HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - Private Improvements in the public right-of-way at 3431 Ocean BlvdTO:
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 25
September 13, 2011
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director
949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Socheata Chhouk, Associate Civil Engineer
APPROVED: 0,
TITLE: Request to Construct Non - Standard, Private Improvements in the
Public Right -of -Way at 3431 Ocean Boulevard - Encroachment
Permit N2011-0190
ABSTRACT:
The property owner at 3431 Ocean Boulevard, Mr. Lawrence Tabak, is requesting non-
standard, private improvements within the public right -of -way, including eliminating an
angle point along an existing private retaining wall, installation of an 8 -inch high planter
curb, installation of a decorative stamped concrete driveway, and landscaping on the
City slope between the retaining wall and Ocean Boulevard vehicle access ramp.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the following:
• Reconstruction of the private retaining wall to eliminate the angle point provided
that the retaining wall is moved forward toward the residence to ensure no net
loss of public area occurs due to the realignment;
• Addition of a tan colored stucco finish to the retaining wall;
• Installation of landscaping and irrigation on the City slope in front of the site
between the retaining wall and Ocean Boulevard. Landscaping and irrigation
plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department and Municipal
Operations Department prior to installation;
• Replacement of the driveway in front of the site with stamped concrete;
• Installation of an above ground gas meter with two concrete pipe bollards;
• Installation of a below ground Edison three -phase transformer vault; and
• Requiring an encroachment agreement for all non - standard private
improvements within the public right of way.
Request to Construct Non - Standard, Private Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way
at 3431 Ocean Boulevard - Encroachment Permit N2011 -0190
September 13, 2011
Page 2
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item. All improvements will be funded by the
property owner.
DISCUSSION:
This site is currently under construction for a single family residence. The Public Works
Department is asking City Council for direction on the property owner's request due to
the limitation set forth in City Council Policy L -6, Private Encroachments in the Public
Right -of -Way, and Council's interest and concern for the development dating back to at
least 2006.
In 2006, the property owner requested for City Council's approval for several non-
standard, private improvements in the public right -of -way and the requests were denied.
The current proposal is less intrusive to the public right -of -way than the property
owner's original requests in 2006.
Attached are the proposed Site Plan and a letter of request by the property owner
shown as Attachments "A" and "B," respectively.
The proposed non - standard, private improvements within the public right -of -way
include:
1. Remove and replace approximately 30 feet of the existing, private
retaining wall in order to eliminate an angle point along the wall;
2. Minor repair to damaged areas of the existing retaining wall as deemed
necessary (repairs to be made in the same location) and add a tan colored
stucco finish to the retaining wall;
3. Installation of an 8 -inch high planter curb;
4. Landscape a 2 -foot wide planter area between the 8 -inch high planter curb
and retaining wall;
5. Landscape the City slope in front of the site between the retaining wall and
the Ocean Boulevard vehicle access ramp with native, drought tolerant,
and non - invasive plantings:
a. Add new landscaping in the existing bare spots or replace all
existing groundcover at Council's direction;
b. Install a drip irrigation system for the landscaping;
6. Replace the driveway in front of the site with stamped concrete;
7. Installation of an above ground gas meter with two concrete pipe bollards
(previously approved by the Public Works Department)
8. Installation of a below ground Edison three -phase transformer vault
(previously approved by the Public Works Department); and
9. Related appurtenances.
Request to Construct Non - Standard, Private Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way
at 3431 Ocean Boulevard - Encroachment Permit N2011 -0190
September 13, 2011
Page 3
The proposed improvements, excluding items 7 and 8, would provide the site with
aesthetic enhancement.
The proposal to eliminate an angle point along the retaining wall proposal is less
intrusive than the original 2006 retaining wall design proposal. However, it is still
encroaching further into the public right -of -way, beyond the existing conditions. The
existing retaining wall is considered a private wall in the public right -of -way, most likely
installed years ago by a prior property owner.
Should the City Council approve the scope of work proposed by the property owner, an
Encroachment Agreement will be prepared for the Office of the City Attorney's approval
which will stipulate that the Owner and future owner(s) are responsible for the
maintenance of all of the proposed and existing non - standard improvements to the
satisfaction of the City.
In addition, should the City Council approve the modification to the existing retaining
wall, Public Works requests that Engineered Plans be provided for review.
Background History
In 2006, the property owner and City staff presented a few retaining wall designs to City
Council for consideration at several different Council meetings. City Council was not in
favor of the proposed encroachments into the public right -of -way, and ultimately the
requests were denied.
On May 23, 2006, the property owner requested City Council's approval on an
extensive list of non - standard, private improvements in the public right -of -way and
Council requested that Staff work with the property owner.
This extensive list includes:
1. Approximately 100 feet of eight -foot high, eight -inch thick retaining wall with
permanent waterproof shoring system and a subdrain system to control slope
seepage overturning forces against the retaining wall;
2. Surface v -ditch behind the top of retaining walls;
3. Twelve 24 -inch diameter caissons that would be a minimum of 22 feet deep;
4. Landscaped planter areas and planter walls;
5. Trash enclosure with a 48 -inch access gate under a new planter with a
fiberglass waterproofing system with drain and overflow;
Request to Construct Non - Standard, Private Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way
at 3431 Ocean Boulevard - Encroachment Permit N2011 -0190
September 13, 2011
Page 4
6. Landscaping consisting of drought- resistant low groundcovers with jute
matting on the City slope between the retaining walls and Ocean Boulevard
vehicle access ramp;
7. Six -inch thick reinforced concrete roadway paving with 48 -inch diamond -
patterned scoring;
8. Mortared stone planter area and steps paving /surfacing, and
9. Related appurtenances.
On June 13, 2006, the property owner requested Council's approval on an extensive list
of non - standard, private improvements in the public right -of -way and Staff
recommended a limited expansion of the existing encroachments and retaining wall.
The request for the extensive list of improvements was denied by Council.
This limited expansion list includes:
1. Extend the existing retaining wall easterly of the existing trash enclosure along
the wall's current alignment;
2. Allow the trash enclosure to remain at the existing location; and
3. Reduce the planters on the easterly side from 12 feet to 8 feet.
On September 12, 2006, the property owner requested Council's approval on the limited
expansion of the existing retaining wall and planter area. The request was denied by
Council.
This limited expansion list was modified slightly to include:
1. Extend the existing retaining wall easterly of the existing trash enclosure along
the wall's current alignment;
2. Remove the trash enclosure from the public right -of -way; and
3. Reduce the planters on the easterly side from 12 feet to 8 feet.
The above staff reports and meeting minutes are attached as Attachment "C."
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.
Request to Construct Non - Standard, Private Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way
at 3431 Ocean Boulevard - Encroachment Permit N2011 -0190
September 13, 2011
Page 5
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).
