fax
(949) 720-8208
700 Lido Park Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
BESSIRE AND CASENHISER, INC.
manufactured housing management, investments and sales
May 24, 2010
Mr. Chris Miller
Harbor Resources Manager
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Cannery Village — Thank You
Dear Mr. Miller:
I wanted to drop you a note of thanks for the information you sent on how our pier fees
are now being calculated. This information has now been forwarded to ownership for
their permanent file.
Thanks again!
Sincerely,
J(?x6U4t41U
R. C. Bessire
President
db052410pr
RCB/pr
cc: Don Funk
Abraham Keh
CV, 20-13
N
1M
or
From:LIDU PENINSULA RESORT 849 673 9189 02/2512010 13:33 #360 P.001/006
Residential Villaa
Fax Transmittal Form
Phone (949) 673-6030 Fax (949) 673-9189 o)A9254-501-:& CGU,
Date: '2 2 S 2- C-,> ( 0
# Pages Sent Including Cover:
To: Cl-kR-flc, MILLeR-1
From: Don Funk
" 4, w a.
Company: P AKBoG-, Resauee-es,
Company: Lido Peninsula Resort
cvvi Or- Re-opaa-r
Fax #:
Call Upon Receipt:
Re: C0vY\rAGR0i(AL
CC: 9 C. fX55 k P -E
PeeLMI-T WCF2210081k
%-
<,-C;/A"Qa"a,fj VtL�V--*-Ncp� M�kw-l"M >
To Fm�ow Oua, rAF-e-nQ4 jes-re-ju)Aj
Ar\A �6v, Ceptes OF OLD %URUE�-,
Bp�cle To IC140) 4jr-->
T4e Moae Ree-ewrr
LU -rt -k TkAE 4S-rNTO--�- - Z)=PT AS PAQ--C
R a 0 a "i e�,-o 1p 11�-99 A&
L14D u, A Q�VtA
TV G: t- E -C, (-) L a (�- t � 7 16 0-'S FtLe'Y-`) U-AT4 T(4L—:-
C�o Ut,�,,
TH,s jwF6rt-mAT-t6v,-) (12b� Q�"5-% UJ T , A
-rt,k-e Pa,0f)tVL:7L1 Litis
T S�kowLs-� 0&3'Aw
E tj C- ovy\,p ASS a -S
T G: PL.,pV0j
two
t C C—
(L
40 U
A —
From:LIDO PFNINSULA RFSORT
949 673 9169 02125/2010 13:33 #360 P.002/00W,
/23
45-
-- --------
Ir
C5 -
vN
"I, -
A 77S A
um"mm,
,to u
AD M
N,
420
%
AIL
OP,
0
0.4 4::, A -r-1 0
7 A�A CW, CAL
C -47-10A' R.�'
Z::P,,�A A17'
From:LIDD PENINSULA RESORT
7
ir
1W
X
00
%
7k,
949 873 9189 02125/2010 13:39 4360 P.003/00&�
)Z:" 771V -5. 0 )e
7— e5
140 pok 6 "!U-
V)+]. 9%
AMC&,
-P
YA-
rip
4-
71
14
C'oe.
;z
-r,4 - I A ;L
-V:C$,
N
<
This- is not a survey'.of the land, but is compiled fo! information only, nor is it a part of t he report or policy
to which -it may be attac-hed.
Nig
/;z 5
From:LIDO PENINSULA RESORT 949 873 9189 02/25/2010 13:34 #380 P.005/006
Z4
JU
-_9 X.
Z�
C,3
A
A (D;
t2
(a)- G)
V
A A
00
3.25
sq
_2.5 .
rn
01C
iA-
Mir _,7] v 0.75' .
E --::--d
C -
k
0vV
,tA IT
WILLM-
51
.00
16 .............
L
CA
----------
" Si
16
07
NO.
Ct
From:LIDD PENINSULA HES0111' S49 673 8189 0212512010 13'34 #360 P.006/0011
EXHIBIT."A"
AH that certain, real -property �ituated in the County of Orange, State of
California, described as follows:
.Space 8 of that portion of the following described land which is Included within
the leased prernises as set out in the Memorandum of Lease executed by
Cannery Village, LLC, a California limited liability company, as lessor and
Carlsberg Management Company, a California corporation, as leitsee, recorded
February 9, 2004 as Instrument Na. 2004000100039 of Official Records.
That portion of Lot 6 of Section 28 and Lot 2 of Section 33, Township 6 South,
Range 10 West, S. B. B� & M., in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange,
State of California, described as follows;
Beginning at a point, which point is at the intersection. of a line 100 feet Easterly
of and parallel with the -Easterly line of Block 425 of a map of Lancaster's
Addition to Newport Beach, recorded in Book 5, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps,
records of said Orange County and the Southerly line of Twenty -Eighth Street, as
said Twenty -Eighth Street is described In Ordinance No. 153 adopted by the
Board of Trustee -s of the City o. Newport Beach,
California, July 14, 191-91 thence along the Southerly line of said Twenty -Eighth
Street, North 30" East 391.88 feet calculated (395.85 feet record, per
Trustee's Deed, Instrument No. 95�363258, recorded August 22, 1995) to a
point on the Southeasterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Lido Park
Drive (formerly 31st Street) as shown by Record of Survey, Book 52, Page 45;
thence along said Southeasterly prolongation, South 27' _30'� 00" East a distance
of 230.31 feet calculated and record per said Trustee's Deed and Record of
Survey, Book 11, Page 34; thence parallel with the Southerly line of
said Twenty-eighth Street, South 89' 15�3W_West �77.20 feet calculated
(574.40 feet record per said Trustee's Deed) to a point on a line 100 feet
Easterly and parallel with the East-erly line of said Block 42,17; thence along said
parallel line, No.rth,20' 54' 3-07.East:221.26� feet calculated (218-85 feet, more or
less record, per said T rustee's Deed) to the point of beginning.
Assessor's Parcel Number: 914-00-008
I
&xh'bi+ "A'
Miller, Chris
From: Stadlman, Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 2:05 PM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: RE: Exhibit A
Attachments: EasementRes2293.jpg; 2293 - deed of easement from earl &.pdf
[ H H'
ey Chris
Here a resolution Scott tracked down that shows the westerly 50 feet of the parcel I mapped for you being an
easement for right of way purposes (part of the harbor). Being as such, the county shouldn't have charged
t
them for taxes on this 50 foot portion.
Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: Miller, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 12:04 PIVI
To: Stadlman, Ryan
Subject: RE: Exhibit A
Ryan,
Attached are the sheets that he gave us for reference. Does this help?
When I skimmed through our files with him a few weeks ago, I didn't see anything that would support this.
Thanks,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Stadiman, Ryan
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: RE: Exhibit A
I'm pretty sure the properties on the West side of the Rhine aren't going to be a problem. Once we know what
document he pulled this description from we can go from there.
Talk to you Tuesday.
Have a good weekend
Ryan
----- Original Message -----
From: Miller, Chris
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:42 AM
To: Stadiman, Ryan
Subject: RE: Exhibit A
0
0
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 1
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
LAW 0"'7 OF
ROLAND -I...I..N
ajos_..
S- I
RESOLUTION NO.'�;�,_�'
A Deed of Easement dated the 29th day of May, 1941,
from Earl W. Stanley and Mildred Stanley, his wife, to the
City of Newport Beach, a Municipal corporation of the sixth class,
granting to the city of Newport Beach an easement and right of way
and over the Westerly fifty (50) feet of that certain real propert3
.situated in the city of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of
California, and more particularly described an follows, to -wit:
That portion of Lot 6 of Section 2B, and Lot
2 of Section 33, in Township 6 South,Range 10
West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian,
described as:
Beginning at a point, which point is at the
intersection of a line 100 feet easterly of
and parallel with the easterly line of Block
425 of a Map of Lancaster's Addition to
Newport Beach, as per map thereof recorded in
Book 5, at page 14 of Miecellaheous Maps,
Records of said Orange County, and the south-
erly line of 2Bth Street, an said 2Bth Street
is described in Ordinance No. 153, adopted by
the Board of Trustees of the city of Newport
Beach, California, July 14, 1919; thence
North B90 151 3011 East 95.85 feet to a
point; thence South �730 301 East 230.31 feet
to a point; thence south 890 151 3011 West 574.40
feet to a point; thence North 200 541 30" East,
218.85 feet, more or less, to the place of
beginning,
together with the full right to use, dredge and maintain said
easement as a water way and as a part of Newport Harbor, wan
presented to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California.
P ��
WHEREUPON, Councilman made
and
a motion, duly seconded by Councilman
carried, that said Deed of Easement be accpeted by said City of
Newport Beach, and the Clerk instructed to record the same
forthwith with the County Recorder of the County of Orange,
Btate of California.
-0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
LAW OFFICM OF
ROLAND THOM PSON
VAN� ANA. CALIP.
1�
to—wit:
.-W �
That said motion was carried by the following vote,
"% G q
AYES, COUNCILMEN: Z�cki L
-V4
NOES, COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEN: (A 34
1
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true extract
from the minutes of the City Council of the city of Newport Beach
i at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of June, 1941.
ATTEST: jt�yler of Newport
Beach
Mayor of the city zo Newport Be h
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
August 26, 1994
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
Bill Ewing
700 Lido Park Drive #17
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: City bulkhead adjacent to 28th Street
Dear Mr. Ewing:
On August 23rd, 1994, 1 met with the City's design engineer, Lloyd
Dalton, at the end of 28th Street, on the easterly side of the
Rhine Channel. The purpose of this meeting was to inspect the City
bulkhead at the end of 28th Street, and it appears that the
bulkhead is a combination of a City bulkhead on the f ace of the end
of 28th Street and a private bulkhead that angles off to the
property at 700 Lido Park Drive.
The bulkhead has moved to some degree, however, it was Lloyd
Dalton's opinion that there is not imminent danger of bulkhead
failure.
In our 1995-96 year budget, we will include bulkhead repair within
our capital improvement budget. Again, this would involve the
bulkhead which is at the face of 28th Street. The wing wall which
is on the trailer park side of the wall is on private property and
that repair would have to be assumed by the private property owner.
Sometime in the future, it would probably be beneficial for
representatives of the Marine Department and the owner of the
property to sit down and discuss some type of cooperative effort
for the bulkhead repair in this area in order to reduce the cost
for both parties involved.
At your convenience, please give me a call at (714) 644-3044 and I
will be willing to discuss this with you or representatives of the
property owner.
Sincerely,
Tony elum.
Deputy Director
tmewing.1tr
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
DATE-- —TImF
OR
Wid'LE YOU WERE OUT
m 3�v
0
PHONE No. 7 -3
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME IN TO SEE YOU
URGENT
F 7
-'35 A
41 I"-.0 7 /-1;- 2
d
jsb
JAJ, ot 0 fifs ZOT
14
Ov
-Llaia
41
"ZOO
<
I;lr.c:.- -5-9
I
Z4 ?s
5A480A 6LVD AYr. DArA
ACT
IT 19 �4 11.
SCALE
r..oa
E 8
7
9,9/9-,xf
B4f---fff4f
—.g4-jj::
- 7,10
M.P0
J, -.4zlf
I;lr.c:.- -5-9
I
Z4 ?s
5A480A 6LVD AYr. DArA
ACT
IT 19 �4 11.
SCALE
r..oa
E 8
Y"I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11/29/2004
W
FINAL LETTER - COMPLETE
0061
HARBOR RESOURCES - 829 Harbor Island Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tom Rossmiller - 949-644-3041 Chris Miller - 949-644-3043
FIRE DEPARTMENT - P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Nadine Morris - 949-644-3105
CANNERY VILL-AGE
BUD MARTIN
3355 D VIA LIDO
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
Dear Commercial Pier Permittee,
Permit number: HC2004-006
Location : 700 LIDO PARK DR
Status: CLOSED
This is an acknowledgement letter stating that you have successfully corrected the violations previously noted in the
City report that was sent to you earlier this year. Your docks have met the minimum standards as set by The City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Your actions will help reduce the potential for fire related injury and property damage in Newport Harbor. Please
remember that it will be your responsibility to ensure that your docks maintain this level of safety in the years to
come. The Harbor Resources and Fire Departments will be conducting routine inspections of your property in the
future.
Thank you for your compliance. Please feel free to give us a call if you should have any additional questions.
INSPECTION DATE COMMENTS
CHRIS MILLER - HARBOR RESOURCES SUPER VISOR
NADINE MORRIS - FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR
Page I of I
OCT -25-2002 09:47 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 949 644 3139 P-01/01
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 30, 2002
PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
Lynn Hackman
Newport Classic Boat & Breakfi�t
8 Key West
Laguna Niguel CA 92677
Re: Application
Dear Lynn:
The Director of the Harbor Resources Division has reviewed your application and finds
that the proposed location for Newport Classic Boat & Breakfast at the Cannery Village
Marina is not suitable for the proposed business use. The. landside use has changed with
the construction of the manufactured homes that are adjacent to the marina and could
have an adverse affect on the neighbors' enjoyment of the waters of Newport Bay.
Section 17,41.050 A. " The Marine Director shall deny the application if the proposed
commercial activity is likely to create noise which would adversely. affect use or
enjoyment of the waters of Newport Beach by members of the public, or interfere with
the rights of those who own property near the waters of Newport Beach to the peaceful
arid quiet mjoyment of that property."
In addition there are unresolved parkixig issues for that facility. The Harbor Resources
Division would not approve any new business that would intensify the parking needs at
that location.
Any applicant may appeal a decision of th6 Harbor Resources Director to the Harbor
Conunission. Appeals shall be initiated within fow-teen 14) days'of the decision. Appeals
of the decision of the Harbor Resources Director shall be made in writing to the Harbor
Resources Director.
I have your application and accompanying check and wait to hear from you as to whether
you would like them mailed back or would you prefer to pick them up at our office.
Sincere
ly,
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newvort Beach
TOTAL P-01
Melum, Tony 02
From:
Buzz Person [thejcp@pacbell.net]
Sent:
Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:27 AM
To:
bburn ham @city. newport-beach.ca. us
Cc:
tmelu m @city. newport-beach.ca. us; rclauson @city. newport-beach.ca. us; dohl@city.newport-
beach.ca.us
Subject:
Boat and Breakfast
Bob...
After the Harbor Commission meeting on the above subject, I mentioned to
you that I thought that the matter had been handled incorrectly by staff
and that rather than even entertaining a Harbor Permit application at the
time, the applicant should have been directed to the Planning Department as
the use was the type of use that involved pure land planning matters albeit
the fact that the "boat and breakfast" was tied to a dock.
Your comment was that my thought might have merit and you asked that I
remind you later about it .... thus this note ....
While I'm on the subject, I had requested that staff not issue the Harbor
Permit for that site some time ago, when acting on behalf of Leo Gugasian.
I believe that the permit,should not be issued as long as the conditions of
approval of the permit are not met. I'm not sure what happened to this and
am afraid that it was hoped that it would just "go away."
Finally, you were going to get some legislative history on the parking
issue here in the Village and share that with me. Did you ever get that.
I'd like to know the status of things with regard to that.
Thanks
Buzz Person
I
Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Staff Report
November 13, 2002
TO: Harbor Commission
FROM: Tony Melum, Director of Harbor Resources
SUBJECT: Appeal by Lynn Hackman of "Newport Classic Boat and Breakfast"
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
Back_qround:
This appeal is before the Harbor Commission as required by Section 17.42.010 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, which provides:
"Section 17.42.010 Authorization to Appeal and Calls for Review.
Decisions of the Harbor Resources Director resulting from the Director's
administration of Chapters 17.22, 17.23, 17.40, or 17.41 may be appealed
to the Harbor Commission by any interested person. . . ."
In September of 2002, the Harbor Resources Division received a Commercial Harbor
Permit Application from Newport Classic Boat and Breakfast to establish a boat and
breakfast business on a 47 -foot Chinese Junk at Cannery Village, 700 Lido Park Drive.
A copy of that application is attached for the Commission's review. This application was
submitted as required by Section 17.41.020 of the Municipal Code, which provides:
"Section 17.41.020 Permit for Commercial Activities Required.
No person shall engage in, or conduct, any commercial activity on the
waters of Newport Beach, unless that person has obtained a permit for
such activity pursuant to the provisions of this chapter."
Upon receiving an application, the Harbor Resources Director is required by Newport
Beach Municipal Code Section 17.41.050(E) to investigate the information in the
application. The Director is required to deny the permit if the proposed commercial
Page 2
activity is likely to create noise that would interfere with the rights of those who own
property in the area or does not provide facilities to ensure adequate parking.
Specifically, Section 17.41.050 provides in pertinent part as follows:
"Section 17.41.050 Issuance of Permit.
Upon receipt of an application for commercial harbor activities permit, the Harbor
Resources Director shall investigate the information contained in the application.
The Harbor Resources Director shall deny the application if:
A. The proposed commercial activity is likely to create noise which would
adversely affect use or enjoyment of the waters of Newport Beach by members
of the public, or interfere with the rights of those who own property near the
waters of Newport Beach to the peaceful and guiet enuoyment of that propert
E. The proposed commercial activity does not provide facilities to ensure
adequate parking, safe. vehicular ingress and egress, and- the safe loading and -
unloading of passengers and supplies."
These requirements are supported by the "Findings and Purpose" section of Chapter
17.41, which the City Council approved when it adopted the requirements for
commercial activities permits. This section expressly states that the City desires to
ensure that commercial activities along the waters of Newport Beach do not adversely
affect property owners and residents in these areas, including creating unreasonable
noise or reducing available parking. See Section 17.41.005(A) — (E).
Proposed Promect:
The proposed site for the location of the boat and breakfast is the Cannery Village
Marina at 700 Lido Park Drive. The proposal is to berth a Chinese Junk known as the
Mei Wen Ti in Slip Three of the marina, bayward of that location. According to
supplemental promotional materials submitted with the permit application, the boat is to
be offered for overnight stays accommodating up to four guests, and as a location to
host business meetings and other special events.
The 47 -foot Mei Wen Ti is described in its promotional materials as having a large aft
deck with rattan settees and matching tables that "offer guests a relaxing topside
environment to entertain, read or take in the beauty of the harbor." The vessel also has
a "large comfortable salon" complete with a built-in sitting area that converts to a double
bed, along with a TV, VCR and stereo equipment. The master stateroom has a queen
Page 3
bed and walk-in closet. The galley is described as "roomy and equipped with every
necessary amenity," including an oven, refridgerator and seating area for four.
The Mei Wen Ti has been operating as a "boat and breakfast" for nearly five years,
currently as one of the boats in the Dockside Boat and Breakfast fleet located in
Rainbow Harbor in Long Beach. According to promotional materials, the basic
overnight package to be offered by Newport Classic Boat and Breakfast "would include
double -occupancy overnight accommodations, and a complimentary morning paper and
continental breakfast delivered to the vessel each morning." The permit application &40,L<,
states that parking for "passengers, employees and crew" will be provided at the /OA/111
Cannery Village Mobile Home Park, 700 Lido Park Drive.
However, this area suffers from a chronic parking shortage, aggravated by the fact that
the Cannery Village Marina does not have any dedicated parking for its boat slips.
Under City Council policy, they are required to have at least six parking spaces to
service its marina, but have been unable to provide any such parking to date.'
In May of 2000, property owners adjacent to the Cannery Village Mobile Home Park
complained to the City that the Park was in violation of its harbor permit for failing to
provide adequate parking for its marina. Nearby property owners claimed that in order
to avoid paying at the parking meters on 28 th Street, the tenants of the boat slips were
parking on adjoinin-g private property belonging to the -BILLe Water Grill. At that time, the
City informed the Cannery Village that its harbor permit would not be renewed until
parking had been resolved.
In an April 2000 letter to the City regarding this issue, attorneys for the owners of the
Cannery Village Marina acknowledged that there was insufficient parking at the site. In
a compromise with the City, the Cannery Village owners pledged to do a number of
things -- short of providing the necessary on-site parking -- to address the parking
shortage at the site. Specifically, they pledged to:
require the purchase of annual parking permits from the City "at a
reasonable cost" for non -homeowner liveaboards in the marina;
promote the rental of marina slips by lessees of the mobile home park;
and
allow marina users to use "on a nonexclusive basis and only to the extent
required," the six (6) new guest parking spaces that will exist in the
mobilehome park adjacent to the marina when completed.
1 City Council Policy H-1 requires that for all commercially operated boat docking facilities, .75
parking stalls shall be provided for each single boat slip and .75 parking stalls for each twenty-five feet
(25') of available mooring space not classified as a slip. Under Condition No. 3(e) of the Harbor Permit,
the permit holder is required to provide parking for the Marina in accordance with Harbor Permit policies.
Page 4
All of these things were geared to reducing parking impacts at the site. However, as of
this date, we have no indication that any of these proposals were ever put into effect.
To our knowledge, parking issues remain unresolved at this location and there is still
inadequate parking for the marina's boat slips.
During a staff survey conducted this month, there were 19 boats moored at the Cannery
Village Marina.2 In addition, the harbor permittee for the Cannery Village indicated in
April 2000 that there were foyr liveaboards in the marina, which only aggravates the
parking situation in the area,*Approval of additional uses, such as this proposed "Boat
and Breakfast" -- which have the potential of increasing the need for parking -- would be
inappropriate based upon the above quoted sections of the Municipal Code. Not only
would parking be needed for hotel guests, but also for the various service personnel
who would be providing the daily meals, as well as cleaning and servicing the boat.
In addition, noise concerns are also at issue, given the residential nature of this area.
Although the applicant lists the hours of operation of the proposed use as 10 a.m. to 6
p.m., it is anticipated that guests of the bed and breakfast could arrive at all hours to .
check in, locate parking and unload their baggage. Additional noise concerns are also
raised by the potential use of the boat for business meetings and special events.
Under Section 41.41.050, the Harbor Resources Director is required to deny a
commercial activity permit application -if the "proposed commercial activity- does not
provide facilities to ensure adequate parking," or if it is "likely to create noise which
would adversely affect use or enjoyment of the waters of Newport Beach by members of
the public, or interfere with the rights of those who own property near the waters of
Newport Beach to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of that property."
"Houseboat" Permit
In addition, a secondary concern is whether this application in particular and future
applications of this type constitute a "houseboat" as defined and regulated by Section
17.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. "Houseboat" is defined in the code as a
(Watercraft structure designed primarily to be occupied as living quarters." Staff
interpretation of "designed" has included not only the vessel itself, but the purpose for
which it will be used. It appears from the application submitted and the accompanying
promotional literature that the primary "design" for this vessel is for living quarters.
The code recognizes the unique burdens a vessel as living quarters places on a
berthing site and as such has required specific amenities to be provided at the marina to
include upland storage, permanent water supply, sewer connections leading to a
permanent sewer, and a permanent supply of electricity, as well as two parking spaces
versus .75 parking spaces for regular slips. These are geared more to the necessary
amenities for a vessel as living quarters as opposed to amenities necessary for the
berthing of a recreational vessel. I I
2
The marina has seven double wide slips (each of which can accommodate two vessels each),
and one 45'side tie, plus about 150 feet of side tie at the back of the marina. 4:7
go.,
lik .__
Page 5
Summa
The Harbor Resources Director recommends that the Harbor Commission uphold the
denial of this permit application. Alternatively, should the Harbor Commission approve
this permit, it is recommended that it impose the following conditions:
1) The applicant provide two parking spaces exclusively dedicated to this use;
2) The applicant agree not to use the vessel to host meetings and special events; and
3) Overnight stays be limited to four guests.
Attachments: Promotional materials submitted with Permit Application.
tusers.cat.dbigi.SR-Newport Classic Bed and Breakfast.doc
'�f/f6"��J//.�/
���_..
Melum, Tony
From: Donna Bigi [d big i@backbayconsulting.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:35 PM
To: rclauson @city. newport-beach. ca. us
Cc: tmelum@city.newport-beach.ca.us; warm and @city. newport-beach. ca. us
Subject: Boat & Breakfast Permit Application/Lynn Hackman
Robin,
At your request, I have researched the Municipal Code and have identified
below some additional legal support for the denial of the commercial harbor
activity permit application filed by Lynn Hackman for the proposed "Newport
Classic Boat & Breakfast."
Inadequate Parking Constitutes Sound Basis for Denial
Section 17.41.050(E) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code states that the
Marine Director "shall deny" an application for a commercial activity permit
if, among other things, the "proposed commercial activity does not provide
facilities to ensure adequate parking." This requirement is supported by
the "Findings and Purpose" section of Chapter 17.41, which was adopted by
the City Council when it approved the requirements for commercial activity
permits. That Section expressly states that the City desires to ensure that
commercial activities along the waters of Newport Beach do not adversely
affect property owners and residents in these areas, including reducing
their available parking. See Section 17.41.005(B & E).
The permit application filled out by Lynn Hackman asks her to give the
location where the "required parking for passengers, employees and crew will
be provided." (See Question No. 4.) Her response was: 11700 Lido Park
Drive, the Cannery Village Mobile Home Park." Although the 9/30/02 letter
from Wes did not specifically make a finding that the proposed parking at
the Mobile Home Park was inadequate for her proposed boat hotel, it did
reference the "unresolved parking issues" for the park as a factor in
denying her application. The letter also stated that the Harbor Resources
Division "would not approve any new business that would intensify the
parking needs at that location."
In preparing the staff report to the Harbor Commission, I would recommend
that Section 17.41.050(E)above be specifically quoted and cited as an
additional legal basis for the denial of Hackman's permit application.
Additionally, the Commission should be made aware that the Marine Director
is, in fact, REQUIRED to deny a permit if he determines that the proposed
parking for the commercial use is inadequate. This shortcoming alone is a
sound legal basis for the denial of the permit.
I would also note that while the applicant contends that the hours of
operation of her proposed commercial use is 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. -- a hotel/bed
& breakfast is actually an around-the-clock operation. In fact, hotel
guests often arrive late at night -- and this would mean that nearby
residents could be disturbed at all hours as guests arrive to claim their
keys, find parking, unload their luggage, etc. This is an additional noise
concern that could be cited in the staff report that justifies denial of the
application.
Houseboat Permit
I also wanted to raise the possibility that the City could require that
Hackman obtain a Houseboat permit for her proposed boat hotel.
Section 17.40.010 defines a houseboat as a "watercraft structure designed
primarily to be occupied as living quarters." The proposed boat hotel seems
to qualify under that definition: It is a boat designed to be occupied as
living quarters (albeit of a temporary nature). Under Chapter 17.40.060(F),
an applicant for a houseboat permit must provide, among other things, two
parking spaces for each houseboat.
We should check with Tony and/or Wes to see whether they feel that requiring
a houseboat permit for a proposed boat hotel would be stretching the
definition of a houseboat too much. In addition, I am concerned about
permitting a commercial use in a residential area.
3. Live aboard Permits
At your request, I looked at Chapter 17.23, which imposes restrictions on
"persons living board vessels in Newport Harbor." However, I concluded that
it would not apply here because it deals only with vessels assigned to
OFFSHORE moorings. See Section 17.23.010 ("Live -aboard shall mean any
person who uses a vessel assigned to an offshore mooring . . . as a
domicile."
Let me know if you have any questions or want me to do additional research.
Donna
2
JAMES C. PERSON9 JR.
Attorney at Law
507 29th Street - Suite A
Newport Beach, California 9266' )
March 20, 2001
Robin Clauson, Esq.
office of the City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Mr. Tony Melum, Tidelands Administrator
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, ("CA 92663
Telephone (949) 673-9201 1,74 &1
Facsimile (949) 673-0774
E -Mail thejcpt@.pacbell.net
§-ECEIVED
MAR 2 3 2001 *01
CITY A—IrORNEY'S OFFICE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1
Re: Cannery Village LLC, Marina Parking, 700 Lido Park Drive
Dear Ms. Clauson and Mr. Melum:
As you are aware, I recently, pursuant to a Public Records Act
request, received copies of correspondence concerning the
above matter. I specifically have received and read with
interest the correspondence from attorney Robert S. Coldren,
addressed to Ms.� Clausen, dated April 19, 2000, which is, by
the way, exactly one (1) year ago.
My client, Mr. Gugasian, has also read, with interest the same
correspondence. In addition, Mr. Gugasian has patiently
watched the construction project of Mr. Coldren's client
during the past year and in that regard, he has refrained, in
the spirit of cooperation, from taking aggressive action with
respect to the ongoing parking problem. Quite frankly, he had
hoped that at the conclusion of construction, he would find an
improved situation in and about the area with regard to the
parking problem.
I am sorry to report that it appears that notwithstanding the
fact that the construction project has now been completed, the
parking problem remains the same as Mr. Coldren's clients
have, since the completion of construction, refused to permit
its marina tenants from parking on-site. Marina tenants con-
tinue to park in my client's parking lot taking up spaces
needed for the use of my client's guests and business
invitees.
Robin Clauson, Esq.
Mr. Tony Melum, Tidelands Administrator
March 20, 2001
Page 2
We take issue with the language of Mr. Coldren's correspon-
dence which argues that the "issuance of the applicable permit
by the City is simply a ministerial act ...... We fully believe
that the issuance of the permit is discretionary and that the
conditions imposed -upon marina operators in such a permit are
identical to the types of conditions that are found in use
permits throughout the city that are issued in conjunction
with riahts to the use of property, such as restaurants and
other commercial endeavors. Certainly, the use is vessels
within Newport Harbor creates a demand on traffic and roadway
improvements which impacts our roadway system. Such impacts on
our roadway system ought to be mitigated by providing adequate
on site parking.
The fact of the matter is that the marina tenants of Cannery
Village LLC continue to park their vehicles on Mr. Gugasian's
property because (1) they do not have the necessary parking
provided by their landlord on-site, and (2) they refuse to use
the parking meters adjacent to the property. The result is
that Mr. Gugasian has a tremendous problem in having to police
his own property to assure that his neighbors are not occupy-
ing spaces.
We would like to know -what the City has done with respect to
the conditions of the Marina Permit in question. We believe
that the City has an obligation to enforce the conditions of
the permit in the same manner that it has an obligation to
enforce the provisions of a conditional use permit. Are not
the reasons for the conditions on each permit the same, that
being to minimize the impacts on adjoining owners from impacts
of certain land uses? Do not the occupants of vessels, gener-
ate a parking demand in the same manner as residential and
commercial uses throughout the City? We believe the answers to
these questions are clearly affirmative and that, at a mini-
mum, the City has an ongoing obligation to enforce such condi-
tions.
Please advise the undersigned as to your progress in this
matter. By the wayl we disagree with Mr. Coldren's
typification of Mr. Gugasian being "part of the problem." Mr.
Robin Clauson,
Mr. Tony Melum,
March 20, 2001
Page 3
Esq.
Tidelands Administrator
Gugasian's tenant's customers are not parking on Cannery
Village LLCIs property. Contrariwise, Cannery Village LLCIs
marina tenants are parking on. Mr. Gugasian's property, partly
because of the fact that their landlord is not providing on
site parking as provided for by the conditions of approval (or
issuance) of a permit from the City.
We look forward to your response and action. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
y u
PERSO i
JCP/cl
cc: Mr. Levon Gugasian
Robert S. Coldren, Esq.
MEMORANDUM
Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department
Marine Environmental Division
Date: May 22,2000
To: Robin Clauson
From: Tony Melum
Subject: Parking Requirements for Marina
At Cannery Village Mobilehome Park
I agree that we should continue to work with the permittee towards the multi-
part proposed solution mentioned in his letter of April 19. However, as he
points out, the renewal of the annual pier permit is simply a ministerial task.
We do not annually inspect all marinas to ensure, prior to "'annual renewal", that
they are complying with existing and special permit conditions. There are 65 to
70 other commercial operations that could make exactly the same argument if
they are in violati on. This permittee should provide the required parking in
some form acceptable to the city or face revocation of his permit as provided by
Section 17.24.090A (7).
Sent By: James C. Person, Jr.; 9496730774; Apr -24-00 1:37PM; Page 2/4
JAMES C. PERSON, JR.
Attorney at Law Tele-phont (949) 673-9201
507 29th Street - Suite A Facsimile (949) 673-0774
Newport beach, Cali lornia 92663 E -Mail (bojcp*j)acbcII.nct
April 24, 2000 -Z
S, Coldren, Esq.
King sA ColdreD
P.O. Box 2-c--07
Santa Ana, CA 92707
BY kAgSIMILE A-NDU-9- bdAIL
Re., Gugagian v. Cannery Village LLC
Dear Mr, Coldren:
: am sorry that this letter is necesgary as I had hoped yuur
C;Ii(�?.rit would have taken steps by now to rectify a situation
that has progre3sively gotten worse -,ince My earlier correspon-
dence of last fall. However, over tlii,� past weekend, there was
a con f'rontation between my client and one of your client' s
inarina tenants who was unlawfully accessing my client'"s marin�i
restrooms with a wrongfully obtained security pa.s.5 key. i have
therefore been requested to Correspond with you and the City
Attorney regardinq the overall situation on the prerrrls'-s io-
cated at -700 Lido Park Drive, New -port Beach, California, as
follow8:
1. LIVE ABOARDS/rACILITIES. I can li,terally walk out c�f my
-ia facil�tie3
-)ffic(-- and view, from the waterside, themarii
located at 700 T,ido Park Drive. I did so a few mj.nutes ago
and there are fifteen (15 ' ) vessels moored on site. Last
fall, there were eighteen (18) , my client advises that at
a minimum six (6) of these slips -are occupied by persons
who live aboard. Assuming fifteen (15) is an average of
the vessels moored, it is my calculation that a minimum of
twelve (12) spaces must be provided and that Lhere be
restrooin facilities. My client is concerned that. givori the
fact that I,here are no restroom facilities available
currently that raw waste is being pumped inr--o the harbor
by the marina live aboards. We are therefore requestino
that tji�- City of Newport Beach Marine Department conduct
an inventory of the vessels and that a determination be
madc3 as to holding tanks on the ve��;sels in view of the
live aboard situation.
Sent By: James C. Person, Jr.; 9496730774; Apr -24-.00 1:38PM; Page 3/4
Robert S. Coldren, Esq.
April 24, 2000
Page 2
In the meantime, you are advised that continued use of my
client' s facilities by your client's tenants will be dealL
with seviprely, including the calling of the Poll'ice Depart-
ment with charge5 being levied for tre5pass'Ling. 7.n addi-
tion, my client is considering W-inging a action against
your client and its tenants to cbtain injunctive relief
secking that the -tenants cease and desist from thE- use of
my clienL'S facilities.
I have been advised that a number of your olient' s tenants
obtained, somehow, keys to my client' s re!t;troom
facilities. Demand is made of your client, its manager and
its tenants, through your office, for return of these keys
which are the property of 31-t�ewatcr Marina.
2. PARKING. The parking situation has continued to be
untenable, Recently, charges were made by one of the
tenants that the patrons of the Bluewatec Grill was park-
ing in one or more of the "spaces" belonging to your
client on what is known as 21B` Street. May I remind you
that your client dues riot have any 5paces on the street or
street end, whether they be metered or not. These �3paces
are public spaces open to not only your client's teriant.5
but also to my client and his business invitees as well as
beach goers and any other member of the public. Any at-
tempt on your ciient's part to convert these spaces and
exc�lude our use thereof will be fought vigorously.
in addition, neither your client nor its tenants and their, -
c
fuests have any right to park on my client Is premises. You
should advise your client that my client nu longer intends
to give notice of any sort when it is discovered that such
usc is being made of his parking lot by your client15
marina tenants. Henceforth, any violators will be towed
without notice.
By copy o.0 lett-er, I ari-i requesting that the City i�t+_--r-,)rT,.ey
qive thE;� undersigned an update as to my previous lette-r of
complaint conce.-r-ning the parking situation. If there i,3 any
thin(� contained abo-ve which in any way needs further clarifica-
tion, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Setit By: James C. Perswi, Jr.; 9496730774; Apr -24-00 1:38PM; Page 4/4
Robex-�- S. Coldren, Esq.
April 24, 2000
Page 3
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truiy yours,
JAMES C. PERSON, JR.
jcp/cl
ca: Mr. and Mrs. Levon Gugasian
Robert L, Burnham, Esq., City Attorney (by facsimile)
Mr. Tony Melum, Mazine Department (by facsimile)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FIRE MARINE DEPARTMENT
HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION (Please print all information)
—Richard Shaw/CanxierV Village Mohilehc)-mf- Park
1. Applicant (Property Owner) Address Telephone
632 Lido Park Drive #221-081
2. Project Address (Street Address) Harbor Permit Number
3. New Construction Revision —
4. Fee $351 CheckNo. 23280
Maintenance X Dredging
Date 4/11/2000
Dry Rot Repair; Replace two piling.
Brief Description of Proposed Work: -
6. Submit 8 V2" x 11" Drawings (3), Include:
1). Location and dimension of proposed structure including piles and location of existing structures.
on adjacent properties.
2). Location of bulkhead, pierhead and project lines.
3). Location of property lines.
4). Location of channel markers within 200 feet.
5). Lot sizes and lot numbers, if available.
6). Existing ground profile beneath proposed structure.
7). Elevation of top and bottom of bulkheads and piles with respect to M.L.L.W.
8). Area and profile of any proposed dredging with elevations showing depths with respect of M.L.L.W
9). Any special conditions affecting the construction or affecting boating operations.
10). Complete all information required in information block, bottom of sheet. Note that the OWNER.
of the property is the applicant.
1 1).Drawing size shall be 8 - 1/2" x 11".
12).Scale shall be adequate to -clearly show the above. information.
13).Existing structures shall be shown in light dashes. New work shall be shown in heavy solid lines.
7. Owner -Builder Declaration must be OcIle(o reverse side of this sheet)
/Lv
Date: 4/11/2000
a. Applicant's/Agent's Signature:
Joint Permittee Signature (if apolligable): Date:
9. Work can begin once the City has received evidence of the following additional approvals and you have
been notified to proceed. If you begin prior to the notice you will be in violation of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and subject to penalties.
10. Your permit will not * be final until we have. conducted an on site inspection -once construction is
completed as per Municipal Code, Section 17.24,.if we have not been contacted for a final inspection.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Approval in Concept.
Approval of the City of Newport Beach Council.
Approval of the Army Corps of Engineers
Approval of the California Coastal Commission.
