Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM2002-00824a" AQ K, D A 61. axo� ;�/— CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marine Department November 19, 1990 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Marine Department SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION 259-1 BY WALLACE HUNT AND ROBERT EICHENBERG TO TRANSFER THE HARBOR PIER PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY AT #1 COLLINS ISLAND Recommendation: If desired, transfer the Harbor Permit to Robert Eichenberg, subject to the following condition: 1. That no sidetie be allowed on the easterly side of the float bayward of #1 Collins Island. Background: This transfer application is before the City Council as required by a condition to the Harbor Permit at #1 Collins Island. In 1987 and 1988, to buttress a failing public bulkhead, the City put rock at the toe of the bulkhead, along the 100 block of South Bayfront. The placement of this rock required that all the private piers along the 100 block be removed and then reinstalled after the completion of the rock work. Because of the curvature in the bulkhead, and the water depth around 106 South Bayfront, this particular dock could not be reinstalled as originally configured and had to be revised. The reconfiguration of the dock at 106, and the subsequent use of the side tie at #1 Collins Island began to present a navigational problem for 106 South Bayfront and 100 South Bayfront. These problems were temporarily resolved by recommendations from the Tidelands Affairs Committee to the City Council on November 13, 1989, and part of that resolution was a condition that should the property at #1 Collins Island sell, the transfer of the Harbor Permit would require City Council approval. This transfer approval would allow the City Council to review the permit and add additional conditions if appropriate. When the original revision was approved for the float at #1 Collins Island in 1961, that permit should have been conditioned as recommended above r I or the following reasons; 1. The bulkhead at this location curves making typical permit zones impossible, 2. The permit zones in this locations are poorly defined, 3. There is limited water area available for the three properties,and 4. The proposed float at #1 Collins Island, was very large relative to those around it. Now that a new owner is acquiring the property at #1 Collins it is an appropriat-e time to add the above condition and correct the situation. Tony MZU Tidelands Administrator Cl rr aw Ampoor 54 *7 .Ott I &12,oWl 4 e OIL. Mo vp 0 'R it 'VIP 0 jv"r VICINITY SRETCH Wwrrl- C~ HEWPORr LSAY,, CAtIrOMMA b Jerpr mom"emps ape *Orpftesgpdf .10 f000 "o, ofamolle crojoloAs be/dpw #WdOF7 LOWAPP llow wboter. 410ZA-OA" rvore of iial'a poigimo-Jo4y AVV'felvi OWWAO.- 4FOS are e&jab1t*SAvArAA vh;s .&COP"I&V *0,4v&wd~0l 4510r, %k C04 -L fAJ Cie. 4 6A lf44&00 de- 0 7- w7; ml-Ay4 r u X- I o A eem ss n4oiiw enow-t— DA rX.-. pj":)i ,ql 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 November 20, 1990 Bruce Bevan 106 South Bayfront Balboa Island, CA 92662 Dear Sir: At its regularly scheduled meeting of November 26, 1990, the City Council will consider an application by Wallace Hunt and Robert Etchenberg to transfer the Harbor Permit for the property at #1 Collins Island. Interested parties are advised to dttend the meeting and those needing further information can contact the Marine Department at (714) 644-3044. Sincerely, Tony Mel;;� Tidelands Administrator TM: la 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r) P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1 e68 November 6, 1990 National Bank of Southern California Attn: Escrow Department 3961 South Plaza Drive, Ste 140 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Judy Ellis, Escrow 10295 Re: Harbor Permit 259-1 for property at #1 Collins Island S irs: The transfer for the Harbor Permit of the above property requires City Council approval. If the property is going to be sold we will need to have the request to transfer the permit and the transfer fee of $275 in order to agendize this matter for the City Council. The earliest agenda would be for the meeting of November 26, 1990. We would need the request and fee prior to November 16. If you have questions please call me at 644-3044. sincerely, Tony 7=m Tidelands Administrator 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach F. (Contd. ) 13. WEST NEWPORT BEACH/TALBERT CHANNEL OUTLET SAND DEPOSITION PLAN - Authorize the Mayor to execute a Right -of -Entry Permit for the County of Orange and their Contractor, Silberberger Engineers, Inc. to place sand in the West Newport Beach Groin Field. (Report from the Public Works Department) 14. USE PERMIT NO. 991 (Amended) - Record of Survey 63-46 (Resubdivision No. 173), located at 2046 Mar Vista Drive, on the southwesterly corner of Mar Vista Drive and Domingo Drive, across from the Corona del Mar High School for Our Lady Queen of Angels Church, Newport Beach; approve a Use Permit Agreement guaranteeing completion of the public improvements required with Use Permit No. 991 (Amended); and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement. (Report from the Public Works Department) 15. RESUBDIVISION No. 862 - Portions of Lot D, Tract No. 919, located at 2919 Cliff Drive, on the southerly side of Cliff Drive between Santa Ana and Riverside Avenues, in Newport Heights; request of Hal Woods to approve the improvement plans and specifications and accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 862; and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Surety and the Labor and Materials Surety (Letter of Credit No. 200). (Report from the Public Works Department) Removed ------- 16. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 259-1 - Uphold staff's recommendation and approve application by Wallace Hunt and Robert Eichenberg to transfer the harbor pier permit for the pier and float bayward of #1 Collins Island; subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. (Report from the Marine Department) 17. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: BA -024, $ D,000 - Decrease in Unappi )riated Surplus and Increa-se in Budget Appropriations for Newport Boulevard Main Relocation/Newport Boulevard Widening Project; Water Fund. (Refer to report1w/agenda item F - 3[a]) BA -025, $500,000 - Increase in Budget Appropriations and Revenue Estimates for Newport Boulevard Widening Project; Contributions Fund. (Refer to report w/agenda item F -3[a]) BA -026, $200,000 - Increase in Budget Appropriations to provide for City's share of increased cost for construction and related construction administration for Newport Boulevard Widening Project; circulation and Transportation Fund. (Refer to report w/agenda item F - 3[a]) Full Vote --------------- Action: if desired, move affirmative action of the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed. - 6 - SPEAKERS MUST LIMIT REMARKS TO FIVE MINUTES ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS. PO 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 F 0 V904\ November 1, 1990 National Bank of SoCal Escrow Dept, 3951 SO. Plaza Drive, ste 140 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Judy Ellis, Escrow 10295 Sirs: Regarding a pier permit transfer for the property located at. 1 Collins Island, Newport Beach, City Pier Permit No. 259-1: The structure was insp"ected on October 31"�, 1990, at which time it was determined that it conforms to City standards. W I hen we have received the pier transfer card, signed by both the previous owner and the new owner and the $275 transfer fee, we will transfer the pier permit. Sincerely, Tony Melum Tidelands Administrator 14 1,41 01 .1 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach STATUS SHEET HARBOR PERMIT TRANSFER, LOCATION PERMIT NO. Seller Buyer Cate Application Received: Date Fee Received: Request for Inspection made by: Date Escrow Co. //Z �� - Escrow'Officer e�� Escrow No. ce. Of - Phrne: Address I Z— -1 �57G T /S Date Inspection made: Deficiency Letter sent: Deficiency corrected: Transfer completed: Date Inspection: 1. Location C)� 12— � 2. Plumbing: 3. Electrical: 01V- - 4. Structural: D- 9- . 5.017HER: REMARKS: Inspected by! MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SAN DIEGO OFFICE 1900 COAST SAVINGS TOWER ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 225 BROADWAY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-5201 (619) 231-2500 BAY AREA OFFICE TELEPHONE (213) 629-7600 SUITE 500 TELEX 701357 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 FACSIMILE (213) 624-1376 (415) 375-1000 SACRAMENTO OFFICE July 13, 1990 SUITE 100 1121 "L" STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 442-1200 Tony Melum Harbor Permits Marine Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Dock at 01 Collins Island Dear Tony: ELVON MUSICK IM1969 LEROY A. GARRETT 1906-1963 JOSEPH D. PEELER (RETIRED) WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (213) 629-7777 The permit for the above dock now requires City Council approval for any transfer upon a sale of #1 Collins Island. The reason for this, as you well know, is to enable the City to forbid any use of the easterly side tie so as to allow full use of the navigational channel between the Collins slip and the float at 106 So. Bayfront. The Collins Island property is now for sale and is being shown constantly. A sale of this desirable property could occur at any time. Thus, this is my reminder to you (in which my neighbors join) that we expect the City to so forbid such side tie use upon any such sa-l--. As the property is now being shown, the sailboat Odessey is in the slip, there is no side tie use (as Mr. Hunt's boat has been sold) and only a small Boston Whaler is parked on the North end of the slip. The property's brochure states only that there is a "slip for a 70 foot yacht plus a smaller boat" Mr. Simandel has put the real estate brokers on notice by certified mail of the present restriction upon sale. My own conversations with the showing brokers confirms that they are well aware of the problem. Thus, there can be no question of any MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS July 13, 1990 Page 2 "reliance" by any buyer of the property upon the future use of the side tie. In sum, please ensure that when a request for a pier transfer comes up that the side tie is eliminated. Respectfully, S�4�� Bruce A. Bevan, Jr. BAB: lc Enclosures (2 photos) cc: Councilwomen Hart and Watt Robert Burnham, City Attorney S4050020 Cl r K mc- Nzolpavr dc.4cw - 14 14 1 76 AC C—,47 p (50 2 f-) C,,-/ 'Ch lao-r-f, 0 RISC i1sama, 110 C, 4.0 0 VICIMITY SkETCH 1. jerrr Ngt%wP*Rr DAY, CALIVORNIA 5,0 U,*] dl," 5? 5 C2.1e ex'o-ressedf In &e?t ance admo/& 0101- YA 5 below ILICOP7 Lower /-cpw Wa�4d-p,. A-IPox.,.mt1"v '0,0079pe, 0�'" ]$/'&C 104r&4. ROrh*.- 4�7,CS Ore e.TY061"Shed ;7 7fh;S secyt.,00 oyomawpoe/ Bar. I e Z A) 'r, jr -r-,tq p 'r,� �6 ID -11� -) t- L a jq L A-/? -4 cc,. A Po.L / c,4A-1 -r S AIA "---0 1? c E a 7- a 7RA Cr AoDeess / Cos - 4. P-0 �4 -/4L, Cl r r ar an. iv#&A a-vaffa DOM 0, too&*. R&?r/ 4 man. -- I b 4. L MN Ape, 0 dt 70' Aft coo." victivITY SRETCH MAW DAY b jeny SOO"eialfps Opo poppersed 410 gr*,W 00d' Of~$(* 0,0POAS 4,0/&W #Weaq 4010 -do 41OW "Arr. 44azdwwcAm Poore 001, ikes pait"Onvidir dv4v'K map6cw 1,1;olt3 &or. e'riableshoTAPW vfh;s. &CO/Ifew 00,4VOW.Aws, man. -- I b 4. L MN November 13, 1989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Recommendation: Agenda Item No. 16 (a) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marine Department . MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Tideland Affairs Committee HARBOR PERMIT 259 -1 -FOR THE RESIDENTIAL FLOAT BAYWARD OF 1 COLLINS ISLAND AND HARBOR PERMIT 259-106 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL FLOAT BAYWARD OF 106 SOUTH BAY FRONT If desired, condition the above permit as follows: 1. Harbor Permit 259-1 for the float bayward of #1 Collins Island: Only the baywardmost 20 feet of the easterly side tie shall be available for vessel berthing. Any vessel berthed there must maintain 16 feet between the vessel berthed there and the float at 106 South Bay Front. 