HomeMy WebLinkAboutM2005-0060\INJ e__ U K) I "'PQ
---- ---- . ..... . .... .. ....... . .. - ----- ---------------
re,,Kt i V
RACE COMMIl-TEE PLATFORM
Race corrunittee platforms and instruction platforms may be constructed ba)'Aaxd of the
bulkhead lines at recognized yacht clubs and recognized sailing schools. All work shall
0 0
require issuance of a Harbor Pernuit.
ENCROACHING PIERS AND FLOATS
In areas -Adhere existing piers and floats encroach in front of' abut -Ling upland property
owned by others, a new permit approved by the Harbor Con-unission, shall be required
upon:
A. Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.
ZD 1 0
B. Any change in type of existing use of the abutting upland property owned by the
pernuttee.
C. Any change of existing ownership of the abutting upland property owned by the
pern-attee or upon the death of the pern-iittee.
D. Any destruction of the pier and float in which over 60% of the replacement value
of the pier and float has been destroyed.
Before the Harbor Commission acts on the new pernlit, the owner of the abutting
0
upland property, in front of which the harbor facility encroaches, shall be
notified in writing of the meeting in which the new permit will be considered.
0
0
N:Oir7�
September 29, 2014
Josephine Williams
500 Angelita Drive
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Re: 505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island
Dear Ms. Williams,
Y 14
&�Jbcrj arnVIek plaku
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Public Works Department
Harbor Resources Division
ilk I
H A R, 30 R F E S 0 L) R C-, E Sq LD
Y 0 F N FN P 0 6 ED -1, H,
The above mentioned property's pier and float was originally constructed in 1961- The applicant was
issued a permit to build the harbor structures and at that time the Newport Beach city council conditioned
the permit to prohibit any docking of vessels on the easterly side of the float and all docking will be on the
westerly side.
This office received a complaint that you are berthing a boat on the easterly side in violation of the harbor
permit. A field inspection verified that you have a boat berthed on the easterly side of the -float.
This letter will advise you that the encroaching vessel must be relocated within thirty (30) days from the
date of this notice, otherwise an Administrative Citation may be issued and penalties will begin to accrue
($100, $100, $500 daily increments). Your cooperation's will be greatly appreciated in this matter.
Please see the attached picture of the infraction. If you have any questions regarding the enforcement
please feel free to give me a call.
This letter was sent via regular first class mail and registered mail.
Thank you,
Lisa Walters
Harbor Resources
829 Harbor island Dr�Ne, Newport Beach, CA 92660
vv,qvw.newportbeachca.gov (949) 644-3034
(01, 1 , I
- I 1�w
_0 P
0 Ig
AF,
F
IN,
September 29, 2014
Josephine Williams
500 Angelita Drive
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Re: 505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island
Dear Ms. Williams,
1 q 11111 1
170-joul
Public Works Department
Harbor Resources Division
The above mentioned property's pier and float was originally constructed in 1961. The applicant was
issued a permit to build the harbor structures and at that time the Newport Beach city council conditioned
the permit to prohibit any docking of vessels on the easterly side of the float and all docking will be on the
westerly side.
This office received a complaint that you are berthing a boat on the easterly side in violation of the harbor
permit. A field inspection verified that you have a boat berthed on the easterly side of the float.
This letter will advise you that the encroaching vessel must be relocated within thirty (30) days from the
date of this notice, otherwise an Administrative Citation may be issued and penalties will begin to accrue
($100, $100, $500 daily increments). Your cooperation's will be greatly appreciated in this matter.
Please see the attached picture of the infraction. If you have any questions regarding the enforcement
please feel free to give me a call.
This letter was sent via regular first class mail and registered mail.
Thank you,
0 —,
Z�Ae
Lisa Walters
Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
www.newportbeachco.gov (949) 644-3034
JBIENNO ES Mama
Ln
ru 0
Ln Postage $
cc
0
Po
sta
r
L
cerrified Fee
rU7 ,postmark
M Here
r-3 Retum Receipt Fee
Pt. d 3
r U.
3 (Eqdorsoment Required)
r - ry Fee
C3 Restricted Delivery Fee
C31 (Endor 1 semOnt Required)
f --I t . & .S7
n-1, Total postage & Fees $
' "-I' '
ru FSennt T ----------
03b(-.;P-. f h- .... ;-? ---------
ru - LK�I
r -I ------ ------------
, Apt. 0.; 3�- -----------------------
C3 or po Box No. I�i:i C> --------------
C; ... .......... . .
.ty
r%- 'S
-6i6T-§tx' 0;�; 92-
N
_ O
CD
N
O
Ln
m
N
..n
43
ru
O
C3
A
O
O
ru
ru
ru
0
rl
a
U
N
U
N
E
0
0
0
c N
m
7
_U Q
U7
lL
N
T
oo
d C
C C
�. LL
CO
a
Po'c'
C�
rc%
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
October 18, 2002
E.0 Williams
500 Angelita
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Re: 505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island
Dear Sirs:
The above-mentioned property's pier and float was originally constructed in 1961. The
applicant was issued a permit to build the harbor structures and at that time the Newport
Beach City Council conditioned the permit to prohibit any docking of vessels on the
easterly side of the float and all docking will.be on the westerly side.
This officereceived-a. complaint that- you -are berthing -a -boat -on- the -easterly- side in -
violation of the harbor permit. A field inspection verified that you have two boats berthed
on the easterly side of the float. The City has notified you more than once in recent years
to comply with the condition within your harbor permit. Therefore a citation has been
issued.
Please relocate this vessel with two weeks from the date on this letter. Failure to comply
with this notice may result in additional Administrative Citations and possibly referring
this matter to the City Attorney.
If you require additional information in regards to this issue� please call me at 949-644-
3041
Sincerely,
es Annand
Harbor Inspector
Harbor Resources Division
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
August 7, 2008
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Division
Eric Williams
C/O: Lisa Walters
City of Newport Beach
Harbor Resources Division
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Mr. Williams:
This is in reply to your application (File No. SPL -2008-00760) for a Department of
the Army Permit to conduct maintenance dredging, per Regional General Permit No. 54,
seaward of 505 and 603 North Bay Front, in Newport Beach, Orange County, California
(as shown on enclosed maps).
Based on the information you have provided, the Corps of Engineers has
determined that your proposed activity complies with the terms and conditions of
Regional General Permit (RGP) No. 54- Maintenance Dredging, Beach Nourishment, and
Dock Maintenance.
As long as you comply with the general permit conditions of RGP No. 54, an
individual permit is not required.
Specifically, you are authorized to:
1. Dredge 210 cubic yards of sediment over a 0.043 -acre area using 6" hydraulic
suction; and
2. Dispose dredged material on adjacent beach over a 0.097 -acre area (250 linear
feet).
A general permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. This
letter of verification is valid until October 4. 2011. Also, it does not authorize any injury
to the property or rights of others or authorize interference with any existing or
-2 -
proposed Federal project. Furthermore, it does not obviate the need to obtain other
Federal, State, or local authorizations required by law.
Thank you for participating in our regulatory program. If you have any questions,
please contact Yvette Cardenas of my staff at 213.452.3418 or via e-mail at
Yvette.L. Cardenas@usace. army. mil.
Please be advised that you can now comment on your experience with
Regulatory Division by accessing the Corps web -based customer survey form at:
httl2://12er2.nwl2.usace.army.mil/survey.html.
Sincerely,
-�?ark Durham
Chief, South Coast Branch
Regulatory Division
Enclosure
i poll I
1,14
Ol
�70
ze-Ir /5
04314W -11,e)
461
Lel
C) r
C,
G A. -§*spp
EEL
[I Eelgras,,
within 15', of pfojeot
0 Eelgras..,
within 15 - 30' of project
%No...
s ain rojept� rea
nature
S S ign
In-cmPrTion
Date &Time
Lel
I)o C s
........... ......... ,
7
40 1 6a7
61OS"e 4-03 W. 9.
mrmloo,Ar ae.4csit, c4ylf-,
APIOZ11C. lleklc VIZZ-1-AMS
C) r
t3
AAR
COW."
VI INITY
ETCN
Ncvmoitr CA4.41:0"-mA
- - I
%Wv s
biv(pw "Ptv,-y
zaw WIWI—.
' 1-7-
7
WE
I)o C s
........... ......... ,
7
40 1 6a7
61OS"e 4-03 W. 9.
mrmloo,Ar ae.4csit, c4ylf-,
APIOZ11C. lleklc VIZZ-1-AMS
ci
/*
13
4At
I //
I -t ft
F-74 'J
=31
8
GO
IC
ko
N
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 May 23, 2008
(562) 590-5071
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Bebch/Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Condition Compliance - Coastal Development Permit 5-06-117
& Conformance with Consistency Certification CC -031-06 - DREDGING
Dear Mr. Miller:
Commission staff have received information submitted as evidence of compliance with Coastal Development
Permit 5-06-117, and/or as evidence of conformance with Consistency Certifications CC -031-06 for the following.
sites in the City of Newport Beach:
Applicant
Site Address
Beach
Ocean
Cumulative
Eelgrass
Comments
Disposal
Disposal
Total� for
Present
Eelgrass Survey
oti
Qtyt
2008
between 15 -
Date/Expiration .. ;
(cu.yds)
(cu.yds)
30 Feet of
Caulerpa Survey
disposal
Date/Expirationtt
footprint.
Ayres, Don, Jr.
832-840 Via Lido Nord
230
0
No
Eelgrass survey
4/18108 (expires
8/16/08); Caulerpa
survey 4/18/08
.(expires 7/17/08)
Croul, Spencer
812 Via Lido Nord
55
0
No
Eelgrass survey
4/18/08 (expires
8/16/08); Caulerpa
survey 4/18/08
(expires 7/17/08)
Cita, Litt
1316 & 1318 E. Balboa Blvd.
180
0
No
Eelgrass survey
4111/08 (expires
8/9/08); Caulerpa
survey 4/11/08
(expires 7/10/08)
Newport Bay Towers
310 Fernando Street
0
995
No
Eelgrass survey
5/12/08 (expires
9/9/08)' Caulerpa
survey 5/12/08
(expires 8/10/08)
O'Neil, Barry
219-221 East Bay Front
110
0
No
Eelgrass survey
3/12/08 (expires
7/10/08); Caulerpa
survey 3/12108
�(explres� 6/10/08)
P46f'f"o-�xc-e,'-e-8'1,000"-c-u-b'ic--y-ar-'ds' p6rdredding and beach disposal event
t
Not to Exceed 1,000 cubic yards per dredging and 6ff-shore disposal event
Not to Exceed 20,000 cubic yards per year
If "Yes" then if eelgrass is present between 15-30 feet from the �proposed dredge material disposal fo:btprintr(in,
any direction), then monitoring of the site for potential eelgrass impacts from disposal operations shall be required.
All eelgrass survey/mapping efforts must be completed during the active growth phase for the vegetation
(typically March through October) and shall be valid for a period of 120 days with the exception of surveys
completed in August - October. A survey completed in August - October shall be valid until the resumption of
active growth (i.e., March 1).
tt Caulerpa taxifolia surveys are valid for 90 days from date of survey
I Flwl
Condition Compliance - 5-06-117
Consistency Certification Compliance — CC -031-06
Page 2 of 2
- &IM 505 & 603 North Bay Front
210 0 No Eelgrass survey
4/18/08 (expires
8/16/08); Caulerpa
survey 4/18/08
(expires 7/17/08)
Sub -total
785 995
Year-to-date total
6659
Commission staff have reviewed the information submitted and determined that the above referenced dredging
events conform with Consistency Certifications CC -031-06 and the Special Conditions of Coastal Development
Permit 5-06-117. Please note that the eelgrass and Caulerpa taxifolia surveys completed are only valid for a
limited time period and that additional surveys must be completed and submitted to Commission staff for review if
the dredging and beach nourishment events listed above do not commence prior to expiration of the initial survey.
In addition, please note that this authorization shall expire on October 23, 2011 and that all authorized work must
be completed prior to that date.
Please be advised that only the projects described in the materials subm itted for the sites listed above have been
found to conform with Consistency Certification CC -031-06 and/or conform with the terms and conditions of
Coastal Development Permit 5-06-117. Any change in the projects may cause them to lose their status as
consistent with CC -031-06 and/or CDP 5-06-117. This certification is based on information provided by the
recipient of this letter. If, at a later date, this information is found to be incorrect or incomplete, this letter will
become invalid, and any development occurring at that time must cease until a new determination regarding
conformance with CC -031-06 and/or CDP 5-06-117, is obtained.
If you have any gAestions, please contact me at (562) 590-5071 or Mr. Mark Delaplaine at (415) 904-5200.
Sin�erel
Inc I
aril Schwing
Supervisor, Regulation & Planning, Orange County Area
Cc: Mr. Mark Delaplaine, California Coastal Commission
Mr. Dan Swenson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HARBOR RESOURCES
May 20, 2008
Califon -da Coastal Commission
Attn: Karl Schwing
200 Oceangate, STE 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4416
Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Dan Swenson
915 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Attn: Adam Fischer
3737 Main Street, STE 500
Riverside, CA 92501-3348
RE: Regional General Permit No. 54 — Dredging Application Submittals
Enclosed is the recent monthly batch of dredging applications for your approval, per the
California Coastal Commission Permit 5-06-117 & Federal Consistency Certification CC -031-06,
the Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 54 (File No. 200501233 -DPS) and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board General Certification Permit, $60 Regional Water Board check included
for each application. All of these applications have been checked for accuracy and completeness
as evidenced by the attached Dredging Application City Checklist.
Thank you for your time in reviewing these applications. Please do not hesitate to call if you
have any questions.
Site addresses included
Ayres- 832-840 Via Lido Nord
Croul- 812 Via Lido Nord
Litt- 1316 & 1318 E. Balboa Blvd.
Newport Bay Towers- 3 10 Fernando St.
O'Neil- 219-221 E. Bay Front
Williams- 505 & 603 N. Bay Front
Sincerely,
Lisa Wafters
Harbor Resources Technician
(949) 644-3044
829 Harbor Island Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
PH: (949) 644-3044 FX: (949) 723-0589 oWebsite: www.newport-beach.ca.us/HBR/
Applicant Name:
HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 718-1844 Fax (949) 723-0589
www.newport-beach.ca.us/hbr
DREDGING APPLICATION
Project Site Address:
CITY CHECKLIST
P,V-i
4
Applicant address, phone number
Agent & Contractor name, address, phone number (if applicable)
Project site address
Assessor's parcel number
Dredge site latitude and longitude
Disposal site:
Beach disposal latitude and longitude
Ocean disposal LA -3
Purpose and final goal of dredging
Method of dredging. Vessel and equipment description.
Vessel(s) Captain, Dredging & Disposal Inspector
Cubic yards dredged and disposed ( must be less than 1,000 cy.)
Area impacted (in acres)
If beach disposal, linear feet of affected beach area
5d Dredging and Disposal Operations Schedule
fA Scaled drawings (plan view and cross sectional view)
Site address
Location within the Harbor
V;01-..+
829 Harbor Island Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
PH: (949) 644-3034 FX: (949) 723-0589 *Website: www.newport-beach.ca.us/HBR/
Dredging Application
City Checklist
Page 2
Location of existing dock structures
ER Location of existing dock structures on adjacent properties
Location of Bulkhead, Pierhead and Project Lines
Dredge depth (limited to -7 MLLW with a l' allowable overdraft)
Photo(s) of dredge and disposal areas at low tide (including 30' buffer area)
Eelgrass Survey
Survey for presence of eelgrass within 30' of the entire project area
El Yes X No Eelgrass within 15' of entire project area. Proiect not
permitted.
If ocean disposal and eelgrass is located greater than 15' from the project
area, then no further monitoring required
If beach disposal and eelgrass is not located within 30' of the project
area, then no further monitoring is required
El If beach disposal and eelgrass is located between 15' and 30' from the
project area, then pre- and post -monitoring is required
El Pre -monitoring survey attached
El Post -monitoring survey attached. Date submitted:
Eelgrass Stamp
Caulerpa Survey
M Survey for Caulerpa within 30' of the entire project area
Grain Size Analysis
(1) sample per V4acre and / or at least (1) sample at dredge site and (1) sample at
beach disposal site (if applicable)
Beach disposal:
9 Sample(s) must be at least 80% sand, or;
El At least 75% sand and within 10% of the sand content of the receiver beach
El Ocean Disposal:
El Sample(s) must be less than 80% sand
Project is over (check one box):
City Tidelands
X
Dredging Application
City Checklist
Page 3
El County Tidelands (State Lands Comniission Dredge Lease Approval)
If applicable, check one box:
El The Irvine Company owner's approved area
El Bay Island owner's approved area
El Dover Shores owner's approved area
El Linda Isle owner's approved area
Check made payable to The City of Newport Beach
Check for $60 made payable to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Signed application
Neighbor notification
POST DREDGING
OM
Post Dredging Report. Date submitted:
Post eelgrass monitoring (if applicable)
Print Form
HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION v.6-22-07
C,
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 644-3044 Fax (949) 723-0589
ME DGING APPLICATION
Regional General Permit 54
CDP 5-06-117 & CC -031-06
Corps File No. 200501233 -DPS
Water Board Consistency Permit
Valid Until October 4, 2011
Applicant Narne, Address, Phone Number:
/720, - A S,
,00 Ao X q9 ir
8q/6-00, C,19 9z667
sel"c 5 qq-1 6 75-40'736'
XWO 4rtre1/,4& D-4.
C.OkOPV4 '045t ln�9,q) C-4 1?1z4z61
Agent & Contractor Narne, Address, Phone NUrnber (if applicable):
/720, - A S,
,00 Ao X q9 ir
8q/6-00, C,19 9z667
Project Site Address:
Assessor's Parcel NUrnber:
6-0,5—t 603 -,VortA_d&�e 70 07Z Y -Y-1
f 0=5
Dredge Site: Latitude N.33'0 6-O� Longitude I a) // -7 -0,6-6. 7.30
Disposal Site
f -/-Beach Disposal: Latitude Jr15 Longitude I U) 11'7,'06-3. 72 7-
[— Ocean Disposal (LA -3): Latitude 33* 3 11 0011 Longitude 117*53'30"
Purpose and Final Goal of Dredging (Effect on Bulkhead and Beaches):
A& S A -e e4 7410 tP&E C &(4Pej0L*&1 6 /S' ;4,,;7
o0o,v 14 /te re -e- ex
Regional General Pert�iil 54
Dredging AppliceWon
Method of Dredging (HydraLiliC, Clamshell, Tractor etc ... ), Vessel and Equipment Description, -
Ile, tL, I -C St,(-C-
Vessel(s) Captain A/ A -
Di -edging Operations Inspector
Disposal Operations Inspector
Cubic Yards Dredged and Disposed (Must be less than 1,000 cy. total):
a/0 CC& vlfc(s
Area Impacted (in acres): If Beach Disposal Is Used, Linear Feet of Affected Beach Area:
Acres Linear Feet
Estimate of Quantity of Material Dredged From or Disposed Onto the Site From Previous Activities:
/'fi -,�akc / Z�o V 09,4,-S
If --
Dredging and Disposal Operations Schedule:
V- lot W; if Ao 0e,*
V
hee.e, k L4.�,*Ar
Please SUbinit tile following oil a separate page. Use the check boxes to enSUre a complete application is
filed. Incomplete applications will not be processed.
Scaled drawings of the project arid disposal areas (plan view and cross sectional view)
Site address
1;1/" Location within tile Harbor
IV-/ Location and physical dimensions Of eXiSting StrUCtUres oil SUbject site (e.g. float, pier,
gangway, pile and bulkhead)
F—V Location and physical dimensions ofexisting StRICtUreS on acljacentpmputies
r(/ Location of Bulkhead, Pierhead and Project Lines
Dredge depth (limited to -7 MLLW with a Pallowable overdraft)
Photo(s) of entire dredge and disposal areas at low tide (including 30'buffer area),
with emphasis oil eelgrass
Regional General Permit 54
Dredging Application
Poge 3
Eelgrass Survey - Completed by a Certified Eelgrass Diver
A. Survey for the presence of eelgrass within 30' of the entire project area (dredge
and disposal site)
B. If eelgrass is within 15' of project area, then the project
will not be permitted.
(An Individual Permit must be sought.)
C. If ocean disposal:
• Any eelgrass must be located greater than 15' from project area
• No further eelgrass monitoring is required
D. If beach disposal:
• If eelgrass is not present within 30' of the project area, then no further
monitoring is required
• If eelgrass is present between 15'to 30' of the disposal project area, then
pre- and post-rnonitoring is required. See Harbor Resources website for pre -
and post-i-nonitoringrequirements
Caulerpa S urvey - Completed by a Certified Caulerpa Diver
F/A. Survey for Caulerpa within 30' of the project area (dredge and disposal site)
—Grain Size Analysis
A. (1) sample per 1/4 acre and / or at least (1) sample at dredge site and (1) sample at
beach disposal site (if applicable)
B. If beach disposal, sample(s) must be at least 80% sand
F Project is over (check one box):
Fr—**' City Tidelands
County Tidelands (State Lands Commission Dredge Lease Approval)
F If applicable, check one box:
I— The Irvine Company owner's approved area
F Bay Island owner's approved area
Dover Shores owner's approved area
F Linda Isle owner's approved area
Check inade payable to The City of Newport Beach (See Harbor Resources website for
/ appropriate fees)
Check for $60 made payable to Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Prqject areas at the Rhine Channel, Newport Island, Promontory Bay, the West Lido Channel orftom
within 1,000ftet in any direction fi-om the 15'�'Steeet public pier are not eligiblefor dredging under
this Permit,
Regional General Pennit 54
Dredging Application
Page 4
(Applicant / Agent), hereby certify that the
information on this application is accurate and complete. I also certify that I have read the California
Coastal Commission Permit 5-06-117 & Federal Consistency Certification CC -031-06, the Army Corps
of Engineers Regional General Permit No. 54 (File No. 20050123' )-DPS) and the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board General Certification for Regional General Permit No. 54 for maintenance
dredging in Newport Harbor and that I will comply with all of the conditions in those permits. I also
certify that by acceptance of this Permit, the applicant acknowledges and agrees that the site may be
subject to hazards from waves and erosion.
I will further hold the City of Newport Beach harmless from and indemnify the City against any claim for
damages arising out of the exercise of these permits. In addition, I shall reimburse the City of Newport
Beach for all attorney's fees and other costs expended by them in defending any claim, lawsuit, or
judgment arising out of the activities of the applicant carried on under the authority of such Permit,
I understand that any work authorized must be completed by October 4, 2011 after which a new
authorization is required, I also understand that the applicant will submit a Post Dredging Completion
Report no later than 30 calendar days after completion of each dredging project. All work scheduled to
be completed before 7:00 AM or after 6:00 PM (Monday - Saturday) or on Sundays or holidays must be
approved by Harbor Resources.
Per the RGP Permit, all dredging applications will be processed by the various agencies through monthly
batch submittals sent to them by Harbor Resources. Therefore, all dredging applications must be
submitted to and received by Harbor Resources by the I "Mondgy of every month. Applications
submitted prioi- to this deadline are encouraged and appreciated.
S5
/- /'ZO
Applicant and / or Agent Signature .1 1 Date
General Information for RGP #54
Contractor: Mark Sites dba. Intracoastal Dredging Service, (949) 675-1071
Email: marklsites@yahoo.com
License Information: California State Contractor A6023 5
Classification, "X' (General Engineering),"HAE'(Hazardous Remediation)
Equipment: Shop built, 6", plain suction, I 10 horsepower, hydraulic dredge, 22' X 11'.
Operator: Mark Sites
Experience- 1982Ao-present-on-abovz-equipment--- ----
Other: No barges or tags are used. Typically, sand is pumped through a plastic pipeline
to a nearby beach disposal restoration site.
91
HARBOR'RESOURCES DIV.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
5
0 CIA/ Z)
'lx
SITI
V,
.4 115,
4ft A"Q
VICINiTY
. j -
/L lir.,wr ,
fA JOT"
-5 C'P 5 0
7Z
4-"p 00C
EEL GRA '§44SP T1110w;
0 Eelgrass wfthin 15'of p tjieori
[:3 Eelgrass wfthin 15 - 30'of project—
Z No gqjgrasAnprojept#ea
signature
Cq2c- Jpd5
Inspection Date &Time
Matj 07 08 04:06p MBG Rloplied EnviroMmental 714 850 4840
MBC SAMPLE ANALYSIS SUNWARY
STATION LOCATION: iO5 N. Bay Front
SAMPLE COLLECTION DATE: 4/29/2008 TEST METHOD: Sieve Analysis:
Method 2 (Plumb 1981)
COLLECTED BY: Intraciastal Dredging ANALYSIS START DATE: 4/2912008
Sand Fraction: 62.10 g 91 % 92.31 g 99%
<2.Omm >0.063mm (< -1� > 4�)
#230 Sieve
Silt / Clay Fraction: 5.87 g 8% 0.43 g I %
<0.063mm (< 4 4) 1
COL.LECTION
Samples colk
site and recei
SAMPLE PREPARATIO
Entire sample
mixed to des,,
settle and the
oven at 500C
sample is trat
Riffle sedime
material to be
SAMPLEANALYSIS
The dry split i
gravel/shell ft
value recorde
#230 sieve to
transferred b,
The remainin!
recorded to yi
the aravellshi
of sample collection and analysis:
by a hand coring device driven into a representative area of the dredg
beach. Stored in plastic containers and immediately delivered to the la
transferred into 1 liter glass containers, deionized water added, and
It and disperse the sediment. The sediment is allowed to completely
dear water is removed by siphoning. The sample is placed in a drying
ind occasionally stirred until the entire sample is completely dry. The dry
0erred to a desiccator for cooling. The sample is disaggregated and a
It splitter Is used to evenly split the sample to reduce the quantity of
analyzed to an allowable retention weight for the sieves.
action is processed through a # 10 U.S. standard sieve to remove the
ction of the sample. The material retained on the sieve is weighed and
. The material passing through the # 10 sieve is wet sieved through a
emove the siit/clay fraction. The material retained on the sieve is
h into the glass container and placed back into the drying oven at Wt.
sample is allowed to completely dry and the material is weighed and
ld the sand fraction. The silt/clay fraction is calculated by subtracting
I and sand fractions from the total analysis weight.
MSC Apoied 7 tal.Sciences, 3WO RecMill Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
p.4
A
a
DREDGE SITE
RECEIVING BEACH
Total Dry Weight of Saff
pie, 254.91 grams (g)
92.92 grams (g)
Analysis Weight (Split )A
Q: 68.35 g
92.92 g
Visual Description:
, k light brown medium sand
A light brown fine sand
with small shelf hash.
with smaff shell hash.
Fraction Fraction
Fraction Fraction
Weight 0/6 of Total
Weight _% of Total
Gravel I Shelf Hash Fra
ion: 0.38 g I %
0.18 g 0%
>2.0mrn (> -10)
1*
#10 Sieve
Sand Fraction: 62.10 g 91 % 92.31 g 99%
<2.Omm >0.063mm (< -1� > 4�)
#230 Sieve
Silt / Clay Fraction: 5.87 g 8% 0.43 g I %
<0.063mm (< 4 4) 1
COL.LECTION
Samples colk
site and recei
SAMPLE PREPARATIO
Entire sample
mixed to des,,
settle and the
oven at 500C
sample is trat
Riffle sedime
material to be
SAMPLEANALYSIS
The dry split i
gravel/shell ft
value recorde
#230 sieve to
transferred b,
The remainin!
recorded to yi
the aravellshi
of sample collection and analysis:
by a hand coring device driven into a representative area of the dredg
beach. Stored in plastic containers and immediately delivered to the la
transferred into 1 liter glass containers, deionized water added, and
It and disperse the sediment. The sediment is allowed to completely
dear water is removed by siphoning. The sample is placed in a drying
ind occasionally stirred until the entire sample is completely dry. The dry
0erred to a desiccator for cooling. The sample is disaggregated and a
It splitter Is used to evenly split the sample to reduce the quantity of
analyzed to an allowable retention weight for the sieves.
action is processed through a # 10 U.S. standard sieve to remove the
ction of the sample. The material retained on the sieve is weighed and
. The material passing through the # 10 sieve is wet sieved through a
emove the siit/clay fraction. The material retained on the sieve is
h into the glass container and placed back into the drying oven at Wt.
sample is allowed to completely dry and the material is weighed and
ld the sand fraction. The silt/clay fraction is calculated by subtracting
I and sand fractions from the total analysis weight.
MSC Apoied 7 tal.Sciences, 3WO RecMill Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
p.4
Eelgrass Survey Reporting Form
(Version 1.0, June 20, 2003)
This form is required to be submitted for any surveys conducted for the eelgrass, Zostera
marina, that are required to be conducted under federal or state permits and authorizations
issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Commission. Theformhasbeen
designed to assist in identifying eelgrass while ensuring that the required information is
consistently documented. Surveys required to be conducted for this species are subject to
modification through publication of revisions to the eelgrass survey policy. It is incumbent upon
the authorized permittee to ensure that survey work is following the latest protocols. For Rirther
information on these protocols, please contact: Robert Hoffinan, National Marine Fisheries
Service, (562) 980-4043, or William Paznokas, California Department of Fish & Game, (858)
467-4218).
' Site Name:
505 North Bay Front, Newport Beach
common r ence)
S urvey Contact:
rr
Fmark
name, phone, e-mail)
r
Sites (949) 675-1071 marklsites@yahoo.com
Permit Reference:
(ACOE Permit No., RWQCB
Order or Cert. No.)
