.

City Council Agenda for Dec. 18

Long Beach City Hall.
Long Beach City Hall.

The following is the calendar for the regular meeting of the Long Beach City Council for Dec. 18, 2012. For more details on the meeting's agenda, visit the City of Long Beach’s wesbite.

  
PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance to Amend the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Long Beach Re: Appendix A – Zoning to Help in the  
Rebuilding of Houses Throughout the City

PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Granting Waiver of Off-Street Parking
Requirements Re: Premises 156-158 East Park Avenue, (second floor),
Long Beach, New York.
     Re: Retail Optical Store

PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Granting Waiver of Off-Street Parking
Requirements Re: Premises 250 East Park Avenue, (street floor), Long
Beach, New York.  
    Re: Jewelry Store

1. Ordinance to Amend the Code of Ordinances of the City of Long Beach
Re: Appendix A – Zoning to Help in the Rebuilding of Houses
Throughout the City.

Legislative Memo: This amendment to the code will allow residents to
raise the height limit of new residential structures in order to comply with
FEMA and New York State Building requirements without the need to get
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

2. Resolution Granting Waiver of Off-Street Parking Requirements Re:
Premises 156-158 East Park Avenue, (second floor), Long Beach, New
York.
    Re: Retail Optical Store
 
3. Resolution Granting Waiver of Off-Street Parking Requirements Re:
Premises 250 East Park Avenue, (street floor), Long Beach, New York.
    Re:  Jewelry  Store

4. Resolution to Schedule the First Regular Council Meeting of January for
Tuesday, January 8, 2013 and the Second Regular Council Meeting for
Tuesday, January 22, 2013. ecember 18, 2012      

5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for the
Removal and Disposal of the City’s Boardwalk with the Lowest
Responsible Bidder.

Legislative Memo: This is the first step in the reconstruction of the
boardwalk as a result of damage sustained by Superstorm Sandy.  The
boardwalk decking structure must be removed. As per bid specifications,
all benches, railings and light fixtures will be removed and stored by the
City for safekeeping. Funding is being requested through public assistance
grant monies from FEMA.

6. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for the
Cleaning, Sanitizing and Disinfecting of Eight Municipal Buildings with
the Lowest Responsible Bidder.

Legislative Memo: As a result of Superstorm Sandy, there was standing
water in eight municipal buildings and because of the uncertainty of what
was in that water and the damage it caused, cleaning, sanitizing and
disinfecting is required. Funding is being requested through public
assistance grant monies from FEMA.

7. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract to
Conduct Air Monitoring and Sampling at Eight Municipal Buildings with
the Lowest Responsible Proposer.

Legislative Memo: As a result of Superstorm Sandy, there was standing
water in eight municipal buildings and because of the uncertainty of what
was in that water and the damage it caused, cleaning, sanitizing and
disinfecting is required as well as testing of the air quality as a
precautionary measure. Funding is being requested through public
assistance grant monies from FEMA.

8. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase Various Vehicles
from New York State Contract.

Legislative Memo: As a result of Superstorm Sandy, seventeen City
owned vehicles were destroyed and thirteen need to be replaced at this
time, included are heavy duty vehicles with plows in anticipation of the
upcoming winter season as well as energy efficient hybrid sedans. Funding
is being requested through public assistance grant monies from FEMA.

9. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase Vehicles for the
City’s Fire Department under Nassau BOCES Contract.

Legislative Memo: As a result of Superstorm Sandy, City owned
emergency response vehicles were destroyed and need to be replaced.
Five vehicles were destroyed and we are replacing only four. Insurance
monies will cover at least 50% of the cost and additional funding is being
requested through public assistance grant monies from FEMA.

10. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract to
Furnish and Install a Back-Up Generator at the Roosevelt Blvd. Lift
Station with the Lowest Responsible Bidder.

Legislative Memo: During the Storm, the Lift Station took on significant
flooding and the Back-Up Generator was submerged and failed and needs
to be replaced. Funding is being requested through public assistance grant
monies from FEMA.

11. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract for the
Rental of 20 Yard and 30 Yard Roll-Off Containers and Disposal of
Contents from the Lowest Responsible Bidder.