2. Harbor Permit 259-106 for the float bayward of 106 South Bay Front: Any vessel berthed on the easterly side tie shall not extend beyond the end of the float more than two (21) feet. 3. If either property, #1 Collins Island or 106 South Bay Front sells, the transfer of the Harbor Permit(s) will require City Council approval. Background: In 1988 the Public Works Department had rock placed against the existing bulkhead in the 100 block of South Bay Front for reinforcement. The placement of this rock required that all the private piers and floats along this block be removed and then reinstalled after the completion ofthe rock work. As a result of the rock work, the pier and float at 106 South Bay Front had to be redesigned and moved further bayward. The approval for this redesigned structure occurred in two phases. The pier, attached to the bulkhead was approved by the City Council on January 11, 1988. The float portion of the redesigned structure was approved by the Council on October 24,. 1988. This approval process was so phased because timing was critical regarding the pier portion of the work and the permittee wanted additional time to review his float design options. After the f loat was installed. at 106 South Bay Front a conflict arose regarding the use of the side tie at #1 Collins Island, in that improper use of the side tie could restrict access to the float at 100 South Bay Front. In an ef fort to resolve this problem the property owner at #1 Collins Island proposed a revision to his float which would allow vessels side tied there to be -moved further bayward and therefore reduce the potential for a restriction in this channel. On March 27, 1989 the Marine-�,Department prepared a Staff report recommending the above revisions with certain conditions. Due to objections from adjacent property owners, the matter was continued and referred to the Tideland Af fairs Committee for review and report back. On May 8, 1989 the Tideland Affairs Committee reported back to the City Council, recommending the above revision for #1 Collins Island with attendant conditions. The matter again, due to some additional unanswered questions, was referred back to the Tideland Affairs Committee for additional review and report back. In the interim, the property owner at #1 Collins Island elected to withdraw his application for revision, and as a result the Marine Department Staff Report of March 27 and the Tideland Affairs Committee report of March 8 became moot. The potential for navigational problems in the channel between #1 Collins Island and 106 South Bay Front still exists. To ascertain the minimum channel width, the staff consulted the orange County Sheriff's Harbor Patrol and it is their opinion that for access for fire and safety vessels, 14 feet would be the minimum.channel width. The Harbor Permit Policies which are included as a part of each permit, require that this channel remain open, as stated in Section 4. E. 4. E ..... The Permittee shall not attempt to f orbid the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the work or structure ........ Structures shall be so constructed as not to obstruct,, interfere with or prevent the free use or passage of any sidewalks, street, alley, public way or navigable channel." To further ensure that the channel remains open the Tideland Affairs Committee is recommending the conditions stated above. Adjacent property owners have suggested that the�problem could be best resolved by conditioning the float at #1 Collins Island to forbid side tie use and thus end the navigational problem. Prior to the rock work there was no restriction on #1 Collins Island's side tie, and the potential for navigational restrictions existed but had not, to our knowledge, ever occurred. Although the channel is now narrowed, with the conditions listed above it can remain navigable and the affected property owners will essentially have what they had prior to the rock work. Tideland Affairs Committee Jean Watt Evelyn Hart LAW OFFICES OF d'gECEIVED FTER NqENDA JEFFREY R. MATSEN & ASSOCIATES 4M MacARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 PRINTED' -'I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-2573 (714) 752-6426 JEFFREY R. MATSEN* DONNA R. BASHAW Telecopier (714) 833-0631 November 13, 1989 Wanda,Raggis, City Clerk City'Clerk's Office 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA_ 92663 Re: City Council Meeting, November 13, 1989 Item 15-A eY-J6 (��) Dear Ms. Raggis: LAGUNA HILLS OFFICE 25201 PASE0 DE ALICIA, SUITE 215 LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 (714) 951-9627 REFER TO: Newport Beach E%vE'D 4 Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this morning I , am having delivered to you a Response and Objections to the Draft Staff Report of Tideland Affairs Committee by Wallace E. Hunt to be duplicated and distributed to the City Council prior to the City Council Meeting scheduled for this evening. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, JEFFREY R. MATSEN & ASSOCIATES e -- DONNA R. BASHAW DRB/jb Enclosure *CERTIFIED TAX SPECIALIST Wallace E. Hunt, Jr. P.O. Box 654 Northridge, CA 91328 RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO THE DRAFT STAFF REPORT OF TIDELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE November 13, 1989 To: Mayor and City Council of the City of Newport Beach Tideland Affairs Committee From: Wallace E. Hunt, Jr. Subject: Harbor Permit 259-1 . for the Residential Float Bayward of #1 Collins Island and Harbor Permit 259- 106 for the Residential Float Bayward of 106 South Bay Front Wallace E. Hunt, Jr. hereby responds to the Draft staff Report of October 12, 1989 submitted by Tideland Affairs Committee to the Mayor and City Council of the City of Newport Beach. BACKGROUND: In 1987 the sea wall at the southeast side of Balboa Island began to give way and the Public Works Department placed supporting rock against the existing bulkhead in the 100 block of South Bay Front for reinforcement. This work required that all private piers and floats along this block be removed and reinstalled after the rock work. The pier and float at 106 South Bay Front (hereinafter 1110611) had to be removed and then redesigned because it could not be replaced Mayor and City Council of the City of Newport Beach November 13, 1989 PAGE 2 exactly as it had been previously because of the added rock. The pier to be attached to the bulkhead at 106 was approved by the City Council on Uanuary 11, 1988 but the float portion of the redesigned structure was not approved until October 24, 1988. During the summmer of 1988, the owners of #1 Collins Island listed their property for sale and the property was purchased by Wallace E. Hunt, Ur., with escrow to close December 12, 1988. At no time was either the seller or buyer of #1 Collins Island notified or consulted regarding the permit for the reconfiguration of the dock float for 106 although the f loat would negatively impact the property at #1 Collins Island. The Tideland Affairs Committee Report concerning the dock float at 106 states that the owners at 100 and .,"112 ' . South Bay Front approved the request for the reconfiguration, yet no mention is made of the effect on the dock at #1 Collins Island or whether its owner was consulted. Mr. Hunt closed escrow and took possession of #1, Collins Island on December 1, 1988 and put a boat in the dock and a 33 f oot sailboat on the west side of the dock. On December 12, 1988 Mr. Hunt received a letter from the Harbor Department complaining of the berthing of the sailboat and stating that because of the new configuration of the float at 106 the use of the side tie at #1 Collins Island allegedly restricted Mayor and City Council of the City of Newport Beach November 13, 1989 PAGE 3 access to the float at 100 South Bay Front. In an ef fort to solve the problem, Mr. Hunt agreed with Tidelands Administrator, Tony Melum, to a revision of Mr. Hunt's dock so as to extend the end of the dock 5 feet and to tie the sailboat to the extended end. The permit revision was recommended for approval by the Marine Department and presented to the City Council on March 27, 1989. However, the owners of 100, 106 and 112 South Bay Front appeared and opposed the application. The City Council referred the matter to the Tidelands Committee f or recommendations. On May 8, 1989 the Tideland Affairs Committee reported back to the City council recommending the revision but Councilwoman Jean Watt requested the matter be postponed. Thereafter Mr. Hunt withdrew his application for revision. It was recognized that potential navigational problems still existed between #1 Collins Island and 106 therefore the Orange County Sheriff's Harbor Patrol was consulted to ascertain the minimum channel width that was necessary for access for fire and safety vessels. The Harbor Patrol determined that 14 feet would be the minimum channel width to be allowed. On October 12, 1989 the Tideland Affairs Committee submitted a Draft Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council of Newport Beach (a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A) which recommends that the following conditions be placed upon Mayor and City Council of the City of Newport Beach November 13, 1989 PAGE 4 the granting of Harbor Permit 259-1 and Harbor.Permit 259-106: 1. Harbor Permit 259-1 for the float bayward of #1 Collins Island: only the bayward most 20 feet of the easterly side tie shall be available for vessel berthing. Any vessel berthed there must maintain 16 feet between the vessel berthed there and the float at 106 South Bay Front. 2. Harbor Permit 259-106 for the float bayward of 106 South Bay Front: Any vessel berthed on the easterly side tie � nl -- shall not extend beyond the end of the float more than two,(21) feet. 3. if either property, #1 Collins Island or 106 South Bay Front sells, the transfer of the Harbor Permit(s) will require City Council approval. This matter is to be considered again at the City Council meeting of Monday, November 13, 1989. RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS: Prior to the rock work performed by the Public Works Department there was no restriction on #1 Collins Island's side tie. Because of the granting of the reconfiguration for the dock float at 106 such side ties are now being restricted. Mr. Hunt's due process rights have been violated in that his right to the use of his property has been diminished without benefit of notice or consultation. 10 110 ...... )1W I Mayor and City Council of the City of Newport Beach November 13, 1989 PAGE 5 In spite of this injustice, Mr. Hunt will agree to, recommendation #1 of the Tideland Affairs Committee Draft Status Report agreeing that only the bayward most 20 feet of the easterly side tie will be used for vessel berthing. Mr. Hunt strongly objects to recommendation #2 of the report which would allow 106 an additional 2 feet extension beyond the reconfigured dock float. The additional 2 feet further impinges upon Mr. Hunt's rights and use of his float for docking in that it is recommended by Tideland Affairs Committee in condition #1 that any vessel side tied must maintain 16 feet between itself and the float at 106. If a boat were docked at 106 and extended 2 feet beyond the float Mr. Hunt would be restricted by an additional 2 feet. Mr. Hunt also adamantly objects to condition #3 of the report which requires City Council approval for the transfer of the Harbor Permit if he should sell #1 Collins Island. This would further dilute the value of his property should he desire to sell it at some future time. The City Council always has a right to a hearing concerning the Harbor Permits and therefore prior City approval upon sale is unnecessary to protect the city and serves only to further damage Mr. Hunt I s property rights. CONCLUSION: Therefore, Mr. Hunt requests that the City Council approve Mayor and City Council of the City of Newport Beach November 13, 1989 PAGE 6 Harbor Permit 259-1 for the residential float bayward of #1 Collins Island with only condition #1, as recommended by the Tideland Affairs Committee, as an attendant condition. Mr. Hunt also requests that condition #2 and #3 not be impinged upon the permit as further attendant conditions. BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000, ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 July 10, 1989 Tony Melum. Harbor Permits Marine Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Dock at One Collins Island Dear Mr. Melum: Herewith are six (6) copies of a letter to the Tideland Affairs Committee which I request you distribute to the members thereof, as, except for Councilwomen Hart and Watts, I do not know who they are. Yours very truly, "L � v Bruce A. evan, r. BAB/lc Enclosures cc: Robert Burnham, City Attorney (w/encl.) Messrs Abshire & Simandel (w/encl.) S0120094 BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000, ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 July 10, 1989 TO: TIDELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Re: Dock at One Collins Island Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent Sharon Brown Bevan, my wife, who is the owner of the dock at 106 S. Bayfront. Since my letter to,you of March 30, 1989, the following has occurred. 