Submitted by:
Attachments: A. Proposed Site Plan, Dated June 22, 2011
B. Letter from Property Owner, Mr. Lawrence Tabak
C. May 23, 2006 Council Staff Report and Minute Excerpt,
June 13, 2006 Council Staff Report (Partial Attachment) and Minute
Excerpt, and
September 12, 2006 Council Staff Report (Partial Attachment) and
Minute Excerpt
D. Site Photos
Ll
HNEWUNDE R
I
C NEW STUCCO
WALL FINISH
ON EXISTING
WALL TO REMAIN
PLAN ER
i
EXIST NG- -0RI�.WA
' I I
I I
I t
o � �
T
t I
I
1
{
{
JEW DROUGHT
J",
LEV I 4QLERAN•T,' ire
ON- INVASIVE; `I 4
t ORNAMENTAL S
-L 4NDSCAPING -IN {
o PLANTERS
2' -0" I T 16':la" 0
PROPE . RTYl NEW-IjUDICO WALL
LINE FINIS 04 EXISTING
WA L rO REM
1 7 6 4
0
T7 I �sy3"r
p P1 KIT
EWIGtvVR
OCAATIT j h
06 -22 -11
�_I
IA L O WALLIT i
T M ED
E E
I Y j
I I
1
I
IG R T I NG LL
R O E
S D N RETA IN
IT T JCCO ISH
I. r
I
co �I r
�1
I
t
I
I
I
u
I T
E T
M IN
� 1
I
1
I
I
I
1
HT�
IASIVE
KJE�TIN
`TAI D
i,
0 5' 10' 20'
ATTACHMENT "A"
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PLANE
8 HI
Hi
EWI
C
I
ET
D PI E
�
RD
��,Vj
8 "1HIT
H I
06 -22 -11
�_I
IA L O WALLIT i
T M ED
E E
I Y j
I I
1
I
IG R T I NG LL
R O E
S D N RETA IN
IT T JCCO ISH
I. r
I
co �I r
�1
I
t
I
I
I
u
I T
E T
M IN
� 1
I
1
I
I
I
1
HT�
IASIVE
KJE�TIN
`TAI D
i,
0 5' 10' 20'
ATTACHMENT "A"
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ATTACHMENT "B"
LETTER FROM
PROPERTY OWNER
From: The Tabak Family
8 Southwind
Irvine Ca 92606
July 8`h 2011
Re:- City Right of Way Located at 3431 Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach.
Dear Socheata,
My family purchased an older house at this location thirteen years ago. We lived there
for six years before demolishing it.
After construction is complete our family intends to occupy the home and we are excited
about spending many more years at this location enjoying the terrific views and beach
amenities.
For your consideration we are proposing to straighten a portion of retaining wall in the
City right of way driveway area. Part of this wall, at one time, formed the rear and side
walls of a garbage closet that we abandoned and demolished, at the City's request. This
now leaves an irregular shaped, unsightly wall.
We would like to straighten the wall and add a narrow planter along the base, extending it
in a straight line north -south for the full length of new and existing retaining walls. The
foliage will then help to soften and hide the wall that otherwise would be exposed and
stark.
We are also proposing to remove the ice -plant located above the wall and above the
adjacent existing diagonal retaining wall to the south and to replant that area with drought
resistant shrubbery. Those areas are presently not adequately maintained and one can
observe patches of dirt. We will also install a drip irrigation system to get the shrubbery
growth started. We will continue to maintain the shrubbery.
The subject area is quite visible to the public and it is visited by many residents and
visitors who enjoy walks while taking in the surrounding views.
Our goal is to visually improve the area for our family and for those who visit the area.
Your kind consideration of the above is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Tabak
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT "C"
PAST STAFF REPORTS
AND MINUTES
Agenda Item No. i I
May 23, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Iris Lee, P.E.
949 - 644 -3311 or ilee @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NON - STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY -3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD
OWNER: Lawrence Tabak
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Deny the Owner's request to construct non - standard encroachments, which
include, but are not limited to, retaining walls, caissons, landscaping, associated
drainage, and appurtenances within the public right -of -way adjacent to the property
located at 3431 Ocean Boulevard.
2. Direct staff to prepare an encroachment permit and encroachment agreement for
the existing non - standard improvements in the public right -of -way fronting 3431
Ocean Boulevard.
DISCUSSION:
In November 2003, the City Council denied a variance and approved a modification
requested by the owner of 3431 Ocean Boulevard, Lawrence Tabak. The plans that
accompanied that approval showed the existing retaining walls in the public right -of -way
were to remain. Although the existing off -site improvements will provide sufficient space
for vehicles getting into and out of the new home's garages, the Owner has requested to
widen the Ocean Boulevard frontage street -end by removing the existing retaining walls,
cutting into the existing public slope, and securing /stabilizing the slope by constructing
new retaining walls, caissons, subdrains, v- ditches, and landscaping at a location ranging
from approximately one foot to ten feet beyond the existing retaining wall location. He is
also proposing to extend the improvements further to the east of their current terminus.
Request to Construct Non - Standard Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way - 3431 Ocean Boulevard
May 23, 2006
Page 2
The proposed new non - standard improvements, including the widening of the existing
driveway, within the public right -of -way will include:
1) Approximately 100 feet of eight -foot high, eight -inch thick retaining wall with
permanent waterproof shoring system and a subdrain system to control slope
seepage overturning forces against the retaining wall;
2) Surface v -ditch behind the top of retaining walls;
3) Twelve - 24 -inch diameter caissons that will be a minimum 22 feet deep;
4) Landscaped planter areas and planter walls;
5) Trash enclosure with a 48 -inch access gate under a new planter with a fiberglass
waterproofing system with drain and overflow;
6) Landscaping consisting of drought- resistant low groundcovers with jute matting on
the City slope between the retaining walls and Ocean Boulevard vehicle access
ramp;
7) Six -inch reinforced concrete roadway paving with 48 -inch diamond - patterned
scoring;
8) Mortared stone planter area and steps paving /surfacing; and
9) Related appurtenances.
The non - standard improvements proposed are not required for the development of this
site. Full access and maneuverability is provided to the site with the current public right -
of -way configuration. The proposed improvements will provide the site with aesthetic
enhancement and added area for private usage while making the public right -of -way
appear to be private and diminishing public usage and access.
The proposed development of this site is currently under plan check (Plan Check No.
3452 -2004 submitted to the Public Works Department on December 21, 2004, May 25,
2005, and February 14, 2006). As of May 3, 2006, only Planning Department approval
has been issued. Public: Works plan check approval will not be issued until Council
approval has been granted for the proposed non - standard improvements in the public
right -of -way. An encroachment permit for the non - standard work will not be issued until
the encroachment agreement has been executed.
Recommendation:
While the existing improvements in the public right -of -way exceed those normally allowed
by City Council Policy L -6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY,
the proposed improvements represent further encroachment for personal use. Staff has
specific concerns related to the large number of caissons required to support the retaining
wall, the expansion of the area inside the wall both to the north and east, and the
inclusion of a trash enclosure in the right -of -way. For these reasons staff recommends
that the proposed improvements be denied.
Should the City Council approve the scope of work proposed by the Owner, an
encroachment agreement will be prepared for City Council approval which will stipulate
that the Owner and future owner(s) are responsible for the maintenance of all of the
Request to Construct Non- Standard Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way - 3431 Ocean Boulevard
May 23, 2006
Page 3
approved non - standard improvements to the satisfaction of the City. Furthermore, the
Owner will be required to submit a $200,000.00 Faithful Performance Bond and Labor
and Materials Bond as surety for completing the work in the public right -of -way to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Environmental Review:
Categorically Exempt under Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1(c) of Title 14,
California Code of Regulations. Exemption is for minor alteration of existing facilities
not expanding existing uses.
Prepared by:
Iris Lee
Associate Civil Engineer
Attachment: Reduced scale site plan
Submitted by:
Ste en G.�um
blic Works Director
(Full size site plans will be provided in the Council Conference Room
for review.)
ADJACENT
LOT 7
i
1
1
AWACM'
EXISTING SESA)ENCE 1
UPPER r62Y FFL
WMR r519 FFL
it
1
1
1
1.
a
T,
ME
. Y!C MEA M111M Y11OPEafY lelW
YN a,:.
+u%•% %mw lvelw rtnoum xYNO eBTCeaW
.aq ar.
illllllllllllllli p� A�®
/I6! Ma°M MFM Y%%ILMO W1eBE
k % Y fM..
