Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalifornia Coastal Coalition / Robert Fischer & Assoc - 1998-02-174ITY OF HUNTINGTON BE �8 ``�`"dot, MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUM PW5i Council/Agency Meeting Held: _a)Jty198 Deferred/Continued to: LYAp roved Q Condition IIy Approv d :1 Denied City Clerk' Signature Council Meeting Date: FEBRUARY 17, 1998 Department ID Number: PW 98-015 r- 0-6 CFW OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a REQUEST FOR ACTION• SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATORMW PREPARED BY: S M. JONES II, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: APPROVE FORMATION OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL ITION Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should the City of Huntington Beach financially support the formation of a State-wide coastal advocacy organization that supports policies and programs which promote the preservation, protection and restoration of California's coastline. Funding Source: Unappropriated Unencumbered General Fund Recommended Action: Motion to 1. Approve the appropriation of $30,000 from the unencumbered General Fund and authorize the Director of Public Works to expend said amount to aide in the formation of a coastal advocacy organization, called the California Coastal Coalition or "CalCoast". 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Robert Fisher in the amount of $30,000 to act as the Executive Director of the California Coastal Coalition. 3. Approve the insurance settlement committee recommendation and waive all contract insurance requirements and authorize the City Attorney to amend the professional services contract accordingly. Alternative Action(s): 1. Approve the appropriation of funds in a lesser amount. I 0029700.01 -2- 02/10/98 213 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 98-015 2. Deny approval of the appropriation but continue to support the formation of a coastal advocacy group. ` 3. Do nothing Analysis: I. Background In April of 1997, a member of our staff attended the monthly dinner meeting of the California Shore and Beach Preservation Association (CSBPA). A presentation was made which analyzed how important our coastline is to the economic vitality of California. Our staff quickly became involved in the advocacy of funding for shoreline restoration. Our staff developed a "strike team" which included several local consultants who are familiar with coastal issues. Together, they developed a preliminary strategic plan for seeking funding for rehabilitation of our coastal bluffs as well as beach replenishment. In June, City staff hosted a luncheon meeting of CSBPA. Mayor Bauer was the keynote speaker. Staff made a video presentation of coastal restoration issues. City staff later developed a video supporting AB1228(Ducheney) and other related coastal legislation. Our Council Legislative Sub -Committee was appraised of the issue and several visits were made to Sacramento to support the pending legislation. Our State legislators, Assemblyman Scott Baugh and Senator .Ross Johnson, were briefed on the City's concerns. Mr. Baugh immediately became a co-signer of AB1228 with Ms. Ducheney. When the bill came to the State Senate for review, Mr. Johnson lent his support. II. The California Coast California has 1067 miles of shoreline -- the most heavily used recreational areas in the State. In addition to recreational opportunities, our coast provides critical habitat. Our beaches have a greater annual attendance than all the California theme parks and all of our national parks, combined. Over 600,000 California jobs are supported by coastal tourism -- 3 112% of all jobs in the State. Our beaches drive the California tourist economy, generating over $1 billion annual in total tax revenue. What if all that tax revenue were to be returned to our beaches for on -going maintenance and rehabilitation? Beach -goers spend over $27 billion annually -- 3% of total economic activity in the State. Approximately 925 miles of California shoreline continue to erode, but California ranks last in the nation in coastal restoration spending at $0.07 per capita per year. Delaware spends $4.28 per capita per year. A survey of California beach -goers indicated that they would be willing to pay as much as $25 per year. 0029700.01 -3- 01/15/98 12:15 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 98-015 Ill. The California Coastal Coalition In order to increase shore restoration funding to a reasonable level, Huntington Beach and other organizations are considering forming a coalition to support coastal advocacy. We are considering calling the group the California Coastal Coalition or "CalCoast". The organization could possibly be a California branch of the American Coastal Coalition. The City as well as other coalition members have contacted Robert G. Fisher, the former County of Orange Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks to consider being the Executive Director of the group. Mr. Fisher is currently the Director of the Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks and the Executive Director of the California Marine Parks and Harbors Association. His knowledge of coastal issues and experience in forming similar types of organizations will aide tremendously in this bold step forward to form CalCoast Mr. Fisher has proposed a budget for the first year of CalCoast operations of $60,000. It is anticipated that, during the start-up year, as members are added, that $30,000 in outside funding can be raised. Therefore, staff is proposing a City allocation of $30,000 as seed money to fund the first six months of CalCoast. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachment(s): RCA Author: Eichblatt 1. Agreement with Robert G. Fisher for advocacy services 2. Letter, dated October 30, 1997, from Robert G. Fisher submitting the draft final report for the California Coastal Coalition 3. Letter, dated August 22, 1997, from Robert G. Fisher, regarding Legal Services for the California Coastal Coalition 4. Letter, dated September 10, 1997, from the Apex Group, regarding lobbying activities in Sacramento for coastal issues 5. Fiscal Impact Statement, FIS 98-17, dated December 22, 1997 0029700.01 01115198 1:23 PM ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK LETTER OF TRANS:VIITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i ATTENTION: Aomr DEPARTMENT: REGARDING: C � See Attached Action Agenda Item ~X6 Date of Approval / Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. Remarks: Connie Brockway City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page Agreement RCA Name Nwe Name Name artmcnt s Department .6 Department Department Risk Management Dept. Bonds Insurance Deed Other --kl— Apeemcni Insurance Other ��/ RCA Agreement insurance Othrr RCA Agrecm Insurance Other RCA Agreement Insurance Other Insurance Received by Name - Company Name - Date G:I:ollowuplcoverltr (relaphone: 714.639-6227) • 02/17/98 - Counciggency Agenda - Page 11 E-15. (City Council) Approve Formation Of California Coastal Coalition - (Cal Coast) & Approve Professional Services Contract Between City & Robert G. Fisher & Associates - Approve General Fund Expenditure - (600.10) 1. Approve the encumbrance of $30,000 from the unencumbered General Fund and authorize the Director of Public Works to expend said amount to aid in the formation of a coastal advocacy organization called the California Coastal Coalition or "CalCoast" and 2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement with Robert Fisher & Associates in the amount of $30,000 to act as the Executive Director of the California . Coastal Coalition - Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Robert G. Fisher & Associates for Consulting Services Associated with the Formation of a Coastal Advocacy Organization. Submitted by the Public Works Director ** Communication dated February 2, 1998 received from Lesley Ewing, President of the California Shore & Beach Preservation Association in support of Agenda Item E-15). [Approved Recommended Action As Amended 6-1 (Sullivan: NO) (1) to get Support of League of California Cities (2) to get Support of Assemblyman Baugh and Senator Ross] E-16. [City Councill Approve Second Amendment Substitutina For "Amendment To Lease" And Amendina Lease For Premises At Huntinaton Beach Pier Plaza. Dated January 16. 