1. Evidence was taken by the Committee on ril 18 or 19, 1989 which demonstrated that Mr. Hunt, the o er of the above I 2� dock, knew or should have known of the poten al limitations on use of the dock prior to his purchase., First, Mr. Hunt admitted that before the purchase, he was aware that our platform was in place. He also testified that the former owner told him that the east f inger never had been used for mooring and that there was a "dispute" as to the location of the float to be attached to our platform. Second, the evidence was that Mr. Hunt purchased his Collins Island property on November 30, 1988, after the City Council determined on October 24, 1988 to approve the design of our float which required for the benefit of boat traffic an 18-1/2 foot clearance. Thus, Mr. Hunt had at least constructive knowledge prior to his purchase that an 18-1/2 foot passageway had to be maintained for the benefit of boat traffic. In short, the Hunts did not purchase their 7'- July 10, 1989 Page 2 property in justifiable reliance upon being entitled to use said eastern finger of the Collins slip. 2. On May 8, 1989, your Committee determined that 7 the solution to the "navigational problems perceived" was to. grant Mr. Hunt's application to extend the fingers of his slip Z ou to 5 feet with the requirements that any ve*sel parked on the east finger (i) be restricted to only the southern -most 25 feet (including the 5 foot extension) and (ii) maintain at least a 18-1/2 foot passageway for boat traffic in the instant channel - 3. Subsequently Mr. Melum advised me that Mr. Hunt had withdrawn his application to extend his f ingers and that the Committee had determined, at least tentatively, to continue to allow a vessel to be parked on the east finger of the above dock provided it maintained only a 14 foot passageway. I write this letter to protest this tentative decision on the following grounds: A. The City Council determined on October 24, 1988'? that an 18-1/2 foot passageway was necessary in the instant - " channel. That f inding has not been vacated. Our boats must maintain such a passageway. It would be arbitrary and capricious (as well as down right silly) to require the Bevans to maintain an 18-1/2 foot passageway but allow the Hunts to reduce it to 14 feet. B. Your Committee similarly found on May 8, 1989 that an 18-1/2 foot passageway, at a minimum, must be maintained In addition, your Committee determined that it was appropriate o allow boat use of no more than the southern most 20 feet of t e present Collins Island dock, thus limiting use of the dock o a vessel of no more than 20 feet. simply because Mr. Hu t withdrew his application to extend the dock 5 �ly feet is hardly reason now to allow a 35 foot boat to continue to use the do k. The navigational problems specifically 41- Z, I July 10, 1989 Page 3 recognized by the Council and the Committee, have no been mitigated by withdrawal of Hunt's application. C. If the present use of Hunt's nc d k by his d k by employee's boat continues and the Bevans use the* do k as 3 allowed by the Council on October 24, 1989, there wi 1 b only L :wo c 4 c an 11 foot clearance between boats at the, two do I s The 'o 'o y yJ f wed a dock at 106 So � Or Council decision allo Bayf t which would allow a vessel to be tied so as to providle for , 'n 18-1/2 foot passage between the vessel and the Collins dock. If we tied a vessel to the southern side of our float only 18-1/2 feet from the Hunt's dock, the vessel will only be about 11 feet from the present boat of Hunt's employee and will preclude passage of other boats in the channel. D. The fact that the Council's decision o f Oct?opbe�r 24, 1988 restricted the Brown (now Bevan) boats from -1/2 feet from the Collins slip and not from any vessels ed on said slip indicates that the Council never cont ated any vessels being tied to the Collins dock. e Council is s tirfled in its thinking because the Collins dock never made -1 r -----34s an uch use of the eastern f inger while Mr. Bancroft was the o nw�� wner. Indeed, just one look at the situation makes one realize the absurdity of allowing vessels to so use the Collins finger. We hear passersby remark almost daily on this incongruity which the Marine Dept. staff still fails to recognize. E. One further piece of evidence which has not been brought to your attention is the following: When Mr. Brown was granted permission in 1962 to build his slip at 106 So. Bayfront, he was restricted by the City from any use of the western finger of his slip so as not to create a navigational problem for the Jolly (now Simandel) boats at 100 So. Bayfront. Yet, in 1962, there was no dock at Collins Island. Thus, even though there was about 50-60 feet July 10, 1989 Page 4 of massage. the City bel . ieve /it was vital not to allow dinghy with a four foot beam to use the Brown finger. When the Ban ofy (now Hunt) dock later waE to be built, obvious Lt , as much more important to Bancroft's boats from int rfering with the now much passage of about 18 feet. �the Marine Dept..apparentl that it similarly had restricted the Bancroft doc simply unintentionally failed and omitted t Nevertheless, Mr. Bancroft recognizied the obviou using for over 20 years any boat tie on his finger.- �� 0 a 'allowed estrict arrower thought but it do so. by never Now the City has its opportunity to do what it intended to do at all times for the past 27 years -- prevent all boat tie ups in the Collins Island Channel. The City consistently has restricted Brown/Bevan from any blockage of that Channel. It would be discriminatory in the extreme for the City to restrict us and not similarly to restrict Bancroft/Hunt from blockage of the channel. F. Based upon the Council's approval of our design of our float, the Bevans expended $20,000 in building the float according to that design which accommodates a boat of 40+ feet. One purpose of our design was to allow room for as large a boat as possible so as to make the property upon resale more valuable. Only after and by reason of the float design being approved did my wife in effect purchase the 106 S. Bayfront property from her mother's and father's trusts for an amount in excess of $1,000,000. If the Committee's tentative decision becomes final, our property value will be diminished because no 40 foot or similarly large boat can use our dock without constant collisions with the Collins Island vessel. Thus, the most likely buyers of our property will be deterred from purchase by this obvious navigational problem. July 10, 1989 Page 5 In summary, the Committee's tentative decision would render nugatory the Council's action of October 24, 1989 and would interfere with and take away the property rights acquired in reliance upon the Council's decision. We simply could not stand idly by if this happens. Very truly you ly Bevan, Jr. BAB: lc S0120093 1440 BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000, ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 July 10, 1989 TO: TIDELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Re: Dock at One Collins Island Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent Sharon Brown Bevan, my wife, who is the owner of the dock at 106 S. Bayfront. Since my letter to you of March 30, 1989, the following has occurred. 1. Evidence was taken by the Committee on April 18 or 19, 1989 which demonstrated that Mr. Hunt, the owner of the above dock, knew or should have known of the potential limitations on use of the dock prior to his purchase. Firstf Mr. Hunt admitted that before the purchase, he was aware that our platform was in place. He also testified that the former owner told him that the east f inger never had been used for mooring and that there was a "dispute" as to the location of the float to be attached to our platform. Second, the evidence was that Mr. Hunt purchased his Collins Island property on November 30, 198811, after the City Council determined on October 24, 1988 to approve the design of our float which required for the benefit of boat traffic an 18-1/2 foot clearance. Thus, Mr. Hunt had at least constructive knowledge prior to his purchase that an 18-1/2 foot passageway had to be maintained for the benefit of boat traffic. In short, the Hunts did not purchase their July 10, 1989 Page 2 property in justifiable reliance upon being entitled to use said eastern finger of the Collins slip. 2. On May 8, 1989, your Committee determined that the solution to the "navigational problems perceived" was to grant Mr. Hunt's application to extend the fingers of his slip to 5 feet with the requirements that any vessel parked on the east finger (i) be restricted to only the southern -most 25 feet (including the 5 foot extension) and (ii) maintain at least an 18-1/2 foot passageway for boat traffic in the instant channel. 3. Subsequently Mr. Melum advised me that Mr. Hunt had withdrawn his application to extend his fingers and that the Committee had determined, at least tentatively, to continue to allow a vessel to be parked on the east finger of the above dock provided it maintained only a 14 foot passageway. I write this letter to protest this tentative decision on the following grounds: A. The City Council determined on October 24, 1988 that an 18-1/2 foot passageway was necessary in the instant channel. That finding has not been vacated. Our boats must maintain such a passageway. It would be arbitrary and capricious (as well as down right silly) to require the Bevans to maintain an 18-1/2 foot passageway but allow the Hunts to reduce it to 14 feet. B. Your Committee similarly found on May 8, 1989 that an 18-1/2 foot passageway, at a minimum, must be maintained. In addition, your Committee determined that it was appropriate to allow boat use of no more than the southern most 20 feet of the present Collins Island dock, thus limiting use of the dock to a vessel of no more than 20 feet. simply because Mr. Hunt withdrew his application to extend the dock 5 feet is hardly a reason now to allow a 35 foot boat to continue to use the dock. The navigational problems specifically July 10, 1989 Page 3 recognized by the Council and the Committee have not been mitigated by withdrawal of Hunt's application. C. If the present use of Hunt's dock by his employee I s boat continues and the Bevans use their dock as allowed by the Council on October 24, 1989, there will be only an 11 foot clearance between boats at the two docks. The Council decision allowed a dock at 106 So. Bayfront which would allow a vessel to be tied so as to provide for an 18-1/2 foot passage between the vessel and the Collins dock. If we tied a vessel to the southern side of our float only 18-1/2 feet from the Hunt's dock, the vessel will only be about 11 feet from the present boat of Hunt's employee and will preclude passage of other boats in the channel. D. The fact that the Council's decision of October 24, 1988 restricted