Approval of the City's Public Works Department.
Approval of the City's Building Department.
Approval of County of Orange.
Electrical and/or plumbing permit (Building Department)
issued. (Permit is stamped drawing)
Site Inspection. (call 644-3043 for appointment)
Site Re -inspection
Conditions�
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date —12__CZ�J
Date
Date
OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION
I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the contractor's license law for the following reasons:
(Sec. 7031d.5, Business and professions Code). Any City or County which requires a permit to
construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires
the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the
provision of the Contractors License Law (Chapter 9, commencing with Section 7000, of
Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom and the basis
for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit
subjects the applicant to a civil penalty for not more than five hundred dollars ($500).
I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation,
will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and
Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who
builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees,
provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the
building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner -builder will have
the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale).
1, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to
construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law
does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for
such projects who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such projects with a
Contractor(s) License pursuant to the Contractor's License Law).
I am exempt under Sec. of Business and Professional Code for this reason:
Owner's Signature:
Contractor: Pete
Date: N/- 0 -0 -
Telephone: (949) 631-3121
Address: 2027 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
License class: A State Board No. 5 0 2 0 9 3
License Contractor's Declaration
City License No. 9 8 0 3 9 9 2 7
I hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section
7000) of Division 3 of the Bus' e s and fessions Code, and my license is in full force and
effect.
Contractor's Signature Date: 4/11/2000
I-Cln-- o,- Nz--,�ilpo,,er J,!s�4cl-1
1A) 0 f lr�l
ro COCA
Ib
V1
v,
-0
04,11
e4o
4s
70 /F PRIJI., Ic- I PAL
pti —.,c
VICI M I TY SKETCH
Nswpogr aA' CAL IF'OFXP,41A
r �,,c k, Air
5,0 U,7 (YIn 9 5 ore eXprc 5-5 cof In. reeyl On(Y cy'--xaY'&
ol,pp Y1.4 5 b clow A�fcro,7 lorver I -ow kloyeer%, A4oA-1—ru,"
ron 9 e` 0 /- //-&(= /0"ZNT-7� A16�-hor- ltn'es
=ziabhshcroI * -//7;s oyrlV--w
are
Oc)92-,-oj 7 2-
Z,5
4. A ca c! --r
17
je 2o e Alw
epsr'
73
m
oor
r
41 A.1 4r
.4 1 A�
25
67��rtsr'- T
r77/-
feelace, &-cid'd
f, I e- .
y lo c -e- ),,4� 4, (f POCL
ff�
132 L lc�65-67*:f /�,Dl—::'
A C7-
21
'r"eh, "
CaAlr-,ZA C 7-0,c r Of X.F DA 7-e5-: 0
-03
pEAMMM 0 KAEBY GRANTED TO CONSTRUCT AND
MAINTAIN M FACIUTY SHOWN ON T14E REVERSE HEREOF,
AT THE SFIE INDICATED, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE HARBOR PERMIT POLICIES OF NEWpor4T BEACH AND
ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS LISTED HEREON. THIS PERMIT
IS NOT TRANSFERABLE 'WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF
THE CITY HARBOR COORDINATOR OR CITY COUNCIL THE
RIGHTS GIVEN UNDER 't HIS PERMIT A PERMISSIVEON11
AND THIS PERMIT MAY.AF_ REVOKEP THE CITY Cq6NCIL
MUNICIP,Af. CO
IN ACCORDANCE WITO(" 17pFj;l6 9Z
CITY KAIRBOR COOR011%
TERMIT NO. --DATE
Melum, Ton
From: Melum, Tony
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 11:51 AM
To: Clauson, Robin
Subject: RE: Cannery Village Marina
I usually round down because our requirements are conservative. Coastal now only requires .60 of a space per slip. A
strict interpretation of the policies would indicate they need 16 spaces. Give me a call when you have time and I'll explain
how I figured it. We have not gotten to the other inspection yet. Were you going to send me something on that?
----- Original Message -----
From: Clauson, Robin
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:45 AM
To: Melum, Tony
Subject: RE: Cannery Village Marina
Thanks Tony. So my calcs say they need 11.82 spaces. Do you round up? Do you agree? Any chance to get to
parking on the other permits?
----- Original Message -----
From: Melurn, Tony
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:19 AM
To: Clauson, Robin
Subject: Cannery Village Marina
Wes visited the site on 6/28. They have 7slips and 219 feet available for si�bties. The day Wes visited they had
23 vessels berthed at the marina. 13 in the slips and 10 at side tie. Of the 10 sliz(e tied only 2 were 25 feet or
longer. X
I
Clrr ca- Melfilpavr-,94�4cl-1
1��g 6roeA
AP
,-IArA
I PA,
r JErrr
VICIMITY SKETCH
/0/,? ej J errr
Nz&,,PoRr aAY, CAL lFC;-mNlA
e!
ICeYC
oep,'As below A-rc-
oyc'lvcw arl 5c77-
0 7-
26
17e
4- 17
0' A AMP k
e-� A, --w
kA
--7
73 _340
A� dr
3
Cal 7 -A e-
-7We� letyl",5
TZA C7-
32 L1496
C 7 -Ca of O -A
MEMORANDUM
Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department
Marine Environmental Division
Date: May 22, 2000
To: Robin Clauson
From: Tony Melum
Subject: Parking Requirements for Marina
At Cannery Village Mobilehome Park
I agree that we should continue to work with the permittee towards the multi-
part proposed solution mentioned in his letter of April 19. However, as he
points out, the renewal of the annual pier permit is simply a ministerial task.
We do not annually inspect all marinas to ensure, prior to ""annual renewal"', that
they are complying with existing and special permit conditions. There are 65 to
70 other commercial operations that could make exactly the same argument if
they are in violation. This permittee should provide the required parking in
some form acceptable to the city or face revocation of his permit as provided by
Section 17.24.090A (7).
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
May 1, 2000
TO: Patty Temple, Planning Director
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Tony Melum, Deputy Chief
FROM: Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Parking reguirements for Marina at Canne[y Village Mobilehome
Park
As you know Leo Gaugasian prompted the City to review this matter via a letter
from Buzz Person. After I researched the issues I discovered that the Harbor Permit for
the marina adjacent to the mobilehome park required parking to be provided as
required by Council Policy. Attached is a letter from the attorney for the developer of
Cannery Village Mobilehome Park who is also the Harbor Permitee. The letter reflects a
meeting that took place on March 29, 2000, to resolve issues regarding parking
requirements for the Harbor Permit.
The Permitee is required to provide six (6) -parking spaces for the marina. The
City has notified the Permitee that the permit would not be renewed because the
required parking was not being provided. The attached letter reviews the Permitee's
proposal to solve the parking problem and the attorney's legal position on the parking
requirement. I recommend that, as to this Harbor Permit, we continue to work with the
Permitee towards the multi -part proposed solution. I have reviewed the Marine division
files for this permit and can find no evidence that the City has ever enforced the parking
requirements since the permit was granted. There is one (1) document in the file that
indicates a meeting was held to discuss parking but there is no evidence what was
accomplished.
The Permitee makes a good case that the permit has been renewed annually
with no reference to parking for almost thirty (30) years. Although there are legal
arguments in the City's favor, should we choose to battle the parking requirements in
court, I am not confident that a judge would support such a hard line. Especially in light
of t1je City's lack of ability to prove any enforcement or compliance, since the permit
was issued. Please let me know your thoughts and recommendations on this
memorandum, and the attached letter so that I can communicate with the Permitee's
attorney.
RC:ml
Enclosure
cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager (w/enclosure)
f:\users\catXshared\mary\memo\robin\ptswtmcannerymhpharborpermit.doc
ROBERT S. COLDREN
GARY R ' KING
JOHN H. PENTECOST
CHRISTOPHER R. ELLIOTT
RICHARD P. GERBER
LINDA J. LESTER
ROBERT G. WILLIAMSON, JR.
ANDREW M. SUSSMAN
REGAN C. NAGEL
AD il 19, 2000
pr -
HART, KING & COLDREN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
WEB: www.hkclaw.com
200 EAST SANDPOINTE, SUITE 400
DIRECT ALL MAIL To: P.O. BOX 2507
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707
TEL: (714) 432-8700 FAX: (714) 546-7457
EMAIL: robertc@hkclaw.com
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE:
SANTA ROSA
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
(949) 644-3139
Robin L. Clauson, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
NEWPoRT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
P R
WILLIAM R. HART
CANDICE L. CAMPBELL
C. WILLIAM DAHLIN
ILACHELLE E. MENAKER
ROBERT J. MULVIHILL
KEITH W. CARLSON
COLIN J. TANNER
CAROLE J. BUCKNER
OF COUNSEL:
MICHAEL J. SCHROEDER, P.C.
Our File Number: 36527.001
Re: Cannery Village; Proposal re Amelioration of Parking Issues in Connection with
Renewal of Marina Permit
Dear Ms. Clauson:
In connection with above -referenced matter, let me first,thank you for your participation in the recent
meeting held by and among David Lloyd, Thomas Salim, and me on behalf of Cannery Village, LLC,
as the owner of the mobilehome park located at 700 Lido Park Drive, Lido Peninsula, Newport
Beach, California 92663, and commonly known as Cannery Village (the "Park"), as well as by you,
as Assistant City Attorney, and Tony Melum, of the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Depart-
ment, on behalf of the City of Newport Beach (the "City"). One of the outcomes of that very produc-
tive meeting was that you requested we write to you on behalf of the Park's owners to present their
proposal regarding satisfaction of the City's parking requirements in connection with the renewal
of the Park's marina permit.
As you know, we feel strongly that, in fact, the renewal of the an licable permit is simply a minis -
1p
terial task and, further, that no "permission" should be needed to continue to operate the marina
because such operation now continues in the same effective fashion as has been done for decades.
Thus, we think, that the City is not on firm ground in delaying annual renewal of the marina permit.
While my client only recently acquired the marina, the marina has existed in its present configuration
for many years, and permits have been issued on an annual basis by the City for many, many years
with full knowledge of the physical layout of the area. It is apparent to us that this recent "flap" over
parking associated with the marina has been instigated by our neighbor, Mr. Gugasian, who, appar-
ently -,has complained to the City about parking problems in connection with one of his tenants, the
Blue Water Grill.
As we d iscussed at the meeting, we agree that parking is an issue in the area (as it is throughout the
City), but feel strongly that Mr. Gugasian should be part of the solution, and not part of the problem,
as appears to- be the case. It should also be noted that we have in fact improved the parking
HART, KING & COLDREN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
Robin L. Clauson, Esq.
April 19,.2000
Page 2
dramatically since the Park, which is upland from the marina, will have six (6) new guest parking
spaces.
Indeed, the predecessor owners and operators of the marina received annual renewals of their permit
by the City with full knowledge of the parking situation, and, while "estoppel" is typically a dis-
favored defense in connection with city permits, in this case, we feel that the multi -decade history
of issuing annual permits would render any effort to impose additional parking requirements on us
as a precondition to issuance of our annual permit renewal as a violation of equal protection (see,
e.g., the recent United States Supreme Courtper curiam decision of Willowbrook).
In any event, thanks to our useful meeting, I do agree with you that we are on the right track to
solving any current concerns which the City may have. In this regard, as we understand it, the City
has suggested that ideally it would like to see six (6) parking spaces to accommodate the existing
marina use. Accordingly, our proposal on behalf of the Park's owners to accommodate the City's
concerns and to comply with all applicable City ordinances entails the Park's -owners' undertaking
the following multi -pronged approach to address and resolve the parking issues:
1. The Park's owners will exercise reasonable efforts to solicit as lessees in the Park individuals.
who also have boats, with a view to attempting to use the parking associated with the Park
in connection with parking available for boat owners. To this end, the Park will work with
both boat brokers and marina operators who now have a waiting list.
2. In its marketing literature, the Park will use reasonable efforts to direct people towards ful-
filling the notion that ownership of a boat slip could be coupled with ownership of a home
site at the Park. But, in this regard, we want to stress that we are not committing the Park's
owners to have any particular space or percentage of their spaces at the Park rented to people
who do, indeed, own boats in the vicinity.
3. The Park will provide all marina tenants with literature which periodically emphasizes the
need not to park in authorized areas, and will use reasonable good faith efforts to enforce this
principle.
4. And, in order to accommodate the six (6) parking spaces:
a. The Park will require the purchase of annual parking permits from the City at a
reasonable cost for nonhomeowner marina live-aboards (there are currently four (4))
with pro rata credit applied against the tenants' monthly slip rental. We note that the
City currently has a policy of selling'annual permits and we are further informed that
two (2) of the marina's tenants have purchased such a permit;
b'. The marina tenants shall have nonexclusive use of two (2) of the immediately
adjacent three (3) public nomnetered parking spaces at the- end of 28 th Street;
C. There are Lessees in the Park who also have boats, where parking is provided on the
leased homesite; and
HART, KING & COLDP&N
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
Robin L. Clauson, Esq.
April 19, 2000
Page 3
d. After computing the above as a credit against the six (6) spaces, should the need
thereafter arise, on a nonexclusive basis and only to the extent required, the Park will
make available its six (6) new guest parking spaces that will exist in the Park adja-
cent to the marina.
As noted above, we do want to stress that the issuance of the applicable permit by the City is simply
a ministerial act and, in view of our cooperation with the City, as well as with the long years of suc-
cessful operation of the existing ventures, we would respectfully request that the City promptly
renew the Cannery's permit.
As we discussed and as we certainly want to reemphasize here, the currently existing usage of the
marina is the same as has been taking place for decades. It appears that there is simply a complaint
that has been lodged by Mr. Gugasian, as one of the neighboring landowners, which is now holding
up the permit process. On behalf of our client, let us simply comment in this regard that the City's
failure to promptly renew the permit or to now seek to impose new standards after the years of
successful and efficient operation, would constitute a manifest violation of the Park's equal protec-
tion rights.
On another note, at the conclusion of the meeting, we briefly discussed the bulkhead that is shared
with the City and our property, which bulkhead is presently in need of attention. We will follow up
with the City Engineering Department, as suggested, and will be in touch if we need to formalize
arrangements in connection with the repair of the bulkhead.
We very much appreciate you and Tony taking time from your busy schedules to meet with us, and
particularly we appreciate the very constructive and mutually supportive tone and tenor of the
meeting respecting the parking issue. We look forward to your continued courtesy and cooperation
on this matter. Of course, if you have any questions in connection with the above, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
�/RE'M:sk
cc: Mr. William W. Geary, Jr. (Via U.S. Mail)
Mr. David W. Lloyd (Via U.S. Mail)
2339171
DAVID W! LLOYD
VICE PRESIDENT
CARLSBERG
MANAGEMENT COMPANY
6171 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD'SUTE loo
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045
310/258-9000 ExT. 365 PAX: 310/258-9009
&MAIL: dlloyd@cartsbergmgt.cOm
THOMAS H. SAHM
VICE PRESIDENT
CARLSBERG
MANAGEMENT COMPANY
6171 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD, SUITE 100
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045
310/258-9000 Mr. 387 FAx: 310/258-9009
E-MAIL: tsahm@carlsbergmgt.com
Cannery Village, LLC
C/o David W. Lloyd, Regional Manager
Carlsberg Management Company
2800 28tII Street, Suite 222
Santa Monica, CA 90405
And
David W. Lloyd, Regional Manager
Carlsberg Management Company
6171 West Century Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Re: Newport Beach Harbor Permit #221-0081-1
700 Lido Park Drive
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
The Marine Enviro=ental Division of the Fire and Marine Department
of the City of Newport Beach enforces sections of the Municipal Code
and the Harbor Permit Policies dealing with harbor permits within the
City of Newport Beach. We have been forwarded a complaint
indicating that the permit listed above is not compliant with the
conditions of its Harbor Permit, specifically that parking for the. marina
will be provided in accordance with the Harbor Permit Policies.
The Harbor Permit listed above, approved by the City Council on May
24, 1976, was specially conditioned, ""That parking for the marina be
provided in accordance with the Harbor Permit Policies." These
policies require the permittee provide three quarters of a parking space
for every slip at the marina or 25 feet of side.tie. The marina in its
current configuration has 7 slips and 1 side tie in excess of 25 feet. As a
result of the above quoted policy, the permittee should be providing 6
parking spaces for the marina.
Our records indicate that you were contacted in October 1999 regarding
these issues and my file does not indicate that there has been.any
response. Please be advised that Section 17.24.090 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code provides for revocation of a permit, specifically
Section 7, where the permittee has breached or failed to comply with
the terms or conditions contained in the permit or upon which the
permit was granted.
Please contact me by March 25, 2000 and indicate how you are
complying with this condition.
Sincerely,
Tony Melum
Deputy Chief Marine Environmental Division
March 8, 2000
Cannery Village, LLC
C/o David W. Lloyd, Regional Manager
Carlsberg Management Company
2800 28th Street, Suite 222
Santa Monica, CA 90405
And
David W. Lloyd, Regional Manager
Carlsberg Management Company
6171 West Century Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Re: Newport Beach Harbor Permit #221-0081-1
700 Lido Park Drive
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
The Marine Environmental Division of the Fire and Marine Department
of the City of Newport Beach enforces sections of the Municipal Code
and the Harbor Permit Policies dealing with harbor permits within the
City of Newport Beach. We have been forwarded a complaint
indicating that the permit listed above is not compliant with the
conditions of its Harbor Permit, specifically that parking for the marina
will be provided in accordance with the Harbor Permit Policies.
The Harbor Permit listed above, approved by the City Council on May
24,1976, was specially conditioned, ""That parking for the marina be
provided in accordance with the Harbor Permit Policies."" These
policies require the permittee provide three quarters of a parking space
for every slip at the marina or 25 feet of side tie. The marina in its
current configuration has 7 slips and 1 side tie in excess of 25 feet. As a
result of the above quoted policy, the permittee should be providing 6
parking spaces for the marina.
Our records indicate that you were contacted in October 1999 regarding
these issues and my file does not indicate that there has been any
response. Please be advised that Section 17.24.090 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code provides for revocation of a permit, specifically
Section 7, where the permittee has breached or failed to comply with
the terms or conditions contained in the permit or upon which the
permit was granted.
Please contact me by March 25, 2000 and indicate how you are
complying with this condition.
Sincerely,
Tony Melum
Deputy Chief Marine Environmental Division
March 8, 2000
Mr.
Re: Newport Beach Harbor Permit #221-81-1
700 Lido Park Drive
Dear Sir:
The Marine Environmental Division of the Fire and Marine
Department of the City of Newport Beach enforces sections of the
Municipal Code and the Harbor Permit Policies dealing with harbor
permits within the City of Newport Beach. We have been forwarded a
complaint indicating that the permit listed above is not compliant with
the conditions of its Harbor Permit, specifically that parking for the
marina will be provided in accordance with the Harbor Permit Policies.
Th@ Qt��� --4- T -T --I, ;� --72--44- require tkal4here-be
p ,�V� -�X FXV
r-c-.4%,4�e-4 by, d1we permitt �, 11-�iee quarters o a parking space for expry
slip at the marina or 25 feet of side tie. the
marina in its current configuration has 7 slips and 1 side tie in excess of
25 feet. As a result of the above quoted policy, the permittee should be
providing 6 parking spaces for the marina.
Our records indicate that you were contacted in October 1999
regarding these issues and my file does not indicate that there has been
any response. Please be advised that Section 17.24.090 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code provides for revocation of a permit, specifically
Section 7, where the permittee has breached or failed to comply with
the terms or conditions contained in the perpit or upon which the
permit was granted.
Please contact
14"
Sincerely,
,4,;)4�44 Z��
OCT. -20'99(0)) 15:58 HART KING & GOLDREN
15:40 CARLSBERG 4 1714546?457
K
I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
RO. BOX 1769, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
(949)644-3131
October 12,1999
Cannery Village, LLC
C/o David W Lloyd, Regional Manager
Cadsberg Management Company
2800 28th Street
Suite 222
Santa Monica, CA, 90405
and
David W. Lloyd, Regional Manager
Carlsberg Management Company
6171 West Century-Roulevard
Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA, �0045
RE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR PERMIT No. 221-0081-1
700 LIDO-OARK DRIVE
Dear Mr. Lloyd: '
P. 002
NO.953 P002
The City's records show that Harbor Permit No. 221-0081-1 for the pierlboat slip
facilities at 700 Lido Park Drive is held by Cannery Village, LLC. Carlsberg Management
Company is identified as the representative for Cannery Village, LLC. We are writing to inform
you of the Harbor Permit requirement to provide parking for the boat slips. Since the mobile
homes on the upland property were removed from the mobile home park, we have received
complairtts that the parking for boat slips is not being provided, We have also been informed
that to avoid paying at the parking meters on 28th Street, the tenants of the boat slips are
parking on adjoining pHvate property belonging to the Blue Water Grill.
Per Condition No. 3(e) of the Harbor Permit, the permit holder is required to provide
parking for the Marina in accordance with the Harbor Permit policies. A copy of 1he Harbor
Permit and conditions are attached, City Council Policy H-1 requires that for all commercially
operated boat docking facilities, .75 parking stalls shall be provided for each single boat slip
and .75 parking stalls for each twen�y-five feet (25') of available mooring space not classified as
aslip. TheTefore;- as a condition' of the permit you are'required to provide eleven (11) parking
spaces for -the fourteen (14) boat slips authorized under the Ha�bor Pe'rMit. You are required to
provide the parking on upland property adjacent to the boat slips.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
OCT 12 '95 17:44 310 259 9009 PAGE. 02
I
-20' 99 � WED) '5 :59 HAU1 KING & GOLDREN P, 003
ioe'1@19� ZE:41 CHRLSBERG 4 1?145497457
October 12, 1999
Page 2
We are also concerned that the boat slips may have persons living -aboard the boats
without the required bathlrestroom facilities. Per Condition 3(b) of the Harbor Permit, restroom
facilities must be provided, per Council Policy. City Council Policy H-1 requires a Minimurn of
two (2) restroom facilities, one for women and one for men for each twenty (20) boat slips
available in the anchorage area. The minimum walking distance from the furthest boat slip to
the restroom facility shall not exceed four hundred feet (400'). P102S8 contact Tony Melurn of
the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department at (949) 644-3041 on or before October
28, 1999 lo inform the City of how the Harbor Permit holder intends to provide the parking and
bathJms4p
prri 1409fi" that complj",�,.with. the permit.
Very trul rs,
ROBIN L. CLAUSON
Assistant City Attorney
RC:da
Encl.
cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager (W/o enc-)
Patricia Temple,'Planning Director (w/o enc.)
Tony Melum, Fi(e & Marine Department (wlo enc.)
F.\userr,\cat\shared\CodeEnfbrr.e\Canne.ryVillage\letWr�DLparking.doe
CCT 16 '95 17:45
310 258 90og PAI -,c - R79
OCT. -20� 99 (WED) 15 ; 59
10/18/39 16:41
HART KING & GOL[IREN
CPRLSEERS 4 1?14546745?
F0ruary 27, 1978
K'5��
MARINE DEPARTMENT
To., MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM. Marine Department
P. 004
NOAS3 P004
ITEM NO.: H-11 (�)
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION 4221-081 BY RICHARD SHAW To REVISE A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BULKHEAD AND SLIPS AT
63? LIDO PARK DRIVE
Recorriendation
If
desired, approve the application subject to:
I.
The southerly 60 feet of the originally approved bulkhead
shall be
constructed prior to March 1, 1980.
2,
A performance bond satisfactory to the City Atiorney in
the amount
of $18,000 be provided by the applicant upon issuance of
the revised
permi t.
The original conditions of approval for this permit shall
apply to the
revise4 permit. These are. -
a. The approval of the U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers.
b. Th at restroom' facilities for the existing marina be
provided in
accordance with City Council Harbor Permit Policies.
c. 1hat the electrical, plumbing and fire facilities be
brought into
compliance with the Harbor Permit Policies within 30
days of
d. That K fortion of the floats or vessels tied to the
float extend
into 28th Street extension -
e. That parking for the marina be provtded in accordance with the
Harbor Permit Policies.
Discussion
On May 24, 1976, the City Council approved a revised Harbor Permit applicafion
by James Schmitz to construct approximately 232 feet of bulkhead and to replace
seven,sllps. Subsequent to that approval, -Mr. Richard Shaw acquired the upland
property. Mr, Shaw now wishes to revise the original permit by deleting approx-
imately',118 feet of bulkhead from the project. There currently exists within
the area,proposed fQr deletion, a dirt slope stabilized with ice plant. It is
the opinion of the staff that the slope would remain stable without the proposed
bulkhead,
OCT 18 '99 17,45
310 258 9009 PAUE, 04
0(;'i7,-2'W99(WED) 15:59 HART KING & GOLDREN
10,118193 16:41 CPRLSBERG 4 1714546?45?
PAGE TWO
APPLICANT; RICHARD-SKAW
P. 005
NO, 99:3 PLA05
4
The proposed revision would provide for:
a) Construction of a bulkhead at the northerly end of the site where presently
.exists a badly deteriorated pier landing.
h) Replac�rent of the existing slips.
c) Replacing an existing wood pile retaining wall within two years.
The applicant has expressed a desire to postpone the installation of the southerly
60 feet because of financial considerations. Condition #2 listed in the Recommend-
ations listed above would provide assurance that the existing wood wall be replaced
by the pamittee thereby eventually eliminating the klawly deteriorating wall.
D. HARSHBARqER, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPAR*E�T
r
,.,,a z
"-G16 E. Welden
Tidelands Administ,rator
GEW:ll
OCT 10 '99 17-45 310 258 9009 PRCE,05
OGTI.-20191WED) 16;00 HART KING & GOLDREN
16-41 CRRLSEER6 1 17145467437
OF'NEWPORT SEAW
COUNCILMEN
I oo 4
February 27, 1978
�ULL .-CALL
Morioyi X
Ayes X X X X X X X
motlon, 9
Ayes X X X X X X
4 Absent X
motion X
Ayes X X X X X X
Absent X
mi
I ! I I I I
OCT 18 '99 17:46
P, 006
No'!993 P006
MINUTE$
Proposed Ordinance No. 1761, being, AN ORDiNma
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BFACH ADDING SECTION
19.08.060 TO THE NEWPOgT SEACZ WMICIM CODE
ESTABLISHING KMGER or CERTAXW PREVXousLy
SVBDIVIDED LOTS, wee introduced and passed to
second xeadlng on March 13, 1978.
Mayor Pro Tem Barrett atepped down from the Council
table due to a poosible conflict of Interest on the
UeXt items.
2. A mewrandum from the City CLe'rU advising that
Resub 572/
rhe apip-64"Of William Lester from the decision
Lester Appeal
Of the P142aning Coumission denying Reaubdivinion
(2880)
No. 572 to create tva parcels of land for
residanrW development vhere one
- lot now exists
at 600 - 15th ftree&, on the-nortbeasterly side
of 15tb Street, betvaen St. James Road and Kings
P18ce In Cliff Haven, hag been act for public
hearing on March 13, 1978, vas received and
ordered filed,
3. A report was presented from the Marine Departzent
--S
IImrbor)
regarding Rarbox Permit A�pllcatimn #221-081- by
PermIr
RIchard 3hav to revise a previously approved
permit for a bulkhead and docks at 632 Lido Faric
Drive.
Harbor Permit Application 0221 -081 was approved.
subject to the couditions recommended by staff.
Xayor Pro Tem Barrett reffuzoed his seau at the council
table.
Mayor Dostal adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
I I A :;�p Q00q 0'�Mff MC
16:41 CPRLSBERG -> 1?14�0,46?45?
C11* 00'NEWPORT 13EA%ovi
Motion X
Ayes X x x X 2 X X
Motion X
Ayes X X X X x X
AbsonE x
motion
A- es
y
Absent
X X
1' 1. lix Ix Ix Ix
IN,
nf-7 1 R 19q I ?:.dr -
1100 'd
February 27. 1978
Nu. tj-j..� rt;iwo
MINUTES
Proposed Ordinance No. 1761, being, AN ORDINANCE
OF TS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACK ADDING SECTION
l9.o8.o6o To ME NEWPORT RZACS MICIPAL COU
ESTABLISHING MRGML OF CXXTAIN PREVIOUSLY
SUBDIVIDED LOTS, v*9 introduced and pasced to
second reading = Harch 13, 1978.
Major Pro Tem Barrett stopped down ixom the Council
table due to a possible conflice of iutereet oxi the
next items.
2. A tamorandum from the Cit)r Clerk advising that
Resub 5721
the ap'p"'e'a''of William Lester from the decinion
�ester Appeal
of the Pls=lng Cot=isgion denying Resubdivision
(2880)
No. 572 to create two parcels of land for
residential developmamt vh&Te one lot now exists
at 600 - 15th StTeet, = th&rWrtheleterly side
of 15th Street, betwrea St. James Road amd Kings
Place in Cliff Haven, has been set for public
hearitg = Mazeb 13, 1978, vas received and
ordered filed.
3. A report was presented from tb& Marine Department
regarding Earbor Permit Application #221-081 by
V Permit
Richard Shav to revise a previously APProved
(304r).,,'
permit for a bulkhead and docks at 632 Lido Parlt
Drive.
-Rarbor Permit Application #221-081 was avproved.
subject to the conditions recowmeftdedby staff.
mayor Pro Tam Urratt resumed his "at: at the Council
table.
Mayor Dostal adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
310 25B 9009 PAGE.06
M0100 � 9NII IM P3 :91 (03,h) 66 OZ - '100
10/21/99 10-12 PUBLIC -WORKS 4 96733056
OFF-STREET PRRKING STANDRRDS
NO. 397 902
PRRKING SPACES PAARLLEL TO A PROPERTY LINE SHFILL BE NOT LESS THAN 8'-0' BY 22-0- FFR
VEHICHLE.
2. SPqCES SHIL BE MARKED WITH APPROVED TRRFFIC MRRKERS OR PRINTED RHITE LINES NOT LESS
THFN 4' WIDE.
3. RISLES AND ENTRANCES INTENDED FOR TWO-DIRECTIONFIL TRAVEL SHALL NOT BE LESS TKIN 24' WIDE.
ONE --WHY TRRVEL RISLES 94ALL BE H, HINIKJM OF 14' UNLESS IT ALIGNS WITH A NRRROwER pH;XING
AISLE.
I. PRJ7XlNG LOTS FIND ARERS SHRLL BE PAVED WITH ASPHALT, CONCRETE OR OtHER STRMT SURFACING
MRTTRIRL OF A PERMFINENT NATURE,
5. PARKING LOTS AND HRERS SHALL BE GRFIDEI) RQ IMPROVED SO THAT SURFACE WATER DRAINS DIRECTLY
FROM T�� PHRKING LOT OR FIRER INTO A STREET, FILLEY OR APPROVED CRRIM12 STRUCTURE.
G. PFWING LOTS SHALL BE SO DES16NU THST CARS LERVINC THE LOT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO
BFICK OUT ON THE PORTION OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WRY ClEXCEPTINIG RLLM ) USED FOR VEHICULRIZ
TRAVEL.
DIRECT ACCESS TO PlARKING SPACES WILL. BE PERMITTED FROM
-OF-WRY IS USEI) FOR THE REFIR PORTION Or THE REOUIREI) AISLE WIDTH
FEET OF THE ALLEY RIGHT PLLEYs PROVIDING NOT OVER to
AND PROVIDED THE SPACES FIRE SET BACK FROM THE ALLEY THE MINIMLM DISTRNCES SHOW IN 'THE
FOLLOWING TRBLE.
ALLEY WIDTH
15'-0' OR LESS
151-1* TO 191-11,
20'-@' OR MORE
MINI" SET -M
5'-Q'
8- DIRECT RCCESS TO PARKING SPACES WILL BE PERMITTED FROM LOCFL STREETS PROVIDING THE
RLLOWiBLE CURB OKNING IS NOT EXCEEDED AND PROVIDED THE SWE IS SET-BRCK A MINI" OF
2'-0' FROM THE RIGHT -Of -WAY LINE.
9. PARKING WILL NOT HE PERMITTED ON SLOPES GREATER THRN 5%.
10- THE MFIXIMUM RAMP S0PE SHALL NOT EXCEED 15%.
I I - CHRNGES IN RAMP SLOPE %fLL NOT EXCEED 1) 7 FIND MRY OCCUR FIT FIVE FOOT INTEERVIIL5.
12. THE WIDTH OF SPACES NEX7 TO WALLS OR 'SIMILAR OBSTRUCTIMS SHALL BE 9,--ou,
13, STRUCTURRL ELEMENTS ML NOT ENCRORCH INTO T�E REQUIRED STALL, WITH THE EXCEPTION THRT
THEY WILL HE ALLOWED IN AN ONE rOOT SOURRE FIRER FIT TME FRONT CORNERS.
CITY OF NEWPORT BERCH
- PUBLIC WORKS DEPRRTMENT
,PARKIIVG LOT STANDARDS
REV 10/93
EIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
FRTL R.C.E. NO , 9- 12806
13 Oci 1993 ClILE N.T.S.
DRAWN LEON I STD-80-5—J,—P
10/21/99 10:12 PUBL. I C—IAJORKS -), 967,33056.
STREET
STANDARD
DRIVE
PROPERTY1 NES LAPPROACH
W -S
11
zo
LL,
k i,
No. 397 (?01
m
M
5-+ high Ir"full'1W W 4
61-c- 4=00 who -
WWI of WhOf PhYMCSI bWFIQF
prwgnb ofty 69m.froaChtnent beyond
propefty Ilno�
C
_.!
"Minimum setback unless otherwise specified in planning and zoning regulatiops
HIMINUM DIAFNsioNS oF PARKING SPACES AND AISLES
"An
o 8 if
if C 41 lie to
AN CIL F
11 101 1
0 E P 1 4 01 1 P A � 1 1110 111
11 0 F I I A C I
0 F
0 F
P E R P E R V I C U L A R 0 F
P A R A L L E L T 0
PARKtu(i
SPACE
70 AISLE AISLE
AISLE
3 0 4
8
10
6 0
1 9
9 1 0 if
9 0
6
2 6
a 6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PARKING LOT
STANDARDS
DRAWN
APPROVED
PUBLIC WORKS DIREC
A.E. "0!2
DRAWING No. . STD -805 -L-A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
RO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
(949) 644-3131
October 12, 1999
I
Mr. Sal Poidamani
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3737 Main STreet
Suite 400
Riverside, CA, 92501
RE.- LIDO MOBILE HOME PARK, 700 LIDO PARK DRIVE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HARBOR PERMIT NO. 221-0081-1
Dear Mr. Poidamani:
Attached to this letter is a letter that I have sent to the property manager for the above -
referenced property. It was only recently brought to the City's attention that -the parking for the
boat marina attached to the property was not being provided. We must inform you of the City's
concerns regarding the change of the mobile home park to manufactured housing if the
required parking for the boat marina is not provided. Furthermore, it appears that Housing &
Community Development (HCD) may be issuing permits in conjunction with bath/restroom
facilities for the marina. We -are not aware of HCD's jurisdiction to issue permits for such
facilities. We would appreciate it if you could take the time to review the issues raised in this
letter and the attached letter and please contact me regarding HCD's position on Cannery
Village's obligation to provide parking and bath/restroom facilities for the marina.
I look forward to your response. Thank you.
Very truly-ycryrs,
ROBIN L. CLAUSON
Assistant City Attorney
RC:da
Encl.
cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager (w/o enc.)
Patricia Temple, Planning Director (w/o enc.)
Tony Melum, Fire & Marine Department (w/o enc.)
F:\users\cat\shared\CodeEnforce\CanneryVillage\lefter\HCD.doc
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
P
A 'T�
CITY,OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
N� (949) 644-3131
October 12, 1999
Cannery Village, LLC
c/o David W. Lloyd, Regional Manager
Carlsberg Management Company
2800 28th Street
Suite 222
Santa Monica, CA, 90405
and
David W. Lloyd, Regional Manager
Carlsberg Management Company
6171 West Century Boulevard
Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA, 90045
RE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR PERMIT NO. 221-0081-1
700 LIDO PARK DRIVE
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
The City's records show that Harbor Permit No. 221-0081-1 for the pier/boat slip
facilities at 700 Lido Park Drive is held by Cannery Village, LLC. Carlsberg Management
Company is identified as the representative for Cannery Village, LLC. We are writing to inform
you of the Harbor Permit requirement to provide parking for the boat slips. Since the mobile
homes on the upland property were removed from the mobile home park, we have received
complaints that the parking for boat slips is not being provided. We have also been informed
that to avoid paying at the parking meters on 28th Street, the tenants of the boat slips are
parking on adjoining private property belonging to the Blue Water Grill.
Per Condition No. 3(e) of the Harbor Permit, the permit holder is required to provide
parking for the Marina in accordance with the Harbor Permit policies. A copy of the Harbor
Permit and conditions are attached. City Council Policy H-1 requires that for all commercially
operated boat docking facilities, .75 parking stalls shall be provided for each single boat slip
and .75 parking stalls for each twenty-five feet (25') of available mooring space not classified as
a slip. Therefore, as a condition of the permit you are required to provide eleven (11) parking
spaces for the fourteen (14) boat slips authorized under the Harbor Permit. You are required.to
provide the',lparking on upland property adjacent to the boat slips.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
October 12, 1999
Page 2
'We are also concerned that the boat slips may have persons living aboard the boats
without the required bath/restroom facilities. Per Condition 3(b) of the Harbor Permit, restroom
facilities must be provided, per Council Policy. City Council Policy H-1 requires a minimum of
two (2) restroom facilities, one for women and one for men for each twenty (20) boat slips
available in the anchorage area. The minimum walking distance from the furthest boat slip to
the restroorn facility shall not exceed four hundred feet (400'). Please contact Tony Melum of
the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department at (949) 644-3041 on or before October
28, 1999 to inform the City of how the Harbor Permit holder intends to provide the parking and
bath/restroorn facilities that complies with the permit.
Very trul rs'
ROBIN L. CLAUSON
Assistant City Attorney
RC:da
Encl. .
cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager (Wo enc.)
Patricia Temple, Planning Director (w/o enc.)
Tony Melum, Fire & Marine Department (w/o enc.)