1998, Between The City Of Huntinaton Beach And T.S. Management ment Corporation, As Assigned To Pier Plaza Group, LLC - (600.10) 1. Approve the Second Amendment Substituting For "Amendment To Lease And Amending Lease For Premises At Huntington Beach Pier Plaza, Dated January 16, 1996, Between The City of Huntington Beach And T. S. Management Corporation, As Assigned To Pier Plaza Group, LLC, and authorize the Mayor and City Cleric to execute same; and 2. Motion to approve the Memorandum of Lease Between the City and Pier Plaza Group LLC, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. Submitted by the Community Services Director [Approved 7-0] • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND ROBERT G. FISHER & ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FORMATION OF A COASTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this //-'�6 day of February, 1998, by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and ROBERT G. FISHER & ASSOCIATES, a sole proprietor, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to perform professional services as Executive Director associated with the formation of a Coastal Advocacy Organization to be known as the California Coastal Coalition, AKA "CalCoast"; and Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of HBMC Chapter 3.03 relating to procurement of professional service contracts has been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in the Request for Proposal, and CONSULTANT's proposal dated January 26, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "A"), ivhich is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Said services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as "PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby designates Robert G. Fisher, who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this Agreement. 0 :. \ CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services of the CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this Agreement and all tasks specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than six (6) months from the date of this Agreement. These times may be extended with the written permission of the CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by the CITY and CONSULTANT. In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000). In the event CITY requires additional services not included in Exhibit 'A" or changes in the scope of services described in Exhibit "A," CONSULTANT will undertake such work after receiving written authorization from CITY. Additional compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. 6. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth herein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit "A". B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every technical memo and report prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to the CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY V, • shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed accepted. C. The CONSULTANT shall submit to the CITY an invoice for each progress payment due. Such invoice shall: 1) Reference this Agreement; 2) Describe the services performed; 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 4) Include a certification by a principal member of the CONSULTANT's firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; and completed. 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this Agreement, CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for non -approval, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this Agreement is terminated as provided herein. D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by CITY shall be invoiced separately to the CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any 3 0 0 dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this Agreement. 7. DISPOSITION OF PLANS ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, maps and other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this Agreement or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this Agreement is terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to the CITY upon payment of fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT, whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. 8. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation of every nature) arising out of or in connection performance of this Agreement or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. 9. WORKERS COMPENSATION DELETED PER COUKOIL ACTION OF CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the provisions of the rkers 2/ Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts of the State of California, t pplicable provisions of Division 4 and 5 of the California Labor Code and all amen ents thereto; and all similar state or federal acts or laws applicable; and shall indem ' , defend and hold harmless CITY from and against all claims, demands, payments, su' , actions, proceedings and judgments of every nature and description, including attorn ees and costs presented, brought or recovered against CITY, for or on account of any ' ility under any of said acts which may be incurred by reason of any work to be pered by CONSULTANT under this Agreement. 17/98 4 DELETED PER COUNCIL ACTION 2/17/9. 10. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE• CONSULTANT shall furnish a professional liability/the cy vering the work performed by it hereunder. Said policy shall provide coveLTANT's professional liability in an amount not less than S1,000,000 per claiade policy shall be acceptable if the policy further provides that: 1. The policy retroactive date coincides with or rofessional services contractor's start of work (includinglicies purchased as renewals or re/ngall 2. Consultant v�rill make every tain similar insurance during the required extended period ofwing project completion, including the requirement oditional insureds. 3. If insurance is terminated foonsultant agrees to purchase an extended reporting provi on of at least two (2) years to report claims arising from work pe ormed in connection with this Agreement. 4. The reporting of 'rcumstances or incidents that might give rise to future claims. Under no arcumstances shall this insurance contain a self -insured retention, or a ('`deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage ir,/excess of $ 11. for to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall fu/toCcertificates of insurance subject to approval ofthe City Attorney evidencing the foce coverages as required by this Agreement; said certificates shall: provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; shall state that the policy is currently in force; and 5 0 0 3. shall promise that such policies shall not be suspen , voided or canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in li ' s except after thirty days prior written notice; however, ten day rior written notice in the event of cancellation for nonpayment o remium. CONSULTANT shall maintai a foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this Agreement is fullyodmpleted and accepted by CITY. The requirement Xcarrying the foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate from the provisions for inXmnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the Agreement. CITY or its repres;prCative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policiesof insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the ns on all insurance hereinabove required. DELETED PER COUNCIL ACTION OF' 2/17/98 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR : CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this Agreement as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this Agreement by CITY shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided herein. 0 0 This Agreement is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the consent of CITY. CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this Agreement in violation of the applicable provisions of the California Government Code. 17. N TQ ICES Any notice or special instructions required to be given in writing under this Agreement shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent (as designated in Section 1 hereinabove) or to CITY's Director of Public Works as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows: N110411VA City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TO CONSULTANT: Robert G. Fisher & Associates 4 Park Newport Newport Beach, CA 92660 7 0 0 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. 1 W M to]c► In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. 21. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and Exhibit "A" attached hereto, set forth the entire Agreement between the parties. E-? IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. CONTRACTOR: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A municipal corporation of the State of f By: California Robert G. Fisher Owner V4� Q=Z&/ Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: c2.m k4!41 Cit^dministrator ATTEST: City Clerk io 91' APPROLASL RM: V fl, City Attorney 2, - 5 y •/o p� INITIAFD AND APPROVED: . n ld AAlirector of Public Works E 0 0 EXHIBIT A Jprl E6 '97 10, 1E PT YOUF, �EFVICE F.,7, 77 sociates Robert . . a� f<epxee n � zaii Te! '(714) i 7 w,, (71 ) 644- 67..1 zzu- 26,' 1998 Robert E. L'ichblatt, City Engineer Department .of Public. Works City of Hantingti?n Beach P.1 l Box 190 Huntington Beach; CA 9264$ SUBJECT; PROPOSAL FOR. SERVICES, C A I,V. MA COASTAL COMMON Dear Mr_ Eichblatt This reaponds to the request by Doug, Stkk of yo1:a watts forz prolvW- to help the City launch the California Coastal Coalition (" CCaiCoast') as a new pul; c 4;h advoi;acy orgacaiz$tion. The need for, obImlives and feasibility of CACuazt were devetoped`in may report submitted to you under cover letter elated Cctobar 0, i 99 r . The roport. included a proposed 1998 budget of $60,500 for You have suggested that the City might. b. ; iiiirtg to provide �:�i�, �4Ci in°`se+ea3 money" to initiate the CalCot orgaiaatioasi eff€t, 'Ms would smn laihly desirable, since 1998 promises to be the critical year for ;4 ate bSv^ach fundin ution and bond acts. The City's interests in promoting greater stag; gundla support to pt Vejm dnd re ,4ir eroded beaches and bluff's should be well-sea"ved by inve;stiiig mi the Mart. -up of CalCoast. My proposal is to provide the fulluwvirtg; sixvi�;es for CalCoat, . My personal part -tune se c i as the initial Executive Director, 0 Designated (shared) o cc with td4Cpho-w and otl eu �:t�� e; zrtiorr facilities for Qo aduQting CalCoast bu,,,IW ass, Arrangement fbi c , %,i to c.at 3 jai � a.�a�t il: ;r lsang and influencing key bills; JFN 26 '98 10:13 AT YOLR SERVICE F.3i7. Robert E_ -Eichblatt, City Engineer : JaMMY 26, 1998 . page.Z .... Development -of an updated data base 'of prospective. Ucoast.membeis from. coastal cities and counties; tourism and ..convention bureaus, environmental. grid beach/ocean user ,groups, . beech -benefiting. businesses, etc... . ■ Establishment of a communications program fora members aisd key influentials. .1 propose that `the City " invest S330,Qoo.. to finance. 'the • teri. (10). inoritlt start-up program. By that time CalCaast should be a viable organisation capable of financing itself From member dues area business contributions. If the efforts to market the drganizatian are. not successful, the .City will. still have the benefits- of a major eeort,to. gain broad support for key beech funding legislation,in'the most likely year for such legislation. I normally `charge 9100" pei hour rolus expen e' for consulting : services;- with invoices detailing hours expended_ However, establishing and running CslCoast does not lend itself to a straight time arid- materials service arrangement: Most of my time would be devoted to initiating -and `handling- mail -and phone cornmunications, and Graveling to carry . theCalCoast message to•prospective supporters. ' Documenting -the officc hours. -expended. wbuld'be tov time-consuming and expensive. As ari alternative, T piopose that .the-330,000 budget be. allocated :at the :rate ,of $2000. per: month actual travel and an egg � t�ve services, and any extraordinary expenses- to be approycd in advance -by the. City's .contract, manager. Under this arrangement, the City investment- would insure an advocacy effort extending over 1998. 1 hope this proposal serves .your.,.purposes. Please let. me know 'if you have questions or need more information. Robert G.-•Fisher • "JAI 26 '9 l0 - AT YOUR SERV ICE P . 4 /7• 11112/1996 03:19 8056B2`76 STARTR44N •,..� 02 California Coastal Coalition MalCoastj What is needed: An organization that -- Pulls together coastal cities and counties, League of Cities and CSAC to work on behalf of gaining greater state sense of responsibility for financial assistance on protecting and restoring California's beaches and related coastal facilities. 2. Gains support of both environmental and business organizations (tourist and convention bureaus, Chambers of Commerce, et ceters) for beach protection. 3. Coordinates with American Coastal Coalition and ASBPA on federal coastal and beach policy, programs, and project funding. 4. Has Sacramento presence for information gathering and advocacy with the legislature and administrationlagencies. 5. Serves as information clearinghouse for members and those to be influenced. e. Keeps in contact with coastal cities and counties re beach issues. 7. Coordinates closely with CSBPA for technical information and professional recommendations for advocacy credibility. f JAN 26 '9� 1© 14 A7 YOUR SER`/ICE - Z'-lf2i1996 p3:]9 3p5��175 S�/ TAi 'MAN p' � WEE 93 What should be done: 1. CSSPA, should confirm resolution and send letter to City of Huntington Beach to be used to encourage Huntington Beach and all coastal cities and counties to support CaMoast with financial assistance. 2. Consultant should develop a legislative and administration program proposal to include -- iA. Support of AB 1228. B. Support of coastal/erosion control projects in 1998 flood and park bond act proposals. C. Review/revision of state Coastal erosion policy, D. Pursuit of stable (earmarked if possible) funding sources for coastal recreation. P. Help create rational federallstatellocal government: testorat on coastallbeach protection, I Develop network of supporting relationships with other responsible coastal organizations. 4. Establish Southern California office/Sacramento lobbying and hotline services. Proposed Mission -Statement for CaiCoast: Advocating a more effective partnership between the state and local governments in protecting, restoring, and enhancing California's public beaches and shoreline facilities. 2 JPN 2E '9P 10:14 AT YOUR SERVICE P.6/7 ROSERT G FisHER Robert G_ Fisher & Associates • 4 Park Newport, Newport Beach, CA * 92660 • (7?a)644-PARK (7275) Bob Fisher started his consulting firm in February 1997 upon retirement from the County of Orange. Bob had served as the County's Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks for eight years. In that capacity, he was responsible for administering three small Graft harbors, 20 regional parks and open space preserves, eight beaches and beach parks, 200 miles of recreational trails and six historical facilities. For the previous eight years, he held the position of County Planning Director. Robert G. Fisher & Associates was formed to provide specialized services in the area of land use planning and park, recreation and open space consulting. Bob has served as the president of the County Planning Directors. He is currently the President of the California Marine Parks and Harbors Association and a member of the California Parks and Recreation Society. He is consulting with the Friends of Harbors, Beaches & Parks, Inc., a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation formed to monitor and support Orange County's regional recreation and open space programs. The Friends organization has invited Bob to serve as their Executive Director. Long active in the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Bob is also a member of the Tourism Council of the Orange County Business Council. The Tourism Council recognizes how important the County's regional parks, harbors, beaches, trails, wilderness preserves and historical sites are to the attraction of visitors and to the economy of Southern California. The County's recreation facilities attract over 20 million visitors a year. Bob is a graduate of the University of Southern California. He is married, the father of two children and has two grandchildren. His wife, Shui Yin, works for the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors. JAN 26 '9E 10:15 AT YGUR SERVICE P.7/7 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COALITION PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1998 EXPENSES: Executive Director $42,000 (1) Office: Rent, Including Utilities (Shared Space) $ 1,800 Communications (Phone, Fax, etc.) $ 1,800 Supplies, Postage $ 1,200 Newsletter Printing, Mailing $ 1,200 Conferences $ 500 Memberships $ 1,000 Travel $ 2,000 Sacramento Lobbyist $20,000 Legal Services 1 000 TOTAL EXPENSES: $607500 INCOME: Memberships: (2) $30,000 Donations: $30,500 TOTAL INCOME: $60,500 (1) Assumes contract basis -- no vacation, sick leave, retirement, insurance or other benefits paid -- for 960 hours per year (48 weeks per year X 20 hours/week). (2) Assumes: 30 Memberships @ $500/year $15,000 100 Memberships @ $100/year $10,000 100 Memberships @ $50/year 5,000 $300000 0 • Robert . G.'., FILS er .A Sociates Land L�se.Consultancy 4 Park.Newport,'Ne"p rt Beach,'C'A 92660 anti Representation Tel (714) 717 .644-7275- _ _ Fax (714) 644-0577 'Oct6ber'30,,'_l 997 Rob' -Engir.,Mr'.e, : -Department of Public Works City of Huntington Beach'. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, -California- 92648 Gordon R. Fulton, President Concept Marine. Associates, Inc. 1853 Embarcadero Oakland, California.94606 • Subject: California Coastal.Coalition _ Gentlemen: Z. Enclosed,is a.draft final reporton subject:matter.