RGP #54
Wdrographic System:
�bay, estuary, lagoon, or
iarbor)
Lower Newport Harbor
Specific Location: I
VTK Lat./Long.. datum.
N 33 36.509'
accuracy level, attach
W 117 53.730'
electronic survey area map if
possible)
Was Eelgrass Detected:
Yes, Eelgrass was found at this site.
I XXX No, Eelgrass was not found at this site
Description of I
Permitted Work:
Maintenance dredging / beach restoration
escribe briefly the work to
be conducted at the site under
the permits identified above)
1
Description of Site:
Depth range:
(describe the physical and
+7.5' to —7.5' IVILLW
biological conditions within
the survey area at the time of
the survey and provide insigb
into variability, if known.
Please provide units for all
numerical information).
I
Lubstrate
type:
Sand to silt over fine sand
Temperature:
64 F
funity
Dominant
NA
f7ora:
None
Dominant
fauna:
Mussels on dock floats and pile.
Exotic
species
encountered:
None
10ther
,,�site
escri ion
otes:
2
Description of Survey
urvey date
Effort:
nd time
April 18, 2008 0920-1005
(please describe the surveys
eriod.-
April 23, 2008 0640 (low tide photos)
conducted including type of
survey (SCUBA, remote
video, etc.) and survey
Imethods employed, date of
work, and survey density
(estimated percentage of the
bottom actually viewed).
Describe any limitations
encountered during the
survey efforts.
Horizontal
visihility in
2)
water:
Survey type
and methods:
SCUBA survey utilizing 4 transects parallel to dock
finger, and 3 transect parallel to shoreline in the area
between +2' and —4' ULLW. Sand disposal site was
viewed at low tide.
Survey
personnel.
Mark Sites
Survey
density:
Over 30%
Survey
.1
limitations:
L
Poor visibility
Other Information:
(use this space to provide any
+4.1' MLLW ebb tide
additional information or
references to attached
materl s s as maps,
Drawing and aerial attached
I
reports, etc.)
Eelgrass Survey Reporting Form (version 1.0, 6/17/03)
3
-6-
70
0'
04314oei%�e)
10
el q 7
-b 0"
AfEwpoer
OWNWR -*C�v
Jew
Ccft-.W
VICINITY SKIE-rC)q
Ncvv�pomr t5A-Y, CA4LjpojtNjA
ancj'o 'QW'0;0*-
"'p, .. WS Af,,ov,
/0
O -W WSA76MWboat mp'-60.-
'gay.
ED
C1,31
VA.
17
// j
Caulerpa Survey Reporting Form
This form is required to be submitted for any surveys conducted for the invasive exotic alga
Caulerpa taxifolia that are required to be conducted under federal or state permits and
authorizations issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (Regions 8 & 9). The form has been designed to assist in controlling the costs of
reporting while ensuring that the required information necessary to identify and control any
potential impacts of the authorized actions on the spread of Caulerpa. Surveys required to be
conducted for this species are subject to modification through publication of revisions to the
Caulerpa survey policy. It is incumbent upon the authorized permittee to ensure that survey
work is following the latest protocols. For ffirther information on these protocols, please contact:
Robert Hoffman, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), (562) 980-4043, or
William Paznokas, California Department of Fish & Game, (858) 467-4218).
Report Date:
April 23, 2008
Name of bay, estuary,
lagoon, or harbor:
Lower Newport Harbor
Specific Location Name:
(address or common
505 North Bay Front
reference)
Site Coordinates:
(UTM, Lat./Long., datum,
N 33 36.509'
accuracy level, and an
W 117 53.730'
electronic survey area map
or hard copy of the map
must be included)
Survey Contact:
(name, phone, e-mail)
Mark Sites (949) 675-1071 marklsites(&,yahoo.com
Personnel Conducting
Survey (if other than
Mark Sites
above): (name, phone,
e-mail)
Permit Reference:
(ACOE Permit No.,
ACOE RGP #54
RWQCB Order or Cert. No.)
Is this the first or second
survey for this project?
First
Was Caulerpa
Yes, Caulerpa was found at this site and
Detected?: (if Caulerpa is
found, please immediately
—has been contacted on date.
contact NOAA Fisheries or
CDFG personnel identified
above)
XXXXX No, Caulerpa was not found at this site.
Description of Permitted
Work: (describe briefly the
Maintenance (Jredging
work to be conducted at the
site under the permits
identified above)
Description of Site:
Depth range:
+7.0 to —7.5'MLLW
Substrate type:
Sand to silt over sand
(describe the physical and
biological conditions within the
survey area at the time of the
survey and provide insight into
variability, if known. Please
Temperature:
64 F
Salinity:
NA
Dominantflora:
provide units for a numerical
None
information).
Dominantfauna:
Mussels on dock floats and pile.
Exotic species
encountered
None
(including any
other Caulerpa
species):
Other site
description notes:
None
Survey date and
Description of Survey
timeperiod:
April 18,2008 0920-1005
Effort:
April 23, 2008 0640 (photos)
Horizontal
(please describe the surveys
conducted miclud mig type of
in water:
27
survey (SCUBA, remote
video, etc.) and survey
methods employed, date of
work, and survey density
(estimated percentage of the
bottom actually viewed).
-visibility
Survey type and
methods:
Surveillance level SCUBA survey utilizing
4 transects parallel to dock finger. In
addition, 3 transects were made parallel to
the shoreline in the area between + 2'
MLLW and — 4' MLLW. Sand disposal site
was viewed at a low tide.
Describe any limitations
Survey Personnel:
encountered during the
Mark Sites
survey efforts,
Survey density:
30%
Survey limitations:
Poor visibility
Other Information: (use
this space to provide
+4. F MLLW ebb tide
additional information or
references to attached maps,
reports, etc-)
Drawing and aerial attached
Caulerpa Survey Reporting Form (version 1.2, 10/31/04)
- ---------
7 ^7'
Ely
LS
O%M
VICINITY
; 'I ,
'2 IL fA Jl—
"A
C16P-1*0
01 21'
'Say.
o ot e)
oseq
�vv Poe
'Ile
All
to
NZ
00
,00
'Li
till "ZI
Egiv
00
"000
z
Z
unfriendly harbor. Commissioner Rodheim said we are trying to balance harbor use and
Commissioner Duffy said other areas in the harbor should be looked at for commercial
sites.
Commissioner Rodheim made the motion to approve the plans and Commissioner Beek
seconded it. It was passed unanimously (Don Lawrenz; was absent). Staff was requested
to come back with recommendations on boat size limits, time limitations, no fishing,
enforcement hours and enforcement means, and with a finding of consistency with the
General Plan.
Application Appeal Permit #112-421 - Item pulled from the agenda by applicant.
Mooring A-255 Revocation Update - This mooring is now in compliance.
- Report on Plans for Patriot's Day - Commission Rodheim gave a report on the plans for
Patriot's Day. On September 11 from 8:30 am to 9:00 am at Corona Del Mar. About 14
tall Ships will be off shore and the Harbor Patrol will have their fireboat on site. There
will be a 2 1 -gun salute. The schedule will be posted on the City web site.
6. Sub -Committee Updates:
. Eelgrass - Don Lawrenz, Paulette Pappas and Seymour Beek are on this committee. The
committee is surveying other harbor areas to see who has Eelgrass. They have talked to
Tom Rossmieller and he feels very positive about the Safe Harbor's Agreement. The
Eelgrass restoration plan time line will be updated by Tony Melum.
- Dinghy Storage - the sub -committee passed around an update.
7. Harbor Commission Task List:
All of the items from the Harbor Committee will be individually listed. Tony Melum and
Chairman Collins will go over the task list and eliminate those areas that overlap.
8. The next meeting will be 9/11 at 6:00 pin in the City Council Chambers.
9. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Recording Secretary: Lorrie Arcese, Harbor Resources Secretary
HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 11, 2002
Commissioners: Seymour Beek, Timothy Collins, John Corrough and Paulette Pappas.
Don Lawrenz, Marshall Duffield and Ralph Rodeim. were absent.
City Staff. Lorrie Arcese, Harbor Commission Secretary
Tony Melum, Director of Harbor Resources
Dan Ohl, Assistant City Attorney
1. Introductions:
Chairman Collins introduced the commissioners and staff to the audience and gave a
brief background of the commission.
2. The motion to approve the minutes was passed with correction as mentioned.
3. Public Comments on non -agenda items.
Dave Kiff relayed a request from Deputy Mayor Bromberg that the subject of boat sizes
and docks on Balboa Island be moved up on the Commission's task list.
Tony Melum reported that Title 17 is going before the City Council for the second
reading on 9/24. Once passed, the Commission will be fully empowered, 30 days after
passage.
Jim Mahoney, who runs a Gondola and taxi service in the harbor, informed the
Commission that he offers a water transportation service. The cost is $25 whether there
are one or ten people on board. The pilot must be licensed with the Coast Guard. He
would like to be noticed when the subject of water transportation comes before the
Commission to offer his input.
4. Topics for future agendas:
Tim met with Staff to work on the task list. Items were updated, topics were consolidated,
rearranged and will be renumbered.
After the enactment of the Commission's suggested changes to the City Council Harbor
Permit Policies, the section on Balboa Island will be agendized and readdressed at the
October 9 meeting. It was requested to include diagrams of the docks.
5. Staff Reports:
Proposed Rhine Wharf Float:
Tony went over his staff report on the Rhine Wharf float. Discussion included, whether
flshing should be restricted, what should the limit on boat size be, should boats be tied at
one end and not side tied, and larger boats can do touch and goes (drop offs). Charter
boats are prohibited as set by current code sections. Time limit should be set at 2 hours.
The Harbor Patrol does not have a set patrol time, but has a routine harbor route and can
respond as needed.
The floor was open to public comment:
Richard Rivet felt that a limit of 25 feet for boat size is very beneficial.
Gary Hill advised that we should eliminate fishing.
Kay Palavino expressed that boats already tie up to the pilings and party all night. She
feels that the Harbor Patrol doesn't see it as a major problem, but is to homeowners. She
has not reported most of the occurrences.
Commissioner Beek made the motion to adopt the staff report with the following changes
and postings:
Restrict boats to 25 feet maximum
No fishing anywhere at wharf area or on new pier ramp or float
No commercial vessels
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Corrough and passed with all ayes.
Chairman Collins asked that Tony, the City Attomey's Office and the Harbor Patrol
review the items to be posted and Tony will report back on the outcome.
It was requested that this item be reagendized in one year to review any complaints
received and any problems reported.
Relocating Mooring Anchorage Area:
Tony summarized the staff report on relocating of the mooring anchorage area. He will
be meeting with the Coast Guard to determine the process that it involves on 9/18. He
will report that process and our next step to the Commission after that meeting. John
asked if we have a list of reasons why it should be moved and Tony will meet with
Seymour to create a list.
Signage on Bay Public Docks:
Tony reviewed the staff report regarding signage on public docks. He will research with
our General Service Department for ways to mark the public docks in the harbor, such as
painting, distinguishing pillars, signs that list location, etc. Chairman Collins said that the
Coastal Commission wants areas where there is fishing left as they are.
The Floor was open to public comment:
- John Cunningham felt that enforcement must be done to back up the signage. No one
seems to read signs, especially on Little Balboa Island.
Chairman Collins made the motion that Tony return to the meeting with samples of
signage. The Commission will evaluate the options to have the public docks stand out.
Signs will be posted stating 20 minutes on the front of the docks and two hours on the
sides or back of the pier for dinghy tie up. Commission Pappas seconded the motion and
it passed with all ayes.
Dredging in Navigational Channels:
Tony summarized the staff report on Dredging in Navigational Channels. The contract
will go out for dredging to design depth, but we may have to cut back on certain areas so
the whole area can be done. Areas such as near the Nautical Museum will be contacted to
see how deep the draft needs to be. This was a receive -and -file report.
Revision Pen -nit for 505 North Bay Front:
Tony summarized the staff report regarding 505 North Bay Front dock revision. He
clarified that this is not a joint dock. Tony feels there is no other way to relocate this dock
without interfering with the storm drain that is there, the moorings and the beach.
Commission Corrough feels that with more research there should be a way. It was noted
that there has never been a request for a joint pier and no complaint from the resident at
501 North Bay Front. The owner of 505 says that he had approval to construct the
structure where it is and there were no restrictions on vessel size.
The floor was opened to the public:
- Susan Horey, 829 Dove Street, gave a summary of how the pier impacts the resident at
503 North Bay Front. She said that that resident has not received notices regarding the
505 applications. She added that Mr. Jennings never gave his consent for the building of
the dock.
- Susan Jennings, 305 North Bay Front, daughter of the owner of 503 North Bay Front
(property is currently rented out), said that she has not been noticed on the applications.
Commission Pappas said that perhaps they were mailed to the 503 North Bay Front
address and the tenant did not forward the letter to her. She advised that the boats have
been getting larger, which is blocking the view more and more.
- Mr. Williams, 505 North Bay Front, was asked by Chairman Collins if he is agreeable to
a redesign. Mr. Williams said that the pier needs maintenance now and he was moving it
so as to have less impact on the neighbors. He feels that he may only do the maintenance
at this time.
After lengthy discussions, Commissioner Beek made a final motion to continue the item
until the October 9 meeting to give the applicant time to come back with an alternate
design with the least impact on the neighbor at 503 North Bay Front. Commission
Corrough seconded the motion and the item passed with all ayes.
6. Sub -Committee Updates:
0
�f 40' A�4 0A 7-
-Ji. �F
Ar
Atorwr
Aft
AV
ViciNtry SKETCH
%
Nawpowr iSA't, CAA. PCPW"A I rr"
arpoe 4*00OAw
,P)IR J5, oftofts bwA2w .4W#OVV iCWAW-,,e&W, k6~. AfV.Wt4ftPW
J.
ICY
AX4�f 7'
-,N Plr7�rp;
lie ot4r
_V-4
/0,V Y 'o,
x,/o
P, R a p -V P- 0
AIJ W OR 7 9,9
"V
Approved December 11, 1961 by the City Council, City of Newport Beach
in accordance with the:November drawing and in accordance with the stipulations
relative to dredging and with the condition that there be no vessels docked on
the easterly side of the finger float.� All -docking to be on the westerly side.
PERMIT SUBJECT TO DREDGING NOT EXCEEDING A -2.0 FEET AT 60 FEET FROM EXISTING
BULKHEAD.
Page I of 11
Miller, Chris
From: Miller, Chris
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:32 PM
To: Duarte, Leslie
Cc: Walters, Lisa
Subject: 505 N. Bay Front
Hi Leslie,
Remember we spoke last week about putting a flag in Permits for 505 N. Bay Front?
Please insert the following note for us: "** DO NOT APPROVE ** MUST GET VERBAL APPROVAL FROM
HARBOR RESOURCES """'
The reason for this note is that it is possible Harbor Resources could stamp and approve a drawing (in the years
to come) without checking our paper file for this same note. (We usually don't check the files for smaller, over the
counter projects.) Hopefully, this message in Permits will ensure that we won't let anything slip through.
Thanks!!
Chn� 9VAer
Harbor Resources Supervisor
(949) 644-3043
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/HBR/
11/20/2006
Buchalter
Nemer Fields
& Younger
A Professional Law Corporation
895 DovE STREET, SUITE 400, P.O. Box 8129, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8129
TELEPHONE (949) 760-1121 / FAX (949) 720-0182
August 9, 2002
Mr. Homer Bludau
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
File Number: T9118-001
Direct Dial Number: (949) 224-6251
E -Mail Address: rgrable@buchalter.com
Re: Appeal of Approval of Pier and Float Renovation at 505 North Bqyfront
Dear Mr. Bludau:
We are filing this appeal on behalf of our clients, Mr. and Mrs. Jennings, the owners of
the property located at 503 North Bayfront. The basis of the appeal is that the approval by the
Director of the Harbor Resources Division of the pier and float renovation at the above location
was improper for the following reasons:
1. The application does not conform to the provisions of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, the standard harbor drawings or harbor permit policies.
2. The application will result in the substantial interference with the rights of our
clients, who are the owners of the oceanfront property located at 503 North Bayfront, by virtue of
the encroachment of the pier and float and any vessels docked at the float which encroaches into
the extension of their property lines bayward.
We request an opportunity to meet with you and to present oral and written evidence in
support of this appeal. Attached hereto is a copy of the letter from Mr. Melum indicating the
approval of this application.
Very truly yours,
BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIE
A Professional C tio
By
R OD (/E R GR.ABLEE
Los Angeles - Newport Beach - San Francisco
& YOUNGER
Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger
Mr. Homer Bludau
August 9, 2002
Page 2
RG:rag
cc: Susan K. Jennings
Bernice Jennings
Robert Burnham, Esq.
Steven Bromberg, City Councilman
Tony Melum, Director Harbor Resources Division
TO: Harbor Commission
FROM: Tony Melum, Director of Harbor Resources
SUBJECT: Revision Application for 505 North Bay Front
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and concur with the decision of the Harbor Resources Division to approve the above
revision application.
BACKGROUND:
Harbor Resources documents suggest that the pier and float bayward of 505 North Bay
Front was originally constructed sometime around 1958. At that time, the pier and float
were essentially on the common property line between 505 and 503 North Bay Front
(Exhibit A). In 1958 there were no Harbor Permit Policies and dock construction
required review by the Public Works Department and approval of the City Council.
Based.upon its physical location, previous conversations with both property owners and
correspondence on file, placing it in its current location had everyone's approval in 1958
and in 1961. There was a condition placed on the dock in 1961 as follows:
"Approved December 11, 1961, by the City Council, City of Newport
Beach, in accordance with the November drawing and in accordance with
the stipulations relative to dredging and with the condition that there be no
vessel docked on the easterly side of the finger float, all docking to be
done on the westerly side."
It is unclear at this time, after a review of drawings submitted in 1958 and 1961, where
the permit lines were located as the only one drawn was an extension of the lot line
between 501 and 503 North Bay Front (Exhibit A).
In 1964, the City Council adopted the Harbor Permit Policies and the following sections
are germane to this issue:
Balb oa Island
No new, non-commercial piers on Balboa Island shall be recommended
unless it is in the public interest or unless it is at such a location that it is
not usable for swimming or bathing. Piers presently in use may be
Page 2
repaired but recommendations for any additions or remodeling shall be
restricted to such changes that do not lessen the use of either the
immediate water or land areas. Whenever any application to install a new,
non-commercial pier is to be taken under consideration, all occupants
within 300 feet of the proposed work shall be notified in writing by the
Harbor Resources Division.
Setbacks
A. All piers and floats for residential properties shall be set back a minimum
of five feet from the projection of the property line.
C. The projection of the property line bayward of the same bearing from the
bulkhead shall generally be used in determining the allowable setbacks for piers
and floats. Because there are certain physical conditions which preclude the
strict application of this policy without prejudice to adjoining properties, special
consideration will be given to areas where precise projections of the property line
have not been determined and the following conditions exist:
1. Where property lines are not approximately perpendicular to the bulkhead
line.
2. Where curves or angles exist in the bulkhead line.
3. Where bridges, topography, street ends or publicly owned facilities adjoin
the property.
Moorings
A. Boats moored at private or public docks shall not extend beyond the
projection of the property lines of the property to which the dock facility is
connected in accordance with Section 20-C.
Issuing of Permits
A. The Harbor Resources Division is authorized to approve and issue new
permits and revisions to existing permits that conform to the standard
harbor drawings and the adopted Harbor Permit Policy in conjunction with
plan reviews by the Public Works Department and the issuance of a
Building Department permit when applicable.
Encroaching Piers and Floats
In areas where existing piers and floats encroach in front of abutting upland
property owned by others, a new permit, shall be required upon:
A. Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.
B. Any change in type of existing use of the abutting upland property owned
by the permittee.
Page 3
C. Any change of existing ownership of the abutting upland property owned
by the permittee or upon the death of the permittee.
D. Any destruction of the pier and float in.which over 60% of the replacement
value of the pier and float has been destroyed.
Before the Harbor Resources Division acts on the new permit, the owner
of the abutting upland property, in front of which the harbor facility
encroaches, shall be notified in writing of the meeting in which the new
permit will be considered.
Exceptions
Exceptions may be approved to any of the requirements and regulations set forth
if there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the harbor installations,
that would impose undue hardship on the applicant, or a waterfront property
owner's access to the water is impacted by a public works project, or if it would
be detrimental to the best interest of the City.
Beginning in 1982, the Harbor Resources Division (then the Marine Department) began
to receive complaints from the owner at 503 North Bay Front. The nature of these
complaints were that the owner at 505 was berthing a vessel on the westerly side of his
float larger than had been verbally agreed upon by the parties and that the owner was
using the easterly side of the float in violation of the condition listed above. Harbor
Resources responded that we could do nothing about the vessel on the westerly side as
it was legally berthed. We would, however, follow up on the easterly side berthing, as it
was a violation of a specific condition. We also informed the owner at 503 that should
any of the circumstances change at the site triggering the need for a new permit they
would be notified.
In July 2002 Harbor Resources received an application from the owner at 505 to revise
the existing pier (Exhibit B) and float. Because that application required demolition of
the existing structure, the section of the Harbor Permit Properties titled, "Encroaching
Piers and Floats, D", triggered the need for a new permit and notification to the property
owner at 503. The owner was notified of Harbor Resource's pending approval of the
new permit and we received their response attached (Exhibit C). They also appealed
Harbor Resources decision to the City Manager as provided by the Municipal Code.
The City Manager requested a review of Staffs approval by the Harbor Commission
prior to his consideration of the appeal.
ANALYSIS:
The original dock construction (1958) and the subsequent revision (1961) were done
prior to the Harbor Permit Policies. The original pier and float location, directly bayward
of the common property line between 503 and 505, had the approval of the owner at
503. The drawings on file indicate a permit line between 501 and 503 North Bay Front,
therefore, applying the section above titled, "Mooring", and specific conditions on the
permit at 505, any vessel berthed at 505 must be on the westerly side (directly in front
Page 4
of 503), must stay within the bayward extension of the property line between 501 and
503 and can not extend bayward more than the width of the beam of the vessel berthed.
In reconstruction of the docks, the position of Harbor Resources Division in the past has
been to require new construction to conform to the currently adopted Harbor Permit
Policies and Standard Drawings. In this case that would require' shifting the pier and
float to the east (see attached Exhibit D).
Harbor Resources felt that in this case that would impose an undue hardship on the
applicant and would be detrimental to the best interest of the City, therefore an
exception to the Harbor Permit Policies was appropriate for the following Reasons:
1. The structure has been in its current location for at least 44 years.
2. The owners at 503 are not able to get a permit for a pier and float for their
property as a result of the Harbor Permit Policies section above titled, "Balboa
Island".
3. Requiring the pier and float to be moved in front of 505 North Bay Front would
impact a City storm drain, a City street end beach, three shore moorings, and
possibly the structure at 663 North Bay Front.
Based on the above, Harbor Resources approved the application for revision, Exhibit B,
and did not require conformance with the currently adopted Harbor Permit Policies.
September 11, 2002
Harbor Commission
Newport Beach, CA
The construction in 1961 of the current pier located at 505 North Bay Front
was never approved, at any time, by either my wife or myself. The City did
however approve permits that allowed the pier, gangway and float to
encroach over the easterly property line extended of 503 North Bay Front.
During the 1960's the west side of the pier was never used as permanent
mooring for the Williams' large converted Navy boat known as the Prowler,
instead Mr. Ed Williams always asked for permission prior to temporarily
mooring the boat for provisioning ... usually just two consecutive days. When
the Prowler was sold and Mr. Williams passed away smaller boats were then
permanently moored on both the west and east sides of the pier. The
smaller boat on the west side has been replaced by a succession of larger
and larger boats until at present the boat now permanently moored is a 55 -
foot Fleming. This large beam boat both obstructs the view of the bay from
our home and access from the beach to the open water. The entire berthing
of this yacht lies within the extension of our property lines at 503 N. Bay
Front.
As the situation deteriorated with these larger and larger boats, and our view
decreasing respectively, years were spent unsuccessfully trying to come to
an agreement with the Williams', until finally we sought legal assistance in
1982. Over the past 20 years we have continually sought to have said pier
and any vessel moored to it, conform to'City policy and not extend beyond
the projection of the property line at 503 North Bay Front.
The proposed "new relocated pier", "new gangway", and "relocated dock"
should require a new permit and conditions of approval consistent with
current Harbor Policy. We ask the Harbor Commission to finally be
consistent with the current pier and berthing policy on Balboa Island and to
rectify a situation that would not be tolerated elsewhere.
ngs
Bernice L. Jenningi
EXHIBIT -A
iA
4D',-r-� 7-
Jv
14, t-4
4v
AWE
mr, 10
49%L&4bq
40 cl,
At,
VICINITY SKIETCH r
;,-,�"Jl I
Navvv-oorr ISAv, CAkLsFcwt4t,^
Sou.7ew7gs arne cr,7,a cvam�.
44 15 04ploylbs -balosv wcry-%s%--
"Ye 0"' tr"(r /0 JoWt. Anes
5.e
lo
I
J
JI (
AF 7-
/v r
14
lq/v
FRO F(� 117 LIZ -
,505
SITE PL.,;, -\N
OF NEWPORT BERCH
CITY OF
KUW BEFa:H
I rl�
I C I N L11- MFLF
,cw,t%tT rf, muaaA
EXHIBIT B
/V,
4:5T
PPOF I LE
EFGT T
jV7y SO(MINGS FW E)�pWSSr-D IN FEE RKD DENOTE
qR$Cn CN WIRN Lo�G LOH KRTER
4V
7
�V
0 117.
PLAN V I -EW 1
11,06-41' 4,4 Y okl- DFTE,
5, 0. W1 4, e- 1,4 /4 $ JOB FMU;T--
EXHIBIT C
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663,
Re: Pier and Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa. Island, CA
Dear Mr. Melum:
Your telephone call today telling me of the imminent approval of a new pier at the
above referenced address was extremely disappointi�ng. It is as if the events of the
past 20 years, and particularly the last 12 months had never occurred.
Since you said you are unclear about our concerns, I will again reiterate (see also the
attached 29 October 2001 letter to Councilman Bromberg for additional details).
When the subject pier and dock were constructed, the City a] lowed the pier, gangway
and float to encroach over the easterly property line extended of 503 N. Bay Front,
and permitted mooring only on the dock's westerly side, placing any boat so moored
fully within the eastern property line extended of 503 N. Bay Front.. During the same
period oral representations were made by the piers owner that large ves I sets would
be moored there only temporarily for provisioning. Over the years increasingly larger
vessels have been permanently moored on the docWs west side, progressively and
negatively impacting the view from 503 N- Bay Front. As noted above, our
complaints about this deteriorating situation span more than two decades with no
relief, cf. attached 23 November 1982 letter from Mr. Harshbarger.
Last year, I discovered quite accidentally that an application had been submitted for a
new pier at 505 N. Bay Front. While legally required written notice of the application
was provided to other potentially effected landowners, it was confirmed by your office
that no notice was sent to the owners of the most impacted property 503 N. Bay
Front. At that time we objected to the proposed new pier and the defective process,
and provided your department with a written request for future notification and an
explicit address for notice,' cf. attached 9 November 2001 letter to Mr. Armand.
In subsequent discussions with your department we were advised that the owner of
505 N. Bay Front had withdrawn the new pier application, and that the existing pier
would have to obtain a new permit and potential new conditioning upon the death of
Mrs. E. 0. Williams (Mr.. E. 0. Williams is deceased).. We again emphasized
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Page 2 of 3
our need to be formally notified in writing if the new pier application was reactivated,
or any other application affecting the use or location of the pier was submitted. We
were assured that we would receive notice.
Despite all of this, your call today informed me for the first time that the new pier
application had been reactivated, that again some 30 owners requiring written notice
� apparently everyone except us — had received it, and the application was about to
be approved. This afterthought, last minute, hurry -up and react notification is
unacceptable, and I would 'suggest it is legally defective from a variety of
perspectives.
At my request, you faxed a copy of the proposed new pier "Site Plan", dated 10/4/01
(attached). Like the existing pier and float, portions of the new pier, gangway and
float encroach over the property line extended of 503 N- Bay Front. And again, any
vessel moored to the dock's west side will lie completely within the eastern property
line extended of 503 N. Bay Front. Exacerbating the situation, the new dock is
proposed to be located in a way that would place a moored vessel more broadside to
the shore, further interfering with the view from 503 N.. Bay Front. The proposed
new pier plan is unacceptable to us and we will not approve it
You suggest that the solution to our concerns is a Conditional Use Permit CCUP")
whereby the new pier applicant would agree no ' t to moor a vessel with a beam larger
than the one currently moored. How does this address our concerns? How does this
reduce the impact on 503 N. Bay Front? How does this overcome the new pier's
violation of City pier policy? Who will police this? Despite our repeated complaints,
illegal mooring, i.e., vis-;�-vis the City pier permits, continues to occur on the 501 and
505 N. Bay Front piers, and is occurring at 501 N. Bay Front at the time of this
writing.
In our view, the application's unacceptability can be summarized in two points, viz.,
The proposed new pier, gangway, and docK and its mooring arrangements are
completely inconsistent with current City policy. Why is the City asking us to
ratify a situation it will not tolerate elsewhere? It is public record that a cause
celebre has arisen on South Bay Front over an. owners' desire to dock a vessel
encroaching less than one foot over the property line of a lot they own
What is being proposed is destruction of the existing pier and gangway to be
replaced by a "new relocate[d] pier" a "new ramp [gangway]" and a "relocated
dock7. Does the City contend seriously that this is not a 'new pier' requiring anew
discretionary permit and conditions of approvat, or that it does not meet the intent
of Item 4 among items requiring a new pier permit listed in Mr. Harshbarger's 23
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Page 3 of 3
November 1982 letter, i.e., "Any destruction of the pier and float in which over
60% of the replacement value of the pier and float have been destroyed."?