the Brown (now Bevan) boats from 18-1/2 feet from the Collins slip and not from any vessels parked on said slip indicates that the Council never contemplated any vessels being tied to the Collins dock. The Council is justified in its thinking because the Collins dock never made any such use of the eastern finger while Mr. Bancroft was the owner. Indeed, just one look at the situation makes one realize the absurdity of allowing vessels to so use the Collins finger. We hear passersby remark almost daily on this incongruity which the Marine Dept. staff still fails to recognize. E. One further piece of evidence which has not been brought to your attention is the following: When Mr. Brown was granted permission in 1962 to build his slip at 106 So. Bayfront, he was restricted by the City from any use of the western finger of his slip so as not to create a navigational problem for the Jolly (now Simandel) boats at 100 So. Bayfront. Yet, in 1962, there was no dock at Collins Island. Thus, even though there was about 50-60 feet July 10, 1989 Page 4 of passage, the City believed it was vital not to allow even a dinghy with a four foot beam to use the Brown finger. When the Bancroft (now Hunt) dock later was allowed to be built, obviously it was much more important to restrict Bancroft's boats from interfering with the now much narrower passage of about 18 feet. The Marine Dept. apparently thought that it similarly had restricted the Bancroft dock, but it simply unintentionally failed and omitted to do so. Neverthelessf Mr. Bancroft recognized the obvious by never using for over 20 years any boat tie on his finger. Now the City has its opportunity to do what it intended to do at all times for the past 27 years -- prevent all boat tie ups in the Collins Island Channel. The City consistently has restricted Brown/Bevan from any blockage of that Channel. It would be discriminatory in the extreme for the City to restrict us and not similarly to restrict Bancroft/Hunt from blockage of the channel. F. Based upon the Council's approval of our design of our float, the Bevans expended $20,000 in building the float according to that design which accommodates a boat of 40+ feet. One purpose of our design was to allow room for as large a boat as possible so as to make the property upon resale more valuable. Only after and by reason of the float design being approved did my wife in effect purchase the 106 S. Bayfront property from her mother's and father's trusts for an amount in excess of $1,000,000. If the Committee's tentative decision becomes final, our property value will be diminished because no 40 foot or similarly large boat can use our dock without constant collisions with the Collins Island vessel. Thus, the most likely buyers of our property will be deterred from purchase by this obvious navigational problem. July 10, 1989 Page 5 In summary, the Committee's tentative decision would render nugatory the Council's action of October 24, 1989 and would interfere with and take away the property rights acquired in reliance upon the Council's decision. We simply could not stand idly by if this happens. Very truly you5p, Arnk Bevan, Jr. BAB: lc S0120093 Robert Burnham City Attorney 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Dock at One Collins Island Dear Mr. Burnham: Further to my letter of July 10, 1989, 1 believe you should have a copy of my letter of March 30, 1989 and Mr. Simandl's letter of May 2, 1989 since the City seems intent upon action which will lead to litigation. Very truly yours, Z I '-- -.- ��a Bru'ce A. 'Be n, r.,. P.C. for MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT BAB: lc Enclosures cc: Tony Melum T. Abshire T. Simandl S0120095 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS BAY AREA OFFICE ELVON MUSICK 189OL-1%8 LEROY A. GARRETT 1906-1963 SUITE 50D ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD JOSEPH D. PEELER (RETIRED) 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 BURLINGAME, CAUFORNIA 94WO =-IODD SACRAMENTO OFFICE TELEPHONE (213) 629-7600 SUITE 100 TELEX 701357 1121 'V STREET` FACSIMILE (213) 624-1376 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9M4 WRITER'S DIRECT' DLAL NUMBER (%6) 442-12M July 11, 1989 (213) 629-7777 Robert Burnham City Attorney 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Dock at One Collins Island Dear Mr. Burnham: Further to my letter of July 10, 1989, 1 believe you should have a copy of my letter of March 30, 1989 and Mr. Simandl's letter of May 2, 1989 since the City seems intent upon action which will lead to litigation. Very truly yours, Z I '-- -.- ��a Bru'ce A. 'Be n, r.,. P.C. for MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT BAB: lc Enclosures cc: Tony Melum T. Abshire T. Simandl S0120095 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marine Department October 24, 1988 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Tideland Affairs Committee Age�Lda Item No. F.17 SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION 259-106 BY BRUCE BEVAN TO REVISE THE RESIDENTIAL FLOAT BAYWARD OF 106 SOUTH BAYFRONT Rtcommgpq�tion: If desired, approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the California Coastal Commission 2. Approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3. Approval of plans and specifications by the City's Public Works Department 4. That the dimension of 18 feet 6 inches between the proposed float and the float at 01 Collins Island be maintained as a ri-linurrium distance between the two floats - and that any vessel tied at the float at 106 South Bay Front, whether on the northerly or southerly side of the floatt will not encroach into this 1816" zone. Discussion:. On January 11, 1988j, the City Council considered a request by the applicant at 106 South Bay Front to revise the residential pier and float bayward of 106 South Bay Front. At that time the applicant had not determined exactly what configuration the float would take, but had made a decision on the pier. The City Council appr*oved the applicant's request to revise the pier, subject to a condition that the float design be referred to the Tideland Affairs Committee for review and report back to the City Council. The Tideland Affairs Committee, comprised of Phil Maurer and Ruthelyn Plummer, has reviewed the proposed configuration of the float and based on that review is making this recommendation of approval. In addition to the above, the adjacent property owners at 100 and ll� South Bay Front have reviewed the proposed float design and have approved its subject to the above conditions. Tony Melum Tidelands Administrator C/r,, r NwmwoRr 6-dr.4cjv-- f -7 0 U -A ?rb _rd ivog Broth Doty Oe, -A Al 6v pigs. Ic lie L. Ic VICIKIITY SKETCH av"r .14trrr NEWPORr &AV CAL IKOANIA 15 sbandf,7475 c2re exdcwcs*sea, vrce� 0,)d C'&.4,014 PIA j beloW Illfcro#7 IOPVO,- LOW WCII(dr. il4orpmup" cp..r 31"'Old lov%e-1 ya.-hor /";?Cs are c a ic 6h*sh&c( /;7 T'(A; s . Jc&Aoor cyreVe wparl Bt7,r. 71,77 /A EX. p0el' ,,4 tpgp IT23F3 AIV 99198 &AU76A IS-44,um APPL.I!q:.A—klrs AIA"ff IeV,�il,41) e or-: Z, a 7,-C,4C7-.' AoDeess : 1'6& -5-0- 6APJrr5e0*u,– Cokir-WAc rom :AL! A�j in DA re..: MAUREEN A. (MOLINARO) SIMANDL 100 South Bay Front Balboa, Island, California 92662 714/673-6752 714/747-0464 March 21, 1989 CAPTAIN HARRY GAGE Orange County Harbor Patrol 1901 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, California 92625 Dear Captain Gage: I feel it is important to call your attention to the hazardous conditions existing at the southwest side of the Collins Island bridge, and a plan about to be proposed to the Newport Beach City Council which may worsen the situation. A large sailboat currently side tied to the dock at One Collins Island inhibits navigation of the channel between the docks at One Collins Island and 120 South Bay Front. if a fire erupted on the dock at 100 South Bay Front or on the east facing side tie at 120 South Bay Front, a fire boat could not be used due to the inhibited access. Furthermore, if a residential fire erupted at One Collins Island or 100 or 120 South Bay Front the inhibited access would preclude assistance from a County fireboat. Other emergencies or problems are also impacted by the side tie at One Collins Island. For example, two years ago, a cabin cruiser in the slip at 100 South Bay Front developed a leak and sunk. Vessel Assist floated the boat and towed it out to a repair facility. David Lamontagne has told me that it would be impossible to perform the same assignment today with a boat side tied to the One Collins Island dock. The restricted access combined with accentuated tidal action and the prevailing westerly wind in that corner make vessel navigation very tedious. The owner at One Collins Island has requested a dock maintenance permit from,Newport Beach in order to add a five foot (5 ft.) extension to the existing southwesterly facing finger of his dock. The City's Tidelands Department plans to recommend a modified side tie restriction on the extended dock. The additional five feet (5 ft) will not change the current position of the sailboat, it will only improve the CAPTAIN HARRY GAGE March 21, 1989 Page 2 manner of securing the bow line. Furthermore, a modified side tie restriction will only lead to future controversy regarding the exact position and size of any boat side tied to that dock. I believe there should be a complete side tie restriction on the One Collins Island dock just as there is on the 120 South Bay Front dock to preserve the navigational and safety aspects of that harbor area. I urge you to inspect the above described conditions and provide the City of Newport Beach with your views on the safety aspects of the plans being proposed. This proposal is currently scheduled for presentation to the City Council on Monday, March 27, 1989. I would be pleased to discuss this letter with you at your convenience. Yours very truly, Maureen A. Simandl cc: Jean Watt Tony Melum Cl rr Nzweaer 644C.41 la)(. F,d-A. SALVAefo DOCW I �t qj� 0 :7-0 br 3-/ rc 0 < .0 9 " I , 'm 0 AP dr &V .00" C% w r lorry VICI M I TY : SK E TC H " 11 New"ar iSAY, CAL 11raAMIA I.L /A \A t N, OIL. pfe - Oqllg>d A4 P I A A/C 99 1&4br &4LjY6A IS-4-1WO L) B Affil.1c,44erS AIAM&' AvDefSS eAp awrivAcra A,,iAojiy $,Ou,nd1nqps c7p* dpxppcvsed -,, lr,,,t and 0,0-200fe c3e,vp %#A Apgp/Ow ourear7 lowgrp laiv, Woytd,*-* A4cpxtpwc1#" 0/' jollefe avPPaxlM?d,(,/,Y /0 ldw&4. HO.-har 4�7cs 7*; S . JCC11'Oj OrMd W,~1 4597,r - LOCI -TION PERMIT NO. Se I er- Buye Date Application Received: Date Fee Received: Request for Inspecti on made b Escrow Co. Date Escrow Office.r Escrow No. Address Phone: 4�7 Date Inspection made: Deficiency Letter sent: Deficiency corrected: Transfer completed: Date Uspection: 1. Location 2. Plumbing: 4. Structural: 5.OTHER: -'RtMARKS: S ected by i p 4 WA,, gx 7 - eel 3 *)e Zq 'p—I 2 5' 0/v 1/, 61 Y- r?, 0 z kv. s),ra 0 Vicwrry SKETCH 0 5 10 -to .30 Nmvvpoozr DAV, CAW FORNIA i!�RAPPIO 5-CALE ",07 ancy, awyoyw Afax,;Wun '4,mve. &a, -,bar astabb'shad thic savcyl�Vv OeALWA%X-;O .8dwy. Om 7 �y C3 Alf G PA P A4? C .5i�.4 i.i� .7 4117 -.0 he coo - 25"x 6,z, r 12, A AY U) 7- IYA y co �r4- A _-f, lv(?!i 100 Nzwoavr drAcAl- ne SA Doew LI e- �0/ �41 /I Iz: ?-0 J� qj� I tog* Scots, Or wiry. Al pelt VICIP-JITY; SKETCH WSW ASP"ry New,goar OAY, CA4 WORNIA 'S'Ou,ndings Ore OX'o-Persedf 0'" 4crit Ono, cepp joAr 5 below -,Weo,7 4ower I -OW Way'd-J-6 A4*ztmu"P ape C.7job1f*5had /;V jeejO.,Oj Ol-r',VCW -B, ,,~I' /A L Z =4o' I- L I A-) ,r)e pc�, c x ZI-10 dr)(- 7e-,cl) ri pre A L?PI ed Zrc AA! 99 644L66A IS',L4'JM - LAE &C's ADOROSS -5-2- EAP A""' Cvk;7*A c rom TRAUTWEIN BROS. WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION General Engineering Contractors 2410 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 (714) 673-1960 'q SUBJ ECT4�2 f 5' 7(n 4-61�R— f--�4-r -2,.57� 1 7 b?AP zo � / :I I-, i , �'Xl 4) SHEET No-----�� OF-Z— (i JOB No. ��o BYj9q /61/5 f DATE-12V-5�e-9 CHKD. BY--- DATE 1.2s? ew 3 'x z a e- _/ 2 5' 5e& 6 Y, ci *,t-. o 1-1 f An C.- le, I IIIV OQ A* I i_V. S.Tr jw Ely 1:5 '20 / O/c - f VICINITY SKETCH 5 10 Z o 3o NiL--Prr 15AV, CALAPOPILMIA rft -_I - -_771 j i!;RAPWfC S-CALE 1.