F:\users\cat\shared\CodeEnforce\CanneryVillage\lefter\DLparking.doc
10/21/99 10:12 PUBLIC -WORKS 4 96733056
OFF-STREET PRRKING STnNDRRDS
H0.397 P02
PFRKING SPRCES PARRLLEL TO A PROPERTY LINE SHHLL BE NOT LESS THRN 8`0' BY 22'-0 PEIZ
VEHICHLE.
2. SRqCES SHU BE MRRKED WITH RPPROVED TRRFFIC MARKERS OR PRINTED *i[T[ LINES NOT LESS
THN 4 * WIDE, 1
3. RISLES RND ENTRANCES INTENDED FOR TWO -DIRECTIONAL TRRVEL SHALL NOT HE LESS THRN 24' WIDE,
ONE_ -WRY TRRVEL RISLES SHALL BE R MINI" OF 14' UNLESS IT ALIGNS WITH A NWROWER PFWING
AlSLE.
I. PARKING LOTS RND RRERS SHALL BE PAVED WITH ASPHRLT, CONCRETE OR OTHER STREET SURFACING
KHTrRIRL OF A PERMANENT NATURE.
5. PFRKING LOTS AND RRUS SHALL BE GRAMM F141) IMPROVED SO THAI SURFACE WRTER WNS DIRECTLY
FROM IH� PFRKING LOT OR RREA INTO A STREET, ALLEY OR APPROVED DRAINAGE 5TRLICTLIRE.
G. PFWING LOTS SHALL BE SO DESIGNED THAT CRRS LERVING THE LOT WILL NOT BE PERMITTEL) TO
BtXX OUT ON THE PORTION OF STREET RIGK-OF-WAY (EXCEPTING FLLrYS) LKSU FOR VEHICULRJZ
TRRVEL.
7, DIRECT PCCESS TO PPIRKING SPRCES WILL BE PERMITTED FROM PLLEYS PROVIDING NOT OVER 10
FM_T OF THE FlLLEY RIGHT -OF -WRY IS USM FOR TME RERR PORTION OF T�C REQUIRED RISLE WIDTH,
AND PROVIDED THE 94aS RRE SET IRCK FROM THE RLLEY THE MINIMUM DISTRNCES SHOWN IN THE
FOLLOWING TRBLE.
R -LEY WIDTH MINI" SET-BRCK
15'-0' OR LESS 51-0.
151-t* TO 191-110 31-91
20'--U' OR MORE 2,.-6.
8- DIRECT RCCESS TO PFWING SPRCES WILL BE PERMITTED FROM LOCFL STREETS PROVIDING THE
ALLO"LE CURB OPENING IS NOT EXCEEDED MD PROVIDED THE SPACE IS SET-HRCK A MINI" OF
2'-0' FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE.
9. PHRKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED ON SLOPES GREATER THM 5�,.
10. THE MRXIMUM RfW SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 15%.
11. CHANGES IN RW SLOPE %fLL NOT EXCEED 1);.' FIND MRY OCCUR RT FIVE FOOT INTERVALS.
t?. THE WIDTH OF SPRCES NW TO WFLLS OR -SIMILAR OBSTRLICTICNS SHFILL BE 9-o".
13. STRUCTURRL ELEWENTS SHRLL NOT ENCRCPZH INTO T�E REQUIRED STRLL, WITH THL EXCEPTION THRT
THEY WILL HE RLLOWED IN RN ONE FOOT SOURRE RRER RT THE FRONT CORNERS.
CRTY OF NEWPORT BERCH
PUBLTC
J_ WORKS DEPRRTMENT
,PAHKIIVG EOT STANDARDS
APPROVED
REv 10/93
EIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
R.C.E. NO. 12806
DATE 13 Ocl 1993 SCRLE N.T.S.
ORFMN LEON I STD-805—L—R
10/21/99 1 Fl: 'L 2 PUBLIC-1AJORKS -+ 967 -330 -J -S t40. 3 97 Pul
STREET
STANDARD
DRIVE
PROPERTY UNES APPROACH
to
r
m
m
5-+ high bump"s r#quired on all mm� 4
exwri4w opa— cxcopt Whlsfv 4 1
k sical bwrlqr
vMJ ew ot—, v T
prWggU pry
C J
*jAinimum setback unless otherwise specified in planning and zoning regulatiort
K V
mom
MIN114IJ14 DIRENSIONS
OF PARrINC
SPACES AND AISLES
A -
IL
C
ID
E
A bol a 1, E
W 1 0 T 4 0 E P T 14
Of SPACE
W 10 T 14
W 1 0 1 M 0 f S P
A C E
0 F PERPEND I C U L A R
0 F
P A R A L L E L
T 0
PARKI.MG
SPACE 10
AISLE
AI$LF
AISLE
6
10
16,
1 9
9
9 0
CITY OF NEWPORT' BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS M.PARTMENT
PARKING LOT
STANDARDS
MAWM PAEE !Zy-1 M--
V/T
PUBLIC WORKS DIRK
A.E- NOML
DRAWING @40. STD -805 -L-A
JAMES C. PERSON, JR.
Attorney at Law
507 29th Street - Suite A
Newport Beach, California 92663)
October 8, 1999
Mr. Sal Poidamani
Department of Housing and Community Development
State Of California
3737 Main St. #400
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone (949) 673-9201
Facsimile (949) 673-0774
F' -Mail theicp(q)
pacbell.net
Re: 700 Lido Park Drive, Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Poidamani:
It is my Understanding that you, on behalf of HCD, are adminis-
tering the permit process and redevelopment of the mobile home
park located at 700 Lido Park Drive, Newport Beach, California.
I determined this yesterday in a meeting I had with staff from
the City of Newport Beach, concerning a letter I sent them on
September 24, 1999, a copy of which is enclosed for background.
As you can ascertain from that letter, the undersigned repre-
sents the owners of the property to the north of the site in
question. City staff has provided me with a Harbor Permit
issued concerning the property for the Marina which is operated
on the site. A copy of that Permit is also enclosed. As you can
ascertain from the Permit, the site in question, in order to
maintain its permit must Comply with certain conditions. May
I direct YOU to Condition 5 of the Permit, which states:
"5. That parking for the marina be provided in accor-
dance with Harbor Permit Policies."
I have research Harbor Permit Policies and confirmed with City
of Newport Beach staff that the marina must provide .75 parking
spaces for each berth. Under these circumstances and in view
of the fact that the marina, on site, currently has 18 vessels
berthed there, the site is responsible for providing not less
than 14 parking spaces on site.
By copy of this letter, I am placing HCD/ the City of Newport
Beach and the property owner that my clients expect the prop-
erty owner to comply, fully, with the conditions of the Harbor
Permit and provide the parking as required. In the event it
does not, I am requesting that the Harbor Permit be revoked,
immediately.
Mr. Sal Poidamani
October 8, 1999
Page 2
In addition, my letter of September 24, 1999, addressed some
other issues, namely the commercial office on site and the
trash situation. It is my understanding that the commercial
office is being torn down, but in a notice to the vessel own-
ers, the property owner has indicated Plans to develop support
facilities on site for the marina in the form of restrooms and
showers. Am I incorre c t in assuming that HCD does not have
jurisdiction to issue permits for support facilities for
commercial marinas? My understanding is the it does not as the
marina is not under the jurisdiction of HCD. I would therefore
request that this issue be subject to normal permit procedures
within the City of Newport Beach.
I will be away from October 10, 1999 through October 18, 1999,
but would request that in view of the continuing development
that some affirmative action be taken in this matter immedi-
ately.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard.
Ve trul o rs,
JAMES C. PERSO WfJR.
JCP/cl
cc: Mr, and Mrs. T evon Gugasion
_U
The Honorable Dennis O'Neil (w/o encl.)
Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager Wo encl.)
Robert H. Burnham, Esq. (w/o encl.)
Mrs. Sharon Wood (w/o encl.)
Ms. Patricia Temple (w/o encl.)
Mr. David Niederhaus Wo encl.)
Mr. Don Webb (w/o encl.)
Mr. Tony Melum (with enclosure)
Mr. David Lloyd, Carlsberg Management Co.
JAMEs C. PERSON� JR.
Attorney at Law
507 29th Street - Suite A
NewPort Beach, California 92663
September 24, 1999
Mr. Homer L. Bludau
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: 700 Lido Park Drive
Dear Mr. Bludau:
This Office represents Mr. and m -
Telephone (949) 673-9201
Facsimile (949) 673-0774
E -Mail thejcP@Pacbell.net
-1. Levon Gugasian who are the
owners of the real property located at 630-634 Lido Park Drive,
Newport Beach, California. Located on my clients' property is
the Blue Water Grill Restaurant, offices and a commercial
marina as well as a small takeout restaurant. All of these
uses, in one form or another, have been in place for a number
of years and all were done with the benefit of discretionary
permits.
This letter addresses a number Of concerns concerning the
property immediately behind my clients property. As these
concerns involve both Planning and legal issues, I am copying
some selected members Of Your staff as well as Mayor O'Neil.
The property complained of involves the now vacant property
located at 700 Lido Park Drive which was formerly a mobile home
park, a small office and a marina. The mobile home park has
been razed in its entirety to make way, apparent' I Lor manu-
- _" Y c
factured housing much like that which has beenundertaken in
other areas of Lido Peninsula. The office and commercial marina
remain on the site and are part of the property and project.
Bordering the property between my clients, property is an
extension of 29t' Street, The property in question has never
provided any parking for either the office uses or the marina,
nor has there been, to my clients' knowledge, any trash area
or commercial trash Pickup from the site. Nor has there ever,
to our knowledge, been any discretionary or other review of the
property, other than one proje c t, over twenty (20) years ago,
which never was constructed.
Mr. Homer L. Bludau
September 24, 1999
Page 2
My clients' property has been the subject of review several
times over the years and all of the parking available on their
site is allocated to the various uses on the property. There
has been, since a remodel in the early 19701s, one or more
commercial trash receptacles for the restaurant and other
tenants of the site.
The marina of the property in question berths eighteen (18)
vessels, many of which have persons living aboard the vessels.
To preface my remarks, I have reviewed the Newport Beach Munic-
ipal Code and determined that a Marina with 18 berths would
require 14.4 or fifteen (15) parking spaces on site (NBMC
20.66.030). 1 would estimate that the office, used as a yacht
brokerage, is another 500 square feet which would require and
additional two (2) on site parking spaces, making a total of
seventeen (17) spaces. Prior to the razing of the mobile home
park and the beginning of this new project these required
spaces would have been considered as legal non conforming.
With that history in mind, the following, by topic, outlines
my clients' concerns.
GARBAGE
As indicated above, to our knowledge, the adjacent property
owner has never provided commercial refuse service for the
commercial uses on the property. The result of this is that the
marina users are constantly depositing bags of their trash and
garbage on my clients' property, forcing my clients to use
their employees to dispose of the adjacent property owners
refuse, We believe that this is not in conformance with the
municipal code as it relates to refuse disposal and demands
that the City take appropriate steps to rectify this situation.
SEAWALL
The property in question has permitted its seawall to become
in a state of disrepair. The effect of this is that sand ero-
sion is occurring through cracks in the sea wall during the
normal tidal process. The effect of this is that when the sand
escapes from behind the seawall in question, it causes sand to
Mr. Homer L.. Bludau
September 24, 1999
Page 3
likewise erode from my clients, property to replace the sand
that has eroded from the property in question. I believe that
the City jurisdiction to require a neighboring property owner
to take steps to rectify such a problem as I have direct recol-
lection of the City requiring mediation of my clients' property
many years ago. I also believe that it is an indication of the
disregard the adjacent property owner has for its neighbors.
PARKING
This is by far the most serious issue. For years, marina users
and employees and business invitees of the office have con-
stantly parked on my clients' property rather that utilize the
parking meters directly adjacent to the property. My clients'
parking situation, given the volume of business of the Blue
Water Grill is already serious without the added problem of
having to deal with the impacts of the lack of parking at 700
Lido Park Drive. As hard as my clients attempt to deal with
this situation, using their time and resources, it still re-
mains a constant problem.
My review of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically,
Sections 17.33-010, 20-66.030 and Chapter 20.62, has brought
me to the inescapable conclusion that the current project is
one which, under the Municipal Code is of such magnitude so as
to cause the marina and office uses to lose their legal non
conforming rights. I know that it would be required of any
other commercial project of such magnitude and that this should
be treated no differently.
My clients therefore make formal demand on the City of Newport
Beach to require that the new project provide on site parking
(17 spaces) for the marina and offices as required by the
zoning code. We are not certain as to the status of this pro-
ject but believe that as long as no visible construction has
gone forward other that demolition that the City may and should
make such requirements prior to any further construction. You
should be advised that my clients intend to take whatever legal
steps necessary to ensure that the property in question brings
itself into compliance with current zoning laws.
Mr. Homer L. Bludau
Page 4
September 24, 1999
We would ask that we be kept informed of the project as to its
status and that before any further activity takes place on
site, that the City address these issues as it would with any
other commercial project of this size and nature.
Thank you for your co peration in this regard.
JVetruly y S,
tI
44C2
J . ES CC. PERSO JR.
I/ ti
JCP/cl
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Levon Gugasion
The Honorable Dennis O'Neil
Robert H. Burnham, Esq.
Mrs. Sharon Wood
Ms. Patricia Temple
Mr. David Niederhaus
Mr. Don Webb
MARINE DEPARTMENT
February 27, 1978
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Marine Department
ITEM NO.: H-11 (b)
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-081 BY RICHARD SHAW TO REVISE A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT.A BULKHEAD AND SLIPS AT
632 LIDO PARK DRIVE
Recommendation
If desired, approve the application subject to:
The southerly 60 feet of the originally approved bulkhead shall be
constructed prior to March 1, 1980.
2. A performance bond satisfactory to the City Attorney in the amount
of. -$18,000 be provided by the applicant upon issuance of the revised
per-ini t.
3. The original conditions of approval for this permit shall apply to the
revised permit. These are:
a. The approval of the U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers.
b. That restroom facilities for the existing marina be provided in
accordance with City Council Harbor Permit Policies.
c. That the electrical, plumbing and fire facilities be brought into
compliance with the Harbor Permit Policies within 30 days of
completion of the bulkhead installation.
d. That no portion of the floats or vessels tied to the float extend
into 28th Street extension.
e. That parking for the marina be provided in accordance with the
Harbor Permit Policies.
Discussion
On May 24, 1976, the City Council approved a revised Harbor Permit application
by Jam . es Schmitz to construct approximately 232 feet of bulkhead and to replace
seven'slips. Subsequent to that approval, Mr. Richard Shaw acquired the upland
property. Mr. Shaw now wishes to revise the original permit by deleting approx-
imately\118 feet of bulkhead from the project. There currently exists within
the area proposed for deletion, a dirt slope stabilized with ice plant. It is
the opinion of the staff that the slope would remain stable without the proposed
bulkhead.
To: Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
From: Craig K. Porst
Agent for Richard E. Shaw
Re. Harbor Permit No. 221-081
Bulkhead and Dock Construction
632 Lido Park Drive
Permit holder does hereby request amendment of above -referenced I permit to
allow for less bulkhead construction than has been authorized. Attached
drawing no. 1 shows current permit allowance for 2321 of bulkhead
construction- This cdnsists of replacing 54' and 60, sections at either
end existing in a deteriorated, unsafe, and unsightly condition, and an
additional 1181 of new bulkhead joining the two existing ends.
Drawing no. 2 depicts the amendment desired by the permit holder. That
is -to replace the before -described 546 and 60' sections per specifications,
but not to add 1181 of new bulkhead construction, joining the two existing
ends. Authorization to replace the existing boat slips, as allowed in the
permit, is not affected by this request.
Consequently, it is the intention of the permit holder to. replace existing
bulkheads and boat docks with new, modern, safe, and sightly materials and
repair the general areafrom an eyesore to one of beauty and pleasant
surroundings befitting the adjoining areas and general condition of the
City of Newport Beach.
It is the opinion of the permit holder, local residents and business owners,
Army Corps of Engin=ers, California Coastal Commission, and the California
Fish and Game Department, that the described permit amendment is superior
to the original request -as it allows upgrading of the general area without
disruption of the existing natural terrain. The above -referenced agencies
have approved the requested amendment.
Therefore, the permit holder requests permission to immediately begin
construction for replacement of the 54' bulkhead section, (A), followed by
dock and slip construction, followed by replacement of 60' bulkhead section,
(B), within two (2) years from permit date. A performance bond of $15,000.00
will be placed with the City as assurance for eventual replacement of the
60' bulkhead section,
Resp4p�ctfully '.submdttec4,
C
Craig j�.,,Porst
Agent fot�.Richard.E. Shaw
Cl r K
-
g
q A
—7/
/2- icf
T 77.5-
lz:�j
ocw;w,�
vICIMITY SKETCH
V�P-o -AY, CAL IF-4ORNIA
zfz 07
(2rO /17 r,,,.l
O'ee 46CI01V
,O-ck7'IaAJ 7-6 are 3 - 5 4r C 0 ?C'1VC W,1041.- / 15 11r.
45r-7- 2,5 - 406A 7'1b -j " 7
O-B4.4c,te--r 3F ;?
cm, k
-PO
sr
,FV4AC-,-�-,d D
45 Acews-
17,6
'01C
7--v.
m
73
---, I
r-3
'els 7-
Vk
30
Ad 4:F
M41,1-;
7-0 7-�-: b
CH -OAC 7 1<'Aj Irf
f::� 77 7;�f A C7 -
a A oDoe ss; n32;:L �2ej 1-cr
MARINE DEPARTMENT
May 24, 1976
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Marine Department
ITEM NO.: H-15 (a)
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-'081 BY JAMES SCHMITZ
TO CONSTRUCT A BULKHEAD AT 700 LIDO PARK DRIVE
Recommendation
If desired, approve the application subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. That restroom facilities for the existing marina be provided in
accordance with City Council Harbor Permit Policies.
3. That the electrical, plumbing and fire facilities be brought
into compliance with the Harbor Permit Policies within 30 days
of completion of the bulkhead installation.
4. That no portion of the floats or vessels tied to the float extend
into 28th Street extension.
5. That parking for the marina be provided in accordance with the
Harbor Permit Policies.
Discussion
Council originally approve an application for a bulkhead and revised
float configuration for this location on January 27, 1974. This
project is being brought back to Council for review and approval
at this time because of a change in ownership of the uplands, the
proposed bulkhead has been moved landward and the applicant wishes
to retain the existing slips rather than replace them.
An EIR prepared for the original Project concluded that the proposed
bulkhead would have no adverse impact and in fact would be considered
beneficial in that it will control erosion and will eliminate a
11w I aste sink for society's detritus".
01UT, -20� 99 [WED) 151:57 IHART KING & GOLDREN P. 001
HART, KING ]Lj±�
& COLDREN ZI-1-pyt
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPOR41`10M
200 EAST SANDPOINTE, FOURTH FLOOR
DIRECT ALL MAIL TO. P.O. BOX 2507
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707
TELEPHONE ('714) 432-8700
FACSIMILE (714) 546-7457
Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
DATE., Oclober 20, 1999 PAGES (incl. cover sheet): 6
RECIPIENT COMPANY P14ONE FAXNO.
Mr. Tony Mulum City of Newport Beach (949) 644-3041 (949) 673-3056
Fire & Marine Department
FROM: Rachelle E. Menaker, Esq.
FILE NIJNMER: 36527.001
RE,; Follow-up Regarding Robin L. Clauson's Letter of October 12, 1999 to David Lloyd on Behalf
of Cannery Village, LLC Regarding Pariking Issues for 700 Lido Park Drive.
1�4ESSA0E.,
Dear Mr. Melum;
Thank you foryour promptresponse and perseverance fluough our phone tag in contacting me regarding the above -referenced
matter. As we discussed, attached hereto please find the attachment3 to the above -referenced lcftr from Ms. Clauson which
you did not receive. For your coavenianoe, it copy of her letter is also attached. You will note that there is a discrepancy
between the property referenced in Ms. Clauson's letter, which is, indeed, owned by Cumary VMage, LLC, and the propert�
at 632 Lido Park Drive, which is referenced in each of the attachments. We will appreciate any insight you can provide ra you
investigate these discrepancies, As I told you, our client is, of course, eager to comply with the City of Newport Reach's
pafl6ig teqairements, In this regard, thank you also for agreeing to mail m;e the relevant portioas of City Council Policy H- I
regarding parking requirements for all commercially operated boat docking facilities. Let me also thark you in advance for
broaching with Bob Burnham, the City Attorney for Newport Beach, a possible creative approach whereby the City might
abandon its use of that portion of 28'h Street which dead -ends at the harbor, and/or possibly leasing some of that space to our
client in the event that it doesi indeedi Iturn out to be the case that additional puking would need to be constructed, On this
issue, you have also indicated that you will be following up to investigate any requirements -which the City m4y have relative
to the required location for any additional parking which may turn out to be appropriate, or whether it will simply be sufficient
if any additionally required parking is located at a "reasonable distance' from the Marina.
Your courtesy and cooperation are greatly appreciated, and I pmlicularly appreciate your inany followAhroligh efforts to assist
us in enabling our client to c I with all City requirements. I look forward to hearing from you respecting the above and
the attached.
cc w10 attacb.: ;R7,
3eary, Jr.
0 ORIGINAL WILL NOT FOLLOW 22-IS56
If there are aM questions regarding thig FAX transmittal. 13leasr, r
pall Shirlee at (71-4) 432-8700,
CAUTION; PRIVILEGED A"/OR CONFIDENTLAL INFORMATION
7HIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR 7HE USE OF THE INOIVI13UAL TO WHICH IT WAS ADDRESKID AND MAY CONTAJN INrORMA-nON THAT IS
PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISOL06URE UNDER APPLICABLE iAw. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOTTHE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYER OR AGENTRESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE ME89AGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HFRE13Y NOTIFIED
THAT ANY OISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION is rjTRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATIONIN ERROR, PLFA15E NOTIFY US IMMEDMELY BY TISLEPHONEAND RETURN 7HEORIGINALTO US ATTHEABOVEADDRESSIVIIALINiTED
STATES POSTAL SERVIC8.
OCT.-26'99(TUV 09:46 HART KING & COLDREN
October 25, 1999 Our File Number: 36527.001
VIA FACSIMILE & TJ,S, MAIL
Robin L. Clauson, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
NF,wpoRT BEACH CITY AT70RNEY'S OFFICE
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 9265 8-8915
Re: 700 Lido Park Drive; City of Newport Deach Harbor Permit No. 221-0081-1
Dear Ms. Clauson:
This furn represents Cannery Village, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Cannery
Village"), This client forwarded to us a copy of your letter dated October 12, 1999, addressed to Mr.
David Lloyd of Carlsberg Management Company, which is, as you correctly note in such letter, the
identified representative for Cannery Village. At the outset, please be assured that Cannery Village
is eager to comply with all City requirements imposed on it as a Harbor Permit holder, including,
without limitation, providing the requisite parking and bath/restroom facilities as set forth in your
letter.
Upon our receipt last week of your letter raising these concerns, we immediately contacted your
office on October 20, 1999, and spoke with Debbie, who informed us that you were out of the office
until October 26, 1999, Accordingly, pursuant to the instructions contained in your letter, we then
contacted Tony Melum of the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department to inquire as to
certain discrepancies between the listed address for the property owed by Cannery Village (which
is correctly identified as 700 Lido Park Drive), and the property address of 632 Lido Park Drive,
which is referenced on all of the attachments to your letter. In this regard, please note that there is
also a discrepancy as to the Permit No., which is identified in your cover letter as "221 -00 8 1 - I," but
which is listed as "221-08 1 " in these attachments.
P. 002
OCT -26-1999 10:00 96% P.02
HART., KING
ROBERTS. COLDREN
Sanu Ram Offlcc
GARY R. )ONG
WILLIAM R. HART
& COLDREN
3SS8 ROUND BARN BLVD., SUrrE 300
CANDICE L. CAMPBELL
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 954-03
JOHN Ii. PEN-MCOSY
C. WILLIAM DA HUN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
TELEPHONE: (707) S-70-02SO
CHRISTOPHEIt R. ELUoT-r
FACSIMILE� (707) 9704853
ROBERT]. MULVIHILL
200 EAST SANDPOINTE, FOURTI-1 FLOOR
RACHELLF E. MENAKErL
DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: P.O. BOX 2507
RICHARD P. GlijkBEIt
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707
UN DA J. LRMR
TELEPHONE (714) +32-8700
KErrH W. CARLSON
FACSIMILE (714) S46 -7+S7
ROBERT C. WILUAMSON, JR.
RODI1RTC(gHKC-LAW.COM
OF COUNSEL
CCILIN 1. TANNER
ANDREW M. SUSSMAN
MICRAF I.J. scHRcEnn, P.C.
BRUCE E. BARTRAM
JOHN C. TFAL, JR.
JAMES L. MEIER
GARnELI) L. LOGAN, P.C.
October 25, 1999 Our File Number: 36527.001
VIA FACSIMILE & TJ,S, MAIL
Robin L. Clauson, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
NF,wpoRT BEACH CITY AT70RNEY'S OFFICE
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 9265 8-8915
Re: 700 Lido Park Drive; City of Newport Deach Harbor Permit No. 221-0081-1
Dear Ms. Clauson:
This furn represents Cannery Village, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Cannery
Village"), This client forwarded to us a copy of your letter dated October 12, 1999, addressed to Mr.
David Lloyd of Carlsberg Management Company, which is, as you correctly note in such letter, the
identified representative for Cannery Village. At the outset, please be assured that Cannery Village
is eager to comply with all City requirements imposed on it as a Harbor Permit holder, including,
without limitation, providing the requisite parking and bath/restroom facilities as set forth in your
letter.
Upon our receipt last week of your letter raising these concerns, we immediately contacted your
office on October 20, 1999, and spoke with Debbie, who informed us that you were out of the office
until October 26, 1999, Accordingly, pursuant to the instructions contained in your letter, we then
contacted Tony Melum of the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department to inquire as to
certain discrepancies between the listed address for the property owed by Cannery Village (which
is correctly identified as 700 Lido Park Drive), and the property address of 632 Lido Park Drive,
which is referenced on all of the attachments to your letter. In this regard, please note that there is
also a discrepancy as to the Permit No., which is identified in your cover letter as "221 -00 8 1 - I," but
which is listed as "221-08 1 " in these attachments.
P. 002
OCT -26-1999 10:00 96% P.02
OCT.-26'99(TUE) 09:46 HART KING & COLDREN
FIART, KING & COLDREN
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
Robin L. Clauson, Esq.
October 25, 1999
Page 2
Pleas note that Mr. Melurn was most courteous and helpfal, and undertook to investigate the dis-
crepancy betweerithe address associated with the relevant Harbor Permit set forth in theattachments.
This letter will also serve to call your attention to the discrepancy we just identified in the Permit
Nos. VAile we await the outcome of your office's investigation of these discrepancies, we did just
want to formally respond to your letter before your specified October 2P deadline, and to assure you
that Cannery Village does, indeed, intend to comply with all City of Newport Beach requirements,
including those set forth in City Council Policy H- I as refe:rred to in your letter. Once we have
received some clarification as to the above -referenced discrepancies, our client will, of course, be
in a better position to proceed to establish an effective strategy as to the implementation by Cannery
Village of any appropriate compliance measures.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undesigned if you have any further comments or clarifications
regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
HART, KING & C
RSC/RRM:sk 4/_�
cc; William W. Geary, Jr.
David Lloyd
224022.1
P, 003
OCT -26-1999 10:01 96% P.03
OCT.-26'99(TUE) 09:46 HART KING & COLDREN
HART, MNG
& COLDREN
A PROFESSIONAL LA�; CORPORATION
200 EAST SANDPOINTE, FOURTH FLOOR
DIRECT ALL MAILTO: P.O.BOX2507
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707
TELEPHONE (714) 432-8700
FACSIMILE (714) 546-74S7
Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
DATE: October 26, 1999 PAGES (incl. cover sheet): 3
TO.- Robin L. Clauson, Esq.
CONDANY: Newport Beach City Attorney's Office
FAX NO.: (949) 644-3139 PHONE: (949) 644-3131
FROM: Rachelle E. Menaker, Esq.
FILE NO.: 36527.001
RE: 700 Lido Park Drive; City of Newport 13each Harbor Permit No. 221-0081-1
NfESSAGE: Please see attached correspondence.
13 ORIGINAL WILL NOT FOLLOW
224113 9 ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY: REGULAR MAIL
If there are any questions regarding this FAX transmittal, please call Shirlee at (714) 432-8700.
CAUTION; PRMLEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FORTHE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHICH IT WAS A013RESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION
THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, IF THE RMER OFTHIS MESSAGE IS
NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYER OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIEDTHATANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION ORCOPYING OFT -HIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICA71ON IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDLATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN
THE ORIGINAL TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.
P. 001
OCT -2G-1999 10:00 967 P.01
Martin Yacht Sales
714-723-4074 - Fax 714-723-4076
BUD MARTIN
700 Lido Park Dr., #40
Newport Beach, CA 92663 i
V�
111111�C OEM M E R C I A L
a national real estate company
Steven M. Speier, C.P.A.
President
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 680 * Irvine, California 92718
Telephone (714) 753-7777 FAX (714) 753-7722
BUYERS' NAAIE(S)
bcks S OF FACILITY:
ADDREq� OF FACILITY: J�
S J"
Dr.,
NP
p B
7 k
MAILINt AbdFtEs�-
NO.
1 310)450-96c�hZ(v
P , HORE-Wo!
F bg
�HE&k NY.
APPROVED BY: _bA I TE
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER
HARBOR PERMIT
r OCHD 1 E1 -2e
Three Pac Co
Cannery Vi 11 age
,.APPROVSkEfV: �V
Dfi`rEf
BUYER'S NAME(S) LLC
R -MAI T TRA SF R HAR
OCHD
U_
B
i COUNCIL-`�
PUBLIC% ORKS
w
SIGNATU�t oF SE IfR
SIGNATURE OFBUP,�
SELLERS'] -S
�IAME
(ABOV,V;aNAMes _T0P_E._-
j
�W,6VLE OF BUM 7�
_TTION
BUYER- NAMEC ig
a h 66 ry,
bcks S OF FACILITY:
PERMIT #
2800 28,th' St�;
Dr.,
NP
p B
->AILMG41kDD"9 C 4,]LF�_
NO.
1 310)450-96c�hZ(v
FEE �:C7
P
D
APPROVED BY: _bA I TE
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER
HARBOR PERMIT
r OCHD 1 E1 -2e
Three Pac Co
Cannery Vi 11 age
� 11 I -
ENG El 1� Z
SELLER'S NAME(S)
BUYER'S NAME(S) LLC
, , , I
j'J.5 ,
(01 BOVE NAMES TO
U_
B
i COUNCIL-`�
PUBLIC% ORKS
w
SIGNATU�t oF SE IfR
SIGNATURE OFBUP,�
ESCROW 17�1
SIGNATURE OF S LLER'�;
�W,6VLE OF BUM 7�
_TTION
INSPIE(
�7
r
51 f4 TURE OF JOIN NER
App` T P
N A VED
AT6
",/(Q
CITY HAkBOR61<615ECTOR
SPECIAL, CONDITIONS THIS:PERMIT IS REVOCABLE BY THE CITY COUNCIL
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE
17 OR THE MUNICIPAL CODE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF.
WX FORm 66-1013 REv.
Y;,(
BUYER'S NAMECannery Villz _,LDUMESS C" FACILITY: PERMIT #
2800 28th St. #222, 7 ido Park Dr . , NPE
ica, CA 904F5TE-, ZNENO. FEE CH CK NO. DATE
310)450 961.3
APPROVED BY: ---EATE APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER HARBOR PERMIT
OCHD E]
ENG 1:1
COUNCIL F-1
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT.
ESCROW
INSPECT-riON
inree P
SELLER'S NAME(S)
SIGNATU
B ' UYER'S NAME(S)
NAMES TO BE 7�PED) LLC
V! 4wAlbr..& ",A, Lr—'
L blU AlUH OF JQINTV ER
El lq7 — � &101 A P
APP N A VED /�TE)
ITY A BOR
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: THIS PERMIT IS REVOCABLE BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE
17 OR THE MUNICIPAL CODE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. WX FoRid 66-1013 REv.
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Corporate Office
2800 28th Street, Suite 222
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310)450-9696 Ext. 365
(310)399-6545 (Fax)
December 14, 1998
Wes Armand
Fire and Marine Department
P. 0. Box 1768 Via Certified Mail
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Return Receipt Requested
Article No. P102 421 978
Re: Cannery Village Mobile Home Park
Dear Mr. Armand:
On November 24, 1998, the sale of the Cannery Village Mobile Home
Park from Three Pac Company to Cannery Village LLC closed escrow.
Under an earlier communication from you, we received a form to
transfer the Harbor Permit.
I have received the signed form back from the Seller and forward it
to you along with our check in the amount of $326.00 as payment of
the transfer fee.
Thank you for your earliest attention in this matter.
Very truly yours,
CANNERY VILLAGE LLC
By
Management Company, Manager
Da�O,� % Lloyd
Regid�ictl Manager
Enclosures
1111111 A P()
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
r)
RO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
Cl -
F
August 28, 199G
Stevem. Speir
Banc Commercial
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 680
Irvine, Ca. 92718
RE: Harbor Permit 221-0081-1, for 700 Lido park Drive,
Newport Beach, California
Sir:
Regarding a pier permit transfer for the property located at 700
Lido Park Drive, the structure was re -inspected and it was
determined that it conforms to City standards.
The permit will be transferred into the name of Three PAC.
I Silncerely,
Wes Arm -and
Harbor Inspector
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Martin Yacht Sales
714-723-4074 - Fax 714-723-4076
BUD MARTIN
700 Lido Park Dr., #40
Ne�vport Beach, CA 92663
P
I ej�>
.__CITY OF NEWPORT Bf,,A(�H
'NIEWPORT BEACH, CA 92653-8915
P.O. BOX 17 %630 ,
January 11, 1996
Steven Speier
Banc Commercial
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 680.
Irvine, California 92718
Re: Harbor Permit 221-0081-1, 700 Lido park Drive, Newport
Beach.
Dear Mr. Speier:
The City of Newport Beach Marine Department has received a request
to transfer pier permit 221-0081-1 for the property located at 700
Lido Park Drive. The facility was.inspected on January 10 and 11,
1996.
We cannot transfer the pier permit until the following deficiency
has/have been corrected and WE HAVE BEEN NOTI . FIED OF THE
CORRECTION:
1. A City -approved anti -syphon device is required at the water
connection for the water supply to the pier and float. A sketch
showing the approved type of device and its installation is
enclosed. The device presently on the water service is no longer
an approved backflow prevention device. This reWirement is in
accordance with Title 17 of the California Administrative Code.
2. All fire fightipV equipment meets Uniform Fire Code.
a) Both hose cabinets on the docks should be replaced
includinV the hoses.
b) Fire extinguisher at each cabinet. (2A10BC)
the wo_
c) A permit to do _k from the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department.
3. Electrical equipment must meet city Standards.
a) All receptacles must be either twist lock or GFI
b) The cold water must -be bonded. igwx
_,c) Electrical cords cannot be rur, across the walkway (gar Y)
installed, they must.be mounted
d) If any new receptacles are rall above the water.
1211 above the dock and 3011 ove
e) must apply for a building departffient permit to .1 do thevork.
The Newport Beach city C I ouncil Harbor Permit policies state:
1O. -D. ,At the time of transfer, all harbor structures
3300 Newport Boule,,rard, Newport Beach
With the City, s minimum plunbing,
shall be inspected for coiTpliance J -
electrical and structural requirements, and the conditions of the
existing permit. All structural deficiencies must be corrected
p�ior t6 transfer of the
permit.11
PLEASE ADVISE THI DEPARTMENT WHEN THE ABOVE DEFICIENCIES HAVE BEEN
re -inspection.
call 644-3044 to request a
Pi
P1
Wes Armand
Harbor Insp tor
,p
P0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
�ql
/,:OVL
January 11, 1996
Steven Speier
Banc Commercial
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 680
Irvine, California 92718
Re: Harbor Permit 221-0081-1, 700 Lido Park Drive, Newport
Beach.
Dear Mr. Speier:
The City of Newport Beach Marine Department has received a request
to transfer pier permit 221-0081-1 for the property located at 700
Lido Park Drive. The facility was inspected on January 10 and 11,
1996.
We cannot transfer the pier permit until the following deficiency
has/have been corrected and WE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF TEE
CORRECTION:
1. A City -approved anti -syphon device is required at the water
connection for the water supply to the pier and float. A sketch
showing the approved type of device and its installation is
enclosed. The device presently on the water service is no longer
an approved backflow prevention device. This requirement is in
accordance with Title 17 of the California Administrative Code.
2. All fire fightipV equipment meets Uniform Fire Code.
a) Both hose cabinets on the docks should be replaced
includipv the hoses.
b) Fire extinguisher at each cabinet. (2A10BC)
c) A permit to do the work from the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department.
3. Electrical equipment must meet City Standards.
a) All receptacles must be either twist lock or GFI
b) The cold water must be bonded.
c) Electrical cords cannot be run across the walkway (gangway) .
d) If any new receptacles are installed, they must be mounted
1211 above the dock and 3011 overall above the water.
e) Must apply for a building department permit to do the work.
The Newport Beach City Council Harbor Permit Policies state:
10.D. "At the time of transfer, all harbor structures
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
shall be inspected for compliance with the City Is minimum plumbing,
electrical and structural requirements, and the conditions of the
existing permit. All structural deficiencies must be corrected
prior to transfer of the
permit."
PLEASE ADVISE I�I
n EPARTM= WHEN THE ABOVE DEFICIENCIES HAVE 13EEN
D'
P -L call 644-3044 to request a re -inspection.
e c�
d __C
Wes Arman
Harbor Insp tor
COMMERCRAL
a national real estate company
November 16 1995
Wes Armand
City of Newport Beach
Marine Dept.
