The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20 - 222 La Jolla DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report August 12, 2014 Agenda Item No. 20. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: David A. Webb, Public Works Director- (949) 644 -3330, dawebb @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Kathryne Cho, Civil Engineer PHONE: (949) 644 -3014 TITLE: Request to Retain Existing Private Improvements within the Public Right -of -Way at 222 La Jolla Drive ABSTRACT: The owners of the property located at 222 La Jolla Drive (Owners) request to retain the existing crib retaining wall, concrete /wood steps, a private tree and various landscaping encroaching into the La Jolla Drive right -of -way. RECOMMENDATION: a) Waive City Council Policy L -6, Private Encroachments in the Public Rights -of -Way, to allow a crib retaining wall, concrete /wood steps, and private trees to encroach up to 7 -feet into the La Jolla Drive right - of -way, contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met; and b) Direct Staff to enter into an Encroachment Agreement with Owners, and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the Encroachment Agreement within one (1) calendar year upon receipt of approval. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Owners are requesting a waiver from City Council Policy L -6, Private Encroachments in the Public Rights - of -Way to retain the existing crib retaining wall, concrete /wood steps, a private tree and various landscaping located in the La Jolla Drive public right -of -way. The property frontages along the south side of La Jolla Drive are elevated above the street by a few feet and most of the City's right -of -way is a slope. Adjacent neighbors, though unpermitted, also have similar low retaining walls and steps within the La Jolla Drive right -of -way. The property's existing crib retaining wall is 24- inches in height and encroaches up to 6 -feet, the concrete /wood steps with handrail encroach up to 3 -feet 8- inches and the private tree encroaches up to 3 -feet into the La Jolla Drive right -of -way. As part of the property's plan check for major remodel, the above items were required to be removed or relocated onto private property. The project was also required to re -grade the right -of -way area so as to eliminate the need for the crib retaining wall and steps. The architect and Owners were advised of these requirements as a condition of the plan check approval. In an effort to obtain plan check approval to break ground on the remodel, both agreed that it was "a reasonable compromise and solution ". However, once the project entered the construction phase, Owner and architect's further review of the requirements "raised a number of concerns that would result in greater expense and negative impact on [the Owners'] property value." See attached letter from Owners (Attachment D). After much consideration through meetings and correspondence and review of the actual street and site conditions with the Owners, staff has decided to recommend the retention of existing improvements as long as Owners agree to enter into an Encroachment Agreement. Currently, there are no sidewalks along the La Jolla Drive right -of -way and this street has not been identified as a Significant Link Street in the City's Circulation System (Resolution No. 88 -88). With the encroachment agreement in place and no current need to install a sidewalk, staff supports leaving the crib retaining wall, concrete /wood steps, a private tree and various landscaping in place as they do not presently diminish the rights of the public. If the need for sidewalks should arise in the future, Owners have agreed to remove all encroachments, at no cost to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment A - Location Map Attachment B - Proiect Plan Attachment C - Proiect Photos Attachment D - Property Owner's Letter Attachment E - Council Policy L -6 a0 5 a 1 mi O 0 C O 3 i ATTACHMENT A V140 i �+o�e l r7 eis hr a ve a ' e� > ar1 u ir, Po � loo �� g � O 1 �� a P v : ) h0 rao �R ilp %g d' J � 411 L- PROJECT LOCATION 222 LA JOLLA DRIVE LOCATION MAP FA MAO= 3r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT N2014 -0307 L� C CoVC, TELE. PI-11-1- WALL n� EX1570- ROOF OVERHANG TO FROFIERTY LINE 1_ _1 7 �T 0 5 10 " / I ® Atl. �Z � v.• , <)2.24) — U I o I EXISTING -WOOD D' K `q p_1(92.34) — << c» II I 3. 1 110.0 RIDGE ii 1 S -FOIRY RESIDENCI= I— — — PROJECT PLAN G �t, J ATTACHMENT B \PXISTING GUTTER EXISTING CONC. EXIST. LAI_4.SCA E AREA EXIST. 2' HIG�HI CRIB WALL EXISTING PROPf9TY LINE "15X6TING TREE!