&Md -.7 01, 4-0 &.roraoxwaf wwt an& QW70y'a low wcrAo-. "Ocrv? Liavem- d _410'& -^--OJ(1AW090W1y /0 A"t. 11a.O-bO.- ZOOMS #v 4w tr egrtabfi*ehad A�p thiv Socb�217 Ar Ale o4v-;O 8.0y. cna 41 A 01. IV v Ji kQ; L; TIO �7, A jk� ru aPAPwic --t-A-le N 10 F E n 4 ra he c000? L _7 (;, 71 NrivA7o,,-_;r eA y 22A/* C -A. A 1 e, 17-2�1-44J MetOPOei BUYERS' NAME(S) ADDRESS OF FACILITY: PERMIT # A , MAILING AD -DRESS TELF HON NO FEE CHECK No. JDATE iPPROVED BY. DATE APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO TRANSFER HARBOR PERMIT OCHD ENG SELLERS' NAM E(S) BUYERS' NAME(S) (ABOVE NAMES TO BE TYPED) COUNCIL PUBLIC WORKS SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNATURE OF BUYER DEPT. ESCROW SIGNATURE OF SELLER SIGNATURE OF BUYER INSPECTION SIGNATURE OF JOINT OWNER APPLICATION APPROVED (DATE) CITY HARBOR COORDINATOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS: THIS PERMIT IS REVOCABLE BY THE CItY COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. WX FORM 66-1013 REV. TRAUTWEIN BROS. 5 U BJ ECT:= --=Z SHEET No.-.----- OF—Z--- WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION /4�� JOB No—q-!��q�7f Gmicral Enginccring Contractors 2410 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 BY�9� DATE-��o (714) 673-1960 CHKD. BY-- DATE 7" F -7- e) r - j ........ . . TATUS,:SHEET HARBOR T ERMITS TRANSFER LOCAT101111 PERMIT! # :S:eller Buye Date Application Rec'v: 77, Date Fee Reclv-.-- Oral Request,fo'r -Inspection N Da e T'IN Escr(74�'' t row 0­46er�:; Esc; E s c row # 77=7 L 7' Date Inspecti 0 Mad 'zz�' Date: Deficienc Letter Sent,(If applicable) YI Date:Deficiency Cor,rected (i f applicable) Date Orange County Notified (if applicable) Date Transfer Completed 0) 1. Location* 2. Plumbing: kk"4' aj! 3. El ectri cal Zk - P-, - el 4. Structural: '77i RWRKS:1 inspect p Ir' s Initials� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marine Department November 16, 1990 TO: CITY CLERK FROM: Marine Department SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 26, 1990 Please include the following on the Agenda for the City Council meeting of November 26, 1990: 1. A report f rom the Marine Department regarding Harbor Permit Application 150-1 by Wallace Hunt and Robert Eichenberg to transfer the harbor pier permit for the -pier and float bayward of #1 Collins Island. ACTION: If desired, approve the transfer subject to the Conditions listed in the Staff Report. Tony Melum Tidelands Administrator MAUREEN A. (MOLINARO) SIMANDL 100 South Bay Front Balboa Island, CA 92662 714/673-6752 714/747-0464 July 17, 1990 Mr. Tony Melum Tidelands Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Harbor Permit for One Collins Island Dear Mr. Melum: Please accept this letter as notification that effective May 1, 1990, use of the side tie at One Collins Island has been abandoned. No vessel is side tied to the baywardmost twenty feet (20 ft) of the easterly side tie. Furthermore, Mr. Roy 0. Osterhout, a local real estate agent, has informed me that Mr. Hunt has listed One Collins Island with the Newport Harbor Board of Realtors multiple, and that Mr. Hunt has informed the listing broker that use of the subject baywardmost twenty feet (20 ft) of the easterly side tie will be revoked upon transfer of the harbor permit. Now that the channel is clear between One Collins Island and 106 South Bay Front, I have enjoyed continuous, unobstructed navigation to the bay from my dock at 100 South Bay Front. I anticipate continued uninhibited navigation of this passageway with no further encroachment by vessels using the docks at One Collins Island or 106 South Bay Front. I appreciate Mr. Hunt's position as communicated to his real estate broker. I believe it is the most logical and appropriate position available to all concerned and hope that the Tidelands Affairs Committee follows Mr. Hunt's lead when the permit is eventually transferred to a new owner. Yours very truly, Maureen A. (Molinaro) Simandl cc: Jean Watt MAS:ssc F. (Contd. ) 12. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD SUBDRAIN AND SURFACE DRAIN RECONSTRUCTION, CORONA DEL MAR STATE BEACH ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS (CONTRACT NO. 2585) - Approve the plans and specifications; and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 a.m. on December 1, 1989. (Report from Public Works Department) 13. STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CONTRACT NO. 2716) - Approve the plans and specifications; and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 a.m. on November 30, 1989. (Report from Public Works Department) Removed ----- 14. MARK HURWITZ ENCROACHMENT APPEAL - If desired, approve request, subject to approval of the foilowing: 1) Execution of an agreement for nonstandard improvements to encroach 30 feet into Ocean Boulevard with a new entry to existing house, including a provision that guarantees that no planting will be permitted above roof height; 2) building permits from the Building Department; 3) no construction permitted that would not be permitted in front yard setbacks by the Zoning Code; and 3) an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. (Report from Public Works Department) 15. RICHARD RIVETT PERMIT APPLICATION - If desired, approve application to construct a new driveway on Crystal Avenue for 301 East Bayfront, Balboa Island, subject to decreasing the width of an existing curb cut on Balboa to 10 feet. (Report from Public Works Department) 16. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS - Uphold staff's recommendation to approve the following applications, subject to conditions listed in the staff reports: Removed ---------- (a) Application No. 259-1 - Residential float bayward of 1 Collins Island; and Application No. 25.9-106 for residential float bayward of 106 South Bay front. (Report from Tidelands Affairs Committee) Removed ----------- (b) Application No. 150-7 by Jerry Vernon and Harry Thomassen to revise the residential pier and float bayward of 6 and 7 Collins Island. (Report from the Marine Department) (c) Application No. 16-101 by Newport Dunes to revise the docks bayward of the Marina Dunes dock complex at 101 North Bayside Drive. (Report from the Marine Department) 17. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: None. Action: If desired, move affirmative action of the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed. - 10 SPEAKERS MUST LIMIT REMARKS TO FIVE MINUTES ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS. LO .0 ID 00 00 LO > > m CL M u z u co CY) CY) 0 z 0 to wo Z- '.5- � - Jr P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 011 LIFOVk October 18, 1989 Dear Harbor Permittee: Attached is a draft copy of the proposed report from the Tidelands Affairs Committee to the City Council. It is our intent to place this item on the City Council Agenda for the meeting of November 13, 1989. If you have questions or comments regarding this report, pleae contact me at 644-3044. Sincerely, Tony Me7um Tidelands Administrator 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000. ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 January 13, 1989 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA Re: Dock at One Collins Island My wife and I are the owners of 106 South Bay Front, Balboa Island. Recently the City Council approved a plan for replacing our pier which was demolished as a result of the work on the seawall in the 100 South Bay Front block. At that time, the City Council recognized that the slip at One Collins Island was allowed to have been built to a much larger scale than was appropriate. It is also my understanding that there must be a clearance of at least 18h feet between our float and the slip at One Collins Island. Our dock has been installed and the necessary clearance was left. However, the new owner of One Collins Island has apparently rented dock space to a 35 foot sail boat docked on the seaward side of the One Collins Island slip which obviously interferes with passage of boats from our neighbors to the north of us as well as from our dock. This obviously is objectionable and must cease. In addition, I understand that it is contemplated that an extension of the seaward slip on Collins Island is planned so as to allow a supposedly adequate passageway between our float and the slip. This extension would project further southward into the harbor. Any further such extension would interfere with passage of boats, access to my float, as well as interfere with sight lines into and view of the harbor. It is f air to state that the neighbors in the 100 block of South Bay Front share my opinion. It may be that the sail boat will attempt to be parked at the western most portion of the slip at One Collins Island but this also is equally objectionable because the extension of the boat into the harbor will interfere with boat passage and view. City Council City of Newport Beach January 13, 1989 Page 2 Please advise me of the time for hearing on any such application for enlargement of the slip at one Collins Island so that I and my neighbors may register our protest personally. Yours very truly, Bruce A. Bevan, Jr. BAB/lC cc: Harbor Permits City of Newport Beach Vessel Assist Association of America, Inc. 1012 Brioso, Suite 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (714) 722-9055 Mr. Tony Melum 5 July 1989 Tidelands Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8916 Re: Harbor Permit for the Property at One Collins Island Dear Mr. Melum, As President of VESSEL ASSIST ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., (VAAA) I am concerned with the safety aspects of Newport Harbor, as well as, any actions taking place which might affect the members of VAAA which we service. In that regard, I urge you to restrict the side -tie of the dock at One Collins Island. Prior to the changes created by the Balboa Island Sea Wall reconstruction, VESSEL ASSIST had to salvage a boat which had sunk in its slip at 100 South Bay Front. It was a difficult task to refloat the vessel in such limited space in addition to towing the boat out of its slip location. Even though we were able to complete the service with the then existing dock configuration, the west.wind and tides in that corner with limited space proved to be troublesome. It would be much more difficult, if at all possible, to repeat the job today if a boat was side -tied to One Collins Island, especially with the dock configuration now existing at 106 South Bay Front. It a boat fire or another sunken boat incident were to occur, response to that vessel is already limited. Therefore, in the interest of safety, I firmly believe that no boat should be side -tied at One Collins Island. Please let me know if I can be of any further help with this matter. sincerely Y/'Ours, V David L, VMontaggne President cc: Jean Watt Evelyn Hart M. Simandl WA-1,11jACE E. HUNT, JR. 9720 AmFsToy AvENUE, NORTBDRMGF,, CAiiFuRNIA 9JL325 June 2, 1989 Tony Melum Tidelands Administrator Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915 Dear Mr. Melum: Please cancel my Harbor Permit Application 259-1 for dock revision at #1 Collins Island. Thank you for all your efforts in processing this application, but I have decided not to pursue the project at this time. Sincerely, Wallace E. Hunt, Jr. BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000, ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 March 30, 1989 Marine Department City of Newport Beach Attention: Tony Melum. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Slip at #1 Collins Island Dear Mr. Melum: I represent my wife, Sharon Brown Bevan, who is the purchaser of 106 So. Bayfront, Balboa Island. We wish to make the following points about the above matter. 