-It is intended' to fulfill.my.assignment ' . under. subconsultant: fetter of agreement"dated .July 1.4; 1997", 'wherein. the scope of work was . defined. -as creating a :coastal. restoration task• force; including a statement of purpose, fund-raising . And . coordination.: A§ indicated in the draft final -report, -there -is a definite need and substihfial-•support for a_; mew- public • beach and shoreline- facilities- advocacy organization (which - we' agreed to call the "California- Coastal Coalition;" or .CalCoast -for short). The timing.for launching such an organization is. very good, due nat only to.the.public attention focused on El Nino,'"but-also t6the . emerging• legislative and administration interest in coastal affaifs, -including- beaches. -...However, . . developing;a firm financial base for the organization will, apparently be _difficult -= given the.degree of response -to -date from central and northern coastal cities and counties. ; I recommend a next: phase effort to seek that firmer organizational base: The propo"sed' • steps in such effort are identified. in the report:: An important next milestone isahe November 12114 California Shore -and Beach, Preservation Association's_ _-Annual Conference in. Santa Barbara.. _This report's findings and. recommendations should be. shared with='CSBPA ;conference attendees to gauge,their.support of CalCoast. - Please advise me` as soon--as-you can whether you find. the draft •report acceptable for - presentation ai,the conference, and "of any changes you would'like to see made in the"report. , -Thank you for -.your support -of this assignment: Very truly yours, -Robert G. Fisher PROPOSAL FOR A CALIFORNIA COASTAL COALITION PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ROBERT G. FISHER UNDER CONTRACT TO CONCEPT MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC. By agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Concept 'Marine Associates, Inc., I was retained to investigate the feasibility of a new organization to advocate for the preservation and restoration of public beaches and shoreline facilities along California's coastline. The assignment required identifying the essential features of such a new organization, so that it night be evaluated for membership potential and financial requirements. The principal method employed for this study was to talk to key state and local officials involved in coastal matters, and with leaders of eaasting coastal organizations already active in Sacramento and/or Washington D.C. These conversations helped both to shape the appropriate questions and suggest the answers I submit below. Most of the communications findings were reported in previously submitted Progress Reports. They are attached as Appendices 1 and 2. This report draws upon them and subsequent contacts with State Resource Agency officials. The other major source of information was the State Resource Agency's March, 1997 document, "California's Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future." It was prepared in accordance with the 1991 California Ocean Resources Management Act and is a monumental compilation of information, analyses and recommendations for managing state ocean and coastal resources. I was fortunate also to be able to draw upon the working paper entitled, "An Economic Evaluation of Beaches in California" produced by San Francisco State University researchers. 0 0 Following are what I concluded were the major questions raised in this assignment and the answers I believe are appropriate. Recommendations for the City of Huntington Beach follow further below. What are the problems of California's beaches and shoreline facilities? California's nearly 1100-mile coastline is renowned for its spectacular beauty, environmental significance, and extraordinary recreation and tourist attractions. Some 600 miles of the coast is made up of beaches. The State Department of Parks and Recreation operates 11 parks, beaches and reserves along 264 miles of the coast. The rest are the responsibility of coastal cities and counties. (Very few beaches are still owned and managed by private parties). Over 950 of the 1100 coastline miles are actively eroding, according to a report cited in the Resource Agency's Ocean Agenda document. (Unfortunately, the Agenda did not include support for increased state funding assistance for beach erosion control projects). The California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBAW) has authority under Sections 65-67.4 of the State Harbors and Navigation Code (Appendix 3) to identify, study and assist in beach and shoreline area erosion control and stabilization projects -- and responsibility to undertake these activities when funds are available. DBAW staff advised me that recent survey information submitted by public beach managing agencies indicated the need for the following: - Over $130 million to replenish eroded beach sand; - Approximately $100 million to construct, replace or repair damaged beach erosion control structures. However, DBAW has been granted little money in recent years to pursue projects. Many cities and counties believe that the cost of maintaining and repairing beach and shoreline facilities exceeds the financial return to their communities, even though they generate substantial economic activity and contribute enormously to the value of adjacent 2 private property. In fact, replenishing eroding sandy beaches and repairing damaged shoreline structures can be a tremendous local public cost, even without the periodic disasters of winter storms. In many Southern California communities, beach sand replenishment is an ongoing cost attributable to port, harbor and flood control decisions made long ago by upland and upcoast decision -makers without adequate regard to the consequences to local beaches and the communities which pay to maintain them. Should the State acre more resRonsibflity for coal al facilities not located in State beach parks' Many believe the answer to this question is `yes'. They point to three major facts to support their position. The first point is the assertion of State's authority over coastal land use and management decisions in the Coastal Act o€1976. Coupled with DBAW's directives in the public Resource Code. The second is the percentage of beach visitors who are Californians but do not reside in beach communities nor contribute much to their economies. The third is the enormous financial benefit to the State as a whole from expenditures made and taxes paid outside the local area by beach users. On the latter two points, there is important new information being released from a DBAW sponsored study. DBAW commissioned the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University to conduct "An Economic Evaluation of Beaches in California." Not yet released in final- form, I was able to review a working draft. The following information was obtained from DBAW and its USF research results: - California's beaches experienced 566 million visitor attendance days in 1996, more than all other major visitor attractions (Yosemite, state parks, theme parks including Disneyland) -- combined! - 85% of beach visitors reside in California; 15% are tourists from elsewhere. - Beach visitor spending contributes over $10 million in direct benefit to the state economy. 3 0 • The $10 billion is multiplied to over $27 billion when indirect and induced spending are figured in. The $10 billion alone translates into more than 500,000 California jobs. The direct beach spending generated over $1 billion in state sales, income and gasoline taxes in 1995. The combined direct, indirect and induced beach associated expenditures contribute 3% to the gross state product and 3.6% of total state employment. It is hard to draw any other conclusion but that the state economy and State government tax revenues derive tremendous benefit from California beaches, both those operated by the State and those managed by local government. Is this a good time to time greater State support of our beaches? Again, the answer appears to be `yes'. In February 1997, Assembly Member Denise Ducheney of San Diego County introduced AB 1228 as the California Public Beach Enhancement Act (Appendix 4). AB 1229 specifically acknowledged the importance of California's public beaches and the role of DBAW to study, report and assist in beach restoration and repairs. In fact, it would assign a leadership role to DBAW, with the assistance of a Technical Advisory Committee, to provide advice and assistance for an expanded program of beach enhancement projects. As initially introduced, AB 1228 provided for a $10 million allocation of federal