HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/2000 - Study Session0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
•
J
City Council Minutes
Study Session
February 8, 2000 - 4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, Mayor Noyes
Absent: Debay (excused), Thomson (excused), O'Neil (excused/late - arrived
at 5:45 p.m.)
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
In reference to Item # 5 (Proposed Amendments to Garbage and Refuse
Container Requirements), Council Member Glover asked if the changes to
the ordinance were only applicable to purchases of new garbage containers.
City Manager Bludau responded by stating that the ordinance would not go
into effect until September 1, 2000, and that the City is expecting everyone
to be in compliance with the new regulations by that date. Council Member
Glover stated that she would be pulling the item for discussion at the
evening meeting.
2. REVISION OF COUNCIL G -1 TREE POLICY.
General Services Director Niederhaus introduced Marcy Lomeli, Park &
Tree Superintendent, and John Conway, Urban Forester. He stated that the
two manage the City's urban forest, which consists of approximately 30,000
trees.
General Services Director Niederhaus stated that two unusual tree removal
cases that came before the City Council approximately ten months prior
illustrated the types of issues that staff deals with on a daily basis. He
stated that the first incident involved an individual that illegally removed
and replaced trees in front of his home. The individual stated that he did it
as a result of the frustration he had in dealing with the current policy as well
as with staff having no flexibility in the removal and replacement of trees.
General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the second case involved
an individual who went through the process with staff and the Parks,
Beaches & Recreation Commission, and eventually appealed to the City
Council.
General Services Director Niederhaus stated that staff took the direction
from the City Council decisions made on the two items, and began to analyze
the G -1 Policy. He said that a report was prepared for the June 28, 1999,
City Council meeting on what was wrong with the current policy. He said
that staff also began to work with all interested parties (approximately 100
individuals). He said that the majority of these individuals are interested in
single tree removal and replacements in front of their homes. General
Volume 53 - Page 176
INDEX
Council Policy
G -1
City Trees
(69)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
INDEX
• Services Director Niederhaus stated that there are currently 72 pending tree
removal and retention requests that staff is delaying action on until the
policy is amended by the City Council.
General Services Director Niederhaus stated that some individuals are not
waiting for the amendment to be approved, and that there is increased
frustration in dealing with a policy that has little flexibility. In rewriting the
policy, he said that staff has attempted to come to a fair balance between the
small minority of individuals that insist on all trees being retained and the
majority that would like to see some type of flexibility in the removal and
replacement of trees.
General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the new policy better
defines the tree removal criteria. He said that the second part of the policy
deals with reforestation and has some flexibility built into it. He described
tree removals as the removals of trees only, and reforestation as the removal
and replacement of trees. He stated that reforestation is done at the
individual's expense. He added that the replacement tree must be the
largest tree possible, which can cost between $800 and $1,000.
General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the proposed policy also
sets a better and clearer review process. He said that certain steps are set
for individuals and associations. He said the new policy also allows staff to
go to the City Manager, at the advice of the Risk Manager and Traffic
• Engineer, to authorize tree removals that deal with safety issues.
General Services Director Niederhaus said the appeal process was also
equalized. He said there used to be no appeal process for reforestation. He
concluded by stating that the new policy also requires the individual to
attempt to resolve the matter by paying for two supplemental trims first.
Council Member Glover stated that when she was with the Planning
Commission, the City did not protect private views. She stated that this was
the policy because the City recognized that it couldn't make such a
guarantee. She said that she now sees the City topping trees to preserve
views, which she stated has been an evolvement, over the years, towards
protecting private views. She voiced her disagreement with this new
unwritten policy.
Mayor Noyes and General Services Director Niederhaus both indicated that
private homeowners have had trees topped by private firms.
General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the current policy does
allow a supplemental trim using other than the ISA (International Society of
Arboriculture) standards, but only as an alternative.