IHe a5
�e
TN. YNW 84RW BE1BM%9 BX°WN M
TNB 6MFFT p6{F°{ }IE Aryn°MFD IBNYJ
K® BIRUN Ne[s PFIi iaaa C°BE oESm%M96
mc. Awi xo.:o faoaue
wy�o% �°•° "'w^'
ieT ar,
W + � wxug D
r%rev wwm
y®�
� rwi ai,
1 �llflllllllllllllJ '� S
naoa
rY ar.
enartn ecwTA uTOUt To eE auxan
..oO
O8.°
Abe) OiANCVf p9TYlE° .YT T1E
N R°cN B MU°E alEw
I
RI01B®
$s:
.
� ®�
IIIIlIIl1l1111lI
�IIIIIIIIIIl11N,
'�'�NIIIIIIIIIII �
:.
�'llllllilllll
I . •
�Illllllllll :-
IIIIIIIII� ;�:
�,,����
-
-
off•
;�;�, �
_
Z", A J
/.,;!�
. Y!C MEA M111M Y11OPEafY lelW
YN a,:.
+u%•% %mw lvelw rtnoum xYNO eBTCeaW
.aq ar.
/I6! Ma°M MFM Y%%ILMO W1eBE
k % Y fM..
IHe a5
�e
TN. YNW 84RW BE1BM%9 BX°WN M
TNB 6MFFT p6{F°{ }IE Aryn°MFD IBNYJ
K® BIRUN Ne[s PFIi iaaa C°BE oESm%M96
mc. Awi xo.:o faoaue
wy�o% �°•° "'w^'
ieT ar,
W + � wxug D
r%rev wwm
y®�
� rwi ai,
xole
naoa
rY ar.
enartn ecwTA uTOUt To eE auxan
moo® Mow wh 61M14 va mn p 81
O8.°
Abe) OiANCVf p9TYlE° .YT T1E
N R°cN B MU°E alEw
I
RI01B®
$s:
eftllOMb f O °[mil EL [awl ti DI
euaw wcw ru�oxv ownm rwr v. owe%vie ooaw r%°r°e aceuv U!/lU!!/�✓1l/!l/�l /G'� `—!
IIT w M Ww65BMVICtlt - -- e1CV - -� - X v:i[a�
ITE PLAN °"'a •eYwn B%we%s
Y^E SITE BNLUABLE AREA REFERENCE DIAGRAM ° ...
F VB' . T -G' — a w�tx R w roux TIYT TI@ eB10eq SCALE T•70' i
City Council Regular Meeting
Page 6 of 7
Project; and 2) authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve any change orders to the WRC Consulting Services contract provided that such
change orders do not exceed 10% ($70,000) of the contract cost and provided that previous budget authorization for such expenditure exists.
In response to Council Member Nichols' questions, City Manager Bludau and Assistant City Manager Kiff clarified that the contract is for plans, not to
conduct the project; the State wants to see the design specifications before issuing the grant; and the City will need to continue the upkeep since the Big
Canyon Nature Park is the City's responsibility.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro To. Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Daigle
Abstain: Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Nichols
P. CURRENT BUSINESS( ... td)
22. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -39 RELATING TO THE FORMATION OF A CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCACY. /100 -20061
Staff Report
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tom Rosansky to 1) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -39 forming the City Council Ad Hoc Committee on Legislative Advocacy;
and 2) confirm the Mayors appointments of Mayor Webb, Mayor Pro Tom Rosansky, and Council Member Curry to the Committee.
Dolores Citing requested and received clarification that the Ad Hoc Committee will not be subject to the Brown Act and that its term expires December
31; 2006.
Council discussed how legislative advocacy has been handled in the past and received confirmation that the Committee's recommendations for its
legislative platform goes before Council far public discussion and Council approval.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pre Tern Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle
Noes; Council Member Nichols
23. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR NEGOTIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOAG HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT. 110020061
Staff Report
It was moved by Council Member Curry to 1) adopt Resolution No. 2006 -40 creating an Ad Hoc Committee for negotiating an amendment to the
Haag Hospital Development Agreement to consist of two (2) Council Members; and 2) confirm the Mayor's appointments of Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky and
Council Member Selich to the Committee.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle,
Council Member Nichols
24. RESPONSE TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ( SWRCB) REGARDING THE NEWPORT BRACH MARINE LIFE
REFUGE AREA OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASBSL (100 -20061
staff Report
It was moved by Council Member Rideewav to 1) direct City staff to submit all relevant data to the State Water Reeoumes Control Board ( SWRCB)
relating to the Newport Beach MLR ASBS and the Irvine Coast MLR ASBS; 2) authorize the Mayor to write a letter to the SWRCB stating the City's
interest in working within the SWRCHe Exception Process for the Newport Beach MLR ASBS provided that the City's participation leads to an outcome
within the Exception Process is reasonable and attainable; and 3) authorize City staff to work with other communities adjacent to ASBSs regarding ways
to protect ASBSs from adverse discharges even if such discharges do not meet the so -called "zero - molecule" (of pollutants) rule.
In response to Council Member Nichols' questions, Mayor Webb clarified that the City is asking for an exception and for the SWRCB to be reasonable,
knowing that there are State regulations the City must follow. Assistant City Manager Kiff added that the City is already paying for much of the
monitoring costs associated with assisting Pelican Paint in the installation of a storm drain -to -sewer diversion.
The motion carried by the following all call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle,
Council Member Nichols
Q. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
It was moved by Council Member Ridgeway to reconsider Item 11.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich. Mayor Pro Tom Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway. Council Member Daigle, Council
Member Nichols
y 11. REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NON - STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY - 3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD. (100
EXCERPT 20061
MAY 23, 2006 Staff Report
MINUTE Lawrence Tabak, property owner, stated that, after six years, he still doesn't have a building permit and believed that he has an approval in concept from
General Services and Gil Wong of Public Works. He indicated that the can cannot be backed out of the garage with the existing retaining wall and the
new entrance cannot be appeased without the proposed encroachments. He pointed out that the City built a manhole and sewer fine on his property and
stated that he would grant the City an easement for this work if he received concessions on his encroachments.
Public Works Director Badman noted that Mr. Wong could not authorize these types of encroachments. He reported that Council already allowed the new
building to encroach into the front yard setback. He printed out that the City has never allowed gates because it's a public right -of -way and that the
area adjacent to his entry is Inspiration Point. Regarding the retaining wall, he stated that the City wouldn't object to have them redone but what was
proposed is more intrusive into the public right -of -way. He emphasized that Mr. Tabak's proposed changes would give the impression of a private
compound. He confirmed that the sewer manhole is located on the beach portion of his property, the City may want to relocate the line but doesn't have
to since it has been there since 1999, it is not part of the usable property, and there is no connection between this issue and the requested encroachments.
Mayor Webb pointed out that the City already granted Mr. Tabak an encroachment into the front yard setback and that it is unreasonable to design the
http://newportbeach.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=26&clip_id=259&event... 08/24/2011
City Council Regular Meeting Page 7 of 7
property m further encroach into the public right -of -way. He noted that approvals in concept go to the Coastal Commission.
Council requested that staff work with Mr. Tabak and came back with an update.
It was moved by Mayor Webb to continue the item to the June 13, 2006 Council meeting.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tom Rosmaky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle,
Council Member Nichols
R. ADJOURNMENT - at 11:50 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 13, 2006.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 17, 2006, at 2:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
Recording Secretary
Mayor
City Clerk
http://newportbeach.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=26&clip_id=259&event... 08/24/2011
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 32
June 13, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Fong Tse, P.E.