Legislative Memo: This is a standard contract that the City has always
had in place to remove our daily work debris, such as asphalt, concrete,
and vegetative debris.
water guy December 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Paul sorry I cannot but if you want to get some facts that would be great I can only tell it like I see it, for years I first hand saw the container ships dumping right off our shores, of course no one would say this is true but my eyes tell me this is the way it was done, I am not even talking about all the medical waste that washed up on our beaches a few years ago, odds are that was some scum out to make a quick buck, and again I cannot give you some writhed story about this only the fact that I saw it with my own eyes. I only wish this is all untrue as both of us enjoy the beach but can you say you have never seen trash wash up, I see it often and like many of us just brush it off, some time reality just plain sucks. No matter what I am staying here as I love long beach like most of us do.
E December 20, 2012 at 11:57 AM
I can't tell you when it started but my guess it was with the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. Like everything else it got bigger and more efficient as the nation grew. *** 1973 - ACE: We should probably stop dumping it in the ocean (http://tsunamisociety.org/OceanDumpingNYBight.pdf) *** 1975 - EPA: We should really really stop dumping it in the ocean (http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100HW7S.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=Prior+to+1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C70thru75%5CTxt%5C00000012%5C9100HW7S.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL) *** 1992 - What's NYC to do now that it can't dump its crap in the ocean (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/nyregion/ocean-dumping-ending-but-not-problems-new-york-can-t-ship-bury-burn-its-sludge.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) *** This article primarily about Hempstead Bay (http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/pollution-from-sewage-found-off-long-beach-1.2677921) *** 2011(?) - Long Beach Solid Waste Management Plan: Well we *used* to dump it in the ocean but now we can't. (Page 3-2) (http://www.longbeachny.gov/vertical/sites/%7BC3C1054A-3D3A-41B3-8896-814D00B86D2A%7D/uploads/Solid_Waste_Management_Plan_Update.pdf)
water guy December 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM
E. guess that is proof,Just saw that the city has awarded a contract to rebuild the boardwalk for 1.44 mil?not sure it is rebuilding or repairing? Paul you have any info on this as I am smelling something fishy here. could this be a good thing our leaders are doing or one more screw up?
water guy December 20, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Ken come off it, that is complete BS, sure blame the surfers, surf ridders and everyone else , so if they did proceed with the plan, you really think less damage would have happened?odds are even more sand would have been thrown into our city. I fully respect everyones opinion and would never say anything neg about their thoughts or opinion , you should also.BTW what makes you thing it was so wrong to turn it down, I would like to know your thoughts.
Hamburger December 20, 2012 at 01:17 PM
hopefully they will rebuild to the aesthetic requirements of those who opposed the previous plan
Beachguy December 20, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Ken is a very angry , disturbed and misinformed individual.By simplistically attacking the surfers it obviates the need for him to give serious thought to a very complex issue, something he is obviously ill-equipped to do. .Remember Ken is the one who attacked Snoopy . I suggest that any of Kens posts be consigned to the"irrelevant"folder.
paul.d.spellman December 20, 2012 at 02:53 PM
Elliot, I must beg to differ. Looking back to the Surfrider's foundation "victorious" campaign. The surfrider foundation KNEW the plan was to be implemented to PROTECT HOMEOWNER"S PROPERTY. They were more concerned with the recreational use of the beach than the homeowner's property. This is a direct quote from their website in December of 2005. " The ACOE's plan for our shore was created for the purpose of protecting homeowners' property, not to preserve the beach and its recreational use. Ask yourself this question, "Why do you love Long Beach?" and it's doubtful that you'll answer "because of the oceanfront homes". People love Long Beach because of the BEACH. The ACOE should come up with a suitable plan that not only seeks to protect homeowners' property but also to preserve the beach itself. Beach grass planting programs to help dunes grow (already successful in the West End of Long Beach), and under-boardwalk dune construction are just two concepts that the ACOE needs to investigate further. Thousands of people flock to Long Beach every summer from the surrounding areas to enjoy the beach, but will they still come when the beach is less appealing to use and its waves unsurfable? " Nowhere do they mention the bay, all they mention is the recreational aspects of the beach should take precedent over "protecting homeowners' property" I am working on obtaining the "form" letter the Surfrider Foundation developed to be sent to the city council. Supposedly that letter also contained no reference to the bay side of the island and was mainly about the recreational aspects.
E December 20, 2012 at 03:24 PM