P. 0. 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: Cannery Village Mobile Home Park and Marina
700 Lido Park Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr. Armand:
Since the property was purchased in a trustee sale, I do not have a seller's name or
signature.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
David J. Oden
Property Manager
cc: File 42-do-ek
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 680 9 Irvine, California 92718
(714) 753-7777 - FAX (714) 753-7722
LU
4trI
co
cm
a)
0
cu <
a)
Z
0 C.)
_0 cu
C CD
cu a) 00
E Z P, t:
< , CD 0
0 a 0 -
co >,,c: 0 3:
CD CU 0)
3: 2 CL Z
------- ....
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
C,
It/ og
May 22, 1989
Carol Reisner
Lido Shores Properties
700, Lido Park Drive
Newport I Beach, CA 92663
re: Harbor Permit 221-81
Using the enclosed 3x5 card,
(1) type name of permitee.
(2) is the mailing address correct?
(3) sign as agent for permittee, AFTER typing permittee's name
(4) reissue check for $260
If you have questions call 644-3044.
Y
Tony M61u--t-
Tidelands Administrator
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
PO
0
Cl- F0 VRIT�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
December 29, 1988
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
J.R. Phillips Company, Inc.
Cannery Village Mobile Home Park
Attn: Mary Phillips Pittman
700 Lido Park Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: City of Newport Beach Harbor Permit 221-0081
Dear Ms. Pittman:
The City of Newport Beach has received a partially completed
Transfer Application and two checks totalling $260.00. It is my
assumption that the purpose of the card and the checks is to
transfer the above named Harbor Permit into a new owner's name;l
if so, we need some additional information.
Our records for the above permit, of which I am attaching a copy
for your information, show that the facility is now in the name of
Richard E. Shaw. The City Municipal Code requires that the Harbor
Permit 221-0081 be in the name of the upland property owner or the
long term leasee of the upland property. If you arer or if you
represent, one of these, please contact me and let me know. We
need to know in whose name the permit should be and that
individual or his representative should sign the application for
transfer.
I am returning to you
permit as it now exists.
answer any questions you
Sincerely,
Tony MZUM
Tidelands Administrator
the application card and a copy of the
You can reach me at 644-3044 and I can
might have.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
LOCATION
STATUS SHEET
HARBOR PERMIT TRANSFER
.�& f lajli;r�
PERMIT NO. .2.Z/-8/
Sel 1 er
Buyer—
Cate Application Received: Date Fee Received:
Request for Inspection made by:
Escrow Co. Date
Escrow Officer —Escrow No.—.. ---.—
Address Phone:
Date Inspection made:
Deficiency Letter sent: Deficiency corrected:
Transfer completed: Date
Inspection:
1. Location
105 Avenida De La Estrella
Suite #1
Son Clemente, California 92672
(714) 498-3770
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCER14:
ENCLOSED IS A CHECK IN THE A -MOUNT OF $250.00
TO COVER ALL COSTS FOR OUR PIER PERMIT.
THE ONLY THING' THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED
FROM THE PREVIOUS LICENSE IS THE MAILING
ADDRESS, WHICH I HAVE INDICAIED ON THE ENCLOSED
FORM.
IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE PHONE
ME AT THE ABOVE NUMBER. THA14K YOU.
CAROLE J. REISNER
OFFICE I-IA14AGER
BUYERS' NAME(S)
SAN CLR-%E\t71E
APPROVED BY:
OCHD
CNG
COUNCIL F
JUBLIC WORKS E
1 DEPT
ESCROW
INSPECTION
EJ
F
DE, LA EST ITUA
CA 92672
DATE
nj
ru
wj
03
03
-a
Wi
all
0
0
0
ru
Lp
0
a3
ADDRESS OF FACILITY: �E�RMIT 0
7 0 0 Tj DO PAM< DP,1VE - N P 21-0081-1
TELEPHONE NO. FEE CHECK NO. I DATE
714Z498-.
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER HARBOR PERMIT i
SELLERS' NAME(S) BUYERS' NAKE(S)
(ABOVE NAMES TO BE TYPED)
SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNA URE OF BUYER
SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNATURE OF BUYER
APPLICATION APPROVED IDATE)
i CITY HARBOR COORDINATOR
I SPECIAL CONDITIONS: THIS PERMIT IS REVOCABLE BYTHE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 15
i OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. WX FORM 44-1023 REV.
o -4
60
-M
MM
2
to
0
rri
0
nj
ru
wj
03
03
-a
Wi
all
0
0
0
ru
Lp
0
a3
ADDRESS OF FACILITY: �E�RMIT 0
7 0 0 Tj DO PAM< DP,1VE - N P 21-0081-1
TELEPHONE NO. FEE CHECK NO. I DATE
714Z498-.
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER HARBOR PERMIT i
SELLERS' NAME(S) BUYERS' NAKE(S)
(ABOVE NAMES TO BE TYPED)
SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNA URE OF BUYER
SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNATURE OF BUYER
APPLICATION APPROVED IDATE)
i CITY HARBOR COORDINATOR
I SPECIAL CONDITIONS: THIS PERMIT IS REVOCABLE BYTHE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 15
i OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. WX FORM 44-1023 REV.
-M
T
C5
0
0
Cr3
X
N
9y
F!,
it,
ru
nj
ru
wj
03
03
-a
Wi
all
0
0
0
ru
Lp
0
a3
ADDRESS OF FACILITY: �E�RMIT 0
7 0 0 Tj DO PAM< DP,1VE - N P 21-0081-1
TELEPHONE NO. FEE CHECK NO. I DATE
714Z498-.
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER HARBOR PERMIT i
SELLERS' NAME(S) BUYERS' NAKE(S)
(ABOVE NAMES TO BE TYPED)
SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNA URE OF BUYER
SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNATURE OF BUYER
APPLICATION APPROVED IDATE)
i CITY HARBOR COORDINATOR
I SPECIAL CONDITIONS: THIS PERMIT IS REVOCABLE BYTHE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 15
i OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. WX FORM 44-1023 REV.
-M
c
r
Cl r K ca- Nsolpavr &,6�4cl-1
43 Im P,-.ef
k 10
Z
Oo c
P2- A::�
ceA
Af
R r
Wr
R, SAL
s *Jim,
9 - I C%
0 cle--,q ,v
VICIMITY SkETCH
Nawpoar e�AY, CAL WcIaNIA
/ - Oel
Sir
s'b U) 01/,3 9 s ore 1;1--cs-5caf In rcert Onal &—o/&
orep A 5 below 11,7co�7 L-rver I -ow Warler-. Alfoxw�,"
ranqLv o/' /,'&,= Y--,61:>- 1,;7es
Ore cziOb1f.5,6&d /;7 -1h,"s - ScfC/,10,? O?r1VCW,,-O9>e1 3cr-
,06k7'18A-) Z- 0 7- PZ)A711,:�o L-5 7 Z.
CC=71 28 3
Ce rL-r ?
45 Ae-eiFr
-176
-ro 10
1 55I'� "f,
4,OPje cr�C -
r7
0 04
dr
, y 2
C-
if I
73'
-; 3 /75 1014 A IL
-1
45P S -r �-- 1-50,4 7-
7,;f> ae 1e--m1>Vep AVO
Z,4,VCASl A1,14
C, n -(F ZzA cr
-7�e,44)rC-SIAI ?12e / r,
32 /39,, Ae I�2e/ 145' COAIrRACrogf�-AM C- >A 7---",' '70
i
CITY OF NEWPOR- BEAC�l
HARBOR PERMUT
PERMISSION 15 HEREBY GFAN-Ft7D To COT STPUCT AMT.
MA4NTAIN T14E FAC-LlN- W,
AT THE Slflt7
THE HA.VCOR
ANY tP;7'�V"'L �'-'C%V-
IS NOT
TO% G�-V
'T C ":A j 411'%"
AND 'i%rA':7) J
IN ACCC4�-L-ANL-- Ve4aill -S."ILZ L7 UL -r litE (;Our -
CITY *4ARBOR COORDINATOR
,,7
PRERM12f R DATE
"CT -11"N PEHIB,41T
C ONSTRI,
DA -i E
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
5r-zCZ'P1L CMV"11MN&.
carr' -3 P -'W E:-w�-t'.nneem- Permit -7- - 7
Cri-ange County PermIt
AUTHOPUZ ME BY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. The southerly 60 feet of the originally
approved bulkhead shall be constructed
prior to March 1, 1980.
2. A performance bond satisfactory to the
City Attorney in the amount of $18,000
be provided by the applicant upon
issuance of the revised permit.
3. The original conditions of approval for
this permit shall apply to the revised
permit. These are:
a. The approval of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
b. That restroom facilities for the
existing marina be provided in
accordance with City Council Harbor
Permit Policies.
c. That the electrical, plumbing and
fire facilities be brought into
compliance with the Harbor Permit
Policies within 30 days of completion
of the bulkhead installation.
d. That no portion of the floats or
vessels tied to the float extend
into 28th Street extension.
e. That parking for the marina be
provided in accordance with the
Harbor Permit Policies.
Cl r Y, oA, Nsvpovr d-excl-1
43�'/AiPz�er
&, ,-72— / — 61/
f 0117 "1
7
A,
AL 4-0
14>
.WRIA., -IV C,
0 Pet —4,
w-Isr ICrTr
VICIMITY SKETCH
NjrwpoRr aAY, CAL IFC>;X-IA
SOUA7011.195 orc /,7 1"cel on& c/ff".:7/&
&Re FIA 5 be/okv A-Ico,7 Lower- I -ow 'Wox"-purp,
ro..79,e ol- /,-crlc /0 AAo,-,6o,- /1�7(rS
ore j 0 /. 'S h e- d /.;7 -//7 _Sr C 0 r,41C W ar.
,00P-718AJ Z— 7- 6,
ca7l. 25
0.84. 4Cee--r 49 Ae—eirr
/x
00
U.
Aie W 4F I,(
'je 2 0' A AAIP
W A 1- 7-0 t3C
7wel leIVIXII15
A
ell 5 r �r-
73
1H -AD
.4 A�
150,v- -.54"ps
124�01DVeO qAJD
,f,r,04-,4C--O,
TZA C7-
_32 L 212_1 / 7
A oae,5 ss,- CoAlr-VA C rO Aff fS.4*1 le&ilrr DA 7----,'
BUYERS' NAME(S)
ADDRESS OF FACILITY: PERMIT #
ard
Ci
Richard E7;�Shaw-- Park Drive
I- 632--Lid,6- 221-081
MAIL�ZNG �ADDRES-
FEE CHECK NO. D TE
)o
300 N6 Citrus Avenue
331-053.
APP T150.0 133 2/21/78
ROVED BY: DATE APPLICAMN 15 HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER HARBOR PERMIT
L/,')1-4'Delaneys Cannery
OCHD M
VIllacfe Richard E. Shaw
SELLfff NAME(S) BUYERS' NAME(S)
ENG (ABOVE OBE-T-YPED)
COUNCIL Lp
PUBLIC WORKS IGNATu SE ER SIGNATURE OF BUYER
DEPT.
ESCROW SIGNAM E
RE F SEL-LER
ilGNATURE OF 13UYER
INSPECTION
SIGNATURE OF JOINJ OWNER
-)c f — ;L 7"1%;p
?--APPLICATI ROW A
r7l
LIN
CITY BOR ORD] ATO
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.-- THIS PERMIT I V
OF THEWUNICIPAL CODE% SAE, OCABLEPY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF.
WX FORM 66-1013 REV.-
A Address: Street address'of facility
i RECEIVED
/c. Mailing address of new owner
A. Telephone number of new owner — """-'�SEP 0 7 1988
/e Fee: $260.00 j.R. PHILLips'
Application -portion: GONIPAI"lY, INC,
/1 Fill in permit number if known. If not known, leave
blank and the number will be supplied by the Marine
Department.
Y01 -K (2) Type or Print names of sellers "d buyers.. 00
rJtV(3) Obtain signatures of sellers, buyers and jointowner,
if appropriate.
2. When approved, the applicant will receive a copy of the appli-
cation signed by the Tidelands Administrator. Any special con
ditions pertaining to the facility will be listed on the card
and the dates or previously issued permits or approvals by
.other agencies will be indicated. - - r!
�O�K3. If the new owner desires a copy of the drawing of the facility,
he may purchase one from the Tidelands Administrator for $1.00.
�j I A-
9/2/88
Please noteabove instructions.
Transfer fee is $260.00 4��'
Please indicate name in which the permit is to be held
e must have signatures and names. for SELLER(si and BUYER(s). MO-A-Q—
If you have questions call 644-3044
er i
2/18/86
CITY OF NEWPOR'"I" BEACH
f,
11.0. BOX 17 68, N E\vvowr BEA(Ji. CA 92063-3884
Owner/Occupant
632 Lido Park Drive
Newport:Beach, CA 92663
Dear Sir:
A check of the City's Harbor Permit files has revealed that the
permit for the pier and float at West Side of. -'the Rhine, Newport
Beach is registered to J.R. Phill-ips Company.
A transfer application must be completed and a transfer fee
paid each time the permit has changed ownership.,
Chapter 17.24.030 of the Municipal Code addresses the transfer of
a permit and reads as follows:
"No person shall transfer a permit for a pier, float or
similar structure granted under the provisions of this
chapter without prior written approval of the City".
Failure to pay , the transfer fees can be grounds for revocation of
the Harbor Permit in accordance with Chapter 17.24.,090 of the
Municipal Code.
Your cooperation in bringing this permit up to date will avoid
any action by the City.
Yours truly,
Tqny Melum
Tidelands Administrator
TM:db
The enclosed p4,er permit bill is now due.and payable.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
W.P0_
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
i3
'q'Ll FOV:L
May 21, 1980
Mr. Dick Monson
150 N. Santa Anita
Suite 300
Arcadia, CA 91006
Dear Mr. Monson:
Attached is a copy of the permit for the property at 632 and
700 Lido Park Drive. The construction covered by this per -
has been completed and.the applicant has met the condi-
tions listed on the reverse side of the permit.
If I can be of further assistance:in this regard,,.-Olease
call at 640-2156.
Sincerely,
Tony Melum
Tidelands Adminstrator
TM:ak
attch
City Hall - 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
�U4
C/ cla. Nsmpaer da�4clv
ro Z�.. 'gcoeA
t4
vi
ID
00'
k -w
P, WW Ci
-PI.4 AV CIO-,
as Oiro I
-D4
0
e /.r;" A,*A.4 46 "Crr,,
-V .
VIC)MITY I<E. T C H.�
Nawposrr t5AY, CAL I P'O A N IA
dI .10= *.0 Kk-
Or& 117 Arel Ono'
O'RP 5 belOW /L'�FC�017 Lowe'r Zoe/ klaffee.
ore C.7jobItsheal r;7 //P;s e c o.4%,ve w
Lb;r Z.
7:
4 Ce euc
-17
Ale-)
.4,0,01e
0, ICA M12
-JoL%O
73
30
00, it/
7
.41"or
.3
s 7' RX
AODW
a
C,4x-j r:9 IVX 'k ef 3 79A C7 -
Io
-1o6 Aoz),e,--ss 32 1— Cadvr-Q-A C roC S 11 M I-eIv -rf /7
0
� M14 `�11�0� WIF
MOR PE
GnANT0,P 70 COMIGYRIUC7 AND
W -.4-tiz
CA ONANTAM f Vj E 4, W 5
AT TWE SITt.- 70 TkK�'.
H A b'� C. V �R P ri' 0
AP" SF 15,' L Q 4C, Ni�� F.;� 4i'f T 1 9
RS M GY It, �21A I U" I.I'l—, U—k' . �i T '7 17 7, T
TEM., (,M;;Y
'fir QW.L."
AND TZ-Algry 0, Alt 4�6' WF' 4M`x?1.j.,kv
4.14 ACCQ'VWANCr�- VM41 7TVLr. 3.7 OV 794f. MUVQXWm- Guiuz-
NATO
WTV DrHARSOR COG.RLIN
DATE
�11 it 11i"N
DATE. .... .... ..
4E ATTACHED, SHEET
VAL
Corps of Magi'naerz porai�t
Grange County 4me;rVrjjt
AUTWORMED GY CMV COUNCIL
'51 -
ON, 7— 7
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. The southerly 60 feet of the originally
approved bulkhead shall be constructed
prior to March 1, 1980.
t
2. A performance bond satisfactory to the
City Attorney in 'the amount of $18,000
be provided by the applicant upon
Issuanceu, the revised permit.
3. The original conditions of - approval for
.this ermit shall apply to the revised
permd. . These are:
a. The approval of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
b. That restroom facilities for the
existing marina be provided in
accordance with City Council Harbor
Perm -it Policies.
c..� That the electricalglumbing and
fire facilities be rought into
compliance with the Harbor Permit
Policies within 30 days of completi
of the bulkhead installation.
d. That no portion of the floats or
vessels tied,to the float extend
into 28th Street,extension.
e. That parki.ng for the marina be
provided in accordance with the
Harbor Permit Policies.
luwkwein Bot*Aeou
WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION
February 20, 1980
City of Newport Beach
Marine Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attn: Tony MelLun
2410 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Telephone (714) 673-1960
Contradors License No. 258975A
Re: Permit #221-081, Bulkhead for Richard E. Shaw, 632 Lido Park Drive:
Dear Tony,
Enclosed, is a copy of the above referenced permit for your
inforrnation.
We intended to start setting this wall on the 18th., but due to
the storms, our schedule has changed drastically. We have not been
able to pour all the bulkhead panels because of the rain, plus with all
the repair work in the harbor, we are getting behind in our schedule.
I wish to ask for some delay in the completion date of March 1, 1980,
as specified in the Special Conditions on the reverse side of the
permit. I I -lope the delay will not be in excess of 2 or 3 weeks.
If you wish to discuss this further, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
--Lv
Sam Kni
SIVWP
enclosure
MARINE DEPARTMENT
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM., Tidelands Administrator
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT #221-081 (RICHARD SHAW)
In response to Councilman Strauss' inquiry regarding Condition "3 d" on
the subject permit approved by City Council on February 27, 1978, the
following is a brief history of this permit.
A. Original permit application by Delaneys Cannery Village approved by
City Council on February 10, 1974 with this condition attached,
B,, Property acquired by James Schmitz. City Council approved revisions
to permit in May 1976. This condition still attached to permit.
C. Richard Shaw acquire . d property. City Council approved further revisions
to permit. Condition still attached.
Condition 3 d reads as follows:
"That no portion of the floats or vessels tied to the float extend
into 28th Street extension".
Section 21 A of the Council's Harbor Permit Policies reads:
"Boats moored at private or public docks shall not extend beyond the
projection of the property lines of the property to which the dock
facioity is connected in accordance with Section 20-C."
Section 20 B of the Policies reads as follows:
"All piers and floats for commercial properties may extend to the
projection of the property line."
Section 20 B allows a "0" setback on the side property line extension,while
Section 21.A prohibits the mooring of a vessel so that it extends across
the side propertyline. Therefore, Condition "3 d" was placed on the Harbor
Permit i ure compliance with the Policies.
'/e I den
GI n E. W Ide
Tidelands Administrator
Marine Department
G -EW: 11
1_2
April 13, 1978
MEMO TO FILE: 221-081
FROM: Marine Director
SUBJECT: MARINE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS, REFERENCE CONDITIONS OF
HARBOR PERMIT DATED MARCH,'27-1-978
NOTES:
1. Attendance: Hugh Coffin, Glen Welden, Dave Harshbarger, Mr. Riddle,
Craig Porst and James Person (Atty.)
2. Topic: Discussion of parking requirements for permit number 221-081.
3. It was the harbor permittee's impression that on-site parking require-
ments as required by the Harbor Permit Policies were not applicable
to this permit because of the situation that the marina bayward of
the trailer park had been a legal non -conforming situation.
4. The staff discussed this item with the permittees and subsequent met
on site and discussed possible alternatives for on-site parking. The
following points will be looked into.
a. Providing four tandem spaces at the southwest corner of the parcel
and an additional 3 spaces bordering the front of the parcel at the
southwest corner.
b. One trailer site currently unimproved will be discussed with
Mr. Shaw to determine if additional on-site parking can be provided
at this location at such time that the trailer tenant leaves.
5. The permittee to recontact the staff after meeting and discussion with
Mr. Shaw.
cc: Hugh Coffin
MARINE DEPARTMENT
February 27, 1978 ITEM NO.: H-11 (b)
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Marine Department
SUBJECT- HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-081:BY RICHARD SHAW TO REVISE A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BULKHEAD AND SLIPS AT
632 LIDO PARK DRIVE
Recommendation
If desired, approve the application subject to:
1. The southerly 60 feet of the originally approved bulkhead shall be
constructed prior to March 1, 1980.
2. A performance bond satisfactory to the City Attorney in the amount
of $18,000 be provided by the applicant upon issuance of the revised
permi t.
3. The original conditions of approval for this permit shall apply to the
revised permit. These are:
a. The approval of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
b. Th at restroom facilities for the existing marina be provided in
accordance with City Council Harbor PermitPolicies.
c. That the electrical, plumbing and fire facilities be brought into
compliance with the Harbor Permit Policies within 30 days of
completion of the bulkhead installation.
d. That no portion of the floats or vessels tied to the float extend
into 28th Street extension.
e. That parking for the marina be provtded in accordance with the
Harbor Permit Policies.
Discussion
On May 24 1976, the City Council approved a revised Harbor Permit application
by James �chmitz to construct approximately 232 feet of bulkhead and to replace
seven slips. Subsequent to that approval,, -Mr. Richard Shaw acquired the upland
property. Mr. Shaw now wishes to revise the original permit by deleting approx-
imately 118 feet of bulkhead from the project. There currently exists within
the area proposed for deletion, a dirt slope stabilized with ice plant. It is
the opinion of the staff that the slope would remain stable without the proposed
bulkhead.
PAGE TWO
APPLICANT: RICHARD SHAW
The proposed.revision would provide for:
a) Construction of a bulkhead at the northerly end of the site Where presently
exists a badly deteriorated -pier landing.
b) Replacement of the existing slips.
c) Replacing an existing wood pile retaining wall within two years.
The applicant has expressed a desire to postpone the installation of the southerly
60 feet because of financial considerations. Condition #2 listed in the Recommend-
ations listed above would provide assurance that the existing wood wall be replaced
by the permittee thereby eventually eliminating the slowly deteriorating wall.
D. HARSHBARGER, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
r -'Glen E. WelZden
Tidelands Administrator
GEW:11
TO: Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
From: Craig K. Porst
Agent for Richard E. Shaw
Re; Harbor Permit No. 221-081
Bulkhead and Dock Construction
632 Lido Park Drive
Permit holder does hereby request amendment of above -referenced permit to
allow for less bulkhead construction than has been authorized. Attached
drawing no. 1 shows current permit allowance for 232' of bulkhead
construction. This consists of replacing 549 and 601 sections at either
end existing in a deteriorated, unsafe, and unsightly condition, and an
additional 118' of new bulkhead joining the two existing ends.
Drawing no. 2 depicts the amendment desired by the permit holder. That
is -to replace the before -described 54' and 60' sections per specifications,
but not to add 118' of new bulkhead construction, joining the two existing
ends. Authorizati on to replace the existing boat slips, as allowed in the
permit, is not affected by this request.
Consequently, it is the intention of the permit holder to replace existing
bulkheads and boat docks with new, modern, safe, and sightly materials and
repair the general area from an eyesore to one of beauty and pleasant
surroundings befitting the adjoining areas and general condition of the
City of Newport Beach.
It is the opinion of the permit holder, local residents and business owners,
Army Corps of Engini--ers, California Coastal Commission, and the California
Fish and Game Department, that the described permit amendment is superior
to the original request -as it allows upgrading of the general area without
disruption of the existing natural terrain. The above -referenced agencies
have approved the requested amendment.
Therefore, the permit holder requests permission to immediately begin
construction for replacement of the 54.1 bulkhead section, (A), followed by -
dock and slip construction, followed by replacement of 601 bulkhead section,
(B), within two (2) years from permit date. A performance bond of $15,000.00
will be placed with the City as assurance.for eventual replacement of the
601 bul]�,head section., w
Respq4tf ully.Aiubr�dtt'e
Craig Porst
Agent for Richard E. Shaw
PAGE TWO
APPLICANT: RICHARD SHAW
The proposed.revision would provide for:
a) Construction of a bulkhead at the northerly end of the site where presently
exists a badly deteriorated pier landing.
b) Replacement of the existing slips.
c) Replacing an existing wood pile retaining wall within two years.
The applicant has expressed a desire to postpone the installation of the southerly
60 feet because of financial considerations. Condition #2 listed in the Recommend-
ations listed above would provide assurance that the existing wood wall be replaced
by the permittee thereby eventually eliminating the slowly deteriorating wall.
D. HARSHBARGER, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
Glen E. Welden
Tidelands Administrator
GEW:ll
Cl r �� az� N..:wpoer 9,6�4cq
Y
A
sk
Lai 0
I'le"i
0
IA) 0
ro zo,,E 6COeA
Af
Ara ISILAA,
ago&*, 041.
CO'W~A
0
IL
_K7 %
VICIMITY SkETCH wssr
rrr
/0/,? ej 'IC/ Z- 16
Nawpoowr aAY, CAL IFOMNIA
IL F -r x
.17 rl,,,( al)OP
os -P P1.4 5 below A'Iropy I -owe,- Low Way'�e--.
eon. 9 do �-o x 1,wo -/Or/,y 146.rho.- 4�7,rs
Ore /;7 -1h;.S 01rAI&W,,001-1
Peg r1D o 7 z�
/ 71.,Cof
4- A ce 0,
1-,4AICArreZ ADOW
A ppL / c-.4Aj -r:5 A1,4" A? -�4 I'j C, 7-�.a/6 Z3 7-gAC7-
OA /7
32 L 1,�26
MARINE DEPARTMENT
May 24, 1976 ITEM NO.: H-15 (a):
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Marine Department
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-081 BY JAMES SCHMITZ
TO CONSTRUCT A BULKHEAD AT 700 LIDO PARK DRIVE
Recommendation
If desired, approve the application subject to the following conditions:
1. The approval of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. That restroom facilities for the existing marina be provided in
accordance with City Council Harbor Permit Policies.
3. That the electrical, plumbing and fire facilities be brought
into compliance with the Harbor Permit Policies within 30 days
of completion of the bulkhead installation.
4. That no portion of the floats or vessels tied to the float extend
into 28th Street extension.
5. That parking for the marina be provided in accordance with the
Harbor Permit Policies.
Discussion
Council originally approve an application for a bulkhead and revised
float configuration for this location on January 27, 1974. This
project is being brought back to Council for review and approval
at this time because of a change in ownership of the uplands, the
proposed bulkhead has been moved landward and the applicant wishes
to retain the existing slips rather than replace them.
An EIR prepared for the original project concluded that the proposed
bulkhead would have no adverse impact and in fact would be considered
beneficial in that it will control erosion and will eliminate a
11waste sink for society's detritus".
COUNCI
0
,cc%
C
Motion
Ayes I
Motion
Ayes
Absent
Motion
Ayes
Absent
LMEN
0 -P I,:. ,
0
'A
A
x x
�x � x �x
Volume 32 - Page 48
CIT v- OF NEWPORT
BEAL-11
.MINUTES
February 27, 1978
INDEX
Proposed Ordinance
No. 1761, being, AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION
19.08.060 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING MERGER OF CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY
SUBDIVIDED LOTS, was introduced and passed to
second reading on March 13, 1978.
Mayor Pro Tem, Barrett stepped down from the Council
table due to a possible conflict of interest on the
next items.
2. A memorand from the City Clerk advising that
Resub 572/
the appeal of William Lester from the decision
Lester Appeal
of the Planning Commission denying Resubdivision
(2880)
No. 572 to�create two parcels of land for
residential development where one lot now exists
at 600 - 15th Street, on th6.northeasterly side
of 15th Street, between St. James Road and Kings
Place in Cliff Haven, has been set for public
hearing on March 13, 1978, was received and
ordered filed.
3. A report was presented from the Marine Department
Rd'rbor�
regarding Harbor Permit Application #221 -081 by
Permit
Richard Shaw to revise a previously approved
(304F),,w�"
permit for a bulkhead and docks at 632 Lido Park
Drive.
'Harbor Permit Application #221-081 was approved,
subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Barrett resumed his seat at the Council
table.
Mayor Dostal adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Volume 32 - Page 48
CaTY OF NEWPORT BLACH
COUNCILMEN
0 LP
kP U,
tP A
February 27, 1978
10. The plans and specifications for Water and Sewer
Water/Sewer
Main Replacement Across the Grand Canal --Balboa
Main
'
Island, Contract No. 1959, we re approved; and the
Replacement
'
City Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids
Grand Canal
to be opened at 2:30 p.m. on March 16,L1978. (A
(2881)
report from the Public Works Department)
11. The follo ing Harbor Permits were approved:
w
-Z
Ha bo
Pe ; mits
(a) #129-1931 by the Boy Scouts of America to
3C 4F),,)
.revise a previo4sly approved permit for a
bulkhead and docks at 1931 W. Coast Highway.
(A report from the Marine Department)
(b) Removed from the Consent Calendar.
12. The following budget amendments were approved:
BA -65, $400.00 increase in Budget Appropriations
and increase in Revenue Estimates, for purchase
of card tables and chairs for the Community
Youth Center with donation from Tuesday Morning
Club, from Unappropriated Surplus and Donations
and Contributions to PB&R-Recreation, Equipment,
N.O.C., Park and Recreation Fund. (A report
from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director)
BA -66, $842.70 increase in Budget Appropriations
and increase in Revenue Estimates, for purchase
of telescope for Ensign View Park with donation
from Daughters of the American Revolution, from
Unappropriated Surplus and Donations and Contribu
ti6ns to Ensign View Park - Phase II, Park and
Recreation Fund. (A report from the Parks,
Beaches and Recreation Director)
BA -67, $5,875.00 increase in Budget Appropriations
and increase in Revenue Estimates for professional
engineering services for Ford Road and MacArthur
Boulevard intersection modifications with . I
contribution from the County Arterial'Highway
Financing Program, from Unappropriated Surplus
and Donations and Contributions to Ford Road -
MacArthur Blvd. Intersection Modifications,
Arterial Highway Financing Fund.
BA -68, $9,050.00 increase in Budget Appropriations
and increase in Revenue Estimates for professional
engineering services for Ford Road and MacArthur
Boulevard intersection modification.s with
contributions from the State, City of Irvine, and
private property owners; from Unappropriated
Surplus and Donations and Contributions to Ford
Road -MacArthur Boulevard Intersection Modifica-
tions, Arterial Highway Financing Fund.
ITEMS REMOVED'FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
l.. A report was presented from the Assistant City
Lot Mergers
Attorney regarding the "lot merger ordinance.11
0-1761
(2875)
Volume 32 - Page 47
P
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
U
February 15, 1978
Bill Cruz
Laguna Shores
301 Forest
Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Dear Bill:
Enclosed is a transfer application card for Harbor Permit #221-081.
This should be signed by both the seller and buyer of the property
at 6132 Lido Park Drive and returned to me along with the transfer
fee of $150.00.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to Trautwein Brothers
on February 6, 1978 regarding the project at 632 Lido Park -..Drive.
The billing for the annual permit fee is in the correct amount and
will be changed to reflect current ownership.
Sincerely,
6GI en E. 'Wel den
Tidelands Administrator
Marine Department
GEW:ll
Enclosure
City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 6, 1978
Sam Kniss
Trautwein Brothers
2410 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Sam:
This letter is written in response to your request of January 25
for certain modifications to a harbor permit issued to James
Schmitz to construct a concrete bulkhead and replace existing floats.
You indicated that a new owner has taken possession of the upland
property. The harbor permit, therefore, must be transferred from
Mr. Schmitz to the new owner and the necessary fees paid.
The harbor permit issued to Mr. Schmitz for the bulkhead and floats
was approved by City Council, as is required under the Harbor Permit
Polidies, on May 24, 1976. The Marine Department staff does not
have the authority to approve any modification to the permit approved
by City -Council. Therefore, your request to build a portion of the
new wall and to place tongue and groove sheeting bayward of the
existing pole retaining wall cannot be approved at this time.
Should your client wish to proceed with the modifications, a request
must be made to the City Council to amend the permit. Should the
request be made, the Marine Department will recommend against the
tongue and groove sheeting.
Additionally, it appears that both the Coastal Commission and the
Corps of Engineers permit may also have to be amended.
Your request to use a portion of the street -end has been referred
to the Traffic Division of the Public Works Department.
City Hall * 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beacb, California 92663
Sam Kniss
February 6, 1978
A visit to the project site revealed that both water and electricity
for the project is supplied from the businesses located across 28th
Street. These utilities will have to be supplied from the uplands
adjacent to the project and any existing conduits across 28th Street
removed.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 640-2156.
Sincerely,
", GI
�"Gl n ZE.Welden
Tidelands Administrator
Marine Department
GEW:ll
�V'
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 2711
eK
Los Angeles, California 90053
IN RULY REM TO
SPLCO-N 1 February 1978
Mr. Steve Barrett
Gillis and Derby
2806 Lafayette Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr6 Barrett:
Your permit, No. 76-153, has been validated and is inclosed. Notice of
Authorization and Work Status Forms are also inclosed.
Sincerely yours,
3 Incl HUGH G. ROBINSON
1. Permit Colonel, CE
2. Notice of Authorization District Engineer
3. Work Status Forms (dupe)
Application No. 76-153
RICHARD E. SHAW
Name of Applicant
Effective Date 1 February 1978
1, February 1981
Expiration Date Jif applicable
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PERMIT
Referring to written request dated 2 August 1976 for a permit to:
X) Perform --work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant
to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899 133 U.S.C. 403); -
X). Discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the Army acting
through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (86 Stat. 816._P.L__92_-.5Q01;,�_
nsport dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of
the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 186 Stat. 1052; P. L. 92-532);
-.4 (Here insert the full. name and address of the permittee)
c ard E. Shaw
1990 South Coast Highway
Laguna Niguel, CA 92651
Is hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army:
to construct a bulkhead, backfill with -4 (Here describe the proposed structure or activity, and its
approximately 1,000 cubic yards of native intended use. In the case of an application for a fill
permit, describe the structures, if any, proposed to be
material, install approximately 150 cubic erected on the fill. In the case of an application for the
yards of riprap, consisting of 8" to 10" discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters
rocl� in front of the bulkhead, and replace or the transportation for discharge in ocean waters of
(7) -seven existing boat slips with (7) dredged material, describe the type and quantity of
material to be discharged.)
seven n6w boat slips, 7 --
-in Newport Bay, Pacific Ocean, -a (Here to be named th e ocean, river, harbor, or waterway
concerned.)
at 632 Lido Park Drive, Lot 2, Tract -q (Here to be named the nearest well-known locality—
City of L preferably a town or city—and the distance in miles and
Lancaster Addition, Newport tenths from some definite point in the same, stating
Beacht County of Orange, California. whether above or below or giving direction by points of
compass.)
—in sxr.ri.nce with the plans and drawings attached hereto which are Incorporated in and made a part of this permit (on drawings: give
file number or other definite identification marks),
"Mr. James J, Schmitz"
Sheet 1 of I
Dated: 10/12/76 --------
subJect to the following conditions:
1. General Conditions,
a. That all activities identified and authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit; and that any
activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit which
may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this permit, in whole or in
as set forth more specifically in General
Conditions j or k hereto, and in the institution of such legal proceedings as the United States Government me L y consider appropriate,
whether or not this permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or In part.
ENG FORM
I APR 74 1721 EDI TION 0 F JUN E 1968 IS 0 BSOL ETE.
I
(ER 1145-2-303)
MAtt4TENANCE-DREDGING:.,-(,I-)-,Ttiat-whon Aho work authorized herain- includes periodie-mintenanco-dradoing,3t4nay,be..performad
date, of -issuance. of, this- pormit,.(ton.,-Y-oot:s...unless-otheswisa Indicated) ;-and.(Z-Tbat--xh&-
WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION
City of Newport Beach
City Hall
2410 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone (714) 673-1960
Contractors License No. 256975A
January 25, 1978
3300 Newport Beach, California
92663
Attn: Glen E. Welden, Tidelands Administration
Dear Glen;
We have a contract with the new owners fo r the properity
at 632 Lido Park Drive to build new docks and a portion of the
seawall as ahown on the attached drawing.
I am requesting the use of a portion of the street end
at 28th Street to pour the seawall panels.
is due-dhy day
The permit f rom the Corp. of Engi 7
and the new owner will be hand carrying to you and of course
my request is dependant on the -approved permit.
A new subject at 'this site is the placing of tongue and
groove'shee-ting on the front face of the poles laid -on edge
as a wall. This sheeting would be dug into the ground and nailed
to the poles :bn an attempt�tostop the loss of dirt from behind
the poles. This is a temporary measure which would be corrected
in the future, when the owner builds the balance of the seawall.
I believe there is some money problems at this time.
'If you have any questions , feel free to contact me.
Sincerely;
TRAUTWEIN ROTHE S
S am Kniss
ZA
10
0
119 q
-A)
Y
Cl 7- y, OArNs�poyr J6 -,4c1-1
'IX
a I
oll
"4w"pwf
P, 'CAL
N11- �4-
C,
, ol
0 Pt,
cle-
J
tTr
VICIMITY SKETCH
u
0. NaWpoRr 5AY, CAL IPofttQIA
Sc N
0.47 3 beloty A-leo,? ZO.VL-r LOW k101tfel-�-
Av'6�Poe 1,17C5
Po�i La -f- a
Pov-t. �,*f
I -q3 AC -1, v
VL
ui
Al
IGO'
.... .... - --------
14
M -LC
2 S
Nr,� PI r
It
TH4-- ,5'11/;Ve
;:-Q. I't (tot
r , I,,—
Z3
Jl rh it.,;
C)A 7-,�'
Ly
oo ee ss \Ly �K
STATE OF CALIFORNIA D G. BROWN JR., G. e r
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COVT REGIONAL COMMISSION
666 E. OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 3107
P.O. BOX 1450
, 119"
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801
(213) 590-5071 (714) 846-0648 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT;;.