` `C) r EXISTING WALK W /STEPS B��TO DECK XIST EP 56E45 T-. IG WALL bXISTING x(95.4 NG� I W) Qj I I I EXIST - ROOF OVFI H 'I "O F'R OFERTY LINT° COOK RESIDENCE 222 LA JOLLA DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA June 19, 2014 PROJECT PHOTOS ATTACHMENT C PROJECT PHOTOS A T7. ATTACHMENT C k Z4, ATTACHMENT D Aarow �§ Katte cool¢ 222 L- QJotLa fir. Newport ucloh, 0,92663 June 5, 2014 David A. Webb Public Works Director 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: 222 La Jolla Drive Encroachments Dear Mr. Webb: My wife and I purchased our home in 2003 with all the current landscaping improvements/ encroachments in place. After eleven years in our home and two new additions to the family (my son 2010 and daughter 2012) my wife and I had finally saved enough money to build our dream addition to the property we fell in love with back in May of 2003. We originally had plans approved with the city in late 2011 and requested extensions to pull the permits until October 2012. Unfortunately my business situation had changed so we never pulled the permits to start construction. I don't recall any request to remove the existing crib wall from the city right of way nor are there any remarks on my copies of the final approved plans. That said we resubmitted the previously approved plans with some minor engineering changes and made it through the review and approval process fairly quickly with only a few changes. Upon final review I was notified that we would be required to re -grade the landscaping in the front of the house in order to comply with the six foot city right of way and gain final approval to break ground on our remodel. In discussion with my architect and contractor it seemed like a reasonable compromise and solution. Upon further review, I engaged landscape architect Stephan Rose to review the approved plans. He raised a number of concerns that would result in greater expense and negative impact on my property value than I had not considered before approving the final plans. 1. The requested compliance with the six foot city right of way and re -grade of the front yard as planned eliminates my access to my property from my street address. The elimination of street access to my residence decreases the value of my property as much as $200,000. See attached broker assessment: Exhibit A 2. A re -grade would create a slope to the curb that would make my front yard difficult to navigate having further negative impact on my property value. See attached letter: Exhibit A 3. The required removal of the stairs and landing leave the retaining wall at 226 La Jolla which creates a significant drop in that one spot between properties and is an additional hazard which increases potential bodily injury and liability. ATTACHMENT D Aarow�§ K,at%e Uole 2= L.A_JoUn Dr. N"Ort B-00h, CA,92663 4. Re- grading the property to comply with the city right of way will result in the loss of two mature trees and the potential loss of two additional trees as a result of impacted rot systems due to re- grade. The mature trees provide value, aesthetics and privacy to the property and the re -grade to comply with the right of way or even a relocation of a crib wall to the property line could result in the loss of 100% of the mature trees on the property. See Exhibit B 5. The re -grade as planned will also result in significant additional costs for demolition which will require the removal of current irrigation system, steps, crib wall and potential relocation of the steps off our deck to the front of the residence. Demolition costs alone are $11,400 - $13,500 see Exhibit C which does not consider the cost to landscape and install a new irrigation system to maintain the re -grade and significant new slope created as a result. I have been provided with verbal estimates from Stephan D. Rose Inc. of $11,000 - $15,000 for re- landscaping and irrigation. All of the issues outlined above could result in a financial impact of as much as $222,400 to $228,500 and I am afraid that it would be difficult to refinance my property and/ or recover from such a loss since we have used a majority of our savings to remodel with the intent of refinancing our property once completed. We could be forced to sell the property at a significant discount simply as a result of removing improvements that were in place when I purchased the home. I was not aware of the significant financial impact the re -grade could have when approving the drawings for submission and final approval at the city. We had moved out of the house and were eager to begin our project since I was also spending additional funds on a rental property. For practical reasons and all of the reasons listed above I would ask that you recommend council grant me an encroachment permit to maintain the property as is or remove everything at my expense in the event the city chooses to expand the road or walkway. Thank you for your consideration. Kindest Regards, Aaron G. Cook Home Owner & Tax Payer Managing Director Ameriprise Financial SUIE,RRE� PROPERTIES Exhibit A David A. Webb Public Works Director 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: 222 La Jolla Drive Encroachments Dear Mr. Webb ATTACHMENT D June 4, 2014 I have been employed by Mr. & Mrs. Aaron G. Cook property owners of 222 La Jolla Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ( "the Residence ") to assess the fair value of their property upon completion of current construction as well as to assess the depreciation of that value caused by a removal of mature landscape and re- grading to the curb to comply with the 6 foot city right of way from the