Our concerns and position remain what they have always been. As stated in my 9
November 2001 letter, "What we ask is simple. If there is to be a new pier and/or
float, it, and any vessel moored to it, should conform to City policy and not extend
beyond the projection of the property line at 503 N. Bay Front."
We propose two ways of proceeding.
1. The owners of 505 N. Bay Front can withdraw their application for a new pier
and use the existing pier until the death of Mrs. E. 0. Williams, at which time
we expect that the City, per the City Attorney, will re -permit and recondition the
pier, and in the process address this facility's egregious encroachment upon
503 N. Bay Front.
2. The owners of 505 N. Bay Front can submit a more reasonable new pier
application that comports with City policy and addresses our concerns.
In any event, we ask the City not continue with the current defective process- I want
to repeat and stress that the owners of 503 N. Bay Front expect to receive full and
proper notification of matters relating . to the pier at 505 N. Bay Front, and that we are
prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to secure these and other rights we
may have.
Sincerely,
� - Aa
Susan K. Jennings
by FA)� original by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
c:
Hon. Steve Bromberg
4; 1 4,
FROM .: Jennings
October 29, 2001
FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 Oe:50PM P5
St A N K. , I E N N I N CY'S
305 N. Bay Frout
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Hon. Steve Bromberg
Councilmao 5th District
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768 -
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Dear Councilman Bromberg:
Following our r ' erent telephone conversation I received both a letter and a telephone
call from Harbor InspectorWes Armand. A copy of Mr. Armand's letter is attached�
During our conversation I asked Mr. Armand how he had concluded that the vessel
moored at 505 N. Bay Front was "legally berthed". Mr. Armand responded that
mooring on the west side of the dock complies with the City's pier permit. I then
asked Mr., Armand if he was aware that the boat extended beyond the "projection of
the property line" of 503 N. Bay Front, in violation of the City Council Harbor Permit
Rolicies? He did not answer my question, but continued to state that the vessel was
'legally berthed because the City permitted it'.
Based on a letter former Marine Director David Harshbarger sent to our counsel, a
copy of which is attached along with our, counsel's transmittal letter, rtold Mr. Armand
that we had been advised by the City that their policy requires new City Council
approved permits for encroaching piers and floats upon the occurrence of any of
several events, including "any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats"
and "...upon the death of the permitee", Mr. Harshbarger's letter also assured us we
would "...be notified in writing of the meeting in which the new permit will be
considered,". Mr. Armand requested a copy of Mr. Harshbarger's letter, which I faxed
to him, He further stated that his office had received plans to 'change the design of
the pier' at 505 N. Bay rrant. I told Mr. Armand that we were unaware of this, and
that we had never received any communication from the City, written or otherwise,
regarding either a new permit following the death of permittee E. 0. Williams,- or any
proposed changes to the pier and/or float.
While we have been enmeshed in 19 years of requests, complaints and meaningless
paper responses to 505 N- Bay Front's obvious violations of City policy, ever larger
vessels have been moored for ever longer periods on the violating pier, culminating
FRO�l : Jennings
Hon. Steve Bromberg
October 29, 2001
Page 2.
FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:51PM P6
a
in the current condition of the essentially continuous mooring of an extremely large
vessel that by its sheer size dominates the view from 503 N. Bay Front. Hopefully,
with the demise of the original permittee and an apparent application for a new pier
and/or float design, the time has finally come to address this intolerable situation,
What we ask is simple, If there is to be a new pier and/or floei, it, and any vessel
moored to it, should conform to City policy and not extend beyond the projection of
the, property line at 503 N. Bay Front. If the existing pier and float are to remain, a
way should be found to moor any large vessel on the east tide of the float so that it
impacts the view of those that benefit from the pier and ready access to their vessel,
rather than impacting the owners of 503.N. Bay Front, who derive no benefit from the
pier or vessel.
I wish to express my family's appreciation for your efforts to have the City recognize
and rectify this problem. I look forward to discussing this.with you. If there is
anything we can do to assist your efforts please do not hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Cc R C-3
Susan K.'Jennings
attch,
by fax, original letter wto attch. by mail'
M
MARK C. JENNINGS
17 January 2007
Mr. Chris Miller
City of Newport Beach, Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Dock Located at 505 N. Bay Front
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you for your recent letter and documentation regarding the above referenced
dock. Your written summary of this issue's history and the City's position are helpful
in avoiding the misunderstandings that inevitably arise with oral conversations over
an extended period of time about a complex subject.
Your letter notes Harbor Resources' files have been flagged to insure proper public
notice and vetting of any future submittal for pier work (I assume this means pier and
float). Additionally, around the time of the 2002 Harbor Commission hearing, Mr.
Tony Melum stated that a change of 505 N. Bay Front's ownership, e.g., the death of
Mrs. E. 0. Williams, or a sale of the property, would also provide an opportunity for
the City to review the pier permit and usage, and to potentially require relocation of
the pier and/or float, and/or limit the size of vessel that could be moored on the
westerly side of the float to reduce or eliminate the encroachment onto 503 N. Bay
Front's side of the 503-505 property line extended. This additional avenue for
pursuing relief for 503 N. Bay Front is not mentioned in you letter. Would you please
clarify the City's position.
Thank you again for your assistance and cooperation.
rk C. Jennings
P.O. BOX 66 * CORONA DEL MAP, CA * 92625-0066
TELEPHONE (949) 673-2146 * TELECOPIER (949) 673-2146
TO: Harbor Commission
FROM: Tony Melum, Director of Harbor Resources
SUBJECT: Revision Application for 505 North Bay Front
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and concur with the decision of the Harbor Resources Dlyision to approve the above
revision application. 6y,- lwek- At A,-' 91111��divll_�
BACKGROUND:
Harbor Resources documents suggest that the pier and float bayward of 505 North Bay
Front was originally constructed sometime around 1958. At that time, the pier and float
were essentially on the common property line between 505 and 503 North Bay Front
(Exhibit A). In 1958 there were no Harbor Permit Po i licies and dock construction
required review by the Public Works Department and approval of the City Council.
Based upon its physical location, previous conversations with both property owners and
corresgoindence on file, placing it in its current location had everyone's approval in(a5��
�rand in 1961. There was a condition placed on the dock in 1961 as follows:
Approved December .11, 1961, by the City Council, City of Newport
.Beach, in accordance with the November drawing and in accordance with
t ti�
the stipulations relative to dredging and with the condition that there be no
vessel docked on the easterly side of the finger float, all docking to be
done on the westerly side."
It is unclear at this time, after a review of drawings submitted in 1958 and 1961, where
the permit lines were located as the only one drawn was an extension of the lot line
between 501 and 503 North Bay Front (Exhibit A).
In 1964, the City Council adopted the Harbor Permit Policies and the following sections
are germane to this issue:
Balboa Island
No new, non-commercial piers on Balboa Island shall be recommended
unless it is in the public interest or unless it is at such a location that it is
not usable for swimming 'or bathing. Piers presently in use may be
Page 2
repaired but recommendations for any additions or remodeling shall be
restricted to such changes that do not lessen the use of either the
immediate water or land areas. Whenever any application to install a new,
non-commercial pier is to be taken under consideration, all occupants
within 300 feet of the proposed work shall be notified in writing by the
Harbor Resources Division.
Setbacks
A. All piers and floats for residential properties shall be set back a minimum
of five"feet from the projection of the property line.
C. The projection of the property line bayward of the same bearing from the
bulkhead shall generally be used in determining the allowable setbacks for piers
and floats. Because there are certain physical conditions which preclude the
strict application of this policy without prejudice to adjoining properties, special
consideration will be given to areas where precise projections of the property line
have not been determined and the following conditions exist:
1. Where property lines are not approximately perpendicular to the bulkhead
line.
2. Where curves or angles exist in the bulkhead line.
3. Where bridges, topography,. street ends or publicly owned facilities adjoin
the property.
Moorings
A. Boats moored at private or public docks shall not extend beyond the
projection of the property lines of the property to which the dock facility is
connected in accordance with Section 20-C.
Issuing of Permits
A. The Harbor Resources Division is authorized to approve and issue new
permits and revisions to existing permits that conform to the standard
harbor drawings and the adopted Harbor Permit Policy in conjunction with
plan reviews by the Public Works Department and the issuance of a
Building Department permit when applicable.
Encroaching Piers and Floats
In areas where existing piers and floats encroach in front of abutting upland
property owned by others, a new permit, shall be required upon:
A. Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.
B. Any change in type of existing use of the abutting upland property owned
by the permittee.
Page 3
C. Any change of existing ownership of the abutting upland property owned
by the permittee or upon the death of the permittee.
D. Any destruction of the pier and float in which over 60% of the replacement
value of the pier and float has been destroyed.
Before the Harbor Resources Division acts on the new permit, the owner
of the abutting upland property, in front of which the harbor facility
encroaches, shall be notified in writing of the meeting in which the new
permit will be considered.
Exceptions -
Exceptions may be approved to any of the requirements and regulations set forth
if there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the harbor installations
that would impose undue hardship on the applicant, or a waterfront property
owner's access to the water is impacted by a public works project, or if it would
be detrimental to the best interest of the City.
Beginning in 1982, the Harbor Resources Division (then the Marine Department) began
to receive complaints from the owner at 503 North Bay Front. The nature of these
complaints were that the owner at 505 was berthing a vessel on the westerly side of his
float larger than had been verbally agreed upon by the parties and that the owner was
using the easterly side of the float in violation of the condition listed above. Harbor
Resources responded that we could do nothing about the vessel on the westerly side as
it was legally berthed. We would, however, follow up on the easterly side berthing, as it
was a violation of a specific condition. We also informed the owner at 503 that should
any of the circumstances change at the site triggering the heed for a new permit they
would be notified.
In July 2002 Harbor Resources received an application from the owner at 505 to revise
the existing pier (Exhibit B) and float. Because that application required demolition of
the existing structure, the section of the Harbor Permit Properties titled, "Encroaching
Piers and Floats, D", triggered the need for a new permit and notification to the property
owner at 503. The owner was notified of Harbor Resource's pending approval of the
new permit and we received their response attached (Exhibit C). They also appealed
Harbor Resources decision to the City Manager as provided by the Municipal Code.
The City Manager requested a review of Staffs approval by the Harbor Commission
prior to his consideration of the appeal.
ANALYSIS:
The original dock construction (1958) and the subsequent revision (1961) were done
prior to the Harbor Permit Policies. The original pier and float location, directly bayward
of the common property line between 503 and 505, had the approval of the owner at
503. The drawings on file indicate a permit line between 501 and 503 North Bay Front,
therefore, applying the section above titled, "Mooring", and specific conditions on the
permit at 505, any vessel berthed at 505 must be on the westerly side (directly in front
Page 4
of 503), must stay within the bayward extension of the property line between 501 and
503 and can not extend bayward more than the width of the beam of the vessel berthed.
In reconstruction of the docks, the position of Harbor Resources Division in the past has
been to require new construction to conform to the currently adopted Harbor Permit
Policies and Standard Drawings. In this cage that would require, shifting the pier and
float to the east (see attached Exhibit D).
Harbor Resources felt that in this case that would impose an undue hardship on the
applicant and would be detrimental to the best interest of the City, therefore an
exception to the Harbor Permit Policies was appropriate for the following Reasons:
1. The structure has been in its current location for at least 44 years.
2. The owners at 503 are not able to get a permit for a pier and float for their
property as a result of the Harbor Permit Policies section above titled, "Balboa
Island".
3. Requiring the pier and float to be moved in front of 505 North Bay Front would
impact a City storm drain, a City street end beach, three shore moorings, and
possibly the structure at 603 North Bay Front.
Bas d on the above, Harbor Resources approved the application for revision, Exhibit B,
and id not require conformance with the currently adopted Harbor Permit Policies.
p
c
d
40
EXHIBIT.A
7 -
AO
Alff
-10
VICINITY SKETCN
IL
p afta� .6047tv Aofd-,7,7 Zavvw— Z-aw
10~t. &01-64ol
L _5
wc
IV
"4;,z lq /v
's, c
-51
iz I /n, 47
Y,
A el%.,
SITE PLA; --.N
C17Y OF NEWPORT BERCH
CITY OF
KEWW BEF11:N
4:S7
Y-ICINITY m z
mewor ry, MVIWA
/�v
HIBIT B
ell
C-71
PROFILE 1'
SOLMING8 R,;F E)?WSSF-D 1�j FET AU DENOTE
ELC�RTIOW BRSCD ON Wj"N L%CR LOH RRTER.
t L -1-�-J I
ez 14
t,r. mi/ 4w, re
g4ioA� '71 1
y"
�o 47. 0 /Z
40
-4
PLAN V I -EW 1 " 4
OFTE,
JOB
EXHIBIT C
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Pier and Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island, CA
Dear Mr. Melum:
Your telephone call today telling me of the imminent approval of a new pier at the
above referenced address was extremely disappointing. It is as if the events of the
past 20 years, and particularly the last 12 months had never occurred.
Since you said you are unclear about our concerns, I will again reiterate (see also the
attached 29 October 2001 letter to Councilman Bromberg for additional details).
When the subject pier and dock were constructed, the City allowed the pier, gangway
and float to encroach over the easterly property line extended of 503 N. Bay Front,
and permitted mooring only on the docWs westerly side, placing any boat so moored
fully within the eastern property line extended of 503 N. Bay Front. During the same
period oral representations were made by the pier's owner that large vessels would
be moored there only temporarily for provisioning.. Over the years increasingly larger
vessels have been permanently moored on the docWs west side, progressively and
negatively impacting the view from 503 K Bay Front. As noted above, our
complaints about this deteriorating situation span more than two decades with no
relief, cf. attached 23 November 1982 letter from Mr. Harshbatger.
Last year, I discovered quite accidentally that an application had been submitted for a
new pier at 505 N. Bay Front. While legally- required written notice of the application
was provided to other potentially effected landowners, it was confirmed by your office
that no notice was sent to the owners of the most impacted property -- 503 N. Bay
Front. At that time we objected to the proposed new pier and the defective process,
and provided your department with a written request for future notification and an
explicit address for notice, cf. attached 9 November 2001 letter to Mr. Armand.
In subsequent discussions with your department we were advised that the owner of
505 N. Bay Front had withdrawn the new pier application, and that the existing pier
would have to obtain a new permit and potential new conditioning upon the death of
Mrs. E. 0. Williams (Mr. E. 0. Williams is deceased). We again emphasized
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Page 2 of 3
our need to be formally notified in writing if the new pier application was reactivated,
or any other application affecting the use or location of the pier was submitted. We
were assured that we would receive notice.
Despite all of this, your call today informed me for the first time that the new pier
application had been reactivated, that again some 30 owners requiring written notice
— apparently everyone except us — had received it, -and the application was about to
be approved. This afterthought, last minute, hurry -up and react notification is
unacceptable, and I would suggest it is legally defective from a variety of
perspectives.
At my request, you faxed a copy of the proposed new pier "Site Plan", dated 10/4/01
(attached). Like the existing pier and float, portions of the new pier, gangway and
float encroach over the property line extended of 503 N_ Bay Front. And again, any
vessel moored to the dock's west side will lie completely within the eastern property
line extended of 503 N. Bay Front. Exacerbating the situation, the new dock is
proposed to be located in a way that would place a moored vessel more broadside to
the shore, further interfering with the view from 503 N_ Bay Front. The proposed
new pier plan is unacceptable to us and we will not approve it
You suggest that the solution to our concerns is a Conditional Use Permit C'CUP")
whereby the new pier applicant would agree not to moor a vessel with a beam larger
than the one currently moored. How does this address our concerns? How does this
reduce the impact on 503 N. Bay Front? How does this overcome the new piers
violation of City pier policy? Who will police this? Despite our repeated complaints,
illegal mooring, i.e., vis-c�-vis the City pier permits, continues to occur on the 501 and
505 N. Bay Front piers, and is occurring at 501 N. Bay Front at the time of this
writing.
In our view, the application's unacceptability Gan be summarized in two points, viz.,
The proposed new pier, gangway, and dock, and its mooring arrangements are
completely inconsistent with current City policy. Why is the City asking us to
ratify a situation it will not tolerate elsewhere? It is public record that a cause
celebre has arisen on South Bay Front over an owners� desire to dock a vessel
encroaching less than one foot over the property line of a lot.they own!
What is being proposed is destruction of the existing pier and gangway to be
replaced by a "new relocate[d] pier" a "new ramp [gangway]" and a urelocated
docW'. Does the City contend seriously that this is not a 'new pier' requiring anew
discretionary permit and conditions of approval, or that it does not meet the intent
of Item 4 among items requiring a new pier permit listed in Mr. Harshbarger's 23
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Page 3 of 3
November 1982 letter, i.e., "Any destruction of the pier and float in which over
60% of the replacement value of the pier and float have been destroyed."?
Our concerns and position remain what they have aiways been. As stated in my 9
November 2001 letter, "What we ask is simple. If there is to be a new pier and/or
float, it, and any vessel moored to it, should conform to City policy and not extend
beyond the projection of the property line at 503 N. Bay Front."
We propose two ways of proceeding.
1. The owners of 505 N. Bay Front can withdraw their application for a new pier
and use the existing pier until the death of Mrs. E. 0. Williams, at which time
we expect that the City, per the City Attorney, will re -permit and recondition the
pier, and in the process address this facility's egregious encroachment upon
503 N. Bay Front.
2. The owners of 505 N. Bay Front ran submit a more reasonable new pier
application that comports with City policy and addresses our concerns.
In any event, we ask the City not continue with the current defective process. I want
to repeat and stress that the owners of 503 N. Bay Front expect to receive full and
proper notification of matters relating to the pier at 505 N. Bay Front, and that we are
prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to secure these and. other rights we
may have.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Jennings
by FAX, original by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
c:
Hon. Steve Bromberg
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 1 Jul. 02 2002 08:50PM P5
SUSAN KJENNINKI'S
305 N. flay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
October 29, 2001
Hon. Steve Bromberg
Councilmao 5th District
City of Newport Beach
P-0, Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Dear Councilman Bromberg -
Following our recent telephone conversation I received both a letter and a telephone
call from Harbor InspectorWes Armand. A copy of Mr, Armand's letter is attached.
During our conversation I asked Mr. Armand how he had concluded that the vessel
moored at 505 N. Bay Front was "legally berthed"- Mr. Armand responded that
mooring on the west side of the dock complies with the City's pier permit. I then
asked Mr., Armand if he was aware that the boat extended beyond the "projection of
the property line" of 503 N. Bay Front, in violation of the City Council Harbor Permit
Policies? He did not answer my question, but continued to state that the vessel was
'legally berthed because the City permitted it'.
Based on a letter former Marine Director David Harshbarger sent to our counsel, a
copy of which is attached along with our counsel's transmittal letter, rtold Mr. Armand
that we had been advised by the City that their policy requires new City Council
approved permits for encroaching piers and floats upon the occurrence of any of
several events, including "any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats"
and "... upon the death of the permitee". Mr. Harshbarger's letter also assured us we
would "...be notified in writing of the meeting in which the new permit will be
considered,"- Mr. Armand requested a copy of Mr. Harshbarger's letter, which I faxed
to him.- He further stated that his office had received plans to 'change the design of
the pier' at 505 N. Bay Front. I told Mr. Armand that we were unaware of this) and
that we had never received any communication from the City, written or otherwise,
regarding either a new permit folloWing the death of permittee E. 0. Williams,� or any
proposed changes to the pier and/or float.
While we have been enmeshed in 19 years of reqQests, complaints and meaningless
paper responses to 505 N. Bay Front's obvious violations of City policy, ever larger
vessels have been moored for ever longer periods on the violating pier, culminating
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:51PM PG
Hon. Steve Bromberg
October 29, 2001
Page 2.
in the current condition of the essentially continuous mooring of an extremely large
vessel that by its sheer size dominates the view from 503 N. Bay Front. Hopefully,
with the demise of the original permittee and an apparent application for a new pier,
and/or float design, the time has finally come to address this intolerable situation,
What we ask is simple. If there is to be a new pier and/or float, it, and any vessel
moo red to it, should conform to City policy and not extend beyond the projection of
the, property line at 503 N. Bay Front. If the existing pier and float are to remain, a
way should be found to moor any large vessel on the east 6ide of the float so that it
impacts 6e view of those that benefit from the pier and ready access to their vessel,
rather than impacting the owners of 503N, Bay Front, who derive no benefit from the
pier or vessel.
I wish to express my family's appreciation for your efforts to have the City recognize
and rectify this problem. I look forward to discussing this,with you. If there is
anything we can do to assist your efforts please'do not hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
C
Susan K.'Jennings
attch.
by fax, original letter w/o attch. by mail'
I
1W
6,/j '12
�7
A
September 11, 2002
Harbor Commission
Newport Beach, CA
The construction in 1961 of the current pier located at 505 North Bay Front
was never approved, at any time, by either my wife or myself. The City did
however approve permits that allowed the pier, gangway and float to
encroach over the easterly property line extended of 503 North Bay Front.
During the 1960's the west side of the pier was never used as permanent
mooring for the Williams' large converted Navy boat known as the Prowler,
instead Mr. Ed Williams always asked for permission prior to temporarily
mooring the boat for provisioning ... usually just two consecutive days. When
the Prowler was sold and Mr. Williams passed away smaller boats were then
permanently moored on both the west and east sides of the pier. The
smaller boat on the west side has been replaced by a succession of larger
and larger boats until at present the boat now permanently moored is a 55 -
foot Fleming. This large beam boat both obstructs the view of the bay from
our home and access from the beach to the open water. The entire berthing
of this yacht lies within the extension of our property lines at 503 N. Bay
Front.
As the situation deteriorated with these larger and larger boats, and our view
decreasing respectively, years were spent unsuccessfully trying to come to
an agreement with the Williams', until finally we sought legal assistance in
1982. Over the past 20 years we have continually sought to have said pier
and any vessel moored to it, conform to City policy and not extend beyond
the projection of the property line at 503 North Bay Front.
The proposed "new relocated pier", "new gangway", and "relocated dock"
should require a new permit and conditions of approval consistent with
current Harbor Policy. We ask the Harbor Commission to finally be
consistent with the current pier and berthing policy on Balboa Island and to
rectify a situation that would not be tolerated elsewhere.
Sincerely,
IF -red ngs
Bernice L. Jenning4�_
PO
P0
December 13, 2006
Mark Jennings
P.O. Box 66
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RE: Dock Located at 505 N. Bay Front
Dear Mark,
HARBOR RESOURCES
Thank you for calling me a few weeks back concerning the status of the pier at 505 N.
Bay Front and how it affects the property at 503 N. Bay Front which is owned by your
family. Per your request, this letter is intended to briefly summarize the status of the pier
and to provide the Harbor Commission Minutes from September 11, 2002 as well as a
copy of the pier permit.
As previously stated, the pier at 505 N. Bay Front was originally built sometime in the
early 1960s as evidenced by the attached pier permit. The conditions on the backside of
the permit state, "Approved December 11, 1961 by the City Council, City of Newport
Beach ... with the condition that there be no vessels docked on the easterly side of the
finger float. All docking to be on the westerly side..." There is not a size limit on the
vessel that is pennitted to dock on the westerly side, but this would be determined by the
location of the adjacent dock at 501 N. Bay Front. (See attached aerial.)
In 2002, 505 N. Bay Front applied for a revision to the pier at which time the matter was
discussed at the Harbor Commission meeting on September 11, 2002. At that time, the
Commission agreed to continue the item to give the applicant time to redesign his
proposal to better suit the needs of the neighbors. (See attached Harbor Commission
Minutes.) To my knowledge, 505 N. Bay Front has not submitted an alternate design, but
he has approached our office in recent years with some conceptual ideas.
Harbor Resources has flagged both the paper file in our office as well as our computer
files for this address to state that any pier work proposed must be noticed to the neighbors
to seek input on the project.
This brief summary reveals that the vessel at 505 N. Bay Front is legally berthed per the
conditions on his pier permit. Any future proposal will trigger an outreach program and
new conditions. Unfortunately, due to the unusual configuration of the island on N. Bay
Front, the vessel at 505 N. Bay Front does legally encroach upon 503 N. Bay Front.
829 Harbor Island Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
PH: (949) 644-3034 FX: (949) 723-0589 *Website: www.newport-beach.ca.us/HBR/
Page 2
As I mentioned before, you are more than welcome to visit my office and review the file
for this property. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Chris Wiffer
Harbor Resources Supervisor
(949) 644-3043
1� zz
a pc� li, rD
i,j,e tv A 7
50,5
I
reV#n
Approved December 11,,1961 by the City Council, City of Newport Beach
A 4 nnti in accordance with the stipulations
in accordance with the November tavy "�j
relative to dredging and with the condition that there be
the easterly side of the finger float. All docking to be
PERMIT SUBJECT TO DREDGING NOT EXCEEDING A -2.0 FEET AT 60
BULKHEAD.
no vessels docked on
on the westerly side.
FEET FROM EXISTING
c7l
en
O%b -W
Mo.,
0
L.
LL
m
z
LO
CD
Lol
-5
C)
BE
IN
R"a MR ...............
N
12
7-
rg;g,
R
NIM
x
W9
MO
m o"i,
Xgggg
k
Tloo
3" SNI
S4,
It'.
unfriendly harbor. Commissioner Rodheim said we are trying to balance harbor use and
Commissioner Duffy said other areas in the harbor should be looked at for commercial
sites.
Commissioner Rodheim made the motion to approve the plans and Commissioner Beek
seconded it. It was pissed unanimously (Don Lawrenz was absent). Staff was requested
to come back with recommendations on boat size limits, time limitations, no fishing,
enforcement hours and enforcement means, and with a finding of consistency with the
General Plan.
Application Appeal Permit #112-421 - Item pulled from the agenda by applicant.
Mooring A-255 Revocation Update - This mooring is now in compliance.
- Report on Plans for Patriot's Day - Commission Rodheim gave a report on the plans for
Patriot's Day. On September I I from 8:30 am to 9:00 am at Corona Del Mar. About 14
tall Ships will be off shore and the Harbor Patrol will have their fireboat on site. There
will be a 21 -gun salute. The schedule will be posted on the City web site.
6. Sub -Committee Updates:
- Eelgrass - Don Lawrenz, Paulette Pappas and Seymour Beek are on this committee. The
committee is surveying other harbor areas to see who has Eelgass. They have talked to
Tom Rossmieller and he feels very positive about the Safe Harbor's Agreement. The
Eelgrass restoration plan time line will be updated by Tony Melum.
- Dinghy Storage - the sub -committee passed around an update.
7. Harbor Commission Task List:
All of the items from the Harbor Committee will be individually listed. Tony Melum. and
Chairman Collins will go over the task list and eliminate those areas that overlap.
8. The next meeting will be 9/11 at 6:00 pm in the City Council Chambers.
9. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Recording Secretary: Lorrie Arcese, Harbor Resources Secretary
HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 11, 2002
Chairman Collins made the motion that Tony return to the meeting with samples of
signage. The Commission will evaluate the options to have the public docks stand out.
Signs will be posted stating 20 minutes on the fi7ont of the docks and two hours on the
sides or back of the pier for dinghy tie up. Commission Pappas seconded the motion and
it passed with all ayes. -
Dredging in Navigational Channels:
Tony summarized the staff report on Dredging in Navigational Channels. The contract
will go out for dredging to design depth, but we may have to cut back on certain areas so
the whole area can be done. Areas such as near the Nautical Museum will be contacted to
see how deep the draft needs to be. This was a receive -and -file report.
Revision Permit for 505 North Bay Front:
Tony summarized the staff report regarding 505 North Bay Front dock revision. He
clarified that this is not a joint dock. Tony feels there is no other way to relocate this dock
without interfering with the storm drain that is there, the moorings and the beach.
Commission Corrough feels that with more research there should be a way. It was noted
that there has never been a request for a joint pier and no complaint from the resident at
501 North Bay Front. The owner of 505 says that he had approval to construct the
structure where it is and there were no restrictions on vessel size.
The floor was opened to the public:
- Susan Horey, 829 Dove Street, gave a summary of how the pier impacts the resident at
503 North Bay Front. She said that that resident has not received notices regarding the
505 applications. She added that Mr. Jennings never gave his consent for the building of
the dock.
- Susan Jennings, 305 North Bay Front, daughter of the owner of 503 North Bay Front
(property is currently rented out), said that she has not been noticed on the applications.
Commission Pappas said that perhaps they were mailed to the 503 North Bay Front
address and the tenant did not forward the letter to her. She advised that the boats have
been getting larger, which is blocking the view more and more.
- Mr. Williams, 505 North Bay Front, was asked by Chairinan Collins if he is agreeable to
a redesign. Mr. Williams said that the pier needs maintenance now and he was moving it
so as to have less impact on the neighbors. He feels that he may only do the maintenance
at this time.
After lengthy discussions, Commissioner Beek made a final motion to continue the item
until the October 9 meeting to give the applicant time to come back with an alternate
design with the least impact on the neighbor at 503 North Bay Front. Commission
Corrough seconded the motion and the item passed with all ayes.