Cr
-2449
Application Number: P-12-5-77
Name of Applicant: Richard E. Shaw
1990 South Coast Highway, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Permit Type: Ell mergency
F1 Standard (Transfer)
FlAdministrative
Development Location: 632 Lido Park Drive, Newport Beach, CA
Development Description: Construct bulkhead to connect two existing bulk-
heads, replace boat slips with new boat slips to accommodate same number
of boats (25-30), remove sediment to accommodate precast bulkhead and fill
water area behind proposed bulkhead, with conditions.
I. The proposed development is subject to the following conditions imposed
pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976:
Prior to issuance of permit, applicant shall subipit revised plans/ a signed
and notarized statement indicating/agreeing: 1. along the base of the new
bulkhead shall be rip rap as approved by U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife;
2. the number of boats to be docked in the project area shall not change
(25-30); 3. the depth of the water shall be maintained as required for boat
mooring; and 4. indicating that the increased landfill area shall be used
only as a view area for the trailer park. PERMIT EXPIRES: —April 25, 1978
Condition/s Met On December 6, 1977 By dp C:;,6
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
II. The South Coast Commission finds that:
A. The proposed development, or as conditioned;
1. The developments are in conformity with the provisions of Chapter
3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and will not prejudice
the ability of the local government to prepare a local coastal
program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter. 3 of
the California Coastal Act of 1976.
2. If located between the nearest public road and the sea or shore-
line of any body of water located within the coastal zone,' the
development is in conformity with the public access and public
recreatipn policies of Chapter 3 of the California, Coastal Act of
1976.
3. There are no feasible alternatives, or feasible mitigation
measures, as provided in the California Environmental Quality
Act, available for imposition by this Commission under the
power granted to it which would substantially lessen any signi-
ficant adverse impact that the development, -as finally proposed
may have on -the environment.
III. Whereas, at a public hearing, held3on November 29, 1976 at
Torrance by a, 11 to 0 vote permit application
number P-8-16-76-8659/.2449 is approved.
IV. This permit may not be assigned to another person except as provided in
Section 13170, Coastal Commission Rules and Regulations.
V. This permit shall not become effective until a COPY of -this permit has
been returned to the Regional Commission, upon w—H-1—ch copy all permittees
or agent(s) authorized in the permit application have acknowledged that
they have received a copy of the permit and have accepted its contents.
VI. Work authorized by this permit must commence within two years from the
-date of the Regional Commission vote upon the applic-9-t—ion. Any extension
of time of said commencement date must be applied for prior to expiration
of the permit.
VII. Issued on behalf of the South Coast Regional Commission on
December 6 197 7
M J. Carpenter
Executive Director
I, permittee/agent, hereby acknowledge
receipt of Permit Number P-12-5-77-2449 and have accepted its
contents.
(date) (signature)
/dh
Site Characteristics:
lk
MI
I Cal
A
Q,
Aa
F
ccjj Kr�
-LiA
L
t h
, lz�
SF�
L
-,j j
It
+
f
Site
Nk -
, 41'
NEWPORT BEACH
z
U
I LIE—
'6 Figure I
CC,�,T-��U9 WE -Al 5 FEE
55'
4 a
ON
MO Y-7
MOVED
vt
UOUR 9 1
TAR"WhIghs"T
to M
. . . . . . . . . . . . ....
VOW
==41
an �
ASIA
cS tam
sy�
i"MR1,
R!RARF
P - L -
MOW
-0m;
..........
5. 4
O'M W
7 a 2WR
ORRIN
pit!
!; V��,azz rp -
WIN
:
_w, �Ki_ eg-4
Koo
-Net
WAN
Ws
6-7
I M.19
7�
-IT-A
R,
ON -M "
w 7�
"Al
ZL.
iP �w
�Z;
—5—W-1 LAI , w
A, -M
W -A
Q7,
- guzWORIM51
oil
.............. . . . . . .
FS, LAGL v NI, :L
V
lei
nc�r_e_-_ once. E S
�P 22 1075
�Jycb_n V. FOJLc'y
District
1,0S P�V�qeJC5 Dist-rict
(_-07--ps of Lnginectn's
P. 0. BOX 2711
Los pnSe-jes, CA 90053
R A-tm. :;!avigation 13=anch 75-10-7
Ira-- tixe��_vert Bay)
12�,-Iaueylm- Sea Shantl
D -ear Colonel FOICY
we raviewed the rubl ic notice '17-ated .7une 1575, COXM_
to c 0 n ro t:z:,: c m, sta dod
C=nl_�g an v�ppl 6 in- -7la 51!�,MWLI and z
ac-, ico.
f *lit
-10=j- of and in. c—cco=-
Thm3e C01--ments -have been the Z�At:
Coo=d n 4
W4 _1e S,-, and in, tio Pc
& t1l tj
se -
Stat. 40-1, as mmerider27 16 U.S.c. 661 ar-t1ior-itics mn-
-ntn2. Vallues.
of the Intc_T_;_ _jvjrOr_=
I
10 in, -,_-I WlatZJ�on-�-�! EMr' 0
n 0 a I's 0 ccnS_:!!:�tcn t th t� =
�xt,
pt"blic notice WaS ir—ldn'17a-in that i" aid not C-- i, v a d-stailed & a, S
ect. n,.,W1 ic noit:',.ce =ercly rmpuestad a
crintion of- the c nti=e r.--Oj -
tr al I and La A review 011 the
pen: -alt to cons�xuct a. 'Se-aw, � — c
t
projo-at Plans inclll�:O an, um-m-v'm cram�til y OZ
,-L--! in t7:�1,3t intertidal ate& on w�hich nonwater de2en--de"
to 'be com-'t-t-acted t ��_o the Oo",S Of Emaincers Guduli:�_
There-fo-rep
Re'-. Vol. 39, .-. U.
n- vroxk In navi7ablc M-1-5 --cca:1 r,
:�7)rll 3, 3-974) our e-val-mitiOn CO -E P --I t! 5 t. no to tLe
c,: i� n c i-� c tia n ancl- jnstallai_-4on of e.,Ock bv-t
-m�r-,t incl ",'-c a xrcVle'vy Of tile entirc! proj-C4-
n is local- cn v. if�ac7 on?7� ��er- Nc 'port _Say
ro
'he-
as tl�c -r-cw--ort -�)av been
f
3 ub c a t e -a t 0 extensive rec--catlon,
'Iic� beti-een the
�r�"A=Suit 0Z etuch aCtIviticn, thero is Lncvitr_)Iy 'a conf
-Ou'.3c.- and t1lo 7_*4e!3OUr?_e h a: -a t-encllcrxc-�, t--) ec-re-de or dcstxoy the-
reso-,=cas.- Tnie prorposed project i�,- an occur-rencer praviding in -
xcascd commu, yfmq an nlread!y st-ro-S sod
rcial deriw.02-alen".
ac-'n'ttic
anel. lu-11"'I'life peraonnal a !--^iTucl Of-a.-ce conduc,_-Ad
fom t:H.n
a,:'T - t%
;-.4 ololylcal --turvey Off i:he zxca e ta 0 f I la
Ics a
a low OE f s h 0 2 c n,'U Ot�lf--:r
:'Ircbably due to pno-r WI -ter circ"11.2tic-I :L'I tha C_ a
beyond the plant of nLin; and_fi in, axe-, balhind the b,,iM-
11--'ad. 'It ia O'= nolicv to ear.
line nowwat- 's- tr= are "to b e �Crected
4,7
and othgx- al,�Ucrnal;Lves Are all -M
or, ab�,Ov,,
"ranose bu-IRhead an -c, m -,:hh-j
we wo�ald removo our O_bjcc'aOxA to T>a-mit issuaticet rovidedt
�h
Pemm-nel or--ar or cled zm. n or y to crraluata. e
P1.0ject moiliffication-n- end,
r e, corx"—,z
MVP Izv f
ce �-er , h b y d
to Preclude surFa nd (2ej3rj5 frn?-- e p-,, ir-, g t;L an.
rain ze Lnwabar tuebld-
S.-�!rvlcn ne-Sonnel or t%e S'-' e be a�v- a i �-b I e to di! -:;-
J. is
-0 MY- t
cvmn clo conce-ns v, th the C,
.rhc above v.-,;L,!ws zlmd ro-m—mondation"S consti tur�c the- renor-t.0--r. the Do-
off* the Interio= on thc c YlOtice
cr Martinzolft
Rocae
IWAUND G. a2OWN AL, Govema-
0� CALIFORNIA—STAT"4 kA�N()S COMMIS-S.ON
STATE LANDS DIVISION
1507 UTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
July 10, 19?5
File Ref PNCELA 75-107
De Laney s Sea S h; --n t y
o G lill s Derby, marine Contractors,, Inc.
1806 Lall"ayette A v e nu e
11'ewpart Beaxlh C� 9 26 6 0
Tl i e 3tate Lands Division has received Department of the Armyll
Los Angeles District, Corps of.Engineers Public Notice No. 75-107',.
12, 1975, 1 ive to your application for a pennit to construct
dated June -elat
and install a sea wall and dock facilities at Delaney's Sea Shanty, The
Rhine, liiewpo�-t City of Newport' Beach, Orange County.�
CL -at the subrier-ed lands over which your facilities
This is to a jvj 6e til C�
will extend are sovereirn lands of ',-.rie State of California that have been
Uanted by the ler.4 to the City of Newport Beach by Chapter,494,
.�slature
-
>
81,7
_�; Chapter ?0, Statutes of 1927 and Chapter Statutes-.
Statutes of 19111
f 19
-Formative only and the applicant need not apply
Th�s letter is ilH
to the "I'tate Lands Commi ssi(an I.o.- project authorization.
Verv-truly yours,
Do��
Land Ao -ent
cc: Department of Water 2esources
C. Y. Fellows
a)
Id
V
C,
OD
U)
rl
to
co
0
.,j
bo bo 4J
0
4
5-
14
C� I I I I I I
i
El El 0 El
0
E-1
Q
4-)
(d
el,
0)
0
4�
u
N
co
0
0
u 0
bD
0 -14
El El 0 El
0
E-1
Q
4-)
(d
el,
0)
(2
(Zk)
7Z
L4au�
LU
October 29, 1976
Colonel Hugh G. Robinson
District Engineer
Los Angeles District
Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 2711
Los Angeles, CA' DOM..
Ro: 76-IS3
The Rhine (Nciq,)ort Bay)
Dear Colonel Robinson: 'James Schmitz & Fran Delaney
This lettor is in reference to the subject public notice dated August 18,
1976, concerning an application to construct and install a bulkhead and
replace existing boat slips in Newport Bay, Orange County, California.
In our initial comments dated September 24, 1976 we recommended that -the
bulkhead be placed at or above the M111111 to prevent the unnecessary do-
struction of approximately 8,000 square feet of intertidal and subtidal
area by filling. Our comments also pointed out that the reduction in
water surface would increase water circulation problems and we felt the
proje�t was at least partially non-witer dependent.. Therefore, we could
not conceive such a proposal as protecting the aquatic resources or be-
ing in the best interest of the public.
On October 21, 1976 Service biologists alonp with personnel from the
Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, Newport Beach
Marine Department and the applicant conducted an onsito evaluation of the
project. The applicant's at-16�1'ornoy stated that the project was for pur--
poses of expanding the existing marina and was, therefore, water- d ep ondent .
Ile also stated that the reason for the proposed placement of the bulkhead
approximately 40 feet channelivard of NUBW was to preclude the buildup of
debris and to increase tidal flushing. Alternato bulhhead locations were,
discussed including one tying into an. existing log bulkhead south of the
Z
project shoreline, approximately 5 to 7 feet channelward of 1,V111-111.
We cannot concur with the contention that a bulkhead 40 feet channelward
of 1,dMIN is justified to prevent debris buildup alonry the shoreline. We
4'
feel that project purposes can be accomplished without encroachment into
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053
SPLCO-N -1 October 1976
Gillis and Derby
ATTN: Steve Barrett
2806 Lafayette Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Gentlemen:
In response to our Public Notice Number 76�153, concerning your
permit application, the inclosed correspondence was received from
the U.S. Department of the Interior - Fishand Wildlife Service.
Further action on your app lication is being withheld for a maximum
of 45 days, pending discussions you may have toward resolvi.ng the
objections with the agency concerned. If a resolution is not
-possible, please submit a letter of rebuttal.to this office covering
each of the points raised in the inclosed.correspondence.
If we can be of assistance in nego . tiating with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, please call our Navigation Branch at Area Code
(213) 688-5606.
Sincerely yours,
P
1 Incl R. P.YOU G, P.E.
As stated Chief, Construction -
operations Division
W;
3
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
IT. 1�
24000
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA. 92677
District Engineer
Los Angeles District
Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 2711
Los Angeles, CA 90053
Attn: Navigation Branch
Dear Sir:
Sept. 24, 1976
Re: 76-153
.The Rhine (Newport Bay)'
James Schmitz & Fran Delaney
We have reviewed the subject public notice dated August 18, 1976, con-
cerning an application to construct and install a bulkhead and replace
existing boat slips in Newport Bay, Orange County-, California.
These comments have been prepared under the authority of and in accor-
dance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and other authorities
!nvironmental values.
They are also consistent with the intent of the National Environmental
Policy Act.
- ------- L_
We find the public notice inadequate in that it did not give a detailed
description of the entire project. The public notice announced a re-
quest for a permit to construct and install a bulkhead and replace ex-
istin boat slips. A review of the project EIR, however, indicates that
project plans include an unknown quantity of fill in the intertidal area
on which non -water dependent structures are to be constructed-.-- Therefore,
--purs-uant---I--o---t-h--e--Coi'p-s---o--.� 'Enginee�s Guidelines for work in navigable and
ocean waters (Federal Register Vol. 39, No. 65), our evaluation must not
be limited to the construction and installation,of the bulkhead and boat
slips, but must include a review of the entire project.
The proposed project is located on a dead end channel of Lower Newport
Bay known as the "Rhine". Over the past few years, Lower Newport Bay
has been subjected to extensive recreational, commercial and residential
uses. In pursuit of such activities) there is inevitably a conflict
between the user and the natural resources of an area which has a ten-
dency to degrade or destroy the resources. The proposed project is
-2 -
such an occurrence, providing increased commercial development while
0
destroying an already stressed aquatic liabitat.
U
On July 18, 1975 Service biologists from the Laguna Niguel office con -
0
ducted a limited biological survey of the area. P reliminary results
of the survey indicated a low diversity of fish species and other
aquatic life,_pr-Qba -due to poor water circulation in the channel.
The notice states the purpose of the project is to improve the inter-
tidal zone and small boat useage. In actual fact, however, project
implementation as proposed will destroy thi! in ' tertidal zone (approx-
imately 5,500 square feet) by filling behind the bulkhead. An ad -
C>
ditional 2,500 square feet of subtidal habitat will also be destroyed.
The project will eliminate all organisms comprising the muddy inter -
0.
tidal community and reduce the numbers of those organisms associated
with it In addition, such an activity will further reduce water
1� �—�Tfie s e
surface,.thus increapin&-thg 1 t' n p-ro em.
_.pi�or wat(ZF ci�c�art
a ilverse impacts to public resources woul-d—acc-rue for strictly private
gains. Therefore, we can not conceive such.a. proposal as being in
the best interest.Qf the public'.
Considering the above, we can not approve of the project as proposed.
However, we would remove our objection to permit issuance provLded:
1. The bulkhead be placed at or above the MHHW line,
2. Service personnel are afforded an opportunity to
evaluate and approve project modifications and,
3. Appropriate safeguards are employed during project
construction to preclude surface runoff and debris
from entering the bay and to minimize water tur-
bidity.
The above views and recommendations constitute the report of the
Department of the Interior on the subject applic�Ltion.
Sincerely,
(!Zmes J. McKevitt
Field Supervisor
FEB:cd
cce ARD -Env., R. 0., Portland, OR
Dir., CDFG, Sacramenta, CA
Reg. Mgr., Reg. 5, CDFG, Long Beach, CA
Reg. Dir., NMFS, Terminal Island, CA
Reg. Admin., EPA, San Francisco, CA
Z)e " e �.,
u
C/ r Y-- ao lVewpoer Adz-4clv
Wu
POV-1 , 1--ji C
,S,t (_ t 'p, 4
O-q� Act*,
da.
"10'
PAA do,
VICIMITY 5KETCH
Nxwpcyay, DAY, CAL IrOANIA
,510 (/,'7 0 5 Or OF
&A;,P?A3 , be/Ow A-Teo�7
rcyng,o oil"
are
POO. �(,I-
1, 1;3 M,
11 VIA
"Ar",
14
n :,7 .3
R k
t�q T)
COA1rTA C ra
,45,o Apozess AV Wt
CITY OF NEWPORT 139ACH
HARBOR% PERM�4��m7
PERMISSIOr4 IS 'F C -(F
AXT,
MAIN"rAIN THE VAt:*Lflj��; xsv.�a,, 7z�
AT THF SUP,'� WWUA`x',K--6i. r5l"., v -, .51*.1-RIECor
THE pate 2,--T
CNi guma
Afty
os Noy
A,'N'D T�,�PjZ OWL,
re.
IN Vfj�71-k
CONST-RUCT10ZLY PE -Ho MIT
;7
DATEE .................
SEE ATTACJiED SHEET
�,�[ 60
FIE MIT NO: DATE
Corps 01, permIt ,7--1-7
Grange County Permit
0&er.- /,;' —(, — / 7
CEVY COMM
1. The approval of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
2. That restroom facilities for the
existing marina be provided in accordance
with C ity Council Harbor Permit Policies.
3. That the electrical, plumbing and fire
facilities be brought into compliance
with the Harbor Permit Policies within
30 days of completion of the bulkhead
installation.
4. jba� no portion of the floats or vessels
le to the float extend into 28th Street
extension.
5. That parking for the marina be provided
in accordance with the Harbor Permit
Policies.
P'()
41)zOFL
CALIFORNIA 926&o
MARINE SAFETY DEPARTMENT city Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
70 Newport Pier (714) 673-2110
APPROVAL IN CONCEPT
APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH as required for permit
application to the South Coast Regional Commission pursuant to California
Administrative Code, Sections 13210 and 13211.
General Des cription of Proposed Development: c
Z� � -e
Property Address: 70c)
Legal Description: At --
City Harbor Permit Number:
Applicant: � j -�e-
a Wes
Applicant's Mailing Address:
6,'-�'X Z Z2 e., v/, 11 10,
Applicant's Telephone Number:
I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing develo pment 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
&-�TThey comply with the current adopted Newport Beach General Plan,
Zoning ordinance, Subdivision ordinance, and any applicable specific
or precise plans or
0 That a variance or exception has been approved and is final.
APPROVAL IN CONCEPT
A copy of any variance, exception, conditional use permit, or other issued
permit is attached 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
Zoning Ordinance 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:.
0 Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt.
0 Has received a final Exemption Declaration or final Negative Declaration
(copy attached).
(D -Has received a Final Environmental Impact Report (copy attached).
All discretionary approvals legally required of Newport Beach prior to issuance
of 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
in�it is proposed.
This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all
applicable policies, ordinances, codes, and regulations of Newport Beach.
R. E. Reed
MaElne-Safe'tv Direc-tor
By
Si n _t re
(X /0 ", ,
P 4avz
Printed name andItitle of indivZdual signing
Date:
SPLCO-N
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.'O. BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90053
Public Notice No. 76-153
18 August 1976
Date Comments Due.*
20 September 1976
YOU ARE INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT
APPLICANT: James Schmitz & Fran Delaney
632 Lido Park Drive
Newport Beach, California
ACTIVITY: Constructio . n and installation of a bulkhead and the replace-
ment of seven existing.boat slips by ten new slips in Newport Bay,
632 Lido Park Drive, (Lot 2, Tract Lancaster Addition) Pacitic Ocean,
City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California, as shown on the
attached drawing.
PURPOSE AND USE: The improvement of the intertidal zone and small boat
usage by constructing a bulkhead, compatible with bulkheads adjacent to
the site, and ten new boat slips.
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORIZATIONS:' Approval will be required
fro m the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, prior to issuing permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This office does not intend to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Statement on this activity unless significant detrimental effects
are brought to our attention. Applicant has prepared an Environmental Impact
Report.
PUBLIC HEARING: Any person who has an interest which may be adversely.
affected by the issuance of a permit may request a public hearing. The
request must be.submitted in writing to the'District-Engineer within 30 days
of the date of this notice and must clearly set forth the interest which may
be affected and the manner in which the interest may be affected by the
activity. Activities under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (PL 92-500) will be considered in conjuction. with this notification.
CRITERIA: Your written comments or objections should include the number and
date of this notice and must reach this office within 30 calendar days. The
decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the
probable impact of the activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important
resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
�JTIOv
iXX
'WW — A?
1776 .,glib
Public Notice No. 76-153 18 August 1976
activity must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.
All factors which may be relevant to the activity will be considered;
among those are conservation, ' economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, historicvalues, fish and wildlife values, flood damage preven--
tion, land use classification, navigation, recreation, water supply, water
quality, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Details of
changed conditions on the final permit action will be provided upon request.
ROBERT H. REINEN
LTC, CE
Acting District Engineer
2
fill",
ed
Xb"
. owsor cp
#49! 10. 7'
S-1, MAJLW, "i
41P
IV &40
.3wb L
Dpoi
VICINITY SKETCH
Nsvw"wr IS^ Y, CAL tPoAPAIA
c6c It
s"o uon I�YeP7 9p S Or* 4PA/0re srs Ld
lWdlp IOA 5 6,rl*bV A-reopy ItOwdlr
Move 0/' /0 v*Z-dp./ "or -ho.- A�7cs
are e S jo 6/f'S.4,4d- 1�j 1h; 5 SeC oyr /V�� W
33
Go
0. 0 0": lot
IKA
x i44 1,9,
cl
4
P,
AV i ie WAWo Diva
u Ll
k"— U. 9: JoIr
to low
0
Scale
7JrAC7-
A6e'rs- MAMAML
A MISS (03a L�A'o POA
-0
CVAIMAC ro Ar I S
11' fichard terry environmental
LAND ASSOCIATES science & services
3903 Calle Abril San Clemente, Ca. 92672 (714) 496-6763
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
of
CONSTRUCTION OF BULKHEAD AND NEW BOAT SLIPS,
LIDO PENINSULA, NEWPORT BEACH
1 June 1976
CONTENTS
SECTION IX GROWTH INDUCEMENT IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION 39
ii
Page
SECTION I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
Project Name and Location
1
Objectives of the Proposed Project
1
Physical, Environmental, Economic, and Social
Characteristics of the Project
1
SECTION II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
5
Introduction
5
Land Forms and Topography
5
oceanography
6
Water Quality
6
Drainage
12 -
SECTION III
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT"
14
Displacement of Persons
14
Noise
14
Drainage
18
Geology/Soils
18
Marine Biology and Water Quality
19
Erosion and Siltation
23
Aesthetics
27
Terrestrial Flora
27
SECTION IV
PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
29
SECTION V
MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE
THE IMPACT
30
SECTION VI
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM
USE OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE -MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
32
SECTION VII
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN
THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT -BE IMPLEMENTED
33
SECTION VIII
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
34
No Project
34
No Bulkhead
34
Alternative Locations of Bulkhead
36
Land Use
37
SECTION IX GROWTH INDUCEMENT IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION 39
ii
CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page
SECTION X SUPPORTING INFORMATION 39
References 39
Organizations and -Persons Consulted- 41
SECTION XI APPENDICES 42
I. Development Standards 43
II. Marine Department, Harbor Permit
#221-081 45
III. Regional Water Quality Control Board
Letter 47
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1 Location/Topographic Map 2
2 Aerial Photograph 3
3 Land -use Map 4
4 Site Plan 4a
5 Photographs of Site 4b
TABLES
Table
1
Coliform Analyses
7
2
Dissolved Oxygen (Surface)
9
3
Water Clarity by Secchi Disk Reading
10
4
Heavy Metal Analysis of Sediments
11
5
Maximum Communication Distances
16
6
Noise Standards for Various Land Uses
16
7
Construction Equipment Noise Levels
17
8
Sediment Organisms
21
9
Terrestrial Flora
28
iii
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 1974, after review of several proposals,
Richard Terry-& Associates/Environmental Science & Services
(RT&A/ES&S) was chosen by the -Newport Beach Community Development
Department to prepare the EIR'on Delaney's Cannery Village on
behalf of the City. The proposed project herein involves onl y.
the construction of a bulkhead, rather than the entire Delaney's
Cannery Village, as originally proposed.
Discussions were held between the City and RT&A/ES&S
to outline the probable environmental issues and concerns.
Several meetings were held in which the City, developer/owner
and his agent, and RT&A/ES&S to discuss the project. These
meetings were held to reconcile possible potential adverse
impacts associated with the project if implemented.
In September 1974 a Draft EIR was submitted to the
Newport Beach Planning Commission and,circulated among
interested parties. Following public hearings on 19 September,
the EIR was revised and reprinted in October and again
recirculated. The City Council of Newport Beach held hearings
on the project on 5 December 1974 and 13 January 1975.
Following the 5 December public hearing, additional traffic
studies were carried out. On 13 January 1975 the City Council
approved Delaney's Cannery Village by a vote of 5 to 2, and
provided "Development Standards" for the project (Appendix I).
On 10 February 1975 the City Council was presented
a report from the Marine Department (Appendix II) regarding
Harbor Permit Application #221-081 of Delaney's, to revise
the existing boat slips, and to construct a new bulkhead.
This permit was approved by the City Council subject to:
(1) approval by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, (2) conditions
and recommendations by the staff (Appendix I), and (3)
facilities meeting Municipal Code requirements.
In preliminary discussions with the Coastal Commission
staff the Draft EIR dated October 1974 was reviewed; the staff
indicated that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
should first review and approve the EIR. On 10 March 1975 the
Regional Board submitted their findings. Subsequent
conversations with Mr. Zasadzinski of the RWQCB resulted in
meeting water quality criteria (see Appendix III), and
mitigation measures have been incorporated herein.
Following City Council approval of the basic EIR,
meeting water quality criteria acceptable to the Regional Board,
the EIR was again revised and reprinted. Insofar as is known,
the significant questions raised at the public hearings and the
RWQCB have been included in this draft of the EIR.
iv
Prior to formal hearings before the Coastal
Commission, the owners/developers withdrew their application
for construction of "Delaney's Cannery Village.,,
The project described herein involves only the
construction of the bulkhead and new boat slips. As indicated
above, these activities were reviewed and approved by cognizant
agencies.
v
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION
This project is called "Construction of Bulkhead and
New Boat Slips, Lido Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach."
The site is bordered on the west by a portion of Newport Bay
known as The Rhine, and to the south by privately -owned
property (Figures 1 - 5).
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project is the construction of a bulkhead and
new boat slips. Seven existing boat slips will be replaced
by 10 new slips. The objective is the improvement of the
intertidal zone and small boat useage by constructing a bulk-
head, compatible with bulkheads adjacent to the site, and
elsewhere on Lido Peninsula.
Bulkheading will be done as soon as the necessary
approvals have been obtained.
PHYSICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT -
The proposed project consists of the construction
of approximately 220 ft of'concrete bulkhead along The Rhine,
tying into existing concrete bulkheads at either end of the
site.
As shown in Figure , the landward portion of the
project site presently is a trailer park which is fenced,
walled, or landscaped on three sides, with the fourth side
(about 220 ft in length) open to The Rhine. Portions of the
side facing The Rhine have wooden bulkheads, while the
remainder consists of a steep bank; partly landscaped with
ice plant. Seven boat slips, housing approximately 25 to 30
boats, line this entire section of shoreline.
1
U
-MR -09M,
P P,
c o"", - , � -
e It -, . . '.
ZN.,
gi,
R"f
,.gg
40" `v T
TIM, IV
15
lyc,
15 F?
_Cc %
'0.
It'
cl
r3
AM
sg
'17
,r.- -e.
tP,
P'i
7?f" i
Alk
CD a IV 114). %
/All
GO
ifo
ri
1 0
lo
U V,Mdlh, C%,W�40 v.
ir
;ZT—
ID
ROULAFVAeo
po
r4
Ael'
A
L)
0Z
Jl
"4XV
mg
c'14
INkI, "I'au",N� -%;�.l
qg
_Rj
Z6
ri
m w
a a
Z,
Z
w
<0 'W
LL m 2
w 0
j
<
0 u
u
U < ,
LLJ
U) 0
a.
4z, 1 Y H-1
ri-14-71
+ cj., K O -W, troww+C4 gilt cl
, q6b o -v
K.L.,
0
Ex', �-i'i c� D44 �4,r
(No wv jr /arrr
VLIC'AJITY SKETCH Lr*mr
f4svwjw*Rr SAY, CAL liroftNIA U Jcr--r
-p
WILgM
5'0 U--) CY117 9 5 0�,, 4,x,-,o-css&dy ir) ortrell on& olono/e
Olop "A j .6clo- A-fco,7 Lower Zow k/avlep-.
rongpd, a/' /0 4-iFV �yOrh*ll 11�7C5
QrC -5eCy(00? Qlg'�V--W,490el
P. �t- L.t a
stef- 33
kk% 1. 43
Tor,
't 6, 00
00
o c e
IKA
f)
4
Li
r A D W4
I#E 'elyllviE
Figure
sc,%
A,PP4 C -.4A-1 rf A1,464AML �OMeS CP 7- 7-,CAC7- Kjl
-Ioa Aamee ss 1 4 o Pa 1-� cvA-,rwAcr-bAw
4 a
v
.1i
U)
4-3
rts
a
H
b
Ql
rd
.Y
rd
P4
N
N
rl
•ri
rd
p
H
O
rd
O
ro
.,-1
I.I. ENVIRONMENTAL.SETTING
INTRODUCTION
Newport Bay is an uniquely beautiful and vital asset
to southern California. Some of the shoreline has been
relatively undisturbed by man, but many parts have been, and
are subject to, intense development. Historically, people have
been attracted to the Bay for recreational opportunity and for
residency on or near the water. Unfortunatelythe activities
required changes in the Bay. Man has had to dredge and fill,
and has constructed bulkheads, piers, piles and jetties. While
many of man's activities in the Bay have contributed to a rising
standard of living, they have sometimes come at a high
environmental cost. The intensive development of the Lower Bay
for man's use has left little or no opportunity for preserving
the marine habitat. Efforts, have concentrated almost totally on,
the preservati ' on of the Upper Bay. On the positive side,
Newport Bay is considered to be one of the finest small boat
harbors in the world. It's waters, beaches, waterfront, and much
of its commercial and industrial activities have a strong
recreational/tourist/water-residential flavor. The success of
these man-made changes are reflected in exceptionally high land
valuesf and in the hundreds of thousands who visit the Bay each
year.
LAND FORMS AND TOPOGRAPHY
The proposed project is located on the north end of
Lido Peninsulat asand spit in Newport Bay (Figures 1 and 2 ).
Central Newport Beach itself is a long sand spit connecting to
the mainland near the mouth of the Santa Ana River, . and extending
parallel to the coast for about four miles. At the south end of
the sand spit, breakwaters have been constructed to stabilize the
entrance to the lagoon which separates the spit from the mainland.
Lido Peninsula is located at the westerly end of Newport Bay and
covers an area of about 35 acres.
The peninsula is topographically flat and about 10 ft
above sea level. Bulkheads have been constructed to encircle
Lido, Peninsula, exc - ept,for a short section on the southeast side
and portions of the project Area (Figure 2).
Newport Bay has been reclaimed to the point where
there exists few undisturbed.or natural topographic areas, flora,
or fauna (Stevenson and Emery 1958). Thus, while no detailed
soils,,fauna, or archaeological studies have been made at the
project site, evidence strongly.suggests unnatural conditions.
5
OCEANOGRAPHY
Newport Bay is a coastal lagoon consisting of a
shallow body of water that is partly cut off from the ocean.
The long sand spit forming central Newport Beach parallels the
coast, protecting the waters within the Bay. This sand spit is
a barrier of depositional origin.
The Bay has no effective inflow of fresh water, and
all water circulation is derived through the narrow (400 ft)
entrance at the south end of the Bay. Waters in the Bay are
quiet, shallow and typically marine.
The tidal range in Newport Bay is about 3.4 ft and the
diurnal range (i.e., the difference between mean higher high
water and mean lower low water) is about 4.9 ft. Tiaal extremes
are about -2 to +8 ft. Tidal current velocities may be as great
as 5 knots; however, the average is about 1.5 knots during
spring tides and 0.5 knots during neap tides. Tidal data are
lacking for The Rhine.
Because of the limited fetch in Newport Bay, waves
rarely reach more than half a foot in height. The dominant wind
is an afternoon sea breeze from the southwest which averages
5 mph.
WATER QUALITY
Water quality in Newport Bay is of considerable
interest and importance. Although the Bay is primarily used as
a small boat harbor, particular concern must be given to water
quality as it pertains to water -contact sports, shellfish
consumption, water circulation, odor, and aesthetics. Analyses
which are available, and which may serve as indicators of the
above characteristics are coliform counts, dissolved oxygen
content, water clarity, and heavy metals in sediments.
Coliform
Table 1 compares coliform analyses for The Rhine
(upper left) with similar analyses north of Lido isle (lower
right). The coliform group of bacteria includes not only organ-
isms originating in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals,
but also organisms from soil or vegetation. As such, they are
excellent indicators of contamination and pollution. In general,
the coliform median MPN (Plost Probable Number) for The Rhine is
greater than the values north of Lido Isle. Maximum MPNs have
about the same relationships, although they generally represent
influxes of storm water high in coliform counts.
, In Plarch 1967, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) adopted a "Water Quality Policy for Coastal
Bays, Marinas, and Sloughs." This states that, in shellfish
harvesting areas, the coliform MPN shall not exceed 70/100 ml and
6
Table 1 Coliform Analyses*
..(per 100 ml)
NOTE: Upper left values reflect Rhine (near end) measurements while lower right values
reflect open bay (hear Via Genoa, Lido Isle) measurements.
*California Department of Public Health Bureau of Sanitary Engineering and Orange
County Health Department.
**MPN = Most Probable Number 7
MPN**
% of Time Exceeded
% of Time
Year
Ocean -water Contact
Exceeded Shell -
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Sports Standard
fish Standard
(MPN>1000/100 ml)
(MPN>330/100 ml)
1963
6 0'1�
�230
4 ?
(26 samples)
<45
0
1964
60
7000+
8
(24 samples)
<45
230
4 5
_!,----O
1965
60
7000
<45
4
(25 samples)
'Y�
<45
60
"�< 4 5
0
1966
60
2400
<45
12
(Jan. -Aug.
25 samples)
1966
91
390
<30
0
-(Aug.-Sept.
<30
36
�<30
21 samples)
0
1967
150
2400
<30
4.2
20.8
(Aug. -Sept.
<30
230
<30
0
24 samples)
Z"�j
0
1968
930
430
0
8.3
" 3
(July -
12 samples)
1970
230
4600
39
2
7.2
42.9
42. 9
(July -
28 samples)
1971
90 11,000
<30
2.9
(34 samples)
3 0 4000
<30
2.7
2.7
1972
40
4600
<3
3.0
6.1
(April -Dec.
33 samples)
<30
1,000
130
3.0
6.1
1973
<30 > 24,00
<3
X<30
10.0
10.0
(Jan. -Dec.
50 samples)
<30 >24,000
.7
2.0
10.0
1974
80 11,000
30
8.7
26.o
(Jan. -July
23 samples.)
30 24,000
30
8.3
8.3
NOTE: Upper left values reflect Rhine (near end) measurements while lower right values
reflect open bay (hear Via Genoa, Lido Isle) measurements.
*California Department of Public Health Bureau of Sanitary Engineering and Orange
County Health Department.
**MPN = Most Probable Number 7
not more than 10% of the samples may exceed a MPN of 330/ml. The
analyses indicate that The Rhine was not safe for shellfish
harvesting during portions of 1966, 1967, 1970, 1971 and 1974.
The policy regarding ocean -water contact sports states
that not more than 20% of the coliform MPN shall be equal to, or
exceed 1000/100 ml, and no single sample shall exceed 10,000/
100 ml. The analyses indicated that The Rhine was generally
suitable for water -contact sports except during isolated
days in 1971, 1973 and 1974.
Dissolved Oxygen
Table 2 compares dissolved oxygen concentrations for
The Rhine (upper left) with similar measurements north of Lido
Isle (lower right). Dissolved oxygen concentration is an -indi-
cator of water circulation. Lack of dissolved oxygen concentrations
inaicate stagnant or anaerobic conditions with resulting odors
and unpleasant appearance. Surface dissolved oxygen concentrations
in The Rhine are consistently lower than those north of Lido
Isle; however, they are considerably above zero. (Saturation is
about 7.6 mg/l.)
The RWQCB's policy regarding dissolved oxygen in non -
circulating dead-end channels states that oxygen levels should
not fall below 4 mg/l. The measurements indicate that The Rhine
did not meet dissolved oxygen objectives during portions of
1966, 1967, 1968, 1970 and 1972.
Water Clarity
Table 3 compares water clarity for The Rhine (upper
left) with similar measurements north of Lido Isle (lower right).
Water clarity is measured by means of a Secchi disk, a round white
disk (approximately 121nches in diameter), which is lowered into
the water until it disappears from sight. This depth is recorded
as water clarity. This method provides only a rough approximation
of water clarity. The values shown in Table 3 are not sufficiently
different to draw any definite conclusions. In quiescent water,
one would suspect that suspended material would settle out, whereas
in areas with stronger currents and turbulence, material would re-
main susuended. The former condition would increase water clarity
while I the latter would reduce it. This might account for the slightly
higher values in The Rhine compared to Lido Isle.
Heavy Metals in Sediments
Table 4 compares heavy metal analyses of surface
sediment for The Rhine, typical ocean deposits off California, near
five major sewage outfalls, and the Palos.Verdes (White's Point)
outfall. It is eyident from these data that heavy metals in The
Rhine sediments are generally higher than those in natural
(continental shelf) surface sediments. Of particular significance
is the amount of mercury in The Rhine sediments; roughly 300 times
the mercury concentration in natural sediments. These high
L-11
Table 2 Dissolved Oxygen (Surface)-,,-
(mg/0
NOTE: Upper left values reflect Rhine (near end) measurements while lower
right values reflect open bay (near Via Genoa, Lido Isle) measurements.
