Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed January 12, 2021 January 12, 2021, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(o-)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item SS2. Marine Activities Permits This is the first of two study session items for which it would have been helpful to indicate additional action on them has been scheduled for the evening meeting. This item is apparently a prelude to Item 13 on the evening agenda, in which changes to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are proposed to be introduced for adoption on January 28. As indicated in the staff report for that, the revisions are the work of an ad hoc Harbor Commission committee that held, it says, three community meetings in 2019, two of which (October 21 and October 30, 2019, are listed on the Title 17 review page). It also appears from the preamble to the proposed ordinance that on October 14, 2020, the full Harbor Commission held a meeting at which it adopted a resolution unanimously approving the changes being recommended. It would have seemed helpful to provide minutes from those meetings and any comments received, so the Council (and public) would have a sense of how well attended they were and what discussion resulted in the current proposals. Being unable to anticipate what changes might be suggested at this study session, my comments on the ordinance text currently posted for introduction are provided under Item 13, below. Item SS3. Mariners and Dover Shores Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study This seems to be a prelude to Item 14 on the evening agenda, where some or all of the proposed traffic calming measures may be approved. I am not in the study area, but live about 500 feet north of its upper corner as shown on page 14-13 of the Item 14 staff report and am familiar with it. I come to this a bit late, having not attended any of the community meetings (only the last of which seems to been noticed on the City's online calendar) and having had only a limited time to review the voluminous staff report, but I have these comments: • A major component of the recommendation is installation of "speed cushions" o As illustrated on page 14-106, the Council has previously approved these on the segment of Tustin Avenue between Santiago and 23rd Street. ■ What has been the experience with these? ■ 1 agree with the comment on page 14-273 that these are aesthetically unpleasing and detract from the beauty of the neighborhood, and that "mini -medians" might be a better solution. January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 11 In that connection, what have the results been with the City's recent efforts on Bayside Drive where median changes were chosen over cushions or traffic circles? o The Council has also heard a great deal about traffic calming desires in Newport Heights, but to the best of why knowledge, the only speed bumps there are in the parts of Newport Heights that are in the City of Costa Mesa, specifically, along 16th Street west of Irvine Avenue. ■ Why have speed bumps not been deployed in the City of Newport Beach portion of Newport Heights? o The staff report says the speed cushions are "supported" by the Fire Department, but Policy L-26 calls for comment from the Police Department as well. ■ How do they affect police response times? What vehicles other than fire engines can straddle the slots (and does those that can include ambulances)? ■ What damage can they cause to vehicles that cannot straddle the slots? o The staff report indicates neighborhood concern about bike safety. ■ Do speed cushions increase accidents among cyclists trying to negotiate the slots? • Tables 1-A and 1-B in the study (pages 14-31 and 14-32) indicate the portion of Galaxy Drive between Mariners and Polaris Drives is consistently one of the highest areas for accidents. Yet no calming measures are recommended there. Why is this? • Policy L-26 requires hearings before the City's "Traffic Affairs Committee" before calming requests come to Council. What is this committee (noting that as Item XII at the July 9, 2019, meeting, the Council unanimously supported Council member Brenner's suggestion to consider the creation of a body with that name)? And did it happen? • Why is the public correspondence starting on page 14-113 redacted? • Some of the assertions made in the public correspondence seem to me to be erroneous or exaggerated. For example, a letter on page 14-129 says people are "constantly" running the stop signs at Mariners and Dover, and a letter on page 14-137 goes further to say people never stop at the intersection of Mariners and Santiago. That does not comport with my own experience. Nor does it seem supported by the accident data. • While I appreciate City staff seems limited by Policy L-26 to consider what it receives requests for, I have trouble understanding what distinguishes the study area from the very similar areas to the west of Dover Drive (in particular, if Mariners Drive needs calming on side of the intersection away from Mariners School, why wouldn't it need it on the side along the school)? Or the again very similar area to the west of Irvine Avenue January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 11 (bounded by Holiday Road, Tustin and Santiago),' which is also subject to cut -through traffic from and to Costa Mesa trying to avoid the signal at Irvine and Santiago? o