Council Member Glover again stated her concern that the apparent
unwritten policy that has evolved over the years could cause a problem for
the City in the future. She added that throughout her district there is no
• undergrounding and that through her meetings with Edison, she has learned
that they would prefer that all trees in Newport Heights be shrubs. She
stated that she has also learned that topping a tree can cause it to die within
Volume 53 - Page 177
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8,2000
• ten years.
INDEX
Council Member Glover stated that she would like to see every tree
preserved, however believes she is in the minority of the residents in
Newport Beach. She also stated her disagreement with reforestation.
Council Member Glover related a conversation she had with Rob Elliott, the
head landscape architect for The Irvine Company, and a committee that was
formed to look at how to retain trees in the City of Irvine. Council Member
Glover stated that after the three years of study, the committee determined
that the only way to retain trees is through preservation. She stated her
concern that staff may consider the removal of 72 trees in the City.
Mayor Noyes confirmed with General Services Director Niederhaus that the
City does top trees and that it is allowed in the reforestation section of the
current G -1 Policy when normal trimming does not solve a view issue. Staff
is recommending that this alternative to reforestation remain in the policy.
General Services Director Niederhaus added that a change to the G -3 Policy
will be suggested for the preservation of views which will prohibit trees in
the 200 block of Ocean Boulevard.
Council Member Ridgeway referred to the pending 72 tree decisions
mentioned earlier and pointed out that 72 trees represent .0024% of the
current 30,000 City trees. He stated his support for a reasonable control on
the removal of trees, or individuals will be out of control. He stated his
• support for addressing the issue in a policy, as is being suggested by staff.
Debra Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, stated that she is happy with the
language in the revised policy and the work of General Services Director
Niederhaus. She stated that there is a concern among her neighbors
regarding the cost of reforestation with the 36 -inch box tree requirement.
She said that if the cost is below $1,000, it shouldn't be a problem. Referring
to Council Member Glover's earlier comments, Ms. Allen stated that there is
a difference between the City using its regulatory power to govern the height
of private development blocking the view of another private landowner and
City development blocking the view of another landowner.
Council Member Glover informed Ms. Allen that her earlier comments were
referring to her district where there are not padded lots like in Ms. Allen's
neighborhood.
Ms. Allen continued by stating that it is true that one policy for all parts of
the City would be difficult. She stated that her area has policies developed
to preserve views.
Kent Moore stated his support for General Services Director Niederhaus and
the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission and their efforts to amend
Council Policy G -1. He feels that if the City determines that reforestation is
justified, he'd be happy to pay for it. He said that the undergrounding of
utilities is also difficult because the utility companies are concerned with the
• roots. Mr. Moore stated that by adopting the amended policy, the City could
save money in repairs, trimming, sidewalk repairs, undergrounding utilities
and legal costs due to personal injury cases. He suggested that the City
Volume 53 - Page 178
E
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
INDEX
Council adopt the amended policy which has been looked at extensively, and
then make additional amendments if that is determined necessary in the
future.
Barry Eaton, President of Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association
and Director of Community Associations Alliance (CAA), stated the
Association's support for the amendments to the G -1 Policy. He added that
they also feel that it is important that appeals can only be brought to the
City Council by the City Manager or a Council Member. He added that the
CAA, which is comprised of many of the padded -lot associations as well as
other associations, is also supportive of the proposed amendments.
Elaine Linhoff, 1760 E. Ocean Boulevard, stated that the G -1 Policy was
worked out about four years ago, which was a compromise between those
who wanted to protect their views and those who wanted to preserve an
urban forest in the City. She stated that the policy, at the time, was
applauded, but after two people had to appeal to the City Council last year,
people suddenly thought that the policy wasn't working. She said that the
proposed policy makes it too easy for people to remove trees. She said that
the vote of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission on February 1,
2000, on the proposed policy were 3 ayes, 2 noes and 1 abstention. She
stated that there needs to be a comprehensive tree policy for the City, rather
than several fragments, and she suggested that the City take advantage of
the services of a certified arborist available to the City through SPON (Stop
• Polluting Our Newport) to write such a policy. Ms. Linhoff concluded by
stating that the maintenance of trees and sidewalks should be separated.