949 - 644 -3324 or ftse @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: 3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD - REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NOW
STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY
OWNER: Lawrence Tabak
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Deny the Owner's request to construct non - standard encroachments, which
include, but are not limited to, retaining walls, caissons, landscaping, associated
drainage, and appurtenances within the public right -of -way adjacent to the property
located at 3431 Ocean Boulevard as presented on the latest grading plan received
by staff; and
Direct Owner to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to maintain
the existing walls and planters encroachments existing in the public right -of -way to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Or
2. Approve a limited expansion of the existing encroachments in the public right -of-
way and direct staff to prepare an encroachment agreement and permit for the
non - standard improvements in the public right -of -way fronting 3431 Ocean
Boulevard.
BACKGROUND:
The project at 3431 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar has been under way for several
years. The following is a list of key dates of actions related to the proposed project:
* 5/29/2002 — Modifications Committee approves a 5' encroachment into the 10'
front setback.
3431 Ocean Boulevard - Request to Construct Non - Standard Improvements in the Public Right -of -Way
June 13, 2006
Page 2
* 7/22/2003 — Applicant applies for variance to exceed height limit and modification
to encroach an additional 3' into the front setback for a total of 8'. Home size is
6710 s.f. with 615 s.f. of garage space.
* 9/18/2003 — Planning Commission denies Variance but approves modification for
additional encroachment into front yard setback.
* 10/14/2003 — City Council denies both the Variance and the Modification.
* 10/21/2003 — Councilmember Heffernan requests reconsideration of the action
taken on 10/14/2003.
* 11/12/2003 — City Council reaffirms denial of the Variance, but approves the
Modification.
* 12/15/04 — Modifications Committee approves request for sideyard guardrail to
exceed the height limit for such railings.
* 5/9/2005 — Zoning Administrator approves Modification to allow underground
elements to encroach 10' into the 10' front yard setback.
DISCUSSION:
It is important to note that the approvals up to the City Council approval on 11/12/2003
were approvals for modifications to zoning regulations that apply to private property. The
plans submitted for the approvals in 2003 showed maintaining the existing retaining walls
and relocating the trash enclosure that apparently was constructed in the public right of
way years ago. A copy of the pertinent portion of this Site Plan is attached as Exhibit A.
Resolution 2003 -60, denying the Variance and approving the Modification, includes the
following in Section 4 g): "... sufficient space remains for vehicular access and
maneuvering" as a reason for finding the Modification to be consistent with the legislative
intent of the Municipal Code.
Sometime between 11/10/2004 and 1/5/2005 the applicant submitted several plans for
informal review to the Public Works Department that proposed revisions to the existing
retaining walls and the addition of planter areas, all of which were further encroachments
into the public right of way beyond the existing development. An earlier concept plan
showed an encroachment including caissons and entry walkway widening into Inspiration
Point Park as well as gated entry on the common driveway. This informal plan was
rejected by staff as it would be unlikely that the Council would approve private expansion
into a park as well as a gated driveway on public property. Because this plan was not a
formal submittal, a record of it was not entered into the tracking system. The review of
these plans was performed by an employee, Gil Wong, who has since retired, taking with
him any knowledge of such a plan. However, it is our understanding that Mr. Wong was
trying to provide guidance as to what would be an acceptable plan for submittal to and
potential approval by City Council. As a long time City employee, Mr. Wong was well
3431 Ocean Boulevard - Request to Construct Nan - Standard Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way
June 13. 2006
Page 3
aware of the City's encroachment policies and would have known that any extensive
encroachment would need to be approved by the City Council. We would also expect
that Mr. Wong shared that information with the applicant and /or his architect. Therefore,
Staff believes that the notation, "OK ", made by Mr. Wong on the attached, Exhibit B, is in
reference to an acceptable plan that could be processed and not a formal approval.
As a follow up to the notation in exhibit B, the General Services Department sent the
attached letter, dated March 10, 2005 (Exhibit C), granting "approval in concept" for the
re- landscaping.
Formal on -site plan checks were submitted through the Building Department to the Public
Works Department in December 2004, May 2005, and February 2006. The first submittal
did not show any work in the public right of way and a plan check correction was made
that the trash enclosure should be relocated onto private property. The May 2005
submittal continued to show the existing retaining walls were to remain, but did show the
trash enclosure relocated into the northwesterly comer of the right of way. It wasn't until
the February 2006 submittal that showed the proposed moving of the walls further into
the slope. It was at this point that staff advised the applicant that the Public Works
Department was opposed to any further encroachment beyond what is currently existing
and that we would not recommend approval.
The applicant requested review of the Public Works decision by the City Council. At its
May 23, 2006 regular meeting, the City Council directed staff to discuss the
encroachment issues once again with the Owner and to bring the Item back to City
Council at its June 13, 2006 regular meeting.
On May 24th, the day following the May 23`d City Council meeting staff met with the
Owner and his Architect on the case history and issues. On May 25 , staff informed the
Owner's Architect via telephone that the Public Works Department had developed a
compromise and was prepared to recommend allowing the Owner to extend the existing
retaining wall easterly of the existing trash enclosure along the wall's current alignment to
provide improved vehicle turning movements into and out of the new "pulled forward"
garages. Staff agreed to allow the trash enclosure to remain in the right -of -way due to the
fact that it had been there for many years. The compromise also required a reduction in
the size of the planters on the easterly side to reduce the need for additional
encroachment from 12' to 8'. Based upon comments by the architect, staff anticipated
receiving revised plans showing this compromise solution. Instead, a letter from the
Tabak's attorney was received which is attached as Exhibit D.
CONCLUSION:
While the existing improvements in the public right -of -way exceed those normally allowed
by City Council Policy L-6 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY,
the proposed improvements represent significant further encroachment for personal use.
Staff believes the alternative to construct a limited wall extension along the current
retaining wall alignment will provide adequate space for vehicles to get into and out of the
3431 Ocean Boulevard - Request to Construct Non - Standard Improvements in the Public Right -oFWay
June 13, 2006
Page 4
new garages. A smaller planter along the easterly edge will allow the owner to have a
reasonable entry area even though he has moved the home to be within 2' of the property
line.
Should the City Council grant an approval to extend the existing retaining wall, an
encroachment agreement will be prepared by staff for City Council approval and will
stipulate the Owner and future owner(s) to be responsible for the maintenance of all of
the approved non - standard improvements to the satisfaction of the City. Furthermore, the
Owner will be required to submit an $80,000.00 Faithful Performance Bond and Labor
and Materials Bond as surety for completing the work in the public right -of -way to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Environmental Review:
Categorically Exempt under Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1(c) of Title 14,
California Code of Regulations. Exemption is for minor alteration of existing facilities
not expanding existing uses.
Prepared bv:
Attachment:
Submitted by:
Baum
Director
Exhibit A - Reduced scale conceptual plan (submitted in January 2005)
Exhibit B - Reduced scale latest grading plan (submitted on 2/26/06 for 3�
plan check)
Exhibit C — Letter from General Services, Dated March 10, 2005
Exhibit D - May 30, 2006 letter from Owner's counsel
t
V. Wi
4
o
0
d
X44
0`1
IMHW9YW Y[� IIO \ytll ll0]II Y01
LOT ,.8,.
76.5 FF AT 3RD FLOOR
67.3 FF AT 2ND FLOOR
68.7 FF AT GROUND FLOOR
Ap O/A'{A /A/ 7
3��
W '
y
W
U
Ap O/A'{A /A/ 7
3��
Ir-
I
UT4Lq
-TABAK
�AJ -
3431 C
AL - OFF-SIT-f-ORAOR
H PT
..Iry
4. ( 5&4 rwa- HAW
L-V6 -V P6
oil
Fpt- 4,03 rfo
-14 rpfpppc P
-of, ojtli�i,p
ol f '.66
Al. tolo 600' 5
,Atf,. PO f. ,, % V) OS
Aft gcf�&.w
M& vo
i
'2005 15:06 969 650 0767, NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL SERVICES #1089 P.0011001
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF NYWPORT BEACH
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
David E. Niederhaus. Director
March 10, 2005
Fleetwood B. Joiner and Associates
Attn: Tom Stewart
20320 SW Birch, Suite 140
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Dear Mr. Stewart,
The General Services Department is in receipt of your conceptual site plan for the driveway,
retaining walls, and regrading off -site and in the right of way or Narcissus Avenue for the Tabak
Residence at 3431 Ocean Boulevard. Your conceptual site plat has been reviewed by General
Services staff and approved in concept.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call meat W-644 -3057.