It seems anomalous to me for the Council to approve spending money to fully implement calming measures in some neighborhoods, while implementing none in others. Item W.A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS This item, which is confined to discussion of the appropriate compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk (as opposed to their job performance), is presumably a continuation of the similarly titled Item IV.B on November 24, 2020. The difference is who the agenda says the Council will be instructing to conduct the negotiations with those employees. On November 24, the negotiators announced were then -Mayor O'Neill and then -Mayor Pro Tem Avery. This changed at the December 8, 2020, meeting, where in Item 16 staff recommended staying, as had been the case in the past, with the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as the negotiators, which would have then been the new Mayor Avery and new Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon. However, at 1:40:05 in the video, now -former -Mayor O'Neill asked for the recommendation be amended because "Council member Dixon and I have been designated for this task, 1 was hoping we could just ratify that," which the Council approved. Prior to that action, it is unclear who "designated" Council members Dixon and O'Neill as the Council's negotiators. A review of past minutes indicates that in recent years they have been whoever happened to be Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. For example, at the December 10, 2019, meeting, the Council designated newly selected Mayor O'Neill and Mayor Pro Tem Avery as its negotiators. And at the December 11, 2018, meeting, the Council selected newly selected Mayor Dixon and Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill. Prior to that, at the October 23, 2018, meeting, the Council had selected then - Mayor Duffield as its sole negotiator. And prior to that the City Attorney seems to have simply listed a Council member without making clear how or why they had been chosen. For example, on April 25, 2017, Council member Dixon was listed as the negotiator even though she wasn't the Mayor at the time, on February 9, 2016, Council member Petros was designated even though Dixon was Mayor, and still earlier, Council member Henn had been the negotiator. Item 1. Minutes for the December 8, 2020 City Council Regular Meeting and the December 18, 2020 City Council Special Meeting Suggested correction: The passage shown in italics below is from the draft minutes with a suggested correction shown in s*��, okeoz:t underline format. The page number refers to Volume 64. Page 587, paragraph 3: "Council Member Dixon thanked Mayor O'Neill for an outstanding year of leadership, performing an unpreGeden* unprecedented number of acts of 1 The SS3 staff report from January 25, 2011, indicates a residents' request from that area. January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 11 substance on behalf of the City, working closely with the Board of Supervisors, and believed the City has benefited from his wise counsel and steady hand." Comments: Page 585, Item IX, second bullet: City staff appears to have ignored the Council's direction to "bring ... back at a future meeting" "Consideration of staff assisting with this year's Newport Beach Boat Parade," as no public meeting was scheduled to discuss this prior to the parade. Page 590, Item 16 (Designation of City's Representatives Under California Government Code Section 54957.6(A)): See comment on Item IV.A, above. The minutes are unclear as to how this was transformed from the motion recommended in the posted agenda (which was to "designate the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as the City's designated representative") into one to "Designate Council Member Diane Dixon and Council Member Will O'Neill as the City's designated representative for purposes of labor negotiations with all unrepresented employees within the Key and Management Group including, but not limited to, the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk." In recent years, the Council's representatives for labor negotiations with the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk have been the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, including most recently as Item 15 on December 10, 2019, when newly elected Mayor O'Neill and Mayor Pro Tem Avery were appointed as the team for 2020. The only time Council members Dixon and O'Neill served as the team was in 2019 when they were Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem (appointed by routine Item 18 on December 11, 2018). Also, although it has been part of the agenda boilerplate in these recent years, the phrase "including, but not limited to" in the motion is quite confusing. To the best of my knowledge, the only Key and Management Group employees the Council negotiates with are the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk, since those are the only ones directly employed by the Council. The Council does see and approve the contracts with the Fire and Police Chiefs, but I have never seen a closed session announced in which Council representatives were instructed to negotiate directly with them. Page 591, Item 1 (Authorization for the City Attorney to Take Action to Support Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes' Challenge to an Order Releasing Approximately 