*California Department of Public Health Bureau of Sanitary Engineering and
Orange County Health Department
**Dissolved Oxygen measurements for 1974 are uncertain due to technical
difficulties.
9
76 ot time below
Year.
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Water Quality Control
Objectives
(<4.o)
1966
3.65
3.7
3.6
100
(August -Sept-
ember
2 samples)
1967
5.8
8 -
(August -Sept-
ember
<6.9
X2
7.4
V2.8
6.4
0
9 samples)
1968
4.3
5.4
2.8
35.7
(July -
20 samples)
1970
3.8
6.2
1.8
57.2
(July -
28 samples)
1971
1972
6.2
9.4
3.8
9.6
(April -Decem-
ber
7.8
15.0
1z'
5.9
0
21,samples)
z
1973
6.5
10.5
4.2
0
W a n ua ry - De c -
Z8.
ember
1
716.
0
::Z5.
2
.�O
34 samples)
1974**
6.9
9.8
4.4
0
(Jan -July
L:
15 samples)
7.8
11.8
5.7
0
NOTE: Upper left values reflect Rhine (near end) measurements while lower
right values reflect open bay (near Via Genoa, Lido Isle) measurements.
*California Department of Public Health Bureau of Sanitary Engineering and
Orange County Health Department
**Dissolved Oxygen measurements for 1974 are uncertain due to technical
difficulties.
9
Table 3 Water Clarity by Secchi Disk Reading*
(Feet)
Yea r
Med i an
Max i mum
Minimum
Average
19.66
7
8
6
7
(August -September
:3�
7 samples)
__
", —
1967
5.5
7
4
5.5
(August -September
12 samples)
5
6
4
5.1
1968
6
8
2
5.8
(July)
8
4
6.
1970
6.5
(July)
1971
1972
7
12
12
2 7-17
(April -December
27 samples)
6
12
- -
2 6.7
1973
8.2
��9
13.4
2.6
7.7
(January -December
50 samples)
6.2
10.5
3.3
1 6.2
1974
5.9
9.5
9.5
3
3
(Jan. -July
23 samples)
5.2
10.2
3.3
5.
NOTE: Upper left values reflect The Rhine (north end) measurements while
lower right values reflect open bay (near Via Genoa, Lido Isle)
measurements
-California Department of Public Health Bureau of Sanitary Engineering and.Orange
County Health Department
10
Description
Hg
As
Pb
Ag
Cr
Cu
Cd
Zn
North -End of The
Rhine 1972*
11.90
10.0
44.
1.0
29.
713.
72.3
410.
Natural concentrations
as reported for surface
sediments**
o4-
3-32
4-93
7-686
2
18-337
Average concentrations
at five major sewage
outfalls**
o6
8
1.0
46
16
.4
63
Maximum Concentrations
measured off Palos Verdes
(White Point) Sewage
Outfall**
4
490
21
1000
670
79
2400
concentrations are indicators of on-going pollution in The
Rhine, particularly with regard to ship maintenance activities
(such as painting).
conclusions
In general, there has presently been little attempt
to compile a comprehensive overview of water quality in
Newport Bay. As evident from the tables, what information is
available requires extensive interpretation. Nevertheless,
water in The Rhine is generally of poor quality as shown by
coliform counts, dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and heavy
metals in sediments.
DRAINAGE
The Santa Ana River has a drainage area of 2,470 sq
mi and empties north of Newport Bay. The river is intermittent
and only flows during the rainy season (November to March).
During the past century the River has overflowed and flooded
large parts of Central Orange County. The last major flood was
in 1938.
According to Stevenson and Emery (1958), "the great
flood in 1825 diverted the River to more or less its present
position and its contribution of sand began the formation of the
Newport barrier beach. The larger flood in 1862 aided the
completion of the barrier to the dimensions'now known. Shortly
thereafter, the barrier barked the mouth of the river, forcing
it to flow parallel to the coast into the outer lagoon at
Newport."
Except, possibly, during great floods, the only
significant fresh water inflow is that from San Diego Creek,
Peters Canyon,Wash, and the tributary drainage areas of these
two streams. Also included are the fresh water inflow from
surface (urban) runoff directly into Newport Bay. San Diego
Creek and its major tributary, Peters Canyon Wash, drain an
area of about 150 sq mi. These two streams Join and flow into
Upper Newport Bay. Runoff is quite erratic and almost no flow
occurs for many months. Both climatic and drainage area
characteristics are not conducive to continuous flow,
consequently there is little stream flow except during and
immediately following rains (Corps of Engineers, 1972).
Damaging floods occurred in 1862, 1884, 1916, 1923,
1938, 1952 and 1969. The largest flood of record occurred in
1969; however, the 1862 flood unquestionably was more severe,
but little is known about the extent of flooding in the Newport
Bay area. Although runoff and flooding does not affect Newport
Bay itself, sediments, debris and other pollutants can have an
adverse effect on the Bay.
12
Drainage is of particular concern due to its impact
on water quality in Newport Bay. Runoff from upland areas
carry sediment and bacteria which is augmented by recreational
and constructional activities in the Bay itself. The results
of poor quality, or sediment -laden runoff include adverse
impact on shellfish harvesting.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DISPLACEMENTS OF PERSONS
Findings
The proposed project will not involve the displacement
of any permanent residents, but will affect several boat
owners who are using existing slips. Under existing conditions,
seven boat slips accommodate about 25-30 small boats. When the
bulkhead is constructed and new slips built, the number of boats
accommodated will be slightly reduced- This is an unavoidable
adverse impact.
NOI SE
Analysis
Ambient noise measurements were made in the impact area
on 18 July 1974, between 1500 and 1630 hours, and on -1 August at
1730 hours. Measuring technique consisted of:
e Sound Level Meter - General Radio Model
1505B (Type 2, ANS1 standard). The meter
was calibrated prior to tests using a
General Radio 1562-A Sound level Calibrator
(compatible with ANSI Level 2 calibration
requirements),
Scale - All measurements were taken on dB(A)
11slow scale."
e Type of Noise - All noise measured was
11continuoqs" in nature, i.e., the duration
of all noise was in excess of one second,
thus classifiable as a "continuous" as
opposed to "impact" noise (Ref. ANSI standards).
No impact noise was measured.
Findings
Noise is a classic example of an "external cost" side
effect of private action ! imposing an unwanted "cost" upon
third parties to the action, who receive no direct benefits
therefrom.
It is necessary to describe some difficulties in
predicting people's subjective response to a noise. The
psychophysical parameters of noise, which determine how people
react, cannot be measured with available instruments. In brief,
14
all people react differently to noise intrusion. The A -weighted
decible scale for noise level measurements has been found to be
most suitable, but a particular individual's response to noise
cannot be assessed by using this scale. It is appropriate,
therefore, . to obtain physical magnitudes of total exposures in
small areas or neighborhoods, using A -weighted noise measurements,
and then to compare these exposure levels with suitable criteria
of acceptability (i.e., determining the noise levels that, if they
are not.exceeded, would render the environment less desirable for
living'for most people)..
A temporary rise in daytime ambient (background) noise
level of 6 to 15 dB(A) is considered "some impact," and a rise of
more than 15 dB(A) is considered "considerable impact". A
temporary rise in nighttime noise level of 1 to 5 dB(A) for sleep
is considered "some impact," while more than 5 dB(A) is considered
11considerable impact."
The community will generally respond adversely if
ambient noise is significantly increased, but interference with
either (or both) sleep or speech intelligibility are the most
common specific causes of complaint.
The Departments of Transportation (Federal Highway
Administration - FHWA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
have developed noise standards for various land uses. The
extent to which noise may interfere with speech communication
has been related to types of land uses (Tables 5 and 6).
Speech communication obviously depends upon the distance between
the speaker and the listener.
For different levels of voice effort, the distances
shown in Table 5 would be the maximum at which speech communication
could take place for the indicated noise level. "Design noise
level" refers to F.HWA highway design criteria, which would fall
within HUD's "normally acceptable" range when the two standards
are put on a comparable basis. The standards apply to developed
land.
methods for predicting,highway noise are detailed in
the National Cooperative Highway Research Progress Report 117.
of particular importance in such calculations are the characteristics
of the traffic flow (traffic density, vehicle types, and speeds).
Trucks (operating under stop -and -go conditions) are the dominant
potential source of noises. at the impact site.
. Typical noise levels produced by construction
equipment are shown in Table 7.
Two sites were selected to make noise measurements:
at the end of 28th St. hear the boat slips, and inside the
trailer park. There was little differences in noise levels at
the two sites on two different days and times,;
Peak ambient 79 dB(A)
Average ambient 55 dB(A)
Low ambient 45 dB(A)
15
Table 5 Maximum Communication Distances
Maximum Distance for Speech
Communication in Feet
Noise Normal Raised Very Loud.
Level, dB(A) Voice Voice Voice
55 34 60
60 17 38 Over 70
70 5 10 20
75 2 5 9
Table 6 Noise Standards for Various Land Uses
Distance for Speech
Communication in Feet
Normal Raised Very toud
Category Land Use Level Voice Voice Voice
A Outdoor uses for 60 dB(A) 17 38 >70
which quiet is
particularly
important
B Exterior of
residences, motels,
schools, churches,
etc. Also parks,
playgrounds, etc.
C Exterior of
developed lands not
included in A or B
above
D Undeveloped
E Interior of
residences, schools,
churches, etc.
70 dB (A) 5 10 20
75 dB(A) 2 5 9
55 dB(A) 34 60
1G
A NOISE LEVEL WBA) AT 50 FT
60 70 80� 90 100 J10
COMPACTERS (ROLLERS)
U)
UJ
FRONT LOADERS
z
LU
BACKHOES
z
>
TRACTORS
SCRAPERS, GRADERS
<
US
PAVERS
z
cc
TRUCKS
Ul
CONCRETE MIXERS
no
J)
CONCRETE PUMPS
0
LU
_J
_J
CRANES (MOVABLE)
0
UJ
CRANES (DERRICK)
ix
PUMPS
:3
C3
LU
z
GENERATORS
<
COMPRESSORS
PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
u'
�—:E
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS
(L D
E C3
UJ
PILE DRIVERS PEAKS
Ix
UJ
VIBRATOR
4
SAWS
Anticipated_Lmpact
Table 7 Construction
.Equipment Noise
Levels
Daytime construction activities will cause "some
impact" (6 to 15 dB(A)) increase in noise levels., and possible
"considerable impact" (more than 15 dB(A)), over short periods
of time. Noise intrusion of the order of 15 dB(A) can be
partially mitigated by proper choice of equipment, and scheduling
of activities. Typical daytime average values near the site are
not normally high, although it is believed that during.the early
evening, and on weekends and holidays the average ambient noise
level may be as much as 10 d�(A) higher than measured. Neverthe-
less, assuming the impact site falls under land use category B,
the average exterior ambient noise levels would be below HUD's
and FHWA highway design noise levels of 70 dB(A). Using this
datum, then, the impact would still be termed "some impact" and,
probably, would not be considered annoying to most people,
particularly since the noise increase is temporary. This conclusion
is based upon comparison with surrounding land use which involves
noises associated with commercia l/r ecreational activities (such
as work on boats).
The residential area that will be subjected to "some"
impact" is located largely adjacent to.the impact site ' in the
trailer court, and one permanent resident, where the impact will
be unavoidable.
17
Estimated maximal construction -oriented sound levels
are between 70 and 90 dB(A) (Table 7). Maximal noise levels and
vibration will occur in areas where concrete may be brokeni
Since no night-time construction is anticipated, there will be
no evening noise intrusion.
If it is determined (by on-site measurements) during
construction activities that there is "considerable impact" (i.e.,
an increase of 15 dB(A) or more), residents should be notified;
the expected hours of noise intrusion should be scheduled; and
this information provided to affected persons. This should.
mitigate many of the adverse psychological problems associated
with noise intrusion. Methods to control construction noise are-.'
• Mufflers on engines
• Installing noise -reduction devices on equipment
• Enforcing operating time control
• Using alternative less noisy equipment
• Screening of noise producers (compressors)
There will be no increase in ambient noise levels
after the bulkhead is installed.
DRAINAGE
Findings
According to the Newport Beach Public Works Department
and on-site investigations, no storm drains exist in the project
site. Storm waters and waghdown flow directly into the Bay via
surface runoff. Drainage of the onshore portion of the project
will be to the City of Newport Beach street storm drain per City
requirements.
Anticipated Impact
Drainage is an important concern during both project
construction and project operation. Measures will be required
during construction to prevent erosion and siltation. No
significant adverse impact is anticipated during the construction
or operational phases provided mitigation measures are implemented.
Measures to control runoff and the quantity.of
deleterious material contained therein will be applied as
required.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Findings
According to the "Geologic -Seismic Study" for Newport
Beach, the impact site consists of marine sands (Qal). These
deposits are subject to liquifaction (a form of ground failure)
during earthquakes. The engineers take this factor into account
during the design and installation of the bulkheads.
on
MARINE BIOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Analysis
This section was prepared by Patrick.Y. O'Brien,
marine biologist*, Department of Population and Environmental
Biology, University of California, Irvine, and included
consultations and assistance from Dr. Roger Seapy, Assistant
Professor of Biology and Dr. Peter Dixon, professors of the same
Department.
The site was visited on two days. A brief qualitative
assessment of the biota was made at two locations on 18 July
1974. The first sample was taken at approximately +2 -ft tide
level, and the second at 0 -ft level. In addition, the substrate
beneath a cement boulder and an algae mat were examined.
Findin5.!�
Introduction — The water -front area of the existing
trailer park consists primarily of an ice -plant covered slope
and wooden bulkheading below which is muddy littoral habitat.
On either end of the approximately 220 -ft frontage are wooden and
cement bulkheads and pilings with a characteristic complement of
intertidal biota. The finger piers servicing the marina (which
essentially parallels the shoreline), are encrusted with typical
organisms of the fouling community common to such habitats. This
intertidal muddy bottom is generally isolated from other such
habitats in the Lower Newport Bayj and is located on a rather
constricted dead-end channel, termed The Rhine. Water quality
problems associated with such channels are discussed by Dixon
and Marsh (1973), WRE (1973), and Orange County Health Department
(1970). Water quality is discussed in detail on . pages 9 to 16.
Mud Bottom Habitat — Below the present slope demarking
the edge of the trailer court, a highly modified mud bottom
littoral habitat extends approximately 100 ft. Rather steeply
sloped, -this area becomes exposed to a breadth of approximately
15 ft during a 0 -ft low tide. High tide occasionally extends to
the lower edge of an ice plant -covered slope cover (Figure 6).
The waterfront edge of the northern and southern
portions of the site consists of approximately 100 ft of wood
bulkheading below which a narrow band of similar soft -bottom
substrate extends toward the center of the channel. This muddy
bottom is not so steeply sloped as that below the ice plant bank,
nor is it exposed I as often at low tide. It communicates with
the main channel, but the bulkhead extending westward into the
main channel at the southern end of1the property, seems to
*Mr. O'Brien is a graduate student at UCI, and a U.S. Coast Guard
Reserve Officer, with 3 -year's active duty in the area.
19
encourage the retention of nutrients and other materials in this
shallow zone. At the time of the survey extensive mats of
deteriorating green algae coated the surface and bottom in this
zone.
Sediments appear generally uniform in size and immediately
beneath the surface they may be described as a sulfurous black
flooze". This condition is especially predominant beneath the
cement boulders scattered through the intertidal regime, and is
..,,.usually considered an indicator of deteriorated water quality.
'However, these layers probably are not totally deoxygenated because
the organisms present are not those usually restricted to such
conditions, e.g., Tubificid worms. The mud bottom slopes steeply
to the center of The Rhine Channel, which is utilized extensively
for navigation by pleasure and commercial craft.
Several parameters contribute to the phrase "highly
modified" to describe this habitat, which is not typical of other
similar habitats (found in less polluted areas tow�ard the mouth
of the estuary). This short section of mud bottom is quite
isolated from similar habitats, and is surrounded by water -front
areas which have been modified for essentially commercial
purposes. As such, it is greatly influenced by processes
.occurring in its immediate vicinity, many of which are "Polluting".
Examples include garbage or sewage discharges from vessels in the
vicinity; toxic materials in discharges from local industrial
processes (detergents and other chemicals used for cleaning boats,
heated water from steam cleaning, bilge cleaners, spilled paints,
etc.); oil spills, the residue from which is a chronic problem
in dead-end channels; and algal nutrients from storm water runoff
containing domestic contaminants. Liberal deposits of broken
glass, plastic containers and deteriorating paper from litter,
are scattered over the intertidal area. These observations
indicate the situation in this area is quite similar to that in
1970, when the Orange County Health Department (OCHD) found
similar debris to be more abundant at The Rhine Channel station
than at any other sampling station in Newport Bay.
The increased nutrient load has resulted in a "bloom" of
a filamentous green alga, Enteromorpha sp., in the nearshore
photic zonek along the mud b'6t_tol�_- Th1s alga forms floating mats
in the vicinity, which are aesthetically unpleasing, release
nutrients, and deplete oxygen reserves of the water as they
deteriorate (a potentially fetid process also). In 1970 oxygen
levels at the OCHD's sampling station in The Rhine Channel were
below the standard of 4 parts per million (established for these
non -circulating, dead-end channels, by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Santa Ana), for 57% of the 28 samples analyzed.
A small amount of erosion in the ice plant cover appears
to be the result of terrestrial runoff from the mobile trailer
court. In addition to the small amount of additional sediments
deposited in the intertidal zone as a consequence of runoff,
20
debris from domestic gardening (which had been dumped into this
erosional feature from above) will eventually wash down and
contribute to the nutrient load and garbage deposits on the mud
bottom.
Macro -organisms in the mud. at two spots -were essentially
the same, consisting of species of four families of Annelid worms
and two families of Crustacea (Table S. Basically the samples were
Table 8 Sediment Organisms
lida
Orbiniidae
Haploscolopos
Spionidae
Polydora 2 spp.
Cirratulidae
Cerritomia sp.
Nereidae
1 sp.
Tanaidae
Tansis sp.
Gammarid Am phipods 2 spp.
dominated, in terms of numbers and biomass, by Spionid worms (which
form an extensive matrix of tubes from which they filter feed),
and Cirratulid worms. No infaunal bivalved mollusks .(which are
found in other parts of the Bay) were observed, although the mud
bottom was strewn with empty Chione and Protothaca shells.
Possibly these are residue from shore -side cleaning operations.
Small populations of bivalves may exist in this habitat but the
possibility of contamination from the already described polluting
processes needs to be critically examined before their edibility
can be certified. In 1970, the OCHD determined that 43% of the
28 samples taken from The Rhine Channel exceeded a MPN of 330
coliforms per 100 ml, compared to a maximum of.10%,established by
-the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Cement rubble was coated with the barnacle, Balanus
tintinnabulum, and an occasional limpet (Acmaea - 3 spp.). The
crabs Pachygrapsis crassipes and Hemigrapsis sp., were also
associated with this concrete.
The Spionid, RoLydorzj sp. and high numbers of cycopoid
copepods and flabelliferan isopods were associated with the algal
mat.
Piling and Bulkhead Habitat — Adjacent to and fronting
the southern half of the trailer park, wooden and cement bulk-
heads function as retaining walls to protect terrestrial (man-
made) developments. These bulkheads provide approximately 6 -ft
vertical intertidal habitat, and are populated by characteristic
communities or organisms. In many areas near the trailer park
frontage, residues from materials once spilled in the water
remain -adhering to the vertical surface.
21,
Immediately adjacent to the trailer park frontage, the
only organisms appearing on the wooden bulkheads were barnacles
(Balanus sp.). No mussels or limpets, which are common in
similar situations elsewhere, were observed. Shipworm activity
was noticeable, and many boards were deteriorating in part
because of them. Cement bulkheads likewise were populated by
barnacles, with no other sessile organisms present. Mobile
Pachgrapsis crassi2es were hiding in niches or crevices in these
vertical faces.
The fouling community observed on the floats has been
heavily affected by scraping activity. Nevertheless, important
elements of this essentially subtidal biota persist locally,
consisting primarily of sponges and tunicates. Scattered fronds
of coralline algae (Corallina sp.), and another Rhodophyte,
Gelidius sp., were also observed. An occasional anemone,
Anthopleura sp., was also observed. No bryozoans, which
frequently are seen in such habitats, were observed.
Anticipated Impact
Biota--- The present mud bottom intertidal community
would be eliminated if the bulkheads are extended across the
front of the impact site. Although only sampled in a tentative
manner, it appears that this habitat (given its highly modified
conditions), supports no organisms particularly unique or rare.
Possibly, there are some bivalves present, but they are found in
similar, less adversely impacted habitats in other parts of the
Bay -- where they are probably safer for human consumption. The
types of polychaete species observed are found elsewhere in the
Bay (Barnard and Reisch, 1959) and, in many of the other locations,
the diversity of species is much higher. Possibly this is a
reflection of more intensive sampling; nevertheless, the lower
diversity of organisms present at the impact site also indicates
that this habitat in The Rhine is highly affected by man's
activities. Barnard and Reisch's sampling stations were also
located in deeper water, which is generally a more stable habitat.
If bulkheads are constructed, they would eventually be
populated with a sessile tauna (primarily barnacles) comparable
to that observed offadjacent vertical faces. The intertidal
biota also may include mussels and limpets. The subtidal fauna
may include elements of the already existing fouling communitN
provided that various water quality parameters do not preclud-e,
their colonizing faces at depths considerably greater than those
on floating piers.
Rip -rap facing is not recommended by biologists
because of possible epidemiological and.erosion problems
associated with the rodents and ground squirrels, whose presence
would be promoted by crevices in such rubble.
22
Water Quality — The previous subsection ("Findings"),
and elsewhere in this report, discussed various aspects of the
lowered water quality of The Rhine in general, and the isolated
section of mud -bottom habitat in particular. Construction of a
bulkhead, and movement of this bulkhead farther into the channel,
would decrease the diluting capacity.of the water in the Channel
by less than one-half of one percent. This decreased dilution
would exascerbate whatever problems already.pertain in the
Channel to the approximate extent that the diluting (or
circulation) is decreased. In terms of conditions as they
presently exist, it is believed that this possible additional
bulkheading will not have any significant adverse impact on water
quality in The Rhine Channel.
Aesthetics — Remc�ral of the existing ice plant covered
slope, muddy intertidal mud bottom, and the wooden bulkheads,
involving the construction of a vertical concrete bulkhead would
provide a definite aesthetic improvement over existing conditions.
The existing impact site acts as a trap for nutrients and litter.
EROSION AND SILTATION
Findings
The principal sediments that would be affected by the
proposed project are:
- .0 Recent marine sediments (sand, silt and clay)
e Alluvium, beach sand, artificial fill (gravel,
sand, and silt).
. Bulkhead emplacement and other activities which might
disturb marine sediments and increase turbidity are of obvious
concern, particularly with regard to impacts upon marine
organisms and water quality. The proposed project involves the
construction of approximately 220 ft of bulkhead along The
Rhine. Construction procedure (subject to approval of the
RWQCB), involves the use or water jets for liquefaction of the
sediments (rendering them like quick sand) . Large cement slabs
(201x3lx10") are then moved into position and backfilled.
Dredging may also be performed in front of the bulkhead,
depending upon desired water depth. Bulkhead height will be +9 ft.
Records of dredging effects on the East and Gulf coasts
of the United States appear to be relevant. To keep intra -
coastal waterways navigable, maintenance dredging is required
continuously, as the waterways traverse estuarine areas that
are sedimentary traps. Material dredged from the intracoastal
waterways in these environments is, in most cases, deposited
in salt marsh spoil banks since alternatives to this procedure
would require costly transportation of dredged material to more
23
remote areas. Salt marsh estuarine environments are extremely
productive and provide suitable nursery grounds for sports and
commercial fisheries. Therefore, it is important to attempt to
minimize any environmental disturbance resulting from dredging
activities. Rhine sediments are exceptionally high in heavy
metals which pose a water quality problem if disturbed.
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography in Savannah,
Georgia, has continued studies of dredging effects on marine
biota for several years (Windom, 1972; Skidaway Institute of
Oceanography, 1973). While these data apply particularly to
salt marshes and.estuarine environments, the general conclusions
appear to be equally applicable to Newport Bay, although
productivity of marine life is not as great as in the East
Coast estuarine environments.
The results obtained to date are:
1) Water quality changes observed during dredging in
areas studied (mostly in natural, unpolluted ,
areas), were not as significant or widespread as
anticipated.
2) Chemical changes in marsh sediments due to
spoil material deposition appear to be transient.
Reversion of salt marsh to its original productive
state is essentially biologically controlled
(e.g., the spreading of rhizomes of the ��partiaa
alterniflora, or recolonization by seeds) assuming
its physical characteristics (elevation, circu-
lation) are not significantly changed.
3) No significant dredging effects on motile
organisms were observed.
4) Water quality changes during dredging bear
little relationship to chemical characteristics
of the sediments dredged.
5) No adverse dredging effects on fish and macro -
invertebrate populations occur when undiked
spoil disposal was used.
During the second year of studies, in which efforts
were.made to work on more polluted sediments, and the effects
on icthyofaunal and macro -invertebrates, the following conclusions
were drawn:
1) Water quality changes during dredging operations
cannot be predicted on the basis of simple bulk
chemical analyses of the sediment to be dredged.
Thus, many sediments containing concentrations
of various constituents deemed to be above
pollution levels have no obvious effect on water
24
quality when dredged in relation to that parti-
cular environment. For example, sediment with
metal concentrations above those specified in
the preliminary EPA criteria do not produce
significant metal increases in the water column
when dredged. Whether such things as BOD, COD,
volatile solids, etc. are above the EPA criteria
or not, the same types of processes appear to
take place. In every case, the main process
responsible for changes in dissolved oxygen, pH,
BOD, etc., appear to be caused by the initial
ammonia releases.
2) Significant variations in the quality.of water
in levee spoil areas can be expectedil dependent.
on water retention time therein. Confinement
techniques for dike spoils (used in the south-
eastern Atlantic coastal area, provide no clear
evidence that long retention time in sediment
from hydraulic pipeline dredge improves water
quality.
3) There appears to be no adverse effect of
dredging on standing crops or species composition
in areas where undiked spoil banks are used.
4) Diversity of fishes and macro -invertebrates in
both years was similar at most stations. The
greatest apparent difference occurred in
comparing the station subjected to heavy (or
at least periodic) dredging with other sampling
stations. No differences existed due to dredging.
5) Recolonization appears to occur rapidly,
possibly immediately after dredging, as animals
resettle in the dredged area after being picked
up and suspended in turbulent water caused by
the dredge cutter head. Data collected from
one dredging site show that the standing
population crop was significantly higher than
at the control site. Whether this is due to
dredging or not needs analysis.
Characteristics of fine-grained sediments in fresh and
salt waters differ greatly and should not be confused. In
fresh water, sediments may remain suspended for lonq,perio'ds and
cause turbidity, with direct and indirect effects. Salt water
is an electrolyte which effectively precipitates fine-grained
terrigenbus sediments. Thus, in the ocean, except off deltas
(where fresh water may extend along and off shore), most fine-
grained sediments coagulate and settle to the sea floor.
Disturbance of already deposited marine sediments does not
result in great or prolonged turbidity, as in lakes or streams.
25
(Dredged silted waters and fresh water runoff into Upper Newport
Bay are clearly visible and cause adverse environmental damage
creating problems different from those in ocean water.)
Construction methods to minimize erosion and maintain
environmental protection will be achieved through contract
documents, plans, and specifications.
The application of water jets to the sediments will
create local short-term turbidity and siltation in The Rhine.
This adverse impact is temporary and can be mitigated by isolating
and localizing the impact area by using a siltation screen. A
turbidity curtain and floating boom will be used and after each
working day the scum and any floating debris will be removed and
hauled to the County sanitary landfill. Specific measures have
been outlined to prevent adverse impacts on the Bay from erosion
and siltation (see pages 30-31). Backfilling of the bulkheaded
area will be accomplished by use of imported fill. Dredged
material'is not suitable for backfilling due to its poor quality
(i.e., rich in heavy metals) and the potential of leaching back
into The Rhine. Dredged sediments (if any) will be hauled to sea
for disposal. A permit for dredging will be required from the
RIVQCB and the Corps of Engineers (see Foreword and Appendices I,
II and III).
While it may not be fully possible to apply all East
and Gulf Coast intracoastal/estuarine data to Newport Bay, the
relevant scientific analysis suggests that effects of dredging
disturbing bottom sediments are not great, and that effects of
dredging or bottom disturbance are transient to a degree formerlV
grossly exaggerated. For example, it was expected that there
would be no benthic organisms in samples obtained during or
immediately after dredging. On the contrary, while the number
of species, especially the number of individuals per unit area,
were greatly reduced following dredging, several species were
still present in quantity. Population recovery to levels
approaching those of the control stations was rapid. Final
analysis indicates that the benthic community is able to recover
quickly after dredging (or other forms of disturbancei as
construction activities) and remains a viable community during
and immediately after dredging operations. It is significant
that in no case did any one organism dominate the population over
extended periods of time.
26
AESTHETICS
Findings
The proposed development design will involve an
aesthetically pleasing bulkhead and new boat slips.
Anticipated Impact
Althoughadverse short-term impacts may occur during
project construction, it is not anticipated that the proposed
project will result in any long-term adverse visual impact to
the area. On the contrary, the opposite- is true; the project
will be designed to improve the aesthetic quality of the area.
The extension of the bulkhead will provide visual continuity
in the area. The overall impact will be a pleasant visual
relatedness.
At the present time the area is restricted to those
who live in the existing trailers. The proposed project will
not significantly change public access; boat owners and
visitors will have access to boats.
TERRESTRIAL FLORA
Analysis
An inventory of the existing vegetation was made by
Dr. Gordon Marsh, Professor of Biology, Department of Population
and Environmental Biology, University of California, Irvine.
Findings
Terrestrial flora on the project site consists
largely of ground cover. Numbers and species of flora are
listed in Table 9.
Anticipated Impact
The developer has commissioned a qualified landscape
architect who will evaluate the existing vegetation and
determine the compatibility of these plants with the overall
layout and landscaping. It may be possible to preserve or
transplant some of the ornamentals for use in the project area
or in other locations. The area behind the bulkhead will
require re -planting.
27
Type
HGC
S
T
S
GCV
Common Name
Ice Plant
Hibiscus
Queen Palm
Japanese
Privet
English Ivy
Table 9 Terrestrial Flora
Scientific Name
Waterfront Vegetation
Mesembryanthemum
chilensis
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis
Front of office
Arecastrum
romanzoffianum
Ligustrum japonicum
Hedera helix
H Dusty Miller Artemisia stelleriana
T Myoporum laetum
H Jade Plant Crassula argentea
NM
Number
Size (ft)
ground cover
5
3-41
41
3
41
ground cover
and climbing
vine
1
51
3
21
IV. PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
Unavoidable adverse impacts which cannot be avoided
include:
Loss of several small boat moorings (page 36);
howeverk new, more aesthetically pleasing slips
will be built.
9 Short-term construction noise impact involving
temporary increase in daytime ambient noise
levels (pages 14 to 18)
e Removal of a short section of intertidal muddy
bottom (replaced by concrete bulkhead) ' This,
however, may also be viewed as beneficial.
* Possible slight increase in marine sediment
disturbance during emplacement of concrete
bulkhead and! possibly, as a result of dredging
(page 25).
e Removal of some of the existing ground cover
and ornamental plants on the site (page 27).
It is anticipated that the new trailers will
landscape the site compatible with other land-
scaping in the trailer court. I
e Decrease in water dilution in The Rhine by less
than one-half of one percent (page 23).
Weighed against these adverse impacts is the
beneficial impact involving the improvement of the aesthetic
appeal of The Rhine by bulkhead construction and removal of
unsightly muddy slope and bottom. Land erosion will also be
controlled. Some people, however, may view this loss of muddy
intertidal area as an adverse impact (pages 19 to 23).
29
V. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT
Mitigation measures are proposed -- and should be
implemented -- as follows to minimize adverse impacts:
NOISE
e Installation of noise reduction devices on
equipment
Enforcing operating time control
e Notification when periods of high noise impact
(if any) will occur
Install mufflers on engines
e Use of less noisy equipment where there are
alternatives
e Screening of noise producers.
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, EROSION & SILTATION
- Protective measures must be taken to prevent
erosion, siltation or sedimentation in Newport Bay. On-site
grading mitigation measures, to prevent debris, silt and scum
from being washed into the Bay in case of rain during on-site
grading will include:
1) Before on-site grading for shops and
restaurant, the bulkhead must be in-
stalled and partially back-filled. As
the present site drains in this direction,
the area behind the bulkhead will be
utilized as a retarding basin until on
site grading is done and the danger of
rain washing debris into the Bay is past.
2) On-site grading should be done as follows:
Remove asphalt and immediately dig lower
level parking area. (This area is lower
than the project grade, but higher than the
Bay.) This area will then serve as an
additional large retardinq basin. Either
area then should be adequate to handle run-
off. These areas (due to sandy soil) will
easily filter sediment out of the water.
3) It is not anticipated that pumping will be
required, or any pumping will be quite
small. If pumping is required, and small,
arrangements will be made with the Public
Works Department, City of Newport Beach, to
discharge the material into the sewer. if
30
large quantities of sediment must be pumped,
then a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit must be obtained,from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
4) The bulkhead will be constructed of concrete
slabs, which will be jetted by water pressure
into place and secured. A turbidity curtain
and.floating boom will be used and after each
working day the scum and any floating debris
will be removed and hauled to the county dump.
5) Drainage of the onshore portion will be to
the City of Newport Beach street storm drain
as per city requirements. The drainage plans
have not been completed; however, when
completed, they should be submitted to the
RWQCB and City for review.
6) As soon as a start-up date is developed on
a reasonably firm basis, the RWQCB should
be notified so that field inspections can
be scheduled.
7) The siltation control plan, which must(be
implemented should also include, as minimum
mitigation measures:
o Use of a siltation screen (see above) to
localize siltation
9 Backfilling of bulkhead with imported
fill to minimize adverse impact to water
quality
o Hauling of dredged material to sea
o Other measures, as required by permits,
from cognizant City, RWQCB, Corps of
Engineers, other State and Federal
agencies for dredging and bulkhead
construction (see Appendices 17111)..
Any dredging activity will probably
require a permit from the RWQCB.
TERRESTRIAL FLOM
Revegetate area behind bulkhead.
31
VI. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The proposed action will result in a long-term
enhancement of the environment for future generations; the
construction of a bulkhead will improve waterfront aesthetic
conditions and control erosion.
The proposed project will cause some short-term
adverse construction impacts as man's use of the environment
(page 29)., which appear rather minor in view of the long-term
use and enhancement of long-term productivity. Thus, those
who will "pay" the "environmental costs" over both the short -
and long-term also seem to be some of the "beneficiaries" of
the project.
32
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN
THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The proposed action involves the commitment of
relatively small quantities of renewable and non-renewable
resources, including steel, concrete and other materials, and
labor required for the construction of the project. The extent
t� which the proposed action curtails the diversity and range
of beneficial uses of the environment is quite small. I
Construction of the bulkhead will slightly decrease
the volume of water in The Rhine, but this is considered.in-
significant, and leaving the intertidal area "as is" is not
considered the best viable alternative. Work on the existing
wooden bulkheads must be carried out soon.
Construction of the bulkhead is not irreversible
since it could be removed at a later time, should the need
arise.
The proposed structures are not of such a
magnitude, nor require such significant modification of the
site, as to be considered irreversible. The proposed action
does not curtail the diversity and range of beneficial uses
of the site (terrestrial and marine environments) to preclude
other uses or options at a later date — should the need arise.
The nature of the proposed land use is not of such
a type — or magnitude — as to foreclose other future use,
options or needs.
VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
NO PROJECT
No action would leave the impact site, and other
projects associated with the proposed action, as is, with
neither the benefits nor the detrimental features of the
proposed bulkhead and boat slips.
NO BULKHEAD
The impact of status quo with regard to existing
muddy and timbered bulkhead habitat in the impact area is
considered herein as an alternative to the proposed action.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to this option.
Even if nothing is done at this time, it is clearly
evident that eventually something must (and will) be done
with the wood bulkheads. They contain boring organisms which
will eventually cause them to collapse and fall into the Bay,
carrying with them sediment and other debris from behind the
bulkhead. This will further contribute to the pollution of
the Bay.
In addition, corrective action also is mandatory
to prevent slope erosion, and to improve the existing un-
pleasant visual conditions, recreational utility, and wildlife
habitat. For example, removal of the ice plant probably would
improve conditions, but some other form of landscaping and/or
ground cover undoubtedly would be required to prevent erosion
of the upper slopes, siltation in the Bay, and to improve the
slope's appearance.
If the lower slopes are to be retained as is, then
the unsightly condition would remain. Furthermore, some
sediment would continue to wash into the Bay, and debris,
including floating material and oil, would drift into the
impact area, litter the intertidal area, and coat timbers
with oil and other floating chemicals. Thus, it will be
mandatory to provide continuous clean-up operations if the
littoral zone is to be kept visually pleasing.
Perhaps the -littoral zone could be completely
restored. This might involve, for example, the removal of
the existing wooden bulkheads, ice plant, and black sediment.
The entire existing intertidal habitat would be completely
restored by emplacement of new sand. However, such an under-
taking would destroy any remnants of what some people might
call "natural" conditions. As pointed out elsewhere, evidence
points to an already highly modified environment. There are no
rare or unique marine organisms in the impact site which do not
occur elsewhere in the Bay. Even though the impact site
represents one of two remaining areas on Lido Peninsula that
has not been bulkheaded (the other site is located on the
34
southeast side of the Peninsula, where water circulation is
much better, and the sediment is not sulphurous black), there
is little reason to protect, or preserve, the site on the basis
of uniqueness. Station data (monitored by the OCHD) indicate
that The Rhine has not noticeably improved between 1970 and
1974, consequently the diagenetic process involving the
decomposition of organic matter in bottom sediments would, in
a relatively brief time, changethe sediment's color black,
and they can be expected to be odoriferous (from hydrogen
sulfide). Thus, so long as there is insufficient oxygen present
in bottom sediments (which is not uncommon in such environments)
anaerobic conditions would be anticipated. In view of the
absence of good circulation in and near the bottom sediments
of The Rhine, and considering the unavoidable presence of a high
organic content (in both water and bottom),, it is highly un-
likely that conditions will substantially improve in the future.