She said that allowing General Services to perform both services creates a
bias.
Council Member Glover stated that a comprehensive policy does exist but it's
true that there are many different parts of the City and possibly there
should be different policies for different situations. Council Member Glover
referred to the difference between the padded lot areas and the older parts of
Newport Beach, such as Newport Heights.
Ms. Linhoff agreed that maybe there should be a different policy for the view
neighborhoods.
John Robertson, 2509 Harbor View Drive, stated that his concern with the
G -1 Policy is that it's becoming a "view tax ". He stated that it sounds like a
compromise by having the people that want to remove trees, pay for them,
but he stated his concern that there could be lawsuits filed against the City
by frustrated homeowners who want numerous mature trees cut back.
Pat Beek, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, stated that the
proposed G -1 Policy is much more liberal in regard to the removal of trees.
She added that she was the abstention vote because she felt that the policy
should better clarify definitions, procedures and limits to making requests.
Ms. Beek stated that when discussing views, everyone should keep in mind
• that this would not be exclusively blue water views. She stated that the
change in the removal of trees due to hardscape damage is not new.
Ms. Beek stated that another concern that should be considered is how much
Volume 53 - Page 179
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
• staff time will be needed to handle the reforestation requests. She said that
the Commission knows of no changes to the G -3 Policy. She concluded by
stating that the Commission deferred the Eastbluf£ item to allow staff to
report on the possibility of replanting the trees in another part of the City.
Bud Rasner stated his concern for the liability that the City faces by leaving
large trees, such as eucalyptus, standing and then risking the possibility of
damage from drippings or personal injuries from uneven sidewalks.
Mr. Rasner stated his concern that he, as a property owner, could be named
in such lawsuits. He stated his understanding that the Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission vote would be counted as a 4 ayes, 2 noes vote
because the abstention would be recorded as a vote with the prevailing side.
Mr. Rasner stated that the policy will not allow all trees to be cut down in
the City, and he supports the thought that trees should occasionally be
replaced, especially as they get older.
Val Skoro, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, stated that he voted in
support of the new policy but also wants to see more trees in the City, such
as on MacArthur Boulevard. He stated his feeling that not everyone in the
City will ever be satisfied with one tree policy, and maybe separate policies
for different parts of the City might work better. Mr. Skoro stated that he
wanted to make it clear that although he supported the new policy, he does
not feel that it is a way to get more trees removed. He said there needs to be
common sense and flexibility.
• Tom Tobin, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, referred to Item #18
on the evening agenda (Appeal of Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
decision) and the removal of a tree at Vista del Oro and Eastbluff Drive.
After discussion between the Mayor and the City Attorney, it was decided
that the specifics of the item should take place at the evening meeting.
Mr. Tobin concluded by stating that he voted in favor of the proposed G -1
policy.
Council Member Ridgeway suggested that the item be forwarded to a regular
meeting of the City Council. He said the intent of the revised policy is to add
some flexibility, which would allow for more common sense. He agreed with
Mr. Skoro's comment that support of the proposed policy does not indicate
that one is not in support of maintaining and adding trees in the City.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that the City has 2,000 more trees than it
had a couple years ago, and he knows of no one that just wants to cut down
trees. He stated his disagreement with Ms. Linho£fa belief that the policy is
not comprehensive. He feels that the policy is comprehensive and was
written responsibly by many citizens. He feels that the proposed policy
responds to safety and risk, and gives the City the ability to weigh safety and
risk against long -term cost. He commended all those who contributed to the
proposed policy.
Council Member Glover stated her agreement with Council Member
Ridgeway that the policy needs to address people illegally and hazardously
• cutting down or trimming trees on their own.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked about the provision related to damage to
Volume 53 - Page 180
IIN11
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
• underground utilities and if there was any discussion related to efforts to
relocate a utility rather than removing a tree. General Services Director
Niederhaus cited a recent incident on Tradewinds Lane where a utility was
moved, as part of an encroachment agreement, in order to save a tree.