1,800 Inmates from Orange County Jails): The draft minutes appear to accurately reflect what was said on this matter at the December 18, 2020, special meeting, but much of what was said was, in retrospect, misinformation. The preparation and submittal of an amicus brief does not seem to have been something that could be accomplished by City staff at minimal expense. Instead, the City staff seems to have engaged the outside firm of Ring Bender LLC at a cost, which if minimal, is only because some 20 other city attorneys agreed to contribute $1,000 to $2,000 each. January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 11 • As it turns out, inmates have not been safer in the county jail facility than they might have been elsewhere. A COVID-19 outbreak was in progress in the jail at the time of the court order, and as predicted by the trial judge, grew worse. • Also, it appears, opportunities to transfer inmates to state facilities (without releasing them from custody) did exist, at least as reported in Voice of OC. Finally, a potential release of inmates into the general population was much less imminent than the Council may have been led to believe. Indeed, the appeals panel to which the City's amicus brief was directed, found the matter premature: see their December 29, 2020, Preliminary ruling in Case Number G059764, which notes the details of the trial court order being challenged were not final, and would not be until January 8, 2021, at the earliest — now pushed to no sooner than January 20. In retrospect, it would seem the City's brief should have been made part of the record by directing it to the trial court (rather than the appeals court), so that judge could have considered the City's core argument, which seems to have been (in addition to considering potential harm to the public) that California courts lack the authority to direct a sheriff to achieve inmate health requirements in a particular way. That argument, and the public safety one, if rejected by the trial judge, could then have been reconsidered on appeal (assuming the County had not already presented these defenses ).2 In any event, it does not look like this matter will be heard by the appeals panel for many weeks, at which time the order that was argued against in the City's amicus brief, and the circumstances surrounding it, are not likely to be those before the panel. Item 7. Professional Services Agreement with Carpi & Clay, Inc. for Federal Advocacy Services I know there is community interest in how much staff is proposing to spend on the airport -related portion of this contract (as opposed to dredging), how that compares to the current level of spending, and what residents got for that — all things that are explained in neither the staff report nor the attached draft contract. Indeed, although I am able to find a copy of the just -expired dredging advocacy contract (C- 8542-1, approved as Item 8 on February 27, 2018, with a $4,700 per month retainer), I am unable to find any copy of an existing contract with Carpi & Clay for airport advocacy. Since the staff report (page 7-4) says the "revised monthly retainer of $9,550, which is reflected in the final agreement ... represents a savings of $450 per month when compared to the collective costs for the current consultant engagements," one can deduce the current retainers, when combined, total $9,550 + $450 = $10,000 per month, from which it follows the aviation advocacy portion must currently by $10,000 - $4,700 = $5,300 per month. 2 Based on the January 11, 2021, reporting in Voice of OC of the January 8 trial court session, the issues raised by the City in its appeals court amicus brief may duplicate issues already raised by the County in the trial court: "Barnes' attorneys said they strongly objected to the appointment of such an expert, saying it would be improper for courts to be running an executive branch agency led by an elected official." January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 11 That does not, however, resolve how the new $9,550 retainer will be divided between the two efforts, and hence whether airport advocacy will be pursued at a greater or lesser level than it currently is. Nor does the "Funding Requirements" paragraph at the bottom on page 7-1. Instead, it adds, if anything, still more uncertainty by indicating some unspecified portion of the $9,550 "Will be expensed to the Aviation Issues account in the City Manager's Office budget, 01020001- 811008" — and account designation the meaning of which cannot be fully deduced from the 257 - page currently adopted Budget Detail PDF. From page 114 of that PDF (numbered "95") we see the "01020001" refers to a division within the City Manager department budget entitled "CITY MANAGER AIRPORT ISSUES," within which $350,000 is allocated for FY21 "MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS." But the meaning of the "811008" is nowhere explained in the FY21 Budget Detail. One has to look at the "Budget Glossary" in earlier years' budgets to discover "811008" stands of "Professional Services" expenses (in other words, contracts with outside consultants). But evidently, since the current contract is at most a small part of it, most the $350,000 reserved for airport -related professional services in FY21 must be going for something other than airport advocacy. What that remainder has been reserved for is unexplained in the approved