The removal of existing sediments and their replacement
with fresh, cleaner material (fill), would involve potential
adverse water quality problems, and the destruction of the
existi ' ng marine habitat (in itself, a possible self-defeating
project) Permits from cognizant agencies would have to be
obtained before any such work could be carried out. it is
believed that any potential benefits that might accrue from such
a highly questionable activity would be temporary, and not
commensurate with potential adverse impacts, including the cost/
benefit ratio. As a matter of fact, this is not a viable
alternative insofar as Delaney's Cannery Village is concerned.
Finally, the littoral site (because of its shape and location),_
would continue to act as little more than a waste sink for
society's detritus.
Retention of the existing littoral zone would require
the developer to locate the restaurant farther inland (or use
pilings), and the consideration of alternative layouts for
Delaney's Cannery Village. In order to retain the same commercial
square footage and parking requirements, open spaces and
landscaping would have to be sacrificed. Because of space
limitations, it may be impractical to include the boardwalk
scheme (as desired by the City) or, if included, there may be
further sacrifices of open spaces and landscaping in the
Village. Thus, there exists a conflict between optimizing
terrestrial open spaces, a well landscaped terrestrial area with
a boardwalk, and waterfront theme with the retention of a marine
littoral zone that has been, and will continue for the foreseeable
future to be, visually adverse.
Based upon available information, it appears that the
only substantiated objections for bulkheading relates to (1)
conservation, or status quo for such habitats, and (2) loss of
several boat tie-ups. Most of the relevant arguments regarding
preservation vs construction of a new bulkhead to join the two
bulkheads at 'ifther end of the project have been discussed
35
above and in the section on Marine Biology (page 19). Under
existing conditions (Figure 4), there are 7 boat slips that,
accommodate 25-30 small boats. Under the proposed plan, 10
new boat slips would be constructed; however, the number of
boats that these slips would accommodate would be slightly
reduced. The reason is that under existing conditions several
small boats tie up to the dock parallel to the shore. Thus,
under the proposed plan there would be a small reduction in the
boats that could be accommodated, although the number of boat
slips would actually be increased. Thus, there is small adverse
impact on the accommodations of small boats. Thisinpact might
be weighed with regards to the existing vs improved aesthetics.
Newport Bay has been developed into one of the finest
small boat harbors in the world. Its waters, waterfront, and
much of its commercial and industrial activities have a strong
recreational/tourist/near-water residential orientation. This
exceedingly important factor must be taken into account because
it basically pits man against retention of the natural environ-
ment -- an exceedingly difficult and complex social/environmental
problem that cannot be accurately qualified or quantified.
Although great efforts have been made to retain the natural
habitats in Upper Newport Bay, there has been little attempt (so
far as known) to make Lower Newport Bay (already highly
developed) into a marine life refuge, or to be more specific, to
replace man's exceedingly expensivedevelopments with biological
preserves. Nevertheless, under:State policy, every effort must
be made to achieve the maximal beneficial uses of the marine
environment. This includes benefits for both man and his
environment — Newport Bay.' Even if all of the various water
quality criteria are met it is clearly evident that the marine
environment can never be totally "natural", because of the
constant impact of man on the environment.. Hence, marine life
will always be forced to adapt to the environment that reflects
manis activities. The fundamental, and overall questions, that
must be asked and answered by cognizant public and private
entities are: (1) Who is going to make the decisions regarding
the use of the Bayl and (what should be preserved and who should
"pay" for preservation?
There is no known sense of history and heritage
associated with the littoral zone in the impact site which
forms a strong impetus and will to preserve and conserve this
particular area. There are other parts of the Bay that surpass,,
and are conducive to, this sense of time and place, past and
present, man and Nature in a semblance of balance. Upper Newport
Bay, perhaps, is most illustrative.
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS OF BULKHEAD
Locating the bulkhead farther into The Rhine (beyond
that proposed), would increase the land area of the owner, and
this possibly would allow provisions for additional landscaping.
However, there are disadvantages to this:
91.1
e Land reclamation could only be carried out
at the expense of decreasing The Rhine.'s
volume. This would further decrease its utility
for boating, water dilution and circulation,.which
would result in some,further small deterioration
of The Rhine water and sediments. The irregular
bulkhead shape would also affect water circulation.
0 Boat slips.would have to be moved farther into The
Rhine, thereby constricting the Channel, creating
a navigational hazard. It is also against the law.
The benefits of placing the bulkhead farther out into
The Rhine appear to be rather small compared to the disadvantages.
Placement of the bulkhead farther inland would result
in several serious disadvantages, with few benefits. The major
advantages or benefits would be (1) an increased volume of water
in The Rhine, which may result in a small improvement in water
quality. This requires additional investigation because a ..
marked identation in the shore may form a "dead water" area,
trap debris, creating (or continuing) highly undesirable
aesthetic conditions and further deteriorate water quality.
(2) More surface area would be created for sessile, or benthic
organisms. (3) Depending upon the design, more boat slips perhaps
could be built. The construction of a bulkhead farther inland
could only be done at the expense of decreasing the land held in
pri ate ownership.
In conclusion, it is likely that constructing a bulk-
head farther inland would have more disadvantages than benefits,
therefore, it is not considered a viable alternative.
T.AMT) TT.q"p.
The proposed bulkhead does not involve any change in
land use, other than the modification from an unimproved ("mud")
slope and wooden bulkheads to a vertical concrete bulkhead.
37
IX. GROWTH INDUCEMENT IMPACT OF. THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed pr6ject does not involve any growth -
inducing action. Some boat users would be displaced from the
site, and the project in this sense, would be non -growth -
inducing.
M
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
REFERENCES
Barnard, J. Laurens, and Donald J. Reish, 1959,"Ecology of
Amphi poda and Polychaet.a of Newport Bay, California,
Occasional Paper of the Allan Hancock Foundation.
Number 21.
Bolt, Baranek & Newman, Los Angeles, California, January,1967.
"Noise Environment of Urban and Suburban Areas."
California Department of Public Health, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970,
"Water Quality Investigation at Newport . Bay, Orange
County."
Dixon, Peter S.j and Gordon A Marsh, 1973,"'Ecological Survey
of Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources for the City of
Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California."
Finch, V. C. and Trewartha, G. T., 1942, Elements of Geography,
Physical and Cultural: 2nd Ed., N.Y.
Flood, Plain Information, San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon
Wash, Orange County, California" Corps of Engrs.,
June 1972.
Highway Rese arch Board, January 1970. "Highway Noise A
Design for Highway Engineers." Report No. 1861.
Newport Beach Public Works Department, July 1974, Letter to
City Council regarding Rhine Wharf Park.
Newport Beach, 1973, "Land Use Element of General Plan."
Office.of Noise Abatement and Control, EPA, Washington, D. C.
"Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances."
Orange County Health Department, March 1972, "Analysis of Heavy
Metals and,Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Newport Bay Sediments."
Pearsons, K. S. and Bennett, R. L., 1970. "Effects of Temporal -
and Spectral Combinations on the Judged Noisiness of
Aircraft Sounds." Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc., Van Nuys,
California, 79th Annual Meeting of Acoustical Society of
America.
39
Skidaway Institute Oceanography, 1-973. "Research to determine
the environmental response to the deposition of spoil on
salt marshes using diked and undiked techniques -Second
Annual Report." Submitted to the U.S. Corps of Army
Engineers, Savannah, Georgia, March. 1973. 189 pp.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, 1973, "The
Ecology of the Southern California Bight: Implications
for Water Quality Management."
State of California Department of Public Health, 1970, %% Water
Quality Investigation at Newport Bay Orange County;
July 1970."
Stevenson, R. E. and Emery, K. 0., 1958, "Marshlands at Newport
Bay, California." Allan Hancock Fdn., Publ. No. 20.,
Univ. So. Cal., 109 pp.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1972. "Environmental Statement
Surfside - Sunset and Newport Beach, Orange County, Calif."
Water Resources Engineers, 1973. "Newport Bay Recommended Water
Quality Management Plan."
Windom, H. L., 1972. "Environmental aspects of dredging in
estuaries." J. Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering
Div., Proc. Amer. Soc.-Civil Engineers, November 1972,
pp 475-487.
Wyle Laboratories, Inc., El Segundo, EPA NTID 300.13, DI 68 04 0046,
427 pp. December 1971. '"Transportation Noise from
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Equipment."
Woodward -McNeill & Associates, Consulting Engineers & Geolo-
gists,1972, "Geologic -Seismic Study -- Phase I" for the
City of Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, Calif.
40
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Orange County Health Department - J. Meisler
J. Dougherty
M. Wehner
Newport Beach Public Works Department - T. Phillips
E. Miller
Southern California Gas Co.
Orange County Air Pollution Control District - M. Kaye
Newport Beach Marine Safety Department G. Weldon
Newport Beach Community Development Department - W. Foley
Richard H. Dodd & Associates - Richard Dodd, G. Korkola
Gillis & Derby, Marine Contractors - D. Taylor
Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department J. Ballinger
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - G. Anderson
J. Zasadzinski
Newport Beach Fire Department - Mr. Morton
Newport Beach Traffic Department - Wm- Darnell
41
XI. APPENDICES
42
APPENDIX I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(Selected)
DELANEY ' S CANNERY VILLAGE
LIDO PENINSULA
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 13, 1975
43
G. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1
DRAINAGE
a. Protective measures will be taken to prevent
erosion, siltation, or sedimentation of Newport
Bay during construction.
b. Project design will encompass measures (as required)
to control runoff and the quantity of deleterious
material contained therein.
2.
WATER QUALITY
Protective measures will be taken to prevent
pollution of Newport Bay by waste products associated
with construction or operation of the project.
3.
EROSION AND SILTATION
a. Use of a siltation screen to localize siltation.
b. Backfilling of bulkhead with imported fill to
minimize adverse impact to water quality.
C. Hauling of dredged material to sea.
d. Other measures as required by cognizant City,
State and Federal agencies.
D. Land
Use Regulation & Standards:
6.
Bulkhead/Boardwalk and Boat SjiR-S-�
Bulkhead to be constructed along the 30' offset line
(see development plan) for entire waterfront of pro-
perty to tie into existing bulkheads at each end.
Existing boat slips to be removed and 10
new boat slips constructed. Bulkhead, boardwalk and
boat slips construction and location to be subject
to Marine Department and appropriate State and
Federal agency approvals.
Note: Boardwalk is NOT part of the proposed project.
44
APPENDIX II
MARINE DEPARTMENT
January 27 1 1971 ITEM NO. : G-4
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Marine Department.
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-081 BY DELANEY'S CANNERY
VILLAGE (MR. JAMES SCHMITZ) TO REVISE EXISTING SLIPS
AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BULKHEAD
Action
If�desired, approve or deny the harbor permit. If approved, subject
the permit to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. The proposed restaurant be constructed so that the
bulkhead will not be subjected to any weight or sur-
charge as a result of the restaurant location.
3. The applicant shall not allow "side ties" on the
outside of the northerly and southerly fingers of
the proposed slips.in keeping with City Policies.
4. The applicant obtain the necessary permits for any
plumbing, electrical and fire protection installations
from applicable City departments.
Discussion
This application is being brought to the Council for approval at
this time because of its direct interrelationship with the required
City Council approval of the entire Delaney's Cannery Village project.
The Joint Harbor Committee, at their October 1, 1974, meeting reviewed
the subject application and recommended approval of the permit subject
to those conditions listed in the Action.
The approval of the Orange County Harbor, Beaches, and Parks District
is not required because the underlying tidelands ownership is City
Tidelands bayward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line and private fee ownership
landward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line.
The proposed bulkhead and slip revision is part of an overall develop-
ment by Delaney's on the adjacent upland property.
Because the total project (Delaney's Cannery Village) involves Planned
45
'Page Two
Community zoning and approval by the Community Development Department
of the Cityt the developer was required to prepare an Environmental -
Impact Report. This report included discussion of the proposed bulk-
head, the necessary fill behind the bulkhead and the location of the
restaurant. The Environmental Impact Report concluded that the proposed
bulkhead would have no adverse impact and in fact could be considered
beneficial in that it will control erosion and will eliminate a "waste
sink for society's detritus".
As is shown ' on the attached drawing the proposed bulkhead will be
constructed thirty (30) feet behind the U. 8. Bulkhead Line and will
connect to existing bulkheads at either end. This location is desired
by the applicant to provide adequate area for construction of the
proposed ten slips. The restaurant will be cantilevered over the
bulkhead twelve (12) feet and has been designed to permit the extension
of a public boardwalk below the restaurant and to provide adequate
clearance for boats moored in the slips.
Condition Number 2 is recommended to insure that the restaurant and the
bulkhead will not be interdependent for structural stability.
The boardwalk will connect to an existing boardwalk thereby providing
continual access around the head of the Rhine Channel from The Cannery
Restaurant to Delaney's. Public access to -the boat slips will be res-
tricted except for those restaurant clientele arriving by boat. The
developer will make arrangements with the Community Development Depart-
mbnt of the City for the dedication of a public walkway easement to
accomodate the proposed boardwalk.
The proposed slips and bulkhead will be designed and constructed in accord-
ance with City Standards.
R. E. REED, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
D. Harshbarger, Assistant Director
Tidelands Operations Division
DH:GEW:lf
46
APPENDIX III
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
ALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD -
SANTA ANA REGION
6833 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE 1
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506
PHONE: (714) 684-9330
0 April 7, 1975
0
Richard D. Terry
3903 Calle Abril
San Clemente, CA 92672
Subject: Delaney's Cannery Village
Dear Mr. Terry:
Based on the several revisions to the EIR for this project proposed
in the letters from your firm and Gillis & Derby, Inc.9 consultants
for the project, we believe that water quality will be adequately
protected if the conditions -specified are maintained.
Please provide the drainage control plans for review as soon as
possible. Also, as soon as a start—up date is developed on a rea—
sonably firm basis, this office should be notified so that field
inspections may be scheduled.
Your assistance in the control of water quality is appreciated.
Sincerely,
John M.1 Zasadzinski
Staff Engineer
JMZ:pc
47
I
NJ
p
%
sm
60
14,
Ids.,
/v
mm"LANE
i -7, z!�a4�� L A-mk ON11"llY VILLAC*
17�1� 1, 1 Y 7*
C-29SO 714 S48-8418
RICHARD H
& ASSOCIATES 1617 WESTCLIFF DR., SUITE 105
CALIFORNIA
-?7
ARCHITECTURE N
EWPORT BEACH,
u f-;' A I
COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
May 24, 1976 INDEX
17. The following Budget Amendments were approved:
BA -74, $6,000 transfer of funds for printing of
10,000 volumes (second edition) of "Newport Beach
Heritage and Horizons," from Unappropriated Contingency
Reserve to Nondepartmental, Services -Professional,
Technical, etc., General Fund.
BA -75, $200 increase in Budget Appropriations and in
Revenue Estimates for purchase of folding chairs for
Community Youth Center with funds donated by Tuesday
Club, from Unappropriated Surplus and Donations and
Contributions, Park and Recreation Fund. (Report
from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director)
BA -76, $56,000 increase in Budget Appropriations and
decrease in Unappropriated Surplus for Phase I
construction of Utilities Service Yard at 049 W. 16th -
Street, Water Fund.
1. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
1. A report was presented from the Marine Department
Harbor
regarding Application #221-081 of James Schmitz to
C
Permit
construct a bulkhead At. 63-2 LIdo Park Drive.,
Councilman Barrett stated that he would abstain on
.Motion
x
this matter due to a possible conflict of interest.
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
Abstain
x
Harbor Permit Application No. 221-081 was approved,
Absent
x
subject to the conditions recommended by the Staff.
Motion
x
2. A proposed ordinance, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
Code
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 12.16.030 OF THE
Enforcement
Absent
K
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, "COMPLIANCE
REQUIRED," was tabled.
3. A report was presented from the Public Works Director
Lido Isle
regarding the Pedestrian Walkway Addition to the Lido
Bridge
Island Bridge, Contract No. 1814.
Motion
x
The plans and specifications were approved, and the
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
City Clerk was authorized to advertise for bids to be
Absent
K
opened at 2:00 P.M. on June 17, 1976.
4. A report was presented from the Public Works Director
Jamboree
regarding Jamboree Road slope construction from
Road
Eastbluff Drive north to a point 2,100 feet northerly,
Contract No. 1810.
Motion
x
The Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute a
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
right-of-way certification; the plans and specifi-
Absent
x
cations were approved; and the City Clerk was author-
ized to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 A.M.
on June 18, 1976. 1
5., A letter was presented from the Litter Control Citizens
Litter
Advisory Committee advising of absenteeism on the
Control Cit
Committee as requested by Resolution No. 8527,
Adv Cmte
Section (c).
Volume 30 - Page 129
BUYER'S NAMELanne Y i I I age
LALIOESS 6F FACILITY:
PERMIT #
J2000 28th -r
'A
0
00
.7 .1 'Lid.o.'Park Dr., N
C oti'� '9t u- 4 u- 0
TELEPHONE NO.
310)450-96�.§z'
FEE
APPROVED BY: DAT E
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER HARBOR PERMIT
OCHD
Three Pac Co
Cannery Village
ENG F]
SELLER'S NAME(S)
- BUYER'S NA MEI(S)
ll�-OVE NAMES TO BETYPED)�,
COUNCIL,
SIGNATUR OF SELLIt?
:SIGNATURE OF BU
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT.
g'r'p4e ALA,
Esckow
INSPIDCTTION -
SIGNATURE OFSELLER'--
MjMOF ' BUYER
I
S I I G
JPIA URE OF JOIN NER
App
�'PG
0 A P VED
E)
F1
I_
CITY HARBOR JNVECTOR
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: THIS PERMIT IS REVOCABLE BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE
17 OR THE MUNICIPAL CODE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF.
WX FORm 66-1013 Rw
�4
ul
LO
rd 0
r
>1 =1
.4J P
-rq U)
M 4-) 9 > rd 44 V-ri
r. o o a) -a) 44 P rCl
Ul
> , 0 (a ro
(1)
4J rcs
01
0 0 0 fo 4)
4-)
to
(1) 4-) U 4J 4 —1 0
r -I
to 0 4-) 0 0
V r4 ra o- 0 0)
P -ri IQ) 44 0
04 (d 0
0 0 4-) 4 U 4Y
$4 di -to M 4-)
$4
0 r -I Z >i E 4
ca C) N H U) 4j
p �4 41 u
t3l 0 -4 (d
-o- Ea 4 $4
U)
4J rO r -i -4 0) � -P (d
�a) -A 4 $4 , 0 Z'l
_4J,
fo -P �>� -P C) tH .,] 1
to : r -q- 0 ro
0
(1) 0) >i 4-), rd
L14"Z
fd
41 U)
z
o
r--1
AJ
C)
r_ 0
C: -P- �4 13)
r
_,�q
Ln fa In o JP Id!
PQ
�z
. I<
>4
:0 4-)
r Vu p 0) p Q)
> m 41 , ro 441
:4-4 >4
(d , a) (1) 4 0
rZ4
Ln
�4_4 04 -rd U H
0
_P. Q4
oot-A) (d 0 . rj), 0 Z
> I q
44 4Y
_r4_ _p
(L)
0 4J
44
r� ,
pr
- Z
I K �(D 4-) 4-)
U) H 0 0
1-4 -0
o ro C-) rd rd
o
-P
>�,4 a) z
z En
0
0 4j L)r ro .(I) r -,j a)
o p
(d
4 P4 Mr
:4 a)
rl
- -P
Oln 4J 4J 0)
4j
ro
a) (d 044 4J
_p r' , r. 0 LH
ro
0
_(d G 0 Id 0 ��4
ro o 0
4J >-i r-4 EO 44
q)
a) a b r,_4 �p ro
-P
P _0 (a r 0
-P 4 o
_H _p a) :j
0:
(d ra 44- 0
p
0
rX4
U)
M Q rd 0 0 U3 4j �4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053
SPLCO-N Public Notice No..75-107
12 June 1975
YOU ARE INVITED TO COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT
APPLICANT: Delaneyls Sea Shanty
c/o Gillis & Derby, Marine Contractors, Inc.
2806 Lafayette Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
ACTIVITY: Construction and installation of a sea wall and dopk facilities
located at Delaney's Sea Shanty,� 632 Lido Park Drive, The Rhine, Newport Bay,
Pacific Ocean, City of Newport -Beach, County of Orange, California, as shown
on the drawing accompanying this notice.
PURPOSE AND USE: To provide mooring for small boats, and protect private
property against erosion.
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORIZATIONS: Approval has been received from
the City of Newport Beach. Permits or approvals will also be required by
the Water Quality Control Board and the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission,
prior to issuing permit.
'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This office does not intend to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Statement on this activity unless significant detrimental
effects are brought to our attention. The' applicant has prepared an
Environmental Impact Report.
PUBLIC HEARING-:� Any person who has an interest which may be adversely
affected by the issuance of a permit may request a.public hearing. The
request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within
thirty (30) days of the date of this notice and must clearly set forth�the
interest which may be -affected -and the manner in which the interest may be
affected by the activity. Activities under Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532) and Section 404 of the
Federal'Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) will be considered in
conjunction with this notification.
CRITERIA: Your written - comments 'or objections should include -the number and
date of this notice and must reach.this office within thirty (30) ca,lendar
days. Thedecision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation
of the probable impact of the activity on the public interest. That decision
will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue
from the activity must be balanced -against its reasonably foreseeable
Public Notice No. 75-107 12 June 1975
APPLICANT: Delaney's.Sea Shanty
detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the activity will be
considere&;, among those are conservation, economics,.aest-hetics, general
environmental concerns, historic values, fish and wildlife values, flood
damage prevention, land use classification, navigation, recreation, water
supply,, water.quallty, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the
people. Details of changed conditions on the final permit action will
be provided upon request.
FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:
EN H. Y GIHARA
MAJ, CE
Deputy District Engineer for
Military and Postal. Programs
2
A-Opose
- s'.te
Iv. m.
+ A 6r
Cie
VICI M I TY SKETCH 'vSSr Jerry I i
N F wx� a or f�l A Y, CAL irortmA
ZELL
Ono( aldnolt-
A-jCOv7 Zobve.-� ZOW t-b?"&ro' Mc;fl�v�"
are cafablf'shecl -/AOS seclv,? orAl-ewval-I
e -
p p"s
-POckwant +. Off;cvs.
43 'A I k 4 p-
S�
COX% n p- N, y V
po Yf. Ot
m j 's C.
Affe 1('-4Nr �5` IVA4404r
All '3�
5 4or
3
V9/-? H
wq..OP4,r 1 11 lit Y:Alr_
S. C:Iil
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053
9 Juno 1976
Reference is made to your letter.of 15 Febru4ry-195
which you
1 our letter
#r0ject and
1.110 �avjqAtinq
'i fig, to the
9,014ps are
the work will
We S. we see no
Y:amond it because
Eho turning basin,
* City of
6 feet
the
0 Notirmfor
lune 1975, Pleas*
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 2711
/'LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 900ft
6 mar4h 197%
4-7 2 2, P/
D e �r�i e
Fabraary 15, 1975
U. So Oorps of Ingineore
300 1. Los Angeles St.
Lo,,o Angeles, 0a. 90053
Gentlemen:
I as g resident of space Vo,50 Lido Villa8el and also owner of
a 400 oallboat oeoapying slip xp&co s,t- Kijlg s Lido Oentorj 700 Lido
Park Drive. I 112vO 000APIed this slip for 16 1/2 years,
I attended the Newport Beaah OitY GOA-aOil mgstijag or, Monday,
February 10th, which was son-yoged in OoAneetlon with th I @ Delaney
Plex to eonetract a Qaxnery Village. In addition the do-reloper's
Pla-as a-ro to install bvItheads and revise slip space adjasent to
hio property lijae. I gia aware of the reqairement that -the davolopert
Delaney) wAst obtalin a permit and approval fro* the Uwa# Oorpe; of
Elginders and the lavport-Karine Department betore he ean proceed
with hit plant.
I atieladed this GOAA*il A$OtiAg 19 the hoPes that I aould pro-
atext my 'Views to yOgr R90407 as w011 as the YP,.rine Dept. who are the
ti -`0 Elge-nales d1re* tly, Ix-folved with tile gr-antl'ng of. this Perwit. I
Anderstand neither agency won present at the w-cetiag.
Having been 0106911 IAVOIY§d 1A the Rhine Oanal for the past
26 1/2 years, with actual orperjORO@ IR Using the t4raing baela &t
the end of the Rhine canal# I apeak from setxal experionso and oboo
seryation that this so-called turning basin offers minimal zpsoo in
whictL a vessel Oan turn and reverse Ito direetion which Is neseseary
In order to proceed bast out of the Rhi-te canal to lo-wer Newport bay.
I have been hgsd1jag all sizoo and typos of Yessels for the petit 65
years. and I feel qAalified to state th&t I am
familiar vith turning
alrolos and tArning radii required by varloam size vessels. I sain-
tRi4 that the QXIRting t-arning basin
is very minimal and gny inear-
�Sion by slips or bultheads into this t%rnlog basin would create an
Impossible sjtv10t-IOA for handlizig the 611sting traffic. -A 4oO single
screw Yessal is hard pressed to r9VOrVe its course in this Urning
basin withoat havilIg to bask and fill which reqaIres additioxal spage.
Single screw fishing V680elst which use the existLag balkhead6 for
Moorings all tind it necessary to ass & spring line and a lot of
baeking and filling to get turned aroAnd so they OaA proaaed oat the
Channel. The large commercial y�oseslQ earrentl�, oce-apying slip space
Imsedia,tely sarroanding the Delanoyts existing fatilities are too
long to 90t into their slips withoAt backing and filling and atilizing
almost the entire radius Of the exl0ting tiwruing b4zin. only twiyL
screw Yeasels gay now roYarBe their aouroo withowt using swoh more
spaee than the VarnIng basin now allows. Sanday�ltraffia sees many
50-601 'VeSsels using the Rhine eanal.
I lam asking that yoar agency take a longt hard look at this
present congested situstiou. I tirmly believe that any increase
in slip spaoe and a waltray around the sides of the preseat
OhRnnel Would OreatO an untenable problem and deserves stady before
any permit is granted that will add eonfusion to the already exist-
ing traffic problem.
Sincerely,
Robert 0. Sweet
Capt. U.S.C.G. Rot.
Oet
Newport Marine Department
COUNCILMEN
1 4 OS
0 Ci 0 0 tp
0 C.
0 00
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Place: Council Chambers
Time: 7:30 P.M.
Date: January 13, 1975 INDEX
Roll Call.
The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
Motion
x
December 23, 1974 was waived, and said Minutes were
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
'N
approved as written and ordered filed.
The reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions
Motion
x
under consideration was waived, and the.City Clerk was
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
'z
directed to read by titles only.
HEARINGS:
1. Mayor McInnis opened the continued public hearing
Delaney's
regarding the appeal of Francis M. Delaney from the
Cannery
decision of the Planning Commission denying Amendment
Village
No. 439 establishing a Planned Community Development
Plan and Development Standards for Delaney's Cannery
Village on the Lido Peninsula located at 700 Lido
2-2 1-6
Park Drive on the south side of 28th Sreet, westerly
of the prolongation of Lido Park Drive; zoned P -C;
and -proposed Ordinance No. 1595, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ESTABLISHING A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DELANEY'S
CANNERY VILLAGE (AMENDMENT NO. 439)..
A report was presented from the Community Development
Department.
A copy of a letter from Thomas Peckenpaugh, attorney
representing Vard Wallace, to Donald W. Killian was
presented regarding Mr. Wallace's residence adjacent
to Delaney's Cannery Village.
Letters from Esther Scherr, Nell Schutter, Dorothy
Dudas, John B. Kingsley, Conrad Matthews, and Marion
Olson, were presented opposing Delaney's Cannery
Village.
Letters addressed to Mayor McInnis from Frances
McDonald, (Mrs.) Kathryn Stone, Florence Bowles, Dr.
and Mrs. R. W. Lyster, Mr. and Mrs. A. Y. Von Zaller,
Ruth D. Bradley, Edward Harkness, Frank t. and
Dorothy B. Robertson, Neil H. Tucker, (Mrs.) Irene
Elkey, and Gerry Rest were presented opposing Delaney's
Cannery Village.
Richard Dodd, architect for Delaney's Cannery Village,
Motion
K
addressed the Council and was granted ten minutes for
Ayes
K
x
x
x
x
x
x
his presentation.
The following people addressed the Council and
requested that the proposed Delaney's,Cannery Village
be approved: Dan Olmstead, Michael Healey, Robert
Willits, Walter Gayner, Carl Key, Gordon Graham, Anne
Bremmer, Leo Hahn, Harold Birnkrant, Paul Koch, Paul
Ziesing as President of the Cannery Village Associa-
tion, Donald W. Killian representing Delaney's
Village, and Francis Delaney.
Volume 29 Page 1
COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
'A '0 1,
0 C0 0 t. 0
0 .1 T
P(')l I r.A1 I %P t eel S A Jannnry 11- 1Q79
MINUTES
INDEX
Motion
x
An additional two minutes were granted to Mr. Healey
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
N
X
for his presentation.
The following people addressed the Council and
requested that the proposed Delaney's Cannery Village
be denied: John B. Kingsley representing the Moana
Community Association, Clark Sweet, Goldie Joseph,
Howard Beale, James Evans, Victor Yack, Marilyn
Arnold, Elizabeth Colleran, William Dudas, Leland
Stone, Dorothea Majofsky, Erwin Sprengel, Eleanor
D'Ambrogio, Vernon Hylton, Marion Olson, Bobbie
Riddle, Malcolm D'Ambrogio, Claire Reed, Bill Williams,
Shirley Evans, Marie Schullman, Alan Stoneman as
attorney for the newly founded Lido Peninsula Com-
munity Association...and Thomas Peckenpaugh as attorney
representing Vard Wallace.
Motion
x
Mr. Stoneman was granted twelve minutes for his
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
2
presentation.
Motion
x
An additional three minutes were granted to Mr.
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Stoneman.
Motion
x
Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to close the hearing.
William Wright addressed the Council in opposition to
the proposed Delaney's Cannery Village.
A vote was taken on Councilman Ryckoff's motion; and
Ayes
K
x
x
x
x
x
x
the hearing was closed after it was determined that
no one else desired to be heard.
Wes Pringle, President of Carommelin-Pringle and
Associates, 'traffic consultant for the EIR, addressed
the Council.
Motion
K
Councilman Rogers made a motion to uphold the decision
Ayes
K
x
of the Planning Commission, which motion failed to
Noes
x
x
x
x
x
carry.
Motion
x
Councilman Kuehn made a motion to overrule the
decision of the Planning Commission and to introduce
Ordinance No. 1595 and pass to second reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Dostal asked that the motion be amended
to include Councilman Store's recommendation that
7,500 square feet of the office and commercial space
not be constructed until traffic studies were made'
after the development commences to be.occupied, which
amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion.
Traffic Engineer Bill Darnell addressed the Council.
Motion
K
Councilman Rogers made a substitute motion to refer
Ayes
K
the matter back to the Planning Commission with the
Noes
x
x
x
x
x
x
recommendation that the Commission look at the
square feet reduction, which motion failed to carry.
Volume 29 - Page 2
COUNCILMEN C,ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
00 C!,
0
R01 I rAl 1 0 Ir A January 13.1 1975
Volume 29 - Page 3
X,
A vote was taken on Councilman Kuehn's amended motion
Ayes
x
x
x
and the decision of the Planning Commission was
Noes
X
x
x
overruled; Ordinance No. 1595 was amended to restrict
the construction of 7,500 square feet of office and
commercial space from the project until a traffic
count could be taken after 25 percent occupancy,,
and Ordinance No. 1595 was introduced as amended and
passed to second reading on January 27, 1975. (When
the vote was called on this motion, Mayor McInnis'
roll call voting switch was still on "no" from the
previous vote-, however his vote on this motion was
intended to be an "aye" vote.)
2. Mayor McInnis opened the combined public hearings
regarding (a), (b) and (c) as follows:
(a) Ordinance No. 1581, being,
Prezoning
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PREZONING UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY LOCATED
EASTERLY OF NEW MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD AND THE
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF SPYGLASS HILL ROAD ADJOIN-
ING THE SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR, ADJACENT TO THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, IN THE EVENT OF SUBSE-
QUENT ANNEXATION,
Planning Commission Amendment No. 437, request
of The Irvine Company to prezone 6.29 acres of
unincorporated territory to the Planned Com-
munity District; A-1 County zoning.
(b) Harbor View Hills Planned Community Development
Harbor View
Standards Amendment No. 8, Planning Commission
Hills PC
Amendment No. 437, reducing the permitted
Amendment
density in Area 11, updating the statistical.
analysis for Areas 11 and 15, and other general
changes in the Land Use Map and PC Text, located
easterly of New MacArthur Boulevard on both
sides of the proposed extension of Spyglass Hill
Road; zoned PC.
(c) Tentative Map of Tract No. 8725, subdividing
Tract 8725
170.3 acres into 100 numbered lots for single-
family development, 13 numbered lots for condo-
minium development, 3 numbered lots to be
developed as open space and public park sites,
3 numbered lots to be developed as private
recreational sites, 7 numbered lots to be
developed as landscape open space areas, and
21 lettered lots to be developed as private
streets, bounded by the existing Spyglass Hill
Boulevard -and the San Joaquin Reservoir site;
zoned PC within City limits and A-1 in County;
and acceptance of the Environmental Impact
Report.
A report was presented from the Community Development
Department regarding (a) and (b).
A report was presented from the Community Development
Department regarding (c).
A letter from the Environmental Quality Control
Citizens Advisory Committee was presented urging the
Council to accept the dedication of the natural
canyon adjacent to the extension of Spyglass Hill
Road as public open space.
Volume 29 - Page 3
X,
�00 NCWOO�" 30',;�Cva,-C� No',,,<)r� Ca;
71_1,_/G73 -2_-O
Novem'
ber 79, 1974
-P
-ea Ente- rises
G21 Lido 'Park Drive
.�ew,00rt 3each, Calif-orn-La 92660
:D -a a r S il _- -.
e C t 7 o f Newoort Beaca Ymarine ,Den.-arl--ment a--n,d t.he Cra'-,-�C1-:.,
4 -) e �_ a -
Co,,:nt-v ----7-arbors, Beaches.. and 'Parks Depart-ment in COO"
--on t-la.e marine D_-*v.J_'s_`_c.-_ c_` h e '_Yew,,�ort :Ear�)or
c:-:- Comm.l�_=p has --for t-he� -7-ast- years been active -in a
a 1) o r D e �3 r is ", C o n IC_ r o r, �f a:m, -i e 1p a, `L. 11, �-__ V oa
the Harbor's zo mLid-channel ana
4 -ies and
.7e P e erhead i
�he Zones �Del. -n
,%-head Iines.
'--his -)Ian to be city Council by both
-jc:__-Lcy and City Ord-inance est_LD 4- s "lled the fo!_'�ow`ng
w'_ 4 re - -Z, S
ordnance
Section 17.32.040 _REFT_'S_':` �L,'�R"_NAS AND PIERS. Any
)wner or o7Derator of a. :)r any owner or -)er.
'der who main--ains a pier, sha'7 keep the area in
and around -such mar_-,na or pler -:-oca'L--ed on the s'--ore-
7-nes of 11'.ewport Harbor w -'t'-4 -r the City -reasonably
17
-rep and clear from beached or �_oating refuse, debris
or lit'Cer at all tiMeS.
-_�C.mitt-edly, the C-ity. an.-_".-t_he Co,_,.ntty Harbor District has
not- agg-ressively enfo_rce(f. th4---- orfi-nance wit'� their
-eS- I -� e
,)eC+-jVe -0074Ce -DoWe-S OU.- Jrstead have as', -led that th
S 4
.,-,_,s4_nesses and re _L_____,,,:� frcn,,'_-_,nc, the bay voluntari-Y
I
Co��_ 7 Jancc and take -he initilative
sulp2,ort towa-rd
yards as free as
keeDincr their so -�c s._--_a�c
c�htiv ,-,a�e-` a-'
-1 the
..,ar-ing the,last few has, been brought to
__�Dn of the M,ar-i-ne t'- Cl-affcer of Co=erce an,f
-..--e C --'-'-y that -he Rh. -L_ .e �,_rea -'s -:,_ga`n co"Llecting a disDro-
_C -, , I . - I 1� 4 art 4 cu' ar 4 "� v beh4��
or c, l. .- ._�. -sh
nal amount of
a --.d around the float -s
sea Enterprizes
Pacre Two
nurpose of this let -Iter is basically two fold: First, the
4 =e Division of the
"ounty Harbor Districtr and Ma
__--y, C
Chamber of Commerce would again as!-, for your voluntary com.nii-
a_nce with the above st-a.t_ed C4 ty Ordinance and Council Policy.
order to comply with this -�_ype of ordinance, the Mar4ne
D v L -'Z a n
Lsion c. -L-' the Chamber of Commerce has suggested tha
era-_)7ovee of the respective businesses fronting the bay be
assignea a daily walk out onto t'--, dock and scoop the f1catilng
4
rul.-_bish cut of the bay wh-Ich has collected around the docks.
Secondly, the County 1 -7 -arbor advises that they w -L i -I
continue, when called, to pickup containerized rubbish t -hat
if, there is a not-J"cable
.".as been scooped out of the bay. Also,
amount c. -J--- trash in the channel between the pierhead lines, the
Chis zone.
vessel "Scooper" will be to take care of- t
- I
-f you have any quest -ions o_r we can be of any assistance
:-.egarding these combinef'( cffo-�_-ts, please feel free to con -
2. -_act- any of t -he followJ . n ---
-men- - 834-31800
O-ange County Harbors, and Parks Deparl�
Harbor Master Al O'Berg
Y
of Newport Beach, marilr�e Department
',�arJne Director - R. E. Reed
,, _L
cn
ine Division
,_Or arbor /namber o -mmerce, Mar
- - - Z_ - -
?_-esident - Bob IHI i ide.-brand
.,��S S 4 -stant Director
_4 --' s lands Coerations T L
Zro.
