Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/2003 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session August 26, 2003 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: Proctor CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Heffernan requested that a drawing be provided prior to the evening meeting regarding the curb cut request for 428 Orchid Avenue, Item No. 9. 2. G -1 POLICY REVIEW. Using a PowerPoint presentation, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that on March 11, 2003, the City Council directed the Parks, Beaches & Recreation (PB &R) Commission to form an Ad Hoc Tree Committee. The committee held five public meetings from April 1 to July 15, 2003, and received over 250 suggested changes to Council Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, and 42 written comments. The process resulted in a proposed revision to the G -1 policy, which had previously not been amended since the year 2000. General Services Director Niederhaus reported that the classification of the City's trees was changed to include special trees, problem trees and all other trees. He stated that there are 965 special trees in the City, and that they include landmark trees, dedicated trees and neighborhood trees. Definitions for each category were also added to the policy. He pointed out that another proposed change to the G -1 policy is to allow the PB &R Commission to designate and remove trees from the special tree listing. The City Council would also have the right to remove trees in conjunction with beautification projects. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that problem trees include eight specific species of trees, which have been identified as causing major problems. He noted that there are approximately 7,000 problem trees in the City, and it is proposed that problem trees not be designated as parkway trees on the designated street tree list. He stated that it is also proposed that problem trees that are not designated as special trees be removed if they are causing hardscape or repeated damage due to significant street or sidewalk damage. He explained that such problem trees are currently causing expensive damage to the City's infrastructure. Problem trees could also be removed for causing a view impediment. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that problem trees can be proposed for removal by staff, private property owners or businesses, and that the Urban Forester has the authority to approve their removal. He added that no more than 250 trees would be allowed to be removed annually. City Manager Bludau suggested that the removal of view impediment Volume 56 - Page 345 INDEX Council Policy G -1 (62) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX trees be by approval of the City Manager. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway asked for a clarification on the number of problem trees in the City. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that there are 7,142 problem trees and of that, 6,545 are parkway trees and 708 are view impediment trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the cost of removing a view impediment tree would be the responsibility of the applicant. Mayor Bromberg asked why a property owner who has damage to his property caused by a problem City tree would have to pay for the removal. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that money was not budgeted in the 2003- 2004 fiscal year for reforestation of problem trees. Council Member Heffernan asked if the damage would be allowed to continue in such cases. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that funding is not available for regular reforestation, unless the request comes through as a claim and then the claim process is followed. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would make sense for the City to take the initiative to remove problem trees that are causing damage to private property and to include such situations in the budget. City Manager Bludau noted the provision in the proposed policy that places the responsibility of payment on the applicant for the removal of view impediment trees, but places the responsibility on the City for problem trees that cause damage to private property or the infrastructure. Continuing with the PowerPoint presentation, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that few changes were made to the policies for the all other trees classification, although it was clarified that all other trees are those not designated as special trees or problem trees. The process for the removal of special trees was also more clearly defined, and changes were made to the individuals that can appeal the decision not to remove a tree. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the size of the replacement tree for all other trees was also increased. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the policies for reforestation of City trees are often used by business associations or view communities. He stated that the policies were originally intended to handle problems with hardscape or view issues, but that it is being proposed to include trees that have reached their full life span, are in declining health or are the wrong species for a particular location. He stated that the petition process is also being revised to require pre - approval of petitions and who the petitions must be distributed to. The requirements for replacement trees is also proposed for amendment by reducing the size to the 24 -inch boxed trees and requiring that it be done in a timely manner. In regard to encroachment and demolition permits, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the proposal is to return the authority of requests for tree removals or replacements to the General Services Director rather than having them submitted to the PB &R Commission, which adds a greater period of time to the permit processing procedure_ He stated that the tree trimming standards are also recommended for revision by allowing the Urban Forester to determine when supplemental tree trimming is impractical or infeasible. Volume 56 - Page 346 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the proposed policy has not been submitted by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee to the PB &R Commission yet. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the monthly meetings of the commission have included a report from the committee chairman. He added that the City Council did not request that the committee submit the proposed policy to the commission prior to it being reviewed by the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the PB &R Commission should review the proposed policy and make a recommendation. City Manager Bludau added that the resolution established the Ad Hoc Tree Committee as a committee of the PB &R Commission and did not require them to report back to the full commission. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he would respect their recommendation. Mayor Bromberg asked if the proposed policy would be sent out for environmental review. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the environmental assessment will be handled by Assistant City Attorney Clauson. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that an environmental assessment has not been done, but that the City Attorney's office did attempt to quantify the potential tree loss under the proposed policy. She stated that if the proposed policy will be considered for adoption, an environmental assessment should be done. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that a policy change shouldn't require an environmental review. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that it would be considered discretionary approval under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that given the potential tree loss, she couldn't find a basis for being exempt. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway confirmed that if there's discretionary approval by the City for a change to the policy, the CEQA requirements would have to be complied with. Assistant City Attorney Clausen stated that Council Policy G -1 is being reviewed by the City at the current time as the result of a lawsuit settled in December of 2002, with the Balboa Arbor Society. As part of the settlement, the City agreed to review the policy and to also consider an ordinance for special tree protection. She stated that the committee determined that the current City ordinance sufficiently protects trees from being removed. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he was involved in the negotiations with the Balboa Arbor Society and that there was never a promise that special trees would remain inviolate. Council Member Webb asked if an environmental assessment had ever been done on any of the Council policies. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that Council Policy G -1 is the only Council policy that deals with potential physical changes to the environment. She added that if the proposed changes are made to the policy and it results in a loss of trees, an environmental review should be done. Council Member Heffernan asked if a property owner who removes a City tree without approval would be responsible for reimbursing the City for the value of the tree. in addition to the replacement. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that property owners who perform illegal tree removals are held responsible for the full value of the tree_ He noted that the number of illegal Volume 56 - Page 347 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX tree removals has gone down. Council Member Heffernan asked who pays for a tree that is damaged as the result of an accident. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that a procedure is in place through the Revenue Division to recover damages to trees and City property caused by accidents. Council Member Heffernan asked if the City would bear the risk if a tree is damaged during trimming by City crews since the City approved the trimming, or if the entity that requested the trimming be done would be responsible. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that West Coast Arborists would bear the risk. City Manager Bludau added that the entity that requested the trimming wouldn't be responsible for the quality of the work that is done on the trees. Council Member Heffernan stated that it would seem that the entity that made the request should have to indemnify the City for any damages that occur as a result of the request, since they are the ones benefiting from the trimming. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that it would be the responsibility of the requester if they used their own arborist, but the City doesn't allow this due to liability concerns. Debra Allen, Chair of the PB &R Commission and Chair of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, stated that regarding the concern of the PB &R Commission reviewing the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, regular reports were provided to the commission. She noted, however, that a recommendation from the commission was not sought because the committee was established as an ad hoc committee of the City Council, which would make the City Council the proper body to make recommendations on the proposed policy. Ms. Allen stated that it's important to remember that the G -1 policy is just that, a policy, and not an ordinance. She stated that it's direction to staff about how to handle day to day problems with trees. She stated that the proposed policy is designed to make it easier for a tree to be removed that is causing damage. Ms. Allen provided copies of the existing City ordinances that address trees. She specifically referred to the provisions in Sections 13.08 and 13.09 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and stated that the committee determined that an additional ordinance was not needed. She stated that the proposed policy deals with problem trees, removal of trees and reforestation of trees. Mayor Bromberg asked if the existing G -1 policy references Section 13.08.030 of the NBMC. Ms. Allen stated that she didn't believe so, but that the section has been in place for a number of years. Regarding environmental review of the policy, Ms. Allen stated that the changes to the policy are minor but that she would defer to the City Attorney's office for direction. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if there was any type of environmental review performed during the process. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that there was not. Referring to Section 13.08.030 of the NBMC, Mayor Bromberg asked if the determination by the City Council to relocate or remove a tree is based on the policies established in the G -1 policy. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that the G -1 policy is intended to manage the trees in regard to removal, relocation and tampering, and that it provides the process for removing a tree without prosecution under the City codes. Virginia Herberts stated that the proposed changes give the General Services Director and those that he hires too much authority. She provided a couple of Volume 56 - Page 348 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX examples of how trees have been saved in the past by the actions of concerned individuals who have proven that particular trees did not need to be removed. She agreed with the proposal to give the authority to the PB &R Commission to designate special trees, but she disagreed that the commission should have the authority to remove trees from the special tree listing. Ms. Herberts also expressed her concern for including public views in the discretion to remove trees and giving the authority to the Urban Forester. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway agreed that the ultimate authority should be with the City Manager, and not with the General Services Director. He also felt that there should be a standard established for what constitutes view blockage. Mayor Bromberg asked if trees that are impeding views would be trimmed or removed. Firstly, Ms. Allen agreed that the ultimate decision maker should be the City Manager and in response to Mayor Bromberg's question, she stated that the proposed policy does not allow for one neighborhood to remove trees in another neighborhood because of view blockage. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway agreed that offsite tree removal should not be addressed in the G -1 policy. Elaine Linhoff requested that the Main Street ficus tree issue not be considered when looking at the G -1 policy. She stated that the existing policy was developed after many meetings with input from both those in support of removing trees for various reasons and those in support of retaining all trees. She stated that a compromise was reached and that the resulting policy has worked for three years. She didn't see the need to make any changes to it. She added that the Ad Hoc Tree Committee was biased in one direction and that the public meetings that were held didn't allow for adequate public input. Eleanor Lumsdon displayed a map of Corona Highlands, which showed the homes that are impacted by the eucalyptus trees on Coast Highway. She requested that her neighborhood be allowed to follow the procedures and have the trees replaced, but expressed her concern that the policy only allows for property owners within 500 feet to submit such requests. She stated that properties further from the trees are affected. Iryne Black stated that she was involved with the development of the existing G -1 policy and felt that it worked well until the Main Street issue. She expressed her concern for the proposed policy and the lack of standards in place for the 250 trees the General Services Director would be allowed to remove annually. She stated that there are many other factors to consider than just views. Ms. Black also expressed her concern that renters aren't included in the new procedures and that a 500 -foot limit has been set on those that can file an appeal. Lastly, she disagreed that property values are affected by view impediment trees. Allan Beek, speaking on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), stated that SPON recently voted in support of Dr. Jan Vandersloot's position that the proposed policy is detrimental and that the existing G -1 policy should remain and be enforced. Secondly, speaking on behalf of himself, Mr. Beek stated that he doesn't feel that the existing G -1 policy is working well. He stated that there is no procedure in place for the general public to initiate any corrective action to Volume 56 - Page 349 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX the views that have been taken away by trees. He stated that there is also no procedure in place to save trees on private property that enhance the community. Lastly, Mr. Beek expressed concern for the lack of standards regarding appeals. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Beek that his personal view differs from that of SPON's. Laura Curran agreed with the proposed standards for the reforestation petition process, but felt that a notification process should also be considered. She also encouraged the City Council to consider native trees as replacement trees. Christine Carr expressed her support of SPON's recommendation to retain the current G -1 policy. She also expressed her support of those that developed the existing policy. In regard to the proposals involving tree trimming, Ms. Carr expressed her concern for those in charge of the trimming and the damage that is being done to the trees. Iris Kimmel, President of Harbor View Hills Community Association, stated that the issue is about not planting more trees than can be maintained. She stated that tree maintenance includes thinning, trimming, and removing dead wood on the inside, and that if a tree is properly thinned and trimmed, it remains healthy and doesn't impede views. She stated that the policies should allow people to maintain reasonable views and reasonable tree heights, and that a lot of it has to do with planting the right trees in the right places. Ms. Kimmel requested that the City Council listen to what the majority of the citizens in Newport Beach have been saying and make a decision based on what the City can realistically deliver. Referring to a letter sent by the association to the City Council, she offered to answer any questions. Mayor Bromberg asked for a clarification from Dos. Kimmel regarding the location of the trees that the City refused to lower. Ms. Kimmel stated that they were City trees in the Harbor View Hills and Cameo communities. Urban Forester Conway stated that the City is limited on the amount of trimming that can be done reasonably and that the request would require that the trees be removed or defoliated completely. Bob Pastor stated that approximately twenty years ago, he worked with the City on trimming some trees in his neighborhood. He stated that the trees weren't lowered, they were just thinned, which didn't help with the view problem in the neighborhood, and that the community association ended up trimming the trees themselves. He encouraged the City Council to also review Council Policy C -3, Preservation of Views. Mr. Pastor noted that he currently has a tree that is blocking the view from his home. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway asked if the C -3 policy applies to private or public views. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that Council Policy G -3 does not protect views, but it does identify the importance of views, includes a policy to preserve and promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits of trees, and expresses the City's endeavor to maximize public and private view planes. Council Member Adams asked General Services Director Niederhaus to discuss an issue he mentioned earlier regarding Cameo Shores. General Services Volume 56 - Page 350 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 INDEX Director Niederhaus reported that several months ago, the City was conducting routine grid trimming in the area, and the residents asked them to stop and to trim the trees to the standard used in prior years. He stated that this type of trimming didn't follow the standards set by the National Arborists Society. The City worked with the residents and trimmed some of the trees, according to the G -1 policy, and asked for their opinions. He stated that the residents have since become actively involved with the review of the G -1 policy, and feel that they might be able to remove the trees due to view impediments. Council Member Adams asked if the proposed policy would allow the residents to petition for removal of the trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated the he doesn't believe that the association can afford to do them all, but could possibly do it in phases. He added that they might also have two alternatives, one by means of the reforestation policy and one by the policy for problem trees. Lastly, he stated that the trees are too mature to trim down to 14 feet, as the residents have requested. In response to Council Member Adams' question, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the residents would have the responsibility of paying for the work because it is being requested for view impediment and not hardscape damage. PUBLIC COMMENTS Allan Beek requested that the E1 Morro trailer park issue be placed on the agenda of a future City Council meeting. He stated that the beaches in Newport Beach are overcrowded and it's time that the public had access to the public beach at El Morro. He stated that the residents of the trailer park are fighting the idea. Mayor Bromberg stated that he has spoken to the City Attorney about the issue and has requested that the item be placed on a future agenda. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that El Morro is within the City of Laguna Beach's sphere of influence, and disagreed with the City of Newport Beach addressing the issue. Mayor Bromberg stated that he had the same concern, but it is public property handled by the State and anyone has the right to express opinions, even though the City would have no jurisdiction or authority to demand or expect anything beyond providing an opinion. Council Member Heffernan stated that El Morro is a beach facility with easy access and, if certain improvements are made, it could take some of the pressure off of Corona del Mar beach. He stated that it would be in the interest of the Newport Beach residents to promote the use of El Morro. After a brief discussion by the City Council members, it was decided that the G -1 Policy Review would be continued to the Study Session of September 9, 2003. Council Member Adams encouraged residents and staff to share their stories and issues regarding the trees in the City. He noted that the information about Cameo Shores was enlightening and that he'd like to hear from others about their specific issues and concerns. Volume 56 - Page 351 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 26, 2003 Council Member Webb requested that information be presented on what the City is doing to protect and maintain problem trees. He noted that he doesn't live in what is considered a view community and that the trees, themselves, are the views. Mayor Bromberg agreed that what may be appropriate for one neighborhood may not be appropriate for another. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that over a year ago, funds were provided in the budget for the City to begin annual trimming of ficus trees, a root pruning program and other services to retain problem trees. He stated that it has not resulted in the need to replace fewer sidewalks, and that he would present the Study Session report that addressed the issue to Council Member Webb. Council Member Heffernan requested that a ten -year summary of the claims submitted to the City for damages caused by trees also be included in the information provided to the City Council, and that it include the money that has been spent by the City to resolve them. Assistant City Attorney Clauson also suggested that the General Services Director provide information on the cost and location of sidewalk replacements and repairs that have been done as a result of tree damage. Council Member Heffernan agreed. Assistant City Attorney Clauson additionally noted the tree loss report that was included in the staff report, which identifies the trees that the Urban Forester has determined are problem trees. ADJOURNMENT — 5:45 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on August 20, 2003, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk v � 1 Recording Secr ary Volume 56 - Page 352 INDEX