budget detail. Item 9. Annual Mayoral Appointments It seems useful to compare this item to the City Clerk's current Roster of Appointments (dated December 9, 2020), as well as her links to descriptions of the committees to which appointments are being proposed. One learns from those (assuming they are correct), that in Category I ("COUNCIL COMMITTEES (Standing or Ad Hoc)"), there are several previously -appointed committees, not listed in the present staff report, that have ceased to exist, but which may not have reported a result back to the City Council as a whole. Those include the following, which I think are erroneously listed in the Roster since I think they did report back their advice to the Council after which they dissolved: • Ad Hoc Committee on Election Reform • Ad Hoc Committee on Local Business Advancement • Ad Hoc Committee on Short Term Lodging And the following which appear to have ended on December 31, 2020, without providing any advice: • Ad Hoc Committee on Central Library Lecture Hall • Ad Hoc Committee on Homeless Task Force • Ad Hoc Committee on Junior Lifeguard Building In addition, there appear to be some ad hoc Council Committees not listed in either the present staff report or the Clerk's roster, the status of the appointments to which are unclear, both as to who made them and how long they last. Those include an Ad Hoc Committee on Solid Waste and possibly others, such as a Council Aviation Committee (separate from the Citizens Aviation Committee in Category III) that takes trips to Washington DC to lobby, and a similar Harbor Dredging Group. January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 11 In Category II ("CITY COUNCIL/CITIZENS COMMITTEES (Standing or Ad Hoc)"), who the Mayor recommends to serve on the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee is unclear. The enabling Resolution No. 2020-21 says the Council member appointee shall be "The person elected as Mayor, or the City Council Member designated by the Mayor." The staff report does not indicate which it is. The HEUAC website continues to show former Mayor O'Neill, but if no Council action is taken, that has presumably changed to Mayor Avery. In Category III ("CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES (Standing or Ad Hoc)"): • The appointment to the Balboa Village Advisory Committee seems pointless since BVAC ceased to exist on December 31, 2020. • The intent of the appointment of a single Council member to the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee is unclear. First, EQAC has not met for many years (the staff liaison has retired and all citizen appointees' terms expired in early 2017). In addition, enabling Resolution No. 2012-116 calls for two Council members to be appointed, one of whom is too be designated as chair. The information in the Roster and on the webpage about the Newport Coast Advisory Committee is confusing (as is much else about the NCAC). Enabling Resolution No. 2001-81 says there should be four association appointees, yet there only appear to be three. Most terms are listed as "until sunsetted" (the Roster and webpage don't agree on Deborah O'Connor), yet the resolution says all terms are three years. The webpage says "This committee cannot be disbanded without violating the Newport Coast Annexation Agreement, which calls for its creation and maintenance," yet the committee created by the current resolution says it ends after six years or with the cessation of annexation activity, both of which would seem to have occurred. In Category IV ("JOINT GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEES (Permanent or Standing)"), not only does the Council not routinely hear back from many of the appointees, but some of the committees are difficult to identify. • For example, the "Hazardous Waste Material - Joint Powers Authority" seems to have changed its name to the "Orange County -City Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Authority." • What is the "Inter -City Liaison Committee," and when and where does it meet? Is this another name for the "borders committees" in which Newport Beach officials met with those from neighboring cities to discuss issues of mutual interest? If not, why do those no longer exist? • Despite the Mayor proposing an appointment to it, it is not clear the Orange County Coastal Coalition still exists. Note that the only webpage I could easily find referring to it is more than six years old since it mentions "Supervisor Moorlach" as being co-chair. All the meetings I can recall were chaired by then -Supervisor Pat Bates, again, over six years ago. Item 11. Resolution No. 2021-4: 944 Via Lido Nord Residential Dock Reconfiguration - Call for Review of Harbor Commission's Decision The staff report does not state as clearly as it could what I believe is the issue here. January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 11 City Council Policy H-1 was amended by the Council as Item 24 on June 25, 2019, as a direct result of a similar request for a dock configuration at 939 Via Lido Nord, which was finally approved, as Item 18 on the same agenda, allowing that dock to extend 16 feet beyond the pierhead line even though there was no existing permit allowing any extension at all. The primary purpose of the Policy H-1 revision was to remove the ambiguity that had troubled the 939 Via Lido Nord discussions as to the City's policy for allowing docks