Der-ar' en'
G 7
:'E' x 2 1
644-327 "_
cc,. A! O'Berg, Harbo_- Mas-11--er
Bob Hildenbrand, Marine Divil sion, Chamber of Conamerce
Cannery Restaurant-
'Roatswa-r.s
Planning Commission Meeti`ng Nov. 7, 1974
Item No. 6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
November 1, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: Amendment -No. 439 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to establish a Planned Community Development
Plan and Development Standards for,,"Delaney's cannery
Village" on the Lido Peninsula, and the acceptance of
an environmental document.
LOCATION: Portion of Lot 6 of Section 28 and Lot 2 of Section 33,
Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino
Meridian, located at 700 Lido Park Drive on the
south side of 28th Street, westerly of the Prolonga-
ti:on of Lido Park Drive, on the Lido Peninsula.,
ZONE: P - C:
APPLICANT: Delaney's Cannery Village, Laguna Beach
OWNER.: Same as Applicant
Background
This application was originally presented to'the Planning Commission on
September 19, 1974. At that hearing a number of questions contern*
the proposed :roject were raised and the application was I continued ing
p
to the meeting of November 7, 1974. The major concerns were traffic,
water clarity, air quality and energy and alternative land uses.
Additional informa,tion regarding each of these concerns has. been
prepared and the Environmental Impact Report 'has been revised.
The following chart summarized the sections of the EI R which have
beenrevised:
Subject Page # Page #
(Revised Report) (Origina-1 Report)
I.' Summary iv iv
2. Forelward v -
3. Water Clarity 11 12
4. Vehicular Traffic 24-32 25-31
5. Air Quality 34-35 33-34
6. Utilities 51-54 49
7. Traffic 58 56
8.' Alternative Land Uses 68-70 65-66
In addition to these revisions to the EIR, the following information
has been provided;
1. The applicant has prepared a model of the proposed development
whic,h will be on display the evening of the hearing.
2. The site plan has been revised to show a turn -around at the south
end of Lido Park Drive -and at the end of 28th Street.
Item No. 6
TO: Planning Commission 2.
3. The P -C Text has been revised to include the recommendations
contained in,the staff report dated September 13, 1974, and to
include more detailed mitigation measures.
Traffic
At the public hearing on September 19, 1974, there were a number of.
questions concerning traffic. Accordingly, additional studies have
been made on the existing traffic volumes in the area and on projected,
traffic volumes from the future development of the Lido Peninsula.
The Present traffic volumes are discussed on : pages 26-28 of the E IR.
Generally, the consultant concludes that Lido Park Drive has adequate
capacity, but that there are two major pro'blems with regard to traffic
circulation in the area. These are the perpendicular parking on the
west side of Lido Park Drive and the lack of a turn -around at the
entrance to the Curci-Turner property. The consultant recommends
that the perpendicular parking be changed to angle parking and that
a turn -around be provided at the intersection of Lido Park Drive and
28th Street.
The projected future traffic volumes from Lido Peninsula are discussed
on pages 29-30 of the EIR. These projections are based on the three
most likely alternatives for future development. These are
11) that the entire peninsula is developed with residential use's with
a maximum density of 15 DU/Ac.,
2) that the proposed project or a similar commercial development is
developed and the remainder of the.peninsula is developed for
residential uses, and
3) that in addition to the proposed project, 4 acres are devoted to
commercial development and the remainder of the peninsula is
developed for residential development.
Generally the consultant concludes that Lido Park Drive could handle
the traffic from any of the alternatives although the third alternative
would require that the metered parking be removed in order to provide
two travel lanes in each direction.
Recommendation
The staff recommends acceptance of the Environmental Impact Report and
the approval of Amendment No. 439.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR
B y—
William R. Fol A-,
_ey-,-- J
Environmental Coordinator
WRF/sh
Attachments: Staff Report dated September 13, 1974
Revised EIR
Revised P -C Text
Letter from Elizabeth Lee Apt dated October 9, 1974
Item No. 6
Planning Commission Meeting Sept. 19, 1974
Item No. 4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
September 13, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 439 (Cont. Public Hearing)
Request to establish a Planned Community Development
Plan and Development Standards for "Delaney't Cannery
Village" on the Lido Peninsula, and the acceptance.of
an environmental document.
LOCATION: Portion of Lot 6 of Section 28 and Lot 2 of Section 33,
Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Meridian,
located at 700 Lido Park Drive on the south side of
28th Street, westerly of the Prolongation of Lido Park
Drive, on the Lido Peninsula.
ZONE: P -C
APPLICANT: Delaney's Cannery Village, Laguna Beach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
Background
The entire Lido Peninsula, including this site, has been zoned P -C
(Planned Community). However, no development standards have been
adopted. Therefore, this application is to establish a specific
development plan for this s-ite. Because of the size of the site and
the fact that a detailed plan has been developed, the site plan will
become the major portion of the development plan and the text in this
case is not as comprehensive as other documents which have been
developed in other P -C Districts.
Environmental Significance
IL was determined that this project might have significant environ-
mental impacts and therefore an Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared. The report was prepared for the City by a consultant
retained by the Environmental Affairs Committee.
Proposed Project
The proposed project will consist of 17,000 sq. ft. of retail shops,
8,000 sq. ft. of offices, a 200 occupant restaurant'. 10 boat slips,
and related parking. In addition the project will'include improvements
to 28th Street, the construction of a new bulkhead, and the extension
of a public walkway adjacent'to the bulkhead. The EIR contains a
detailed discussion of the proposed project.
Analysis
The major issues involved with this project are as follows:
1. Basic Land Use. The Lan . d Use Element of the General Plan
designates Lido Peninsula as a mixture of Residential and Com-
mercial development with the commercial development including
11marine and recreation -oriented commercial uses, with emphasis
on marine repair and service uses in association with boat sales,
restaurants, hotels,,motels, and specialty shops." Because of
the location of this site, it is par,ticularly suited for the
types of land uses which have been proposed.
Item No. 4
TO: Planning Commission - 2.
2. Traffic and Parking. The EIR contains a detailed analysis of
projected traffic volumes and concludes that while the project
will certainly add traffic to -the area, it will not overburden
the surrounding street system. (See EIR Pages 21, 25-31)
The project, as proposed, shows the improvement of 28th' Street
with perpendicular parking on both sides of the street (the
stalls are,partly on private property and pa,rtly on the public
right-of-way). This parking layout maximizes�the total number
of spa ' ces in the area, but raises a number of questions. First
the original proposal.would have made all of the parking adjacent
to 28th Street private with the spaces on the north side of the
street allocated to the existing restaurant development and the
spaces on the south side allo,cated to the new development. Thus
public right-of-way would be used for private parking and, in
addition, all public parking would be eliminated. The Environmental
Affairs Committee agrees with,the basic design but feels that public
parking should be retained. Therefore it is proposed that the
right-of-way lines be adjusted as shown on Exhibit A attached to
this report.
This proposal would provide additional right-of-way for a turn
around at the end of 28th Street and would provide additional
right-of-way (or an easement) for public metered spaces on the
south side of 28th Street. In exchange, it is Proposed that'the
City Vacate a portion of 28th Street so that All of the parking
on the north side would be on private property and further that
the City give the applicant credit for some of the public parking
on the.south side of the street.
The rationale�for giving the applicant credit is that it would
be impossible to provide more than eight parallel spaces within
the existing right-of-way, and by acquiring additional right-of-
way (or an easement) it would be possible to provide approximately
22 public spaces.
If the applicant is given credit for the 14 additional public spaces,
he would los.e a,total of 8 spaces (from the total of 175 he is
proposing to provide). These would have to be provided elsewhere
onsite or the project would have to be reduced proportionately.
3. Restaurant Parking. Included in the total of 175 spaces is the
parking for the restaurant calculated at one space for each three
occupants. TheEIR includes reference to the new restaurant
parking study and the possibility that the City's requirements
may increase. However the EIR argues that the parking as proposed
will be adequate because of the overlapping uses and hours of
operation. (See EIR pages29-30) The staff partially agrees with
this reasoning, however feels that this type of complex may attract
a greater number'of people than,would the same uses located on
separate sites. Therefore the staff feels that the restaurant
parking should conform to whatever standards are in effect at the
time of issuance of building permits, and that no credit should
be given for the ovei-lapping uses. It should be noted that this
may require that the developer add a partial 3rd level to the
parking structure.
4. Location of the Bulkhead. The�proposed project would include the
construction of a new bulkhead which would connect the existing
bulkheads on both si ' des of the project. The proposed bulkhead
is located 30 feet inside of the bulkhead line but is further out
than the existing mud bank and wooden bulkhead.
Preliminary discussions with the Federal Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife indicate that they are opposed to moving the bulkhead
out from the existing bank. Therefore the Environmental Affairs
Committee asked the Environmental Consultant to thoroughly analyze
this problem. He has concluded that the proposed bulkhead location
would not create any significant adverse impact and may have some
beneficial impacts (See EIR pages 10-16, 39-47, 60-65).
Item No.— 4
TO: Planning Commission 3.
5. Height.'.It should be noted that the provisions of the P -C text
would allow this development to exceed the basic height limit
of 26' up to a maximum�of 35'. This is'because the two story
buildings will have steep pitched roofs, The staff feels that
this project meets the four criteria w1ithin the Height Limitation'
Ordinance.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Environmental, Affairs Committee feels that the EIR is thorough
and complete and recommends that the Planning CommAssion and City,
Council:certify it as complete.
The staff feels that the proposed project is in conformance with the
General Plan and will provide further public and quasi -public access
to the Rhine Channel. Therefore the staff recommends approval of
Amendment No. 439:with the following additions and changes to the
P -C text:
1. That Section II D:6 (P4) be eliminated:and that Section I B
(P2) read as follow;:
B. The improvement of 28th Street and adjacent parking areas
shall be in accordance with the following -
28th Street shall be improved by the developer, with the
and plans to be approved by the Public Works
Department.
2. Aiturnaround with'a curb line radius of 32 feet shall be
provided at the bayward end of 28th Street, and a veh,icle
barricade,of appropriate design installed at the end.
3. 28th Street shall be paved with conventional portland cement
concrete or asphaltic concrete pavement unless the use of
special materials is desired. If the use of special
materials is desired specific City Council approval of
the concept will be required, and the developer shall
maintain the special paving. A maintenance agreement shall
be provided similar to the agreement recently executed for
Via Oporto maintenance in conjunction with the Lido Village
project.
4. The parking layout within and immediately adjacent to
28th Street shall be subject to City Council approva'l.
Criteria for the parking layout shall include provision
for a satisfactory number of public parking spaces,
vehicular circulation and -safety, and pedestrian circula-
tion and safety.
5. Right of way shall be dedicated on 28th Street,for the
turnaround at the end and for the public parking spaces
and pedestrian walkway along the southerly side. Abandon-
ment of appropriate portions of the existing 28th Street
right of way may be considered by the City in order to
compensate for the additional dedications required. The
primary criteria for determining the configuration of
right of way realignments shall be that the existi,ng public
interest in the 28th Street right of way hot be diminished,
.and that access to the tidelands be maintained or improved.
6. If the fina-1 parking layout selected increases the number
of public parking spaces beyond the number which could
reasonably be provided in the existing 28th Street right
of way, the City shall credit the differential amount to
the developer's off-stree-t parking requirements.
Item No. 4
TO: Planning
Commission 4.
2., That Section I E be
added to read as follows:
Any water and sewer
main extensions needed shall be provided I
to the, satisfaction
of the Public Works Department.
3. That Section I F be
added to read as follows:
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a resubdivision shall
be approved.
4. That Section I G be
added to read as.follows:�
All of the mitigation measures contained in the Environmental
Impact Report shall
be implemented.
51.1 That Section II C 1
(P3) be amended to add the following
special note -
The parking for the
restaurant shall comply with the City's
requirements in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits.
6. That Section iI D 7
(P4) be amended to refer to the,Marine Depart-
ment, City of Newport Beach, rather th:an the Harbor Department.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR
By 61, 1
William R. Foley—�
Environmental Coordinator
WRF/sh
Attachments: P -C Text
P -C Site
Plan (Back pocke't in EIR)
Environmental
Impact Report
Exhibit "A"
showing proposed realignment of 28th Street
Item No.— 4
Mo t n
ys
I
REGULAR MEETING OF
NEWPORT HARBOR JOINT HARBOR COMMITTEE
September 10, 1974
ATTENDANCE
I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES I
2. PROPOSED INCREASE IN BOAT IMPOUND STORAGE FEES
AND APPROVAL OFIGUEST MOORING CHARGES.
3.
Digest: The present fee of $1 per day for tran-
sient vessel use of offshore mooring is applied
to vessels impounded by the Harbor Patrol and
stored on such a mooring. This lov fee provides
no incentive for the owner of a vessel to remove
it from the mooring. The result is frequently a
long-term storage at a rate much -less than that
the boatowner would pay at a commercial marina.
Secondly, Board approval of the transien ' t vessel
offshore mooring fee is requested, as is a time
limit identica ' 1 to that applicable to District
guest slips.
RECOMMENDATIONS:, The Commission recommend to the
Boardof Supervisors.:that:
A transient vessel mooring fee of $2 per day
be authorized.
2. The maximum rental period for such moorings
5 consecutive days, subject to renewal by
the Director if such a renewal does not
restrict use by other boaters.
3. The charge for impounded vessels be.the charg(
as authorized by the Board of Supervisors for
guest slips (presently $4/day in Newport,
$3/day for 100boat foot in Dana.)
REVIEW OF PROPOSED SLIP REVISIONS, BULKHEAD AND
RESTAURANT CONSTRUCTION, DELANEY'S CANNERY
VILLAGE, THE RHINE
Digest: As part of the general redevelopment of
the Rhine area, a Delaney's Cannery Village has
applied for necessary City Harbor Permit for
construction of a bulkhead and boat slip revision
in conjunction with a restaurant -development. Th(
development is under City jurisdiction, but the
opinion of the Committee is requested as the pro-
ject will have impacts on the hhrbor. A City
staff report has been prepared.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the recommendations
listed in City staff report.
lde_�-
4:3Q P. r4,
rn L
M M
LD
i r Q
_n
Mo t n
ys
I
REGULAR MEETING OF
NEWPORT HARBOR JOINT HARBOR COMMITTEE
September 10, 1974
ATTENDANCE
I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES I
2. PROPOSED INCREASE IN BOAT IMPOUND STORAGE FEES
AND APPROVAL OFIGUEST MOORING CHARGES.
3.
Digest: The present fee of $1 per day for tran-
sient vessel use of offshore mooring is applied
to vessels impounded by the Harbor Patrol and
stored on such a mooring. This lov fee provides
no incentive for the owner of a vessel to remove
it from the mooring. The result is frequently a
long-term storage at a rate much -less than that
the boatowner would pay at a commercial marina.
Secondly, Board approval of the transien ' t vessel
offshore mooring fee is requested, as is a time
limit identica ' 1 to that applicable to District
guest slips.
RECOMMENDATIONS:, The Commission recommend to the
Boardof Supervisors.:that:
A transient vessel mooring fee of $2 per day
be authorized.
2. The maximum rental period for such moorings
5 consecutive days, subject to renewal by
the Director if such a renewal does not
restrict use by other boaters.
3. The charge for impounded vessels be.the charg(
as authorized by the Board of Supervisors for
guest slips (presently $4/day in Newport,
$3/day for 100boat foot in Dana.)
REVIEW OF PROPOSED SLIP REVISIONS, BULKHEAD AND
RESTAURANT CONSTRUCTION, DELANEY'S CANNERY
VILLAGE, THE RHINE
Digest: As part of the general redevelopment of
the Rhine area, a Delaney's Cannery Village has
applied for necessary City Harbor Permit for
construction of a bulkhead and boat slip revision
in conjunction with a restaurant -development. Th(
development is under City jurisdiction, but the
opinion of the Committee is requested as the pro-
ject will have impacts on the hhrbor. A City
staff report has been prepared.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the recommendations
listed in City staff report.
lde_�-
4:3Q P. r4,
MARINE DEPARTMENT
),"J,
3r, 0 A 0-,V1 ,
I Y19
October 1, 1974
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE JOINT HARBOR COMMITTEE
FROM: Marine Department
7% i S � y . o / .
SUBJECT: HA-RB*R=RZW49T APPLICATION DELANEY' S CANNERY
VILLAGE TO REVISE EXISTING SLIP
AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BULKHEAD
0 e
Recommendation IS.'
If.desired, recommend that the Newport Beach City Council ap ove the
harbor permit application subject to: W?e_ 4 Al-roy
.1. Approval of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2.. The proposed restaurant be'constructed so that
the bulkhead will not be subjected toany weight
or surcharge as a result of the restaurant location.
3. The applicant shall not allow "side ties" on the
-outside of the northerly and southerly fingers of
the proposed slips in keeping with City Policies.
4. The applicant obtain the necessary permits for any
plumbing, electrical and fire protection installations
from applicable City departments.
Discussion
The approval of the Orange County Harbor, Beaches, and Parks District
is not required because the underlying tidelands ownership is City
Tidelands bayward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line and private fee ownership
landward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line, however, staff feels that the Joint
Harbor Committee's review and comment would be helpful to City Council
in their review of the project.
The proposed bulkhead and slip revision is part of an overall development
by Delaney's on the adjacent upland property.
Because the total project (Delaney's Cannery Village) involves Planned
Community zoning and approval by the Community Development Department
of the City, the developer was required to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report. This report included discussion of the proposed bulk-
head, the necessary fill behind the bulkhead and the location of the
restaurant. The Environmental Impact Report concluded that the proposed
bulkhead would have no adverse impact and in.fact could be considered
beneficial in that it will control erosion and will eliminate a "waste
sink for society's detritus".
As is shown on the attached drawing the proposed bulkhead will be
constructed thirty (30) feet behind the U. S. Bulkhead Line and will
connect to existing bulkheads at either.end. This location is desired
by the applicant to provide adequate area for construction of the
proposed ten slips. The restaurant will be canti ' levered over the
bulkhead twelve (12) feet and has been designed to permit the extension
of a public boardwalk below the restaurant and to provide adequate
clearance for boats moored in the slips.
Condition Number 2 is recommended to insure that the restaurant and the
bulkhead will not be interdependent for structural stability.
The boardwalk will connect to an existing boardwalk thereby providing
continual access around the head of t.,,).e Rhine Channel from The Cannery
Restaurant to Delaney's. Public access to the boat slips will be res-
tricted except for those restaurant clientele arriving by boat., The
developer will make arrangements with the Community Development Depart-
ment of the City for the dedication of a public walkway easement to
accomodate the proposed boardwalk.
The proposed slips and bulkhead will be designed and constructed in accord-
ance with City Standards.
R. E. REED, DIRECTOR
14ARINE DEPARTMENT
D. Harshbarger, Assistant Director
Tidelands operations Division
DH: GEW: lf
August 27, 1974
MARINE DEPARTMENT
a
TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE JOINT HARBOR COMMITTEE
FROM: Marine Department
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-081 Y DELANEY'S CANNERY
VILLAGE (MR. JAMES SCHMITZ) TO REVI E . EXISTING SLIPS.AND
D LA
XI
Recommendation TO CONSTRUCT . A NEW BULKHEAD 1. %E1
If desired, recommend that the Newport Beach City Coun i I -approve the
harbor permit application subject to:
1. Approval -of the U.S. Army Corps bf Engineers.
2. The proposed-restauraht be constructed so that
the bulkhead will no'i'be subjected to any weight
or surcharge as a result of the restaurant location.
3. The applicant grant an easement for the public walk-
way; and construct and maintain in a safe manner a
boardwalk for public use.
4. The applicant shall not allow "side ties" onthe
outside of the northerly and southerly fingers of
the proposed slips in keeping with City Policies..
5. The applicant obtain the necessary permits for any
plumbing, electrical and fire protection installations
from applicable City departments.
Discussion
The approval of the Orange County Harbor, Beaches'and Parks District
is not required because the underlying tidelands ownership is City
Tidelands bayward of the U. S. Bulkhead.Line and private fee ownership
landward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line, however, staff feels that.the Joi,nt
Harbor Committee's review and comment would be helpful to City Cound.]
in their review of the project.
The proposed bulkhead and slip revision is part of an ove ra.11 development
by Delaney's on the adjacent upland property.
Because the total project (Delaney's Cannery Village) involves Planned
P,-je Tvic.
Communi ty zoni ng and approval , by the Communi ty Devel opment Department
of the City, the developer was required to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report. This report included discussion of the proposed bulk-
head, the necessary fill behind the bulkhead and the location of the
restaurant. The Environmental Impact Report concluded that the proposed
bulkhead would have no adverse impact and in fact could be considered.
beneficial in that it will control erosion and will eliminate a "waste
sink for society's detritus".
As is shown on the attached drawing the proposed bulkhead will be
constructed thirty (30) feet behind the U. S. Bulkhead Line and will
connect to existing bulkheads at either end. This location is desired
by the applicant to provide adequate area for construction of the
proposed ten slips. The restaurant will be cantilevered over the
bulkhead twelve (12) feet and has been designed to permit the,extension
of a public boardwalk below the restaurant and to provide adequate
clearance for boats moored in the slips.
Condition Number 2 is recommended to insure that the restaurant and the
bulkhead will not be interdependent for structural stability.
The boardwalk will connect to an.existing boardwalk thereby providing
continual access around the he . ad of the;,Rhine Channel from The Cannery
Restaurant to Delaney's. Public access to the boat slips will bie res-
tricted except for those restaurant clientele arriving by boat. The
developer will make arrangements with the Community Development Depart-
ment of the City for the dedication of a public walkway easement to
accomodate the proposed boardwalk.
The proposed slips and bulkhead will be designed and constructed in accord-
ance with City Standards.
R. E. REED, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
D. Harshbarger, Assistant Dire or
Tidelands Operations Division.
DH: GEW: I f
OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR APPLICATION NO.
w IVY,
q_
a 05
-j-
1 1j,Q D
6 CZAAW.
P
0.04! 9 <
— r,
WAD' too
Pd!
Cie-
VICIMITY SKETCH I Ayr
Nawpor?r 131AY CAtIFORNIA
NP,
S'Ou"a"fry9s are L-Apressed /r7 /'&C/ or)0( ad-nole 1
O'eP /A 5 be/oW A-?eQr7 ZOAOvd-0- ZOW
ranqe cp/' 1(1*&C oh -boo- 4�7�e5
'y
are Secl'o'? ot--Alew
j6
U. 5". Pi't I I n4L
—17
U
Elf ;Lt
Officts
_j 4-nopoze 4 1
N
CAy oi C:4001 n 0-
- , -f'.
qa Atw-ts
Slips
I All Si;f Vvjws w.40.
;z 2("h 5, w',Aq
3 Rc�#.,Ipz 4' X Ro,
CIV Newport "4
e� f. A k
M,r. Jovnks Schml'+z
Po,-tK Z'rwe-
Gilkg * vq/� ;1
Draf t 1/24/74
-Y
E N� V I R
ICES
A S lu it;_� 5 - K,
MAR I NE B I OLOGY 0 S.
e M U,
7 7
Analysis This section was prepared �by Patrick Y. O'Brien,
marine biologist*, Department of Population and Env i ronmen tal
sity of California, Irvine, and included consultat
Biology, Univer on s
and assistance from Dr. Roger Seapy, Assistant Professor of Biology
and Dr. Peter Dixon, professorif of the same Department.
The site was visited on two days. A brief qualitative assess
ment of the biota was made at two locations on 18 July 1974. The
first sample was taken at approximately + 2 -ft tide level, and the second
at O -ft level. In addition, the substrate beneath a cement
boulder and an algae mat were examined.
Irjtxodqction The water -front area of the existing trailer
park consists primarily of an ice -plant covered slope andwooden bulk -
heading below which is muddy littoral habitat. On either end of the
approximately 200 -ft frontage are wooden and cement bulkeads and
pilings with a characteristic complement of intertidal biota. The I finger
piers servicing the marina (which essentially parallels the shoreline),
are encrusted with typical organisms of the fouling community common
to such habitats. This intertidal muddy bottom is generally isolated
from other such habitats in the lower Newport Bay, and1s located on a rathe�-_
e termed The Rhine. Water qualit problems
constricted dead end chann 1, y
assocaited with-S'U'ch channels are discussed in Dixon and Marsh (1973)1
WRE (1973), and Orange County Health Department (1970). kk`0-TjA uok_ 1-4 I 5efts f:-_
L7 -
mud Bottom Habitat B--Iow the presentslope demarking the edge
of the trailer court, a highly modified mud bottom littoral habitat
extends approximately 100 ft. Rather.steeply sloped, this area becomes
exposed to a breadth of approximately 11) ft during a O -ft low tide.
Mr. O'Brien is a graduate student at UCI, and a -U. S. Coast Guard,
Rese rve Officer, with 3 -year's active duty in the area.
i
i
5
References
Dixon, and Gordnr
y l)739 Ecoloklc -u an
.1 �,Iarsh -i al S rvey pf Aquati d
ria -I Reso-irces
for C'dty-jf ".Pwport Beach, 3300- Newport Boulevara.,
rt Sw:,ch, �>Ii`l
rnia
B arnard 9 La�.Lrens, and
Donal -d J. Reish. 1959. Ecology odl Amphipoda. and
Po 1 ar� t a o f N ewPo rt
I'lav i I'c rnI a. �-.ccasion,
al -Paper of the Allan
-44
Hancoc' .-oundation.
State of California Departmen'
at _IU blic Heal'h 1970 Water Quality Investigati
at Newport Bay Orange
Co,,lr.ty; July, 1970.
14ater Res4urces Engineers.
Re ommande plan -
1973. Hewpert Day I c d Water Quality Management
-p' X
N
Rough Dra 7/26/74
Revi sed Draf t 7/30/74
ALTERNATIVES
No Bulkhead Construction The impact ofstatus quo with regard
hab i tat
Lo existing muddN and timbered bulkhead/ in the impact, area is
considered herein as an alternative to the proposed action.
Specifically, this would involve leaving the presentlunbulkheaded area
as is. There both advantages and disadvantages to this alternative.
Even if nothing is done at this time it is clearly evident
that eventually something mustkand will)be done with the timbers
They contain boring organisms which will eventually cause them to
collapse, fall into the Bay, carrying with/them sediment and other
debris from behind the bulkhead. This will further contribute to the
pollution of the Bay.
In addition, even if the restaurant is located farther Inland( in
an endeavor to preserve the existing littoral habitat)/ corrective act ion
also is mandatory to prevent slope erosion, and to improve the
recreational utility, and wildlife habitat.
existing unpleasant aesthetic conditions/ For example, removal of the
improve . conditions,
ice plant proba.b ly would/ but some other form of landscaping and/
or ground cover undoubtedlYwould be required to prevent erosion of the -
upper slopes, siltation in the Bay, and to improve the slope's appearanc e--,
If the lower slopes are to be retained as is, then the Delaney's
Cay%nery Village could not take any corrective action, and the unsightly,
condition would remain. Furthermore, some sediment would con t i riue to
wash into the Bay and debris, including floating material and oil,
would continue to drift into the impact area .,litter the intertidal
and coat boards with oil and other floa:�ng chemicals.
area/ Thus, it will be mandatory for Delayney's Cannery Village
(or the Newport Beach public works department ck who) to.provide
continuous cleanup operations if the littoral zone is to be kept
aesthetically pleas ing in concert with the proposed aesthetically
pleasant environment that is to,,provided under the redevelopment plari.
quality problems, the destruction of the exi-st - ing marine habitat in
itself., a possible self-defeating projec,), and,permits f I rom cognizant
agencies would have to be obtained before any such work could be carried
out. It is believed that any potential benefits that might accrue from
such a highly.questionab.le activity would be temporary, and not,
commensurate with potentialadverse impacts, including -the cost/benefit'
ratio. As a matter of fact, this is not a viable alternative in so
far as Delaney's Cannery Village is concerned. Finally, 'the.'sitie
a
(because of its shape and location), would continue to act as I ittle. more:
4
than a waste sink foe society s detritus.' -
Based upon available information, it appears that the only sub-.,
al
stantiated objection for bulkhead,ing relates to conservation,
o r status
f
_quo or such habitats. Most of the relevant arguments regardin 9
v
presv eration vs construction of a new bulkhead to join the two
bulkhead at either ends of the project have been disc
J ussed above
and in the section on Marine Biology (pp At least two additional
relevant obser vations can be made:
Newport Bay has been developed into one of the. finest Small
boat harbors in the world. -its waters, waterfront, and much of
its commercial and industrial activities have a strong recreational/
tourist/near-water residential orie tation. This exceedingly important
factor must be taken account because it basically pit s man against
retention of the natural environment --- an exceedingly difficult and com I;ex
�p
social/environmental problem, that cannot be accurately qualified or
quantified. Although great efforts have been made to retain the natural
habitats in Upper Newport Bay, there has been little attempt (so far
as known) to make lower Newport Bay (already highly developed) into
a mirine life refuge, or to be more specific: -to replace man's
exceedingly expensive developments with biological preserves. Neverthless':
A
V6W,e,
Prqposed Cantle Vill
A group of Lido Penin8ult(,,ftisido
ment Untit, 1977.
them six, months to relocate if the
A " 11 1, n 1-�
vowed IVednesd4y to �ppom, .eve opme V
I I
, "S `Bitney,says, ','ITIost_of,usmaAe
project i� approved,
�of the, propo §ed DeWneY�§ Cannery-,
investments I in our trailer 'sites�, that
-13c nd the plight of those who would
YO
Village- ori the ��_penmu a,,,:, __qery� step
aret not, movable" and that- we: 6ult
e eV_ its
be. dislocated ky th ' d elopment,
of t e way.
hope toxecover now."
opponents attacked effects, on tfie� e'n-
6t `4he �p�opq "A
�6fr�bpposffi' i J-6
c also Argqeg,, that, "more than 35
'Oronment
d' t,
he ar a
per cent. of- 'the people living h we are
, "]No matter what they say, that, kind
)0 li�p I I I Afaung -6hi a, A �anuot afford a
of s
a , development on I two, acre will
ta6,etirg,�in,City,liall-t6�lig�t,
th
AxaiO -,nidve_or� - 6'purchasd of -6 hew
cause parking and traffic problems, that
blost-outspokoft.6f the� kestaurarit-shop- ,
one."
cah't be solved," says Stone.,
are obi
35 m
bfflce_cotnpiex ctifl� le'
:"Most modern' trailer parks wont let
'Bo6he and Bitney say other peninsula
owners; w io,will be displaced, by
newcomers in if their trailers are more
residents, including apartment and c6,n-
d6dophibnt, of �the 'marine-recre6tion
than a year old,'� accordjng� to another
doroluium dwellers', share their concern
qriented,'center.'
Lido Park Village, resident, Lee Stone.
over the environmental consequeftees'of
According to one', of the residents,,
V13,11,
id
Res ents of the mobile'home park
the proposed development.
it niost the mobile: home
Ticy;
are on �a m6nth-to-mofith Jease, basis
Opposed to, their view is a city staff
d,nllcis, liv! Udo Park Village
-ag,, at,
but, according to Newport, Beach en-
report that says Delaney a er
C, 'M 'Y
were told W the trailer parks manage-
viroPtnental coordinator gift Foley, the
Village is' a suitable use -of the land
Mqni they would be "safe" from develop-
developer has indicated he will give
cei LIDO, ageA22)
�Zi
MARINE DEPARTMENT
-7
ITEM NO.
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Marine Department
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-081 BY DELANEY'S CANNERY
VILLAGE.(MR. JAMES SCHMITZ) TO REVISE EXISTING SLIPS
AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BULKHEAD
Action
If desired, approve or deny the harbor permit. If approved, subject
the permit to the following conditions:
V. Approval of the U,. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. The proposed restaurant be constructed so that the
bulkhead will not be subjected to any weight or sur-
charge as a result of the restaurant location.
The applicant shall not allow "side ties" on the
outside of the northerly and southerly fingers of
the proposed slips in keeping with City Policies.
The applicant obtain the necessary permits for any
plumbing, electrical and fire protection installations'
from applicable City departments.
Discussion
This application is being brought to the Council for approval at
this time because of its direct interrelationship with the required
City Council approval of the entire Delaney's Cannery Village project.
The Joint Harbor Committee, at their.October 1974, meeting reviewed
the subject application and recommended approval of the permit subject
to those conditions listed in the Action.
The approval of the Orange County Harbor, Beachesr and Parks District
is not required because the underlying tidelands ownership is City
Tidelands bayward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line and private fee ownership
landward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line.
The proposed bulkhead and slip revision is part of an overall develop-
ment by Delaney's on the adjacent upland property.
Because the total project (Delaney's Cannery Village) involves Planned
Community zoning and approval by the Community Development Department
of the City, the developer was required to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report. This report included discussion of the proposed bulk-
head, the necessary fill behind the bulkhead and the location of the
restaurant. The Environmental Impact Report concluded that the proposed
bulkhead would have no adverse impact and in fact could be considered
beneficial in that it will control erosion and will eliminate a "waste
sink for society's detritus".
As is shown on the attached drawing the proposed-bulkhead.will be
c..ons-tructed-thirty (30) feet behind the U. - S. Bulkhead Line and will
connect to existing bulkheads at either end. This location is, -desired
by the applicant to provide adequate area for construction of the
proposed ten slips. The restaurant will be cantilevered over the
bulkhead twelve (12) feet and-l-i-a-s--Fe-en �designed to permit the extension
-of-a p-u151-17U-b5`N`rdWU17Z below the restaurant and to provide adequate
clearance for boats moored in the slips.
Condition Number 2 is recommended to insure that the restaurant and the
bulkhead will not be interdependent for structural stability.
The boardwalk will connect to an existing boardwalk thereby o 'd-
onti-nual access a-r-o-u-nU-Eri-e-H-e-a-d-o-f-FRe--kFl--n-e--CH-an—r The Cannery
_1�6_9_taurant to Del�aneyls Public access to the boaU sIlps will be res!
-7-r-icted except for thos restaurant clientele arriving by boat. The
developer will make arrangements with the Community Development Depart-
ment of the City for the dedication of a public walkway easement to�
accomodate the propos-ed boardwalk.
The proposed slips and bulkhead will be designed and constructed in accord-
ance with City Standards.
R. E. REED, DIRECTOR
14ARINE DEPARTMENT
D. Harshbarger, Assistant Director
Tidelands operations Division
DH: GEW: If
January 27 1 1974
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MARINE DEPARTMENT
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Marine Department
ITEM NO.: G-4
HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #221-081 BY DELANEY'S CANNERY
VILLAGE (MR. JAMES SCHMITZ) TO REVISE EXISTING SLIPS
AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BULKHEAD
Action
If-desired,,)approve or deny the harbor permit.
the permit to the following conditions:
If approved, subject
1. Approval of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. The proposed restaurant be constructed so that the
bulkhead will not be subjected to any weight or sur-
charge as a result of the restaurant location.
3. The applicant shall not allow "side ties" on the
outside of the northerly and southerly fingers of
the proposed slips in keeping with City Policies.
The applicant obtain the necessary permits for any
plumbing, electrical and fire protection installations
from applicable City departments.
Pli III k o
r/i e
Discussion
This application is being brought to the Council for approval at
this time because of its direct interrelationship with the required
City Council approval of the entire Delaney's Cannery Village project.
The Joint Harbor Committee, at their October 1, 1974, meeting reviewed
the subject application and recommended approval of the permit subject
to those conditions listed in the Action.
The approval of the Orange County Harbor, Beaches, and Parks District
is not required because the underlying tidelands ownership is City
Tidelands bayward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line and private fee ownersh�ip
landward of the U. S. Bulkhead Line.
The proposed bulkhead and slip revision is part of an overall develop-
ment by Delaney's on the adjacent upland property.
Because' the total project (Delaney's Cannery Village) involves Planned
Community zoning and approval by the Community Development Department
of the City, the developer was required to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report. This report included discussion of the proposed bulk-
head, the necessary fill behind the bulkhead and the location of the
restaurant. The Environmental Impact Report concluded that the proposed
bulkhead would have no adverse impact and in fact could be considered
beneficial in that it will control erosion and will eliminate a "waste
sink for society's detritus".
As is shown on the attached drawing the proposed bulkhead will be
constructed thirty (30) feet behind the U. S. Bulkhead Line an(' -.will
connect to existing bulkheads at either end. This location is desired
by the applicant to provide adequate area for construction of the
proposed ten slips. The restaurant will be cantilevered over the
bulkhead twelve (12) feet and has been designed to pprmit the extension
of a public boardwalk below the restaurant and to provide adequate
clearance for boats moored in the slips.
Condition Number 2 is recommended to insure that the restaurant and the
bulkhead will not be interdependent for'structural stabilitV.
The boardwalk will connect to an existing boardwalk thereby providing
continual access around the head of the Rhine Channel from The Cannery
Restaurant to Delaney's. Public access to the boat slips will be res-
tricted except for those restaurant clientele arriving by boat. The
developer will make arrangements with the Community Development Depart-
ment of the City for the dedication of a public walkway easement to
accomodate the proposed boardwalk.
The proposed slips and bulkhead will be designed and constructed in accord-
ance with City Standards.
R. E. REED, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
D. Harshbarger, Assistant Director
Tidelands Operations Division
DH: GEW: lf
43
Cone.
25
zs: Z�l
4 /AO'Ar
-4-- --A
V'- cr"SO)Aede P'les A)', WZ40 A /M -F
ee w5wo F4,9A 7 -5 --
AVO
RAOrvilr ,V!? -
Newport Bay
Newport Beach, California
Application bj e- lkllVq
?57/ WAMCALY DA.
Daie NP-)VNWAP7 9Z4CY.
A. MA4
K F- Tc H
O�Ipr.WPOA-r 13,gy,;
so vn b t-cs5,R4 in f6.t Oepths &Clow
7�de o�bppoh. -9 A
Ha,bo,, 1-117cs �trfz A161 Al�l
/:a cv c 0 r 61/lvc;
a
/00
-/.p coo
_jn.
IZVC4L.
03
N
afv OC.F)Y.)v
o cl;
5CAJ-.c Av o�-C4