street. Upon completion, the Residence will be approximately 2,400 square feet with open air indoor/ outdoor living space downstairs and Bay, Catalina Island, Ocean and sunset views from every room upstairs. Given the scarcity of view property available in Newport Heights and the fact that it will largely be brand new construction, the Residence will be a premium property. My assessment of the value of the Residence upon completion of construction and including current landscaping, mature trees, front access via steps and landing, irrigation and crib or support wall is that the property would be valued, upon sale, at between $1,920,000 and $2,040,000. My assessment is based on current comparable homes in Newport Heights and properties I have in escrow. I have reviewed the general plan to re -grade the current landscaping in order to comply with the six foot city right of way. A re- grading of the current landscaping as planned would cause a substantial negative impact to the property value of the Residence. The proposed plan would likely make the front yard unusable to the Cooks or future residents. The re -grade to curb would make the front yard too sloped to navigate. It would cause the loss of two mature trees possibly more if the root systems were impacted due to the re- grade. It would also require landscaping on a slope and new irrigation to prevent erosion of soil into the right of way or the street, not to mention the additional cost. The proposed removal of the steps and landing will have the greatest negative impact on the Residence's value as it will eliminate access to the Residence's front door from the street address. In addition, the retention wall which is located adjacent to the steps on the neighboring property will not be removed creating a hazard and potential liability should someone fall from the neighboring property (226 La Jolla Dr) to the Residence property as a result of the 2 -3 foot drop crated due to re- grade. 1400 Newport Center Drive > Suite 100 > Newport Beach, CA 92660 > T 949.717.7100 > F 949.717.7101 Z. PROPERTIES ATTACHMENT D Based on my assessment of the proposed changes and re -grade of the Residence to comply with the 6 foot city right of way, the negative impact to the property could be as much as 10% of property value or $192,000 to $204,000. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 949 - 887 -8725. Regards, Jenna Bahl Broker Associate, RCC Surterre Properties 1400 Newport Center Drive > Suite 100 > Newport Beach, CA 92660 > T 949.717.7100 > F 949.717.7101 .es.com ATTACHMENT D Stephan D. Rose, Inc. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ASLA Exhibit B June 5, 2014 Project: Cook Residence Location: 222 La Jolla, Newport Beach, CA Subject: Parkway Improvements To Whom It May Concern: Within the existing 5 -6 foot parkway located at 222 La Jolla currently exists a 2 foot high crib wall, concrete walkway with steps, plantings and a mature pine tree. The crib wall retains soil on the backside where several mature trees are located within the owner's property. Rosemary is planted along the top which cascades down the face of the crib wall. The current conditions are attractive and well maintained. The crib wall plays an important function on retaining soil and the root system of the existing mature trees. It would be extremely difficult to remove the crib wall and try and relocated it at the property line. The tree roots would require extensive pruning and there is good chance the trees would be lost. The parkway could be graded out from the property line grade to the back of curb, but this would be a steep slope, hard to maintain with erosion issues. The concrete walk with steps is a necessity to gain access to the house. To remove the steps would be detrimental to gaining access and would in effect eliminate street access from the property address. The pine tree is very mature and attractive; to remove it would be a great loss to the neighborhood. It has extensive roots and cannot be relocated. The pine tree also adds real estate value to the home. I strongly recommend that the parkway be kept in its current condition which is consistent with all of the other properties on the street. It is attractive, functional, and provides access to the front of the residence. To remove the current improvements would be costly, time consuming, less attractive, impact property values and would require the removal of 50% -100% of the mature trees on the property. I am available to discuss these conditions and my recommendation at any time. Sincerely, C :� . Steve Rose, ASLA Landscape Architect 2725 Via Santo Tomas, San Clemente, CA 92672 VIZI11= 4 EXHIBT C TO: MR. & MRS. COOK 222 LA JOLLA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FROM: STEVE SPRENGER RE: JOB ESTIMATE FOR DEMO AND BID INCLUDES FRONT YARD: ATTACHMENT D 6/4/14 .' - REMOVE EXISTING STACKING BLOCK RETAINING WM-,L, REMOVE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE, REMOVE LOWER CONCRETE STEPS UP TO LANDING - REGRADE SLOPE AREA TO MEET CURB ELEVATION - INSTALL NEW TREE WALL RETAINING WALL TO MAINTAIN PINE TREE - INSTALL NEW IRRIGATION; AND L LANDSCAPE TOTAL BID i 1;400 *ALTERNATE: - INSTALL NEW STACKING BLOCK RETAINING WALL TO REDUCE SLOPE PITCH (THIS MAY: 3E NECESSARY IF SLOPE PITCH IS 1:1) - 4500 - REMOVE�PI1tiE TREES . D;,FICUS TREES IF COMPROMISED BY NEW GRADING OR WALL! - 1500 - RELOCATE STAIRS ACCE8S4O I XISTING DECK TO OTHER SIDE OF DECK (THIS MAY BE NECESSARY TO HAVE ENTRANCE FROM LA JOLLA) - 7500 *THIS BREAKDOWN IS LIMITED TO ITEMS LISTED IN BREAKDOWN. IF BID IS ALCE'i'T.ED THIS BREAKDOWN WILL BECOME PART OF CONTRACT. PLEASE FULLY READ.TkIS BREAKDOWN. IT WILL BECOME A PART OF THE CONTRACT. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME ITEM THAT MAY BE UNCLEAR, PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE. *ANY CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM PLANS OR THIS BREAKDOWN WILL BE BILLED AT $75 PER HR. FOR WORK PERFORMED BY ORION PLUS MATERIAL COSTS. 31602 Via La Carta San Juan Capistrano, 92675 949- 489 -9463 License #903655 L� C CoNC. TELE. PI-11-1- WALL n� EX1570- ROOF OVERHANG TO PROPIERTY LINE 2' -g5.. L _I 7 CpNC CONIC, G, � �O� z° F \EXISTING GUTTER �^ �^ EXISTING CONC. CURB c� EXIST. LAN 45CAPE AREA °m • . EXIST. 2' HIG��I CRIB WALL o„ T EXISTING PROPF9TY LINE aIX' STING TREES I'•. � ;; ti o.. , ter,'' � ` � y.....: • °EXISTING WALK W /STEPS Z •. n 0 ® Atl. �L g �•, ' ' M EXIST EP PTO DECK m— (92_24) EXIST. El G WALL o I EXISTING -WOOD DECK �C�ST VE 1 <92.34) (99. - _ �? \ EXISTING L OUSE x(95.4 Nc,�) o7t'�rL� -I W) � (`76,00 F.' I� 1 STORY ' D = i RESIDENCE 1 110.0 RIDGE n m Z I— Z EXIST' - ROOF OVE: 1-1 � a ° I •` 'I "O PROPERTY LINE 0 5 0 SITE PLAN -AS BUILT COOK RESIDENCE � 222 LA JOLLA DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA June 19, 2014 5ET gAL� TU vJ M4 (, I--oo- 12-'T`% r_ -«ttT- GF wky . D D n S m z \ � � � / � :� . \��`� ^/ / � ATTACHMENT D A�4 Grade to curb creates unreasonable slope and potential hazard. Removal of steps eliminates access to home and will decrease value. ATTACHMENT D J F � _ l D n S m z o ATTACHMENT E L -6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY It is the general policy of the City that the public rights -of -way are to be reserved for public use or open space; and that the rights of the public, present and future, are not to be diminished by the installation of private improvements within the public rights -of- way. Categories of private encroachments and improvements are listed below, together with the permit requirement for each category. A. Private encroachments prohibited. 1. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed; including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach in excess of 1 foot into the public right -of -way, or exceed 3 feet in height, measured from the top of curb elevation /or from sidewalk elevation where sidewalk exists. 2. Driveway approaches not conforming to Council Policy Lr2. 3. Ocean front street end, or Bay front street end improvements not conforming to Council Policy L-8. 4. Ocean front alley end improvements not conforming to Council Policy L -8. 5. Modifications to original design concepts approved by the City. 6. Private signs except as provided for in the Building Code. 7. Lighting. 8. Parkway surfacing of loose rock, gravel, or any surfacing other than standard or colored/ textured concrete or flat stone /brick installed at grade and grouted. 9. Private dwellings and appendages including raised patios and decks, except as provided for in this section and the Building Code. 10. Pay telephones and private mail carriers drop boxes. 1 ATTACHMENT E L-6 B. Private encroachments requiring an encroachment permit and if applicable an encroachment agreement from the Public Works Department and General Services Department approval. 1. Tree planting and removal. 2. Shrub planting and removal. 3. Median landscaping. If, in the opinion of the General Services Department, the approved planting is not being maintained for view and safety clearance, Chapter 10.50, "Public Nuisance Abatement," of the Municipal Code shall be used to remove offending plant material. The permit applicant shall reimburse the City of Newport Beach for the value of any City tree removed by this process. This value will be determined by the City Arborist using the International Society of Arboriculture's "Guide for Plant Appraisal." C. Private encroachments requiring an encroachment permit and if applicable an encroachment agreement from the Public Works Department. 1. Drive approaches conforming to Council Policy Lr2. 2. Standard sidewalks. 3. Carriage walks. 4. Parkway surfacing (standard or colored/ textured concrete or flat stone /brick) installed at grade (subject to General Services Department review for tree well location). 5. CATV and public utility facilities. 6. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed; including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach 1 foot or less into the public right -of -way. If, however, in the opinion of the Public Works Department, the nature or location of this type of encroachment is such that Council review is warranted, the Department may forward the item to the Council for action. 