Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM2006-0048CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 17168, NE%XfPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 January 16, 1989 Laughlin E. Waters 112 North June Street Los Angeles, CA 90004 Dear Mr. Waters: Mayor Donald Strauss and City Manager Robert Wynn have asked that I respond to Your letter of January 5, 1989, regarding your pier Platform on Grand Canal on Balboa Island. I reviewed your letter and the photographs taken by the Marine Department staff of Your pier installation at 215 Grand Canal on January 16th, 1989, with the City Council's Tidelands Affairs Committee. The committee is comprised of Chairman Jean Watt and Councilwoman Evelyn Hart. The committee recommended that staff allow Your modifications and review future requests of other property owners on Grand Canal for benches, planter boxes and flagpoles on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the Tideland Affairs Committee suggested that they would not approve modifi- cations that create view blockage for adjoining properties, and/or those modifications that would enlarge the pier structure. Neither will they approve changes that allow the berthing of boats on the pier or berthing by davits hanging from the pier. If I can be of further assistance please feel free to give me a call at 714-644-3044. Sincerely, CM— David Harshbarger Marine Director 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach -;4A LAUGHLIN E. WATERS 112 NORTH JUNE STREET Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90004 January 5, 1989 Honorable Donald A. Strauss Mayor City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Request for Variance -- Pier on Grand Canal, Balboa island Dear Mayor Strauss: 17 T F7 'j I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Tony Melun, with whom I recently discussed correspondence received from the City of Newport Beach respecting alleged nonconformance of piers located on Grand Canal. I am the owner of property at 215 Grand Canal, Balboa Island and have owned it approximately 36 years. Mr. Melun states that my pier is nonconforming by reason of the fact that I have a bench built on top of the pier. He said that thZe objection of the City to t1he bench is that the bench restricts the view of the canal and that a further objection the City had was to flagpoles located on the piers. These objections appear to me to be lacking in merit.and discriminate unduly against the property owners on Grand Canal. I pointed out to Mr. Melun that in my walks around the island, I observed a number of piers located on both North and South Bay which have benches and/or locker boxes. I inquired whether the City was going to compel the owners of those properties to remove those benches and boxes. Mr. Melun stated that no action was being taken against those properties because those piers were somewhat less conspicuous presumably at the lower tide levels. I question the accuracy Honorable Donald A. Strauss Page Two January 5, 1989 of this assessment. Setting aside the presumed merits of the proposed action by the City, it seems to me that this constitutes unfair discrimination in favor of the owners of properties located on North and South Bay as against the properties located on the Grand Canal. As to the merits of the argument that the benches interfere with the view, the persons most affected by them are the ones who placed the benches on their piers in the first instance; that is, the owners of the affected property. To the extent that this announced reason may be valid, the only other people who would be affected would be those strolling along the sidewalk. They would have their view of the canal interfered with only on a momentary basis during the time that they are walking by the pier. Mr. Melun also said that there was a desire on the part of the City to achieve conformity on all of the piers located on the canal. Whether or not that can be achieved in view of some of the piers which have been on the canal for many many years, is a legal question, but I -must confess to being somewhat surprised that Newport Beach, of all communities, would seek to establish a rigid conformity on the part of all of its citizens. Newport Beach has never struck me as a community where reasonable individual independence and expression were antithetical to community norms. It seems to me that the better way to approach the problem (if there really is a problem) is to permit, within reasonable limits, the personalities of the individual homeowners to be reflected in their properties (including piers) rather than all being pressed to a rigid strait jacket of conformity. Again, as further evidence of discrimination, the piers on North and South Bay are quite.varied in their individual designs and size. There appears to be no rational justification in permitting these piers to be so individually styled and constructed and yet to require the much smaller piers on Grand Canal to have a monotonous sameness in design. I am now 74 years of age and not quite as agile as I used to be. I find that having the bench on the pier provides me with an easier way to get up on the pier, and it is a more pleasant way to enjoy the pier when I am able to sit down on the bench. This is particularly true since the height of the seawall has been raised. We are not the only persons who have enjoyed the convenience of the bench. Couples out for a stroll around Honorable Donald A. Strauss Page Three January 5, 1989 the island have interrupted their walk and rested on the bench from time to time. We are pleased that they are inclined to do so. I am also greatly surprised to learn that the City objects to having flagpoles on a pier. I am a twice wounded combat veteran of World War Ii. On every legal holiday I attempt to fly our nation's colors in as prominent a manner as possible. The pier is ideal for this purpose. I am very much surprised, therefore, to find that the City objects to flagpoles on piers. Again, it seems to me that if there ever was a community in this great country which would be proud to have its citizens fly our nation's colors, it would be Newport Beach. I simply do not understand this objection. We have three grandchildren and they, of course, come to the beach at every opportunity because they thoroughly enjoy our little home. We feel that having the bench on the pier provides an additional safety factor to these youngsters who -are three, two and ten months of age at this writing. In view of the personal convenience to myself, and the added enjoyment which the bench on the pier provides to my family and others, any interference with the view by the bench and/or a flagpole is so slight as to be inconsequential to anyone other than ourselves. This present action by the City is quite belated. Some of the piers (with benches lockers, davits etc.) have been in position well over a half century to my knowledge. We on the Grand Canal have thorouqhlv enjoyed -the amenities that the Grand Canal has providea. -This ultimatum by the City is most disturbing and appears to all of the residents of the Grand Canal with whom I have talked to be without any justifiable basis. If there is a real problem, then it seems to us to be one that should be addressed with specificity rather than the present generalized approach. I asked Mr. Melun whether or not any litigation had been initiated in connection with this proposed action by the City, and he told me that he did not believe it was necessary and that a simple request for a variance presented to the City Council would be the app-ropriate way of addressing the problem. In light of the above, I would appreciate the granting of a variance so that we may have an opportunity to maintain the bench on our pier. In the event that a personal Honorable Donald A. Strauss Page Four January 5, 1989 appearance before the City Council is glad to make an appearance. Thank you for your courtesy. necessary, I will be very truly yours, ug in E. Waters March 25, 1981 678V 1-01—T CITY'OF NEWPORT BEACH Laughlin Waters 112 North June Street Los Angeles, CA Dear Mr. Waters: It is my understanding that you wish to cancel the Harbor Permit at 215 Grand Canal because, you say, there is "no pier at that address". The Newport Marine Department will do that for you; however, the -the two metal pilings must also be removed, and in the future no vessels may be tied or moored at that location. If I can be of any further assistance in this regard, please call me at 640-2156. Sincerely, - —/�, Tony Melu7 Tidelands Administrator TM: db cc: B. Titley, Finance City I lall - 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 NAMt WA I t: K,b L?%UFjML 114- SITAEET 112 N jUNE,:S'T, CITY LOS ANGELES C, A 90004 RETA ORIGINAL K FOR,7�YOUR RECORDS. AMOUNT