6. Sub -Committee Updates:
41
M
O
O
N
0000
N
O
J
o
N
00
N
N
cl
�
O
0
I
AT-*
Date:
To:
From:
FAX #:
of Pages:
Comments:
�P()
V
IFIC
0
Har or Resou'rces Di
b vision
C:ACSIMI, M T
L - LE T R, AN S I TTA L
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949-644-3034
Fax 949-723-0589
0
I
(including cover page)
'4-
FROM Jainings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:48PM P1
SUSAN K JENNINGS
306 N. 13AY FRONT
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
FAX COVER PAGE
`2
DATE;
114111
TO:
FAX N UMBER:
PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE: //
COMMENTS:
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:49PM P2
SITE PLAN
.C17Y OF NEWPORT BEACH
YICIN�ITJ my.
'Opw Im, ckvWA
7
i Z.,v,
*e
PROF ILE 1
Wkanwr- Rw EMME� IN V'U-T SU BENO-E
ELLVHTIONS 9RSED ON MUN Lo�& LU WqT[R,
7
0AIJ
40 ,
...........
14
fVFLA'CPK'7'S NAME, W1 L. e-'14114 5�
PLAN VI -EW 1'
log RC3ZSS � 61CS"Al, 44 Y',o5RrdX,,7- tDSTE,
ell)
i Z.,v,
*e
PROF ILE 1
Wkanwr- Rw EMME� IN V'U-T SU BENO-E
ELLVHTIONS 9RSED ON MUN Lo�& LU WqT[R,
7
0AIJ
40 ,
...........
14
fVFLA'CPK'7'S NAME, W1 L. e-'14114 5�
PLAN VI -EW 1'
log RC3ZSS � 61CS"Al, 44 Y',o5RrdX,,7- tDSTE,
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:49PM P3
rROM ;JOHN DRVIS rF�x NO, ; 949 759 -7477 -7UJ, 02 2002 0E.SGPM F!
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
z la,o. 1309 1768, NEUIVORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884
Novem4er 23, 1982
Mr. Hugh R. Coffin
Law Office$, KcKenna� Conner and Cuneo
611 Anton Olvd. -
Costa Mesa. CA 92626
Re; pier jwAted at SU5 North Bay."FrAlItt
Balboa Island, Permit No. A-124488
Dffir Mr, CaffiA:
We are in receipt of your letter to Mr. Williams, dated October 6,
1982 regarding the pier located at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
Island. Your letter has been filed in the permit file for Mr.
Williams.
The City Council Harbor Permit Policies contain two sections that
indirectly apply to the sitwatfon described by Our 10tter. These
sections, quoted below are -
"Section 20. SET BACKS
A. All piers and floats for residential properties shall be
Set back a 011nimum of 5 feet from the projection Of the
property line.
a. All piers and floats for connercial properties may extend
to the projtction of the property line.
C. The projection of the property line bayward of the same bearing
from the bulkhead shall generally bo Usad In determining the
allowable set backs for piers and floats. Seewe there are
certoin physical conditions which prKbAde the strict application
of this policy without prejudice to adjoining properties,
Coumil approval will be required in areas where precise
projections of the property line have not been determined
and the following conditions exist;
1. Where property lines are not approximately perpendicular
to the bulXhead line.
2. Where curves or angles exist in the bulkhead lim
3. Where hri4qes, topography, strowt ends or publicly -
owned facilities adjoin the property."
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:50PM P4
FROM : JOHN DPO I S FAX 140. :949 "r'59 3477 Jul. 02, 20FJ2, pi
"Section 28. ENCROACHING PIER$.,.A,ND FLOATS
in areas where existing piers and floats encroach in front of
abutting upland property owned by others, a new Pemit, approved
by the City Council, shall be required upon; ,
1. Any change in type Of QxistiDg use of the piers and floats.
2. Any change In type of txisting use of the abuttiMg upland
property owned by the Pemittee-
3. Any change of eXiSti"g ownership of the abutting upland
property owned by the permitee or Upon the death of the
permit,tee.
4. Any destruction of thg pier and float In which over 60% Of
the replacement value of the pier and float has been destroyed,
Before the City Council acts on the new permit I the owner of the
abutting upland property, in front of which the harbor facility
entroaches, shall be notified in writing of the meting in which
the new permit will be considered."
In the event the situation should change. requiring a now permita as
required by section 28 of the Harbor Permit Policies, we will contact
the affected parties.
David Harshborger
Marine DireCtor
Dti: d b
Buchalter
Nemer Fields
& Younger
A Professional Law Corporation
895 DOVE STREET, SUITE 400, P.O. Box 8129, NEwPoRT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8129
TELEPHONE (949) 760-1121 / FAX (949) 720-0182
August 15, 2002
Mr. Homer Bludau
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
File Number: T9118-001
Direct Dial Number: (949) 224-6251
E -Mail Address: rgrab le@b u ch alter. com
Re: Appeal of Approval of Pier and Float Renovation at 505 North Bqyfront
Dear Mr. Bludau:
Thank you for your letter of August 12, 2002. As I understand it, the decision on the
approval of the pier and float will not be final until it is reviewed and concurred in by the Harbor
Commission. Accordingly, we agree that our appeal is premature and we will appear and present
our case at the September 11, 2002 meeting of the Harbor Commission at 6:30 p.m.
Thank you for your prompt response.
Very truly yours,
BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIELDS & YOUNGER
A Professional n
M
RG:rag
cc: Susan K. Bryee
Bernice Jennings
Robert Burnham, q -
Steven Bromberg, City Councilman
Tony Melum, Director Harbor Resources Division
Los Anceles - Newport Beach - San Francisco
0
Poll
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
December 14, 2001
. . ............
Rick Williams
500 Angelita Drive
Corona Del Mar, Ca 92625
Re: 505 North Bay Front
Dear Mr. Williams:
As you know the pier permit for 505 North Bay Front has a condition prohibiting the
berthing of any vessel on the east side of the dock. For the past two to three weeks there
has been a boat on the east side in violation to the pier pen -nit.
The Harbor Resources Division requires that the above-mentioned vessel be removed
from the east side of the dock within five working days from the date on this letter.
Failure to comply may result in a citation.
Respectfully
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
Harbor Resources Division
�Z!
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Susan K, Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
October 9, 2002
Mr. Tony Melurn
Division of Harbor Resources
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Melum:
Thank you for your phone call yesterday regarding the pier at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa
Island. You stated since the Williams' had not submitted a revised pier plan, this issue
would not be on the Harbor Commission's October 8, 2002 agenda.
During our conversation, I also brought to your attention the continued illegal mooring of
vessels on the easterly side of both piers located at 501 and 505 N. Bay Front, which is
clearly prohibited per their respective pier permits.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Jennings
Cc: Steve Bromberg, Councilman
PO
>
r)
F0 9,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 18, 2002
E.0 Williams
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
500 Angelita
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Re: 505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island
Dear Sirs:
The above-mentioned property's pier and float was originally constructed in 1961. The
applicant was issued a permit to build the harbor structures and at that time the Newport
Beach City Council conditioned the permit to prohibit any docking of vessels on the
easterly side of the float and all docking will be on the westerly side.
This office received a complaint that you are berthing a boat -on the easterly side in
violation of the harbor permit. A field inspection verified that you have two boats berthed
on the easterly side of the float. The City has notified you more than once in recent years
to comply with the condition within your harbor permit. Therefore a citation has been
issued.
Please relocate this vessel with two weeks from the date on this letter. Failure to comply
with this notice may result in additional Administrative Citations and possibly referring
this matter to the City Attorney.
If you require additional infonnation in regards to this issue, please call me at 949-644-
3043.
Sincerely,
es!A.rmand
Harbor Inspector
Harbor Resources Division
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
August 8, 2002
Ms. Susan K. Jennings
305 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Harbor Permit Application #151-0505
Dear Ms. Jennings:
Please be advised that at their meeting of August 21, the City of Newport Beach Harbor
Commission will consider an application by E. 0. Williams to revise the residential pier
and float bayward of 505 North Bay Front.
If you have questions regarding this application or wish to discuss this further please
call me 644-3041.
Sincerely,
Tony Melum, Director
Division of Harbor Resources
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Pier and Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island, CA
Dear Mr. Melum-
Your telephone Gall today telling me of the imminent approval of a new pier at the
above referenced address was extremely disappointing. It is as if the events of the
past 20 years, and particularly the last 12 months had never occurred.
Since you said you are unclear about our concerns, I will again reiterate (see also the
attached 29 October 2001 letter to' Councilman Bromberg for additional details).
When the subject pier and dock were constructed, the City allowed the pier, gangway
and float to encroach over the easterly property line extended of 503 N. Bay Front,
and permitted mooring only on the docWs westerly side, placing any boat so moored
fully within the eastern property line extended of 503 N. Bay Front. During the same
period oral representations were made by the pier's owner that large vessels would
be moored there only temporarily for provisioning. Over the years increasingly larger
vessels have been permanently moored on the docWs west side, progressively and
negatively impacting the view from 503 N. Bay Front. As noted above, our
complaints about this deteriorating situation span more than two decades with no
relief, cf. attached 23 November 1982 letter from Mr. Harshbarger.
Last year, I discovered quite accidentally that an application had been submitted for a
new pier at 505 N. Bay Front. While legally required written notice of the application
was provided to other potentially effected landowners, it was confirmed by your office
that no notice was sent to the owners of the most impacted property -- 503 N. Bay
Front. At that time we objected to the proposed new pier and the defective process,
and provided your department with a written request for future notification and an
explicit address for notice, cf. attached 9 November 2001 letter to Mr. Armand.
In subsequent discussions with your department we were advised that the owner of
505 N. Bay Front had withdrawn the new pier application, and that the existing pier
would have to obtain a new permit and potential new conditioning upon the death of
Mrs. E. 0. Williams (Mr. E. 0. Williams is deceased). We again emphasized
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Page 2 of 3
our need to be formally notified in writing if the new pier application was reactivated,
or any other application affecting the use or location of the pier was submitted.. We
were assured that we would receive notice.
Despite all of this, your call today informed me for the first time that the new pier
application had been reactivated, that again some 30 owners requiring written notice
— apparently everyone except us — had received it, and the application was about to
be approved. This afterthought, last minute, hurry -up and react notification is
unacceptable, and I would suggest it is legally defective from a variety of
perspectives.
At my request, you faxed a copy of the proposed new pier "Site Plan", dated 10/4/01
(attached). Like the existing pier and float, portions of the new pier, gangway and
float encroach over the property line extended of 503 N. Bay Front. And again, any
vessel moored to the docWs west side will lie completely within the eastern property
line extended of 503 N. Bay Front. Exacerbating the situation, the new dock is
proposed to be located in a way that would place a moored vessel more broadside to
the shore, further interfering with the view from 503 N. Bay Front. The proposed
new pier plan is unacceptable to us and we will not approve it
You suggest that the solution to our concerns is a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP")
whereby the new pier applicant would agree not to moor a vessel with a beam larger
than the one currenfly moored. How does this address our concerns? How does this
reduce the impact on 503 N. Bay Front? How does this overcome the new piers
violation of City pier policy? Who will police this? Despite our repeated complaints,
illegal mooring, i.e., vis-�t-vis the City pier permits, continues to occur on the 501 and
505 N. Bay Front piers, and is occurring at 501 N. Bay Front at the time of this
writing.
In our view, the application's unacceptability can be summarized in two points, viz.,
The proposed new pier, gangway, and dock, and its mooring arrangements are
completely incoasistent with current City policy. Why is the City asking us to
ratify a situation it will not tolerate elsewhere? It is public record that a cause
celebre has arisen on South Bay Front over an owners' desire to dock a vessel
encroaching less than one foot over the property line of a lot theV own
What is being proposed is destruction of the existing pier and gangway to be
replaced by a "new relocate[d] pier" a "new ramp [gangway]" and a "relocated
dock". Does the City contend seriously that this is not a 'new pier' requiring anew
discretionary permit and conditions of approval, or that it does not meet the intent
of Item 4 among items requiring a new pier permit listed in Mr. Harshbarger's 23
2 July 2002
Mr. Tony Melum
Page 3 of 3
November 1982 letter, i.e., "Any destruction of the pier and float in which over
60% of the replacement value of the pier and float have been destroyed."?
Our concerns and position remain what they have always been. As stated in my 9
November 2001 letter, "What we ask is simple. If there is to be a new pier and/or
float, it, and any vessel moored to it, should conform to City policy and not extend
beyond the projection of the property line at 503 N. Bay Front."
We propose two ways of proceeding.
The owners of 505 N. Bay Front can withdraw their application for a new pier
and use the existing pier until the death of Mrs. E. 0. Williams, at which time
we expect that the City, per the City Attorney, will re -permit and recondition the
pier, and in the process address this facility's egregious encroachment upon
503 N. Bay Front.
2. The owners of 505 N. Bay Front can submit a more reasonable new pier
application that comports with City policy and addresses our concerns.
In any event, we ask the City not continue with the current defective process. I want
to repeat and stress that the owners of 503 N. Bay Front expect to receive full and
proper notification of matters relating to the pier at 505 N. Bay Front, and that we are
prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to secure these and other rights we
may have.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Jennings
by FAX, original by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
c'.
Hon. Steve Bromberg
J,0'4� DPV I S FR>� NO, : 949 7 59 347-
r
T1 -, -J� '-,- : CZ,, -
I . C1 J� I I -
L �: - Spf,l ,:. -
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
p,c)� BOX 1768,NEWPORT 13EACH,CA 92003-3984
November 23, 1982
Mr. Hugh R. Coffin
LaW OffiCe�, McKenna,
611 Anton Blvd.
Costa Mesa, cA 92626
Conner and CuneO
4
Re-, Pier -located at 505 North Bay�FrQnts
Balboa Tsland, Permit No. A -12Q
Dear Mr, Coffin.
We are in receipt of your letter to Mr. Williams, dated October 6,
1982 regerding the pier located at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
island. Your letter has been filed in the permit file for Mr.
Williams.
The City COUMil Harbor Permit Policies contain two sections that
indirectly apply to the situation described by your letter. These
sections, quoted below are:
"Section 20. SET BACKS
A. All piers and floats for residential properties shall be
set back a minimum of 5 feet from the projection Of the
property line.
6. All piers and floats for cornmercial properties may extend
to the projection of the property 11ne.
C. The projection of the property line bayward of the same bearing
from the bulkhead shall generally b* used in determining the
allowable set backs for piers and floats, Because there are
certain physical conditions which preclude the strict application
of this policy without prejudice to adjoining properties,
Council approval will be required in areas where precise
projections of the property line have not been determined
and the following conditions exist:
1. Where property lines are not approximately perpendicular
to the bulkhead line.
2. Where curves or angles exist in the bulkhead line.
3. Where bridges, topography, street ends or publicly -
owned facilities adjoin the property."
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
- 2F
-40. -
: 9`9 759 3,117 3 J 0
"Section 28. ENCROACHING PIERS AND FLDATS
In areas where eXi5ting piers and floats encroach in front. of
abutting upland property owned by others, a new permit, approved
by the City Council, shall be reouired upon;
1. Any change in type of existing use Of the piers and floats.
2. Any change in type of existing use of the abutting upland
property owned by the permittee.
3. Any change of existing ownership of the abutting uplaml
property owned by the permitee or upon the death of the
permi t.tee.
4. Any destruction of the pier and float In which over 60% of
the replacement value of the pier and float has beer, destroyed.
Before the City Council acts on the new permi,t, the owner of the
abutting upland property, in front of which the harbor facility
encroaches, shall be notified in writing of the meeting in which
the new permit will be considered."
In the event the situation should change, requi�ring a new pemit. as
requir,ed by Section 28 of the HarbOr Permit Policieso we will contact
the affected parties.
David Harshbarger
Marine Director
OH.db
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
9 November 2001
Mr. Wes Armand
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re- Pier and Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island, CA ("Pier")
Dear Mr. Armand:
Thank you for meeting with us this morning to discuss the above referenced Pier. It
appears that we agree on the facts leading to the present situation, e.g., (i) the Pier
was approved in 1961, which you state was prior to the adoption of the current City
Harbor Permit Policies, (ii) the City's I I December 1961 pier permit allows docking
only on the Pier's westerly side, and (iii) the Pier and any vessel moored on its west
side encroach beyond the easterly property line extended of 503 North Bay Front — a
clear violation of current City pier policies. Indeed, the enforcement of pier and
vessel encroachment policy has become so strict that encroachment is not allowed
even when the burdened and benefiting properties are under common, consenting
ownership, as in the well-known case of 1106 and 1108 South Bay Front.
Referring to a 23 November 1982 letter from former Marine Director David
Harshbarger, we noted two events which require the City to issue a new pier permit
addressing the Pier's and the 1961 pier permit's non-compliance with current City
policies, viz.,
1. "...the death of the permittee."
You indicated that the City Attorney considered this question vis -6 -vis the Pier, and
concluded no new permit is necessary, even though permittee Mr. E. 0. Williams has
died. While the basis for the Attorney's conclusion was not provided to you, you
noted that he had referred to the decedent's transfer of his interest in the Pier to a
trust prior to his death, and that the decedent's wife is reportedly again residing at
505 N. Bay Front. While the policies enunciated by Mr. Harshbarger do not appear to
refer to any exceptions, and the relevance of these points is unclear to us, we
recognize that this is a legal question that should be addressed with the City
Attorney.
Page 2.
9 November 2001
2. "Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.", or "Any destruction of
the pier and float in which over 60% of the replacement value of the pier and float
have been destroyed.".
Today, you provided us with a copy of an application to relocate and rebuild the Pier,
Mr. Melum's 23 October 2001 notice to affected property owners informing them of
the application and noting that the notice is required because the pier work proposed
by 505 N. Bay Front is for an "unusual type of harbor structure, or ... [one] in which the
applicant poses a use that is not in keeping with the surrounding area.", and a list of
the landowner's receiving notice from Mr. Melum. Although 503 N. Bay Front is
contiguous to the site of the proposed work and is the property most adversely
impacted by the pier's and moored vessel's encroachment, it was not on the list of
properties notified. We therefore ask that the comment period be extended beyond
10 November 2001 to allow time for Mr. Melum to receive our comments contained in
the balance of this letter.
The proposed relocated pier will require complete destruction of the Pier. From the
application drawing you provided the only common point between the Pier and the
proposed relocated pier is at the float's extreme northwest corner. Unfortunately, this
perpetuates the pier's maximum encroachment beyond the property line of 503 N.
Bay Front. The long dimension of the proposed relocated pier's rectangular float
would also be canted more to the northwest. This would exacerbate the impact to
503 N. Bay Front of the pier, and any vessel moored on its west side, by placing
them more broadside to the view from 503 N. Bay Front.
If the City proposes allowing vessels to be moored on the proposed relocated pier's
westerly side, then we are opposed to this application and ask that it be denied on
the grounds that it is a clear violation of the City's now long standing policies
regarding pier encroachments onto adjoining properties, and that its approval and
construction would perpetuate a substantial and adverse aesthetic and economic
burden upon 503 N. Bay Front and its owners, and upon the usability of the public
beach in front of 503 N. Bay Front.
We prefer that any new pier at 505 N. Bay Front be constructed, and any vessels be
moored to it in a way that would end all encroachment upon 503 N. Bay Front.
However, in an effort to finally and permanently resolve this issue we propose the
following compromise. The owners of 503 N. Bay Front will not oppose the proposed
relocated pier, including its continued encroachment beyond the property line of 503
N. Bay Front, providing that the encroachment of the proposed relocated pier and
float are no worse than the encroachment of the Pier, as appears to be the case from
the application drawing. In exchange, we ask that the new pier permit not allow any
docking on the westerly side of the proposed relocated pier, but instead require
docking on the relocated pier's easterly side. We believe this can be readily
accomplished by conditioning the applicant to modify and or improve drainage or
other facilities that purportedly interfere with mooring on the Pier's east side.
Page 3.
9 November 2001
We request that 503 N. Bay Front be added to the property owners notice list for all
matters requiring notice concerning 505 N. Bay Front. We specifically ask that we be
notified in writing of any City ministerial and/or discretionary hearings, proceedings
and/or actions regarding the current (10/04/01) or any revised, amended or new
application pertaining to the Pier or any proposed relocated or new pier. All notices
should be sent to:
Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Jennings
c/o Susan K. Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us. We look forward to working with
the City to solve this chronic problem in a way satisfactory to all parties.
Sincerely,
copc�
Susan K. Jennings
by fax, original by mail
C.
Hon. Steve Bromberg, Councilman 5 th District
Tony Melum, Director, Division of Harbor Resources
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 09:51PM P7
9 November 2001
Mr. Wes Armand
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA92663
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
10
Re: Pier and- Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island, CA ("Pier").
Dear Mr. Armand:
Thank you for meeting with us this morning to discuss the above referenced Pier- It
appears that we agree on the facts leading to the present situation, e.g., (i) the Pier
was approved in 1961, which you state was prior to the adoption of the current City
Harbor Permit Policies, (ii) the City's 11 December 1!961 pier permit allows docking
only on the Pierjs westerly side, and (iii) the Pier and any vessel moored an its west
side encroach beyond the easterlyproperty line extended of 503 North Bay Front — a
clear violation of current City pier policies. Indeed, the enforcement of pier and
vessel encroachment policy has become so strict that encroachment is not allowed
even when the burdened and benefiting properties are under common, consenting
ownership, as in the well-known case of 1106 and 1108 South Bay Front.
Referring to a 23 November 1982 letter from former Marine Director David
Harshbarger, we noted two events which require the City to issue a new pier permit
addressing the Pier's and the 1961 pier permit's non-compliance * with current City
policies, viz.,
".Ahe death of the permittee."
You indicated that the City Attorney considered this question vis -6 -vis the Pier, and
concluded no new permit is necessary, even though permittee Mr- E_ 0. Williams has
died.. While the basis for the Attorney's conclusion was not provided to you, you
noted that he had referred to the decedent's transfer of his interest in the Pier to a
trust prior to his death, and that the decedent's wife is reportedly again residing at
505 N. Bay Front. While the policies enunciated by Mr, Harshbarger do not appear to
refer to any exceptions, and the relevance of these points is unclear to us, we
recognize that this is a legal question that should be addressed with the City
Attorney. I
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:51PM P8
Page 2.
9 November 2001
2. "Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.", or "Any destruction of
the pier and float in which over 60% of the replacement value of the pier and float
have been destroyed.".
Today, you provided us with a copy of an application to relocate and rebuild the Pier,
Mr. Melum's 23 October 2001 notice to affected property owners informing them of
the application and noting that the notice is required because the pier,work proposed
by 505 N. Bay Front is for an "unusual type of harbor structure, or— [one] in which the
applicant poses a use that is not in keeping with the surrounding area,", and a list of
the landowner's receiving notice from Mr. Melum, Afthough 503 N. Bay Front is
contiguous to the site of tho propose&work and is the property most adversely
impacted by,the piers and moored vessel's encroachment, it was not on the list of
properties notified. We therefore ask that the comment period be extended beyond
10 November 2001 to allow time for Mr. Melum to receive our comments contained in
the balance of this letter.
The proposed relocated pier will require complete destruction of the Pier, From the
application drawing you -provided the only common point between the Pier and the
proposed relocated pier is at the floats extreme northwest corner, Unfortunately, this
perpetuates the pier's maximum encroachment beyond the property line of 503 N.
Bay Front. The long dimension of the proposed relocated pier's rectangular float
would also be canted more to the northwest. This would exacerbate the impact to
503 N, Bay Front of the pier, and any vessel moored on its west side, by placing
them more broadside to the view from 503 N. Bay Front.
If the City proposes allowing vessels to be moored on the proposed relocated piers
westerly side, then we are opposed to this application and ask that it be denied on
the grounds that it is a clear violation of the City's now long standing policies
regarding pier encroachments onto adjoining properties, and that'its approval and
construction would perpetuate a substantial and adverse aesthetic and economic
burden upon 503 N. Bay Front and its owners, and upon the usability of the public
beach in front of 503 N. Bay Front.
We prefer that any new pier at 505 N. Bay Front be constructed, and any vessels be
moored to it in a way that would end all encroachment upon 503 N_ Bay Front.
However, in an effort to finally and permanently resolve this issue we propose the
following compromise. The owners of 503 N. Bay Front will not oppose the proposed
relocated pier, including its continued encroachment beyond the property line of 503
N. Bay Front, providing that the encroachment of the proposed relocated pier and
float are no worse than the encroachment of the Pier, as appears to be the case from
the application drawing- In exchange, we ask that the now pier permit not allow any
docking on the westerly side of the proposed relocated pier, but instead require
docking on the relocated pieils easterly side. We believe this can be readily
accomplished by conditioning the applicant to modify and or improve drainage or
other facilities that purportedly interfere with mooring on the Pier's east side, '
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-673-2146 Jul. 02 2002 08:52PM P9
Page 3,
9 November 2001
We request that 503 N. Bay Front be added to the property owners notice list for all
matters requiring notice concerning 505 N. Bay Front., We specifically ask that we be
notified in writing of any City ministerial and/or discretionary hearings, proceedings
and/or actions regarding the current (10/04/01) or any revised, amended or new
application pertaining to the Pier or any proposed relocated or now pier. All notices
should be sent to:
Mr, and Mrs. Fred C. Jennings
cto Susan K. Jennings
305 N. BaX Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662 41
Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us. We look forward to working with
the City to solve this chronic problem in a way satisfactory to all parties.
Sincerely,
Cc P C� -
Susan K Jennings
by fax, original by mail
C.
Hon. Steve Bromberg, Councilman 5th District
Tony Melum, Director, Division of Harbor Resources
— --------------
November 9, 200l_---`
Susan Jennings and Brother in the H/R Office and notes regarding their
complaints regarding the pier/float at 505 North Bay Front.
Background: The pier was constructed in 196 1. At that time there were no codified
Harbor Permit Policies and application for the construction of new piers were take to the
City Council for approval.
The City Council approved the construction of the pier and float in its present location.
Beginning in 1982, the Jennings Family complained repeatedly about 1) the location of
the pier and sought to have it comply with the Harbor Permit Policies regarding setbacks
and 2) sought assurances from the City that the section of the Harbor Permit Policies
addressing Encroaching Piers and Floats where any change of existing ownership of the
abutting upland property by the permittee or upon the death of the permittee requires a
new permit.
Another letter from Jenning in 1982 complained about the size of the boat that was
brought in at 505 North Bay Front. The letter referred to an alleged "verbal agreement"
between the two property owners that the pier was not to be used for mooring of larger
vessels
11" _Vhe pier permit was conditioned to prohibit the berthing/mooring of any vessel on
the easterly side of the float.
The present complaint: centers around the whether the City should require a new permit
for this facility since the original permittee has died, and secondly, the current application
to replace and a slight relocation of the pier & float.
4 Years before the death of Edward Williams, the permittee on record, placed placed the
01- property in a trust. His Son, Rick Williams, is the Trustee and Edward Williams'
surviving spouse resides in the home. Harbor Resources Division asked Bob Burnham to
give us an opinion as to whether the above-mentioned situation requires a new permit. In
his opinion a new permit is not required.
The proposal for relocation of the pier and float has been sent out to all residents within
300' and we are awaiting responses. Once Harbor Resources receives responses from
concerned residents a decision will be made regarding the application. The Jennings will
respond in writing, but basically, they have indicated to me that they would not be
opposed to the current application if the permit could have the present condition
amended. Their position is that if the length of the City Storm Drain on the east side was
shortened, this would provide sufficient room to berth a vessel on the east side of the
float. That would diminish the degree (size) of the encroachment. And they would then
not be in opposition to the application if it were conditioned to prohibit berthing vessels
on the west side of the structure.
Melum, Tony 56
From:
Armand, Wes---.
Sent:
We dnesdav� Octbbbr 31, 2001 1-49 PM --.--
To:
Melum, Tony
Cc:
Bludau, Homer
Subject:
complaint re vessel at 505 North Bay Front
Tony, here's an update on this issue. Susan Jennings has responded to my phone calls seeking a meeting with her on-
site. She called from out of town and will contact me when she returns. In the mean time, I have followed up on her
complaint relative to Section 28 of the Harbor Permit Policies, which require a new permit in areas where existing
encroachments have been permitted but there has been a change in the ownership or upon the death of the permittee.
The original permittee has died, but prior to his death the property was put into a trust and the surviving spouse still resides
in the home. The City Attorney Office determined that a new permit is not required. Rick Williams, the Trustee, has been
appraised of this and his application for a revision of the pier & dock at 505 North Bay Front can proceed. When Susan
Jennings returns to town I will discuss this with her and make sure she reviews the drawing for Mr. Williams' revision.
AUG 08 2002 10:01PM UNIVERSITY MEDIA
Pi
F0
July 30, 2002
-- — --------------
707-265-8702 P-1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
Ms. Susan K. Jennings
305 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Application by E. 0. Williams to Revise
Residential Pier and Float Bayward of
505 North Bay Front
Dear Ms. Jennings:
y"S
As required by City Council Harbor Permit Policies, H-1, specifically, "Encroaching piers
and floats", the Harbor Resources Division noticed you on July 2, 2002 regarding the
above application. We received your response dated July 2, 2002, and a reference to
earlier correspondence, which we have on file, delineates your concerns relative to the
proposed revision. The above quoted section of the policies does not give direction as
to what action should be taken relative to the encroachment, only that a new permit is
required and that notice be given.
Our records reflect that the original pier and float were built sometime prior to 1961 and
revised into the current configuration in 1961. Your objections are reflected in our file as
an ongoing and long-standing objection. However, it appears from our records that the
dock was built either with the permission or acquiescence of the property owner at 503.
The only location where boats could be berthed was on the westerly side, and in fact
there are specific conditions on the permit granted in 1961, which state, "The dock was
approved in 1961 by the City Council, City of Newport Beach, in accordance with the
November drawing and in accordance with the stipulations relative to dredging and with
the condition that there be no vessel dock on the easterly side of the finger float and all
dock is to be on the westerly side". It did not, however, contained conditions relative to
the size of vessels that could be berthed at the float.