I agree we should keep this civil. Your neighbors are my neighbors too Ken. It's a small town. I'm down on the oceanfront and we have a destroyed bungalow in the Northwest. Believe me when I tell you I'm concerned about the safety of our property as much as you are. That being said I live here to enjoy the ocean with my family including surfing, kite flying, Polar Bear swimming, Surfers Way, Michelle O'Neill, and all the other things we get to do in our back yards that other people drive an hour for. I don't surf but my 13 year old daughter does and that makes it twice as important to me as it is to anyone. Maintaining and enhancing the beach is of paramount concern for me personally and I should think for us as a city. The beach drives life here and as it goes so goes the value of the property we all want protected.
Beachguy December 20, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Ken and Paul-- did you stand up at council meetings and express your views? Do you have any thoughts about the failure of the city to implement ANY of the measures proposed by the study they had done in 2009? I havnt heard anyone , anywhere come forth with any explanation whatsoever. And I'm angry too. My house got blasted. My first floor is a shell, completely gutted. I got heat and hot water upstairs today for the first time. I know Paul feels that the quality of the sand to be dumped is a bogus issue. But then why has no one got a copy of the study that was done? At the council meeting 2 weeks ago one of the speakers related that the ACE dumped sand on a beach in NJ which had to subsequently be removed because it was toxic and even contained WW 1 ordnance. The cost of removal was in excess of 10 million . The original plan here was flawed and rejected for valid reasons. The crime is the utter failure by all of the administrations to do anything , anything at all, in the following 6 years. They are the culprits. And if the council that rejected the ACE plan did so for the reasons enunciated by Ken then it and silent citizens who wisely saw through the Surfrider objections and didn't voice counter arguments are to blame not Surfrider. Ken , in order to channel your anger why don't you organize a " down with Snoopy " campaign including carrying his likeness to City Hall where he can be burned and stomped on. But I'm not sure if one person can constitute a parade. Be sure to bring your umbrella. It's supposed to rain tomorrow.
water guy December 20, 2012 at 04:07 PM
My friends again I am not the expert nor the bad guy here, like all of you I care about our community every aspect of it, surfing, gardening, back yard BBQ with my kids and grand kids(that also surf) and just being part of a great city like ours, when it comes to protecting our city I am game to try anything, I do not blame anyone for our huge losses we all have, I am just trying to see this thru and understand what and how to proceed, I am just like the rest of you, a local guy who grew up here and raised my family, a way to keep safe when the next big one hits.I do defend surf riders as a foundation because it does so much good, do they have their own agenda ? Who knows seems that many have agendas, mad as hell at them, no because no one know what would have happened if the ACOE completed the project, I can say this NOTHING was noted in their plain about the bay so not so sure if I agree with the plan had it been instituted but again I am not the expert just a guy that cares.I think all of us on this post agree that something must be done, and done soon, beach replenishment, dunes, beach grass or anything else that could stop the force of nature hell why not build a reinforced cement wall then cover it with sands? but what about the bay? seems there is not to much we can do about that so whats next?
Beachguy December 20, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Elliot is right. While the failures that led to this calamity should not be forgotten so that they are not repeated, the focus now should be on what to do to prevent a recurrence. If you don't show up at council meetings and otherwise participate in the debate then don't complain later on.
Longbeacher December 20, 2012 at 05:44 PM
nothing will work .mother nature
paul.d.spellman December 20, 2012 at 07:40 PM
BG, In 2006 I was not able to attend the council meetings due to mostly family commitments. You say the failure of the plan was not due to Surfrider. It was caused by the 5 members of our City council who voted against the proposal. They were swayed by a bunch of gullible rubes who blindly listened and took as truth the propaganda of the Surfrider Foundation. Make no mistake, the SF knew the main reason for the Army Program was the protection of the homes and properties of the residents of this city. Knowing full well that was the reason they took upon a calculated plan of misinformation with their main goal to keep the waters of LB surfable at the expense of the resident's homes, livelihood and lives. When you realize this was their stated goal you will realize that you, yourself were one of their easiest rubes and that while you thought you were doing good for your neighbors, the evidence is all around you on the streets, in the gutted houses and destroyed lives that the SF and other groups used you and other surfers.
Longbeacher December 20, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Paul , the bay ? ...houses in Baldwin and oceanside ,have nothing to do with the ocean ,they got 5 ft ,i live on a block off park .i got 29 inches .....your point ?this was a 100 year storm ,that we did all not believe was going to be bigger than last years ,dont put sheetrock in you basement ,even if its and illegal apt and next time we will be a little smarter ,build 40 ft dunes and grass .then go look at Gilgo beach and see there 40 ft dunes with grass