to extend beyond the pierhead line. The policy in effect at the time, and on which the 939 Via Lido Nord applicants had relied, gave the Harbor Commission considerable discretion over extension requests, provided only the Commission saw no impediment to navigation. The revision, later re -ratified after Harbor Commission discussion, as Item 12 on November 5, 2019, was to give the Commission no discretion unless the extension beyond the pierhead line had previously been permitted. The point here is that under the new policy, the Harbor Commission had no authority to approve the construction of a dock extending beyond the pierhead line at 944 Via Lido Nord because, as the current staff report acknowledges on page 11-3, they could not make required Finding 2 of the new Policy H-1 ("in order for piers and floats to be considered for approval, the existing pier or float had to have been previously permitted. In this case, it was not previously permitted"). Since the Commission could not even consider the application for approval, the matter should have ended there, with the applicant being given the opportunity to appeal to the City Council, which is, at present, the only body with the authority to waive Policy H-1 and approve something inconsistent with it. Instead, despite the absence of any permit for an extension beyond the pierhead line, and despite no proof of any subsequent revision to the permit, the Harbor Commission substituted a finding that since the City should have been aware the unpermitted existing dock had been in place since 1987, it must have "approved" it. In addition, Policy H-1 does not require the Harbor Commission to adopt a resolution explaining how they arrived at their approval. As a result, since the staff report presented to them (Attachment F) recommended denial, but they took a different direction, it is completely unclear from the Commission minutes (Attachment E) which of the eight findings in Policy H-1 the Commissioners agreed on, or what their reasoning for any of them was. The resolution proposed for possible adoption by the Council (Attachment G) does, on staff report page 11-43, address the required findings of Policy H-1, and, at the end of that, mentions the Council could waive the policy, but glosses over the fact the existing pier extension is unpermitted and hence inconsistent with one of the required findings. In short, the Council appears to have two questions before it: 1. Are the "required findings" in Policy H-1 really required findings or are merely guidance, as some Harbor Commissioners interpreted them to be, which they are free to modify in any way they see consistent with the purpose of the policy? If the latter, the policy should be revised to reflect that. 2. Should the Council waive its policy at this address and approve a dock configuration inconsistent with it? January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 11 Finally, page 11-4 of the staff report is ambiguous as to how the present call for review was noticed. My reading of NBMC Subsection 17.05.140.B.2.a.ii is that notice of the present hearing should have been mailed to "All owners of real property located within a three hundred (300) foot radius, excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways, of the exterior boundaries of the location." The staff report assures us this was done only for "The prior public hearing held by the Harbor Commission." Although a notice of the present hearing may have been posted, it is not clear the mailing was done correctly. Page 11-39 shows an oddly -drawn diagram of the properties notified of the Harbor Commission hearing. If the present hearing was noticed in the same way, the noticing was incorrect. In particular, in the directions where the Municipal Code directs that intervening water is supposed to be excluded, it should have included properties in all directions, not just the directions that follow the prolongation of the property lines toward Bay Island. In particular, the Code requires notices be mailed to properties within the prescribed radius in Bayshores, Linda Isle, Harbor Island, Balboa Island and on the Peninsula. If this was not done, the present hearing is of questionable validity. Item 12. Harbor Commission Proposed Goals and Objectives for 2021 As the Council is well aware, voters approved local Measure Z at the November 3, 2020, election which added Section 713, requiring the City to have a Harbor Commission with specified powers and duties, to the City Charter. The "Harbor Commission Purpose & Charter" listed on staff report page 12-3 (part of what the Council is being asked to approve) is similar, but not identical, to what voters approved. Since Section 713 is presumably by now part of the City Charter (I believe the City Clerk needed to notify the California Secretary of State of the voting result), it would seem prudent to bring the "Harbor Commission Purpose & Charter" section into alignment with the City Charter. Item 13. Ordinance No. 2021-3: Amending Chapter 17.10 (Marine Activities Permit) of Title 17 (Harbor Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Other Related Provisions Please see related comments on Item SS2. With regard to the changes to Title 17 being proposed for introduction, it would be helpful to have reliable redlines to review. The redline of Section 17.70.020, starting on staff report page 13-35 is clearly not reliable, since