Sincerely,
04-4L—
Jeremy Hammond, Administrative Analyst
General Services Department
3.800 Newport Boulevard • Post O1Hoe Box 1768 • Newport Be ach. Cedilorrrta 92658-8915
Telephone- (949) 644 -3055 • Fara (949) 650 -0747 • www.dW.newport-bcachca.us
EXHIBIT D
Mayor Don Webb
(don2webbOoearthlink. net)
(dwebbacity. newport - beach. ca. us)
Steve Badum
(sbadumacity.n w ort- beach.ca.us)
Richard Edmonston
(redmonstonOcity. newport - beach. ca . us)
Iris Lee
(Ileeacity. newport- beach. ca. us)
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Tabak Residence, 3431 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar
Dear Sirs and Madam:
Please be advised that this office represents Mr. Lawrence Tabak, the owner of the real
property referenced above. Please allow us to share our concerns regarding the manner in which the
City of Newport Beach has addressed our client's attempt to build his dream home at this location,
all of which have resulted in a six year odyssey to obtain a building permit.
The most recent example is most illustrative. After negotiating with City staff for over one
year, and making numerous concessions, an agreement was reached on an acceptable driveway
design. Given the lengthy delays in reaching this agreement, Mr. Tabak requested and received a
written "Approval in Concept" on January 5, 2005, which memorialized this agreement. A further
Approval in Concept agreement was received on March 10, 2005. Based on same, and at
considerable cost, our client retained the services of an architect, soils engineer, civil engineer,
structural engineer and landscape architect in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the
Approval in Concept agreements for obtaining an encroachment permit.
VOGT & RESNICK, LLP
RICHARD M. BLUMENTHAL
JEROME A. BUSCH'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CaINSEL
CHARLES C. McKENNA
440D M8c4RTHUR BOULEVARD, NINTH FLOOR
STEVEN A EHRLICH
BARNET RESNICK'
P.O. BOX 7849
NANCY LEVIN
JEFFREY M. RESNICK
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658 -7849
JAMES D. VOGT•
DAVID A. SHERAK'
TELEPHONE (949) 851.9001
JOHANNA F. ZERINGUE
JACK SMART'
TELECOPIER (949) 833.3445
•A Law C WP&a iW
www.vDgt- resnick.com
I aw @vD9 t -re s n ick. com
FILE N0.
2465A
May 31, 2006
Mayor Don Webb
(don2webbOoearthlink. net)
(dwebbacity. newport - beach. ca. us)
Steve Badum
(sbadumacity.n w ort- beach.ca.us)
Richard Edmonston
(redmonstonOcity. newport - beach. ca . us)
Iris Lee
(Ileeacity. newport- beach. ca. us)
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Tabak Residence, 3431 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar
Dear Sirs and Madam:
Please be advised that this office represents Mr. Lawrence Tabak, the owner of the real
property referenced above. Please allow us to share our concerns regarding the manner in which the
City of Newport Beach has addressed our client's attempt to build his dream home at this location,
all of which have resulted in a six year odyssey to obtain a building permit.
The most recent example is most illustrative. After negotiating with City staff for over one
year, and making numerous concessions, an agreement was reached on an acceptable driveway
design. Given the lengthy delays in reaching this agreement, Mr. Tabak requested and received a
written "Approval in Concept" on January 5, 2005, which memorialized this agreement. A further
Approval in Concept agreement was received on March 10, 2005. Based on same, and at
considerable cost, our client retained the services of an architect, soils engineer, civil engineer,
structural engineer and landscape architect in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the
Approval in Concept agreements for obtaining an encroachment permit.
VOGT & RESNICK, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor Don Webb
Steve Badum
Richard Edmonston
Iris Lee
May 31, 2006
Page 2
Throughout this time, Mr. Tabak worked diligently to comply with all of the requirements,
including revisions, as requested by the City's plan checker. At no time during this long and
expensive process did City staff, including the plan checker, mention that the driveway project could
be derailed by other circumstances not included in the Approval in Concept agreements nor
discussed in any fashion whatsoever. Nevertheless, after complying with all of the terms and
conditions mandated by those agreements, only a couple weeks ago Mr. Tabak was informed for the
very first time of the following:
He needed an encroachment agreement, drafted by an attorney, not just the
encroachment permit required by the Approval in Concept agreements.
2. He would need to appear before a public hearing at which the driveway plan
would be voted upon, regardless of the fact that the Approval in Concept
agreements had been satisfied.
The staff of the Pubic Works Department now objected to certain of the terms
and conditions in the Approval in Concept agreements, evidently based on
changes in City policy since the time those agreements were reached.
4. The staff of the Public Works Department issued a report recommending
denial of the driveway project, despite full compliance with the Approval in
Concept agreements.
Thereafter, at the May 23, 2006 City Council meeting, the public hearing on the driveway
project was continued. At a meeting a couple of days later, Mr. Tabak was informed by a City staff
member that he did not believe staff was in possession of the January 5, 2005 Approval in Concept
agreement at the time it drafted the report recommending denial of the project, and had it been, the
report would not have been so written. This staff member added, however, that additional changes
would in fact be needed in order for staff to recommend approval, once again imposing conditions
above and beyond the Approval in Concept agreements. This incident is a perfect example of the
inconsistent and haphazard manner in which the City has continuously addressed Mr. Tabak's plans.
VOGT & RESNICK, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mayor Don Webb
Steve Badum
Richard Edmonton
Iris Lee
May 31, 2006
Page 3
To compound matters, Mr. Tabak is also in the final stages of the plan check process for the
house itself, and has been informed by City staff that a building permit will not be issued in the
absence of the approval of the off -site driveway project. Our client has already received a third and
final extension of this application for a building permit, yet this will expire on June 20, 2006. Upon
expiration he will have to pay the full plan check fees again.
Sadly, the driveway project represents just one of several well- documented experiences over
the last six years through which Mr. Tabak has received conflicting information from the City and
has been otherwise misled and misinformed by staff. This has caused a pattern of costly delays and
inconvenience, which the City has seemingly not taken into account. Moreover, our client has lost
the full use and value of his property and is now facing construction costs that are over double what
they would have been had a building permit been issued in a timely and orderly fashion.
In short, we believe the City has not worked with Mr. Tabak in good faith to implement the
Concept in Approval agreements it reached with him. Our client has reasonably relied on those
agreements, only to see the driveway project remain in jeopardy despite complying fully with the
conditions mandated by the City. This has unfortunately reinforced the belief that some in the City
are determined to see that Mr. Tabak's home is never approved for construction. The City's actions
have resulted in substantial damages suffered by Mr. Tabak, including but not limited to increased
construction costs and lost use of the property.
Mr. Tabak respectfully requests that the City immediately reconsider its decision on the
driveway project, so that it is approved and a building permit issued forthwith, before the current
deadline of June 20, 2006. Otherwise, Mr. Tabak will have no alternative but to seek his legal
remedies. We hope this does not become necessary, and look forward to working with you toward a
satisfactory resolution. Please feel free to contact us at any time to discuss this serious matter; we
look forward to hearing from you very soon.