Based upon the curve of the bulkhead, the adjoining slips and the City street end and
shore moorings, we see very limited opportunity for revision to the dock that would
reduce the encroachment problem in front of 503. Because of the long-standing tenure
of the dock in its current location and the past approval of the property owner at 503, we
are approving the application as submitted. The Newport Beach Municipal Code,
Section 17-24.090 (copy attached), provides you with a mechanism to appeal our
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
AUG 08 2002 10:01PM UNIVERSITY MEDIA 707-2G5-8702 p.2
decision to the city Manager, and a mechanism to appeal the City Manager's decision
to the City Council.
if I can be of more assistance or you would like information please give me a call.
Sincerely,
zz� Ad��
Tony Melum, Director
Harbor Resources Division
Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager
City Councilman
Steven Bromberg,
— RUG 08 2002 10:01PM UNIVERSITY MEDIA 707-2135-8702 P.3
Chapter 17.24 STRU TURES IN HARBOW
Section 17.24.050 Processing of Application.
The application and plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Fire and Marine Chief to
determine whether the proposed work meets all the requirements of this Code and any standards
and policies adopted by the City Council for such construction or work. The Fire and Marine Chief
is authorized to approve and issue permits for new structures and for revisions to existing
structures that conform to the provisions of this Code, standard harbor drawings approved by the
City Council, or harbor permit policy adopted by the City Council.
A. The application shall be denied if:
- -T .4ces -not conform tathe.provIsions of this Code -.standard harbor drayfingsL
1; 4;s-app9cation
approved by the City Council, or the harbor permit policy adopted by the City Council; or
2. The proposed application is likely to create navigational congestion, or otherwise interfere
with the rights of other harbor permittees within Newport Harbor, or other oceanfront property
owners.
B. Appeals. Decisions by the Fire and Marine Chief relative to Harbor Permit applications may
be appealed to the City Manager by filing a written appeal with the Office of the City Manager
within fourteen (14) days from the notice of the decision. The City Manager shall consider the
appeal and render a decision within fourteen (14) days from the date of the appeal. A decision by
the City Manager may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days from the notice of
the decision. The City Clerk shall cause written notice of the time, place and purpose of the City
Council hearing to be sent to the appkant or appellant by certified mail at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the date of the hearing, The City Council may sustain, overrule or modify the action of the
City Manager, and the decision of the City Council shall be final.
A separate permit must be obtained from the Building Official for any plumbing or electrical work
on harbor structures. (Ord. 98-13 §§ 2, 3, 1998; Ord. 96-10 § I (part), 1996)
P
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
August 12, 2002
Roger A. Grable
Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger
P.O. Box 8129
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8129
Re: Appeal of Approval of Pier and Float Renovation at 505 North Bayfront
Dear Roger:
I received your letter regarding an appeal of the pier and float renovation at 505
Bayfront.
The decision to approve the pier and float renovation proposal will be going to
the City's Harbor Commission and will be on its September 1 1th agenda to be
heard at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers. Staff has approved the
proposal, subject to the review and concurrence of the Harbor Commission.
Therefore, I will consider your appeal to be inactive until the decision makin
process has run its course. I encourage you to appear at the September 11
hearing and participate in the discussion.
Sincerely,
Homer L. udau
City Manager
City Hall * 3300 Newport Boulevard 9 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884
Armand, Wes
To: Gunther, Robert
Subject: Meeting I �'/p �
I need to meet with you at Ruby and North Bay Front, Balboa Island for a few minutes to get your opinion on some
proposed work to the street end storm drain. It should not take more than 10 minutes. Please let me know when you can
do this. Thanks and I appreciate your prompt response on this one since it envolves an issue that has reached the City
Council/City Manager desk. Thanks again.
I
P0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
August 12, 2002
Ms. Susan K. Jennings
305 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Application by E. 0. Williams to Revise
Residential Pier and Float Bayward of
505 North Bay Front
Dear Ms. Jennings:
Please be advised that the application by E. 0. Williams to revise the pier and float has
been continued the Harbor Commission's meeting of September 11 due to my being on
vacation for the August meeting.
Sincerely,
Tony irector
Harbor Resources Division
Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager
Steven Bromberg, City Councilman
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Melum, Tony
From: Bluda
Sent: Friddy August 09, 2002 9:30 AM
To: Melul��-
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Tony, please call Steve and confirm. If accurate, let's calendar in September. Thanks.
----- original Message -----
From: Melum, Tony
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:25 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Homer, Bromberg met with Mr. Williams last night, he's the owner at 505. They reviewed
the situation from Mr. Williams perspective and Mr. Williams related to me this morning
that, based on their meeting Steve thought the matter should be continued until Sept., so
I could present the staff report.
What should we do?
----- original message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:23 PM
To: Melum, Tony
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
I don't think we can wait. Bromberg is chomping at the bit.
----- original message -----
From: Melum, Tony
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:28 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Homer, we can get it on the next agenda but I will be on vacation and Dave will be
covering for me. This might be one that would benefit from my being there but we would
have to take it to the meeting of Sept. 25? What do you think?
----- original Message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:24 AM
To: Burnham, Bob; Melum, Tony
Cc: Bromberg, Steven; Kiff, Dave
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Tony, can you agendize the 505 North Bay Front issue for an upcoming Harbor Commission
meeting? Thanks.
-----original message -----
From: Burnham, Bob
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:51 PM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
i vote for the harbor commission.
----- original message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:51 PM
To: Burnham, Bob
Subject: FW: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Since your office would be involved in one of the options, I'm looking for your opinion.
Thanks.
----- original Message -----
From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink-net]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:05 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Homer,
This is a boat "encroachment" issue that has been around a long time. I
had sent you some info on this some time ago and I know Tony has been
working on it. Apparently, there is now a request for a dock revision
by 503 and there seem to be many twists and turns on this.
The aggrieved party is Susan Jennings, who owns 505. Nice lady, long
term resident and she feels that the issues are being handled one sided
and she is not receiving required notice. Tony can fill you in to a
greater detail and he can show you the letter Ms. Jennings sent to him
with a copy to me about 3 weeks ago.
Suggestion: The issue is not going away. my sense is we either set up
a meeting between Ms. Jennings, Tony and Bob Burnham or Robyn or Dan -or
let's let the Harbor Commission deal with this. My feeling is the later
is the move to take. Since the Harbor Comm. is new, it's possible that
when Tony makes his decision, it may be appeal able to the Commission.
If that is the case, let's be sure that both sides are given the proper
appeal notice.
Please be sure that I am kept in the loop as to the progress as she will
be calling me again.
Steve
2
FRED C. JENNINGS
P. 0. BOX 295
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1666
Phone/Fax (949) 721-0576
October 16, 1998
Capt. Dave Mann, Harbor Master
1901 Bayside Drive
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Dear Sir,
Here I am back again, the problem just won't go away.
As I have previously discussed with you, the occupants of 501 and
505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island continue to dock boats on
their piers which are within the extended proprty lines of our
property at 503 North Bay Front.
While I did give permission for Ed Williamst at 505,, to
personally keep his boat there, he passed away many years, ago.
Permission was. not given in perpetuity for occupants of 505 to
continue the same privilege.
Just wanted you to know that I an looking into the legality of
this problem.
10
N
F2, -\-/
G
Fr2l0t-AT-
EEC
SEYMOUR S. PIZER
BARRY S. MICHAELSON
JoAN BLACKSTONE
HUGH R. COFFIN
SAUL GELBART
BRADLEY J. PIZER
February 16, 1988
PIZER & MICHAELSON INC.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2122 NORTH BROADWAY, SUITE 100
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92706
(714) 558-OSZS
TE:LECOPIER (714) SSO-0841
Mr. E. 0. Williams
505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Pier located at 505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island
Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr—Williams:
0
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
(415) 957-9939
As you are probably aware, the undersigned represents Mr. Fred
Jennings the owner of the property at 503 North Bayfront, Balboa
Island, adjacent to and to the west of your property. You may
recall I wrote you October 6, 1982 in regard to the pier permit at
your property. since the date of that letter we understand that
you have moved a new vessel onto the float, which is larger thn
the vessel referred to in my prior letter. My client has
contacted -me in regard to this -matter and I have had an
opportunity to observe the pier and the relationship of the two
lots. I have also discussed this matter with Mr. David
Harshbarger, Marine Director and Mr. Tony Melum, Tidelands
Administrator, of the City of Newport Beach.
After having an opportunity to review the circumstances, it
appears the most equitable way to resolve the problem is to moor
vessels on the easterly, not the westerly, side of the float. I
understand that the City of Newport Beach Marine Department
representatives do not object to this change in location of the
vessel as long as the pier permit conditions are themselves
,changed. I also understand that you have had conversations with
the Marine Department and that you do not object to changing the
conditions of the pier permit to require the mooring of a vessel
only on the easterly side of the float.
At this time I solicit your cooperation in pursuing this remedy.
As stated above, this appears to be the best way to resolve what
has become an ongoing problem.
To accomplish the change of conditions, the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach will have to approve an amendment to the
pier permit condition. This would likely occur after the
I
Mr. E. 0. Williams
Re: Pier located at 505 N. Bayfront
Balboa Island
February 16, 1988
Page'two
Improvement Association and the Tidelands Affairs Committee of the
City of Newport Beach have had an opportunity to review and
comment on the proposed change.
Would you please contact me so we may discuss your position in
regard to these proposed changes in the pier permit conditions, I
look forward to hearing from you in the immediate future. You may
call meat the above number or write me at the above address.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in regard
to this matter.
Very truly OU. S"
:��:9S)dN INC.
HRC: tc
cc: Fred Jennings
David Harshbargery
- -�'A4e
.04
'00'00v�
FP:� NO. : 9,�Cl -1�13 74�7 -,F r� F7 pf, 7,
.........
CITY OF NEWPORT BE,,,�iCh
p.(). BOX 1768, NE\kTORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884
NovemiDer 23, 1982
Mr. Hugh R. Coffin
Law OffiCO$, McKenna,
611 Anton Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Conner and 'CuneO
��e: Pier -located at 505 North Bay�FrQnts
Balboa Island, Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr, Coffin:
We a -re in receipl; of your letter to Mr. williams, dated October 6,
1982' regarding the pier located at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
151and. Your letter has been filed in the permit file for Mr.
'Williams.
The City CoUnCil Harbor Permit Policies contain two sections that
indirectly apply to the situation described by your letter. These
sections, quoted below are:
"Section 20, SET BACKS
A. All piers and floats for residential properties 0all be
set �ack a minimum of 5 feet from the projection Of the
property line.
B. All piers and floats for couviercial properties may extend
to the projection of the property line,
C. The projection of the property line ba,yward of the same bearing
from the bulkhead shall generally be used in determining the
allowable set backs for piers and floats, Because there are
certain physical conditions which preclude the strict application
of this policy without prejudice to adjoining properties,
Council approval will be required in areas where precise
projections of the property line have not been determined
and the following conditGns exist:
1. Where property lines are not approximately perpendicular
to the bulkhead line.
2. Where curves or angles exist in the bulkhead line.
3. Where brid es, topography, street ends or publicly -
owned faciMies adjoin the property."
3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach
j -Ij�! T
"Section 28. ENCROACHING PIERS AND FLOATS
In areas where existing piers and floats encroach in front of
abutting upland property owned by others, a new permit, approved
by the Ci ty Counc i I , s hal 1 be re-clu i red upon.
Any change in type of exiSting use Of the piers and flo6ts.
2. Any change in type of existing use of the abutting upland
property owned by the permittee.
3. Any change of extsting ownership of the abutting upland
property owned by the permitee or upon the death of the
permi ttee.
4. Any destruction of the pier and float In which over 60"A" Of
the replacemert value of t�jc- pier and float has beer, destroyed.
Before the City council acts on the new permit, the owner of the
abutting upland property., in front of which the harbor facIllitY
encroaches, shall be notified in writing of the meeting in which
the new permit will be considered."
In the event the situation should change, requiring a new per'Flit, as
required by Section 28 of the Harbor Permit Policies, we will cOnt3ct
the efected parties. A1
David Harshbarger
Marine Director
OH,.db
LOS ANGELES
TWENTY-EIGHTH FLOOR
3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
(213) 739-9100
HUGH R. COFFIN
LAW OFFICES
MC-KENNA,CONNER & CLINEO
NINTH FLOOR
611 ANTON BOULEVARD
COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626
(7141 751-3600
TELECOPIER (714) 751-6042
October 6, 1982
-W
Mr. E. 0. Williams
505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Pier Located at 505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island, Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr. Williams:
--, , e 11-11
7 'P '. / c -
WASHINGTON, D.C.
157S EYE STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(202) 789-7500
SAN FRANCISCO
NINETEENTH FLOOR
220 BUSH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(415) 433-0640
This firm has been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Fred
Jennings in regards to your pier which encroaches into their
"permit area" at 503 North Bayfront, Balboa Island.
It is our understanding that in 1961 when Mr. and
Mrs. Jennings gave you permission to extend your pier at 505
North Bayfront the permission was conditioned upon your agree-
ment that the pier would not be used for mooring large
vessels, but would be used only for mooring small bay boats.
It is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Jennings would not have agreed
to the relocation of the pier without it being conditioned
upon a limit to the size of the vessel moored at the pier. It
is obvious that the mooring of a large vessel at the pier will
almost completely enclose'the water area in front of 503 North
Bayfront and block bayward views as well.
We further understand, and to substantiate the above,
that over the years each time you brought in your large
vessel, the "Prowler", you asked Mr. and Mrs. Jennings for
permission to moor the vessel. In turn, Mr. and Mrs. Jennings
agreed to permit the vessel to be moored at the pier for a
short time while it was being worked upon or provisioned for a
cruise.
on behalf of our clients, we must express their very
strong objection to your use of the pier for the mooring of
large vessels which encroach into the "permit area" in front
of 503 North Bayfront. The pier should be used only for'the
mooring of small bay boats.
We anticipate that you will cooperate with Mr. and
Mrs. Jennings and cease the unconsented mooring of large
LAW OFFICES
Mc-KENNA, CONNER & CUNEO
Mr , E I . 0. Williams
October 6, 1982
Page 2
vessels at your pier. We are sending a copy of this letter to
the City of Newport Beach Marine Department to keep them
informed as to our clients' position in regards to the use of
the pier at 505 North Bayfront.
very truly yoursr
McKENNA, CONNER & CUNEO
By
co
Hu h
HRC: dlP
cc: Mr.'' and Mrs. Fred Jennings �partment
C.i,ty,�Iof Newport Beach Marine DE Administrator
Tony,Melumr-Tidelands
Attention.
a
a
Map Output Page I of I
http: //www6. city. newport-beach. ca. us/servlet/com. esri. esrimap. Esrimap? Servi ceName=gc... 07/03/2002
m
0
Map Output Page I of I
http://wvvw6.city.newport-beach.ca.uslsei-vletleom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=gc... 07/03/2002
3rately)
SITE PLAN
C17Y OF NEWPORT BERCH
CITY OF
KUPORT SEREM
Y I C I N I TY_LLF
,eww ry, MIMM9
wy
I F-
u
PFU ILE 1
:vne- RF�F- EVRESSED lN FE --T RKD DENOTE
L,LEWTJ%S NiStn ON W -FN I-DeER LOH RRTER.
L -11,-J
1 ,OIL
0"2 J -J
J
4 e
:e 7 0
C 3
lk �, �
PLAN V I.EW 1
TPLIWIS I, �,�C4 TTE,'
jog RDDy e,4 Y',, RO-�17 =DFTE" /01—
HARBOR RESOURCES DIV.
CGITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
WORKSHEET FOR BUILDING I FIRE PERMIT APPLICATION
HARBOR RESOURCES DIV.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PLEASE PRINT OR I YFE FLOOR SUITE NO.
1. PROJECT ADDRESS (NOT MAILING ADDRESS)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION No. . UNITS
LOT BLOCK TRACT
2. DESCRIPTION OF WORK
NEW F� ADD F-1 ALTER F-] DEMO
JZ WA 1! g /±- J 4
11 A ; + gZe%-.r fr%r A lirqnt
USEAe-,Ce-5�� ' '
# OF STORIES
VALUATION $
SQ FT
(NEW/ADDED/EXTG)
EFl%jE!l aw rf Iff-
WNER'S NAME LAST
FIRS - T
k 4
UZI'
/(/4--w
O��2i
I,c
1
OWNER'S ADDRESS
v I-)
��
OWNER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
zlt-�
Q2
t4q
465,
CITY
STATE
ZIP PH NO.
7 � 3
eAI-3
_;�/
4. ARCH ITECT/DESIGNER'S NAME
LAST
FIRST LIC. NO.
ARCH ITECT/DESI GN ER'S ADDRESS
ARCH ITECT/DESIGNER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
PHONE NO.
F� 5. ENGINEER'S NAME
FIRST
STATE LIC. NO.
ENGINEER'S ADDRESS
ENGINEER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
PHONE NO.
6. CONTRACTOR'S NjAfg�
BUSINESS LIC.
STATE LIC.
->
4as, F
N
CONTRACTOR'S AQDRESS
L
CONTRACTOR'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
CITY -T—
STATEC,,4
p PHON"C�-
4b
OFFICE USE ONLY
PERMIT NO.
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
PLAN CHECK NO.
PLAN CHECK FEE $
CUPANCY- GROUP
PLAN CHECK ENG.
Forms\Bldg_application b/21JU4
117
421
1p�/ _r All -IL7*,
RA,
IL
92' 3
711
VICINITY 5 KM T C
NavvF-QRT 15AV, CAL -IF -002 -NIA
F3
'c"7c/
am ,, 'x�' -
ZaAov--V- zow
/0
3pa 0a
CVW thla
W4�
7'
..........
r.3
'5
0
..... . . . . .
H, bor Resou'rCes Di
ar VIS10fl
A A
A A 1:1 AMEW
A S fIVA T
7A
F CSIMIL' TRAN 7 iL
City of Newport Beach
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949-644-3034
Tax 949-723-0589
(including cover page)
Comments: loe�
SITE PLAN
CITY OF NEWPORT BERCH
CITY OF
KUPORT BERCH
UPPER
BRY
ERST
a4
My
PRCIFIC 0
CERN Pi
HET
JMY PROFILE I =-�-o
YICINITY MRp EFST
3-rf, CFLIFU�CR 0 Z5 SOUNDINGS ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET RND DENOTE
Et-EVATIONS BASED ON ME.� LOWER LOH WATER.
4
Z-IAI.I- /- ZT P/Z- E,
17' '--
R-4 ZO CA 7
L 4,
A
A y
RPPL I MN7'S NAME; 2�-, 0. W Z- 25�
)CROP,
PLAN VIEW 1-
JOB RDDRESS, --5-05AI &,4 Y,,--ROAlr DATE; 10141,121
�rKWP
.11 I.- I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
cc� � �� ��-Ov, �tl � J-"
January 22, 2002
Ms. Susan K. Jennings
305 North Bay Front
Balboa island, CA 92662
Re: Letter of 11/9/01, Regarding
505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island
Dear Ms. Jennings:
I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter, however, subsequent to its
receipt, the permittee at 505 North Bay Front made application to revise his pier
and float, which complicated our response.
The pier and float at 505 North Bay Front are in a location, relative to your
property, that would not be allowed today. It was a permitted structure in 1961
with berthing rights and limiting conditions. I know one of your questions is, what
berthing rights?
The permit itself prohitibs berthing on the easterly side with a condition which
states: "No vessel docked on the easterly side of the finger float. All docking is
to be on the westerly side". With regards to berthing on the westerly side, the
permit is silent. Therefore, to determine what size vessel would be allowed there
we must refer to the Harbor Permit Policies.,
Because, as mentioned above, berthing is prohibited on the'easterly side, it must
have been contemplated by the parties, in 1961, that all vessel berthing would be
taking place on the westerly side. That would place any vessel berthed at the
dock directly in front of your property at 503 North Bay Front. The Harbor Permit
Policies states, "Boats moored at private docks shall not extend beyond the
projection of the property lines of the property to which the dock facility is
connected." In this case that rule cannot be applied because the dock practically
straddles the property line shared by you and the permittee. Therefore, the next
available property line is the property line between yourself and 501 North Bay
Front. Without further evidence we would have to assume that this would be the
property line that would limit vessel berthing referred to in this section of the
policies.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
The only other section dealing with boat berthing states that a vessel may not
extend beyond the structure more than the width of its beam. In determining
whether any particular vessel berthed at 505 Nortli Bay Front is legal, reference
must be made to the above conditions and policies.
Because the pier at 505 South Bay Front is an encroaching pier and float it would
fall within the following section of the Harbor Permit Policies:
Encroaching piers and floats:
In areas where existing piers and floats encroach in front of abutting upland
property owned by others, a new permit, shall be required upon:
A. Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.
B. Any change in type of existing use of the abutting upland property owned
by the permittee.
C. Any change of existing ownership of the abutting upland property owned
by the permittee or upon the death of the permittee.
D. Any destruction of the pier and float in which over 60% of the replacement
value of the pier and float has been destroyed.
Before the Harbor Resources Division acts on the new permit, the owner
of the abutting upland property, in front of which the harbor facility
encroaches, shall be notified in writing of the meeting in which the new
permit will be considered.
At this time, none of those events have occurred, so a new permit would not be
required. However, should a change occur, a new permit would be required.
You as the adjoining property owner would be notified of that process.
In addition to the above, we understand that you wondered whether berthing
might be transferred from the westerly side of the float to the easterly side. In
field inspections it was evident that there are problems with using that side; 1)
shore moorings in the area would be displaced and, 2) a storm drain in close
proximity to the easterly side of the dock would need to be relocated. We met
with the Public Works Department to discuss relocation or shortening of the
storm drain and found it was not feasible.
In October 2001, the property owner at 505 North Bay Front was considering
relocation of the structure in total to bring it in conformance with the Harbor
Permit Policies. We noticed all property owners within 300 feet of the project, but
since that time the permittee has decided to withdraw the application.
I hope this answers your questions and again I am sorry for the delay in
researching the problems. If you have I can be of further help please call me at
949-644-3041.
Sincerely,
Tony Melum, Director
Division of Harbor Resources
Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager
Dave Kiff, Asst. City Manager
Steve Bromberg, Councilman
Oct 30 01 10:00a BROMBERG & YnEGER 949 G44-1853 p.2
To: Homer Bludau, City Manager
From:
Date: ,,�O,ctober 30, 2001
Subject; 5 5�--96HFMTFida
Homer, as you may recall, Susan K. Jennings owns 503 North Bay Front (she resides at 305 N.
Bay Front). This is another boat ii;sue where in the boat at 505 apparently encroaches over the lot
line of 503.
I have attached Susan Jennings let �ej- to me of yesterday's date, together with her attachments.
As I understand her from the lettei, there is a pending permit to remodel the pier, however, she
states she never received notice of th.is.
Needless to say, we are all familia- Nvith this issue, however, I am concerned that this also may
become a project. It appears that thi3 issue is not distinguishable from the Cook issue relative to
the lot line, with the exception tha:: 503 is owned by Ms. Jennings as opposed to the owner of
505.
Presently, the Harbor Committee- is working on a plan relative to the berthing of larger boats,
however, when I attended their last meeting on this issue, they were going to be looking at a "city
line" into the channel at every stre.-t. This would be a mapping, and would determine how far a
boat could extend into the channel. " do not believe the lot line issue is on their agenda, however,
I am not sure what we would do with it if it was.
I think we do need to get a handle on this pretty quick. If Ms. Jennings is accurate, then let's
give notice to the other boat to move off. However, if the repair or remodel would bring the
vessel within its own lot line, then if all is in order we should consider granting this as soon as
possible and move on. In viewing this dock, it does not appear that there is an issue relative to
the boat being on the beach or ext(�nding too far into the channel. This is at one of thqse
locations on North Bay Front whe:-e that is simply not a problem. Thus, if we can resolve this
problem by shaving the dock, then that of course would help.
OCT -30-2001 10:53 949 644 1e53
94% P. 02
Oct 30 01 10:00a BROMBERG & YAEGER 949 G44-1853 P.3
Ms. Jennings sees me as her link of communication to the city for no other reason than she does
not feel she is gettiag proper respon 3es. I would like to have this one resolved as quickly as
possible. Thanks.
OCT -30-2001 10:53 949 644 1853 94% P.03
Oct 30 01 10:01a
FROM : lar-nings
October 29, 2001
BROMBERG & YAEGER
:-PX ND. : 949-760-0631
S11SAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
.B�111,os Island, CA 92662
Hon. Steve Bromberg
Council man 5'�' District
City of NewPort Beach
P.O. Box 176B
Newport Beacll, CA 92663-388-4
Dear Councilman Bromberg:
949 644-1853
Dct. 29 2001 09:14R1 P2
Following our recent telephone ct)nyersation I received both a letter and a telephone
call from Harbor Inspector Wes Armand, A copy of Mr. Armand's Mter is attached -
During our conversation I askc,d Mr. Armand how he had concluded that the vessel
moored at 505 N. Bay Front was 'legally berthed'. Mr, Armand responded that
mooring on the west side of thc! dock complies with the City's pier permit, I then
asked Mr. Armand if he was 81hrrire that the boat extended beyond the 'projection of
the property line" of 503 N. Bay Front, 'In violation of " City Council Harbor Permit
policies? He did not answer my quesbon, but continued to state that the vessel was
,legally berthed because the c ty permitted it'.
Based on a letter former Mah!le Director David Harshbarger sent to our counsel, a
copy of vh)ir-h is attached along with our coun5el's transmittal letter, I told Mr. Armand
that we had been advised b� tne City that their policy requires new City Council
approved permits for encroachiig piers and floats upon the occurrence of any of
several events, including "any 0ange in type of existing use of the piers and floats'
and I ... upon the death of the pe-mitee". Mr. Harshbargees letter also assured us ,%e
would ,...be- notified in witing of the meeting in which the new permit vAll be
considered.'. Mr- Armand reqrje5ted a copy of Mr. Harshbarger's letter, which I taxed
tohim. He further stated that his office had received plans to 'change the design of
the pier' at 505 N. Bay Front. I told Mr. Armand that we were unaware of this, and
that we had never received Enif communication from the City, written or othermse,
regarding either a naw permit fcllowing the death of permittee E. 0. Williams, or any
proposed changes to the pier Eirid/or float.
While we have been enmestx!d in 19 years of requests, complaints and meaningless
paper responses to 505 N. BRy Front's obvious violations of City policy. ever larger
vessels have been moored fol- Ever longer periods on tMe violating pier, culminating
p. 4
OCT -30-2201 10:53 949 644 le53 94% P�R4
Oct 30 01 10:01a
FRCM : Jernings
BROMBERG & YAEGER
Hon. Steve Bromberg
November 1, 2DO1
FfIX NO. : 9,49-760-W31
949 G44-1853
Oct. 29 2001 09-14W P:3
Page 2.
in the current condition of the eszentially continuous mooring of en e)drem81Y large
vessel that by as sheer size dominates the view from 503 N, Bay Front. HOIDefullY,
vAth the demise of the original pe-mittee and an apparent application for a now pier
andfor float design, the time has f! ially come to address this intolerable situation.
What we ask is simple. If thera s to be a new pier and/or float, it, and any vessel
moored to it, should conform tc C;ity policy and not extend beyond the projection of
the property line at 503 N. Bay Front. If the existing pier andfloat are to remain, a
ymy should be found to moor an� large vessel on the east side of the float so that it
impacts ft view of those that timlefit from the pier and ready access to their vessel,
rattw than impacCing the owi-iers of 503 N. Bay Front, who derive no benefit from the
pier or vessel -
I Wsh to express my family's appreciation for your efforts to have the City recognize
and rectify this problem- I lcoj� forward to discussing this with you. if there Is
anything we can do to assist ycur efforts please do not hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Susan K Jennings
attch.
by fax, original letter WO 3ftch. by mail
P.5
OCT -30-2001 10:54 949 G44 1853 94% P.05
act 30 01 10:01a
FROM : Jennings
dkA
44J OUTL
BROMBERG & YAEGER
FFV NO. ; 949-760-0631
949 G44-1853
C OF EWpORT BEACH
ITY
po, 190X 1768 N EWpop.T BIACH, CA 92658-8915
October I C., 200,
Su;m Jennings
503 North Bay front
Balboa island, Ca 92662
Re: Encroachment r-OmPluint
Dear Mrs. lemings:
Oct. 213 2001 09:15AM P4
berthed at 505 Norlh Bay
b@en asked look into your cc rnplaint regarding a boat
I bav PUT opinion is -alegally beftiled- I have made scv=l ffiwcctions Of
Front. This bo at in yc
that vessel over the put weeks a md in each eme il has been leplly berthed.
I would be available to CoTne Oul tc, your maidence at 303 North &y Frient and discuss
this with vou W you have quesfion, n,,&ng tMr. I.ner. To whedule a meeting, PIe'W
call st 94 9 -644- 3043
Sincerely,
av ; � -
wes Ammd
Harbor ITMPtdOr
OCT -30-2001 10:54
3300 Ne'VI*t`t BOulevard, Nes-POrt &ach
949 644 1953 94%
P.8
P. 08
Oct 30 01 10:01a BROMBERG & YAEGER 949 G44-1853 P.G
FROM : Jrrinings FW NO. : 949-760-0631 Oct. 29 2W1 09.16RI P6
AND FLOATS
-Section 29. ENC110ACHM PIERS AN I -UA 14 roach In front Of
1 7 sting piers and floats Cmc
n artA5 where W flew permit, approved
abutt�ng uplarA propertj Owed by Other&. a
by thL, City CC,uricil., shall be required upon;
ing use of the piers and floats.