2 ATTACHMENT E U6 7. Mailboxes, when required by the U.S. Postal Service. The front of mailbox shall be aligned in the same vertical plane as the back of the curb. Mailbox base construction length shall not exceed the length of the mailbox, or 24 inches, whichever is less. 8. The placement of utility pedestals shall be at the back of sidewalks on arterials and major pedestrian thoroughfares without zero setbacks. In the commercial areas there shall be at least 4 feet of clear sidewalk width and /or pedestals shall be placed in the parkway outside of walk area. 9. When connecting to or relocating public utilities. D. Private encroachments requiring an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department and subject to the execution of an agreement for non - standard improvements. 1. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed which do not exceed 3 feet in height, including, but not limited to fences, walls, and raised planters in public rights -of -way in areas that are more than 8 feet behind the face of curbs on the following streets: a. Santa Ana Avenue from Cliff Drive to Fifteenth Street. 2. Permitted Structural Encroachments on Balboa Island along South Bay Front, North Bay Front, Grand Canal, and East Bayfront are as follows: a. Planters that do not exceed 1 foot in height located within 2'-6" of the back of existing sidewalk, planted with ground cover and shrubs not to exceed 2 feet in height measured from sidewalk elevation; b. Fences with a minimum setback of 2' -6" from back of sidewalk. L For patios constructed at grade elevation to 1' above sidewalk grade elevation, Fences may be 3' high above sidewalk grade in conformance with Building and Planning Code Regulations. ii. For patios constructed greater than 1' above sidewalk grade elevation, Fences must be set back a minimum of 3' from 3 ATTACHMENT E L-6 back of sidewalk, not exceed 2' -6" in height above the patio, have at least 40% visibility through them, and not to exceed 4' in height above existing public sidewalk grade. C. Patios with a minimum setback of 2'-6" from the back of sidewalk. L Raised Patios are permitted provided they have a maximum height of T -6" above sidewalk grade, are set back a minimum of T -6" from back of sidewalk, and provided all bulkhead deadman and tiebacks supporting the Bay front bulkhead are replaced "If required by the Public Works Department" in conformance with the requirements of the Public Works Department; Stairs located a minimum of 2' -6" from back of sidewalk. 3. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed which do not exceed three (3) feet in height, including, but not limited to fences, walls, patios and raised planters in public rights -of -ways in areas that are five (5) feet behind the face of curb on the following streets: a. Southerly side of West Bay Avenue between 8th Street and 15th Street. If, in the opinion of the Public Works Department, the nature or location of this type of encroachment is such that Council review is warranted, the Department may forward the application to the City Council for original action. The City Manager is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, agreements for non- standard improvements which are entered into pursuant to this section or other authorization. E. Private encroachments not requiring a permit: 1. Parkway lawn and ground cover. 2. Parkway sprinkling systems. 3. Use of public streets and projections over public property which are covered by the Uniform Building Code under a valid building permit issued by the City. 4 ATTACHMENT E Rr- F. Application for any permit as required by this policy shall be filed with the Public Works Department on a form to be provided by the City and shall show the proposed planting or work and the nature thereof. If the application is for a permit required under Section A, it shall be forwarded to the City Clerk for submission to the City Council. If the application is for a permit under Section B, it shall be processed by the General Services Department. Drawings for encroachment permits requiring City Council review shall be prepared to scale. Plan and elevation drawings shall accurately depict location, height, and extent of the proposed encroachments. No building permit shall be issued on a parcel whose access requires City Council review for an encroachment permit on public property, until said encroachment permit has been issued. G. Variances from the strict application of this policy shall not be granted unless individual circumstances indicate that approval will be consistent with the public interest. Adopted - August 25,1969 Amended - February 14,1972 Amended - August 11, 1975 Amended - February 9,1981 Amended - November 23,1981 Amended - October 27,1986 Amended - January 26,1987 Amended - July 13,1987 Amended - February 13,1989 Amended - August 14,1989 Amended - November 27,1989 Amended - December 9,1991 Amended - December 14,1992 Amended - July 12,1993 Amended - January 24,1994 Amended - May 9,1994 Amended - February 27,1995 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - May 8, 2001 019