offshore oil revenues received by the state. That amount was reduced as the bill wormed its way through various committees. Ultimately, it received no appropriations for 1997, and was made a two-year bill. It is expected that the author will pursue it in 1998. Earlier this year Governor Wilson unveiled the Resource Agency's landmark document, "Califofnia's Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the Future" at the California and World Ocean Conference in San Diego in March. Resources Agency Secretary Wheeler announced that the document was intended to help "explore innovative approaches to managing coastal and ocean resources and identify a clear mission and 4 0 goals." The document makes recommendations in nine coastal management areas, including shoreline erosion. Also this year Governor Wilson announced his "Coastal Initiative," which is summarized in Appendix S. Among many important coastal proposals in the Initiative were the $3.4 million for three beach enhancement projects (in San Diego, Seal Beach and Santa Cruz). These projects also failed in the competition for funds, but the Governor clearly signaled a willingness to consider assistance to local governments with beach erosion problems. The 1997 State Legislature produced a spate of coastal and ocean resources management bills. These became known as the "Coastal Flotilla." The Governor signed eleven of the bills and issued definitive executive orders (Appendix 6) directing state agencies and departments to initiate studies and other actions to protect the state's coastline in lieu of the other bills he thought unnecessary. DBAW is confirmed as the lead agency for shoreline erosion maintenance and control matters. However, none of the bills or directives deal specifically with beach erosion control. By July 1, 1998, the Secretaries of Resources and Environmental Protection are directed to complete an analysis of how state and federal responsibilities for coastal management might be better coordinated. 1998 appears to bode well for attention to and action on coastal matters. It has been designated the "Year of the Ocean" by the United Nations. President Clinton is said to be planning a White House Conference on the Oceans. The American Coastal Coalition is planning a "Coastal Summit Conference" to tap into the interest in the ocean. (Some observers indicated to me that oceans will be the next big environmental topic, after global warning moves from crisis summitry to institutionalized technical management). Here in California, Under Secretary James Branham told the Orange County Coast Association at its October meeting that Governor Wilson is very interested in leaving "an environmental legacy." His Ocean Agenda, Coastal Initiative and executive orders on coastal management are to be part of this legacy. Branham indicated to me in private discussions that the Governor will likely support a State Bond Act in 1998, to help fund a variety of coastal and inland park and resource projects. This represents an extraordinary 5 0 • opportunity to pursue funding for beach erosion projects. Heretofore, SB2 (Thompson), the "Parks and Resources Improvement Bond Act," and AB 1000 (Keely), the Clean Coastal Waters and Rivers Bond Act of 1998," were not given much chance of enactment. Furthermore, I was told by a Planning and Conservation League representative that they had abandoned until the year 2000 their efforts on behalf of an initiative petition to place a park and coastal resource bond act on the 1998 ballot. If the Governor is indeed inclined toward a bond act to help achieve his legacy, the time is now to marshall support for beach erosion project funding. Thus, a two pronged effort would be in order: 1) Work toward passage of AB 1228 to lay the foundation for an ongoing beach enhancement program, and 2) Work to gain administrative support by including beach erosion funding in Bond Act. Is there a need for a new beach and shoreline advocacy organization? The following have indicated they believe it is needed: - The President of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association - The Board of Directors of the California Beach and Shore Preservation Association - The Director of Beaches and Harbors of Los Angeles County - The Manager of Coastal Facilities of Orange County - The Executive Director of the American Coastal Coalition Others have indicated they are so inclined, but do not yet have sufficient information to reach that conclusion: representatives of San Diego, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties; and the Cities of Oceanside, Long Beach, and Newport Beach. The view that a new organization is needed derives from the following points: 6 CSBPA has been the predominant organization speaking for California's beaches,. convening conferences and publishing a technical journal to communicate the nature, function and problems of our beaches. They have provided Assemblywoman Ducheney with assistance in drafting AB 1228, and have "carried the water" in beach advocacy for nearly 20 years. However, the organization prides itself in its scientific and non- political organizational reputation. Furthermore, many of its members, and several of its Directors, are state agency staff members, who cannot be associated with active lobbying. Finally, charitable, tax-exempt status could be jeopardized if CSBPA moved into lobbying activities. ASBPA, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association was established in 1926. It is the parent organization of CSBPA. It is active in combating erosion and restoring eroded beaches along America's coastlines. it convenes symposia and publishes a scholarly journal, but now works mostly through the American Coastal Coalition in its Washington D.C. lobbying. It does not actively advocate in Sacramento. ACC, the American Coastal Coalition, is based in the nation's capitol. It was established in 1996 to draft and lobby for passage of the Shore Protection Act of that year. The Act reverses the Clinton Administration's policy of eliminating the Federal Govern- ment's role in shoreline protection projects. It continues to work with the Congress and administration on funding coastal erosion projects and policies, and has apparently been quite effective in this regard. It is working toward a "Comprehensive National Coastal Policy," a counterpart of which is needed in California. It has many California members, but does not perform advocacy in Sacramento. Surfrider's Foundation, Ocean Campaign, League for Coastal Protection and many other organizations active in California on coastal and ocean matters do not focus specifically on beach 7 0 0 erosion problems, although they would be important allies in Sacramento. The scope of this study did not provide for con- tacting all such organizations. What sort of organization is needed in California and what is required to launch it' This investigation has lead to the following basic conclusions: 1. There is a need for a new advocacy organization to gain adequate State Government recognition of its responsibility to help finance protection, restoration, repair and enhancement of California's public beaches and shoreline facilities. 2. The new organization should be "spawned" by the City of Huntington Beach ("Surf City, USA") and CSBPA (the most credible and respected existing organization locally active in this field). 3. It should become an active member of the American Coastal Coalition, and help ACC coordinate the California members in federal/state beach advocacy. 4. It should appear and function much as a counterpart of ACC in California, which suggests strongly the name, "California Coastal Coalition," (CalCoast, for short). 5. It should live up to its name by seeking to function as a coalition, with members drawn from coastal cities and counties, chambers of commerce, tourist and convention bureaus, and existing organizations concerned about coastal affairs (CSBPA, Surfriders Foundation, League for Coastal Protection, and other "environmental" groups). 6. It cannot be a 501(c)(3), tax deductible organization because of its advocacy mission. It likely would be organized as a 501(c)(4), non- profit, tax-exempt California corporation. I have arranged for dis- s counted (only $500) legal services to help prepare the organization's filing papers. 7. CalCoast needs a permanent Sacramento lobbyist presence. That could be accomplished by basing an Executive Director there or by contracting with an existing coastal lobbying organization, such as APEX. APEX handles the information and lobbying needs of the California Marine Parks and Harbors Association, Port Captains and Harbor Masters Association, and California Marine and Navigational Conference. I have secured a proposal from APEX for consi- deration (Appendix 6). 