Very truly yours,
VOGT & RESNICK, LLP
Attorneys at La v�
Y
BARNET RESNICK
CCM /alo
cc: Lawrence Tabak
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL
,V
Agenda Item No. 32
June 13, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen G. Badum
949 - 644 -3311 or sbadum(cDeity.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Response to letter dated May 31, 2006 from
Barnett Resnick, attorney for Lawrence Tabak
3431 Ocean Boulevard
This supplemental staff report is submitted to address the issues raised in the
correspondence dated May 31, 2006 from Barnet Resnick, attorney for Lawrence
Tabak.
In his correspondence, Mr. Resnick states that there was a "negotiation" with City
Staff and several "concessions" were made over a year period. Pursuant to
Council Policy L -6, City staff is prohibited from "negotiating" permits. The City's
encroachment permit procedures and what can be approved within the public
right of way is set forth in City Council Policy L -6. The approval or rejection of an
encroachment permit is not a negotiation. It is a thoughtful and professional
review by City staff for compliance with the City Council's codes and policies.
During the period from November 2004 through January 2005, Mr. Tabak's
architect submitted several informal concepts for modifying the existing non-
standard improvements within the City's right of way including some that
proposed expanding into the adjacent Inspiration Point Park and a private gate
on the common driveway. Because the Public Works Director and City Manager
could not approve the extensive improvements due to the limitations on their
authority set forth in City Council Policy L -6, City staff recommended that the
architect modify the plans to revise various design features such as a park
encroachment and a private gate because City staff believed these
encroachments would probably not be approved by City Council
While Mr. Resnick claims that City staff approved the plans in concept, this is not
case. Based on City Council Policy L -6, improvements, such as the ones now
proposed by Mr. Tabak, require City Council approval. The claim that the City
gave approval in concept is a manipulation of the facts and a misrepresentation
of the complete information. The notation, dated January 5, 2005, by Gil Wong
was "OK ", is not an "approval in concept" as stated in Mr. Resnick's letter. The
complete text of the notation written on the informal submittal dated January 5,
2005 is as follows:
"O.K. G.W. 1 -5 -2005, Regrading and relandscaping will require General
Services approval. Formal submittal via an encroachment permit.
Plans /submittal should include engineering for proposed walls /retaining
walls, landscape plans, elevations, and cross sections. G.W. 1 -5 -2005 ".
Clearly, the "OK" notation was in reference to the fact that the proposed plan was
acceptable for processing and subsequent submittal to City Council for
consideration. The March 10, 2005 letter was from General Services was in
reference to the January 5, 2005 notation, (Regrading and relandscaping will
require General Services approval) and is an approval in concept for the
proposed re- landscaping only.
As to the claim that his client had been "negotiating" for over a year, this is also a
misrepresentation of the facts. After receiving the informal "OK" for processing,
Mr. Tabak's architects did not submit the current plan showing the proposed
retaining wall system until February 2006. During the period between January
2005 and February 2006, Mr. Tabak's architect only submitted plans once in May
2005 that showed the existing retaining walls to remain. No other contact with
PW staff was made until the current plan was submitted in February 2006.
Mr. Resnick also claims that Mr. Tabak was not informed of the City's
encroachment permit and agreement policies. For clarification, the City's
encroachment agreement process was established by City Council Policy L -6
and utilizes a standard agreement in which the applicant agrees to construct and
maintain private improvements within the public right of way. Again, City Council
Policy L -6, clearly spells out the limitations and boundaries that the Public Works
Director can and cannot approve. Improvements such as the ones now proposed
by Mr. Tabak, clearly require City Council approval. As a long time City
employee, Mr. Wong was well aware of the City's encroachment policies and
would have known that any extensive encroachment would need to be approved
by the City Council. We would also expect that Mr. Wong shared that information
with the applicant and /or his architect.
In addition, Mr. Tabak first sought a Modification permit (MD 2002 -049) on May
29, 2002. One of the standard conditions that Mr. Tabak received with that
Modification read; "All work performed within the public right of way shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment
permit/agreement, if required. ". That same standard condition also appeared on
subsequent Modification permits up to and including the May 9, 2005
Modification (MD2005 -025). Additionally, Mr. Tabak's architect, Fleetwood
Joiner Architects, has been doing business in the City of Newport Beach for
many years. We find it inconceivable that such an experienced architect would
not be well versed in the City's codes and policies.
Additionally, Mr. Resnick claims that Mr. Tabak was not informed: 1) of the need
to execute an encroachment agreement; 2) of the need for City Council to
consider the permit and agreement at a public meeting; 3) that the City Staff had
concerns with certain elements within the proposed encroachment plan; and 4)
that staff was going to write a report recommending denial of the encroachment
until within two weeks of the May 23, 2006 City Council meeting. This is not the
case. Shortly after the February 2006 submittal, Mr. Fong Tse, replacing Gil
Wong, informed Tom Stewart, Fleetwood- Joiner Architects, via telephone that
staff could not approve the encroachments as submitted and that City Council
would need to consider the encroachments within the public right of way.
Additionally, staff informed the architect that staff would not support the proposal,
however, they would have an opportunity to advocate approval with the Council
who would have the authority to grant approval over staffs recommended denial.
In his letter, Mr. Resnick consistently refers to an "approval in concept
agreement ". The City's encroachment permit process does not contain an
"approval in concept agreement." The City's process consists of a review by staff
for compliance with City codes and policies. The permit and /or agreement are
issued by the Public Works Director and /or the City Manager upon compliance
with those codes and policies or separate approval by City Council. At no time
during the permit/agreement process does the applicant obtain any vested rights
until the permit/agreement is approved and issued. The only "approval in
concept" that is issued by the City is for submittal purposes in connection with a
Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and
that approval is issued by the City's Planning Department. It's my understanding
that the proposed encroachments into the public right of way were not included
on the CCC Approval in Concept plans that were submitted to the Coastal
Commission. Therefore, no Approval in Concept was formally issued for the
proposed encroachments into the public right of way.
The remaining portion of the letter attempts to lay blame on the City for Mr.
Tabak's six year process. The facts paint a different picture. The below timeline
indicates that Mr. Tabak's stubborn determination to process a project with
unsupportable variances and modifications caused him to delay the project by
approximately two years. The Coastal Commission process consumed four
years including two revised AIC submittals. The building plan check logs show
that three to six months passed between plan checks
The project at 3431 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar has been under way for
several years. The following is a list of key dates of actions related to the proposed
project:
• 5/3/2001 - Approval in Concept (AIC) approved for CDP
• 5/29/2002 — Modifications Committee approves a 5' encroachment into the
10' front setback.
• 6/3/2002 — Re- approval of AIC for revised plans
• 7/22/2003 — Applicant applies for variance to exceed height limit and
modification to encroach an additional 3' into the front setback for a total of
8'.
• 9/18/2003 — Planning Commission denies Variance but approves
modification for additional encroachment into front yard setback.
• 10/14/2003 —City Council denies both the Variance and the Modification.
• 10/21/2003 — Councilmember Heffernan requests reconsideration of the
action taken on 10/14/2003.
• 11/12/2003 — City Council reaffirms denial of the Variance, but approves the
Modification.
• 10/8/04 - Re- approval of AIC for revised plans
• 12/15/04 — Modifications Committee approves request for sideyard guardrail
to exceed the height limit for such railings.
• 12/20/04 —1 st Building Plan Check submittal
• 1/12/05 —1 s' Building Plan check corrections posted
• 2/15/05 —1st plan check picked up by applicant
• 5/9/2005 —Zoning Administrator approves Modification to allow underground
elements to encroach 10' into the 10' front yard setback.