1. In my letter dated January 13, 1989, 1 requested notice to me of any hearing on any application for enlargement of the slip at the above address. Mr. Harshbarger assured me in his letter of February 23, 1989 that I would be so notified. You orally assured me a few weeks ago you would send such a notice to me at my above office address. Although you later told me in a phone conversation of the March 27, 1989 hearing date, I never received any written notice or details of the hearing. Instead, a notice was sent to Aida Brown, the former owner (and my wife's mother) at her former residence. Mrs. Brown died over a year ago. In the future, I still respectfully request written notice to me at the above address and to 106 So. Bayfront, Newport Beach of any Council or Tideland affairs hearings or meetings. 2. On March 28, 1989), 1 asked Mr. Burnham! City Attorney as to what procedures to follow with respect to putting on the agenda of the Tideland Affairs Committee and the City Council my request to bar docking or tying of any boat to the outside portion of the eastern finger of the slip at No. 1 Collins Island. Mr. Burnham advised me that a written letter to you would suffice. Please consider this letter such a request. I am certain that my neighbors, the Abshires and the Simandels, to whom I am directing a copy of this letter, join in this request. In addition IF I, and I am sure my neighbors also, would like to be present at any Tidelands Affairs Committee meetings, discussions or hearings regarding the issue of the above slip. Mr. Burnham also advised that this would be permissible and suggested I also send a copy of this request to the members of the Committee, which I am doing. 3. So that you and the Committee may know fully my views on the matter, I set them forth below: a.) In 1959, my wife's parents, Volney and Aida Brown, purchased 106 So. Bayfront. Our family has enjoyed this unique location in the invigorating atmosphere of Newport for the past 30 years. b.) In 1962, Mr. Brown obtained permission to build a slip, which he did adjacent to the seawall. It remained until the seawall repair work of 1987-88. c.) In about 1969-70, the slip at No. 1 Collins Island was built. It obviously is a very large slip for the small, boat -congested area involved. As you have told me, the City never expressly restricted the former owner of No. 11 Mr. Bancroft, from using the outside portion of his eastern finger for docking use. Yet, it did not need to f or it was obvious to all users of that area that if boats were tied to the outside of either Bancroft's slip or Brown's slip, the necessary passageway between them would be severely hampered or blocked entirely. 42 4 Thusf for `Che yea�s of u1sage o1f the by Bancroft, no boat ever -was parked on the outside of the finger. I personally can attest to this as I have had a sail boat parked on the south or lee side of the Brown's slip ever since 1962 and have used this passageway almost weekly since then. (In addition to our small sail boat which we land on the lee side, we now have a 161 electric boat docked on the lee or south side of our float. It simply was not necessary for the City to expressly ban such use by Bancroft. The "rule of reason" applies to dock usage as well as to other legal matters. For example, the City never expressly barred the Browns from tying the Queen Mary from their dock to an anchor bayward but such an unreasonable use obviously could not be permitted. 1W= In addition, it may well be that by operation of adverse use by the Simandels and the Bevans for twenty years, whatever right Bancroft may have had to impede the channel or to use any part of his eastern finger has been lost by prescription. d. ) In 1977-78, the City required the removal of the docks of the residents in the 100 So. Bayfront block. At that time, when the residents complained to the City about the expense to them, City officials stated that dock permits were a matter of privilege, not right, thus strongly implying that if the residents made too much of a fuss! their dock permits (a most significant part of their property value) would be yanked. if this bullyish statement were truel the City obviously can restrict Mr. Hunt's use of his finger without fear of a successful suit. e.) On January 11, 1988, the City Council approved the Brown's application to build a platform prior to the rocks being placed before the seawall. It also approved the concept of the float being placed bayward of its former location but reserved approval of the actual float design so as to ensure that Mr. Simandel's boats would have adequate access. f.) On March 22, 1988, Mrs. Brown died. Her husband had predeceased her in 1976. g.) After consultation with our neighbors and experts, my wife and I designed a float plan leaving an 18 foot, six inch passageway which plan won approval of the neighbors and the City Council. On October 24, 1988, the Council, upon recommendation of the Tideland Affairs Committee, approved our design but imposed an express condition that no vessel may be tied to the float as to encroach into the 181 611 zone. E,arlier I In mid-Oct,ober' 1988F 1. was advised that the City Council had deferred a scheduled hearing on our dock application because it wished to address, once and for all, the issue of the use of Bancroft's finger. In its October 24, 1988 action, it implicitly did so by restricting our vessels from interfering with the 181 611 passageway. If our vessels are prohibited from so encroaching, it is inconceivable to me that Bancroft's or Hunt's boats are allowed to encroach into this zone. The courts tend to make short shrift of municipal actions which are arbitrary, capricious and constitute an unequal protection of the law. h.) At some time unknown to me, Mr. Hunt purchased Bancroft's property at No. 1 Collins Island. Although you have -3- stated your concern that Mr. Hunt might sue the City because of your Department's failure to expressly restrict usage and because he allegedly counted on being able to use every aspect of the slip, the following should be remembered: i) Hunt presumably did not inquire of Bancroft about the use of the finger. Had he done so, I am sure Hugh would have told him the truth about the practical inability to use the finger. Had Bancroft not done so, Hunt's remedy obviously is against Bancroft, not the City. i i) Hunt clearly did not inquire of the City about this situation or you would have told him of the practical restrictions. Alsol a review of even the foregoing council's actions would have revealed the Council's concerns and restrictions about the instant passageway. iii) Dock permits are privileges, not rights, if the City has advised us accurately. iv) If the Marine Dept has been negligent about not expressly restricting the Collins isle slip, the City as a whole and not innocent adjacent property owners should pay the price for that negligence. i.) In reliance on the City's actions, my wife determined to, in effect, purchase from her brother out of her mother's trust estate for over $1,000,000.00 the property at 106 So. Bayfront. She also determined to put in a $20,000 float to link up with the $10,000 platform, all of which expense had been necessitated by the City's seawall work. She relied on the fact that the City recognized that the Collins slip should not have been authorized to be so large and hence reasonably assumed the City would not allow it to grow even larger and to obscure with ever larger boats the unique view which gives much added value to 106 So. Bayfront. She also relied on the obvious fact that the Ci -1-v had 11-o. prevent any enc_-cachmen4%-_ -not only by ,,is -but al -so by other users into the passageway along the Collins slip and had to continue the same non-use thereof which has existed for twenty years. In short I the Marine Dept should not regard Mr. Hunt as the only potential litigant against the City, for if its proposed actions are implemented, valuable property as well as aesthetic rights of my wife will be impaired and injured. The same situation exists for our neighbors. j.) When our dock was installed, we observed to our dismay that a 351 boat, the Odessey, was parked in the passageway. That boat is now parked 361 from the north end of the Collins slip, thus providing for only 141 411 clearance between the boat and our float. Although you were at first -4- skeptical of my calculations in this regard,_ whenyou_ measured them on March 26 they were confirmed precisely by you. At that time, the Fire Dept stated it needed a minimum of 141 clearance and that your proposal to allow the Odessey to be parked only 33 feet from the north end (31 closer into the narrowest passage) would result in about only 121 of clearance. Under these circumstances it was not surprising that the Tidelands Affairs Committee wished to consider the Hunt/Marine Dept. proposal more closely. k.) Mr. Hunt is proposing to extend each of his fingers 5 feet southward into the harbor. First, the westward or insidd finger extension patently is not needed to accommodate the Odessey. Second, neither is the eastern or outside f inger extension southward, as you propose to allow the Odessey to move 3 feet northward from where it is presently parked! Sof what is the purpose of the Hunt proposal to extend each finger 51 southward into the Bay? As you advised me, the purpose must be to place a larger boat into the slip. The Odessey issue then seems to be only a red -herring. If allowed by the City, this extension would be an outrageous addition to what is already an oversized slip. The unique view, enjoyed by not only us by also by passers-by who stop, gasp and photograph the open westerly view, would be further obliterated by another outsized boat. Not only our property rights but the enjoyment of all residents and visitors to the Island should be preserved as there is no other view like it in the Harbor. On this point, I note that you have not made this proposed 51 extension subject to Coastal Commission approval. I think such approval should be part of any recommended approval on your part. Although the City Council members have been not reluctant to protect against interference with aesthetic enjoyment of Newport's pleasures, the Coastal Commission has a specific V..Lewpoint -in that regard which sbiould also be solicited. 1.) Finally, what is particularly anomalous about the saga of the Odessey is that this is not even Mr. Hunt I s boat! The owner has identified himself to me as an employee of Mr. Hunt. As nice as the gentleman is, the right and enjoyment of property by long term residents of the island should not be sacrificed so that a new purchaser, who apparently made no diligent inquiry about the instant slip before purchase, can give his employee the convenience of interfering with a clear passageway which has been used by the residents for over twenty years. If the Marine Dept feels guilt about not having restricted the instant slip previously, then I suggest that it find an appropriate mooring for the Odessey somewhere else in the -5- Harbor. In sum, the neighbors in the area (1) want a restriction against any use of the outside eastern finger of the Hunt slip and (2) oppose most vehemently any further addition to the slip. Again, I and my neighbors wish to participate, if permissible, in any Tideland Affairs Committee discussions or conferences about these situationsf Very truly yoursf uce A. Bevan, Jr., P.C. BAB: LC cc: Councilwomen Watts and Hart; Messrs. Abshire and Simandel; David Harshbarger, Marine Director S0120024 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS BAY AREA OFFICE SUITE 500 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (415)375-1000 q.rRAM.— ­P11P SUITE 100 1121 'V'STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 442-120D Tony Melum Harbor Permits Marine Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Tony: ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEPHONE (213) 629-7600 TELEX 701357 FACSIMILE (213) 624-1376 July 12, 1989 Re: Dock at One Collins Island ELVON MUSICK 1890-1%8 LEROY A, GARRETT 1906-1963 JOSEPH D. PEELER (RERRED) WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (2 13) 629-7777 Transmitted herewith are three photographs of the above dock situation about which we have spoken. The first picture, marked no. 1 on the reverse side, shows the full length of the southern -most portion of our dock. As I mentioned to you orally and in my letter of the other day, we have the right to park a boat at our dock which is only 18-1/2 feet away from the Collins dock. As you will note in the first photograph ,,the Collins slipf and our diagonal which parallels it, is at about a 45' angle from the southern line of our float. Thus we properly can park boats beyond the length of our dock up to an imaginary line which would t- 4- Ce continue the diagonal port ion- of our f !