paul.d.spellman December 20, 2012 at 08:26 PM
LBer, My point is the SF knew the main objective of the ACOE program was to protect the property of LB residents and their maon objective was to not have their precious surf disturbed. To advance their cause they gathered some of the rubes on this island and persuaded the 5 elected simpletons to go along with the Surfrider plan. Nobody can say for sure what effect implementation of the ACOE plan would have had on Sandy, but no reasonable person can believe that had the 2006 City Council acted with the ACOE (instead of advisory groups like SF) the effects of Sandy would have been mitigated.
Beachguy December 20, 2012 at 09:27 PM
You're right. It was a masterfully pulled off, sinister plot by SURFRIDER . They , whoever "they" are , fooled the City Council, and all the others who bought into their cleverly masked plot to preserve the waves. I and so many others truly believed that the ACE plan failed to take into account the bay side of the city. We believed that there were issues surrounding the nature of the sand that was to be dumped on to the beach. We believed that when the ACE said "take it or leave it" and refused to discuss these issues that they were not acting in good faith. And to think, it was these surfers who duped so many people. Thanks Paul, Ken for making me realize what a fool I've been .Thanks so much.By the way if you were unable to attend the meetings I assume you committed your prescient forethoughts to writing and submitted them to the media and the council members. Could you share them with us ,the unfortunate duped. I guess the lesson to be learned is never trust a Surfrider. Ohh
water guy December 21, 2012 at 07:07 AM
Friends, the city says it will revisit the plan, great I own a house here and would love to know how to stop a storm like this in the future, 40 foot dunes, replenishing the beach or chanting storm go away go away, if it would work I would be all for it, I was at every meeting when the ACOE was pushing for the plan and many issues came up such as the quality of the sand that was going to be placed on the beach, the other side(bay) and a bunch of other issues, they even wanted to throw in a new boardwalk. I owned my home then and still do but the thing that I do not understand is will the building of the dunes help, odds are it will slow down the water(for a short time) but where will the sand go once the barrier is breached, again I am not the engineers but lets just stop and thing about this, remember when you would build a sand castle in the sand, say 5 feet high and a small wave say 1 foot came and just plowed thru it, would that be the same, of course we are talking about a 40 foot mount of sand much thicker and with reinforcement with say beach grass , and storm surge hit like Sandy with 12-17 foot serge and waves the size and power of the ones we had, would the dunes hold?I think it is like that at jones beach and I do not think they held,Again I am not the expert nor do I have any issues with any of you but again to blame surfers for the rejection of the plan, hell our voices might be loud but against the general population ? The main objections was the lack of a true plan, the BAY and how to stop it, what ever happened to the alt plan? lets face it, we all have the answers but the fact remains, when mother nature says she will show you you cant stop her, odds are she is right. And please no name calling here, at lease I use my real name, no hiding here. As a surfer and home owner I care as much as any of you for protection of our property, I care more for my families safety that surfing some waves so like many of us surfers and beach lovers, and there are many who live here and own homes stop blaming and lets start rethinking because we all know that after a storm like this the ACOE will be knocking on our door selling the plan again.Lets look at it with eyes wide open, might work, might not.
Longbeacher December 21, 2012 at 07:12 AM
i am not a fan of SF ,they are all about cali ,or at least where they keep there $ ,i just dont think we could have stopped this storm , made it less maybe ,this was more about the whole water table rising, and that we cant stop .but if they come up with a plan,that does not make the beach look like crap ,im all for it
Longbeacher December 21, 2012 at 07:40 AM
Eillot ,there are a lot of people i speak with in LB ,THAT FEEL THE SAME AS U DO ,and there are the others that want to just try anything ,i agree with u
paul.d.spellman December 21, 2012 at 08:01 AM
Elliot, As evidenced by 2006, the rubes in this town will be swayed if you and others keep spreading the revisionist view of the surfing communities objection to the 2006 plan. As I have pointed out the SF , its' leaders (some of whom have leading roles in the current LB based surfing organizations) KNEW the main OBJECTIVE of the ACOE plans was "protecting homeowner's property" and their main objection was this plan would make the "waves unsurfable". Nobody knows if the plan would have mitigated the effects of Sandy and yes the bay would have risen, but a properly built and maintained coastal protection system would (could?) have prevented some of the destructive surge that decimated the boardwalk and the property of homeowners. We must implore our elected officials to act quickly and get the dunes rebuilt and fortified, we must NOT let the surfing or kite flying community hold undue influence on the city council. And we must stop the campaign of misinformation that the surfing community, led by its leaders were concerned with anything other than protecting the waves.
water guy December 21, 2012 at 08:01 AM