• 5/24/05-2 n' Building Plan check re- submitted by applicant
• 7/07/05 — 2nd plan check corrections picked up by applicant —
Bldg /Grading /PW
•
8/12/05— City receives confirmation of CDP issuance
• 8/23/05 — 2nd plan check corrections picked up by applicant — Planning
• 2/13/06 — 3rd Building Plan check re- submitted by applicant — Proposed
Encroachments shown on the plan for the first time.
• 2/23/06 - 3" plan check corrections picked up by applicant — Bldg
• 4/10/06 — 3'd plan check corrections picked up by applicant— Planning
•
4/19/06-4 th Building plan check re- submitted by applicant, Bldg /Grading
only
• 4/28/06 - PW plan check corrections picked up by applicant.
Part of that time is out of the City's hands as the Coastal Commission is the
current permitting authority for development permits in the Coastal Zone. The
fact that our PW staff did not see any submittal for the proposed encroachment
during the timeframe of May 2005 until February 2006 clearly indicates that the
delay lies with himself or his architect. Had Mr. Tabak submitted a more
conventional plan, without the need for variances and modifications, then the
residence would probably have been built by now.
Contrary to the claim made by Mr. Resnick, we believe the City has acted in
good faith. We have provided timely reviews as the record shows. Any
increased construction costs, delays, and loss of property use are due to Mr.
Tabak's inaction or the inaction of his architect. We strenuously object to any
characterization of City employees that implies that we are purposefully trying to
block this project. Our staff has an exemplary record in providing timely and
professional service.
Submitted by:
Works Director
City Council Regular Meeting
Page 6 of 7
Laura Dietz, GPAC and EQAC member, reported that EQAC reviewed the draft ED2 and submitted approximately 20 pages of comments. Secondly, she
noted that there is an increase in the number of seniors m the community, not children, and that this should also be taken into consideration.
L. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
M. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES - None
N. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT
30. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JUNE 1, 2006. 1100 -20061
Staff Report
Received and filed written report.
O. CONTINUED BUSINESS
31. NON - STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS AT 6707 AND 6709 SEASHORE DRIVE (could. from 5/23/06). [100 -20061
Staff Report
Public Works Director Badum stated that the encroachment is in the public right -of -way area adjacent to the bike lane on Seashore Drive, and that its
height and proximity to the bike lane impedes the safe operation of bicycles in the bike lane. In response to questions by the Council Members, he
provided additional background information on the improvements that have been made at the site.
It was moved by Council Member Ridgeway to 1) deny Encroachment Permit N2005 -0490 based on its non- conformance with provisions
documented in Council Policy L -6 and safety hazard potentials; and 2) direct staff condition the owner to remove all nonstandard, nnpermitted
improvements from the public right -of -way fronting 6707 and 6709 Seashore Drive within 30 days.
The motion carried by the following tell call vote:
Ayes: Council Member SeBch, Mayor Pro Tem R comsky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols
\ , Absent: Council Member Curry
y 32. REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NON - STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY - 3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD (contd.
EXCERPT from 5 /23/06). (100 -20061
JUNE 13, 2006 Staff Report
MINUTE In response to the comments made by Lawrence Tabak, the applicant, at the previous City Council meeting, Public Works Director Badum stated that
additional research was done by staff, and it was found that although GB Wong did make some notations on a conceptual plan, it was not an approval in
concept far the project. Public Works Director Badum admitted that there might have been some miscommunication and stated that staff made the effort
to resolve the issue by working on some compromises with the applicant's architect. He noted, however, the letter that was received from the applicant's
attorney, dated May 31, 2006, and included with the staff report. He additionally noted that staff did prepare a response to this letter, and that it was
being provided at the current meeting.
In response to questions by the Council Members, Public Works Director Badum stated that the existing trash enclosure does make it difficult to
maneuver a vehicle in and out of the garage. He also confirmed that other alternatives could have been utilized in the design of the home.
Thomas Stewart, Fleetwood Joiner & Associates, the architects representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the sequence of events that the
applicant went through. He requested that the City Council consider the fairness to Mr. Tabak and the unreasonable changes now being required by
Public Works, and noted that resolution of the issue is holding up approval of the permit for the home itself. He asked the City Council to honor the
initial approvals to proceed that were given at the beginning of the plan check process and to endorse the proposed encroachment as presented in the
application.
In response to questions of the Council Members, Mr. Stewart provided additional information and clarifications.
Don Kazarian provided additional history on the encroachments in the area.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tom Rossnskv to 1) deny the Owner's request to construct non - standard encroachments, which includes, but are not
limited m, retaining walls, caissons, landscaping, associated drainage, and appurtenances within the public right -o£ -way adjacent to the property located
at 3431 Ocean Boulevard as presented on the latest grading plan received by staff; and direct owner to enter into on encroachment agreement with the
City to maintain the existing walls and planters encroachments in the public right -of -way to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Nichols
Absent: Council Member Curry
P. CURRENT BUSINESS
33. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (OC CRUISER). 1100 -20061 Approved the issuance of a
permit to OC Cruiser to operate two vehicles for hire subject to conditions.
Staff Report
]This item was taken out of order, and the action included with the motion approving the Consent Calendar.]
S34. HARBOR VALUATION - THREE STUDIES (ECONOMIC EVALUATION, APPRAISAL, COST OF SERVICES STUDY) (C- 3850); BUDGET
AMENDMENT (06BA -077). 1381100.20061
Staff Report & Attachments
Assistant City Manager Kiff introduced the item and stated that the recommended action is a result of the discussion that took place at the Study Session
held on January 10, 2006. He noted one change to the contracts and that was to change the expiration date of all three to December 31, 2006.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tom Rosansky to 1) authorize the City Manager to execute Professional Services Agreements in substantially similar
form to the draft agreements, as revised to set the expiration date of all three contracts to December 31, 2006, with: A. Netzer & Associates for the
appraisal of commercial tideland properties within Newport Beach: B. Maximus, Inc. to identify and analyze cost-to- service activities pertaining to City
tidelands; and C. Professors Hanemann and DeShazo to conduct an economic analysis of the Lower Harbor and its assets: and 2) approve a budget
amendment (06BA -077) in the amount of $119,500.00 from 010 -3605 to 0310 -8080 to fund these three agreements.
Mark Sites suggested that the studies focus solely on the harbor and that an analysis of existing revenue streams attributed to the harbor also be done.
He disagreed with the Harbor Commissioners being excluded from the study. Council Member Nichols confirmed with Mr. Sites that he is in support of
http://newportbeach.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=26&clip_id=262&event... 08/24/2011
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 21
September 12, 2006
.. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Fong Tse, P. E.
949-644-3324orftse@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NON - STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY AT 3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD
OWNER: Lawrence Tabak
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a limited expansion of the existing encroachments in the public right -of -way and
direct staff to prepare an encroachment agreement and permit for the non- standard
improvements in the public right -of -way fronting 3431 Ocean Boulevard.
DISCUSSION:
Earlier this year the Owner requested City Council approval to construct new retaining
walls and planters within the public right -of -way fronting his residence. After some
discussions, the City Council denied the applicant's request at its June 13 regular
meeting. (See attached Council report and minute excerpt.)
Since then, the Owner has decided to accept the compromise design developed by the
Public Works Department where the Owner will be allowed to extend the existing
retaining wall easterly of the existing trash enclosure along the wall's current alignment to
provide improved vehicle turning movements into and out of the new "pulled forward"
garages. This design substantially reduces the scope of additional encroachment sought
by the Owner's original request. Additionally, the existing trash enclosure will be removed
from the public right -of -way.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes the Owner's request to construct a limited wall extension along the current
retaining wall alignment will provide adequate space for vehicles to get into and out of the
new garages. A smaller planter along the easterly edge will allow the Owner to have a
reasonable entry area even though he designed the home to be within two feet of the
property line.