Mayor Pro Tern Adams referred to an issue in Eastblu£f recently where a
tree was determined to be interfering with a sewer line and the sewer line
was not relocated. Public Works Director Webb stated that it is not always
possible to relocate utilities and gave the example of a ficus tree, located fifty
feet from a sewer lateral, still being able to cause roots in the lateral. He
added that waterline relocations can be very expensive relocations.
Mayor Noyes stated that the item will be brought back to the City Council at
a regular meeting for action.
In reference to Ms. Allen's previous comments about the cost to replace a
tree, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that a 24 -inch box tree
could be planted at a cost of approximately $195. He stated that the cost of a
36 -inch box tree is more because a crane is required to put the tree into
place, which costs approximately $100, plus an additional cost due to the 36-
inch box tree being approximately five to ten years older. He said that by
utilizing a tree contractor the cost would definitely stay below $1,000, with a
range of $600 to $800.
3. ORANGE COUNTY CITIES - REVENUE/EXPENDITURE COMPARI-
SON,
Administrative Services Director Danner introduced Deputy Administrative
Services Director Dick Kurth, Revenue Manager Glen Everroad and
Management Analyst Craig Bluell.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that on November 9, 1999,
the City Council directed staff to look at all of the cities in Orange County to
compare revenues and expenditures. He explained that the first step was to
decide on how to gather the information. He said that, from his experience,
a phone survey to the various cities would not ensure reliable data. He said
that sending a City employee to each of the cities to look through their
ledgers would not be a good use of staff time. He said that it would also be
too time consuming to receive and review a copy of each City's budget.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that it was decided to collect
the data electronically through the State Controller's Office. He said the
problems with this method are that the information is old, the information
received is only as good as the information provided to the State and that
different cities may use different classifications for the various revenues and
expenditures.
Administrative Services Director Danner said that once the information was
received from the State, the City then had to reformat it, and analyze and
sort it using various Excel spreadsheets. He said this analysis was
• completed about a month ago but upon review, staff questioned the City
being #1 in property tax revenues. He stated that the City tried to
determine the reason for this and found that many cities in the County have
Volume 53 - Page 181
INDEX
Revenue /Expenditure
City Comparison
(40)
•
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
INDEX
redevelopment agencies, which means that the property taxes go to the
redevelopment agency and not to their general fund. He stated that staff
then went back to the State Controller's Office to obtain redevelopment
agency information.
Administrative Services Director Danner added that it is important to know
that the State Controller classifies revenues into two categories: general
revenues and functional revenues. He said general revenues are defined as
those revenues available to any general fund activity, and functional
revenues are defined as those revenues that are for a specific purpose.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that staff concentrated on
certain revenues and expenditures, although information for all revenues
and expenditures was included in the analysis. He referred to the chart on
page two of the staff report that shows Newport Beach as being sixth among
the 31 Orange County cities in total revenue during the 1996 -97 fiscal year,
but number three in per capita ranking. He added that general revenues
and functional revenues were split almost 50/50 in the City, which is the
norm throughout the County.
Administrative Services Director Danner explained that functional revenues,
as determined by the State, don't necessarily equate to what the City would
consider as encumbered. Council Member Glover asked if tidelands revenue
would fall into the functional revenue category. Administrative Services
• Director Danner responded that it would, but added that tidelands revenue
is not included in the report since only general fund revenues were looked at.
Administrative Services Director Danner continued through the Comparison
of Selected Revenues chart in the staff report and mentioned the City's
rankings for property tax, sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT). He
then moved on to the next chart, Comparison of Selected Expenditures, and
stated that the City ranked fourth overall and second per capita. He also
mentioned the City's rankings in public safety, culture and leisure, general
government and community development.