Thanks LB, only want the best for us, without getting slapped with some off the wall plan that would be costly and doomed to fail.We live here and know the consequences on living on a sand bar.Anyone know a better solution speak up.. In the mean time lets clean up and move on. A very happy and Healthy New Year to all of you and yours..
Eddie December 21, 2012 at 08:10 AM
As usual, our society looks to Government for the answers when most lie in our own basements. Dunes and bulkheading would provide some protection, but at a huge cost. Add that to the new flood insurance rates, which are now to rise 25% a year and Government will make this place an economic ghost town. Economic sensibility and return on investment must prevail when mitigating a flood that occurs perhaps once every 500 years. Depending on your own financial resiliency, every owner should consider if they can afford finishing their below grade space or leaving them for storage. Rebuilding with paper-faced Sheetrok isn't smart if you believe our governor who says these storms are now coming every year. If you're truly concerned about flood damage, get an account at Ikea, buy disposable furnishings and restore your lower living space with Fibreglas sheeting and vinyl floor tiles. Flood mitigation follows the rule of common sense.
E December 21, 2012 at 09:44 AM
Research time. Sorry if Patch mangles my line breaks but here's more than I ever wanted to know about storm surge and mitigation thereof: *** ACoE says wetlands protect against storm surge: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/lcast/pdfs/07sep/MitigatingStormSurge.pdf *** Weather Underground says maybe not always: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/surge_wetlands.asp *** NOAA says barrier islands ARE the protection: http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag178.htm
E December 21, 2012 at 09:47 AM
-- And for those of us with too much reading time on our hands here's the Google search for "Flood resistant building construction" https://www.google.com/search?q=flood+resistant+building+construction
Tony in Long Beach December 22, 2012 at 01:44 AM
As usual it is easy to blame the little guy for the mistakes of government, if we would have shored up our beaches years ago instead of cow towing to a few this island would have seen far less devistation.
Tony in Long Beach December 22, 2012 at 01:50 AM
Eddie also makes an interesting comment about mitigation, perhaps he is from a different Long Beach where the residents have bags of money but on my block we are mostly blue collared shmoes working paycheck to paycheck. Those of us that had flood insurance were quickly shown the gate by FEMA, then swiftly handed off to SBA for loans few could afford left with the task of rebuilding from the proceeds of flood policy's that leave a substantial gap between construction costs and insurance reimbursement.
Beachguy December 22, 2012 at 06:18 AM
I was told by the SBA inspector that losses uncovered by insurance would be eligible for loans at 1.68% . If a person has no assets and a bad credit rating then they won't get a loan but will be eligible for a "grant" from FEMA. If this is true, and I dont know if it is, then if you either bought Insurance and accumulated assets or are in Tonys situation where youre working Just to make ends meet, then it sees that the best thing is to be a spendthrift without anything and you'll be handed taxpayers money. So consider going on welfare and they will give you all you need.
Beachguy December 22, 2012 at 06:28 AM
Tony-- you're right. Can someone explain why none of the recommendations of the private engineering company made in 2009 were implemented? NONE. That's where the blame lies. I'm not saying it would have prevented the devastation but it very well may have substantially mitigated things. take a look at Bradley Beach, NJ where enlightened city leaders took appropriate measures and the area was virtually untouched. But TILB secretly ruled by a cabal of Surfriders influenced by That archfiend, Snoopy.
water guy December 22, 2012 at 07:23 AM
So how long will it take to come up with some plan to protect us? seems nothing has been done to protect us in the event of a winter storm, so what if the sand on mount sandy is a little dirty,I was under the impression that the city had brought some new sand sifting equipment, sure it had all types of crap in it, clean it and put it back where it belongs, I was under the impression that sand is a natural filter, if this was years ago it would be right back on the beach.Is SF also to be blamed for keeping it there? As a NON EXPERT just some stupid citizen of this city for 60 years I would have thought that the good would out weight the bad, put it back where it belongs, on the beach and sift all the garbage out, then again I am just some dumb ass that thinks out side of the box.EPA, SF and the rest of the experts, how can we be protected. But on the bright side when it snows we all can ski and sled on the new mount sandy.kidding of course. We need help and fast.
water guy December 22, 2012 at 07:30 AM
And like most of us I only want the best for us, I put my thoughts here and do get the pros and cons but when it comes down to our city I only want the best, to protect our families, our home and our community. Thats it plain and simple, no name calling, no BS just whats best for all of us, we all might have difference of opinions but the reality is we all care thats why we are here, to voice our opinion to be able to vent, to be able to express how we feel, deep down we all love it here thats why we live here.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something