Request to Construct Nonstandard Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way at 3431 Ocean Boulevard
September 12, 2008
Page 2
Should the City Council grant an approval to extend the existing retaining ' wall, an
encroachment agreement will be prepared by staff for the Mayor to execute and will
stipulate the Owner and future owner(s) to be responsible for the maintenance of all of
the approved non - standard improvements to the satisfaction of the City. Furthermore, the
Owner will be required to submit an $80,000.00 Faithful Performance Bond and Labor
and Materials Bond as surety for completing the work in the public right -of -way to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
Environmental Review:
Categorically Exempt under Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1(c) of Title 14,
California Code of Regulations. Exemption is for minor alteration of existing facilities
not expanding existing uses.
Submitted by:
Attachment: June 13, 2006 Council Report and Minute Excerpt
Exhibit A — Site Plan of Existing Condition
Exhibit B — Site Plan of Proposed Walls and Planters
i
r� STEW
■ 7 flu3 111l111�.
a A :
kloy
(\.�METER VAULT
R .
1
Ay
I;Sit>•' r
11111_
1� °
' P �
s
f�
6 swp6
I PROPOSED PLAN
AugwS} 30, Zoc�ts EXHIINT —12>
E,cisr�rib
�
e
51�iST1N6
VA t"-
-"
fm*N
I I:
= - - --�
=o" -po.w•
aS rY4.o
I
I
wow
w ~sk�Wa�s
l(Tro
- tp�t+Sli Ecr�c•oSN{�$
s
}9Wc
- 1;�•W.
' P �
s
f�
6 swp6
I PROPOSED PLAN
AugwS} 30, Zoc�ts EXHIINT —12>
City Council Regular Meeting
Page 4 of 5
http://newportbeach.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=26&clip—id=3 33 &event... 08/24/2011
ownership be verified, and that the encroachment be modified to include a twelve -foot taper. He reported that the applicant has agreed to the
modification and that it has been verified that the current owners of the property are not the same owners involved in a previous litigation issue.
It was moved by Council Member Ridgeway to approve the owner's request to construct mn- standard encroachments, which include, but are not
limited to, installing a not to exceed three feet in height wooden fence and appurtenances four feet into the Edgewater Place public right -of -way adjacent
to the properties located at 401 -405 and 407 Edgewater Place; removing the existing concrete sidewalk; and planting ground cover inside the
encroachment area; and direct staff to process an encroachment permit and prepare an encroachment agreement for these non - standard encroachments.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky. Mover Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle,
Council Member Nichols
7 21.
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT NONSTANDARD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY AT 3431 OCEAN BOULEVARD. 1100 -
EXCERPT
20061
SEPT. 12, 2006
Staff Report
MINUTE
Public Works Director Barium stated that the City Council addressed the matter at its June 13, 2006, meeting and, at that time, staff felt that the extent
of the improvements were more than should be allowed. He reported that a compromise has since been agreed upon by the applicant. He provided
several clarifications in response to questions of the Council Members,
Council Member Nichols stated that the retaining wall is visible from the sidewalk, that the cutback is excessive and he is not in favor of it.
Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky stated that he also is not in favor of approving the encroachment.
Council Member Daigle stated that she has visited the site and there is not a visual impact from Inspiration Point.
Council Member Selich stated that he is not in favor of approving further encroachments at the site.
It was moved by Council Member Nichols to deny the owner's request for an expansion of the existing encroachments in the public right -of -way.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich. Mayor Pro Tom Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Nichols
Noes: Council Member Daigle
22.
CITYWIDE WAYFINDING & DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE PROGRAM. 1100 -20061
Staff Report
Council Member Ridgeway acknowledged the history involved in the development of the sigrege program and complimented the program under
consideration at the current meeting.
It was moved by Council Member Ridgeway to approve final design and direct staff to begin implementatioreconstruction of Citywide Wayfinding &
Diction Signage Program.
Gary Sherwin, President of the Conference & Visitors Bureau, stated that it's a remarkable time for Newport Beach, in terms of tourism and the newly
renovated hotel. in the area. He stated that the sigmgs program will be a part of the quality that Newport Beach offer. as a destination.
Council Member Selich asked for the rationale for the signs on Jamboree Road near Bayview Way and an MacArthur Boulevard at Biaon Avenue. It was
explained that they have been placed at the best locations possible to serve as gateway signs.
Council Member Nichols expressed his opinion that the signs are too big. He specifically noted the impact the sign across from Sherman Gardena will
have.
In response to Mayor Webb's question, Community & Economic Development Program Manager Berger stated that complaints were received about one of
the signs; and explained that it was a sign on Margueri te Avenue and the complaints were from residents regarding the reflections on the back of the
sign. He stated that the matter has been addressed, and that complaints were not received about any of the signs on the arterial streets. Mayor Webb
confirmed that residents will be given the opportunity to object to the placement of new signs in the future.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tern Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle
Noes: Council Member Nichols
P. CURRENT
BUSINESS
23.
ADOPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY. (100 -20061
Staff Report
City Manager Bludau stated that the matter was reviewed by the City Council at the Study Session held on August 22, 2006.
It was moved by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt City Council Policy L -26, Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy.
Council Member Nichols stated that some of the calming measures will redirect traffic and cause problems in other areas. Mayor Webb stated that the
proposed program allows for that consideration to be made.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Council Member Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Rosansky, Mayor Webb, Council Member Ridgeway, Council Member Daigle
Abstain: Council Member Nichols
24.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE REGARDING ISSUES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY'S
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ('SPHERES ISSUES') (C- 3885). 138110420061
Status Report
It was moved by Council Member Daigle to continue the item to a City Council meeting to be held on September 19, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
http://newportbeach.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view id=26&clip—id=3 33 &event... 08/24/2011
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in
the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of
Newport Beach will consider the following request:
3431 Ocean Boulevard Non - Standard Public Improvements — The property owner at 3431 Ocean Boulevard is
requesting to construct non - standard private improvements within the Ocean Boulevard public right -of -way, including
eliminating an angle point along an existing private retaining wall, installation of an 8 -inch high planter curb, installation of
a decorative stamped concrete driveway and landscaping on the City slope between the retaining wall and Ocean
Boulevard vehicle access ramp.
The project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 1506(c)(2) and
1506(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has not potential
for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this discussion. The agenda, staff report, and
documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California, 92663, or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.aov on the Friday prior to
the hearing. For more information please call 949 - 644 -3204.
For questions regarding details of the project please contact David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer, at (949) 644 -33498 or
dkeelv(a)newportbeachca.cov.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in
the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of
Newport Beach will consider the following request:
3431 Ocean Boulevard Non - Standard Public Improvements — The property owner at 3431 Ocean Boulevard is
requesting to construct non - standard private improvements within the Ocean Boulevard public right -of -way, including
eliminating an angle point along an existing private retaining wall, installation of an 8 -inch high planter curb, installation of
a decorative stamped concrete driveway and landscaping on the City slope between the retaining wall and Ocean
Boulevard vehicle access ramp.
The project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 1506(c)(2) and
1506(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has not potential
for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this discussion. The agenda, staff report, and
documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California, 92663, or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov on the Friday prior to
the hearing. For more information please call 949 - 644 -3204.
For questions regarding details of the project please contact David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer, at (949) 644 -33498 or
dkeely(a)newportbeachca.gov.
ATTACHMENT "D"
1 OF 2
3431 Ocean Boulevard
Replanting Area
ATTACHMENT "D"
2OF2
Driveway and Retaining Wall
Driveway and Retaining Wall