1, Any cha"111, '111 type of elist
2. Any changii . in type af "isting USQ Of the &butt'ng upland
property Wed by the Per"n'ttee'
ershiP Of %he abuttin9 Upland
3. AnY chingft Of exist'" Ownitee, or upon the de,th Of tMe
property owned by the Pffm
perr.jt.tee.
0 . f the pier and float In which over W% Of
4. Any deSt1'U(:tiOft tNe pier and float has been destroyed-
ihe -repluC(Intrit Value of
Dri the new permit. th& owner of the
fore the C"tV COuntil act$ IfIront of whir
)rDparty, in h the harbor facilitY
abutting UP111rif I in writing Of the meeting In which
encroaches -,hill be notified
I considered.p
the new. Pellait will be
Ion should change,. requirilIg A new Permits as
.In the event the sit"t rbar Perini% Policies, We Will con tact
required by SLLction 26 of the 83
the affected partits.
r oe
David Harshbarger
marine Director
DH:db
OCT -30-200i 10:54 949 644 1e53 94% P.06
Oct 30 01 10:01a
FROM : Jennings
BROMBERG & YAEGER
FOX NO. : 1349-760-0631
949 644-1853
Oct. 29 2001 09:15W P5
age.
'1� i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
D p�(). BL)x 1-4 68, N EIVPORT BEACH. CA 926h3 -38R4
Cqkl ro oto
Novanber 23, 19a2,
Mr. Xugh R_ Coffin
Law Offic9s, McKenna, Conner and Cuneo
611 Anton Blvd.'
Co!&ta mesa. CA 92626
Re- Pier '104;&j,.ed at .505 North Bay ' 'FcQn�s
Balboa "S'land, Psmit No. A-1248
D"r Mr. Coffin*..
we are in receipt of :foljr letter to Mr. Williams. dated October 6,
M2 regp-rding the pii.,r located at 505 North Bay front. 841b04
Islano. Your latter iz; been filed in the p9mit file for Mr.
Williams.
The City Council Harb)r Permit Policies Contain two sections that
indirectly apply to tle situation described by your letter. These
:sections. quoted bel* -t -ire:
.1
,section 20 7 _j:2,_RCKS
A. All pi I ers Ind float5 for residential properties &hall be
set back a rirlMn of 5 feet from the projection of the
property line,
S. All tpiers and floats for commercial properties mAY extend
to the prajection of the property line.
I
C. I he p . rojection of the roperty line bayward of the same bearing
from the kulkhW/shal� generally be used in detemining the
allowable Sct backs for piers and floats. B@C&use there are
certain ply.. ic'l conditions which preclude the strict 3PPl1cAti0M
of this pt,llc� A without prejudice to . 400ining PrOPert"',
Council M119yoval will be required in areas where precis@
Irojectiolic-'01 the property line have not been detervined
and the fo-V-0wing cwditions P-X!St'
1. Where pi -o rty lines are not approximately perpendicular
to p%_ rilleed 1 ine.
2. Wptri! ciiryes or anglOS eKiSt in the bulkhead lins.
3. 0 1 here bi,idges. topography, street ends or publicly-
ownet, fiicilities adjoin the property."
3100 Newi3airt Boulevard, Newport Beecli
OCT -30-2001 10:54
949 644 1953 94%
p. 7
P. 07
Oct 30 01 10:02a BROMBERG & YREGER 949 644-1853
FROM Jemings FOX IqO. 949-7150�-01531 Oct. 29 2001 09:16RM P7
LAW
Mi;Kt:m14A.CQNNEA & CUNCO
milmyP FLOOP
NOULEVAP15
0 "Son
jQtSA.�-AWF0PP41^ 12641 rim -VIVO
tj Cuvow:� 00010 V'41 761-3600
W"V-- *to aft" rt:=F"-M
"MMINT. noo&
120 T" STRIERT
..x C's O 0.0w. vr-�
1"06 &U.0&40
Rua" Nove Mber 30, 1982
[fr. Fred Jennings
r.ene:r,mj partner
The Jennings Cozftp.aAy
po5t office BOX,496
Riverside, CA .92502
Ret pie, permit &1: 505 Nor4!�h Bayfront
-Perrili; t4o. A-1249
1)ear Fred.
I am trasmAting herewith a Copy of a letter
I received dated Kc.vt�mber 23, 1982 from David Harshbarger,
Haring UireCtOr,d� t1je. City of Newport Beach. His letter
sets forth the two p�rtinent garb6r permit policies which
deal with the pier 1:)cated at 505 North Bayfront.
moist frnpartantly.for your Interests are the
provisions in Sect.,.a-i 28 deiling with a change Of ownerchip
of the abuttinq upl.aad permittee. It appears that our letter
wL11 be maintained IR the Pter Permit file for Mr, Williams
ar.d. in the event of a change in the ParMit, you, as an
affected property ovaer, will be nctified.
Should you, -,have 3ny questions on the foregoing,
plea -Re do not hesil'te to cant -20t me -
very truly YQ'J:Ps,
MCKENNA, IC917NER CUNEO
f
C
By
tl�g'h Of i
KRC. dlp
EnclosufP
OCT -M-2001 10:55
949 644 1853 94%
P. 9
P. 09
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
October 29, 2001
Hon. Steve Bromberg
Councilman 5 th District
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
Dear Councilman Bromberg
Following our recent telephone conversation I received both a letter and a telephone
call from Harbor Inspector Wes Armand. A copy of Mr. Armand's letter is attached.
During our conversation I asked Mr. Armand how he had concluded that the vessel
moored at 505 N. Bay Front was "legally berthed". Mr. Armand responded that
mooring on the west side of the dock complies with the City's pier permit. I then
asked Mr. Armand if he was aware that the boat extended beyond the "projection of
the property line" of 503 N. Bay Front, in violation of the City Council Harbor Permit
Policies? He did not answer my question, but continued to state that the vessel was
'legally berthed because the City permitted it'.
Based on a letter former Marine Director David Harshbarger sent to our counsel, a
copy of which is attached along with our counsel's transmittal letter, I told Mr. Armand
that we had been advised by the City that their policy requires new City Council
approved permits for encroaching piers and floats upon the occurrence of any of
several events, including "any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats"
and "... upon the death of the permitee". Mr. Harshbarger's letter also assured us we
would "...be notified in writing of the meeting in which the new permit will be
considered.". Mr. Armand requested a copy of Mr. Harshbarger's letter, which I faxed
to him. He further stated that his office had received plans to 'change the design of
the pier' at 505 N. Bay Front. I told Mr. Armand that we were unaware of this, and
that we had never received any communication from the City, written or otherwise,
regarding either a new permit following the death of permittee E. 0. Williams, or any
proposed changes to the pier and/or float.
While we have been enmeshed in 19 years of requests, complaints and meaningless
paper responses to 505 N. Bay Front's obvious violations of City policy, ever larger
vessels have been moored for ever longer periods on the violating pier, culminating
Hon. Steve Bromberg
October 29, 2001
Page 2.
in the current condition of the essentially continuous mooring of an extremely large
vessel that by its sheer size dominates the view from 503 N. Bay Front. Hopefully,
with the demise of the original permittee and an apparent application for a new pier
and/or float design, the time has finally come to address this intolerable situation.
What we ask is simple. If there is to be a new pier and/or float, it, and any vessel
moored to it, should conform to City policy and not extend beyond the projection of
the property line at 503 N. Bay Front. If the existing pier and float are to remain, a
way should be found to moor any large vessel on the east side of the float so that it
impacts the view of those that benefit from the pier and ready access to their vessel,
rather than impacting the owners of 503 N. Bay Front, who derive no benefit from the
pier or vessel.
I wish to express my family's appreciation for your efforts to have the City recognize
and rectify this problem. I look forward to discussing this with you. If there is
anything we can do to assist your efforts please do not hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Cc R C-3
Susan K. Jennings
attch.
by fax, original letter wto attch. by mail
PO
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
October 25, 2001
E.D. Williams
500 Angelita Drive
Corona Del Mar. Ca 92625
Re: pier permit 15105051
Dear Sir:
Please contact me as soon as possible regarding an urgent issue with the pier permit for
505 North Bay Front. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. I can be
reached at 949-644-3043.
Sincerely,
kAl dIVI.— 6
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
* ------------------------- -- : MetroScan / Orange (CA) : ----------------
Owner :Williams Edwin 0 Tr Parcel :050 072 44
Site :505 N Bayfront Newport Beach 92662 Xfered :08/24/1977
Mail :3901 Pacific Coast Hwy Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 Price
Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone
Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1916 Pool:No BldgSF:1,432 Ac:.07
1 1-7
Information compiledfrom various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations
or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report.
'OS PV vy-�" "
c)-� t3,e-wfo(4-
�(, v,,- ex,
7D� (,C�-
'0 Lk -v/ ( cere-%*
(Jq72),
J
kjk--'� t �j
lo -d ZOLS s9z LOL qSaM SaULM VLO:60 TO-VZ-qDO
Armand, Wes
To: Melum, Tony
Cc: Bludau, Homer
Subject: complaint re vessel at 505 North Bay Front
Tony, here's an update on this issue. Susan Jennings has responded to my phone calls seeking a meeting with her on-
site. She called from out of town and will contact me when she returns. In the mean time, I have followed up on her
complaint relative to Section 28 of the Harbor Permit Policies, which require a new permit in areas where existing
encroachments have been permitted but there has been a change in the ownership or upon the death of the permittee.
The original permittee has died, but prior to his death the property was put into a trust and the surviving spouse still resides
in the home. The City Attorney Office determined that a new permit is not required. Rick Williams, the Trustee, has been
appraised of this and his application for a revision of the pier & dock at 505 North Bay Front can proceed. When Susan
Jennings returns to town I will discuss this with her and make sure she reviews the drawing for Mr. Williams' revision.
October 23, 2001
Property Owner
Subject: Dock Revision at 505 North Bay Front
Dear Property Owner,
J,
A
I
City Council Harbor Permit Policies require the Harbor Resources Division
notice property owners within 300 feet of proposed work, when the work is for
an unusual type of harbor structure or for a structure in which the applicant
poses a use that is not keeping with the surrounding area.
A copy of the proposed dock revision is attached for your information, if you
have questions please call me on or before November 10, 2001 at (949) 644-3041.
Sincerely,
Ton7lum, Director
Harbor Resources Division
Enc.
SITE PLAN
=-,`,'lTY.-.0F NEW,PORT BERCH
CITY OF
NEWPORT BER CH
UPPER
VNUEBMP4%T
BRY
TT
':'RCI -[-,TC
OCCRIV
ICINITY MRP-
cwwr my. atumm
MY
*1
A
WMT
JEM PROF I LE 1.w
BUT
JEM SaMINGS ARE E)TRESSED IN FEET' AND DENOTE
ELEVATIONS BASED ON MERNLOWER. LOW'WRTER.
C17 -V p1Ee1We,4,0
w
5V
lo�
'CRNT'S NRME.;-,��
31
,��4Y
:t:� -1 -7
0
40"
PLAN VIEW
DAT�"-)414-101
,c,-qOAI,7
JOB ADDRESS -5-6�5-44, 64 Y
IV, 13 4
qz,
November 9, 2001
Meeting Susan Jennings and Brother in the H/R Office and notes regarding their
complaints regarding the pier/float at 505 North Bay Front.
Background: The pier was constructed in 1961. At that time there were no codified
Harbor Permit Policies and application for the construction of new piers were take to the
City Council for approval.
The City Council approved the construction of the pier and float in its present location.
Beginning in 1982, the Jennings Family complained repeatedly about 1) the location of
the pier and sought to have it comply with the Harbor Permit Policies regarding setbacks
and 2) sought assurances from the City that the section of the Harbor Permit Policies
addressing Encroaching Piers and Floats where any change of existing ownership of the
abutting upland property by the permittee or upon the death of the permittee requires a
new permit.
Another letter from Jenning in 1982 complained about the size of the boat that was
brought in at 505 North Bay Front. The letter referred to an alleged "verbal agreement"
between the two property owners that the pier was not to be used for mooring of larger
vessels
In 1988 the pier permit was conditioned to prohibit the berthing/mooring of any vessel on
the easterly side of the float.
The present complaint: centers around the whether the City should require a new permit
for this facility since the original permittee has died, and secondly, the current application
to replace and a slight relocation of the pier & float.
Years before the death of Edward Williams, the permittee on record, placed placed the
property in a trust. His Son, Rick Williams, is the Trustee and Edward Williams'
surviving spouse resides in the home. Harbor Resources Division asked Bob Burnham to
give us an opinion as to whether the above-mentioned situation requires a new permit. In
his opinion a new permit is not required.
The proposal for relocation of the pier and float has been sent out to all residents within
300' and we are awaiting responses. Once Harbor Resources receives responses from
concerned residents a decision will be made regarding the application. The Jennings will
respond in writing, but basically, they have indicated to me that they would not be
opposed to the current application if the permit could have the present condition
amended. Their position is that if the length of the City Storm Drain on the east side was
shortened, this would provide sufficient room to berth a vessel on the east side of the
float. That would diminish the degree (size) of the encroachment. And they would then
not be in opposition to the application if it were conditioned to prohibit berthing vessels
on the west side of the structure.
Melum, T
From: Bludau,
Sent: Monda���_2,0.0_1_9.31, AM, ---
To: Armand, Wes; Melum, Tony
Subject: RE: 505 North Bay front
OK, thanks Wes for the background.
----- Original Message -----
From: Armand, Wes
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:55 AM
To: Melum, Tony
Cc: Bludau, Homer
Subject: RE: 505 North Bay front
Tony, I am sorry that this has caused Homer and Steve Bromberg to receive calls. I have been responding to complaints
from Susan Jennings since July of this Year. She came in to complain about two boats berthed in violation to conditions on
their pier permit and both those problems have been resolved. She then complained about a boat berthed at a dock that
was too close to her on -shore mooring, and that was handled to her satisfaction. Her recent complaint is not valid and she
has been sent correspondence indicating that along with a request to call me if she would like me to meet her at the
property.
I called her today and didn't make contact. I will continue to call her until I reach her and schedule an meeting on site to
explain things again and also mention that the property owner at 505 North Bay Front has an application to re -position the
pier. Clearly Susan isn't happy with the situation at 505 North Bay Front and intents to press forward with complaints until
it is resolved to her satisfaction. I will keep you informed regarding my meeting with Susan and her response to the
proposed pier revision at 505 North Bay Front.
----- Original Message -----
From: Melum, Tony
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:22 AM
To: Armand, Wes
Subject: FW: 505 North Bayfront
----- Original Message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:12 PM
To: Melum, Tony; Kiff, Dave
Subject: FW: 505 North Bayfront
Tony, I think I forwarded you an e-mail about her prior to my leaving. Please help me out here and contact her. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:40 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: 505 North Bayfront
Homer,
This is Susan Jennings who owns 503 East Bayfront and was concerned with
the encroachment of the boat at 505, which she says has been ongoing for
years.. Before you took off for vacation, you indicated Tony would go
over this with her in greater detail. I heard from her this a.m. She
was wondering what was going on as she had not heard from Tony. I pretty
much soft peddled, but told her she b, iould be hearing from Tony in the
next few days. She is very willing to meet with him at his office.
Steve
Melum, Tony
From: Bludau Homer .. .... ....
Sent: Frida)4:Qqtober 19, 2001 4:12 PM
To: Melum, Tony; i
Subject: FW: 505 North Bayfront
Tony, I think I forwarded you an e-mail about her prior to my leaving. Please help me out here and contact her. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:40 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: 505 North Bayfront
Homer,
This is Susan Jennings who owns 503 East Bayfront and was concerned with
the encroachment of the boat at 505, which she says has been ongoing for
years.. Before you took off for vacation, you indicated Tony would go
over this with her in greater detail. I heard from her this a.m. She
was wondering what was going on as she had not heard from Tony. I pretty
much soft peddled, but told her she should be hearing from Tony in the
next few days. She is very willing to meet with him at his office.
Steve
PO
F0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 15, 2001
PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
Susan Jennings
503 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Re: Encroachment complaint
Dear Mrs. Jennings:
I have been asked look into your complaint regarding a boat berthed at 505 North Bay
Front. This boat in your opinion is illegally berthed. I have made several inspections of
that vessel over the past weeks and in each case it has been legally berthed.
I would be available to come out to your residence at 503 North Bay Front and discuss
this with you if you have questions regarding this letter. To schedule a meeting, please
call at 949-644-3043.
Sincerely,
e'v
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Melum, Tony
From: Melum, Tony
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 12:03 PM
To: Bludau, Homer; Kiff, Dave
Subject: RE: 505 North Bayfront
This is a problem that re surfaces every few years at this site. I'll contact Ms. Jennings and see if I can walk her through it.
The boat is legit.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 1:49 PM
To: Melum, Tony; Kiff, Dave
Subject: FW: 505 North Bayfront
Tony, how can you convince Ms. Jennings that the boast is legit, that is, if it is? Can you set up an appointment with her
and walk her through it? Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 1:45 PM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: 505 North Bayfront
Homer, another boat issue. Susan Jennings owns 503 North Bayfront.
There is a "large" boat in front of 505, which Ms. Jennings says
encroaches onto the 503 lot line. I inspected the area, however, I
can't tell if it does or does not encroach. She states she spoke with
Tony and Tony told her it was legit but she didn't understand him. I
told her I would look at the issue and get back to her. I'm sure Tony
is up on this. I just need to know what's up.
I expected other boat issues to develop, and quite frankly, I'm suprised
I haven't heard from others. That may be due to neighbors generally
getting along with each other on BI and most try not to sweat the small
stuff.
Steve
/b
Poll
r)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
August 22, 2001
lt�
Fred C. Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Re: letter, July 28, 2001
Dear Mr. Jennings:
Tony Melurn forwarded your letter to me for a response to your complaint. The property
owner at 505 North Bay Front was sent a notice of violation letter from this office on July
27, 200 1. It addressed the issue of the condition on their pier permit, which prohibits
berthing any vessel on the easterly side of the dock.
The letter was returned to the City undelivered "return to sender". After some research
our staff located the property owner's current residence. The letter was then forwarded to
him. Since he had not received the notice within the normal time frame, in the interest of
fairness, the date specified for compliance in the letter had to be extended.
Mr. Williams has until the first of next week to come into compliance with the condition
on his pier permit. Failure to do so will result in an Administrative Citation. Please
contact this office if there is a vessel berthed at 505 North Bay Front on the easterly side
of the dock on August 27, 2001, or any time following the compliance deadline.
Sincerely,
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
Harbor Resources Division
949-644-3043
cc: Tony MelUM
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
FRED C. AND BERNICE L. JENNINGS
305 N. BAY FRONT
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
July 28, 2001
Mr. Tony Melum
City of Newport Beach, Marine Division
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr. Melum:
As the owners of 503 North Bay Front ("NBF"), Balboa Island, CA, we again
object to the location and utilization of the pier located at 505 NBF. For the past
20 years we have written letters, had discussions and attended City Council
meetings regarding the encroachment of this pier into the area defined by the
extended property lines of 503 NBF — all to no avail.
We have been told that City policy requires all floats/slips and the boats moored
to them to lie within the extended property lines of the lot to which the pier
belongs. Not only is the boat moored on the westerly side of 505 NBF's pier
entirely within our extended property lines, so is all of the float and most of the
pier. Further, City conditions -of -approval for 505 NBF's pier state that no boat
shall be moored on the float's easterly side. For years a boat has been
continually moored in this location.
Since the property owners at 505 NBF are allowed to moor a boat on the easterly
side of the float, and the westerly side of the float lies within the extended
property lines of 503 NBF an equitable solution is to create a shared pier with
each party using their respective side.
We look forward to your response. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Fred ngs
'7
Bernice L. Jennings
P()
0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
1=0 W�o
July 27, 2001
E.D. Williams
505 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Re -'pier permit 15105051
Dear Sirs:
The pier permit for the structure over public tidelands at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
Island, has a special condition that has been on this permit since it was originally issued
in 1961 and this condition is still a valid part of the permit. Specifically, the condition
prohibits docking any vessel on the easterly side of the dock. All Docking to be on the
westerly side.
The City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. has received a complaint that
there have been vessels berthed at the dock in violation to the special condition. Please
correct this situation within ten working days from the date of this letter. This is notice
that if there are any vessels berthed on the easterly side of the dock after August 10,
2001; a citation will be issued to you.
If you require additional information regarding this matter, please call 949-644-3043.
Sincer
i; ely,
Wes Armand
Harbor Resources
Cc: Tony Melum
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
PO
X
0
>
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
F0
July 27, 2001
GFG Mortgage Service
P.O. Box 1108
Tustin, Ca 92781
Re: pier permit 15105011
Dear Sirs:
The pier permit for the structure over public tidelands at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
Island, has special conditions that have been on this permit since it was originally issued
in 1961 and these conditions are still a valid part of the permit. Specifically, the
conditions prohibits docking any vessel on the easterly side of the dock and any boat
moored on the westerly side of the slips, have no beam greater than would allow it to be
within 5 feet of the property line.
The City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division has received a complaint that
there have been vessels berthed at your dock in violation to the special conditions. Please
correct this situation within ten working days from the date of this letter. This is notice
that if there are any vessels berthed on the easterly side of the dock or large enough to be
within 5 feet of the property line on the westerly side, after August 10, 2001; a citation
will be issued to you.
If you require additional information regarding this matter, please call 949-644-3043.
Sincerely,
Wes and
Harbor Resourcees
Cc: Tony Melum
3300 New -port Boulevard, Newport Beach
NEWPORT BEACH FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT
February 5, 1999
Ed Willairns
505 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Re: Pier Permit 15105051
Dear Mr. Williams:
The City of Newport Beach has received a complaint regarding your pier and
dock bayward from your residence at 505 North Bay front. Specifically, the
complaint is that you are berthing vessels on the eastern side of your facility in
violation to the condition placed on your pier permit.
The City of Newport City Council approved the construction of your pier and
float with the condition that there be no vessels docked on the easterly side of
the float. All docking to be on the westerly side.
A field inspection has verified that you currently have three vessels side -tied to
the easterly side.
This is notice that these vessels must be relocated within twenty-one (21) days
from the date on this letter. Failure to do so may result in a citation being
issued to you. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
If you require additional information in regards to this matter, please call 949-
644-3043.
Sincerely,
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
Cc: Deputy Chief Melum
FRED C. JENNINGS
P.O. Box 295
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1666
Phone/Fax (949) 721-G576
4C' 1/10, W M[ Ci ',3 A'��7 rV
f ?� 6 "br 7- 0 -)C�— �5
72�
/,g
<il
7
'j�
1j, L""� . ......
FRED C. JENNINGS
P.O. Box 295
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1666
Phone/FaX (949) 721-0576
October 16, 1998
Capt. Dave Mann, Harbor Master
1901 Bayside Drive
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Dear Sir,
Here I am back again, the problem just won"t go away.
As I have previously discussed with you, the occupants of 501 and
505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island continue to dock boats on
their piers which are within the extended proprty lines of our
property at 503 North Bay Front.
While I did give permission for Ed Williams, at 505, to
personally keep his boat there, he passed away many years ago.
Permission was not given in perpetuity for occupants of 505 to
continue the same privilege.
Just wanted you to know that I am looking into the
this problem.
Sincerely,
5(-)\�
=S0 3
legality of
FRED C. JENNINGS
P.O. Box 295
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1666
Phone/Fax (949) 721-0576
October 16, 1998
Capt. Dave Mann, Harbor Naster
1901 Bayside Drive
Corona Del Nar, CA 92625
Dear Sir,
Here I am back again, the problem just won't go away.
As I have previously discussed with you, the occupants of 501 and
505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island continue to dock boats on
their piers which are within the extended proprty lines of our
property at 503 North Bay Front.
While I did give permission for Ed Williams, at 505, to
personally keep his boat there, he passed away many years ago.
Permission was not given in perpetuity for occupants of 505 to
continue the same privilege.
Just wanted you to know that I an looking into the legality of
this problem.
C\1
X
on
t1l
C
0z
4-')
ul
C\l
0 \10
ro C\l
�4 0-\
w
rd
Cd
pq Cd
V-4 0
PAO �j
d C)I\ 0
0 -A 0
SEYMOUR S. PIZER
BARRY S. MICHAELSON
JoAN BLACKSTONE
HUGH R. COFFIN
SAUL GELBART
BRADLEY J. PIZER
February 16, 1988
----------------
PIZER & MICHAELSON INC.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2122 NORTH BROADWAY, SUITE 100 SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92706 (415) 957-9939
(714) 558-0535
TELECOPIER (714) 550-0841
Mr. E. 0. Williams
505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Pier located at 505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island
Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr. Williams:
6 -
As you are probably aware, the undersigned represents Mr. Fred
Jennings the owner of the property at 503 North Bayfront, Balboa
Island, adjacent to and to the west of your property. You may
recall I wrote you October 6, 1982 in regard to the pier permit at
your property. since the date of that letter we understand that
you have moved a new vessel onto the float, which is larger thn
the vessel referred to in my prior letter. My client has
contacted me in regard to this matter and I have had an
opportunity to observe the pier and the relationship of the two
lots. I have also discussed this matter with Mr. David
Harshbarger, Marine Director and Mr. Tony Melum, Tidelands
Administrator, of the City of Newport Beach.
After having an opportunity to review the circumstances, it
appears the most equitable way to resolve the problem is to moor
vessels on the easterly, not the westerly, side of the float. I
understand that the City of Newport Beach Marine Department
representatives do not object to this change in location of the
vessel as long as the pier permit conditions are themselves
changed. I also understand that you have had conversations with
the Marine Department and that you do not object to changing the
conditions of the pier permit to require the mooring of a vessel
only on the easterly side of the float.
At this time I solicit your cooperation in pursuing this remedy.
As stated above, this appears to be the best way to resolve what
has become an ongoing problem.
To accomplish the change of conditions, the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach will have to approve an amendment to the
pier permit condition. This would likely occur after the
Mr. E. 0. Williams
Re: Pier located at 505 N. Bayfront
Balboa Island
February 16, 1988
Page two
Improvement Association and the Tidelands Affairs Committee of the
City of Newport Beach have had an opportunity to review and
comment on the proposed change.
Would you please contact me so we may discuss your position in
regard to these proposed changes in the pier permit conditions. I
look forward to hearing from you in the immediate future. You may
call me at the above number or write me at the above address.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in regard
to this matter.
Very truly yoA'rs,
PIZEEL & MICKA��LSQN INC.
I
. COFFIN ;. _,
HRC: tc
cc: Fred Jennings
David Harshbarger",/
LOS ANGEJX5
TWENTY-EIGHTtl FLOOR
3435 WILSHIRE aOULEVARD
LOS ANGE�XS, CALIFORNIA 90010
i2i3l 739-61100
LAW OFFICES
W;KENNA , CONNER & CUNEO
NINTH FLOOR
611 ANTON BOULEVARD
COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626
17141 751-3600
TELECOPIER 17141 75(-60�2
HUGH R. COFFIN
November 30, 1982
Mr. Fred Jennings
Ceneral Partner
The Jennings Company
Post Office Box 486
Riverside, CA 92502
Dear Fred:
�A'.'
WASHINGTON,D.C.
;575 EYE STREET, N, W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(20217SO-7500
SAN F!ANCISCO
NINETEENTH FLOOR
2aO BUSH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALWORNIA 94104
14LS) 433-0640
A
p" >
A 11
Ix
V
Re: Pier Permit at 505 North B4yfront
Permit No. A-1248
I am trasmitting herewith a copy of a letter
I received dated November 23, 1982 from David Harshbarger,
Marine Director of the -City of Newport Beach. His letter
sets forth the two pertinent Harbor Permit Policies which
deal with the pier located at 505 North Bayfront.
Most importantly for your interests are the
provisions in Section 28 dealing with a change of ownership
oE the abutting upland permittee. It appears that our letter
will be maintained in the pier permit file for Mr. Williams
and, in the event of a change in the permit, you, as an
affected property owner, will be noll--ified.
Should you have any questions on the foregoing,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
McKENNA, -,F40NNER CUNEO
By
of i
f�ugh o f i
HRC: dlp
Enclosure
ZO'd ZOLS S9Z LOL 4SaM SaULM VLO:60 10-VZ-qDO
PO
0
f Y BEACH
>_ CY OF NEWPORI
'()X 1768, NE\V11ORT BEACH, CA 926011-3884
P, 0. 1)
IQFOR
November 23, 1982
Mr. Hugh R. Coffin
Law Offices, McKenna, Conner and Cuneo
611 Anton Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Pier located at 505 North Bay-.Fnont,
Balboa Island, Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr, Coffin:
We are in receipt of your letter to Mr. Williams, dated October 6,
1982 regarding the pier located at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
Island. Your letter has been -filed in the permit file for Mr.
Williams.
The City Council Harbor Permit Policies contain two sections that
indirectly apply to the situation described by your letter. These
sections, quoted below are:
"Section 20. SFT BACKS
A. All piers and floats for residential properties shall be
set back a minimum of 5 feet from the projection of the
property line.
B. All piers and floats for commercial properties may extend
to the projection of the property line.
C. The projection of the property line bayward of the same bearing
from the bulkhead shall generally be used in determining the
allowable set backs for piers and floats. Because there are
certain physical conditions which preclude the strict application
of this policy without prejudice to adjoining properties,
Council approval will be reqUired in areas where precise
projections of the property line have riot beet) determined
and the following conditions exist:
1. Where property lines are not approximately perpendicular,
to the bulkhead line.