--at. i h 4 nk tha you. n visualize this from this picture. As mentioned in my letter, a boat so parked at our float will be but approximately 11 feet from the boat now parked on the Collins slip. Picture no. 2 is taken from the mid point of our float and begins to show you what the navigational problems would be of a boat departing from our float especially if the boat were parked beyond the end of the south edge of the float. The third picture is taken from the front edge of the float. The blur on the right is the piling near the western edge of the float. You can see some of the small nicks, bruises and scrapes the Odyssey has suffered already because it has reduced MUSICK, PEELER & GAUETT A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS July 12, 1989 Page 2 the passageway to 14 feet. If the passageway is reduced to 11 feet this will make it rather "awkward" for the 11 foot beam boat which is parked at the Simandls to enter or exit the channel. Surely the Marine Department can plan better than that. Very truly yours, -,"B uce A. Bevan, Jr., P.C. for MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT BAB: lc Enclosures S0120101 BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000, ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD I -OS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 July 10, 1989 Tony Melum Harbor Permits Marine Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Dock at One Collins Island Dear Mr. Melum: Herewith are six (6) copies of a letter to the Tideland Affairs Committee which I request you distribute to the members thereof, as, except for Councilwomen Hart and Watts, I do not know who they are. Yours very truly, BAB/lc Bruce A. evan, Jr. Enclosures cc: Robert Burnham, City Attorney (w/encl.) Messrs Abshire & Simandel (w/encl.) S0120094 BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000, ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 July 10, 1989 Tony Melum. Harbor Permits Marine Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Dock at One Collins Island Dear Mr. Melum: Herewith are six (6) copies of a letter to the Tideland Affairs Committee which I request you distribute to the members thereof, as, except for Councilwomen Hart and Watts, I do not know who they are. Yours very truly, Bruce A. evan, r. BAB/lc Enclosures cc: Robert Burnham, City Attorney (w/encl.) Messrs Abshire & Simandel (w/encl.) S0120094 BRUCE A. BEVAN, JR. SUITE 2000, ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 July 10, 1989 TO: TIDELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Re: Dock at One Collins Island Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent Sharon Brown Bevan, my wife, who is the owner of the dock at 106 S. Bayfront. Since my letter to you of March 30, 1989, the following has occurred. 1. Evidence was taken by the Committee on April 18 or 19, 1989 which demonstrated that Mr. Hunt, the owner of the above dock, knew or should have known of the potential limitations on use of the dock prior to his purchase. First, Mr. Hunt admitted that before the purchase, he was aware that our platform was in place. He also testified that the former owner told him that the east finger never had been used for mooring and that there was a "dispute" as to the location of the float to be attached to our platform. Second, the evidence was that Mr. Hunt purchased his Collins Island property on November 30, 1988, after the City Council determined on October 24, 1988 to approve the design of our float which required for the benefit of boat traffic an 18-1/2 foot clearance. Thus, Mr. Hunt had at least constructive knowledge prior to his purchase that an 18-1/2 foot passageway had to be maintained for the benefit of boat traffic. In short, the Hunts did not purchase their July 10, 1989 Page 2 property in justifiable reliance upon being entitled to use said eastern finger of the Collins slip. 2. On May 8, 1989, your Committee determined that the solution to the "navigational problems perceived" was to grant Mr. Hunt's application to extend the fingers of his slip to 5 feet with the requirements that any vessel parked on the east finger (i) be restricted to only the southern -most 25 feet (including the 5 foot extension) and (ii) maintain at least an 18-1/2 foot passageway for boat traffic in the instant channel. 3. Subsequently Mr. Melum. advised me that Mr. Hunt had withdrawn his application to extend his fingers and that the Committee had determined, at least tentatively, to continue to allow a vessel to be parked on the east finger of the above dock provided it maintained only a 14 foot passageway. I write this letter to protest this tentative decision on the following grounds: A. The City Council determined on October 24, 1988 that an 18-1/2 foot passageway was necessary in the instant channel. That finding has not been vacated. Our boats must maintain such a passageway. It would be arbitrary and capricious (as well as down right silly) to require the Bevans to maintain an 18-1/2 foot passageway but allow the Hunts to reduce it to 14 feet. B. Your Committee similarly found on May 8, 1989 that an 18-1/2 foot passageway, at a minimum, must be maintained. In addition, your committee determined that it was appropriate to allow boat use of no more than the southern most 20 feet of the present Collins Island dock, thus limiting use of the dock to a vessel of no more than 20 feet. simply because Mr. Hunt withdrew his application to extend the dock 5 feet is hardly a reason now to allow a 35 foot boat to continue to use the dock. The navigational problems specifically July 10, 1989 Page 3 recognized by the Council and the Committee have not been mitigated by withdrawal of Hunt's application. C. If the present use of Hunt's dock by his employee I s boat continues and the Bevans use their dock as allowed by the Council on October 24, 1989, there will be only an 11 foot clearance between boats at the -two docks. The Council decision allowed a dock at 106 So. Bayfront which would allow a vessel to be tied so as to provide for an 18-1/2 foot passage between the vessel and the Collins dock. If we tied a vessel to the southern side of our float only 18-1/2 feet from the Hunt's dock, the vessel will only be about 11 feet from the present boat of Hunt's employee and will preclude passage of other boats in the channel. D. The fact that the Council's decision of October 24, 1988 restricted the Brown (now Bevan) boats from 18-1/2 feet from the Collins slip and not from any vessels parked on said slip indicates that the Council never contemplated any vessels being tied to the Collins dock. The Council is justified in its thinking because the Collins dock never made any such use of the eastern finger while Mr. Bancroft was the owner. Indeed, just one look at the situation makes one realize the absurdity of allowing vessels to so use the Collins finger. We hear passersby remark almost daily on this incongruity which the Marine Dept. staff still fails to recognize. E. One further piece of evidence which has not been brought to your attention is the following: When Mr. Brown was granted permission in 1962 to build his slip at 106 So. Bayfront, he was restricted by the city from any use of the western finger of his slip so as not to create a navigational problem for the Jolly (now Simandel) boats at 100 So. Bayfront. Yet, in 1962, there was no dock at Collins Island. Thus, even though there was about 50-60 feet July 10, 1989 Page 4 of passage, the City believed it was vital not to allow even a dinahv with a four foot beam to use the Brown finaer. When the Bancroft (now Hunt) dock later was allowed to be built, obviously it was much more important to restrict Bancroft's boats from interfering with the now much narrower passage of about 18 feet. The Marine Dept. apparently thought that it similarly had restricted the Bancroft dock, but it simply unintentionally failed and omitted to do so. Nevertheless, Mr. Bancroft recognized the obvious by never using for over 20 years any boat tie on his finger. Now the City has its opportunity to do what it intended to do at all times for the past 27 years -- prevent all boat tie ups in the Collins Island Channel. The City consistently has restricted Brown/Bevan from any blockage of that Channel. It would be discriminatory in the extreme for the City to restrict us and not similarly to restrict Bancroft/Hunt from blockage of the channel. F. Based upon the Council's approval of our design of our float, the Bevans expended $20,000 in building the float according to that design which accommodates a boat of 40+ feet. one purpose of our design was to allow room for as large a boat as possible so as to make the property upon resale more valuable. only after and by reason of the float design being approved did my wife in effect purchase the 106 S. Bayfront property from her mother's and father's trusts for an amount in excess of $1,000,000. If the Committee's tentative decision becomes final, our property value will be diminished because no 40 foot or similarly large boat can use our dock without constant collisions with the Collins Island vessel. Thus, the most likely buyers of our property will be deterred from purchase by this obvious navigational problem. July 10, 1989 Page 5 In summary, the Committee's tentative decision would render nugatory the Council's action of October 24, 1989 and would interfere with and take away the property rights acquired in reliance upon the Council's decision. We simply could not stand idly by if this happens. Very truly your ,Ly ru Bevan, Jr. BAB: lc S0120093 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS BAY AREA OFFICE SUITE 500 577 AIRPORT BOULEVARD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (415)375-1000 SACRAMENTO OFFICE SUnE 100 1121 "L" STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 442-1200 By Messenger Tony Melum Harbor Permits Marine Department City of Newport Beach 70 Newport Pier Newport Beach, CA Dear Tony: ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEPHONE (213) 629-7600 TELEX 701357 FACSIMILE (213) 624-1376 August 7, 1989 Re: Dock at One Collins Island ELVON MUSICK 1890-1968 LEROY A. GARRETT 1906-1963 JOSEPH D. PEELER (RETIRED) WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (2 13) 629-7777 In my letter to you of July 12, 1989, 1 had calculated on paper the clearance between the Odessey and a boat parked to the forward maximum extent allowed by my permit to be 11 feet. On Sunday, August 6, 1 parked one of my boats to that maximum extent and made actual measurements rather than calculations. The measurements reflected that there only would be a nine (9) foot clearance! Not only does this preclude access of boats north of the 91 clearance, it also violates the Harbor Department's minimum clearance requirement of a 14 foot passageway. It should be noted again that one of the Simandel boats has an eleven (11) foot beam. If the City allows the boat of Hunt's employee to stay as it is, this will violate the legal rights of the Simandels and the Bevans to harbor boats in accordance with the permits granted them and on reliance of which they expended what for them (though perhaps not for the Hunts) are large sums of money. From our conversation on August 5, 1989, 1 understand that the Tideland Affairs Committee will have one more formal meeting this week to approve or disapprove the staff MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS August 7, 1989 Page 2 recommendation leaving matters as they are. I wish to be given telephonic notice of the time and place of the meeting so that I can make one last presentation in the hope that litigation can be avoided. Very truly yours, Bruce A. Bevan, Jr., P.C. for MUSICK! PEELER & GARRETT BAB: lc cc: Robert Burnham, City Attorney (by messenger Evelyn Hart, Councilwoman (by.messenger) Jean Watt, Councilwoman (by messenger) Tom Simandel P.S. When I have photographs developed depicting the nine foot clearance you are recommending, I will get them to you forthwith S0120130 e. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marine Department June 5, 1989 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Tidelands Affairs Committee SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION 259-1 BY WALLACE HUNT The above application was before the City Council on May 8, 1989, Agenda Item F-15 (b). At that meeting, the matter was pulled by Council person Jean Watt for additional review by the Tidelands Affairs Committee and report back to the Council on June 12th. As of this date, the Tidelands Affairs Committee has been unable to meet due to schedule conflicts. They will be meeting in the near future and a report will be forthcoming to the Council. Tony Melum Tidelands Administrator TM: I a W.NEILACE E. HUNT, J1R- 9720 AmRsmoy AvENuE. NoRTmzmGE, CAimoRNiA 91325 March 13, 1989 Tony Melum Tidelands Administrator City of Newport Beach PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915 Rep: Harbor Permit 259-1 at #1 Collins Isle Dear Mr. Melum: Thank you for your letter of March 9th. I am agreeable to the language you indicated for a restriction on berthing a vessel on the outside of my dock. I am enclosing a slightly revised drawing for your consideration. One copy has the changes I would like to have approved highlighted in red. I certainly appreciation your coporation and assistance in resolving this matter. If you have any further questions please callupon me. Sincerely, Wallace E. Hunt, Jr. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES 0 YO -V March 27, 1989 F% W L. L_ Wf_ G_ a- I I Coast Highway, Corona del Mar'. Emerald zoned P -C; Assoc. AND 1 USE PERMIT NO. 3342 Request to permit the construction of an 85 .ility unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P -C District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 32 foot basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Motion X The City Clerk advised that a letter was All Ayes received this date from Jon E. Christeson, Vice President, Emerald Associates, requesting the public hearing date be changed to April 24, 1989; and there being no objections, motion was made to schedule the public hearing for April 24, as requested. 4. Report from the Planning Department Mod No. regarding MODIFICATION NO. 3514, a 3514 request to permit the construction of a (94) 13± foot high satellite dish antenna which will encroach three feet into a required four foot side yard setback, a roved by the Modifications Committee pp on February 28, 1989 for 1633 Bayside Drive, Newport Beach, zoned R-1. Motion X Motion was made to schedule public All Ayes hearing on the above item for April 10i 1989. 5. Report from the MarineDepartment Harbor regarding HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION NO. Permit 259-1 of Wallace Hunt to revise the Apli#259-1 residential pier and float baywdrd'of 1 (51), Collins Island. Council Member Watt advised that the Tidelands Affairs Committee has reviewed the subject application and visited the site; however, due to concerns raised since that time, she would recommend this item be referred back to the Committee for further report. Volume 43 - Page 118 SNI ME MBERS C 14 ry x 70,5 OF NEWPORT BEACH _1 MINVTI March 27, 1989 Attorney Bruce Bevan, representing his wife, Sharon Bevan, 106 S. Bayfront, addressed I the Council and discussed the proposal. He stated that there are three residents who are "violently" opposed to the request, and if this item is going to be deferred, he would like to be notified as to when it will be reconsidered. In addition, he expressed that Tony Melum, Tidelands Administra- tor, was a very,helpful and amiable.City employee. Thomas C. Simandl, 100 S. Bayfront, addressed the Council and requested that he also be notified when this item will be back before the Council. There being no further comments, motion was made to refer this applicationback to the Tidelands Affairs Committee for report on May 8, 1989. 6. Report from Marine Department regarding HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 105-117 by PACIFIC BELL to construct concrete coverings over existing telephone cables at the street end at the corner of Bay8ide Drive a nd Bayside Place. Carolyn Martin, 109 Bayside Place, addressed the Council and stated she has no objection to Pacific Bell covering the existing cables; however, she is concerned that the 4 foot high abutment will cause more problems with silt than currently exists, and that they will not be protected from possible storm drain damage. The Public Works Director commented that. the proposed encasement by Pacific B611 is located perpendicular to the bulkhead and parallel to the storm drain outlet, and approximately 20 feet away from the storm drain. He did not feel the encasement of the cable would materially a I ffect the behavior of the storm drain discharge, or the sand regime in the Cove; and therefore, the proposed work would not be detrimental to slip owners in the area. Howard Martin, 109 Bayside Place, addressed the Council and concurred in the remarks of his wife. He stated that they have had to dredge their slip a number of times due to silt coming from ,the Spyglass area to Carnation Cove. 1p_ S -f -( CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 April 11, 1989 Wallace Hunt 1 Collins Island Newport Beach, CA 92662 Dear Mr. Hunt: The Tideland Affairs Committee will have a meeting on April 18th at 8:00 A.M. At the L;ifeguard Headquarters at the Newport Pier regarding the situation relative to the dock at #1 Collins Island and the docks at 100 and 106 South Bay Front. If you have testimony which you would like to present to the Tideland Affairs Committee you are urged.to attend the meeting on the above date. If you have questions regarding this please contact me at 644- 3044. ;S�inc ely, Tony-� Tidelands Administrator 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach BRUCE A. BEVAN. JR. SUITE 2000. ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGIELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 629-7777 January 13, 1989 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newpox-t Boulevard Newport Beach, CA Re: Dock at one Collins Island RECEIVE JAN, CITY UM CM NEWPW My wife and I are the owners of 106 South Bay Front, Balboa Island. Recently the City Council approved a plan for replacing our pier which was demolished as a result of the work on the seawall in the 100 South Bay Front block. At that time, the City Council recognized that the slip at One Collins Island was allowed to have been built to a much larger scale than was appropriate. It is also my understanding that there must be a clearance of at least 18h feet between our float and the slip at One Collins Island. our dock has been installed and the necessary clearance was left. However, the new owner of One Collins island has apparently rented dock space to a 35 foot sail boat docked on the seaward side of the One Collins Island slip which obviously interferes with passage of boats from our neighbors to the north of us as well as from our dock. This obviously is objectionable and must cease. In addition, I understand that it is contemplated that an extension of the seaward. slip on Collins Island is planned so as to allow a supposedly adequate passageway between our float and the slip. This extension would project further southward into the harbor. Any further such extension would interfere with passage of boats, access to my float, as well as interfere with sight lines into and view of the harbor. It is f air to state that the neighbors in the 100 block of South Bay Front share my opinion. It may be that the sail boat will attempt to be parked at the western most portion of the slip at One Collins Island but this also is equally objectionable because the extension of the boat into the harbor will interfere with boat passage and view. C > u City Council City of Newport Beach January 13, 1989 Page 2 Please advise me of the time f or hearing on any such application for enlargement of the slip at One Collins Island so that I and my neighbors may register our protest personally. Yours very truly, Bruce A. Bevan, Jr. BAB/lc cc: Harbor Permits City of Newport Beach PO FO March 9, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Wallace Hunt 9720 Amestoy Northridge, CA 91325 Re: Harbor Permit 259-1 for property at #1 Collins Island Dear Mr. Hunt: Attached is a copy of the drawing that we received from Trautwein Construction Co. regarding minor revisions to your dock at #1 Collins Island. It is my understanding that you wish to proceed with the revision as indicated in red on,the drawing. After the revisions are approved the City would require that -the easterly finger be conditioned so that only half of its length would be available for side tying a vessel. This would be the bayward most 33 feet and therefore the 33 feet closest to Balboa Island would have to remain unuseable for berthing a boat. I am planning to take this matter to the City Council on March--27---- Please review this letter and the drawing and if you have questions or comments please contact me immediately and I-e-t--me--- know if we should go forward seeking council approval on that date. Truly yours, "0 Tony Me�um Tidelands Administrator 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach v .0ow 6h PO 0 01 0 December 1, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Mariners Escrow 4 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Karen Sirs: The City of Newport Beach has received an application to transfer Pier Permit 0259-0001-1 for the property located at 1 Collins Island, Newport Beach. The structure was inspected on November 29, 1988, at which time it was determined that it conforms to the City Standards. Upon receipt of th ' e $260.00 transfer fee and the completed and signed transfer forms, this' pier permit will be transferred as requested. Sincerely, Tony M�ltf Tidfelands Administrator 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach P - 0 FOIR December 6, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Wallace E. Hunt, Jr. 9720 Amestoy Northridge, CA 91325 P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Re: Pier Permit 259-1 at #1 Collins Island Dear Mr. Hunt: The City of Newport Beach Marine Department has received a complaint regarding the use of the residential float at #1 Collins Island. Specifically, the complaint is that a sail boat is being berthed outside the slip creating the potential for a navigation problem between #1 Colllins Island and 100 South Bay Front. In the future it will be necessary that vessels not be tied on the side of your dock in such a manner that they prevent access to the slips at 100 and 106 South Bay Front. If you have questions regarding the (714)-644-3044. Sincerely, Tony M71U�m Tidelands Administrator above please contact me at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach STATUS SHEET HARBOR PERMITS TRANSFER Location Perm* t #12 cIr Date Application Received Fee RecldZL6� Oral Request for Inspection Escrow Co. Date Date Inspection Made Date Deficiency Letter Sent (if applicable) Date Deficiency Corrected (if applicable) Date Orange County Notified (if applicable) —Date,Transfer Complet, 11 ed h-6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 9266o City Hall .1 0vt 3300 Newliort Blvd. (714)673-2110 December 11, 1975 . Bank of Newport 2200 East Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Attn: Escrow -,Judy Dear Judy: Per your request, I inspected the harbor facility at #1 Collins Island on December 10, 1975 and found the facility in conformance to city requirements. Upon receipt of the Pier Permit Transfer app lication and $110.00 transfer fee, the City will complete the transfer of the permit. Sincerely, Glen E. Welden Tidelands Operations Coordinator Marine Department GEW: 1 f BUYERS' NAME(S) AD] MAILING ADDRESS APPL OCHD SELL