Subsection 17.70.020.A.1 is confusingly printed twice. That said, the proposed change on page 13-36, adding a new clause (k), is not only grammatically inconsistent with the preceding clauses, but creates a circular reference to Section 17.70.015. Presumably it was intended to say, instead, something like "(k) The permittee has committed an act subject to revocation under Section 17.70.015." More troublingly, whatever it should say, the proposed new clause (k) does not appear at all in proposed ordinance text shown in Section 4 on page 13-18. Likewise, page 13-33 shows in redline a proposed new Section 17.70.015 with a subsection A with four numbered paragraphs (1 through 4). But the ordinance text actually proposed for January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 11 introduction on page 12-16 contains only the first of these paragraphs, with no number. And the previously -mentioned and possibly inadvertently omitted clause (k) of Subsection 17.70.020.A.1 makes sense only if the numbered paragraphs are included, because only paragraphs 2 through 4 provide grounds for revocation. Looking at the parts that did make it into the proposed ordinance, clean Subsection 17.70.015.B.4 on page 13-17 makes no sense to me. It purports to give a suspended permittee an opportunity to apply for "reinstatement." But isn't a suspended permit (as opposed to a revoked one) automatically reinstated when the suspension ends? That seems the definition of a suspension. I have not allowed myself time to look at the remainder of the redlining and proposal, but based on this small sample, I have little confidence the rest is entirely in order or that it does precisely what the staff report purports it does. For example, on page 13-10, Section 17.10.020 issues a stern warning that Marine Activities Permits are required, to which Section 17.10.025 lists on two exemptions. Yet the staff report says many businesses need not have MAP's, but only "register." Apparently Sections 17.10.020 and 17.10.025 don't mean what they say. Item 14. Mariners and Dover Shores Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study See earlier comments under the identically -titled study session Item SS3. It is difficult to anticipate what the Council may do as a result of the study session, but procedurally I would note that: 1. Recommended action (c) is for the Council to waive the 70% support requirement and "direct staff to implement and install the improvements outlined in the Mariners and Dover Shores Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study, or as otherwise directed by the City Council." But when one reads the staff report (page 14-5) there is, confusingly, a strong recommendation "that Polaris Drive be removed from the project." If that is the recommendation, it should have been made part of the recommended action. 2. Recommended action (d) is for the Council to "appropriate the necessary funds," but I can find no hint in the staff report of what the cost of the recommended improvements might be. All I can find (page 14-2) is that the study to date, alone, may have cost $100,000. Item 15. Resolution No. 2021-5: City Council Policy G -Series (City Trees) Revisions As described in the staff report, the present revisions were developed primarily by an ad hoc committee of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission that met privately with staff, which means many decisions were likely made without public airing. The staff report indicates on page 15-3 that on December 1, 2020, the full PB&R unanimously recommended approval of the revisions as presented by the private committee. It would have January 12, 2021, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 11 seemed helpful to include draft minutes of that meeting so the Council could know if there was any public discussion or comment received. Additionally, the revised policies being proposed refer (page 15-12) to flow charts that will be published on the City website to show how the policies work. It would have been helpful to provide drafts of these so the Council and public can understand what is being proposed. I suspect the flow charts could be used to significantly streamline and simplify the policies, giving them a much-needed increase in clarity. I have not allowed myself sufficient time to review the proposed tree policy revisions in detail, but I have continuing trouble with the idea that tree -related issues are reported only to the Council member who happens to live in the district where the tree happens to be located. See for example, the last long paragraph on page 15-10 ("Staff is responsible for notifying the adjacent property owner, the legally established homeowners association, if applicable, and the Councilperson of the district where the removal is proposed, of the intent to remove a Problem Tree."). This implies Newport Beach has "by district' representation in which only one council person is responsible to or concerned about the issues affecting the people who live a particular geographic area. That is what we would have if we had "by district' voting, but that is not how our City Charter is currently written or how our elections are currently conducted. All the council members are equally responsible for and should be equally concerned about all the trees in the entire city. 3 See pages 45 and 46 of the 155 -page archived PB&R agenda from December 1, 2020.