2. Where curves or angles exist in the bulkhead line.
3. Where bridges, topography, street ends or publicly -
owned facilities adjoin the property."
3300 Newport Boiilevard, Newport Be-ach
"Section 28. ENCROACHING PIERS AND FLOATS
In areas where existing piers and floats encroach in front of
abutting upland property owned by others, a new permit, approved
by the City Council, shall be required upon:
1. Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.
2. Any change in type of exist -Ing use of the abutting upland
property owned by the permittee.
3. Any change of existing ownership of the abutting upland
property owned by the permitee or ,upon the death of the
permittee.
4. Any destruction of the pier and float in which over 60'/0 of
the replacement value of the pier and float has been destroyed.
Before the City Council acts on the new permit, the owner of the
abutting upland property, in front of which the harbor facility
encroaches, shall be notified in writing of the meeting in which
the new permit. will be considered."
In the event the situation should change, requiring a new permit, as
required by Section 28 of the Harbor Permit Policies, we will contact
the affected parties.
David Harshbarger
Marine Director
DH:db
Hugh Coffin
RE: Pier (.located at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island
Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr. Coffin:
We are in receipt of your letter to Mr. Williams at 505 North Bay
Front, regarding the above. As we have-Teftt�& " you and all
the property owners involved, the current use of the float at
505 North Bay Front is in conformance with the Harbor Permit
Policies and there is nothing the City Marine Department can do
to resolve the disagreement.
In the event the situation should change, requiring a --.new permit
as required by Section 28 of the Harbor Permit Policies, we will
contact the affected parties.
Very truly yours
it
LOS ANGELES
TWENTY-EIGHTH FLOOR
3435 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
(213) 739-9100
HUGH R. COFFIN
LAW OFFICES
WKENNA, CONNER & CUNEO
NINTH FLOOR
611 ANTON BOULEVARD
COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626
(71417S[-3600
TELECOPIER (7141 7SI-6042
October 6, 1982
W
Mr. E. 0. Williams
505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Pier Located at 505 North Bayfront
Balboa Island, Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr. Williams:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
IS75 EYE STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(2021 789-7500
SAN FRANCISCO
NINETEENTH FLOOR
220 BUSH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
(41SI 433-0640
This firm has been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Fred
Jennings in regards to your pier which encroaches into their
"permit area" at 503 North Bayfront, Balboa Island.
It is our understanding that in 1961 when Mr. and
Mrs. Jennings gave you permission to extend your pier at 505
North Bayfront the permission was conditioned upon your agree-
ment that the pier would not be used for mooring large
vessels, but would be used only for mooring small bay boats.
It is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Jennings would not have agreed
to the relocation of the pier without it being conditioned
upon a limit to the size of the vessel moored at the pier. It
is obvious that the mooring of a large vessel at the pier will
almost completely enclose the water area in front of 503 North
Bayfront and block bayward views as well.
We further understand, and to substantiate the above,
that over the years each time you brought in your large
vessel, the "Prowler", you asked Mr. and Mrs. Jennings for
permission to moor the vessel. In turn, Mr. and Mrs. Jennings
agreed to permit the vessel to be moored at the pier for a
short time while it was being worked upon or provisioned for a
cruise.
On behalf of our clients, we must express their very
strong objection to your use of the pier for the mooring of
large vessels which encroach into the "permit area" in front
of 503 North Bayfront. The pier should be used only for�the
mooring of small bay boats.
We anticipate that you will cooperate with Mr. and
Mrs. Jennings and cease the unconsented mooring of large
LAW OFFICES
MC-KENNA, CONNER & CUNEO
mr E. 0. Williams
Oc�ober 6, 1982
Page 2
vessels at Your pier. We are sending a copy Of this letter to
the City of Newport Beach Marine Department to keep them
informed as to our clients' position in regards to the use of
th; pier at 505 North Bayfront.
very truly yours,
McKENNA, CONNER & CUNEO
By
kHu h R.'CO�
HRC: dlp
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Fred Jennings
I .. - -2
MARINE DEPARTMENT
August 22, 1977
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Marine Department
ITEM NO.: H-16
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBERS 110-1104, 110-1218 AND 151-603
FOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND BEACH RESTORATION
RECOMMENDATION
If desired approve the maintenance dredging applications.
DISCUSSION
The applications -require City Council approval under the conditions of approval
placed on the City of Newport Beach general permit for maintenance dredging
issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on February 12, 1974 and subsequently
amended on May 10, 1977 to allow beach restoration.
The location and applicants for the proposed dredging and beach restoration are:
110-1104 - Alice Walter, 1104 E. Balboa Blvd.
110-1218 - Sarah Gregory, 1218 E. Balboa Blvd.
151-603 - Fred Wood, 603 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island
The staff has reviewed the projects and has determined that the work will be done
within the parameters of the Corps of Engineers permit. The dredging contractor
will place a filter screen around the discharge site to control turbidity. There
is no known eel grass in the vicinity of the projects.
The projects will aide in the restoration of beaches bayward of two private
residences and on the public beach on Balboa Island.
D. HARSHBARGER, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
G ';E
I n E. Welden
Tidelands Administrator
GEW: 11
C1,r
3
4
L
.40
S
Vi4�IMITY SKETCH
&*%Y, CA� WoomiA,
S'04'ndlf,"4?S Or -9 6-Aewosso4y '(w 40,1 00** Q�iwoe*,
avl�p 5 below 4�owoj- LOW "pw;,
ronge Al2r,60" 4�14-4
OOW/ 40'r.
IN
it
"V ts
. . . . . . . . . . . .
a.4
4 c4wg rA A4wo�.z,
FreJ J,,W,-AfSb
jgwlt;�,Jz,
7
Y* 'a Z2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCILMEN
o
_Ma Q 1977
AA
MINUTES
MOW
MULL
11. The work on the 12 -inch Water Main Connection at
PCHwy/Npt
Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard,
Blvd Water
Contract No. 1710, was accepted; and the City
Main
Clerk was authorized to file a Notice of Completion
and to release the bonds 35 days after the
Notice of Completion has been filed. (A report
from the Public Works Director)
12. The following maintenance dredging harbor
Harbor
/Permits
permits were approved subject to the conditions
of approval under the general ... permit issued by
the Corps of Engineers: �_#..151-505�. Edwin Williams,
16, G.
505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Is lan d and (g,L43-
T. Pfleger, #26 Harbor Island. (A report from
the Marine Director)
13. The following budget amendments were approved:
BA -83, $5,000 transfer of Budget Appropriations
for the City's proportionate share of legal fees
to National Institute of Municipal Law Offices
in connection with litigation challenging the
constitutionality of the Unemployment Compensa-
tion Act of 1976, from Unappropriated Contingency
Reserve to City Attorney -Professional, Technical,
Etc., General Fund.
BA -84, $350 increase in Budget Appropriations
and decrease in Unappropriated Surplus for a
calculator for the Water Billing Clerk since the
10% increase in water rates makes it difficult
calculating on an adding machine, to Water,
Office Equipment, Water Fund.
BA -85, $8,000 increase in Budget Appropriations
and decrease in Unappropriated Surplus for
refurbishing the Newport Pier concession area,
General Fund.
BA -86, $1,400 transfer of Budget Appropriations
for security lock mechanisms for parking meters
coin compartments, from Unappropriated Contingency
Reserve to Traffic and Parking, Special Depart-
mental Supplies, General Fund.
BA -87, $15,000 transfer of Budget Appropriations
and Decrease in Unappropriated Surplus for
completion of improvements to the Goldenrod
Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, General Fund. (A
report from the Public Works Director attached)
BA -88, Removed from the Consent Calendar.
i A',
n
(CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
city Hall
3300 W. Newport Blvd.
Area Code 714
640-2156
-April 27, 1977
-Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board
6833 Indiana, Suite 1
Riverside, CA 92506
Gentlemen, rmit drawing application(s) is being sent for your
The enclosed pe i
information in accordance w th conditions of approval under the
u. S. Army Corps of Engineers "blanket" permit for maintenance
dredging issued to the City of Newport Beach on February 12, 1974.
The Cit Council of Newport Beach will hear the application at its
May 9, �977 meeting.
y questions regarding this application, please
if you have qn, rt Beach Marine Department at (714)
contact the City of Newpo
640-2156.
Sincerely,
D. HARSHBARGER, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
Glen E. Welden
Tidelands Administrator
GEW: 11
cc: EPA, State F & G, BSFW, U. S. Coast Guard, NOAA, 15V/505, 143,26
49
cr
..............
c
CITY OF NEW�-JRT BEACH
HARMER PERNUT
PERRUSSION IS MERMY 10=077n -M CONSTRUCT AMD
MAtNTA3N T.'IL7 �."MEOF,
ALT THE SITE WASUAKED, SVn:W,',' ',-0 T"�", 0 NS OF SPECUL
THE HAREGR AND
ANY EPEWAL W&VIVAQ; L�TKD MWAV 720 PERroll' corps of
IS NOT TRANIMMOR ;n!:AWY 7%� 07 -7W WNWHT OF
THE COTY KAMM CWZ2��WM W W! MUMS. IM
REGUM MEN UmDow lzn GNI-V 7
A34D 7�il�-' :"",;,.Y D41
IN ACCORDAINCE WiTlfi 7�71.�,- Cu- t� VE.
/(" " e 7
-'-Cl'f*? HAAEOR COO-RDltAATb—R
0
TORTRIT
PERMIT NO.
� 05_
DREDGING APPLICATION
Project Location: 505 North Bay Front, Balboa Island
Cubic Yards to be Dredged: 92
Method of Dredging: Hydraulic Suction
Nature of Dredged Material: Sand/Silt
Disposition of Dredged Material: Haul to sea and dump at Latitude 33'31'42"N,
Longitude 117*54'48"W
Method of Material Disposition: Barge to sea
Turbidity Control method: material to be contained in Dump Barge
at dredge site
Effect of dredging on contiguous bulkheading and beaches None
I, Wm. L. Harris hereby state that I have read the U. S. Army
(print name)
Corps of Engineers permit for maintenance dredging in Newport Harbor, the
City of Newport Beach and Orange County Harbors,Beaches and Parks District
(if applicable) permit for maintenance dredging and that I accept all the
provisions therein. Additionally I guarantee that the proposed dredging
will not occur because of any altering of existing use of the affected
zone.
Edwin 0. Williams Shellmaker, Inc.
(Applicant -type name) (Contractor -type name)
April 8, 1977
(Date)
Signed:
ctor I s
Representative
May 9, 1977
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION
MARINE DEPARTMENT
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Marine Department
ITEM NO.: H-12
HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS 151-505 AND 143-26 FOR MAINTENANCE
DREDGING
If desired, approve the Maintenance Dredging Harbor Permit Applications.
DTqri1qqTnN
These applications require City Council approval under the conditions of approval
of the City of Newport Beach "blanket" permit for maintenance dredging issued
on February 12, 1974, by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The locations and applicants for the proposed maintenance dredging are:
151-505 - Edwin Williams, 505 N. Bayfront, Balboa Island
143-26 - G. T. Pfleger, 26 Harbor Island
The staff has reviewed the proposed dredging and has determined that the work
to be done is within the parameters of the Corps of Engineers permit. There is
no anticipated adverse affect on proximity beaches or contiguous bulkheads.
Shellmaker, Inc., the dredging contractor, will minimize turbidity as much as is
possible and will barge the dredged material to the Environmental Protection Agency's
designated disposal site, four miles at sea.
D. HARSHBARGER, DIRECTOR
MARINE DEPARTMENT
zlo'zZ4
Glen E. Welden
Tidelands Administrator
GEW: 11
wf
w
aq A
Em3lam
I
Cl rr,, oc
17
Ni�paer
de,4c,*v
W
In
co
J L)
k
S �T �t
ViCIPJITY SkETCH
N&wP,Owr 6,%'ve
are --ayub//shord ,.I 1'4� 3 :4C/'0,7
pow
-r-,T-r
100
.0c
Age
0 C, Aft MAO
VICINITY SKETCH
Navvpcorr ISAv, CAwFow"iA
1p Afeff,7 14OW4ft- 16OW Wlay%FY-.
.0-0"yW Olt tlof& nWt. &M-AlOr
SeC;6iW7 000 AC-WAtW'J'
z //VC
XT
lo
F)k
30,
;eel, Is
/ �lr
- ) -7 cl 17-L,
lq /V
/ �lr
- ) -7 cl 17-L,
Approved December 11, 1961 by the City Council, City of Newport Beach
in accordance with the November drawing and in accordance with the stipulations
relative to dredging and with the condition that there be no vessels docked on
the easterly side of the finger float. All docking to be on the westerly side.
PERMIT SUBJECT TO DREDGING NOT EXCEEDING A -2.0 FEET AT 60 FEET FROM EXISTING
BULKHEAD.
Balboa 'Island California
December 23, i9sa
City Cot=il
City of Newport Beach
N&A� Beach, California Reference: Pier modification
application
Gentlemen:
I have seenthe proposed modification plans for
piers and floats as prepared for E. 0. Williams and C. B.
Knickerbocker by Trautwein Brothers. The plans have my
appraval and"I have no objections to these two installations
which are located on each side of my bay front property.
Ycurs very truly,
IM C. Jennings
503 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, California
EOW: Ics
Balboa Island, California
December 23, 1958
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
The following residents and property owners on Balboa
0
Island do hereby approve of dredging, pier modifications
and slip installations at 501 and 505 North Bay Front as
evidenced by attached drawings prepared by Trautwein Brothers:
-ADDRESS PIER UdIVER
2. cl:�� 1) 1 K)L /4 V�' IQ
3.
5.
6. A
7.
9.
10.
12.
Respectfully submitted,
EDWIN 0. WILLIAMS
..........
... . Z1,
LIZ
1,
8 W
/S7
42
71
,mit Policy 'H-1. Detailed
ilculations (I set�, shall be
,mrmit application for the
ions and hand. railings
ling roller assemblies
11 be,prepared by a Civil or
�alifornia-
-,Iude, but not be limited to,
d items:
le layout
on calculations provided separately
)e.nt plates, bolt and nail
etc.
Nations
led as such)
design calculations for each
size of vessels berthed in the
PRCIFIC
OCERN
VICINITY MRP
KM2cRT Eff, CFLDMU
JETTY PFK
EFIST
JETTY sm
PIE'91-1'e'40 41AIe
Zq/
r � r1l
RA All P I
......... Y�
A/Z
04 r' -
SK
C/I
>
F�q
G)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P,O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663-3884
November 23, 1982
Mr. Hugh R. Coffin
Law Offices. McKenna, Conner and Cuneo
611 Anton Blvd. �
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re, Pier -located at 505 North Bay-.-Fcont,
Balboa Island, Permit No. A-1248
Dear Mr. Coffin:
We are in receipt of your letter to Mr. Williams, dated October 6,
1982 regarding the pier located at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
Island. Your letter has been filed in the permit file for Mr.
Williams.
The City Council Harbor Permit Policies contain two sections that
indirectly apply to the situation described by your letter. These
sections, quoted below are:
"Section 20. SET BACKS
A. All piers and floats for residential properties shall be
set back a minimum of 5 feet from the projection of the
property line.
B. All piers and floats for commercial properties may extend
to the projection of the property line.
C. The projection of the property line bayward of the same bearing
from the bulkhead shall generally be used in determining the
allowable set backs for piers and floats. Because there are
certain physical conditions which preclude the strict application
of this policy without prejudice to adjoining properties,
Council approval will be required in areas where precise
projections of the property line have not been determined
and the following conditions exist:
1. Where property lines are not approximately perpOndicular
to the bulkhead line.
2. Where curves or angles exist in the bulkhead line.
3. Where bridges, topography, street ends or publicly -
owned facilities adjoin the property."
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
iEo-d ZOLS 99Z LOL qSaM SaULM VLO:60 10-VZ-qz>O
C'
h.q
-r'WPO
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
July 27, 2001
E.D. Williams
y Front
- Wl'
505 North y Front
sl C 9
Bal sland, Ca 92662
Re: pier permit 15105051
Dear Sirs:
C7, /,;2 -:Pn Z-6,
The pier permit for the structure over public tidelands at 505 North Bay Front, Balboa
Island, has a special condition that has been on this permit since it was originally issued
in 1961 and this condition is still a valid part of the permit. Specifically, the condition
prohibits docking any vessel on the easterly side of the dock. All Docking to be on the
westerly side.
The City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division has received a complaint that
there have been vessels berthed at the dock in violation to the special condition. Please
correct this situation within ten working days from the date of this letter. This is notice
that if there are any vessels berthed on the easterly side of the dock after August 10,
2001; a citation will be issued to you.
if you require additional information regarding this matter, please call 949-644-3043.
Sincerely,
i; '
Wes Armand
Harbor Resources
Cc: Tony Melum.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
* ---------------------------- : MetroScan / Orange (CA) : ----------------
Owner :Williams Edwin 0 Tr Parcel :050 072 44
Site :505 N Bayfront Newport Beach 92662 Xfered :08/24/1977
Mail :505 N Bayfront Newport Beach Ca 92662 Price
Use :122 Res,Single Family Residential Phone
Bedrm: Bath: TotRm: YB:1916 Pool:No BldgSF:1,432 Ac:.07
C,
Information compiledfrom various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations
or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report.
Utl
11-1
A
0 C
n 0 q
n UJ -0
L 0 (D
X =
.,-M
n --1 0 r --i
00
60 C=
Ul
00
Clo m
a) CD
ol
Z
0
co 3
M cn
c) -n
0
R 8 0 R T E 0
F I H S I C AS)S
Ol
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
December 14,2001
Rick Williams
500 Angelita Drive
Corona Del Mar, Ca 92625
Re: 505 North Bay Front
Dear Mr. Williams:
As you know the pier permit for 505 North Bay Front has a condition prohibiting the
berthing of any vessel on the east side of the dock. For the past two to three weeks there
has been a boat on the east side in violation to the pier permit.
The Harbor Resources Division requires that the above-mentioned vessel be removed
from the east side of the dock within five working days from the date on this letter.
Failure to comply may result in a citation.
Respectfully
k't,
X1401 --e
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
Harbor Resources Division
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
01 10:01a BROMBERG & YAEGER 949 644-1853 p.4
FROM : J'ery)inqs �PX NO. : 949-760-0631 Oct, 25 2001 09:14R1 P2
S11SAN K. JENNINGS
:105 N, flay Front
Balbas Island, CA 92662
October 29, 2001
Hon. Steve Bromberg
Councilman 5"' District
City of NewPort Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Sea&, CA 92663-388.1
Dear Councilman Bromberg:
Following our recent telephone conversation I received both a letter and a telephone
call from Harbor Inspector Wes Armand. A copy of Mr. Armand's letter is attached.
During our conversation I aske!d t& Armand how he had concluded that the vessel
moored at 505 N. Bay Front w3s '"llY berthed'. Mr. Armand responded that
mooring on the west side of the! dock complies with the City's pier permit. I then
asked Mr- Armand if he was aiwire that the boat extended beyond the "projection of
the property line" of 503 N. Bay Front, in violation of the City Council Harbor Permit
policies? He did not answer my quesfion, but confinued to state that the vessel was
,legally berthed becausa the C ty permitted it'.
Based on a letter former Martle Director David Harshbarger sent to our counsel, a
copy of which is attached along with our counsel's transmittal [etter, I told Mr. Armand
that we had been advised b� trie City that their policy requires new City Council
approved permits for encroachi.ig piers and floats upon the occurrence of any of
several events, including "any d-tange in type of existing use of the piers and floats"
and I ... upon the death of the lie -mitee". Mr. Harshbarger's letter also assured us we
would " ... be notified in writing of the meeting in which the new permit Vvill be
considered.'. Mr. Armand reqje5ted a copy of Mr. Harshbarger's letter, which I faxed
to him. He further stated that his office had received plans to 'change the design of
the pier' at 505 N. Bay Front. I told Mr. Armand that we were unaware of this, and
that we had never received En�f communication from the City, written or otherwise,
regarding either a new permit f6lowing the death of permiftee E. 0. Will -jams, or any
proposed changes to the pier arid/or float.
While we have been enmesN-d in 19 years of requests, COMP12ints and meaningless
paper responses to 505 N� Bay Front's obvious violations of City policy, ever larger
vessels have been moored fol- Ever longer periods on the violating pier, culminating
OCT -30-2001 12:53 949 644 1853 94% P-34
BROMBERG & YAEGER
Hon. Steve Bromberg
November 1, 2001
FfIX NO. : 949-760-a631
949 644-1853
Oct. 213 2001 09:14W P3
Page 2.
in the current condition of the essentially continuous mooring of an extremely large
vessel that by as sheer size dominates the view from 503 N. Bay Fro,0. Hopefully,
with the demise of the original ;)e*mittee and an apparent application for a new pier
andfor float design, the time has f! ially come to address this intolerabie situation.
What we ask is simple. If thera s to be a new pier and/or float, it, and any vessel
moored to it, should conform to C;ity policy and not extend beyond the projection of
the property line at 503 N- Bay Front. If the existing pier and float are to remain, 2
*ey should be found to moor any large vessel on the east side of the float so that it
impacts the view of those that bemlefit from the pier and ready access to ftir vessel,
raftw than impacting the ovmers of 503 N. Bay Front, who derive no benefit from the
pier or vessel -
I vish to express my family's appreciation for your efforts to have the City recognize
and rectify this problem- I lcok forward to discussing this with you. if there Is
anything we can do to assist ycur efforts plea5e do not hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
Susan K Jennings
aftch.
t)y fax, cKiginal letter Wo aftch, by mail
OCT -30-2001 10:54
949 644 le53 94%
P.5
P. 05
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-760-0631 Nov. 09 2001 08:17PM Pl
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. BAY FRONT
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
FAX COVER PAGE
DATE' \�-Oq-ol
TO: I cf:�
FAX NUMBERLI 'A � 1__rl - C, 1,
PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE: I -
COMMENTS:
FROM : Jennings FRX NO. : 949-760-0631 Nov. 09 2001 08:17PM P2
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
9 November 2001
Mr, Wes Armand
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Pier and Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island, CA ('Pier')
Dear Mr. Armand:
Thank you for meeting with us this morning to discuss the above referenced Pier. it
appears that we agree on the facts leading to the present situation, e -g,, (i) the Pier
was approved in 1961, which you state was prior to the adoption of the current City
Harbor Permit Policies, (ii) the City's 11 December 1961 pier permit allows docking
only on the Piers westerly side, and (iii) the Pier and any vessel moored on its west
side encroach beyond the easterly property line extended of 503 North Bay Front — a
clear violation of current City pier policies, Indeed, the enforcement of pier and
vessel encroachment policy has become so strict that encroachment is not allowed
even when the burdened and benefiting properties are under common, consenting
ownership, as in the well-known case of 1106 and 1108 South Bay Front,
Referring to a 23 November 1982 letter from former Marine Director David
Harshbarger, we noted two events which require the City to issue a now pier permit
addressing the Pier's and the 1961 pier permit's non-compliance with current City
policies, viz,,
I. "...the death of the Perm ittee- "
You indicated that the City Attorney considered this question vis -A -vis the Pier, and
concluded no new permit is necessary, even though permittee Mr. E. 0. Williams has
died, While the basis for the Attorney's conclusion was not provided to you, you
noted that he had referred to the decedent's transfer of his interest in the Pier to a
trust prior to his death, and that the decedent's wife is reportedly again residing at
505 N_ Bay Front. While the policies enunciated by Mr. Harshbarger do not appear to
refer to any exceptions, and the relevance of these points is unclear to us, we
recognize that this is a legal question that should be addressed with the City
Attorney-
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-760-0631 Nov. 09 2001 oe:iepm P3
Page 2.
9 November 2001
2, "Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.", or "Any destruction of
the pier and float in which over 60% of the replacement value of the pier and float
have been destroyed.".
Today, you provided us with a copy of an application to relocate and rebuild the Pier,
Mr. Melum's 23 October 2001 notice to affected property owners informing them of
the application and noting that the notice is required because the pier work proposed
by 505 N� Bay Front is for an "unusual type of harbor structure, or --- [one] in which the
applicant poses a use that is not in keeping with the surrounding area-", and a list of
the landowner's receiving notice from Mr. Melum, Although 503 N� Bay Front is
contiguous to the site of the proposed work and is the property most adversely
impacted by the pier's and moored vessel's encroachment, it was not on the list of
properties notified- We therefore ask that the comment period be extended beyond
10 November 2001 to allow time for Mr- Melum to receive our comments contained in
the balance of this letter -
The proposed relocated pier will require complete destruction of the Pier. From the
application drawing you provided the only common point between the Pier and the
proposed relocated pier is at the floats extreme northwest corner. Unfortunately, this
perpetuates the pier's maximum encroachment beyond the property line of 503 N.
Bay Front- The long dimension of the proposed relocated pier's rectangular float
would also be canted more to the northwest. This would exacerbate the impact to
503 N. Bay Front of the pier, and any vessel moored on its west side, by placing
them more broadside to the view from 503 N. Bay Front.
If the City proposes allowing vessels to be moored on the proposed relocated piers
westerly side, then we are opposed to this application and ask that it be denied on
the grounds that it is a clear violation of the City's now long standing policies
regarding pier encroachments onto adjoining properties, and that its approval and
construction would perpetuate a substantial and adverse aesthetic and economic
burden upon 503 N. Bay Front and its owners, and upon the usability of the public
beach in front of 503 N_ Bay Front.
We prefer that any new pier at 505 N_ Bay Front be constructed, and any vessels be
moored to it in a way that would end all encroachment upon 503 N. Bay Front.
However, in an effort to finally and permanently resolve this issue we propose the
following compromise, The owners of 503 N. Bay Front A(ill not oppose the proposed
relocated pier, including its continued encroachment beyond the property line of 503
N_ Bay Front, providing that the encroachment of the proposed relocated pier and
float are no worse than the encroachment of the Pier, as appears to be the case from
the application drawing- In exchange, we ask that the new pier permit not allow any
docking on the westerly side of the proposed relocated pier, but instead require
docking on the relocated pier's easterly side. We believe this can be readily
accomplished by conditioning the applicant to modify and or improve drainage or
other facilities that purportedly interfere with mooring on the Pier's east side.
FROM : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-760-0631 Nov. 09 2001 08:18PM P4
Page 3.
9 November 2001
We request that 503 N. Bay Front be added to the property owners notice list for all
matters requiring notice concerning 505 N. Bay Front. We specifically ask that we be
notified in writing of any City ministerial and/or discretionary hearings, proceedings
and/or actions regarding the current (10/04/01) or any revised, amended or new
application pertaining to the Pier or any proposed relocated or new pier- All notices
should be sent to-,
Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Jennings
clo Susan K. Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us. We look forward to working with
the City to solve this chronic problem in a way satisfactory to all parties.
Sincerely,
� � ��' V). (� �_� - -, �_
Susan K. Jennings
by fax, original by mail
C'
Hon, Steve Bromberg, Councilman 5'h District
Tony Melum, Director, Division of Harbor Resources
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
9 November 2001
Mr. Wes Armand
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re% Pier and Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island, CA ("Pier")
Dear Mr. Armand:
Thank you for meeting with us this morning to discuss the above referenced Pier. It
appears that we agree on the facts leading to the present situation, e.g., (i) the Pier
was approved in 1961, which you state was prior to the adoption of the current City
Harbor Permit Policies, (ii) the City's 11 December 1961 pier permit allows docking
only on the Pier's westerly side, and (iii) the Pier and any vessel moored on its west
side encroach beyond the easterly property line extended of 503 North Bay Front — a
clear violation of current City pier policies. Indeed, the enforcement of pier and
vessel encroachment policy has become so strict that encroachment is not allowed
even when the burdened and benefiting properties are under common, consenting
ownership, as in the well-known case of 1106 and 1108 South Bay Front.
Referring to a 23 November 1982 letter from former Marine Director David
Harshbarger, we noted two events which require the City to issue a new pier permft
addressing the Pier's and the 1961 pier permif s non-compliance with current City
policies, viz.,
1 . ..... the death of the permittee."
You indicated that the City Attorney considered this question vis -6 -vis the Pier, and
concluded no new permit is necessary, even though permittee Mr. E. 0. Williams has
died. While the basis for the Attorney's conclusion was not provided to you, you
noted that he had referred to the decedent's transfer of his interest in the Pier to a
trust prior to his death, and that the decedent's wife is reportedly again residing at
505 N. Bay Front. While the policies enunciated by Mr. Harshbarger do not appear to
refer to any exceptions, and the relevance of these points is unclear to us, we
recognize that this is a legal question that should be addressed with the City
Attorney.
Page 2.
9 November 2001
2. "Any change in type of existing use of the piers and floats.", or "Any destruction of
the pier and float in which over 60% of the replacement value of the pier and float
have been destroyed.".
Today, you provided us with a copy of an application to relocate and rebuild the Pier,
Mr. Melum's 23 October 2001 notice to affected property owners informing them of
the application and noting that the notice is required because the pier work proposed
by 505 N. Bay Front is for an "unusual type of harbor structure, or... [one] in which the
applicant poses a use that is not in keeping with the surrounding area.", and a list of
the landowner's receiving notice from Mr. Melum. Although 503 N. Bay Front is
contiguous to the site of the proposed work and is the property most adversely
impacted by the pier's and moored vessel's encroachment, it was not on the list of
properties notified. We therefore ask that the comment period be extended beyond
10 November 2001 to allow time for Mr. Melum to receive our comments contained in
the balance of this letter.