8. CalCoast will need at least a half-time Executive Director and an office. I have explored sharing same with other organizations. That seems Re a good economy move, but it is important not to dilute the effectiveness of the organization or create a potential real or apparent conflict of interest. 9. I have developed a proposed budget (Appendix 7) for 1998 based on a half time Executive Director, shared office and contracted services from APEX. 10. I have also drafted a mission statement, sample brochure, fee schedule and initial work program to illustrate what follow-on activities would be appropriate. (Appendices 8, 9 and 10). The need for CalCoast appears to be demonstrated. The timing couldn't be better. The endorsements can be obtained. The key issue is funding. A major effort to enlist coastal cities and counties, their business support organizations, and environmental groups will be required to make CalCoast financially feasible and viable. That is what is required to move this proposal forward. 9 • 0 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COALITION PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 1998 EXPENSES: Executive Director $42,000 (1) Office: Rent, including Utilities (Shared Space) $ 1,800 Communications (Phone, Fax, etc.) $ 1,800 Supplies, Postage $ 1,200 Newsletter Printing, Mailing $ L200 Conferences $ 500 Memberships $ 1,000 Travel $ 2,000 Sacramento Lobbyist $20,000 Legal Services -1 000 TOTAL EXPENSES: $609500 INCOME: Memberships: (2) Donations: TOTAL INCOME: $30,000 30 500 $609500 (1) Assumes contract basis -- no vacation, sick leave, retirement, insurance or other benefits paid -- for 960 hours per year (48 weeks per year X 20 hours/week). (2) Assumes: 30 Memberships @ $500/year $15,000 100 Memberships @ $100/year $10,000 100 Memberships @ $50/year 5,000 $309000 0 • • Robert G. b Fisher &A-s-Sac,ates Land Use Consultancy 4 Par6 Newport, Newport Beach, CA 92660 and Representation Tel (714) jt7AM36C 644-7275 Fax (714) 644-0677 August 22, 1997 Mr. Robert E. Eichblatt City Engineer Department of Public Works City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Legal Services for California Coastal Coalition (CalCoast) Dear Mr. Eichblatt: As we recently discussed, legal advice and assistance is needed for establishing non-profit, tax-exempt corporate status for CalCoast. I have discussed the need with Belinda Blacketer, Attorney -at -Law in Laguna Beach, who specializes in this field. Because of her experience and ready -for - use application forms (and her desire to help me create this worthwhile organization), she has offered to do the legal work for $500, if I will work with her on the material needed to fill in the forms. This is one-half her regular fee for this service. I understand the City Attorney requires all consultants retained by the City to utilize her office for legal services, unless she specifically authorizes the use of outside counsel. I can't imagine the City Attorney could research the law on non-profit corporation formation and prepare the papers for less than $500. Therefore, I recommend you obtain approval of a new contract with Belinda Blacketer, Attorney -at -Law, for this service. This contract would be handled as a subcontract to Concept.Marine, Inc. Very truly yours, 1 Robert G. Fisher cc: Gordon Fulton, Concept Marine 0 • • • • Ci�tns�:;�r 9SO 9r.h �rreur, wire l 8' i Sacramcnn, L_:�.;.. v. AcKerm_in , C.,liiorni.i DG.A .Aso,:iLue; 95814 THE :APEX GROUP T. (916) 444-31 l6 C�ui.Ir In G: _�rr,mcr.; R:,Iations F. (916) 444-7841 L!rr:TT,L,nr::I .Rckurlun ,/Can,.:Itin; September 10, 1997 Mr. Bob Fisher 4 Park Newport Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Bob: My apologies for delaying sending information regarding our services. With the exigencies of pending legislation in the final weeks of this years legislative session, I have been remiss in not providing timely information to you. Our fee structure is normally based on a retainer basis. Retainers can vary greatly depending on the nature of the activity and the amount of time we anticipate it will take to accomplish our clients objectives. Dave Ackerman and my hourly rate is $300.00. We prefer not to charge by the hour in lobbying activities due to the fact that it does not lend itself to time sheets like a lawyer practicing law. However, I did want to provide you with our hourly rate as a point of reference. Dave and I discussed your proposed activities dealing with sand replenishment and beach erosion to arrive at what we believe is a fair price for our services. For "monitoring" which would include tracking any pending legislation and providing your organization with political advice we would propose a fee of $1,000 a month. Active lobbying is much more time intensive requiring our personal attention. We would propose a fee of $2,500 a month plus reasonable and ordinary expenses. The S2,500 fee is inclusive of monitoring all legislation affecting beach erosion and replenishment. Services would include actively lobbying legislators who serve on the various policy and fiscal committees responsible for reviewing this issue; developing written correspondence to send to legislators; assist in developing written materials to be used by your members; developing a political strategy for implementing your desired legislative goals; communicating with appropriate administration officials and regulatory authorities including all related activities. Enclosed is a copy of our biographies, a client list, and a listing of the general services we have to offer. Please call me if you have any questions or comments. Sincere Paul P. Gladfelty enclosures e:`1gr.fishe r-IaI A_ 'J ., _ _ .= 2. H=. 7 4�. A -- i-- N 5. D U 2 L I w %- F A i. 5 0 0 SERVICES OFFERED BY THE APEX GROUP Legislative and Regulatory Advocacy: ► Make direct contact with legislators, administration officials and key regulators. ► Draft and develop legislation for submittal to legislators for "sponsored" legislation. ► Develop legislative and regulatory strategies for affecting the outcome consisterit with client goals. ► Manage and participate in lobbying coalitions. Government Relations: ► High level policy contacts within state and local government. ► Monitor and analyze regulatory and legislative processes. ► Provide valuable insights into the actions of the Legislature and Governor. ■ Plan and direct legislative strategies and advocacy activities. ► Represent clients before governmental bodies and key decision makers. Public Affairs: ► Assist firms in managing a public profile. ► Coordinate public outreach and media relations programs. ► Oversee publicity events and activities. ► Develop crisis communications plans to handle negative publicity or unfavorable public response. Business Development: ► Assist firms in establishing a valuable networking of California business contacts. ► Strategy and expertise on state and local permit and regulatory requirements. ► Provide accurate information on California's changing business trends and power structure. RU+crr T `.[ona_-;an . • L:.S-. Rack f :a I_u Counsellor 980 9rh Sneer. 51irc l Px--id G- Ackerman Jmcramenro, California DG. -)5S 14 l,:i_:: L:r ,jfelrr THE .APEX GROUP T (916) 444-31116 _ F. (9I6) 444-i841 i-tn: tih.in Lmi-Ln-ri??1entai Rela[ions/Consulring THE APEX GROUP CURRENT CLIENT LIST Construction Development ► American Road and Transportation Builders Associated General Contractors of America • San Diego Chapter • Associated General Contractors of California ► California Mining Association General Business/Manufacturing ► California Chamber of Commerce ► California Surety Federation ► Caterpillar Inc. ► Experian ► McDonald's ► Nissan North America ► S.C. Jol nson & Sons Inc. ► Tejon Ranch ► Tenneco ► TRW ► TTX Company ► Turlock Irrigation District ► UST Public Affairs Inc. Marine/Boating ► Boat Dealers, Marine/Rental Repairs Safety Service Association ► California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains ► California Marine Parks and Harbors Association ► Lime Saddle Marina ► Marina Recreation Association ► Western Boaters Safety Group ► Western Marine Safety Service Association Health Care P. Baxter Healthcare Corporation ► Caremark Inc. �i'^:'TT T. �. i.`rlti it • U.S. Nmk P'a_2i Cn,�Ti:�4,r 980 9th Strcet, Suile 1 i80 D_i•t i d G_ Ackerman 5,1cralneill" C,:lir.)rni:i DG.a AsU:: ro r,. t THE APEX GROUP T (9 ! 