Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Council Direction Various ItemsNEWPORT ® CITY OF NEWPORT REACH C9L /F00.N�P City CouncH Staff Report Agenda Item No. 19 January 28, 2014 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, City Manager 949 - 644 -3001, dkiff @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Dave Kiff, City Manager APPROVED: f, p iCQ TITLE: Direction to Staff on Various Issues ABSTRACT: Per Council Policy A -6, any Council member may ask the City Council at a public meeting to return to the Council with specific direction as to whether staff should spend time and resources researching or developing specific policy issues. This helps ensure that resources are not wasted on an item that City Council may not ultimately adopt. RECOMMENDATION: Offer specific direction regarding: Should the City staff return with a proposed Council resolution supportive of Mayor Chuck Reed's (Reed is the Mayor of San Jose) statewide initiative that would allow local negotiation of pension benefits for current employees' years not yet worked (among other things)? Should the City staff return with a proposed Council resolution opposing efforts to revise Proposition 13 so that commercial properties have their assessed value revised in a different manner than residential properties (aka the "Split Roll ")? Should the City staff return with options and concepts for speed reduction and /or traffic calming measures on Tustin Avenue near 23rd Street? FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this specific decision item, but depending on the direction Council takes, some expense can be incurred to research and staff specific issues. Direction to Staff on Various Issues January 28, 2014 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Section C3 of Council Policy A -6 reads as follows: Items may be placed on a City Council agenda in the following manner: A. A Council Member may ask during the Council meeting that a matter be brought to the City Council at a future meeting. The matter will be brought back at the next Council meeting (if possible). At that Council meeting, if a majority of the City Council wishes to examine the issue, staff will prepare an appropriate report and return the item to the City Council with greater detail for discussion and/or action. On Tuesday, January 14th, 2014, Council Member Curry and Mayor pro Tern Selich asked that the items mentioned in the recommendations section be brought back for formal direction (Curry: Reed Initiative, Split Roll; Selich: Tustin Avenue). This item recurs on an intermittent basis. It is an attempt to minimize any waste of staff or volunteer time and resources in a direction that might not be in line with the desires of the City Council. In the spirit of those limited resources, I do not take the time to spell out the nuances of the issues about which we seek guidance. If readers have a specific interest in any one of the issues shown in the recommended action(s), they should attend the Council meeting and participate in the discussion as a part of public comments about this item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 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. 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: �, A Y-/\A Da, e Kiff City Manager 4