In response to Council Member Glover's question, Administrative Services
Director Danner stated that community development primarily includes
planning and building. Council Member Glover stated that, with the City's
per capita ranking at number eight, this may indicate that the City is not
committing enough revenue to community development and planning. City
Manager Bludau agreed and pointed out that community development was
one of two categories where the City ranked lower in per capita than it did in
the overall ranking. He stated that the other category was TOT.
In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Administrative
Services Director Danner stated that most of the expenditures in the
Community Development category are supported by functional revenues.
Council Member Ridgeway confirmed that transportation fees are not
included in the report because they are not general fund revenues.
• Administrative Services Director Danner stated that staff came to three
conclusions. He listed the first observation as being that staff realized that
Volume 53 - Page 182
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
INDEX
• the data is not exact. He stated that secondly, staff observed that the City's
sales tax ranking should be higher. He added that there should be more
sales tax from the tourism industry.
Mayor Noyes clarified that TOT is also low, when looking at the per capita
ranking versus the overall ranking.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the third observation
made by staff was that some cities have as much as 85% functional revenues
and, as mentioned earlier, the City is split about 50/50 between functional
revenues and general revenues. He added that general revenues are subject
to tampering with by the State.
Administrative Services Director Danner concluded by stating that he
recently received a publication from the Public Policy Institute of California
that included a review of local government revenue data in California. He
read from the review which began by stating that many policymakers and
analysts throughout the State have hesitated to use the State Controller's
data on local public revenues because it does not capture all public entities in
the State, does not accurately reflect the fiscal activity of those it does
capture and the data is not produced in a timely manner.
Council Member Glover pointed out that the per capita ranking of the City in
the public safety expenditure category is #1 in the County, and she pointed
out that her district, which is surrounded on three sides by commercial
• areas, still feels safe to many of its residents. She said that the City should
take a great deal of pride in that fact.
Council Member Glover stated that she wasn't too surprised by the sales tax.
She added that she understands that the State could take the sales tax from
all cities and redistribute it to the cities within each County, on a per capita
basis. She felt that this would, in essence, be a no growth overlay on the
entire state, since cities would not want development in their city if it didn't
produce direct revenue. She asked for more information regarding this
proposal.
Ken Emanuels, Kenneth Emanuels and Associates, stated that the senator
who introduced the proposal does not like sales tax because it is not a federal
income tax allowable deduction. The senator, instead, feels that only state
taxes should be paid since they are deductible. Mr. Emanuels stated that
the proposal is not in print and shouldn't advance very far. He added that
the chances of even a swap between the City's property tax and sales tax are
zero. He said the cities would oppose it almost uniformly, and legislators
wouldn't support it, since it would require constitutional protection. He
stated that even the governor has stated his opposition.
Council Member Glover asked which of the revenues is the most endangered.
Mr. Emanuels responded by stating that he didn't foresee any changes in
property tax, sales tax or transient occupancy tax in the next couple of years.
• He stated that if there is a downturn in the economy, the State then might
come to the cities for more property tax.
Volume 53 - Page 183
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
INDEX
Council Member Ridgeway asked how a constitutional amendment to protect
the City's property tax could be initiated. Mr. Emanuels stated that it would
be impossible to accomplish, politically. He understands that it would
require an initiative, which the League of Cities has determined would cost
approximately $1 million.
Council Member Glover stated her feeling that the two best ways to protect
property tax in the City are to make sure an airport is built at El Toro and to
make sure the schools are improved. She stated that the City also needs to
look at ways to increase its sales tax. She added that the transient
occupancy tax revenue could also be increased.
Council Member Glover stated that the City should encourage The Irvine
Company to continue with their plans for Macy's and Neiman Marcus. Per
Council Member Glover's request, Planning Director Temple reported that
Fashion Island is allowed a total development of 1,588,850 square feet, plus
1750 theater seats. She stated that of the 1,588,850 square feet, there
remains 250,000 square feet of retail development that could occur in the
future. Planning Director Temple stated that the 250,000 would not be
subject to a vote by the citizens if the Greenlight Initiative was in effect, but
would be included in the tabulations.