6) 444-11 16 Glru;1![r,v Gin---nrrenr F (916) 444841 DAVID G. ACKERMAN David Ackerman is a principal partner in The Apex Group. He provides a wealth of political experience having served in key appointed positions in the California Legislature, the State Administration and with local government agencies. Representing a variety of private sector clients before all levels of government as an independent consultant, Mr. Ackerman has been able to utilize his extensive background in California government and politics. Mr. Ackerman served as Executive Vice President and Chief Advocate for the California Chamber of Commerce. While at the Chamber, he directly supervised all government advocacy activities in areas ranging from health care, taxation, resource management and transportation. Mr. Ackerman was the principal spokesman for the Chamber before the Legislature, executive branch and regulatory agencies. In 1988, Mr. Ackerman left the Chamber to pursue his own government relations firm under DGA Associates. Utilizing his transportation background and government experience, Mr. Ackerman was immediately contracted to direct the government relations program and advocacy for the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of California and AGC of San Diego. Mr. Ackerman's success as an advocate for the California business community can be attributed to his experience in state government. He most recently served in a cabinet level appointment as Undersecretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency during Governor George Deukmejian's term in office. Mr. Ackerman also was appointed Chief of Staff for the Lieutenant Governor and Staff Director and Chief Consultant for the State Assembly Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Ackerman received his bachelor's degree in political science from UCLA and holds a master's degree in public administration from California State University, Chico. He is also a member of the Institute of Governmental Advocates. P_irid ".--kc[:ecm_;n �u�ra;ncnr��. G�li�.�rniu R C,lh,ifcIry THE APEX GROUP T. 16 is-v Ciov rnment Rciatioru F. t )'+;} 4-t- S4i PAUL P. GLADFELTY Paul Gladfelty is a principal partner in The Apex Group. His government relations experience spans two decades having represented the interests of numerous corporations and trade associations on issues affecting California business. Mr. Gladfelty gained most of this early political experience representing manufacturers before the California Legislature and various regulatory agencies as a representative of the California Manufacturers Association (CMA). Mr. Gladfelty served as the association's Vice President and Chief Advocate directing a staff of six full-time legislative advocates. In 1984, while working for the CMA he also founded Californians For Compensation Reform, a broad -based coalition of employers, local governments and insurance companies formed to improve the state's workers' compensation system. In 1986, Mr. Gladfelty established a successful legislative advocacy and consulting firm under Gladfelty Government Relations. As an independent contractor, Mr. Gladfelty has represented the interests of many Fortune 500 companies on a wide range of issues including environmental quality, energy, health care, construction law, land use, insurance and labor law. Adding some diversity to Mr. Gladfelty's business oriented background, at the beginning of his legislative advocacy career he also represented the Service Employees International Union. This experience has proven to be invaluable over the years in representing business clients on issues affecting organized labor. Mr. Gladfelty's educational accomplishments include a Juris Doctorate degree from McGeorge School of Law, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in government from California State University, Sacramento. He is also a member of the Institute of Governmental Advocates. 0 0 0 d City of Huntington Beach INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: RAY SILVER, Acting City Administrator FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: FIS 98-17, California Coastal Coalition Formation DATE: December 22, 1997 As required by Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared for FIS 98-17: California Coastal Coalition Formation. If the City Council approves this request (total appropriation $30,000) the estimated unappropriated, undesignated General fund balance at September 30, 1998 will be reduced to $5,512,026. _ RJF:skd ROBERT J. FRgNZ Deputy City Administrator 0029462.01 12/22/97 11:37 AM nt FlundlBalance,,,,'GeneralEk Beginning Fund Balance 1011/97 (Est) $ 5,100,000 $ 6,852,026 Plus Estimated Increased Revenue 1,500,000 Plus One Time Revenue (Estimated) 1,370,000 .Less Approved Budget Amendments (1.770,000) Less Labor Contingencies (610,000) Less Self -Insurance Transfers (1,800,000) Less FIS 98-17 (30,000) Estimated 9/30/98 Balance $ 5,100,000 $ 5,612,026 Estimated General Fund Balance at September 30, 1998 $6,000,000 $5,600,000 - $5,000,000 izi $4,600,000 $5,512,026 $4,000,000 $5,100,040 $3,600,000 - $3,000,000 ADOPTED BUDGET CURRENT ESTIMATE ATTACHMENT #6 U • n U I. 2. 3. 4. S b 7 S. CITY OF HU'NITINGTON BEACH APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS WAIVER OR MODIFICATION Name/Title/Department o Requ sung Staff Member C��/J�i i, !' l"• . Date of Request 4* 1qe:3_ Name of Contractor/Permitte( Description of work to bg per. Length of Contract Type of insurance W 'ver Requested: jai` !z! W1111 (a) Limits: -(b) Coverag Reason for Request for Waiver or Reduction of Limits WAAKZA�� M Identify the risks to the City if this request for waiver or modifications granted. 11w _ Department Head Signature. Recommendation: Approve Deny Recommendation: is section to be completed by the RiskManager) Risk Manager's Signature'Date I 1 I (Thu section to be completed by the City Attorney) Approve Deny City Attorney's Signature/Date 1 I I Settlement Committee approv [istetoll-60-1�a ] required for this waiver. If Settlement Committee ap rov is required, submit form to City Attorney's placed on the agenda. Recommendation: Approve t Deny City Council approv i ot] required for this waiver. If City Council approval is required, attach this form to the RCA after consideration y the S12ttlement. Committee. This insurance waiver [is] [is not] on City Council agenda. jmpAVresov6or%Ansreg/9/11197 7 •J N 26 '98 15:13 AT YOLR SERVICE P.3'7. Robert E. Eichblatt,'City Eagneer. .ranuary 2,6,..1998. pA9. M : Development -of an. updated data .bF se of 'prospective -CalCoast rr.Q.mbers from. coastal cities and courme.% tourisrn and ..coavention:•:bureaus, environmental and beach/ocean user groups; beach-benefitilzg businesses, etc... © EsiabGshment of a cortmunicatior�s program for r p-mb•� a • and' .key: I propose that the City- invest. $30,000 to finance. the ten �14} month Start-up program. By that time CalCoast should be a viable organization capable of financing itself from member dues and business coritribution'.� .If.the efforts to niarket.the.organiunon are not successful, the .City will still have the benefits .of a majipf effort to...gain. broad support' far key beach funding legislation in the most likely year for such legislation. I normally "chargc. $100 per hour plus expenses for consulting services, with invoices detailing hour_ s expended. However, 'establishing and running CalCoast does not - lend itself to a straight -time and niaterials service an-angement.' %110 ,'of.my tirne would be devoted -to ihitiating and'handUng mail -and phone communications, and:traveling to carry the=CalCoast message to prospective supporters. Documenting the office hours, expended .: would'be fog time-consuming and expensive. ;As an alternative, I propose that the $30,000 budget . be allocated at. the .rate of. $2000 per: month, plus actual travel and contracted- legal -and leg siative.services,.and any extraordinary expenses to be approved in advance by. the: City.'.s. contrnc-t Manager.Under. this anwa g nent, the City investment. would in=re an advocacy effort extending over 1999. I hope this .proposal serves your. purposes.- ' 'Pleast let'-: me know 'if.:you have questions or need more information. Robert G.Tisber ' COVER PAGE • REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTO (To accompany RCA) EXPLANATION _(Why is this RCA necessar to this agenda?): _y_ Ilk4v M CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . (How shall delay of thisRCA adversely impact the City?): Si#natum. ent Heac REOLATE-00C MUM RCA ?1OUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Approve Formation of the California Coastal Coalition COUNCIL MEETING DATE: I February 17, 1998 RCA!ATTACHMENTS STATUS. Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (wlexhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (wlexhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Attached Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR,MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPL'ANATION'FOR RETURN OF ITEM: RCA Author: Eichblatt CITY OF HUNTINGTOiV BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Douglas Stack, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Procurement of Professional Services, Executive Director Service for the formation of the California Coastal Coalition, RCA dated February 17, 1998 DATE: February 10, 1998 As you know, this contract language is standard in all professional service contracts issued by the City Attorney. In this particular instance, the language is not applicable. The services being provided are considered sole source. cc: Robert Eichblatt, City Engineer Art DeLaLoza, Deputy City Attorney 0030181.01 Coastal Beaches Coastal Beaches !00 14:fe- 90)"'m 14,H 1 a */ h Coastal Beaches Coastal Beaches • ■ 1,067 Miles of Shorelir Coastal Beaches ■ Most Heavily Used Re in the State ■ Provide Recreational C ■ Provide Critical Habita- 51 California Beaches ■ Greater Attendance Than Disneyland, All National Parks Combined ■ 100 Times Greater Annual Attendance Than Yosemite National Park ■ Nine Out of Ten Residents Visit Our Beaches Each Year 6 3 • California Beaches ■ 5,000 Direct Jobs ■ 516,000 Indirect Jobs Supported by Coastal Tourism ■ 3.5% of All Jobs in State California Beaches ■ Drive the Tourist Economy in California ■ Third Largest Industry in State ■ Estimated Total Tax Revenues - Over $1 Billion 4 0 California Beaches ■ $27.35 Billion Total Statewide Spending ■ Three Percent of Total Economic Activity in the State Coastal Stewardship ■ 925 Miles of Shoreline Eroding ■ California Ranks Last in Restoration Spending : $0.07/capita/year ■ Delaware Ranks First: $4.28/capita ■ Beachgoers Willing to Spend $25/capita J 101 W It Is Important to Support Legislation That Provides Financial Resources for Coastal Restoration and the Enhancement of the Coastal Shoreline. jk, rfiffl Examples Are: ■ AB 1228 - California Public Beach Enhancement Act ■ AB 1000 - Clean Coastal Waters & Rivers Act of 1998 ■ SB 2 - Parks & Resources & Improvement Bond Act of 1998 ■ SB 312 & AB 2554 - Flood Prevention Bond Act rl � 1 Y The End Produced by Surf City GIS 15 �& ti aimm mRt E Bqm pflamla aomlim 9 P. 0. BOX 7707 0 LON G BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90807 7 RC °E!vE F E B 0 5 1998 Cily of Hunting'ZO , Beach February 2, 1998 Mayor Shirley Detloff City Couns;il Office of the City Council City of Huntington Beach P.O. Rnx 19O Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: California Coastal Coalition Dear Mayor Detloff: I understand that you will soon be holding a Council Meeting to discuss support for the proposed California Coastal Coalition (CalCoast). California Shore and Beach Preservation Association t'CSBPA)-Board-. strongly. supports the concept.of this Coalition and believes that we need a state - Wide organization which will advocate for shore and beach preservation. CSBPA is a non-profit, tax-deductible organization which has established itself in a strong educational role for California's shores and beaches, through its conferences, newsletters, journal articles, dinner meetings, workshops and informal discussions. CSBPA agrees with the analysis prepared by Mr. Fisher, that there is not now any organization that is a strong political advocate for the beaches and shoreline of California. There are many potential benefits for the state and its citizens from a strong shore and beach advocate in Sacramento. On behalf of the Board, I encourage you to support the formation of CalCoast and help this LainonTIP10nascent ^iga•iza+i^nVe_rre cc?ablishP:it Cilifo:iacan vni nddi4=ren about CSBPA or our reasons for supporting CalCoast, please feel free to contact me. 'Phis letter will serve as an indication of our support for your Council decision;. we will not have a representative at your upcoming meeting. rn r Sincerely, Lesley ng, Presi t . California Shore -and Beach'Preservation Association • .(y ,3) goy - 5aq I .. . O z n O C �C'f _ �.. 1: '<C7m ...: \c_, r'c 7. _ T =3C 5 1� 0 0 Coastal Beaches EEO Coastal Beaches z 5�M 4e" J:r1r1',a/Y/e0--/-%C11 0 0 Coastal Beaches Coastal Beaches • Coastal Beaches ■ 1,067 Miles of Shorel ■ Most Heavily Used R. in the State ■ Provide Recreational ■ Provide Critical Habit California Beaches ■ Greater Attendance Than Disneyland, All National Parks Combined ■ 100 Times Greater Annual Attendance Than Yosemite National Park ■ Nine Out of Ten Residents Visit Our Beaches Each Year 6 3 0 California Beaches ■ 5,000 Direct Jobs ■ 516,000 Indirect Jobs Supported by Coastal Tourism ■ 3.5% of All Jobs in State California Beaches ■ Drive the Tourist Economy in California ■ Third Largest Industry in State ■ Estimated Total Tax Revenues - over $1 Billion 7 s 4 0 0 California Beaches ■ $27.35 Billion Total Statewide Spending ■ Three Percent of Total Economic Activity in the State Coastal Stewardship ■ 925 Miles of Shoreline Eroding ■ California Ranks Last in Restoration Spending : $0.071capitalyear ■ Delaware Ranks First: $4.281capita ■ Beachgoers Willing to Spend $251capita 91 io W i 0 It is Important to Support Legislation That Provides Financial Resources for Coastal Restoration and the Enhancement of the Coastal Shoreline. �rlrnrllw!"mrt� Examples Are: ■ AB 1228 - California Public Beach Enhancement Act ■ AB 1000 - Clean Coastal Waters & Rivers Act of 1998 ■ SB 2 - Parks & Resources & Improvement Bond Act of 1998 ■ SB 312 & AB 2554 - Flood Prevention Bond Act iL, - r. 13 14 The End Produced by Surf City GIS 15 11/12/1996 - 63:19 MUIR 76 STARTRAN 0 PAGE 02 RECEIVED FRO AND MADE A PART OF OFT REC COUNCIL MEETING OF O D AT THE ' OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK CaGfotnia Coastal Coalition (CalCoast) What Is needed: An organization that -- 1. Pulls togetheir coastal cities and counties, League of Cities and CSAC to work on behalf of gaining greater state sense of responsibility for financial assistance on protecting and restoring California's beaches and related coastal facilities. 2. Gains support of both environmental and business organizations (tourist and convention bureaus, Chambers of Commerce, et cetera) for beach protection. 3. Coordinates with American Coastal Coalition and ASBPA on federal coastal and beach policy, programs, and project funding. 4, Has Sacramento presence for information gathering and advocacy with the legislature and administration/agencies. 5. Serves as information clearinghouse for members and those to be influenced. 6. Keeps in contact with coastal cities and counties re beach issues. 7. Coordinates closely with CSBPlA for technical information and professional recommendations for advocacy credibility. I E 15 11/12/1996 03:19 1111561#76 SFARTRAN PAGE 93 What should be done: I . CSBPA should confirm resolution and send letter to City of Huntington Beach to be used to encourage Huntington Beach and all coastal cities and counties to support CalCoest with financial assistance. 2. Consultant should develop a legislative and administration program proposal to include A. Support of AS 1228. B. " Support of coastal/erosion control projects in 1998 flood and park bond act proposals. C. Review/revision of state coastal erosion policy. D. Pursuit of stable (earmarked if possible) funding sources for coastal recreation. E. Help create rational federal/stateAocal government policy on coastal/beach protection, repair, and restoration. 3. Develop network of supporting relationships with other responsible coastal organizations. 4. Establish Southern California office/Sacramento lobbying and hotline services, Proposed Mission Statement for CalCoast: Advocating a more 'effective partnership between the state and local governments in protecting, restoring, and sn- hamcing California's public beaches and shoreline faefi t+les. 2 RECEIVED FROM �a" " O AND MADE A PART OF THE RECOR AID T THE GOUNCILOFFO ICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1—j�� CONNIE 6RQCKWAY, CITY CLERK SCOPE OF DUTIES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COALITION (CalCoast) Maintain office with telephone and other communication facilities for conducting the business of CafCoast. 2. Establish and maintain a roster of coastal cities and counties, and other coastal interested organizations and individuals as members, supporters and allies of CalCoast. 3. Establish and maintain a roster of state and federal agencies and officials whose support of CalCoast program is important. 4. Develop and implement a campaign of advocacy for state and federal assistance in coastal beach and bluff protection and restoration. 5. Develop and maintain a communications program for keeping the City and other CalCoast members and supporters aware of and involved in the advocacy program. 6. Retain legal assistance in establishing CalCoast as a 501(c)(4) non- profit organization. 7. Arrange Sacramento lobbying/information/advisory service for the advocacy campaign. 8. Perform all above under the general direction and coordination of City staff liaison assigned.