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