Council Member Glover asked for the status on Macy's and Neiman Marcus.
Planning Director Temple stated that any improvements to the existing
• buildings, which added additional floor area, would draw down the
remaining 250,000. Planning Director Temple added that 200,000 square
feet of retail space was effected by The Irvine Company's recent action to not
continue with the developments at Fashion Island. Council Member Glover
stated that the City should talk to The Irvine Company about continuing
with their plans. She stated that the City needs to capitalize on the sales tax
it receives from Fashion Island.
Mayor Noyes confirmed with Planning Director Temple that the 45,000
square feet that was recently moved from Fashion Island is not included in
the 250,000 figure. He said that with the 250,000 square feet available and
the entitlement to the hotel tower next to the Four Seasons, The Irvine
Company could develop without too much trouble. He asked how long the
entitlement for the hotel tower would be effective. Planning Director Temple
stated that the entitlement does not disappear except through an
amendment to the General Plan, but that the hotel requires traffic phasing
approval, which is only allowable for a couple of years.
Council Member Ridgeway agreed with Council Member Glover's comments
and assured everyone that the City would not do anything until it weighs out
and balances the traffic impacts. He believed that the financial implications
of a Fashion Island expansion are very important to evaluate. He
encouraged The Irvine Company to develop, but stated that he understands
that there are market considerations that dictate what they do.
• Regarding the property tax ranking, Barry Eaton expressed the opinion that
it is not fair to include redevelopment area funding in the report since that
money cannot be used toward General Fund revenue. He stated that it
Volume 53 - Page 184
•
•
E
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
might not be bad that the City does not rate as high in terms of sales tax
since the State Controller may reallocate sales tax partially on a per capita
basis. This will more strongly affect Irvine and Costa Mesa. He also
expressed concern relative to e- commerce and its affects on State and local
sales tax.
Council Member Glover agreed with Mr. Eaton and added that the City
should be concentrating more strongly on transient occupancy tax (TOT) in
the event the City loses its sales tax. Mr. Eaton concurred, believing that
the City's TOT is poised to grow.
Council Member Glover expressed her appreciation to staff for doing this
report. She stated that it gives her a strong sense of the direction Council
should take in order to achieve increased revenue.
Administrative Services Director Danner reported that next year's fiscal
information will come out in March. He indicated that it took a lot of staff
time to generate this report, but confirmed that they could continue using
this format for future analysis.
Phil Arst stated that he talked with a planner in Irvine last week who also
expressed concern relative to e- commerce. He believed that the plan should
incorporate and look into this concept as it can have a major impact on the
City. Regarding TOT, Administrative Services Director Danner clarified for
Mr. Arst that the City's TOT is higher than the adjacent cities.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the City does have to be
concerned about e- commerce since six to seven percent of the City's sales tax
base will be going this way in a few years. He added that most economists
feel that a six to seven percent reduction in sales tax equates to a moderate
recession. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that
Congressman Chris Cox's comment that e- commerce should not be taxed is
irresponsible.
Regarding Mr. Arst's question relative to Proposition 13, Administrative
Services Director Danner stated that data is difficult to obtain and comes
from the County. He indicated that, up until a couple of years ago, the City
had the highest number of pre- Proposition 13 assessments, but now the City
is second highest.
Mayor Pro Tern Adams thanked Council Member Glover for requesting this
report and agreed that it would be a good idea to keep it up to date. He
asked if any consideration was made of sharing this with the other Orange
County cities. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the City
has not formally done this, but that the City Clerk has received many
requests from other cities to receive it and noted that the report is also on
the City's website.
City Manager Bludau stated that he was pleased with what he heard from
Council, specifically about the TOT because it is an opportunity for the
greatest growth with the least impact on the community.
Volume 53 - Page 185
INDEX
•
•
CJ
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
February 8, 2000
PUBLIC COMMENTS -None.
ADJOURNMENT - 5:47 p.m.
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 2, 2000, at
3:15 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
Recording
Volume 53 - Page 186
INDEX