The proposed relocated pier will require complete destruction of the Pier. From the
application drawing you provided the only common point between the Pier and the
proposed relocated pier is at the float's extreme northwest corner. Unfortunately, this
perpetuates the pier's maximum encroachment beyond the property line of 503 N.
Bay Front. The long dimension of the proposed relocated pier's rectangular float
would also be canted more to the northwest. This would exacerbate the impact to
503 N. Bay Front of the pier, and any vessel moored on its west side, by placing
them more broadside to the view from 503 N. Bay Front.
If the City proposes allowing vessels to be moored on the proposed relocated pier's
westerly side, then we are opposed to this application and ask that it be denied on
the grounds that it is a clear violation of the City's now long standing policies
regarding pier encroachments onto adjoining properties, and that its approval and
construction would perpetuate a substantial and adverse aesthetic and economic
burden upon 503 N. Bay Front and its owners, and upon the usability of the public
beach in front of 503 N. Bay Front.
We prefer that any new pier at 505 N. Bay Front be constructed, and any vessels be
moored to it in a way that would end all encroachment upon 503 N. Bay Front.
However, in an effort to finally and permanently resolve this issue we propose the
following compromise. The owners of 503 N. Bay Front will not oppose the proposed
relocated pier, including its continued encroachment beyond the property line of 503
N. Bay Front, providing that the encroachment of the proposed relocated pier and
float are no worse than the encroachment of the Pier, as appears to be the case from
the application drawing. In exchange, we ask that the new pier permit not allow,any
docking on the westerly side of the proposed relocated pier, but instead require
docking on the relocated pier's easterly side. We believe this can be readily
accomplished by conditioning the applicant to modify and or improve drainage or
other facilities that purportedly interfere with mooring on the Pier's east side.
Page 3.
9 November 2001
We request that 503 N. Bay Front be added to the property owners notice list for all
matters requiring notice concerning 505 N. Bay Front. We specifically ask that we be
notified in writing of any City ministerial and/or discretionary hearings, proceedings
and/or actions regarding the current (10/04/01) or any revised, amended or new
application pertaining to the Pier or any proposed relocated or new pier. All notices
should be sent to:
Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Jennings
c/o Susan K. Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us. We look forward to working with
the City to solve this chronic problem in a way satisfactory to all parties.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Jennings
by fax, original by mail
C.
Hon. Steve Bromberg, Councilman 5 th District
Tony Melum, Director, Division of Harbor Resources
P
............
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
F0
August 22, 2001
Fred C. Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Re:'Ietter, July 28, 2001
Dear Mr. Jennings:
Tony Melurn forwarded your letter to me for a response to your complaint. The property
owner at 505 North Bay Front was sent a notice of violation letter from this office on July
27, 2001. It addressed the issue of the condition on their pier permit, which prohibits
berthing any vessel on the easterly side of the dock.
The letter was returned to the City undelivered "return to sender". After some research
our staff located the property owner's current residence. The letter was then forwarded to
him. Since he had not received the notice within the normal time frame, in the interest of
fairness, the date specified for compliance in the letter had to be extended.
Mr. Williams has until the first of next week to come into compliance with the condition
on his pier permit. Failure to do so will result in an Administrative Citation. Please
contact this office if there is a vessel berthed at 505 North Bay Front on the easterly side
of the dock on August 27, 2001, or any time following the compliance deadline.
Sincerely,
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
Harbor Resources Division
949-644-3043
cc: Tony Melum
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport. Beach
P
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
October 15, 2001
Susan Jennings
503 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Re: Encroachment complaint
Dear Mrs. Jennings:
I have been asked look into your complaint regarding a boat berthed at 505 North Bay
Front. This boat in your opinion is illegally berthed. I have made several inspections of
that vessel over the past weeks and in each case it has been legally berthed.
I would be available to come out to your residence at 503 North Bay Front and discuss
this with you if you have questions regarding this letter. To schedule a meeting, please
call at 949-644-3043.
Sincerely,
Wes, and
Harbor Inspector
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Armand, Wes
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:31 AM
To: Armand, Wes; Melum, Tony
Subject: RE: 505 North Bay front
OK, thanks Wes for the background.
----- Original Message -----
From: Armand, Wes
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:55 AM
To: Melum, Tony
Cc: Bludau, Homer
Subject: RE: 505 North Bay front
Tony, I am sorry that this has caused Homer and Steve Bromberg to receive calls. I have
been responding to complaints from Susan Jennings since July of this Year. She came in to
complain about two boats berthed in violation to conditions on their pier permit and both
those problems have been resolved. She then complained about a boat berthed at a dock that
was too close to her on -shore mooring, and that was handled to her satisfaction. Her
recent complaint is not valid and she has been sent correspondence indicating that along
with a request to call me if she would like me to meet her at the property.
I called her today and didn't make contact. I will continue to call her until I reach her
and schedule an meeting on site to explain things again and also mention that the property
owner at 505 North Bay Front has an application to re -position the pier. Clearly Susan
isn't happy with the situation at 505 North Bay Front and intents to press forward with
complaints until it is resolved to her satisfaction. I will keep you informed regarding my
meeting with Susan and her response to the proposed pier revision at 505 North Bay Front.
----- original message -----
From: Melum, Tony
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:22 AM
To: Armand, Wes
Subject: FW: 505 North Bayfront
----- original message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:12 PM
To: Melum, Tony; Kiff, Dave
Subject: FW: 505 North Bayfront
Tony, I think I forwarded you an e-mail about her prior to my leaving. Please help me out
here and contact her. Thanks.
----- original Message -----
From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:40 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: 505 North Bayfront
Homer,
This is Susan Jennings who owns 503 East Bayfront and was concerned with
the encroachment of the boat at 505, which she says has been ongoing for
years.. Before you took off for vacation, you indicated Tony would go
over this with her in greater detail. I heard from her this a.m. She
was wondering what was going on as she had not heard from Tony. I pretty
1
much soft peddled, but told her she should be hearing from Tony in the
next few days. She is very willing to meet with him at his office.
Steve
Po—
. . . . . . . ...
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
z PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
-qZ1 'top-
/- / F0 V.
August 22, 2001
Fred C. Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
Re:'letter, July 28, 2001
Dear Mr. Jennings:
Tony Melum forwarded your letter to me for a response to your complaint. The property
owner at 505 North Bay Front was sent a notice of violation letter from this office on July
27, 2001. It addressed the issue of the condition on their pier permit, which prohibits
berthing any vessel on the easterly side of the dock.
The letter was returned to the City undelivered "return to sender". After some research
our staff located the property owner's current residence. The letter was then forwarded to
him. Since he had not received the notice within the nonnal time frame, in the interest of
fairness, the date specified for compliance in the letter had to be extended.
Mr. Williams has until the first of next week to come into compliance with the condition
on his pier permit. Failure to do so will result in an Administrative Citation. Please
contact this office if there is a vessel berthed at 505 North Bay Front on the easterly side
ofthe dock on August 27, 2001, or any time following the compliance deadline.
ly
Sincere
Wes Armand
Harbor Inspector
Harbor Resources Division
949-644-3043
cc: Tony Melum
T300 Newnnrr'Rnii1e.vnrr1. Nt-umnrr Re-,nrb
Po ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
r)
u 3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
IIIFCPL�'
RECEIVED BY: PERRY2
TODAY'S DATE: 06/03/02
23704654 PIER PERMITS
CASH PAID
$ . 00
%-CASH RECEIPT
RECEIPT NUMBER: 02000024905
PAYOR: WILLIAMS
REGISTER DATE: 06/03/02 TIME: 10:10:53
PC#1173-2002 $165.00
----------------
TOTAL DUE: $165.00
CHECK PAID CHECK NO
$165 . 00 2131
TENDERED
$165 . 00
CHANGE
$ . 00
SITE PLAN
C I TY OF � NEWPORT BEHCH
CITY OF
KaPGRT BEKH LFPER
WE:aT
BRY
PiS7
P'�cjpjc
YICINITY MRP
?'� ff�f. CR-lya�as
pi z
HE5T
EFST
JEM
T/(/Z-il/ /11--'/'�-;�
1-7-7
...... ..... ..... . . . . .
F'�7a ''ooce
F
A �J.
0-00
J,
PPOF I LE I
SaMINGS ARE D?Z-7SSFD IN FET AND DENOTE
ELEVATIONS BRSED ON MERN L%ER LOH HRTER.
Z�' /C-I/Z-
C17-V Z- 1'(1-6-
OC,4 TZ70 OOC- A�- 66 4,9,)
'c/ Z'
24'
...... .. ..
A 7Z
3 3 0'
�5A
0
L7)
'7
�j
FepL 1 CW' S NRME-' '5' 0. W L 1,4 A'7'5�
R 7-0 Znf
PRO z /11�6/z.1-:;".
PLAN VIEN
joB RDDRESS, -5'05,�X 5,4 Y,-�-ROAlr
50
HARBOR RESOURCES DIVISION
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-644-3034/Fax 949-723-0589
APPROVAL IN CONCEPT
APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH as required for
permit application to the South Coast Regional Commission pursuant to California
Administrative Code, Sections 13210 and 13211.
I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including:
1. The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline.
2. The grading plan, if any.
3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in
the application.
And find
• They comply with the current adopted Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and any applicable specific or precise plans or
• That a variance of exception has been approved and final.
A copy of any variance, exception, conditional use permit or other issued permit is
attached together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including
approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in
concept and said approval has been written upon said plans, signed and dated.
Should Newport Beach adopt an ordinance deleting, amending or adding to the Zoning
Ordinance or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property
or the design of a project located thereon, this approval in concept shall become null
and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and
local guidelines adopted thereunder, this development:
* Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt.
Has received a final Exemption Declaration or final Negative Declaration
(copy attached).
* Has received a Final Environmental Impact Report (copy attached).
All discretionary approvals legally required of Newport Beach prior to issuance of a
building permit have been given and are final. The development is not subject to
rejection in principal by Newport Beach unless a substantial change in it is proposed.
This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all
applicable policies, ordinances, codes and regulations of Newport Beach.
Tony Melum, Director
Signature:
Print Name/Title:
Date:
Attachments:
1 .
2.
3.
4.
SITE PLAN
.CITY OF -NEWPORT BERCH
r I TY nC'
KNFV�T EERCli
DAY
CERIV
YICINITY MRP
?'� rf' cq_lTo-'tal3
99y
HEST
v.
�t
PFff I LE 1 50
EFEr
= c
aMINGS ARE DP�ESSED IN FEET AND DENOTE
ELEVATIONS BASED ON �F� L%CR LOH HATEP.
C17-il z5Z Ir-llz- 15-
RZ�L__z 0 C-4 7-,��O -I�OC
6z
2 4'
-5A y
EEL GRASS INSPECTION
NO I.:_EL GRASS. WITH'l 5'OF PROJECT
rl EL,GR71S,INTHE JECTA
ol -SIGNATURE
PERMIT# DATE
Q
�j IV,5 V R 720 3 Z'�52'f '61
<D
SOUR S Div. z'
HARBOR RE
CITY \NP PLAN V I EW I'
7,
2
F?PL I CW'S NRME; 5, 0. Z- 1,4 /A7 -5 JOB RDDRESS, _-5 14-W
L, I I I vi
REMPORT BERCH
P, . �cj�-jc
YICINITY MRF
MD+� EFf, CR-]Tcp�,Gfi
Aq
PPER
WORT
ERY
DAY
HEST
EFST
j045 J172:-
1 1-1, Af I —1-L - 4')
— —
-77, :�:-, ,
. . . . . . . ..... ....
/f.7 C..
V,. --
PROFILE Iv =50
SDjOINGS ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET AND DENOTE
ELEVATIONS BRSED ON tF� L%a LOH HATER.
f17 -V 2- /x 1'�5- �z P/Z- 15-
2C -.A I
..............
41
_Z/
3
�7
-5A Y
V
HAHBUR RESOPKES DIV ' - I
CITY 9F/,,NEWfy'QRt BEZ�/
FeF�- I CW'S NRME; 5-, 0. W
I
I EEL GRASS INSPECTION
NO E�L GRASS WITtUN 15'OF PROJECT
Cl /EEL R
S� IN TI�E- ROJ E 'A
7Z/
S)j.QNATURE
I
r
'2
P E =RM I T 4# DATE
720 6 Z,��7,f /,f?
�j
PLAN VIEW
JOB RDDRESS,- -5-0,�-Al, z5,4 y qOIC17-
OR -TE,
SITE PLAN
C17Y OF NEWPOR7 BEHCH
CITY OF
HaPORT SERCH
U
�`1�4
BRY
Bw
P'�cjpjc
OCE-av Pi z
HGT
YICINITY MRP EFEr
POPOwU FRY, ULIFU*aR JO 15 J172;- scm
'- 7XI-r7-,'�5
PFff I LE 1 50'
sxNDiNGs RRF- D?FESSED IN FEET R[�D DENOTE
ELEVATIONS BASED ON MF� LO�� LOH HRTEP.
C17-11 101E,91-1-5',40 L. I -Z- z5Z P/Z-
R,�-Z 0 C-4 7--r-O 00CI
lo/ Z' IF
'2Z
7r,
C. 7.
30
5A
4
(\j
TPL I CW'S NAME; 5, 0. W Z� 1,4 /�l -"r
77�7k—/,4�/IZR 7-0 6,t-- Z,0,'fll;r��z�
)ORO /-'9
, Z 1,41,��.
PLAN V I EW 1'
JOB RDDRESS: -5-05A1, z5,4 Y,,Z-R011r D1711, 1,,�)1,-"IL-21
—>,*Ae c
zz.
Z V
7- e4A AA7oo-.4,o,,- 0 4. 'e��r
—7 I".e4—; zc, 0.7,zvr'eW"�
"o Z'
IZ-6-
,0
a.4-r-� x c en,�, t,
CIO -z- C"X= C-xJ -a 7 -e -"Z /Z
0/1 --z
= -,�Fv.
0.-70 Z. n a - 7.0 F,
Z- 4 0.
F�
o, 17377
Exp.
F C
AL gjq, j:rAEo A; r
Z'/x 5, 6p z t�r� -45/pr7
w
7— (P Z. �0:?
z -7z 1.44
pa -T 7--V. -3 o. ',e 4 4' Z. 9: 1 /,-r Z,..�F
47.4. 1>
e -""4x,
62
7�w ;>
Zza. 844�� V4 IZ.Sle- z
4 I�C- --r. st "Zw�- Z4
'1Z i�4AOP L$-',-- 64.re1.lC:r7- 7 Z
z CAC:2"
RbN : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-760-0631 Nov. 09 2001 09:12PM P2
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
301-S N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
9 November 2001
Mr, Wes Armand
Division of Harbor Resources
829 Harbor Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Pier and Dock at 505 N. Bay Front, Balboa Island, CA ("Pier")
Dear Mr. Armand:
Thank you for meeting with us this morning to discuss the above referenced Pier. It
appears that we agree on the facts leading to the present situation, e -g-, (i) the Pier
was approved in 1961, which you state was prior to the adoption of the current City
Harbor Permit Policies, (iii) the City's 11 December 1961 pier permit allows docking
only on the Pier's westerly side, and (iii) the Pier and any vessel moored on its west
side encroach beyond the easterly property I ine extended of 503 North Bay Front —a
clear violation of current City pier policies- Indeed, the enforcement of pier and
vessel encroachment policy has become so strict that encroachment is not allowed
even when the burdened and benefiting properties are under common, consenting
ownership, as in the well-known case of 1106 and 1108 South Bay Front -
Referring to a 23 November 1982 letter from former Marine Director David
Harshbarger, we noted two events which require the City to issue a new pier permit
addressing the Pier's and the 1961 pier permits non-compliance with current City
policies, viz.,
1. "...the death of the permittee.'
You indicated that the City Attorney considered this question vis-�-vis the Pier, and
concluded no new permit is necessary, even though permittee Mr- E. 0. Williams has
died. While the basis for the Attorney's conclusion was not provided to you, you
noted that he had referred to the decedent's transfer of his interest in the Pier to a
trust prior to his death, and that the decedent's wife is reportedly again residing at
505 N. Bay Front. While the policies enunciated by Mr. Harshbarger do not appear to
refer to any exceptions, and the relevance of these points is unclear to us, we
recognize that this is a legal question that should be addressed with the City
Attorney.
Fk011i : Jennings FAX NO. : 949-760-0631 Nov. 09 2001 08:13PM P3
Page 3,
9 November 2001
We request that 503 N, Bay Front be added to the property owners notice list for all
matters requiring notice concerning 505 N. Bay Front. We specifically ask that we be
notified in writing of any City ministerial and/or discretionary hearings, proceedings
andfor actions regarding the current (10104101) or any revised, amended or new
application pertaining to the Pier or any proposed relocated or now pier- All notices
should be sent to:
Mr. and Mrs. Fred C. Jennings
c/o Susan K Jennings
305 N. Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us. We look forward to working with
the City to solve this chronic problem in a way satisfactory to all parties.
Sincerely,
G-1
Susan K Jennings
by fax, original by mail
C. 5th
Hon. Steve Bromberg, Councilman District
Tony Melum, Director, Division of Harbor Resources
FMA : Jennings
FAX NO. : 949-760-0631 Nov. 09 2001 08:12PN Pl
SUSAN K. JENNINGS
305 N. BAY FRONT
BALBOA ISLAND, CA 92662
FAX COVER PAGE
DATE. \ � — OS — 0 \
TO: �—LDe5�' ps\,c ry---,
FAX NUMBER: (c�)-A q � �
PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE;
COMMENTS:
-�� - cs
0000000��
4L-
�lv
PO
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
F 0 V9L %I?,
July 30, 2002
Ms. Susan K. Jennings
305 North Bay Front
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Re: Application by E. 0. Williams to Revise
Residential Pier and Float Bayward of
505 North Bay Front
Dear Ms. Jennings:
As required by City Council Harbor Permit Policies, H-1, specifically, "Encroaching piers
and floats", the Harbor Resources Division noticed you on July 2, 2002 regarding the
above application. We received your response dated July 2, 2002, and a reference to
earlier correspondence, which we have on file, delineates your concerns relative to the
proposed revision. The above quoted section of the policies does not give direction as
to what action should be taken relative to the encroachment, only that a new permit is
required and that notice be given.
Our records reflect that the original pier and float were built sometime prior to 1961 and
revised into the current configuration in 1961. Your objections are reflected in our file as
an ongoing and long-standing objection. However, it appears from our records that the
dock was built either ' with the permission or acquiescence of the property owner at 503.
The only location where boats could be berthed was on the westerly side, and in fact
there are specific conditions on the permit granted in 1961, which state, "The dock was
approved in 1961 by the City Council, City of Newport Beach, in accordance with the
November drawing and in accordance with the stipulations relative to dredging and with
the condition that there be no vessel dock on the easterly side of the finger float and all
dock is to be on the westerly side". It did not, however, contained conditions relative to
the size of vessels that could be berthed at the float.
Based upon the curve of the bulkhead, the adjoining slips and the City street end and
shore moorings, we see very limited opportunity for revision to the dock that would
reduce the encroachment problem in front of 503. Because of the long-standing tenure
of the dock in its current location and the past approval of the property owner at 503, we
are approving the application as submitted. The Newport Beach Municipal Code,
Section 17.24.090 (copy attached), provides you with a mechanism to appeal our
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
decision to the City Manager, and a mechanism to appeal the City Manager's decision
to the City Council.
If I can be of more assistance or you would like information please give me a call.
Sincerely,
AzL,,)�
Tony Melum, Director
Harbor Resources Division
Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager
Steven Bromberg, City Councilman
Page 3
Melum, Tony
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:22 PM
To: Melum, Tony
Subject: FW: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
----- original message -----
From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 10:50 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: Re: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Welcome back Homer. The Harbor Commission is good timing. Mrs. Jennings just
called and wanted to know the appeal process. Let's be sure we give her plenty
of notice to prepare and appear on this. Thanks.
Steve
"Bludau, Homer" wrote:
> Tony, can you agendize the 505 North Bay Front issue for an upcoming Harbor
> Commission meeting? Thanks.
• ----- original message -----
• From: Burnham, Bob
• Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:51 PM
• To: Bludau, Homer
• Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
> i vote for the harbor commission.
• ----- original Message -----
• From: Bludau, Homer
• Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:51 PM
• To: Burnham, Bob
• Subject: FW: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
• Since your office would be involved in one of the options, I'm looking for
• your opinion. Thanks.
• ----- original Message -----
• From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink.net]
• Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:05 AM
• To: Bludau, Homer
• Subject: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
• Homer,
• This is a boat "encroachment" issue that has been around a long time. I
• had sent you some info on this some time ago and I know Tony has been
• working on it. Apparently, there is now a request for a dock revision
• by 503 and there seem to be many twists and turns on this.
• The aggrieved party is Susan Jennings, who owns 505. Nice lady, long
• term resident and she feels that the issues are being handled one sided
• and she is not receiving required notice. Tony can fill you in to a
• greater detail and he can show you the letter Ms. Jennings sent to him
• with a copy to me about 3 weeks ago.
• Suggestion: The issue is not going away. My sense is we either set up
• a meeting between Ms. Jennings, Tony and Bob Burnham or Robyn or Dan -or
• let's let the Harbor Commission deal with this. My feeling is the later
I
• is the move to take. Since the Harbor Comm. is new, it's possible that
• when Tony makes his decision, it may be appeal able to the Commission.
• If that is the case, let's be sure that both sides are given the proper
• appeal notice.
Please be sure that I am kept in the loop as to the progress as she will
> be calling me again.
Steve
Melum, Tony
From: Bludaul Homer
Sent: Wednes fjb�y, ��o gust 07, 2002 6:23 PM
To: Melum, orrf��
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
I don't think we can wait. Bromberg is chomping at the bit.
----- original Message -----
From: Melum, Tony
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:28 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Homer, we can get it on the next agenda but I will be on vacation and Dave will be
covering for me. This might be one that would benefit from my being there but we would
have to take it to the meeting of Sept. 25? What do you think?
----- original Message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 9:24 AM
To: Burnham, Bob; Melum, Tony
Cc: Bromberg, Steven; Kiff, Dave
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Tony, can you agendize the 505 North Bay Front issue for an upcoming Harbor Commission
meeting? Thanks.
----- original Message -----
From: Burnham, Bob
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 1:51 PM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: RE: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
i vote for the harbor commission.
----- original message -----
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:51 PM
To: Burnham, Bob
Subject: FW: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Since your office would be involved in one of the options, I'm looking for your opinion.
Thanks.
----- original Message -----
From: Steve Bromberg [mailto:dandee@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:05 AM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: 505 NORTH BAY FRONT, BI
Homer,
This is a boat "encroachment" issue that has been around a long time. I
had sent you some info on this some time ago and I know Tony has been
working on it. Apparently, there is now a request for a dock revision
by 503 and there seem to be many twists and turns on this.
1
The aggrieved party is Susan Jennings, who owns 505. Nice lady, long
term resident and she feels that the issues are being handled one sided
and she is not receiving required notice. Tony can fill you in to a
greater detail and he can show you the letter Ms. Jennings sent to him
with a copy to me about 3 weeks ago.
Suggestion: The issue is not going away. My sense is we either set up
a meeting between Ms. Jennings, Tony and Bob Burnham or Robyn or Dan -or
let's let the Harbor Commission deal with this. My feeling is the later
is the move to take. Since the Harbor Comm. is new, it's possible that
when Tony makes his decision, it may be appeal able to the Commission.
If that is the case, let's be sure that both sides are given the proper
appeal notice.
Please be sure that I am kept in the loop as to the progress as she will
be calling me again.
Steve
2
RUG -12-2002 14:54 CITY MANAGERS P.02/03
Buchalter 89,5 D()VE STREET, Surl-L.' 400, P.O. BOX 8129, NEWPoRT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8129
Nemer Fields TFUTHONE (949) 760-1121 / FAX (949) 720-0182
File Numbcr; T91 18-001
& Younaer Direct Dial Number-. (949) 224-6251
6� E -Mail Addrcss: rgeable@bucha leer. coj�pr
A PruiVSSIC)Mll 1,1W C01-j)()rati011
August 9, 2002
Mr, Horner Bludau
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
P,0_ Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Re: Appeal of AMroval of Pier and.Float Renovation at 505 North B
Dear Mr. Bludau:
We are filing this appeal on behalf of our clients, Mr. and Mrs. Jenrl�ings, the owners of
the property located at 503 North Bayfront. The basis of the appeal is that the, approval by the
Director of the Harbor Resources Division of the pier and float renovation at the above location
was improper for the following reasons:
I . The application does not conform to the provisions of the Newport A Beach
Municipal Code, the standard harbor drawings or harbor permit policies. 14111-1
2. The application will result in the substantial intefference with the rights of our
clients, who are the owners of the oceanfront property located at 503 North Bayftont, by virtue of
the encroachment of the pier and float and any vessels docked at the float which encroaches into
the extension of their property lines bayward. 1�b
We request an opportunity to meet with you and to present oral and written evidence in
support of this appeal. Attached hereto is a copy of the letter from Mr. Melum indicating the
approval of this application.
Very truly yours,
BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIELDS & YOUNGER
A Professional Cvfvomti�w
Los Angeks , Newport Beach - San Francisco
RUG -12-2002 14:54 CITY MANRGERS P.03/03
Buchalter Nerner Fields & Younger
Mr. Homer Sludau
August 9, 2002
Page 2
RG:rag
CC' Susan K. Jennings
Bernice Jennings
Robert Burnham, Esq.
Steven Bromberg, City Councilman
Tony Melum, Director Harbor Resources Division
TOTAL P.03
AUG -12-2002 14:54 CITY MANAGERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of the City Manager
(949) 644-3000
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE- August 12, 2002
TO: Tony Melum
FAX NUMBER: 723-0589
FROM: Debbie Lektorich
COMMENTS:
Homer will be calling you about this letter shortly.
FAX NUMBER: (949) 644-3020
Number of Pages -including cover: 3
P. 01/03
TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
FROM: Tony Melum, Division of Harbor Resources
SUBJECT: Application by Ronald Corradini
For Transfer of the Harbor Permit for the
Pier and Float Bayward of 1208, 1210 So. Bay Front
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ITEM 29
Authorize the transfer of Harbor Permit #225-1210 allowing Nft. Ronald Corradini"s
pier and float to remain on the bayward extension of the common property line
between 1208 and 1210 South Bay Front.
BACKGROUND:
In August of 1977, the City Council approved a transfer of Harbor Permit #225-1210, for
the pier and float bayward of 1208 and 1210 South Bay Front on Balboa Island. The pier
is on the bayward extension of the common property line between the two properties
(please see Exhibit A) and has been permitted in this location since 1945. The Harbor
Resources staff has consistently held that the pier and float rights associated with this
location (between the two properties) are solely the rights of the owner at 1210 South
Bay Front.
This transfer in 1977 was before the City Council as required by then Section 28 of the
Harbor Permit Policies, which stated:
"28. ENCROACHING PIERS AND FLOATS: In areas where existing piers
and floats encroach in front of abutting upland property owned by others, a new pemit,
approved by the City Council, shall be required upon:
3.Any change in the existing ownership of the abutting upland property owned by
the permittee or upon the death of the permittee. "
The 1977 City Council approved the transfer, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner of the property at 1208 South Bay Front submit a statement
agreeing to the existing location and use of the pier and float (Exhibit B).
2 That the owner of 1210 South Bay Front submit a statement agreeing to the
present arrangement and agreeing that, in the event that either property
changes ownership, the permit will be reviewed by the City Council with the
possibility that the structure and/or the permit may be required to conform
to the Harbor Permit Policies (Exhibit C).
In late 1994, the City became aware of a sale of the property at 1208 South Bay Front.
That sale also triggers condition #2 of the Harbor Permit listed above, necessitating a
review by the City Council. With that in mind, staff began the procedure to prepare a
staff report to the City Council. On January 10, 1995, the City received a letter from the
property owner at 1208 South Bay Front (Exhibit D). The letter requested that the City
delay Council action on the pier permit until recontacted by the property owner at 1208
South Bay Front. Further conversations with the owner at 1208 indicated that some
agreement had been reached -between 1208 and 1210 and that he would not oppose a
transfer to 1210. As a result, the City prepared a letter in February 2, 1995 (Exhibit E)
stating our belief that the situation had been resolved and that the owner at 1208 was
withdrawing his request to have City Council review the permit. The pier pern-Lit was
transferred to Ms. Nellie Reeves of 1210 South Bay Front without additional conditions
and the structure was allowed to remain on the bayward extension of the conunon
property line between 1208 and 1210.
Currently, the property at 1210 South Bay Front has sold again and the new owner is
Mr. Robert Corradini. This change in ownership again triggers condition #2 that the
permit be reviewed by the City Council. The options available to the City Council upon
review are as follows:
To review the permit and take no further action, the permit would then be
transferred to Mr. Corradini; or
2. To review the permit and impose conditions that would require the property
owner at 1210 to bring the structure into conformance with the Harbor Permit
Policies, which would necessitate its being moved in front of 1210, thereby
eliminating the encroachment, or
The City Council has complete discretion to choose either option 1 or 2. Issuance of a
joint ownership permit, which requires agreement of the property owners, would also
be an available option. However, N1r. Corradini has indicated that he is not interested
in a joint ownership dock.
Staffs reconunendation in the past, where appropriate, would be to require
conformance to the current Harbor Permit Policies unless there were extenuating
circumstances. Conformance in this case would require that the pier and float be
relocated from its current location between 1208 and 1210 to solely in front of 1210.
Staff believes that relocation is not appropriate in this case because the pier and float
have been pern-dtted in this current location since 1945. Relocation would impact one,
possibly two existing shore moorings and could affect patterns of beach use at this site.